[churchistrue]

Roy wrote:

I mean that I was following the train of thought up until that point. Some of the GA quotes seemed to support your definitions and conclusions of belief and some only served to muddy the water or even directly contradict what was said earlier.

I think a few people were confused by that. I edited it a little for clarity. The first portion was the review of philosophical literature to determine if belief really is a choice. The last portion where I quote GA talks was a review of those talks, given the literature. They weren’t used to support my logic.

Quote:

AP makes a good point. Are the choices that all the people she references to believe in these various religions all valid as choices to “believe” and “have faith”? Certainly they do believe and they are making the choice to believe in something unknowable in the concrete sense. They seem to fit Givens’ definition of belief.

First of all, my whole point is that belief is not a choice. But faith is. And I don’t get into that issue at all, in terms of what’s a valid choice. That’s completely irrelevant to my point. But, sure I do think different choices are valid.

Quote:

That is partly where the positions of the GA’s become something other than just belief or faith in the abstract sense. They are proponents of a very specific belief system. Almost every time that they say belief or faith it seems to have an assumption of “belief in Mormonism” or “faith in Mormonism.”

I believe that it is this unstated assumption that AP is reacting to.

Yes, I agree they do that, but that wasn’t the point of the blog article. My point was just to hone in on that concept of whether or not belief is a choice.

[churchistrue]

amateurparent wrote:

ChurchIsTrue:

Because of the culture in which I live, if I was to CHOOSE to believe something, it would be in my best interests to align myself with the Baptists, Catholics, or Jews. My neighborhood is heavy on Taoists and Hindus too. Mormons are few and far between.

All your arguments assume the LDS church is the majority church and culture in the region. In my area, the LDS church represents less than 1.5% of the population. On a daily basis, I interact with people who have never met a member of the LDS church.

Your logic doesn’t work in my region.

Confused. What’s my logic? I didn’t think I was pushing anything related to choosing the church in this post.

[churchistrue]

Roy wrote:

churchistrue wrote:

I updated this topic with a post on Belief as a Choice. Interested to hear feedback on this. http://www.churchistrue.com/blog/belief-as-choice/

I really like the post. Good food for thought. I am totally with you until you start quoting general authorities.

I believe that this is because in a church setting the words “belief” and “faith” are extremely hard to pin down what is meant in a given context.

Givens talks about there being enough room for choice. I agree. On the concepts of whether or not there is a God, on the concepts of what is the point or purpose of life, on the concept of determining to live a life full of goodness (as best as I can understand it) even though I have no guarantee that such a life will be rewarded – On those things there is both evidence for and against and I can will myself to somewhat tip the scale in favor of belief and hope in the more meaningful and beautiful outcome. This I believe is the realm of faith.

Unfortunately, The quotes from the general authorities quickly become confusing in this context. They are not sticking to a single definition of belief or being clear in what form of belief they mean. In some contexts they may simply mean “loyalty” and to stick to the heritage and religion of the group. You yourself show some of the same confusion in trying to reconcile the GA statements with the original context of belief and the limitations of choice in what we believe. It can be difficult if one is talking about apples and the other is talking about oranges but they are both using the word “fruit.”

Still, as I said, this was a very though provoking post.

Thanks, Roy. What do you mean by you were with me until I started quoting general authorities. Sounds like I have the same kind of feelings about the GA statements you do, which I expressed in the blog post. Sometimes they were confusing. Sometimes they seemed to mix up definitions.

[churchistrue]

I updated this topic with a post on Belief as a Choice. Interested to hear feedback on this. http://www.churchistrue.com/blog/belief-as-choice/

[churchistrue]

Giving Devin Durrant the complete benefit of the doubt, that the website was going to be strictly not-for-profit and only had the motivation of popularizing the term with the aim at increasing scripture study, I still have a little bit of a problem with this.

Here he is a newly called general authority at a pretty young age. He’s giving a talk in general conference right on the heels of being called. And his approach is to start off with a bang. Combined with his mannerisms and delivery of his talk, this does not come across as a humble servant of God at all. He’s overreaching and trying to take control of something he has no right to do. Very poor judgement.

[churchistrue]

hawkgrrrl wrote:

I wish he had instead pulled out a bag of Doritos. Product placement at GC. Wonders never cease. Also, “ponderize” is plagiarized: http://www.amazon.com/Think-These-Things-Ponderize-Joyful/dp/1494808781

A lot of what we do as Mormons is recirculate Christian stuff. Doubt your doubts is also plagiarized errrrr I prefer to say “borrowed”.

[churchistrue]

Good move. Really excited to see this.

[churchistrue]

Rob4Hope wrote:

When it all comes down to it, my FC has made me question the very concept of the goodness of God.

It says in the bible that God so loved the world, he gave JC to save us. But in the D&C, there is this scripture:

132 wrote:

52 And let mine handmaid, Emma Smith, receive all those that have been given unto my servant Joseph, and who are virtuous and pure before me; and those who are not pure, and have said they were pure, shall be destroyed, saith the Lord God.

53 For I am the Lord thy God, and ye shall obey my voice; and I give unto my servant Joseph that he shall be made ruler over many things (women are to be ruled over as things?); for he hath been faithful over a few things, and from henceforth I will strengthen him.

54 And I command mine handmaid, Emma Smith, to abide and cleave unto my servant Joseph, and to none else. But if she will not abide this commandment she shall be destroyed (God is forcing her? what of her agency?), saith the Lord; for I am the Lord thy God, and will destroy her if she abide not in my law.

I know there is a discussion about whether 132 is even scripture, but it is canonized and is considered scripture by the LDS church authority. So, lets proceed on the premise it really is scripture and came from God.

Has anyone been able to resolve this scripture with the love of God and harmonize the LDS viewpoint on this? How have you done that?

I struggle to believe in the goodness of God. This is part of that.

I think it’s nearly impossible to assume any scripture that is canonized therefore came directly from and is authorized by God, without assuming a lot of messed up things about God. But that said, I don’t think this verse is that impossible to deal with. We don’t believe agency negates consequences. I never understand the logic of why someone thinks that heavy consequences for an action precludes agency. I have a right to do anything I want, but I can’t control the consequences. God may even destroy me for something I do, if it’s bad enough and if he’s that kind of God, I guess.

But I think it’s preferable to assume good things about God and bad things about scripture, than vice versa.

[churchistrue]

I wonder if age plays into the equation in terms of setting up someone likely be a future prophet. It could go both directions.

ie I like this guy, but I don’t like him enough to be so much younger than the guys above him that he’s virtual certainty he’ll be a future prophet. Causse might be in this category.

…or I like this guy a lot, I’m going to call him with the intention that he has a very strong chance of being future prophet. Bednar comes to mind that way.

[churchistrue]

This is why I’ll never be bishop.

Say what? That’s why you came in to talk to me? hmm I really have no opinion. That’s something you need to work out yourself. Let me know if you want to be released from your calling or something. Bye.

[churchistrue]

Old-Timer wrote:

Given that there now are three openings in the Q12, I looked at the apostles’ seniority list, ages and apparent general health and came up with the most likely succession order:

1) Pres. Monson: 88 years old

2) Elder Nelson: 91 years old; not likely to outlive Pres. Monsoon

3) Elder Oaks: 83 years old; likely to be next President

4) M. Russell Ballard: 86 years old; might outlive Elder Oaks

5) Elder Hales: 83 years old; seems to be in worse health than Elders Oaks and Ballard

6) Elder Holland: 74 years old; seems likely to become President; chance he will be next one

7) Pres. Eyring: 83 years old; not likely to outlive Elder Holland

Pres. Uchtdorf: 74 years old; seems to be in better health than Elder Holland; chance he will be next President, reasonable chance he will be President after Elder Holland

9) Elder Bednar: 63 years old; likely to be President at some point, probably after Elder Holland and/or Pres. Uchtdorf

10) Elder Cook: 75 years old; not likely to become President

11) Elder Christofferson: 70 years old; unlikely to become President, unless serious health issue with Elder Bednar

12) Elder Anderson: 60 years old; likely to become President at some point, and could be relatively long-serving if Elder Bednar dies relatively young

This means a likely succession order would be:

Elder Oaks – Elder Holland and/or Pres. Uchtdorf – Elder Bednar – Elder Anderson – with Elder Christofferson taking Elder Bednar’s place if Elder Bednar has serious health issues

It could be up to 20 years before we would get to Elder Bednar, if his health stays good.

I like that likely scenario, more now than I would have 5-10 years ago.

I’ll go

Monson through 2019

Nelson 2019-2021

Oaks 2021-2027

Uchtdorf 2027-2036

Bednar 2036-2049

[churchistrue]

Cool info, thanks.

[churchistrue]

nibbler wrote:

How would life be different if you did? if you didn’t?

Good questions. I like the question “would you change your belief if you could?” I’ll answer that.

If I felt I could consciously choose my belief I’m pretty sure I would have chosen to believe in literal Mormonism when I was going through all the cognitive dissonance that came with losing my literal belief. A phase that lasted for almost ten years, that I’ve been coming out of for the last couple years. Losing my belief caused a ton of pain.

Right now, where I’m at? I’d have to think about that. I think life would be easier for me if I could at least believe a few more aspects about LDS chuch origins. But I’m pretty comfortable in my skin right now. So maybe not.

[churchistrue]

Old-Timer wrote:

People’s beliefs change all the time. Life does that to people.

We even have core statements saying our beliefs ought to change/evolve/progress/etc. over time. Perhaps more than any other religion, the idea of “further light and knowledge” changing beliefs is central to our theology.

For me, never-changing belief is a good definition of damnation.

Right. But do you have conscious ability to change/choose your belief?

[churchistrue]

nibbler wrote:

I don’t view the phrase “faith is a choice” as a call to make the decision to believe in something we don’t currently believe in, I view it as saying that whatever we end up believing, we ended up believing because we chose to do so. I haven’t read the book and I didn’t stay in a Holiday Inn Express so my take on things may be entirely out of context. I just think that sometimes people incorrectly use the phrase as a call to convince others to believe as they believe.

Do we actually have a choice? I honestly can’t say. An extreme example, do people with dementia have a choice or are they only acting in ways that are limited by their mental condition? Could we describe everyone’s situation as a set of conditions within which they are acting? See Roy’s post for clarification.

I have a hard time thinking that one can choose to change one’s beliefs, unless it’s in a very indirect way, such as to intentionally manipulate the information you come in contact with over a long period of time. i don’t think that’s what Givens is talking about.

[Author]

Posts