American Idol for Gods

[_The Nehor]

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.

However, do you need this ordinance in this life to reach exaltation? Everything I've read says no. Also, how do you know who has received this ordinance? You don't. The people who get it are supposed to tell no one.

[_The Nehor]

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.

The difference in degrees is vast. Am omnipotent, omniscient tyrant who wanted to be the center of the Universe could alter his children to fit his every whim. Why let the upstarts surpass him? He could stop it.

[_Mister Scratch]

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.

However, do you need this ordinance in this life to reach exaltation? Everything I've read says no. Also, how do you know who has received this ordinance? You don't. The people who get it are supposed to tell no one.

Nehor---

The OP was attempting to draw a parallel between the LDS Plan of Salvation and American Idol. You were attempting to counter this characterization, were you not? I.e., by trying to demonstrate how Mormonism is really about trying to get everyone to be nice, find true happiness, learn love, etc? Well, my friend, this really isn't the case (as amantha observed) since some folks get their salvation via the 2nd Anointing. A select few get to "Go to Hollywood", American Idol-style, while everyone else is left to writhe about in limbo, never knowing for certain whether to not the election has been made sure.

[_The Nehor]

Nuh-uh :)

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.

Question 1: Happily? Hell no. Would I? I don't know. That scares me that I don't.

Question 2: I haven't met many innocent people. None in fact. I don't think I could happily murder people. I hope I never can. If God can weep over the flood I would hope I would weep over a similar but smaller task. Could I do it? I don't know.

[_beastie]

Question 1: Happily? Hell no. Would I? I don't know. That scares me that I don't.

Question 2: I haven't met many innocent people. None in fact. I don't think I could happily murder people. I hope I never can. If God can weep over the flood I would hope I would weep over a similar but smaller task. Could I do it? I don't know.

Then your experience was less convincing than people who believe in an obvious sham, and quite willingly did these things.

So yes, a sham could definitely give you a taste of heaven, whatever that means.

[_The Nehor]

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.

However, do you need this ordinance in this life to reach exaltation? Everything I've read says no. Also, how do you know who has received this ordinance? You don't. The people who get it are supposed to tell no one.

Nehor---

The OP was attempting to draw a parallel between the LDS Plan of Salvation and American Idol. You were attempting to counter this characterization, were you not? I.e., by trying to demonstrate how Mormonism is really about trying to get everyone to be nice, find true happiness, learn love, etc? Well, my friend, this really isn't the case (as amantha observed) since some folks get their salvation via the 2nd Anointing. A select few get to "Go to Hollywood", American Idol-style, while everyone else is left to writhe about in limbo, never knowing for certain whether to not the election has been made sure.

Oh come on. This is ridiculous. You don't need the Second Anointing to have your calling and election made sure. God just told Joseph. He can do the same for anyone else. Most people I know who are spiritually strong ROUTINELY check with God to see where their standing will get them on Judgment Day. I do it myself. It's not like this is some titanic secret and everyone who makes it will be sweating in line for their turn to find out how they did.

[_The Nehor]

Question 1: Happily? Hell no. Would I? I don't know. That scares me that I don't.

Question 2: I haven't met many innocent people. None in fact. I don't think I could happily murder people. I hope I never can. If God can weep over the flood I would hope I would weep over a similar but smaller task. Could I do it? I don't know.

Then your experience was less convincing than people who believe in an obvious sham, and quite willingly did these things.

So yes, a sham could definitely give you a taste of heaven, whatever that means.

I would contend that the people who quite willingly did these things wanted to making them morally defective individuals. If you believe that God smiles on those who happily murder others and destroy their own bodies then I think you're looking for an Assyrian or Aztec deity, not mine. Would God have been pleased with Abraham had his command to Isaac elicited the reaction: "Oh, thank you. I can't stand the little git. Finally permission to off him and get him out of my hair." If you think he would have, then you don't know my God.

[_amantha]

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.

If your god is the a priori embodiment of perfect morality than he is also perfect in every conceivable way. And I don't think you will try to argue that your god is imperfect in some way. If he is perfect in every conceivable way, then we are speaking of a being who is self-contained and has no need of any imperfection such as human beings to participate in his perfection. This being lacks motivation. Morality is about choice making. A perfect being has no need to make choices because s/he already exists in a state of perfection. Any choice would necessarily be in the direction of less perfection.

You can then argue, that it is simply god's nature to create and therefore create imperfect beings such as humans. If this is the case, then a volitional god becomes superfluous and all that need be posited for the creation of moral man is avolitional and amoral nature itself.

If your physically limited "superman" god created me, he made a choice to do so and therefore decrees his less than perfect morality. If no choice was involved then we are not talking about a distinct, thinking, volitional being.

The very existence of morality precludes the kind of perfect god you wish to believe in. Therefore it is very possible that the morality of a god, as postulated in Mormonism, made a mistake in creating man and that his creation has made a better choice. The choice that your god made (by way of JosephSmith, et al of course) to create worlds, populate them with human life, and then select for only a few who will be permitted to continue to procreate is a bad choice. It's immoral. Better choices are available.

Avail yourself of them.

[_beastie]

I would contend that the people who quite willingly did these things wanted to making them morally defective individuals. If you believe that God smiles on those who happily murder others and destroy their own bodies then I think you're looking for an Assyrian or Aztec deity, not mine. Would God have been pleased with Abraham had his command to Isaac elicited the reaction: "Oh, thank you. I can't stand the little git. Finally permission to off him and get him out of my hair." If you think he would have, then you don't know my God.

Don't you get it???

It doesn't matter what you think about their actions or character.

The only thing that matters, in regards to the point I'm trying to make with you, is that the people themselves had total conviction they were doing God's will. They had SOME sort of experience that fully convicted them of that fact. And the fact that they engaged in these actions (ok, maybe not "happily" but with faith that they were doing to right thing which gave them some sort of happiness in the end result), and you doubt that you could do so means that their experiences were far stronger than yours. And they were caused by a sham.

[_The Nehor]

If your god is the a priori embodiment of perfect morality than he is also perfect in every conceivable way. And I don't think you will try to argue that your god is imperfect in some way. If he is perfect in every conceivable way, then we are speaking of a being who is self-contained and has no need of any imperfection such as human beings to participate in his perfection. This being lacks motivation. Morality is about choice making. A perfect being has no need to make choices because s/he already exists in a state of perfection. Any choice would necessarily be in the direction of less perfection.

You can then argue, that it is simply god's nature to create and therefore create imperfect beings such as humans. If this is the case, then a volitional god becomes superfluous and all that need be posited for the creation of moral man is avolitional and amoral nature itself.

If your physically limited "superman" god created me, he made a choice to do so and therefore decrees his less than perfect morality. If no choice was involved then we are not talking about a distinct, thinking, volitional being.

The very existence of morality precludes the kind of perfect god you wish to believe in. Therefore it is very possible that the morality of a god, as postulated in Mormonism, made a mistake in creating man and that his creation has made a better choice. The choice that your god made (by way of JosephSmith, et al of course) to create worlds, populate them with human life, and then select for only a few who will be permitted to continue to procreate is a bad choice. It's immoral. Better choices are available.

Avail yourself of them.

I disagree with your original statement. I do not believe that a perfect being has no need to make choices. If God were the only thing in existence that might be true. He is not. I do not think creation moved him from perfection. He saw the opportunity to give to others what he has. It would have been immoral NOT to help them. The God in a vacuum that can do nothing and still be perfect is not a good God. It is not a God at all. It simply is. This would be more akin to eastern reincarnation religions which I find I can not accept. Goodness is a proactive thing. God is good therefore he acts. He creates. He blesses. He exalts. He chastens. He corrects. He loves.