Opposition in All Things

ahh yes... Proverbs 16

What a great work you are doing! Must catch up with you soon
royjanet@iinet.net.au

Parker: you see, i get sensitive when others engage in double meanings. **I** am the ironic novelist, after all. I have to protect my territory.

Speaking of irony, yes, you're right, the Greeks who invented irony exhibited some of the highest in their own history.

Wasn't it God who said "pride cometh before the fall." (notice how devoid of pride I, America's greatest literary critic, am. It's what makes me great.))

Phaedrus,
I respect you a great deal. As far as I'm concerned, HJ and Darwin have answered your question, either implicitly or explicity.

HJ,
The double meaning was that the Greeks left us great wisdom as well as an example of what not to do. I enjoyed your comment about the "cycles of domination". Thanks.

LDS Mark, my Poor Child

you write "f you have ever studied the complexity of life, you would feel that it is not just some random coincidence that it ended up this way."

the most brilliant scientists in the world have studied the complexity of life over and over again, and they have overwhelmingly (virtually unanimously) condemned the Intelligent Design clap trap you are alluding to as grossly illogical, supported by no evidence, and as having no involvement with the scientific method.

Saying "evolution is just a theory" betrasy your ignorance in an appalling way.

As far as guides to complexity, I will take Stephen Jay Gould over LDS Mark any millenium.

Parker: very interesting Darwin quote. I couldn't have said it better myself.
However, I am not a great enough literary critic to divine your double meaning.

Implicit in Darwin's quote, at least for me, is an understanding of the cycles of domination.

When a new nation is hungry for growth and is poor, it might fight tooth and claw to establsh a local dominant position. Once it HAS achieved dominance, it may get to enjoy the fruits of its wealth a little too much, and fiddle around while Rome burns. They may have, for example, the same level of general intelligence as when they started, but they get soft, self-satisfied, arrogant, or over extended.

As Dr D says, there are SO mamy interacting factors. Morality is usually a civilization-appropriate balance between useful hypocrasy and control on man's natural tendancies for corruption (all of which I myself have not inherited).

Parker:

Is it your position that civilizations rise and fall based upon some sort of collective adherence to a moral absolute, or lack thereof?

SML,
Darwin observed:
"It has been urged by several writers that as high intellectual powers are advantageous to a nation, the old Greeks, who stood some grades higher in intellect than any race that has ever existed,* ought, if the power of natural selection were real, to have risen still higher in the scale, increased in number, and stocked the whole of Europe. Here we have the tacit assumption, so often made with respect to corporeal structures, that there is some innate tendency towards continued development in mind and body. But development of all kinds depends on many concurrent favourable circumstances. Natural selection acts only tentatively. Individuals and races may have acquired certain indisputable advantages, and yet have perished from failing in other characters. The Greeks may have retrograded from a want of coherence between the many small states, from the small size of their whole country, from the practice of slavery, or from extreme sensuality; for they did not succumb until "they were enervated and corrupt to the very core."*(2) The western nations of Europe, who now so immeasurably surpass their former savage progenitors, and stand at the summit of civilisation, owe little or none of their superiority to direct inheritance from the old Greeks, though they owe much to the written works of that wonderful people."

* See the ingenious and original argument on this subject by Mr. Galton, Hereditary Genius, pp. 340-342.
*(2) Mr. Greg, Fraser's Magazine, Sept., 1868, p. 357.

So, SML, what I wrote had a double meaning. Take care.

Since the mercurial Phaedrus brought up shakespeare, another quote from the bard to boltress his point:

"there is nothing good or bad, but thinking makes it so."

and evolution doesn't know or care what i think.

Hi Parker ~

Just out of curiosity, what specific truths rose out of which specific fallen civilizations?

Hi LDS Mark ~

"If you have ever studied the complexity of life, you would feel that it is not just some random coincidence that it ended up this way."

I have studied the complexity of life. And I do feel it's some random coincidence that it ended up this way, as well as the non-coincidental things being influenced by what man has done to mess things up as well (see the extinct dolphins in China I mentioned before, global warming, pollution, etc.).

And God is an unproven theory as well.

Have a great day.

Phaedrus ~

It's good to hear from you again. Hope all is well.

Sister Mary Lisa:

Actually...

Evolution is an unproven theory.

Yet it could also just be the way God changes things.

You should note that, the base design has remained the same.

If you have ever studied the complexity of life, you would feel that it is not just some random coincidence that it ended up this way.

Think about it...

mark

I enjoyed my quick scan of this thread, thanks to all participants. One brief note before leaving this in the hands of the oh-so-capable neurons of SML, Huff and HJ:

We must be careful not to confuse "is" for "ought." The law of gravity "is" what it is, regardless of whether any human thinks it "ought" to operate in the manner in which it does. Evolution (fact), whether by natural selection (theory) or something else, operates without the consciousness required to assess its machinations as good, bad, desirable, undesireable etc. There is no intention buried within its workings to produce something which pleases or displeases human beings.

The tendency for humans, existing by necessity within the natural world, to divide nature itself into nice and naughty bits, based upon how our one little species (or subset thereof)is affected by the workings of the whole is hugely narcissistic. There is no "meaning" in Shakespeare's "slings and arrows," outside of Hamlet's fictional consciousness, there are only slings and arrows. Things are what they are no matter what we think they "ought," or "ought not" to be.

Once this is recognized and accepted, it makes discussions of the "intentions" conveyed in naturally-occurring events seem more than a bit silly. But, as Python shows us repeatedly, silliness can be lots of fun.

Best wishes,

P.

SML,
Do you realize what a rich vein you've tapped into? Evolution says civilizations rise and fall based on a set of moral conditions chosen by the society. So does Truth. Go ahead and blame the conditions you complained about on evolution--all you're saying is, "I wanted to find it out for myself. I didn't want the Supreme Being to warn me about it."

My last question doesn't make much sense. I am not good at clarifying my thoughts on evolution.

Let me try again.

People who believe in God believe that patriotism, fidelity, obedience, courage, sympathy, willingness to aid one another, and to sacrifice themselves for the common good are traits that come from God to man like gifts. But can we agree that man being the kind of animal he is, such traits are actually ones that help to promote his survival?

Christians say those traits are gifts from God to further man's existence. Evolutionists say those traits are natural in order to further man's existence.

Christians say when a civilization gets wiped out, that's God showing his power in punishing wickedness. Evolutionists say survival of the fittest is at work when one civilization dominates or takes over or exterminates another.

To me, I see no difference in the two ideas except that evolution has a heckuva lot more evidence to back it up than the warm feeling in my bosom I get when reading the words in the scriptures. But then again...I got a warm feeling in my bosom when I read about evolution too.

SML,
I'm saying that truth rises from the rubble of fallen civilizations and primitive jungles, and Darwin's words could actually be discussed and used to put forth a favorable view of religion and most certainly a favorable view of morality. Have a good day.

Parker ~

What randomly beautiful thoughts you share in such a randomly beautiful way! Hooray to evolution for creating you! :)

Are you saying that you think God himself is the one changing species today to adapt due to changes in their environment in order to survive? Why would he do that, but allow the random violence he allows? Why did he allow the freshwater dolphins in China to become extinct this year?

Are you saying that somehow God is involved in giving tribes found in the deep jungle (who never once learned about God or worship any God) patriotism, fidelity, obedience, courage, sympathy, willingness to aid one another, and to sacrifice themselves for the common good? That all came from God? How is that so if they don't even know about God?

Parker,

The great thing about Darwin (and common sense) is that he (it) puts Moroni and analogous "pwtfft"s on the myth and/or embellishment pile thereby putting the foundations of Mormonism (along with the foundations of Islam and Christianity) on the myth and/or embellishment pile.

Parker,

The great thing about Darwin (and common sense) is that it puts Moroni and analogous "pwtfft"s on the myth and/or embellishment pile thereby putting the foundations of Mormonism (along with the foundations of Islam and Christianity) on the myth and/or embellishment pile.

HJ and SML,
I suppose this is as good a place as any to insert an "Ode to Evolution" (by Parker):

Let us assume, for the sake of getting along with each other, and to see where it leads us, that evolution as postulated by Darwin is true. After all, the scientific community has had plenty of time to think about alternative theories, and has embraced evolution as the magic answer to how life began on this earth, and how there is so much diversity in the world. What a randomly beautiful thing this world ended up being, with randomly beautiful life forms and a randomly intricate balance of nature!

What randomly beautiful sunsets there are on so many horizons in the world! What randomly beautiful flowers there are in so many places! What randomly beautiful birds, and butterflies! Hooray to evolution for thinking so well of mankind to have provided for us such a beautiful place to live, and for inspiring so many offspring to create a world of beauty for ourselves and for our children! Hooray to evolution for not making life as drab as the science lab where intelligent scientists do their tinkering, make their “aha!” discoveries, and come up with their “aha!” theories.

Hooray to evolution for generating the creative minds of the musical geniuses of history, such as Mozart, Brahms, Handel and Beethoven! Hooray to evolution for generating Michelangelo, Da Vinci, Rembrandt and Renoir! Hooray to evolution for Homer, Hugo and Shakespeare, and for allowing our minds to get a glimpse of the deep meaning of many things! Hooray to evolution for ennobling mankind with compassionate, energizing love—a life-giving force and a life-sustaining wellspring of goodness. Pity the man or woman who does not feel this love as they move through their life, trying to make sense of their existence.

Hooray to Darwin for putting things together for us in an interdisciplinary approach to scientific reasoning, to tell us how we came to be in a world that happened to have just the right combination of chemical composition and placement in the heavens to allow life to form and develop by such a fortuitous chance. What incredible odds there were against it happening, but here we are! Darwin wrote so well, so convincingly, shooting down the opposition very nicely as he went along, making sure they would feel stupid if they didn’t agree with him. His is a very personable, readable style, sort of like a long personal essay. English students would do well to read his work for the sake of learning from his writing style as well as from his ability to win a reader over to his point of view. Others would do well to read his work for the sake of learning what he had to say about some of the complex social implications of a belief in evolution.

If by a belief in evolution we think we are supposed to be in a world where “survival of the fittest,” random chance, and random mutations will always rule, where we should allow nature to take its random course, then we had better realize that the world is more complex than this. Darwin was careful to point it out.
Says he: “We must remember that progress is no invariable rule. It is very difficult to say why one civilized nation rises, becomes more powerful, and spreads more widely, than another; or why the same nation progresses more quickly at one time than at another. We can only say that it depends on an increase in the actual number of the population, on the number of the men endowed with high intellectual and moral faculties, as well as on their standard of excellence.” (Descent of Man, Chapter 5)

He also adds: “Obscure as is the problem of the advance of civilization, we can at least see that a nation which produced during a lengthened period the greatest number of highly intellectual, energetic, brave, patriotic, and benevolent men, would generally prevail over less favoured nations.” (Descent of Man, Chapter 5)

The study of evolution warns us that if we as the species homo sapiens do not collectively build a benevolent and ethical culture within our society, we likely face a decline by war, lawlessness and loss of intellectual achievement. This decline may take generations, but that is what evolution is all about—change by slight degrees, one year to the next, decade by decade, generation by generation. A thousand years is a drop in the bucket in evolutionary time, but to look at our world today and then imagine what it may be like in a thousand years based on present social and environmental trends is to recognize the need for a collective consciousness that yearns and strives to provide those generations yet unborn with a world that has not declined into an unwelcome, inhospitable place to live and find happiness.

To quote further from Darwin:
"With increased experience and reason, man perceives the more remote consequences of his actions, and the self-regarding virtues,
such as temperance, chastity, &c., which during early times are, as we have before seen, utterly disregarded, come to be highly esteemed or
even held sacred.... Ultimately our moral sense or conscience becomes a highly complex sentiment- originating in the social instincts, largely guided by the approbation of our fellow-men,
ruled by reason, self-interest, and in later times by deep religious feelings, and confirmed by instruction and habit.
It must not be forgotten that although a high standard of morality gives but a slight or no advantage to each individual man and his
children over the other men of the same tribe, yet that an increase in the number of well-endowed men and an advancement in the standard of
morality will certainly give an immense advantage to one tribe over another. A tribe including many members who, from possessing in a high degree the spirit of patriotism, fidelity, obedience, courage, and sympathy, were always ready to aid one another, and to sacrifice
themselves for the common good, would be victorious over most other tribes; and this would be natural selection. At all times throughout the world tribes have supplanted other tribes; and as morality is one important element in their success, the standard of morality and the number of well-endowed men will thus everywhere tend to rise and increase.

We compare the weakened impression of a past temptation with the ever present social
instincts, or with habits, gained in early youth and strengthened during our whole lives, until they have become almost as strong as instincts. If with the temptation still before us we do not yield, it is because either the social instinct or some custom is at the moment predominant, or because we have learnt that it will appear to
us hereafter the stronger, when compared with the weakened impression of the temptation, and we realise that its violation would cause us suffering. Looking to future generations, there is no cause to fear that the social instincts will grow weaker, and we may expect that virtuous habits will grow stronger, becoming perhaps fixed by inheritance. In this case the struggle between our higher and lower impulses will be less severe, and virtue will be triumphant."

I wish it were so. Happy the progress of humankind if such be the case. Regard, Parker

SML

You and I ARE creating a new world right now! Someone has to do it. And YOU are a powerful agent!

And Ues, Carlin is there with us, because he speaks the truth regardless of what the sanctions of Politeness or Hypocrasy demand.

Mormons pride themselves on having "civil discourse." Civil discourse can be "lovely", but in this case it is used to preserve exploitative power relationships: men over women, straights over gays, the General Authorities over members who realize how crazy stories like the Book of Abraham are.

Carlin is like Swift: his satire illustrates that the Emporer and the Prophet have No Clothes, just temple garments that preserve the hierarchy for time and all eternity.

Luv yo, but don't tell your other husband.

Henry

Parker ~

You aren't way in over your head. I just enjoy creating a scenario which causes men (and women) to look at the system as I see it from my point of view every single Sunday and every single day of my life growing up in an LDS environment. Boys rule and girls drool. You can't help that you feel the way you do. That's what I'm saying: Patriarchy and sexism as blatant and unfair as found within the Mormon church is wrong for both men and women to practice or endure. It does you no favors ~ well, it does do you SOME favors because you're a guy and therefore handed powers and authority, but you know what I mean. Is it any wonder men feel superior to women so often within the church? Why wouldn't they? Why wouldn't you? Unless you think it over and realize openly what you have been given simply because you were born a man. That which your wife and daughters will never have unless Otterson's cronies in the First Presidency decide to change things for the women as they should.

The truth is, there is no reasonable explanation for sexism like this. Of course, the church is a private organization and can set it up however they want it to be. And until the majority of the women and also men as good as you are stand up and say so to the old dudes at the top who came of age in the fifties and sixties, then it's not gonna happen. What a sad thing this is. Exactly what would it hurt you or any man in the church to have women also able to give blessings, baptize their children, conduct Sacrament Meeting, conduct interviews? It woudln't. Instead the church leadership promotes the teachings that women should embrace such treatment, and remain submissive and accept their role as helper and housekeeper and mother in Zion. This works for many women, and sucks for many. And those for whom it sucks are taught that they are unrighteous for feeling this way, and that they should repent.

Which leads me back to a God who knows the big picture, and doesn't mind treating half his children like they are worth nothing more than broodmares which can be collected ~ as many as a man desires.

Take care, Parker, and thanks for letting me go off on a new tangent. Back to our regularly scheduled debate over Opposition in All Things. ;)

Henry ~

Do you think in the world you and I create that George Carlin will be beneficial to our perfected society goals? I do!

Parker, you Ghost You

like Huff, i remember no quote from darwin that says evolution will lead to a perfected society.

on the EXTREME contrary, evolution has NO teleogical component. what happens happens depending on the specific interaction of a species with the environment, the Niches as Huff tells us.

We seemingly agree that the world and its humans are "free" to make their decisions, for better or worse, whether guided by God or randomness.

You and I also seem to agree that God is NOT guiding us. He/She is letting us make our pitiful mistakes left and right. Call it free will or random meaninglessness, it amounts to the same thing.

Does God love us? Not in a way that can be demonstrated by any evidence.

Shakespeare, as quoted before, has it just right: "As flies to wanton boys, are we to the gods. They kill us for their sport."

Mormons believe that you and I and Willard Richards will be rewarded in the afterlife. Who knows?

luv you man.
henry
(in a non homoerotic way)

SML,
I suspected I would get in way over my head trying to present a reasonable explanation. Ah, well, such is life.

All the rest,
I don't think I meant to imply that Judeo-Christian ethics were the foundation of American government. You all made good points. Evolution, though, implies very long term results--where are those countries now in terms of economic leadership, stability, and progress toward a perfected society? What happened, and why did it happen? (Where is Darwin when you need him?) Best to you all. Adieu.

SML's response to the quotation "praising" women for being so compassionate etc that they don't "need" the priesthood was most restrained, given that the quote drips, oozes, condescension.

Parker: did you realize that when you quoted it, or did you think it was going to make a woman like SML feel better about the restriction of the priesthood to men?

Having said that, I must say I find it as repulsive to have it turned completely opposite as you probably do, Parker. I think it would be best if the church included women in the priesthood and the leadership and the authority in the home to preside in righteousness. BOTH should have this. Not one or the other.

But really, who cares what I think?

Why must the greatest opposition to be found in my life come from my status as a second class citizen (woman) in the church? How can I use this opposition to find happiness?

Parker ~

I wish to share with you the lesson on the Priesthood as found on pages 81-84 in the Gospel Principals lesson manual I taught from for over three years. Bear with me, it's rather long. Imagine you are an investigator for the church visiting this beginners class for the first time, having never heard this stuff before.

THE PRIESTHOOD

WHAT IS THE PRIESTHOOD?
The priesthood is the power and authority of Goddess. By her priesthood power the heavens and the earth were created. By this power the universe is kept in perfect order. Through this power she accomplishes her work and glory, which is "to bring to pass the immortality and eternal life of woman" (Moses 1:39).

Our Heavenly Mother shares her priesthood power with worthy female members of the church. The priesthood enables them to act in God's name for the salvation of the human family. Through it they can be authorized to preach the gospel, administer the ordinances of salvation, and govern Goddess' kingdom on earth.

WHY DO WE NEED THE PRIESTHOOD ON THE EARTH?
We must have priesthood authority to act in the name of God when performing sacred ordinances of the gospel, such as baptism, confirmation, administration of the sacrament, and temple marriage. If a woman does not have the priesthood, even though she may be sincere, the Goddess will not recognize ordinances she performs (see Matthew 7). These important ordinances must be performed on the earth by women holding the priesthood.

Women need the priesthood to preside in The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints and to direct the work of the Church in all parts of the world. When Christine lived on the earth, she chose her Apostles and ordained them so that they could lead her Church. She gave them the power and authority of the priesthood to act in her name. (See Mark 3, John 15).

Another reason the priesthood is needed on the earth is so we can understand the will of the Goddess and carry out her purposes. Goddess reveals her will to her authorized priesthood representative on the earth, the prophetess. The prophetess, who is President of the Church, serves as the spokeswoman for Goddess to all members of the Church and all people on the earth.

Discussion:
*Name some things that can be done only by women who hold the priesthood. Discuss the need for priesthood authority.

HOW DO WOMEN RECEIVE THE PRIESTHOOD?
The Goddess has prepared an orderly way for her priesthood to be given to her daughters on the earth. A worthy female member of the Church receives the priesthood "by the laying on of hands by those who are in authority, to preach the Gospel and administer in the ordinances thereof" (Articles of Faith 1:5).

This is the same way women received the priesthood long ago, even in the days of Mosessa. "And no woman taketh this honour unto herself, but she that is called of Goddess, as was Erin" (Hebrews 5:4). Erin received the priesthood from Mosessa, her priesthood leader (see Exodus 28:1). Only those who hold the priesthood can ordain others.

Women cannot buy and sell the power and authority of the priesthood. Nor can they take this authority upon themselves. In the New Testament we read of a woman named Simona who lived when Christine's Apostles presided over the Church. Simona became converted and was baptized into the Church. Simona became converted and was baptized into the Church. Because she was a skillful magician, the people believed she had the power of Goddess. But Simona did not have the priesthood, and she knew it.

Simona knew that the Apostles and the other priesthood leaders of the Church had the true power of Goddess. She saw them use their priesthood to do the Goddess' work, and she wanted this power for herself. She offered to buy the priesthood. (See Acts 8). But Petera, the chief Apostle, said, "Thy money perish with thee, because thou hast thought that the gift of Goddess may be purchased with money" (Acts 8:20).

Discussion:
*Who is given the priesthood? How is it given?
*Who may ordain a worthy female member of the Church to the priesthood?

HOW DO WOMEN PROPERLY USE THE PRIESTHOOD?
The priesthood should be used to bless the lives of our Heavenly Mother's children here on earth. Priesthood holders should preside in love and kindness. They should not force their families and others to obey them. The Goddess has told us that the power of the priesthood cannot be controlled except in righteousness (see D&C 121:36). When we try to use the priesthood to gain wealth or fame or for any other selfish purpose, "behold, the heavens withdraw themselves; the Spirit of the Goddess is grieved; and when it is withdrawn, Amen to the priesthood or the authority of that woman" (D&C 121:37).

When a woman uses the priesthood "by persuasion, by long-suffering, by gentleness and meekness, and by love unfeigned" (D&C 121:41), she can do many wonderful things for her family and others. She can baptize and confirm, administer the sacrament, and bless the sick. She can give priesthood blessings to her family members to encourage and protect them when they have special needs. She can also help other families with these ordinances and blessings when asked to do so.

Women use priesthood authority to preside in the Church in such callings as branch president, bishop, quorum president, or stake and mission leader. Men who hold positions in the Church as officers and teachers work under the direction of the women who hold the priesthood.

Discussion:
*Read D&C 121:34-40. How should the priesthood not be used?
*Read D&C 121:41-44. How should the priesthood be used?

WHAT BLESSINGS COME WHEN WE USE THE PRIESTHOOD PROPERLY?
The Goddess has promised great blessings to righteous priesthood bearing women who use the priesthood to bless others:

"The Holy Ghost shall be thy constant companion, and thy scepter an unchanging scepter of righteousness and truth; and thy dominion shall be an everlasting dominion, and without compulsory means it shall flow unto thee forever and ever" (D&C 121:45-46).

A great latter-day prophetess, Deanie O. McKay, promised every woman who uses the priesthood in righteousness that she "will find her life sweetened, her discernment sharpened to decide quickly between right and wrong, her feelings tender and compassionate, yet her spirit strong and valiant in defense of right; she will find the priesthood a neverfailing source of happiness -- a well of living water springing up unto eternal life" ("Priesthood," Instructor, Oct. 1968, p. 378).

Let's jump ahead to the lesson on Family Responsibilities, page 237.

RESPONSIBILITIES OF THE MOTHER
The mother is the matriarch of the family and has important responsibilities that are hers alone. She is the priesthood holder and has the duties of priesthood leadership. She should guide her family with humility and kindness rather than with force or cruelty. The scriptures teach that those who hold the priesthood should lead others by persuasion, gentleness, love, and kindness (see D&C 121:41-44; Ephesians 6:4).

The mother shares the blessings of the priesthood with the members of her family. When a woman holds the Melchizedek Priesthood, she can share these blessings by naming and blessing babies, administering to the sick, baptizing children, and giving special priesthood blessings and ordinations. She should set a good example for her family by keeping the commandments. She should also make sure the family prays together twice daily and holds family home evening.

The mother should spend time with each child individually. She should teach her children correct principles, talk with them about their problems and concerns, and counsel them lovingly. Some good examples are found in the Book of Mormon (see 2 Nephi 1-3; Alma 36-42).

It is also the mother's duty to provide for the physical needs of her family, making sure they have the necessary food, housing, clothing, and education. Even if she is unable to provide all the support herself, she does not give up the responsibility of the care of her family.

RESPONSIBILITIES OF THE FATHER
President Deanie O. McKay said that fatherhood is man's noblest calling. It is a sacred calling, a partnership with Goddess in bringing her spirit children into the world. A father's most important responsibility is to bring children into the world and to care for and teach them. Bearing children is one of the greatest of all blessings.

Elder Boyda K. Packer praised men who were unable to have children of their own yet sought to care for others. She said, "When I speak of fathers, I speak not only to those men who have borne children, but also of those who have fostered children born to others, and of the many men who, without children of their own, have fathered the children of others" (Fathers, P.8)

A father needs to spend time with his children and teach them the gospel. He should play and work with them so they can discover the world around them. He also needs to help his family know how to make the home a pleasant place to be. If he is warm and loving, he helps his children feel good about themselves.

The Book of Mormon describes a group of two thousand young women who rose to greatness because of the teachings of their fathers (see Alma 53). Led by the prophetess Helawoman, they went into battle against their enemies. They had learned to be honest, brave, and trustworthy from their fathers. Their fathers also taught them that if they did not doubt, Goddess would deliver them (see Alma 56). They all survived the battle. Later they expressed faith in the teachings of their fathers, saying, "We do not doubt our fathers knew it." Every father who has a testimony can have a profound effect on his children.

Discussion:
*Why is fatherhood called a partnership with Goddess?

So, Parker. I do think (and I said something about this in a sacrament meeting talk I had to give earlier this year) that the men don't need the priesthood role I enjoy in terms of leadership or service because they are innately born with both compassionate leadership through loving and open communication as they lead, and an in-born desire to look outside of themselves and serve and nurture. We women have to grow into those roles, and only if we do will "the rights of the priesthood," "the doctrine of the priesthood," and the power of the priesthood flow unto us "without compulsory means...forever and ever." In short, women're way behind the men in the qualities that we need, and having the priesthood reminds us that we'd better be about the business of trying to catch up (to the men), because God expects us to learn to be just as compassionate and understanding as are the men.

Best to you.

Judeo Christian Values are NOT Judeo Christian Values

Concerned is right: we should give more credit to the Hammarabi (sp) code than to Moses. The ten commandments are Baby level "morality."

We didn't really need the Jewish God in the time of Moses to tell us not to kill or steal other men's wives (unless you were David and powerful enough to get away with it). And Having No other God than Yahweh has NOTHING to do with morality.

We Greeks had much more advanced morals at around that same period. check this out:

10 Commandments of Solon

Solon the Athenian was born, we believe, around 638 B.C.E., and lived until approximately 558, but the date in his life of greatest importance to us is the year he was elected to create a constitution for Athens, 594 B.C.E.

1. Trust good character more than promises.
2. Do not speak falsely.
3. Do good things.
4. Do not be hasty in making friends, but do not abandon them once made.
5. Learn to obey before you command.
6. When giving advice, do not recommend what is most pleasing, but what is most useful.
7. Make reason your supreme commander.
8. Do not associate with people who do bad things.
9. Honor the gods.
10. Have regard for your parents.

Solon is the founder of Western democracy and the first man in history to articulate ideas of equal rights for all citizens, and though he did not go nearly as far in the latter as we have come today, Moses can claim no connection to either. Solon was the first man in Western history to publicly record a civil constitution in writing. No one in Hebrew history did anything of the kind, least of all Moses. Solon advocated not only the right but even the duty of every citizen to bear arms in the defense of the state--to him we owe the 2nd Amendment. Nothing about that is to be found in the Ten Commandments of Moses. Solon set up laws defending the principles and importance of private property, state encouragement of economic trades and crafts, and a strong middle class--the ideals which lie at the heart of American prosperity, yet which cannot be credited at all to Moses.

Evolution and Trust

Parker: I think you give your Judeo=Christian tradition too much credit.

If you look at the last 5000 years, we had great civilizations and high power in
Egypt the Pharohs worshipped the Christian Goddess Isis. Oops, she wasn't Christian.
Greece: worshipped atheistic homosexual Socrates til they killed him. and Zeus: what religion was he?
Rome: Worshipped Power. and Empire. And Latin. Were the Romans Christian in 9 AD?
Middle Ages: the middle East and Islam was more successful and innovative.
it's really only in the last 500 years that the Christian West, as it tried to exterminate the Jews, became dominant. Their Crusade era was not too trusting, and their success was largely due to their perfection of Colonialism: exploiting the resources of the third world.
Now: watch out: the Christian USA will be a province of Confucian China and Hindu India in 25 years.
So Christian Triumphalism is both Non-historical and Premature. Sic transit gloria.
Also, you probably havve read Guns Germs and Steel which gives more detail on the REAL factors that lead to economic dominance. And didn't Jesus say something about Rich Men getting into heaven?

Parker,

The Judeo-Christian ethics were borrowed, plagiarized and/or were slight adjustments to the ethics and morals of the ancients i.e. Hittites, Canaanites, Babylonians, Egyptians, Greeks, Persians, Macedonians, et al. e.g. The Code of Hammurabi. http://www.wsu.edu/~dee/MESO/CODE.HTM

So yes, King Hammurabi played an important role in achieving trust in the modern world.

('Glad I had a nap earlier.) Huff, insightful comments--many thanks. But if we look around the world, don't we have to admit that Judeo-Christian ethics have played a significant role in achieving that state of trust you noted? If we examine why some countries have excelled in their economies and other countries are way behind, it appears that there are many factors involved but a major one is that trust you noted, because it allows greater energy and exertion towards production rather than protectionism and hoarding. I don't see that as "naturally" occurring all around the world. Do you?

SML,
I guess we were both writing comments at nearly the same time, so I was not ignoring your very well thought out and expressed observation.

I think you have a good point, for which I honestly don't have a good answer--uncomfortably so. But I do think (and I said something about this in a sacrament meeting talk I had to give earlier this year) that the women don't need the priesthood role in terms of leadership or service because they are innately born with both compassionate leadership through loving and open communication as they lead, and an in-born desire to look outside of themselves and serve and nurture. The men have to grow into those roles, and only if they do will "the rights of the priesthood," "the doctrine of the priesthood," and the power of the priesthood flow unto them "without compulsory means...forever and ever." In short, we're way behind the women in the qualities that we need, and having the priesthood reminds us that we'd better be about the business of trying to catch up, because God expects us to learn to be just as compassionate and understanding as are the women.

As to women praying in sacrament meeting, I think that was a no-brainer change that should have been made whenever it was started in the first place.

Again, a gem of a thought. Thanks for asking. I hope the above may have made at least a tiny bit of sense. Peaceful sabbath to your family.

Parker:
Somehow I must have missed that quote by Darwin, that evolution would result in a perfected society. One, I don't see how his theory would predict that. But, if he did say it, I feel comfortable in saying he is likely to be wrong about that.

Evolution predicts that organisms will exploit niches in their environment. For example, perhaps there is a particular pine tree in abundance in the environment, but none of the animals have digestive systems that can extract nutrients from it. So, the animals compete over the relatively sparse dogwood tree leaves. Over many generations, an organism is born with a mutation that allows it to extract some nutrients from pine trees. And due to selection pressures, the descendants of this organism fare very well as there is plenty of food for them and not much competition. We have organisms taking advantage of a niche.

Similarly, our societies have evolved to function mainly on trust. We trust that no one is going to run us over with their car; we trust that bank employees will not empty our accounts through access to our information and for the most part our trust is well-placed. If none of us trusted each other, we would constantly be wasting our resources trying to defend our resources from others who would steal from us, etc. Cooperative societies end up being wealthier; less is wasted on wars and stability allows for longterm investment in property improvements, etc.

But, then, why do we have dishonest people and wars, etc. Because "trusting societies" open up a niche that can be exploited. A thief can acquire more resources without having to expend much of his own by stealing which is made possible because defenses are much lower in a trusting society. Scientists have actually run statistical models and the most stable societal models have a moderate amount of dishonesty.

How is that?

OK, Huff,
You've picked apart God and religion. Now back up your side of the field with irrefutable logic as to how evolution moves along toward enhancing the species (Darwin said it would result in a perfected society), yet here we are with as much depravity in the world as there has ever been, as much selfishness, as much "I'll do whatever I feel like doing thank you very much regardless of what it does to my family, my tribe, my country, my society, or my world" as there has ever been. Show and tell. Good luck.

Interesting to me is the leadership positions being withheld from blacks possibly having the ramifications you allude to, Parker...and comparing this with how women had more opportunities for leadership and priesthood power to bless others and so on early in the church during Joseph Smith's time. Yet that slowly got changed until women were not allowed to practice priesthood, give blessings, etc. as before. I find it interesting that the Relief Society was originally created as a separate organization led and organized and directed solely by women with the approval of the prophet to be such, yet over time this autonomy was taken from them and the women's organization was placed under the sole direction of the male priesthood leaders. There was a large number of years where women weren't even allowed to pray in Sacrament Meeting. How wrong is that?? That wasn't very long ago, either.

I wonder why God wouldn't expect his righteous priesthood holders to maintain and promote better equality between his righteous women and men. This particular issue would not have affected persecution by the opponents of Mormonism at any time in its history as far as I can tell. It is solely an internally evolving (devolving?) issue that has been embraced and accepted as right and just by the men in power, and by the bulk of the membership, and I think this is a tragedy that hurts not only the women (even if they think this is perfectly OK for them) but also the men who are expected to support such inequality in action too.

And it is all fully supported by a loving God whom the church says loves his girl children too.

Henry James said:
"But as a matter of fact, we get God's tempermental and infantile ravings about how he wants to flood his imperfect creation and destroy ALL the humans at Sodom becuase SOME are egregious sinners.

It's not like he has given us no insight into his motivation. It is that the insight that the Bible DOES give us reveals an immoral, juvenile, tempermental, manipulative, fierce God who somewhere back there wants us to believe Love is involved."

Well said! You have expressed my thoughts better than I could myself. Of course, JD, with the way he looks at scripture, has a convienent out. JD declares that scripture only has some truth in it mixed with a lot of error from the prophets. So, God didn't really tell the Israelites to slaughter the children of their enemies (that is just an error inserted by the mind of men).

I am really glad that I was raised orthodox Mormon, because it was a lot easier to recognize that it was wrong, than if I had grown up with this wishy-washy belief system in which anything inconvienent can be explained by the flaws of god's spokesmen and anything that doesn't make sense has an explanation only available after your dead. JD's faith is completely unfalsifiable and depends too much on trusting things that in my opinion are not established enough to deserve my trust.

Give me falsifiable religion any day. This is just a difference in basic approach. He feels that he has reason to trust god on issues that he does not understand. I can look at that same evidence and those life events and see natural forces at work and nothing to incline me to trust in a god. And there we are.

Parker

thanks for the insights. i agree with you. it seems you and i were back there with Willard
(and Joseph, who ordained blacks, did he not).

once again this emphasizes to me that the particularities of what you or I believe are not as important as our common humanity.

i btw consider smith to be a charismatic religious spiritual genius. what that adds up to regarding the nature and earthly involvement of "God" is another question, much more complicated.

but you and i and SML want our brothers and sisters to have comfrot in this crazy world, and to have a reason to try to do our best.

that is what is really important.

and yes, all sensient human beings know that awful things happen in this world, whether with or without a God. the important thing is to help each other as much as we can, whether or not we make it to a Celestial kingdom.

luv
henry

HJ,
I had long since figured out that you were a descendent of the remarkable Willard Richards.

If the early Church in Missouri had openly practiced ordaining Blacks to the priesthood (though it did happen as shown historically) and the leadership positions (which I wouldn't personally have had any problem with), it would have been snuffed out like nobody's business--ten times the persecution than happened. The United States wasn't ready for such a change, nor the rest of the world.

Peace to you, friend.

God CAN reveal his reasons IF He wants to

God revealed his rationale for denying the priesthood through his incredibly racist prophets Brigham Young and Ezra Taft Benson.

Many of us didn't understand why Blacks must be denied the priviege of holding the priesthood (including this descendant of Brigham Young's second counselor, who was also with the prophet Joseph as his "assassination" - any of you trivia experts able to identify this Great Man?)

SO
if God WANTED to reveal to us why he tolerates/buildsin/encourages so much innocent (ie not as a result of guilty free wil actions that should be punished)

one presumes he could at least make a stab at it, and the philosophically advanced among us such as JD would get an inkling of the reasons).\\

But as a matter of fact, we get God's tempermental and infantile ravings about how he wants to flood his imperfect creation and destroy ALL the humans at Sodom becuase SOME are egregious sinners.

It's not like he has given us no insight into his motivation. It is that the insight that the Bible DOES give us reveals an immoral, juvenile, tempermental, manipulative, fierce God who somewhere back there wants us to believe Love is involved.

OK, SML and HJ. Thanks for the clarification. But I hope since I must assume your only recourse is to believe in naturalistic evolution as opposed to believing in a supreme creator, that you'll do all in your power to salvage the evolutionary society that Darwin predicted in "Descent of Man,", 'cause right now it ai'nt lookin' so good. Best to you, and good luck without a religious framework to rally people's sensibilities. It seems to me that there is a lot going against what he predicted. I wish his book were required reading in schools, and discussed at length. Kids would see that his logic is full of "ain't happenin's". I know you mean well, and wish you well.

Hey Henry ~

I am also from long lines of Mormon lineage. Luke S. Johnson listed in the preface of the BOM is a direct descendant of mine. :)

I like your comments to Parker and fully agree with them. As a good wife always should, she said enthusiastically.

Addendum

Parker:
while i stand by my statement that you and i are both trying to solve that basic human problem:
that Awful Rowing Towards God
as Anne Sexton said it,

i should stipulate that SML is ALSO, again, regularly, and predictably right that on the details of certain religious beliefs (Book of Abraham, DNA, reliability of the Visions of a fraudulent closet polygamist)
our credulity has been strained beyond the breaking point that, in my case, had been reinforeced for 5 generations.

While those "details" are important to me - and they are ESPecially important when they entail the exploitation/demeaning of less powerful classes such as blacks, women, and homosexuals - i can at the same time respect and value the spirit and motivation to fairness of people like you.

By condoning the church's treatment of Gays (admittedly better than 20 years ago) however, you are repressing your innate sense of justice and supporting the ignorance and prejudice of the 90 year old men who run the church. That doesn't make you a bad person. Just human. But it is too bad, and I hope you speak out against it. Also for women holding the priesthood that blacks now hold.

Parker
Let me prefact his by saying that i honestly and truly love you - it isn't hard in your case - and i have a great sense of our common humanity, that we both have the same kind of human wants and desires and spiritual sensibilitys.

All of us humans, you and me and SML, are trying to make sense of the joy and suffering and trials and tribulations that are intailed in being human (thank god i'm dead). and i love the way you grapple with the questions. we probably just have different names for the things we believe in.

SML is right, of course. One's wife is ALWAYS right, he said enthusiastically. I auffered no abnormal abuse as a child. My Mormon mother 3rd generation was TRULY a saint and a relief society president for whom there was NO difference between the church presented mother and the private mother.

My father was a brilliant stake president, and if i ever become a stake president i want to be the same kind he was. he was tempermental and difficult, but aren't most of us (except me). Certainly not way overr on the edge, and not abusive.

So again,
SML is right: our views of "God" come from a relatively healthy background. Many feel as SML and I do, esp if they weren't raised as mormons.

luv

Henry

Parker ~

I can't speak for Henry but I can speak for myself. My growing up being abused or not has nothing whatsoever to do with my views of God (or lack of belief in a god) at this time.

I was a faithful LDS woman until one year ago, and it wasn't until I stepped back and looked at issues I had never been taught at church, such as the Book of Abraham, Joseph Smith's many wives I'd never heard of, his methods for translating or creating the Book of Mormon using not a Urim and Thummim but rather a rock in a hat, Brigham Young's teaching that Adam was God the Father...all that stuff made me re-evaluate the entire belief system that I had taken for granted and assumed my entire life was TRUE. It was the first time in my life that I honestly LOOKED at God as the Mormon church portrays him, and came to my own conclusions about his nature if he's really there in people's lives like the religions claim.

My own father has nothing whatsoever to do with my views on Heavenly Father. And I don't really know why you've used Henry and me as examples of people who were abused. I only theoretically used the example of me being raped. I never was, thankfully, but I can imagine how horrible that would be to believe that God had allowed such a thing. There are millions of sisters out there who have endured that and worse, and if there really IS a God allowing this to occur to them for their "growth" and "betterment" then I have no use for such a sadistic presence in my life.

Your excusing Henry and me of any blame for speaking against such a God due to abuse is sweet, but hardly what a bishop would condone. We are all expected as church members to have faith and believe in God no matter how confusing the doctrine is on treatment of blacks, treatment of women, DNA reports, worthiness of active gay people, lack of info on Heavenly Mother, etc. etc. etc. According to your religion, Henry and I are fully accountable for what we say, yea, even what we THINK will be considered a sin if it's not shiny and clean and repented of before we die.

Best to you, my friend.

JD1,
Here is the thing. Is what you are suggesting possible? Yes, as a logical rational being I have to acknowledge that it is possible. But, is it likely to be the case? IMO, not at all, not even close, not by a long shot.

Is it possible that Santa Claus might be real? Yes, any rational being must concede the possibility. Is it possible that Santa has some magnificent reason why poor children throughout the world wake up on Christmas morning without any presents, a reason that he does not tell us because it is beyond our comprehension? Yes, it is possible. Likely? Not at all. I rate the probabilities of the type of god you being in existing about the same as the probability of a real Santa existing.

Is there some evidence for both? Sure. Some children wake up with presents labeled from Santa and some people claim to have prayers answered. But, naturalistic explanations can account for that evidence. There doesn't seem to be any convincing evidence for us to leave naturalistic explanations in favor of supernatural ones, IMO.

Henry and SML,
I want you both to know that if you were abused during your life, in my view the feelings you have about God cannot be judged or criticized by anyone. For the abuser, the scriptures are clear that they will suffer a just retribution unless they repent, ask forgiveness, and have a mighty change in behavior. For the one abused, it is clear that they have to some extent an emotional withdrawal from feeling God's love in their life, and only see the things you speak of when they think of God.

So the following comment about Sodom and Gomorra is only in the midst of this "foil" which is that by answering your concern, I am thinking of others who may learn a little bit by a perspective they may be unfamiliar with--for you, on the other hand, you have somewhat of a "free pass" because of the abuse you suffered.

Abraham showed faith and that God can be approached in a counseling way--that He listens and responds to faith. The people of Sodom and Gomorra excepting Lot had become like the people before the flood, totally selfish, totally engaged in the imaginations of their heart being "evil continually". This becomes abusive for the children born into such a situation. Would you have the abuse continue down through the generations? The destruction was mindful of the future generations, and important still was the plan of spirit world continuance and spirit world repentance for those souls--part of the reason that God would cause such destruction by a natural disaster: a volcano. I'm not saying every natural disaster is retribution by God--definitely not. That was a specific case written up in the scriptures.

But again, the good things you do show your innate goodness and kindness, and that is what is going to count in the long run for you, not how you view God because you could not be held accountable for the results of the actions of the abuser. 'Hope you have sort of understood. Have a good weekend.

Fear not, my Henry.

SML and JD are NOT getting Married

Phew. I was a-feared you would find him theologically preferable to me when you got to the spirit world, SML, but i now am less a-feared.

He may be philosophically superior to me, but I am more on your side in - god forbid - evaluating God.

Your last point again hit home: WHY WHY does God have to be even more bumbling than the Bush administration, who wished us Rosh Hashanah a week early on Thursday?

To continue believing in JD's God, one has to believe in a Father (a typical Father?) who commits or permits all kinds of incredibly cruel things, doesn't bother to explicity say even "I'm doing this for your own good" but demands that we accept his Acts on Faith that he is a superior intelligence who knows the big picture. Read the old testament. Read how abraham tallked him out of killing innocents at Sodom, and God relented (cuz abraham was more moral than God). If he did it that one time, he could have done it the other 64 billion times that total innocents have been torutured and obliterated for his name sake.

For reasons of his own, which he would rather not share with us...and DON"T tell us it is for free will. Even I am smart enough to create a world with free will where the horrors are avoided.

Monk,

Give us a break!!

And let us get back to all the mission projects you were on. Where, when, what atheist/government group did you represent? And who paid for it??

And when you are in the "Lidrary" again, look up the following books:

Professor Crossan's book, "Who is Jesus" co-authored with Richard Watts.

JD Crossan book, In Search of Paul

Schillebeeckx's Church: The Human Story of God,
Crossroad, 1993

Professor Bruce Chilton's book, Rabbi Jesus, An Intimate Biography,

Father Raymond Brown's 878 page book, An Introduction to the New Testament,

Books by any of the following authors:

H.S. Reimarus, R. Bultmann, E. Kasemann, Earl Doherty, Timothy Freke and Peter Gandy, Alvar Ellegård, G. A. Wells, Gregory Riley, Robert Eisenman, John Dominic Crossan, Robert Funk, Burton Mack, Stephen J. Patterson, Marcus Borg Stevan Davies, Geza Vermes, Richard Horsley, Hyam Maccoby, Gerd Theissen, Bart Ehrman, Paula Fredriksen, Gerd Lüdemann, John P. Meier, E. P. Sanders, Robert H. Stein, Karen Armstrong, Albert Schweitzer, Mahlon Smith and Karen Pagels

I noticed my typing was a little weak, but hey thats what happens when you don't eat much for several days...sorry for all the typoes, but english is not my first language...

Laughing at himself-MONK

Concerned The Christian Now Liberated:

No I am not Tibeten, that would insinuate that I was a Bhuddist, which I'm not, my family is not rich, but my friends in the States are...I do not pay for internet access, I go to this amazing place called a Lidrary (I know Hard to believe those still exsist) I am currently homless, and I do give money away when I have it.

Your observations are nice, good to see the copy/paste is not your only skills! Jk I do think you are really smart, however have you ever heard of the saying If you speak/tell a lie enough you will eventually believe it! I'm just saying repeating a point that no one cares to hear and is tired of see is in know way aiding in the learning process.

I would like to hear why you are liberated and now not brainwashed...even though brainwashing would probably a step in the right direction...and please no URLs, I don't like clicking all over the place reading other people's thoughts on why you are Liberated...thanks

Willing to Listen-MONK

JD1 ~

I know you've left us for good, but I must say something about God being omnipotent and omniscient.

If he's got the power to do things any way he wants, why does he use the fumbling, cruel, horrific, sadistic methods we know he uses? You say, He has His reasons, which He doesn't have to tell us if He doesn't wish to, since He sees the big picture and we don't.

Yet God expects and commands ME to use any power I have only to do good OR ELSE face his wrath (or his fumbling, cruel, horrific, sadistic methods of retribution).

I'll take hushed awe. Now if only I could get that at home too...

SML,
I am hushed in awe of your lucid, well-made point. There are so many levels of meaning to those words, that we're just going to have to let it sink in for a long, long time. I don't understand why there is not something in the scriptures about a mother in heaven, other than what I've heard which hasn't really made complete sense to me personally. So, I partially understand your point (from my male perspective), and yes, it's one well taken and I for one assume that She will. Have a good day.

Parker ~

You wrote, "And I give deep thanks in my heart that in the next very real world (the spirit world), a loving perfect Father and His Son will provide loving compassion and help heal those deep, deep wounds."

Too darn bad we don't know that in the next very real world a loving perfect Mother and Her Daughter will provide loving compassion and help heal those deep, deep wounds. Because frankly, I'd prefer that.

One last point before I sign off for good.

I am surprised to see the supposed weakness of Mormon theodicy given as evidence of its human origins. I’ll never seen Mormonism criticized on account of its theodicy. I make no pretension to objectivity, but I think serious students of Mormonism who have at least some degree of neutrality would recognize the strength of Mormon theodicy. I know at least one prominent, accomplished non-Mormon scholar of religion who has disclosed to me that she thinks Mormonism has the best explanation for suffering of all the western religions.

I find the explanations in Mormon scriptures to be much stronger than the points of God’s critics.

The argument of God’s critics is based this assumption:

If an omnipotent, omniscient God exists we should be able to comprehend the ‘why’ all of His operations.

I compare it with this assumption:

If an omnipotent, omniscient God exists we shouldn’t expect to understand the purpose of all of His operations.

I find the former point much weaker than the latter. The former assumption seems rather odd in reality. Perhaps it is a product of post-enlightenment confidence (or, depending on the situation, hubris).

I am signing off- best to you all!

Jd1

WC,
Hey there! Mine isn't original thought on that subject--I assume you've also heard it before as I have. I admit it gives me some cause for reflexion when I hear my children at times say, "How do I know that God loves me?" How I treat my children, how I treat my wife, is definitely going to impact how they perceive an all-powerful, all-knowing God whom they don't see when as they are very young they think they are seeing an all-knowing, all-powerful parent whom they can see. Fortunately, as they grow up they learn that their parents aren't perfect after all, but if they have been abused then the incredible sense of betrayal, abandonment by God, disillusionment with any sense of the justice or mercy of God, would be the natural, predictable consequence.

It would be very hard--very, very hard--for such a child to forgive such an earthly father, or to forgive the Heavenly Father who allowed such a thing to happen. So all I can do is empathize, and say my heart goes out to such a person. I felt "unrighteously dominated" at times, but never abused. I observed my parents forgive each other, forgive me, work the gospel into their lives. I learned from their example.

Again, my heart goes out to such a person who was abused. That's why when I hear Doctrine and Covenants section 121 quoted and taught, I hope that fathers are getting the message down to their very core. And I give deep thanks in my heart that in the next very real world (the spirit world), a loving perfect Father and His Son will provide loving compassion and help heal those deep, deep wounds.

Of course all of our views of God are subjectve. But it does help to read the scriptures and reflect on them, and to forgive, forgive, forgive. All the best to you.

Parker said: "Actually, I've thought for some time that a good question "On Faith" could ask is, How does your childhood relationship with your parents (especially your father) impact your current view of God? Of course, I doubt if very many people could be self-honest when trying to explore and answer such a question."

And no one really said much about it. It stood out to me like a neon sign. I believe Parker is implying that if you had a bad daddy, you won't believe in a nice god; and vice versa. Well, that's an interesting thought, and one which logically undermines EVERYONE's belief in god (we're all just projecting...). But I do get the sense that Parker thinks that his view of god is somehow objective and untainted by earthly daddy. I would like to hear more about that. Especially if he is 'self-honest' about it.

For all who are interested, here is an LDS treatment of the problem of evil from a philosophical perspective:

http://speeches.byu.edu/reader/reader.php?id=1644

Hueff:

I think we can comprehend how (generally) suffering provides humans with valuable experience that is ultimately for their good. I know suffering in my own life has had such effects (though I don't understand how till years later). For many, the time of understanding is prolonged, but I believe it will come in this life or the next.

Particular instances of suffering are the most difficult because we do not see the benefit they offer immediately.

In order to completely do away with suffering in the Eternities, God would have to do away with agency, which would do away with growth. That is the crux of the statement by Alma you consider weak. If humans are to grow, they must undergo a moral probation on earth. If they are to undergo a moral probation on earth they must be allowed to commit moral wrongs. They must be allowed to commit moral wrongs so they can learn the consequences of them (in this life and the next), which will eventually, after the price is paid, enable moral growth.

But indeed, there is much we do not know about particulars, and I think it reflects our limited perspective vis-à-vis God. You can assume we would understand it, I can assume some things we could not. Our fellow creatures, animals, infants cannot understand some aspects of human thought and action: why would you expect anything less from humans vis a vis God?

I have to go. I will not be able to further respond. Thanks for the exchange.

Best to you Hueff!

Jd1

I believe the idea Mormons have that God was once a man like us, and even that men like you are going to be able to progress to become gods like him yourselves, helps to make it easier to accept those weak reasons in the scriptures. Perhaps God had a kind of weak moment when he created his "purposes" for our suffering. He is, after all, still progressing, right?

Siiiigh.

When I was Mormon, I shared JD1's view of God. But, now I see that there is purposeless suffering and if one claims that god could have done the things Mormons claim he has done, then he could stop the purposeless suffering even if he isn't ALL powerful. He doesn't, so he is heartless, IMO, if he existed at all.

Now, JD wants to claim that there is not purposeless suffering. That there is some hidden purpose we can't imagine now. I think we could understand any reason that god decided to give us. All the reasons he supposedly did give us in scripture are weak, exactly what we would expect if religion were a faulty man-made system. But, to each their own.

I always love JD1's posts. How I appreciate his time and purposefulness here!

Henry James,
You asked about Abraham and Isaac. Why would a loving God give such a test? There are so many reasons:
1) Does Abraham know whether the inspiration he is receiving through his righteousness truly from God? Will he act on something that seems repugnant but yet shows that he understands the saving role of Jesus Christ as the one who would fulfill the law of sacrifice by the shedding of His blood, and as the One who would enable the resurrection of all men, including his son Isaac?
2) Does he really, truly believe in the literal bodily resurrection?

His unquestioning, "up early in the morning" action shows that he does, and gives us all a great example of how showing our faith may require doing things that will not make sense to our limited logic, but that God still loves us and believes in us. Best to you.

Monk,

Repetition is one of the great ways to educate.

Some observations.

You are a monk brainwashed in some form of Tibetan non-religion who went on a non-religious mission financed by your non-religious apparently rich family but you still believe in the literal bible and literal koran. And you still live in Tibet where the Chinese make your life miserable by restricting your access to excess.

You don't have a dime to your name giving all your money the the African poor but you saved enough to pay for Internet access, a computer and a cozy place to write to all of us people of excess.

Hi David,

Thank you for the kind acknowledgement. As far as I’m concerned, our differences on metaphysical issues are but idle musings compared to the two great commandments that comprise both of our creeds (Mathew 22:37) and the name under which we both trust for Salvation.

Best to you brother!

Jd1

What has come up time and time again is the unequal distribution of the suffering. I think the Mormon concept of the pre-mortal life and the eternal existence of each individual human personality helps make sense of inequality of circumstances. Our mortal circumstances are tailored to the individual needs of each human soul.

I personally think a test of the privileged is to see if they will use their position to lift those less fortunate (one is not justified in failing work hard to remove them from unfavorable positions). Nor does it mean the privileged are spiritually superior. It could mean quite the opposite. Individuals that Mormons claim were some of the greatest spirits were born into circumstances that were anything but privileged.

Plato illustrated a hypothetical scenario where God presents pre-mortal souls with a decision to be born into privilege or not. He said in circumstances of privilege you will have pleasure, and not have to suffer much pain. But what you gain in enjoyment you will loose in spiritual benefits. If you choose to be born into meager circumstances you will not have pleasures, you will have more discomfort and pain. But what you loose in enjoyment you will gain spiritual growth. The more noble chose the path of hardship.

Do we choose our earthly circumstances? Perhaps. Maybe we collaborate with God about what would be best for us. In any event, when we chose to come here, I think we knew about the risks, and the dangers and pains and sorrows and injustices charactersic of this world. We still chose to come, not necessarily despite these unappealing possibilities, but because of them.

Best,

Jd1

I would like to address the idea of God’s responsibility for the existence of evil and suffering. I wanted to say something about this earlier, but resisted as I think I have commented enough on the limitations on God’s power (He has all power that is possible to have, no need to harp on limitations).

Sister Kathleen Flake in her great entry for this question reflects some of my feelings:

“The Latter-day Saint understanding of God is not framed by the traditional Christian doctrines of creation ex nihilo and original sin. These doctrines arose in the contest among Christians over Gnostic arguments that matter was evil. The winning side of the contest asserted that God created the world from nothing and, hence, (1) the material world is good and (2) humans, as created beings ontologically unrelated to God, brought evil into being by their action. For Latter-day Saints, the material world is good, but evil did not originate with creation, much less in human nature. Evil is uncreated and co-eternal with good and God; so are we. Evil, like God and us, simply is.”

http://newsweek.washingtonpost.com/onfaith/kathleen_flake/2007/09/making_good_for_evil.html

I believe in a God who loves us immensely, who deals in a reality where pain, evil and suffering are inevitable aspects of existence, and He has to deal with them on a regular basis. I believe in a God who suffers. I believe in God who weeps (Moses 7:28). I believe in a Christ who can mold broken humanity into divinity because He experientially plunged the depths of human suffering (Alma 7:12).

God is preparing us to cope with an Eternity where suffering is inevitable and He is preparing us to cope in a way that will bring us peace, and joy despite this cold, harsh, reality. I am sure placing us in this world far from home was extremely difficult for him, but it was the only way to prepare us for joy and glory. We made an informed decision to be born here and enter into this mortal existence.

Monk,

I still check in from time to time. I said my piece, and responded to those who responded to me and that was it.

There are those who say I am here when I shouldn't be because I have no faith in the supernatural. And then there is you who seems to imply that I am not here enough.

I have a wonderful, active life outside of this forum. I drop in when I can and feel like I can contribute to stimulating discussion.

Henry ~

That's easy for YOU to say. You're already dead. Our marriage in the next life seems an eternity away to me... Siiiiiiigh.

For what it's worth, I have faith in you and believe in you. Does Moroni give you much grief in the spirit world for your audacity?

SML
I think we ought to save ourselves til we are married.

Why Believe Moroni, and Not Henry James

Mormons believe that Moroni communicated with Joseph Smith 1400 years after Moroni's death.

They have only Joseph Smith's word for this: the word of a treasure hunter and fraud who was widely considered to be a charlatan.

Henry James (me) has been communicating with thousands of you here on this site, and been on the front page many times, and I have been dead for only 80 years.

Why do you believe in Moroni, but not in Henry James? Have you no faith in your own eyes?

It's dark out here.

MIAI ~

Some chick? Barbarians? Retarded?? My advice is broaden your mind. Have another beer. Have two.

Parker ~

I prefer God showing me a symbolic baptism using Jesus and John. But hey, that's just me.

Monk ~

My blog is a good way to get to know me. You can email me if you really wish to. You too, Henry. Hehehe.

where did everyone go...was it something I said?

Hueffenhardt:

where are you man, I read some of your earlier posts but you seem s to have faded into obscurity?

Lokking around the room-MONK

I feel sorry that you are offended by my posts, but i assure you that I have spoken nothing that is not truthful about America, you my friend are a little to unreasonable. My heart goes out for tose who know you, they are in danger of your hatred. It spreads like the fires of California..

Being Confused at such an attack-MONK

Ps

I don't have to speak ill of America, you said all the worst things in you response to me on the othr column

so It's like the joke:

you posted some stupid joke and look no one responded, the only one that even acknowledges you is some chick that is mad at the LDS church...oh get over it all your Moron beliefs are retarted, and another thing Monk you complain about America, yet you come to an American website and wanna chat...You my friend are the reason that America has to go into your stupid countries and teach you barbarians some manners...so when is the last time you bathed..

I like the Dead guy and CCNL, they are the voice of reason agianst the onslaught of religious bafoons that want Bush to resign...hey monk why don't you just log off and go get a hobby....

No Parker,

The flood story was not symbolic it was literal, it happend, the firmament broke. It is scientificaly proven that the earth had a layer of water in its atmosphere, the raining for 40 days was the water falling to the earth, however, I do like the symbolic veiw also...it adds a little bit of awe and ooo to the mix..

Also the water in the atmosphere is in Genesis, it says the sky and the water were seperated and didn't touch.

_MONK of XYMER_

SML,
Thanks for your kind words, and the lightheartedness. I suppose I'll try and answer the Flood question.

God not only abides and uses symmetry and balance--He uses symbolism in many ways. The flood, of course, was symbolic of the literal baptism of the earth, for the earth "abides the law of the Celestial Kingdom" so that it can become the dwelling place of celestial beings. All the adults who were thereby killed had been given every chance to choose love and goodness over selfishness and moral decay. Should God let them just keep living, having children who would not be taught anything virtuous, and those children having such children, just to preserve His identity of being a loving, benevolent God?

In my way of thinking, He was much more benevolent toward the spirits still to come to earth by in effect saying, "I will show you in a symbolic way about baptism and becoming a new creature, by the earth having that same symbolic second birth, while I also give all these my spirit children the opportunity to have a fresh start with righteous progenitors who are willing to teach them."

Then, of course, we read 1 Peter and learn about salvation for the dead in the spirit world. Life still goes on there. 'Just a change of venue. Again, good evening, SML. I learn from your good-naturedness. Thanks.

Thoughts by Sister Mary Lisa ~ A disillusioned Mormon woman trying to decide what to do about it...

Dear Mr. Church July 1st, 2007 by Sister Mary Lisa . I’m leaving you. I know this may be a shocking statement, especially considering the ...

why are you leaving LDS?

if I gave you my e-mail would you email me?

Questioning Is Life Worth It-MONK

Fine I'll do some research and yes as close to a monk as possible, but not a Bhuddist Monk silly...

:7)

Making silly faces-MONK

Are you truly a monk? Google me if you're curious.

you are truly a nun?

Monk ~

Nuns are not supposed to admit their love for monks. Duh. But it could be I love you too.

Sister Mary Lisa:

I will respect your wishes and call you SML. Oh and why don't you love me too?? Oh I see I'm a Monk and Monks don't need love, because we have achieved Balance...well in the words of Fez on my favorite American TV Show, "I said Good Day!"

sitting in a Circle-Monk

Henry ~ I love you.

Parker ~ I love you too, and not because your God told me I should. Thanks for the apology. I so love to bring out my scathing rebuttals...so let me know if ever you wish to actually see one in action.

Concerned The Christian Now Liberated:

You repeat the same...same...same...same...same...sorry I fell into a chant while trying to break away from the spell that your repeated defense instills in me. Is the old "Try..Try..Try again' adage in play here, I mean come on seriously I would love for you to just contribut to a conversation, yes I realize you fully comprehend what we say, and you have adequate computer skils, (and yes copy and pasting from Ms Word Entitled: Things I've Already Used Before counts). Please man please speak from some of the new/age philosiphy that you are learning from your Theology Class.

I don't mean to just attack, but you have an attitude for stuborness that rivals my goat at my grandfathers house; however, unlike the goat you can read and write/copy&paste on a forum that other alive humans, except Henry James (PBUH), and we would all like to hear a few thought on how you really feel, not what you can surf and find...you dirt Golden Retriever you!! j/k

Wondering where Common Sense went-MONK

SML,
(Sheepishly) thanks for your kind forgiveness. Sorry I stuck my nose into something I knew nothing about, nor had a right to speculate about. That would be a mighty test of faith and resilience--no doubt about it. Thanks for holding back the scathing that was rightfully my due. Have a good evening.

SML
Is there such a vile thing as a woman's tongue?

But I love what you do with it.

Mae West said, when I'm good, i'm very very good, and when I'm bad, i'm better.

Otterson says: there needs must be opposition in all things.

Once again, your logical moral mind is infallible. Your husband having that dominion over you DOES violate your agency - the only defense we have against the cruelties God countenances.

And you are courageous to identify the injustice.

Monk ~

Please call me SML or Lisa. It took me a minute to realize "Mary" was me.

I am not focused on the bad, rather I am focused on the lack of reason I see behind the stories of God's actions (or inactions) that Christians believe.

Parker ~

As for the flood, how exactly does taking all but a handful (arkful) of totally righteous people fit with this idea of "There must needs be opposition in all things"??

As for your speculation that perhaps my husband knew that taking out my endowments was "over my head"...I will try to forget you ever suggested such a vile thing about me and will forego my scathing rebuttal because I really do like you. And when my agency is actually controlled by my husband, can you really call it agency?

Holy crap, Henry. Talk me down! Talk me down!!

HJ,
OK--I'll keep playing this tennis match. Red Sea parting? Easy! Is there someone with enough faith to turn nature out of its course? That, my friend, is still balance--in the persons of Moses and Joshua. Would God have enabled that miracle if not for Moses and Joshua? Absolutely not!

The tsunami? Read about the people, the islands, the communities, that were spared. Read about the faith of those people, and the faith and willingness of grandfathers to teach their children and others. "When the earth moves, go to higher ground--run!" If there had been one at the place with enough faith, and if the harmony of the plan of salvation would have been preserved by "re-directing" the tsunami, such could have happened. But we're talking mighty faith, sanctified faith, way out-of-the-ordinary faith.

HJ, the same love you hold for your fellow humans, God holds for you--a thousand fold. I know you also serve. Best to you for it.

Parker,

As per National Geographic's Genographic project:
https://www3.nationalgeographic.com/genographic/ Miracles

" DNA studies suggest that all humans today descend from a group of African ancestors who about 60,000 years ago began a remarkable journey. Follow the journey from them to you as written in your genes”.

"Adam" is the common male ancestor of every living man. He lived in Africa some 60,000 years ago, which means that all humans lived in Africa at least at that time.

Unlike his Biblical namesake, this Adam was not the only man alive in his era. Rather, he is unique because his descendents are the only ones to survive.

It is important to note that Adam does not literally represent the first human. He is the coalescence point of all the genetic diversity."

Conclusion: The biblical Adam did not exist other than in the minds of the OT fiction writers. No Adam, no Noah!!!

Sister Mary Lisa,
Answers:
1) Before the flood, guess what body of people were taken from the earth? (Enoch's Zion.) With them gone because they were so righteous, what happens to the earth--it's way out of balance--only grossly wicked people excluding Noah's family. How to restore the balance, and preserve the success possibilities of the plan of salvation for a great number of spirit children yet to be born?
2) Pharoah's choice brought that one on his own people. (Remember, he thinks he is his people's god, so he ought to have been minutely careful about how he threatened God's real prophet.)
3) Since you've chosen to get personal, I'll opine based on reading your posts that your husband was inspired, even though he may not have realized it. Maybe you were going to get "in over your head" before you were ready? Inspiration, even to people who don't realize it's coming to them, God can do--then He still gives them their agency.
4) Since my Mom and my father-in-law died from cancer (he before I knew him), and a nephew served a mission with it but is now back and still has daily medication to take, I can say that cancer is a multitude of very painful illnesses which I certainly wouldn't wish on anyone, yet those I've known and their very close loved ones have been ennobled by it, nor have I heard them disavow God's love for them. For some to be miraculously cured, I'd say--yes, that arbitrariness is definitely part of a test of faith for many people.

SML, God loves you still, as you know. He loves all of your family. You are a great person, a noble soul. You serve, you are up and doing. (He'd love you irregardless, but all the more for how you extend yourself.) God bless.

This just compounds the problem. If he can part the red sea, why can't he redirect a little tsunami?

And yes instead of moving off of the train track I will pray for Divine Intervention...People know when storms are coming, the people that lived in New Orleans KNEW that a HURRICANE was coming and yet they refused to leave...ignorance kills more people than anything...I refuse to leave my shack and all my personal belongings just so my "things" don't get destroyed...GRAB THE BABY PICTURES AND LEAVE.

It's like the joke:

A man is trapped on his house after a flood, he is praying God help me, please save me...
A boat comes by offering aid, and to take him to shelter..
"No" he responds, "GOD will SAVE ME!"
---
Another boat comes by and offers the same, "NO" he replies, "God will save me"
---
Hours later the rest of the levy gives, rushing water flows freely into his neighborhood and he drowns...In Heaven he goes up to God and says, "Hey I prayed, and prayed, and asked for your help; yet you responded not.

God replies, "I sent you two boats to rescue you, and you denied both"

We can choose to live in a coastal area, we can choose to live in San Francisco, and we can choose to make a diffrence by trying to AID those in Need...The problem with most "helping" is that they work on converting as they aid...Jesus never walked and said, "oh Hey if you are one of the Hungry 5000 and you don't believe me to be the Son of God...that'll be $13.."

Sitting on my Roof scared--MONK

The Worthing Saga by Orson Scott Card is the book that all should read who wants this question answered...it is science fiction and written by one of the best authors in America.
--------------------------------------------------
Mary you are focused on the bad that surrounds our ability to reason:

--etc etc etc. I still don't see how the Somalians or Jews suffering so horrifically leads to growth, especially for those who died from their experiences--

They suffered due to their lack of following God's basic instructions which was to be respectful of his laws, I mean basic morality issues...they were punished because they were bad..You have children and you have grounded them maybe taken away there toys...maybe even physically repremanded them "child abuse"...the same is true to the Jews..however, God realized that yes you can ground a child or yes you can spank a child, but they will always return to backsliding.

The books of Judges, and Kings they were punished and like good children returned to live as best they could...then the Leader that had rescued them from slavery would die along with the survivors from that generation and so again would the process repeat.....

Hoping not to be spanked-MONK

Parker Darling:
I agree with SML (have to, she is going to be one of my future wives)
you are a sweetheart. And I do *truly* mean that.

And I think she makes a telling point that God HAS in fact messed with natural laws and intruded in many ways if we are to believe the Bible.

Parting the Red Sea.
Making the Sun stand still at Jericho.

If one believes in a God who created a universe of natural laws and then is compelled to sit back and watch the tsunamis drown the innocent children (sounds like the Deist God many founding fathers believed in) That is fine,
but for consistency sake, one shouldn't expect that God to DO anything important anymore. She is probably at Vegas sitting at the gaming table watching who the next crap shoot wipes out.

But as SML points out, the Judeo Christian God is an invasive SOB. The ways HE clearly DOES invade are often schlerotic, rash, mean, torturous (Abraham's son and Job's trials).

This just compounds the problem. If he can part the red sea, why can't he redirect a little tsunami?

Parker, darling ~

You are a sweetheart. No, don't deny it. I can tell.

The universe staying in balance therefore God will not interfere theory is strange to me when considering some things such as:

*God sending the big flood when mankind chose to not be good
*God sending a plague to take out the firstborn of every family during Moses' time
*God circumventing my agency to attend the temple if my never-Mormon husband says I don't have his permission
*God curing one's cancer in a miraculous display of unbelievable benevolence

etc etc etc. I still don't see how the Somalians or Jews suffering so horrifically leads to growth, especially for those who died from their experiences. It may teach US something about the nature of man and the capacity for cruelty we each harbor within us, but how does that make the VICTIMS stronger or happier, as Otterson implies here?

All the best backatcha

Monk,
'Nice to have you aboard this little "discussion ship." I've enjoyed your comments and perspective.

Heraclitus,
Thanks for the brilliant commentary and its lucidness.

Henry and Mary Lisa,
Here goes. The God I believe in is omnipotent, omniscient, and omnibenevolent because He can be because He knows how to abide by the truths by which the universes stay in balance. He has "figured out how it works," to use the vernacular. It seems you would have Him (if for you there were such a Being) circumvent agency and prevent misery from happening by either:
(1) intruding on humankind's choices to either change those choices by overriding them or preventing them or building a wall around them; (Why doesn't He do it, you ask? Because He knows not to! He has His omnipotence precisely because He abides by truth.) or by
(2) not sending His spirit children into such a place as this where these horrible miseries occur. Well, absolutely I would agree if He were intent on keeping all the omnipotence to Himself, and if He could capriciously change eternal laws governing the balanced universes. But guess what? He knows that all this awfulness (which it hasn't been for me personally, but I can't speak for the Somalians or the Jews or either of you) leads to growth and ends in something far bigger than we started out with. And that doesn't mean that over-generalization "the super-righteous get to be super-happy in the Celestial Kingdom." No! It means every one (except maybe a double handful) of His spirit children who chose to come to earth gets to become something greater than they were before they began this process.

I know each of you has great love, compassion, and concern for humankind that motivates your refutation against the above fairly simplified explanation. But that's just fine--in fact, to be expected. A big part of the "test" is believing the "test" is even happening, and many won't--join the crowd. All the best to you.

That reminds me of the Beano commercial that my friend sent me one summer...

So anyone want to help me find my dog, I've got candy in the car?

Feeling a little Dirty-MONK

Did anyone hear something? Did you hear that? I thought I heard a noise...kind of like an echoing humming sound you'd hear in a monastery...

;)

It seems there is a while between posts, I have tried to maintain several diffrent posts in other columns, but that it just too hard, and time consuming, I have found that there are regulars that everyone loves to chat with, but we the newcomers have to expect to be ignored....WHY?

Feeling Left out- MONK

Hello LDS Mark

I saw this Blog called "On Faith", and I said, I'm very interested in how Faith works. As an atheist who used to be a believer, I am interested in why people including me are one or the other, and what moves them .

My private secretary who writes these notes for me is an Ex Mormon who is very interested in why others in his family still believe what he no longer does.

Everybody is searching for something. Since I am dead, I can be more contemplative than you humans. So I am mainly searching for understanding what drives people. As you know, I am America's greatest novelist and literary critic, so I have alwaya been driven by human stories: what makes people act and believe as they do, and what happens because of it.

love
Henry

Sister Mary Lisa:

I like you too, or is it also, the language of English is one to be known for its trickery...I think that most would like to be nice and loving, but somewhere between the brain and the keyboard something happens...the hands can be quite the sneaky appendages.

Concerned:
I think you believe the information you post, but the internet can be quite the slippery slope, in my country (when I am there) we are limited to the sites we can visit and the things we can do: such as post and leave messages. Untill recently I had never participated in a chatroom. Instead of trying to unveil the "GREAT EVIL" of peoples beliefs maybe you should volunteer and help those who need the support. I always and greatful to see Christians and others that help.

Heraclitus:

--we Greeks heartily agree that parents should teach and exemplify compassion, intuition, and personal responsibility for oneself and one's world.--

AS it should be taught and made evident in all cultures, Greece is one of the most amazing places. Your example is one that anyone whether "religious" "spiritual" or just plain HUMAN should follow, that is why Greece was the cultural capitol of the world for centuries..I have read your posts and you sir are a very interesting character!! And yes that is a little flaterry for you skeptics.

Henry James:

Yes God is all Powerful and all Knowing...He is a Father First.

Example...

You have two kids who are your sons, one is "perfect" and loves to please you and your wife; however, you have tried to teach the other the same morals, and values, but he just won't be taught. He opposes everything you do, you and your wife have tried counseling and therapy to try and get to the ubderlying problems, but nothing can reach him..

After 12 years of getting into trouble he finally does something unspeakable, he murders someone that he was trying to rob. As you appear in court he shows remorse for the first time since you have raised him...but as much as you Love him and want him to be innocent you know that when the jury sends him to prison, as much as it hurts you and your wife, he has recieved the 'just' punishment..

That is the story of my family, I loved my brother, and still do, but you cannot live how you want and then hate "Life/God".

God is the Father, he tries to explain, reveal and help us, but we are quick to forget the good and scorn God for the bad...No one wants to suffer, that is the reason people want "heaven".
But blaming your parents is hardly a solution, although times have changed, I just worry some think that it is God's fault that we suffer, when we live in a world devoid of justice and full on hate, because we choose to not LOVE and HELP ONE ANOTHER

Sorry for the long post-

Longwinded--MONK

Henry James,

I am wondering where you are coming from.
you don't believe in god (if i understand you correctly) yet you hang out on a religous blog.

Are you searching for something?

mark

Mr. Otterson writes "Mortal life is not the entire existence of humankind, but rather an essential learning and proving experience. Our Father in Heaven is not a capricious God, inflicting pain and misery on the human race. He is a loving Heavenly Father who has the eternal perspective of what his children can become, and who loves us enough to allow us to endure opposition for a season."

Why is it that when I read this I can't help thinking of that horrid character in Saw III (yes, I saw that movie. No, I shall never sleep again. Who THINKS UP that kind of sick stuff??) - the mastermind who lies inert on his hospital bed, playing God by giving horrible choices to the people he has chosen to teach lessons to about morality, choice, helping those who suffer even if it means giving up one's own greed or needs...

Parker writes, I believe Un-ironically:
:Up with education all over the globe, including some moral sense (irrespective of religion) and all the other sensibilities that Darwin predicted would lead humankind toward a "perfected" society"

Whole opining that society will never be "perfected,"

we Greeks heartily agree that parents should teach and exemplify compassion, intuition, and personal responsibility for oneself and one's world.

The atheists whom I visit on by sojourns to Cambridge are just as Moral/immoral as their believing brothers and sisters, probably even more concerning with making the world a better place.

Education about the many belief systems in the world, the profundities of great literature that teaches us about human striving and suffering, and a nurturing of the human's innate love of learning and personal development do all have salutory effects on most indices of suffering, such as:
infant mortality, tolerance for different cultures, poverty rate, gender equality, and many more.

Blaming God

Parker makes the point that we should not Blame God for human suffering, either from nature or from Man's inhumanity to man.

What should we "Blame" God for?

Many believe that there is no reason to Believe that there is any God at all to Blame, and thus, Blaming God is twisted, as Mayan said, because it is delusional. Like blaming Santa Claus.

However Parker, IF god is omniscient and omnipotent, as most Christians have believed for millenia,

Such a God, when He created the world
Must have foreseen the random and cruel suffering that was entailed,
must have had the power to change the set-up,
and
Must have looked at the Suffering and said that it was Good.

You are free to believe in such a God. Many consider such a God un-worship-able.

Many tell me I should have faith in a God they Assume exists based on no evidence other than a burning in their chest.

They tell me i have to accept anything that this God does because he is so much smarter than I am.

Sounds like a shell game to me.

Concerned,
Do you have the impression that employees of non-profit entities pay no taxes? Of course Mr. Otterson pays taxes.

Mayan,
You made a good point that "blaming suffering on God is twisted." (I think those were only your words, not JD1's.) Blaming anything on God is twisted. Why blame Him that humankind are not more loving, more tolerant of differences, more careful in planning such that nature does not get the better of them?

We definitely ought not blame God for hurricanes (a natural phenomenon that is predictable, just not precisely where), nor for tornadoes, nor earthquakes, nor tsunamis, nor any other predictable natural phenomenon. Some try to blame governments for "letting" them build in predictably risky land zones--why? Each person on the planet ought to become knowledgeable enough about their world that they take responsibility for their own choices as to where they live or where they raise their family--whether far inland, or next to the ocean. If they're going to take a risk, don't turn around and blame God or the government when the risky behavior reaps a predictable consequence.

Nor should we blame "man's inhumanity to man" on God. Atheists have a good point if their point is to say, "We ought to do something about this as peacefully and logically as we can without justifying it by some religious smokescreen or by blaming a supreme being for not stopping such senseless atrocities."

The fault lies "not in our stars, but in ourselves." Up with education all over the globe, including some moral sense (irrespective of religion) and all the other sensibilities that Darwin predicted would lead humankind toward a "perfected" society. Up with parents teaching their children and setting an example for them that they can see, hear, and feel in their own hearts, of how to treat people with respect, love, and compassion; of how to make decisions without blaming others; and of how to work, work, work if we want the world to be a better place for us tomorrow than it is today.

Hmmm, do the Mormons pay taxes on their businesses ??? I doubt if the head "profiteer" does. No wonder he can afford to give 10% to the Church. I wonder if Mr. Otterson pays taxes.

Am I the only one amused by Xymerian Monk? Way to hold that Love One Another banner high, baby! I like you. The apology was actually impressive and unexpected. Sorry I couldn't help teasing you just a bit.

*grin*

OK, Brother Otterson, if, as you say, Mormons believe "Our Father in Heaven is not a capricious God, inflicting pain and misery on the human race," why is your Church capricious, inflicting pain and misery on gays by Bishopric referrals to electroshock therapy or by practicing this torture in the past at BYU? Because you can't deny it, you continue to ignore it and refuse to apologize for it but it,(like me)will not go away until you do. You can shut me and others up real quick if you simply say "Yeah, we did it. We thought it was the right thing at the time to do and we are sorry for the misery and pain it caused" The truth is that you and your Church are not big enough to do this.

I am sorry that I posted 4 comments of such rudeness, it seems I too have fallen victim of my maliciousness (sp) The on Faith boards do not have a decent setup, or even the basic of desires such as speel check (jk) I want to know why a site controlled by the Washington Post has none of the basic functions of other Boards...I am sorry once a againfor the rudness of my sarcastic post, it seems I have fallen for the oldest trick in the book...

Apologetic---MONK

thank you for the triple post...

thank you for the triple post...

thank you for the triple post...

thank you for the triple post...

Concerned The Christian Now Liberated:

Mormon Church companies - a selection:

1. Deseret-laundry soap company 2. Mormon cannery in Boise, Idaho. 3. Cannery in San Diego, 4. bean farms in Idaho, 4. Deseret peanut butter and Deseret pudding facilities 5. the Deseret Cattle & Citrus Ranch outside Orlando, Fla. 6. Huntsman Industries (not directly owned but probably significantly subsidized), 7. AgReserves, Inc., in Salt Lake City 8.the Bonneville International Corp., the country's 14th largest radio chain, 9.the Beneficial Life Insurance Co., with assets of $1.6 billion. 10. a 52% holding in ZCMI, Utah's largest department-store chain.

OK, Without getting in the mud with you most of the entities you have identified are specifically charged to produce goods and services for the churches' various philanthropic interests. The "companies" I am referring to have provided hundreds of millions of goods and services free of charge and/or consideration to those in need all around the world. Mostly without any fanfare or publicity. You have also lumped a couple of organizations owned by prominent members of the church. They are not owned or subsidized by the church. There are various legitimate reasons why the church has interests in the few actual 'for-profit' organizations you have identified.

As for being a member for the money, PLEASE let me know who to talk to! I spend twenty hours a week volunteering for my local congregation and donate approximately 17% of my gross income to the church. So, if you know something I and the other 12million+ members don't know please share!

Concerned The Christian Now Liberated:

Mormon Church companies - a selection:

1. Deseret-laundry soap company 2. Mormon cannery in Boise, Idaho. 3. Cannery in San Diego, 4. bean farms in Idaho, 4. Deseret peanut butter and Deseret pudding facilities 5. the Deseret Cattle & Citrus Ranch outside Orlando, Fla. 6. Huntsman Industries (not directly owned but probably significantly subsidized), 7. AgReserves, Inc., in Salt Lake City 8.the Bonneville International Corp., the country's 14th largest radio chain, 9.the Beneficial Life Insurance Co., with assets of $1.6 billion. 10. a 52% holding in ZCMI, Utah's largest department-store chain.

OK, Without getting in the mud with you most of the entities you have identified are specifically charged to produce goods and services for the churches' various philanthropic interests. The "companies" I am referring to have provided hundreds of millions of goods and services free of charge and/or consideration to those in need all around the world. Mostly without any fanfare or publicity. You have also lumped a couple of organizations owned by prominent members of the church. They are not owned or subsidized by the church. There are various legitimate reasons why the church has interests in the few actual 'for-profit' organizations you have identified.

As for being a member for the money, PLEASE let me know who to talk to! I spend twenty hours a week volunteering for my local congregation and donate approximately 17% of my gross income to the church. So, if you know something I and the other 12million+ members don't know please share!

Concerned The Christian Now Liberated:

Mormon Church companies - a selection:

1. Deseret-laundry soap company 2. Mormon cannery in Boise, Idaho. 3. Cannery in San Diego, 4. bean farms in Idaho, 4. Deseret peanut butter and Deseret pudding facilities 5. the Deseret Cattle & Citrus Ranch outside Orlando, Fla. 6. Huntsman Industries (not directly owned but probably significantly subsidized), 7. AgReserves, Inc., in Salt Lake City 8.the Bonneville International Corp., the country's 14th largest radio chain, 9.the Beneficial Life Insurance Co., with assets of $1.6 billion. 10. a 52% holding in ZCMI, Utah's largest department-store chain.

OK, Without getting in the mud with you most of the entities you have identified are specifically charged to produce goods and services for the churches' various philanthropic interests. The "companies" I am referring to have provided hundreds of millions of goods and services free of charge and/or consideration to those in need all around the world. Mostly without any fanfare or publicity. You have also lumped a couple of organizations owned by prominent members of the church. They are not owned or subsidized by the church. There are various legitimate reasons why the church has interests in the few actual 'for-profit' organizations you have identified.

As for being a member for the money, PLEASE let me know who to talk to! I spend twenty hours a week volunteering for my local congregation and donate approximately 17% of my gross income to the church. So, if you know something I and the other 12million+ members don't know please share!

The topic of one's faith is a touchy subject for anyone...those who have "no" faith are slow to listen to those who "have" faith. And those whose faith is "absolute" are quick to condemn those who have "no" faith..and yet I see no answers coming from either side, NO ONE WINS an argument..the utter lack of beleif in a personal God affects me little in the way that some of you seem to have taken offense to someones dibelief.

We are victims of our own egos, man is a prideful being, we pride ourselves in our inventions and we pride ourselves in our intellect; however, we pride ourselves in our accomplishments; and yet, few pride themselves in terms of failure. We see situations that oppose what we hold to be "sacred" as evil or wrong, and yet I see the same thing in the times of Jesus....

The pharisees said to Jesus he was wrong and evil and that he was a false prophet, yet Jesus carried on without even giving a thought to their actions against him why?

We as the HUMAN race have failed, be you Jew, Muslim, Mormon, (one of the hundred protestant religions), or Bhuddist, Hindu or Monk the simpelist of all things is TO LOVE ONE ANOTHER... and we say that is too hard??

_MONK of XYMER_

HJ,
Actually, I've thought for some time that a good question "On Faith" could ask is, How does your childhood relationship with your parents (especially your father) impact your current view of God? Of course, I doubt if very many people could be self-honest when trying to explore and answer such a question.

I do appreciate your love for all things living and for the eloquence of departed writers. I know you want peace for humankind. So do I.

Mayan
you have been resurrected and repachdermed! halleluja!!!
don't say anything that might upset anyone, now. and don't step in any potted plants.

to add to your list of alternatives to superstition, buddhism is the oldest and most proven (who the F cares about proof) spiritual discipline on earth, and has a higher happiness production ratio than Mormons or Jim Jones cultists.

Be good.

Henry the homo

Brother William asked me to sum this all up, since i am the novelist who thinks like a philosopher.

If there is ONE God who created the world and is omnipotent and omniscient (unlike JD's God - what is He, a Yankee fan?)

He (women could never be so sadistic) knowingly created a world of terrible and unjust suffering that no human can explain, other than saying "it's a mystery."

If one chooses to put one's faith in such a Creature, one has every right to do that. The system defies any human conception of justice and consistency, but if one is willing to give one's rationality and moral sense over to a posited supreme being, you probably can;t be argued out of it. As I said earlier, it comes down to a question of taste. And superstition. On an evidentiary basis, if there is a God, He is a heck of a capricious sadist, as Shakespeare indicated.

SML: you never disappoint me. You are unceasingly moral and couragious and eloquent. Why couldn't my first 15 wives have been like you.;

Parker: pretty accomplished family i come from, for having such an unrighteous father, eh?

Hi CC ~

My point is God will punish and kill Lot's wife for disobeying his edict to not turn back, yet he'll allow my rapist to brutally hurt me. He'll heal my mother's cancer, yet he'll allow my co-worker's daughter suffer and die from hers.

Why? To what end? It makes no sense in terms of eternal salvation, considering all those people who never suffered that way who are destined for salvation. If he is aware of every last living thing on this planet, as the church teaches, it seems he's fascinated with human writhing, as Henry (Hi my Henry!) so eloquently commented.

SISTER MARY LISA: "I guess what bothers me is the image of God turning the woman into a pillar of salt for looking back"

The fact of the matter is Lot's wife did not turn into a pillar of salt right there and then. The fact of the matter is she returned back to Sodom because she couldnt leave some things behind. Probably family photos or love letters or she wanted to send a pm message to someone she was chatting to letting him know she will be offline for a while. What happened is she returned back to Sodom and got caught there and and died there.

I refer you to what Jesus said on the matter.

Luke 17:31
In that day, he which shall be upon the housetop, and his stuff in the house, let him not come down to take it away: and he that is in the field, let him likewise not return back.

Luke 17:32
Remember Lot's wife.

In other words Lot's wife not only looked back but she returned back.

certaincurtain@yahoo.com

Concerned ~

While many of the church's business ventures are in Utah, it stands to reason many of the employees will be Mormon. ANY business in Utah, church-owned or not, will have a larger percentage of Mormons in its employee base by virtue of the prevalence of Mormons in the area.

You wrote, "Mormons today are Mormons because of Mormon money."

It just doesn't make any sense, nor is it true. (Active) Mormons today are Mormons because they were born into the belief system, or because they believed it when the missionaries taught it to them. Money, in my opinion, motivates the top leaders in the COB, but not the average members.

Truth is, the majority of Mormons are inactive, non-conforming, non-temple-going, regular people like you and me.

I guess what bothers me is the image of God turning the woman into a pillar of salt for looking back. . .yet the same God holding my hand and mopping my brow as I get brutally raped and beaten.

Is the feeling one feels when the trial's over really *happiness* or is it merely relief that the painful sliver of suffering has been removed?

Sister Mary,

Mormon Church companies - a selection:

1. Deseret-laundry soap company 2. Mormon cannery in Boise, Idaho. 3. Cannery in San Diego, 4. bean farms in Idaho, 4. Deseret peanut butter and Deseret pudding facilities 5. the Deseret Cattle & Citrus Ranch outside Orlando, Fla. 6. Huntsman Industries (not directly owned but probably significantly subsidized), 7. AgReserves, Inc., in Salt Lake City 8.the Bonneville International Corp., the country's 14th largest radio chain, 9.the Beneficial Life Insurance Co., with assets of $1.6 billion. 10. a 52% holding in ZCMI, Utah's largest department-store chain.

An excerpt from http://www.lds-mormon.com/time.shtml

"In the first century of corporate Mormonism, the church's leaders were partners, officers or directors in more than 900 Utah-area businesses. They owned woolen mills, cotton factories, 500 local co-ops, 150 stores and 200 miles of railroad. Moreover, when occasionally faced with competition, they insisted that church members patronize LDS-owned businesses. Eventually this became too much for the U.S. Congress. In 1887 it passed the Edmunds-Tucker Act, specifically to smash the Mormons' vertical monopolies."

Bottom line: There is a lot of money to be made when you have a "ptfft" on your side!!!!

And a sign as you enter Utah: " This is Moroni Territory"!!!!!

JD1,

I really enjoyed your response to HJ. HJ has some great points as well. But I think it is important to note that believers in God call Him "Father" for a reason. I love how you put in the example of how you vaccinate your children and they hate it and do not understand it and even suffer from it, but we "fathers" do it for their own good. I just got my little girl her final vaccinations. It hurts me to allow someone to hurt here. I hated it. But I knew it was for the best. I feel the same way about God. Sometimes we are afflicted with tragedy and suffering. We may not understand it and not like it, but I know God's there to support us. I believe He even hurts like we do, but just like us as parents He is there to comfort us in our times of trouble, like a loving parent would.

We may have different beliefs in who Jesus is, JD, but I really appreciate that post. I know one thing we do agree on is that suffering CAN be beneficial. But us as children of God, may not know why, but be assured of His loving presence.

Take care

David

Anonymous this! that was me, Mayan Elephant.

JD1,

you said this: "I am talking about a philosophy that allows one to find meaning and higher purpose in their suffering."

finding a lesson learned, while suffering, is admirable. finding peace while suffering is fantastic and something we would all love to do. blaming suffering on god, is twisted. do you really think that god sat around with his trusty assistants and decided whether or not to allow such things as holocausts, torture, cancer, disease, viruses, war, etc.?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qzf8q9QHfhI

there is great value on finding joy in a journey, regardless of the challenges. there is no indication that such capacity is dependent on being christian, god-fearing, or god forbid, mormon. believe it or not, one can find joy in the journey without a temple and a book of scripture, it can be found in weight rooms, art studios, mountains, meadows, mass... oops., and all sorts of other places.

where the breakdown happens, is when some people lay special and unique claim on knowing the source of some folks' trials, and judging them for it. um, take the HIV victims, for example. dont have to look far to see that credited to god. or hurricane katrina - that one even got credited to god in a general conference.

the inconsistency of torture and trials by this god dude, is a comedy. the philosophies of jung, and other men and women, do serve people well, believe it or not. and it doesnt require the same mental gymnastics. though, god did bust up kerry strugs ankle just to make her happy, and america happy too. cuz god loves america most and wanted us to have the gold medal. he made all the other non-american girls train for the gold and fail, so they could be happy too, even though he loves americans more.

JD1,

I did start to read about Mormonism in my efforts to compare religions and develop a synopsis of the foundations of said religions. I stopped reading as soon as the "good" Mormon books noted that Joe S. received revelations from a "ptfft". I had already read enough religious fiction.

My synopsis of contemporary religions in case you missed previous commentaries:

1. Abraham founder/father of three major religions was probably a mythical character. If he was real, he was at best a combination of at least three men. 1.5 million Conservative Jews and their rabbis have relegated Abraham to the myth pile along with most if not all the OT.

2. Jesus, the illiterate Jewish peasant/carpenter possibly suffering from hallucinations, has been characterized anywhere from the Messiah from Nazareth to a mythical character from mythical Nazareth. Analyses of his life by many contemporary NT scholars (e.g. Professors Crossan, Borg and Fredriksen, On Faith panelists)via the NT and related documents have concluded that only about 30% of Jesus' sayings and ways noted in the NT were authentic. The rest being embellishments (e.g. miracles)/hallucinations made/had by the NT authors to impress various Christian sects.

The 30% of the NT that is "authentic Jesus" like everything in life was borrowed, plagiarized and/or improved from those that came before. In Jesus' case, it was the ways and sayings of the Hittites, Babylonians, OT and John the Baptizer and possibly the ways and sayings of traveling Greek Cynics.

3. Mohammed, an illiterate, hallucinating Arab, also had embellishing/hallucinating scribal biographers who not only added "angels" and flying chariots to the Koran but also a militaristic agenda to support the plundering and looting of the lands of non-believers.

This agenda continues as shown by the conduct of the seven Muslim doctors in the UK, the 9/11 terrorists, the 24/7 Sunni suicide/roadside/market/mosque bombers , the 24/7 Shiite suicide/roadside/market/mosque bombers , the Bali crazies, the Kenya crazies, the Pakistani koranics, the Palestine suicide bombers/rocketeers, the Lebanese nutcases and the Filipino koranics. And who financially and theologically supports these acts of terror?? The third Axis of Evil aka Iran and also the "Wannabees" of Saudi Arabia.

4. Luther, Calvin, Smith, Henry VIII, Wesley et al, founders of Christian-based religions, also suffered from the belief in/hallucinations of "pretty wingy thingie" visits and "prophecies" for profits analogous to the myths of Catholicism (resurrections, apparitions, ascensions and immaculate conceptions).

5. Hinduism (from an online Hindu site) - "Hinduism cannot be described as an organized religion. It is not founded by any individual. Hinduism is God centred and therefore one can call Hinduism as founded by God, because the answer to the question ‘Who is behind the eternal principles and who makes them work?’ will have to be ‘Cosmic power, Divine power, God’"
The caste/laborer system and cow worship are problems when saying a fair and rational God founded Hinduism."

6. Buddhism- "Buddhism began in India about 500 years before the birth of Christ. The people living at that time had become disillusioned with certain beliefs of Hinduism including the caste system, which had grown extremely complex. The number of outcasts (those who did not belong to any particular caste) was continuing to grow."

"However, in Buddhism, like so many other religions, fanciful stories arose concerning events in the life of the founder, Siddhartha Gautama (fifth century B.C.):"

Archaeological discoveries have proved, beyond a doubt, his historical character, but apart from the legends we know very little about the circumstances of his life.

http://www.wsu.edu/~dee/BUDDHISM/SIDD.HTM

Bottom line: There are many good ways of living but be aware of the hallucinations/embellishments and myths surrounding the founders of said rules of life.

See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historical_Jesus for an analysis of Jesus' life to include his illiteracy.

Interesting comments. I agree with Huff that we can be on here to stimulate our thinking, and I wish--I really do--that Henry James' father had been inhibited by whatever supernatural or logical come-to-your-senses means from practicing the abusive unrighteous dominion that has become a cloud over his family.

Concerned,
The references are Dawkins' "Delusion" Ch.4 p. 156, and Darwin's "Descent" Ch. 5 and Conclusion.

On a more uplifting note, I love the following eloquent quote by David McCullough from a speech he gave:

"Writing a biography and realizing that your subject is going to stay at home his final 25 years, you wonder how you are going to sustain the rest of the book. But there are all kinds of surprises in life, and to me the great surprise of the last part of Adams' life is that in many ways it's the most interesting. It's at this point that the inward journey begins. He suffers as he has never suffered before. He loses not only Abigail, but their beloved daughter of the same name. Those who say that people then lived in a simpler time should imagine their daughter having a mastectomy in a bedroom of their house with no anesthetic. Adams lost his wife and daughter, he lost a son to alcoholism, he lost his teeth and hair, he lost friends, he lost all of his power, his prestige, his influence. But he kept going. In fact, curiously, having in many ways been seen as a pessimist, he became increasingly an optimist. It's in this last part of his life especially that you feel his real fiber....

[Adams writes]: 'I feel an irresistible impulse to fall on my knees, in adoration of the power that moves, the wisdom that directs, the benevolence that sanctifies this wonderful whole.'"

JD1 ~

:) I didn't miss the point. Just creating a picture example to more align with God's method of teaching us things thru suffering.

Hueffenhardt:

Maybe this single god/singlarity does not exist but if it does and is considered all good and all powerful there would be no accidents or suffering since it could not pick and choose who is to suffer by definition of "all good" and "all powerful".

I wonder if a doctor would give one of his patients, and all his/her offspring, a dark skin and allow all to be persecuted for 6,000 years in order to make them happy.

I guess it would make sense that god would do that because its easier to find slaves if they all have the dark skin, and we know being a slave is just a way to make the person stronger and happier. Not as happy as getting cancer and dying, but still, happy nonetheless.

Hi SML,

Just a clarification...

I think you missed the point of my examples. Read the sentence after the last example you cite. Here it is:

"There are examples of the possible down falls of both skepticism and trust. Pointing them out *doesn't prove anything* about the merits of trust and skepticism in all situations."

Best,

Jd1

"Do you want to get other people to lose their faith and hope so they can be miserable like you? And there in lies the irony of your postings with the subject of the topic being 'An opposition in all things'. If you want misery then continue to insincerely question God's intentions and believe in Hueffenhardt's message of no hope. If you want greater happiness then take Mr Otterson's message to heart and have faith in Christ."

WT, W T F?

are you kidding me? here we go again. the only way to be happy, is to follow otterson. if you think you are happy, but you are not following otterson, then you really arent happy or you soon will be unhappy. if you are unhappy, it is because you dont follow otterson.

basically, the mormon way is once again - the only way. otterson must be so thrilled to be able to do the mainstream dance while so many posters jump on here and repeat the one true mormon message - active obedient mormon families are forever, and happy, the rest are screwed.

JD1 ~

I could also say a doctor doesn't purposely make his patients sick, then not prescribe the necessary meds to cure them or ease their suffering.

And a scientist does not CAUSE global warming, then tell a few select what's happening and how to prevent it, expecting those few to share the knowledge with everyone else.

John D the First ~

"A person is illiterate and doesn't understand medicine. She is so skeptical of doctors that she does not take her medication and dies of a heart attack."

Except her doctor doesn't remain invisible to her...and doesn't pick and choose some people he will save with his prescriptions and others he will let suffer by not giving them the prescriptions.

"A person does not understand science and doubts global warming predictions, votes republican and contributes to the environmental disasters to come."

Except that scientists tend to share their findings with all, and not just a few of the people on earth whom they then expect to share said knowledge with everyone else, and too bad if you didn't get that important message.

Henry James,

How are you doing man? Thank you for pointing out
the dangers of my acquiescence. Let me point out the dangers of the rash judgment of a being with more knowledge and insight than you:

A person is illiterate and doesn't understand medicine. She is so skeptical of doctors that she does not take her medication and dies of a heart attack.

A person does not understand science and doubts global warming predictions, votes republican and contributes to the environmental disasters to come.

There are examples of the possible down falls of both skepticism and trust. Pointing them out doesn't prove anything about the merits of trust and skepticism in all situations.

I am talking about a philosophy that allows one to find meaning and higher purpose in their suffering. You are talking about one that facilitates deception and abrogates individuals from responsibility.

There is a difference between trusting that there is meaning and purpose in my suffering from cancer, for example, and trusting a human being has a good reason for molesting a child. I don't think pointing out the analogies proves anything: You speak of apples, I speak of oranges.

My one year old daughter might curse me for the suffering incurred by getting her vaccinations because she does not know the purpose behind it, nor can she comprehend it. I see God the same way. I don't think that is unreasonable considering the assumption that we are like infants compared to God.

I'm out.

Best to You!

Jd1

JD's summary of the "Problem of Evil", and the alternative syllogism that can affirm God's existence in light of His evident fascination with human writhing

is a reasonable and cogent summary of the two sides in this debate: the "opposition in all things" that Mr Otterson so esteems.

Among other things, it comes down to a matter of taste. Do I want to believe in a God who, for reasons of his own and justified in his infinite wisdom, allows the torture of my fellows - and, God Forbid, even MEEEEEE - without lifting a finger of his semi-omnipotent hand,

or do I think such a God is a sadist, whatever His reasons, and if he exists, should be ignored as much as possible.

There *could* be such a God. It is not *impossible.*

The Danger of John D's Acquiescence

JD essentially says: God knows much more than we do, and works in mysterious ways, so His complicity in the innocent suffering of humans is just beyond our understanding.

BS

This kind of credulous approach to authority is extremely dangerous. It leads persons to say things like
* Bush/Cheney must know what they're doing when they invade Iraq, cuz they know so much more than I.
• My Catholic Priest must be touching me that way for a reason I don't understand, cuz he is doing God's work.
• My father must have a good reason for being verbally abusive to me on a regular basis cuz he is so much smarter than I am.

The fact is that there is no reason to think that there is a God who notices our suffering one way or another, and loads of reasons to think there is none.

And the mind set that abrogates responsibility for making moral judgments because Father knows Best/More is, well, infantile.

Shakespeare wrote: "as flies to wanton boys, are we to the Gods, they kill us for their sport."
Just so.

People keep speaking as if I haven't felt "God's love and comfort" before or I haven't ever had revelations before. I felt "God's comfort and love" many many times, one of which was when my mother died when I was 14 and still a true believer at the time. And I have had countless "revelations" when I was a true believer.

Been there, done that. I thoroughly know what those experiences are like. I no longer believe that they are what I thought they were. And guess what, I can still feel what I used to call god's love all the time. Atheists don't forget how to experience those wonderful things, they just interpret them differently. I believe that they are natural experiences just as real and biological as any other phenomenological experience such as dreaming, joy, conciousness, etc. Spiritual feelings are brain produced, imo, and they always were even when I thought they were coming from god. So, I continue to produce them as I always have.

In the past 14 months I have experienced job loss, death of family members, and a close friend slowly die due to terminal cancer.... my Lord and Savior Jesus Christ has comforted me and helped me experience hope and gratitude..it doesn't matter if the PAIN is self-inflicted or just "that's part of life"...once you find yourself at rock-bottom and humble enough to cry out to God for help and LISTEN..then anyone can feel hope and peace and experience a MIRACLE..there is NOTHING that helps more than feeing God's Love its a force that will change your life and you WILL find solutions to ANY problems... "Being of Good Cheer" is why we are here on this planet called Earth.

Concerned ~

"But you would agree that Mormon businesses are managed by Mormons and staffed with Mormons as much as possible???"

What Mormon businesses are you talking about, specifically?

Concerned: I am not sure that I follow your singularity comment. Everytime we humans stop a rape from occurring or a terrorist act from being committed, we are changing the future. How would that be different if god also changed the future by putting out a house fire before the inhabitants died or stopping a tsunami? If god is blind to the future as we are, none of us know the implications of our actions except for the immediate relief given to potential victims that we save. Should we allow the rapist and the robber to do what they will in the name of allowing them the free exercise of their will and because we don't want to change the future? What about the rape or robbery victims? Shouldn't we protect their free agency by preventing the actions of those that would limit theirs? I don't see why god is more helpless than man. Why can't he do at least as much as a man can?

Tracy Hall, Jr: The slippery slope argument is a red herring. We are talking about purposeless suffering. Does a loving earthly parent spare their kid the pain of a push-up? No. Does a loving earthly parent interrupt a molestation if they walk in on it? Yes. Does a loving parent save their child from a burning house? Yes. Does a "loving god"? Quite often kids are molested and burn in fires.

We don't have to trust that there is a god or that he knows what he is doing. The problem of pain is just one of many reasons why the probability of a god such as the Hebrew God existing is extremely low.

In my view, the naturalistic worldview makes a lot more sense. The best the theists who believe in an all-loving and all powerful god can do with the problem of pain is what JD1 did - acknowledge that it doesn't make sense to humans, but promise that it might after we are all dead. See with naturalists, there is no "problem" with pain - it happens due to natural causes, we are not spared it because there is no superpowerful being to stop it. Sometimes, again due to natural forces, our bodies heal and recover and the pain goes away. It makes perfect sense to me. One no longer has to make pain have a purpose or trust that it does have an unseen purpose.

WT?: Sorry to disappoint you, but I am not miserable at all. I am very lucky to be married to a wonderful woman who loves me very much and to have an excellent son who brightens my day. I have given my life meaning. Although I no longer believe that life has any eternal or universal purpose, life does matter to us locally in space and time and I am content with that.

Why do I comment on such boards? To help us all to become better thinkers, myself included. We need to hear opposing view points. The unchallenged mind is a weak mind and can easily be led astray. There is purposeful opposition, as there is purposeless pain. How does one cope with purposeless pain? Through acceptance. You fight to change what you can and alleviate what you can, but that which cannot be alleviated, you accept as part of life seek social support. It helps a lot just to have someone empathize and love you.

Hi Concerned,

I would probably be able to find references if the question of Mormon occupation were not such a non-issue. Of all the skeptical anti-Mormon literature I have read you are the first to make the claim that the majority of believing, practicing Mormons are motivated by finances.

None of the articles you reference make that claim. It is a sensational claim with no evidence and plenty of contrary evidence for anyone with experience in the Mormon community.

If your interested in some general demographic information on the Mormon community see here:

http://www.adherents.com/largecom/lds_dem.html

(nothing about occupation, but helpful general info to know if you are really interested in learning about and criticizing Mormonism).

I suggest you get a hold of some good scholarly literature on Mormon beliefs and culture before you start to make so many assertions about Mormonism. Terryl Givens is one of the most widely published scholars on Mormonism. He recently published a cultural history of Latter Day Saints called "People of Paradox" by Oxford. Since you like the Moroni story so much, he also published the first full length study on the book that was purportedly delivered by Moroni to Joseph
Smith called "By the Hand of Mormon" also published by Oxford.

You seem to value scholarship. Why don't you go there before the polemic websites you cite.

I'm signing off, best to you all!

Jd1

Sister Mary,

But you would agree that Mormon businesses are managed by Mormons and staffed with Mormons as much as possible???

Parker,

So your memory is not what it should be and your statements about Darwin and Dawkins are questionable.

Wow---some of the comments are really wonderful. Some have really thought about what they are saying. However, it seems as though Concerned is more worried about making sure everyone knows he has a bad opinion of the Mormon church than discussing the article at hand. If you have a problem with the LDS church because of things you have read on the internet, it would be better to find a more appropriate place to discuss them than to take up space reserved for a thoughtful discussion on the featured article. You are free to have misinformed opinions about the church all day long, but do you have any thoughts about the article at hand? I didn't see any of those.

WT? ~

I would not say Hueffenhardt is "insincerely question(ing) God's intentions". He's one of the most sincere and reasonable people I've seen comment here.

And why would you presume to call him miserable? Interesting. I sincerely hope you're not projecting personal feelings onto him. Misery is not fun.

Parker ~

You did not fail to communicate; you are very good at communication I'd say.

Let's say I have three children. I talk to my oldest, and tell her that I need her to give her life in a horrific way, so that my other two children may live with me longer without me punishing them, as they aren't as morally strong as she is. She agrees, and suffers horribly to pay for the sins her siblings will commit, causing them to only have to utter the words 'I'm sorry' to be forgiven in future offenses.

Later I watch as one of my children gets raped and mutilated by some stranger. When he's hurting and raw, he comes to me because I had told him to pray to me whenever he needs help. I point to his sister who suffered for him to atone for his many sins and to understand suffering better. I say, pray to me always, and I'll use your sister's suffering to lift you up. She felt your pain, therefore I say be lifted up! Be at peace. My other daughter goes to my son while he's hurting and holds him, tends to his wounds, and nurses him back to health. I remind him that I am the one who helped him by giving him his sister who nursed him. I send his bishop to give him a reminder that his other sister suffered on the cross for him as a way to lift him up above this suffering he suffered and will suffer again when the bad guys come to rape him again, as I know they will.

Christ's propitiation appeases a God I can not respect, nor actually believe is real. I fully understand the need to believe in him, however. I'm glad the idea of a God and a brother who suffered and died lifts you up above your trials. I don't get quite the same contentment from this, but I fully respect that you and many others do.

It is always weird to read obviously faithless comments like Hueffenhardt's and many others on matters of faith. It just seems all credibility is lost from the get go so what is their intention? Obviously they don't even have the faith enough to call down one scrap of revelation from the heavens so where are their ideas coming from? Themselves or the philosophies of man it seems. I'll stick to the revelations found in scripture that Otterson is using in his articles. If you aren't reading these reglious articles to deepen your understanding and faith then what is your intent in posting such faithless and hopeless messages? Do you want to get other people to lose their faith and hope so they can be miserable like you? And there in lies the irony of your postings with the subject of the topic being 'An opposition in all things'. If you want misery then continue to insincerely question God's intentions and believe in Hueffenhardt's message of no hope. If you want greater happiness then take Mr Otterson's message to heart and have faith in Christ.

Concerned,
I could look up and provide the references, but I think Darwin's works ought to be read in their entirety to understand them, and I suppose that Dawkins' should be also. (Both are engaging essayists.) So I guess I'm saying, do your own homework. Read more. Perhaps googling your way to knowledge won't get you much knowledge--lots of pastiche, though.

Concerned ~

"do you have references supporting your claims that most Mormons do not work for Mormon affliated businesses/organizations..."

*Most* Mormons are actually ones who don't even attend church, or wear garments, or pay tithing. If you are talking about most ACTIVE Mormons, well, I think you still may be wrong.

Perhaps you are trying to point to the idea that the church hierarchy itself is focused on money...that seems obvious considering they bought that mall and they stress tithing so much. But to say the general LDS population of active members is mostly concerned about money, or works mostly for church affiliated businesses, I respectfully disagree.

Parker,

References to Darwin and Dawkins comments are?

Latter Day Skeptic,

Limiting God to the self existent reality we are aware of is not unlike limiting humans to the reality known to badgers. God has access to all the possibilities, whereas we have access to 00000000001 %.

Miricals can be seen as no more magical than airplanes, if one simply assumes advanced "divine technology."

Best,

Jd1

Skeptic,
Speaking of cards, your beliefs of course trump everyone else's because of your definitions. But if you read Darwin and Dawkins thoroughly, you either find that Darwin says religion occupies a healthful place in this particular world, or that Dawkins reminds that it is expected that there are many other worlds either similar to this one or ahead of this one with rational beings somewhere in the "multi-verses" that exist. Evolutionary theory posits that the progress of man ought to move along naturally through eons of time. (I wonder if Darwin would look at current events versus history since he was around and still posit the same premise.) Dawkins dismisses a "magical" God idea, but he doesn't dismiss the idea of beings on other planets either in this universe or in others, that would be far advanced from our vantage point. You are looking for truths to explain the universe you find yourself in. So are we. Just because we say there is a set of truths beyond humankind's current naturalistic experience and understanding, cannot possibly mean that they don't exist.

Nonetheless, we all ought to join in a quest to spread knowledge around the globe, since if you look at the two major events this On-Faith question was looking at, correct knowledge and non-abuse of power would have led to those events not being calamities. The one, of course, wouldn't have happened, and the other would have been logically predicted and logically prepared for.

John D the First,

Hello.

And do you have references supporting your claims that most Mormons do not work for Mormon affliated businesses/organizations. One assumes however that Mormon businesses are managed and staffed by Mormons?? And also references supporting your claims about the wage differentials? And also please add the cost of living adjustments per state.

And of course there is always the "pwtfft" issue with Moroni!!!! Oops sorry make that the "ptfft" issue with Moroni since as per someone previously noted Moroni has no wings.

JD1:
I really liked your post and thoughtful reasonings. It's a reasonable assumption that both sides start with assumptions. But whereas belief in God belies an a priori assumption, nonbelief does not recreate emptiness in the abscense of physical proofs, as if a deathgrip is being held to the idea that God does not exist. Most honest skeptics would very likely be persuaded, and likely very happy, that God lived, if the evidence pointed decisively in that direction, rather than changing one's whole paradigm to a heavily imposed, indoctrinated, imaginative magical ones in order to explain one's existence. Those who believe in God seem to be more than willing to shift to arrange the facts to fit the belief, not use the facts to lead where it may lead, regardless of the outcome. True skeptics evaluate the "probability" not just "possibility" of God and His influence based on what actually occurs in life, not what one hopes will occur in some afterlife(commonly thought of as faith, as long as it's "true", ie. got a good feeling about it). Also, believing that God is somehow limited to our self-existent reality, undermines the Christian belief in miracles, especially the all out, magical beyond comprehension ones (Noah's flood/ark, garden of eden and the "fall", feeding thousands from 5 fish and a few loaves of bread, transfiguration, burning bushes, the list is endless, really). It also undermines an LDS scriptural concept which specifies that God doesn't take a thought into his head except that it will come to pass, that even the wind, rocks and sea will obey him, which is far, far beyond our "self existent" abilities. In essence, that God himself self limits his influence in order that men may bumble about and inflict terrible pain and suffering on each other, in the name of "testing" and stratification of men to be assigned end worlds in immortality, seems quite a stretch for the reasoned soul, let alone one who imagines what this life is all about. Mormonism, as usual, when examined closely, fails to live up to its own feel good dogma, as it tries to ride the fence of All-Loving-God and Incomprehensible God. Frankly, there is absolutely nothing to support that God cares for us at all, or worse, toys with some, and not others, while many grapple to capitulate to His demands and grovel at His feet as any number of religious leaders will demand for supposed misunderstandings and sins. So be it. If it brings you meaning and comfort, go thy way and sin no more. But don't posit it as "truth" when the rationalist doesn't hold a magical trump card (like a wild card in Uno) like the religionist has, the use of which allows him to play the game without a full deck......

Concerned The Christian,

Hello my friend. How are you doing? I just would like to respond to your claim that the majority of Mormons are motivated by monetary benefit. My reasons for rejecting your claim are:

1. The vast majority of Mormons do not work for church owned enterprises. So they do not get any money from their church affiliation. Most Latter Day Saints, however, donate 10% of their income to the church. In the end, Mormon affiliation works against the finances, rather than in favor of them.

2. Even those who do work for the church, do not make very much money compared to peers who work for non-church subsidized organizations. Professors at church owned schools, for example, make less than professors at other universities.

I know an attorney who, out of desire to help the church, left his job at a law firm to work for the church and took a major cut in his paycheck.

The Dean of the Harvard Business School recently left his lofty position to be president of a small church owned college in Idaho. I doubt he makes more than he made at Harvard. It seems he left a prestigious high paid position at Harvard for a backwoods church owned school out of an altruistic concern to work for something he believed in.

That, I would say, is the motivation for most Latter Day Saints. We believe strongly in the reality of Mormon truth claims. We believe the church blesses people. That is my motivation, and the motivation of most of the Mormons I know.

Best to you!

Jd1

A primary assumption of theism is that a being exists that is significantly above human beings in power, love and knowledge. Granted that God’s perspective is infinitely greater than the human perspective, it should be expected that some of God’s actions would be incomprehensible to human beings. This incomprehensibility of divine action is therefore implied in the premise of theism itself. To reject theism on the basis of incomprehensibility of divine action is only to reject an axiom of theism a priori.

The typical critique of theism on the basis of the existence of suffering goes something like this

1. An all loving, all-powerful God would not allow gratuitous suffering.
2. Gratuitous suffering exists
3. Therefore an all loving, all-powerful God does not exist

On the surface, the conclusion of this argument may seem self evident, but it only seems as much because of the assumption that some suffering is gratuitous. By making this assumption, the theistic assumption of a limited human perspective in contrast to God’s full perspective is rejected. A counter argument can be made by changing the assumption.

1. An all loving, all-powerful God would not allow gratuitous suffering.
2. An all loving, all-powerful God exists.
3. Therefore suffering is not gratuitous.

Suffering can be assumed to have a divine purpose (albeit incomprehensible to humans), just as easily as it can be assumed to be meaningless. It all depends on one’s a priori assumptions.

The problem I see with this traditional Christian theodicy is that it assumes that a God with unlimited, even magical, power uses suffering as a means to a glorious end. If God has unqualified omnipotence, however, God does not have to follow any specific means to reach a desired end; God can reach an end however He wants. He can simply speak an end into existence.

That is why I like a definition of omnipotence that is qualified in the sense that God has all power within the constraints of self-existent reality. By that definition, it is understandable that God would have to work through certain means, i.e. the specific conditions we live in on earth (which includes unequally distributed suffering), to achieve a glorious purpose for each of his children.

Parker,

Still under the influence of Joe Smith and his "pwtfft", Moroni?? A bit gullible are you????

And the second reference was featured in Time Magazine and was based on information given to them by your current or recent "profiteer".

Do you work for a Mormon firm/subsidiary/Mormon Church functionary??

Phouchg,

"Oh I get it now, Jesus Christ suffered and died for our sins so that we could suffer and die from our sins"

In a sense yes. Being "born again" means you die to something. What is that? Sin.

Oh I get it now, Jesus Christ suffered and died for our sins so that we could suffer and die from our sins.

Concerned,
The gullible will look for what they want, and find it. Those seeking truth will look for what they want, and if sincerely seeking, will find it. There are people with much deeper logic skills than those you have cited so confidently.

Huh?,

With respect to "Mormons today are Mormons because of Mormon money". It is very simple to understand. See for example the essay by an ex-LDS member, "THE GREAT MORMON MONEY MACHINE" at http://www.exmormon.org/mormon/mormon392.htm and also:

"KINGDOM COME:
SALT LAKE CITY WAS JUST FOR STARTERS
The Mormons' True Great Trek Has Been To Social Acceptance And A $30 Billion Church Empire" at http://www.lds-mormon.com/time.shtml

And if Romney can "chuck" Moroni, I might even vote for him. Maybe he can use Mormon money to help pay off the national debt.

SML,
I see that I have had a failure to communicate. I was trying to say that I have grown tremendously as a result of both observing my daughter's faith and resilience and having to deal with the realities of her condition--nursing care, medical equipment, feedings and spills--and yes, those things have been more difficult than the problems of raising my other children. Am I happier because of these challenges and watching her, learning from her patience and cheerfulness? Absolutely! Have I grown more than I would have otherwise? Absolutely! Far more. I don't view happiness as "you have it or you don't." I view it as "you have more of it as you grow."

Is that daughter happier than my other children? I would have to say yes, though she's the youngest. Why? Because she has experienced more growth through more challenges. Does that mean they won't "catch up" some day? No! It means we're all growing on different planes.

As to the loveliness of a dog's life, I guess I'm glad most of the time that I have a reasoning mind so that I have more to think about than where my next meal is coming from or whether my "master" will pet me. Shakespeare said it much more profoundly.

On the question of the atonement, I don't know that anyone has said one person's suffering is made more tolerable because they know that Jesus suffered more than they did. The very real question is, Can someone feel their burden (whether the burden of suffering an illness or an addiction or the burden of sorrow for sin) being "lifted" and made lighter as they pray or as others pray for them? I believe that this happens. I have heard people testify that it happens. I have felt it happen, to some degree, in my own life. How can such a thing happen. Some will say it's all mental gymnastics. I say it has to do with eternal laws of balance in the universe, and Christ's propitiation to allow that balance to still occur while at the same time lifting the very real burdens of real people.

Christ also lifts burdens by people like us doing something about the suffering we see around us. So we might as well be up and doing.

As to the Millenium, there will be opposition in many ways at that time, as also in the CK--just in different areas than we are now familiar with. I suppose we might as well get used to it. We just don't know much in our present state. That's why we get to grow, learn, progress. Best to you, SML.

Che ~

You bring up an interesting point. Dogs. My dachsund is so dang cute and happy. He's happy to see me when I wake up in the morning, or when I return home from work, or when I come upstairs from doing laundry downstairs. There is no doubt he's feeling happiness when I see his little tail wagging so fast, and his tongue excitedly licking my chin, and his little body wriggling to get near me so I can give him loves.

How is that possible without opposition in his life?

Then why doesn't He do something about it? God Damn - when I see a piece of litter lying in the street I pick it up. If God sees a little child dying of cancer, what does He do? Comfort her with the idea that Jesus suffered and died through incredible pain and torture? That there is the eternal hope of the resurrection for those who believe?

This all seems kind of weak for an omnipotent God. Maybe I should just preach to the next piece of litter I see, or the next stray dog I find?

Che

Parker ~

Are you suggesting that had your family not had a daughter with the physical problems she suffers, you and your wife would not know happiness? Are you suggesting that because of her suffering, she'll know better happiness and joy than your other children who don't have such problems?

That is what seems strange about this whole concept. I maintain that you would feel just as much love and appreciation and joy toward your children and your life even without said suffering.

Just because Jesus suffered incomprehensible magnitudes of pain in Gethsemane doesn't make sense out of why countless people today suffer. Don't you see? Otterson could have used YOU or anyone else as an example in place of Jesus. I now know you suffered unfathomable misery watching your daughter struggle and suffer...yet that doesn't make sense out of the suffering I or anyone else may be doing. Nor does Jesus' suffering make sense out of my suffering.

In looking at Otterson's suggestion to look at Jesus' suffering when I'm going through my own pain, in order to note that his was worse than mine, is that supposed to truly be an inspiring thing? Am I supposed to find JOY in his suffering? Or in your daughter's? Or in my own? What kind of sick thought is that? The whole concept really is messed up.

Parker ~

I understand the need many have to find a "reason" for the suffering they go through and that their loved ones go through. Religions worldwide have prospered from this human need for many generations.

If suffering/opposition is so vital to experience true appreciation of joy and happiness, why not keep it in the celestial kingdom existence for eternity too? What purpose will the Millenial reign of Jesus serve if there is no pain, suffering, or opposition during it?

I wish you peace as well.

Concerned:

"Mormons today are Mormons because of Mormon money." What? As opposed to when? Being a Mormon is not like living in Alaska... subsidies for simply living there.

I honestly don't understand the bitterness.

God Bless!

Some added thoughts about Mormonism since praises are being sung but reality needs to be practiced:

1. Mormons today are Mormons because of Mormon money.

2. The "pwtfft", Moroni (as with Gabriel in Islam and Christianity) is a significant flaw in the foundation of Mormonism.

Sister Mary Lisa,
I respect the studying you've already done, but if you'll re-read Alma 7 and Isaiah 53 you may sense that Christ's atonement dealt with more than the sins of humanity--it was a comprehensive suffering that included humanity's pains, sicknesses, the torments of the awfulness of abuses and addictions--real pain, anguish and sorrow incomprehensible to us because of its magnitude.

Certainly, this life when viewed as a stand-alone existence appears to be an unjust place, but that would be why Brother Otterson's discussion noted the pre-mortal life as having a bearing on the eternal justice of God. I have a wonderful daughter with a congentital breathing and eating impairment. Do I wish she didn't have it? Most of the time, yes. (Until I remember how much my family has grown and learned because of her--and I still marvel at her cheerful positive outlook and her bounce-back resilience amidst many surgeries.) She is an incredible gift to us.

I've learned from what I've experienced, but also from what I've observed in the lives of my children, siblings, parents, and others. I've not had the intensity of their suffering experiences, but I have had the intensity of my own, so I can relate to a certain extent. Shouldn't I be content with that? I suppose that I am. Peace to you.

" Faced with a child dying of cancer, or innocent lives taken in senseless wars, we can be forgiven for wondering if there isn't a better way. It's at such times we would do well to remember the voluntary sacrifice of Jesus Christ in Gethsemane and on the cross at Golgotha. Having taken on Himself the sins of every person who ever lived, there is nothing – absolutely nothing – He doesn't know about pain and suffering. And the Atonement was not for sins alone, but for "the pains and the sicknesses of his people"

mike dude, cmon, really. if it was true that jesus 'took on' the pains and sicknesses of his people, then there would be no pain and sickness of his people. clearly, that on-take didnt happen. but whatever, if it makes you feel better then keep on believin it. really. keep it up.

as for your suggestion that this life is not the entire existence of the humans that live here, well, that is a fine rationalization and the foundation for many things you recently uploaded to lds.org, including the recent pamphlet given to bishops and stake presidents. the basis of the pamphlet is that this life is less important than the next life so dont feel so bad about being miserable here on earth, or making other people miserable. aint that right mike? isnt that the basis for telling people not to be friends with homosexuals? after all, homosexuals are here to face opposition so why not heap it on by not being their friend?

as for the child and cancer suffering, that is just plain weird. are you implying that god could stop the suffering but he doesnt, cuz the pain is a good thing? yikes. sick. thats some god. he really will **** you up, won't he?

Hi Parker ~

My family is well, thank you.

So you're saying that Jesus suffered, so he'd understand those of us who suffer. However, it seems to me Otterson is using the Atonement (which is what that suffering was) ~ which has to do with SINS being absolved ~ as something to focus on while suffering or watching a loved one suffer. It simply makes no sense to me.

Nor does it make sense that one person be allowed to simply *observe* suffering in order to feel joy, as opposed to the little girl in Somalia who sees her mother get raped and killed and then endure being raped herself, a horror which emotionally and physically scars her for life. Why do you suppose your God allows one person to simply observe suffering yet another has to suffer horribly? Do you REALLY think this is the same thing?

Sister Mary Lisa,
'Hope your family is doing well. Just two points of clarification for now. (1) I suppose you read on through the paragraph including the quote from Alma 7, so you are absolutely right that Christ's suffering for our sins on the cross had exactly nothing to do with the pains of cancer victims, but His suffering in Gethsemane did involve experiencing their pain. He knows the pain your mother felt at such a loss as the death of your brother. (2) Your brother can observe this life. He knows what physical sensations feel like. Could it not be that he can observe the pains and sufferings of his loved ones still on earth, and learn from them by observation? There is more to say, but so little time. Have a good day.

My best also to Huff, who gave a soul-cry out of the depths of his heart, through not being able to understand the balanced universe we live in and the truths that God understands and lives by within that balanced universe.

To Hueffenhardt,

If you were God, where would you draw the line? Would you deny "Flashlight" the joy of his eighth push-up by denying him the pain it took to get there? We simply have to trust God to draw his own line at where he interferes in our affairs. I am confident that at the final day, when I must stand in his presence and review my life, that I will finally understand that he was aware of my every moment and always intervened when it would be for my eternal good.

In fact, God intervenes in every moment of our lives by lending us our every breath. (Mosiah 2:21) http://scriptures.lds.org/en/mosiah/2/21#21

Life makes no sense at all if there is no life after death, nor does our freedom to choose make sense unless we lived before we were born.

I highly recommend Robert Frost's poem, "The Trial by Existence."
http://www.americanpoems.com/poets/robertfrost/12051

The ninth & last stanza sums it up so well!

'Tis of the essence of life here,
Though we choose greatly, still to lack
The lasting memory at all clear,
That life has for us on the wrack
Nothing but what we somehow chose;
Thus are we wholly stripped of pride
In the pain that has but one close,
Bearing it crushed and mystified.

hthalljr'gmail'com

"A world without hardship is thus a world in which there is no choice, where everyone is forced to do good..."

Sounds like the celestial kingdom to me. How can I appreciate or even feel joy there if there is no opposition or pain or suffering there for the rest of eternity?

My brother died of Sudden Infant Death Syndrome at 7 weeks old. He will automatically reach the celestial kingdom after his current service as a missionary in the spirit world, according to the Mormon faith. He never felt sorrow, or pain, or hardship in this life, but he did gain a body. Will his joy still be full if he had no opposition, suffering, or pain to KNOW what real happiness and joy feel like?

And what's up with this??: "Faced with a child dying of cancer, or innocent lives taken in senseless wars, we can be forgiven for wondering if there isn't a better way. It's at such times we would do well to remember the voluntary sacrifice of Jesus Christ in Gethsemane and on the cross at Golgotha. Having taken on Himself the sins of every person..."

The sins of every person have exactly NOTHING to do with a child dying of cancer, or innocent lives taken in senseless wars, or being born in Ethiopia and starving to death after years of suffering hunger and malnutrition. This is so dumb. Jesus dying on the cross for people's sins has nothing whatsoever to do with the person who is dying of horrifically painful fast-growing metastatic melanoma.

I'm shaking my head. Oh, and smiling in Huff's general direction because his comments are so great. :)

I needed to read this today!
Michael Otterson is doing the Mormon Community a great service by explaining their teachings in such a simple and personal way.

Hueffenhardt,

If there is a Singularity, it would then be changing the future something not allowed in the realm of free will and the subset of future as innate human "gifts".

I apologize for the double post. A moderator may remove one of the double posts.

Concerned: Not knowing the future would not prevent a god from stopping an event in real time. Even humans act to stop needless suffering while it is occurring; surely a temporal god could do the same.

If you believe in God or some form of Singularity:

Father Edward Schillebeeckx notes the following in his book, Church: The Human Story of God, Crossroad, 1993, p.91 (softcover):

"Therefore the historical future is not known even to God; otherwise we and our history would be merely a puppet show in which God holds the strings. For God, too, history is an adventure, an open history for and of men and women."

Bottom line: One of God's greatest gifts to us is that of the Future.

Schillebeeckx was responding to the Dutch citizens who were blaming God for the North Sea storms that destroyed a significant number of levees resulting in a significant loss of life and severe storm damage. Sound familiar??

And also in one profound, short paragraph, Schillebeeck vitiates all prophecies ever made and relegates all prophets to include Isaiah, Jesus, Mohammed and Joe Smith to the fortune teller waste pile.

I forgot to add to excuses that are often given to justify god's lack of divine aid. One is so that god will be more justified in sending the bad guy to hell. That was the lame excuse Alma gave to Amulek as to why neither they no god could intervene in saving women and children from being burned to death. I'm sorry, but King Noah had already done plenty to qualify him to hell even before burning those innocents alive. But, more importantly, how sick is it to ignore the anguished cries of your suffering children just so you can more fully punish someone else. I mean, where are your priorities? Why does punishing one dude take precedence over ending the unjust, excrutiating pain of many others?

This naturally flows into the next lame excuse: "Well, their suffering will be for just a small moment and then they will spend forever in eternal bliss". According to Mormon doctrine, there are people who will go to the highest degree of the CK whether or not they have endured horrific suffering. The suffering isn't necessary to gain all that the Father hath. So, if it isn't necessary, there is no reason to go through it, even if it is for a small moment, so why not spare them that? Futhermore, imagine telling that to a child who is being mauled by a pitbull. "The pain you feel is just a small moment compared to your whole life including the eternities, so I am just going to let you continue to be attacked knowing that you will never have to suffer a dog attack in the future. You will be forever grateful that you never have to go through this experience again. And one day you will thank me for not saving you from this dog." That in essence is what some people think god is saying to us. All of us would save the child from the dog. Now, if we, being human, know how to treat someone in need, why the heck can't god who is supposed to be perfect and all-loving intervene when his help is most needed?

Oh, I forgot, he only intervenes on trivial stuff like helping us find our car keys or do well on tests. The heavens are closed when real suffering happens. Someone will cite some seemingly miraculous event in which someone recovered from cancer. The rub is in the capriciousness of it all. Why spare this person and not another? If pain really was this universal great teacher, why does he not love those he heals as much as he loves those he allows to continue to suffer? "The ways of God are mysterious," someone answers. "Bull", I answer back. No divine help has ever been present. Good things and bad things happen. It is just a part of life.

I forgot to add to excuses that are often given to justify god's lack of divine aid. One is so that god will be more justified in sending the bad guy to hell. That was the lame excuse Alma gave to Amulek as to why neither they no god could intervene in saving women and children from being burned to death. I'm sorry, but King Noah had already done plenty to qualify him to hell even before burning those innocents alive. But, more importantly, how sick is it to ignore the anguished cries of your suffering children just so you can more fully punish someone else. I mean, where are your priorities? Why does punishing one dude take precedence over ending the unjust, excrutiating pain of many others?

This naturally flows into the next lame excuse: "Well, their suffering will be for just a small moment and then they will spend forever in eternal bliss". According to Mormon doctrine, there are people who will go to the highest degree of the CK whether or not they have endured horrific suffering. The suffering isn't necessary to gain all that the Father hath. So, if it isn't necessary, there is no reason to go through it, even if it is for a small moment, so why not spare them that? Futhermore, imagine telling that to a child who is being mauled by a pitbull. "The pain you feel is just a small moment compared to your whole life including the eternities, so I am just going to let you continue to be attacked knowing that you will never have to suffer a dog attack in the future. You will be forever grateful that you never have to go through this experience again. And one day you will thank me for not saving you from this dog." That in essence is what some people think god is saying to us. All of us would save the child from the dog. Now, if we, being human, know how to treat someone in need, why the heck can't god who is supposed to be perfect and all-loving intervene when his help is most needed?

Oh, I forgot, he only intervenes on trivial stuff like helping us find our car keys or do well on tests. The heavens are closed when real suffering happens. Someone will cite some seemingly miraculous event in which someone recovered from cancer. The rub is in the capriciousness of it all. Why spare this person and not another? If pain really was this universal great teacher, why does he not love those he heals as much as he loves those he allows to continue to suffer? "The ways of God are mysterious," someone answers. "BS", I answer back. No divine help has ever been present. Good things and bad things happen. It is just a part of life.

Are you happy? Do you feel peace and joy? If so, do you think you could experience even greater happiness if you endured the worst things imaginable? I don't think that you would know greater happiness if you had previously suffered the worst things that can happen during this life.

Do you think that there is pointless suffering? I do. I think some excruciating pain does not teach the sufferer anything, in this life or the next if there is one. I don't think they needed to suffer those things to grow or appreciate happiness more.

If there were an all-loving and omnipotent god, if he had a heart at all he would put an end to such needless suffering. Examples: what did the Philistine children learn when the Israelites brutally killed them as the Hebrew God commanded them to? How could the 3-yr-old benefit from the slow, debilitating death they suffer due to cancer? What does the 9-yr-old girl in Darfur learn by being repeatedly raped by the soldiers that murdered her whole family in front of her eyes? An all-powerful god that allows his innocent children to suffer these things does not give a **** about them. THERE IS NO GREATER PURPOSE THAT CAN JUSTIFY THESE ACTIONS. This will not make sense later in heaven. I refuse to shelve such issues until some god, who in all likelihood does not exist, explains why he allowed these things to happen when he could have stopped them.

I am sure all the theist apologists will try to encourage the shelving of the issue or offer some lame excuse for why a god would permit this, but these feeble attempts strike me as intellectualizing (the ego-defense mechanism people employ to avoid facing the full emotional impact). Imagine watching your child be raped and filleted alive and you standing by doing nothing and rationalizing that it is for her own good, that it will make her a stronger and happier person and prepare her better for whatever. Nonsense. Nothing can make it right. Ever.

I started doing push-ups this year. I've been trying to start for 25 years. Once every six months or so I'd lay down on my stomach for a minute or two before bed. I'd steel myself, ready myself. I'd eventually push myself up for 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 ..., 6 ...., 7 .....

It was too hard for me to do eight push-ups. Too much work. Too sore the next day. Forget it. I'll start tomorrow. Six months later: repeat.

It wasn't until this year that I forced myself to do it for a week straight--every night. This was a first for me. The first couple of nights were hard. Six months later, it's as easy as buying ice cream.

The act of pushing hard, tearing down my muscle fibers and building them back up made me stronger. I had to break down to get stronger.

But perserverance also allowed me to push through the adversity to get to a better state.

The same goes, I think, for life's troubles. We need adversity in our lives to grow. But the adversity ends up being fruitless if we don't push through it and let ourselves become stronger.

So here's to a bitter-sweet mistress: adversity.

To sum it all up.

God is not the type of Father that child services is intended for.

mark