Happy Birthday President Nelson!

[I Have Questions]

Thank you for the acknowledgment.

I think malkie's implied point was that all of these believing, practicing Mormons obviously prayed--and either God didn't care enough to answer in order to save lives of the party (and the reputation of the church)--or God did indeed answer, but not one person in the Utah Territory heard him and acted in time. Either way, Mormonism, as the 'one true faith on face the Earth,' didn't acquit itself very well.

Who was at fault? God? Or the prophets*? Or was it both? All righteous members have the gift of the Holy Ghost. Where was he, that not one person involved heard his urgings; this in a matter that was so vitally important?




*Plural: Since each of the 15 is a prophet.

Richard Turley believes that the prayer narratives may have been used as post-hoc rationalizations rather than genuine revelations. He also takes the approach that rather than resolving a theological dilemma directly, that we might reframe the question by looking at the massacre not a 'test' of God's intervention, but of human agency and institutional responsibility. In other words, God was not responsible for the breakdown in agency among those that committed the massacre as a result of some of the factors mentioned earlier.

Regards,
MG

Do you have a quote and a link to what Richard Turley believes please? I think framing divine inspiration and revelation as a personal post-hoc rationalization, rather than genuine revelations has some legs.

[Morley]

Thank you for the acknowledgment.

I think malkie's implied point was that all of these believing, practicing Mormons obviously prayed--and either God didn't care enough to answer in order to save lives of the party (and the reputation of the church)--or God did indeed answer, but not one person in the Utah Territory heard him and acted in time. Either way, Mormonism, as the 'one true faith on face the Earth,' didn't acquit itself very well.

Who was at fault? God? Or the prophets*? Or was it both? All righteous members have the gift of the Holy Ghost. Where was he, that not one person involved heard his urgings; this in a matter that was so vitally important?




*Plural: Since each of the 15 is a prophet.

Richard Turley believes that the prayer narratives may have been used as post-hoc rationalizations rather than genuine revelations. He also takes the approach that rather than resolving a theological dilemma directly, that we might reframe the question by looking at the massacre not a 'test' of God's intervention, but of human agency and institutional responsibility. In other words, God was not responsible for the breakdown in agency among those that committed the massacre as a result of some of the factors mentioned earlier.

Regards,
MG

Again, MG, thank you for the thoughtful reply.

I have to say that is one twisted rationalization. I'm not surprised that Turley takes that approach. Hiding the theological dilemma under a so-called test of agency reads as an intellectual's attempt to preserve his faith at all costs. Even if, to do so, he ironically has to shove God under the bus.

To reach this conclusion, Turley has to believe that either:

• No one in the whole territory prayed, but God didn't insert himself (even though God knew that disaster was imminent) because God was testing agency.

or, more likely

• Folks prayed, but God didn't answer because God was testing agency. Folks either subsequently lied about God answering or genuinely thought that he had answered. (I'm not sure which is worse.)

Either way, God was testing agency by not answering, at the cost of much suffering and many lives. God was willing to abandon his chosen people, willing for this chosen people to betray and slaughter an entire company of men, women, and children. He sacrificed a company of innocents to test the 'agency' of others.


This is a God, the God of silence and distorted logic, that's difficult for many to worship. This is the God who doesn't answer, for more that 100 years, when his own appointed prophets ask about the priesthood ban. Who knows why he doesn't answer--maybe to test agency? In response to God's continued silence, these prophets also either lied about God revealing that he wanted priesthood ban, or they kidded themselves into believing they'd received the answer. (Again, I don't know which is worse.)

This is the God of lying about polygamy and of flaming swords. The God of 100 billion dollar slush funds. The God of screw the baby sitter behind the wife's back--but only if you're the prophet.

You sometimes suggest that you think that nonbelievers abandon Mormonism because it's a 'high-demand religion.' What you don't understand is the the 'high demand' part doesn't come from sitting in a pew, paying a little tithing, and going without morning coffee. That stuff is easy, and I did it for years after I had abandoned all hope. The high demand part, at least for me, is that you ask me to sacrifice my morality--my sense of right and wrong. The 'high demand' part is that the CoJCoLDS asks me to become an immoral person who believes in immoral things.

[malkie]

Richard Turley believes that the prayer narratives may have been used as post-hoc rationalizations rather than genuine revelations. He also takes the approach that rather than resolving a theological dilemma directly, that we might reframe the question by looking at the massacre not a 'test' of God's intervention, but of human agency and institutional responsibility. In other words, God was not responsible for the breakdown in agency among those that committed the massacre as a result of some of the factors mentioned earlier.

Regards,
MG

That is one twisted rationalization. I'm not surprised that Turley takes that approach. Hiding the theological dilemma under a so-called test of agency reads as an intellectual's attempt to preserve his faith at all costs. Even if, to do so, he ironically has to shove God under the bus.

To reach this conclusion, he has to believe that either:

• No one in the whole territory prayed, but God didn't insert himself (even though God knew that disaster was imminent) because God was testing agency.

or, more likely

• Folks prayed, but God didn't answer because God was testing agency. Folks either subsequently lied about God answering or genuinely thought that he had answered. (I'm not sure which is worse.)

Either way, God was testing agency by not answering, at the cost of much suffering and many lives. God was willing to abandon his chosen people, willing for this chosen people to betray and slaughter an entire company of men, women, and children. He sacrificed a company of innocents to test the 'agency' of others.


This is a God, the God of silence and distorted logic, that's difficult for many to worship. This is the God who doesn't answer, for more that 100 years, when his own appointed prophets ask about the priesthood ban. Who knows why he doesn't answer--maybe to test agency? In response to God's continued silence, these prophets also either lied about God revealing that he wanted priesthood ban, or they kidded themselves into believing they'd received the answer. (Again, I don't know which is worse.)

This is the God of lying about polygamy and of flaming swords. The God of 100 billion dollar slush funds. The God of screw the baby sitter behind the wife's back--but only if you're the prophet.

You sometimes suggest that you think that nonbelievers abandon Mormonism because it's a 'high-demand religion.' What you don't understand is the the 'high demand' part doesn't come from sitting in a pew, paying a little tithing, and going without morning coffee. That stuff is easy, and I did it for years after I had abandoned all hope. The high demand part, at least for me, is that you ask me to sacrifice my morality--my sense of right and wrong. The 'high demand' part is that the CoJCoLDS asks me to become an immoral person who believes in immoral things.

Nicely put.

As I sometimes put it, people are asked to outsource their consciences to an organization that represents a god who is indistinguishable from no god at all.

[Moksha]

I feel sorry to hear that President Nelson has gone blind.

[Everybody Wang Chung]

I feel sorry to hear that President Nelson has gone blind.

In a frank admission by LDSNews, it’s being reported that President Nelson is now also suffering from dementia:

https://ldsnews.org/president-russell-m ... es-Mormon/

[drumdude]

President Russell M. Nelson, While Battling Dementia, Devastated To Learn He’s Mormon.

[MG 2.0]

Richard Turley believes that the prayer narratives may have been used as post-hoc rationalizations rather than genuine revelations. He also takes the approach that rather than resolving a theological dilemma directly, that we might reframe the question by looking at the massacre not a 'test' of God's intervention, but of human agency and institutional responsibility. In other words, God was not responsible for the breakdown in agency among those that committed the massacre as a result of some of the factors mentioned earlier.

Regards,
MG

Again, MG, thank you for the thoughtful reply.

I have to say that is one twisted rationalization. I'm not surprised that Turley takes that approach. Hiding the theological dilemma under a so-called test of agency reads as an intellectual's attempt to preserve his faith at all costs. Even if, to do so, he ironically has to shove God under the bus.

To reach this conclusion, Turley has to believe that either:

• No one in the whole territory prayed, but God didn't insert himself (even though God knew that disaster was imminent) because God was testing agency.

or, more likely

• Folks prayed, but God didn't answer because God was testing agency. Folks either subsequently lied about God answering or genuinely thought that he had answered. (I'm not sure which is worse.)

Either way, God was testing agency by not answering, at the cost of much suffering and many lives. God was willing to abandon his chosen people, willing for this chosen people to betray and slaughter an entire company of men, women, and children. He sacrificed a company of innocents to test the 'agency' of others.


This is a God, the God of silence and distorted logic, that's difficult for many to worship. This is the God who doesn't answer, for more that 100 years, when his own appointed prophets ask about the priesthood ban. Who knows why he doesn't answer--maybe to test agency? In response to God's continued silence, these prophets also either lied about God revealing that he wanted priesthood ban, or they kidded themselves into believing they'd received the answer. (Again, I don't know which is worse.)

This is the God of lying about polygamy and of flaming swords. The God of 100 billion dollar slush funds. The God of screw the baby sitter behind the wife's back--but only if you're the prophet.

You sometimes suggest that you think that nonbelievers abandon Mormonism because it's a 'high-demand religion.' What you don't understand is the the 'high demand' part doesn't come from sitting in a pew, paying a little tithing, and going without morning coffee. That stuff is easy, and I did it for years after I had abandoned all hope. The high demand part, at least for me, is that you ask me to sacrifice my morality--my sense of right and wrong. The 'high demand' part is that the CoJCoLDS asks me to become an immoral person who believes in immoral things.

I appreciate where you're coming from, Morley. There are conundrums where/when it comes to agency vs. God's will/desires. I see that. And it's a tough nut to crack from the standpoint of faith while at the same time having a sense of integrity to your own moral compass. I don't fault you for expressing yourself the way you have in this post. Moral dilemmas vs. whatever God's moral judgement is based on is above our pay grade. Straddling that line between the two is difficult especially when you can see instances all over the place where people have used God's purported will/judgement/revelation to justify moral atrocities and misbehaviors.

Regards,
MG

[I Have Questions]

Moral dilemmas vs. whatever God's moral judgement is based on is above our pay grade. Straddling that line between the two is difficult especially when you can see instances all over the place where people have used God's purported will/judgement/revelation to justify moral atrocities and misbehaviors.

One such instance, as an example of someone using God’s will to justify moral atrocities, is Joseph Smith’s coercion of Helen Mar Kimball. another example would be the racist Temple/Priesthood Ban. Then there’s the defrauding of the SEC authorised by President Nelson. There’s quite a track record of Mormon Prophets justifying moral atrocities by claiming it’s God’s will.

“There have been nearly 3000 Gods so far but only yours actually exists.The others are silly made up nonsense. But not yours. Yours is real.” Ricky Gervais

[malkie]

Moral dilemmas vs. whatever God's moral judgement is based on is above our pay grade. Straddling that line between the two is difficult especially when you can see instances all over the place where people have used God's purported will/judgement/revelation to justify moral atrocities and misbehaviors.

One such instance, as an example of someone using God’s will to justify moral atrocities, is Joseph Smith’s coercion of Helen Mar Kimball. another example would be the racist Temple/Priesthood Ban. Then there’s the defrauding of the SEC authorised by President Nelson. There’s quite a track record of Mormon Prophets justifying moral atrocities by claiming it’s God’s will.

“There have been nearly 3000 Gods so far but only yours actually exists.The others are silly made up nonsense. But not yours. Yours is real.” Ricky Gervais

All very well, but Gervais is a non-believer who will "never such happiness know", according to one belief system; burn in hell, according to another; come back as a worm, according to yet another; usw.

Regardless, he's going to be pretty busy after he dies trying to satisfy all of the fates that believers would wish upon him.

(I threw in that last abbreviation - usw - in case Prof P is reading, with his perfect German. I felt obliged to add this as it seems that we have become a bit less of a POB lately, and I would like to attempt to rebalance the universe)

Edit: "USW" corrected to "usw" per Physics guy.
See, this (USW) is what happens when someone has "a little learning", and want to look smarter than he is

[I Have Questions]

One such instance, as an example of someone using God’s will to justify moral atrocities, is Joseph Smith’s coercion of Helen Mar Kimball. another example would be the racist Temple/Priesthood Ban. Then there’s the defrauding of the SEC authorised by President Nelson. There’s quite a track record of Mormon Prophets justifying moral atrocities by claiming it’s God’s will.

“There have been nearly 3000 Gods so far but only yours actually exists.The others are silly made up nonsense. But not yours. Yours is real.” Ricky Gervais

All very well, but Gervais is a non-believer who will "never such happiness know", according to one belief system; burn in hell, according to another; come back as a worm, according to yet another; USW.

Regardless, he's going to be pretty busy after he dies trying to satisfy all of the fates that believers would wish upon him.

(I threw in that last abbreviation - USW - in case Prof P is reading, with his perfect German. I felt obliged to add this as it seems that we have become a bit less of a POB lately, and I would like to attempt to rebalance the universe)

Gervais disbelieves in 3,000 Gods, Latter-day Saints disbelieve in 2,999 Gods.