God Is Mean

[The Nehor]

On 8/22/2025 at 6:20 PM, teddyaware said:

From a scriptural point of view, the answer to your question is so basic and fundamental to the gospel of Jesus Christ, and God’s plan of salvation, that asking others to answer a question that you could very easily answer yourself, with minimal effort, causes me to think that your question is actually a thinly disguised act of mockery of the sacred. If you can’t get the answer to your question by humbly pondering the sacred suffering and atoning sorrows of the now glorified and enthroned Jesus Christ, the chitchat answers you’ll get on this board aren’t going to even come close to helping you solve your conundrum.

You should have been one of Job’s ‘comforters’. You would have fit in perfectly. Well, not perfectly. They were a little more capable of eloquence and thought and nuance but the sentiment is definitely the same.

[Teancum]

On 8/21/2025 at 2:58 PM, JVW said:

Hi everyone. I haven't been around lately because I was getting to distracted from working and had the network admin block the site from my work computer. Anyways ... onto the discussion topic.

Several nights ago I was woken by my crying 6 month old at 4 AM. My wife had a migraine and I really wanted to get her back to sleep quickly because of how exhausted I was. Nothing I was trying was working so I said a sincere prayer asking God to just help her fall back to sleep. His response was, "No". His response kind of broke me a little. I got really angry with God because I rarely ask Him for anything and I've recently decided to start a path to return to the temple as I strive to get a good relationship with Him again.

As I've reflected on my walk with God, it's ups and downs since I met Him in my early twenties, I've come to realize something. The more effort I make to get close to God, the more mean He is to me. I was reminded of this verse in the Book of Mormon (Mosiah 3:19), "...willing to submit to all things which the Lord seeth fit to INFLICT upon him..."

I decided to express my anger to God and study the scriptures to see if He'd communicate anything to me, and He did. Right after the garden suffering, when Jesus is being arrested ... John 18:11, "Then said Jesus unto Peter, Put up thy sword into the sheath: the cup which my Father hath given me, shall I not drink it?" Jesus was sinless, blameless, compassionate, and loving. And God gave Him a cup filled to the brim with the most potent poison. Talk about being mean! If I am trying to follow Jesus, of course I should be expected to drink a similar cup, with poison tailored for me.

So here is my question. Do I really want to walk the path of Christianity if God is going to treat me like this if I intentionally choose to follow Him? What are the pro's and con's? I know that life will involve suffering whether or not I choose to follow Jesus, but why would I want to experience additional God-given suffering when I could just ignore God and deal with regular stuff instead? Hopefully this post makes sense and I look forward to learning from y'all about this topic.

The problem of evil and suffering and reconciling such things with a theistic God is one of the top 5 or so reasons I have moved towards a skeptic and agnostic. I wish you the best on your own spiritual journey.

[CV75]

On 8/22/2025 at 1:22 PM, The Nehor said:

I have toyed with that idea but at that point I might respect God but I couldn’t and shouldn’t trust God absolutely. Laman and Lemuel were then right to doubt whether God could/would deal with Laban and Nephi’s lines about God being able to turn the seas to sand is just ignorant boasting.

We've heard from President Nelson about reaching for the Lord's hand as a drowning person would -- not in desperation and panic, which is not respect -- but in faith. "When you reach up for the Lord’s power in your life with the same intensity that a drowning person has when grasping and gasping for air, power from Jesus Christ will be yours." https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/general-conference/2017/04/drawing-the-power-of-jesus-christ-into-our-lives?lang=eng And more recently: "He is inviting us to change our mind, our knowledge, our spirit—even the way we breathe." https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/general-conference/2019/04/36nelson?lang=eng

I realized recently that what enables Him to reach down and lift up like that is that He actually drowned in our behalf -- he actually died in agony without rescue so we could be. (Mosiah 15, Isaiah 53, and "My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?"). Believing this helps me trust Him. Whatever you've been through with sabotaged spiritual support and the retracted hand of rescue, He has been through it too. His advantage was, in mortality, the power of the Father by virtue of His birth, and unimpeded progress unto a fullness of grace, an advantage we do not have. But I believe we do have the advantage of keeping the principles of intelligence (including having things come to remembrance in time of need) so that when we meet Him again, Who did all the above so we can join with Him and the Father, it will all come together for us.

 

[Calm]

2 hours ago, CV75 said:

not in desperation and panic, which is not respect

Why would it been seen as disrespectful to God to reach out when in despair or panicked?  The scriptures do not treat such as lacking respect or awe for God.

Alma the Younger reached out in desperation and panic,  “the darkest abyss” (which feelings were triggered by the Spirit even), and had a wondrous experience.

[Tony uk]

There are times in life, when people are facing issues that seem to be beyond human help. At times like that, it is only natural for a person to call on God out of panic and desperation. After all, in certain situations, if it is felt no human can help, then it is natural, to turn to the direction that can provide that help 

[teddyaware]

1 hour ago, Calm said:

Why would it been seen as disrespectful to God to reach out when in despair or panicked?  The scriptures do not treat such as lacking respect or awe for God.

Alma the Younger reached out in desperation and panic,  “the darkest abyss” (which feelings were triggered by the Spirit even), and had a wondrous experience.

Your point is a valid one. But I believe CV75 is suggesting a contrast between the gasping and flailing of a drowning man who knows he’s alone in the raging sea without any realistic hope for rescue, as compared to a man who’s desperately drowning in sin and misery but believes in his heart that if he truly wants to be rescued and forgiven bad enough that Almighty God will descend from heaven and keep his promise to rescue and redeem him.

[CV75]

2 hours ago, Calm said:

Why would it been seen as disrespectful to God to reach out when in despair or panicked?  The scriptures do not treat such as lacking respect or awe for God.

Alma the Younger reached out in desperation and panic,  “the darkest abyss” (which feelings were triggered by the Spirit even), and had a wondrous experience.

Good point! But "not respect" is not the same as "disrespectful" in my mind.

Panic (a visceral, instinctual reptilian-brain fight/flight reaction) is just not the same thing as respect (more of a behavioral choice with more considered feelings). Despair is a complex, secondary emotion quite a bit more advanced than panic, and while both panic and despair can overwhelm the mind, as more advanced mental states, despair and respect can coexist while not being the same.

I have been in situations where my mind reverted to an animal, chewing-my-foot-off level of pain ("panic"). So I recall no sense of respect in that; respect was irrelevant. I did at some point reach the level of recollection that Alma described, but that was a sudden leap into wonderment, adoration, love and gratitude for me, not respect. Reaching that point required a higher mental state than what had been suffering.

Is this absolute trust? No, but I believe it was to the highest extent I could muster it. The idea behind my post is to remember how it came to be that Christ can save us, and how this might merit trust in Him.

[Calm]

31 minutes ago, CV75 said:

So I recall no sense of respect in that; respect was irrelevant.

I guess this is why I had a negative (small, but present) reaction to your “which is not respect”.  It seemed irrelevant to me in those moments.  Therefore it seemed unnecessary to bring attention to the lack of respect.  It only made sense to me if you were being critical of the lack of respect and therefore of reaching out to God in that fashion, which made me think you saw it as important that respect be present in all our appeals to God.  But that would mean we would need to wait till we were more emotionally stable…but by then we may no longer feel the need to reach out.  To me, God allows desperation and panic at times so as to open our hearts to him.  Making any suggestion that appears to discourage reaching out in those moments is troubling to me.  I am glad that was not what you were implying.

I believe God is very okay if we approach him as little children might approach, unaware of what respect is, but knowing love and trust and fear and seeking the first from God and hoping for relief from the last through his love.

I believe God even loves it when we approach him in anger and disrespect as long as we are not in rebellion, completely resistant to opening up.  Better that than indifference, disinterest in establishing a relationship with him.

Edited August 26, 2025 by Calm

[Teancum]

6 hours ago, CV75 said:

I realized recently that what enables Him to reach down and lift up like that is that He actually drowned in our behalf -- he actually died in agony without rescue so we could be. (Mosiah 15, Isaiah 53, and "My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?"). Believing this helps me trust Him. Whatever you've been through with sabotaged spiritual support and the retracted hand of rescue, He has been through it too. His advantage was, in mortality, the power of the Father by virtue of His birth, and unimpeded progress unto a fullness of grace, an advantage we do not have. But I believe we do have the advantage of keeping the principles of intelligence (including having things come to remembrance in time of need) so that when we meet Him again, Who did all the above so we can join with Him and the Father, it will all come together for us.

you know I recently saw a Christopher Hitchens clip I believe about Jesus and his crucifixion. His point was that Jesus was crucified and it was horrible, but if he was what he claimed he had a sure knowledge that his death was very temporary and he knew if a few days he would be resurrected. So it was not an act of faith or even a giving of a life to save another like perhaps a soldier jumping on a live grenade to save his fellow soldiers. The soldier gave the ultimate. Jesus knew it was a short term thing. Of course from and LDS view he did more than suffer through a crucifixion, which is horrible. He suffered for all our sins in Gethsemane which based on Joseph Smith's claimed revelations, was pretty awful.  But the comment by Hitchens did put a different spin on this for me.

[bluebell]

17 minutes ago, Teancum said:

you know I recently saw a Christopher Hitchens clip I believe about Jesus and his crucifixion. His point was that Jesus was crucified and it was horrible, but if he was what he claimed he had a sure knowledge that his death was very temporary and he knew if a few days he would be resurrected. So it was not an act of faith or even a giving of a life to save another like perhaps a soldier jumping on a live grenade to save his fellow soldiers. The soldier gave the ultimate. Jesus knew it was a short term thing. Of course from and LDS view he did more than suffer through a crucifixion, which is horrible. He suffered for all our sins in Gethsemane which based on Joseph Smith's claimed revelations, was pretty awful.  But the comment by Hitchens did put a different spin on this for me.

That is an interesting view. But there really isn’t any way to talk about the crucifixion without including the atonement. It’s not just the LDS view, it’s what Christianity as a whole teaches.  I’m wondering if maybe Hitchens doesn’t realize that?

[Calm]

5 hours ago, Teancum said:

you know I recently saw a Christopher Hitchens clip I believe about Jesus and his crucifixion. His point was that Jesus was crucified and it was horrible, but if he was what he claimed he had a sure knowledge that his death was very temporary and he knew if a few days he would be resurrected. So it was not an act of faith or even a giving of a life to save another like perhaps a soldier jumping on a live grenade to save his fellow soldiers. The soldier gave the ultimate. Jesus knew it was a short term thing. Of course from and LDS view he did more than suffer through a crucifixion, which is horrible. He suffered for all our sins in Gethsemane which based on Joseph Smith's claimed revelations, was pretty awful.  But the comment by Hitchens did put a different spin on this for me.

So is he suggesting what Christ went through with the crucifixion was not as bad as what other mortals go through because he knew with certainty what would happen to him and the pain and suffering would be over with in a few days?

If so, while I think that is an important point and it has been in my view for a long time one of the reasons why he could manage to do what he did, we also teach he experienced everything horrible that we experienced, which means to me not only the physical, but also the mental and emotional.  Sure, the dominant part of his brain and spirit knew he would survive and that is likely how he stayed sane and was able to accept rather than revert to an animal, irrational state, but part of him was also experiencing all the doubt, despair and panic, even the lack of faith and distrust of God that dying and the rest of life’s suffering bring to humans.  He felt all that, he wasn’t shielded from it.  He could only place it in the greater picture his awareness of eternity gave him.  And thank goodness he could or it likely would have been meaningless, imo.

Edited August 27, 2025 by Calm

[Calm]

There is some overlap with another thread (maybe two, I have lost track of where I have thought “this could be part of the God is Mean thread in the past few days).  Since not many are posting in the thread where I posted this while thinking it was actually this thread, I am going to repost it here.

The other thread had a subtopic of assuming there was misunderstanding scripture/prophets, intentional misleading or, not in the past. Section 19 deals with one quite significant case of men not understanding God’s Word correctly in the past.  I found this discussion when I went looking for more than what was on the Church’s website (which isn’t much).  This goes back to me to the question ‘is God mean or do we just perceive him as mean because we don’t have a fuller picture’.

https://luthert.web.illinois.edu/blog/posts/235.html
 

Quote

One of the things I find over and over again when I teach is that many questions I cannot possibly answer in full because the questioner doesn’t understand the background in which the question needs to be understood. We’ve all seen this in microcosm; most of the times I hear questions like “‍why are you angry‍” the answer I hear is “‍I’m not angry‍”—or, in other words, “‍wrong question. You misinterpret my actions.‍” When you ask a question that assumes a falsehood it’s called a “‍loaded question‍”; when you do it accidentally, it’s just ordinary poor communication.

Imagine, if you can, what it must be like for God. How many of the questions we ask Him even make sense? How hard it must be to say anything that isn’t misinterpreted! Hell isn’t “‍beating with a few stripes‍” nor is it “‍torment with no end‍”. What it is then? It’s “‍suffering [that] caused myself, even God, the greatest of all, to tremble because of pain, and to bleed at every pore, and to suffer both body and spirit—and would that I might not drink the bitter cup, and shrink—‍” and you expect me to be able to describe it to you? It’s worse than the worst thing you can possibly imagine, and not much like that worst imagining either.

As I mature, I become more and more respectful of the quiet type of wisdom. While I myself find it very difficult to avoid at least attempting to answer even when I know no answer will convey the correct understanding, I have growing respect for those who chose their words carefully to be both literally true and “‍more express, that it might work upon the heart.‍” I wonder if I will ever attain that level of practical wisdom.

PS:  the last thing I want to do is convey blame or trigger guilt because someone views God in certain ways different than I do.  I am not trying to dump responsibility for seeing harshness in God’s behaviour onto the individual rather than on God, it wouldn’t be right given there is stuff like the destruction of cities at Christ’s death in the BoM and we typically treat scripture like a history text in the Church, even across the pulpit at General Conference, without including conditions like “speaking figuratively”.  With the Bible LDS can claim precious parts were lost or errors crept in when stuff gets difficult (except when modern prophets use such as examples which implies they see such as historic rather than symbolic stories).  With the Book of Mormon the errors rest on those we see as prophets, either Joseph or the authors of the BoM or most likely in my view, both and one needs to either accept the harshness of God’s actions or assume the prophets were way off and added too much as scripture what was actually filling in of gaps in what was revealed to them and if that was true then, why wouldn’t it be happening now?  

While some members are okay viewing our prophets and scriptures that way (and you can count me as one of them who believe prophets often fill in gaps with their own understandings and fallible interpretations), I can understand why most members do not view either scripture or prophets that way because that is not what typically comes across the pulpit.  In my experience, my own and similar positions are more often reasoned out from teachings on fallibility that aren’t typically emphasized across the pulpit, but focused on individually.  

The Book of Mormon has Christ claiming he has destroyed cities in his own voice, not just that cities were destroyed so we could more easily choose to interpret that as the physical world’s reaction to the spiritual upheaval that likely occurred with Christ’s suffering, death, and resurrection rather than what is clearly described as punishment from God for wickedness.  It makes sense, imo, to see God as mean if one accepts that story as what actually happened and not an interpretation/ritual narrative meant to teach eternal principles that are inherently embedded in mysteries (meaning here what is unknowable for or beyond the comprehension of mortals) or ancient tales passed down through many generations and voices that Mormon mistakenly assumed were close to eye witness accounts (assuming he thought of them that way is also a big assumption in my view, maybe he conveyed what he saw as a temple play…symbolic history, not literal history).  Just because my personal view of scripture is they are much less historical and more ritual or symbolic narratives teaching cosmic principles rather than historical events doesn’t lead me to think anyone who sees them as literal is lacking in knowledge or experience.  I was exposed to different views of scripture when young and sort of just fell into this position, so I don’t attach any sort of merit to holding it (my language is lacking today in precision, maybe the best way to describe my point of view is I extend “baby stories” to all scripture, even modern scripture; not just the Creation story as Brigham Young did…I wish he had mentioned what other parts of the Bible he saw that way and if he saw any of the BoM that way as well).  If anything, I wonder if I am taking the easy way out, lol, but it is what makes sense to me the most.

Edited August 27, 2025 by Calm

[CV75]

16 hours ago, Teancum said:

you know I recently saw a Christopher Hitchens clip I believe about Jesus and his crucifixion. His point was that Jesus was crucified and it was horrible, but if he was what he claimed he had a sure knowledge that his death was very temporary and he knew if a few days he would be resurrected. So it was not an act of faith or even a giving of a life to save another like perhaps a soldier jumping on a live grenade to save his fellow soldiers. The soldier gave the ultimate. Jesus knew it was a short term thing. Of course from and LDS view he did more than suffer through a crucifixion, which is horrible. He suffered for all our sins in Gethsemane which based on Joseph Smith's claimed revelations, was pretty awful.  But the comment by Hitchens did put a different spin on this for me.

Since Jesus was and would do as He and the prophets testified, He lost a sure knowledge at several points between Gethsemane and His death on the cross.

Being an infinite and eternal sacrifice, the suffering would be the opposite of a short term thing to a God who was experiencing mortality.

I would go so far as to say, and few would believe it, that there is a kinds of pain that we might feel, which in the the moment seems never-ending. If you have been spared such, I attribute it to the grace of God and interceding where you needed it in this life.

[JVW]

15 hours ago, Calm said:

https://luthert.web.illinois.edu/blog/posts/235.html

That's a good quote and I understand what that brother is saying. There are many things I've learned that I can't properly convey. And I have a difficult time truly understanding some of the experiences others share. In addition to that, I've learned that when I frame a question I often come across emphasizing a different point than I anticipated, or people hear the wrong part of what I'm saying. An obvious example on this very thread is that my question is "How can I overcome my trepidation to fully commit to, and trust, God within the context of the "inflictions", "scourgings", and "cups" He most assuredly has in store for me if I choose to follow Him?" But what came across was, "I feel like my life is hard and it's all too much, and my crying baby broke my figurative back." (I will note that when I started this thread, I did not have my thoughts crystallized enough to distill my question in the manner that I just did and that speaking with you all has helped me immensely.) But this kind of thing happens in Church class all the time. Just this last week I made a comment about how weakness is a gift from God so I don't think we need to repent of it. And a brother responded to that comment by quoting from Ether 12, "I give unto men weakness, that they may be humble" and that it's not bad to be weak and it's ok, I don't need to feel bad about myself. I was so confused because I literally just said that, but this brother thought I was unnecessarily suffering for some reason. Anyways, I must be in a good mood today because this was a huge tangent.

15 hours ago, Calm said:

PS:  the last thing I want to do is convey blame or trigger guilt because someone views God in certain ways different than I do.  I am not trying to dump responsibility for seeing harshness in God’s behaviour onto the individual rather than on God, it wouldn’t be right given there is stuff like the destruction of cities at Christ’s death in the BoM ... and if that was true then, why wouldn’t it be happening now?  

You're leaving out the biggest, glaring example of God being mean, that I think this is beyond dispute. Consider this (from Wikipedia) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cup-bearer

Quote

A cup-bearer was historically an officer of high rank in royal courts, whose duty was to pour and serve the drinks at the royal table. On account of the constant fear of plots and intrigues (such as poisoning), a person had to be regarded as thoroughly trustworthy to hold the position. He would guard against poison in the king's cup, and was sometimes required to swallow some of the drink before serving it. His confidential relations with the king often gave him a position of great influence.

The Father was Jesus' cup-bearer. Jesus knew that the cup was poisoned when He received it, and even asked if there was any other way. BUT the Father gave him a cup, filled to the brim, with the most bitter poison ... on purpose. That was so mean. What kind of father would poison their own child, and furthermore, then as he is dying from the poison, turn his back on him? And Jesus did nothing to warrant this treatment except have full trust, faith, and love for His Father. He wasn't wicked like the people in the cities that God destroyed.

On a side note, I think the Aaronic priesthood in wards severely underappreciate how much trust they are given in that position, especially the ones who prepare the sacrament. This idea of the cup-bearer also really makes me appreciate that the presiding authority takes the first drink.

15 hours ago, Calm said:

The Book of Mormon has Christ claiming he has destroyed cities in his own voice, not just that cities were destroyed so we could more easily choose to interpret that as the physical world’s reaction to the spiritual upheaval that likely occurred with Christ’s suffering, death, and resurrection rather than what is clearly described as punishment from God for wickedness.  It makes sense, imo, to see God as mean if one accepts that story as what actually happened

Interestingly enough it could be argued in this case that God wasn't mean because they made decisions that warranted that destruction. But I agree with you that this is a good example of God taking ownership of doing something we'd normally attribute to: the devil, natural causes, or a fallen world.

15 hours ago, Calm said:

I extend “baby stories” to all scripture, even modern scripture; not just the Creation story as Brigham Young did…I wish he had mentioned what other parts of the Bible he saw that way and if he saw any of the BoM that way as well).  If anything, I wonder if I am taking the easy way out, lol, but it is what makes sense to me the most.

What is a "baby story"?

[Calm]

1 hour ago, JVW said:

What is a "baby story"?

This is the quote I am thinking of:

Quote

Some of you may doubt the truth of what I now say, and argue that the Lord could teach him. This is a mistake. The Lord could not have taught him in any other way than in the way in which He did teach him. You believe Adam was made of the dust of this earth. This I do not believe, though it is supposed that it is so written in the Bible; but it is not, to my understanding. You can write that information to the States, if you please—that I have publicly declared that I do not believe that portion of the Bible as the Christian world do. I never did, and I never want to. What is the reason I do not? Because I have come to understanding, and banished from my mind all the baby stories my mother taught me when I was a child.

https://bhroberts.org/records/06h81W-0JkXDS/brigham_teaches_the_saints_that_adam_was_not_literally_created_from_the_dust_of_the_ground_account_in_the_book_of_genesis_is_similar_to_baby_stories

For me a baby story in this context is a narrative that is very simplified symbolic language teaching an eternal/cosmic concept or principle.  I need to stop now, but will likely add more later if it’s not clear.

[JVW]

1 hour ago, Calm said:

This is the quote I am thinking of:

https://bhroberts.org/records/06h81W-0JkXDS/brigham_teaches_the_saints_that_adam_was_not_literally_created_from_the_dust_of_the_ground_account_in_the_book_of_genesis_is_similar_to_baby_stories

For me a baby story in this context is a narrative that is very simplified symbolic language teaching an eternal/cosmic concept or principle.  I need to stop now, but will likely add more later if it’s not clear.

That quote is a bummer because I think it's quite beautiful to think of Adam as being created of a combination of God's saliva and the Earth's dust. Just as Jesus healed the blind man by spitting in the dirt and making clay "completing" a creation that had a flaw using the same material. We have God's DNA from His saliva and our bodies have all the elements found in the dirt. I don't know what's "baby" about this idea.  

Anyways, thanks for elaborating, I understand the general principle Brigham Young is alluding to. I actually view the Christian world as the "milk" world and the Church as the "meat" world. It seems, to me, that the Lord has prepared many, many people by first bringing them into the Christian fold and then bringing them to the Church from there. The Christian world is very, very good at hammering home the idea of Jesus dying on the cross for us and our free gift of salvation. Our Church has so much other stuff that the message can be more implicit than explicit, if I'm making any sense here.

ETA: No offense please to my Christian brothers and sisters. I don't have any problems with Christianity and attend a few local Christian churches periodically throughout the year to enjoy what they have to offer.

Edited August 27, 2025 by JVW

[Calm]

1 hour ago, JVW said:

That quote is a bummer because I think it's quite beautiful to think of Adam as being created of a combination of God's saliva and the Earth's dust.

We are given symbolic language to expand our thinking. There is no reason not to consider this symbolism as any less true language than any other language of creation, imo, including scientific…which is just a different kind of symbolism teaching a different set of concepts.

It may not be “history”, but I doubt that any version of Creation we can currently understand is only history.  I believe we have both filled in gaps incorrectly and left out essential processes.

So why limit ourselves to thinking about creation using only one set of symbols?  Why not embrace our inner artist and see how many true visions we can come up with?

Think of how a different artist will paint the same object in a different way from any other artist (assuming they aren’t copying).  Is an abstract painting of a tree any less true than an impressionist one?

[Calm]

3 hours ago, JVW said:

actually view the Christian world as the "milk" world and the Church as the "meat" world.

I think we do ourselves a disservice if we think we can only find meat within the Church.  There are, imo, plenty of “best books” we could be searching to expand our spiritual understanding written by nonmembers, imo.  I think the best approach is to build on what we have learned in the Church with what we learned from others and then go back and reframe our understanding doing both time and time again, using the Spirit and lessons we have learned about what good fruit tastes like to judge what to keep and what to adjust of our knowledge and understanding.  Looking at ideas from different angles is, imo, the best way to get a fuller picture.

My process is to always tie principles and ideas back to the Restored Gospel to try and ensure I don’t go too far off the path.

Edited August 27, 2025 by Calm

[Teancum]

20 hours ago, Calm said:

So is he suggesting what Christ went through with the crucifixion was not as bad as what other mortals go through because he knew with certainty what would happen to him and the pain and suffering would be over with in a few days?

If so, while I think that is an important point and it has been in my view for a long time one of the reasons why he could manage to do what he did, we also teach he experienced everything horrible that we experienced, which means to me not only the physical, but also the mental and emotional.  Sure, the dominant part of his brain and spirit knew he would survive and that is likely how he stayed sane and was able to accept rather than revert to an animal, irrational state, but part of him was also experiencing all the doubt, despair and panic, even the lack of faith and distrust of God that dying and the rest of life’s suffering bring to humans.  He felt all that, he wasn’t shielded from it.  He could only place it in the greater picture his awareness of eternity gave him.  And thank goodness he could or it likely would have been meaningless, imo.

I will see if I can find the exact quote for context, or a video clip of it.

[manol]

16 hours ago, Calm said:

I think we do ourselves a disservice if we think we can only find meat within the Church.  There are, imo, plenty of “best books” we could be searching to expand our spiritual understanding written by nonmembers, imo.

Imo this is an extraordinarily rich time in human history from the standpoint of "all that God does now reveal", and imo most of that which "God does now reveal" doesn't come through the official channels of the LDS Church. 

I think the LDS Church does a fantastic job of teaching its members how to recognize that which is of God, but stops short of telling its members to use this ability to seek and find further light and knowledge beyond the perimeter circumscribed by its own doctrines, teachings, policies, and culture.   

Edited August 28, 2025 by manol

[The Nehor]

On 8/26/2025 at 10:41 AM, CV75 said:

We've heard from President Nelson about reaching for the Lord's hand as a drowning person would -- not in desperation and panic, which is not respect -- but in faith. "When you reach up for the Lord’s power in your life with the same intensity that a drowning person has when grasping and gasping for air, power from Jesus Christ will be yours." https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/general-conference/2017/04/drawing-the-power-of-jesus-christ-into-our-lives?lang=eng And more recently: "He is inviting us to change our mind, our knowledge, our spirit—even the way we breathe." https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/general-conference/2019/04/36nelson?lang=eng

I realized recently that what enables Him to reach down and lift up like that is that He actually drowned in our behalf -- he actually died in agony without rescue so we could be. (Mosiah 15, Isaiah 53, and "My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?"). Believing this helps me trust Him. Whatever you've been through with sabotaged spiritual support and the retracted hand of rescue, He has been through it too. His advantage was, in mortality, the power of the Father by virtue of His birth, and unimpeded progress unto a fullness of grace, an advantage we do not have. But I believe we do have the advantage of keeping the principles of intelligence (including having things come to remembrance in time of need) so that when we meet Him again, Who did all the above so we can join with Him and the Father, it will all come together for us.

 

Must have had too much desperation and panic and that is why the divine hand reached out to me when I was drowning and shoved my head back under the water.

[ZealouslyStriving]

On 8/26/2025 at 4:12 PM, Calm said:

So is he suggesting what Christ went through with the crucifixion was not as bad as what other mortals go through because he knew with certainty what would happen to him and the pain and suffering would be over with in a few days?

If so, while I think that is an important point and it has been in my view for a long time one of the reasons why he could manage to do what he did, we also teach he experienced everything horrible that we experienced, which means to me not only the physical, but also the mental and emotional.  Sure, the dominant part of his brain and spirit knew he would survive and that is likely how he stayed sane and was able to accept rather than revert to an animal, irrational state, but part of him was also experiencing all the doubt, despair and panic, even the lack of faith and distrust of God that dying and the rest of life’s suffering bring to humans.  He felt all that, he wasn’t shielded from it.  He could only place it in the greater picture his awareness of eternity gave him.  And thank goodness he could or it likely would have been meaningless, imo.

And His suffering and agony was not just for the children of God on this earth, but for every child of God on every earth that has ever, does now, or will ever exist. We can't even begin to fathom what He experienced- so for people to say that He knew it would be temporary, thus He didn't need faith, displays a complete lack of understanding concerning His Atonement. He needed faith on a God level- a faith we cannot currently comprehend.

[teddyaware]

14 hours ago, ZealouslyStriving said:

And His suffering and agony was not just for the children of God on this earth, but for every child of God on every earth that has ever, does now, or will ever exist. We can't even begin to fathom what He experienced- so for people to say that He knew it would be temporary, thus He didn't need faith, displays a complete lack of understanding concerning His Atonement. He needed faith on a God level- a faith we cannot currently comprehend.

The reason why the faithless attempt to minimize the suffering of Christ’s atoning sacrifice is because, in their carnality, they’re only able to view the Lord’s holy offering with temporal eyes. But the fact is that the Lord’s atoning sacrifice of suffering exists outside of time because it’s infinite and eternal in nature, meaning that when viewed with spiritual eyes it’s understood that in the eye’s of God the Father the sacrifice continues to go on forever into the past and forever into the future.

In actuality, the Lord’s atoning sacrifice was his initiation into the realm of the eternal Godhood, where the suffering of the great atoning sacrifice goes on forever, ever clear, ever acute and ever present within his holy omniscient memory. The price Christ paid to become one with God is to enter a holy realm where one experiences and feels and the suffering of the atoning sacrifice as an ever present reality. The following verses of scripture powerfully demonstrate that with God and heaven suffering for sin is an ever present reality.

27 And Enoch beheld angels descending out of heaven, bearing testimony of the Father and Son; and the Holy Ghost fell on many, and they were caught up by the powers of heaven into Zion.

28 And it came to pass that the God of heaven looked upon the residue of the people, and he wept; and Enoch bore record of it, saying: How is it that the heavens weep, and shed forth their tears as the rain upon the mountains?

29 And Enoch said unto the Lord: How is it that thou canst weep seeing thou art holy, and from all eternity to all eternity?

The Lord answers Enoch’s question and then allows Enoch himself to be experientially initiated into the holy realm where God’s infinite and eternal suffering for sin is an ever present reality…

35 Behold, I am God; Man of Holiness is my name; Man of Counsel is my name; and Endless and Eternal is my name, also.

36 Wherefore, I can stretch forth mine hands and hold all the creations which I have made; and mine eye can pierce them also, and among all the workmanship of mine hands there has not been so great wickedness as among thy brethren.

37 But behold, their sins shall be upon the heads of their fathers; Satan shall be their father, and misery shall be their doom; and the whole heavens shall weep over them, even all the workmanship of mine hands; wherefore should not the heavens weep, seeing these shall suffer?

38 But behold, these which thine eyes are upon shall perish in the floods; and behold, I will shut them up; a prison have I prepared for them.

39 And that (Christ) which I have chosen hath pled before my face. Wherefore, he suffereth for their sins; inasmuch as they will repent in the day that my Chosen shall return unto me, and until that day they shall be it torment;

40 Wherefore, for this shall the heavens weep, yea, and all the workmanship of mine hands.

41 And it came to pass that the Lord spake unto Enoch, and told Enoch all the doings of the children of men; wherefore Enoch knew, and looked upon their wickedness, and their misery, and wept and stretched forth his arms, and his heart stretched as wide as eternity; and his bowels yearned; and all eternity shook. (Moses 7)

The atoning sacrifice of Christ is an ever present, infinite and eternal reality.

Edited August 29, 2025 by teddyaware

[manol]

32 minutes ago, teddyaware said:

the Lord’s atoning sacrifice was his initiation into the realm of the eternal Godhood, where the suffering of the great atoning sacrifice goes on forever, ever clear, ever acute and ever present within his holy omniscient memory. The price Christ paid to become one with God is to enter a holy realm where one experiences and feels and the suffering of the atoning sacrifice as an ever present reality.

So if we're bad and go to hell we experience eternal suffering for our own sins, and if we are good and become like Christ (or one with God) we experience eternal suffering for EVERYONE's sins... ?

Edited August 29, 2025 by manol

[Calm]

7 hours ago, teddyaware said:

where the suffering of the great atoning sacrifice goes on forever, ever clear, ever acute and ever present

Why would God heal all wounds but his own?

Man is that he might have joy….except for God.  For him, it’s God is that he might have pain.

I think you are making the Section 19 category error, equating godly with forever.

Edited August 29, 2025 by Calm