Mormon Myopia

[Nofear]

Ok, here's a proposal. Lets have a chuch wide fast; not of food, but of blessings. Lets fast from asking any small or large blessings for ourselves for an entire month. Instead ask for all provenance to go toward the starving and the oppressed.

And suppose that God simply chose to feed everybody as a consequence of that fast? Would the rest of the world take notice? What would happen to faith? Would people believe because of a vast miracle or believe because of the enticings of the Spirit? What would happen to our opportunities to exercise self-sacrificing love and compassion? What would happen the the agency and subsequent judgment of humans who are active participants in said misery?

It is myopic to suppose that it would serve God's ultimate purposes to end all suffering during this temporary and transitory period of our species's existence -- even if we ask really really nice and fervently. The land was cursed for our sake.

[volgadon]

We do let people serve after the official cutoff age.

[semlogo]

If you mean the kind of missionaries who saw a bunch of kids in Russiajumped into the water with them and put 20 baptisms on the records, then yes, baptismal rates have fallen, and it isn't a bad thing. BTW I went on my mission after the "raise the bar" thing. I served with people who used to do drugs, sleep around, and a whole bunch of other things.

I think that kind of thing was more of a result of misguided policy on the result of mission leaders. The whole baseball baptisms thing left an unfortunate legacy of non-convert baptisms.

People who used to do all kinds of things may sincerely repent. That's what the atonement is for. The trick is to discourage insincere people from serving.

[volgadon]

People who used to do all kinds of things may sincerely repent. That's what the atonement is for. The trick is to discourage insincere people from serving.

I absolutely agree. The ones I'm speaking of are among the best people I know. Discouraging insincere people from serving is a great way of putting it.

[SilverKnight]

Since the famous "raise the bar" decision, where kids with certain sins in their pasts were barred from serving a full-time mission, came into effect, LDS baptismal rates have begun to decline.

Truly repentant prospective missionaries are not barred from missionary service.

My cousin committed "certain sins" and is now serving his mission.

Raising the Bar was an entirely practical measure to prevent unmotivated, slacker missionaries from feeling obligated to go on missions and waste the church's money.

Declining baptismal rates is a national trend all US religions are experiencing - it has nothing to do with the Raising the Bar initiative.

While rates have dropped for everyone, LDS is still doing better than most US Christian religions.

[bluebell]

The belief that God micromanages our lives for our benefit can lead in some instances to a form of narcissism I call Mormon Myopia.

(Although this doubtless exists in other faiths, I am primarily aware of it through my membership in the LDS Church.)

It usually assumes a benign form such as God helping find lost car keys.

But when we think that God harms others in order to aid us or in some way give us what we need, it takes a malignant turn.

Example:

A former bishop was teaching our high priest group last Sunday, and lamented about how many funerals he had to conduct during his tenure.

He said the previous bishop had conducted zero funerals, but that as soon as he was called to be the new bishop, a ward member passed away. He went on to say that he had to conduct no less than twenty-eight funerals while he was bishop. (Funerals were evidently his least favorite part of the calling.)

All of this is just factual information. It was the conclusion he drew that was interesting.

Referring to the previous bishop and the relative number of funerals each had to conduct, our teacher said, "He got what he needed. I got what I needed."

It apparently never crossed his mind to wonder if the dead people or their families were getting what they needed.

Any thoughts?

All the Best!

--Consiglieri

I'm guessing someone else has already said this, but did you consider Consig. that he was talking about the way that God timed his calling as a bishop so he would serve when certain events were going to occurre, and not that God had timed certain events so that they would happen after he was called?

[Analytics]

And suppose that God simply chose to feed everybody as a consequence of that fast? Would the rest of the world take notice? What would happen to faith? Would people believe because of a vast miracle or believe because of the enticings of the Spirit? What would happen to our opportunities to exercise self-sacrificing love and compassion? What would happen the the agency and subsequent judgment of humans who are active participants in said misery?

It is myopic to suppose that it would serve God's ultimate purposes to end all suffering during this temporary and transitory period of our species's existence -- even if we ask really really nice and fervently. The land was cursed for our sake.

The big irony, of course, is that God himself seems to have his own issues with myopia. When he is sitting on his throne, he sees the

[Deborah]

The big irony, of course, is that God himself seems to have his own issues with myopia. When he is sitting on his throne, he sees the

[Walden]

I

[Walden]

Good grief. The big picture has nothing to do with myopia or looking at something from a distance and not being affected. The big picture is sitting in the doctor's office with your screaming toddler strapped down as the doctor stitches his head and understanding that as hard as it is to see your terrified child you know that this is for his benefit. It's being the parent of a child with a broken arm screaming as the doctor sets it and knowing that it's for his own good so that he will be able to use the arm again.

The big picture is being able to see beyond the suffering to know that all will work out and all will be well; knowing this is what allows the parent, or God, to be able to endure seeing their child suffer for awhile.

Actually, a more appropriate analogy would be if you were the one who caused the injury to your child, or idly sat by and allowed it to happen, and then thought that it was for his own good that he is at the doctor. Well, the child wouldn't be there in the first place if you had intervened, if you had answered his cries for help as he was dangling from that tree or driving his bike through traffic. But I guess he has to learn sometime, and the best way to learn is to go ahead and fall from that tree and break that arm or get hit by that car in traffic. Yes, that's true love!

[Jeff K.]

That's not the promise that I was told. In my mission, we were taught quite clearly that the field was white, all ready to harvest, full of people who desperately wanted to know the truth, but didn

[Deborah]

Actually, a more appropriate analogy would be if you were the one who caused the injury to your child

Are you implying by this that God caused the suffering? God placed us on earth with our knowledge of consequences and trials. That doesn't mean he caused the sorrow or evil. It is present as part of this mortality. He is here, however, to help us get through it. Knowing about something doesn't cause that something. It is the consequences of mortality and evil men that cause the tragedy in the world. Consequences which we were willing to face because before mortality we saw the bigger picture too.

Your analogy is not appropriate.

[Jeff K.]

Yes, there is something to be said for a young man who has committed errors and come to Christ repenting of his sins and how his experience can teach and benefit others. And for your to equate fallible young men with the Christ is ridiculous. Maybe comparing them to Alma or Corianton would be a better analogy. Would they be allowed to serve in your ideal little utopian paradise?

Let us look to Christ as the ulitmate example. Whom we use as our exemplar. What is ridiculous is rejecting that example and accepting a secondary more fallible person as the goal. But of course you are free to advocate for the lesser plan, the lesser goal, the lesser example.

[Questing Beast]

"Finding lost car keys". Interestingly, this has specifically occurred to me ONCE in a totally miraculous way. It formed my belief in the reality of personal prayer: a conviction that has transcended all of the changes in my religious beliefs.

At the time I did hold a concept (or tried to hold the concept) of a personal, anthropomorphic God the Father who is aware of my every thought and action. So somehow "he" had answered my prayer to find my missing keys. The answer was almost instantaneous and involved unknowns: I did not know where to look; nobody knew anything about how the keys had gone missing. I prayed to find them; walked angrily into the backyard and stood glaring up at the boys' bedroom: ONE of the little Agents of Entropy had scarfed my keys and lost them, that much I was certain of. We'd only returned from a long trip the night before. My keys had vanished since then. I stopped glaring and dropped my eyes to the grass at my feet: and there, only barely visible between my shoes, was a metallic gleam. I bent and reached for it and came up with my keys! What the heck? I could have wandered anywhere, ANYWHERE but that exact spot, and the keys would have been lost until I "found" them with the power mower later that week. Weird. But I knew that "God" had answered my prayer, instantly and exactly with "Yeah, sure, there they are; you're welcome."

I don't know the mechanism by which prayers are answered this way. I've had a few similar subsequent examples (but not with lost keys, as I don't LOSE my keys! and I no longer have to contend with little "Agents" running about). My theory is that we answer our own prayers. Perhaps we get help from "the others" watching us throughout mortality; but that is probably not necessary: because as I see it, mortal life is not fixed in place on a single linear progression; rather it is a series of advances and "resets" (probably this is what sleeping is all about); and a reset can literally change "history" by making it take a different path. This doesn't require an anthropomorphic God to be aware of everyone in the universe at the same time; it doesn't even require "ministering or guardian angels"; all it requires is an awareness of my connection to "God": inseparable, intimate and eternal. Along that "connection" I can obtain any information that I require. That connection is to ALL Existence, i.e. all knowledge and power over space-time. I just have to believe and apply myself. I've seen it work time and again; when I ask and even when I don't - especially when I don't, in fact; things just happen, instead of the "bad" things happening, etc. Somewhere, some other time, the "bad" things happen(ed) too: but just not here, not now. It's all part of the "reset" feature overriding mortality. Anyway, that's one possible explanation for how it all works out....

[Jason]

The big irony, of course, is that God himself seems to have his own issues with myopia. When he is sitting on his throne, he sees the

[bluebell]

Actually, a more appropriate analogy would be if you were the one who caused the injury to your child, or idly sat by and allowed it to happen, and then thought that it was for his own good that he is at the doctor. Well, the child wouldn't be there in the first place if you had intervened, if you had answered his cries for help as he was dangling from that tree or driving his bike through traffic. But I guess he has to learn sometime, and the best way to learn is to go ahead and fall from that tree and break that arm or get hit by that car in traffic. Yes, that's true love!

Like immunizations, i guess. We hold our babies down and let someone hurt them because we know it's so much less than the hurt will be if we don't.

[staccato]

Are you implying by this that God caused the suffering? God placed us on earth with our knowledge of consequences and trials. That doesn't mean he caused the sorrow or evil. It is present as part of this mortality. He is here, however, to help us get through it. Knowing about something doesn't cause that something. It is the consequences of mortality and evil men that cause the tragedy in the world. Consequences which we were willing to face because before mortality we saw the bigger picture too.

Your analogy is not appropriate.

There is no implication, at least to me. It is an outright statement. God causes suffering.

[Senator]

And suppose that God simply chose to feed everybody as a consequence of that fast?

Wouldn't that be wonderful

Would the rest of the world take notice?

Who cares? (but I bet they would)

What would happen to faith?

It would skyrocket!

Would people believe because of a vast miracle or believe because of the enticings of the Spirit?

I would take either.

What would happen to our opportunities to exercise self-sacrificing love and compassion?

Suffering for some is for the opportunities for others? How did these roles get divyed up? Did we draw straws?

What would happen the the agency and subsequent judgment of humans who are active participants in said misery?

They would be put to shame! (if not out of their misery)

It is myopic to suppose that it would serve God's ultimate purposes to end all suffering during this temporary and transitory period of our species's existence -- even if we ask really really nice and fervently. The land was cursed for our sake.

Well, that's the end thats's promised and that we're all hoping for. It's called the millennium. It's gotta come sooner or later. I'm hoping for sooner!

[Walden]

Are you implying by this that God caused the suffering? God placed us on earth with our knowledge of consequences and trials. That doesn't mean he caused the sorrow or evil. It is present as part of this mortality. He is here, however, to help us get through it. Knowing about something doesn't cause that something. It is the consequences of mortality and evil men that cause the tragedy in the world. Consequences which we were willing to face because before mortality we saw the bigger picture too.

Your analogy is not appropriate.

No, my analogy had to do with the parent who stands idly by, watching their child dangling perilously from a tree, and thinks to themself that it is a good idea for the child to fall from the tree and break their arm in order to teach them a lesson, rather than intervening and actually helping that child from the tree. This was in response to your inadequate analogy concerning the parent, child and doctor.

[Jeff K.]

No, my analogy had to do with the parent who stands idly by, watching their child dangling perilously from a tree, and thinks to themself that it is a good idea for the child to fall from the tree and break their arm in order to teach them a lesson, rather than intervening and actually helping that child from the tree. This was in response to your inadequate analogy concerning the parent, child and doctor.

Your analogy is inconsistent with reality. Parents whose children have achieved the age of majority, making their own choices often recieve advice as to how they live. But their parents know their lives are their own and while they help when they can, often giving advice, and not seeking to increase the harm by merely adding to the ability of the person to harm themselves, they sit and watch as their child, with the right to choose his destiny, chooses the wrong path. It hurts the parents, but they know they do not have the right to interfere.

Your analogy is also inconsistent with our conderstanding of God. While we suffer and die in this life, all things will eventually be restored and we will be whole once again. Akin to a child falling and bruising himself for a time, but the bruise will go away. To a child of course, the bruise is an awful hurt and a deep searing pain they had not before expereinced. To the parents who know infinitely more, it will pass.

So on two very clear counts, from my point of view, the analogy fails.

[Deborah]

No, my analogy had to do with the parent who stands idly by, watching their child dangling perilously from a tree, and thinks to themself that it is a good idea for the child to fall from the tree and break their arm in order to teach them a lesson, rather than intervening and actually helping that child from the tree. This was in response to your inadequate analogy concerning the parent, child and doctor.

And this is totally unrealistic that a parent would watch a child do that so they could be taught a lesson if the parent were there to prevent it. My analogy is based on reality. It is different if the parent is unable to get to the child on time and then teaches the lesson "That's why you aren't supposed to climb that tree." But a parent who deliberately watches their child fall when they can prevent it....Nope. Unless you are trying to tell us you've done that and then I would question your parenting.

[Jason]

No, my analogy had to do with the parent who stands idly by, watching their child dangling perilously from a tree, and thinks to themself that it is a good idea for the child to fall from the tree and break their arm in order to teach them a lesson, rather than intervening and actually helping that child from the tree. This was in response to your inadequate analogy concerning the parent, child and doctor.

But God knows exactly what the consequences will be to the child, whether the lesson will be learned, exactly what harm will be done, how others will react to the example, etc. Sometimes He reaches out and catches the child. Sometimes He doesn't. In either case the best possible result for the eternal welfare of all involved, subject to their choices, is what happens.

[staccato]

But God knows exactly what the consequences will be to the child, whether the lesson will be learned, exactly what harm will be done, how others will react to the example, etc. Sometimes He reaches out and catches the child. Sometimes He doesn't. In either case the best possible result for the eternal welfare of all involved, subject to their choices, is what happens.

If God knows the child is going to be harmed if he puts him in a certain place and God puts nothing in place to prevent that harm, then God is complicit in the abuse. He does not get points for putting children in harm's way and then promises to take care of them after the abuse has occurred.

[Duncan]

If God knows the child is going to be harmed if he puts him in a certain place and God puts nothing in place to prevent that harm, then God is complicit in the abuse. He does not get points for putting children in harm's way and then promises to take care of them after the abuse has occurred.

What if God did put someone to help but they chose not to? I agree with what you're saying for the second part, I have had to unlearn moste everything I learned in my first 26 years of life which makes me wonder why I learned it in the first place!

[Walden]

Your analogy is inconsistent with reality. Parents whose children have achieved the age of majority, making their own choices often recieve advice as to how they live. But their parents know their lives are their own and while they help when they can, often giving advice, and not seeking to increase the harm by merely adding to the ability of the person to harm themselves, they sit and watch as their child, with the right to choose his destiny, chooses the wrong path. It hurts the parents, but they know they do not have the right to interfere.

Your analogy is also inconsistent with our conderstanding of God. While we suffer and die in this life, all things will eventually be restored and we will be whole once again. Akin to a child falling and bruising himself for a time, but the bruise will go away. To a child of course, the bruise is an awful hurt and a deep searing pain they had not before expereinced. To the parents who know infinitely more, it will pass.

So on two very clear counts, from my point of view, the analogy fails.

Jeez, I never thought that my analogy, which was actually in response to Deborah's analogy, would get so much play. My response was specific to the claims made by Deborah, who stated that "The big picture has nothing to do with myopia or looking at something from a distance and not being affected. The big picture is sitting in the doctor's office with your screaming toddler strapped down as the doctor stitches his head and understanding that as hard as it is to see your terrified child you know that this is for his benefit. It's being the parent of a child with a broken arm screaming as the doctor sets it and knowing that it's for his own good so that he will be able to use the arm again."

My point was simply that this is a flawed analogy and that it doesn't speak to the point of god choosing to answer small prayers (car keys) but failing to answer big prayers (the life of your child). Neither your nor Deborah's analogies speak to this. They just state that god know's best, that he has a reason for answering your prayer to help you find your car keys that is as valid as his reason for not answering teh prayers of a mother asking god to spare the life of a starving child, and that is just fine and dandy. All I am saying is if that is your interpretation of a loving god, you can have him, because I wouldn't care to live in his presence anyway.