Questioning Our Faith...? Why?

[SmileyMcGee]

Some are doubting Thomases and will not believe until they thrust their hand into his side and feel the imprints of the nails in his hands. Others are more childlike and ready to embrace the Spirit and walk steadfastly in faith. Both were called as apostles, but I promise you that one group is enjoyable to be around and the other gets just plain tiresome.

You're right, I much more enjoy the company of people who are thoughtfully skeptic than people who think that questioning is somehow disloyal or unrighteous. Not only do I enjoy then more, but I think they are generally more honest, trustworthy and authentic.

[SmileyMcGee]

Relatively rare exceptions don't negate the general rule.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

I don't think that false spritual experiences are all tht rare.

[wenglund]

I don't think that false spritual experiences are all tht rare.

 

In proportion to true spiritual experiences they are (at least in my experience)--which is why I used the qualifier of "relatively."

 

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[wenglund]

You're right, I much more enjoy the company of people who are thoughtfully skeptic than people who think that questioning is somehow disloyal or unrighteous. Not only do I enjoy then more, but I think they are generally more honest, trustworthy and authentic.

 

I am skeptical of what you are saying, though it is good to know that you will find my skepticism more enjoyable and honest and trustworthy and authentic than the comments of those who may agree with you..

 

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[Bikeemikey]

There is an opposition in all things. You cannot comprehend light without experiencing darkness, but you cannot have darkness where there is light.

You can't understand faith without experiencing doubts, but faith and doubts cannot dwell in the same place.

Faith and doubt are the same thing; that is, they are both responses to an absence of knowledge.

Faith is about hope for something in the absence of knowledge.

Doubt is about a skepticism toward something in the absence of knowledge.

[cinepro]

No, we aren't saying the opposite. just looking at things from a different perspectives.

 

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

 

Bikemikey said "You can't have faith without doubt".  President Monson said "Faith and doubt cannot exist in the same mind at the same time."

 

Both statements were made by native English speakers, within the last 10 years.  Both statements were being applied to the LDS concept of "faith".  Both are being quoted correctly. 

 

It's not "different perspectives."

[Bikeemikey]

But we can have spiritual witnesses of all sorts of incorrect ideas. Just look at the myriad of teachings in our church's history that have been abandoned under the "speaking as a man" idea. I would expect that a number of people felt the spirit while hearing incorrect doctrine. We should be considering both hits an missing when determining whether "spiritual witnesses" are reliable.

Spiritual witness is more than simply confirmation of fact, I believe that the spirit is not about knowledge confirmation in the abstract, rather it is about confirmation of action and physiological states.

[Bikeemikey]

Bikemikey said "You can't have faith without doubt". President Monson said "Faith and doubt cannot exist in the same mind at the same time."

Both statements were made by native English speakers, within the last 10 years. Both statements were being applied to the LDS concept of "faith". Both are being quoted correctly.

It's not "different perspectives."

Perhaps both can not exist at the exact same moment but you can not live a life of faith with also having doubt, they may replace each other at any given moment but a life of faith presupposes a life without "knowledge" (alma 32) which means you will also experience doubt.

The challenge is to be more faithfilled than doubtfilled.

[cinepro]

Faith and doubt are the same thing; that is, they are both responses to an absence of knowledge.

Faith is about hope for something in the absence of knowledge.

Doubt is about a skepticism toward something in the absence of knowledge.

 

In your theory, is "knowledge" the same as "evidence"?

[wenglund]

Bikemikey said "You can't have faith without doubt".  President Monson said "Faith and doubt cannot exist in the same mind at the same time."

 

Both statements were made by native English speakers, within the last 10 years.  Both statements were being applied to the LDS concept of "faith".  Both are being quoted correctly. 

 

It's not "different perspectives."

 

Please read the English version of the Blind Men and the Elephant to see if it may principally enhance your comprehension skills. Two seemingly contradictory statements in the same language may appear to be contradictory (or the opposite) to the nuanced and comprehension challenged, but are in truth just different perspective to those with eyes to see and ears to hear.

 

If you need help on what those different perspectives may consist of, read Bikeymikey's latest post. If that doesn't suffice, then just ask and I will see what I can do to advance your understanding.

 

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[Bikeemikey]

In your theory, is "knowledge" the same as "evidence"?

I guess physical evidence would be a contributor to knowledge. Though spiritual evidence would also count.

[mfbukowski]

In your theory, is "knowledge" the same as "evidence"?

In my view, the word "knowledge" is a synonym for "certain".  A lot of philosophers have taken that view and adding to it that there is a complete spectrum of certainty from kind of certain to absolutely certain.  http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/certainty/

 

One could say "I know there are men on the moon" correctly even if there are no men on the moon.  We use it that way all the time.  "I know what I saw" really means "I know what I think I saw, or "My mind has interpreted the data this way".

 

Do you "see water" when you see a mirage?  Yes, you see water, but what you see is not "really" water.  When you see a mirage do you "know" (are you certain) you are seeing water, or just what looks like water?

 

You get into the whole messy appearance/ knowledge/ truth distinction which ultimately leads to more and more confusion.

 

The object is to avoid all the semantic baggage which goes with what "truth" is if you base the idea of "knowledge" on a range of possible levels of certainty.

 

At least that is what I think.

[SmileyMcGee]

I am skeptical of what you are saying, though it is good to know that you will find my skepticism more enjoyable and honest and trustworthy and authentic than the comments of those who may agree with you..

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

you little trickster...you're putting words in my mouth...

[SmileyMcGee]

In my view, the word "knowledge" is a synonym for "certain". A lot of philosophers have taken that view and adding to it that there is a complete spectrum of certainty from kind of certain to absolutely certain. http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/certainty/

One could say "I know there are men on the moon" correctly even if there are no men on the moon. We use it that way all the time. "I know what I saw" really means "I know what I think I saw, or "My mind has interpreted the data this way".

Do you "see water" when you see a mirage? Yes, you see water, but what you see is not "really" water. When you see a mirage do you "know" (are you certain) you are seeing water, or just what looks like water?

You get into the whole messy appearance/ knowledge/ truth distinction which ultimately leads to more and more confusion.

The object is to avoid all the semantic baggage which goes with what "truth" is if you base the idea of "knowledge" on a range of possible levels of certainty.

At least that is what I think.

Excellent post! Do you think it would be more appropriate for people to qualify their testimonies when claiming to "know" that something is true? For example, "I know, based on what I felt, which I believe to be the Holy Ghost, that the BOM is the word of God." I hope I'm understanding your comment properly...

[mfbukowski]

Excellent post! Do you think it would be more appropriate for people to qualify their testimonies when claiming to "know" that something is true? For example, "I know, based on what I felt, which I believe to be the Holy Ghost, that the BOM is the word of God." I hope I'm understanding your comment properly...

You understand it properly I think- but no I think that qualification comes automatically with the word "true"

 

This is the theory of truth I think works best- and it is always qualified by language as you will see in the article.  So the bottom line is- and I said it in bearing testimony yesterday- "I know the church is true, and I know what every word of that statement means and all the qualifications- and I still say I know the church is true"

 

This is the theory of truth which I think works best:

 

According to the deflationary theory of truth, to assert that a statement is true is just to assert the statement itself. For example, to say that ‘snow is white’ is true, or that it is true that snow is white, is equivalent to saying simply that snow is white, and this, according to the deflationary theory, is all that can be said significantly about the truth of ‘snow is white’.

There are many implications of a theory of this sort for philosophical debate about the nature of truth. Philosophers often make suggestions like the following: truth consists in correspondence to the facts; truth consists in coherence with a set of beliefs or propositions; truth is the ideal outcome of rational inquiry. According to the deflationist, however, such suggestions are mistaken, and, moreover, they all share a common mistake. The common mistake is to assume that truth has a nature of the kind that philosophers might find out about and develop theories of. For the deflationist, truth has no nature beyond what is captured in ordinary claims such as that ‘snow is white’ is true just in case snow is white. Philosophers looking for the nature of truth are bound to be frustrated, the deflationist says, because they are looking for something that isn't there.

The deflationary theory has gone by many different names, including at least the following: the redundancy theory, the disappearance theory, the no-truth theory, the disquotational theory, and the minimalist theory. There is no terminological consensus about how to use these labels: sometimes they are used interchangeably; sometimes they are used to mark distinctions between different versions of the same general view. Here we will use ‘deflationism’, and ‘the deflationary theory of truth’ to denote the general view we want to discuss, and reserve other names for specific versions of that view.....

1.History of Deflationism

The deflationary theory has been one of the most popular approaches to truth in the twentieth century, having received explicit defense by Frege, Ramsey, Ayer, and Quine, as well as sympathetic treatment from many others. (According to Dummett 1959, the view originates with Frege.) The following passages all contain recognizable versions of the doctrine, though they differ on points of detail.....

 

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/truth-deflationary/

[ether_ore]

I think there are two classes or categories of persons questioning the church, well... maybe three.  The most common (if evidence of internet postings can be considered) are over historical issues of the early church such as polygamy, polyandry and issues having to do with modes/methods of revelation.  Another class that questions are those who consider themselves experts in a given field and feel qualified to challenge prophets and scripture.  A third class would be those that are at odds with the church's moral standards.  This last really isn't about questioning in the same sense as the other two, so maybe it can be disregarded.

 

It seems to me that the problem with these "questionings" is that things that are critical to salvation are being treated with less importance than those things which are merely incidental.  What I mean is... for example: How the Book of Mormon was translated is not important to salvation; whereas comprehension and a testimony of the precepts contained in it are.  My question would be: who are those who are not called to be prophets, to critique the method God uses to communicate with His prophet.  People get all upset over Joseph Smith using seer stones in his hat to translate but have no problem with Moses receiving instructions from a burning bush?  It's the content that matters.  If one followed the admonition of Moroni, was confirmation received or not?  The answer to that question is all that matters.

 

As far as polygamy is concerned; I am satisfied that if it had not existed for a time, the church would not have survived what with the effects of mob activity and the extermination order.  I am also satisfied with the answers in FAIR concerning polyandry.  But, these things shouldn't matter to us now as they have nothing to do with the requirements of our salvation.

 

The biggest thing for me is not being able to understand how it is that some people can say that the church is wrong about this, that or the other thing and not be Christian without providing evidence for or comment on "as compared to what?"  It is not sufficient just to say that it is not Biblical.  That can be shown as false anyway.  The overview of God's plan provided by this church concerning God's children in terms of who we are, where we came from and where we may go after this life is more comprehensive and makes more sense that any alternative I've seen or heard of represented.

[wenglund]

you little trickster...you're putting words in my mouth...

 

No..I just charitably presumed you aren't one for double standards. Was I mistaken?

 

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[VideoGameJunkie]

I'm glad polyandry went away. I could never imagine sharing a woman with another man.

[wenglund]

I'm glad polyandry went away. I could never imagine sharing a woman with another man.

 

Are you speaking in terms of consecutively? I ask because I thought the same way until I fell in love with a divorcee years ago. I also would be open to marrying a women who was once promiscuous but has since repented.

 

Even in concurrent terms my reticence has diminished upon realizing that my thinking on the matter is a product of narcissistic world and its warped notion of romance. Christlike love, on the other hand, is not so restrictive.

 

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Edited August 8, 2014 by wenglund

[ether_ore]

As I understand it (based on what I've read at FAIR) polyandry wasn't about "sharing" a husband.  What evidence there is suggests that the marriage commitments were for time with one husband and for eternity with the other.  The marriage ceremony for eternity while having been done during mortality would not take effect until sometime after death.  It is worded "time and eternity" for us now, however, in the case of polyandry, apparently it was "time or eternity.

 

Why this was done, I really don't know.  I'm not sure anyone does know with certainty.  The parties involved seemed to understand and be OK with it; that and since it is not relevant to me, polyandry becomes a non issue.  As the Lord has done with other things, He, in His wisdom, tailors particular commandments to suit specific conditions for different generations of His children or selected individuals.  That this was one of those things doesn't affect my testimony of God's general plan for the happiness and progress of all His children.

 

The words of Christ to Peter concerning John seem relevant: "If I will that he tarry till I come, what is that to thee?  follow thou me."