Deceived

[Anonymous]

DarkJedi wrote:

Do you think it’s generally true that we want justice for others (like the older brother does) and mercy for ourselves (like the younger brother does)?

I’d like to hear people’s thoughts on this. Gut reaction:

When we see someone obtaining mercy we know that they are obtaining mercy, we see it. Meanwhile we’re coming from a place where we are unsure whether there will be mercy for us when it’s our turn, this despite the example of the person that obtained mercy. We have to operate under the hope of obtaining mercy whereas others may have already obtained it.

We live in a finite world, infinite is hard to understand. We may think of mercy in finite terms. That guy got some, is there enough to go around. I think most would say that god’s resources are limitless but we spend a lifetime interacting with imperfect people with limited resources.

Backing up, people want justice for others but mercy for themselves. I think that reveals a fear of judgment. We only want justice for the other guy because we want things to be “fair.” If someone leans heavily towards the side of justice they likely want justice for others for the equation to balance out. If someone leans heavily towards the side of mercy then they likely want mercy for others because they want the equation to balance out.

DarkJedi wrote:

As to the parable, it’s one of the things in scripture that’s actually not meant to be literal. Like most parables (and other short stories), we only know the events that took place in the story itself, but not after.

I really love the parable of the day laborers, specifically because at times it has been hard for me to understand. The traditional explanation didn’t satisfy, I’d often think about the next growing season. gg lord of the vineyard, good luck getting the day laborers in your town to start working for you in the morning next year. DW called me on this once, I was reading more than what was there. My defense: hey, that’s what I do. That’s how I explore the parables, give them meaning to my life, and see where I need some work.

[Anonymous]

nibbler wrote:

We live in a finite world, infinite is hard to understand. We may think of mercy in finite terms. That guy got some, is there enough to go around. I think most would say that god’s resources are limitless but we spend a lifetime interacting with imperfect people with limited resources.

I think this is so true. And for me it’s not just mercy. Is there enough happiness to go around?

[Anonymous]

DarkJedi wrote:

Your thoughts about the atonement are interesting. I’m not sure they’re purely Mormon theology, but parts certainly do fit our theology. If those ideas are true, my own view of things is off base – I think I see it much more like what Pres. Uchtdorf described in his grace talk last month. I am certainly much more of a grace personality than a works personality (maybe I’m lazy, sinful, or offended). I have certainly given some thought in the past to what happened with the brothers – we really are left hanging.

This interpretation of the atonement and grace comes from Brad Wilcox’s popular BYU speech “His grace is sufficient” that was reprinted in the Ensign.

Quote:

I said, “The truth is, Jesus paid our debt in full. He didn’t pay it all except for a few coins. He paid it all. It is finished.”

She said, “Right! Like I don’t have to do anything?”

“Oh, no,” I said, “you have plenty to do, but it is not to pay that debt. We will all be resurrected. We will all go back to God’s presence to be judged. What is left to be determined by our obedience is how comfortable we plan to be in God’s presence and what degree of glory we plan on receiving.”

Although there does not appear to be an official church position on how the atonement works and what it covers/does not cover Bro. Wilcox is not inventing new doctrine here. The BoM says that salvation is free. I seem to remember Joseph Fielding Smith explain that it is free in that all will be resurrected – thus overcoming the effects of the fall of Adam and returning us to the presence of God – that part is free. Then comes the final judgement! 😈 :angel:

Mercyngrace helped me to see another view of the atonement.

Quote:

I find it useful to think of sin and virtue in terms of words, thoughts, and deeds that either injure and alienate or heal and unite.

The garden and the cross weren’t about punishment, although that imagery is specifically used in the scriptures. These acts were both instructive, showing us how to heal the rifts in our relationships, and justifying, allowing the Savior to claim the rights of mercy and advocate based on his perfect virtue for each of us. He alone, the one without sin, can shame our accusers. Since we accuse each other, His willingness to extend mercy to each of us, undeserving though we are, along with His sinlessness, makes Him the intermediary for each and every one of us. He validates our worth, confirms our ability to progress and change, and compels us to see the value and redemptive possibilities of others.

The scriptures use a punishment metaphor because it appeals to our innate sense of fairness. When we suffer unjustly, we ask “Why me?”. When we are asked to do more than our part, we say “That’s not fair.” When a toddler hits another, the first cries out and typically responds in kind. This is our carnal nature.

God as Whipping Boy satisfies our need for justice until we come to understand that the real power is not freedom from deserved consequences but the grace that changes us as we see our potential through God’s eyes.

If I remember correctly she squares this with the three degrees of glory by removing the boundaries and deadlines and allowing each individual to progress as far as they are inclined to go – line upon line, precept on precept. In this view we are each other’s accusers and we give up our metaphorical stones and forgive our brother when Jesus brings to our remembrance how we too have been forgiven.

“Because I have been (for)given much I too must (for)give” I believe it helps in our capacity to forgive in the eternities to know that we will be safe in the hands of God. Forgiving an abuser will not put us in a position to then be re-abused. Forgiveness will divorced from self-protection.

Bringing this back to the prodigal son perhaps the father as an intermediary could remind the brother of all the terrible things that he has done and been forgiven of over the years and then ask (as an act of love and respect for the father) to extend the same courtesy to the prodigal. This is hard because many LDS identify with the dutiful older brother and it can be easy to forget that we too have royally screwed up a time or two.

Perhaps I could write a children’s book with a different take on this parable. Is it heresy to take creative liscense with the words of Jesus?

[Anonymous]

If anyone is interested, my high council talk last Sunday was about “saving grace”, and a summary of it is in the current thread for talks in church.

[Anonymous]

Roy wrote:

DarkJedi wrote:

Your thoughts about the atonement are interesting. I’m not sure they’re purely Mormon theology, but parts certainly do fit our theology. If those ideas are true, my own view of things is off base – I think I see it much more like what Pres. Uchtdorf described in his grace talk last month. I am certainly much more of a grace personality than a works personality (maybe I’m lazy, sinful, or offended). I have certainly given some thought in the past to what happened with the brothers – we really are left hanging.

This interpretation of the atonement and grace comes from Brad Wilcox’s popular BYU speech “His grace is sufficient” that was reprinted in the Ensign.

The problem here, I suppose, goes back to the basic “what is doctrine?” question, or in this case “what is theology?” We clearly are taught that which Wilcox and to a somewhat lesser extent Robinson, teach about grace. But we’re also taught that this grace does not apply to only the atonement – that’s why I like Uchtdorf’s talk so much (although I admit it is open to interpretation). The fact that a prophet stood in GC and said none of us are doing all we can do (which would include him and his colleagues) really hit me. I’ve always known I’m not doing all I can do, and that’s part of the whole guilt thing. Realizing that none of us are really did change my perspective. I also really liked his parsing of “after” and “because of.” In reality there is very little any of us can do, and for some there is almost nothing they can do – but it doesn’t matter because none of us are doing all we can anyway and that’s what grace is all about.

I may have to put this on the list of subjects to study, but I’m not currently buying that the atonement only applies to original sin and the general resurrection. I don’t buy that any works we do have anything to do with saving or exalting us – but I also believe we should do good works – because that’s part of believing Christ. (I emphasize “should” because it just occurred to me that this is perhaps why that word is used so often in the General Handbooks.)

[Anonymous]

DarkJedi wrote:

I may have to put this on the list of subjects to study, but I’m not currently buying that the atonement only applies to original sin and the general resurrection. I don’t buy that any works we do have anything to do with saving or exalting us – but I also believe we should do good works – because that’s part of believing Christ. (I emphasize “should” because it just occurred to me that this is perhaps why that word is used so often in the General Handbooks.)

I agree. As I said b4 there doesn’t seem to be a fixed church position on how the atonement works and what exactly it covers. The word grace in the Bible Dictionary calls it the “enabling power” that gives us the ability to do all the good works. That definition comes up everytime the word grace comes up in a church setting.

To be honest I find the work of Bro. Wilcox and Bro. Robinson to be an improvement upon the bible dictionary definitions set up in the era of BRM. I love that they and Pres. Uchtdorf are moving the needle slowly back to a more balanced works/grace equation. Unfortunately I believe that we have been so works focused for so long that these good men are limited in how far thay can take grace. Whatever new and cool explanations they come up with must preserve the integrity of why we pleace such emphasis on so many works and deeds and steps and assignments and ordinances and on and on. They need to walk a fine line lest they find themselves portrayed as iconoclasts. (The differences between Robinson’s book Believing Christ and his subsequent work Following Christ were quite pronounced. It felt to me that he was going out of his way in the second book to distance himself from anyone that might claim that there is any path to salvation/saving relationship with Christ apart from the LDS church. I personally speculate that his first book was a little too radical in the grace department and he had to walk some of his concepts back in the second.)

[Anonymous]

I do agree that Uchtdorf made the point that grace is an enabling power in his talk. I also liked Believing Christ much more than Following Christ. You also make a good point that they, especially the GAs, can’t try to move the needle too much at once – talk about your cognitive dissonance!

[Anonymous]

When it comes to nudging the Grace needle, it is fair to include Sheri Dew in the conversation. She and I differ on her vision of Grace, there is still a lot of works and worthiness connected to her version, than to mine. However, every voice that moves us to add Grace to our lives – especially in our works centered church – deserves applause. So add in Wilcox, Robinson, Uchtdorf, the Bible Dictionary and groundwork is being laid to move old rhetoric off the shelf.

That’s my humble, all knowing opinion of the day.

[Anonymous]

mom3 wrote:

When it comes to nudging the Grace needle, it is fair to include Sheri Dew in the conversation. She and I differ on her vision of Grace, there is still a lot of works and worthiness connected to her version, than to mine. However, every voice that moves us to add Grace to our lives – especially in our works centered church – deserves applause. So add in Wilcox, Robinson, Uchtdorf, the Bible Dictionary and groundwork is being laid to move old rhetoric off the shelf.

That’s my humble, all knowing opinion of the day.

In fairness, many of our hymns, especially sacrament hymns, do give grace some justice (see what I did there?). I don’t have a hymnal in front of me at the moment, but grace is a common theme. (That said, there are a couple that miss the mark as well.)

[Anonymous]

DJ wrote –

Quote:

In fairness, many of our hymns, especially sacrament hymns, do give grace some justice (see what I did there?). I don’t have a hymnal in front of me at the moment, but grace is a common theme

First – Call me disappointed that your not packin’ your hymnal around. Seriously, Dude – get with the program. 🙄

Second – I do concur, its one of the reasons I love hymns. For me so many of the Methodist ones we kept are dripping with Grace. Abide With Me, Tis Eventide, Master The Tempest Is Raging, Jesus Lover of My Soul – just to name a few.

I would name more, butmy hymnbook is ummm… with a friend.

[Anonymous]

DarkJedi wrote:

In fairness, many of our hymns, especially sacrament hymns, do give grace some justice (see what I did there?). I don’t have a hymnal in front of me at the moment, but grace is a common theme. (That said, there are a couple that miss the mark as well.)

That was part of why I found the book Believing Christ so amazing. It helped me to see the teachings of grace that were hiding in plain sight in the BoM.

[Author]

Posts