If plates then God

[MG 2.0]

I answered the question that you reposted.

Regards,
MG

I'm referring to different posts.

OK. But I asked you to repost the question that you felt I didn’t give due diligence to. And you did. I then answered that question.

Regards,
MG

[MG 2.0]

So why attribute not seeing the evidence the way you do the individuals not wanting to have their worldview changed, which is going to come with the insinuation they just want to live lives of sin?

Great question.

See my response to tagriffy.

Regards,
MG

[Philo Sofee]

calm down Doc! He is only using the brethren's methods.....

Another ‘brethren’ joke/reference. That always works.

Regards,
MG

Only it isn't a joke, it is how yo operate.

[tagriffy]

Thanks for posting these references to me where I said that worldviews would change and that folks would be hard pressed not to entertain thoughts that they were unwilling and/or unable to accept.

OK

But then you said, “which is going to come with the insinuation they just want to live lives of sin[.]”

THOSE are the words I’m referring to when I said, “Your words, not mine.”

Are we clear?

Regards,
MG

Thank you for the clarification. Since you also went to the distance of quoting what I said, let's note that I did not say you made that insinuation or that you intended such an insinuation to be made. Your actual intention aside, I'd warrant that nearly every one of your respondants have heard your argument where that insinuation is made either implicitly or explicitly. It's ubiquitous in apologetic literature. So whether you intended it or not, that's what they're going to hear.

But let's set that aside. If your interest really is getting a better perspective on differing views, why attribute not seeing the evidence your way to the individuals not wanting to have their worldview changed?

[Gadianton]

She was in close proximity to everything that was going on. We aren’t.

Rigght. Say there's a baptism, but nobody is allowed to watch the person actually get baptized, including the "witnesses". But the so-called witnesses eat snacks with everyone afterward and people talk as if the baptism really happened, even though nobody saw it. The "witnesses" aren't really "witnesses" in the way anybody would use the term until MG redefines the terminology. A witness at a baptism should very critically watch as the person goes under the water to be sure submersion is complete. Likewise, a witness of the plates should have that same close empirical scrutiny.

Which wasn’t the case.

Fine. So you are saying the witnesses do not demonstrate the plates existed beyond a reasonable doubt. They lack the credibility. I agree. The whole thing has to be taken on faith.

No. Because the plates and the angel are one of those things that are part and parcel to the restoration of the gospel. The restored gospel would not exist without the angel and the plates.

I don't think you understood the point. I didn't say the plates and angel are thrown out of the story, I'm saying that the plates are no longer evidence of the story, and so the plates and angel are also covered by faith. In other words, the most likely scenario is that a person comes to believe the gospel, and therefore they believe the plates. The two may be inextricably linked in the story as Bushman thinks. But now the plates are epistemic baggage. The plates are something to swallow once you've accepted the story broadly.

But you're trying to make the plates evidence of the angel and the restored gospel: "plates, therefore God and restoration", but without allowing the plates to actually be the evidence.

[tagriffy]

I'm referring to different posts.

OK. But I asked you to repost the question that you felt I didn’t give due diligence to. And you did. I then answered that question.

Regards,
MG

We're talking past each other now, partly as a result of the way this thread has evolved. Going back to your post of 1453 today, you said you laid out reasons why it is unreasonable to have the plates available here and now.

Among these reasons were that instead of faith we'd have knowledge and that would constitute forced obedience to God. In my post of 1929 1 Oct, I responded:

I am not entirely certain why you think faith is to be preferred to knowledge. Faith is something for the time being until we do come into knowlege. "For now we see in a mirror, dimly, but then we will see face to face. Now I know only in part; then I will know fully, even as I have been fully known" (1 Cor. 13:12, NRSV). Knowledge is something we looking forward to having.

Furthermore, even certain knowledge God exists would not have the effect of an external force making us do God's bidding. Adam and Even had certain knowledge, yet they still ate the fruit. The children of Israel had certain knowledge, yet they were constantly sinning, including making a freaking idol and forsaking the Lord for Baal of Peor. And if the children of Israel had certain knowledge, how much more so Moses, who spoke to God face to face! Yet he sinned so badly that the Lord forbade him from entering the promised land!

[MG 2.0]

I didn't say the plates and angel are thrown out of the story, I'm saying that the plates are no longer evidence of the story, and so the plates and angel are also covered by faith.

Yes, after passage of time faith is required to believe in the story of the plates.

In other words, the most likely scenario is that a person comes to believe the gospel, and therefore they believe the plates.

This is possible, of course. As a missionary I don’t remember any substantial time taken in discussing the plates.

But that doesn’t take away from the fact that the plates are still there (in the historical record) and need an explanation. And that they played a part in the Book of Mormon translation. That is, if you believe the witnesses.

The two may be inextricably linked in the story as Bushman thinks. But now the plates are epistemic baggage. The plates are something to swallow once you've accepted the story broadly.

For some that may be true. For others it becomes another evidence of antiquity and the gospel message spread across time and space.

But you're trying to make the plates evidence of the angel and the restored gospel: "plates, therefore God and restoration"…

Yes.

…but without allowing the plates to actually be the evidence.

Not sure how I’m disallowing the plates as evidence. In fact, I see them as evidence. While at the same time agreeing with you that because of the gap in time between the witnesses and us we accept their reality partially based on faith.

Hey drumdude, we’ve gone full circle…we’re back to the plates!

Regards,
MG

[huckelberry]

So is this faith thing which is supposed to be crucial believing something that you do not know whether it is true or not or as some wage once put it believing something that you know is not true.

Perhaps further alternative could be considered. Believing in plates without history? Why would that be faith?

[I Have Questions]

You still haven’t demonstrated that I’ve misrepresented what you said.

Been there done that.

Done.

Regards,
MG

Nope. You haven’t done that. I’m still waiting for you to demonstrate how I misrepresented what you said. I think we both know why you haven’t…

[MG 2.0]

This is confusing. First you claim God would have failsafes to prevent someone blowing it…

You got off on the wrong foot to begin with in misphrasing and/or misrepresenting what I said.

I said:

God would have instituted failsafes in the possibility that individuals are going to blow it…

You said:

God would have failsafes to prevent someone blowing it…

Look carefully. See the difference?

Everything else you said is set up on a faulty foundation.

This was back on page 52.

Apparently you didn’t see the difference.

One is conditional and one is not. There is flexibility.

Be that as it may, you then said:

In making that last statement you have to own the position that your God allows children to be raped. What’s the failsafe for the victims? On the basis that this life is supposed to be for our learning, a child who is raped has their life entirely messed up. Their opportunity for learning is skewed in favour of their abusers learning, according to you. Your God is rewarding the unrighteous by allowing them the chance to learn from their abuse of others. If you counter that the victim will have it all made good in the next life, then your claim that this life is necessary for the learning process, for God’s plan for individuals, is undermined.

I’ve stated my thoughts in regards to this throughout the thread. God ‘allows’ for children to be raped in the same sense that He allows for a husband to shoot and kill his family. Or for a woman to kill her own children. Allowing doesn’t mean condoning. People that do horrendous acts of violence to a child, to a spouse, to a coworker, or what have you, will be held accountable for those actions. In the meantime children are harmed and often carry the scars of other’s terrible acts/mistakes.

But if we live in a world in which agency reigns supreme how can it be otherwise? That’s what I’ve said over and over and over again. Apparently to no avail. NO ONE has come with an alternative other than something that would resemble what is referred to as ‘Satan’s plan’. A world where everyone does the right thing all the time because they don’t have any choice. Comparable, I suppose, to an Islamic country that cuts off body parts if folks do bad things. That would definitely act as a deterrent if enacted world wide and enforced.

Would we want to live in a world like that where government and police action would take such extreme measures and be granted powers to exercise extreme punishments? Can you imagine where that might end up? Governments that can dictate every move and freedom or lack of freedom?

Look around and you can see examples of this in one form or another. Is that what you want?

As it is, we are free to choose. That brings its own risks. Mainly being, people are going to do bad things.

Repeatedly I’ve come back to the Atonement of Jesus Christ. I see this as the only real hope for a world in which sin exists and freedom and liberty reigns triumphant. Laws can be enacted and enforced against child rape and other hideous crimes agains humanity, but wicked people BY NATURE are still going to commit acts of violence against children and others.

It’s the ‘fallen’ world we live in. A telestial world. But we have hope for a better world in which all will be restored to its perfect and proper frame…and all that this would entail.

I realize that you and others seem to be under the illusion that an all powerful God ought to step in and cure every ill, stop every act of violence, etc.

But that’s just not the world we live in. So get over it. Actions have real consequences. Human beings have agency.

If you have a better alternative than the world we live in feel free to outline in detail how that might look/work while at the same time allowing for free agency.

Regards,
MG