The Proper Role Of Faith: To Supersede Evidence?

[TruthSeeker2013]

Faith can fill the void where there is no evidence and thus allow a person to believe in something which is otherwise not supported by evidence. For example, there is no definitive proof ONE WAY OR THE OTHER that God exists, so faith can properly stand in where there is a lack of evidence and allow us to believe in God.

But when evidence does exist, should faith ever be used to supersede the evidence? For example, suppose you a member of one of those apocalyptic religions with a prophet who says God has communicated with him and told him that the world will end on a certain date but the prophesy fails. This is evidence that the prophet was unable to differentiate between his own imagination and revelation from God. Therefore, we are not without evidence, there is evidence indicating that the prophet is not who he claims to be. Is it alright in this situation to supersede/reject that evidence by relying on faith that the prophet is actually who he claims to be? In other words, should you as a member of the religion dismiss that failed prophesy by superseding it with the fact that you have faith that the prophet is really who he claims to be?

Background: I have been going through a faith crisis based on things I've learned about the Book of Mormon, Book of Abraham, etc. There seems to be legitimate (though not indisputable) evidence pointing to the Book of Mormon and Book of Abraham not being entirely what Joseph claimed them to be. I'm not looking to debate these things, I'm just trying to figure out what the role of faith is in all of this. Can I use faith to supersede this evidence? Or should faith only be used as a stand in for evidence where no evidence exists? In other words, is evidence that the BoM and BoA ARE what Joseph claimed them to be the proper counter to evidence that the BoM and BoA are NOT what Joseph claimed them to be? Or should faith play a role?

Thanks!

[Michael Sanders]

"Which brings up an important point: we are not going to prove anything in this book. The evidence that will prove or disprove the Book of Mormon does not exist. When, indeed, is a thing proven? Only when an individual has accumulated in his own conscience enough observations, impressions, reasonings, and feelings to satisfy him personally that it is so. The same evidence which convinces one expert may leave another completely unsatisfied; the impressions that build up to definite proof are themselves nontransferrable. All we can do is to talk about the material at hand, hoping that in the course of the discussion every participant will privately and inwardly form, reform, change, or abandon his opinions about it and thereby move in the direction of greater light and knowledge."

http://publications.maxwellinstitute.byu.edu/fullscreen/?pub=1113&index=2

It all depends on how you interpret the evidence. What might be strong evidence to one can be rejected by another. Now, where there is no clear evidence, that will "satisfy" the individual per Nibley's quote above then we have to choose to be "believing" or to be "doubtful". Now granted, people believe any number of things which are not true and have attained no true knowledge of a thing. In other areas we may on have "cause to believe" so our faith needs to be active, open, teachable, willing to receive. That is because "faith" is not having a perfect knowledge of things as they really are.

If the evidence is "not indisputable" as you say, then we should be cautious in drawing firm and immovable conclusions from said evidence. It is here where we should exercise faith and ask, seek, and search diligently. Always drawing tenative conclusions until we know a thing. Or as Joseph Smith III cautioned to not drive your theological "tent pegs" in the ground too deeply because experience, wisdom, and additional light (evidence) might cause to to have to move your tent!

Mike

[Robert F. Smith]

Unlike most other religions, Mormonism recommends both religious faith and secular learning together (D&C 88:118).  However, many (both in and out of the Restoration) see faith as blind and illogical.  Yet, in a world with so many complex systems which we depend upon every day, we actually live by a kind of unacknowledged secular faith.  For we do usually depend on (and have faith in) the knowledge of specialists of various sorts who provide us with all manner of information and material for our use on a daily basis, i.e., all of us exercise faith in the unknown and unseen on a daily basis.

 

On the other hand, when someone advises us to “Keep the faith, Baby!” we normally understand him to be saying that we should be true to our fundamental beliefs (whatever they are) or conscience (whatever that is).  Something like that is meant when, in “The Flight of the Intruder,” Willem Dafoe tells his copilot, “We never broke the faith, amigo.”

 

So when Jiminy Cricket tells us to “Always let your conscience be your guide,” he is merely telling us:  “To thine own self be true, and . . . though canst not then be false to any man” (Shakespeare, Hamlet, act I, scene 3).  A matter of character and personal integrity.  Faith in a religious context is similar but different.  

 

The Hebrew word for it is ʼemunah “belief, faith,” and the Hebrew phrase for “keep the faith” is tishmor al-haʼemunah.  Sometimes it takes courage to depend on others and on technical matters beyond one’s comprehension.  In “Flight of the Intruder,” pilots had to depend on a large crew of specialists and engineers and technicians who design and manage the so very complex weapons and aircraft systems.  “Faith” is very much like “trust” in that set of circumstances, but a trust built up over time by depending on that crew of specialists and fellow pilots to deliver on expected proper performance and management.

 

Something very much like that is recommended in Alma 32, which partakes of the scientific, experimental method.  By that means of deliberate testing one can learn faith and knowledge.  Another method is more exotic, and has to do with spiritual means of knowing:  The witness of the Holy Spirit.  People also call that “faith,” when what is really meant is “belief” mediated by the Spirit.  Jesus congratulated Peter for following that more sure path (Matt 16:17).

 

Does evidence trump faith, or vice versa?  Or do they always go together?  You be the judge.

[Palerider]

Faith can fill the void where there is no evidence and thus allow a person to believe in something which is otherwise not supported by evidence. For example, there is no definitive proof ONE WAY OR THE OTHER that God exists, so faith can properly stand in where there is a lack of evidence and allow us to believe in God.

But when evidence does exist, should faith ever be used to supersede the evidence? For example, suppose you a member of one of those apocalyptic religions with a prophet who says God has communicated with him and told him that the world will end on a certain date but the prophesy fails. This is evidence that the prophet was unable to differentiate between his own imagination and revelation from God. Therefore, we are not without evidence, there is evidence indicating that the prophet is not who he claims to be. Is it alright in this situation to supersede/reject that evidence by relying on faith that the prophet is actually who he claims to be? In other words, should you as a member of the religion dismiss that failed prophesy by superseding it with the fact that you have faith that the prophet is really who he claims to be?

Background: I have been going through a faith crisis based on things I've learned about the Book of Mormon, Book of Abraham, etc. There seems to be legitimate (though not indisputable) evidence pointing to the Book of Mormon and Book of Abraham not being entirely what Joseph claimed them to be. I'm not looking to debate these things, I'm just trying to figure out what the role of faith is in all of this. Can I use faith to supersede this evidence? Or should faith only be used as a stand in for evidence where no evidence exists? In other words, is evidence that the BoM and BoA ARE what Joseph claimed them to be the proper counter to evidence that the BoM and BoA are NOT what Joseph claimed them to be? Or should faith play a role?

Thanks!

 

This quote by Nibley is pretty unsustainable:

 

"Which brings up an important point: we are not going to prove anything in this book. The evidence that will prove or disprove the Book of Mormon does not exist. When, indeed, is a thing proven? Only when an individual has accumulated in his own conscience enough observations, impressions, reasonings, and feelings to satisfy him personally that it is so."

 

If sufficient empirical evidence was found, I'm quite sure most Mormons would embrace it as validating. For instance if another small set of gold plates were found with the writings of Nephi. There would be spiking of the football, don't you think? 

 

The second part of the quotation makes "evidence" purely subjective. It becomes an accumulation of obervations, impressions etc., etc.  There are a lot of people out there that can convince themselves of anything given enough desire to do so. 

 

To say that the evidence to prove or disprove the BofM does not exist means Nibley must be omniscient. No one can make this statement in good faith (pardon the pun).

 

Even Heavenly Father allows for empirical adequacy.

 

I can go to Jerusalem. I can visit the Sea of Galilee. I can see the ancient stone bearing the words "House of David". I can feel the stones of the ancient temple walls. 

 

Please someone, tell me the way to Zarahemla. LDS can't even decide among themselves where the Hill Cumorah is, even though all the early indications are that it is the one designated near Palmyra, New York, but......... the archeological evidence won't support that location.

 

We understand through our faith that God formed the world by His word so that things which are seen were not made of things that do appear.

 

In other words, the fact is that the world is here and does exist. We can see and touch it. It is empirical.

 

The only issue is to decide whether it was made through God's work or in some other way.

 

In the LDS faith there is only one article that can be presented as "evidence" of Joseph's prophetship, and that is the Book of Mormon. Everything else hangs on this one book.

 

The question becomes, after carefully weighing ALL OF THE REAL EVIDENCE both spiritual AND empirical, does the B of M carry the weight that is imposed upon it?

[thesometimesaint]

What evidence exists that JS saw God the Father, and his Son? Just the testimony of one 14 year old young man from long before any of us were born.

[Tacenda]

If the church wasn't true would you want to know? This is a phrase that Tal Bachman said is supposed to wake some of us out of a hypnotic state of mind. Something similar happened to me. But not with that particular question, but the thought the church may not be true, after finding new information. That thought was what made me come out of a state of mind. Maybe this only happens to those that never had a really good spiritual experience, I don't know, but it happened to me.

Now it's all faith for me. Has made it to be that if one day I'm a full believer again, nothing can change it. It's solid. Going from I know, to want to know, to want to believe, to I believe......

Edited December 18, 2013 by Tacenda

[thesometimesaint]

Belief is always a choice. I choose to believe.

[Palerider]

Belief is always a choice. I choose to believe.

 

But the fact that one has chosen to believe, doesn't make true, what one has chosen to believe in. 

[bluebell]

But the fact that one has chosen to believe, doesn't make true, what one has chosen to believe in. 

 

Obviously.

 

Just like it's obvious that choosing not to believe in something doesn't make it not true.

 

What's the point of stating the obvious?  

[bluebell]

This quote by Nibley is pretty unsustainable:

 

"Which brings up an important point: we are not going to prove anything in this book. The evidence that will prove or disprove the Book of Mormon does not exist. When, indeed, is a thing proven? Only when an individual has accumulated in his own conscience enough observations, impressions, reasonings, and feelings to satisfy him personally that it is so."

 

If sufficient empirical evidence was found, I'm quite sure most Mormons would embrace it as validating. For instance if another small set of gold plates were found with the writings of Nephi. There would be spiking of the football, don't you think? 

 

The second part of the quotation makes "evidence" purely subjective. It becomes an accumulation of obervations, impressions etc., etc.  There are a lot of people out there that can convince themselves of anything given enough desire to do so. 

 

To say that the evidence to prove or disprove the BofM does not exist means Nibley must be omniscient. No one can make this statement in good faith (pardon the pun).

 

Even Heavenly Father allows for empirical adequacy.

 

I can go to Jerusalem. I can visit the Sea of Galilee. I can see the ancient stone bearing the words "House of David". I can feel the stones of the ancient temple walls. 

 

Please someone, tell me the way to Zarahemla. LDS can't even decide among themselves where the Hill Cumorah is, even though all the early indications are that it is the one designated near Palmyra, New York, but......... the archeological evidence won't support that location.

 

We understand through our faith that God formed the world by His word so that things which are seen were not made of things that do appear.

 

In other words, the fact is that the world is here and does exist. We can see and touch it. It is empirical.

 

The only issue is to decide whether it was made through God's work or in some other way.

 

In the LDS faith there is only one article that can be presented as "evidence" of Joseph's prophetship, and that is the Book of Mormon. Everything else hangs on this one book.

 

The question becomes, after carefully weighing ALL OF THE REAL EVIDENCE both spiritual AND empirical, does the B of M carry the weight that is imposed upon it?

 

I think you might be reading way more into Nibley's quote than is relevant or necessary.

 

Evidence and proof for any kind of belief is very subjective.  That's a known fact. Even trying to argue that it's not would actually prove how much it is.   

 

And he's right in that there is no evidence which exists that can prove the BOM true or false.  If he's not wrong, then you should be able to provide proof of that by presenting the evidence.  If you can't provide it, that's a clue that, yep, it doesn't exist.

 

He didn't say it would or could never exist.  Nibley obviously believed that eventually, in the eternities, the BOM would be proven true.  Trying to make his statement some absolute meant to cover both the past, present, and future is really stretching and doesn't make any sense given what we know he believed about the future of the book. 

[thesometimesaint]

But the fact that one has chosen to believe, doesn't make true, what one has chosen to believe in. 

 

Obviously true.

[The Nehor]

I am confused as to what the question means. You seem to be asking if the misgivings you have make it okay to drop faith. Okay in the eyes of whom? God? Yourself? Other members of the Church?

[rameumptom]

You may be asking the wrong the questions. Don't just doubt your faith, but doubt your doubts, also.

 

Moroni 10:3-5 doesn't ask us to gain a testmony of the history of the Book of Mormon. It asks us to seek a testimony of the teachings therein. Do the teachings lead us to spiritual confirmation?  Have you felt happiness, joy and peace in the past that has given you a testimony previously?  If so, what were the things you did to have those experiences?  Can you do so again?

 

I do not understand how people will walk away from the things that brought joy and peace, simply because they do not seem logical.  In science, love is only a set of chemical reactions.  And that may be true, in part. Yet, it is a fool who walks away from those feelings of happiness found in love, simply because it is not a logical thing.  Even Spock learned about that.

[CV75]

In other words, is evidence that the BoM and BoA ARE what Joseph claimed them to be the proper counter to evidence that the BoM and BoA are NOT what Joseph claimed them to be? Or should faith play a role?

I don't think faith is properly used to ignore evidence or to favor evidence one way or the other in this sort of thing, especially where the evidence meets one's criteria for proper evidence. I think other dynamics are at work, but faith certainly has a role.

I think as faith in Christ develops, we develop hope and charity and keep other matters in proper perspective.

Joseph Smith said, “The fundamental principles of our religion are the testimony of the Apostles and Prophets, concerning Jesus Christ, that He died, was buried, and rose again the third day, and ascended into heaven; and all other things which pertain to our religion are only appendages to it. But in connection with these, we believe in the gift of the Holy Ghost, the power of faith, the enjoyment of the spiritual gifts according to the will of God, the restoration of the house of Israel, and the final triumph of truth.” (History of the Church, 3:30)

Some “appendages” are more essential and vital than others. I think he listed some of the vital ones: the Gift of the Holy Ghost, the power of faith, the enjoyment of the spiritual gifts, the Restoration, and the final triumph of truth. On that last item (truth will triumph), I rely on the counsel to “Be patient; be sober; be temperate; have patience, faith, hope and charity” (D&C 6:19), for the Lord will try us (Mosiah 23:21).

[CV75]

The question becomes, after carefully weighing ALL OF THE REAL EVIDENCE both spiritual AND empirical, does the B of M carry the weight that is imposed upon it?

That appears to be the exact question the OP is asking!

[Buzzard]

This quote by Nibley is pretty unsustainable:

 

"Which brings up an important point: we are not going to prove anything in this book. The evidence that will prove or disprove the Book of Mormon does not exist. When, indeed, is a thing proven? Only when an individual has accumulated in his own conscience enough observations, impressions, reasonings, and feelings to satisfy him personally that it is so."

 

If sufficient empirical evidence was found, I'm quite sure most Mormons would embrace it as validating. For instance if another small set of gold plates were found with the writings of Nephi. There would be spiking of the football, don't you think? 

 

The second part of the quotation makes "evidence" purely subjective. It becomes an accumulation of obervations, impressions etc., etc.  There are a lot of people out there that can convince themselves of anything given enough desire to do so. 

 

To say that the evidence to prove or disprove the BofM does not exist means Nibley must be omniscient. No one can make this statement in good faith (pardon the pun).

 

Even Heavenly Father allows for empirical adequacy.

 

I can go to Jerusalem. I can visit the Sea of Galilee. I can see the ancient stone bearing the words "House of David". I can feel the stones of the ancient temple walls. 

 

Please someone, tell me the way to Zarahemla. LDS can't even decide among themselves where the Hill Cumorah is, even though all the early indications are that it is the one designated near Palmyra, New York, but......... the archeological evidence won't support that location.

 

We understand through our faith that God formed the world by His word so that things which are seen were not made of things that do appear.

 

In other words, the fact is that the world is here and does exist. We can see and touch it. It is empirical.

 

The only issue is to decide whether it was made through God's work or in some other way.

 

In the LDS faith there is only one article that can be presented as "evidence" of Joseph's prophetship, and that is the Book of Mormon. Everything else hangs on this one book.

 

The question becomes, after carefully weighing ALL OF THE REAL EVIDENCE both spiritual AND empirical, does the B of M carry the weight that is imposed upon it?

Empirical evidence is a two edged sword. Yes, you can go to Jerusalem, but a secular historian will tell you there is zero evidence for many Biblical stories, including the Flood, the existence of Abraham, the Hebrew exodus from Egypt and subsequent conquest of Canaan, Esther, Job, Ruth, and so on. And yet you (and I) hold these episodes to be historically accurate because we have come to believe in the message of the Bible. In other words, faith in the face of contrary evidence. 

Just because I cannot point to a set of ruins and say they are Zarahemla or Bountiful does not mean those cities did not exist. And the discovery of a new set of Golden Plates that mentioned Lehi and Nephi would not result in a world wide stampede to join the LDS faith. Because it's not science, it's religion. And faith is required to follow any religion. I have faith in the truth and historicity of the Book of Mormon not because I have figured out the chronology of the Nephite/Lamanite wars, but because of what I have received by reading the words of Nephi, Jacob, King Benjamin, Alma the Younger, and many others, especially Christ. No uninspired author, ancient or modern could have written that book. And I have yet to encounter convincing evidence that would convince me otherwise. 

[DJBrown]

I like what Elder Ballard has suggested- he encouraged college-age listeners to study, inquirer, follow evidences, but to do so in a balanced manner, "giving the Lord His fair" share of time.  

 

I can honestly say that in studying the controversies regarding the Book of Mormon and Book of Abraham, I have found satisfying answers to essentially all of the criticisms thrown at these volumes of scripture.  But in my approach, I have always maintained a consistent study of these books independent of all other study.  And I think that is what Elder Ballard was saying.

 

I do think there are times that worldly senses appear to contradict what God says or commands.  I think that is part of the test.  Consider Noah.  He had no evidence to support the idea that there would be a great flood- it had never happened and nothing suggested it would.  But he trusted and was ultimately glad he did.

 

The global perspective I think one has to remember is the whole purpose of this planet (from the perspective of God and the gospel).  It is to test our willingness to trust, "to see if they will do all things whatsoever they are commanded to do."  So in my mind at least, I think it is OK to have my perspective and understanding challenged by what I am asked to do and believe.  

 

But that being said, I really think that a person may expand his or her understanding and knowledge by balancing these two pursuits- the evidence, secular type approach along with consistent and meaningful time reading the Book of Mormon.  I think the Lord hates apathy- which I have been guilty of at times- just living on past experience and testimony without investing now.  

 

Those religious folks who spend their time criticizing and campaigning against the Book of Mormon and Book of Abraham really seem to have lost this concept.  If we are to believe them, the physical evidences prove the Bible, and if the Bible is true, then Jesus is the Savior.  And if a person believes that Jesus is his or her personal Savior, that person is saved.  So in essence, they are advocating the idea that a person is saved by trusting scientific data.  And when you back up to see that for what it is, you see the absence of faith in that equation.  (I do think these folks have faith in God- they just employ two very different sets of standards in evaluating modern revelations and ancient revelations).

 

I repeat the advice to employ a balanced approach in pursuing truth.  And don't give up on your faith.  I have grown enormously in my testimony and faith in trying to achieve this balance.  My professional training is in the physical sciences, and I could not be more satisfied with the evidence based answers I have come to in my search for truth.  

[bluebell]

I can go to Jerusalem. I can visit the Sea of Galilee. I can see the ancient stone bearing the words "House of David". I can feel the stones of the ancient temple walls.

I've heard this argument before, and i really don't understand it when people attempt to use it as evidence that the God of the bible is real and that the bible is obviously His word.

 

I mean, i can go to Rome.  I can visit any number of temples and other places where gods and goddesses were said to have visited and performed miracles.  I see original writings about Zeus.  I can feel ancient temple walls.

 

Does any of that convince you that all the gods and goddesses of the ancient Roman religions' are real and that their religious writings are real?

 

We can do the same thing in a lot of different countries.  I can go to Japan and see temples where ancient gods and goddesses are still believed to visit today.  I can go to India and see the same thing.  I can go to Ireland and visit ancient temples of the Druids.  Does that mean anything, when we are trying to evaluate their religious claims? 

 

Every worldly religion (except maybe Scientology) 'happens' on this earth, and therefore, many ancient religions have religious sites today that are tied to religious beliefs of past centuries.  It's not evidence in support of the truth claims of that religion. It's evidence that the religion has been around for a long time and it's religious sites have been preserved, and that's all it's evidence of.

[TruthSeeker2013]

“Faith” is very much like “trust” in that set of circumstances, but a trust built up over time by depending on that crew of specialists and fellow pilots to deliver on expected proper performance and management.

 

Something very much like that is recommended in Alma 32, which partakes of the scientific, experimental method.  By that means of deliberate testing one can learn faith and knowledge.  Another method is more exotic, and has to do with spiritual means of knowing:  The witness of the Holy Spirit.  People also call that “faith,” when what is really meant is “belief” mediated by the Spirit.  Jesus congratulated Peter for following that more sure path (Matt 16:17).

 

Does evidence trump faith, or vice versa?  Or do they always go together?  You be the judge.

This is interesting, thanks Robert. So it seems like you view faith as sort of evidence itself, not something that supersedes evidence. Faith is 1)a trust built up over time based on consistent positive results of testing (what would this be, by the way, like feeling you are happier by living what's taught in the BoM?) and 2)spiritual confirmations of truth. So it sounds like faith is simply another piece of evidence to consider when comparing the evidence for and against something like the Book of Mormon being true. Did I understand you correctly?

[TruthSeeker2013]

I am confused as to what the question means. You seem to be asking if the misgivings you have make it okay to drop faith. Okay in the eyes of whom? God? Yourself? Other members of the Church?

I'm not sure I quite understand your question. What are you referring to when you saying misgivings? And I haven't asked if it's ok to throw away my faith, I'm just trying to figure out its proper role. I believe that one of its proper roles is to act as a filler where there is no evidence, and I'm wondering if it has or doesn't have a role where there is evidence present and whether it can properly be used to supersede existing evidence. You ask in whose eyes. I suppose I'm asking how God intended that faith be used.

[TruthSeeker2013]

I don't think faith is properly used to ignore evidence or to favor evidence one way or the other in this sort of thing, especially where the evidence meets one's criteria for proper evidence. I think other dynamics are at work, but faith certainly has a role.

I think as faith in Christ develops, we develop hope and charity and keep other matters in proper perspective.

Joseph Smith said, “The fundamental principles of our religion are the testimony of the Apostles and Prophets, concerning Jesus Christ, that He died, was buried, and rose again the third day, and ascended into heaven; and all other things which pertain to our religion are only appendages to it. But in connection with these, we believe in the gift of the Holy Ghost, the power of faith, the enjoyment of the spiritual gifts according to the will of God, the restoration of the house of Israel, and the final triumph of truth.” (History of the Church, 3:30)

Some “appendages” are more essential and vital than others. I think he listed some of the vital ones: the Gift of the Holy Ghost, the power of faith, the enjoyment of the spiritual gifts, the Restoration, and the final triumph of truth. On that last item (truth will triumph), I rely on the counsel to “Be patient; be sober; be temperate; have patience, faith, hope and charity” (D&C 6:19), for the Lord will try us (Mosiah 23:21).

Interesting, thank you!

[Ahab]

Faith can fill the void where there is no evidence and thus allow a person to believe in something which is otherwise not supported by evidence. For example, there is no definitive proof ONE WAY OR THE OTHER that God exists, so faith can properly stand in where there is a lack of evidence and allow us to believe in God.

But when evidence does exist, should faith ever be used to supersede the evidence? For example, suppose you a member of one of those apocalyptic religions with a prophet who says God has communicated with him and told him that the world will end on a certain date but the prophesy fails. This is evidence that the prophet was unable to differentiate between his own imagination and revelation from God. Therefore, we are not without evidence, there is evidence indicating that the prophet is not who he claims to be. Is it alright in this situation to supersede/reject that evidence by relying on faith that the prophet is actually who he claims to be? In other words, should you as a member of the religion dismiss that failed prophesy by superseding it with the fact that you have faith that the prophet is really who he claims to be?

Background: I have been going through a faith crisis based on things I've learned about the Book of Mormon, Book of Abraham, etc. There seems to be legitimate (though not indisputable) evidence pointing to the Book of Mormon and Book of Abraham not being entirely what Joseph claimed them to be. I'm not looking to debate these things, I'm just trying to figure out what the role of faith is in all of this. Can I use faith to supersede this evidence? Or should faith only be used as a stand in for evidence where no evidence exists? In other words, is evidence that the BoM and BoA ARE what Joseph claimed them to be the proper counter to evidence that the BoM and BoA are NOT what Joseph claimed them to be? Or should faith play a role?

Thanks!

You need to gain a more basic understanding of what faith actually is, which is to be sure about something.  And that's all it is.

 

Once you have it, or in other words once you are sure about something, you can then probe to determine where your faith may have come from by trying to determine what it was that caused you to be sure in the first place.  Are you sure about that because somebody told you that in Sunday School and you just believed what that person told you?  Why did you believe that person?  What was it that caused you to be sure that what that person was saying was true?

 

Lots of people have faith in something that isn't actually true, even though they are sure that what they are sure of is true.  Like some people are sure the Book of Mormon is NOT what it claims to be within its pages, but the fact that they are sure about that doesn't mean they are right about that.  And why are they sure it is not what it is?  Because they believed someone who told them it is not what it actually is.

[rpn]

Faith doesn't supercede the evidence.  It helps you remember the limitations of "evidence" in the pursuit of truth. 

 

We have so many examples of scientific "truth" that eventually is known not to be truth at all.   Putting one's faith or trust in science is surely a foolhardy exercise.

[wenglund]

Faith can fill the void where there is no evidence and thus allow a person to believe in something which is otherwise not supported by evidence. For example, there is no definitive proof ONE WAY OR THE OTHER that God exists, so faith can properly stand in where there is a lack of evidence and allow us to believe in God.

 

I think some people make the mistake of viewing faith fundamentalistically in binary terms. In actuality faith in God  may be arrayed along a spectrum from weak to strong, and this dependent upon the extent of evidence in support or contravention thereof.

 

The same principle applies in matters of secular faith. People's faith in government may be weak or strong depending upon the evidence.

 

But when evidence does exist, should faith ever be used to supersede the evidence?

 

Another mistake some people may make is to fail to recognize that evidence selection and interpretation of the evidence is, itself, an act of faith--faith in oneself or others that the selection and interpretation of the evidence is correct or infallible, as opposed to the selection and interpretation by others.

 

Thus, crisis of religious faith is often a matter of pitting one's faith in God against one's faith in oneself.

 

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Edited December 19, 2013 by wenglund

[Robert F. Smith]

..................................................   

If sufficient empirical evidence was found, I'm quite sure most Mormons would embrace it as validating. For instance if another small set of gold plates were found with the writings of Nephi. There would be spiking of the football, don't you think? 

...............................................................   

The question becomes, after carefully weighing ALL OF THE REAL EVIDENCE both spiritual AND empirical, does the B of M carry the weight that is imposed upon it?

A few points might be raised about your comments here:

1.  What would constitute "sufficient empirical evidence"?

2.  Would "most Mormons" know about it, if it existed?  Or, would most non-Mormons know about it in such case?

3.  What would constitute "real" spiritual evidence?

4.  What would constitute "real" real empirical evidence?

 

Some of these questions (drawn from your own comments) clearly overlap, but they are good questions.  What would it mean to deal with them seriously?  We haven't had serious issues of this sort raised since Elguanteloco used to hold forth on this board.

Edited December 21, 2013 by Robert F. Smith