President Uchtdorf On "choosing To Believe"

[Gray]

Consider that you only do not know that you are able to control what seems to be true to you. People talk themselves into things they sense aren't true all the time!

 

Yes they do. I know I've done that, but I'm unable to do so if I realize that that's what I'm doing. As I've gotten older I've been able to recognize when I'm doing that - at least more than I used to. 

[pogi]

 

So in essence, are you saying we can generally guide the course of our beliefs, like trimming a tree to grow a certain way?

 

Personally I have not experienced belief as a choice, except when faced with two ideas that are similar and equally plausible to me. Even then, I would tend not to choose one position with any solidity. I can't believe something if I think I'm fooling myself into believing it.  It's possible that others are able flexibly pick and choose what they can believe. I only know how my own mind works, of course. 

 

In my own path, that has lead me to reject orthodoxy, but not more progressive expressions of spirituality/worship. I am only able to believe what seems to me to be true. I have not been able to control what seems to be true to me. I've only been able to react and try to make sense of things. 

 

 

I hope my post above better explains my position.  I think it addresses your question. 

[Gray]

 

I am of the firm conviction that we simply cannot believe what we perceive to be false.  It is incongruous with our natures.  One cannot bridge that gap and maintain a sense of integrity and well-being.  The internal conflict and friction will be too great.  That is why people leave the church.

 

Here is what I have come to understand about myself and people in general.  People don't react to their environment as it is; what we react to is our perception of that environment.  In other words, our reaction to a given stimulus is not based on the stimulus in its reality; instead, our reaction is based on our perception of that stimulus in our reality.   

 

For example, In life (unlike physics, where an action always causes an equal and opposite reaction) one person may react completely different than another person given the same stimulus.  Our perceptions and judgements are the gravity of belief.  It is impossible to free ourselves from that gravitational pull.  The only way that belief can change is through a shift in perception and judgement.  That is why it is not always as simple as "choosing to believe".

 

If one acknowledges even a slight possibility of truth, with a desire, and hope, then there is room for belief to sprout.  I feel that we need to stop focusing so much on belief itself, and focus more on the soil and ground where belief grows - the heart.  The heart is the room where belief is held.  It is the soil that nourishes the seed (the word of God), causing it to bring forth fruit (according to parable). 

 

The question is, "how do we amend the soil?".  The parable of the sower gives us the key.  The way to the heart is by means of our ears and eyes.  "He who has ears to hear, let him hear..."  As the scriptures say, seeing and hearing leads to understanding in the heart.  We have to be willing to let ourselves see and hear.  I believe that is accomplished by altering the focus of our attention.  Where we choose to place our attention has a direct effect on the quality of our soil (heart).  This is where agency and choice affects belief!  This is why the scriptures plead to "let" yourselves hear, to keep an eye single to God, and to pray always.  Attention is everything!  It affects our perception, which affects our judgements, which affects our beliefs, which effects our faith. 

 

This was beautifully demonstrated by the experience that SteveO posted of that woman on Facebook who chose to suspend doubt temporarily and who gave a small room for desire and hope, she then altered the focus of her attention from doubt, to the word of God.  This one simple act had a profound effect on her, but if she chooses to shift her attention from God again, I am afraid this one experience will not be enough.  When our attention is distracted, we can quickly lose what we had.  We forget so easily the things of God, they are so delicate.

 

 

Good thoughts, thanks Pogi

[CV75]

I think I did that for about 40 years.

Yes, and I'm sure some folks think i do that as well. The point is, it is a choice. Maybe not a very good method, but nonetheless a voluntary choice to believe something (and it's not always about religion, either).

[CV75]

Yes they do. I know I've done that, but I'm unable to do so if I realize that that's what I'm doing. As I've gotten older I've been able to recognize when I'm doing that - at least more than I used to. 

Great! The point is, you are making a choice. Maybe not using a very good method, but nonetheless a voluntary choice to believe something (and it's not always about religion, either).

[lowroom]

Isn't doubting one's doubts pretty close to doubting not but being believing? If not precisely the same thing, both approaches to faith are at least closely related. Isn't it true the commandment to doubt not but be believing was given to those who already had doubts? The commandment certainly wasn't given to those who had no doubts. So a good place for a doubter to start toward the goal of perfect faith would be to doubt his doubts as a necessary progressive step on the way to learning how to be fully believing.

Not exactly. "Doubt your doubts" is an un-ending loop. You doubt the original doubt, but then on examination you must doubt that doubt and so on. If every doubt should be doubted as a method of understanding truth and light does not progress you beyond a stage of continuous doubt.

[Gray]

Great! The point is, you are making a choice. Maybe not using a very good method, but nonetheless a voluntary choice to believe something (and it's not always about religion, either).

 

I'm not sure that that points to making a conscious choice to believe something. I think it points to an irrational way to evaluate evidence. At some point in my life that was all I had in my cognitive toolkit. 

[pogi]

Not exactly. "Doubt your doubts" is an un-ending loop. You doubt the original doubt, but then on examination you must doubt that doubt and so on. If every doubt should be doubted as a method of understanding truth and light does not progress you beyond a stage of continuous doubt.

 

I think the inherent message Elder U was trying to convey was to give room for uncertainty.  Do not be so certain about your doubts.  Do not make hard fast conclusions.  Acknowledge that your perception is fallible and may change in time.  Make room in your heart for that possibility.  Do not give yourself fully to doubt.  Question your doubts.  He made a simple catchphrase to portray that message without realizing the implications perhaps.  That's what I think anyway. 

Edited October 8, 2015 by pogi

[CV75]

I'm not sure that that points to making a conscious choice to believe something. I think it points to an irrational way to evaluate evidence. At some point in my life that was all I had in my cognitive toolkit. 

"Irrational" isn't inherently bad. It often compensates for or offsets the damage of poorly developed or executed rational processes, so that doesn't necessarily point to a lack of choice.

 

Which gets back to the main point: you simply may not know that you are able to control what seems to be true to you. But you can, which is why you've admittedly talked yourself into believing things that you've sensed on another level are not true.

[Gray]

"Irrational" isn't inherently bad. It often compensates for or offsets the damage of poorly developed or executed rational processes, so that doesn't necessarily point to a lack of choice.

 

Which gets back to the main point: you simply may not know that you are able to control what seems to be true to you. But you can, which is why you've admittedly talked yourself into believing things that you've sensed on another level are not true.

 

I could only talk myself into believing something when I wasn't aware I was doing it, though. Now that I'm aware if I'm trying to do that (at least I think I am!) I can't talk myself into believing something that seems untrue. 

Edited October 8, 2015 by Gray

[jkwilliams]

"Irrational" isn't inherently bad. It often compensates for or offsets the damage of poorly developed or executed rational processes, so that doesn't necessarily point to a lack of choice.

 

Which gets back to the main point: you simply may not know that you are able to control what seems to be true to you. But you can, which is why you've admittedly talked yourself into believing things that you've sensed on another level are not true.

 

The unspoken assumption, I gather, is that there is plenty of evidence in favor of LDS truth claims, so given the "evidentiary stalemate," it really does come down to a simple choice to believe. Of course, I don't see a stalemate at all,  but obviously that's because I'm willfully choosing not to believe.

[Ahab]

"Irrational" isn't inherently bad. It often compensates for or offsets the damage of poorly developed or executed rational processes, so that doesn't necessarily point to a lack of choice.

Which gets back to the main point: you simply may not know that you are able to control what seems to be true to you. But you can, which is why you've admittedly talked yourself into believing things that you've sensed on another level are not true.

Whether or not something is true is only one of the factors people consider when choosing whether or not to believe something. And for many people, at least sometimes, it's really not what matters the most, with people often voluntarily choosing to believe something that is not true. Fictional stories, for example, at least while they immerse themselves in the story.

So why else do people choose to believe things, even if only for a brief moment in time, even if those things are not true?

Because they like what they believe. Even sometimes while they don't really care if what they believe is true or not true.

[CV75]

I could only talk myself into believing something when I wasn't aware I was doing it, though. Now that I'm aware if I'm trying to do that (at least I think I am!) I can't talk myself into believing something that seems untrue. 

LOL—that just means you’ve passed one point of having made a choice to believe, and are still choosing to believe the next thing!

 

The unspoken assumption, I gather, is that there is plenty of evidence in favor of LDS truth claims, so given the "evidentiary stalemate," it really does come down to a simple choice to believe. Of course, I don't see a stalemate at all,  but obviously that's because I'm willfully choosing not to believe.

Oh, I’ve been trying to avoid insinuating assumptions about that because it has nothing to do with choosing to believe in principle. But yes, we are simply choosing what to believe (or not)!

 

Whether or not something is true is only one of the factors people consider when choosing whether or not to believe something. And for many people, at least sometimes, it's really not what matters the most, with people often voluntarily choosing to believe something that is not true. Fictional stories, for example, at least while they immerse themselves in the story.

So why else do people choose to believe things, even if only for a brief moment in time, even if those things are not true?

Because they like what they believe. Even sometimes while they don't really care if what they believe is true or not true.

Yep, or they fear the alternative—happens in romantic relationships all the time! LOL

[BlahBlahBlah]

Unless one is chosen and called, one simply will not respond to the Gospel. So if you have no desire to seek Jesus, perhaps you're not one of the elect.

 

Rom 8:28We know that all things work together for good for those who love God, to those who are called according to his purpose. 29For whom he foreknew, he also predestined to be conformed to the image of his Son, that he might be the firstborn among many brothers. 30Whom he predestined, those he also called. Whom he called, those he also justified. Whom he justified, those he also glorified.

 

2 Cor 4:3Even if our Good News is veiled, it is veiled in those who perish; 4in whom the god of this world has blinded the minds of the unbelieving, that the light of the Good News of the glory of Christ, who is the image of God, should not dawn on them.

 

Clearly, not all are saved.

 

I find it disappointing that the talk did not mention having faith in Jesus Christ, but rather simply encouraged belief. But, belief in what?

 

Considering the fact that the Internet has opened the door to much controversy surrounding the LDS faith, I think the intention perhaps is to implant the notion that it's all about believing what you are told, rather than in Jesus Christ. Note the incidence of the young man who was chided for relying on "his own" understanding and intellect.

 

Who's understanding and intellect should he have been loyal to instead of his own?

[Gray]

LOL—that just means you’ve passed one point of having made a choice to believe, and are still choosing to believe the next thing!

 

 

 

 

That's not been my experience. If there is any choice being made, it is unconscious, which means it's involuntary.

 

I can only speak for myself, of course. 

[lowroom]

I think the inherent message Elder U was trying to convey was to give room for uncertainty.  Do not be so certain about your doubts.  Do not make hard fast conclusions.  Acknowledge that your perception is fallible and may change in time.  Make room in your heart for that possibility.  Do not give yourself fully to doubt.  Question your doubts.  He made a simple catchphrase to portray that message without realizing the implications perhaps.  That's what I think anyway. 

 

The problem here is that knife HAS to cut both ways so you are inherently creating doubt.  If I acknowledge that my perception is fallible and may change in time what does that mean for my faith OR my doubts.  By the way I 100% agree with that premise.  My conclusions are suspect, my perception is biased and cannot be relied on, ultimately it will change in time.  Those are the reasons I have ever HAD doubts

[Ahab]

That's not been my experience. If there is any choice being made, it is unconscious, which means it's involuntary.

I can only speak for myself, of course.

That is simply what you choose to believe in light of any other choices you are aware of and are willing to consider.

And ypu can continue in that line of thought all day every day of the year if you want to.

I'll say that's the way it is and you'll say something like "oh No it is not!" as you continue to choose this line of thought that you would rather believe because you believe you are making the right choice by believing what you are choosing to believe.

[Bobbieaware]

Not exactly. "Doubt your doubts" is an un-ending loop. You doubt the original doubt, but then on examination you must doubt that doubt and so on. If every doubt should be doubted as a method of understanding truth and light does not progress you beyond a stage of continuous doubt.

It's only an unending loop if the individual in question no longer possess at least some residual vibrancy of testimony that the Restored Gospel is true. If you"re talking about someone who once had a testimony but no longer believes the Church is true, then we're talking about the need for reconversion and not the preservation of a still-existing testimony. President Uchtdorf was addressing those members of the Church who still have a some remaining genuine testimony that the Church is true but who may simultaneously have troubling concerns about certain doctrines or specific issues of Church history. Your unending loop only pertains to those who once had a testimony but now have so much doubt that the doubt overcomes any remaining spiritual witness so that there is no longer any room at all for belief. The father in the New Testament who said "Lord I believe, help thou mine unbelief" had some authentic spiritually inspired belief

mingled with some residual doubt; but those who doubt so much that they are no longer able to truly believe have to start all over again -- and if that's the case, President Uchtdorf's counsel no longer applies.

Edited October 8, 2015 by Bobbieaware

[pogi]

The problem here is that knife HAS to cut both ways so you are inherently creating doubt.  If I acknowledge that my perception is fallible and may change in time what does that mean for my faith OR my doubts.  By the way I 100% agree with that premise.  My conclusions are suspect, my perception is biased and cannot be relied on, ultimately it will change in time.  Those are the reasons I have ever HAD doubts

 

I disagree that it inherently creates "doubt".  If you go back and read my comparison of doubt and open/honest uncertainty, you will see that there is a difference.  I do agree that uncertainty cuts both ways however.  One must always keep an open mind, else they are subject to "blind faith".

 

Faith and doubt cannot co-exist; faith and uncertainty can. 

[churchistrue]

Here's my take on the subject.  http://www.churchistrue.com/blog/belief-as-choice/

[Ahab]

Faith and doubt cannot co-exist; faith and uncertainty can.

Not in the same thing at the same time.

Faith is basically all about being sure or certain of something, whatever a person has faith in. The thing they have faith in doesn't have to be true, necessarily. It's just the condition or state of being sure or certain of something. Faith from God helps us to be sure of what he is sure of, and assurances from others can help us to be sure of what they are sure of too, but we have to choose to accept someone's assurances before we will be sure of the same things. Otherwise it is just listening to what someone else is telling us without letting their assurances affect us and become what we are sure of too.

[Gray]

That is simply what you choose to believe in light of any other choices you are aware of and are willing to consider.

And ypu can continue in that line of thought all day every day of the year if you want to.

I'll say that's the way it is and you'll say something like "oh No it is not!" as you continue to choose this line of thought that you would rather believe because you believe you are making the right choice by believing what you are choosing to believe.

 

Well, I can only tell you what I've experienced. Maybe your brain works differently. Can you choose to believe in anything you like? 

Edited October 8, 2015 by Gray

[Ahab]

Well, I can only tell you what I've experienced. Maybe your brain works differently. Can you choose to believe in anything you like?

Yes, and you can too.

But you can choose to not believe that.

[pogi]

Not in the same thing at the same time.

Faith is basically all about being sure or certain of something, whatever a person has faith in. The thing they have faith in doesn't have to be true, necessarily.

 

Faith and uncertainty, by definition, co-exist:

 

And now as I said concerning faith—faith is not to have a perfect knowledge of things; therefore if ye have faith ye hope for things which are not seen, which are true (Alma 32:21).

 

And now, I, Moroni, would speak somewhat concerning these things; I would show unto the world that faith is things which are hoped for and not seen; wherefore, dispute not because ye see not, for ye receive no witness until after the trial of your faith (Ether 12:6).

 

Faith is action based hope in things which are true.  There is no "certainty" in hope. 

 

assurances from others can help us to be sure of what they are sure of too, but we have to choose to accept someone's assurances before we will be sure of the same things.

 

 

Are you conflating certainty with trust?

Edited October 8, 2015 by pogi

[pogi]

Yes, and you can too.

But you can choose to not believe that.

 

What is the point in establishing that belief is a choice?  Even if that were true, it is not helpful to the discussion as no one will believe in things that they perceive as false, even if they in theory, could.  To do so is dishonest and fruitless.  It does not, and cannot, have the power necessary to drive action, which gives birth to faith.  It is like trying to serve two masters!

Edited October 8, 2015 by pogi