The goodness of God?

[Anonymous]

Rob4Hope wrote:

But looking at the hurt and heartache caused by those mistakes can’t be ignored. JS did certain things, lied about it, and the apologetic excuse is more or less he was commanded? Or he had to because the people weren’t ready and God needed him to move forward?

I also understand that reaction, Rob. But for me honestly (not trying to wiggle or force things to work or trying to make excuses or be apologetic for JS…just honestly how I see him and all he did)…it is just not cut and dry.

Strong words like “lied” are too cut and dry for me, too black and white, on what conclusion follows. Too many times non-sequiturs are thrown around, as if a lie is clearly going to negate everything else, no matter what. While it sounds bad…there are some lies that don’t really bother me. Not all lies or all mistakes are equal. Not all lies require prison and execution. Some do…but not all.

While you are correct we cannot and should not make excuses for his behavior…that should equally be considered on what he was doing. Do not let “mistakes” be the excuse that Joseph CANNOT be a prophet. I also try not to let my own feelings of being surprised I was 40 until I learned JS did some things when I trusted my church was feeding me the correct stories…and I found out they only fed me partial stories which equates to deceit and lies in some ways…those feelings I have are not the same as what actually is in the world.

To get what I mean we would have to talk about specific circumstances so it doesn’t make it sound like I am making excuses for JS, or that I don’t think lying is wrong or that polygamy is gross. But…I’m really trying to keep a rational approach of what he did compared to what all of us do in life (make mistakes). That doesn’t make the mistakes less painful. It only helps us make our story in our head about what was going on, or if we can trust him.

I just think too many times I hear the actions Joseph took described as as deceit and evil and fraud as if that is completely established and there is no other conclusion. I also feel like when I try to share how I think about it, I feel people think I’m disingenuous, or making excuses, or not honest, or I’m fooling myself…when really…I just don’t see JS as evil. And I don’t think he got away with something because church people let him. He paid with his life for things, some things he was wrongly accused of and was unjust to him, and some things he brought upon himself because of what he was doing. He was not living in a peaceful pure environment, and you can’t ignore that things really were different in his day. Bushman presents a pretty fair picture of things he accomplished and things he did that are confusing or even wrong.

The goodness of God is that he lets us make mistakes, but knows how to keep teaching us so we can gain experience in this life…sometimes by allowing mistakes to occur. I think it has been a mistake of the church to prop Joseph up as a legendary prophet figure that stings us when we are surprised at some things he did. Regardless…he is a prophet and is spoken of

Quote:

for good and evil among all nations, kindreds, and tongues, or that it should be both good and evil spoken of among all people.

[Anonymous]

Thank you all for the responses.

A lot of this has focused on JS, and my original discussion about section 132.

One thing that has not been addressed is the perpetuation of the doctrine espoused. If polygamy was wrong, then why did BY, JT, WW, and others continue to preach and practice it? If it is wrong and not doctrinal, why is it canonized?

Now, many of you have said that because it is canon doesn’t make it necessarily from God; or, because it is canon doesn’t necessarily make it scripture…etc.

In the LDS church, we teach that the D&C is revelation from God. If we do not teach that, please inform me of the memo–I must have missed it. We are also taught to read and study the scriptures because they represent the mind and will of God. Again, memo requested if perchance I missed it.

The reason I bring this up is because often the #1 counsel given people is to “read your scriptures”. If the scripture is not from God,…would it not be as apt to say: “Read something uplifting from an atheist”…?

I’m gunna dig my heals in here for the sake of understanding this better. If we begin to pick and choose scripture either being from God or not, or we water it down by saying: “Well, it was passed through JS and is colored by his own interpretation”….or whatever else we want to say, then where do you draw the line? Did Moses interpret the “thou shalt not kill” line,…and that is subjected to personal interpretation as well? What about all the other ideas in the scriptures?

There are some cultures where killing is considered the will of God in specific situations, and those people feel morally justified. Interpretation can be used to excuse or endorse anything.

It seems to me we open a can of worms here….everything becomes subject to interpretation and being thrown out if it doesn’t “resonate”.

It doesn’t resonate to me, for example, that scripture can be watered down as being from God,…kindof,….maybe,….and we can pick and choose when such revelations are actually given as revelations in themselves (the bible has several non-doctrinal points that I think we can throw out,…but the D&C?). Or, the idea that God allows falsehoods to be taught because he is, after all, letting us learn it the hard way by our own mistakes. You see, if God takes this tact, I’m again left to wonder about his goodness.

On the other side of this issue is the argument that God isn’t as involved in our lives as we may think. I’ve heard some of you say that on this site,…and this actually makes this scripture a little more palatable. Perhaps JS got it wrong, and God didn’t get around to answering questions that people prayed about (meaning GAs,…IF they prayed about it) to indicate it was in error.

If section 132 is not from God, or is interpreted and kindof from God, or is a little off, but mostly right,….or,….or,….or…… then the question I beg to ask is WHY is it endorsed as scripture in the LDS canon still? And, if God doesn’t choose to fix this issue, then is God accessible?

I am left to contemplate that God is good, he is not involved much because he wants us to learn from our own mistakes, and we are kindof on our own to decide what we will and wont do. And, if the church decides to institutionalize something, then that is tolerated by God as well, even if that pathway hurts a lot of people. That basically is what I am gathering.

I need a God who is more accessible. The more I think about the LDS God,…well, he seems distant and doesn’t answer prayers about such things. When I think about this God, the less apt I am to pray….or perhaps my prayers change: I no longer ask for help or answers,…I simply say “I had a good day and hope yours was well to,…until next time.”

Again, have to leave the LDS God behind because he doesn’t work for me.

[Anonymous]

I draw the line on what inspires me to be better and love the Lord. Everything else is picking and choosing what helps me, because I want to know the will of God. Perhaps Isaiah is scripture…but lots of it does nothing for me for many reasons, so I choose to skip a lot of it.

I also find “scripture” outside of the canonized work. Truly beautiful teachings I think God wants me to know, even though not canonized. Calling it scripture is less important than the impact of what I’m reading.

Reading something uplifting from an atheist is 100x better than reading canonized scripture that lists geneology lines, to me.

I do not use broad brushes. It is not all D&C or no D&C. Or all Old Testament or no Old Testament. Or all Standardized works.

I don’t open a can of worms just for the sake of opening a can of worms. I only open what I need to study.

I frankly am not concerned with what other people believe or don’t believe is scripture or what they think I “should” interpret as the will of God, or what their definition of scripture is. I appreciate their views…but fully expect God to reveal His will to me, through his prophets, and other sources.

Quote:

If section 132 is not from God, or is interpreted and kindof from God, or is a little off, but mostly right,….or,….or,….or…… then the question I beg to ask is WHY is it endorsed as scripture in the LDS canon still?

Because people in the church voted and canonized it, including the whole process with Q12 leaders compiling it at the time. I dont’ think it is more complicated than that…it simply is what it is, and came from that process.

Quote:

And, if God doesn’t choose to fix this issue, then is God accessible?

A lot less than perhaps I thought, but perhaps a lot deeper than I ever before expected. He is not so limited as I once thought my LDS God was.

Quote:

I need a God who is more accessible. The more I think about the LDS God,…well, he seems distant and doesn’t answer prayers about such things. When I think about this God, the less apt I am to pray….or perhaps my prayers change: I no longer ask for help or answers,…I simply say “I had a good day and hope yours was well to,…until next time.”

I understand that desire for that. I thought I needed that too. Turns out, I don’t. I think God knows that. He’s taken off the training wheels and letting me go (and fall) and learn, mistakes and all. Kinda like JS. It has changed my prayers…but I still pray because it helps me stay connected, as do some of the scriptures. Not so much Isaiah or D&C 132, but other good stuff. Some of it really is the will of God. I wish it all was, and it was simple…but I don’t find it is, no matter what I want…I simply don’t find it is…and find I can be OK with it as it is.

My peace comes by accepting what my religion is…not trying to make it fit what I want it to be. That works for me.

[Anonymous]

Where to begin?

Rob4Hope wrote:

If polygamy was wrong, then why did BY, JT, WW, and others continue to preach and practice it?

Plain and simple, because they thought it was right.

Rousseau wrote:

God created man in his own image. And man, being a gentleman, returned the favor.

Mark Twain wrote:

No man that has ever lived has done a thing to please god–primarily. It was done to please himself, then god next.

There can be some circular interpretation going on. This is how I view god, therefore this is how I view myself. This is how I view myself, therefore this is how I view god.

Rob4Hope wrote:

Now, many of you have said that because it is canon doesn’t make it necessarily from God; or, because it is canon doesn’t necessarily make it scripture…etc.

It’s cannon because the general membership of the church made it cannon. Here’s a link to avoid reinventing the wheel: Mormon Doctrine What’s Official, And What Isn’t?

Quote:

On every occasion, a three-step process was followed to add Official Doctrine: It requires the approval of the First Presidency, the concurrence of the Quorum of Twelve Apostles, and then it must be accepted in a sustaining vote of the entire membership.

From the info in the link it looks like section 132 was canonized by the first presidency, quorum of the 12, and general membership in 1880. What were the finer points of belief that were common in the church in 1880? Are those beliefs the same or different today?

God didn’t canonize our scripture. Humans did.

Rob4Hope wrote:

The reason I bring this up is because often the #1 counsel given people is to “read your scriptures”. If the scripture is not from God,…would it not be as apt to say: “Read something uplifting from an atheist”…?

If I go to a Chinese restaurant and tell the people there that I’m hungry they are probably going to recommend I eat Chinese food. The people recommending reading the scriptures believe wholeheartedly that the scriptures are from god and that they will help.

Rob4Hope wrote:

I’m gunna dig my heals in here for the sake of understanding this better. If we begin to pick and choose scripture either being from God or not, or we water it down by saying: “Well, it was passed through JS and is colored by his own interpretation”….or whatever else we want to say, then where do you draw the line?

Personally I don’t draw a line, or if I do I make sure to draw it in pencil, something that can easily be erased. Today’s ignorance is tomorrow’s understanding and today’s understanding is tomorrow’s ignorance. I don’t want an arbitrary line serving as a barrier to the free flow that should exist between the two.

Rob4Hope wrote:

Did Moses interpret the “thou shalt not kill” line,…and that is subjected to personal interpretation as well?

Did Moses even exist?

Rob4Hope wrote:

There are some cultures where killing is considered the will of God in specific situations, and those people feel morally justified. Interpretation can be used to excuse or endorse anything.

Yep.

Rob4Hope wrote:

It seems to me we open a can of worms here….everything becomes subject to interpretation and being thrown out if it doesn’t “resonate”.

Why hold on tight to that which does not resonate? If someone else’s interpretation of god doesn’t match your experience why force it to fit into your interpretation? Write your own scripture. God hasn’t written one scripture, not a single one. Humans have written all of them, humans seeing through that glass, darkly. A few people that wrote some scriptures gained a big following. A big following alone isn’t a stamp of god’s approval.

Rob4Hope wrote:

Or, the idea that God allows falsehoods to be taught because he is, after all, letting us learn it the hard way by our own mistakes. You see, if God takes this tact, I’m again left to wonder about his goodness.

How kind would god be if he didn’t allow me to believe what I want to believe? How kind would I be if I insisted that people adhere to my belief system? How does one learn but through trial and error? What truly is a falsehood? (I could go on )

Rob4Hope wrote:

I am left to contemplate that God is good, he is not involved much because he wants us to learn from our own mistakes, and we are kindof on our own to decide what we will and wont do. And, if the church decides to institutionalize something, then that is tolerated by God as well, even if that pathway hurts a lot of people. That basically is what I am gathering.

It doesn’t have to be a church teaching something unhealthy. I view this as being similar to the line of questioning: if god is all powerful why does he allow evil in the world?

Rob4Hope wrote:

I need a God who is more accessible.

Then believe god is accessible and I think you’ll find that over time god will become more and more accessible.

Rob4Hope wrote:

Again, have to leave the LDS God behind because he doesn’t work for me.

A snake has to shed it’s skin in order to grow. And don’t read too much into the symbolism of the snake for that one. 😆

[Anonymous]

nibbler wrote:

If polygamy was wrong, then why did BY, JT, WW, and others continue to preach and practice it?….Plain and simple, because they thought it was right.

To this I would add that they thought it was right AND they felt that they were protecting and promulgating the legacy of JS. They also felt that it was right to prevent miscegenation. Just sayin’

nibbler wrote:

From the info in the link it looks like section 132 was canonized by the first presidency, quorum of the 12, and general membership in 1880. What were the finer points of belief that were common in the church in 1880? Are those beliefs the same or different today?

Yuppers! We are not in Kansas anymore.

Rob4Hope wrote:

It seems to me we open a can of worms here….everything becomes subject to interpretation and being thrown out if it doesn’t “resonate”.

Rob, Just to clarify the choice is not necessarily between black and white – right and wrong, and the slippery slope of anything goes.

I took a class on business ethics. It is interesting that there are different schools of thought in how to determine the ethical nature of a given situation. While the different approaches may differ in some particulars they all generally point towards making the best choice in a given scenario. It can be somewhat disconcerting at first to think that an action that can be considered ethical under one school of thought may not be ethical under another. Does this mean that there is no point to studying ethics? No. It would just compel us to consider several approaches to ethics in order to double check our answers.

When I say that something in scripture does not “resonate” with me – part of that is shorthand for me to say that it conflicts with my sense of ethics and value systems. I am not being rebellious. I am double checking my answers and holding fast to that which I find to be good.

There is an approach to ethics that basically says that right is right and wrong is wrong because God says so. That is not a particularly compelling approach to me and I don’t know anyone that would rely only on that one approach to the exclusion of any other thought process for ethical determination. I believe that there is great wisdom contained in the scriptures but that does not mean that I check my brain at the door. This, to me, is just part of being an adult and evaluating my environment.

[Anonymous]

Rob4Hope:

Earlier, you mentioned killing. It was a passing comment about Moses. Killing is an excellent topic to focus on. We are told killing is wrong. But we are also told that killing in times of war is completely acceptable. BUT .. Is it acceptable only when we are defending our homes and families? Is it still acceptable when our country hires soldiers out to police other countries? Is it acceptable when we are the invaders? Where do we draw the line as a faith?

Catholics believe in the sanctity of life. They don’t believe in abortion and they don’t believe in euthanasia or death sentences. Anabaptist groups tend to be conscious objectors. They will take supportive positions, but not active positions on the military.

The LDS church tells us killing is wrong. But the Church is moving further away from discussions about abortion. Our religious culture tells us that killing for our government is acceptable. Culturally, we have been raised to just accept that we support our military and our government.

BUT .. Does the church policy make sense? Why?

[Anonymous]

To me it only makes sense in one context AP. That is that I understand the commandment “thou shalt not kill” is mistranslated and the actual Hebrew word means murder. There is a similar mistranslation (or at least a misunderstanding of the meaning of the word) in the Sabbath commandment with the word work. There isn’t an English translation of the Hebrew word used there, and there is more than one Hebrew word for work. That commandment is saying not to do certain kinds of work.

That said, I still don’t fully get it, either. Murder is obviously wrong, but I do believe in the sanctity of life and I think most rational people do. I’m not a huge fan of war but I’m not a fan of Hitler and the Holocaust, either – there seems to have been no other way to stop it. I do question scriptural commands to kill, and especially the story of Nephi and Laban. Frankly, I don’t believe God would have commanded Nephi to kill Laban.

[Anonymous]

On Own Now wrote:

I believe that JS saw himself as a significant agent in the Gospel, and that to a large degree, if he thought it, it was because it was the will of God. The way I’ve said it here before is that my feeling is that JS believed God spoke through him more than to him.

Profound, OON. Really, this rung a bell with me and I have stopped to ponder it. I have said here before that I think Joseph made up a lot of stuff – but I don’t usually say that I think he believed it, even though I think that’s so. You have stated it in a way that encompasses what I believe about Joseph.

I’m going to ponder this some more, but I am pondering “truth” right now and I’m not done with that. (Sometimes I ponder things for weeks or even months.)

[Anonymous]

I think AP makes a good point. While we let the teaching guide us, things are not usually black and white simple or always one way with no exception.

Let church teachings guide you, until something higher requires adaptation. Love rules above all.

[Anonymous]

Heber13 wrote:

Love rules above all.

Love is the noun and rules is the verb.

Love is the verb and rules is the noun.

The joys of communication. This is why nuance and “no one interpretation” becomes important. :angel:

[Anonymous]

I don’t love rules, but love does rule.

[Anonymous]

A friend’s child was hit by a car this week and died instantly. I’ve been thinking of that family .. But also thinking of that driver and what a horrific experience to live with .. Knowing you caused the death of someone.

My FIL served in Vietnam. He didnt speak about his time there, but he had nightmares for years. Later, he served as a bishop, served 4 LDS missions, worked as a temple sealer, and eventually moved a few doors down from us as he was failing and then dying. In his last months of life, he grieved the number of lives he had ended while serving in Vietnam. He worried about facing God because of those military kills.

This week, I have been thinking of how we handle death in our religious culture when it is someone we have killed by accident versus someone who we have been assigned to kill by our government. I don’t have any real insight at this point. I am recognizing that my past opinions were very simple and very much reflective of the culture in which I was raised.

i find myself trying to think past my cultural assumptions and see if I can come to any new ideas about the ethics of right, wrong, and where mercy fits in the puzzle.

[Anonymous]

Your post gave me lots to think about, AP. Reminds me of my uncle who flew choppers in Vietnam. To this day won’t talk about it.

I think that belief in God and religion can help people try to cope with some things in life. But…I think some things in life will never be explained, just experienced. Some things are just outside the realm of religion, I think.

[Anonymous]

Interesting posts. The line between right and wrong can become blurry when taking into account human suffering. God has all power to stop suffering, but if he did, would that infringe on the learning experiences that we are told we need?…and if he ended what we perceive as unnecessary suffering that seems to have no purpose, does that also somehow disturb or destroy the Plan of Salvation?

I was taught my whole life of a harsh and exacting god. If you messed up, you were gunna get it. SWK and Bruce McConkie were my heroes, and when they pounded the pulpit or wrote books, that was it. Then, along comes my own humanity and mistakes. I eventually don’t measure up, and hope vanishes.

Along comes books like Stephen Robinson’s “Believing Christ”, and talks like “His Grace is Sufficient”…and for the life of me, these seem like utter heresy, even abominable. But, I find myself wanting to believe because they give me hope. Maybe god isn’t as exacting?…maybe there is a second chance because I obviously blew it big time.

And then begins the conflict, and where I look at doctrinal teachings in scripture (whatever that really is), or teachings of the GA types, I find reason to support either position. God exacts, and you will burn in hell for your mistakes!…..and god is merciful, and there is hope!…..and all the shades in between.

Can I say without being too graphic that I am projectile vomiting it all out…..all the ideas, all the conflict, all the disconnections, all the confusion…..

I am going right back to what Uncle Hub said in the movie “Second Hand Lions”. He said there are some things a man needs to believe in,…doesn’t matter if they are true or false; a man believes in them because those are the things WORTH believing in.

I get to make up my own belief system, and if it lands me in heaven or hell doesn’t matter. What matters is if it is something i feel has enough value to believe in the first place.

I never in my wildest WILDEST WILDEST dreams would have thought my FC would land me as an island.

[Anonymous]

We often call this site the Island of Misfit Toys.

I believe we are nowhere close to a tiny group, and I believe our island is a good place for those trying to find a ride back to the mainland in a condition where they can be at peace.

Peace, my friend, as we walk our individual paths together.

[Author]

Posts