Stoicism and Pantheism

[chewmen]

Good day my fellows, I was just wanting to discuss the idea of Stoicism, and maybe touch on Pantheism. Personally, I feel as though Stoic theology has many penetrating truths which describe God very well, (although full on Stoic thought is ludicrous in its materialism)... I think the idea of doing something not for our own desires... is a very deep truth.

As is such with the true concept of Charity; the Savior's true love is an act of Stoicism. It's different from human, fallen love because Christ had no benefit in helping us. Absolutely none. We're all unprofitable servants, and we're all bad investments. When we aid the homeless or feed the hungry, a part of it may be stoic at least for some people; but far too many people are saying "I'm gonna pay tithing because then I'll have some extra blessings" or "I'm going to feed this hungry guy because I know that my good deeds will come back to me later... in the form of wonderful new blessings!".

I'm sorry, but I find that so wrong. The reason we follow God is not because He will bless us if we do. Heck, the Devil can bless us with all kinds of temporal things. The reasoning for following God is simply an act of agency. A choice to love God. We do His will because we Love Him! We want to do what He says because He's breathtaking! We want to love Him because of everything He has done for us! I don't care how much we suffer on this earth, God organized us out of chaos. We as spirits had nothing before Him. (We may have even been in a state of eternal pain and death). He chose to Love us! And create a Plan for us to become His children. AND to inherit everything that He has; which is Everything!

Sorry, I always tirade on matters such as this. But yeah. So my question is, what place does stoicism have in the church, and why do the higher reasons of motivation often go ignored or glued over in doctrinal teaching?

Oh and for as my thoughts on Pantheism... I have a firm belief that Joseph Smith was right when he elaborated that even God has to obey the laws of the Universe. However I also believe that because He is perfect; and does. That he is One with the Universe. That is, God is not above Mercy, Love, or Justice. They were not His creation. With these tools God created order and is bringing to pass the Eternal life and Immortality of us. But because He is in perfect unison with the Universe, God is love, he is mercy, and he is justice. I'm not sure about all the details of Pantheism, but I want to know why there is such a strong opposition to it both in the New Testament times and in Modern days?

This mostly stems from the poem St. Kevin and the blackbird posted earlier. Also, I checked it out in the Bible Dictionary:

BIBLE DICTIONARY

Stoics

A school of philosophers, founded by Zeno, about 300 B.C. They taught that the practice of virtue was the first duty of man, and that the only real things are those which the bodily senses can perceive. They were therefore what we should call materialists. So far as religious belief was concerned they were pantheists, holding that all things come from God and will be at last absorbed into him again. They were also fatalists, holding that the universe is governed by absolutely fixed laws, and that the private needs of individuals are of no concern to Providence. The way for the individual to be happy was to bring himself into harmony with the course of the universe. Suicide was held to be always lawful, and at times a duty. The Stoic tried to be proudly independent of externals, and to bear evils with indifference. There was much that was noble about their teaching, and stoicism represents a high form of religious belief attained to by man’s unaided efforts. For Paul’s encounter with the Stoics see Acts 17: 18.

What are your thoughts guys and gals?

[pam]

but far too many people are saying "I'm gonna pay tithing because then I'll have some extra blessings" or "I'm going to feed this hungry guy because I know that my good deeds will come back to me later... in the form of wonderful new blessings!".

I understand what you are saying. It's all about attitude. If you have the attitude that you are doing it ONLY for the blessings then you've lost the meaning of what tithing and doing good deeds is all about. It's all about sacrifice. It's about giving back. If in some way you received great blessings from those sacrifices it's a bonus.

[Justice]

Pam, I would even say to those who feel it's a sacrifice that they haven't grasped it yet.

If one thinks it's a sacrifice try not doing it and think about what you're giving up then.

I think answers are often found in studying the opposite.

[pam]

Justice, I would agree with you. For those that pay tithing for example because they are told they HAVE to...they are ones I think don't have the grasp of the spirit behind tithing. Those on the otherhand..even paying tithing with that in thought in mind could lead someone to gain a true testimony of the why specifically they are paying it. That could be one of the blessings they receive. Doesn't always mean monetary blessings.

Could work both ways.

Edited May 29, 2009 by pam

[foreverafter]

As is such with the true concept of Charity; the Savior's true love is an act of Stoicism. It's different from human, fallen love because Christ had no benefit in helping us. Absolutely none. We're all unprofitable servants, and we're all bad investments. When we aid the homeless or feed the hungry, a part of it may be stoic at least for some people; but far too many people are saying "I'm gonna pay tithing because then I'll have some extra blessings" or "I'm going to feed this hungry guy because I know that my good deeds will come back to me later... in the form of wonderful new blessings!".

I believe Christ did get a huge reward for his suffering, he got to save all of his brothers & sisters. And more than half of them to the Cel. Kingdom (when you count all the children throughout history who have died in childhood) The rest he will get to have there in other kingdoms. He bought us by his blood & sacrifice. His suffering satisfied the demands of justice & now He owns us & he will be happier in heaven with all of us there with him then he would have been alone. Because when someone has a True Love for someone, as he does for us, then they need the other person/people with them to really be totally happy. This same principle can be used by parents & spouses who want to sacrifice & save their errant children & spouses because we will only be happy in heaven if they are with us. True Love saves.

When we can learn the highest law which is loving our enemies, then we begin to understand what kind of love Christ has for us. When we innocently suffer for the sins of others & still love & serve them anyway & stay committed to them & put their needs 1st before our own & save them, than this is the True Love of Christ. Family life is the best place to develop this Charity. Parents & Spouses get to practice this daily with their errant children & spouses. Oftentimes there is no reward in site, often only great pain in such trials, but they unselfishly put the other's welfare before their own. Then after the trial of their faith, Heavenly Father does in fact let them know that such unselfishness & sacrifice can in fact save their errant spouse & children someday so to be with them through all eternity in the Celestial Kingdom. If there wasn't such a reward to loving our enemies or errant children & spouses then I don't think a soul on earth would ever do it.

Edited May 29, 2009 by foreverafter

[chewmen]

I believe Christ did get a huge reward for his suffering, he got to save all of his brothers & sisters.

In my opinion, we have to be careful in saying reward; and to whom. Especially now that the nature of the Godhead is much clearer and much better understood. More or less what I'm saying is that Christ's "reward" so to speak was not that He got to save them (and therefore reap all the credit) but rather that his brothers and sisters were now able to be Saved, period. His true reward came in Glorifying the Father, by doing what was done first by the Father, by Loving.

If there wasn't such a reward to loving our enemies or errant children & spouses then I don't think a soul on earth would ever do it.

Moses 1:39 states that our human progression and eventual deification *is* His glory. Without His Love for us, God has no Glory. We are entirety of the manifestation of His Glory.

What I understand you to be arguing is that without a reason to Love, nobody would do it.

If the Truest form of love (that of God's) is concerned simply with increasing His own infinite Glory, why should he let us choose? But even still, God allows free choice despite the fact that He will lose many souls. And if agency is merely a requirement of the Universe for growth, why wouldn't God just make sure it was really easy to choose the right thing?

There must needs be opposition in all things. The Lord said this. Why must there needs be? Because God wants us to be all that we can become. God's Glory is that He wants us to be just like Him. He wants everyone to have His glory. He wants everyone to be all that they can become. And the only way they can become like Him--is to choose it themselves. Just like God never commanded Jesus to die for us. Jesus chose to.

Of course this is all how I understand things to the best of my ability so far. If I could say that at 18 I came even 1 shred of the masterpiece of the Universe's truth it would be justice for me to be struck down... I hope what I did say makes sense though.

Edited May 29, 2009 by chewmen

[pam]

More or less what I'm saying is that Christ's "reward" so to speak was not that He got to save them (and therefore reap all the credit)

But didn't Christ give all credit to the Father? He took none himself. That could be misinterpreted as well. Yes we give him credit for the Sacrifice for us that HE made but as far as Christ is concerned it all went to the Father.

[Moksha]

It would be interesting to see a Stoic society in action. What actions would they take or not take to address society's ills?

[chewmen]

But didn't Christ give all credit to the Father? He took none himself. That could be misinterpreted as well. Yes we give him credit for the Sacrifice for us that HE made but as far as Christ is concerned it all went to the Father.

I agree, and that's what I'm trying to say, His reward was not that He saved them, but merely that they were Saved. Glory went to the Father.

[pam]

Gotcha...I know it's difficult to get a point across in a forum such as this. I could just see how someone would take

and therefore reap all the credit)

the wrong way.

[chewmen]

Yeah... I meant that's not what he was trying to do, sorry about the confusion. :$

[Traveler]

It would be interesting to see a Stoic society in action. What actions would they take or not take to address society's ills?

One of the problems with a stoic is that the universe we currently live in is a fallen universe subject to the fall. One of the great miscues of religious thought is not understanding the fall. Our universe is a temporary or temporal universe. The payoff to G-d is the immortality and eternal life of man. Something contrary to the very universe in which we live.

Another thought concerns what many call “sacrifice”. I believe this is mostly because the law and covenant of sacrifice is greatly misunderstood. Sacrifice does not mean to give up or do without – the root of the word and concept means to make sacred. Once we understand the “sacrifice” of Christ we can understand what is meant by also becoming sacred or sanctified ourselves. The root meaning of a saint is someone that is sanctified.

The Traveler

[foreverafter]

what I'm trying to say, His reward was not that He saved them, but merely that they were Saved. Glory went to the Father.

Cleon Skousen also explains in his talk on the Atonement how because of Christ's willingness to suffer for us he earned the right to be able to ask for anything he wanted, which was us. And yes, even after earning the right to save us, he gave all the glory to his Father.