How often "plates" are discussed here.

[Limnor]

Gad I may not have told you recently but I learn a lot from you.

[malkie]

something something MG's apparent lack of self awareness something something

Giving MG the benefit of the doubt that he isn’t a self-aware troll, he seems to almost never recognize when his own rhetoric is mirrored back to him.

Again, given a huge benefit of the doubt, from his perspective, he’s thinks he is being thoughtful, and maybe even deeply philosophical, or very carefully measured.

But when you mirror it back, he doesn’t see the mirror and recognize “oh, that’s what I’m doing.” Rather he seems to see interlocutors as “not engaging” and/or “obfuscating.”

It’s remarkable and even somewhat amusing, though admittedly the phenomenon could just as easily be ascribed to “troll behavior.”

Even the explicit use of the word "mirror" seemingly failed to trigger an "awareness" response.

To be such a smart guy, I find it puzzling that MG appears to have totally failed to understand that you cannot simply claim, and expect to be believed, that "since X (unproven) then Y" when there is no logical relationship between X and Y, much less a causal one.

[malkie]

Gad I may not have told you recently but I learn a lot from you.

Ditto, though sometimes what I learn is the depths of my ignorance. But that's OK, because Gad is not omniscient or omnipotent, and I'm pretty sure there are things I know that he doesn't

[MG 2.0]

Gaslighting.

You folks really have me questioning myself.

Regards,
MG

[MG 2.0]

*snip
...After decades in the church, you have no idea who you worship.

I think I do. I think you don't.

Regards,
MG

[MG 2.0]

All comments are welcome. Even if inaccurate and/or untrue.

But...I dunno, like I said, now I'm questioning myself.

Regards,
MG

[Marcus]

Giving MG the benefit of the doubt that he isn’t a self-aware troll, he seems to almost never recognize when his own rhetoric is mirrored back to him.

Again, given a huge benefit of the doubt, from his perspective, he’s thinks he is being thoughtful, and maybe even deeply philosophical, or very carefully measured.

But when you mirror it back, he doesn’t see the mirror and recognize “oh, that’s what I’m doing.” Rather he seems to see interlocutors as “not engaging” and/or “obfuscating.”

It’s remarkable and even somewhat amusing, though admittedly the phenomenon could just as easily be ascribed to “troll behavior.”

Even the explicit use of the word "mirror" seemingly failed to trigger an "awareness" response.

To be such a smart guy, I find it puzzling that MG appears to have totally failed to understand that you cannot simply claim, and expect to be believed, that "since X (unproven) then Y" when there is no logical relationship between X and Y, much less a causal one.

It is puzzling, in a normal setting, but i maintain that we are not in a normal setting. We are dealing with someone whose intent is to disrupt and provoke. He does not post in a logically consistent manner.

Look at his last three posts. No logic, whatsoever.

[MG 2.0]

It's kind of fun, in an odd sort of way, to watch the contortions you folks go through to build yourselves up and the efforts expended to try and retain a semblance of professionalism and sanity.

You can't fool me.

Fail.

Regards,
MG

[Marcus]

It's kind of fun, in an odd sort of way, to watch the contortions you folks go through to build yourselves up and the efforts expended to try and retain a semblance of professionalism and sanity.

You can't fool me.

Fail.

Regards,
MG

Said the troll. Back to the topic:

Are you saying that all chapel Mormons are #1’s ?

In this case, yes.

Why not #2’s ?

Because the Church has always taught that God is all knowing. It's within the first paragraph of the first discussion. Even you said God is omniscient. just a few posts ago.

I would guess there are a lot of members that haven’t given this subject much thought.

I would guess so as well. There is a reason why they are still Mormon.

If my own family is any indicator. But, I think that if I sat down with any one of them and was able to explain to their satisfaction the difference between #1 and #2 (from the FAIR selection you linked to) I think they would choose #2.

That's because you'd leave out a lot of other information. Once they realize they can't believe in prophets anymore, they might switch back to 1.

The church has not taken an official position on this.

You're just quoting FAIR. The church has said God is all-knowing, including the future, a million times. If he can't know the future, Ezekiel, Isaiah and others couldn't have seen the future either. Ezekiel couldn't have prophesied of Joseph Smith bringing forth the Book of Mormon.

God is all knowing…contingently.

which means exactly nothing.

I would guess you matriculated from a university. Your professors knew all things in regards to helping you graduate in your field of study. Does that mean they were/are all knowing in every respect? Yes, this is sort of a sloppy example comparing a college professor to God…but,

You're right that is a terrible analogy. If that's true, then anybody who knows about faith, repentance, and baptism is all-knowing.

as you read what Ostler has written in regard to God knowing all that is necessary to know to save/exalt us it starts to make sense.

All-knowing means God also knows the future, otherwise Ezekiel couldn't have predicted Joseph Smith would bring forth the Book of Mormon -- the stick of Joseph. It's way worse than you think, I'm afraid it might take a few moments of thinking that you don't have to spare, but to say God can't know the future basically makes any kind of a plan that starts with Adam and Eve, moves through Jesus, and then to the restoration and culminating with the second coming impossible, given the number of variables involved (free human choices).

# 1 seems to bring up some conundrums. Not to say that they can’t be overcome or superseded by understanding and knowledge not available to us at this time.

Right, yet you throw the big guy's son under the bus immediately once you realize that Blake thinks differently. Perhaps you should investigate monilism before apostatizing and at least give every Mormon prophet who has ever lived a chance to be right.

Yesterday you said, " God, on the other hand, can deliver. He is omniscient and omnipotent". Now you're either admitting a) God can't deliver or b) omniscience is not needed to deliver.

On this question/topic the jury is out. It that isn’t reason to not believe in and follow what one believes to be the true and living God/creator.

Yes it is a reason not to follow, because yesterday you said God can deliver because he is omniscient and omnipotent. This implies God can't deliver. Your own words.

At this juncture, however, we come back to ‘which god’? The ongoing question of the ages, right?

Sure buddy, you don't seem to have any clue yourself. After decades in the church, you have no idea who you worship. "To the unknown God."

[I Have Questions]

I should make clear...although I thought it was a given...I believe in a creator God. It's not like I haven't said that a million times, more or less. It is a belief based upon both epistemic trust... a lifetime of study/evidence and personal introspection...and a developed (over time) devotional trust.

I trust a God that I already believe exists.

I realize that the mileage of others may vary. That doesn't mean that the mileage I've traveled is irrelevant. Except, possibly, to those that have not travelled a similar path of discovering and then maintaining faith.

To each his or her own.

It is this epistemic/devotional trust in God that will most likely cause an impasse in sharing/discussion almost each and every time.

Regards,
MG

Yes, you have made a determination to believe in a creator God, you have made a determination to stick with the version of a creator God that is promoted by the SLC LDS Church, the religious culture you were born into and lived within your whole life. You have reinforced that by looking at stuff and drawn your own conclusions from it that reinforced what you had already pre determined you believed.

This is another really good demonstration that you are, when it comes down to it, only really trusting your own decision making. You trust that you are right. No matter what contrary evidence comes across your desk, you find a way of reinforcing that initial choice of yours. It shows that you are trusting in the “arm of flesh” - in this case, yourself.