Jump to content

short shelf life?


ElderDarionBevan

Recommended Posts

Does faith have a short shelf life? Elder Kearon came to our mission, he is a 70, and he said that faith has a short shelf life. how many of you have noticed this before? What does this statement mean?

Here is what I think it means. click here to see: Faith-Short shelf life

You may link to your blog, but you need to phrase your post in a way that doesn't require anyone to read it.

Link to comment

For me I belive That faith has a short shelf life is because that is where is is not suppose to be, it should never be put on a shelf but be used all the time, and if not, will lose its power, meaning, and focus.

Link to comment

Then Elder Eyring in a conference talk a few years talked about it and I think even mentioned that phrase, "short shelf life" and so possibly Elder Kearon got it from him? Either way I think its true, great spiritual moments can pass away and we bury them and go onto other endevours. IIRC Elder Thomas B. Marsh of the 12 was converted to the Church after reading only 16 pages of the Book of Mormon which when he read it wasn't even fully printed yet and he left, he came back but still.

Link to comment

Does faith have a short shelf life?

Perhaps faith has short shelf life because is not based on evidence. It is an unfounded belief re-enforced and manifest to believers by the "spirit" or a feeling.

In order to maintain or regain faith and its associated feelings, one needs to continually revisit the sources of the unfounded beliefs that induce them. These sources need not be, and are generally not, factual in the least. They need only to induce an emotional response. This response is often one that is conditioned from childhood by well-meaning but misguided parents. These sources can be the myths in the Bible, the imagination and fiction in Mormon scriptures, or the largely unfounded beliefs of other religionists.

The diversity and self-serving nature of these various sets of "faith" (unfounded beliefs) are reflected in the thousands of religions that exist, and have existed, in the world. The very existence of these various religions mitigates against their claims of "universal truths".

If physical evidence were required for the formation of strongly held beliefs (rather than simply induced emotional responses), it is pretty clear that humankind would be a lot better off in this world

If you think I am overstating the case here, just make a list of the religious beliefs you hold that are based on credible physical evidence as compared to those you hold that are not. Keep in mind that those of every other religion could make a similar list and would defend their unfounded beliefs in the same way that you do. There is no real way to differentiate between between valid beliefs other than only accepting as valid those logically based on credible physical evidence.

Link to comment
Perhaps faith has short shelf life because is not based on evidence. It is an unfounded belief re-enforced and manifest to believers by the "spirit" or a feeling.

No, faith has a short shelf-life because it is an attitude defining a relationship. Much the same could be said about a loving relationship.

Link to comment

Perhaps faith has short shelf life because is not based on evidence. It is an unfounded belief re-enforced and manifest to believers by the "spirit" or a feeling.

In order to maintain or regain faith and its associated feelings, one needs to continually revisit the sources of the unfounded beliefs that induce them. These sources need not be, and are generally not, factual in the least. They need only to induce an emotional response. This response is often one that is conditioned from childhood by well-meaning but misguided parents. These sources can be the myths in the Bible, the imagination and fiction in Mormon scriptures, or the largely unfounded beliefs of other religionists.

The diversity and self-serving nature of these various sets of "faith" (unfounded beliefs) are reflected in the thousands of religions that exist, and have existed, in the world. The very existence of these various religions mitigates against their claims of "universal truths".

If physical evidence were required for the formation of strongly held beliefs (rather than simply induced emotional responses), it is pretty clear that humankind would be a lot better off in this world

If you think I am overstating the case here, just make a list of the religious beliefs you hold that are based on credible physical evidence as compared to those you hold that are not. Keep in mind that those of every other religion could make a similar list and would defend their unfounded beliefs in the same way that you do. There is no real way to differentiate between between valid beliefs other than only accepting as valid those logically based on credible physical evidence.

Omniscience is rather breathtaking to encounter. Upon which set of finite observations does 44Foxtrot make his universal generalization that belief is always unfounded, except in relation to an emotional response?

I once saw a bumper sticker that said "God said it. I believe it. That settles it."

Later I noticed that same thinking pattern in positivism:

Science starts from publicly observable data which can be described in pure observation language independent of any theoretical assumptions

Theories can be verified or falsified by comparison with this fixed experimental data.

The choice between theories is rational, objective, and in accordance with specifiable criteria.

The problem begins with the reality that "all data is theory laden" as N. R. Hansen famously observed. 44Foxtrot's observations are as ideologically saturated and temporally limited as any fundamentalist reading of scripture. Those who cannot see the implications of their own ideology are totally captive to it, and never consider the network of assumptions that guides them to decide what counts as data, how to design which experiments with which apparatus, and how interpret the results in which particular way.

And it practice, it turns out that both verification and falsification have limits. (I've cited Kuhn on this at length elsewhere.)

And while the choice between paradigms may have rational components, those components function as values, and there are no rules for applying them. No one gets by without demonstrating selectivity, without conscious or unconscious contextualization, without making valuations regarding what is most important and not important, and no one operates outside of temporal limitations.

Where in 44Foxtrot's magisterial judgment of the value and nature of experiences that happened to people he has never met is any recognition that in science, "all things must remain forever tentative?"

In a discussion of what, in broad human experience, is offered as counting as experiential evidence for God, Ian Barbour remarks that "I am not claiming that moral and religious experience or particular historical events can constitute a proof for the existence of a personal God. I am only saying that it is reasonable to interpret them theistically and that it makes a difference whether one does so or not. It makes a different not only in one's attitudes and behavior but in the way one sees the world. One may notice and value features of individual and corporate life which one otherwise might have overlooked." Barbour, Myths, Models and Paradigms, 55-56.

Kevin Christensen

Pittsburgh, PA

Link to comment

Omniscience is rather breathtaking to encounter. Upon which set of finite observations does 44Foxtrot make his universal generalization that belief is always unfounded, except in relation to an emotional response?

Oh, the same ones he always uses, I'm sure.
The problem begins with the reality that "all data is theory laden" as N. R. Hansen famously observed. 44Foxtrot's observations are as ideologically saturated and temporally limited as any fundamentalist reading of scripture.
Yup.
Where in 44Foxtrot's magisterial judgment of the value and nature of experiences that happened to people he has never met is any recognition that in science, "all things must remain forever tentative?"
Nowhere. That's one of the main problems with his posts.

Thank you for some interesting thoughts, but there really is no point in arguing with 44Foxtrot. As you say, he's a fundamentalist, and not really open to rational debate on the subject of the existence of God.

Link to comment

Fourteen virgins? Where did the extra 4 come from?

I probably remembered incorrectly. It was well past my bedtime when I wrote that. Seven and seven would have had some beautiful symbolism.

Yours under the embarrassed oaks,

Nathair /|\

Link to comment

Thank you for some interesting thoughts, but there really is no point in arguing with 44Foxtrot. As you say, he's a fundamentalist, and not really open to rational debate on the subject of the existence of God.

In typical religionist fashion, you use religious labels to describe others with whom you do not agree. Rather than "fundamentalist" why not use the labels such as secularist, rationalist, or scientist? These would be more accurate.

As to engaging in rational discussion regarding the existence of the Mormon Deity, I would be happy to do so once provided credible physical evidence for his existence. Without such evidence, any discussion of God is about as "rational" as discussing the existence of Santa Clause or fairies in the garden.

Until that kind of evidence is presented, I stand by my assertion that the core religious beliefs of Mormonism are unfounded. They are qualitatively no different from the superstitions held by our early ancestors as they migrated from the forests onto the plains of Africa. They are formed and maintained only by willful disregard for scientific fact and knowledge, or by the most tortured rationalizations and apologetic "explanations" of the inconsistencies imaginable.

If you are uncomfortable with the characterization of religious faith as unfounded belief, bring some physical evidence upon which it can be "founded". Baring that, at least come up with a religious narrative that is not internally inconsistent and self-contradictory and not invalidated by our scientific understanding of the way the world works.

Link to comment

In typical religionist fashion, you use religious labels to describe others with whom you do not agree. Rather than "fundamentalist" why not use the labels such as secularist, rationalist, or scientist? These would be more accurate.

As to engaging in rational discussion regarding the existence of the Mormon Deity, I would be happy to do so once provided credible physical evidence for his existence. Without such evidence, any discussion of God is about as "rational" as discussing the existence of Santa Clause or fairies in the garden.

Until that kind of evidence is presented, I stand by my assertion that the core religious beliefs of Mormonism are unfounded. They are qualitatively no different from the superstitions held by our early ancestors as they migrated from the forests onto the plains of Africa. They are formed and maintained only by willful disregard for scientific fact and knowledge, or by the most tortured rationalizations and apologetic "explanations" of the inconsistencies imaginable.

If you are uncomfortable with the characterization of religious faith as unfounded belief, bring some physical evidence upon which it can be "founded". Baring that, at least come up with a religious narrative that is not internally inconsistent and self-contradictory and not invalidated by our scientific understanding of the way the world works.

This is your perspective

Link to comment

Omniscience is rather breathtaking to encounter. Upon which set of finite observations does 44Foxtrot make his universal generalization that belief is always unfounded, except in relation to an emotional response?

I once saw a bumper sticker that said "God said it. I believe it. That settles it."

Later I noticed that same thinking pattern in positivism:

Science starts from publicly observable data which can be described in pure observation language independent of any theoretical assumptions

Theories can be verified or falsified by comparison with this fixed experimental data.

The choice between theories is rational, objective, and in accordance with specifiable criteria.

The problem begins with the reality that "all data is theory laden" as N. R. Hansen famously observed. 44Foxtrot's observations are as ideologically saturated and temporally limited as any fundamentalist reading of scripture. Those who cannot see the implications of their own ideology are totally captive to it, and never consider the network of assumptions that guides them to decide what counts as data, how to design which experiments with which apparatus, and how interpret the results in which particular way.

And it practice, it turns out that both verification and falsification have limits. (I've cited Kuhn on this at length elsewhere.)

And while the choice between paradigms may have rational components, those components function as values, and there are no rules for applying them. No one gets by without demonstrating selectivity, without conscious or unconscious contextualization, without making valuations regarding what is most important and not important, and no one operates outside of temporal limitations.

Where in 44Foxtrot's magisterial judgment of the value and nature of experiences that happened to people he has never met is any recognition that in science, "all things must remain forever tentative?"

In a discussion of what, in broad human experience, is offered as counting as experiential evidence for God, Ian Barbour remarks that "I am not claiming that moral and religious experience or particular historical events can constitute a proof for the existence of a personal God. I am only saying that it is reasonable to interpret them theistically and that it makes a difference whether one does so or not. It makes a different not only in one's attitudes and behavior but in the way one sees the world. One may notice and value features of individual and corporate life which one otherwise might have overlooked." Barbour, Myths, Models and Paradigms, 55-56.

Kevin Christensen

Pittsburgh, PA

Forgive me if I interpret you incorrectly, but it appears you are trying to say that science is not always correct because it may start out from flawed assumptions or badly interpreted data. Although this may be correct in selective instances it does not invalidate the scientific process as a whole. I find it a weak argument that belief in the scientific method is suspect therefor belief in God is justified. Science operates on a set or rules where it is constantly correcting itself in light of new data and evidence. Sure there may me bumps in the road and misdirection at times but ultimately it tends to work itself out in the ling run. The very fact that you sit at a computer typing is evidence of the scientific method. It took repeated effort and assumptions and data to create the computer. And the one you have today is a far cry from the one you had just 20 years ago, because science learns from it first assumptions and adds to it. This is how science works. To dismiss it because it has some wrong data or incorrect conclusions from time to time is like an ad hominem attack. I do not like the message so I attack the messenger.

Religion or faith on the other hand is simply a choice. You choose to believe and that is fine. It may even be based on some experience you had. Your experience may even be valid. the problem I think the issue 44Foxtrot has is it is not verifiable to him/her. So it is really just your experience and valid only to you. You can not use it to prove a point or defend a position. You may be right on all points you believe in but the rational mind may not be willing to believe because your belief is irrational. There is a reason religion requires faith, because it is short on facts.

Link to comment

Does faith have a short shelf life? Elder Kearon came to our mission, he is a 70, and he said that faith has a short shelf life. how many of you have noticed this before? What does this statement mean?

Of course it has a short shelf life, everything you learn or do does. If you do not exercise your stamina fades. If you do not study your intellect wanes. Many things in the human experience require you to be vigilant in the process to maintain some level of awareness or activity. Faith is not special in this regard. We just want to make it special because it is important to us. Because of the inherent quality of faith it will take repeated effort to reinforce yourself of its validity. It does not lend itself to sustainability because it is unsustainable in light of the world around you at times. The real question is not if faith is evaporative but is faith valid? The answer to that my be a personal choice.

Link to comment

This is not a matter of perspective. It is a matter of the definitions of words and terms. Until there is credible physical evidence upon which to base your core religious beliefs, they are unfounded.

That is why your are referred to as the "faithful". This is not a matter of perspective or opinion. It is a matter of fact that many religionists choose to simply ignore.

Do you really find it significant that a book written by religionists, and presenting a narrative for which there is no credible evidence, would warn its readers against rational thought and reasonable skepticism when considering its contents?

I certainly do not.

Arrogance and condescension won't convince anyone, you know. I'm not sure what is your intent in participating in this particular thread, whether it is to sow seeds of doubt, gratify your own feelings of superiority over us deluded religionists, or to genuinely help us come to terms with reality as you perceive it. Care to enlighten us?

Link to comment

Don't let your faith get moldy

Hi,

The quote in Hebrews is a good description of what faith is:

Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen. --Hebrews 11

True faith is based on evidences, not on blind tradition or idealized thinking.

Faith is not just a religious principle, but is a principle of action in any human endeavor. All human progress, including scientific, is brought about by the principle of faith.

Reading and studying the scriptures is vital to avoid losing faith after one receives spiritual evidences of Christ and accepts them.

Richard

Here are some 2BC quotes on faith that may help develop true faith in Christ:

1 Behold I say unto you My servant, faith is the quality that makes all men great.

2 If My servants develop this quality to the utmost there shall be nothing that they will not be able to accomplish, even to the moving of mountains, for it was by this power that worlds were created, and galaxies and planetary systems came into being.

3 However, the greater faith can influence men for good, which faith is of greater importance, for the worth of a soul is of more value than the moving of mountains. -- 2BC 27

10 And even as a righteous man is able to receive revelation from God, even so can an evil man receive revelation from the adversary; and if he receiveth revelation from the adversary it shall contain some truth, nevertheless, it shall contain error also.

11 Behold, man is not alone on this earth, for he is surrounded by spirits, and when men give up their free agency through sin, the spirits of the adversary taketh hold of them, and he binds them with fetters that can be broken only through the principle of faith on the Lord Jesus Christ, repentance, and baptism by water and by fire, for there is no other way.

12 And if he continueth in the faith unto the end, he shall be saved in My kingdom, saith the LORD. --2BC 29

1 Behold My son, ye have asked Me concerning faith and how it shall be used, and behold, here is wisdom.

2 If a man saith he hath great faith and hath no works, that man is a liar, for faith without works is dead.

3 And a man, even though he hath great faith, if he useth it for his own purposes and to show forth his own might and vainglory, not having his eye single to My glory, his faith availeth him nothing.

4 For did not Nimrod the hunter have great faith? And because of this faith, he was able to overcome all his enemies and trample them under his feet.

5 Yet he had not his eye single to My glory, and his faith brought him not unto salvation.

6 And again My servant Samson, whom I called to be a deliverer of My people, for his faith was great, yet he heeded not My commandment not to marry the Philistine woman, for he had not an eye single to My glory, but obeyed the lusts of the flesh.

7 And because he obeyed the lusts of the flesh and not My laws, he lost his gifts and became as other men.

8 Nevertheless, he regained his faith in Me by what he suffered, and was able to redeem My people to a degree, but not to the extent he could have, had he not bowed to his own desires. --2BC 48

32 Oh that men would repent and come unto Me and lay their burdens or sins at My feet, or in other words, through faith in Me abandon their sins. --2BC 58
15 But ye have placed your faith in the false prophets who guide ye not aright, and ye place yourselves as targets of the wicked, and ye shall be the first to reap the wrath of Mine indignation and the whirlwind when the calamities come upon you. --2BC 76
For I say unto you, the greater sin is to sin against the Spirit and it is worthy of death, for their cup of iniquity is full and they repent not, no matter what calamities I bring against them.

13 For this reason I will destroy utterly those who have known Me and yet now deny My holy prophets, for they have chosen prophets of their own liking, which heap upon them praise and vainglory.

14 Nevertheless, I will spare those that repent.

15 Yet few will repent, for they are bound with great fetters, having faith in the arm of flesh which will fail and cause their utter destruction. --2BC 108

9 For unless ye have continual revelation ye are not Mine, and for this reason I give here a little and there a little, line upon line, precept upon precept-- for if I gave unto you all that was to be known on a subject at one time, there would be no need of faith upon the matter.

10 For ye must live by faith until ye are worthy to receive all knowledge.

11 Therefore, ye must place together all that ye have received on one subject and in this manner ye shall gain a clearer understanding of the matter that ye not falter when the adversary comes upon you to destroy thy faith.

12 For if he destroys thy faith, there remaineth no hope, and if there be no hope, there be no rudder to steer thy actions and then shall ye flounder and fail and ye then become his. --2BC 126

19 Therefore, let each man maketh himself acquainted with the attributes and deceitfulness of the adversary, knowing his ways, and the way he may deceive him, that he may perfect himself and not be subject to him through his weaknesses and sins.

20 And there is another spirit that deceiveth man, and that is the spirit of inactivity which comes to those who desire not to work but to rely totally upon faith.

21 For they say, "We need not work, for we have faith that the LORD will provide when we are in need."

22 And they say, "We spend time and meditate and pray to our Father in heaven."

23 Behold I say unto you, I hear not their prayers, for they sin a greater sin than those who strive to do right but faileth. --2BC 135

3 And ye have asked concerning faith, and how it becomes an effective tool to establish My Zion;

4 For behold, much has been said concerning faith in Mine ancient scriptures, and ye had wondered why it had not been effective in efforts to heal and effectively cast out evil spirits.

5 Behold I say unto you, as I before said when I was on the earth, that when there is little faith on the part of the recipient, little can be done;

6 For was that not the case when I returned unto My family and acquaintances in Nazareth?

7 For I could do little there because of their unbelief.

8 Nevertheless, it takes much more faith to build a place of refuge and to go against tradition and false doctrine, than to heal the sick, or to remove a mountain. --2BC 217

Link to comment
The quote in Hebrews is a good description of what faith is:
1 Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen.

True faith is based on evidences, not on blind tradition or idealized thinking.

While I agree, Faith is based on evidence, that's not what this verse says at all. In fact, it's the reverse of your premise.

Apollos says that faith is the evidence of the thing in which one has faith. It is the thing itself (the substance). That's a far cry from faith's being based on evidence.

Lehi

Link to comment

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...