"God Would Never Command Human Sacrifice": Abraham, and Isaac as a Type of Christ

[Kenngo1969]

2 hours ago, Rain said:

Are people making their own decsion about whether God commanded that when they are asking God with a sincere heart if he commanded it?

 

With all due respect, I decline your very gracious invitation to split semantic hairs with you.  While I recognize that everyone must seek one's own testimony about what God commands, I'm not sure, if I were to ask God if He really did command Abraham to sacrifice Isaac, that God would feel compelled to explain Himself to me.  He might well tell me that, just as my standing before Him is none of anyone else's business, Abraham's standing before God is between God and Abraham, that Isaac's standing before God is between God and Isaac, and that the standing of either before Him is ... wait for it! ... none of my business!   

[CV75]

2 hours ago, Benjamin McGuire said:

And the scriptures also say that God commands us not to kill. How do you resolve conflicting commandments?

There is sometimes a problem with treating these stories as being simplistic in nature. There is no lesson here in the idea that God wants Abraham to sacrifice his son. There isn't even any value in the lesson that God wants Abraham to understand that God was willing to sacrifice His son (whatever that may mean for you). There is a fascinating lesson for us in the story of the flood. In everything that happens in the story, God is always telling Noah what to do - and he just does it. Only once does Noah do something he isn't told to do - and that is the sacrifice that he offers at the end of the story - the sacrifice that convinces God not to curse the earth again (despite the wickedness of mankind), the sacrifice that convinces God not to wipe out humanity again. It is this willful decision to worship that God wants - not the blind obedience that Noah displays up to that point, or that Abraham displays.

The Book of Mormon tells me that in our experience of mortality, much of what happens is beyond our control. We do not have absolute agency. We are not "free to act and not be acted upon." It is only in those moments when we are able to exercise agency that we become truly culpable for our actions.

Genesis 22 does say that God is going to temp (test) Abraham. But it doesn't tell us what the nature of that test is, or how to know if Abraham is successful or if he fails. Mortality cannot be simply a place where we learn to do what we are told to do. That sort of outcome doesn't yield perfection in any sense (and it's the reason why, in LDS thought, Satan's plan of guaranteeing that no one would fail is a problem). This perspective simply changes the notion of what is being tested, not that there is a test. We have created this myth of the Abrahamic test. We have even given it a sort of permanent legitimacy in our scriptures. But a real Abrahamic test (on the assumption that God intended for Abraham to be completely willing to sacrifice his son Issac) is one where we are expected on the surface to fail - because it isn't our success at achieving what we are told that is being tested - just our willingness to do something so horrific. And in light of what we know about God as our Father, that seems to me to be a position that is inconsistent with itself. Or, as Jesus said:

We prove our faithfulness to God by being willing to ask. God doesn't expect us to be willing to kill our children. And perhaps the test is the question of whether or not Abraham can tell that something is morally abhorrent. This is always a great object lesson if we are wanting to teach about obedience - but it is only a good object lesson for those who are the authority figures. Traditionally, that is a sort of masculine-centric reading. Imagine being the good little Jewish boy and wondering if (or when) your father might take you up the mountain. There are two poems I like about the binding of Isaac, that have given me something to think about. The first is by the Israeli poet Yehuda Amichai. He wrote this:
 

The second is by Benjamin Galai, and mixes biblical language with Mishnaic language:

I think that our insistence that this sort of obedience is the best - the truest way to express our worship of God - is really problematic.

Ben McGuire

Looking at this, with Nephi’s attitude while retrieving the brass plates in mind, it seems that God didn’t necessarily expect Abraham to blindly obey (or to blindly trust), or to blindly kill Isaac, or even be willing to kill Isaac, but to be trusting enough, with fundamental spiritual sight, to forge ahead as instructed without knowing the next step. The resolution (providing the ram) works whether Abraham had been acting blindly, in rebelliousness, with willingness, or with spiritual certitude or sight, and whether he pondered, asked, debated or contradicted the Lord or not. This to me shows how gracious God is.

[MrShorty]

19 hours ago, CV75 said:

is it more important (a greater testament to salvation) to accept that God commanded Abraham to sacrifice Isaac, or that He provided a compelling way for Abraham to not have to follow through?

At the risk of making a caricature of the idea, my first thought in response to this was to recall those stories (like Pixar's The Incredibles) where the villain (Syndrome) creates bad situation so that he can rescue everyone and make them think he is some kind of hero. This, I think, illustrates why some end up deconstructing Christianity because the atonement ends up, in their minds, being a solution that God came up with to a problem of God's own making. As a historical occurence that actually happened to real people, it still seems problematic. As a metaphorical story to illustrate principles of how we relate to God, it's less problematic.

RE: 2. I agree that the discernment step is part of the test. I'm not sure I see much real distinction between "inflict" or "bestow" though (other than the obvious). In either case, we are just as likely if not more likely to inflict or bestow something on ourselves thinking that God wanted it when God had nothing to do with it. The cliche example might be those Christians who practice a form of asceticism that requires them to flog themselves daily or weekly or something, believing that God wants them to suffer in this way. Perhaps, because of their sincerity, it will still be "counted unto [them] for righteousness," but I still find myself skeptical that God actually commands or encourages such suffering. As I noted in the "nature of the test" thread, I think we more often fail our tests by failing to discern God's will in these matters than we fail to obey.

RE: 3. Perhaps a work model does work better. Flesh it out and write it up, then throw it out into the ether and see where it goes.

[MrShorty]

14 hours ago, Kenngo1969 said:

Is there any relationship possible, perhaps, between Abraham [purportedly] being commanded to sacrifice Isaac and the sacrifice that we [potentially] could be asked to make, consecrating even our lives, if necessary, for the building up of God's Kingdom on the Earth?

As a symbolic, metaphorical story, yes. Especially if I remember that the ancients so often considered wives and children more like property (albeit very valuable property) and less like people in their own right. I can then look at the story and see how Abraham was willing to sacrifice what could arguably be his most valuable possession -- a possession that will perpetuate his legacy into future generations -- to God's ineffable purposes. Thinking through it like that, I can certainly take the lesson that I, too, should be willing to sacrifice even my most valuable possessions to God's ineffable purposes. But this still relies on reading the story as a highly symbolic metaphor and not as something that actually happened to real life people exactly as described by the author(s) of Genesis.

I feel it might be important to emphasize that I believe that sacrifice is a right and good principle. The hardest part of sacrifice is correctly discerning what possessions or pleasures or valuables that God wants me to give up for His purposes. At some level, I often feel like that would be the most helpful story to tell -- how someone discerned God's will. In Abraham's story, God speaks directly to Abraham, and the reader can only suspend disbelief that the giver of the command is God.

[Rain]

4 hours ago, Kenngo1969 said:

With all due respect, I decline your very gracious invitation to split semantic hairs with you. 

This really makes me sad because this is not about arguing semantic hairs for me.  It is part of something that I truly struggle with so I have spent much time praying about it.  When you say "deciding" it discounts how much time, faith and effort I have put into understanding what God desires of me.  When you started the thread I thought "he doesn't understand where people like me are coming from so when you said "deciding" I thought here was a place I could help you understand.

4 hours ago, Kenngo1969 said:

While I recognize that everyone must seek one's own testimony about what God commands, I'm not sure, if I were to ask God if He really did command Abraham to sacrifice Isaac, that God would feel compelled to explain Himself to me.  He might well tell me that, just as my standing before Him is none of anyone else's business, Abraham's standing before God is between God and Abraham, that Isaac's standing before God is between God and Isaac, and that the standing of either before Him is ... wait for it! ... none of my business!   

I can see your point of view. My point of view is that IF God commanded it and IF he wanted it in scripture then God was making it my business else why put it in the scriptures?  And if he didn't command it or put it in the scriptures then he would want me to be humble enough to try to find out rather than accepting it whole. 

If I don't think God will answer then I might as well not pray. I do find God answers though so I continue to ask sincerely. Honestly, I find it confusing that for a people who are so big on praying for answers to hear people say we shouldn't pray for them. 

 

Edited January 18, 2025 by Rain

[CV75]

1 hour ago, MrShorty said:

At the risk of making a caricature of the idea, my first thought in response to this was to recall those stories (like Pixar's The Incredibles) where the villain (Syndrome) creates bad situation so that he can rescue everyone and make them think he is some kind of hero. This, I think, illustrates why some end up deconstructing Christianity because the atonement ends up, in their minds, being a solution that God came up with to a problem of God's own making. As a historical occurence that actually happened to real people, it still seems problematic. As a metaphorical story to illustrate principles of how we relate to God, it's less problematic.

RE: 2. I agree that the discernment step is part of the test. I'm not sure I see much real distinction between "inflict" or "bestow" though (other than the obvious). In either case, we are just as likely if not more likely to inflict or bestow something on ourselves thinking that God wanted it when God had nothing to do with it. The cliche example might be those Christians who practice a form of asceticism that requires them to flog themselves daily or weekly or something, believing that God wants them to suffer in this way. Perhaps, because of their sincerity, it will still be "counted unto [them] for righteousness," but I still find myself skeptical that God actually commands or encourages such suffering. As I noted in the "nature of the test" thread, I think we more often fail our tests by failing to discern God's will in these matters than we fail to obey.

RE: 3. Perhaps a work model does work better. Flesh it out and write it up, then throw it out into the ether and see where it goes.

That is one interpretation of God’s motive in dealing with us, based on one’s life experience to date, and not from exposure to "The Binding of Isaac" alone.

RE: RE: 2, I would say that people can only do the best they can with what they’ve got, including whatever they think God is commanding or encouraging (and inflicting and bestowing upon) them to do and experience. The frequency with which we fail God through lack of discernment, lack of obedience, or lack of willingness to either discern or obey depends on our personalities and what we’ve got.

RE: RE: 3, that is what I have done within this very small microcosm. It certainly works better for me; has Christ stopped working?

[CV75]

3 hours ago, MrShorty said:

As a symbolic, metaphorical story, yes. Especially if I remember that the ancients so often considered wives and children more like property (albeit very valuable property) and less like people in their own right. I can then look at the story and see how Abraham was willing to sacrifice what could arguably be his most valuable possession -- a possession that will perpetuate his legacy into future generations -- to God's ineffable purposes. Thinking through it like that, I can certainly take the lesson that I, too, should be willing to sacrifice even my most valuable possessions to God's ineffable purposes. But this still relies on reading the story as a highly symbolic metaphor and not as something that actually happened to real life people exactly as described by the author(s) of Genesis.

I feel it might be important to emphasize that I believe that sacrifice is a right and good principle. The hardest part of sacrifice is correctly discerning what possessions or pleasures or valuables that God wants me to give up for His purposes. At some level, I often feel like that would be the most helpful story to tell -- how someone discerned God's will. In Abraham's story, God speaks directly to Abraham, and the reader can only suspend disbelief that the giver of the command is God.

There is no way any story can instill the experience of discernment (or testimony, faith, or any other internal spiritual phenomenon). Discernment is something we need to experience, just as we do infancy and the subsequent stages of life, and we do with these what we will no matter how much we might read about them. All the religious and spiritual instructions, accounts, letters, journals, revelations, testimonies and scriptures (and our Church offers tons!) can do is offer a witness and describe the way to discernment, but they can never implant the experience. Only the Spirit performs this function.

Edited January 18, 2025 by CV75

[Kenngo1969]

3 hours ago, MrShorty said:

As a symbolic, metaphorical story, yes. Especially if I remember that the ancients so often considered wives and children more like property (albeit very valuable property) and less like people in their own right. I can then look at the story and see how Abraham was willing to sacrifice what could arguably be his most valuable possession -- a possession that will perpetuate his legacy into future generations -- to God's ineffable purposes. Thinking through it like that, I can certainly take the lesson that I, too, should be willing to sacrifice even my most valuable possessions to God's ineffable purposes. But this still relies on reading the story as a highly symbolic metaphor and not as something that actually happened to real life people exactly as described by the author(s) of Genesis.

I feel it might be important to emphasize that I believe that sacrifice is a right and good principle. The hardest part of sacrifice is correctly discerning what possessions or pleasures or valuables that God wants me to give up for His purposes. At some level, I often feel like that would be the most helpful story to tell -- how someone discerned God's will. [Emphasis added by Kenngo1969.] In Abraham's story, God speaks directly to Abraham, and the reader can only suspend disbelief that the giver of the command is God.

True.  We all see "through a glass, darkly," don't we?   In all candor, I was deathly afraid that God might call upon me to sacrifice one of my offspring, so I solved that problem by never getting married and never procreating. This is a much more trivial example, so I hope I can be forgiven for using it, but ... in the [distant] past here, I wrote about how I felt impelled to and through law school, even though, by far (at least for me) it was perhaps the second-hardest thing I have ever done (after my mission).  On a regular and frequent basis, I felt like quitting law school: "This is too hard, it's no use, I'll never get a job anyway ..."  Well, it turns out, I was right. 

In mortal, material terms, I doubt my decision to go to, and to persevere through, law school will pay off in this life.  Well, don't we gain an education in pursuit of mortal goals?  Yeah.  Do I regret going to law school?  It seems as though many of the things that happened to me during law school, along with a good many of the things that have happened to me since, have been calculated to make me regret it.  On the other hand, I did get the occasional subtle nudge ... under the hands of an inspired High Councilor as he set me apart for a calling during that very tumultuous time in my life, in the Temple performing initiatories shortly after my application to the Bar was rejected (on alleged character and fitness grounds, no less, so I had a giant scarlet "U" (for "unfit") tattooed on my forehead ), and under the hands of a couple of inspired Priesthood holders since ...

As for meeting any mortal, material needs, in its infinite wisdom, the government has said, "No, no.  We can't be bothered to give you a job, or at least to help you find one.  We think it's easier simply to declare you totally and permanently disabled and to forgive your considerable student loans on that basis.  And we'll send you a check every month."      Well, um, gee ... Thanks?     But was it God's will that I go to law school?  Do I regret it?  Should I regret it?  If you tied me to an ant hill, smothered my ears with jam, and forced me to give you an answer, still, I would say, "Yes" to the first question, and "No" to the latter two.  Why?  Well, that's anyone's guess.  I might never know in this life.

Thanks for reading and commenting.  

 

[longview]

18 hours ago, The Nehor said:

Who wrote that in Genesis? Did they have insight into what God intended and wanted?

I have no doubt that Lehi wrote in his own personal journal with the intent that his posterity will remember the great things that God did for "this branch that was broken off the from the House of Israel." I expect to read the Book of Lehi someday, whether during mortality or in the next world. The same with Nephi who even abridged parts of Lehi's record into his personal collection (the Small Plates).

I have no doubt that Noah wrote both before and after the Flood. He had much material from the Patriarchs. There is a belief among some Jews that Melchizedek was Shem, son of Noah. No doubt Shem kept the records in good shape. Abraham was very devoted to searching the records of his forefathers and was faithful and diligent to God. No doubt Abraham kept records also.

Joseph Smith said that the Book of Mormon is the most correct of any book on earth. It is also the world's GREATEST commentator on the Bible. It validates many historical aspects of the Bible and it contains wonderful insights and perspectives on the Bible.

9 hours ago, Benjamin McGuire said:

And the scriptures also say that God commands us not to kill. How do you resolve conflicting commandments?

There is a difference between killing and murdering. Certain statues in the Law of Moses required stoning of violators. Phinehas the priest slew Zimri (a prince of Simeonites) and the Midiantish woman with his javelin (see Numbers 25: 4 thru 15). Nephi was commanded to cut off the head of Laban, a chieftain in old Jerusalem. With God there is NO conflict.

9 hours ago, Benjamin McGuire said:

There is sometimes a problem with treating these stories as being simplistic in nature.

The history concerning leaders, prophets, patriarchs, and heroes (including women) contain real incidents, profound lessons, warnings, an overlay of symbolism and foreshadowing that God made possible. Such as Jonah and the whale which Jesus made mention of. Wonderous plagues in Egypt that led Hebrew slaves to be set free. Sojourning in the land of Midian. etc. The life of Abraham truly is inspiring. You call it simplistic. I call it profound.

9 hours ago, Benjamin McGuire said:

There is no lesson here in the idea that God wants Abraham to sacrifice his son. There isn't even any value in the lesson that God wants Abraham to understand that God was willing to sacrifice His son (whatever that may mean for you).

Yours is a lone voice howling in the wilderness. Contrary to many throughout history that give honor to Abraham. Even Moslems revere Abraham by claiming kinship thru Ishmael son of Abraham and Hagar.

It was VERY necessary for God to provide a Savior the Lamb of God. Without it the Plan of Redemption could NOT be implemented. God intended for the trial of Abraham to FORESHADOW the sacrifice of God the Father and His only begotten Son, the Messiah.

10 hours ago, Benjamin McGuire said:

There is a fascinating lesson for us in the story of the flood. In everything that happens in the story, God is always telling Noah what to do - and he just does it.

Noah was not a mindless drone. He proved his faithfulness in learning life's lessons again and again, going from grace to grace, becoming stronger in the process. Jesus also went from grace to grace.

10 hours ago, Benjamin McGuire said:

Only once does Noah do something he isn't told to do - and that is the sacrifice that he offers at the end of the story - the sacrifice that convinces God not to curse the earth again (despite the wickedness of mankind), the sacrifice that convinces God not to wipe out humanity again. It is this willful decision to worship that God wants - not the blind obedience that Noah displays up to that point, or that Abraham displays.

This is utterly meaningless to me. Sounds disjointed.

10 hours ago, Benjamin McGuire said:

The Book of Mormon tells me that in our experience of mortality, much of what happens is beyond our control. We do not have absolute agency. We are not "free to act and not be acted upon." It is only in those moments when we are able to exercise agency that we become truly culpable for our actions.

I disagree. This sounds like Calvinism and the doctrine of predestination. Please read Elder David A. Bednar. He discussed the concept of "acting and being acted upon" in a talk titled "Things to Act and Things to Be Acted Upon" which is based on the scripture found in 2 Nephi 2:13-14 in the Book of Mormon. See verse 16. Wherefore, the Lord God gave unto man that he should act for himself. Wherefore, man could not act for himself save it should be that he was enticed by the one or the other. (in other words, we are FREE to make choices)

10 hours ago, Benjamin McGuire said:

Genesis 22 does say that God is going to temp (test) Abraham. But it doesn't tell us what the nature of that test is, or how to know if Abraham is successful or if he fails.

If Job was required by God to prove himself to the utter limit even though he was already very faithful and charitable, then it was done so that he would go thru the refiner's fire. After persevering, Job obtained an even greater exaltation. A direct result of God's blessings on Job.

Abraham also went thru continual progressions and further capabilities. He was told previously (probably many years before) that he would have a birthright son of the promise. He fully expected for this to happen even when he and Sarah ripened to exceeding old age beyond child bearing.

The common theme between those two is that they CHOSE to TRUST God's purposes in challenging them. Job did not know if he was being punished for some reason but regardless he was willing to put himself in God's hands. Abraham probably figured that God would absolutely fulfill His promise somehow and that this would NOT be the end of Isaac. Interestingly, Isaac was fully compliant with Abraham in cooperating with setting up the altar and allowing himself to be bound. He TRUSTED both God and Abraham.

The "test" was successful for both of them. Job obtained a restoration of his wealth (multiple times over), a larger family, and greater joy. Abraham was astonishingly blessed with the miraculous birth of Isaac and a greater endowment of knowledge for having trusted God during his trial.

10 hours ago, Benjamin McGuire said:

Mortality cannot be simply a place where we learn to do what we are told to do.

It is NOT. The Plan of Redemption provide many challenges for growth and to improve and to gain greater wisdom

10 hours ago, Benjamin McGuire said:

That sort of outcome doesn't yield perfection in any sense (and it's the reason why, in LDS thought, Satan's plan of guaranteeing that no one would fail is a problem).

This statement is confusing to me. The outcome is either people choose to become like God or to squander their opportunities by wallowing in hedonism. Choices have consequences! Satan's plan is a dictatorship. The Gospel offers more freedom of choice by enabling escape from the bondage of sin.

10 hours ago, Benjamin McGuire said:

This perspective simply changes the notion of what is being tested, not that there is a test. We have created this myth of the Abrahamic test. We have even given it a sort of permanent legitimacy in our scriptures.

There are REAL and meaningful tests in mortality. We are definitely blessed by exercising ourselves in making choices. We grow by choosing wisdom.

10 hours ago, Benjamin McGuire said:

But a real Abrahamic test (on the assumption that God intended for Abraham to be completely willing to sacrifice his son Issac) is one where we are expected on the surface to fail - because it isn't our success at achieving what we are told that is being tested - just our willingness to do something so horrific.

God can see into his heart and know what kinds of thoughts he is pondering. God is very thorough in making assessments and faithful in planning more beneficial teaching moments and experiences. The point of the test was for Abraham to PROVE his trust in God that He will in fact fulfill His Promise of the birth of the birthright child of the promise. How? He did not know beforehand.

[Kenngo1969]

4 hours ago, Rain said:

This really makes me sad because this is not about arguing semantic hairs for me.  It is part of something that I truly struggle with so I have spent much time praying about it.  When you say "deciding" it discounts how much time, faith and effort I have put into understanding what God desires of me.  When you started the thread I thought "he doesn't understand where people like me are coming from so when you said "deciding" I thought here was a place I could help you understand.

I can see your point of view. My point of view is that IF God commanded it and IF he wanted it in scripture then God was making it my business else why put it in the scriptures?  And if he didn't command it or put it in the scriptures then he would want me to be humble enough to try to find out rather than accepting it whole. 

If I don't think God will answer then I might as well not pray. I do find God answers though so I continue to ask sincerely. Honestly, I find it confusing that for a people who are so big on praying for answers to hear people say we shouldn't pray for them. 

 

I'm not telling anyone not to pray.  With due respect, you're misreading me severely if you believe that.  When God tells you the whole back story of how this account of Abraham [almost!] sacrificing Isaac ended up in the Old Testament (with at least one allusion in the New),  don't keep us in suspense.  Be sure to let the rest of us know!    I once heard someone describe four possible answers God might give to His Children in answer to prayer: (1) yes, (2) no, (3) not yet, and (4) what do you think?  The most frustrating, of course, are the last three.

There are tons of questions that I don't have the answers to yet that I wish I did.  (See my most recent reply to Mr. Shorty, above.)  What can I do?    In the past, I've driven myself nearly mad  with the thought that my lack of answers must mean that I'm not "good" enough, that I'm not doing the "right" things enough, and so on and so forth, ad infinitum and ad nauseam.  Ain't doin' that no mo.   Best wishes in your spiritual odyssey.

[Dario_M]

On 1/17/2025 at 4:31 AM, Kenngo1969 said:

I should note that I did not originate the idea of Abraham's sacrifice of Isaac making Isaac a type of Christ.  That was Paul's idea (see Hebrews 11:17-19).

Thoughts?

 

Offcourse is Isaac no Christ. Only Christ is Christ. Perfect in all ways. No human can compare with that. 

[The Nehor]

12 hours ago, Kenngo1969 said:

With all due respect, I decline your very gracious invitation to split semantic hairs with you.  While I recognize that everyone must seek one's own testimony about what God commands, I'm not sure, if I were to ask God if He really did command Abraham to sacrifice Isaac, that God would feel compelled to explain Himself to me.  He might well tell me that, just as my standing before Him is none of anyone else's business, Abraham's standing before God is between God and Abraham, that Isaac's standing before God is between God and Isaac, and that the standing of either before Him is ... wait for it! ... none of my business!   

If God thinks the whole story is none of our business God probably shouldn’t have had it publicized so widely. Even in this dispensation God talks about it again in the Doctrine and Covenants. God is making it our business by continuing to reference this story.

[CV75]

11 hours ago, longview said:

I have no doubt that Lehi wrote in his own personal journal with the intent that his posterity will remember the great things that God did for "this branch that was broken off the from the House of Israel." I expect to read the Book of Lehi someday, whether during mortality or in the next world. The same with Nephi who even abridged parts of Lehi's record into his personal collection (the Small Plates).

I have no doubt that Noah wrote both before and after the Flood. He had much material from the Patriarchs. There is a belief among some Jews that Melchizedek was Shem, son of Noah. No doubt Shem kept the records in good shape. Abraham was very devoted to searching the records of his forefathers and was faithful and diligent to God. No doubt Abraham kept records also.

Joseph Smith said that the Book of Mormon is the most correct of any book on earth. It is also the world's GREATEST commentator on the Bible. It validates many historical aspects of the Bible and it contains wonderful insights and perspectives on the Bible.

There is a difference between killing and murdering. Certain statues in the Law of Moses required stoning of violators. Phinehas the priest slew Zimri (a prince of Simeonites) and the Midiantish woman with his javelin (see Numbers 25: 4 thru 15). Nephi was commanded to cut off the head of Laban, a chieftain in old Jerusalem. With God there is NO conflict.

The history concerning leaders, prophets, patriarchs, and heroes (including women) contain real incidents, profound lessons, warnings, an overlay of symbolism and foreshadowing that God made possible. Such as Jonah and the whale which Jesus made mention of. Wonderous plagues in Egypt that led Hebrew slaves to be set free. Sojourning in the land of Midian. etc. The life of Abraham truly is inspiring. You call it simplistic. I call it profound.

Yours is a lone voice howling in the wilderness. Contrary to many throughout history that give honor to Abraham. Even Moslems revere Abraham by claiming kinship thru Ishmael son of Abraham and Hagar.

It was VERY necessary for God to provide a Savior the Lamb of God. Without it the Plan of Redemption could NOT be implemented. God intended for the trial of Abraham to FORESHADOW the sacrifice of God the Father and His only begotten Son, the Messiah.

Noah was not a mindless drone. He proved his faithfulness in learning life's lessons again and again, going from grace to grace, becoming stronger in the process. Jesus also went from grace to grace.

This is utterly meaningless to me. Sounds disjointed.

I disagree. This sounds like Calvinism and the doctrine of predestination. Please read Elder David A. Bednar. He discussed the concept of "acting and being acted upon" in a talk titled "Things to Act and Things to Be Acted Upon" which is based on the scripture found in 2 Nephi 2:13-14 in the Book of Mormon. See verse 16. Wherefore, the Lord God gave unto man that he should act for himself. Wherefore, man could not act for himself save it should be that he was enticed by the one or the other. (in other words, we are FREE to make choices)

If Job was required by God to prove himself to the utter limit even though he was already very faithful and charitable, then it was done so that he would go thru the refiner's fire. After persevering, Job obtained an even greater exaltation. A direct result of God's blessings on Job.

Abraham also went thru continual progressions and further capabilities. He was told previously (probably many years before) that he would have a birthright son of the promise. He fully expected for this to happen even when he and Sarah ripened to exceeding old age beyond child bearing.

The common theme between those two is that they CHOSE to TRUST God's purposes in challenging them. Job did not know if he was being punished for some reason but regardless he was willing to put himself in God's hands. Abraham probably figured that God would absolutely fulfill His promise somehow and that this would NOT be the end of Isaac. Interestingly, Isaac was fully compliant with Abraham in cooperating with setting up the altar and allowing himself to be bound. He TRUSTED both God and Abraham.

The "test" was successful for both of them. Job obtained a restoration of his wealth (multiple times over), a larger family, and greater joy. Abraham was astonishingly blessed with the miraculous birth of Isaac and a greater endowment of knowledge for having trusted God during his trial.

It is NOT. The Plan of Redemption provide many challenges for growth and to improve and to gain greater wisdom

This statement is confusing to me. The outcome is either people choose to become like God or to squander their opportunities by wallowing in hedonism. Choices have consequences! Satan's plan is a dictatorship. The Gospel offers more freedom of choice by enabling escape from the bondage of sin.

There are REAL and meaningful tests in mortality. We are definitely blessed by exercising ourselves in making choices. We grow by choosing wisdom.

God can see into his heart and know what kinds of thoughts he is pondering. God is very thorough in making assessments and faithful in planning more beneficial teaching moments and experiences. The point of the test was for Abraham to PROVE his trust in God that He will in fact fulfill His Promise of the birth of the birthright child of the promise. How? He did not know beforehand.

I like to use the word “prove” (as in Abraham 3:25) rather than “test,” because it is more rigorous conclusive for establishing truth (achieved by acting) than a test, which confirms practical functionality (which does not necessarily require an actor's agency).

[MrShorty]

@Kenngo1969 I don't want to be insensitive to your life experience, because it sounds difficult. I want to emphasize again that I believe God can ask us to do hard things, even when we cannot see the reason for doing the hard thing. If someone goes into the woods to pray about their life and comes out pushing boulders up a hill, I see no reason why God could not be behind that sort of command (no matter how meaningless the effort seems to me).

The difference is that God didn't just ask Abraham to do a HARD thing. God asked Abraham to do something that would under almost any other circumstance be considered EVIL. If we want, we can run down the rabbit trail of the Euthyphro dilemma or divine command theory, but the ultimate question we wrestle with when talking about Abraham and Isaac or Nephi and Laban or Saul and the Amalekites is the question of whether or not God would really and truly command a person to do something evil -- not just hard, not just fruitless or wasteful, but evil.

As I said, this is an area of active deconstruction/reconstruction for me, so I can't claim to really understand anything. It just seems to me that there is something very different about obedience when God tells you to do something hard, but morally neutral, and when God tells you to do something evil.

[Kenngo1969]

10 hours ago, The Nehor said:

If God thinks the whole story is none of our business God probably shouldn’t have had it publicized so widely. Even in this dispensation God talks about it again in the Doctrine and Covenants. God is making it our business by continuing to reference this story.

I agree, but I do think the notion that God is bound to give us all of the details, the ins and outs, the whys and the wherefores needs to be tempered by such scriptures as, among many others, Isaiah 55:8-9: "My ways are not your ways, neither are your thoughts my thoughts, for as the Heavens are higher than the earth, do are my thoughts higher than your thoughts, snd my ways higher than your ways."  Jacob 4:10: "Seek not to counsel the Lord, but to take counsel from his hand ... for He counseleth in wisdom and mercy ... over all His works."

And so forth.

[Kenngo1969]

2 minutes ago, MrShorty said:

@Kenngo1969 I don't want to be insensitive to your life experience, because it sounds difficult. I want to emphasize again that I believe God can ask us to do hard things, even when we cannot see the reason for doing the hard thing. If someone goes into the woods to pray about their life and comes out pushing boulders up a hill, I see no reason why God could not be behind that sort of command (no matter how meaningless the effort seems to me).

The difference is that God didn't just ask Abraham to do a HARD thing. God asked Abraham to do something that would under almost any other circumstance be considered EVIL. If we want, we can run down the rabbit trail of the Euthyphro dilemma or divine command theory, but the ultimate question we wrestle with when talking about Abraham and Isaac or Nephi and Laban or Saul and the Amalekites is the question of whether or not God would really and truly command a person to do something evil -- not just hard, not just fruitless or wasteful, but evil.

As I said, this is an area of active deconstruction/reconstruction for me, so I can't claim to really understand anything. It just seems to me that there is something very different about obedience when God tells you to do something hard, but morally neutral, and when God tells you to do something evil.

Law school, a morally-neutral enterprise?   You don't know very many lawyers very well, do you? 😉   (Sorry.  Couldn't resist!)  A lot of people have a similar reaction to the supposed command from the Lord to Nephi to slay Laban (It is true, though, that there is more justification, in 1 Nephi as well as background information elsewhere, for that act than is available in the Scriptures for God's supposed command to Abraham to sacrifice Isaac.)  

It is a conundrum.  I confess: I'm neither smart enough nor enlightened enough to untangle that particular Gordian Knot.  I do wish you well in your quest for spiritual enlightenment and peace.

 

[Benjamin McGuire]

14 hours ago, longview said:

There is a difference between killing and murdering. Certain statues in the Law of Moses required stoning of violators. Phinehas the priest slew Zimri (a prince of Simeonites) and the Midiantish woman with his javelin (see Numbers 25: 4 thru 15). Nephi was commanded to cut off the head of Laban, a chieftain in old Jerusalem. With God there is NO conflict.

Regardless, none of this is significant in discussing Abraham and Isaac, is it. Isaac had not done anything worthy of herem. Nephi seems to be very specific in his language about his killing of Laban. In this specific case, it is a conflict - because there isn't any justification that can be used. And while you may think that anything goes, as long as God commands it, that isn't a perspective that the Old Testament takes.

14 hours ago, longview said:

The history concerning leaders, prophets, patriarchs, and heroes (including women) contain real incidents, profound lessons, warnings, an overlay of symbolism and foreshadowing that God made possible. Such as Jonah and the whale which Jesus made mention of. Wonderous plagues in Egypt that led Hebrew slaves to be set free. Sojourning in the land of Midian. etc. The life of Abraham truly is inspiring. You call it simplistic. I call it profound.

The two aren't opposing issues. The problem for me is that the language itself (the Hebrew text) of these narratives includes a lot of things that simply get lost in translation (and lost in reading them off the page instead of listening to them). This is what I was referring to. A rather literalistic reading (of the sort that you appear to making) doesn't allow space for the complexities of the text/narrative. The text can still be quite profound (if not more so) when read as its original authors intended - but reading it with these rhetorical clues often helps us gain better insight into both what its author intended, and how its earliest audiences understood those texts. Many of the kinds of issues that we raise today weren't particularly challenging for those audiences.

14 hours ago, longview said:

Yours is a lone voice howling in the wilderness. Contrary to many throughout history that give honor to Abraham. Even Moslems revere Abraham by claiming kinship thru Ishmael son of Abraham and Hagar.

It's not a lone voice. And I really don't care if you disagree with me. One of the profound things about the Old Testament is that it takes care to make sure to present each of the patriarchs as having flaws (many of them quite significant). It's purpose in that is to prevent the worship of the patriarchs or to suggest that they are somehow perfect like God is perfect. It is our own Western Christianity which tends to elevate people (through sainthood, etc), that creates that notion of perfection - as you do here. This doesn't diminish in any way the honor that Jews extend to their patriarchs.

14 hours ago, longview said:

It was VERY necessary for God to provide a Savior the Lamb of God. Without it the Plan of Redemption could NOT be implemented. God intended for the trial of Abraham to FORESHADOW the sacrifice of God the Father and His only begotten Son, the Messiah.

And until Christianity appropriated the story, no Jew ever understand the story of Abraham in this way. So, it cannot be called a foreshadowing if no one understood it this way. It becomes a proof text - reinterpreted after the fact.

14 hours ago, longview said:

Noah was not a mindless drone. He proved his faithfulness in learning life's lessons again and again, going from grace to grace, becoming stronger in the process. Jesus also went from grace to grace.

But this isn't what the Old Testament text tells us (about Noah). Your comments are based on what the text actually says, but on what you want the text to say.

14 hours ago, longview said:

I disagree. This sounds like Calvinism and the doctrine of predestination. Please read Elder David A. Bednar. He discussed the concept of "acting and being acted upon" in a talk titled "Things to Act and Things to Be Acted Upon" which is based on the scripture found in 2 Nephi 2:13-14 in the Book of Mormon. See verse 16. Wherefore, the Lord God gave unto man that he should act for himself. Wherefore, man could not act for himself save it should be that he was enticed by the one or the other. (in other words, we are FREE to make choices)

And 2 Nephi 2 (which is the text which reveals the limited nature of agency) tells us also is this: "Wherefore, men are free according to the flesh" and also that "because that they are redeemed from the fall they have become free forever, knowing good from evil; to act for themselves and not to be acted upon" - it is the redemption from the fall - that is, the resurrection - that allows men to become free forever, to act and not be acted upon. In mortality, before we are redeemed from the fall, we don't have that freedom to only act and not be acted upon. There is also an important issue in the verse you raise. Because, if there is no enticement, then there can be no meaningful choice. Moroni takes this a step further in Moroni 8:22 -

Quote

also all they that are without the law. For the power of redemption cometh on all them that have no law; wherefore, he that is not condemned, or he that is under no condemnation, cannot repent; and unto such baptism availeth nothing

Those who are not enticed - those who are without the law - are guaranteed redemption because they cannot be condemned for those things that they did without agency (without those enticements that Lehi speaks of).

I am not saying that we are not FREE to make choices - I am simply pointing out that our freedom to make choices is constrained by our mortal condition. There is no absolute agency - and so we recognize that for different people, the same actions can result in completely different conditions of accountability or condemnation.

14 hours ago, longview said:

If Job was required by God to prove himself to the utter limit even though he was already very faithful and charitable, then it was done so that he would go thru the refiner's fire. After persevering, Job obtained an even greater exaltation. A direct result of God's blessings on Job.

Yeah, the ending kind of ruins the entire parable (especially for a text written during the Babylonian exile). Most academics think that the end of the text as well as its prologue are later additions to the story. I assume that you won't find any of that compelling, but it doesn't change the problem. If the message is that we should be willing to sacrifice everything because God will give it back to us in mortality, it kind of falls short of the real message.

[Benjamin McGuire]

2 hours ago, CV75 said:

I like to use the word “prove” (as in Abraham 3:25) rather than “test,” because it is more rigorous conclusive for establishing truth (achieved by acting) than a test, which confirms practical functionality (which does not necessarily require an actor's agency).

There is a risk in this sort of language treatment because it doesn't recognize the problem of Biblical language and it's influence over the text. Malachi 3:8 - "prove me now herewith." I am not sure that this carries that connotation of an actor's agency.

[CV75]

59 minutes ago, Benjamin McGuire said:

There is a risk in this sort of language treatment because it doesn't recognize the problem of Biblical language and it's influence over the text. Malachi 3:8 - "prove me now herewith." I am not sure that this carries that connotation of an actor's agency.

True, lots of semantics at play, and the same word doesn't always man the same thing twice, but I still prefer to use "prove" for the process of determining how true (in accord, aligned, or reconciled) we are to God.

Thinking about it, though, in Malachi the Lord is asking that we demonstrate that He is true to His word (as an Actor) by receiving the blessings of obedience to His law of tithe, and not asking us to test the functionality of His law or the cause-and-effect properties between tithing and blessing. This distinction, for me, priorities our personal relationship with Him above our interface with the laws that might act upon us or with the objects we might act upon in observing those laws.

Tithing can also be a proof of our being true to God (and He would judge that according to many criteria beyond the transaction), and we might begin with testing the law in Alma 32 fashion, which may be an early step from a transactional to a relational attitude due to the faith in Christ involved.

[Calm]

3 hours ago, MrShorty said:

Abraham and Isaac or Nephi and Laban or Saul and the Amalekites

Abraham and Isaac are in a different category imo than the other two because there were at least reasonable reasons to kill Laban and the Amalekites as in practical (to prevent retaliation), emotional (for revenge and remove a source of fear), and social (to prevent harm to others as both are established as willing to kill and likely would do so again).  While the killing of Laban or the Amalekites might be hard for anyone, it was likely easily understood why, even to the destruction of all that the Amalekites owned (as ritually impure or showing how thorough Israel would be if attacked to warn off others).  Since there are times killing is not evil (self defense or defense of others), at least Laban’s execution can be categorized as not “evil” imo.  I don’t see any difference with him being unconscious myself.  If the intent is to kill and there is a necessity for it to protect others, then it is imo immoral to risk getting killed oneself in the process just so one can feel better about not killing someone defenseless if one has a chance to execute them without risk to oneself or others.  That doesn’t mean execution of someone is good for one’s soul; it should still be avoided wherever possible.

There is no reasonable reason for Abraham to kill Isaac. 

Edited January 19, 2025 by Calm

[OGHoosier]

I'll note that Jacob 4:5 states:

Behold, they believed in Christ and worshiped the Father in his name, and also we worship the Father in his name. And for this intent we keep the law of Moses, it pointing our souls to him; and for this cause it is sanctified unto us for righteousness, even as it was accounted unto Abraham in the wilderness to be obedient unto the commands of God in offering up his son Isaac, which is a similitude of God and his Only Begotten Son.

I guess it depends on how much of a similitude it is, for Christ did agree to His role. There is extrabiblical tradition that Isaac agreed to his, as well as a rich rabbinical tradition that the sparing of Isaac represents the sparing of Israel. That makes the most sense to me.

Edited January 19, 2025 by OGHoosier

[teddyaware]

2 hours ago, Benjamin McGuire said:

And until Christianity appropriated the story, no Jew ever understand the story of Abraham in this way. So, it cannot be called a foreshadowing if no one understood it this way. It becomes a proof text - reinterpreted after the fact.

Does the fact that 600 years before the birth of Christ the Nephites perfectly understood that Abraham’s sacrifice of Isaac was indeed a prophetic foreshadowing of the atoning sacrifice of the Son of God disprove your assertion that there were no believers in the God of Abraham who many years beforehand understood the Messianic prophetic implications of Abraham’s sacrifice of Isaac? It pays to check in with the scriptures before making blanket assertions.

4 For, for this intent have we written these things, that they may know that we knew of Christ, and we had a hope of his glory many hundred years before his coming; and not only we ourselves had a hope of his glory, but also all the holy prophets which were before us.

5 Behold, they believed in Christ and worshiped the Father in his name, and also we worship the Father in his name. And for this intent we keep the law of Moses, it pointing our souls to him; and for this cause it is sanctified unto us for righteousness, even as it was accounted unto Abraham in the wilderness to be obedient unto the commands of God in offering up his son Isaac, which is a similitude of God and his Only Begotten Son. (Jacob 4)

 

Edited January 19, 2025 by teddyaware

[Kenngo1969]

23 minutes ago, OGHoosier said:

I'll note that Jacob 4:5 states:

Behold, they believed in Christ and worshiped the Father in his name, and also we worship the Father in his name. And for this intent we keep the law of Moses, it pointing our souls to him; and for this cause it is sanctified unto us for righteousness, even as it was accounted unto Abraham in the wilderness to be obedient unto the commands of God in offering up his son Isaac, which is a similitude of God and his Only Begotten Son.

I guess it depends on how much of a similitude it is, for Christ did agree to His role. There is extrabiblical tradition that Isaac agreed to his [role], as well as a rich rabbinical tradition that the sparing of Isaac represents the sparing of Israel. That makes the most sense to me.

Indeed!  Son, (I can bestow that appellation upon you; I think you're quite a bit younger than I am   ) I think you just hit the nail on the head!  Thank you!  

[OGHoosier]

2 minutes ago, Kenngo1969 said:

Indeed!  Son, (I can bestow that appellation upon you; I think you're quite a bit younger than I am   ) I think you just hit the nail on the head!  Thank you!  

I think i am, and it's an honor.

[Kenngo1969]

4 hours ago, Kenngo1969 said:

[Note: Previously, I appended this as a "P.S." to my reply to Mr. Shorty, but I wanted to focus on it in its own right.]

I'll note, also, that as much as I can appreciate the emotional, moral, and mental anguish about what God purportedly commanded in this particular circumstance, I think that what God was seeking from Abraham is the willingness to sacrifice Isaac, not the actual sacrifice.

 

I think this, a Jewish perspective, is interesting, and that it adds valuable insight to the discussion.  It is consistent with what I said above.  Here's a short excerpt, and a link to the whole thing below.

Quote

 

Abraham demonstrated that we [Jews] are prepared to give our life for G‑d—that we recognize that there is a truth and reality that is greater than our own existence and we are absolutely committed to serving this higher truth. So when G‑d tells us that that's not what He wants from us—that He wants us not to die and kill for Him but to live and nurture life as His "partner in creation—"our pursuit of life is motivated and empowered by our commitment to G‑d, and is as absolute and as powerful as its source. [Emphasis added by Kenngo1969.]

 

https://www.chabad.org/library/article_cdo/aid/326392/jewish/Sacrifice-Your-Son.htm#:~:text=Skeptic: I hate to say,little show on Mount Moriah?

Edited January 19, 2025 by Kenngo1969