Viewing God As A Loving Parent

[Kenngo1969]

Happy Jack Wagon,

 

I'm not sure you caught all of my contributions to your, "Why Pray 'Thy Will Be Done'?" thread.  In case you or anyone else is interested, here are some links:

 

http://www.mormondialogue.org/topic/65698-why-pray-thy-will-be-done/?p=1209517367

 

http://www.mormondialogue.org/topic/65698-why-pray-thy-will-be-done/?p=1209517533

 

http://www.mormondialogue.org/topic/65698-why-pray-thy-will-be-done/?p=1209517591

[Gray]

In my opinion, when we think of God as having human-like characteristics I think it's a projection of our own ego consciousness onto the universe. Of course such descriptions can still have symbolic value. 

[bluebell]

It all comes down to trust.

We think of Heavenly Father as a loving parent because that is how He has told us to think of Him.

Either we believe He's being honest in that or we believe He's not.

In the end either God is trustworthy in all He says to us or we can't believe anything He says to us.

We don't have to try to deduce whether or not He actually loves us and whether or not He's actually our Heavenly Father. It's not possible anyway. Any god we create that only does things that we understand and we agree with is already a failed attempt at understanding Him right from the start.

[Bobbieaware]

I don't think I've any closer to God than many people around the globe not associated with the Church at all. And I fear those in the Church who do feel closer are just a little delusional.

Further evidence why it's much better to choose Moroni's revelatory path to spiritual knowledge than the "scientific" path.

I guess the apostle Paul is one of your "delusional" believers because he went through all of the following, and more, yet he still wholeheartedly looked upon God as his most merciful Redeemer and loving Parent...

24 Of the Jews five times received I forty stripes save one.

25 Thrice was I beaten with rods, once was I stoned, thrice I suffered shipwreck, a night and a day I have been in the deep;

26 In journeyings often, in perils of waters, in perils of robbers, in perils by mine own countrymen, in perils by the heathen, in perils in the city, in perils in the wilderness, in perils in the sea, in perils among false brethren;

27 In weariness and painfulness, in watchings often, in hunger and thirst, in fastings often, in cold and nakedness.

28 Beside those things that are without, that which cometh upon me daily, the care of all the churches. (2 Corinthians 11)

[HappyJackWagon]

Further evidence why it's much better to choose Moroni's revelatory path to spiritual knowledge than the "scientific" path.

I guess the apostle Paul is one of your "delusional" believers because he went through all of the following, and more, yet he still wholeheartedly looked upon God as his most merciful Redeemer and loving Parent...

24 Of the Jews five times received I forty stripes save one.

25 Thrice was I beaten with rods, once was I stoned, thrice I suffered shipwreck, a night and a day I have been in the deep;

26 In journeyings often, in perils of waters, in perils of robbers, in perils by mine own countrymen, in perils by the heathen, in perils in the city, in perils in the wilderness, in perils in the sea, in perils among false brethren;

27 In weariness and painfulness, in watchings often, in hunger and thirst, in fastings often, in cold and nakedness.

28 Beside those things that are without, that which cometh upon me daily, the care of all the churches. (2 Corinthians 11)

Alma seems to support the scientific track of testing a hypothesis with an experiment. Allowing for only one method of gaining knowledge will limit us. Rejecting evidence simply because it's verifiable AND goes against feelings or impressions isn't a solid basis for discovering truth.

 

As I've been studying a little about the life of Heber C Kimball and his neglectful polygamous relationships to wives and children I find myself wondering if the 19th century LDS conception of God is rooted in the concept of a polygamous God which is very different than the standard monogomous father (Yes these are generalizations). Heber had many wives that could hardly be considered wives in our modern interpretation of the word. Though a kind man, he was aloof, distracted, neglectful of the needs of his wives and children and treated them more like servants over whom he was lord. Maybe he was patterning his fatherhood after the style of a God he viewed as absent.

[VideoGameJunkie]

Whenever I receive a priesthood blessing and in my patriarchal blessing it's stated many times how much Heavenly Father dearly dearly loves me and appreciates me. I feel love from Heavenly Father always. I can't wait to return home and wrap my arms around Heavenly Father for a big warm fatherly hug.

[BlueDreams]

We speak of God being our "Heavenly Father" and often attribute the qualities of a loving earthly parent to Him. This can be useful in helping us to feel closer to God but I wonder how accurate it is. The question is wrought with presentism as we consider the various ways loving fathers have interacted with their children throughout history. Still, if referring to God as Father, it seems that for the title to be meaningful it would have to be somewhat relevant to modern experience.

 

There are many ways we attribute behavior to God that we would never accept from an earthly parent.

 

-Complete separation to teach us to trust him - 

-Inconsistent and often unnoticeable communication (often uses 3rd parties to communicate)

-Must have faith in and trust 3rd parties teachings about him instead of having direct interactions

-Conditional love versus unconditional love (see Elder Nelson's talk- Divine Love)

-Must prove worthiness to reunite with him

-Wrathful in punishments, sometimes cutting children off and banishing them with no hope of return

-Use of third party to cleanse us so we are worthy enough to be reunited with him

-Failure to teach anything about our mother

-We never see or hear from him except through 3rd parties claiming to speak for him

 

These are just a few thoughts that came to me. If my earthly father interacted with me in the way I perceive God interacting (or not) I don't think I'd have a very close or positive relationship with my father.

 

I think separation can be a form of love, depending on the stage of life. You begin giving greater autonomy to children at a fairly young age and increase it as they grow. One shouldn't be rescuing their kid every 10 minutes once their adults in college like you would for a toddler. I'm going to assume that this is a phase of life where greater autonomy in the divine scale is necessary as well.  

 

The ones in blue I was a little confused by, because I don't personally feel all that separated from Him.So I find this over simplified. This period of time isn't fully about separation, in my mind, but learning to more deeply connect to Him (than we could have with him there) by claiming his attributes as our own. The more we do, the easier it is to hear Him. Even the 3rd party bit is pertinent because he doesn't JUST care about us connecting with Him, but us getting to care, love, and be there for our siblings...and to do so honestly (the 3rd party, after all are supposedly an extensive network of siblings). If you leave a few kids in a room with their parent there, ideally, the kids will play and act fairly good to each other. It's when the back is turned that they start to act up, overtime they learn to self-regulate....but this can't be done by hovering over them.  He's leaving, those who have strong connections and are generally responsive to Him to help us when we need it. 

 

As for failure to teach about HM, I wonder if that's actually true. There's hints that knowledge of her did exist way back in the day, but our past shut said knowledge down. We're now aware that she exists but have a cultural narrative that assumes we don't need to know much about her. I've personally felt some minor connection to a Divine Feminine and heard of other LDS who have as well....I don't think She's completely out of reach and that revelation about Her could happen if there was more collective desire/expressed need for it. So i think in a lot of ways we've stunted knowledge of Her, not God.

 

I think it's how you look at it. Some of these are kinda glass half empty projections. For example, cutting off children and banishing them with no hope of return. That sounds unfair, but what if those children are trying to seriously harm the other children? Particularly in the BoM and PoGP you get the sense that the people who were separated from the others, did so not just because they were breaking a couple rules, but they were actively seeking to harm/exploit the other kids. What would you do if one of your kids was stock-piling knives and you found very detailed plans to kill your son and rape your daughter? Whatever you choose, treating this very disturbed kid just like the other ones is not love, it's neglect of serious risks. Complete cut-offs are rare and absolute banishments that you can never return from even rarer (from an LDS perspective)...Most have some qualifiers to repent and come back to Him. 

 

 But perspective is everything and that's just not the way I view Him or the things he's trying to teach us with this experience. It's not like he forced us into this current state. We (supposedly) whole-heartedly agreed to this temporary state. I assume the parts that seem out of sorts to our model of love is probably more because we just don't fully understand Them.

 

Does the "father" model of identifying with God hold up to our modern expectations of parental relationships?

 

 

No, probably not. But I don't think that that's necessarily a bad thing. Beside most parents would royally suck at raising a few billion kids....birth order gets a little more complex at those numbers

 

With luv,

BD

Edited July 30, 2015 by BlueDreams

[Bobbieaware]

Alma seems to support the scientific track of testing a hypothesis with an experiment. Allowing for only one method of gaining knowledge will limit us. Rejecting evidence simply because it's verifiable AND goes against feelings or impressions isn't a solid basis for discovering truth.

 

As I've been studying a little about the life of Heber C Kimball and his neglectful polygamous relationships to wives and children I find myself wondering if the 19th century LDS conception of God is rooted in the concept of a polygamous God which is very different than the standard monogomous father (Yes these are generalizations). Heber had many wives that could hardly be considered wives in our modern interpretation of the word. Though a kind man, he was aloof, distracted, neglectful of the needs of his wives and children and treated them more like servants over whom he was lord. Maybe he was patterning his fatherhood after the style of a God he viewed as absent.

I was speaking of the modern scientific method based on empirical observation., Modern scientists would reject Alma's experiment as a purely subjective and unprovable mental exercise.

[JLHPROF]

In my opinion, when we think of God as having human-like characteristics I think it's a projection of our own ego consciousness onto the universe. Of course such descriptions can still have symbolic value. 

 

And of course, I completely disagree.

We are literally God's children.  Same species, same potential, working to grow up to be just as he is.

He is a loving parent because he provided a merciful path for his children to follow so that the eternal laws that he is bound by wouldn't leave us in the grave and unable to resurrected.

 

Kind of like a Dad that posts bail for their criminal child and then puts them on a path to becoming a respectable citizen.  They could just as easily leave their kid to rot in jail, but then their purpose as a parent would have been unfulfilled.

Honestly, it seems like some would prefer a parent that busts their kid out of jail and goes on the run with them.

Edited July 31, 2015 by JLHPROF

[mfbukowski]

In my opinion, when we think of God as having human-like characteristics I think it's a projection of our own ego consciousness onto the universe. Of course such descriptions can still have symbolic value. 

Close, but no cigar.

Close, because we are human and so is God in a sense- an exalted super Human.  A projection of HIS "Human" Consciousness onto matter unorganized??

 

Now we're getting somewhere.

 

And incidentally, how would one decide between these two views, which one is "true"?  Good luck in answering that one.

 

I pick mine every time because Somebody actually told me that's the way it works.  In picking between scenarios which are rationally unknowable, I will go with the one with evidence for it every time.  It's the only rational choice.

[mfbukowski]

Whenever I receive a priesthood blessing and in my patriarchal blessing it's stated many times how much Heavenly Father dearly dearly loves me and appreciates me. I feel love from Heavenly Father always. I can't wait to return home and wrap my arms around Heavenly Father for a big warm fatherly hug.

You can do that right here and now!

[rodheadlee]

I don't think I've any closer to God than many people around the globe not associated with the Church at all. And I fear those in the Church who do feel closer are just a little delusional.

And do you wonder why people hesitate to share spiritual experiences in a public forum? You think they are delusional, go figure.

Edited August 2, 2015 by rodheadlee

[Guest]

It is not viewing God as a loving parent...it is instinctively knowing that he is a loving parent that animates us.

[Gray]

Close, but no cigar.

Close, because we are human and so is God in a sense- an exalted super Human.  A projection of HIS "Human" Consciousness onto matter unorganized??

 

Now we're getting somewhere.

 

And incidentally, how would one decide between these two views, which one is "true"?  Good luck in answering that one.

 

I pick mine every time because Somebody actually told me that's the way it works.  In picking between scenarios which are rationally unknowable, I will go with the one with evidence for it every time.  It's the only rational choice.

 

How would you decide between them? I suppose whichever seems to you to be true. My concept of God is that which seems to be true to me, based on my my limited observations of how life and existence work.

 

I will say though, my concept of God is the one by far most supported by objective evidence (I say that with a wink, knowing that it's a bit unfair to define God as that which objectively exists and then claim victory).

Edited August 3, 2015 by Gray

[mfbukowski]

How would you decide between them? I suppose whichever seems to you to be true. My concept of God is that which seems to be true to me, based on my my limited observations of how life and existence work.

I will say though, my concept of God is the one by far most supported by objective evidence (I say that with a wink, knowing that it's a bit unfair to define God as that which objectively exists and then claim victory).

well if you can live with your own contradictions Who am I to say that's wrong?

[Gray]

well if you can live with your own contradictions Who am I to say that's wrong?

 

What contradictions are you referring to, good sir? My concept of God is supported by both my internal subjective evidence as well as all objective evidence that exists

[mfbukowski]

What contradictions are you referring to, good sir? My concept of God is supported by both my internal subjective evidence as well as all objective evidence that exists

I will say though, my concept of God is the one by far most supported by objective evidence (I say that with a wink, knowing that it's a bit unfair to define God as that which objectively exists and then claim victory).

Don't ask me- you were the one who was winking. Usually one winks at a sense of incongruity, joking, or sarcasm.

I try not to make assertions without the ability to back them up. If one says one cannot decide between two positions, in my estimation one should have a reason why such a decision is not achievable and be able to back it up, or not make the assertion in the first place. If one is goofing around of course that is not the case. So I took your assertion as a serous one and expected some back up on how objective evidence for you justifies a belief in God. That's all. I was confused by the wink I guess.

[Gray]

Don't ask me- you were the one who was winking. Usually one winks at a sense of incongruity, joking, or sarcasm.

I try not to make assertions without the ability to back them up. If one says one cannot decide between two positions, in my estimation one should have a reason why such a decision is not achievable and be able to back it up, or not make the assertion in the first place. If one is goofing around of course that is not the case. So I took your assertion as a serous one and expected some back up on how objective evidence for you justifies a belief in God. That's all. I was confused by the wink I guess.

 

Oh, I see. I was being serious about my beliefs, but a little bit tongue in cheek about evidence.

 

God, as I define the term, most definitely exists, and there is a great deal of evidence that this God exists, to say the least. But that is only because I view the totality of everything as being God. God is the only thing that exists, and we are all a part of God. Given that the existence of the universe is exceedingly well demonstrated, this model (pantheism) has all the evidence going for it. 

 

The reason for the winking is that it is very easy to conceive of something that definitely exists, call it God, and declare game over for competing models. I wouldn't really do that, as there are many reasonable models for God. I wouldn't dream of telling someone else that their model for God was inferior if that was the model that best helped them along in their spiritual journey. I have no problem whatsoever with the Divine Father model. Like you, I am practical in these matters, and sincere in my beliefs. 

[mfbukowski]

Oh, I see. I was being serious about my beliefs, but a little bit tongue in cheek about evidence.

 

God, as I define the term, most definitely exists, and there is a great deal of evidence that this God exists, to say the least. But that is only because I view the totality of everything as being God. God is the only thing that exists, and we are all a part of God. Given that the existence of the universe is exceedingly well demonstrated, this model (pantheism) has all the evidence going for it. 

 

The reason for the winking is that it is very easy to conceive of something that definitely exists, call it God, and declare game over for competing models. I wouldn't really do that, as there are many reasonable models for God. I wouldn't dream of telling someone else that their model for God was inferior if that was the model that best helped them along in their spiritual journey. I have no problem whatsoever with the Divine Father model. Like you, I am practical in these matters, and sincere in my beliefs.

Ok, but clearly my embodied God with real fists can beat up your God without them any day, loving father or not

[Gray]

Ok, but clearly my embodied God with real fists can beat up your God without them any day, loving father or not

 

On the contrary, it can be said that every fist in the universe is the fist of my God.  

[mfbukowski]

GRRRR
curses, foiled again.