The Eye of Faith

[Guest]

12 hours ago, Vort said:

I believe this is incorrect. I assume (please correct me if I'm wrong) that the idea that seer stones are a sort of ersatz method of receiving revelation stems from stories about Joseph Smith giving up use of his chocolate-colored seer stone and his comments to the effect that he didn't need it any more. Let me make two points:

Nope.  I was talking about:

12 hours ago, Vort said:

As I recall, Joseph used the Urim and Thummim to receive revelation, aside from "translations", in whatever sense that word was used. The first sentence from the "Urim and Thummim" entry in the Guide to the Scriptures on lds.org confirms this: "Instruments prepared by God to assist man in obtaining revelation and in translating languages."

So, I guess you answered your own doubt there.  But I was talking specifically about D&C 17 (Background paragraph)

Quote

Oliver Cowdery, David Whitmer, and Martin Harris were moved upon by an inspired desire to be the three special witnesses. The Prophet inquired of the Lord, and this revelation was given in answer through the Urim and Thummim.

-----

EDIT: oops.  I misread your earlier post.  I see what you're saying now.  Yes, I guess I was referring to that.  I thought it was a more solid source than that.

 

Edited May 4, 2017 by Guest

[Vort]

1 hour ago, The Folk Prophet said:

I'm not sure if you're meaning to support my thought or challenge it.

Challenge. I don't disagree with your definition, only with the specificity that "faith" means THIS and not THAT. I think "faith" encompasses both.

[The Folk Prophet]

1 hour ago, Vort said:

Challenge. I don't disagree with your definition, only with the specificity that "faith" means THIS and not THAT. I think "faith" encompasses both.

I don't see the challenge then. Here's the quote again for reference:  "And now as I said concerning faith—faith is not to have a perfect knowledge of things; therefore if ye have faith ye hope for things which are not seen, which are true."

Faith is not to have a perfect knowledge of things does not equate to faith is belief. It equates to faith NOT being something. And hoping for things that are not seen because you have faith doesn't negate the idea of faith being something other than belief either.

Now I don't think faith is ONLY this or that. I only believe that faith is not ONLY belief. It encompasses belief at some level. But it is not belief.

Try this on: Most people translate it this way:  "[belief] is not to have a perfect knowledge of things; therefore if ye have [belief] ye hope for things which are not seen, which are true." That works. But I'm translating it something more akin to: "[trust] is not to have a perfect knowledge of things; therefore if ye have [trust] ye hope for things which are not seen, which are true." Which also works. Even better might be "[commitment] is not to have a perfect knowledge of things; therefore if ye have [commitment] ye hope for things which are not seen, which are true." Works even better.

Of course none of these words perfectly describe faith by themselves. If they did, they would be the first principle of the gospel. Faith is it's own word for a reason. But it is not mere belief.

The simplest evidence of this is obvious to me. Even Satan believes in God.

As to the THIS and not THAT idea: the only thing I specifically hold to on that matter is that faith does NOT mean belief alone without action and that without action one does not have faith. Of that I feel confident. The rest of my point is meant to, hopefully, be insightful. But if it isn't, oh well.

[The Folk Prophet]

2 hours ago, Carborendum said:

Quote

1. appearance to the eye or mind; look:
2. nature; quality; character:
3. a way in which a thing may be viewed or regarded; interpretation;view:
4. part; feature; phase

Nope.  I'll disagree and say that they are different aspects of the same principle.  If you prefer, I could say different applications, functions, or uses.

I'm not following you. What are you quoting or defining here?

2 hours ago, Carborendum said:

You think so?

In that it seems quite prevalent for people (including myself when I was younger) to view faith as, "I just have to believe harder!", yes. I do think that is a simplistic and unenlightened way to view it. It is the way a child views it. But who's teaching the children? A child wants something to happen. The parent teaches them to have faith that it'll happen, meaning just believe hard enough and it'll come true. You'll find your lost toy if you just believe! Like it's a Disney wish-upon-a-star thing.

2 hours ago, Carborendum said:

Articles of Faith

We believe...

This doesn't follow as an argument. All it means is that "we believe" that the following is an article of our faith, or something to which we are faithful. That doesn't prove that faith means belief. Of course it is an interesting point as to why so many may think that way.

2 hours ago, Carborendum said:

 Faith is the evidence of things not seen.

And a dog is man's best friend. Does that mean I just defined what a dog is? Saying something "is" something doesn't mean it's being defined. It simply means that thing has that characteristic. Faith is the evidence of things not seen. That is one of it's characteristics. Doesn't mean it is exclusively defined as that alone.

Faith is the evidence of things not seen because it is EVIDENT that those who have faith do so in things not seen because they ACT upon it. It is the substance of things hoped for because the things which those who have faith hope for are based upon that commitment. I suppose one could say that "allows" us to believe...but that strikes me as a strange way to think about it. We choose. We aren't "allowed".

2 hours ago, Carborendum said:

What I notice from the passage I quoted about Mahonri is that he didn't expect, hope, believe, anything about the physical body of Jesus.  He did nothing to move his mind or body in that direction.  There was no action he took to even conceive of that idea.

It seems to me that you're trying to connect an action directly to the revealed knowledge. Why? God promises us light and knowledge if we obey him. That is the simple connection in my mind. The brother of Jared obeyed God and so was given further light and knowledge. Beyond that I feel like you're trying to make connections that do not exist and do not need to exist.

2 hours ago, Carborendum said:

I just am not seeing the connection between any "action" of faith that would allow him to receive this revelation when he wasn't even thinking in that direction.

Was Joseph Smith thinking in the direction of God having a physical body and the Godhead to be separate beings when God the Father and the Son appeared to him and so revealed this to be true? I know that it is common for prophets to consider on a subject and then have that subject revealed to them upon asking. But I don't think that's the rule or something. Sometimes God just tells man things because they need to know, I would think.

Edited May 4, 2017 by The Folk Prophet

[Guest]

8 hours ago, The Folk Prophet said:

I'm not following you. What are you quoting or defining here?

I was defining "aspect".

8 hours ago, The Folk Prophet said:

In that it seems quite prevalent for people (including myself when I was younger) to view faith as, "I just have to believe harder!", yes. I do think that is a simplistic and unenlightened way to view it. It is the way a child views it.

I have no disagreement with that.  In fact, you seemed to make my point (see bold).  I wasn't saying it was true or correct or accurate.  I was saying that it is what "we" tend to believe.  While I still hold it to be a principle of belief (in some applications) I also believe that faith is a much deeper and broader principle which, of course, encompasses action.  (see your discussion with Vort above).

8 hours ago, The Folk Prophet said:

This doesn't follow as an argument. All it means is that "we believe" that the following is an article of our faith, or something to which we are faithful. That doesn't prove that faith means belief. Of course it is an interesting point as to why so many may think that way.

It may very well be that this particular issue is a question of alternate definitions.  e.g. I "am" Carborendm vs. I "am" happy.  Hello, Happy.  Good to meet you.

We use the same verb "To Be" for two somewhat different meanings or applications.  I think we stumbled upon one such case for "faith".

8 hours ago, The Folk Prophet said:

And a dog is man's best friend. Does that mean I just defined what a dog is? Saying something "is" something doesn't mean it's being defined. It simply means that thing has that characteristic. Faith is the evidence of things not seen. That is one of it's characteristics. Doesn't mean it is exclusively defined as that alone.

Faith is the evidence of things not seen because it is EVIDENT that those who have faith do so in things not seen because they ACT upon it. It is the substance of things hoped for because the things which those who have faith hope for are based upon that commitment. I suppose one could say that "allows" us to believe...but that strikes me as a strange way to think about it. We choose. We aren't "allowed".

I believe this to be a syllogistic fallacy based on the meaning of "to be".  Yes, I said it.  We're arguing about what "is" means.  "A dog is man's best friend" is not meant to be a definition.  Paul's words are meant to be a definition.

In this context, Paul is defining it as a principle of belief.  This is not to say faith IS belief.  It is a principle of belief. Just as much as it is a principle of action.  By this argument I'm going to shift my earlier agreement with you that "Faith IS action".  I believe it to be a "principle of action".   Or if you prefer, the motivating force behind action.  

Quote

Faith is a principle of action and power that motivates our day-to-day activities.

--Gospel Principles Ch 18

Since when is action the motivator?  That doesn't even make sense.  The characteristic inside us motivates action.

Quote

"By faith, Abel offered unto God a more excellent sacrifice than Cain, by which he obtained witness that he was righteous, God testifying of his gifts: and by it he being dead yet speaketh."

Heb 11:4

It was not that the action itself was the faith.  But the characteristic of faith motivated the action as opposed to the action of Cain (which was just as much a sacrifce) but certainly not motivated by faith.

Quote

17 Even so faith, if it hath not works, is dead, being alone.

18 Yea, a man may say, Thou hast faith, and I have works: shew me thy faith without thy works, and I will shew thee my faith by my works.

James 2: 17-18

While they are certainly related, they are not equivalencies.  Faith motivates works.  And if it does not motivate works, it is not really effectual.  I was going to say it isn't really faith at all, but I don't really believe that.

Works are the evidence of faith, just as much as faith is the evidence of things not seen.

8 hours ago, The Folk Prophet said:

It seems to me that you're trying to connect an action directly to the revealed knowledge. Why?

Because:

Quote

And when we obtain any blessing from God, it is by obedience to that law upon which it is predicated.

D&C 130:21

So, what principle did the Brother of Jared obey to receive such a blessing?

8 hours ago, The Folk Prophet said:

God promises us light and knowledge if we obey him. That is the simple connection in my mind.

The brother of Jared obeyed God and so was given further light and knowledge. Beyond that I feel like you're trying to make connections that do not exist and do not need to exist.

I suppose I've made the (perhaps incorrect) assumption that the (subject of the) light and knowledge we receive is supposed to be connected to the law we've just obeyed (D&C 130:21 again).  Hence, I'd wonder what specific law did he obey that would be connected to such a theophany?  Just to say "well, he was very faithful and obedient" just doesn't seem to be enough.  I could be persuaded to believe that he was obedient to ALL of His laws.  That level of obedience to ALL of His laws was what allowed him to learn ALL about the Lord.  That might make sense. 

He apparently was so obedient that the Lord chose to severely chastise him for forgetting to pray.  If that was the biggest boulder in his backpack, I guess he was pretty righteous all around.

8 hours ago, The Folk Prophet said:

Was Joseph Smith thinking in the direction of God having a physical body and the Godhead to be separate beings when God the Father and the Son appeared to him and so revealed this to be true?

The difference I have in my mind is that Joseph was given a vision of things as they are because he asked how things are.  He was told of his future that was directly related to the question at hand.

Mahonri simply asked that the Lord touch the stones.  One would wonder why he was surprised to see a finger when he asked the Lord to touch the stones with his finger.  He must have thought it to be a metaphorical "finger."  But then the Lord goes on to say

Quote

Because of thy faith thou hast seen that I shall take upon me flesh and blood;

Future tense.

To show him the current spiritual state of the ante-mortal Savior would be simply removing the veil of things as they are.  But he was shown something completely unrelated of things as they are to come.  That is what I find fascinating.

8 hours ago, The Folk Prophet said:

I know that it is common for prophets to consider on a subject and then have that subject revealed to them upon asking. But I don't think that's the rule or something. Sometimes God just tells man things because they need to know, I would think.

Well, as I stated before, I assumed that there was such a rule (a la the aforementioned D&C 130).

Yes, He'll tell us what we need to know.  But did he really need to know about this that he never even asked about?  It seems this was not common knowledge.  So, I'd believe others were saved without knowing of the future incarnatus status of the Savior.  If not, why was it a surprise to him?

Edited May 4, 2017 by Guest

[Guest]

12 hours ago, Vort said:

seer stones are a sort of ersatz method of receiving revelation

So, is that a common word for you? Or was that the vocabulary word for the day?

 

[Vort]

11 minutes ago, Carborendum said:

So, is that a common word for you? Or was that the vocabulary word for the day?

I've seen the word in written form my whole life, inferring its meaning from context. A few years ago, I actually took the trouble of looking it up. Turns out it's a useful term, the mot juste for many occasions. So I incorporated it into my personal lexicon. Probably makes me sound even more pretentious, but by golly, it pegs the meaning I'm after.

[Guest]

40 minutes ago, Vort said:

I've seen the word in written form my whole life, inferring its meaning from context. A few years ago, I actually took the trouble of looking it up. Turns out it's a useful term, the mot juste for many occasions. So I incorporated it into my personal lexicon. Probably makes me sound even more pretentious, but by golly, it pegs the meaning I'm after.

I was mostly teasing.  Anyway, I wouldn't worry about it.  Several companions on my mission asked me why I "talked like that."  I had no idea what they were talking about.  

Comp: You keep using big words.

Me: What big words?

Comp: Well, big words.

Me: Not helping.  Can you give me examples?

Comp: Just the big words you use.

Me: <head scratch>.

Later I was listening to some self-improvement tapes as I was preparing for bed when my comp indicated such "big" words on the tape.

I proceeded to rewind the tape and heard words like "consistency" and "perseverance".  To many of my companions these were big words.  In fact, one of the terms I used that confused people was mot juste. They thought I was showing off that I knew French. (head scratch).

As time wore on, I gained a reputation in the mission to the point where people just understood "that's just the way he talks."  I wondered why everyone didn't talk that way.

Edited May 4, 2017 by Guest

[zil]

Sad day when using the best word is looked on as a bad thing. (Of course, that "sad day" may have started thousands of years ago...)

Meanwhile, from "How to Argue and Win Every Time":

Quote

You should also memorize some Latin abbreviations such as "Q.E.D.", "e.g.", and "i.e." These are all short for "I speak Latin, and you don't."

 

[Guest]

13 minutes ago, zil said:

You should also memorize some Latin abbreviations such as "Q.E.D.", "e.g.", and "i.e." These are all short for "I speak Latin, and you don't."

True Story: I was in a car with several co-workers.  We had some very silly discussion going on and I just made a ridiculous logical fallacy that "proved" I was right.

Through the laughter, the admin present laughed out a "Q.E.D."

I laughed and repeated,"Q.E.D.!"

We both laughed.  Everyone else in the car just went silent with a puzzled expression.

[Vort]

8 minutes ago, Carborendum said:

True Story: I was in a car with several co-workers.  We had some very silly discussion going on and I just made a ridiculous logical fallacy that "proved" I was right.

Through the laughter, the admin present laughed out a "Q.E.D."

I laughed and repeated,"Q.E.D.!"

We both laughed.  Everyone else in the car just went silent with a puzzled expression.

I was a new physics grad student, getting to know my classmates. All of them were freakishly brilliant, so I felt totally out of my depth. One guy was more "normal" than the others, just a friendly, accessible guy who wanted to get his MS in physics so he could take a government job. This was unusual; most of the other students planned on getting a PhD, I guess so they could be the highest-paid burger flipper at McDonald's.

Anyway, somehow or other, "QED" came up -- I think maybe I said it. Another student asked, "What does 'QED' mean, anyway?" The "normal" physics grad student said, "It means, 'Quite Easily Done'." I laughed at this, until I realized he was in earnest. When he was an undergrad, his math teacher had said this, and he had simply accepted it. Makes sense, so why wouldn't you think it was right?

Edited May 4, 2017 by Vort

[Guest]

5 minutes ago, Vort said:

'Quite Easily Demostrated'." 

Well, yeah.  That would fit.

EDIT: Ooh, I see you changed it to "done".  That would not fit so well.

Edited May 4, 2017 by Guest

[The Folk Prophet]

3 hours ago, Carborendum said:

Paul's words are meant to be a definition.

Says who?

3 hours ago, Carborendum said:

Since when is action the motivator?

I believe my points have been clear in that I ultimately believe faith to be commitment, trust, loyalty, etc....which would very plainly be the motivator. No action simply indicates no faith. It is bound to action. I can see where my initial statement "Faith is action" may not have been clear enough in that regard. My further posts, I thought, clarified. That being said, it really is a matter of semantics. I think it perfectly valid to see faith as if it "is" action. As in the idea of hoping and believing a mountain can move is hope and belief. Showing faith is when you pick up the shovel. (Of course picking up the shovel is not the only way to show faith...and it's complicated because belief itself is an act of faith...but....)

3 hours ago, Carborendum said:

I was going to say it isn't really faith at all, but I don't really believe that.

This may be where we disagree then. I very much believe that so-called "faith" without action isn't really faith at all.

3 hours ago, Carborendum said:

So, what principle did the Brother of Jared obey to receive such a blessing?

Prayer? Expressions of belief? Teaching others the gospel? Service? I don't know for sure, of course. A. Our record of what he did is scant. B. I don't know all the direct links of action to blessing. Of course there may not be direct links. The implication that only those who do exactly this action get exactly this revelation seems a stretch.

What God asks us to do is obey the gospel He has given us for our time. If we do so He has promised us the fullness of His glory. I don't think there's some special out-side-the-box Snuffer-esque special effort beyond this plain obedience to the gospel that allows us something more than those who are obedient and "faithful" to the gospel, but are denied something because they didn't happen to find the magic key to said blessing. What we are to do has been given us. It is not a mystery.

Moreover, I think faith and humility are concretely tied one to another. We cannot "faith" God into something that wasn't His will. Because that isn't faith. Faith is trusting in God's wills as ways. Faith is WANTING God's wills and ways. Faith is belief that God's ways and knowledge are superior to ours. (Note that my usage of the word "is" in these sentences is not meant to define faith).

As to belief -- well that is an important principle of the gospel. The scriptures speak of belief and our need to believe. Belief is even tied to miracles and further light and knowledge, etc. But it is a principle that stands on its own, just as hope, faith, charity, etc. Belief is an important aspect of faith in the same way that obedience is an important aspect of faith, hope is an important aspect of faith, etc. But none of these principles ARE defining faith (despite my "faith is action" comment -- which I will also point out was not meant to be defining use of the word "is").

Take a look at Alma 32. He does talk about belief in there. But I do not think he ties belief to faith directly. Look at vs. 27:  But behold, if ye will awake and arouse your faculties, even to an experiment upon my words, and exercise a particle of faith, yea, even if ye can no more than desire to believe...

Here he shows us how even a desire to believe is a particle of faith. Not believing at all...but wanting to.

In vs 34 he speaks of faith being dormant because of knowledge -- this because you have been given light which is discernible, and that verse does make it easy to equate faith with belief. But I don't think it explicitly does. I think it merely means that the effort of faith that must be applied when we only desire to believe is a great effort, and once we know then our faith is easier (dormant -- meaning in a state of rest -- not gone or non-existent). 

Applying to the Brother of Jared -- maybe the Faith he exercised (the thing he did) was simply to desire to know more of God. (And, yes, I do explicitly equate desiring as an action).

[Vort]

3 hours ago, Carborendum said:

EDIT: Ooh, I see you changed it to "done".  That would not fit so well.

Yeah, "demonstrated" didn't seem right, so I Googled the phrase and realized he had said "Quite easily done."

[Guest]

Well, it yet again seems to come around to us simply understanding each other rather than a real disagreement.  Much of what you are now saying seems to be along the lines of what I've been saying as well -- just different ... aspects...

But there are still a few points I want to iron out.

38 minutes ago, The Folk Prophet said:

This may be where we disagree then. I very much believe that so-called "faith" without action isn't really faith at all.

Yes, we probably disagree.  I believe it is faith as long as it is a motivating force to do good works.  But we all have those moments when we're motivated to do two mutually exclusive things.  Sometimes the motivation to do one is greater than the motivating force to do the other.  That doesn't mean the motivation wasn't there.  It just isn't something that can be "shown" (James 2:18 again).

38 minutes ago, The Folk Prophet said:

The implication that only those who do exactly this action get exactly this revelation seems a stretch.

I actually heard a visiting seventy say that to a special stake priesthood meeting.  So, you're in good company.  He was outlining about a dozen or so of the "most misunderstood scriptures we have."  He went on to say,"People tend to think that Eternal principles are like a simple push-button machine.  And all we monkeys have to do is push the shiny button and get the treat out of the dispenser."

So, I'm very well aware that it is not that simple.  But the Seventy also went on to say that the Lord will bless whom He will bless based on principles per His judgment, not by our mortal demands.  But when He blesses us it is because of our obedience to a related principle.  So, that aspect is not incorrect.  We merely need to temper it with understanding that the Lord's judgment always trumps ours.

38 minutes ago, The Folk Prophet said:

And, yes, I do explicitly equate desiring as an action.

There is where I'd also disagree.  I believe that this "desire to believe" is the "particle of faith".  But again, faith or desire to believe is not an "action."  It is a motive force for action, not the action itself.

I think we could go around all day on that fine line.  But I think we understand each other.  We may just have to agree to disagree here.

I'm going to quote a non-standard Bible to make the point.  Not that it's authoritative, but it says it quite well.

Quote

I can already hear one of you agreeing by saying, "Sounds good. You take care of the faith department, I'll handle the works department." Not so fast. You can no more show me your works apart from your faith than I can show you my faith apart from my works. Faith and works, works and faith, fit together hand in glove.

They are certainly part of one another -- maybe different sides of the same coin.  But even you admitted, that they are not equivalent. 

Edited May 4, 2017 by Guest

[The Folk Prophet]

11 minutes ago, Carborendum said:

Yes, we probably disagree.  I believe it is faith as long as it is a motivating force to do good works.  But we all have those moments when we're motivated to do two mutually exclusive things.  Sometimes the motivation to do one is greater than the motivating force to do the other.  That doesn't mean the motivation wasn't there.  It just isn't something that can be "shown" (James 2:18 again).

I'll grant there is logic to this thinking and it is a fine way to look at things. But to me it actually argues in favor of faith being action. We are all motivated by multiple things. For example, I am both motivated by my desire to keep the law of Chastity and my libido. If I give into my libido to sin can it be said that I exercised faith in God's law in the matter? It is by the choice that I make that my faith is manifested as a choice. Faith is a choice. We choose what we will be motivated by in spite of the natural man or other influencing factors.

5 minutes ago, Carborendum said:

So, I'm very well aware that it is not that simple.  But the Seventy also went on to say that the Lord will bless whom He will bless based on principles per His judgment, not by our mortal demands.  But when He blesses us it is because of our obedience to a related principle. 

But I think we tend, sometimes, towards applying our own understanding as to what those related action/principle pairs are. (I'm not convinced, btw, that they are pairs either.) Like when people think that financial success is the blessing linked to paying tithing.

7 minutes ago, Carborendum said:

There is where I'd also disagree.  I believe that this "desire to believe" is the "particle of faith".  But again, faith or desire to believe is not an "action."  It is a motive force for action, not the action itself.

I'll grant it's semantics. But the reason I like to consider it as I do is because it implies choice. If someone doesn't have the choice to desire to believe then they have no agency in the matter. Choosing something, in my mind, equates to action.

Where I will grant that we have some desires in life that we do not choose, I can't accept that is true when it comes to desiring to follow God. It's not random luck. It's exercising faith by choice...which means action to me.

[Guest]

1 hour ago, The Folk Prophet said:

If I give into my libido to sin can it be said that I exercised faith in God's law in the matter? It is by the choice that I make that my faith is manifested as a choice. Faith is a choice.

There it is again.  The subtle word differences that are the real source of disagreement.  There may be faith that was not exercised as such.  Hence Alma encouraged us to "exercise that faith".  Doesn't that imply that we can have faith of a small amount and it is just not strong enough that motivates us to exercise it?  I'll agree that it is through the action that faith is manifested.  But again to say there was no faith just because it wasn't acted upon -- that's a hard sell to me.

By that same token, there are many who claim to have faith with no intention of ever being willing to act on that "belief."  I'd say these never had faith.  Again a fine line.

1 hour ago, The Folk Prophet said:

I'll grant it's semantics. But the reason I like to consider it as I do is because it implies choice. If someone doesn't have the choice to desire to believe then they have no agency in the matter. Choosing something, in my mind, equates to action.

Of course there's choice involved.  But choice is always between two or more things that we have SOME kind of motivation to do.  Some of them may be motivated by faith; others, not so much.

Yes, I'd also believe that mental actions are... actions.  I don't think I disagreed with that.

1 hour ago, The Folk Prophet said:

Where I will grant that we have some desires in life that we do not choose, I can't accept that is true when it comes to desiring to follow God. It's not random luck. It's exercising faith by choice...which means action to me.

Wording again.  I never said it was random. It's always a choice.  Just because you have faith doesn't mean you don't have a choice.

Quote

Lord, I believe.  Help thou mine unbelief.

OK, so I'm using the belief aspect again.  But change it to "Lord I desire to follow.  Rid me of the desire to deny."  Does not this person have faith?  What if even with this desire, that person ends up choosing evil?

Edited May 4, 2017 by Guest

[The Folk Prophet]

Yeah @Carborendum, as long as you think that faith can exist without it being exercised then we can't agree on this. But I think you're wrong by the following: By grace we are saved through faith. (2 Eph 2:8) And we also know that we are saved through the Atonement by obedience to the laws and ordinances of the gospel. (AoF 4). So if one can be without the other, is one of these ideas wrong?

[Vort]

2 minutes ago, The Folk Prophet said:

Yeah @Carborendum, as long as you think that faith can exist without it being exercised then we can't agree on this.

You seem to be saying that the exercise of faith must necessarily be a physical activity of some sort -- meaning, for example, that my quadriplegic nephew can't exercise much faith. If this is not what you are saying, and you grant that one can exercise faith without necessarily physically doing something, then I'm not sure what your disagreement is with Carb's ideas.

[The Folk Prophet]

Just now, Vort said:

You seem to be saying that the exercise of faith must necessarily be a physical activity of some sort

No. Perhaps you haven't had the chance to read all my thoughts. I expressed the idea that even desire is the exercising of faith, as described in Alma 32.

1 minute ago, Vort said:

 then I'm not sure what your disagreement is with Carb's ideas.

I'm not 100% sure I disagree. I think I disagree. We're clarifying bit by bit I think.

At it's core, I disagree with this idea of his: "...we can have faith of a small amount and it is just not strong enough that motivates us to exercise it?" And he says it's a hard sell to believe that if one doesn't act then one didn't actually have faith. I disagree with that -- at least in what I understand him to be saying per my interpretation.

[Guest]

8 minutes ago, The Folk Prophet said:

No. Perhaps you haven't had the chance to read all my thoughts. I expressed the idea that even desire is the exercising of faith, as described in Alma 32.

I'm not 100% sure I disagree. I think I disagree. We're clarifying bit by bit I think.

At it's core, I disagree with this idea of his: "...we can have faith of a small amount and it is just not strong enough that motivates us to exercise it?" And he says it's a hard sell to believe that if one doesn't act then one didn't actually have faith. I disagree with that -- at least in what I understand him to be saying per my interpretation.

I'd say that we appear to be agreeing about 95%.  That's probably good enough.  It's just the tiny details and fine lines that we still disagree on.  But I believe you've outlined that fine line difference right here.

In application, there really is no difference between our positions.  But it's the technical legalistic, almost pharisaic argument that we're having where it makes any difference.

I would also like to add that I've appreciated the discussion.  It has helped me clarify and solidify the concepts in my mind.  I didn't really have those ideas clear in my mind when I began the thread.

Edited May 4, 2017 by Guest

[The Folk Prophet]

39 minutes ago, Carborendum said:

...almost pharisaic argument...

Well I don't agree with this either. Understanding the nature of faith is not pharisaic. And my intention in discussing/debating the matter is important, I believe. I see too many people (not suggesting you are one of them) who don't grasp the idea that faith is a choice and that the way to have faith is to get off your butt and get too it, and who feel like it's entirely up to chance whether they have faith or not. My objective in discussing this sort of thing is to hopefully make the above is better understood. I consider it slightly dangerous* for some people (once again, not suggesting you) to view faith as something you can have without acting upon it. Whether or not that action defines faith or not is less important I suppose. But on the other hand, if everyone were to think something along the lines of, "If I do not get up and act on this (go to church, read scriptures, serve others, etc.) then I am not choosing to have faith!" then everyone would be the better off for it. So whereas I can accept that some can view it without harm the way you explain it, I believe that no one could view it the way I am and have the idea be harmful to them. It becomes a very clear choice then. You either act, by which you have faith, by which you are blessed, or you do not. It is your choice. The other way seems to make it wishy-washy.

* Primarily I have seen this manifested in those who have "lost" their faith (through no fault of their own, of course) and left the church. They couldn't help it. they just stopped believing. They just learned about Joseph Smith did this or was that, or their bishop said this, or they had such-n-such thought in the temple, etc., and it was the beginning of the end. Not their fault. They just "lost" their faith. 

Edited May 4, 2017 by The Folk Prophet

[zil]

And here we have a pretty good view of the eye of Faith:

We now return you to our regularly scheduled discussion...

[Guest]

4 hours ago, The Folk Prophet said:

Yeah @Carborendum, as long as you think that faith can exist without it being exercised then we can't agree on this. But I think you're wrong by the following: By grace we are saved through faith. (2 Eph 2:8) And we also know that we are saved through the Atonement by obedience to the laws and ordinances of the gospel. (AoF 4). So if one can be without the other, is one of these ideas wrong?

No.  Neither is wrong.  I just interpret them differently than you do.  Or Rather,I apply them differently.

I'd quote the 4th AoF.  But again we'd interpret/apply them differently.

I'll explain more when I can get to a real key board.this cell phone is tough

Edited May 5, 2017 by Guest

[Guest]

16 hours ago, zil said:

And here we have a pretty good view of the eye of Faith:

In case anyone was wondering:https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hurricane_Faith