Flunking the test of faith?

[_brade]

Wade, I have to be honest, I'm puzzled by this thread. In another thread you're defending a certain sort of pragmatic theory of truth. On that theory you've said that if a belief works for somebody in achieving their aspirations, then it's true. We might just say that if a person's belief B works for good in their life, then B is true for them. Obviously, many of the teachings of Mormonism are true for you.

Now, for many people, the very same teachings that are true for you, as the theory you advocate puts it, are not true for them. They, of course, assent to different beliefs, beliefs which contradict your beliefs. For many such people those beliefs, which contradict your own, and contradict the teachings of the Church, work for them. Thus, those beliefs, which contradict the teachings of the Church, are true for them. And that's how we come to say that the beliefs which are true for you are not true for them.

So, here's what's curious to me. If this is the substance of truth, then, even if it is right to say of somebody that disagrees with you that they've failed at growing in Mormonism, so what?

If you're right about truth and belief and all that, then I just don't see how saying that somebody has failed the test of Mormonism is any sort of an interesting claim or criticism at all. You, obviously, have failed the test of growing into a morally admirable person as a non-Mormon Atheist, or whatever. But, again, so what?

If truth is what works, then just what difference does it make whether I'm succeeding at being a nice person as a Mormon, an Evangelical, a Catholic or an Atheist? Good Mormons are not failing the test of being good people as Mormons. But, they're failing the test of being good people as Evangelicals, Catholics, and Atheists, and so on. Good Atheists are not failing the test of being good people as Atheists. But, they're failing the test of being good people as Mormons, Evangelicals, Catholics, and so on. And on and on and on.

My point is, if you're right about truth, then, congratulations, you've made a good observation. Of course, your observation also applies to everybody else in just about every other circumstance, and we can make just as valid a claim as you've made in your OP by taking "Mormon" or "LDS faith" out of the claim and replacing it with any other belief system.

[_Jason Bourne]

Isn't this sort of like stacking the deck?

No. It is stating things from a given perspective.

Sure it is. And there is no room for discussion? Why start a thread with the intent of discussing passing the test of faith with many that are less or non believing in their LDS faith when you set the bar for pass or fail as faith in the LDS dogma? What was your point really?

Why do you get to set the parameters of what it means to pass the test of faith and what it does not mean?

Who else but me and my fellow LDS should set the parameters for our LDS perspective? Logically, we get to set the parameters because it is ours to set. Obviously.

For your own personal faith sure. However not for the faith of everyone. Even when I was TBM I did not have the hubris to define what the success or failure in the test of faith meant for all human beings.

Non-believes are welcome to set the parameters for their own perspective--as illustrated by Hades and others.

Well that is awful generous of you.

But, again, let's not mis the forest for the trees. There is a simple and uncontroversial principle underlying the "flunk/pass test" metaphor. Some people are getting hung up on and inanely arguing the specifics of the metaphor, and failing to grasp that principle.

No, they just realize how nonsensical the premise laid out in your OP is.

Here is another analogy that illustrates the point in a way that may be less controversial: It amuses me when those who have dropped out of, and/or no longer believe in, and for whom Yoga hasn't worked, presume to think they know better about Yoga than those who continue to believe in and take Yoga and for whom Yoga works.

Many ex LDS or less faithful LDS have just as rich of an experience a s full fledged believer in the LDS faith as you. They lived it, breathed it, served it, preached it, studied it and have a knowledge of it that may go beyond yours. They are well positioned to opine on it and conclude that continuing to practice faith in it may actually be a failure rather than a success. In fact one may argue that for one like you or other apologist to have a knowledge of the facts, evidence and issues that seem to demonstrate it likely that the LDS church is not what it claims, to argue like you do reveals some deep seated failure or case of cognitive dissonance that it is indeed you or those like you that are flunking the test of faith, or perhaps reason and that such positions as you toss out are only desperate attempts to remain a believer at all costs.

[_harmony]

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.

I want to highlight this, because this is the essense of the living the gospel of Jesus Christ.

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.

Amen. Amen. And thus the wisdom of LDST shows once again.

[_Themis]

Here is another analogy that illustrates the point in a way that may be less controversial: It amuses me when those who have dropped out of, and/or no longer believe in, and for whom Yoga hasn't worked, presume to think they know better about Yoga than those who continue to believe in and take Yoga and for whom Yoga works.

Ah that would be ok except that the person who left the Yoga place, left simply because they realized that they were not teaching yoga, and are looking for the place that actually teaches real yoga

[_Fence Sitter]

Ah that would be ok except that the person who left the Yoga place, left simply because they realized that they were not teaching yoga, and are looking for the place that actually teaches real yoga

Since the OP continues to limit the definition of 'Yoga' in this thread to his version of 'Yoga', by definition, there are no other places that teach 'Yoga', nor is there any room for meaningful discussion about 'Yoga' in a thread where 'Yoga' is predefined in such a way.

[_Hades]

Faith doesn't make anything real. If it did, we would already have all the artifacts needed to prove that the Book of Mormon is true. The tower of Babel would be one of the wonders of the world. Science would constantly be proving religion right. You can have faith in anything you want, but that won't make it real.

You can have faith in pink elephants and condemn those who say they don't exist. Your faith will only make them real in your own mind. You can pass any faith test you make up and still fail the reality test.

[_harmony]

You can have faith in pink elephants and condemn those who say they don't exist. Your faith will only make them real in your own mind. You can pass any faith test you make up and still fail the reality test.

So faith, like beauty, is in the eye of the beholder?

[_drdrfor]

Faith is an illusion, not based in fact. One of the prerequisites of faith is that there can be no proof. Proof negates faith.

People who make statements about their "knowing" something that is a issue of faith are misrepresenting both themselves and the matter at hand. Knowing and faith are also opposites. Once you really "know" something, it is no longer an issue of faith.

Testimonies should be statements of things that one really, really, really hopes are true.

[_Hades]

You can have faith in pink elephants and condemn those who say they don't exist. Your faith will only make them real in your own mind. You can pass any faith test you make up and still fail the reality test.

So faith, like beauty, is in the eye of the beholder?

Faith is in the mind of the believer. Before a person professes faith in something, they should figure out why they have a need to have faith in that something, in my opinion.

[Gadianton]

A non-practicer may very well be far more knowledgeable about facts, origins, etc. of Mormonism or Yoga than the practicer (and vice versa), but neither can really assert superior expertise when it comes to the experience of the other.

In some respects this strikes me as so counter-intuitive as to begger belief. Certainly, in terms of workability the practicioner for whom it works can't help but know more, particularly in terms of making it work and grasping what it is like for it to work, than the practicioner for whom it didn't work.

I am amazed to what lengths some people will ignore the obvious, and I am at a loss to understand why. It really isn't in people's interest to do so.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-