quote:Second, I was asking very specifically, if the Mormon Church, and any other church for that matter, can as a matter of unbiased conscience say that they are treating Gay people the same way they treat all sinners.
Doctrinally and procedurally, yes. Mormon homosexuals are under the same law as unmarried individuals-- that is, no sexual conduct at all is permitted.
Like all things involving people, behaviors have to be taken on an individual level. You (Blue Wizard) brought up a program on PBS that you saw that seemed to portray a level of persecution within the Mormon church against homosexuals. (What was the program? I'm curious...I keep my ear to the ground for mentions of Mormonism in the media, and I haven't heard of this one...)
The problem may be twofold-- certainly, there is a level of personal bias against homosexuality in some Church members. However, the nature of the doctrine of the church, with its emphasis on the centrality of male/female marriage and procreation, and its strong statements against homosexual marriage, doesn't leave much wiggle room for homosexuals to feel comfortable about their sexual inclinations. Thus, as soon as a person realizes they are attracted to the same gender, they see that to be Mormon and to be homosexual might mean a life of denial.
And not just denial of, say, certain behaviors; sexual attraction runs much, much deeper than behavior. To the homosexual Mormon, it must seem like God demands a complete shunning of one's Self (which indeed, He does; but no where is it more readily apparent than in this subject). Other people are allowed to be with those they are basically, sexually attracted to-- the homosexual is not. It is a rejection of something so basic, it may seem to the homosexual that God has foreordained them to sin.
Mormons believe that original sin was removed through the grace of Christ's atonement; to the homosexual Mormon, it may appear that he or she is not covered in that grace, despite the doctrine, because the feelings of attraction go so deep as to be genetic.
(Ramble, ramble, ramble) What I'm getting at is that the feelings of persecution that homosexuals feel within the Mormon church may come from active, unChristian bias against homosexuals by members; additionally, it may come from feeling completely unable to cope with being both Mormon and homosexual, because of the basic doctrines that the Mormon church espouses.
Mormonism is an emotional and rational bond-- homosexuality is a natural or genetic one. There's bound to be a conflict.
It is our responsability as members of God's church to work harder to show that homosexuals are NOT inherently, basically, fundamentally out of reach of Christ's atonement, any more than the rest of humanity. We need to recognize the unique aspects of homosexuality and respond with charity and love to help them avoid sin, repent when necessary, and align themselves with the kingdom of God.
Hey, we could all use a little bit of that.
Posts: 14554 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:Second, I was asking very specifically, if the Mormon Church, and any other church for that matter, can as a matter of unbiased conscience say that they are treating Gay people the same way they treat all sinners.
And...again, not all churches preach that homosexuality is a sin.
For such churches that DO preach a message of abstaining from sex unless one is married, the expectation of celibacy in singleness and fidelity in marriage is something that would apply to all people.
If they can't perform a legal marriage ceremony for their gay and lesbian members, they can at least do a commitment ceremony so that those couples can live faithfully to their convictions, regardless of whether their union is recognized by the government.
Posts: 22497 | Registered: Sep 2000
| IP: Logged |
Honey, I really do understand where you are coming from, I do. I have made similar arguments myself. But there are a couple of things that make this conversation a bit different.
For those who are against homosexuality, "God says so" is the only argument they need. Whether they believe that God speaks through "the inerrant Word of scripture" or through a representative on earth - be that Pope or Prophet. In the case of scripture, we have the tools of biblical scholarship and reason with which to press our point. We can explain the context of those few (nine, I believe) references to homosexuality; we can point out that, while there is scant scriptural reason to condemn homosexuality, there is abundant scriptural reason to refrain from judging the sins of others; we can reason (and this is the point I think you were trying to make) that if "God says so" is the reason for condemning homosexuality there would be an uproar about allowing Sabbath breakers into the military and an outcry when coveters are permitted to teach our children. After all those made it into the top ten!
But this is the wrong audience for those arguments. Here we are not arguing with supposed biblical literalists using Scripture to support their own predjudices. Here we are dealing with the question of the authority of the Church and how that conflicts or coincides with our own personal authority (or agency?). How do we reconcile our belief in the Church (whatever that is) when we think that the Church is wrong?
I think that this poses different problems for different religions. For example, I think that Catholics have it tougher that Protestants do (although we get lots of practice!) as we have a structure that claims a certain authority. I think that Mormons have a similar situation. Each of us has to find that space where we are true to both our religion and to ourselves, because you can't really be true to either alone. This takes some work and some courage and I applaud BlackBlade for asking those tough questions. For myself, I believe that the Church requires more from me than obedience.
I hope this has been helpful.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Thanks for your courtesy in your responses BlueWizard. It is appreciated. I won't address things that Scott R. posted- he did an excellent job for those things he addressed. Here's some responses to some other points you made.
quote:Originally posted by BlueWizard: In the name of consistency, are all sinners thrown out of the Church if they are unable to say with absolute certainty that they will never sin again? Maybe there is an element that I am missing, but it would seem, if that were true, that all your Churches would be empty.
Although this will overlap responses made by others, it kind of comes down to attitude. A repentant attitude is necessary. 'I will try not to sin again' as opposed to 'What I am doing is not wrong.'
quote: I can't help but wonder if some sinners are allowed to try to overcome their sins, while other sinners must make an absolute statement of moral purity and absolute certainty. Again, are sins dealt with consistently, or is there a subliminal overlooking of our sins and an absolute condemnation of their sins?
Again, it's not so much offical Church policy in question, as the action of people using the Church as an excuse.
Exactly. All Christians need to be more Christlike in their treatment of others.
quote: I'm sorry but exclusion and rejection seem like exactly the opposite of what is needed. You need to invite gay people into your church unconditionally if they are truly seeking spiritual guidance and enlightenment. (and yes, I realize I said 'unconditionally but with a condition'.) How can you ever expect them or any sinner to recover if they are denied the spiritual environment that helps them resolve their issues?
Very true. Someone mentioned excommunication as the most extreme punishment. That does not mean shunned or banished. Those that are excommunicated are allowed to attend church and receive guidance. We need to do a lot better in our individual treatment of these people though, I freely admit.
quote: Well, you are cheating here a bit . When the Bible literally says 'Adulterers should be stone' and says in many times and in many ways, there really isn't any interpretation there. I don't need divine inspiration, to read what is clearly and literally written. The same is true of my interpretation of Paul's words. They are pretty clear, evident, and literal; really no interpretation needed.
That wasn't quite my point. The Bible also says to let him who is without sin cast the first stone. They're both in the Bible. Now my view is that Jesus fulfilled the Mosaic law, therefore his teachings kind of override contradictory Old Testament instructions. This one view alone colors the entire way I interpret scripture- even the 'literal' passages. I know you have your own ways of interpreting the scriptures. It just seemed as though the lens which you view things in the Bible is the same one that you want everyone else to look through. I apologize for not being specific- I didn't mean to come across as petty nitpicking.
quote: I do thank you for clearing up that issue regarding Mormons and the relationship to the Prophets. However, I simply can't accept it. Oh, I accept that you accept it, but I personally can't accept it myself.
Don't worry, I'm not asking you to. Just trying clear things up, as you said.
quote: If you really believe there are living beings on this earth that truly have the full authority of God, then you have essential rejected the very foundation of the Protestant Movement. In a sense, you have remade yourself into your own personal variation of the ancient Catholic Church.
I've never considered the LDS church to be Protestant. I think the term some use is 'Restorationalist' or something like that. You're very close to the mark with the Catholic church comment. Basically Mormon's believe that authority was lost after the death of the early apostles. It was restored in modern times. This is why the concept modern day revelation is so important to the LDS church. It's why we consider our church valid. If there is no modern day revelation, then the church is not true. It's central to our doctrine.
quote: Humans are flawed creatures severly compromised and corrupted by the flesh. I simply can and must reject any and all people who claim such outragious authority as being false prophets. It is the absolute height of human arrogance.
But you believe in prophets in Biblical times, right? How exactly did human nature change between then and now? I'm not trying to argue, I understand that you reject them- just realize that there are different viewpoints that don't require the other person to be crazy .
quote: If they are so spiritually enlightened and divinely inspired that they think they can know the true thoughts of God, then they would be in Heaven at God's side speaking to him in person. As long as they are corrupted by the flesh, such Godliness is impossible. As I said, only one person has ever lived who had that level of Divine Grace, and that was Jesus, and we can't talk to him in person.
No one is claiming that any prophets are on par with the Son of God.
quote: You said -
He has the authority to make new commandments or dissolve old ones.
Are you talking about the Ten Commandments? That's hard to believe that we would allow a human to rewrite what is suppose to be the divinely inspired word of God, and more so, a set of univeral laws. Or do you not believe the Bible is the Divinely inspired word of God? Personally, I don't, I believe the underlying truths are divinely inspired by God, but the superfical words are invariabley corrupted by men. It seems even more the height of arrogance to think a human can repeal the Ten Commandments. Though of course I reasonably assume this has never really been done even if the authority exists.
Yet if we take Acts 15 at face value, men did in fact rewrite and set aside the laws of God. That they did this is fundamentally important to the establishment of the Christian faith as seperate from the Jewish. Is the entire Christian faith simply an apostate branch of Judaism? (Rhetorical question starLisa )
quote: Third, yes, I do get the central point, which is the internal conflict of a single Mormon over the Federal Marriage Amendment.
This person (BlackBlade) is trying to resolve what he(?) sees as conflicting aspects of the issue with respect to his personal beliefs and the edicts of his Church.
I am, or was, trying to present what I thought was a fair and neutral spiritual perspective, to help him see this issue in a new/alternative/different light. Perspective is always good.
See kmbboots post.
quote: My answer, in a very long round about way, was Love Conquers All. Is this conscious human action against gay people, sometimes even escalating to the point of persecution, justifiable under God's most general and true message of love?
Absolutely not. Us sinners are working on it though.
quote: This is exactly why I don't accept any human as God's Absolute Authority. I have no doubt that the Prophet in question is making statements that reflect the consistent and collective beliefs of the Church (much like the Pope), but I absolutely reject that he literally speaks for God.
I get that you reject that
quote: Independant of the policy of the Church, you must decide for yourself, if this man's statements are a reflection of the corrupted flesh, the bureaucracy and political motivations of the Church, or if they are the true and divinely inspired will of God.
Yes we must. We are commanded to do just that.
quote: I absolutely reject that any human is infallable; the Pope, the Prophet, whom ever; if they are flesh, they are falliable. I believe this is very relevant to the discussion.
I agree. Mormon's do not believe their prophets are superhuman, perfect, or infallible. However, we are promised by God that he will not allow them to lead the church astray. So when they tell us they are speaking for the Lord, we'd be wise to listen.
quote: What we must all do, and what especially Mormons must do, is decide the motivations behind this person making this statement. Is he making his statement as a matter of Church policy? Is he making his statement in defense of the Church's concept and traditions regarding marriage, or is he making a statement based on his interpretation of the law and civil liberties? You must further ask yourself if this person's statements are motivated by God's Love, or if they are motivated by the inevitable corruption of the flesh?
And pray and listen to the Spirit.
quote: If you blindly follow, then sadly you will always be blind.
Very true. The flip side of that is that if you, blindly or not, decide not to follow, then you will be lost. It's a narrow path to walk.
quote: Again, as before, I am trying to add an independant perspective that hopefull will allow you to see things in a new light and resolve the issue as your conscience dictates.
Your perspective and the way you're courtesy are appreciated.
Posts: 1412 | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Now we are getting somewhere. I want to give a heartfelt thanks to Scott, Bob, kmbboots, and to BaoQingTian for their wonderfully enlightening posts. I also want to thank Dagonee for his posts, I do agree with what he said and look forward to his posts in the future, but I still say, on this one issue in particular, he missed my point.
Some I suspect will say that the conversation has strayed horrible from the core questions asked by BlackBlade (cool name). While it seems like BlackBlade has resolved the issue in his own mind, I was trying to point out that there were several things, several steps or processes, he needed to do to know who and what to trust in seeking counsel on the matter.
On the issue of Old Testament statements regarding Adultry and Gay Activity, it is important that the people you trust to counsel you are acting consistently. I see so many people who reach back into the Old Testament selectively to condemn those around them. It is quite easy to draw on the Old Testament to condemn Gay Activity, while conviniently ignoring condemnation of sin that hits a little close to home. You simple can not rely on these people to give you sound unbiased advise.
Kmbboots points out that for a lot of people 'God says so' is all they need. But that must always be questioned for underlying motivation. Is it 'God says so because I say so'? Is it 'God says so, except when it doesn't suit me'? Again, look for Love and consistency in anyone who claims 'God said so'.
That is way it is important to look at how your church (speaking in general) as individual members, as a local organization, and as a greater national organization treats the various sins that human invariably commit. If on any of those levels, they are not consistent, then at that place of inconsistency you can not dependably draw you counsel.
It seems that the Mormon Church is very consistent across all sin. In that case, I would merely suggest staying away from individuals who approach this issue with an excessive amount of vitriol. It's a pretty clear sign, they are not truly motivated by God's Love.
On the issue of the Prophet's statements, I think it is important to look at the underlying motivation. In fact, BlackBlade brought up that specific issue. He said it was unclear in what capacity the Prophet was speaking. Since the context wasn't clear, you must resolve it in your heart. To do that you must question the Prophets motivation, you must question him as a human, as a representative for the Church, and as a representative for God.
It may be (though unlikely) that he was speaking for God and saying, in a sense, 'God hates fag'. He may have been merely supporting Marriage with a capital 'M' as being a distinct religious rite that has now taken on civil and legal aspects, but is none the less something separate from other legal unions that are similar to marriage. In a sense, trying to preserve marriage in name, while not being concerned with other legal unions.
So, the motivations of the Prophet are very important, and since the motivation context was not clear, we must divine it for ourselves.
So, I think I was justified in asking how your Church treats gay people relative to other sinners. It was a sincere question and now I have some wonderfully enlightening answers. The extention of that question, is the conclusion that if you find points of inconsistency in the spiritual chain of command, at those points the advice can not be trusted.
The final step is to ask if the counsel, the people, and the church around you are motivated by God's Love on this issue. That is critical because we find so much vile hatred directed at gay people by people who claim strong religious and moral foundation. I reject that. We must always love our fellow sinners because it is through our love and God's Love that they will find their own personal spirtual peace. Bitter condemnation will never server you as well as a loving embrace.
BlackBlade said -
Yet a source that I believe to be 100% true has asked me to reevaluate my beliefs on this subject.
The Prophet said what he said, but he said it with underlying intent, context, purpose, and specific authority. You must question, both by asking and by doubting, what that motivation was.
Maybe he was simply trying to isolate 'Marriage' as a distinct and unique entity, and religious scarament, separate from other legal unions.
Maybe he was speaking with the absolute voice of God and saying this is right and everything else is wrong.
Maybe he was simply stating the Churches position on a civil and legal matter.
But without some sense of the underlying intent, you can't know ...well... what he intended.
Let me close by again thanking everyone for the wonderfully enlightening posts, that is exactly what I was looking for. I felt a literal thrill when I read each post, but was especially thrilled when I read BaoQingTian post which was amazingly brief yet very informative.
Finally, I want to apologise if it seemed that I was attacking the Mormon Church. Obviously my beliefs are different, but the questions I ask, no matter how hostile they may have sounded, I asked with sincerity and did so to a purpose.
You can't deny that there is general hypocracy all around you, though it seems much less so in the Mormon Church. Yet, even Mormons are humans, subject to the same flaws and frailties as the rest of us. It is important to look at the world around you from this cold unpleasant perspective, because if you are looking for true spiritual answers, you need to know who you can trust.
I hope BlakeBlade found some general spiritual guidance in our discussion even though we seem to have strayed from the central subject. He seems to have resolved this issue in his heart, and regardless of his choices, I wish him the best.
quote:Originally posted by BlueWizard: Now we are getting somewhere. I want to give a heartfelt thanks to Scott, Bob, kmbboots, and to BaoQingTian for their wonderfully enlightening posts. I also want to thank Dagonee for his posts, I do agree with what he said and look forward to his posts in the future, but I still say, on this one issue in particular, he missed my point.
Some I suspect will say that the conversation has strayed horrible from the core questions asked by BlackBlade (cool name). While it seems like BlackBlade has resolved the issue in his own mind, I was trying to point out that there were several things, several steps or processes, he needed to do to know who and what to trust in seeking counsel on the matter.
On the issue of Old Testament statements regarding Adultry and Gay Activity, it is important that the people you trust to counsel you are acting consistently. I see so many people who reach back into the Old Testament selectively to condemn those around them. It is quite easy to draw on the Old Testament to condemn Gay Activity, while conviniently ignoring condemnation of sin that hits a little close to home. You simple can not rely on these people to give you sound unbiased advise.
Kmbboots points out that for a lot of people 'God says so' is all they need. But that must always be questioned for underlying motivation. Is it 'God says so because I say so'? Is it 'God says so, except when it doesn't suit me'? Again, look for Love and consistency in anyone who claims 'God said so'.
That is way it is important to look at how your church (speaking in general) as individual members, as a local organization, and as a greater national organization treats the various sins that human invariably commit. If on any of those levels, they are not consistent, then at that place of inconsistency you can not dependably draw you counsel.
It seems that the Mormon Church is very consistent across all sin. In that case, I would merely suggest staying away from individuals who approach this issue with an excessive amount of vitriol. It's a pretty clear sign, they are not truly motivated by God's Love.
On the issue of the Prophet's statements, I think it is important to look at the underlying motivation. In fact, BlackBlade brought up that specific issue. He said it was unclear in what capacity the Prophet was speaking. Since the context wasn't clear, you must resolve it in your heart. To do that you must question the Prophets motivation, you must question him as a human, as a representative for the Church, and as a representative for God.
It may be (though unlikely) that he was speaking for God and saying, in a sense, 'God hates fag'. He may have been merely supporting Marriage with a capital 'M' as being a distinct religious rite that has now taken on civil and legal aspects, but is none the less something separate from other legal unions that are similar to marriage. In a sense, trying to preserve marriage in name, while not being concerned with other legal unions.
So, the motivations of the Prophet are very important, and since the motivation context was not clear, we must divine it for ourselves.
So, I think I was justified in asking how your Church treats gay people relative to other sinners. It was a sincere question and now I have some wonderfully enlightening answers. The extention of that question, is the conclusion that if you find points of inconsistency in the spiritual chain of command, at those points the advice can not be trusted.
The final step is to ask if the counsel, the people, and the church around you are motivated by God's Love on this issue. That is critical because we find so much vile hatred directed at gay people by people who claim strong religious and moral foundation. I reject that. We must always love our fellow sinners because it is through our love and God's Love that they will find their own personal spirtual peace. Bitter condemnation will never server you as well as a loving embrace.
BlackBlade said -
Yet a source that I believe to be 100% true has asked me to reevaluate my beliefs on this subject.
The Prophet said what he said, but he said it with underlying intent, context, purpose, and specific authority. You must question, both by asking and by doubting, what that motivation was.
Maybe he was simply trying to isolate 'Marriage' as a distinct and unique entity, and religious scarament, separate from other legal unions.
Maybe he was speaking with the absolute voice of God and saying this is right and everything else is wrong.
Maybe he was simply stating the Churches position on a civil and legal matter.
But without some sense of the underlying intent, you can't know ...well... what he intended.
Let me close by again thanking everyone for the wonderfully enlightening posts, that is exactly what I was looking for. I felt a literal thrill when I read each post, but was especially thrilled when I read BaoQingTian post which was amazingly brief yet very informative.
Finally, I want to apologise if it seemed that I was attacking the Mormon Church. Obviously my beliefs are different, but the questions I ask, no matter how hostile they may have sounded, I asked with sincerity and did so to a purpose.
You can't deny that there is general hypocracy all around you, though it seems much less so in the Mormon Church. Yet, even Mormons are humans, subject to the same flaws and frailties as the rest of us. It is important to look at the world around you from this cold unpleasant perspective, because if you are looking for true spiritual answers, you need to know who you can trust.
I hope BlakeBlade found some general spiritual guidance in our discussion even though we seem to have strayed from the central subject. He seems to have resolved this issue in his heart, and regardless of his choices, I wish him the best.
Thank you all again.
Steve/BlueWizard
I very much appreciated your post, and I really do understand the points you are trying to make. Your posts in the future remain in my "Worth reading" category.
Though the discussion did stray from my original intent, and at times that can be a bit maddening still I am reminded by Mr. Card's response to one of my own statements, "If we can't digress, why bother conversing at all?"
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Here are some excerpts from a thread on Times and Seasons, a Mormon group blog, that speaks very cogently to this topic.
First, from a talk by Elder Oaks that was in this month's Ensign.
quote: Now, brothers and sisters, if you are troubled about something we have just said, please listen very carefully to what I will say now. . . .
If you feel you are a special case, so that the strong counsel I have given doesn’t apply to you, please don’t write me a letter. Why would I make this request? I have learned that the kind of direct counsel I have given results in a large number of letters from members who feel they are an exception, and they want me to confirm that the things I have said just don’t apply to them in their special circumstance.
I will explain why I can’t offer much comfort in response to that kind of letter by telling you an experience I had with another person who was troubled by a general rule. I gave a talk in which I mentioned the commandment “Thou shalt not kill” (Ex. 20:13). Afterward a man came up to me in tears saying that what I had said showed there was no hope for him. “What do you mean?” I asked him.
He explained that he had been a machine gunner during the Korean War. During a frontal assault, his machine gun mowed down scores of enemy infantry. Their bodies were piled so high in front of his gun that he and his men had to push them away in order to maintain their field of fire. He had killed a hundred, he said, and now he must be going to hell because I had spoken of the Lord’s commandment “Thou shalt not kill.”
The explanation I gave that man is the same explanation I give to you if you feel you are an exception to what I have said. As a General Authority, I have the responsibility to preach general principles. When I do, I don’t try to define all the exceptions. There are exceptions to some rules. For example, we believe the commandment is not violated by killing pursuant to a lawful order in an armed conflict. But don’t ask me to give an opinion on your exception. I only teach the general rules. Whether an exception applies to you is your responsibility. You must work that out individually between you and the Lord.
Then from the readers' commentary on the topic. This comment is from Mark Butler.
quote: The reason why rules have exception, is that ultimately legalism is an imperfect implementation of divine meta-ethics. They are the guideposts and directional markers that lead in the direction of ultimate good, but ultimately conflict from time to time, leaving us to ponder the competing principles, costs and benefits, duties and obligations, stretching our abilities and our endurance to their very limits.
Jesus Christ is not the end of the law, he is the *fulfilment* of the law - the higher law of the Spirit. We be no more Pharisees concerned with every jot and tittle of a legislated morality, but judges in our own right - ultimately able to decide cases in true equity and not the lesser law alone. As the Father hath committed all judgment into the hands of his Son, so also is it the Son’s good pleasure to commit all judgment into our hands, that we be no more children, but friends and fellow members of the household of God.
And that, ultimately is what it means to be sanctified through law, first the lesser - the law of children, and then the higher - the true law of the Spirit - not the law of arbitrary discretion, but of judgment and equity with fairness towards all, no matter what the situation - to ultimately remove the training wheels and plot a true course, upright and faithful - no corruption, no guile - just integrity and honor, doing true credit to the name that has been placed upon us.
To me that perfectly sums it up.
Posts: 6246 | Registered: Aug 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Well, we are straying from the central subject completely, but what you post here is relavant to the general discussion that occurred in reponse to the original question.
I am please to see that many of the things I said, are, directly or indirectly, echoed by these speakers.
I think it is extremely important to be careful about who you trust to counsel you in spiritual matters. Remember, the loudest voice is rarely the truest voice. In some cases, you would to better to seek out the counsel of the person who says nothing, than to seek the counsel of some one who is constantly shouting alleged truth from the roof tops.
In general, I found both speakers very fair and well reasoned. But there is one paragraph that confuses me. Perhaps it is because I am not a Mormon, or perhaps it is because both speakers seem to speak in what I will call 'Biblical English' rather than plan common English.
Here is the paragraph in question --
Jesus Christ is not the end of the law, he is the *fulfilment* of the law - the higher law of the Spirit. We be no more Pharisees concerned with every jot and tittle of a legislated morality, but judges in our own right - ultimately able to decide cases in true equity and not the lesser law alone. As the Father hath committed all judgment into the hands of his Son, so also is it the Son’s good pleasure to commit all judgment into our hands, that we be no more children, but friends and fellow members of the household of God.
On the general concept, I agree, but I am confused about his statements that WE are qualified and acceptable Judges. He seems to say that God granted that right to Judge to Jesus, and that Jesus granted the right to Judge our fellow humans to us; at least to some unspecified group of us.
Specifically -
"... but judges in our own right - ultimately able to decide cases in true equity and not the lesser law alone."
On one hand, he seems to be saying that our goal is not to resolve questions on 'the lesser law alone', but to judge on true genuine spiritual truths.
If he had said, '...ultimately strive to decide cases in true equity...', I probably wouldn't have had a problem. Personally, I find it difficult to believe any human has the right or the ability to pass absolute judgement on other humans. They can certainly express their opinion on how they think God will judge a given person, but not to pass judgement themselves.
Have I misinterpreted what this person intended to say, or am I missing some concept unique to the Mormon Church? Are there really people who have absolute authority to pass spiritual judgement on others?
The first speaker, Elder Oaks, doesn't seem to think so, or at least that's how I interpret it. The first author seems to echo my sentiments and to some extent those of Paul in his letters to the Romans. Elder Oaks reponse by saying -
"You must work that out individually between you and the Lord."
This is in reference to killing, which is no small thing.
Any insight into this would be genuinely and truly appreciated. Next, I am not being antagonistic or hostile, I ask because I really want to know.
posted
Steve, be assured that no hostility on your part is perceived or assumed. I interpret Mark Butler to be saying perhaps two things at once, and yes, there are some Mormon-specific ideas here, now that I think of it. I interpret Mark to mean that we judge for ourselves in things over which we have stewardship, meaning our own moral choices, and for the case of a parent, how to care for their children and what the rules will be for them, and what the punishments will be if they break the rules, etc. Mormons have other stewardships with respect to the church as well. We are basically stewards of all things over which we have been given power. That's the immediate sense I get of what he meant about us being judges.
In the future, though, we LDS are all aspiring to become gods, and our stewardship will be expanded to spirit children of our own, if we are faithful and diligent in following the Lord's guidance. In those days, we shall be judges over those spirit children, in the same way that as earthly parents, we judge our earthly children. Does that help clear up what I think Mark meant?
Feel free to ask any questions at all that you have about the LDS faith. There are many here who are qualified to answer you. (I'm not particularly qualified, so I will just tell you what I think, and not speak for the church.)
Posts: 6246 | Registered: Aug 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Yes, thank you Tatiana, that does help clear it up, though you have also raised some other minor issues that I need to think on.
This thread has made me very curious about the LDS faith, I find some very appealing aspect to it. Though naive and foolish boy that I am, it never really occurred to me that their could be a Christian or Christian-like faith outside of Catholic, Protestant, and Jew. (I say 'Christian-like' to allow for the inclusion of Jews.)
I, obviously, mistakenly assumed that if you were not Catholic or Jew, then you were automatically Protestant. Though by some stretch, I suppose you could say LDS is 'protestant' in that they, to some extent, reject Catholic teaching and authority, but I naturally assume 'Protestant' means drawing heavily on the works of Martin Luther. That should explain some of my statements.
I find it extremely fastinating that a Christian religion could evolve on it's own independant of Luther Protestantism and the Catholic Church.
None of this really requires an answer. I was just pointing out that it makes the LDS faith that much more fastinating to me.
posted
We don't consider ourselves to be Protestants, but rather, a restoration of the original church as founded by Christ. We believe that some time after the deaths of the original apostles, there was a falling away, and the doctrines of humans got mixed up with those of God. For a long while, people were left confused, following what felt to them like the best of the various human-made (or God-human) doctrines that came to be. We think that God restored his original church in the early 19th century. It may sound unlikely on first thought, but the more I learned about it, the more sound good sense it seemed (and felt), and still does.
We have retained some hymns and traditions of Protestantism, as early church members were almost all converts from Protestantism in one form or another. But the organization of the church, the purpose of the church, our sacrament and ordinances, were all revealed to Joseph Smith in the 1800s, (ongoing to today), and they are mostly unique to our faith, aside from some strong parallels with very early Hebrew practices. I'm not a historian, nor a biblical scholar, so that's all I know about it. You can find out more from other sources.
Here is the church site meant for people wanting to learn more about our faith. Plus, feel free to ask any questions here. Lots of people here have studied more and understand these things better than I.
Posts: 6246 | Registered: Aug 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Also, the LDS church, while not part of the Protestant movement, does always speak very highly of Martin Luther and the courage he had to stand up for his beliefs.
Posts: 1001 | Registered: Mar 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by BlueWizard: Though naive and foolish boy that I am, it never really occurred to me that their could be a Christian or Christian-like faith outside of Catholic, Protestant, and Jew. (I say 'Christian-like' to allow for the inclusion of Jews.)
I wish you wouldn't. It's really extremely offensive.
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
Not wanting to be a rabble rouser or anything, but I'm not sure exactly what you are offended by. Can I assume that it is my reference to Jews as 'Christian-like'? I was trying to make a very concise statement that was far more related to Protestantism, than to the Jewish faith.
The fact is the Jewish faith and Christianity are irrevocably linked. Christianity comes from the Jewish faith. Christ himself was a Jew. In fact, nearly everybody in the Bible was a Jew. Perhaps I should have said 'Christian-related' or 'Christian-associated'.
I was simply try to, in a very shorthand way, make a point that was completely unrelated to whether the Jewish faith was or wasn't 'Christian-like'.
Not wanting to be a rabble rouser or anything, but I'm not sure exactly what you are offended by. Can I assume that it is my reference to Jews as 'Christian-like'? I was trying to make a very concise statement that was far more related to Protestantism, than to the Jewish faith.
The fact is the Jewish faith and Christianity are irrevocably linked. Christianity comes from the Jewish faith. Christ himself was a Jew. In fact, nearly everybody in the Bible was a Jew. Perhaps I should have said 'Christian-related' or 'Christian-associated'.
I was simply try to, in a very shorthand way, make a point that was completely unrelated to whether the Jewish faith was or wasn't 'Christian-like'.
We don't think Judaism and Christianity are linked except insofar as Christianity was a regrettable outgrowth from a small Jewish sect. What it's done to what it took from us really is offensive, and was even before its adherents started butchering us for sticking with what God told us.
I understand that the butchery is (hopefully) behind us now, but even terms like "Judeo-Christian" are pretty nasty. Referring to us as "Christian-like" is just... <shudder> We are in no way Christian-like.
We don't think Judaism and Christianity are linked except insofar as Christianity was a regrettable outgrowth from a small Jewish sect. What it's done to what it took from us really is offensive, and was even before its adherents started butchering us for sticking with what God told us.
I understand that the butchery is (hopefully) behind us now, but even terms like "Judeo-Christian" are pretty nasty. Referring to us as "Christian-like" is just... <shudder> We are in no way Christian-like.
Lisa
"Christianity was a regrettable outgrowth from a small Jewish sect." Why dont you go tell all those Christians both past and present that helped fund the creation of a state of Israel your opinion of their belief system.
Why not flip it around
"Inasmuch as Judaism is a regrettable estranged father of Christianity that just won't seem to die."
and we formed from a "small sect" of Judaism? So what the all the Jews living in Jerusalem at the time of Christ were a small sect? I suppose it was the Egyptian Jews, or the Ethiopian Sects that were the true head of the body huh? Forgive me if I misunderstand what you are trying to say.
It feels as if you are calling somebody out for being offensive, and then stating that you are offended because Christianity is in of itself offensive to you?
And another thing, its VERY common knowledge that in its initial days to the pagan world Christianity and Judaism were very difficult to differentiate from each other. Its initaly appeal to non Jews was limited because Christianity simply felt like another version of Judaism. Enter the Romans and the protestant reformation and Christianity by and large seem long departed from its relative Judaism.
But even in its modified form, MANY of the values within Christianity and Judaism are shared. One God the creator of our souls and the world, belief in a savior, (I am sure you will argue that you are one of those unorthodox nonmessianic Jews just to make things difficult.), more than half of their canons are completely identical, etc. Its not even limited to that.
There are studies done on Christ era Judeo jurisprudence, and its amazing how many of the principles in Jewish law are found in court systems today.
I guess to sum up starlisa. I personally have great respect for the Jewish (both the ethnicity and the religion) people as a whole. They have produced many amazing people that have benefited society world wide. That being said, I just do not appreciate speaking with somebody who demands respect and yet does not offer me the same grounds for deserving respect as she herself demands.
I hope I do not come across as angry, I still retain much respect for what you say starlisa.
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
We don't think Judaism and Christianity are linked except insofar as Christianity was a regrettable outgrowth from a small Jewish sect. What it's done to what it took from us really is offensive, and was even before its adherents started butchering us for sticking with what God told us.
I understand that the butchery is (hopefully) behind us now, but even terms like "Judeo-Christian" are pretty nasty. Referring to us as "Christian-like" is just... <shudder> We are in no way Christian-like.
Lisa
"Christianity was a regrettable outgrowth from a small Jewish sect." Why dont you go tell all those Christians both past and present that helped fund the creation of a state of Israel your opinion of their belief system.
Why not flip it around
"Inasmuch as Judaism is a regrettable estranged father of Christianity that just won't seem to die."
and we formed from a "small sect" of Judaism? So what the all the Jews living in Jerusalem at the time of Christ were a small sect? I suppose it was the Egyptian Jews, or the Ethiopian Sects that were the true head of the body huh? Forgive me if I misunderstand what you are trying to say.
It feels as if you are calling somebody out for being offensive, and then stating that you are offended because Christianity is in of itself offensive to you?
And another thing, its VERY common knowledge that in its initial days to the pagan world Christianity and Judaism were very difficult to differentiate from each other. Its initaly appeal to non Jews was limited because Christianity simply felt like another version of Judaism. Enter the Romans and the protestant reformation and Christianity by and large seem long departed from its relative Judaism.
But even in its modified form, MANY of the values within Christianity and Judaism are shared. One God the creator of our souls and the world, belief in a savior, (I am sure you will argue that you are one of those unorthodox nonmessianic Jews just to make things difficult.), more than half of their canons are completely identical, etc. Its not even limited to that.
There are studies done on Christ era Judeo jurisprudence, and its amazing how many of the principles in Jewish law are found in court systems today.
I guess to sum up starlisa. I personally have great respect for the Jewish (both the ethnicity and the religion) people as a whole. They have produced many amazing people that have benefited society world wide. That being said, I just do not appreciate speaking with somebody who demands respect and yet does not offer me the same grounds for deserving respect as she herself demands.
I hope I do not come across as angry, I still retain much respect for what you say starlisa.
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Why dont you go tell all those Christians both past and present that helped fund the creation of a state of Israel your opinion of their belief system.
Don't give her any ideas.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
Everyone needs to belong. I think this is how Lisa expresses her attachment to the group to and in which she belongs.
Lisa, you can shoot me verbally if I'm totally wrong, but I get the feeling that the defense of Judaism and Isreal has more to do with strengthening your ties and declaring your loyalty to Judaism and Isreal than an interest in debate about the topic.
I also think that's fine. It's not nice to use a conversation like that, but if you need to, I don't mind.
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
Everyone needs civility. starLisa proves her incapability to be civil on this topic with statements like:
quote:What it's done to what it took from us really is offensive, and was even before its adherents started butchering us for sticking with what God told us.
posted
I have heard other Jews express dislike for the term "Judeo-Christian" before, for well-articulated reasons that made sense to me at the time but that I can't remember now. And I am pretty sure any of them would have had a problem with Judaism being referred to as a "Christian-like" religion, too. While there are similarities, certainly, don't you think it sounds a little demeaning, BlackBlade?
Posts: 7954 | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
I have to admit that I don't mind because I think that Lisa is not actually completely in control of her actions - in other words, she needs so badly to establish herself as a good Jew that it's broken her social skills. She's clearly competent in other areas. I don't know - I guess I think there's some sort of short-circuit every time the topic comes up.
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by ElJay: I have heard other Jews express dislike for the term "Judeo-Christian" before, for well-articulated reasons that made sense to me at the time but that I can't remember now. And I am pretty sure any of them would have had a problem with Judaism being referred to as a "Christian-like" religion, too. While there are similarities, certainly, don't you think it sounds a little demeaning, BlackBlade?
Demeaning? No. Inaccurate? Yes. Most understand that Christianity is derived from Judaism. Unless you are a Mormon in which case there are some added statements to this arguement that I am not planning on going into.
Do Christians complain that we are grouped with the Jews in descriptions of our beliefs? I do not know of any.
I do not mind being associated with Judaism, I do not know why Judaism should be loath to be associated with me.
Maybe somebody should locate the remnants of all the other tribes of Israel and ask how they feel about having their belief systems all lumped together with the single tribe of Judah.
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: and we formed from a "small sect" of Judaism? So what the all the Jews living in Jerusalem at the time of Christ were a small sect?
<raised eyebrow> Pardon? You're getting your mythology confused with reality. If there's any historical element to the Gospels, then if there were Jews who supported Jesus, it was because they thought he might turn out to be the messiah. But Christianity went and deified the man. If you believe that all the Jews living in Jerusalem at the time (or any of them, actually) believed the messiah was going to be a deity, you might be interested in this nifty deal I can offer you on a bridge. Barely used.
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: It feels as if you are calling somebody out for being offensive, and then stating that you are offended because Christianity is in of itself offensive to you?
Oh, yeeps. Look, he asked, okay? Yes, Christianity itself is, by its nature, a dreadful parody of Judaism. You must realize that from a Jewish point of view, this is the case. If you don't, then it's probably good that you hear it. It's not as though I'm going to be out picketing churches, but -- sheesh! -- calling us "Christian-like" is just adding insult to a long history of insult and injury.
God gave us His Torah, and tasked us with it. Christianity has taken concepts that are ours and turned them into something very different. Turning a human king into a mystical savior and deity is simply inexplicible to us. And then turning around and killing us for not accepting the heresy...
Look, I don't think many Jews have a problem with Christians as people. But the religion, because it was derived from us and turned into what it did, kind of squicks a lot of us out.
When I was a freshman in college, I went to a talk being given by the Inter-Varsity Christian Fellowship in the lounge in my dorm. I was bludgeoned into going by a friend of mine who was Jewish, but ignorant. And when she saw the flyers that said "Proof of the Resurrection", she got all uptight and insisted that I come. It took her about a week's worth of me saying "no" to finally getting me so tired of her whining that I went, just to get her to leave me alone.
The "proof", incidentally, consisted of someone reading the thing about the boulder having been moved away, with the cave empty and an angel sitting on the rock -- "his garb as white as snow" (and yes, I turned to my friend and whispered, "...and everywhere the angel went, the lamb was sure to go"). Which was more or less what I'd figured, and why I didn't see the point in going.
But then they had a little discussion group. And they asked us to stay. Of course. And they were really, really nice. I'm not being tongue in cheek about that at all. Very sweet and friendly people, every one.
During the course of the discussion, one of them mentioned that, of course, anyone who doesn't accept JC is going to burn in Hell, but he wasn't all gloatful about it. There was nothing nasty in his attitude. He wasn't glaring and shouting hellfire at us. He was just saying what he believed. My friend, needless to say, full of all the hypersensitivity that comes from being utterly ignorant of her own religion, was horrified. So, actually, were a few of the other IVCF kids. Their reaction, though, was largely because they thought we were going to be offended. Which my friend certainly demonstrated to be a valid fear. I wasn't offended at all. He wasn't making it up, after all. It's not like he didn't like Jews, so he was saying we were going to burn in Hell. He was a perfectly nice, unoffensive young man who was trying to express, honestly, what his religion taught him.
The fact that what he said was offensive to others wasn't due to him wanting to cause offensive. It was due to him being honest.
Don't get me wrong. I don't think Christians are going to burn in Hell. But that's mostly because the whole Hell thing was invented after Christianity broke away from us. So we don't have any truck with the idea. It's one more thing that squicks us out, actually.
My point, though, is that one person's expression of belief can often be highly offensive to another person. Just by the nature of that belief.
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: But even in its modified form, MANY of the values within Christianity and Judaism are shared. One God the creator of our souls and the world, belief in a savior, (I am sure you will argue that you are one of those unorthodox nonmessianic Jews just to make things difficult.),
You don't know me very well, do you. Boy, have you got the wrong number. But that's what you don't understand. Did you ever read Stephen King's Danse Macabre? It's a non-fiction book about horror and terror and fear. He makes an interesting point. The Creature from the Black Lagoon is infinitely more horrific than the Blob could ever be. Why? Because the Blob is something else entirely. It bears no relation to us, and what makes it scary is only what it does. But the Creature from the Black Lagoon is humanoid. It looks like a warped or distorted human being. And that grabs us by the nerves and won't let go.
Nothing is ever as horrifying as something that's almost us, but monstrous. You talk about One God. But you turned that into a trinity. Huh? You talk about a savior, but we don't have such a concept. The messiah is not, and never was, a mystical savior. He's a human being, begotten of human beings. Never a deity. <shudder>
Of all things, idolatry is the anti-Judaism. And then we see a group of people who took some of the most basic concepts in the world and idolatrized them. And yes, that squicks the heck out of us. How could it not?
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: more than half of their canons are completely identical, etc. Its not even limited to that.
I disagree. Even the parts that you would say are the same are not the same. We never had anything that said "a virgin shall conceive", for example. That's a mistranslation of Isaiah. You co-opted the idea of the Sabbath, moved it to a new time like some network executive, and turned it, as well, into something it never was. Not to mention the fact that the Sabbath is only for Jews.
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: There are studies done on Christ era Judeo jurisprudence, and its amazing how many of the principles in Jewish law are found in court systems today.
I guess to sum up starlisa. I personally have great respect for the Jewish (both the ethnicity and the religion) people as a whole. They have produced many amazing people that have benefited society world wide. That being said, I just do not appreciate speaking with somebody who demands respect and yet does not offer me the same grounds for deserving respect as she herself demands.
I hope I do not come across as angry, I still retain much respect for what you say starlisa.
I hear what you're saying. And I hope you can understand what I've said. I understand that hearing me speaking truth is liable to offend you. But calling Judaism "Christian-like" was horribly offensive. And all I did was ask that it not be done. When I was asked why, I explained why. I'm not on a crusade.
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by katharina: Everyone needs to belong. I think this is how Lisa expresses her attachment to the group to and in which she belongs.
Lisa, you can shoot me verbally if I'm totally wrong, but I get the feeling that the defense of Judaism and Isreal has more to do with strengthening your ties and declaring your loyalty to Judaism and Isreal than an interest in debate about the topic.
Not really. That has more to do with a sense of justice, a knowledge that it's a life-and-death issue, having lived through it for 12 years, and knowing that the lives of two of my children, who still live there, are at stake. It's not academic for me the way it is for so many people on this forum.
That's regarding the Israel stuff. The Judaism stuff... well, I explained it in what I wrote to BlackBlade. All I did was ask that one thing not be said. When asked why, I gave a short answer. I didn't intend to beat it into the ground.
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by katharina: I have to admit that I don't mind because I think that Lisa is not actually completely in control of her actions - in other words, she needs so badly to establish herself as a good Jew that it's broken her social skills. She's clearly competent in other areas. I don't know - I guess I think there's some sort of short-circuit every time the topic comes up.
Your condescension is understood. But I assure you that I am completely in control of my actions. You didn't see anything offensive with Judaism being called "Christian-like", because it doesn't offend you personally. But what I wrote did. Perhaps you might consider that things look different from a different perspective.
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by ElJay: I have heard other Jews express dislike for the term "Judeo-Christian" before, for well-articulated reasons that made sense to me at the time but that I can't remember now. And I am pretty sure any of them would have had a problem with Judaism being referred to as a "Christian-like" religion, too. While there are similarities, certainly, don't you think it sounds a little demeaning, BlackBlade?
Demeaning? No. Inaccurate? Yes. Most understand that Christianity is derived from Judaism. Unless you are a Mormon in which case there are some added statements to this arguement that I am not planning on going into.
Do Christians complain that we are grouped with the Jews in descriptions of our beliefs? I do not know of any.
I do not mind being associated with Judaism, I do not know why Judaism should be loath to be associated with me.
Maybe somebody should locate the remnants of all the other tribes of Israel and ask how they feel about having their belief systems all lumped together with the single tribe of Judah.
I'm sorry if it bothers you that we don't want to be associated with Christianity. Do you seriously not understand that Christianity is a terrible heresy relative to Judaism? It's not as though we broke away from you. We were given God's word and after 13 centuries or so, you broke away from us. And do you honestly expect us to forget two millenia of persecution? None of us place blame for that on individual Christians, but on Christianity, as such?
As far as "the other tribes of Israel" are concerned, we are the People of Israel. We use the term "Jews", derived from the tribe of Judah, because it was the main one of the tribes which remained faithful to God's Torah. Most of the rest assimilated into the surrounding population, because they didn't.
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
No, I do see something offensive with it. It's just that on other topics, you don't return offense with offense. On this one, you do. So, either you have conciously chosen to not care about your uncivilityx, or else you don't really get what you are doing. I think both kind of come from the same thing - the importance you place on the topic.
I'm not diminishing the importance of the topic, but no amount of uncivility in the present situation will change either history or the minds of people who are not posting here. The minds of those who are posting here are being offended and not persuaded, so it's ultimately fruitless if persuasion is your point.
Since the persuasion is so fruitless, that makes me think that persuasion isn't the point. Taking a stand is - on this topic taking a vehement stand is more important to you than the conversation. Which kind of brings me full circle - you have a need to be this rude about it.
Does that make sense?
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
You see it as rude. I don't. Tell me... given that calling Judaism "Christian-like" was extremely offensive to me, how would you suggest, as someone who is obviously an expert, that I could have handled it better? Should I have just ignored it? Was it "rude" for me to ask that he not call us that? Was there something in my word choice that you think could have been done better? I'm asking honestly.
I'll tell you in advance that saying nothing at all wasn't an option. So if you think saying anything at all about it was inherently rude, then we're at a standstill.
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
No, I don't think saying that calling Judaism "Christian-like" was offensive was rude. That was a very measured, honest response.
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Okay, then Steve asked me how it was offensive. Do you think I should not have answered? Or, if I answered, how do you think I should have answered differently?
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by ElJay: I have heard other Jews express dislike for the term "Judeo-Christian" before, for well-articulated reasons that made sense to me at the time but that I can't remember now. And I am pretty sure any of them would have had a problem with Judaism being referred to as a "Christian-like" religion, too. While there are similarities, certainly, don't you think it sounds a little demeaning, BlackBlade?
Demeaning? No. Inaccurate? Yes. Most understand that Christianity is derived from Judaism. Unless you are a Mormon in which case there are some added statements to this arguement that I am not planning on going into.
Do Christians complain that we are grouped with the Jews in descriptions of our beliefs? I do not know of any.
I do not mind being associated with Judaism, I do not know why Judaism should be loath to be associated with me.
Maybe somebody should locate the remnants of all the other tribes of Israel and ask how they feel about having their belief systems all lumped together with the single tribe of Judah.
I'm sorry if it bothers you that we don't want to be associated with Christianity. Do you seriously not understand that Christianity is a terrible heresy relative to Judaism? It's not as though we broke away from you. We were given God's word and after 13 centuries or so, you broke away from us. And do you honestly expect us to forget two millenia of persecution? None of us place blame for that on individual Christians, but on Christianity, as such?
As far as "the other tribes of Israel" are concerned, we are the People of Israel. We use the term "Jews", derived from the tribe of Judah, because it was the main one of the tribes which remained faithful to God's Torah. Most of the rest assimilated into the surrounding population, because they didn't.
I fully understand that Jews view Christianity as a heresy, but a corruption of ideas is not a basis for disdain. The moral values shared by both people are still comparable. Is that not more important?
But if you want me to see things from your perspective you are failing to see things from Christians perspectives. We see the Jews of today largely the same as Moses probably viewed the Israelites who stayed in Egypt while he was managing the great exodus. "People stuck in the past and in complete denial of what God was doing today."
To make it even more pointed, as a Mormon I see protestants as people, "Stuck in the past...etc" So from my perspective Jews have not only missed one Exodus, they missed the next Exodus that took place centuries after that one. You guys have missed the boat that picked up the people from the first boat you missed."
Yet I do not see your "Backsliding ways" or "frowardness" two words the Old Testament uses frequently to describe its people as grounds to dislike Jews.
As for your belief that there are a bajillion errors in our version of the Old Testament, it sufficeth me to say that I simply disagree with that statement. The Septuagint was written by Jews, much of its writings are quoted word for word in the Dead Sea scrolls, and there really is no STRONG reason to suspect that it ought to be look at with suspicion in regards to its accuracy. I would be interested in seeing the basis for your assertion that the "A virgin shall conceive." Passage is erreneous.
Yes Jews have been persecuted for thousands of years by people under the banner of, "Christianity." Does any Christian today believe that Christ really condoned any of those acts? Perhaps White Supremecist groups do but how many of them are held in high esteem by Christians of today? Perhaps you ought to remember that according to Christian writings it was the Jews that tried to kill off Christianity in its early years. Hunting down its followers and seeing them executed.
I am not trying to finger point, or state who has a greater claim to pity, but it was largely "On the backs of gentiles." (to quote Isaiah) That the Jews of today now have a place to live. Why else do Muslim nations CONSTANTLY accuse the US of "Only siding with Israel?"
Respect us in spite of our deviant beliefs, and I will respect you in spite of your, "Brow of brass, your back of iron sinews, your backsliding ways, and your frowardness."
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: But if you want me to see things from your perspective you are failing to see things from Christians perspectives. We see the Jews of today largely the same as Moses probably viewed the Israelites who stayed in Egypt while he was managing the great exodus. "People stuck in the past and in complete denial of what God was doing today."
Speak for yourself. You do not speak for "the Christian perspective."
Posts: 7954 | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: But if you want me to see things from your perspective you are failing to see things from Christians perspectives. We see the Jews of today largely the same as Moses probably viewed the Israelites who stayed in Egypt while he was managing the great exodus. "People stuck in the past and in complete denial of what God was doing today."
Speak for yourself. You do not speak for "the Christian perspective."
If you disagree with that assesment of the Jewish situation, you are welcome to provide a better description. Simply saying I do not speak for Christianity (I was obviously not pretending to be the mouthpiece of Christianity, merely an interpreter) does not really help the discussion in anyway.
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
When you say she's failing to see things from "Christians perspective" and then say "We" see this, it certainly sounds like you are trying to speak for Christianity at large. I see "the Jewish situation" differently, yes, but my interpretation is not really relevant to the conversation. I merely wish to remind you, and starLisa, that not all Christians feel as you do. As far as I'm concerned, that helps the discussion.
Posts: 7954 | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
"Froward". What a cool word. I assume that's a translation of "stiff-necked"? I had to go and look it up.
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by starLisa: "Froward". What a cool word. I assume that's a translation of "stiff-necked"? I had to go and look it up.
More or less the same meaning. I remember reading that word like 30 times in the Old Testament before realizing it was not the word "Forward." Suddenly the scriptures made sense again I wonder if its related to the phrase, "to and fro." "To" being the right way and "Fro" being the wrong way.
Eljay: I see what your saying. I say "we" as in "most Christians." I can be wrong in this assertion and I can concede that perhaps I ought not to speak in plural form when expressing my own opinions, regardless of how many people I believe agree with me.
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
Yes, I guess I can see how a Jew would be offended if I told him/her he/she was 'like a Christian' and left it at that. BUT, and this is a big but, I was making a statement in a larger context. I certainly was not making a statement with any intent to insult Jews.
Look at the context of what I said, and all I was doing was trying to establish a brief framework for the inclusion of Jews in a general discusssion of Christianity and specifically Protestantism.
I was simply trying to make a statement that included the three primary aspects of 'people like us' (Jew, Catholic, Protestant). Those are the three associated branches of 'people like us'.
So, what did I mean then by that, and what do I now mean by 'people like us'? What I meant is people who are not Shinto, Hindu, or Buddhist. My intent was to exclude these religion that are perfectly valid, but completely unrelated to the discussion at hand.
This whole thing was a statement of what I now know to be a mistaken belief, that if you were not Jew or Catholic, you had to be Protestant. Now, I find there is a forth choice; Restorationist (that is the right term, isn't it?). I was simply acknowledging my mistake in this area, and I think most people understood that.
My statement of 'Christian-like' was an attempt to say that Jews are not like Christians, and yes, I know now that sounds counter intuitive, but it's true. My intent was to include all religions that have the same collective origins as our collective religions without going into a long distracting tangent on how Jews are not Christians. So, my inclusion of the admittedly poor phrase 'Christian-like' was actually a very shorthand attempt at acknowledging that Jew are different than Christians. Again, counter intuitive, but none the less true.
Perhaps 'Christian-associated' would have been a better choice. But any reasonable interpretation of my full statement in its full context should have clearly shown that I was not intending to offend Jews, but excluding unrelated religious like Shinto, Buddhist, and Hindu. I was creating a context that kept the conversation relevant to Christianity, and the Jewish faith is very much relevant and related to Christianity, at least historically.
You are free to choose a word to be offended by while ignoring that context, just as others are free to consider the statement in context, and ignore an unrelated and now admittedly poor choice of words.
Most posts here are written spontaneously. They are not review by countless editors before 'going to publication'; occassionally a poor choice of words will slip in just as a few spelling and grammar error will appear. You need to make some allowances for the fact that we are not professional writers who words are carefully reviewed.
Though, it is good to now know that this is a far more important and sensitive issue that I might have imagined. And you can be sure, I will be more sensitive in this area in the furture.
So, I learned two things here: 1.) There are more possibilities that Catholic, Protestant, and Jew; there is also Restorationist 2.) Jews generally don't like being compared to Christians.
quote:Originally posted by BlueWizard: I was simply trying to make a statement that included the three primary aspects of 'people like us' (Jew, Catholic, Protestant). Those are the three associated branches of 'people like us'.
So basically, even if someone points out that it's offensive, you'll keep doing it. Understood.
quote:Originally posted by BlueWizard: So, what did I mean then by that, and what do I now mean by 'people like us'? What I meant is people who are not Shinto, Hindu, or Buddhist. My intent was to exclude these religion that are perfectly valid, but completely unrelated to the discussion at hand.
And you just don't get that anyone could possibly see Christian, Shintoist, Hindu and Buddhist as one category, with Jews on the other side. I see that. Nevertheless, when we say "One God", we really mean it, and it's really irksome to be included into a group that has an idiosyncratic definition of "One".
quote:Originally posted by BlueWizard: Perhaps 'Christian-associated' would have been a better choice.
<blink>
How about leaving us out of it. Honestly, Steve. By Jewish terms, Christianity is an outlaw faith. This is like calling smugglers "Coast Guard-associated".
[Edit: I mean, calling the Coast Guard "smuggler-associated.]
quote:Originally posted by BlueWizard: But any reasonable interpretation of my full statement in its full context should have clearly shown that I was not intending to offend Jews,
If intent is what's important, than it should suffice that I don't mean to offend Christians. Clearly, though, intent hasn't been enough for that.
quote:Originally posted by BlueWizard: Most posts here are written spontaneously. They are not review by countless editors before 'going to publication'; occassionally a poor choice of words will slip in just as a few spelling and grammar error will appear. You need to make some allowances for the fact that we are not professional writers who words are carefully reviewed.
I didn't intend to make a federal case out of it, Steve. Even kat had no complaint with my initial post pointing out that what you'd said was offensive and asking you not to do it. Rather than just nod and say "Okay", you asked why. And that was fair as well. So I explained. And people got all pissy. Fine. Obviously, my explanation was as offensive to them as your comment was to me. But now, it seems as though you're saying that I had no right to be offended in the first place. Or that I should have kept it zipped. Instead, why not try and understand that it is offensive to take a religion that broke away from us and tack us on to it.
quote:Originally posted by BlueWizard: Though, it is good to now know that this is a far more important and sensitive issue that I might have imagined. And you can be sure, I will be more sensitive in this area in the furture.
posted
Not at all...I'm just saying that there are more divisive topics down this path and it's not worth going there.
(note: sorry I deleted my earlier post because I found out there were some factual errors in it and I don't have time to fix it now).
Posts: 22497 | Registered: Sep 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:I was simply trying to make a statement that included the three primary aspects of 'people like us' (Jew, Catholic, Protestant). Those are the three associated branches of 'people like us'.
Also Eastern Orthodox. And the Anglican church and it's offshoots. And a half dozen other options.
Posts: 9866 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Bob, awhile ago, there was a discussion about a man who had stored kiddie porn on his computer. These were images of children being sexually assaulted, but had been modified using a graphics program like Photoshop. Other images were cartoonish in nature-- drawings of assualt, in other words. Some people argued that such images should be considered free and protected speech because there was no victim.
I avoid the topic because I know I can't discuss it rationally. I know my limits.
I expect others to be able to do the same thing.
Posts: 14554 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Scott R: Lisa, try to be more civil. Equating Christians with drug smugglers is not kosher.
I never intended to do that. You should have seen my initial comparison.
An analogy compares a dynamic or a relationship. To focus on the concretes used is missing the point. A baby is to a nursery as a criminal is to a jail cell, but that doesn't imply that there's any actual comparison between a baby and a criminal.
Christians are not smugglers, and Jews are not the Coast Guard. If anyone else thought I was suggesting that, then this is your clarification.
I started with an analogy that would have probably offended you even more, and then toned it down to use what I consider to be a victimless crime (outlawry, rather than crime), and I didn't even have drug smuggling in mind. The drug business was your addition. You just can't win with some folks, I guess.
In any case, I stand by the analogy, as divorced from the concretes used in it.
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
It looks to me like your analagy should be reversed, though. If Christianity is the "outlaw faith" then calling Jews "Christian-associated" would be like calling the coast guard "smuggler-associated," not the other way around, no?
Posts: 9866 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
. When the Bible literally says 'Adulterers should be stone' and says in many times and in many ways, there really isn't any interpretation there. I don't need divine inspiration, to read what is clearly and literally written.![[ROFL]](graemlins/rofl.gif)
I wonder if its related to the phrase, "to and fro." "To" being the right way and "Fro" being the wrong way.
