A Wrathful God

[wenglund]

I don't think it is foolhardy at all to judge God as he is depicted in scripture. We have the scientific means to do so, I say do so. It is not presumptuous, it is the human thing to do. If we are asked or even commanded to love (ridiculous when you think on that, just HOW can one be COMMANDED to love?? Love is only earned, not commanded. I cannot command my wife to love him, the very thought is utterly silly) and worship God, then we have absolutely every single possible right to know exactly what kind of being this is, and the Bible is our best bet of figuring it out. And it ain't a pretty picture. I'll show that in my book I'm writing.

Relatively speaking, and in terms of the issue of this thread, this strikes me as like an average week-old infant presuming to take the measure of Einstein and his theories. The sheer hubris is of cosmic proportions--a stunning wonder to behold.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[Carborendum]

How patronizing and condescending of you.

That's what I was going for. Thank you for noticing.

[Libs]

FWIW, I disagree that "the Bible is our best bet" for figuring out what kind of being God is. But I don't really have the time to get into it with the FAIR Conference starting up on Thursday & a bunch of DVDs I still have to finish.

[bolding mine] I hope you will have time someday to pick this up again. I would love to hear your thoughts. The Bible is written by ancient peoples, though their perspective and world view.. I don't think it is the best way to figure out what kind of being God is, either. I am doing meditation and more introspective things, these days. I think God is better understood, as revealed to us personally and, perhaps, through some very advanced teachers (you may call modern day prophets).

[Libs]

After all, truly, all scripture is private interpretation when you look at it. It is humans giving their views of what they want us to think. One of the very strongest books showing this is Grant Hardy "Understanding the Book of Mormon." One can literally see this is not about objective reality, but is simply Nephi's bias, Lehi's bias, Mormon and Moroni's bias, etc. There is no objective truth or reality being shown in the scriptures. Absolutely all of it is interpretation. Read Hardy if you think I am kidding. It is an eye opening revelation in that regard.

I, definitely, agree that the meaning of scripture is subject to interpretation.

But, you say the the prophets are giving us their interpretation? I think I agree with that, but never really thought of it that way. Most of us tend to think that when a prophet is being used as "God's mouth piece", he is giving more than just an "interpretation". But, you might be right. Even prophets are only human and can only understand, in the context of the culture and world view they possess.

Edited August 1, 2012 by Libs

[blackstrap]

And Grant Hardy's bias ,I presume.

After all, truly, all scripture is private interpretation when you look at it. It is humans giving their views of what they want us to think. One of the very strongest books showing this is Grant Hardy "Understanding the Book of Mormon." One can literally see this is not about objective reality, but is simply Nephi's bias, Lehi's bias, Mormon and Moroni's bias, etc. There is no objective truth or reality being shown in the scriptures. Absolutely all of it is interpretation. Read Hardy if you think I am kidding. It is an eye opening revelation in that regard.

[Kerry A. Shirts]

Relatively speaking, and in terms of the issue of this thread, this strikes me as like an average week-old infant presuming to take the measure of Einstein and his theories. The sheer hubris is of cosmic proportions--a stunning wonder to behold.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

I have absolutely no doubt that you cannot see more than this. Thank you for proving you didn't fathom the point at all.

[Kerry A. Shirts]

And Grant Hardy's bias ,I presume.

Read it and see. His analysis of Nephi is pretty spot on in my opinion, but then again, NOW we are dealing with MY bias.....

[Kerry A. Shirts]

I, definitely, agree that the meaning of scripture is subject to interpretation.

But, you say the the prophets are giving us their interpretation? I think I agree with that, but never really thought of it that way. Most of us tend to think that when a prophet is being used as "God's mouth piece", he is giving more than just an "interpretation". But, you might be right. Even prophets are only human and can only understand, in the context of the culture and world view they possess.

The most spectacular best book which completely opened my eyes on this is the LDS scholar Grant Hardy "Understanding the Book of Mormon." His analysis of Nephi simply rocked my world of belief about anything in print including the scriptures being any kind of objective reality. It's not. It is truly, literally ALL someone's personal interpretation, not an objective God giving objective truth being objectively conveyed in scripture. And when Nephi plainly did differ from Lehi's *interpretation* of the dream, their family situation, how to handle their crisis, where to go, how to behave, etc., there was never once where Lehi forbid Nephi or said God speaks ONLY through ME his mouthpiece, and you are out of line. There was no "correct doctrine" thinking or orthodox truth that all have to adhere to in order to have the Spirit of the Lord, etc. There was never a follow the prophet and he will not lead you astray type of thinking either. Hardy was amazingly informative on the complete lack of authoritarianism and the complete NEED for absolutely every single person on earth to have our own God visit and revelation. To rely on anyone else is simply wrong, dead wrong, NO MATTER WHAT OFFICE OR POSITION THEY HOLD. (emphasis, not yellin atchta) And now for the kicker, God does not give the same information to everyone either, so there is no way to say MY doctrine is correct, while YOUR doctrine is false, or not what the church teaches so you are in apostasy, etc. It is, as I say, Hardy's book is a STUNNING revelation of the TRUTH about reality that we have simply completely in church missed. We STILL do not get it. Hardy is a great corrective to it though.

Edited August 1, 2012 by Kerry A. Shirts

[Libs]

Thanks for the book reference, Kerry. I looked up Grant Hardy (I have heard the name) and read his "Mormon Scholars Testify" testimony. Sounds like an interesting man.

The more I read of "Mormon Scholars", the more I am seeing that these people often have some pretty "uncorrelated" beliefs. Mormonism does, indeed, include many very bright people, in their membership, but most of them don't seem to be your average, everyday Mormon. [off topic comment - please carry on]

[volgadon]

Read it and see. His analysis of Nephi is pretty spot on in my opinion, but then again, NOW we are dealing with MY bias.....

His analysis is certainly well-reasoned, but I found myself in disagreement over several points.

And when Nephi plainly did differ from Lehi's *interpretation* of the dream, their family situation, how to handle their crisis, where to go, how to behave, etc., there was never once where Lehi forbid Nephi or said God speaks ONLY through ME his mouthpiece, and you are out of line. There was no "correct doctrine" thinking or orthodox truth that all have to adhere to in order to have the Spirit of the Lord, etc. There was never a follow the prophet and he will not lead you astray type of thinking either. Hardy was amazingly informative on the complete lack of authoritarianism and the complete NEED for absolutely every single person on earth to have our own God visit and revelation.

While I agree that each and every individual MUST recieve their own witness, 1 Nephi very much affirms the idea of an authoritative oracle and interpreter. God appoints Lehi and gives him oracles. God appoints Nephi Lehi's interpreter. Nephi wants his brethren to ask the Lord, but they'll receive much the same answers as he has.

[Calm]

Hardy was amazingly informative on the complete lack of authoritarianism and the complete NEED for absolutely every single person on earth to have our own God visit and revelation. To rely on anyone else is simply wrong, dead wrong, NO MATTER WHAT OFFICE OR POSITION THEY HOLD. (emphasis, not yellin atchta) And now for the kicker, God does not give the same information to everyone either, so there is no way to say MY doctrine is correct, while YOUR doctrine is false, or not what the church teaches so you are in apostasy, etc. It is, as I say, Hardy's book is a STUNNING revelation of the TRUTH about reality that we have simply completely in church missed. We STILL do not get it. Hardy is a great corrective to it though.

I am not sure why this is such an amazement to you. I had been under the impression that we had a number of these types of discussions before as that is the point of the mystic....having a personal encounter with truth and the divine whatever one envisions it to be. I know I was having them on my side, perhaps it was someone else though I remember it as you. For me they were just continuing on the discussions I had been having with my mom for as long as I can remember when she first taught me not to be intimidated by my older brother and sister who were indeed brilliant, but then she convinced me so was I though in a different way, my star was my mind, I was obsessed with putting as much information in it as much as possible, in juniour high I grabbed anything about astronomy, probably went through about a hundred biographies along with some great texts on mythologies and religious beleifs and Mom obliged as well by allowing me access to her home library and adult library card for the more advanced books on Jung, Swedenborg, Freud, Maslow, Fromm, Bettelheim, Buber and then she would talk to me about what was going on in the life of Joseph Smith in context with the lives and teachings of these men. She was an artist by training and so focused more on symbolic language and patterns while I looked more at structures and how things were supposed to go together and most often didn't. As I got older, I was more drawn to the hard sciences due to my ability with math, planned on going into astrophysics so got a bit there, but got intimidated by the lack of a lot of jobs in the area and didn't have the confidence to match my ability so I shifted to an easier degree, electrical engineering which bored me stiff so I moved back to my first interest clinical psychology. All the education I got only led me to more strongly believe that the answers to my questions were with me, not with some professor or leader, especially when it came to religion where experience is so much more varied than in a programmed school environment.

I've had these types of discussions with a number of people over the years in the Church. Considering how the Church pushes the concept of personal revelation, it makes sense that quite a few members take them at their word and figure out in the end it will be us encountering God and not the Prophet or other leader standing in for us so of course people accept the responsibility for their own develop and start seeking out knowledge on their own...they just also happen to include God in that search due to the evidence that they've found that by including God, their lives are better, more effective. For me, I learn more, I learn faster and I care about learning more when I consider God as my partner in learning. If he is a placebo, it is the cheapest and most effective with least side effects I've ever managed to find so I am not about to dump him just because someone else thinks its silly. That's like finding presents under the tree and since you don't know where they came from, throwing them into the trash pretending they aren't really there. Who is writing fairytales then?

I find it strange that these days you are more exclusive instead of so hungry for any knowledge you came across. You used to value all learning not just because it accomplished something to marvel at, but just because you loved learning new things and looking at new ways. And it didn't have to have profound effect on man's future in order for you to fall in love with it, it could be a particularly meaningless shred of beauty that inspire joy in its absurdity. It seems very strange now that it appears you have locked your learning down to one way, looking neither right nor left. Where is the fun, where is the discovery of just repeating what others have done and discovering nothing new of your own because creativity requires emotion and taking risks and being willing to look at things more than one way.

And where is your ability to doublecheck yourself if you are only allowing yourself measures and references and controls that exist inside the box of science?

What of your scroll art work? What of your chess games? Have they lost value for you now they don't contribute to the scientific pursuit of knowledge?

Edited August 1, 2012 by calmoriah

[JeremyOrbe-Smith]

Perfect post, calmoriah. Amen.

[Calm]

Perfect post, calmoriah. Amen.

Very nice for you to say so as I was somewhat stoned (for me meaning some mild hallucinations) for most of it. The letters kept jumping off the pages and growing leaves and boy was it hard to spell correctly and keep a train of thought. But I felt the need and gritted my teeth and kept going and eventually it settled down. But now I must go to sleep as I should have done when I took my sleeping pill, it was just a bit slow in getting going so it suckered me into starting the post and once started...I can't sleep until it is finished, lol. I am glad you posted because I might have come back and deleted it, not being able to really judge its value when I am in this state and I usually expect I've really embarrassed myself. So you saved my work so I can feel like I accomplished something and will now sleep the sleep of the just....or something. Edited August 1, 2012 by calmoriah

[volgadon]

Perfect post, calmoriah. Amen.

It is superb. Thank you for saving her from deleting it.

[volgadon]

Buber

I actually used my favourite Buber quote in my EQ lesson a few weeks ago.

[Libs]

That was a great post, Calmoriah. I have had and expressed some similar experiences (or awarenesses, I should say). Also, interesting that we both got our degrees in psychology. I was very much into finding answers in a specific way (through academia), at that time. It ended up as very disappointing, because the "full" or complete answers are not in academia, alone. They are within...in that still, small voice or that spark of intuition or inspiration that can come after all of that study (or sometimes in spite of )..

Edited August 2, 2012 by Libs

[Maidservant]

In the case of the Cannites, I don't think they were aware of Israel's God. They were worshipping other gods (I assume out of ignorance).

A personal insight I have (take it or leave it) is that the people living there were also God's covenant people, or had been. They had had the truth, the priesthood, all of it. They were in the shadow of Salem, for example. Again, just my own line of thought taking the scriptures as a whole. Not sure what it concludes to or if it makes any difference.

Love is only earned

Then I have lost the love of everyone. Punch in the gut.

The definition of love hasn't been solved by this date, but in your view love cannot be commanded. But in my view love is an act. Acts can be commanded. As I understand, love is any act, often of sacrifice, that gives life to another being.

His analysis of Nephi simply rocked my world of belief about anything in print including the scriptures being any kind of objective reality. It's not. It is truly, literally ALL someone's personal interpretation, not an objective God giving objective truth being objectively conveyed in scripture. And when Nephi plainly did differ from Lehi's *interpretation* of the dream, their family situation, how to handle their crisis, where to go, how to behave, etc., there was never once where Lehi forbid Nephi or said God speaks ONLY through ME his mouthpiece, and you are out of line. There was no "correct doctrine" thinking or orthodox truth that all have to adhere to in order to have the Spirit of the Lord, etc.

The fact that there was ever objective truth is your baseline.

God has never said that "I am the God of objectivity".

I have never conflated truth with objectivity.

I am not saying not to challenge God. Do it. He and I fight constantly.

But you have these points of view and definitions that YOU set up--which of course we all do, we're human--and then overlay that on what we think religion or God or the church as been giving us over the years, centuries--when really it was just always the noise of our own journey.

Of course it is all interpretation, but I prefer the term 'point of view'. The TRUTH never was 'objectivity'. Truth are the principles of life and these principles have the power to saturate whatever structure of society man invents for itself, if we let them.

The TRUTH is US--true people with real stories and real struggles.

But I came to these kinds of things a long time ago, the things you have been expressing in various threads, by engaging with the restored gospel, the temple, and any thing else I have ever read and any other person I have ever met that has taught me something.

There is nothing strange about you coming to these kinds of realizations. Many have. Some 'leave', some 'incorporate' what they know. But the realizations come.

And honestly there is nothing strange about the sense of betrayal as well. We've all been there too, to one degree or another.

But I don't know why you are surprised that there were more veils to take off of your eyes so to speak.

Edited August 2, 2012 by Maidservant

[Maidservant]

Does anyone know the latest state of the scholarship on what the transmission of the text of Joshua (6) is?

Edited August 2, 2012 by Maidservant

[volgadon]

The definition of love hasn't been solved by this date, but in your view love cannot be commanded. But in my view love is an act. Acts can be commanded. As I understand, love is any act, often of sacrifice, that gives life to another being.

You nailed it.

[wenglund]

Perfect post, calmoriah. Amen.

Ditto.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[Libs]

A personal insight I have (take it or leave it) is that the people living there were also God's covenant people, or had been. They had had the truth, the priesthood, all of it. They were in the shadow of Salem, for example. Again, just my own line of thought taking the scriptures as a whole. Not sure what it concludes to or if it makes any difference.

That's interesting. Kind of like the Lamanites in the Book of Mormon? That could very well be, but IMO wouldn't make a difference. I'm speaking more to God's character and attributes. Is our Heavenly Father a being who would kill off whole nations, unaccountable children, animals and all?

[Kerry A. Shirts]

I am not sure why this is such an amazement to you. I had been under the impression that we had a number of these types of discussions before as that is the point of the mystic....having a personal encounter with truth and the divine whatever one envisions it to be. I know I was having them on my side, perhaps it was someone else though I remember it as you. For me they were just continuing on the discussions I had been having with my mom for as long as I can remember when she first taught me not to be intimidated by my older brother and sister who were indeed brilliant, but then she convinced me so was I though in a different way, my star was my mind, I was obsessed with putting as much information in it as much as possible, in juniour high I grabbed anything about astronomy, probably went through about a hundred biographies along with some great texts on mythologies and religious beleifs and Mom obliged as well by allowing me access to her home library and adult library card for the more advanced books on Jung, Swedenborg, Freud, Maslow, Fromm, Bettelheim, Buber and then she would talk to me about what was going on in the life of Joseph Smith in context with the lives and teachings of these men. She was an artist by training and so focused more on symbolic language and patterns while I looked more at structures and how things were supposed to go together and most often didn't. As I got older, I was more drawn to the hard sciences due to my ability with math, planned on going into astrophysics so got a bit there, but got intimidated by the lack of a lot of jobs in the area and didn't have the confidence to match my ability so I shifted to an easier degree, electrical engineering which bored me stiff so I moved back to my first interest clinical psychology. All the education I got only led me to more strongly believe that the answers to my questions were with me, not with some professor or leader, especially when it came to religion where experience is so much more varied than in a programmed school environment.

I've had these types of discussions with a number of people over the years in the Church. Considering how the Church pushes the concept of personal revelation, it makes sense that quite a few members take them at their word and figure out in the end it will be us encountering God and not the Prophet or other leader standing in for us so of course people accept the responsibility for their own develop and start seeking out knowledge on their own...they just also happen to include God in that search due to the evidence that they've found that by including God, their lives are better, more effective. For me, I learn more, I learn faster and I care about learning more when I consider God as my partner in learning. If he is a placebo, it is the cheapest and most effective with least side effects I've ever managed to find so I am not about to dump him just because someone else thinks its silly. That's like finding presents under the tree and since you don't know where they came from, throwing them into the trash pretending they aren't really there. Who is writing fairytales then?

I find it strange that these days you are more exclusive instead of so hungry for any knowledge you came across. You used to value all learning not just because it accomplished something to marvel at, but just because you loved learning new things and looking at new ways. And it didn't have to have profound effect on man's future in order for you to fall in love with it, it could be a particularly meaningless shred of beauty that inspire joy in its absurdity. It seems very strange now that it appears you have locked your learning down to one way, looking neither right nor left. Where is the fun, where is the discovery of just repeating what others have done and discovering nothing new of your own because creativity requires emotion and taking risks and being willing to look at things more than one way.

And where is your ability to doublecheck yourself if you are only allowing yourself measures and references and controls that exist inside the box of science?

What of your scroll art work? What of your chess games? Have they lost value for you now they don't contribute to the scientific pursuit of knowledge?

I am having more fun learning now than I have in a very long time, I am not quite sure why you are supposing it isn't fun for me. I am checking myself and double checking myself, and this is precisely why I am finding so much more power in the scientific fields than the religious ones for now. I have long too ignored the sciences and their strengths. I am learning the controls in science, that is precisely WHY I am finding religion to be so lacking now. I finally am taking science at its word, and reviewing the evidences, and the Bible and religion are failing from what I see. Religion has gone off track and science is trying to keep us on track. I suppose the only way to see this is explore science without worrying about whether it matches with Mormonism or not. I am discovering it doesn't match Mormonism as much as we are told it does. But of course, we Mormons don't like hearing that, so in fits of confirmation bias, we continue spouting the fairy tale that science and Mormonism are compatible, and I know better. I find it amazing that this grates on Mormonism and scares them so they have to come up with all sorts of weird apologetic efforts to try and show that the two are incompatible. Just because I am not agreeing with such desperate measures does not mean I am not having fun at all. What is miffing people I suppose is that I no longer am willing to put my head in the proverbial hole in the sand and pretend problems don't exist. We have far and away been told for too long WHAT to think, instead of learning for ourselves about science and why and how it really is incompatible with religion. I know it sounds insulting. Well it IS insulting that we are so faith filled we uncritically accept anything told over our pulpits these days. I have still, every desire to continue learning and looking for truth no matter where it is. There is no reason or excuse to work within bad apologetic assumptions about things anymore like I have been, that's all. Hope this helps.

[volgadon]

Perhaps, but it comes across more as dogmatic and uncritical acceptance of tendentious New Atheist claims. One pile of sand for another, if you will.

[Calm]

What is miffing people I suppose is that I no longer am willing to put my head in the proverbial hole in the sand and pretend problems don't exist....Well it IS insulting that we are so faith filled we uncritically accept anything told over our pulpits these days.

I have read and listened to you for a long time and the idea that you've been putting your head in the sand and pretending problems don't exist or have uncritically accepted anything told over the pulpit astonishes me.

And I find it astonishing you are making such blanket comments about LDS and LDS apologists in general considering some of the conversations I know you've participated in over the years with apologists.

There are some really lousy apologetics and apologists out there, but to class all apologists together as if they were all doing such as you seem to be doing here....

Edited August 3, 2012 by calmoriah

[Kerry A. Shirts]

I have read and listened to you for a long time and the idea that you've been putting your head in the sand and pretending problems don't exist or have uncritically accepted anything told over the pulpit astonishes me.

And I find it astonishing you are making such blanket comments about LDS and LDS apologists in general considering some of the conversations I know you've participated in over the years with apologists.

There are some really lousy apologetics and apologists out there, but to class all apologists together as if they were all doing such as you seem to be doing here....

There are some bright spots, and I am wrong to lump all together, thanks for calling me on this. Yes, I am being too hyper critical, I admit it........ I was meaning from church pulpits, not necessarily apologetic pulpits. I should have been more clear. Look, lets face it, I am in a serious faith crisis with what the church has taught us. I am simply working my way through it. So much just no longer makes the sense to me that it used to when I was simply agreeing because it sounded good or felt good to accept what was said. Under sincere and real looking into, I find far and away different conclusions than I once accepted when I was so uncritical, meaning, not careful.

Edited August 3, 2012 by Kerry A. Shirts