God can write straight with crooked lines.

[Gadianton]

MG didn't actually answer Morley's question. Noted. Rather, he implied that everything has been rosy and no sacrifice.

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.

Sure, anybody including a non-believer can decide to lie to accomplish a goal, but the amount of lying that has gone into supporting Mormon history and business culture is truly staggering. I would guess that in your world the word "lie" means something different than what the dictionary says it does. If misrepresenting a situation is positive for your church, then I doubt you see that as lying.

[I Have Questions]

…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.

That has got to be one of the clearest demonstrations of MG’s belief that he is morally superior to people who don’t believe what he believes, that I’ve ever seen him blurt out. And of course, it is utterly baseless. What a ridiculously flawed viewpoint. Sometimes I think MG 2.0 might be an idiot, and then he posts something that removes any doubt…

[bill4long]

By the way, this question can be used in conjunction with so many questions and issues that are brought up ad nauseum in regard to Mormonism, the apostasy, blacks and priesthood, current cultural battles, etc.

Given the somewhat broad nature of the OP topic, I'm curious what you think about two other churches...

1. The Church of Christ (Bickertonites). Descended from Book of Mormon witness David Whitmer, who determined that Joseph Smith was a fallen prophet.

2. The Church of Christ (Temple Lot.) Descendend from former Nauvoo apostle John E. Page.

Both groups hold the priesthood, have apostles, and believe in the Book of Mormon, but reject Joseph Smith's later revelations that made it in the Book of Commandments / Doctrine and Covenants. Both groups practice "spiritual gifts" such as speaking in tongues, prophetic utterances in the church, and (unlike the Brighamites) adhere to 3 Nephi 11:39,40.

Also have you ever been "visited with fire" from "the Father"?

By the way, this [OP] question can be used in conjunction with so many questions and issues that are brought up ad nauseum in regard to Mormonism, the apostasy, blacks and priesthood, current cultural battles, etc.

Also curious, why would a devout Brighamite LDS gentle-person such as yourself be so inclined to discuss religion and spiritual matters with a bunch of, well, "apostates"?

[Rivendale]

…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.

That has got to be one of the clearest demonstrations of MG’s belief that he is morally superior to people who don’t believe what he believes, that I’ve ever seen him blurt out. And of course, it is utterly baseless. What a ridiculously flawed viewpoint. Sometimes I think MG 2.0 might be an idiot, and then he posts something that removes any doubt…

Lying for the lord is far superior than lying for your own selfish needs. And Morality shopping is always the first thing every apostate does, usually starting with subterranean depravity. Meanwhile the steadfast, diligent , covenant keeping member watches the spectacle as if emulating Roman dignitaries in Damnatio ad bestias. But rather than death by beasts it is finger pointing as the apostate walks the colleseum of life that has the ground littered with upturned rakes. Each rake that collides with the apostates face brings a surge of internal laughter and gratification that they will endure to the end......

[bill4long]

usually starting with subterranean depravity

Oh yeah! Nothing like good old fashioned subterranean depravity. The more subterranean and depraved the better!

Tapir steaks and Valley Tan are served after every session.

[Limnor]

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 think there is a lesson to be found in the Abraham story that reveals what God wants. It’s complete dependence on Him for eternal life.

Even granting perfect knowledge, I agree, Abraham is in a catch-22, because nothing he does will sustain the promise of eternal life.

What would have happened if Abraham had refused to obey? We aren’t told—there isn’t a threat, no “do this or else.” This reveals that eternal life is not transactional—obedience didn’t earn it, it was promised, and disobedience doesn’t take it away—or at least we are not told that it would.

The point isn’t that Abraham proved himself willing to lose everything, but that the promise of eternal life was never his to gain or lose in the first place.

I was thinking about your earlier question as well: Did Job really achieve anything greater than a Mormon who gained the faith "not to be healed"?

There is room for a “yes” answer here. Because “faith not to be healed” is essentially managing disappointment, and I don’t see Job as doing that—he doesn’t adjust his faith to account for the negative outcome. He doesn’t say “I accept that healing is not guaranteed,” he says “this is wrong and I demand an answer.”

So a difference might be seen in the idea that Job did not have to bury his conscience to preserve faith. That’s the application to Mormonism. In LDS practice, when the truth claims surrounding Joseph generate moral problems, conscience is told to submit to authority, and doubt becomes weakness and protest is pride. Job is allowed to accuse God to God. Mormonism requires the believer to accuse themselves instead.

[MG 2.0]

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?

Why is it gibberish?

Regards,
MG

[MG 2.0]

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?

Wrong.

Regards,
MG

[Limnor]

Accusing others of lacking a moral compass while relegating conscience to prophetic authority is a bold move.

[MG 2.0]

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.

Like I said, I don’t know you personally. If I can be misjudged and/or be ascribed certain character flaws that have no basis in reality…my guess is that I am subject/prone to same error of not being able to see/determine the ‘full picture’ of any one person. I could even judge them as a truth teller when in actuality they are not.

That is the downside to communicating via words only.

There are posters here who continually get it wrong in regard to my intent/character. Even in this very thread. That’s why I simply ignore them in the sense that it is a waste of my time to talk with them.

I find you interesting and thoughtful in a number of ways and up to this point sort of fun to have a conversation with. Although I don’t know that I would come out and say that your contributions are simply gibberish with no explanation. But that’s just me.

Regards,
MG