Punitiveness and the TBM

[_Yoda]

Something has bothered me for a while, so I want to get some feedback about it.

For TBMs, obeying the will of Church Authorities is of utmost importance and I respect that. However, when it
comes to the matter of God, they always speak of God's justice and seldom his mercy. God's punitive side
always shines forth, which is reflected both in their insistence that horrendous actions ascribed to God in the
Old Testament were literal and that it is proper for leaders to echo harsh judgment as God's earthly tribunal.

I'm glad you brought this up. I have been thinking about this a lot as well. I think that Harmony made a good point in one of the Terrestrial threads (can't remember now which one), when she was talking about how TBM MAD posters differ from the "average Church-going Mormon". I think that the average chapel Mormon has feelings more in line with the mercy side of God than the justice side. I know that my husband feels that way, and he is about as TBM as you get. ;)

There seems to be a very blatant focus on justice, particularly with the MAD crowd.

My version of Christianity is based on worshiping a loving God. I think the message of the New Testament
was one of mercy tempering justice, if not outright trumping it. I want the Church to be on a loving course rather than a punitive one. I want a God that showers us with love unconditionally like an idealized parent, rather than a taskmaster handing out demerits.

(Bold emphasis mine) You are exactly right! This is something that, I think, is lost on some TBM's. Christ came to the earth to fulfill the law. The law of the Old Testament was a lesser law. Christ's teachings, and later, his ultimate sacrifice in both the garden and on the cross WAS his Trump on justice. This is what gave us the gift of repentance so that we CAN return to Him, as in the parable of the Prodigal's son.

I have heard TBMs tell me that I cannot custom order God and that you have to take what you are given, and yet I find my interpretation more to my liking and with an equal likelihood of being an accurate description of the Divine. Putting one's faith in the hands of that which is worthy of praise makes more sense. I find myself asking the question regarding what inner qualities are inherent in being a TBM that make the punitiveness of God more appealing. Am I deficient or blessed for not having those qualities?

Am I up in the night? Does this put me at irreconcilable odds with today's TBM? Can I just exist in peace, in a minority Mormon status?
.

(bold emphasis mine) In answer to your question bolded.....you are most certainly NOT deficient. You are BLESSED because you understand the TRUE nature of God.

And...for what it's worth....if you feel you are existing in a "minority Mormon status"....you are existing right there with me! :-)

[_Seven]

I agree with you Moshka.
In my experience, most TBMs believe in a works based salvation, and that our life here on earth determines which kingdom we will be eternally placed. They expect recompense for obedience to Mormon laws, much like the older brother in the Prodigal Son parable. I was discussing this with a TBM friend a few months ago, and she admitted to being one of those Mormons in the past. She felt her life of living moral laws entitled her to a greater reward than those who lived wild and careless, only to repent later. She had recognized her error in this uncharitable view, and now desires to be like the servant who rejoiced with Christ in welcoming the Prodigal son home. Speaking with her made me proud to call myself a Mormon.

A God who locks the door by not allowing his children opportunities to repent or progress in the next life, is not one who loves His children unconditionally.
Elder Oaks talk this conference on obedience and several others in the past on God's conditional love have really bothered me. He said that mercy is only granted to those who obey law and then went on to misinterpret the scripture on "mercy cannot rob justice." Why would you need mercy if you followed the laws of God?

Fortunately Elder Uchtdorf spoke of God's unconditional love. (in complete contrast to Elder Oak's message that leaves one with no hope of making it home)


One of my favorite moments in Elder Uchtdorf’s talk was when he gave a warning to the Pharisaical Mormons in the church:

“Sometimes well meaning amplifications of divine principles, many coming from uninspired sources, complicate matters further, diluting the purity of divine truth with man made addenda. One person’s good idea, something that may work for him or her, takes root and becomes an expectation. And gradually eternal principles, can get lost within the labyrinth of good ideas.
This was one of the Savior’s criticisms of the religious experts of His day, whom He chastised, for attending to the hundreds of minor details of the law while neglecting the weightier matters.”

Here are some other great quotes from his talk I noted:

“What we love determines what we seek. What we seek determines what we do. What we do determines what we are and who we will become.”

“Love truly is the defining characteristic of a disciple of Christ.”

“We are important to God not because of our resume, but because we are His Children.
God’s love is so great that he loves even the proud, the selfish, the arrogant and the wicked. What this means is that regardless of our current state, there is hope for us. No matter our distress, no matter our sorrow, no matter our mistakes, our infinitely compassionate Heavenly Father desires that we draw near to him.”

This is preaching the good news of the gospel.
These are the words that uplift and inspire us to do better.

[_moksha]

Seven, those words really meant a lot to me. Thank you for bringing Elder Uchtdorf's words and putting such a meaningful context to them with what you shared. Elder Uchtdorf gets it. I'm glad he is one of my spiritual leaders.

Liz and Seven. Your feedback is so very much appreciated. Here's to our minority status.

[_John D the First]

What did you guys think of Elder Oak's talk this conference? He highlighted the way I think LDS scriptures reconcile mercy and justice. I believe he talked about the God's laws as simply the objective conditions that enable us to become like him. His justice then would be his way of not allowing us to stagnate, or digress. I was raised by a somewhat overindulgent mother and have suffered for it, so I can understand how unbounded mercy could be unloving if one has the big picture.

I also want to clarify something in a previous post; I did not mean to say that the church is overall more punitive than I am in my view of God. I meant to say that I don't feel a huge disconnect between my views and those of my fellow Saints. So I agree with the previous poster that said most TBMs tend to the mercy side. In my experience, the more punitive ones are those who cause eye rolls when they make comments in class or bear their testimony. Perhaps they are also the type that gets a rush out of endless online polemics.

[_Seven]

What did you guys think of Elder Oak's talk this conference? He highlighted the way I think LDS scriptures reconcile mercy and justice. I believe he talked about the God's laws as simply the objective conditions that enable us to become like him. His justice then would be his way of not allowing us to stagnate, or digress. I was raised by a somewhat overindulgent mother and have suffered for it, so I can understand how unbounded mercy could be unloving if one has the big picture.

I agree that consequences of breaking laws are to help us learn and become. Hence, Eve had to partake of the fruit/sin to learn the difference between good and evil.

I agreed with parts of the talk but I did have some very strong objections to a statements.


I liked this quote:

Elder Oaks Conference Oct. 09

First, consider the love of God, described so meaningfully this morning by President Dieter F. Uchtdorf. “Who shall separate us from the love of Christ?” the Apostle Paul asked. Not tribulation, not persecution, not peril or the sword (see Romans 8:35). “For I am persuaded,” he concluded, “that neither death, nor life, nor angels, nor principalities, nor powers, . . . nor any other creature, shall be able to separate us from the love of God” (verses 38–39).

There is no greater evidence of the infinite power and perfection of God’s love than is declared by the Apostle John: “For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son” (John 3:16). Another Apostle wrote that God “spared not his own Son, but delivered him up for us all” (Romans 8:32).

But then the talk started to go downhill for me:

Think how it must have grieved our Heavenly Father to send His Son to endure incomprehensible suffering for our sins. That is the greatest evidence of His love for each of us!

Why would God sending someone else (His spirit child and our brother in the pre existence) to suffer and bleed for our sins be evidence of His love??? Why is there some special grieving for Christ if we are all God’s children? That Mormon teaching has always bothered me. Now if my Heavenly Father came as the mortal man Christ to save me, if Christ and the Father are one God, then that would be evidence of His love.

I really cringed at these next statements.

The next two examples show mortal confusion about the effect of God’s love.
• A person rejects the doctrine that a couple must be married for eternity to enjoy family relationships in the next life, declaring, “If God really loved us, I can’t believe He would separate husbands and wives in this way.”
• Another person says his faith has been destroyed by the suffering God allows to be inflicted on a person or a race, concluding, “If there was a God who loved us, He wouldn’t let this happen.”

Mortal confusion? Does Elder Oaks have the answers to why a person should believe God will intervene when they pray for safety each night, when he allows little children to be raped and murdered?? Does Elder Oaks not understand why it seems contradictory for a loving God to separate us from our loved ones because they didn’t believe in Mormon ordinances? What kind of heaven would it be without our loved ones?

he continues-

These persons disbelieve eternal laws which they consider contrary to their concept of the effect of God’s love. Persons who take this position do not understand the nature of God’s love or the purpose of His laws and commandments. The love of God does not supersede His laws and His commandments, and the effect of God’s laws and commandments does not diminish the purpose and effect of His love. The same should be true of parental love and rules.

umm, then what was the purpose of Christ dying and bleeding for our sins???? Where does mercy fit into this view? If he only meant to say there are consequences for sin, then I agree.

God’s love for His children is an eternal reality, but why does He love us so much, and why do we desire that love? The answer is found in the relationship between God’s love and His laws.

What???
I don’t see why the answer is found in laws. For me it’s in the relationships we develop with others, namely our family.

Some seem to value God’s love because of their hope that His love is so great and so unconditional that it will mercifully excuse them from obeying His laws.

If I were to take a guess, this comment was directed at Christians. It gets tiresome to keep hearing these distortions of their beliefs on grace.
Most don’t equate God’s unconditional love with the freedom to sin however they want. And if by “some” he means a very small minority of believers, then it’s not even worth mentioning.

Here was my strongest disagreement in the talk:

In contrast, those who understand God’s plan for His children know that God’s laws are invariable, which is another great evidence of His love for His children. Mercy cannot rob justice,2 and those who obtain mercy are “they who have kept the covenant and observed the commandment” (D&C 54:6).

As I mentioned in an earlier post, why would a person “who kept the covenant and observed the commandment” need mercy?
So the atonement is only good for certain people? The ones who are almost perfect?

in my opinion, he completely misinterprets what the scripture “mercy cannot rob justice” means. The reason mercy can’t rob justice is that it would negate Christ’s sacrifice if it did. Jesus already paid the sentence for every crime committed. If mercy could rob justice, then his sacrifice was meaningless because it did not meet the demands of the law and He would cease to be God.
I was very disappointed to see Elder Oaks misusing that beautiful scripture of God’s mercy to prove his views on justice.

How can a person speak of God’s “infinite and perfect love” and then say this:

In other words, the kingdom of glory to which the Final Judgment assigns us is not determined by love but by the law that God has invoked in His plan to qualify us for eternal life, “the greatest of all the gifts of God” (D&C 14:7).

Sounds like a real loving Father doesn't it?

If God truly wanted to provide a way for his children to return home, why would there be a FINAL judgment into a kingdom that separates us from Him??? And this was by the law "God invoked in His plan" before we came down???

His talk was very contradictory. Going back and forth between God’s universal love, and Christ’s mercy only given to those who are obedient.
We all die in sin from our fallen state. I agree that if we really love and desire to know God, we would try to follow Christ’s example, doing our best to keep the commandments. But I strongly disagree with Elder Oaks remarks on who obtains mercy because there would be no hope for the repentant sinner.

I believe God’s door will always be open for His children to return home if his love is truly universal and infinite.

I found it ironic that Oaks mentioned Elder Uchtdorf's uplifting words on God's love at the beginning of his talk.

[_John D the First]

What did you guys think of Elder Oak's talk this conference? He highlighted the way I think LDS scriptures reconcile mercy and justice. I believe he talked about the God's laws as simply the objective conditions that enable us to become like him. His justice then would be his way of not allowing us to stagnate, or digress. I was raised by a somewhat overindulgent mother and have suffered for it, so I can understand how unbounded mercy could be unloving if one has the big picture.

I agree that consequences of breaking laws are to help us learn and become. Hence, Eve had to partake of the fruit/sin to learn the difference between good and evil.

I agreed with parts of the talk but I did have some very strong objections to a statements.


I liked this quote:

Elder Oaks Conference Oct. 09

First, consider the love of God, described so meaningfully this morning by President Dieter F. Uchtdorf. “Who shall separate us from the love of Christ?” the Apostle Paul asked. Not tribulation, not persecution, not peril or the sword (see Romans 8:35). “For I am persuaded,” he concluded, “that neither death, nor life, nor angels, nor principalities, nor powers, . . . nor any other creature, shall be able to separate us from the love of God” (verses 38–39).

There is no greater evidence of the infinite power and perfection of God’s love than is declared by the Apostle John: “For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son” (John 3:16). Another Apostle wrote that God “spared not his own Son, but delivered him up for us all” (Romans 8:32).

But then the talk started to go downhill for me:

Think how it must have grieved our Heavenly Father to send His Son to endure incomprehensible suffering for our sins. That is the greatest evidence of His love for each of us!

Why would God sending someone else (His spirit child and our brother in the pre existence) to suffer and bleed for our sins be evidence of His love??? Why is there some special grieving for Christ if we are all God’s children? That Mormon teaching has always bothered me. Now if my Heavenly Father came as the mortal man Christ to save me, if Christ and the Father are one God, then that would be evidence of His love.

I really cringed at these next statements.

The next two examples show mortal confusion about the effect of God’s love.
• A person rejects the doctrine that a couple must be married for eternity to enjoy family relationships in the next life, declaring, “If God really loved us, I can’t believe He would separate husbands and wives in this way.”
• Another person says his faith has been destroyed by the suffering God allows to be inflicted on a person or a race, concluding, “If there was a God who loved us, He wouldn’t let this happen.”

Mortal confusion? Does Elder Oaks have the answers to why a person should believe God will intervene when they pray for safety each night, when he allows little children to be raped and murdered?? Does Elder Oaks not understand why it seems contradictory for a loving God to separate us from our loved ones because they didn’t believe in Mormon ordinances? What kind of heaven would it be without our loved ones?

he continues-

These persons disbelieve eternal laws which they consider contrary to their concept of the effect of God’s love. Persons who take this position do not understand the nature of God’s love or the purpose of His laws and commandments. The love of God does not supersede His laws and His commandments, and the effect of God’s laws and commandments does not diminish the purpose and effect of His love. The same should be true of parental love and rules.

umm, then what was the purpose of Christ dying and bleeding for our sins???? Where does mercy fit into this view? If he only meant to say there are consequences for sin, then I agree.

God’s love for His children is an eternal reality, but why does He love us so much, and why do we desire that love? The answer is found in the relationship between God’s love and His laws.

What???
I don’t see why the answer is found in laws. For me it’s in the relationships we develop with others, namely our family.

Some seem to value God’s love because of their hope that His love is so great and so unconditional that it will mercifully excuse them from obeying His laws.

If I were to take a guess, this comment was directed at Christians. It gets tiresome to keep hearing these distortions of their beliefs on grace.
Most don’t equate God’s unconditional love with the freedom to sin however they want. And if by “some” he means a very small minority of believers, then it’s not even worth mentioning.

Here was my strongest disagreement in the talk:

In contrast, those who understand God’s plan for His children know that God’s laws are invariable, which is another great evidence of His love for His children. Mercy cannot rob justice,2 and those who obtain mercy are “they who have kept the covenant and observed the commandment” (D&C 54:6).

As I mentioned in an earlier post, why would a person “who kept the covenant and observed the commandment” need mercy?
So the atonement is only good for certain people? The ones who are almost perfect?

in my opinion, he completely misinterprets what the scripture “mercy cannot rob justice” means. The reason mercy can’t rob justice is that it would negate Christ’s sacrifice if it did. Jesus already paid the sentence for every crime committed. If mercy could rob justice, then his sacrifice was meaningless because it did not meet the demands of the law and He would cease to be God.
I was very disappointed to see Elder Oaks misusing that beautiful scripture of God’s mercy to prove his views on justice.

How can a person speak of God’s “infinite and perfect love” and then say this:

In other words, the kingdom of glory to which the Final Judgment assigns us is not determined by love but by the law that God has invoked in His plan to qualify us for eternal life, “the greatest of all the gifts of God” (D&C 14:7).

Sounds like a real loving Father doesn't it?

If God truly wanted to provide a way for his children to return home, why would there be a FINAL judgment into a kingdom that separates us from Him??? And this was by the law "God invoked in His plan" before we came down???

His talk was very contradictory. Going back and forth between God’s universal love, and Christ’s mercy only given to those who are obedient.
We all die in sin from our fallen state. I agree that if we really love and desire to know God, we would try to follow Christ’s example, doing our best to keep the commandments. But I strongly disagree with Elder Oaks remarks on who obtains mercy because there would be no hope for the repentant sinner.

I believe God’s door will always be open for His children to return home if his love is truly universal and infinite.

I found it ironic that Oaks mentioned Elder Uchtdorf's uplifting words on God's love at the beginning of his talk.

I can see your points on a few of those statements. Like his example of the person disturbed by suffering is not the best because it may imply that the world's suffering is the result of God's justice. Also, the statement about sealing is vague as well because in LDS theology this life is not the only opportunity to be sealed.

Elder Oaks is here dealing with the conundrum of conservative morality. Upholding an unambiguous moral code is difficult to do without being overly exclusive and self-righteous with respect to those do not abide by it. He's here trying to do the inevitable balancing act that comes with the territory. As might be expected, he's more successful in some instances than others. I interpreted most his talk through the lens of the ideas expressed in the following:

We read again and again in the Bible and in modern scriptures of God’s anger with the wicked3 and of His acting in His wrath against those who violate His laws. How are anger and wrath evidence of His love? Joseph Smith taught that God “institute[d] laws whereby [the spirits that He would send into the world] could have a privilege to advance like himself.” God’s love is so perfect that He lovingly requires us to obey His commandments because He knows that only through obedience to His laws can we become perfect, as He is. For this reason, God’s anger and His wrath are not a contradiction of His love but an evidence of His love. Every parent knows that you can love a child totally and completely while still being creatively angry and disappointed at that child’s self-defeating behavior.

Instead of anger I might put sadness or pain, but anger may have a stronger rhetorical affect that is crucial in some cases. Like if my 3 year old daughter is headed for the street, I can using a loving tone until the cows come home, but if I really want her to listen the angry dad voice is the most effective. In that situation, I am angry because I love her and don't want her to get hurt. But generally, my Dad's reprimands were normally most effective when given with painful concern, not anger. They can go hand and hand, though, as the Lord's dialogue with Enoch illustrates.

[_moksha]

Elder Oaks is here dealing with the conundrum of conservative morality. Upholding an unambiguous moral code is difficult to do without being overly exclusive and self-righteous with respect to those do not abide by it. He's here trying to do the inevitable balancing act that comes with the territory.

Wonder if he may have been chastised for speaking about unconditional love in his past conference address. Some of the quorum have spoken out against this concept, perhaps for the reasons you state.

When President Uchtdorf said:

God’s love is so great that he loves even the proud, the selfish, the arrogant and the wicked. What this means is that regardless of our current state, there is hope for us. No matter our distress, no matter our sorrow, no matter our mistakes, our infinitely compassionate Heavenly Father desires that we draw near to him.”

he was saying something profound and wonderful. If God was perceived as all loving, it might be viewed as standing in stark opposition to those proposing harsh justice.

.

[_Seven]

"John D the First"


I can see your points on a few of those statements. Like his example of the person disturbed by suffering is not the best because it may imply that the world's suffering is the result of God's justice. Also, the statement about sealing is vague as well because in LDS theology this life is not the only opportunity to be sealed.

I agree. I really didn't know for sure how he was tying those examples into obeying law, unless he is trying to imply that God can't interfere with the consequences of agency because He is bound by law.

Elder Oaks is here dealing with the conundrum of conservative morality. Upholding an unambiguous moral code is difficult to do without being overly exclusive and self-righteous with respect to those do not abide by it. He's here trying to do the inevitable balancing act that comes with the territory.

Exactly! :) I was thinking the same thing, and I admit I felt kind of bad after picking apart his talk today. He's in a tough position to be given the topic of obedience. Having to motivate or call people to repentance is not a job I would want.

As might be expected, he's more successful in some instances than others. I interpreted most his talk through the lens of the ideas expressed in the following:

We read again and again in the Bible and in modern scriptures of God’s anger with the wicked3 and of His acting in His wrath against those who violate His laws. How are anger and wrath evidence of His love? Joseph Smith taught that God “institute[d] laws whereby [the spirits that He would send into the world] could have a privilege to advance like himself.” God’s love is so perfect that He lovingly requires us to obey His commandments because He knows that only through obedience to His laws can we become perfect, as He is. For this reason, God’s anger and His wrath are not a contradiction of His love but an evidence of His love. Every parent knows that you can love a child totally and completely while still being creatively angry and disappointed at that child’s self-defeating behavior.

When I went back and read the talk again today for this post, I was able to view it much more through that lens. Initially his talk turned me off so much because of those disagreements I mentioned, that I may have misjudged what his intended message was.

Instead of anger I might put sadness or pain, but anger may have a stronger rhetorical affect that is crucial in some cases. Like if my 3 year old daughter is headed for the street, I can using a loving tone until the cows come home, but if I really want her to listen the angry dad voice is the most effective. In that situation, I am angry because I love her and don't want her to get hurt. But generally, my Dad's reprimands were normally most effective when given with painful concern, not anger. They can go hand and hand, though, as the Lord's dialogue with Enoch illustrates.

I agree. :)

[_moksha]

In other Christian faith traditions with conservative morality, fire and brimstone for those not towing a tight line is frequently a topic. Life in a lake of fire is the consequence.

[_bcspace]

My version of Christianity is based on worshiping a loving God. I think the message of the New Testament was one of mercy tempering justice, if not outright trumping it. I want the Church to be on a loving course rather than a punitive one. I want a God that showers us with love unconditionally like an idealized parent, rather than a taskmaster handing out demerits.

Your notion of the New Testament message contradicts it as it ignores what Jesus has said in many places therein regarding punishment (such as Matthew 25:41) and focuses only on that which you agree with. Mercy and justice do not rob each other and you hear both spoken of in the LDS Church.