The follow page was just published by the church. It grossly misrepresents what happened to Helmuth Hübener's resistance to National Socialist Germany and how his church treated him.

https://www.thechurchnews.com/history-archive/2025/02/08/two-german-cities-honor-youngest-executed-nazi-resistance-member-latter-day-saint/

The following was posted from a friend:
————
Sorry not sorry, I just can't tolerate the manipulative, false revisionist history in this article put out by the church news today. It disgusts me. I celebrate that Helmuth was a Mormon like me, BUT he was NOT a member of the LDS corporation - when he was executed - he was kicked out, abandoned, and betrayed.

FACT: Helmuth was excommunicated by the LDS church, after his arrest, and therefore WAS NOT a member at that time.

Buried at the very end of the article is an admission of the falsehoods found throughout...
"While branch president Zander successfully petitioned to excommunicate Hübener from The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints after his arrest, Hübener was reinstated in the Church and received temple ordinances by proxy in 1948."

The common justification amongst the LDS is that it was simply the act of a "rogue" branch president. And that's false. Although there were members/leaders who petitioned the church to intervene - those pleadings and petitions were ignored - the LDS authorities DID NOTHING, I repeat did NOTHING (except excommunicate, terminate his membership) as Helmuth was arrested at 16, courageously stood up to the nazi's sondergericht kangaroo court, was tortured in PRISON FOR 8 MONTHS and THEN EXECUTED BY A GUILLOTINE at the age of 17.

You can't do that to Helmuth, and then claim him back as a public relations event. It's 100% speculation whether or not Helmuth - AFTER HIS DEATH - would accept the PROXY reinstatement, etc.

This triggers me, coz I feel a powerful commonality with Helmuth, the truth deserves to be told, and we do him a disservice when we lie about it - just tell the damn truth. Perhaps say something to the effect of, "he was a member, but unfortunately, regretfully, embarrassingly,,,,, was excommunicated from the church organization" and clearly state that AFTER HIS DEATH, after allies victory in WW2, and after he was proclaimed a hero resistance, "we recognized our error and reinstated him by proxy...." - which by the way, means he has no voice in those actions.

Another LDS whitewash that will apparently Never Die!

I couldn't stomach reading the entire Fluff Piece…


Then, ChurchCo reinstated him posthumously, explaining that the excommunication wasn't authorized...

Well, my friends.... If it wasn't authorized, then it wasn't valid, am I correct?

wasn't authorized > wasn't valid > no need to reinstate his membership and possible PH status.


maybe I'm missing something here,



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 02/13/2025 07:48PM by GNPE.

A similar reinstatement occurred with respect to John Doyle Lee, the 2nd great grandfather of Rex Lee, a former President of BYU and the 3rd great grandfather of Senator Mike Lee. The difference was that Melmuth was no murderer.

In 1857, Lee convinced members of the Baker-Fanscher party to give up their weapons and surrender, after which all but 17 small children were slaughtered by a Mormon militia (of which Lee was a part) and some native Americans in what has become known as the Mountain Meadows Massacre.

When the federal government began to investigate the mass murder in 1870, Lee was excommunicated from the Mormon Church. Twenty-seven years after the Massacre, on March 23, 1877, Lee was executed by firing squad at the site of the 1857 massacre. His last words included a reference to Young: "I do not believe everything that is now being taught and practiced by Brigham Young. I do not care who hears it. It is my last word... I have been sacrificed in a cowardly, dastardly manner." On April 20, 1961, the LDS Church posthumously reinstated Lee's membership in the church. Amazingly, there is some compelling evidence that Brigham Young may have been complicit in the slaughter.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 02/14/2025 01:33AM by zliska.

From the link:

“Do not allow your free will, the most precious thing you possess, to be taken away from you,” Hübener wrote in a 1941 leaflet. The teenager was executed in 1942 for “conspiracy to commit high treason.”

COMMENT: Free will? Really? What religious nonsense. Free will is an illusion. (Just ask BoJ) So, let's stop venerating Helmuth Hübener as some sort of saint. He was determined to take whatever actions he took. It was all just genetics, environment, and brain states. A soul? Autonomy? Personhood? Humanism? Hogwash! Free will and its cousin, so-called "moral courage" has nothing to do with anything. All this morality talk is only the language we like to use to deceive ourselves into thinking that there is some meaning to life. Hübener is no more praiseworthy than a Nazi murderer is blameworthy.

Consider the 'experts:'

"The Astonishing Hypothesis is that "You," your joys and your sorrows, your memories and your ambitions, your sense of personal identity and free will, are in fact no more than the behavior of a vast assembly of nerve cells and their associated molecules. . . The reason why the Astonishing Hypothesis seems strange springs from our undeniable feeling that our Will is free. Two problems immediately arise: Can we find a neural correlate of events we consider to show the free exercise of our Will? And could it not be that our Will only appears to be free?" (Francis Crick, *The Astonishing Hypothesis* p.1,10) Crick is a world-famous molecular biologist turned cognitive neuroscientist, so he must be right.

"The mechanisms underlying the experience of will are themselves a fundamental topic of scientific study. We should be able to examine and understand what creates the experience of will and what makes it go away. This means, though, that conscious will is an illusion. It is an illusion in the sense that *the experience of consciously willing an action is not a direct indication that the conscious thought has caused the action.* Conscious will, viewed this way, may be an extraordinary illusion indeed -- the equivalent of a magician's producing an elephant from the folds of his handkerchief." (Daniel M. Wegner, *The Illusion of Free Will,* p.3) Wegner is a Harvard psychologist, so he must be right!

There now. Don't you see? The illusion of free will is scientific! You know, scientific like the magic of "producing an elephant out of a handkerchief." But, by God, let's go with it!

Come on people, get with the atheistic, 'scientific' philosophical program, and stop bullshitting around.

Just working with what you posted, not necessarily my exact views.

If Hubner is the authority on free will and it can be taken from you, then it isn't actually free. It is bounded, constrained by circumstance and causes.

"If Hubner is the authority on free will and it can be taken from you, then it isn't actually free. It is bounded, constrained by circumstance and causes."

COMMENT: Well, when he said, "Do not allow your free will, the most precious thing you possess, to be taken away from you,” what he meant was do not allow your free will (and moral commitments) to be stifled by fear, or psychological manipulation.

The point (I think) is that even when one's free will is subject to extreme pressure and punishment, your free thoughts, and often your free choice, remains 'if you do not allow it to be taken from you' by threats and intimidation. Sometimes exercising free will takes courage.

Arguably, the most powerful evidence of genuine free will is when it is exercised contrary to one's personal interest, as in Hubner's case; that is, when one acts out of some deep moral commitment by engaging in actions that transcend the dictates of metaphysical determinism and evolutionary psychology.

We should take a lesson from this. Too often advocates of the illusion thesis point to the common behavior of the masses, generalize it, and then call it "human nature." In reality, it is the heroic exception to such behavior that establishes genuine free will notwithstanding the passive, acquiescent behavior of the masses.

So a prisoner bound to the table as the lethal injection takes place has as unbounded free will to action and choice as a free person in a city park.

Their mental causation remains fully equal.

So a prisoner bound to the table as the lethal injection takes place has as unbounded free will to action and choice as a free person in a city park.

COMMENT: Remember Hubner (like many other resistance fighters) was executed. His free will could not save him. His free will could not bring about by mental effort his physical freedom.

Like physical causation of physical events, mental causation of physical events is limited to context and applicable natural law. (As might exist with respect to mental causation) But constraints on free will is a different matter from free will itself. One's free will to bring about one's own physical choices and actions *when physically unrestrained* is what free will is about.
______________________________

Their mental causation remains fully equal.

COMMENT: Not so. Mental causation by someone restrained by a physical environment (including a physical body) does not exist unfettered. The prisoner is thus more restrained in the exercise of free will than a person walking freely in a city park. However, both have free will as to their thoughts, as well as their actions within whatever context of restraints they find themselves.

Considering the class and ethnic breakdowns in prisons and getting loans and getting jobs getting an education outcomes in court your version of Free Will is awfully bigoted.

Here we go again. Several RfM posters have remarked multiple times on Henry's penchant for claiming scientific understanding without ever citing actual science.

Behold this tangle of thorns:

First, Henry defines "the experts" as Crick and Wegner, just two men, and thereby conceals the fact the hundreds of scientists have published studies producing concordant results.

Second, rather than addressing his two antagonists' arguments, Henry quotes passages from the introductions to their books as if that's all there is. He mentions pages 1 and 10 from Crick's volume, for instance, but ignores the articulation of the argument that comprises the other 334 pages. Henry thus challenges the conclusion without letting the evidence get in the way.

His treatment of Wegner is even more transparent. Not only does Henry refer only to the first page of Wegner's Illusion of Conscious Will (that's the real title of the book) and ignore the other 431 pages, he even neglects the "meat" in the passage he does cite.

Quoting Wegner,

> . . . *the experience of consciously
> willing an action is not a direct indication that
> the conscious thought has caused the action.*
> Conscious will, viewed this way, may be an
> extraordinary illusion indeed -- the equivalent of
> a magician's producing an elephant from the folds
> of his handkerchief."

Wegner's first sentence is science, the second is a simile. Henry, our hero, skips right over the former and attacks the simile instead:

> There now. Don't you see? The illusion of free
> will is scientific! You know, scientific like the
> magic of "producing an elephant out of a
> handkerchief." But, by God, let's go with it!

And by God, Henry did go with it! He criticized the first page of Wegner's work but completely ignored the supporting evidence and analysis.

Third, Henry also jumps blithely over Wegner's declaration that "the mechanisms underlying the experience of will are themselves a fundamental topic of scientific study." Surely the mental image of the trapeze artist dancing in air should not obscure the fact that there is science, abundant science, pertaining to the question of free will.

Why doesn't our hero focus on the "scientific study" that Wegner mentions? Is it the difficulty of reading and evaluating scientific publications or fear of what those studies may say that so intimidates Mr. Bemis? We've encountered this problem before, of course; on several occasions Henry has asked me to provide scientific sources but then found excuses not to peruse them--

--including, most recently, the three sources I cited several days ago in our last thread on this bloody mist of a dead horse?

Henry is proof that free will is an illusion. His responses are entirely predictable, and he can’t stop himself. :)

Henry is proof that free will is an illusion. His responses are entirely predictable, and he can’t stop himself. :)

COMMENT: Funny! Score one for you!

Now, do you have anything of substance to add? Or are you still locked into a worldview of mind-numbing inconsistency between your beliefs and practices?

I wish I was in one of your math classes. I would have a lot of fun with this. That, and your commitment to Platonism.

GENERAL COMMENT: Notice that you and other illusion advocates here failed to grasp, much less respond to, the point of my sarcastic post in this thread. Your denial of free will comes at a high price, denial of moral judgments.

I have responded substantively in every other thread where a substantive point was made, including this one, and where such a response was requested. Note, however, that the intuition of free will is so strong -- as all admit --that the burden of its denial is on the materialist "scientists" who deny it. They have not met this burden, not even close.

However, if you or anyone else wants to provide (or regurgitate) any such argument, be my guest. I will be happy to respond to it in ways similar to how countless others have responded! The illusion thesis is a philosophical and scientific joke, much like Dennett's conclusion that consciousness itself is an illusion.
__________________________________

"His treatment of Wegner is even more transparent. Not only does Henry refer only to the first page of Wegner's Illusion of Conscious Will (that's the real title of the book) and ignore the other 431 pages, he even neglects the "meat" in the passage he does cite."

COMMENT: I have read Wegner's book, and know its substantive arguments, which have since been debunked repeatedly. THe point of my post was to point out the inconsistency of such views with moral judgments, not to present Wegner's arguments. Wegner was cited as just one example (along with Crick) of a prominent academic who denies free will.
_______________________________

Quoting Wegner,

> . . . *the experience of consciously
> willing an action is not a direct indication that
> the conscious thought has caused the action.*
> Conscious will, viewed this way, may be an
> extraordinary illusion indeed -- the equivalent of
> a magician's producing an elephant from the folds
> of his handkerchief."

Wegner's first sentence is science, the second is a simile. Henry, our hero, skips right over the former and attacks the simile instead:

> There now. Don't you see? The illusion of free
> will is scientific! You know, scientific like the
> magic of "producing an elephant out of a
> handkerchief." But, by God, let's go with it!

COMMENT: Wegner's "scientific point" (the first part of the quote you criticize me for leaving out) merely states that our intuitive experience of free will is no guarantee that free will is a reality. I agree with that rather weak assessment, so I didn't quote it. It was the second part which was worth quoting:

"Conscious will, viewed this way, may be an extraordinary illusion indeed -- the equivalent of a magician's producing an elephant from the folds of his handkerchief."

What he is saying here is that the *experience* of free will is (or may be) an extraordinary illusion; a magician's (evolutionary) trick that is so contrary to materialist science it should be considered akin to producing an elephant from a handkerchief. My response is simple: If the experience of free will must be explained scientifically as some convoluted "magic" trick of evolution, in an otherwise deterministic universe, then that explanation is probably wrong. Evolution does not perform magic tricks. And any 'science' that begins by claiming that the intuition and subjective experience of consciousness and/or free will as an illusionary magic trick, is not science.
_____________________________________

And by God, Henry did go with it! He criticized the first page of Wegner's work but completely ignored the supporting evidence and analysis.

COMMENT: See above. Again, first, that was not my point, and second, others have thoroughly rebutted Webner's "scientific" denial of free will. It's nonsense. So, you make the argument, and I will show you why it fails.
______________________________________

Third, Henry also jumps blithely over Wegner's declaration that "the mechanisms underlying the experience of will are themselves a fundamental topic of scientific study." Surely the mental image of the trapeze artist dancing in air should not obscure the fact that there is science, abundant science, pertaining to the question of free will.

COMMENT: Wegner's "scientific studies" of free will are all psychological. They do not in any way undermine genuine free will. (See, for example, E.J. Lowe, *The Metaphysics of Mind and Action (2008) pp. 82-83. The gist of the matter is this: The fact that volition sometimes appears illusory in contrived, non-natural, experimental contexts, does not imply that it is illusory in ordinary, natural contexts, where the volition produces physically directed action. Similarly, the fact that vision sometimes produces illusions does not suggest that vision is not reliable as a reflection of the physical world in ordinary circumstances. Other examples are legion.
____________________________________

Why doesn't our hero focus on the "scientific study" that Wegner mentions? Is it the difficulty of reading and evaluating scientific publications or fear of what those studies may say that so intimidates Mr. Bemis? We've encountered this problem before, of course; on several occasions Henry has asked me to provide scientific sources but then found excuses not to peruse them--

COMMENT: I do not want sources for the denial of free will, I have these sources already and have studied them thoroughly. If you want me to engage in some substantive anti-free will argument, then provide me with sources AND THEIR ARGUMENTS. Don't expect me to explain the arguments to you and then refute them.
__________________________________

Finally, I like the following comment of E.J. Lowe specifically addressed to Wegner:

"Some psychologists seem to be peculiarly attracted to theories of mental functioning which imply that ordinary folk are systematically deluded about how their minds really work. Perhaps this is because such theories have shock value, which makes popularizing books about them more saleable to a gullible public." (E.J. Lowe, Ibid.)

Welcome to the "gullible public." You are indeed a member in good standing.

> GENERAL COMMENT: Notice that you and other
> illusion advocates here failed to grasp, much less
> respond to, the point of my sarcastic post in this
> thread. Your denial of free will comes at a high
> price, denial of moral judgments.

Why reply to a point that is patently false? In your worldview denial of free will may preclude moral judgment, but not in the many that your critics have adopted.


-----------------
> Note, however, that the intuition of
> free will is so strong -- as all admit --that the
> burden of its denial is on the materialist
> "scientists" who deny it.

There you go again, claiming that your "intuition" is proof.


---------------
> However, if you or anyone else wants to provide
> (or regurgitate) any such argument, be my guest.

Here you go. See if you can respond this time, as opposed to last time--assuming, of course, that you are willing to address the functioning of the amygdala and the three papers' findings--much like those cited frequently by Wegner--indicating that in many cases conscious decision follows the initiation of action.

https://www.exmormon.org/phorum/read.php?2,2529891,2530077#msg-2530077


----------------
> I will be happy to respond to it in ways similar
> to how countless others have responded! The
> illusion thesis is a philosophical and scientific
> joke, much like Dennett's conclusion that
> consciousness itself is an illusion.

This is where the silliness redoubles. You used to cite Dennett as a scientist who was opposed to determinism. I called you on that lie, explaining to people who are open-minded enough to care about the truth that Dennett was explicitly a determinist. Now you turn on the erstwhile object of your fawning prevarication, denouncing the assertions of his whose very existence you previously denied.

Who exactly are you, Henry? Are you a microbiologist, as you once falsely claimed? Do you have a degree in the philosophy of science, as you once falsely claimed? Was Dennett an opponent of determinism, as you once falsely claimed? Or is he the perpetrator of "philosophical and scientific jokes" as you now claim?


-------------------
> COMMENT: I have read Wegner's book, and know its
> substantive arguments, which have since been
> debunked repeatedly. THe point of my post was to
> point out the inconsistency of such views with
> moral judgments, not to present Wegner's
> arguments. Wegner was cited as just one example
> (along with Crick) of a prominent academic who
> denies free will.

So you've read his book and we're supposed to accept your conclusions without question? Forgive me if I venture that your record does not merit such acquiescence. Moreover, Wegner's analysis has NOT been "debunked repeatedly" and you have offered no evidence that he was wrong.


------------
> My response [to Wegner] is simple: If the
> experience of free will must be explained
> scientifically as some convoluted "magic" trick of
> evolution, in an otherwise deterministic universe,
> then that explanation is probably wrong.

"Probably wrong?" It wasn't long ago that relativity, special and general, was considered "probably wrong." And yet, science has proven it correct.

"Probably," it transpires, is not a dependable measure of cutting-edge science.


-----------------
> Evolution
> does not perform magic tricks. And any 'science'
> that begins by claiming that the intuition and
> subjective experience of consciousness and/or free
> will as an illusionary magic trick, is not
> science.

There it is again: Henry laughs at the metaphor so he doesn't have to address the science.


------------------
> COMMENT: See above. Again, first, that was not my
> point, and second, others have thoroughly rebutted
> Webner's "scientific" denial of free will.

Really? You have refused to look at the scientific studies that several of us, and Wegner, proffered. You conversely ask us, in your usual pompous verbiage, to accept your conclusion as if your law degree and your record of statements on RfM merit unquestioning belief on scientific matters that you haven't even bothered to interrogate.

Frustrating, it must be, that lots of people here are insufficiently impressed to defer to your "authority."


------------------
> COMMENT: Wegner's "scientific studies" of free
> will are all psychological. They do not in any way
> undermine genuine free will. (See, for example,
> E.J. Lowe, *The Metaphysics of Mind and Action
> (2008) pp. 82-83.

There you go again, attempting to use a 2008 book to disprove Wegner's 2017 book.


-----------------
> The gist of the matter is this:
> The fact that volition sometimes appears illusory
> in contrived, non-natural, experimental contexts,
> does not imply that it is illusory in ordinary,
> natural contexts, where the volition produces
> physically directed action.

What a foolish thing to say. If you really have read Wegner's 2017 book, which I'm coming to doubt, you would know that he relies heavily on scientific studies of neurological patterns when a test subject is asked to do something like pressing a button. Is pressing a button an "unnatural" thing for humans to do?


------------------
> COMMENT: I do not want sources for the denial of
> free will,

Of course you don't. They might challenge your "intuition," which you expect us to accept as scientific evidence. You would prefer to close your eyes and tell yourself you're right.


-----------------
> . . . I have these sources already and have
> studied them thoroughly.

Haha. No you haven't.


--------------------
> If you want me to engage
> in some substantive anti-free will argument, then
> provide me with sources AND THEIR ARGUMENTS. Don't
> expect me to explain the arguments to you and then
> refute them.

Silly man. I'm not going to summarize scientific studies that you refuse to read.


----------------
> Finally, I like the following comment of E.J. Lowe
> specifically addressed to Wegner:
>
> "Some psychologists seem to be peculiarly
> attracted to theories of mental functioning which
> imply that ordinary folk are systematically
> deluded about how their minds really work.
> Perhaps this is because such theories have shock
> value, which makes popularizing books about them
> more saleable to a gullible public." (E.J. Lowe,
> Ibid.)

Don't you see how stupid this is? How exactly does Lowe's 2008 book refute Wegner's 2017 analysis? Was Lowe sufficiently clairvoyant to foresee and refute peer-reviewed science that would not be published until the 2010s?


-------------
> Welcome to the "gullible public." You are indeed a
> member in good standing.

I'm "gullible" because I don't think you are a scientific and philosophical genius?



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 02/15/2025 07:19PM by Lot's Wife.

Wegner died in 2013! The 2017 book is nothing more than a regurgitated new addition of his old "work" and worn-out ideas, coupled with an attempt to preserve his rather pathetic, socially destructive, legacy.

In other words, it was another attempt to make money on the "gullible public" (apparently like yourself) as E.J. Lowe pointed out.

Everything you mention here is old news, and old arguments; specifically, the Libet neurological studies in the 80s, and those it inspired, which essentially showed that such studies were ineffective as a refutation of free will. Libet, by the way, is a believer in free will. (See Benjamin Libet, et.al, *The Volitional Brain: Towards a Neuroscience of Free Will*.

Here is a quote:

"Let us re-phrase our basic question as follows: *Must* we accept determinism? Is non-determinism a viable option? We should recognize that both of these alternative views (natural law determinism vs. non-determinism) are unproven theories, i.e. unproven in relation to the existence of free will. Determinism has on the whole, worked well for the physical observable world. That has led many scientists and philosophers to regard any deviation from determinism as absurd and witless, and unworthy of consideration. But there has been no evidence, or even a proposed experimental test design, that definitively or convincingly demonstrates the validity of natural law determinism as the mediator or instrument of free will."
_______________________________________

Now, as for your statement:

"Why reply to a point that is patently false? In your worldview denial of free may preclude moral judgment, but not in the many that your critics have adopted."

COMMENT: OK, then. Provide me with a single compatibilist explanation of *genuine* free will in the context of determinism. It is a logical absurdity. Here is a statement of such absurdity in black and white logic (as if that would help you.)

"If we do not have free will, then there is no such thing as moral responsibility. This proposition, one might think, certainly deserves to be commonplace. If someone charges you with, say, lying, and if you can convince him that it was simply not within your power *not* to lie, then it would seem that you have done all that is necessary to absolve yourself of responsibility for lying. Your accuser cannot say, "I concede it was not within your power not to lie; none the less you ought not to have lied." *Ought*, as the saying goes, implies *can.* . . . Similarly, if someone charges you with *not* having done something he maintains you ought to have done, he must withdraw his charge if you can convince him that you couldn't have done it. . . ."

"It would seem to follow from these considerations that without free will there is no responsibility: if moral responsibility exists, then someone is morally responsible for something he has done or something he has left undone; to be morally responsible for some act or failure to act is at least to be able to have acted otherwise, whatever else it may involve; to be able to have acted otherwise is to have free will. Therefore, if moral responsibility exists, someone has free will. Therefore, if no one has free will, moral responsibility does not exist."

(Peter Van Ingwagen, *An Essay on Free Will* (1983) pp. 162-163)

LW: You are way over your head in this debate. That said, I admit, and have admitted before, that the illusion thesis is popular among academics, for illegitimate reasons and bad logic, as I have explained before.

AGAIN, IF YOU THINK THE ILLUSION THESIS IS VIABLE, MAKE AN ARGUMENT, WITH FACTS, PREMISES, LOGICAL INFERENCES, AND CONCLUSIONS. SURELY, YOU CAN COME UP WITH SUCH AN ARGUMENT FROM OUT OF ALL THE ACADEMICS YOU CLAIM DENY FREE WILL. THEN, AND ONLY THEN, CAN I SHOW YOU WHY THE AGREEMENT IS WRONG, WITH NOT ONLY A TIGHT COUNTER-ARGUMENT, BUT CHAPTER AND VERSE FROM APPROPRIATE SOURCES.

In the meantime, I'm bored with your perpetual, ignorant, nonsense. Put up, or shut up, as they say.
 

> (See
> Benjamin Libet, et.al, *The Volitional Brain:
> Towards a Neuroscience of Free Will*.

A 1999 book? You think science has stood still since then? But even here you contradict yourself; for if the debate stopped twenty five years ago why did you bother to read Lowe's 2008 book?


--------------
> Here is a quote:
> But there has been
> no evidence, or even a proposed experimental test
> design, that definitively or convincingly
> demonstrates the validity of natural law
> determinism as the mediator or instrument of free
> will."

One writer, Libet, says that as of 1999 there was "no evidence" for determinism and you think that's still true?

You've done this so many times: citing books from the 1950s and 1970s as if nothing has been discovered since then, then stomping your feet in rage when someone suggests you might benefit from a perusal of actual science.


--------------
> COMMENT: OK, then. Provide me with a single
> compatibilist explanation of *genuine* free will
> in the context of determinism. It is a logical
> absurdity.

As I have said countless times, I do not agree with Dennett that compatibilism is plausible. Now you ask me to explain why Dennett was right. Do you not see the fatuity of that demand?

All you do here is underscore the stupidity of your previous reliance on Dennett as supporting your rejection of determinism, a stupidity I revealed here on RfM. Your outraged rejection of him now has all the hallmarks of a spurned lover.


---------------
> Here is a statement of such absurdity
> in black and white logic (as if that would help
> you.) . . .
>
> (Peter Van Ingwagen, *An Essay on Free Will*
> (1983) pp. 162-163)

A 1983 book by a philosopher?? That's how you refute neurobiology from the 2010s and 2020s?


--------------
> LW: You are way over your head in this debate.

LOL


-----------------
> AGAIN, IF YOU THINK THE ILLUSION THESIS IS VIABLE,
> MAKE AN ARGUMENT, WITH FACTS, PREMISES, LOGICAL
> INFERENCES, AND CONCLUSIONS. SURELY, YOU CAN COME
> UP WITH SUCH AN ARGUMENT FROM OUT OF ALL THE
> ACADEMICS YOU CLAIM DENY FREE WILL. THEN, AND
> ONLY THEN, CAN I SHOW YOU WHY THE AGREEMENT IS
> WRONG, WITH NOT ONLY A TIGHT COUNTER-ARGUMENT, BUT
> CHAPTER AND VERSE FROM APPROPRIATE SOURCES.

You are good for a laugh.

You have lied about having a background in science and you refuse to consider peer-reviewed scientific studies as "APPROPRIATE SOURCES" on what are from beginning to end scientific questions.

That speaks for itself.


-------------------
> In the meantime, I'm bored with your perpetual,
> ignorant, nonsense. Put up, or shut up, as they
> say.

I have "put up" by providing neurological studies by a dozen scientists at least a dozen times. The problem is that you don't accept science any more than you understand it.

Now go bury your head in a philosophy book from the 1970s. Everything you want to know, and little you don't want to know, is likely to be contained therein. 



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 02/15/2025 09:26PM by Lot's Wife.

Is this really relevant Henry?
Do you honestly think that Hubener was referring to free will in the philosophic/scientific sense?
I'm pretty sure that if he really used a phrase that gets translated as free will, he is just talking about the loss of political freedoms, not the curious metaphysical question of freewill that philosophers debate.

Is this really relevant Henry?

Do you honestly think that Hubener was referring to free will in the philosophic/scientific sense?

COMMENT: No, I do not think that. But that does not make my comments irrelevant. The idea of free will in the political or social sense, necessarily encompasses the idea of metaphysical free will, simply because there cannot be political free will (in Hubener's sense) (or humanistic free will) without there being metaphysical free will. It all amounts to the same thing, whether human beings have the innate power as human agents to control their thoughts and actions. If they do not have that power, then Hubener's comment is meaningless.
_____________________________________

I'm pretty sure that if he really used a phrase that gets translated as free will, he is just talking about the loss of political freedoms, not the curious metaphysical question of freewill that philosophers debate.

COMMENT: Well, again, I agree he was using "free will" in a socio-political sense, not in the context of a metaphysical debate. But I repeat, the metaphysics of free will is not lost in the use of free will in this sense.

You simply cannont whitewash your way to the right side of history.

The Hübener story simply doesn’t pass the smell test.

I’m a German mission alum.

This hits close to home.

If fascism ever comes to America like it did to Germany, and democracy prevails, you can be sure the LDS Church will celebrate the members who were on the winning side.

We should develop and value a distinct sense of Right/Wrong for the good of individuals & society, reduced to laws; anarchy is the alternative.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 02/14/2025 01:30PM by GNPE.

Always remember that Huebener was NOT ex'd for theological reasons.

Contrast this with the Jehovah's Witnesses who celebrate their German martyrs. They died supported by their organization at the time, not just after the war. I was very moved by their memorial at Sachsenhausen. I never agreed with their religion but their resistance was principled.

From the Holocaust Encyclopedia:

https://encyclopedia.ushmm.org/content/en/article/nazi-persecution-of-jehovahs-witnesses


“Jehovah's Witnesses were subjected to intense persecution under the Nazi regime. Nazi leaders targeted Jehovah's Witnesses because they were unwilling to accept the authority of the state, because of their international connections, and because they were strongly opposed to both war on behalf of a temporal authority and organized government in matters of conscience.


“Many actions of Jehovah's Witnesses antagonized Nazi authorities. While Witnesses contended that they were apolitical and that their actions were not anti-Nazi, their unwillingness to give the Nazi salute, to join party organizations or to let their children join the Hitler Youth, their refusal to participate in the so-called elections or plebiscites, and their unwillingness to adorn their homes with Nazi flags made them suspect.”

Did ChurchCo publish an 'official' reason for Xing HH?

curious minds, etc.


Lesson to ChurchCo: a few of your most serious boners ( mistakes) will never die:

The MMM

September 6

Joey 'Rock in the Hat' Smithy

Bring'em Young who tried (some say achieved) Superior Autocrat Status, more belligerent & self-righteous than Joey


Helmuth Huebner too.

Wrinkley "I am sustained as such" was definitely in a class by himelf!!

Do any MoLeaders tell the complete truth? I fear We'll never know



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 02/15/2025 11:56PM by GNPE.