Mostly this is a continuation of what has been said in this post, and this post, and the comments that followed (which were frequently hilarious by the way). If you haven't read them, don't bother with this either.
Nikki first agreed that men invent justifications for war. However, she added that:
If you believe this, how can you believe the Bible? The Bible (especially the Old Testament) is full of stories of an angry, jealous, God of war. The book of Mormon is just as violent. The God described in these books kills and curses children for things their parents or a pharaoh did. He instructs his followers to kill and lie. I don’t understand the contradiction between the loving God and what seems to be his evil twin. If you can explain some of these things in a logical manner, I would greatly appreciate it.Well, I would disagree that the Book of Mormon (BOM) is just as violent. While the ancient Israelites waged genocide under God's supposed orders in the Old Testament (OT), no war is ever endorsed by God in the BOM. In fact, there is only a single instance (that I can think of off the top of my head) of God ordering the death of someone in the BOM. Nephi is ordered by an angel to behead Laban, because Laban refuses to give up the Brass plates (and has repeatedly tried to kill Nephi and his brothers). However, unlike OT instances, Nephi initially refuses to act (1st Nephi, Chapter 4; Verse 10),"Never at any time have I shed the blood of man. And I shrunk and would that I might not slay him." Yet Nephi then comes around to understand that either he kills Laban, or his entire nation (future offspring) will never have the written gospel or a connection to their ancestors. Thus, the BOM does contain a sprinkling of what the OT has large amounts of. Either way, I agree that the Loving/Wrathful God duality deserves an explanation.
So let's switch gears a bit - this should make sense in the end. First I should note that, in respect to Angry God/Loving God, Mormonism is wildly different than mainstream Christianity. I'm incredibly surprised to not see this criticism of Mormonism in the standard anti-Mormon media outlets, but in mainstream Christian terms, Mormonism actually believes in something called universalism. That's the idea that all of humanity is saved by Christ, regardless of their sins here on earth. Many Mormons might disagree with this interpretation, but it's an airtight comparison when comparing apples to apples. You see, whereas most Christians consider being saved as merely going to heaven after death, Mormons generally think of being saved as being synonymous with exaltation - becoming God-like - something that most Christian churches refute the possibility of. We believe that humans can literally become Gods (exaltation), still subordinate to God the Father, but Gods nonetheless (outrageous heresy!!!!!! ;~) )
The best outcome that most Christians can hope for is to go to heaven, wherein they will do nothing more than sing God's praises and generally lounge about in heavenly leisure. And for that privilege, most Christians think they have to do something - do good deeds, not commit any mortal sins, or at least accept Christ as their savior. In the Mormon version of theology, you don't have to do ANYTHING to gain all that - nada, zip, nothing. In fact, you can do pretty much whatever you please. Hitler gets that outcome. Stalin and Mao get that outcome. According to us, they all went to the lowest of three distinct heavens. Sure, for a faithful Mormon that version of heaven is woefully inadequate. That's why so many Mormons subscribe to the idea that "salvation without exaltation is damnation". To an over-achieving Mormon, that's true. But to most others, salvation without exaltation is like winning the lottery every day for the rest of eternity. Boo-hoo! If you were gunning for exaltation, that may be a letdown. If, on the other hand, you spent mortality gunning for your fellow humans, then getting to heaven, minus God's full glory, is a consolation prize for the ages.
This relates quite directly to the concept of Evil God/Loving God, because in Mormon theology, God killing off a few (thousand) people here or there is more of a reward than anything else. In mainstream Christian theology, those who earned it would go to heaven, and everyone else (the vast majority) would go to a hell where they would be eternally tortured by Satan's minions. In our version, everyone has earned heaven simply by virtue of siding with God against Satan in the war in heaven (which most Christians don't believe we were around for). Those who earned it would gain exaltation, and everyone else would get the standard heavenly experience. I should add that, in our version of the afterlife, unlike any other religion's version, God allows those who never had the chance to accept him in mortality to do so after death. Thus, everyone has a fair shot at exaltation, and a pretty much guaranteed shot at salvation. Our version of God is the ultimate 'fair deal' kind of God.
Still not buying the argument that the lowest level of heaven is still pretty nice? Joseph Smith, after having a vision of the lowest of the three levels of heaven, said that it was such a wonderful place that if people knew how wonderful it was, they'd kill themselves to get there. So really, how evil is God if he ends a comparatively miserable experience here on earth, only to immediately reward us with an infinitely better experience - across the board, regardless of history? To me, that's clearly the most loving concept of God there has ever been. We all earned some form of heaven by siding with God against Satan in our premortal existence. Anything more is a 'bonus' so to speak.
Now, if you want me to justify God's wrath in mainstream Christian terms, I can't. I cannot rationalize God cutting off his childrens' mortal lives only to damn them to an everlasting torment. It makes zero sense to me. What does make perfect sense to me is a God who takes care of his children, no matter what. Those that earn the right to take part in the 'family business' get to become God-like. Those who squander their gifts are loved no less and still taken care of extravagantly, but are not invited to take a seat at the family 'board meeting'. So in the end, am I worried if God decides to commit a little genocide? No. If only we could all be so lucky as to be his 'victims'. This life is a test to see if we are worthy of being a God like him. But if we fail, the 'golden parachute' is of a magnitude unlike anything here on earth.
Whether it is curses or killing, the key ingredient to understanding God's supposed wrath is to let go of judging his actions through the lens of this absurdly short mortal life and instead look at the long view. I'll add as a brief endnote that curses are no different than being killed by God. A curse is nothing more than a more forceful reminder to turn back to God in order to gain his blessings. A curse that is heeded and turns someone back to God is actually a blessing in and of itself. God pours out his blessings on anyone who turns to him, regardless of their past (or their curses). The only true curse is the curse that is born without repentance (which literally means "turning back to God"). Having lived my life in both camps, I can say with the utmost sincerity that the greatest curse is simply living without the peace of God. I never really understood what the peace of God even was until I was nearly twenty. Now I recognize that life with it is wonderful, and life without it is comparatively miserable. I curse myself when I choose to live in such a way as to separate myself from God's peace. I invite the blessings of heaven when I turn to God.
There are days when I briefly wish that God will take me early so I can get my reward a bit sooner. Then I think of my kids and I recant.
ReplyDeleteI don't feel sorry for the villagers getting swept away by floods; I feel sorry for the people left alive.
Mom did it right: live a [really] good, busy life and die young.
I sometimes imagine God shaking his head and saying to himself, "Why do these kids make it so hard on themselves?"
That is the weirdest take on the Plan of Salvation I've ever heard.
ReplyDeleteBut I don't disagree.
Remember, this is a test. It is only a test.
I do enjoy turning conventions on their head, without actually breaking them.
ReplyDeleteI think turning genocide, and murder in general, into victimless crimes has the potential to open a Pandora's box of problems. Theologically it does make one wonder why God "rewards" the disobedient. Lot's wife is turned to salt when she looks back, but Lot does as he's told and suffers on.
ReplyDeleteIt also would seem to flip the traditional take on the Old Testament/New Testament God differences. Now the Old Testament God is the merciful one, graciously gifting death and destruction.
But I'm fine with that. Having new reasons to feel good about life is not a bad thing, so if we should all be happy when we hear news of some natural disaster killing thousands of lucky people somewhere, then I can't complain. I may even find a way to wish God would blow Yellowstone next.
The real problem stems from the fact that God does not always commit his genocides personally. Sometimes he does it through people, and when he commands them to do this it seems he does not typically come down and have an audience with the whole group, but rather speaks to one person in private. You can't argue with a tsunami, but people are hard to trust.
Whoa there Nelly! I'm not advocating changing our perspective of murder and genocide as an evil thing. While killing another person for personal gain may not get you kicked out of heaven, it IS an automatic disqualifier for Godhood. Murder is the ultimate infringement on free will; infringing on free will being the same (attempted) crime that got Satan cast into hell. It is one of two unforgivable sins - the other being Satan's committed sin - rebellion against God with a true understanding of God and your own actions.
ReplyDeleteNow if GOD wants to kill some people off, that's his prerogative. He has the ability to offer just compensation and due consideration come judgment time in light of an early mortal departure. We don't have that capability, and thus, no right to kill others.
As you pointed out, we as a society can't tell the difference between divinely inspired killing and the more mundane versions of murder. Thus, the only tenable solution is to treat every murder or genocide as an act due to Satan's will and not God's. If God wants to pull his servant(s) out of the the proverbial fire of humanly justice then he can do that too.
I also wouldn't be quick to dismiss the notion of the NT God as the more benevolent one. Jesus brought the higher law, and opened the doors of both resurrection and repentance. Those actions gave much deeper meaning to our mortal trial. God has since given us progressively more useful tools in becoming more like him (Bible, Book of Mormon, Doctrine & Covenants, etc.). While he hasn't made life easier, he has made it easier for us to achieve our purposes in coming here.
Death (and heaven) is not objectively better than mortal life. It is merely objectively EASIER. Mortal life is still one of the critical periods of our eternal existence as progressing souls. Earth is a training ground, and the more training we get here, the better off we are. But yes, getting dismissed early from class is always easier than having to finish your exam.
The question then becomes, who is the "nicer" teacher? Is it the one who is personally loving, dilligently teaches you and gives you educational tools to succeed, but is demanding come test time? Or is it the teacher who is cold and distant in class, but lets you out early on test day? I'd personally choose the teacher who answers my questions, teaches me well, but ultimately demands better performance come exam time. That's the NT God.
I understand that murder is still a bad thing, but as I understand it that's because doing it breaks a commandment, not because it's bad for the person losing their life. I.e. it's a victimless crime but it's still a crime because God says it is. The person who is killed gets the same reward regardless of whether God sanctioned the killing or not.
ReplyDeleteIt does make me wonder why murder is unforgivable, but something less lethal like rape is. It seems more cruel to do someone harm then leave them alive to live with the consequences rather than having the courtesy of sending them on to their maker
Murder is unforgivable, but not rape, because it is a greater infringement on the person's potential (free will). It is patently impossible to recover from being murdered. It is possible, however difficult, to recover from being raped. In fact, depending on the culture, rape can (unfortunately) become just one of those things that you put up with in life. Dead is dead, independent of culture.
ReplyDeleteIn terms of the cruelty inflicted, I agree with you completely that rape is worse. But at least you have options once the act is complete. In terms of this life, you have no options once you've been murdered. Your capacity to make a difference in the world, for better or worse, has ended.
A lot of theology revolves around the idea of free will. Usually it comes up in terms of debating whether or not it really exists. Assuming it does, nearly all religions place a heavy emphasis on the appropriate use of it. Most religions also see the removal of another's free will, by whatever means, as a sin of great consequence.
I enjoy reading your blogs it makes for interesting conversations especially ones regarding religion. I generally try not to get involved in religious debates. I believe however if you were to tell a good living Christian woman like my mom that after she dies she will be hanging out with Hitler you just might see her wrath ;-)
ReplyDeleteDon't worry Tonya, according to Mormon theology, a good living woman such as your Mom would make it at least to the terresrial kingdom (middle level of heaven) if not the celestial kingdom (highest level of heaven).
ReplyDeleteWe don't believe at all that not being Mormon means you get stuck with the murderers and rapists.