How often "plates" are discussed here.

[Limnor]

I should make clear...although I thought it was a given...I believe in a creator God. It's not like I haven't said that a million times, more or less. It is a belief based upon both epistemic trust... a lifetime of study/evidence and personal introspection...and a developed (over time) devotional trust.

I trust a God that I already believe exists.

I realize that the mileage of others may vary. That doesn't mean that the mileage I've traveled is irrelevant. Except, possibly, to those that have not travelled a similar path of discovering and then maintaining faith.

To each his or her own.

It is this epistemic/devotional trust in God that will most likely cause an impasse in sharing/discussion almost each and every time.

Regards,
MG

So… how do you tell when Joseph was just speaking as a man? I hear the hoppy taw skittering off.

[malkie]

Even the claim that Mormon god can be trusted is pie in the sky.

...

MG makes a bunch of statements and claims that are not only not supported by evidence, but in some cases simply cannot be. Faith is the ultimate fallback.

Even if there is a creator God then I don't see any reason...at all...to trust the Creator. It's not rocket science. There's all sorts of reasons why would one NOT trust such a god, and referring to him as all-powerful and benevolent/all-knowing God is just hand waving. I would suggest that nobody can possibly know whether this putative being is benevolent, or has any other specific characteristic. Remember the relationship between the (good) shepherd and the sheep? You could say that the sheep has faith in the benevolence of the shepherd, but the ultimate disposition of the sheep gives the lie to that idea. I'm aware of no reason to think that the human believer knows the true intentions of her/his god than there is to think that the sheep understand why the shepherd seems benevolent towards them.

Now, if this God just happens to be the "Mormon God" that doesn't and/or wouldn't change the fact. If there is a creator God wouldn't you think that he could quite possibly be asleep at the wheel, and as a matter of fact always has been? Once again, the believer expresses faith in something that is beyond his/her ken.

Potential ramifications of that might include a distinct lack of evidence that such a god exists. Sure, people can have faith that he does, but I believe that's as far as it goes - as far as it has ever gone, and perhaps ever will.

Mormon god is nothing special. That there have been thousands of "gods", many of which have different characteristics, requirements for worship, etc., but are all alike in lack of evidence for their existence, ought to tell one something.

[malkie]

...

Some whining dismissiveness and insults - followed by a description of some of the characteristics of MG's posting habits.

That MG says he has "discontinued answering questions that then go unrequited" is a very good reason not to interact directly with him - in my opinion, of course, but there is adequate evidence that he has been doing this for some time.

[Gadianton]

My argument is larger than that. If there is a creator God then I don't see any reason...at all...not to trust the Creator. It's not rocket science. Why would one NOT trust the all-powerful and benevolent/all-knowing God?

God isn't all-knowing, according to Blake Ostler.

https://www.fairlatterdaysaints.org/ans ... eknowledge

Because God has always believed that I will rob the 7-Eleven at t, I cannot have the power to refrain from robbing, since this power would entail power to change God's past beliefs. No person has the power to alter the past. Yet to be free with respect to whether I rob, I must have power to refrain from robbing the 7-Eleven at t. It follows that either God does not have foreknowledge or I am not free

The FAIR article also points out that Chapel Mormons believe in omniscience -- in another post you told us "The big guy" or rather his son, you weren't sure which, is omniscient. You also claim that Chapel Mormons are wrong and Ostler has set everyone straight with his modern thinking that so isn't totally relying on the arm of the flesh.

[MG 2.0]

My argument is larger than that. If there is a creator God then I don't see any reason...at all...not to trust the Creator. It's not rocket science. Why would one NOT trust the all-powerful and benevolent/all-knowing God?

God isn't all-knowing, according to Blake Ostler.

https://www.fairlatterdaysaints.org/ans ... eknowledge

Because God has always believed that I will rob the 7-Eleven at t, I cannot have the power to refrain from robbing, since this power would entail power to change God's past beliefs. No person has the power to alter the past. Yet to be free with respect to whether I rob, I must have power to refrain from robbing the 7-Eleven at t. It follows that either God does not have foreknowledge or I am not free

The FAIR article also points out that Chapel Mormons believe in omniscience -- in another post you told us "The big guy" or rather his son, you weren't sure which, is omniscient. You also claim that Chapel Mormons are wrong and Ostler has set everyone straight with his modern thinking that so isn't totally relying on the arm of the flesh.

Are you saying that all chapel Mormons are #1’s ? Why not #2’s ? I would guess there are a lot of members that haven’t given this subject much thought. If my own family is any indicator. But, I think that if I sat down with any one of them and was able to explain to their satisfaction the difference between #1 and #2 (from the FAIR selection you linked to) I think they would choose #2.

The church has not taken an official position on this.

God is all knowing…contingently. I would guess you matriculated from a university. Your professors knew all things in regards to helping you graduate in your field of study. Does that mean they were/are all knowing in every respect? Yes, this is sort of a sloppy example comparing a college professor to God…but, as you read what Ostler has written in regard to God knowing all that is necessary to know to save/exalt us it starts to make sense. # 1 seems to bring up some conundrums. Not to say that they can’t be overcome or superseded by understanding and knowledge not available to us at this time.

On this question/topic the jury is out. It that isn’t reason to not believe in and follow what one believes to be the true and living God/creator.

At this juncture, however, we come back to ‘which god’? The ongoing question of the ages, right?

Regards,
MG

[MG 2.0]

Sure, people can have faith that he does, but I believe that's as far as it goes - as far as it has ever gone, and perhaps ever will.

Mormon god is nothing special. That there have been thousands of "gods", many of which have different characteristics, requirements for worship, etc., but are all alike in lack of evidence for their existence, ought to tell one something.

You almost persuadeth me to not believe in any god! Your arguments are so persuasive. If I were a gambler…

Regards,
MG

[Everybody Wang Chung]

My argument is larger than that. If there is a creator God then I don't see any reason...at all...not to trust the Creator. It's not rocket science. Why would one NOT trust the all-powerful and benevolent/all-knowing God?

God isn't all-knowing, according to Blake Ostler.

https://www.fairlatterdaysaints.org/ans ... eknowledge

Because God has always believed that I will rob the 7-Eleven at t, I cannot have the power to refrain from robbing, since this power would entail power to change God's past beliefs. No person has the power to alter the past. Yet to be free with respect to whether I rob, I must have power to refrain from robbing the 7-Eleven at t. It follows that either God does not have foreknowledge or I am not free

The FAIR article also points out that Chapel Mormons believe in omniscience -- in another post you told us "The big guy" or rather his son, you weren't sure which, is omniscient. You also claim that Chapel Mormons are wrong and Ostler has set everyone straight with his modern thinking that so isn't totally relying on the arm of the flesh.

For Fibber, "doing hard with Jesus" is less of a spiritual journey and more of a literal description of how difficult it is to get a single logical thought from him.

[MG 2.0]

When a poster says, "Doing hard with Jesus", what does that mean?

Is it a compliment? More explanation is necessary. Maybe someone can help?

Regards,
MG

[Limnor]

When a poster says, "Doing hard with Jesus", what does that mean?

Is it a compliment? More explanation is necessary. Maybe someone can help?

Regards,
MG

I think before we can answer that, we need to step back and consider what the term might mean in a broader epistemic and devotional framework.

Different people bring different lived experiences to terms, and I’m not sure we can impose a one size fits all definition.

The jury may still be out. What do you think the poster meant by the term?

[MG 2.0]

No help so far. Obfuscation is the order of the day it seems.

Regards,
MG