- This topic is empty.
-
Posts
-
doug wrote:
I thank God I live in a day when such ideas are more or less universally recognized to be evil. Now whether or not HBL actually said those horrid things is another matter.
The SWK talk I was just referencing also has a portion relevant to being born with disabilities…
Quote:We knew before we were born that we were coming to the earth for bodies and experience and that we would have joys and sorrows, pain and comforts, ease and hardships, health and sickness, successes and disappointments, and we knew also that we would die.
We accepted all these eventualities with a glad heart, eager to accept both the favorable and the unfavorable. We were undoubtedly willing to have a mortal body, even if it were a deformed one. We eagerly accepted the chance to come earthward even though it might be for a day, a year, or a century. Perhaps we were not so much concerned whether we should die of disaster, of accident, or of senility. We were willing to come and take life as it came and as we might organize and control it, and this without murmur, complaint, or unreasonable demands. I find it interesting that they are both teaching the same principle (that having a mortal body is “Priceless”) but with different spins.
I’m not sure what HBL said or believed – but I am aware of some racially tinged doctrines that are not mentioned much anymore. It would not surprise me if HBL as a product of his time and with the rational backing of some of these doctrines – said and/or believed some objectionable things. I know that I don’t like or agree with all the things that I have said and I’m only 30ish. Imagine how much revision may be required after I have been dead for 50 or so years? Maybe in the future they can just “Photoshop” all the “blemishes” out of my bio.
Thanks for pointing that out, Roy. I understand that we are all the product of our times, and I am more than willing to cut HBL some slack, in the same way I have to find it in my heart to cut Thomas Jefferson some slack, though the incongruities involved will probably always perplex me. I suppose I still fall prey to the notion that the prophets of god should be held to a higher standard, though I have long since learned that they pick up on these things just like the rest of us. Having said that, it was never my intention to criticize HBL directly, just the things that he is purported to have said.
BTW, I appreciated that quote from SWK. It’s refreshing to hear candid admissions that even the prophet may not have all the answers.
I always found the idea that our actions in our pre-mortal earth life determined our conditions here on earth to be a two-edged sword. On one hand, it can help to explain some of the apparent unfairness in the world. But it also leads to a LOT of harmful speculation. For example, were those born in the church really better than those born outside of it? I think if the doctrine is a true one, it is probably far more complex than members often make it out to be. I don’t think we can really say that all people born into one situation were more faithful while those born into another were less faithful. So what of the unchoice spirit children of God? You know us ones that don’t shine, that don’t endure to the end, that don’t meet the quota of good works?…or Lucifer for that matter…. The dark ones that make the light ones shine? the ones destined to outer darkness, the telestial kingdom..you know us throw away Children of God? I think we all have disabilities of one kind or another. I don’t believe in an all-knowing, all-powerful, all-loving God creating a plan with disposable children. It just doesn’t make sense and goes against Mormon doctrine. Don’t compare yourself to the yardsticks others use to find worth, Arwen. but somehow I feel you know that already, right?
I don’t believe there are throwaway children of God, especially in light of some of our scriptures in the D&C. My views on that certainly are heterodox, but I could scripture fight about it if I felt the need.
😈 Old-Timer wrote:I don’t believe there are throwaway children of God, especially in light of some of our scriptures in the D&C.
Paul in Romans 9 seemed to disagree or at least posit that the loss of some of God’s children was acceptable collateral damage to fulfill God’s purposes:
Quote:Rebekah’s children were conceived at the same time by our father Isaac. 11 Yet, before the twins were born or had done anything good or bad —in order that God’s purpose in election might stand: 12 not by works but by him who calls—she was told, “The older will serve the younger.”[d] 13 Just as it is written: “Jacob I loved, but Esau I hated.”[e]
14 What then shall we say? Is God unjust? Not at all! 15 For he says to Moses,
“I will have mercy on whom I have mercy,
and I will have compassion on whom I have compassion.”[f]
16 It does not, therefore, depend on human desire or effort, but on God’s mercy. 17 For Scripture says to Pharaoh: “I raised you up for this very purpose, that I might display my power in you and that my name might be proclaimed in all the earth.”[g] 18 Therefore God has mercy on whom he wants to have mercy, and he hardens whom he wants to harden.
19 One of you will say to me: “Then why does God still blame us? For who is able to resist his will?” 20 But who are you, a human being, to talk back to God? “Shall what is formed say to the one who formed it, ‘Why did you make me like this?’”[h] 21 Does not the potter have the right to make out of the same lump of clay some pottery for special purposes and some for common use?
22 What if God, although choosing to show his wrath and make his power known, bore with great patience the objects of his wrath—prepared for destruction? 23 What if he did this to make the riches of his glory known to the objects of his mercy, whom he prepared in advance for glory — 24 even us, whom he also called, not only from the Jews but also from the Gentiles?
The GD manual skips this chapter entirely. The Institute manual explains that the different privileges are a result of our pre-mortal faithfulness combined with God’s foreknowledge of the choices that we will likely make in the mortal realm, but that doesn’t seem to be what Paul is saying.
FYI, I am not a fan of Paul’s point here and
dobelieve that his argument is at odds with traditional Mormon theology. I point it out only to show that the scriptures are… conflicted on this issue. The scriptures are conflicted in some way about most things – which is another recognition of pure Mormonism that I really like. :thumbup:
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.