The Choice To Believe -- Or Not To Believe

[Gray]

I agree that there's no way to quantify perfectly, it's way too complex and different for each person.

 

I just don't buy that we live in the world Given's describes where the evidence lays like this even generally.  Do anyone here really think... "look at all the non-spiritual evidence for the church and it's kind of a toss up, you could go either way"?

 

Obviously not, but I think Givens' argument relies on a kind of category error. The truthfulness of the moral teachings of the church is a separate matter from questions about historicity of the Book of Mormon, etc. King Benjamin's thoughts on charity can remain valid even if there never was a king Benjamin. 

 

I don't think it's appropriate to use prayer to try to test out empirical questions. Moral questions are those we should concern ourselves with, in the realm of spirituality. The existence of Nephites isn't a spiritual matter. The existence of good and evil is. 

 

But I know my viewpoint is not typical of Mormons. 

Edited March 10, 2014 by Gray

[CMZ]

No. I think the point is that each individual can see what is or at least appears to be evidence either way, especially when viewing the matter purely from an intellectual standpoint. "The design of the universe shows there must be an intelligent creator behind it so now I believe in God. But, wait; has God ever shown himself to me? If he's so powerful why wouldn't he just appear to me so I wouldn't have to wonder? Since he hasn't now I don't believe in God. Oh, but I've heard there were some statements by Albert Einstein that indicated he believed in God. So now I believe in God again. But, wait; the latest I've heard from Steven Hawking is that he thinks there probably wasn't a Creator. So now I don't believe in God again. But I kind of like some of the points Ken Ham made when he debated Bill Nye. No, I think I liked the Science Guy's points better." It's not something you can turn into a mathematical equation. But there's "evidence" you can bring to bear for each "side." And on that basis alone you'll go back and forth forever. The Spirit (emanating from the universe's ultimate scientist) can help you get out of that quagmire.

[phaedrus ut]

This is an interesting subject. I agree with Scott's original post that at some point we make a choice to believe or disbelieve. I personally recall the moment I had that change in my heard and felt the conviction and peace of my decision.  It was a defining day for me personally and spiritually.  I bore my testimony hundreds of times based on this conviction and my missionary efforts came from the same certainty. 

 

By contrast, my disbelief wasn't a choice.  Any initial troublesome facts, anachronisms, history was met with a hefty dose of skepticism and confidence it would be easily answered.  I had only disincentive for disbelief.  My belief was the basis of my family structure, my individual persona, my social structure, my academic pursuits, and a lifetime of investment to that point.  A change in belief would mean those are all lost investments. Retaining my belief means keeping all those built up investments and no negative repercussions. 

 

Part of out disagreement on this issues comes from how we individually think about religious choices.  A Harvard University study(PDF) found evidence suggesting that all religious beliefs become more confident when participants are thinking intuitively.  Reflective thinking generally tends to create more qualified, doubted belief. Reflective thinking was further correlated with greater changes in beliefs since childhood and less likely to believe in God. 

 

For me it was likely a change in my cognitive style from intuitive thinking to analytical thinking. 

 

Phaedrus

[california boy]

When I read threads like this, my mind goes directly to a talk given by Jeffrey R. Holland.  This is the part of the speach that had such an impact on me and long before some of the troubling evidence concerning the Book of Mormon had come forward.  I sometimes wonder what his own reaction to his talk would be in today's climate.

 

Here is the link to the talk

 

To hear someone so remarkable say something so tremendously bold, so overwhelming in its implications, that everything in the Church—everything—rises or falls on the truthfulness of the Book of Mormon and, by implication, the Prophet Joseph Smith’s account of how it came forth, can be a little breathtaking. It sounds like a “sudden death” proposition to me. Either the Book of Mormon is what the Prophet Joseph said it is or this Church and its founder are false, fraudulent, a deception from the first instance onward.

Not everything in life is so black and white, but it seems the authenticity of the Book of Mormon and its keystone role in our belief is exactly that. Either Joseph Smith was the prophet he said he was, who, after seeing the Father and the Son, later beheld the angel Moroni, repeatedly heard counsel from his lips, eventually receiving at his hands a set of ancient gold plates which he then translated according to the gift and power of God—or else he did not. And if he did not, in the spirit of President Benson’s comment, he is not entitled to retain even the reputation of New England folk hero or well-meaning young man or writer of remarkable fiction. No, and he is not entitled to be considered a great teacher or a quintessential American prophet or the creator of great wisdom literature. If he lied about the coming forth of the Book of Mormon, he is certainly none of those.

 

 

 

I am suggesting that we make exactly that same kind of do-or-die, bold assertion about the restoration of the gospel of Jesus Christand the divine origins of the Book of Mormon. We have to. Reason and rightness require it. Accept Joseph Smith as a prophet and the book as the miraculously revealed and revered word of the Lord it is or else consign both man and book to Hades for the devastating deception of it all, but let’s not have any bizarre middle ground about the wonderful contours of a young boy’s imagination or his remarkable facility for turning a literary phrase. That is an unacceptable position to take—morally, literarily, historically, or theologically.

 

 

 

It is a much more troubling statement to make in todays climate.  I would love to have some of you read the talk and let me know if it had any impact on you.  For me, it makes it much more difficult to find some middle road to naviagate down.

[teddyaware]

When I read threads like this, my mind goes directly to a talk given by Jeffrey R. Holland.  This is the part of the speach that had such an impact on me and long before some of the troubling evidence concerning the Book of Mormon had come forward.  I sometimes wonder what his own reaction to his talk would be in today's climate.

 

Here is the link to the talk

 

 

 

 

It is a much more troubling statement to make in todays climate.  I would love to have some of you read the talk and let me know if it had any impact on you.  For me, it makes it much more difficult to find some middle road to naviagate down.

I has zero impact on me because I have followed through on Moroni's promise and know for a surety it is true. Elder Holland's remarks only seem troubling to those who do not yet know.

[CMZ]

When I read threads like this, my mind goes directly to a talk given by Jeffrey R. Holland.  This is the part of the speach that had such an impact on me and long before some of the troubling evidence concerning the Book of Mormon had come forward.  I sometimes wonder what his own reaction to his talk would be in today's climate.

 

Here is the link to the talk

 

 

 

 

It is a much more troubling statement to make in todays climate.  I would love to have some of you read the talk and let me know if it had any impact on you.  For me, it makes it much more difficult to find some middle road to naviagate down.

 

Is finding a middle road the goal?

Edited March 10, 2014 by CMZ

[Gray]

When I read threads like this, my mind goes directly to a talk given by Jeffrey R. Holland.  This is the part of the speach that had such an impact on me and long before some of the troubling evidence concerning the Book of Mormon had come forward.  I sometimes wonder what his own reaction to his talk would be in today's climate.

 

Here is the link to the talk

 

 

 

 

It is a much more troubling statement to make in todays climate.  I would love to have some of you read the talk and let me know if it had any impact on you.  For me, it makes it much more difficult to find some middle road to naviagate down.

 

 

As much as I respect Elder Holland, it's really a false dichotomy to suggest that the BOM must either be outright fraud or exactly what is claimed about it. 

[CMZ]

Well, one can entertain the idea that it's a book of good moral platitudes couched in historical fiction. Of course the problem there is that if the moral principles in it are so great why would they be conveyed by way of having to make up fictional people to show their beneficial effects?

[Scott Lloyd]

Well, one can entertain the idea that it's a book of good moral platitudes couched in historical fiction. Of course the problem there is that if the moral principles in it are so great why would they be conveyed by way of having to make up fictional people to show their beneficial effects?

Using lies to tell truth?

 

Maybe it works for Hollywood, but I don't see it as an appropriate technique for holy writ.

[Buzzard]

As much as I respect Elder Holland, it's really a false dichotomy to suggest that the BOM must either be outright fraud or exactly what is claimed about it. 

I'd really be interested to know what the third option is. Cause I've never seen it. 

[teddyaware]

I'd really be interested to know what the third option is. Cause I've never seen it.

The third option -- as strange as it may seem -- is believing and not believing at the same time. It's like some of those who believe the Book of Mormon's narrative is a sort of "inspired" revelatory fiction; and others who believe Joseph Smith was a true prophet but don't believe he was actually visited by any angels. Don't shoot me, I'm just the messenger.

[Anteojito]

As much as I respect Elder Holland, it's really a false dichotomy to suggest that the BOM must either be outright fraud or exactly what is claimed about it. 

I think that everyone of the Church Leaders (at least publicly) would agree with Elder Holland's comments. You can chose to believe the leadership or not, but I have yet to see a statement from any of the called and anointed that say counter Holland's comment.

 

If there were absolutely no issues with the BOM, it would still require a choice to believe it. If, when the Spanish arrived, there had been horses, steel, wheat, wine, honey bees, etc, none of those items would be proof that the BOM is true anymore than the fact that Jerusalem exits proves that the bible is true. If there were none of these issues, then you might have a 50/50 option. You would still have to choose to believe it. Seems to me though that God wants you to choose to believe even if that means you have to suspend reason and common sense. 

[CMZ]

I think that everyone of the Church Leaders (at least publicly) would agree with Elder Holland's comments. You can chose to believe the leadership or not, but I have yet to see a statement from any of the called and anointed that say counter Holland's comment.

 

If there were absolutely no issues with the BOM, it would still require a choice to believe it. If, when the Spanish arrived, there had been horses, steel, wheat, wine, honey bees, etc, none of those items would be proof that the BOM is true anymore than the fact that Jerusalem exits proves that the bible is true. If there were none of these issues, then you might have a 50/50 option. You would still have to choose to believe it. Seems to me though that God wants you to choose to believe even if that means you have to suspend reason and common sense. 

 

One time when I was maybe about 9 or 10 my older sister couldn't make it to school that day. She asked if I could stop at her classroom and pick up her homework for the day. I did so, but while I was waiting for that teacher to get me stuff to take back to my sister I saw things on the chalkboard like, "x + y = 10" and "x - 11 = 5." I almost got sick to my stomach. I thought, "What kind of witchcraft and lies are they teaching my sister? You can't mix numbers and letters together.... "

[Brian 2.0]

There was a poll not too long ago on the board asking where we thought all the NON-spiritual evidence led in regarding the church being true. The wording was different, and I think there were more options but it was basically:

- definitely not true

- probably not true

- toss up. About 50/50

- probably true

- definitely true

Curious where Givens would land on this... Toss up? Misses the point he trying to make?

[Anteojito]

One time when I was maybe about 9 or 10 my older sister couldn't make it to school that day. She asked if I could stop at her classroom and pick up her homework for the day. I did so, but while I was waiting for that teacher to get me stuff to take back to my sister I saw things on the chalkboard like, "x + y = 10" and "x - 11 = 5." I almost got sick to my stomach. I thought, "What kind of witchcraft and lies are they teaching my sister? You can't mix numbers and letters together.... "

Wow, great story. Thanks for sharing that. i'm not sure what it has to do with anything. but thanks anyway.

[CMZ]

Wow, great story. Thanks for sharing that. i'm not sure what it has to do with anything. but thanks anyway.

 

I'll help you make the connection then: It means that with limited thinking one may perceive something that is true to be absurd or even impossible.

Edited March 11, 2014 by CMZ

[CMZ]

There was a poll not too long ago on the board asking where we thought all the NON-spiritual evidence led in regarding the church being true. The wording was different, and I think there were more options but it was basically:

- definitely not true

- probably not true

- toss up. About 50/50

- probably true

- definitely true

Curious where Givens would land on this... Toss up? Misses the point he trying to make?

 

I think forcing it to be strictly mathematical misses the point.

[Brian 2.0]

I think forcing it to be strictly mathematical misses the point.

I'm not trying to make it mathematical, but all of us do this process all the time with multiple issues, religious and non-religious. We analyze evidence and make a decision based on which choice we think is the most likely to be correct.

[CMZ]

I'm not trying to make it mathematical, but all of us do this process all the time with multiple issues, religious and non-religious. We analyze evidence and make a decision based on which choice we think is the most likely to be correct.

 

Yes.

 

 

Brigham was both a seeker for personal religious contentment and a pragmatist looking for what he understood to be the primitive church of the New Testament. After first confronting the Book of Mormon as a young married man of 28, Brigham's was not a sudden conversion: "I examined the matter studiously, for two years, before I made up my mind to receive that book. I knew it was true, as well as I knew I could see with my eyes, or feel by the touch of my fingers. . . . Had not this been the case, I never would have embraced it to this day. . . . I wished time sufficient to prove all things for myself" ("A Discourse," Deseret News Weekly, 2 Oct. 1852, 96).

https://history.lds.org/article/pioneer-story-brigham-young-an-american-moses?lang=eng

[CMZ]

A further excerpt from the Givens' book that may answer some of the questions that have been posed here:

 

 

Is faith the beginning of a quest, or the end? Do “religious people” start out from a posture of belief and interpret the world through that lens, or do they weigh the evidence, and come around to God by way of conclusion? We must recognize at the onset that both militant atheism and fervent theism are the same in this regard: they are both just as likely to serve as a dogmatic point of departure, as they are to be a thoughtful and considered end point in one’s journey toward understanding.

 

In our experience most believers, like doubters, are continually adjusting their paradigms to make better sense of the world as they experience it. Belief is fluid. So is doubt. Disillusion and readjustment work in both directions. Those who come late on the road to Damascus, and see the light at last, remember all those times they ignored quiet promptings, and their paradigms shift accordingly. The past begins to make new sense, as they reinterpret those annoying doubts and second-guessings as the Lord’s gentle proddings. In contrast, those who find their faith unsustainable and so abandon their faith journey, move in the other direction. Those quiet intimations they once took to be God’s spirit, those countless minor miracles they took to be answers to prayer, they now interpret as passing moments of self-delusion, wish-fulfillment, and the stuff of mere coincidence.

[Tacenda]

I'm not trying to make it mathematical, but all of us do this process all the time with multiple issues, religious and non-religious. We analyze evidence and make a decision based on which choice we think is the most likely to be correct.

My moral compass is better than any education/knowledge than I can think of, thank goodness.

[ERayR]

I'm not trying to make it mathematical, but all of us do this process all the time with multiple issues, religious and non-religious. We analyze evidence and make a decision based on which choice we think is the most likely to be correct.

 

The key words are "we think is the most likely to be correct".  What we think is correct is not necessarily true.

[Brian 2.0]

The key words are "we think is the most likely to be correct". What we think is correct is not necessarily true.

No disagreement from me there.

[Brian 2.0]

The key words are "we think is the most likely to be correct". What we think is correct is not necessarily true.

This also applies to personal revelation. Those who believe in it act on what they think god is telling them... Which may not necessarily be true.

[Gray]

I'd really be interested to know what the third option is. Cause I've never seen it. 

 

There are an almost limitless gradation of options between the two extremes. Examples:

 

• Joseph Smith got it mostly right, but at times he wasn't in the proper frame of mind and mistranslated certain portions of the plates.
• Joseph Smith really translated gold plates, but what was on the gold plates was very similar to the Bible - mostly ahistorical in nature. Of spiritual value but not representative of real history
• Joseph didn't translate from any gold plates, but instead did his best to transmit the spiritual vision that had been given to him. Like many Biblical writers, he employed the use of pseudepigrapha to transmit his message 

 

 

And so on