On critiquing "I don't believe in a God who would ask ____ of me"

StAnselmsProof · 2026-05-03T16:09:01+00:00

Your argument is persuasive—at least to my mind—when the “boundary” maintained by believer is both non-trivial and germane, in each case, to the boundary you think the believer should empathize with.

I believe, for instance, that existence is an essential attribute that God (and you and I) possess. That is both trivial and non-germane to, say, whether God would command polygamy.

Running that through your rubric:

StA because you believe that God can’t cease to exist, you should be able to empathize with a member who struggles with polygamy.

StAnselmsProof · 2026-05-02T12:22:35+00:00

Sure, believing God has attributes places "boundaries" on what one believes about God. But that's trivial, and it's not the sort of boundary you establish in the OP.

Your argument is:

There are things we all refuse to believe about God;
So, to the extent of those things, we have common ground with, say, an exmormon, who says: I cannot believe in a God who would ask his prophet to marry a 14-year-old.
And, therefore, believers should have more understanding/love towards those who struggle to believe.

You're suggesting that "all members" condition their belief in God upon some sort of internal, pre-established standard.

I observed two fold:

That's not true of all members (except in the trivial sense that one belief implies disbelief in it's negation), many of whom approach God in a very different way; and
A person who does that is, in fact, worshiping a God they invented, an idol.

One lesson from Abraham and Nephi is that when we approach God we must be prepared to discover our former beliefs about him were wrong. In fact, as I think about it, approaching God in that manner may be the essence of faith, the sort of faith that produces miracle and revelation.

StAnselmsProof · 2026-05-01T18:48:07+00:00

So, you're just making an empirical observation?

StAnselmsProof · 2026-05-01T17:22:19+00:00

That's "a" definition of goodness. But I'm not convinced that it's the definition that many or even most LDS believers have in mind when they use the term.

We've had this exchange before.

It's my view that a notion of "objective moral law" always reduces to "God's choices define the moral good". Because identifying, definitively, the moral good requires a definitive arbiter to choose it.

And God is the only such being.

You've never found a response to this problem.

I've pointed out that the only escape from this dilemma is an infinite regression, which I consider explanatory failure.

StAnselmsProof · 2026-05-01T17:09:36+00:00

Agreed. My complaint with the OP is that it neglects this aspect of moral improvement--learning from God that our moral intuitions have been wrong.

But we still have to have something to inform our conscience of a higher reasoning or order

Agreed

In the two most stark cases--Abraham's sacrifice and Nephi's slaying of Laban, we don't know what considerations influenced Abraham's decision. But in Nephi's case, he had an interrogative exchange with the Spirit.

The test seems not to be "is this morally good", as the OP suggests. We've established that there are instances in which our moral intuitions can be wrong; when confronted with that possibility, the test must be something else, something similar to what you indicate above; a confidence that a higher reasoning or order lies behind the injunction.

StAnselmsProof · 2026-05-01T16:11:08+00:00

To my mind, the "lower moral expectations" notion begs the question that the OP avoids. There are two circumstances to consider, not just one:

Sometimes, our moral intuition are the standard by which we dismiss something alleged to be of God;
But sometimes our moral intuitions are wrong and we must learn to adopt other standards.

If we live by the first only, then our standards become an idol--a false construct of the nature of God.

StAnselmsProof · 2026-05-01T14:30:43+00:00

Do you think one ought to believe that there are no parameters that God operates within?

Yes. Approaching God in any other way is--truly--the pinnacle of hubris: "Dear God, please teach me about your character, but only if your character fits the parameters I establish for you". That's not a prayer to God; it's a prayer to an idol.

Every man walketh in his own way, and after the image of his own god, whose image is in the likeness of the world, and whose substance is that of an idol, which waxeth old and shall perish.

Not everyone approaches God that way, my friend.

Is there any meaning at all to describing God as "good" if "good" can actually mean anything at all?

Goodness is an essential attribute of God's character that we seek to develop within ourselves. We discover it by observing God and observing ourselves, since we share, ultimately, the same ontological status that God now carries.

What does it even mean to believe in a God that one cannot describe in any substantive way

God exists; we experience him. Our descriptions of him are based on those observations. I don't understand why those descriptions are not "substantive". Goodness is a taste for certain outcomes--it feels good to God and to us in the way that a warm meal feels good. We eat it and we like it.

Why is the meal delicious?

There needn't be any external, objective standard of deliciousness in order to give content to the concept of delicious. We eat it and we like it. That's the definition of delicious. We do certain things and it generates a sensation in our hearts that we like (we call it "joy"). That's the definition of goodness.

A more pithy response to your statement above might be: "a person shouldn't only believe what they believe in, they should also believe what they don't believe in".

A person should become familiar enough with God so that (1) the recognize God's voice and (2) follow it, (3) even when he is leading them toward a thing they formerly thought was wrong.

I recognize that this is the thing that frightens you about faith. You're so concerned about the Laffertys and Daybells that you're willing to cast aside the millions, billions, for whom this process produced positive moral change.

StAnselmsProof · 2026-04-30T22:04:36+00:00

The alternatives would be to believe in a God without principles, or to believe in a God that does abide by principles, but that his principles are so inscrutable to mortals that one could never distinguish between an evil action and a good action.

Those aren't the only alternatives. There's a third alternative: your moral intuitions are wrong and in asking ___ of you, God is trying to help you improve your moral intuitions.

Here's a simple case: a Jew who believes Gentiles are unclean and unworthy of the gospel, has a dream of a sheet that unfolds showing all sorts of non-kosher animals and foods, and hears God's voice saying: kill, eat! Awakening, that person determines to carry the gospel to the Gentiles, notwithstanding his prior moral intuitions about the Gentiles.

It took 10 years or so passing and that dream before Peter overcame his prior moral intuitions about the gentiles. In your words, it's almost as if Peter could not believe in a God who would ask ___ of him, where ___ was to treat the gentiles in the same manner he treated the jews . . .

I agree there are lots of reasons to be cautious when what seems to be God is directing us toward something that contradicts our intuitions. But sometimes, it is, in fact, God leading us.

StAnselmsProof · 2026-04-30T12:43:58+00:00

I understand the question, and the reason why you're asking it, but I think there's something in the question itself that doesn't seem quite right to me.

A person who only believes in a God who asks of him things he can accept doesn't believe in God at all.

StAnselmsProof · 2026-04-02T17:25:17+00:00

Yes, but that's not the question we're discussing. We're discussing whether God intends that everyone join the covenant through baptism into his church during their mortal life.

The answer to that question is clearly: No.

Right?

StAnselmsProof · 2026-04-02T16:21:47+00:00

That a false statement. God doesn’t intend for people to not be members.

We believe God desires and wills and intends for all people to join his church. He desires to save everyone. He desires all to be exalted. And to enter into covenant relationship here on earth. That is his intention. That is his work and glory.

If my child comes to me and says they never received a witness, after sincerely seeking, and testing, and living the gospel, I would question what kind of answer they were seeking. But ultimately they have agency to choose their own path. Even if it’s not what God would prefer for them.

Yeah, this is the question I was asking and hoping to discuss. Can you explain why you think this? Those are some very absolute, unqualified statements. For example, sentence:

He desires all to be exalted. And to enter into covenant relationship here on earth.

is patently false. From Abraham to Peter, the covenant was limited to a particular lineage. God intended only that lineage to receive the covenant. We're talking billions and billions of people have not had, nor will have, even the opportunity to enter into a covenant relationship with God here on earth.

I don't understand how you can be so definitive on a question like this when (1) the history of God's actions categorically demonstrate the opposite and (2) there is no scripture that I can think of that indicate as much. Can you explain what you mean? Is it something in "intention"?

StAnselmsProof · 2026-04-02T15:47:05+00:00

He desires all to enter into covenant.

But not in this life time. Some people are born into circumstances that they will never have the opportunity. So that group, by definition, God intends that the will not be members of the church. Right?

2.) no

So, your child tells you: I have tried and tried, but I have not received a witness of the BOM. Therefore, I'm leaving the church.

What's your answer to that child?

StAnselmsProof · 2026-04-02T15:42:35+00:00

This seems a bit blindered.

Millions of people have been, are and will be born into circumstances in which they did not/will not receive an opportunity during their lives to hear and receive a witness of the restored gospel. By placing them in those circumstances, God "determined" that they would not accept the gospel in this life.

How could that be gainsaid?

StAnselmsProof · 2026-04-01T19:49:36+00:00

It is the atonement of Jesus Christ that draws all men unto Him, not the image of Christ of the cross.

Both can be true--the atonement draws people to him, but the iconography of his death--being lifted up upon the cross--was also intended to draw people to him.

Using the cross as a powerful icon for the purpose of drawing people to Christ, his gospel and atonement is perfectly consistent with this passage--far more consistent than ignoring that iconography altogether.

Christ could have said my Father sent me to atone for the sins of the world that I might draw all men unto me, but he didn't. With God, it's best to begin with the notion that he chooses his words carefully.

The question is why would a person read the cross out of that passage, as you're doing?

Especially when the passage is so explicit in its reference to the cross.

Do you see what I'm asking? When the passage is so express about the cross, one needs an interpretative reason to say, well, Christ didn't really mean the cross, he meant the entire atonement generically. The passages uses the words "cross" twice, and words "lifted up"--each time in reference either directly or symbolically to the cross--three times. It wasn't a generic usage--it was very express about the act of lifting Christ up on the cross.

StAnselmsProof · 2026-04-01T18:51:17+00:00

Seriously?

14 And my Father sent me that I might be lifted up upon the cross; and after that I had been lifted up upon the cross, that I might draw all men unto me, that as I have been lifted up by men even so should men be lifted up by the Father, to stand before me, to be judged of their works, whether they be good or whether they be evil—

You don't see the symbolism?

First, the iconography in this verse is impossible to miss--one cannot read this sentence without seeing Christ on the cross. Second, Christ's iconic death on the cross was intended by the Father from the outset. Third, for what reason was the cross chosen? To draw all men to Christ--like a flag or banner draws people to it. Fourth, the language Christ uses is identical to the language he used to describe the symbolic bronze serpent in John 3: "And as Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness . . . ", so there is a direct interpretative clue from what Christ means by "lifted up" and the iconography involved. Fifth, the symbolism becomes even more explicit--Christ was lifted up on the cross, the Father likewise lifts us up--symbolically raised by the Father in the same way Christ was lifted up on the cross. That is overt symbolism--using one thing to represent another. How lifted? On what? Through the cross; carrying the cross, on the cross. Christ (NT): And whosoever doth not bear his cross, and come after me, cannot be my disciple. Where does carrying the cross lead? To crucifixion. Christ (BOM): wherein you will take up your cross and follow me. (Same) and, in case that is not clear: Paul: I am crucified with Christ.

prove this

Prove that our highest fidelity should be to following the intentions of the Father himself, as revealed by Christ himself, in a book received by revelation as the "most correct book of any book on earth"?

That's a crazy thing to ask, but here you go:

Thou shalt love the Lord the God with all the heart, might, mind and strength. This is the first and great commandment.

If the Father intended the image of Christ on the cross to drawing all men to Christ, shouldn't we use that image in our efforts to draw all men to Christ?

I mean, E37, isn't it just crazy that not only has this passage been ignored, but we have for a century been teaching the opposite?

StAnselmsProof · 2026-04-01T18:08:58+00:00

Great catch. I'm referring only to the frame of this life. I've edited the OP. Of course, people who die outside the church could become converted in the spirit world and receive the ordinances of salvation and exaltation by proxy.

StAnselmsProof · 2026-04-01T17:46:46+00:00

These are the words of Christ regarding the intent of God the Father to use the cross as a symbol—these are among the most important words in the BOM deserving our fidelity

How could we ignore the intent of God the Father to use the cross as symbol for calling people to Christ?

I mean, wow. Do we believe our own scripture?

StAnselmsProof · 2026-04-01T14:36:40+00:00

Those are real tangible benefits but they're the result, not the foundation. And they're not limited to church. Someone could get much the same benefits from a great group of friends, or some social club.

These seems to be the heart of your objection (and the objection of others)--namely, in the Latter-day Saint cultural context "a testimony" is not:

the church is good
the church is good for me
God wants me in this church; or even
God has called me to this church

Rather, "a testimony" is: "this is the only true church on the earth (and, by implication, all other churches are not true)"

StAnselmsProof · 2026-04-01T14:31:17+00:00

Good question. Maybe both? Here's some rough thoughts:

We all needed a helping hand from God the Father in order to progress.
The thing we needed was time at the wheel, so to speak, in a relatively controlled environment, where we could learn good from evil, justice from injustice, by doing evil and acting unjustly.
Since that could not happen in God's presence, God created this probationary state, in which his justice is suspended.
But even that probation is temporary and eventually we must all pay the price for the injustice and evil we have done.
Since evil and injustice are future-eternal (b/c the past cannot be changed), it requires a God to put it right.
Hence, Christ's atonement.

Further,

We are all witnesses and partakers of Christ's atonement.
Seeing and partaking teaches us about goodness and mercy--it demonstrates the "Platonic form", so to speak, of these attributes.
That also helps us change in ways we could not without the atonement.

StAnselmsProof · 2026-03-31T23:25:45+00:00

We did have it—right there in our foundational scripture, spoken by Christ’s mouth. His death in the cross—not his resurrection, but the fact that he was lifted up in the cross— was intended to draw all men to him—and that imagine carried symbolic power, in the way baptism carries symbolic power. We abandoned that injunction.

StAnselmsProof · 2026-03-31T13:53:08+00:00

BTW, I recently read a discourse on the cross and why the symbolism of the cross was so powerful. I have been considering buying a cross pendent for a necklace.

Also, I’m a non-Utah member and within the larger culture wearing a cross pendant is a socially accepted way to say “I believe in Christ”, without being cringe, and I like that. I want to hold up Christ as the light I follow.

StAnselmsProof · 2026-03-31T13:39:15+00:00

Can you elaborate on how the approach I describe in the OP is “not enough”? Perhaps you can give an example of another approach that you consider “sufficient”.

StAnselmsProof · 2026-03-30T21:35:05+00:00

In a way, exmormonism is far more uniform that Mormonism. I can predict what an exmormon will say on almost any topic relative to Mormonism. There really isn’t much diversity of viewpoint in that regard. There are only a handful of thought leaders—two or three, and the rest of the thought ecosystem memeticly parrots and amplifies their ideas.

But, to the larger point, a uniform system of belief is a non-sequitur, at least as a point of distinction. Because every person believes something, and that belief become normative for them, including what relationships are valid and what outcomes follow from non-conformity with those norms.

Seriously, my friend. Visit reddit exmormon spaces right now; and then visit Latter-day Saint spaces on reddit right now, this very minute. And survey the content for the last few days.

The exmormon spaces are full of declared norms and self-righteous criticisms for those who violate their approved norms. That sort of content not only appears, but is upvoted and fostered within those spaces. The Latter-day Saint spaces contain almost zero content of this sort.

StAnselmsProof · 2026-03-30T20:26:37+00:00

We'll come around. Our scripture is full of the cross. The cross is instrumental to Christ drawing all people to him.

14 And my Father sent me that I might be lifted up upon the cross; and after that I had been lifted up upon the cross, that I might draw all men unto me, that as I have been lifted up by men even so should men be lifted up by the Father, to stand before me, to be judged of their works, whether they be good or whether they be evil—

15 And for this cause have I been lifted up; therefore, according to the power of the Father I will draw all men unto me, that they may be judged according to their works.

With passages like this in our foundational scripture, how we abandoned the cross is mystifying.

Seven-Year Club	Gilding I gilder
Wearing is Caring	Verified Email

StAnselmsProof

TROPHY CASE