Last week I was on a business trip to Washington DC. I picked up my car at the airport, and turned on the radio. I didn’t bother to change the channel, and it was on an AM conservative talk radio station. So I listened for about 45 min as I made my way to my hotel.
After a while of listening, and hearing all the push-back on the Impeachment of the President, some of the arguments started to make sense. For several days I listened to that station, and became more convinced they were right. On the last day, I changed the radio to a regular news channel, and heard some sound bites from the Impeachment hearings, and started to change my mind back to the other side.
I was startled on how just a few hours of listening to one side of the issue could influence me. This got me to thinking about what I listen to and read about the church. Could reading and listening to progressive and post-mo web sites and podcasts tip me one way, and conversely could reading the Ensign and listening to General Conference lead me the other way?
If I chose to believe (the new buzzword from our leaders), could this really just mean to only listen and read from approved sources? If I stopped reading anything but LDS.org, and listened to only General Conference talks, maybe I would believe more?
What do you think? Could you choose to stop reading my posts, and start to believe by only reading LDS.org? Can immersion in one thought or the other really sway us, even though we know better before jumping in? Does this explain why listeners of Fox News become more supportive of Trump, and listeners of John Dehlin on Mormon Stories get drawn farther from the church?
Wheat & Tares 
The great invitation, or choice, in the scripture is to choose life or to choose death. Or, in other words, it is to choose Jesus as the Savior or to choose someone else. The invitation is made freely, and to all. The response should be an informed and purposeful choice, made with some knowledge of both alternatives.
In that light, it makes sense that one who has made a choice for the Savior will strengthen him- or herself by reading and listening to the faithful testimonies of others, while one wh0 has made a choice for someone else will have little interest in reading or listening to those testimonies. Sometimes, people make a choice and then later change their minds, and then their reading/listening habits might also change.
It seems to work both ways — one’s reading/listening habits might inform her or her future choices, and one’s choices might inform his or her reading/listening choices. There is probably little usefulness for absolute statements in this matter. Inasmuch as I am one who has chosen to believe in Jesus as the Savior, I hope that anything I way or write will help to strengthen faith in others as they consider that great invitation.
Ji…how about drop the listening and reading and start doing and being…that way we can find truth through our own experience.
For a very long time, I read only church literature, stayed fully present and active in my ward and attempted to be an excellent ambassador for Mormonism. I think I did a lot of good for the church, but It was not working for me. I was miserable and did not feel true to myself.
Taking time to stop and ask myself, “But what do I believe” gave me permission to look inside myself and start to unravel my individual thoughts, beliefs and life experiences and compare them to the doctrines of the LDS faith. I was told in Young Womens to make a list of what I was looking for in a spouse, I did that with my religion. That took me on a different path than I had expected. I had expected to stay within Mormonism but gain further understanding about myself. I didn’t expect to leave my religion.
I kept my faith in God, but decided that Mormonism was not bringing me closer to Him. I needed another path. I feel led in that path. God is in my life. Where I will end up? I don’t know yet. Could I have chosen to simply stay engaged in Mormonism? Yes, but I deserve to find happiness and joy in my life.
I’m with you Ally — I’m already doing and being — I’m grateful for the gospel of Jesus Christ, and try every day to fully live a charitable life. I learn more as time passes. Yes, our own experiences will inform our choices, and our own choices will inform our experiences — it’s all intertwined.
Die Linien des Lebens sind verschieden,
Wie Wege sind, und wie der Berge Grenzen.
Was hier wir sind, kann dort ein Gott ergänzen
Mit Harmonien und ewigen Lohn und Frieden.
The lines of life are various; they diverge and cease
Like footpaths and the mountains’ utmost ends.
What here we are, elsewhere a God amends
With harmonies, eternal recompense and peace.
Friedrich Hölderlin , “Poems and Fragments” tr. Michael Hamburger, Routledge and Kegan Paul edition,
It’s probably a positive feedback loop. You listen to what you believe and then you believe what you listen to.
The last time I visited my in laws in Utah I notes that the only news on their cable package was Fox, so they couldn’t have watched any other news except local news even if they wanted to, or paid more. I don’t think they even had CNN which i thought came with all cable packages.
Choosing Jesus does not mean choosing the LDS church. The gospel is not the church. The church is not the kingdom of God. The church is always conflating these terms, so that it seems like if you leave the church you are leaving Jesus, the gospel and the kingdom of God. But it ain’t so.
Bishop Bill, love your posts. The first thought that comes to my mind is “confirmation bias”. Listen to what you believe and you will likely believe it more. Listen to what you don’t believe and you will likely believe it less. You mention Fox News . “Does this explain why listeners of Fox News become more supportive of Trump, “. It should also be asked, does listening to CNN (or other “liberal” media) make listeners more opposed to Trump? I’d be curious to know what “regular news channel” you listened to. Sometimes I wonder if there are any “news” stations still in existence. Unfortunately we live in a world where everything (politics, church, etc.) is reduced to sound bites. I’ve noticed the same sound bite can be used by both conservative and liberal “reporters” to support their story.
Anyway, thanks for your posts.
Certainly choosing to hear only one side of a story can have a dramatic influence on which side you believe. I think this is more true for more recent or shorter duration events, such as we see in politics and current events. I think it’s less influential when you have a lifetime to learn the other side of the story. I had major doubts about my belief system start when I was reading strictly approved and faithful materials.
More importantly, I don’t want to choose what to believe; I would rather believe things that are true. It makes more sense to gather information from many diverse sources, and search for a reliable way to discover truth.
Beautifully said, Mayginnes. (Love the name – by the way!). After all of the ups and downs with the LDS Church – the greatest peace I’ve found is in deliberately separating anything relating to the Divine , from any form of organized religion: especially Mormonism in my case. It’s quite a thrilling thing to go in search of the Devine….without anyone (or any establish culture) putting pressure on you.
I think that choosing what to believe by choosing what to read/listen to only works to a degree.
If you read or listen to things that you already halfway agree with, then you’ll probably end up agreeing a bit more as time goes on. And if you’re a political centrist, then that will work with political news out of the two poles of what passes for a political spectrum today.
But if a certain set of beliefs is already odious to you, then listening to it won’t make you hate it any less. Could you imagine listening to a preacher who believes in infant damnation and, after a few hours, coming around to accept his position? Or would you just sit there the whole time abhorring it just as much as before?
If you are a history buff and sometimes find yourself reading speeches or tracts in defense of slavery, eugenics, or some other position that is universally deplored in the America of today, do you end up moderating on it, or do you just deplore every sentence that you read?
This is even more true if the controversy in question has harmed someone you care about. Imagine if you have a friend who was a veteran, struggled with feelings of despair and being abandoned by his country, and eventually committed suicide.If someone made an argument to you that the veteran suicide crisis in this country isn’t as big of a deal as the media is making it out to be, would you find yourself coming around to his point of view, or would you just be appalled and want to get that person out of your life?
I think the only way we can avoid bias is to make sure we hear both sides, and gain a deeper understanding of things than just surface sound bites. I purposely read my news so I get more than a quick skim of the surface. I also make sure that I read articles from both sides, just so I know and understand what kind of argument the other side is making. When I find things that one side is saying that are different than the other side is saying, then I fact check. I don’t always end up believing what I would have chosen if I had decided how to believe based on what I want. The world isn’t as happy of a place as if I still believed in happy illusions, but then there is value in knowing unicorns are not real.
I have so many mixed feelings about the phrase “choose to believe.” I know many believers in recent years have used it to ultimately justify their faith and their efforts to live by it, no matter the strain. I can also understand how leaders have more or less used it to describe the process of exercising fatih. But so many unbelievers seem to use it almost derogatory, as if in contrast to “choosing facts” that seemingly all but discount another’s belief.
Additionally, it implies that belief is almost all my doing. It’s true that I chose to listen to my parents. I chose to prayerfully read the Book of Mormon. However, I did not choose the pure intelligence I felt poured into my mind by the Holy Ghost telling me the book was true. That felt more like a gift than anything else. I suppose I ultimately had to choose the ramifications of receiving that gift, but it wasn’t a difficult choice at the time.
I find both sides of an argument can often appeal emotionally. Both of them may even make a lot of sense logically, but after taking in both sides one of them eventually does appear more morally correct. Rarely are they black and white, however.
I think a mistake I may be guilty of is assuming that because I’ve received some truth from a source, it’s easier to assume that source will consistently provide it. I actually struggle with that somewhat less with the Church, given the counsel pounded into me growing up never to take anything leaders say for granted, but to study it out and pray about it. I’d do better to apply a form of that counsel to the rest my life.
I think the phenomenon you describe, Bishop Bill, is a legitimate and important one. There’s a tendency to be convinced by what you hear. I think there’s a second one inherent in that. There are threads of The Truth in most arguments.
The trick is to cull out what’s convenient or self-serving in favor of the more enduring and universal.
My strategy is to listen to as much as I possibly can and keep an open mind until my own conclusion and the logic behind it become clear.
The next step, akin to the scientific method, is to enter into discussions and let conclusions be tested. If you listen to other points of view with an open mind and allow your conclusions to be challenged you’ll find where the weaknesses in your logic exist and understand what you have to think through again.
Finally, I think seeking the truth, being open to the frustration of being uncertain and the discomfort of being confused are noble and not disloyal or signs of weakness.
Dark Traveler, I understand your skepticism. I have found that National Public Radio takes an unbiased and fair approach to facts and current events.
Straight down the middle is harder to find all the time. And sometimes “straight” isn’t really so much “down the middle” but if you read both sides and check it against what you observe it’s clear to me that NPR has a lot of credibility.
Toad, that’s truly disturbing?
Sorry, Toad, that WASN’T intended to be a question. I meant an exclamation point.
I think that cable company is highly irresponsible and “in the bag”, as it were.
It also explains a lot.
If faith has moral consequence, and it does, then it must be an exercise of moral agency. There could be no reward for the faithful or punishment of the faithless if faith was not a choice.
Yes, if you only surround yourself with certain information, you can definitely become quite ignorant and even radicalized. We have a local conservative talk show that comes on before Limbaugh and it is hysterical to listen to. The dud is Glenn Beck on steroids. It is fear mongering at its finest. Have you ever talked to a Michael Savage nut or an Alex Jones nut? The same thing happens to Snuffer and Rowe listeners. You have to be careful not to see only one side of any issue. Everyone has a bias, even NPR.
As it relates to the gospel, I do see certain podcasts and reddit as absolute poison. They do not uplift, do not offer any alternative and just seek to destroy. If you just wallow in that all day, belief in anything spiritual is very difficult. On the other hand, some beliefs need to be let go, namely all of the false ones. On one of Ostlers podcasts with Braithwaite, he correctly points out that anyone that is in a stage 5 faith can never go back to a stage 3 faith. There are no amount of LDS living articles I could read that could convince me that the earth is 6000 years old and that there was no death before the fall.
Here is a link to that great podcast I mentioned
https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/listen-learn-love-hosted-by-richard-ostler/id1347971725?i=1000455954534
As far as faith being a choice, I wish it were that simple. I got up since the time I was 8 and told people what I knew. I went on a mission and repeated that line over and over. It wasn’t until I was 30 years old that I actually exercised faith for the first time in my life. Odds are, if I had been born a child of Alma Lebaron or Rulon Jeffs, I would have “known” those things to be true. Good thing I was super valiant in heaven so I was born to the family I was.
Bishop Bill wrote “Could reading and listening to progressive and post-mo web sites and podcasts tip me one way, and conversely could reading the Ensign and listening to General Conference lead me the other way?”
For me the answer to Bishop Bill’s question is a resounding “Yes!” From my own careful observation of myself over a lifetime I’m 100% positive that that is the case with me. Is it that way for everyone? I’m not sure.
I have found that I am not in control of what I believe to be the truth. Belief seems to be an independent function within me, something that my brain or heart cannot order around. It reaches it’s own conclusions that I cannot overcome simply by choosing to believe something. I simply believe what I do. It is an interesting phenomenon.
The institution has become too corporate. To gather Israel, we need to act more like a tribe, less like a corporation. We need a more holistic narrative. When people lose faith, much of it involves confusing the institution with the church, and the church with the gospel. The institution needs redress, but all those with the power to initiate change seem comfortably vested with our hemmoraging status quo. It seems half-ass efforts and facades of “new programs,” are the hope for the institution. Millennials see right through it. They are looking for meaning and value beyond the ethic propagated by Mitt Romneys and Steven Coveys, but the institution wants clones.
We are encouraged to read the best books and to seek out knowledge and truth. The institution would like to be the clearinghouse for knowledge and truth, but it has proven to be unreliable, if not dishonest.
Too many saints are more converted to the institution than to the gospel—when the institution fails, faith crisis ensues. The institution has put itself between the gospel and the church (body of saints)… just like a Golden Calf.
I cannot control what I believe. My belief is an independent function within me, and my heart or brain cannot order it around. It tells me what I believe. I do not and cannot choose to believe something and then tell it to obey. It won’t obey. Somehow it is within me but independent of me. It is an interesting phenomenon.
Sorry that comment showed up twice. I thought something had gone wrong on the first one. Oops.
@Mayginnes:
“My belief is an independent function within me, and my heart or brain cannot order it around.”
While this may be true (I find there is little that I can order myself to do across the board) that doesn’t mean that faith isn’t a choice.
“[E]ven if ye can no more than desire to believe, let this desire work in you, even until ye believe…”
You choose what you want and then, over time, faith follows.
Mayginnes, can your beliefs be changed by facts? If you were pro life and you could be shown that that position increased the number of abortions, could you accept that, And change?
I agree that your position/point of view political position are pretty fixed. I can not explain why I am progressive.
The problem I see for the church, and democracy, is that we seem to becoming more extreme, and there is little respect for the other. (Trump culture?) I realise you have said nothing about others only that you are fixed.
I think I usually have the opposite experience to Bishop Bill regarding “news” radio. The more I listen to biased broadcasts from either side, the more I find myself thinking they are idiots. In the end, I keep looking for a solution where both sides lose. That was how I kept myself happy about the miserable presidential choices in 2016–I was confident that one of the sides would lose. I just focused on that. The hand-wringing and end-of-the-world responses from Team Clinton made the joy even better. Too bad both sides couldn’t lose…
In short, sound bites and hyperbole don’t do much to sway me (except to drive me away). I find this true even of positions I agree with. When the presentation becomes so bad or blatantly unfair, I am driven away from that position. Unfortunately, the impeachment brouhaha has done the same for me. I’ve gone from someone who disliked to Trump to feeling I should defend him because the attacks are so far-fetched and overreaching.
How does this relate to the gospel/church? I guess we (as individuals) do a lot to screw it up when we make ridiculous statements in the name of our religion that discount the possibility of another perspective. Like in politics, nuance is often lost in our rhetoric. Without nuance, we lose respect. Without respect, we just end up shouting at each other while we plug our ears.
I am firmly convinced (backed up by human psychology) that belief is NOT a choice. Our minds are merely convinced of something or not, independently of what we will to be the case. The only conscious control we have over the process is what we choose to expose ourselves to.
In response to your post, when we can choose to expose ourselves to something, the more likely we are to be convinced of a position, but there is a limit. The more we know about a subject, the less likely we are to be swayed by limited information. I could listen to arguments for a flat earth all day and I doubt I would be swayed by the arguments. I know too much about the science of how we know the earth to be round for those arguments to be compelling.
If we cannot control what our minds believe, then my goal is to believe things that are true. The best chance for that to happen is to expose myself to the best information available and try to avoid polarized arguments for any issue. This is easier said than done, but I try my best. I am concerned about believing things that turn out to be false simply because I refused to look into contrary information to a position.
Yes, my beliefs change in the face of new facts that I believe are true.
One can choose to *pretend* to believe, by acting in conforming ways and saying the right things in most church settings. But you can’t simply choose to mentally believe or disbelieve something in opposition to a position your mind has already come to accept. It is true that one’s sincere beliefs can change over time once in a while, but not on a whim, just out of the blue, for no particular reason.
So what LDS leaders are really saying is, “Choose to pretend to believe.” As long as you keep signing the checks, offer free labor services in this or that calling (such as the two years of free labor donated by missionaries), and don’t mouth off too much in Sunday School, they don’t really care what your veiled sincere beliefs are. Orthodoxy theater is good enough.
“If I stopped reading anything but LDS.org, and listened to only General Conference talks, maybe I would believe more? “
Maybe; probably not. Those talks have been washed, bleached and wrung out. But your idea is worthy; whatever you wallow in you become covered by.
Scripture talks about seeds; some fall on hard ground and are baked by the sun, they never sprout. Some fall in shallow soil and sprout, but soon wither under the heat of the sun. But some, apparently not very many, take root and can resist the heat of the sun; and eventually bear fruit. The implication is that the seeds were good but the situations they landed in governed, to some or large degree, the outcome. In a church context this means youth need to be somewhat protected as their own ideology takes root and they can, in their adulthood, explore contrary points of view which sometimes contain useful ideas. But to do so FIRST is unwise.
The idea of socialism is great and underpins most Christian religions. But as a practical matter it does not work. That is why you can agree with left wing ideology; because it is “good” and presumes upon universal human goodness. The sensibility of right wing ideology is agreeable because it does not presume upon the universal goodness of human beings: “Good fences make good neighbors!” https://www.mamalisa.com/blog/robert-frosts-proverb-good-fences-make-good-neighbors/
Geoff – Aus asks “If you were pro life and you could be shown that that position increased the number of abortions, could you accept that, And change?”
Probably not. Good and evil do not change places simply because of a situation. Evil can sometimes be justified in a situation. Just don’t call it good. Call it “expedient”. God allows the continued existence of Evil because it is expedient.
God never said, “Thou shalt reduce the number of abortions”. He said, “Thou shalt not kill”. Therefore I do not; and yet, as a military member I was employed to do just that.
Reducing the number of abortions involves OTHER PEOPLE and their choices. The commandments are personal. I obey them, or not, without regard to whether other people are obeying them.
Ally suggests “Ji…how about drop the listening and reading and start doing and being…that way we can find truth through our own experience.”
Different personality types approach experience and the world VERY differently from each other type. Intuitive Introverts (NT’s) listen and read. Extraverted Sensors (ES) “be and do”. What the NT decides is true may well not even be on the radar for an ES, and vice versa.
When faced with a problem, the NT will probably sit there for hours seeming to do nothing, then suddenly fix the problem since the cause may seem completely unrelated, a cascade of events from the actual source of the problem through several intermediate steps to that which was observed. (ie, Fix the problem, not the symptom)
The ES will approach problems with a Monte-Carlo style of spin the wheel and try something. Didn’t work, try something else. Maybe eventually it gets fixed, don’t know and don’t care what exactly did the trick since the next time a problem arises, maybe the same exact problem, spin the wheel. Fix the symptom, not the problem, and maybe that’s good enough.
[Further reading: Myers-Briggs Personality Type Indicator https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Myers%E2%80%93Briggs_Type_Indicator%5D
I think we are mostly caused to believe. Most of what we think is caused by environment. But there are times when we can momentarily transcend environmental stimuli and through our own powers of reasoning make a conscious choice to believe. But it takes considerable mental effort to do so. By saying, “choose to believe,” it is often just a veiled way of treating non-belief as a malady. You’re not choosing hard enough if you don’t believe. It is also a form of insulating oneself from counternarratives and critiques. It doesn’t matter what you say or how rational of an argument you are making. I have chosen to believe whatever I believe and you can’t change that.
My thoughts:
Does God exist? Does science have the conclusive proof God doesn’t exist? Or that there is no afterlife?
Some (not all) scientists will say both are unlikely.
So, one can desire to believe and choose to believe there is a God and/or an afterlife, others (reasonably) can/will choose not to believe).
At some point in my life, I found (without going into detail) that the pat answers given and many more unanswered questions in church just don’t work anymore. So, then I
I was faced, what do I do? Do I continue my relationship with church or do I step away? In some sense it would be more comfortable just stepping away but I didn’t really want to do that. Blogs like Wheat and Tares give me space to do both—continue a relationship with the church—but not feel so isolated in having lots of questions and less literal views.
Absolutely I did not go looking for complexity. It landed in my lap and then I had to figure out what to do about it, how to deal with it.
“I was startled on how just a few hours of listening to one side of the issue could influence me. This got me to thinking about what I listen to and read about the church. ”
I think it varies from person to person.
I’m curious about what radio program you were listening to.
(I’ve listened to lots of right/winged programming and find mostly stuff that isn’t accurate or reliable). But I like checking out factual sources to know if I’m the straight stuff.
“And as all have not faith, seek truth diligently and teach one another words of wisdom; yea, seek ye out of the best books words of wisdom; seek learning, even by study and also by faith.”
Doctrine & Covenants 88:118
Read all the books, study all the material, but use it to lift others, rather than try to awaken them.
We are all believers. The only question is whether we base our beliefs on facts and solid reasoning or on spin and half-truths. Sometimes figuring out which is which isn’t easy. The only solution is to get as much data as possible. I’m glad the Church is finally opening up and providing members a more complete picture of its history. I wonder what the effect of this will be on members’ beliefs. I wonder if it will follow the pattern it has set on history with other problem areas such as leaders’ statements and doctrine.
I’ve always appreciated the phrase, as it relates to the Gospel and the Church: “Faith is belief in things that are true.” Choosing to believe in Krampus doesn’t give you more faith, it just means you freak out every Krampusnacht. While it does make it frustrating and immensely more difficult, we are still commanded, as Travis mentioned, to “seek truth diligently … yea, seek ye out of the best books words of wisdom; seek learning, even by study and also by faith.”
I would imagine that the Lord wants us to do our part – seeking truth and learning diligently, studying diligently, and choosing to believe that truth as best we can. I don’t know if it’s good to “choose to believe” and correspondingly “choose not to study.” I’m sure many individuals have anecdotal stories of friends and family who choose to avoid the topical, historical, and other associated essays published on the church’s website because they choose to believe and choose not to study. It sure is difficult. But studying beyond “spiritual twinkies” toward divine truths of the gospel are worthwhile.
“On one of Ostlers podcasts with Braithwaite, he correctly points out that anyone that is in a stage 5 faith can never go back to a stage 3 faith. ”
Used to think that, and that I’d always feel cynical about the Church.
Nelson’s presidency, ending the PoX, etc. has been a balm to my soul personally. Understand it hasn’t for some.
However, I need to keep reading Dialogue, Journal of Mormon History, Blake Ostler, etc. in addition to General Conference. I’d really struggle without that.