Who Killed Joseph Smith?

[malkie]

Earlier the argument was that ambiguity is necessary for faith and that too much certainty would undermine it. But here we seem quite certain about what God would or wouldn’t do.

Mormons complain when non-Mormons dare to suggest what their god would do or not do. Problem is that they cannot decide amongst themselves. In any case, are claims about what their god would do not supposed to be the exclusive province of the prophet, or at least the GAs?

[Limnor]

Earlier the argument was that ambiguity is necessary for faith and that too much certainty would undermine it. But here we seem quite certain about what God would or wouldn’t do.

Mormons complain when non-Mormons dare to suggest what their god would do or not do. Problem is that they cannot decide amongst themselves. In any case, are claims about what their god would do not supposed to be the exclusive province of the prophet, or at least the GAs?

This is interesting. It brings the question: if priesthood authority, and the prophet as you mention, are supposed to mediate God’s will, why would there be any ambiguity about what God “would” do?

[I Have Questions]

Mormons complain when non-Mormons dare to suggest what their god would do or not do. Problem is that they cannot decide amongst themselves. In any case, are claims about what their god would do not supposed to be the exclusive province of the prophet, or at least the GAs?

This is interesting. It brings the question: if priesthood authority, and the prophet as you mention, are supposed to mediate God’s will, why would there be any ambiguity about what God “would” do?

It is claimed that the President of the Church is the only man on earth who speaks for God. As Prophet he communicates what God has willed him communicate. He makes inspired decisions for the Church based on what God has told him. Now, when faced with the dilemma of being honest with the SEC about the Church’s declarations of financial position, the President of the Church, and his two counsellors. And the previous President and his two counsellors…universally agreed that God wanted them to instigate and maintain a decades long dishonest shell company scheme in order to present the SEC with knowingly false statements about the Church’s financial position. So this leads to a question about the credibility of the First Presidency and what they say is God’s will. And there’s only two possible conclusions. Either God is dishonest, or the First Presidency doesn’t know, or doesn’t care, what it is that God wants.

[malkie]

This is interesting. It brings the question: if priesthood authority, and the prophet as you mention, are supposed to mediate God’s will, why would there be any ambiguity about what God “would” do?

It is claimed that the President of the Church is the only man on earth who speaks for God. As Prophet he communicates what God has willed him communicate. He makes inspired decisions for the Church based on what God has told him. Now, when faced with the dilemma of being honest with the SEC about the Church’s declarations of financial position, the President of the Church, and his two counsellors. And the previous President and his two counsellors…universally agreed that God wanted them to instigate and maintain a decades long dishonest shell company scheme in order to present the SEC with knowingly false statements about the Church’s financial position. So this leads to a question about the credibility of the First Presidency and what they say is God’s will. And there’s only two possible conclusions. Either God is dishonest, or the First Presidency doesn’t know, or doesn’t care, what it is that God wants.

A question based on your last point: did the First Presidency bother to ask what it was that their god wanted?

[Limnor]

It is claimed that the President of the Church is the only man on earth who speaks for God. As Prophet he communicates what God has willed him communicate. He makes inspired decisions for the Church based on what God has told him. Now, when faced with the dilemma of being honest with the SEC about the Church’s declarations of financial position, the President of the Church, and his two counsellors. And the previous President and his two counsellors…universally agreed that God wanted them to instigate and maintain a decades long dishonest shell company scheme in order to present the SEC with knowingly false statements about the Church’s financial position. So this leads to a question about the credibility of the First Presidency and what they say is God’s will. And there’s only two possible conclusions. Either God is dishonest, or the First Presidency doesn’t know, or doesn’t care, what it is that God wants.

A question based on your last point: did the First Presidency bother to ask what it was that their god wanted?

From my perspective, whether they asked or not the standard should be institutional alignment to God’s character as revealed in Christ. I think all Institutions that make a claim about the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob should be accountable to that standard.

[I Have Questions]

It is claimed that the President of the Church is the only man on earth who speaks for God. As Prophet he communicates what God has willed him communicate. He makes inspired decisions for the Church based on what God has told him. Now, when faced with the dilemma of being honest with the SEC about the Church’s declarations of financial position, the President of the Church, and his two counsellors. And the previous President and his two counsellors…universally agreed that God wanted them to instigate and maintain a decades long dishonest shell company scheme in order to present the SEC with knowingly false statements about the Church’s financial position. So this leads to a question about the credibility of the First Presidency and what they say is God’s will. And there’s only two possible conclusions. Either God is dishonest, or the First Presidency doesn’t know, or doesn’t care, what it is that God wants.

A question based on your last point: did the First Presidency bother to ask what it was that their god wanted?

I’d love for an apologist to put forward the idea that they didn’t. Because they are then saying that the First Presidency cannot be trusted to seek God’s input into the big decisions affecting Church policy. It opens the door to the last two hundred years of Mormonism being simply men cosplaying the role of Prophets and conning the members.

[sock puppet]

How do you know? Are your ways God's ways?

God writes straight with crooked lines.

Explain a scenario where that would make sense.

Take into account the words of Brigham and John Taylor before Joseph's death.

Not to say that there weren't some crooked lines that entered into the picture after Joseph's death and before Brigham Young was sustained as prophet.

Regards,
MG

Now, after years of your faith nonsense, God has to make sense? Sheesh, MG. You are piece of work--inconsistency at its finest.

[MG 2.0]

Explain a scenario where that would make sense.

Take into account the words of Brigham and John Taylor before Joseph's death.

Not to say that there weren't some crooked lines that entered into the picture after Joseph's death and before Brigham Young was sustained as prophet.

Regards,
MG

Now, after years of your faith nonsense, God has to make sense? Sheesh, MG. You are piece of work--inconsistency at its finest.

You ignored the specific challenge I presented. You seem to be more interested in ad hominem. Changing the subject from the content of the argument/challenge to the character of a poster.

This is not the first time this has happened. It won't be the last.

For a neutral reader you've not offered anything of substance.

Regards,
MG

[Limnor]

A question based on your last point: did the First Presidency bother to ask what it was that their god wanted?

I’d love for an apologist to put forward the idea that they didn’t. Because they are then saying that the First Presidency cannot be trusted to seek God’s input into the big decisions affecting Church policy. It opens the door to the last two hundred years of Mormonism being simply men cosplaying the role of Prophets and conning the members.

It’s easier for me to believe it’s been a con over 200 years than to believe it as truth. Though I think I’d call it less a top-down centralized con and more like a participatory con where priesthood authority lets others cosplay as well.

[malkie]

A question based on your last point: did the First Presidency bother to ask what it was that their god wanted?

I’d love for an apologist to put forward the idea that they didn’t. Because they are then saying that the First Presidency cannot be trusted to seek God’s input into the big decisions affecting Church policy. It opens the door to the last two hundred years of Mormonism being simply men cosplaying the role of Prophets and conning the members.

Either the First Presidency cannot be trusted to seek God’s input into the big decisions, or the First Presidency does not want God’s input into the big decisions in case it conflicts with their preferences, following the principle that if you don't like the answer, you shouldn't have asked the question.