Why the truthfulness of the Church doesn't matter.

[_sock puppet]

I too would return. The premise is that there is a god, Mormon god at that. If that were true, then his judgment would affect me for a very, very long time. Sure, I'd fear him, and return. Would I have to work through why then god is a moral derelict vis-à-vis 21st century thinking? Sure, and I am not sure how that would get sorted out or how quickly. But, there is no evidence of such a being that I've come across yet. Everything I've heard pointed to by religionists lends itself to a more reasonable explanation than that (Mormon) god exists.

Sock, if it was categorically proven that the Church was true, would you support the Church in outlawing same sex marriage and calling it a sin?

No. I would not call it a sin. I would not 'support' the Church on that point.

If it was categorically proven that god (presuming such entity exists) insisted on my supporting outlawing same sex marriage and calling it a sin in order for my own 'salvation', then I'd be in the jaws of a vise. I think that the categorical proof for such, for me, would have to be a one-to-one, face-to-face with god, and that would enable me to ask god directly why I cannot follow my convictions in this regard. Since I don't think any reasonable, thinking god would have much of an answer, I don't think such god would be nearly as insistent on this point as a prerequisite for my 'salvation' as is Oaks and Co.

[_sock puppet]

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.

Such a notion seems to be an application of 'he who has the gold makes the rules'. Just because god has power does not make god right. Mankind has moved well beyond the law of the jungle, even if that is the throwback position that religionists can't quite wriggle their way out of when it comes to their god. I think that is actually a conundrum for the rational believer (oxymoron aside).

[_sock puppet]

I too would return. The premise is that there is a god, Mormon god at that. If that were true, then his judgment would affect me for a very, very long time. Sure, I'd fear him, and return. Would I have to work through why then god is a moral derelict vis-à-vis 21st century thinking? Sure, and I am not sure how that would get sorted out or how quickly. But, there is no evidence of such a being that I've come across yet. Everything I've heard pointed to by religionists lends itself to a more reasonable explanation than that (Mormon) god exists.

Sock, if it was categorically proven that the Church was true, would you support the Church in outlawing same sex marriage and calling it a sin?

This is sort of like asking, if up were down, how would you hold a cup with tea in it? It seems like Alice in Wonderland.

[_Zadok]

Sock, if the world were proven flat, would you jump off with me?

[_sock puppet]

Sock, if the world were proven flat, would you jump off with me?

And I'm free, free fallin'
Yeah I'm free, free fallin'

[_Doctor CamNC4Me]

[_sock puppet]

Sock, if the world were proven flat, would you jump off with me?

That mankind once thought that the world was flat, and some that thought that far away there would be an edge, has fascinated me. No one had seen the edge. No one had seen anyone go over the edge. But it was a boogeyman that kept many from exploring, from going beyond the safety, where they stood, very, very far from the edge that they were certain was at some point far away. Seems like somewhat an analogy for religious beliefs.

[_canpakes]

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.

In other words, 'true' is not necessarily equivalent to (whatever 'the Church' is) being morally correct, or good, or sound in judgment... etcetera.

I've always considered the phrase, 'The Church is True' to be a nonsense statement, and this is one of the reasons why.

[_Gorman]

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

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

No, but it does assume that this world is not such a system. You might argue that the Garden of Eden was such a system. According to Mormon Theology, in order to progress, we humans must have some sort of friction to progress against. Holding this view does not require God to have placed the evil here, just that this system is a 'leaky' system, and evil has entered somehow.

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.

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.

My only basis for assuming God must be moral is a personal one, one which I think we might share. If God is amoral, I would not want to worship him or subscribe to his plan.

[_I have a question]

My only basis for assuming God must be moral is a personal one, one which I think we might share. If God is amoral, I would not want to worship him or subscribe to his plan.

Yet the God portrayed in scripture (Bible etc) is clearly portrayed as amoral.
Where does your version of God come from?