- This topic is empty.
-
Posts
-
This is a support group, not a place to preach at or correct people. Please respect our mission. Also, many people here have been members for a long time and even served in highly visible positions of authority. Please don’t assume, state, or imply scriptural ignorance. Again, please respect our mission.
Watcher wrote:
Just a couple of things – You have stated that you do not believe that G-d makes “deals”. Then you said: “Very simply put I am sure no one can buy their way into heaven because the price has been paid by our Savior Jesus Christ.” That looks like a really BIG deal to me!!! – that G-d has made. If you believe in the Atonement of Christ – why do you insist that it was not a “deal”?
Perhaps it’s semantics, but no deal by my definition of the word. The atonement of Jesus Christ is freely available and applicable to all. I nor anyone else does anything to benefit from it – it is universal to all God’s children. A deal would imply an agreement by both parties, but the atonement is a free gift with no agreement necessary.Quote:As for your covenants – you did indicate to me that when you were baptized and ordained to the priesthood (a day later) that you had no concept what you were doing. I do not believe that a valid and binding covenant can be made in ignorance. I had nothing but your own words. You are correct – I do not have knowledge of your covenant intent, but it does appear from your own words – that you had no intent. It may be that since then, you have entered into a binding covenant with a promised to be a disciple of Christ. This renewal of the baptism covenant (as I understand) is called repentance and can be made official through the ordinance of the sacrament. If you have repented of your former ignorance – then it would appear to me (as I understand such things from my own experience) that you would have a valid covenant. But you posted nothing about repentance in your description.
Repentance, of course, means change. I have not changed (or repented) in respect to those supposed covenants. I thought I was being clear that I did not and do not believe I entered into any covenants with God. Nor do I believe I need to. I do find meaning in the sacrament of the Lord’s supper, but not in the renewal of covenants, rather in the way Jesus intended – done in remembrance of Him (and His infinite atonement), which is referenced in both prayers.
That said, we need to heed Old Timer’s caution.We have both answered the original question (Why do people try to justify violence in the scriptures?) and this thread has turned into a back and forth between the two of us. The latter is not how things are generally supposed to work here. We don’t have to agree, but we don’t argue and make personal accusations/attacks either. I admit that I can be pulled into such situations if I’m not careful and here I am (and moderators can be moderated too). If you want to start a thread about covenants or the atonement of Jesus Christ or something, fine – but in this one we need to get back to the thread’s purpose and stop the back and forth. We are having family visit. My SIL shared with us a video of Gospel insights. It had a pair of CES type instructors going through the material in 2 Kings before the Assyrian invasion and then the Babylonian captivity. They mentioned that the Assyrians were brutal conquerors and sought to set an example by terrorizing towns that had resisted them and thereby influencing other towns to surrender without resistance. (Think invasion of Ukraine but with regular rape, torture, murder, and war crimes as a strategy)
They also described God as frustrated that He had repeatedly tried to establish the covenant and they had repeatedly broken it. Ultimately, He gives up on the 10 tribes (until the “restoration” at least) and decides to let the Assyrians do their thing.
It was really difficult for me to hear about these atrocities within a narrative of “that’s what they get for not being righteous” and “such is the pride cycle” and “We can learn from them vicariously to observe the consequences of breaking the covenant without actually having to break the covenant ourselves.”
I try to put on my anthropology hat. Why would we condone/justify such horrible atrocities as natural consequences? I believe it has to do with the question of why bad things happen to good people. One possible answer is that the good people in question might not have been so good after all but maybe they brought about their own fate. This allows us to maintain the illusion that 1) it won’t happen to us and 2) that we have personal control over our circumstances. These are very compelling illusions.
Roy wrote:I try to put on my anthropology hat. Why would we condone/justify such horrible atrocities as natural consequences? I believe it has to do with the question of why bad things happen to good people. One possible answer is that the good people in question might not have been so good after all but maybe they brought about their own fate. This allows us to maintain the illusion that 1) it won’t happen to us and 2) that we have personal control over our circumstances. These are very compelling illusions.
I’ve always thought the explanations for why bad things happen to people are interesting, since they seem to vary depending on the current state of someone’s relationship to God. If someone is the typical sinner living a hard life, then the message is that God isn’t punishing them for their sins and that He has infinite mercy, with no one being irredeemable. But if someone who’s broken their covenants is being discussed, then they have drawn the ire of God, who leaves them to their deserved fate.
Put the two together, and the message seems to be that He will endlessly search for the lost sheep. But once brought into the fold, He has little patience for reoffenders. If you stray and the wolves get you, that’s your own dumb fault.
PazamaManX wrote:
I’ve always thought the explanations for why bad things happen to people are interesting, since they seem to vary depending on the current state of someone’s relationship to God. If someone is the typical sinner living a hard life, then the message is that God isn’t punishing them for their sins and that He has infinite mercy, with no one being irredeemable. But if someone who’s broken their covenants is being discussed, then they have drawn the ire of God, who leaves them to their deserved fate.Put the two together, and the message seems to be that He will endlessly search for the lost sheep. But once brought into the fold, He has little patience for reoffenders. If you stray and the wolves get you, that’s your own dumb fault.
The story we are telling ourselves is that knowledge = immunity.If you “know” enough not to be a “lost sheep”, then you “know” how to avoid all the pitfalls of life and/or are “immune” from their consequences because of faith. A moral of the story of Adam and Eve is that knowledge = anti-immunity.Because Eve (and Adam) partake of the fruit to gain knowledge, the default state of humanity is “impacted by” (anti-immune to) death, mortal fragility, “natural human” state of mind. But, that leads to opening a can of worms about how much “agency” / “ability to choose” an individual really has – as opposed to physical/mental/behavioral circumstances an individual ends up in due to DNA/diet/trauma/opportunities for learning and growth/family resources, etc. CAVEAT: We tend to mistake “God as God” and “God as Institution” sometimes. I think that it is theoretically possible (and normal) to be a sinner in God’s eyes who is rescued over and over as often as it takes (though I don’t know what redemption looks like – and I think it takes a lot of personal elbow grease), while being shunned by “God the Institution” for misdeeds in the community (and some of that censure is entirely justified).
Roy wrote:
They also described God as frustrated that He had repeatedly tried to establish the covenant and they had repeatedly broken it. Ultimately, He gives up on the 10 tribes (until the “restoration” at least) and decides to let the Assyrians do their thing.It was really difficult for me to hear about these atrocities within a narrative of “that’s what they get for not being righteous” and “such is the pride cycle” and “We can learn from them vicariously to observe the consequences of breaking the covenant without actually having to break the covenant ourselves.”
I think much of the Old Testament and some of the New Testament as well as the Book of Mormon and even the D&C were trying to explain things men couldn’t really explain. “We won that battle, God has blessed us!” or “We lost that battle, God has cursed us!” Of course, it doesn’t only have to do with battles, it’s across the board, starting with the creation and Garden of Eden – if things are going right and the way we think they should, all is well with God but when things aren’t it’s our fault. To some extent it’s all apologetics.
AmyJ wrote:
CAVEAT: We tend to mistake “God as God” and “God as Institution” sometimes. I think that it is theoretically possible (and normal) to be a sinner in God’s eyes who is rescued over and over as often as it takes (though I don’t know what redemption looks like – and I think it takes a lot of personal elbow grease), while being shunned by “God the Institution” for misdeeds in the community (and some of that censure is entirely justified).
I think this has to do with the propensity of some (many) to conflate the gospel and the church. It goes back to the old doctrine vs. policy question. Not all that is church policy is gospel doctrine.
DarkJedi wrote:
AmyJ wrote:
CAVEAT: We tend to mistake “God as God” and “God as Institution” sometimes. I think that it is theoretically possible (and normal) to be a sinner in God’s eyes who is rescued over and over as often as it takes (though I don’t know what redemption looks like – and I think it takes a lot of personal elbow grease), while being shunned by “God the Institution” for misdeeds in the community (and some of that censure is entirely justified).
I think this has to do with the propensity of some (many) to conflate the gospel and the church. It goes back to the old doctrine vs. policy question. Not all that is church policy is gospel doctrine.
That could be.
I was thinking more about the many creative ways we hurt each other (maliciously and/or through ignorance).
Our hope in God, in a better future life rests on being “redeemed” from both sin and mortality through participation in families and communities. I know some people who did some hurtful things while in their youth – who has since been mostly forgiven by those hurt in the process of that person growing up and repairing the relationships. There is a fear that that individual is at risk to make those hurtful choices again – and may not be a reformed character. Some of the people who got hurt the first time are like, “he’s good, we’re good – repentance/redemption (as much as it as needed) has been made” and engage in full fellowship – business as usual. Others got to the “that person is forgiven and I’m mostly OK with it” and then got re-triggered by unrelated circumstances and are like, “repentance/redemption may have happened – and I want nothing to do with this person because of the risk factor.”
Our doctrine tends to be “God forgave me, so I’m good – and I want to be a participant of the community” as proclaimed by the forgiven person – and this feels a lot like a club beaten over the head of the still hurt persons who basically want “Great on the forgiveness from God part – but that doesn’t help me with my situation in dealing with you”. Both sides want the “God as Institution” to make the ruling in their favor (Community vs No Community participation for the sinner) and cite it as “God’s Will”.
I HEAR A LOT about “Forgiveness is the process of repair and restitution to the point where the sin “is remembered no more” – and shouldn’t be a factor in determining the behaviors of others. I think there is a HUGE (but nuanced) gap between “I won’t bring up past sins always to hold you hostage to who you used to be but I won’t forget it either” and “I will forget whatever experience happened – and potentially set myself up and others up to be hurt in the same way if/when you regress into those hurtful behaviors.”
Trust and Forgiveness are not interchangeable. To me, Forgiveness is processing of trauma/pain into meaning and growth. Trust is risk assessment of the degree of hurt possible to achieve/the probability of triggers in a given situation. I can forgive you for hurting me, but I can also take steps to protect myself from setting us up in situations where you can hurt me again.
AmyJ wrote:I HEAR A LOT about “Forgiveness is the process of repair and restitution to the point where the sin “is remembered no more” – and shouldn’t be a factor in determining the behaviors of others. I think there is a HUGE (but nuanced) gap between “I won’t bring up past sins always to hold you hostage to who you used to be but I won’t forget it either” and “I will forget whatever experience happened – and potentially set myself up and others up to be hurt in the same way if/when you regress into those hurtful behaviors.”
Trust and Forgiveness are not interchangeable. To me, Forgiveness is processing of trauma/pain into meaning and growth. Trust is risk assessment of the degree of hurt possible to achieve/the probability of triggers in a given situation. I can forgive you for hurting me, but I can also take steps to protect myself from setting us up in situations where you can hurt me again.
I like the distinction you make between trust and forgiveness. One effect of conflating the two that I think happens a lot is it allows a lot of bad behaviors and relationships go unfixed. One specific example that comes to mind is my best friend’s family. He, his siblings and divorced parents frequently fight with and emotionally abuse each other. Keep in mind they are all adults with their own lives. Rather than go their own ways, they doggedly remain in contact with each other, repeating their cycles of conflict. Their reasoning: They’re family and they need to forgive each other.
Forgiveness is all well and good, and not every relationship should be severed at the first offence. But, allowing a toxic relationship to persistently continue to exist in the name of forgiveness misses the point of forgiveness. As you said, forgiveness is about turning pain into growth. Part of that growth is learning to avoid what caused that pain. Whether it’s with a bad relationship or a transgressor, judgment needs to be applied by the forgiver.
If someone steals your wallet, you forgive them. But that doesn’t mean you trust them to hold your wallet for you again.
Arrakeen wrote:
Another said “it is better that one man should perish than that a nation should dwindle in unbelief”Yeah…. I really don’t like that part of the Book of Mormon.
This is one part of the Book of Mormon that provided clarity to me. I have taken a lot of philosophy and ethics courses over the years as I’ve pursued different degrees. And ethics and philosophies courses always present different approaches to settling ethical conundrums.
One is John Stuart Mills’ Utilitarianism which says “the greatest good for the greatest number”. This seems to be the philosophy which God applied in this part of the Book of Mormon.
We apply this in America routinely. For example, thousands upon thousands of people are injured or killed in car accidents every year. But as a society, we weigh the hardship car accidents cause against the benefit of the automobile to society. And the benefit to society outweighs the suffering of individuals.
Now, does it mean that we can murder one person if the benefit to future generations, from a religious perspective, is great? I think that decision needs to be discussed heavily before going with the murder of one person for the greater good. But if you believe the Mormon religion is essential for salvation, then the sacrifice of one stubborn person to open the gates of heaven to millions upon millions makes sense.
As another example, would anyone feel that assassinating Putin in order to end the War in Ukraine and his probable plans for more war in pursuit of a bigger Russia would make sense? Would anyone support the assassination of history’s dictators millions of their citizens and enemies from death in war and genocide?
SilentDawning wrote:
One is John Stuart Mills’ Utilitarianism which says “the greatest good for the greatest number”. This seems to be the philosophy which God applied in this part of the Book of Mormon.
Yes however, this simple math must always be tempered with individual rights. Otherwise, majority rule can become mob rule and tyranny. For example, if two lions and a zebra are voting on what to eat for dinner. I feel that modern ethics already accounts for the respecting of personal rights and individual liberties.I really dislike when this reasoning is applied to religion because religion is so squishy. We tend to justify the sudden death of the guy in the OT that reached out to “steady the arc” of the covenant because his death was 1) an object lesson on obedience and 2) since death is not the end of existence it can be reasoned that this guy wasn’t really harmed long term anyway. It is the religious equivalent of publicly executing someone to set an “example” for the rest on what not to do.
SilentDawning wrote:
As another example, would anyone feel that assassinating Putin in order to end the War in Ukraine and his probable plans for more war in pursuit of a bigger Russia would make sense? Would anyone support the assassination of history’s dictators millions of their citizens and enemies from death in war and genocide?
This is more challenging. I personally would be quite content if Putin died in his sleep of natural causes. I fear that any assassination would lead to unintended consequences of retaliation and possible greater war and suffering. I don’t have great answers. If God can smite the arc steadying guy and deliver Laban into the hands of Nephi for execution then why would God not apply some sort of similar reasoning to remove Hitler before his leadership created the holocaust and WWII.Also remember how I said that this reasoning can be used to support public executions for relatively minor offences and that the good is outweighed by the bad because the general public is too scared to commit petty crime. It is usually the powerful that employ this reasoning in order to justify oppressing those without power. Maybe Putin feels that the suffering of the Ukrainian people is outweighed by the restoration of of the Russian empire the benefit of the much more numerous Russian people. Maybe President Duterte from the Philippines feels that the execution of individuals for drug crimes is worth it for freeing his people from the scourge of drug addiction. This gets really scary really fast.
Good points. One thing that makes me feel almost emotional is how our founding fathers recognized the tryanny of the majority. They designed a system of goverment that has prevented California and New York from dictating the nature of the parties in power. The use of the electoral college to balance out votes was brilliant and ensures the pendulum swings back and forth so that each side of the political landscape gets to enjoy their piece of it for a while until the pendulum swings back. Think Roe Vs. Wade for example. I am not suggesting we talk about whether abortion is justifiable, just want to point out that the system of government our founding fathers designed makes the power swing back and forth from the left ot the right so that each side gets their way but only for a season. Compare that to Canada where it’s not uncommon for a left-wing government to have 3-4 successive terms in office with the same prime minister, providing no voice for politicians and citizens at the opposing end of the political spectrum. I think the difference between lions and zebras, and Putin justifying the war in Ukraine is that in the BoM, the person doing the analysis was God. Assuming he is a just God, then the sacrifice of one man for generations of faithful was likely worth it. I am sure Putin thinks the suffering he’s causing in Ukraine is worth the eventual greater Russia, but in this case, I don’t consider Putin a righteous man who is capable of balancing all sides of the equation. To him, the Jewish maxim “Save one person and you save the whole world” probably means nothing as human suffering probably carries a low value to a man like him. Utilitarianism in the hands of power hungry, unrighteous men is a dangerous weapon. Without ethical morality, Utilitarianism doesn’t work.
SilentDawning wrote:
Without ethical morality, Utilitarianism doesn’t work.
Amen!
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.