Doubting Thomas-how is a faith a virtue?

[sock puppet]

John 20:

24 But Thomas, one of the twelve, called Didymus, was not with them when Jesus came.
25 The other disciples therefore said unto him, We have seen the Lord. But he said unto them, Except I shall see in his hands the print of the nails, and put my finger into the print of the nails, and thrust my hand into his side, I will not believe.
26 ¶ And after eight days again his disciples were within, and Thomas with them: [then] came Jesus, the doors being shut, and stood in the midst, and said, Peace [be] unto you.
27 Then saith he to Thomas, Reach hither thy finger, and behold my hands; and reach hither thy hand, and thrust [it] into my side: and be not faithless, but believing.
28 And Thomas answered and said unto him, My Lord and my God.
29 Jesus saith unto him, Thomas, because thou hast seen me, thou hast believed: blessed [are] they that have not seen, and [yet] have believed.

So 11 disciples saw the resurrected Jesus. They told the 12th, Thomas, about it. Thomas was the only one who had not himself then seen the resurrected Jesus, and said he would not believe the 11 until he, Thomas, also had the same experience. After he did, all 12 had so seen Jesus. But Jesus is reported to have blessed those who believed without seeing--which would not include Thomas or the other 11. By seeing the resurrected Jesus, those 12 disciples henceforth were called special witnesses, i.e., apostles.

In the Book of Mormon, it is claimed that "And now as I said concerning faith—faith is not to have a perfect knowledge of things; therefore if ye have faith ye hope for things which are not seen, which are true." Alma 32:21. Also, "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." Ether 12:6. However, Ether 12:6 is at odds with what Jesus did with Thomas. Thomas did not first hope for things not seen (i.e., faith) and have that hope tested before Jesus appeared to him. Rather, Jesus appeared to the doubting Thomas, who received that witness before any trial of such hope by Thomas. The Book of Mormon thus claims that faith and it being tested are prerequisites to a witness, when the Bible illustration belies that. Of course, the Book of Mormon approach gives a 'leader' like Joseph Smith an out--'If you, Brother Jones, have not received a witness, it is because your faith has not been strong enough to hold up when tested.'

Back to John 20:29. Why would one who has not seen something, just hoped for it to be so be blessed beyond those that had an actual witness? Why does Jesus value hope over actual witness? Many assumptions are wrong, but assumptions too are based on not having seen. Why does Jesus prefer humans that will act on a faulty information system (hope without having seen) over those that act reasonably on what they experience with their senses?

[Holy Ghost]

The Mark Hofmann incident seems to point out how faulty the inspiration model is. The FP and some senior apostles, like Boyd K. Packer, were duped by forged documents. They acted upon it. They caused money (donations) to be paid to Hofmann to secure those faked documents for the Church. Were the FP and those senior apostles blessed doing that rather than being skeptical and having the documents rigorously examined and analyzed first?

[huckelberry]

'

Back to John 20:29. Why would one who has not seen something, just hoped for it to be so be blessed beyond those that had an actual witness? Why does Jesus value hope over actual witness? Many assumptions are wrong, but assumptions too are based on not having seen. Why does Jesus prefer humans that will act on a faulty information system (hope without having seen) over those that act reasonably on what they experience with their senses?

I do not think there is any reason to think that the apostles are to be seen as inferior in this situation. I see no reason to think that I who believe but have not seen am better. I function on the best information I am able to come by. I am sure Jesus does not expect me to do otherwise.

I suppose one might read a stratified preference into Jesus comment if you are locked into measuring who you are more holy than or who might be holier than you.

My experience is that the idea that a person must have faith as a requirement before any spiritual confirmation is not correct.

Actually the critical spiritual turning point for me was when I decided to say a prayer to the universe, "i do not believe there is a god, but I am willing to open myself to learn as I realize I do not know everything" With a step back I can see that from a certain angle there is faith in that prayer. It trusts that if there is a God who is the best of our spiritual possibilities , god would respect honesty.

In fact what I hear in the story of doubting Thomas is Jesus respect for honesty.

[msnobody]

John 20:

24 But Thomas, one of the twelve, called Didymus, was not with them when Jesus came.
25 The other disciples therefore said unto him, We have seen the Lord. But he said unto them, Except I shall see in his hands the print of the nails, and put my finger into the print of the nails, and thrust my hand into his side, I will not believe.
26 ¶ And after eight days again his disciples were within, and Thomas with them: [then] came Jesus, the doors being shut, and stood in the midst, and said, Peace [be] unto you.
27 Then saith he to Thomas, Reach hither thy finger, and behold my hands; and reach hither thy hand, and thrust [it] into my side: and be not faithless, but believing.
28 And Thomas answered and said unto him, My Lord and my God.
29 Jesus saith unto him, Thomas, because thou hast seen me, thou hast believed: blessed [are] they that have not seen, and [yet] have believed.

So 11 disciples saw the resurrected Jesus. They told the 12th, Thomas, about it. Thomas was the only one who had not himself then seen the resurrected Jesus, and said he would not believe the 11 until he, Thomas, also had the same experience. After he did, all 12 had so seen Jesus. But Jesus is reported to have blessed those who believed without seeing--which would not include Thomas or the other 11. By seeing the resurrected Jesus, those 12 disciples henceforth were called special witnesses, i.e., apostles.

In the Book of Mormon, it is claimed that "And now as I said concerning faith—faith is not to have a perfect knowledge of things; therefore if ye have faith ye hope for things which are not seen, which are true." Alma 32:21. Also, "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." Ether 12:6. However, Ether 12:6 is at odds with what Jesus did with Thomas. Thomas did not first hope for things not seen (i.e., faith) and have that hope tested before Jesus appeared to him. Rather, Jesus appeared to the doubting Thomas, who received that witness before any trial of such hope by Thomas. The Book of Mormon thus claims that faith and it being tested are prerequisites to a witness, when the Bible illustration belies that. Of course, the Book of Mormon approach gives a 'leader' like Joseph Smith an out--'If you, Brother Jones, have not received a witness, it is because your faith has not been strong enough to hold up when tested.'

Back to John 20:29. Why would one who has not seen something, just hoped for it to be so be blessed beyond those that had an actual witness? Why does Jesus value hope over actual witness? Many assumptions are wrong, but assumptions too are based on not having seen. Why does Jesus prefer humans that will act on a faulty information system (hope without having seen) over those that act reasonably on what they experience with their senses?

I don't think we should see this a Thomas being scolded by Jesus. In John 20:24-29 we see Thomas needing evidence to believe, and Jesus giving to Thomas the evidence that would produce belief. This is what we see as Jesus appeared to the unbelieving disciples before. We also see that the evidence or revelation of himself to Thomas was effective as evidenced by Thomas’ confession, “My Lord and my God!” John 20:30-31 goes on to say that Jesus did many more signs in the presence of the disciples that are not written in the book, and that what is written in the book are written so that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that by believing you may have life in his name.

When I think about what “faith” is, I consistently come to the conclusion that faith is trust. The Bible is God’s revelation of himself and most importantly the revelation of himself through Jesus Christ. In hindsight, I can look back and see all the times God breathed on me (John 20:22) so to speak through biblical scripture, through other people, prayer, God wooing me through the Holy Spirit. In other words, I once needed evidence to believe and trust in Christ, and over time, God consistently, like with the disciples, including Thomas, revealed himself providing the needed evidence. Just like me, I think the LDS missionary that once told about his childhood bicycle wreck and the cement truck bearing toward him that God provided undeniable evidence to him that God loves him. The friend who was lying in bed as a child and realized that “Jesus died for me.” People on discussion boards such as this who have been wounded by a religion turned atheist, turned agnostic, etc. is God revealing himself over time, providing evidence one bit at a time. Perhaps many of my fellow posters, too, will one day in hindsight, see how God worked over the years to draw them to himself. Honestly, I think some already can look back and see some evidence. I’ve known some of you for 20+ years now and have come alongside you in your spiritual journeys.

Short version… Thomas needed evidence to trust in Christ, which Jesus provided.

[Tim]

"Faith" should not be used as a word that is synonymous with "belief". Instead, it should be seen as synonymous with trust. I place my faith in my wife, a chair, other drivers, and bridges all the time. That doesn't mean I believe them to be real. It means I exercise confidence that they will do what they promise to do.

Jesus says that there will be blessings for people who trust him without actually seeing the evidence that Thomas saw. It doesn't mean that Thomas had deficient faith.

[huckelberry]

"Faith" should not be used as a word that is synonymous with "belief". Instead, it should be seen as synonymous with trust. I place my faith in my wife, a chair, other drivers, and bridges all the time. That doesn't mean I believe them to be real. It means I exercise confidence that they will do what they promise to do.

Jesus says that there will be blessings for people who trust him without actually seeing the evidence that Thomas saw. It doesn't mean that Thomas had deficient faith.

Tom, I find this a clear and well focused comment. I admit I have an emotional caution reaction to the idea of trust. If I pause I see the value of the word. Trust is a basis for decisions and actions it is not just a flag or teeshirt. Trust is also not just picked up or given to you but is based upon evidence hope and experience.

....
Msnobody I thought your statement helpful as well but my automatic mistrust reflex hit a little stronger so I had to reflect a bit longer to see it.

[sock puppet]

I see a couple of themes in the responses. One distinguishes faith as trust rather than belief. The Mormon scripture puts it as hope in things not seen. John 20:29 talks of belief because Thomas had seen resurrected Jesus, but blessed are those that believe that have not seen. In Mark 11:22, it is reported that "And answering them Jesus saith unto them, Have faith in God."

In a search of terms "trust" and "faith" in the Bible, trust appears almost exclusively in the Old Testament (original language, Hebrew and a bit of Aramaic) and faith almost if not exclusively in the New Testatment (original language, Koine Greek). It may be that the different words are the result of the different original languages of the two separate parts of the Bible.

The other theme I see is one that I would call interstitial--filling the gaps between what is known with trust/faith. That of course brings to mind that the gaps are shrinking as science establishes more and more of human understanding. 'God of the shrinking gaps.'

Another seemed to view the Bible as evidence of God. That brings to mind the meme that juxtaposes a picture of the Bible against one of a Spider man comic book. Underneath, "Evidence of God" and "Evidence of Spider man", respectively. For those for whom the Bible is all the scripture they accept, it is in my view easier to remain within its circularity--the Bible talks of God, God tells me the Bible is true, the Bible talks of God..., than perhaps LDS scripture where there are multiple tomes, and one (the Book of Mormon) given primacy over the Bible and another (the D&C) more literal interpretation. With the Mormon standard works, as they are called, there is more pinball batting around from one to the other and where God fits within it. While Mormons talk about the Book of Mormon as a second witness that strengthens the first (the Bible), I see it differently. I think the multiple books create confusion, particularly about the nature and characteristics of God (if there's not enough of that in the Bible, the way the Old Testament and the New Testament describe quite different natures and characters).

[huckelberry]

......

The other theme I see is one that I would call interstitial--filling the gaps between what is known with trust/faith. That of course brings to mind that the gaps are shrinking as science establishes more and more of human understanding. 'God of the shrinking gaps.'

Another seemed to view the Bible as evidence of God. That brings to mind the meme that juxtaposes a picture of the Bible against one of a Spider man comic book. Underneath, "Evidence of God" and "Evidence of Spider man", respectively. For those for whom the Bible is all the scripture they accept, it is in my view easier to remain within its circularity--the Bible talks of God, God tells me the Bible is true, the Bible talks of God..., than perhaps LDS scripture where there are multiple tomes, and one (the Book of Mormon) given primacy over the Bible and another (the D&C) more literal interpretation. With the Mormon standard works, as they are called, there is more pinball batting around from one to the other and where God fits within it. While Mormons talk about the Book of Mormon as a second witness that strengthens the first (the Bible), I see it differently. I think the multiple books create confusion, particularly about the nature and characteristics of God (if there's not enough of that in the Bible, the way the Old Testament and the New Testament describe quite different natures and characters).

Sock puppet, I am not sure what you were seeing that linked to god of the gaps. I do not see God as being replaced by science in any way that I am familiar with. I am aware of the old example of Zeus thunderbolts which we now understand as discharges of excess electrons. Well that may be a sort of god of the gaps example , well I actually strongly suspect that two thousand years ago Zeus thunderbolts were understood to have at least one foot in the land of poetry and perhaps two. These days I cannot think of any gaps employing god as a filler.

There are serious limitations to the idea that the Bible demonstrates Gods existence. Only people who believe in god find God in the Bible. I think if you look twice at Msnobodies comments it may be seen that the Bible as witness to God is sort of a central referral for a variety spiritual experiences. It is composed of peoples experiences and those vary to a degree. Ongoing discussion can be seen within the book. There is an open ended quality to the Bible. I think it might be reasonable to remain a bit open ended about what we think we understand related to that book and its subject matter.

[Philo Sofee]

The Mark Hofmann incident seems to point out how faulty the inspiration model is. The FP and some senior apostles, like Boyd K. Packer, were duped by forged documents. They acted upon it. They caused money (donations) to be paid to Hofmann to secure those faked documents for the Church. Were the FP and those senior apostles blessed doing that rather than being skeptical and having the documents rigorously examined and analyzed first?

Just to show you the utter bias of it all, the new book "In the Hands of the Lord" on the life of Dallin Oaks he felt the church had come out unscathed at all by the Hoffman incident and was thrilled with how it handled things! There was no impropriety and they all did everything correctly! No, I have not bought the book, I can't stand faith promoting pap n pablum of GA's. It's not worth 50 cents to me even if it is 400 pages of the stuff. I did however look up the Hoffman situation. There is just no way on earth I can trust Apostles. All they do is spin. It's so odd that they have to lie in order to tell the truth.

[Holy Ghost]

Just to show you the utter bias of it all, the new book "In the Hands of the Lord" on the life of Dallin Oaks he felt the church had come out unscathed at all by the Hoffman incident and was thrilled with how it handled things! There was no impropriety and they all did everything correctly! No, I have not bought the book, I can't stand faith promoting pap n pablum of GA's. It's not worth 50 cents to me even if it is 400 pages of the stuff. I did however look up the Hoffman situation. There is just no way on earth I can trust Apostles. All they do is spin. It's so odd that they have to lie in order to tell the truth.

Unbelievable. Unscathed? Really?