Blasphemous Question

[Katy Lied]

Here is a question that I feel blasphemous even asking. I've been wondering about them lately, and I don't think that Gospel Doc class is the appropriate forum for bringing them up.

If you accept Jesus Christ as the God of the Old Testament, and you've been following the travails of getting the Children of Israel out of Egypt, and trying to get the Egypt out of the Children of Israel, you might be struck by how... unsuccessful The Lord is in achieving His purposes. When physical problems come up, he innovates solutions (pillar of fire, quail, Brass Serpent) that seem to work okay. But he can never teach the people about his Gospel, not really. He tries to teach them the higher law and gets rejected, He can never get them to understand that He is the bread of life and not the manna that rains down on them, he cannot get them to stop complaining, He cannot get them to trust Him and take courage from being under His wing to fight for their promised land, He loses His temper. It presents a picture of a God who understands the physical forces of nature but not the psychological forces of a people.

One thing I've thought of, is that perhaps Jesus Christ is learning how to be rejected, learning patience with a recalcitrant people, learning to genuinely care for people who don't appreciate Him and don't believe in Him and His gospel, learning to have the infinite capacity to love that will be required for his upcoming sacrifice for all mankind. Thoughts?

[myboynoah]

Why? For the same reason some people argue "Political Science" is an oxymoron, I suppose.

[pellegrino]

Here is a question that I feel blasphemous even asking. I've been wondering about them lately, and I don't think that Gospel Doc class is the appropriate forum for bringing them up.

If you accept Jesus Christ as the God of the Old Testament, and you've been following the travails of getting the Children of Israel out of Egypt, and trying to get the Egypt out of the Children of Israel, you might be struck by how... unsuccessful The Lord is in achieving His purposes. When physical problems come up, he innovates solutions (pillar of fire, quail, Brass Serpent) that seem to work okay. But he can never teach the people about his Gospel, not really. He tries to teach them the higher law and gets rejected, He can never get them to understand that He is the bread of life and not the manna that rains down on them, he cannot get them to stop complaining, He cannot get them to trust Him and take courage from being under His wing to fight for their promised land, He loses His temper. It presents a picture of a God who understands the physical forces of nature but not the psychological forces of a people.

One thing I've thought of, is that perhaps Jesus Christ is learning how to be rejected, learning patience with a recalcitrant people, learning to genuinely care for people who don't appreciate Him and don't believe in Him and His gospel, learning to have the infinite capacity to love that will be required for his upcoming sacrifice for all mankind. Thoughts?

Is that really a blasphemous question? I don't think so. I think it's important to remember that scripture is man's attempt at describing God and his relationship with Him. I don't know that we can say for certainty that the OT as currently constituted is the most accurate representation of God's feelings toward His children. Rather, it's how His children interpreted their circumstances and attributed them to Him. Perhaps I'm being blasphemous in saying that though.

[kccougar]

Is that really a blasphemous question? I don't think so. I think it's important to remember that scripture is man's attempt at describing God and his relationship with Him. I don't know that we can say for certainty that the OT as currently constituted is the most accurate representation of God's feelings toward His children. Rather, it's how His children interpreted their circumstances and attributed them to Him. Perhaps I'm being blasphemous in saying that though.

I was in the middle of typing the same thing, but you said it much better. So, no, I don't think you're being blasphemous either.

[BlueHair]

If the bible is even remotely accurate, there is too big of a personality difference between the God of the Old Testament and Jesus for them to be the same person.

[RC Vikings]

It seems that God was in a really bad place during the OT times but really mellowed when he came to earth. Maybe he's still learning also.

[byu71]

It seems that God was in a really bad place during the OT times but really mellowed when he came to earth. Maybe he's still learning also.

LOL, ask your retruning RM that question when he gets back. Make sure you ask it within a day or two. They tend to mellow out after a week or two and it wouldn't be as fun.

[oxcoug]

Doesn't strike me as blasphemous

Here is a question that I feel blasphemous even asking. I've been wondering about them lately, and I don't think that Gospel Doc class is the appropriate forum for bringing them up.

If you accept Jesus Christ as the God of the Old Testament, and you've been following the travails of getting the Children of Israel out of Egypt, and trying to get the Egypt out of the Children of Israel, you might be struck by how... unsuccessful The Lord is in achieving His purposes. When physical problems come up, he innovates solutions (pillar of fire, quail, Brass Serpent) that seem to work okay. But he can never teach the people about his Gospel, not really. He tries to teach them the higher law and gets rejected, He can never get them to understand that He is the bread of life and not the manna that rains down on them, he cannot get them to stop complaining, He cannot get them to trust Him and take courage from being under His wing to fight for their promised land, He loses His temper. It presents a picture of a God who understands the physical forces of nature but not the psychological forces of a people.

One thing I've thought of, is that perhaps Jesus Christ is learning how to be rejected, learning patience with a recalcitrant people, learning to genuinely care for people who don't appreciate Him and don't believe in Him and His gospel, learning to have the infinite capacity to love that will be required for his upcoming sacrifice for all mankind. Thoughts?

But I think it's a very good question and you come close to an answer that could work.

I can see it as a kind of ultimate demonstration of God's commitment to individual and collective free will. Agency is, in my view and I think in the Church's view, the foundational, working principle of human spiritual and moral development.

In trying and failing to move his people to accept correct principles and in finally allowing them to fall short repeatedly God proves that he won't violate the laws of agency.

But inverting that, I think it's also proof that most Mormons (not many CUF Mormons I'm guessing) misread the phrase "all-powerful" as there are clearly limitations to God's powers - in this case his powers of persuasion.

[Rosebud]

One thing I've thought of, is that perhaps Jesus Christ is learning how to be rejected, learning patience with a recalcitrant people, learning to genuinely care for people who don't appreciate Him and don't believe in Him and His gospel, learning to have the infinite capacity to love that will be required for his upcoming sacrifice for all mankind. Thoughts?

Interesting thought. This is the first time I've ever considered the idea that we as humans might be going through difficulties in order to help God in his progression. It's quite a reversal on the idea that we struggle in order to promote our own progression.

It does work as a reconciliation between the OT Christ and the NT Christ, but I have a hard time believing in a God who has the ability to create universes and is still working on some pretty basic parenting skills.... esp. when so much misery comes out of his.. um.... mistakes.

I kinda think that as Mormons we're kind of wired to try to find reconciliations between discrepancies like this one, and tensions we see between the world we experience and the doctrines we've been taught. We've experienced such carefully correlated lessons and doctrines for so long that when we discover these tensions, we naturally believe there must be some simple way to make logical sense out of them that brings them back into our correlated picture of reality.

My husband and I are reading Robert Alter's Literary Guide to the Bible (thanks pelagius). When we first started reading, he immediately began trying to reconcile all the new thoughts we were having with LDS doctrine. Now we've decided to try to experience the book for what it is instead of trying to mold it to our world view. It's an exciting experience because, in a way, that's what Alter is doing with the bible. He and the other authors (it's actually an anthology) are trying to describe the bible as what it presents itself to be instead of trying to mold it to their version of doctrine or diety. We haven't had so many new insights in ages.

[clackamascoug]

Here is a question that I feel blasphemous even asking. I've been wondering about them lately, and I don't think that Gospel Doc class is the appropriate forum for bringing them up.

If you accept Jesus Christ as the God of the Old Testament, and you've been following the travails of getting the Children of Israel out of Egypt, and trying to get the Egypt out of the Children of Israel, you might be struck by how... unsuccessful The Lord is in achieving His purposes. When physical problems come up, he innovates solutions (pillar of fire, quail, Brass Serpent) that seem to work okay. But he can never teach the people about his Gospel, not really. He tries to teach them the higher law and gets rejected, He can never get them to understand that He is the bread of life and not the manna that rains down on them, he cannot get them to stop complaining, He cannot get them to trust Him and take courage from being under His wing to fight for their promised land, He loses His temper. It presents a picture of a God who understands the physical forces of nature but not the psychological forces of a people.

One thing I've thought of, is that perhaps Jesus Christ is learning how to be rejected, learning patience with a recalcitrant people, learning to genuinely care for people who don't appreciate Him and don't believe in Him and His gospel, learning to have the infinite capacity to love that will be required for his upcoming sacrifice for all mankind. Thoughts?

If you recall, Satan's plan was a forced march ensuring that everyone would obey - or else. The God of the Old Testament, has a lot of pressure on him to show that his plan of letting the people work out their salvation with as little coercion as possible would actually work. God has every emotion that we have, and perhaps he found himself frustrated with the COIsrael as they wandered for 40 years.

[Solon]

I suspect we know practically nothing about God.

[pellegrino]

Another thought came to me. We forget two things about the COI in this period of the bible. First of all they had been slaves for a long long time (six hundred years?) As suck they developed their own culture and way of doing things. They were not used to having to think independently and solve problems. Even the most basic needs (food, water) were provided for them.

Second, and this is related to the first, just because they were the COI doesn't mean that they had been practicing Jehovah worship or actively following the teachings of any prior prophets. I suspect that they knew basic things, but I doubt that they were highly versed in the traditions of the House of Israel, much less important doctrines or commandments.

As a side note, I think it's significant that as we study this period of wandering in the desert we understand the symbolic value of the number 40. The number itself is never mentioned in reference to a quantity, but always as a period of time. Noah- it rained 40 days and 40 nights - Moses went up to Sinai and was there 40 days Christ fasted 40 days before beginning his ministry. This is all in conjunction with the most basic period of time related to 40; the number of weeks for a normal pregnancy. This is a gestational period for the House of Israel, after having been baptized through the miracle of the Red Sea, they were being prepared to be reborn as a new and holy nation.

[Babs]

I suspect we know practically nothing about God.

we have a winner.

[Katy Lied]

As a side note, I think it's significant that as we study this period of wandering in the desert we understand the symbolic value of the number 40. The number itself is never mentioned in reference to a quantity, but always as a period of time. Noah- it rained 40 days and 40 nights - Moses went up to Sinai and was there 40 days Christ fasted 40 days before beginning his ministry. This is all in conjunction with the most basic period of time related to 40; the number of weeks for a normal pregnancy. This is a gestational period for the House of Israel, after having been baptized through the miracle of the Red Sea, they were being prepared to be reborn as a new and holy nation.

This is pretty interesting. Each of these 40-day spans involve a rebirth at the end: The rebirth of the earth after the baptism of the flood, the birth of a new law (or what was supposed to be a new law and heck, the Mosaic law was new too), the rebirth of a nation as you pointed out, and although the scriptures don't actually point to it, perhaps there was a transformation of Christ during the 40 days of his fast and his temptation.

Other mentions of 40 days: In Acts 1 it talks about Jesus ministering for 40 days between his resurrection and ascension, Goliath presented himself for 40 days before David slingshots him to death, MOses sent the 12 spies out into Canaan for 40 days, Jonah prophesies the downfall of Ninevah in 40 days if they did not repent, Elijah subsists on a cake of bread and cruse of water given to him by an angel for 40 days on Mt Horeb.

Perhaps a period of 40 days was significant to the people of the OT, so when writing of a significant time period, particularly in reference to something involving a complete change, or a birth or rebirth, they used the gestational period to denote the time, which got translated to 40 days.

[Babs]

This is pretty interesting. I dont know if it has any true significance, but may be usable as an object lesson: in each of these 40-day spans involve a rebirth at the end: The rebirth of the earth after the baptism of the flood, the birth of a new law (or what was supposed to be a new law and heck, the Mosaic law was new too), the rebirth of a nation as you pointed out, and although the scriptures don't actually point to it, perhaps there was a transformation of Christ during the 40 days of his fast and his temptation.

In Acts 1 it talks about Jesus ministering for 40 days after his resurrection.

Perhaps a period of 40 days was significant to the people of the OT, so when writing of a significant time period, particularly in reference to something involving a complete change, or a birth or rebirth, they used the gestational period to denote the time, which got translated to 40 days.

This is closer to what I have read - that forty was a sort of default number in the culture. Kind of like we would use a hundred or a million, I guess. It isn't meant to be precise; it's meant to evoke a sense of scale. When you wanted to give the sense that a king or judge reigned a really long time, you would say, "And he reigned for forty years."

So perhaps it's not likely that all these seminal events involved exactly forty days, or exactly forty years. But it's still interesting that the Hebrews such an odd number (to us) as their benchmark.