Formal Mormon Theology

[I Have Questions]

Jordan Peterson saying that God is ineffable is fine. He doesn't have a clue as to what God's nature is. Nothing against him. He just doesn't know.

On what basis are you qualified to pronounce judgement on what Jordan Peterson does or doesn’t know about the nature of his God?

[MG 2.0]

Jordan Peterson saying that God is ineffable is fine. He doesn't have a clue as to what God's nature is. Nothing against him. He just doesn't know.

On what basis are you qualified to pronounce judgement on what Jordan Peterson does or doesn’t know about the nature of his God?

By listening to and watching his interviews and reading what he has written. My statement is on target and can be shown to be true by watching, listening, and reading what he has said.

On what basis do you have to disagree with what I've said?

Regards,
MG

[Ego]

Jordan Peterson recently had a debate where he claimed that atheists don’t understand the God whom they reject. He was backed so far into a corner in that debate that his only defense left was to say that the reason they don’t understand it because one of God’s characteristics is that he is ineffable, but that also means believers don’t understand him. I respectfully request that you never again disparage someone’s opinion merely based on the fact that they are agnostic or atheist because you think they don’t understand what it is they reject. It has been my experience that they understand very well, often times better than a believer who has never considered their own theology critically.

I like Jordan Peterson. Ever since he first came on the scene bucking the system in Canada that was forcing him to recognize something that he knew not to be true to his own heart and soul.

Jordan Peterson saying that God is ineffable is fine. He doesn't have a clue as to what God's nature is. Nothing against him. He just doesn't know. The fact that he brings people to a place that they can 'see' a god at all...is good. Being that so many folks have been duped into non-belief.

Personally, I don't think Jordan Peterson understands the nature of God in the same way that the prophets have. I do think, however, that he does a pretty darn good job at 'pushing' His attributes which has resulted in a lot of people, men especially, getting their act together and being responsible/moral men. Real men.

Respectfully, I will stand with my statement made earlier:

If you are an atheist/agnostic it's awfully easy to find fault with that which you do not understand fully.

With the caveat that even prophets don't understand God and His ways fully either. But as a believer, I'm in the camp that gives prophets the benefit of doubt when it comes to some things. But not everything.

Only a prophet when speaking as a prophet. And even then, as I've said on another thread...things can be somewhat conditional because of various factors...especially agency of individuals to screw things up or not follow counsel.

Regards,
MG

You opened Pandora’s box by bringing up prophets. Personally I like Jordan Peterson’s idea of a prophet when he speaks about Abraham for example, being defined as one inspired by the spirit of adventure.
It really grinds my gears when people talk about prophets only sometimes speaking as prophets, since it opens the doors for people to white wash things that were really just wrong or even hurtful. I think it would be better to look at it like we do with scientists. Newton greatly contributed to astronomy, but was his theory ultimately right? No, Einstein surpassed him. We still honor the contribution Newton made to the field but we recognize that he was definitely wrong about some things. My personal opinion is that we ought to do this with prophets.
We can recognize that Joseph Smith was wrong about anthropology, ancient languages, etc. but still appreciate that he was an extremely brilliant man, and you could say that he was even inspired, but rather than with direct words that are 100% historical and from God, with a general spirit of myth making and esoteric profundity. By framing them as generally inspired men, you don’t need to be so precious about these words being prophetic while these others weren’t. They can all be subject to critical analysis just like any scientific theory. And we may find that some seemed more inspired than others but I’ll leave that to each their own to decide who’s who on that count.

[I Have Questions]

On what basis are you qualified to pronounce judgement on what Jordan Peterson does or doesn’t know about the nature of his God?

By listening to and watching his interviews and reading what he has written. My statement is on target and can be shown to be true by watching, listening, and reading what he has said.

On what basis do you have to disagree with what I've said?

Regards,
MG

Because you do not know the nature of your own God, let own Peterson's version of it. You have an opinion, a view, some beliefs etc. but that isn't a qualification that you are right. It's just your opinion. And Peterson's opinion is equally valid. What he claims he knows about the nature of his God is as credible as what you claim you know about yours. Saying "He doesn't have a clue as to what God's nature is" is just another example of your in-built Mormon judgemental arrogance. Your statement isn't true. Your statement is your opinion.

You could have said "I have a different view about the nature of God to Jordan Peterson. His view (based on reading <insert X, Y, Z quotes>) seems to be <insert your take on his writings>, whereas my view on the nature of God is <insert your view with supporting material as to why you think that>. Are you too lazy to do that?

[Physics Guy]

We can recognize that Joseph Smith was wrong about anthropology, ancient languages, etc. but still appreciate that he was an extremely brilliant man, and you could say that he was even inspired, but rather than with direct words that are 100% historical and from God, with a general spirit of myth making and esoteric profundity.

I like this general idea, but I’m concerned that it may be used in a bait-and-switch fallacy: when we want to defend Smith’s right to the title of “prophet”, we lower the standard of inspiration required, to the point where most fantasy fiction authors are going to count as prophets; then, when we’ve gotten Smith safely accepted as a prophet in this modest sense, and the heat is off, we quietly let some of the old “mouthpiece of God” idea slip back into our definition of “prophet”, and continue to revere Joseph Smith way more than, say, Orson Scott Card, because Smith was a Prophet.

[I Have Questions]

We can recognize that Joseph Smith was wrong about anthropology, ancient languages, etc. but still appreciate that he was an extremely brilliant man, and you could say that he was even inspired, but rather than with direct words that are 100% historical and from God, with a general spirit of myth making and esoteric profundity.

I like this general idea, but I’m concerned that it may be used in a bait-and-switch fallacy: when we want to defend Smith’s right to the title of “prophet”, we lower the standard of inspiration required, to the point where most fantasy fiction authors are going to count as prophets; then, when we’ve gotten Smith safely accepted as a prophet in this modest sense, and the heat is off, we quietly let some of the old “mouthpiece of God” idea slip back into our definition of “prophet”, and continue to revere Joseph Smith way more than, say, Orson Scott Card, because Smith was a Prophet.

Yes. Smith being a talented story teller (which he was) does not equate to Smith being divinely inspired by God (which he clearly wasn't).

[Marcus]

By listening to and watching his interviews and reading what he has written. My statement is on target and can be shown to be true by watching, listening, and reading what he has said.

On what basis do you have to disagree with what I've said?

Regards,
MG

Because you do not know the nature of your own God, let own Peterson's version of it. You have an opinion, a view, some beliefs etc. but that isn't a qualification that you are right. It's just your opinion. And Peterson's opinion is equally valid. What he claims he knows about the nature of his God is as credible as what you claim you know about yours. Saying "He doesn't have a clue as to what God's nature is" is just another example of your in-built Mormon judgemental arrogance. Your statement isn't true. Your statement is your opinion.

You could have said "I have a different view about the nature of God to Jordan Peterson. His view (based on reading <insert X, Y, Z quotes>) seems to be <insert your take on his writings>, whereas my view on the nature of God is <insert your view with supporting material as to why you think that>. Are you too lazy to do that?

This reminds me of when Res Ipsa put some serious effort into trying to teach mg this point.

But, we can agree to disagree and do so without vitriol or slamming the ‘other’. I would need to be more aware of when I might be saying something that might be offensive to someone that has particular sensitivities.

OK, if you’re sincere about wanting to reduce the vitriol, this is the kind of bullcrap that you need to stop doing. What gets you sideways with people every single time is your passive aggressive process comments.

The problem is not that other people are “sensitive” and take “offense” easily. That’s simply the excuse that dicks use to justify dickish behavior. It’s an arrogant, rhetorical trick that allows you to simply dismiss someone’s words without addressing what they actually said.

Take “I’m okay, you’re okay” seriously. People react emotionally to words, AND THEY’RE OKAY. What’s not okay? Attacking them personally by dismissing what they say because they’re “too sensitive.” Address the words people say, not the people who say the words.

That one simple trick (no process comments) will reduce the rancor. Well, you might need a second simple trick: ignore other people’s process comments — don’t be trolled into giving up on the first simple trick.

This thread and others has helped me to understand what some of those sensitivities might be. Just as people of faith may be hurt by comments made derogatory of their faith or person, it works the other way around.

If the lesson you’ve learned here is that other people are sensitive, you’ve learned exactly nothing. I’m dead serious. If you can’t grasp that, the tone of your conversations here will never ever ever ever change.

Even if those comments might be made, at least in some cases, somewhat inadvertently or innocently. We all say things that we later…after more introspection…realize would have been better left unsaid.

And there is such a thing as hypersensitivity.

I give up. You’re doomed. One last try.

STOP TALKING ABOUT OTHER PEOPLE’S BEHAVIOR. STOP MAKING EXCUSES FOR YOUR OWN BEHAVIOR. YOU CAN ONLY CHANGE YOUR OWN BEHAVIOR. ALL THOSE OTHER PEOPLE — THEY’RE OKAY.

I can do better. Others can do better.

Point is taken.

Nope. Point missed completely. If you can manage to say “I can do better. Full Stop.” You can say “Point taken.”

[MG 2.0]

By listening to and watching his interviews and reading what he has written. My statement is on target and can be shown to be true by watching, listening, and reading what he has said.

On what basis do you have to disagree with what I've said?

Regards,
MG

Because you do not know the nature of your own God, let own Peterson's version of it.

I think I have a pretty good understanding of God in regards to the LDS church's doctrine. And I've already commented on Jordan Peterson's position. I think that it is rather obvious that the LDS church has a more 'settled' view on what God is and His nature/being than Peterson does.

And I'm not criticizing him at all. Just stating the facts.

Regards,
MG

[MG 2.0]

...when we want to defend Smith’s right to the title of “prophet”, we lower the standard of inspiration required,...

What is required?

Regards,
MG

[Gadianton]

depends on the criteria.

If it's a merit, then the best you can say for Joseph Smith is that he was a profoundly successful bullshitter. It's not that any one idea was great or even good, but his ability to come up with outrageous ideas off the cuff and keep engagement up under fast-moving circumstances isn't matched by many others.

If it's truth, then Joseph Smith was a prophet if and only if God the father called him to be a prophet. It doesn't matter if anything he did is impressive, that's a bonus.

If its influence, then he might be a prophet because he led an upstart religion that ended up a worldwide faith with a ton of money. That's why we would call any other historical person a prophet. If the religion reaches a certain subjective level of significance, we regard the founder as a prophet.

Unfortunately for Chapel Mormons, the only criteria that matters is truth, and since God did not call Joseph Smith to be a prophet, he's not a prophet.