Operational Dynamics of “Reasoned Faith”

[huckelberry]

I agree with Huck and think it’s important to capture exactly what the text says—Genesis describes creation as “very good,” but not perfect. That difference matters, because “very good” is an evaluation and considered judgment within the story, not a claim about the ideal. If “very good” becomes “perfect,” the rest of your paragraph almost has to follow.

Your point about Platonism is solid. Once you adopt the “soul in corrupted flesh”, you almost have to ask why flesh was needed at all, and whether the soul is freer after death. But those questions aren’t being generated by Genesis itself.

So I’d agree, the problem is really what happens when a story about created goodness and restored life is asked to answer questions generated by Platonic abstraction.

I think it has been observed that the platonic view of ideal form and inferior substance has more common ground with gnostic lines of Christianity than orthodox. Gnosticism of course is not some unified system so a generality might not make everybody happy. Descent into physical bondage is a gnostic theme rejected by orthodox viewing physical creation as positive move to be completed by joining with God.

I am not attracted to Plato ideal triangles. I think ideal triangles are ideas created by humans clarifying their ability to measure and understand with math and geometry. They are conceptual tools.

I am going to risk saying I think Aquinas skirts too close, from my limited view, to Plato's forms in thinking ideas in the mind of God is most real. It seems to down play the richness of an objective physical creation.

I should say the following should point out my limitations not claim expertise. Some bunch of years ago I up and ordered online a copy of Aquinas suma. It arrived five paperback volumes in a box. I read all of volume one with mixed interest and distance. I found something about the basic idea of life being reabsorbed into the mind of God disappointing. I found no desire to read the next four volumes. Well someday maybe, or maybe not. Connected to the discussion of many angels dancing in a small space was the backing view that angels do not see or move with their own power but ride the mind of God. Ouch.

Perhaps it is a selfish inclination of mine but I see more independence as a good and as such I see creation as having a more independent and free dimension and relation to God more a dance than absorption. I am not going to claim a worked out metaphysics for this. I see too many unknowns. But artistic intuition can skip past those as can be seen in Genesis where creation has mystery as well as hope.

[Limnor]

Huck, when you talk about participation rather than absorption, how do you see union with God working without diminishing agency? Do you see the Adam and Eve relationship as offering a model for participation with God that preserves agency rather than dissolving it?

I’ve explored the thought that maybe Romans chapters 7 and 8 reflect Adam’s point of view, he does what he doesn’t want to do, suffers separation, and then is covered. I’m wondering if that lens meets with your points here.

[Gadianton]

As for the perfection in the Garden of Eden; if the author of Genesis could have imagined a more idyllic Garden would he have written about that instead? I think so. But it wouldn't matter that he didn't, because perfect triangles don't exist in reality and I don't think that's the kind of goodness Moses had in mind anyway. In other words, if the Garden was described as perfect, we wouldn't be thinking, "aha, so there were perfect triangles back then in the garden!"

The Garden of Eden and Plato offer two different kinds of goodness that may or may not be compatible. You can solve for death by resurrection, but imagining a body that can't die doesn't explain how it can grasp perfect forms, like triangles. If we grant that Plato's soul, a part of the world of forms can understand its own kind, things like triangles, then immortality falls out as a happy accident.

How to mix the smooth, creamy peanut butter of Plato with the rich, earthy chocolate of Moses?

[huckelberry]

Huck, when you talk about participation rather than absorption, how do you see union with God working without diminishing agency? Do you see the Adam and Eve relationship as offering a model for participation with God that preserves agency rather than dissolving it?

I’ve explored the thought that maybe Romans chapters 7 and 8 reflect Adam’s point of view, he does what he doesn’t want to do, suffers separation, and then is covered. I’m wondering if that lens meets with your points here.

Limnor, I think Romans 7 and 8 can be puzzling in its speech. Law and flesh are sort of personified leaving a reader a bit puzzled. It is a sort of allegorical presentation. For me I think both law and flesh may have multiple subjects. Adam and Eve could be one but not particularly what I think of. Paul sounds as if law means Moses but he has already noted all people have a sense of the law with or without that specific teaching.

I think Paul is clear that he sees the hope in Jesus to be much more than a covering. It is seed of life that is renewed in love and able to overcome, leave sin behind. I think that is about the injuries and resentments created by sin which lead to death. The use of the word flesh inclines one to think perhaps he means naughty urges. I think more is in view.

[Limnor]

The Garden of Eden and Plato offer two different kinds of goodness that may or may not be compatible. You can solve for death by resurrection, but imagining a body that can't die doesn't explain how it can grasp perfect forms, like triangles. If we grant that Plato's soul, a part of the world of forms can understand its own kind, things like triangles, then immortality falls out as a happy accident.

How to mix the smooth, creamy peanut butter of Plato with the rich, earthy chocolate of Moses?

I like the imagery! I’m not sure we have to mix the two—maybe Plato and Moses are answering different questions about what it means for creation, or a person, to be “good.” Maybe it’s not so much about compatibility as it is fully defining the question.

[Limnor]

Huck, when you talk about participation rather than absorption, how do you see union with God working without diminishing agency? Do you see the Adam and Eve relationship as offering a model for participation with God that preserves agency rather than dissolving it?

I’ve explored the thought that maybe Romans chapters 7 and 8 reflect Adam’s point of view, he does what he doesn’t want to do, suffers separation, and then is covered. I’m wondering if that lens meets with your points here.

Limnor, I think Romans 7 and 8 can be puzzling in its speech. Law and flesh are sort of personified leaving a reader a bit puzzled. It is a sort of allegorical presentation. For me I think both law and flesh may have multiple subjects. Adam and Eve could be one but not particularly what I think of. Paul sounds as if law means Moses but he has already noted all people have a sense of the law with or without that specific teaching.

I think Paul is clear that he sees the hope in Jesus to be much more than a covering. It is seed of life that is renewed in love and able to overcome, leave sin behind. I think that is about the injuries and resentments created by sin which lead to death. The use of the word flesh inclines one to think perhaps he means naughty urges. I think more is in view.

I agree that more seems to be in view, and yes, Paul sees it as more than covering, you are right.

I like to think of it this way. The “law” is the command God gave to Adam and Eve (though not restricted to that law—covetousness is mentioned in Romans 7) and “the flesh” is their inability to obey that law through their own efforts. Romans 8 then reads less like a legal fix and more like a new life that you are describing, that does what effort alone never could—make obedience possible as love—Christ in you—rather than compulsion.

I think you are also on to something with the universal understanding of law that Paul speaks about. I think of it like the sign over the hole in the wall that says “don’t look in this hole.” I think everyone’s first impulse is to immediately look, or want to, just because the sign said not to.

Edited to add: (though not restricted to that law—covetousness is mentioned in Romans 7)

[Limnor]

Joseph really butchers Romans 7 in his JST.

[Limnor]

A comparison of portions Romans 7 (KJV) with the Joseph Smith Translation (JST), looking at places where the JST significantly changes the text to fit a different, predetermined doctrinal meaning.

Romans 7:14

KJV—For we know that the law is spiritual: but I am carnal, sold under sin.

JST—For we know that the law is spiritual; but when I am under the law, I am carnal, sold under sin.

Joseph inserts a condition, “when I am under the law.” Paul’s carnality is reframed as situational, not ontological, altering the concept of original sin and fallen nature.

Romans 7:15

KJV—For that which I do I allow not: for what I would, that do I not; but what I hate, that do I.

JST—For that which I do while under the law, I allow not; for what I would do, that do I not; but what I hate, that do I.

An inner conflict is specifically tied to the condition of being under the law.

Romans 7:18

KJV—For I know that in me (that is, in my flesh,) dwelleth no good thing…

JST—For I know that in me (that is, in my flesh while under the law,) dwelleth no good thing…

Joseph avoids saying that human nature itself is devoid of good.

When I first heard about Joseph’s translation I thought he was referring back to original Greek and Hebrew sources. But nope, he just inserted extra words to backwards justify his theology.

[Limnor]

Huck, when you talk about participation rather than absorption, how do you see union with God working without diminishing agency? Do you see the Adam and Eve relationship as offering a model for participation with God that preserves agency rather than dissolving it?

I’ve explored the thought that maybe Romans chapters 7 and 8 reflect Adam’s point of view, he does what he doesn’t want to do, suffers separation, and then is covered. I’m wondering if that lens meets with your points here.

Limnor, I think Romans 7 and 8 can be puzzling in its speech. Law and flesh are sort of personified leaving a reader a bit puzzled. It is a sort of allegorical presentation. For me I think both law and flesh may have multiple subjects. Adam and Eve could be one but not particularly what I think of. Paul sounds as if law means Moses but he has already noted all people have a sense of the law with or without that specific teaching.

I think Paul is clear that he sees the hope in Jesus to be much more than a covering. It is seed of life that is renewed in love and able to overcome, leave sin behind. I think that is about the injuries and resentments created by sin which lead to death. The use of the word flesh inclines one to think perhaps he means naughty urges. I think more is in view.

I think you tip your hand a bit with “injuries and resentments.”

That language shifts “flesh” away from an incapability through your own efforts toward damage that can actually be healed through self effort—maybe working harder.

That feels much closer to a Book of Mormon/JST way of reading Romans 7 than to a classic KJV reading that treats the situation as an inner condition that renders one helpless and in need of salvation.

[huckelberry]

I think Paul is clear that he sees the hope in Jesus to be much more than a covering. It is seed of life that is renewed in love and able to overcome, leave sin behind. I think that is about the injuries and resentments created by sin which lead to death. The use of the word flesh inclines one to think perhaps he means naughty urges. I think more is in view.

I think you tip your hand a bit with “injuries and resentments.”

That language shifts “flesh” away from an incapability through your own efforts toward damage that can actually be healed through self effort—maybe working harder.

That feels much closer to a Book of Mormon/JST way of reading Romans 7 than to a classic KJV reading that treats the situation as an inner condition that renders one helpless and in need of salvation.

I think it is obvious that people can make good and helpful decisions. They do it all the time, even people at ease with sin make good decisions. I do not think that is the inability Paul sees. It may be our good efforts are insufficient due the trap of sin we are in. Yes good efforts might help heal injury but they do not erase the injuries created by sin. It is also true that sin may have a lead in time. Sin is enough our nature that is done at times before our inner nature (Paul calls good) can change our choice.

I can see angles in which we are helpless, we cannot earn or create our salvation. It is beyond our abilities. Healing all the injury of sin is beyond our power and is a hope only within the recreation and love of God. Having desire which is for the good of others than for coveting personal power grows in life shared with God. I understand Jesus's life and atonement to be the foundation of such sharing.