![]() ![]() The problem to me is that if we don’t agree on what the good for someone is, then we are still talking past one another to use this term. That is, there is a “purpose” or “end” or “goal” to things, and so what is “good” is fulfilling that purpose.īut let’s assume that we take the basic definition as a working definition of love. I know just enough about Thomism to understand that “good” has a teleological implication. One thing I saw (and I apologize for any error in summarizing, since I know Thomistic thought is very technical, but I am still an outsider) is that to love is to will the good of another. ![]() Thomas of AquinasĪ few years back, I got into reading Catholic/Thomist blogs. Love is the choice to will the good of another. I’ll give vignettes from Catholic/Thomist, Orthodox, and Reformed/Calvinist traditions. Instead, I want to think about other faith tradition’s interpretations, and then circle back on what we might make sense of the LDS leaders’ view. Never attribute to malice what can best be explained by… That being said, as an exmormon, I’m also a fan of noting that LDS leaders are not trained in religious domains (e.g., theology, history, etc.,) so it’s very possible they don’t realize the implications of what they say. Have we ever considered that maybe President Nelson meant what he said- Elise Scott March 9, 2022 (Now that I’m mostly paying attention to Twitter, I will note that Calvin’s tweet distinguish love from blessings feels like something that was already interrogated way back when.) To all these attempts to ameliorate the leaders’ messages, I agree with Elise Scott: ![]() I remember reading a lot of responses to these talks, whether from folks just rejecting the message, or from folks trying to ameliorate it. I’m surprised that progressive Mormons are surprised by this, but maybe this is just me being so much of an Exmo that I always internalize the worst messages from LDS leaders. ( Am I dating everyone to say a talk from 2003 is not new? General Authorities have doubled down on this more recently, such as in 2016.) I say this to point out that it’s not really surprising to hear that the church may be trying to double down further on this. In LDS discourse, the idea of God’s love as being conditional isn’t all that new anymore. Outside of ephemeral social media, I haven’t really set my thoughts on this yet, so I wanted to try with this post. In other words, by using this term but not unpacking what we mean by it, we talk past each other, as we assume a shared definition or shared context that increasingly and frustratingly doesn’t exist. (Most of the examples will be on LGBT issues, but I hope that you can do your own translation to replace with issues in your own life.) I have often thought that the term is so poorly defined that it frustrates our ability to speak between political or religious camps. I think a lot about “love” in social and religious discourse, because as a gay man, I am acutely aware through personal life experience of how much the term is in dispute. While I think that all of these are worthy of discussion, I acknowledge that folks like Rachel Hunt Steenblik and Jacob continue to say far more insightful things regarding Heavenly Mother than I could ever, so I wanted to talk about unconditional love. The progressive Mormon online discourse is now reacting on rumors (hmm, but what do you call a rumor that, while not explicitly confirmed, is still actually highly predictable?) that the church could be clamping down on Heavenly Mother, church leader fallibility, and the idea that God’s love is unconditional. Anyone know more about this?- Loyd Ericson March 8, 2022 Hearing rumors of leadership training and a letter coming from LDS Church leadership that is clamping down on references to heavenly parents, God's unconditional love, fallible church leaders, and the Holy Ghost not being a personage or being a woman.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |