Book of Mormon Reading Group: 23 Oct - 29 Oct 2023 (Alma 1 - Alma 12)

[Vort]

1 hour ago, Jamie123 said:

I always think (1) isn't it a bit presumptuous of me to assume automatically that I'd be one of the righteous?

I took this attitude for most of my adult life. I finally decided (perhaps like partaking of the sacrament) that I should just assume that my efforts to follow God are sufficient. That is, God's grace is sufficient for my meager sacrifice to be enough to accept Christ's atoning blood, so long as my efforts are sincere. Hasn't exactly changed my life, but that's one less thing I spend time worrying about.

1 hour ago, Jamie123 said:

And (2), even if I am amongst the righteous, would there not be plenty of people I care about amongst the unrighteous? Would I even want to be "...safe on Zion's Hill, singing praises...etc." when "...thy judgements spread destruction" upon people I care about?

Those who will be destroyed will be, for the most part...well, those who will be destroyed. That is, those whose will it is to say and do and preach the things of destruction. If that includes any that I love, they will have made their choice, because that is their desire.

I also believe that God is more merciful than we can even comprehend. So, as above, I try not to spend any time worrying about this.

1 hour ago, Jamie123 said:

Which leads me to another matter: if I love someone whom God doesn't love, does that make me more loving than God? It's a question I endlessly puzzle over.

The only meaning I can attach to this is that you might love Satan. And that would not make you more loving than God; quite the opposite. So I think you're okay.

[Jamie123]

8 hours ago, Vort said:

The only meaning I can attach to this is that you might love Satan. And that would not make you more loving than God; quite the opposite. So I think you're okay.

Having thought about this a bit, I wonder if we need to clarify a potential misunderstanding. Latter-day Saints (if I understand correctly) believe that everyone is a child of God, and is therefore loved by God.

Now an alternative view (to which I have been somewhat exposed) is that the Natural Man is not a child of God, but can be "adopted" by accepting Christ - by being "born again". Inevitably, many people will not be born again, and that will include many who are (by our earthly standards) "good people" whom we would respect and love.

Some (I could call them "Calvinists", but this is a bit of a libel against John Calvin) would say that God never intended to save these people, and that the atonement was limited only to God's "elect". Everyone else was created by God, but only for the purpose of "making a point". He never in any real sense loved them. (No Calvinist would ever put it in those words, but I'm calling a spade a spade.) So the possibility does arise that one of the elect could love one of the reprobate, and thus be more loving than God. This has always been a problem for me (though I've not always articulated it very well to my teachers, and gone away my head spinning with non- explanations).

But if everyone (including the Devil) at least started out loved by God, then maybe it's not such a problem. It still bothers me though how God could be "working his purposes out" (to quote the hymn) if he didn't ordain in advance the choices people were going to make. Unless of course God is continually zipping backwards and forwards through time and adjusting his prophecies to make everything fit. The mind boggles!

[zil2]

6 hours ago, Jamie123 said:

Latter-day Saints (if I understand correctly) believe that everyone is a child of God, and is therefore loved by God.

A child of God, yes - as in, God is the Father of our spirits.  Loved by him is up for disagreement - there are scriptures wherein the prophet who wrote them states that God hated such-and-such group or person.  But then there's the scripture I quoted where God weeps for the loss of some of his children who have chosen to be so wicked that there's nothing left to do but end their mortality.  So, were the prophets wrong?  Do they have a different definition of "hate"? (I'm convinced that though we all use the word, we don't all have the same understanding of what it means, since we can't feel each others' feelings.)  Does God now hate Satan and those who chose to follow Satan?  I don't know.  Pretty sure @Vort would say God does hate Satan, at least.  I sometimes wonder if he (and those prophets mentioned above) define "hate" as a collection of words and actions rather than as an emotion one feels.  If so, one could feel the emotion of love and yet speak and act "hate" - thus God weeps as he destroys the wicked.  I don't know.

I said somewhere else that for a brief period (maybe a year?) I felt what I consider real and complete hatred for someone.  Eventually, I came to myself. I recognized this as something straight from the depths of hell and rejected it.  It had taken some duration to "build up" into the blackest and most evil of emotions, but it vanished (if I recall correctly) in an instant.  And at that time, I promised I would never let myself feel that emotion again.  And I haven't.  Should I "hate" Satan?  Not if it means feeling an emotion that I believe only Satan could inspire.  Is there a "Godly hate"?  I don't know.  I'm certainly not going to follow Satan or give him place in my heart.  No idea where that leaves me - indifferently opposed to him?  Dismissive?  I don't know.

6 hours ago, Jamie123 said:

Now an alternative view (to which I have been somewhat exposed) is that the Natural Man is not a child of God, but can be "adopted" by accepting Christ - by being "born again".

Well, actually, and I think I mentioned this in our reading, there's no conflict between this and the above proposition.  God is the Father of our Spirits.  And Christ adopts us through covenants and becomes our adoptive father if we keep our covenants.  At least, this is the only way I can understand it.  This article that @mikbone posted (thank you, @mikbone!) goes into detail on the ways in which Christ can be called "father".

6 hours ago, Jamie123 said:

It still bothers me though how God could be "working his purposes out" (to quote the hymn) if he didn't ordain in advance the choices people were going to make.

For some reason, I have no trouble whatsoever believing that God knew each of us so well that he knew what decisions we would make given a set of conditions.  And thus, by initiating the sequence with Adam and Eve, he could predict with perfect accuracy what each of us would do.  While it may seem the same as controlling our actions, the reality is simply that he knows us completely.  We are still free to do whatever we will, but he knows us well enough to know what we will.  And with that knowledge, he arranges the best possible mortal experience for each of us (where "best" is truly the best, not our mortal perception of "oh, my, this is wonderful").  For some reason, others struggle with the idea....

6 hours ago, Jamie123 said:

Unless of course God is continually zipping backwards and forwards through time and adjusting his prophecies to make everything fit. The mind boggles!

Well, all is "now" with God (or so it's suggested), so no zipping needed.  Either way, the mortal mind does indeed boggle.  It's unfortunate that Hugh Nibley's work is no longer available online for free (that I can find).  I think you would enjoy the chapter of Approaching Zion where Nibley talks about how God's mind is infinite and ours singular.

Edited October 28, 2023 by zil2

[zil2]

Alma 10

v6: "I knew...yet I would not know" - how often do we resist the things we know to be true, wishing other things were true, or acting contrary to what we know?  Quit rebelling and choose better.

v7: Don't wait for an angel - do good whenever the opportunity presents itself.

v10: Amulek has two witnesses (Alma and the angel); Alma and Amulek make two witnesses.  There's always more than one.

v11: The prophet doesn't have to be physically present in your house for you to receive the prophet and be blessed thereby.

v13-16: Be wary of the lawyers...

v17: How important it is to have the companionship of the Holy Ghost!

v22-23: If ever the righteous are cast out, make sure you're among them!

v25: Amulek was "all in".

v31: @Jamie123, if you haven't found it already, there's a pronunciation guide at the back of the Book of Mormon (even in the app), should you wish to check your pronunciational assumptions for names like Zeezrom.

v32: Conflict of interest - this will be expanded on in the following chapters.

[Vort]

49 minutes ago, zil2 said:

v31: @Jamie123, if you haven't found it already, there's a pronunciation guide at the back of the Book of Mormon (even in the app), should you wish to check your pronunciational assumptions for names like Zeezrom.

I haven't used that guide in years, but I just checked. Sure enough, they have zee-EZ-rum. I figured out a few decades ago that Zeezrom was Ze + Esrom, at the same time that I figured out that Zenephi was Ze + Nephi, Zenos was Ze + Enos, Zenoch was Ze + Enoch, Zeniff was, well, probably a variant of Zenephi, Cezoram was probably Ze + Zoram, and so forth. I had started taking a real interest in linguistics, and this bowled me over that the Book of Mormon showed a very realistic, believable evolution or extension of naming practices, without fanfare or drawing attention, just presented naturally, with no explanation.

These are the kind of things that provide a testimony of sorts to me, but that I don't preach to others nor expect that such things are convincing to those outside the Church. If I were not LDS but were looking into the Church, I suspect that I might find such a thing mildly interesting, but hardly something that would convince me to abandon my previous philosophies and whole-heartedly embrace this new religion and book of scripture and philosophy of life. But as someone on the inside, I do find it one more small brick in the wall of my testimony.

[Vort]

8 hours ago, Jamie123 said:

17 hours ago, Vort said:

The only meaning I can attach to this is that you might love Satan. And that would not make you more loving than God; quite the opposite. So I think you're okay.

Having thought about this a bit, I wonder if we need to clarify a potential misunderstanding. Latter-day Saints (if I understand correctly) believe that everyone is a child of God, and is therefore loved by God.

Now an alternative view (to which I have been somewhat exposed) is that the Natural Man is not a child of God, but can be "adopted" by accepting Christ - by being "born again". Inevitably, many people will not be born again, and that will include many who are (by our earthly standards) "good people" whom we would respect and love.

We teach our little children in Primary (an organization that lays a base-level "primary" foundation of understanding of the gospel and the Restored Church) that we are all children of our heavenly Father, to whom we pray. When our children are teenagers, we introduce the idea of "becoming" children of Christ; that is, there is a sense of accepting God as our Father that goes beyond the Primary picture of "Father in heaven", a state we actively pursue. I suspect that most adult Latter-day Saints are in the process of discovering what it means to become a child of God and how they can implement that in their own lives and actions.

2 hours ago, zil2 said:

Pretty sure @Vort would say God does hate Satan, at least.

I might say that, but I would probably try to avoid the issue as a semantic discussion that doesn't really shed much light on the important topics we try to deal with day to day.

I mean, if God hated the Lamanites (Helaman 15:4), then I think it's a foregone conclusion that he hates Satan. But what does that even mean?

Here is what I think it means: God's love is demonstrated, in fact measured, by his blessings to us. In the so-called Love Languages, God is not a Words of Affirmation or a Physical Touch kind of guy (those would be me). God is most definitely in the Giving and Receiving Gifts camp. We show our love to him, not by word or touch, but by giving him the gift of our broken hearts and contrite spirits. In return, God shows his love to us by giving us the gift of his Spirit, the covenants we make with him, and eventually, eternal life itself.

But God's gifts are received only by those who choose to receive them. Thus, in this most practical of senses, God literally cannot "love" those who reject his gifts to them. And since Satan is the very prototype of rejecting God, he receives none of God's gifts except for those he has already received, such as his very existence after his spiritual creation. So saying that God does not "love" Satan, at least in this sense, is true by definition. So if you define "hatred" as the opposite of "love"—a definition I probably would not agree with, but for purposes of this discussion is fine—then it would be axiomatic that God hates Satan.

I realize I often come across as pedantic, usually when I'm stating the obvious. My only justification is that I have found that it is often helpful to state beliefs or ideas very plainly and very simply, because by doing so I both clarify my thoughts and find deep connections between ideas that maybe should have been obvious to me, but were not obvious until I explained things in simple terms.

[Jamie123]

18 minutes ago, Vort said:

I realize I often come across as pedantic, usually when I'm stating the obvious. My only justification is that I have found that it is often helpful to state beliefs or ideas very plainly and very simply, because by doing so I both clarify my thoughts and find deep connections between ideas that maybe should have been obvious to me, but were not obvious until I explained things in simple terms.

Absolutely. By far the best way to know if you understand something is to try to explain it to someone else.

2 hours ago, zil2 said:

And with that knowledge, he arranges the best possible mortal experience for each of us (where "best" is truly the best, not our mortal perception of "oh, my, this is wonderful").  For some reason, others struggle with the idea....

I'm afraid I'm still one of those "others" who struggle. Maybe one day it will all "click" and I'll understand, but right now I don't. For example, I can't help asking if God gave Pharaoh (I mean the Pharaoh out of Exodus) the best mortal experience, when he kept on "hardening his heart". The best maybe for the purposes of God's own plan, but was it the best from the point of view of Pharaoh himself?

Edited October 28, 2023 by Jamie123

[Jamie123]

3 hours ago, zil2 said:

there are scriptures wherein the prophet who wrote them states that God hated such-and-such group or person.

Jesus did say we need to "hate" our own fathers, mothers, wives, children, brothers and sisters (Luke 14:26), so I agree the word "hate" needs careful interpretation.

[zil2]

28 minutes ago, Jamie123 said:

, I can't help asking if God gave Pharaoh (I mean the Pharaoh out of Exodus) the best mortal experience, when he kept on "hardening his heart".

Per the Joseph Smith Translation, it wasn't God, but Pharaoh who hardened Pharaoh's heart.

[zil2]

50 minutes ago, Vort said:

I might say that, but...

Very well written response.  I believe I agree with every word.  It expands on my comment about how it really depends on what one means by "hate".  We all think we know, until we're experienced enough to realize that we might not, and that whether we do or not, our understanding may differ from everyone else's at which point, one word isn't enough to communicate with.

[zil2]

I just created the topic for next week:

 

[zil2]

Alma 11

v20: Why integrity matters.  Why checks and balances are a good thing.  Etc.

v23+: Go Amulek!

v34: Some people fail to see the difference between "in" and "from".

v46+: Fun as it is to see Amulek "trounce" Zeezrom, it's even better that Zeezrom begins to be convinced of the truth.  Even if he were the only one redeemed by Alma and Amulek's teaching, it would be worth it.  And this exchange demonstrates how important it is to be guided by the Spirit.  Alma and Amulek couldn't have known who needed to hear what - but God knew and could guide them in their words. (12:3+)

Alma 12

v5-6: "plan of thine adversary" - Satan seeks to betray even those who do his bidding.

v8: When God calls you on the carpet (so to speak), take the chastisement and seek understanding.

v9: Many may know more than is commonly known, but they are required to keep it to themselves.  Keep that in mind if you seek revelation about something that has not yet been revealed publicly.

v10: The more you align your behavior with the truths you know, the more God will trust you with additional truth.

v11: I knew someone once who had forgotten an amazing amount of the gospel she grew up in.  Fortunately, she later returned to full activity in the Church.    Don't let Satan steal the truth from you.

v12: Lots of "bar of God" in this event - something that Zeezrom could relate to, being a lawyer.

v14+: Try to live so that you can stand upright in front of God - or at least fall to your knees in love rather than shame.

v21: An example of how knowing only snippets of scripture can lead you to false beliefs.

v24: How much better might I behave if I could always remember that the point of mortality is to prepare to meet God?

Believe in Jesus Christ and repent!

[Jamie123]

1 hour ago, zil2 said:

v34: Some people fail to see the difference between "in" and "from".

You may not agree with my Protestant theology, but I would say that to be "saved in your sins" would mean that you can carry on sinning merrily away and you'll still be saved. (This is a common strawman.) To be "saved from your sins" means that  you were once under the power of sin but are no longer. Not only does Christ take the punishment of your sin upon himself (and that would include your future sins), but he also changes you so you become less sinful, and eventually become like him.

1 hour ago, zil2 said:

v46+: Fun as it is to see Amulek "trounce" Zeezrom

I liked that too. "You know perfectly well there is a God, you just find it convenient to ignore the fact!" (Actually now I look back that was verse 24.)

1 hour ago, zil2 said:

v14+: Try to live so that you can stand upright in front of God - or at least fall to your knees in love rather than shame.

Verse 34 talks about "claim on mercy". Some Christians balk at the idea that we can have any kind of "claim on God", or to have God "in our debt". I have a theory about this, which I have never been able to articulate fully without someone "butting in" on me. But for what its worth, here it is:

Imagine there was a father who was worried about his teenage son's poor performance at school. He had tried to impress upon him the importance of working hard and getting a good job, but it was never any use. So one day he says to him, "Son, you know how you are always complaining that you don't have your own car? If you get an A for your next school report, I will buy you one." So the son works hard and (much to his teachers' astonishment) gets an A. He takes the report card to his father and says "OK Dad, I kept my side of the bargain, now you owe me a car."

Well in an absolute sense of course he doesn't. (Legally speaking, he would be quite within his rights if he refused.) But within the context of the covenant he made with his son, he does owe him a car.

Edited October 29, 2023 by Jamie123

[zil2]

24 minutes ago, Jamie123 said:

You may not agree with my Protestant theology, but I would say that to be "saved in your sins" would mean that you can carry on sinning merrily away and you'll still be saved. (This is a common strawman.) To be "saved from your sins" means that  you were once under the power of sin but are no longer. Not only does Christ take the punishment of your sin upon himself (and that would include your future sins), but he also changes you so you become less sinful, and eventually become like him.

This is exactly how we see it.

27 minutes ago, Jamie123 said:

within the context of the covenant

Precisely.  God makes covenants.  He promises blessings if we obey.  Scripture is full of the fulfillment of God's promises (both for good and ill, actually).  So while God may not technically owe us anything - remember King Benjamin's sermon about how we're worse than dust and unprofitable servants and whatnot - He has made promises, and God keeps his promises.