Question for Mo Experts

[Marcus]

I'm imagining god on Reddit, conducting an AMA.

redditor1: asks a question

god: well, I'm not going to tell you that!

redditor2: asks a question

god: I'm not going to answer that either!

redditor3: you realize that "ask me anything" means what it says, right? You said that you would give answers liberally to anyone who asked.

god: well, I also said somewhere else that I would give only dribs and drabs of information!

god: and stop quoting me!!! You’re putting words in my mouth when you do that!!

[MG 2.0]

Not quite sure what you mean. What I am reading you to say that you are a strict/fundamentalist in something that you don’t even believe in.

That’s an interesting position to take.

Regards,
MG

Lol. All I did was point out a scripture that says god will answer questions freely. It’s the same scripture god endorsed and inspired Joseph with, apparently. But, as it turns out the wonderful passage in which it says god will answer questions freely, without all the caveats you wish were included, was wrong all along. You have to assume the passage means god will not answer questions, if he decides not to. And anyone who thinks the passage says god will answer questions is just a fundamentalist and therefore is wrong.

Or something. I mean maybe you’re onto something, MG. Can you get the church to endorse this funny teaching you’re espousing?

James 1:5 (NIV)
5 If any of you lacks wisdom, you should ask God, who gives generously to all without finding fault, and it will be given to you.

generously: to give MORE. (Oxford Standard Dictionary)

Not ALL.

I see where you’re coming from. In order for your worldview to work you have to ‘lock in’ God to being something other than what He is. Or at the very least, what you make him out to be.

Otherwise you can’t tell him what to do.

And that wrecks everything, right?

Regards,
MG

[Morley]

Your opinion or Church doctrine?

You tell me. Back it up. And don’t do the Marcus thing and put words in my mouth.

You are under obligation to demonstrate that God must reveal ALL rather than line upon line, precept upon precept.

Regards,
MG

I'm supposed to tell you whether you think it's doctrine or your own opinion?

My opinion is that God does have an obligation, but I've made that abundantly clear. If God is not evil, I don't see how he would be able ignore the sincere questions of his prophet, especially when doing so would let that prophet lead the church into grievous error.

Your turn.

[dastardly stem]

Lol. All I did was point out a scripture that says god will answer questions freely. It’s the same scripture god endorsed and inspired Joseph with, apparently. But, as it turns out the wonderful passage in which it says god will answer questions freely, without all the caveats you wish were included, was wrong all along. You have to assume the passage means god will not answer questions, if he decides not to. And anyone who thinks the passage says god will answer questions is just a fundamentalist and therefore is wrong.

Or something. I mean maybe you’re onto something, MG. Can you get the church to endorse this funny teaching you’re espousing?

James 1:5 (NIV)
5 If any of you lacks wisdom, you should ask God, who gives generously to all without finding fault, and it will be given to you.

generously: to give MORE. (Oxford Standard Dictionary)

Not ALL.

I see where you’re coming from. In order for your worldview to work you have to ‘lock in’ God to being something other than what He is. Or at the very least, what you make him out to be.

Otherwise you can’t tell him what to do.

And that wrecks everything, right?

Regards,
MG

You’re killing me,MG. In order for my worldview to work, I don’t need a thing from god. And what Mormon quotes the NIV instead of the KJV? Was that a move of convenience or what?

[MG 2.0]

You tell me. Back it up. And don’t do the Marcus thing and put words in my mouth.

You are under obligation to demonstrate that God must reveal ALL rather than line upon line, precept upon precept.

Regards,
MG

I'm supposed to tell you whether you think it's doctrine or your own opinion?

My opinion is that God does have an obligation, but I've made that abundantly clear. If God is not evil, I don't see how he would be able ignore the sincere questions of his prophet, especially when doing so would let that prophet lead the church into grievous error.

Your turn.

President McKay sweat it out beseeching the Lord to reveal an answer to the priesthood ban and authorize him to reverse it. President McKay admitted that the Lord told him it wasn’t time. Can you imagine how McKay felt knowing the ramifications of this revelation from the Lord?

A lot of folks would have showered praises on him if he would have received another revelation. No doubt.

The interesting question here would be, did President McKay think that God was leading the church into grievous error?

I doubt it.

He simply followed the Lord’s will. Did he have questions as to why the time wasn’t right. I’ll bet he did.

Regards,
MG

[MG 2.0]

generously: to give MORE. (Oxford Standard Dictionary)

Not ALL.

I see where you’re coming from. In order for your worldview to work you have to ‘lock in’ God to being something other than what He is. Or at the very least, what you make him out to be.

Otherwise you can’t tell him what to do.

And that wrecks everything, right?

Regards,
MG

You’re killing me,MG. In order for my worldview to work, I don’t need a thing from god. And what Mormon quotes the NIV instead of the KJV? Was that a move of convenience or what?

That’s really not much of a response. Just a deflection.

Regards,
MG

[Philo Sofee]

So, apparently all we need to do is to ask god - who knew?

If you ask God to plant your garden for you what would be your expectations?

If you ask God to fill your mind with all of the world’s knowledge what would be your expectations?

Regards,
MG

Yer right, I better stick with the important things like lost car keys and tulips in the garden.....

[dastardly stem]

You’re killing me,MG. In order for my worldview to work, I don’t need a thing from god. And what Mormon quotes the NIV instead of the KJV? Was that a move of convenience or what?

That’s really not much of a response. Just a deflection.

Regards,
MG

If any of you lacks wisdom, you should ask God, who gives generously to all without finding fault, and it will be given to you.

So it won’t be given you all because you quoted the Oxford dictionary which says generously may mean to give more?

[malkie]

I'm imagining god on Reddit, conducting an AMA.

redditor1: asks a question

god: well, I'm not going to tell you that!

redditor2: asks a question

god: I'm not going to answer that either!

redditor3: you realize that "ask me anything" means what it says, right? You said that you would give answers liberally to anyone who asked.

god: well, I also said somewhere else that I would give only dribs and drabs of information!

god: and stop quoting me!!! You’re putting words in my mouth when you do that!!

This god is like Loki - a trickster and weasel. You can't depend on anything that he says (in his own official scriptures) because he'll always wiggle out of it somehow - sometimes even by contradicting himself.

Of course, you are not allowed to point out the self-contradictions.

Imagine the missionaries telling an investigator about Joseph Smith's experience with James 1:5, and encouraging the investigator to put god to the test. Then when the investigator doesn't get the result the missionaries want, instead of telling them that they didn't do it the right way, pointing out to them that you actually cannot expect god to give you a straight answer, because he is under no obligation to honour his promise, even though they told you that he would.

Terms and conditions apply.
"anyone" does not literally mean anyone, and may not include you.
"will" and "freely" should not be construed to mean that god is obliged to actually deliver anything of value.
If you were foolish enough to believe this, god has a bridge in Brooklyn s/he'd like to show you.
Offer void where prohibited by god''s capricious nature.

That would go well, right?

[Morley]

President McKay sweat it out beseeching the Lord to reveal an answer to the priesthood ban and authorize him to reverse it. President McKay admitted that the Lord told him it wasn’t time. Can you imagine how McKay felt knowing the ramifications of this revelation from the Lord?

A lot of folks would have showered praises on him if he would have received another revelation. No doubt.

The interesting question here would be, did President McKay think that God was leading the church into grievous error?

I doubt it.

He simply followed the Lord’s will. Did he have questions as to why the time wasn’t right. I’ll bet he did.

Regards,
MG

Here's the Church's 1949 statement:

First Presidency Statement (17 August 1949)

The attitude of the Church with reference to the Negroes remains as it has always stood. It is not a matter of the declaration of a policy but of direct commandment from the Lord, on which is founded the doctrine of the Church from the days of its organization, to the effect that Negroes may become members of the Church but that they are not entitled to the Priesthood at the present time. The prophets of the Lord have made several statements as to the operation of the principle. President Brigham Young said: “Why are so many of the inhabitants of the earth cursed with a skin of blackness? It comes in consequence of their fathers rejecting the power of the holy priesthood, and the law of God. They will go down to death. And when all the rest of the children have received their blessings in the holy priesthood, then that curse will be removed from the seed of Cain, and they will then come up and possess the priesthood, and receive all the blessings which we now are entitled to.”

President Wilford Woodruff made the following statement: “The day will come when all that race will be redeemed and possess all the blessings which we now have.”

The position of the Church regarding the Negro may be understood when another doctrine of the Church is kept in mind, namely, that the conduct of spirits in the premortal existence has some determining effect upon the conditions and circumstances under which these spirits take on mortality and that while the details of this principle have not been made known, the mortality is a privilege that is given to those who maintain their first estate; and that the worth of the privilege is so great that spirits are willing to come to earth and take on bodies no matter what the handicap may be as to the kind of bodies they are to secure; and that among the handicaps, failure of the right to enjoy in mortality the blessings of the priesthood is a handicap which spirits are willing to assume in order that they might come to earth. Under this principle there is no injustice whatsoever involved in this deprivation as to the holding of the priesthood by the Negroes.


You're saying this statement was God's will. Right?

//

By the way, is "God does not have an obligation" your opinion or Church doctrine?