Disgracing God to Save a Prophet

[_mentalgymnast]

I think the idea that God intervenes is very problematic. I don't think it's compatible with the idea that God is also good.

It does present conundrums that are difficult to deal with and understand...I agree.

It's very tempting to create God in our own images - but I think God is much bigger than that.

I agree with this also.

Regards,
MG

[_Gray Ghost]

My favorite response from Brian Hales included this gem (grammar in original):

. . . I do not find him guilty of any egregious sins like adultery, hypocrisy, or many of the outlandish things critics have charged. Admittedly some of his decisions are now a little difficult to understand. If I could go back in time, I might make five recommendations Joseph:

1. Carefully consider marrying Fanny Alger without telling Emma. If possible, convince the angel that Emma needs to be involved from the start.
2. Carefully consider being sealed to fourteen-year-old plural wives even if the marriages are not consummated. It might generate accusations of pedophilia a hundred years later.
3. Carefully consider being sealed to legally married women even if for eternity only. Encouraging those women to be sealed to other priesthood holders, including their civil husbands, if worthy, may be a better choice.
4. Carefully consider the number of plural wives you marry. Even if Old Testament patriarchs had dozens of plural wives, limiting your wives, whether for eternity only or time and eternity, might be more easily understood by observers years later.
5. Carefully consider limiting your involvement in politics. Letting someone else be mayor of Nauvoo may insulate you from liability in dealing with the Nauvoo Expositor.

Note that he didn't say "carefully RE-consider."

For my money, my absolute favorite is this part of #1: "Convince the angel that Emma needs to be involved from the start." 'Cause obviously the angel hadn't considered that approach. Perhaps Joseph could've also convinced the angel to go back to God's presence and convince God that Emma should be involved, since God most likely sent the angel off without really thinking things through beforehand.

I have to admit that I find Hales' approach to be disconcerting.

[_Gray Ghost]

Whenever we try to think of God as a person who judges and compares and blesses and damns and creates and destroys, we're really making a God of ourselves. Humans do those things. God is bigger.

This is helping me refine and define my ideas of God. Please don't stop!

I'm glad you find it helpful.

I think we get into trouble in thinking that God is like a person, and that God speaks to us in human language, with a human-like brain. I don’t see God as a man in the clouds who answers the tough question. I see God as more of a verb, less of a thing, but at the same time, everything everywhere is God. So no matter what you are doing or where you are, you are experiencing God in some way. God is "everything" in the most expansive possible definition of the word.

I think there are true principles that arise out of our spiritual quest, principles of inclusiveness and compassion and love. It's not that God broadcasts these principles into our brains. Again, I don't see God as existing at the ego/personality level. Everything in nature seems to work from the bottom up - complexity arises from basic elements. Morality comes about as an evolutionary process as well.

And of course, under this paradigm, scripture is not to be taken as some kind of literal recitation of facts and events or the "words of God". Scripture is a collection of sacred narratives. There are universal principles that arise out of all scriptures (unconditional love for one). Other parts of scriptures contain particular teachings that just don't work anymore. In those cases the function of scripture can be to teach us what NOT to do. But universal principles come before dogma or literalism. Scripture is record of fallible people reaching out for divinity, and often failing in the attempt.

If you're interested in this kind of approach, I'd highly recommend the following series of interviews:

http://mormonstories.org/rabbi-ted-falc ... e-judaism/
http://mormonstories.org/three-interfai ... -religion/
http://mormonstories.org/imam-jamal-rah ... ive-islam/
http://mormonstories.org/pastor-don-mac ... istianity/

[_Gray Ghost]

I think the idea that God intervenes is very problematic. I don't think it's compatible with the idea that God is also good.

It does present conundrums that are difficult to deal with and understand...I agree.

It's very tempting to create God in our own images - but I think God is much bigger than that.

I agree with this also.

Regards,
MG

There are various approaches to the problem of evil - none satisfactory to my mind. However, I hope you don't take my rejection of a personal God as a rejection of the validity of your own beliefs.

In my mind, if a revelation or a belief leads to greater compassion, greater kindness, then it's a true belief at some level. That includes models for God that I don't personally hold to.

[_DrW]

What befuddles me is that Lori is still a tithe paying member.

From Lori Burkman to Polygamy Porter (via DrW):

That’s just his assumption. I do not pay tithing or regularly attend anymore.

http://rationalfaiths.com/disgracing-god-for-prophets/

[_Chap]

I think we get into trouble in thinking that God is like a person, and that God speaks to us in human language, with a human-like brain. I don’t see God as a man in the clouds who answers the tough question.

OK, so we're done with the deities of the Abrahamic religions, at least in any sense recognizable to the vast majority of believers, past and present.

I see God as more of a verb, less of a thing, but at the same time, everything everywhere is God. So no matter what you are doing or where you are, you are experiencing God in some way. God is "everything" in the most expansive possible definition of the word.

So on the basis of those two sentences it appears that adding the word 'God' to a statement adds precisely nothing, except a vague flavor of a religious allegiance that the user of the word no longer actually possesses.

Why bother with it, then?

[_beastie]

My favorite response from Brian Hales included this gem (grammar in original):

. . . I do not find him guilty of any egregious sins like adultery, hypocrisy, or many of the outlandish things critics have charged. Admittedly some of his decisions are now a little difficult to understand. If I could go back in time, I might make five recommendations Joseph:

1. Carefully consider marrying Fanny Alger without telling Emma. If possible, convince the angel that Emma needs to be involved from the start.
2. Carefully consider being sealed to fourteen-year-old plural wives even if the marriages are not consummated. It might generate accusations of pedophilia a hundred years later.
3. Carefully consider being sealed to legally married women even if for eternity only. Encouraging those women to be sealed to other priesthood holders, including their civil husbands, if worthy, may be a better choice.
4. Carefully consider the number of plural wives you marry. Even if Old Testament patriarchs had dozens of plural wives, limiting your wives, whether for eternity only or time and eternity, might be more easily understood by observers years later.
5. Carefully consider limiting your involvement in politics. Letting someone else be mayor of Nauvoo may insulate you from liability in dealing with the Nauvoo Expositor.

Note that he didn't say "carefully RE-consider."

For my money, my absolute favorite is this part of #1: "Convince the angel that Emma needs to be involved from the start." 'Cause obviously the angel hadn't considered that approach. Perhaps Joseph could've also convinced the angel to go back to God's presence and convince God that Emma should be involved, since God most likely sent the angel off without really thinking things through beforehand.

I actually thought you were doing a parody of Hales - I couldn't believe he made those comments seriously. But he did.

It's a good demonstration of how twisted and tortured thinking can become when handicapped by the obligations of apologia and religious defense. It doesn't even seem to occur to Brian that the same GOD OF THE ENTIRE UNIVERSE who cared enough to send an angel with a flaming sword should have thought of these problems beforehand.

[_Gray Ghost]

OK, so we're done with the deities of the Abrahamic religions, at least in any sense recognizable to the vast majority of believers, past and present.

Progressives among all three major Abrahamic faiths can be found who have similar beliefs. But yes, it's a minority belief.

So on the basis of those two sentences it appears that adding the word 'God' to a statement adds precisely nothing, except a vague flavor of a religious allegiance that the user of the word no longer actually possesses.

Why bother with it, then?

Why bother with a God who can't reward or punish, you mean? I find the experience very rewarding, but your mileage may vary.

[_Sammy Jankins]

Making God in Our Own Image to Cast Aside His Prophets

For those interested here is a response to the original post.

[_huckelberry]

OK, so we're done with the deities of the Abrahamic religions, at least in any sense recognizable to the vast majority of believers, past and present.

Progressives among all three major Abrahamic faiths can be found who have similar beliefs. But yes, it's a minority belief.

So on the basis of those two sentences it appears that adding the word 'God' to a statement adds precisely nothing, except a vague flavor of a religious allegiance that the user of the word no longer actually possesses.

Why bother with it, then?

Why bother with a God who can't reward or punish, you mean? I find the experience very rewarding, but your mileage may vary.

Gray Ghost, I am unsure if I am reacting negatively or positivly to your comments. I think like Chap I would like more clarity. I would like to suggest that it sounds a bit like you wish to hide behind the word progressive.It could be considered that what you are saying does not sound new but like a variation of thought which has been around for a few thousand years at least. Age doesn't mean an idea is inferior or superior but I think it does suggest that progressive is not a very clear description of it.

Part of your comments sounded like you meant God is everything that exists. Then it sounded like God refers to a particular and desirable potency and direction inherent in things as they are. There would be overlap with those to statements but there is also difference. Indifference or committed caring? Love or abuse? searching for good or searching for a marriage of good and evil. Explore to find good or explore to plumb the depth of depravity?