Internal Spiritual Conflict

[InCognitus]

36 minutes ago, sunstoned said:

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.

Except when Joseph Smith said the Book of Mormon was the "most correct book", he definitely did not intend that to be taken to mean it was perfect translation, since he made that statement in 1841 after making several corrections to the text.  Rather, he was referring to the precepts that were taught in the book, saying, "a man would get nearer to God by abiding by its precepts, than by any other book." 

[Pyreaux]

11 hours ago, sunstoned said:

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.

False dilemma. Most correct =/= always correct. Inspired person =/= one always vastly different in opinions or understanding than that of his contemporaries about anything beyond what few things that might have been revealed to him at one time.

Edited March 18, 2025 by Pyreaux

[Chum]

5 hours ago, Benjamin McGuire said:

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

We all still live together because that's how we can afford to eat and stuff. 

And you're right. I'll go a bit further and say the duty flows one way, from parent to child; it's because only the parents had a choice in the matter. My kids' well being will always be my responsibility - and that's the entire bargain.
Once I understood that (and that parenting is pure service), parenting fell into place for me.  At least the expectations did. I'm still working out the execution part.

[Calm]

1 hour ago, Chum said:

I'll go a bit further and say the duty flows one way, from parent to child; it's because only the parents had a choice in the matter. My kids' well being will always be my responsibility - and that's the entire bargain.

But if your children choose to come to you to ask for help in making their life higher quality (not a bad thing, I want my children and grandchildren to do so for us as long as we are capable of helping them), I see that differently than a child owing a parent for its existence and bringing it up (I am with you in terms of a child not owing parents for their upbringing, I don’t believe a child owes a parent respect and care for that reason***….I think they owe care and respect in the same sense one owes it to any human being to the best of their ability).  Once a child is an adult and can care for themselves, at that point it becomes exchanges between adults and that means both should benefit materially if it involves material goods, imo.  Parents shouldn’t feel obligated to do things for an adult child that the adult child can do for themselves nor should adult or minor children feel entitled to have anything parents can afford to give them.

***with our doctrine we could say children did choose to come to earth, therefore they owe the people who got them here, but unless there is revelation that we choose our specific families and circumstances, I am not inclined to say that reaches the level of obligation.

I much prefer the parent child relationship to be seen as mutually supporting because of love, which gives the child or parent of an adult child the  right to cut off the relationship if truly toxic and damaging to one.  If someone uses that as justification to selfishly turn their back on a relationship that may be unsatisfying or demanding, but not significantly harmful, I believe that as immoral (not going around judging individual cases here, speaking in the abstract, God is the judge).

[CV75]

11 hours ago, california boy said:

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.

Hopefully you can access more if not all the sources of light the Lord had provided, and especially His personal covenant relationship with you.

I think it helps to consider, and try the paradigm, that God invites us to trust Him rather than expects us to trust Him, and extends Himself to us accordingly. Those who invite us treat us differently, and provide different cues, than those who expect us to trust them. If we haven't had experience with the former, we can pray for it and find it.

[stelf]

Thanks everyone for the very thoughtful replies. While I don't think everyone's answers perfectly align they give some really good perspectives on how each of us deal with these types of conflict and ambiguity. 

I was raised in an environment that was very much black and white. I won't go into details, but suffice it to say that it has created a ton of cognitive dissonance for me over the years.

I will also say again that the Abraham and Isaac story is simply one small example that can create conflict. It is not the main source of conflict for me or even a primary one.

I really am trying to work through what my faith looks like. I really appreciated the points brought up by @Benjamin McGuire. As I said, I was taught that everything was black and white. This included the idea that scripture meant that the words written came directly from God. However, even as a child I had some questions about his as it seemed to me if God really did directly author things then I wouldn't expect any weirdness or lack of precision with grammar. As I have gotten older, I have come to the conclusion that the scriptures, even when claiming to be direct revelation, are simply the words of humans as they also try to wrestle with their relationship to God. Honestly, I have no idea who actually authored the book of Genesis or originally wrote down Abraham's story. I don't know what they were trying to convey or what their experiences and worldview were. All I really know is that someone wrote that story down. It's up to me what I make of it and learn from it. 

[Kevin Christensen]

stelf commented that "I was raised in an environment that was very much black and white. I won't go into details, but suffice it to say that it has created a ton of cognitive dissonance for me over the years."

This is an aspect of human development.  Part of reality that we learn and grow through. I like the Perry Scheme for Cognitive and Ethical Growth on this:

Quote

PERRY SCHEME OF COGNITIVE AND ETHICAL GROWTH TABLE OF TRAITS BY POSITION AND TRANSITION
POSITION 1 - Basic Duality.  (Garden of Eden Position: All will be well.) 
The person perceives meaning divided into two realms-Good/Bad, Right/wrong, We/They, Success/Failure, etc. They believe that knowledge and goodness are quantitative, that there are absolute answers for every problem and authorities know them and will teach them to those who will work hard and memorize them. Agency is "Out there". The person is so embedded here that there is no place from which to observe themselves, yet they have a dim sense of there being a boundary to Otherness somewhere that gives their Eden-like world view boundary.
Transition 1-2 - Dualism modified.  (Snake whispers.) The person starts to be aware of others and of differing opinions, even among authorities. This started the feeling of uncertainty.  But they decide it is part of the authority's job to pose problems.  It takes hard work to deny the legitimacy of diversity and to keep the belief in the simplicity of truth.

(It should be kept in mind that in any of the transition states it is easy for the person to become depressed.  It takes time for the "guts to catch up with leaps of mind."  When a sense of loss is accorded the honor of acknowledgement, movement is more rapid and the risk of getting stuck in apathy, alienation, or depression is reduced.  When one steps into new perceptions he is unlikely to take another until he comes to terms with the losses attendant on the first.)

POSITION 2 - Multiplicity Prelegitimate.  (Resisting snake)

Now the person moves to accept that there is diversity, but they still think there are TRUE authorities who are right, that the others are confused by complexities or are just frauds.  They think they are with the true authorities and are right while all others are wrong.  They accept that their good authorities present problems so they can learn to reach right answers independently.  

TRANSITION: 2-3 - Dualism modified

Now the person admits that good authorities can admit to not knowing all the answers yet, but they will teach what they know now and teach the rest when they have it.  They accept that disciplines are divided into the definite and the vague, but that in the end even science fails. Though they have given up dividing meaning into just two realms, they still feel knowledge and goodness are quantitative and that agency is "out there".

POSITION 3 - Multiplicity Legitimate but Subordinate. (Snake's logic considered)

The person still feels that the nature of things naturally produces differing opinions, but it's as it should be, because the Authorities will figure it all out and hand on their conclusions eventually.

ALL OF THE POSITIONS ABOVE FEEL ABANDONMENT IN UNSTRUCTURED LEARNING ENVIRONMENTS. WHEN CHANGES IN THINKING START TO HAPPEN, IT CAN BE A DANGEROUS TIME.  (The forbidden fruit has been partaken and one is out of the Garden of Eden.)

There are seven ways a person can go.        

Transition 1.  The person can make the transition by modifying dualism  drastically to where one no longer trusts authority to have any answers, and they think it will be a long, long time before they will; therefore, there is really no way to be judged by them.  Bitterness sets in, as it seems as if rewards don't come by hard work and rightness, but by good expression and arbitrary factors.  With an inability to distinguish between abstract thought and "bull", disillusion settles and blinds the person to where they become dangerously cynical and take advantage of any opportunity to get gain.

Transition 2.  The person could decide that, if there are so many different answers a depending on individual perspective, that it is impossible for any true judgment; therefore anything goes.  All is of equal value.  To have an opinion makes it right.

Transition 3.  Same as above, except it dawns that there are some facts that, if known, can make for a better choice among the many.

Transition 4.  Anger and frustration win out. Instead of becoming cynical and opportunistic, person acts out negatively.

Transition 5.  The person is moving closer to accepting relativity.  He trusts authorities to have valid grounds for evaluations.  To get along, one needs to accept that authorities are using reasonable information in making their answers.  So the person tries to discover what it is authorities think and want.

Transition 6.  Person realizes that on some matters, reasonable people  reasonably disagree, that knowledge is qualitative and is context-dependent.  They begin weighing factors and approaches in ways that force comparison of patterns of thought, they think about thinking and this occupies the foreground.  But they still tend to want to conform so much that they have trouble thinking independently.

Transition 7.  This position between multiplicity and relativity is now closer to relativity.  The person sees that thinking relatively isn't just what the authorities he has been dealing have reasoned out and want him to accept, it is the way the world works, in most cases.

NOW UNCERTAINTIES OR DIVERSITIES MULTIPLY UNTIL THEY TIP THE BALANCE AGAINST CERTAINTY AND HOMOGENEITY, PRECIPITATING A CRISIS THAT FORCES THE CONSTRUCTION OF A NEW VISION OF THE WORLD, BE IT ONE MARKED BY CYNICISM, ANXIETY, OR A NEW SENSE OF FREEDOM.

POSITION 5  Relativism discovered.

The person accepts that all thinking is relative for everyone and are much taken with this new perspective.  It could be a time of profound anxiety as the person struggles to understand how to make right choices.  They decide they can and must do something about this new world view, but they may spend a long time before sensing a need for commitment.  They can take responsibility for a task at hand, but don't yet realize they have a responsibility to choose commitments.

THIS POSITION COULD MAKE FOR A PERSON WHOSE AGENCY FOR MAKING SENSE HAS VANISHED ENTIRELY.  THEY COULD ALSO REACT BY POSTPONING DECISIONS, FALLING INTO APATHY OR GOING INTO A RAGE.  IT COULD GET SO BAD IT COULD APPEAR THE PERSON NEEDS CLINICAL HELP.  THE POTENTIAL FOR CYNICISM COULD BECOME EQUALLY ALARMING EDUCATIONALLY. 

If the person RETREATS, rage takes over and he loses agency to make sense. He survives by avoiding complexity and ambivalence and regresses to Dualism, position 2, (multiplicity prelegitimate).  He becomes moralistic righteous and has "righteous" hatred for otherness.  He complains childlike and demands of authority figures to just tell him what they want.

If the person at this point doesn't retreat, he may go into a state of TEMPORIZING.  His agency for making sense has vanished, but he postpones any movement.  He may reconsign agency to some possible event.  If so, Guilt and shame accompany the uneasiness about a failure of responsibility they feel hopeless to cope with.

Or if not either of the above then the person may try to ESCAPE.  He becomes apathetic.  His agency for making sense has also vanished, but in his feeling of being alienated, he abandons responsibility and uses his understanding of multiplicity and relativism as a way to avoid commitment. He is drifting and has some sense that later he will find himself to be living a hollow life.  This drifting with insecurity about "goodness" of his position can make for such a detachment that precludes any meaningful involvement.  He starts to rely on impulse.  THIS CAN BECOME A SETTLED CONDITION.  "For the students reporting their recovery of care,...their period of alienation appears as a time of transition.  In this time the self is lost through the very effort to hold onto it in the face of inexorable change in the world's appearance.  It is a space of meaninglessness between received belief and creative faith.  In their rebirth they experience in themselves the origin or meanings, which they had previously expected to come to them from outside." (page 92 of the Perry Scheme.)

POSITION 6. Commitment Foreseen.

FROM HERE ON THE PERSON WILL FEEL FRUSTRATION IN TOO-STRUCTURED OF AN ENVIRONMENT. 

Now the person thinks he is alone in an uncertain world, making his own decisions, with no one to say he is right.  He makes choices aware of relativism and accepts that the agency to do so is within the individual. He sees that to move forward he must make commitments coming from within. He foresees the challenge of responsibility and feels he needs to get on with it.  He also senses that the first steps require arbitrary faith or willing suspension of disbelief.  He knows he needs to narrow his focus, center himself and become aware of internal, what could be called, spiritual strength.

He starts to see how he must be embracing and transcending of: certainty/doubt, focus/breadth, idealism/realism, tolerance/contempt, stability/flexibility. He senses need for affirmation and incorporation of existential or logical polarities. He senses need to hold polarities in tension in the interest of Truth.

He begins to maintain meaning, coherence, and value while conscious of their partial, limited, and contradictable nature. He begins to understand symbol as symbols and   acknowledges the time-place relativity of them. He begins to affirm and hold absolutes in symbols while still acknowledging them to be relativistic. He begins to embrace viewpoints in conflict with his own. Now the person has a field-independent learning style, has learned to scan for information, accepts that hierarchical and analytic notes are evidence of sharpening of cognition.  He is willing to take risks, is flexible, perceptive, broad, strategy-minded, and analytical.

The TRANSITION position between Position 6, "Commitment Foreseen", and position 7, "Commitments in Relativism developed" is as follows:

Besides the above, the person feels he is lost if he doesn't decide, that if he can once make one decision, everything else will be OK.

POSITION 7.  Commitments in Relativism developed.

The person makes first commitment while being aware of Relativism, and has a vivid sense of CLAIMING AND POWER. He now more fully feels that agency is within him and foresees responsibility with excitement and anticipates more empowering as he makes more commitments and choices. The TRANSITION between Position 7 and Position 8, sees the person having made his first commitment but feeling that everything else is still in limbo and he is foreseeing problems coming from trying to juggling responsibility. He senses need to be: wholehearted--but tentative, to be able to fight for his own values--yet respect others. Now, besides the other ways of studying, the person begins to read not to conciliate Authority, but to learn on his own initiative.

POSITION 8.  Commitments in Relativism developed continues.

The person makes several more Commitments while realizing he must find balance and establish painful priorities of energy, action and time. He starts to experience periodically serenity and well-being in the midst of complexity.  He has a sense of living with trust in the midst of heightened awareness of risk. He accepts fact that order and disorder are fluctuations in experience. He searches for models of knowledgeability and courage to affirm commitment in full awareness of uncertainty. HE STILL NEEDS TO RECOGNIZE THAT EVEN  THE MODEL MUST BE TRAN SCENDED, AND HE SENSES HE NEEDS TO DEVELOP IRONY. The TRANSITION between Position 8 and 9 brings trauma.  The person feels everything is contradictory and he just can't make sense out of life's dilemmas.  But he begins to develop sense of irony and sees he must embrace viewpoints in conflict with his own, not in the old multiplistic way of "separate but equal" or "live and let live" but truly embrace them with what might as well be called "love".

POSITION 9.  Commitments in Relativism further developed.

The person now has a developed sense of irony and can more easily embrace  other's viewpoints. He can accept life as just that "life", just the way IT is! Now he holds the commitments he makes in a condition of "PROVISIONAL ULTIMACY", meaning that for him what he chooses to be truth IS his truth, and he acts as if it is ultimate truth, but there is still a "provision" for change. He has no illusions about having "arrived" permanently on top of some heap, he is ready and knows he will have to retrace his journey over and over, but he has hope that he will do it each time more wisely. He is aware that he is developing his IDENTITY through Commitment. He can affirm the inseparable nature of the knower and the known--meaning he knows he as knower contributes to what he calls known. He helps weld a community by sharing realization of aloneness and gains  strength and intimacy through this shared vulnerability. He has discarded obedience in favor of his own agency, and he continues to select, judge, and build. 

I have made the case in an Interpreter essay, https://journal.interpreterfoundation.org/sophic-box-and-mantic-vista-a-review-of-deconstructing-mormonism/ , that, by precept and example, Joseph Smith tries to lead us to Position 9.  

FWIW,

Kevin Christensen

Canonsburg, PA

[JVW]

I don't want to sound snarky or dumb here. I pose this as a serious question. And I don't expect a response, this is a very personal question. Have you asked God about your concerns? Have you started a dialogue with Him? Are you wrestling with Him about your questions, or are you wrestling without an opponent? Israel means roughly "One who wrestles with God and/or let's God win". It sounds like you're in the mood to have a good fight with Him and I wanted to encourage you to do so and see what happens.

As James writes, "If any of you lack wisdom let him ask of God, who gives to ALL men LIBERALLY..." I don't know what your experience has been so far in life, but God can be very communicative.

I have had deep concerns that I've wrestled with God over. I currently have deep concerns that I should wrestle with Him over, but don't, because I'm hurt and just can't find the motivation or humility to approach him right now. The method, and the timing, in which I've received answers from God have varied. But in general I expect resolutions to come in a 6 month to 2 year window. Though with more serious issues God was more like an IV that gently communicated with me over time as I was working through things.

While the opinions and insight, from all angles, expressed in this forum are fantastic, I personally find that they are enhanced when used as a catalyst, or as tools to wrestle with God, because the result of receiving communication from Him is on another level.

Specifically regarding the story of Isaac, I have a few questions to add. Why did God spare Isaac as a sacrifice only to kill him several decades later? Why did God sacrifice/kill His pure, perfect, and sinless Son? If God is Love why is death a part of God's perfect plan of love? Is God actually good?

I attended a fireside recently that suggested the following. Pain and suffering are good because they are the reason I need Jesus in my life today. And the question I need to ask myself each day is, "How have I been hurt today, and to what source am I going to turn to seek relief?" In my own life I turn to my idols for relief, but I do have goals to turn to Christ for pain relief as my idols do not bring me the peace and healing I desire.

Assuming that God is a perfect Father, and that He has all power, then it stands to reason that you are in your current situation, at least in part (though I believe it's a large part), because God wants you to be in this situation. "All things work together for the good of those who love God." I hope you can seize this opportunity and become closer to God as a result because God is real, He is love, and He wants to be close to you.

Anyways that's what I've been thinking about as I've been pondering over your questions. If you'd like to chat about any specific examples of times when I wrestled with God feel free to PM me. 

[stelf]

14 minutes ago, JVW said:

I don't want to sound snarky or dumb here. I pose this as a serious question. And I don't expect a response, this is a very personal question. Have you asked God about your concerns? Have you started a dialogue with Him? Are you wrestling with Him about your questions, or are you wrestling without an opponent? Israel means roughly "One who wrestles with God and/or let's God win". It sounds like you're in the mood to have a good fight with Him and I wanted to encourage you to do so and see what happens.

Hi JVW, I don't think this is snarky or dumb at all. I would say that for the past few years I have been "wrestling" with God about this. I present my conflicted feelings, my frustrations, and my hopes. I am also trying to cultivate humility and openness in accepting that I could be wrong about any of this. This is part of my struggle because the only way I "know" anything is the same way I know everything I know, and that is by what I can perceive and understand. I am wrestling both with myself and God about what any of this really means.

[Kevin Christensen]

18 hours ago, stelf said:

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". 

You are welcome.  Regarding the problem of maintaining faith in the face of conflicting "truths" I think it essential to reflect on what faith, by definition, is, and what truth is.  Alma 32 makes an important distinction between those who struggle with question of how to secure faith in the absence of absolute certainty, and those who are willing to live by faith in the presence of ongoing and growing "cause to believe".   I have faced the irony in the question of "How can I have faith without the presence of absolute certainty?"  Personally, I find the inherent contradiction in the question undermines itself.  What Alma calls "cause to believe" that falls short of perfect knowledge but supports faith is something else again. I notice that the values that Alma puts forward as supporting "cause to believe" match closely the values that Thomas Kuhn observes as supporting paradigm choice in the sciences.   It's an ongoing process, not flicking a switch once and for all.

I occasionally cite Hoftstadter on how Godel showed that "provability is a weaker notion than truth" and Kuhn on how paradigm choice is value-driven, rather than rule driven, and that "no paradigm solves all of the problems it defines." 

Joseph Campbell in his interviews with Bill Moyers (The Power of Myth) talked about how ancient Temples had guardian statues representing Fear and Desire, what you think, and what you want, which, it turns out, are exactly the things you have to be willing to sacrifice in order to gain further light and knowledge. "Truth is knowledge of things as they were, as they are, and as they are to come."  If my chief concern is "Have any of the rulers or of the Pharisees believed on him?", that is, traditional thinking, traditional authority, my adherence to that sort of thing, means I am not willing to make that sacrifice of a contrite spirit.  I convince myself I know better, and having nothing to learn.  Or if Jesus says something like, "If ye love me, keep my commandments," and my response is, "I would rather make my own commandments, thank you very much," that demonstrates that I am unwilling to offer up a broken heart.  If I want to enter the Real, to pass those guardians (who also correspond to the temptations of the Buddha and of Jesus), I have to be willing to offer the sacrifice of a broken heart and a contrite spirit.  That does not mean I cannot have questions.  But there is a difference between Abraham asking God, "Can this be right?" and Peter telling Jesus, "This will not happen to you!"   

However the case of Peter is instructive even here because Jesus did not stop working with Peter, and Peter learned better.  And that gives me hope.  Gives me cause to believe that falls short of perfect knowledge.

FWIW

Kevin Christensen

Canonsburg, PA

 

[Kevin Christensen]

On 3/17/2025 at 5:56 PM, 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.”

Having been familiar with these passages, and the questions they raise, I also notice that there is a crucial selectivity and presentist contextualization involved that, in my view, makes all the difference.

Alma 3:5  is not quoted in this, which, as Sproat argues, provides telling context.

Quote

Alma 3:5–6 is comprised of two sentences, in each of which the word skin(s) appears. Commentaries handle the two sentences in one of three ways: (1) by treating both of them independently, as if two very different things were at issue; (2) by commenting on only the second of the two sentences, remaining silent about the first; or (3) by failing to comment on either sentence. All three of these approaches miss the fact that, when read in context, the use of skins in the second sentence appears to form part of a historical explanation of the use of skin in the first sentence. Here is the text:

Now the heads of the Lamanites were shorn; and they were naked, save it were skin which was girded about their loins, and also their armor, which was girded about them, and their bows, and their arrows, and their stones, and their slings, and so forth. 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 against their brethren, who consisted of Nephi, Jacob, and Joseph, and Sam, who were just and holy men. (Alma 3:5–6)

According to a reading I will defend in the course of this article, this passage suggests the possibility that “the skins of the Lamanites” are to be understood as articles of clothing, the notable girdle of skin that these particular Lamanites wear to cover their nakedness. Significantly, these are the only two references to skins in Alma 3, which contains the Book of Mormon’s most thorough explanation of the Lamanite curse and the curse’s relationship to skins. Thus situated, Alma 3:5–6 might serve as an interpretive Rosetta stone. If both instances of skins in Alma 3:5–6 refer to clothing, then the other five references to various-colored or cursed skins in the Book of Mormon could also refer to clothing and not — as traditionally assumed — to human flesh pigmentation.18

Ethan Sproat, “Skins as Garments in the Book of Mormon: A Textual Exegesis,” Journal of Book of Mormon Studies 24/1 (2015), 138‒64, https://scholarsarchive.byu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1572&context=jbms 

I find that the Book of Mormon authors very frequently refer to clean and filthy garments as symbolic of spiritual states and lifestyle choices to the same audiences, in the same contexts, and with the same rhetorical intent as the passages that seem racially directed to many readers.  Indeed, I notice that there are far more garment passages than skin passages.  Think of the significance of the "costly apparel" passages, for instance. Alma himself in Alma 3 states that self-applied Amlicite mark is equivalent to the Lamanite mark.  And there is the passage about "all are like unto God, black and white..."  which does not square with the supposition that the authors were intractably racist.

So reading the scripture through a 19th century mindset (given the Peculiar Institution and the social mythology that existed to justify it) may not secure the best reading of ancient scripture.  "there is none other people that understand the things which were spoken unto the Jews like unto them, save it be that they are taught after the manner of the things of the Jews." (2 Nephi 25:5).  Of the word as seed, that may produce vastly different yields depending on soil and nurture, Jesus says "Know ye not this parable?  How then shall ye know all parables?"

Many years ago Kerry Shirts reported a discussion he had with Marquette's Enoch Scholar, Andrei Orlov, who pointed out passages in 1 Enoch that used white and black bulls as symbols of different groups living different ways.  Orlov thought those passages were relevant to understanding the Joseph Smith Enoch.  And there is Stirling Adam's important review of the work of two different Jewish scholars on the history of the interpretation oh the curse of Noah on Ham in the Bible.  The important thing is that the interpretive tradition was not a the creation of LDS thinkers, but was an inheritance from the larger culture, and was demonstrably a misinterpretation of the Noah/Ham story.

https://scholarsarchive.byu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=3686&context=byusq

There is a difference between seeking understanding, and seeking leverage.

FWIW,

Kevin Christensen

Canonsburg, PA

Edited March 19, 2025 by Kevin Christensen
typo

[JVW]

1 hour ago, stelf said:

Hi JVW, I don't think this is snarky or dumb at all. I would say that for the past few years I have been "wrestling" with God about this. I present my conflicted feelings, my frustrations, and my hopes. I am also trying to cultivate humility and openness in accepting that I could be wrong about any of this. This is part of my struggle because the only way I "know" anything is the same way I know everything I know, and that is by what I can perceive and understand. I am wrestling both with myself and God about what any of this really means.

Well He sure is taking His time with you!

I only know two things, that there is a God and that there is an afterlife. Both of those pieces of knowledge were given to me directly by the grace of God, they were not the result of any effort on my part. Everything else, for me, is on a scale of belief (including the question of Jesus Christ's divinity). In general I choose to gravitate towards choosing beliefs based on two conditions:

1) Truth is reinforced in patterns. How strong of a pattern can I find to support the belief in question?

2) How does the belief make me feel? Does it result in heightened feelings of negative emotions and cognitive dissonance, or does it help me live a more happy and fulfilling life?

A really barbaric, not spiritual example of this is mask wearing to prevent the spread of disease. It's interesting because point 1 can be satisfied on both ends. I have bookmarked a lot of high-quality peer-review literature that is both for and against this practice having efficacy. So when I made my choice on what to believe I focused more on point 2. The answer to point 2, in this case, really boils down to personality type. There are many who feel safe and at peace with a mask on, and there are others who feel anxious and panicky while wearing one. I made the choice that made me feel the best for me, because nobody cares more about how I feel than I do.

How do these two points apply to your specific instance around the trial of Abraham? What evidence do you think is stronger? Is the story figurative or literal? Involving agency or in spite of it? Based on your evaluation of the evidence, if you choose to believe in line with the evidence you like more, how does that belief make you feel? If it makes you feel like crap then maybe go back and look at some different evidence and try to expand your pattern recognition.

At the end of the day, no matter what I choose to believe, I can be safely assured that I'm in error because compared to God I am a fool and He reveals as little as possible according to my needs so that He can exercise the greatest amount of mercy on me. (See Alma 32:19 "And now, how much more cursed is he that knoweth the will of God and doeth it not, than he that only believeth, or only hath cause to believe, and falleth into transgression?")

[manol]

On 3/17/2025 at 2:15 PM, stelf said:

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...

So, how can I navigate this?

 

Regarding Abraham and Isaac, my perception of that story has been through a lot of changes but at this time I no longer embrace the idea that blood sacrifice, whether of animals or family members or the Son of God, is part of God's plan. This has some rather far-reaching implications which I won't go into here.

Twenty-something years ago my belief system crashed, again for reasons I won't go into here. Over the next several years I did, in retrospect, what amounted to a belief system re-boot. I started building my own belief system. None of my beliefs are “carved in stone”; rather, they are all subject to replacement the moment something better comes along.

My earliest and most basic deliberately-chosen belief goes something like this: “God is good, God is fair, and God is no respecter of persons; and any line of thinking which leads to a different conclusion has a mistake in it somewhere.” The story of Abraham and Isaac doesn't make it past that initial hurdle for me; however, if either my understanding of the story or my core beliefs change sufficiently, I'll alter my views on the story of Abraham and Isaac.

I agree with you that “the worth of souls is great.” Imo there is no soul worth more than another; actually I have come to believe that our souls are far more interconnected than outward appearances would indicate, such that each soul is of great worth not only to God but also to each of us.

The process I use is found in the Book of Mormon: Evaluate teachings and ideas based on whether they bring me closer to God or not.  (For those who don't believe in God, change the wording to "lead in the direction of true morality" or "make me a better person" or whatever; imo it's effectively the same thing under a different name.)  So I am more interested in the utility of teachings or ideas than I am in their provability.  My personal canon is open and is neither universally inclusive of, nor limited exclusively to, writings which have been classified as “scripture”.

I think our experiences, perspectives, and paths are unique by design, and I think our pre-mortal souls participated in that design. I think Earth is, among other things, a school, and that our individual curricula are tailored for both our own progression and for the greatest good for all.

I've tossed out a lot of things without explanation; let me know if you'd like an explanation of something.

Anyway regarding your question of “how can I navigate this?”, my response is, widen your search radius! Mormonism allows for this! That which is in the way IS the way! And there has never been a time in history when so much was available to the seeker.

Edited March 19, 2025 by manol

[cujo22]

20 hours ago, Benjamin McGuire said:

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 ...

 

I really loved all of these thoughts. A while back the missionaries brought someone to my house for a "1st discussion". My contribution was to say, "I can say that my experience has been that being part of this church is a great component to add to your search for God and goodness and meaning and so on." I really do think the teachings and the relationships and the activities of the church put me in generally a good place to try to understand more about God and His children and the world and the purpose of it all. I don't feel hamstrung by the church. There's a few things/beliefs that are asked pointedly in order to have a temple recommend, but I believe those things so there is no problem there. For the vast majority of things, I hear different thoughts and opinions about them at church, and I love to hear people's experiences with life and people and struggles and so on.

My point is just to agree generally with what you say and to add that I think the church fits pretty well in that mindset and adds a lot within that paradigm you describe. I won't name the church I'm thinking of, I'll just say that my experience with this other church it seems is that the goal there is to know THE answer to a bunch of questions. I don't sense that push in the LDS church. Living in that paradigm of ambiguity and being part of the church go pretty well together, the church provides a good foundation through teachings and experiences to navigate the world in the way you're describing.  

 

[Chum]

13 hours ago, Calm said:

But if your children choose to come to you to ask for help in making their life higher quality ..., I see that differently than a child owing a parent for its existence and bringing it up

Absolutely. I was 21 when my mom began her last months in post-anesthesia dementia. My siblings eventually went their own way and it was mom and me for a while. I did the caregiver thing because it needed doing. Later on, mom's sister showed up and introduced some competency and order to it.

Some years later that aunt expressed her unhappiness that my sister in law (RN, 5hrs away) didn't come help. My aunt seemed to feel that all duty flowed from kids toward the parents - as, IDK, payment for services rendered or something. Apparently son/dau-in-laws were on the hook as well. It's not just the aunt. It's a sentiment I heard a LOT from those generations (silent,boomer).

[Chum]

14 hours ago, Calm said:

***with our doctrine we could say children did choose to come to earth, therefore they owe the people who got them here, but unless there is revelation that we choose our specific families and circumstances, I am not inclined to say that reaches the level of obligation.

Yeah. I've thought of this too but my understanding of parental responsibility isn't tied to the Church. 

That said, I suspect the Church heavily shaped my thinking in this. In particular, the ongoing emphasis on service.

[california boy]

On 3/17/2025 at 7:35 PM, InCognitus said:

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.

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."

Thanks for your response.  The further information is interesting.  It is pretty incredible to me that 2 Nephi 30:6 was not changed until 1981.  I am surprised it took that long to correct and I do wonder why it did take that long if i understand you correctly.  Did no one notice?

That being said, there are still some troubling issues with the whole skin color curse for ME in both the Bible and the Book of Mormon.  I have to ask myself if God has any control at all in what is put in the scriptures.  And if he doesn't have any control, then why are we told to rely on scriptures as something we can trust came from God.  

 I realize that others have dealt with this issue in different ways.  And that is fine.  For me personally, these are still an issue for a book that was suppose to be what Joseph Smith said was "the most correct book Book of Mormon was the most correct of any book on earth," .

I guess for me, I have learned to rely on my own relationship with God rather than put my trust in someone who makes claims of having some kind of special status to speak for God.  

[california boy]

16 hours ago, CV75 said:

Hopefully you can access more if not all the sources of light the Lord had provided, and especially His personal covenant relationship with you.

I think it helps to consider, and try the paradigm, that God invites us to trust Him rather than expects us to trust Him, and extends Himself to us accordingly. Those who invite us treat us differently, and provide different cues, than those who expect us to trust them. If we haven't had experience with the former, we can pray for it and find it.

Yes.  Definitely working better for me,

[Calm]

18 minutes ago, california boy said:

there are still some troubling issues with the whole skin color curse for ME in both the Bible and the Book of Mormon

The Torah was around a long time before someone interpreted the mark of Cain as dark skin.

Jews interpret the Mark as divine protection, though not always a good things as in one case a rabbi suggested it was leprosy.  In another though it was a dog.  Probably a German Shepherd.  The Mark was even thought to be one of the letters of God’s name.  I’ve known this stuff for a long time, but don’t want to spend time looking it up, so just double-checked with wiki.  One thing wiki told me I didn’t know that would be nice to be confirmed is the word for mark is the same word used for Noah’s rainbow, for stars as signs, circumcision as a token, and even the miracles of Moses.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Curse_and_mark_of_Cain

Edited March 19, 2025 by Calm

[california boy]

13 hours ago, Kevin Christensen said:

Having been familiar with these passages, and the questions they raise, I also notice that there is a crucial selectivity and presentist contextualization involved that, in my view, makes all the difference.

Alma 3:5  is not quoted in this, which, as Sproat argues, provides telling context.

Ethan Sproat, “Skins as Garments in the Book of Mormon: A Textual Exegesis,” Journal of Book of Mormon Studies 24/1 (2015), 138‒64, https://scholarsarchive.byu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1572&context=jbms 

I find that the Book of Mormon authors very frequently refer to clean and filthy garments as symbolic of spiritual states and lifestyle choices to the same audiences, in the same contexts, and with the same rhetorical intent as the passages that seem racially directed to many readers.  Indeed, I notice that there are far more garment passages than skin passages.  Think of the significance of the "costly apparel" passages, for instance. Alma himself in Alma 3 states that self-applied Amlicite mark is equivalent to the Lamanite mark.  And there is the passage about "all are like unto God, black and white..."  which does not square with the supposition that the authors were intractably racist.

So reading the scripture through a 19th century mindset (given the Peculiar Institution and the social mythology that existed to justify it) may not secure the best reading of ancient scripture.  "there is none other people that understand the things which were spoken unto the Jews like unto them, save it be that they are taught after the manner of the things of the Jews." (2 Nephi 25:5).  Of the word as seed, that may produce vastly different yields depending on soil and nurture, Jesus says "Know ye not this parable?  How then shall ye know all parables?"

Many years ago Kerry Shirts reported a discussion he had with Marquette's Enoch Scholar, Andrei Orlov, who pointed out passages in 1 Enoch that used white and black bulls as symbols of different groups living different ways.  Orlov thought those passages were relevant to understanding the Joseph Smith Enoch.  And there is Stirling Adam's important review of the work of two difference Jewish scholars on the history of the interpretation oh the curse of Noah on Ham in the Bible.  The important thing is that the interpretive tradition was not a the creation of LDS thinkers, but was an inheritance from the larger culture, and was demonstrably a misinterpretation of the Noah/Ham story.

https://scholarsarchive.byu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=3686&context=byusq

There is a difference between seeking understanding, and seeking leverage.

FWIW,

Kevin Christensen

Canonsburg, PA

 

13 hours ago, Kevin Christensen said:

Having been familiar with these passages, and the questions they raise, I also notice that there is a crucial selectivity and presentist contextualization involved that, in my view, makes all the difference.

Alma 3:5  is not quoted in this, which, as Sproat argues, provides telling context.

Ethan Sproat, “Skins as Garments in the Book of Mormon: A Textual Exegesis,” Journal of Book of Mormon Studies 24/1 (2015), 138‒64, https://scholarsarchive.byu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1572&context=jbms 

I find that the Book of Mormon authors very frequently refer to clean and filthy garments as symbolic of spiritual states and lifestyle choices to the same audiences, in the same contexts, and with the same rhetorical intent as the passages that seem racially directed to many readers.  Indeed, I notice that there are far more garment passages than skin passages.  Think of the significance of the "costly apparel" passages, for instance. Alma himself in Alma 3 states that self-applied Amlicite mark is equivalent to the Lamanite mark.  And there is the passage about "all are like unto God, black and white..."  which does not square with the supposition that the authors were intractably racist.

So reading the scripture through a 19th century mindset (given the Peculiar Institution and the social mythology that existed to justify it) may not secure the best reading of ancient scripture.  "there is none other people that understand the things which were spoken unto the Jews like unto them, save it be that they are taught after the manner of the things of the Jews." (2 Nephi 25:5).  Of the word as seed, that may produce vastly different yields depending on soil and nurture, Jesus says "Know ye not this parable?  How then shall ye know all parables?"

Many years ago Kerry Shirts reported a discussion he had with Marquette's Enoch Scholar, Andrei Orlov, who pointed out passages in 1 Enoch that used white and black bulls as symbols of different groups living different ways.  Orlov thought those passages were relevant to understanding the Joseph Smith Enoch.  And there is Stirling Adam's important review of the work of two difference Jewish scholars on the history of the interpretation oh the curse of Noah on Ham in the Bible.  The important thing is that the interpretive tradition was not a the creation of LDS thinkers, but was an inheritance from the larger culture, and was demonstrably a misinterpretation of the Noah/Ham story.

https://scholarsarchive.byu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=3686&context=byusq

There is a difference between seeking understanding, and seeking leverage.

FWIW,

Kevin Christensen

Canonsburg, PA

Thanks for your response.  And maybe it is an explanation that can work for a lot of people.  There are definitely different usage of the word skin.  But for me, it is pretty difficult to assume that the color of the skin the Laminates were wearing was something that was just a comment about fashion and not something different.  And it seems like it is a theme mentioned enough times in the Book of Mormon in different ways that makes that explanation even more of a stretch.  I get that this explanation may work for some people, for me it seems like a big stretch.  

I also have to say, if this was the only issue I had with me trying to reconcile scriptural teachings with a God who is suppose to be this perfect father, then I probably could let it go.  But there are a lot of teachings in the scriptures that I am in conflict with that I think are more about the culture of the times and not about a divine father teaching and guiding His children.  

[california boy]

17 minutes ago, Calm said:

The Torah was around a long time before someone interpreted the mark of Cain as dark skin.

Jews interpret the Mark as divine protection, though not always a good things as in one case a rabbi suggested it was leprosy.  In another though it was a dog.  Probably a German Shepherd.  The Mark was even thought to be one of the letters of God’s name.  I’ve known this stuff for a long time, but don’t want to spend time looking it up, so just double-checked with wiki.  One thing wiki told me I didn’t know that would be nice to be confirmed is the word for mark is the same word used for Noah’s rainbow, for stars as signs, circumcision as a token, and even the miracles of Moses.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Curse_and_mark_of_Cain

I am not claiming that the mark of Cain was a dark skin.  It was someone else that said the dark skin curse was also found in the Bible.  But I do agree that there are many practices contained in the Bible that are problematic for me. And what I have noticed is that when a verse aligns with a person's belief, then there is no room for anything other than THAT verse is written and recorded exactly how God meant it.  

It has been my observation that people including those claiming to be prophets or some other spokesman for God that the way THEY interpret scripture is exactly how it is written and has no room for a different explanation.

Edited March 19, 2025 by california boy

[Calm]

There are plenty enough things to be troubled by in the Bible, it’s unfortunate this gets inaccurately justified by/blamed on it too when it is racist interpretations that should be found guilty and not explicit or implied verses.

Quote

It has been my observation that people including those claiming to be prophets or some other spokesman for God that the way THEY interpret scripture is exactly how it is written and has no room for a different explanation.

Another unfortunate tradition.  Joseph Fielding Smith made that claim quite popular in the Church (plain readings that had one interpretation).  I think Joseph Smith had fun with scripture, it was alive to him, he was into exploring it, discovering treasure and then digging for more, not assuming the gold was all there scattered on the ground to be picked up or that one type of treasure was all that was there.  He even went to scholars to teach him more about scripture, not just the Spirit.

Edited March 19, 2025 by Calm

[webbles]

9 hours ago, california boy said:

Thanks for your response.  The further information is interesting.  It is pretty incredible to me that 2 Nephi 30:6 was not changed until 1981.  I am surprised it took that long to correct and I do wonder why it did take that long if i understand you correctly.  Did no one notice?

The church didn't have either the printer's or original manuscript.  So there was no way to tell if the change in the 1840 edition was an accident or on purpose.  Additionally, the 1841 publishing in England followed the 1837 publishing and the plates for that printing were brought to Utah and all subsequent printings followed it.

The RLDS had the plates from 1840 and so they kept the change of "white" to "pure" for subsequent printings but in 1908, they changed the text back to "white" because they compared it to the printer's manuscript (which they owned).

[teddyaware]

On 3/17/2025 at 7:25 PM, ZealouslyStriving said:

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?

In order for the arrested sacrifice of Isaac to truly stand as a type of the atoning sacrifice Jesus Christ, Isaac, who represents Christ in this narrative, would have to have been well informed, willingly obedient and fully trusting in the perfect love, justice and mercy of the eternal God at the time that he was placed on the altar of sacrifice. Anything less than a fully informed willingness to submit the will of God on Isaac’s part would only have been typical of the kind of demonic child sacrifices that were offered up to the idolatrous god Molech. I fully believe Abraham and Isaac had perfect confidence that the God who cannot lie, and that his most solemn promise that Isaac would live in the flesh to become the earthy father of many nations would most assuredly come to pass. Hence the confident willingness of both Abraham and Issac to trust in God and follow through with the commanded sacrifice. The following verses of scripture reveal that, one way or another, Abraham was fully confident the days of Isaac in the flesh would be prolonged so as to enable him to be married and have earthly offspring inspite of the commanded sacrifice.

7 And Isaac spake unto Abraham his father, and said, My father: and he said, Here am I, my son. And he said, Behold the fire and the wood: but where is the lamb for a burnt offering?

8 And Abraham said, My son, God will provide himself a lamb for a burnt offering: so they went both of them together. (Genesis 22)

It needs to be understood that Abraham promised Isaac that God would provide a ritually acceptable sacrificial animal for the sacrifice, and God did ultimately honor Abraham’s promise to Issac by providing a ram caught in the thicket to enable them complete the commanded sacrifice. The promise of a substitute sacrifice for Isaac was a prophecy that was fulfilled.

I don’t believe for a minute that Abraham was lying to Isaac with regard to who or what would be sacrificed, but I believe Abraham fully trusted that the God of righteousness, who cannot lie, would keep his earlier most sacred covenantal promise that the life of Isaac would be preserved in the flesh so that he might become the progenitor of many nations.

But because unbelieving individuals need all the excuses they can accumulate to justify their unbelief and rebellion against God, they can always be counted on to put the worst possible spin on all the acts of great sacrificial faith found in the scriptures. God’s great tests of faith are deliberately designed to be extremely difficult challenges that are able to prove the extent of one’s faith and trust in the perfect righteousness and justice of God. But because these great tests of faith are exceedingly difficult to wade through and endure, unbelievers can’t conceive of the truth that God has the right and moral obligation to test to the faith and degree of commitment of his children for their own eternal welfare, they childishly conclude that God’s tests of faith are the unfair impositions of a tyrant.

Of course the day will come when even these recalcitrants will willingly bow the knee to God, and after sufficient spiritual enlightenment confess to him that his judgements are just, but this is why only those who willingly submit to the process of purification that can only be found within the refining fire of spiritual tests will inherit the fullness of God’s power and glory in the resurrection.

Reality is by very nature a very tough place to live due to the immutable truth that existence can only be affirmed within a divine framework diametric opposition in all things that requires great moral challenges to produce spiritual growth and progress. But thankfully the God of mercy has prepared realms of post-resurrection glory for those who can’t accept the unalterable reality that the only way we can move forward spiritually and find true joy is by overcoming difficult trials and tests.

[CV75]

I think the ram was symbolic of Christ more than Isaac was. For me, Isaac represents all we can do in following the Savior, with obvious limits, and by grace the ram was provided to save him. Abraham represents the limits of what those further along the covenant path, no matter how far, can do or hope to teach and save their children and the people of God.