God can write straight with crooked lines.

[Gadianton]

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?

For fundamentalists this is easy, look no further than identity politics. The economy is great is your guy is president, but even if you lose your farm, the difficulty of accepting a real point against your side is too much, and so usually it stays great. MG is right about the moral compass of the believer, one simply asserts they are correct no matter what. That's faith. The critic becomes confused because it's not always easy to figure out what direction to go. The problem is impossible. If I'm a utilitarian, knowing what to do for the greatest good of all humanity in most given situations is impossible.

MG throws in too easily with the ambiguity. Because life is hard, we have no business trying to figure it out. It's better to do whatever is easiest (not necessarily best) for yourself and just declare that it's God's will.

Limnor has some advanced considerations to figure out with Abraham, but that only shows just how bad things really get. The problem with Abraham is that in the narrative, a catch-22 is proposed. However, taking the narrative at face value gets us well beyond any problem that we face in the real world, because for Abraham we "know" his promise about Isaac and his commandments are true, and we "know" that the angel (or however the voice came to him) is really directly from God giving the order. And so even once we have perfect knowledge of what God has said, Abraham still ends up in a quandary. But in reality, as you point out, there is no such knowledge of what God wants in the first place.

[I Have Questions]

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.

At least as far as the leadership is concerned. They must perceive a deep divide and consider the members less faithful than themselves, and less able to handle the truth. It’s quite an egotistical stance to take.

[malkie]

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?

For fundamentalists this is easy, look no further than identity politics. The economy is great is your guy is president, but even if you lose your farm, the difficulty of accepting a real point against your side is too much, and so usually it stays great. MG is right about the moral compass of the believer, one simply asserts they are correct no matter what. That's faith. The critic becomes confused because it's not always easy to figure out what direction to go. The problem is impossible. If I'm a utilitarian, knowing what to do for the greatest good of all humanity in most given situations is impossible.

MG throws in too easily with the ambiguity. Because life is hard, we have no business trying to figure it out. It's better to do whatever is easiest (not necessarily best) for yourself and just declare that it's God's will.

Limnor has some advanced considerations to figure out with Abraham, but that only shows just how bad things really get. The problem with Abraham is that in the narrative, a catch-22 is proposed. However, taking the narrative at face value gets us well beyond any problem that we face in the real world, because for Abraham we "know" his promise about Isaac and his commandments are true, and we "know" that the angel (or however the voice came to him) is really directly from God giving the order. And so even once we have perfect knowledge of what God has said, Abraham still ends up in a quandary. But in reality, as you point out, there is no such knowledge of what God wants in the first place.

That's a bit more of a promotion than I was expecting, Gad. But, thanks, anyway - I'll try to be humble about it

OTOH,

Who am I
To deny
That maybe
God is me!

ETA: Perhaps what I should be asking is if God / Sky Daddy is plagiarizing me ‽‽

[MG 2.0]

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'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.

Hi Morley,
Being as that I don't know you personally I can't say why you left. What I can say is that various folks leave for various reasons.

Sacrifice? Time and resources mainly. Fortunately neither one of these have been a 'deal breaker'. For me, following the WofW has been a net positive I think. Others may see differently in that respect.

As far as morality is concerned I don't think I've had to really sacrifice anything. The church's teachings actually help me to remain 'true' to those people who are of most importance to me. Knowing that I'm accountable to God for cleaving unto my wife and none else is definitely a net positive.

Believing in God has not been restrictive in my desire/motivation to learn what I can about the world around me and the beliefs that others have. Essentially, my intellectual curiosity has flourished rather than diminished as a result of the encouragement in the D&C to learn all we can.

As I mentioned earlier, when one leaves the church and God, they are left in a situation by which they must determine what their moral compass is going to be. Where that leads them, again, will vary from person to person.

One decides, for example, whether they feel that it's OK to lie or not anytime that it may be convenient or needed to accomplish a goal, maintain a relationship, come out on top, etc. Not having to feel guilt in situations where a believer might do so might be seen...from a non-believers perspective...as being a net positive.

Overall, I don't see that I've sacrificed anything by obeying the commandments that I believe God has given to us.

Regards,
MG

[Morley]

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.

Hi Morley,
Being as that I don't know you personally I can't say why you left. What I can say is that various folks leave for various reasons.

Sacrifice? Time and resources mainly. Fortunately neither one of these have been a 'deal breaker'. For me, following the WofW has been a net positive I think. Others may see differently in that respect.

As far as morality is concerned I don't think I've had to really sacrifice anything. The church's teachings actually help me to remain 'true' to those people who are of most importance to me. Knowing that I'm accountable to God for cleaving unto my wife and none else is definitely a net positive.

Believing in God has not been restrictive in my desire/motivation to learn what I can about the world around me and the beliefs that others have. Essentially, my intellectual curiosity has flourished rather than diminished as a result of the encouragement in the D&C to learn all we can.

As I mentioned earlier, when one leaves the church and God, they are left in a situation by which they must determine what their moral compass is going to be. Where that leads them, again, will vary from person to person.

One decides, for example, whether they feel that it's OK to lie or not anytime that it may be convenient or needed to accomplish a goal, maintain a relationship, come out on top, etc. Not having to feel guilt in situations where a believer might do so might be seen...from a non-believers perspective...as being a net positive.

Overall, I don't see that I've sacrificed anything by obeying the commandments that I believe God has given to us.

Regards,
MG

Okay. Then I must have misunderstood you when you said, “If that's all there was to it, it wouldn't be worth the time and sacrifice to express allegiance and faith to it.” I thought it was pretty clear that you were talking about, umm, sacrifices you had made to remain true.

What I’m reading now, is that there really has been no sacrifice that you’ve made. Right?

[Morley]

As I mentioned earlier, when one leaves the church and God, they are left in a situation by which they must determine what their moral compass is going to be.

Why would this be true? Where do you get this gibberish?

[Marcus]

...One decides, for example, whether they feel that it's OK to lie or not anytime that it may be convenient or needed to accomplish a goal, maintain a relationship, come out on top, etc. Not having to feel guilt in situations where a believer might do so might be seen...from a non-believers perspective...as being a net positive...

I would be curious whether mentalgymnast feels any guilt about all the times he has lied for any of those reasons here and has been caught at it. (Which is many, many times, by the way.) His general bigotry and stereotyping about people who believe differently seems baked in to the way some Mormons (including those at the highest levels) live, so he's probably got an answer for that-- something like 'lying for the lord' I would imagine.

It is always enlightening to see how mentalgymnast responds. The only thing I hesitate over is that his trolling seems to be far more mean-spirited than how the average Mormon would respond, and thus he is giving Mormons a very, very bad name to anyone who reads here.

[Morley]

Being as that I don't know you personally I can't say why you left.

This is disingenuous. I’ve been pretty detailed and specific about why I left, some of it in direct reply to you. You don’t have to know me personally to appreciate my story.

[malkie]

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.

Hi Morley,
Being as that I don't know you personally I can't say why you left. What I can say is that various folks leave for various reasons.
...
MG

Exhibit 1

1. Morley references his history as a poster here, and indicates that this history contains his reasons for leaving Mormonism
2. Morley, to remove any doubt, clearly explains why he left
3. MG cannot say why Morley left, as MG does not know Morley personally

Based on this conversation fragment, why should anyone believe anything MG says unless they know him personally?

[malkie]

OOPS - I see that Morley posted while I was composing.