The hell of Mormon afterlife

[_mentalgymnast]

Suppose you were a well tuned moral agent whose moral compass swung on principle. Suppose you were told one story of a cartel boss who commanded one of his henchmen to shoot his son in the head to prove his loyalty, and when he follows through he finds the gun had been loaded with blanks. And then a second story regarding a claimed divine being who demanded his devotee sacrifice his son to him to prove he would do whatever the deity commanded. Being a moral agent you would see on principle both stories are the same, describing monsters who use power and fear to compel their followers to do horrific things. Because commanding a father murder his son to prove his loyalty to anything is horrific.

On the other hand suppose you were not a moral agent but instead had your moral compass pulled off true north towards an allegance that is the foundation of what you consider right. Suppose in this case that institution is the cartel. Clearly the boss was right and what he did was due to having the best interest of the henchman at heart. The boy was not murdered by his dad while his dad was able to prove his loyalty. Surely this ended in the maximum possible good, right?

Earlier I asked two questions:

1. Do two wrongs ever make a right?
2. Assuming that God is subject to the ramifications of people being free agents, does He look at number one, or that which we would normally consider to be a logical fallacy (leading to moral quandaries and ambiguities), as a tool/means to accomplish a greater good?

Do these two questions and the possible ramifications of the answers play into these examples that you give?

I'll ask a further question that spins off of the first two I'm asking.

Would a creator God that loves perfectly engage in the practice of using wrongs to make a right? We see that as a moral flaw. Is it in all cases/situations?

I'm thinking of a quote from Joseph Smith:

“That which is wrong under one circumstance, may be, and often is, right under another. God said, 'Thou shalt not kill'; at another time He said, 'Thou shalt utterly destroy.' This is the principle on which the government of heaven is conducted—by revelation adapted to the circumstances in which the children of the kingdom are placed. Whatever God requires is right, no matter what it is, although we may not see the reason thereof till long after the events transpire.”

I question whether or not your comparing God to a cartel boss is a false equivalence. Whether or not we are safe in making a direct connection between the two without the possibility of this scenario/analogy falling flat when we consider whether or not "Whatever God requires is right, no matter what it is, although we may not see the reason thereof till long after the events transpire" comes into play.

And it does, admittedly, all come down to whether or not this "God" is the one and only true God rather than a figment of imagination or creation of the human mind. That I get.

We are left with the question I asked earlier, "Who is this God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob?"

Regards,
MG

[_honorentheos]

Let me reverse this on you, MG. Suppose you establish your moral principles first and then examine the behavior of God as described to see if said God is in fact good and loving?

Does this so-called God of Abraham really meet the criteria for being good and loving if their behavior is indistinguishable from that of a drug cartel boss? Because it appears to me that is the answer to your question regarding who he is. A cartel boss.

[_Morley]

We are left with the question I asked earlier, "Who is this God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob?"

He's obviously the god of obedience at the expense of moral reasoning.

[_Lemmie]

I see this as always coming down to positing a starting condition, and then using that condition to interpret events, so that one can conclude... the starting condition. It can be used to justify any starting assumption you want, and is therefore utterly meaningless as a decision-making tool, or thought process.

For example:

Would a creator God that loves perfectly engage in the practice of using wrongs to make a right? We see that as a moral flaw. Is it in all cases [and or] situations?

Assume god loves perfectly. Observe wrongs being used. Usually a moral flaw, but if god loves perfectly, it can’t be a moral flaw for him. Therefore it’s not a moral flaw for god. Therefore, observing this moral flaw -enacted by god who doesn’t make moral flaws - leads to the conclusion that god loves perfectly. At best, it’s nonsensical and meaningless. At worst, you’ve opened the door for believers to justify harm, if done in their god’s name. What a racket.

ETA: see morley’s and honor’s comments.

A interesting question to ask would be what triggered this initial assumption? Could it be that the religion one was most familiar with and grew up in just happened to be the exact one that is true for the entire world? What are the odds?

[_honorentheos]

Maybe you can take a shot at my question, H? Since MG won't answer it. Suppose the moral criteria is "men are that they might have joy". In other words, what is good is what's best for "men". (sorry ladies)

Hi Gad, I suspect we would first need to determine what is meant by best? If I'm a member of said drug cartel in my other example perhaps one could argue what is best for me is to do whatever makes the boss happy. Or, perhaps it is to escape from the cartel with my family and get somewhere outside of his control. If one imagines there is no escaping the cartel, one could conclude that what is in my interest is not attached to basic moral principles either and therefore morality and good v evil become nothing more than propaganda for defining what the boss wants and doesn't want. Which seems to be where MG is at and where we end up if we assume things like you posit. Morality and good/better/best outcomes that cannot be independently defined from the will of a being must become little more than the reflections of said being's will. But no one in that system has moral reasoning. It's limited to interpret the will and mood of the boss. Which then informs us that whether or not Abraham killing Isaac despite the angel trying to stop him would be a sin comes down to the whim of God. If God felt like Abraham was just doing what God had commanded, then thems the breaks, sucks to have been Isaac. If God is in one of his moods, then Abraham didn't change his actions according to the most current command to stop, so it sucks to be both Abraham and Isaac. But it's always good to be the boss.

[_Gadianton]

in this case, let's define the best as in, what's best for Isaac.

[_mentalgymnast]

We are left with the question I asked earlier, "Who is this God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob?"

He's obviously the god of obedience at the expense of moral reasoning.

And another associated question to throw into the mix of questions I've asked:

Does God know how to make lemonade from lemons? Does He, at times, provide the needed lemons?

Bonus:

And...is that lemonade good?

Regards,
MG

[_honorentheos]

Is what's best include being taken straight to godhood, collect $200 on the way if he dies before the age of accountability? If so, then I would suspect what's best for Isaac would be to be killed before the age of 8.

Or are we limiting best outcomes to mortality in this scenario?

[_honorentheos]

And another associated question to throw into the mix of questions I've asked:

Does God know how to make lemonade from lemons? Does He, at times, provide the needed lemons?

Bonus:

And...is that lemonade good?

Regards,
MG

Or what if God isn't real and it turns out using him to excuse bad behavior is further bad behavior?

[_Gadianton]

H,

I'm trying to avoid dilemmas either within the calculation or the variety of materialist calculus. Happily, at the time the story was written, the Jews didn't have a concept of a personal afterlife. Assuming all Isaac had was his own life and personal happiness, plus the happiness of a "fruition of seed" -- the patriarchal ideal of having a large family, we can assume for the scenario that Isaac dying at that point robs him of all happiness, and is therefore morally wrong.