What Could The Lds Church Do Now To Attract Apostates Back Into The Fold?

Brade · February 6, 2012

Brade,
You raise a very interesting question: Are beliefs a choice?
I would say that yes, beliefs are a choice. However, I believe it is important to add that our beliefs are choices -- constrained by our personal understanding of the world. We make the choice to believe X or Y based on our education, parents, friends, experiences etc...
Seth

My challenge still stands. Based on what you've said, I assume you've made the choice to believe that you have hands based on your education, parents, friends, experiences, etc. Since it's a choice, I challenge you to sincerely not believe it - choose this very moment to believe that you do not have hands.

stemelbow · February 6, 2012

Cool. I challenge you to sincerely believe this very moment that you are a bat.

So beliefs aren't volunary? We can't choose what we believe? I don't see how saying beliefs are voluntary we are to assume one can make any old mental assent and voila that little idea is sincerely believed. Most LDS I know, think belief comes as a process.

Or is this just your silly little experiment offered to incite a little bit?

Storm Rider · February 6, 2012

So beliefs aren't volunary? We can't choose what we believe? I don't see how saying beliefs are voluntary we are to assume one can make any old mental assent and voila that little idea is sincerely believed. Most LDS I know, think belief comes as a process.
Or is this just your silly little experiment offered to incite a little bit?

This is where the window is cracked open the barest of cracks and in comes pseudo intelligence. It baffles me how this happens so often here. I guess when there is an open mike we have no control over what comes out of the woodwork. It can be etertaining at times, but alas I am an impatient man and I keep trying to push the whack-a-mole button.

Brade · February 6, 2012

So beliefs aren't volunary? We can't choose what we believe? I don't see how saying beliefs are voluntary we are to assume one can make any old mental assent and voila that little idea is sincerely believed. Most LDS I know, think belief comes as a process.
Or is this just your silly little experiment offered to incite a little bit?

I'm being serious here. Lightbearer said that unbelievers need to repent of their unbelief. Maybe they meant something like, "repent of their unbelief by and by through a process of right living, studying the scriptural and historical evidence, and by sincerely trying to get in touch with God's divine communication", or something like that. But, I've been told more than a few times that I merely need choose to believe. It's as simple as that. Like Moses telling people to look at staff. My question is, is belief like that? Is my unbelief a choice of the sort I could remedy right this very moment with the right mental effort? Could I repent of my unbelief right now by, well, simply choosing to belief?

Brade · February 6, 2012

This is where the window is cracked open the barest of cracks and in comes pseudo intelligence. It baffles me how this happens so often here. I guess when there is an open mike we have no control over what comes out of the woodwork. It can be etertaining at times, but alas I am an impatient man and I keep trying to push the whack-a-mole button.

This isn't some ridiculous pseudo intellectual question. It's a long standing and controversial philosophical issue about which much has been written. It's investigated in fields like neuroscience and psychology and has implications in abstract philosophical issues all the way to much more practical issues in very serious legal matters.

stemelbow · February 6, 2012

I'm being serious here. Lightbearer said that unbelievers need to repent of their unbelief. Maybe they meant something like, "repent of their unbelief by and by through a process of right living, studying the scriptural and historical evidence, and by sincerely trying to get in touch with God's divine communication", or something like that. But, I've been told more than a few times that I merely need choose to believe. It's as simple as that. Like Moses telling people to look at staff. My question is, is belief like that? Is my unbelief a choice of the sort I could remedy right this very moment with the right mental effort? Could I repent of my unbelief right now by, well, simply choosing to belief?

If you're being serious then comparing belief in the Church to someone believing he is a bat, seems at the very least, disenguous. Come up with something more applicable perhaps and it might help.

I think all need to repent often so I don't see why anyone feels offense in the notion that one ought to repent for la lack of belief. "help though my unbelief"--seems like a humble contrite notion to me.

LeSellers · February 6, 2012

I challenge you to sincerely believe this very moment that you are a bat.

I have no desire to be a bat. But Erik Sprague seems, at least, to believe he's a lizard. Does that count?

My Jacquie taught in a class where one of the students thought she was a cat. She had a tail, wore ears on her head, and her clothing was all of fur.

Lehi

Edited February 6, 2012 by LeSellers

sethpayne · February 6, 2012

My challenge still stands. Based on what you've said, I assume you've made the choice to believe that you have hands based on your education, parents, friends, experiences, etc. Since it's a choice, I challenge you to sincerely not believe it - choose this very moment to believe that you do not have hands.

I am constrained by the natural world. I do, as a matter of absolute fact, have hands. Thus, it is not a belief.

Brade · February 6, 2012

I am constrained by the natural world. I do, as a matter of absolute fact, have hands. Thus, it is not a belief.

Hold on a second. So, if a proposition is true, then it can't be a belief?

If you're being serious then comparing belief in the Church to someone believing he is a bat, seems at the very least, disenguous. Come up with something more applicable perhaps and it might help.

So, here are some propositions:

Jesus was a religious leader.

Jesus is the son of God.

Jesus was a lizard man.

Which of these, if any, can a reasonable person* choose to believe by merely making a choice to believe them? If some propositions can be believed by mere force of will, why those propositions and not others?

* By "reasonable person" I just mean somebody without some type of psychosis or other mental defect.

Edited February 6, 2012 by Brade

wenglund · February 6, 2012

Cool. I challenge you to sincerely believe this very moment that you are a bat.

Done. Next.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Brade · February 6, 2012

Done. Next.
Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Awesome. Wade, do you believe that you would do something if you sincerely believed you ought to?

Edited February 6, 2012 by Brade

stemelbow · February 6, 2012

So, here are some propositions:
Jesus was a religious leader.
Jesus is the son of God.
Jesus was a lizard man.
Which of these, if any, can a reasonable person* choose to believe by merely making a choice to believe them?

I suppose any old reasonable person can believe either of the first two. I have yet to hear of a reasonable person promote the third option. I don't really know what you want to suggest by emphasizing the word merely though. Maybe we're talking on past each other.

If some propositions can be believed by mere force of will, why those propositions and not others?
* By "reasonable person" I just mean somebody without some type of psychosis or other mental defect.

Well nobody seems to be promoting a scripture and a viable religion in the world that suggests any of us are bats. That's probably a place for you to start. People's will is in play when it comes to religious beliefs, for more than just coming up with some random obscure idea in one's head--at least most often.

sethpayne · February 6, 2012

Hold on a second. So, if a proposition is true, then it can't be a belief?

If that proposition is demonstrable, then no, it can't be a belief. I cannot believe that water is anything but 2 hydrogen attoms and one oxygen atom. The trouble comes in how we choose to interpret data that is ambigous. We can even debate all day as what ambiguous means. I suppose that it is on matters which can be interpreted multiple ways that we choose to believe an interpretation. We may even be so confident in our interpretation to put it forth as fact. Others, of course, will disagree.

aspire · February 6, 2012

I think hope is voluntary, belief is more built on faith, but does seem to have more flexibility to it. You know the definition of faith as well as I do and true faith is strongre than belief. Hope is one of the great virtues identified by early apostles and it is an important part of conversion to the gospel of Chirst. When all else fails have hope, cling to the rod, and keep taking one more step forward.

Amen!

wenglund · February 6, 2012

Awesome. Wade, do you believe that you would do something if you sincerely believed you ought to?

It depends upon what the "do" is, the confidence level of my belief in the "do," personal weaknesses in relation to the "do," and the priority of the "do" in relation to other "does." For example, I sincerely believe in the practice of Home Teaching, but I don't always do my home teaching. I sincerely believe in treating people with kindness and love, though I don't always do so.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Brade · February 6, 2012

I suppose any old reasonable person can believe either of the first two. I have yet to hear of a reasonable person promote the third option. I don't really know what you want to suggest by emphasizing the word merely though. Maybe we're talking on past each other.
Well nobody seems to be promoting a scripture and a viable religion in the world that suggests any of us are bats. That's probably a place for you to start. People's will is in play when it comes to religious beliefs, for more than just coming up with some random obscure idea in one's head--at least most often.

I think we might be talking past each other a bit. To sincerely believe something merely by choice would be to believe it for no other reason than a choice to believe it, like how I can choose now with ease move my right arm to the right or left. Part of what I'm asking is this: If belief that Jesus is the son of God can be voluntary in the way I'm talking about (by mere choice), they why couldn't belief that one is a bat be voluntary in the same way? If people choose to believe faith propositions by mere force of will, or can do so, then should they not also be able to do so with other propositions?

wenglund · February 6, 2012

The trouble comes in how we choose to interpret data that is ambigous.

This is key. It is important to distinguish between matters of fact and matters of faith when it comes to choosing to believe. It is the latter that we typically have in mind, though, to an extent, a reasonable case can be made for choosing to believe in cases of fact.

With matters of faith, because of the ambiguity and uncertainty, we have significant latitude and flexibility in building and rebuilding our epistemic infrastructure.

However, too often, people approach matters of faith in the same way they approach matters of fact, and tend to be dogmatic and immovable in their beliefs, thinking they have no choice. And, to some degree, such fundamentalist thinking is appropriate and beneficial during formible years of childhood, though it can prove problematic for adults.

In matters of faith, it is good to realize that there is a choice in how to believe, because that way we can choose to believe in ways that work best for us.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Edited February 6, 2012 by wenglund

wenglund · February 6, 2012

In the science of Cognitive Behavior Therapy, successful in-road have been made into the non-pharmascutical treatment of paranoid schizophrenia. Where once a person may have, seemingly uncontrollably, sincerely believe that the government or other entities were trying to kill them, they have been made able to chose to believe differently.

In a way, the fellow about whom the movie "A Beautiful Mind" was based, is a case in point. Now, when he experiences certain seemingly very real delusions, he chooses not to believe them.

Again, absent that ability to choose, or absent the maluability in belief, epistemology of mankind would bemost limited.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

aspire · February 6, 2012

I'm being serious here. Lightbearer said that unbelievers need to repent of their unbelief. Maybe they meant something like, "repent of their unbelief by and by through a process of right living, studying the scriptural and historical evidence, and by sincerely trying to get in touch with God's divine communication", or something like that. But, I've been told more than a few times that I merely need choose to believe. It's as simple as that. Like Moses telling people to look at staff. My question is, is belief like that? Is my unbelief a choice of the sort I could remedy right this very moment with the right mental effort? Could I repent of my unbelief right now by, well, simply choosing to belief?

It's not so much my unbelief but my questions. Confess them sure, but to whom? My Bishop? Dear man that he is would tell be I'm not reading my scriptures enough, saying my prayers (I feel as if they never stop parying), attend the temple ( yes, I could do more of that), attend my meeting, (I do). To be a TBM would make things so much easyer, I have begged and pleaded to have a simple faith.

Do we choose our beliefs? To a point then our personalities, and life experances kick in. Example: My testamony of the BoM is that it's a diivinely inspired book that can lead us to Christ. But no longer do I believe it to be a history of a civilization. Oh to just believe the Church’s origins of the BoM would be so much easier! I did thirty years ago when I joined the church, but thing change. I keep trying to go back to the original Church dogma. It just doesn't fit anymore so I have on the best I can. I am choosing to stay in the Church, but my beliefs are evolving.

thesometimesaint · February 6, 2012

aspire:

If there were no Nephites then the Church is a fiction.

Being LDS is work. I see no advantage in spending my life in service to a fiction.

Edited February 6, 2012 by thesometimesaint

wenglund · February 6, 2012

It's not so much my unbelief but my questions. Confess them sure, but to whom? My Bishop? Dear man that he is would tell be I'm not reading my scriptures enough, saying my prayers (I feel as if they never stop parying), attend the temple ( yes, I could do more of that), attend my meeting, (I do). To be a TBM would make things so much easyer, I have begged and pleaded to have a simple faith.
Do we choose our beliefs? To a point then our personalities, and life experances kick in. Example: My testamony of the BoM is that it's a diivinely inspired book that can lead us to Christ. But no longer do I believe it to be a history of a civilization. Oh to just believe the Church’s origins of the BoM would be so much easier! I did thirty years ago when I joined the church, but thing change. I keep trying to go back to the original Church dogma. It just doesn't fit anymore so I have on the best I can. I am choosing to stay in the Church, but my beliefs are evolving.

To me, what may be more important than whether you can choose to believe or not, is choosing who and what you wish to become and where you wish to go with your life, and then orienting and prioritizing your beliefs accordingly.

The mistake I see a lot of members make, is they place determining the "truth" of certain Church-related things high on their priority list, rather than, as the gospel is intended, putting becoming like Christ as the main objective.

And, too often, they pursue the "truth" of matters that are not all that significant or relevant to becoming like Christ--like whether the Book of Mormon is historical or not.

Worse yet, they may use secular rather than spiritual methods to supposedly descern the "truth," putting their faith in man rather than in God, contrary to what God has advised.

No wonder their faith in certain matters wanes. Spiritual faith can't be expected to continue to grow and thrive when a person takes their eye off the intended spiritual goal and pursue instead alternative objectives using methods not suited to obtaining the intended goal.

It is kind of like initially deciding to head to the tops of the mountain, but along the way choosing instead to determine the "truth" of what may lay at the bottom of a nearby lake, and dawning a wetsuit, fins, and a snorkle in pursuit thereof, and then wondering why you aren't getting closer to, but rather further from, the top of the mountain.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Edited February 6, 2012 by wenglund

stemelbow · February 6, 2012

I think we might be talking past each other a bit. To sincerely believe something merely by choice would be to believe it for no other reason than a choice to believe it, like how I can choose now with ease move my right arm to the right or left. Part of what I'm asking is this: If belief that Jesus is the son of God can be voluntary in the way I'm talking about (by mere choice), they why couldn't belief that one is a bat be voluntary in the same way? If people choose to believe faith propositions by mere force of will, or can do so, then should they not also be able to do so with other propositions?

It looks like we kind of did talk past each other. Thanks for the clarifcation. It seemed you were saying that belief is involuntary. While I can agree that belief in religious claims takes more than some mere choice to believe, I aslo think choosing to believe certain religious claims comes down to a choice. You have to decide to take certain steps in life, it seems, to find reason to believe. If you wish to promote the "people ought to then believe someone is a bat" notion, then I would expect there to be more than just the propisition to exist in order for someone to choose to believe that. For instance there is more reason to believe the BoM then that it exists. There are witnesses. There are other varied reasons that people have dug up. Now you can look at those other reasons and still not believe if you want. But they amount to more than an assertion that someone is a bat.

Calm · February 6, 2012

My challenge still stands. Based on what you've said, I assume you've made the choice to believe that you have hands based on your education, parents, friends, experiences, etc. Since it's a choice, I challenge you to sincerely not believe it - choose this very moment to believe that you do not have hands.

This assumes that if beliefs are voluntary, they must be able to be changed instantly at will or that one is saying that belief is unlimited.

Logically speaking, if one makes the assumptions that any self-induced change in belief is most likely to take place over time (though the desire to change may be immediate) and that such change will take place within limits, is it still not applicable to call such changes in beliefs voluntary or by choice?

If not, then what would you call beliefs that are changed through going to therapy? One knows that that the goal of the treatment is to have a changed view, at times one knows precisely what views will be changed and into what. So how is this not changing one's own beliefs by choice?

Calm · February 6, 2012

But, I've been told more than a few times that I merely need choose to believe. It's as simple as that. Like Moses telling people to look at staff. My question is, is belief like that? Is my unbelief a choice of the sort I could remedy right this very moment with the right mental effort? Could I repent of my unbelief right now by, well, simply choosing to belief?

I think this might be possible in a few cases (some unbeliefs I've seen are more based in attitude than in logic for example, change the attitude and you can have almost instant belief change....I've done it myself on at least one occasion when I decided I did not want to live a particular way anymore, went out and behaved the opposite of my past and was able to change my self-perception overnight), but it would depend not only on the reason for the unbelief itself, but the individual holding that unbelief and whatever personal reasons she might have to cultivate or reject that specific unbelief.

I think in the vast majority of cases it is a process, especially when it comes to what are interpreted as "factual" beliefs (as opposed to what might be seen as "perception" beliefs as in whether or not one believes/perceives a spouse actually loves one).

Calm · February 6, 2012

I think we might be talking past each other a bit. To sincerely believe something merely by choice would be to believe it for no other reason than a choice to believe it

But people make choices for reasons so it seems to me to be an oversimplification to say "merely by choice".

Do you perhaps mean not so much "by choice", but more "randomly", that someone could change a belief, for example that someone else chose for them to change (therapists, spouses, parents and teachers make suggestions all the time on beliefs we should be changing....sometimes we accept such suggestions, sometimes we don't) or that they drew out of a hat for a New Year's Resolution party or some such thing.

Sign In

What Could The Lds Church Do Now To Attract Apostates Back Into The Fold?

Recommended Posts

Brade

stemelbow

Storm Rider

Brade

Brade

stemelbow

LeSellers

sethpayne

Brade

wenglund

Brade

stemelbow

sethpayne

aspire

wenglund

Brade

wenglund

wenglund

aspire

thesometimesaint

wenglund

stemelbow

Calm

Calm

Calm

Recently Browsing 0 members

Activity

Browse