If plates then God

[huckelberry]

I think the seriousness of suffering in this world always puts a question mark for Gods existence. Yet I have questions about how this matter is being approached in this thread.

First I notice that people are not taking the matter to heart and refusing to have children. Any child is exposed to the possiblity of being brutalized and the fact that we do not know in advance for sure which child does not change the fact that having children always moves toward the awful events happening to some children.

But the complaints are focused upon the idea that we all had a choice in some preexistence when a choice was presented which would avoid the misery. From my outside of Mormonism view I do not think an alternative workable choice existed. Dealing with evil is not a game or test set up for spirits to prove themselves. Evil , that desire to abuse,to take advantage of,is not some artificial fall up for our testing pleasure. It is an existential threat we have within ourselves as a human family. And to be sure our existence is possible only within being a part of the human family with its problems.

Whether a person believes that the atonement is literal and a power working into eternity or If one thinks it is conceptual working limited to living in the present it is more than a get out jail free card for some game of advancement. It is medicine to move the human race away from its predatory lusts and toward responsible caring for others.

I do not believe a Noah flood ever happened but the fiction is thought about the problem underdiscussion. It presents an alternative to making the best of the world we have.

" The earth also was corrupt before God, and the earth was filled with violence.
[12] And God looked upon the earth, and, behold, it was corrupt; for all flesh had corrupted his way upon the earth.
[13] And God said unto Noah, The end of all flesh is come before me; for the earth is filled with violence through them; and, behold, I will destroy them with the earth.

Trying to use an LDS thinking cap I can still see some of the same consideration. I see no reason to think that Satan plan would actually work. It would have been a deception to garner power and limit others. Of course thinking that would imply that all of those preexisting children were not all solid angels but would have been like the humans we know, a troublesome lot.

///////
Yes I can see the question , why no guard rails? Perhaps there is no God beyond our hope for improvement. Perhaps the problem of human evil cannot be cut out without it being fully confronted. I am not going to claim to know for sure.

I'm not sure you're thinking of me in your description, but I haven't been addressing anything other than MG 2.0's claim -- that he made about the plates -- that there are necessary parts of the plan of salvation that his God is powerless to have constructed any other way. Those parts include, necessarily, the beating, rape, torture and murder of children. The problem of evil is a problem for other God's than MG 2.0's, but my point is his ad hoc rationalizations about the plates require him to rationalize the horrific.

Res Ipsa, I was having some difficulty untangling MG thoughts, oddities or problems in LDS human story and some aspect of your comments I was having real difficulty with. I posed some considerations I thought related but did not focus on you or MG in particular.

I think the human problem that the fall story points to is very real even if the Genesis story appears to be illustritive fiction. Or if it were to have some historical base it is still clearly not a complete picture of why in creation the present of evil (or brutally irresponsible selfish action)is a problem.

With or without a God the human race needs to take responsibility for its actions.I do not think accepting that is like oking child rape. t

[Marcus]

I'm not sure you're thinking of me in your description, but I haven't been addressing anything other than MG 2.0's claim -- that he made about the plates -- that there are necessary parts of the plan of salvation that his God is powerless to have constructed any other way. Those parts include, necessarily, the beating, rape, torture and murder of children. The problem of evil is a problem for other God's than MG 2.0's, but my point is his ad hoc rationalizations about the plates require him to rationalize the horrific.

Res Ipsa, I was having some difficulty untangling MG thoughts, oddities or problems in LDS human story and some aspect of your comments I was having real difficulty with. I posed some considerations I thought related but did not focus on you or MG in particular.

I think the human problem that the fall story points to is very real even if the Genesis story appears to be illustritive fiction. Or if it were to have some historical base it is still clearly not a complete picture of why in creation the present of evil (or brutally irresponsible selfish action)is a problem.

With or without a God the human race needs to take responsibility for its actions.I do not think accepting that is like oking child rape. t

Huckelberry, what do you think about mg saying that the LDS god may inspire leaders to call pedophiles to leadership positions, specifically so that they can sin on the job (sacrificing a child or multiple children) and be caught, and therefore get the blessings associated with repentance and forgiveness?

That is mg's thoroughly disgusting position. As res ipsa said

... my point is his ad hoc rationalizations about the plates require him to rationalize the horrific...

Especially in this case about god inspiring leadership calls that give abusers opportunities.

[huckelberry]

Res Ipsa, I was having some difficulty untangling MG thoughts, oddities or problems in LDS human story and some aspect of your comments I was having real difficulty with. I posed some considerations I thought related but did not focus on you or MG in particular.

I think the human problem that the fall story points to is very real even if the Genesis story appears to be illustritive fiction. Or if it were to have some historical base it is still clearly not a complete picture of why in creation the present of evil (or brutally irresponsible selfish action)is a problem.

With or without a God the human race needs to take responsibility for its actions.I do not think accepting that is like oking child rape. t

Huckelberry, what do you think about mg saying that the LDS god may inspire leaders to call pedophiles to leadership positions, specifically so that they can sin on the job (sacrificing a child or multiple children) and be caught, and therefore get the blessings associated with repentance and forgiveness?

That is mg's thoroughly disgusting position. As res ipsa said

... my point is his ad hoc rationalizations about the plates require him to rationalize the horrific...

Especially in this case about god inspiring leadership calls that give abusers opportunities.

Marcus, I might consider his comment not well thought out or well considered. However it probably is a result of his being unwilling to see that the selection of leaders is generally not inspired or reflective of some special divine selection. Individuals who should not be youth leaders can become such. Better safeguards and power limits are appropriate and needed.

[malkie]

Huckelberry, what do you think about mg saying that the LDS god may inspire leaders to call pedophiles to leadership positions, specifically so that they can sin on the job (sacrificing a child or multiple children) and be caught, and therefore get the blessings associated with repentance and forgiveness?

That is mg's thoroughly disgusting position. As res ipsa said

Especially in this case about god inspiring leadership calls that give abusers opportunities.

Marcus, I might consider his comment not well thought out or well considered. However it probably is a result of his being unwilling to see that the selection of leaders is generally not inspired or reflective of some special divine selection. Individuals who should not be youth leaders can become such. Better safeguards and power limits are appropriate and needed.

Could this be simply one example of a more general situation: I wonder if the apologist sometimes paints him/herself into a contradictions corner, such that escape requires that one or other of a pair of extremely bad choices must be selected and justified.

[MG 2.0]

Res Ipsa, I was having some difficulty untangling MG thoughts, oddities or problems in LDS human story and some aspect of your comments I was having real difficulty with. I posed some considerations I thought related but did not focus on you or MG in particular.

I think the human problem that the fall story points to is very real even if the Genesis story appears to be illustritive fiction. Or if it were to have some historical base it is still clearly not a complete picture of why in creation the present of evil (or brutally irresponsible selfish action)is a problem.

With or without a God the human race needs to take responsibility for its actions.I do not think accepting that is like oking child rape. t

Huckelberry, what do you think about mg saying that the LDS god may inspire leaders to call pedophiles to leadership positions, specifically so that they can sin on the job (sacrificing a child or multiple children) and be caught, and therefore get the blessings associated with repentance and forgiveness?

huckleberry, before you answer consider the fact that Marcus is doing the same thing IHAQ just did and I had to correct him on it. She is misrepresenting and then reconstructing what I’ve said into something else. Then building her argument on top of a faulty foundation. I’m not going to waste my time with her at this point.

But keep in mind that what she is arguing for and calling me out for is not even what I’m arguing/saying. She’s twisted it into something else. My comments and thoughts throughout the thread have been, on her part, purposefully been twisted and probably ignored in the sense that she has taken what she wants and disregards the rest.

If you choose to reply to her, good luck!

Regards,
MG

[Marcus]

Huckelberry, what do you think about mg saying that the LDS god may inspire leaders to call pedophiles to leadership positions, specifically so that they can sin on the job (sacrificing a child or multiple children) and be caught, and therefore get the blessings associated with repentance and forgiveness?

That is mg's thoroughly disgusting position. As res ipsa said

Especially in this case about god inspiring leadership calls that give abusers opportunities.

Marcus, I might consider his comment not well thought out or well considered. However it probably is a result of his being unwilling to see that the selection of leaders is generally not inspired or reflective of some special divine selection. Individuals who should not be youth leaders can become such. Better safeguards and power limits are appropriate and needed.

One would think so, but he invariably supports the current LDS position, wherever it is at the time.. He did so even when the LDS church balked at providing "better safeguards and power limits" because, as they egregiously and most erroneously stated, we are the "gold standard" of child protection. He has had ample opportunity to explain over the years, but even this week's version is still horrific.

He is stuck having to support utterly untenable LDS positions. It brings to mind this quote by Harlan Ellison:

There are some people who are so blighted by their past, so warped by experience and the pull of that silken cord, that they never free themselves of the shadows that live in the time machine... And if there is a kind thought due them, it may be found contained in the words of the late Gerald Kersh, who wrote:"... there are men whom one hates until a certain moment when one sees, through a chink in their armour, the writhing of something nailed down and in torment.

https://www.azquotes.com/quote/350112

[Res Ipsa]

I'm not sure you're thinking of me in your description, but I haven't been addressing anything other than MG 2.0's claim -- that he made about the plates -- that there are necessary parts of the plan of salvation that his God is powerless to have constructed any other way. Those parts include, necessarily, the beating, rape, torture and murder of children. The problem of evil is a problem for other God's than MG 2.0's, but my point is his ad hoc rationalizations about the plates require him to rationalize the horrific.

Res Ipsa, I was having some difficulty untangling MG thoughts, oddities or problems in LDS human story and some aspect of your comments I was having real difficulty with. I posed some considerations I thought related but did not focus on you or MG in particular.

I think the human problem that the fall story points to is very real even if the Genesis story appears to be illustritive fiction. Or if it were to have some historical base it is still clearly not a complete picture of why in creation the present of evil (or brutally irresponsible selfish action)is a problem.

With or without a God the human race needs to take responsibility for its actions.I do not think accepting that is like oking child rape. t

I'm not surprised that you had some problems with some parts of my argument. I see the problem of evil as a very tough problem for any version of Christianity. But I think it is an insurmountable problem with MG's God, which is why he avoided discussing the tough issues and resorted, mainly, to essentially bearing his testimony. I presented it as starkly as I could to see if he would rethink his claim to be able to know what his God could and could not do without destroying the plan of salvation. I think I started out by referring to his approach as the Goldilock approach, but I think Pangloss is a better example. Not only is this best of all possible worlds for the plan of salvation, but abuse and suffering of sinless children (in LDS theology) is, to MG, a necessary part of the plan Jesus himself proposed. I've had the problem of evil discussion with lots of orthodox Christians, and they struggle with it. I've never seen the kind of blithe acceptance of child abuse as being a necessity that MG 2.0 demonstrated.

Holding an omnipotent and omnicient God responsible for his creation does not let us mortals off the hook for our own choices. More than one person in a chain of events that results in horrific harm can be held morally responsible for the result.

[MG 2.0]

[MG is] unwilling to see that the selection of leaders is generally not inspired or reflective of some special divine selection. Individuals who should not be youth leaders can become such. Better safeguards and power limits are appropriate and needed.

I think callings are inspired in the sense that they are made by those who have been given the keys to make those decisions as they council together with others that have similar keys and responsibilities. The Lord supports those decisions knowing that they have been made by those who are sincerely trying to exercise their stewardship righteously. I think that there are also times when God gives direct undeniable inspiration.

To differentiate between when callings are being made more or less by those who have keys and are doing their best to follow the Lord’s will and acting independently in His behalf and those times when God makes it pretty clear who and where He wants someone to serve is something that only God knows.

On a simpler level think of it this way. A young man’s Deacon’s quorum presidency. There are ten boys in the quorum. A young man is called as president and then asked to choose his counselors and secretary. He prays and considers options and makes a choice. The answer may essentially be, “choose who you think you can work with best” or “choose that person that can benefit and grow from the calling”, etc. But those words don’t literally need to be ‘God breathed’ every time a calling is made. The Lord and the boy’s leaders support him. Teacher’s quorum, same. And so on up the line. Righteous boys/men/women making callings with the keys they’ve been given.

In this process there are going to be some folks called into positions either under false pretenses on the part of the person being called or they are called and later fall into transgression as they exercise their free will.

Those are the stories, however infrequent, that we hear about. It’s unfortunate and impacts the victims involved in ways that can be devastating. But that’s the world we live in. And it’s not always pretty. The church leaders recognize that and do everything in their power to lessen the chance that bad apples will be put into power positions where they end up doing bad things. The problem is that some folks may go into a position innocent of any wrongdoing previously and they then fall into temptation as they serve in that calling.

I would say that the lion’s share of revelation and inspiration is somewhat conditional. Allowance is made for the fact that individuals may screw up. Think of George P. Lee (?) way back in the day. And others. Things are not always as clean and pristinely perfect, even in the Lord’s church, as some would hope them to be. Imperfect world. Imperfect people. The result is people hurt people at times.

That’s where the Atonement plays apart in healing and moving on. Although it’s admittedly very hard to see the damage that is done as people do bad things to others.

I offered up the opportunity for folks on this thread to create a hypothetical world where bad things don’t happen to good people but didn’t get any real response.

I agree wholeheartedly with you that better safeguards are always going to be part of the answer. In the last few years the church has done a lot more to put these sorts of best practices into place.

That should be commended, not criticized. Except to find ways to make it even better.

Long answer, but I felt your concern deserved more than a quick brush off by one side or the other. Other folks here will disagree with me for one reason or another, and that’s fine.

I will NOT respond at length to anyone who misrepresents or twists what I’ve said out of context to distort what I’ve actually said contextually.

Except to call them out and move on.

Regards,
MG

[I Have Questions]

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.

But I’m sure that wasn’t intentional.

I needed to jump in on this one. I’ve been at this thread long enough and I believe I’ve made some strong points along the way. Various options and ways of approaching the topics at hand have been presented. It is now up to the reader to determine what makes most sense to them. At this point I will only jump in if I see something that might need adjustment or correction if I’m being misrepresented or having my words twisted as they sometimes are whether purposefully or unintentionally.

Regards,
MG

I’ll try again…

God would have instituted failsafes in the possibility that individuals are going to blow it in a plan/system where free choice is the rule. The fact is, if you look at history there have been a lot of people that have blown it and played a part in ruining lives. God knew that would happen when letting free agents be called to leadership positions whether in the church(s), in communities, scouts, families, and what have you.

This is confusing. First you claim God would have failsafes to prevent someone blowing individuals who are going to blow it, then you give an example of someone blowing individuals that have blown it where no failsafe was evident. Then you claim God allowed it.

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’ll be interested to hear your mental gymnastics on this one…

[MG 2.0]

I've never seen the kind of blithe acceptance of child abuse as being a necessity that MG 2.0 demonstrated.

I have amply demonstrated that there really is no other option I a world in which free will exists other than the option of a ‘bad things happen to good/innocent people’ world. There is no other alternative. And that’s where we’re at.

Child abuse is horrendous. I’ve made that clear.

Holding an omnipotent and omnicient God responsible for his creation does not let us mortals off the hook for our own choices. More than one person in a chain of events that results in horrific harm can be held morally responsible for the result.

I don’t have a problem with holding God responsible for His creation. And I agree that people should be held accountable for what they do wrong. Not God. God does too. The scriptures are abundantly clear on that point.

We are responsible for our own sins.

Regards,
MG