Faith in what?

[hope_for_things]

1 hour ago, Kevin Christensen said:

Your contention here is not something I contend with.  Rather, it has been the air that I breath for decades, with the caveat that I ought not be so sure that I know it all and am fit to not only judge those leaders, but to speak for and as God.   It's one of the reasons I keep citing and using the Perry Scheme for Cognitive and Ethical Growth.

Perry’s Position 9: Commitments in Relativism further developed, has this:

The person now has a developed sense of irony and can more easily embrace other’s viewpoints. He can accept life as just that “life,” just the way it is! Now he holds the commitments he makes in a condition of Provisional Ultimacy, meaning that for him what he chooses to be truth IS his truth, and he acts as if it is ultimate truth, but there is still a “provision” for change. He has no illusions about having “arrived” permanently on top of some heap, he is ready and knows he will have to retrace his journey over and over, but he has hope that he will do it each time more wisely. He is aware that he is developing his Identity through Commitment. He can affirm the inseparable nature of the knower and the known—meaning he knows he as knower contributes to what he calls known. He helps weld a community by sharing realization of aloneness and gains strength and intimacy through this shared vulnerability. He has discarded obedience in favor of his own agency, and he continues to select, judge, and build.

To me, taking God's advice to "seek out of the best books wisdom, by study and by faith" is not just asking God, but accepting the way God answers.

FWIW

Kevin Christensen

Canonsburg, PA

Great thoughts, thanks for this post.  This is good stuff.  

[smac97]

22 hours ago, hope_for_things said:

As an orthodox Mormon, when I have questions and critiques on topics that I hear at church or read about, I'm frequently told that it all boils down to just having faith, especially when people don't have good answers to my questions. 

At the extreme end of it all, yes.  "It all boils down to just having faith."

But there is a very long road to walk before reaching that end.  Lots of studying, pondering, and prayer.  Lots of love and service to others.  Lots of humility.  Repentance.  Temple and church attendance.  In all of this, "questions and critiques on topics" can and should be addressed.  The individual's life will be refined and improved and edified through obedience to God.  The Spirit will enliven his mind, soften his heart, and provide clarity and proportion.

Quote

Here is my question, what are we supposed to have faith in exactly? 

I think the better question is "What are we supposed to have faith in."  There isn't an "exactly."

We are supposed to have faith in Christ.  His life.  His teachings.  His atoning sacrifice.

Quote

Should I have faith in the historicity of an event described in the BoM? 

In a derivative, supplementary sense, I think so.  Yes.

Quote

Should I have faith that a talk given in conference by a church leader is an inspired talk that accurately reflects the mind of God?  Should I have faith that the words written in the Sunday school manual are inspired by God? 

If congruent with scripture, yes.  If confirmed by the Spirit, yes.

I think we should keep these things in proportion.

Quote

Should I have faith that the interpretation of scripture espoused by my high council representative is the one true interpretation?  What exactly should I have faith in?  

I think we should have faith in Christ.  We can and should exercise faith as to derivative things, but with a pinch of salt.

We each of us have access to the Spirit.  We can gauge remarks by a High Council member and reach a determination as to the substance and accuracy and propriety and application of his remarks.

Quote

From my reading of scripture, particularly the Bible and the BoM there is a repeating theme that humans continue to mess things up.

There is also a repeating theme that despite humans continuing to mess things up, God nevertheless works through them.

Quote

In the bible, some of the worst offenders are often the prophets.  They are constantly falling short of the divine will and making big mistakes and getting chastised by God.  Many passages warn against trusting in the arm of the flesh. 

How do you apply this concept when considered in tandem with the many scriptural exhortations to obey prophetic guidance?

Quote

So this brings me back to the question of faith, and I wonder if all the times that my fellow Mormons encourage me to just have faith, if they aren't actually are giving me really bad advice. 

I think you are materially misconstruing that advice.  You seem to be portraying your fellow Mormons as telling you to have faith alone, or to have blind faith.  Or to not address your questions and concerns.

I don't think that is what they (or most of them) mean.

Quote

I'm thinking from the experiences I've had and the examples throughout history, that the thing I need to put my faith in is God directly, and not in humans or scriptural interpretations. 

Ultimately, yes, faith should be in God.  However, prophets are not merely window dressing.  They have a vital role to play in the Plan of Salvation. 

"What I the Lord have spoken, I have spoken, and I excuse not myself; and though the heavens and the earth pass away, my word shall not pass away, but shall all be fulfilled, whether by mine own voice or by the voice of my servants, it is the same."  (D&C 1:38)

I think the entirety of D&C 1 merits some consideration as to the point you are raising.

The Saints are susceptible to over-reliance on the prophets.  Several of them have warned against this.

The Saints are also susceptible to disregarding the prophets.  That too is unhealthy and inappropriate.

Quote

Maybe having faith in a church leader is not the purpose of faith at all.  Maybe having faith in a traditional church truth claim is also not the point of faith.   Faith in God, directly is not the same thing as faith in the church or faith in scripture or faith in authorities.  Faith in God seems like the only kind of faith that really can work. 

Thoughts? 

I think we can and should have faith in Jesus Christ.  In an "ultimate" and "when all is said and done" sense, there is a case to be made for saying "I have faith in Christ alone."  Faith in any particular facet of the Restored Gospel ("Gospel" being "good news" about Jesus Christ) can become problematic when it supersedes, rather than supplements from a subordinate position, faith in Christ. 

For example, I recall a missionary experience I had with an elderly member of the Church in Taiwan.  She was a nice person, but every Fast Sunday she stood and bore her testimony about . . . the Word of Wisdom.  She and her husband had joined the Church years before, and their acceptance of and adherence to the WoW had clearly had a tremendous influence in their lives.  She was very grateful and enthusiastic for it.  But she never spoke of Jesus Christ, except to close her remarks in His name.  I recall thinking at the time that her testimony of "the Gospel" could perhaps need to refinement and improvement so as to focus on faith Jesus Christ primarily, with a corollary-but-supplementary-and-subordinate expression of "faith" in the principles of the Restored Gospel, including the Word of Wisdom (I did not know her well, and I did not want to judge her, so I never dwelt on it much).

In contrast, I have seen many, many instances of members of the Church disregarding "faith" in prophetic guidance and counsel altogether.  Disregarding prophets in this way . . . does not end well.  God works through His servants.  Imperfect as they are, He works through them.  And in the aggregate, they seem to be doing a very good job.  They confer and work together in councils.  They focus on fundamentals, while also addressing real-world problems.

For example, last Saturday our ward's bishop participated in a meeting attended by the bishops of about ten stakes in Provo, the stake presidencies, and conducted by Elder Andersen.  Also present were Elder Roney (area authority), Bishop Davies (1st Counselor in Presiding Bishopric), a member of the Presidency of the Seventy, the mission president, and the temple presidents for both temples.  Elder Andersen told the bishops that the Quorum of the Twelve had started these sorts of meetings with bishops about nine years ago, that they try to have as many as possible, and that they had become very valuable and productive.  A big part of the meeting was a Q&A for the bishops to ask . . . pretty much whatever they wanted to ask.

Further, the Lord's servants are charged with administering the ordinances of the Church, including the saving ordinances.  And participation in those ordinances requires the sustaining of the Lord's servants.

So do we have "faith" in these people?  Well, yes, but it is "faith" that they are called of God, that they are representing the Lord, that they have authority from Him, that their counsel is (or should be) inspired, and so on.  We do not have "faith" that they are the means of salvation, that sort of "faith" being relegated to Jesus only.

Thanks,

-Smac

EDIT TO ADD: I think D&C 5:9-10 is important:

Quote

9 Behold, verily I say unto you, I have reserved those things which I have entrusted unto you, my servant Joseph, for a wise purpose in me, and it shall be made known unto future generations;

10 But this generation shall have my word through you.

Again, we cannot ignore the prophets.

Edited December 7, 2017 by smac97

[hope_for_things]

58 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

Thank you.  I agree.  

I am a frustrated member of the Church because in large measure it doesn't feel like I can relate to my fellow members on this.  Even around here most seem to think I have to put my faith in my leaders, the system, and all that.  I'm afraid faith in leaders, as is common in the Church, is an empty faith, or dead faith.  We surely can trust people in part, we must in some sense throughout our lives.  I think that's true, but I find the suggestion to just put my faith in my leaders a big problem that will only cause more problems.

Its very hard because of the mixed messages in our culture, and I think there are many who have made leader worship an idol.  I'm searching for the nuggets of goodness in the theology of Mormonism and Christianity, and the more I search the more I find.  However, I also find a lot of dross, its literally everywhere, and this at many times makes me question whether searching for golden nuggets is even worth the effort, or if this mine should just be shut down and abandoned.  So far, I'm still plugging along.

[hope_for_things]

1 hour ago, bluebell said:

We are supposed to have faith in Christ, faith in God's ability to lead and guide and direct both His church and us, faith in the abilities of the Spirit to testify and teach, and faith things don't have to be perfect to be God's will or guided by His hand.

Faith in Christ, I would agree, yes.  Faith in God's ability to lead and guide a church, I question that one.  Faith in abilities of the spirit, yes, but the spirit isn't a one way street, there is the receiving end as well, and plenty of people interpret spiritual things differently. 

Lastly, can you expound on the faith that things don't have to be perfect to be guided by God, I kind of like that thought, but not sure I fully understand what you're saying.  

[stemelbow]

6 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

Its very hard because of the mixed messages in our culture, and I think there are many who have made leader worship an idol.  I'm searching for the nuggets of goodness in the theology of Mormonism and Christianity, and the more I search the more I find.  However, I also find a lot of dross, its literally everywhere, and this at many times makes me question whether searching for golden nuggets is even worth the effort, or if this mine should just be shut down and abandoned.  So far, I'm still plugging along.

Thanks.  It's helpful to hear.  

[hope_for_things]

16 minutes ago, clarkgoble said:

We're supposed to have faith in God particularly Christ. However I also tend to think that the recent spat of books on faith as a response to troubling issues are problematic. Perhaps not problematic in a practical sense. For a certain group of people it seems to actually function quite well. It's just that again I'm a bit put out by linguistic issues. Which is certainly me being too picky. But overall I think it devalues the meaning of faith.

Yes, I'm seeing this same trend and was hoping it wasn't just me, thanks for validating that I'm not going crazy here.  :-)  

17 minutes ago, clarkgoble said:

I think really what's being asked is to trust what you know and assume that the things you don't know will work themselves out. The analogy is much more to say science where there are often contradictory things or things we can't explain but we still believe in our strongly established theories because of the evidence for those. However the way it's described too often seems like the blind faith towards propositions that you sometimes see in traditional Christianity. Especially during the heyday of such things from late antiquity through the medieval era. Since I don't like blind faith and think we should only talking about statements with meaning the approach often bothers me.

I like the science analogy as well, and I'm concerned about the blind faith idea too.  Good comments, thanks Clark! 

[hope_for_things]

13 minutes ago, smac97 said:

At the extreme end of it all, yes.  "It all boils down to just having faith."

But there is a very long road to walk before reaching that end.  Lots of studying, pondering, and prayer.  Lots of love and service to others.  Lots of humility.  Repentance.  Temple and church attendance.  In all of this, "questions and critiques on topics" can and should be addressed.  The individual's life will be refined and improved and edified through obedience to God.  The Spirit will enliven his mind, soften his heart, and provide clarity and proportion.

It sounds like you're saying there is an ultimate overarching faith that we should put in the Mormon program as a whole.  I can understand that, but do you think this is the kind of faith as a principle that the scriptures are encouraging us to exercise.  I kind of think this trust in the program of Mormonism is different that exercising faith as a principle of spiritual growth.  Maybe they are connected somehow.  

16 minutes ago, smac97 said:

I think we should have faith in Christ.  We can and should exercise faith as to derivative things, but with a pinch of salt.

We each of us have access to the Spirit.  We can gauge remarks by a High Council member and reach a determination as to the substance and accuracy and propriety and application of his remarks.

I agree with you completely about the faith in Christ parts.  And it sounds to me like you're differentiating somewhat in these other derivative questions.  I think the other smaller questions might not require us to exercise the principle of faith, or might not even be important.  Perhaps they are just appendages to the core gospel.  

19 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Quote

In the bible, some of the worst offenders are often the prophets.  They are constantly falling short of the divine will and making big mistakes and getting chastised by God.  Many passages warn against trusting in the arm of the flesh. 

How do you apply this concept when considered in tandem with the many scriptural exhortations to obey prophetic guidance?

What I think the scriptures are teaching me in these instances, is that on one hand the author of the text is telling us to obey prophetic guidance, and the other hand the very prophet we're to obey is making horrible mistakes and in some cases the guidance specifically is immoral.  So what are we to learn?  I think we learn that just following the guidance is not what God wants of us.  God wants us to question the prophetic guidance, and to measure it against our own access to spiritual insight and our own moral compass.  

22 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Quote

So this brings me back to the question of faith, and I wonder if all the times that my fellow Mormons encourage me to just have faith, if they aren't actually are giving me really bad advice. 

I think you are materially misconstruing that advice.  You seem to be portraying your fellow Mormons as telling you to have faith alone, or to have blind faith.  Or to not address your questions and concerns.

I don't think that is what they (or most of them) mean.

You may be right, I might be misconstruing their advice, because I do think they are telling me to just bury my concerns deep down, to just ignore them, and to trust that whatever evidence I've discovered must be inaccurate or that whatever things church leaders are promoting must have some redeeming moral value in some way that I can't possibly understand.  Just bury my morals deep down, just ignore my conscience and the evidence that looks so clear to me, and just fall in line with the authority figure.  That is what I interpret from their advice, and I can't do it. 

But if they are asking me to do something else all together, please enlighten me because this is a very frustrating position to be in, and I honestly love and respect many of these people that tell me to just have faith, so much that it hurts.  It hurts because of my love for them as people, but my inability to just ignore the things that I've learned and the emotions that I feel about these things. 

I am torn and its painful, and perhaps this is one of the hardest things for me as a Mormon on the fringes of this culture and church, this one thing makes it hard for me to attend church on Sunday.  It makes it hard to go to family and friend functions, because its always looming.  Always there is this idea that I've lost faith somehow, that I wasn't strong enough to just trust the system, that my current trajectory, no matter how good it looks on the outside, no matter how many service projects I'm involved in, no matter how much more time I spend with my kids doing good things, being a great spouse and father and friend and extended family member, no matter how hard I try to help the world to be a better place, to give back to the community, to serve others and exemplify what I believe the core message of this gospel is, that I'm somehow a broken and fallen individual.  That I've abandoned the path that I was on that was so promising.  This is what I perceive when people tell me to just have faith.  

[bluebell]

59 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

Faith in God's ability to lead and guide a church, I question that one. 

You don't think God is capable of leading and guiding a church?

Quote

Faith in abilities of the spirit, yes, but the spirit isn't a one way street, there is the receiving end as well, and plenty of people interpret spiritual things differently.  Lastly, can you expound on the faith that things don't have to be perfect to be guided by God, I kind of like that thought, but not sure I fully understand what you're saying.  

It's faith that God knows how to accomplish His purposes using imperfect and flawed people who mess stuff up sometimes.  We have to have faith that we and others can serve God even while seeing through a glass darkly.  It's faith in the ability of God's grace to make up for what we lack.  

[smac97]

20 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

It sounds like you're saying there is an ultimate overarching faith that we should put in the Mormon program as a whole.  I can understand that, but do you think this is the kind of faith as a principle that the scriptures are encouraging us to exercise. 

Yes.  Christ is the ultimate basis and object of our faith.  However, there is a profound "trickle down" effect with that faith.

20 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

I kind of think this trust in the program of Mormonism is different that exercising faith as a principle of spiritual growth.  Maybe they are connected somehow.  

I think these things are inextricably interwoven.  Linked.  That is one of the most exciting and vibrant aspects of Mormonism, IMO.

20 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

I agree with you completely about the faith in Christ parts.  And it sounds to me like you're differentiating somewhat in these other derivative questions. 

Not differentiating.  Prioritizing.

20 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

I think the other smaller questions might not require us to exercise the principle of faith, or might not even be important.  Perhaps they are just appendages to the core gospel.

Appendages, yes.  Unimportant, no.

20 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

What I think the scriptures are teaching me in these instances,

Let's keep in mind that the "teaching" you are referencing come from the writings of prophets and apostles.  We cannot circumvent them.  Not entirely.  I don't think we are supposed to.

20 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

is that on one hand the author of the text is telling us to obey prophetic guidance, and the other hand the very prophet we're to obey is making horrible mistakes and in some cases the guidance specifically is immoral.  So what are we to learn? 

What "guidance" do you have in mind as being "immoral?"

20 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

I think we learn that just following the guidance is not what God wants of us. 

I have no idea what "guidance" you are talking about here.

20 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

God wants us to question the prophetic guidance, and to measure it against our own access to spiritual insight and our own moral compass.  

Yes.  In the appropriate time and place and manner, but yes.

20 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

You may be right, I might be misconstruing their advice, because I do think they are telling me to just bury my concerns deep down,

I've never been told that.  Ever.  To the contrary.  I have been constantly encouraged to study and ponder and pray.

20 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

to just ignore them, and to trust that whatever evidence I've discovered must be inaccurate or that whatever things church leaders are promoting must have some redeeming moral value in some way that I can't possibly understand. 

Again, nope.  Not my experience.  Not the counsel of the Church.

20 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

Just bury my morals deep down, just ignore my conscience and the evidence that looks so clear to me, and just fall in line with the authority figure.  That is what I interpret from their advice, and I can't do it. 

I think you are radically misconstruing things.

20 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

But if they are asking me to do something else all together, please enlighten me because this is a very frustrating position to be in, and I honestly love and respect many of these people that tell me to just have faith, so much that it hurts. 

I encourage you to study the Church's teachings.  I don't think you will find anything close to what you are describing above.

20 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

It hurts because of my love for them as people, but my inability to just ignore the things that I've learned and the emotions that I feel about these things. 

I don't know you.  And you are not within my stewardship.  I strongly encourage you to study the Restored Gospel.  And study it in the way the Church and God want you to.  In faith.

20 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

I am torn and its painful, and perhaps this is one of the hardest things for me as a Mormon on the fringes of this culture and church, this one thing makes it hard for me to attend church on Sunday.  It makes it hard to go to family and friend functions, because its always looming.  Always there is this idea that I've lost faith somehow, that I wasn't strong enough to just trust the system, that my current trajectory, no matter how good it looks on the outside, no matter how many service projects I'm involved in, no matter how much more time I spend with my kids doing good things, being a great spouse and father and friend and extended family member, no matter how hard I try to help the world to be a better place, to give back to the community, to serve others and exemplify what I believe the core message of this gospel is, that I'm somehow a broken and fallen individual.  That I've abandoned the path that I was on that was so promising.  This is what I perceive when people tell me to just have faith.  

I don't think these folks have such judgmentalisms and condemnations of you in mind.  I truly hope not.

Again, I encourage you to study.  

Thank you,

-Smac

[hope_for_things]

5 minutes ago, bluebell said:

You don't think God is capable of leading and guiding a church?

No, I'm not saying God couldn't run a church, that's not what I'm questioning.  I'm questioning whether the concept of exercising faith as a principle should be applied this way to a specific organization and the way that the leaders of that organization are running things.  

7 minutes ago, bluebell said:

It's faith that God knows how to accomplish His purposes using imperfect and flawed people who mess stuff up sometimes.  We have to have faith that we and others can serve God even while seeing through a glass darkly.  It's faith in the ability of God's grace to make up for what we lack.  

I don't disagree with this part, but this seems like a different kind of faith.  It sounds like you have faith that God will eventually get everything right, even with mistakes and detours along the path. 

But as an individual that is living in a very finite time, when I see mistakes happen, what is my obligation to faith for those specific situations?  The way you're telling me that you have faith in the big picture, doesn't really tell me how I should respond to individual circumstances when I see mistakes happening in the here and now.  If I see a leader making a mistake, should I just ignore it, trusting that God will eventually fix all the mistakes and get things right?  That is what it seems like people are asking me to do when I point out problems in our history or problems in our current policies and practices.  I personally find this to be immoral if I were to just ignore the problems right in front of me.  Does this make sense?  

[hope_for_things]

13 minutes ago, smac97 said:

I don't think these folks have such judgmentalisms and condemnations of you in mind.  I truly hope not.

Again, I encourage you to study.  

I appreciate your attempts to respond, and perhaps you are right and I have misconstrued the intentions of members who tell me to just have faith.  This has been my experience, and I have to say that if study is the solution then at least I should be on a good trajectory because I've been studying more than ever in the past few years and I continue to do so.  

Overwhelmingly what I've been finding out from my study is that the church itself and its leaders often don't have the answers to the questions and the needs I have at this stage in life.  I'm finding the best answers from those needs outside Mormonism.  I think Mormonism has shaped my life and continues to do so in many ways, and it informs the understandings that I'm gaining as I continue to learn and grow, but its interesting that I'm finding the best guidance for this phase of my journey outside the boundaries of Mormonism.  

[smac97]

3 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

I appreciate your attempts to respond, and perhaps you are right and I have misconstrued the intentions of members who tell me to just have faith.  This has been my experience, and I have to say that if study is the solution then at least I should be on a good trajectory because I've been studying more than ever in the past few years and I continue to do so.  

Overwhelmingly what I've been finding out from my study is that the church itself and its leaders often don't have the answers to the questions and the needs I have at this stage in life.  I'm finding the best answers from those needs outside Mormonism.  I think Mormonism has shaped my life and continues to do so in many ways, and it informs the understandings that I'm gaining as I continue to learn and grow, but its interesting that I'm finding the best guidance for this phase of my journey outside the boundaries of Mormonism.  

There are many profound and important truths "outside Mormonism."  However, there are some truths within Mormonism that are not to be found anywhere else.  That is my belief.  

Thanks,

-Smac

[bluebell]

1 minute ago, hope_for_things said:

No, I'm not saying God couldn't run a church, that's not what I'm questioning.  I'm questioning whether the concept of exercising faith as a principle should be applied this way to a specific organization and the way that the leaders of that organization are running things.  

You don't think people should have faith that a church that claims to be lead by God can actually be lead by God?

Quote

I don't disagree with this part, but this seems like a different kind of faith.  It sounds like you have faith that God will eventually get everything right, even with mistakes and detours along the path. 

I have faith that God, who can see the beginning from the end, can guide us in ways that the mistakes and detours are actually part of His plan.

Quote

But as an individual that is living in a very finite time, when I see mistakes happen, what is my obligation to faith for those specific situations?  The way you're telling me that you have faith in the big picture, doesn't really tell me how I should respond to individual circumstances when I see mistakes happening in the here and now.  If I see a leader making a mistake, should I just ignore it, trusting that God will eventually fix all the mistakes and get things right?  That is what it seems like people are asking me to do when I point out problems in our history or problems in our current policies and practices.  I personally find this to be immoral if I were to just ignore the problems right in front of me.  Does this make sense?  

You're obligation is to follow what the Spirit says to do and let God take care of the rest.  Do you have faith that you're capable of know what God wants you to do in specific situations?

 

[mfbukowski]

23 hours ago, hope_for_things said:

As an orthodox Mormon, when I have questions and critiques on topics that I hear at church or read about, I'm frequently told that it all boils down to just having faith, especially when people don't have good answers to my questions.  Terryl Given and Fiona Given's even articulate this idea in their book, The Crucible of Doubt, about how when presented with information on both sides of an issue, that this is precisely the point of God's plan so that we are able to choose and exercise faith.  

Here is my question, what are we supposed to have faith in exactly?  Should I have faith in the historicity of an event described in the BoM?  Should I have faith that a talk given in conference by a church leader is an inspired talk that accurately reflects the mind of God?  Should I have faith that the words written in the Sunday school manual are inspired by God?  Should I have faith that the interpretation of scripture espoused by my high council representative is the one true interpretation?  What exactly should I have faith in?  

From my reading of scripture, particularly the Bible and the BoM there is a repeating theme that humans continue to mess things up. In the bible, some of the worst offenders are often the prophets.  They are constantly falling short of the divine will and making big mistakes and getting chastised by God.  Many passages warn against trusting in the arm of the flesh. 

So this brings me back to the question of faith, and I wonder if all the times that my fellow Mormons encourage me to just have faith, if they aren't actually are giving me really bad advice.  I'm thinking from the experiences I've had and the examples throughout history, that the thing I need to put my faith in is God directly, and not in humans or scriptural interpretations.  Maybe having faith in a church leader is not the purpose of faith at all.  Maybe having faith in a traditional church truth claim is also not the point of faith.   Faith in God, directly is not the same thing as faith in the church or faith in scripture or faith in authorities.  Faith in God seems like the only kind of faith that really can work. 

Thoughts? 

Yeah.

Faith in God and your Gut, that's it.

Fideism. 

It really comes down to one, faith in your gut cause you can't have faith in God without that. 

[mfbukowski]

1 hour ago, hope_for_things said:

Great thoughts, thanks for this post.  This is good stuff.  

Yeah.

Faith in the gut.

 

[mfbukowski]

1 hour ago, smac97 said:

At the extreme end of it all, yes.  "It all boils down to just having faith."

But there is a very long road to walk before reaching that end.  Lots of studying, pondering, and prayer.  Lots of love and service to others.  Lots of humility.  Repentance.  Temple and church attendance.  In all of this, "questions and critiques on topics" can and should be addressed.  The individual's life will be refined and improved and edified through obedience to God.  The Spirit will enliven his mind, soften his heart, and provide clarity and proportion.

I think the better question is "What are we supposed to have faith in."  There isn't an "exactly."

We are supposed to have faith in Christ.  His life.  His teachings.  His atoning sacrifice.

In a derivative, supplementary sense, I think so.  Yes.

If congruent with scripture, yes.  If confirmed by the Spirit, yes.

I think we should keep these things in proportion.

I think we should have faith in Christ.  We can and should exercise faith as to derivative things, but with a pinch of salt.

We each of us have access to the Spirit.  We can gauge remarks by a High Council member and reach a determination as to the substance and accuracy and propriety and application of his remarks.

There is also a repeating theme that despite humans continuing to mess things up, God nevertheless works through them.

How do you apply this concept when considered in tandem with the many scriptural exhortations to obey prophetic guidance?

I think you are materially misconstruing that advice.  You seem to be portraying your fellow Mormons as telling you to have faith alone, or to have blind faith.  Or to not address your questions and concerns.

I don't think that is what they (or most of them) mean.

Ultimately, yes, faith should be in God.  However, prophets are not merely window dressing.  They have a vital role to play in the Plan of Salvation. 

"What I the Lord have spoken, I have spoken, and I excuse not myself; and though the heavens and the earth pass away, my word shall not pass away, but shall all be fulfilled, whether by mine own voice or by the voice of my servants, it is the same."  (D&C 1:38)

I think the entirety of D&C 1 merits some consideration as to the point you are raising.

The Saints are susceptible to over-reliance on the prophets.  Several of them have warned against this.

The Saints are also susceptible to disregarding the prophets.  That too is unhealthy and inappropriate.

I think we can and should have faith in Jesus Christ.  In an "ultimate" and "when all is said and done" sense, there is a case to be made for saying "I have faith in Christ alone."  Faith in any particular facet of the Restored Gospel ("Gospel" being "good news" about Jesus Christ) can become problematic when it supersedes, rather than supplements from a subordinate position, faith in Christ. 

For example, I recall a missionary experience I had with an elderly member of the Church in Taiwan.  She was a nice person, but every Fast Sunday she stood and bore her testimony about . . . the Word of Wisdom.  She and her husband had joined the Church years before, and their acceptance of and adherence to the WoW had clearly had a tremendous influence in their lives.  She was very grateful and enthusiastic for it.  But she never spoke of Jesus Christ, except to close her remarks in His name.  I recall thinking at the time that her testimony of "the Gospel" could perhaps need to refinement and improvement so as to focus on faith Jesus Christ primarily, with a corollary-but-supplementary-and-subordinate expression of "faith" in the principles of the Restored Gospel, including the Word of Wisdom (I did not know her well, and I did not want to judge her, so I never dwelt on it much).

In contrast, I have seen many, many instances of members of the Church disregarding "faith" in prophetic guidance and counsel altogether.  Disregarding prophets in this way . . . does not end well.  God works through His servants.  Imperfect as they are, He works through them.  And in the aggregate, they seem to be doing a very good job.  They confer and work together in councils.  They focus on fundamentals, while also addressing real-world problems.

For example, last Saturday our ward's bishop participated in a meeting attended by the bishops of about ten stakes in Provo, the stake presidencies, and conducted by Elder Andersen.  Also present were Elder Roney (area authority), Bishop Davies (1st Counselor in Presiding Bishopric), a member of the Presidency of the Seventy, the mission president, and the temple presidents for both temples.  Elder Andersen told the bishops that the Quorum of the Twelve had started these sorts of meetings with bishops about nine years ago, that they try to have as many as possible, and that they had become very valuable and productive.  A big part of the meeting was a Q&A for the bishops to ask . . . pretty much whatever they wanted to ask.

Further, the Lord's servants are charged with administering the ordinances of the Church, including the saving ordinances.  And participation in those ordinances requires the sustaining of the Lord's servants.

So do we have "faith" in these people?  Well, yes, but it is "faith" that they are called of God, that they are representing the Lord, that they have authority from Him, that their counsel is (or should be) inspired, and so on.  We do not have "faith" that they are the means of salvation, that sort of "faith" being relegated to Jesus only.

Thanks,

-Smac

EDIT TO ADD: I think D&C 5:9-10 is important:

Again, we cannot ignore the prophets.

Converts don't have time for this before baptism.

It's Moroni 10:4-5 or nothing

Lifers don't understand converts.

[smac97]

20 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

Converts don't have time for this before baptism.

"This" being . . . what?  I'm not sure I follow.

20 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

It's Moroni 10:4-5 or nothing

Lifers don't understand converts.

I think I have an inkling.

I think most converts are not situated so as to be struggling with nuanced consideration of arcane or complex or controversial topics.  To that end, you are quite correct.  "It's Moroni 10:4-5 or nothing."  Line upon line and all that.

Thanks,

-Smac

[CV75]

2 hours ago, hope_for_things said:

I'm actually questioning the premise that you're building this comment on.  Is this the correct application for the principle of faith in a general sense.  Is faith supposed to be a question and answer mechanism of sorts?  

My premise is that everyone has faith in something, which is presumably working for them (it is “true”) until they find something better (which is the new or fuller “true”). I think that “something better” is revealed in satisfactory answers. This is akin to the Alma 32 formula where faith represents the “question” or the “unknown” part of the “mechanism” (I call it a “dynamic”) and knowledge represents the “answer” part of the mechanism.

Satisfactory answers may come in the form of thoughts, feelings or both at the same time. Alma 32 acknowledges this with the idea that an answer may not be perfect, but it feels right and merits holding as “true” so that a fuller answer or more correct knowledge may be discovered over time. No matter how much we know on a topic as “true”, we eventually come to feel there is more to know on it, and to know as “true.”

Paraphrasing the OP, when we have questions and critiques on topics, we can choose and exercise faith in the topic (i.e. the answers or knowledge at hand), in the question/critique, and ideally in both at the same time. By choosing faith, we are choosing to feel that there is yet more to know, and to know as “true.”

Where the topic represents the answers at hand, faith (conviction) in a question or critique on a topic is not the same as doubt (lack of conviction) in the topic; a question based on a doubt leads to doubt-inducing answers as much as a good-faith question leads to faith-inducing answers. That may be another subject of discussion.

[Guest]

On December 6, 2017 at 2:38 PM, hope_for_things said:

Thanks Papa, so just a couple questions about your post.  I personally follow biblical scholarship and I question the historicity for much of the biblical accounts as well.  You started by saying that we need faith in Jesus Christ.  But then you turned that faith in Jesus Christ into being able to discern what is true.  I think that's where I'm differing with you basic premise.  Should we take that second step that you suggest to connecting faith in God/Jesus into an effort to determine if a scriptural interpretation or religious tradition or statement by an authority figure is true.  I wonder if this second step is where we've lost the point of what faith is all about in the first place.  

I think the finer point I was trying to make, had to do the "Spiritual Decrement" (hope I spelled it correctly). Having Faith in Jesus Christ, his Atonement and all the gifts of Grace, means having the Spirit so that we can "know" and not merely "guess", as to what is truth, and what is opinion. However, truth and opinion are not always opposed to on another. Does that help?  

[hope_for_things]

2 hours ago, Bill "Papa" Lee said:

I think the finer point I was trying to make, had to do the "Spiritual Decrement" (hope I spelled it correctly). Having Faith in Jesus Christ, his Atonement and all the gifts of Grace, means having the Spirit so that we can "know" and not merely "guess", as to what is truth, and what is opinion. However, truth and opinion are not always opposed to on another. Does that help?  

I guess that’s not what I was writing about with respect to the principle of faith.  I understand what you’re saying as the purpose of the Spirit, but I don’t think the is the point about faith I was trying to make.  You’re talking about using the spirit as a tool of discernment, and I was talking about having questions or concerns about religious propositions and having people tell me I should just exercise faith in those propositions.  I was questioning where that kind of guidance is even what the purpose of faith is in the first place.  I don’t think it is.

On the spirit, I probably disagree with you on what the spirit really can do for us as far as the limits of telling us what is true in an objective truth sense.  I’m not sure I really believe in the spirit in the way I was taught about it from modern correlated Mormon teachings anyway.  

[CV75]

10 hours ago, hope_for_things said:

I was talking about having questions or concerns about religious propositions and having people tell me I should just exercise faith in those propositions.

Can you give an example -- not to settle the particular issue but to examine the dynamics at play, a case study of sorts. I'd like to look at what they are giving as reasons or motivations to "just exercise faith" in the proposition.

[hope_for_things]

3 hours ago, CV75 said:

Can you give an example -- not to settle the particular issue but to examine the dynamics at play, a case study of sorts. I'd like to look at what they are giving as reasons or motivations to "just exercise faith" in the proposition.

Sure, one specific example recently is a conversation with a close family member about the church's 2015 policy on the children of gay parents.  We have an extended family member who just turned 18 and was baptized, and I said how hurtful this was to this family member's biological mother who is gay, and how sad I was that the church's policy is causing a rift in their family due to this policy that requires the child to disavow the relationship of her parents.  

My family member said that wasn't true, that was his first defense.  But I told him it was true and he still didn't believe me so I looked up the relevant parts of the policy and showed him those parts.  After he saw that I was factually correct on this statement, that is when he got into the just have faith argument. He told me that this is a complicated issue and that he just trusts that God has a reason for this policy and that I just need to have more faith in church leaders.  

Now, I didn't want to take the conversation too much further, because of past conversations with him and I don't like arguing about things that he has dug in opinions about around religion.  At least he was willing to look at the policy statement and recognize that I was correct on the facts of the policy, that was a small step in the right direction for someone who hasn't read the church essays no matter how many times I've asked him to.  

[CV75]

3 hours ago, hope_for_things said:

Sure, one specific example recently is a conversation with a close family member about the church's 2015 policy on the children of gay parents.  We have an extended family member who just turned 18 and was baptized, and I said how hurtful this was to this family member's biological mother who is gay, and how sad I was that the church's policy is causing a rift in their family due to this policy that requires the child to disavow the relationship of her parents.  

My family member said that wasn't true, that was his first defense.  But I told him it was true and he still didn't believe me so I looked up the relevant parts of the policy and showed him those parts.  After he saw that I was factually correct on this statement, that is when he got into the just have faith argument. He told me that this is a complicated issue and that he just trusts that God has a reason for this policy and that I just need to have more faith in church leaders.  

Now, I didn't want to take the conversation too much further, because of past conversations with him and I don't like arguing about things that he has dug in opinions about around religion.  At least he was willing to look at the policy statement and recognize that I was correct on the facts of the policy, that was a small step in the right direction for someone who hasn't read the church essays no matter how many times I've asked him to.  

This example seems to be about a difference in a point of fact which you both eventually agreed upon.

It seems to me that the issue is that you were sad, and while I suppose having faith in God can help people who are sad, I’m not sure how acknowledging the complexity of an issue, trusting that God has a reason for the policy and having faith in Church leaders address the sadness. These seem only to address one's level of deference for the policy.

Do you think he was he trying to comfort you or get you to go along with the policy? What were you seeking from him?

[hope_for_things]

17 minutes ago, CV75 said:

This example seems to be about a difference in a point of fact which you both eventually agreed upon.

 

It seems to me that the issue is that you were sad, and while I suppose having faith in God can help people who are sad, I’m not sure how acknowledging the complexity of an issue, trusting that God has a reason for the policy and having faith in Church leaders address the sadness. These seem only to address one's level of deference for the policy.

 

Do you think he was he trying to comfort you or get you to go along with the policy? What were you seeking from him?

 

It was just a conversation about an extended family member.  I think its illustrative of a common experience that I have when I discuss problems I have with church policies or different perspectives that I hold about historical events based on research that I've done.  If it doesn't agree with the correlated orthodox approach, then I'm told I need to have more faith.  But I question that use of the principle of faith.  I question putting faith in things that we don't agree with morally, or leaders teachings that aren't supported by my interpretation of evidence.  

Do I think he was trying to comfort me?  No.  He disagreed with what I said because he didn't think the church would have a policy like that in the first place.  Then when I showed him that the church actually does have a policy like that, he changed his position to telling me that I just need to have faith in the church leaders.  I've had him tell me this before as well.  It wasn't a one time thing.  

What am I seeking from him?  Probably a little more open-mindedness.  I am a trusted family member, but instead of trusting my perspective as having validity, I find that many people are much more loyal to the church than they are to family or friends.  That's after a lifetime of loyalty tests and weekly practicing of conformance to church norms.  I know, I used to think this way as well.  

[CV75]

31 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

It was just a conversation about an extended family member.  I think its illustrative of a common experience that I have when I discuss problems I have with church policies or different perspectives that I hold about historical events based on research that I've done.  If it doesn't agree with the correlated orthodox approach, then I'm told I need to have more faith.  But I question that use of the principle of faith.  I question putting faith in things that we don't agree with morally, or leaders teachings that aren't supported by my interpretation of evidence.  

Do I think he was trying to comfort me?  No.  He disagreed with what I said because he didn't think the church would have a policy like that in the first place.  Then when I showed him that the church actually does have a policy like that, he changed his position to telling me that I just need to have faith in the church leaders.  I've had him tell me this before as well.  It wasn't a one time thing.  

What am I seeking from him?  Probably a little more open-mindedness.  I am a trusted family member, but instead of trusting my perspective as having validity, I find that many people are much more loyal to the church than they are to family or friends.  That's after a lifetime of loyalty tests and weekly practicing of conformance to church norms.  I know, I used to think this way as well.  

Since he wasn’t trying to comfort you, do you think he was trying to get you more comfortable with the policy? Or just conform?

Do the discussions of the problems and perspectives typically highlight their emotional aspect, such as the sadness you expressed over the hurt the mother felt in relation to her son’s compliance with the policy? That might influence the introduction of faith as a solution in a different way than if if were to help accept things not fully understood.

The issue of loyalty is an interesting one, especially when viewed as an either/or proposition (the Church or family). How, or at what point, does not trusting your perspective as having validity turn into a lack of familial disloyalty?

I was disowned (only for only a while, thank goodness) by my mother when I joined the Church, but I never sensed I was being disloyal to her; in my mind, my loyalties were not mutually exclusive. I didn’t consider joining the Church a matter of loyalty to anyone or any organization but simply the incumbent thing to do. Her terms for loyalty were simply different than mine.