Blocked from posting at MDD -- Mor. 10:3-5 question

[_sethpayne]

I was blocked from posting on the MDD after I made the following post:

After rereading Moroni 10:3-5 with my new perspective on religion (as a non-believer), I realized that there are several implicit assumptions made in taking the "Moroni challenge". For those not familiar with it, here is the text of the promise.

merciful the Lord hath been unto the children of men, from the creation of Adam even down until the time that ye shall receive these things, and bponder it in your chearts.
ask God, the Eternal Father, in the name of Christ, if these things are not btrue; and if ye shall ask with a csincere heart, with dreal intent, having efaith in Christ, he will fmanifest the gtruth of it unto you, by the power of the Holy Ghost.
know the btruth of all things.

Assumptions (short list):

1. God(s) exists.
2. Thinking about the scriptures increases the likelihood that said god(s) will answer your prayer
3. Adam was a real person
4. The earth was created by god
5. God(s) are willing to answer human prayers
6. Praying is an effective way to communicate with god(s)
7. God(s) is/are willing to manifest truth to people who pray
8. A sincere heart affects whether you will get an answer
9. Real intent affects whether you will get an answer
10. Jesus Christ was a real person
11.The Holy Ghost is an effective way of communicating with God(s).
12. It will be the god(s) in question answering your prayer and not another god(s).
13. The answer will be confirmation that the Book of Mormon is true.
14. God has been good to the children of men.

Also, not explicitly stated in the verses but implied in Mormon culture are the following assumptions:

15. The answer from God comes almost exclusively in the form of "feelings"
16. Another god is unable to answer your prayer (i.e. Lucifer).

There are also other assumptions built into this "promise", but let's start with these. Do we have any outside (e.g. logical) verification that the above assumptions are valid? In other words, how do we know that Mor. 10:3-5 is a valid way to arrive at objective "truth".

[Mod Scottie: modified title to reflect MDD instead of MDB]

This seems pretty tame. I wonder what the mods thought was so offensive.

Seth

[_moksha]

This seems pretty tame. I wonder what the mods thought was so offensive.

Seth

Trying to second guess the reasoning behind a Mormon Dialogue moderator's decisions would be an exercise in futility and if sustained for any period of time would cause blindness and premature palm hair growth.

[_keithb]

Trying to second guess the reasoning behind a Mormon Dialogue moderator's decisions would be an exercise in futility and if sustained for any period of time would cause blindness and premature palm hair growth.

If I had to make a guess, I would guess that it would be because posts like these have the potential to hit at the testimonies of members a lot more than most of what gets said on MAD (or whatever the appropriate acronym is).

With most things, for better or worse, the moderators and other posters can essentially tell the people to "go and pray about it". Have questions about how there could have been a global flood 4,000 years ago and no scientific trace? Go pray about it. Have questions about Book of Abraham, KEP, Book of Mormon, polyandry, etc.? Go pray about it. If you can't answer the questions, you somehow lack faith.

But, what do you tell someone who is trying to question the whole praying experience? In a way, if you take that away from religion, you just about nail shut the coffin.

[_KevinSim]

I think the only relevant point Moroni left out was that you must be OF THE TRUTH, in other words, one of those little ones whom that Father has given and put into the hands of Christ before anything spoken by the prophets will manifest in you. Sorry. Did you think everything must be fairsy-waresy and Even-Stephen as if administered by a nanny in daycare? Hmm?

Nightlion, you also quoted a number of scriptures that I think you thought supported your point. But if we can't count on God being good, which as far as I can tell implies fair, then what's to keep God from lying about what He does in those scriptures? How do we know that a God who isn't "fairsy-waresy" or "Even-Stephen" is telling us the truth?

[_KevinSim]

Given that God doesn't "want to" be straightforward about it, apparently, there is no other way to find out about God's will save be the one method that is easiest for people to lie about.

What's straightforward about descending from the sky and calling a conference? That implies that it's God's purpose to empirically verify that He exists. I don't see how we can conclude that's His purpose at all. He's provided us with documents that talk about His will in our lives; why isn't that enough?

What you said about the "one method" is true enough; finding out the truth about God's will in one's life is a private matter, completely between that one and God, so it is easy for people to lie about it. But no reasonable person would ask anyone else to trust that what God told her/him did in fact come from God; instead I say that anybody else should ask God herself/himself what God's will is in that person's life.

[_KevinSim]

Welcome to the board Kevin!

Thanks!

On your first point, I would say that assumptions 5,6, and 7 don't necessarily follow, depending on your model of God. For example, we could have a Deist model of god where God exists but doesn't interact with humanity, negating assumption 5. Also, we could have a Calvinist God that chooses who to reveal the truth to or not independent of human effort, negating assumption 6.

My response is that I really don't see that much difference between either a Deist model of God or a Calvinist idea of God, and no God at all. Think about it.

If the Calvinist model really is accurate, and therefore God really does choose "who to reveal the truth to or not independent of human effort," then what's to keep such a deity from doing anything at all? Why would such a deity have any qualms about putting lies about himself into the scriptures? Sure, we think that would be a bad thing to do, but there are plenty of people who think choosing favorites where individual merit (or at least some effort on the individual's part) doesn't come into the equation is also a very bad thing to do. There's absolutely nothing we can know about that type of a deity, because what seems good to us might not be good to that deity, so we could never ever have a clue as to what type of deity he really was.

The Deist model is just as bad, and the whole appeal of the Deist model was that it gave an explanation for how the world and universe came into being, and we don't need that anymore anyhow.

So, why even consider the possibility that either the Deist model or the Calvinist model might be right? What's the difference, as far as we mortals are concerned, between those two models and no God at all?

I'm reminded of one atheist's argument some time back that belief in God was like belief in what he postulated as invisible pink unicorns. Belief in either a Deist God or a Calvinist God is no different from belief in invisible pink unicorns. Sure, either of those two types of God or invisible pink unicorns may in fact (hypothetically) exist, but why would anybody in their right mind care whether they did?

It just seems to me to make more sense to believe in the existence of a deity that we can actually draw conclusions about.

As for the second statement, let me propose something. Let's say I claim to have been abducted by aliens. Is this statement objectively true?

If it is, you should inform SETI. :)

In all seriousness, though, I have no idea whether or not you can objectively demonstrate that you've "been abducted by aliens." A lot of people turn skeptical when someone says s/he (or someone else) has "been abducted by aliens," and I'd probably include myself in that group. But I certainly don't know any inherent reason I could use to conclude that someone that would make that claim must be out of that someone's mind.

I guess that someone's ability to objectively verify that someone had "been abducted by aliens" would depend on the care the aliens had been taking to keep people from knowing they exist. The greater the care they'd taken, the harder it would be to objectively verify the someone had been abducted.

Is it subjectively true (whatever that means)?

The idea of subjective truth has been around for a long time. Descartes thought he had discovered the subjective truth that he existed back in the 1600s. His argument turned out to be flawed, but there's a certain amount of attractiveness to it that has won him disciples all the centuries since and probably will continue to win more for the rest of eternity.

The principal advantage of objective truth is that large groups of people can agree on a set of easily observable, easily verifiable, facts. The principal disadvantage of objective truth is that, technically, not one person out of that large group really knows that any of the rest, or even the non-animate observable universe, really exists.

But peple who listen to Descartes (and I do to some extent) would say that regardless of what we see in the observable universe, each one of us can be certain that that one exists, and I think I agree with Descartes that far.

If you have actually undergone an experience that makes you believe you've been abducted by aliens, then that's a real phenomenon, and it's perfectly understandable that you might be interested in exploring its implications. It might be wise for you to consider the possibility that you hallucinated the whole thing, but it would be unwise in my opinion to let that possibility overshadow everything else.

Because I believe it strongly, does it mean that mean that belief should be respected?

Respected how? I personally believe that anybody's strong beliefs should be respected, to some degree. So I guess I need to know what you mean specifically by respected.

What would be some methods to decide if the statement was true in a factual sense or not?

Once again, that depends on the care the aliens had taken to keep people from knowing they exist.

[_Pollypinks]

The thought was posed that why would a certain percentage of god's creation be created without a shot at hearing the gospel. My interpretation folks, no offense intended. My universalist leanings are always asking born again christians why would a perfect god, incapable of imperfection or hate, create 3/4 of his children to be burned in hell?

[_KevinSim]

The thought was posed that why would a certain percentage of god's creation be created without a shot at hearing the gospel. My interpretation folks, no offense intended. My universalist leanings are always asking born again christians why would a perfect god, incapable of imperfection or hate, create 3/4 of his children to be burned in hell?

Pollypinks, I think you're shooting way over the mark. I don't understand why a good God would create one soul that He knew would burn in hell.

If we can't know that a good God would cause any given soul to cease to exist, if He could, rather than let that soul suffer unbearable agony forever, without any relief from suffering ever, then what can we know that a good God would do?

[_Pollypinks]

Granted, if you are an atheist, I'm shooting over the mark. My personal belief is he didn't create anyone to exist in hell.

[_Gadianton]

What's straightforward about descending from the sky and calling a conference?

Oh I don't know Kev. What's straightforward about walking into work and saying "G'day" to your friends vs. hoping they will all feel the well wishes you harbor for them as you silently walk by?

But no reasonable person would ask anyone else to trust that what God told her/him did in fact come from God; instead I say that anybody else should ask God herself/himself what God's will is in that person's life.

It's very plausible to me that Ron Lafferty does not demand the rest of the world to accept what he's said. In fact, I would tend to think self-designated prophets subconsciously realize that no one will ever take their side, and therefore, are inclined to stand stoically as they are rejected. The problem with Lafferty isn't an expectation that the world agree with him for killing a kid as God instructed, but that he killed a kid as God instructed.