“And said, Verily I say unto you, Except ye be converted, and become as little children, ye shall not enter into the kingdom of heaven.” (Matthew 18:3)
“…becometh as a child, submissive, meek, humble, patient, full of love, willing to submit to all things which the Lord seeth fit to inflict upon him, even as a child doth submit to his father.” Mosiah 3:19)
After I joined the Church and began learning more about the Gospel, I likened it to an onion. An onion, by its construction, has many layers which you can peel back one at a time until you reach the center. In my mind, I imagined the gospel and its principles to be like that onion. As you learn more and gain a deeper understanding, you peel back the layers, one at a time. It reminds me of this scripture,
“But the word of the LORD was unto them precept upon precept, precept upon precept; line upon line, line upon line; here a little, and there a little..”(Isaiah 28:13)
But in many cases, you only have to peel back a few layers to gain the basic understanding of the Gospel you need to return to live with Our Father in Heaven. I call this simple faith, the same faith that a young child would have. The same faith that Jesus called upon us to have.
Those of us who have children know that they are very trusting, innocent and they will believe what we tell them (up to a certain age, of course). They are very teachable, willing to learn and absorb and are usually not cynical about the things they are told.
They have simple faith in us, in Heavenly Father and Jesus and in the Church, for that matter.
As adults or even older young people, some of us yearn to know more. The upper layers of the onion are not enough. We are driven to go deeper and learn more.
This is good. This is also what we are taught to do, both on a secular basis and a spiritual one. To seek as much learning as we can. For some it is given to have enough simple faith to gain and maintain a testimony and that is ok for them. They are content.
For others, they must know more. They must learn as much about what is behind a Gospel principle as possible. They seek to understand all that happened in a particular event in Church history.
It seems to me that before we seek to peel back the other layers of the onion, it is important to have mastered and understood the upper layers. To have acquired that simple faith that will sustain us during our journey deeper into the onion. We must be solid, like the wise man who built his house upon a rock. If not, we are in danger of becoming the other man, who built his house upon the sand.
We’ve seen it happen too many times, where members fall away because of something new they learned about or some detail they did not know about previously.
Having a firm foundation is critical to weather the storms that will come. Starting with becoming as a child, having simple faith, building our testimony(house) upon a rock, that being the Savior Jesus Christ will help us withstand our faith trials and our life trials better.
In the end, that is what the Gospel and the Church are really all about.
Wheat & Tares 
Jeff, good thoughts. I also think there are many, many layers for us to dive into and I don’t think we have capacity in this life to ever reach the core … it is meant to be veiled from us in this state of being for a divine purpose.
There are some concepts that can be more fully understood or “mastered” on the surface if we wish to remain focused on that. However, we cannot wait to master them before moving to other layers. Some people have a need or a drive for deeper material. Child-like faith is not a sustainable goal, in my opinion.
It is not simple, in my opinion. I think it is very very complex, so complex that sometimes people find it more comforting to just keep it simple and stick to surface layers, and take the rest on faith. The more you study, the less you know. That has been my experience so far.
Great post Jeff.
One of the reasons the Lord tells us to be as a child is that they are in a state of innocents because they are alive in Christ.
We, as adults, can become like a child where we are again innocent because we are alive in Christ.
The doctrine of Christ as taught in the Book of Mormon is the means given to mankind to become alive in Christ; being in a state of innocents because of the atonement.
Jared, what do you mean by “become alive in Christ”?
I think that should be innocence.
Heber,
“Child-like faith is not a sustainable goal, in my opinion.”
Don’t disagree. but I think that simple faith is. At least for some.
The childlike qualities of being “submissive, meek, humble, patient, full of love, willing to submit to all things” is really the goal we should seek to obtain.
That does not require an deeply in-depth understanding of the Atonement, if that were even possible.
Actually, you just gave me an idea for a follow up post on this same topic. Thanks.
Jeff:
I like this post. I think there are different natures of people – although I don’t have a great word for it. I think there are people who are accepting of the simple faith, who plug forward, and who endure to the end. I think there are others who, by nature, are always led to keep seeking, to go deeper and deeper, and to follow that pursuit where ever it may lead.
For better or for worse, I think I’m in the latter group. I always want to know more. It is sometimes frustrating and I long for that simple faith at times, but when something new “clicks” in your head after investigation, it is worth it.
Perhaps my most frustrating thing is that the “official” Church understandably focuses on the superficial, the milk before meat, the correlated essence of the gospel. As an organization, it makes perfect sense.
But I want more. In the past, it seemed like people could explore these “deeper” topics in an official Church context. Today, it seems like these are verboten – leaving one to ignore them or else explore them in an “unofficial” environment.
#3 Heber
See the following verses:
25 For, for this end was the law given; wherefore the law hath become dead unto us, and we are made alive in Christ because of our faith; yet we keep the law because of the commandments.
26 And we talk of Christ, we rejoice in Christ, we preach of Christ, we prophesy of Christ, and we write according to our prophecies, that our children may know to what source they may look for a remission of their sins.
(Book of Mormon | 2 Nephi 25:25 – 26)
———-
11 And their little children need no repentance, neither baptism. Behold, baptism is unto repentance to the fulfilling the commandments unto the remission of sins.
12 But little children are alive in Christ, even from the foundation of the world; if not so, God is a partial God, and also a changeable God, and a respecter to persons; for how many little children have died without baptism!
(Book of Mormon | Moroni 8:11 – 12)
——-
22 For behold that all little children are alive in Christ, and also all they that are without the law. For the power of redemption cometh on all them that have no law; wherefore, he that is not condemned, or he that is under no condemnation, cannot repent; and unto such baptism availeth nothing—
(Book of Mormon | Moroni 8:22)
Mike,
I agree with you and I am also like that. When I joined the Church, I encountered some anti-mormon materials. I spent the better part of a year researching the materials and the claims made in the materials. I even made a trip to SLC and spoke to someone in Church HQ about some of the material.
I’ve read the Seer, Nibley and a lot of unpublished deep doctrine and speculation. I enjoy it. Can’t say I understadn it fully, but it is nothing but interesting.
but I recognize some people are not that interest in some of that stuff.
Jeff,
I really appreciated your comments and it coincides with a chapter I read the other night that really had a huge impact on me personally. The Savior is really going after the Pharisees. They were attending the Temple, paying tithing, feeding the poor and were reciting scripture. In spite of this, the Savior was calling them hypocrites and sinners. He then told them why they were so wrong in their views in Matthew 23:23
“…and have omitted the weightier matters of the law, judgment, mercy and faith..”
It hit me hard because the first two are things I need a lot of work on; I need to be better at. I really tried in my last comments, even Hawk noticed, but then fell back to my overbearing self on a recent comment no Steve’s post about the economy.
Thanks again, good post.
Jeff, good clarification on child-like “qualities” should be our pursuit, even while we move away from child-like faith.
I want to try to be “meek, humble, full of love” while I dig into the honest questions in my mind, such as why obedience to authority so highly stressed in the church.
let me throw a monkey wrench into the discussion. paul said something to the effect of ‘when I was a child, I spake as a child. but when I grew up, I put away childish things.’
children have things we like-childlike qualities. they have things we don’t like-childish things. so yes, I want childlike qualities, but not childish things. how do we put away childish things while attaining childlike qualities? because I don’t want to be a child my whole life. I want to put away childish interpretations of scripture, for example. I want to grow up, as paul admonishes.
The analogy of the upper layers of the onion with rock foundations suggests that some people have trouble going deeper because they haven’t checked out the upper layers to be sure they ARE rock and cleaned out the sand there BEFORE they go deeper.
MoHer – you want to grow up, but we are now singing “I Am a Child of God” in sacrament meeting. I’d rather be an adult of God as well.
Mh,
It’s not a monkey wretch at all. It is the next logical step. I actually left out that quote and was planning on using it for another post next week.
Growing up does not imply abandoning simple faith.
Hawk,
But you ARE a child of God, even as an adult.
I know it’s just that “I Am One of God’s Adult Offspring” doesn’t roll off the tongue as well.
there was a fabulous podcast at mormon stories about meditation. a mormon chaplain said that too many people have childish faith, and he referenced ‘i am a child of god.’ we do need to grow up spiritually.
I like the onion analogy. the problem is that some of us don’t like onions, and don’t want to get deeper into the onion. sure, that’s fine, but not deep. it even seems like leaders caution us against delving too deeply into the scriptures or church history.
I am tired of childish doctrines and drinking milk. give me an adult diet of meat. I want to put away childish things, and I want to be an adult child of god.
“give me an adult diet of meat.’
Caution: Word of Wisdom violation. Never say that out loud! 🙂
15 — Jeff — I think we would cut each other a lot more slack if we realized we really were still just children, even those of us who think we are all grown up. 😉
Stephen – yes.
The older we get, the more like a kid we wish we could be…..
“The analogy of the upper layers of the onion with rock foundations suggests that some people have trouble going deeper because they haven’t checked out the upper layers to be sure they ARE rock and cleaned out the sand there BEFORE they go deeper.”
I disagree, I know of many people who had very strong simple faith and were built upon a firm foundation. However, upon delving deeper into the gospel found that the foundation they had built their faith on had been incorrectly taught to them. I think it is inappropriate to contend that if one’s faith wavers when delving deeper into the gospel that the person simply hadn’t “checked out the upper layers to be sure they ARE rock”. Often the problem is that the firm foundation they have been taught through “correlated” Sunday school lessons in the LDS church turns out to be inaccurate. The contention that they simple didn’t have enough simple faith before exploring lower levels blames the victim. The person is a victim of the purposeful watering down of church history and doctrine. One may have simple child-like faith in Jesus and the Church, but have that faith waver when what should have been the foundation of belief turns out to be so much dust.
Let me add that I like milk and meat, but I’m tired of the milk-only diet at church. Variety is the spice of life!
I remember visiting the White Castle in London, and hearing the “beefeaters” give a tour of the castle. They were called beefeaters in the middle ages because beef was relatively scarce, and given to the soldiers to make them stronger. I’m afraid a milk-only diet makes spiritual weaklings. To be healthy, we must eat milk and meat.
Is not the purpose to progress to become Godlike? Is there a problem with trying to be childlike and not Godlike?
Childlike infers unquestioning obedience as well as total trust etc etc. I do not think these are qualities of God.
So sounds good in principle but not in practice.
I believe as is quoted earlier that we progress from childlike especially if we are aiming for Godlike.
Jared, thanks for the scriptures on how children and how we should be alive in Christ.
So…what does that mean?
One meaning could be that we get resurrected and become alive because of Christ. I don’t think that is what is being taught.
I think it has something to do with being filled with happiness and glee, filled with content, because of Christ’s teachings. More awakened, more alive…because we see things through a new lens.
However, I still think there is some deeper meaning I’m missing. And I wonder why the terms “alive in Christ” were used to convey the message.
What say all of you? I’m looking for some other phrase I can substitite for “alive in Christ” and plug that into those scriptures that helps make more sense to me.
Jeff, I still don’t know that I agree that faith is simple.
That reminds me of how at church people say the gospel is simple. Just obey all the commandments, and it is simple…but obeying all the commandments aren’t simple.
I think faith is a massive onion with infinite layers.
Heber12,
First, I do agree that the onion is massive and the layers are infinite to our earthly understanding.
“Just obey all the commandments, and it is simple…but obeying all the commandments aren’t simple.”
When I refer to simple faith, I am not talking about blind faith. I am referring to a simple understanding of the doctrine, such as Jesus is the Christ, He died for Our Sins. It is a simple concept at face value and many people accept it that way. But it is also very complex once we explore it further.
It isn’t a matter of obeying all the commandments, it is gaining the faith necessary to WANT to obey all the commandments.
Throthman,
“Often the problem is that the firm foundation they have been taught through “correlated” Sunday school lessons in the LDS church turns out to be inaccurate.”
Yeah, I know, we hear that a lot. I don’t remember anyone being told to just learn the lessons at Church and you are done. I recall being encouraged to study on our own and find out for ourselves. I don’t know if I would say the lessons are inaccurate as they are not complete in telling the full stories sometimes.
I suppose you can blame the Church if you like. But the information is all available if you look for it.
Jeff,
I may have gone too far regarding blaming the church. That wasn’t what I meant to imply.
Instead, the point I was trying to make was that it may be false to contend that because one wavers when one learns deeper doctrine one must be deficient in some way. The basic argument you make is that “there must be something wrong with a person if their faith wavers and that a person would just have more simple faith everything would be fine.” I think this overly simplifies and trivializes the struggle. This type of sentiment has the potential to be stigmatizing. It also leads folks at church to blame the person who is in a faith crisis. They may point fingers and say statements such as, “if you would just pray more or read your scriptures you wouldn’t be having this problem.” etc. There are many people who lose faith in the church who are not simple faith “deficient”.
Please forgive me if this comes across as being contentious, I am not intending to be. I also don’t want to derail the main thrust of the post. So back to the topics you meant to discuss! 🙂
“there must be something wrong with a person if their faith wavers and that IF a person would just have more simple faith everything would be fine.”
“there must be something wrong with a person if their faith wavers and that IF a person would just have more simple faith everything would be fine.”
It is not a question about something being wrong with a person. Our testimonies are supposed to help bind us against the inevitable trials of our faith that come from time to time.
Sometimes it doesn’t. In my mind it is better to go back to the basics and remind ourselves of the simple things of the gospel than to throw the baby out with the bath water, so to speak.
This life is a test and a challenge. It is hard. Things will come up that will disappoint us, enrage us, sadden us and confuse us. Some people seem to deal with it better than others.
There must be a reason why that is. I think having simple faith could be an answer.
Why is it important to make sure that you are “firm” in your faith before exploring?
This argument presumes that the Gospel is dangerous at deeper levels. Furthermore, the simple truth’s of Mormonism are not all about Jesus Christ – but include the restoration and Prophets. I can have simple faith in Christ, but that gives me no need for Mormonism! I think we must also point out that when one explores the so-called “deeper” aspects of the Church, it rarely comes in the form of newer/richer/deeper doctrines. Instead it comes strictly from lesser known (though that has changed dramatically in the last ten years) behaviors of the Church and its leaders! The Church doesn’t endorse the teachings on “blood atonement” today, but we find that Brigham Young taught it – and his era was attended by some questionable violence. We don’t learn any greater “truths” about polygamy, but instead that the way it was practiced and managed doesn’t jive with most Christian sensibilities (assuming that those Christian sensibilities can choke down the idea of polygamy in any form). We don’t learn of a sinister plot from Satan to destroy the Prophet, but rather a revolt against a corrupt political figure. When I read about seer stones, scrying, and treasure seeking – I’m not given any greater insights into revelation, just the superstitious gullibility of many of Joseph Smith’s followers. Again, no greater insight into the “gospel”. While I think everybody knows this, it is important to stress that “gospel” literally means “good news” and specifically refers to the good news of Christ’s atonement – and none of these deeper issues that “cause” people to leave the Church have anything to do with the gospel.
So when I read this post, I wonder how my simple faith in Christ is supposed to help me get through these details. What I really sense is call to remain loyal. But remain loyal to what? That simple faith in Christ? No, it is always the Church.
#24 Heber–
“Little children are innocent by virtue of the Atonement, not by nature,” taught Robert L. Millett, BYU dean of Religious Education at the Sidney B. Sperry Symposium Oct. 7, 1995. Noting that there are those who believe that little children are by nature “pure and holy and decent and good and unselfish and solicitous and benevolent and submissive, just by nature of being little children,” he added, “The answer in the Book of Mormon and in modern revelation is that little children are innocent as one of the unconditional blessings of the Atonement because Jesus Christ decreed them so.”
The statement above makes it clear that children are innocent because of the atonement, not because they are children.
One of the reason the Lord said we should be like little children is because they are innocent. Adults need to become innocent like children. This is done by fulfilling our baptism covenant and receiving a remission of sins.
If you’re interested, click the link below. I wrote a three part series on the subject.
http://www.ldsaliveinchrist.com/2010/07/what-does-it-mean-to-be-baptized-by-fire-and-the-holy-ghost/
Cowboy,
“This argument presumes that the Gospel is dangerous at deeper levels.”
Not at all. you’re reading that into what I wrote. If you cannot grasp Jesus as the Christ, you’d never grasp the Atonement. Nothing dangerous about that.
“I can have simple faith in Christ, but that gives me no need for Mormonism!”
Only if you do not accept aspects of the need for a restoration.
“I think we must also point out that when one explores the so-called “deeper” aspects of the Church, it rarely comes in the form of newer/richer/deeper doctrines. Instead it comes strictly from lesser known (though that has changed dramatically in the last ten years) behaviors of the Church and its leaders! ”
In some cases, this is true, but not always. Again, the Atonement and it’s deeper meaning is one example. Fully understanding what charity is is another example.
“So when I read this post, I wonder how my simple faith in Christ is supposed to help me get through these details. What I really sense is call to remain loyal.”
You’ve extrapolated that from my post. Our testimony of Christ and Christ’s love for us should be sufficient to weather the crisis of faith that come from time to time. But for some, it does not. I wonder why. It really doesn’t matter where the crisis comes from, whether it is Church, home work or otherwise.
“When I refer to simple faith, I am not talking about blind faith. I am referring to a simple understanding of the doctrine, such as Jesus is the Christ, He died for Our Sins.”
Even this takes more than simple faith. This too takes blind faith. There is a lot more information available today that challenges even the most basic premises.
“Even this takes more than simple faith. This too takes blind faith. There is a lot more information available today that challenges even the most basic premises.”
Uh?
Jeff:
-A true Understanding of Jesus Christ
-The Atonement
-The Apostasy
-The restoration
All of the above topics are concepts that are brought to us by Mormon Prophets. Mormonism has a unique doctrine on Christ that overalapps the more ecumenical doctrines of Christianity in some parts (such as charity), but that also maintains some space outside of that domain. In other words, an understanding of Jesus Christ from the Mormon point of view, will always be incomplete if one does not accept Joseph Smith’s (and succeeding Church leaders) teachings on the matter. It is illogical to believe in the Mormon idiosyncracies on these matters, while doubting the source of these teachings. In other words, it is impossible for me to have “simple faith” in christ while doubting church leaders, if any aspect of that faith depends on Church leaders teachings. The implication in that case would not be that I am required to have simple faith in Christ, but that I must also have simple faith in Joseph Smith. More simply put, faith in Christ and faith in Joseph Smith would not be mutually exclusive. This argument could then just as easily and appropriately be restated that a person must have simple faith in Joseph Smith’s calling. I must have decided that I will accept him with all of his “flaws”, and trust that his teachings and authority are the key to my salvation. If I encounter any truths that could threaten that trust, I will simply reject them as conditions to my trust. Some people call this “spiritual maturity”, but I see it as severe shortsightedness. I can go out on a limb and exercise a little simple faith in a deity that I don’t understand – but I cannot do that for man, whose intentions I am suspicious of.
Cowboy,
“It is illogical to believe in the Mormon idiosyncracies on these matters, while doubting the source of these teachings. In other words, it is impossible for me to have “simple faith” in christ while doubting church leaders, if any aspect of that faith depends on Church leaders teachings. ”
It is a fundamental that acceptance of LDS doctrinal concept stems from and is wholly dependent of one accepting Joseph Smith as a prophet and as the Lord’s instrument of Restoration of the Gospel.
I could not argue otherwise.
True – but when we speak of “simple faith” we couch it in safe terms such as “faith in Christ”, with the hope that the subtle implication of “faith in Church leaders” carries through. It is much more palatable to sell the already accepted notion that one must have faith in deity, when we really mean faith in man. It is particularly poignant given that we have agreed that the proper order to faith in Christ is to first have faith in Joseph Smith – as logically, our ability to access the correctness of Christ and his attributes, are contained within the authority and revelations of Mormon leadership.
I still don’t see it simple, because the more I wish to talk about how it applies to specific things, the more complicated it gets. I find more exceptions to every rule, and I see nuance is needed. It is a moving target. It is like scratching my back, as soon as I get the itchy part…the itch moves a little to the left, and I must keep trying to satisfy the need to scratch, or I just tell myself “Good enough. I’m not fully satisfied, but I have no more time right now. It is good enough for me to be content where it is”.
Faith in Christ. Is it simple? On the surface, sure…I believe in Him. But how much do I believe in Him? Do I believe in Him enough to accept Joseph Smith is a chosen prophet, and used as His mouthpiece?
Sure I do. Well, what about when Joseph said stuff about people on the moon. Well…no, that wasn’t him speaking as a prophet. So I can have faith in Joseph Smith the prophet, and yet feel he was a man and was not perfect. So when is he not speaking as a prophet that I should not have faith in?
That is what these blogs endlessly discuss. The ongoing ever effort to scratch the faith, and yet it is not simple enough to just be that. The more you peel the onion, the more complex it is. If I don’t peel the onion, it is just not satisfying enough.
Cowboy,
“It is particularly poignant given that we have agreed that the proper order to faith in Christ is to first have faith in Joseph Smith – as logically, our ability to access the correctness of Christ and his attributes, are contained within the authority and revelations of Mormon leadership.’
Not exactly what I said. In order to accept and have faith in Mormon Doctrine (not the book), one needs to acknowledges Joseph’s role in restoring the Gospel. But it is not his gospel, it belongs to Jesus Christ. To correctly access the correctness of Christ, we need the scriptures, personal prayer and the Holy Ghost. We expect our leaders to teach correct doctrine, but it is our responsibility to learn and know of it for ourselves.
Faith generally operates at multiple levels, including having faith in leadership. But, in reality, you do not need to have faith in President Monson to believe Joseph Smith is the Prophet of this dispensation and he is responsible for the Restoration of the Gospel of Jesus Christ.
So, one could have complete faith in the restoration as taught by Joseph and not necessarily be happy with the way the Church is being administered today.
Heber13,
“That is what these blogs endlessly discuss. The ongoing ever effort to scratch the faith, and yet it is not simple enough to just be that. The more you peel the onion, the more complex it is. If I don’t peel the onion, it is just not satisfying enough.”
Completely agree. I am the same way. But I am also acknowledging that some retain a simple faith which is sufficient for them.
Jeff,
Well put. I agree. For some it CAN be simple enough to be sufficient for them.
But I disagree that it IS simple for all, as a blanket statement.
“The more you peel the onion, the more complex it is. If I don’t peel the onion, it is just not satisfying enough.”
The problem with church history is that there may be no satisfaction to be had. The more you you itch the itchier it gets. There is not necessarily any itch relief at all, instead the itches become more intense and spreads until it becomes overwhelmingly uncomfortable. “It is just not satisfying enough” turns into even less satisfaction.
“But I disagree that it IS simple for all, as a blanket statement”
Agreed, this is what I was trying to get at before. If you contend that because someone’s faith wavers it is because they didn’t have enough simple faith, you are basically stating that there is something defunct with that person (they are faith deficient).
I don’t believe this is correct. Especially if the definition of simple faith in the LDS version of the gospel means that you have to believe that the LDS church leaders “will never lead you astray”. There are plenty of examples in the early church which can be viewed as church leaders leading others astray.
Simple faith in the LDS context often means that one one must believe that the Mormon version of the restoration is the only correct version.
Throthman,
“The problem with church history is that there may be no satisfaction to be had.”
I suppose that is true of just about everything. But, since history is highly interpretative, there are just things that are never to be known as to many aspects of the history. So, in many cases, the entire story is never 100% told.
That can certainly lead to dissatisfaction.
History interpretation can also be a lot like scientific methodology in that a theory can be formed and then research is used to proof the theory. In some cases , the theory is proved and not proved and that can be a dis-satisfier as well.
throth,
“If you contend that because someone’s faith wavers it is because they didn’t have enough simple faith, you are basically stating that there is something defunct with that person (they are faith deficient). I don’t believe this is correct.”
You might want to go back and review some of my comments.
I wonder why some people can withstand a trial of their faith and some cannot?
While it may not be they are faith deficient, but it could be that they are.
Jeff:
Respectfully, I think it is because your comment assumes quite a bit more than is warranted. At least, it appears that way.
“I wonder why some people can withstand a trial of their faith and some cannot?”
The connotations I sense from this are that some people are spiritually “resilient” whereas others are not. It assumes that some “break” under pressure whereas some can withstand. Some are strong, and some are weak, with all of the typical implications that strength is better than weakness.
The better question, and one more fairer to what you are getting at (I think??), is:
“why is it that two people can have similar awareness of certain details of Mormon history, and yet reach diametrically opposing conclusions?”
When the question is framed this way, I think the possibilities begins to increase, but that the scenario is more appropriately represented. Some possibilities:
1) different people require different standards of truth.
2) While two people may approach the issues from a similar standpoint of Mormon awareness, they may still have a very different knowledge base in other areas, and therefore different frames of reference.
3) To some, the truthfulness of Mormon claims may not be nearly as important as the enjoyment and comfort of belonging to Mormon culture. Here-and-now Mormons.
Etc, etc, etc, etc….
Jeff, if you really study the scriptures and come across things that conflict with your belief system (Ex. Jesus quotes an OT scripture which you believe to be false) you start to question other things that are written about Jesus.
Then you learn that all 4 of the canonical gospels were not only written 50 years after the death of Jesus, but they were likely not even written by eyewitnesses. In addition, they were clearly written with an influence of Paul’s writings – which came first.
I can go on and on, but that is what I mean by even the basic premises (like Jesus) have to be taken on blind faith, because if you peal the onion, it starts to stink.
Cowboy,
““why is it that two people can have similar awareness of certain details of Mormon history, and yet reach diametrically opposing conclusions?”
I am not opposed to framing it that way as well, though I don’t agree that my question has no merit. You are taking a more objective view of the same issue where I think I am taking a subjective view based on gospel-centered approach. i.e. God would not give us a burden we are not capable of overcoming.
So that is from where I derive my question.
I like your answers but I would wonder why anyone would want to engage in number 3 and not want to believe. I don’t find the culture all THAT engaging.
Rick,
“I can go on and on, but that is what I mean by even the basic premises (like Jesus) have to be taken on blind faith, because if you peal the onion, it starts to stink.”
I guess the only answer I can come up with if one takes that cynical a view, then WHY ANYTHING?
One man’s cynical is another man’s awareness.
I’m not saying Jesus didn’t exist or isn’t the Christ.
Just saying that even the most basic things require a leap of faith once that onion is open.
I didn’t mean to imply that your question had no merit, but it is difficult to appreciate the answers to your question if you are not willing to see the issue from the perspective of those whose “faith could not withstand the trial”
I also agree with you that a person who gets satisfaction from Mormon culture would probably want to believe. Still many in this category I think are less concerned with overall truth, and more interested in belonging. Generally I think these would be people who grow up in Mormon enviroments, so Mormon culture feels like “home”. Admittedly, I have some little of this in me…I like living in Provo, and I like the people here.
rick,
“Just saying that even the most basic things require a leap of faith once that onion is open’
I agree!
“One man’s cynical is another man’s awareness.”
I love this! 😀
Cowboy,
“I think these would be people who grow up in Mormon environments, so Mormon culture feels like “home”.”
I can understand this totally, but the Mormon culture is not so welcoming of less than true believers. As we’ve discussed before.
So we teach that we are becoming gods & goddesses, and that we will govern worlds. I have to say, I don’t think someone who subsists on a milk only faith diet is going to be a very good god. I sure wouldn’t want to live on their planet. I hope that God is capable of thinking for Himself and has good judgment, not just blind obedience.
We fundamentally teach that we accept Jesus as out Savior, emulate His actions, serve one another and raise up children who do the same. If we are true and faithful, then comes the God part. We are along way from it. Our challenge is to master the fundamentals. if we do that, we be able to learn and understand the rest.
Actually, someone who masters the milk will be fed the meat. Some of the meat hunters might be too preoccupied with trying to find the meat and not emulating the Savior.
Some of us want to get ahead of ourselves…
Conceptually I get the whole “milk before meat” concept, but I wonder – what are the practical distinctions? From a Mormon point of view, I would have to think that meat is a more steady diet, so it couldn’t be comprised of speculation. The progression from baptism, to Priesthood ordination, to Temple covenants would seem to conceptually follow. Still, when we discuss things such as seer stones and Joseph Smith’s polygamy practices, someone always invokes the “milk vs meat” argument. Is Polygamy, treasure seeking, Book of Mormon geography, etc, really the intended “meat” from Jesus’s analogy? If not, then is it really appropriate to dismiss a persons musing’s in these areas as a failure to prioritize their diets. Secondly, if the simple faith principles are faith in Jesus Christ and the “restoration of his Church”, are they not exactly the things we should be focused on if they are impediments to that simple faith? It would seem to me that they are. I don’t choose to become discouraged by Church history, rather, merely being presented with it accomplished that automatically. Sure there are a whole host of reasons as to why something bothers me, and I suppose we could try and psycho-analyze it, but the fact remains that I am subject to my own skeptical mind. I could bypass it suppose, but that is not the same thing as overcoming objections, or withstanding a trial of faith. The deeper issue behind all of these alleged “meat” principles is that they serve to either threaten or enhance faith/trust in the Church. More so, it is that simple faith that is most susceptible to loss in light of these issues, so I would argue that focusing on them is a practice of managing our simple faith.
Cowboy,
“Still, when we discuss things such as seer stones and Joseph Smith’s polygamy practices, someone always invokes the “milk vs meat” argument.”
I think we are agreeing here. I think those things you are talking about are beside the point. The “milk before meat” experience does not even apply to those things.
If you read the Scripture in context, it refers to growing up, maturing in the gospel so to speak. the Gospel being about Jesus, the atonement and the plan of salvation.
It seems Jeff, that you conflate several things in your analysis. I loved your use of an onion, and how you peel different layers however, but I don’t think that depth is in opposition to simple. I think that simple faith can often be very deep, the more I study some things the more I realise the simplicity of it, I find as I study something in greater depth it becomes more simple to my understanding and is more clear. I think the challenge is to try and maintain that simplicity as we peel back the layers of the onion. We often make things more complex, and as we descend into the depths, there are less certainties, and more competing voices as to what the layer is and what it is made up of. I think that its not that we need to have simple faith before we peel another but rather a secure faith, so that we have an anchor to hold onto as we descend into the deeper, more complex parts of the gospel.
Jake,
“I think that its not that we need to have simple faith before we peel another but rather a secure faith, so that we have an anchor to hold onto as we descend into the deeper, more complex parts of the gospel.”
I like the term “secure faith” and maybe I am talking about that as well. I think your explanation may be at another level in terms of faith, maintaining that simple faith as you progress. That is certainly one way to look at it.