God can write straight with crooked lines.

[Limnor]

Gad—I realize you can’t get inside my old co-workers’s head, but why do you think he said that a “no” answer to the Moroni prayer was impossible?

[Rivendale]

The same way Dan said that there can be no valid criticism of the LDS church.

Since the Church is ex hypothesi true, there can be no genuine evidence that it is false. There can be seeming evidence against its claims, evidence that reasonable people might well regard as genuine and damning. In the end, though, on the assumption that the claims of the Church are true, what seems to be genuine, damning evidence against it must ultimately prove not to be such.

[Gadianton]

but it was the “double feelings” that confused me—how could you “feel in love” but “feel like God said no” simultaneously? You sort of explain it as almost a form of “self-deception” but it isn’t really clear. Though maybe it isn’t clear everyone else either, including adherents.

I enjoy seeing an outsider come to grips with it, it helps realize how things that seem obvious aren't obvious due to our different paths. Let's proceed slowly. Let's first substitute the magic 8-ball for the holy ghost. I feel like I'm in love. I want to marry the girl. I'm not asking the 8-ball if I'm in love, I'm asking the 8-ball if I should marry the girl. The 8-ball sees all, that practical matters will be a problem and says no. I'm not asking the 8-ball if I'm really in love, which, in fairness, perhaps the 8-ball understand infatuation better than I do, but I can't recall anyone taking prayer this far. Does that make sense?

Suppose I begin reading the origin of species, it sounds really cool and makes tons of sense. I feel good. I ask the magic 8-ball if it's true, the 8-ball says it's false. The 8-ball knows everything about science, so I go with its authority. Does that make sense?

So the idea behind the missionary work is to convince others to believe and participate in the lie as well?

Up until this post, I tried to present doctrine as members believe it. In this post, I try to get to the reality of what's really going on, in my opinion. Yes, from a Freudian-like perspective, if you will, this is exactly what's happening. Though as I said, I think most critics will disagree with me. Obviously, members don't see themselves as deceiving anybody. From a Freudian-like perspective, it's not shocking that a community is built on careful lies.

[I Have Questions]

So the idea behind the missionary work is to convince others to believe and participate in the lie as well?

Up until this post, I tried to present doctrine as members believe it. In this post, I try to get to the reality of what's really going on, in my opinion. Yes, from a Freudian-like perspective, if you will, this is exactly what's happening. Though as I said, I think most critics will disagree with me. Obviously, members don't see themselves as deceiving anybody. From a Freudian-like perspective, it's not shocking that a community is built on careful lies.

Converting others to participate in the lie is only a secondary objective for the missionary programme. The primary objective is to condition the young missionaries themselves, and convert them to participate in the lie. By spending two years preaching to others about how true the SLC LDS version of religion is, is a good way of conditioning the preachers into believing it themselves.

[Gadianton]

Gad—I realize you can’t get inside my old co-workers’s head, but why do you think he said that a “no” answer to the Moroni prayer was impossible?

According to Whiskey I can, and I will. He is correct (shifting to believer mode now): Since the Book of Mormon is True, God would never tell you "no". It's hypothetically possible that the speed of light is 100 mph. But if we "know" it's 186000 mps, and if knowledge = "justified, TRUE, belief", then it is impossible for the speed of light to ever measure 100 mph (by the law of non-contradiction). Since he "knows" it's true, you can't get an answer that it isn't.

It is logically possible for it to be false, but your coworker hasn't studied metaphysics and so this isn't what he means.

[Res Ipsa]

Remember, in my original post I'm asking that we deal with a hypothetical creator God who would ultimately like to see the greatest good be the result of His efforts. Nothing else would seem to make sense. At least to me.

So I appreciate it if we can kind of, sort of, travel the course...for now...that there is a loving Creator (even if you have your doubts that this is so).

But I like the direction this thread has been going. Don't let me be a monkey wrench in the discussion. Kind of ignore me!

Regards,
MG

I don’t think the original version of this question included a “loving” creator or one that had the “greatest good” as a goal. “Creator God” was the hypothetical. These two restraints on the hypothetical God are unnecessary additions to the hypothetical.

[Limnor]

Thank you both, this is helpful, but I want to test my understanding—there seems to be a fine distinction in that you’re not saying members are consciously lying or intending deception, but that their identify becomes reliant upon some sort of distortion to maintain their self-image? Is that a fair restatement?

I think I understand the model you’re describing, though now I think I should be more cautious with the word “lie,” since that signals intent whereas you seem to be describing it in terms of unconscious “story” management. I hope I’ve been clear that I’m less interested in moral judgment than in how the mechanism actually operates for believers themselves.

I’m still curious how the system distinguishes between internal and external authority. In other words, if the “8-ball” always wins, was the answer provided from within? And is the answer testable from third party perspective? Do leaders always honor internal revelation? I think we talked about this before but I admit this is hard to understand. You said it was “grammar” but the check is so long as you don’t say the HG confirmed? In the love/marriage example, was the fellow speaking from his own internal revelation or did the HG confirm?

Gad I apologize again if I seem to be asking the same questions, I just don’t understand quite yet.

Edited to add: I’m wondering now if this is why Vogel uses the term pious fraud.

[Whiskey]

Gad—I realize you can’t get inside my old co-workers’s head, but why do you think he said that a “no” answer to the Moroni prayer was impossible?

According to Whiskey I can, and I will.

Should say, "according to Whiskey according to [Gad]."

I am taking your word for it Gad. You got the priesthood of Santa Claus or whatever it is to know what people are thinking.

[Limnor]

According to Whiskey I can, and I will.

Should say, "according to Whiskey according to [Gad]."

I am taking your word for it Gad. You got the priesthood of Santa Claus or whatever it is to know what people are thinking.

Do you disagree with his assessment about my co-worker? I mean, I realize you can’t get in his head, but does what Gad says resonate?

[Whiskey]

Should say, "according to Whiskey according to [Gad]."

I am taking your word for it Gad. You got the priesthood of Santa Claus or whatever it is to know what people are thinking.

Do you disagree with his assessment about my co-worker? I mean, I realize you can’t get in his head, but does what Gad says resonate?

Limnor, I will go back and look at it. In all honesty, I rarely finish a post that Gad writes. At the point he gets into what he is inspired to know what other people think, I skip ahead. His anecdotes of what his nemesis friends think and say, in Gad's words, also ....... skip ahead. I will get go back to what the holy ghost told him to think about what someone thinks. For you. I will do this.