Flunking the test of faith?

[_wenglund]

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

I second this.

Do you realize that you are ironically seconding a self-discrediting statment of faith?

Thank's, Wade Englund-

[Guest]

I see your point. However, your analogy speaks to two differing, non-salvific, adult LDS beliefs, and not about failing the test of LDS faith, and is thus irrelevant to the point I was making.

But, feel free to keep trying. Your questions are insightful.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Wade,

Based on what I have read from people on both sides of the issue in Baker's analogy some LDS consider it a salvific (I learned a new word today) test of faith. Seems to me then that not only does his analogy hold, and you fail the test of faith by denying it as such.

Respectfully

[_keithb]

Do you realize that you are ironically seconding a self-discrediting statment of faith?

Thank's, Wade Englund-

I think that your original statement has been so completely refuted by Runtu that you are reduced to posting sarcastic one-liners in your responses. That's what I realize.

[_keithb]

Do you realize that you are ironically seconding a self-discrediting statment of faith?

Thank's, Wade Englund-

Okay, this statement irritated me enough that I am going to lay the smack down. The implicit assumption in your statement is that it is inherently better to pass the "test of faith" under the narrow definition that you presented in your OP (which I also take issue with but which others have already addressed in this thread) than it is to pass the test of reason. However, in order to pass the test of faith, at least from what you define as "faith" in your OP, a person must either be a moron or deliberately obtuse. Does an all knowing, all powerful God really want a kingdom full of Mormons . . . er, morons I mean to carry on his legacy as God for new worlds? One can only hope that this isn't the case.

Maybe the test of life is a test in the other direction: the people smart enough to see through the lies of organized religion get a cookie from God(s) (assuming he, she, or they exist) in the next life while the others get sent to hell. Did you ever think of it from that perspective?

[_Buffalo]

Do you realize that you are ironically seconding a self-discrediting statment of faith?

Thank's, Wade Englund-

You've flunked the test of reason a second time.

Care to try for a third?

[_wenglund]

Wade,

Based on what I have read from people on both sides of the issue in Baker's analogy some LDS consider it a salvific (I learned a new word today) test of faith. Seems to me then that not only does his analogy hold, and you fail the test of faith by denying it as such.

Respectfully

Assuming you are correct about some LDS, then I have no problem if those LDS considering me to have flunked their test of faith (though I haven't taken a position on the geography of the Book of Abraham). However, Baker's analogy doesn't apply because I wouldn't presume to think I know better than those LDS what is salvific or not for them.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[_LDSToronto]

The problem with stating that one has flunked the test of faith within the LDS context is that the test of faith within the LDS context is the same as within all other Christian traditions.

The test is having faith in God and in Jesus Christ. The test is standard. When we insist on a non-standard test of faith, such as faith in the LDS church, that is where the concept of failure becomes two sided, because it is possible for the church, any church really, to fail.

H.

[_wenglund]

Okay, this statement irritated me enough that I am going to lay the smack down. The implicit assumption in your statement is that it is inherently better to pass the "test of faith" under the narrow definition that you presented in your OP (which I also take issue with but which others have already addressed in this thread) than it is to pass the test of reason.

This alleged implicit assumption never crossed my mind. There is no such inference or implicition in my statement. You have invented it out of whole cloth. So, whatever "smackdown" you conjure yourself doing here, will at best be with a straw man of your own making. And, since the rest of your statement is based upon this imaginary assumption, I will leave you to wrestle it with yourself.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[_wenglund]

You've flunked the test of reason a second time.

Care to try for a third?

It is evidently time for me to cue up the theme song for the "Twightlight Zone".

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[_wenglund]

The problem with stating that one has flunked the test of faith within the LDS context is that the test of faith within the LDS context is the same as within all other Christian traditions.

The test is having faith in God and in Jesus Christ. The test is standard. When we insist on a non-standard test of faith, such as faith in the LDS church, that is where the concept of failure becomes two sided, because it is possible for the church, any church really, to fail.

H.

That makes sense in its own right. It just doesn't fit with how I was using the phrase metaphorically. For it to fit, one would need to view it in the way I defined in the OP.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-