Question for Mo Experts

[malkie]

MG. Which was it? Did God lie to his prophets? Or did his prophets not understand what God was saying--all while passing it off as God's will?

What I said.

I asked you to do this earlier but I’ll say it again. Read for comprehension. Read carefully. Read between the lines. Both of your questions were answered.

Earlier I refused to repeat myself. Again, I will not repeat what I’ve already said at one time or another on this thread.

And don’t put words in my mouth.

I’ll help you along a bit. Your questions show little or no nuance. My comments go in a direction that correlate with what might or could have been an extended version of your questions if they weren’t so restrictive and showed a bit more thoughtfulness and gave a bit more opportunity to answer without being limited to a yes or no response.

That’s a problem around here. The questions are at times a ‘set up’. As one of the talks in a GC put out there a few years ago, often the wrong questions are being asked.

When I’m thinking about these sorts of topics my mind goes all over the place. I have a difficult time being put in a tight box consisting of simple questions that don’t have simple answers and yet the interlocutor wants a simple answer.

A sound bite of sorts that ‘proves something’

Things aren’t that simple.

Anyway, that’s about all I have to say for now unless something comes along that takes a new twist or causes me to think more deeply in respect to a question that I haven’t pursued at any length....

That was the longest "nuh-uh-huh!" I think I've ever read. All you need is a "so are you but what am I? at the end to round it out.

And not the least bit condescending

[dastardly stem]

Here God, given this is inspired scripture, endorses the view that He will answer questions, liberally. If someone asks He will give. Full stop, right? LDS have an advantage here. They don’t need to assume God is under no obligation to answer questions.

Full stop? Not necessarily. Generously means ‘more’.

In my response to Morley I reminded him that the Lord’s answer may not always confirm or support our own ‘answer inclinations’. An answer could be a ‘no’ or ‘wait’.

And a ‘no’ could be perceived/received as a ‘non answer’.

The answer my also come very forcibly as a ‘yes’ or affirmative response.

I don’t think that the James 1:5 thing is quite as cut and dried as you would like it to be. And again, I’ll reinforce the fact that you don’t believe in any of this ‘nonsense’ anyway. That’s going to color everything you say.

Regards,
MG

Let me see if I can understand you're take. Tell me where I'm wrong. James 1:5 shouldn't be used to think God will answer a question put to Him. God may choose not to answer any particular question. If someone who lacks wisdom and asks God, it may very well, perhaps even most often, not be given to that person? It may be that God may not generously nor liberally answer a sincere question at all?

Let's see if I can work this out since it appears you've missed or refused to consider my points:

"Generously" as used in the NIV translation is not used as a qualifier describing how often He'll answer. The passage in either translation under consideration suggests one thing in how often the question will be answered--every time. When used in the NIV "generously" is used to suggest God gives nicely or kindly.

If any of you lacks wisdom, you should ask God, who gives generously to all without finding fault, and it will be given to you.

Enough, I suppose on that. My points have been made over and over. You seem intent on believing and distracting instead of answering and considering. I'm happy to leave you in your belief, or what I'd call bewilderment. just trying to get thoughts and ideas out there. Not everyone will find rationality useful.

[Morley]

Now that Mental Gymnast has retired from the thread to go on a run, play with his grandchildren, or petition his local school board to end the teaching of Critical Race Theory, I'd like to take the discussion in a slightly different direction.

As an homage to our dear friend, MG, I'd like to explore the challenge he left us with.

What should have been asked about the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints priesthood ban on Black folks?

Perhaps the vote should go to BYU professor and LDS Church leader, Dr. Brad Wilcox? Just last year, he proposed looking at the question from a different angle.

Maybe they are asking the wrong questions, Wilcox suggested. “Maybe instead of asking why the Blacks had to wait until 1978 to get the priesthood, we should be asking why did the whites and other races have to wait until 1829.”

https://www.sltrib.com/religion/2022/02 ... ad-wilcox/

[Morley]

I dunno, though.

Maybe the question that should have been asked was addressed a decade ago by another BYU professor, with the perhaps unfortunate name of Randy Bott.


“What is discrimination?” Bott asks. “I think that is keeping something from somebody that would be a benefit for them, right? But what if it wouldn’t have been a benefit to them?” Bott says that the denial of the priesthood to blacks on Earth — although not in the afterlife — protected them from the lowest rungs of hell reserved for people who abuse their priesthood powers. “You couldn’t fall off the top of the ladder, because you weren’t on the top of the ladder. So, in reality the blacks not having the priesthood was the greatest blessing God could give them.”


https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics ... .%E2%80%9D

[Doctor Steuss]

“I’m not going to waste my time repeating myself, or explaining what I meant. Instead, I’m going to take 10x as much time to saying I’m not going to repeat myself, or explain what I meant.”

[Moksha]

What should have been asked about the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints priesthood ban on Black folks?

Why does the LDS Church persist in blaming God for the painfully obvious racism of its past?


Maintaining this heresy makes it seem, to non-Mormons, like they are chronic liars who never had any contact with God.

[malkie]

“I’m not going to waste my time repeating myself, or explaining what I meant. Instead, I’m going to take 10x as much time to saying I’m not going to repeat myself, or explain what I meant.”

OK - that's the abbreviated version.

Would you mind expanding on it a bit for us slow people

[Marcus]

“I’m not going to waste my time repeating myself, or explaining what I meant. Instead, I’m going to take 10x as much time to saying I’m not going to repeat myself, or explain what I meant.”

OK - that's the abbreviated version.

Would you mind expanding on it a bit for us slow people

I don't know if this will help, but...

What I said....
I’ll say it again. Read for comprehension. Read carefully. Read between the lines....
Earlier I refused to repeat myself. Again, I will not repeat what I’ve already said at one time or another on this thread....
My comments go in a direction that correlate with what might or could have been an extended version of your questions....
That’s a problem around here.... the wrong questions are being asked....
When I’m thinking about these sorts of topics my mind goes all over the place. I have a difficult time...
Anyway, that’s about all I have to say for now unless something comes along that takes a new twist or causes me to think more deeply in respect to a question that I haven’t pursued at any length....

[dastardly stem]

OK - that's the abbreviated version.

Would you mind expanding on it a bit for us slow people

I don't know if this will help, but...

What I said....
I’ll say it again. Read for comprehension. Read carefully. Read between the lines....
Earlier I refused to repeat myself. Again, I will not repeat what I’ve already said at one time or another on this thread....
My comments go in a direction that correlate with what might or could have been an extended version of your questions....
That’s a problem around here.... the wrong questions are being asked....
When I’m thinking about these sorts of topics my mind goes all over the place. I have a difficult time...
Anyway, that’s about all I have to say for now unless something comes along that takes a new twist or causes me to think more deeply in respect to a question that I haven’t pursued at any length....

I've enjoyed it when in response to questions i've asked him, he responds with something about how he's answered it before so he doesn't want to do it again and if I really am interested in his thoughts I'd search the board for his answer to someone else at some undisclosed point, on some undisclosed thread. "I just can't be bothered to answer that again...even if it's a yes/no question it's too much energy for me." But he's with us, sometimes, so it's nice to try and bounce things off him every so often. It'd be nice to have more believers around.

[MG 2.0]

OK - that's the abbreviated version.

Would you mind expanding on it a bit for us slow people

I don't know if this will help, but...

What I said....
I’ll say it again. Read for comprehension. Read carefully. Read between the lines....
Earlier I refused to repeat myself. Again, I will not repeat what I’ve already said at one time or another on this thread....
My comments go in a direction that correlate with what might or could have been an extended version of your questions....
That’s a problem around here.... the wrong questions are being asked....
When I’m thinking about these sorts of topics my mind goes all over the place. I have a difficult time...
Anyway, that’s about all I have to say for now unless something comes along that takes a new twist or causes me to think more deeply in respect to a question that I haven’t pursued at any length....

Hopping back into this thread to point out an over use of ellipses. Throws context to hell. Excuse the French.

Regards,
MG