Split from: In Memory of EAllusion

[ajax18]

Ajax,

question. If you got yourself a couple of dogs, and one dog was much better responding to commands -- "get the ball" "jump" etc. than the other, would you love that dog more in exact proportion to its obedience to you?

It's hard to make human judgments about animals. My miniature pinscher wasn't as good at fetching or refraining from excessive barking. She wasn't as nice to strangers to my labradoodle. But they're both 100% loyal to me. So how could I love either of them less? The labradoodle was just a product of better breeding.

I think the Lord is patient with our weaknesses. I don't think He cares so much about the fact that I'm not the sharpest tool in the shed. But He does care about my level of effort I'm putting forth. Yes, it's ultimately either the Lord's way or the highway. My way of doing it wasn't working, not for me, not for anyone. But I'm confident that the Lord could make me more than I ever dreamed possible.

And God is not cruel or vindictive. The terrestrial and even telestial kingdoms are far better than the lives of kings on this earth. God has given everyone the most He can. It's true that the Lord says vengeance is mine, which actually frees us from the human cycle of revenge. For me, I'm required to love and forgive all men. But do I love someone who hates me and despitefully uses me more than a loyal friend? No I don't. I'm not even sure that I should.

[honorentheos]

Mormonism isn't a well thought out theological system, though, and much of it sits in tension precisely because its founders had different views..

I like to think of Mormonism being in superposition, and it isn't until the individual collapses all other states into a momentary theology does it make sense. Taking into account the individual’s proclivities, of course.

- Doc

I like the imagery. I know as a believing member I was not overtly aware of the underlying cognitive dissonance involved, though I suspect that the release/relief that comes from collapsing the conflicting states in focusing on the one of immediate importance until it made sense without conflict may have even strengthened the overall belief it was true. I mean, what better way to force "spiritual" experiences than to create conflict and psychological self-treatment through instilling a belief that feelings are how truth is confirmed? Consistency in facts and theory being necessary conditions of the theory having truth value? That's the philosophy of men and exactly why faith is a foundational principal over nice-to-haves like charity...

[Gadianton]

It's hard to make human judgments about animals. My miniature pinscher wasn't as good at fetching or refraining from excessive barking. She wasn't as nice to strangers to my labradoodle. But they're both 100% loyal to me. So how could I love either of them less?

Yeah, that's a really interesting insight, actually. I think it's interesting that "obedience" is the first law of heaven, and not loyalty. I do think though that loyalty is the implicit first law of heaven.

My dog has good manners but isn't good at tricks or even listening to me unless I deepen my voice and speak firmly. He may be at his cutest when he disobeys me; when I have to kick him out of my office so that he will spend time with other family members or eat. I would say, however, that as much as I love my dog and as hopelessly loyal to me that he is, the other family members love him just as much as I do. So love for a dog doesn't merely reduce to the dog's loyalty.

There is an extent to which obedience makes sense. If everyone is assumed to have equal skill, or if not, if we introduce a curve or handicap, then God should in principle love those who best keep the commandments. But as you point out, loyalty and obedience aren't exactly the same thing. If I'm a military leader I expect, and the military expects, that my subordinates obey my commands. I may prize my men according to their ability to carry out my orders, but perhaps I still see them somewhat equal because I recognize that talents vary, and star action roles can't happen without less glamorous logistical roles executing flawlessly.

But loyalty? Suppose I'm stealing equipment and my star sniper and the guy who loads up the truck with the ammo he shoots both catch me stealing. The sniper may have never missed a target I'm ordered him to shoot, but reports me without even thinking about it, while the other guy covers for me. Indeed, my "love" may shift to the more loyal soldier.

And isn't it just like this for Donald Trump? His appointments are decreasingly capable of following orders and completing their jobs, but loyalists who will cave to his every whim. I think with God and with a theocracy, obedience is the first law of heaven because it's assumed that God is never wrong. Nobody needs to prove their loyalty to God, at least in theory. They need to prove their obedience. But because religious authorities who claim to represent God range from fallible to outright criminals, obedience is the talking point, while loyalty is the selling point.

[ajax18]

And isn't it just like this for Donald Trump? His appointments are decreasingly capable of following orders and completing their jobs, but loyalists who will cave to his every whim. I think with God and with a theocracy, obedience is the first law of heaven because it's assumed that God is never wrong. Nobody needs to prove their loyalty to God, at least in theory. They need to prove their obedience. But because religious authorities who claim to represent God range from fallible to outright criminals, obedience is the talking point, while loyalty is the selling point.

Well this analogy breaks down pretty quickly when you start talking about fallible beings in a fallen world. Think about the spiritual world in which individuals do not suffer the varying degrees of physical/mental weakness of a fallen world, that were not their choice or fault. What I should have said was that both dogs loved me with all their heart, might, mind, and strength. And when we do that, God does love us equally. But none of us has ever really done that except Jesus in this world. Satan and his followers couldn't even manage to do it in our first estate.

I used to struggle with the idea that the Brethren were probably demanding obedience in order to use me rather than wanting what Jesus wants, which we should all be striving to want. Some may even have in the past because nobody is perfect, especially when we're 19-21 years old. Part of my transformation is seeing in my forties what real men of God look and act like. The idea that what they're asking me to do is out of line with the Lord's will has never crossed my mind since my spiritual revival because it hasn't been. Our overly competitive natures of our youth are gone. All I've seen are fellow priesthood holders seeking to support and uplift each other to living more Christlike lives. And it's a wonderful and empowering feeling to have that kind of spiritual support.

[Res Ipsa]

Having a crazy idea he thought made sense wasn't what made Smith's ideas stick, it was that others could find something in them they could attach their own thoughts and ambitions.

Jesus kind of did that for me when he said "Lay up treasures in heaven where moth nor rust doth corrupt, nor thieves break through and steal." That's a crazy idea for someone who believes that our existence ends at death. But for me it was certainly something I could attach my own thoughts and ambitions to.

Who in the early LDS church in your opinion had the idea that God loves everyone equally and we all make it to heaven whether we repent or not? Is that Calvinism? I've never believed in that idea. I never will. My leaders are well aware of that and I think they agree with me. But I think you're right that most LDS wouldn't admit that they think the seminary manual was wrong as I did. Why is that? What about my view doesn't add up theologically in your opinion? I guess I don't see the conflict. But I don't see laying up treasure in heaven as selfish in a bad way. Loving Jesus and wanting what the Lord wants is the only way we really can love ourselves in my opinion.

I don't equate "loving all equally" with "all making it to heaven." To my knowledge, it has never been Mormon doctrine that everyone would get to heaven. Getting to heaven requires "obedience to the laws and ordinances of the gospel." I don't see any inconsistency between Mormon doctrine and God loving all of his children equally.

Universalism is the term for the notion that everyone gets to heaven. Calvinism is kind of the opposite: God decided that he would only save 144,000 souls and designated which ones he would save before he ever created us. There is nothing you can do in life to change that.

[Res Ipsa]

And isn't it just like this for Donald Trump? His appointments are decreasingly capable of following orders and completing their jobs, but loyalists who will cave to his every whim. I think with God and with a theocracy, obedience is the first law of heaven because it's assumed that God is never wrong. Nobody needs to prove their loyalty to God, at least in theory. They need to prove their obedience. But because religious authorities who claim to represent God range from fallible to outright criminals, obedience is the talking point, while loyalty is the selling point.

Well this analogy breaks down pretty quickly when you start talking about fallible beings in a fallen world. Think about the spiritual world in which individuals do not suffer the varying degrees of physical/mental weakness of a fallen world, that were not their choice or fault. What I should have said was that both dogs loved me with all their heart, might, mind, and strength. And when we do that, God does love us equally. But none of us has ever really done that except Jesus in this world. Satan and his followers couldn't even manage to do it in our first estate.

I used to struggle with the idea that the Brethren were probably demanding obedience in order to use me rather than wanting what Jesus wants, which we should all be striving to want. Some may even have in the past because nobody is perfect, especially when we're 19-21 years old. Part of my transformation is seeing in my forties what real men of God look and act like. The idea that what they're asking me to do is out of line with the Lord's will has never crossed my mind since my spiritual revival because it hasn't been. Our overly competitive natures of our youth are gone. All I've seen are fellow priesthood holders seeking to support and uplift each other to living more Christlike lives. And it's a wonderful and empowering feeling to have that kind of spiritual support.

Ajax, it's a genuine pleasure to hear you talk about things you are happy about.

[ajax18]

I don't see any inconsistency between Mormon doctrine and God loving all of his children equally.

I would agree with Mormon's argument that a wicked person would be more comfortable further away from God than in his presence. So God gives Him only the amount of light and truth that he can stand. But I'm assuming that one like Gad would counter that this is proof that the LDS God doesn't love everyone equally.

I'm not aware that I have any scripture to back this up, but I would say that God doesn't love Satan anymore. I'd even say that God loves Jesus more than He loves me, as He should. Do you believe differently?

[Res Ipsa]

I don't see any inconsistency between Mormon doctrine and God loving all of his children equally.

I would agree with Mormon's argument that a wicked person would be more comfortable further away from God than in his presence. So God gives Him only the amount of light and truth that he can stand. But I'm assuming that one like Gad would counter that this is proof that the LDS God doesn't love everyone equally.

I'm not aware that I have any scripture to back this up, but I would say that God doesn't love Satan anymore. I'd even say that God loves Jesus more than He loves me, as He should. Do you believe differently?

I think that’s an interesting question. I honestly have no idea.

[ajax18]

I would agree with Mormon's argument that a wicked person would be more comfortable further away from God than in his presence. So God gives Him only the amount of light and truth that he can stand. But I'm assuming that one like Gad would counter that this is proof that the LDS God doesn't love everyone equally.

I'm not aware that I have any scripture to back this up, but I would say that God doesn't love Satan anymore. I'd even say that God loves Jesus more than He loves me, as He should. Do you believe differently?

I think that’s an interesting question. I honestly have no idea.

I guess my bigger question is, why is this such a controversial idea to the point that as Honorentheos points out, most LDS wouldn't admit it if they thought the way I did on the issue?

[Res Ipsa]

I think that’s an interesting question. I honestly have no idea.

I guess my bigger question is, why is this such a controversial idea to the point that as Honorentheos points out, most LDS wouldn't admit it if they thought the way I did on the issue?

I don't know that I agree with Honor. I did a quick Google search on whether God's love is conditional or unconditional. The things that came up were by Christians and there was no general agreement. From just a quick review, part of the issue seems to be that the Bible says very little about the nature of God's love. The God of the Old Testament doesn't appear to love everyone equally. God loved Jacob but hated Esau. It also appears that he loved Israel, his chosen people, more than others.

Then we get the New Testament, which maybe hints that God's love is not conditional. But it's not clear at all. I think it's easier for orthodox Christians to get to God having unconditional love because their God is a perfect being. Their God has perfect love. How could the actions of mere mortal change the perfect love of a perfect God. On top of that, for many Christians, salvation is not tied to obedience in the way that it is in LDS theology.

In LDS theology, salvation comes by obedience. Moreover, the LDS God is not the Perfect, Unchanging being that he is in orthodox Christianity. So, I think there is more room for LDS folks to give serious consideration to the notion that God's love is conditional on our obedience.

It may be that an LDS person who believes God loves them more than he loves non-LDS people would be worried about appearance. I just don't know. Looking at the scriptures, I'm not sure it matters what a follower of Christ believes about the nature of God's love. God's ways are not man's ways and all that. Jesus's teachings to people were to love each other.