If plates then God

[Philo Sofee]

MG2.0
I honestly you don’t think you’ve carefully read everything I’ve written in this thread or you could not HONESTLY say that.

God doesn't do anything about suffering and helping little children as Res Ipsa has so powerfully hammered into your Mormon-thick skull does he? He sits back and does nothing and expects US to do it? Nope. Show us you care first God, set the example.

[Philo Sofee]

I invoke Hitchins Razor
Claims made without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.

What Hitchin dismisses is his business and places no obligation upon me.

Agreed, but his philosophy is spot on. I don't believe in Sasquatch, and no amount of faith will ever change the probability of my belief until we actually have evidence. I don't believe the gold plates, that is, until actual evidencee of their existence shows up (not some other examples of other metal plates). Faith can't produce the plates, but God can, and should. But I DO believe there is a seer stone in existence and the prophet has it. WHY won't he use it as a true prophet ought to, following Joseph Smith's example? I don't believe the story of Joseph Smith and the seer stone either, until there is evidence that thing can help in translating unknown languages. It's that simple.

[Gadianton]

The rock looks like a rock. The plates look like plates. There is a difference.

Can you see what that might be?

MG is hopelessly confused. The rock was a "sleeper" device while plates impart their full provenance upon a bare glimpse. Not.

MG is thinking that when a person views the seer stone, because of it's cloaking tech, it's not impressive. But the plates reveal the full force of their ancientness without any mitigation. Unfortunately for the faithful, as stated, there actually aren't any witnesses who ever got enough of a view of them to behold their glory, even if they were authentic. There are no witnesses to the brilliant ancientness of the plates with natural eyes, even if in theory one could behold an ancient object and know immediately that it's ancient. But, one cannot simply behold a set of metal plates and know they are ancient. Smiths plates, if he had anything at all, could have been just like the Kinderhook plates and fooled every single one of these non-experts.

Why is MG so wrong? Because once again, he's "running with scissors" inventing arguments Bushman didn't make. When this thread finishes, I may go back and document all of MG's misreadings of Bushman. Recall this proper summary of Bushman:

Sure, the Book of Mormon as we have it was produced through the seer stone, but the plates--or at least the stories surrounding them--are an essential part of the mythos

A concise home run by Tagriffy, which stands in sharp contrast to MG missing the ball with nearly every swing. One of his comments partially connected, and I responded to that with due credit, but everything else has been sheer strikeout.

Anyway, Tagriffy is dead on, it's the mythos of real ancient plates that has become essential to the founding narrative. It has nothing to do with the properties of plates vs. rocks, and certainly nothing to do with any plates Smith may have actually had. There isn't anything about physical plates in theory or as described by Smith that making them "super believable" by nature. It's really getting ridiculous.

[MG 2.0]

The Apostle Paul taught that we work out our own salvation in fear and trembling. We are responsible for ourselves and those that we love and serve.

The thing is, Res Ipsa, either one of us could have potentially taken a different path and been the CAUSE of these broken bodies you are referring to. But for the grace of God and our own nature, we didn’t.

But others DID. And they are the cause of these broken bodies and all other sorts of mayhem in the world. It’s always been that way and it always will be until there is an outside entity or force that says enough is enough.

That same entity will save and redeem ALL of those that have been harmed or abused through the agency of man.

Think about it. You and I could have been the abusers if things had been different. Would you not want to have the opportunity to repent? Would you not want there to be a ways and means by which those children that YOU potentially could have molested or abused to have a way back? If not in this life, in the next?

It’s easy for you to criticize. I get that. The world is and always has been a wicked place. But honestly, the only reason we’re having this discussions rather than avoiding it is because we are talking from a position of innocence.

But what if we weren’t?

We’re living in a world that is real. You and I make choices in a real world. We could make bad, in fact, terrible choices. Some do and have. But we’re all in it together. You have not been able to come up with a plan for a better world than the one we already live in.

And you CANNOT do so.

Man, the more and more I think about it, I’m grateful for the atonement of Jesus Christ. 🥲

Regards,
MG

You meet a man. The man says he is God. He says he is all knowing, all powerful, and all good. He says he is your father, and that he loves you very much. He wants you to live with him forever, but there’s a catch. You have to earn it.

1. God offers you a deal: exaltation as defined in Mormonism. You get the highest degree of the highest kingdom, your eternal family, progression to good status. But you don’t get it for free. You have to fulfill some requirements. One of those requirements is to beat a three year old child to death with a hammer. If you don’t, the child gets the same reward you’ve been offered. If you do, the child gets the same reward you’ve been offered. But to get your reward, you must beat the three year old to death.

Do you take the deal? Why or why not?

2. God offers you a deal. It’s the same deal as in paragraph 1, except that, if you accept, God will beat the child to death.

Do you take the deal? Why or why not?

3. God offers you a deal. It’s the same deal as number 2, but God will take the child to my house. God assures you that he can see the future and that it is 100% certain that I will beat the child to death with a hammer.

Do you take the deal? Why or why not?

4. God offers you a deal. It’s the same deal as number 3, except God tells you he is offering the same deal to everyone and the child will be beaten to death if anyone accepts. God assures you with 100% certainty that I will accept the deal.

Do you take the deal? Why or why not?

5. God says this was a test. Did you pass? Why or why not?

I am willing to trust in God’s plan. I live in a world in which nature takes its course. I believe that God has prepared and accounted for that.

You don’t mention Jesus as God’s son and the work/mission that he performed in behalf of all mankind.

He is the bridge that crosses the gulf of misery and the effects of a fallen world.

Oh ye of little faith. (a nod to the Bible).

I think any “deal” absent the work/mission/atonement of Christ is unworkable. Jesus either is who he and others testified that he is or he isn’t. If he is, that makes all the difference.

If he isn’t your little game is worth playing. I’m not playing.

I place my faith and allegiance to Him. No man.

Regards,
MG

[MG 2.0]

MG2.0
I honestly you don’t think you’ve carefully read everything I’ve written in this thread or you could not HONESTLY say that.

God doesn't do anything about suffering and helping little children as Res Ipsa has so powerfully hammered into your Mormon-thick skull does he? He sits back and does nothing and expects US to do it? Nope. Show us you care first God, set the example.

Philo, I think you have a very narrow view of what and who God is and what Jesus is capable of.

Regards,
MG

[MG 2.0]

A concise home run by Tagriffy, which stands in sharp contrast to MG missing the ball with nearly every swing. One of his comments partially connected, and I responded to that with due credit, but everything else has been sheer strikeout.

We of course are going to disagree sharply in regards to the views I’ve expressed. And from your perspective and others that have left the church and no longer believe it would be natural for you to call a strike where I see a clean hit.

And even a home run now and then.

Isn’t it great to be in front of a home crowd and playing in a stadium on home turf where you are umpire and very few people are going to disagree with your calls?

Second and third base umpires are going to agree with your calls every time. The game is rigged.

And don’t forget Marcus up in the score box. She knows how to keep score.

Best wishes.

Regards,
MG

[MG 2.0]

I don't believe the gold plates, that is, until actual evidencee of their existence shows up (not some other examples of other metal plates). Faith can't produce the plates, but God can, and should.

That’s awfully presumptuous of you to command God.

Jesus had something to say about folks like you.

Regards,
MaG

[canpakes]

God doesn't do anything about suffering and helping little children as Res Ipsa has so powerfully hammered into your Mormon-thick skull does he? He sits back and does nothing and expects US to do it? Nope. Show us you care first God, set the example.

This does raise a disturbing question or three.

1. If God does not care, why are humans supposed to care?

2. If the suffering is inconsequential to an eternal post-mortal existence (and didn’t exist pre-mortal), then what purpose does it serve at all?

3. If the suffering is arbitrary for the eternal to impose, yet painful for the mortal to experience, then just what kind of beings are we ‘progressing’ into as immortality is achieved, if this is what we deal out?

[Res Ipsa]

You meet a man. The man says he is God. He says he is all knowing, all powerful, and all good. He says he is your father, and that he loves you very much. He wants you to live with him forever, but there’s a catch. You have to earn it.

1. God offers you a deal: exaltation as defined in Mormonism. You get the highest degree of the highest kingdom, your eternal family, progression to good status. But you don’t get it for free. You have to fulfill some requirements. One of those requirements is to beat a three year old child to death with a hammer. If you don’t, the child gets the same reward you’ve been offered. If you do, the child gets the same reward you’ve been offered. But to get your reward, you must beat the three year old to death.

Do you take the deal? Why or why not?

2. God offers you a deal. It’s the same deal as in paragraph 1, except that, if you accept, God will beat the child to death.

Do you take the deal? Why or why not?

3. God offers you a deal. It’s the same deal as number 2, but God will take the child to my house. God assures you that he can see the future and that it is 100% certain that I will beat the child to death with a hammer.

Do you take the deal? Why or why not?

4. God offers you a deal. It’s the same deal as number 3, except God tells you he is offering the same deal to everyone and the child will be beaten to death if anyone accepts. God assures you with 100% certainty that I will accept the deal.

Do you take the deal? Why or why not?

5. God says this was a test. Did you pass? Why or why not?

I am willing to trust in God’s plan. I live in a world in which nature takes its course. I believe that God has prepared and accounted for that.

You don’t mention Jesus as God’s son and the work/mission that he performed in behalf of all mankind.

He is the bridge that crosses the gulf of misery and the effects of a fallen world.

Oh ye of little faith. (a nod to the Bible).

I think any “deal” absent the work/mission/atonement of Christ is unworkable. Jesus either is who he and others testified that he is or he isn’t. If he is, that makes all the difference.

If he isn’t your little game is worth playing. I’m not playing.

I place my faith and allegiance to Him. No man.

Regards,
MG

What? Beating the child to death isn’t enough torture and suffering for you?

God summons his son, Jesus. After a short discussion, Jesus agrees to your terms and agrees to suffer for your sins, including torture and a horrible death. But only because you insist.

God turns to you and says that he’s agreed to your terms, hands you the hammer and motions toward the child.

Did you pass?

[Marcus]

A concise home run by Tagriffy, which stands in sharp contrast to MG missing the ball with nearly every swing. One of his comments partially connected, and I responded to that with due credit, but everything else has been sheer strikeout.

We of course are going to disagree sharply in regards to the views I’ve expressed. And from your perspective and others that have left the church and no longer believe it would be natural for you to call a strike where I see a clean hit.

And even a home run now and then.

Isn’t it great to be in front of a home crowd and playing in a stadium on home turf where you are umpire and very few people are going to disagree with your calls?

Second and third base umpires are going to agree with your calls every time. The game is rigged.

And don’t forget Marcus up in the score box. She knows how to keep score....

And a default by mentalgymnast, with no legitimate arguments but only a handful of ad hominems, as usual.