Flunking the test of faith?

[_Dr. Shades]

Hi Wade:

Is it possible for a religion to be false? If so, how can one know if a religion is, indeed, false?

[_Themis]

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-

I can see your perspective in that you see yourself as student A and others who no longer believe certain Church claims as student B. I understand you view it as failing, even if I don't see it that way. A better analogy from my perspective is that Student B is not actually failing, but realizes the school he is in is not actually teaching physics or chemistry but astrology and alchemy, and is only trying to show that to the other students.

[_Hades]

Lost my faith? No, I threw my faith out the window. All it takes is a review of the evidence and some critical thinking skills to realize that Mormonism is a load of crap.

Flunked the faith test? No, I passed the faith test. Who would want to have faith in a load of crap?

[_drdrfor]

I made the following controversial comment in a thread in the Terrrestrial Forum:

It always amuses me when those who have flunked the test of faith, and for whom faith has not worked, think they understand faith better than those who continue to pass the tests of faith and for whom faith has worked.

Flunking? Passing? Test? Ephesians 2:8 says that we are saved by the grace of God through faith. I don't see any "tests" mentioned. Do you? Furthermore, in verse nine it warns for such presumtive attitudes by saying one is saved "not by works" in case anyone was given to boasting.

You're doing a fair bit of crowing, if I say so, claiming you understand faith better than others. Doesn't it say in your Book of Mormon to beware of people proclaiming their faith from towers? Your amusement comes across as a cynical laugh. Hardly becoming.

Are you tempting your God to put you under further trials to see if your faith is all that it claims to be? Good luck.

[_LDSToronto]

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.

Wade, I get that you are saying that someone who stays in the LDS faith is more able to say that they are passing the test than someone is no longer in the faith. That I completely and fully understand. I also understand that you want the person 'in the faith' to be able to look at the person 'out of the faith' and make such claims.

But your continued insistence that this discussion be constrained to such a narrow point-of-view, as demonstrated by your denial that anyone but you is 'getting it' really puts a damper on my desire to continue this futile discussion.

H.

[_RockSlider]

becoming like Christ, unto a fulness of joy and love in eternal familial relations.

So passing the test has two requirements!

I know of those who have not achieved part two of those requirements, per the Church's standards and yet consider themselves A+ students/followers of the faith. Always a interesting study.

[_madeleine]

Well, when I think of faith I think of it as a grace, a gift of the Holy Spirit. It isn't possible to flunk faith, any more than it possible to say, have a remedial soul. Though there are times in my life I thought I must.

That is a failing, human thought, not one that is based on the inherent dignity that all people possess and is theirs by the grace the One Who created them.

God calls to all people, unconditionally. One does not flunk what is given freely.

That is a lovely point of view, and one that, in its own regard, I don't object to. It just is a separate matter than the specific one I had in mind with my controversial comment.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

:-) "Flunking the [Mormon] test of faith?" then?

I'd say, that particular test is designed to fail.

[_Jason Bourne]

At 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.

Flunking that test, then, would consist of discontinued growth in LDS faith and/or loss of LDS faith.

Isn't this sort of like stacking the deck? Why do you get to set the parameters of what it means to pass the test of faith and what it does not mean?

With these clarifications now in place, I am open to hearing and civilly discussing your opposing views.

How can one have an opposing view to the false premise you have established? Ex LDS or even NOMers like me fail it. Nothing to discuss.

But really faith is a large table full of sumptuous food. What works for some does not work for others. Personally I feel my faith and spirituality has grown since it is not so narrowly focused on a presumption that the LDS Church is the One and Only True and Living Church. I can still admire and have faith in what rings good and wholesome within the LDS Church but also, admire and even sample faith traditions and ideals that feel good and wholesome to me as well and all the while understanding that nobody really has all the answers.

[_wenglund]

Isn't this sort of like stacking the deck?

No. It is stating things from a given perspective.

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.

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

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.

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.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[_Baker]

Neither the practice of something nor the abandonment of such practice, in and of itself, automatically makes one an expert in the thing. Also, there are two things going on here in both Yoga and Mormon worship - knowledge and experience. 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.