The Last Stage of Apologetics: It's your fault.

[MiserereNobis]

22 minutes ago, smac97 said:

I'd like to understand this better.  Could you give me an example?

If reason and evidence lead me to reach a conclusion, I can "believe" something without unequivocally knowing it.  But I still think there is choice involved there.

Example: Were the moon landings real or a hoax?  For me, the evidence overwhelmingly weighs in favor of "real," so much so that I think this is beyond reasonable dispute.  But do I "know" the landings were real, do I or simply "believe" it?

I agree that there is some choice involved, but it is much more complex. The point I'm trying to make is if belief were simply a matter of choice then one could pick an idea and choose to believe or not believe it. However, I think beliefs are intertwined with each other which makes it difficult to choose to believe or not a single one. For example, I cannot right now simply choose to be an atheist, because I cannot single out my belief in God. In my web of belief, my belief in God is tangled up with lots of other beliefs, such as my beliefs in all of my spiritual experiences, my beliefs in other's experiences, my beliefs in my rational thinking and study and the conclusions that came from there, etc. (side note: I'm having that experience when a word is repeated over and over and it starts to sound really strange. Belief is the weirdest word to me right now, ha).

To use your example about the moon landings, I cannot right now choose to disbelieve them because that would contradict a lot of my beliefs concerning NASA and the government, the people involved, pictures, videos, etc.

When someone "chooses" to believe something, there are a lot other beliefs that they have slowly accepted to lead to that point. Likewise, when someone chooses to disbelieve something, there are a lot of other beliefs that they have slowly discarded. While there is some choice in there, there is also the influence of all the other beliefs.

My point was probably more of a philosophical one than an important one, but I think it is a good middle ground between "You had a choice" and "I didn't have a choice." The idea of a web of belief (credits to W.V.O. Quine) allows both of those statements to be true.

[smac97]

35 minutes ago, MiserereNobis said:

I agree that there is some choice involved, but it is much more complex. 

I acknowledge that.  "Some choice involved" was my point, not that there are no other factors involved.

Quote

The point I'm trying to make is if belief were simply a matter of choice then one could pick an idea and choose to believe or not believe it.

My point is not that belief is "simply a matter of choice," but that it is instead "ultimately a matter of choice."

Quote

However, I think beliefs are intertwined with each other which makes it difficult to choose to believe or not a single one. For example, I cannot right now simply choose to be an atheist, because I cannot single out my belief in God. In my web of belief, my belief in God is tangled up with lots of other beliefs, such as my beliefs in all of my spiritual experiences, my beliefs in other's experiences, my beliefs in my rational thinking and study and the conclusions that came from there, etc. (side note: I'm having that experience when a word is repeated over and over and it starts to sound really strange. Belief is the weirdest word to me right now, ha).

I'm right there with you.  Here's what I said previously: "Rejection of the Restored Gospel is not a foregone conclusion (neither is acceptance/retention of it).  It's a matter of choice.  What informs that choice varies from person to person, but at the end . . . it's a choice."

Quote

To use your example about the moon landings, I cannot right now choose to disbelieve them because that would contradict a lot of my beliefs concerning NASA and the government, the people involved, pictures, videos, etc.

Yep.

Quote

When someone "chooses" to believe something, there are a lot other beliefs that they have slowly accepted to lead to that point. Likewise, when someone chooses to disbelieve something, there are a lot of other beliefs that they have slowly discarded. While there is some choice in there, there is also the influence of all the other beliefs.

My point was probably more of a philosophical one than an important one, but I think it is a good middle ground between "You had a choice" and "I didn't have a choice." The idea of a web of belief (credits to W.V.O. Quine) allows both of those statements to be true.

Thanks for this reference.  I'll look into it.

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited May 18, 2018 by smac97

[pogi]

 

The idea that we can choose any belief we want, any time, is called extreme doxastic voluntarism.  This view is false.  I cannot choose to believe in superman, for example.   

Limited doxastic voluntarism, suggests that only SOME of our beliefs are under our voluntary control - things that are not obviously true or obviously false to us.

There is also a distinction between direct and indirect doxastic voluntarism.  Indirect suggests that we can take and direct intermediary steps needed to change beliefs.  I think that our beliefs are the result of both limited direct and indirect doxastic voluntarism. 

We may not be able to directly choose all of our beliefs, but we can guide them along the way, directly or indirectly.  At the core of all belief is uncertainty.  If you give room for that, there are foundational belief choices that we can make to guide our belief in Deity.  Of course, that would require a desire first (Alma 32).  

[ttribe]

2 hours ago, smac97 said:

Okay.  I get that as a preliminary, knee-jerk response.  If that reaction abides, however, it becomes a choice.

I go through this all the time on this board.  I really take my faith seriously.  Some people on this board say insulting and profane things about matters which I hold near and dear to my heart, and which I hold to be sacred.  Sometimes my immediate response is irritation, and I act accordingly.  Often, however, I contemplate what is being said and try to get past the initial response (irrigation, anger, etc.) and into a more measured and reasoned one.  I choose my response.

I am sorry to hear about these things.  

You have never met me, don't know me, and don't know what struggles and challenges I have faced in life.

With respect, I ask that you calm down.  My remarks were very general.  I wasn't passing judgment on anyone, let alone you in particular.

You have taken offense at what I said, even though I didn't reference you, and wasn't responding to you.  What you are doing here is . . . a choice.  I ask that you reconsider that choice.  Look at my remarks again (including these and these and these), with special emphasis on these:

I am specifically and expressly acknowledging, over and over again, that reasonable minds can disagree about the truth claims of Mormonism.  That is the very epitome of not passing judgment on those who have reached conclusions different from my own.  Can you see that?

Again, I ask you to re-read my remarks, including this:

I can't (and haven't, and won't) speak to your personal experiences (other than to acknowledge that they may have varied substantially from my own).  I don't know you.  I have no stewardship over you.  If I were to speak about your experiences, it would be based on ignorance.

But if you are suggesting that acceptance or rejection of the Restored Gospel is not a choice, that rejection of it is a necessarily foregone conclusion (akin to 2+2=4), that reasonable minds cannot disagree about the truth claims of the LDS Church, that the only plausible and rational conclusion about such things is yours, and that anyone and everyone who disagrees with you about is deluded and/or stupid, well . . . I'll have to disagree with you about that.

Again, I think that reasonable minds can disagree about the validity of the truth claims of the LDS Church.  Do you?

Thanks,

-Smac

 

First, for your own sake, please do not patronize me by telling me to "calm down." That makes you look extremely arrogant.

Second, I have no problem with anyone who maintains belief.  I've never said otherwise.

Third, my objections are twofold: 1) any notion that I "didn't want" to maintain belief is utterly false.  I built a life based on my belief in the Church and its teachings.  The last thing I wanted was to see that fall apart.  2) The implication that by no longer "choosing" to believe I am acting in a state of deliberate rebellion is equally false.  I tried for more than a year to actively tell myself every day that I could and did still believe.  It was completely exhausting and led to very dark places in my mind.  I didn't choose for that to happen to me.

[smac97]

Just now, ttribe said:

First, for your own sake, please do not patronize me by telling me to "calm down." That makes you look extremely arrogant.

I had initially written "Get a grip," but that seemed a tad brusque, so I went for civility and politeness instead.

You are taking offense where not was intended (or objectively given).  You are personalizing this thread.  You falsely accused me of "pass[ing] judgment" on you.  You are ignoring genuined attempts at civility ("I am sorry to hear about these things").  Perhaps you could not do these things.  (That's not "arrogance," just a request for civility.)

Just now, ttribe said:

Second, I have no problem with anyone who maintains belief.  I've never said otherwise.

Good to know.

Just now, ttribe said:

Third, my objections are twofold: 1) any notion that I "didn't want" to maintain belief is utterly false. 

You are again falsely attributing statements to me.  I have said nothing about you.  I have said nothing about what you "want[ed]" or "didn't want."

Just now, ttribe said:

2) The implication that by no longer "choosing" to believe I am acting in a state of deliberate rebellion is equally false. 

You are again falsely attributing statements to me.  I have said nothing about you being "in a state of deliberate rebellion."  I have not implied that, either.

Just now, ttribe said:

I tried for more than a year to actively tell myself every day that I could and did still believe.  It was completely exhausting and led to very dark places in my mind.  I didn't choose for that to happen to me.

Again, I can't (and haven't, and won't) speak to your personal experiences (other than to acknowledge that they may have varied substantially from my own).  I don't know you.  I have no stewardship over you.  If I were to speak about your experiences, it would be based on ignorance.

But if you are suggesting that acceptance or rejection of the Restored Gospel is not a choice, that rejection of it is a necessarily foregone conclusion (akin to 2+2=4), that reasonable minds cannot disagree about the truth claims of the LDS Church, that the only plausible and rational conclusion about such things is yours, and that anyone and everyone who disagrees with you about is deluded and/or stupid, well . . . I'll have to disagree with you about that.

Again, I think that reasonable minds can disagree about the validity of the truth claims of the LDS Church.  Do you?

Thanks,

-Smac

[ttribe]

1 minute ago, smac97 said:

I had initially written "Get a grip," but that seemed a tad brusque, so I went for civility and politeness instead.

You are taking offense where not was intended (or objectively given).  You are personalizing this thread.  You falsely accused me of "pass[ing] judgment" on you.  You are ignoring genuined attempts at civility ("I am sorry to hear about these things").  Perhaps you could not do these things.  (That's not "arrogance," just a request for civility.)

Good to know.

You are again falsely attributing statements to me.  I have said nothing about you.  I have said nothing about what you "want[ed]" or "didn't want."

You are again falsely attributing statements to me.  I have said nothing about you being "in a state of deliberate rebellion."  I have not implied that, either.

Again, I can't (and haven't, and won't) speak to your personal experiences (other than to acknowledge that they may have varied substantially from my own).  I don't know you.  I have no stewardship over you.  If I were to speak about your experiences, it would be based on ignorance.

But if you are suggesting that acceptance or rejection of the Restored Gospel is not a choice, that rejection of it is a necessarily foregone conclusion (akin to 2+2=4), that reasonable minds cannot disagree about the truth claims of the LDS Church, that the only plausible and rational conclusion about such things is yours, and that anyone and everyone who disagrees with you about is deluded and/or stupid, well . . . I'll have to disagree with you about that.

Again, I think that reasonable minds can disagree about the validity of the truth claims of the LDS Church.  Do you?

Thanks,

-Smac

Wow...I cannot understand why this is hard for you.

I NEVER SAID SOMEONE COULDN'T REACH A DIFFERENT CONCLUSION THAN ME.  NEVER. SAID. IT.  I'm simply trying to communicate that the circumstances that led to the demise of my testimony were NOT a matter of choice.  Ultimately, I DECIDED I couldn't maintain belief, but the circumstances leading up to reaching that conclusion were not all a series of choices.

As to the "want to believe" thing, if you actually go back and look at my first post on this issue, I was responding to Rongo about that.  You just jumped in and suggested that EVERYONE (which, by default, includes me) who leaves chose to not believe in response to his comment.

I'm glad you are able to maintain belief.  I wish I could have done the same.  I'm simply asking, no...begging, for you and others to stop using language that suggests all of us who lost belief did so because we wanted to, or chose to disbelieve as if it were in the same vein as the fact that I also chose to have Eggos for breakfast this morning.  Your language trivializes the struggle of people like me.

[smac97]

25 minutes ago, ttribe said:

Wow...I cannot understand why this is hard for you.

I'll listen, then.  No need for incivility.

Quote

I NEVER SAID SOMEONE COULDN'T REACH A DIFFERENT CONCLUSION THAN ME.  NEVER. SAID. IT. 

Good.  Thanks for the clarification.  No need to shout.

Quote

I'm simply trying to communicate that the circumstances that led to the demise of my testimony were NOT a matter of choice. 

Understood.  For the third time: I can't (and haven't, and won't) speak to your personal experiences (other than to acknowledge that they may have varied substantially from my own).  I don't know you.  I have no stewardship over you.  If I were to speak about your experiences, it would be based on ignorance.

Quote

Ultimately, I DECIDED I couldn't maintain belief, but the circumstances leading up to reaching that conclusion were not all a series of choices.

So . . . you chose.  You made a decision.  That was exactly the point I made, which you said makes you "furious."  Let's recap a bit...

I previously said:

Quote

Perhaps the better phrase would be "It's your own choice if you don't believe."

That's pretty hard to dispute.

And this:

Quote

Rejection of the Restored Gospel is not a foregone conclusion (neither is acceptance/retention of it).  It's a matter of choice.  What informs that choice varies from person to person, but at the end . . . it's a choice."

You responded:

Quote

I'm sorry, but this just makes me furious.

But now you are saying:

Quote

Ultimately, I DECIDED I couldn't maintain belief, but the circumstances leading up to reaching that conclusion were not all a series of choices.

Your "Ultimately, I decided" statement sounds quite similar to my "at the end ... it's a choice" statement.  And yet my statement made you - as you put it - "furious."

I won't try to placate or apologize to you anymore, since you seem bound and determined to take offense.  But perhaps you can understand why I am having difficulty understanding your position.

Quote

As to the "want to believe" thing, if you actually go back and look at my first post on this issue, I was responding to Rongo about that. 

I know, but you seemed to conflate his post with mine (you quoted both Rongo's post and mine and then wrote a consolidated response to both).

Quote

You just jumped in and suggested that EVERYONE (which, by default, includes me) who leaves chose to not believe in response to his comment.

CFR, please.  Chapter and verse.  

Quote

I'm glad you are able to maintain belief.  I wish I could have done the same.  I'm simply asking, no...begging, for you and others to stop using language that suggests all of us who lost belief did so because we wanted to, or chose to disbelieve as if it were in the same vein as the fact that I also chose to have Eggos for breakfast this morning.  Your language trivializes the struggle of people like me.

What "language that suggests?"  Please point it out.

I'm not looking to offend you.  Honest.  But your hostility is not helpful or needed.  Is there a way I can propose/request civility without being accused of being "arrogant?"

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited May 18, 2018 by smac97

[ttribe]

6 minutes ago, smac97 said:

I'll listen, then.  No need for incivility.

Good.  Thanks for the clarification.  No need to shout.

Understood.  For the third time: I can't (and haven't, and won't) speak to your personal experiences (other than to acknowledge that they may have varied substantially from my own).  I don't know you.  I have no stewardship over you.  If I were to speak about your experiences, it would be based on ignorance.

So . . . you chose.  You made a decision.  That was exactly the point I made, which you said makes you "furious."  Let's recap a bit...

I previously said:

And this:

You responded:

But now you are saying:

Your "Ultimately, I decided" statement sounds quite similar to my "at the end ... it's a choice" statement.  And yet my statement made you - as you put it - "furious."

I won't try to placate or apologize to you anymore, since you seem bound and determined to take offense.  But perhaps you can understand why I am having difficulty understanding your position.

I know, but you seemed to conflate his post with mine (you quoted both Rongo's post and mine and then wrote a consolidated response to both).

CFR, please.  Chapter and verse.  

What "language that suggests?"  Please point it out.

I'm not looking to offend you.  Honest.  But your hostility is not helpful or needed.  Is there a way I can propose/request civility without being accused of being "arrogant?"

Thanks,

-Smac

I'm getting on the road to go on a weekend drive with a car club to try to forget the state my life is in.  I was simply trying to point out that the final decision may be a choice, but that the circumstances that got me there were not.  A little empathy for someone who has lost something precious would have gone a long way in this conversation.

As to your CFR, I refer you back to your response to rongo; how is a universal statement that everyone who disbelieves chose that result not applicable to everyone?

[smac97]

1 minute ago, ttribe said:

I'm getting on the road to go on a weekend drive with a car club to try to forget the state my life is in. 

I'm sorry to hear that you are having difficulties.  Honest.  

1 minute ago, ttribe said:

I was simply trying to point out that the final decision may be a choice, but that the circumstances that got me there were not. 

I acknowledge that.  I addressed this: "Rejection of the Restored Gospel is not a foregone conclusion (neither is acceptance/retention of it).  It's a matter of choice.  What informs that choice varies from person to person, but at the end . . . it's a choice."

Do you disagree with this statement?  It seems quite similar to yours.

1 minute ago, ttribe said:

A little empathy for someone who has lost something precious would have gone a long way in this conversation.

So would a bit more civility, and a bit less presumption.  I am specifically and expressly acknowledging, over and over again, that reasonable minds can disagree about the truth claims of Mormonism.  That is the very epitome of not passing judgment on those who have reached conclusions different from my own.  Can you see that?

Take a look again at what I have written:

Me: "There are plenty of rational, intelligent, informed people who accept the truth claims of the LDS Church.  And there are plenty of such people who do not."
Me: "I am sorry to hear about these things."
Me: "With respect, I ask that you calm down.  My remarks were very general.  I wasn't passing judgment on anyone, let alone you in particular."
Me: "I am specifically and expressly acknowledging, over and over again, that reasonable minds can disagree about the truth claims of Mormonism.  That is the very epitome of not passing judgment on those who have reached conclusions different from my own."
Me: "But the truth claims of the LDS Church are not demonstrably untrue (or true).  They are open for reasonable debate."
Me: "My point is not that belief is 'simply a matter of choice,' but that it is instead 'ultimately a matter of choice.'"
Me: "I think that reasonable minds can disagree about the validity of the truth claims of the LDS Church.  Do you?"
Me: "I can't (and haven't, and won't) speak to your personal experiences (other than to acknowledge that they may have varied substantially from my own).  I don't know you.  I have no stewardship over you.  If I were to speak about your experiences, it would be based on ignorance."

I am characterizing people like you as "rational, intelligent, [and] informed."

I have expressed sympathy for your difficulties.

I have expressed respect for your feelings.

I have acknowledged, repeatedly, that "reasonable minds can disagree about the truth claims of Mormonism."

I have acknowledged that the truth claims of the LDS Church "are open for reasonable debate."

I have declined to speak to your personal experiences, or to judge  or condemn you.

1 minute ago, ttribe said:

As to your CFR, I refer you back to your response to rongo; how is a universal statement that everyone who disbelieves chose that result not applicable to everyone?

I haven't responded to Rongo.  I responded to CA Steve's paraphrase of Rongo.  CA Steve said:

Quote

Sorry Rongo but this is just a fancy way of saying it's your own fault if you don't believe.  

I found that characterization a bit off, so I responded:

Quote

Perhaps the better phrase would be "It's your own choice if you don't believe."

That's pretty hard to dispute.

...

I acknowledge that.  But loss of faith is not the only option.  There are plenty of rational, intelligent, informed people who accept the truth claims of the LDS Church.  And there are plenty of such people who do not.  The difference between these two groups is . . . their choices.

...

Rejection of the Restored Gospel is not a foregone conclusion (neither is acceptance/retention of it).  It's a matter of choice.  What informs that choice varies from person to person, but at the end . . . it's a choice.

So you are objecting to me making "a universal statement that everyone who disbelieves chose that result," when my statement actually was that "It's a matter of choice.  What informs that choice varies from person to person, but at the end . . . it's a choice."  This sounds a lot like your statement: "Ultimately, I DECIDED I couldn't maintain belief, but the circumstances leading up to reaching that conclusion were not all a series of choices."'

Me: "At the end ... it's a choice..."
You: "Ultimately, I DECIDED..."

Me: "What informs that choice varies from person to person..."
You: "The circumstances leading up to reaching that conclusion were not all a series of choices..."

Honestly, it sounds like we are saying pretty much the same thing.

Thanks,

-Smac 

[Scott Lloyd]

9 hours ago, Calm said:

Not everyone experiences despair in the same way.  Probably no one does given the variety of life.  I don't think anyone can know the full complexity of motivations for beliefs and choices, especially when it involves the emotions we prefer not to bring into the light because it hurts too much.

 And since many, many choices are made without realizing it, if one thinks of choices as planned decisions, I can understand why they wouldn't say "they chose to believe" while those who think of choice as anytime we are given something to respond to, they would see choice being made every time we act because that action is a choice to act.

-----

 When I say I chose my belief, what I mean is every choice I've ever made has led me to where I am in the here and now.  That means everything that I am is because I have chosen, every belief follows from choice. But I cannot accurately say I chose my beliefs, but rather my beliefs came to me because I opened the path to them through my choices without realizing in most cases.   My choice for my belief is not one choice at one time, but all the tiny myriad of butterfly choices whirling around each other that nudged me here and there, pulled the covers off of new and old ideas so I could see what they meant to me, showed me what was important to me...

not sure if this makes sense, eyes are finally fading...so may finish the thought later.

It makes perfect sense to me.

Whether to believe ultimately is not one grand decision held in abeyance until a final day of reckoning, but rather is the result of myriad choices made over time, often unconsciously. Choices about what material to read, view or listen to, about what weight to give this or that piece of evidence over another, whether to entertain or sustain an attitude of faultfinding, whether to trust or esteem this or that adviser or counselor or teacher or writer, simply how one spends one's time -- all of these are matters of choice, and they go into the ultimate result of whether or not one believes.

Edited May 18, 2018 by Scott Lloyd

[Stormin' Mormon]

5 hours ago, Reuben said:

"Walk away or walk by faith" is a divisive and dismissive false dichotomy.

I walked away and I still walk by faith. My new faith suits me better, not in a way that allows me to give in to every desire, but in a way that allows me to grow. I assume your faith does the same for you.

The Brethren use exactly this false dichotomy all the time - for example, it's the central assumption in Elder Ballard's "To Whom Shall We Go?" - so believing members need to be extra careful to not follow suit.

I agree that the wording is simplistic.  It would be more accurate to say "walk away from the truth claims of the LDS church or walk by faith in the truth claims of the LDS church" but that would have been less punchy.  I apologize if I gave cause for offense.

[Stormin' Mormon]

Some years back, I passed through a period of months and years of intense questioning and doubt.  I'm not sure I'd characterize it as a "crisis of faith" but it was certainly developing in that direction.  A turning point for me was reading these words from Teryl Givens (and similar thoughts that he shared in his Open Letter to a Doubter):
 

Quote

 

"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. "

https://www.fairmormon.org/testimonies/scholars/terryl-l-givens

 

And I realized that I WANTED the truth claims of the LDS church to be true.  I WANT to spend eternity with my family.  I WANT an infinite and eternal atonement to pay the price of my sins.  I WANT to be a beloved child of God.   

I am sympathetic to those who faced the same terrible calculus that I did and came up with a different answer than I did.   But for me, what turned my exit narrative into a retention narrative was a conscious choice that I made at a critical moment. 

Since that time, that choice has been validated by spiritual promptings, experiences, and confirmations.  These days, I teach early-morning seminary and my confidence in the Gospel of Christ and the truth claims of the LDS church are more rock-solid than any time since coming home from my mission (20 years ago, next month). 

[smac97]

18 minutes ago, Stormin' Mormon said:

Some years back, I passed through a period of months and years of intense questioning and doubt.  I'm not sure I'd characterize it as a "crisis of faith" but it was certainly developing in that direction.  A turning point for me was reading these words from Teryl Givens (and similar thoughts that he shared in his Open Letter to a Doubter):

Quote

"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. "

https://www.fairmormon.org/testimonies/scholars/terryl-l-givens

And I realized that I WANTED the truth claims of the LDS church to be true.  I WANT to spend eternity with my family.  I WANT an infinite and eternal atonement to pay the price of my sins.  I WANT to be a beloved child of God.   

I wonder if members of the Church have inadvertedly clouded this issue, namely, "that faith is a choice."  Fervent, declaratory "I know this church is true"-type testimonies, for example, used to make me feel a bit inferior.  I thought things like "Hmm.  Everyone seems to 'know' these things, and I don't.  I believe these things are true, I hope these things are true, but I don't really 'know' them to be true.  What's wrong with me?"

Once I perceived that faith was a choice, things got better.  Once I allowed myself to make that choice, to choose to believe, to hope and want to believe, I overcame the inadvertent insecurity/inferiority complex I had sort of developed.  It was . . . liberating.

And with prayer and scripture study and hard work came . . . promptings.  They didn't come every time.  They didn't always come on cue.  They varied in type and intensity and duration.  But they came.  

And then came more extenstive study. Research.  Debate.  More study.  More effort.  My faith, previously a matter of hope and choice and obedience and effort and patience, became more informed and resolute.

18 minutes ago, Stormin' Mormon said:

I am sympathetic to those who faced the same terrible calculus that I did and came up with a different answer than I did.   But for me, what turned my exit narrative into a retention narrative was a conscious choice that I made at a critical moment. 

I also understand that people can, and do, come to different conclusions than you and I have.  

18 minutes ago, Stormin' Mormon said:

Since that time, that choice has been validated by spiritual promptings, experiences, and confirmations. 

Yes, there does seem to be a progression.  It can start with a "desire to believe" per Alma 32:27, then a seed, then "swelling motions" (v. 28), then "faith," then strengthening of faith through obedience and service and repentance and persistence, then, per D&C 50:24, "he that receiveth light, and continueth in God, receiveth more light; and that light groweth brighter and brighter until the perfect day."

Thanks,

-Smac 

[Stormin' Mormon]

4 minutes ago, smac97 said:

I wonder if members of the Church have inadvertedly clouded this issue, namely, "that faith is a choice."  Fervent, declaratory "I know this church is true"-type testimonies, for example, used to make me feel a bit inferior.  I thought things like "Hmm.  Everyone seems to 'know' these things, and I don't.  I believe these things are true, I hope these things are true, but I don't really 'know' them to be true.  What's wrong with me?"

Once I perceived that faith was a choice, things got better.  Once I allowed myself to make that choice, to choose to believe, to hope and want to believe, I overcame the inadvertent insecurity/inferiority complex I had sort of developed.  It was . . . liberating.

And with prayer and scripture study and hard work came . . . promptings.  They didn't come every time.  They didn't always come on cue.  They varied in type and intensity and duration.  But they came.  

And then came more extenstive study. Research.  Debate.  More study.  More effort.  My faith, previously a matter of hope and choice and obedience and effort and patience, became more informed and resolute.

 

My feelings (and experience) exactly.  Thanks.

I don't post often because I labor and sweat over every post, while others seem to be able to express what I want to say much more effortlessly than I.  I usually sit back and let others do the hard work of posting, while I sit in ease and think "ditto."  Much easier that way.  I've made an exception today because this is a topic that is near and dear to my heart.

[Exiled]

5 hours ago, ttribe said:

Wow...I cannot understand why this is hard for you.

I NEVER SAID SOMEONE COULDN'T REACH A DIFFERENT CONCLUSION THAN ME.  NEVER. SAID. IT.  I'm simply trying to communicate that the circumstances that led to the demise of my testimony were NOT a matter of choice.  Ultimately, I DECIDED I couldn't maintain belief, but the circumstances leading up to reaching that conclusion were not all a series of choices.

As to the "want to believe" thing, if you actually go back and look at my first post on this issue, I was responding to Rongo about that.  You just jumped in and suggested that EVERYONE (which, by default, includes me) who leaves chose to not believe in response to his comment.

I'm glad you are able to maintain belief.  I wish I could have done the same.  I'm simply asking, no...begging, for you and others to stop using language that suggests all of us who lost belief did so because we wanted to, or chose to disbelieve as if it were in the same vein as the fact that I also chose to have Eggos for breakfast this morning.  Your language trivializes the struggle of people like me.

Having to choose to believe seems opposite of how it should be.  It should be more akin to gravity or some other physical law where one's opinion or emotional state does not make a difference as to whether belief happens or not.  An astronomer doesn't bear his testimony about planetary orbits or relativity.  Those phenomena exist independent of whether or not one chooses to believe or not.  God hides and then punishes, supposedly, when we don't seek him out as he hides.  Seems illogical to me but it is my fault for not choosing to believe this.

[jpv]

4 hours ago, Stormin' Mormon said:

My feelings (and experience) exactly.  Thanks.

I don't post often because I labor and sweat over every post, while others seem to be able to express what I want to say much more effortlessly than I.  I usually sit back and let others do the hard work of posting, while I sit in ease and think "ditto."  Much easier that way.  I've made an exception today because this is a topic that is near and dear to my heart.

Thank you sincerely for you contribution; it is very meaningful.

[Ryan Dahle]

On 5/18/2018 at 5:20 PM, Exiled said:

Having to choose to believe seems opposite of how it should be.  It should be more akin to gravity or some other physical law where one's opinion or emotional state does not make a difference as to whether belief happens or not.  An astronomer doesn't bear his testimony about planetary orbits or relativity.  Those phenomena exist independent of whether or not one chooses to believe or not.  God hides and then punishes, supposedly, when we don't seek him out as he hides.  Seems illogical to me but it is my fault for not choosing to believe this.

I have been thinking about this thread over the weekend. I personally believe very strongly in the Restoration of the gospel. The doctrinal, historical, and social concerns that tend to bother some people are just not that bothersome or faith-deterring to me.

There seems to be a lot of variation in how people, who once believed, end up disbelieving the foundational truth claims of the LDS religion. I certainly accept that there are some, apparently like yourself, who very much want to believe but who just can't force their minds to do it. For example, even if I tried very hard to choose to believe that the sun didn't rise yesterday, I don't think that I could do it. It may be true that technically I have a choice to believe or not to believe, but it is also true that some things seem so self-evident to our minds that the idea of belief being a choice seems inaccurate on some level or another. It appears that is what you are getting at in your discussion of natural phenomena.

I guess I would like to better understand the perspective of those who more or less fit into your category--those who just can't muster up belief in major LDS truth claims, no matter how much they want it. If you don't mind, I'm curious as to what process you personally went through in weighing and balancing evidences, pro and con, for the Restoration. Did you apply some sort of methodical approach? Or was it sort of just intuitive judgments based on meandering sampling of evidences? Or something else? I'm not really out to change your mind or debate about whether or not your method is a valid approach. I'm just genuinely interested in understanding your perspective. 

 

Edited May 21, 2018 by Ryan Dahle

[ttribe]

2 hours ago, Ryan Dahle said:

I have been thinking about this thread over the weekend. I personally believe very strongly in the Restoration of the gospel. The doctrinal, historical, and social concerns that tend to bother some people are just not that bothersome or faith-deterring to me.

There seems to be a lot of variation in how people, who once believed, end up disbelieving the foundational truth claims of the LDS religion. I certainly accept that there are some, apparently like yourself, who very much want to believe but who just can't force their minds to do it. For example, even if I tried very hard to choose to believe that the sun didn't rise yesterday, I don't think that I could do it. It may be true that technically I have a choice to believe or not to believe, but it is also true that some things seem so self-evident to our minds that the idea of belief being a choice seems inaccurate on some level or another. It appears that is what you are getting at in your discussion of natural phenomena.

I guess I would like to better understand the perspective of those who more or less fit into your category--those who just can't muster up belief in major LDS truth claims, no matter how much they want it. If you don't mind, I'm curious as to what process you personally went through in weighing and balancing evidences, pro and con, for the Restoration. Did you apply some sort of methodical approach? Or was it sort of just intuitive judgments based on meandering sampling of evidences? Or something else? I'm not really out to change your mind or debate about whether or not your method is a valid approach. I'm just genuinely interested in understanding your perspective. 

 

This board has a general prohibition on the sharing of "exit stories."  Some of us, me included, may already be skating on thin ice in that regard.

[Ryan Dahle]

10 minutes ago, ttribe said:

This board has a general prohibition on the sharing of "exit stories."  Some of us, me included, may already be skating on thin ice in that regard.

Thanks for the heads up. I wasn't aware, me being a "Newbie: Without form, and void" and all. And I can see how my queries could have inadvertently prompted that type of response. So to clarify, my question isn't really about anyone's personal story about "leaving" the church or losing their faith, but more about the rationale behind wanting to believe but feeling helpless to do so. What intellectual processing leads to this conclusion? What types of evidence are prioritized and why? What types of evidence are minimized and why? I think most of us are pretty aware that there are lots of different types of evidence, pro and con, that can be marshaled either for or against the Church's truth claims.

I think the varying methods that we use to inform ourselves about these evidences and then to categorize, prioritize, and evaluate them have everything to do with why some people feel there is plenty of room for faith and others feel there is no room, even if they want to believe. 

 

 

[Tacenda]

26 minutes ago, Ryan Dahle said:

Thanks for the heads up. I wasn't aware, me being a "Newbie: Without form, and void" and all. And I can see how my queries could have inadvertently prompted that type of response. So to clarify, my question isn't really about anyone's personal story about "leaving" the church or losing their faith, but more about the rationale behind wanting to believe but feeling helpless to do so. What intellectual processing leads to this conclusion? What types of evidence are prioritized and why? What types of evidence are minimized and why? I think most of us are pretty aware that there are lots of different types of evidence, pro and con, that can be marshaled either for or against the Church's truth claims.

I think the varying methods that we use to inform ourselves about these evidences and then to categorize, prioritize, and evaluate them have everything to do with why some people feel there is plenty of room for faith and others feel there is no room, even if they want to believe. 

 

 

You didn't ask me, but mine came when I happened on a site with the wives of Joseph Smith, my bad that I didn't even know he had more wives than Emma.

My faith crisis was slow and deepening with each new narrative I read that was different than the one I grew up believing. I'm still a member, still wear the garment, I have a calling as a compassionate service leader. But my acceptance of the new narrative has not happened yet. And I feel like I am in a place where I'm able to see all sides, all faiths and all people in one family, instead of being a select few on the earth, I feel like I can be in the world now, and that means I'm no better than the next guy. My religion or beliefs are not better than the next guy. I have to go by faith, I'm not able to just know God lives, I have to have faith He does. 

Edited May 21, 2018 by Tacenda

[Jeanne]

On 5/18/2018 at 5:20 PM, Exiled said:

Having to choose to believe seems opposite of how it should be.  It should be more akin to gravity or some other physical law where one's opinion or emotional state does not make a difference as to whether belief happens or not.  An astronomer doesn't bear his testimony about planetary orbits or relativity.  Those phenomena exist independent of whether or not one chooses to believe or not.  God hides and then punishes, supposedly, when we don't seek him out as he hides.  Seems illogical to me but it is my fault for not choosing to believe this.

I understand how you feel.  In a way..(and sad..faith is part of self brainwashing where you hope..you wishes..and beliefs becomes "I know"  because you have repeated those beliefs to a tune of acceptance.  I did this. I. Did. This.

[sunstoned]

On 5/17/2018 at 12:35 PM, Exiled said:

How would you propose to answer the difficult questions?  For me, all the arrows point to non-belief.  So, where does one go to defend?  I can see why one would want to discount the questioner's queries by calling the questions dishonest as the last apologetic, in your words, seems to be doing.  There is nowhere else to go but to redefine reality to include mormonism's truth claims as being truthful and blaming the victim for not wanting to change perspective.  In my reality and many others' realities, mormonism isn't true and obviously so.  Therefore, just redefine reality to include nephites and book of abraham missing scrolls and inspiring Clarke to help out a tired prophet finish his "translation," etc.

I tend to agree, but is there a middle way?  There are many who find the organization of the church very supportive.  The ward/branch can, and often is the surrogate family for many people.  I know for years it was for me.  I could go to a strange city and when I attended the local branch I knew I was home.  It was my tribe.  The culture was familiar and I knew the lingo.  I knew those people would do anything to help me, as I would for them.  That has to account for something. 

Is there any way non-believers like me and my family can find a place in the organization?  This is a sincere question that I do not have an answer for.

[Exiled]

5 hours ago, Ryan Dahle said:

I have been thinking about this thread over the weekend. I personally believe very strongly in the Restoration of the gospel. The doctrinal, historical, and social concerns that tend to bother some people are just not that bothersome or faith-deterring to me.

There seems to be a lot of variation in how people, who once believed, end up disbelieving the foundational truth claims of the LDS religion. I certainly accept that there are some, apparently like yourself, who very much want to believe but who just can't force their minds to do it. For example, even if I tried very hard to choose to believe that the sun didn't rise yesterday, I don't think that I could do it. It may be true that technically I have a choice to believe or not to believe, but it is also true that some things seem so self-evident to our minds that the idea of belief being a choice seems inaccurate on some level or another. It appears that is what you are getting at in your discussion of natural phenomena.

I guess I would like to better understand the perspective of those who more or less fit into your category--those who just can't muster up belief in major LDS truth claims, no matter how much they want it. If you don't mind, I'm curious as to what process you personally went through in weighing and balancing evidences, pro and con, for the Restoration. Did you apply some sort of methodical approach? Or was it sort of just intuitive judgments based on meandering sampling of evidences? Or something else? I'm not really out to change your mind or debate about whether or not your method is a valid approach. I'm just genuinely interested in understanding your perspective. 

 

After seeing how the true history wasn't as cut and dry or as heroic as portrayed, I tried to look at it as an outsider would and it just didn't add up.  The more I look at it the more it seems man-made, from any angle. Really, in the back of my mind I always questioned why God would need a blood sacrifice prior to being able to forgive. That power to forgive seems natural to us all.

[Stormin' Mormon]

As noted earlier, my own narrative was developing into an exit narrative before I chose to turn it into a retention narrative.  Below is a (greatly simplified) example of my thought process and reasoning when it came to weighing the evidence for and against Joseph Smith's prophetic calling.

Evidence #1:  An experience with the divine that I had early in my mission, when the spirit testified to my soul more clearly than at any time before or since that Joseph Smith was a prophet of God.

Evidence #2:  All the stuff I've learned in the last 15 years about how Joseph Smith implemented polygamy in Nauvoo, with all the unsettling mistakes and misdeeds he committed at that time.

How do I weigh these two evidences against each other?  

• Is E2 more valid because it is newer (to me) than E1? 
• Do I discount E1 because communication between God and man is unlikely and far-fetched?  Doing so begs the question, as that worldview wouldn't allow for any prophets in any time or place. 
• Do I discount E1 because it was a subjective experience and not verifiable by a third party?  But that seems to beg the question as well, presuming as it does spiritual evidence cannot be valid evidence of a spiritual realm. 

So, finding myself at an impasse, I did what Terryl Givens suggested: I weighed the evidence based on what I HOPED was true.  Neither case provided me with a slam dunk conclusion, but I had reasonable evidence for either path I chose.  And that choice was a turning point in my narrative.

 

[Stargazer]

36 minutes ago, Exiled said:

After seeing how the true history wasn't as cut and dry or as heroic as portrayed, I tried to look at it as an outsider would and it just didn't add up.  The more I look at it the more it seems man-made, from any angle. Really, in the back of my mind I always questioned why God would need a blood sacrifice prior to being able to forgive. That power to forgive seems natural to us all.

I started out as an outsider and it very much did add up.  I've had sufficient intimate experience with the Spirit since then to have lost pretty much all my doubts about it being man-made.

And the blood sacrifice issue makes perfect sense, once you have an understanding of the nature of sin and law. And where God intends for us to end up.  We can each forgive all we want, but can forgiving erase the fact that you did wrong?  You can't change the past and what's done is done.  What intercedes to change this is the sacrifice of a being who had no sin.  It's rather mathematical.