Flunking the test of faith?

[_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.

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-

In your original post, you have not used the phrase metaphorically, but rather, concretely, stating that a test of faith "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."

However, you have not really stated what that test of faith is, simply, you've stated that in the LDS paradigm, faith is rewarded with an eternal family and godlike abilities.

Christ himself said that all that is required is faith, repentance, baptism, and endurance to the end. And that endurance to the end means to have faith in him no matter the consequence.

If this is the test of faith, then it makes little sense to state that this is exclusively LDS (one could argue baptism is required by proper priesthood authority, but let's not worry about that at the moment). It is possible to endure to the end, in faith, outside the LDS church.

Thus, your claim of an LDS test of faith, and the ability to flunk it, is not consistent with what Christ taught.

H.

[_wenglund]

Forgive me, but I think you good people are getting so hung up on the particulars and possible applications of the controversial metaphor that you may be missing the uncontroversial principle intended to be conveyed by the metaphor (not seeing the forest for the trees).

Let me give you a hypothetical scenerio to see if we can draw out the intended principle. And, for the moment, please don't assume this has anything to do with the LDS faith and your loss of that faith:

Student "A" takes a physics test in public school covering Einstein's special theory of relativity, and scores 100 on the test.

Student "B" takes the same test and scores a 20.

As a general rule, would it make sense for student "B" to presume to know more about Einstein's special theory of relativity than student "A"?

If not, then on what underlining principle are you making that determination?

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[_Kishkumen]

underlining principle are you making that determination?

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

I think you are looking for the phrase "underlying principle."

[_wenglund]

In your original post, you have not used the phrase metaphorically, but rather, concretely, stating that a test of faith "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."

What you view as a concrete statement is actually me using the language of the metaphor (i.e. "test") as a way of relating the metaphor to the LDS faith.

However, you have not really stated what that test of faith is, simply, you've stated that in the LDS paradigm, faith is rewarded with an eternal family and godlike abilities.

Look more carefully. I said the test of faith is continued growth towards that goal.

Christ himself said that all that is required is faith, repentance, baptism, and endurance to the end. And that endurance to the end means to have faith in him no matter the consequence.

I don't disagree with that. It just doesn't pertain to the point that I was metaphorically trying to make.

Work through scenerio and question above, and that will hopefully bring you one step closer to grasping my point.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[_wenglund]

underlining principle are you making that determination?

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

I think you are looking for the phrase "underlying principle."

Correct.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[_LDSToronto]

Let me give you a hypothetical scenerio to see if we can draw out the intended principle. And, for the moment, please don't assume this has anything to do with the LDS faith and your loss of that faith:

Student "A" takes a physics test in public school covering Einstein's special theory of relativity, and scores 100 on the test.

Student "B" takes the same test and scores a 20.

As a general rule, would it make sense for student "B" to presume to know more about Einstein's special theory of relativity than student "A"?

If not, then on what underlining principle are you making that determination?

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

It can be said that student B is not as well-versed in the subject as student A. This is determined by comparing test scores. Test scores were determined by comparing the answers on student A's and student B's test to an answer sheet, and deducting points each time a difference between the student answer and the correct answer is found.

Wade, what's missing in all of your discourse is the answer sheet. In your mind, what does the test of faith look like, beyond the nebulous 'progress in the LDS faith'?

Please, be specific and concrete.

H.

[_LDSToronto]

Look more carefully. I said the test of faith is continued growth towards that goal.

Then your definition of 'test of faith' must be rejected. Faith does not produce a focus on an end goal; rather, it produces an action based on a belief. The one test of faith comes when one displays integrity between one's beliefs and one's actions.

Also, your definition of faith is faulty within the LDS paradigm, regardless of how much you insist that we are exploring some other metaphor:

"Christ himself said that all that is required is faith, repentance, baptism, and endurance to the end. And that endurance to the end means to have faith in him no matter the consequence." -H

I don't disagree with that. It just doesn't pertain to the point that I was metaphorically trying to make. -Wade

Fundamentally, an faithful LDS can not separate their faith from Christ and base it on a lesser object, such as the institution of the church. Faith in the former is what produces the mystical, religious experience that nurtures testimonies; faith in the latter produces rule-based ethics that can be attacked and shown to without foundation or based on false premises. Putting anything *but* Christ at the centre of one's faith leads to the true failure of the test of faith: complete loss of faith.

Thus, once again, I do understand what you are driving at, but you are wrong. If an LDS person places their faith in Christ, and leaves the church, they haven't failed any test of faith, simply, they've left their beliefs in a set of rules behind, and taken with them the pure essence of what faith really is.

H.

[_Themis]

Let me give you a hypothetical scenerio to see if we can draw out the intended principle. And, for the moment, please don't assume this has anything to do with the LDS faith and your loss of that faith:

Student "A" takes a physics test in public school covering Einstein's special theory of relativity, and scores 100 on the test.

Student "B" takes the same test and scores a 20.

As a general rule, would it make sense for student "B" to presume to know more about Einstein's special theory of relativity than student "A"?

If not, then on what underlining principle are you making that determination?

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

It can be said that student B is not as well-versed in the subject as student A. This is determined by comparing test scores. Test scores were determined by comparing the answers on student A's and student B's test to an answer sheet, and deducting points each time a difference between the student answer and the correct answer is found.

Wade, what's missing in all of your discourse is the answer sheet. In your mind, what does the test of faith look like, beyond the nebulous 'progress in the LDS faith'?

Please, be specific and concrete.

H.

I think Wade might fancy himself as the instructor who has all the answers :) Now if he is the student is he student A or B? The analogy is not very good because even the failing student realizes they failed and did not understand the material, and almost certainly does not disagree with his instructors about the physics. Now of course this is not the same with the Church or many other churches where people who leave are viewed as failing in some way. Wade seems to just likes to use other words to say the same thing. The problem is that there is great disagreement about whether certain claims are in reality true or not.

Failing to maintain Faith is how they are going to view it. I can understand this perspective even If I think it is wrong and think I have a better understanding. I Like what Buffalo said about reason, and how those who have left due to no longer believing certain claims have passed the reason test. Clearly I no longer have faith in many LDS teachings or claims but I do not see that as failing while many active members will. No big deal. Some of those will later pass the test of reason and realize the part of faith, belief in certain claims, was incorrect.

[_wenglund]

It can be said that student B is not as well-versed in the subject as student A. This is determined by comparing test scores. Test scores were determined by comparing the answers on student A's and student B's test to an answer sheet, and deducting points each time a difference between the student answer and the correct answer is found.

You're way over-complicating the analogy and missing the simple principle--which is, the results of the test logically negate the presumption that student "B" knows better about the tested subject than student "A", thereby rendering the presumption non-sensical.

As such, it would not be hateful or special pleading, but quite reasonable, for student "A" to be amused were student "B", who flunked the test, to presume to have understood better than student "A" about the special theory of relativity. Right?

This seems so obvious to me that I am puzzled that people seem so resistent to it.

Now, once you good people come to understand and accept this simple and non-controversial principle, we then can move towards generalizing it and applying it to the LDS faith.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[_wenglund]

The analogy is not very good because even the failing student realizes they failed and did not understand the material, and almost certainly does not disagree with his instructors about the physics.

Whether it is most certainly likely or not for failing students to realize their failure and agree with their instructors, would you agree that it wouldn't make sense were student "B" to presume to know better than student "A" about the special theory of relativity?

Would you agree that, were student "B" to so presume, it wouldn't be hateful or special pleading for student "A" to remark: "It always amuses me when those who have flunked the physics tests, and for whom physics has not worked, think they understand physics better than those who continue to pass the tests of physics and for whom physics has worked. Up is down, and down is up--speaking of what doesn't work."?

In fact, would such a comment by student "A" strike you as the least bit controversial--though student "B" might be deeply offended.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-