NOM

ed123 wrote: ↑Mon Jul 15, 2019 8:15 am I'm not your friend, you sons of bitches. You were the ones that decided that. You were the ones that decided how this was going to be.

Wow.

It seems that your professed faith in God and Christ has done nothing to elicit even the smallest degree of a charitable response from you regardless of what they say. Consider what you're arguing for and they way you are going about it.

I'm done here.

You are wearing out your welcome, Ed. We generally welcome disagreement here, but you have jumped straight to being disagreeable. Name calling is no way to further meaningful discussion.

I read your introduction. At the time I suspected your issue with other forums said more about you than it did about them. I am truly sorry to have my suspicion confirmed.

DPRoberts wrote: ↑Mon Jul 15, 2019 8:33 am You are wearing out your welcome, Ed. We generally welcome disagreement here, but you have jumped straight to being disagreeable. Name calling is no way to further meaningful discussion.

I read your introduction. At the time I suspected your issue with other forums said more about you than it did about them. I am truly sorry to have my suspicion confirmed.

Don't worry. My kind was never welcome here. Let's end this.
You people don't know me. You don't know my pain. You don't care about me as a person. You think your pain you have experienced is the only pain. You think your minds are the only ones with rationality. That is insulting. And it is the same thing over and over again. You have no respect for people that think differently than you. I am ending this. I am leaving here.

ed123 wrote: ↑Mon Jul 15, 2019 8:37 am

DPRoberts wrote: ↑Mon Jul 15, 2019 8:33 am You are wearing out your welcome, Ed. We generally welcome disagreement here, but you have jumped straight to being disagreeable. Name calling is no way to further meaningful discussion.

I read your introduction. At the time I suspected your issue with other forums said more about you than it did about them. I am truly sorry to have my suspicion confirmed.

Don't worry. My kind was never welcome here. Let's end this.
You people don't know me. You don't know my pain. You don't care about me as a person. You think your pain you have experienced is the only pain. You think your minds are the only ones with rationality. That is insulting. And it is the same thing over and over again. You have no respect for people that think differently than you. I am ending this. I am leaving here.

Perhaps you need to stick around and not base whether or not you are accepted on this or other forums on whether or not your theory gets acceptance. Over at mormondiscussions.com, it was the same thing. You pushed your theory and then got hostile when it wasn't accepted. How about discuss other things? Don't demand that people accept you on your terms. That never works. Also, if you are in pain, how about discuss that or seek a qualified therapist?

Exiled wrote: ↑Mon Jul 15, 2019 8:52 am Perhaps you need to stick around and not base whether or not you are accepted on this or other forums on whether or not your theory gets acceptance. Over at mormondiscussions.com, it was the same thing. You pushed your theory and then got hostile when it wasn't accepted. How about discuss other things? Don't demand that people accept you on your terms. That never works. Also, if you are in pain, how about discuss that or seek a qualified therapist?

Stick around after this? Come back to MormonDiscussions after that?
I told you what I needed from you all in both places, and it wasn't acceptance of a theory. It was feedback of the inner consistency of a theory, because my own kind are stuck up and cliquish and high and mighty. That is not a request for acceptance of a theory. What did I find here? Arrogance and high and mighty-ish people who are more rational than thou. Same thing at Mormon Discussions.

You consistently point the finger of scorn and mockery at my kind in both places because you are better than us, and more rational than us, and more intelligent than us. I am to feel welcomed at this? I exited Mormon Discusssions because I didn't think of it as a potential "home," but I needed to bounce thoughts off somebody. I thought I might see the potential here as a "home" if there were people I could relate to with issues like mine here that haven't gone off the deep end. I see that that was a foolish hope.

Sorry, no. I see no potential here. A qualified therapist? Who would that be? A LDS Therapist that knows nothing of the Internet Mormonism? A John Dehlin type therapist that seeks to destroy the Church? Thank you no.

Speaking to people here about my pain when there is nothing but scorn and mockery in both places. Thank you no.

I will suffer in silence on my own. Thank you. Farewell.

Well, that was interesting. Not really the discussion I’d envisioned, but then often life doesn’t go the direction you think it will.

But Ed123 does bring up some points worthy of discussion if you can sift through all of the anger and ranting (boy it doesn’t take long for you to get prickly, does it?). Likening all of us to Korihor is interesting - see, I’m not worried about suffering the fate of Korihor, because all of the evidence points to that story being a total and complete fabrication. I worry about suffering Korihor’s fate like I worry about Death Eaters or the Nazgul. It’s a made-up story with no relevance to the real world, and you have absolutely zero evidence that says otherwise. As for the “warnings” I am ignoring, all of the available evidence tells me the leaders of the LDS Church are no more inspired than the leaders of the Jehovah’s Witnesses, or Scientology, or any other religion - you have no objective reason to think that your faith in your religion is any more true, valid, or legitimate than the faith of the followers of those religions. Lacking evidence of the veracity of their religion’s truth claims, they must have faith - just like you do. What makes your faith better? Why should I listen to President Nelson any more than I listen to David Miscavige?

Finally I am having a little trouble following where you are going with the “forcing you to be good by spoon feeding you proof so that you are forced to choose the right by undeniable proof” comment. Which is easier - simply believing what you are told (spoon fed, if you like), or taking a hard look at the evidence and making a decision after carefully applying critical thinking? Simply believing is the easy way out, at least in my book. A Supreme Being who gives me no proof is functionally no different than no Supreme Being at all, there is no way to distinguish between a Trickster God and one who simply isn’t there.

Simply having faith in something because someone tells you to chains you to whatever belief system you happen to be born into, and would be a remarkably inefficient and capricious way for a Supreme Being to run the epistemology of his universe.

Finally, I need to correct something, I didn’t mean to accuse my wife of using a weak, pathetic argument, she just made an offhand comment repeating what she has heard others say, she wasn’t really engaging in a debate. If she had seen the discussion as a debate, her arguments would have been anything but weak and pathetic, she is a remarkably intelligent person who just sees the Church differently than I do.

P.S. Ed123 I’m betting you haven’t really left, and you won’t be able to resist responding to this.

Not Buying It wrote: ↑Mon Jul 15, 2019 6:12 am There’s an extensive debate about Christ as a “Trickster God” in another thread, and rather than join that discussion I wanted to start a separate thread about it, rather than thread-jack.

Oddly enough, last night my wife invoked the Trickster God argument. We were talking about the Book of Mormon and I noted that it describes a vast civilization of millions of people who apparently left not a single shred of verifiable archaeological evidence behind. My wife said “Maybe God didn’t want there to be any evidence”. My response was “Well, if that is true, then someday I will take tell God ‘Look, I know you have the power to send me to Hell and all, but I have to say, it wasn’t very fair to leave all this evidence making it look like the Book of Mormon was a fraud and expect me to believe it anyway”.

And that’s my argument against the Trickster God hypothesis - perhaps it is consistent with LDS theology, because it’s the go-to when the evidence is completely against the Church’s claims, but a rational, loving, fair, equitable Supreme Being would never operate that way. And frankly, a Trickster God privileges the stupid, gullible, and easily fooled and disadvantages critical thinkers and logical reasoners. He becomes the God of Those Who Don’t Use Their Brains, and displays an unacceptable bias against those who actually use the brains he gave them.

As dogbite says in the other discussion:

Once you posit a trickster God, there is no way to know anything. All things could be a deception. There is no basis for calling anything evidence; no basis for saying this is a deception and that is not.

Trickster God is a weak, pathetic argument that is used by those who don’t have anything better to defend their position.

Not Buying It wrote: ↑Mon Jul 15, 2019 10:41 am
Finally, I need to correct something, I didn’t mean to accuse my wife of using a weak, pathetic argument, she just made an offhand comment repeating what she has heard others say, she wasn’t really engaging in a debate. If she had seen the discussion as a debate, her arguments would have been anything but weak and pathetic, she is a remarkably intelligent person who just sees the Church differently than I do.

My issue with the trickster god is the inconsistency. Trickster god is inconsistent, and that is not what I see in the world around me. The more consistent narratives found in fossil evidence, DNA studies, etc are more compelling than to me than the slippery ways of trickster god. Scientific knowledge may adjust for new evidence over time, but at least the methods are stated.

I find it interesting that most religious people attribute behavior to god that they would find appalling in their own person.

It is fine for god to mislead and show cruelty but I would never do that.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

ed123 wrote: ↑Mon Jul 15, 2019 9:03 am
Speaking to people here about my pain when there is nothing but scorn and mockery in both places. Thank you no.

I will suffer in silence on my own. Thank you. Farewell.

Wow, well I think my initial suspicions are sadly true about the level of narcissism you expressed while you were here. So no, don't bother with any therapists because you'll just believe they are all wrong anyway and waste your money/time.

But back to the main thread here, the trickster god is manifest in so many way in mormonism. I talked about how I tried to make the DNA evidence against the BOM work for many years, how I tried to reconcile evolution with the creation story which led to so many other bible and BOM stories not lining up with physical evidence, which led to questioning so many other things, all the while pleading with trickster god for answers and trying to keep my faith alive. Not going to jump down the huge diatribe of all the things on my shelf that broke it, but I am very grateful it finally broke and freed me from all that pain.

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?

Linked wrote: ↑Mon Jul 15, 2019 11:42 am My issue with the trickster god is the inconsistency. Trickster god is inconsistent, and that is not what I see in the world around me. The more consistent narratives found in fossil evidence, DNA studies, etc are more compelling than to me than the slippery ways of trickster god. Scientific knowledge may adjust for new evidence over time, but at least the methods are stated.

That's just what Trickster god wants you to think. They maintain consistency when people are paying attention, then yank it away at some future date. Did that person keep track of how much money is in their wallet? If not, then they can stick some more in there. If so, then they won't.

Trickster god is impossible to rule out in any logical way. I find the idea ridiculous. So, I guess I reject Trickster god on aesthetic grounds.

græy wrote: ↑Mon Jul 15, 2019 8:20 am

ed123 wrote: ↑Mon Jul 15, 2019 8:15 am I'm not your friend, you sons of bitches. You were the ones that decided that. You were the ones that decided how this was going to be.

Wow.

It seems that your professed faith in God and Christ has done nothing to elicit even the smallest degree of a charitable response from you regardless of what they say. Consider what you're arguing for and they way you are going about it.

I'm done here.

Well. That escalated quickly!

ed123 wrote: ↑Mon Jul 15, 2019 8:15 am I'm not your friend, you sons of bitches. You were the ones that decided that. You were the ones that decided how this was going to be.

This is the exact same thing I say to the drive-thru speaker when McDonalds tells me that the ice cream machine is down for cleaning with their insincere apologies!

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).

How about Doctrine and Covenants 19, where God seems to be saying that He uses terms such as "endless" and "eternal" when taking about punishment in the afterlife because people will (incorrectly) interpret those words to mean endless or eternal in duration. At least, that's how I always interpreted it.

6 Nevertheless, it is not written that there shall be no end to this torment, but it is written endless torment.

7 Again, it is written eternal damnation; wherefore it is more express than other scriptures, that it might work upon the hearts of the children of men, altogether for my name’s glory.

jfro18 wrote: ↑Mon Jul 15, 2019 6:44 pm This is the exact same thing I say to the drive-thru speaker when McDonalds tells me that the ice cream machine is down for cleaning with their insincere apologies!

Finally, we get down to the real issues in life!

Ghost wrote: ↑Mon Jul 15, 2019 10:53 pm How about Doctrine and Covenants 19, where God seems to be saying that He uses terms such as "endless" and "eternal" when taking about punishment in the afterlife because people will (incorrectly) interpret those words to mean endless or eternal in duration. At least, that's how I always interpreted it.

6 Nevertheless, it is not written that there shall be no end to this torment, but it is written endless torment.

7 Again, it is written eternal damnation; wherefore it is more express than other scriptures, that it might work upon the hearts of the children of men, altogether for my name’s glory.

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?

Random wrote: ↑Mon Jul 15, 2019 7:30 pm 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).

So beautifully stated. This is exactly why Trickster God is an abominable blasphemy to the concept of God, if you believe in God. Or if you are atheist, just a really dumb idea.

Not Buying It wrote: ↑Tue Jul 16, 2019 5:21 am

Ghost wrote: ↑Mon Jul 15, 2019 10:53 pm How about Doctrine and Covenants 19, where God seems to be saying that He uses terms such as "endless" and "eternal" when taking about punishment in the afterlife because people will (incorrectly) interpret those words to mean endless or eternal in duration. At least, that's how I always interpreted it.

6 Nevertheless, it is not written that there shall be no end to this torment, but it is written endless torment.

7 Again, it is written eternal damnation; wherefore it is more express than other scriptures, that it might work upon the hearts of the children of men, altogether for my name’s glory.

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?

Yes!

When it comes to using revelations to get out of a jam, Joseph Smith also used trickster God in the following ways:

• Joseph Smith translated the BoM with a rock in a hat and then claimed to get revelations from this same rock. When Hyrum Page got revelations through his own 'seer stone' and the witnesses believed him, Joseph Smith quickly got a revelation that Page's stone was actually Satan where Joseph's was from God. Amazing, right?

• Mormon God would know to have a second set of plates made thousands of years ago to cover a period of time for the exact pages Joseph lost, but wouldn't be able to plan for problems with polygamy, ban on blacks, or Nov 15 LGBT policies

• When Joseph Smith got spooked traveling on the water, he promptly received a revelation from God that he should not travel by water, but that most of the group still should still go via the rocky waters.

• Joseph saw both Elias and Elijah in the Kirtland temple even though they are the same person with a different translation in the Old Testament and NT

There are a bunch of other good examples where Joseph used revelation to get himself either out of trouble or establish authority even if it contradicts prior revelations or actions.

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!