God can write straight with crooked lines.

[Gadianton]

I’m reminded of the explanation from Ezra Taft Benson “My boy, you always keep your eye on the President of the Church, and if he ever tells you to do anything, and it is wrong, and you do it, the Lord will bless you for it.” He appears to be suggesting that faith is in play when serving a false God - in this case an errant Prophet.

I'm pretty sure this nugget was the inspiration for my 1st semester Book of Mormon teacher who said the same, if the prophet orders you to kill someone, then do it and you'll be blessed for it. He was a big jovial guy, so he had a way of saying it that made it sound "humorous yet true". He also qualified by saying it was almost certainly not going to happen. At the time, it sounded totally normal. Only two of his stories from the class stuck with me, so there must have been something off.

I can't remember if this had been brought up yet on this thread. But these "conflicts" are often metaethical -- not about what is right, but what is the criteria that makes it right. The Euthyphro dilemma asks if it's good because God said or if it's inherently good. If something is inherently good, then what does that even mean? And if God said, isn't that arbitrary?

Nephi killing Laban, which was probably the context for my teacher but I honestly can't remember at this point, actually contradicts my teacher. Nephi stumbled upon the apparent truth of act utilitarianism: "it's better that one man die than a whole nation suffer". And it's possible Nephi was correct. If so: if act utilitarianism is right, and if for whatever reason preserving the plates would lead to countless lives saved down the road, then his hand would have been forced independent of what God had to say about it. "The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few" even justifies good innocent people dying for the good of society in general. The switch operator should have marched back to his house and grabbed his kid off the couch and put him on the track if for some inexplicable reason, that was the only way to save the train full of people.

The most basic reading of Abraham puts codified law authored by God against God's arbitrary commands. DCT resolves the conflict. DCT is a very straight line doctrine, once you see the conflict and how it must be true, then there's a fantastic blueprint for every anxious cult leader out there to follow.

[I Have Questions]

I’m reminded of the explanation from Ezra Taft Benson “My boy, you always keep your eye on the President of the Church, and if he ever tells you to do anything, and it is wrong, and you do it, the Lord will bless you for it.” He appears to be suggesting that faith is in play when serving a false God - in this case an errant Prophet.

I'm pretty sure this nugget was the inspiration for my 1st semester Book of Mormon teacher who said the same, if the prophet orders you to kill someone, then do it and you'll be blessed for it. He was a big jovial guy, so he had a way of saying it that made it sound "humorous yet true". He also qualified by saying it was almost certainly not going to happen. At the time, it sounded totally normal. Only two of his stories from the class stuck with me, so there must have been something off.

I can't remember if this had been brought up yet on this thread. But these "conflicts" are often metaethical -- not about what is right, but what is the criteria that makes it right. The Euthyphro dilemma asks if it's good because God said or if it's inherently good. If something is inherently good, then what does that even mean? And if God said, isn't that arbitrary?

Nephi killing Laban, which was probably the context for my teacher but I honestly can't remember at this point, actually contradicts my teacher. Nephi stumbled upon the apparent truth of act utilitarianism: "it's better that one man die than a whole nation suffer". And it's possible Nephi was correct. If so: if act utilitarianism is right, and if for whatever reason preserving the plates would lead to countless lives saved down the road, then his hand would have been forced independent of what God had to say about it. "The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few" even justifies good innocent people dying for the good of society in general. The switch operator should have marched back to his house and grabbed his kid off the couch and put him on the track if for some inexplicable reason, that was the only way to save the train full of people.

The most basic reading of Abraham puts codified law authored by God against God's arbitrary commands. DCT resolves the conflict. DCT is a very straight line doctrine, once you see the conflict and how it must be true, then there's a fantastic blueprint for every anxious cult leader out there to follow.

Those examples assumes that the outcome is the net positive. And it removes the idea of agency. Take Nephi and Laban. Nephi kills Laban because he, Nephi, thinks he knows what the ultimate outcome of Laban’s life is going to be, and what the impact of that life will be on his, Nephi’s, people and ancestors over time. In other words, Laban isn’t given the opportunity to exercise his agency. Now if Laban’s life was so mapped out as to render the notion of agency and choice etc irrelevant, then that undercuts the whole purpose for the Plan of Salvation/Happiness/Covenant Path.

The Laban example completely refutes the notion that God writes straight from crooked lines because it shows we are just acting out parts of a fully scripted play. We are in the same position as gamers playing EA Sports FIFA soccer games - they think they’re in control of the outcome of the game, but they’re merely facilitating a pre determined outcome dressed up to look like they are controlling it. Or at least that’s the implication from the justification of the murder of Laban.

[MG 2.0]

Lol, no one else assumed it; it takes a mental gymnast to define his own opinion as fact. And then, when his error is pointed out, to define that fact as circumvention.

For those at home keeping track of the “hoppy taw hopscotch” rules of the game. Earlier the hoppy taw landed on the “ambiguity is necessary for faith and certainty eliminates the need for faith” square. But now the hoppy taw has skipped into the square that says “definitional narrowing is circumvention,” and we seem very certain about what God would or wouldn’t do.

I wondered about the use of “circumvention” myself. How does circumvention fit within a frameplonet where ambiguity is necessary? Are we allowed to hop on some squares with certainty and others with ambiguity?

The field of discussion has always had multiple squares to jump in and out of. That's the nature of hopscotch.

Critics seem to be jumping squares out of convenience in order to circumvent others. Treating 'faith' as what might be called a 'placebo'. An explanation for what goes wrong and what goes right. A placeholder for explaining away the fear of death, etc. Often we will hear them insist on strictly Mormon definitions (even recently) only when it helps their own critique.

When I'm using the word "circumvent" I'm precisely pointing out the game they are playing. I haven't changed any rules.

Much, if not all, of what I've said recently has literally been circumvented. That is actually quite unusual. I'm usually attacked from all sides.

I have to ask myself...why?

I'll leave it at that. Except to say that it gets tiresome to hear folks keep referring to "the Mormon god". Is it for this reason that the discussion often becomes restricted to 'mormonese'? The whole concept/idea of God writing straight using crooked lines shouldn't be so limited.

I've said multiple times, God is BIG. He is not a fundamentalist in the same sense that some religionists...and critics...are.

Rules of the game? What are you talking about?

Regards,
MG

[Limnor]

Rules of the game? What are you talking about?

Right, exactly. Like for example, today’s rules. Rule 47a: Ambiguity is mandatory unless clarity is required. And rule 93g: Circumvention—landing on a square that wasn’t.

[Limnor]

Much, if not all, of what I've said recently has literally been circumvented. That is actually quite unusual. I'm usually attacked from all sides.

I have to ask myself...why?

The word you might be looking for is “ignored” rather than “circumvented.”

If this is honest inquiry, I’ll offer up an answer.

Some people feel most stable when opposition confirms their frameplonet—so if they are attacked it means they matter. But if they’re not attacked, it feels like marginalization. And we can’t have marginalization now can we? It might just be that previous feelings of being “attacked” reflected responses to overconfident and under-argued points, or maybe evasiveness, or even simply things stated that are simply absurd on their face.

A piece of unsolicited advice. People naturally gravitate toward discussions that go somewhere and sharpen thinking by clarifying stakes. If the board is engaging in substantive discussion, that may not be circumvention at all. It might just indicate satisfaction with the conversation. If your engagement felt sincere rather than self-protective, you might get better return on your time investment.

[Limnor]

Of course, if Marcus is right and you are simply here to troll, then I just wasted five minutes of my own time. Though it was kind of fun, so maybe “wasted” is the wrong term here as well

[malkie]

Looks like another clarification is required, though I really don't see why it's not obvious.

I fairly consistently use the expression "Mormon god".

• Mormon - adjective, indicating that I'm talking about the god of Mormonism.
  If I mean a generic deity, I'll usually just say "god"
• god - a deity; lower case because I'm not using the word as a title or as a proper noun/name, and in any case reject the idea that the god talked about here (usually of the Mormon or Christian variety) requires any more special treatment than, let's say, the god commonly referred to as the "Flying Spaghetti Monster". Note the caps there in recognition of the name/title.

As far as recognizing a god as BIG goes, I'm still not convinced of the existence of the entity, so size is moot.

And I once again suggest that anyone who subscribes to the idea that "(Mormon) god's ways are not man's ways" take care in ascribing characteristics, limitations, or expected behaviours to said entity, on the grounds that, even if we agree for the sake of argument that such an entity exists, we are not entitled to so restrict the entity. Same goes for asserting that a certain action by this god would not make sense: by whose logic? - we have no warrant to claim to know.

[MG 2.0]

If your engagement felt sincere rather than self-protective, you might get better return on your time investment.

Ah. I should have seen that.

Regards,
MG

[malkie]

Of course, if Marcus is right and you are simply here to troll, then I just wasted five minutes of my own time. Though it was kind of fun, so maybe “wasted” is the wrong term here as well

Sometimes I wonder about wasting time here.

However, one of my reasons for being here is to try to keep my mind active, taking advantage of the fact that I have some experience and knowledge of Mormonism. Some folks may find my arguments not too great - and that's OK - but I often find that responses are edifying, and give me the opportunity to either adjust my thinking or try to sharpen the argument. Either is OK by me. Sometimes, unfortunately, I fail to follow the details of others' comments, but I also have learned to accept that this is almost inevitable.

It's better than playing computer games.

[MG 2.0]

Of course, if Marcus is right and you are simply here to troll, then I just wasted five minutes of my own time. Though it was kind of fun, so maybe “wasted” is the wrong term here as well

I think you should come to your own determinations from the conversations we've had. Relying on someone else to then draw your conclusions might be unwise. Can you trust them?

You have been here long enough to trust some more than others...for reasons of your own.

Regards,
MG