Flunking the test of faith?

[_Buffalo]

Passing the test of faith = flunking the test of reason.

Is this a tacit agreement with what I said? (I ask because I am not sure how your comment directly relates to the specific topiic of this thread.)

Thanlks, -Wade Englund-

No, your test of faith is too Mormon-centric. Passing the test of faith would be continuing on with any sort of blind belief in a superstitious concept despite all the evidence to the contrary.

[_Aristotle Smith]

IAt the outset I should clarify that the faith I had in mind was the LDS faith, and that the test would consists of continued growth in LDS faith unto the realization of the ultimate objective of the LDS faith--i.e. becoming like Christ, unto a fulness of joy and love in eternal familial relations.

This is one of the things that really grates on me, the idea that one can simply add "like Christ" to any random statement, which somehow makes the statement more Christian and/or worthwhile and/or obviously true.

If someone could point out a single instance of Jesus ever saying anything remotely like "fullness of joy and love in eternal family relations" as being the ultimate goal of faith, I would be much obliged. I doubt you will find it because on several occasions, Jesus seemed much more interested in faith in him and following him than in family relations.

[_wenglund]

In other words, it's a given that the ultimate objective of the LDS faith is "becoming like Christ, unto a fulness of joy and love in eternal familial relations."

In terms of how I, and the Church, define things, yes. Obviously.

Wade seems to see the church as a priori true, so those who do not meet the above goals have failed. Disbelief is just part of the equation.

I don't view it as a priori true, but rather I have faith that it is true. And, I wasn't speaking so much about achieving the goal, but rather about continued growth in LDS faith towards that goal.

Think of it as analogous to the public education system. From the perspective of the public school system, it is the best way to continue learning and progressing towards graduation (a certified level of education). Those who discontinue their public education, and drop out, may rightly be considered as having failed in terms of their public education. This seem quite uncontroversial to me, so I am not sure why people are struggling to see it, and think it hateful to view it that way.

More to the point, would it make sense for those who failed the public education system, and for whom the public education system didn't work, to presume to better understand and know the public education system than those who continue to progress through that system and for whom the system works?

It doesn't make sense to me.

Now, others may presume to have found what they believe to be a better and more workable way to learn or to achieve their own personal objectives. But, that is a separate issue.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[_Buffalo]

This is one of the things that really grates on me, the idea that one can simply add "like Christ" to any random statement, which somehow makes the statement more Christian and/or worthwhile and/or obviously true.

If someone could point out a single instance of Jesus ever saying anything remotely like "fullness of joy and love in eternal family relations" as being the ultimate goal of faith, I would be much obliged. I doubt you will find it because on several occasions, Jesus seemed much more interested in faith in him and following him than in family relations.

Jesus had no interest in family relationships at all.

While he was still speaking to the crowds, his mother and his brothers appeared outside, wishing to speak with him. (Someone told him, "Your mother and your brothers are standing outside, asking to speak with you.") But he said in reply to the one who told him, "Who is my mother? Who are my brothers?" And stretching out his hand toward his disciples, he said, "Here are my mother and my brothers. For whoever does the will of my heavenly Father is my brother, and sister, and mother."

“If anyone comes to me and does not hate father and mother, wife and children, brothers and sisters—yes, even their own life—such a person cannot be my disciple."

Jesus wouldn't recognize the family centric teachings of the LDS church as being true or useful. However, I have to side with the church on this issue.

[Gadianton]

Wade, by your definition of "flunking the test of faith", would you consider a convert to Mormonism to have flunked at their "test of faith" by leaving their respective religion?

From the perspective of the convert's former faith, yes. Obviously.

Is Mormonism comprised mostly by those who have failed at faith (its converts)?

Not from the perspective of the LDS faith.

Wade, I think when you can see the Mormon convert and the ex-LDS believer as nothing more than different sides of the same coin, you can answer your own question.

The problem isn't with me not being able to answering my own question, but others not correctly grasping my answer to my own question, or not correctly understanding my question.

Faith isn't static, but rather a vibrant, fluid and changing subjective experience.

Yes. Obviously.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[_wenglund]

This is one of the things that really grates on me, the idea that one can simply add "like Christ" to any random statement, which somehow makes the statement more Christian and/or worthwhile and/or obviously true.

Such expression wouldn't grate on those who have a healthy tolerance for differing points of view. But, this is beside the point of this thread.

If someone could point out a single instance of Jesus ever saying anything remotely like "fullness of joy and love in eternal family relations" as being the ultimate goal of faith, I would be much obliged. I doubt you will find it because on several occasions, Jesus seemed much more interested in faith in him and following him than in family relations.

Some of us aren't restricted solely and fundamentalistically to recorded explicit earthly statements from Christ, but include in our data set revelations to modern prophets, which then may rationally synthesize into concepts like the one to which you object. But, again, this is beside the point of this thread.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[_EAllusion]

In the original context in which this post appeared, it was just a particularly egregious case of special pleading.

[_Runtu]

I don't view it as a priori true, but rather I have faith that it is true. And, I wasn't speaking so much about achieving the goal, but rather about continued growth in LDS faith towards that goal.

Think of it as analogous to the public education system. From the perspective of the public school system, it is the best way to continue learning and progressing towards graduation (a certified level of education). Those who discontinue their public education, and drop out, may rightly be considered as having failed in terms of their public education. This seem quite uncontroversial to me, so I am not sure why people are struggling to see it, and think it hateful to view it that way.

I have six children. One of my kids went to the regular public school from kindergarten to grade 9. In ninth grade, he received what I considered (and still do) a substandard education experience with large classes, poor facilities, and apathetic teachers. For tenth grade, we moved him to a charter school, where he has excelled. The teachers there know him, care about him, and are helping him in ways the high school never could have done.

By your standards, my son not only 'flunked' out of public school, but he also is not to be listened to by those who have succeeded in graduating from the public high school.

In a similar way, those of us who did not find joy and fulfilment in the LDS Church cannot be said to have failed at faith. This seems quite uncontroversial to me.

More to the point, would it make sense for those who failed the public education system, and for whom the public education system didn't work, to presume to better understand and know the public education system than those who continue to progress through that system and for whom the system works?

It doesn't make sense to me.

I don't presume to understand or know the gospel better than you do, but I do understand it and know it, just as my son understands public education. Choosing a better way does not mean you forget about what you were doing before.

Now, others may presume to have found what they believe to be a better and more workable way to learn or to achieve their own personal objectives. But, that is a separate issue.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

No, it's not a separate issue. Choosing a better way for ourselves is not failure at faith, nor does it mean that we have forgotten what it was like to have faith in Mormonism.

[_wenglund]

In the original context in which this post appeared, it was just a particularly egregious case of special pleading.

Please explain.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[_Aristotle Smith]

Jesus wouldn't recognize the family centric teachings of the LDS church as being true or useful. However, I have to side with the church on this issue.

Awesome Buffalo, you are the first atheist I know who believes in eternal families.