Godly Concession and the Restoration Contract

[_The Nehor]

Since when do believers have the right to question the morals of God?

We're not supposed to. I don't question him. I just know him a little.

However while our morality is probably very different in many ways they have a common basis. I know his standards because he put them in me. When I see what he chooses to do with a more omniscient sight it will not be alien to me.....it will become clear why so much happened and so much did not. The problem I have with what they're doing is they're IMPLYING that God had to either permit or command someone to sin to fulfill an arbitrary restoration of all things. In other words, he was doing pointless things to connect some doctrinal dots.

As for Joseph, he might have been commanded to do unreasonable things. He might not have been. Some of the stories may be fabricated. Some are probably true. Whether he sinned or not is not really my concern. The doctrine he revealed aided me in finding God. If for nothing else, I love him for that. If he broke the laws of God then that's his problem and he either dealt with it while he was alive or dealt with it after death. The Apostles today state there is no golden easy road to exaltation. Joseph was working out his own salvation just like everyone else.

Incidentally, the idea that Joseph will judge us is unscriptural. The Book of Mormon makes it clear that Christ is our Judge and that he "employs no servant there".

[_beastie]

We're not supposed to. I don't question him. I just know him a little.

However while our morality is probably very different in many ways they have a common basis. I know his standards because he put them in me.

You know his standards because he put them in you? Are these the same standards that says it's ok to take other mens' wives as a wife, sometimes without their knowledge, and sometimes when you've sent them away on missions?

Come on, Nehor. You really can't expect me to believe that this is a moral standard the resonates with you.

When I see what he chooses to do with a more omniscient sight it will not be alien to me.....it will become clear why so much happened and so much did not. The problem I have with what they're doing is they're IMPLYING that God had to either permit or command someone to sin to fulfill an arbitrary restoration of all things. In other words, he was doing pointless things to connect some doctrinal dots.

God is omnipotent, he doesn't have to have ANY doctrinal dots connected, but he demands it, anyway. Did God really have to have the blood of Jesus spilled before he could forgive his children their sins? Does God really have to have a formal LDS baptism performed for people before letting them in the CK? These are all absurd requirements that seem quite arbitrary unless you happen to believe in them.

As for Joseph, he might have been commanded to do unreasonable things. He might not have been. Some of the stories may be fabricated. Some are probably true. Whether he sinned or not is not really my concern. The doctrine he revealed aided me in finding God. If for nothing else, I love him for that. If he broke the laws of God then that's his problem and he either dealt with it while he was alive or dealt with it after death. The Apostles today state there is no golden easy road to exaltation. Joseph was working out his own salvation just like everyone else.

Yes, I know, believers assure us of this all the time.

It just amazes me that God seems so concerned, even obsessed, with certain behaviors and yet will still call people who violate those very concerns as his "spokesman".

I guess God is naïve about human nature. Even businesses, run by mere human beings, understand that the moral character of your spokesman has a serious effect on how people perceive the business. God doesn't get that, apparently.

[_the road to hana]

It just amazes me that God seems so concerned, even obsessed, with certain behaviors and yet will still call people who violate those very concerns as his "spokesman".

Exactly right, beastie.

And here's what the authors of this "Godly Concession" piece are missing. If a religion is to subscribe to the New Testament (which Mormonism does), the "old covenant" was done away with the "new," in the life and mission of Jesus Christ. Much is made in the New Testament of the example of Jesus Christ, having to submit to certain rituals and rites, including baptism, and being tempted, but overcoming temptation.

For a religion, such as Mormonism, to suddenly circumvent all that, and rationalize a restoration of things done away in the person they claim to be the head of their church and their savior, is nonsensical.

[Guest]

ops, clicked the wrong button at the wrong time, please see below for actual post

[_The Dude]

Come again, Huck?

[Guest]

Ah come on Gadianton, its a parady, no?

??? But I'd bet $20 against it being presented at the MI thing. Can you really see BYU's religious faculty entertaining that, at least in this extreme form? The other handouts etc. I have don't lead me to believe this is the usual stuff. My guess is that it's experimental in some way and the one recognizable author isn't gearing up to be the next provacative guy on the list for excommunication. I could find out more but my friend has no idea I post online or the depth of my falling away from the church, he knows family etc., so, got to tread carefully.

It does seem to be pretty thick with the academic paper talk. Its pretty convincing. But its such a fat pitch.

I mean the idea of Gods law in the Old Testament existing in a state of concession to barbaric social arrangements of the time is a fancy way of saying what most any believer has to believe in some way with the Old Testament. My views of the Old Testament rely on some version of that idea. But why in the world would one, we, God, want to go back to that limitation?

I doubt that anyone wants to go back to that stuff, as has been asked of apologists before, what would you do if Joseph Smith had approached your daughter? It's all a matter of trying to spin-doctor. But I have to point out one thing. If any believer is forced to believe that about the Old Testament, why wouldn't they be forced to believe the same thing about Smith?

How could restoraton make any sense at all in that story? Oh my! we are making progress, better get back to the bad old ways? No, that does not sound reasonable.

I agree, which is why I recommend science and atheism. hehe.

Usually the LDS speech about restoration is centered on restarting authority. I think that idea is safer than some automatic recreation of all the past with its failures stupities and failures. But consider, does not the limited idea contain the obsurdity of the full meal deal? If the original concession is to be foundation for our efforts to learn and grow why bypass that with a reversion to the old in any form?

That's true. Did you read the link CKSalmon directed us to though? Had Joseph Smith been a self-denying Saintly guy, then such avenues would be better left unlooked at I'm surel;

I zipped through your reply Gad and got lost on looking for CkSalmons direction. Where? What? But I am not a fan of Joseph Smith beyond thinking him an interesting example of the human carnival. Then I went back and realized you snuck an argument into your comments. You noted that if a believer is forced to accept this about the Old Testament wouldn't they be forced to do the same with Joseph Smith. Pardon my loose quote. You suggest I cannot fairly reject Joseph because he appears to be a manipulative egotist. God could choose anybody to do some something.

I suppose but I suspect peoples roles harmonize with their decisions and character to some degree. Moses, a person willing to kill an Egyptian overlord makes a good leader out of slavery. You are free to speculate appropriate roles for Joseph. My speculation is pot agitator.

I overstated my point in my first post hoping to get an argument. I can see that some element of restoration is a natural possibility in religion. Religion has an element of preserving accumulated social wisdom so it will have a penchant for looking back to get perspective. Religion will ask whether developement is headed in a forward direction and look into the past for wisdom to see. Despite my preferece to look at developement, religion is not all forward developement.

I prefer to understand history as a story of developement. I think I always applied that story to history even when I was an LDS believer. It fits some aspects of LDS story yet it is in tension with the LDS tendancy to look to the deep past for the truely true. The LDS restoration ignores the messy learning process Old Testament the past two thousand years and hopes for ancient purity in a book of Enoch, or Abraham or some early priesthood purity with Adam, strange reversals of progress as the pricinpal of revelation. I see the same puzzle in LDS apologists looking for early Semetic beliefs weeded out in the Old Testament editing as more reliable. I see progress as revelation, LDS inclines to see revelation as a glimmer of light from the ancient past.

But I should question myself. Human history is not all progress. It can be the other direction at times. Even if I am thinking only of science and logic or atheism I realize there are values that must be found looking at the past. We do not come with a sense of how to do science. Humans learn it and learn it looking at things learned in the past and the processes and ideas which people had which made that learning possible. In the ancient world science was primarily catalogues. It was later when the proceedure of applying measument to observing changes opened the window to modern science. Yes we use that science to look to the future. We learn how it is done by first looking to the past.

You may not accept the idea, but I see religion as theory and wisdom for the technology of human relationships (both near and familiar or in society at large). Like science, not all of the past is the best forms of such wisdom but we learn by erstanding the learning process people have gone through in the past.

I do not believe athiest are outside of the process of humans learning the technology of relationships. I do believe these things are not automatic. Good human relationships can be lost in a variety of conflicts, or neglects or indifference. People refect on and pass on what they learn about making relationships. People have done this through religion for thousands of years. Athiest may do the same in other ways. Unless of course they believe the problem is so easy it requires no special care.

[_Gadianton]

I might comment more later, but for now, here is the context:

http://maxwellinstitute.com/sumsem.html

[_Roger Morrison]

Thanks for the link, Gad. The application is there for anyone. Wonder if m-any posters on MDB will apply?

A side bar on the link asks:

Why do Mormons believe we are saved by good works, when the Bible says we are saved by the grace of God?

Response?? IMSCO, it makes more sense. Once again, it points to original LDSism as NOT mainstream, and with a new, message removed from mysticism--in that case, at least. Too bad Joseph Smith didn't have time to lay all of HIS cards on the table. Generally, we're playing with those BY dealt. Roger, over...

[_beastie]

Repeating an ignored post:



Quote:
1. It is part of the crediblity thing to know the source.

2. I left out part because I didn't want it to be too long. I hate long cut and paste things myself, and didn't want to subject others to the same kind of thing.



1. I just want to be clear on what you're saying.

Do you agree with this statement? A clear yes or no would be helpful.

"I, Charity, cannot form an opinion on the content of this paper without knowing the source."

2. Oh, yes, those couple of sentences would have made it "too long". LOL! If the Tanners had ellipsed what you ellipsed on your thread, you'd be screaming bloody murder. In other words - those sentences have a lot to do with the primary idea of the paper.

[_Maxrep]

Beastie,

I did run over to MAD and post the full cut and paste, along with highlighting the portion that charity left out for the sake of 'brevity'> :,)