Putting "God in a Box"

[Vort]

I see things much the same as TFP, with the difference that I don't see "Peter Priesthood" to be much of an insult.

 

When I was in high school (tiny HS in farm country), one of the upperclassmen thought it was uproariously funny to call me "Pure and Holy". Instead of "Hey, Vort", it was "Hey, Pure and Holy!" That was okay by me, though. For my basketball practice jersey, instead of having my name put on it like everyone else, I had "P and H". In retrospect, it seems rather forward for me to proclaim myself "pure and holy"; I really wasn't either one. But I wanted to be, and I wasn't about to let someone shame me for something good. So I embraced it.

 

I get much the same feeling with "Peter Priesthood" and "Molly Mormon". I'm happy to accept such a label, even if I'm not worthy of it. If they want to point their fingers and mock, I'm willing to follow Nephi's counsel and ignore them.

[prisonchaplain]

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.

 

Not drinking Coke is healthy, so I could care less if someone does or does not.  However, would it be unkind to call someone Peter/Molly if they loudly insinuated their spiritual superiority--or your inferiority--based on this choice/belief?

[The Folk Prophet]

I see things much the same as TFP, with the difference that I don't see "Peter Priesthood" to be much of an insult.

 

When I was in high school (tiny HS in farm country), one of the upperclassmen thought it was uproariously funny to call me "Pure and Holy". Instead of "Hey, Vort", it was "Hey, Pure and Holy!" That was okay by me, though. For my basketball practice jersey, instead of having my name put on it like everyone else, I had "P and H". In retrospect, it seems rather forward for me to proclaim myself "pure and holy"; I really wasn't either one. But I wanted to be, and I wasn't about to let someone shame me for something good. So I embraced it.

 

I get much the same feeling with "Peter Priesthood" and "Molly Mormon". I'm happy to accept such a label, even if I'm not worthy of it. If they want to point their fingers and mock, I'm willing to follow Nephi's counsel and ignore them.

 

I agree. I am proud of being one who would be called such. That doesn't mean calling me such isn't offensive. :)

[The Folk Prophet]

However, would it be unkind to call someone Peter/Molly if they loudly insinuated their spiritual superiority--or your inferiority--based on this choice/belief?

 

I'm sure you're familiar with the axiom, two wrongs don't make a right.

[Pa Pa]

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?

"Legalistic" is an anti-term often used against LDS for believing commandments matter as it relates to being righteous. Odd chose of words, although I think it innocent on your part. We believe the words of Christ, "If he love me keep my commandments. Also Matthew 7: 21, that we must obey the will of our Father in heaven to enter the "kingdom of heaven".

[prisonchaplain]

I'm sure you're familiar with the axiom, two wrongs don't make a right.

 

This is what I am trying to figure out.  Is Molly/Peter the equivalent of "Pharisee?"  So far, I'm mostly hearing that, no, it's just the equivalent of being faithful in the small matters, as well as the big ones.  If so, I've misunderstood the terms.  I had thought that those who lob the Molly/Peter accusation are not complaining about righteousness, but about legalism and smugness. 

 

Perhaps it is even wrong to call someone out on those attitudes.  However, gentle correction from a bro/sis seems superior to true humiliation from the unfaithful.

[prisonchaplain]

"Legalistic" is an anti-term often used against LDS for believing commandments matter as it relates to being righteous. Odd chose of words, although I think it innocent on your part. We believe the words of Christ, "If he love me keep my commandments. Also Matthew 7: 21, that we must obey the will of our Father in heaven to enter the "kingdom of heaven".

 

"Legalistic" might be a term used by anti's when they are accusing you of denying grace.  However, it's commonly used by evangelicals against those who would impose extra-biblical regulations.  For example, my church prohibits alcohol consumption.  Some might accuse me of being legalistic.  It is a negative term, but I've never considered it an inflammatory one.

[The Folk Prophet]

This is what I am trying to figure out. Is Molly/Peter the equivalent of "Pharisee?" So far, I'm mostly hearing that, no, it's just the equivalent of being faithful in the small matters, as well as the big ones. If so, I've misunderstood the terms. I had thought that those who lob the Molly/Peter accusation are not complaining about righteousness, but about legalism and smugness.

Perhaps it is even wrong to call someone out on those attitudes. However, gentle correction from a bro/sis seems superior to true humiliation from the unfaithful.

Those throwing the term about are too complaining about righteousness -- that they interpret as legalism and smugness.

And no one would use such a term to gently correct another -- because name calling is not gentle. Sure, I could see a friend using the term teasingly to do so. But in most cases, I believe, it is used in derogatory manner, and pretty much ironically places the accuser as the holier-than-thou ("I'm better than you because I'm not Peter Priesthood") one.

[prisonchaplain]

Okay, I think I've got it.  Molly/Peter are mocking terms that have some bite to them (generally speaking).  The term "legalistic" could be a gentle rebuke, if offered by a pastor, deacon, or teacher.  If so, the conversation would be in private, and would go something like, "Brother, I really think you're veering into legalism.  Your personal refusal to watch R-rated movies is fine, and generally wise.  However, the leadership of our church has publicly supported The Passion of the Christ, so when you tell people they are sinning by seeing it, you are generating contention."

 

It's a made up example, but you get the idea.  Now, when an evangelical says, "You LDS are legalistic . . . " context is everything.  If the person will not listen, and says, "You don't know your own doctrine," well then you have a spiritual bully on your hands.  However, if you say, "Well, we believe all sincere Christians will enter the heavenly kingdoms--Jesus grace does save," and they say, "Oh.  I didn't know you believed that.  Tell me more."  Then, you may be at the beginning of a fruitful conversation.

 

The word "legalism/istic" should not automatically be considered inflammatory.  Tone, delivery, demeanor and context dictate how strongly and negatively the word is being used. 

 

BTW... thank you.  I think I better understand--and I really am glad I've not attempted to use Molly/Peter here, in a misguided effort to be clever. 

[Jamie123]

Sorry for the long delay - I've been too busy the last day or 2 to make much of a response to anything anyone's written here. Firstly thanks everyone for your well-wishes. My wife is back home now, getting very irritated with my fussing, badgering her about where various cooking utensils are kept and smoking the entire house out yesterday trying to cook her spaghetti bolognaise for lunch. So I'm back in my office this morning with a pile of work to do, but not before I've made a few responses:

 

* Enabling an addicts addiction isn't kindness.

* Giving an addict money enables their addiction.

 

I pretty much agree with you nowadays: when I said that I had barely turned 20 and there was quite a dichotomy in my mind between God in books and God in reality. (Gandalf's "there never was much hope" meant a lot more to me on the pages of a book than in reality.) As I've got older I've learned to see that life is finite anyway, and given the inevitability of death (and whatever lies beyond) there might be something to be said for chasing even the most unlikely victories - if only for the sake of "points for trying"! But then of course I think of North Korea...

 

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?)

 

I've always taken the expression "putting God in a box" to mean assuming practical limitations on His powers. The sting was that that was exactly what I was doing: but I think most of us are (if we're going to be honest about it and not make excuses) guilty of this to some extent.

 

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!

 

I wasn't suggesting any such thing. I was merely asking why it wasn't being done, and whether the Church's decision not to constituted (to some extent) putting God in a box. Neither was it intended to be a guilt trip (especially as I have no intention of going anywhere near North Korea myself, nor sending any of my children there, nor recommending that anyone else send their children there either). I don't suppose Abraham had much hope of seeing Isaac again when he bound him to the altar - but of course that's just something that happened in the Bible.... I say hastily as I imagine myself as Abraham and my daughter as Isaac (and back into the box goes God).   

 

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

 

Here we do have a valid point: but to hold up "subject to kings" as a universal principle that must never be violated is nonsense. Let's say for example you were shipwrecked off North Korea and taken to Kim Jong Un, and he ordered you to renounce your allegiance to Christ. What would be your correct course of action?

 

Many of the things we are commanded to do as Christians do conflict with each other. Sometimes a prayerful decision is needed about which to obey. In this case a decision was clearly made that the "subject to kings" thing took precedence over "make disciples of all nations". That I can understand.

 

EDIT: Another thought just struck me - who knows that the LDS Church doesn't have a huge covert operation in North Korea?

 

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.

 

 

I think I better understand--and I really am glad I've not attempted to use Molly/Peter here, in a misguided effort to be clever. 

 

I probably shouldn't have used that phrase without understanding its in-culture connotations. I always took it to mean something similar to "God Squad" or "Bible Basher" - someone who practices of Christianity in a visibly serious manner that might - especially to an outsider - appear either annoying or comical (or both). And there's nothing wrong with that of course: ideally all Christians should be "Bible Bashers".

 

Also (if I understand history) the word "Mormon" was originally used as a term of mockery.

 

But maybe "Peter Priesthood" is different, so I apologise for using the term.

 

Having said that though (and this is going to sound horribly callous) I've never had a great deal of natural sympathy for people who complain about being "made fun of" for their faith. I was (mostly in my younger days) frequently teased, taunted, mocked, ridiculed and baited - not for being a Christian, nor for attempting to apply Christianity in a serious manner, but for being a general all-round nincompoop, stooge, sucker, being useless at sport (I could never catch a ball), liking ELO (I still do), clearing my throat loudly before each sentence, wandering aimlessly around the neighbourhood every evening (I don't need to tell you what the taunters made of that habit!), still wearing vests when I was 18, losing the entire rigging off a sailing boat (in ridiculous circumstances) in the middle of Rutland Water and taking a long time to learn how to drive. Let's just say I was a wonderful target for anyone wishing to be on the side of the taunters rather than the taunted.

 

But how much more noble and "saintly" would it be to be ridiculed for belonging to Christ? Surely that would be something worth being ridiculed for? I could understand offence being taken if it were Heavenly Father, or Jesus Christ, or the Holy Spirit (or even the Church) that was being mocked, but anything along the lines of "har har saying your prayers again, God-boy?"....why would I care?

 

But of course I've only ever walked in my own shoes* so I can't speak for everyone else's sensitivities. This is just my personal feeling.

 

* Except on a couple of occasions when I've needed to wear high heels (and a dress) in am-dram stage comedies.

Edited June 4, 2015 by Jamie123

[Guest]

Jamie, there is one and only one reason we don't have missionaries in North Korea.

Ready?

God said No.

[Jamie123]

Jamie, there is one and only one reason we don't have missionaries in North Korea.

Ready?

God said No.

Is pretty much what I conceded to Jerome, wasn't it?

 

(OK - I guess my version could have been paraphrased "a prayerful decision must have been made not to send missionaries to North Korea". You might argue that it was "divine revelation" but it still comes down to the same thing: a decision based on prayer.)

[Guest]

Is pretty much what I conceded to Jerome, wasn't it?

 

(OK - I guess my version could have been paraphrased "a prayerful decision must have been made not to send missionaries to North Korea". You might argue that it was "divine revelation" but it still comes down to the same thing: a decision based on prayer.)

What I got from your response to Jerome is this - the First Presidency wants to send missionaries to NK but the articles of Faith prevents them... and so they prayerfully ask which of those commandments they should obey. So basically, it's the Prophets that want it.

When it comes to missions, it's much simpler than that. When God wants missionaries in NK, he will instruct the Prophets. It wouldn't matter one way or the other what the conditions in NK is. If God wants it done, he will prepare the way.

[Jamie123]

What I got from your response to Jerome is this - the First Presidency wants to send missionaries to NK but the articles of Faith prevents them... and so they prayerfully ask which of those commandments they should obey. So basically, it's the Prophets that want it.

When it comes to missions, it's much simpler than that. When God wants missionaries in NK, he will instruct the Prophets. It wouldn't matter one way or the other what the conditions in NK is. If God wants it done, he will prepare the way.

 

I think I understand what you're saying - you're supposing that in my view it is the Prophet who is the prime mover, while in your view it is God.

 

I don't totally agree with this. For one thing other churches make much the same kind of claim about the decisions they make (or perhaps I should say "revelations they receive"): for example I remember when the Vatican were deciding whether to beatify Mother Theresa, one Catholic commentator pointed out that it was God who was the main actor, and the cardinals were merely trying to divine His will. But it would be difficult for a non-Catholic like me to take that view of the proceedings.

 

Now as well as being a non-Catholic I'm also a non-Mormon, but I'll try to look at this from your perspective (if I can - no promises that I'll get it right). It seems to me that even if your view is correct, "revelation" still comes through prayer, answers to prayers, and through the study of the commandments given in scripture.

 

I remember a while ago reading what one of the Apostles wrote about the circumstances leading up to the admission of blacks into the priesthood in 1978 (I'll try to find the reference later). The way he described it this momentous decision (or "revelation" I should say) came through prayerful reflection by the General Authorities rather than through the apparition of angels, or disembodied hands writing on the temple wall. It was still a decision made by human men....but given the authority of those men - not to mention the basis on which their decision was made - I don't see how it wasn't also an action of God.  

Edited June 4, 2015 by Jamie123

[Blackmarch]

This is what I am trying to figure out.  Is Molly/Peter the equivalent of "Pharisee?"  So far, I'm mostly hearing that, no, it's just the equivalent of being faithful in the small matters, as well as the big ones.  If so, I've misunderstood the terms.  I had thought that those who lob the Molly/Peter accusation are not complaining about righteousness, but about legalism and smugness. 

 

Perhaps it is even wrong to call someone out on those attitudes.  However, gentle correction from a bro/sis seems superior to true humiliation from the unfaithful.

close enough for me, probably used more in the accusative sense.

And yes I agree.

Edited June 4, 2015 by Blackmarch

[prisonchaplain]

Jamie, there is one and only one reason we don't have missionaries in North Korea.

Ready?

God said No.

 

I may have been misinformed (though your saying God decides is surely correct, ultimately), but I thought it had been posted here that LDS generally do not send missionaries to lands that will not allow them to operate openly.  I would imagine exceptions could be listed, but the impression I received here is that there is much caution about covert missionary efforts.

Edited June 4, 2015 by prisonchaplain

[Guest]

I may have been misinformed (though your saying God decides is surely correct, ultimately), but I thought it had been posted here that LDS generally do not send missionaries to lands that will not allow them to operate openly.  I would imagine exceptions could be listed, but the impression I received here is that there is much caution about covert missionary efforts.

Because that's what God instructed.

Or did we just switch religions and now believe Jesus Christ doesn't run this Church, the Prophets do?

[prisonchaplain]

I think we just said the same thing, Anatess.  You are saying God instructed the prophets to avoid sending missionaries to closed countries.  I said, The church does not generally send missionaries to closed lands (admittedly because they do not believe God wants them to).  Different emphases, same conclusions. 

[Guest]

I think we just said the same thing, Anatess.  You are saying God instructed the prophets to avoid sending missionaries to closed countries.  I said, The church does not generally send missionaries to closed lands (admittedly because they do not believe God wants them to).  Different emphases, same conclusions. 

The emphasis is important in light of the topic of the OP.

[Vort]

I am surprised at many of the reactions to Jamie123's OP and follow-up. To me, what he writes seems at times insightful and at times obvious, but at no time controversial. I found nothing objectionable about the Peter Priesthood/Molly Mormon usage, though I understand that some might. Other than that, what's controversial about what he wrote? Seems mostly common sense to me.

 

As one who has (more often than I care to admit) taken offense where none was intended, I don't mean to lecture. I'm honestly baffled by this. I do tend to like what Jamie writes and appreciate how he thinks about things, so I may be a bit biased. But I'm not seeing the offense in his words. They look to me like good sense and reasonable questions.

 

E.g. I am fully on board with the Church's stated policy of entering nations by the "front door" and not sneaking them in; I find it a position of honesty and integrity, and doing otherwise would be a mockery of the very things we claim to stand for. But I can understand the reasoning that says, "Wait a minute. If the gospel is so all-fired important and if the salvation of individuals is central to their eternal life, why wouldn't God want you to get missionaries into all lands by whatever means you can do it, even if that means violating some corrupt laws of men, created and enforced by evil dictators?" That question has a valid answer that one should understand. But it's still a good and perfectly reasonable question, and quite frankly it's one that should be asked.

Edited June 4, 2015 by Vort

[The Folk Prophet]

I found nothing objectionable about the Peter Priesthood/Molly Mormon usage,

 

That point and ensuing discussion was meant more as a side-thought -- I expect Jamie123 meant it rather innocuously.

[prisonchaplain]

On the question of sending missionaries to unwelcoming lands, I wonder if our theologies of salvation impact this decision (again, granting that God ultimately is the source of decisions)?  After all, for evangelicals, "It's heaven or hell, brother!"  If a soul doesn't get saved s/he is eternally lost.  We don't believe in a 2nd chance after death.  So...as Vort intimated--by all means!  If there is a second chance after death, for those who've never heard, then the long view works.  Let us wait to be welcomed, and then we can be more effective and above board.

 

Another factor is the primary use of 2-year, younger missionaries, trained in introductory evangelistic teaching, vs. the use of those who experience a life-time calling to missionary service--generally to a specific land.  I've heard a few testimonies of those called to go to North Korea (ironically, some are those who escaped from that land, and the converted to faith in Christ).  They expect to die.  They really do.  It's a completely different model. 

[estradling75]

 

Another factor is the primary use of 2-year, younger missionaries, trained in introductory evangelistic teaching, vs. the use of those who experience a life-time calling to missionary service--generally to a specific land.  I've heard a few testimonies of those called to go to North Korea (ironically, some are those who escaped from that land, and the converted to faith in Christ).  They expect to die.  They really do.  It's a completely different model. 

 

Your types of missions sound more like the missions that Ammon and the Son of Mosiah went on in the Book of Mormon

[Jane_Doe]

On the question of sending missionaries to unwelcoming lands, I wonder if our theologies of salvation impact this decision (again, granting that God ultimately is the source of decisions)?  After all, for evangelicals, "It's heaven or hell, brother!"  If a soul doesn't get saved s/he is eternally lost.  We don't believe in a 2nd chance after death.  So...as Vort intimated--by all means!  If there is a second chance after death, for those who've never heard, then the long view works.  Let us wait to be welcomed, and then we can be more effective and above board.

 

Another factor is the primary use of 2-year, younger missionaries, trained in introductory evangelistic teaching, vs. the use of those who experience a life-time calling to missionary service--generally to a specific land.  I've heard a few testimonies of those called to go to North Korea (ironically, some are those who escaped from that land, and the converted to faith in Christ).  They expect to die.  They really do.  It's a completely different model. 

 

PC hit the nail on the head.