- This topic is empty.
-
Posts
-
This essay/talk is absolutely chock full of awesome stuff, including choice comments on the fallibility of church leaders, the nature of restoration, the exclusivity of Mormonism, the efficacy of institutional religion, and the nature of personal revelation. The part that resonated with me the most was his commentary on faith as a choice. Quote:The call to faith is a summons to engage the heart, to attune it to resonate in sympathy with principles and values and ideals that we devoutly hope are true
and which we have reasonable but not certain grounds for believing to be true. 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. An overwhelming preponderance of evidence on either side would make our choice as meaningless as would a loaded gun pointed at our heads.The option to believe must appear on one’s personal horizon like the fruit of paradise, perched precariously between sets of demands held in dynamic tension. Fortunately, in this world, one is 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 call to faith, in this light, is not some test of a coy god, waiting to see if we “get it right.” It is the only summons, issued under the only conditions, which can
allow us fully to reveal who we are, what we most love, and what we most devoutly desire. Without constraint, without any form of mental compulsion, the act of belief becomes the freest possible projection of what resides in our hearts. Like the poet’s image of a church bell that only reveals its latent music when struck, or a dragonfly that only flames forth its beauty in flight, so does the content of a human heart lie buried until action calls it forth. The greatest act of self-revelation occurs when we choose what we will believe, in that space of freedom that exists between knowing that a thing is, and knowing that a thing is not. This is the realm where faith operates, and
when faith is a freely chosen gesture, it expresses something essential about the self.
What do you think?Givens is outstanding. My second favourite Mormon (second only to Uchtdorf). Thanks for posting this, Daeruin. I actually googled this and read the whole thing. While reading it, I thought of the fact that in another context, doubt is used to protect people. The criminal justice system has as its fundamental goal the protection of the innocent. It achieves this goal by requiring a jury to overcome reasonable doubt before depriving someone of life or liberty, and each and every of those jurors must personally overcome that doubt. The lack of ability to overcome that doubt (plus the overburdened system) in turn results in the government dropping or allowing plea bargains for most charges. In spiritual things, doubt keeps us searching for answers. It keeps us checking and double-checking ourselves. So you’ve deconstructed the BOM (speaking rhetorically here; I am not talking to you, Daeruin). You are pretty sure it is not an actual historical record, but are you sure there are not strands of inspiration throughout the book that would prove it was not just “made up” the way that an author might sit down one day and write a fine yarn. I think there are matters in which there is now overwhelmingly evidence but the whole picture of what the Church is, what it’s based on, and what its future importance is, depend on faith counterbalanced against doubt. That is, the good doubt–the type that makes you continuously re-evaluate assumptions that may be incorrect and lead you down the road to apostacy.
Daeruin wrote:This essay/talk is absolutely chock full of awesome stuff, including choice comments on the fallibility of church leaders, the nature of restoration, the exclusivity of Mormonism, the efficacy of institutional religion, and the nature of personal revelation. The part that resonated with me the most was his commentary on faith as a choice.
Quote:The call to faith is a summons to engage the heart, to attune it to resonate in sympathy with principles and values and ideals that we devoutly hope are true
and which we have reasonable but not certain grounds for believing to be true. 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. An overwhelming preponderance of evidence on either side would make our choice as meaningless as would a loaded gun pointed at our heads.The option to believe must appear on one’s personal horizon like the fruit of paradise, perched precariously between sets of demands held in dynamic tension. Fortunately, in this world, one is 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 call to faith, in this light, is not some test of a coy god, waiting to see if we “get it right.” It is the only summons, issued under the only conditions, which can
allow us fully to reveal who we are, what we most love, and what we most devoutly desire. Without constraint, without any form of mental compulsion, the act of belief becomes the freest possible projection of what resides in our hearts. Like the poet’s image of a church bell that only reveals its latent music when struck, or a dragonfly that only flames forth its beauty in flight, so does the content of a human heart lie buried until action calls it forth. The greatest act of self-revelation occurs when we choose what we will believe, in that space of freedom that exists between knowing that a thing is, and knowing that a thing is not. This is the realm where faith operates, and
when faith is a freely chosen gesture, it expresses something essential about the self.
What do you think?Actually, it is a test to see if we get it right as that is the only acceptable end if you’re to remain acceptable and useful. Saying we’d be compelled to believe if the preponderance of evidence were for the church ( I say church/restoration since that’s what this is about, stemming the tide of people leaving, not becoming atheists) isn’t accurate since people ignore evidence and stay and ignore evidence and leave. Givens approach seems to equate faith with ignoring rather that as a gift of the spirit, confirmed by the spirit. I’m sorry but as poetic as his writing is and as successful as his cottage industry is in trying to help us help us poor doubters, it still comes down to the standard, age old advice, “don’t worry about it, better people than you understand and you too will someday”.
Fwiw, GB, I think that’s not what he says. The best example of this is: Quote:and which we have reasonable but not certain grounds for believing to be true
I don’t see anything in what he says that would lead me to conclude he believes in ignoring solid evidence. I don’t see his words, for example, as supporting someone’s dogged belief in young earth creationism. I think what he is saying is that faith works best (is “real faith”) when what is desired is reasonable but not established conclusively by clear evidence.
Of course, that is a subjective evaluation, but I like the foundation – since it really isn’t any different at heart than a scientist’s approach to discovery. (“This seems like a reasonable conclusion. I’m going with it and seeing if my research yields solid evidence.”)
Quote:Hebrews 11:1 Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen.
I understand that he’s not saying to ignore solid evidence. But when he says there must be room for doubt in order for the choice to be a real choice it still means that in making that choice you’re ignoring what may be evidence to the contrary. The other thing that’s not clear to me is whether he’s talking about faith in God or faith in the restoration/JS with belief in God and Christ assumed. If he’s talking about faith in God, fine but for me the jury’s out on the rest.
Based on what I’ve read from him, I would say “weighing” rather than “ignoring”. That’s an important difference to me.
Daeruin wrote:This essay/talk is absolutely chock full of awesome stuff, including choice comments on the fallibility of church leaders, the nature of restoration, the exclusivity of Mormonism, the efficacy of institutional religion, and the nature of personal revelation. The part that resonated with me the most was his commentary on faith as a choice.
Quote:The call to faith is a summons to engage the heart, to attune it to resonate in sympathy with principles and values and ideals that we devoutly hope are true
and which we have reasonable but not certain grounds for believing to be true. 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. An overwhelming preponderance of evidence on either side would make our choice as meaningless as would a loaded gun pointed at our heads.The option to believe must appear on one’s personal horizon like the fruit of paradise, perched precariously between sets of demands held in dynamic tension. Fortunately, in this world, one is 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 call to faith, in this light, is not some test of a coy god, waiting to see if we “get it right.” It is the only summons, issued under the only conditions, which can
allow us fully to reveal who we are, what we most love, and what we most devoutly desire. Without constraint, without any form of mental compulsion, the act of belief becomes the freest possible projection of what resides in our hearts. Like the poet’s image of a church bell that only reveals its latent music when struck, or a dragonfly that only flames forth its beauty in flight, so does the content of a human heart lie buried until action calls it forth. The greatest act of self-revelation occurs when we choose what we will believe, in that space of freedom that exists between knowing that a thing is, and knowing that a thing is not. This is the realm where faith operates, and
when faith is a freely chosen gesture, it expresses something essential about the self.
What do you think?Thanks so much for posting this article. I read it when it first came out. The unknown is a beautiful thing and is necessary for our spiritual growth.
Curtis wrote:Based on what I’ve read from him, I would say “weighing” rather than “ignoring”.
That’s an important difference to me.
Yes, very important.
To me, it is very much like a scale. On one side, you have physical/historical/practical evidence. On the other side, you have spiritual/emotional/personal evidence.
Which side weighs heavier to you? That’s not ignoring evidence. It’s weighing the two against each other. And so often, I feel like the church teaches (wrongly) that as soon as you place a rock in the spiritual/emotional side, your scale is so tipped for eternity.
When, instead, life is about those two scales constantly moving up and down based on what we live, experience, read, feel and do. At all points, we are constantly choosing what to believe.
This is, to me, central to why I think so many people so freaking bored at church. Because the current system sets you up to learn and have a testimony of all the doctrine by the time you’re in your early 20s (through seminary/institute and through the temple) and after that, it’s just rehashing of the same “truths” over and over and over again.
In the three or so months I’ve been on my new “spiritual journey” I can tell you for a fact that I have read, prayed and studied more about the gospel than I ever have in my life, with the exception of my mission.
Except the problem with that is imperial evidence is worth more then a 1000 of history’s best philosophers. Being that it has been the least inaccurate and least prone to being wrong model by a wide margin as history and evidence shows. The problem becomes trusting a bunch of people doing thorough research versus a few people expressing what they believe through confirmation bias. At least rule number 1 in my generation and newer is that history shows that no man or few select people in our history can be trusted with that amount if trust. No one can or should be trusted in anywhere near that amount. The compilation of tested experiences rises above the occasional experience. It’s similar or the same line of think as “trust is there are people more smarter then you”. The trouble with that is you have to believe their are tiers of humans. In that light Steve jobs gave the best speech ever with one of the most important truths ever revealed in modern times.
Quote:Your time is limited, so don’t waste it living someone else’s life. Don’t be trapped by dogma — which is living with the results of other people’s thinking. Don’t let the noise of others’ opinions drown out your own inner voice. And most important, have the courage to follow your heart and intuition. They somehow already know what you truly want to become. Everything else is secondary.
And
Quote:“When you grow up you tend to get told the world is the way it is and you’re life is just to live your life inside the world. Try not to bash into the walls too much. Try to have a nice family, have fun, save a little money.
That’s a very limited life. Life can be much broader once you discover one simple fact: Everything around you that you call life was made up by people that were no smarter than you and you can change it, you can influence it, you can build your own things that other people can use.
Once you learn that, you’ll never be the same again.”
http://youtu.be/YZyUlHtxoBshttp://youtu.be/YZyUlHtxoBs” class=”bbcode_url”> That is so important to learn and know, it can indeed change your life and way you view and live life forever.
That’s why I don’t understand the current method of trusting others that are more intelligent then you.
That model doesn’t work once you discover the truth.
Quote:Everything changes when you start to emit your own frequency rather than absorbing the frequencies around you, when you start imprinting your intent on the universe rather than receiving an imprint from existence.
Barbara Marciniak
Life is about transmitting your own frequencies, but we have been trained to just receive frequencies.
That’s why I’m not partial to givens or others on either side. Once you learn you that everything created in life was by people no smarter then you , you can start to open up and not be bound by limited learning and thinking by others ideas but create your own fruit and spread that to the world regardless of what other people have to say.
Forgotten_Charity wrote:Life is about transmitting your own frequencies, but we have been trained to just receive frequencies.
That’s why I’m not partial to givens or others on either side. Once you learn you that everything created in life was by people no smarter then you , you can start to open up and not be bound by limited learning and thinking by others ideas but create your own fruit and spread that to the world regardless of what other people have to say.
I understand what you’re saying. I just don’t understand the practical application of it, especially when it’s impossible to me to separate who we “really” are and can be from what we have absorbed throughout our lives. It seems disingenuous for Steve Jobs to say he was purely and perfectly blazing his own trail when much of who he was was influence by his experiences, the people he came in contact with, etc etc.
It’s much akin to art, whether you’re talking about fine art or pop culture art (movies, music, books, etc). Really, there are no new movies or books or songs. They are all just repurposed ideas, plotlines, notes, melodies, in some form or fashion. When I go to write something “original,” all I really am doing is curating information from around my environment. I’m not really creating anything new, per se.
So I have trouble grasping onto this idea that we can live and operate and function completely independently of other peoples’ thinking. To me, it just doesn’t work that way.
jhp33 wrote:Forgotten_Charity wrote:Life is about transmitting your own frequencies, but we have been trained to just receive frequencies.
That’s why I’m not partial to givens or others on either side. Once you learn you that everything created in life was by people no smarter then you , you can start to open up and not be bound by limited learning and thinking by others ideas but create your own fruit and spread that to the world regardless of what other people have to say.
I understand what you’re saying. I just don’t understand the practical application of it, especially when it’s impossible to me to separate who we “really” are and can be from what we have absorbed throughout our lives. It seems disingenuous for Steve Jobs to say he was purely and perfectly blazing his own trail when much of who he was was influence by his experiences, the people he came in contact with, etc etc.
It’s much akin to art, whether you’re talking about fine art or pop culture art (movies, music, books, etc). Really, there are no new movies or books or songs. They are all just repurposed ideas, plotlines, notes, melodies, in some form or fashion. When I go to write something “original,” all I really am doing is curating information from around my environment. I’m not really creating anything new, per se.
So I have trouble grasping onto this idea that we can live and operate and function completely independently of other peoples’ thinking. To me, it just doesn’t work that way.
It can, I’m aware of that philosophical argument. I used to be a proponent for it.
Until after I went through de- indoctrination therapy.
I don’t make the argument that people aren’t interdependent. Instead I make that as a person we are not something empty waiting to be filled with good stuff or goals from others.
Rather seekers of the “heart”. Finding what speaks to us and enjoying and cultivating that despite that people of various authority will try to navigate you back to the pre-planned life model so you will use your time and talents to help THEIR agenda.
Example in many nations, cultures, and religions can be given.
But I will use my own, being born, what was my identity taught–that I am a child of god.
There by basing my worth on a father I never met(or the idea that my identity or self worth belongs to another).
It did, but know it doesn’t. I started to choose what sings to my heart and helping others without the need for approval for others as my identity or self worth. I noticed people of various authority try to reconvert me back to the idea of who I am and what I should love and do and where I should spend my time.
It almost worked if not for the de-indoctrination training.
I asked myself what I wanted and what sings to my heart instead.
I use that to help or bless others.
My whole life was prepared for me before I was even born.
Before I was born I was given a religious name of someone to emulate.
It was already decided rather then asked who I was and what I would do through out life.
Live up to my religious name of another person that is not myself, be baptized by approved age,
Spend my life stuffing approved material, make approved friends, go on a mission at approved age,
Get married in the an AltiVec time and place(the temple). Take on various ordinances, take on a certain and approved of leadership and personality(not my own), spend all my time doing approved things for family and church.
This isn’t different then in cultures, countries and religions and governments that train you to conform to their idea of what they want accomplished and done.
I learned to hate myself for decades before I learned that I could be myself and not live a ore approved life.
I could spend my time being me and not pretending to try to to hit to many walls and lived a ore approved happy life of my family and authority. I could find what speaks toe and not be afraid to embrace it instead of embracing what I was told or how to be. That I could just do what I really wanted to do and act according to my own personality and not one that was dictated as the “righteous” personality to absorb.
That is what I mean, many people are trained to appease various authority figures in their particular tribe.
It doesn’t have to be that way, you can just be you, you don’t have to think in the context in the way you are trance to think.
You can form your own context or choose prices from many. Not to just choose one and adhere to it.
The tribe needs to accept you for you. Not to change or mold to what they like(or believe god likes).
If they are with true charity they will accept you for you and bit what you can bring them or service them or change and be molded to them. That is not friendship, that is not charity.
Steve jobs is right. A lot of us are brought up in a system that tells us who we are and what we should be doing.
Rather then asking us who we are, what do we enjoy doing, how do we define ourselves independently of others.
And help to encourage and shape it. Rather then try and mold us.
We can mold ourselves into who we want to be, not what others or a system tells is we should be.
That’s just wrong on so many levels. Be what speaks to you, you don’t need others for that, you just need to search and hopefully others will help you search and not define you.
It goes off of the basic premise that is one of the most important truths ever.
Only you can define you and who you are, no one else has the right to define you or who you are and what you want to be. Just you.
I appreciate what you are saying, F_C, and think it is absolutely critical to attempt to figure out what you believe apart from outside influences – but I think it’s impossible to fully “de-indoctrinate”. There simply is no way of knowing what I would believe if I had been born into a Calcutta slum – or with an abusive parent – or with homosexual attraction – or a foot taller and more athletic – or with a learning disability – or female – ad infinitum. I agree we aren’t a blank slate (that we all are unique in ways that are biologically natural), but I don’t believe it is possible to understand what we would have believed in a vacuum. In fact, I could argue scientifically that our “natural” state is animalistic and harsh – which is the philosophical foundation for the concept of putting aside the natural (wo)man and becoming more than just smart animals. The best I think we can do is attempt to figure out what we want to believe here and now, with the understandings we have now and in the situations in which we live now – in order to change our here and now.
In practical terms, both approaches are geared toward letting go of the aspects of who we are that we see as negative and becoming a better person – so I am fine with any framing that makes sense individually. The idea of finding who we are without cultural influence just doesn’t resonate with me, since I see it as an impossibility. The objective resonates strongly with me, but the specific framing simply doesn’t.
Again, however, that doesn’t mean you can’t pursue that framing if it works for you. In that case, I support you fully in that journey.
Curtis wrote:I appreciate what you are saying, F_C, and think it is absolutely critical to attempt to figure out what you believe apart from outside influences – but I think it’s impossible to fully “de-indoctrinate”. There simply is no way of knowing what I would believe if I had been born into a Calcutta slum – or with an abusive parent – or with homosexual attraction – or a foot taller and more athletic – or with a learning disability – or female –
ad infinitum. I agree we aren’t a blank slate (that we all are unique in ways that are biologically natural), but I don’t believe it is possible to understand what we would have believed in a vacuum. In fact, I could argue scientifically that our “natural” state is animalistic and harsh – which is the philosophical foundation for the concept of putting aside the natural (wo)man and becoming more than just smart animals. The best I think we can do is attempt to figure out what we want to believe here and now, with the understandings we have now and in the situations in which we live now – in order to change our here and now.
In practical terms, both approaches are geared toward letting go of the aspects of who we are that we see as negative and becoming a better person – so I am fine with any framing that makes sense individually. The idea of finding who we are without cultural influence just doesn’t resonate with me, since I see it as an impossibility. The objective resonates strongly with me, but the specific framing simply doesn’t.
Again, however, that doesn’t mean you can’t pursue that framing if it works for you. In that case, I support you fully in that journey.
Thank you Curtis! I can understand that. It’s not the approach I am taking though. But rather to embrace what speaks to you irregardless of the system or people that try to get you to follow their path or system that was set up.
That’s very different then trying to achieve absolute uninfluenced thinking.
One influence is brought about by a natural flow, the other by force of will power to try to intentionally influence someone breaks both the persons right and the law of free agency.
By a person carefully selecting what another person sees and hears and experiences, they have intentionally replaced their and shaped their personality. Which is both deplorably wrong and harmful to the highest nature of naturally growing up and choosing for yourself. It violates the persons free agency because it puts them in a very narrow path and physiologically it takes away their ability to make choices. Taken away choices is taken ing away free agency and imposing your will on others.
Let them grow up naturally and find out who they are and cater and help mold tiger own choices. Present many chooses before them, let them decide. Otherwise it’s kind of like a horse with blinders on, which is a fate and life worse then death.
Quote:By a person carefully selecting what another person sees and hears and experiences, they have intentionally replaced and shaped their personality.
Or, they have shielded them from incredibly damaging forces and allowed them to grow to the point of maturity where their personality and personal desired can be fulfilled.
I agree with the general message of what you are saying, but there is no way I am letting my kids be exposed to everything out there, beginning at birth, without consciously filtering and rejecting (“controlling”) some of it. I absolutely am going to “carefully select what (my kids) see and hear and experience” to some age-appropriate degree– although to a much lower degree than lots of other parents will do with their kids. In other words, there is extremism (like you have described experiencing while growing up), and there is moderation. My concern is that you appear to be advocating the opposite extremism of what was done to you – saying we ought to let children grow with no direction or control that would limit their choices in any way rather than tightly controlling everything they see, hear and experience. I don’t accept either extreme. I’m saying I want to raise my kids to be able to make their own choices regardless of whether or not they are what I would choose (which is what I think you are saying) – but I believe strongly that they won’t get to that goal without some degree of guidance or even “control” along the way until they are capable of making informed, carefully considered choices on their own.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.