fundamental suppositions of God that are absurd

[_Sethbag]

There's nothing circular in starting out with the assumption that a good God exists...

Um, if one bases one's method for determining if God exists on the very premise that God exists, then in fact there is something circular about this.

Recall this came about in my statement that Moroni's Promise is a circular argument. I stand by that. You can only know if the Book of Mormon is true by following Moroni's Promise if you can trust that Moroni's Promise is in fact a reliable, trustworthy method in the first place. I argue there's no a priori way of knowing this, hence you're stuck having to assert that the Book of Mormon is true in the first place in order to trust that following Moroni's Promise will confirm for you the truth of the Book of Mormon.

You mentioned that Moroni's Promise can be assumed to be reliable, because it makes sense. Billions of people on Earth would disagree with you. Are you arguing that it's still true because it makes sense to you? Are you arguing for relative truth then?

Euclid did precisely the same thing with his axioms, and nobody in her/his right mind would accuse Euclid of using circular reasoning.

Nobody asserts the absolute truth of Euclid's proofs. The acknowledgement is always that his proofs are valid only assuming his axioms.

I would agree, in the context of Mormonism. Assuming Mormonism is true, the Book of Mormon seems quite likely to be authentic. Assuming Mormonism is true, the Creator of the Universe probably did want Joseph Smith to have lots and lots of sex with women he was not legally married to. Assuming Mormonism is true, it's likely that Thomas S. Monson is God's own vice-regent on Earth, and we should all do exactly as he tells us.

Some axioms are demonstrably more useful to assume than others. I propose to you that Euclid's axioms fall into that category, and that Mormonism's do not.

[_SteelHead]

There are thousands of people/sects/organizations in the world and in the past, each with the message that they are the one true representatives of the true god(s). See Thorwald for an example. The sensible conclusions to all these conflicting messages is not " look at us, despite of the inability of god to succinctly convey his message to all of humanity in a way they all can recognize, we alone got it right", but rather, they are all, every last one of them, wrong.

That a omnipotent being can not do better is telling.

The sensible conclusion in examining the Old Testament is that the god of the Old Testament is a sociopathic monster. Not "boy I need to worship him" and the differences between Jehova and Jesus so pronounced that the sensible conclusion is " the only explanation for the profound differences in messages is schizophrenia" or it is all BS.

The sensible methodology for an atonement is "you are all forgiven" not "let's kill my kid".

The whole you are fallen, and need our guidance to achieving forgiveness is just someone creating a sickness so they can peddle you the cure.

[_ludwigm]

Euclid

Euclid

[offtopic]
Why not Eucleides?
Euclid (/ˈjuːklɪd/; Greek: Εὐκλείδης Eukleidēs)

by the way
Archimedes of Syracuse (/ˌɑːkɪˈmiːdiːz/ Greek: Ἀρχιμήδης)

Pythagoras of Samos (US /pɪˈθæɡərəs/; UK /paɪˈθæɡərəs/; Ancient Greek: Πυθαγόρας ὁ Σάμιος Pythagóras ho Sámios “Pythagoras the Samian”, or simply Πυθαγόρας; Πυθαγόρης in Ionian Greek;)
[/offtopic]

[_Sethbag]

The just being only appears to the smallest subset of folks who then mangle the message.

SteelHead, why do you think they mangled the message?

God wanted men marrying more than one woman. Joseph Smith did such a good job mangling the message that for over 170 years the church wouldn't even admit that he himself did it, and now that they have, all they can point to is how much they simply don't understand about what exactly it was Joseph was up to.

God didn't want black men to hold the priesthood. Or he did, but Brigham Young screwed it up due to the rampant racism of his times. All these years all they can point to is that they just don't get whatever it is that God really wanted in the first place, but they're pretty sure he wants black men holding the priesthood now.

God either created the Earth 7000-10000 years ago, or he didn't, or it came together due to natural forces, or God really did create it, but a long time ago, and he either let the variety of life come together through evolution, or he designed it all that way, either a long time ago, or 7000-10000 years ago, or something else entirely. They still can't get their story straight.

Noah either really saved homo sapiens from a global flood a few thousand years ago, or he saved only his family from a local flood, or his story is a spiritual allegorical expansion on local middle eastern mythology already in existence when Noah's story was written, or something else entirely. They're still not quite sure what.

Either nothing on Earth could die, or reproduce, until Adam fell a few thousand years ago, or nothing inside of a small, localised "Garden of Eden", which may or may not have been near Adam-Ondi-Ahman in present-day Missouri, could die or reproduce, but everything else in the world went on with life as usual, they're really not quite sure what to make of it, except that Adam really was a real person. Or not. Who knows?

Either homosexuality is a choice to live sinfully, or it's an inborn "challenge" some are born with for God to have an opportunity to try them, or it's not inborn because "why would a loving God do that?", but it's still a challenge that comes about somehow, whether it's a choice or not, or something else entirely.

God's vice-regent on Earth, currently Thomas S. Monson, doesn't seem to have a clue. He's not even sure what to make of the scraps of papyrus his predecessor Abraham is supposed to have scribbled the "Book of Abraham" on, whether by his own hand, or only originally but copied onto that specific papyrus by a subsequent scribe, or in fact only hinted at mnemonically by reference to an existing Egyptian funeral rite, or only directly revealed to Joseph Smith as he contemplated the papyrus and prayed. Who knows?

See a trend?

[_Sethbag]

In fact, I'm not entirely sure anybody's defined God yet; how can a concept have inherent problems when nobody's defined what it means?

And yet you have no problem believing that this undefined concept is real, pinning your hopes for your future on it, coughing up 10% of your income to support its supposed vice-regents on Earth, and training yourself to feel bad when you do all the things these vice-regents claim this undefined concept doesn't want you to do?

I have to thank you, Kevin, for your participation. I'm currently deployed somewhere in the world with the military, I've been stressed out for weeks now, and when I got home this evening to my computer and its sketchy internet connection, you made it possible for me to relax, take my mind off it all, and just have a good time. I'd dare say you directly contributed to an improvement in my mental well-being by providing such good entertainment. Sir, I salute you, and thanks for all your support!

[_SteelHead]

I think they mangled the message because there is no god, just men. Some deluded, some knowingly spinning tales, some a mixture of both. Spouting gibberish for a variety of reasons, none of which are because god is really talking to them. That is why the message is mangled, because in the end, there is no message.

[_Lucretia MacEvil]

Prophet after prophet, dispensation after dispensation. They say the definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results. Any God participating in this world would have to be insane.

[_mentalgymnast]

The idea that the Creator of the Universe would choose to communicate with his creations in matters of eternal importance to their supposed immortal souls by appearing in secret to one man...

What are a few alternatives that you can think of in which the Creator of the Universe could/would choose from to communicate with his creations in matters of eternal importance to their immortal souls? And let's assume, for the moment, that His purposes would by necessity require that his creations are proving themselves without direct interference/inclusion of deity in their lives...that faith/hope/agency and opposition are a necessary component of the plan.

Now if we don't make that assumption... again, that in essence God remains somewhat hidden and inscrutable...then I suppose God could work things out to get some more TV time and make EVERYTHING clear, especially where we now have the internet, etc., ...not quite sure how he would have accomplished this back in pre-technology days.

Anyway, interested in some thoughtful alternatives that you might have in mind.

Regards,
MG

[_SteelHead]

It seems hard to believe such a hands off approach is required, when he appears to a very few, and sends angels with swords to help make the minds of others. Your god is wildly inconsistent.

[_Doctor CamNC4Me]

What are a few alternatives that you can think of in which the Creator of the Universe could/would choose from to communicate with his creations in matters of eternal importance to their immortal souls?

He could show up (HG & a 2000 year-old visit doesn't count). Dude is worse than an absentee parent.

And let's assume, for the moment, that His purposes would by necessity require that his creations are proving themselves without direct interference/inclusion of deity in their lives...that faith/hope/agency and opposition are a necessary component of the plan.

Beyond the usual talking points the LDS dogma offers, what's the point?

Now if we don't make that assumption... again, that in essence God remains somewhat hidden and inscrutable...then I suppose God could work things out to get some more TV time and make EVERYTHING clear, especially where we now have the internet, etc., ...not quite sure how he would have accomplished this back in pre-technology days.

He could pop in once in a while. I'd say a visit every ten or twenty years would be nice. Maybe do some magic tricks. Tell us some stories. You know... Spend some time with us like any good father ought to do.

Anyway, interested in some thoughtful alternatives that you might have in mind.

Well, firstly I don't think any god should set up a world-wide Hunger Games for His favorite polygamous celestial lineage. I certainly don't think cancer, disease, flesh eating bacteria, and animals that kill and eat other should be at the top of His list to create in order to "teach us a lesson". That's screwed up. I mean why stop there? Why not afford us multiple lives so we can understand what it's like to starve to death, be consumed by a bear, suffer a genocide, be raped and murdered, die by necrosis of the flesh... I mean if you truly need to understand something then you need to experience it all, otherwise it's just a mental exercise with a limited amount of exposure to Life Separated from God (kind of sort of... you know... just enough to get the gist of things)

Regards,
MG