- This topic is empty.
-
Posts
-
Throughout my life as a TBM, I have always felt that the worst fate of all would be to be an atheist or agnostic. At least the other religions of the world will be able to say in the hereafter, “I tried and did the best I could of what I understood and was taught,” and we are told that God will accept their worship and faith towards other beliefs/gods as if it had been directed at him (as long as they stayed true to the Light of Christ in them telling what is right and wrong). Atheists and agnostics were like “sons of perdition” who rejected everything that I believed so deeply in. I would never have in my life thought that I would seriously consider some of their thoughts. It has me very disturbed that, in my current state of mind, some of it seems to make sense to me. I came across an atheist website [moderated]. One of the entries struck a tone with me. I have problems with the God of the bible being anything like what we Mormons teach about him today. This is what I read:
Quote:[moderated]
God decreed that a man who picked up sticks on the Sabbath day was to be stoned to death (Numbers 15:32-36). God commanded that anyone who curses his father or mother was to be put to death (Exodus 21:17). Witches, and those of differing religious views were to be killed (Ex. 22:18,20). These are pretty stiff punishments, eh? This God declares that a slave is the property of another man (Exodus 21:21). God commanded men to divorce their foreign wives for no other reason but that they were not God’s people (Ezra 9), and women were helpless if they weren’t married in those days.
[moderated]
Let’s say that you are a Christian and this strange guy comes into your town and tells you that God wants you to go and kill your atheistic neighbor, his wife, 9-year-old son, 3-year-old daughter, bunny rabbit, cat, and 3 dogs.
Let’s say that you were skeptical, but then proved absolutely that it was, in fact, God ordering you to do this (For you cessationists, let’s just assume this is possible just as it was “back in the day”). I don’t know how you proved it, but you did beyond a shadow of a doubt.
Would you obey that command of God that you knew beyond a shadow of a doubt to be true?
[moderated]
I don’t appreciate his language, but the content of his message strikes something in me. I have never really questioned Nephi’s command to smite off the head of Laban in the first few chapters (so it is one of the first messages you receive when you read it) in the BoM. I figured that if God commanded you to disobey one of his own commandments as a “test” to see if you would do
whateverhe told you to do, then he could do that since he is “above” his own law. Abraham commanded to sacrifice his son Issac (or Ishmael if you are muslim). Etc. But as in the quote above, if anyone else today said they heard a voice from God tell them to go kill someone in town, and they did it, they would be locked up and forcibly medicated (a la Jared Loughner) if not executed (depending on where you did it). And yet, stuff like this happened fairly regularly in the bible with the children of Israel themselves, the former inhabitants of the land, individuals and groups of people, etc. And these experiences are scripturesto us: i.e. they are to be emulated, studied, and followed. I must say, I am having thoughts about the God that would do this “for his children’s good,” but not for allhis children’s good (it would be hard to argue as a dead Amalakite that the people who murdered you just because you descended from a different progenitor were doing the universal God’s will). I don’t want to be a traitor. I don’t want to be a son of perdition. But I don’t know how this God is worthy of our adulation and worship. Can anyone help?
wjclerk, Good to see you again here.
Just so you know, the OP was moderated for language and we also try to avoid links or references to other sites that have questionable material.
However, the quotes you have here make a point, and your questions are valid.
How can a loving God command us and expect us to learn from commandments that call into question our ethics? It can be bothersome.
You may want to read through this discussion the group had back in 2009 on this topic, and then post some additional thoughts to discuss this further:
http://www.staylds.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=9&t=1032http://www.staylds.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=9&t=1032” class=”bbcode_url”> I believe there is another link in that thread where Rix points us to another discussion about that topic also. I found that conversation interesting. Check it out.
See, I no longer buy into the stories of “tests” which require men to do things which are clearly against the conscience or are morally wrong. I find they get twisted and used by existing men of influence to get people to do things THEY want. God created us with free will, with the light of Christ, with a conscience, so should we not act that way? As autonomous units?
The story of Nephi always bugged me — his killing of Laban. I wondered why God didn’t use his matchless power to grant Nephi enough lead time to get away with the plates, by simply making Laban sleep, as he did with guards of Amulon (allowing the people of Alma to escape). This would have sent the message “Thou Shalt Not Kill” was still an important commandment and would be consistent with transformational leadership which says actions should be consonant with values.
Can we really be sure that all parts of the Bible and BoM are true anyway? Again, one must be on their own clock and may well find peace, and an internally consistent philosophy of life by looking critically at these stories — and then deciding what to believe, and what to reject.
wjclerk wrote:Throughout my life as a TBM,
I have always felt that the worst fate of all would be to be an atheist or agnostic…I would never have in my life thought that I would seriously consider some of their thoughts.It has me very disturbed that, in my current state of mind, some of it seems to make sense to me. I came across an atheist website [moderated]. One of the entries struck a tone with me.
I have problems with the God of the biblebeing anything like what we Mormons teach about him today. This is what I read: Quote:[moderated]
God decreed that a man who picked up sticks on the Sabbath day was to be stoned to death (Numbers 15:32-36). God commanded that anyone who curses his father or mother was to be put to death (Exodus 21:17). Witches, and those of differing religious views were to be killed (Ex. 22:18,20). These are pretty stiff punishments, eh? This God declares that a slave is the property of another man (Exodus 21:21). God commanded men to divorce their foreign wives for no other reason but that they were not God’s people (Ezra 9), and women were helpless if they weren’t married in those days…
I don’t appreciate his language, but the content of his message strikes something in me…I don’t want to be a traitor. I don’t want to be a son of perdition. But
I don’t know how this God is worthy of our adulation and worship. Can anyone help?Studying the Old Testament and some related comments of LDS prophets and apostles in detail is what finally destroyed my faith in the Church to the point that no apologetic arguments or explanations I could think of or find could help repair it anymore. Basically, I felt like some things almost certainly did not happen the way the Bible says and that there was no way I could imagine that a benevolent, all-knowing, and all-powerful God would ever be responsible for doing and saying some of the things he is given credit for in the Bible.
However, rather than buying into atheism/agnosticism I simply started to interpret the Bible as mostly being the product of relatively primitive and superstitious people’s imagination and limited understanding. I still believe in revelation and inspiration, I just think it is not very reliable to depend on as some ultimate source of truth that should supposedly trump all other sources of information because it looks like there is no consistent way to tell the difference between any legitimate revelations and random thoughts, dreams, etc. I guess I just don’t see why some of the supposed dependencies people act like there have to be between God, Christianity, life-after-death, and the entire Bible being literally accurate and inspired are really necessary when they can just as easily be evaluated separately from each other.
I see scriptures as an explanation of how people saw their interaction with / conception of God. Period. That really changes how I view scriptural stories – without changing in the slightest my view of the “truth” of them. There is a difference between objective accuracy and subjective truth – and I use “truth” to mean nothing more than “what someone honestly believes to be true”. (as opposed to “Absolute Truth”)
Old-Timer wrote:I see scriptures as an explanation of how people saw their interaction with / conception of God. Period.
See, this puts the story of Nephi and Laban, where Nephi MURDERED someone in a totally different light. No longer is God the God that has arbitrary rules and inconsistent values, the scripture is an account of Nephi’s reasoning about how to benefit future generations. Now we can disagree with his decision for us personally, and it’s not necessarily a reflection on God.
As we know, revelation is hard to distinguish from personal thoughts.
I had an institute instructor that would say that we must not allow ourselves to “go there” when tempted to question God’s morals or ethics. If you force yourself to start with a premise of, “God is a God of love” you can usually arrive at a lesson to be derived from the objectionable act. (Such as when the act steadier was struck down.) Yet this may send the message that it is ok for God to use our lives for object lessons and cautionary tales, to accept the bad for the one as long as there is sufficient good to come out of it (either for others in mortality or in an eternal sense [perhaps the ark steadier was rewarded in the eternities for losing his life in the object lesson]). I like the freedom to take such accounts with a grain of salt (both in the sense that they may not be completely accurate historical accounts and that even if they do describe historical events they may also include the limited understanding and interpretation of those present or the interpretation of persons far removed from the actual events who have agendas of their own).
For me personally, I know my God is a God of love. I know this with more certainty than I know about his body parts or his constitution. I am willing to look for lessons in these scriptures as I might for Aesop’s Fables, sometimes I may disagree with specific verses entirely but still find value in other portions of the scriptures. This is OK! My personal experience and relationship with my Heavenly Father matters more than what some people 2-3000 years ago think He told them to do (or what the story that has been passed down to us some 2-3000 years later reports that He told them to do.)
wjclerk wrote:I don’t know how this God is worthy of our adulation and worship.
The God you are describing is not the God that I worship, is not the God that I know.
“As far as it is translated correctly” means a LOT to me. I just happen to apply it to ALL scripture. For example, my favorite interpretation of the story of Abraham sacrificing Isaac is that God was testing Abraham – and that Abraham FAILED the test. He had been raised in a culture that included human / child sacrifice, so God tested him to see if he had abandoned totally that culture. He hadn’t. From the most “believing” perspective I can accept, God stopped him from continuing that abominable tradition and taught him that ONLY God would be required to sacrifice a child – and ONLY in a situation where that child also was a God and was fully aware, understanding and approving of the sacrifice in advance.
(Just as food for thought:
In reality, God, the Father, didn’t sacrifice God, the Son.Jesus of Nazareth was murdered by the Jewish and/or Roman leadership – which makes the “Christ-type” interpretation of the Abrahan and Issac story shakier than most people realize.) I have no idea if that is accurate at all – or even if the entire story is nothing but a parable. Given the existence of the story, I choose to interpret it in the way that makes the most sense to me – and the interpretation above currently is my favorite.
As I’ve said many times here, I LOVE the symbolism that can be understood through stories like this. I have NO problem whatsoever with people reading this story as a simple foreshadowing and a Christ-type – or with those who teach it that way in Sacrament Meeting or General Conference. There is great power in that interpretation – and I even have no problem teaching it myself in that manner in a setting where I believe it is appropriate. In fact, it very well might be the “accurate” interpretation. There really isn’t any way to know objectively. It’s just not the version I personally like the most right now.
That approach solves so many issues for me.
Thank you, Heber13, for the moderation. I regret that was necessary. I will better familiarize myself with the rules and policies of the board so I don’t inadvertently cause unintended consequences. I was taught in academia to always document your sources, but I can see in keeping with the spirit of this board that leading people directly to something that may not be beneficial to them or others is not in the best interest of the group or the individual. I’ll try to be more careful. I appreciate the comments that have been raised, both here, and in the thread Heber13 referenced. I agree that how you look at the words and stories in the events in scripture shape your understanding and beliefs about what is really going on behind-the-scenes/in the ultimate big-picture. I think most of us have a desire to know that what we do or what conclusions we come to are really in line with what truth/God would have us do/be. Without knowing the “background” story – like so many scriptural events have, where the scriptural writer adds interpretation or commentary to what he is seeing or describing – it is hard to arrive at common understanding which forms the basis of “faith” between believers. Without knowing that God was “angry” at mankind and wanted to start over from scratch doing things
hisway, we wouldn’t see the story of Noah in the same way. Of course, if you don’t buy the descriptive and emotional word “angry” provided by the author and substitute something else that makes more sense to you – such as “disappointed” or “grieved” – in your interpretation of the character of God, it can help turn your whole picture of things around and make what is difficult (if taken straight from the text literally) into something that fits with your worldview. The problem I see with the “buffet” approach is, where does it end? Where does our ability/authority to interpret something in scripture change not only the personal meaning for us, but become a new (maybe different from the orthodox) doctrine that the Church feels is a threat to its right to declare what is official doctrine for the people and what is false? How many other denominations – Christian, Mormon, etc. ad infinitum – have had splinter groups spring up over sometimes subtle, nuanced readings or reconstructions of what the orthodox, original group put forth as true doctrines? If I start reading into scripture my own interpretations of what is being said by the author – if it varies with the established or “common” understanding – am I setting myself up as a new authority (albeit a personal one) for how any given text should be really understood? I just don’t want to get on a slippery slope that I have seen so many start down where they begin interpreting everything in their own way and lose the “rightness” or truthfulness of what is the true intent of God in inspiring it to be written. Am I potentially setting myself up for apostasy this way?
I guess this thread is kind of morphing into another topic (that may already have been discussed here) and deserves its own attention. But for the issue of “do we get a true idea of the character and characteristics of God by reading
allof what is written (and the words that were chosen to represent him) in the scriptures?” or do we need to pursue our own, individualized path to arrive at “the truth,” I’d like to invite some additional comments from those of you who have already wrestled with these issues and may have found your own solution that may be useful to someone like me. Was Nephi justified? Did a loving God really need to have another man take the life of one of his children when he possess the power of life and death himself and exercises it every day? Was this story really inspired? Is this the lesson that he wants me to find from Nephi’s story – that he loves his children? I’m still confused.
Quote:The problem I see with the “buffet” approach is, where does it end? Where does our ability/authority to interpret something in scripture change not only the personal meaning for us
For me, it ends when it no longer is beneficial for my growth and learning. At times, I have gone too far with my personal approach, and after researching what church leaders say about it, I find more meaning in changing direction and following church interpretations when they feel good to me.
I guess I view these things as data points along my journey. At times different approaches meet my changing needs. Something that may seem to be heading towards apostasy is a flag for me to evaluate why I feel that way and if that is the destination I want my path to lead towards, or if I need correction, or (more likely) is it unfounded fears it actually would lead to apostasy?
I really liked the last paragraph you wrote and how you put that. Open up to ask what you need to learn. That is an admirable approach.
:thumbup: I’m confused a lot too.:crazy: Good morning wjclerk, Let me share with you a page from my own journey. Through some circumstances, I had felt like a failure. Through some soul searching and prayer, I believe I received a revelation that God loves me in my imperfections. Unfortunately, I wasn’t sure this “revelation” was consistent with what I understood to be LDS doctrine. When I found the book “Believing Christ” I felt like there was an opportunity to connect and harmonize the two…
Roy wrote:Prior to reading “Believing Christ,” I had been struggling with the visualization of “enduring to the end” as a perpetual handcart journey. Where only if I pulled until I literally fell over dead would I measure up.
I wrote in my introduction:
Quote:Roy Wrote:
In reading, I have been seeking “The Answer.” When I read “Believing Christ” I was floored with “The Answer.”
💡 “Wow, of course God doesn’t expect me to be a saviour for those dearest to me- He loves me in my weakness and accepts my offering as long as my heart is in the right place. Why didn’t I know this before?”💡
I had been working out my relationship with God. “Believing Christ” comes along and confirms many of my “God loves me in my imperfections” feelings/revelations and presents these theories as core (if underemphasized) Mormonism. Here I was wondering if my new beliefs were compatible with the church, and suddenly – through this book – I felt that my new beliefs were the new true doctrine.
I could now interpret that to “endure in faith on his name to the end” (D&C 20:29-30) is an exercise in maintaining a “broken heart and a contrite spirit.” This was much easier for me to swallow as my heart was never in question, just my fortitude.
It was one last grasp at binary thinking. This lasted for two or three weeks and then came the second portion of my introductory post:
Quote:Roy wrote:
In attempting to answer some questions by a very sweet and sincere missionary as to how I could believe in “easy grace,” I looked up some of the relevant scripture verses in my institute manuals. I found that the interpretation and emphasis given these verses in the institute manual are not the same as that given in “Believing Christ.”
I looked up “grace” in the bible dictionary and found the following definition:
Quote:It is likewise through the grace of the Lord that individuals, through faith in the atonement of Jesus Christ and repentance of their sins, receive
strength and assistance to do good works that they otherwise would not be able to maintain if left to their own means. This grace is an enabling power that allows men and women to lay hold on eternal life and exaltation after they have expended their own best efforts. Divine grace is needed by every soul in consequence of the fall of Adam and also because of man’s weaknesses and shortcomings. However, grace cannot suffice without total effort on the part of the recipient. Hence the explanation, “It is by grace that we are saved, after all we can do”
Now I was back to my visualization of the perpetual handcart journey only now “grace” seemed to be that extra little shove to keep you going when every muscle is screaming at you to stop…until of course, you fall down dead in mid-step.😥 I was not so sure of myself to think that the church authorities quoted in these institute manuals and the editors of the bible dictionary were somehow in error while I was enlightened. Nor could I dismiss the differences as S. Robinson seems to dismiss those differences in his students’ understandings as being “a function of age and maturity” or being “soft in the middle.”
Brother Robinson wrote that it was common for BYU students to enter his classroom with fundamental misunderstandings about the Atonement of Christ. He seemed to “dismiss those differences in his students’ understandings as being “a function of age and maturity” or being “soft in the middle.”” But I discovered that Bro. Robinson’s interpretations, while not heretical, did not square with the correlated interpretations (In recognizing that church leaders have had a wide berth of opinions on various matters, I use the term correlated interpretations to mean those that have been selected for manuals etc. to represent the general church understandings in our day).But just the mere fact that Bro. Robinson holds these beliefs and teaches them in the church university, tells me that it is OK to have variation of belief. As JS said “It does not prove that a man is not a good man because he errs in doctrine.” (History of the Church 5:340) The tent of Zion is more spacious than I had previously thought. I currently thrill to learn of various “believing” perspectives and I am getting better at extending the hand of fellowship to those that believe so differently (more literally) than I.
wjclerk wrote:Of course, if you don’t buy the descriptive and emotional word “angry” provided by the author and substitute something else that makes more sense to you – such as “disappointed” or “grieved” – in your interpretation of the character of God, it can help turn your whole picture of things around and make what is difficult (if taken straight from the text literally) into something that fits with your worldview. The problem I see with the “buffet” approach is, where does it end? Where does our ability/authority to interpret something in scripture change not only the personal meaning for us, but become a new (maybe different from the orthodox) doctrine that the Church feels is a threat to its right to declare what is official doctrine for the people and what is false?
How many other denominations – Christian, Mormon, etc. ad infinitum – have had splinter groups spring up over sometimes subtle, nuanced readings or reconstructions of what the orthodox, original group put forth as true doctrines? If I start reading into scripture my own interpretations of what is being said by the author – if it varies with the established or “common” understanding – am I setting myself up as a new authority (albeit a personal one) for how any given text should be really understood? I just don’t want to get on a slippery slope that I have seen so many start down where they begin interpreting everything in their own way and lose the “rightness” or truthfulness of what is the true intent of God in inspiring it to be written. Am I potentially setting myself up for apostasy this way?
I guess this thread is kind of morphing into another topic (that may already have been discussed here) and deserves its own attention. But for the issue of “do we get a true idea of the character and characteristics of God by reading
allof what is written (and the words that were chosen to represent him) in the scriptures?” or do we need to pursue our own, individualized path to arrive at “the truth,” I’d like to invite some additional comments from those of you who have already wrestled with these issues and may have found your own solution that may be useful to someone like me. I too sometimes wonder, “Who am I to mentally modify little bits of doctrine to make them more palatable for me?” But then, would I be any more true to go around searching for a group that believes more similar to my own preferences? Or not finding one, deciding to start my own group? Does a theory or doctrine become more valid depending on the number of adherents you can surround yourself with?
I am following the spirit of revelation and the light of Christ that is in me. It is my understanding that the truths that may be imparted to me in this fashion are for my benefit personally and may not be applicable (may not be “true”) to anyone else. My truths help me to move forward in important and meaningful ways and so I continue on my personal path while building bridges to the community pathway.“The end result of this course of personally and individually pursuing light and truth is to reach that millennial state of which the scriptures say it will no longer be necessary for every man to say to his neighbor “know the Lord,” for all shall know him from the greatest to the least. Joseph Smith says this will be by the spirit of revelation.” BRM I expect at some future millennial date to be disabused of all my false notions. I expect this same process to occur for all believers who are willing to abandon their closely held traditions as they turn their face to the Source of light! In the mean time, I can’t help but ”see through a glass darkly” and continue to feel towards my Heavenly Father using imperfect means. I believe that doing so will fulfil the measure of my creation eventually and that I will not be penalized for misunderstandings.
In summary – What Heber said.
:clap: In the end, I believe I will be held accountable for how I lived what I personally believed – and I also believe I am responsible to come to a personal understanding of what I believe. I’ve stopped caring if I believe exactly what others believe (even the majority of the membership of the Church with regard to some things); I care much more about figuring out what I actually do believe and refining it continually. The principle of “on-going revelation” is important to me – since “revelation”, at is core, simply means the uncovering of things that previously were hidden from view. I sustain and support prophets and apostles, and I value their insights and beliefs and perspectives HIGHLY – but, in the end, I believe I’m not going to be judged at the most basic level by how I “obeyed” them. I believe I will be judged by how I obey God – and that is determined almost exclusively by how well I follow my conscience and do my best to understand and internalize what I believe to be the Gospel of Jesus Christ and “pure Mormonism”.
I compromise all the time on lots of things as a member of a society (The LDS Church), but we are told that the ideal is for the people to be prophets in the purest sense of the word – so that’s my primary goal.
Learning to be at peace with that individual / couple journey (with my wife) within the collective, communal Church is the key – and most of it is just learning to accept your best effort to do your best.
For many years I have been aware of this “problem” in the scriptures. I have not found any way of rationalizing or justifying them. It appears to me that they violate the two greatest commandments: to love the Lord, and to love our neighbor as ourselves. I have consciously made a decision that since those stories are seem so diametrically opposed to my understanding of a loving God, I simply disregard them. I believe those stories are in error, incomplete, or out of context, so I don’t see any value in dwelling on them.
I am aware I may wrong and God really is a hard a_ _. Maybe I “should” be learning how to defend God against all infidels and be his instrument to punishing all sinners, a la Islamic radicals.
😈 But I would rather believe God is kind, benevolent, and long suffering.:thumbup: I find those values better motivate and guide me to live the kind of life I want to strive for. For me and my house, we will serve goodness and light.Old-Timer wrote:I see scriptures as an explanation of how people saw their interaction with / conception of God. Period.
That really changes how I view scriptural stories – without changing in the slightest my view of the “truth” of them. There is a difference between objective accuracy and subjective truth – and I use “truth” to mean nothing more than “what someone honestly believes to be true”. (as opposed to “Absolute Truth”)
But the problem is that our entire religion is based on “how people (the prophets of our church) interpret the interactions of others with God”. It’s everything from the underwear some of us wear, to the book of mormon, to temple ceremonies, sacrament, salvation, excommunication, baptism, priesthood – all of it. So if it is just some random inspiring stories and myths, what are we doing on Sundays?
If we don’t believe God told Nephi to kill Laban, why should we believe that God told Joseph to start our religion? Do we just believe the scripture stories we like?
dash1730 wrote:But I would rather believe God is kind, benevolent, and long suffering.
:thumbup: I find those values better motivate and guide me to live the kind of life I want to strive for.I agree. I would rather believe in a kind, benevolent, long suffering and loving God too. But where do we get this idea from? The God of the Israelites was a God to be feared and obeyed, and if you didn’t, his anger and vengeance would “get you” and affect your descendents for generations after you. This is the God that was codified by the early Jews and thus came down to us from the early Christians. The God of the New Testament, Jesus Christ, was more about love, forgiving, and atonement, but I have found many of the writings of Paul and the Book of Revelations contains things that seem more on the fear side and less on the loving. Other people have had their own gods that had to be appeased by sacrifices, prayers, wars, bloodshed and sin, so there has always been examples of people “obeying God” (or their conception of what he wanted them to do) more because of fear of his power and retribution for not following his instructions than love and devotion that is returned to them in kind.
I think that the concept of a loving, forgiving, accepting God is a relatively new innovation. The concept of “best effort” being good enough has not been emphasized in religious history that I am familiar with, except recently in books such as “Believing Christ” which has already been mentioned. I would like to believe that for all the other thousands of years of human history and memory, that they all have just misunderstood (perhaps because for his own reasons he didn’t see fit to clear it up?) the non-vengeful, nurturing father concept that we would prefer to believe in the Church. But are we right, or are we just customizing our view of canon to coincide with human advances in inalienable rights, civil rights, women’s rights, children’s rights, allowing for alternate points of view in others (and not killing you if you converted to something else), etc? There is a long string of many scriptures in many faiths that paint a very different view of God.
I would much rather love and respect my father for what he does to help me grow up, rather than fearing he will take off his belt and whip me for disobeying him. Why is obedience stressed so much more than love and growth? Obey or perish!
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.