The Trickster God

[Hagoth]

If you acknowledge that you worship a God who accomplishes his means via lies isn't it logical to assume that you are not actually worshiping the God of Truth and Love, but rather the Father of Lies? This is what people kept telling me about my religion when I was a missionary in the deep South, that I was preaching a religion created by the Devil to deceive men and keep them from coming to the true Christ™.

[ed123]

Just for clarification from my side of the story. I started my own thread on this forum, and I was the owner of that thread with the declared OP. People came on there deliberately taking me grossly out of context when I carefully and very deliberately qualified what I meant by "Trickster", which is not the same as the classic mythological "Trickster," but instead, a principled situation where God allows people to have agency, and holds back justice until after such time that people are allowed to act out their choices, then he, in a principled way, delivers justice at some time of his choosing.

And this justice is the natural result of chosen actions. But in essence, being in a simulation of sorts, but a naturalistic one, people are "tricked" in a manner of speaking by their own overconfidence in that simulation into thinking that their course of action may not have consequence, but the consequence in reality has merely been delayed to a time of God's choosing. Otherwise, they would not choose and become what they become. This is the careful, deliberate qualifications that I put on the word trickster. Then other people decided to entirely take that out of context. If they wish to reject that, then they can reject that on its terms, not make a parody out of what I said and mock it. I gave scriptural support for this concept.

They say God lied about people being in this state, when God told them clearly that they were in this state. How is that a lie? I don't get it.

Then they proceed by deliberately provoking me further on a different thread, mocking and scorning and taking it not just grossly out of context, and then they proceeded to put it all on me, and derail everything as a deliberate part of the provocation. Don't get all holier than thou on me. You people provoked the response you got. I was INVITED here by Moksha and others, who thought that my contribution might be taken better here than MormonDiscussions, and they were the ones that suggested that my material would have a better reaction here under the conditions that I asked to discuss it. I told you what I wanted from you. I told you that I was trying to solidify my arguments, not get agreement with you, but get friendly feedback where you put yourself in my position rather than get your panties twisted in a knot because you had a fit because I had the audacity to ask for help from some of you with a mental exercise. That is not too much to ask. Rather, it turned out worse. I'm not going to be grossly taken out of context and deliberately provoked and then turned into the bad guy and then driven off. You want to make friends, then act like a human being and don't mock, and don't scorn, and don't act holier than thou, and act like your intellect is superior to mine. You people are in the same boat as me as being a human being. There is nothing here for me. There is no balm or salve to be had from people that are grossly taking me out of context, provoke me, kick me when I'm down, and then say, gee, what's wrong with you?

You say I'm supposed to come here and make friends. Under what condition? Stop being myself? Deny Joseph Smith and the Book of Mormon and THEN I am your friend? See the error of my ways after you mock me to scorn and THEN you are my friend? Try to FORCE me to AGREE with you by mockery and scorning me into being like you and THEN you are my friend? How is it going to be? Are you going to let me be me in all my authenticity as my authentic self? Apparently not. Pointless, many of you said. What is it that you value, my potential friendship on human terms, or trying to coerce me into being a mental clone of you by mockery, scorn and taking me out of context?

If you people can't take what I mean as Trickster on its own terms instead of making a parody out of it and rejecting it as a parody of what I said, and you mock it, under what conditions do you intend us to be friends?

[ed123]

I like the idea of worshipping Trickster God or at least the idea of Trickster God Theory (TGT).

Ed makes a few good points that show the beauty of TGT. If the normal, rational, positive belief doesn’t make sense, then make up whatever you want.

Ed has done this in an fairly wordy but pseudo intellectual eloquent way laced with antiquities, Egyptologic terms, and sort of brilliant ideas that weave a plausible way (if you’re desperate).

So to counter Ed, I’m going to provide my own explanation using TGT.

I believe that Joseph was on mind altering drugs called mushrooms, when he went to the grove of trees and knelt to pray. He looked up through the trees and the shining sun was the source of the great light above his head. His mind conjured up an answer to his question of what church to join and he found his calling. He then grew this vision into the church of Christ and was subsequently killed for allowing his natural man tendencies to intervene and justify his desire to bed numerous women.

My theory isn’t any better or worse than Ed’s.

Isn’t TGT wonderful?

Now Ed, you clearly have a talent for deep thought and writing! Have you considered looking into any other alternative formats to express yourself?

You know, where you can actually be understood and make money?

So you are going to mock me, and that makes me want to be friends with you?
How about you take my theory and analyze it on its own terms and context, not in the parody make believe world where you are making fun of it?
How about you meet me on the level of human dignity and basic human respect for the intellect of others that disagree with you? Then we'll talk.
I am a published author by the way. I won't be mocked in that way either. And no, that never made money.

[ed123]

Wow! That escalated fast. Maybe he isn't the same ed I saw posting on LDSFF (or maybe I didn't read/see enough of his posts to see him get so upset). I missed most of his posts on NOM, since they are just a . now, but some of the name-calling quotes. Just, wow!

The trickster God is something I've struggled with (I don't know in what context this came up, but I'm thinking of it as a sort of bait and switch. Will you do everything I tell you? Even this thing I have forbidden, like kill your only covenant son?)

I feel like I need a God I can trust. A God who will tell me the truth. A God that, when I pray, answers me first instead of letting the devil do it, especially if I don't know him/her/them well enough to be sure who is talking to me. I need to know that I'm not being set up for a fall, or tripped when I am at my most trusting. I need to know that I am being supported and helped and loved, even while life is being life to me.

A God who does not lie. One who never tells me to do something but it doesn't work, then he tells me that he was just teaching me whatever the h*ll Holland said God was trying to teach him when God lied to him about what direction to go.

A God who is merciful and kind. A God who loves (real love, not "I demand you to pretend you're happy while I put you through hell on earth," which is what I seem to see too often).

A God who, if there be such a thing as miracles, will lead me to learn how to access them - and will help me understand why they don't happen if they fail to materialize. And if there really is power in our minds and spirits, he is willing to teach me how to do that if I want it (think placebo effect, for an example).

Yes, I am the same person that was position on LDSFF for a number of years. The difference is that here people make a parody of you when you are in as much pain as anyone else, and mock you, make fun of you, kick you, provoke you to an extreme level, and then blame it on you, and ask you what is wrong with you, and then say, gee, if you had only been less disagreeable, we could have been friends. Under what condition did you people present yourselves to me to make me want to be your friends or want to stay here? Under what condition did you make me feel welcome here?

[ed123]

Maybe Bill Reel and RFM could host a podcast with Ed and discuss Trickster God in a similar podcast to that one with Bennet?

What do you think Bill, Consiglieri, or Ed?

PS, thank you Ed for the wonderful thought experiment! I think NOM is ready for #2!

Oh really. So that we can go through again what we just went through, and you can show me what great friends and pals we have become by those kinds of words and actions? So that we can be "friends" under the condition that you can beat me down and mock me and mentally abuse me, and gaslight me?

Oh, so now Bill and Consiglieri will bring me on in a hostile environment to mock me there? I have talked to Bill before, and have a standing offer to come on from Bill, but only under the condition that I be on RFM as well. I have no indication that that is a good idea, but that I am just going to be mocked there and not taken seriously, given basic human dignity and respect.

Kind of like when Infants on Thrones edited my podcast with Mormon Expression that never materialized, made my voice sound weird, and mocked me as the "Little Apologist", and then put it up without my consent.

[ed123]

... I'm thinking of it as a sort of bait and switch. Will you do everything I tell you? Even this thing I have forbidden, like kill your only covenant son?)

I feel like I need a God I can trust. A God who will tell me the truth. A God that, when I pray, answers me first instead of letting the devil do it, especially if I don't know him/her/them well enough to be sure who is talking to me. I need to know that I'm not being set up for a fall, or tripped when I am at my most trusting. I need to know that I am being supported and helped and loved, even while life is being life to me.

A bait and switch, when he told you that you only have a promise when you do what he says? What kind of bait and switch is that?
I have no idea what pseudonym you post on as LDSFF, so I don't know who I am talking to. I posted there, before I left, under my real name.

[wtfluff]

Curious ed: Do you have children?

Do you treat your children the way your "Trickster God" treats you?



(Yes, I know I'm going to regret this...)

[Rob4Hope]

That’s actually an interesting example. The story goes that Martin Harris, who was financing the “translation” of the Book of Mormon (and for his troubles got told he was wicked for letting the 116 pages go, and for coveting his own money), apparently had problems with the idea of endless and eternal torment, so Joseph pulled a Trickster God and retconned the words “endless” and “eternal” so they don’t really mean what they mean. Kind of like President Nelson just did with “translation”. Or like President Nelson did years ago when he said “prophet” means “teacher”.

What would Mormonism have ever done without Trickster God?

You now, this one resonates a little more with me.

Before my shelf cracked, I would marvel at the slight of words used by so many people. The one who baffled me the most was BRM. He would speak about God having a "fullness"...and it was used in an ethereal intelectual, even mystical way to mean something out there that was difficult to understand. You have LDS people condeming things like the Nicean Creed because its "confusion",...and then you have a bully like BRM come along and talk all mystical about God having a "fullness". What does that even mean?...God has a full stomach because he's been eating lots of food? He has a full head because he's done all the study possible to learn everything? He has a full heart? (whatever the hell that means)....

I remember asking people about this -- what does RBM mean -- and they didn't want to seem stupid (since they were in the same darkness I was), so they would make up some crap about this or that, trying to sound like anyone with half a brain would understand.

It was a total gaslighthing.

There is a book I read years ago called "The Graves of Academe" https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/150 ... of_Academe

In that book, Mitchell criticizes, satircally, those writing disertations where they use unclear and convoluted language to add a sense of sophisitication to their research. People high in business (in my experience) often do the same thing by quoting buzzwords where they say a whole lot of crap that doesn't mean much of anything. It sounds good...but does it really communicate anything of substance?

Its this twisting of words, or hiding behind "sophisticated language" that doesn't mean much, or gaslighthing people for asking questions because sometimes it seems LDS leaders don't allow reality to actually hit the road....all this kindof stuff fits the mold of a trickster God.

[jfro18]

In that book, Mitchell criticizes, satircally, those writing disertations where they use unclear and convoluted language to add a sense of sophisitication to their research. People high in business (in my experience) often do the same thing by quoting buzzwords where they say a whole lot of crap that doesn't mean much of anything. It sounds good...but does it really communicate anything of substance?

Its this twisting of words, or hiding behind "sophisticated language" that doesn't mean much, or gaslighthing people for asking questions because sometimes it seems LDS leaders don't allow reality to actually hit the road....all this kindof stuff fits the mold of a trickster God.

THis is 10000000% true.

My background is marketing research, so in my last normal job (I work on my own now) we used to write down all of the buzz words the executives would use in meetings to either try and sell an idea or to convey that they could communicate on whatever the topic was.

I never thought of it as gaslighting as much as someone trying desperately to show authority in their thoughts, but you're right that it applies greatly to church leaders who often times will talk in vague and squishy phrases to avoid answering a question that they either don't know the answer to or are terrified to answer honestly.

[ed123]

Curious ed: Do you have children?
Do you treat your children the way your "Trickster God" treats you?
(Yes, I know I'm going to regret this...)

I am not going to dignify this, any more than I dignified other mockeries and provocations. You want to do it again? Let's see if we can tame this down a bit. I am going to answer this in a different way.
Are we human adults, or children? We are far more advanced than regular children. We are his adult offspring that are accountable for our actions, and that are capable of far more than human children in a true childhood. Far more capable than even humans that were in the bronze age, because our race has come of age. We have to be dealt with on a far more advanced level.

Are we as advanced along the path of development in the human species as the individuals of the human species get?
No. There are other transformations to other forms of human to come. We are like the catepillars that haven't transformed into the butterfly stage yet. We have yet to enter the cocoon/chrysalis of the grave, and be transformed into a fully formed human in the resurrection.

Or a better analogy is, what is the ultimate form of the Bee, since the beehive is the symbol usually used for Restorationism?
Bees have different forms in the hive. Workers and Queens. The human species also has different forms for its ultimate state. Different types of human forms in the end. The earthly is a mirror of what is heavenly. And the caste systems or systems of antiquity which graded humans according to their lots in life are a certain patterns that are a mirror of the heavenly realm. In some systems of antiquity, you had Kings and Queens, and then you had servants, serfs and eunuchs. The difference here is, people aren't destined to end up in some kind of caste in eternity by way of birth in an unjust manner, but by way of accomplishment and choice, according to actual justice. But the power by which it is realized is not our own, but by grace, but we must qualify for what kind of human we want to be. This is by choice, by law.

We are in a situation where we are literally "sent off to school" or "sent to summer camp" to get some experience, but to also grade us to see what kind of human we choose to be by our own adherence to law. This necessitates a Simulation, where proof is withheld of ultimate truth, naturalistically. You are told that the Holy Ghost is your proof that you are offered. Are you willing to listen to it? Or are you going to moan and make excuses because you deliberately weren't given other proof?

What kind of human do you want to be? You have the law, and you have the proof that was offered you in terms that are dictated by your Heavenly King, not by you. Do you want to be a eunuch as a servant in eternity, to someone in your family to help them with their kingdom, with only roots (where the sealing to your parents is still active), and the loss of your branches (where you have no posterity or spouse), without the ability to procreate? What privileges do you want in eternity? Are you willing to work for it? Or are you satisfied with a lesser state of being a eunuch in eternity? Do you want to be a worker bee, or a Queen bee? What is fair? For you to be spoonfed proof, or for you to listen to the proof that you have been offered, by an Intelligent Being that is the one that dictates the terms, not you, and for you to humble yourself and submit to accept that kind of proof? Or is it fair for those that go by the rules, and accept the proof that they are offered on the terms that they are offered it, to become Queen bees? Or are you satisfied with the kind of Immortality of being an eternal Eunuch worker bee? Will you be satisfied with the kind of progression and destiny that a Heavenly Eunuch worker bee will have throughout eternity?

[Evil_Bert]

Reading your description makes me even less likely to want to worship a god like this. If this being is our "father" he sure acts more like an absentee, deadbeat dad, who is always late with the child support, than a caring loving father. But this fits with the descriptions from scriptures, so I will take my chances. I would rather be a good human being without worrying about some unknown reward.

[ed123]

Reading your description makes me even less likely to want to worship a god like this. If this being is our "father" he sure acts more like an absentee, deadbeat dad, who is always late with the child support, than a caring loving father. But this fits with the descriptions from scriptures, so I will take my chances. I would rather be a good human being without worrying about some unknown reward.

At least you are rejecting it on its own terms and in its context. That is fair. What is unfair is to make a parody out of it, a strawman of which it is not and mock it. I am perfectly fine with any of you rejecting it so long as you are in perfect understanding of what I am actually saying, and you are very clearly rejecting it on the terms that it is presented. THAT is what is FAIR. I didn't ask you to ACCEPT it. I asked you to understand it on its own terms and context.

[Not Buying It]

Just for clarification from my side of the story. I started my own thread on this forum, and I was the owner of that thread with the declared OP. People came on there deliberately taking me grossly out of context when I carefully and very deliberately qualified what I meant by "Trickster", which is not the same as the classic mythological "Trickster," but instead, a principled situation where God allows people to have agency, and holds back justice until after such time that people are allowed to act out their choices, then he, in a principled way, delivers justice at some time of his choosing.

And this justice is the natural result of chosen actions. But in essence, being in a simulation of sorts, but a naturalistic one, people are "tricked" in a manner of speaking by their own overconfidence in that simulation into thinking that their course of action may not have consequence, but the consequence in reality has merely been delayed to a time of God's choosing. Otherwise, they would not choose and become what they become. This is the careful, deliberate qualifications that I put on the word trickster. Then other people decided to entirely take that out of context. If they wish to reject that, then they can reject that on its terms, not make a parody out of what I said and mock it. I gave scriptural support for this concept...

Ah, there you are ed123. I knew you'd be back. Couldn't resist, could you? And I see you haven't calmed down much.

Your definition of the Trickster God is very different than the one who provides all kinds of evidence than the Book of Mormon is a fabrication and Joseph Smith was a fraud, but then expects us to believe in them anyway:

...which is not the same as the classic mythological "Trickster," but instead, a principled situation where God allows people to have agency, and holds back justice until after such time that people are allowed to act out their choices, then he, in a principled way, delivers justice at some time of his choosing.

Saying "here is your choice, justice comes later" is very different than saying "yeah I made it all look like a fraud to see if you would believe it anyway". Your "God allows people to have agency" statement kind of assumes people are allowed to make an informed choice, while Trickster God tries to lead you astray with evidence to see if you will keep believing in him in spite of the evidence right before your face, and then blames you if you believe that evidence. I don't see anything principled whatsoever about a God who misleads his children then blames them for it.

Am I misstating your position? God leaves evidence against Joseph Smith and the Book of Mormon that we are supposed to ignore as a test of faith? Is that a fair enough description of what you are saying?

By the way, there is plenty of room for differing opinions here at NOM. I really don't want this to be an echo chamber. As far as I am concerned, your differing opinions are welcome. But the belligerence and ranting when a discussion doesn't go the way you want it to go is a real turn off, and has done far more in getting you negative feedback than your opinions per se.

[ed123]

Ah, there you are ed123. I knew you'd be back. Couldn't resist, could you? And I see you haven't calmed down much.

Your definition of the Trickster God is very different than the one who provides all kinds of evidence than the Book of Mormon is a fabrication and Joseph Smith was a fraud, but then expects us to believe in them anyway:

...which is not the same as the classic mythological "Trickster," but instead, a principled situation where God allows people to have agency, and holds back justice until after such time that people are allowed to act out their choices, then he, in a principled way, delivers justice at some time of his choosing.

Saying "here is your choice, justice comes later" is very different than saying "yeah I made it all look like a fraud to see if you would believe it anyway". Your "God allows people to have agency" statement kind of assumes people are allowed to make an informed choice, while Trickster God tries to lead you astray with evidence to see if you will keep believing in him in spite of the evidence right before your face, and then blames you if you believe that evidence. I don't see anything principled whatsoever about a God who misleads his children then blames them for it.

Am I misstating your position? God leaves evidence against Joseph Smith and the Book of Mormon that we are supposed to ignore as a test of faith? Is that a fair enough description of what you are saying?

By the way, there is plenty of room for differing opinions here at NOM. I really don't want this to be an echo chamber. As far as I am concerned, your differing opinions are welcome. But the belligerence and ranting when a discussion doesn't go the way you want it to go is a real turn off, and has done far more in getting you negative feedback than your opinions per se.

Ah, I see. You are claiming to be ok with me having a differing opinion, only with the condition that you can gaslight me and mock me. Got it.
You are now mocking me for coming back, when I realize that by not doing so, I let you have the upper hand in only making it appear that the way you describe what has happened here is what has really happened, so that you can continue to gaslight everybody and me, and take me out of context.

Actually, it is not any different. Both are true, both the thing with God making us live in a simulation, but also where things take on the appearance of fraud, if we are not careful in our interpretations of them, in fact, but naturalistically. It is like Boolean logic. this is a THIS AND THAT proposition, where both are true at the same time. NOW READ CAREFULLY PLEASE. Understand it's terms and context, and THEN reject it if you please.

Things naturallistically have come to appear as if the Book of Mormon is a fraud, as much as naturalistically, there is a NHM/Nahom, and reformed Egyptian that Joseph Smith presented for the word "Book of Mormon" which matches the hieratic and demotic. Which set of evidence is the most convincing to you, and which set is underwhelming to you? It's a draw, in fact, not some overwhelming thing, because to me, there are other explanations for the appearances of fraud in the Book of Mormon, which are just as naturalistic as Dan Vogel's and Metcalfe's explanations. But then we get in the weeds. And which set of evidences and explanations harmonize with the Holy Ghost that you felt when you first naively/innocently got a testimony of when you were humble and meek? Before you let your shelf get overwhelmed by things where you assumed that the naturalistic evidences all add up only a certain way?

Sorry, no. The Simulation is also one in which naturalistic phenomena can take on the appearance of fraud if we aren't careful in our expectations, and our willingness to have faith and patience and wait for the better explanation to manifest itself.

[Red Ryder]

Reading your description makes me even less likely to want to worship a god like this. If this being is our "father" he sure acts more like an absentee, deadbeat dad, who is always late with the child support, than a caring loving father. But this fits with the descriptions from scriptures, so I will take my chances. I would rather be a good human being without worrying about some unknown reward.

At least you are rejecting it on its own terms and in its context. That is fair. What is unfair is to make a parody out of it, a strawman of which it is not and mock it. I am perfectly fine with any of you rejecting it so long as you are in perfect understanding of what I am actually saying, and you are very clearly rejecting it on the terms that it is presented. THAT is what is FAIR. I didn't ask you to ACCEPT it. I asked you to understand it on its own terms and context.

Ed the problem I have isn’t the terms and conditions of the reward of eternal life. It’s the FORCE and FEAR that is instilled as a condition before even accepting to live and follow in return for the reward (eternal life). We see this in the temple. If you don’t live up to these covenants you’ll be disconnected from living with God, family, and righteous friends.

If that isn’t enough FEAR then how about we add in eternal servitude? Still not scared? How about we add removal of genitals and the ability to procreate in the eternities?

Can you see the pattern? Why would God need to send us away, test us, and force us through the use of FEAR to return again?

Can you see the same pattern in your honey bee analogy below?

What kind of human do you want to be? You have the law, and you have the proof that was offered you in terms that are dictated by your Heavenly King, not by you. Do you want to be a eunuch as a servant in eternity, to someone in your family to help them with their kingdom, with only roots (where the sealing to your parents is still active), and the loss of your branches (where you have no posterity or spouse), without the ability to procreate? What privileges do you want in eternity? Are you willing to work for it? Or are you satisfied with a lesser state of being a eunuch in eternity? Do you want to be a worker bee, or a Queen bee? What is fair? For you to be spoonfed proof, or for you to listen to the proof that you have been offered, by an Intelligent Being that is the one that dictates the terms, not you, and for you to humble yourself and submit to accept that kind of proof? Or is it fair for those that go by the rules, and accept the proof that they are offered on the terms that they are offered it, to become Queen bees? Or are you satisfied with the kind of Immortality of being an eternal Eunuch worker bee? Will you be satisfied with the kind of progression and destiny that a Heavenly Eunuch worker bee will have throughout eternity?

Your example below is just another eternal carrot to chase in the form of a promise of advanced development?

Are we as advanced along the path of development in the human species as the individuals of the human species get?
No. There are other transformations to other forms of human to come. We are like the catepillars that haven't transformed into the butterfly stage yet. We have yet to enter the cocoon/chrysalis of the grave, and be transformed into a fully formed human in the resurrection.

At some point the product should stand on its own merit and not on the instilled FEAR of its maker.

[wtfluff]

Curious ed: Do you have children?
Do you treat your children the way your "Trickster God" treats you?
(Yes, I know I'm going to regret this...)

I am not going to dignify this, any more than I dignified other mockeries and provocations.
[snip]

As expected, thanks for the extended rant. As others have mentioned: I have no desire to worship a god who "sends me to school" with no, real, clear instructions on how to "graduate," then punishes me for eternity for finite actions such as possibly believing evidence the same god provided to trick me.

If that's how a "loving heavenly father" shows love, I want nothing to do with it.

[ed123]

Ed the problem I have isn’t the terms and conditions of the reward of eternal life. It’s the FORCE and FEAR that is instilled as a condition before even accepting to live and follow in return for the reward (eternal life). We see this in the temple. If you don’t live up to these covenants you’ll be disconnected from living with God, family, and righteous friends.

If that isn’t enough FEAR then how about we add in eternal servitude? Still not scared? How about we add removal of genitals and the ability to procreate in the eternities?

Can you see the pattern? Why would God need to send us away, test us, and force us through the use of FEAR to return again?

Can you see the same pattern in your honey bee analogy below?

Your example below is just another eternal carrot to chase in the form of a promise of advanced development?

At some point the product should stand on its own merit and not on the instilled FEAR of its maker.

Do you fear for your child to get hit by a car? When he is still yet a child, what kind of motivation can you possibly use when the child hasn't learned by his own experience to love you and your ways yet?

What if spiritual death to whatever degree is real, where not only you suffer to a degree for your sins, but also, there is a real loss of privilege in eternity? What are you to do to motivate your children?

Can your children when they are sufficiently advanced in their mind's development and in their experience get past the fact and not be offended anymore at the fact that you loved them enough to fear for their loss and you were trying to motivate them not to hurt themselves?

Maybe a better question is, can we as adults choose not to be offended by God's use of more base motivations to try to motivate his children to realize the reality of the danger that they face in loss of privilege and suffering that he cannot save them from if they do not choose his way?

Can we as adults come to be motivated by a better motivation and put God's use of fear as a motivator in some cases in a better perspective and not be offended by it, and see it for what it is, as a loving Father's use of whatever motivation he can to keep us from hurting ourselves?

[ed123]

Curious ed: Do you have children?
Do you treat your children the way your "Trickster God" treats you?
(Yes, I know I'm going to regret this...)

I am not going to dignify this, any more than I dignified other mockeries and provocations.
[snip]

As expected, thanks for the extended rant. As others have mentioned: I have no desire to worship a god who "sends me to school" with no, real, clear instructions on how to "graduate," then punishes me for eternity for finite actions such as possibly believing evidence the same god provided to trick me.

If that's how a "loving heavenly father" shows love, I want nothing to do with it.

At least you know the terms and made your choice for now. But the Holy Ghost will lead you to those clear instructions when you are ready for them, when you come to yourself (it's my hope that you will).

[alas]

Ed, I couldn’t follow your first post. It just didn’t make sense to me and I didn’t have time at that point to read through it several times to try to make sense of it.

Now, I can’t go back and see what you were trying to say, to see if you just worded your argument badly, or us NOMs misunderstood and attacked you for trying to tell us we had to accept your ideas hook line and sinker. You didn’t clarify, you just got offended and offensive instead of working to understand where we were misunderstanding you.

So, now that you are back, I hope you can try to understand where we misunderstood you. Because this really is a very nice bunch of people. But we do argue with people who preach at us. We even tolerate believers who discuss and explain their position. Many of us are married to believers, so we do tolerate them. But if you come into our home, and post, don’t expect it to become your home just because you started a discussion. This is a place for unbelievers and you need to understand that if you are going to come into our home. We respect you if you respect us. But if you demand we agree, then yeah, you are not welcome. You are going to have to work harder to get us to understand your argument, and using words that have a meaning, like “trickster God” we’ll, we apparently reacted to your words, not your real meaning.

I am still not clear what you mean by “trickster God” because to me a trickster God is not a God I am willing to worship.

So, my advice would be to start a new thread and don’t use words that have a meaning already defined.

If you say that God sometimes withholds consequences, yeah, I can agree with that. My dad was an abusive ass and he didn’t suffer very bad consequences of that. But the long term consequences are that he has lost his family. We just stopped loving him and wanting to be around him at some point. But he died before he understood that nobody really loves him any more. See, God withheld the full consequences.

But if you say that God purposely hides the artifacts of the Nephite people, so that we have to believe with evidence there that it is all false, then no, I can’t accept your argument as valid. Because I see lack of evidence when it reaches the point of the BoM says there were elephants and science says no elephants, I will go with science. That is not just lack of evidence either way, but evidence to the contrary.

[wtfluff]

As expected, thanks for the extended rant. As others have mentioned: I have no desire to worship a god who "sends me to school" with no, real, clear instructions on how to "graduate," then punishes me for eternity for finite actions such as possibly believing evidence the same god provided to trick me.

If that's how a "loving heavenly father" shows love, I want nothing to do with it.

At least you know the terms and made your choice for now. But the Holy Ghost will lead you to those clear instructions when you are ready for them, when you come to yourself (it's my hope that you will).

Clear instructions provided by a ghost.

Got it.