Well, because it is basically the cornerstone of the LDS Church.
So, if they were wrong about this, then they wouldn't actually be communicating with God, and therefore the religion is false. Correct?
I wouldn't say that those claims don't matter - rather that I don't believe them. Some of those I don't think I could ever believe, some at least in theory I could.
- Why do you believe one claim over the other? Why are you Mormon and not something else?
- Were you raised that way, or did you make a conscious choice to follow this religion?
What is and isn't permissible has changed over time - this makes sense precisely because we receive revelation, so when God wants us to do or not do something, He can tell us.
- Why would he change his mind?
From my vantage point, it seems that the church does not actually receive communication from God, but in order to exist, it has to tell its members that. And in order to exist, its members have to believe that.
I do not believe God would change his mind regarding what is moral or immoral. If God for example thinks that polygamous marriage is okay, and then changes his mind, that sounds more like a human decision than a Godly one.
- Why would God contradict himself?
- Is possible the leaders of the church are lying to you? If so, are they doing it on purpose?
If God gives us new information, that may change our views on something.
- You believe God communicates with you through the church. Why doesn't he communicate with you directly?
- How can you verify that it is God, and not Man, commanding you?
He wouldn't, although changes in what humans do might lead to Him changing exactly what He wants us to do.
Okay, but what if the change in human society was to suggest that slavery was unacceptable, but in scripture it doesn't say anything about the immorality of slavery.
- Why would God not say that slavery was immoral and make the change happen himself, if he does not approve of other immoral behavior?
- What if God said that polygamy was okay, and then said it wasn't okay, after society deemed it to be unacceptable?
- Why would God's views change to conform to what people think? Isn't it more likely that the church changes to stay relevant? Isn't this more likely to be the work of man than God?
I am not sure that anyone has experiences that "directly contradict" mine - but even if they do, personal experiences are just that - personal.
If your religion is true, there are no other Gods.
Some people believe that a non-Mormon Jesus appears to them. Others think that Mohammed is speaking to them. Some believe they can talk with Ganesha.
Your religion holds that these things are impossible. Are they delusional?
If Mormonism is the one true faith, then all other faiths are lies. It may be personal in terms of belief, but it deals with the nature of reality, and reality is the same for all of us, it isn't personal.
I have absolutely no grounds for judging other people's personal religious experiences.
But your belief that Mormonism is "true" is in fact a judgment about their religion, which is that theirs is false.
Could they both be true? That seems logically impossible. Therefore your belief is that you are right and they are.... in fact, all of them are.... entirely wrong.
Am I missing a subtlety here? Correct me if I am wrong.
Some of that, we still don't know, and won't until He tells us. I am not sure how important the specific examples you gave are.
I am looking to find out what you believe about God.
I am not finding much in terms of specifics. I'm not concerned with importance, really, just what you believe.
If you believe it, and you have faith in it, then it is important to you.
- Do you not think it is important what God did with his time before he created the Universe? Are you not curious?
- Do you wonder what he looks like?
- Does he have a sense of humor?
- What does he do with his time, exactly?
Anything, anything at all, that you believe about this being, who is the person you believe to be the creator of everything, the master of the universe, your eternal lord, and final judge of your soul.
What is it you believe about him? Is it concrete, are there specifics? Do you ever question those beliefs? Do you even have beliefs about God, or do you prefer not to think about the specifics?
- Would God be in any way less glorious or wonderful if you knew specifics about him?
Do you not wish to picture this God specifically? If I believed in such a being, I'd want to know everything about him, and devote my entire life to learning more about him, since he is basically the only thing that matters in the entire universe.
Nothing else comes close. Everything else is like a single grain of sand on one moon of one planet in one solar system in one galaxy in all the vast universe, and God would be the rest of the universe, in terms of importance. If I believed.
- Why is it, do you think, that the description of God is so vague?
- Do you believe, if people were told something specific about God, it would cause them to not believe in him?
- Say for example, the leaders of your church revealed that he preferred to exist in a form that resembled a man with red hair and freckles. Would you believe it?
- Do you believe certain people would question the church more if they gave specifics about God?
My theory is that the reason why God is left "blank" is so that there isn't anything specific people can find unbelievable about him, so that he has wider appeal. One might call it commercially more appealing.
It is hard to say you don't believe in an amorphous God with few defining characteristics, but easy to say you fear/love/respect him for creating the universe.
It is much easier to say you don't believe in a God with three heads and breathes fire. It sounds ridiculous.
So, God is a male(ish) figure with no defining features, no race, no skin color, hair color, eye color, and vaguely looks human, but anything else about him is stuff that we don't know and widely disagree on. In fact many people disagree about all of this stuff already.
However, this vague parental figure is widely appealing to those who require one to feel secure about their own death, and are worried about an afterlife or lack thereof.
People find this figure comforting, and actually more believable and widely appealing if there is nothing specific about him. That is why I believe the church does not reveal specifics about him, in order to find him less disagreeable, as a marketing decision, in much the same way that certain companies don't advertise much or have names which reveal anything about their operations. They want to exist and be profitable without anyone asking questions or having any strong reaction to hearing their name.
I believe Him to be all-loving, all-powerful (not, however, omnipotent as the term is usually used), all-knowing (whether this entails a perfect knowledge of what will happen in the future or just what can I don't know).
Doesn't omnipotent literally mean all-powerful? An exact translation?
What is the difference in your mind.
All-knowing by definition means there is nothing God does not know. Therefore he cannot learn something knew, and doesn't have a lack of knowledge about the future.
"Why it's correct" I don't think I can answer, if it's correct, it's correct because that's just how it is. Why I believe it's correct - because I believe that God told me it is.
When did God speak to you, and how?
Why, if God told you that your religion is correct, would he not tell others to convert to Mormonism?
Why would he allow for the fact that some people don't believe, and will therefore suffer in hell, when he could simply prove his existence by speaking to them as he did for you?
Why are you special enough that God speaks to you and not to me?
I sought God and tried to believe. I sincerely wanted to believe. I was a good person and offered to pledge myself to a church if he could help me choose the right one. I wrote letters to God and even prayed regularly.
Nothing ever happened.
Why does God speak to you and not to others?
Doesn't that violate free will, to prove to you that he is God, but not to me?
Why would he judge me for not believing in him if he made his existence so apparent to you, but not to me?
If someone said, "you can ask God if X is correct, and if it is He will tell you it is", and I did and He did and it was - then I would think it was correct.
When has God directly answered any of your questions? What were the circumstances therein?
You are just applying the word "faith" to a different part of the equation is all. I would call accepting what the Bible says as "belief", but actually jumping off the building "faith".
I think belief and faith are two different things.
I believe that it is going to rain in the next three weeks.
I don't have faith that it will, and wouldn't care one way or the other if it did or did not happen.
I also think faith and acting on faith, and belief and acting on belief, are very different things.
If I believe someone could be guilty of a crime, I might accuse them. But I would never have "faith" that someone is guilty of a crime, that's irrational and unfair.
Acting out of faith implies an irrationality that doesn't compute for me.
Acting on a belief is what we are all forced to do every day of our lives, religious or not.
Do you believe that if people pray to get well and they are sick, they might get well?
Even, as they say, miraculously well? Like recovering from a coma, or cancer?
Prayer can help with that?
Such as, to stop a genocide, or to stop cancer from spreading, etc, etc?
What are some things you can name that God intervenes with.
Cite examples, if you would.
That implies that he will never change his mind.
Because the Plan, sweeping as it is, is not so set in stone that it doesn't allow for the exercise of free will, or other human input.
If that is the case then the future isn't set in stone.
That means humans could incinerate the entire world with nuclear weapons, or release a virus that erradicates our species.
We have that power.
God has told us how the world will end, but we can change that plan and defy God.
We literally have the power to prove God to be a liar.
We could detonate missiles and prove God wrong at any time. Any time at all.
Is that part of God's plan?
If it is, but the alternative (no nukes, no man-made virus) is also part of God's plan, then anything (literally anything) that happens is God's plan.
That doesn't sound like a plan at all. It sounds like there is no plan, but that God is saying that anything that happens is part of his plan.
That doesn't make sense. It sounds more like what humans would come up with to explain the following contradictions:
1. God knows everything and knows the future and has a plan for the future
2. God wants you to pray.... ostensibly, to change the future
3. We can change the future so much that the revelations God talks about never happen the way he says it will.
Therefore God has a plan, but it changes to fit whatever happened. That sounds like the exact same situation as if there was no God and no plan.
"If God wills it to be so" - which is the catch, because it then becomes hard to differentiate a prayer not being answered* because God felt that it is better that something else happen, versus a prayer not answered because God doesn't exist or doesn't answer prayers.
Why doesn't God ever heal amputees?
*That is, the desired outcome doesn't occur. God may answer prayers in an unexpected way that is nothing like what the person who prayed, wanted to happen.
- Why does God only favor certain kinds of diseases to be cured through prayer?
Why can't a person be decapitated, and then prayer reverses it?
Why can't a person's limb be restored to them like magic, through the power of prayer?
- Why does a prayer being answered only happen in situations where it could be explained without prayer being involved?
Because God is concerned with what is best for the person who is praying, and knows what this is better than they do.
- So why doesn't he like amputees?
Why doesn't he allow me to run at 50 miles an hour, to push someone out of the way of a moving vehicle?
Why doesn't he alter reality in any provable manner? Why is prayer only applicable in situations where the end result could be the same even if you didn't pray?
Why do statistics show that people do not recover faster or in higher percentages due to personal prayer, or organized mass prayer, than for others who do not believe and do not pray?
- If the same outcome can be (and is) achieved without prayer, why do we pray?
If the odds of success are not affected by prayer, aren't we simply rewarding God when things work out naturally, but not blaming him when they don't?
Isn't that like saying a positive proves God, but a negative also proves God, therefore there is nothing that can ever disprove God?
Doesn't that break down the foundation of proof?
Sometimes the "miracle" was simply the world operating the way the world operates; sometimes, what seems bad in the short term is best in the long term.
Why do these miracles happen in the exact same frequency in countries which are not Mormon, Christian, or whatever?
Even if no one is praying and no one believes it, why does God still intervene at exactly the same ratio as he does for those who believe and pray?
- Doesn't that mean he's not actually intervening and prayer is meaningless?
Well, I define a miracle simply as "divine intervention" - it doesn't involve "breaking the laws on nature" (which I consider to be logically impossible), and may not thus be possible to identify as a miracle.
The Bible specifically states in literal, unambiguous terms that through belief in Jesus, it will be possible to do anything. You can move mountains. Anything will be possible.
That implies that things will be possible that wouldn't otherwise be possible if you didn't believe.
What powers has your faith given you? When you pray, how have you affected the outcome of events in the world?
If impossible things aren't possible even with prayer, then what you're saying is that prayer works only if:
- It would be possible even without prayer
- It would be possible even if you don't believe
- It will happen at the same rate, around the world, involving people who don't pray and don't believe
Which means that I shouldn't pray because I receive no additional benefits that I wouldn't already get from God and his miracles if I did pray.
I thought that prayer would mean God would play favorites, and answer your prayers, since you're praying, rather than answer the prayers that I am not praying for.
As far as documentation - there are lots of documents that describe miracles. The Bible, for instance, is a series of documents that describes a number of episodes of divine intervention. But miracles are generally one time events, and not amenable to scientific study.
Miracles also never happen in circumstances where it wouldn't have been possible without God's interference.
Doesn't that seem a bit coincidental to you?
If a skyscraper disappeared for an entire day, and re-appeared, I would accept that there was the possibility that a God did it.
But the miracles in question always involve something less... I dunno, convincing.
- Why does God only perform miracles which still leave it ambiguous as to whether or not they are miracles?
Why does God reveal these miracles, which make people believe, in some circumstances, but he doesn't do it for everyone?
Isn't it unfair to punish a people who don't believe in him, when he has secretly told the answer to a very, very small group of people, and rewarded them for their belief, even though they didn't believe beforehand, but others searched for God their entire lives and never found him, and he is apparently going to punish them?
Is that fair or just? Why would God be unfair or unjust?
I like to think I have tested my faith - when I sought answers from God about it. And my beliefs definitely affect the outcome of my life.
There's no question that your belief can make you change your behavior, but other than that, how have you tested your faith?
There is no scientific test you could take?
I could name several tests. Coincidentally, the church does not want you to test God, but they say they are unafraid to test your faith. What is the difference?
I like to think I do, generally, act on my belief; when I don't, it isn't a case of me rationally deciding that my faith doesn't apply in that particular instance, or deciding to temporarily abandon it; it is a case of me being a weak, irrational human being.
In the Bible:
Luke 12:33
Sell your possessions and give to the poor. Provide purses for yourselves that will not wear out, a treasure in heaven that will not be exhausted, where no thief comes near and no moth destroys.
Do Mormons only believe in the Book of Mormon, or is it a new testament of Jesus Christ?
Does this apply to Mormons?
How many people who believe in God or Jesus have done as he commands here, which is to sell your possessions and give to the poor?
Have you done as God has commanded, from your Holy Book? Why or why not?
I don't think God would outright lie, although He might cause someone to hold an incorrect view if He felt it was better for them to think something that is false than to know the truth.
http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/contra/god_lie.html
http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/BOM/contra/true.html
http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/BOM/contra/precious.html
http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/BOM/contra/free.html
If the Bible and the book of Mormon was made by God, and God speaks to the Church, why hasn't he clarified these points which contradict each other?
Why doesn't it mean God is lying when the Book of Mormon contradicts itself?
Why doesn't it mean God is lying when the things he say directly contradict other things he says?
Isn't that the definition of lying?
- Why doesn't he lie, if he's allowed to tell falsehoods?
- Why would he cause people to believe untrue things, isn't that the same as lying to them if he's forcing incorrect knowledge into them?
- Why do we believe God doesn't lie when we also believe he does lie for a purpose?
I don't suppose He would - He will allow us to suffer, but not out of malevolence.
- Is there any other kind of inflicted suffering besides malevolent?
The Bible(s) have often spoke of wrath and pain and horror and punishment inflicted by God. We also experience pain and agony, and horrible deaths. We are told that there is a hell, where we will suffer beyond all imagination.
If God is pure benevolence and infinitely superior to us in wisdom and knowledge, why does he practice torture? Why does he torment us and allow us to suffer?
Isn't there a way he can teach us his lessons without being more cruel than all the mass murderers and serial killers and serial rapists throughout history combined?
- If he loves us, why does he treat us like neglected, tortured dogs?
- Do you believe in Hell?
- Do you believe that God is the reason people die, and before God punished us, we did not die?
- Do you believe that we experienced pain before God allowed us to?
- Do you believe that those who are judged to be unfit to enter heaven are justified in experiencing eternal suffering or hardship?
- Do you ever question God and wonder why he doesn't have a more enlightened view, if he is so amazing?
I don't think God would say something that is provably untrue (unless, as above, He felt it would be best) - although He has undoubtedly said things that some people think are provably untrue . . .
It seems to me you are attempting to reconcile conflicting beliefs, and you recognize the conflict and you're unable to resolve it.
I hope these questions do not come off as hostile.
I obviously do not believe, and I think that the God as you picture him is demonstrably or self-evidently not true. But, I also accept that I can be wrong, and I also accept that believing in God is okay.
I wonder if you have the same questions about God that I do, and if you've ever gotten the answers you seek. If so, what were they?
God never answered my questions, and I did ask him repeatedly. Why did he ignore me? Why does he answer your questions and not mine?