Question for Mo Experts

[MG 2.0]

This is not my first go around with this particular form of deflection.

Oh, I'm well aware of that. Your I-answered-this-somewhere-but-i'm-not-gonna-show-you shtick gets old. It joins your strategy of giving a link to a book and saying the answer is there. But as often as you do it, one would think you'd get better at it. Your unwillingness to just link to, or at least summarize, the argument you claim to have made is pretty transparent.

My comments throughout the thread to others had connection/correlation to the topic and the general line of questioning you were interested in.

It looks as though we each have some holes to punch in what we believe to be the evasive strategy of the other. The difference being that I know I’m right and you’re wrong.

Regards,
MG

[MG 2.0]

God is under no obligation to conform to our expectations of what He ought or should do in all situations.

Common sense.

God is the arbitrator of dispensing knowledge and power.

Not us.

Regards,
MG

[malkie]

Everything we see is consistent with the view that the god of Mormonism does not exist.

ETA: in my opinion, of course.

[Marcus]

God is under no obligation to conform to our expectations of what He ought or should do in all situations.

Common sense.

God is the arbitrator of dispensing knowledge and power.

Not us.

...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.

Now it's "common sense." Closer, but still no answer yet as to whether its his own opinion or doctrine.

[Morley]

Now it's "common sense." Closer, but still no answer yet as to whether its his own opinion or doctrine.

He actually eventually did.

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.

It's MG's version of God who has no obligation to answer his prophet's faithful, sincere, and relevant enquiries. This MG's view of the universe. I don't know that anyone else wants to own it.

[Morley]

It looks as though we each have some holes to punch in what we believe to be the evasive strategy of the other.

I must have missed this. What question of yours did I evade? Where did you call attention to it?

[Doctor CamNC4Me]

Now it's "common sense." Closer, but still no answer yet as to whether its his own opinion or doctrine.

He actually eventually did.

I suppose that’s mainly my opinion.

It's MG's version of God who has no obligation to answer his prophet's faithful, sincere, and relevant enquiries. This MG's view of the universe. I don't know that anyone else wants to own it.

So, his god is capricious, probably fickle, and definitely inconstant. Got it.

- Doc

[malkie]

He actually eventually did.



It's MG's version of God who has no obligation to answer his prophet's faithful, sincere, and relevant enquiries. This MG's view of the universe. I don't know that anyone else wants to own it.

So, his god is capricious, probably fickle, and definitely inconstant. Got it.

- Doc

Parody
Only to our eyes.

God always does what is best for us, but his ways are not our ways, and are completely opaque to us.

Reverting to reason
Of course, as has been pointed out before, even if this god exists, we have no possible way of knowing whether s/he is acting for our benefit or not: for all we know, god could be holding us back from reaching our true potential, and will eventually kill us all off again - perhaps with not even 8 human survivors and a boatload of animals next time.

It may even be that god is really a super-duper tardigrade, and has already populated the universe with planets full of copies of himself.

ETA: I added the heading "Parody" to the start of my comment, since it seems not to have been obvious

[Morley]

It's MG's version of God who has no obligation to answer his prophet's faithful, sincere, and relevant enquiries. This MG's view of the universe. I don't know that anyone else wants to own it.

So, his god is capricious, probably fickle, and definitely inconstant. Got it.

To MG's credit, he's at least trying to come up with an explanation for his God's apparently irrational behavior. As bad as his explanation is, this is seemingly the only one that logically fits for him.


edit: As endlessly frustrating as I find it to try to pry any kind of consistent and honest answers from him, kudos to MG for sometimes being willing to engage.

[MG 2.0]

It looks as though we each have some holes to punch in what we believe to be the evasive strategy of the other.

I must have missed this. What question of yours did I evade? Where did you call attention to it?

The hole in your arguments revolve around being unable to accept/conceive of a God who keeps things from us without revealing all…all at once. At least if I’m understanding you correctly.

Regards,
MG