God can write straight with crooked lines.

[Limnor]

I think you’re right to bring up that risk—non-transactional power can easily turn into authoritarian rule, where fear replaces trust and people manage appearances, or put on a performance to avoid punishment or gain favor. Religious institutions do that all the time. I see Jesus as identifying that concern through His application of referring to current leaders as whitewashed tombs—outward compliance that served to cover fear and control. He warns against practicing righteousness “to be seen by others,” and against prayer that performs rather than trusts. He also tells people not to fear those who can kill the body but cannot give life, and He confronts threats to institutionalize that type of thinking, by saying the Father makes the sun rise on the evil and the good.

That’s why I don’t think Abraham’s story is about learning how to please or appease a powerful ruler. Abraham discovers that even faithfulness and obedience can’t keep the promise of eternal life alive—in fact, obedience was leading to death—which means God alone is responsible for life.

And I think it helps to be careful about how we define fear here. This isn’t fear of punishment, but fear in the Abrahamic sense—the recognition that life isn’t in our hands. Jesus doesn’t remove that fear, he removes fear of punishment so that this deeper fear can remain.

I think it’s important to remember that God is described as working through love rather than fear of punishment. Love doesn’t coerce or threaten, and doesn’t use leverage for advantage. I think that’s at least part of why obedience didn’t protect Jesus or save Abraham from the situation—they could have used that as leverage over God otherwise.

[Limnor]

In these cases it’s probably best to go back to the original Greek for further explanation. The English word “fear” is used in different contexts, but in Greek, the gospel removes phobos tied to punishment, but preserves eulabeia—reverent recognition that life is given, not controlled.

[malkie]

Are you saying that, in such a case, is reward purely arbitrary, is at the whim of the god who is the creator/implementor/manager of the creation? Attempts to divine god's will are futile, as are attempts to curry favour, because these "performances" are disregarded, and so are essentially meaningless? Then if what we think of as good - pleasing to the god - is of no account, that suggests that likewise "evil" is meaningless as far as our relationship with god is concerned.

Or am I completely misunderstanding the implications?

I don’t think this makes reward arbitrary or goodness meaningless. It’s not that God acts on whim, or that good and evil don’t matter, it’s that neither good nor evil work as leverage over God. Trying to curry favor fails not because God is capricious, but because life and promise aren’t transactional in the first place.

What drops away is performance as leverage, and what remains is goodness as participation in reality—how one lives once leverage is gone—not as a way of securing treasure, but as truth.

There is probably more that we could discuss about the implications, like what that freely given life means, but it’s late. More tomorrow.

Yes, I wasn't suggesting that goodness per se was meaningless - only in regard to the relationship between human and god.

Why do you not think "that God acts on whim"? How would human existence be different if God were capricious? Is it simply that when we figure out the rules of operation that god follows he will no longer be unpredictable?

[Limnor]

Yes, I wasn't suggesting that goodness per se was meaningless - only in regard to the relationship between human and god.

Why do you not think "that God acts on whim"? How would human existence be different if God were capricious? Is it simply that when we figure out the rules of operation that god follows he will no longer be unpredictable?

I think we need to agree on the term capricious—not to be pedantic but to enable better understanding. I don’t think of capriciousness as unpredictability on its own. I think of it more like unpredictability without basis. So a capricious agent acts without stable character, or continuity of intention or understandability. But God is described as faithful, slow to anger, and what He does is tied to who He is.

An objection might be the flood story—but there is a lot more to unpack about that story than moodiness, and it’s in line with Abraham and Job’s stories. In the flood story we don’t get “do better and I won’t punish you,” or “you can earn salvation from the flood through obedience” Instead life was preserved by grace through Noah and going forward the promise of life was not dependent on human reliability for continuance. I think it’s important to note that the story doesn’t say Noah “earned” favor—only that he found it, and then lived faithfully within it. We can continue to study the flood story separately, but I just wanted to briefly align the possible objection to the consistency of Abraham and Job.

So yes, if God were capricious, fear—particularly fear of punishment—would be rational. If you could make God do what you want Him to do, God would be controllable and subject to a strategy. If the people in Noah’s time had “cleaned up” would things have turned out differently? Maybe, but I don’t think the flood was necessarily a a warning about behavior alone—it can serve as a parable about where life comes from when performance can’t save it.

But overall what I’m trying to describe is we are given a picture of a God who is faithful without being controllable—He is an uncreated God not subject to His creation—and is consistently described as a God of salvation. The book repeatedly describes God as faithful in that regard, while remaining beyond human manipulation—He saves and gives life because that is who He is, not because of anything we do, and regardless of circumstances. I think there can be a discomfort about loss of control over outcomes, but it doesn’t negate that faithfulness—as seen in the Abrahamic example.

[Limnor]

Now I’m thinking about Jacob wrestling for a blessing.

Jacob doesn’t secure the blessing by winning the fight, but he receives it after being disabled—now he has to walk with help for the rest of his life. The story isn’t about leverage—it’s about what happens when trying to achieve finally fails and God blesses anyway.

[malkie]

Yes, I wasn't suggesting that goodness per se was meaningless - only in regard to the relationship between human and god.

Why do you not think "that God acts on whim"? How would human existence be different if God were capricious? Is it simply that when we figure out the rules of operation that god follows he will no longer be unpredictable?

I think we need to agree on the term capricious—not to be pedantic but to enable better understanding. I don’t think of capriciousness as unpredictability on its own. I think of it more like unpredictability without basis. So a capricious agent acts without stable character, or continuity of intention or understandability. But God is described as faithful, slow to anger, and what He does is tied to who He is.

An objection might be the flood story—but there is a lot more to unpack about that story than moodiness, and it’s in line with Abraham and Job’s stories. In the flood story we don’t get “do better and I won’t punish you,” or “you can earn salvation from the flood through obedience” Instead life was preserved by grace through Noah and going forward the promise of life was not dependent on human reliability for continuance. I think it’s important to note that the story doesn’t say Noah “earned” favor—only that he found it, and then lived faithfully within it. We can continue to study the flood story separately, but I just wanted to briefly align the possible objection to the consistency of Abraham and Job.

So yes, if God were capricious, fear—particularly fear of punishment—would be rational. If you could make God do what you want Him to do, God would be controllable and subject to a strategy. If the people in Noah’s time had “cleaned up” would things have turned out differently? Maybe, but I don’t think the flood was necessarily a a warning about behavior alone—it can serve as a parable about where life comes from when performance can’t save it.

But overall what I’m trying to describe is we are given a picture of a God who is faithful without being controllable—He is an uncreated God not subject to His creation—and is consistently described as a God of salvation. The book repeatedly describes God as faithful in that regard, while remaining beyond human manipulation—He saves and gives life because that is who He is, not because of anything we do, and regardless of circumstances. I think there can be a discomfort about loss of control over outcomes, but it doesn’t negate that faithfulness—as seen in the Abrahamic example.

Good point, Limnor.

Thanks for correctly pointing out that there's a problem with the way in which I used the term "capricious", especially without identifying the perspective from which I was using it. I probably muddied the waters even further by suggesting that the "fix" was further light and knowledge.

If we stick to predictability from the PoV of humans:

Yes, I wasn't suggesting that goodness per se was meaningless - only in regard to the relationship between human and god.

Why do you not think "that God acts on whim"? How would human existence be different if God were capricious? Is it simply that when we figure out the rules of operation that god follows he will no longer be unpredictable? Imagine how human existence would be different if God were predictable, even without being biddable!

A big fly in the Mormon ointment is the insistence that Mormon god is biddable. In fact, he is bound if we humans do what we are told to do:

I, the Lord, am bound when ye do what I say; but when ye do not what I say, ye have no promise.

{note in passing: Section 82 is one of the many places in D&C where Joseph can't decide whether god prefers "you" or "ye" for the 2nd person plural)

[Limnor]

A big fly in the Mormon ointment is the insistence that Mormon god is biddable. In fact, he is bound if we humans do what we are told to do:

I, the Lord, am bound when ye do what I say; but when ye do not what I say, ye have no promise.

{note in passing: Section 82 is one of the many places in D&C where Joseph can't decide whether god prefers "you" or "ye" for the 2nd person plural)

Yes sir, that is a big fly in the ointment. I think this is one of many areas in which Joseph significantly departs from the way God is presented in the Bible. Biblical covenant language consistently emphasizes God binding Himself by promise, not being bound by human compliance—and even when there is expectation, there seems to be an assumption of failure built in—see the entire sacrificial system. That’s a huge theological and covenantal difference.

[malkie]

I, the Lord, am bound when ye do what I say; but when ye do not what I say, ye have no promise.

A big fly in the Mormon ointment is the insistence that Mormon god is biddable. In fact, he is bound if we humans do what we are told to do:

{note in passing: Section 82 is one of the many places in D&C where Joseph can't decide whether god prefers "you" or "ye" for the 2nd person plural)

Yes sir, that is a big fly in the ointment. I think this is one of many areas in which Joseph significantly departs from the way God is presented in the Bible. Biblical covenant language consistently emphasizes God binding Himself by promise, not being bound by human compliance—and even when there is expectation, there seems to be an assumption of failure built in—see the entire sacrificial system. That’s a huge theological and covenantal difference.

I'd like to amend, or expand on, my "big fly" statement.

Doctrinally, human obedience leads to the appropriate godly action, as guaranteed by D&C 82:10.

Practically, however, you will have to search high and low to find clearcut examples of the fulfillment of the doctrine - "clearcut" meaning without a reasonable natural explanation.

Long before Elder Bednar's (in)famous statement on having faith not to be healed, I participated in a healing blessing for a young single adult who had a degenerative condition. All of the Melchizedek Priesthood holders in the unit - probably at least 30 or so - gathered in a circle, and the presiding leader made some statement about how he knew that god would not ignore the pleas of such a group of worthy elders and high priests. I'm pretty sure that everyone was thinking of D&C 82:10, as I was, although I don't think that anyone explicitly invoked that verse at the time.

I don't recall anyone talking about it afterwards, but the affliction continued to deteriorate.

Also, I can't help wondering if anyone else was afraid that their personal unworthiness was responsible for the failure of the blessing.

[Limnor]

Yes sir Mr. Malkie—and I think this model can be traced back to the plates as well. “Joseph was able to secure belief and obedience through relinquished authority and constrained conscience, not through evidence.”

Or something like that. I haven’t settled on a cleaner statement.

[Philo Sofee]

I think you’re right to bring up that risk—non-transactional power can easily turn into authoritarian rule, where fear replaces trust and people manage appearances, or put on a performance to avoid punishment or gain favor. Religious institutions do that all the time. I see Jesus as identifying that concern through His application of referring to current leaders as whitewashed tombs—outward compliance that served to cover fear and control. He warns against practicing righteousness “to be seen by others,” and against prayer that performs rather than trusts. He also tells people not to fear those who can kill the body but cannot give life, and He confronts threats to institutionalize that type of thinking, by saying the Father makes the sun rise on the evil and the good.

That’s why I don’t think Abraham’s story is about learning how to please or appease a powerful ruler. Abraham discovers that even faithfulness and obedience can’t keep the promise of eternal life alive—in fact, obedience was leading to death—which means God alone is responsible for life.

And I think it helps to be careful about how we define fear here. This isn’t fear of punishment, but fear in the Abrahamic sense—the recognition that life isn’t in our hands. Jesus doesn’t remove that fear, he removes fear of punishment so that this deeper fear can remain.

I think it’s important to remember that God is described as working through love rather than fear of punishment. Love doesn’t coerce or threaten, and doesn’t use leverage for advantage. I think that’s at least part of why obedience didn’t protect Jesus or save Abraham from the situation—they could have used that as leverage over God otherwise.

I hope you don’t mind me pointing out a couple examples that help visualize your interesting point… we find φόβος (phobos) is the fear tied to threat or punishment at 1 John 4:18.
“There is no fear in love, but perfect love casts out fear, because fear has punishment.” The Greek phrase is…
ὁ φόβος κόλασιν ἔχει
ho phobos kolasin echei
“fear has punishment”
What matters is that phobos is the word used by John who links it to punishment. That is what the Gospel removes. So when we read John says love casts out fear, he is not eliminating all forms of awe or reverence rather he is targeting fear of threats and judgment.

The 2nd example is also helpful I think. εὐλάβεια (eulabeia) which means reverent, and even careful recognition which is found at Hebrews 5:7
“[Christ] was heard because of His reverent submission.” εὐλαβείας (eulabeias).
This isn’t terror or anxiety but leans more to careful reverence. In other words, a humble awareness of standing before something greater than ourselves. This is about receiving life rather than controlling it, again, a major Tolkien theme! I’m sorry, but Tolkien is usually relevant when the Bible is read, and not because he is biblical himself either! This is where we find the idea of obedience without panicking over it. It’s why it applies to Christ himself actually. The gospel removes fear of being crushed by God, but preserves reverence toward a God.