Doctrine and Covenants 1:9 - "to the day when the wrath of God shall be poured out upon the wicked without measure"
This seems like awful strong language to me. Where does this idea of wrath and fury fit into mormon doctrine of our God? How is this constructive in the god-making process that God is engaged in? It seems like God is a bit pissy, frankly. Why is he so blasted angry? Why does he choose to use anabashed rage to vent his obviously powerful emotion? (kiss it, most unmoved mover!)
Perhaps it's merely a figure of speech to bring us to repentance. This raises huge issues. God is scaring us into being good? Wha..? Maybe it's just the millenarianism of the early saints peeking through in what Jospeh wrote. But we are to see this chapter as the word of the Lord, yes? Is there some type of prophetic quotational liberty at work?
The footnote takes us to Revelation 18:6 - "Reward her even as she rewarded you, and double unto her double according to her works;"
Why is the Lord doubling it? Does everything get magnified? Are we blessed more and cursed more in the next life for our current choices and actions? Although the idea of greater blessing seems tempting, how is it fair in a more universal sense? Is "she" being rewarded double because she rewarded the saints double or is it a general rule of thumb for the Lord's recompense?
In D&C 1:3 it seems to suggest that the sorrow the sinners feel is the open declaration of their sin, showing their corruption to the world and destroying any facade they've so carefully developed. Is this the "wrath of God"? Seems a ill-advised metaphor, they don't really connect in my mind.
Verses 13-16: What's with the "my way or the highway" attitude? Is the Lord so stuck on His plan that he can't allow others to choose alternatively? One cannot argue that the cursing is simply a natural consequence of the sin as the Lord seems to go to great lengths describing the fact that he is very active in dishing out the pain. A regular pain-train. The celestial punisher. These are not passive punishments that are unavoidable. The Lord is giving a smackdown. Why does he need to do that? It seems to imply weak character.
Verse 17: Total 180. All of a sudden it's a "calamity that shall come upon the earth", a very passive construction. It suggests that the Lord is simply trying to protect his children from the imminent and unavoidable destruction. However, he very emphatically declared that he's the one doing the punishing. Now he steps in a delivers? Weird setup for a growing process...
skip to main |
skip to sidebar
Recently Created Dishes
- Roasted Chicken Legs with Plum Chili Salsa
- Raspberry Chicken
- Buttermilk Bacon Pralines
- Maple & Bluberry Ice Cream
- Roasted Vegetable Bianca Pizza
Eric's recently read (or being read) books:
- Atlas Shrugged
- Relative Being
- The Fountainhead
- The Discworld Series (22 down...)
- The Erotic Phenomenon
- The Basic Problems of Phenomenology
- Taking Ourselves Seriously & Getting It Right
Eric
Martin
Other lovely blogs
Contributors
4 comments:
I approve of this blog :)
A Number of thoughts on this post...
First of all, is it bad for God to be angry? Can he get pissy, and why not? I'd personally get a little pissy with God if everytime he talked with me it was this "I love you, it's going to be alright" crap. I want a God that's emotionally charged in all his ways. Second, the scriptural usage of these terms involve a contextual look. You already pointed out the millenialism of them. Revelations, Jesus' preaching, Isaiah, and others set a backdrop for this line of thinking. America was caught up in it; the Mormon prophet had several religious experiences suggesting worldwide destruction. It is no surprise the homegrown Prophet would in 1831/1832 continue this line of thinking.
Secondly, I think the point is God is avenging his chosen people (whoever they may be), his righteous from the war being waged against them. The God of space-time steps into human history and saves them. People want justice, whatever that is. They want to think that the others around them can't just shoot them, persecute them, and so forth, and just get away with it. To pacify their agony, they believe and assert God will punish them with worldly struggles or economic failures, and psychologically through the torture of offending moral codes. If there is no punishment or judgment, why should they endure the pains they do? A God that demands out of his people what he refuses to protect is hardly worth following. I'm sure the parents of the Virginia Tech shooting are struggling with this right now. I can't believe an English major did that; must have been reading too much Hamlet or Steinbeck novels.
Although this is a nice thought, it also brings the complacency of Jesus freaks. Hell, Jesus will take care of everything when he comes back on his white horse and opens a can of whoop-A. We don't have to do anything, and all is vanity, since the world is going to end. Absolutely retarded. So it has it's bad points too.
It also begs the question if God cannot have an opinion in the matter. Is he allowed to interfer in human history and influence outcomes? Will not God always be questioned as partial and mean for acting in anyone's life and not another? We want him to be close to us in our lives, but then we raise all these objections to having him not involved in human life at all. I'm sick of this impartiality crap. I'm all for the partiality. What we then have is to all individually speculate on what we feel is tolerable for God's wrath and what is not. I've never really experienced much of God's wrath that I know of, so I can't tell you much about it.
You pointed out the switch in the verses at 17. I think this involves views of an omnipotent God. If he knows all and has power over all, and does nothing, he still has done something. So whether the calamities he witnesses or creates, it is all the same. It's the whole problem of evil schematic. And until one can clearly define what God actually has power over, one cannot lay out what wrath is caused by him, natural causes, or other agents. God seems to be the being the universe revolves around in most religions, so it's hard when the world is full of war and conflict not to place him in the mess. Whether it's human projection, anthropomorphic expressions, or God's personality shining through, I don't know.
Interesting how people wish to make God guilt-free, or able to become total impartial so he won't offend anyone. They seem to think God or Godlike life allows one to escape from moral dilemmas like wondering if one's decision was right. That you'll somehow have this moral standard allowing you to be completely impartial and be able to take comfort in that. Sounds like a tool. I don't think it works like that. Would Heidigger think people were trying to make God a character which could avoid guilt? That somehow by being like him, they could avoid guilt too? It disturbs me. What more could you have done for your vineyard? Think about it, man.
Excellent comments...good stuff. I don't honestly think Heidegger himself would touch your question with a 12 foot pole, but I think you're on to a good idea. Kant would also point out that if God never did anything he didn't want to do he wouldn't be acting morally at all. So we see that God is either a machine that has not morality, a partial being that has to make tough choices or a being that constantly doesn't want to to good and does anyway thus making him eternally and perfectly moral (that last option is fantastic... hahahaha).
Kant's got some good stuff.
Post a Comment