Disgracing God to Save a Prophet

[_huckelberry]

Making God in Our Own Image to Cast Aside His Prophets

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

I gather from this response that we cannot trust our own sense of right and wrong or Gods direction for ourselves but must rely upon someone else.

I do not think that view represents moral living.

[_Sammy Jankins]

Making God in Our Own Image to Cast Aside His Prophets

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

I gather from this response that we cannot trust our own sense of right and wrong or Gods direction for ourselves but must rely upon someone else.

I do not think that view represents moral living.

That's my take away from this post as well.

Instead, I would like to comment on what I see as a very concerning trend among certain types of “Internet Mormons,” particularly more “liberal” types, for lack of a better term. I’ve noticed a certain type of thinking among them, and I’ve seen it several times. Lori’s post is but the latest example. It goes something like this:

X is just too unpalatable in some way.
Therefore, God could not be involved in x.
Therefore, it must be the fault of prophet y or z, etc.

In most cases, x is polygamy, or the priesthood ban, or the Church’s current and continued teachings regarding same-sex attraction or women and the priesthood, and so on. And prophet y and/or z, and/or prophets a, b, c, and so on is/are the prophet(s) perceived as responsible for whatever x is.

So, there you have it. Setting aside the fact that Lori is confusing her (very emotionally charged) interpretation of the origins of polygamy with the actual facts, what is truly concerning to me is how Lori—and so many others—have fashioned for themselves a God after their own image, and then cast aside the prophet(s) in favor of this idol of their own making. It is not the idea that prophets can be wrong that is concerning, but rather the staunch insistence that they, the bloggeratti of today’s Mormonism, know better what God’s will is than do his chosen prophets, past and present. Such a view is not faith of any kind, except perhaps an over developed sense of self-faith (faith in oneself). By demonstrating a lack of confidence in God’s prophets, she also betrays no confidence in God’s ability to actually guide and direct his prophets, to correct them when they are in error, and to this day can’t seem to get the right message about polygamy to his chosen leaders. She would replace a God who commands polygamy under some circumstances with one that is inept in actually guiding his Church, or alternatively chooses (for some reason) entirely inept leaders.

So what happened exactly with the priesthood ban? Everything he is saying would apply perfectly to Mormonism pre-1978.

It's a good summary of one of my core problems with Mormonism. Prophets can supposedly make mistakes, but look what happens when you suggest one actually did make mistakes.

[_huckelberry]

. By demonstrating a lack of confidence in God’s prophets, she also betrays no confidence in God’s ability to actually guide and direct his prophets, to correct them when they are in error, and to this day can’t seem to get the right message about polygamy to his chosen leaders. She would replace a God who commands polygamy under some circumstances with one that is inept in actually guiding his Church, or alternatively chooses (for some reason) entirely inept leaders.

Sammy , this quote you provided from the article states whatd I understand to be a fundamental attitude created by Mormonism's basic story.It represents why I do not expect, in fact cannot conceive of, the church apologizing for the priesthood ban, ever actually saying it was wrong, for ever saying polygamy was a mistake.

Polygamy is the foundation of the church. Polygamy was to establish a committed generation deeply identified with the church not necessarily more babies. It succeeded.

[_Gray Ghost]

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?

I don't attribute agency to God, as if God decides to do things. I would reject all depictions of God that make God similar to a human being in any way. I'm not talking about a personality responsible for the existence of reality.

I don't even like to use the word God, but it's a regrettable necessity.

I don't pretend to know how old this idea is, but yes, it's believed by progressives in various religious traditions.

I reject superstition and magic and the human tendency to ascribe agency to natural events. Existence itself is the Divine. God is not a being you can point to and identify.

God encompasses noun and verb and adjective. Everything that is, everything that becomes. Whatever the most expansive meaning that you could get out of the phrase, "the whole thing." That's God to me.

[_Gray Ghost]

Or, to put it another way, God is the only thing that exists.

[_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?

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

No, I don't mean that. I meant why bother adding the word "God" to a sentence if it "adds precisely nothing, except a vague flavor of a religious allegiance that the user of the word no longer actually possesses". Reward and punishment is not the issue. Signifying something identifiable is.

[_Chap]

Or, to put it another way, God is the only thing that exists.

Hello God. Damn - talking to myself again.

[_Maksutov]

Or, to put it another way, God is the only thing that exists.

Sounds like something Valentine M. Smith (no relation to Joseph) would say.

[_Gray Ghost]

Or, to put it another way, God is the only thing that exists.

Hello God. Damn - talking to myself again.

Another way of putting it is, every face is the face of God.

[_Gray Ghost]

No, I don't mean that. I meant why bother adding the word "God" to a sentence if it "adds precisely nothing, except a vague flavor of a religious allegiance that the user of the word no longer actually possesses". Reward and punishment is not the issue. Signifying something identifiable is.

I don't agree that it adds precisely nothing. Especially when the definition for God here is so expansive. Nothing could be greater than "all things".

Why do you think it's important that God be something very specific and individual?