The Choice To Believe -- Or Not To Believe

[CMZ]

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?

 

I wish I wasn't too tired to answer this.

[CMZ]

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.

 

The way the Gospel works is that each individual can receive their own testimony. We don't need to be reliant on someone else's. Now, a person may disbelieve in The Book of Mormon because they've read some stuff about archaeology and DNA and whatnot where the author(s) imply or explicitly state that The Book of Mormon isn't true based on the evidences presented. So, yes, you'll have people making different choices because they're not taking spiritual witnesses into account (or writing off spiritual witnesses because they view science as trumping the Spirit; such as with Tom Phillips who learned from "science" that The Book of Mormon was false so he then believed that the prior spiritual witnesses he had received were false) BUT if a person is honest and .... hearkens to the light of Christ within them then at some point in time they will come to know of the truthfulness of The Book of Mormon and that the so-called science "refuting" it wasn't entirely up to snuff.

[Senator]

" 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."

 

Beautifully worded.

 

Kudos to Terryl, for surgically extracting the words that speaks to how I feel!

 

That's a quote to memorize......

[california boy]

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. 

I can see why a Mormon would believe that structure is necessary and without it anarchy would occur.  But for a lot of people, organized religion with all of their structure has proven for them to be false.  Many religions throughout history and even today have tried to control the masses through ungodly use of political power which had nothing to do with worshiping God.  There are many religious principles I could name that have no basis in what Christ taught, yet are used by religion to set up their own rules.  This is not necessarily a bad thing, but it does have nothing to do with an individuals relationship to God. 

 

People have become disillusioned with religion.  More and more, they are relying on their own relationship towards God and not some  priest or other church official to tell them what to believe and not believe came from God.  You can't reaally blame them given the falsehoods religion has told them in the past.  

 

I personally have become disillusioned with ALL dogma.  I believe there is only one thing required of us in this earth life, to become like Christ.  If we weigh every decision we make to that one golden standard, then all else will fall in place.  If dogma helps a person fulfil that goal, then that is the right path for them.  If dogma increases hate, bigotry and unkindnesss towards other, then that dogma is failing that individual.  

 

Perhaps both approaches work depending on the need of the individual.  Which one brings them closer to God depends on the individual, not the approach.  Afterall, Christ himself did not embrace the organized religion of His day.  That seemed to work out well.

Edited March 8, 2014 by california boy

[Sanpitch]

I have JWs among my relatives whose faith in their religion seems to be more solid than most LDS I know, or at least just as strong.  I know JWs who have died rather than accept a blood transfusion because it's against statements made in the  Bible.

 

They base their faith on what they feel is study of the Bible.  Where did they go wrong in their faith and why should they accept a religion that depends on a spiritual feeling for being the one and only true faith and disregard their belief in the Bible?

[teddyaware]

I can see why a Mormon would believe that structure is necessary and without it anarchy would occur.  But for a lot of people, organized religion with all of their structure has proven for them to be false.  Many religions throughout history and even today have tried to control the masses through ungodly use of political power which had nothing to do with worshiping God.  There are many religious principles I could name that have no basis in what Christ taught, yet are used by religion to set up their own rules.  This is not necessarily a bad thing, but it does have nothing to do with an individuals relationship to God. 

 

People have become disillusioned with religion.  More and more, they are relying on their own relationship towards God and not some  priest or other church official to tell them what to believe and not believe came from God.  You can't reaally blame them given the falsehoods religion has told them in the past.  

 

I personally have become disillusioned with ALL dogma.  I believe there is only one thing required of us in this earth life, to become like Christ.  If we weigh every decision we make to that one golden standard, then all else will fall in place.  If dogma helps a person fulfil that goal, then that is the right path for them.  If dogma increases hate, bigotry and unkindnesss towards other, then that dogma is failing that individual.  

 

Perhaps both approaches work depending on the need of the individual.  Which one brings them closer to God depends on the individual, not the approach.  Afterall, Christ himself did not embrace the organized religion of His day.  That seemed to work out well.

 

Christ set up an organized religion in His day called the Church of Jesus Christ. At the head of this organized religion he chose living Apostles and Prophets to lead His church after His ascension into heaven. This is so obvious and well attested to that I'm utterly astonished you made the comment I highlighted.

Edited March 8, 2014 by teddyaware

[teddyaware]

I have JWs among my relatives whose faith in their religion seems to be more solid than most LDS I know, or at least just as strong.  I know JWs who have died rather than accept a blood transfusion because it's against statements made in the  Bible.

 

They base their faith on what they feel is study of the Bible.  Where did they go wrong in their faith and why should they accept a religion that depends on a spiritual feeling for being the one and only true faith and disregard their belief in the Bible?

I don't base my testimony of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints on spiritual feelings, as you put it, alone. I also believe it is the most perfect religion on the face of the earth, with a theology, doctrines and principles that powerfully appeal to my senses of logic, reason and fair play. Just the mere fact that the Latter-day Saints believe the gospel is preached to the dead and that all will eventually be saved in one of the Father's many mansions of heavenly glory is enough for me to say, speaking as a man, it must be true!

[Senator]

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 think it's nonsense.

 

As you stated in another post, there are many factors that come into play in order for belief to occur.  If those ingredients are not properly aligned, an individual in that state of mind, literally may not have the ability to believe.

[Mystery Meat]

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.

 

 

This reminded me of a story, ironically enough, from the BOM. You will recall in 1 Nephi that after Nephi had his four chapter long vision he went to speak with his brothers. They were fighting about what Lehi's dreams and visions had meant. They asked Nephi to explain it to them. He then asked them if they had taken it to the Lord, to which they said something to the effect of: "we have not, for the Lord maketh no such thing known unto us." 

 

Now I understand that it is not very nice to tell someone they are Laman and Lemuel. If it makes you feel any better, I have been, and in some ways still am, in the same boat. But if you read 1 Nephi, Alma 22, Enos, and especially Moroni 7, I am telling you that how to have reliable spiritual experiences is outline rather quite clearly (okay so it takes some effort to find it, but it is there).

 

My two cents.

[Mystery Meat]

I don't think it's nonsense.

 

As you stated in another post, there are many factors that come into play in order for belief to occur.  If those ingredients are not properly aligned, an individual in that state of mind, literally may not have the ability to believe.

 

I agree with Scott, while at the same time I think this is wonderfully said.

[Senator]

 

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

 

 

 

There may be some truth to that.

 

Contrary to your broad brush characterization of a dichotomy between the spiritual and the religious, I have know a few very spiritual individuals who quietly lead very principled lives and are aloof to any organized religion.

 

They're quite a study to me.

[Storm Rider]

I have JWs among my relatives whose faith in their religion seems to be more solid than most LDS I know, or at least just as strong.  I know JWs who have died rather than accept a blood transfusion because it's against statements made in the  Bible.

 

They base their faith on what they feel is study of the Bible.  Where did they go wrong in their faith and why should they accept a religion that depends on a spiritual feeling for being the one and only true faith and disregard their belief in the Bible?

We do not teach that any individual of any other religion should join the Church because we say so; we teach that every individual should follow the Holy Spirit regardless of where it leads. The focus we attempt to teach is that God is our first love, our primary relationship. 

 

If a JW feels he or she is where God wants them to be then they need to remain a JW and be the best JW they can be. 

[ERayR]

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 have found this to be true.  If one were inclined to go back a year or so in this forum they would find some threads where I said this very thing to a couple of posters and got some heavy flak from some who were claiming to have no choice except to not believe Mormonism.

Edited March 8, 2014 by ERayR

[Freedom]

People have become disillusioned with religion.  More and more, they are relying on their own relationship towards God and not some  priest or other church official to tell them what to believe and not believe came from God.  You can't reaally blame them given the falsehoods religion has told them in the past.  

 

I personally have become disillusioned with ALL dogma.  I believe there is only one thing required of us in this earth life, to become like Christ.  If we weigh every decision we make to that one golden standard, then all else will fall in place.  If dogma helps a person fulfil that goal, then that is the right path for them.  If dogma increases hate, bigotry and unkindnesss towards other, then that dogma is failing that individual.  

 

Perhaps both approaches work depending on the need of the individual.  Which one brings them closer to God depends on the individual, not the approach.  Afterall, Christ himself did not embrace the organized religion of His day.  That seemed to work out well.

 

Many governments exert the same control, therefore we should reject government. Christ did indeed embrace the organized religion of his day. He challenged the leadership, not the church. It is not possible to accept medication but reject the structures of science that creates it. It is not possible to accept God but reject any forms of doctrine that defines him. 

[california boy]

Christ set up an organized religion in His day called the Church of Jesus Christ. At the head of this organized religion he chose living Apostles and Prophets to lead His church after His ascension into heaven. This is so obvious and well attested to that I'm utterly astonished you made the comment I highlighted.

 

Let's take a look at what the Bible actually teaches on this subject.  I think it is very important to consider exactly what happened.  Christ completely rejected and in fact routinely chastised the religion of His day that also CLAIMED to be the one and only true church of God.  They after all had a history of prophets who spoke DIRECTLY to God, so they knew exactly what God wanted them to do.  Those that followed that religion were assured a place with God in the eternities.  Those that didn't follow that very specific religion were considered heathens and would find no place in the kingdom of God.

 

Christ came along and rejected completely the nonsense that "God's church" was practicing.  Instead, Christ himself told us exactly what to do and how to treat others.  God Himself was on the earth and for THREE years had ample time to tell us all that was important for us to do to make our way back to Heavenly Father.  Think upon the importance of that concept.

 

Christ could not have been more clear on how and what His church should teach.  Just how much dogma did Christ leave with us?  If you stripped away all that other religions teach except for just the words of Christ, how much of the hatred, prejudice and bigotry that organized religion would be gone?  Just how important are the words of ANY prophet when we have the words of God Himself while on this earth to rely on.  Name one teaching that was not given to us by Christ that is important to our salvation.  

 

So take  look at the church that Christ actually did organize.  What did it consist of?  Big buildings? Time spent in endless meetings?  Service to others organized by someone else? Political activism? Worrying about the sins of others?  As I read the message that Christ left us, I see a much more active role in caring for others then I do in attending meetings and judging other peoples sins.  Christ's teachings were simple.  It doesn't require endless books, manuals and meetings to understand or embrace.  And I don't think it requires others to interpret and tell you what to think of the words of Christ.  In fact, Christ consistently wanted His followers to think about what He said in their own terms rather than explain His message to them.  Isn't that amazing?  He wanted us to think about what He was saying for ourselves.  Perhaps because He thought it did not require a church leader to tell us what He ment.

 

As you read in my first post, I am not arguing against organized religion.  I am only arguing the necessity to bring ALL to God through any organized religion.  I realize that many thrive under strong authoritative religion that tell them how they should.  And many have completely lost their way through organized religion.  Many thrive just as well if not better by keeping their eye on what Christ actually taught and refining their lives to more closely match that of the Saviors.  It should be of no concern of others if some find a way back to Christ without organized religion.  People are looking for the words of the Savior, not dogma unrelated to His message.

[teddyaware]

Let's take a look at what the Bible actually teaches on this subject.  I think it is very important to consider exactly what happened.  Christ completely rejected and in fact routinely chastised the religion of His day that also CLAIMED to be the one and only true church of God.  They after all had a history of prophets who spoke DIRECTLY to God, so they knew exactly what God wanted them to do.  Those that followed that religion were assured a place with God in the eternities.  Those that didn't follow that very specific religion were considered heathens and would find no place in the kingdom of God.

 

Christ came along and rejected completely the nonsense that "God's church" was practicing.  Instead, Christ himself told us exactly what to do and how to treat others.  God Himself was on the earth and for THREE years had ample time to tell us all that was important for us to do to make our way back to Heavenly Father.  Think upon the importance of that concept.

 

Christ could not have been more clear on how and what His church should teach.  Just how much dogma did Christ leave with us?  If you stripped away all that other religions teach except for just the words of Christ, how much of the hatred, prejudice and bigotry that organized religion would be gone?  Just how important are the words of ANY prophet when we have the words of God Himself while on this earth to rely on.  Name one teaching that was not given to us by Christ that is important to our salvation.  

 

So take  look at the church that Christ actually did organize.  What did it consist of?  Big buildings? Time spent in endless meetings?  Service to others organized by someone else? Political activism? Worrying about the sins of others?  As I read the message that Christ left us, I see a much more active role in caring for others then I do in attending meetings and judging other peoples sins.  Christ's teachings were simple.  It doesn't require endless books, manuals and meetings to understand or embrace.  And I don't think it requires others to interpret and tell you what to think of the words of Christ.  In fact, Christ consistently wanted His followers to think about what He said in their own terms rather than explain His message to them.  Isn't that amazing?  He wanted us to think about what He was saying for ourselves.  Perhaps because He thought it did not require a church leader to tell us what He ment.

 

As you read in my first post, I am not arguing against organized religion.  I am only arguing the necessity to bring ALL to God through any organized religion.  I realize that many thrive under strong authoritative religion that tell them how they should.  And many have completely lost their way through organized religion.  Many thrive just as well if not better by keeping their eye on what Christ actually taught and refining their lives to more closely match that of the Saviors.  It should be of no concern of others if some find a way back to Christ without organized religion.  People are looking for the words of the Savior, not dogma unrelated to His message.

Read the book of Acts and you'll see the Church of Jesus Christ was an organized religion. Read the epistles of the New Testament and the Book of Revelation and you'll see the Church of Christ is all you said it shouldn't be. You have a notion in your mind that makes sense to you, but it doesn't square with the Bible. Just this following verses alone put your theory to rest:

10 He (Christ) that descended is the same also that ascended up far above all heavens, that he might fill all things.)

11 And he agave some, apostles; and some, prophets; and some, evangelists; and some, pastors and teachers;

12 For the perfecting of the saints, for the work of the ministry, for the edifying of the body of Christ:

13 Till we all come in the unity of the faith, and of the knowledge of the Son of God, unto a perfect man, unto the measure of the stature of the fulness of Christ:

14 That we henceforth be no more children, tossed to and fro, and carried about with every wind of doctrine, by the sleight of men, and cunning craftiness, whereby they lie in wait to deceive;

15 But speaking the truth in love, may grow up into him in all things, which is the head, even Christ:

16 From whom the whole body fitly joined together and compacted by that which every joint supplieth, according to the effectual working in the measure of every part, maketh increase of the body unto the edifying of itself in love.

 

The only way that your "religion of Christ is not an organized religion" thesis can hold is if you throw out every part of the Bible that doesn't directly quote the person of Christ. And if that's what you want to do, that's fine. After all, just like you said, people have been making up their own religions while claiming to speak for God since time immemorial

Edited March 8, 2014 by teddyaware

[california boy]

Many governments exert the same control, therefore we should reject government. Christ did indeed embrace the organized religion of his day. He challenged the leadership, not the church. It is not possible to accept medication but reject the structures of science that creates it. It is not possible to accept God but reject any forms of doctrine that defines him. 

 

Religion is not government.  Christ very clearly taught that message, yet you failed to understand that.  I think this is exactly the problem of organized religion.  It often obscures the actual message of Christ.

 

And of course you can take medication without uderstanding the structure that creats it.  What are you talking about.  

[california boy]

Read the book of Acts and you'll see the Church of Jesus Christ was an organized religion. Read the epistles of the New Testament and the Book of Revelation and you'll see the Church of Christ is all you said it shouldn't be. You have a notion in your mind that makes sense to you, but it doesn't square with the Bible. Just this following verses alone put your theory to rest:

10 He (Christ) that descended is the same also that ascended up far above all heavens, that he might fill all things.)

11 And he agave some, apostles; and some, prophets; and some, evangelists; and some, pastors and teachers;

12 For the perfecting of the saints, for the work of the ministry, for the edifying of the body of Christ:

13 Till we all come in the unity of the faith, and of the knowledge of the Son of God, unto a perfect man, unto the measure of the stature of the fulness of Christ:

14 That we henceforth be no more children, tossed to and fro, and carried about with every wind of doctrine, by the sleight of men, and cunning craftiness, whereby they lie in wait to deceive;

15 But speaking the truth in love, may grow up into him in all things, which is the head, even Christ:

16 From whom the whole body fitly joined together and compacted by that which every joint supplieth, according to the effectual working in the measure of every part, maketh increase of the body unto the edifying of itself in love.

 

The only way that your "religion of Christ is not an organized religion" thesis can hold is if you throw out every part of the Bible that doesn't directly quote the person of Christ.

You do realize that you are reading in Acts, which occurred after Christ had already finished his 3 year ministry and is not part of the structure Christ set up while on this earth.  

 

And yes, that is exactly what I am saying.  If Christ felt like He needed to add more to His words, why didn't He stay on earth longer.  The book of Acts is a perfect example.  All that Paul wrote is an interpretation of Christ's teachings mixing with his own flawed philosophy.  He is the guy that gave us such teachings as it is better to be celibate than married, women shouldn't wear gold jewelery or makeup or pray in church or be allowed to teach in church. etc.  Tell me why I should trust the flawed writings of Paul over the actual words of God Himself.

Edited March 8, 2014 by california boy

[teddyaware]

You do realize that you are reading in Acts, which occurred after Christ had already finished his 3 year ministry and is not part of the structure Christ set up while on this earth.  

 

And yes, that is exactly what I am saying.  If Christ felt like He needed to add more to His words, why didn't He stay on earth longer.  The book of Acts is a perfect example.  All that Paul wrote is an interpretation of Christ's teachings mixing with his own flawed philosophy.  Tell me why I should trust the flawed writings of Paul over the actual words of God Himself.

So you believe the Church was already off course and in apostasy immediately after the ascension of Christ. Since the words of Christ are so important to you, it's interesting to note the indisputable fact that Christ chose His Apostles, whom He commanded to lead and guide the Church, yet in this instance you apparently believe His words can be disregarded. All the best to you.

[california boy]

So you believe the Church was already off course and in apostasy immediately after the ascension of Christ. Since the words of Christ are so important to you, it's interesting to note the indisputable fact that Christ chose His Apostles, whom He commanded to lead and guide the Church, yet in this instance you apparently believe His words can be disregarded. All the best to you.

I certainly believe that the teachings of man were introduced immediately after Christ left this earth.  It is indisputable unless you believe that women should not wear gold jewelry, or make up or pray in church.  That it is better to be celibate than to marry.   Peoples ideas start with Paul and continue to this day.  We are still getting individual's ideas introduced that is purported to be the word of God.  

 

If you can name just one teaching by any prophet apostle, pastor, teacher or evangelist etc. that is essential to our salvation that Christ Himself did not teach while here on earth then I will withdraw my statement.  If not, then all other added teachings introduced by such men are really not important and lead us away from the gospel of Christ Himself.

[DBMormon]

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.

 

Just as much nonsense as the members who know with every fiber of their being and who claim their overwhelming knowledge that the Church is true and feel anything less is a lack of faith.

[teddyaware]

I certainly believe that the teachings of man were introduced immediately after Christ left this earth.  It is indisputable unless you believe that women should not wear gold jewelry, or make up or pray in church.  That it is better to be celibate than to marry.   Peoples ideas start with Paul and continue to this day.  We are still getting individual's ideas introduced that is purported to be the word of God.  

 

If you can name just one teaching by any prophet apostle, pastor, teacher or evangelist etc. that is essential to our salvation that Christ Himself did not teach while here on earth then I will withdraw my statement.  If not, then all other added teachings introduced by such men are really not important and lead us away from the gospel of Christ Himself.

If I understand you correctly, when Christ said the following to His Apostles He was saying, in effect, "You have not chosen me But I have chosen you and ordained you to lead the Church astray with the teachings of men after I am ascended into heaven."

16 Ye have not chosen me, but I have chosen you, and ordained you, that ye should go and bring forth fruit, and that your fruit should remain: that whatsoever ye shall ask of the Father in my name, he may give it you. (John 15)

Edited March 8, 2014 by teddyaware

[Scott Lloyd]

I don't think it's nonsense.

As you stated in another post, there are many factors that come into play in order for belief to occur. If those ingredients are not properly aligned, an individual in that state of mind, literally may not have the ability to believe.

My implied message in listing those factors -- and perhaps I should have stated it more explicitly -- is that some of them in their own right involve individual choice, and together they all involve choice in that the individual chooses how to weigh them against one another. Whether one ultimately believes may be influenced by the cumulative effect of a myriad of prior choices, but it's still a matter of choice in the final analysis.

Lehi said we are in mortality to act and not be acted upon. We can choose to let external stimuli control us inordinately in the search for truth -- or we can choose not to.

You warmly endorsed what Givens said in the quote I cited, but it seems to me you contradicted it in this post.

Edited March 8, 2014 by Scott Lloyd

[Scott Lloyd]

Just as much nonsense as the members who know with every fiber of their being and who claim their overwhelming knowledge that the Church is true and feel anything less is a lack of faith.

You have no standing to say such an expression of testimony by a given individual, if it is derived from a spiritual witness, is nonsense. And arriving at that point of certainty may well depend on the exercise of faith. Edited March 8, 2014 by Scott Lloyd

[Brian 2.0]

My implied message in listing those factors -- and perhaps I should have stated it more explicitly -- is that some of them in their own right involve individual choice, and together they all involve choice in that the individual chooses how to weigh them against one another. Whether one ultimately believes may be influenced by the cumulative effect of a myriad of prior choices, but it's still a matter of choice in the final analysis.

Such can be said of every single choice one makes in every aspect of their life.