C
Chris_Jodrey
Guest
I think we all need a little review here. What is faith?
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.
C
Catholic_Guy
Guest
Chris Jodrey:
A Mystery of religion is not a truth about wich we can know nothing; rather it is a truth about which we cannot know everything. It is not so much an unscalable wall as an endless gallery into which the mind can progress further and further without ever coming to an end. No matter how much the mind concentrates on a mystery, there will always remain a mass of truth it has not made its own.
In Christ,
Catholic Guy
Faith is a Mystery of religion;I think we all need a little review here. What is faith?
A Mystery of religion is not a truth about wich we can know nothing; rather it is a truth about which we cannot know everything. It is not so much an unscalable wall as an endless gallery into which the mind can progress further and further without ever coming to an end. No matter how much the mind concentrates on a mystery, there will always remain a mass of truth it has not made its own.
In Christ,
Catholic Guy
C
Casen
Guest
Here’s one of my favorite Book of Mormon scriptures on faith:
5 And it came to pass that Ether did prophesy great and marvelous things unto the people, which they did not believe, because they saw them not.
6 And now, I, Moroni, would speak somewhat concerning these things; I would show unto the world that faith is things which are hoped for and not seen; wherefore, dispute not because ye see not, for ye receive no witness until after the trial of your faith.(Book of Mormon | Ether 12:5 - 6)
5 And it came to pass that Ether did prophesy great and marvelous things unto the people, which they did not believe, because they saw them not.
6 And now, I, Moroni, would speak somewhat concerning these things; I would show unto the world that faith is things which are hoped for and not seen; wherefore, dispute not because ye see not, for ye receive no witness until after the trial of your faith.(Book of Mormon | Ether 12:5 - 6)
T
tkdnick
Guest
I like this from Hebrews 11:1
“Faith is the realization of what is hoped for and evidence of things not seen.”
Faith is believing, even if we can’t “prove” something. It is both a gift from God and a human response to God’s grace.
“Faith is the realization of what is hoped for and evidence of things not seen.”
Faith is believing, even if we can’t “prove” something. It is both a gift from God and a human response to God’s grace.
C
catholic-rcia
Guest
C
Chris_Jodrey
Guest
Because of time I am not currently able to post as much as I’d like, but I decided to leave the Great Apostasy thread alone for a little while so that we can focus on the more fundamental basis of all religious academic discussion, which I firmly believe is FAITH.
Now, some of you may already be guessing where this is going. I’ve already treated it a little in a thread called Question in the apologetics portion of these forums. Does the following seem familiar?: “Obviously the XX Church is right, and if you actually opened up your mind and studied the facts objectively you would see that and join us.”
I have read comments similar to this from more than a few Catholics on this board. I have also seen it among many protestant denominations. I have seen it among LDS, but it is not so common: the idea that the interpretation XX of the Bible is obviously the correct one, and those who disagree are A) unintelligent, B) brainwashed (a real favorite to apply to Mormons, by the way), or C) ignorant (this is most common of all). In fact, it may be a combination of all three of these factors. I even used to think this about those outside of the LDS Church. I know many do think that way still.
I think that it’s mainly a way of rationalizing and justifying one’s belief. Man doesn’t respond well to issues of faith, so we try to turn faith into reason, thereby justifying what we believe and making it more credible. I.E., we are not required to exercise as much faith (belief in things that are not seen, heard, tested empirically to be true, or even widely accepted) when things are very normal, expected, and logical. This is not to say that reason and education are bad things, but that they should come second to faith, especially when the two methods collide.
What I have just stated is often adamantly fought against by many. This is one of the big points of doctrine that people don’t like about the Mormon Church. They suppose that what the Church really means in saying this is that its doctrines are unsupported by any kind of evidence, and even that there is evidence to contradict it; that we are taught not to worry about that logical stuff and to just believe because they say we should, and that because we trust them we do exactly what they say, thereby allowing ourselves to be brainwashed. I believe that this concept has not been clearly defined here and that it needs further consideration. So humor me, please.
continued…
I like this from Hebrews 11:1
“Faith is the realization of what is hoped for and evidence of things not seen.”
Thank you, tkdnick! This is exactly the kind of answer I was hoping for. I think that all Mormons and Catholics should be in agreement on this definition. If there is anyone who wants to interject a radically different definition, please do so.Faith is believing, even if we can’t “prove” something. It is both a gift from God and a human response to God’s grace.
Now, some of you may already be guessing where this is going. I’ve already treated it a little in a thread called Question in the apologetics portion of these forums. Does the following seem familiar?: “Obviously the XX Church is right, and if you actually opened up your mind and studied the facts objectively you would see that and join us.”
I have read comments similar to this from more than a few Catholics on this board. I have also seen it among many protestant denominations. I have seen it among LDS, but it is not so common: the idea that the interpretation XX of the Bible is obviously the correct one, and those who disagree are A) unintelligent, B) brainwashed (a real favorite to apply to Mormons, by the way), or C) ignorant (this is most common of all). In fact, it may be a combination of all three of these factors. I even used to think this about those outside of the LDS Church. I know many do think that way still.
I think that it’s mainly a way of rationalizing and justifying one’s belief. Man doesn’t respond well to issues of faith, so we try to turn faith into reason, thereby justifying what we believe and making it more credible. I.E., we are not required to exercise as much faith (belief in things that are not seen, heard, tested empirically to be true, or even widely accepted) when things are very normal, expected, and logical. This is not to say that reason and education are bad things, but that they should come second to faith, especially when the two methods collide.
What I have just stated is often adamantly fought against by many. This is one of the big points of doctrine that people don’t like about the Mormon Church. They suppose that what the Church really means in saying this is that its doctrines are unsupported by any kind of evidence, and even that there is evidence to contradict it; that we are taught not to worry about that logical stuff and to just believe because they say we should, and that because we trust them we do exactly what they say, thereby allowing ourselves to be brainwashed. I believe that this concept has not been clearly defined here and that it needs further consideration. So humor me, please.
continued…
C
Chris_Jodrey
Guest
The danger, and the reason many object to it, is that blind faith is not really faith; it is a hope without a base, a blind belief, like a building floating in the air with no foundation. Who’s to say what truth is, and how can one be convinced of it, if not by human reason and solid evidence?
What is the opposite of faith? It is doubt. Reason is not bad, and it has a part in faith, but it cannot replace it either. Faith has to have a base, but can a religious belief really be evidenced to the degree that there is no longer any reasonable doubt to its validity and that the only people who would disagree with it must fall into one of the three categories I listed above? I have met great and intelligent people, even very reasonable and open-minded people, educated in many things. But, that doesn’t mean that those people find others’ arguments to be so convincing that they up and start believing in the religion, participating and immediately joining. In fact, I’m not aware of any cases in which very educated people have changed religions because of study. Well, just one. He had been Catholic (actually he had little left to do to become a priest), but he ended up joining the JWs, advancing there very quickly. Of course, I’m sure the Catholics here would object to this example, which may lead us to simply conclude that something else was involved – not just study. And this has been my general conclusion when it comes to religious change in a person’s life.
What really makes those changes happen is usually social, emotional, behavioral, the ideal of starting over, etc. Objective research doesn’t seem to play such a big role. I recommend an articl on the FAIR website about how this works called '“Believest thou…?”: Faith, Cognitive Dissonance, and the Psychology of Religious Experience ’ by Wendy Ulrich.
Why, when science and history contradict religion, should we keep strong to our religion instead of following the world’s reason? Why, when science defames the creation and the world-wide flood should we take it all only with a grain of salt? Here are some reasons: man’s wisdom is incomplete and imperfect. Mistakes are more than possible, and our knowledge now is limited. In the end, trusting the word of some guy who says he speaks with God isn’t all that different from trusting the word of another who says that through his studies he has discovered some great truth. Either may be fake, and either could be telling the truth. The process of deciding whether they are fake or not is not that different either. To judge the scientist we come closer to what he knows, we familiarize ourselves with the facts, the data, the rationale, etc; we come closer to the science in question. So, what about the man who speaks with God? Again, it’s the same: we come closer to God and we will be able to recognize his representative.
continued…
What is the opposite of faith? It is doubt. Reason is not bad, and it has a part in faith, but it cannot replace it either. Faith has to have a base, but can a religious belief really be evidenced to the degree that there is no longer any reasonable doubt to its validity and that the only people who would disagree with it must fall into one of the three categories I listed above? I have met great and intelligent people, even very reasonable and open-minded people, educated in many things. But, that doesn’t mean that those people find others’ arguments to be so convincing that they up and start believing in the religion, participating and immediately joining. In fact, I’m not aware of any cases in which very educated people have changed religions because of study. Well, just one. He had been Catholic (actually he had little left to do to become a priest), but he ended up joining the JWs, advancing there very quickly. Of course, I’m sure the Catholics here would object to this example, which may lead us to simply conclude that something else was involved – not just study. And this has been my general conclusion when it comes to religious change in a person’s life.
What really makes those changes happen is usually social, emotional, behavioral, the ideal of starting over, etc. Objective research doesn’t seem to play such a big role. I recommend an articl on the FAIR website about how this works called '“Believest thou…?”: Faith, Cognitive Dissonance, and the Psychology of Religious Experience ’ by Wendy Ulrich.
Why, when science and history contradict religion, should we keep strong to our religion instead of following the world’s reason? Why, when science defames the creation and the world-wide flood should we take it all only with a grain of salt? Here are some reasons: man’s wisdom is incomplete and imperfect. Mistakes are more than possible, and our knowledge now is limited. In the end, trusting the word of some guy who says he speaks with God isn’t all that different from trusting the word of another who says that through his studies he has discovered some great truth. Either may be fake, and either could be telling the truth. The process of deciding whether they are fake or not is not that different either. To judge the scientist we come closer to what he knows, we familiarize ourselves with the facts, the data, the rationale, etc; we come closer to the science in question. So, what about the man who speaks with God? Again, it’s the same: we come closer to God and we will be able to recognize his representative.
continued…
C
Chris_Jodrey
Guest
The idea of objective judgment of data and ‘facts’ in religious matters, or in any controversial moral issue is misleading. The only circumstance I can think of in which this would theoretically happen is when someone was indifferent to or torn between two religious beliefs/systems/organizations, without any preference to one over the other. I don’t think this happens often. Most people have been taught some religious principles as children, or friends have explained things to them, or they have interpreted their own life experiences in some specific way. It is the natural human response to resist change to something you have invested time, effort, and your own identity into. The common response would be to find something that more closely fits what you already believe. This is impossible to miss in a religious person. When an anti-Catholic attacks the RCC the expected response for a Catholic would be to defend it. This also goes for Mormons and for anyone else. Our religion becomes a part of us. When our religion is attacked we are attacked indirectly. When we defend our religion we do so with an agenda. It is not because that’s just the way the facts go, as if our attitude is based solely on logic, but because we want to defend what we have and what we are. And I don’t think there’s anything intrinsically wrong with that. The danger is when we make things too personal and throw all reason out the window. It would be nice to be able to say honestly that our decision to stay with our religion is based only on the fact that we have put aside our personal beliefs and have judged it from without, because that would protect us – “No! I don’t believe because anyone tells me to or because it feels good, I do it because it’s the most logical thing to do!” We support our cause by becoming part of the world, for the world acknowledges only the logic patterns of imperfect human thought. Faith has no place in the world, and so in order to be of the world faith must have no place in us.
I could write a lot more about faith as it applies to the setting of apologetics, both Mormon and Catholic. For example, the idea of believing in the Book of Mormon has been ridiculed here. Why? They say, because there is no evidence for it, no way to prove it true. I would ask if that’s really so bad. We have the Bible. It is generally accepted by the world to be a very old collection of books. Much of its secular history can be verified in history and anthropology. But that can’t prove that Christ was born of a virgin, or that he did miracles, or that he was resurrected, or that the prophets of old performed miracles, or that God exists at all. It could simply be the musings and odd religious tales of an ancient people. It requires a great deal of faith to really believe in its more spiritual aspects. Now, the Book of Mormon is very different from the Bible in this way: if you were to prove its secular account true (you know, names, places, customs, history, language) you would also be proving a multitude of other things true: that God exists and loves us; that Christ was born of a virgin in Jerusalem, died and was resurrected, then came to the Americas; that many prophets did miracles; that this Church is true and that Joseph Smith was a prophet. He’s the means by which the book came about and was translated. If the BoM’s seglar history is proven true then we know that ol’ Joe didn’t really make it all up, but that he was called of God, as the book itself prophesies. In the BoM the secular portion is unalterably connected to its spiritual portion; the Bible has the two disconnected because of the way it has been preserved, translated, and printed. On both accounts faith is required. Maybe moreso for the BoM than for the Bible. But to compare the two in the light that many antis have done is in fact ignoring a very important detail, and is not reasonable by any means. From religionists who profess that reason is on their side I have seen the most absurd arguments. From those that admit that faith is their biggest deciding factor I have seen level-headed responses to rather illogical accusations.
No matter what your religion, you must eventually admit that it is faith that drives you and gives you the incentive to serve, believe, and even defend. I have put a bit of thought into this, so I hope at least someone gets something from it.
I could write a lot more about faith as it applies to the setting of apologetics, both Mormon and Catholic. For example, the idea of believing in the Book of Mormon has been ridiculed here. Why? They say, because there is no evidence for it, no way to prove it true. I would ask if that’s really so bad. We have the Bible. It is generally accepted by the world to be a very old collection of books. Much of its secular history can be verified in history and anthropology. But that can’t prove that Christ was born of a virgin, or that he did miracles, or that he was resurrected, or that the prophets of old performed miracles, or that God exists at all. It could simply be the musings and odd religious tales of an ancient people. It requires a great deal of faith to really believe in its more spiritual aspects. Now, the Book of Mormon is very different from the Bible in this way: if you were to prove its secular account true (you know, names, places, customs, history, language) you would also be proving a multitude of other things true: that God exists and loves us; that Christ was born of a virgin in Jerusalem, died and was resurrected, then came to the Americas; that many prophets did miracles; that this Church is true and that Joseph Smith was a prophet. He’s the means by which the book came about and was translated. If the BoM’s seglar history is proven true then we know that ol’ Joe didn’t really make it all up, but that he was called of God, as the book itself prophesies. In the BoM the secular portion is unalterably connected to its spiritual portion; the Bible has the two disconnected because of the way it has been preserved, translated, and printed. On both accounts faith is required. Maybe moreso for the BoM than for the Bible. But to compare the two in the light that many antis have done is in fact ignoring a very important detail, and is not reasonable by any means. From religionists who profess that reason is on their side I have seen the most absurd arguments. From those that admit that faith is their biggest deciding factor I have seen level-headed responses to rather illogical accusations.
No matter what your religion, you must eventually admit that it is faith that drives you and gives you the incentive to serve, believe, and even defend. I have put a bit of thought into this, so I hope at least someone gets something from it.
T
tkdnick
Guest
Chris,
I would agree with your general idea here except for one distinction. Faith and reason are compatible. It is not one or the other. It is possible to back up faith with reason. It is possible to come to faith through reason. Faith is reasonable.
A side note - I believe from reading posts by TOm and Augustine that they have come to belief in their religions (1 LDS and 1 RCC) based in large part upon reason. How they came to different conclusions I don’t know or understand, but from what I have read they came to their belief very logically.
I would agree with your general idea here except for one distinction. Faith and reason are compatible. It is not one or the other. It is possible to back up faith with reason. It is possible to come to faith through reason. Faith is reasonable.
A side note - I believe from reading posts by TOm and Augustine that they have come to belief in their religions (1 LDS and 1 RCC) based in large part upon reason. How they came to different conclusions I don’t know or understand, but from what I have read they came to their belief very logically.
R
Robert_in_SD
Guest
Hello Chris J;
I think I would have to echo the sentiments of tdnick. Faith and reason are not exclusive concepts. Faith is reasonable, and reason and logic can lead on to faith.
I also disagree with your assumption that history and science conflict with faith, to the extent that you are suggesting that history and science can conflict with absolute truth. If there is absolute truth which we accept on faith (as I believe there is), then history (the disciplined study of the past) and science (a disciplined search for truth) cannot contradict that truth. At best one might say there is a lack of historical or scientific evidence supporting the truth that one accepts on faith. But that does not create conflict. That only proves the limitations of history and science.
So, is it a fair corollary to say that to the extent one’s faith contradicts knowable truth it must be misplaced?
I think I would have to echo the sentiments of tdnick. Faith and reason are not exclusive concepts. Faith is reasonable, and reason and logic can lead on to faith.
I also disagree with your assumption that history and science conflict with faith, to the extent that you are suggesting that history and science can conflict with absolute truth. If there is absolute truth which we accept on faith (as I believe there is), then history (the disciplined study of the past) and science (a disciplined search for truth) cannot contradict that truth. At best one might say there is a lack of historical or scientific evidence supporting the truth that one accepts on faith. But that does not create conflict. That only proves the limitations of history and science.
So, is it a fair corollary to say that to the extent one’s faith contradicts knowable truth it must be misplaced?
(From the Catechism of the Catholic Church)
159 Faith and science: "Though faith is above reason, there can never be any real discrepancy between faith and reason. Since the same God who reveals mysteries and infuses faith has bestowed the light of reason on the human mind, God cannot deny himself, nor can truth ever contradict truth."37 "Consequently, methodical research in all branches of knowledge, provided it is carried out in a truly scientific manner and does not override moral laws, can never conflict with the faith, because the things of the world and the things of faith derive from the same God. The humble and persevering investigator of the secrets of nature is being led, as it were, by the hand of God in spite of himself, for it is God, the conserver of all things, who made them what they are."38
37 Dei Filius 4: DS 3017.
38 GS 36 § 1.
C
Chris_Jodrey
Guest
Faith is reasonable but reason is not always faithful.
In other words, faith does have logical substance, but sometimes we can’t see it at a certain point in time; therefore faith in God to one person may be craziness to another. Our intellect is limited, and these aren’t easy concepts to grasp.
Reason leads to faith because faith is reasonable. This just highlights the complication. If faith in some eternal truth was simple and obvious (according to human logic) then wouldn’t all who thought logically believe? What may be reasonable to one might not be to another, and this is based on personal experience and pre-existing ideals (moral and intellectual). Reason varies while truth does not.
Well, Robert, the sciences should certainly be defined as you have them, but that is not always how scientific data is interpreted. It’s too bad, but many people trust more in incomplete theories and scientific processes than in faith, where the two oppose: that is, the false interpretation of science and imperfect nature of it versus belief in something ‘supernatural’. Often people think that in terms of science and history we have already arrived at the truth, and that if something does not conform then science, reason, and history are what should take precedence, as far as they are advanced. Yes, of course the history of science clearly explains that sometimes we humans make mistakes, but people still believe what they want to.
In other words, faith does have logical substance, but sometimes we can’t see it at a certain point in time; therefore faith in God to one person may be craziness to another. Our intellect is limited, and these aren’t easy concepts to grasp.
Reason leads to faith because faith is reasonable. This just highlights the complication. If faith in some eternal truth was simple and obvious (according to human logic) then wouldn’t all who thought logically believe? What may be reasonable to one might not be to another, and this is based on personal experience and pre-existing ideals (moral and intellectual). Reason varies while truth does not.
Well, Robert, the sciences should certainly be defined as you have them, but that is not always how scientific data is interpreted. It’s too bad, but many people trust more in incomplete theories and scientific processes than in faith, where the two oppose: that is, the false interpretation of science and imperfect nature of it versus belief in something ‘supernatural’. Often people think that in terms of science and history we have already arrived at the truth, and that if something does not conform then science, reason, and history are what should take precedence, as far as they are advanced. Yes, of course the history of science clearly explains that sometimes we humans make mistakes, but people still believe what they want to.
This is the nuance in action. Logic is not universal. It is shaped by the different experiences one has had, and it may be biological to a degree. Again, there is no one accepted way to prove the doctrines in question true or false, and while some may be convinced one way or the other, others may not be at all. Based on my own experience, I don’t believe that some people just refuse to think rationally, but that their rationale is slightly different, and that they have an agenda that they wish to keep. I explained this in my main post. When people make a conscious decision to convert to another religion logic is always involved, even if the logic doesn’t apply strictly to doctrine. People almost always take into account the pros and cons of a proposed action that is as big and important as changing churches. I don’t disagree with that, but I am saying that the human thought process has limitations and that it shouldn’t be treated as a means to get to absolute truth.A side note - I believe from reading posts by TOm and Augustine that they have come to belief in their religions (1 LDS and 1 RCC) based in large part upon reason. How they came to different conclusions I don’t know or understand, but from what I have read they came to their belief very logically.
C
Chris_Jodrey
Guest
Wow, no replies…
Am I right or not? Reason does not always support our religious beliefs; in fact, it often does not. In areas where it does, it depends on the perspective logic of the individual. The common atheist would say that we make reason fit our beliefs and not the other way around (and ironically, that could be used against the atheist too).
This all relates to any topic here, including the Great Apostasy. If it could be proven either true or false then where would our faith be? The whole idea of faith is that it is something unsubstantiated. Can’t see it, hear it, smell it or taste it.
The LDS position on doctrine in general is that we believe because we are taught by representatives of God, and we know that much by means of spiritual witness, not because we have proven everything they say is true. Likewise, the LDS Church never claimed to be able to prove the GA, so I am not sure why many here are supposing it has.
So, again, faith is reasonable. But, sometimes there are those who come out and try to prove that it’s not. Then in comes apologetics to show that they are wrong, and that faith is quite plausible, not by actually proving such a thing true, but by debunking the anti’s negative arguments.
I would like to see more from the Catholic side on this. Obviously, we all would like to substantiate with physical evidence what it is we believe, but do you think that this has ever been carried too far? Besides believing that to be impossible, I also believe that it comes out of our own pride in wanting to fit into the world, rather than simply living in it and shunning it.
I also wanted to briefly ask a question, in relation to a comment further up that faith and reason are compatible. Can faith become too reasonable? At what point does faith cease to be faith (given the already-given definition of faith)?
Am I right or not? Reason does not always support our religious beliefs; in fact, it often does not. In areas where it does, it depends on the perspective logic of the individual. The common atheist would say that we make reason fit our beliefs and not the other way around (and ironically, that could be used against the atheist too).
This all relates to any topic here, including the Great Apostasy. If it could be proven either true or false then where would our faith be? The whole idea of faith is that it is something unsubstantiated. Can’t see it, hear it, smell it or taste it.
The LDS position on doctrine in general is that we believe because we are taught by representatives of God, and we know that much by means of spiritual witness, not because we have proven everything they say is true. Likewise, the LDS Church never claimed to be able to prove the GA, so I am not sure why many here are supposing it has.
So, again, faith is reasonable. But, sometimes there are those who come out and try to prove that it’s not. Then in comes apologetics to show that they are wrong, and that faith is quite plausible, not by actually proving such a thing true, but by debunking the anti’s negative arguments.
I would like to see more from the Catholic side on this. Obviously, we all would like to substantiate with physical evidence what it is we believe, but do you think that this has ever been carried too far? Besides believing that to be impossible, I also believe that it comes out of our own pride in wanting to fit into the world, rather than simply living in it and shunning it.
I also wanted to briefly ask a question, in relation to a comment further up that faith and reason are compatible. Can faith become too reasonable? At what point does faith cease to be faith (given the already-given definition of faith)?
M
majick275
Guest
Well Faith CAN become perfect knowledge. (although this is rare)
God is not “tricky” either. There is very little that he requires on absolute blind faith with no “evidence” ever being made known. Look at what Jesus did upon the earth, He performed many miracles to strengthen the faith of the believers. He rose from the dead! This SHOWED his followers that he was God. The Bible is full of examples of God showing “proof” to his believers and sometimes even to unbelievers so that faith is strengthened. That doesn’t eliminate faith (as we have seen from the israelites under Moses) but
it does give us strength for our faith.
The LDS are asked to believe first that their leaders are representatives of God who speak by revelation. No evidence there just a claim. Catholics have history of Apostolic succession with a tradition based on scripture. We are asked to believe what Christ and his Apostles taught. Contrast this to the LDS changes in doctrine and numerous flip flops with only the “prophets” word to go by. ( a word that can be and has been denounced by later “prophets”)
The Bible tells us to study the words of God and hold to them. Our Faith stays with the same gospel, doctrine and sacraments. Look at the changes even today that LDS go through strictly on the say so of a self proclaimed prophet. (I would point to Hebrews as scriptural basis for NOT having the Christian church led by porphecy)
The Mormon apologists have not de-bunked anything. Their favored tactics are ad hominems against their accusers and grasping at straws of plausibility to try and show that things still COULD be true. (BoM archeology, DNA, BoA,etc.)
Faith and reason are always compatible. God reveals what he wills. sometimes it is enough that faith is barely challenged but often it is merely challenged differently. Consider that the more we learn of the earth the more some would have you believe that it wasn’t created by God. On the other hand, When Jesus appeared to his disciples after the resurection and SHOWED them he had risen from the dead they didn’t have much room for doubt.
2 Peter chapter 1 tells us:
*3His divine power has given us everything we need for life and godliness through our knowledge of him who called us by his own glory and goodness. 4Through these he has given us his very great and precious promises, so that through them you may participate in the divine nature and escape the corruption in the world caused by evil desires.
5For this very reason, make every effort to add to your faith goodness; and to goodness, knowledge; 6and to knowledge, self-control; and to self-control, perseverance; and to perseverance, godliness; 7and to godliness, brotherly kindness; and to brotherly kindness, love. 8For if you possess these qualities in increasing measure, they will keep you from being ineffective and unproductive in your knowledge of our Lord Jesus Christ. 9But if anyone does not have them, he is nearsighted and blind, and has forgotten that he has been cleansed from his past sins.
10Therefore, my brothers, be all the more eager to make your calling and election sure. For if you do these things, you will never fall, 11and you will receive a rich welcome into the eternal kingdom of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ.*
So you see in Gods true church you get both Faith and reason, scripture and tradition to build that special relationship between man and God. God has not abandoned his creations EVER. He truly is unchanging and has always provided us a way to KNOW God.
You don’t have to just hope, you can see for yourself. Go to an RCIA class in your area and prove it yourself.
God is not “tricky” either. There is very little that he requires on absolute blind faith with no “evidence” ever being made known. Look at what Jesus did upon the earth, He performed many miracles to strengthen the faith of the believers. He rose from the dead! This SHOWED his followers that he was God. The Bible is full of examples of God showing “proof” to his believers and sometimes even to unbelievers so that faith is strengthened. That doesn’t eliminate faith (as we have seen from the israelites under Moses) but
it does give us strength for our faith.
The LDS are asked to believe first that their leaders are representatives of God who speak by revelation. No evidence there just a claim. Catholics have history of Apostolic succession with a tradition based on scripture. We are asked to believe what Christ and his Apostles taught. Contrast this to the LDS changes in doctrine and numerous flip flops with only the “prophets” word to go by. ( a word that can be and has been denounced by later “prophets”)
The Bible tells us to study the words of God and hold to them. Our Faith stays with the same gospel, doctrine and sacraments. Look at the changes even today that LDS go through strictly on the say so of a self proclaimed prophet. (I would point to Hebrews as scriptural basis for NOT having the Christian church led by porphecy)
The Mormon apologists have not de-bunked anything. Their favored tactics are ad hominems against their accusers and grasping at straws of plausibility to try and show that things still COULD be true. (BoM archeology, DNA, BoA,etc.)
Faith and reason are always compatible. God reveals what he wills. sometimes it is enough that faith is barely challenged but often it is merely challenged differently. Consider that the more we learn of the earth the more some would have you believe that it wasn’t created by God. On the other hand, When Jesus appeared to his disciples after the resurection and SHOWED them he had risen from the dead they didn’t have much room for doubt.
2 Peter chapter 1 tells us:
*3His divine power has given us everything we need for life and godliness through our knowledge of him who called us by his own glory and goodness. 4Through these he has given us his very great and precious promises, so that through them you may participate in the divine nature and escape the corruption in the world caused by evil desires.
5For this very reason, make every effort to add to your faith goodness; and to goodness, knowledge; 6and to knowledge, self-control; and to self-control, perseverance; and to perseverance, godliness; 7and to godliness, brotherly kindness; and to brotherly kindness, love. 8For if you possess these qualities in increasing measure, they will keep you from being ineffective and unproductive in your knowledge of our Lord Jesus Christ. 9But if anyone does not have them, he is nearsighted and blind, and has forgotten that he has been cleansed from his past sins.
10Therefore, my brothers, be all the more eager to make your calling and election sure. For if you do these things, you will never fall, 11and you will receive a rich welcome into the eternal kingdom of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ.*
So you see in Gods true church you get both Faith and reason, scripture and tradition to build that special relationship between man and God. God has not abandoned his creations EVER. He truly is unchanging and has always provided us a way to KNOW God.
You don’t have to just hope, you can see for yourself. Go to an RCIA class in your area and prove it yourself.
C
Chris_Jodrey
Guest
I agree. The BoM says that quite clearly, and Peter (the passage you cited) spells out how that is done. It must be understood, though, that faith cannot be made perfect through human device and reason, but by God’s own workings, as we submit ourselves to him.Well Faith CAN become perfect knowledge.
I believe that faith always has some kind of evidence behind it, but what we’re not agreeing on is what kind of evidence that is. Jesus condemned the sign-seekers. When he did many signs, many disbelieved. I don’t think that signs always contribute to faith. The brothers of Nephi saw an angel, yet they lacked faith. The Bible is also full of examples in which no miracles (proof) were done and yet many believed. The basis of faith is what I believe Catholics and Mormons disagree on.
I would disagree with you there. It depends who you ask. This would require another thread, of course, but Mormons certainly don’t think of their doctrine as changing. On the other hand, many think that about the Catholic Church, whether or not Catholics believe otherwise.The LDS are asked to believe first that their leaders are representatives of God who speak by revelation. No evidence there just a claim. Catholics have history of Apostolic succession with a tradition based on scripture. We are asked to believe what Christ and his Apostles taught. Contrast this to the LDS changes in doctrine and numerous flip flops with only the “prophets” word to go by. ( a word that can be and has been denounced by later “prophets”)
You see, LDS also believe in reason, although we also should recognize that that’s not the main way to truth and God. What’s reason to you may not be reason to me, and vice versa. The big difference is that LDS are usually pretty comfortable with saying that they follow the prophet. Do you feel uncomfortable declaring that you have faith in the pope? LDS follow the words of the Bible, and would not declare otherwise. So, for you to assume that the words of the leaders and tradition and scripture contradict each other in the LDS Church is going around in a big circle back up to my first posts here.
This is kind of confusing. First, you say that faith and reason are always compatible; then that God reveals what he wants, and thus that we are learning more about the earth, leading many to conclude that God didn’t create it? I’m not sure I understand the point you were trying to make, but I can make use of what I understood you to say. You may not have understood at least one of the points I have been trying to make, and that is that reason is subjective. You said that faith is always reasonable: but according to whose reason?Faith and reason are always compatible. God reveals what he wills. sometimes it is enough that faith is barely challenged but often it is merely challenged differently. Consider that the more we learn of the earth the more some would have you believe that it wasn’t created by God. On the other hand, When Jesus appeared to his disciples after the resurection and SHOWED them he had risen from the dead they didn’t have much room for doubt.
So you see in Gods true church you get both Faith and reason, scripture and tradition to build that special relationship between man and God. God has not abandoned his creations EVER. He truly is unchanging and has always provided us a way to KNOW God.
And we revolve back to the beginning of this thread…You don’t have to just hope, you can see for yourself. Go to an RCIA class in your area and prove it yourself.
R
Robert_in_SD
Guest
Hi Chris J; Sorrry for the delay in responding…
Chris Jodrey:
Chris Jodrey:
Chris Jodrey:
Chris Jodrey:
Chris Jodrey:
I’m not sure I follow you. “Reason” is the power of comprehending, inferring, , or thinking in orderly rational ways. Reason is not faithful or unfaithful. It is a discipline of the mind. I think what you mean is people are sometimes reasonable and sometimes not reasonable, or reasonable to a greater or lesser degree. Is that correct?Faith is reasonable but reason is not always faithful.
Chris Jodrey:
I agree.In other words, faith does have logical substance, but sometimes we can’t see it at a certain point in time; therefore faith in God to one person may be craziness to another. Our intellect is limited, and these aren’t easy concepts to grasp.
Chris Jodrey:
No. One’s ability to reason varies. Reason itself does not vary. Which leads to my next comment…What may be reasonable to one might not be to another, and this is based on personal experience and pre-existing ideals (moral and intellectual). Reason varies while truth does not.
Chris Jodrey:
None of this is an argument in support of faith apart from reason. Reason itself - pure reason - can never contradict faith. But I agree that science and history are at times employed in unreasonable ways - and people come to unreasonable conclusions based upon preconceptions and biases. That does not call for the divorce of faith and reason. It calls for a real application of reason to one’s search for truth.Well, Robert, the sciences should certainly be defined as you have them, but that is not always how scientific data is interpreted. It’s too bad, but many people trust more in incomplete theories and scientific processes than in faith, where the two oppose: that is, the false interpretation of science and imperfect nature of it versus belief in something ‘supernatural’. Often people think that in terms of science and history we have already arrived at the truth, and that if something does not conform then science, reason, and history are what should take precedence, as far as they are advanced. Yes, of course the history of science clearly explains that sometimes we humans make mistakes, but people still believe what they want to.
M
majick275
Guest
Chris Jodrey:
Chris Jodrey:
Chris Jodrey:
Chris Jodrey:
Chris Jodrey:
Notice though that the “proof” was there for the believers. Obvious “proof”.I believe that faith always has some kind of evidence behind it, but what we’re not agreeing on is what kind of evidence that is. Jesus condemned the sign-seekers. When he did many signs, many disbelieved. I don’t think that signs always contribute to faith. The brothers of Nephi saw an angel, yet they lacked faith. The Bible is also full of examples in which no miracles (proof) were done and yet many believed. The basis of faith is what I believe Catholics and Mormons disagree on.
Chris Jodrey:
WEll here is where we don’t have to “interpret”. The RCC has the catechism that clearly states doctrine and from whence it is derived. Please show me in there where doctrine has changed. Which Mormons don’t think the doctrine has changed from Adam God? or The descendants of Cain never being able to receive th epriesthood? waht about only those who enter into polygamy being able to acheive exaltation? I mean the scriptures themselves have changed meaningfully. Look ath the 1830 BoM v. the current. The very nature of God has changed for LDS. BoM and Bible teach one God, Lectures on Faith which WAS part of D&C taught Two Gods, Joseph Smith taught at one point Three Gods. Now it’s a Godhead. Lectures on Faith taught the Father was a personage of Spirit, Current LDS doctrine is he has a body of flesh and bone. You are right this could take another thread but you see my point.I would disagree with you there. It depends who you ask. This would require another thread, of course, but Mormons certainly don’t think of their doctrine as changing. On the other hand, many think that about the Catholic Church, whether or not Catholics believe otherwise.
Chris Jodrey:
But we have faith in the pope to be infallible on matters of faith and morals when speaking ex cathedra to the whole church. Notice that this has been consistent for 2 thousand years. No pope has infallibly overuled a previous popes infallible doctrine or the original doctrine of the Apostles. The LDS history is full of reversals and changes. That LDS are comfortable following the current prophet no matter what the previous ones said is disturbing to me.You see, LDS also believe in reason, although we also should recognize that that’s not the main way to truth and God. What’s reason to you may not be reason to me, and vice versa. The big difference is that LDS are usually pretty comfortable with saying that they follow the prophet. Do you feel uncomfortable declaring that you have faith in the pope? LDS follow the words of the Bible, and would not declare otherwise. So, for you to assume that the words of the leaders and tradition and scripture contradict each other in the LDS Church is going around in a big circle back up to my first posts here.
Chris Jodrey:
Sometimes God reveals more than others so the BALANCE of faith and reason may vary but they are always compatible.This is kind of confusing. First, you say that faith and reason are always compatible; then that God reveals what he wants, and thus that we are learning more about the earth, leading many to conclude that God didn’t create it? I’m not sure I understand the point you were trying to make, but I can make use of what I understood you to say. You may not have understood at least one of the points I have been trying to make, and that is that reason is subjective. You said that faith is always reasonable: but according to whose reason?
Chris Jodrey:
unfortunately this seems to be a common occurence when discussing LDS beliefs. They take things on faith that I believe God has provided sufficient knowledge of to prove them false. What I see as evidence against, most LDS disregard because they just believe and they think if they believe long enough and hard enough then in the end they get the “miracle” of the impossible becoming reality. I think the Bible teaches otherwise and I have the gift of the Holy Ghost in the Catholic church that testifies that what I have LEARNED from scripture and tradition is true.And we revolve back to the beginning of this thread…
C
Chris_Jodrey
Guest
Thanks for responding, Robert. To start off, I agree with your first post; we may be thinking of things in slightly different terms, so it helps to clarify. I think we could conclude for that part that truth could be proved by reason, but that human nature muds up the logical thought process. We are imperfect, and so we understand many things differently than God understands them. Is this assumption correct for you?
And then we get into specific applications of this topic. Mainly, my reasoning does not lead me to conclude that the LDS Church has changed any doctrines. Have interpretations of scripture that are generally accepted by the Church changed? Probably. But the rest is misinterpretation of how LDS doctrine works, and of the issues themselves. There are nuances that most anti-Mos don’t want to consider. (I don’t consider you to be an anti-Mo, but you do seem to follow that habbit as well.) It may be worthwhile for you to make a thread on the changing doctrines of the Mormons so we can discuss it. As for Cathlic doctrine, I have not studied its history to the degree that I could say anything intelligent about it.
So, what’s reasonable to you is not reasonable to me. Is that a valid application of what I am trying to expound in this thread or do you disagree?
How do we know when our powers of reason are sufficient? We would all like to think that we are capable of learning and properly judging an important matter rightly, but the idea that everyone can do that and get to the right answer is hard to believe when everyone’s answers are different. Just consider politics. Each person would consider their own position to be logical and ethic, but then why is there so much debate? The same thing happens in religion. So, is there some universal test to decide who should essentially be the “judge”? I hope I am explaining this dilemma well enough so that it can be understood.But I agree that science and history are at times employed in unreasonable ways - and people come to unreasonable conclusions based upon preconceptions and biases. That does not call for the divorce of faith and reason. It calls for a real application of reason to one’s search for truth.
Then is proof subjective?Notice though that the “proof” was there for the believers. Obvious “proof”.
And then we get into specific applications of this topic. Mainly, my reasoning does not lead me to conclude that the LDS Church has changed any doctrines. Have interpretations of scripture that are generally accepted by the Church changed? Probably. But the rest is misinterpretation of how LDS doctrine works, and of the issues themselves. There are nuances that most anti-Mos don’t want to consider. (I don’t consider you to be an anti-Mo, but you do seem to follow that habbit as well.) It may be worthwhile for you to make a thread on the changing doctrines of the Mormons so we can discuss it. As for Cathlic doctrine, I have not studied its history to the degree that I could say anything intelligent about it.
So, what’s reasonable to you is not reasonable to me. Is that a valid application of what I am trying to expound in this thread or do you disagree?
M
majick275
Guest
I think we understand each other for the most part. i have to take issue with you on the LDS church changing doctrines. I will follow your recomendation and post a new thread for that.
C
Chris_Jodrey
Guest
Good, majick. I just hope that my stance is clear. The whole purpose of me starting this thread was to provide a clear foundation for all of my other posts. Understanding how I think about religious issues requires this one as a prerequisite.
Therefore, never suppose that I intend to prove anything to anybody. What works as proof for me is probably not enough for you, and vice versa. I’m here not so that Catholics can prove their religion true to me, but so that I can come closer to understanding why Catholics believe what they do, and hopefully I can represent my own Church in the same way.
Therefore, never suppose that I intend to prove anything to anybody. What works as proof for me is probably not enough for you, and vice versa. I’m here not so that Catholics can prove their religion true to me, but so that I can come closer to understanding why Catholics believe what they do, and hopefully I can represent my own Church in the same way.
M
majick275
Guest
understood and fair enough.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.