Question for Mo Experts

[MG 2.0]

Maybe MG will come back and explain why God would say one thing to McKay, but a decade later, say something completely different to Kimball. What 'line-upon-line' was missing with Pres. McKay?

Time and space. The conditions were not ripe for the revelation to come until Pres. Kimball’s administration. As I said earlier Pres. McKay was somewhat distraught that he couldn’t get an affirmative answer. If he was just winging it and was simply a man doing the best he could doesn’t it seem obvious to you that he would have ‘manufactured’ a revelation? He was taking a certain amount of flack from some brethren as a result of not ‘caving’. He believed that he could not go against the will of the Lord.

From all accounts Pres. McKay was a kind and gentle soul. I’m fairly confident that he personally was on the same page as Hugh B. Brown and others but at the same time he knew he could not disobey the will of the Lord AT THAT TIME.

Perhaps he'll also reappear and answer as to whether or not his "God is not obligated" to answer his chosen prophets is his own opinion or Church doctrine.

I suppose that’s mainly my opinion. Are you aware of any church doctrine that explicitly says God is obligated to answer any and all questions at any given moment in time when a prophet might ‘demand’ it? One thing to remember is that a prophet may beseech an answer from the Lord but the answer might be ‘wait’ or ‘no’.

A question for you and the other folks here.

Do you believe in the divine callings of other prophets such as Isaiah, Moses, Abraham, and other Old Testament prophets? And further do you believe that Jesus Christ was and is the ‘chosen one’, the Son of God?

Why does this matter? Well, I think you can readily figure that one out.

Regards,
MG

[MG 2.0]

It doesn’t matter if “generously” is thrown in there.

If generously is synonymous with ‘more’ I think it does matter.

Regards,
MG

[Morley]

Maybe MG will come back and explain why God would say one thing to McKay, but a decade later, say something completely different to Kimball. What 'line-upon-line' was missing with Pres. McKay?

Time and space. The conditions were not ripe for the revelation to come until Pres. Kimball’s administration. As I said earlier Pres. McKay was somewhat distraught that he couldn’t get an affirmative answer. If he was just winging it and was simply a man doing the best he could doesn’t it seem obvious to you that he would have ‘manufactured’ a revelation? He was taking a certain amount of flack from some brethren as a result of not ‘caving’. He believed that he could not go against the will of the Lord.

From all accounts Pres. McKay was a kind and gentle soul. I’m fairly confident that he personally was on the same page as Hugh B. Brown and others but at the same time he knew he could not disobey the will of the Lord AT THAT TIME.

My argument is not with how much of a mensch Pres. McKay might have been. My disagreement is with your typification of God--your version of God having no obligation to answer his prophets on matters that deny blessings to an entire race; matters that reinforce the prejudices of whole generations of white folks. Your version of God also makes a promise in the Book of Mormon that you think he has no obligation to keep.

Perhaps he'll also reappear and answer as to whether or not his "God is not obligated" to answer his chosen prophets is his own opinion or Church doctrine.

I suppose that’s mainly my opinion.

Thanks, finally, for this. It seems that I have a higher opinion of God than you do.

Are you aware of any church doctrine that explicitly says God is obligated to answer any and all questions at any given moment in time when a prophet might ‘demand’ it? One thing to remember is that a prophet may beseech an answer from the Lord but the answer might be ‘wait’ or ‘no’.

This is your version of God, not mine. This is the version of a God who might tell his prophet something and then, a decade later, reverse himself and say the prophet he talked to was wrong. Why would God do this to his prophet and his chosen people?

A question for you and the other folks here.

Do you believe in the divine callings of other prophets such as Isaiah, Moses, Abraham, and other Old Testament prophets? And further do you believe that Jesus Christ was and is the ‘chosen one’, the Son of God?

Why does this matter? Well, I think you can readily figure that one out.

Why? Are you insinuating that God misled these prophets, too? Again, is this your own opinion or is it Church doctrine?

What does that mean?

[MG 2.0]

Here God, given this is inspired scripture, endorses the view that He will answer questions, liberally. If someone asks He will give. Full stop, right? LDS have an advantage here. They don’t need to assume God is under no obligation to answer questions.

Full stop? Not necessarily. Generously means ‘more’.

In my response to Morley I reminded him that the Lord’s answer may not always confirm or support our own ‘answer inclinations’. An answer could be a ‘no’ or ‘wait’.

And a ‘no’ could be perceived/received as a ‘non answer’.

The answer my also come very forcibly as a ‘yes’ or affirmative response.

I don’t think that the James 1:5 thing is quite as cut and dried as you would like it to be. And again, I’ll reinforce the fact that you don’t believe in any of this ‘nonsense’ anyway. That’s going to color everything you say.

Regards,
MG

[MG 2.0]

A question for you and the other folks here.

Do you believe in the divine callings of other prophets such as Isaiah, Moses, Abraham, and other Old Testament prophets? And further do you believe that Jesus Christ was and is the ‘chosen one’, the Son of God?

Why does this matter? Well, I think you can readily figure that one out.

Answer?

Regards,
MG

[MG 2.0]

It seems that I have a higher opinion of God than you do.

So are we on common ground in a belief in a creator God?

Regards,
MG

[Morley]

Answer?

I answered. I don't think God deceived those prophets, either.

Your turn.

[MG 2.0]

My disagreement is with your typification of God--your version of God having no obligation to answer his prophets on matters that deny blessings to an entire race; matters that reinforce the prejudices of whole generations of white folks.

The time may not have been right. You are, I would assume, aware of everything surrounding the history of the ‘negro question’ (as it was phrased at the time). Armand Mauss’s writings, etc.?

You are shrink wrapping this issue into a small little uncomplicated package. You are mistaken in doing so in my opinion.

Your version of God also makes a promise in the Book of Mormon that you think he has no obligation to keep.

I think He does and He will. This is not synonymous with the meaning inherent in James 1:5.

Regards,
MG

[Morley]

So are we on common ground in a belief in a creator God?

Not your truncated, narrow version of a creator God. Obviously, my God is a whole lot more ethical than yours.

Now, as I said, it's your turn. Please read the post above and respond to it.

[MG 2.0]

Answer?

I answered. I don't think God deceived those prophets, either.

Your turn.

And I don’t think God deceived modern prophets.

I didn’t realize that you were a Christian believer.

Your turn.

Regards,
MG