Wondering About Dormant Faith

[Sp0ckrates]

And incidentally these are not "contradictory."

"God" is like "a committee" of persons each of whom is a God.

The collective is called "God"- so three persons one God. It is a family.

There's mama Jones papa Jones and baby Jones. Three persons in one Jones family

Each person is named Jones.

Three Jones in one Jones family. One Jones family, three jones people

NO inconsistency Just words being ambiguous

Yes, I apologize for being clear as mud yet again. I understand that three gods in one Godhead (or group) isn't self-contradictory any more than one Godhead (or being) in three persons is self-contradictory. In both cases, there are three whos and one what, so no contradiction.

What I was saying is the two beliefs are contrary to each other, and I wonder if you believe the Holy Ghost would convince one person to believe one idea and another person to believe a second idea that contradicts the first.

For example, when a word like Godhead is ambiguous to people, and they sincerely pray for wisdom to discern the meaning God the Father intended the word to have, and they do not doubt God will give them wisdom, then does Mormonism teach that God convinces some the Godhead is a Triad and others the Godhead is a Trinity?

Edited June 10, 2015 by Sp0ckrates

[CV75]

What I was saying is the two beliefs are contrary to each other, and I wonder if you believe the Holy Ghost would convince two people to believe contrary ideas.

Sorry for butting in (back from vacation) – but whatever the Holy Ghost reveals to people can only be seemingly contradictory (to some) since the Lord’s purposes are consistent and are always met by revealing them.

 

At any rate, the last we spoke you were assessing whether various conclusions about your faith were logical or not. Have you made a determination about that for your personal case?

 

Also, are you reading the Book of Mormon cover to cover?

[Sp0ckrates]

Welcome back, CV. I hope your vacation was a restful and enjoyable one.

Haven't had time to read every word, yet. It's taking a back seat to work and family at the moment.

Regarding the state of my faith, please remind me of our conversation, as I've spoken to many since then and have since forgotten. Currently I'm wondering if my faith in the Mormon Faith is dormant and needs to become active, or if my faith is becoming active but my goal--and the goal of every Christian--should be to make it dormant.

This discussion thread has made some good progress toward answering the question of the opening post:

What is dormant faith, and what causes a faith to become dormant? (Alma 32:34)

We've come up with four possible answers so far. Would you like to hear them?

Edited June 10, 2015 by Sp0ckrates

[mfbukowski]

Yes, I apologize for being clear as mud yet again. I understand that three gods in one Godhead (or group) isn't self-contradictory any more than one Godhead (or being) in three persons is self-contradictory. In both cases, there are three whos and one what, so no contradiction.

What I was saying is the two beliefs are contrary to each other, and I wonder if you believe the Holy Ghost would convince one person to believe one idea and another person to believe a second idea that contradicts the first.

For example, when a word like Godhead is ambiguous to people, and they sincerely pray for wisdom to discern the meaning God the Father intended the word to have, and they do not doubt God will give them wisdom, then does Mormonism teach that God convinces some the Godhead is a Triad and others the Godhead is a Trinity?

I don't know how to talk to you.  No communication here whatsoever.

 

Good luck on your journey.

[Sp0ckrates]

I don't know how to talk to you. No communication here whatsoever.

Good luck on your journey.

Wait. What?

[mfbukowski]

Yes, I apologize for being clear as mud yet again. I understand that three gods in one Godhead (or group) isn't self-contradictory any more than one Godhead (or being) in three persons is self-contradictory. In both cases, there are three whos and one what, so no contradiction.

What I was saying is the two beliefs are contrary to each other, and I wonder if you believe the Holy Ghost would convince one person to believe one idea and another person to believe a second idea that contradicts the first.

For example, when a word like Godhead is ambiguous to people, and they sincerely pray for wisdom to discern the meaning God the Father intended the word to have, and they do not doubt God will give them wisdom, then does Mormonism teach that God convinces some the Godhead is a Triad and others the Godhead is a Trinity?

OK I will answer in detail so you can perhaps begin to comprehend the problem.  From my point of view, they way you think is totally alien from the way I think.

 

You think "truth" exists "out there" somewhere and is eternal and consistent.   I do not think that way.  I once did as a kid when I too was a Platonist but after a million years of study have totally abandoned that view as very naive and well, primitive.   You asked.

 

All we have to communicate with are words.  That is all.  All ideas are expressed in words.  Every discussion is ABOUT WORDS not about "reality".  Words do not "represent" reality because we can never get OUTSIDE of our verbal/linguistic programming to check "reality" and express it independent of words.

 

So calling something "true" is no more or less than saying "I agree with this".  Of course what one person agrees with is up to that person and may or may not be consistent with what another person finds "true"

 

I have said this again and again.   I have used example after example and you ignore it all.   There is no discussion.

 

You simply throw out another Plato quote and go on your way.  Nothing is getting in and what you put out is the same thing you have always put out- Plato quotes.

 

 

there are three whos and one what, so no contradiction.

 

I have no clue what this means.   There are no "whos" in the world and there are no "whats" either.  Those are pronouns used to ask questions about people in the case of "who" and things in the case of "what".

 

Putting three people in the same category is what you are trying to say.  But that tells us nothing about the nature of God.  A family is not a "what" it is a family, in this case the God family.

 

We are embryos in the God family.  It's that simple.  

 

A 2 year old could and often do understand it perfectly.  No Trinity, no substance, no being, no essence, FAMILY.  No whos, no whats.  PEOPLE.

 

In science, where experimentation is possible,  MANY people will agree that water "boils" at a certain" temperature" and that the "sun" is a certain "distance" from the "moon".  Because virtually everyone AGREES on this, people call these propositions "TRUE".

 

But people once thought it was true that the sun went around the earth.  People no longer agree on that, so it is no longer "TRUE".

 

Notice all these words in quotes are not things- they are WORDS.  Water is a word describing what we experience as "water".  Water does not exist independent of the human experience of water- but because we have all experienced it, we know what the word means

But all that is too complicated to go into anyway so I won't. 

What I was saying is the two beliefs are contrary to each other, and I wonder if you believe the Holy Ghost would convince one person to believe one idea and another person to believe a second idea that contradicts the first.

As I already showed, and you admitted, THE TWO BELIEFS ARE NOT CONTRADICTORY and yes I believe THAT THE HOLY GHOST TEACHES EVERY INDIVIDUAL DIFFERENTLY.

 

I don't know how to count "ideas".   I do not know what separates "one idea" from a "second idea" and how one could possibly know if idea 1 and idea 2 are "contradictory" when "both ideas" are just WORDS perhaps expressing the same "thing" in a different way

 

Ideas are not things out there being true and false, they are words expressing people's opinions and if you talk long enough to actually communicate, you will find that most people AGREE ON VIRTUALLY EVERYTHING.

 

For example, when a word like Godhead is ambiguous to people, and they sincerely pray for wisdom to discern the meaning God the Father intended the word to have, and they do not doubt God will give them wisdom, then does Mormonism teach that God convinces some the Godhead is a Triad and others the Godhead is a Trinity?

No, I don't know what those words even mean.

 

Mormonism convinces people that the Godhead is a Family, a divine family that we get to be part of.  No triads no trinitys.  No substance no essence no being, no weird abstractions concocted by some philosopher 2500 years ago.

 

No pagan Greek stuff.

 

Just family.

 

So that explains why we cannot talk about this. No communication.  So now I clarified it and honestly wish you well.   Should you decide to listen I will be glad to continue when and if time permits

Edited June 10, 2015 by mfbukowski

[CV75]

We've come up with four possible answers so far. Would you like to hear them?

Oh please, not again, LOL! Just wondering which one you decided on and whether applying it is profitable for you.

[Sp0ckrates]

Oh please, not again, LOL! Just wondering which one you decided on and whether applying it is profitable for you.

LOL! Call me logical, but I believe the only one profitable to me will be the one that is true. So far, one Latter Day Saint likes (4) and a few others like (3). I originally thought (1) might be true, but no one seems to agree with me.

Now Bobbieaware spent a good deal of time defending (3), but he could not explain how God could have active faith if he also had perfect knowledge of everything. Then (4) was suggested by Maedros after you left, and it seems to me to be less problematic than (3) and so more likely to be the truth. But I forget. Which one did you like?

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 (Alma 32:34).

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 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 (Alma 32:34).

Edited June 10, 2015 by Sp0ckrates

[Sp0ckrates]

OK I will answer in detail so you can perhaps begin to comprehend the problem. From my point of view, they way you think is totally alien from the way I think.

You think "truth" exists "out there" somewhere and is eternal and consistent. I do not think that way. I once did as a kid when I too was a Platonist but after a million years of study have totally abandoned that view as very naive and well, primitive. You asked.

I'm not a Platonist and know little of what the disciple of the Father of Philosophy taught after his death. I'm just a guy who admires Socrates' way and Jesus' wisdom.

But it seems to me God is out there somewhere! So if you are indeed certain truth does not exist out there, then why didn't you say I was wrong when you asked me what truth is, and I guessed, "Truth is God's opinion"?

You are indeed odd, my friend, and so am I. But I've enjoyed our conversation. As I said before, I sincerely mean now: I'd be happy to consider what you have to teach me anytime. May God continue to give you wisdom and love.

Edited June 11, 2015 by Sp0ckrates

[Sp0ckrates]

To anyone interested: We haven't spent much, if any time considering possibility (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.

I have some ideas about how this might be true I'd like to explain to anyone willing to listen. Before this discussion is laid to rest, I'd be interested in getting feedback so I may at least rule it out as a possibility. As Spock said in more than one Star Trek film:

If you eliminate the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth.

Edited June 11, 2015 by Sp0ckrates

[Bobbieaware]

LOL! Call me logical, but I believe the only one profitable to me will be the one that is true. So far, one Latter Day Saint likes (4) and a few others like (3). I originally thought (1) might be true, but no one seems to agree with me.

Now Bobbieaware spent a good deal of time defending (3), but he could not explain how God could have active faith if he also had perfect knowledge of everything. Then (4) was suggested by Maedros after you left, and it seems to me to be less problematic than (3) and so more likely to be the truth. But I forget. Which one did you like?

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 (Alma 32:34).

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 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 (Alma 32:34).

I did explain how God can have active faith while also having perfect knowledge. I told to you that in Mormonism faith is the principle that inspires action in all intelligent beings, including in God himself. Before God moves forward to accomplish something -- like framing a new world by his word -- he must first believe he can do it even though he may have done the same thing millions of times before. In Mormonism, even God cannot and would not act in any way without faith because faith is the only way any intelligent being can act. This is the reason why Paul says faith, hope and charity (the pure love of God) will endure as indispencible principles of spiritual law forever. In Mormonism, God is an exalted human being, he's not some sort of dispassionate computerized machine. So just like the rest of us, Latter-day Saints believe God cannot act without faith because faith is the only principle that can cause successful action in intelligent beings, and God is an intelligent being. Am I correct in assuming you believe God can frame and bring forth a new world by knowledge without the need for faith? If so, why do the scriptures say the all-knowing God uses faith when he creates a world?

Edited June 11, 2015 by Bobbieaware

[Sp0ckrates]

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?

Bobbieaware:

I believe you might have overlooked this last question I asked.

[Sp0ckrates]

I did explain how God can have active faith while also having perfect knowledge. I told to you that in Mormonism faith is the principle that inspires action in all intelligent beings, including in God himself. Before God moves forward to accomplish something -- like framing a new world by his word -- he must first believe he can do it even though he may have done the same thing millions of times before. In Mormonism, even God cannot and would not act in any way without faith because faith is the only way any intelligent being can act. This is the reason why Paul says faith, hope and charity (the pure love of God) will endure as indispencible principles of spiritual law forever. In Mormonism, God is an exalted human being, he's not some sort of dispassionate computerized machine. So just like the rest of us, Latter-day Saints believe God cannot act without faith because faith is the only principle that can cause successful action in intelligent beings, and God is an intelligent being. Am I correct in assuming you believe God can frame and bring forth a new world by knowledge without the need for faith? If so, why do the scriptures say the all-knowing God uses faith when he creates a world?

Yes, I understand. Please try to understand why I still wonder. You said:

1. Perfect knowledge about something always causes someone to have dormant faith in that something.

2. God is an exalted man who has not just knowledge but also faith

3. God is perfect in everything

So what I wonder is this: Since God is perfect in everything, doesn't that mean he has perfect knowledge of everything--even if the future?

[Sp0ckrates]

That is, isn't it true that in everything God decides to do he has perfect knowledge of what the outcome of his actions will be?

[Sp0ckrates]

So Bobbieaware, I've spent a lot of time thinking about what you've said. I'm thinking there are at least three possibilities:

a. God has power to do anything he decides to do, but this power is not the same as active faith. For perfect knowledge of something always makes faith in that something dormant and inactive.

b. God always have active faith that gives him power to do what he decides to do, but he never has perfect knowledge of what the outcome of any of his actions will be. For perfect knowledge of something always makes faith in that something dormant and inactive.

c. God has active faith to do--and perfect knowledge of the outcome of--anything he decides to do. So perfect knowledge of something does not always make faith in that something dormant and inactive.

So this is why I'm unsure ( 3 ) is the likely interpretation of dormant faith, and I wonder which one of these--( a ), ( b ), ( c ) or something else--you believe is true.

Edited June 11, 2015 by Sp0ckrates

[mfbukowski]

I'm not a Platonist and know little of what the disciple of the Father of Philosophy taught after his death. I'm just a guy who admires Socrates' way and Jesus' wisdom.

Socrates IS Plato.

You do not seem to understand that. Socrates is virtually a mythical character Plato used as a literary device to write in a question-answer style, which is an extremely effective teaching tool. It appears to answer all the questions one could possibly come up with, because one is not using one's own mind, but that of the questioner. Every "question" leads to the next "answer" the way a good prosecuting attorney leads a witness to say what he wants him to say, while appearing to be just getting at the "facts".

You ARE a Platonist- it is totally obvious in every word you say. Your presumptions and assumptions are totally Plato.

 

But it seems to me God is out there somewhere! So if you are indeed certain truth does not exist out there, then why didn't you say I was wrong when you asked me what truth is, and I guessed, "Truth is God's opinion"?

You see, that is exactly the problem.  I never said God does not exist nor did I ever say that God is not "out there".  God is "out there" but putting what he says into words is another problem.  What he says is wordless and can be known by direct experience only

 

YOU ARE MAKING PLATONIC ARGUMENTS.  Plato believes that the "truth is out there" and "exists" as being MORE REAL than chairs tables and plates.  Read the Allegory of the Cave in the Republic. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Allegory_of_the_Cave

 

That is nonsense!  The "truth" is not more "real" than the things you see around you.  The truth is a property of sentences- it has to do with language, nothing more.  Truth is not "reality"

 

I said the TRUTH is not "out there".  I talk to God every day, and He answers.  I know perfectly well that He is out there and exists.  But only I know what he tells me, and even if I try to tell others what he has told me, on deep subjects, I cannot because words do not deliver what God says.  Words are incapable of that job.

 

And I DID reply to your  assertion that "Truth is God's opinion" but you did not even read it, obviously.  Your assertion only repeats the question and answers nothing.  Go back and actually read it next time.

 

You are indeed odd, my friend, and so am I. But I've enjoyed our conversation. As I said before, I sincerely mean now: I'd be happy to consider what you have to teach me anytime. May God continue to give you wisdom and love.

 

Thanks.  It's up to you.

[mfbukowski]

Plato in the Allegory of the cave actually inverts "reality"

 

He says what we see and experience are "shadows" of the "TRUTH" which exists in some realm far removed from what we perceive as reality.

 

THAT is the whole argument of the Trinity right there.  The Trinity is REAL and can only be seen and understood by God in that realm of TRUTH,

 

Baloney !

 

What is real is what we experience and nothing else is real.  God is real because we experience him and know he exists.  He is our father, not an UNSEEN FORCE.

 

There is no unseen "realm of truth" floating "out there" to be grasped only by those trained to see it.   That is priestcraft.  There is no trinity.

 

Plato's problem was that he hung around with Parmenides who was a Pythagorean.

 

Remember the Pythagorean Theorem from high school?  Triangles?  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pythagorean_theorem

 

The problem was that Pythagoras thought the THEOREM was part of that floating REALM of TRUTH, which made it more REAL than a "real triangle".  Real triangles kind of do not exist! 

 

Think about it,  When have you ever wandered in the wilderness and found a "natural triangle"??  Just lying on the ground?   Made of - what?

 

"Triangles" are human constructs.  The CONCEPT of a triangle is very useful if you have a square field and want to know the area of a triangular piece of it.  THEN the theorem works for you.

 

The theorem is only good as long as it is doing work for you.  Useful things, like measuring fields and building structures.  The theorem itself is a construction to help us do useful things.  It is itself a tool like a hammer.  Both are tools we have invented for specific jobs.

 

But the concept of a triangle does not exist in a "realm of truth" out there while what we see here are only "shadows" of a "true triangle" out there in the "realm of truth"

 

But that kind of thinking is what gave us the Trinity.  The Trinity is based on a shared abstract "substance" out there in the Realm of Truth of which the three Persons share.   No abstract Substance, no Trinity.

 

And that's why we do not believe in Plato.

[Sp0ckrates]

I said the TRUTH is not "out there". I talk to God every day, and He answers. I know perfectly well that He is out there and exists. But only I know what he tells me, and even if I try to tell others what he has told me, on deep subjects, I cannot because words do not deliver what God says. Words are incapable of that job.

I can see you are extremely upset (or perhaps no one ever told you that typing words in all capital letters is a way to let a person know you are shouting angrily)? So please forgive me for saying things that set you off. This was not my intention.

Regarding Plato and Socrates, I would be glad to discuss whether Socrates is historical or fictitious. I find good evidence to believe he was historical. I'd also be happy to discuss what makes someone a Platonist, instead of just someone who likes to ask questions. Please start a discussion on the topic.

Regarding the Socratic Method and lawyers. Socrates spent a good deal of time contrasting lawyers and philosophers. He despised the former and said true philosophers are the opposite. I would be happy to post some quotes on his opinion of lawyers if you like.

Regarding how God reveals truth, I will start a discussion on that topic, but only if that is something in which you will participate.

Regarding the topic of the opening post, I still don't know what you believe dormant faith is. I apologize if you gave me your opinion, and after so much discussion with you about other things, I've forgotten. Or perhaps you never had an opinion about what dormant faith is and wanted to talk about other things, instead. I don't know.

Regarding the quoted text, did you ask God what dormant faith is? If you did, was his answer something you cannot put into words?

Edited June 11, 2015 by Sp0ckrates

[mfbukowski]

I use capitals for emphasis.

[Sp0ckrates]

As an alternative, you can use [ i ] and [/ i ] or [ b ] and [/ b ] without spaces and place the tags before and after the word you want to emphasize.

[Sp0ckrates]

Bukowski: Are you interested in me starting a new discussion to answer your question, "What is Truth"? Or have I worn out my welcome?

Edited June 11, 2015 by Sp0ckrates

[Bobbieaware]

So Bobbieaware, I've spent a lot of time thinking about what you've said. I'm thinking there are at least three possibilities:

a. God has power to do anything he decides to do, but this power is not the same as active faith. For perfect knowledge of something always makes faith in that something dormant and inactive.

b. God always have active faith that gives him power to do what he decides to do, but he never has perfect knowledge of what the outcome of any of his actions will be. For perfect knowledge of something always makes faith in that something dormant and inactive.

c. God has active faith to do--and perfect knowledge of the outcome of--anything he decides to do. So perfect knowledge of something does not always make faith in that something dormant and inactive.

So this is why I'm unsure ( 3 ) is the likely interpretation of dormant faith, and I wonder which one of these--( a ), ( b ), ( c ) or something else--you believe is true.

Before I continue, I first want to make sure you understand that, according to Alma, the more often one has experiences where his faith becomes dormant (I.e. has experiences where his faith is realized and validated) the greater and more powerful that man's faith becomes. Do you understand this principle? And if you do understand it, do you believe it?

Edited June 11, 2015 by Bobbieaware

[Sp0ckrates]

Before I continue, I first want to make sure you understand that, according to Alma, the more often one has experiences where his faith becomes dormant (I.e. has experiences where his faith is realized and validated) the greater and more powerful that man's faith becomes. Do you understand this principle? And if you do understand it, do you believe it?

Thank you for another reply.

I understand and believe:

A. The more one has experiences where one's faith is realized and validated the stronger one's faith becomes.

I understand but do not yet believe:

B. A dormant faith is a faith that is realized and validated.

The reason why I don't yet believe (B) is that our Latter Day Saint friend Maedros gave his opinion of Alma 32:34, which is this:

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.

At least, I assume he is Mormon, as he spoke of Alma as though it were historical and not fictional. Maedros suggests this:

C. A dormant faith is a faith that is weak and inactive, because a person has not yet put said faith into practice (James 2:20).

.

Edited June 11, 2015 by Sp0ckrates

[Bobbieaware]

Thank you for another reply.

I understand and believe:

A. The more one has experiences where one's faith is realized and validated the stronger one's faith becomes.

I understand but do not yet believe:

B. A dormant faith is a faith that is realized and validated.

The reason why I don't yet believe (B) is that our Latter Day Saint friend Maedros gave his opinion of Alma 32:34, which is this:

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.

At least, I assume he is Mormon, as he spoke of Alma as though it were historical and not fictional. Maedros suggests this:

C. A dormant faith is a faith that is weak and inactive, because a person has not yet put said faith into practice (James 2:20).

.

No wonder why you're confused. Go back and retread Alma 32 and you'll see your LDS friend is in error. (I was tempted to put it another way, but that wouldn't be nice )

Edited to add: The Zoramites weren't exercising real faith because, as Alma said: " 21 And now as I said concerning faith—faith is not to have a perfect knowledge of things; therefore if ye have faith ye hope for things which are not seen, WHICH ARE TRUE." Therefore, the Zoramites were exercising false faith in things WHICH ARE NOT TRUE. In order for faith to be the authentic saving kind of faith, one must hope for things WHICH ARE TRUE.

Edited June 12, 2015 by Bobbieaware

[Sp0ckrates]

No wonder why you're confused. Go back and retread Alma 32 and you'll see your LDS friend is in error. (I was tempted to put it another way, but that wouldn't be nice )

Edited to add: The Zoramites weren't exercising real faith because, as Alma said: " 21 And now as I said concerning faith—faith is not to have a perfect knowledge of things; therefore if ye have faith ye hope for things which are not seen, WHICH ARE TRUE." Therefore, the Zoramites were exercising false faith in things WHICH ARE NOT TRUE. In order for faith to be the authentic saving kind of faith, one must hope for things WHICH ARE TRUE.

Thank you. Not feeling well. Getting some sleep, now. Will retread Alma 31 - 32 and carefully consider your reply, tomorrow. Much appreciated.