Wondering About Dormant Faith

[mfbukowski]

Wouldn't a prolonged discussion trying to find the answer to the question Pilot asked Jesus derail this thread?

http://www.mormondialogue.org/topic/63733-stop-derailing/#entry1209392775

I think it is a great question to spend time discussing. I just don't think this is the place to discuss it.

It appears to me that this thread has nothing to do with same sex marriage but of course I could be wrong. 

 

Clearly you do not want to examine your own foundational principles and that is certainly your prerogative.

[mfbukowski]

OK, I have to apologize for becoming confused. Please forgive me.

I thought you said we don't know that God is perfect in knowledge of the future, because there might be some things of which he does not have perfect knowledge.

Now you seem to be saying we should not waiver in our faith that God is perfect in every way, which I think would mean he is perfect in every way including his knowledge of the future.

Which of these two statements is true?

Both, but you don't want to examine what that means so you cannot be answered.

[mfbukowski]

Truth is a property of sentences and context- the context of both those statements are different, so both can be "true" at the same time

[Bobbieaware]

OK, I have to apologize for becoming confused. Please forgive me.

I thought you said we don't know that God is perfect in knowledge of the future, because there might be some things of which he does not have perfect knowledge.

Now you seem to be saying we should not waiver in our faith that God is perfect in every way, which I think would mean he is perfect in every way including his knowledge of the future.

Which of these two statements is true?

I believe God knows all things that are expedient for him know in order to properly and triumphantly function as God. But whether that means he knows ahead of time how many times I'm going to use the word "the" in my speech on the day that will come 2 years and 3 days from today, I don't know. But I believe he does know all things past, present and future he needs to know in order to function as God. On this I will not waiver. It would not profoundly disturb me if I were to learn he does not now know how many times I'm going to sneeze for the rest of my life. But conversely, I wouldn't be profoundly disturbed if he did. Perhaps time travel is possible for God, but I don't know for sure. But I am sure God knows all he needs to know in order to save his creation and protect the precincts of heaven from the assailing forces of darkness.

Edited June 8, 2015 by Bobbieaware

[Maedros]

I would have to say option #2 "The faith they have was at one time active or used, but it is now inactive or unused or dormant." Their faith (which should move them to action or worship) is dormant although they have active faith in other areas of their lives and although they may at one time have had active faith to worship God because they do not practice it. There were times when I was inactive but still had faith - I could say that my faith to worship God was dormant in those years even though I maintained a believe in God and/or the gospel.

[Sp0ckrates]

It appears to me that this thread has nothing to do with same sex marriage but of course I could be wrong.

Clearly you do not want to examine your own foundational principles and that is certainly your prerogative.

MFBukowski: I feel for you dude. I show you a post that says what one has to do to be banned from the forum, and your reply is exactly what the post says you shouldn't do! Once again, I don't know what I have done to upset you, but I am sincerely sorry. Edited June 8, 2015 by Sp0ckrates

[Sp0ckrates]

I would have to say option #2 "The faith they have was at one time active or used, but it is now inactive or unused or dormant." Their faith (which should move them to action or worship) is dormant although they have active faith in other areas of their lives and although they may at one time have had active faith to worship God because they do not practice it. There were times when I was inactive but still had faith - I could say that my faith to worship God was dormant in those years even though I maintained a believe in God and/or the gospel.

Maedros: Thank you much for replying. My thought in option (2) was that their faith--at least in part--was in a lie. For they believed the teachings of the Zoramites, which Alma preached against (Alma 31). After hearing the truth from Alma, their faith in the false teaching became dormant, since they now had perfect knowledge of the truth.

Are you thinking the same?

[Sp0ckrates]

...

Edited June 8, 2015 by Sp0ckrates

[Sp0ckrates]

Welcome to the discussion, Maedros. So whether or not you believe in the Book of Mormon, would you say premise (2) is true?

And now, behold, is your knowledge perfect? Yea, your knowledge is perfect in that thing, and your faith is dormant; and this because you know, for ye know that the word hath swelled your souls, and ye also know that it hath sprouted up, that your understanding doth begin to be enlightened, and your mind doth begin to expand.

(Alma 32:34)

1. The faith the people Alma spoke to always had been dormant and never had been active (Romans 12:3). For example, God gave them a measure of faith, but their faith was dormant, because they never had perfect knowledge before they heard Alma preach God's word.

2. The faith the people Alma spoke to was at one time active, but through a lack of putting the faith in practice, it became dormant (James 2:20). For example, the people had faith in the false teachings of the Zoramites before they met Alma (Alma 31). After Alma gave them the perfect knowledge of God's word, this false faith became dormant in them, since they no longer actively believed or practiced it.

3. The faith the people Alma spoke to was at one time active, but through observing incontrovertible proof that the object of the faith is real or actual or true, it became dormant, and was replaced by certainty (Hebrews 11:1). For example, before Alma spoke to them, they had an active faith. After hearing Alma speak, they had perfect knowledge, which transformed their active faith into a dormant one.

* * *

Or are you of the opinion that faith is never dormant in any way?

Maedros: For that is what I was thinking was the cause of dormant faith in possibility (2).

[Sp0ckrates]

I believe God knows all things that are expedient for him know in order to properly and triumphantly function as God. But whether that means he knows ahead of time how many times I'm going to use the word "the" in my speech on the day that will come 2 years and 3 days from today, I don't know. But I believe he does know all things past, present and future he needs to know in order to function as God. On this I will not waiver. It would not profoundly disturb me if I were to learn he does not now know how many times I'm going to sneeze for the rest of my life. But conversely, I wouldn't be profoundly disturbed if he did. Perhaps time travel is possible for God, but I don't know for sure. But I am sure God knows all he needs to know in order to save his creation and protect the precincts of heaven from the assailing forces of darkness.

Bobbieaware: I cannot say enough how much I appreciate your patience in answering my many questions. God has certainly blessed you in this way!

When you say, "I believe God knows all things that are expedient for him know in order to properly and triumphantly function as God." I have to admit I agree. For it seems to me there are things God cannot possibly know and still be God. What it feels like to sin, for example is something he does not know. One might say sinful experiences are something he doesn't comprehend--not because they are beyond his comprehension, but because he makes the choice to not experience them. For knowing them would make him sinful and less than the perfectly righteous and holy God he is.

So I do think that for God to be God, he must be omniscient. But when I think of omniscience, I think of having the ability to know anything and everything one chooses to know, which does not include anything he does not want to know or has no need to know. The inference is that there are likely things of which an omniscient God chooses to not know.

But if God chose to know how many times you are going to sneeze the rest of your life, do you think this is something he would then be able to know? Or do you think that, like you and me there are things he wants to know that are beyond his comprehension?

Edited June 8, 2015 by Sp0ckrates

[Maedros]

Maedros: Thank you much for replying. My thought in option (2) was that their faith--at least in part--was in a lie. For they believed the teachings of the Zoramites, which Alma preached against (Alma 31). After hearing the truth from Alma, their faith in the false teaching became dormant, since they now had perfect knowledge of the truth.

Are you thinking the same?

Hi Sp0ckrates, I actually do agree with you - their faith was based on a lie or a false teaching because the worship which they did not perform at that time was that of the Zoramites which was false. However I think that faith itself is not dependent on truth but has its own power whether to do good or evil; for instance the Zoramites had faith even though it was founded in a false teaching. I suppose one can say that their faith in the false teaching became dormant although I would rather say that their faith in the false teaching was dispelled and their faith in the truth was now in a dormant state.

[Kenngo1969]

... I think that faith itself is not dependent on truth but has its own power whether to do good or evil ...

No disrespect (welcome to the Board, by the way ) but I believe that Alma disagrees with you.  See Alma 32:21 (emphasis added by Kenngo1969):

 

 

21 And now as I said concerning faith—faith is not to have a perfect knowledge of things; therefore if ye have faith ye hopefor things which are not seen, which are true.

 

[mfbukowski]

MFBukowski: I feel for you dude. I show you a post that says what one has to do to be banned from the forum, and your reply is exactly what the post says you shouldn't do! Once again, I don't know what I have done to upset you, but I am sincerely sorry.

Obviously you do not want to address the issues I am raising.

If you check my number of posts, I know what is allowed on this board obviously.

I am not upset, I am frustrated at your refusal to engage, or more accurately face any issues which might cause you to examine your foundational assumptions, which I know cause confusion and have for 2000 years. But I can take a hint.

Edited June 8, 2015 by mfbukowski

[Sp0ckrates]

Hi Sp0ckrates, I actually do agree with you - their faith was based on a lie or a false teaching because the worship which they did not perform at that time was that of the Zoramites which was false. However I think that faith itself is not dependent on truth but has its own power whether to do good or evil; for instance the Zoramites had faith even though it was founded in a false teaching. I suppose one can say that their faith in the false teaching became dormant although I would rather say that their faith in the false teaching was dispelled and their faith in the truth was now in a dormant state.

Brilliant! Yes, that is a fourth possibility to add to the list. But please tell me if I'm misunderstanding anything about (4).

1. The faith the people Alma spoke to always had been dormant and never had been active (Romans 12:3). For example, God gave them a measure of faith, but their faith was dormant, because they never had perfect knowledge before they heard Alma preach God's word.

2. The faith the people Alma spoke to was at one time active, but through a lack of putting the faith in practice, it became dormant (James 2:20). For example, the people had faith in the false teachings of the Zoramites before they met Alma (Alma 31). After Alma gave them the perfect knowledge of God's word, this false faith became dormant in them, since they no longer actively believed or practiced it.

3. The faith the people Alma spoke to was at one time active, but through observing incontrovertible proof that the object of the faith is real or actual or true, it became dormant, and was replaced by certainty (Hebrews 11:1). For example, before Alma spoke to them, they had an active faith. After hearing Alma speak, they had perfect knowledge, which transformed their active faith into a dormant one.

4. The faith the people Alma spoke to had a change of faith. Their faith in one idea was replaced with their faith in a new idea, as a result of receiving perfect knowledge. But their new faith was not yet active. It was dormant, because they had not yet put it into practice (James 2:20). For example, the people had faith in the false teachings of the Zoramites before they met Alma (Alma 31). After Alma gave them the perfect knowledge of God's word, this false faith ceased to be in them, but their new faith was still dormant, since they had not yet actively practiced it.

Edited June 8, 2015 by Sp0ckrates

[Maedros]

No disrespect (welcome to the Board, by the way ) but I believe that Alma disagrees with you.  See Alma 32:21 (emphasis added by Kenngo1969):

 

 

No offense taken and thank you for the welcome. I was referring to faith as (1) a principle of power and (2) the moving cause of all action - so by this definition of Joseph Smith faith can be used in anything for anything because all things were made by it and are moved by it whether good or bad - the Lord gives unto men according to the desires of their hearts whether they be good or evil - men get what they want by exercising faith in it; we commit sin by exercising principle of faith in committing sin, we serve the Lord by exercising faith and we exist from moment to moment by the same power. Faith in righteousness is what Alma 32:21 refers to not the principle of faith itself. Read the Lectures on Faith, it will enlarge your understanding - its truly a great read - I encourage members and non-members alike to read the Lectures on Faith; if you have doubts about Joseph Smith then read Lectures on Faith.

[Sp0ckrates]

Obviously you do not want to address the issues I am raising.

If you check my number of posts, I know what is allowed on this board obviously.

I am not upset, I am frustrated at your refusal to engage, or more accurately face any issues which might cause you to examine your foundational assumptions, which I know cause confusion and have for 2000 years. But I can take a hint.

Then I owe you an apology for frustrating you. The truth is I don't like to engage in debate. Another truth is I know how to ask questions and learn from others, but I'm not good at giving answers. Yet another truth is I'm not sure what truth is, so I don't know how to answer your question, and likely have no idea what I'm saying! If you are looking for the truth about truth, I doubt you will get it from me, though I might help you get it from yourself, or maybe from God.

I guess I'm like Socrates that way. In Theatetus he explained that he was like his mother, who was a midwife. She was barren and could not give birth herself. But she helped others do what she was unable to do. Where she helped women give birth to infants, he helped men give birth to ideas.

You see? Some people I question know what they believe, but are not so good at explaining why they believe. After answering my questions, they often are much better at explaining both what and why, which is a good thing, I think. But it's not as if I do anything worth praising. I'm like an ignorant child who keeps asking, "Why?"

However I too benefit from helping others. For although the reasons why they bring into the world are not my own, I share in the joy of giving them life. I nurture the little truths as though they were my own.

Edited June 8, 2015 by Sp0ckrates

[Maedros]

Brilliant! Yes, that is a fourth possibility to add to the list. But please tell me if I'm misunderstanding anything about (4).

1. The faith the people Alma spoke to always had been dormant and never had been active (Romans 12:3). For example, God gave them a measure of faith, but their faith was dormant, because they never had perfect knowledge before they heard Alma preach God's word.

2. The faith the people Alma spoke to was at one time active, but through a lack of putting the faith in practice, it became dormant (James 2:20). For example, the people had faith in the false teachings of the Zoramites before they met Alma (Alma 31). After Alma gave them the perfect knowledge of God's word, this false faith became dormant in them, since they no longer actively believed or practiced it.

3. The faith the people Alma spoke to was at one time active, but through observing incontrovertible proof that the object of the faith is real or actual or true, it became dormant, and was replaced by certainty (Hebrews 11:1). For example, before Alma spoke to them, they had an active faith. After hearing Alma speak, they had perfect knowledge, which transformed their active faith into a dormant one.

4. The faith the people Alma spoke to had a change of faith. Their faith in one idea was replaced with their faith in a new idea, as a result of receiving perfect knowledge. But their new faith was not yet active. It was dormant, because they had not yet put it into practice (James 2:20). For example, the people had faith in the false teachings of the Zoramites before they met Alma (Alma 31). After Alma gave them the perfect knowledge of God's word, this false faith ceased to be in them, but their new faith was still dormant, since they had not yet actively practiced it.

Definitely #4 for me and I will further add that one's faith remains dormant until it is practiced and it will manifest in one's works. It's like the conflict between Evangelical 'salvation through grace' and the latter-day saint 'salvation through grace after all we can do' debate - its really the same thing to me. For Evangelicals we are saved by grace but for them to be true Christians they need to practice good Christian values like reading the bible, attending church etc, for latter-days saints we believe that we must perform good works like reading our scriptures, attending our meetings etc and after we do all this and more we will be saved. Its really the same thing in the end because you need to believe that the atonement of Christ is the only way that you are saved and you need to bring forth works of righteousness by practicing christian values so if you believe in salvation by grace then you will bring forth works of righteousness and if you believe in good works you still need to accept the atonement of Christ. Grace can't save you if you don't perform good acts and good acts can't save you if you don't believe in salvation by grace.

[ERayR]

Then I owe you an apology for frustrating you. The truth is I don't like to engage in debate. Another truth is I know how to ask questions and learn from others, but I'm not good at giving answers. Yet another truth is I'm not sure what truth is, so I don't know how to answer the question! If you are looking for the truth about truth, I doubt you will get it from me, though I might help you get it from yourself, or maybe from God.

I guess I'm like Socrates that way. In Theatetus he explained that he was like his mother, who was a midwife. She was barren and could not give birth herself. But she helped women give birth. Where she helped women give birth to infants, he helped men give birth to ideas. You see, some people I question know what they believe, but are not so good at explaining why they believe. After speaking with me, they often are much better at explaining both what and why, which is a good thing, I think. I too benefit from helping them. For although the whys they bring into the world are not my own, I share in the joy of giving them life.

 

If you have no idea what truth is how do you know which questions to ask?

[Sp0ckrates]

Definitely #4 for me and I will further add that one's faith remains dormant until it is practiced and it will manifest in one's works. It's like the conflict between Evangelical 'salvation through grace' and the latter-day saint 'salvation through grace after all we can do' debate - its really the same thing to me. For Evangelicals we are saved by grace but for them to be true Christians they need to practice good Christian values like reading the bible, attending church etc, for latter-days saints we believe that we must perform good works like reading our scriptures, attending our meetings etc and after we do all this and more we will be saved. Its really the same thing in the end because you need to believe that the atonement of Christ is the only way that you are saved and you need to bring forth works of righteousness by practicing christian values so if you believe in salvation by grace then you will bring forth works of righteousness and if you believe in good works you still need to accept the atonement of Christ. Grace can't save you if you don't perform good acts and good acts can't save you if you don't believe in salvation by grace.

I hear what you are saying. For me, I wonder if the difference between (3) and (4) is what one believes the cause of dormant faith to be. For example, Bobbieaware, if I'm not misunderstanding, believes perfect knowledge causes faith to become dormant. Tell me if I'm wrong, but it sounds like you believe a lack of good works causes faith to become or remain dormant.

Edited June 8, 2015 by Sp0ckrates

[Sp0ckrates]

If you have no idea what truth is how do you know which questions to ask?

Perhaps it is more an intuitive thing than a logical thing.

OK, let me take a shot at it, and you please try not to laugh when my arrow flies far from its target:

Truth is correct opinion.

Did I answer correctly, or did my shot not even get close to hitting the mark?

.

Edited June 8, 2015 by Sp0ckrates

[mfbukowski]

Perhaps it is more an intuitive thing than a logical thing.

OK, let me take a shot at it, and you please try not to laugh when my arrow flies far from its target:

Truth is correct opinion.

Did I answer correctly, or did my shot not even get close to hitting the mark?

.

Not really.

 

What is "correct opinion"?  How do you know what is "correct" and what makes an opinion "correct"?  Oh it's easy enough with sentences like "The car is yellow" but it gets a little harder in talking about "dormant faith" since it is so abstract, that I could not even tell you what those words mean, other than what I have already said.

 

For using the word "truth" so much I am surprised you admit you do not know what it means.

 

That lengthy article I posted earlier that you did not read says that truth is nothing.  It's just saying "I agree".

 

And incidentally I am quite familiar with Socrates, if there was such a person, not that it matters. You don't have to assume that I do not know Plato, I do.   Virtually we know about Socrates is what Plato said he said.  And if you have not questioned what he said he said, all such people are is parrots.  How do you know what Socrates said is right?  Why should you accept any of it?

 

The one thing Socrates said that I agree with is that "The unexamined life is not worth living".

 

Folks around here know I am not a fan of Plato.

 

As Mormons, we believe that the Catholic church went wrong, and it is my belief that it did so primarily because of Plato.  So I am not intentionally being hard on you- it's just that every argument you make are standard Catholic arguments which eventually lead to showing us how we are "wrong" so I thought I would just cut you off at the pass.

 

Probably that is not what you are doing at all, but I am very good at jumping to conclusions unfortunately.   Incidentally what IS your religious background?  My guess is pretty traditional Christian if not Catholic.

 

You should realize that in this place we hear the same arguments again and again.  And again and again.  And then some more.  Plato = Catholic or Nicene Creed and the theology of "substance" pretty universally- pardon the pun.  Then my brain goes to "Cartesian dualist, correspondence theory of truth, arguments 59 through 64"

 

When I hear Plato I tend to push the "Another Platonist- hit him with arguments 41 through 47 button and he will go away so we can keep talking" button.

 

Sorry about that I guess- but am I right?  I think I have become a bit of a bully, I just realized that, and I don't like it.

 

Perhaps it's time to move on.  This is getting highly formulaic for me.   I have atheist buttons, Evangelical buttons, Positivism buttons and Wayward Mormon buttons.

 

Kinda weird I guess.   But all the buttons are valid arguments, and after 50 years of studying this stuff, I am pretty convinced I have heard it all.  I know what I believe and why.

 

Sigh.

Edited June 9, 2015 by mfbukowski

[mfbukowski]

I guess I'm like Socrates that way. In Theatetus he explained that he was like his mother, who was a midwife. She was barren and could not give birth herself. But she helped others do what she was unable to do. Where she helped women give birth to infants, he helped men give birth to ideas.

Now THAT I understand, and the dialectical approach was exactly what Wittgenstein used also. You should read some Wittgenstein.

That is why I am here actually. I like to show people how to question everything and when they do, they see that Mormons have the best answers for everything.

My best feature is my humility.

[Sp0ckrates]

Not really.

What is "correct opinion"? How do you know what is "correct" and what makes an opinion "correct"?

.

Correct opinion is that which is the same as God's own opinion.

Did I answer correctly, now?

.

Edited June 9, 2015 by Sp0ckrates

[Sp0ckrates]

Now THAT I understand, and the dialectical approach was exactly what Wittgenstein used also. You should read some Wittgenstein.

That is why I am here actually. I like to show people how to question everything and when they do, they see that Mormons have the best answers for everything.

My best feature is my humility.

Well, it's not exactly altruistic. Like Socrates, I'm selfishly hoping to reap the benefits of learning from others, as he said:

For the partisan, when he is engaged in a dispute, cares nothing about the rights of the question, but is anxious only to convince his hearers of his own assertions. And the difference between him and me at the present moment is this: That whereas he seeks to convince his hearers what he says is true, I am rather seeking to convince myself!

(Phaedo)

I'm not into partisan politics, partisan philosophy or partisan religion. I'm not trying to convince anyone of God's opinion, as if that is something I apprehend with any certainty. But I am hoping someone like you, Bobbieaware, Maedros or ERayR will convince me.

I also hope this explanation puts your mind at ease about my intentions. If it does, perhaps you won't mind getting this discussion "back on track" and returning to the question of the opening post?

Edited June 9, 2015 by Sp0ckrates

[Sp0ckrates]

...