Jump to content

The Sermon on the Mount and the LofC


David Bokovoy

Recommended Posts

Yes.

Let's go over it again. No one in this thread, or the last one I participated heavily in regarding consecration, has advocated communism. No one said anything about impeding individual choice. No one said anything about supporting groups in idleness. And why do you presume that anyone in need is idle anyway, Droopy?

Where you and David differ over private ownership is, according to your own comment several pages back, merely semantics.

The quote by President Clark does indeed throw down the gauntlet. He says that the consecration practiced by the saints will never be communal or communistic (imposed by the community or government) but must be fiercely individual. Agreed! We must choose for ourselves to consecrate all unneeded surplus to the church and the poor. That's your money quote.

Just what is it you find so offensive about individuals caring enough about their brethren to choose to consecrate their surplus?

MnG

We should end our fixation on wealth. ~ Elder Joseph B. Wirthlin Nov. 2007 GC

Link to post

So much for your menmtion earlier in the thread about "plain meaning of scriptures." :P

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

"Plainness" is oftentimes directly dependent upon genre. The two texts you cited are not the same type of genre as either the Sermon on the Mount, or the D&C quotations provided in this thread. The two passages you cited are poetic and poetry, especially biblical, is oftentimes anything but "plain."

Nonetheless, I believe I've provided a plain enough explanation of these passages and the reason they don't support your argument.

Best,

--DB

Link to post

I don't think so. I think He knew what would happen but that's different. Brace yourself. Here's comes some doctrine according to MnG or doctrine as best I understand it... :P

Thank you. I believe you both understand and explained the doctrine perfectly. I believe the Lord has sent us to a telestial sphere where we are subject to pain and suffering due to the exercise of human agency and the natural disasters/conditions that exist in this fallen environment.

"Do not suppose that God willfully causes that, which for His own purposes, he permits."(Boyd K. Packer, The Play and the Plan)

That, I would think, should resolve the issue. Thanks.

Link to post

"Plainness" is oftentimes directly dependent upon genre. The two texts you cited are not the same type of genre as either the Sermon on the Mount, or the D&C quotations provided in this thread. The two passages you cited are poetic and poetry, especially biblical, is oftentimes anything but "plain."

Nonetheless, I believe I've provided a plain enough explanation of these passages and the reason they don't support your argument.

Best,

--DB

I can't wait to find out how Mosiah 12:4-8 is not 'plain'.

Link to post

Yes:

I have used in my posts the D&C Institute manual, statements of Prophets and Apostles of the Lord published in official Church source materials who's comments form a consistent body of teaching on this subject, and secondarily, the statements of distinguished LDS scholars, such as Sperry, Ludlow etc.

I don't know what "neither capitalism or communism" means, and I highly doubt Professor King knows either.

Let's go over it all again, from an earlier post:

Now, from an Ensign article "To Prepare a People,

Link to post

Yes.

Let's go over it again. No one in this thread, or the last one I participated heavily in regarding consecration, has advocated communism. No one said anything about impeding individual choice. No one said anything about supporting groups in idleness. And why do you presume that anyone in need is idle anyway, Droopy?

Where you and David differ over private ownership is, according to your own comment several pages back, merely semantics.

The quote by President Clark does indeed throw down the gauntlet. He says that the consecration practiced by the saints will never be communal or communistic (imposed by the community or government) but must be fiercely individual. Agreed! We must choose for ourselves to consecrate all unneeded surplus to the church and the poor. That's your money quote.

Just what is it you find so offensive about individuals caring enough about their brethren to choose to consecrate their surplus?

MnG

We should end our fixation on wealth. ~ Elder Joseph B. Wirthlin Nov. 2007 GC

I agree with you M&G. Droopy, has magnificently denounced his opponent! He has, with great eloquence and skill, put down the evil ideologies of socialism and communism. The problem is, such an opponent never showed up for the fight (speaking of the OP respectively). He was AWOL from the get-go!

Link to post

I can't wait to find out how Mosiah 12:4-8 is not 'plain'.

Indeed it plainly does not teach that God makes people poor. The view you are presenting rests upon the concept of creation ex nihilo which the Prophet Joseph Smith long declared is an apostate position. As Elder Neal A. Maxwell once taught in a classic sermon delivered in the Assembly Hall in Salt Lake City, Utah, on 3 February 1995, the view that God is responsible for and the cause of human suffering is an apostate position inconsistent with the doctrines of the Restoration. I would highly recommend surveying the entire discourse on the Church's website, but here is a highlight:

Some, doctrinally perplexed, lament,
Link to post

The fact remains that God is directly responsible for what it pleases the philosophers to call "natural evils," such as birth defects (source: temple, New Testament), natural disasters with high casualty counts (Book of Mormon, Bible), and unpleasant environments (temple - with specific intent to "torment and afflict man"), each a source of suffering.

And so what?

Does God make people poor? Why, yes - again, we look at the examples of Adam, and Job. We remember the farewell promises of Moses to the Jews. We remember how God made the wealth of the Nephites slippery.

Again, so what?

Link to post

The fact remains that God is directly responsible for what it pleases the philosophers to call "natural evils," such as birth defects (source: temple, New Testament), natural disasters with high casualty counts (Book of Mormon, Bible), and unpleasant environments (temple - with specific intent to "torment and afflict man"), each a source of suffering.

And so what?

Does God make people poor? Why, yes - again, we look at the examples of Adam, and Job. We remember the farewell promises of Moses to the Jews. We remember how God made the wealth of the Nephites slippery.

Again, so what?

Nonsense. The view that God is responsible for evil rests upon the apostate concept of creation ex nihilo and as Elder Maxwell explains in the previously cited source is a false sectarian notion.

Link to post

Indeed it plainly does not teach that God makes people poor. The view you are presenting rests upon the concept of creation ex nihilo which the Prophet Joseph Smith long declared is an apostate position. As Elder Neal A. Maxwell once taught in a classic sermon delivered in the Assembly Hall in Salt Lake City, Utah, on 3 February 1995, the view that God is responsible for and the cause of human suffering is an apostate position inconsistent with the doctrines of the Restoration. I would highly recommend surveying the entire discourse on the Church's website, but here is a highlight:

Thanks, David, I had forgotten that one!

Here's the link for anyone who's interested.

Link to post

Nonsense. The view that God is responsible for evil rests upon the apostate concept of creation ex nihilo and as Elder Maxwell explains in the previously cited source is a false sectarian notion.

David,

Nothing I have written rests upon a concept of creation ex nihilo, and therefore your citation of Elder Maxwell is besides the point. I would ask, respectfully, that you address the examples provided.

Edited to note: When I say "directly responsible for," what I actually mean is "claims responsibility for," a much stronger claim.

Link to post

David,

Nothing I have written rests upon a concept of creation ex nihilo, and therefore your citation of Elder Maxwell is besides the point. I would ask, respectfully, that you address the examples provided.

Edited to note: When I say "directly responsible for," what I actually mean is "claims responsibility for," a much stronger claim.

Your view that God is the creator of evil is the concept of creation ex nihilo and the very point that the Prophet Joseph found so distasteful. The Restoration teaches that evil is independent from God, that agency and natural laws that God cannot break are responsible for human suffering. Again, "do not suppose that God willfully causes that, which for His own purposes, he permits."(Boyd K. Packer, The Play and the Plan).

Link to post

Mosiah 12:4-8 = Creation ex nihilo and apparent loss of free agency.

Good grief!!!

Just tell me, was God lying or was Abinadi lying?

4 And it shall come to pass that I will smite this my people with sore afflictions, yea, with famine and with pestilence; and I will cause that they shall howl all the day long.

5 Yea, and I will cause that they shall have burdens lashed upon their backs; and they shall be driven before like a dumb ***.

6 And it shall come to pass that I will send forth hail among them, and it shall smite them; and they shall also be smitten with the east wind; and insects shall pester their land also, and devour their grain.

7 And they shall be smitten with a great pestilence

Link to post

Your view that God is the creator of evil is the concept of creation ex nihilo and the very point that the Prophet Joseph found so distasteful. The Restoration teaches that evil is independent from God, that agency and natural laws that God cannot break are responsible for human suffering. Again, "do not suppose that God willfully causes that, which for His own purposes, he permits."(Boyd K. Packer, The Play and the Plan).

The next line of the Packer quote:

"When you know the plan and purpose of it all, even these things will manifest a loving Father in Heaven."

What are "these things"?:

"Until you have a broad perspective of the eternal nature of this great drama, you won

Link to post

Mosiah 12:4-8 = Creation ex nihilo and apparent loss of free agency.

Good grief!!!

Just tell me, was God lying or was Abinadi lying?

It's not a matter of lying. We learn from D&C 19 that scriptural statements regarding divine punishment sent from God are not literal but are intended to be "more express than other scriptures, that [they] might work upon the hearts of the children of men, altogether for [his] name

Link to post

The next line of the Packer quote:

"When you know the plan and purpose of it all, even these things will manifest a loving Father in Heaven."

What are "these things"?:

"Until you have a broad perspective of the eternal nature of this great drama, you won

Link to post

It's not a matter of lying. We learn from D&C 19 that scriptural statements regarding divine punishment sent from God are not literal but are intended to be "more express than other scriptures, that [they] might work upon the hearts of the children of men, altogether for [his] name

Link to post

D&C 19 refers to "Eternal" as unending vs. "Eternal"(God) being the source of the punishment and damnation and has nothing to do with whether or not punishment actually happens, but rather how long punishment is to last.

D&C 19 teaches that in terms of punishment, God will use "more express" language in order to scare the hell out of his children. Literally. In light of the doctrines of the Restoration concerning God, eternal law, agency, and creation ex nihilo, that is how I would interpret the references to divine punishment in Mosiah 12:4-8.

Link to post

D&C 19 teaches that in terms of punishment, God will use "more express" language in order to scare the hell out of his children. Literally. In light of the doctrines of the Restoration concerning God, eternal law, agency, and creation ex nihilo, that is how I would interpret the references to divine punishment in Mosiah 12:4-8.

Indeed!

The problem you have is that it is making God a liar when he says things like "I will cause" and "I will send" [Mosiah 12] even though he apparently doesn't do any of that. Using the term "eternal damnation" is not a lie but rather exposes a great truth and emphasizes the importance of the punishment at the same time.

Link to post

The problem you have is that it is making God a liar when he says things like "I will cause" and "I will send" [Mosiah 12] even though he apparently doesn't do any of that. Using the term "eternal damnation" is not a lie but rather exposes a great truth and emphasizes the importance of the punishment at the same time.

Then according to your logic, God is a liar when using the terms eternal torment and eternal damnation in order to invoke imagery that works upon the hearts of the children of men (D&C 19). That's not the way I see it.

Link to post

I believe the Lord punishes the wicked. Everyone is still free to make their own choices. We know that the Lord uses the wicked to punish the wicked. "But, behold, the judgments of God will overtake the wicked; and it is by the wicked that the wicked are punished." In having punishments doled out to the wicked by the wicked is God removing the agency of the wicked who are doing the punishing? No He is not, but He has no problem with claiming responsibility for it. It is very common for the Lord to reclaim people who may have need to be humbled through bad circumstances. Poverty is a powerful preparation to hear the gospel. [Alma 32:6]

I understand what you are saying, Mansquatch. Here's how I see it:

God passes judgment. He withdraws His protection which is only justly held in place by the honored covenant. Then the wicked punish each other.

Hosea's description of the Lord uncovering His wayward bride and allowing her to discover her nakedness shows exactly how this operates.

So if we apply this on a small scale, let's say your child does chores for an allowance. He fails to complete his chores and you do not pay him. He cannot buy the toy he was saving up for. Is that your fault? Or did you merely allow him to see his own fault by letting him suffer the natural consequences of his actions?

Depending on your child's level of understanding, you may even threaten to punish him by withholding allowance even though you both know on some level that the allowance was a reward for honoring his obligation.

Link to post

Then according to your logic, God is a liar when using the terms eternal torment and eternal damnation in order to invoke imagery that works upon the hearts of the children of men (D&C 19). That's not the way I see it.

Please read the second part of my previous reply.

Link to post

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...