Libs Posted March 23, 2011 Posted March 23, 2011 Do we take away individual choice to create the new "communal" relationship?In trying to follow this discussion, that's where I get confused. I can see evidence that God has, in the past, often condemned or blessed "communally", but how does that fit in with Article Two of the LDS Articles of Faith? I thought LDS teaching was that men were punished only for their own sins..
Senator Posted March 23, 2011 Posted March 23, 2011 Do we take away individual choice to create the new "communal" relationship?I think "losing one's life", ie. freely submitting to God's will is requisite. So in essence,yes.
Jeff K. Posted March 23, 2011 Posted March 23, 2011 That is done willingly, it is not taken by the community or the state senator. You confuse end result with methodology.
Jeff K. Posted March 23, 2011 Posted March 23, 2011 In trying to follow this discussion, that's where I get confused. I can see evidence that God has, in the past, often condemned or blessed "communally", but how does that fit in with Article Two of the LDS Articles of Faith? I thought LDS teaching was that men were punished only for their own sins..I believe when we are all of one mind, that the community will always be in a consensus agreement and the parameters of the community will be known allowing for the individual choice to exist, a choice that is voluntarily adhered to by each individual in the community. Is such a thing possible? It hasn't been done. Is such a thing hard? Well Zion was never easy.I believe this is the only way in which we have the community acting as one, while at the same time allowing for individual freedom. Everyone is aware of the goal and everyone believes in the same method of acquiring the goal. I believe something similar happened in the pre mortal existence. Those who were not of the same mind were invited to leave.
Senator Posted March 23, 2011 Posted March 23, 2011 That is done willingly, it is not taken by the community or the state senator. You confuse end result with methodology.I never suggested otherwise......hence the "freely submitting" verbage in my post.
Jeff K. Posted March 23, 2011 Posted March 23, 2011 Then you and I agree on the issue. But I would add that the individual must not simply freely submit, but actively endorse and move forward with the goal and method. Submission to God but not of necessity the community, unless they are one.
Libs Posted March 23, 2011 Posted March 23, 2011 I believe when we are all of one mind, that the community will always be in a consensus agreement and the parameters of the community will be known allowing for the individual choice to exist, a choice that is voluntarily adhered to by each individual in the community.So, the "choice" is to, either, be with..or against the community (Zion). I think I am understanding this a little better (although, it's still somewhat vague in my mind! ) So, whether or not God condemns or blesses, even whether or not salvation is given, depends on the faith and obedience of the community? I think this can be compared to the "Body of Christ". There is a sort of collective belief and faith within the body, but individual faith and obedience determine the strength of "the body". There is also an element of grace given through faith (in Jesus Christ).
mercyngrace Posted March 23, 2011 Posted March 23, 2011 Do we take away individual choice to create the new "communal" relationship?If you believe the atonement was an act of free will, then apparently creating a communal relationship (individual work performed on behalf of all mankind) is the most elevated form of agency rather than the absence of it.I would argue that willing self-sacrifice on behalf of others is the closest we come to God. His work and His glory, after all, is the eternal life and immortality of others.
zerinus Posted March 23, 2011 Posted March 23, 2011 Look carefully at the structure:"I the LORD your God am a jealous God, punishing children for the iniquity of parents, to the third and fourth generation of those who reject me, but showing steadfast love to the thousandth generation of those who love me and keep my commandments" (Deuteronomy 5:9-10; NRSV).Now, ask yourself these questions.1. If your interpretation was correct, that the statement means that God will punish all those who reject him, why include the phrase
LeSellers Posted March 23, 2011 Posted March 23, 2011 The Bible presents [David'n'Bathsheba's] child's death as vicarious punishment.True, but shallow, in my view. David (and presumably Bathsheba, too) suffered by their son's death
Calm Posted March 23, 2011 Posted March 23, 2011 Wasn't that church policy for quite some time? What specifically are you talking about here?
Jeff K. Posted March 23, 2011 Posted March 23, 2011 If you believe the atonement was an act of free will, then apparently creating a communal relationship (individual work performed on behalf of all mankind) is the most elevated form of agency rather than the absence of it.I would argue that willing self-sacrifice on behalf of others is the closest we come to God. His work and His glory, after all, is the eternal life and immortality of others.Individual work on behalf of mankind is communal yes. But we cannot atone if we are forced to do individual work on behalf of mankind. The parameters are ones of tyranny with the excuse of religion unless and if and only if, you can convince without authority or power that such an action is indeed the best course or indeed only course.Good for you and your willingness to self sacrifice. Will you of course in your righteous desires tell others to sacrifice their lives and children, or will you leave it to them to decide the best course of action.It seems to me, unless you have omniscience, you are instead advocating a tyranny or oligarchy of the presumed righteous. Both Christ and I reject such a stance.
Jeff K. Posted March 23, 2011 Posted March 23, 2011 I believe when we are all of one mind, that the community will always be in a consensus agreement and the parameters of the community will be known allowing for the individual choice to exist, a choice that is voluntarily adhered to by each individual in the community. Is such a thing possible? It hasn't been done. Is such a thing hard? Well Zion was never easy.I believe this is the only way in which we have the community acting as one, while at the same time allowing for individual freedom. Everyone is aware of the goal and everyone believes in the same method of acquiring the goal. I believe something similar happened in the pre mortal existence. Those who were not of the same mind were invited to leave. This can only exist, I believe, if directed by God with a clarity of knowledge based upon the faith of the one thing that exists. Otherwise, other methods based on individual choice would be explored.
mercyngrace Posted March 23, 2011 Posted March 23, 2011 Individual work on behalf of mankind is communal yes. But we cannot atone if we are forced to do individual work on behalf of mankind. The parameters are ones of tyranny with the excuse of religion unless and if and only if, you can convince without authority or power that such an action is indeed the best course or indeed only course.Good for you and your willingness to self sacrifice. Will you of course in your righteous desires tell others to sacrifice their lives and children, or will you leave it to them to decide the best course of action.It seems to me, unless you have omniscience, you are instead advocating a tyranny or oligarchy of the presumed righteous. Both Christ and I reject such a stance.Can you point to any place where I suggested tyranny or force? You are so quick to make presumptions, Jeff, but if you reread my comment, it's all about free will. Every individual must come to the conclusion on his/her own about the excercise of their agency. I never said otherwise.
Jeff K. Posted March 23, 2011 Posted March 23, 2011 The tyranny of force is implied, unless you agree that every invidual must be convinced of a singular course of action.
Calm Posted March 23, 2011 Posted March 23, 2011 The tyranny of force is implied, unless you agree that every invidual must be convinced of a singular course of action.I disagree. As long as there is an option to opt out of the community, there is no requirement of tyranny.
Jeff K. Posted March 23, 2011 Posted March 23, 2011 Opt out? You mean perhaps die? That is of course an "option" that was used, a type of exile. I do not think Zion exiles people because they are all of one heart and mind, in other words they all agree with the one path.What you offer is a bureaucracy with power that imposes a lifestyle that may or may not be the correct way, but that follows your interpretation of the correct way. If one disagrees with it, or opts out, we have of course exile, shunning, various separations of the community from the "tainted" individual.The implication of force is powerful, with a passive aggressive patina. Your position seems to be that it is your heart and mind that is the one we should all be. Mine is that such a community must be driven by a prophet or Christ himself, upon whom we have our faith in creating such a society. At such a juncture the power and strength of the bureacracy is irrelevant since it will not be needed and everyone acts as one. In your case there will be rules, punishments, opt outs.... something significantly more complicated and infinitely less sure.
Calm Posted March 23, 2011 Posted March 23, 2011 Opt out? You mean perhaps die? That is of course an "option" that was used, a type of exile. I do not think Zion exiles people because they are all of one heart and mind, in other words they all agree with the one path.Right, because the only way individuals were able to opt out of the United Order was to submit to their own deaths. Of course, if the community is of one heart and mind there is no tyranny of force is there?What you offer is a bureaucracy with power that imposes a lifestyle that may or may not be the correct way, but that follows your interpretation of the correct way. If one disagrees with it, or opts out, we have of course exile.....various separations of the community from the "tainted" individual....And how is this different than what happens in Zion if someone is not of the 'one heart, one mind'? I don't see Zion happening overnight where suddenly all are of one mind where disagreements occurred before. Zion must grow overtime and thus there will likely be some who choose to 'opt out' just as happened with the United Order.PS: I'm not offering anything, I'm just interested in understanding others' POV.
mercyngrace Posted March 23, 2011 Posted March 23, 2011 Can you point to any place where I suggested tyranny or force? You are so quick to make presumptions, Jeff, but if you reread my comment, it's all about free will. Every individual must come to the conclusion on his/her own about the excercise of their agency. I never said otherwise.The tyranny of force is implied, unless you agree that every invidual must be convinced of a singular course of action.Nonsense. Not sure what you think the bolded part means, Jeff.
Senator Posted March 23, 2011 Posted March 23, 2011 Not at all. Who are the scholars? I reckon I am as good a gospel scholar as any! But I think I know what you mean by the
Senator Posted March 23, 2011 Posted March 23, 2011 Opt out? You mean perhaps die? That is of course an "option" that was used, a type of exile. I do not think Zion exiles people because they are all of one heart and mind, in other words they all agree with the one path.What you offer is a bureaucracy with power that imposes a lifestyle that may or may not be the correct way, but that follows your interpretation of the correct way. If one disagrees with it, or opts out, we have of course exile, shunning, various separations of the community from the "tainted" individual.The implication of force is powerful, with a passive aggressive patina. Your position seems to be that it is your heart and mind that is the one we should all be. Mine is that such a community must be driven by a prophet or Christ himself, upon whom we have our faith in creating such a society. At such a juncture the power and strength of the bureacracy is irrelevant since it will not be needed and everyone acts as one. In your case there will be rules, punishments, opt outs.... something significantly more complicated and infinitely less sure.Wha?????Could you possibly misconstrue another's statement any more?
Calm Posted March 23, 2011 Posted March 23, 2011 Could you possibly misconstrue another's statement any more?I'm reading the thread and feeling like there is at least two different conversations going on, possibly more.
Senator Posted March 23, 2011 Posted March 23, 2011 I'm reading the thread and feeling like there is at least two different conversations going on, possibly more.I hear ya!
Nomad Posted March 23, 2011 Posted March 23, 2011 I've only been following this thread intermittently, so I haven't read every post, but this Bokovoy statement caught my eye:What were' seeing in this thread, however, is that it is only those who have not seriously engaged the OT that struggle to understand these concepts. I suspect it's simply a matter of exposure. Give them some time to reflect over these issues and most of them will come around.There have been other statements by Bokovoy on this thread that raise eyebrows, in particular the ones where he appeals to his own authority to affirm the correctness of his arguments--always my favorite example of an appeal to authority. But this statement may be the most condescending I've seen in a long time.I'm pretty confident that there are quite a few people in the church who have "seriously engaged the OT" who don't interpret things the same as David, and who don't draw the same conclusions. On the other hand, it is entirely possible that David is the one person in the church who has "seriously engaged the OT" more than any other.
David Bokovoy Posted March 23, 2011 Author Posted March 23, 2011 That is because of the patriarchal nature of human relationships, which was even more prominent in ancient times.I
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.