Internal Spiritual Conflict

[Teancum]

On 3/17/2025 at 3:15 PM, 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.

I am probably not much help here but I also struggled with this story when I was a believer. It seemed an awful to challenge or test the faith of a person. Why would God be so brutal. I used to love a talk I had on tape by Truman Madsen called The Power From the Abrahamic Tests. If you have not ever listened to it you may want to try to see if you can find it somewhere. It is a good talk and when I was a believer I found the ideas he presented satisfying. Personally now I would say the story is a myth to teach a lesson but whether it is an actual event, or not, I would find a being that tests human faith is such a way to be a cruel being.  By the way Madsen argues that if God could have found a more difficult test for Abraham he would have, and that we will all have Abrahamic tests the will be as difficult for us as was Abraham's for him.

[Teancum]

On 3/17/2025 at 3:20 PM, The Nehor said:

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.

Since men wrote the scripture and not a god, the scriptures reflect what the man of the age thought and the made a god that fit their world view.

[Analytics]

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

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..

FWIW, when my shelf broke, one thing that ended up being unexpectedly grounding was Emerson’s essay Self-Reliance. It’s this 1800s piece about tuning out external noise and learning to trust your own judgment. I had to look up words in almost every sentence, but weirdly, that made it feel more worth the effort. One of many lines that stuck with me was: “Trust thyself: every heart vibrates to that iron string.” Another was: “Nothing is at last sacred but the integrity of your own mind.” It didn’t give me answers, exactly — more like permission to start taking my own instincts seriously. Just putting it out there in case it resonates.

[Calm]

8 hours ago, Teancum said:

By the way Madsen argues that if God could have found a more difficult test for Abraham he would have, and that we will all have Abrahamic tests the will be as difficult for us as was Abraham's for him.

Wouldn’t a harder test be actually killing Isaac?

Did he explain why Abraham’s test was pulled before he actually had to do anything permanent, why he was rewarded for intent only and yet he is shown as the archetype example of the Abrahamic sacrifice, while others have to go all the way with their test, to have their children die, to die themselves or to live an extremely painful and limited life perhaps?

I know you aren’t a believer anymore, I am simply asking if Madsen said anything in this way, not challenging you to defend his thinking.

[stelf]

On 3/21/2025 at 4:14 PM, Analytics said:

FWIW, when my shelf broke, one thing that ended up being unexpectedly grounding was Emerson’s essay Self-Reliance. It’s this 1800s piece about tuning out external noise and learning to trust your own judgment. I had to look up words in almost every sentence, but weirdly, that made it feel more worth the effort. One of many lines that stuck with me was: “Trust thyself: every heart vibrates to that iron string.” Another was: “Nothing is at last sacred but the integrity of your own mind.” It didn’t give me answers, exactly — more like permission to start taking my own instincts seriously. Just putting it out there in case it resonates.

Thank you for this. I will definitely read this essay. Just what you have put here resonates very deeply with me.

[Teancum]

On 3/21/2025 at 7:39 PM, Calm said:

Wouldn’t a harder test be actually killing Isaac?

I am not sure I follow. Based on the story it seems to me Abraham was operating under the assumption that he was going to kill Isaac.  

On 3/21/2025 at 7:39 PM, Calm said:

Did he explain why Abraham’s test was pulled before he actually had to do anything permanent, why he was rewarded for intent only and yet he is shown as the archetype example of the Abrahamic sacrifice, while others have to go all the way with their test, to have their children die, to die themselves or to live an extremely painful and limited life perhaps?

I know you aren’t a believer anymore, I am simply asking if Madsen said anything in this way, not challenging you to defend his thinking.

Best as I recall he said the test was to not really show God how faithful Abraham was, but to let Abraham know how great his faith was. I recall Madsen saying something like before the test God knew Abraham's heart but after Abraham knew his heart as well.  And the whole idea is that, as he says Joseph Smith said, God will reach out for us and wrench our very heartstrings, and if we cannot endure it, we will not be fit for the Celestial Kingdom.  Thus we will all be tried and tested to the limits of our capacity to bear it but not beyond.  And our individual tests will be just as hard for us as Abraham's was for him. No details on the other issues you outline. I now find this idea totally cruel and much for the reasons you ask in your comments. I think an all knowing being who intentionally tests its children in such a way extremely cruel.  Here is a link to the talk:

https://speeches.byu.edu/talks/truman-g-madsen/power-abrahamic-tests/

 

[Calm]

33 minutes ago, Teancum said:

Based on the story it seems to me Abraham was operating under the assumption that he was going to kill Isaac.  

If Isaac had died and Abraham had to deal with those feelings and the resulting problems at home, I think that would have been much harder.

[The Nehor]

On 3/19/2025 at 11:50 AM, teddyaware said:

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.

This explanation makes the sacrifice much less an expression of faith and a much less difficult moral challenge. It suggests Abraham figured God was just seeing if he would be willing and fully expected God to intervene and make killing Isaac unnecessary.

The darker reflection of this is the common scene where a mob boss hands a gun to someone and tell them to kill someone important to them. The gun has no bullets. In this version the person being tested suspects the gun has no bullets and confidently pulls the trigger. Not much of a test. It is a subversion of the dramatic scenario.

 

I recently read a piece by Orthodox Jews suggesting that God rescinding the instruction to kill Isaac is a preemptive repudiation of the idea that Jesus is the Son of God or that God would sacrifice His Son. Another suggested that the test was Abraham being ordered to sacrifice his life’s work preaching monotheism by performing an idolatrous act. The historian in me balks at that idea as the henotheism of laters Jews is an anachronism in the time that Abraham purportedly lived.

[Amulek]

On 3/17/2025 at 2:15 PM, 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. 

I think there are several approaches one might take - it just depends on the situation.

For example, sometimes rather than rushing to resolve an apparent contradiction, I allow both ideas to exist side by side. This can be useful in cases where I don't yet have enough information or when both perspectives offer value in different contexts.

Other times, I try to determine if the apparent contradiction exists because of differing perspectives, definitions, or assumptions. Often, two or more seeming conflicting ideas can be "true" but in different ways. Perhaps the misunderstanding is merely a matter of framing.

For situations where you are looking at mutually exclusive ideas, I try to carefully examine the underlying assumptions. Many times, the contradiction is due to a flawed assumption in one or both ideas.

While we're on the subject, sometimes it helps to not insist that one idea must be absolutely true and the other false. Instead, think of it in terms of probabilities and confidence intervals.

And, at the end of the day, sometimes you have to acknowledge that you may never reconcile some contradictions (at least, not in mortality), and that's okay. Some truths may remain beyond our grasp, and new perspectives may emerge later.

I know that some people may find this last bit kind of a cop-out, but I believe that uncertainty is actually a feature of mortality (not a bug). If there were no room for rational doubt, there would be no opportunity to exercise genuine faith.

 

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

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.

For an excellent examination of the story of Abraham and faith, I highly recommend you take a look at Fear and Trembling by Soren Kierkegaard.

 

Edited March 25, 2025 by Amulek

[Chum]

On 3/17/2025 at 3:15 PM, 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?

My answer to this Q is: We take note of the conflict and set the belligerents aside because 

1) Internal disharmony is just a state of misalignment. It's mostly nothing. It's our bad reactions that do us in. Like forcing a conclusion now and basing real decisions on that.

2) Broader Understandings are amazing at reconciling internal conflicts.  When they finally get here. 

[teddyaware]

2 hours ago, The Nehor said:

This explanation makes the sacrifice much less an expression of faith and a much less difficult moral challenge. It suggests Abraham figured God was just seeing if he would be willing and fully expected God to intervene and make killing Isaac unnecessary.

The darker reflection of this is the common scene where a mob boss hands a gun to someone and tell them to kill someone important to them. The gun has no bullets. In this version the person being tested suspects the gun has no bullets and confidently pulls the trigger. Not much of a test. It is a subversion of the dramatic scenario.

 

I recently read a piece by Orthodox Jews suggesting that God rescinding the instruction to kill Isaac is a preemptive repudiation of the idea that Jesus is the Son of God or that God would sacrifice His Son. Another suggested that the test was Abraham being ordered to sacrifice his life’s work preaching monotheism by performing an idolatrous act. The historian in me balks at that idea as the henotheism of laters Jews is an anachronism in the time that Abraham purportedly lived.

In spite of what Abraham may have supposed in the beginning of the process concerning the commandment to sacrifice Isaac, when he had finally run out of options, due to the fact that none of the expected means of deliverance had been provided, he eventually came to the solemn conclusion that he had no other recourse but to obey God’s commandment and follow through with the sacrifice Issac. But even at this final point of crisis Abraham still hadn’t lost hope, for he knew that if he did take Isaac’s life that God would raise him from the dead that the promises concerning Isaac’s earthly progeny would yet be fulfilled.

It must be understood that Abraham did indeed technically fulfill the commandment because the only reason why his sacrifice of Isaac was arrested is due to the fact that God was able to perfectly read his heart and mind and knew for certain that Abraham was actually going to go through with the sacrifice and take Issac’s life; and that he most assuredly would have done so if the angel of the Lord hadn’t prevented him. And because righteous Abraham so fully trusted that God was going to keep his promises concerning the earthly progeny of Issac, he was willing to do God’s will because he had perfect confidence that the Lord was going to make good on his promises concerning Isaac and his role as an earthly father within the Abrahamic covenant.

So you are incorrect. At the beginning Abraham may have reasoned that he wouldn’t actually have to follow through with the commanded blood sacrifice, but in the end he did have to take Isaac’s life in his heart before his great test of faith and trust in God would be acceptable and complete. And strange as it may seem, Abraham’s initial impressions of how the sacrifice would unfold did ultimately prove to be true when the ram caught in the thicket (a type of Christ if there ever was one) was sacrificed on the altar and burned in the stead of Isaac.

 

17 By faith Abraham, when he was tried, offered up Isaac: and he that had received the promises offered up his only begotten son,

18 Of whom it was said, That in Isaac shall thy seed be called:

19 Accounting that God was able to raise him up, even from the dead; from whence also he received him in a figure. (Hebrews 11)

 

 

 

 

Edited March 24, 2025 by teddyaware

[let’s roll]

5 hours ago, Teancum said:

I now find this idea totally cruel and much for the reasons you ask in your comments. I think an all knowing being who intentionally tests its children in such a way extremely cruel.

If it is understood as part of a job interview for a job most won’t want it doesn’t seem cruel…in fact, when we know all we will come to know, we will all agree that all of God’s judgments are not cruel but just.

[Calm]

1 hour ago, let’s roll said:

we will all agree that all of God’s judgments are not cruel but just.

I don’t think just judgments mean they aren’t cruel (if someone has been willfully cruel themselves, seems like a solely just punishment could be naturally cruel).

I think the reason we will praise God for his perfectly just judgments is because his judgments will also be perfectly merciful.

Edited March 25, 2025 by Calm

[let’s roll]

2 hours ago, Calm said:

I think the reason we will praise God for his perfectly just judgments is because his judgments will also be perfectly merciful.

I agree that His judgements will be perfectly merciful in the sense that He will give each of us the eternity we choose for ourselves.

Compulsion is cruel and just as in mortality He compels no one to join Him in His work, He won’t do so in the eternities.  

[The Nehor]

5 hours ago, teddyaware said:

In spite of what Abraham may have supposed in the beginning of the process concerning the commandment to sacrifice Isaac, when he had finally run out of options, due to the fact that none of the expected means of deliverance had been provided, he eventually came to the solemn conclusion that he had no other recourse but to obey God’s commandment and follow through with the sacrifice Issac. But even at this final point of crisis Abraham still hadn’t lost hope, for he knew that if he did take Isaac’s life that God would raise him from the dead that the promises concerning Isaac’s earthly progeny would yet be fulfilled.

It must be understood that Abraham did indeed technically fulfill the commandment because the only reason why his sacrifice of Isaac was arrested is due to the fact that God was able to perfectly read his heart and mind and knew for certain that Abraham was actually going to go through with the sacrifice and take Issac’s life; and that he most assuredly would have done so if the angel of the Lord hadn’t prevented him. And because righteous Abraham so fully trusted that God was going to keep his promises concerning the earthly progeny of Issac, he was willing to do God’s will because he had perfect confidence that the Lord was going to make good on his promises concerning Isaac and his role as an earthly father within the Abrahamic covenant.

This is biblical fan fiction.

5 hours ago, teddyaware said:

So you are incorrect. At the beginning Abraham may have reasoned that he wouldn’t actually have to follow through with the commanded blood sacrifice, but in the end he did have to take Isaac’s life in his heart before his great test of faith and trust in God would be acceptable and complete. And strange as it may seem, Abraham’s initial impressions of how the sacrifice would unfold did ultimately prove to be true when the ram caught in the thicket (a type of Christ if there ever was one) was sacrificed on the altar and burned in the stead of Isaac.

 

17 By faith Abraham, when he was tried, offered up Isaac: and he that had received the promises offered up his only begotten son,

18 Of whom it was said, That in Isaac shall thy seed be called:

19 Accounting that God was able to raise him up, even from the dead; from whence also he received him in a figure. (Hebrews 11)

So now I have to defend the statements you made that you are now calling incorrect?

No thanks.