Apology for the Priesthood Ban / "March of Dimes Syndrome" / "Mission Creep" / "Spencer's Law"

[Calm]

2 hours ago, The Nehor said:

just have a hard time imagining lamp replacing as involving a lot of suffering. It is a pretty cheap lesson.

I suffer a lot each time I think of the antique Mission style Tiffany lamp of my grandparents I was going to fight tooth and nail for when it came to division of the goods being busted in their move to the rest home.  Replacing it would be a massive effort as I have never seen even a similar one in the quite a few hours I looked for one.

Edited July 4, 2024 by Calm

[Calm]

15 minutes ago, Rain said:

just not it is the Father's plan that one of his children fulfill.

Why is this an issue for you if it was the child’s choice to do so?  Volunteered, wasn’t asked apparently, according to scripture.  Not challenging, just curious to understand.

Quote

27 And the Lord said: Whom shall I send? And one answered like unto the Son of Man: Here am I, send me. And another answered and said: Here am I, send me. And the Lord said: I will send the first.

 

Edited July 4, 2024 by Calm

[Rain]

16 minutes ago, Calm said:

Why is this an issue for you if it was the child’s choice to do so?  Volunteered, wasn’t asked apparently, according to scripture.  Not challenging, just curious to understand.

 

 

I don't mean to be sacrilegious here, but just trying to explain it. Even if Jesus volunteers it is pretty coercive. Imagine  God is talking to all his children "I've got a plan. All of you are going to hell unless someone innocent volunteers to not only be punished for every horrible thing you alĺ do, but also to feel all the pains of the victims plus the pains of mortality. Any volunteers?"

What kind of choice is that? 

[Malc]

8 minutes ago, Rain said:

 

I don't mean to be sacrilegious here, but just trying to explain it. Even if Jesus volunteers it is pretty coercive. Imagine  God is talking to all his children "I've got a plan. All of you are going to hell unless someone innocent volunteers to not only be punished for every horrible thing you alĺ do, but also to feel all the pains of the victims plus the pains of mortality. Any volunteers?"

What kind of choice is that? 

And isn't it pretty obvious from the get-go that only one of the children is good enough to do what needs to be done?

[Damien the Leper]

From an LDS perspective, is it possible that the son in premortality bit off more than he can chew? I ask this because of what Jesus said in Gethsemane and his words to God while on the cross. I've never bought the whole God turned away because He couldn't bare to see His child suffer nonsense my uncle tried to pull off. I had never heard a more shallow excuse before or since.

[Damien the Leper]

21 minutes ago, Malc said:

And isn't it pretty obvious from the get-go that only one of the children is good enough to do what needs to be done?

That is extremely problematic.

[bluebell]

2 hours ago, Rain said:

To be clear, this is not my belief.  In this thread I've talked about the idea of the Father having a plan and the Son fulfilling it. I don't believe that.  I'm still working with God about whether there was an atonement or not. If there was I feel that it could have been the Son's plan or they could be the same being or any other various ways, just not it is the Father's plan that one of his children fulfill.

Thanks for clarifying. 😊

[bluebell]

1 hour ago, Damien the Leper said:

That is extremely problematic.

Why in your view does it have to be problematic? (Sincere question, just trying to understand).

I know I already shared the analogy once, but I go back to childbearing. If my husband and I want to have biological children (if that is our plan), then it has to be me that does the painful, physically sacrificing, go through the valley of death, part.

Is a plan being dependent on one person doing the heavy lifting always a bad thing, always coercive?

[The Nehor]

2 hours ago, Rain said:

 

I don't mean to be sacrilegious here, but just trying to explain it. Even if Jesus volunteers it is pretty coercive. Imagine  God is talking to all his children "I've got a plan. All of you are going to hell unless someone innocent volunteers to not only be punished for every horrible thing you alĺ do, but also to feel all the pains of the victims plus the pains of mortality. Any volunteers?"

What kind of choice is that? 

Maybe this isn’t normal. Maybe the normal plan is progression. No telestial world. Instead a terrestrial one. The spirits are born to this world and develop and learn to master their physical forms. Then, when the time is right, they partake of the fruit and are tested. This is the way it is meant to be and the way it is done on other world. But something was different this time.

Imagine that many of the spirits destined to come to this planet had already fallen. They sinned during the conflict with Lucifer but later sought repentance? They were ‘telestial’ now and possibly degenerating to become even less. They couldn’t be born to Adam and Eve. So those two who were destined to rule and Christ came up with another plan. They were going to “hack”the plan into a rescue mission. They would lay down their earned rule of this world to try to rescue the weirdos who screwed up. They tricked Lucifer into tempting them when they wished to fall from the start. A break from the regular plan. Once they fell they could give birth to telestial spirits.

Hence we deserve this world and all that comes with it. Jesus suffered the atonement to drag the world back up and it was His fault and His choice as the builder of the world and His responsibility. So He came to a world below His station and possibly others volunteered to join Him. The rest of the spirits that never fell wait for the Millenium and their earned birthright.

I also suspect that if this is true it did a lot more but I am already off in lala land.

This makes the telestial glory a fitting reward and salvation from a worse fate instead of a bunch of advanced spirits risking a roll of the dice to come to a world where they would likely get no experience with the gospel and just die and go to hell until a longer redemption arc could play out. If they are fallen spirits it is a lifeline and the only option they really had. A third part of the host of heaven fell. The middle third part fell and later sought to repent. The upper third never fell and most have not been born to this world. 

Then again this could all be the equivalent of a fever dream from my deranged imagination. Or maybe I have just gone gnostic. It is practically a cliche for every gnostic to reimagine the story of Creation and the Fall so I might just be the latest in a long and glorious* tradition of heresy.

 

*possibly not glorious at all

[Calm]

3 hours ago, Rain said:

All of you are going to hell unless someone innocent volunteers to not only be punished for every horrible thing you alĺ do, but also to feel all the pains of the victims plus the pains of mortality. Any volunteers?"

I agree that comes across as pretty coercive.  

I imagined it would be more “in order to be able to progress to be like me, you need to experience mortality and get a body like I did.  But most of you lack some abilities that I had, so you will need help or you will end up worse off than you are now.  The person who will be chosen to help will help all of you who want his help, but won’t force anyone to accept it, just as I won’t force you to accept mortality if you don’t want to at this point [this part is me completely speculating; those who left heaven had wanted mortality, but on their terms and not God’s, nothing was said about those who weren’t ready to go].  And he will get my help where he needs it so he can become familiar enough with all your struggles so he can get you past them, so you can not only progress, but to also be capable of accepting the many blessings I have prepared to help you with your journey.  Now you know what is needed and have some ideas on what to expect because I and others have shared our experiences of mortality and worked long and hard to get you ready for your chance and you have even seen the Plan in action watching your siblings who went for it on other earths I have directed to be created for all of my children…though you won’t know all the details of what it is going to be like until you can experience it yourself, so all those who are ready to leave the nest, let’s move on to the next on the agenda, the choosing of the Saviour.  Knowing the requirements and expectations for the position, who should I send?”

Gethesame to me makes perfect sense because this is imo where Jesus makes the deep and complete connection with everyone, which is why he experiences their pain.  I don’t have an explanation for the Crucifixion…that feels more ritual and symbolic teaching to me than actual necessity in the sense that precise scenario needed to take place or the Plan would fail, though necessary in the sense of whatever it was meant to teach us or even perhaps teach Christ.   Something that always struck me as alien to Jesus is his last words.  If they seem out of place, but aren’t, they must be very significant in my view…so what would, what could cause Christ to cry out his despair?  And why was the despair being abandoned by God rather than the cruelty of men or whatever he saw as causing his torture.

The only reason I can think of why an excruciating death might be necessary for the Saviour to go through is because only the extremity of an experience like that could provide that moment where Christ felt abandoned by God (emotionally it seems even if intellectually he likely knew he wasn’t going to be left separated from God because he knew what to expect) and therefore had the opportunity to still fully embrace God’s way on his own rather than rebel, descend into fear or anger, or otherwise step away from God rather than step into God.  

I don’t believe God can or will turn off his love, his awareness of us so that he spiritually disconnects from us.  It would make him notGod if he could/would do so. Rather the disconnect, the abandonment has to happen at our end, either intentionally when we reject him or unintentionally through sin or other experiences that prevent us from being aware of the Spirit.

It would be almost impossible it seems to me for someone so in control of themselves and so familiar with the Spirit and with God’s love and so tightly connected to God with everything Jesus had experienced through his mortal life even if he wasn’t aware of his premortal life (and we assume he was at least by that point, so that familiarity and knowledge would be a massive comfort and source of strength for him) to be able to at least gut believe even if just for a few seconds that he was actually abandoned by his Father.  If I have never felt like questioning God was there with my so much less than perfect life even when medication suppressed any awareness of the Spirit for years, Christ surely had to be diamond hard, unbreakable in his ability to stay connected with the Spirit.  Something way beyond traumatic would have to happen to him to provide him with a possible essential experience of separation.

We shouldn’t forget the three hours of darkness, something used scripturally to symbolize separation from God.  Maybe that darkness was something besides the earth mourning with Christ as it has often been described.  It wasn’t just darkness over the earth and its inhabitants.  It was darkness surrounding Christ.  Maybe it functioned on Christ like that medication functioned for me.

The physical pain and exhaustion could have been so intense it could cut off his ability to feel the Spirit or even to reason.   Drugs can also prevent thought from gaining traction, but pain or other forms of discomfort that get ramped up to the point they function in the same way as pain add desperation to the mix.  (I have felt agony at a pretty extreme level for me, where it was so intense it prevented any coherent thought beyond “save me” from forming and my guess is the “right” pain could increase that agony significantly.  I sincerely hope I am not going to face anything worse than what I have already.)  My guess is on the Cross after hours of suffering, already worn out by the previous night’s experience, already feeling abandoned by everyone but God and then surrounded by darkness possibly suppressive of the sensing of God’s presence, he would have been reduced to his most basic nature in those last moments leaving his mind and soul and heart were spiritually isolated because all of his awareness was overwhelmed…which caused him to utter those despairing words.

Quote

“Now from the sixth hour there was darkness over all the land until the ninth hour. And about the ninth hour Jesus cried out with a loud voice, saying, ‘Eli, Eli, lema sabachthani?’ that is, ‘My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?’”

After that experience my guess is he would have certain knowledge of who he was and what he was willing to do for others when stripped of everything that protected him, including likely the ability to reason.

Now why would that have to happen?  Why would the Son need to feel abandoned by the Father?

It seems to me there is some reason the Saviour has to show himself and perhaps the rest of us that he is truly even willing to go it alone so the rest of us don’t have to.  Perhaps this is needed because being human, we are unable to completely give ourselves up to someone else unless we have perfect trust they will do the same for us…Christ has done this and I believe by the time we come to our choice, we will comprehend his actions well enough to also be able to surrender to God’s embrace as needed because he has shown we can have perfect trust in him.  Nothing is going to cause him to give up.

[SeekingUnderstanding]

9 hours ago, Rain said:

 

I don't mean to be sacrilegious here, but just trying to explain it. Even if Jesus volunteers it is pretty coercive. Imagine  God is talking to all his children "I've got a plan. All of you are going to hell unless someone innocent volunteers to not only be punished for every horrible thing you alĺ do, but also to feel all the pains of the victims plus the pains of mortality. Any volunteers?"

What kind of choice is that? 

 

9 hours ago, Malc said:

And isn't it pretty obvious from the get-go that only one of the children is good enough to do what needs to be done?

Not to mention he pleaded with God not to do it. “Let this cup pass from me”

[ZealouslyStriving]

29 minutes ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

 

Not to mention he pleaded with God not to do it. “Let this cup pass from me”

"... nevertheless thy will be done and not my own."

It's always good to post the whole verse.

Edited July 4, 2024 by ZealouslyStriving

[CV75]

11 hours ago, Calm said:

How about a massive aquarium instead of a lamp (though I would think the glass would need to be quite strong to contain the water)?  Getting an aquarium right takes a lot of work and those large ones with fancy fish are dang expensive.

Absolutely, whatever works for you in your circumstances! The underlying principle is that the loving parent's work (suffering, torture, self-sacrifice) is necessary to be in a position to have the child, nurture and sustain him, teach him, empathize with him and have compassion for him, forgive and restore all that the child cannot do for himself, and then actualize those endeavors and attainments. Christ did the work necessary to advance from grace to grace by the the things He suffered, which placed Him in the position to have children (creating the earth, governing the light of life upon it, providing them the covenant them for spiritual rebirth), teach them, forgive and restore all we cannot do for ourselves (over come physical and spiritual death), and with total empathy and compassion.

[LoudmouthMormon]

20 hours ago, Damien the Leper said:

Quote

Jesus: *knocks on door*
Person inside home: "Who is it?"
Jesus: "It's me, Jesus. Let me in."
Person: "Why?"
Jesus: "So I can save you from what I'm going to do to you if you don't let me in."

From this perspective... a lot sounds like bull💩.

It is rather odd to be told to be grateful for something you didn't ask for but is decided "best" for you because a god says so. 

Anyone else have/know a kid who has held a similar perspective, and thrust it like a sword at their parent?   I've lost track of all the not-yet-mature youth out there saying a variation of "I didn't ask to be born, so you can't make me clean my room."   I guess I first witnessed such a notion from my 18 month old.  She didn't want to wear her socks.  It was time to put socks and shoes on.  She screamed bloody murder, I'm sure fully believing she was being tortured within an inch of her life by her cruel oppressor.  She never asked for toes, or socks, therefore, I was a bad guy for forcing them upon her.

Some folks never outgrow the perspective.  This sort of offended sensibility mindset is behind some people who are mad that they have to work to eat.  Eternally at odds with bosses, the IRS, the girl scanning their groceries.  

Yeah, from this perspective... the biggest scam in the universe is being born.  Whether you figure you're an accident of space dust and evolution, or you believe the whole "you chose to side with God and come down to earth to be tested, but you don't remember doing it, but trust me it happened", you're the victim here.

Victimhood.  It doesn't look good on anyone, but it's always in style.

[SeekingUnderstanding]

8 minutes ago, LoudmouthMormon said:

Anyone else have/know a kid who has held a similar perspective, and thrust it like a sword at their parent?   I've lost track of all the not-yet-mature youth out there saying a variation of "I didn't ask to be born, so you can't make me clean my room."   I guess I first witnessed such a notion from my 18 month old.  She didn't want to wear her socks.  It was time to put socks and shoes on.  She screamed bloody murder, I'm sure fully believing she was being tortured within an inch of her life by her cruel oppressor.  She never asked for toes, or socks, therefore, I was a bad guy for forcing them upon her.

Some folks never outgrow the perspective.  This sort of offended sensibility mindset is behind some people who are mad that they have to work to eat.  Eternally at odds with bosses, the IRS, the girl scanning their groceries.  

Yeah, from this perspective... the biggest scam in the universe is being born.  Whether you figure you're an accident of space dust and evolution, or you believe the whole "you chose to side with God and come down to earth to be tested, but you don't remember doing it, but trust me it happened", you're the victim here.

Victimhood.  It doesn't look good on anyone, but it's always in style.

There is zero connection here that I see. 

[Damien the Leper]

13 hours ago, bluebell said:

Why in your view does it have to be problematic? (Sincere question, just trying to understand).

I know I already shared the analogy once, but I go back to childbearing. If my husband and I want to have biological children (if that is our plan), then it has to be me that does the painful, physically sacrificing, go through the valley of death, part.

Is a plan being dependent on one person doing the heavy lifting always a bad thing, always coercive?

The problematic part is determining that only one child is good enough to carry out the sacrifice. That is what I was responding to in @Malc's statement.

[CV75]

15 hours ago, Rain said:

 

I don't mean to be sacrilegious here, but just trying to explain it. Even if Jesus volunteers it is pretty coercive. Imagine  God is talking to all his children "I've got a plan. All of you are going to hell unless someone innocent volunteers to not only be punished for every horrible thing you alĺ do, but also to feel all the pains of the victims plus the pains of mortality. Any volunteers?"

What kind of choice is that? 

I can imagine it, but think the record (Abraham 3: 23-28 and Moses 5:7) supports the following interpretation (and concept of choice):

From Abraham 3 v 23, God saw our premortal souls and made some of them rulers. v 24, One of these rulers said what they were going to do (i.e., v 25, organize a material probationary earth with v 26, the object of adding glory). From v 27, two rulers volunteered to lead the enterprise and God chose the first while v 28, the second rebelled. From Moses 5:7, the first volunteer took upon himself the sacrificial role, which an inherent aspect of being a loving, suffering/longsuffering ruler (as explained and expounded in Moses Chapters 6 and 7).

Sacrifice (making something holy) is the work of interacting with God, expressed in many ways from animal and other offerings, which serve as rites and types, to the most advanced divine workmanship (Moses 1:39), which serves as the ultimate gift or offering from God to all His children. Hard work. All the things Christ did (and does) actualizes His and our interaction with God, aiming to magnify and perfect His and our relationship with God as one . This requires the ultimate effort.

The work in Gethsemane and the cross are the nexus of all forms of loving labor past, present and future. Hence the work is described as infinite and eternal, and prepared from before the foundation of the world.

[CV75]

15 hours ago, Malc said:

And isn't it pretty obvious from the get-go that only one of the children is good enough to do what needs to be done?

God chose one of two volunteers from among the pool of many rulers, so perhaps it was God who was "coerced" into choosing the only volunteer that was qualified, willing, prepared and able. But He chose to listen in the first place to those who took life with Him to heart, then He chose to choose.

[MrShorty]

23 hours ago, JVW said:

It is only a sin if they know better. It reminds me of one of my favorite verses in all of scripture, Alma 32:19 "And now, how much more cursed is he that knoweth the will of God and doeth it not, than he that only believeth, or only hath cause to believe, and falleth into transgression?" Out of His infinite love and compassion He reveals as little as necessary to His children in order to ensure that they can receive the least amount of condemnation possible when they mess up.

I'm inclined to agree with you that we are not held accountable for sins that we don't know about. One direction my thoughts tend to go is towards a kind of universalism, because it seems there are very few sins that we can really "KNOW" are sins. So much of the discussion about sin is trying to determine what is and is not sin. If we can never really KNOW that things are sin, then maybe there is nothing we will be held accountable for, and we will all be saved and exalted (after sufficient time and effort in the next life to clear up all of our misunderstandings). Another direction is a kind of "moral relativism" where there is no absolute moral truth to sin against, only our own perceptions and judgements of what is sin. To a Kosher Jew who believes God has declared eating pork or shellfish a sin, then he is accountable for committing that sin, but the rest of us who believe God doesn't consider it a sin are free to eat what we want. Or, should said Kosher Jew decide that God no longer considers violations of those dietary laws a sin (a process of "deconstruction"?), then they are no longer sin for him. Is there absolute moral truth to sin against, or is it all based on our perceptions (group and individual) of what is and is not sin?

One of the most important things I get out of these discussions is ideas about how we think revelation actually works. I find the last part of the quoted comment fascinating. To think that God withholds revelation from us and only grants the absolute minimum revelation necessary is quite intriguing. I can see how the first idea about how we are only accountable for what we know lead to there being a kind of advantage to being ignorant of moral law. To characterize God as being reluctant to reveal moral law to us so that we can remain ignorant because He has determined that is the easiest/best way to save and exalt His children seems interesting. I will have to think on that some more.

[The Nehor]

4 hours ago, LoudmouthMormon said:

Anyone else have/know a kid who has held a similar perspective, and thrust it like a sword at their parent?   I've lost track of all the not-yet-mature youth out there saying a variation of "I didn't ask to be born, so you can't make me clean my room."   I guess I first witnessed such a notion from my 18 month old.  She didn't want to wear her socks.  It was time to put socks and shoes on.  She screamed bloody murder, I'm sure fully believing she was being tortured within an inch of her life by her cruel oppressor.  She never asked for toes, or socks, therefore, I was a bad guy for forcing them upon her.

You are imputing this line of thought to an 18 month old? Isn’t it more likely the screaming was just their only way of communicating that they would like you to stop doing what you are doing please.

4 hours ago, LoudmouthMormon said:

Some folks never outgrow the perspective.  This sort of offended sensibility mindset is behind some people who are mad that they have to work to eat.  Eternally at odds with bosses, the IRS, the girl scanning their groceries.  

Yeah, from this perspective... the biggest scam in the universe is being born.  Whether you figure you're an accident of space dust and evolution, or you believe the whole "you chose to side with God and come down to earth to be tested, but you don't remember doing it, but trust me it happened", you're the victim here.

Victimhood.  It doesn't look good on anyone, but it's always in style.

Yeah, luckily that thing is far from the mind of the enlightened Christian.

“And I thought the dead, who have already died, more fortunate than the living, who are still alive; but better than both is the one who has not yet been, and has not seen the evil deeds that are done under the sun.”

-Ecclesiastes 4: 2-3

Oh, wait…..hold on…..

[Calm]

2 hours ago, The Nehor said:

You are imputing this line of thought to an 18 month old?

I wonder when children are first actually able to conceptualize their own non existence, the option of non living.

I agree it’s projecting onto an 18 month old if Loudmouth really thought his daughter meant that when she screamed.  My guess is she felt overwhelmed and out of control for some reason and wasn’t conceptualizing anything at all.    

Obsessive curiosity led to me finding the youngest person known to intentionally kill themselves was 6 years old (at least in the US).  Apparently most children understand what death means before they are five.

https://www.suicidecleanup.com/youngest-suicide/

Quote

That means one child under 13 died of suicide nearly every five days, on average, over those 17 years.

There is something so tragic about this statistic.

https://www.cnn.com/2017/08/14/health/child-suicides/index.html

Edited July 5, 2024 by Calm

[Malc]

6 hours ago, Damien the Leper said:

The problematic part is determining that only one child is good enough to carry out the sacrifice. That is what I was responding to in @Malc's statement.

Two of God's children responded to His request: "Whom shall I send?"

As I read it, one of the two was not qualified to carry out God's will.

[Malc]

6 hours ago, CV75 said:

God chose one of two volunteers from among the pool of many rulers, so perhaps it was God who was "coerced" into choosing the only volunteer that was qualified, willing, prepared and able. But He chose to listen in the first place to those who took life with Him to heart, then He chose to choose.

I get what you are saying. But you seem to be inferring that I claimed that Jesus was forced to volunteer: '... so perhaps it was God who was "coerced" into choosing ...'

If my comment implied that, then I misspoke: being the only one qualified and being forced to volunteer are two different things. I assume that Jesus had free will - though I'm really not sure how to define that in this case (or any other for that matter) - and could have chosen to to sacrifice himself.

[Calm]

1 hour ago, Malc said:

Two of God's children responded to His request: "Whom shall I send?"

As I read it, one of the two was not qualified to carry out God's will.

He may have be capable of doing so as I am not sure just because he was wanting glory that he was sinning at that point, God  says he was evil when Lucifer wanted God’s glory as well. I wonder if he started out that way.  Seems unlikely given how he was apparently among the noble ones.  Maybe he started out thinking it would be worthwhile for the glory he would accrue and then dwelling on the actual nature of the sacrifice, first decided he would change the rules to make it easier on himself and then in arrogance demanded God’s glory that comes from leading his children to exaltation and joy.

Edited July 5, 2024 by Calm

[3DOP]

On 7/3/2024 at 9:02 AM, Calm said:

I was wondering about this.  Calling all Catholics!  @MiserereNobis, @3DOP  

What is your view on this issue?  How do you address the Father allowing his Son to suffer so?

Hi calm. The Father only did it with the free cooperation of His Son. It isn't like Christ was screaming and kicking all the way to Calvary in resistance but helpless to defend Himself. Our good Saviour submitted to His Father's will, and to the Cross more to show us His, if you will, inexplicable love for us, than anything.

Justice is infinitely satisfied. But more, how can we not love the One, who would descend from heaven for us and offer Himself on our behalf?

The fireworks are still going but dying down. 

Out on a cold deck in northern Idaho with a blanket and piece of American cherry pie. 7-4-24.

Rory