DiscussMormonism.com

Starting with a quote from another thread:

Physics Guy wrote:The more we then dwell on how belief in plates (say) and belief in God (say) hang together so nicely, the more I suspect we come to treat the two beliefs as a package, as if each both implied and required the other. Rejoicing in "if plates, then God" slides easily into thinking "God, if and only if plates", because our brains are better at simple association than they are at logic.

I think people generally saddle belief in God with the specifics of their beliefs, having grown up with those beliefs. The thought that, okay, there's a God, but he's Islamic, well, at that point all the Christians out there who rail against atheists may not be so interested in God anymore. I had a scenario I used to bring up once in a while a long time ago (well, it always varies a little):

suppose you're met with a powerful being after you die who brings you good news: there is a God. The bad news is that your religion is wrong about God. If you're Mormon, for instance, you're told that Joseph Smith was a fraud. The being at this point offers you a choice. You can either proceed to stand before God and be judged, or you can opt out and have the atheist's version of death and simply cease to exist.

You will not be told a thing about the real God. If there is a hell, for instance, the possibility exists that you will find yourself burning in agony for eternity. What do you chose?

The plates were a fabrication,

God doth exist,

and parts of the Book of Mormon are scripture.

Gadianton wrote: ↑

Wed Nov 01, 2023 1:50 am

suppose you're met with a powerful being after you die who brings you good news: there is a God. The bad news is that your religion is wrong about God. If you're Mormon, for instance, you're told that Joseph Smith was a fraud. The being at this point offers you a choice. You can either proceed to stand before God and be judged, or you can opt out and have the atheist's version of death and simply cease to exist.

In this scenario I'd choose to be judged. Presuming that there was in fact an afterlife and a being offering this option, I think at that point I'd accept if this being is actually worthy of being considered good then I'll accept their judgment. And if they are the kind who plays the games of most gods we've been told exist, i.e. not good, odds are anyone choosing to escape judgment is royally screwed.

Accepting there is no afterlife is a package deal for me. I choose to live a life based on values, detached from bargaining with hypothetical deities about post-death rewards and conditions because that's a bad variable to insert into ethics.

The scenario probably works best for those who imagine there is a god, and a right way to worship them. So finding out they worshiped incorrectly would be terrifying. I think that illuminates a problem that is embedded in tying moral reasoning to faith practices.

So why would you be burning in hell?

Gadianton wrote: ↑

Wed Nov 01, 2023 1:50 am

suppose you're met with a powerful being after you die who brings you good news: there is a God. The bad news is that your religion is wrong about God. If you're Mormon, for instance, you're told that Joseph Smith was a fraud. The being at this point offers you a choice. You can either proceed to stand before God and be judged, or you can opt out and have the atheist's version of death and simply cease to exist.

You will not be told a thing about the real God. If there is a hell, for instance, the possibility exists that you will find yourself burning in agony for eternity. What do you chose?

I expect Mormons would do what they do here when faced with the suggestion they’re wrong. They would call the powerful being a critic, refuse to engage with what he’s actually saying, think it’s a test of their worthiness, think he’s Satan etc etc etc. and demand that they be taken to their version of God because they are right and the Church is true no matter what anyone else says.

In your scenario we are, once again, being asked to take someone else’s word for what God is or isn’t. Nah, if God’s a real thing He don’t need no intermediaries. He’s knows who I am and can talk to me face to face if he wants. I don’t trust third parties.

The more God is associated with undesirable outcomes and consequences the less belief I can summon. The Brethren of the Mormon Church would insist that God hates the LGBTQ community as much as they do. The giant three-headed Dog of apologetics would want us to munch the butt cheeks of Mormon critics. The Pastifarians would want us to decry Swedish meatballs for the glory of the Flying Spaghetti Monster.

Belief seems so much easier when we can ascribe our own positive qualities and outcomes. It can help boost our morale.

The guaranteed way to be branded with heresy in the LDS Church is to proclaim that God demands no tithing monies.

Moksha wrote: ↑

Wed Nov 01, 2023 9:49 am

The guaranteed way to be branded with heresy in the LDS Church is to proclaim that God demands no tithing monies.

Which is why I think the Church needs to just come clean and adopt the Ferengi Rules of Acquisition. They've already adopted a host of them, just take the plunge and become the materialistic jugernaught you were meant to be. Embrace the Latinum!

Gadianton wrote: ↑

Wed Nov 01, 2023 1:50 am

I think people generally saddle belief in God with the specifics of their beliefs, having grown up with those beliefs. The thought that, okay, there's a God, but he's Islamic, well, at that point all the Christians out there who rail against atheists may not be so interested in God anymore. I had a scenario I used to bring up once in a while a long time ago (well, it always varies a little):

suppose you're met with a powerful being after you die who brings you good news: there is a God. The bad news is that your religion is wrong about God. If you're Mormon, for instance, you're told that Joseph Smith was a fraud. The being at this point offers you a choice. You can either proceed to stand before God and be judged, or you can opt out and have the atheist's version of death and simply cease to exist.

You will not be told a thing about the real God. If there is a hell, for instance, the possibility exists that you will find yourself burning in agony for eternity. What do you chose?

I'll stand before God and be judged. I have to figure where I wound up, that's where he wants me anyway.

Honor wrote:In this scenario I'd choose to be judged. Presuming that there was in fact an afterlife and a being offering this option, I think at that point I'd accept if this being is actually worthy of being considered good then I'll accept their judgment. And if they are the kind who plays the games of most gods we've been told exist, i.e. not good, odds are anyone choosing to escape judgment is royally screwed.

With hypothetical questions you've got to suspend disbelief and accept the terms as presented -- just assume the messenger can be trusted. That's the hardest part of getting an answer. I suspect as IHAQ said that a typical apologist will go straight into non-compute mode and be unable to imagine the bare possibility that they are wrong.

But the first part of your response is in line with how I imagine non-believers or liberal believers would respond. The idea is that it reflects your expectations. A non-believer coming to learn there is a God would likely be unable to imagine God is the lunatic most believers make him out to be and take their chances. My guess is a real fundamentalist who is able to entertain a hypothetical question would opt out. If they believe God is mainly about vanquishing their enemies and putting people in hell and find out they are worshiping the wrong God, then "oh crap!", they'll either fear the hell of the alternative God, or not want the heaven of another religion or even culture, let alone associate with people who believe differently.

I think if a real fundy were answer that they'd roll the dice on the real God, then that would make me suspect they are less fundamentalist than they let on. The fundy persona and exaggerations may be due to the person being very sensitive and lashing out.

Moksha wrote: ↑

Wed Nov 01, 2023 9:49 am

The giant three-headed Dog of apologetics would want us to munch the butt cheeks of Mormon critics.