"the God I Believe In Wouldn't Do That"

[CV75]

Great responses so far.

So what of those faithful Church members who have posted on this board that the God they believe in would never allow innocents to suffer or discriminate in his actions?  Are they just wrong?

"Never" is an interesting word to use, because in the long run, those who suffer unjustly in innocence, especially for the Cause, are restored "an hundredfold" -- D&C 98:25-45; Matthew 19:29; Mark 10:30. Since God would never not restore an hundredfold, they are not wrong in the long run!

[CV75]

I am surprised considering the responses so far are all on the same side as my viewpoint.  I really thought there was more variety of notions on this concept based on what I've read.

 

How then have I seen all the following posted in just the past few weeks and most of these ideas received some support?

How have those who supported these ideas matched up with comments on this thread?

[CV75]

I will be glad to add a dissenting voice to this thread. I do not consider the scriptural accounts that depict God as a petty, cruel, vindictive, bloodthirsty deity to be "translated correctly." The God I worship is good, whose dominion flows to him "without compulsory means" (D&C 132:46). While I believe he allows evil, I do not believe he is ever its author. 

I think an interpretation of segements of scripture that is likely translated incorrectly ceratinly allows us to depict God as a petty, cruel, vindictive, bloodthirsty deity. But I think if we are just going by the written word (both that which is correctly translated and that which is not), it is expedient to consider all of it, which frees us up to put everything in proper context and enable a more well-rounded perspective.

[Gray]

 

So, how do we justify putting our own ideas about right and wrong onto God? 

 

 

Everyone's experience with God is personal. I think most of us experience God in our best moments - when we reach out to the other, when we extend mercy, when we choose kindness over judgement.

 

The question is, how can we NOT extrapolate our own experience with the divine and use that to inform our views on God? Our own experiences with the divine are, after all, all we have to go on.

[Gray]

“If we come to God with moral demands placed upon Him as a condition to trust Him, then we encounter not God but our presuppositions of ultimate moral values. If God must conform to our moral judgments, if He must fit within our moral framework, then we never encounter God”

“Only when we are willing to let go of all of our moral schemata, only when we do not judge before we encounter, can we truly encounter God as He is—as He reveals Himself.”

Excerpt From: Blake T. Ostler. “Fire on the Horizon: A Meditation on the Endowment and Love of Atonement.” iBooks.

This material may be protected by copyright.

Check out this book on the iBooks Store: https://itunes.apple.com/WebObjects/MZStore.woa/wa/viewBook?id=652869962

 

On the contrary, our best moral impulses are the only reliable guide for understanding the nature of God. Where do you think those impulses come from? 

 

I think the crux of this issue comes down to a conflict between personal revelation and scriptural literalism

Edited March 26, 2014 by Gray

[Gray]

I thinks it's likely because those who take the opposing view are coming to realize their point of view is out of harmony with the scriptures. The only way a professed believer can believe suffering, even horrific suffering, isn't part of God's plan for the salvation of His children is to utterly ignore a veritable mountain of scriptural evidences that testify to the contrary.

 

To say scriptural literalism is missing the point of scriptures would be a huge understatement

[David T]

I think it might be accurate to say far more people believe in God than worship Him. And you know what? If my understanding of who God was matched that of many in the world, I wouldn't love him, or have any desire to give any sense of meaningful worship to him either.

 

Those are distinct questions:

1) Is there a divine being?

2) What is this being like?

3) Do I love or trust this being?

 

If God wasn't a truly lovable individual, then the 'obedience out of fear' logic makes perfect sense. Jump through the proper hoops, or you will burn forever in the fiery pits of Mordor. Warn everybody that if you don't affirm and do the exact right things, this Grerat Tyrant of the Universe will torture you forever. Of course, there would still be those who defy out of principle, willing to accept torment out of their own sense of justice. "I will not give this Tyrant the pleasure of my obedience simply because of threats and fear." The revolutionary morally just individual would then go into his fiery torment of eternal doom.

 

Throughout the generation of scriptures, the ideal of the Perfect Guardian was mapped onto God. For the ancients, a Warrior King was ideal and venerated, protecting his people, and not willing to settle for anything less - and thus the acts of God were characterized as such. 

 

I propose that through the revelation of Jesus Christ, there were substantial paradigm shifts at work. He was revealed as a radically different kind of King - one of a Kingdom "not of this world". His ministry would indeed bring the sword, but not wielded by God, but from His opposition. Jesus revealed God as not just the Father of the Divine King, but the Father of All. "Our Father." We've been working through what that means ever since. I strongly believe a key aspect of the prophetic guidance of the Church today is to continue to restore our premortal understanding of God as an Ideal Father - and all that this means. The Family has come to the forefront, because it reveals God.

 

My testimony is founded on the notion of God as my ideal Father. And it is a key lens through which I interpret all scripture. The Old Testament is filled with events so world-shifting in nature, that the entire paradigm of Israel and their prophets was left scattered, and was needed to be re-assembled, and re-interpreted in light of the new circumstances and revelation of the reality of the world. The revelation of Jesus Christ was another such paradigm shift. Revelations of the Restoration did the same thing. It is our duty to approach the scriptures with this new light and knowledge in mind, and to acknowledge that earlier texts were written in earlier worlds/paradigms. Worldviews have passed away, and we live in a New Earth, with a New Heaven to our view. Acknowledging this is acknowledging that God speaks. For me, this is a form of worship, and acknowledgement of divine communication.

 

I take the scriptures very seriously. But my first question on reading an account that portrays God in a way that inwardly and spiritually feels wrong is not to ask, "Why would God do this?", but to ask, "Why would the writer, in his time, circumstance, and experience, and worldview, believe that this action represented a God worthy of awe and worship?"

 

Here's a selection from a blog post I wrote, musing on some of the thoughts presented in Adam Miller's amazing Letters to a Young Mormon:

 

Miller discusses the Genesis creation account, and notes that it is framed using the cosmology, or ‘world picture’ in the mind of the pre-scientific ancients, and that God spoke their language, and used their imagery to inspire an illustration of His work in their world.

 

Following a beautiful summary of what this world looked like to the ancients, Miller commented:

 

“I believe in a literal reading of this text. I believe the Hebrews literally thought the world was like that, and I believe that God literally ran with it and revealed his grace at work in their lives through it.  More, I believe that God is just as literally showing himself to us in and through the continually rolling revelation that is science as we know it.  The world given to us is not the same world given to them.  We have two worlds here.  But though our worlds diverge, it is the same God peeping through.  Believing that the God of their world is just as surely the God of ours doesn’t commit us to believing in their version of the world.  Rather, it commits us to believing in a God whose grace is full enough to fill them both.” (p. 54)

 

It was with this profound thought in mind, that I read through Moses 1 in the Pearl of Great Price again.

 

The Lord instructs the prophet,

 

“And worlds without number have I created; and I also created them for mine own purpose; and by the Son I created them, which is mine Only Begotten. And the first man of all men have I called Adam, which is many.

 

But only an account of this earth, and the inhabitants thereof, give I unto you. For behold, there are many worlds that have passed away by the word of my power. And there are many that now stand, and innumerable are they unto man; but all things are numbered unto me, for they are mine and I know them.” (Moses 1:33–35)

 

In this inspired modern introduction to an inspired revised Bible, we are given instruction that what is about to be presented should be interpreted only in the context of a certain single world[view], and that we are to understand that there are so many more world[view]s out there.

 

Just as the original accounts in Genesis had a specific audience in mind with a specific doctrinal and scientific worldview, Joseph Smith’s 1831 audience, too, had a specific audience in mind with a substantially different doctrinal and scientific worldview than we do now. Genesis and the revelations of Joseph Smith’s Bible Revision speak of different but similar worlds, to inhabitants of different, but similar worlds. The Adam in the stories given to the Israelite monarchy resided in a different world than the Adam given to 19th Century Protestant Christendom. And that’s okay, the text of Moses tells us, because Adam, like the number of world-models,  “is many”. Adaptable.

 

Our world since Joseph Smith has changed again. God hasn’t, but we’re certainly in a different world than Moses, or Joseph Smith. The language and relevant models have changed.

 

Adam Miller, in his chapter on Scripture, suggests that this is to be expected – and that this gives us work to do.

 

“Joseph produced, as God required, the first public translations of the scriptures we now share.  But that work, open-ended all along, is unfinished.  Now, the task is ours.  When you read the scriptures, don’t just lay your eyes like stones on the pages.  Roll up your sleeves and translate them again…into your native tongue, inflected by your native concerns, and written in your native flesh.  To be a Mormon is to do once more, on your own scale, the same kind of work that Joseph did.” (pp. 32-33)

 

Consider this suggested charge in the context of President Uchtdorf’s  observation that:

 

“Unfortunately, we sometimes don’t seek revelation or answers from the scriptures … because we think we know the answers already. Brothers and sisters, as good as our previous experience may be, if we stop asking questions, stop thinking, stop pondering, we can thwart the revelations of the Spirit. Remember, it was the questions young Joseph asked that opened the door for the restoration of all things. We can block the growth and knowledge our Heavenly Father intends for us. How often has the Holy Spirit tried to tell us something we needed to know but couldn’t get past the massive iron gate of what we thought we already knew?”

I think it’s appropriate to end this post with an affirmation of what is stated in our ninth article of Faith: “ We believe all that God has revealed, all that He does now reveal, and we believe that He will yet reveal many great and important things pertaining to the Kingdom of God.”

 

Worlds without end.

 

My devotion to seeking God, making sense of the personal revelation I experience, and my intense study and 'translation' of texts from a different paradigm into the New leads me to this view of God as the ideal loving parent. This is a God I feel drawn to, and desire to worship.

 

If this is not who God really is, and he wants to send me to hell for believing so, so be it. I wouldn't want to spend eternity with such a being anyway.

Edited March 26, 2014 by David T

[teddyaware]

To say scriptural literalism is missing the point of scriptures would be a huge understatement

Go back and read posts 15 and 23 on this thread and review the scriptural references I use to make my point. If you believe the scriptures I quote do not speak of actual literal historical events, then there's nothing we can do but agree to disagree because there's no rational basis for dialogue.

[ksfisher]

On the contrary, our best moral impulses are the only reliable guide for understanding the nature of God. Where do you think those impulses come from? 

 

I think the crux of this issue comes down to a conflict between personal revelation and scriptural literalism

 

I think that Ostler's point is that is we go to God with preconceptions of who we will find, we will only find our preconceptions.  Abondoning those preconceptions allows God to reveal himself fully to us, as he really is, not how we expect him to be. 

[teddyaware]

Deleated

Edited March 26, 2014 by teddyaware

[teddyaware]

The God of the Latter-day Saints is merciful yet a believer in fully satisfying the demands of justice; kind yet He is also very strict and demanding; tender hearted yet willing to meet out very harsh and seemingly cruel punishments when necessary; the embodiment of perfect love yet willing to cast souls into hell in order to awake them from the sleep of death that threatens their eternal welfare.

Modern people accustom to life in our mollycoddling modern society, where mercy takes major precedence over justice, find it hard to understand how God's harsh punishments and cataclysmic judgments are actually manifestations of His perfect charity, yet it is verily true. God has to be very tough even though it often brakes His heart when he has to follow through on the demands of eternal law because only a God who is both very loving and very tough has the capacity of will to save all of his children, except for the sons of perdition who don't want to be saved.

The following excerpt from the Doctrine and Covenants clearly sets forth what is absolutely necessary for God to do in order to eventually bring salvation to the wicked and rebellious who will eventually inherit the telestial kingdom of glory. It takes both perfect love and a tenaciously tough mind and heart in order for God to do what He has to do in order to save His beloved yet rebellious children...

104 These are they who suffer the wrath of God on earth.
105 These are they who suffer the vengeance of eternal fire.
106 These are they who are cast down to hell and suffer the wrath of Almighty God, until the of times, when Christ shall have subdued all enemies under his feet, and shall have perfected his work;
107 When he shall deliver up the kingdom, and present it unto the Father, spotless, saying: I have overcome and have trodden the wine-press alone, even the wine-press of the fierceness of the wrath of Almighty God.
108 Then shall he be crowned with the crown of his glory, to sit on the of his power to reign forever and ever.
109 But behold, and lo, we saw the glory and the inhabitants of the telestial world, that they were as innumerable as the stars in the firmament of heaven, or as the sand upon the seashore;
110 And heard the voice of the Lord saying: These all shall bow the knee, and every tongue shall confess to him who sits upon the throne forever and ever; (D&C 76)

As we can plainly see, God is very loving but also very strict because He has to be.

Edited March 26, 2014 by teddyaware

[Gray]

I think that Ostler's point is that is we go to God with preconceptions of who we will find, we will only find our preconceptions.  Abondoning those preconceptions allows God to reveal himself fully to us, as he really is, not how we expect him to be. 

 

I'm not talking about preconceptions, though. I'm talking about personal experience with divinity. If a literalist take on scriptures does not match our personal experience with God, it doesn't make much sense to side with the literalist take on scripture. What is our basis for believing in God in the first place, if not our personal experiences communing with the divine? 

[Coreyb]

In an age when people deny the existence of God, the gospel of Jesus Christ tells us not only that he exists, but also that God, as we understand him through the revelations, is a loving and wise Father. And loving us, he will, if necessary, insist that we deal with the harsh realities of life and of our personal defects to further our personal growth.

Too many Christians believe in God as a “kindly Grandfather,” who indulges us, who is indifferent when we sin. The God of the gospel is a loving Father, who in loving us is willing for us to endure pain if that is necessary for us to grow. He is not a mere “Life Force”; he is the kind of Father who is committed to our growth and who loves us enough to trust us to each other, knowing the harsh consequences of that decision. ~Neal A. Maxwell

[stemelbow]

In an age when people deny the existence of God, the gospel of Jesus Christ tells us not only that he exists, but also that God, as we understand him through the revelations, is a loving and wise Father. And loving us, he will, if necessary, insist that we deal with the harsh realities of life and of our personal defects to further our personal growth.

Too many Christians believe in God as a “kindly Grandfather,” who indulges us, who is indifferent when we sin. The God of the gospel is a loving Father, who in loving us is willing for us to endure pain if that is necessary for us to grow. He is not a mere “Life Force”; he is the kind of Father who is committed to our growth and who loves us enough to trust us to each other, knowing the harsh consequences of that decision. ~Neal A. Maxwell

 

How much do we really grow?  Is there a benefit to being a believer at all?  I ask because in my experience as many non-believers grow and become something just like believers.  Also, many a long-time believer seems stunted, angry, mean, miserable, stuff like that.  But many seasoned unbelievers seem loving, giving, thoughtful, charitable, stuff like that. 

 

Seeing HIm as kindly Grandfather doesn't seem any more harmful than not believing in HIm at all, nor does it seem any worse than seeing Him as you describe Him. 

[Coreyb]

How much do we really grow?  Is there a benefit to being a believer at all?  I ask because in my experience as many non-believers grow and become something just like believers.  Also, many a long-time believer seems stunted, angry, mean, miserable, stuff like that.  But many seasoned unbelievers seem loving, giving, thoughtful, charitable, stuff like that. 

 

Seeing HIm as kindly Grandfather doesn't seem any more harmful than not believing in HIm at all, nor does it seem any worse than seeing Him as you describe Him.

Well those are some pretty scientific observations. I happen to have observed just the opposite, except I have met many happy loving non believers in addition to the miserable ones. What you don't understand is that God is interested in the growth of all his children, regardless if they believe in him or not. He tests them too.

[stemelbow]

Well those are some pretty scientific observations. I happen to have observed just the opposite, except I have met many happy loving non believers in addition to the miserable ones. What you don't understand is that God is interested in the growth of all his children, regardless if they believe in him or not. He tests them too.

 

I understand that.  That's the basis of my question.  God works with all of His children.  What's the benefit of gospel knowledge, when it comes down to it?

 

And this is a serious question in light of some of the conversation made above. 

[Gray]

How much do we really grow?  Is there a benefit to being a believer at all?  I ask because in my experience as many non-believers grow and become something just like believers.  Also, many a long-time believer seems stunted, angry, mean, miserable, stuff like that.  But many seasoned unbelievers seem loving, giving, thoughtful, charitable, stuff like that. 

 

Seeing HIm as kindly Grandfather doesn't seem any more harmful than not believing in HIm at all, nor does it seem any worse than seeing Him as you describe Him. 

 

Personally I felt myself stagnating in spiritual growth as an "orthodox" Mormon. As someone who is less literal and less dogmatic about most things these days, I've felt myself grow and come closer to God. I've become less judgmental too.

 

I don't think there is any one "best" way for everyone. Every path up the mountain is different. Some people thrive under a more rigid and literalistic structure. Some people do best under the paradigm that there is no God. I view all of these as equally valid, as long as they are helping the person to become a kinder, more loving person. 

Edited March 26, 2014 by Gray

[Coreyb]

I understand that.  That's the basis of my question.  God works with all of His children.  What's the benefit of gospel knowledge, when it comes down to it?

 

And this is a serious question in light of some of the conversation made above.

Entering in to God's presence, and no other reason. No matter how nice of a person you are, you can't enter his presence to be crowned with his glory unless you believe there is a presence to enter into and a glory to be crowned with, and you meet his qualifications for such. As wonderful and meaningful as all the "practical" aspects of the gospel are, they are ancillary.

[Coreyb]

Personally I felt myself stagnating in spiritual growth as an "orthodox" Mormon. As someone who is less literal and less dogmatic about most things these days, I've felt myself grow and come closer to God. I've become less judgmental too.

 

I don't think there is any one "best" way for everyone. Every path up the mountain is different. Some people thrive under a more rigid and literalistic structure. Some people do best under the paradigm that there is no God. I view all of these as equally valid, as long as they are helping the person to become a kinder, more loving person.

Nobody's says you gotta be orthodox, just be believing

[MiserereNobis]

As a related topic, there is an issue I have with the "what would Jesus do" question.  The basic idea behind it is great -- let's try to act like Jesus.  However, I feel like I could never really answer that question.  What would Jesus do?  What would God do?  I can take my best guess, I suppose, but then I'm really acting out of my own conceptions of what God would do instead of the reality of what God really would do.  I imagine if Jesus were among us, we all would be quite surprised sometimes at what He would or would not do.  I think of the accounts of His life, how often He did things that were totally surprising to those around Him, sometimes even to the point that they left Him because He didn't live up to their expections.  I'd rather not limit Him by placing my morality, thoughts, common sense, cultural bias, etc, etc, on to Him.

 

I think a better question would be:  "What would Jesus have me do?"  This question can be answered to the best of our ability through prayer, scripture, tradition, spiritual direction, etc.  And of course, we can still get it wrong, but at least it has to do with what I should do and not what Jesus would do.

 

Another pet peeve of mine, I suppose.  WWJD is rather harmless, but still...

Edited March 26, 2014 by MiserereNobis

[stemelbow]

Personally I felt myself stagnating in spiritual growth as an "orthodox" Mormon. As someone who is less literal and less dogmatic about most things these days, I've felt myself grow and come closer to God. I've become less judgmental too.

 

I don't think there is any one "best" way for everyone. Every path up the mountain is different. Some people thrive under a more rigid and literalistic structure. Some people do best under the paradigm that there is no God. I view all of these as equally valid, as long as they are helping the person to become a kinder, more loving person. 

 

Amen to the best way for individuals.  I think it true that God has a better perspective of each of us knowing where we'll benefit most and so he'll direct. 

 

But back to my question....don't know if there is any way to actually determine the benefits of gospel living, only in a general sense, I suppose.

[JLHPROF]

As a related topic, there is an issue I have with the "what would Jesus do" question.  The basic idea behind it is great -- let's try to act like Jesus.  However, I feel like I could never really answer that question.  What would Jesus do?  What would God do?  I can take my best guess, I suppose, but then I'm really acting out of my own conceptions of what God would do instead of the reality of what God really would do.  I imagine if Jesus were among us, we all would be quite surprised sometimes at what He would or would not do.  I think of the accounts of His life, how often He did things that were totally surprising to those around Him, sometimes even to the point that they left Him because He didn't live up to their expections.  I'd rather not limit Him by placing my morality, thoughts, common sense, cultural bias, etc, etc, on to Him.

 

I think a better question would be:  "What would Jesus have me do?"  This question can be answered to the best of our ability through prayer, scripture, tradition, spiritual direction, etc.  And of course, we can still get it wrong, but it least it has to do with what I should do and not what Jesus would do.

 

Another pet peeve of mine, I suppose.  WWJD is rather harmless, but still...

 

Whenever someone asks me WWJD, I always like to answer, "well, he'd take a whip, turn over some tables and chase people out of the room - he did it a couple of times you know".

[stemelbow]

Entering in to God's presence, and no other reason. No matter how nice of a person you are, you can't enter his presence to be crowned with his glory unless you believe there is a presence to enter into and a glory to be crowned with, and you meet his qualifications for such. As wonderful and meaningful as all the "practical" aspects of the gospel are, they are ancillary.

 

meh...non-believers can quickly change their tune given a spiritual experience.  If what you say is true, then it matters little if a person lives their life as a non-believer if after it all he turns into a believer.  God saves and perhaps many a whole-life believers will be granted a lesser kingdom.  Perhaps as it were these believers (which likely include me) were better off as non-believers too. 

[MiserereNobis]

Whenever someone asks me WWJD, I always like to answer, "well, he'd take a whip, turn over some tables and chase people out of the room - he did it a couple of times you know".

 

Ha, exactly!  Or maybe He'd curse an innocent fig tree.  Or maybe He'd completely forgive the person that you thought was doing the most horrible thing imaginable and then turn around and condemn you.  Or maybe He'd tell someone to give up all their money to the poor, and then allow the most expensive oil to be poured on Him instead of selling that oil for the benefit of the poor.

 

On and on and on.

[stemelbow]

Nobody's says you gotta be orthodox, just be believing

 

Awesome.  I love it.  I don't think everyone is meant to fit into one little box.  Let any of us who wish to get out and breath a little--stretch our legs and dare I say wander off a bit.