Wouldn't it be easier just to tell us?

[AmyJ]

The older I get, the more I think that a lot gets lost in translation.

We say the end goal is "to be like God" - but what we have is a collection of narratives that usually wind up feeling vague, contradictory, confusion between what is literal, figurative, or metaphorical and incomplete if you are looking for a vision of God that is more incongruous if you are looking for an example that is not not the default white male father figure(s). Disclaimer - after much thought, other narratives are more inclusive in the sense that other genders can be divine and race may or may not actually be part of the story.


We say there are specific ways to "be like God" - but the main uniting theme among the various ways involves a) thinking of other people, and b) usually not killing/hurting others - except when it doesn't.

After dealing with a tween emerging into a teen for many months now, I feel that I can make a figurative case that humanity is in teenage phase of becoming divine - complete with the overthinking, extreme angst, incomplete information, and focus on what isn't necessarily important. The good news is that we have enough experience under our collective belt to begin to ask questions and to grow - and that it is extremely likely we will get through it eventually. Personally, I am beginning to think that there is probably some godly eye-rolling going on and that in the next life (if there is one), we will have more information, resources, and hopefully better judgement.

[SilentDawning]

I was having this discussion with an individual recently. It was being theorized that the priesthood ban was started by God to reduce the amount of persecution that the church would face from a racist society.

I agree with your comments on this Roy -- the priesthood ban has actually caused more "persecution" of us as a religion because we practiced the priesthood ban. We would have been better off in the long run if we had extended the priesthood to all races from the very beginning.

No one is willing to forget the priesthood ban, and no amount of inclusion of all races in receiving the priesthood will reverse that dark period of our history, and the stigma it attaches to us (like plural marriage as you mentioned).

[NoahVail]

I was having this discussion with an individual recently. It was being theorized that the priesthood ban was started by God to reduce the amount of persecution that the church would face from a racist society.

I agree with your comments on this Roy -- the priesthood ban has actually caused more "persecution" of us as a religion because we practiced the priesthood ban. We would have been better off in the long run if we had extended the priesthood to all races from the very beginning.

I agree.

I introduced this issue this to my sister (who doesn't know much about the Church) and I shared that I am unhappy with this bit of my Church history. I shared that a general authority gave a Q&A on this at a stake meeting. He explained that we don't know why the Lord imposed this and we don't know why the Lord lifted it. I (uncharacteristically) found that I accept that. That doesn't alleviate my concern, however. It is still not okay with me.

When Dead Me appears before the Lord, my first words are "I need you to explain this".
(clarification: not demand, not owed - it is something I need. perhaps it is weakness, idk).

I was using this conflict to illustrate a couple of points I was making. One was that when I join or adopt something, it's history is mine. To believe otherwise is dishonorable and enables future bad behavior, in my experience.

The other is a lately learned lesson; it's okay for beliefs to conflict. The idea that "having conflicting beliefs equals hypocrisy" is bogus. I learned that conflicting beliefs likely indicates an incomplete understanding. In a church setting I'd use the "Flaws mean Joseph Smith can't be a prophet" thing as an example. It's used to force a "Discussion ends now; you must choose against" scenario.

A wiser choice is to accept reasonable evidence (pos or neg) as likely fact and then further consider the implications.

In this case it lead me to consider other OT prophets. I realized they were all deeply flawed people. Noah was a drunk. Jonah seemed to be a coward. I don't know what Isaiah was. But with all of them, when the mantle of God was put upon them they became greater than they were and did miraculous things. When the mantle was taken, many flailed around, trying to rediscover their purpose. All this indicates that the testimony was never about the people but the mantle.

Accepting hypocrisy as a respectable concept would have killed that line of thought in the cradle - which was likely the intent.

Regarding blacks being denied the priesthood, I am very unhappy with it and I accept it and that's it. I can not excuse it because I do not know why it happened. Along with the Church's clarification that "The Lord ordered this. We don't know why", I would prefer "It sucks" be added. I don't think I'm going to get that.

As a Church member, my position is: "God better have a %!#* good reason because this costs us more by the day".
That feels reasonable to me.

[NoahVail]

As a Church member, my position is: "God better have a %!#* good reason because this costs us more by the day".

It occurs to me that this is a selfish position because it totally ignores that the meaningful burden was never born by me but by black Church members.

[Cadence]

Why would we want to worship a god who hides and lets us suffer. Makes no sense


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Roy]

As a Church member, my position is: "God better have a %!#* good reason because this costs us more by the day".

It occurs to me that this is a selfish position because it totally ignores that the meaningful burden was never born by me but by black Church members.

Yes, there is something to be said for our ability to accept justifications for excluding other people that we would be less likely to accept for ourselves. I see this tendency in myself also.

[DarkJedi]

Why would we want to worship a god who hides and lets is suffer. Makes no sense

Maybe God does expect us to worship. Maybe instead of the "sovereign God" who sees us as servants and expects worship, God really is the loving parent God LDS theology alludes to (Givens's God who weeps)? What if God can't prevent our suffering because it's part of the plan and God is limited in the ability to interact because of covenants and laws God must obey? What if God "hides" because there is no other option?

[NoahVail]

Why would we want to worship a god who hides and lets is suffer. Makes no sense

I used to hide and let my kids suffer.

My first used to run off into the woods by the playground. If it was packed, he could conceivably stage a getaway that I wouldn't see. One day I let him take off and I trailed him out of sight. Eventually he couldn't see his way back & freaked out. I let that go on for less than a minute then staged my rescue. He and I cooperated better after that.

I really don't want to be worshiped, however.

[SilentDawning]

"What would be the point of agency if there’s already a pre-built path we need to follow? What learning would there be?"

I don't think providing a pre-built path would sap our agency. We still have the ability to choose it if we want. It's when we are FORCED to do something that we lose agency.

If I can draw an analogy, I was diagnosed as pre-diabetic a while ago. The path to healing is losing weight, changing my diet and exercising. That is a clear path. I can choose it or not -- having the path revealed to me is not hurting my agency in any way. In fact, I think it helps me direct my agency in ways that are helpful to my overall health. The same seems to apply to the path to eternal life.

Maybe God can’t tell us a clear standard because there isn’t one.

I can go along with that.

[Cadence]

Why would we want to worship a god who hides and lets is suffer. Makes no sense

Maybe God does expect us to worship. Maybe instead of the "sovereign God" who sees us as servants and expects worship, God really is the loving parent God LDS theology alludes to (Givens's God who weeps)? What if God can't prevent our suffering because it's part of the plan and God is limited in the ability to interact because of covenants and laws God must obey? What if God "hides" because there is no other option?

I am fine with a God who cant interact, but that is a one way street. If the theology says you must do this and that but God really cant assist or even tell you you are doing OK, that is a lopsided relationship.

I just can not keep checking the boxes with no feedback. It has worn me out.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk