I’m not sure if someone has to be disabled for the ineffable plan to work or what, but they don’t seem to focus that much on that part.
I have asked this to a Mormon friend and a guy married to a Mormon, and they said that the reason it is considered a blessing to be born with stuff like Down’s Syndrome is that you are incapable of sinning, because sin requires knowledge of good and evil. So you basically have a free pass to the top levels of Heaven. So yes, to a Mormon, being born retarded is a great thing, while being born with dark skin is a terrible punishment.
I’ll have to ask them about that. My understanding of Genesis is likely completely different from the LDS interpretation, but I thought that this knowledge was forbidden to humans, which was the catalyst for being banished from paradise and forced to suffer. If only they ate from the Tree of Immortality first! Rational Adam and Eve could have been gods!
What contradiction? I understand that in most Christian churches, they weren’t supposed to eat from the tree of life, but according to Mormons, they were. If they somehow didn’t, that would have thrown off the plan. Or am I misunderstanding you?
Sorry, I was a bit vague. I was thinking about how claiming it is part of the plan was a dodge around questioning why god would be surprised of this outcome, but that it throws any claims of benevolence under the bus. But also how god often had these tests for people (Abraham, Job, Moses), and that were he omniscient, this would be either stupid or evil to do. I suppose were I to be more precise with that quip, I should say that any character that is omniscient will run into contradiction if you posit them to have just about any additional abilities.
Do you know if that leads Mormon communities to take better care of their disabled than other groups? In some parts of the US, abuse of the mentally disabled is endemic in the institutions intended to care for them.
I’m not sure what you meant to imply by the second sentence of this comment, but the worse non-Mormons treat the disabled the less interesting a same-sized gap in treatment by Mormons and others is.
If most are good and Mormons are great, we can look to them for lessons. If most are awful and Mormons are bad but better, they are less relevant.
Most non-Mormon institutions range from acceptable to awful. Mormons, with their particular respect for the disabled and their ability to coordinate for the good of the community, may have actually good solutions we can learn from.
In short, I think non-Mormon and Mormon institutions may be on opposite sides of the line between “good” and “bad.”
I have asked this to a Mormon friend and a guy married to a Mormon, and they said that the reason it is considered a blessing to be born with stuff like Down’s Syndrome is that you are incapable of sinning, because sin requires knowledge of good and evil. So you basically have a free pass to the top levels of Heaven. So yes, to a Mormon, being born retarded is a great thing, while being born with dark skin is a terrible punishment.
But, knowledge of good and evil was supposed to be a gift. It was the entire point. It can’t be a gift to have it and a gift to not have it.
Also, if it was better to be born that way, wouldn’t everyone be born that way?
I’ll have to ask them about that. My understanding of Genesis is likely completely different from the LDS interpretation, but I thought that this knowledge was forbidden to humans, which was the catalyst for being banished from paradise and forced to suffer. If only they ate from the Tree of Immortality first! Rational Adam and Eve could have been gods!
According to Mormon doctrine, it was supposed to happen that way. I’m not sure why God told them not to eat it.
There they go again… as soon as you posit an omniscient character in a story, you run headlong into contradiction.
What contradiction? I understand that in most Christian churches, they weren’t supposed to eat from the tree of life, but according to Mormons, they were. If they somehow didn’t, that would have thrown off the plan. Or am I misunderstanding you?
Sorry, I was a bit vague. I was thinking about how claiming it is part of the plan was a dodge around questioning why god would be surprised of this outcome, but that it throws any claims of benevolence under the bus. But also how god often had these tests for people (Abraham, Job, Moses), and that were he omniscient, this would be either stupid or evil to do. I suppose were I to be more precise with that quip, I should say that any character that is omniscient will run into contradiction if you posit them to have just about any additional abilities.
Do you know if that leads Mormon communities to take better care of their disabled than other groups? In some parts of the US, abuse of the mentally disabled is endemic in the institutions intended to care for them.
I’m not sure what you meant to imply by the second sentence of this comment, but the worse non-Mormons treat the disabled the less interesting a same-sized gap in treatment by Mormons and others is.
If most are good and Mormons are great, we can look to them for lessons. If most are awful and Mormons are bad but better, they are less relevant.
Most non-Mormon institutions range from acceptable to awful. Mormons, with their particular respect for the disabled and their ability to coordinate for the good of the community, may have actually good solutions we can learn from.
In short, I think non-Mormon and Mormon institutions may be on opposite sides of the line between “good” and “bad.”
OK, great, I was just confused by “better”.