Bushman article from the NYT

Post by **_truth dancer** » Mon Jul 30, 2007 12:49 pm

What if people actually have a desire to be given hard things to obey?

Like, treating others as they would like to be treated? Like loving one's enemies? Like being meek and humble? Like... "doing unto the least of these thy brethren ye have done it unto me," sort of thing?

I don't see a lot of obedience with these "hard" things...

The "hard" things are not the evil, cruel, ego driving things... they are those things that make us more holy, more decent, more loving.

I truly do not understand the idea that God gives people horrific things to do, like hurting or killing other people to prove obedience. :-(

Obedience gives a preson the feeling of moral rectitude with out the ambiguity of helping people. Obedience can give the effect of accomplishing something righteous. Even more emotionally stimulating if the obedience is scary and entirely within the possiblity of being done.(unlike varies New Testament demands which we all fail at)

Please tell me how obeying what is a horric thing, or engaging in behavior that hurts, demeans, destroys another, gives a person a the effect of accomplishing something righteous?

The things is... if it does (and I agree that it does) why is this a good thing? It sounds so twisted in my opinion. The 911 bombers felt they were accomplishing something righteous... so did Hitler... so did all sorts of individuals who do horrific things in the name of God... again, why is this a good thing?

What if people actually desire to either be at the center of all attention and power or be in the inner circle around that power. What if that desire is stronger than the desire for sex or closely associated with it.

Some people use sex for power, some want sex more than power, some want power more than sex... often those who want power also want the sex that comes with it.

I do have a hard time not seeing Joseph Smith marring all sorts of people as a need to restructure the world about him as a big circle with him in the center.

Yep... and sex is all through it. Joseph Smith was not the first man who wanted to be a King with a harem. (sigh) His design of heaven is exactly this! He started it on earth and hoped it would continue for eternity.

~dancer~

Post by **_harmony** » Mon Jul 30, 2007 1:57 pm

beastie wrote:Since the fact that there were more men in Utah than women has become too well known (at least on the internet) the current apologetic twist is that there weren't enough RIGHTEOUS men for these women.

(tell that to Henry Jacobs)

Using that sort of logic, we should be seeing a revelation any day, restoring polygamy. Wasn't it a GA visiting in Jason's stake that said that 1/3 of the young temple-worthy women today wouldn't be able to find a temple-worthy man, because there simply weren't enough of them to go around?

What about today's righteous women? Don't they deserve a righteous mate too?

Post by **_huckelberry** » Mon Jul 30, 2007 3:41 pm

Restoring polygamy?
Harmony, it might be remembered that it ended not by the free decision of LDS leadership but by the combined decision of the US congress and the Supreme Court.

Aspiring David had no Nathan so the Supreme court had to fulfill the duty.

_Yoda · Post by **_Yoda** » Mon Jul 30, 2007 3:43 pm

huckelberry wrote:Restoring polygamy?
Harmony, it might be remembered that it ended not by the free decision of LDS leadership but by the combined decision of the US congress and the Supreme Court.

Aspiring David had no Nathan so the Supreme court had to fulfill the duty.

If bigamy became legal, I wonder if the Church would restore it.

Post by **_harmony** » Mon Jul 30, 2007 3:45 pm

huckelberry wrote:Restoring polygamy?
Harmony, it might be remembered that it ended not by the free decision of LDS leadership but by the combined decision of the US congress and the Supreme Court.

Aspiring David had no Nathan so the Supreme court had to fulfill the duty.

Surely you jest, huck. Surely a revelation of that magnitude could not have been taken away simply by government fiat! I mean, we're talking the power of God here, restored to the earth so men could invoke heaven's almighty powers to meddle in the affairs of men again. Surely God wouldn't quail before a lowly earthly government.

Unless, of course, it never was God's idea in the first place.

Amazing how that works, isn't it?

Post by **_huckelberry** » Mon Jul 30, 2007 3:51 pm

Dancer, You observe that you do not see a lot of obedience in do these "hard things"

I do not think there is any obediece to God there but God is not the only person people might obey.

You wonder how people might experience a satisfing sense of righteousness in doing hard and uncaring things.

that's the big oportunity for happiness we got from Adams fall.

Post by **_truth dancer** » Mon Jul 30, 2007 4:48 pm

Hi Huck...

Dancer, You observe that you do not see a lot of obedience in do these "hard things"

I'm trying to point out that it seems (based on human history) a lot easier to be cruel, selfish, and ungodly than it does to be a kind and loving person. in my opinion the most difficult commandments would be to be kind and loving, NOT hurtful and cruel.

And... why would anyone want to obey God or a person who commands them to be hurtful and cruel. I just seriously do not get this.

I do not think there is any obediece to God there but God is not the only person people might obey.

Personally I do not see obeying as all that fabulous of a trait. I think changing one's heart is about a bazillion times better. :-)

You wonder how people might experience a satisfing sense of righteousness in doing hard and uncaring things.

Actually I think I get this... we have plenty of examples as I have mentioned. I think it is dangerous to find a sense of righteousness by being cruel.

that's the big oportunity for happiness we got from Adams fall.

Hmmm not following you on this.

The "fall" makes no sense to me other than a way for some ancient humans to try to figure out why they have problems. (smile). I would say happiness comes from being a good and decent person, not by being cruel and harmful to others.

~dancer~

Post by **_huckelberry** » Mon Jul 30, 2007 5:36 pm

Adams fall,

Usually I dislike explanations of human problems that simply refer back to Adams fall. That explanation seems a bit empty. I succumbed to a temptation to brevity.

The story of the fall could be reviewed to see if it has any explanatory value.

Adam was created , lived and had children, in order that human kind might be. We are that we might have joy. Something happened which gravely wounded that purpose. Adam accepted an offer of special knowlege and power from someone uniterested in love but interested instead in power. I think Adam realized there was a mistake but the rush of substitutiing power in the place of love once experienced has been hard for the human race to put away.

Perhaps because our ability to love is just starting to grow, lust for power has room to take root and grow more quickly. and we like it.

Well actually we like love but live compromised versions of love due to this fall. (I am inclined to see the story as parable so it is possible that the conditions described as results are simply the conditions the story is designed to illustrate)

Post by **_truth dancer** » Mon Jul 30, 2007 5:44 pm

Hi Huck..

Perhaps because our ability to love is just starting to grow, lust for power has room to take root and grow more quickly. and we like it.

Well, I don't buy into the whole "adam and eve/fall" idea but I do agree that humans often lust for power.

Which is why I find it odd that the "hard" commandments are at times linked with those behaviors that are typically considered evil.

I observe that most men who lust for power are not typically the great men of the world.

~dancer~

Post by **_huckelberry** » Mon Jul 30, 2007 5:52 pm

"hard commandments"

Serve to conceal the self from the self.