Internal Spiritual Conflict

[stelf]

Here is the crux of my topic. What do we do, or how do we process situations where multiple things cannot all be held to be true in our minds? I know that many different people will handle these things differently, but I want to hear how you have handled them. I seem to be encountering these kinds of things quite frequently of late. 

Here is an example. It may not seem like a huge conflict to you, but it is one small thing among many that troubles me greatly. I hold the individual worth of souls as an ultimate truth. In the church we would say that everyone is a child of God. While I cannot "prove" this or reason this, I am completely convinced. I admit that this is at least partially true, because I need it to be true of me. That I matter. Now we can look at the story of Abraham and Isaac. It is taught as a foundational example of sacrifice and devotion/trust in God. However, one thing that this story lacks (at least as it is presented in the Bible) is any kind of acknowledgement that Isaac is an individual with his own agency. It is clear that he is important to his father and that giving him up is a trial. My children are not my property, it would not be possible for me to decide to sacrifice them.

So, how to I deal with the conflict in my mind about this story. There are a few options. First, I could just be wrong. However, believe me when I say that I do not know what evidence it would take to change my mind about my views on the worth of each soul. Or, the story or associated teachings could be wrong. Finally, both could be wrong. All these seem simple. However, each option comes with devastating (at least to me) consequences. If I am wrong, then I am unable to trust the process by which I know the things that are most dear to me. If the story is wrong or the teachings are wrong (I am leaning towards this) then there are still consequences, but perhaps less troublesome.

So, how can I navigate this? I am not looking to present a gotcha to anyone. I am looking for wisdom and advice from others who have confronted this kind of issue. For a long time this is the kind of thing that I would simply place on a shelf, but that shelf is getting very weighty.

[The Nehor]

You kind of have to accept that no matter what God thinks the writer and/or recorder of the story viewed children (and wife/wives) as possessions of the head of the household.

[stelf]

I agree with that conclusion. The struggle comes, because with accepting that the scriptures could be only maybe adjacent to God's will the fact that our current leaders teach the story in the same way really erodes at trust.

[Kevin Christensen]

Regarding the story of Abraham and Isaac, it is important to read the story we have, and then to consider the broader context provided by other stories.  We have more than one account.

There is one profoundly meaningful aspect of Abraham's response that often gets overlooked.

Quote

Gen. 22:5

and I and the lad will go yonder and worship, and come again to you.

....

And Abraham said, My son, God will provide himself a lamb for a burnt offering: so they went both of them together.

If you compare this account with the story of Abraham pleading on behalf of Sodom, trying to bargain with God, it should be obvious that here Abraham does not agonize or bargain or complain or protest.  Given that he loves Isaac more than he loved Sodom, it is reasonable to ask, "Why not?"  Hugh Nibley points out in his essays on the Sacrifice of Isaac and the Sacrifice of Sarah that Abraham had been in this situation many times, had been on the sacrificial altar himself (Abraham 1 has one example), had seen Sarah on the Lion couch as a potential sacrifice twice, and what had happened for Abraham time and time again was that a substitute was provided.  Abraham is not operating under fanatical blind faith, but with clear understanding brought by long and repeated experience.  There are non-canonical accounts of Isaac being of age (Nibley reports some of these as does Truman Madsen), and asking Abraham to bind him so that he would not resist, which means that Isaac himself was being tested, just as Abraham had been, just as Sarah had been (if she refused Pharaoh or Abimelech she could legally be killed), and just as Rebecca would be.  There is a perfect unity in the sacrifices, as Nibley observed, by all parties necessarily involved in the Abrahamic promise of seed.

So why did God ask Abraham to offer his son?

Quote

8 ¶ For my thoughts are not your thoughts, neither are your ways my ways, saith the Lord.

9 For as the heavens are higher than the earth, so are my ways higher than your ways, and my thoughts than your thoughts.

10 For as the rain cometh down, and the snow from heaven, and returneth not thither, but watereth the earth, and maketh it bring forth and bud, that it may give seed to the sower, and bread to the eater:

11 So shall my word be that goeth forth out of my mouth: it shall not return unto me void, but it shall accomplish that which I please, and it shall prosper in the thing whereto I sent it.  (Isaiah 55:9-11)

Should we suppose at any point that the reason God commanded Abraham to offer up his son is that God wanted Isaac dead?   Or was that word sent forth to accomplish something else God had mind?

Quote

and all things which have been given of God from the beginning of the world, unto man, are the typifying of him. (2 Nephi 11:4)

FWIW,

Kevin Christensen

Canonsburg, PA

[Calm]

I agree with Nehor.  The writers of the story (there were possibly multiple versions combined that were then further edited) did not have a modern view of the family or of humanity in general.

Added:  Kevin’s response is great as well.  A very thought provoking analysis…and provoking thought is what scripture should do, not end the discussion as some approach them (scriptures).

I do think modern man looks on death differently than those in ancient times when it was a much closer reality.  Pregnancy and childbirth and child care for women was asking them to sacrifice their lives for others, even to the point of death at times.  Men were required to defend their families putting their lives at risk in many ways as well.  Commitment to God could well put them at odds with neighbouring groups.  Their personal experiences would have caused them to respond to this story very differently than we do.

I think we make a big mistake when we look at scriptures as the pure word of God and therefore everything in it must harmonize with each other and with modern revelation and/or be an eternal truth or doctrine and not as men’s attempts to tell of our relationship with God, in my opinion sometimes with great success at portraying what God wants us to understand (imo, the teaching all of us are his children who he loves is a more accurate portrayal, but this is my bias of course, based on both my personal experiences with God and my desire of what I want God to be like), other times not so much (justification of cultural practices that do not treat everyone fairly, compassionately, or with appropriate respect).

Some point out that Isaac would not be a child in this story, but a young man or even an older man (37) capable of resisting his father if he so desired and so what occurred was his free choice as well.**  Others view Abraham’s action in attempting to sacrifice Isaac as not the one desired by God and that is why the angel came.  Still others say Abraham was willing to kill Isaac*** because he trusted that God would restore him to life to fulfill the promises he had made to Abraham.  Some scholars believe the original story ended in Isaac’s death and this was changed by different writers who disagreed that God would approve of child/human sacrifice.

Personally I see the purpose of scripture is to help bring us to God in a variety of ways, but mainly to make us question and then seek the answers from God (I am greatly influenced, I suspect, by Joseph Smith’s own story as he is not shy about turning to God when he wonders about something in scripture).  I think a one size fits all approach to scripture as if there is only one “plain reading” is a fundamental error and hopefully is a tradition in the Church that won’t last for much longer.  So study and pray and if the story ends up helping you understand your relationship with God better in some fashion, great.  If it is one that stays in the category of not making sense, then that is okay too.  Don’t force it to fit.  Let the Spirit and the reasoning power God gave you tell you what you should do with it, what to take from it and what to leave as unbeneficial.

**

Quote

 The first-century C.E. Jewish historian Flavius Josephus describes Isaac as a 25-year-old who rushes to the altar, knowing that he is to be the victim. According to this portrayal, in future times of distress, God will remember Isaac’s binding, the Akedah, and heed the prayers of the Jewish people for deliverance from enemies. As the text says, “Because you have done this…I will bestow my blessing upon you and make your descendants as numerous as the stars of heaven and the sands on the seashore” (Genesis 22:16–17). That is why the shofar the ram’s horn is blown at Rosh Hashanah to remind God of the Akedah and his promise; the shofar represents the horn of the ram that was substituted for Isaac

https://www.biblicalarchaeology.org/daily/biblical-topics/bible-interpretation/binding-sacrifice-isaac/  This article is good at presenting different views of the story, you may want to read it…academic, but accessible and quite brief given how much material is out there discussing this story.

***most likely quickly and as painless as possible, my memory is animal sacrifices were attempted to be done to limit the animal’s suffering, but I am thinking the smell of blood from other sacrifices at the temple and just being restrained would be extremely stressful to the animal’s suffering, so not exactly cruelty free even with the best of intentions

Edited March 18, 2025 by Calm

[webbles]

There's several commentators that say that Isaac was probably a young man during this story.  The church's new Scripture Stories (the one for kids) shows him as a teenager https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/manual/old-testament-stories-2022/abraham-and-isaac?lang=eng.  The old version has Isaac much younger (looks like under 10).

I can't imagine an old 100+ year old guy being able to force a teenage or older man to be sacrificed.  So, for me, Isaac had to agree to it.  It isn't explicit in the story, but I feel it is implicit.

[stelf]

Thanks Kevin, I always appreciate your thoughtful replies. 

In your response you pose a couple of questions. First, "So why did God ask Abraham to offer his son?" I think this is a very reasonable approach and matches the exact reasoning I have gone through many times. As I said in the OP, the story of Abraham and Isaac is simply one example among many. I think another perfectly reasonable approach is to ask, "Do I really believe that God asked His prophet to sacrifice his son?" Or course if I accept the Bible as it currently stands (whatever that might mean) as completely authoritative and historically accurate. Well, then I need to wrestle with the question you posed. However, I am not a biblical literalist. I am fully open to the idea that the story as we have it is a fabrication.

I don't want this thread to simply become a discussion about that story though. Essentially what I am asking is how can I maintain my faith in the face of conflicting "truths". 

[blackstrap]

greater minds have spoken 

Edited March 17, 2025 by blackstrap

[stelf]

3 minutes ago, webbles said:

There's several commentators that say that Isaac was probably a young man during this story.  The church's new Scripture Stories (the one for kids) shows him as a teenager https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/manual/old-testament-stories-2022/abraham-and-isaac?lang=eng.  The old version has Isaac much younger (looks like under 10).

I can't imagine an old 100+ year old guy being able to force a teenage or older man to be sacrificed.  So, for me, Isaac had to agree to it.  It isn't explicit in the story, but I feel it is implicit.

I've also heard this presented since I was young. I think it works fine as an explanation, but it is still a negotiation based on values that we hold. These values (e.g. God does not approve of murdering children) means we have to come up with an explanation.

My current problem is that I am having to maintain so many "explanations" that it is starting to feel like a house of cards. I know believers are often accused of mental gymnastics and I always balked at the accusation, but it fits how I feel now. 

[Ginger Snaps]

14 minutes ago, stelf said:

Essentially what I am asking is how can I maintain my faith in the face of conflicting "truths". 

I've wrestled with this too, and I often think about the story of the blind men and the elephant. Things can be both true and seem to be conflicting  at the same time. At some point the whole "elephant" will be revealed and we'll understand more. HTH

Edited March 17, 2025 by Ginger Snaps
stray character

[CV75]

1 hour ago, stelf said:

Here is the crux of my topic. What do we do, or how do we process situations where multiple things cannot all be held to be true in our minds? I know that many different people will handle these things differently, but I want to hear how you have handled them. I seem to be encountering these kinds of things quite frequently of late. 

Here is an example. It may not seem like a huge conflict to you, but it is one small thing among many that troubles me greatly. I hold the individual worth of souls as an ultimate truth. In the church we would say that everyone is a child of God. While I cannot "prove" this or reason this, I am completely convinced. I admit that this is at least partially true, because I need it to be true of me. That I matter. Now we can look at the story of Abraham and Isaac. It is taught as a foundational example of sacrifice and devotion/trust in God. However, one thing that this story lacks (at least as it is presented in the Bible) is any kind of acknowledgement that Isaac is an individual with his own agency. It is clear that he is important to his father and that giving him up is a trial. My children are not my property, it would not be possible for me to decide to sacrifice them.

So, how to I deal with the conflict in my mind about this story. There are a few options. First, I could just be wrong. However, believe me when I say that I do not know what evidence it would take to change my mind about my views on the worth of each soul. Or, the story or associated teachings could be wrong. Finally, both could be wrong. All these seem simple. However, each option comes with devastating (at least to me) consequences. If I am wrong, then I am unable to trust the process by which I know the things that are most dear to me. If the story is wrong or the teachings are wrong (I am leaning towards this) then there are still consequences, but perhaps less troublesome.

So, how can I navigate this? I am not looking to present a gotcha to anyone. I am looking for wisdom and advice from others who have confronted this kind of issue. For a long time this is the kind of thing that I would simply place on a shelf, but that shelf is getting very weighty.

One way to look at it is, that which is unacceptable to you was acceptable to Abraham, and vice-versa, and so God’s grace must necessarily apply to both of you. He extends the same covenant relationship to both of you as you grow in the faith to become more like Him. This is the process.

None (you, Abraham, God) is/are wrong.

[stelf]

2 minutes ago, CV75 said:

One way to look at it is, that which is unacceptable to you was acceptable to Abraham, and vice-versa, and so God’s grace must necessarily apply to both of you. He extends the same covenant relationship to both of you as you grow in the faith to become more like Him. This is the process.

None (you, Abraham, God) is/are wrong.

I am going to need to sit with this for a while. I feel like this has a lot of potential to change the way I look at things. Thank you CV75!

I also have to admit that a big part of my current struggles stem from the way I was raised and taught to conceptualize the church and Gospel. 

[webbles]

30 minutes ago, stelf said:

I've also heard this presented since I was young. I think it works fine as an explanation, but it is still a negotiation based on values that we hold. These values (e.g. God does not approve of murdering children) means we have to come up with an explanation.

My current problem is that I am having to maintain so many "explanations" that it is starting to feel like a house of cards. I know believers are often accused of mental gymnastics and I always balked at the accusation, but it fits how I feel now. 

I have a major conflicting truth that isn't really related to religion (it is complicated and I don't want to get into it here).  It, though, has a major factor on how I see the world and everything around me.  I don't know how to resolve this conflict.  I've read many people that discuss this issue from all sorts of sides.  I don't think I'll ever resolve it.  I just live with it and hope that maybe I'll find a solution at some point in the future.  I might be able to find a solution after I'm dead but I'm not sure about that either.

Edited March 17, 2025 by webbles

[CV75]

32 minutes ago, stelf said:

I've also heard this presented since I was young. I think it works fine as an explanation, but it is still a negotiation based on values that we hold. These values (e.g. God does not approve of murdering children) means we have to come up with an explanation.

My current problem is that I am having to maintain so many "explanations" that it is starting to feel like a house of cards. I know believers are often accused of mental gymnastics and I always balked at the accusation, but it fits how I feel now. 

I think building upon the personal, individual covenant relationship (trust) in God enables His children to realize that nothing He does or commands harms them. This might be why Abraham proceeded, or how he was able to proceed (I do not know), and how we can proceed with increasingly challenging relationship-building actions that might appear unjust to others (this I do know!).

[CV75]

12 minutes ago, stelf said:

I am going to need to sit with this for a while. I feel like this has a lot of potential to change the way I look at things. Thank you CV75!

I also have to admit that a big part of my current struggles stem from the way I was raised and taught to conceptualize the church and Gospel. 

We all carry biases that can only be eased, often over quite a bit of time, through a personal connection with God. Sometimes anticipating the liberation that Christ provided through His Atonement gives us enough of a glimpse to let go of these distressing things, whether they be in the form of fear, shame, habits, inadequacy, bad memories, offense, confusion, etc. Whoa: I ended up listing a lot more than I intended!

[InCognitus]

1 hour ago, stelf said:

That I matter. Now we can look at the story of Abraham and Isaac. It is taught as a foundational example of sacrifice and devotion/trust in God. However, one thing that this story lacks (at least as it is presented in the Bible) is any kind of acknowledgement that Isaac is an individual with his own agency. It is clear that he is important to his father and that giving him up is a trial. My children are not my property, it would not be possible for me to decide to sacrifice them.

Others have already pointed out that Isaac had total agency in this matter.  Genesis 22 says in two different places (verse 6 and 8 ) that "they went both of them together", so it was a cooperative effort for both Abraham and Isaac.  

But I also think this story is here to teach us something greater.  In verse 2 Abraham is commanded to take his "only son" (the son of the covenant) to the land of Moriah and "offer him" there.  The Hebrew in that text that is translated as "offer him" in the KJV literally means "to bring him up" or to "lift up".  And I believe Jesus drew directly from this story and the cooperation between Abraham and Isaac in parallel to the cooperation between himself and his Father in John 8:28-29:

"When ye have lifted up the Son of man, then shall ye know that I am he, and that I do nothing of myself; but as my Father hath taught me, I speak these things. And he that sent me is with me: the Father hath not left me alone; for I do always those things that please him." (John 8:28–29)

In other words, "they went both of them together" in what Jesus and his Father were doing, the same as with Abraham and Isaac.

I think Hebrews 11 also gives us more insight into Abraham's faith related to this story too:

"By faith Abraham, when he was tried, offered up Isaac: and he that had received the promises offered up his only begotten son,  Of whom it was said, That in Isaac shall thy seed be called:  Accounting that God was able to raise him up, even from the dead; from whence also he received him in a figure."  (Hebrews 11:17–19)

It was in Isaac that Abraham received the promise from the Lord that, "I will establish my covenant with him for an everlasting covenant, and with his seed after him".  (Genesis 17:19).  How could Isaac have "seed after him" if he died?  As Hebrews 11:17-19 points out, Abraham fully trusted in God's promise and knew that God would raise Isaac from the dead if necessary based on that promise.
 

[california boy]

Since you seem to be asking the question more broadly than just Abraham sacrificing his son, there is another issue that seems to be problematic.  I read this morning a list of scriptures from the. Book of Mormon that refer to skin color.  I have heard the apologetic replies on this subject, but never realized the number of scriptures that seem to clearly point to a black skin as being a curse from God.  That also seems like a conflict with the idea that we are all equal unto God.  Are all of these scriptures that refer to skin color so easily dismissed when it seems to be a pattern that repeated over and over again in the scriptures?  Can we dismiss it as just a misunderstanding of what color of skin means?

 

Here are the list of scriptures that I ran across this morning.  

BOOK of MORMON

1 Nephi 11:13 (Mary): “She was exceedingly fair and white.”

1 Nephi 12:23 (prophecy of the Lamanites): “Became a dark, and loathsome, and a filthy people, full of idleness and all manner of abominations.”

1 Nephi 13:15 (Gentiles): “They were white, and exceedingly fair and beautiful, like unto my people [Nephites] before they were slain.”

2 Nephi 5:21: “A sore cursing … as they were white, and exceedingly fair and delightsome, that they might not be enticing unto my people the Lord God did cause a skin of blackness to come upon them.”

2 Nephi 30:6 (prophecy to the Lamanites if they repented): “Scales of darkness shall begin to fall … they shall be a white and delightsome people” (“white and delightsome” was changed to “pure and delightsome” in 1981).

Jacob 3:5 (Lamanites cursed): “Whom ye hate because of their filthiness and the cursing which hath come upon their skins.”

Jacob 3:8-9: “Their skins will be whiter than yours … revile no more against them because of the darkness of their skins.”

Alma 3:6: “And the skins of the Lamanites were dark, according to the mark which was set upon their fathers, which was a curse upon them because of their transgression and their rebellion.”

Alma 3:9: “Whosoever did mingle his seed with that of the Lamanites did bring the same curse upon his seed.”

Alma 3:14 (Lamanites cursed): “Set a mark on them that they and their seed may be separated from thee and thy seed.”

Alma 23:18: “[Lamanites] did open a correspondence with them [Nephites] and the curse of God did no more follow them.”

3 Nephi 2:14-16: “Lamanites who had united with the Nephites were numbered among the Nephites; And their curse was taken from them, and their skin became white like unto the Nephites and … became exceedingly fair.”

3 Nephi 19:25, 30 (Disciples): “They were as white as the countenance and also the garments of Jesus; and behold the whiteness thereof did exceed all the whiteness … nothing upon earth so white as the whiteness thereof … and behold they were white, even as Jesus.”

Mormon 5:15 (prophecy about the Lamanites): “For this people shall be scattered, and shall become a dark, a filthy, and a loathsome people, beyond the description of that which ever hath been amongst us.”

Pearl of Great Price

Moses 5:40 “And I the Lord said unto him: Whosoever slayeth thee, vengeance shall be taken on him sevenfold. And I the Lord set a mark upon Cain, lest any finding him should kill him.”

Moses 7:8: “A blackness came upon all the children of Canaan.”

Moses 7:12: “Enoch continued to call upon all the people, save it were [i.e., except] the people of Canaan, to repent.”

Moses 7:22: “For the seed of Cain were black and had not place among them.”

[ZealouslyStriving]

I came to the conclusion about a year or so ago that the Abraham/Isaac story is probably more about Isaac than the even the writers realized:

If Isaac is a type of Christ, than he absolutely had the agency, and ability, to say "No."- but chose to do the will of his father.

Sound familiar?

[Benjamin McGuire]

4 hours ago, stelf said:

What do we do, or how do we process situations where multiple things cannot all be held to be true in our minds? I know that many different people will handle these things differently, but I want to hear how you have handled them.

Many, many years ago, (way back in 2004), I was driving home from work when I heard a piece on NPR from Richard Rohr - it was part of the "This I Believe" series they used to have. I think it's worth quoting a bit of it here:

Quote

Religious belief has made me comfortable with ambiguity. "Hints and guesses," as T.S. Eliot would say. I often spend the season of Lent in a hermitage, where I live alone for the whole 40 days. The more I am alone with the Alone, the more I surrender to ambivalence, to happy contradictions and seeming inconsistencies in myself and almost everything else, including God. Paradoxes don't scare me anymore.

When I was young, I couldn't tolerate such ambiguity. My education had trained me to have a lust for answers and explanations. Now, at age 63, it's all quite different. I no longer believe this is a quid pro quo universe -- I've counseled too many prisoners, worked with too many failed marriages, faced my own dilemmas too many times and been loved gratuitously after too many failures.

Whenever I think there's a perfect pattern, further reading and study reveal an exception. Whenever I want to say "only" or "always," someone or something proves me wrong. My scientist friends have come up with things like "principles of uncertainty" and dark holes. They're willing to live inside imagined hypotheses and theories. But many religious folks insist on answers that are always true. We love closure, resolution and clarity, while thinking that we are people of "faith"! How strange that the very word "faith" has come to mean its exact opposite.

I am not quite yet as old as he was then, but I have a better understanding now than I did when I first hear him speak. We like the world to be black and white. We like everything to be clear and concise and simple. And yet the world is messy, and our lives are messy, and unlike my expectations 30 some years ago, when I first got married, you don't stop being a parent once your children have moved out and are on their own. Being a parent, for example, has given me a great deal more appreciation for the job my parents did, even as I recognize that they were at least as unprepared as I was.

Elder Bruce Hafen, in his book The Believing Heart, said something profound about this (the whole book is worth reading, and is inexpensive). He starts by saying that there are three different levels of approach to the ambiguity we find in the gospel and in our lived experience. At the first level, we generally have a denial that the ambiguity exists. At the second level, Hafen suggests, we learn to start developing our own opinions - our own judgements:

Quote

We should then step up to level two, where we see things for what they are, for only then can we deal with reality in a meaningful and constructive way. ... We need to develop the capacity to form judgments of our own about the value of ideas, opportunities, or people who may come into our lives. We won't always have the security of knowing whether a certain idea is "Church approved," because new ideas don't always come along with little tags attached to them saying whether they have been reviewed at Church headquarters. Whether in the form of music, books, friends, or opportunities to serve, there is much that is lovely, of good report, and praiseworthy that is not the subject of detailed discussion in Church manuals or courses of instruction. Those who will not risk exposure to experiences that are not obviously related to some Church word or program will, I believe, live less abundant and meaningful lives than the Lord intends.

So congratulations, you are moving our of that first level response into the level two response. And here we need to develop our own understandings - our own opinions (you encounter a lot of that here). And here we see ambiguity all around us. Here we see these conflicts between things that cannot both be true. We become painfully aware of the gaps in our understanding. Hafen then goes on to suggest that we subordinate our reality (what we see with eyes wide open) to our hearts. I am not sure it is that wonderful of a metaphor, and I think that in some ways, I prefer Rohr's description, but it comes to the same place - we learn to embrace ambiguity.

The key to maintaining faith in the light of difficult issues isn't so much (in my experience) about the issues as it is about moving through these three stages of belief. And since we often look at different areas of our faith in different ways, sometimes we have to go through this painful process several times. I have also appreciated something written by Joseph Natoli:

Quote

the problem is not that we might wander and that we therefore would be faced with contesting views none of which can validate itself as The Truth. The problem is that we might elevate some narrative to Truth status and stop wandering. We might invest some observation ... with full determinate status.

In the Church, sometimes we start in the wrong place I think. That is, we don't question, so we never have this problem. That is a sort of primary approach. But eventually we run into questions. There is, I think, a desire to go back to a black and white world where we don't have this ambiguity.

Now I could simply answer the question about Abraham and Isaac (as I have many times), and suggest that in my opinion, this was a test of faith that Abraham failed (which is certainly one of the competing interpretations in Judaism). I could decide that this was a test of Abraham's faith, and he passed with flying colors. But I think that no matter how we individually understand Abraham, we run into the problems created by the ways in which the story is repeated and interpreted. A good example of this is D&C 132:51, where we are given a comparison between the sacrifice of Isaac and polygamy: "for I did it, saith the Lord, to prove you all, as I did Abraham" - except, we note, that there was no ram bound in the thicket. Abraham and Isaac is no longer a great example because with polygamy that carried it out - and it would have been the only way, perhaps, that Abraham could really have failed with Isaac - if he had actually sacrificed him on that alter on Mount Moriah. Making these issues simply about obedience is the black and white answer - the primary answer that removes the ambiguity that exists. We cannot develop sustaining faith until we confront the difficulties.

Another example which is closer to my heart comes from the Sunday School lessons about Lehi's vision of the Tree of Life in the Book of Mormon. To understand the vision, Nephi asks God to receive the vision, and sees it for himself. And then we have a whole section in the Book of Mormon where Nephi explains the vision to his brothers, answering their questions about it. The key feature of Nephi's discourse though is that the best way to understand the vision is to receive it for oneself. And when he tells this to his brothers, they respond by saying: "the Lord maketh no such thing known unto us (1 Nephi 15:9)." So, if you can't receive the vision, the next best thing may be to listen to an explanation from someone who has. How does the Gospel Doctrine manual explain this? We get a whole series of explanations of the symbolism of the elements of the vision that Nephi saw. And yet, one thing stands out to me:

Quote

And they said unto me: What meaneth the river of water which our father saw? And I said unto them that the water which my father saw was filthiness; and so much was his mind swallowed up in other things that he beheld not the filthiness of the water. (1 Nephi 15:26–27)

True to the words of the Spirit, Nephi is shown the same thing that his father saw. But, as Nephi tells us with his pervasive language of looking and seeing, the vision is something that is experienced. Lehi missed some details of the vision that Nephi saw because he was paying attention elsewhere. Lehi then (apparently) could not answer Laman and Lemuel’s question about the river. What Nephi does not tell us explicitly is that while his mind was swallowed up looking at the river of filthy water, he inevitably missed some details that his father saw. Seen in this way, this revelation by vision is a personal experience. Since we are all different people, our interactions will not conform to some universal standard — our individual experience of the vision will be different from everyone else’s. While we may have greater overlap with those who share our backgrounds and knowledge, the experience may be quite different when compared with those who don’t. The narrator can only provide us with the details that he is aware of. He cannot give us the details of his father’s vision that he missed. And he certainly cannot provide us with a reasonable telling of the vision as we might experience it.

The irony of the lesson manual is that we are encouraged to emulate Laman and Lemuel. This is, at best, Hafen's first level of understanding.

I think that we all have to forge our own understanding - and this means (of necessity) that we will not always agree with everyone else. No one else comes to these questions with our experience, having lived our lives.

Now, finally, for a bit of a non-LDS approach to this issue. I am a fan of Leon Festinger's theory of cognitive dissonance. And by this, I mean the real theory and not the sort of popular perception of it. When we encounter things that are competing, we have several ways of reducing that dissonance - we can either change our beliefs, the actions we take in response to those beliefs, or we can weight one belief more than another (to give it priority). We see these approaches here in this thread. @webbles suggests that we should add the idea to the Abraham narrative that Isaac was a willing participant (thus reducing the potential conflict).  @Kevin Christensen will point to the idea that the narrative is meant as a type of the Savior. @The Nehor will point out the obvious fact that culturally, much of our problem with the narrative occurs because of our fundamental disagreements with the idea of people as property. I could continue the list. I even have my own ways of dealing with the issue. The thing is, each of these may also create problems or ambiguities. The thing for me is that instead of trying to adjust our beliefs at every turn, instead of trying to find the loophole that allows us to bring each non-conformity back into line, we need to become more like Nephi where we rely on our own experience and the personal revelation we receive to chart our course through belief (and mortality). And if we don't always agree with everyone else, we can at least be satisfied that the same is true of our sacred texts and our leaders.

Edited March 17, 2025 by Benjamin McGuire

[CV75]

2 hours ago, california boy said:

Since you seem to be asking the question more broadly than just Abraham sacrificing his son, there is another issue that seems to be problematic.  I read this morning a list of scriptures from the. Book of Mormon that refer to skin color.  I have heard the apologetic replies on this subject, but never realized the number of scriptures that seem to clearly point to a black skin as being a curse from God.  That also seems like a conflict with the idea that we are all equal unto God.  Are all of these scriptures that refer to skin color so easily dismissed when it seems to be a pattern that repeated over and over again in the scriptures?  Can we dismiss it as just a misunderstanding of what color of skin means?

 

Here are the list of scriptures that I ran across this morning.  

 

BOOK of MORMON

1 Nephi 11:13 (Mary): “She was exceedingly fair and white.”

1 Nephi 12:23 (prophecy of the Lamanites): “Became a dark, and loathsome, and a filthy people, full of idleness and all manner of abominations.”

1 Nephi 13:15 (Gentiles): “They were white, and exceedingly fair and beautiful, like unto my people [Nephites] before they were slain.”

2 Nephi 5:21: “A sore cursing … as they were white, and exceedingly fair and delightsome, that they might not be enticing unto my people the Lord God did cause a skin of blackness to come upon them.”

2 Nephi 30:6 (prophecy to the Lamanites if they repented): “Scales of darkness shall begin to fall … they shall be a white and delightsome people” (“white and delightsome” was changed to “pure and delightsome” in 1981).

Jacob 3:5 (Lamanites cursed): “Whom ye hate because of their filthiness and the cursing which hath come upon their skins.”

Jacob 3:8-9: “Their skins will be whiter than yours … revile no more against them because of the darkness of their skins.”

Alma 3:6: “And the skins of the Lamanites were dark, according to the mark which was set upon their fathers, which was a curse upon them because of their transgression and their rebellion.”

Alma 3:9: “Whosoever did mingle his seed with that of the Lamanites did bring the same curse upon his seed.”

Alma 3:14 (Lamanites cursed): “Set a mark on them that they and their seed may be separated from thee and thy seed.”

Alma 23:18: “[Lamanites] did open a correspondence with them [Nephites] and the curse of God did no more follow them.”

3 Nephi 2:14-16: “Lamanites who had united with the Nephites were numbered among the Nephites; And their curse was taken from them, and their skin became white like unto the Nephites and … became exceedingly fair.”

3 Nephi 19:25, 30 (Disciples): “They were as white as the countenance and also the garments of Jesus; and behold the whiteness thereof did exceed all the whiteness … nothing upon earth so white as the whiteness thereof … and behold they were white, even as Jesus.”

Mormon 5:15 (prophecy about the Lamanites): “For this people shall be scattered, and shall become a dark, a filthy, and a loathsome people, beyond the description of that which ever hath been amongst us.”

Pearl of Great Price

Moses 5:40 “And I the Lord said unto him: Whosoever slayeth thee, vengeance shall be taken on him sevenfold. And I the Lord set a mark upon Cain, lest any finding him should kill him.”

Moses 7:8: “A blackness came upon all the children of Canaan.”

Moses 7:12: “Enoch continued to call upon all the people, save it were [i.e., except] the people of Canaan, to repent.”

Moses 7:22: “For the seed of Cain were black and had not place among them.”

The type of question that helps me with this kind of stuff is, "What experiences and relationship with God do I have, or would I need to have, to make sense of these kinds of commandments, and accept them as perfectly fine things in which to participate?" Or, "What was it about Abraham's prior experience and relationship that made his treatment of Isaac a naturally holy thing to do?" Or Nephi, Moses, Joseph Smith, etc. It is easy to dismiss the prophets as primitive, abusive or racist,  but some of the answers are aided by current scholarship that support them as prophets. Where one lacks access, interest or understanding of the scholarship, spiritual questions like these (I say "spiritual" because they are asked in good faith, prayerfully and with a foundation in prior spiritual experience and testimony, or with a willingness to simultaneously pursue a testimony of the key, basic foundational principles of the restored Gospel) can certainly help someone process internal spiritual conflict arising from how they react to the subject matter.

Edited March 18, 2025 by CV75

[california boy]

33 minutes ago, CV75 said:

The type of question that helps me with this kind of stuff is, "What experiences and relationship with God do I have, or would I need to have, to make sense of these kinds of commandments, and accept them as perfectly fine things in which to participate?" Or, "What was it about Abraham's prior experience and relationship that made his treatment of Isaac a naturally holy thing to do?" Or Nephi, Moses, Joseph Smith, etc. It is easy to dismiss the prophets as primitive, abusive or racist,  but some of the answers are aided by current scholarship that support them as prophets. Where one lacks access, interest or understanding of the scholarship, spiritual questions like these (I say "spiritual" because they are asked in good faith, prayerfully and with a foundation in prior spiritual experience and testimony, or with a willingness to simultaneously pursue a testimony of the key, basic foundational principles of the restored Gospel) can certainly help someone process internal spiritual conflict arising from how they react to the subject matter.

Thanks for your answer. I appreciate your thoughts.  It does make me wonder just how much trust we are suppose to put on a person who claims to be a prophet who speaks for God.  I definitely have trust issues with what guidance a person calling himself a prophet or anyone who claims to speak for God.

[Pyreaux]

5 hours ago, california boy said:

Since you seem to be asking the question more broadly than just Abraham sacrificing his son, there is another issue that seems to be problematic.  I read this morning a list of scriptures from the. Book of Mormon that refer to skin color.  I have heard the apologetic replies on this subject, but never realized the number of scriptures that seem to clearly point to a black skin as being a curse from God.  That also seems like a conflict with the idea that we are all equal unto God.  Are all of these scriptures that refer to skin color so easily dismissed when it seems to be a pattern that repeated over and over again in the scriptures?  Can we dismiss it as just a misunderstanding of what color of skin means?

 

Here are the list of scriptures that I ran across this morning.  

 

BOOK of MORMON

1 Nephi 11:13 (Mary): “She was exceedingly fair and white.”

1 Nephi 12:23 (prophecy of the Lamanites): “Became a dark, and loathsome, and a filthy people, full of idleness and all manner of abominations.”

1 Nephi 13:15 (Gentiles): “They were white, and exceedingly fair and beautiful, like unto my people [Nephites] before they were slain.”

2 Nephi 5:21: “A sore cursing … as they were white, and exceedingly fair and delightsome, that they might not be enticing unto my people the Lord God did cause a skin of blackness to come upon them.”

2 Nephi 30:6 (prophecy to the Lamanites if they repented): “Scales of darkness shall begin to fall … they shall be a white and delightsome people” (“white and delightsome” was changed to “pure and delightsome” in 1981).

Jacob 3:5 (Lamanites cursed): “Whom ye hate because of their filthiness and the cursing which hath come upon their skins.”

Jacob 3:8-9: “Their skins will be whiter than yours … revile no more against them because of the darkness of their skins.”

Alma 3:6: “And the skins of the Lamanites were dark, according to the mark which was set upon their fathers, which was a curse upon them because of their transgression and their rebellion.”

Alma 3:9: “Whosoever did mingle his seed with that of the Lamanites did bring the same curse upon his seed.”

Alma 3:14 (Lamanites cursed): “Set a mark on them that they and their seed may be separated from thee and thy seed.”

Alma 23:18: “[Lamanites] did open a correspondence with them [Nephites] and the curse of God did no more follow them.”

3 Nephi 2:14-16: “Lamanites who had united with the Nephites were numbered among the Nephites; And their curse was taken from them, and their skin became white like unto the Nephites and … became exceedingly fair.”

3 Nephi 19:25, 30 (Disciples): “They were as white as the countenance and also the garments of Jesus; and behold the whiteness thereof did exceed all the whiteness … nothing upon earth so white as the whiteness thereof … and behold they were white, even as Jesus.”

Mormon 5:15 (prophecy about the Lamanites): “For this people shall be scattered, and shall become a dark, a filthy, and a loathsome people, beyond the description of that which ever hath been amongst us.”

Pearl of Great Price

Moses 5:40 “And I the Lord said unto him: Whosoever slayeth thee, vengeance shall be taken on him sevenfold. And I the Lord set a mark upon Cain, lest any finding him should kill him.”

Moses 7:8: “A blackness came upon all the children of Canaan.”

Moses 7:12: “Enoch continued to call upon all the people, save it were [i.e., except] the people of Canaan, to repent.”

Moses 7:22: “For the seed of Cain were black and had not place among them.”

Your source lied to you. Joseph Smith himself changed "white" to “pure” in 2 Nephi 30:6. Which strongly implies that to Joseph, "white" and "pure" are interchangeable synonyms, therefore all like-words: White, clean, spotless, delightsome, all = Pure. Exactly how it's used in Near Eastern idioms.

Though "beautiful" is interesting, as black skin or faces are thought to be visible, yet not necessarily melanin related, features that gives impression or indication of one's mood, emotion, or character, and called "black" skin, face or eyes, to express one's countenance. One's character also expresses itself by "beauty". Being "black" as described in the Book of Mormon might manifest as just generic unattractiveness from hard living. So, to your point, it seems the curse might be "ugliness". So, your point still holds, as it might relate to the subject of individual worth of all people, if your looks are suggestive of being cursed.

Also, the mark of Cain verse is straight from the Bible.

Edited March 18, 2025 by Pyreaux

[InCognitus]

4 hours ago, california boy said:

2 Nephi 30:6 (prophecy to the Lamanites if they repented): “Scales of darkness shall begin to fall … they shall be a white and delightsome people” (“white and delightsome” was changed to “pure and delightsome” in 1981).

I'm responding to this one just to provide documentation to what Pyreaux said above.

This is page 117 of the 1830 edition of the Book of Mormon showing the original reading of 2 Nephi 30:6, where it says "white and delightsome".

This is page 125 of the 1837 edition of the Book of Mormon, perpetuating the original reading of 2 Nephi 30:6, where it says "white and delightsome".

This is the page 115 from the 1840 edition of the Book of Mormon where in 2 Nephi, Joseph Smith had changed "white and delightsome" to "pure and delightsome".

The reason that this change was omitted between the 1840 edition and the 1981 edition was because all the later (post 1840) American editions of the Book of Mormon up until 1981 were originally copied from the first European edition, which was based on the 1837 edition of the Book of Mormon which had the 1830 reading.  The 1981 edition recognized the change made by Joseph Smith to the 1840 edition and updated the text to include his change.

4 hours ago, california boy said:

3 Nephi 19:25, 30 (Disciples): “They were as white as the countenance and also the garments of Jesus; and behold the whiteness thereof did exceed all the whiteness … nothing upon earth so white as the whiteness thereof … and behold they were white, even as Jesus.”

This is a common metaphor for purity and is even used throughout the Bible, for example:

Psalms 51:7  "Purge me with hyssop, and I shall be clean: wash me, and I shall be whiter than snow."

Daniel 11:35  "And some of them of understanding shall fall, to try them, and to purge, and to make them white, even to the time of the end: because it is yet for a time appointed."

Daniel 12:10;  "Many shall be purified, and made white, and tried; but the wicked shall do wickedly: and none of the wicked shall understand; but the wise shall  understand."

And some translations recognize that "white" can also be translated as "pure" (similar to the change that was made by Joseph Smith).  For example:

NASB95, Daniel 11:35:  "Some of those who have insight will fall, in order to refine, purge and make them pure until the end time; because it is still to come at the appointed time."

NASB95, Daniel 12:10:  "Many will be purged, purified and refined, but the wicked will act wickedly; and none of the wicked will understand, but those who have insight will understand."

Edited March 18, 2025 by InCognitus

[Dario_M]

8 hours ago, stelf said:

I agree with that conclusion. The struggle comes, because with accepting that the scriptures could be only maybe adjacent to God's will the fact that our current leaders teach the story in the same way really erodes at trust.

Yes, and it's not always certain how much of the scriptures are really true. People love to manipulate the truth at their own hand and make it about their own ideas. 

Edited March 18, 2025 by Dario_M

[sunstoned]

5 hours ago, california boy said:

Since you seem to be asking the question more broadly than just Abraham sacrificing his son, there is another issue that seems to be problematic.  I read this morning a list of scriptures from the. Book of Mormon that refer to skin color.  I have heard the apologetic replies on this subject, but never realized the number of scriptures that seem to clearly point to a black skin as being a curse from God.  That also seems like a conflict with the idea that we are all equal unto God.  Are all of these scriptures that refer to skin color so easily dismissed when it seems to be a pattern that repeated over and over again in the scriptures?  Can we dismiss it as just a misunderstanding of what color of skin means?

 

Here are the list of scriptures that I ran across this morning.  

 

BOOK of MORMON

1 Nephi 11:13 (Mary): “She was exceedingly fair and white.”

1 Nephi 12:23 (prophecy of the Lamanites): “Became a dark, and loathsome, and a filthy people, full of idleness and all manner of abominations.”

1 Nephi 13:15 (Gentiles): “They were white, and exceedingly fair and beautiful, like unto my people [Nephites] before they were slain.”

2 Nephi 5:21: “A sore cursing … as they were white, and exceedingly fair and delightsome, that they might not be enticing unto my people the Lord God did cause a skin of blackness to come upon them.”

2 Nephi 30:6 (prophecy to the Lamanites if they repented): “Scales of darkness shall begin to fall … they shall be a white and delightsome people” (“white and delightsome” was changed to “pure and delightsome” in 1981).

Jacob 3:5 (Lamanites cursed): “Whom ye hate because of their filthiness and the cursing which hath come upon their skins.”

Jacob 3:8-9: “Their skins will be whiter than yours … revile no more against them because of the darkness of their skins.”

Alma 3:6: “And the skins of the Lamanites were dark, according to the mark which was set upon their fathers, which was a curse upon them because of their transgression and their rebellion.”

Alma 3:9: “Whosoever did mingle his seed with that of the Lamanites did bring the same curse upon his seed.”

Alma 3:14 (Lamanites cursed): “Set a mark on them that they and their seed may be separated from thee and thy seed.”

Alma 23:18: “[Lamanites] did open a correspondence with them [Nephites] and the curse of God did no more follow them.”

3 Nephi 2:14-16: “Lamanites who had united with the Nephites were numbered among the Nephites; And their curse was taken from them, and their skin became white like unto the Nephites and … became exceedingly fair.”

3 Nephi 19:25, 30 (Disciples): “They were as white as the countenance and also the garments of Jesus; and behold the whiteness thereof did exceed all the whiteness … nothing upon earth so white as the whiteness thereof … and behold they were white, even as Jesus.”

Mormon 5:15 (prophecy about the Lamanites): “For this people shall be scattered, and shall become a dark, a filthy, and a loathsome people, beyond the description of that which ever hath been amongst us.”

Pearl of Great Price

Moses 5:40 “And I the Lord said unto him: Whosoever slayeth thee, vengeance shall be taken on him sevenfold. And I the Lord set a mark upon Cain, lest any finding him should kill him.”

Moses 7:8: “A blackness came upon all the children of Canaan.”

Moses 7:12: “Enoch continued to call upon all the people, save it were [i.e., except] the people of Canaan, to repent.”

Moses 7:22: “For the seed of Cain were black and had not place among them.”

This is a dilemma that I encountered on my mission decades ago.  Because the BoM is supposedly the most correct book, you can't really blame mistranslation or uninspired scribes.