Question for Mo Experts

[MG 2.0]

God …has no obligation to answer his prophet's faithful, sincere, and relevant enquiries. This MG's view of the universe. I don't know that anyone else wants to own it.

Earlier, if you remember, I said that answers from God may include “no” or “wait”.

Both of these answers may be, by some, mistaken for an absent or noncaring/nonexistent God.

Regards,
MG

[MG 2.0]

God always does what is best for us, but his ways are not our ways, and are completely opaque to us.

I think there is a certain amount of truth to this. I wouldn’t use the descriptor of “completely opaque” though.

Regards,
Mag

[MG 2.0]

To MG's credit, he's at least trying to come up with an explanation for his God's apparently irrational behavior.

I don’t worship a God who exhibits irrational behavior.

Regards,
MG

[malkie]

God always does what is best for us, but his ways are not our ways, and are completely opaque to us.

I think there is a certain amount of truth to this. I wouldn’t use the descriptor of “completely opaque” though.

Regards,
Mag

Note: Very selective quote

How about addressing the rest of the post - the part that you completely disagree with - the part headed "Reverting to reason", which implies that I consider what I wrote before that as unreasonable (actually, as parody - perhaps I need to label it as such, since it appears to be not obvious)

[Doctor CamNC4Me]

To MG's credit, he's at least trying to come up with an explanation for his God's apparently irrational behavior.

I don’t worship a God who exhibits irrational behavior.

Regards,
MG

-_-

[MG 2.0]

I think there is a certain amount of truth to this. I wouldn’t use the descriptor of “completely opaque” though.

Regards,
Mag

Note: Very selective quote

How about addressing the rest of the post - the part that you completely disagree with - the part headed "Reverting to reason", which implies that I consider what I wrote before that as unreasonable (actually, as parody - perhaps I need to label it as such, since it appears to be not obvious)

I know where you’re coming from malkie.

I was simply emphasizing a ‘truth’ hidden in a parody. I take truth, along with a lot of other Mormons, from wherever it can be found.

God can remain hidden and yet known simultaneously.

Regards,
MG

[Everybody Wang Chung]

God can remain hidden and yet known simultaneously.

[malkie]

Note: Very selective quote

How about addressing the rest of the post - the part that you completely disagree with - the part headed "Reverting to reason", which implies that I consider what I wrote before that as unreasonable (actually, as parody - perhaps I need to label it as such, since it appears to be not obvious)

I know where you’re coming from malkie.

I was simply emphasizing a ‘truth’ hidden in a parody. I take truth, along with a lot of other Mormons, from wherever it can be found.

God can remain hidden and yet known simultaneously.

Regards,
MG

Repeat: How about addressing the rest of the post

[Morley]

I must have missed this. What question of yours did I evade? Where did you call attention to it?

The hole in your arguments revolve around being unable to accept/conceive of a God who keeps things from us without revealing all…all at once. At least if I’m understanding you correctly.

Regards,
MG

You are not.

[Morley]

God …has no obligation to answer his prophet's faithful, sincere, and relevant enquiries. This MG's view of the universe. I don't know that anyone else wants to own it.

Earlier, if you remember, I said that answers from God may include “no” or “wait”.

Meh. I'm fine with God saying "no" or "wait." I'm not fine with God either letting his prophets say things, or instructing them to pass on doctrine, that another prophet would, 30 years later, say are not true.


This is what I wrote earlier:

Here's the Church's 1949 statement:

First Presidency Statement (17 August 1949)

The attitude of the Church with reference to the Negroes remains as it has always stood. It is not a matter of the declaration of a policy but of direct commandment from the Lord, on which is founded the doctrine of the Church from the days of its organization, to the effect that Negroes may become members of the Church but that they are not entitled to the Priesthood at the present time. The prophets of the Lord have made several statements as to the operation of the principle. President Brigham Young said: “Why are so many of the inhabitants of the earth cursed with a skin of blackness? It comes in consequence of their fathers rejecting the power of the holy priesthood, and the law of God. They will go down to death. And when all the rest of the children have received their blessings in the holy priesthood, then that curse will be removed from the seed of Cain, and they will then come up and possess the priesthood, and receive all the blessings which we now are entitled to.”

President Wilford Woodruff made the following statement: “The day will come when all that race will be redeemed and possess all the blessings which we now have.”

The position of the Church regarding the Negro may be understood when another doctrine of the Church is kept in mind, namely, that the conduct of spirits in the premortal existence has some determining effect upon the conditions and circumstances under which these spirits take on mortality and that while the details of this principle have not been made known, the mortality is a privilege that is given to those who maintain their first estate; and that the worth of the privilege is so great that spirits are willing to come to earth and take on bodies no matter what the handicap may be as to the kind of bodies they are to secure; and that among the handicaps, failure of the right to enjoy in mortality the blessings of the priesthood is a handicap which spirits are willing to assume in order that they might come to earth. Under this principle there is no injustice whatsoever involved in this deprivation as to the holding of the priesthood by the Negroes.


You're saying this statement was God's will. Right?

I'll repeat my question. You're saying this statement was God's will. Right?