How often "plates" are discussed here.

[I Have Questions]

My argument is larger than that. If there is a creator God then I don't see any reason...at all...not to trust the Creator. It's not rocket science. Why would one NOT trust the all-powerful and benevolent/all-knowing God?

God isn't all-knowing, according to Blake Ostler.

https://www.fairlatterdaysaints.org/ans ... eknowledge

Because God has always believed that I will rob the 7-Eleven at t, I cannot have the power to refrain from robbing, since this power would entail power to change God's past beliefs. No person has the power to alter the past. Yet to be free with respect to whether I rob, I must have power to refrain from robbing the 7-Eleven at t. It follows that either God does not have foreknowledge or I am not free

The FAIR article also points out that Chapel Mormons believe in omniscience -- in another post you told us "The big guy" or rather his son, you weren't sure which, is omniscient. You also claim that Chapel Mormons are wrong and Ostler has set everyone straight with his modern thinking that so isn't totally relying on the arm of the flesh.

Blake Ostler and the Church hold clearly opposing beliefs about God. They are mutually exclusive beliefs. MG has said he agrees with both. Have I got that right?

[Gadianton]

The Creator of Heaven and Earth.

Blake also rejects that God created Heaven. Blake holds the traditional view that God is a man who lives bounded in pre-existing space, time, and matter. Saying God created heaven is like saying a fish created its own tank. He may have created "the heavens" which means something like the observable sky -- he created Venus and Jupiter and a bunch of little white dots. But he didn't create "heaven", which is the environment he lives in.

Blake also rejections omnipotence. He definitely rejects omniscience, which means God couldn't have known, and therefore told Isaiah, that Joseph Smith would bring the Book of Mormon to Charles Anthon who said he "can't read a sealed book" and literally fulfil the prophecy. Blake appears to say Joseph instead used Isaiah as a proof-text. After rejecting omniscience, which is the most fundamental of all attributes of God in scripture because prophets are literally those who can see the future, and the Nephites took future gazing to the next level predicting precise number of years for things, and so if you're going to reject that -- once you reject the obvious things like a fish can't create it's own take and take a position like prophets don't see the future, by the time you get to omnipotence it doesn't seem as obvious it's being rejected although it definitely is.

So basically, Blake rejects all the attributes MG attributed to the big guy, or rather the big guy's son, he isn't sure, that he insisted on two days ago.

Oops, I made a mistake, Malkie called it, he rejects 3/4 of the points I highlighted. Blake does believe God created the earth, although MG isn't so sure which God, the big guy, or the son of the big guy.

[MG 2.0]

It appears another clarification is in order. The church teaches that Jesus Christ created the earth...along with others (individuals and other 'earths')...under the direction of the Father. They are coeternal (the Father and the Son, along with their works).

In the Bible we read that the heavens (from the Hebrew "shamayim") primarily refers to the physical expanse above the Earth. When I used the word heavens that is what I was referring to.

When Jehovah/Jesus communicated with Moses we learn that Jesus, as God, was also involved in the creation of many other worlds. What that looks like in the wide expanse of the cosmos/eternity is a question that belongs to others with a greater capacity to put the larger puzzle together.

I do not look at Blake Ostler as a prophet and/or sage. I do look at him as someone worth listening to, gathering in what he has to say, and then using that information as I determine what makes sense to me as I consider the things of eternity.

There are a number of things that I am more or less on board with to some degree or another. I do think that his contributions have added to our understanding and appreciation for our Father in Heaven and His Son and their purposes/love for mankind.

In the church and even among "chapel Mormons" my guess is that there are #1's and #2's. What that proportionality is who knows.

It is important to remember that in any discussion of these deeper matters much of what we banter around is speculation. Some is scriptural. Some is conjecture. At the end of the day, however, I...on a basic epistemological level and devotional level/practice...believe that a creator God/divine intelligence is behind all that we see and are.

I choose larger purpose/being over the lesser alternatives which in one way or another are subject to the laws of entropy and annihilation. It is a choice I and many others are comfortable with. At a basic foundational level it makes sense to think we are not here by accident and that there is larger purpose and meaning.

But to each his or her own, right?

Regards,
MG

[MG 2.0]

Blake does believe God created the earth, although MG isn't so sure which God, the big guy, or the son of the big guy.

I hope I've cleared that up for you.

We ought to, I suppose, be a bit more respectful from here on out and refer to Jesus and His Father appropriately. I was being a bit flippant and you picked up on that and have now 'milked it' for just about all it's worth.

Regards,
MG

[canpakes]

Moderators will naturally be tempted and/or feel pressured to respond affirmatively to the screams and wailings of the few 'squeaky wheels'. They typically get greased while the 'innocent' end up getting greased out and erased.

for what it's worth, I don’t feel any pressure or temptation to respond in favor of ‘squeaky wheels’; my interpretation of the board proprietor’s mindset is that Shades tends to also leave conversations as they are as long as dogpiles and derails aren’t too disruptive.

I might tend to split off posts when it appears that we’ve moved past the typical bickering and into the phase where posts just cycle between members abandoning the topic in favor of repeatedly labeling you as a troll, and you then responding by repeatedly stating that you won’t respond to them.

That seems pretty fair.

[MG 2.0]

Moderators will naturally be tempted and/or feel pressured to respond affirmatively to the screams and wailings of the few 'squeaky wheels'. They typically get greased while the 'innocent' end up getting greased out and erased.

for what it's worth, I don’t feel any pressure or temptation to respond in favor of ‘squeaky wheels’; my interpretation of the board proprietor’s mindset is that Shades tends to also leave conversations as they are as long as dogpiles and derails aren’t too disruptive.

I might tend to split off posts when it appears that we’ve moved past the typical bickering and into the phase where posts just cycle between members abandoning the topic in favor of repeatedly labeling you as a troll, and you then responding by repeatedly stating that you won’t respond to them.

That seems pretty fair.

I hope that’s true. Humans tend toward acceding to peer pressure. I hope that’s not the case here. Being a nonpartisan judge would be difficult.

I can only report what I see with my own eyes. But of course I have my own filters, etc.

Regards,
MG

[canpakes]

for what it's worth, I don’t feel any pressure or temptation to respond in favor of ‘squeaky wheels’; my interpretation of the board proprietor’s mindset is that Shades tends to also leave conversations as they are as long as dogpiles and derails aren’t too disruptive.

I might tend to split off posts when it appears that we’ve moved past the typical bickering and into the phase where posts just cycle between members abandoning the topic in favor of repeatedly labeling you as a troll, and you then responding by repeatedly stating that you won’t respond to them.

That seems pretty fair.

I hope that’s true. Humans tend toward acceding to peer pressure. I hope that’s not the case here. Being a nonpartisan judge would be difficult.

I can only report what I see with my own eyes. But of course I have my own filters, etc.

I’m not sure which of the two it was, but either Whiskey (a.k.a. Binger & Cultellus) or Hound of Heaven (a.k.a. AtlanticMike & two dozen other alts) once tried to make an issue of my saying that I have never, to my knowledge, met in person with any other board participant, including Shades. In other words, I’m pretty anonymous, and have no historical or personal in real life relationships with any members, certainly none that are under pressure to preserve or appease.

In fact, I’m pretty sure that I’ve offended just about everyone here in some way at least once, anyway. : D

[MG 2.0]

I hope that’s true. Humans tend toward acceding to peer pressure. I hope that’s not the case here. Being a nonpartisan judge would be difficult.

I can only report what I see with my own eyes. But of course I have my own filters, etc.

I’m not sure which of the two it was, but either Whiskey (a.k.a. Binger & Cultellus) or Hound of Heaven (a.k.a. AtlanticMike & two dozen other alts) once tried to make an issue of my saying that I have never, to my knowledge, met in person with any other board participant, including Shades. In other words, I’m pretty anonymous, and have no historical or personal in real life relationships with any members, certainly none that are under pressure to preserve or appease.

In fact, I’m pretty sure that I’ve offended just about everyone here in some way at least once, anyway. : D

I have to say that my personal interactions with you have been cordial/civil. You have given me no reason to distrust you. I would say the same of Shades even though I have disagreed with him at times.

Even when he's lost his patience with what he saw as my perceived recaltriance I've understood him to be pretty much an honest broker. Same with Res Ipsa, in the main.

If I wasn't having to constantly deal with the dog piling and false innuendo/and hominem that goes on this place would be a lot more pleasant.

Honestly, I think the board could go back to its original mission statement. As it is, that statement is more or less a charade.

I don't see that happening. When honest broker posters come here and see what goes on I would imagine they say, "None of that for me!"

Anyway, I appreciate your response and your efforts to be evenhanded. It's got to be hard. I don't envy you.

Regards,
MG

[I Have Questions]

I’m reposting this to bypass the derail that MG managed to embroil a moderator in.

The Creator of Heaven and Earth.

Blake also rejects that God created Heaven. Blake holds the traditional view that God is a man who lives bounded in pre-existing space, time, and matter. Saying God created heaven is like saying a fish created its own tank. He may have created "the heavens" which means something like the observable sky -- he created Venus and Jupiter and a bunch of little white dots. But he didn't create "heaven", which is the environment he lives in.

Blake also rejections omnipotence. He definitely rejects omniscience, which means God couldn't have known, and therefore told Isaiah, that Joseph Smith would bring the Book of Mormon to Charles Anthon who said he "can't read a sealed book" and literally fulfil the prophecy. Blake appears to say Joseph instead used Isaiah as a proof-text. After rejecting omniscience, which is the most fundamental of all attributes of God in scripture because prophets are literally those who can see the future, and the Nephites took future gazing to the next level predicting precise number of years for things, and so if you're going to reject that -- once you reject the obvious things like a fish can't create it's own take and take a position like prophets don't see the future, by the time you get to omnipotence it doesn't seem as obvious it's being rejected although it definitely is.

So basically, Blake rejects all the attributes MG attributed to the big guy, or rather the big guy's son, he isn't sure, that he insisted on two days ago.

Oops, I made a mistake, Malkie called it, he rejects 3/4 of the points I highlighted. Blake does believe God created the earth, although MG isn't so sure which God, the big guy, or the son of the big guy.

[Limnor]

When Jehovah/Jesus communicated with Moses we learn that Jesus, as God, was also involved in the creation of many other worlds. What that looks like in the wide expanse of the cosmos/eternity is a question that belongs to others with a greater capacity to put the larger puzzle together.

So was Jesus eternally God or did He progress to become a God like His Father?