Salvifici Doloris
The Holy Father’s recent malady follows a theme that has flowed throughout his tenure: Suffering is salvific. While we Mormons are not too fond of flagellation, we have our own traditions that extol suffering. And while I am cognisant of how my own suffering has infused me with a measure of wisdom and compassion, this doctrine leads to a place where I am not sure that I am willing to go.
From Joseph we have a lamentation in the Liberty Jail and the Lord’s response:
Section 122 (emphasis added)
5 If thou art called to pass through tribulation; if thou art in perils among false brethren; if thou art in perils among robbers; if thou art in perils by land or by sea;6 If thou art accused with all manner of false accusations; if thine enemies fall upon thee; if they tear thee from the society of thy father and mother and brethren and sisters; and if with a drawn sword thine enemies tear thee from the bosom of thy wife, and of thine offspring, and thine elder son, although but six years of age, shall cling to thy garments, and shall say, My father, my father, why can’t you stay with us? O, my father, what are the men going to do with you? and if then he shall be thrust from thee by the sword, and thou be dragged to prison, and thine enemies prowl around thee like wolves for the blood of the lamb;
7 And if thou shouldst be cast into the pit, or into the hands of murderers, and the sentence of death passed upon thee; if thou be cast into the deep; if the billowing surge conspire against thee; if fierce winds become thine enemy; if the heavens gather blackness, and all the elements combine to hedge up the way; and above all, if the very jaws of hell shall gape open the mouth wide after thee, know thou, my son, that all these things shall give thee experience, and shall be for thy good.
We hear of being tried, even as Abraham. We hear of suffering with Christ in the flesh so that we be glorified with him. We hear that we came from our pre-mortal sphere to gain experience.
Christ is the exemplar. We know that he came and suffered so that he could succor his people. But if we truly want to be Christ-like, should we not also need to suffer as he did? I am not sure that I want to do that. Moreover, isn’t that suffering the consequence of not accepting Christ (a la Section 19)?
Can we go through life without suffering and yet be Christlike?
J,
To quote Wesley from The Princess Bride, “Life it pain . . . Anyone who tells you differently is selling you something. While I am not prepared to say that we need to suffer as christ–indeed, he suffered, in some measure, so that we would not have to suffer, and I don’t know that we need to suffer to that extent–I doubt that we can go through life without suffering. I think it might be part of this life. Also, I don’t know if his suffering made christ perfect, per se. It did make him able to understand our suffering, as per Alma 7:11-13. I would say that perhaps all we need to suffer is what will legitimately make us perfect. If we aren’t perfect, we need only feel the suffering that comes of our imperfections when we go astray and must feel the weight and sorrow of our sins, coupled, perhaps, with a measure of suffering from the sins of the world and the fallen state of the world and others’ choices to teach us patience, empathy, and charity.
Comment by S. Hancock — 3/3/2005 @ 4:50 pm
I agree with S. that some suffering is inevitable and that it can (and probably should) be a means to bring us closer to Christ (if that is what we mean by “perfecting” ourselves). The system is set up so that things will go wrong and we are certainly also programmed that way. Even if we are not actively seeking the wrong, we often screw up because we get tired, old, forgetful, distracted and so forth.
What I find objectionable is that sometimes in church I hear people thanking God for their trials. “Oh thank goodness God has given me terminal cancer even though my six children have no means of support because my husband has left me for a 22-year-old man” (to make up an example). I have no problem with people learning from their trials (I would encourage it even). But if we thank Him for the horrible things that led to that knowledge, are we missing the point? It seems to me that in doing this one is implying that He sent all the horrible stuff just so that we would have a reason to turn to Him? I just don’t see God engaging in that sort of passive-aggressive behavior.
Comment by John C. — 3/3/2005 @ 5:54 pm
perhaps all we need to suffer is what will legitimately make us perfect.
I want to believe something like that; however, we know that we will be far from perfect at the last day.
Comment by J. Stapley — 3/3/2005 @ 9:14 pm
J,
Do you mean the last day as in the judgment? Do we know that? At some point, it would seem that we can be perfect. The Lord comanded us to be. That may seem intuitively vain, and I say it more because I have faith in it, as the Lord said it, than because I think I am in any way dangerously close to it at this point.
Or, alternately, are you saying at ressurection morning or at some other time before the judgment suffering might cease even though we are still working towards perfection?
Comment by S. Hancock — 3/3/2005 @ 10:02 pm
I do believe that we are sanctified at the resurrection. So in a way we could say that is perfect. But there is a tremendous amount of discourse to the effect that we will spend a huge amount of time progressing in our pursuit to emulate Christ. So are we perfect even though we are not fully Divine?
Comment by J. Stapley — 3/3/2005 @ 10:21 pm
J,
OK, here’s an attempt at a dumb metaphor. Perhaps we will be perfect in the way of say a perfect computer. No glitches, software and hardware totally in sync, no bugs, perfect, but there are still expansion slots. We can still get more capability. Does that work? Keep in mind that I haven’t been up that long this morning.
Comment by S. Hancock — 3/4/2005 @ 12:00 pm
Might I ask how you think the perfection discussed in Moroni 10:32-33 fits in with all this? Are we borrowing a bit of Christ’s perfection to get through the judgement, after which we work on it more on our own?
Comment by John C. — 3/4/2005 @ 12:29 pm
I actually like the metaphor, but I think it still goes to a place that I’m not sure we can go. First, for this discussion, I’ll accept the premises of your post about the knowledge of the Father and the Son.
We say at the point of the resurrection that our capacity, though limited, will be perfect. We will consequently progress in our capacity for Goodness, Mercy, etc. We will also progress in this capacity without suffering.
If this is true, we have to say that all mortals have a limited capacity for Goodness, Mercy, etc. Moreover, we fill this capacity (becoming perfect) through suffering.
Where does the atonement come in? If the atonement can do it, why must we suffer for it?
Comment by J. Stapley — 3/4/2005 @ 12:33 pm
John C. beat me to the punch.
Comment by J. Stapley — 3/4/2005 @ 12:34 pm
J,
I personally believe that we may be perfect wihtout ever being like Christ, though that may sound like a contradiction. This does in fact go back to my previous post. We may be perfect in that we will do no wrong. If you accept a view that our role in the eterneties will be much like that of God the father (not an assumption, with which, I know, you necessarily agree, J), then we could be perfect in that our children could have faith in our power to do what is necessary, our ability to know how to bring them home again, and our complete love and concern for their welfare (I’ll post on these three later–I think they are essential). Still, we wouldn’t have what the atonement gave christ, a complete understanding of our individual situation, complete empathy. For this reason, I believe that saviors will always be necessary to be able to save the children of heavenly parents, despite those parents’ perfection.
The short answer–perefection does not equal empathy here, just complete worthiness of faith.
P.S.–great addition of our comments on the you forgot the key page. Will save the IE people some time and anguish.
Comment by S. Hancock — 3/4/2005 @ 3:10 pm