Why the truthfulness of the Church doesn't matter.

[_fetchface]

Non-Believers - Would you attend and support the Church if you knew for a surety (let's not get into how that might be achieved) that it was true? If not, why not?

No. Unless of course God convincingly explained how the baby-killing, slavery-endorsing, having his prophet coercively propose to, marry, and #$%^ his orphaned teen foster daughters, etc. etc. etc. was actually morally good in a way that made sense to me. Sure, I would have no qualms about teaming up with a just and good omnipotent being.

But absent that key information, hell no.

[_honorentheos]

Maybe this gets back to the question of what the threshold would be for certainty. At the point it becomes undeniable the LDS church is actually true in the way any human would understand that to be a valid use of the word true, we've crossed the boundary into a different world than the one we live in. The rules of this world are not the same, and it seems the very definition of insanity to do something in accordance to rules of a world that now would only exists in one's mind.

[_I have a question]

When we posit a world where the Mormon church is true, we're necessarily positing a world where there were real Nephites and Lamanites, where priesthood blessings are effectual in a way that matters, where the priesthood ban was the right thing to do until it wasn't. We're positing a world where whatever Joseph Smith was doing with polygamy, it was under divine direction and sanction. We're positing a world where the Church's stance on same-sex marriage is divinely inspired by a real God. The ethics of this world do not hold up in that hypothetical world.

I'm asking do your ethics stand up in that hypothetical world.

[_I have a question]

Assuming we could reach such a conclusion and the church remained the same, the next question I would ask myself would be "do I want to follow a God who creates such a horribly bad system?".

And that's the point.

[_I have a question]

Maybe this gets back to the question of what the threshold would be for certainty. At the point it becomes undeniable the LDS church is actually true in the way any human would understand that to be a valid use of the word true, we've crossed the boundary into a different world than the one we live in. The rules of this world are not the same, and it seems the very definition of insanity to do something in accordance to rules of a world that now would only exists in one's mind.

That's getting off topic.
The starting point for this thread is that we all agree the Church us true as claimed (at least as far as this thread is concerned). Now the Church is categorically true do you attend Church? If not, why not?

[_Doctor CamNC4Me]

My question: Non-Believers - Would you attend and support the Church if you knew for a surety (let's not get into how that might be achieved) that it was true? If not, why not?

Hello IHAQ,

I would not. I would stand in opposition to God and his system. I would assume I was designed to be that way since there must be, according to Mormon theology, an opposition in all things.

That said, my worldview doesn't allow for systemic nonsensical and tyrannical behavior. I would advocate for egalitarianism, and for God to change His ways because His ways are fundamentally flawed. I think His system is cruel, and He would have to demonstrate a better existential reason for His Way to change my mind, the mind He created, in order for me to be on board.

TL;DR- There basically has to be an existential reason why God does God, or I'm opting out.

V/R
Doc

[_Gorman]

My question: Believers - Do you attend Church against your better judgement and support things that seem morally wrong to you, because you know the Church is true?

This question seems to assume that God is the source of the things that seem morally wrong. I see the problem as follows.

Problem) Some things seem morally wrong to me.

A) Things are morally wrong because of members' imperfect actions, and God also disapproves of them.

B) Things appear morally wrong, but actually are not. If I had more knowledge or experience (i.e. God's perspective), I would see these as they truly are.

C) Some things fall under A and others under B.

In your hypothetical world, if the evidence of the truthfulness of the LDS Church were incontrovertible, then you might also assume you found out which category those seemingly moral failings fell under. If A, I would still attend church because it is true, but I would actively fight against the moral failings because that would be part of our perfecting process. If B, I would happily attend church with my greater knowledge of why these moral failings are, in fact, not moral failings. If C, an appropriate combination of the two.

In the real world, I suspect any apparent moral failings would fall under category C, which probably doesn't help much for the individual who sees the moral failings.

[_Fence Sitter]

This question seems to assume that God is the source of the things that seem morally wrong. I see the problem as follows.

Problem) Some things seem morally wrong to me.

A) Things are morally wrong because of members' imperfect actions, and God also disapproves of them.

B) Things appear morally wrong, but actually are not. If I had more knowledge or experience (i.e. God's perspective), I would see these as they truly are.

C) Some things fall under A and others under B.

In your hypothetical world, if the evidence of the truthfulness of the LDS Church were incontrovertible, then you might also assume you found out which category those seemingly moral failings fell under. If A, I would still attend church because it is true, but I would actively fight against the moral failings because that would be part of our perfecting process. If B, I would happily attend church with my greater knowledge of why these moral failings are, in fact, not moral failings. If C, an appropriate combination of the two.

In the real world, I suspect any apparent moral failings would fall under category C, which probably doesn't help much for the individual who sees the moral failings.

Regarding A, are you saying that God is so impotent that he cannot devise a system that would eliminate unnecessary evil?

Under your category B, on what basis do you assume that all actions from God must be moral? If we do not understand God's motivations what basis do we have to assume that they are in our best interest? Answering "Because He is God", is begging the question.

[_honorentheos]

When we posit a world where the Mormon church is true, we're necessarily positing a world where there were real Nephites and Lamanites, where priesthood blessings are effectual in a way that matters, where the priesthood ban was the right thing to do until it wasn't. We're positing a world where whatever Joseph Smith was doing with polygamy, it was under divine direction and sanction. We're positing a world where the Church's stance on same-sex marriage is divinely inspired by a real God. The ethics of this world do not hold up in that hypothetical world.

I'm asking do your ethics stand up in that hypothetical world.

I'm asking on what grounds ethics in this hypothetical world are tied to conditions in the one we apparently live in?

If conditions change to be able to firmly establish that belief in the veracity of the claims of the Mormon Church are fully and undeniably justified to the point I - the person in question - would affirm those claims as "true", we are at a point where the questions posed in the Euthyphro dilemma must be answered in a fundamentally different way than they would be in the world we actually live in. Whether a condition of situational ethics, divine command theory, or what have you, what you call "my ethics" simply no longer exist in the same world where I am affirming the truthfulness of the LDS church.

[_honorentheos]

Maybe this gets back to the question of what the threshold would be for certainty. At the point it becomes undeniable the LDS church is actually true in the way any human would understand that to be a valid use of the word true, we've crossed the boundary into a different world than the one we live in. The rules of this world are not the same, and it seems the very definition of insanity to do something in accordance to rules of a world that now would only exists in one's mind.

That's getting off topic.
The starting point for this thread is that we all agree the Church us true as claimed (at least as far as this thread is concerned). Now the Church is categorically true do you attend Church? If not, why not?

The answer is yes, I would. Because to be able to agree the church is true as claimed, you are changing many things about one's approach to the world. I am not getting off topic. I'm stating that your couch-side delving into the question was too shallow to simply imagine that one could both state, "I believe the LDS church is true!" and "I believe the LDS church is fundamentally wrong on many issues and I stand in opposition to it!" That's insane.

Like every stick, there are two ends you pick up. Not just one.