Seeing Things Differently -DanP the apologist excuse.

[sock puppet]

Consider the fallacy of sunken costs and whether that is what drives you. All you have left in life is today and the days remaining thereafter until you die. Make good use of them; don't resign yourself to the shackles of a religion simply because you may have foregone living life to its fullest for the years you've been under the spell of a religious cult.

The arguments on this board against free will all come down to this constant refrain that you and others make after all is said and done. That “living life to the fullest” demands that one leave the CofJCofLDS.

How that might apply to free will and making choices is an interesting question in and of itself.

We ALL have only today and the days remaining thereafter “until [we] die”. We all should “make good use of them”. Are you saying that because one has made what they believe to be covenants with God that they are somehow at a disadvantage in making good use of time and that we are somehow caught in shackles that keep us from being the kind of person we have the potential of being?

I’ve mentioned the arrogance I’ve observed a time or two on this thread. Your comments seem to demonstrate the fact that those, such as yourself, that have “left the cult” are somehow privy to special knowledge that allows you to judge your fellow human beings and call them deluded and something ‘less than they can be’ because they adhere to religious doctrines and principles. As I mentioned to another poster, this the height of conceit, arrogance, and hubris.

This conversation about free will and the adamant condemnation of its existence seems to be attached to feelings and judgements being made in regards to whether or not a creator God exists to whom we owe allegiance and are accountable. After all, if we are not accountable to a God we are perfectly willing to define free will however we want even to the point of explaining it away.

Life can then be, as you say, “lived to its fullest” as one discards the chains of obedience or conformity to religious doctrines, principles, and practices. Me thinks that this choice of “living life to its fullest” is an exercise of free will in and of itself.

I would like to think that you’re being honest with yourself and others but there is a part of me that doubts your sincerity and confidence in the path you’ve taken and are out to ‘convert’ others to your worldview/lifestyle.

The paragraphs I’ve quoted from you seems to point towards this as being a distinct possibility.

Anyway, as I’ve said, I think I’ve said just about all I have to say in this thread directly discussing free will and such. But I have to take issue with what you have said and simply say that I think you are confused and mistaken. That is if we’re not dealing without outright half truths and lies.

Regards,
MG

MG--it's no wonder you're LDS. It is so easy to push your buttons.

[MG 2.0]

So, why not make faith irrelevant to reason and reason irrelevant to faith?

Because I don’t see faith as being irrelevant to reason. A reasoned faith is at the very core of how many of us conduct our life of discipleship. To strip that away strikes down one of the pillars that supports the worldview and views of eternity that a believer has in their repertoire of meanings and purposes for which we exist.

That’s a big ask.

And in the meantime the nonbelievers are free to refer to the ‘Mormon God’ in any way, shape, and form they choose. Caracature built on caracature.

To take away the voice of reason (even if flawed) from the believer while at the same time allowing for other voices to have a heyday in building their own possibly flawed caricatures in regards to anything ‘Mormon’ is on its face unreasonable and unfair.

I would rather come across as irrational (in your mind) than exempt myself from expressing my views that I believe have a foundation in Godly truth.

So no thanks.

But, we can agree to disagree and do so without vitriol or slamming the ‘other’. I would need to be more aware of when I might be saying something that might be offensive to someone that has particular sensitivities. This thread and others has helped me to understand what some of those sensitivities might be. Just as people of faith may be hurt by comments made derogatory of their faith or person, it works the other way around.

Even if those comments might be made, at least in some cases, somewhat inadvertently or innocently. We all say things that we later…after more introspection…realize would have been better left unsaid.

And there is such a thing as hypersensitivity.

I can do better. Others can do better.

Point is taken.

Regards,
MG

[doubtingthomas]

I would rather come across as irrational (in your mind) than exempt myself from expressing my views that I believe have a foundation in Godly truth.

I wonder, is the Holy Ghost guiding you to express your views here? Would your Bishop be happy with your participation on this board?

In any case, we are more interested in knowing why you believe what you believe. Share some spiritual experiences so we can analyze them, or share some of your evidence. It's very easy to argue that something is possible, but it's not so easy to demonstrate that something is likely.

[huckelberry]

(I believe 'free will' is overwhelmingly influenced by conditions, but I also believe we should make an effort to act as though we can influence our ability to be our best selves.)

This is largely where I land as well. One addition I'd make is that I see the real ability to affect choices occuring prior to the moment of choice so making consequences more clear and adding information or considerations to a person's thinking all get into the complex mix. When I listen to my better angels it helps me temper honesty with kindness.

Honorentheos, I have been puzzled by this thread and was puzzled as to how to respond to the question yu had for me. Reading the above I suspect we are in agreement. At least I do not disagree with either Marcus or your statement here.

I am more puzzled as to what MG is pursuing and perhaps as to why his comments, which leave me a bit indifferent, provoke some much comment. Perhaps MG is suggesting that if freewill then god exists. That sounds a bit like suggesting that there is a supernatural dimension to free will. Do we have a free spirit separate from that troubling preconscious physical controls on our choices. I do not think so. If people are seen that way freewill becomes a bit of a jumble likely seen as not existing.

[malkie]

Did these intelligences have free will (in the sense that we are discussing the concept in this thread)?

There are two theories about intelligence. The Russian doll theory, and what's basically the reductionist theory. The Russian doll theory maintains libertarian free will. I think in Church we usually encountered the Russian doll theory (my parents spoke about it this way), but surprisingly, I believe the reductionist theory has more support in church writings, including Bruce R. McConkie, if I recall.

The Russian doll theory is that you are fundamentally an "intelligence" - a tiny "unit of free will". That intelligence is put into a spirit body, which is then put into a physical body. but the spirit body and physical body are just shells. Those tiny units of free-will existed forever into the past, and so for an infinity of time, we were disembodied "free will bits" or "disembodied selfs"--- doing what? Some believe perhaps we occupied matter and were the link between God's commands and matter's obedience, and we worked our way up. Cleon Skousen teaches something like this. In this theory, God obviously did not give us free will as "we", the intelligences, are an ontologically different thing from matter-- bits of will co-existing with God if not prior to God.

It's a very attractive folk theory to the point of saving the individuality of yourself as non-reducible definitive thing, just as MG experiences it. But upon inspection, it becomes totally absurd.

The more intelligible theory is reductionist:

https://rsc.BYU.edu/joseph-smith-prophe ... rn-science

In Doctrine and Covenants 93:29, the prophet also writes, "Intelligence, or the light of truth, was not created or made, neither indeed can be.” In addition, the Prophet taught, “There is no such thing as immaterial matter. All spirit is matter, but it is fine and pure” (131:7). Combining these teachings, “spirit element,” also called intelligence, or the light of truth, has always existed. Through a spiritual birth, this light (energy attributes) is transformed into spirit bodies (pure, refined matter), but it cannot be created nor destroyed. In other words, any change in energy attributes corresponds to a change in mass. It seems the prophet Joseph clearly understood and taught this principle.

This is a totally different theory, and, it's one that makes Mormons feel like their religion is more compatible with science than other religions. So intelligence is "spirit element", a real material thing, and your self is not an intelligence, in fact, there is no self as such. The spirit elements come together to make a spirit body, and you are born as a spirit --- you have a definite beginning. With this theory, the same challenges to the idea of free will as a body with a brain. Having a Mormon spirit of this type controlling the brain is having one system bound by material laws controlling another. If free will can't exist for a person with a brain only and no soul, adding this version of the Mormon spirit doesn't help. In this theory, God also does not give us free will, as there is no such thing.

Since Joseph said there is no such thing as immaterial matter, the Russian Doll theory more compatible with MG style free will, is essentially eliminated.

Thanks for the extensive reply, Dean R - you've given me something to think about.

[hauslern]

Both Nancy Pelosi and Jimmy Carter say they pray for Donald Trump. If their prayers were answered would it mean interfering with Trump's free will. He confesses I slept with Stormy Daniels and Karen McDougal.

[Morley]

So, why not make faith irrelevant to reason and reason irrelevant to faith?

Because I don’t see faith as being irrelevant to reason. A reasoned faith is at the very core of how many of us conduct our life of discipleship. To strip that away strikes down one of the pillars that supports the worldview and views of eternity that a believer has in their repertoire of meanings and purposes for which we exist.

That’s a big ask.

And in the meantime the nonbelievers are free to refer to the ‘Mormon God’ in any way, shape, and form they choose. Caracature built on caracature.

To take away the voice of reason (even if flawed) from the believer while at the same time allowing for other voices to have a heyday in building their own possibly flawed caricatures in regards to anything ‘Mormon’ is on its face unreasonable and unfair.

I would rather come across as irrational (in your mind) than exempt myself from expressing my views that I believe have a foundation in Godly truth.

So no thanks.

But, we can agree to disagree and do so without vitriol or slamming the ‘other’. I would need to be more aware of when I might be saying something that might be offensive to someone that has particular sensitivities. This thread and others has helped me to understand what some of those sensitivities might be. Just as people of faith may be hurt by comments made derogatory of their faith or person, it works the other way around.

Even if those comments might be made, at least in some cases, somewhat inadvertently or innocently. We all say things that we later…after more introspection…realize would have been better left unsaid.

And there is such a thing as hypersensitivity.

I can do better. Others can do better.

Point is taken.

In spite of my preposterous, spur-of-the-moment, iPhone-composed rebuttal of him, I think you're missing the core of Res's point.

If I understand the essence of what Res is saying, I think that he's urging you to go ahead and make the full-throated defenses of Mormonism that you wish to make. He's just venturing that these arguments would be more effective if you didn't try to cloak them in bad citations, the pretense of logic, or half-understood science. If faith is good enough for you to base your opinion on, then it should also be good enough to work as an argument. Putting forth half-baked theories and flawed propositions, ones that you yourself think might be damaged or stillborn, reeks of desperation and convinces nobody.

[huckelberry]

Both Nancy Pelosi and Jimmy Carter say they pray for Donald Trump. If their prayers were answered would it mean interfering with Trump's free will. He confesses I slept with Stormy Daniels and Karen McDougal.

hauslern
My free will has been interfered with all my life and I am getting a bit along in years now. I have no reason to imagine interference will stop. It contributes to making free will interesting and useful. I would miss it should it stop.

[IWMP]

Both Nancy Pelosi and Jimmy Carter say they pray for Donald Trump. If their prayers were answered would it mean interfering with Trump's free will. He confesses I slept with Stormy Daniels and Karen McDougal.

hauslern
My free will has been interfered with all my life and I am getting a bit along in years now. I have no reason to imagine interference will stop. It contributes to making free will interesting and useful. I would miss it should it stop.

[Dr Exiled]

I think MG takes Ammon and his brethren among the Lamanites as his text. Yea, let us become their servants to show that we are common among them (golly, I'm just like you, but have a different perspective, shucks free will, etc., etc.). And lo, the posters' hearts at discussmormonism.com were softened and they feasted upon the words as they spewed forth from MG's fingers in his humble yet superior way. And it came to pass that the preaching of the word had the effect that Joseph Smith intended in his made-up Bible fan fiction and many souls were saved that day, supposedly.

Go forth in Christ MG 2.0! You surely have the superior perspective.