If plates then God

[MG 2.0]

This is your issue. You are the one that needs to work it out. Not me.

Regards,
MG

…

…why is the possibility that you've been deceived by the deceiver off the table?

It’s not. And this does apply to the plates. I’ve already commented on this. Go back and read what I said in regards to ‘fruit’.

Are abused children a necessary part of the plan of salvation?

You said:

…God is all knowing and wise. So, he has the power to do all things and with his complete knowledge he creates a world where children are physically and sexually abused, some to the point of torture and some to the point of death. Why should we not view his choice to create a world where such things are possible as anything but evil? It's not a matter of choosing who to blame. Abusing children is evil. Why isn't choosing to create a world where the creator knows children will be abused, tortured and killed just as evil?

You left out the part that God has created a world in which free will/agency is paramount. Look around. And most importantly that he gave us a Savior to atone for sins and redeem mankind. Free will and the Atonement are intertwined. I look at the Atonement as the mechanism by which all of the choices made by imperfect and yes, evil human beings, are somehow covered and taken care of through Christ’s infinite atonement.

All will be made right, even though in the here and now…because of free will…much evil and wickedness is the result of this fallen world. I don’t put it on God as you do. I put it on humans doing stupid and evil things.

You seem to be suggesting a world in which human agency is non existent.

Again, I will ask, what would YOUR world look like knowing that it was to be inhabited by humans that would err and commit sin?

The plates, and their being taken away after translation, fit within the paradigm of free will and choosing to believe.

Again, I don’t think the silver platter god and free will are compatible.

Regards,
MG

[MG 2.0]

This hypersensitivity you are talking about is pure projection.

I disagree.

Regards,
MG

[Philo Sofee]

MG2.0
I look at the Atonement as the mechanism by which all of the choices made by imperfect and yes, evil human beings, are somehow covered and taken care of through Christ’s infinite atonement.

FULL STOP. Nothing else added, I agree with this entirely. But... FULL STOP here. That is the Gospel. All the church leaders to the complete contrary who add anything else in, the above is all there is that is necessary.

[Res Ipsa]

Nope. It's straightforward inferences from your own words and those of your prophets. If, as you contend, the plan of salvation requires that the plates be unavailable for an evidence based investigation…

Yes, for reasons stated in this thread.

…why doesn't it follow that the COJCOLDS cannot be unambiguously good for exactly the same reason. Please try to avoid ad hoc special pleading.

I don’t see an exact corollary and/or association here.

As it is, my argument is about the importance of the plates to the restoration narrative. You’re taking things off in other directions.

Let’s stick to the topic rather than getting into child abuse, etc.

I’ve already made my thoughts known in regards to the plates now going on for many a page.

I’m not sure that I have much else to say. Except to again acknowledge that the critics are under obligation to take whatever path necessary to distort and/or do away with the accepted understanding of the part the plates played in the restoration of the gospel.

It may be time to wrap things up?

Regards,
MG

You may wrap yourself up any time you choose. Your argument about the relationship between the plates and the plan of salvation is an application of a more general argument that is not limited to the restoration: The plan of salvation requires that God not make it too easy to accept the COJCOLDS by giving mortals too much information. If you don't think that's a fair statement of your argument, please feel free to set me straight. But God could make it too easy in any number of ways beyond events related to the restoration in the 1800s: Personal visit from Jesus for everyone. Priesthood holders restoring amputated limbs. Miraculous pillar of flame from temple spires. We could go on and on with similar examples.

Here is your comment that I reacted to:

Honestly? It’s a bit frustrating over time as I see a shotgun approach…narrow trajectory…on each topic that comes up. I brought up Monet, and have before. I like to look at the larger picture rather than narrowly focus on the bit of paint in front of my nose.

The scriptures tell us that a bad tree cannot produce good fruit and that a good tree will not bring forth bad fruit. The Book of Mormon has brought forth righteous and good fruit into the lives of those that take its message seriously and put their faith in God and the Fullness of the Gospel of Jesus Christ.

That you and Res Ipsa would even entertain that the Book of Mormon is the product of the father of lies and misery is not sustainable as one observes the growth of the church and the impact for good it has had in the lives of millions of souls.

In fact, I would go as far as to say that you guys are a bit whacko in even looking at this as a possibility.[/quotes]

I know you are familiar with your prophets who have described the church as either being of God or the devil. If it's true that the church cannot produce bad fruit and the church's universally good fruits are so clear that to claim the other alternative offered by your prophets is a symptom if some kind of insanity, doesn't that make it too easy as well? If not, why not?

My answer to my own question is that the fruits of the church had not been universally good. It has produced good fruit and bad fruit. The typical response is to assign all the good fruit to the church and all the bad fruit to the people, but that's an unprincipled and ad hoc approach. In fact, it violates the very scripture you rely on: if the church is of God it cannot produce bad fruit -- period.

My argument is that, accepting your claim about the plates, the church cannot universally and unambiguously produce good fruits for the same reason that God could not allow the plates to remain on earth. In contrast with other churches and organizations on earth, which produce a range of good and bad fruits, the church would so clearly stand out that it would be too easy to accept it as God's one and only genuine restored church on the face of the earth. But that would contradict the very scripture you began with.

It's a difficult to construct, but absolutely legitimate form of argument: reductio ad absurdum. It's an argument that examines the consequences of a claim to show that they lead to contradictions or absurd results. The point is to attack the validity of your claim that withholding of the plates is necessary for the degree of free agency required to make the plan of salvation work. Same conclusion as taGriffey through a different form of argument. He used counterexample, which is also a valid form of argument.

I used the same form of argument with child abuse, although the angle is slightly different. If there are things that God must do or refrain from doing to avoid making the test too easy, does that also apply to the availability of sin? And I picked the hardest case to address: sins that harm the most innocent among us. I think that argument is more difficult to respond to without making the plan of salvation look evil or God appear evil for not choosing a plan that doesn't require child rape and torture.

The helpful part about using a reductio, even if done unskillfully, is that it does just what you keep saying you are interested in doing: relating discrete issues to the big picture. A claim you make about the plates may have all kinds of ramifications for other portions of the big picture. It's not exactly cricket to call foul when I do exactly what you say you want to do.

My conclusion: your argument about both the need for the plates but not too much plates places limitations on your God when you have no theological justification for doing so. Your God says anything is possible, but you are placing arbitrary, ad hoc restrictions on what your God can and cannot do when it comes to designing and implementing the plan of salvation. The implications of your claims lead to contradictory and absurd results. You don't know what your God can and cannot do, and any speculation on your part should be dismissed as such.

Focused and directly on topic. Exactly what you say you want. At least until your next post.

[MG 2.0]

You argued that your beliefs about the plates and angels made more sense in the larger picture…

They do. See my recent post.

Regards,
MG

[MG 2.0]

The plan of salvation requires that God not make it too easy to accept the COJCOLDS by giving mortals too much information.

That sounds about right. This allows for agency/choice. Although, I would say that Jesus made it clear that, “ For my yoke is easy, and my burden is light.”

In other words, the gospel allows for a free range of thought and action within the ‘yoke’ of the gospel of Christ. It allows people to freely make a choice that makes the burden ‘not knowing’ lighter. We don’t know all things but we can know that God lives and Jesus is the way, the truth, and the light.

But initially accepting that is, as you said, “Not too easy”.

Some are not going to accept and live on the covenant path. The path is easy. Acceptance for some folks, especially those of us that tend towards skepticism and trying to prove things solely through our intellect, is tough. Real tough.

Regards,
MG

[MG 2.0]

You may wrap yourself up any time you choose.

You seem to still have some relevant questions and concerns.

Regards,
MG

[MG 2.0]

Mormons can really rationalize anything.

You start with the assumption the church is true and do whatever mental gymnastics are necessary to support it.

A number of years ago I chose to believe in a personal creator God. For me, I look to find those things in the world that point towards that God.

The church fits within that paradigm. Not perfectly…from where I sit…but enough to keep on keeping on.

I have a concern for those that jump ship prematurely or jump ship and the to then inverse of what you describe. That is, look for reasons and do the mental gymnastics necessary to rationalize staying out of the church.

Regards,
MG

[Res Ipsa]

…



It’s not. And this does apply to the plates. I’ve already commented on this. Go back and read what I said in regards to ‘fruit’.

You said:

…God is all knowing and wise. So, he has the power to do all things and with his complete knowledge he creates a world where children are physically and sexually abused, some to the point of torture and some to the point of death. Why should we not view his choice to create a world where such things are possible as anything but evil? It's not a matter of choosing who to blame. Abusing children is evil. Why isn't choosing to create a world where the creator knows children will be abused, tortured and killed just as evil?

You left out the part that God has created a world in which free will/agency is paramount. Look around. And most importantly that he gave us a Savior to atone for sins and redeem mankind. Free will and the Atonement are intertwined. I look at the Atonement as the mechanism by which all of the choices made by imperfect and yes, evil human beings, are somehow covered and taken care of through Christ’s infinite atonement.

All will be made right, even though in the here and now…because of free will…much evil and wickedness is the result of this fallen world. I don’t put it on God as you do. I put it on humans doing stupid and evil things.

You seem to be suggesting a world in which human agency is non existent.

Again, I will ask, what would YOUR world look like knowing that it was to be inhabited by humans that would err and commit sin?

The plates, and their being taken away after translation, fit within the paradigm of free will and choosing to believe.

Again, I don’t think the silver platter god and free will are compatible.

Regards,
MG

Now here is a legitimate straw man fallacy. You are arguing as if I proposed Satan's plan -- that no one would have any ability to sin. (See, when there is a straw man, it is easy to explain why it is a strawman). But that's not even close to my argument. All I addressed was child abuse. If creating a world without child abuse is "silver platter God," that logically implies that physically abused and neglected children are a necessary part of the plan of salvation. Your God is all knowing, including the choices that each one of us will make. So, when he designed the plan of salvation, he knew that the result would be physically and sexually abused children, including torture and death. All to give the abuser a chance to choose, even though your God knew what the outcome would be if the abuser were placed into that situation. Not only the potential for, but actual children starved, beaten, tortured, penetrated with fingers, penises, bottles, broom handles..." That's a deliberate and intentional part of the plan.

All to the benefit, not of the child, but of the beater and the rapist. Not the child, for the child is innocent. The atonement does nothing to make up for the pain and suffering of the innocent child.

Not that beater and rapist don't have a billion other choices to make on which they can be judged. No, we need beaten and raped children for the plan to work.

Jesus loved children so much that he said that one who offends them should have a millstone hung around his neck and be thrown in the sea.

I have no obligation to design a better God as prerequisite to criticizing yours. I've been a parent to four children without knowingly allowing someone else's child to be abused and raped.

There is a legal and moral principle that most people intuitively understand: If you intentionally create a situation in which you know a child will be abused, you are legally and morally responsible for the harm. To argue that your God is somehow morally exempt from that principle is morally bankrupt.

Oh dear lord, there go the goalposts. What determines whether something fits or does not fit "within the paradigm of free will and choosing to believe.?" Not being an all knowing being yourself, what, other than ad hoc rationalization, is the basis for classifying some things as fitting and others not fitting?

[Res Ipsa]

You argued that your beliefs about the plates and angels made more sense in the larger picture…

They do. See my recent post.

Regards,
MG

They don't. Try responding to arguments instead of making repeated assertions.