tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2713155573435910795.post4967546759907658190..comments2023-05-02T09:59:13.181-04:00Comments on Study and Faith: 1845 LDS Article on HeavenJBhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13108158469007498050noreply@blogger.comBlogger2125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2713155573435910795.post-55483526111763914812011-09-26T18:23:39.637-04:002011-09-26T18:23:39.637-04:00How does such a place coincide with the idea that ...<i>How does such a place coincide with the idea that there is opposition in all things?</i><br /><br />Good question, Chris! Not being LDS myself, the phrase "opposition in all things" (2 Nephi 2:11) has never really been a part of my framework, but I'm going to see if I can devise an answer that the author of this article might have accepted.<br /><br />When I read 2 Nephi 2, one of the major points I see it making is that many of the higher goods are ones that can only come about in conjunction with ills (although some of the lesser goods can perhaps be gotten without these ills). Thus, while Adam and Eve in the Garden could have retained the lesser good of natural innocence, obtaining the greater good of actual righteousness could only occur in conjunction with conquering the ill of actual sin - the greater good required an accompanying ill (see 2 Nephi 2:22-23).<br /><br />God's plan for us, however, in fact required righteousness, and so it was necessary that there should also be 'anti-righteousness', i.e., sin, since only thereby could righteousness be obtained. (In this idea, I see some intriguing comparisons with Alvin Plantinga's supralapsarian theodicy, though Plantinga and I would both probably soften the sense of necessity involved.) However, if I've understood 2 Nephi 2 rightly, it is not required that any individual should *always* endure the opposition, any more than the continued growth of a given plant should require the continual 'death' of more seeds. Hence, though the plan of salvation requires that any particular iteration of its pattern must include sin and suffering, this does not need to persist in the final stage, i.e., a celestialized world or heaven. Therefore, the sort of heaven described is compatible with "opposition in all things" so long as the opposition at any given local level occurs there prior to celestialization and is in fact a necessary prerequisite for celestialization.<br /><br />Now, the only potential discrepancy I can see between this article and this explanation is the depiction of children being "born without pain, and reared without sin" on the celestialized earth. It would seem at first glance that these children, by being born in a deathless celestial kingdom, are a clear counterexample to "opposition in all things". However, if they are in fact spirit-children who will endure sin and suffering in a subsequent iteration of the plan of salvation process, then this particular difficulty vanishes.<br /><br />There is still one difficulty that might bother me a bit, and that's where a sinless Savior figure such as Jesus would fit into an "opposition in all things" scenario. Did his righteousness also arise through sin and suffering? Well, as an Evangelical, my response would be twofold: Christ, as God, has an innate natural righteousness that differs from any we can acquire; and in the incarnation, Christ also became complete in humanity through enduring suffering. I'm not sure whether the LDS author of this article could have made use of the first prong of that answer, but he might have been able to make some headway with the second.JBhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13108158469007498050noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2713155573435910795.post-58419211887836915662011-09-26T17:27:34.515-04:002011-09-26T17:27:34.515-04:00How does such a place coincide with the idea that ...How does such a place coincide with the idea that there is opposition in all things?Chrishttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07418691476618587542noreply@blogger.com