There must be grounds for doubt.

[_Gadianton]

This is a pretty common idea and isn't deep, MG.

It's self-stultifying because once you learn the principle, the test is over. You don't need to weigh doubt against your set of TBM personal values. Knowing that doubt is pitted against right-thinking Christian values finishes the math for you in favor of right-thinking Christian values in advance, any time you have a doubt. Let me guess, since you read Givens's little apologetic, you're more secure in your beliefs, right? Next time you see him then, thank him for stripping away your free will.

The standard LDS interpretation is actually deeper than Givens's analysis because it not only allows the "paradox" that doubt is a condition of faith, but the greater paradox that transgression is a condition for righteousness. When Adam was in the Garden, he was wrong for breaking the rule, but he was right for making an "authentic" choice -- one-upping Givens's doubt scenario, a really-really authentic choice needs to violate divine command -- where the authenticity somehow brings about the true will of God vs. mechanical obedience to the superficial parameters God led you to believe were his will.

The problem any high-level interpretations like these face, no matter how clever, is they allow the participant of the game, er, I mean plan, to see the hidden variables of the plan, such that the participant can inform his or her choices by rationality alone regarding how faith plays out within the plan and thereby nullify the need to actually have faith.

If faith can be rationally understood and argued for, then the philosopher of faith can make correct decisions without faith which is either self-stultifying or self-contradictory depending on how "correct decision" is defined. If faith can't be rationally understood, then the philosopher of faith is just an empty sophist.

[_Corpsegrinder]

No, one doesn't entail the other. And your conclusion is based upon a faulty assumption. The church is true. Givens wouldn't dispute that. Not that others don't also have some truth, however.

Regards,
MG

Yes, that was wishful thinking on my part. I'm fully aware that the Church still claims a monopoly on truth. (FYI--Nobody ever says "the most true Church" when they bear their testimony in church; it's always "the one true church.")

And yet Mormonism remains just another provincial sect in a world awash with provincial sects.

[_Gadianton]

I don't believe, in a concrete, black and white fashion, as if there aren't any other alternatives available. I recognize that I could be wrong.

But I chose to exercise plausible belief, conditionally. I am willing to accept the propositions of Mormonism as providing a reasonable framework for moving forward in faith/hope. And I am choosing to do so.

No, you are not. You have read several arguments from apologists like Givens that paint the world as not fully knowable by rationality, necessarily requiring "faith". You have been convinced by their reasoning. You consider the worldview you believe critics have adopted, and conclude that it is most likely wrong because it overstates the role of reason. You have, therefore, become fully complacent, by rational argument alone, in the uncertainty of being Mormon. Thus, you do not "choose" Mormonism, per Givens.

To choose Mormonism, per Givens, requires serious doubts about Mormonism that are ultimately overcome by faith; doubts you don't have, because you read intellectuals like Givens who demonstrate with reason that faith always wins.

[_Gadianton]

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.

To take (unfair?) advantage of this excellent point, suppose there were exactly 50 good reasons for being Mormon and 50 equally good reasons for not being Mormon. MG immerses himself in the debate, undergoes a thorough existential crises, and exercises his will to make a choice, thus affirming faith. Fine.

But now suppose MG has read Givens and knows there are 50 good reasons for being Mormon and 50 good reasons for not being Mormon. The math has been done. There is no point grappling with these arguments himself, knowing in advance they result in deadlock. Thus doubt, and therefore the possibility of faith, are not serious possibilities for MG.

[_Lucretia MacEvil]

Self-righteous? How's that?

Regards,
MG

If you don't choose Mormonism (obviously what he's talking about here whether he spells it out or not), we are living lives of dismissive denial. If we choose Mormonism, we are living lives of credible conviction. What weak grounds for aggrandizing oneself and demonizing all others.

[_Lucretia MacEvil]

It's so intellectually rotten it's hardly worth responding to.

It's humorous that this is in reference to Mormonism of all things. One could just as emptily employ such rhetoric in favor of anything. But Givens did us a solid and showed how silly it is by picking something particularly absurd from the get go.

Yeah, that's what I meant to say.

[_Lucretia MacEvil]

It's so intellectually rotten it's hardly worth responding to.

It's humorous that this is in reference to Mormonism of all things. One could just as emptily employ such rhetoric in favor of anything. But Givens did us a solid and showed how silly it is by picking something particularly absurd from the get go.

Yeah, that's what I meant to say.

[_lostsheep]

i'm ok in principle with the idea of us making choices based on limited knowledge and in the presence of uncertainity. That's describes a whole lot of the choices we actually make. The question with regards to Mormonism, Scientology, Christianity, Islam, Buddhism or what have you is how reasonable these worldviews are. Does the weight of the evidence support their claims or undermine them? For me personally, I came to the conclusion that the Mormon faith is very implausible. For me its not a matter of some kind of balance between doubt and belief in which I freely choose Mormonism. It seems to me that the vast majority of the evidence points to Mormonism not being what it claims to be. Given that, it would be irrational to choose to continue to believe in the LDS faith. I might as well become a Jehovah Witness or or Scientologist, they all seem equaly compelling.

So I think Givens argument is basically a diversion from the real question which is: given what we know about the world, how plausible is the Mormon faith? Is it more plausible than other belief systems or less plausible?

[_mentalgymnast]

..suppose there were exactly 50 good reasons for being Mormon and 50 equally good reasons for not being Mormon. MG immerses himself in the debate, undergoes a thorough existential crises, and exercises his will to make a choice, thus affirming faith. Fine.

Been there, done that.

But now suppose MG has read Givens and knows there are 50 good reasons for being Mormon and 50 good reasons for not being Mormon. The math has been done. There is no point grappling with these arguments himself, knowing in advance they result in deadlock. Thus doubt, and therefore the possibility of faith, are not serious possibilities for MG.

You have it wrong. I've grappled with the issues long and hard and in some areas of questioning continue to do so.

by the way, the arguments for and against don't always result in a deadlock. Only if you're already dead set against there being any solutions/rational arguments.

You seem to be dead set against the possibility that a healthy tension between doubt/questioning and faith is even possible as one makes a choice to exercise faith.

Why is that?

Regards,
MG

[_mentalgymnast]

If you don't choose Mormonism (obviously what he's talking about here whether he spells it out or not), we are living lives of dismissive denial.

I don't think that's what he's saying at all. Listen to the podcast, if you haven't. You may come away with a bit different perspective. Be prepared though, it's in five parts. It is worth the listen. Especially for those like yourself who seem to have preconceived biases.

Now if you have listened to this interview in its entirety, I don't see where you can come away with the conclusion stated above. He is very understanding of those that make a different choice regarding Mormonism and activity in the church and understands and even appreciates, I think, where they are coming from.

Regards,
MG