The Choice To Believe -- Or Not To Believe

[Mystery Meat]

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.

 

Do you believe there are people who do know?

 

I wouldn't say that I do, but I don't think I have a right to tell others they don't know.

[Senator]

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.

 

Well, I will agree with you in that no external hand forces us to believe or not believe. I would suggest that perhaps when some people say they had no choice in their disbelief, they may be saying it in a figurative sense, in other words like, "I can't believe this".  Given someone's state of cumulative factors, there simply is no soil from which a certain belief to spring.

[Scott Lloyd]

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

But not all choices involve the search for divine and sacred truth with the accompanying promise of guidance from the Holy Spirit to the extent one hearkens to it.

[Scott Lloyd]

Well, I will agree with you in that no external hand forces us to believe or not believe. I would suggest that perhaps when some people say they had no choice in their disbelief, they may be saying it in a figurative sense, in other words like, "I can't believe this". Given someone's state of cumulative factors, there simply is no soil from which a certain belief to spring.

But I submit they had choice in the prior preparation of the soil.

[DBMormon]

Do you believe there are people who do know?

 

I wouldn't say that I do, but I don't think I have a right to tell others they don't know.

yes but my guess it is about 5% -10% of those who think they do

[cinepro]

I would like to point out that if Givens is correct in this:

 

 

 

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.

 

...then, based on the Church's careful manicuring of its presentation of history for the last 180 years, the Church is totally screwed as more information comes available and disrupts the equilibrium.

 

But he isn't right.  Faith in the Church has never been based on any idea of equilibrium of balance.  He is describing a state of "lukewarm", and we know how Jesus feels about that:

 

16 So then because thou art lukewarm, and neither cold nor hot, I will spue thee out of my mouth

I can see the allure of Givens' idea for people who have to deal with these issues, but it just doesn't work the way we wish it did. No one actually makes a conscious "choice" when it comes to any sort of real, actionable belief.

Unless we're just talking about the end result of a process of investigation, at which point, based on evidence and experience we arrive at "belief". But to say that someone just "chooses" to have a testimony or not really trivializes the idea of what a testimony is, and what "belief" is and what it is based on. There may be some sort of weird benefit to the Church if Givens' idea gains traction (apparently with the help of Scott), but it will come at a cost as people consider the larger implications for their "faith" in the Church.

But it does explain why there is such an urgency to get young kids to "choose" the LDS Church and to reinforce that choice. If it really is a 50/50 proposition when approached rationally, then Whitney Houston was right and the children really are our future. Because I'm not sure the Church will survive if we have to depend on converting the kinds of adults who face a 50/50 proposition like the LDS Church and rely on them to choose it over the 50/50 JW proposition, or the 50/50 Catholic proposition, or the 50/50 atheist proposition. We have to do anything we can to get people to commit to the Church when they're not thinking rationally, whether as children or teenagers, or in an irrational mental state. At least Givens' shines a light on why this is so.

Edited March 8, 2014 by cinepro

[california boy]

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)

You have only proven my point since you could not come up with even one principle that Christ forgot to teach that is essential to your salvation.  

 

You are correct in stating that Christ chose them to be apostles, they didn't choose him.  He commanded them to go out into the world and preach this gospel that HE had given them while on earth.  He did not tell them to use His name to come up with any new doctrine that they wanted to add. It was HIS gospel and HIS message, not Paul's to start adding what ever popped into his or any other apostle's head.

 

Can you imagine a church that only taught the words of Christ that He left with us?  I don't think there has been a single member who has left the church over doctrinal issues taught by Christ himself.  The problem has been all the stuff added by men claiming to speak for God.

 

The challenge remains, If you can tell me just one principle that is important to our salvation that Christ didn't teach, I will withdraw my point.  If nothing else is important to obtaining our salvation, then why add more dogma that often leads people away from the true doctrine of Christ.  

[Mystery Meat]

yes but my guess it is about 5% -10% of those who think they do

 

Maybe, but thats not for you or me to decide. 

[Five Solas]

...then, based on the Church's careful manicuring of its presentation of history for the last 180 years, the Church is totally screwed as more information comes available and disrupts the equilibrium...

the above image came to mind, had to share.  Brian 2.0 made a point that's tough to argue against: ONLY when the evidence is equally balanced and in equilibrium will it simply come down to a "choice" to believe or disbelieve (post 19 )

 

--Erik

[CMZ]

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?

 

Mormons don't ask people to disregard their belief in the Bible.

[CMZ]

the above image came to mind, had to share.  Brian 2.0 made a point that's tough to argue against: ONLY when the evidence is equally balanced and in equilibrium will it simply come down to a "choice" to believe or disbelieve (post 19 )

 

--Erik

 

Kind of true. Thing is, people could argue about historical stuff forever. It's the Church's responsibility to teach the Gospel. The Gospel is not every single historical point that could ever be examined. One could know or not about the Mountain Meadows Massacre and still receive a witness of the truthfulness of The Book of Mormon. Knowing about the MMM is not a bad thing, but it's extremely peripheral to living the gospel and receiving the blessings that flow therefrom.

[CMZ]

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.

 

This is why it is stressed that each individual study the gospel and come to know the truth for themselves. Then that person is getting the message of Christ from the Bible, The Book of Mormon, and other inspired writings and because of that also becoming a spiritual, righteous person. Religion only becomes "crowd control" when the word is kept from individuals, and "leaders" within an organization assume too great of a role. In The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, the only true and living church upon the face of the earth, the goal righteous leaders within it are striving for is to NOT be needed too much, rather than to have the membership rely wholly upon them ("Would God that ALL the Lord's people were prophets, and that he would put His spirit upon them!" Numbers 11:29; an earnest plea by Moses for people to stop needing him so much to be the only prophet). As only one example, if more Latter-day Saints were righteous the prophet could spend far less time bogged down reviewing cancellation of sealing requests (yes, I know sometimes a sealing needs to be canceled so I don't think someone is wicked for trying to escape an abusive relationship; but even then it shows that at least one party involved is not living the gospel).

Edited March 8, 2014 by CMZ

[BookofMormonLuvr]

So, to choose to believe "Mormonism" or to choose to not believe "Mormonism" are equally valid choices?

[theplains]

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!

 

Thank you Kenngo.   I appreciate it.

 

Jim

[CMZ]

So, to choose to believe "Mormonism" or to choose to not believe "Mormonism" are equally valid choices?

 

Terryl Givens' point is not that they are equally valid, nor that truth is relative so that whatever a person believes becomes true for them. His point is that it's important for believing in the Gospel of Jesus Christ (found in The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints) to be a choice. and not something that's compelled.

Edited March 8, 2014 by CMZ

[Five Solas]

So, to choose to believe "Mormonism" or to choose to not believe "Mormonism" are equally valid choices?

Gonna climb out on a limb here & suggest the answer to your question is, "No."  See the unicorn analogy in post #19--refer to it as often as necessary...

;0)

 

--Erik

[CMZ]

Terryl Givens' point is not that they are equally valid, nor that whatever a person believes becomes true for them. His point is that it's important for believing in the Gospel of Jesus Christ (found in The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints) be a choice. and not something that's compelled.

 

BUT... instead of seeing that as a good thing some people freak out and say, "Okay, so if Mormonism is true then why is God not pounding me over the head with irrefutable, scientific evidence of it?" And the answer, once again, and strange as it may sound, is because God respects each individual and allows them to believe what they want.

"Liberty means responsibility; that is why most mean fear it." - George Bernard Shaw The fact that people are free to choose quite literally scares them. They somehow imagine things would be better if they were given no choice but to believe. But we find from the scriptures an instance or two where people could not choose to disbelieve the truth that was being taught to them, but instead of then accepting the truth they just got angry.

Edited March 8, 2014 by CMZ

[CMZ]

This is what happens when choice to believe is taken away:

 

• 3 Nephi 7:18

  And it came to pass that they were angry with him, even because he had greater power than they, for it were not possible that they could disbelieve his words, for so great was his faith on the Lord Jesus Christ that angels did minister unto him daily.

[ERayR]

So, to choose to believe "Mormonism" or to choose to not believe "Mormonism" are equally valid choices?

 

Not necessarily correct choices but valid yes.  Either is a choice one makes.  That makes them valid but the both can not be correct.

[Sanpitch]

I have followed this thread with interest. Many years ago when I was about 17 years of age I argued with mom about the evidence for the LDS Church. I told her, "If God wants us to know of his church, why doesn't he make it plain so everyone can know of it and believe it." Mom, "because then everyone would want to join, such as those with not a true faith." Me, "So what's wrong with that?" I've never had an answer yet.

On this thread there are scholarly answers all over the place.

Why, if the LDS Church is the true one on Earth, is there not an easy path to knowing and believing in it? Why all the mystery? Why the dependence on a feeling that is interpreted as an answer to someone's prayer. That feeling is common all over the world.

Why do LDS need a Testimony Meeting for people to tell each other of their faith in the gospel and Joseph Smith?

[CMZ]

In part, testimonies are strengthened by bearing them. Also, in part by hearing others bear their testimony. Romans 10:17. The bearing of a testimony by a mortal is one channel the Holy Ghost can utilize to bear witness to the bearer and the hearer(s).

[Sanpitch]

In part, testimonies are strengthened by bearing them. Also, in part by hearing others bear their testimony. Romans 10:17. The bearing of a testimony by a mortal is one channel the Holy Ghost can utilize to bear witness to the bearer and the hearer(s).

I'm sure that works alright, whether the testimony is of truthful things or not.

[Five Solas]

Not necessarily correct choices but valid yes.  Either is a choice one makes.  That makes them valid but the both can not be correct.

no, ERayR, that doesn't make them both valid.  read post 19 until you grok the unicorn analogy.  it may take several readings--but your hard work will be rewarded, promise

:0)

 

--Erik

[Brian 2.0]

Not necessarily correct choices but valid yes. Either is a choice one makes. That makes them valid but the both can not be correct.

Do you think there is such a thing as an "invalid" choice? What do you mean when you say a choice is "valid"?

[Buzzard]

I have followed this thread with interest. Many years ago when I was about 17 years of age I argued with mom about the evidence for the LDS Church. I told her, "If God wants us to know of his church, why doesn't he make it plain so everyone can know of it and believe it." Mom, "because then everyone would want to join, such as those with not a true faith." Me, "So what's wrong with that?" I've never had an answer yet.

On this thread there are scholarly answers all over the place.

Why, if the LDS Church is the true one on Earth, is there not an easy path to knowing and believing in it? Why all the mystery? Why the dependence on a feeling that is interpreted as an answer to someone's prayer. That feeling is common all over the world.

Why do LDS need a Testimony Meeting for people to tell each other of their faith in the gospel and Joseph Smith?

Christ said that his burden was easy, he did not say the path was easy. In a sense, if we did not have to fight for a testimony, if we did not have to pray with "real intent" in order to get a response, that testimony would be worth a lot less to those who do receive it.

There is enough empirical evidence of the gospel that you are not a complete idiot to get on your knees to ask for confirmation, but getting on your knees is the critical part. If this were not the case, Moroni would have just asked us to read about the gospel until we were convinced. That's not the way it works. One could almost say that a testimony acquired by empirical means only is closer to Lucifer's plan than to Heavenly Fathers.

Edited March 9, 2014 by Buzzard