Comments on: God’s Ways Are Not Our Ways

By: Seth R.

Seth R. — Sun, 27 Apr 2008 01:28:48 +0000

To me the Old Testament is about a loving God in the process of damage control over an impossibly messed-up situation.

By: Eric Russell

Eric Russell — Sat, 26 Apr 2008 23:54:45 +0000

Forget Nephi, reading the Old Testament, it seems to me that if even 5% of those stories are true, god is either mad, evil or both. And it doesn’t all go away in the New Testament either. And the evils of the world, past and present, demonstrate a god who is either malicious or apathetic, neither of which are attributes that constitute “good.”

It seems to me that the combined history of the world and our understanding of god’s interaction of the world forces us to throw up our hands and trust that he has a good reason for all he does or to conclude that he does not exist at all.

Strangely, I tend to think it’s meant to be that way.

By: Seth R.

Seth R. — Sat, 26 Apr 2008 21:42:26 +0000

“In any case, I find the rationale deeply troubling. Murder is justified when it’s for the end goal of bringing about scripture? Would we be okay with it Joseph Smith had been required to kill someone to get the Book of Mormon?”

Umm… yeah.

I mean… do you take this religion thing seriously or don’t you?

By: Glenn

Glenn — Sat, 26 Apr 2008 18:36:04 +0000

No good answers for the brass plates — just another one of those faith things. Besides, I’m pretty sure the Nephites only believed in the brass plates as far as they were translated correctly (which means through a liberal, feminist lense).

By: Lynnette

Lynnette — Sat, 26 Apr 2008 15:53:55 +0000

I’m not sure why the Nephi beheading thing is such a big deal.

It seems to me that it was a big deal to Nephi. He was clearly conflicted about doing it. And maybe I’m just reading my own angst into the text here, but I’m struck by the fact that he spends so many verses giving the details of the situation and his own thoughts.

In any case, I find the rationale deeply troubling. Murder is justified when it’s for the end goal of bringing about scripture? Would we be okay with it Joseph Smith had been required to kill someone to get the Book of Mormon?

Glenn, I’ve wondered too about why the brass plates in particular were so crucial. It seems to me that our belief in an open canon and continuing revelation makes us less tied to the necessity of any one particular text. Couldn’t Lehi, a prophet acquainted with the law, have written his own account of it? And with regards to the language issue, why wouldn’t the record kept by Nephi and those after him serve the same purpose?

By: Glenn

Glenn — Sat, 26 Apr 2008 08:50:38 +0000

why couldn’t God just do him in with a heart attack?

Why did they even need the brass plates in the first place? Why couldn’t God have just given another revelation to Nephi that was a duplicate of the brass plates? If he can give the Book of Moses to JS without any actual ancient text, why not do the same for Nephi?

(and please don’t anyone say ‘language’ — not if you believe what supposedly happened with the Tower of Babel).

By: Kiskilili

Kiskilili — Sat, 26 Apr 2008 01:02:19 +0000

I think 1 Nephi 4 poses serious problems, and if Nephi is morally admirable for not wishing to commit murder, I’m not sure why he’s also admirable for committing it anyway. There’s a Hasidic saying that sin is anything you can’t do wholeheartedly. I like this idea, and I find it problematic that the Spirit asks Nephi to suppress his conscience. But perhaps there’s little role for conscience in Mormonism, and Mormons talk about it rarely. In any event, at the very least it seems ironic that Nephi has to commit murder because it’s so important for him to have a document that says “thou shalt not murder.” If God could get Laban drunk to set the stage for his knocking off, why couldn’t God just do him in with a heart attack?

By: Seraphine

Seraphine — Fri, 25 Apr 2008 02:01:21 +0000

Jacob J, thanks, and I mostly agree.

Seth, ECS and Eve have already answered you much more eloquently (and snarkily) than I could hope to. I leave you in their capable hands.

By: Seraphine

Seraphine — Fri, 25 Apr 2008 01:59:17 +0000

jessawhy and Glenn, I agree that when you start talking about God/prophets saying things that go against one’s sense of morality, one of the things called into question (especially if you’re hearing things through the spirit) is whether or not something is actually coming from God or from your brain (or, if it’s coming from the prophet, if it’s coming from his mortal understanding). It certainly complicates things.

Mark IV, I hope that if I ever start getting revelations like that too that it means it’s time for some professional help.

By: Seraphine

Seraphine — Fri, 25 Apr 2008 01:51:54 +0000

Lynnette, thanks for this comment:

And I think I need a line, a deal-breaker, in thinking about God’s goodness. Because it seems to me that if there isn’t one, the assertion that God is “good” becomes meaningless. In other words, if anything that God might decide to do is, by definition, good, then the assertion that God is good is an empty statement–it tells us nothing about his character, and gives us no reason to trust him.

I think our teachings that God is good because he is loving, has our best interests at heart, etc. (and that we should emulate those qualities in him) is significant. We define God in a specific way in order to engender the same kind of behavior in ourselves (to try and be more like him), and if everything is up for grabs, this would become quite difficult.

m&m, I get the whole “process of discovery” thing (I think that’s what life is about). But I don’t think having lines or deal-breakers (as long as you’re willing to examine and question them) is a problem. I guess I don’t see the clear contradiction you seem to be seeing between “deal-breakers” and progress/discovery.