The hell of Mormon afterlife

[_Morley]

Do two wrongs make a right?

The point I'm trying to make in a convoluted sort of way and it now appears that there may be some misunderstanding due to my lack of being more explicit and communicating more directly is simply this:

With a mass of humanity endowed with moral agency there are going to be myriads upon myriads of moral dilemmas distributed throughout the aggregate of humanity and as they are compounded are going to create/result in massive amounts of ambiguity and gray area where the wrongs and rights get intermixed together and often become nebulous and difficult when attempting to always make the perfect judgment calls. God, being all knowing, is able to take/work with all the wrongs and rights and ultimately make lemonade. At times He may even introduce what appears to be a wrong (the Abraham/Isaac story) in order to achieve a greater good. Either immediately or down the road. The wrongs that humans do are wrong within the scope of individual actions and outcomes but those wrongs can be made into lemonade in the aggregate. We focus on the wrongs as being the end all rather than looking to how wrongs can be catalysts towards a greater good.

It is God that is the conductor and orchestrates the symphony, or should I say cacophony, of choices...wrong and right...to ultimately make the best composite outcomes possible.

I think that we often fail to factor in the real messiness of it all and would like to see God operate in a fashion that meets our moral expectations in the here and now. We, simply put, want to make black and white moral judgments that are 'just right' or 'just wrong'. Period. But as a discerning mind can see, moral dilemmas and inconsistencies among fallible human beings create a world where morality is more realistically defined in a way closer to the way Joseph Smith defined it (posted earlier).

I suppose the thing that I take issue with at times on this board and among some critics is that it seems like folks would like to put God in a box and define what He can and can't to rather than letting an all knowing God just be God. And trust that He has us all covered and has our best interests at heart. I see folks frequently questioning that assumption, in one way or another, and then sooner or later finding themselves either agnostic/atheist or some flavor of pantheist.

They can't wrap their mind around a God that is a LOT bigger than they are.

Regards,
MG

Thank you for your testimony, Brother Gymnast. Now would like to go back and address the issues you suggested that you'd confront, once people answered your questions?

[Guest]

I suppose the thing that I take issue with at times on this board and among some critics is that it seems like folks would like to put God in a box and define what He can and can't to rather than letting an all knowing God just be God. And trust that He has us all covered and has our best interests at heart. I see folks frequently questioning that assumption, in one way or another, and then sooner or later finding themselves either agnostic/atheist or some flavor of pantheist.

They can't wrap their mind around a God that is a LOT bigger than they are.

MG -

If you assume that God is the one that defines right from wrong, you have no ability to act as a moral agent yourself. You can only obey or disobey. Period. It gets worse when you try and excuse obvious bad behavior as God just knowing more than us so what may appear to be immoral and wrong to us is due to our inadequate view. This further eliminates any chance of behaving with moral agency because one can only take ones bearing off of a God who you can't predict.

I argue that you took issue with that claim but have done nothing to show why it isn't actually true. Instead, you keep reinforcing the foundations for that claim but seem blind to the inevitable consequences.

You are obedient to a cartel boss.

OTOH, like you said, it's easy for someone who rejects this being to see commanding a person to kill their son is wrong. It's the most insightful thing you've said in this thread.

[_Lemmie]

mg:

I suppose the thing that I take issue with at times on this board and among some critics is that it seems like folks would like to put God in a box and define what He can and can't to rather than letting an all knowing God just be God. And trust that He has us all covered and has our best interests at heart. I see folks frequently questioning that assumption, in one way or another....

Ya think??

honor, to mg:

You are obedient to a cartel boss.

Exactly.

Morley:

Thank you for your testimony, Brother Gymnast. Now would like to go back and address the issues you suggested that you'd confront, once people answered your questions?

Amen.

[_Morley]

It is [Vito Corleone] that is the conductor and orchestrates the symphony, or should I say cacophony, of choices...wrong and right...to ultimately make the best composite outcomes possible.

I think that we often fail to factor in the real messiness of it all and would like to see [the Godfther] operate in a fashion that meets our moral expectations in the here and now. We, simply put, want to make black and white moral judgments that are 'just right' or 'just wrong'. Period. ....

I suppose the thing that I take issue with at times on this board and among some critics is that it seems like folks would like to put [the Godfather] in a box and define what he can and can't to rather than letting an all knowing [Vito Corleone] just be [the Godfather]. And trust that he has us all covered and has our best interests at heart. I see folks frequently questioning that assumption, in one way or another....

They can't wrap their mind around a [Godfather] that is a LOT bigger than they are. : wink:

[My color substitutions.]


This is what Honor is trying to get you to see, MG.

[_mentalgymnast]

It is [Vito Corleone] that is the conductor and orchestrates the symphony, or should I say cacophony, of choices...wrong and right...to ultimately make the best composite outcomes possible.

I think that we often fail to factor in the real messiness of it all and would like to see [the Godfther] operate in a fashion that meets our moral expectations in the here and now. We, simply put, want to make black and white moral judgments that are 'just right' or 'just wrong'. Period. ....

I suppose the thing that I take issue with at times on this board and among some critics is that it seems like folks would like to put [the Godfather] in a box and define what he can and can't to rather than letting an all knowing [Vito Corleone] just be [the Godfather]. And trust that he has us all covered and has our best interests at heart. I see folks frequently questioning that assumption, in one way or another....

They can't wrap their mind around a [Godfather] that is a LOT bigger than they are. : wink:

[My color substitutions.]

This is what Honor is trying to show you, MG.

Well played. I do realize, believe it or not, what Honor was drawing comparison to. The thing is, I find it a shallow comparison.

Mob boss: A boss typically has absolute or nearly absolute control over the other members of the organization, is greatly feared for his ruthlessness and willingness to take lives to exert their influence, and profits from the criminal endeavors in which the organization engages.

God: Typically has absolute or nearly absolute control over His creations, is greatly feared, and purportedly profits from the endeavors in which a church engages (selfish/self centered gods/leaders).

Oh. I see what you mean.

But your analogy depends on how we describe God's control vs. a Godfather's control. Force vs. love and agency to choose (God has little choice over the decisions people make in regards to obedience to His commandments). Are YOU forced to do anything? What profit does God receive? To see the growth, progress and happiness of His children. Sort of in direct opposition to the profit a mafia Don expects to receive. Every benefit is directed outward to His children not to Himself. His glory is the happiness of others.

Using a cartel boss as a direct analogy looks good on the surface but falls apart on further analysis. I could go on, but that should suffice.

Nice try.

Regards,
MG

[_honorentheos]

But your analogy depends on how we describe God's control vs. a Godfather's control. Force vs. love and agency to choose (God has little choice over the decisions people make in regards to obedience to His commandments). Are YOU forced to do anything? What profit does God receive? To see the growth, progress and happiness of His children. Sort of in direct opposition to the profit a mafia Don expects to receive. Every benefit is directed outward to His children not to Himself. His glory is the happiness of others.

Using a cartel boss as a direct analogy looks good on the surface but falls apart on further analysis. I could go on, but that should suffice.

It doesn't depend on how we describe God's control. It depends on if the source of morality is the will of an authority figure. If it is, then the story of Abraham is the story of a cartel boss ordering a henchman to kill his son with a gun loaded with blanks.

If morality is separate from the authority figure's will, then our moral compass should point out to us that commanding someone to kill their son to prove their loyalty is wrong.

You keep choosing the first option, and then trying to defend the actions of the authority figure whose will is inconsistent. The authority figure can authorize murder in which case murder is not wrong. The authority figure can authorize rape in which case rape is not wrong. The authority figure can authorize deceit and theft in which case both are not wrong. Yet you'd be the first in line to claim there is such a thing as objective morality because it is defined by what God wills.

You can't be a moral agent in this system. You only get to choose to obey or disobey the authority figure. You say he operates with perfect love so we should trust him. Yet you can't offer a simple defense of his having told Abraham to kill his son to prove his loyalty that demonstrates there was a moral purpose behind this other than to reinforce the need for God to be obeyed.

So, yeah. Your version of morality is choosing to obey and defend a cartel boss.

[_Gadianton]

If by this we are assuming what God wills to be is good, what is against God's will is evil, to act against God's will is sin, and God sent the angel of the LORD to stop Abraham it seems simple enough to say yes, for Abraham to proceed in killing Isaac and preventing his living a life of fulfillment and joy would have been a sin.

Yeah, that's the answer when you hit rock bottom. I guess I just wanted someone else to say it. But now at rock bottom, is there any chance? God can cease to be God, does MG believe that? What would be an example of God sinning and "poof!" Deep within the bowels of the universe somewhere, is an information source superior to the so-far perfect calculations of God, that is holding him accountable.

At any rate, MG is directly arguing that God's commands are arbitrary, and that God's plan is utterly incoherent. God's commands are epistemically arbitrary. Ontologically, there may be moral reality, but we have no representation of that reality.

As an example, it's as if we pull a slip of paper from a hat with an instruction. Each instruction when obeyed turns a spindle of a celestial Rubik's cube. We can't comprehend the movements. Often there are temporary patterns, but then the next move makes no sense given previous turns. Our best bet is to blindly follow the commands because the whole thing is "above our paygrade". When all is said and done, the cube is solved, but this cube is in 13 dimensions and our brains cannot appreciate what the solution even means.

MG may have began with a mob boss, but now he's quickly advancing to outright nihilism.

[_honorentheos]

If by this we are assuming what God wills to be is good, what is against God's will is evil, to act against God's will is sin, and God sent the angel of the LORD to stop Abraham it seems simple enough to say yes, for Abraham to proceed in killing Isaac and preventing his living a life of fulfillment and joy would have been a sin.

Yeah, that's the answer when you hit rock bottom. I guess I just wanted someone else to say it. But now at rock bottom, is there any chance? God can cease to be God, does MG believe that? What would be an example of God sinning and "poof!" Deep within the bowels of the universe somewhere, is an information source superior to the so-far perfect calculations of God, that is holding him accountable.

I think that's the other side of the Euthyphro Dilemma, that what is good is good, and therefore God loves it. But in Mormonism it's more along the lines of what is just is just and God can't rob justice so justice is the supreme *something* that is more powerful than even God. But that means what God wills isn't inherently good but rather God is obligated to conform his will to what is good which exists outside of his will.

Now, I'm personally inclined to see the idea God could command the entire destruction of a people including the children as pretty unjust. And the Bible tells us God did that more than a few times. Yet people still tell us he's out there being god and exerting his will, telling Nephi to murder Laban and Joseph Smith to lie to Emma about bumping uglies with Fanny Alger among a score or two of others (score seeming to be the correct unit of measure for spirit wives). So if we were to assume Mormonism was true, and God is the same, original God and not someone who got a field promotion after the flood or whatever other mass murder described in the Bible poofed the original out of office, then I think we have to come down on our having no freaking idea what justice means and therefore we're back to just having to obey God. We can't use our own moral compasses in the Mormon universe because morality is indiscernible by observing the behavior and whims of whomever is in charge.

At any rate, MG is directly arguing that God's commands are arbitrary, and that God's plan is utterly incoherent. God's commands are epistemically arbitrary. Ontologically, there may be moral reality, but we have no representation of that reality.

As an example, it's as if we pull a slip of paper from a hat with an instruction. Each instruction when obeyed turns a spindle of a celestial Rubik's cube. We can't comprehend the movements. Often there are temporary patterns, but then the next move makes no sense given previous turns. Our best bet is to blindly follow the commands because the whole thing is "above our paygrade". When all is said and done, the cube is solved, but this cube is in 13 dimensions and our brains cannot appreciate what the solution even means.

MG may have began with a mob boss, but now he's quickly advancing to outright nihilism.

Yeah, like that. Good points.

[_Doctor CamNC4Me]

I’m still hung up on the she-bear incident.

- Doc

[_fetchface]

If God commands genocide including the killing of absolutely innocent infants, what would I expect Satan to try to do to do something worse?

How do we know that the real, moral God hasn't been imprisoned somewhere and replaced by his enemy? What would it look like if that were to happen? Do you suppose that an evil deity might try to get his followers to murder others and then tell them they did a good thing?

Given the evidence, it is not at all obvious that God is good. Now Jesus seems like a decent guy, but the father seems like quite the monster.