General Conference Thoughts

[Smiley McGee]

I guess LDS theology feels a little inconsistent at times. It is taught that God knows the end from the beginning; he knew your sins before the creation of the world. In comprehending your sins, addictions, and pain, he responded with deep love and sent his son to die and atone for you. And yet, it is also taught that God is suddenly angry and offended by your sins and addictions, even though these were comprehended and paid for before you did anything. I think President Nelson is offended by the behaviors he listed in his talk, but I don’t know that I’m comfortable suggesting that God is. 

[MustardSeed]

1 hour ago, Smiley McGee said:

I guess LDS theology feels a little inconsistent at times. It is taught that God knows the end from the beginning; he knew your sins before the creation of the world. In comprehending your sins, addictions, and pain, he responded with deep love and sent his son to die and atone for you. And yet, it is also taught that God is suddenly angry and offended by your sins and addictions, even though these were comprehended and paid for before you did anything. I think President Nelson is offended by the behaviors he listed in his talk, but I don’t know that I’m comfortable suggesting that God is. 

This was my client’s  concern.  It makes sense.  
The Savior felt everything as if he had experienced all of it, all of those dirty sins. No doubt he would have compassion for us. He may be limited in what he can give us but he would not shame us. We also trust him- how do we trust a man who destroys his back and finds Jesus in it all?  I want to hear a leader say, “ this is extremely painful. I have really bad moments. Sometimes my faith wants to wane. Here’s how I battle that demon.” 
 

[Calm]

2 hours ago, bluebell said:

I adore someone who is and they bring her so much joy and happiness that I'm so happy she has that option for herself. 

You should see what I buy for my daughter.  And she is a bit of a hoarder.  (Comes by it honestly) We are in the process of putting up several shelves in her bedroom so she can surround herself in happiness and then I am hoping we can purge some of the leftovers once she realizes they aren’t worthy of display, so why save them?

[Calm]

3 hours ago, manol said:

I get the impression that…. @Calm are 100% comfortable with an at-face-value-using-common-current-definitions interpretation of that scripture either, as you are both finding ways to see it through a lense that softens it somewhat, based on less-severe meanings of the words used.  And I understand and respect this, as it renders the scripture no longer a punch in the gut, or at least less so. 

My view of scripture….

I don’t believe we have the right to insist that those who wrote scripture meant it the way we would mean it even if we wrote the same words….plus I have no problem thinking “well, that is their understanding (or it maybe is if I am interpreting them correctly, which is probably not happening), is there a reason why I should believe they understood God better than I do”?  So it is less about reinterpreting what they say because my guess is any of my interpretations of what they say isn’t actually going to match what they meant because their worldview is a very different one than the world I walk in and our different beliefs carry so many unspoken assumptions and assumptions we are not aware of that add color to the words’ “at face value” that is missing in the simplified black and white of the text.  So I feel quite comfortable playing with the text however I want to find something meaningful to me.  That may sound like I think scripture is trivial and more a Rorschach test than truth and while I think it can be that for some (especially scripture so far removed from our modern understanding), I think for those who trust scripture as a gift from God that when we read scripture and find meaning in it, this meaning comes to us through the Spirit.  Scripture is our seerstone, having no power to reveal the Truth on its own, but it has been chosen as a spiritual focus for us and so when we turn to it we naturally open ourselves up to the Spirit and find it easier to hear his voice….though like all conversations what ends up being remembered of our ‘conversation’ is the combination of what we heard and our thoughts about what we heard…and then our accessing of our memories are of course a new interpretation each time we think of or reexamine our memory because we are not the same person with the same assumptions and worldview we were in days past.

I probably should be more clear about when I am speaking about the meaning a scripture has for me personally, the current end result of the above process vs what I believe the current general church interpretations of scripture are (I try to quote comments even if I paraphrase with these to limit my likely errors of presenting others’ ideas/beliefs from being adopted by the reader) and when I am referring to the efforts of academics who are trying to unearth the worldview of the original authors and the editors and others who contributed to scriptures over the eons rather than trying to discover universal truths or God’s teachings.

To be clear on how I view these different interpretations….1) since academics aren’t generally approaching scripture texts as a source of inspiration when they are dissecting I don’t believe they are necessarily working with the Spirit to find inspired teachings, ideas, etc.  What they are trying to do is more clinical and not devotional and so I don’t assume that what they share of their understanding is inherently or even often inspired…though I don’t remove the possibility that it is.  I also don’t see God as that concerned with teaching us what ancients believed unless somehow that is going to help us live a better life in the here and now.  For academics, the scriptures are literature they are exploring and I should treat their conclusions in the same way.  Scriptures are just stones polished and etched by others in the past when viewed academically in my view.

2) current and recent and even early (1800s) Church leaders when examining scripture are doing so looking for God’s words in them, so I see the analogy of scripture as a seerstone as applying in this context as well as in my own experience and I treat their words as likely inspired, but conveyed to me and others with mortal understanding and mortal limitations so I treat such words the same way as I treat scripture, I use them as a vehicle to help me experience the Spirit.

3) I am hoping my personal experience with scripture is relatively clear by now.  I share my interpretations at times not because I believe they are inherently true readings of the text that will enlighten all who read it, but because they might be useful in opening others to find usefulness in scripture their own way…as in ‘that isn’t what I thought about the scripture, but not bad; I wonder if there is another way of looking at the passage that works better for me’.  I guess I am arrogant enough to think that someone might read my more positive reaction to a problematic scripture and think ‘maybe I don’t have to be troubled by this, maybe I can turn it into something useful for me like she did and if not, I should feel just fine about setting this aside without dumping the rest of scripture besides it’.  I am too lazy to explain this each time plus sometimes I just forget because I am too into the exploration to think about why I am doing it.

Quote

The lense I would see that scripture through results in a much more radical revision: 

"To draw closer to God, see his hand in all things, and align all aspects of oneself with his will."

Same message minus the fear-inducing aspect. 

I find that to be an inspired reading and am adding it to my collection of seerstones for future explorations.   

Edited October 4, 2023 by Calm

[manol]

2 hours ago, bluebell said:

I don't think the 1800s definition of the word "offend" softens the verse, I think it just keeps the verse in line with our other doctrine and what we know about God (and that He does get angry sometimes).

Imo all those teachings about an angry God, or even a sometimes angry God, are not the highest level of truth on the subject, even if they have utility.  Imo there is a Gospel of Good News that is not fully here yet, as it includes “many great and important things pertaining to the kingdom of God” that have yet to be revealed.

2 hours ago, Smiley McGee said:

I guess LDS theology feels a little inconsistent at times. It is taught that God knows the end from the beginning; he knew your sins before the creation of the world. In comprehending your sins, addictions, and pain, he responded with deep love and sent his son to die and atone for you. And yet, it is also taught that God is suddenly angry and offended by your sins and addictions, even though these were comprehended and paid for before you did anything.

Yes, imo there are different levels of teachings.  The more fear-inducing level is the more effective on many whose consciousness is primarily aligned with fear.  Imo there is another level that is based entirely on love, undiluted by anything less than love, where fear in any form does not even enter.  And the fullness of the higher level cannot be contained within the paradigms of the lower, sort of like new wine will burst old wineskins. 

[Calm]

11 minutes ago, manol said:

Imo all those teachings about an angry God, or even a sometimes angry God, are not the highest level of truth on the subject, even if they have utility. 

I think our mortal experience of anger is too confusing to convey much truth about God when combined with scripture, but I believe such scriptures have use because they do upset us and that might drive us to be more active in our personal search for God and truth and not be so reliant on what we have already concluded scriptures teach us.

Edited October 4, 2023 by Calm

[manol]

1 hour ago, Calm said:

My view of scripture….

I don’t believe we have the right to insist that those who wrote scripture meant it the way we would mean it even if we wrote the same words….plus I have no problem thinking “well, that is their understanding (or it maybe is if I am interpreting them correctly, which is probably not happening), is there a reason why I should believe they understood God better than I do”?  So it is less about reinterpreting what they say because my guess is any of my interpretations of what they say isn’t actually going to match what they meant because their worldview is a very different one than the world I walk in and our different beliefs carry so many unspoken assumptions and assumptions we are not aware of that add color to the words’ “at face value” that is missing in the simplified black and white of the text.  So I feel quite comfortable playing with the text however I want to find something meaningful to me.  That may sound like I think scripture is trivial and more a Rorschach test than truth and while I think it can be that for some (especially scripture so far removed from our modern understanding), I think for those who trust scripture as a gift from God that when we read scripture and find meaning in it, this meaning comes to us through the Spirit.  Scripture is our seerstone, having no power to reveal the Truth on its own, but it has been chosen as a spiritual focus for us and so when we turn to it we naturally open ourselves up to the Spirit and find it easier to hear his voice….though like all conversations what ends up being remembered of our ‘conversation’ is the combination of what we heard and our thoughts about what we heard…and then our accessing of our memories are of course a new interpretation each time we think of or reexamine our memory because we are not the same person with the same assumptions and worldview we were in days past.

I probably should be more clear about when I am speaking about the meaning a scripture has for me personally, the current end result of the above process vs what I believe the current general church interpretations of scripture are (I try to quote comments even if I paraphrase with these to limit my likely errors of presenting others’ ideas/beliefs from being adopted by the reader) and when I am referring to the efforts of academics who are trying to unearth the worldview of the original authors and the editors and others who contributed to scriptures over the eons rather than trying to discover universal truths or God’s teachings.

To be clear on how I view these different interpretations….1) since academics aren’t generally approaching scripture texts as a source of inspiration when they are dissecting I don’t believe they are necessarily working with the Spirit to find inspired teachings, ideas, etc.  What they are trying to do is more clinical and not devotional and so I don’t assume that what they share of their understanding is inherently or even often inspired…though I don’t remove the possibility that it is.  I also don’t see God as that concerned with teaching us what ancients believed unless somehow that is going to help us live a better life in the here and now.  For academics, the scriptures are literature they are exploring and I should treat their conclusions in the same way.  Scriptures are just stones polished and etched by others in the past when viewed academically in my view.

2) current and recent and even early (1800s) Church leaders when examining scripture are doing so looking for God’s words in them, so I see the analogy of scripture as a seerstone as applying in this context as well as in my own experience and I treat their words as likely inspired, but conveyed to me and others with mortal understanding and mortal limitations so I treat such words the same way as I treat scripture, I use them as a vehicle to help me experience the Spirit.

3) I am hoping my personal experience with scripture is relatively clear by now.  I share my interpretations at times not because I believe they are inherently true readings of the text that will enlighten all who read it, but because they might be useful in opening others to find usefulness in scripture their own way…as in ‘that isn’t what I thought about the scripture, but not bad; I wonder if there is another way of looking at the passage that works better for me’.  I guess I am arrogant enough to think that someone might read my more positive reaction to a problematic scripture and think ‘maybe I don’t have to be troubled by this, maybe I can turn it into something useful for me like she did and if not, I should feel just fine about setting this aside without dumping the rest of scripture besides it’.  I am too lazy to explain this each time plus sometimes I just forget because I am too into the exploration to think about why I am doing it.

At the risk of plagiarising @mfbukowski's favorite word, your approach to scripture is pragmatism incarnate.  I am continually amazed at how much real-world (not just theoretical) freedom of thought you find within an LDS paradigm.  I had to go outside before I felt "quite comfortable playing with the text however I want to find something meaningful to me."  And I agree with you that "when we read scripture and find meaning in it, this meaning comes to us through the Spirit.  Scripture is our seerstone, having no power to reveal the Truth on its own, but it has been chosen as a spiritual focus for us and so when we turn to it we naturally open ourselves up to the Spirit and find it easier to hear his voice…"

1 hour ago, Calm said:

I think our mortal experience of anger is too confusing to convey much truth about God when combined with scripture, but I believe such scriptures have use because they do upset us and that might drive us to be more active in our personal search for God and truth and not be so reliant on what we have already concluded scriptures teach us. [emphasis manol's]

ABSOLUTELY!!

Imo what you describe here is an excellent example of all things work together for our good, and/or God's hand is in all things.  It matters not whether a scripture directly enlightens us, or goads us to seek our own enlightenment on the subject - it all works together for our good. 

I suspect there may come a point where we look back on our life and see it without judgment or condemnation as merely the path that brought me to where I am now. 

 

1 hour ago, Calm said:

"The lense I would see that scripture through results in a much more radical revision: 

"'To draw closer to God, see his hand in all things, and align all aspects of oneself with his will.'

"Same message minus the fear-inducing aspect."  [<- Calm quoting manol]

I find that to be an inspired reading and am adding it to my collection of seerstones for future explorations.   

Thank you very much for posting that.  I'm always at least a little bit unsure of myself, especially when I color way, WAY outside the lines. 

[Calm]

Just now, manol said:

your approach to scripture is pragmatism incarnate.

Yep.  That is one of the few labels that have stuck on me since I first learned about it way too long ago.

[Calm]

2 minutes ago, manol said:

I suspect there may come a point where we look back on our life and see it without judgment or condemnation as merely the path that brought me to where I am now. 

I am there already most of the time.  It has helped me accept the limitations as just what is, obstacles that slow me down some but I am proceeding at a turtle’s pace anyway, so no big deal as I would otherwise be in despair too often about what I am potentially capable of doing if health hadn’t gotten in the way and yet haven’t been able to even try (which at this point feels like an endless list while noteworthy accomplishments amounts to a couple of lines).

[Calm]

11 minutes ago, manol said:

I'm always at least a little bit unsure of myself, especially when I color way, WAY outside the lines. 

So much more fun in the long run.  Trust yourself.

And be wise in choosing your audience. 

Edited October 4, 2023 by Calm

[bluebell]

3 hours ago, Smiley McGee said:

I think President Nelson is offended by the behaviors he listed in his talk, but I don’t know that I’m comfortable suggesting that God is. 

I think it's normal and natural (and I know this can be interpreted in a snarky tone but I'm not at all meaning it in one as I completely include myself in the attitude) for us to think that we know God better than someone who has a different view of Him than we do.  When that happens with me and someone else, I really don't know what to do with it.  I'm not usually comfortable in saying that someone else's view of God (if they have a relationship with Him) is wrong, but then I don't think I'm wrong either.

So....it's just a weird place.

[Calm]

2 minutes ago, bluebell said:

I don't think I'm wrong either.

So....it's just a weird place.

It is.  I am extremely confident in my own ideas, but one of those ideas is I am most likely wrong.

Humans can believe contradictory things.

[Rain]

18 minutes ago, bluebell said:

I think it's normal and natural (and I know this can be interpreted in a snarky tone but I'm not at all meaning it in one as I completely include myself in the attitude) for us to think that we know God better than someone who has a different view of Him than we do.  When that happens with me and someone else, I really don't know what to do with it.  I'm not usually comfortable in saying that someone else's view of God (if they have a relationship with Him) is wrong, but then I don't think I'm wrong either.

So....it's just a weird place.

For me, I just end up in an "I don't know place".  I can sometimes feel very confident of my view, but "I don't know" why someone else didn't get an answer, why someone else got a different answer, why someone else thought they got a different answer, if my answer applies 100% of the time and so on.  And sometimes I don't even know if I got the right answer even if I am pretty sure I got it. 

I always heard how people liked the church because it has the answers, but after searching I realized it doesn't have all the answers and after more time I just became ok with that.  I could sit and worry about it or be ok with it.  And that doesn't mean I stop searching.  It just means I don't feel tortured about it anymore because I know God loves me and knows I am doing my best.

Edited October 4, 2023 by Rain

[bluebell]

1 hour ago, manol said:

Imo all those teachings about an angry God, or even a sometimes angry God, are not the highest level of truth on the subject, even if they have utility.  Imo there is a Gospel of Good News that is not fully here yet, as it includes “many great and important things pertaining to the kingdom of God” that have yet to be revealed.

Maybe.  From my perspective, if anger is a valid emotion (if it's not a sin) then why do we struggle with the idea of a God that can be legitimately angry at us because of our choices?  Why is that a "lower level" God?

[bluebell]

8 minutes ago, Rain said:

For me, I just end up in an "I don't know place".  I can sometimes feel very confident of my view, but "I don't know" why someone else didn't get an answer, why someone else got a different answer, why someone else thought they got a different answer, if my answer applies 100% of the time and so on.  And sometimes I don't even know if I got the right answer even if I am pretty sure I got it. 

I always heard how people liked the church because it has the answers, but after searching I realized it doesn't have all the answers and after more time I just became ok with that.  I could sit and worry about it or be ok with it.  And that doesn't mean I stop searching.  It just means I don't feel tortured about it anymore because I know God loves me and knows I am doing my best.

I know some think that saying "I don't know" or "it'll all work out" is a cop-out and a sign that our religious faith is a scam, but I've come to the same conclusion that you have. That being able to say I don't know is an important part of our spiritual growth and that it's not wrong (or less than) not to know.

[Smiley McGee]

1 hour ago, bluebell said:

I think it's normal and natural (and I know this can be interpreted in a snarky tone but I'm not at all meaning it in one as I completely include myself in the attitude) for us to think that we know God better than someone who has a different view of Him than we do.  When that happens with me and someone else, I really don't know what to do with it.  I'm not usually comfortable in saying that someone else's view of God (if they have a relationship with Him) is wrong, but then I don't think I'm wrong either.

So....it's just a weird place.

Ya, I didn’t say that. My disagreeing with Pres Nelson doesn’t imply that “I know better”, but that I’ve experienced God differently and have a different view. And as far as subjective experience goes, I take mine over his. I don’t know who is ultimately right or wrong, and probably never will, which is why I said “I’m not comfortable” saying God is angry and prone to offense rather than claim to know better.
 

Besides this, it seems to create a theological issue that I noted previously. 

[mfbukowski]

1 hour ago, manol said:

At the risk of plagiarising @mfbukowski's favorite word, your approach to scripture is pragmatism incarnate. 

First, it is a very well known and technical branch of anti-realism, especially when discussing empirical theology, and not the ordinarily understood use of "pragmatism"

And the Neo-Pragmatism of, say, Rorty, of is a bit more sophisticated than the original Pragmatism of William James.  I use capitals to distinguish between "pragmatism" with its connotations of "the easy way, right or wrong" and "Pragmatism", which along with Phenomenology laid the seeds for what is called "Postmodernism"

Both these schools are about the nature of reality itself, and NOT about "the easy way out" of a problem or a confused language game, as Wittgenstein has shown.

Did you know that TCOJCLDS  is catholic?

Yes, it is a universal church!

THAT is the importance of capital letters.

I think it's time for me to put on my "scholarly hat" and quit goofing around here.  🙂

[mfbukowski]

Deleted

Edited October 4, 2023 by mfbukowski

[Smiley McGee]

16 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

You can't know that.

I suspect it's all vocabulary and language games.

Okay. For those here who require more explicit detail than they themselves offer: I think, but don’t know that Pres Nelson and I have experienced what we consider God differently.

As far as Pres Nelson thinking God is offended and my disagreeing being a word game, don’t really care. Believe whatever the hell you want. 

Edited October 4, 2023 by Smiley McGee

[Calm]

3 minutes ago, Smiley McGee said:

I think, but don’t know that Pres Nelson and I have experienced what we consider God differently.

 

Seems like we would be much more likely to experience God differently given we are all different. 

[Leaf474]

3 hours ago, manol said:

Imo all those teachings about an angry God, or even a sometimes angry God, are not the highest level of truth on the subject, even if they have utility.  Imo there is a Gospel of Good News that is not fully here yet, as it includes “many great and important things pertaining to the kingdom of God” that have yet to be revealed.

Yes, imo there are different levels of teachings.  The more fear-inducing level is the more effective on many whose consciousness is primarily aligned with fear.  Imo there is another level that is based entirely on love, undiluted by anything less than love, where fear in any form does not even enter.  And the fullness of the higher level cannot be contained within the paradigms of the lower, sort of like new wine will burst old wineskins. 

I like what you said about the "fear level" and the "love level".

 

It reminded me of this passage

With the merciful you will show yourself merciful.

    With the upright you will show yourself upright.

27 With the pure you will show yourself pure.

    With the crooked you will show yourself shrewd.

2 Samuel 22

[Leaf474]

3 hours ago, Calm said:

I think our mortal experience of anger is too confusing to convey much truth about God when combined with scripture, but I believe such scriptures have use because they do upset us and that might drive us to be more active in our personal search for God and truth and not be so reliant on what we have already concluded scriptures teach us.

The situation reminded me of this

Ecclesiastes 12:11

The words of the wise are like goads; and like nails well fastened are words from the masters of collections, which are given from one shepherd.

[mfbukowski]

39 minutes ago, Calm said:

Seems like we would be much more likely to experience God differently given we are all different. 

Which is exactly my point.

You can't know how ANYONE experiences God.

Ain't that spatial?

[bluebell]

1 hour ago, Smiley McGee said:

And as far as subjective experience goes, I take mine over his.

That's usually how I handle it as well.

[manol]

2 hours ago, bluebell said:

From my perspective, if anger is a valid emotion (if it's not a sin) then why do we struggle with the idea of a God that can be legitimately angry at us because of our choices?  Why is that a "lower level" God?

Ime there comes a point at which anger no longer serves us.  It has nothing to do with whether or not one's anger is “valid”.  It's just not a place where hanging out is particularly productive.

Let me try to illustrate: Suppose there is a building with multiple floors, and the higher the floor the better the view and the more peaceful the environment. In the basement of this building is Fight Club, a realm of anger and indignation and outrage and vengeance.

The residents of this building are free to inhabit whichever level they choose.  They can abide in Fight Club and learn and progress there, to some extent at least, or they can go up to higher levels and learn and progress there.

Let's say that the upper floor is the Celestial Level.  The thoughts and perceptions of those on the Celestial Level do not descend to the Fight Club level.  They are aware of Fight Club, but the actual Fight Club mentality simply never enters their consciousness.  They just don't think and perceive that way.  And there is no great benefit to their taking the elevator down into the basement and participating in Fight Club consciousness, taking offense and seeking retribution or whatever. 

And if Fight Club mentality is not a productive place for us to hang out, imo it's probably not going to be a place where God hangs out. 

That being said, if YOU find utility in the idea of a God who can be legitimately angry with us because of our choices, then don't let me talk you out of it!  (No worries of me actually doing that, I'm sure!)