How often "plates" are discussed here.

[Marcus]

stuff

I think it would be fairer for MG to say that Mormon god is claimed to be "omniscient and omnipotent", and can be trusted to deliver on His promises. Evidence is lacking, and faith is required to the extent that it all falls apart without faith. Even the claim that Mormon god can be trusted is pie in the sky. Even assuming that he exists, we have literally no idea about whether he can be trusted. Even if he exists, his supposedly being omniscient and omnipotent gives us no reason to believe that he can be trusted - in spite of what MG implies, trustworthiness may be completely unrelated to omniscience and omnipotence, never mind the suggestion that the former is a result of the latter.

As far as the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob goes, I expect that most of the members of the Abrahamic religions would not accept the small minority claim that their god is the same god that Mormons believe speaks to prophets in the Book of Mormon.

Although we have once again reached an impasse, I think that it is sometimes worthwhile to point out that the faith expressed by Mormons can, in cases like this, be shown to be inconsistent almost to the point of meaninglessness.

in my opinion, this is almost always a logical problem. When one assumes a conclusion before they start, then discussions can be distorted by the fact that sticking by that conclusion results in needing to make inconsistent arguments.

[MG 2.0]

Even the claim that Mormon god can be trusted is pie in the sky.

My argument is larger than that. If there is a creator God then I don't see any reason...at all...not to trust the Creator. It's not rocket science. Why would one NOT trust the all-powerful and benevolent/all-knowing God?

Now, if this God just happens to be the "Mormon God" that doesn't and/or wouldn't change the fact. If there is a creator God wouldn't you think that He is not asleep at the wheel and as a matter of fact never has been?

What would be the ramifications of that?

Regards,
MG

[I Have Questions]

Even the claim that Mormon god can be trusted is pie in the sky.

My argument is larger than that. If there is a creator God then I don't see any reason...at all...not to trust the Creator. It's not rocket science. Why would one NOT trust the all-powerful and benevolent/all-knowing God?

Now, if this God just happens to be the "Mormon God" that doesn't and/or wouldn't change the fact. If there is a creator God wouldn't you think that He is not asleep at the wheel and as a matter of fact never has been?

What would be the ramifications of that?

Regards,
MG

This post MG is a good example of you relying on the “arm of the flesh”.

[Limnor]

That is true. Only God can. And not just ANY god...

That's where things get rather messy, right?

The Book of Mormon makes it rather clear that we should not trust in the "arm of the flesh".

Regards,
MG

At the end of the day we each need to determine who and what we trust to act as anchors/lights to our progression and eternal journey. That is, if we have a hope in purpose beyond death rather than annihilation or playing harps and standing around praising God for eternity.

Kishkumen said that there have been many "benefits" promised by many different people and/or belief systems over eons of time. That is true. The question is whether or not all of them can deliver. If systems of belief and knowledge are built upon man's reasoning and intellect alone I think that we are looking at a sandy foundation to build our lives upon.

The arm of flesh. Man's wisdom. Man's intellect as sole repository of that which brings eternal happiness and opportunities for progression. Transhumanists, if I'm not mistaken, would be a prime example of those that think they can bring themselves to a godlike/advanced state of being through their own works.

No Atonement made for sin. No grace offered in judgement by a perfect Being. No responsibility to others in the sense of bringing all mankind along a path of perfection provided by an all living God.

Choose your own adventure. Make of it what you will. Make yourself the center of progress and attention. Ayn Rand prioritized the progress of the individual above all else. Her philosophy, Objectivism, holds that the individual is the ultimate unit of value and that group interests should never supersede personal rights or rational self-interest.

The arm of the flesh. Personal glory to the possible detriment of others. This is not the Gospel of Jesus Christ as taught by the CofJCofLDS.

Regards,
MG

It’s interesting that “the arm of the flesh” seems to apply to everyone except Joseph Smith.

[Limnor]

Even the claim that Mormon god can be trusted is pie in the sky.

My argument is larger than that. If there is a creator God then I don't see any reason...at all...not to trust the Creator. It's not rocket science. Why would one NOT trust the all-powerful and benevolent/all-knowing God?

Now, if this God just happens to be the "Mormon God" that doesn't and/or wouldn't change the fact. If there is a creator God wouldn't you think that He is not asleep at the wheel and as a matter of fact never has been?

What would be the ramifications of that?

Regards,
MG

Shifty:

From “Why trust Joseph Smith or LDS claims because they come through the arm of the flesh,” to “Why wouldn’t you trust God?”

[MG 2.0]

Some clarification for some folks. I've never made a claim that Joseph Smith is or was exempt from human fallibility or frailty. Also, I am not saying that Joseph Smith's teachings were never influenced by human limitations.

My argument is about trusting God, not about Joseph Smith's perfection.

In other words:
Trust in God.
Dangers in relying solely on human reasoning.
Need for a Divine anchor.

If there is a Creator God it would not be unreasonable to trust Him. As I said, if that HAPPENS to be the God that members of the CofJCofLDS worship that shouldn't take anything away from that fact. Trusting God is a good thing. Maybe even important.

Also, I am not equating Joseph Smith's revelations with his intellect. Human intellect ALONE is not enough to receive revelation from God. In fact, I would argue that it could/may get in the way.

I hope that may clear up some of the misunderstandings that take place whenever and wherever I say almost anything on this board.

Regards,
MG

[I Have Questions]

Some clarification for some folks. I've never made a claim that Joseph Smith is or was exempt from human fallibility or frailty. Also, I am not saying that Joseph Smith's teachings were never influenced by human limitations.

My argument is about trusting God, not about Joseph Smith's perfection.

In other words:
Trust in God.
Dangers in relying solely on human reasoning.
Need for a Divine anchor.

But you’re not trusting in God. You’re trusting in your own determination about a. There being a God, and b. How you that God will behave. You are in fact, demonstrating that you are trusting in the “arm of the flesh” yet again.

[I Have Questions]

If there is a Creator God it would not be unreasonable to trust Him.

That absolutely does not follow. Trust is earned. The creator God would have to show through their actions that they are trustworthy. Now what does trustworthy mean to you? Once you’ve listed that out I’ll show you how the creator God that you’ve created in your mind does not live up to that expectation.

[Limnor]

Some clarification for some folks. I've never made a claim that Joseph Smith is or was exempt from human fallibility or frailty. Also, I am not saying that Joseph Smith's teachings were never influenced by human limitations.

My argument is about trusting God, not about Joseph Smith's perfection.

In other words:
Trust in God.
Dangers in relying solely on human reasoning.
Need for a Divine anchor.

If there is a Creator God it would not be unreasonable to trust Him. As I said, if that HAPPENS to be the God that members of the CofJCofLDS worship that shouldn't take anything away from that fact. Trusting God is a good thing. Maybe even important.

Also, I am not equating Joseph Smith's revelations with his intellect. Human intellect ALONE is not enough to receive revelation from God. In fact, I would argue that it could/may get in the way.

I hope that may clear up some of the misunderstandings that take place whenever and wherever I say almost anything on this board.

Regards,
MG

Ok, so you’ve separated God from Joseph, but you still seem to rely on Joseph to get to God. The implication is that you believe that a fallible human, Joseph, can deliver an infallible message, but it isn’t clear “how” you determine when Joseph was just speaking as a man.

[MG 2.0]

I should make clear...although I thought it was a given...I believe in a creator God. It's not like I haven't said that a million times, more or less. It is a belief based upon both epistemic trust... a lifetime of study/evidence and personal introspection...and a developed (over time) devotional trust.

I trust a God that I already believe exists.

I realize that the mileage of others may vary. That doesn't mean that the mileage I've traveled is irrelevant. Except, possibly, to those that have not travelled a similar path of discovering and then maintaining faith.

To each his or her own.

It is this epistemic/devotional trust in God that will most likely cause an impasse in sharing/discussion almost each and every time.

Regards,
MG