Callings given to imperfect human beings

[nuclearfuels]

On 8/22/2019 at 2:17 PM, MustardSeed said:

Out of respect to Bluebells thread request to remain on topic: 

Judas was imperfect.  Did the Savior know he would be a traitor when he called him? 

Are human imperfections proof that callings are not made through revelation? 

 

This is a topic I have struggled with for a while.

When I turned down one calling, I was given another very-related calling the next week.

Why would God prompt a person to give me a calling I'd say no to?

Probably because at the end of the day: a ward or branch has the people it has; the auxiliaries need the presidencies they need.

I've tried not to focus on it as I've accepted every other calling I've been given.

And seeing how many people have rejected callings to the Primary (9 to be sunbeams coteacher in a large ward; many more for other primary callings also in a large ward), it's clearly not an exact science

I am grateful for the callings I've received, including the ones I had to turn down.

The issuer and the receiver of callings, I believe, are both edified together regardless of the response (yes/no/maybe later)

 

[mfbukowski]

12 hours ago, Meadowchik said:

Great. So, when prophets sin and then institutionalize that sin, shouldn't we expect repentence? Doing so seems much more in line with your (relatively radical) point of view. In order to function that way as a church, it would seem that leaders would need, in addition to the space to be imperfect, the ability to openly repent for institutional harm. 

But who is to judge if it WAS "institutional harm"?

Judging someone's repentance is not up to me, and frankly I have seen NO "institutional harm" proven in the church's history either.

Proving such a vague concept as "institutional harm" and doing so while people thought they were doing the right thing is just plain problematic logically.   What objective standard is possible for such a notion?

And if it happened how could WE know IF the individual intentionally sinned and if so, repented,  anyway?   That is up to the Lord and I ain't Him.

Can you see into people's hearts to know what their intentions were ?   And that is even assuming that what they did was objectively "wrong" as well.

You are probably thinking about Joseph's polygamy and we cannot judge what his intentions were.  Do you know about the notion of "adoption" and why polygamy was practiced there?  Incidentally there is no hard evidence of Joseph having intercourse with those women- and no children were born to any of them- there is no DNA evidence that Joseph fathered any babies.

Blacks in the Priesthood?   Do you know the pressure Brigham was under to cave into allegations that he was breeding a "mongrel race" by allowing intermarriage with Black priesthood holders?   Yes I agree that ultimately it was a mistake to do the ban but am I to judge his intentions that I cannot possibly "mind read"?

I believe he thought he was doing the will of the Lord- in our presentism we cannot possibly understand those times.   That it was wrong is clear- but that his intentions as a human being raised in a racist society were evil?  No way that can be judged.

[Stargazer]

On 8/27/2019 at 9:22 AM, Meadowchik said:

Well I didn't want to just focus on law-breaking, because obviously there are situations where it seems appropriate, and that is why I did not list it on its own in the first place. So I am not asking you to play whack-a-mole, I am asking you to not cherry-pick one element of the concern.

I wasn't cherry-picking. I was responding to each of your points.  At least, that's what I thought I was doing.  In return, rather than address my responses, you simply raised more points.  Nevermind.

On 8/27/2019 at 9:22 AM, Meadowchik said:

The whole picture, as near as one can get to it, is what has been important to me, over time: As a teen, I heard of the lying and the polygamy and felt there must be more to the story, and I continued faithfully. It just so happens that "more to the story," once I was able to comprehend more of it, makes the authority of Joseph Smith "shatter like glass."  

The coercive incidents are more like, "This is the right answer, and you'll be blessed if you follow me, cursed if you don't, but go ahead and pray to God to get the right answer, too, which I have just defined for you." It's an incredibly dangerous attitude for someone in power. That amount of pressure can be understandably insurmountable for a young female, surrounded by familial and religious pressures.

Yes, there is pressure there.  I freely admit this.  But even the pressure to join the Church is pressure.  The missionaries teach their investigators that this Church is the only church with real priesthood authority, that their baptism with their current church is not efficacious, and is not recognized by God as a saving ordinance.  In effect the missionaries tell their investigators that they will be blessed if they allow themselves to be baptized by those the missionaries designate as having the authority, and will be cursed if they don't, but pray about it to get the right answer. To some people with a Catholic/Protestant background, they would understand this to mean that if they don't get baptized into the "Mormon Church" they are going to Hell.  I was not raised in the Church, and I remember this pressure quite well.  The missionaries held great power over me, did they not?  

But only if I believed what the missionaries taught.  If I hadn't believed, I would have laughed it all off.  The same thing ultimately comes down to everyone, whether a convert or born into the Church.

And here we are with the crux of the matter.  Was Joseph a true prophet?  If he wasn't, then everything you're saying is incontrovertibly true, that he pretended to receive a revelation from God because he wanted to play around on Emma, to satisfy his carnal urges without consequence.  In that case, we can comfortably reject the whole thing and go our merry way.  

But if Joseph was genuinely a prophet of God, and DC 132 was God's revelation to him, things change dramatically.  Suddenly you're faced with the only possible objection you can have about it, which is that you don't like it, or dislike how it was administered.  

For the sake of argument, assume that DC 132 represents God will on the matter.  It won't hurt, and you can switch back to disbelieving it afterwards.

Assuming that you're wrong and DC 132 is God's will, what would you have Joseph Smith do?  Assuming that an angel really visited him with a sword and demanded that he do what he was commanded, what should he do about it?  Nobly refuse to obey and let his head get whacked off his head?"  Is this the normal behavior of a prophet of God?  One normally assumes that a prophet does what God tells him to do.  What happened to Jonah when he refused to do what God told him?

So, he's supposed to take an additional wife. He goes to a faithful young woman, reveals to her that he's been required to ask her to be his plural wife, that she'll be blessed if she accepts, but not if she rejects.  She is asked to pray about it.  In at least two instances that I am aware of, the young women in question prayed and were visited by actual angels who assured them that it was the will of God.  Question: were these young women lying?  And by the way, you use the word "cursed" as if this were something extraordinary, but wouldn't any of us be "cursed" if we disobeyed God?

What if you were faced by an actual angel commanding you to do what you were hesitant to do?  

Question: Does Joseph's authority shatter like glass for you because you don't like polygamy/plural marriage, or you feel it was administered improperly, or because you don't believe he was a genuine prophet?

On 8/27/2019 at 9:22 AM, Meadowchik said:

The law-breaking and deceptions resulted in spouses being betrayed and marital vows broken.

All of this assumes that DC 132 was not a true revelation from God.  If it does actually represents God's will, then the only problem is that the execution of God's will was imperfect.  Which is nothing new.  

On 8/27/2019 at 9:22 AM, Meadowchik said:

The pattern eventually resulted in European investigators being assured that the Mormons were not engaging in polygamy, before they left to join them in the states.

If the Church is true, what of it?

On 8/27/2019 at 9:22 AM, Meadowchik said:

So, it does not look quite like the stories of women hiding babies from murderers or Christians hiding Jews from Nazis.

Actually, it does.  You were talking about breaking the law, which those who practiced plural marriage were clearly doing.  So I provided examples where breaking the law, man's law, was justified.  You cannot hide behind man's law if man's law is unjust, or if God's law takes precedence.

[Calm]

On 8/27/2019 at 2:22 AM, Meadowchik said:

it does not look quite like the stories of women hiding babies from murderers or Christians hiding Jews from Nazis.

You don't think in some of those cases at least they were lying to loved ones who would have disagreed with their choices and possibly exposed those they were trying to hide?

[Meadowchik]

On 8/27/2019 at 10:24 PM, mfbukowski said:

But who is to judge if it WAS "institutional harm"?

Judging someone's repentance is not up to me, and frankly I have seen NO "institutional harm" proven in the church's history either.

Proving such a vague concept as "institutional harm" and doing so while people thought they were doing the right thing is just plain problematic logically.   What objective standard is possible for such a notion?

And if it happened how could WE know IF the individual intentionally sinned and if so, repented,  anyway?   That is up to the Lord and I ain't Him.

Can you see into people's hearts to know what their intentions were ?   And that is even assuming that what they did was objectively "wrong" as well.

You are probably thinking about Joseph's polygamy and we cannot judge what his intentions were.  Do you know about the notion of "adoption" and why polygamy was practiced there?  Incidentally there is no hard evidence of Joseph having intercourse with those women- and no children were born to any of them- there is no DNA evidence that Joseph fathered any babies.

Blacks in the Priesthood?   Do you know the pressure Brigham was under to cave into allegations that he was breeding a "mongrel race" by allowing intermarriage with Black priesthood holders?   Yes I agree that ultimately it was a mistake to do the ban but am I to judge his intentions that I cannot possibly "mind read"?

I believe he thought he was doing the will of the Lord- in our presentism we cannot possibly understand those times.   That it was wrong is clear- but that his intentions as a human being raised in a racist society were evil?  No way that can be judged.

With discrimination against blacks in the church, I think this is a clear, objective example of institutional harm. It does not matter what the intention was, it's still harm.  And I think it is extremely important as members of an institution to recognize the ease at which actors in the institution might not feel especially responsible because of the rollover of prevailing institutional behaviors. What is done is what has been done, and it is easy to not be personally accountable, as the person accountable, for institutional actions.

Anyways, with polygamy, regardless of sexual intercourse, this was still religious pressure exerted to create an intimate relationships that dictated the personal choices of people. Yes, this is objectively harmful. How can a young woman truly consent to marriage to Joseph  Smith if is it is ostensibly done to secure eternal welfare of her family members? Regardless of Joseph Smith's ostensible intent, he harmed people. He told them to marry him (or so-and-so) or divine judgment would ensue. This is wrong, it cannot by definition, be the fruit of God. It is time, it is way overdue to simply acknowledge the grave mistake of Mormon polygamy. 

[Meadowchik]

10 hours ago, Stargazer said:

I wasn't cherry-picking. I was responding to each of your points.  At least, that's what I thought I was doing.  In return, rather than address my responses, you simply raised more points.  Nevermind.

Yes, there is pressure there.  I freely admit this.  But even the pressure to join the Church is pressure.  The missionaries teach their investigators that this Church is the only church with real priesthood authority, that their baptism with their current church is not efficacious, and is not recognized by God as a saving ordinance.  In effect the missionaries tell their investigators that they will be blessed if they allow themselves to be baptized by those the missionaries designate as having the authority, and will be cursed if they don't, but pray about it to get the right answer. To some people with a Catholic/Protestant background, they would understand this to mean that if they don't get baptized into the "Mormon Church" they are going to Hell.  I was not raised in the Church, and I remember this pressure quite well.  The missionaries held great power over me, did they not?  

But only if I believed what the missionaries taught.  If I hadn't believed, I would have laughed it all off.  The same thing ultimately comes down to everyone, whether a convert or born into the Church.

And here we are with the crux of the matter.  Was Joseph a true prophet?  If he wasn't, then everything you're saying is incontrovertibly true, that he pretended to receive a revelation from God because he wanted to play around on Emma, to satisfy his carnal urges without consequence.  In that case, we can comfortably reject the whole thing and go our merry way.  

But if Joseph was genuinely a prophet of God, and DC 132 was God's revelation to him, things change dramatically.  Suddenly you're faced with the only possible objection you can have about it, which is that you don't like it, or dislike how it was administered.  

For the sake of argument, assume that DC 132 represents God will on the matter.  It won't hurt, and you can switch back to disbelieving it afterwards.

Assuming that you're wrong and DC 132 is God's will, what would you have Joseph Smith do?  Assuming that an angel really visited him with a sword and demanded that he do what he was commanded, what should he do about it?  Nobly refuse to obey and let his head get whacked off his head?"  Is this the normal behavior of a prophet of God?  One normally assumes that a prophet does what God tells him to do.  What happened to Jonah when he refused to do what God told him?

So, he's supposed to take an additional wife. He goes to a faithful young woman, reveals to her that he's been required to ask her to be his plural wife, that she'll be blessed if she accepts, but not if she rejects.  She is asked to pray about it.  In at least two instances that I am aware of, the young women in question prayed and were visited by actual angels who assured them that it was the will of God.  Question: were these young women lying?  And by the way, you use the word "cursed" as if this were something extraordinary, but wouldn't any of us be "cursed" if we disobeyed God?

What if you were faced by an actual angel commanding you to do what you were hesitant to do?  

Question: Does Joseph's authority shatter like glass for you because you don't like polygamy/plural marriage, or you feel it was administered improperly, or because you don't believe he was a genuine prophet?

All of this assumes that DC 132 was not a true revelation from God.  If it does actually represents God's will, then the only problem is that the execution of God's will was imperfect.  Which is nothing new.  

If the Church is true, what of it?

Actually, it does.  You were talking about breaking the law, which those who practiced plural marriage were clearly doing.  So I provided examples where breaking the law, man's law, was justified.  You cannot hide behind man's law if man's law is unjust, or if God's law takes precedence.

In such a coercive situation, I would say to the person or "angel" to depart and cease the workings of evil. God will not ask me to marry a person or risk death of him or loss of eternal blessing for my family. 

"If Joseph Smith was a prophet" is a very heavy hammer used to "prove" a multitude of things. Is that really the way to know if something Joseph says is good and from God? 

What shatters for me is the idea that "being a prophet" means someone has, from the believer's perspective, "carte blanche," that they only need to show the prophet card, and as long as you "know" they are the prophet, you cna believe and obey them as if it is God saying so. If that is what a prophet is, then there are not prophets, because that is evil.

[Meadowchik]

10 hours ago, Calm said:

You don't think in some of those cases at least they were lying to loved ones who would have disagreed with their choices and possibly exposed those they were trying to hide?

Compare why the church was hiding polygamy to Christians hiding Jews from Nazis, and what was "the thing" being preserved? In the Holocaust, it was people themselves being hidden and rescued from genocide.  With Mormon polygamy, the act of polygamy was being hidden from Emma, from other members of the church, from legal authorities, and the public at large. What was happening, something of coercive nature, was being shielded from the knowledge not only of law enforcement, but from people to whom it personally mattered the most: the betrayed spouses themselves, the church members wanted assuances about the character of the church, the church investigators wanting assurances about the church they were leaving everything behind to join.

[mfbukowski]

35 minutes ago, Meadowchik said:

With discrimination against blacks in the church, I think this is a clear, objective example of institutional harm. It does not matter what the intention was, it's still harm.  And I think it is extremely important as members of an institution to recognize the ease at which actors in the institution might not feel especially responsible because of the rollover of prevailing institutional behaviors. What is done is what has been done, and it is easy to not be personally accountable, as the person accountable, for institutional actions.

Anyways, with polygamy, regardless of sexual intercourse, this was still religious pressure exerted to create an intimate relationships that dictated the personal choices of people. Yes, this is objectively harmful. How can a young woman truly consent to marriage to Joseph  Smith if is it is ostensibly done to secure eternal welfare of her family members? Regardless of Joseph Smith's ostensible intent, he harmed people. He told them to marry him (or so-and-so) or divine judgment would ensue. This is wrong, it cannot by definition, be the fruit of God. It is time, it is way overdue to simply acknowledge the grave mistake of Mormon polygamy. 

And so you as an American should be ashamed of your personal responsibility for slavery and the institutional harm you have done.

Great idea. 

Hope you don't lose sleep over it.

[Meadowchik]

23 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

And so you as an American should be ashamed of your personal responsibility for slavery and the institutional harm you have done.

Great idea. 

Hope you don't lose sleep over it.

Sure, and especially if my country had not repudiated the practice, especially if it continued to say that slavery was good and necessary in its time and would one day perhaps be restored as a divine order, now or in the afterlife!

[Stargazer]

1 hour ago, Meadowchik said:

In such a coercive situation, I would say to the person or "angel" to depart and cease the workings of evil. God will not ask me to marry a person or risk death of him or loss of eternal blessing for my family. 

And yet, God has commanded lots of things that some might call the "workings of evil".  He commanded Abraham to sacrifice his son (but didn't allow him to carry it out after it became clear that he was going to be obedient).  Jesus himself taught:

"He that loveth father or mother more than me is not worthy of me: and he that loveth son or daughter more than me is not worthy of me.  And he that taketh not his cross, and followeth after me, is not worthy of me." (Matthew 10:37-38)

"...taketh not his cross..." is a clear reference to risking death, is it not?  And if you don't risk death for Jesus, you're not worthy of him. How many Christian martyrs went to their deaths refusing to deny Christ in order to save their own lives?  Were they wasting their lives for nothing at all?

It isn't Joseph Smith talking here.

And then we have "What I the Lord have spoken, I have spoken, and I excuse not myself; and though the heavens and the earth pass away, my word shall not pass away, but shall all be fulfilled, whether by mine own voice or by the voice of my servants, it is the same."

You can take that, or you can leave it, but if you leave it you have nothing.  Kiss the Bible, the Book of Mormon, the Doctrine and Covenants, and the Pearl of Great Price goodbye. And for that matter, kiss the Koran, the Bhagavad_Gita, the Avesta, and all other religious texts goodbye.

Quote

"If Joseph Smith was a prophet" is a very heavy hammer used to "prove" a multitude of things. Is that really the way to know if something Joseph says is good and from God? 

Quite frankly, yes, it is a heavy hammer, but all scripture, ancient and modern, makes clear that God sometimes asks hard things of us.  Just because you don't like what you've been asked to do is no "proof" that what you've been asked to do is a "working of evil".  I understand that a prophet is still a man, and all men are capable of wrong action.  But I have good reasons for my conviction that Joseph Smith and his successors in the First Presidency are prophets, seers, and revelators, and I sustain them as such.  And I'll do what they ask to the best of my ability and judgement. Keep in mind, it were something out of the ordinary, I'd want confirmation from the Spirit, but if I truly sustain President Nelson, I would do what he asked. It's possible President Nelson could go wrong somehow, but I regard that as a rather remote possibility. I'm certain he would be taken out of his place before that were allowed to happen.

Quote

What shatters for me is the idea that "being a prophet" means someone has, from the believer's perspective, "carte blanche," that they only need to show the prophet card, and as long as you "know" they are the prophet, you cna believe and obey them as if it is God saying so. If that is what a prophet is, then there are not prophets, because that is evil.

You reject the entirety of the scriptures then.  Everything, and I mean everything, depends upon the validity of the mantle of God being upon prophets. The Bible didn't write itself to the best of my understanding.  I'll grant you that there will be false prophets, that's inherent, but if there be false prophets there must also be true prophets.  Unless there be no prophets at all, in which case there is no God.

And that, at least, puts us all neatly into the same box.  The box labelled "Toast" because when we die it's all over and it doesn't matter at all what we do here -- since not even our consciousness survives.

Just to hark back briefly to the source of this sub-thread, which is about polygamy, you might have noticed that its practice was featured in the Old Testament rather prominently, and despite the fact that over multiple thousands of years of history and thousands of prophets as well, God never, ever forbade its practice in all of Judeo-Christian scripture.  And the only modification of this is found in the Book of Mormon, Jacob 2, where it says God approves it when He commands its practice.  Which means that if there is no God, then there is nothing inherently wrong with polygamy, or, for that matter, any form of polyamory.  It's all a matter of what you can get other people to go along with, right?  Like Korihor taught:

"And many more such things did he say unto them, telling them that there could be no atonement made for the sins of men, but every man fared in this life according to the management of the creature; therefore every man prospered according to his genius, and that every man conquered according to his strength; and whatsoever a man did was no crime."  Alma 30:17

Edited August 29, 2019 by Stargazer

[Stargazer]

24 minutes ago, Meadowchik said:

Sure, and especially if my country had not repudiated the practice, especially if it continued to say that slavery was good and necessary in its time and would one day perhaps be restored as a divine order, now or in the afterlife!

As for the afterlife, we are all of us slaves to God.  We are temporarily allowed to go against His will, in order to test us to find out if we will ultimately obey Him and repent. But in the eternity will we be allowed to disobey Him?  Fat chance.  For one thing, we will know that He was in the right all along, and it was always us who were wrong.

[Meadowchik]

21 minutes ago, Stargazer said:

And yet, God has commanded lots of things that some might call the "workings of evil".  He commanded Abraham to sacrifice his son (but didn't allow him to carry it out after it became clear that he was going to be obedient).  Jesus himself taught:

"He that loveth father or mother more than me is not worthy of me: and he that loveth son or daughter more than me is not worthy of me.  And he that taketh not his cross, and followeth after me, is not worthy of me." (Matthew 10:37-38)

"...taketh not his cross..." is a clear reference to risking death, is it not?  And if you don't risk death for Jesus, you're not worthy of him. How many Christian martyrs went to their deaths refusing to deny Christ in order to save their own lives?  Were they wasting their lives for nothing at all?

It isn't Joseph Smith talking here.

And then we have "What I the Lord have spoken, I have spoken, and I excuse not myself; and though the heavens and the earth pass away, my word shall not pass away, but shall all be fulfilled, whether by mine own voice or by the voice of my servants, it is the same."

You can take that, or you can leave it, but if you leave it you have nothing.  Kiss the Bible, the Book of Mormon, the Doctrine and Covenants, and the Pearl of Great Price goodbye. And for that matter, kiss the Koran, the Bhagavad_Gita, the Avesta, and all other religious texts goodbye.

Quite frankly, yes, it is a heavy hammer, but all scripture, ancient and modern, makes clear that God sometimes asks hard things of us.  Just because you don't like what you've been asked to do is no "proof" that what you've been asked to do is a "working of evil".  I understand that a prophet is still a man, and all men are capable of wrong action.  But I have good reasons for my conviction that Joseph Smith and his successors in the First Presidency are prophets, seers, and revelators, and I sustain them as such.  And I'll do what they ask to the best of my ability and judgement. Keep in mind, it were something out of the ordinary, I'd want confirmation from the Spirit, but if I truly sustain President Nelson, I would do what he asked. It's possible President Nelson could go wrong somehow, but I regard that as a rather remote possibility. I'm certain he would be taken out of his place before that were allowed to happen.

You reject the entirety of the scriptures then.  Everything, and I mean everything, depends upon the validity of the mantle of God being upon prophets. The Bible didn't write itself to the best of my understanding.  I'll grant you that there will be false prophets, that's inherent, but if there be false prophets there must also be true prophets.  Unless there be no prophets at all, in which case there is no God.

And that, at least, puts us all neatly into the same box.  The box labelled "Toast" because when we die it's all over and it doesn't matter at all what we do here -- since not even our consciousness survives.

Just to hark back briefly to the source of this sub-thread, which is about polygamy, you might have noticed that its practice was featured in the Old Testament rather prominently, and despite the fact that despite multiple thousands of years of history and thousands of prophets as well, God never, ever forbade its practice in all of Judeo-Christian scripture.  And the only modification of this is found in the Book of Mormon, Jacob 2, where it says God approves it when He commands its practice.  Which means that if there is no God, then there is nothing inherently wrong with polygamy, or, for that matter, any form of polyamory.  It's all a matter of what you can get other people to go along with, right?  Like Korihor taught:

"And many more such things did he say unto them, telling them that there could be no atonement made for the sins of men, but every man fared in this life according to the management of the creature; therefore every man prospered according to his genius, and that every man conquered according to his strength; and whatsoever a man did was no crime."  Alma 30:17

Well, it does indeed shatter the instrinsically authoritative nature of the scriptures. I do think that Abraham was decieved to think God commanded he kill Isaac. I do believe it is deception to equate the voice of God's ostensible servants to God, this is what shatters it, because this is a facile and corrupt way to treat human beings. The hammer of unverifiable authority is wrong. I'd say you'd recognize it in a non-Mormon context, right? It's always those who adhere to it who believe that they've hitched themselves to the right one, be they subscribing to whatever authority.

But, the hammer of unverifiable authority is also unnecessary. I can't say exactly what I believe, but I believe in kindness, I believe that the church can be better, and I don't need to have the hammer of divine authority in my life to want goodness in it. So I do have a lot left without that hammer hanging over my head. 

Edited August 29, 2019 by Meadowchik

[Meadowchik]

15 minutes ago, Stargazer said:

As for the afterlife, we are all of us slaves to God.  We are temporarily allowed to go against His will, in order to test us to find out if we will ultimately obey Him and repent. But in the eternity will we be allowed to disobey Him?  Fat chance.  For one thing, we will know that He was in the right all along, and it was always us who were wrong.

Well, that's awful. The fact that you seem to use it do defend American slavery is also awful. I hope that isn't actually the case, Stargazer!

[JLHPROF]

2 hours ago, Meadowchik said:

In such a coercive situation, I would say to the person or "angel" to depart and cease the workings of evil. God will not ask me to marry a person or risk death of him or loss of eternal blessing for my family. 

Based on what?

Here we go creating our God again.  The "God wouldn't do that" argument is weak.

[JLHPROF]

48 minutes ago, Stargazer said:

As for the afterlife, we are all of us slaves to God.  We are temporarily allowed to go against His will, in order to test us to find out if we will ultimately obey Him and repent. But in the eternity will we be allowed to disobey Him?  Fat chance.  For one thing, we will know that He was in the right all along, and it was always us who were wrong.

Sorry Stargazer but I think you're completely wrong on this point.  We always have the ability to choose, even disobedience.

[Stargazer]

1 minute ago, JLHPROF said:

Sorry Stargazer but I think you're completely wrong on this point.  We always have the ability to choose, even disobedience.

I'm trying to understand how it would be possible for a resurrected being to commit a sin.  We are permitted to do so now as a filter for our fitness for the Celestial Kingdom, for which the Atonement is provided as an escape from the consequences.  But after we are resurrected and receive the degree of glory we are entitled to, how do we sin?  And more to the point, how do we gain forgiveness for that sin?

It's certain we don't know enough to even rationally discuss this.  You're entitled to your opinion of course.

[Stargazer]

46 minutes ago, Meadowchik said:

Well, that's awful. The fact that you seem to use it do defend American slavery is also awful. I hope that isn't actually the case, Stargazer!

The fact that isn't a fact.

Not defending slavery, let alone American slavery, which I never even mentioned.  Just saying that God owns us.  

Edited August 29, 2019 by Stargazer

[Calm]

Can we make mistakes?

[Calm]

1 hour ago, Stargazer said:

we are all of us slaves to God

Why would God enslave his children?  He isn't forcing us to choose his Will, we choose to do so.  Am I a slave of the boss I sign a contract with? Of course not.

What in the scriptures suggests eternally we will be God's slaves or worse, his meatpuppets?

There is nothing to suggest we will have only two choices in the afterlife, to choose what God would choose or to reject his choice and sin.

If there is a celestial library, is there only one book but millions of copies as we can only choose that book, God's favorite text or is there nothing inherently sinful in enjoying a fantasy novel if God prefers poetry?  Surely there are endless choices out there that are not sinful and as God's free children, he doesn't get freaked out if we happen to choose the coconut cream pie for Sunday dinner dessert instead of the Apple with a crumble topping and ice cream.

Edited August 29, 2019 by Calm

[Stargazer]

52 minutes ago, Meadowchik said:

Well, it does indeed shatter the instrinsically authoritative nature of the scriptures. I do think that Abraham was decieved to think God commanded he kill Isaac. I do believe it is deception to equate the voice of God's ostensible servants to God, this is what shatters it, because this is a facile and corrupt way to treat human beings. The hammer of unverifiable authority is wrong. I'd say you'd recognize it in a non-Mormon context, right? It's always those who adhere to it who believe that they've hitched themselves to the right one, be they subscribing to whatever authority.

But, the hammer of unverifiable authority is also unnecessary. I can't say exactly what I believe, but I believe in kindness, I believe that the church can be better, and I don't need to have the hammer of divine authority in my life to want goodness in it. So I do have a lot left without that hammer hanging over my head. 

Without God and the continuance of consciousness after this life it is all for nothing.  One might as well seek one's own convenience however one visualizes it, then. Even if that means that a man's convenience involves cohabiting with twenty women.  If there be no "right" then there be no "wrong".  Like Shakespeare wrote:

To-morrow, and to-morrow, and to-morrow,
Creeps in this petty pace from day to day
To the last syllable of recorded time,
And all our yesterdays have lighted fools
The way to dusty death. Out, out, brief candle!
Life's but a walking shadow, a poor player
That struts and frets his hour upon the stage
And then is heard no more: it is a tale
Told by an idiot, full of sound and fury,
Signifying nothing.

[Stargazer]

18 minutes ago, Calm said:

Why would God enslave his children?  He isn't forcing us to choose his Will, we choose to do so.  Am I a slave of the boss I sign a contract with? Of course not.

What in the scriptures suggests eternally we will be God's slaves or worse, his meatpuppets?

He created us. He owns us. He can snuff out our mortal lives at any time of His choosing.  But He gave us that mortal life, and did so for a purpose, which is a noble purpose.

"For behold, this is my work and my glory—to bring to pass the immortality and eternal life of man." Moses 1:39

I don't see the problem, actually.  I'm surprised this has made you or @JLHPROF blink.  He made me in the hope that I would overcome my frailties and that if with His aid I can drag my sorry carcass out of the muck and muddle, He will make me like unto Himself.  Everything I am or will be I owe to His goodness and love.  I want to submit everything that I am to His will and His will alone, freely admitting that I will probably fail in that endeavor, but I will try to do my level best in that regard.  The one thing that Islam gets right is submission.  Submission to the will of God.

If that is not slavery, I don't know what to call it.  But it is not man's slavery, which is abhorrent, for how can a slave own a slave?  God's slavery, on the other hand, is ultimately exaltation.

ETA: "meatpuppets" LOL!

Edited August 29, 2019 by Stargazer

[Stargazer]

21 minutes ago, Calm said:

Can we make mistakes?

Sometimes that seems to be all I'm making!

[Meadowchik]

59 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

Based on what?

Here we go creating our God again.  The "God wouldn't do that" argument is weak.

Internal consistency is important, no? Consider the irony of what you're saying right now. In a response to the question of a man telling me I must marry him or an angel will slay him, and I refuse on the grounds that it is ungodly, you point to me saying my refusal is an example of one "creating our God?" It seems to me that the much more likely thing going on is that the man pressuring a woman to marry him is the one trying to create his own God. He is literally trying to use divine authority to form a personal relationship with a woman.

Edited August 29, 2019 by Meadowchik

[Meadowchik]

36 minutes ago, Stargazer said:

Without God and the continuance of consciousness after this life it is all for nothing.  One might as well seek one's own convenience however one visualizes it, then. Even if that means that a man's convenience involves cohabiting with twenty women.  If there be no "right" then there be no "wrong".  Like Shakespeare wrote:

To-morrow, and to-morrow, and to-morrow,
Creeps in this petty pace from day to day
To the last syllable of recorded time,
And all our yesterdays have lighted fools
The way to dusty death. Out, out, brief candle!
Life's but a walking shadow, a poor player
That struts and frets his hour upon the stage
And then is heard no more: it is a tale
Told by an idiot, full of sound and fury,
Signifying nothing.

Shakespeare, Schmakespeare... If this is my only life, it is still mine. It matters to me, and I can make it matter for good for others, too. There is enormous potential for meaning in life itself.

[mfbukowski]

2 hours ago, Meadowchik said:

Sure, and especially if my country had not repudiated the practice, especially if it continued to say that slavery was good and necessary in its time and would one day perhaps be restored as a divine order, now or in the afterlife!

Oh my.