Faith V. Doubt

[Ahab]

But there is an imperative for empirical adequacy.

 

I can go to Jerusalem. I can go and see the Sea of Galilee. Josephus writes contemporaneously about the Savior and his crucifixion.

 

Please show me the location of the ruins of Zarahemla. Show me ANY artifact from the Americas that has reformed egyptian written on it that mentions anything regarding Nephi or any character of the BOM by name.

 

The LDS have to make up these astounding theories as to where the Hill Cumorah is located because if it is located in New York where all the early leadership thought it was (and many members probably still do), there is zero archeological evidence to support it.

 

And there should be....... plenty.      But they make you feel like a scoundrel for asking.  It's like when buying a car someone says, "Yeah this baby has a turbo-charged V8 with 450 horsepower", and you say, "Wow, let's look under the hood!", and they get all insulted and say, "You can't really expect to find what you're looking for THERE!, Just take my word for it......have a little faith......"  

 

And then when you drive it, it doesn't feel all that punchy. It looks good on the outside, it has some nice features, but you still want to take a peek under the hood.

 

"No, you gotta buy it to look under there......"   

You seem to be operating under the premise that you would know what something is simply because someone has told you that's what it is.  How would ou know you're looking at the city called Jerusalem or the Sea of Galilee mentioned in the Bible?  Even if you went to where people told you it was you still may not be looking at the same city or sea, even if people were telling you that it was.  You would have nothing to compare it to, other than what people were telling you, so all you would be able to find is someone telling you what they think is the sea or the city.  Both are actually a lot different than they were in the days of Jesus.

 

Or how would you know if you were looking at a 450 horsepower V-8 other than someone telling you that's what it is?  A 300 horsepower V-8 has a lot of power too.  Suppose you never even heard of a dynometer.  Suppose you can't tell the difference between what a V-8 or a V-6 looks like?

 

You think you know what God is?  What if God is actually something different than you have ever imagined?

[Palerider]

I agree with this too!  How did I go nearly 50 years without asking any of this?  Duh!  And maybe go in faith full throttle, or have some facts behind the faith may be a little more comforting.  But, one can say, whatever vehicle gets you to God, if that's what you're after, could work too, whether it's all fantasy or not.          

 

And Tacenda, I wouldn't necessarily say that the LDS vehicle absolutely won't get you there. But how the organization is designed creates opportunity for subtle abuses that shouldn't be found in the Lord's church if it were in fact "true". 

 

And rather than correct the problems, they are willing to hold onto them for the sake of maintaining the power structure, which is a sad, sad thing............

[Tacenda]

There are many groups of people, not all of them churches. There is more than merely "groupness" that makes a church. The church is a specific medium that binds the people together. It is a symbol of something they wish to identify themselves with. Unfortunately, many people confuse that symbol with the thing it is meant to symbolize. It becomes more than a medium, but a golden calf that demands their devotion.

I rarely ever listen to Mormon Expressions but ran out of current podcasts so I ventured over and John Larsen was answering questions about his journey.  He mentioned how so many ex-Mormons would, as adults, get together and possibly drink and associate, talk etc.  But there was absolutely nothing for the children of these ex-Mormons.  So they tried to do something for them also, dealing with science and fun learning classes or some such thing, possibly because there were a lot of atheists, but apparently it didn't go well, and fizzled out.  John remarked that he loved the Mormons, and even Utah, believe it or not, and mentioned the community that Mormons have is probably the number one reason so many stay.  I'm not saying we have a golden calf but believe that "community" in Mormonism is quite compelling.         

[Palerider]

Well, it's not like much of the Old Testament doesn't suffer from the same class of problem that critics heap on the Book of Mormon. The archaeologist most sympathetic to Biblical geography that I know of, William Dever, can't seem to find any evidence of a mass exodus of Hebrews from Egypt, but does find evidence of them living elsewhere. The best "objective" evidence we have suggests that much of it was fabricated during the Persian captivity, since that period seems to best match the geography in the narrative.

 

Of course, even Bart Ehrman admits that Jesus is an historical figure, as did Thomas Jefferson. But neither one of them would likely agree that there exists any evidence for the supernatural aspects of that biblical "history." All sorts of historical fiction is written; just because we can verify people and places used in those fictions does not mean that the stories they recount are "true" in that same objective sense.

 

My point is that the truth in religion is found independent of the material context surrounding it. If the story of Enos in the Book of Mormon has the power to profoundly touch the life of the one reading it, then it is true whether it happened or not. The narrative reconstructs a past that is just as material in the present time as that past that left its remains behind.

 

 

You're right. There are problems with Biblical history and that is where a person's testimony and spiritual experience will carry the day. I'm willing to wait on the Lord for those things to be rectified. 

 

But when we speak of empirical adequacy (meaning that at least we have a reasonable jumping off point) the BOM doesn't even make it to the mensroom much less the boardroom where it can be taken seriously.

[Palerider]

You seem to be operating under the premise that you would know what something is simply because someone has told you that's what it is.  How would ou know you're looking at the city called Jerusalem or the Sea of Galilee mentioned in the Bible?  Even if you went to where people told you it was you still may not be looking at the same city or sea, even if people were telling you that it was.  You would have nothing to compare it to, other than what people were telling you, so all you would be able to find is someone telling you what they think is the sea or the city.  Both are actually a lot different than they were in the days of Jesus.

 

Or how would you know if you were looking at a 450 horsepower V-8 other than someone telling you that's what it is?  A 300 horsepower V-8 has a lot of power too.  Suppose you never even heard of a dynometer.  Suppose you can't tell the difference between what a V-8 or a V-6 looks like?

 

You think you know what God is?  What if God is actually something different than you have ever imagined?

 

 

This makes me wonder how you know who your wife is when you come home at night (if you happen to actually be married).

 

I'm not trying to be facetious here, I just don't see this as a valid argument........

[pmccombs1]

We're pretty much in agreement on principle even though we don't agree on which beliefs are better, or who has more truth.

 

For some people Catholicism feels like a better thing to them than Mormonism simply because they like what they get out of Catholicism more than they like what they get out of Mormonism.  It doesn't mean Mormonism isn't as good as Catholicms or that the beliefs are inferior.  It just means some people like Catholicism more than Mormonism, and they could still feel that way even if God didn't approve of Catholism.  People like what they like, regardless of whehter or not something is good for them.  Someone else could like Satanism more than they like Catholicism or Mormonism and think that's the best thing there ever could be.  It still doesn't make it true, though.  Truth is independent of what people like or don't like, just like God lives even though some people prefer the idea that God doesn't live.

 

I agree with this, except that I think there is no way to detect if religious truth is really independent of human experience. You may believe that you have discovered this independent truth because it entered you with such profundity and certainty; maybe you even saw or heard something. But then, so does the devout Catholic believe, and so on. There are those of other persuasions who have also been in the presence of God, and they have received "some other gospel." How can these conflicting things be reconciled? They can't. So, if there truly is an objective, "independent" truth out there, we have not been given the means to measure it objectively. We have only been given spiritual means, which are subjective and can't be easily shared. We would have to "become" the other person to know what they really experience. Because we don't have the objective means, claims of primacy are unjustifiable and are the mistakes of men through pride. Religious truth may only be justly extended by invitation, and those who attempt to embellish this invitation with claims of "the only true" religion are manipulative.

[Ahab]

This makes me wonder how you know who your wife is when you come home at night (if you happen to actually be married).

 

I'm not trying to be facetious here, I just don't see this as a valid argument........

You just need to connect what I mean with the right issue.

 

How do you know who your wife is?  What if your wife is not the woman you think she is?

 

How do you know who God is?  What if God is not that person, even though you think you know who God is?

 

How do you know which beliefs are true?  What if what you believe is not true even though you believe it is true?

 

Even things you believe are true may not be true, and maybe you're not the only one who has been deluded.

 

How do you know what truth is independent of someone telling you something is true?

[teddyaware]

And what were you before you became a Mormon? Just curious.

I grew up in the Reformed Church, and then in my teen years went through a period of agnosticism/atheism. During the two years before becoming LDS, I decided there must be some sort of "ultimate truth" and I set out on a quest to see if I could find it. In the months before I became LDS, I spent much of that time searching for the "true religion," if indeed there was such a thing as the true religion.

[teddyaware]

Did you notice I put this....."I know this doesn't apply to many, but did it to me?"

I did notice.

[Palerider]

You just need to connect what I mean with the right issue.

 

How do you know who your wife is?  What if your wife is not the woman you think she is?

 

How do you know who God is?  What if God is not that person, even though you think you know who God is?

 

How do you know which beliefs are true?  What if what you believe is not true even though you believe it is true?

 

Even things you believe are true may not be true, and maybe you're not the only one who has been deluded.

 

How do you know what truth is independent of someone telling you something is true?

 

How do you know you're actually alive and thinking the thoughts you think you are?

 

See.....I think you're so far out there on that limb that your argument has become irrelevant to the practical issues we're dealing with here. 

[pmccombs1]

How do you know what truth is independent of someone telling you something is true?

 

Before the Scholastics, notably Duns Scotus; and before the nominalists and such, people didn't worry about "knowing" and justifying truth. There was only experience, and truth was something that you possessed by faith. If you connected with the experience ("heard the voice"), it was truth.

 

When someone else tells you what is true, and what God wants from you, that is a career. That person is standing in for God. It is the non-thought of received ideas.

 

When you hear God's voice, and you follow it, that is a vocation. That is a prophetic vocation. Would that we all were prophets! That is how you "know" truth independent of someone else telling you, by not knowing it at all. By receiving it and by living it instead. Religious truth wasn't meant to be known, it was meant to be lived; that's why it's not really possible to know it, at least not in the way we typically use the verb "to know" in the 21st century.

[thesometimesaint]

About a week Tacenda asked why some people's testimonies seem unshakable and others do not. I think it is a good question and in my reply I said I think there are as many answers as there are individuals. I wanted to explore that topic a little bit more.

 

I feel like there almost two sides to this debate. On the first side you have people whose testimonies cannot be shaken, and it seems sometimes, that nothing could cause these folks to doubt their testimony. On the other side you have people who go through a faith crisis that does irreparable damage to their faith (in practicum I realize there is probably a scale of people who fall anywhere in between and perhaps outside). Both sides, at least those who participate in a website like this, have access to the same information. So what is the difference?

 

I believe that faith is a choice as is doubt. When I say that I don't mean doubters don't have good reason for their doubts, because they do. I know a girl who lost her testimony. Every once and a while we talk about it. I get the impression from her and other doubters that they don't believe they had a choice in the matter. When I explain my testimony and continuing faith to this girl, she usually gives me one of two arguments. First, if I knew what she knew I wouldn't have a testimony. Once we establish that I know just about everything that she knows, she proceeds to her next argument. She insists that my testimony is based on cognitive dissonance or something to that effect. Now, I used to be offended by this argument. I admit that there have been times in my life that my faith is reduced to nothing more than a desire or deep hope that the Church is true because it is seemingly all I have left. That sounds like something similar to cognitive dissonance. But that doesn't account for all of the other times in my life where I have had deeply profound and spiritual faith building experiences...even when I am on top of the world and everything is going my way.

 

I don't mean to say that all doubters are like the doubters I know, but I have noticed a trend that many believe anyone who has faith is either ignorant of the truth or simply trying to delude themselves into believing. Maybe one of those applies in many cases. The first one is easy for me to overcome. The second is a debate I have found you can't win. There is nothing you can do to convince some people that you have had spiritual experiences that support your assertion of testimony. I am okay with that, in fact I may even concede that point.

 

I believe because I chose to believe. Maybe the line between faith and cognitive dissonance is paper thin. I don't care. I still believe it is a choice. And for the most part, if you want to believe you will. 

 

We all see through that glass darkly, and we are to live by faith.

 

The hallmark of a sophisticated mind is the ability to hold two opposing thoughts at the same time. IE; I know from science that all matter is nearly all empty space, but I really don't have any fear of falling through the floor when I get up in the morning.

[Calm]

We all see through that glass darkly, and we are to live by faith.

 

The hallmark of a sophisticated mind is the ability to hold two opposing thoughts at the same time. IE; I know from science that all matter is nearly all empty space, but I really don't have any fear of falling through the floor when I get up in the morning.

But those ideas are not really opposing if one understands that what matter there is pushes off from each other with sufficient force to keep the matter that makes us up from merging with the matter of the floor.

 

I'd like to see two ideas that can be held at the same time that actually are opposing.

[thatjimguy]

Have you ever tried to convinvce a Jehovah's Witness that the testimonies they have received weren't true?  Ask yourself honestly, what makes YOUR testimony better than theirs? 

 

Who says it's wrong? We LDS have faith in God, why can't they have faith in thiers? They have some truth to it no? Doesn't almost every religion? Why wouldn't God shine on them with a feeling of righteousness? Sure, we may think we have more gospel stuff, but it doesn't make other that are aligned with us any less valid in God's eyes I would think.

 

 

 

 

[Palerider]

Who says it's wrong? We LDS have faith in God, why can't they have faith in thiers? They have some truth to it no? Doesn't almost every religion? Why wouldn't God shine on them with a feeling of righteousness? Sure, we may think we have more gospel stuff, but it doesn't make other that are aligned with us any less valid in God's eyes I would think.

 

Thanks, you just proved at least half my point.

[thesometimesaint]

But those ideas are not really opposing if one understands that what matter there is pushes off from each other with sufficient force to keep the matter that makes us up from merging with the matter of the floor.

 

I'd like to see two ideas that can be held at the same time that actually are opposing.

 

I wasn't trying to be specific, but if you want me to be. I know it sounds counter intuitive but Quantum Mechanics allows for two objects to occupy the same space at the same time.

http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/24389/why-cant-two-or-more-objects-exist-at-the-same-place-at-the-same-time