God can write straight with crooked lines.

[MG 2.0]

75 pages!

Congrats everyone.

Thanks to Tolkien.

[Marcus]

[One of the reasons cited by Nelson for the decades long nefarious shell company scam that the Church operated to avoid disclosing to the SEC and Membership just how much wealth they had accumulated, was that the First Presidency did not trust the membership to continue to pay tithing if the full extent of hoard were known.

Nelson's statement says much about the motivation that drives the organization.

Yes it does. We don't get much information, but this (inadvertently, I'm sure) hints of a deep divide between the leaders and the tithe-payers who support them.

[Marcus]

As RFM said, the LDS church makes liars out of us all. Or something like that.

Fount of wisdom, that one.

My experience, at least in a few instances, is the opposite. Leaving the church, for some, seems to give permission to be a bit careless with the truth.

When you can create your own moral compass without any consequence and/or input from a 'sky daddy', it can't help but make SOME difference in the way one views the world and discerning those things that are 'right' and 'wrong'.

Regards,
MG

This might be a plea for help from the mentalgymnast. An example of thinking for oneself regarding morality is that one no longer has to start with a conclusion one has been given from people who say they represent your 'sky daddy.' A corollary to this is that one no longer has to twist oneself into pretzeled positions of non-logic where facts are denied in order to support what you've been told you are required to support. My sympathies to the fractured gymnasts.

[Gadianton]

I don't think that Mormons have some failure of "trust" that other Christians don't have. Did Job really achieve anything greater than a Mormon who gained the faith "not to be healed"?

Job is an example of lowering expectations. An apologetic to cope with the failure of "reaping what we sow" to explain the world. After all, if there isn't a God, we'd expect "measure for measure" to fail and those sharp enough to see the problem will need to get in front of it in order to avoid getting proved wrong. All the arguments that forbid a transactional God also just happen to avoid the possibility of God seeming to come up short.

I think to the extent that Mormonism appears to be contractual it's due to run-of-the-mill fundamentalism rather than anything unique about its doctrines. NRMs want a God that shows his hand in the world. A living, vibrant God. The priesthood is supposed to really be used to heal sick people. Plenty of Bible-based religions have similar ideas and Charismatic churches even step it up a notch. My belief is that there isn't really a God listening, and so obviously, the natural inclination to keep score is going to result in disappointment. So how to keep the ruse going? It seems that the broad choices are heavy compartmentalization, which works better for people with either low self-awareness or low curiosity, or intellectualizing faith into something ponderous and subjectively fulfilling but avoiding hope in objective advantages that it should bring.

God as a vending machine doesn't work if there isn't actually a God. But the intellectual version isn't merely trying to get in front of that, although that certainly is part of it in my opinion, but isn't satisfied with the concept. It's just a ridiculous idea the more you think about it, if there really were such a God, it would be quite disgusting. But anyone more to the left on the fundamentalist scale is going to have ideas similar to ideas Mormons have about transactions and contracts, even if the language is a bit different.

[bill4long]

As RFM said, the LDS church makes liars out of us all. Or something like that.

Fount of wisdom, that one.

My experience, at least in a few instances, is the opposite. Leaving the church, for some, seems to give permission to be a bit careless with the truth.

What "truth"?

When you can create your own moral compass without any consequence and/or input from a 'sky daddy', it can't help but make SOME difference in the way one views the world and discerning those things that are 'right' and 'wrong'.

Which version of "sky daddy?" The "sky daddy" who some religionists worship, who wants his worshippers to crash into World Trade Centers?

Maybe you didn't invent the morality you are committed to, but you choose to commit to it. Can't avoid the choice, unless you're of a mental status that can't make such a commitment.

[malkie]

I don't think that Mormons have some failure of "trust" that other Christians don't have. Did Job really achieve anything greater than a Mormon who gained the faith "not to be healed"?

Job is an example of lowering expectations. An apologetic to cope with the failure of "reaping what we sow" to explain the world. After all, if there isn't a God, we'd expect "measure for measure" to fail and those sharp enough to see the problem will need to get in front of it in order to avoid getting proved wrong. All the arguments that forbid a transactional God also just happen to avoid the possibility of God seeming to come up short.

I think to the extent that Mormonism appears to be contractual it's due to run-of-the-mill fundamentalism rather than anything unique about its doctrines. NRMs want a God that shows his hand in the world. A living, vibrant God. The priesthood is supposed to really be used to heal sick people. Plenty of Bible-based religions have similar ideas and Charismatic churches even step it up a notch. My belief is that there isn't really a God listening, and so obviously, the natural inclination to keep score is going to result in disappointment. So how to keep the ruse going? It seems that the broad choices are heavy compartmentalization, which works better for people with either low self-awareness or low curiosity, or intellectualizing faith into something ponderous and subjectively fulfilling but avoiding hope in objective advantages that it should bring.

God as a vending machine doesn't work if there isn't actually a God. But the intellectual version isn't merely trying to get in front of that, although that certainly is part of it in my opinion, but isn't satisfied with the concept. It's just a ridiculous idea the more you think about it, if there really were such a God, it would be quite disgusting. But anyone more to the left on the fundamentalist scale is going to have ideas similar to ideas Mormons have about transactions and contracts, even if the language is a bit different.

Even if there is a god, the vending machine model has a problem that's really easy to see, in my opinion. What is 'sky daddy' to do when two groups are each praying to him for a different outcome - common in sporting events and some wars. Does he go with the larger number of people, or some weighted points system, or does he toss a die? Of course, Einstein would be unhappy with the last one, so we'll strike that.

Let's assume there is some sort of calculus going on in the god's mind, and take a simple case - a straight count of people for each outcome. What if, at the last moment, someone changes their mind and tilts the balance to the opposite side from before? Who is making the decisions here? And how is this situation to be distinguished from the case in which there is no god?

Because sky daddy's ways are not our ways, is the question essentially undecidable, even in principle, by humans?

ETA: As evidence against certain simple types of calculation I present BYU football.

[Morley]

Not much to quibble with here except the "psychological trick to help you sleep at night" bit.

There's more to it than that.

If that's all there was to it, it wouldn't be worth the time and sacrifice to express alligience and faith to it.

MG, I’m interested in the part that I bolded above. What have you sacrificed in expressing allegiance to your faith?

Some of the usual things that critics are wont to complain about and bring up.

Regards,
MG

Critics are constantly bring up morality and integrity. Are you complaining that you have had to sacrifice your integrity?

[I Have Questions]

Not much to quibble with here except the "psychological trick to help you sleep at night" bit.

There's more to it than that.

If that's all there was to it, it wouldn't be worth the time and sacrifice to express alligience and faith to it.

MG, I’m interested in the part that I bolded above. What have you sacrificed in expressing allegiance to your faith?

Some of the usual things that critics are wont to complain about and bring up.

Regards,
MG

Critics are constantly bring up morality and integrity. Are you complaining that you have had to sacrifice your integrity?

It would be very interesting to see MG answer your question about what specific things he thinks he’s sacrificed in order to follow the religious tradition within which he was born and brought up in, and with which he has conformed for his entire life. Good luck in your quest for a straight answer.

[Morley]

It would be very interesting to see MG answer your question about what specific things he thinks he’s sacrificed in order to follow the religious tradition within which he was born and brought up in, and with which he has conformed for his entire life. Good luck in your quest for a straight answer.

It's not meant as a gotcha question. From his statement, I'm sure that MG really feels like he's lost out on some things. The trouble is, anything that I suggest is going to sound like an insult. However, I do wonder what he thinks that he's missed out on by staying with Mormonism.

[Morley]

If that's all there was to it, it wouldn't be worth the time and sacrifice to express alligience and faith to it.

What have you sacrificed in expressing allegiance to your faith?

It would be very interesting to see MG answer your question about what specific things he thinks he’s sacrificed in order to follow the religious tradition within which he was born and brought up in, and with which he has conformed for his entire life. Good luck in your quest for a straight answer.

It's not meant as a gotcha question. From his statement, I'm sure that MG really feels like he's lost out on some things. The trouble is, anything that I suggest is going to sound like an insult. However, I do wonder what he thinks that he's missed out on by staying with Mormonism.

MG. as you know from reading me, I left because it became apparent that I would have to sacrifice my own morality and integrity if I stayed. You've suggested elsewhere that you think that some leave so 'they can sin.' I'm genuinely interested in what you think that you've had to sacrifice to remain in the Church.