Seeing Things Differently -DanP the apologist excuse.

[Gadianton]

MG,

I can try to adapt to what a person is trying to get at in their views about free will, even though I think the idea of free will in general is nonsense. Your discussion of free will wouldn't help DCP much in his bitter and misguided war against Calvinism, for instance. He wouldn't be able to take what you've written and explain why Mormonism's theology is superior, as I don't see any reason a Calvinist couldn't agree to most of what you've written. It seems that your conception of free will is more along political lines and economic lines. Free will is essentially freedom in terms of access to resources and absence of a repressive state.

I think free will would exist with or without God

I think that's in line with Mormon teachings.

Your definition also doesn't touch on moral agency. In terms of economic opportunity, sure, you have more choice than someone in deep Africa. However, in terms of opportunity to develop upon moral lines, I'm not so sure. If this life is a test, deep Africa will almost certainly test your mettle with greater rigor than Centerville Utah. While life isn't a breeze anywhere, a nice middle-class life doesn't present all the moral dilemmas that you'd face under mob rule and poverty. It's easy to keep the commandment not to steal if you've always had enough.

Anyway, I appreciate that you gave your own definition. There were no glaring contradictions and so I think you did a good job, given what you consider free will to be.

[I Have Questions]

But it won’t to others who are somewhat more skeptical and lack trust in the leadership of the church.

Regards,
MG

In what way(s) specifically has the leadership of the church shown itself worthy of the membership’s unquestioning trust? I can think of many examples of Church leaderships doing things that damage trust when they think nobody is looking. But I’m struggling to think of the reverse - do they accurately report financials when they think nobody will spot it if they don’t? Are they transparent about membership numbers? Are they voluntarily and proactively transparent about Church history? Does the Church leadership treat cases of wrongdoing by Church leaders in an open and transparent fashion? Does the Church leadership instruct its lawyers to tell the truth, the whole truth, and let the chips fall where they may?

People are right to be skeptical and lack trust in church leadership. Given their track record, only dumb schmucks would follow them at face value.

[Morley]

Thought better of this.

[bill4long]

Thought experiment: define objective reality as what your God would perceive if he existed. Now, assume he stops existing. How does objective reality change?

What does it matter? You're never going to figure it out.

Just curious, how old are you?

[Moksha]

Are they voluntarily and proactively transparent about Church history?

Excellent point. Try to find one mention of the Provo-Orem War over whether clotted cream or jam should be spread first on scones!!!

[Imwashingmypirate]

Do animals have free will? Do bacteria have free will? Would free will exist without consciousness?

[Morley]

I do have empathy. I've always had empathy for you.

As I do for you and others who have lost their belief/faith in the church. I give you the benefit of a doubt that you’re coming from a good place. A place of stability in your personal life where you are happy and fulfilled. Over the years I’ve heard narratives from people that have left the church and they have, in one way or the other, been damaged or hurt. You’ve seen/heard those stories.

So when I’m here on this board I don’t know (because of the nature of writing vs. listening and seeing) whether or not I’m communicating with someone who is carrying around some real hurt and pain and may not have healed completely.

You say you have. I will take you at your word. Your comments in reference to your brother caused me to consider whether there might be some ‘familial connection’ that might be unresolved in regards to friction connected with church activity/belief. You said that I reminded you of your brother in four different ways.

But I’m not your literal brother.

In my mind I felt that there might be some unresolved trauma or ‘bad blood’ (even though you love your brother) that is still in a state of flux or has not been resolved and so some of that is either consciously or unconsciously transferred in your dealings with someone on a board who you do NOT know but you may associate with your brother.

Some assumptions there, yes.

This my reconsidered and edited response from yesterday.


I told IHQ that the reason that I engage you is that you remind me of my brother. From the above, it seems that you're trying to weaponize that statement. Since you're pushing me to elaborate on this, here it is.

I don't have unresolved issues or bad blood with my brother. All I'll say here is that he has acknowledged issues with his communication style, substance, and methods. Though he's not LDS, his politics and view of the world are similar to those you've presented here.

I agree with you that you are not my literal brother.

You did get a bit jumbled up in recognizing what I was saying in regards to being ‘defensive’ and admitting that you were in a state of confusion. Last night was a Friday night, end of the week, and I semi jokingly asked if you might have had one too many. Somewhat in jest.

The problem with a forum like this is we all bring something to the room as I said earlier in the thread. This will impact how we see and hear the ‘other’. You’ve said a number of times now that you KNOW me.

Yes, I do know the version of you that you present to everyone here. I know what you're going to say and how you're going to say it. You never surprise. But I do agree with you on this: The other you that's not here--I don't know him.

And no, I didn't get jumbled. But I may have incorrectly interpreted what you were trying to say. (Or I may have been jerking your chain the tiniest bit. I don't remember for sure.)

You came into the thread accusing me of ma lfeasance in my communications with Res Ipsa. Essentially you made a mountain out of a molehill. I was being facetious. Period. And mildly at that. This comment which you ‘brought to the table’ then steered things slightly off course. You then came back and started belly aching about my use of A.I.. I believe I was doing so appropriately. But you hunkered down.

I didn't accuse you of malfeasance. I essentially told you that you were being an ass.

Whenever you screw up, you say that folks are blowing things out of proportion, not reading between the lines, or hating all religionists. In your world, an obvious deception (if performed by you) becomes a 'technicality.'

The thread then went sideways. THAT bothered me, yes. What was a good discussion, with Imwashingmypirate chiming in, became a discussion on A.I. and its pros and cons. You could have simply started a new thread on A.I. usage on message boards. But again, you hunkered down and steered a good conversation off course.

It wasn't about A.I.'s pros and cons. It was about how you were misusing A.I. as evidence.

I have nothing against A.I.. In many ways, I've found it to be incredibly helpful. In January, I finished up a three month project where I used a paid-for A.I. program every day. Without it, I may not have been able to finish the work on time. Because I'm familiar with them, however, I know A.I. chatbot limitations.

So it is what is is and here we are. The conversation devolved into a he said and he said back and forth which is a WASTE of your time and mine.

Not a waste of time for me. I have all the time in the world.

This has happened so many times I’ve lost count. The number of times that one poster or another comes into a thread to make it all about MG has been disappointing. Many good conversations have been disrupted and sidetracked because of tribal considerations and the tendency to polarize.

It's not about you. It's about your behavior. You can't expect to strut into a room, loudly break wind, and not expect be called out for it. Though, as you say, everyone in the room may have different perceptions, they can still all smell a fart.

Again, as I’ve mentioned over and over again, the only way to get past this is to look at the ‘other’ and give him/her the benefit of a doubt, exercise some grace, and pay attention to the content of the discussion rather than finding a reason to shoot the messenger.

The way you folks continually do this with DCP is disheartening, to say the least, and in the kindest way possible.

Pish. I'm so kind and good to you that, like Enoch of old, I'm in danger of translation. I've found that I have to avoid high places, just to keep from being taken straight into heaven.

As to DCP, perhaps you'll be good enough to make a list of the times I've ragged on him, so I'll know what you're talking about?

Anyway, Daniel and his friends are welcome to participate here, anytime. They don't have to stand on the other side of the street and shout insults.

[Res Ipsa]

Thought experiment: define objective reality as what your God would perceive if he existed. Now, assume he stops existing. How does objective reality change?

What does it matter? You're never going to figure it out.

Just curious, how old are you?

It was part of a conversation. I wasn't trying to figure anything out.

65.

[doubtingthomas]

A religious definition of free will does not fit in with the world view of many on this board. I suppose that this, at least in part, is one of the reasons many folks find themselves saying (choose to say) that free will doesn’t exist.

And yet simply by making that choice they are exercising agency to choose.

Regards,
MG

LDS theology doesn't require you to believe in free will; LDS doctrine teaches that there is moral agency. There's a distinction between free will in all aspects and moral agency.

And just because you can choose to do something doesn't mean your decisions aren't without limitations. You have to take into account your state of consciousness, the things that come to your mind, the things you remember, and your chemistry. How many times have you said, "I should've thought of that"?

[Gadianton]

LDS theology doesn't require you to believe in free will; LDS doctrine teaches that there is moral agency. There's a distinction between free will in all aspects and moral agency.

That's a possibility. So far MG hasn't spoken about "free will" proper. (and I don't mean anything secular here, free will in the way MG isn't talking about has been a theology topic since the Church fathers at least). I do think Mormonism requires you to believe in free will, but I think it could be debated. I think the scriptures aren't clear in places because, eh hum, those who were making up Mormon scriptures didn't really know what they were talking about, but at the same time had some decent and interesting intuition and worthwhile thoughts to pretend were coming from the Lord. Good response, DT.