If plates then God

[MG 2.0]

The problem is certainly not that golden plates or even angels are impossible. Mormon angels might not exactly be extraterrestrials, supposedly being resurrected humans, but one doesn't even have to believe in God at all to consider that advanced aliens might conceivably have visited Joseph Smith and given him artefacts. And as to the plates, I for one think it highly likely that Smith had some kind of plates.

The problem is that the official Mormon story, and all the accounts we have for the "coming forth" of the Book of Mormon, fit so hand-in-glove perfectly with what one would expect from a crude but creative con job.

Tantalising chances to heft, but not read; nobody ever actually seen reading the plates; pillowcases and sheets to keep the important stuff out of sight; weasel-worded collective witness statements with appended names instead of independent, extensive accounts; witnesses who were all either interested parties or gullible rubes. A prophet with a record of hiring himself out to find treasure by scrying through a magical stone. All kinds of "see, nothing up my sleeve" misdirections, like the emphasis on descriptions of how Smith dictated the text on a couple of occasions that could easily have been staged, when for most of his waking hours he was unobserved and had ample time to prepare his recitation. A repetitious and rambling plot that reads exactly like what someone would invent on the fly; a bogus dialect that sounds just like a ham-fistedly inaccurate attempt by a talented but uneducated storyteller to imitate the King James Bible.

All of that could conceivably be compatible with a real ancient text that was really translated by miracle. If there were a real ancient text, really translated, however, none of those details would have been especially likely. They would all have been arbitrary circumstances that didn't make too much sense. Why did nobody transcribe several pages of the original characters, at least, or even write a detailed description of the plates? Conceivably nobody happened to think of doing that, or God forbade it, or something; who knows? How the plates got treated is nothing like what would one naturally expect, though, if they really were what Smith claimed.

Instead all the details are exactly what one would expect if the plates were fake props and the whole thing was a scam. That's the problem.

It’s always of interest to me to see how different folks can observe the same thing and come away with varying perceptions of what they observe. Certain aspects of observation are more directly focused on than others. Certain lines of evidence stand out more than others.

Regards,
MG

[MG 2.0]

Why not trust in your own personal pipeline to God, rather than abdicate your life choices to some old blokes you don't know and who you've just said cannot possibly have ultimate truth residing with them?

I think it’s a two fold revelatory/inspiration process. This has been discussed in many Conference talks.

As with an earlier post on another topic you have misread and/or misinterpreted what I said.

Regards,
MG

[Doctor CamNC4Me]

You have described yourself perfectly.

And since, in your opinion, no "group of men" (never mind a group of PEOPLE, a usage which wouldn't occur to your sexist mind) can ever hold the truth, you decide to... believe a "group of men":

I’m referring to men that are not called of God. One might expect that if they were called of God they would then receive His truth.

Regards,
MG

Well, at least MG stopped all pretenses of having spent significant time studying other religions. Now when he just holds his pattern it’s honest - he’s here not to learn, but to proselytize.

Whatevs.

PG, on the other hand, brings up a great problem with the Infinite Recursion Trolley Problem. Saving one person, or a group of people, just creates infinite future problems for a future someone else or a future group. For example, when God made sure the Brighamites were saved from themselves, and they scratched out a living in early Utah, he ensured the near total annihilation of the Utes and others tribes in the Utah territory.

The answer should be obvious in that there here are three probable answers.

1. God doesn’t exist.

2. God is capricious.

3. God doesn’t bother.

Whatever the case may be - baby cancer.

- Doc

[Marcus]

You have described yourself perfectly.

And since, in your opinion, no "group of men" (never mind a group of PEOPLE, a usage which wouldn't occur to your sexist mind) can ever hold the truth, you decide to... believe a "group of men":

I’m referring to men that are not called of God. One might expect that if they were called of God they would then receive His truth.

Regards,
MG

Again your exclusion of women in this discussion is laughably sexist.

To your point, however, this would be the "group of men" who

1) tell you that they are called of god, and

2) tell you they know what god says because they call themselves prophets, but

3) are unable to act as prophets as was recently established, even by you, however reluctantly.

For a person who doesn't trust in "men's" words because "men" can't know truth, you are awfully trusting of the words told to you by "men."

Anyway, res ipsa summed up your position already, here's the key statement for me:

We haven't been discussing the general topic of a loving creator God. We've been discussing your particular spin on Mormon God, which I find inconsistent with the notion of a loving creator God.

[MG 2.0]

And again, I can see why you and others would be so dead set against the plates and the angel.
Those things simply don’t exist from your perspective. Cannot exist. Period end of sentence.

Nope, it's a simple conclusion arising from an impartial examination of the evidence which leads right-minded folk to be skeptical about their existence.

It’s interesting how the critics are always the right minded impartial observers. I suppose it may be due, at least partially, to lines of evidence which are acceptable and focused on vs. others.

Regards,
MG

[Marcus]

The problem is certainly not that golden plates or even angels are impossible. Mormon angels might not exactly be extraterrestrials, supposedly being resurrected humans, but one doesn't even have to believe in God at all to consider that advanced aliens might conceivably have visited Joseph Smith and given him artefacts. And as to the plates, I for one think it highly likely that Smith had some kind of plates.

The problem is that the official Mormon story, and all the accounts we have for the "coming forth" of the Book of Mormon, fit so hand-in-glove perfectly with what one would expect from a crude but creative con job.

Tantalising chances to heft, but not read; nobody ever actually seen reading the plates; pillowcases and sheets to keep the important stuff out of sight; weasel-worded collective witness statements with appended names instead of independent, extensive accounts; witnesses who were all either interested parties or gullible rubes. A prophet with a record of hiring himself out to find treasure by scrying through a magical stone. All kinds of "see, nothing up my sleeve" misdirections, like the emphasis on descriptions of how Smith dictated the text on a couple of occasions that could easily have been staged, when for most of his waking hours he was unobserved and had ample time to prepare his recitation. A repetitious and rambling plot that reads exactly like what someone would invent on the fly; a bogus dialect that sounds just like a ham-fistedly inaccurate attempt by a talented but uneducated storyteller to imitate the King James Bible.

All of that could conceivably be compatible with a real ancient text that was really translated by miracle. If there were a real ancient text, really translated, however, none of those details would have been especially likely. They would all have been arbitrary circumstances that didn't make too much sense. Why did nobody transcribe several pages of the original characters, at least, or even write a detailed description of the plates? Conceivably nobody happened to think of doing that, or God forbade it, or something; who knows? How the plates got treated is nothing like what would one naturally expect, though, if they really were what Smith claimed.

Instead all the details are exactly what one would expect if the plates were fake props and the whole thing was a scam. That's the problem.

That's how the vast majority of people see it, in my opinion which is why the mopologetic insistence that the "witnesses" are ultimately the key is so perplexing. Very, very few these days are convinced simply by testimony about supernatural events, regardless of how charismatic the storyteller is. Cult leaders have managed it the best, but these days, thankfully, they seem to command a pretty small group out of humankind as a whole.

[Res Ipsa]

Far be it from me to try to solve the problem of evil in a post. Some bad things that happen can be blamed on the victims for being stupid, but many can only be blamed on evil perpetrators whom God could presumably have stopped. Some bad things don't even involve human agents. A few years ago there was a story in the news about a child who was killed by a falling hailstone. One would think that God could have nudged that thing a few inches aside.

Even the luckiest human life has bad limits. At some point we all die, and our friends and loved ones all die.

What we believe—or do not—about God changes none of that. Whether or not there is a God running the universe, running a universe is harder to understand than we can.

In your days, have you commanded the morning?

Even to my limited mind it seems that God must constantly face trolley problems of a worse kind than we can. Suppose that you could save a child from a painful death, but only by erasing the entire existence of someone else in the future—or of many people. Given the way that the universe works, with causality, changing even a tiny thing now could have those future consequences.

Why can't God just break causality and make all the best things happen at all times, without any constraints relating things at different times? How could we know? It's not clear that it's even a real question, though. In the only kind of time that we know, past and future are not independent. Perhaps asking God to break causality in a universe otherwise like ours is asking God to perform a logical contradiction, like making a round square. And perhaps totally different kinds of universe will only have their own problems.

I haven't commanded the morning. At least, not the real way. I can tell dawn to come, but it only obeys if I have timed my command right.

I think that God's answer to Job is the Jewish/Christian God's response to the problem of evil, but that's probably a separate thread.

[MG 2.0]

Rather than deal with all the evidence, you simply make stuff up about your God that you can't possibly know.

This is the crux of the matter. I can know that which I believe in regards to God and His ways IF (big if) he has revealed that knowledge. You’re right in saying that we cannot “make stuff up” and then tout it off as being True. That knowledge can only come from the Source of truth.

It’s a matter of determining for one’s self whether or not that source is more likely to be correct vs. another.

You refer to “your God”. My contention is that there can only be one true God. I believe the knowledge of that God has been revealed to prophets throughout the ages including in our day. That God is a God of love. He sent His Son to perform an infinite atonement for all of mankind.

It is on that basis and from that point of reference that I have developed a trust in an eternal plan that adapts to and works within the parameters of men/women being free agents.

When I refer to going around in circles it simply means that we both are approaching things from different places and the Venn diagram has minimal contact in certain respects. So we talk past each other to the extent that I’m not sure we can really communicate with any hope of pushing those two circles of the diagram any closer together.

Lines of evidence which are acceptable to one may not be acceptable to another.

I appreciate the fact that you have views which don’t allow for a loving and compassionate God.

I hope that we can agree to disagree on important key points. I’m willing to.

Regards,
MG

[I Have Questions]

Why not trust in your own personal pipeline to God, rather than abdicate your life choices to some old blokes you don't know and who you've just said cannot possibly have ultimate truth residing with them?

I think it’s a two fold revelatory/inspiration process. This has been discussed in many Conference talks.

As with an earlier post on another topic you have misread and/or misinterpreted what I said.

Regards,
MG

Nope, I haven’t.

[MG 2.0]

Perhaps asking God to break causality in a universe otherwise like ours is asking God to perform a logical contradiction, like making a round square.

That more or less fits right in with Mormon theology.

Regards,
MG