Hope for things which are not seen, which are true

I've been pursuing a common thread in my last several posts, building my basic philosophy of Ethics and political philosophy, and I will be returning to both of these themes very shortly, but at least for this post I'd like to depart from them and consider a bit of Theology. Of course, I can hardly take credit for my Theology; in fact, I hope that I can refer to it as "my Theology" only in the sense that it has been confirmed to me, for its origin should be God and revelations from Him. But, then, I may speculate some, and I alone must take the blame for such speculation.

So in establishing first principles of Theology, it may come as no surprise that I follow in the footsteps of Joseph Smith, who, after all, was a prophet, and quite possibly the greatest Theologian since Christ Himself, at least in terms of teaching actual truth. So I will begin where he began: with Faith. Now, the truth of the matter is that I am utterly inadequate to add to Joseph's own masterful Lectures on Faith. If you wish to really understand the subject of Faith, then read that. However, while I cannot add, I can summarize or condense.

Faith is assurance or confidence of the existence of things which we have not seen. Now here, from the very start, the secularist objects: Why should we act based upon things that we do not see? Yet the prophet Joseph Smith gives us a response, near the beginning of the first lecture:

If men were duly to consider themselves, and turn their thoughts and reflections to the operations of their own minds, they would readily discover that it is faith, and faith only, which is the moving cause of all action in them; that without it both mind and body would be in a state of inactivity, and all their exertions would cease, both physical and mental. Were this class to go back and reflect upon the history of their lives, from the period of their first recollection, and ask themselves what principle excited them to action, or what gave them energy and activity in all their lawful avocations, callings, and pursuits, what would be the answer? Would it not be that it was the assurance which they had of the existence of things which they had not seen as yet? Was it not the hope which you had, in consequence of your belief in the existence of unseen things, which stimulated you to action and exertion in order to obtain them? Are you not dependent on your faith, or belief, for the acquisition of all knowledge, wisdom, and intelligence? Would you exert yourselves to obtain wisdom and intelligence, unless you did believe that you could obtain them? (Lectures on Faith, 1:10-11)

So there it is. We should act on things that we do not see because every consequence to every action which we undertake is unseen until we perform the action, so that we can have no purpose except one toward something which is not yet seen. The restriction should not be against action based on what we do not see, but against action based on what is not true. Granted, we cannot always discern truth from error, but the point is that the inability to see something does not make it a poor basis for action.

Let us narrow the subject a bit. There is the very general principle of Faith, which we must exert in anything we do, but our confidence can be rooted in many different things. For example, we have Faith that the sun will rise because experience teaches us that it happens every day, and though we do not yet see that it will happen again tomorrow, we are quite confident of it. This Faith in our senses and past experiences is something which almost everyone considers reasonable. In contrast, there is Faith in a person, confidence in that person. To have confidence in someone is to trust them in some way: to trust what they say, or to trust that they will be capable of doing what they have said they will do. Of course, we generally find that this sort of trust can be good or bad, as a person may or may not be worthy of such trust, and absolute and perfect trust in a person (which is most often associated with Faith) is surely misplaced. Finally, there is Faith in God and Faith in Christ. This would still indicate trust. The difference is that it is always sensible to trust God or Christ, for Their nature makes Them perfectly trustworthy.

Thus, the first two requirements which Joseph Smith lays out as essential for a person to have unshaken Faith are evident from its very nature: Joseph says that a man must first have the idea that God exists (for it is impossible to have confidence in that which you believe to be non-existent), and second he must have a correct understanding of the perfections and attributes of God. After all, when one knows that God is perfectly loving, all-powerful, all-knowing, unchanging, and so forth, then he knows that God is never wrong (for He is omniscient), whatever He instructs will be to the man's benefit (for He is perfectly loving), and He is capable of carrying out whatever He sets out to do (because He is omnipotent). A man who knows that God possesses these attributes fully and unchangeably must conclude that he can trust God perfectly, but if a man does not know that God possesses these attributes, then he cannot have such complete trust, but must suppose that God, like any man which he trusts, must also be prone to error.

Now, I have barely scratched the surface on Faith, but it's already enough to establish some important consequences: First, there is the prophet Joseph Smith's statement, "Whatever God commands is right, no matter what it is, although we may not see the reason thereof till long after the events transpire" (Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith). Beyond moral imperatives, God is always right. If God says that He has a plan (and He has said so), then that plan is the best way for us to attain happiness, and it will succeed. There is the need for humility before God: After all, if God knows everything, then He is smarter than you, and if He has all power then you're reliant on Him, so you'd be foolish to set yourself up as greater than or even equal to Him.

Finally, there is perhaps the most practical consequence, what R. Conrad Schultz of the Seventy referred to as "Faith Obedience." Boyd K. Packer said, "Latter-day Saints are not obedient because they are compelled to be obedient. They are obedient because they know certain spiritual truths and have decided, as an expression of their own individual agency, to obey the commandments of God" (Agency and Control, April 1983 General Conference). That is, because we know that we can trust God, it makes sense to obey Him. In fact, you might say that nothing makes more sense. He is never wrong, so whatever He tells you to do will bring you the most happiness possible if you obey it. It's that simple.

Title: Alma 32:21