It’s the same thing.

Joseph Smith taught that whoever you are, whether you are Abraham or Jehovah himself, you will eventually be asked to sacrifice whatever is most dear to you. Expect it.

I also suspect that the true test of Abraham’s resolve was not so much the sacrifice of his son, but the uncertainty surrounding a demand from a God whom he hed trusted, suddenly requiring the kind of pagan bloodletting over which Abraham’s father had officiated. It’s when the Lord says “forget what I said before about killing — slit Laban’s throat while he’s defenseless” or “forget what I said before about chastity — practice plural marriage” that your commitment to your covenants gets the real test.

Again, you’ve come up with a really thought-provoking post! This issue has actually come up indirectly on some earlier posts here at T&S, and I’m glad to see it addressed in its own post.

I would take the position that, yes, when the Lord says he demands the sacrifice of all things (The Lectures on Faith indicate such a sacrifice *precedes* and *enables* one’s having perfect faith), He means all things, and the last and greatest sacrifice would be our own reason. Put another way, it is relatively easy to follow God when His commands “make sense”. It is much more difficult to do so when we *don’t* understand the “why”—when in fact God’s actions or commandments conflict with our very understanding of right and wrong and the nature of the universe. When I suggested in an earlier post a while back that God might permit Brigham Young to get “Adam-God” wrong, or permit Joseph Smith to misapply the principle of plural marriage (I don’t know that he did, just arguing hypothetically here), etc., for the very reason of testing our faith to see if we really will follow Him no matter what, even at the sacrifice of Reason itself, it prompted some pretty strong responses from some here at T&S, which didn’t surprise me.

It seems pretty clear that God does *not* always explain His actions and/or His commandments. In fact, He sometimes deliberately expresses Himself in ways that clearly violate His hearer’s sense of reason. Examples:

Abraham’s sacrifice of Isaac (there seems to have been no explanation given to Abraham until after his obedience);

the raising of the brazen serpent in the wilderness (which was technically idolatry, and of all things, a serpent, the very image of Satan!);

polygamy (a whole host of problems there);

the Savior’s “eat my flesh and drink my blood” sermon (He never explained at the time that he meant the sacrament, so even his apostles were troubled);

restrictions on blacks and the priesthood (lots of issues there);

the command to Adam to sacrifice animals (poor Adam! raised in the Garden in peace and gentleness, he’s then told to take harmless animals, kill them, cut them to pieces, and burn them! I see great emotion on his part when he replys, “I know not, save the Lord has commanded me!” etc.

It appears that God actually puts issues before us, once we progress to a certain level, that *deliberately* challange or understanding in dramatic, nay–terrifying ways. God demands total obedience, and He will deliberately make it difficult! For me, Joseph Smith’s statement that God will test our faith and deliberately “pull our heart strings”, and that if we cannot take it we are unfit for the kingdom of heaven, takes on a profound meaning in this context.

When Joseph first revealed plural marriage to the Twelve, Brigham Young and Heber Kimball reportedly walked outside following the meeting, and upon seeing a funeral hearse pass by, Brigham said that he would gladly trade places with the dead man in the coffin than live “the Principle.” Orson Pratt went home after that same meeting and, upon arrival at the front door, passed through his home without greeting his wife and family, walked through the back door, and vomited. He asked for his name to be removed from the membership rolls, suffered a complete nervous breakdown, and nearly died from exposure after his family and the Brethren found him, after a feverish search, wandering like a madman in the woods. He asked for his membership back, returned to the Twelve, and accepted plural marriage. I think, too, of George C. Scott’s emotional portrayal of Abraham in the movie “The Bible” as not too far off the mark with regards to Abraham’s repsonse to the command to sacrifice Isaac. Is your terror at the (seeming) abyss you refer to, Chris, an understandable reaction? Sure it is. I haven’t felt terror (not yet), but certainly great trepidation and uneasiness. Is it possible that God realizes there is positive growth for us, even essential growth, in the *emotional* struggle we must endure when He puts such situations before us? I suspect so.

Finally, here’s another frightening thought: As the average church member, thanks to the Internet, etc., faces more and more information about Church history that is difficult to grasp, and as science seems to present more data that seems to contradict long held LDS truths, is it possible that this presages a much more general demand on the Lord’s part for greater faith from the membership, in ways we have have not seen or expected in our lifetimes? Is this the “cleansing of the inner vessel”, which must precede the tremendous challenges we will face prior to the Lord’s return? Is the Lord preparing us, even now, so we will have the faith to endure far greater challenges (and receive far greater blessings) ahead?

This is what sort of terrifies me, because I realize the Lord is giving all of us, including myself, the opportunity to progress a lot farther and faster, and a lot sooner, than I had ever planned for, and I can either work out my exaltation, or damn myself to hell. Abraham, my great example, hero, and father, chose the better part, in spite of his preconceptions, emotions, reason, and experience. Now, in the highest degree of glory in the Celestial Kingdom, all is clear to him, and his happiness and rest know no end. I hope I can have that kind of Faith—and I realize that I MUST have that Faith, even NOW.

(I have to leave for a few hours, but I am REALLY looking forward to how others address this post; I think it’s a real humdinger!)

We have to deal with this all the time on the small scale. You know, the bishop doing something totally whacked out… And your reaction? Do you follow? Do you ignore? Do you leave? etc, etc.

I think the hardest part of the sacrifice-your-son type of issues is knowing whether or not it’s God asking you. This may not have been the original issue with Abraham, but nowadays it’s not God coming to us directly, but rather the wacky bishop (or whoever – pick someone with some sort of stewardship over you).

My sources on the Orson Pratt/polygamy episode are primarily from “Joseph Smith and the Restoration”, by Ivan J. Barrett, which was the standard text for LDS Institute Church History clases in the mid-80′s. In going back and checking this source this evening, I saw that I got part of the details askew. Evidently Orson was not present at the orginal meeting of the Twelve where polygamy was revealed, as he was away from Nauvoo. When he arrived in Nauvoo, unfortunately John C. Bennett got ahold of him first to tell him about plural marriage (in an obviously negative and hypocritical way), and this contributed to Orson’s temporary apostasy. The vomiting episode came after his conversation with Bennett, not the Twelve, though this latter info comes to me not from the book memtioned above, but from an old LDS Institute director who mentioned it in passing in class, so I count locate the definite source, though he had done the research himself.

Now, short of extreme exigency (and sometimes even then), no one has an obligation to obey a morally questionable order without a witness of the Spirit that it is right and proper. We might call this the A Few Good Men principle. Brigham Young put it this way:

“Do not be deceived, any of you; if you are deceived, it is because you deceive yourselves. You may know whether you are led right or wrong, as well as you know the way home; for every principle God has revealed carries its own convictions of its truth to the human mind, and there is no calling of God to man on earth but what brings with it the evidences of its authenticity….

What a pity it would be if we were led by one man to utter destruction! Are you afraid of this? I am more afraid that this people have so much confidence in their leaders that they will not inquire for themselves of God whether they are led by Him. I am fearful they settle down in a state of blind self-security, trusting their eternal destiny in the hands of their leaders with a reckless confidence that in itself would thwart the purposes of God in their salvation, and weaken that influence they could give to their leaders, did they know for themselves, by the revelations of Jesus, that they are led in the right way. Let every man and woman know, by the whispering of the Spirit of God to themselves, whether their leaders are walking in the path the Lord dictates, or not. This has been my exhortation continually.” (JD 9:151)

Now, on esoteric matters, clearly the Lord is often satisfied with approximations – for ye cannot bear all things now, etc. However, if the Spirit clearly witnesses of the weaknesses in a certain interpretation, it would be silly to believe contrary to your own witness. Perhaps keep your understanding to yourself pending further revelation, unless prompted by the Spirit to speak up, of course. D&C 107 outlines a full set of checks and balances on doctrine in the Church. They are there for a reason. Ultimately the Spirit rules over all other considerations. If the Spirit overwhelmingly confirms, by all means obey, even unto death. If the Spirit clearly vetoes, fight, resist, and defy unto the same. In the absence of such feeling, pray for a witness. Ultimately, faith without inspiration is not only dead, it is fatal.

Yep, you’re correct that all these elements, taken as a whole, create a difficult time for the believer. I have now come to the conclusion God intended it this way. He is just plain *forcing* us, as individuals, to *not* live on “borrowed light”. But since I am imperfect, my ability to conduct myself at all times and places by the Holy Ghost is limited–and yet the Lord still expects nothing less. Why can’t the road to exaltation be a little easier!

I still want to come back a little to Joseph Smith’s statement about God pulling at our “heartstrings”. Emotion is something we generally see as an *impediment* to revelation, something to be overcome and, to a certain extent, ignored in this context. Yet, God gave us these emotions, and He has to know how we react emotionally when he upsets the little applecarts of our minds with these “faith-testers”. Increasingly, I get the impression that, among other things, God seeks, when He places these “Abrahamic moments” before us, to *mold* and *shape* our emotions along more God-like lines.

Think of your example—the wacky bishop. Now, if having to deal with such a bishop is your “Abrahamic test”, then think of how the emotional struggle this puts you through makes you, when YOU are called as a bishop, that much more sensitive *emotionally* to how others will react to you if YOU are “wacky”. My point here is that, in addition to teaching us from a *spiritual* point of view, these kinds of test teach us to *empathize*, in a powerful *emotional* way, with both God and our fellow man, that would not have been possible before hand.

One of the greatest obstacles each of us has to exaltation is the “natural man” way in which our emotions dictate how we respond to Gospel principles and experiences. God doesn’t seek for us to get rid of our emotions (He seeks disciples, not Vulcans), but rather He seeks to render those emotions God-Like. Abraham loved Isaac, but by forcing Abraham to choose his love for God over his love for his son, God helped Abraham to feel both kinds of love more strongly than ever before, because now Abraham understood God’s love for HIS son, Jesus, and how even the love of a father for a son must be subordinated to other, even more important concerns (the need to save all mankind).

We could look at other examples, such as polygamy, where the instruction we’re supposed to get out of the test may not be so clear, but I’m not sure I’ve fully thought those examples through completely. Maybe others have and can share some insights here. I will say that, from a church-wide view, as opposed to individuals, we haven’t always passed these tests well. In the case of polygamy, I believe it was a true principle revealed to the prophets, but by the time of the Manifesto I think the Lord was compelled to take the test away, because too many of the saints, even the Brethren, were really messing up. Just look at how many men were marrying plural wives for time, but never marrying ANY of their wives for eternity! This is the *real* message of the unpublished revelation to John Taylor before his death, I think. The Lord wasn’t saying, “Never give up plural marriage!”, but just what He in fact said, “Obey and honor the New and Everlasting Covenant”. Too many priesthood holders wanted to have their cake and eat it too, entering into plural marriages, but not accepting the responsibilities of temple marriage. For those who did enter temple marriage, there were gross misunderstandings, associating the temple marriage covenants less with service to and love for God and our fellow man, and more with copulation, fathering children, and “we’re better than the Gentiles and we’re going to out-populate them.” Even many, many of the Brethren had the erroneous idea that temple marriage and plural marriage were synonomous, and that somehow multiple sealings were more important than the nature and responsibilities of the temple marriage covenant itself.

I risk digressing here, so I’ll just say that gaining the faith of Abraham is *essential*, not just desirable; that the faster we progress in this life, the faster “Abrahamic tests” will come; that invariably, these tests involve sacrificing what is most precious to us, as Diogenes suggested in his thread, and that for many of us, that may mean sacrificing Reason itself; and that God is not only seeking our obedience, but also to mold our emotions, making us more Christ-like, overcoming the “natural man”, so that we can truly love and empathize with others as God does.

Good points in both of last two threads. I like how you tie in the “child-like” aspect of obedience here, since that is exactly what the BoM contrasts with the “natural man”. I also like your point about the order of the Lord’s house. God will not test me by demanding I oppose His prophet. He could test me though, by having His prophet demand I do something that doesn;t make sense to me.