Putting "God in a Box"

[Jamie123]

Many, many years ago, when I was a student, I voiced the view that when approached by drunks and addicts begging on the street, the kindest thing to do was give them a couple of quid, because trying to persuade them to change their ways "probably wouldn't work".

 

I was with a group of Christian Unionists at the time, in Pizza Hut. In fact I had just attended my first ever Christian Union meeting since going to college, and considering that I was already a sophomore (though we don't use that term in the UK) you'll believe that I was not overly keen on attending religious student meetings.

 

If I'd been a little older and wiser I'd have know better than to have said this. The guy sitting next to me (who was the non-LDS equivalent of "Peter Priesthood" - at least as far as his words went) took serious issue with me and the next couple of minutes I was formally charged with:

 

1. Putting God in a box

2. Limiting the power of the Holy Spirit

3. Quite a variety of other unpleasant things.

 

The main prosecution evidence was that "so many people" had had their lives "utterly changed" by the Holy Spirit working through Christians speaking out in faith.

 

He omitted to tell me who these people were, how many of them, how their lives had "utterly changed" or for how long. But I suspect (perhaps unfairly) that they come from the blurb on the backs of a bunch of "Christian paperbacks" he'd seen at the UCCF bookstall. Or (let's be a little fairer) perhaps from the pages inside said Christian paperbacks that he'd bought and read to give himself a warm glow whilst not doing a thing to help anybody...except raising his hands and closing his eyes during Church worship and shouting meaningless truisms from the back of the bus during CU outings about how he wants to be a "Slave to Christ" .

 

Sorry to sound bitter. I'm just in one of those moods.

 

Also this has nothing to do with the LDS Church....except why are there no LDS missionaries in North Korea? They could be sent in illegally couldn't they? After all, isn't obeying the directive to "make disciples of all nations" more important than respecting the wishes of a baby-faced dictator? Isn't God more powerful than Kim Jong Un?

 

I know exactly why not: "it probably wouldn't work". They'd be caught and put in labour camps - or worse. But hey - isn't raising such an objection "putting God in a box"?

 

I find that common sense has a way of making you do exactly that.

Edited June 1, 2015 by Jamie123

[Just_A_Guy]

Well, and if God wanted to, He could send down fire from heaven to incinerate all the ISIS thugs in the world by teatime.  That doesn't mean global Christians should fast for Him to do it--or that America should nudge the process along with a couple of nukes. 

 

As for North Korea:  For all I know, the policy you suggest very well could work--but, most likely, at a fearful price in the short term and possibly in the long term as well.  So the million-dollar question is whether that price--whatever it turns out to be--is something that God feels the Church can and should pay at the present time.

 

The LDS leadership makes policies for the here-and-now, based on some combination of what they believe the voice of God currently dictates and what they believe would be prudent decisions based on real-world experience.  And the result of that process, for the time being, has been--as Mormon apostle Neal Maxwell told US News & World Report back in 2000--that "we go in the front door, or we don't go in at all".

Edited June 1, 2015 by Just_A_Guy

[NeuroTypical]

Many, many years ago, when I was a student, I voiced the view that when approached by drunks and addicts begging on the street, the kindest thing to do was give them a couple of quid, because trying to persuade them to change their ways "probably wouldn't work".

 

 

There's so much misunderstanding about needs of homeless and addicts.  So much extra stuff tacked on to such issues that don't really belong.

 

* Enabling an addicts addiction isn't kindness.

* Giving an addict money enables their addiction.

* We're supposed to help the poor, and help those who ask, without judging them.  But it's important to know what 'help' looks like, and what it doesn't.  Because giving an addict money doesn't help them.

* Helping a begging addict can look like giving them food, treating them like human beings, directing them to services geared to their needs, and sharing the gospel.  (The first two are often well received, the last two often aren't. Such is the way of agency.)

Edited June 1, 2015 by NeuroTypical

[theSQUIDSTER]

I'm not sure I fully understand the concept of putting God in a box. Does that mean not exercising enough faith in God?

(If that's the case then we're all guilty. Who among us doesn't feel like they could and should increase their faith?)

[Pa Pa]

I find you thread to be rude and condescending. You are suggesting that the Church send missionaries into a country illegally? Especially a country that if caught their parents may never see them again! Your post seems to show contempt for all believers; why?

[jerome1232]

We believe in being subject to kings, presidents, rulers, and magistrates, in obeying, honoring, and sustaining the law.

 

Now tell me, is smuggling missionaries into North Korea in line with our beliefs?

 

 

We believe in being honest, true, chaste, benevolent, virtuous, and in doing good to all men; indeed, we may say that we follow the admonition of Paul—We believe all things, we hope all things, we have endured many things, and hope to be able to endure all things. If there is anything virtuous, lovely, or of good report or praiseworthy, we seek after these things.

Is enabling an addiction doing anyone any good? I would say no, it is not.

Edit:

I think you are confused. Us trying to do God's will is not putting him into a box. It is us becoming good Christians.

Edit 2:

If I asked my son to clean his room, and he doesn't do it, when I come in to see his room he will be in trouble. When he tells me he didn't do it because I can just do it better and faster than he can it will only increase the trouble he is in. I liken that to God and people expecting Him to do everything for them.

Edited June 1, 2015 by jerome1232

[The Folk Prophet]

 "Peter Priesthood" 

 

Totally off topic, but does anyone else find the usage of this phrase offensive?

[prisonchaplain]

IMHO it is generally better not to give the cash to a pan handler.  Most know where the shelters, food banks, soup kitchens etc. are.  As for the theological dump you were exposed to, yeah, it sounds like the guy was a little more full of himself than the Spirit--at least from your telling of the episode.  On the other hand, there are Christians in North Korea.  They face imprisonment ("to the third generation"--meaning parents and children too), and often death.  There are a few missionaries (non-LDS) who sneak in.  They know full well they may die.  There are also many missionaries near the border, in China, who also operate illegally, and at great risk (again, non-LDS).  I would never guilt-trip a church organization, nor another Christian into going to such places.  I give great honor to those who do take up that call, because quite often it is a martyr's mission.

[Bini]

This probably misses what the OP wishes to address but I know, from personal experience, that there are LDS who sport BYU attire when in China as an opportunity to bring up the gospel. I've had family that do this when they're in questionable areas.

[Pa Pa]

Totally off topic, but does anyone else find the usage of this phrase offensive?

I do and believe it is why he used it...so sad.

[Jamie123]

Ok I'm sorry the truth is I'm deathly worried about my wife who has surgery tomorrow morning. I'm trying not to show it to her but it's putting me in a black mood. I was venting off. I shouldn't be taking it out on you guys. As for contempt for believers you are quite right - but I am also a believer myself so it's self-directed too. Sorry - sending this from my phone - jamie

[Blackmarch]

Many, many years ago, when I was a student, I voiced the view that when approached by drunks and addicts begging on the street, the kindest thing to do was give them a couple of quid, because trying to persuade them to change their ways "probably wouldn't work".

 

I was with a group of Christian Unionists at the time, in Pizza Hut. In fact I had just attended my first ever Christian Union meeting since going to college, and considering that I was already a sophomore (though we don't use that term in the UK) you'll believe that I was not overly keen on attending religious student meetings.

 

If I'd been a little older and wiser I'd have know better than to have said this. The guy sitting next to me (who was the non-LDS equivalent of "Peter Priesthood" - at least as far as his words went) took serious issue with me and the next couple of minutes I was formally charged with:

 

1. Putting God in a box

2. Limiting the power of the Holy Spirit

3. Quite a variety of other unpleasant things.

 

The main prosecution evidence was that "so many people" had had their lives "utterly changed" by the Holy Spirit working through Christians speaking out in faith.

 

He omitted to tell me who these people were, how many of them, how their lives had "utterly changed" or for how long. But I suspect (perhaps unfairly) that they come from the blurb on the backs of a bunch of "Christian paperbacks" he'd seen at the UCCF bookstall. Or (let's be a little fairer) perhaps from the pages inside said Christian paperbacks that he'd bought and read to give himself a warm glow whilst not doing a thing to help anybody...except raising his hands and closing his eyes during Church worship and shouting meaningless truisms from the back of the bus during CU outings about how he wants to be a "Slave to Christ" .

 

Sorry to sound bitter. I'm just in one of those moods.

 

Also this has nothing to do with the LDS Church....except why are there no LDS missionaries in North Korea? They could be sent in illegally couldn't they? After all, isn't obeying the directive to "make disciples of all nations" more important than respecting the wishes of a baby-faced dictator? Isn't God more powerful than Kim Jong Un?

 

I know exactly why not: "it probably wouldn't work". They'd be caught and put in labour camps - or worse. But hey - isn't raising such an objection "putting God in a box"?

 

I find that common sense has a way of making you do exactly that.

I imagine that any time we try to explain anything of God's that he has not yet given us a public explanation for puts God in a box to some degree or another. Sometimes God does stuff that makes sense, and other times he does things that we can't figure out why until years or even centuries later.

as for why no missionaries are sent to NK is because the the Government forbids it, and secondly we havent had any major revelation to go behind their backs yet.

In other nations that have tight religious controls, we've been allowed some degree of freedom because of our willingness to be obedient to the nation's laws

Conversely I recall a mission somewhere over in asia got stuck into limbo because a couple missionaries did something stupid; they saw a local buddah shrine and decided to do some poses with it and get pictures... and unfortunately the government found out about it some way or another. needless to say it didn't go well with the local mission and it was quite some time before the mission could resume work.

[theSQUIDSTER]

Jamie,

Sorry you're worried about your wife. I hope and pray everything will go well and that the surgery will be performed well and that she won't experience any complications.

In my younger days I used to get my hackles up at so-called "Christians" who leveled charges at me or my loved ones that we're not Christian. I felt like LDS believers were unfairly singled out until I decided to peruse a "Christian" news group or two and see what the tone was like there. And, Lo and behold, not so different from the LDS forum, discord and accusations were hurled about, the biggest being ----- > "You're not a Christian!" .. Baptist condemning baptist.. Pentecostal condemning Methodist... Etc. That made me feel quite-a-bit less singled out as an LDS Christian. It also helped me realize that I'd essentially been guilty of the same thing. I had been quick to fire back with my own rejoinders of, "Oh yeah, well let me tell you all the reasons why *you're* not a Christian!"

Why does this happen? Is it because we have doctrinal differences? Certainly we do. But is it only about that?

What kind of spirit prevails in the discussion? Does kindness matter? Can one be kind AND speak the plain truth?

I think we, who really should be brothers and sisters in Christ our Savior, are often our own worst enemies. Don't most of us believe that Jesus really was and is who He said? ... Not just a great teacher who made some good points about ethics, love and forgiveness... He really IS the Son of God.. Not just some ancient fairytale or prophet who was misquoted.. For those of us who really put all our faith and hope in that core of our doctrine, that He is the living Son of God, despite which building we attend, whether it has a cross or a steeple or neither, wouldn't that faith and hope make each of us a Christian?

[Vort]

Jamie, I'm sorry to hear about your wife. I hope all goes well for her and for you.

 

I largely agree with what you wrote. For the record, I don't find "Peter Priesthood" offensive, because I think it's a silly stereotype that is taken literally only by those who are so lost and clueless as to be beyond reach at the moment. I use the phrase, along with the associated "Molly Mormon", on occasion. Frankly, I aspire to be "Peter Priesthood", though of course I am not.

[Pa Pa]

Ok I'm sorry the truth is I'm deathly worried about my wife who has surgery tomorrow morning. I'm trying not to show it to her but it's putting me in a black mood. I was venting off. I shouldn't be taking it out on you guys. As for contempt for believers you are quite right - but I am also a believer myself so it's self-directed too. Sorry - sending this from my phone - jamie

I'll accept your apology, because as a believer I should. I am sorry to hear about your wife. But I wonder how a "believer" yourself can have contempt for the same. Also, no believer puts God in a box, people try to put people in little boxes so they can difine them easily, like...oh that person is mean, or ugly, or stupid, or sinner, and on and on. They (or we all at times) do so because it takes work to know all that they are, good or bad. But it is worth it and required of us by God, to try and find the good and not to judge them, and it is also worth it. God grant us the desire and ability to do so.

[Bini]

Yeh... I always thought "Molly Mormon" and "Peter Priesthood" were good things, though, used mockingly to describe those that indeed are righteous and unwavering followers of the gospel. I remember in Young Women's, Molly Mormon was a way girls labeled other girls that were seemingly "goody goodies". Just wanted to add that.

[prisonchaplain]

I'm sure glad I never chose to try and use those LDS digs here.  My perception is that Molly and Peter were uptight and self-righteous, what we evangelicals would call "legalistic."  I'm wondering if it is more offensive when non-members use it, versus when it's employed strictly in-house?

[Vort]

I'm sure glad I never chose to try and use those LDS digs here.  My perception is that Molly and Peter were uptight and self-righteous, what we evangelicals would call "legalistic."  I'm wondering if it is more offensive when non-members use it, versus when it's employed strictly in-house?

 

You may be right. My impression has always been that Molly and Peter, being people who try to live as they have been taught they should, are naive to the point of cluelessness. Being by my nature a rather clueless person, I don't see this as particularly bad. On the contrary, I'm happy to be naive and clueless if it means I'm living the way God wants me to live.

[NeuroTypical]

1.  "Molly Mormon" and "Peter Priesthood" are just vague insults, akin to "cafeteria Catholic" or "homophobe".

 

2. Both terms have been outdated and useless ever since SouthPark brought us the Harrison family in their episode about Mormons.  They just did it better.

 

3. "I'm happy to be naive and clueless if it means I'm living the way God wants me to live." - this is a contradiction in terms, because of Matthew 10:16.  There's no such thing as a naive and clueless wise serpent.  Repent Vort! :)

 

(4. The notion of me calling someone else to repentance should give a good belly laugh to many people, including Vort and me.)

Edited June 1, 2015 by NeuroTypical

[Bini]

I'm sure glad I never chose to try and use those LDS digs here.  My perception is that Molly and Peter were uptight and self-righteous, what we evangelicals would call "legalistic."  I'm wondering if it is more offensive when non-members use it, versus when it's employed strictly in-house?

 

This is true, too, in my experience. People tend to stick "uptight" and "self-righteous" in there. But whether they are or not, it's still a dig, a dig towards someone who is choosing the road less traveled. I think one of us kids teased my dad about this once, for the very fact, that he is so passionate about Christ and the gospel - could seem uptight and self-righteous to some.

[The Folk Prophet]

Yeh... I always thought "Molly Mormon" and "Peter Priesthood" were good things, though, used mockingly to describe those that indeed are righteous and unwavering followers of the gospel. I remember in Young Women's, Molly Mormon was a way girls labeled other girls that were seemingly "goody goodies". Just wanted to add that.

 

I'm sure glad I never chose to try and use those LDS digs here.  My perception is that Molly and Peter were uptight and self-righteous, what we evangelicals would call "legalistic."  I'm wondering if it is more offensive when non-members use it, versus when it's employed strictly in-house?

 

You may be right. My impression has always been that Molly and Peter, being people who try to live as they have been taught they should, are naive to the point of cluelessness. Being by my nature a rather clueless person, I don't see this as particularly bad. On the contrary, I'm happy to be naive and clueless if it means I'm living the way God wants me to live.

 

In my view Molly Mormon and Peter Priesthood are derogatory ways to label and judge. They amount to childish name-calling and the shaming of others in an effort to coerce them.

 

Even if, legitimately, those we believe to be self-righteous are so, is it our place to judge them as such? Moreso, in my experience, most instances of calling others self-righteous amount to attempts to justify wickedness.

Edited June 1, 2015 by The Folk Prophet

[The Folk Prophet]

Incidentally, my experience (which is from many, many years back) is that these terms are what the cussing, smoking, "cool" kids called the seminary going, modest, "good" kids. It had nothing to do with self-righteousness.

[prisonchaplain]

Would a smoking, cussing kid be cool in LDS circles?  I get that classmates might make fun--but they wouldn't use the Molly/Peter terms.  So, to probe further, would it be wrong if, for instance, one LDS guy says to another, "I can't believe you're drinking a Coke.  Don't you know it has caffeine, and is against the WoW?" for the other to respond, "Quit being such a PP--the WoW prohibits tea and coffee, not soda pop or caffeine."

[The Folk Prophet]

Would a smoking, cussing kid be cool in LDS circles?  I get that classmates might make fun--but they wouldn't use the Molly/Peter terms. 

 

Clearly you did not go to high school in Utah Valley in the 80s.

[The Folk Prophet]

So, to probe further, would it be wrong if, for instance, one LDS guy says to another, "I can't believe you're drinking a Coke.  Don't you know it has caffeine, and is against the WoW?" for the other to respond, "Quit being such a PP--the WoW prohibits tea and coffee, not soda pop or caffeine."

 

From my experience, this is not what the terms are used for, generally (though, of course, I'm sure such a scenario has happened). If someone is claiming Coke is against the Word of Wisdom, they're wrong. Just, plain, wrong.

 

My sense is the terms are more equivalent to calling someone goody two-shoes, goody-goody, puritan, or the like.

 

Peter Priesthood is the guy who won't go to the R-rated movies with his friends. Molly Mormon is the girl who quits the ballroom dance team because the outfits are too immodest (my sister did just this). They are the ones who people judge as self-righteous because they maintain strict standards in spite of peer pressures and what's "cool". They are the ones called frigid, uptight, or prudish.

 

Edit: Keep in mind. I graduated high-school in 1989...and other than the forums here, have not heard the terms since. So maybe the usage has changed. Based on the stand way people tend to view those who are principled, I think the usages is the same. But, regardless...even if you're right...is it Christian to name call someone who mistakenly thinks that Coke is against the Word of Wisdom? Is it not still unkind. Is it not still judgmental? Does the person's imperfection justify doing so? Methinks not so.

 

Edit again: Alter your scenario to be the girl or boy who simply chooses the refrain from drinking Coke in the "spirit of the law" and call them Peter Priesthood/Molly Mormon and you're more on the mark, imo.

Edited June 1, 2015 by The Folk Prophet