God can write straight with crooked lines.

[Marcus]

If only Occam’s Razor were easy to understand..

I'm curious what prompts mentalgymnast is giving his AI to get such convoluted answers. His dishonesty in using AI is bad enough, but this is just bad AI, period. It has no bearing on Mormon beliefs, so why is he posting this nonsense?

[I Have Questions]

If only Occam’s Razor were easy to understand..

I'm curious what prompts mentalgymnast is giving his AI to get such convoluted answers. His dishonesty in using AI is bad enough, but this is just bad AI, period. It has no bearing on Mormon beliefs, so why is he posting this nonsense?

I think that’s a very curious thing. Not only is he a lone voice on this board, if he spouts this claptrap at Church then he’s a lone voice there too! He’s the looney tune old bloke that everyone rolls their eyes at when he starts speaking up during Sunday School.

[Limnor]

Limnor, I really think mentalgymnast is in over his head. in my opinion, he's allowing AI to write this nonsense because his AI prompts are so illogical. Mormon stuff is already odd, but this nonsense from mentalgymnast is beyond the pale. It does not in any way reflect what Mormons believe.

Yeah I agree. I’m not sure MG understands the implications of saying something like this:

MG wrote: In Section 132 when we read “Verily thus saith the Lord” we might see it as a human framing of a real but limited encounter with God, not a guarantee that the entire section, in its every detail, is morally pristine.

In MG’s world, Mormon god commands immorality?

The implication, at its worst, means a real encounter without moral authority cannot distinguish God from any other claimed spiritual source.

Marcus wrote: That reads more like demonic powers than what a god might do.

[Gadianton]

God chose to work within a very crooked historical situation, which included inherited biblical polygamy (which Joseph had encountered in his studies), frontier patriarchy (and even ours today as we place blame or judgement), and Joseph’s own psychology (we are not privy to that).

Anyone who believers the Bible is God's ultimate word must explain the tremendous immorality of God's actions in the Old Testament. On the one hand, calling for a moral accounting of people from thousands of years ago seems a little over the top. I could go as far as understanding how one could find God in the Bible independent of all the bad stuff. "working within the bounds of humanity" -- or something. However, finding God within the Bible is different than finding God as the direct author of the Bible with exclusivity -- God is not found in the Gita and so on. That's just ridiculous. Of course, lots of people believe it. But I don't find it to be a credible position worth taking seriously.

It might also be well to remember that imagining God being positively willing to condone every specific hurtful decision as if it were ideal is a bit silly. Working within the framework of agency does have its drawbacks.

That depends. When the person doing the sin is saying "thus sayeth the Lord" to justify the actions then it appears that God is condoning every single last one of those cases, and we even have D&C 132 to establish the framework whereby God can command and condone actions that appear as sin especially in regard to Joseph. Being generous, I might step back and appreciate that God in some way worked through Joseph Smith as he did other preachers and religious figures, and I also might appreciate that Mormonism is something more than just a fundamentalist sect began by Joseph and find meaning or good in it in terms of its communities and so on. This is the postmodernist route. The New MI route. But there's a difference in saying that perhaps God works through Mormonism -- and I do believe if there is a God, that he's in Mormonism no less than he is in Evangelical Christianity -- but the claims of exclusivity fall apart completely. God is in Mormonism? Sure, why not, he's also in Islam and Hinduism. The Mormon Church is the only true church on the face of the earth (and so on)? I think after what you've just written you must abandon that claim, and stick with the generic "Creator God" who perhaps has worked through many religions including Mormonism but endorses no religion exclusively.

As for the charge of lying, I’m simply trying to describe how a believer can acknowledge moral problems in our history without collapsing everything wholeheartedly into either “God authored every abuse” or “there was nothing of God in it at all.” You may still see that as incoherent, but that’s the tension a believer lives with. I see and acknowledge the crookedness, I don’t canonize Joseph’s sins, and I still maintain the the very real possibility that God was at work in and through a very flawed story.

It's not clear that's what you're doing. You appear to be using postmodern-type arguments to exacerbate the problem of knowledge in order to secure an absolute fundamentalist reality. Loose epistemology -- tight ontology. Our perception is hazy, our reality is Zeus standing alone and firm on the mount with lightning bolt in hand. No argument can assail his greatness. No argument can promote any other god as equal. The claims to exclusivity must fall, at the very least, along with the middle-road you suggest.

Finally, when I say “God can write straight with crooked lines,” I am not claiming that every controversial practice in our history was a pristine “higher law,” nor that every action of Joseph Smith was divinely micromanaged.

We get that. But that's just step one of your real argument: The Mormon Church is the only church on the face of the earth no matter how badly Joseph Smith behaved, and no matter the degree to which Joseph attributed the bad behavior to God's direct command.

[malkie]

Limnor, I really think mentalgymnast is in over his head. in my opinion, he's allowing AI to write this nonsense because his AI prompts are so illogical. Mormon stuff is already odd, but this nonsense from mentalgymnast is beyond the pale. It does not in any way reflect what Mormons believe.

Yeah I agree. I’m not sure MG understands the implications of saying something like this:

MG wrote: In Section 132 when we read “Verily thus saith the Lord” we might see it as a human framing of a real but limited encounter with God, not a guarantee that the entire section, in its every detail, is morally pristine.

In MG’s world, Mormon god commands immorality?

The implication, at its worst, means a real encounter without moral authority cannot distinguish God from any other claimed spiritual source.

Marcus wrote: That reads more like demonic powers than what a god might do.

If you recall, several months ago, during the discussion on the First Vision I made the point that Joseph gave no reason for his belief that he met god and Jesus.

At least in the canonized version (I haven't examined the other versions lately) the "personages" Joseph claimed to have seen presented no evidence of who or what they were, beyond a reference to one being the son of the other. Based on that and on other occasions when Joseph was deceived by evil/Satanic spirits, I'm at a loss to explain why Mormons are so sure that Joseph encountered Elohim and Jehovah - other than apologetic necessity.

[Limnor]

Yeah I agree. I’m not sure MG understands the implications of saying something like this:

…
In MG’s world, Mormon god commands immorality?

The implication, at its worst, means a real encounter without moral authority cannot distinguish God from any other claimed spiritual source.

If you recall, several months ago, during the discussion on the First Vision I made the point that Joseph gave no reason for his belief that he met god and Jesus.

At least in the canonized version (I haven't examined the other versions lately) the "personages" Joseph claimed to have seen presented no evidence of who or what they were, beyond a reference to one being the son of the other. Based on that and on other occasions when Joseph was deceived by evil/Satanic spirits, I'm at a loss to explain why Mormons are so sure that Joseph encountered Elohim and Jehovah - other than apologetic necessity.

I do recall that. I’m thinking through other implications as well that gad is alluding to.

One reading is that God is morally good but sacred texts sometimes portray God through morally limited human views later revised (think Jesus saying “you have heard, but I tell you).

Could this lens apply to Joseph?

I’m still thinking through it.

[malkie]

If you recall, several months ago, during the discussion on the First Vision I made the point that Joseph gave no reason for his belief that he met god and Jesus.

At least in the canonized version (I haven't examined the other versions lately) the "personages" Joseph claimed to have seen presented no evidence of who or what they were, beyond a reference to one being the son of the other. Based on that and on other occasions when Joseph was deceived by evil/Satanic spirits, I'm at a loss to explain why Mormons are so sure that Joseph encountered Elohim and Jehovah - other than apologetic necessity.

I do recall that. I’m thinking through other implications as well that gad is alluding to.

One reading is that God is morally good but sacred texts sometimes portray God through morally limited human views later revised (think Jesus saying “you have heard, but I tell you).

Could this lens apply to Joseph?

I’m still thinking through it.

One possibility that occurred to me is that, for reasons best known to himself alone, Joseph did not want to say explicitly that he had met the Father and the Son. But he knew how to write his story so that his intended audience would make that inference, and then possibly, via the telephone (!) game have it become fact. Very political, in my opinion. Amongst others' statements, President Hinckley presented it as fact in General Conference.

[I Have Questions]

Finally, when I say “God can write straight with crooked lines,” I am not claiming that every controversial practice in our history was a pristine “higher law,” nor that every action of Joseph Smith was divinely micromanaged.

We get that. But that's just step one of your real argument: The Mormon Church is the only church on the face of the earth no matter how badly Joseph Smith behaved, and no matter the degree to which Joseph attributed the bad behavior to God's direct command.

If a person is willing to state that the Church and its Prophets have done some things that they claimed were divinely mandated but weren't, that same person must accept that potentially ALL the things the Church and its Prophets have done might not have been divinely mandated. And they must accept that "some" (all) the things that the Church and its Prophet are currently doing that they claim are divinely mandated, aren't. It's unavoidable.

[Limnor]

I do recall that. I’m thinking through other implications as well that gad is alluding to.

One reading is that God is morally good but sacred texts sometimes portray God through morally limited human views later revised (think Jesus saying “you have heard, but I tell you).

Could this lens apply to Joseph?

I’m still thinking through it.

One possibility that occurred to me is that, for reasons best known to himself alone, Joseph did not want to say explicitly that he had met the Father and the Son. But he knew how to write his story so that his intended audience would make that inference, and then possibly, via the telephone (!) game have it become fact. Very political, in my opinion. Amongst others' statements, President Hinckley presented it as fact in General Conference.

I’ve had similar thoughts—maybe Joseph’s initial followers influenced Joseph as much as he did them.

The “bound” imagery within the Book of Mormon and Book of Abraham might support that.

[I Have Questions]

I do recall that. I’m thinking through other implications as well that gad is alluding to.

One reading is that God is morally good but sacred texts sometimes portray God through morally limited human views later revised (think Jesus saying “you have heard, but I tell you).

Could this lens apply to Joseph?

I’m still thinking through it.

One possibility that occurred to me is that, for reasons best known to himself alone, Joseph did not want to say explicitly that he had met the Father and the Son. But he knew how to write his story so that his intended audience would make that inference, and then possibly, via the telephone (!) game have it become fact. Very political, in my opinion. Amongst others' statements, President Hinckley presented it as fact in General Conference.

I think the first draft was a test. To see if it would fly. And then he gradually embellished it over time. Many historians think Joseph Smith’s accounts of the First Vision did develop over time, and some argue that this development coincided with moments when his authority was being challenged. Very similar to how Bernie Maddoff embellished his Ponzi scheme over time, started small and then aggrandised over time. Two peas in a pod.