Church previously denied a John Taylor revelation on polygamy now admits it

[MG 2.0]

No, I have not studied Scientology to the extent that I have Mormonism. But I've seen enough that, for me, I can see Scientology as being a load of crock.

And I'm gonna stick to it. Would you like to change my mind and show me some evidence...any evidence...that might convince me that Scientology is from God?

Regards,
MG

Here is what you said to Mag’ladroth… “ Relying on second hand or third hand sourcing...and God forbid, message boards...to get your information and/or have an experience with the Spirit of God is a fool's errand.”

In order for you to make a proper assessment that Scientology is not from a supernatural deity you need to (according to you) talk to a few scientology leaders, attend some scientology meetings, and participate in some auditing sessions.

Don’t see the double standard? Can you acknowledge that you are preaching something that you’re not prepared to practice?

Again, I can only speak from my own experience and knowledge. I frankly admit that.

Regards,
MG

[Rivendale]

To be safe it might be wise to start shopping for the worst hell and sign up for that religion.

[Mag’ladroth]

Simply looking into the Book of Mormon is enough to get me to distrust Mormonism. Not to mention every other ancillary doctrine and attempted defense of them by Neo-Orthodox Mormon apologists such as Ostler and Hansen or more mainstream defenses of Mormonism by FAIR, when systematized, create irreconcilable contradictions within Mormonism.

The Book of Mormon is proclaimed by past prophets to be “the most correct book on Earth” (not according to Ostler or Hansen but that’s a different can of worms). Yet I have no manuscript provenance in this alleged “Reformed Egyptian” to review, no other texts written in “Reformed Egyptian”, no golden plates, nothing but the contradictory words of an alleged prophet and his fellow travelers with numerous conflicts of interest. Not to mention the lack of any historical evidence of anything in it or scientific evidence of it. Let’s not even discuss the anachronisms in it too. These claims and defenses of them of course are retconned the moment they become untenable.

In contrast, the Bible has the Dead Sea scrolls, the LXX, the MT, the New Testament manuscripts in Greek to include Syriac, some Latin, and including codices from later centuries as well as archeological and historic data. I can go touch Hittite tombs. I can trace textual variants and find out what caused them and with great accuracy and pick a reading I think the evidence supports. I can go see the site of the Temple Mount destroyed in 70AD by the Romans.

I can’t go find swords or armor or even skeletal remains from a great battle at a giant hill in New York. I’m told I can't see a magical GPS rock that guided Lehi. Im told I can’t see the giant ships that carried these Jews from Babylonian exile to America. In short I’m told “Just trust us God said we’re the only true church. But also we totally aren’t the only true church when we need money from the National Association of Evangelicals.”

External evidences are few and far between for the Book of Mormon. There are some interesting corollaries, but not slam dunks. My intellectual interest in 'evidences' for the Book of Mormon rely more on internal evidences that I find quite interesting. But even at that, it is a witness of the Book of Mormon through the Spirit that the Book of Mormon has its roots/basis in revelation from God remains the primary source.

Regards,
MG

This is entirely subjective and unfalsifiable. It’s essentially the last ditch defense of the Mormon Metaphysic when presented with solid defeaters to the claim. That and word salad, shell games of “that’s not canonized doctrine despite literally all of our teaching material saying it,” etc.

So I’ll ask you MG, if truth is that which corresponds to reality, why should I believe an alleged revelation in the Book of Mormon from a God who is passable, mutable, and unable to provide clear communication to mankind such that no evidence of this additional revelation exists? But rather nothing but contradiction of his prior revelation exists.

[MG 2.0]

External evidences are few and far between for the Book of Mormon. There are some interesting corollaries, but not slam dunks. My intellectual interest in 'evidences' for the Book of Mormon rely more on internal evidences that I find quite interesting. But even at that, it is a witness of the Book of Mormon through the Spirit that the Book of Mormon has its roots/basis in revelation from God remains the primary source.

Regards,
MG

This is entirely subjective and unfalsifiable.

You're right.

It’s essentially the last ditch defense of the Mormon Metaphysic when presented with solid defeaters to the claim.

I think that is in the eye of the beholder.

That and word salad, shell games of “that’s not canonized doctrine despite literally all of our teaching material saying it,” etc.

I don't see honest discussion as being simply "word salad". It is true, fuzzy is the line at times in negotiating the division between canonized doctrine and conditional revelation.

So I’ll ask you MG, if truth is that which corresponds to reality, why should I believe an alleged revelation in the Book of Mormon from a God who is passable, mutable, and unable to provide clear communication to mankind such that no evidence of this additional revelation exists? But rather nothing but contradiction of his prior revelation exists.

I think that "clear communication" is often the case as the restoration continues. I am also convinced, as I've been saying, that God is not standing alone. He is in the midst of millions/billions of independent and sentient human beings who respond on an individual level to that communication. And that applies even within the church where numbers are smaller than the larger world. God has no other option, really, other than to work with things as they are and hope for 'critical mass' that helps move the ball down the court. If that doesn't happen the plays are ultimately going to fail. The ball comes back and a new/different plan is put into action. God, being the referee, gives the plays with the hopes that folks will work together to accomplish His work. If they don't, He can't do it on His own.

Those that say, "Well, God doesn't really need me, he could achieve His purposes on His own", are mistaken. The work of Salvation/Exaltation is a collaborative work.

God makes every effort to do 'end runs' around the opposition and often succeeds...but at times has to call the game and renegotiate the gameplan with those agency driven humans. Or even at times shut things down until players are done bickering and fighting about one thing or another and are will to look for 'further light and knowledge' beyond their own.

Many are unwilling to do that or they purposefully want to play a different game than the one God is asking us to play. But yes, if we don't trust the referee or the coaches we're not going to want to play ball. Or we go somewhere else and play a different game.

Regards,
MG

[Everybody Wang Chung]

God makes every effort to do 'end runs' around the opposition and often succeeds...but at times has to call the game and renegotiate the gameplan with those agency driven humans.

You mean renegotiate the game plan by killing (and thereby taking away the fee agency) of every single man, woman and child on the planet, except for Noah’s family?

That’s some great missionary work, MG.

[MG 2.0]

God makes every effort to do 'end runs' around the opposition and often succeeds...but at times has to call the game and renegotiate the gameplan with those agency driven humans.

You mean renegotiate the game plan by killing (and thereby taking away the fee agency) of every single man, woman and child on the planet, except for Noah’s family?

The game clock was reset. I mean, what was a God to do?

That’s some great missionary work, MG.

As always, thanks for your compliment.

Regards,
MG

[Mag’ladroth]

This is entirely subjective and unfalsifiable.

You're right.

It’s essentially the last ditch defense of the Mormon Metaphysic when presented with solid defeaters to the claim.

I think that is in the eye of the beholder.

That and word salad, shell games of “that’s not canonized doctrine despite literally all of our teaching material saying it,” etc.

I don't see honest discussion as being simply "word salad". It is true, fuzzy is the line at times in negotiating the division between canonized doctrine and conditional revelation.

So I’ll ask you MG, if truth is that which corresponds to reality, why should I believe an alleged revelation in the Book of Mormon from a God who is passable, mutable, and unable to provide clear communication to mankind such that no evidence of this additional revelation exists? But rather nothing but contradiction of his prior revelation exists.

I think that "clear communication" is often the case as the restoration continues. I am also convinced, as I've been saying, that God is not standing alone. He is in the midst of millions/billions of independent and sentient human beings who respond on an individual level to that communication. And that applies even within the church where numbers are smaller than the larger world. God has no other option, really, other than to work with things as they are and hope for 'critical mass' that helps move the ball down the court. If that doesn't happen the plays are ultimately going to fail. The ball comes back and a new/different plan is put into action. God, being the referee, gives the plays with the hopes that folks will work together to accomplish His work. If they don't, He can't do it on His own.

Those that say, "Well, God doesn't really need me, he could achieve His purposes on His own", are mistaken. The work of Salvation/Exaltation is a collaborative work.

God makes every effort to do 'end runs' around the opposition and often succeeds...but at times has to call the game and renegotiate the gameplan with those agency driven humans. Or even at times shut things down until players are done bickering and fighting about one thing or another and are will to look for 'further light and knowledge' beyond their own.

Many are unwilling to do that or they purposefully want to play a different game than the one God is asking us to play. But yes, if we don't trust the referee or the coaches we're not going to want to play ball. Or we go somewhere else and play a different game.

Regards,
MG

Your first point then surrenders any idea of truth being that which corresponds to reality.

The rest of your post simply surrenders the point that Mormon God is not only in time and contingent, but subject to the wills of ontologically lesser beings. Combining this with the fact that the LDS teach god is material that makes him not omniscient nor omnipotent.


Combine all this with all divine revelation being fallible as your church teaches, which you have surrendered above, and you have zero metaphysical ground to even trust your conception of god. How do you know your god who became a god is still trustworthy and not a divine liar? If he can’t communicate infallibly is he unwilling or unable to?

This is not another denomination of Christianity but an entire different religion.

[I Have Questions]

Combine all this with all divine revelation being fallible as your church teaches…

I’d like to add some clarification to this. Whilst the Church may state that its Prophets are fallible, they only apply that to dead ones. Living Prophets and Apostles will never provide any examples where they have been fallible in office. They will never apologise. They will never acknowledge a mistake in their application of their authority. Never. In fact, the Church promotes the idea that We can always trust the living prophets. Their teachings reflect the will of the Lord, who declared: “What I the Lord have spoken, I have spoken, and I excuse not myself; and though the heavens and the earth pass away, my word shall not pass away, but shall all be fulfilled, whether by mine own voice or by the voice of my servants, it is the same.”

So. Dead Prophets are fallible. Living Prophets are infallible.

[Philo Sofee]

You mean renegotiate the game plan by killing (and thereby taking away the fee agency) of every single man, woman and child on the planet, except for Noah’s family?

The game clock was reset. I mean, what was a God to do?

That’s some great missionary work, MG.

As always, thanks for your compliment.

Regards,
MG

MG said: "The game clock was reset. I mean, what was a God to do?"

Astonishing! So the Almighty really couldn't think of anything better or a way out that he simply had to murder everyone except a very small number of them because, forsooth, he either didn't have the power, or didn't have the will, or didn't have the resources to make something work perhaps through the Holy Ghost?! So he murders them all instead?! OMG MG this is simply the most laughable defense I have ever seen for an Almighty deity. Of course, to a literalist there is not many options other than yours to produce... I get that.

[Rivendale]

The game clock was reset. I mean, what was a God to do?



As always, thanks for your compliment.

Regards,
MG

MG said: "The game clock was reset. I mean, what was a God to do?"

Astonishing! So the Almighty really couldn't think of anything better or a way out that he simply had to murder everyone except a very small number of them because, forsooth, he either didn't have the power, or didn't have the will, or didn't have the resources to make something work perhaps through the Holy Ghost?! So he murders them all instead?! OMG MG this is simply the most laughable defense I have ever seen for an Almighty deity. Of course, to a literalist there is not many options other than yours to produce... I get that.

And not a regular non violent murder. It has to be gruesome. Laban gets a myocardial infarction? No way baby, it's beheading for you! I don't have the stomach to do it so I will get some hack to do the hacking. A rebellious city? Incineration for you. God needs a reset?