Runtu wrote:EAllusion wrote:The problem is when the believer asserts that our judgement of what is right and wrong in ordinary circumstances can be used to evidence the idea a good God exists, but the reverse is illegitimate. It's inconsistent. If you can't judge God's actions or inaction as inconsistent with benevolence because a morally perfect God might have good reasons beyond your ken, then it just as equally follows that you can't judge God's actions or inactions as inconsistent with malevolence because such a being could just as easily have bad reasons beyond your ken. Maybe that event you think was a wonderful miracle from God was done for evil reasons. God is just beyond your moral judgment at that point. Therefore, you can't believe that God is good.
And if you could believe that God is good, your understanding of what that entails wouldn't inform your ability to anticipate God's behavior. That means arguments like, "I know God isn't lying to me because God is good" go straight out the window. God, after all, can have good reasons for lying to you beyond your understanding just the same as allowing Tay-Sachs babies to suffer. An assertion of God's goodness becomes empty because we don't know what that means. This is a serious theological problem because believers routinely hang ideas about what God will or won't do on the claim of his benevolence.
Again, very well said. This is quite in line with Joseph Smith's statement that whatever God commands is right, no matter what it is. Basically, all bets are off because, no matter what happens, because it's from God, it is good. And the goodness of God thus becomes an assertion based on nothing else.
A serious problem indeed.
Good points brought up in the last number of posts. I've struggled with a number of the same issues along the way. We all struggle with definitions...omnipotence, and the other omni's. The early brethren did. Later prophets of the restoration up to now have. And it is true, in order to move forward with a particle of faith in the LDS movement one necessarily defaults to "whatever God commands is right" and then hopes(based upon the pile of evidence, for and against) that the God that you worship is GOD. If the God of LDS'ism is the creator/God, then it is not unreasonable to accrue inscrutability to that God and his operations along the spectrum of what LOOKS, from our human perspective, to be evil and/or good. OTOH, if one doesn't believe that the God of Mormonism has a chance in heck-fire of being GOD, because of the apparent "quirkiness" of His commands here and there, one is still left to ascertain what GOD is. Or as EA and others have done, ascertain what GOD isn't...literally. Nothing. Another Santa story that's been going on a long time with many flavors and variations on the theme.
I'm not unaware of many of the issues and reasonings that have lead you, EA, Darth, and others, to the conclusions/outlook that you've come to. I would share many of those same views as a matter of FACT...if it wasn't for the "flip side" of the coin (and yes, some of that is probably cultural conditioning and "gut feelings" based on the same...) that tells me that there's something more than what I can SEE or REASON in regards to Christianity's story concerning God/Christ. Mormonism's coming on the scene at a time in world history where it makes a good fit into the world as it is and as it has been (Judeo-Christian principles/history) and where it seems to be going (yes, I know that is potentially more subjective than objective and again is AT LEAST conditioned on my own experience within my cultural mileu), is
interesting, if not prophetic. There seems, to me, a LOT going for the church as it stands along other belief systems. There's some awesome theology/doctrine that has popped on the scene, albeit with a little help from the culture J.S. found himself a part of, since the restoration began in the 1800's.
And granted, there are conundrums. The ineffability and inscrutability stuff that those that proclaim faith end up falling back on can be seen as a cop out. I realize that. I've said before, the ONLY thing that keeps Mormonism on the table for me is the Book of Mormon. None of the other stuff, collectively (prophets, doctrine, authority, etc.) are the golden bullets that kill all the opposition. As I've read the book itself and also books that dig into the complexity of the Book of Mormon written by Grant Hardy, Brant Gardner, and others, I am not convinced that the book NECESSARILY came about as a result of Joseph Smith's genius or any others that were his associates in the beginning stages of Mormonism. Whether or not the Book of Abraham is a "smoking gun" that shoots down the Book of Mormon is of little or no consequence to me at this stage of the game. The Book of Mormon stands alone in its breadth and depth of narrative, complexity, and testimony of God and the redemptive mission of Christ.
So as long as the Book of Mormon comes off the presses and there's reason to think that there's something to it, I'm along for the ride. And I'm willing to default to the position that the ways of God are inscrutable, even when my personal morality and reasoned opinion is in conflict. I know, how can I live with contradiction between what my mind and heart tell me and what I have to live with as I come up against the things that don't make sense?
I just do. Until I see something better/richer come along...which I haven't. The Book of Mormon is indeed a keystone to my continued practice of plausible faith/hope within the confines of the Mormon narrative of reality. Prove it false or come up with the "smoking gun" against its authenticity, for a fact, and I'm probably going to be right there with you.
Otherwise, I'm comfortable being an orthopractic, if not TBM'y orthodox (how can I be?), member of the church. Believing (conditionally), and willing at this stage of the game to live with reservations and ambiguity in many respects.
Regards,
MG
