Is there any degree of self-persuasion involved in faith?

[_tagriffy]

There was an article in Dialogue or Sunstone (I've lost my collections and I'm too lazy to look it up online right now) that talked about how talk of "knowledge" in testimony bearing can be a detriment. In a sense, saying something like "I know the Gospel is true," is about sharing a sacramental language; probably most of the people who say "I know" really just mean something like "I believe." I've used the language of "knowledge" in bearing my testimony, but usually the context was an attempt to counter someone else's "knowledge." I don't think I ever had the courage to simply say, "I believe ...." Usually, I preferred something like, "I have a testimony of ...." I my mind at least, that basically split the difference.

This idea of sharing a sacramental language is really interesting- can you give me any more information so I can look it up?

What do you think about reinforcing ones testimony through repeated public displays of faith during testamony meetings? It wondering if the act of pronouncing your faith, belief, knowledge, etc actually solidifies it? ... there's got to be some psychological studies on public pronouncements and the effects of propaganda on the producer of the propaganda... Im thinking 1984 here.

The article I probably had in mind can be found at https://www.sunstonemagazine.com/pdf/081-20-27.pdf. Skimming it, it's not quite what I thought it was, but it is the best I'm going to get with Google. This study is more anthropological than psychological in nature.

According to Durkheim, of course the act of bearing testimony helps solidifies belief. That's kind of the point. Though the specifics in his work The Elementary Forms of Religious Life have been heavily criticized, the concepts he laid out are still sometimes used as an interpretive lens in Religious Studies (at least, as of the time I was in college).

[_tagriffy]

When you say "God is"

1. Do you assume that statement always means the same thing to others?
2. How would you respond to someone who flatly states "God isn't"? (or someone who states He isn't in the way you think He is?)
3. How does one follow a God without some sort of understanding beyond "He is"?

I am not just asking if there is any "sort of logical or scientific evidence" that you would consider evidence against his existence (though there may be some), I am asking if there is ANY evidence at all that would convince you that God is not, or at least he is not as you think he is. For example one might consider a complete lack of any responses to persistent sincere prayer as such evidence, or one might consider a consistent lack of blessings being poured out to a faithful life long tithe payer, or perhaps a burning the the bosom that tells you the Joseph Smith was a false prophet, maybe a spiritual encounter with a disciple of Hinduism or Buddhism that might convince you your concept of who God is, isn't correct, this sort of thing.

1. No, my tendency is actually to assume that statement does not mean the same thing to others. As I said, I haven't sweated out the details, but I'm pretty certain my view of God is idiosyncratic. There will be points of contact, of course. I'm drawing on the KJV's translation of God's name in Ex. 3:14 (I AM THAT I AM), for example. But I don't think my concept of God will match up with anybody else's point for point.

2. For the most part, I would respond "each to their own." I don't engage in active proselytization, and I am all too aware that God's existence can't be proven. Some concepts, like Little Nipper's Santa Clause God can get me a little miffed. But otherwise that is my basic response.

3. You do the best you can. I use Mormonism as my baseline, if you will, to move into things beyond "he is," i.e., to do my theology. At the same time, I recognize nothing will ever truly capture God "as he really is."

I honestly don't know if there is anything that would convince me that God doesn't exist. I already had to give up one concept of God when I lost faith in biblical inerrancy, so I won't say it can't happen again. However, my choice of Mormonism was far more self-conscious than my acceptance of Evangelical Christianity. To change my mind about Mormonism would require a radical realignment of what I've been calling my psychosocial matrix. I can't imagine that happening in practice, but I'd have to admit that it isn't inconceivable.

[_subgenius]

When you say "God is"

1. Do you assume that statement always means the same thing to others?
2. How would you respond to someone who flatly states "God isn't"? (or someone who states He isn't in the way you think He is?)
3. How does one follow a God without some sort of understanding beyond "He is"?

I am not just asking if there is any "sort of logical or scientific evidence" that you would consider evidence against his existence (though there may be some), I am asking if there is ANY evidence at all that would convince you that God is not, or at least he is not as you think he is. For example one might consider a complete lack of any responses to persistent sincere prayer as such evidence, or one might consider a consistent lack of blessings being poured out to a faithful life long tithe payer, or perhaps a burning the the bosom that tells you the Joseph Smith was a false prophet, maybe a spiritual encounter with a disciple of Hinduism or Buddhism that might convince you your concept of who God is, isn't correct, this sort of thing.

1. No, my tendency is actually to assume that statement does not mean the same thing to others. As I said, I haven't sweated out the details, but I'm pretty certain my view of God is idiosyncratic. There will be points of contact, of course. I'm drawing on the KJV's translation of God's name in Ex. 3:14 (I AM THAT I AM), for example. But I don't think my concept of God will match up with anybody else's point for point.

is it your premise that it should match up?
it would seem that the scriptures reinforce that it will never truly "match up" because of our ability, or lack thereof, to comprehend the wholeness of God...but you seem to be arguing something outside of a theological framework.
so, exactly what "concept" are you trying to deconstruct here?

2. For the most part, I would respond "each to their own." I don't engage in active proselytization, and I am all too aware that God's existence can't be proven. Some concepts, like Little Nipper's Santa Clause God can get me a little miffed. But otherwise that is my basic response.

"proven" is rather ambiguous in this context...do you mean "proven" like a mathematical proof? like a test tube? like statistically?
If you are limiting "proven" to such temporal restraints then you likely have a long row to hoe...there is a plethora of evidence that one could reasonably conclude supports the existence of God...but alas, there are no photographs.
To "each their own" is a dangerous mantra indeed; outside of politics.

3. You do the best you can. I use Mormonism as my baseline, if you will, to move into things beyond "he is," i.e., to do my theology. At the same time, I recognize nothing will ever truly capture God "as he really is."

contrast with your statement in #1 above.

I honestly don't know if there is anything that would convince me that God doesn't exist. I already had to give up one concept of God when I lost faith in biblical inerrancy, so I won't say it can't happen again. However, my choice of Mormonism was far more self-conscious than my acceptance of Evangelical Christianity. To change my mind about Mormonism would require a radical realignment of what I've been calling my psychosocial matrix. I can't imagine that happening in practice, but I'd have to admit that it isn't inconceivable.

[_moksha]

This is really interesting. Could you elaborate? Why does having doubt lead to a more reasonable and satisfying version of faith? Do you have any examples of this?

With doubt you can approach faith with less than fanatic certainty and seek symbolic meaning in stories and other items of the past relating to faith. This lends itself to a living faith rather than something rooted in stone and therefore stagnant and not growing.

Here is an example. Martin Luther had doubt regarding many facets of his faith. This enabled him to define what he thought was truly important and to alter his beliefs accordingly.

Or what you mentioned about about denial, supression and confabulation? ...rationalization is an important one too.

You are absolutely right. Rationalization is very important. We do it all the time and I am using it right now as I type.

[_tagriffy]

1. No, my tendency is actually to assume that statement does not mean the same thing to others. As I said, I haven't sweated out the details, but I'm pretty certain my view of God is idiosyncratic. There will be points of contact, of course. I'm drawing on the KJV's translation of God's name in Ex. 3:14 (I AM THAT I AM), for example. But I don't think my concept of God will match up with anybody else's point for point.

is it your premise that it should match up?
it would seem that the scriptures reinforce that it will never truly "match up" because of our ability, or lack thereof, to comprehend the wholeness of God...but you seem to be arguing something outside of a theological framework.
so, exactly what "concept" are you trying to deconstruct here?

It is my premise they won't match up. "Should," of course, is a different question. I'm going to tentatively say no, they should not. If, as Jesus indicated, one's actions (or inactions in this case) reflects what is truly in one's heart, then I really have no excuse for refusing to actively proselyte my views if I thought they should match up.

Moreover, if I am going to add something beyond "God is," then I would say God is personal. Intensely so. Since no two people have the exact same psychosocial make-up, I don't think there is any way they can match up, let alone should. When it comes to God, we are all the blind men trying to describe an elephant. And yes, this is reinforced by Scripture--all scripture, anywhere, however defined. I'm not so much outside a theological framework as I am looking at the even bigger picture of the phenomena of religion.

The concept I'm ultimately trying to deconstruct is propositional revelation. Propositional revelation turns the language of mythos into the language of logos. The language of logos is black and white, either/or, concrete observation. It is harshly and unremittingly literal. It expects no errors and no contradictions in the Bible. It requires the Book of Mormon to be historical in order to be true. The language of mythos is not so demanding. It is about ultimates, the reality behind reality if you will. To borrow the language of the letter to the Hebrews, it is about "the conviction of things not seen" (11:1, NRSV). It realizes that human beings will never truly capture the Ultimate. It is therefore necessarily symbolic and interpretive. It can tolerate contradiction--indeed, I consider it particularly ingenious of the Jews to include subversive works like Ecclesiastes and Jonah within its canon. Yes, we have Isaiah saying that God's ways are higher than human ways (55:8-9). Yes, we have Ezekiel resorting to language like "the appearance of something like ...." But nothing screams "Caution!" like Job, Ecclesiastes, Jonah, and even some of the Psalms. It would seem that the writers of scripture are themselves just doing the best they can.

2. For the most part, I would respond "each to their own." I don't engage in active proselytization, and I am all too aware that God's existence can't be proven. Some concepts, like Little Nipper's Santa Clause God can get me a little miffed. But otherwise that is my basic response.

"proven" is rather ambiguous in this context...do you mean "proven" like a mathematical proof? like a test tube? like statistically?
If you are limiting "proven" to such temporal restraints then you likely have a long row to hoe...there is a plethora of evidence that one could reasonably conclude supports the existence of God...but alas, there are no photographs.
To "each their own" is a dangerous mantra indeed; outside of politics.

Let me clarify then: I mean "proven" in the logos terminology of logic and science--as you said, there are no photographs. You certainly can use the language of logos to reasonably conclude God exists--but it only gets you so far. The furthest you are going to be able to go with the language of logos (sans the proverbial photograph) is to establish that belief in God is not irrational. To go anywhere beyond that requires leaving the language of logos behind and embracing the language of mythos. And that has to be worked out as best as one can. It is in this respect I say to each their own. Yes, it has its dangers, but the proper response is to embrace the dangers.

3. You do the best you can. I use Mormonism as my baseline, if you will, to move into things beyond "he is," i.e., to do my theology. At the same time, I recognize nothing will ever truly capture God "as he really is."

contrast with your statement in #1 above.

I don't really see this as a contrast. Mormonism is my baseline, but I don't limit myself to Mormon orthodoxy for my views about God. I freely incorporate good ideas wherever I find them without worrying all that much about the details. That is, I do the best I can to follow a God that I can't definitively define beyond "He is."

[_Mktavish]

...