mg wrote:
...This is an example, again, of prioritizing perceived divine mandates over legal and ethical norms. It's a tough one to wrap your mind around, granted. Our modern sensibilities, especially around consent and agency, undoubtedly clash with historical practices in and out of the church. One thing for sure, if there is a judgement, Joseph will be judged accordingly according to the light and knowledge that he had at the time and whether or not he exercised his agency appropriately. I'm not the one making that call...
Mg's excuses are disturbingly close to the justifications used by those who do things like hijack planes to crash into the World Towers. Justifying evil because you "just believe" is horrifying.
Yes. MG’s position is that it’s okay to do illegal or immoral acts if you believe God wants you to do it. He then tries to mitigate that position by saying that in the event God didn’t want you do it, you were mistaken, then you’ll account for that after you’re dead.
A real life example. If Warren Jeff’s believed God wanted him to marry and have sex with very young women, then MG thinks that’s okay on the basis that if it’s not okay God will sort that out later. It’s a position of moral abdication that he’s taking. MG would have been okay with Jeffrey Epstein had he lived in New York in 1830 and claimed himself to be a Mormon Prophet.
Premise 1. Eyewitness testimony is notoriously unreliable.
Premise 2. The best evidence for the Book of Mormon is eyewitness testimony.
Conclusion. Therefore, the best evidence for the Book of Mormon is notoriously unreliable.
This is an example, again, of prioritizing perceived divine mandates over legal and ethical norms. It's a tough one to wrap your mind around, granted. Our modern sensibilities, especially around consent and agency, undoubtedly clash with historical practices in and out of the church. One thing for sure, if there is a judgement, Joseph will be judged accordingly according to the light and knowledge that he had at the time and whether or not he exercised his agency appropriately. I'm not the one making that call.
Regards,
MG
The problem, as I mentioned in another thread, is that the prioritization is purely arbitrary - whether you consider modern or historical practices. For the FLDS, the LDS church is apostate, and Jeffs etc. act according to what, apparently, they sincerely believe is divine mandate. Do you support them in doing so?
I'm rather neutral, I guess. Why? Because I don't know that it could/should be otherwise. What's gonna happen is gonna happen. Humans do stuff. And sometimes humans do stuff claiming it's from God.
The problem, as I mentioned in another thread, is that the prioritization is purely arbitrary - whether you consider modern or historical practices. For the FLDS, the LDS church is apostate, and Jeffs etc. act according to what, apparently, they sincerely believe is divine mandate. Do you support them in doing so?
I'm rather neutral, I guess. Why? Because I don't know that it could/should be otherwise. What's gonna happen is gonna happen. Humans do stuff. And sometimes humans do stuff claiming it's from God.
Regards,
MG
"Neutral", meaning that their claim is as good as anyone else's? Or that you cannot be sure?
That suggests to me that you'd be just as happy as FLDS as you are being LDS.
You can help Ukraine by talking for an hour a week!! PM me, or check www.enginprogram.org for details. Слава Україні!, 𝑺𝒍𝒂𝒗𝒂 𝑼𝒌𝒓𝒂𝒊𝒏𝒊!
Earlier I mentioned that there were some posters that I have chosen to put on ignore. I gave reasons then why when I did so. As a result, my participation is curtailed to the point where I respond only to those that at this point in time (and after a lot of thought) I believe are serious 'seekers' and/or 'friendly's' rather than those that simply have an agenda to tear down the church or its members. I cannot spend the time or bandwidth or emotional/intellectual resources going the rounds with those that continue to rehash past grievances/grudges.
As a result, there may be some things said that might be designed to come my way that don't get read. It is what it is.
I have enjoyed being able to interact in a civil fashion with some posters recently. Morley and malkie come to mind. That is the way it ought to be. That is all I have time and energy for.
There is only one of me and I have other things that interest me. But I do find interacting with some folks interesting and informative. And I don't mind the pushback if done appropriately.
Earlier I mentioned that there were some posters that I have chosen to put on ignore. I gave reasons then why when I did so. As a result, my participation is curtailed to the point where I respond only to those that at this point in time (and after a lot of thought) I believe are serious 'seekers' and/or 'friendly's' rather than those that simply have an agenda to tear down the church or its members. I cannot spend the time or bandwidth or emotional/intellectual resources going the rounds with those that continue to rehash past grievances/grudges.
As a result, there may be some things said that might be designed to come my way that don't get read. It is what it is.
I have enjoyed being able to interact in a civil fashion with some posters recently. Morley and malkie come to mind. That is the way it ought to be. That is all I have time and energy for.
There is only one of me and I have other things that interest me. But I do find interacting with some folks interesting and informative. And I don't mind the pushback if done appropriately.
Regards,
MG
Premise 1. Eyewitness testimony is notoriously unreliable.
Premise 2. The best evidence for the Book of Mormon is eyewitness testimony.
Conclusion. Therefore, the best evidence for the Book of Mormon is notoriously unreliable.
Earlier I mentioned that there were some posters that I have chosen to put on ignore. I gave reasons then why when I did so. As a result, my participation is curtailed to the point where I respond only to those that at this point in time (and after a lot of thought) I believe are serious 'seekers' and/or 'friendly's' rather than those that simply have an agenda to tear down the church or its members. I cannot spend the time or bandwidth or emotional/intellectual resources going the rounds with those that continue to rehash past grievances/grudges.
As a result, there may be some things said that might be designed to come my way that don't get read. It is what it is.
I have enjoyed being able to interact in a civil fashion with some posters recently. Morley and malkie come to mind. That is the way it ought to be. That is all I have time and energy for.
There is only one of me and I have other things that interest me. But I do find interacting with some folks interesting and informative. And I don't mind the pushback if done appropriately.
Regards,
MG
"There will come a time when the rich own all the media, and it will be impossible for the public to make an informed opinion." Albert Einstein, ~1949 "It is difficult to free fools from the chains they revere." Voltaire
I'm rather neutral, I guess. Why? Because I don't know that it could/should be otherwise. What's gonna happen is gonna happen. Humans do stuff. And sometimes humans do stuff claiming it's from God.
Regards,
MG
"Neutral", meaning that their claim is as good as anyone else's? Or that you cannot be sure?
That suggests to me that you'd be just as happy as FLDS as you are being LDS.
That their claim is just that. A claim. Anyone has the right to make a claim. I don't have to believe it. No, I don't think I would be happy being FLDS at all. I don't think their fruits hold a candle to what fruits have come out of the SL church and the succession of President/Prophets.
"Neutral", meaning that their claim is as good as anyone else's? Or that you cannot be sure?
That suggests to me that you'd be just as happy as FLDS as you are being LDS.
That their claim is just that. A claim. Anyone has the right to make a claim. I don't have to believe it. No, I don't think I would be happy being FLDS at all. I don't think their fruits hold a candle to what fruits have come out of the SL church and the succession of President/Prophets.
Regards,
MG
Fruits like the Priesthood Ban and financial malfeasance?
Premise 1. Eyewitness testimony is notoriously unreliable.
Premise 2. The best evidence for the Book of Mormon is eyewitness testimony.
Conclusion. Therefore, the best evidence for the Book of Mormon is notoriously unreliable.
"Neutral", meaning that their claim is as good as anyone else's? Or that you cannot be sure?
That suggests to me that you'd be just as happy as FLDS as you are being LDS.
That their claim is just that. A claim. Anyone has the right to make a claim. I don't have to believe it. No, I don't think I would be happy being FLDS at all. I don't think their fruits hold a candle to what fruits have come out of the SL church and the succession of President/Prophets.
Regards,
MG
Goose/Gander - The LDS claim is just that. A claim. Anyone has the right to make a claim. Nobody has to believe it.
Neutrality suggests to me that perhaps you just need to have been born FLDS in order to have the "correct" perspective. FLDS members are likely just as convinced of the validity of their claims, and their "fruits". Do you have any other way to distinguish LDS from FLDS claims? I don't believe so, but I'm open to your thoughts.
You can help Ukraine by talking for an hour a week!! PM me, or check www.enginprogram.org for details. Слава Україні!, 𝑺𝒍𝒂𝒗𝒂 𝑼𝒌𝒓𝒂𝒊𝒏𝒊!
That their claim is just that. A claim. Anyone has the right to make a claim. I don't have to believe it. No, I don't think I would be happy being FLDS at all. I don't think their fruits hold a candle to what fruits have come out of the SL church and the succession of President/Prophets.
Regards,
MG
Goose/Gander - The LDS claim is just that. A claim. Anyone has the right to make a claim. Nobody has to believe it.
Neutrality suggests to me that perhaps you just need to have been born FLDS in order to have the "correct" perspective. FLDS members are likely just as convinced of the validity of their claims, and their "fruits". Do you have any other way to distinguish LDS from FLDS claims? I don't believe so, but I'm open to your thoughts.
I agree, if he'd been raised FLDS he would be an FLDS believer. That's the scary part about beliefs like those mg expresses here.
