There must be grounds for doubt.

[_mentalgymnast]

In the Joseph Smith's Claim to Fame thread I referenced a podcast by Terryl Givens:

http://mormonstories.org/?p=2018

In another piece, he fleshed out something that he skimmed over in the podcast:

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.
The strengths of Givens' argument here are clear: it reflects the uplifting optimism of LDS teachings on human nature and destiny, our robust confidence in human capacity to choose freely and well, and the centrality of the human subject to the purpose and ends of the Christian cosmos. Most of all, Givens, ever the wizard of paradox, offers a faith-affirming interpretation of doubt itself: doubt is recast as the necessary condition for real faith, itself recast as "the choice to believe."

http://speeches.BYU.edu/reader/reader.php?id=10924

This article I've referenced: "“Lightning Out of Heaven”: Joseph Smith and the Forging of Community" is worth the read, if you haven't seen or read it yet.

Regards,
MG

[_Tarski]

I am convinced that there must be grounds for doubt as well as belief in order to render the choice more truly a choice

Ummm, riiiiight.....If I decide something based on knowledge of the facts it isn't a free decision.
Faith-heads talk such nonsense.
Idiotic.

When we are faced with decisions we seek facts, we seek to be sure and to eliminate uncertainty to the extent possible. Do we do this because we just love to reduce our own freedom?

Idiotic.

When I know that a certain food is unhealthy am I not free to choose to eat it or not?
If I swallow a pill without knowing whether it is poison or vitamin, then is that the epitome of freedom? Oh the joy!!

Idiotic!

Maybe I should have kept my children in the dark about whether I was really their father or not. I am sure that would somehow increase their freedom in life. (wtf?)

I wish this one would finally be put to rest.


Knowledge is sometimes hard to come by but we make better freer decisions when we can get it.

[_Corpsegrinder]

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.

These words provide us with a beautiful and compelling argument for why we should devote our lives to the teachings of the Supreme Lord Krishna. Or the Bhudda. Or Islam. Or Scientology.

Or does Givens want us to believe that these sentiments apply only to Mormonism?

[_mentalgymnast]

Faith-heads talk such nonsense.

Idiotic.

Idiotic.

Idiotic!

(wtf?)

Thanks! I respect your comments.

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.

These words provide us with a beautiful and compelling argument for why we should devote our lives to the teachings of the Supreme Lord Krishna. Or the Bhudda. Or Islam. Or Scientology.

Or does Givens want us to believe that these sentiments apply only to Mormonism?

I don't think he does.

Regards,
MG

[_mentalgymnast]

In the thread I started called: "One More..." the author says the following:

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.

I think this supports Givens' postulation.

Regards,
MG

[_Tarski]

Thanks! I respect your comments.

Regards,
MG

It is so rude of me to call a spade a spade.

Of course, you haven't a rational defense of this "unsure=free" notion.
I wonder, do you have a context outside of religion where you feel that knowledge would make you less free? Or is it just that sometimes you can't get the knowledge and so you reasonably try to get by without it?

[_Corpsegrinder]

I don't think he does.

Thanks for your opinion, but I’d like to know what, if anything, Givens has to say on the matter.

[_mentalgymnast]

It is so rude of me to call a spade a spade.

Givens, ever the wizard of paradox, offers a faith-affirming interpretation of doubt itself: doubt is recast as the necessary condition for real faith, itself recast as "the choice to believe."

I suppose that ultimately it comes down to whether faith in God/Jesus is a necessary attribute to develop in this life or not.

If not, then your "idiot" comments have application. But if faith is necessary then...

And I can't prove that faith in God is necessary to your satisfaction, so we're at an impasse from the get go.

Regards,
MG

[_mentalgymnast]

I don't think he does.

Thanks for your opinion, but I’d like to know what, if anything, Givens has to say on the matter.

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?

Regards,
MG