If plates then God

[Philo Sofee]

MG 2.0
Essentially where the problem lies and where we’re talking past each other is that you don’t see the Atonement of Christ as being infinite and eternal in it scope to redeem and sanctify all those that come unto him.

Thank you for pointing out the church and all its leaders and their ideas are completely superfluous... I have been saying this since I saw the actual Gospel of Jesus Christ. One only needs Jesus, FULL STOP.

[Gadianton]

I’m sure that by the rules of the logic that you are employing you are finding reasons to think that a god ought to give full disclosure and not leave us in the dark or looking through a glass darkly. But that would separate us from the platform of making true choices without the ‘handicap’ of having everything served to us on a silver platter.

The plates and the angel, by association, demonstrate/prove the fact that God exists and Jesus is the Christ. The controversies of the ages are nullified.

If the angel and plates get associated, it sounds to me like everything from there is served on a silver platter. God and Jesus proven to exist, and all controversies everywhere settled.

[Marcus]

I think there are better ways to worship God, Mormonism is up there with 7th day Adventist and Jehovas Witness. Way too far off the mainstream.

I find it interesting that you, Res Ipsa and other ex members or lapsed Mormons keep coming back here of all places rather than simply finding that “better way” to either worship or not worship and focus on that.

What on earth makes you think discussions here stop anyone from doing that?

...Something other than ‘play time’ keeps drawing you folks back here. It’s like you’re not really sure of yourselves or you just can’t step off the playing field....

Projection. Undeniably.

I’ve already said why I pop here at periodically. Someone has to provide a balance to the one voice echo chamber of discontent that is constantly made manifest on this board.

Lol. You keep telling yourself that.

And I like to see whether or not my faith stands up to scrutiny. So far, so good.
...But I can’t, for the life of me, determine exactly what draws you all back here.....

Oh dear. Your projection is becoming so obvious.

Anyway, back to the plates. You've stated multiple conflicting opinions, which is what would be ecpected if one has to assume their conclusion and then make everything else fit.

[Res Ipsa]

See, perfectly on topic. All of it is an argument to refute your claim about the need for plates, but not too much plates. It's much more complex than taGriffey's argument my counterexample, but also much more fun.

tagriffy. As far as I've been able to determine, the Griffeys are an entirely different clan. Please feel free to call me Tim.

My apologies, Tim.

[Gadianton]

open to the possibility that an angel of God delivered them.

But then, that would change EVERYTHING, wouldn’t it?

If an angel delivered them to Joseph Smith then the restoration story and all that comes of it then becomes a matter of fact.

MG has two contrasting ways of describing the world. In one set of descriptions, we "look through a glass darkly"; we stare at a Monet, standing back appreciating the imperfections to see the broader beauty. In another set descriptions, the world is crystal clear, truth is absolute, no controversy or disagreement is left standing, the victory of clear truth crushes every perspective.

When does MG invoke one description and when does he invoke the other? It's quite predictable.

MG only talks about looking through a glass darkly when it comes to evaluating the dubious claims of his favorite religions conman or to defend the horrors of his creator god. With every blow to the absurd tale of Joseph Smith and his ridiculous Mormon book, one must step back another foot to see how the new wart unfolds upon the larger canvas. Any attempt to ask for clarity, when it comes to evidence for his childish religious notions, are met with fears of existential threat to agency. The murkier the picture, the greater the maturity of faith, and therefore, the more true it must be.

On the other hand, once the plates are accepted as real, it's instant checkmate. From that point on, the Monet is burned, all ambiguity is over, every question is settled with a clear answer. The church is true without any shadow of doubt.

As an example, here's what's essentially going on. MG's "glass darkly" bit is akin to driving down the road and you're flagged down by a hitchhiker. You stop and hear the person out, there's all kinds of red flags, nothing in his story adds up, but in the bigger picture you see strands of credibility and a conflicted set of circumstances where the individual may be doing their best within a tough set of circumstances. So you open the car door and allow the hitchhiker in. He pulls a knife and immediately slits your throat, throws you out of the car onto the pavement, and drives off.

Another way to put this is MG's truth of everything is like a 2 million domino setup that sprawls into a cacophony of Rube Goldberg machines that you never saw coming. He needs you to be as open minded as possible, to the point of absurd gullibility, to accept the plates as real, which in this analogy is like pushing down the first domino. Once that domino falls, everything falls, from tithing to what you do on Sunday, to who you can date, to how you can pray. No room for disagreement or perspective from the time the first domino hits its neighbor, whereas all there was prior was room for debate or perspective, whatever it takes to get you to push that first domino down.

[drumdude]

I think there are better ways to worship God, Mormonism is up there with 7th day Adventist and Jehovas Witness. Way too far off the mainstream.

I find it interesting that you, Res Ipsa and other ex members or lapsed Mormons keep coming back here of all places rather than simply finding that “better way” to either worship or not worship and focus on that.

Something other than ‘play time’ keeps drawing you folks back here. It’s like you’re not really sure of yourselves or you just can’t step off the playing field.

I’ve already said why I pop here at periodically. Someone has to provide a balance to the one voice echo chamber of discontent that is constantly made manifest on this board. And I like to see whether or not my faith stands up to scrutiny. So far, so good.

But I can’t, for the life of me, determine exactly what draws you all back here.

Regards,
MG

If I was ex-JW or 7th day Adventist I would be on those websites.

I think they’re all for a good cause. To help people make informed decisions.

[Res Ipsa]

I do not claim to be a God for whom all things are possible. I am neither all knowing nor all powerful. I don't have a preferred world.

Wouldn’t your preferred world be one in which children and other innocents are neither raped or harmed in any way?

I would prefer that innocent children not be beaten and raped.

So in your preferred world innocent children would not be beaten or raped. Without saying this explicitly in your first statement I suppose this would be your preferred world if you indeed had a preferred world? So did I answer the question I asked you correctly?

That is not the question you asked me. The question you actually asked me is right upthread in boldface and large font, just the way you wrote it.

How would your preferred world work and what would it look like if it was to be inhabited by free willed human beings?

When you have to misrepresent your own words to make an argument, maybe you are on the wrong track.

Does your God have the power to create such a world with free agency sufficient to fulfill the plan of salvation?

If God is going to create a world in which free agents are going to make all kinds of choices including those choices that harm or maim others there would need to be away to provide salvation. That comes through the Atonement and sacrifice of Jesus Christ.

But I’ve already said that.

Yes, you have. It was a non sequitur the first time you said it. And it is still a non sequitur. Beaten and raped children do not need the atonement to be saved from being victims of beatings and rape. Being a victim is not a sin.

What you seem to be dancing around but unwilling to admit is that Christ’s suffering and sacrifice is not sufficient for the redemption of sins. Innocent children also must be beaten and raped for salvation to occur. Beating, rape, torture, and murder of children are all necessary parts of the plan that Jesus Christ himself presented at the council in heaven, and you voted for that plan. Because mortals cannot be free agents if God does not send innocent children to earth knowing that they will be beaten, tortured, raped and murdered. Because unless children are beaten, tortured raped, and murdered, it’s so easy not to sin that you call it being handed salvation on a silver platter.

Take your own advice upthread and grow a pair: own up to the logical consequences of your own religious claims. Have the courage to admit that you sat in the council of heaven and knowingly voted for a plan that included beating, raping, torturing and murdering children. Then argue that the atonement somehow requires and makes all that peachy keen.

Essentially where the problem lies and where we’re talking past each other is that you don’t see the Atonement of Christ as being infinite and eternal in it scope to redeem and sanctify all those that come unto him.

We aren’t talking past each other. You’re running away from a question that forces you to examine the ugly side of your religious claims. Does the atonement require child rape? It’s a very simple and clear question. Wasn’t Christ’s suffering supposed to be sufficient? Why must children also suffer from rape, beatings and torture?

You’re looking at it from a purely secular perspective.

Ok, give me the sacred perspective on child rape and torture. From the sacred point of view: is it moral to put a child in a situation where you know the child will be raped? Beaten? Tortured? Murdered?

We will continue to talk past each other because this hurdle of understanding and communication cannot be breached through pure logic or worldly wisdom. It’s beyond your ability to comprehend and also mine.

That’s a moral cop out. You’ve been making all sorts of claims based on logic and worldly wisdom about what is and is not required for the plan of salvation to work. But when asked to do the same where the rubber hits the road, suddenly logic and worldly wisdom are off limits. It’s absolutely hunky dory with you that your God send innocent children to earth under circumstances where he knows they will be beaten, raped, tortured, and murdered. In fact, you are so hunky dory with it that you fought a war in heaven To make sure that all those things happened to innocent children. That’s what you choose to believe.

You find fault with a God who you believe cannot save all his children including those that are acted upon by the evil misdeeds of others. There is no way to get past this dilemma I as far as me trying to explain to you that everything will be OK. Although in the here and now because of God given agency it’s not OK.

You’re right. There is no way past this dilemma for you and the God you claim to be a loving creator God. Unless you go full moral relativist, you can’t make present evil into present good. All you can do is stay in denial of the ugly consequences of your beliefs.

I don’t believe for one second that I voted and fought a war in heaven for a plan that necessarily required the beating, torture, rape, and murder of innocent children. Innocent as in literally without the ability to sin and thus in no need of atonement. Nor do I buy the notion that the creator of the entire universe is powerless to create a plan of salvation that doesn’t require children to suffer so that others may sin.

Given all the available freedom and choice in the world, are beaten, raped and tortured children necessary to the plan of salvation?

Free agency and absolute ability to choose are necessary to the plan of salvation.

What I mean by going around in circles and continuing your pretzel like logic will very probably be manifest in your responding post.

Although now, maybe not. I spilled the beans.

Poisoning the well is also invalid reasoning. But go ahead, demonstrate the circularity of my reasoning. You won’t do it, because you can’t.

I’m sure that by the rules of the logic that you are employing you are finding reasons to think that a god ought to give full disclosure and not leave us in the dark or looking through a glass darkly. But that would separate us from the platform of making true choices without the ‘handicap’ of having everything served to us on a silver platter.

I think we will continue to talk past each other Res Ipsa. I was teasing you a bit somewhere in the last few posts in regards to ad hominem. I think you may have taken me too seriously. Truthfully, my interactions with you and others have demonstrated, at least to me, the fragility of confidence manifest by those that leave the church. They are always wondering if they may have ‘blown it’ and are constantly on the defensive. I’ve seen that in you on this thread.

I’m calling like I see it. Of course someone will come back and say I’m simply projecting. I think that trope has been used a few times already.

I think it’s pretty simple. The story of the plates is either true or false. Coming back to Monet and individual dots that connect to the whole. From my perspective the part of the restoration with the narrative of the plates…or an artifact…surviving the eons of time in order to act as a ‘witness’ to the witness makes sense. God has always done his work through witnesses. It’s all part of a large canvas God has been painting for ages.

Anyway, enough said. Thanks for your viewpoint. I think you are mistaken in the trajectory you’ve taken. But I respect the fact that you have total and complete freedom/agency to do so. I don’t think anything the less of you as a decent human being.

I’ll bet you’re an awesome husband and father.

Regards,
MG

Nothing new in the rest of this, so no response required.

[Res Ipsa]

I think there are better ways to worship God, Mormonism is up there with 7th day Adventist and Jehovas Witness. Way too far off the mainstream.

I find it interesting that you, Res Ipsa and other ex members or lapsed Mormons keep coming back here of all places rather than simply finding that “better way” to either worship or not worship and focus on that.

Something other than ‘play time’ keeps drawing you folks back here. It’s like you’re not really sure of yourselves or you just can’t step off the playing field.

I’ve already said why I pop here at periodically. Someone has to provide a balance to the one voice echo chamber of discontent that is constantly made manifest on this board. And I like to see whether or not my faith stands up to scrutiny. So far, so good.

But I can’t, for the life of me, determine exactly what draws you all back here.

Regards,
MG

Your need to attack and disparage others is pathological. Ad hominem by innuendo is still ad hominem.

[I Have Questions]

If MG2.0’s ridiculously inept attempt at making the case for the plates existing represents the best evidence available, I’m astonished anyone really takes belief in them seriously. The Church itself now prefers to talk about a magic rock, as if that is more credible.

[Doctor CamNC4Me]

To invoke Gad’s analogy (metaphor? I dunno), as long as the rube can keep pushing marbles into the machine he’s satisfied. Basically, as long as a Mormon can keep Mormons blathering about their larp it’s all good. Nothing about their Mormon fantasy and convoluted thinking has to make any sense whatsoever. In fact, I think I’ve seen a strain of apologia that states because Mormonism is so absurd it must be true.

Wtf?

Mental has been at this circular nonsense for around 25 years, and he has the audacity to point and laugh at others? Gtfo of here.