Happy Good Friday / Easter

[Keq82]

Dostoyevsky is my favorite author...and I've always enjoyed many of his perspectives/ideas on life.  Anyway, I came across this quote the other day and thought it was in harmony with the upcoming Easter holiday and the atonement of Christ.  In spite of all the hardships, suffering, futility, and madness this life, at times, offers, we can find hope and meaning in the atonement of Christ.    

 

"I believe like a child that suffering will be healed and made up for, that all the humiliating absurdity of human contradictions will vanish like a pitiful mirage, like the despicable fabrication of the impotent and infinitely small Euclidean mind of man, that in the world's finale, at the moment of eternal harmony, something so precious will come to pass that it will suffice for all hearts, for the comforting of all resentments, for the atonement of all the crimes of humanity, for all the blood that they've shed; that it will make it not only possible to forgive but to justify all that has happened." 

― Fyodor Dostoyevsky, The Brothers Karamazov

[flameburns623]

Thank you for this. It was more timely than perhaps you know.

[The Nehor]

What is this Easter holiday and how does it relate to Joseph Smith?

[VideoGameJunkie]

1 minute ago, The Nehor said:

What is this Easter holiday and how does it relate to Joseph Smith?

Easter is about celebrating the Easter bunny and eating Cadberry  mini chocolate eggs. And something about Jesus too.

[Keq82]

10 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

What is this Easter holiday and how does it relate to Joseph Smith?

For me, it's a time to remember Christ's atonement and resurrection. It has nothing to do with Joseph Smith, other than the fact that Christ suffered for his (Joseph Smith's) sins as well as all of our sins.   

[bluebell]

17 minutes ago, Keq82 said:

For me, it's a time to remember Christ's atonement and resurrection. It has nothing to do with Joseph Smith, other than the fact that Christ suffered for his (Joseph Smith's) sins as well as all of our sins.   

Nehor was just joking, being sarcastic about how LDS are always accused of caring more about JS than Jesus. 

[Jeanne]

Your quote gave me "goosebumps" on the inside.  Watching the news today was so depressing..and sometimes hope is lost in a world that has nothing good to say..  Just knowing that such despair will in time find peace and comfort and that some large hand wants to hold you and forgive is calming to the souls that try to still the storm.  Today I will be grateful that this hand reaches out to me.

Thank you for reminding me.

Good Friday.

[Jeanne]

32 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

What is this Easter holiday and how does it relate to Joseph Smith?

Merry Christmas!

[Daniel2]

Well wishes to all on this Good Friday, and a joyful Easter, come Sunday. 

May it be a time to reflect on at-one-ment, self-sacrifice, forgiveness, new life, rebirth, and renewal, regardless of our individual beliefs!

[Jim Stiles]

35 minutes ago, bluebell said:

Nehor was just joking, being sarcastic about how LDS are always accused of caring more about JS than Jesus. 

UMW always and forever.

UMW = University of Mary Washington? United Methodist Women? United Mine Workers? Utah Metal Works? University of Montana Western?

[canard78]

1 hour ago, VideoGameJunkie said:

Easter is about celebrating the Easter bunny and eating Cadberry*  mini chocolate eggs. And something about Jesus too.

*Cadbury

That's all

[UtahTexan]

My best Good Friday wishes to you, too

[3DOP]

6 hours ago, Keq82 said:

Dostoyevsky is my favorite author...and I've always enjoyed many of his perspectives/ideas on life.  Anyway, I came across this quote the other day and thought it was in harmony with the upcoming Easter holiday and the atonement of Christ.  In spite of all the hardships, suffering, futility, and madness this life, at times, offers, we can find hope and meaning in the atonement of Christ.    

 

 

 

"I believe like a child that suffering will be healed and made up for, that all the humiliating absurdity of human contradictions will vanish like a pitiful mirage, like the despicable fabrication of the impotent and infinitely small Euclidean mind of man, that in the world's finale, at the moment of eternal harmony, something so precious will come to pass that it will suffice for all hearts, for the comforting of all resentments, for the atonement of all the crimes of humanity, for all the blood that they've shed; that it will make it not only possible to forgive but to justify all that has happened." 

 

― Fyodor Dostoyevsky, The Brothers Karamazov

keq, hi.

I like Dostoevsky too, I was wondering which character might have spoken like that. None of the brothers I think. Father Zosima? And to whom was the speaker speaking in the book...that might understand what was meant by "the impotent and infinitely small Euclidean mind of man"? I don't think I get that part either. What does it mean to be infinitely small of mind? Or of a Euclidian mind? Some context might help me. Circumstances, characters? Chapter! Page number! Heh.

Not to take away from the faith and hope expressed. I know that's the important part to us. Help me go a little further though if you can.

3DOP

[The Nehor]

4 hours ago, Jeanne said:

Merry Christmas!

I think you meant Smithmas.  

[flameburns623]

1 hour ago, 3DOP said:

keq, hi.

I like Dostoevsky too, I was wondering which character might have spoken like that. None of the brothers I think. Father Zosima? And to whom was the speaker speaking in the book...that might understand what was meant by "the impotent and infinitely small Euclidean mind of man"? I don't think I get that part either. What does it mean to be infinitely small of mind? Or of a Euclidian mind? Some context might help me. Circumstances, characters? Chapter! Page number! Heh.

Not to take away from the faith and hope expressed. I know that's the important part to us. Help me go a little further though if you can.

3DOP

http://germslav.byu.edu/perspectives/2003/Forbes.html

[3DOP]

flameburns, hi.

Thank you very much for the article. It definitely made the meaning of the passage clearer for me.

But it would be curious to me if a Latter-day Saint would be experiencing the psychological and philosophical difficulties that Dostoevsky wrestled with as a faithful adherent to the teachings of Russian Orthodoxy. When discussions occur refuting non-LDS beliefs in creation ex nihilo, LDS arguments seem apparently irrefutable, not unlike those given by Ivan. Mormons successfully escape Dostoevsky's dilemma, and Ivan's arguments, in a very different way. I will explain below why, for many years here at this board, as a Roman Catholic, I have conceded that LDS beliefs about God and creation eliminate the problem Mr. Forbes describes in the first line of his essay:

Quote

"The problem of reconciling an omnipotent, perfectly just, perfectly benevolent god with a world full of evil and suffering..."

Such an omnipotent God, becomes responsible for evil and suffering. Is not this essentially what Ivan is saying? Such a God cannot be good. We have nothing less here in the book than what we always have when Catholics and Mormons debate. Mystery vs. Logic. Dostoevsky escapes the problem, as do I, by appealing to Mystery. That which he loves is Christ, and he subjects his intellect (mind) to his will (what Mormons call "agency" and Dostoevsky calls "heart"). He in effect chooses to tell his mind to be quiet and humble because it cannot grasp the subject matter as the will or heart can. Such a view accepts that we do not have adequate faculties to assure us that we may be confident that omnipotence, free will, and suffering are incompatible with a "perfectly benevolent God".  

On the other hand, I have gained the impression that the Mormons I have met here at this board may blithely reject the "problems" that Dostoevsky faced because the God in which they believe is not finished progressing. Neither is He omnipotent in the traditional sense. By and large, it seems like Mormons ordinarily accept and even use, the same arguments against the God who creates ex nihilo, as those presented by Ivan and by modern philosophy without any concerns. By believing in a God that creates out of pre-existent matter, it is not difficult to extrapolate to a God who, at least for the time being, is not responsible for evil, and is striving to eradicate suffering. This is why I have conceded that "theodicy" is not a problem for LDS.

I have noted with understandable satisfaction that you are now Catholic, flameburns. Perhaps you might have some insights about my fallible, and "from the window", as it were, impressions of LDS views on this matter. I would welcome yours or any other criticisms about my observations here. As I see it, Dostoevsky, as an LDS, would have never grappled with the problems that made him write the Brothers Karamozov.

3DOP

 

Edited March 26, 2016 by 3DOP

[thesometimesaint]

We recognize God as omnipotent in relationship to ourselves. Whether God is progressing in relationship to other divine beings is an open question. The LDS theology is such that we can all become like God, but that he will forever be our God, and we will always worship him.

[3DOP]

1 hour ago, thesometimesaint said:

We recognize God as omnipotent in relationship to ourselves. Whether God is progressing in relationship to other divine beings is an open question. The LDS theology is such that we can all become like God, but that he will forever be our God, and we will always worship him.

Hi the sometimesaint.

Are you in disagreement with my understanding that Mormons escape the problems of evil and suffering that are inherent to Unrestored Christianity?

Was what you wrote above said to agree, or disagree with my suggestion: "Dostoevsky, as an LDS, would have never grappled with the problems that made him write the Brothers Karamozov."

Do Mormons, along with Unrestored Christianity, have "the problem of reconciling an omnipotent, perfectly just, perfectly benevolent god with a world full of evil and suffering..."?  

[mfbukowski]

8 hours ago, 3DOP said:

 

Do Mormons, along with Unrestored Christianity, have "the problem of reconciling an omnipotent, perfectly just, perfectly benevolent god with a world full of evil and suffering..."?  

Nope.

The fall was actually part of the plan.  The possibility of evil is inherent in God's plan to teach his children how to overcome evil.  Without a choice between good and evil it would not be a test.

There must be opposition in all things.  Yin and yang and all that.  We are quite close to Eastern religion in that aspect.

Ours is quite a unique way of seeing it.

We will all be judged according to our ability to overcome evil, in a calculus which is incomprehensible to us now, accounting for every variable in our lives, like opportunities missed. circumstances beyond our control, and what we would have done had the circumstances been different, and the results will be perfectly just.

Bad things happen to good people to make us stronger. 

"And if we die before our journey's through, Happy Day!  All is well!"

Quote

 

1. Come, come, ye Saints, no toil nor labor fear;

But with joy wend your way.

Though hard to you this journey may appear,

Grace shall be as your day.

'Tis better far for us to strive

Our useless cares from us to drive;

Do this, and joy your hearts will swell--

All is well! All is well!

2. Why should we mourn or think our lot is hard?

'Tis not so; all is right.

Why should we think to earn a great reward

If we now shun the fight?

Gird up your loins; fresh courage take.

Our God will never us forsake;

And soon we'll have this tale to tell--

All is well! All is well!

3. We'll find the place which God for us prepared,

Far away in the West,

Where none shall come to hurt or make afraid;

There the Saints will be blessed.

We'll make the air with music ring,

Shout praises to our God and King;

Above the rest these words we'll tell--

All is well! All is well!

4. And should we die before our journey's through,

Happy day! All is well!

We then are free from toil and sorrow, too;

With the just we shall dwell!

But if our lives are spared again

To see the Saints their rest obtain,

Oh, how we'll make this chorus swell--

All is well! All is well!

 

https://www.lds.org/music/library/hymns/come-come-ye-saints?lang=eng

[3DOP]

47 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

Nope.

The fall was actually part of the plan.  The possibility of evil is inherent in God's plan to teach his children how to overcome evil.  Without a choice between good and evil it would not be a test.

There must be opposition in all things.  Yin and yang and all that.  We are quite close to Eastern religion in that aspect.

Ours is quite a unique way of seeing it.

We will all be judged according to our ability to overcome evil, in a calculus which is incomprehensible to us now, accounting for every variable in our lives, like opportunities missed. circumstances beyond our control, and what we would have done had the circumstances been different, and the results will be perfectly just.

Bad things happen to good people to make us stronger. 

"And if we die before our journey's through, Happy Day!  All is well!"

https://www.lds.org/music/library/hymns/come-come-ye-saints?lang=eng

Hi Mark

Yes. You can't escape the problem of evil as you do, and derive comfort from Dostoyevsky. Mormons bypass Dostoyevsky!

[mfbukowski]

32 minutes ago, 3DOP said:

Hi Mark

Yes. You can't escape the problem of evil as you do, and derive comfort from Dostoyevsky. Mormons bypass Dostoyevsky!

If that is so, somehow we will cope.

[thesometimesaint]

9 hours ago, 3DOP said:

Hi the sometimesaint.

Are you in disagreement with my understanding that Mormons escape the problems of evil and suffering that are inherent to Unrestored Christianity?

Was what you wrote above said to agree, or disagree with my suggestion: "Dostoevsky, as an LDS, would have never grappled with the problems that made him write the Brothers Karamozov."

Do Mormons, along with Unrestored Christianity, have "the problem of reconciling an omnipotent, perfectly just, perfectly benevolent god with a world full of evil and suffering..."?  

We recognize Agency as the guiding factor in whether we submit to evil. God will not interfere with our ability to choose, even if sometimes that choice causes others to suffer.

[volgadon]

On ‎3‎/‎26‎/‎2016 at 0:02 PM, 3DOP said:

flameburns, hi.

Thank you very much for the article. It definitely made the meaning of the passage clearer for me.

But it would be curious to me if a Latter-day Saint would be experiencing the psychological and philosophical difficulties that Dostoevsky wrestled with as a faithful adherent to the teachings of Russian Orthodoxy. When discussions occur refuting non-LDS beliefs in creation ex nihilo, LDS arguments seem apparently irrefutable, not unlike those given by Ivan. Mormons successfully escape Dostoevsky's dilemma, and Ivan's arguments, in a very different way. I will explain below why, for many years here at this board, as a Roman Catholic, I have conceded that LDS beliefs about God and creation eliminate the problem Mr. Forbes describes in the first line of his essay:

Such an omnipotent God, becomes responsible for evil and suffering. Is not this essentially what Ivan is saying? Such a God cannot be good. We have nothing less here in the book than what we always have when Catholics and Mormons debate. Mystery vs. Logic. Dostoevsky escapes the problem, as do I, by appealing to Mystery. That which he loves is Christ, and he subjects his intellect (mind) to his will (what Mormons call "agency" and Dostoevsky calls "heart"). He in effect chooses to tell his mind to be quiet and humble because it cannot grasp the subject matter as the will or heart can. Such a view accepts that we do not have adequate faculties to assure us that we may be confident that omnipotence, free will, and suffering are incompatible with a "perfectly benevolent God".  

On the other hand, I have gained the impression that the Mormons I have met here at this board may blithely reject the "problems" that Dostoevsky faced because the God in which they believe is not finished progressing. Neither is He omnipotent in the traditional sense. By and large, it seems like Mormons ordinarily accept and even use, the same arguments against the God who creates ex nihilo, as those presented by Ivan and by modern philosophy without any concerns. By believing in a God that creates out of pre-existent matter, it is not difficult to extrapolate to a God who, at least for the time being, is not responsible for evil, and is striving to eradicate suffering. This is why I have conceded that "theodicy" is not a problem for LDS.

I have noted with understandable satisfaction that you are now Catholic, flameburns. Perhaps you might have some insights about my fallible, and "from the window", as it were, impressions of LDS views on this matter. I would welcome yours or any other criticisms about my observations here. As I see it, Dostoevsky, as an LDS, would have never grappled with the problems that made him write the Brothers Karamozov.

3DOP

 

We escape the dilemma in theory, but not in practice. We still grapple with theodicy because whatever the philosophical underpinnings, the two scenarios have the same practical effects. We are still faced with a God who is supposed to be good and a world that isn't. God might not be classically, philosophically omnipotent, but he is powerful enough to create the world, give us bodies, and oversee the course of history with a plan of salvation in mind. Our problem is then why does such a god allow horrendous things to happen so much. Free agency? That God can and does intervene in the world through miracles only complicates the issue. Why for one and not for another? Why help one person with a trivial issue in answer to prayer when, say, children are starving to death. We have to grapple with a God who seemingly does not do enough or do it consistently.

[mfbukowski]

Determinism does not entail lack of moral responsibility.  If that is the case, we can still say that God determines our fate and yet we are still morally responsible.

Of course I do not believe that- it just shows that the problem itself is confused.

The whole alleged "problem" is illusory and does not hold up to deconstruction.  It's semantic confusion.

This is only one article which explains the deeper nature of the problem.

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/compatibilism/

Dostoevsky was long dead before these problems were fully understood.  "Mystery" just doesn't cut it here.  Analytic philosophy cuts right to the bottom line, imo.

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/evil/

Edited March 28, 2016 by mfbukowski

[Keq82]

On March 26, 2016 at 11:02 AM, 3DOP said:

flameburns, hi.

Thank you very much for the article. It definitely made the meaning of the passage clearer for me.

But it would be curious to me if a Latter-day Saint would be experiencing the psychological and philosophical difficulties that Dostoevsky wrestled with as a faithful adherent to the teachings of Russian Orthodoxy. When discussions occur refuting non-LDS beliefs in creation ex nihilo, LDS arguments seem apparently irrefutable, not unlike those given by Ivan. Mormons successfully escape Dostoevsky's dilemma, and Ivan's arguments, in a very different way. I will explain below why, for many years here at this board, as a Roman Catholic, I have conceded that LDS beliefs about God and creation eliminate the problem Mr. Forbes describes in the first line of his essay:

Such an omnipotent God, becomes responsible for evil and suffering. Is not this essentially what Ivan is saying? Such a God cannot be good. We have nothing less here in the book than what we always have when Catholics and Mormons debate. Mystery vs. Logic. Dostoevsky escapes the problem, as do I, by appealing to Mystery. That which he loves is Christ, and he subjects his intellect (mind) to his will (what Mormons call "agency" and Dostoevsky calls "heart"). He in effect chooses to tell his mind to be quiet and humble because it cannot grasp the subject matter as the will or heart can. Such a view accepts that we do not have adequate faculties to assure us that we may be confident that omnipotence, free will, and suffering are incompatible with a "perfectly benevolent God".  

On the other hand, I have gained the impression that the Mormons I have met here at this board may blithely reject the "problems" that Dostoevsky faced because the God in which they believe is not finished progressing. Neither is He omnipotent in the traditional sense. By and large, it seems like Mormons ordinarily accept and even use, the same arguments against the God who creates ex nihilo, as those presented by Ivan and by modern philosophy without any concerns. By believing in a God that creates out of pre-existent matter, it is not difficult to extrapolate to a God who, at least for the time being, is not responsible for evil, and is striving to eradicate suffering. This is why I have conceded that "theodicy" is not a problem for LDS.

I have noted with understandable satisfaction that you are now Catholic, flameburns. Perhaps you might have some insights about my fallible, and "from the window", as it were, impressions of LDS views on this matter. I would welcome yours or any other criticisms about my observations here. As I see it, Dostoevsky, as an LDS, would have never grappled with the problems that made him write the Brothers Karamozov.

3DOP

 

Hey 3DOP,

I'm LDS but theodicy is a problem for me. I don't adopt the traditional view most LDS members do--that's probably why I enjoy authors like Dostoyevsky so much.