Concepts that we struggle to discuss because of other religions

[spamlds]

As a missionary in France, there was always a barrier to teaching the amazing uniqueness of the First Vision because of the vision of Saint Bernadette in Lourdes.  If you're not familiar with the history, a shepherd girl named Bernadette claimed to have received a series of visitations from the Virgin Mary in 1858.  You can read the details here:

 

http://www.medjugorjeusa.org/lourdes.htm

 

Every French Catholic knew of the story and, when they were taught the First Vision, they immediately compared it to the apparitions at Lourdes.  I don't discount that Bernadette could have seen Mary (I try to keep an open mind), but the nature of the messages delivered by this apparition, compared to something like Section 88 of the D&C, are fairly insubstantial.  To the French, you either believed it or you didn't.  There was no consideration of asking God for a witness of it.  French atheists ridiculed all revelation because of it. 

 

To me, the body of revelation that Joseph Smith received is consequential.  That's why it receives so much opposition.  You don't see evangelicals forming anti-Bernadette ministries (although some are fairly anti-Catholic) and you don't see them protesting out in front of Edgar Cayce's Association for Research and Enlightenment in Virginia Beach like they do at our General Conference sessions.

 

Related to the topic, when other religions discuss "revelation" as a term, they are either critical, hostile, or dismissive because the term has been watered down because of what other denominations have done with it.

[The Folk Prophet]

French atheists ridiculed all revelation because of it. 

 

To be fair, could you expect any other response from any other athiests, French or not, maiden vision or not?

[MrShorty]

Resurrecting my own thread to add this little anecdote, attributed to Robert L. Millet:

This kind of doctrinal dialectic continued well into the twentieth century. Let me illustrate with a personal example. Just before leaving for a mission, I found myself reading and thinking about the gospel with a bit of trepidation. After spending several days browsing through some of the great doctrinal chapters in the Book of Mormon, I approached my father with a question. (I need to add at this point that my father had grown up in Louisiana as a member of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, taught seminary to the youth for many years, and knew the principles and doctrines of the gospel well.) I asked, “Dad, what does it mean to be saved by grace?” He stared at me for a moment and then said firmly, “We don’t believe in that!” I responded with, “We don’t believe in it? Why not?” He promptly added, “Because the Baptists do!” -- -Robert L. Millet, “Joseph Smith’s Christology: After Two hundred Years” in The Worlds of Joseph Smith, ed. John Welch, p. 233. quoted here http://www.patheos.com/blogs/benjaminthescribe/2015/08/necessary-background-on-grace-faith-works-law-justification-for-the-coming-lds-gospel-doctrine-discussions/

Of course, something said by Brother Millet's father when Br. Millet was getting ready to serve a mission was obviously some time ago (a generation or two ago), so it may not exactly reflect our current attitudes, but I'm not sure it is completely gone from our LDS culture.

[Vort]

John 9:2 is a great question, but in John 9:3 Jesus immediately states rather clearly that neither this man nor his parents sinned, and that his blindness happened so that the works of God might be displayed in him.

 

 

Vort, you give a perfect example of the point of our last few posts--that traditional Christians do not think in LDS terms.  We have no concept of premortal existence, and so whatever explanation we have for what the disciples meant is not going to include that idea. [....] It is a common belief throughout the world, in many cultures and religions, that sickness/disease/handicap are the result of sin, or karma.  Could the disciples have been wondering if the blind man was being punished for sins he would commit?  Could it be that they refer to his inherent sin nature (the one we all have--Romans 3:23)?  [...]  The question you pose seems to us a curious cultural question, rather than one that would lead to the establishment of foundational doctrine.

 

This resurrected thread reminds me that I never answered these two responses. I guess they don't really need answers, because the conversation stands on its own.But PV, at least, seems perhaps not to have understood what I was asking. (PC seems to have understood it, and just pointed out that other Christians would generally never even think to question the story, because the idea of premortal life is foreign to them.) To reiterate what I wrote earlier:

 

"Unless you believe in a God who steps backward in time to punish you for evil actions you haven't yet committed, this question makes no sense unless you grant a conscious premortal existence of some sort, wherein the man might have sinned."

 

No Christian that I have met believes in a God that punishes in anticipation. The very idea seems somehow deeply anti-Christian. So my point remains: The question itself makes no sense unless you presuppose a premortal existence. Why else would the Lord's disciples ever even have asked such a bizarre question? I mean, if you discount any concept of premortal life, the question is frankly stupid at its root, like asking, "Was this dog born without legs because it bit someone?"

[prisonchaplain]

The use of an absurd question as a rhetorical device is not unusual.  "Why is every American in debt for $50,000 each?  Especially--why are those under 20 in such debt (divide the national debt per capita)?  Is it their sins, or those of their parents and grandparents?"  The speaker knows--as does the audience--that those under 20 cannot vote, and did not have a voice in the accumulation of our national debt.  S/he's creating an either/or dilemma, and forcing an obvious answer.

 

Jesus asks if it was this man's sin (obviously not--he was born blind), or that of his parents.  So...was it his parents?  The Pharisees think so.  Was it?  Really?  What if, instead, it was so I could be glorified?  Doubt me?  Watch this!  ... and, of course, Jesus heals him.

 

I grant that Vort's question is clever.  If I was predisposed to believe in pre-mortal existence, I might find affirmation in Jesus' question.  However, much like the baptism of Jesus does not convince Jehovah's Witnesses of the Trinity, so this account would not drive a traditional Christian to belief in pre-creation existence.

[Vort]

I grant that Vort's question is clever.  If I was predisposed to believe in pre-mortal existence, I might find affirmation in Jesus' question.  However, much like the baptism of Jesus does not convince Jehovah's Witnesses of the Trinity, so this account would not drive a traditional Christian to belief in pre-creation existence.

 

I wasn't trying to be clever, and I doubt anyone would suddenly embrace a belief in premortality based on this scripture alone. I do find it interesting how one simple and seemingly minor belief can change one's entire understanding of a situation, though.

[prisonchaplain]

I wasn't trying to be clever, and I doubt anyone would suddenly embrace a belief in premortality based on this scripture alone. I do find it interesting how one simple and seemingly minor belief can change one's entire understanding of a situation, though.

 

I usually reach an apex of cleverness when I least intend to do so. 

[Traveler]

I think Vort's question is beyond cleaver - just as the question given to Jesus.  The answer Jesus gives - at first brush - would seem to be specific to just that one particular case.  To any religious person with an IQ above room temperature - there has always been a question of lives fortunes and why the distribution of blessings are not justly distributed.  If G-d is in control the preponderance of empirical evidence is that G-d is not just and this life is the gorilla in the living room that proves beyond any reasonable consideration that G-d is not just with man and very much more so with innocent children - think the harvesting of vital parts from living children still alive by Planned Parenthood. 

 

The interpretation of this by many religious is to me outlandishly offensive toward G-d.  That is the idea that G-d deliberately created blindness and caused someone to so suffer for most of their life just so that on a whim Jesus could heal the person and brag about his particular divine appointment and commission.  Really???  Is man just a play toy for G-d to play grand with?

 

Obviously my religious prejudice is showing here - it almost angers me that many define G-d's mercy as a whim process that G-d grants just to those that fain believe in him - like a spoiled child that demands games be played by their rules that amounts entirely to rewarding friends and punishing perceived enemies and that predicate any "just" rules or consistent consequences.

 

I firmly believe that there is far more at play in this question and that most would ignore the obvious - and because of the vast opposition to intelligent thinking many - even in the LDS community - turn the concepts of justice and mercy on their head.  I am LDS because within LDS doctrine is the only mitigation that actually can make sense. 

 

The first point is that all that have human experience on this earth so chose the experience knowing fully the injustice to which we all would be subjected and some more than others.  The notion that G-d forces injustice in any degree on anyone - especially the innocent is nothing but demonic to its core.  The only other and in any way possible reasonable option is that we intelligently chose this mortal option.

 

The second point is that G-d gives mercy to all that come experience a mortal existence - not just some that call themselves Christian - To everybody.  For as in Adam all die so shall all be made "alive" by Christ and his mercy granted to all.

 

There is one more point and I believe this to be even more important that the other two.  That is we also can buy into G-d - both his mercy and his justice - we can invest in him and become one with him and like him.  We can become a giver of mercy and justice a G-d that grants mercy to all - not just our "Christian" or believing friends.   We can give and not just take.  It is not the taking of G-d's grace that makes us saints and eventually G-ds it is the giving of G-d's G-dly grace that transforms us and makes us like him.

 

The blind man was healed of his blindness as we all are eventually healed of blindness that we may experience good and know good from evil with the option to chose ourselves to be good just as G-d and Jesus are good.

Edited August 25, 2015 by Traveler

[hagoth]

...I think my desired discussion point is -- what are the concepts that you see us as LDS having trouble discussing out of fear of sounding too "Protestant" or too "Catholic" or otherwise too "ecumenical"? How do we really learn to look past our animosity towards others and our very reall theological differences to discuss the truths that we may share in common?

In the recent issue of BYU Magazine is an article by Sheri Dew about grace (

This very issue was discussed in considerable depth in an Education Week session last week.

 

As I recall, the instructor talked about the spectrum from grace to works - where some overemphasize grace to the exclusion of the appropriate place for good works, while others overemphasize works to the exclusion of grace - as if works can save.  The instructor explained that we need to maintain a balance in the middle - acknowledging that while works are part of discipleship, it is essentially grace that we rely upon for salvation.

 

The instructor also mentioned a talk given at a gathering of various churches, where an LDS speaker, I believe it was brother Millet, spoke on nothing but the central importance of grace. And members of the other churches were shocked that a member of the LDS church would speak on such a thing, and called him something along the lines of "the grace Mormon".

 

For friends who misrepresent or are confused about such things, I would invite them to peruse

this: https://www.lds.org/scriptures/search?lang=eng&query=grace&testament=bofm

and this: https://www.lds.org/scriptures/search?lang=eng&start=1&end=10&query=grace&testament=dc-testament

 

And the book, Believing Christ.

Edited August 25, 2015 by hagoth

[The Folk Prophet]

As I recall, the instructor talked about the spectrum from grace to works - where some overemphasize grace to the exclusion of the appropriate place for good works, while others overemphasize works to the exclusion of grace - as if works can save.  The instructor explained that we need to maintain a balance in the middle - acknowledging that while works are part of discipleship, it is essentially grace that we rely upon for salvation.

 

I don't agree with this philosophy as I read it -- that works and grace have to balance in the middle. While I do accept that it is valid from a certain perspective, that correct perspective, as I see it, is not the reading I sense most are taking from it. There is a potential implication that were there a chart where grace was one column and works were the other, some fill the works to 100% and the grace is at 0%, while others fill the grace to 100% and put the works at 0%, and the reality is that both need to be at 50%. But this is inaccurate. The proper graph would have both works and grace at 100%.

 

I will grant that I may well be reading things into people's philosophy of things though. But there does seem to be this downplay of works in today's world, as if works somehow diminish grace. But they do not. No matter how much effort and intent we put into works we are still saved by grace. That does not translate to if we work too much and try too hard that we then lose out on grace. Rather, the potential reverse possibility exists. We cannot diminish the availability of grace through our good works. We can, however, by failing to do good works.

[cdowis]

The Protestant/Catholic view of" heaven" ==>>

 

It's basically the same as the Terrestrial Kingdom.  Good people living in the presence of Christ, 

 

They think we're going to hell, we think they are "only" going to heaven.

[hagoth]

I don't agree with this philosophy as I read it -- that works and grace have to balance in the middle. While I do accept that it is valid from a certain perspective, that correct perspective, as I see it, is not the reading I sense most are taking from it. There is a potential implication that were there a chart where grace was one column and works were the other, some fill the works to 100% and the grace is at 0%, while others fill the grace to 100% and put the works at 0%, and the reality is that both need to be at 50%. But this is inaccurate. The proper graph would have both works and grace at 100%.

We are largely in agreement there. If you had been there, and we could afterwards fully compare notes and impressions, I think we would be in complete agreement.

 

A brief citation from the session might provide you an improved glimpse of what was actually taught and summed up there - on the need for a balanced view on grace and works: "Our works are absolutely necessary, but are insufficient to save us. We are saved by grace."

 

I will grant that I may well be reading things into people's philosophy of things though. But there does seem to be this downplay of works in today's world, as if works somehow diminish grace. But they do not. No matter how much effort and intent we put into works we are still saved by grace. That does not translate to if we work too much and try too hard that we then lose out on grace. Rather, the potential reverse possibility exists. We cannot diminish the availability of grace through our good works. We can, however, by failing to do good works.

Amen there.

Edited August 26, 2015 by hagoth