The Choice To Believe -- Or Not To Believe

[Scott Lloyd]

I've just finished covering and writing about Terryl Givens's highly thought provoking keynote speech that he gave last night at the Church History Symposium organized by BYU and the Church History Department. The man is indeed brilliant.

 

But the purpose of this post is to point out something I found while looking up stuff about Givens on the Internet.

 

I'll preface it by saying that I have been castigated (not so much here, but elsewhere) for saying that, as pertaining to Mormonism, one makes a choice whether to believe or to disbelieve, that we are not driven inexorably in either direction.

 

Now, on the "Mormon Scholars Testify" website, I find the following from Givens, who as a thinker and scholar, is esteemed by many, believers and doubters alike:

 

In the course of my spiritual pilgrimage, my innate capacity for doubt led me to the insight that faith is a choice. That the call to faith is a summons to engage the heart, to attune it to resonate in sympathy with principles and values and ideals that we devoutly hope are true, and have reasonable but not certain grounds for believing to be true. I am convinced that there must be grounds for doubt as well as belief, for only in these conditions of equilibrium and balance, equally “enticed by the one or the other,” is my heart truly free to choose belief or cynicism, faith or faithlessness. Under these conditions, what I choose to embrace, to be responsive to, is the purest reflection of who I am and what I love.

 

I have said as much. I'm glad Givens and I are in agreement.

Edited March 7, 2014 by Scott Lloyd

[theplains]

I'll preface it by saying that I have been castigated (not so much here, but elsewhere) for saying that, as pertaining to Mormonism, one makes a choice whether to believe or to disbelieve, that we are not driven inexorably in either direction.

 

I'm not sure why you were castigated. Every Mormon really is free to make a choice of what to believe

or disbelieve when their church teaches something.

 

Regards,

Jim

[Kenngo1969]

I agree with you, Scott!

 

http://greatgourdini.wordpress.com/2012/10/17/of-doubt-faith-questions-and-choices/

Edited March 7, 2014 by Kenngo1969

[Scott Lloyd]

I'm not sure why you were castigated. Every Mormon really is free to make a choice of what to believe

or disbelieve when their church teaches something.

 

Regards,

Jim

The pushback I have gotten has been from unbelievers, who claim they had no choice in the matter because the evidence against Mormonism is so compelling and conclusive. Which, of course, is nonsense.

Edited March 7, 2014 by Scott Lloyd

[theplains]

The pushback I have gotten has been from unbelievers, who claim they had no choice in the matter because the evidence against Mormonism is so compelling and conclusive. Which, of course, is nonsense.

 

I agree. There are a 'fruit loop' set of unbelievers that create some lies about Mormons.

One of these lies is that Mormons are mindless robots who don't think for themselves.

You can probably find some of these holding hateful and non-truthful signs in SLC.

 

Thanks,

Jim 

[pogi]

The pushback I have gotten has been from unbelievers, who claim they had no choice in the matter because the evidence against Mormonism is so compelling and conclusive. Which, of course, is nonsense.

 

I don't know that they claim that they "had no choice" as much as they base their choice on the strongest evidence as they see it.  The problem is that their eyes are closed to all things spiritual so they miss out on the strongest evidence.  

[Scott Lloyd]

I don't know that they claim that they "had no choice" as much as they base their choice on the strongest evidence as they see it.  The problem is that their eyes are closed to all things spiritual so they miss out on the strongest evidence.  

There are multiple factors that enter into it: background knowledge; how one spends one's time and energies; the credulity one gives to one source or another; past experience; information to which one has access; resentments and prejudices; cultural influences; expectations, hopes, dreams, aspirations and fears.

 

"The strongest evidence as they see it" is in itself a subjective judgment, a choice, if you will.

 

Givens said it very concisely:

Under these conditions, what I choose to embrace, to be responsive to, is the purest reflection of who I am and what I love.

 

Edited March 10, 2014 by Scott Lloyd

[Freedom]

I see this (or some incarnation of the same) posted on facebook by many so-called non beleivers:

 

"Spirituality is a personal relationship with the divine, religion is crowd control."

 

I think that this is a sense of denial, a way to excuse oneself from the obligation associated with believing in God. I render this as follows:

 

"Spirituality is believing whatever you wish to believe with no moral boundaries, religion is accepting divine truths and living accordingly" 

 

The opposite of crowd control is, or course, anarchy. The sinner loves anarchy because it is very liberating. No guilt, no obligations, no duty. If you want to drive a car, you have to follow rules. Driving is liberating. Go to Indonesia and find out just how non-liberating it is to drive without any rules. I choose to believe because I enjoy the freedom that comes along with it. 

[Scott Lloyd]

I see this (or some incarnation of the same) posted on facebook by many so-called non beleivers:

 

"Spirituality is a personal relationship with the divine, religion is crowd control."

 

I think that this is a sense of denial, a way to excuse oneself from the obligation associated with believing in God. I render this as follows:

 

"Spirituality is believing whatever you wish to believe with no moral boundaries, religion is accepting divine truths and living accordingly" 

 

The opposite of crowd control is, or course, anarchy. The sinner loves anarchy because it is very liberating. No guilt, no obligations, no duty. If you want to drive a car, you have to follow rules. Driving is liberating. Go to Indonesia and find out just how non-liberating it is to drive without any rules. I choose to believe because I enjoy the freedom that comes along with it. 

Anarchy is very liberating -- until you get robbed, harmed or worse. Then you look around for somebody or something to blame, perhaps organized religion.

[cinepro]

I'll preface it by saying that I have been castigated (not so much here, but elsewhere) for saying that, as pertaining to Mormonism, one makes a choice whether to believe or to disbelieve, that we are not driven inexorably in either direction.

 

 

Does this principle apply to all religions, or just Mormonism?  And does it apply to other non-religious things, like the decision to believe or disbelieve the moon-hoax theories, or that vaccines can cause autism?

[Kenngo1969]

I agree. There are a 'fruit loop' set of unbelievers that create some lies about Mormons.

One of these lies is that Mormons are mindless robots who don't think for themselves.

You can probably find some of these holding hateful and non-truthful signs in SLC.

 

Thanks,

Jim 

Hi, Jim.  You remember a few weeks ago when I gave you a rep point and told you to not expect me to make a habit of it?  Well, I just gave you another one ... but it still goes!

[Bill “Papa” Lee]

 

I'll preface it by saying that I have been castigated (not so much here, but elsewhere) for saying that, as pertaining to Mormonism, one makes a choice whether to believe or to disbelieve, that we are not driven inexorably in either direction.

This is true of all faiths, but does come with consequences for the believer and maybe more so that in other faiths if someone is openly teaching what to be believed and what is not, a different set of consequences.

[Anteojito]

I'm not sure why you were castigated. Every Mormon really is free to make a choice of what to believe

or disbelieve when their church teaches something.

 

Regards,

Jim

I think that is true to a certain point. There are things that one must believe to be a member in good standing. I am thinking of the temple interview questions.

[The Nehor]

Does this principle apply to all religions, or just Mormonism?  And does it apply to other non-religious things, like the decision to believe or disbelieve the moon-hoax theories, or that vaccines can cause autism?

 

Well, since some people believe in the moon hoax and autism vaccinations I believe people are capable of choosing to believe anything they want. I knew a girl in her twenties who was convinced that the guys in Japanese cartoons were real spirit beings and were in love with her.

[teddyaware]

I've just finished covering and writing about Terryl Givens's highly thought provoking keynote speech that he gave last night at the Church History Symposium organized by BYU and the Church History Department. The man is indeed brilliant.

 

But the purpose of this post is to point out something I found while looking up stuff about Givens on the Internet.

 

I'll preface it by saying that I have been castigated (not so much here, but elsewhere) for saying that, as pertaining to Mormonism, one makes a choice whether to believe or to disbelieve, that we are not driven inexorably in either direction.

 

Now, on the "Mormon Scholars Testify" website, I find the following from Givens, who as a thinker and scholar, is esteemed by many, believers and doubters alike:

 

I have said as much. I'm glad Givens and I are in agreement.

An crucially important part of this process is to realize that once you make the decision to chose to believe, God Himself begins to make Himself know to you on a two way line of communication. By responding in a dynamic way to God's revelatory responses to your own faithful outreach to Him, He illuminates the mind and heart with His living Spirit more and more until pure, brilliant light expels all doubt.

Edited March 8, 2014 by teddyaware

[Scott Lloyd]

Does this principle apply to all religions, or just Mormonism?  And does it apply to other non-religious things, like the decision to believe or disbelieve the moon-hoax theories, or that vaccines can cause autism?

I've said it before: There are no slam dunks on Mormonism, pro or con, and I believe it was meant to be that way.

 

Is that the case with other stuff like the things you mention? Not so much.

[Scott Lloyd]

An crucially important part of this process is to realize that once you make the decision to chose to believe, God Himself begins to make Himself know to you on a two way line of communication. By responding in a dynamic way to God's revelatory responses to your own faithful outreach to Him, He illuminates the mind and heart with His living Spirit more and more until pure, brilliant light expels all doubt.

True enough.

 

But, sad to say, the light can be extinguished, as we've seen recently.

[Scott Lloyd]

I've just finished covering and writing about Terryl Givens's highly thought provoking keynote speech that he gave last night at the Church History Symposium organized by BYU and the Church History Department. The man is indeed brilliant.

 

But the purpose of this post is to point out something I found while looking up stuff about Givens on the Internet.

 

I'll preface it by saying that I have been castigated (not so much here, but elsewhere) for saying that, as pertaining to Mormonism, one makes a choice whether to believe or to disbelieve, that we are not driven inexorably in either direction.

 

Now, on the "Mormon Scholars Testify" website, I find the following from Givens, who as a thinker and scholar, is esteemed by many, believers and doubters alike:

 

I have said as much. I'm glad Givens and I are in agreement.

I've just been notified that my story is on-line.

 

Deseret News, that is. I'll have something longer in the Church News next week. Killer lag time, but it is what it is.

[Brian 2.0]

I'll preface it by saying that I have been castigated (not so much here, but elsewhere) for saying that, as pertaining to Mormonism, one makes a choice whether to believe or to disbelieve, that we are not driven inexorably in either direction.

 

As a former believer that no longer believes I can try to explain why I bump against this whenever it's said.  

 

One makes a choice to believe or disblieve anything... whether that be the Unicorns, Evolution, the Moon Landing, or Book of Mormon historicity.  It's always a choice.  

 

Say there is a debate about the existence of unicorns and the Unicorn-believer ends the debate with... "well, everyone just needs to make a choice, you either choose to believe in unicorns, or you choose to not believe in them, so choose wisely everyone."

 

That statement, while technically correct, would rub me the wrong way... because it presents the idea that the evidence is 50/50, a wash, so it really comes down to personal choice, not evidence.

 

And that would be really frustrating to the anti-unicorn debater, because he doesn't agree with that assumption that the evidence is equal.

 

Givens is arguing that the evidence is equal... 

I am convinced that there must be grounds for doubt as well as belief, for only in these conditions of equilibrium and balance, equally “enticed by the one or the other,” is my heart truly free to choose belief or cynicism, faith or faithlessness. Under these conditions, what I choose to embrace, to be responsive to, is the purest reflection of who I am and what I love.

 

ONLY when the evidence is equally balanced and in equilibrium will it simply come down to a "choice" to believe or disbelieve.

 

But when one evaluates the evidence for something, they rarely come up with a 50/50 analysis of it, the evidence almost always leans one way or another and serves as the basis for our deicision.

 

It seem Givens is saying we are all in the jury room after hearing the arguments of the prosecution and the defense, and in that jury room we are personally at a stalemate, feeling equally pulled to declare guilty or not-guilty... and in the end it's just going to come down to making a choice.

 

But I don't see it working that way at all.  Like Pogi said...

 

I don't know that they claim that they "had no choice" as much as they base their choice on the strongest evidence as they see it.  The problem is that their eyes are closed to all things spiritual so they miss out on the strongest evidence.  

 

I don't think any of use are sitting at a 50/50 equilibrium.  And I agree with Pogi... if you count spiritual evidences then you often side on the believieing side.  If you don't believe in spiritual evidences then you often side on the unbelieving side.

 

IF Givens really believes he's "equally" enticed between the two choices, that he's in true equilibrium and balance... what is he basing his "choice" off of?  Is he flipping a coin?  

 

Obviously not... he sizes up the evidnece, including the costs and benefits of belief over disbelief and bases his decision on how the evidence leans...  Just like we all do.

[Storm Rider]

Brian, in your explanation above you have only appealed to reason, to intellect. You have completely excluded all spiritual appeals or evidences.

 

Aspirin works, but I was told that to this day medicine cannot really explain why it works.  Is it enough that it works, that it fulfills its role?  On the other side, it really depends on how you evaluate the so-called evidence that does not support the Book of Mormon.  

 

Alternatively, is the Book of Mormon the sole reason one is a member of the Church? I am a member not because of the Book of Mormon or even the story of the Restoration, I am a Latter-day Saint because of the foundation/relationship with our Heavenly Father and Jesus Christ that the gospel has provided me.  In addition, I have not deducted from archaeological evidence today that the Book of Mormon is false or is not historical.  I am seldom so confident in the arm of flesh that we have all answers or that we have the definitive answer on anything. Science tells me that we are in a constant state of learning and refining. I also believe in that process.

[Brian 2.0]

Brian, in your explanation above you have only appealed to reason, to intellect. You have completely excluded all spiritual appeals or evidences.

That was part of my point. In regards to certain points (BOM historicity for example since we have used that)I personally do not appeal to spiritual witnesses as evidience for or against it because I find that method of determining truth unreliable (that is a completely different topic and I don't think it's the point of the post). Others do find that method reliable and so they do appeal to those methods for evidence.

Either way... I don't know where this "balance" and "equilibrium" comes in and it coming down to a choice. The person using spiritual witnesses and the person not using them are using completely difference evidences -- and as such will make completely different choices.

Is Givens saying that he finds himself being equally pulled in both directions with taking spiritual witnesses into account? If so, it should be really easy to see why people don't believe when they don't believe in spiritual witnesses from God as evidence.

If Givens is saying he's equally pulled in both directions while NOT taking spiritual witnesses into account, then once he adds the evidence of spiritual witnesses into consideration, he'll be far from this balance and equilibrium he speaks of.

 

Aspirin works, but I was told that to this day medicine cannot really explain why it works.  Is it enough that it works, that it fulfills its role?

Totally. I don't know how this relates to intellect vs. spiritual evidence though.

I am speaking of specific claims that can have evidence to support or go against it. Whether or not the BOM is historical is a completely different question as to if the BOM has value or if following the teachings found in the BOM can make you happy.

 

On the other side, it really depends on how you evaluate the so-called evidence that does not support the Book of Mormon.  

 

Alternatively, is the Book of Mormon the sole reason one is a member of the Church? I am a member not because of the Book of Mormon or even the story of the Restoration, I am a Latter-day Saint because of the foundation/relationship with our Heavenly Father and Jesus Christ that the gospel has provided me.  In addition, I have not deducted from archaeological evidence today that the Book of Mormon is false or is not historical.  I am seldom so confident in the arm of flesh that we have all answers or that we have the definitive answer on anything. Science tells me that we are in a constant state of learning and refining. I also believe in that process.

Cool. I have nothing ill to say in regards to what you believe, even if I do not share it.

But in your decision to believe, did you find yourself equally pulled in one direction as well as the other? That you found just enough evidence for belief as you did for disbelief... and you simply chose belief?

[Avatar4321]

We all have to make this choice at some point. It would be easy to turn away. the life would be tough but it would be easy to give in and stop trying to follow Christ. But following Him brings much more happiness and joy.

[cinepro]

Let's apply Givens' theory to something a little more interesting.

 

In 1894, the angel Moroni appeared to Bishop John H. Koyle and showed him the location of an ancient Nephite gold mine in Utah.

 

http://www.reliefmine.com/

 

Since then, people have invested time and money into the enterprise, with no gold to show for it.  Yet.  But some people still have faith.

 

I, however, do not believe in the "relief mine".  According to Givens, what we choose to believe or disbelieve is a reflection on who we are.  So what does my disbelief in the relief mine say about me?  What does the belief others have in the mine say about them?  And is their belief just as valid as my disbelief?

[Storm Rider]

But in your decision to believe, did you find yourself equally pulled in one direction as well as the other? That you found just enough evidence for belief as you did for disbelief... and you simply chose belief?

 

When I read the above and thought of what my response would be I immediately thought of the apostle Thomas. It may be that some are more prone to have faith or that faith comes easier than for others. While there are others that are more prone to disbelief or at least take a more skeptical perspective than others. 

 

For me I don't think there has ever been a balanced pull from both sides. It is more like like I go through phases where some doubts are more prevalent than at other times. At other times it is easier to be faithful or maybe a phase where I am filled with both faith and hope. 

 

There was a time when I put the Church's leadership on very high pedestals, so high that all they could do was fall. Now I have become so jaded that I am very suspect of what they say.  If I am not lead by the Spirit than I tend to ignore them initially.  I miss the times when it was a simpler way of life divided between black and white. The innocence of that way of being is comforting.  I also have found myself more easily annoyed when a leader is instituting what I perceive as his own ideas rather than being led by the Spirit.  If it is not by revelation I am not very interested in hearing about it. In a real sense I have become rather calloused toward leaders in general. 

 

In my opinion I am also very reluctant to judge another regarding belief. I try to take a long term approach to most things. What is disbelief today can easily be belief tomorrow. We each have to walk our own path and I believe that God is aware of us.  Sometimes we lean on our own understanding and at other times we lean on him. I know that I find a greater happiness when I lean on him. It really is about what makes us happy - not what gives us pleasure, but what makes us truly happy. 

[CMZ]

I've said it before: There are no slam dunks on Mormonism, pro or con, and I believe it was meant to be that way.

 

Is that the case with other stuff like the things you mention? Not so much.

 

Same here.

 

Before even reading this thread I had started reading Givens' book. He makes the very valid point that God is not holding a gun to anyone's head with overwhelming evidence that "Mormonism is true!" This is a really hard thing for people to grasp. "If the Church was true why wouldn't God just give absolutely undeniable evidence of it?" And the answer, the rather strange but actually very logical answer, is that it is because God respects you. This really is about respect for the individual and really and truly allowing each person to literally believe whatever they want to. If a person hearkens to the light of Christ that is within them (which to me means being truly genuine) then at some point they will be led to all truth.