For Critics: What Do You Like About The Lds Church?

[wenglund]

Why do you need faith to believe in something that has evidence to support it?

If the evidence is not definitive, or in other words, if the evidence is insufficient to establish the notion as fact or knowledge, it may still suffice for engendering certain levels of belief or faith.

For example, when the evidence was presented in the OJ trial, it wasn't definitive. One could not know for a fact that OJ committed or was involved in the murders. However, the evidence may suffice for belief beyond a reasonable doubt that he did. Or, said another way, the evidence is sufficient for one to believe or have faith that OJ did murder his wife and Ron Goldman. Whereas, others may believe the evidence was insufficient, and so they are agnostic about it (having no faith either way), while still others may think the evidence points elsewhere and is exculpitory to OJ, and they thus may believe or have faith in his innocence.

See how that works?

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[jadams_4242]

Mrs. Mudcat would be at the top of the list.

How cool does it get.

[BarrelO'Mangoes]

If the evidence is not definitive, or in other words, if the evidence is insufficient to establish the notion as fact or knowledge, it may still suffice for engendering certain levels of belief or faith.

For example, when the evidence was presented in the OJ trial, it wasn't definitive. One could not know for a fact that OJ committed or was involved in the murders. However, the evidence may suffice for belief beyond a reasonable doubt that he did. Or, said another way, the evidence is sufficient for one to believe or have faith that OJ did murder his wife and Ron Goldman. Whereas, others may believe the evidence was insufficient, and so they are agnostic about it (having no faith either way), while still others may think the evidence points elsewhere and is exculpitory to OJ, and they thus may believe or have faith in his innocence.

See how that works?

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Hi Wade, I understand what you're getting at, yet, I disagree and it doesn't work for me.

Faith is a specific type of belief -- a belief that does not rely on evidence. We all have beliefs and that is not in doubt. To have a belief in God there is a reliance on faith. To have a belief that the sun will rise tomorrow I do not rely on faith.

You mention the OJ trial and that doesn't really work for me. There was plenty of evidence in the OJ trial and people weighed the evidence and came to different conclusions. That someone can weigh pros and cons of an argument where there is plenty of evidence and make a determination is not the same as faith -- for they can back up their reasons for why they came to their conclusion and they can show the evidence that swayed them. With supernatural beliefs there is a lack of evidence which is why there is a need to have a leap of faith. Anyway, by definition faith is belief without evidence.

[wenglund]

Hi Wade, I understand what you're getting at, yet, I disagree and it doesn't work for me.

Faith is a specific type of belief -- a belief that does not rely on evidence. We all have beliefs and that is not in doubt. To have a belief in God there is a reliance on faith. To have a belief that the sun will rise tomorrow I do not rely on faith.

You mention the OJ trial and that doesn't really work for me. There was plenty of evidence in the OJ trial and people weighed the evidence and came to different conclusions. That someone can weigh pros and cons of an argument where there is plenty of evidence and make a determination is not the same as faith -- for they can back up their reasons for why they came to their conclusion and they can show the evidence that swayed them. With supernatural beliefs there is a lack of evidence which is why there is a need to have a leap of faith. Anyway, by definition faith is belief without evidence.

That is okay. I wasn't so much arguing for agreement as I was explaining in hopes of understanding. As long as you understand how I was reasonably using the term "faith", that should suffice, and to each their own. ;-)

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[rhinomelon]

Heya everyone, long time no see! I've been swamped in an intensive classical Greek class for a while (one week to go!!).

Anyway, some things I admire about the LDS church are:

It is extremely well-organized, and is excellent at taking care of its members.

Emphasis on missionary work. If I could get even 5% of the young twentysomethings in my particular denomination to take two years of their lives to carry the gospel to another place, I'd be ecstatic!

Emphasis on clean living.

Emphasis on the family, which is AWESOME!

Another aspect I admire is the role of the church's history in the lives of its members. The story of the church is a very real part of the LDS experience (as evidenced by any standard sacrament meeting). I don't see that as much with mainstream Christians, especially with Protestants (many of whom start counting the years somewhere in the 1500s). That's another reason why I'm so interested in teaching church history to Protestants, to get that same fascination with their roots as most LDS have. Of course, LDS do have it a bit easier, considering they only have about 200 years to work with...

I like the fact that the LDS church provides ways for people at all stages in life to get involved. From Primary to Relief Society and the Bishopric, a person can comfortably live any stage of their life in some church program or function. Again, something it'd be great to see more of in mainstream Christianity.

LDS people are generally friendly. I've enjoyed living in Utah and southern Idaho most of my life, and still have many friends back there.

I'm sure there are more things I like, but this will do for starters. Take care, everyone

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

In my mind I view religious-related faith along a spectrum, with disbelief (atheism) on one end and ardent belief on the other, and with unbelief (agnosticism) in the middle. To me, the middle of the spectrum entails a lack of belief and faith (or an absense of convincing evidence), but the more one moves to either end of the spectrum, the greater the faith (and the more convincing the evidence). In other words, the more strongly one disbelieves or believes in the existence of God, the greater one's faith either way.

Others are free to see it differently.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Now this is what I absolutly concour with. This is awsome comparison.