? for Coggins

[_Ray A]

Joseph Smith once said that he was not very righteous (with which many here will no doubt agree), and that God judges people according to the light he gives them. So I take it that if someone makes decisions according to the best of their ability and understanding, God will not hold them responsible, even if such actions lead to negative results, sometimes referred to as karma, or, "for every action, their is an equal and opposite reaction". Then there's the other idea of "progression through transgression (or ignorance)" in the story of Adam and Eve. Mormonism is possibly the only (Christian-based) religion which believes that good came from ignorance and/or transgression. I see this as a positive. It's possibly also the only (Christian-based) religion which teaches that ultimately everyone who is saved (in any of the three kingdoms) will experience happiness, otherwise, it would be senseless to say, "Adam fell that men might be, and men are that they might have joy". It wouldn't make sense if the majority of people born, were born to suffer, especially for eternity. (This, by the way, is only one string in my wider "universalist" views, which don't fully tie in with Mormon doctrine.)

[_Jason Bourne]

Coggins,

You never replied to a question I posed to you on a former thread.

If, after your death, you discover that the EVs are right, and God sends sincere Mormons to hell to burn for eternity for believing the wrong thing, would you worship, love, and respect that God?

Is this a purely rhetorical question, or is it meant to seriously address the possibility you mention? This matters becaue if God is really as capricious, arbitrary, and merciless as the EV God is understood to be in these senses, then he probably does not exist at all. Either that, or the universe contains some very dark and dreary secrets it would be better for mortals not to know.

My understanding and experience with God indicates to me quite clearly that he is not the God of the EVs, and hence, I have no problem having faith in his ultimate goodness, mercy, and fairness. On the purely non-experiential, rhetorical side, if I were to die and find out that he was sending me and billions of other people to Hell for all eternity for being wrong on nuances of doctrine, then yes, I would probably have a falling out with him, which would at that point be moot, as it would be too late.

But that is nothing but a thought experiment. In reality, my serous religious faith and the revealed knowlege I have received during my life indicates a God very much different than the one you mention. "What if" questions of this kind are nice tactics for cornering someone with a rhetorical device but do not get to the substance of the matter, which is that the EV God is, in this sense, not congruent with the major attributes ascribed to God in the New Testament (God is love etc). The thought experiment is interesting, but one sided and parochial. Other questions must be asked as well, such as what if I find out that I was right, abandoned that course until it was too late, and then found out that I was wrong to have abandoned it? What if I find out that I"m in the matrix and the whole thing was a complex engineered dream? What if I find out that I myself am nothing but a part of Brahma's dreams? What if this and what if that.

I have no illusions that the EV version of Hell is incorrect, because I know the Restored Gospel to be true. The truth is inconsistent with EV doctrines, and hence, the EV doctrines are not true. The EVs have theology, while the Church has revelation and witnesses, or prophets. I'm not concerned with EV theology being any threat to revelation and the witness of the prophets.

Some interesting comments. Thanks.

I have pondered a lot about the classical view of God, though there are many, in traditional Christianity. The one that fundamental EVs, especially those with Calvinistic leanings seems pretty awful. However, I think I have come to see how they arrive at this view. First, the Bible can be used quite well to teach of such a God. Second, given that intrinsic unfairness in the world, the crime, murders, starvation, disease, natural calamities, suffering of the innocent and randomness of it all I can understand how this God comes to be. If we are indeed just pieces of clay to be dashed bits at God's whim, even though we are sentient beings with feeling, emotions, intelligence enough to even ask about a God, and yet we are left with this fallen world and all its issues, maybe God is really the big HOLY things that we cannot comprehend. Maybe we really are the worthless bits of dust and he can do with us just as he pleases and we have no right to rail against this God. Even if he predestines who he saves and damns from the start. Such a God seems monstrous but maybe this is why things are the way they are.

I do not believe it but I see how they got there.

[_beastie]

Sometimes believers act as if human beings have to accept as moral anything that (in their view) comes from God. In reality, even believers have their boundaries, beyond which a god's actions will seem unjust and even immoral. Clearly, Cog's boundary comes with burning the flesh of Mormons for eternity. But he's fine with a god forcibly divorcing family members for eternity. Or, for that matter, if you follow the line of God being the actual father of all humanity, he refuses to see his own children who have believed the wrong thing in this life.

I know that some believers fiddle around the edges of this belief to come up with something less harsh and more universalistic. But the D&C is clear on this point. The terrestrial kingdom will have, among others, decent men who have been led astray.

So, if coggins ever comes back, I will continue asking him this question: does the fact that Coggins would "fall out" with the EV God indicate pride and hubris on his part?

[_Scottie]

Sometimes believers act as if human beings have to accept as moral anything that (in their view) comes from God.

I tried to get this point across on MAD. An immoral act is an immoral act, regardless. It may be an immoral act sanctioned by God, but that doesn't make it moral.

[_barrelomonkeys]

Sometimes believers act as if human beings have to accept as moral anything that (in their view) comes from God.

I tried to get this point across on MAD. An immoral act is an immoral act, regardless. It may be an immoral act sanctioned by God, but that doesn't make it moral.

Well if God says it's moral then how can it be immoral? In the eyes of religious folks doesn't God outline morals? Or the Church? Or is it more societal for LDS? I assume morality for LDS is a divine command from God.

[_Sethbag]

Sometimes believers act as if human beings have to accept as moral anything that (in their view) comes from God.

I tried to get this point across on MAD. An immoral act is an immoral act, regardless. It may be an immoral act sanctioned by God, but that doesn't make it moral.

Well if God says it's moral then how can it be immoral? In the eyes of religious folks doesn't God outline morals? Or the Church? Or is it more societal for LDS? I assume morality for LDS is a divine command from God.

That's the key. Remember the infamous letter from Joseph Smith to Nancy Rigdon. A particular line from that letter outlines exactly what LDS think on the matter. This belief informs every judgment they make of history, the scriptures, etc. That line is "Whatever God requires is right, no matter what it is..."

Thus they fall back in defense of the practices of Joseph Smith by claiming that God commanded them. In their minds, that's a slam dunk. If it can be pinned on God by way of commandment, then there is, by definition, simply nothing wrong about it. Case closed, next question.

And this is exactly the way Joseph Smith used it. He used the notion of God commanding what he was telling people as a way of overriding their natural aversion to it. There are so many cases of women who report having been horrified and put off by the notion of marrying Joseph Smith, a man already married to Emma. Joseph needed a way to override these natural responses from the women, and convince them to act in a way which was contrary to their initial impressions. That way was to tell them that it had been commanded by God.

And thus operated the Philanderer in Chief of the Mormon Church, Joseph Smith. He approached a young girl or woman with whom he wanted to engage in marital relations, told them of "the Principle", and when they refused his proposition, he attempted to override their natural response and conscience, as well as create a fait accompli, by telling them that God had commanded it. He used his position of religious authority, which his followers had granted to him by their own submission, to override their consciences and get them to submit to him in ways that they would not ordinarily have been willing to do. It was manipulation and spiritual coercion. Period.

[_beastie]

It is also an LDS teaching that certain laws exist independent of God, and if God were not to obey those laws himself, he would case being God. This seems to contradict the idea that whatever God orders is moral and right.

[_beastie]

bumping up for coggins

[_karl61]

Just make sure God is on your side so there are no rules for you - at least no civilized rules.

[_beastie]

The silence is deafening!