Moral Foundations and Latter-day Saints

[Dario_M]

15 hours ago, Nofear said:

I have no idea whatsoever how your comment is relevant to this thread.

I think it's relevant though. I think you should take everyone's perspective serious. 

15 hours ago, Nofear said:

Are you saying the model of moral foundations is fundamentally flawed.

No i said that science doesn't always get it right. I wasn't even talking about the moral faundations anyway. 

15 hours ago, Nofear said:

Science is indeed often wrong. What's nice about the scientific method is that it has correction mechanism in place. Dogmatic adherence to opinion by individuals lacks such.

No. If i have an opinion about something i can also correct that if the appropiate moment allows me so. 

[Kenngo1969]

On 1/13/2025 at 3:36 PM, Peacefully said:

Very interesting! I fall somewhere between all-in and selective according to this survey. 
 

One interesting conclusion by the author “If someone says, “Fairness is the most important thing in the world to me, and avoiding harm is the most important thing in the world to me,” a God that asks Abraham to sacrifice his son isn’t going to make sense to them. It just says, “Wow, that’s a messed-up God. I don’t really want to have anything to do with that God.” “

Not necessarily. One can also believe that a loving God would not do that so therefore it must be allegorical. 

Don't misunderstand: I get, completely, why any notion of sacrifice as it is recorded or reported in the Old Testament (or, for that matter, in the New) makes us enlightened moderns uncomfortable. But, that squeamishness notwithstanding, if we say that a loving God would not allow someone to sacrifice his son, as allegedly happened with Abraham and Isaac, and when, reportedly, Isaac was a type of Christ, what do we do, then, with the fact that perhaps the foundational, fundamental, principal, central, sin qua non tenet, not just of the doctrine of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints but of all of Christianity, is that, nonetheless, a[n allegedly?] "loving" god allowed his own son (who in no way deserved it) to be sacrificed?

If we're going to say—moistened fingers planted firmly in our ears and eyes shut tight—"Nope!  Sorry!  I can't deal with a god who would allow anyone to be sacrificed!" ... if we're going to say, because we can't deal with actual sacrifices, that the [story of] the first sacrifice is allegorical, don't we, then, have to say that the [story of] the second  sacrifice is merely purely allegorical, and, if so, doesn't that lay waste to all of Christianity?  And if (whether we understand it, or whether we understand exactly how it works or not) we're going to say that there is no saving power in Christ(ianity), what, exactly, is the point?   Of course the Sacrifice of Christ was not "fair"!  That was kind of the whole point, wasn't it?

Please understand, I'm not indicting anybody here, but I do think that these are fair questions.

Edited January 15, 2025 by Kenngo1969

[Peacefully]

32 minutes ago, Kenngo1969 said:

Don't misunderstand: I get, completely, why any notion of sacrifice as it is recorded or reported in the Old Testament (or, for that matter, in the New) makes us enlightened moderns uncomfortable. But, that squeamishness notwithstanding, if we say that a loving God would not allow someone to sacrifice his son, as allegedly happened with Abraham and Isaac, and when, reportedly, Isaac was a type of Christ, what do we do, then, with the fact that perhaps the foundational, fundamental, principal, central, sin qua non tenet, not just of the doctrine of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints but of all of Christianity, is that, nonetheless, a[n allegedly?] "loving" god allowed his own son (who in no way deserved it) to be sacrificed?

If we're going to say—moistened fingers planted firmly in our ears and eyes shut tight—"Nope!  Sorry!  I can't deal with a god who would allow anyone to be sacrificed!" ... if we're going to say, because we can't deal with actual sacrifices, that the [story of] the first sacrifice is allegorical, don't we, then, have to say that the [story of] the second  sacrifice is merely purely allegorical, and, if so, doesn't that lay waste to all of Christianity?  And if (whether we understand it, or whether we understand exactly how it works or not) we're going to say that there is no saving power in Christ(ianity), what, exactly, is the point?   Of course the Sacrifice of Christ was not "fair"!  That was kind of the whole point, wasn't it?

Please understand, I'm not indicting anybody here, but I do think that these are fair questions.

I don’t agree that if the first sacrifice is allegorical then Christ’s sacrifice must be, also. Christ agreed to the plan. Isaac had no such forewarning ( as far as I know) so not apples to apples, imo. 

[MrShorty]

1 hour ago, Kenngo1969 said:

what do we do, then, with the fact that perhaps the foundational, fundamental, principal, central, sin qua non tenet, not just of the doctrine of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints but of all of Christianity, is that, nonetheless, a[n allegedly?] "loving" god allowed his own son (who in no way deserved it) to be sacrificed?

I don't know if this is intended to just be rhetorical, nor how far down this tangential rabbit hole we might want to go, but I sometimes find this question among those who deconstruct their Christian faith and don't get it back. Why does an omni-everything God require a sacrifice of some kind in order to forgive sin? Why can't He simply forgive sin?

Even among those who accept that Christ's death and resurrection was important for our redemption, many have serious concerns about a "penal-substitution" type of model of the atonement, and might prefer other views of the atonement that decentralize the suffering/sacrifice aspects of penal-substitution.

As a non-rhetorical question, it is an interesting tangent.

[Calm]

1 hour ago, Peacefully said:

Isaac had no such forewarning ( as far as I know) so not apples to apples, imo. 

Assuming the portrayal of the Council is more historical than not….****

I have seen it pointed out that Isaac would have been able to physically overpower his father, possibly easily, but did not do so and allowed himself to be bound (he was not a child as sometimes is portrayed), so while Isaac may not have been part of the intended sacrifice from the beginning, by the end he would have been.  He did not volunteer, but accepted when chosen by his father.  That is a significant difference imo, but we also don’t have enough info to know if there was tradition or even an inherent need that focused the choice on Christ before the council (I am thinking of what the title Firstborn might imply, did it go to the one who volunteered and was chosen to be the sacrifice or did the Firstborn know much earlier that would be his role he would grow up to, inherited through the timing of his spirit birth so to speak).  Maybe Christ knew it was expected of him, maybe he had even been trained or prepared in some way prior to the Council where he was officially chosen and it was more accepting of the role than pure volunteering.

****It would not surprise me if, for example, there was no actual Council, but that godly communication allowed us all to be fully aware of our future as soon as we were capable of understanding it or even before…maybe such knowledge is part of our spirit ‘DNA’ or whatever functions similarly if there is such as thing.  Perhaps we mortals are given the Council as part of our temple ritual perhaps only because that makes more sense to us since we are not born with such seamless communication of knowledge plus it is analogous to what happens in many of our cultures.

[manol]

On 1/13/2025 at 5:19 PM, Peacefully said:

All I can do is trust that God somehow makes it fair in the end. 

I think we are participatory to this healing process, and that we don't necessarily have to wait until "the end".

I have come to believe that our part in the great healing, our calling and our privilege, is to forgive everyone of everything (D&C 64:10).

I think there is a different perspective which makes this not only possible but natural.  (edit:  See the video below from about 17 minutes to about 18:40.)

For those open to the possibility of near-death experiences being a part of "that which God does now reveal", imo this woman's account is incredible and relevant.  This was just posted on YouTube earlier today [1-15-2025].  She speaks slowly and clearly so you can speed it up a bit:

 

Edited January 16, 2025 by manol