Is this paradoxical?

[Fether]

Alma 32:21 says 

“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.”

This has always seemed strange and paradoxical to me.

to my understanding, this his scripture is saying:

- Faith must be something that is true.

- Faith is to not have a perfect knowledge. So... you cannot know it is true.

To me, this is similar to the following conversation:

P1: ”The parachute chord will only save your life if this backpack is indeed a parachute bag. to survive this jump, you need to pull this parachute chord. .”

P2: “Well... Is it a parachute bag?”

P1: *shoves p2 out of airplane*

 

I understand the concept of faith, I just feel this wording is a little strange.

[Fether]

A natural response to this scripture would be:

me: well... is what your saying true?

Alma: Yes

Me: How do you know?

Alma: I don’t, I just told you, you can’t have perfect knowledge, I have faith it is true.

Me: Well how do you know you have faith if you don’t know it is true, you only have faith that it is true. And you can’t even confirm THAT is faith cause as you said, you can’t know for a certainty it is true?

I feel like the scripture is just begging the question.

[Vort]

The Nephite language, a dialect or derivative of Hebrew, likely included several terms that translate into modern English as "faith", not unlike the several Greek words that we translate as "love"*. So we know that faith is the principle of action in all celestial beings, yet it is also a belief without sure knowledge. This is not so much a conundrum as an exposition of what faith is and how it works. Faith is a multifaceted gem. One face of this gem is "belief without sure knowledge". That's faith. But another aspect or face of the gem is moving mountains.

Alma is surely talking about that aspect of faith that allows one to move from a state of non-knowledge to a state of better knowledge. That does not encompass the entire meaning of faith, but it does give a good introduction to the topic for neophytes.

*The whole "Greek has four words for love" thing is overblown. English has a whole bunch of words for "love", including affection, friendship, worship, adoration, longing, pining, attraction, romance, devotion, passion, enchantment, rapture, yearning, and of course charity. More than anything, the Greek terms provide a framework for examining the issue. (And not a particularly bulletproof framework—I'll stick with the English words. More varied and subtle.)

Edited May 27, 2019 by Vort

[Traveler]

59 minutes ago, Fether said:

Alma 32:21 says 

“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.”

This has always seemed strange and paradoxical to me.

to my understanding, this his scripture is saying:

- Faith must be something that is true.

- Faith is to not have a perfect knowledge. So... you cannot know it is true.

To me, this is similar to the following conversation:

P1: ”The parachute chord will only save your life if this backpack is indeed a parachute bag. to survive this jump, you need to pull this parachute chord. .”

P2: “Well... Is it a parachute bag?”

P1: *shoves p2 out of airplane*

 

I understand the concept of faith, I just feel this wording is a little strange.

It is my personal opinion that faith is an obscure concept with which many are confused.  I know that I often am confused.  For example: In the Law of Moses we are commanded to not bear false witness against our neighbor.  But what is a "false witness"?  Many times - even on this forum that are discussions that become quite contentious over doctrine.  But is not contentions over doctrine of necessity require a false witness against a neighbor?  Many think to witness according to their beliefs - which may not be as accurate as they are witnessing.  So I agree that there is a paradox - faith is not knowledge but it cannot be faith unless it is true - but if it is not known to be true how does one know their faith is valid?

Maybe it would help a little if I provided an example.  At a young age I received a spiritual manifestation that the Book of Mormon is divinely appointed by G-d.  My experience was somewhat similar to Joseph Smith in his youth in the sacred grove in that I encountered both Satanic darkness and divine light.  I have knowledge of the Book of Mormon's divine appointment.  However, though I have read the Book of Mormon many times I do not have a "perfect knowledge" of all things taught in the Book of Mormon.  I am aware that on many occasions I have interpreted passages in the Book of Mormon incorrectly.  So I think that I understand what Alma is saying - though I know the Book of Mormon to be true - I must rely of faith to read and try to understand with the hope that in so seeking I can better understand truths "hidden" in Book of Mormon scripture.

But I would add another word to Alma's concerning the relationship of hope to faith.  That word is trust.  I believe that faith goes beyond hope to enact actions based in trust.  An example being in the parable reference in the Book of Mormon to an "iron rod".  Not only must we have hope to grasp the iron rod but we must trust both our resolve to hold tight and trust the rod to not give way.  I think too many exclude trusting themselves as part of their faith in Christ.

 

The Traveler

Edited May 27, 2019 by Traveler

[Guest Mores]

1 hour ago, Fether said:

- Faith must be something that is true.

- Faith is to not have a perfect knowledge. So... you cannot know it is true.

It is "truth" which is a self-existent fact outside of your opinion.  By that truth, we are motivated to action.  Without the quality of "motive force", it is not faith.

Remember that "perfect" is also defined as "full and complete" or "whole".  So, we can have faith in something without knowing EVERYTHING about it.  Remember the recent GC speech "I don't know everything about it. But I know enough."

I know that the sun rises in the east.  It is a self existent fact outside of opinion.  And if I act on the idea that the sun rises in the east, I may want to build a house with my bedroom window facing east, so I can rise with the sun.  That is a belief that drives action.  And that is a true principle even if I don't have a perfect (or "full and complete") knowledge of the astronomical realities of the situation. 

But with further (more complete) knowledge, we realize that it doesn't actually "rise".  The earth spins on its axis.  Does having a full and complete knowledge make the action of building my house facing east an incorrect action?  No.  Therefore, it was a true principle.  We just didn't understand EVERYthing about it.

 Knowing further truth about the shape of the earth and its orbit around the sun, we realize that the sun "rises" at varying latitudes throughout the year.  So, to truly take full advantage of the sunrise, I'd have to rotate my house throughout the year.  Most of us can't do that.

While the full knowledge we'll want to build the house facing the sunrise at the vernal equinox.  But if we just build it facing a generally eastward direction, we will get a tremendous benefit by acting on the knowledge that we DO have.

Edited May 27, 2019 by Mores

[The Folk Prophet]

Maybe reading the scripture while injecting what I believe faith actually means instead of what so many people seem to treat it like it means will help:

 

17 Yea, there are many who do say: If thou wilt show unto us a sign from heaven, then we shall know of a surety; then we shall believe.

18 Now I ask, is this [commitment]? Behold, I say unto you, Nay; for if a man knoweth a thing he hath no cause to believe, for he knoweth it.

19 And now, how much more cursed is he that knoweth the will of God and doeth it not, than he that only believeth, or only hath cause to believe, and falleth into transgression?

20 Now of this thing ye must judge. Behold, I say unto you, that it is on the one hand even as it is on the other; and it shall be unto every man according to his work.

21 And now as I said concerning [commitment]—[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.

 

26 Now, as I said concerning [commitment]—that it was not a perfect knowledge—even so it is with my words. Ye cannot know of their surety at first, unto perfection, any more than [commitment] is a perfect knowledge.

27 But behold, if ye will awake and arouse your faculties, even to an experiment upon my words, and exercise a particle of [commitment], yea, even if ye can no more than desire to believe, let this desire work in you, even until ye believe in a manner that ye can give place for a portion of my words.

28 Now, we will compare the word unto a seed. Now, if ye give place, that a seed may be planted in your heart, behold, if it be a true seed, or a good seed, if ye do not cast it out by your unbelief, that ye will resist the Spirit of the Lord, behold, it will begin to swell within your breasts; and when you feel these swelling motions, ye will begin to say within yourselves—It must needs be that this is a good seed, or that the word is good, for it beginneth to enlarge my soul; yea, it beginneth to enlighten my understanding, yea, it beginneth to be delicious to me.

29 Now behold, would not this increase your [commitment]? I say unto you, Yea; nevertheless it hath not grown up to a perfect knowledge.

30 But behold, as the seed swelleth, and sprouteth, and beginneth to grow, then you must needs say that the seed is good; for behold it swelleth, and sprouteth, and beginneth to grow. And now, behold, will not this strengthen your [commitment]? Yea, it will strengthen your [commitment]: for ye will say I know that this is a good seed; for behold it sprouteth and beginneth to grow.

31 And now, behold, are ye sure that this is a good seed? I say unto you, Yea; for every seed bringeth forth unto its own likeness.

32 Therefore, if a seed groweth it is good, but if it groweth not, behold it is not good, therefore it is cast away.

33 And now, behold, because ye have tried the experiment, and planted the seed, and it swelleth and sprouteth, and beginneth to grow, ye must needs know that the seed is good.

34 And now, behold, is your knowledge perfect? Yea, your knowledge is perfect in that thing, and your [commitment] is dormant (meaning settled*); and this because you know, for ye know that the word hath swelled your souls, and ye also know that it hath sprouted up, that your understanding doth begin to be enlightened, and your mind doth begin to expand.

35 O then, is not this real? I say unto you, Yea, because it is light; and whatsoever is light, is good, because it is discernible, therefore ye must know that it is good; and now behold, after ye have tasted this light is your knowledge perfect?

36 Behold I say unto you, Nay; neither must ye lay aside your [commitment], for ye have only exercised your [commitment] to plant the seed that ye might try the experiment to know if the seed was good.

37 And behold, as the tree beginneth to grow, ye will say: Let us nourish it with great care, that it may get root, that it may grow up, and bring forth fruit unto us. And now behold, if ye nourish it with much care it will get root, and grow up, and bring forth fruit.

38 But if ye neglect the tree, and take no thought for its nourishment, behold it will not get any root; and when the heat of the sun cometh and scorcheth it, because it hath no root it withers away, and ye pluck it up and cast it out.

39 Now, this is not because the seed was not good, neither is it because the fruit thereof would not be desirable; but it is because your ground is barren, and ye will not nourish the tree, therefore ye cannot have the fruit thereof.

40 And thus, if ye will not nourish the word, looking forward with an eye of [commitment] to the fruit thereof, ye can never pluck of the fruit of the tree of life.

41 But if ye will nourish the word, yea, nourish the tree as it beginneth to grow, by your [commitment] with great diligence, and with patience, looking forward to the fruit thereof, it shall take root; and behold it shall be a tree springing up unto everlasting life.

42 And because of your diligence and your [commitment] and your patience with the word in nourishing it, that it may take root in you, behold, by and by ye shall pluck the fruit thereof, which is most precious, which is sweet above all that is sweet, and which is white above all that is white, yea, and pure above all that is pure; and ye shall feast upon this fruit even until ye are filled, that ye hunger not, neither shall ye thirst.

43 Then, my brethren, ye shall reap the rewards of your [commitment], and your diligence, and patience, and long-suffering, waiting for the tree to bring forth fruit unto you.

 

*Now I'll grant that the whole "dormant" thing is a challenge. But it isn't any more of a challenge here than it is if you translate faith to mean "belief". When you know something then your belief is dead, asleep, inactive? Hardly. I believe in things I "know". So the meaning, in my thinking, has to be something else... I reconcile it to mean "at rest", as in stabilized -- sure -- no longer needing work -- settled,-- etc...

[Anddenex]

45 minutes ago, The Folk Prophet said:

*Now I'll grant that the whole "dormant" thing is a challenge. But it isn't any more of a challenge here than it is if you translate faith to mean "belief". When you know something then your belief is dead, asleep, inactive? Hardly. I believe in things I "know". So the meaning, in my thinking, has to be something else... I reconcile it to mean "at rest", as in stabilized -- sure -- no longer needing work -- settled,-- etc...

This is my favorite aspect of faith in relation to our knowledge:

Quote

And now, behold, is your knowledge perfect? Yea, your knowledge is perfect in that thing, and your [commitment] is dormant (meaning settled*); and this because you know, for ye know that the word hath swelled your souls, and ye also know that it hath sprouted up, that your understanding doth begin to be enlightened, and your mind doth begin to expand.

The part of this verse is "in that thing" that allows one to see when we receive witness from the Holy Ghost we know a thing, but we do not need to know everything about "a thing" in order to have both knowledge and faith. But in that thing -- we know.

[The Folk Prophet]

28 minutes ago, Anddenex said:

This is my favorite aspect of faith in relation to our knowledge:

The part of this verse is "in that thing" that allows one to see when we receive witness from the Holy Ghost we know a thing, but we do not need to know everything about "a thing" in order to have both knowledge and faith. But in that thing -- we know.

Here's the real kicker -- something that I think a lot of people don't seem to grasp:

You can have faith without belief! And, conversely, you can have sure knowledge and not have faith. I mean how else do we get sons of perdition? And even taking examples such as Laman and Lemuel. They had angels appear to them and were shocked by the power of God, etc., repeatedly. And yet they had no faith.

Faith is NOT belief or knowledge. Faith is faith!

Belief is an principle of the gospel, and an important one. But it is its own principle separate from faith. We are commanded to believe. But we are also commanded to have faith. They are distinct principles.

[Anddenex]

1 hour ago, The Folk Prophet said:

Here's the real kicker -- something that I think a lot of people don't seem to grasp:

You can have faith without belief! And, conversely, you can have sure knowledge and not have faith. I mean how else do we get sons of perdition? And even taking examples such as Laman and Lemuel. They had angels appear to them and were shocked by the power of God, etc., repeatedly. And yet they had no faith.

Faith is NOT belief or knowledge. Faith is faith!

Belief is an principle of the gospel, and an important one. But it is its own principle separate from faith. We are commanded to believe. But we are also commanded to have faith. They are distinct principles.

True.

For me faith has always been wisdom. Wisdom is acting, or action, upon what we know (truth).

 

[Guest Scott]

11 hours ago, Vort said:

The Nephite language, a dialect or derivative of Hebrew, likely included several terms that translate into modern English as "faith", not unlike the several Greek words that we translate as "love"*.

Off topic a little, but maybe. 

Here's what Nephi in Nephi 1:2: 

2 Yea, I make a record in the language of my father, which consists of the learning of the Jews and the language of the Egyptians.

It says the language itself was Egyptian (or reformed Egyptian), but it had the learning of the Jews so it must have had Hebew words mixed in with it.  

On the other hand, the Book of Mormon indicates that Reformed Egyptian was more condensed than Hebew, so maybe it was used only for writing.  

It's hard to say either way.

Edited May 28, 2019 by Scott

[Vort]

14 minutes ago, Scott said:

 Off topic a little, but maybe. 

Here's what Nephi in Nephi 1:2: 

2 Yea, I make a record in the language of my father, which consists of the learning of the Jews and the language of the Egyptians.

It says the language itself was Egyptian (or reformed Egyptian), but it had the learning of the Jews so it must have had Hebew words mixed in with it.  

On the other hand, the Book of Mormon indicates that Reformed Egyptian was more condensed than Hebew, so maybe it was used only for writing.  

It's hard to say either way.

I have assumed that Nephi meant that he wrote in "the language of the Egyptians", not that they spoke it. They may even have used their "reformed Egyptian" (probably Demotic) characters to represent Hebrew sounds, though I'm not sure how that would be any more compact than written Hebrew. Not sure how this point can be established with any certainty, though.

[Guest Scott]

45 minutes ago, Vort said:

Not sure how this point can be established with any certainty, though.

True, I don't think it can be said either way with any certainty.   

Here's an interesting article from LDS Living:

http://www.ldsliving.com/The-Actual-Meaning-of-Nephi-and-3-Other-Book-of-Mormon-Names/s/83887

Supposedly Nephi and Mormon are Egyptian words, which might indicate that Egyptian was spoken.  Abish and Alma are said to be Hebrew though, so maybe that was spoken.

If the above really is correct, they might have either used both languages, a combination of the two, or even just one of them, but with names borrowed from another.  

Edited May 28, 2019 by Scott

[Guest Mores]

7 hours ago, Scott said:

True, I don't think it can be said either way with any certainty.   

Here's an interesting article from LDS Living:

http://www.ldsliving.com/The-Actual-Meaning-of-Nephi-and-3-Other-Book-of-Mormon-Names/s/83887

Supposedly Nephi and Mormon are Egyptian words, which might indicate that Egyptian was spoken.  Abish and Alma are said to be Hebrew though, so maybe that was spoken.

If the above really is correct, they might have either used both languages, a combination of the two, or even just one of them, but with names borrowed from another.  

Based on many cultural markers and clear statements of fact from the BoM, it would appear that the Nephite culture was a bit of a melting pot, much like our own.  If we compare it to our own society, it could very well be that a derivative of Hebrew was used with a smattering of cognates, and expressions from other languages.  Surely the language we speak today didn't even exist 600 years ago.  They spoke Latin and Old French as mixed in with Middle English (Almost a completely different language than today's English).

A difference between our linguistic evolution and that of the Nephites is the presence of a written language.  We did not have common literacy until the time of the Pilgrims.  And even then, it was much lower than the literacy we see today.  But the Nephites had the Brass Plates.  Consider what has happened with literacy because the Bible was made available to everyone.  As quickly as we've seen language evolve, the presence of the Bible has maintained linguistic integrity for centuries.

The Brass Plates would have also preserved much linguistic integrity as well.  But what language was it in?  Even if it were Demotic, (please correct me if I'm wrong -- I'm not an expert here) that's just an alphabet.  It could be used to write Egyptian or in Hebrew or a number of other languages.  We speak English.  We write English words.  But we use the modified Latin alphabet.  We use Hindu-Arabic numerals.  But we name them with English words.

So, bottom line:  We really don't know.  But I'd be willing to give more credence to Nephi being an Egyptian name than any of the other interpretations that the LDSLiving article gave.  Could they be right?  Of course they could.  But it appears to be just plain guesswork.

[Guest Scott]

15 minutes ago, Mores said:

The Brass Plates would have also preserved much linguistic integrity as well.  But what language was it in? 

According to Mosiah 1:3-4, the Brass Plates were in Egyptian:

3 And he also taught them concerning the records which were engraven on the plates of brass, saying: My sons, I would that ye should remember that were it not for these plates, which contain these records and these commandments, we must have suffered in ignorance, even at this present time, not knowing the mysteries of God.

4 For it were not possible that our father, Lehi, could have remembered all these things, to have taught them to his children, except it were for the help of these plates; for he having been taught in the language of the Egyptians therefore he could read these engravings, and teach them to his children, that thereby they could teach them to their children, and so fulfilling the commandments of God, even down to this present time.

Edited May 28, 2019 by Scott

[CV75]

21 hours ago, Fether said:

Alma 32:21 says 

“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.”

This has always seemed strange and paradoxical to me.

Following along in Alma 32, when we finally see something true that we were previously only told about, we know it more perfectly that we did before and can say that our "knowledge's perfect in that thing."  When we expect (or hope) to see something we are only told about, that is not a perfect knowledge, but just enough knowledge to exercise faith in that thing which is not seen. Belief, and a desire to believe, is what opens us up to the possibilities, sifting through the good and bad seed. Belief can remain stuck on a truth or an error, but faith offers progress unto a perfect knowledge. At least perfect enough for us to testify of it.

[Guest Mores]

13 minutes ago, Scott said:

According to Mosiah 1:3-4, the Brass Plates were in Egyptian:

3 And he also taught them concerning the records which were engraven on the plates of brass, saying: My sons, I would that ye should remember that were it not for these plates, which contain these records and these commandments, we must have suffered in ignorance, even at this present time, not knowing the mysteries of God.

4 For it were not possible that our father, Lehi, could have remembered all these things, to have taught them to his children, except it were for the help of these plates; for he having been taught in the language of the Egyptians therefore he could read these engravings, and teach them to his children, that thereby they could teach them to their children, and so fulfilling the commandments of God, even down to this present time.

I don't discount it completely.  In fact, I lean towards that interpretation myself.  But it isn't even near conclusive.  The statement about Lehi could simply mean that he understood the script because of his study of the language itself.

The other piece of the puzzle is that it was supposedly written in Egyptian because it saved space on the plates.  It doesn't really make sense that you would save space by using the same words/sounds but with a slightly different alphabet.  In many ways, I'd think that would inevitably cause problems that would require even more characters.  So, was the Egyptian language itself more compact and efficient?

Some say that it is because the Egyptian language had fewer words that they had to say things more simply, thus using less space.  Well, that sounds ok.  But I'm not sure how that plays out in practical usage.  If I don't have the proper word to say something, I usually end up using MORE words to describe it than simply say a word.  So, did the Egyptian language have a LARGER vocabulary?  Well, Hebrew is known for having a fairly small vocabulary compared to other common languages.  But I don't know about Egyptian.  Does anyone else know?  How does it compare to Hebrew?

[Guest Scott]

6 hours ago, Mores said:

I don't discount it completely.  In fact, I lean towards that interpretation myself.  But it isn't even near conclusive.  The statement about Lehi could simply mean that he understood the script because of his study of the language itself.

Since Laban and Lehi were both direct descedents of Joseph of Egypt (Nephi 5), maybe much of the language was passed down to them through the generations? 

 

Quote

In many ways, I'd think that would inevitably cause problems that would require even more characters.  So, was the Egyptian language itself more compact and efficient?

I'm not an expert, but from what I do know, I believe that Egyptian would be more compact, but Hebrew would probably be more efficient (if only considering etching the writing itself.

Egyptian has the advantage of being more compact because there are a lot of symbols that represent entire ideas or sentences:

The disadvantage is that it would take longer to write since the symbols are much more elaborate.   

By comparison, Hebrew's script is pretty simple:

If I were writing on gold (which is expensive and hard to obtain), I'd probably use Egyptian since you would want to use as little space as possible. 

Interestingly though, the characters in the Book of Mormon don't seem to resemble either (assuming the below really was penned by Joseph Smith):

 

Maybe the term "Reformed Egyptian" refers to the language structure rahter than the  symbols/letters used?

Edited May 28, 2019 by Scott

[Guest Mores]

16 minutes ago, Scott said:

You can forget about comparisons to hieroglyphics.  It clearly was not anything like them. 

Quote

 

Maybe the term "Reformed Egyptian" refers to the language structure rahter than the  symbols/letters used?

But the Nephite characters show some similarities to Demotic.

Very different.  It was an alphabet, not a pictographic script.

It may be that Nephites called it "reformed Egyptian" because demotic was a newer alphabet than the pictographic hieroglyphs.  Or it may be that they took Demotic and altered them (which was also indicated).  Either way, the similarities are striking (to me).

Edited May 28, 2019 by Mores

[LineUponLine]

One thing about faith is that it starts from someone who has full knowledge. Lectures on faith describe how that whole first millennium there was either Adam who had seen and interacted with God, or someone who knew Adam, thereby gaining faith from he who had true knowledge.

Joseph Smith saw God the Father and Jesus Christ and therefore had true knowledge in them. So all who listened to his words were gaining faith through someone who had the truth. Now just because Joseph had this knowledge of the Father and the Son doesn't mean he didn't need faith to act according to their commands. (Polygamy for example was a difficult one for Joseph to follow, but he had the faith to follow it and now probably has a knowledge of it's eternal purpose).

Romans 10:17  So then faith cometh by hearing, and hearing by the word of God.

[askandanswer]

On 5/28/2019 at 2:00 AM, Vort said:

That does not encompass the entire meaning of faith, but it does give a good introduction to the topic for neophytes.

And maybe also for the Nephites, given that the people Alma was talking to were descendants of Nephi.