- This topic is empty.
-
Posts
-
gtb7697 wrote:
I guess I essentially disbelieve free agency.
I too disbelieve free agency but for different reasons. It just isn’t so simple that we either act or are acted upon – even our actions are heavily influenced by the things that combine to make us who we are (many of which we have little or no control over). So I guess, to be more specific, I believe in limited agency as far as our choices. For me, this also brings into question how our progress in this life (trammeled as it is by life circumstances) will effect our ultimate outcome.
If Jesus has an infinite atonement to distribute as he chooses – then he could distribute based on any number of criteria. He could apply the atonement for those that are baptized, or have faith, or try their hardest to be good and endure to the end. I suppose he could distribute it based on a random number generator or predestination if he so chose.
In the LDS church we seem to toggle between the atonement being a magical blanket that undeservedly covers our sins or it becomes the ability to avoid punishment for our past mistakes as long as we have learned from them and don’t repeat them. But if we stick to the magic blanket analogy, Jesus can “cover” who he will. This brings me to the second part:
gtb7697 wrote:I am not one of those insane folks who feel God wants to save all.
If Jesus can “cover” who he will, and he loves all – why would that make me insane to think that God/Jesus “wants to save all?”
As I said before, Paul was not especially consistent within his own writings. In my readings of his letters I have tried to not interpret them from my modern LDS perspective. I have tried to take on the role of an anthropologist reading the writing of a long lost religious sect. This has allowed me to be fascinated but also somewhat confused. There are hints as to the shape of the theology, but there are also gaps. You appear to be filling in the gaps with a different non-LDS lens; perhaps Calvinistic or Augustinian (I don’t know them too well). While part of me envies your sense of certainty, it is the same part of me that envies persons that are confident that the LDS perspective has all the answers. There is nothing wrong with your beliefs of the faith you have in them…it just isn’t what we tend to tackle here at StayLDS. May your path serve you well.
Quote:why would that make me insane to think that God/Jesus “wants to save all?”
Wanting to save all is one thing, thinking that he should is another.
There are a handful of people out there who don’t deserve to go to Heaven. They are few in number, but they have done extremely evil things, like start wars, sell poisonous products, condemn people to death, raped them etc numerous times.
SamBee wrote:Quote:why would that make me insane to think that God/Jesus “wants to save all?”
Wanting to save all is one thing, thinking that he should is another.
There are a handful of people out there who don’t deserve to go to Heaven. They are few in number, but they have done extremely evil things, like start wars, sell poisonous products, condemn people to death, raped them etc numerous times.
I don’t presume to tell God what he should do or who he should save. If none of us are deserving of heaven/salvation (and there are multiple scriptures that suggest this), then God would be completely justified in leaving the whole wretched mass in the hands of the Adversary.
I do have hope, based on what I understand of God’s love, that mercy can fulfill the demands of justice for me and my family and good and decent people everywhere. Sure it gets more complex for people that commit atrocities. I choose to believe (and my understanding of the broad outlines of LDS theology seems to support this) that God/Jesus save everyone except those that have made a fully informed rejection of Him/Them and that everyone (except the sons of perdition referenced before) may be saved by degrees as soon as they are ready to receive it. (If we think of the Telestial kingdom as a level of salvation and then read the description of its inhabitants, I believe you will get the idea of where I am coming from)
I fully acknowledge that this may or may not be the case in the afterlife (we shall have to see when we get there), but it certainly doesn’t make me insane to imagine it so.
:angel: Quote:I don’t presume to tell God what he should do or who he should save.
Nor do I, but do we really think certain historical figures who have caused the deaths of millions, such as Chairman Mao, or sex killers like Jack the Ripper should get the same treatment as someone who works for Medicins sans Frontieres or even Oskar Schindler? (Schindler certainly had a checkered past)
Sam, I am inclined to believe that Hitler and Stalin won’t be in the Celestial Kingdom (whatever that actually means). However, I have to leave open the possibility that they will – simply because I believe deeply in the concept of “judge not, that ye be not judged”. It’s much less about their eventual fate and much more about my current condition. It’s not what becomes of them; it’s what “I am”. It’s staying open to accepting that which I can’t see – and, in some cases, can’t even imagine. I don’t know what caused them to be who they were – and I personally have to remember that simple fact.
We talk all the time about those who are not accountable being saved from their lack of accountability. We apply it without reservation to children and the mentally disabled, but we often are less willing to apply it to the “perceptually disabled” – those who have ears and eyes to hear and see but can’t do so in the way we want. The best example I know is the psychopath.
We readily admit that there are people who appear to have been born without a conscience. If, in fact, that is true, then I include that condition in the same category as someone who is born “retarded” (the term of my upbringing), like one of my cousins. The foundational reason why we exempt my cousin from accountability is that he lacks the ability to understand, independently and internally, the difference between right and wrong with regard to most things. In “Mormon-speak”, his “obstacle to accountability” can be described as a result of “Adam’s transgression”; hence, we teach that he is “redeemed” despite his inability to understand, since his limitations were not of his own choosing.
Perhaps Hitler, Stalin, Dahmer, et.al. were just like my cousin – except that their unchosen disabilit(ies) manifested in evil instead of gentleness and love. Maybe they lacked the ability to feel the type of remorse that leads to repentance. Maybe they are examples of the need for opposition in all things – and, as opposite ends of the same condition, merely represent the touching points of an eternal round.
I have no idea about each individual person, but I like the idea that all of us are on the same circle when it comes to accountability – since it means all of us are more alike than different when all is said and done. That belief helps blunt my natural pride and helps remind me that I’m not really all that – especially in the eyes of a loving Father.
Put it this way, Ray. If I see a drunken guy on the street fighting or abusing people, or a junkie stealing goods from a shop, I don’t discount the possibility that they may change. It has happened. This may also only be one aspect of their character. Hitler, Stalin, Mao all died in their sins as far as I’m concerned. They never apologised for their actions, and caused the death of millions through war, murder, prison camps, forced labor and artificial famine. Their crimes are extreme and documented.
Now someone lower down the scale in these regimes, who betrays their family or friends after torture, I believe that’s a different matter. Even a soldier who fought for them.
I think the likes of Mussolini, Tito or Napoleon may reflect people who repented of some choices, or who realised that they made bad ones. (If Mussolini hadn’t allied with Hitler, we might remember him as a tin pot dictator – he’d probably have joined NATO like Franco did) They were dictators too, but in the end up, their crimes might be equal to some so called democratic politicians.
Yes, I agree that the psychopath is a difficult one. But I believe that the violent psychopath’s main problem is empathy, i.e. being able to understand his (it’s usually a he) victims’ feelings. I suspect that they are actually capable of telling right and wrong through other means than empathy though.
I have read quite a lot on both Hitler and Stalin, and there are signs that they could display some tenderness and feeling. Which probably makes their crimes worse.
As I said, Sam, I am inclined to believe those people won’t be in the Celestial Kingdom. I’m just saying, I can’t make that final judgment. Quote:As I said before, Paul was not especially consistent within his own writings. In my readings of his letters I have tried to not interpret them from my modern LDS perspective. I have tried to take on the role of an anthropologist reading the writing of a long lost religious sect. This has allowed me to be fascinated but also somewhat confused. There are hints as to the shape of the theology, but there are also gaps. You appear to be filling in the gaps with a different non-LDS lens; perhaps Calvinistic or Augustinian (I don’t know them too well). While part of me envies your sense of certainty, it is the same part of me that envies persons that are confident that the LDS perspective has all the answers. There is nothing wrong with your beliefs of the faith you have in them…it just isn’t what we tend to tackle here at StayLDS. May your path serve you well.
I seem to be getting quite a bit of gaff about my evolving views. It seems that many here what to label me. I guess if my own conclusions mirror conclusions other faiths have reached that shouldn’t condemn me in this forum. I am a member of the LDS faith and my understanding of specifics may differ with official doctrine but I dont see how this directly makes me anymore hostile than anyone else on this forum. Historically the church has evolved its doctrine. Maybe I am just ahead of the curve. Either way I wouldn’t say as you have said that I am certain.
gtb, you’re not taking gaff for your evolving views. We simply are saying that witnessing Calvinism to Mormons isn’t what we do here. Let me try to be as clear as I possibly can: Everyone here is here because we all see things slightly differently than many in the Church – but we all want to “StayLDS”. We disagree with each other about various things all the time – even among the admins and moderators. Seeing things differently isn’t an issue here; preaching classic Protestant theology is.
If we’ve misread your words somehow, I apologize – sincerely. However, you’ve been pretty clear, imo, so far – and I honestly don’t see how we’re misreading your comments. You’ve used a classic evangelical argument against Joseph and the Book of Mormon (perhaps unintentionally, but it’s pretty much word-for-word from various anti-Mormon tracts); you’ve said you believe in classic Calvinism; you’ve claimed we are calling you hostile, but all we’ve done is point out that nothing you’ve said thus far actually has anything to do with “staying LDS”.
Please send me a Private Message explaining your view on staying LDS – what that means to you. We’ll talk privately, and, perhaps, then we can start over without what might be a widespread misunderstanding – or we can part ways officially and mutually, if we find our goals simply aren’t aligned. That way, we won’t be derailing threads about other things.
Everyone: Let’s let this thread rest for now – or swing it back to the topic of the original post.
This discussion reminded me of this quote: Jacob was a cheater, Peter had a temper, David had an affair, Noah got drunk, Jonah ran from God, Paul was a murderer, Gideon was insecure, Miriam was a gossiper, Martha was a worrier, Thomas was a doubter, Sara was impatient, Elijah was moody, Moses stuttered, Zaccheus was short, Abraham was old, and Lazarus was dead…. God doesn’t call the qualified, He qualifies the CALLED!
bridget_night wrote:This discussion reminded me of this quote:
Jacob was a cheater, Peter had a temper, David had an affair, Noah got drunk, Jonah ran from God, Paul was a murderer, Gideon was insecure, Miriam was a gossiper, Martha was a worrier, Thomas was a doubter, Sara was impatient, Elijah was moody, Moses stuttered, Zaccheus was short, Abraham was old, and Lazarus was dead…. God doesn’t call the qualified, He qualifies the CALLED!
Absolutely! The bible never white-washes the prophets and people of god — warts and all, they’re all there. Can’t figure out why we need to (1) have the church leadership white-wash our leaders and (2) we ourselves will summarily dismiss anyone in church leadership with a foible.Moving more to more recent times: I personally got a lot out of Paul Dunn’s stories. Loved them. Suspected they were complete BS, but still loved them. When I went to the Missionary Home (yeah, ancient times) I was sitting in the very front row while he was talking, giving his stories — he would smirk and wink around the humor, trying to help us understand, in a way, that it wasn’t literally true, but he wanted to spin a story for a moral. And he was a master at it.
For some reason, someone had to point out that almost all of his stories were fiction. He was disgraced, retired, and sent into the bone-yard of oblivion. Personally, I find that tragic. Between Paul Dunn and Saturday’s Warrior, I made personal commitments in my life to change, to grow, to improve. I am better because of pious fiction — All stuff made up as it turns out. All make-believe. Yet I am sure that there are many, many more young men who were affected positively by Paul Dunn’s and Lex DeAcevedo’s influence. (Yes, I know, Lex did not portray his story as ‘true’…but…)
I feel right now that the church in its public position is at a very vulnerable time. I’ve written elsewhere about the concept of a “tipping point”, where a critical mass of people adopting change creates a cascading, viral change in society or culture. Faxes, Internet, Google, Facebook — these all were transformational things that radically changed society. Within the mormon culture, the forced dualism of “its either all true or all fraud – there is no middle ground” is dangerous thinking, and stated less than 8 years ago by the prophet. Since then, the Book of Mormon DNA question has been clearly settled to any legitimate, unbiased biologist’s satisfaction (for BOTH the Hemispheric and Limited Geography Models, thank you), and there are many, many more channels for people to get the truth. — the apparent frauds of the church are out of the bag. The absolute, “all true or fraud” position invites the idea that if one aspect is fraudulent, then the proposition that the church is ‘all true’ is false, therefore the logical conclusion is similar to that made by the McLays in Colorado Springs — to me, not the best outcome.
True, mature faith does not work by way of literal proof, and does not have to have literalism to witness the spiritual truth of a principle or way of life.
I really think it’s time to grow up as a church and realize the power of myth and culture. I think it’s time to embrace joseph smith’s imperfections and witness that very imperfect people can do amazing things. As I read Joseph’s writings, yes, he was wildly creative and all over the map, yet having had some very deep, mystical experiences of my own I cannot deny, I recognize in his writings some of the indicators of very deep spiritual experience. To me, his legacy of
prophecy: the idea that god will continue to reveal his truth to mankind through inspiration as was the case with Paul, that priesthood authority is necessary to organize a zion society and get things done, that all truth needs to be part of the gospel (and not the other way around), his syncretism — willingness to look at and hijack other beliefs into his belief system (e.g. Masonry), his recognition that a religious society needed some degree of uniqueness and its own ‘scripture’ to create vitality — these are the brilliant seeds of Joseph Smith’s legacy, without which there would be no LDS church. But there’s more: as he progressed through his years, he had all sorts of foibles that were most destructive to the traditionalists that tried to follow him. The debacles at Kirtland, in Missouri, and of course his death in Nauvoo were entirely caused by his own hegemony and bad decisions. In parallel to these debacles, two things were going on: (1) a new leadership had to form and be somewhat independent of JS, hence the emergence of Brigham Young who would convert the little
cultinto a theocratic cultand thence into the distinct, vibrant culture that LDS have today, and (2) joseph had ongoing ‘revelations’ as to the nature of god that opened up a huge number of possibilities. Joseph was coming to quite a non-christian understanding of God, and the world was and is not ready for his understanding, nor were they developed enough by his last speech (King Follett) to make any real sense. He seemed to be trying to dispose of the traditional notions of god and come to something…else. Something much more mystical, yet still ineffible, and Section 88 is his clearest undestanding thereof — if there is such a thing as ‘understanding’ as applied to a mystical experience. BY, on the other hand, took Joseph Smiths final speculations and went whole hog sideways and literal on him — declaring his fantastic speculations as gospel truth and causing all sorts of fun for us today. So in the end, I would ask myself, “Is Joseph a prophet or not?” and my answer is, yes, the
entireJoseph — imperfections and all — is a prophet in the mold of the imperfect yet brilliant prophets of all time. One of the reasons I love this site so much is that I can read wayfarer’s last few comments, agree totally with all of what I see as the core, foundational, critical points in them and still hold onto my faith that the Book of Mormon might be inspired non-fiction (meaning it might be an “authentic” record of ancient writers, received through revelation). There are enough things in it (especially in 1 Nephi and Ether) that point toward a deeper historical understanding than I believe he had that I can leave open that poosibility and actually use it as my current default position – especially, as wayfarer said, since I see Joseph as a great mystic and a truly “visionary man”. Old-Timer wrote:One of the reasons I love this site so much is that I can read wayfarer’s last few comments, agree totally with all of what I see as the core, foundational, critical points in them and still hold onto my faith that the Book of Mormon might be inspired non-fiction (meaning it might be an “authentic” record of ancient writers, received through revelation). There are enough things in it (especially in 1 Nephi and Ether) that point toward a deeper historical understanding than I believe he had that I can leave open that poosibility and actually use it as my current default position – especially, as wayfarer said, since I see Joseph as a great mystic and a truly “visionary man”.
its so amazing how we agreeably disagree…😆 adam and eve, garden of eden…as written in genesis… are these literal stories? do you recall a version of this story where this was described as simply figurative?
i will absolutely grant that the book of mormon can be taken as inspired nonfiction, in the same way the pre mosaic stories in the bible are inspired nonfiction. but looking for actual historical evidence of them has proved futile. and that is precisely the point. JS did what biblical authors did: revealed the word through a symbolic, quasi-history, in order to inspire and guide the people. it works. it’s powerful. they’re effective because they are myths: symbols of a truth that (1) requires faith to accept, and (2) transcends this world by not being literal.
Jesus taught in parable. in the gospel of John, jesus said outrageous things, like you have to be born again. the author of john tells how nicodemus, an educated, wealthy man, responds, how am i supposed to do that? go back into the womb? John is poking fun at the literalists. it’s like he is pounding us on the heads, “no you idiot, ‘born again’ is metaphorical language–it is a symbol. stop trying to think this through–it aint that hard”.
literalism keeps us in the earliest stages of fowlers model. the problem with taking myth literally is that some of it can become absurd, and easily falsifiable if there is a provable historical claim. for example, in any of the most popular geographical models of the BoM, how do you get a single day’s journey between the seas? not to mention anachronisms, etc… literalists who study this will spin cycles getting where? into implausibility, doubt, and ultimately disaffection, and thus lose the spiritual content of the message.
it’s time to abandon the apologists and literalists that have turned the book of mormon into a twisted nightmare of convoluted justification logic. it is a beautiful work, full of spiritual insight. let us liberate it from the shackles of literalism and let it guide to christ as it was meant to do.
Oh, and Moses didn’t just stutter – he killed an Egyptian! Again, I agree with pretty much everything wayfarer just wrote – but I still can leave open the possibility, and that ability is important to me (not as much the possibility that it might actually be inspired non-fiction, but more that I can leave open that possibility and even accept it right now as my default in talking with other members).
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.