- This topic is empty.
-
Posts
-
Quote:
These are the powerful tensions that pull and pull at us until we break through and snap forward — being launched out into something new.
Again, as a teacher I learned a couple things. If I just tell my students the way things are, they write them down and forget about them. Sometimes the information just gets lost in all the other information they are bombarded with. Sometimes they don’t even listen at all.
However, if I create a hands-on exercise where I “underteach” the concepts they need to complete the exercise, they flounder for a while. They scratch their heads to figure it out, experience some frustration, and THEN, they come to me asking for knowledge because the experience heightens their appetite for knowledge. And because they have struggled with and experienced the confusion, they listen intently to what I have to say.
In essence, making the hands-on experience of life unclear, and under-taught at first, heightens motivation to ask and to learn.
Cadence, here’s my two cents: It’s because the literal physicality of these truths don’t matter to, and they would perhaps impede spiritual development. The point is
notthat they are a TRUTH in the way that science can verify. The point is that they direct, or signal toward another more emotional, more subjective plane where deeper meanings of symbols can have a profound effect on the outlook and individual decisions that people make – hopefully for the better. It’s called spirituality:
http://forum.staylds.com/viewtopic.php?f=11&t=642 mormonheretic wrote:Cadence, I don’t want to rain on your parade, but these types of questions can be asked about any religion. Let me modify these a bit for Christianity, but I think the same types of questions could come to Islam, Buddhism, or any other religion.
So true. They all have a measure of truth and on balance a certain amount of deception or maybe ignorance
Cadence wrote:SilentDawning wrote:If God makes these issues unclear, then he’s spared of having to levy the strict punishments that would fall upon all of us for falling short given the accoutantability that comes with perfect knowledge. That’s why he doesn’t appear to everyone — only the strongest and purist, and those capable of living up to the standards that come with perfect knowledge actually get to see Him. It’s also why Jesus spoke in parables rather than the straight truth — to lessen accountability to the weak.
Sorry I can not accept that line of reasoning. I do not want a God who hides from me on the basis of it is good for me to not know what he is doing. Would not the weakest and most troubled need God the most. Jesus did not hang out with the very best of society but what we would consider the unworthy. I think it is very elitist to say only the purest and strongest can see God. That is a Mormon philosophy that I must reject. If God saw the need to appear to me I am sure he would. He does not because there is no need. Not because of my personal righteousness.To shroud things in complexity and double and hidden meaning I personally believe is no way for a father to teach his children. Give me the straight up forward approach anytime. Something I can get my head around without having to second guess myself all the time.
My concern with your answer above, Cadence, is that it doesn’t address the issue of accountability. You mention what you think God SHOULD be, but you don’t address the fact that if He DID show himseulf unto you, you would have perfect knowledge. And with that would come accountability, and potentially, very stiff punishment if your human weaknesses led you to reject his commands, or even to start doubting whether he even existed after being given such perfect knowledge.
Nor do I think the idea that ‘only the purist see God in his life’ is elitist. Elitists have this belief they are somehow “better” than others given their superior intelligence or other abilities — and they treat others that way. The righteous are CAREFUL not to be arrogant, otherwise, they lose the humlity of character necessary to be truly pure. The scriptures are clear that men only differ in the eyes of God on the basis of sin — no other basis — so there is no elitism in this or in God — it’s his way of protecting us from our own sins until the probability of being faithful is higher — in the next life when we have more experience from this life, and more evidence our spirits are eternal.
And I think it’s precisely beacause things are NOT clear that we can believe in a just and merciful God who makes it possible for even the weak to gain mortal experience, without unduly strict accountability that compels him to levy stiff punishments when we violate perfect knowledge.
The lack of clarity also shows how soft=hearted God is.
Quote:I think it is very elitist to say only the purest and strongest can see God. That is a Mormon philosophy that I must reject.
Fwiw,
that’s not part of the theology of pure Mormonism. The best examples that leap to mind are Saul (Paul), Alma Jr and Joseph Smith. “Strong” might be an accurate adjective for all three of them, but “pure” certainly isn’t – at least, not in the true sense of the word – and none of them claimed to be pure. Also, as I’ve said elsewhere, every one of these experiences can be interpreted very easily as having been a “vision” rather than a “visitation”. However, if you have a problem with only the pure (to some degree) seeing God, you’ve got a problem with the very foundation of Christianity and with the Sermon on the Mount (and, as MH said, every organized religion that ever has existed). Personally, I have no problem conceptually, as a general rule with exceptions that prove the rule, with God only revealing himself to those who believe in him and are willing to have hearts that are “pure” (meaning, imo, fully dedicated to him).
Having said that, I also love the fact that Mormonism teaches that every single person can commune with God and “see” him in a very real way – as long as they really want to do so. That ideal gets butchered in translation too often, but I still love the ideal.
Old-Timer wrote:
Having said that, I also love the fact that Mormonism teaches that every single person can commune with God and “see” him in a very real way – as long as they really want to do so. That ideal gets butchered in translation too often, but I still love the ideal.
Yep. I kept repeating this over and over again last year as I taught Gospel Doctrine class. That IS Mormonism.HiJolly
SilentDawning wrote:Cadence wrote:
ISorry I can not accept that line of reasoning. I do not want a God who hides from me on the basis of it is good for me to not know what he is doing. Would not the weakest and most troubled need God the most. Jesus did not hang out with the very best of society but what we would consider the unworthy. I think it is very elitist to say only the purest and strongest can see God. That is a Mormon philosophy that I must reject. If God saw the need to appear to me I am sure he would. He does not because there is no need. Not because of my personal righteousness.
To shroud things in complexity and double and hidden meaning I personally believe is no way for a father to teach his children. Give me the straight up forward approach anytime. Something I can get my head around without having to second guess myself all the time.
My concern with your answer above, Cadence, is that it doesn’t address the issue of accountability. You mention what you think God SHOULD be, but you don’t address the fact that if He DID show himseulf unto you, you would have perfect knowledge. And with that would come accountability, and potentially, very stiff punishment if your human weaknesses led you to reject his commands, or even to start doubting whether he even existed after being given such perfect knowledge.
I am not sure God commands anything, or holds us accountable for all the myriad of infractions that most religions say he does. I am afraid I believe most of the commandments are made up of men to control behavior in society. They may be good ideas to live by, but what if there are not commandments as we think of them other than to just do your best.
I personally am not looking to have a visit from God. There was a time that I thought it important but now I truely believe if God needs to come to me for some reason he will. Other than that I just will live my live the best I can. Cause no harm and help where I can.
I don’t think anything is ever self-evident. Different people can witness the same event or examine the same data and then give different descriptions or interpretations or draw divergent conclusions. Life is full of paradox, inequity and inconsistency yet people go on muddling through. Some people are bothered by inconsistencies and ambiguities, others don’t care about details so long as their general perception or feelings about things are positive or comfortable.
Cadence wrote:I am not sure God commands anything, or holds us accountable for all the myriad of infractions that most religions say he does. I am afraid I believe most of the commandments are made up of men to control behavior in society. They may be good ideas to live by, but what if there are not commandments as we think of them other than to just do your best.
I personally am not looking to have a visit from God. There was a time that I thought it important but now I truely believe if God needs to come to me for some reason he will. Other than that I just will live my live the best I can. Cause no harm and help where I can.
Yup, that is also about where I stand too. I find most religious teachings (including scriptures) to be self-serving to the men who wrote them…and I don’t feel most to be “inspired” by God. Even the whole “earth-life is a test to determine our quality of life hereafter”…is just a controlling way for those “in charge” to get their ego boosts.(hmm, was I blunt enough there?
😳 )I believe in morality…but I find it comes most authentically from within, not outside ourselves.
I am a little less cynical. I think scriptures and religious leaders, for the most part, are sincere in their efforts. They try to communicate that which is impossible to communicate, thus they fail on some level to get it quite right. What we get is a reflection of the transcendent “truth” in the universe. It is filtered through their souls. Actually in a way, scriptures tell us as much about the writer as they do about any kind of “truth.” What was important to them? What were they afraid of and struggled to control within themselves? That is what I see. It doesn’t make scriptures irrelevant though. I think it is valuable to listen to anyone who spends that much time and passion at something — religion is an art. The “truths” become evident within us as we play this type of “music.” The meanings are experienced in the doing, not in the labeling and dissecting.
Brian Johnston wrote:I am a little less cynical. I think scriptures and religious leaders, for the most part, are sincere in their efforts.
Oh don’t get me wrong…I agree that today’s leaders are very sincere and diligent in what they do. And I think they DO believe they are receiving and teaching God’s will. I respect each of them for what they know, and their efforts to help others. Really.
I’m not much of a scripture fan. I’ve just spent so much research into the basis of them that I am skeptical of their “truths.” Like any story, I love the power of the myth, and consider them no better nor worse than other great stories. But I’m really okay that they give great hope and guidance to many people.
But that’s just me….and I could be wrong.
Brian Johnston wrote:I am a little less cynical. I think scriptures and religious leaders, for the most part, are sincere in their efforts.
Unfortunately sincere does not equate to correct or even good. Many politicians are sincere but they muck it up on a regular basis. Sometimes leaders get so sincere that they are compelled to try and control your behavior for you own good. Is that not what some sincere religious and political leaders do. I would be more apt to go with a logical and reasoned out approach than a sincere one. Not that that approach is full proof but at least it is generally based on something tangible and verifiable.
Cadence wrote:I would be more apt to go with a logical and reasoned out approach than a sincere one. Not that that approach is full proof but at least it is generally based on something tangible and verifiable.
So how would you exactly test for the tangible in religion?
A religious leaders says “Live your life this way: _________________ . If you do those things, you will have a happy and meaningful life. Also, you will be rewarded in heaven.”
So how do you verify that? Sample endorphin levels at various times of the day over several decades? That might be a “proof” of happiness. But how do you measure a “meaningful” life? There certainly isn’t any gizmo with a meter to test for rewards in heaven.
You’re completely right, Brian, and the experience will vary from individual to individual dependent on their circumstances. Rix wrote:… I find most religious teachings (including scriptures) to be self-serving to the men who wrote them…and I don’t feel most to be “inspired” by God. Even the whole “earth-life is a test to determine our quality of life hereafter”…is just a controlling way for those “in charge” to get their ego boosts.
Brian Johnston wrote:I am a little less cynical. I think scriptures and religious leaders, for the most part, are sincere in their efforts.
Rix wrote:
Oh don’t get me wrong…I agree that today’s leaders are very sincere and diligent in what they do. And I think they DO believe they are receiving and teaching God’s will…I’m not much of a scripture fan. I’ve just spent so much research into the basis of them that I am skeptical of their “truths.” Like any story, I love the power of the myth, and consider them no better nor worse than other great stories…I am a lot less cynical as far as trying to lump all scriptures together in one big pile because I really don’t believe the idea that all “sacred” texts and supposed myths deserve equal suspicion about their accuracy. For example, to me the story of Paul is much more compelling and believable than the average story you would expect people to make up entirely. In fact, I don’t consider it a myth at all; I think most of this actually happened almost exactly the way we are told.
It doesn’t look like Paul really had all that much to gain by deliberately lying about some new religion that was relatively unpopular at the time. However, for whatever reason it looks like he really did have a major change of heart to the point that he was willing to risk his life for this cause (1 Cor. 15:30-32). He was reportedly flogged and beaten with rods several times, put in prison, and shipwrecked multiple times and I don’t see any convincing reason to doubt that this was actually the case. I guess skeptics could argue that maybe he was mistaken to believe that Jesus was alive again and maybe his zeal was mostly due to the misinterpretation of temporal lobe epilepsy or some other natural experience.
No one really knows for sure what exactly he was thinking and why but if nothing else I still think Paul was inspired to popularize a superior belief system that in its most basic form really is “good news” compared to anything else people have come up with before or since (Romans 1:16-25). If there is something else that really improves on Christianity as a whole as far as what people want to believe then I just don’t see it. Even if it turns out to be a false hope some have argued that the belief itself often makes people happier and healthier in this life than they would be otherwise.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.