Suffering, sin, and grace

[Nofear]

An article on some of the things discussed in Adam Miller's new book Original Grace. Haven't read anything by him before and probably won't either, but nonetheless, I found his reframing of our mortal condition in terms of "original grace" and stepping away from much of the traditional thinking both refreshing and giving utterance to thoughts long held. What think you?

https://www.ldsliving.com/suffering-can-by-way-of-grace-be-given-a-purpose/s/10887

[bluebell]

39 minutes ago, Nofear said:

An article on some of the things discussed in Adam Miller's new book Original Grace. Haven't read anything by him before and probably won't either, but nonetheless, I found his reframing of our mortal condition in terms of "original grace" and stepping away from much of the traditional thinking both refreshing and giving utterance to thoughts long held. What think you?

https://www.ldsliving.com/suffering-can-by-way-of-grace-be-given-a-purpose/s/10887

Dr. Miller was the guest scholar on Hank Smith and John Bytheway's Follow Him podcast when the lesson was on Job.  During that podcast they had this conversation:Dr.
 

Quote

 

Adam Miller: "I think part of this story has to do with the way that when you're young, especially if you grow up in the kind of extraordinarily privileged circumstances that you and I likely did, you're just not very acquainted with loss. It happens mostly in the margins to other people off stage. You have very little experience of it yourself personally. I think it's really only as you start to get older that you begin to get a feel for the way that that experience of loss is just core to what it means to be a human being. Such that the very practice of religion is not so much at the end of the day of finding a way to get God to give you what you want, which is mostly how I thought about it as a kid. But instead, the very essence of it is to mourn. The very essence of religion is to find a way to handle loss and to handle that loss together in a way that can redeem it, even if it can't roll it backwards." 

Hank Smith: "Mike Wilcox taught us something that I think you would appreciate and probably want to comment on. He says the problem in Western religions is sin, but the problem in Eastern religions is suffering. You're very well read. Would you say that there is a part of religion we need to make sure addresses suffering, not just sin?" 

Dr. Adam Miller: "Yeah, I think that's right. I feel like I really started to get a handle on what was at stake in sin, why I was sinning, when I understood that my sinning was a response to my experience of suffering, right? That the bad choices I was making, the selfish desires that were driving my choices, those were grounded in my experience of suffering. And they were an attempt to escape from my experience of suffering, but they were a bad way to do it. What makes sin sinful is the way that it makes suffering worse rather than redeeming it. And if we can start to connect those two things together and see the way that our own poor choices are grounded in our experience of suffering, then we can get our heads around I think the way that Jesus makes it possible for us to overcome sin by changing our relationship to our suffering."

 

I really like the idea of religion existing to deal with suffering, and I also thought that the idea that sin is really a reaction to suffering (an attempt to get the suffering to stop rather than dealing with it, kind of like maladaptive coping skills or something similar) to be unique but really relevant.

[pogi]

1 hour ago, Nofear said:

An article on some of the things discussed in Adam Miller's new book Original Grace. Haven't read anything by him before and probably won't either, but nonetheless, I found his reframing of our mortal condition in terms of "original grace" and stepping away from much of the traditional thinking both refreshing and giving utterance to thoughts long held. What think you?

https://www.ldsliving.com/suffering-can-by-way-of-grace-be-given-a-purpose/s/10887

Love it!

Quote

Suffering is a problem, not a punishment.

So true. 

This all ties in to what I just posted in another thread.  Too often people feel that they need to suffer through self-deprivation of worth etc. before they can be cleansed and forgiven of sin.  Some feel that they have to beat themselves up, or that they need to suffer, to prove they are contrite.  That is so FAR from the truth.  On the contrary, the greatest way to get people to repent is to get them to love themselves and believe that they are worth it and that they are worthy of God's love.  He doesn't want us to suffer.  He wants us to turn from our sin.  That's it.   He wants us to love ourselves enough to turn from sin.   The fact is that this mindset actually traps people in sin.  Once someone believes they deserve suffering, or that they are not worthy of love or happiness due to sin, then sin becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy in that mindset because they will never accept the healing that brings happiness (they don't deserve it!).   

Grace is everything.  It is so empowering. 

I somehow wish we could implement some of these principles into our judicial/criminal system.  Punitive measures don't seem work to reform people effectively.  But that is the type of justice people want.  Probably due to their Western Christian understanding of this very subject.  If we invested much more heavily in preventative and restorative measures and less in punitive measures, I think we would be living in a better world.     
 

Edited August 22, 2022 by pogi

[ksfisher]

6 minutes ago, pogi said:

Punitive measures don't seem work to reform people effectively.  But that is the type of justice people want.  Probably due to their understanding of this very subject.

I think punishment does serve as a deterrent for many, I know if there was no consequence for speeding that I'd driver a little bit faster.

But much of what is called justice today just seems to be a desire for a victim to see the perpetrator suffer as they have suffered.  I do think that people should go to jail, but the purpose of jail should be to protect the public from someone who is likely to commit more crimes.

 

[Calm]

7 minutes ago, ksfisher said:

I do think that people should go to jail, but the purpose of jail should be to protect the public from someone who is likely to commit more crimes.

And unfortunately currently many of those sent to prison end up more likely to commit crime after they get out or learn how to be more effective criminals while there.  Unless we learn how to turn out more individuals who no longer want to commit crimes at the end of their prison sentences and as they integrate back into society, don’t end up believing crime is their only option for a better life, we are punishing society as much as the criminals by sending them to prison.

Edited August 22, 2022 by Calm

[ksfisher]

Just now, Calm said:

And unfortunately currently many of those sent to prison end up more likely to commit crime after they get out or learn how to be more effective criminals.

They do.  Jail needs to become more than it is now.

[pogi]

53 minutes ago, ksfisher said:

I think punishment does serve as a deterrent for many, I know if there was no consequence for speeding that I'd driver a little bit faster.

It certainly can work to alter behavior in some, but for all the wrong reasons.  Studies show that punishment is the less effective way to change behavior and teach moral development in children.  I think at heart we are all just a bunch of children pretending to be adults, so I think the following applies to us too.  

Quote

Most people assume that punishment is what helps humans decide to do the right thing, so if we aren't punishing our children, they'll grow up doing the wrong thing. That's a bleak view of human nature. And it turns out to be dead wrong.

There's now a wealth of research (see the end of this article for link to citations) demonstrating that kids who are punished are less likely to make positive moral choices. That's because:

• Punishment focuses a child on the "consequences" he is suffering, rather than on the consequences of his behavior to someone else, so it makes him more self-centered and less empathic.
• Punishment makes a child feel like he's a bad person, which is always a self-fulfilling prophecy, so he's more likely to repeat the bad behavior.
• The most salient lesson of punishment is to avoid it in the future by sneaking and lying to escape detection, so punishment fosters dishonesty.
• Because kids invariably consider punishment unfair, it teaches kids that might makes right and abuse of power is ok — which makes kids less likely to make moral choices.
• Punishment — yes, even timeouts — erode our relationship with our child, so that he isn't as invested in pleasing us. And the more disconnected he feels from us, the worse his behavior.
• Because punishment doesn't help a child with the emotions that drove her to act out to begin with, those emotions just get stuffed down, only to pop up again later and cause a repeat of the misbehavior.
• Punishment makes a child feel wronged, and creates a "chip on the shoulder" so she's likely to resent making amends.
• Punishment makes kids look out only for themselves and blame others, rather than caring about how their behavior affects others.
• Punishment creates an external locus of control — the authority figure. The child actually comes to see the parent as responsible for making her behave, rather than taking responsibility for her behavior as her own choice.

 

One study showed that seventh graders whose parents raised them using punishment, including consequences and timeouts, were less morally developed than their peers. "Having learned to do exactly what they're told in order to avoid losing their parents' love, they tended to just apply rules in a rigid, one-size-fits-all fashion," says Alfie Kohn.

https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/peaceful-parents-happy-kids/201405/why-punishment-doesnt-teach-your-child-accountability#:~:text=Punishment makes a child feel wronged%2C and creates a "chip,of control — the authority figure.

53 minutes ago, ksfisher said:

But much of what is called justice today just seems to be a desire for a victim to see the perpetrator suffer as they have suffered.  

Exactly.  I think that we are often even more cruel with that kind of judgment/justice when it is directed at ourselves.  It is terribly destructive.  

53 minutes ago, ksfisher said:

I do think that people should go to jail, but the purpose of jail should be to protect the public from someone who is likely to commit more crimes.

Sometimes people need to be separated from society to protect the public, I agree.  But it should not be for punitive reasons and should include restorative measures..  Because most do/should get out of jail again and are reintroduced into society. 

Edited August 22, 2022 by pogi

[SkyRock]

Suffering is part of life.   It may not be a punishment but it may be a consequence of our own or other people's choices.  

Suffering can just happen, like someone having some rare disease, or a recession causing hardship and pain of various types. 

Suffering can come as a result of temptation, with Satan working to get us away from God.

Suffering also comes from regret.  Suffering can come from our inadequacies.

No matter the source, God can turn the suffering to our good.  It can help us come closer to our Savior.  It can help us to humble ourselves and accept the Atonement.

As to criminals, most have limited ability to think far into the future and seek immediate gratification.  Most have chosen to impair themselves at the time of their criminal acts. 

Deterrence works to a point.  Anyone who has spent time around criminals knows that the #1 issue they have is avoiding jail time. 

More importantly, most criminal acts are done by repeat offenders.  As such removing repeat offenders from the streets is beneficial to society as it prevents further crimes while they are incarcerated.

Diversion programs are good for 1st time offenders, as they can help to "scare straight" some people.

[The Nehor]

8 hours ago, SkyRock said:

As to criminals, most have limited ability to think far into the future and seek immediate gratification.  Most have chosen to impair themselves at the time of their criminal acts. 

Deterrence works to a point.  Anyone who has spent time around criminals knows that the #1 issue they have is avoiding jail time. 

It deterrence worked wouldn’t they stop being criminals instead of just trying to avoid jail time? Seems like there is a contradiction in there.

[pogi]

19 hours ago, SkyRock said:

Anyone who has spent time around criminals knows that the #1 issue they have is avoiding jail time. 

Yep, as noted by the article I quoted from:

• The most salient lesson of punishment is to avoid it in the future by sneaking and lying to escape detection, so punishment fosters dishonesty.

 

19 hours ago, SkyRock said:

More importantly, most criminal acts are done by repeat offenders.  As such removing repeat offenders from the streets is beneficial to society as it prevents further crimes while they are incarcerated.

 

Also a problem of the punishment paradigm noted in the article:

• Punishment makes a child feel like he's a bad person, which is always a self-fulfilling prophecy, so he's more likely to repeat the bad behavior.
• Because kids invariably consider punishment unfair, it teaches kids that might makes right and abuse of power is ok — which makes kids less likely to make moral choices.
• Punishment — yes, even timeouts — erode our relationship with our child, so that he isn't as invested in pleasing us. And the more disconnected he feels from us, the worse his behavior.
• Because punishment doesn't help a child with the emotions that drove her to act out to begin with, those emotions just get stuffed down, only to pop up again later and cause a repeat of the misbehavior.
• Punishment makes a child feel wronged, and creates a "chip on the shoulder" so she's likely to resent making amends.
• Punishment makes kids look out only for themselves and blame others, rather than caring about how their behavior affects others.
• Punishment creates an external locus of control — the authority figure. The child actually comes to see the parent as responsible for making her behave, rather than taking responsibility for her behavior as her own choice.

So, we can continue the ever revolving door (because the vast majority of offenders eventually get out of prison) back into prison, or we can address the root issues. 

Edited August 23, 2022 by pogi

[LoudmouthMormon]

21 hours ago, bluebell said:

Adam Miller: I think part of this story has to do with the way that when you're young, especially if you grow up in the kind of extraordinarily privileged circumstances that you and I likely did, you're just not very acquainted with loss. It happens mostly in the margins to other people off stage. You have very little experience of it yourself personally.

What a clueless take.  What a stupid, class-warfare-baiting bunch of nonsense.  

Yeah, we all know rich kids never have loved ones die, never experience physical or sexual abuse, never fall prey to serious illness, never experience traumas caused by severe bullying or harassment or discrimination.   

That's a special kind of stupid that can't survive 10 seconds of critical thought.  Is it even worth reading anything else dude has to say, about anything?  I mean, I know nothing about this guy.  Is he advocating for my side of things?  I don't know.  I only know that sort of idealistic cluelessness is a massive turn off, when someone who is opining about great things displays it.

Edited August 23, 2022 by LoudmouthMormon

[bluebell]

Just now, LoudmouthMormon said:

What a clueless take.  What a stupid, class-warfare-baiting bunch of nonsense.  

Yeah, we all know rich kids never have loved ones die, never experience physical or sexual abuse, never fall prey to serious illness, never experience traumas caused by severe bullying or harassment or discrimination.   

That's a special kind of stupid that can't survive 10 seconds of critical thought.  Is it even worth reading anything else dude has to say, about anything?

He’s not talking about that kind of privilege. 

[SkyRock]

29 minutes ago, pogi said:

Yep, as noted by the article I quoted from:

• The most salient lesson of punishment is to avoid it in the future by sneaking and lying to escape detection, so punishment fosters dishonesty.

 

 

Also a problem of the punishment paradigm noted in the article:

• Punishment makes a child feel like he's a bad person, which is always a self-fulfilling prophecy, so he's more likely to repeat the bad behavior.
• Because kids invariably consider punishment unfair, it teaches kids that might makes right and abuse of power is ok — which makes kids less likely to make moral choices.
• Punishment — yes, even timeouts — erode our relationship with our child, so that he isn't as invested in pleasing us. And the more disconnected he feels from us, the worse his behavior.
• Because punishment doesn't help a child with the emotions that drove her to act out to begin with, those emotions just get stuffed down, only to pop up again later and cause a repeat of the misbehavior.
• Punishment makes a child feel wronged, and creates a "chip on the shoulder" so she's likely to resent making amends.
• Punishment makes kids look out only for themselves and blame others, rather than caring about how their behavior affects others.
• Punishment creates an external locus of control — the authority figure. The child actually comes to see the parent as responsible for making her behave, rather than taking responsibility for her behavior as her own choice.

So, we can continue the ever revolving door (because the vast majority of offenders eventually get out of prison) back into prison, or we can address the root issues. 

I wrote about adult criminals.  You are block posting about children.   Different thing.

Keeping criminals away from non criminals is a benefit to society.   Prison doesn't make them criminals.  Their inability to obey the law and appreciate consequences does. 

Maybe some childhood interventions might help for some.   More likely, it would be impossible without children growing up in intact families free from substance abuse issues.   

But once they have decided to engage in repeat criminal behavior, removal from society is the best choice. 

Lax law enforcement empowers criminals to engage in criminal activity.  A few years ago I met a career petty criminal in SLC.  He said he had no concern about consequences because of the overcrowded jail in SLC and weak prosecution standards.  He knew he would never go to jail and would likely not get arrested. 

I later had a Salt Lake County sheriff confirm those details.   Another person I knew mentioned that her brother, an officer there, was not allowed to arrest drug dealers unless they committed some violent crime while dealing drugs.

In major cities with even worse DAs, the crime is even worse.   It is all well and good to talk about childhood interventions, but the reality is that without strong punishment standards for criminals, criminals will not stop. 

As for children, different children will develop differently even in the same family.  Some children will be more rebellious by nature and others more obedient. 

Children are born with their unique personalities and tendencies.  They are not blank slates to be shaped only by their environment.  Even my identical twin single zygote sons have unique personalities and have had so since being born 3 months early.

[pogi]

1 hour ago, LoudmouthMormon said:

What a clueless take.  What a stupid, class-warfare-baiting bunch of nonsense.  

Yeah, we all know rich kids never have loved ones die, never experience physical or sexual abuse, never fall prey to serious illness, never experience traumas caused by severe bullying or harassment or discrimination.   

That's a special kind of stupid that can't survive 10 seconds of critical thought.  Is it even worth reading anything else dude has to say, about anything?  I mean, I know nothing about this guy.  Is he advocating for my side of things?  I don't know.  I only know that sort of idealistic cluelessness is a massive turn off, when someone who is opining about great things displays it.

Do you think suffering and loss is equivalent between your experience here in the states and growing up in say, Burundi?   Mosquitos alone are responsible extraordinary death from Malaria, Yellow fever and Dengue.  We also enjoy regular childhood immunizations and protection from killers like measles and diphtheria, etc. , and where lack of hygiene is responsible for another large percentage of disease associated death from typhoid fever, cholera and other infections.  Where over 10% of the population is chronically infected, suffering from, or dying from STIs like Hep B and HIV.   Where 65% of the population lives below the poverty line and more than 50% are "chronically hungry", and "where the total annual production of food in Burundi would only cover 55 days per person per year."  Not to mention the endless warfare and tribal/ethnic fighting.

He is not clueless.  He is spot on.  The disparities of suffering/loss in the world leads me to agree that in the States we live in "extraordinarily privileged circumstances" and don't know/understand suffering quite like others.  Even the poor here live in relative luxury.  This is not to diminish the real suffering that most experience through loss etc, but to put it in perspective.  I grew up blind to most of this. 

Edited August 23, 2022 by pogi

[SkyRock]

11 hours ago, The Nehor said:

It deterrence worked wouldn’t they stop being criminals instead of just trying to avoid jail time? Seems like there is a contradiction in there.

Most know they only rarely get caught and only rarely go to jail.  In many areas, small crimes, even when there are arrests, result in no jail time.  

They are still short term thinkers, for the most part.  

Getting them off the streets results in less crime.   Sometimes that is the best that can be done. 

[pogi]

50 minutes ago, SkyRock said:

I wrote about adult criminals.  You are block posting about children.   Different thing.

Keeping criminals away from non criminals is a benefit to society.   Prison doesn't make them criminals.  Their inability to obey the law and appreciate consequences does. 

Maybe some childhood interventions might help for some.   More likely, it would be impossible without children growing up in intact families free from substance abuse issues.   

But once they have decided to engage in repeat criminal behavior, removal from society is the best choice. 

Lax law enforcement empowers criminals to engage in criminal activity.  A few years ago I met a career petty criminal in SLC.  He said he had no concern about consequences because of the overcrowded jail in SLC and weak prosecution standards.  He knew he would never go to jail and would likely not get arrested. 

I later had a Salt Lake County sheriff confirm those details.   Another person I knew mentioned that her brother, an officer there, was not allowed to arrest drug dealers unless they committed some violent crime while dealing drugs.

In major cities with even worse DAs, the crime is even worse.   It is all well and good to talk about childhood interventions, but the reality is that without strong punishment standards for criminals, criminals will not stop. 

As for children, different children will develop differently even in the same family.  Some children will be more rebellious by nature and others more obedient. 

Children are born with their unique personalities and tendencies.  They are not blank slates to be shaped only by their environment.  Even my identical twin single zygote sons have unique personalities and have had so since being born 3 months early.

This is all about an "inability to obey law"?  "Inability"?  No wonder you see things the way you do.  You don't believe in agency?  What about redemption or the possibility of reform?  

Quote

but the reality is that without strong punishment standards for criminals, criminals will not stop. 

I don't believe that is true, or even close to it.   

I am not disagreeing that people need to be separated from society at times, but not for the purpose of "strong punishment" (you yourself don't believe that will change them), but for the purpose of healing/change/redemption/reform - because they will eventually be released into society again.  Why not just keep them in prison if what you are saying is true.  The fact is that if we believe that they should be released from prison eventually, then perhaps it would be better to work with them with that anticipation of release in mind?

I honestly believe that if we addressed the needs/trauma of the inner child of criminals and focused on that while they are separated from society, and nurtured them with other preventative measures, we would see a significant improvement in outcome upon release back into the community.   I think many who go to jail over drug-related issues would do better in rehab/treatment.   

[Amulek]

1 hour ago, LoudmouthMormon said:

What a clueless take.  What a stupid, class-warfare-baiting bunch of nonsense.  

If you grew up in the US then you are among the most wealthy people who have ever lived on the planet.

 

1 hour ago, LoudmouthMormon said:

 Is it even worth reading anything else dude has to say, about anything?  I mean, I know nothing about this guy.  Is he advocating for my side of things?  I don't know. 

I happen to know Adam and his wife personally. They are both absolutely wonderful people and model Saints.

Also, he happens to live in Texas, so I guess that makes him on "my side of things."

 

[LoudmouthMormon]

2 hours ago, Amulek said:

If you grew up in the US then you are among the most wealthy people who have ever lived on the planet.

Agreed.  I'm not taking issue with wealth and privilege protecting folks from many of the sorrows and losses readily found on the planet.  My issue is when Dr. Miller claims the wealthy and privileged are just not very acquainted with loss.  And the notion that to a wealthy privileged person, loss occurs mostly in the margins to other people off stage.

Since you know him personally, perhaps you might be able to ask him for a clarification?  Does he really believe that rich folk aren't acquainted with loss, and only see it in the margins, happening to other people off stage?

Edited August 23, 2022 by LoudmouthMormon

[Amulek]

17 minutes ago, LoudmouthMormon said:

Agreed.  I'm not taking issue with wealth and privilege protecting folks from many of the sorrows and losses readily found on the planet.  My issue is when Dr. Miller claims the wealthy and privileged are just not very acquainted with loss.  And the notion that to a wealthy privileged person, loss occurs mostly in the margins to other people off stage.

I've gone back and re-read the quote @bluebell provided, and (in context) I think it's pretty clear what he means, and I don't find it even the least bit objectionable.

He's talking about Job in that interview and when he says, "that when you're young, especially if you grow up in the kind of extraordinarily privileged circumstances that you and I likely did, you're just not very acquainted with loss. It happens mostly in the margins to other people off stage. You have very little experience of it yourself personally."

I tend to agree. I don't think most young people, especially those privileged enough to grow up like I did (e.g., in a stable home, with loving parents, in what is unquestionably the wealthiest society that has ever existed on the planet), are very acquainted with loss. Is that a generalization? Sure, but it's not really an absurd one, at least not in my view. YMMV.

 

[The Nehor]

4 minutes ago, Amulek said:

I've gone back and re-read the quote @bluebell provided, and (in context) I think it's pretty clear what he means, and I don't find it even the least bit objectionable.

He's talking about Job in that interview and when he says, "that when you're young, especially if you grow up in the kind of extraordinarily privileged circumstances that you and I likely did, you're just not very acquainted with loss. It happens mostly in the margins to other people off stage. You have very little experience of it yourself personally."

I tend to agree. I don't think most young people, especially those privileged enough to grow up like I did (e.g., in a stable home, with loving parents, in what is unquestionably the wealthiest society that has ever existed on the planet), are very acquainted with loss. Is that a generalization? Sure, but it's not really an absurd one, at least not in my view. YMMV.

 

This. There is a strong insulation factor unless loss hits home anyways which it sometimes does.

[Nofear]

9 minutes ago, Amulek said:

I tend to agree. I don't think most young people, especially those privileged enough to grow up like I did (e.g., in a stable home, with loving parents, in what is unquestionably the wealthiest society that has ever existed on the planet), are very acquainted with loss. Is that a generalization? Sure, but it's not really an absurd one, at least not in my view. YMMV.

 

Quite agreed. And yet, even with all of our privilege at this level we still manage to make and/or experience suffering. Not so much the suffering of temporal circumstance but some, perhaps much, of that suffering is because we/others behave badly. How grateful I am the Atonement is accessible to such as I too, for my need doesn't seem to be any less. How conceited it would be of me in my privilege to go around saying, "Boy, does that guy need some Atonement grace right now". It'd be true (because it's true for all of us), but coming from a place of judgement like that seems ... wrong. (Note, I'm not saying anybody in this thread said anything to suggest that, in case it comes across that way.)