Question for Mo Experts

[MG 2.0]

And pope Linus. And pope Francis. And the apostle Paul. And Joel Osteen. And Jerry Falwell. And my local rabbi, Imam, and Buddhist monk.

By the way, I don’t’diss’ these individuals for the good that they do or have done.

Especially the Apostle Paul. I think he was called to his mission directly by Jesus Christ.

Regards,
MG

[MG 2.0]

with is your assertion that God has no obligation to answer his prophets is, on the face of it, destructive to the whole idea of a good and just God.

And I disagree. I think I have given a fairly good reasoning for that assertion.

We may be back to the ‘agree to disagree’ point in a discussion?

Regards,
MG

[MG 2.0]

They don’t have the same message.

Regards,
MG

What message is that?

You know what it is. You were a member of the church.

Regards,
MG

[MG 2.0]

Go back and reread my posts in this thread from the beginning. I’ve already answered/addressed your concerns. Read carefully for full comprehension.

I’m not trying to poke at you. I’m serious.

I’ve been down this road before. Don’t waste my time please.

I have read and re-read.

If it's so obvious, show me.

Aargh.

I’ll leave it others to determine whether or not I’ve adequately covered the bases.

Regards,
MG

[MG 2.0]

Honestly, you folks could run around in circles all day long…or until hell freezes over.

“Let’s beat that horse to death!”

Again. And again.

Regards,
MG

[Bret Ripley]

Obviously, my God is a whole lot more ethical than yours.

I think any time you meet someone who considers a person to be God's living mouthpiece on earth, there's a fair-to-middlin' chance you are dealing with someone willing to take a hard pass on ethical considerations: doing the good work of managing expectations leaves little time for hobbies.

[Morley]

I have read and re-read.

If it's so obvious, show me.

Aargh.

I’ll leave it others to determine whether or not I’ve adequately covered the bases.

Ha! At last we agree! You can't show where you did it. I can't show where you did it. We will leave it to everyone else to not be able to show where you did it.

[dastardly stem]

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

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

Regards,
MG

Well I’m asking how so? Whether it says generously or liberally it says the answers will be given to those who ask. It doesn’t say as you keep suggesting that god will not answer questions as he chooses. It says the answer will come.

I mean the point has been made over and over. Ah well. Tough to believe it sounds like.

[Morley]

Honestly, you folks could run around in circles all day long…or until hell freezes over.

“Let’s beat that horse to death!”

Again. And again.

Only it's not really a horse, is it? And it's not really dead, either. It's just a child's drawing of a tapir.

[dastardly stem]

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

Sounds to me like you lack faith. That’s ok. I can’t believe all that nonsense either.