Clarification so as to be clear.

[MG 2.0]

I agree. In the last several days, however, the major proponent of this system who posts here has posted an astonishing array of his opinions, defining them as truths. (the ones explaining that god is pushed around by people, and is overly sensitive to human's opinions about his godly decisions were priceless.)

Somehow this system has given this poster the confidence to simply make up supernatural attributes, so why wouldn't they stick with such a system? On the other hand, they were born into it and every relative they know of is LDS, so why not go along with the flow?

Personally, I define that as intellectual dishonesty in the extreme. I don't think this poster is fully comfortable in that religious milieu, hence his need to come here and express his disdain for those he is so very sure (but not really) are inferior to him. I walked away from that exact religious environment decades ago, and I have never regretted it.e

Marcus, I understood MG to mean that God wants people and leaders to use there own mind and will so gives people ev en leaders space to move closer to understanding . This space creates incomplete teaching even allowing limited mistakes. I would not see this to be God being pushed around by people. It does see God respecting human freedom more than some fundamentalist thinking allows.

huckelberry, you have read me well. It does go to show how various folks can 'read the room' so differently. I have pointed out a number of times that, in my opinion, one of the things that many critics have in common is a fundamentalist view of things. I have referred to it as a black/white perspective/view without having the ability or even an awareness of the shades in between.

A while back I brought in a discussion having to do with the Sorites Paradox. It applies here. The question could be asked "At what point does Mormonism become undeniably/indefensibly untrue?" Over the years there has been one 'smoking gun' brought in here after another with the hopes that it is this 'one thing' that now pushes the tipping point to undeniably/indefensibly untrue.

The previous poster simply suggests another effort/try at presenting something that supposedly tips the balance. It happens over and over again.

This time around it's a simple one. Sort of. Well, maybe not. How does God interact with His children here on earth? My gosh, that is a field of thought ripe with speculation and inquiry and yet there are some posters here who are 'locked in' to a certain black and white world view and are unable to look at things from a wider perspective. They then come back at me, laugh, and say, "Dude, you're the black and white thinker here."

Yeah, right.

Regards,
MG

[Marcus]

...The question could be asked "At what point does Mormonism become undeniably/indefensibly untrue?" Over the years there has been one 'smoking gun' brought in here after another with the hopes that it is this 'one thing' that now pushes the tipping point to undeniably/indefensibly untrue.

The previous poster simply suggests another effort/try at presenting something that supposedly tips the balance. It happens over and over again...

Lol. The only place that question is being repeatedly asked is in the imagination of the mental gymnast's pretzeled mind. His defenses have never survived logical thought and non-fallacious reasoning.

I'm with Prof. Jenkins and most posters here on this. If the mental gymnast wants to announce his faith and beliefs here, fine. But he invariably wades into facts, reason, history, logical and verifiable analysis, even definitions of words, and he just as invariably fails miserably in supporting his position in those areas.

[MG 2.0]

I've noticed on another thread or two that there has been a question in regard to a podcast I listened to about a 72-year-old man convicted of murder and refusing parole because he would have to admit guilt for a crime he said he did not commit. I think the poster may have gotten the wrong story/podcast/person. For the benefit of others, here it is:

https://www.thisamericanlife.org/844/th ... -henry-dee

It's quite a story!

Regards,
MG

[I Have Questions]

I've noticed on another thread or two that there has been a question in regard to a podcast I listened to about a 72-year-old man convicted of murder and refusing parole because he would have to admit guilt for a crime he said he did not commit. I think the poster may have gotten the wrong story/podcast/person. For the benefit of others, here it is:

https://www.thisamericanlife.org/844/th ... -henry-dee

It's quite a story!

Regards,
MG

You said he had spent most of his adult life in jail for a crime he did not commit. Which isn’t true. He’s spent most of his adult life in jail for a heinous crime for which he was found guilty. Nobody, other than himself, believes he is innocent of that crime.

[MG 2.0]

I've noticed on another thread or two that there has been a question in regard to a podcast I listened to about a 72-year-old man convicted of murder and refusing parole because he would have to admit guilt for a crime he said he did not commit. I think the poster may have gotten the wrong story/podcast/person. For the benefit of others, here it is:

https://www.thisamericanlife.org/844/th ... -henry-dee

It's quite a story!

Regards,
MG

Teaser, without revealing what happened. The parole board finally...well, you'll have to listen.

It's a 'barn burner' story with interesting twists and turns. Dee, the accused...and yes, convicted... man, was in my opinion and example of someone who had an 'inner compass' for moral/ethical behavior and truth. What a man. What happened was more than a little sad.

Take a listen!

Regards,
MG

[I Have Questions]

I've noticed on another thread or two that there has been a question in regard to a podcast I listened to about a 72-year-old man convicted of murder and refusing parole because he would have to admit guilt for a crime he said he did not commit. I think the poster may have gotten the wrong story/podcast/person. For the benefit of others, here it is:

https://www.thisamericanlife.org/844/th ... -henry-dee

It's quite a story!

Regards,
MG

Teaser, without revealing what happened. The parole board finally...well, you'll have to listen.

It's a 'barn burner' story with interesting twists and turns. Dee, the accused...and yes, convicted... man, was in my opinion and example of someone who had an 'inner compass' for moral/ethical behavior and truth. What a man. What happened was more than a little sad.

Take a listen!

Regards,
MG

The parole board doesn’t overturn his conviction. Can you explain what crime this man who you feel had an inner compass for moral/ethical behaviour was convicted for?

[huckelberry]

Marcus, I understood MG to mean that God wants people and leaders to use there own mind and will so gives people ev en leaders space to move closer to understanding . This space creates incomplete teaching even allowing limited mistakes. I would not see this to be God being pushed around by people. It does see God respecting human freedom more than some fundamentalist thinking allows.

I'll have to disagree, Huckelberry. He was quite specific:

...There have been other times in early church history and beyond where the Lord may have given a signal/nudge towards one thing and because of the response of people with their own moral compasses composed and/or made of their own prejudices/biases/conditioning God either backs off or readjusts to the 'group dynamics' in play. How that all plays out in the mind of God vs. what's happening 'on the ground', I don't know (obviously)....

God backs off??? After giving what the leaders stated publicly was divine revelation??.

He attributes these made-up weaknesses of his god to try to justify a very harmful policy. From the same post:

...When it comes down to it, the policy caused significant pain, confusion, and alienation, not just for LGBTQ members and their families, but for many others who saw it as unjust.

The emotional toll may have outweighed the intended doctrinal clarity (doctrine which had its roots in revelation and scripture), prompting reconsideration...

Agency is a messy thing. How that dovetails with Divine Revelation/Inspiration is above my pay grade. As it is, things did work out the best that they could have under the circumstances while still adhering to core gospel principles and doctrines...

That's what I mean by having to pretzel beliefs into a virtually unrecognizable shape because he canNOT admit that his assumption about the LDS church may not be right. He has made up the wildest attributes, which of course he says have an explanation 'above his paygrade'.

He is making up attributes, says his god has them, and doesn't explain where or how he gets those ideas, other than the obvious. In other situations, he may state god does not have that attribute, or has a completely different theologically unsound explanation. There is no consistency to his flights of god-attribute fancy, other than so he can keep his assumptions intact. It's illogical and fallacious thinking.

Marcus, the conflict I see here is between the idea of God encouraging individual understanding learning with mistakes, and the kind of obedience to their authority Mormon leaders ask, teach and expect. It's as if some see God respecting some leaders but not every body else.

I find this repulsive and impractical. I think it would be better for all to be freely engaged in learning not blindly following some guy.

I could wonder if my feelings on this mark me as a disobedient bad guy. Perhaps not entirely wrong but I am able to see and fallow the value of obeying rules, , to an extent. I value the areas of choice not bound by rules so I think rules should be limited . I think they should be questioned.

[Limnor]

Perhaps not entirely wrong but I am able to see and fallow the value of obeying rules, , to an extent. I value the areas of choice not bound by rules so I think rules should be limited . I think they should be questioned.

What’s tricky is that the Book of Mormon does show people questioning rules—Alma challenging tradition, Abinadi defying the king, the Anti-Nephi-Lehies refusing to fight—but it only praises them when the story decides they were “right” in the end.

Questioning is allowed, but only if it circles back to the approved conclusion. It’s like the book teaches independent thought as long as it lands inside the same box.

So, while it looks like an invitation to question authority, it’s really more of a loyalty test. You can ask questions, just not the wrong kind—especially the kind that pull too hard at the foundation.

[Limnor]

Thinking through the seed metaphor, and in light of huck’s comments about challenging authority, I’d like to offer the following.

I’ve considered that the intent of Alma’s challenge functions less as a solely spiritual parable, and as we’ve discussed, more within the understanding that it serves as an invitation to an experiment in belief, albeit one that simultaneously reveals its own limits in its unfalsifiability.

Alma presents faith as a process of planting, observing, and verifying growth, yet the text subtly blurs the line between subjective feeling and empirical proof.

What begins as an experiment in discernment becomes, paradoxically, an experiment in surrender: the believer is directed to accept inner sensation as evidence of truth.

To me, that tension—between genuine curiosity and prescribed conclusion—mirrors the larger conflict in the Book of Mormon and within the context of Mormonism as a whole—intellectual inquiry is encouraged, but only up to the threshold redline of institutional obedience.

In the end, while dissent and personal exploration or experimentation is seen as allowable, and even encouraged, common consent will inevitably always align to the predetermined outcome.

[Morley]

huckelberry, you have read me well. It does go to show how various folks can 'read the room' so differently. I have pointed out a number of times that, in my opinion, one of the things that many critics have in common is a fundamentalist view of things. I have referred to it as a black/white perspective/view without having the ability or even an awareness of the shades in between.

From this, I'm not sure if you know the meaning of "read the room."

A while back I brought in a discussion having to do with the Sorites Paradox. It applies here. The question could be asked "At what point does Mormonism become undeniably/indefensibly untrue?" Over the years there has been one 'smoking gun' brought in here after another with the hopes that it is this 'one thing' that now pushes the tipping point to undeniably/indefensibly untrue.

The "Sorites Paradox" is a philosophical framing that demonstrates how vague predicates--for example, "At what point does Mormonism become undeniably/indefensibly untrue?"--lead to absurd conclusions. It's basically a warning against using amorphous, poorly defined terminology.

To my knowledge, no one here would ask "At what point does Mormonism become undeniably/indefensibly untrue?" except you. The question is almost poorly framed as the claim that you yourself make when you stand up in Fast and Testimony Meeting, and exclaim, "I know that the Church is true!"

This whole idea is a straw man that you just now created. Folks here (present company excluded, of course) are more likely present arguments with terminology they can defend.

The previous poster simply suggests another effort/try at presenting something that supposedly tips the balance. It happens over and over again.

This time around it's a simple one. Sort of. Well, maybe not. How does God interact with His children here on earth? My gosh, that is a field of thought ripe with speculation and inquiry and yet there are some posters here who are 'locked in' to a certain black and white world view and are unable to look at things from a wider perspective. They then come back at me, laugh, and say, "Dude, you're the black and white thinker here."

Yeah, right.

(My bold.)

Are you referring to this post of mine on a different thread?

As usual, some would like to see things through the lens/filter of ‘black and white’. I don’t see it that way. Some things are, some things aren’t.

MG, I truly mean no offense, but it cracks me up every time I see that you've typed out this sort of thing. Most of the time, I'm able keep my fingers from responding, but this time, I can't seem to be able to stop myself.

You're probably the most 'black-and-white' thinker on this board. You frame every question and shape every idea into a Christ-is-the-cornerstone vs. secular humanist dichotomy. You re-form every thought puzzle into a restorationist limerick that highlights and celebrates your own particular brand of 'creator God'. You remold every reality and turn every truth into a ball of Mormon Jesus that fits your own preconceived notions. That you think of yourself as someone who thinks 'outside the box,' while every other perspective 'lacks nuance,' is both hilarious and sad.