Everyone Has Faith; That is the Only Option

The catch-all forum for general topics and debates. Minimal moderation. Rated PG to PG-13.
Marcus
God
Posts: 5033
Joined: Mon Oct 25, 2021 10:44 pm

Re: Everyone Has Faith; That is the Only Option

Post by Marcus »

Gadianton wrote:
Mon May 15, 2023 2:00 am
JohnW wrote:Secular translation: When someone prepared to go on a journey, they have hope and faith that they will be successful. They also must be prepared for the fact that they may not be successful. Will their mental health support either outcome? If not, then they may not be prepared to start that journey. I think that is a good chunk of what is meant when people talk about faith to not be healed.
But as I said, "going on a journey" and turning to God, and facing a deadly sickness and turning to God, are very different things. Sure, there are some superficial similarities, as in, the adventurer may raise their chances slightly by having a positive attitude and following doctor instructions if sick. But in the case of climbing a mountain, the likelihood of succeeding is directly related to the climbers skill. In the case of a deadly sickness, the afflicted is mostly powerless. Faith in the case of sickness is in fact, belief that God will intervene and do what mankind cannot, as opposed to pushing oneself to the limit in a high-stretch goal, which is what faith is when climbing a mountain.

It's a very important concept as you say in religion: the faith not to be healed is the faith to remain loyal when your God, your religion, or what is otherwise the logical object of your faith fails you. Take the idea to absurdity: you get baptized to gain salvation. Suppose your baptism can't save you, should you have the faith not to be saved? Most people aren't victims of their belief, meaning, they incorporate advice like yours to avoid getting their hopes up in the first place -- they avoid having faith in anything that can be falsified. "The faith not to be healed" is really telling people "don't have faith in the first place," as for this variety of faith, and you now subtly shift the context, and create a new kind of faith that is, as I've said, faith = loyalty to a person or institution.

I've just stumbled upon the epic illustration of what I'm talking about. It turns out I have access to HBO Max; all this cable I pay for that everyone else uses, it never occurred to me that I have access through the app. Was setting up a new TV today, took a leap of faith, and boom. So now I'm watching Heaven's Gate: The Cult of Cults, and boy, is there a lesson for you, John. (caution: spoiler)

NRMs draw people who want to have faith in miracles. Many people want magical gold plates and angels and flying saucers, all those fascinating things that mature religions don't dare offer them. The object lesson of faith for a mature religion is usually about loyalty to the leaders. For most churches, "faith not to be healed" means don't get your hopes up -- don't really have faith in the miracles religions are founded on, at least not anything that can be falsified, just be loyal.

As you may know, Heavens Gate was led by a man and woman, Do, and Ti. It drew in people who wanted something greater than this dreary world just like Mormonism did in early times. They taught that they would improve themselves here on earth and eventually, they would reach a level where a UFO would pick them up and take them away. In the early days, followers would move from camp site to camp site watching the sky for UFOs. The movement is built upon faith in miracles. But Ti gets cancer and dies. So tell me John, did Ti have the faith not to be healed? Absolutely, and so did Do -- he had the faith not to let the death of Ti, a greater prophet than even he, thwart their efforts to gain salvation. They had to re-frame the belief system where Ti becomes the paradigm. Before, sickness, physical clumsiness, things like that are blockers to salvation, because these people are really going to be getting on a real spacecraft and there is a physical health requirement to do that. But Ti dies? Can't be saved. I'm sure you've guessed it, the doctrine is spiritualized, and Ti left this world to join the spaceship when she died, and so now -- the group will eventually prepare themselves and join her.

And so when talking about a new religious movement that actively pursues religious ideas, "faith not to be healed" literally results in mass suicide, when the expectations simply can't be achieved and faith shifts from belief in miracles to dogged loyalty to leaders.
Excellent points. I simply rejected the word in certain endeavors, but I appreciate that you left it in and took it to its logical and unfortunately, all too often deadly conclusion.

(On a side note, Re the setting up of online access for others, I had an eerily similar experience recently. Consequently, I found out I can now privately watch Top Chef on my tablet, while the hockey enthusiasts do their thing on the big screen. : D )
User avatar
JohnW
Valiant A
Posts: 178
Joined: Sun Sep 18, 2022 10:11 pm

Re: Everyone Has Faith; That is the Only Option

Post by JohnW »

Gadianton wrote:
Mon May 15, 2023 2:00 am
JohnW wrote:Secular translation: When someone prepared to go on a journey, they have hope and faith that they will be successful. They also must be prepared for the fact that they may not be successful. Will their mental health support either outcome? If not, then they may not be prepared to start that journey. I think that is a good chunk of what is meant when people talk about faith to not be healed.
But as I said, "going on a journey" and turning to God, and facing a deadly sickness and turning to God, are very different things. Sure, there are some superficial similarities, as in, the adventurer may raise their chances slightly by having a positive attitude and following doctor instructions if sick. But in the case of climbing a mountain, the likelihood of succeeding is directly related to the climbers skill. In the case of a deadly sickness, the afflicted is mostly powerless. Faith in the case of sickness is in fact, belief that God will intervene and do what mankind cannot, as opposed to pushing oneself to the limit in a high-stretch goal, which is what faith is when climbing a mountain.

It's a very important concept as you say in religion: the faith not to be healed is the faith to remain loyal when your God, your religion, or what is otherwise the logical object of your faith fails you. Take the idea to absurdity: you get baptized to gain salvation. Suppose your baptism can't save you, should you have the faith not to be saved? Most people aren't victims of their belief, meaning, they incorporate advice like yours to avoid getting their hopes up in the first place -- they avoid having faith in anything that can be falsified. "The faith not to be healed" is really telling people "don't have faith in the first place," as for this variety of faith, and you now subtly shift the context, and create a new kind of faith that is, as I've said, faith = loyalty to a person or institution.

I've just stumbled upon the epic illustration of what I'm talking about. It turns out I have access to HBO Max; all this cable I pay for that everyone else uses, it never occurred to me that I have access through the app. Was setting up a new TV today, took a leap of faith, and boom. So now I'm watching Heaven's Gate: The Cult of Cults, and boy, is there a lesson for you, John. (caution: spoiler)

NRMs draw people who want to have faith in miracles. Many people want magical gold plates and angels and flying saucers, all those fascinating things that mature religions don't dare offer them. The object lesson of faith for a mature religion is usually about loyalty to the leaders. For most churches, "faith not to be healed" means don't get your hopes up -- don't really have faith in the miracles religions are founded on, at least not anything that can be falsified, just be loyal.

As you may know, Heavens Gate was led by a man and woman, Do, and Ti. It drew in people who wanted something greater than this dreary world just like Mormonism did in early times. They taught that they would improve themselves here on earth and eventually, they would reach a level where a UFO would pick them up and take them away. In the early days, followers would move from camp site to camp site watching the sky for UFOs. The movement is built upon faith in miracles. But Ti gets cancer and dies. So tell me John, did Ti have the faith not to be healed? Absolutely, and so did Do -- he had the faith not to let the death of Ti, a greater prophet than even he, thwart their efforts to gain salvation. They had to re-frame the belief system where Ti becomes the paradigm. Before, sickness, physical clumsiness, things like that are blockers to salvation, because these people are really going to be getting on a real spacecraft and there is a physical health requirement to do that. But Ti dies? Can't be saved. I'm sure you've guessed it, the doctrine is spiritualized, and Ti left this world to join the spaceship when she died, and so now -- the group will eventually prepare themselves and join her.

And so when talking about a new religious movement that actively pursues religious ideas, "faith not to be healed" literally results in mass suicide, when the expectations simply can't be achieved and faith shifts from belief in miracles to dogged loyalty to leaders.
I appreciate your points. Yes, loyalty for loyalty's sake is often a bad idea. Loyalty in the face of overwhelming evidence is probably also a bad idea in most cases. I'm curious, the way you are talking gives the impression that you think loyalty is only a virtue when you have evidence to back up someone's trustworthiness. Some people might argue that isn't loyalty, but let's assume it is. Do you ever think loyalty in the face of opposing evidence is good? I think most people would agree with that statement and only disagree on the level of opposing evidence. I guess it is probably another question of balance. Yes, loyalty can be taken way too far, and unfortunately, we humans often take it way too far. At the same time, I would argue that loyalty in measured amounts is a good thing.
User avatar
Gadianton
God
Posts: 3842
Joined: Sun Oct 25, 2020 11:56 pm
Location: Elsewhere

Re: Everyone Has Faith; That is the Only Option

Post by Gadianton »

JohnW wrote:I appreciate your points. Yes, loyalty for loyalty's sake is often a bad idea. Loyalty in the face of overwhelming evidence is probably also a bad idea in most cases.
When is a person ever allowed to give up faith? Or in your terminology, when is a person allowed to have the faith NOT to see a UFO?
JohnW wrote:I'm curious, the way you are talking gives the impression that you think loyalty is only a virtue when you have evidence to back up someone's trustworthiness. Some people might argue that isn't loyalty,
You're warm, but your paraphrase doesn't exactly hit the mark. I do agree with you that evidence-based loyalty might not be loyalty. I've observed several times on this board that lying is integral to authoritarianism because it's the only way to prove real loyalty. If Donald Trump hit it out of the park with great policies, then people would vote for him because he's a good leader. What if he makes a mistake and hits a run of bad policies? The only way to trust your base as a dictator is if they back you up on a pack of lies, the more obvious the lies, the greater the trust. Similar to a pyramid scheme -- everyone can agree and create momentum by getting fundamentals out of the equation.

I didn't exactly say that loyalty is good when there's evidence, I said that we shift to a different definition of faith when primary faith fails. The most fundamental kind of religious faith is belief in the miracle. Every holy book out there is rooted in some kind of miracle. That's basically what makes it a religion. When you first throw in to follow that charismatic leader, it's all about the mystery and wonders the leader will perform. Faith is belief that the UFO will appear; that this convincing leader can make that UFO appear. What happens when the leader fails to make the UFO appear? You're absolutely right, it's NOT about loyalty in the first instance, it's about the fundamentals of the prophet's words. The prophet may be very unpopular, and you didn't just randomly decide to admire some rando in the street running his mouth. Something about his words you find inspiring, you believe his message -- it's like putting your money on that pharmaceutical start-up that will 1000x if they can pull it off while the critics balk. So you sell all you have, you follow that prophet, and six month's later, all the crap he's talked up doesn't materialize. Well, in the interim, you've established a relationship with the leader and the group, and now the criteria of your faith shifts from belief in the miracle, to loyalty to the leader and group.

What it meant to have faith in the first instance, was to LEAVE that old, stodgy and dead religion behind, and take a leap of faith to join the folks who are bringing miracles back to the earth. The faith that translates plates of Gold and utters prophecies of the future. If you don't join the group, the group will scoff at your lack of faith -- faith, as in, the belief in the miraculous. However, once you join the group, and the prophet can't make good on second comings of Christ and wondrous healings, the criteria of faith shifts to loyalty, as promises of exotic things in this life fade. Now "where's your faith" means something totally different. Back in that first instance, when you were contemplating leaving the stodgy and dead religion to join the flashy cult, the stodgy priest would tell you to "have faith" in the sense of stay loyal to what you know, to your tradition.

When my first ZL told the story of leaving the Dutch Reformed church behind at 17 and his family disowning him, we applauded his faith (take the risk on something great and momentous and a little crazy sounding). When that17 year old I met at an odd job pre-mission left Mormonism to become Pentecostal, it was because of condemnable lack of faith (disloyal / can't endure to the end).

Faith in miracles is racing full steam to go see the fireworks show. Faith "not to be healed" is to become the apologist who justifies a night full of duds. The apologist is fiercely loyal to the group.

Okay, I may have overkilled this, but didn't seem like I've been explaining myself very well.
User avatar
JohnW
Valiant A
Posts: 178
Joined: Sun Sep 18, 2022 10:11 pm

Re: Everyone Has Faith; That is the Only Option

Post by JohnW »

Gadianton wrote:
Tue May 16, 2023 4:48 am
Okay, I may have overkilled this, but didn't seem like I've been explaining myself very well.
Thanks, Gadianton. I feel like I understand much better, enough to say I think I agree with you on this concept. My own faith went from difficult and uncomfortable to something much more firm. I guess I feel like that deserves some of my loyalty in times when I don't see clearly. Maybe we just disagree on the level of loyalty the church deserves. That difference of opinion probably isn't surprising.
User avatar
Gadianton
God
Posts: 3842
Joined: Sun Oct 25, 2020 11:56 pm
Location: Elsewhere

Re: Everyone Has Faith; That is the Only Option

Post by Gadianton »

Marcus wrote:. I simply rejected the word in certain endeavors, but I appreciate that you left it in and took it to its logical and unfortunately, all too often deadly conclusion.
Didn't see this last night; I agree that it's a huge stretch to call adventuring and contingency planning faith. And isn't there a contradiction between making faith contingency planning, and saying "everyone has faith"? Does everyone contingency plan?

My points are about how I hear people talk about faith, whether they actually have a Bible reference that backs it up. Maybe, the point is people use faith in whatever way they need to control the narrative. Have the faith to leave your old church to join our church. Have the faith to stay in our church if you think the other church is better. I have to ward off the rejoinder and say that yes, I hear people throw around the the terminology "scientific method" all of the time in exactly the same way. The science guy from Skinwalker Ranch who really has 2 phds does exactly that. New Atheists can also make me squirm. Even better when people appeal to Ockham's razor to back up their points.

John has got me interested in what faith means from a scriptural context. There may be a complete disconnect between what faith means today and what it meant back then, I don't know. I haven't gotten that far. it's actually not been easy to figure out, to be honest.
Marcus
God
Posts: 5033
Joined: Mon Oct 25, 2021 10:44 pm

Re: Everyone Has Faith; That is the Only Option

Post by Marcus »

Gadianton wrote:
Tue May 16, 2023 2:53 pm
Marcus wrote:. I simply rejected the word in certain endeavors, but I appreciate that you left it in and took it to its logical and unfortunately, all too often deadly conclusion.
Didn't see this last night; I agree that it's a huge stretch to call adventuring and contingency planning faith. And isn't there a contradiction between making faith contingency planning, and saying "everyone has faith"? Does everyone contingency plan?

My points are about how I hear people talk about faith, whether they actually have a Bible reference that backs it up. Maybe, the point is people use faith in whatever way they need to control the narrative. Have the faith to leave your old church to join our church. Have the faith to stay in our church if you think the other church is better. I have to ward off the rejoinder and say that yes, I hear people throw around the the terminology "scientific method" all of the time in exactly the same way. The science guy from Skinwalker Ranch who really has 2 phds does exactly that. New Atheists can also make me squirm. Even better when people appeal to Ockham's razor to back up their points.

John has got me interested in what faith means from a scriptural context. There may be a complete disconnect between what faith means today and what it meant back then, I don't know. I haven't gotten that far. it's actually not been easy to figure out, to be honest.
No it's not, but I agree with thinking of it in a scriptural context, to me that corresponds to my objection that the term 'faith' is a misnomer in the context of a secular definition of something. I might expand scriptural context to include a religious doctrinal context, but of course in most situations that goes right back to scriptural context, I would assume.

The idea of loyalty being owed as some extension of faith is also problematic, in that it seems to imply that loyalty is therefore blind to facts. I recall driving with a friend of mine and I called another driver who cut me off a dumbass or something under my breath. My friend said, 'well, technically you were also in the wrong just then.' I laughingly said, 'hey, I though you were MY friend, whose side are you on?' They responded with 'well of course we're friends and I'm ALWAYS on your side, but that doesn't mean you didn't roll through that stop sign.'

To me, that friend showed loyalty to our friendship, but did so by telling the truth, not by blindly trusting that whatever I did was acceptable. Loyalty to me doesn't mean assuming every act is acceptable, but rather encompasses a relationship. I have no problem with someone being loyal to their religion, but to me that does not include assuming that religion is 'true,' and as a result blindly defending every belief, act of the leaders, and position taken.

As an example, we are currently seeing 'loyal' TBMs online tying themselves in moral and ethical knots to defend the lds leaders' violations of the SEC. It amazes me the excuses put forward, when clearly some have decided in advance the leaders can't be wrong, therefore dishonesty and unethical behavior has to be re-couched as somehow acceptable. It's not working.

ETA: I read your last post after I wrote this, I think your analogy of faith in the fireworks and the accompanying faith in 'not-fireworks' when the plans fizzle is the same point I am trying to make. Arguing for simply blind faith and therefore blind loyalty are not capturing the deeper aspects of the terms.
User avatar
Doctor CamNC4Me
God
Posts: 8980
Joined: Wed Oct 28, 2020 2:04 am

Re: Everyone Has Faith; That is the Only Option

Post by Doctor CamNC4Me »

Image
Hugh Nibley claimed he bumped into Adolf Hitler, Albert Einstein, Winston Churchill, Gertrude Stein, and the Grand Duke Vladimir Romanoff. Dishonesty is baked into Mormonism.
Marcus
God
Posts: 5033
Joined: Mon Oct 25, 2021 10:44 pm

Re: Everyone Has Faith; That is the Only Option

Post by Marcus »

Doctor CamNC4Me wrote:
Tue May 16, 2023 5:59 pm
Image
Lol. I think you summed up the current situation very well.
User avatar
Doctor CamNC4Me
God
Posts: 8980
Joined: Wed Oct 28, 2020 2:04 am

Re: Everyone Has Faith; That is the Only Option

Post by Doctor CamNC4Me »

Marcus wrote:
Tue May 16, 2023 6:50 pm
Doctor CamNC4Me wrote:
Tue May 16, 2023 5:59 pm
Image
Lol. I think you summed up the current situation very well.
Thanks; I saw that and couldn’t resist. The Reddit user is cute and posts their content fairly regularly:

https://www.reddit.com/user/BakingNerd47/submitted/

JohnW appears to be a milder version of MG. I don’t really know what to say to someone who is determined to have faith in not being healed.

- Doc
Hugh Nibley claimed he bumped into Adolf Hitler, Albert Einstein, Winston Churchill, Gertrude Stein, and the Grand Duke Vladimir Romanoff. Dishonesty is baked into Mormonism.
User avatar
Gadianton
God
Posts: 3842
Joined: Sun Oct 25, 2020 11:56 pm
Location: Elsewhere

Re: Everyone Has Faith; That is the Only Option

Post by Gadianton »

Marcus wrote:To me, that friend showed loyalty to our friendship, but did so by telling the truth, not by blindly trusting that whatever I did was acceptable.
In Aristotle's ethics, there are three kinds of friendship, you're making the same differentiation -- friendship based on the good vs. friendship based on utility. Maybe loyalty has different meanings that pace those different relationships. Or maybe there is another word besides loyalty if we want to keep loyalty "good". For instance, Aristotle said that bravery is the mean between cowardice and foolhardiness. "Loyalty" might have more than one sense, or maybe it's a middle term like "bravery" that's good, and there's some word like "foolhardiness" escaping me that better captures authoritarian commitment.

Either way, in my opinion, faith in the miracle is totally different than loyalty, whether it's good or bad loyalty. Cam's pic is hilarious, and it's certainly the most accurate short summary so far. What's behind the belief without evidence is a fascination with and longing for something greater, which might have something to do with a great sales pitch from a charismatic leader, but it certainly isn't loyalty to the new leader who you don't know yet.
Post Reply