Losing faith vs losing belief

[CV75]

2 hours ago, smac97 said:

You'll need to define terms, since "faith" and "beliefs" seem pretty much synonymous.

I have a family member who has lost faith in God, and in the Church's claims for itself, but he still values most of its behavioral precepts (Law of Chastity, Word of Wisdom, emphasis on family, etc.).  However important these things are, they are not exclusive to the Church.  A person can utterly reject the existence of God, the divinity of Jesus Christ, the foundational narrative elements of the Restoration, etc., and still find value in parts of the Gospel.

I'm reminded of this oldy-but-goody:

As I look back on my life, I have found that God generally answers my prayers and intervenes in my life during or after my obedience to His commandments.  We are, after all, supposed to be "anxiously engaged in a good cause, and do many things of {our} own free will, and bring to pass much righteousness" (D&C 58:27).  See also Ether12:6 ("I would show unto the world that faith is things which are hoped for and not seen; wherefore, dispute not because ye see not, for ye receive no witness until after the trial of your faith"), D&C 130:21 ("And when we obtain any blessing from God, it is by obedience to that law upon which it is predicated") and D&C 84:20-21 ("Therefore, in the ordinances thereof, the power of godliness is manifest.  And without the ordinances thereof, and the authority of the priesthood, the power of godliness is not manifest unto men in the flesh.").

Yes, this can happen.

Anecdotally, though, it seems like many of my personal family members, friends, acquaintances, etc. who leave the Church either also abandon any belief in God, or else reduce Him to a mere abstraction in the background of their lives.

I think obedience/adherence to correct principles (that is, moral communications and conduct), or some approximation thereof, is pretty much always going to be better than disobedience/non-adherence.  I'm not sure which of your options better approximates this position.

Consider D&C 59:

It seems like obedience is better than non-obedience, but "devotional" obedience, obedience based on a confession of God's "hand in all things," is important.  See Moroni 7:

I think the Lord gives us time to sort these things out, but in the end it is important that we keep the commandments, and also that we do so with the correct motivation ("with real intent").

Thanks,

-Smac

I think Alma 32 provides an excellent common point of reference for this discussion concerning how belief and faith can be viewed as different.

[CV75]

8 hours ago, RAD DAD said:

No. The gospel teaches that God sent members of the church here to earth so we can restore true Christianity. If you lose your faith in God, there is no LDS gospel to believe in, which means The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints is just one very wealthy multi level marketing scheme.

Why is there a need for a doctrinal testimony?

I think belief is to faith as a doctrinal point is to a fulness of the Gospel. Using Alma 32 terms for belief and faith, one can believe imperfectly, but faith -- even a particle -- is perfect and has definite, law-abiding results. The doctrine of Christ (using 3 Nephi 11 and 12 as a common reference) is very straightforward and helps us navigate the Gospel of Christ, all that is not straightfoward and which moves against it. The doctrine of Christ is a six-fold dynamo (faith, repentance, baptism in water, baptism by fire, enduring to the end, and all these administered by proper authority), so mere belief in any single point (or any other "appendage") cannot be rightly applied, in isolation, toward faith in the fulness of the Gospel. But you can still believe, with less-than ideal results.

[Navidad]

If I may jump in. In the New Testament the idea of trust, faith, and belief all are translated into English from the same Greek word – pisteuo. In terms of Greek linguistic usage, the word has many meanings, four of which are found (according to Botha) in the New Testament. We can’t be absolutely certain about any of the meanings in any particular verse, but careful analysis of context helps. What happens too often is that we look up the word in a Bible dictionary and pick from the list, the meaning we agree with most, like best, or fits best with our theological doctrine. Or worse yet, pick a Bible dictionary that represents a specific point of view and then use the meaning found therein. No more exploring. That isn’t exegesis. It is eisegesis or reading into the text our own preferences. Unfortunately, all Christian groups and many apologetes do this. Or some simply attach a meaning to the word that fits their worldview.

Here are the four meanings of the word pisteuo in the New Testament that are variously translated as faith, belief, and trust in English. The English word trust is quite rare in the New Testament (depending on the translation/version). However,  at least these four meanings (with one example for each) appear in the New Testament (according to Botha, a Greek and Biblical linguist I respect):

1. To accept something as correct or truthful -  John 9:18 (used in the negative)

2. To entrust someone with something – Mark 11:24

3. To place trust on something or someone (as in “rely on”) Gal 2:7

4. To be a believer – accept the Christian faith for example – I Thess 1:7

So, whether or not we use the word faith, belief, or trust, we are using the same root word with at least one of these four meanings.

I have a different concern. My concern focuses on when we use the term pisteuo to refer to something as the only correct or truthful. I think that is an abuse of #1 and “only” attaches a meaning that is not intended in the text, or it is a meaning attached to a word that is better translated in the context of 2-4. Neils Bohr said it better than me – “The opposite of a fact is a falsehood, but the opposite of one profound truth may very well be another profound truth.” This is especially true when we are talking about that which is unknown and cannot be known at this time, such as the details of either end of the eternities.

Whether talking about our personal beliefs or institutional beliefs, they change over time. That has happened with the Mennonites and the various Mormon groups, including the LDS. It has happened with me and probably with many of you. I personally think our trust in God is more important that our specific beliefs about God. However, there may be lots of different beliefs about that even here on our own forum. Best wishes to all.

 

 

Edited May 12, 2023 by Navidad

[mfbukowski]

22 minutes ago, Navidad said:

If I may jump in. In the New Testament the idea of trust, faith, and belief all are translated into English from the same Greek word – pisteuo. In terms of Greek linguistic usage, the word has many meanings, four of which are found (according to Botha) in the New Testament. We can’t be absolutely certain about any of the meanings in any particular verse, but careful analysis of context helps. What happens too often is that we look up the word in a Bible dictionary and pick from the list, the meaning we agree with most, like best, or fits best with our theological doctrine. Or worse yet, pick a Bible dictionary that represents a specific point of view and then use the meaning found therein. No more exploring. That isn’t exegesis. It is eisegesis or reading into the text our own preferences. Unfortunately, all Christian groups and many apologetes do this. Or some simply attach a meaning to the word that fits their worldview.

Here are the four meaning of the word pisteuo in the New Testament that are variously translated as faith, belief, and trust in English. The English word trust is quite rare in the New Testament (depending on the translation/version). However,  at least these four meanings (with one example for each) appear in the New Testament (according to Botha, a Greek and Biblical linguist I respect):

 

1. To accept something as correct or truthful -  John 9:18 (used in the negative)

 

2. To entrust someone with something – Mark 11:24

 

3. To place trust on something or someone (as in “rely on”) Gal 2:7

 

4. To be a believer – accept the Christian faith for example – I Thess 1:7

 

So, whether or not we use the word faith, belief, or trust, we are using the same root word with at least one of these four meanings.

I have a different concern. My concern focuses on when we use the term pisteuo to refer to something as the only correct or truthful. I think that is an abuse of #1 and “only” attaches a meaning that is not intended in the text, or it is a meaning attached to a word that is better translated in the context of 2-4. Neils Bohr said it better than me – “The opposite of a fact is a falsehood, but the opposite of one profound truth may very well be another profound truth.” This is especially true when we are talking about that which is unknown and cannot be known at this time, such as the details of either end of the eternities.

Whether talking about our personal beliefs or institutional beliefs, they change over time. That has happened with the Mennonites and the various Mormon groups, including the LDS. It has happened with me and probably with many of you. I personally think our trust in God is more important that our specific beliefs about God. However, there may be lots of different beliefs about that even here on our own forum. Best wishes to all.

 

 

 

In other words, everything in life,especially religion, can be and therefore IS, subject to semantic confusion.

Yep.

So we might as well admit it and see scripture as post modern.

Gosh!  Good point!   Welcome to the postmodern club- just forget about- as you would say- "thee truth".

Remember, language was confounded at Babel.    Plus therefore a completely "perfect" translation is simply not possible.  Word meanings vary according to culture and time.

Words just don't do it, but they are the best we have.

 

 

[JLHPROF]

3 hours ago, smac97 said:

You'll need to define terms, since "faith" and "beliefs" seem pretty much synonymous.

I have a family member who has lost faith in God, and in the Church's claims for itself, but he still values most of its behavioral precepts (Law of Chastity, Word of Wisdom, emphasis on family, etc.).  However important these things are, they are not exclusive to the Church.  A person can utterly reject the existence of God, the divinity of Jesus Christ, the foundational narrative elements of the Restoration, etc., and still find value in parts of the Gospel.

I'm reminded of this oldy-but-goody:

As I look back on my life, I have found that God generally answers my prayers and intervenes in my life during or after my obedience to His commandments.  

Well here are some examples -

Tithing - I have a testimony of tithing, always paid it, believe the scriptures and revelations concerning it.

Yet for many faithful tithe payers the windows of heaven NEVER seem to be open, let alone blessings beyond ability to receive.  Instead they're lucky to have bread on the table.

Or healing - scripture promises healing from faith and administration by the Elders yet it often seems a 50/50 proposition.

Or the word of wisdom - do all faithful observers receive health, run without being weary etc?  You can 100% believe the revelation came from God and has true principles.  But how to retain faith when the promises never come.

In short, when faithful diligent obedience to the commandments DOESN'T bring about ANY appreciable change over extended periods of time what then?

You can retain a belief that prayer is a true principle and works for people, it may even have worked for you in the past.  But having faith in the efficacy of prayer or God's care can be eroded if you cease to get ANY identifiable response to any prayer at all for years at a time.

[Teancum]

16 hours ago, JLHPROF said:

Is it possible to lose your faith in God but retain your beliefs in the gospel?  I'm thinking of the idea that the gospel is still true, there is a God, but there's no point in living it.  A "God doesn't answer my prayers or ever intervene in my life" kind of situation.

What about the reverse?  I think I've seen many who lose their beliefs in the gospel but still have faith in a God with little to no doctrinal testimony.

Is one better or worse than the other?

I am not sure how you can believe a gospel without faith in God.  For me I lost faith in the LDS gospel first but retained Faith in God for quite sometime.  Now I just do now know. I think the latter is more possible and practical. Some lose faith in  the LDS gospel and still believe in God and even find an alternate path.

[Teancum]

7 hours ago, RAD DAD said:

I guess I assumed you're a member of the church, sorry about that. Members of the LDS faith believe we don't need written information about a subject to learn the truth of it. We can pray and receive all the information we need to know about religious matters. Religious knowledge and the workings of God don't come from the written word. If you believe the gospel is true and God has the ability to communicate with you through prayer, wouldn't that be more important than what some man you have never met wrote on paper

@JLHPROF is a long time member of this board and has alway been a poster that seemed to be a very devote Latter-day Saint.  In fact to me he has believed it more literally than most I have met.

[Teancum]

6 hours ago, JAHS said:

Hard to know when He doesn't intervene at least sometimes.

I think mostly if there is a God that being does not intervene at all.  If it does at times and does not at other times it is a capricious entity.

6 hours ago, JAHS said:

 

You take a trip in a car free from any accidents. Did God intervene in an accident your were supposed to have?

No.

[Teancum]

4 hours ago, smac97 said:

A person can utterly reject the existence of God, the divinity of Jesus Christ, the foundational narrative elements of the Restoration, etc., and still find value in parts of the Gospel.

Or rather they find value in proper morals.  The "gospel" is not the ultimate authority on morals and values.

[pogi]

1 hour ago, JLHPROF said:

In short, when faithful diligent obedience to the commandments DOESN'T bring about ANY appreciable change over extended periods of time what then?

If we believe and follow Alma 32, we are taught to toss out the seed if it doesn't bear fruit.   That is how I am learning to approach the gospel.  It is not all or nothing for me anymore.  I do what works as I apply my faith in following the light that burns in my heart and conscience.  

[Navidad]

How about Psalm 88 and 89? I love these two Psalms because it shows that we can be upset, angry, and disappointment in God without Him rebuking us. These are two Psalms that rarely get taught in any church! We can also trust in Him, even when we are mad at Him! Wow!

[smac97]

8 minutes ago, Teancum said:

Quote

A person can utterly reject the existence of God, the divinity of Jesus Christ, the foundational narrative elements of the Restoration, etc., and still find value in parts of the Gospel.

Or rather they find value in proper morals.  The "gospel" is not the ultimate authority on morals and values.

I believe it is.  I am familiar with the generalized concept of "secular morality," but I find it derivative (endlessly so, even) and problematic, both in theory and practice.  As Fyodor Dostoevsky said, “If there is no God, everything is permissible.” If everything is permissible, there can be no morality because there is no longer the distinction between good and evil.

Secular morality has no workable grounding or foundational principles.  Korihor's formulation is apt: "every man fared in this life according to the management of the creature; therefore every man prospered according to his genius, and that every man conquered according to his strength; and whatsoever a man did was no crime" (Alma 30:17).  And yet as soon as secularists affirm the absence of natural law, they almost immediately presuppose and re-embrace it.  They deny the differentiation between good and evil, and thereafter rely upon it to quantify their derivative moral code.  

This article (about medical ethics) does a pretty good job of explaining what I have in mind:

Quote

The Council for Secular Humanism outlines its worldview:[8]

• A conviction that dogmas, ideologies and traditions, whether religious, political or social, must be weighed and tested by each individual and not simply accepted on faith.
• Commitment to the use of critical reason, factual evidence, and scientific methods of inquiry, rather than faith and mysticism, in seeking solutions to human problems and answers to important human questions.
• A primary concern with fulfilment, growth, and creativity for both the individual and humankind in general.
• A constant search for objective truth, with the understanding that new knowledge and experience constantly alter our imperfect perception of it.
• A concern for this life and a commitment to making it meaningful through better understanding of ourselves, our history, our intellectual and artistic achievements, and the outlooks of those who differ from us.
• A search for viable individual, social and political principles of ethical conduct, judging them on their ability to enhance human well-being and individual responsibility.
• A conviction that with reason, an open marketplace of ideas, good will, and tolerance, progress can be made in building a better world for ourselves and our children.

Much of the outline appears acceptable at first glance. But their position is spelt out more fully in a manifesto.[9] [10] It claims that, 'any account of nature should pass the tests of scientific evidence', and any new discoveries can only confirm their materialism. It excludes even the possibility of transcendent values, or any goal beyond the here and now. It rejects any authority higher than man, and embraces subjective ethics. These are hardly neutral, scientific statements, but are unashamedly materialistic. Specific examples of secular humanist beliefs that are value-laden (and non-scientific) include:

• All people should be valued equally, even if evolution has not made us equal
• A baby in the womb can be treated as a disease that marginally increases a mother's mortality
• There is no objective right or wrong, as there is no authority higher than human beings
• If God exists, he should prove himself to us according to scientific standards

There are all sorts of "value-laden" and non-scientific claims by our atheist friends.  Just look at the last "Council for Secular Humanism" bullet points, which are shot through with presuppositions about right and wrong, good and bad (they literally advocate the use of "good will"), "a better world for ourselves and our children," and so on.  I see this as tantamount to rhapsodizing about the merits of Shakespeare's writings, but then denying that Shakespeare wrote them.  Again from the above article:

Quote

It is easy to forget how distinctive the Christian worldview is, with its insistence on the sanctity of life. Non-Western cultures (without the Judeo-Christian heritage) are often less prepared for human rights and democracy, because they lack a theistic worldview. The vanguards of modern liberal democracy recognised that rights are absolute (or unalienable) because they are divinely endowed. These include the French Declaration of the Rights of Man [11], and the American Declaration of Independence:[12]

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.

Nevertheless, when secularists appeal to universal human rights, they are plundering the resources of Christianity, while rejecting the authority of the Creator who endowed them. 

"Plundering the resources of Christianity."

Yep.

Quote

The debt owed by secular humanism to Christianity is clearer to those outside our culture. Lee Kuan Yew, Minister Mentor of Singapore, responded to the Western outcry over a sentence of flogging for vandalism saying: 'To us in Asia, an individual is an ant; to you he is a child of God. It's an amazing concept'.

It is indeed amazing.  

Quote

No-one can avoid making moral judgments, whether they are religious or not. Secular humanists also make them on the basis of their worldview and act as if they are binding on everyone else. Christians are explicit in recognising the authority of divine revelation in ethics, but that does not make faith irrational. Christians have good reason to be proud of the impact of Jesus' ethics on Western medicine, as long as we follow his example of valuing both truth and love.

Thanks,

-Smac

[Kenngo1969]

1 hour ago, JLHPROF said:

Well here are some examples -

Tithing - I have a testimony of tithing, always paid it, believe the scriptures and revelations concerning it.

Yet for many faithful tithe payers the windows of heaven NEVER seem to be open, let alone blessings beyond ability to receive.  Instead they're lucky to have bread on the table.

Or healing - scripture promises healing from faith and administration by the Elders yet it often seems a 50/50 proposition.

Or the word of wisdom - do all faithful observers receive health, run without being weary etc?  You can 100% believe the revelation came from God and has true principles.  But how to retain faith when the promises never come.

In short, when faithful diligent obedience to the commandments DOESN'T bring about ANY appreciable change over extended periods of time what then?

You can retain a belief that prayer is a true principle and works for people, it may even have worked for you in the past.  But having faith in the efficacy of prayer or God's care can be eroded if you cease to get ANY identifiable response to any prayer at all for years at a time.

I'm reminded of an episode of M*A*S*H in which the practically ever-faithful B.J. Hunnicutt confesses his feelings for a camp visitor, a rather fetching female war correspondent.  He tells her that she can afford to live for now because for her, there may be no tomorrow, while his situation is the exact opposite: He must live for tomorrow because, being away from a wife and child that he adores, for him, there's no now. 

For better or for worse, whether anybody understands my particular situation or not, whether anyone agrees with my assessment of it or not, whether they think I'm just a wuss, whether they think I'm just "copping out" or whatever, to a greater or lesser extent, I see myself as exactly like B.J. Hunnicutt: I'm living for an eternal "tomorrow" because it seems as though there really isn't a mortal "now." (That is, I'd like the blessings of a better job, more material resources, a family of my own, et cetera, but, yes, those things seem maddeningly forever out of reach.)

[Teancum]

2 hours ago, JLHPROF said:

Well here are some examples -

Tithing - I have a testimony of tithing, always paid it, believe the scriptures and revelations concerning it.

Yet for many faithful tithe payers the windows of heaven NEVER seem to be open, let alone blessings beyond ability to receive.  Instead they're lucky to have bread on the table.

Or healing - scripture promises healing from faith and administration by the Elders yet it often seems a 50/50 proposition.

Or the word of wisdom - do all faithful observers receive health, run without being weary etc?  You can 100% believe the revelation came from God and has true principles.  But how to retain faith when the promises never come.

In short, when faithful diligent obedience to the commandments DOESN'T bring about ANY appreciable change over extended periods of time what then?

You can retain a belief that prayer is a true principle and works for people, it may even have worked for you in the past.  But having faith in the efficacy of prayer or God's care can be eroded if you cease to get ANY identifiable response to any prayer at all for years at a time.

I have a simple answer.  But you won't like it.

[Teancum]

17 minutes ago, smac97 said:

I believe it is.

Of course you do. You are wrong. Humans have been working moral and ethical issues since we could think about such things. Your "gospel" is very new  2000 years for Christianity, 4000 for judaism and a few hundred for Mormonism.  Really there is nothing unique at all in what you call the gospel.

17 minutes ago, smac97 said:

 

 

I am familiar with the generalized concept of "secular morality," but I find it derivative (endlessly so, even) and problematic, both in theory and practice.  As Fyodor Dostoevsky said, “If there is no God, everything is permissible.” If everything is permissible, there can be no morality because there is no longer the distinction between good and evil.

Yea non believers find all this bunk. It is used by theists like you to defend your position that if there is a God that give moral values then we cannot have moral values.  No Atheist is going out and living a riotous life because they think there is nota God. In fact maybe they are more moral than you because you think your God will punish out if you are not moral.

 

But Ok. Which GOd?  What if your God's moral values conflict with someone else's God's moral values.  Who is right?  We don't need some imaginary sky being to find proper morals or ethics,

17 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Secular morality has no workable grounding or foundational principles.  Korihor's formulation is apt: "every man fared in this life according to the management of the creature; therefore every man prospered according to his genius, and that every man conquered according to his strength; and whatsoever a man did was no crime" (Alma 30:17).  And yet as soon as secularists affirm the absence of natural law, they almost immediately presuppose and re-embrace it.  They deny the differentiation between good and evil, and thereafter rely upon it to quantify their derivative moral code.  

I don't think you have spent much time on reading or thinking about morals and ethics without God. I recommend The Moral Landscape by Sam Harris.  The Korioir story is garbage.  Like a straw man argument. No atheists I know of, who think about these things, would ever use such a dumb made up story like Korihor or Sherem.

[CV75]

2 hours ago, JLHPROF said:

Well here are some examples -

Tithing - I have a testimony of tithing, always paid it, believe the scriptures and revelations concerning it.

Yet for many faithful tithe payers the windows of heaven NEVER seem to be open, let alone blessings beyond ability to receive.  Instead they're lucky to have bread on the table.

Or healing - scripture promises healing from faith and administration by the Elders yet it often seems a 50/50 proposition.

Or the word of wisdom - do all faithful observers receive health, run without being weary etc?  You can 100% believe the revelation came from God and has true principles.  But how to retain faith when the promises never come.

In short, when faithful diligent obedience to the commandments DOESN'T bring about ANY appreciable change over extended periods of time what then?

You can retain a belief that prayer is a true principle and works for people, it may even have worked for you in the past.  But having faith in the efficacy of prayer or God's care can be eroded if you cease to get ANY identifiable response to any prayer at all for years at a time.

I think it depends on what one identifies as a response. Tithe, healing and health can be spiritual, and rewarded in physical terms much later such as the resurrection.

I look to Jacob 2: 18 - 20, where "substance" and "riches" are also figurative terms. First, we seek for the kingdom of God, no matter what. Then after we have obtained a hope in Christ, and if we seek substance and riches selflessly, we will build Zion with whatever wherewithal the Lord grants to possess, small or great, because we have the perpetual intent to do good. 

The trials of our faith may bring us to this kind of conclusion/knowledge.

[mfbukowski]

2 hours ago, CV75 said:

Correction, your quote in caps was spoken by another character, concerning the Preacher's teachings  

Yeah you're right.  I guess I just wanted to point at the quote without getting into details.  

Nice to know I am not the only official Old Guy around here.   I just can't get it out of my head.  

Apologies to Jeff Lynne.   Wow man, I'm having flashbacks.

Must have been that mushroom pizza.

[Meadowchik]

1 hour ago, Teancum said:

Or rather they find value in proper morals.  The "gospel" is not the ultimate authority on morals and values.

Yup. I recognize that alot of the values I hold dear, I first experienced in the church. I also recognize that they're not unique, the best parts of the church that is. 

[smac97]

2 minutes ago, Teancum said:

Quote

 

Quote

Or rather they find value in proper morals.  The "gospel" is not the ultimate authority on morals and values.

I believe it is. 

 

Of course you do. You are wrong.

Huh.  How very . . . dogmatic of you.

2 minutes ago, Teancum said:

Humans have been working moral and ethical issues since we could think about such things. Your "gospel" is very new  2000 years for Christianity, 4000 for judaism and a few hundred for Mormonism.  Really there is nothing unique at all in what you call the gospel.

I don't know what you mean by "unique."  

I think the Restored Gospel has some fairly unique attributes.  The Gold Plates.  Witnesses.  The text of the Book of Mormon.  Moroni's Challenge.  Claims of continuing authority, an open canon, personal revelation, etc.  

2 minutes ago, Teancum said:

Quote

I am familiar with the generalized concept of "secular morality," but I find it derivative (endlessly so, even) and problematic, both in theory and practice.  As Fyodor Dostoevsky said, “If there is no God, everything is permissible.” If everything is permissible, there can be no morality because there is no longer the distinction between good and evil.

Yea non believers find all this bunk.

I know that, and yet many of them affirm these things in one breath and then turn away from them in the next.  That was my point.

2 minutes ago, Teancum said:

It is used by theists like you to defend your position that if there is a God that give moral values then we cannot have moral values. 

That is not an accurate summary of my position.

2 minutes ago, Teancum said:

No Atheist is going out and living a riotous life because they think there is not a God.

Some do, some don't.  Those who do may well be the more legitimate "atheists" out there (a backhanded compliment, to be sure), while those who do not, who constrain their behavior to that which is "good," are "are plundering the resources of Christianity."  This is akin to an actor spouting Hamlet's Soliloquy and then claiming that he came up with it all by myself.  "Sure, bud.  Sure.  Whatever you say."

2 minutes ago, Teancum said:

In fact maybe they are more moral than you because you think your God will punish out if you are not moral.

"More moral."  Your very vocabulary presupposes what you deny: a delineation between right ("moral") and wrong.

2 minutes ago, Teancum said:

But Ok. Which GOd? 

I'd like to take this as a good faith inquiry, but I don't think it is.

You know Latter-day Saints declare belief in a "Supreme Creator" (Alma 30:44), that "he hath created all things, both the heavens and the earth, and all things that in them are" (2 Nephi 2:14), that "he has all wisdom, and all power, both in heaven and in earth," and that we "{do} not comprehend all the things which the Lord can comprehend" (Mosiah 4:9), and so on.

So asking "Which God" is like asking "Which Bill Clinton was POTUS and married to Hillary?"  I mean, you can ask it, but it's an unserious question.

2 minutes ago, Teancum said:

What if your God's moral values conflict with someone else's God's moral values.  Who is right?  We don't need some imaginary sky being to find proper morals or ethics,

Right.  And we don't need Shakespeare to have written Hamlet and King Lear.  They're just there.

2 minutes ago, Teancum said:

I don't think you have spent much time on reading or thinking about morals and ethics without God. I recommend The Moral Landscape by Sam Harris. 

I've read a bit about it.  He's the advocate of, in essence, hedonism, right?  See, e.g., here:

Quote

Harris describes his moral theory as a “science of human flourishing”; and values are “the set of attitudes, choices, and behaviors that potentially affect our well-being.”6 He contrasts the “bad life”—typified by an impoverished woman in Africa whose son murders her daughter after he is kidnapped by a murderous gang—with the archetypical “good life”—which involves a wonderful romantic relationship, an “intellectually stimulating and financially rewarding” career, and a peaceful social environment.7 And he writes that “the concept of well-being is like the concept of physical health: it resists precise definition, and yet it is indispensable.”8 But none of these efforts clarifies the meaning of well-being sufficiently to ground a moral theory in the concept.

Lacking a clear conception of “well-being” as the standard of value, Harris embraces as the standard whatever happens to produce the greatest happiness or pleasure for people. The moral theory that holds “happiness” or “pleasure” as the standard of the good is hedonism (“hedone” is Latin for “pleasure”). Granted, Harris claims to reject “a strictly hedonic measure of the ‘good,’”9 and his notion of pleasure is more complex than simply pursuing sex, good food, and other sensual delights. He also distinguishes between “maximizing pleasure in any given instance” and a fuller, longer-range form of well-being, which includes such considerations as health and safety.10 Nevertheless, Harris does embrace pleasure (or happiness) as the standard of moral value, which renders his theory a form of hedonism.

One of Harris’s own examples makes this particularly clear. Harris writes that it is reasonable “to expect people who are seeking to maximize their well-being to also value fairness.” But, he wonders, “What if they don’t?”

What if there is a possible world in which the Golden Rule has become an unshakable instinct, while there is another world of equivalent happiness where the inhabitants reflexively violate it? Perhaps this is a world of perfectly matched sadists and masochists. Let’s assume that in this world every person can be paired, one-for-one, with the saints in the first world, and while they are different in every other way, these pairs are identical in every way relevant to their well-being. Stipulating all these things, the consequentialist would be forced to say that these worlds are morally equivalent.11

Harris acknowledges that the scenario of this example is “completely antithetical” to the facts of the real world, but he uses it to emphasize a key aspect of his theory, and in doing so he does make something clear: He regards followers of the Golden Rule, sadists, and masochists as equally capable of achieving the height of moral virtue. Why? Because each is capable of achieving happiness or pleasure—which is Harris’s default standard of value. By “well-being” Harris means pleasure.

In discussing the “far-fetched” scenario in which there is “no connection between being good and feeling good,” Harris writes, “In this case, rapists, liars, and thieves would experience the same depth of happiness as the saints.” He continues: “If evil turned out to be as reliable a path to happiness as goodness is,” then “saints and sinners would occupy equivalent peaks” on the “moral landscape.”12 Harris here is treating “feelings” (i.e., “feeling good”) or “happiness” as the standard of moral goodness (i.e., “being good”). He is saying that if evil begets happiness just as good does, then being evil is morally equivalent to being good.

Harris senses that some people do not wish to pursue the “good life” as he envisions it and that they might gain pleasure from being evil. Violent African gangsters hacking apart innocent women in the jungle might prefer their lifestyle to what Harris regards as the good life. Homicidal religious fanatics, such as the Islamists who murdered thousands of people in the World Trade Center, might regard their actions as noble. Environmentalists might long “for the right virus to come along” and decimate the human population.13 And psychopaths might enjoy torturing, raping, and murdering their victims. What is Harris’s answer to such creatures? In short, they “are seeking some form of well-being,” but “they are doing a very bad job of it.” Harris elaborates:

We already know that psychopaths have brain damage that prevents them from having certain deeply satisfying experiences (like empathy) that seem good for people both personally and collectively (in that they tend to increase well-being on both counts). Psychopaths, therefore, don’t know what they are missing (but we do). . . . [Psychopaths] are generally ruled by compulsions that they don’t understand and cannot resist. It is absolutely clear that, whatever they might believe about what they are doing, psychopaths are seeking some form of well-being (excitement, ecstasy, feelings of power, etc.), but because of their neurological and social deficits, they are doing a very bad job of it. We can say that a psychopath like Ted Bundy takes satisfaction in the wrong things, because living a life purposed toward raping and killing women does not allow for deeper and more generalizable forms of human flourishing. . . . Is there any doubt that Ted Bundy’s “Yes! I love this!” detectors were poorly coupled to the possibilities of finding deep fulfillment in this life, or that his obsession with raping and killing young women was a poor guide to the proper goals of morality (i.e., living a fulfilling life with others)?14

When, on the premises of one’s moral theory, the most condemnatory thing one can say about mass murderers is that although they might achieve some kind of pleasure, they don’t achieve the greatest pleasure, one should check one’s premises.

Harris’s acceptance of pleasure or happiness as the standard of moral value sets his entire moral theory on a faulty foundation. Aside from purely physical sensations, pleasure and happiness are, as Ayn Rand points out, emotional states, which are consequences of our values, not justifications for them. “Emotions are the automatic results of man’s value judgments integrated by his subconscious.”15 Thus, neither pleasure nor happiness can serve as the standard of moral value.

If you achieve that which is the good by a rational standard of value, it will necessarily make you happy; but that which makes you happy, by some undefinable standard, is not necessarily the good. To take “whatever makes one happy” as a guide to action means: to be guided by nothing but one’s emotional whims. Emotions are not tools of cognition. . . . This is the fallacy of hedonism—in any variant of ethical hedonism, personal or social, individual or collective. “Happiness” can properly be the purpose of ethics, but not the standard. The task of ethics is to define man’s proper code of values and thus to give him the means of achieving happiness. To declare, as the hedonists do, that “the proper value is whatever gives you pleasure” is to declare that “the proper value is whatever you happen to value”—which is an act of intellectual and philosophical abdication. . . .16

And the hedonistic root of Harris’s ethics is not its only problem. Harris merges his fuzzy conception of well-being with a form of utilitarianism, a collectivist form of hedonism holding that the good consists of self-sacrificially serving the greatest happiness for the greatest number.

The entire review is worth a read.

2 minutes ago, Teancum said:

The Korioir story is garbage. 

Again, how very dogmatic of you.

2 minutes ago, Teancum said:

Like a straw man argument.

I don't think so.  Korihor's hedonistic philosophy has been manifest in a variety of ways through history, and is alive and kicking today.

2 minutes ago, Teancum said:

No atheists I know of, who think about these things, would ever use such a dumb made up story like Korihor or Sherem.

Right.  “All Indians walk in single file lines.  At least, the one I saw did.”

Thanks,

-Smac

[manol]

3 hours ago, JLHPROF said:

Well here are some examples -

Tithing - I have a testimony of tithing, always paid it, believe the scriptures and revelations concerning it.

Yet for many faithful tithe payers the windows of heaven NEVER seem to be open, let alone blessings beyond ability to receive.  Instead they're lucky to have bread on the table.

Or healing - scripture promises healing from faith and administration by the Elders yet it often seems a 50/50 proposition.

Or the word of wisdom - do all faithful observers receive health, run without being weary etc?  You can 100% believe the revelation came from God and has true principles.  But how to retain faith when the promises never come.

In short, when faithful diligent obedience to the commandments DOESN'T bring about ANY appreciable change over extended periods of time what then?

You can retain a belief that prayer is a true principle and works for people, it may even have worked for you in the past.  But having faith in the efficacy of prayer or God's care can be eroded if you cease to get ANY identifiable response to any prayer at all for years at a time.

Imo this is a very courageous line of questioning for a believer to embark on.

Ime whatever is “in the way” is “the way.” Those issues which loom like boulders in the path turn out to be concealing treasures we probably would not have otherwise found. Arguably one reason the boulders are there is to get our attention.

If you are functional in a particular area and for whatever reason the results are not “filling your bucket”, imo that can be an indication that you are ready to begin the next level of progression. It has been said that “when the student is ready, the teacher appears”. You may feel the time has come to prayerfully and sincerely declare yourself to be “ready and willing”, and then pay attention for the “teacher” to appear, which may be from an unexpected direction. And ime don't be afraid to make course-corrections as needed; Alma Chapter 32 implies that course-corrections be made if “the seed” does not turn out to be a good one.

For what it's worth, I believe the teaching that “all things work together for our good”, even if such is not obvious.

 

1 hour ago, Kenngo1969 said:

For better or for worse, whether anybody understands my particular situation or not, whether anyone agrees with my assessment of it or not, whether they think I'm just a wuss, whether they think I'm just "copping out" or whatever, to a greater or lesser extent, I see myself as exactly like B.J. Hunnicutt: I'm living for an eternal "tomorrow" because it seems as though there really isn't a mortal "now." (That is, I'd like the blessings of a better job, more material resources, a family of my own, et cetera, but, yes, those things seem maddeningly forever out of reach.)

My personal belief is that separation is the illusion and union is the reality... not that there is presently significant (much less convincing) outward evidence of such.  I believe your efforts to consciously and deliberately choose light when it is effectively invisible to you constitute a gift you give to millions and millions even if that is not something which can be perceived from where we are now.  

Edited May 12, 2023 by manol

[CV75]

54 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

Yeah you're right.  I guess I just wanted to point at the quote without getting into details.  

Nice to know I am not the only official Old Guy around here.   I just can't get it out of my head.  

Apologies to Jeff Lynne.   Wow man, I'm having flashbacks.

Must have been that mushroom pizza.

Jeff Lynne was in that production? Oh yeah, now I remember! "Confusion!"  

[JLHPROF]

Maybe a simpler way of stating things is this: If you reach a point where there's no identifiable difference in your life, no recognizable hand of God, regardless of how faithful and obedient you are or are not then what remains of faith?

Even though the gospel and the Church are 100% true, and revealed from God himself.  Doesn't the gospel have to have a continuous impact on your life, however small, to enable you to retain your faith?

Yes we could say the continuation of our daily lives with blessings already received qualifies but in general that would happen either way.  However small, don't we need to see the hand of God on an ongoing basis in order to have faith - the evidence/assurance part of our faith in the unseen?

[Calm]

3 hours ago, JLHPROF said:

r healing - scripture promises healing from faith and administration by the Elders yet it often seems a 50/50 proposition.

 

More like 5/95 in my experience. I don’t usually look to physical healing in such blessings now.  Emotional, helping me endure, helping me put aside bitterness, etc…that is healing as well. 

[JLHPROF]

13 minutes ago, Calm said:

More like 5/95 in my experience. I don’t usually look to physical healing in such blessings now.  Emotional, helping me endure, helping me put aside bitterness, etc…that is healing as well. 

Yet the scriptures literally promise healing for the faithful with limited exceptions (appointed to death etc).

So if that promise is true (and I believe it is and God cannot lie) then how do we keep faith in God when healings are a relatively low percentage of administrations?

 I firmly believe God cannot lie.  The scriptures provide clear instructions and rules.  How do we keep the faith when faithful belief isn't fulfilled?

[bluebell]

3 hours ago, pogi said:

If we believe and follow Alma 32, we are taught to toss out the seed if it doesn't bear fruit.   That is how I am learning to approach the gospel.  It is not all or nothing for me anymore.  I do what works as I apply my faith in following the light that burns in my heart and conscience.  

I heard an interesting interpretation of that chapter taught by Robert Millet.  He said that if one reads that chapter closely (and kind of puts away our traditional teachings on it) one realizes that the seed a person is supposed to plant and watch the fruit grow is Christ.