The Nehor wrote: Sorry, I don't agree it's a eugenics program. I was using the term in a sarcastic manner. Sorry, the intertubes don't convey that well.
I think pure love and real sharing of happiness can only occur under his plan. I don't think that statement is arrogant at all.
I've read a lot about polygamy. There was difficulty and struggling but I didn't see a lot of guilt, misery, and woe.
Okay, I missed the sarcasm but I must say that the "plan" as put forth by the alleged god of Mormonism is definitely and without any reservation whatsoever, NOT the only way that "pure love and real sharing of happiness can occur." Pure BS and extraordinarily arrogant I MUST add.
If you fail to see the guilt, misery and woe in a plan which consigns 99.999999% of all humans to life without their families and the rest to life in polygamous procreative compounds whose intent is the birthing of many more humans to be largely discarded, then what can I say more? You have chosen blindness. The truth of god's eugenics program is right there in the ghastly numbers. Your position must insist that only an infinitely small number of blindly obedient outliers are capable of "pure love and real sharing." And you don't see that as arrogant? Also, these are the only people who will be allowed to procreate. The rest are effectively desexed. How is that not eugenics?
My TBM brother can only understand life in terms of a "test." Why is a test necessary unless god's "plan" is to elect a certain kind of super-being, of which there are only going to be .00000000001% of the total number of humans, who will qualify for his "plan of happiness."
It's the Mormon god's eugenics program. Only the "best of the best" (according to the narrow definition designed by Joseph Smith, et al) will ultimately be allowed to procreate in the eternities. Isn't that the nature of eugenics? Disallowing the unworthy to procreate?
What a dumb idea. If this is the true nature of reality, thank the Mormon god that he gave me agency, because I want no part in it. Thankfully it is obviously not the nature of reality--obvious to those who will stop to see how ridiculous the numbers are. It's the Mormon god, Joseph Smith's version of god, playing the lotto with his children's lives.
I'm perfectly fine with it being a test. However, the error is thinking of it like a written test. A written test has little effect upon the person tested. They generally don't change during the process of taking the test. In other words, if you were absolutely sure a person could pass the test there would be no need for the test. Therefore the logic goes that if God knows we could pass the test there is no need for it.
Life is not that kind of test. I'm not proving anything to God. He already knows whether I'll hack it or not. However, even if I am going to be exalted I was in no condition to take up that position before this life. I may know that a high school student will make a good surgeon due to his dedication and brilliance but I'm not going to hand him a scalpel and tell him to remove my appendix until he's been through medical school.
I understand your take on the nature of the test. Fine. You are missing the core argument of the OP and focusing on an aspect which I am not contending with. The part that you are ignoring is the grotesque and vulgar nature of a plan which creates life and then consigns it death, for what is life if it is not sexual at its core? To deprive 99.99999% of humans their creative power is to be a eugenicist. Is it not?
In the end, the god of Mormonism does indeed leave the ninety and nine to go after ONLY the one.
amantha wrote:Okay, I missed the sarcasm but I must say that the "plan" as put forth by the alleged god of Mormonism is definitely and without any reservation whatsoever, NOT the only way that "pure love and real sharing of happiness can occur." Pure BS and extraordinarily arrogant I MUST add.
If you fail to see the guilt, misery and woe in a plan which consigns 99.999999% of all humans to life without their families and the rest to life in polygamous procreative compounds whose intent is the birthing of many more humans to be largely discarded, then what can I say more? You have chosen blindness. The truth of god's eugenics program is right there in the ghastly numbers. Your position must insist that only an infinitely small number of blindly obedient outliers are capable of "pure love and real sharing." And you don't see that as arrogant? Also, these are the only people who will be allowed to procreate. The rest are effectively desexed. How is that not eugenics?
Move on my friend. See that sham for what it is.
I think you're overly pessimistic about how many will be exalted in the first place. I do not think the 'bllindly obedient' can reach it at all. My faith has never built polygamous procreative compounds and there is not such thing in heaven.
I also find a major fallacy in your position. You can NOT argue that the God who created you is less moral then you. You can argue that there is no God but that is it. If God created you, he also gave you your morality. In a scant few years of life do you think you surpassed him? If God had no morals, how could he give you any? The evil sadistic God can't exist. There is too much good in the world to think a twisted God could make it.
A sham couldn't let me taste and see heaven if it didn't exist. I will not move on, I just hope to move forward.
"Surely he knows that DCP, The Nehor, Lamanite, and other key apologists..." -Scratch clarifying my status in apologetics "I admit it; I'm a petty, petty man." -Some Schmo
amantha wrote:I understand your take on the nature of the test. Fine. You are missing the core argument of the OP and focusing on an aspect which I am not contending with. The part that you are ignoring is the grotesque and vulgar nature of a plan which creates life and then consigns it death, for what is life if it is not sexual at its core? To deprive 99.99999% of humans their creative power is to be a eugenicist. Is it not?
In the end, the god of Mormonism does indeed leave the ninety and nine to go after ONLY the one.
I don't think life is sexual at it's core. By my own doctrine I have likely existed happily for eons without it. I had a happy childhood without it. If I become a widower in old age, I expect I will survive without it again then. Heaven has an intimacy surpassing earthly sex and if there is sex in heaven it will be even better. Again, I am not that pessimistic as to how many will be exalted. Furthermore, I think that all but those who become Perdition (and even them in their own twisted way) will be happy.
"Surely he knows that DCP, The Nehor, Lamanite, and other key apologists..." -Scratch clarifying my status in apologetics "I admit it; I'm a petty, petty man." -Some Schmo
A sham couldn't let me taste and see heaven if it didn't exist.
Yes, it could.
Nuh-uh :)
"Surely he knows that DCP, The Nehor, Lamanite, and other key apologists..." -Scratch clarifying my status in apologetics "I admit it; I'm a petty, petty man." -Some Schmo
Was your experience so convincing and intense that you'd happily castrate yourself, if the experience so required?
Was your experience so convincing and intense that you'd happily murder thousands of innocent people, if the experience so required?
Even if you answer "yes" to the above questions, it still only makes your experience dead even with people who believe what you would view as an obvious sham.
We hate to seem like we don’t trust every nut with a story, but there’s evidence we can point to, and dance while shouting taunting phrases.
The Nehor wrote: I also find a major fallacy in your position. You can NOT argue that the God who created you is less moral then you.
Oh I don't know. The answer might depend on what kind of 'creating' has occurred, and what one may legitimately deduce about the kind of relationship implied by the alleged type of creation.
Doesn't the LDS deity create us (as 'spirits') pretty well the way our parents did as physical beings - i.e. he begets us, hence bringing into existence beings essentially of the same kind as himself? (Correct me if I am wrong).
Now I know people who are clearly morally superior to their parents, and who have displayed this at quite an early age. I fail to see why it should be impossible for 'spirit' children to be morally superior to their 'spirit' parent - assuming, for the sake of argument, that such terms are meaningful.
Mister Scratch wrote:The very existence of the 2nd Anointing ceremony blows The Nehor's argument out of the water. We know from anecdotal accounts that the granting of the 2nd Anointing is based upon nepotism and utter loyalty to the Church.
I.e. we can gather that from a few random stories about a specific ordinance that God only lets a few people into heaven. Do you listen to yourself?
No; you argued elsewhere that the "test" of the Plan of Salvation was predicated upon developing a highly refined sense of "love," etc. The existence of the 2nd Anointing---an ordinance which gives people a free pass into the CK---destroys your argument because it demonstrates that this "test" does not apply equally to everyone. Those who are "chummy" with the GAs get preferential treatment.
No; you argued elsewhere that the "test" of the Plan of Salvation was predicated upon developing a highly refined sense of "love," etc. The existence of the 2nd Anointing---an ordinance which gives people a free pass into the CK---destroys your argument because it demonstrates that this "test" does not apply equally to everyone. Those who are "chummy" with the GAs get preferential treatment.
...to say nothing of the family members of the females who sacrificed themselves to Joseph Smith' "marital" bed, and were promised exaltation for all.
We hate to seem like we don’t trust every nut with a story, but there’s evidence we can point to, and dance while shouting taunting phrases.