stemelbow Posted October 12, 2017 Posted October 12, 2017 I'd suggest in each calling made there is a mortal element. Somebody or somebodies are sifting through names deciding based on limited understanding. Some seem to use their discernment in thinking who needs a calling and what callings need to be filled. "ah...that's good enough. everyone needs a calling afterall." Prayer happens and no red flags in feelings appear, therefore, "God made the calling". In terms of calling a bishop? Certain names are considered, most others are not in consideration. God confirms, as in doesn't come down and strike those who had already decided dumb and yet may also let them feel comfort enough, thinking "eh...it doesn't matter if its Bro James or Wilson...they'll both sit there and do it, even if differently. Someone's bound to get hurt by either one at some point, so whateves. The incident will cause that one pain but...you know--what doesnt' kill 'em makes 'em stronger." It's likely also that these mortal deciders are so set that they have a good pool of people in consideration that God doesnt' penetrate in this whole delicate sending peace and working upon feelings to make "revelation" happen. All callings are callings made by men as they in their limited wisdom decide based on their impressions. No one ever said personal revelation is foolproof. Indeed, it seems quite the opposite. With mortals involved it is absolutely silly to assume there are no mistakes. It seems to me the whole of his point is to tell us lesser members to just be happy with all callings, be supportive. It is faithful to do so. sadly it's an effort, it seems to me, for members to place their faith in the Church rather than God. I think it a mistake. But whatever. I've never really had any problems with people called, in an anecdotal sense. Most try.
The Nehor Posted October 12, 2017 Posted October 12, 2017 (edited) 2 hours ago, changed said: did she also agree to live eternally in heaven with him? No one gets veto powers over someone else who wronged them receiving salvation or exaltation except Jesus. Edited October 12, 2017 by The Nehor 2
JLHPROF Posted October 12, 2017 Posted October 12, 2017 3 hours ago, changed said: did she also agree to live eternally in heaven with him? Nobody will have to live eternally in heaven with an abuser. Abuse by its very nature is unrighteous dominion. And unrighteous dominion removes priesthood - effectively breaking a priesthood covenant and ending a sealing. 1
SmileyMcGee Posted October 12, 2017 Posted October 12, 2017 1 hour ago, CV75 said: That is a very strict requirement! I do not think Mark and Robert find Sundays intolerable; I doubt they would discourage anyone from doing good and enjoying Sundays, no matter how they might conceptualize God's "omni-" attributes, or how consciously and deliberately they accept them and put their beliefs into action (preaching included!). Are we to be so intolerant of poetic and symbolic language and a kind of "hyperbole", which seems relatively appropriate considering the Topic / Subject, to not enjoy Sundays? Wasn't saying they thought that. I'm not sure what to say to you. I'm bored during the Sunday block; I'll manage.
SmileyMcGee Posted October 12, 2017 Posted October 12, 2017 (edited) On 10/11/2017 at 10:02 AM, hope_for_things said: I already agreed that some scriptures could be interpreted the way you are saying, I'm asking you a deeper question, and that is how do you reconcile these descriptions for God with the others that I brought to your attention. All these descriptions are in the cannon and part of Mormon teachings. What kind of a God do you think exists, taking all the scriptures and your personal experiences into account. Let go, use the force here Luke I completely agree with you that all that matters is what you believe based on your personal experience. I also agree that LDS scripture can appear to present conflicting views of God and I think you have done well to make up your mind regarding the conflicts. My only point was that I don’t think your view is shared by the Church generally. I fully accept that I could be wrong in that view. But I feel if you were teaching a Sunday school lesson in any given ward/branch and a member of your class raised their hand and said, “I struggle with the conflict between God’s all-knowing, all-powerful nature and the idea that a deacon was repeatedly sexually assaulted by his Bishop, who was presumably called by God” and you responded with “I don’t think God has the foresight to anticipate such events,” I think the vast majority of class members would oppose your view. I think if you were a general conference speaker and you stated “God doesn’t have the foresight to see all events that will ever occur on this earth,” your remarks would be edited for publication and you would be censured by your leaders. I think if you worked for the church developing lesson materials and you proposed this idea, your proposal wouldn’t make it past the first person you told. That is what I mean when I say that I don’t see your beliefs as consistent with “Mormonism,” even if I agree with you view of God. Similarly, I thoroughly enjoyed Robert Smith’s previous post, but I think if anyone put in the hours translate what the hell he and Mark are saying in to plain English they’d agree that it doesn’t align with mainstream Mormonism as taught by the leadership and accepted by the membership generally. Does that matter? No. It’s just my own observation. In my experience (and I fully admit that I could be very wrong), the church generally accepts the traditional, “Greek theological constructs” of omniscience and omnipotence. When questions are raised regarding any potential issues related to these concepts, I believe the church generally takes the mainstream Christian approach of appealing to agency – that sustaining free agency is what an all benevolent God would do, thus enabling life to be a test allowing us to learn something from even the most disgusting acts. Yet I struggle with this idea since the church generally teaches that God intervenes in the lives of His children. He at some time has acted to prevent someone from being a victim of violence and has thus prevented a learning experience, an ability to choose. Why? And I struggle to understand how certain experiences can be productive for learning. He has not intervened after the first, second, third, fourth, nth time someone has been raped. At what point is the lesson learned? What does a two-year old have to learn from being raped and murdered? Was the act allowed so that God could justly assign punishment to the offender? Does justice require the horrible acts occur? How do I reconcile all of this? How do I reconcile omnipotence, omniscience, agency, and a God that does intervene? I can’t. I can’t believe those ideas are consistent with the God I have experienced. So, I like you, simply don’t accept one or more of the traditional concepts of God. I agree with you that we construct our beliefs based on our own personal, lived experience and that, at the end of the day, that’s all that matters. My own view of God is in the very early stages of a very rough draft. I know what I don’t believe, but I am still working on what I do believe. Edited October 12, 2017 by SmileyMcGee 1
CV75 Posted October 12, 2017 Posted October 12, 2017 13 minutes ago, SmileyMcGee said: Wasn't saying they thought that. I'm not sure what to say to you. I'm bored during the Sunday block; I'll manage. I didn't think they were saying that, or that you were saying they were saying that. Just putting in my 2 cents about the "if everyone would" idea. I trust you will manage.
hope_for_things Posted October 12, 2017 Posted October 12, 2017 45 minutes ago, SmileyMcGee said: In my experience (and I fully admit that I could be very wrong), the church generally accepts the traditional, “Greek theological constructs” of omniscience and omnipotence. When questions are raised regarding any potential issues related to these concepts, I believe the church generally takes the mainstream Christian approach of appealing to agency – that sustaining free agency is what an all benevolent God would do, thus enabling life to be a test allowing us to learn something from even the most disgusting acts. Yet I struggle with this idea since the church generally teaches that God intervenes in the lives of His children. He at some time has acted to prevent someone from being a victim of violence and has thus prevented a learning experience, an ability to choose. Why? And I struggle to understand how certain experiences can be productive for learning. He has not intervened after the first, second, third, fourth, nth time someone has been raped. At what point is the lesson learned? What does a two-year old have to learn from being raped and murdered? Was the act allowed so that God could justly assign punishment to the offender? Does justice require the horrible acts occur? How do I reconcile all of this? How do I reconcile omnipotence, omniscience, agency, and a God that does intervene? I can’t. I can’t believe those ideas are consistent with the God I have experienced. So, I like you, simply don’t accept one or more of the traditional concepts of God. I agree with you that we construct our beliefs based on our own personal, lived experience and that, at the end of the day, that’s all that matters. My own view of God is in the very early stages of a very rough draft. I know what I don’t believe, but I am still working on what I do believe. Nice, I really enjoyed reading this response. You are thinking through these conflicts after all, I didn't get that impression from your earlier replies, but its clear you are wresting with this. I would likely agree with you that many in the church don't think through these positions in a logical way and that they aren't even aware that conflicts exist. The official written teachings of the church aren't very flexible when it comes to exploring paradox, but I have seen this done with some success in classes, sometimes by myself even. Its difficult and there are those who immediately push back, but I think it's worth it to have discussions like that. Wishing you the best, thanks!
SmileyMcGee Posted October 12, 2017 Posted October 12, 2017 11 minutes ago, hope_for_things said: Nice, I really enjoyed reading this response. You are thinking through these conflicts after all, I didn't get that impression from your earlier replies, but its clear you are wresting with this. I would likely agree with you that many in the church don't think through these positions in a logical way and that they aren't even aware that conflicts exist. The official written teachings of the church aren't very flexible when it comes to exploring paradox, but I have seen this done with some success in classes, sometimes by myself even. Its difficult and there are those who immediately push back, but I think it's worth it to have discussions like that. Wishing you the best, thanks! Thanks! I agree that many would be open to wrestle with this in Sunday school or priesthood. Believe it or not I'm actually quite non-confrontational irl and tend to keep to my self. Perhaps I'm unfairly projecting an unwillingness to discuss the issues on to church members. I could do better to constructively participate in meetings 1
Recommended Posts