How often "plates" are discussed here.

[Limnor]

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

Regards,
MG

I realize that your mileage may vary.

[MG 2.0]

Still looking for some help. The poster that posted the post in question is a known liar. I don't know whether I should take what he has to say in good faith.

I need someone else trained in the language of critics to help me out. I don't think it will take too much critical thinking.

Regards,
MG

[malkie]

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

Regards,
MG

I realize that your mileage may vary.

something something MG's apparent lack of self awareness something something

[Marcus]

Still looking for some help. The poster that posted the post in question is a known liar. I don't know whether I should take what he has to say in good faith.

I need someone else trained in the language of critics to help me out. I don't think it will take too much critical thinking.

Regards,
MG

Lol, not from a critic, but yes, not much critical thinking involved. I'm sure mentalgymnast will figure it out.

[Limnor]

I realize that your mileage may vary.

something something MG's apparent lack of self awareness something something

Giving MG the benefit of the doubt that he isn’t a self-aware troll, he seems to almost never recognize when his own rhetoric is mirrored back to him.

Again, given a huge benefit of the doubt, from his perspective, he’s thinks he is being thoughtful, and maybe even deeply philosophical, or very carefully measured.

But when you mirror it back, he doesn’t see the mirror and recognize “oh, that’s what I’m doing.” Rather he seems to see interlocutors as “not engaging” and/or “obfuscating.”

It’s remarkable and even somewhat amusing, though admittedly the phenomenon could just as easily be ascribed to “troll behavior.”

[Marcus]

something something MG's apparent lack of self awareness something something

Giving MG the benefit of the doubt that he isn’t a self-aware troll, he seems to almost never recognize when his own rhetoric is mirrored back to him.

Again, given a huge benefit of the doubt, from his perspective, he’s thinks he is being thoughtful, and maybe even deeply philosophical, or very carefully measured.

But when you mirror it back, he doesn’t see the mirror and recognize “oh, that’s what I’m doing.” Rather he seems to see interlocutors as “not engaging” and/or “obfuscating.”

It’s remarkable and even somewhat amusing, though admittedly the phenomenon could just as easily be ascribed to “troll behavior.”

I agree, but what really tipped me over the edge into believing he knows what he's doing was this description of the slc streaker that exactly mirrored his recent strategies re the AI rule:

Apparently the streaker managed to find the one dress code violation the church hasn't written a handbook paragraph/section for and thought he could get away with it without consequences. The Correlation Department will need to draft a new subsection titled ‘Unexpected Situations We Really Wish We Didn’t Have to Address.’

Regards,
MG

Just coincidence? i don't think so.

[Limnor]

For example, as with the well-known phrase “doing hard with Jesus,” I am certain MG understands the meaning perfectly well. However, the meaning may not be entirely black and white, as some phrases carry different weight depending on personal frameworks. I’d be interested to hear how MG interprets the phrase it before offering my own explanation.

[Limnor]

I agree, but what really tipped me over the edge into believing he knows what he's doing was this description of the slc streaker that exactly mirrored his recent strategies re the AI rule:

Oh I agree, I think he understands perfectly well, but to acknowledge that would somehow lessen his sanctimony.

[Marcus]

I agree, but what really tipped me over the edge into believing he knows what he's doing was this description of the slc streaker that exactly mirrored his recent strategies re the AI rule:

Oh I agree, I think he understands perfectly well, but to acknowledge that would somehow lessen his sanctimony.

[Gadianton]

Are you saying that all chapel Mormons are #1’s ?

In this case, yes.

Why not #2’s ?

Because the Church has always taught that God is all knowing. It's within the first paragraph of the first discussion. Even you said God is omniscient. just a few posts ago.

I would guess there are a lot of members that haven’t given this subject much thought.

I would guess so as well. There is a reason why they are still Mormon.

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.

That's because you'd leave out a lot of other information. Once they realize they can't believe in prophets anymore, they might switch back to 1.

The church has not taken an official position on this.

You're just quoting FAIR. The church has said God is all-knowing, including the future, a million times. If he can't know the future, Ezekiel, Isaiah and others couldn't have seen the future either. Ezekiel couldn't have prophesied of Joseph Smith bringing forth the Book of Mormon.

God is all knowing…contingently.

which means exactly nothing.

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,

You're right that is a terrible analogy. If that's true, then anybody who knows about faith, repentance, and baptism is all-knowing.

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.

All-knowing means God also knows the future, otherwise Ezekiel couldn't have predicted Joseph Smith would bring forth the Book of Mormon -- the stick of Joseph. It's way worse than you think, I'm afraid it might take a few moments of thinking that you don't have to spare, but to say God can't know the future basically makes any kind of a plan that starts with Adam and Eve, moves through Jesus, and then to the restoration and culminating with the second coming impossible, given the number of variables involved (free human choices).

# 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.

Right, yet you throw the big guy's son under the bus immediately once you realize that Blake thinks differently. Perhaps you should investigate monilism before apostatizing and at least give every Mormon prophet who has ever lived a chance to be right.

Yesterday you said, " God, on the other hand, can deliver. He is omniscient and omnipotent". Now you're either admitting a) God can't deliver or b) omniscience is not needed to deliver.

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.

Yes it is a reason not to follow, because yesterday you said God can deliver because he is omniscient and omnipotent. This implies God can't deliver. Your own words.

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

Sure buddy, you don't seem to have any clue yourself. After decades in the church, you have no idea who you worship. "To the unknown God."