THIS is what we're striving to be???

[_Zoidberg]

YAAAAY! I've been quoted in a sig line! Thanks, Scottie!

[_Scottie]

Lets look at this from a strictly LDS viewpoint...

I don't see the God of Mormonism being any less barbaric than the God of the Old Testament. He is still commanding strange, immoral commandments, then forcing His prophets to lie for their immoral activities, sending angels with flaming swords to ensure the immoral activities commence (oh, and ruling by fear), making members take blood covenants, forcing members to pay 10% of their income, which most can scarcely afford, still not fulfilling the "promises" that He says He can not break, still demanding 24/7 worship, forcing men to be out of the home for extended periods of time, etc.

This is not the kind of God I want to be.

[_Inconceivable]

I think there is a natural explanation for NDEs. But I agree that the type of deity you describe is not even comparable to the God of the Old Testament.

What kills me is how Mormonism relies so heavily on both warm fuzzies and religious texts. Yet either can be rejected if necessary, and the other used to justify the rejection. It's just mind-boggling.

Comparing explanations between the stories in the Old Testament (as in "testament") and even the average account of the NDE, what do we see? Even if the NDE has a "natural" explanation, consider the life long effect it has upon the individual that experiences it and those that they may come in contact with for the rest of their lives.

Another interesting aspect of the NDE'r is that the only common thread previous to experiencing "death" is that they are human. The experience plays no favorites, transcending religeon, culture or even the character of the individual. And yet the accounts contain those common threads of unconditional love, forgiveness, kindness an absense of condemnation but more of patience and understanding etc. - attributes of higher values - charity. I know I'm simplifying things a bit here, yet there are all of these clues.

In comparison, to attempt to understand the Old Testament is to conclude that God deals in absolutes and that we must also accept that He is responsible for exemplifying and even justifying (commanding) man's inhumanity to man (the horrors of the war, subordination of women, favoritism, jealousy etc). And all the while, he gives a pass to those that represent Him throughout the pathetic history of man.

Now there is a troubling vision of a God of confusion.

I would conclude that much of cannonized scripture is thematic of wicked men attempting to justify deplorable behavior by attributing there acts to a diety they neither know nor serve.

[_barrelomonkeys]

I so like the God that I pretend might exist.

Thank goodness no religion ever spoiled it for me. :)

[_Inconceivable]

I so like the God that I pretend might exist..

Yeah, me too.

I haven't given up all hope in something greater than myself that has directed me for good from time to time, even healed or at least gave peace to a few friends that I love, somehow given me comfort even when it wasn't expected or requested, warning me of danger for the sake of myself and others..

Perhaps I and many of you are in a transitional stage between what men say that God must be and what Deity may very well be.

[_Zoidberg]

Lets look at this from a strictly LDS viewpoint...

I don't see the God of Mormonism being any less barbaric than the God of the Old Testament. He is still commanding strange, immoral commandments, then forcing His prophets to lie for their immoral activities, sending angels with flaming swords to ensure the immoral activities commence (oh, and ruling by fear), making members take blood covenants, forcing members to pay 10% of their income, which most can scarcely afford, still not fulfilling the "promises" that He says He can not break, still demanding 24/7 worship, forcing men to be out of the home for extended periods of time, etc.

This is not the kind of God I want to be.

You are absolutely right. Of course, there are plenty of members who imagine God as a sweet, loving and super-kind being. But many still think that the fear of punishment is necessary in order for people to be even remotely decent. Look at Hammer's reasoning over on MAD in the chastity thread. And judging by all the guilt trips the GAs regularly give to the membership, they must share Hammer's outlook on the issue.

Marc Hauser's theory of universal moral grammar sounds much more satisfactory to me.

In comparison, to attempt to understand the Old Testament is to conclude that God deals in absolutes and that we must also accept that He is responsible for exemplifying and even justifying (commanding) man's inhumanity to man (the horrors of the war, subordination of women, favoritism, jealousy etc). And all the while, he gives a pass to those that represent Him throughout the pathetic history of man.

Now there is a troubling vision of a God of confusion.

I would conclude that much of cannonized scripture is thematic of wicked men attempting to justify deplorable behavior by attributing there acts to a diety they neither know nor serve.

Well said. It also shows the evolution of the concept of God that seems to reflect whatever notions of morality his "servants" had at the time. Yet the same God is alleged to be the same yesterday, today and forever. Another golden nugget from the treasure chest of TBM responses is something like this:

For those who find the Priesthood ban offensive, I'm going to state one opinion of one possible reason for it.

Up in that great Council in Heaven, God said there will come a time when there is so much wickedness in the world that men will enslave others. Because those of you who elect to be born in that lineage which during the restoration of the Gospel will find itself enslaved, you will not be able to fully use your agency and therefore cannot have the same accountability as free men. I therefore am going to withhold the Priesthood for a time. You will still be able to obtain all the blessings all my children are entitled to, if not in this life then in the next. Now a war is going to be fought to free the slaves. Unfortunately, men are slow to change and will find other ways to limit your agency, whether it's separate drinking fountains or separate seats on the bus. So it will still be many years before you will be able to receive the Priesthood in mortality. I being a just God want my children to have full utilization of their agency. So I need some of you who are willing to wait for this blessing and remain faithful until the time comes when the world has grown up and you will have had many choices that were previously denied you by the societies you live in. Any volunteers?

I think the black members of the church and all those “saints” in Africa who waited so long for the official gospel to be brought to them are examples of not only patience and long-suffering but great faith. I find it very offensive that anyone would belittle their choice to become members for what appears to me to be pure bigotry on the part of those who denigrate their choice.

Emphasis added. This came from Deborah's blog on MAD. I never get tired of reading it. You see, God simply can't do anything to make people realize that racism is wrong. So he has no choice but withold the priesthood from blacks. After all, it is so crucial that your choice of drinking fountains or bus seats is not limited in order for you to be able to excercise your free agency and perform Priesthood ordinances.

So God goes out of his way to accomodate people's prejudices. After all, what else could he do? I suppose that angel with a flaming sword that was able to carry out the task of getting Joseph to bang various hot chicks so effectively was no longer available to tell BY to stop being such a racist prick. Apparently, the damage done to the number of potential converts by their abhorrence of polygamy is not nearly as significant as the damage done by their abhorrence of black people. Or else racism must figure into God's plan somehow. God works in mysterious ways, you know.

[_guy sajer]

Lets look at this from a strictly LDS viewpoint...

I don't see the God of Mormonism being any less barbaric than the God of the Old Testament. He is still commanding strange, immoral commandments, then forcing His prophets to lie for their immoral activities, sending angels with flaming swords to ensure the immoral activities commence (oh, and ruling by fear), making members take blood covenants, forcing members to pay 10% of their income, which most can scarcely afford, still not fulfilling the "promises" that He says He can not break, still demanding 24/7 worship, forcing men to be out of the home for extended periods of time, etc.

This is not the kind of God I want to be.

Lest we forget, Jesus killed untold thousands via fire, earthquake, or drowning prior to his visit to the Americas. He later recounts to the survivors about all the people he killed in what cities and how he did it. I guess he was rightly proud of himself that he was following in his father's footsteps.

[_John Larsen]

Lest we forget, Jesus killed untold thousands via fire, earthquake, or drowning prior to his visit to the Americas. He later recounts to the survivors about all the people he killed in what cities and how he did it. I guess he was rightly proud of himself that he was following in his father's footsteps.

Jesus continues to brag about how angry he is and how he is about to whip out his enemies through the gift of modern revelation as recorded in the D&C.

John

[_John Larsen]

Lest we forget, Jesus killed untold thousands via fire, earthquake, or drowning prior to his visit to the Americas. He later recounts to the survivors about all the people he killed in what cities and how he did it. I guess he was rightly proud of himself that he was following in his father's footsteps.

Jesus continues to brag about how angry he is and how he is about to whip out his enemies. We know this through the gift of modern revelation as recorded in the D&C.

John

[_huckelberry]

To imagine that God had no problem with the daughters being given to the mob is totally bizarre to my reading. I cannot even beging to imagine that God had no problem with it. I also am at a loss for a theory of what interpretive filter or method would yield the conclusion God had no problem with it.

Is there a rule that says if it happened or is related in the Bible God approves of the action?

God's messengers were there at the time, and there is no description of them rebuking Lot for such a generous offer to the mob. Or if it happened, it was not found important enough to either pass this knowledge down to descendants or include it in the Bible, even though it came from God's messengers. In this case, not much damn must have been given about the words of God's messnegers. Which makes the whole Bible dubious. Who knows what else could have been omitted?

Take your pick.

by the way, a similar story is described in Judges 19. In that case, a woman was gang-raped to save her husband (the kind host was willing to throw his virgin daughter in with the guest's wife, but, after some haggling, they settled on just the wife). No mention of God condemining that behavior. In either Lot's case or the Levite's case.

Yet the same God sends a bunch of bears to munch on a bunch of children for making fun of the prophet.

No rebuke? The angels saved the girls and turned back the mob. You speak as if the were indifferent to the situation. We do not get in on a dress down of Lot? Generally the Bible does not dress down individuals except for leaders. Lot is not a leader. In fact he has to be taken by the hand by the angel and led out of town.

I am puzzled by the phrase something left out. The Old Testament history is a pamphet length rendition of a thousand years of time. Saying an enormous amount is left out would be making an understatement. It is history through very condensed vigenettes. In that style there is a lot unsaid.