Does morality require a god?

[EricE]

26 minutes ago, estradling75 said:

Then I would very much like to see you answer the question I posed ... here it is again.

 

Based on your claim that as God you would not let a child burn to death...

 

With that knowledge what is your answer

Assuming that I am the Mormon god? In that case I don't "just see" a child being burned. It's part of my plan, right? Or at least I've always known that the child was going to be burned? 

If I'm an all-powerful and all-knowing god (or maximally powerful, I don't want to assume how you believe), that would mean I would have the power to design a plan that didn't require burning deaths, or slavery, or genocide, etc. I think going that route would be preferable. 

Edited August 11, 2016 by EricE

[LeSellers]

2 hours ago, EricE said:

If you want to defend and/or justify slavery, be my guest. I'll stick with saying it is immoral under any circumstance. 

So, your mind made up, you dismiss any counterpoint with a mere, "well my morality is higher than yours (or God's)"?

That you refuse to discuss any conclusion that does not align with yours is highly indicative. Of what, seems abundantly clear.

Lehi

[EricE]

11 minutes ago, LeSellers said:

So, your mind made up, you dismiss any counterpoint with a mere, "well my morality is higher than yours (or God's)"?

That you refuse to discuss any conclusion that does not align with yours is highly indicative. Of what, seems abundantly clear.

Lehi

Yes. My mind is made up that slavery is immoral, because I have never seen any evidence that it is good for the people who are enslaved. 

Edited August 11, 2016 by EricE

[Anddenex]

7 minutes ago, EricE said:

I'm an all-powerful and all-knowing god (or maximally powerful, I don't want to assume how you believe), that would mean I would have the power to design a plan that didn't require burning deaths, or slavery, or genocide, etc.

Thank you for giving evidence for God's plan and the importance of our moral agency. 

[omegaseamaster75]

37 minutes ago, estradling75 said:

Then I would very much like to see you answer the question I posed ... here it is again.

 

Based on your claim that as God you would not let a child burn to death...

 

With that knowledge what is your answer

So here is the deal  God was going to destroy Sodom and Gomorrah, and Abraham asked if God would destroy the cities if there were 50 righteous people in them God said no and Abraham kept making the number smaller and smaller. God would save the city of there were any righteous in them at all, everyone that was righteous had already left so he destroyed the city.  God will not destroy the righteous.

So now there is the kids/innocent babies question, One rational, and I am not sure that I am in line with this way of thinking is that we are all sinners yes even babies

1 Kings 8:46 

46 If they sin against thee, (for there is no man that sinneth not,) and thou be angry with them, and deliver them to the enemy, so that they carry them away captives unto the land of the enemy, far or near;

By this line of logic yes even babies are subject to Gods Judgement, but we also learn that babies and small children have no understanding of morality and there for cannot be held accountable see deut 1:39 Moreover your little ones, which ye said should be a prey, and your children, which in that day had no knowledge between good and evil, they shall go in thither, and unto them will I give it, and they shall possess it.

So by having babies and small children killed God actually did them a favor as they are pure and innocent and will have their reward in heaven proving that he is a fair and just God, by not allowing them to grow up to corruption and sin. So God is Moral, the innocent will have their reward and the unrighteous will be punished.

 

Edited August 11, 2016 by omegaseamaster75

[EricE]

21 minutes ago, Anddenex said:

Absolute certainty cannot exist, while making an absolute statement? Always intriguing how a person can make an absolute statement while stating it can't exist. You have declared you have an absolute certainty that absolute certainty can not exist...just a tad bit of irony possibly.  

Not that I don't appreciate the hyperbole, but gross mischaracterizations of what I said don't actually give you an advantage in a discussion. 

Please show me the instance where I said I was absolutely certain of anything. 

[Anddenex]

3 minutes ago, EricE said:

Not that I don't appreciate the hyperbole, but gross mischaracterizations of what I said don't actually give you an advantage in a discussion. 

Please show me the instance where I said I was absolutely certain of anything. 

I already did, let me quote you again, "recognizing that absolute certainty can't exist." (emphasis added as you appear to have missed the quote previously) That is an absolute statement that absolute certainty (and recognizing it) can NOT exist, not a mischaracterization, but an actual quote, or possibly you missed typed?

[EricE]

6 minutes ago, Anddenex said:

I already did, let me quote you again, "recognizing that absolute certainty can't exist." (emphasis added as you appear to have missed the quote previously) That is an absolute statement that absolute certainty (and recognizing it) can NOT exist, not a mischaracterization, but an actual quote, or possibly you missed typed?

Nope. I didn't say I'm absolutely certain of that. And if pressed, I would answer that I am only maximally certain of it for myself. Absolute certainty means that you have all possible evidence and knowledge on a given subject, and there is nothing new you could ever possibly learn that would change your mind. And I don't believe there is good reason to believe that exists. 

[EricE]

24 minutes ago, omegaseamaster75 said:

So by having babies and small children killed God actually did them a favor as they are pure and innocent and will have their reward in heaven proving that he is a fair and just God, by not allowing them to grow up to corruption and sin. So God is Moral, the innocent will have their reward and the unrighteous will be punished.

 

If you believe this, then why aren't Mormons allowing babies to die regularly? I'm not being flippant, seriously think it through. If you believe babies and children don't before they've 'sinned' then why allow them to survive?

Secondly, as I recall my gospel doctrine lessons, according to Mormon theology these children and babies arent actually getting 1st Class Celestial Kingdom. Some they weren't baptized, didn't go through the temple, and weren't married, god has now doomed them to bring servants for all eternity. 

[Anddenex]

3 minutes ago, EricE said:

Nope. I didn't say I'm absolutely certain of that. And if pressed, I would answer that I am only maximally certain of it for myself. Absolute certainty means that you have all possible evidence and knowledge on a given subject, and there is nothing new you could ever possibly learn that would change your mind. And I don't believe there is good reason to believe that exists. 

OK, you didn't, and I am still left puzzled by an absolute statement you made but you didn't make, or you missed typed. Let's say you missed typed. Alright. Enjoy a good night sleep EricE. I, unfortunately, but fortunately, have work to do, have a bundle of children I need to feed.

[Anddenex]

4 minutes ago, EricE said:

Secondly, as I recall my gospel doctrine lessons, according to Mormon theology these children and babies arent actually getting 1st Class Celestial Kingdom. Some they weren't baptized, didn't go through the temple, and weren't married, god has now doomed them to bring servants for all eternity. 

Sorry, have to respond, although I thought my last response was my last response. Your recollection is pretty poor. Read up a little more and smooth out those rough edges you apparently missed, or misunderstood, but let me give you a head start:

As part of his epistle, Mormon also testified that little children are “alive in Christ” and that if they die before they are eight years old, they are redeemed through the Atonement of Jesus Christ (see Moroni 8:12–15, 22). I will give you now the invitation to read up on what it means to be "alive in Christ."

And I also beheld that all children who die before they arrive at the years of accountability are saved in the celestial kingdom of heaven. (D&C 137:10)

Those above the age of accountability will be judged just like any other, if they would have received the gospel while living (although they never had opportunity) they would be accepted also as joint heirs in Christ. They indeed would be alive in Christ also.

It would be good to smooth out the rough patches of your memory because it was pretty poor recollection. 

[EricE]

7 minutes ago, Anddenex said:

Sorry, have to respond, although I thought my last response was my last response. Your recollection is pretty poor. Read up a little more and smooth out those rough edges you apparently missed, or misunderstood, but let me give you a head start:

As part of his epistle, Mormon also testified that little children are “alive in Christ” and that if they die before they are eight years old, they are redeemed through the Atonement of Jesus Christ (see Moroni 8:12–15, 22). I will give you now the invitation to read up on what it means to be "alive in Christ."

And I also beheld that all children who die before they arrive at the years of accountability are saved in the celestial kingdom of heaven. (D&C 137:10)

Those above the age of accountability will be judged just like any other, if they would have received the gospel while living (although they never had opportunity) they would be accepted also as joint heirs in Christ. They indeed would be alive in Christ also.

It would be good to smooth out the rough patches of your memory because it was pretty poor recollection. 

Yup, in the Celestial Kingdom. But not as top tier gods and goddesses according to my temple president. 

[Anddenex]

4 minutes ago, EricE said:

Yup, in the Celestial Kingdom. But not as top tier gods and goddesses according to my temple president. 

Oh boy, read up little more, key phrase, "According to my temple president," that should have been your first clue.  Here are some more helpful quotes to smooth out your rough patches of memory as the first ones didn't set in.

"Among all the glorious gospel verities given of God to his people there is scarcely a doctrine so sweet, so soul satisfying, and so soul sanctifying, as the one which proclaims—Little children shall be saved. They are alive in Christ and shall have eternal life. For them the familyunit will continue, and the fulness of exaltation is theirs. No blessing shall be withheld. They shall rise in immortal glory, grow to full maturity, and live forever in the highest heaven of the celestial kingdom—all through the merits and mercy and grace of the Holy Messiah, all because of the atoning sacrifice of Him who died that we might live."

Another invitation, read up on what it means to have "eternal life" and a "fulness of exaltation." Two invitations given to help increase your understanding of what you have missed now. More knowledge for your rough patches of memory:

"Little children are little children and they are all alive in Christ, and all are saved by him, through and because of the atonement. …

“They are saved through the atonement and because they are free from sin. They come from God in purity; no sin or taint attaches to them in this life; and they return in purity to their Maker. Accountable persons must become pure through repentance and baptism and obedience. Those who are not accountable for sins never fall spiritually and need not be redeemed from a spiritual fall which they never experienced. Hence the expression that little children are alive in Christ. …"

"Even though little children will be saved, does that mean they will have eternal life? Elder McConkie explained: “Eternal life is life in the highest heaven of the celestial world; it is exaltation; it is the name of the kind of life God lives. It consists of a continuation of the family unity in eternity. … children will be saved in the celestial kingdom. Salvation means eternal life; the two terms are synonymous; they mean exactly the same thing. Joseph Smith said, ‘Salvation consists in the glory, authority, majesty, power and dominion which Jehovah possesses and in nothing else.’ (Lectures on Faith,pp. 63–67.)"

President Joseph Fielding Smith added: “The Lord will grant unto these children the privilege of all the sealing blessings which pertain to the exaltation.

“We were all mature spirits before we were born, and the bodies of little children will grow after the resurrection to the full stature of the spirit, and all the blessings will be theirs through their obedience, the same as if they had lived to maturity and received them on the earth.

The first thought about children one should recognize is that they are "pure" meaning they are unspotted of the sins of this world. They are clean. They are received by their Maker after death. That isn't bottom or second tier. 

Again, I am OK with you not believing; however, please smooth out your rough patches of memory, otherwise it appears as if you are being obtuse, insincere, and outwardly dishonest even if you aren't trying. 

[EricE]

8 minutes ago, Anddenex said:

Oh boy, read up little more, key phrase, "According to my temple president," that should have been your first clue.  Here are some more helpful quotes to smooth out your rough patches of memory as the first ones didn't set in.

"Among all the glorious gospel verities given of God to his people there is scarcely a doctrine so sweet, so soul satisfying, and so soul sanctifying, as the one which proclaims—Little children shall be saved. They are alive in Christ and shall have eternal life. For them the familyunit will continue, and the fulness of exaltation is theirs. No blessing shall be withheld. They shall rise in immortal glory, grow to full maturity, and live forever in the highest heaven of the celestial kingdom—all through the merits and mercy and grace of the Holy Messiah, all because of the atoning sacrifice of Him who died that we might live."

Another invitation, read up on what it means to have "eternal life" and a "fulness of exaltation." Two invitations given to help increase your understanding of what you have missed now. More knowledge for your rough patches of memory:

"Little children are little children and they are all alive in Christ, and all are saved by him, through and because of the atonement. …

“They are saved through the atonement and because they are free from sin. They come from God in purity; no sin or taint attaches to them in this life; and they return in purity to their Maker. Accountable persons must become pure through repentance and baptism and obedience. Those who are not accountable for sins never fall spiritually and need not be redeemed from a spiritual fall which they never experienced. Hence the expression that little children are alive in Christ. …"

"Even though little children will be saved, does that mean they will have eternal life? Elder McConkie explained: “Eternal life is life in the highest heaven of the celestial world; it is exaltation; it is the name of the kind of life God lives. It consists of a continuation of the family unity in eternity. … children will be saved in the celestial kingdom. Salvation means eternal life; the two terms are synonymous; they mean exactly the same thing. Joseph Smith said, ‘Salvation consists in the glory, authority, majesty, power and dominion which Jehovah possesses and in nothing else.’ (Lectures on Faith,pp. 63–67.)"

President Joseph Fielding Smith added: “The Lord will grant unto these children the privilege of all the sealing blessings which pertain to the exaltation.

“We were all mature spirits before we were born, and the bodies of little children will grow after the resurrection to the full stature of the spirit, and all the blessings will be theirs through their obedience, the same as if they had lived to maturity and received them on the earth.

The first thought about children one should recognize is that they are "pure" meaning they are unspotted of the sins of this world. They are clean. They are received by their Maker after death. That isn't bottom or second tier. 

Again, I am OK with you not believing; however, please smooth out your rough patches of memory, otherwise it appears as if you are being obtuse, insincere, and outwardly dishonest even if you aren't trying. 

I'm fine with my temple president being wrong. And that could lead us into a discussion about why god's true church would rely on lay leadership who can and do teach things opposing doctrine, but let's leave that for another day. 

If you truly believe that children and babies are better off dead, and see no issue with god allowing them to die burning deaths, then why have you not called for the police and fire departments to stop rescuing them? If you saw a baby fall into the bath tub, wouldn't then the moral thing to do be to chalk it up to god's will and let the child drown?

[Anddenex]

7 hours ago, EricE said:

If you truly believe that children and babies are better off dead, and see no issue with god allowing them to die burning deaths, then why have you not called for the police and fire departments to stop rescuing them? If you saw a baby fall into the bath tub, wouldn't then the moral thing to do be to chalk it up to god's will and let the child drown?

When did I declare children are better off dead. I merely replied to your lack of knowledge and understanding of Mormon theology while trying to outwit with "My temple president said so." I shared the actual doctrine that children who die before the age of accountability, whether in war, through disease, or any other tragedy are indeed exalted. This was your error, I merely corrected it.

Lay leadership teaching false doctrine, that is simple, moral agency. No need to have any further discussion on this topic. This is why we have been instructed to be studied in gospel principles ourselves, and forewarned of these events occurring. Search the scriptures, search the prophets, so that you may not be deceived. I don't have any problem with people believing what they believe as long as when shown correct doctrine they are willing to change, if not, then there are ways to protect ourselves. Not concerning at all.

The last question isn't worth responding to and doesn't come from a sincere heart; otherwise, it wouldn't have been even asked (i.e. the moral thing to do is let the baby drown?) These are merely gotcha type questions, and why would that be the moral thing to do in light of children dying before age of accountability they are saved. It would be the same pathetic question if someone asked, "Well, since babies are saved, exalted, then it would be the moral thing to do for all Mormon members to kill their babies right"? It really doesn't take an honest or sincere heart to ask or address this question; although it is definitely the heart of the archetypes for today's world emphasized in Sherem and Korihor.

 

Edited August 11, 2016 by Anddenex
mission changed to temple

[Guest]

23 hours ago, EricE said:

Doesn't that leave out the possibility that god, if he exists, does things BECAUSE they are moral?

Yes, it does.  But that is the part about the nature of the Judeo-Christian God.  The idea is that the universal principles of right and wrong are not "higher" than God.  But that He is the embodiment of such principles.

Admittedly, there are many in the LDS faith that will say that "God is God because He is perfectly obedient to the eternal principles."  Well, that's a way to look at it.  And maybe it's right, maybe it's wrong, or as most things in the "mystery" category, it is incomplete at best.

23 hours ago, EricE said:

But regardless, it seems illogical to solve a mystery by appealing to a higher mystery.

I don't really see it that way.  And even if I did, I don't see it as being a logical fallacy.  Any discussion starts with a why, continues with a because, which spawns another why... ad infinitum.  This is the basis of logic, not a fallacy.

23 hours ago, EricE said:

If this god cared enough about this particular story to include it in the Book of Mormon, then it would seem there is a lesson about his nature he is trying to tell. It would seem the only lessons we can rationally pull would be either that he is immoral for letting women and children burn so that he can justly punish those doing the burning, or that this was actually a moral act to be exemplified. 

Do you honestly believe that is the only message to get out of the story?  I see a whole lot more.

23 hours ago, EricE said:

How are we to determine which is the correct answer? If the act would be labeled as monstrous if it were committed by a human, do we have a reliable method for determining that it is moral because a god did it?

Look at it this way.  I hope you are familiar with the principle in physics known as resonance.  We have waves of sound, water, and various energy propagations through physical matter.  Additionally, we have electromagnetic waves that propagate through no physical medium.  I theorize that there are spiritual waves that propagate through what LDS might term "spiritual matter".  Just as there are varying types and frequencies of EM waves, what if spiritual waves were of different types and frequencies.  What if some such background spiritual waves were "ultimate truth/morality".  What if God is God because He has a spirit that is perfectly in harmony (or resonates) with such waves?  Or, alternatively, what if he is the source of such background spiritual radation?

What if we too were able to reach such a state.  I believe we are capable at varying levels for short periods.  We often speak of a certain message "resonating" with us.  What if it is our job to change ourselves to resonate with that background spiritual radiation?

How do we know if what we are resonating with is the true morality or some other morality?  Boy, that is a question for the ages.  However, LDS theology teaches us that all other messages are of a more random type that we can certainly feel some level of resonance with.  But the ultimate truth is such that if one can attain it (which is very rare) that it's very nature is such that there is no doubt.  There is a broadness and a vision that is imparted to our spirits in such a way that doubt simply isn't possible.

Since I haven't reached that state, I can't describe it to you.  But our prophets have spoken of the "sure word of prophecy" as the pure knowledge that comes from the sure witness of the Holy Ghost.  

Until we reach that point, yes, we probably would be labeled monstrous if all you saw were a few excerpts from a single story that specifically point to a single event.  But when you see much more of the message and much more of what God does, we begin to see a broader picture and understand the Character of God much better, so that labeling him a Monstrous God is not an appropriate conclusion.  Think about what agency truly is.

Like I said, we will eventually make a choice after all our study and prayer that we either judge God or judge ourselves.

 

 

Edited August 11, 2016 by Guest

[estradling75]

9 hours ago, EricE said:

Assuming that I am the Mormon god? In that case I don't "just see" a child being burned. It's part of my plan, right? Or at least I've always known that the child was going to be burned? 

If I'm an all-powerful and all-knowing god (or maximally powerful, I don't want to assume how you believe), that would mean I would have the power to design a plan that didn't require burning deaths, or slavery, or genocide, etc. I think going that route would be preferable. 

Interesting... I give you a very simple question... and you evade and then setup a straw-man to knock down instead.

Those are the actions of someone that either refuses to understand the subject matter and the rules of logical arguments or someone that knows that their argument fails and is trying to distract from the subject...

Neither one represent the actions of a person that I wish to engage further.

 

[EricE]

7 minutes ago, estradling75 said:

Interesting... I give you a very simple question... and you evade and then setup a straw-man to knock down instead.

Those are the actions of someone that either refuses to understand the subject matter and the rules of logical arguments or someone that knows that their argument fails and is trying to distract from the subject...

Neither one represent the actions of a person that I wish to engage further.

 

I didn't setup a straw man, I simply demonstrated that your premise was flawed. If I was a god, then you wouldn't be able to say there are only two possibilities in a situation, nor would you be able to say something was happening that I only just found out about.

Here's the real issue. This idea of things being moral because they were dictated to you by an authority figure, is in itself immoral. Morality does not come from an edict. When a god supposedly says, "thou shalt not steal," that means nothing. It is a worthless dictate without understanding why.

For example, if you take two children to a restaurant and they both go crazy, throwing water and screaming, etc., both need to learn not to do that. But if one child is sat down and given just the god-like carrot or stick (don't do that again or no dessert, or if you don't do that again you'll get dessert), and the other child is talked to and discussed why misbehaving like that was the wrong way to act and how it affected others, which child actually has a moral understanding of their actions? Both children may now behave at the restaurant. But the one with the understanding is more likely to behave because they understand why behaving in one way is better and how their actions affect others, while the other child is only going to behave as long as their parents are there so the reward or punishment is looming.

Human beings are social animals, and just like other social animals we have an innate sense of simple morality. I argued above that this secular morality was based on well-being. The well-being of individuals, the society, and the species. As time goes by, and our understanding of the world grows, we are able to expand and improve our morality through discussion, and debate. That is why secular morality has led us out of the days of slavery, and chips abuse, and other inhumane practices that we have learned to discard. And that's what makes secular morality a superior moral system, rather than mere moral edicts.

It may be comforting to think of morality as something simple, as "I just have to do what an authority figure tells me to do." But morality is not simple, and should not be treated so.

As for any god who willingly burns children to death, endorses slavery, commits and commands genocide, who (like a mob boss) threatens me with eternal torture (whether the Mormon version or the standard Christian hell) if I don't worship and praise him when he's provided no actual evidence he even exists? I would call that god a moral thug, and one unworthy of my praise because I'm more moral than he is. 

[estradling75]

3 minutes ago, EricE said:

I didn't setup a straw man, I simply demonstrated that your premise was flawed. If I was a god, then you wouldn't be able to say there are only two possibilities in a situation, nor would you be able to say something was happening that I only just found out about.

You very much did set up an straw man... and you appear to be claiming ignorance on the matter so I will point out exactly how... (But I do so with no faith that it will make a difference)

A straw-man fallacy is to take a complicated subject (In this case God) simplify it to absurdity (In this case transforming God into a Magical Wish Granting Fairy) and then disproving the simplified case and claim that you disproved the more complicated case.

To learn what God really is we have got to scripture were his qualities are defined.  And Since we are LDS here we will use the LDS scriptures and understanding.

First one... Moses 1:39

 39 For behold, this is my work and my glory—to bring to pass the immortality and eternal life of man.

Now what is immortality and eternal life... well it could easily be described and Maximum Well being and Joy.  Well being is what you defined as being Moral.  So by definition God's work and Glory has the goal of Maximum Morality.

If you define a God with anything else you have strawmanned God (as the LDS define him)

Then we  also learn this about God and us.

D&C 93

 29 Man was also in the beginning with God. Intelligence, or the light of truth, was not created or made, neither indeed can be.

 30 All truth is independent in that sphere in which God has placed it, to act for itself, as all intelligence also; otherwise there is no existence.

 31 Behold, here is the agency of man, and here is the condemnation of man; because that which was from the beginning is plainly manifest unto them, and they receive not the light.

 32 And every man whose spirit receiveth not the light is under condemnation.

 33 For man is spirit. The elements are eternal, and spirit and element, inseparably connected, receive a fulness of joy;

This tells us quite clearly that there are things God can not create... (LDS are not believers of Ex-nihlo Creation) and that part of us was right there uncreated with God in the beginning... thus the magic fairy wish granting of anything idea of God is shown to be totally false.

So now what does it take to get this uncreated bit that was us and advance them along until they gain immortality and eternal life?  Do you know?  I don't... But God does..  He is there and the scriptures are clear that God created Laws that would blessed us and advance us if we obeyed.

In D&C 88 God tell us more about how things are set up...  Then we read this tidbit...

 32 And they who remain shall also be quickened; nevertheless, they shall return again to their own place, to enjoy that which they are willing to receive, because they were not willing to enjoy that which they might have received.

God respect our choices and what we want.  Thus when dealing our uncreated selves God is limited by what we are willing to receive... He can't wave some magic fairy wand and make us willing to want it.  

And thus we see that we gain Immortality and Eternal life in accordance with the Laws we are willing to obey.  Which God is right their Working with us to help us through.

 

This kind of Complicated and Rule abiding God stands in stark contrast to your "Magical Wish Granting Fairy God"  And your demand that God (if he exists) do it your way is like a demand of a child that doesn't understand why the parent makes them eat their greens and limits their candy intake.

 

[Jane_Doe]

1 hour ago, EricE said:

As for any god who willingly burns children to death, endorses slavery,

And you would prefer a being which stripped away agency and forced certain behaviors?  Such a being is not a righteous God, but a super-powered tyrant.  

1 hour ago, EricE said:

 who (like a mob boss) threatens me with eternal torture (whether the Mormon version or the standard Christian hell) 

AkaL states the natural consequences of your actions, which will occur with zero involvement on His part?

1 hour ago, EricE said:

when he's provided no actual evidence he even exists? 

Correction: God has provided ample evidence of His existence.  Whether or not you accept that evidence is a different issue.

 

[omegaseamaster75]

11 hours ago, EricE said:

If you believe this, then why aren't Mormons allowing babies to die regularly? I'm not being flippant, seriously think it through. If you believe babies and children don't before they've 'sinned' then why allow them to survive?

You are being flippant, this is ridiculous

11 hours ago, EricE said:

Secondly, as I recall my gospel doctrine lessons, according to Mormon theology these children and babies arent actually getting 1st Class Celestial Kingdom. Some they weren't baptized, didn't go through the temple, and weren't married, god has now doomed them to bring servants for all eternity. 

You recall incorrectly......

[omegaseamaster75]

10 hours ago, EricE said:

Yup, in the Celestial Kingdom. But not as top tier gods and goddesses according to my temple president. 

Well that makes it definitive....a random temple president speaking for the body of the church, yeah that's a home run.  

Back your statement up with actual doctrine or don't make it. 

[EricE]

32 minutes ago, omegaseamaster75 said:

You recall incorrectly......

Yeah, somebody else told me. Apparently my temple president was wrong. That could lead me into a whole thing about lay leadership, but it's not relevant to the conversation. I'm happy to admit I was wrong about that.

[EricE]

57 minutes ago, Jane_Doe said:

And you would prefer a being which stripped away agency and forced certain behaviors?  Such a being is not a righteous God, but a super-powered tyrant.  

Correction: God has provided ample evidence of His existence.  Whether or not you accept that evidence is a different issue.

 

We're not talking about free will, or a god who just allowed slavery to happen. We're talking about a god who actually condoned slavery and laid out instructions for how to keep and beat your slaves. 

There's evidence? What is it?

[bytebear]

You know, this debate is funny.  The argument I am hearing is "God doesn't exist because the God (or Gods) described do not fit my moral standards, and therefore He cannot exist."  But that's like saying, I don't like the rules of the IRS, therefore the IRS does not exist.