There must be grounds for doubt.

[Guest]

This line of thought, that "the truth" must be hidden for us to be truly free to choose, is not logical.

People choose to ignore truth all the time.

If the Mormon god was true and proved himself to the world that would not make everyone suddenly follow him. I certainly wouldn't.

In the LDS pre-existance we are said to have all known god and the plan and had the freedom to choose to go with the plan or be damned. We're we free there or not? I say not because the only choice was death or earth-life plus relying on Jesus' suicide to be saved.

Now we DON'T know the plan or god. We are supposedly free to choose to go with what certain men tell us god is and what the plan is....and the results are the same. We are either damned or saved depending on what ideas of men we go along with.

It all sounds like a bad plan with no real freedom involved. If someone threatens you with DEATH for not doing what they say...that isn't freedom.

backwards dd

[_Lucretia MacEvil]

I am convinced that there must be grounds for doubt as well as belief in order to render the choice more truly a choice-and, therefore, the more deliberate and laden with personal vulnerability and investment. ... One is, it would seem, always provided with sufficient materials out of which to fashion a life of credible conviction or dismissive denial. We are acted upon, in other words, by appeals to our personal values, our yearnings, our fears, our appetites, and our egos. What we choose to embrace, to be responsive to, is the purest reflection of who we are and what we love. That is why faith, the choice to believe, is, in the final analysis, an action that is positively laden with moral significance.

OMG, Charity used to toss this steaming pile around on that other board all the time. Could it possibly be more self-righteous?

[_Corpsegrinder]

Listen to the podcast and read the linked to article, and see if he does...

He seems to be a pretty open minded guy. Enough for you? Probably not, but, who knows?

A simple “I don’t know” would suffice.

My biggest problem with the podcast is this: Givens disingenuously casts the argument as a conflict between Mormonism and atheism. In other words if you have faith you are, by default, a Mormon.

Hubris, anyone?

[_mentalgymnast]

This line of thought, that "the truth" must be hidden for us to be truly free to choose, is not logical.

People choose to ignore truth all the time.

If the Mormon god was true and proved himself to the world that would not make everyone suddenly follow him. I certainly wouldn't.

In the LDS pre-existance we are said to have all known god and the plan and had the freedom to choose to go with the plan or be damned. We're we free there or not? I say not because the only choice was death or earth-life plus relying on Jesus' suicide to be saved.

Doesn't this section of the Welch quote I posted have application here?

...personal ownership of mortality began for each individual in a moment of pre-mortal moral choice. We freely chose to come to earth, and now here ensconced, the suggestion goes, we must choose freely what to believe. God deliberately conceals the signs of his presence and the evidence of his work because he wants belief to exist as a free moral choice, not an epistemological conclusion.

It appears that we were free. The choice we made resulted in the opportunity to come to earth. But yes, you're right, by not making a choice others (in a pre-mortal world) were damned in the sense that they didn't have the opportunities that you and I have...since we're here...and they're not, at least in the flesh.

Regards,
MG

[_Corpsegrinder]

...personal ownership of mortality began for each individual in a moment of pre-mortal moral choice. We freely chose to come to earth, and now here ensconced, the suggestion goes, we must choose freely what to believe.

Ever hear of the Wheel of Karma?

[_mentalgymnast]

My biggest problem with the podcast is this: Givens disingenuously casts the argument as a conflict between Mormonism and atheism. In other words if you have faith you are, by default, a Mormon.

Huh? Where does he say that? Maybe a time stamp we can go to in the podcast would help in locating this, at least what appears to me, "over the top" idea?

Straw man possibly?

Regards,
MG

[_mentalgymnast]

I am convinced that there must be grounds for doubt as well as belief in order to render the choice more truly a choice-and, therefore, the more deliberate and laden with personal vulnerability and investment. ... One is, it would seem, always provided with sufficient materials out of which to fashion a life of credible conviction or dismissive denial. We are acted upon, in other words, by appeals to our personal values, our yearnings, our fears, our appetites, and our egos. What we choose to embrace, to be responsive to, is the purest reflection of who we are and what we love. That is why faith, the choice to believe, is, in the final analysis, an action that is positively laden with moral significance.

OMG, Charity used to toss this steaming pile around on that other board all the time. Could it possibly be more self-righteous?

Self-righteous? How's that?

Regards,
MG

[_mentalgymnast]

...personal ownership of mortality began for each individual in a moment of pre-mortal moral choice. We freely chose to come to earth, and now here ensconced, the suggestion goes, we must choose freely what to believe.

Ever hear of the Wheel of Karma?

What goes around, comes around.

Regards,
MG

[_Corpsegrinder]

Huh? Where does he say that? Maybe a time stamp we can go to in the podcast would help in locating this, at least what appears to me, "over the top" idea?

Straw man possibly?

Sorry, this is what I’m referring to:

It may be the case that a concealed God challenges contemporary Latter-day Saints...precisely because of the trail of divine breadcrumbs that marked the path of restoration. These events, after all, are not lost to the depths of time but occurred in what is or ought to be a recoverable past. But the evidentiary buttresses that supported the Restoration for the early Saints - the historical authenticity of the Book of Mormon, the divine mandate of polygamy, the imminence of Zion—have so far eluded most modern ways of knowing. So why has it proved so difficult to recover and verify the reality of those signs?
For the skeptic, of course, the answer to that question is laughably obvious. But for the believing Latter-day Saint, it offers a challenge. Several answers suggest themselves, the most compelling of which engages another of our cherished teachings: the central place of free human agency in cosmic history. In the Mormon cosmogony, what we call the Plan of Salvation, personal ownership of mortality began for each individual in a moment of pre-mortal moral choice. We freely chose to come to earth, and now here ensconced, the suggestion goes, we must choose freely what to believe. God deliberately conceals the signs of his presence and the evidence of his work because he wants belief to exist as a free moral choice, not an epistemological conclusion.

Clearly, a disingenuously narrow choice between Mormonism and skepticism.

What goes around, comes around.

You got it. So what makes the Mormon dogma of a pre-existance any more believable than that of reincarnation as taught by the International Society of Krishna Consciousness?

[_EAllusion]

Oddly, this very thing came up in chat the other day. To reiterate my points there:

1) The idea that beliefs are chosen (doxastic volunteerism) at all is quite questionable and a view I'd happily argue against.

2) Suppose beliefs are chosen. How does having information reduce the freedom of those choices? What's the relationship? If it is because information makes one option irresistibly compelling, doesn't that argue point #1?

3) Suppose #2 is resolved. Further suppose we have a state of affairs where the case for and against a complicated set of propositions like Mormonism is perfectly balanced. Isn't the rational thing to do then to withhold judgement rather than pick one? How can such a choice be called anything other than random? The moral case Terryl attempts to fashion out of air and twigs is a case nonetheless. Either the balance is gone and one side ought to be more compelling or it isn't.

4) Why is it a desirable thing to lack information sufficient to reasonably inform a choice? If I am to buy a car, I don't turn down the opportunity to look under the hood to achieve the greater good of being more "free" in my choice. Why would I? Even if we accept that knowledge harms one's freedom, that doesn't explain why such freedom is an overriding good that justifies withholding information.

5) It's awfully convenient that whatever amount of information Terryl thinks exists as a case for Mormonism is enough to not be "will-damaging" in a bad way, but anymore would be even though what people know varies through time and place. It reminds one of God just happening to explain whatever our current gaps in knowledge are.

Finally, it's worth noting that Mormon mythology is replete with countless examples of God both supplying fairly strong evidence of things to people and also fairly severely curtailing people's freedom of choice. Reconciling this fact with the above free will defense is a daunting project to say the least. Laughable, really.