I get that you don't believe certain laws and you think most of the stuff concerning sexual morality was made up and you think it doesn't matter, but it takes an extraordinarily revisionist and edited reading of the Bible and even the Gospels to say God has never concerned himself at all with sexual morality.
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
I believe she meant that God doesn't think we should be concening ourselves with other people's sexual morality. Not that God isn't concerned with it.
And that wasn't a remotely fair summarization of her stated beliefs about sexual morality.
Posts: 9866 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
I said that it discouraged judging the sexual morality of others. I believe it discourages judging others in general.
edit: Thanks for the clarification, dkw.
I also believe that, in my many attempts, I have completely failed to get you to understand what my sexual morality actually is.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
To be perfectly honest, in my first encounter with your expression of your vision of sexual morality, you were justifying long-term adultery. In all probability, this has colored everything since.
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
As far as I can see, Christ, in one highly suspicious incident where people were trying to get him to criminalize himself, did not kill a woman taken in adultery.
He also commanded people to "remove the beam from your own eye so that you may see more clearly to help remove the mote from your brother's."
Nothing there about leaving your brother to spend his days blinking back tears.
(Keep in mind that this admonition *follows* the oft-quoted, oft-misunderstood phrase "Judge not that ye be not judged.")
Or, heck-- you go read Matthew 7, and tell me that Christ doesn't want us to "judge" others. That whole chapter is about wise judgement.
Posts: 14554 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:As far as I can see, Christ, in one highly suspicious incident where people were trying to get him to criminalize himself, did not kill a woman taken in adultery.
Most biblical scholars agree that this story was added by scribes - it does not appear in the earliest manuscripts.
Posts: 3275 | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:As far as I can see, Christ, in one highly suspicious incident where people were trying to get him to criminalize himself, did not kill a woman taken in adultery.
Most biblical scholars agree that this story was added by scribes - it does not appear in the earliest manuscripts.
But were the scribes inspired to write it? Posts: 3950 | Registered: Mar 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:I think "keep the door open" is a fine rule. Or if the subject being discussed is confidential, a small window in the door so that the people can be seen but not heard would also work.
When I was a district leader on my mission, some of the sisters in my zone (not under my...er...supervision, I guess) were having some companionship difficulties. I was friends with both the sisters, and was asked by them to mediate/counsel.
Even though nothing would have ever happened, we still had a moment of discomfort being alone in the same room together. For normal Mormon leaders, it might not be a big deal; for Elder and Sister missionaries (or, more specifically, for ME) it was...something like a breach of social protocol. We decided to leave the door open, and we had a good, healing conversation.
In any case, my point is largely that I agree with DKW. I think.
quote:That's very different, in my mind, than saying that men and women shouldn't work closely together or in positions where they would be required to meet with each other.
Mormon organizations are formed such that a male and female leader would rarely need to meet alone anyway.
Posts: 14554 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:As far as I can see, Christ, in one highly suspicious incident where people were trying to get him to criminalize himself, did not kill a woman taken in adultery.
Most biblical scholars agree that this story was added by scribes - it does not appear in the earliest manuscripts.
How far back do these manuscripts go? How do you decide between scribes adding or omitting stories?
edit: just curious, I admit those questions are pretty complicated and would take quite a bit of time to answer.
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Most biblical scholars agree that this story was added by scribes - it does not appear in the earliest manuscripts.
Interesting. I wonder what the motivation for adding that particular story was? Any ideas?
DUH! To add more emphasis on the Jesus/Mary Magedeline love story so that the Bible would be more marketable to female readers!
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Actually MC, did the later scribes have material that we currently do not? Although I am not (and at least by theory Mormons aren't) textual literalists, I don't buy into every theory of Higher Criticism. This is one instance where I don't think later vs earlier manuscripts says much about the authentication. To me it fits in with the general subject of the chapter and seems to be something that Jesus would do from other similar examples.
Posts: 2207 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Occasional: Mucus, I would say most of the Western world before WWI, and perhaps the rest of the Western world after WWII.
Please elaborate further. That is still a pretty large range (and set of countries). Perhaps I can make it easier.
1) What would you consider to be (or have been) the most morally evolved society (defined as a specific country at a specific time)?
2) Give an example of a Western country that reached its peak morally before WWI (and at what time) and an example of a Western country that reached its peak after WWII.
Bump for Occasional in case he(or she? not clear from the profile) missed it.
Posts: 7593 | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:How far back do these manuscripts go? How do you decide between scribes adding or omitting stories?
The earliest gospel texts are from around the third century. I'm not sure about that specific text, though.
Textual critics use a number of methods for evaluating differences in different versions to attempt to determine the most correct version, including comparisons of style and vocabulary of "questionable" texts with the larger text in which they are found. They also look at regional differences - if a particular difference occurs only in an isolated geographical area it is likely to have been introduced in that area and the version found everywhere else is more likely to be correct.
It is possible that the earlier texts are "descended" from a different branch than the later ones and they actually represent an erroneous omission of the story, but the people who make a career out of figuring this sort of thing out don't seem to think that's the case here.
I highly recommend the book "Misquoting Jesus" as it goes into great depth about how textual criticism works and how these conclusions are reached. It's a fascinating read.
quote:Interesting. I wonder what the motivation for adding that particular story was? Any ideas?
One theory I recall is that it was part of the oral tradition which was written in the margins by a scribe and incorporated into the text by later scribes, perhaps mistakenly believing that it was actually supposed to be part of the text.
Posts: 3275 | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote: To add more emphasis on the Jesus/Mary Magedeline love story so that the Bible would be more marketable to female readers!
Hmm...if this was their motive, they could have done LOADS better at pointing out that the woman Jesus didn't kill was actually Mary Magdalene.
Posts: 14554 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
Matt: But what of many manuscripts of questionable authenticity that were purged by the Catholic church along with the spurious ones when it could not be decided definitively if the questionable ones were genuine?
Or would those now lost writings have little impact on the conclusions scholars make today?
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:One theory I recall is that it was part of the oral tradition which was written in the margins by a scribe and later incorporated in the text by later scribes, perhaps mistakenly believing that it was actually supposed to be part of the text.
OH! Yeah, I remember hearing that.
(That doesn't invalidate it as a "true" story about Jesus, though.)
Posts: 14554 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote: To add more emphasis on the Jesus/Mary Magedeline love story so that the Bible would be more marketable to female readers!
Hmm...if this was their motive, they could have done LOADS better at pointing out that the woman Jesus didn't kill was actually Mary Magdalene.
Rules for story telling were not so well developed back then Scott GEEZ! You might as well complain that the authors botched things up when they omitted almost all of Jesus' childhood and early adult years.
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Or would those now lost writings have little impact on the conclusions scholars make today?
You can only work with what you've got. I'm not sure how that particular destruction would be factored in any differently than the countless other manuscripts that have been lost over time.
Posts: 3275 | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by katharina: To be perfectly honest, in my first encounter with your expression of your vision of sexual morality, you were justifying long-term adultery. In all probability, this has colored everything since.
I don't recall the conversation, but given the context, it is not unlikely. It would very much depend on the circumstances.
kat, you and I do have very different ideas about what constitutes sexual morality. That is entirely different than my not believing that sexual morality matters. It does matter.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
mucus, you don't have to bump anymore. I am not intersted in answering the question and have moved on.
Posts: 2207 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Or would those now lost writings have little impact on the conclusions scholars make today?
You can only work with what you've got. I'm not sure how that particular destruction would be factored in any differently than the countless other manuscripts that have been lost over time.
Well besides calling into question the overall integrity of the Bible as it exists today.
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:You might as well complain that the authors botched things up when they omitted almost all of Jesus' childhood and early adult years.
You know actually, I believe that the...ermm...Gnostics? Stoics? wrote that Jesus spent the time from his 12th year to his baptism in Heaven.
Posts: 14554 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:Well besides calling into question the overall integrity of the Bible as it exists today.
Well, there's that, but that's not the goal of textual critics. They just try to figure out, based on the existing evidence, what the original text is most likely to have been.
The takeaway is that you shouldn't be looking to the gospels for the literal truth (small 't') about anything, as there are more differences between the extant New Testament manuscripts than there are words in the New Testament and, as I mentioned, even our most recent texts are centuries younger than the events they describe.
Posts: 3275 | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
BB, now as a Mormon you know Joseph Smith called "into question the overall integrity of the Bible as it exists today" in similar manner. I know a few Mormons who study the textual history of the Bible by comarison to LDS modern Scripture. Obviously this approach is only acceptable within the faith.
Posts: 2207 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Occasional: mucus, you don't have to bump anymore. I am not intersted in answering the question and have moved on.
Fair enough. Although I would note that between your ignoring of the question and mph's related point, our unguided interpretation of your silence is probably more damning than any well-reasoned answer you could give.
Posts: 7593 | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Occasional: BB, now as a Mormon you know Joseph Smith called "into question the overall integrity of the Bible as it exists today" in similar manner. I know a few Mormons who study the textual history of the Bible by comarison to LDS modern Scripture. Obviously this approach is only acceptable within the faith.
What is your point? Joseph Smith said that God informed him that the bible had become corrupted and the Book of Mormon makes the same claim. He did not pretend to have some sort of scholarly proof on the matter. Right now I am considering how scriptural scholars who don't bother with inspiration from God dicuss how the Bible of today compares to writings as they were first written.
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think it's in bad taste to try to pressure somebody into answering a question they've said they don't want to. There are many reasons why one might decline to answer a question. If he doesn't want to answer, I think we should leave it at that, and instead of assuming we know the answer, assume that we don't.
Posts: 16551 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
"What is your point?" Sorry for the misunderstanding. It just seemed your reaction was rather negative to the whole thing. I mean, to say it brings the whole integrety of the Bible as we have it today into question is a serious charge to some people.
Posts: 2207 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I don't know, but you're the one that said that your interpretation of his silence was damning.
Posts: 16551 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:I think it's in bad taste to try to pressure somebody into answering a question they've said they don't want to.
I don't see why it is in poor taste to request someone to support a hard to believe claim. If someone makes a claim, they should either be able to support it or have at least some reason for not wanting to support it. Refusing to do either makes it pretty hard to take the claim seriously, which is all that Mucus was pointing out.
Posts: 1256 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Refusing to do either makes it pretty hard to take the claim seriously, which is all that Mucus was pointing out.
That is not all that Mucus was pointing out. He used the word "damning," which means a heck of a lot more than "not having one's claim taken seriously."
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
It's certainly damning to the validity of the claim and the honesty in which it was made, which makes it hard to take the claim seriously.
Posts: 1256 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Like I care what you think. In fact, that is the reason I am not answering; because I don't care what you think and your reactions have shown that you don't care what I think. Therefore I am putting you and your question on *ignore* and would hope others will do the same (mostly because I am finding the recent direction of this post much more interesting).
Posts: 2207 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Scott R: As far as I can see, Christ, in one highly suspicious incident where people were trying to get him to criminalize himself, did not kill a woman taken in adultery.
And then he said, "Go now, and sin no more." If that's not a judgement, what is? All he's refusing to do is to apply the death penalty.
(You will understand that I do not believe this incident actually happened.)
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Sheesh. "Probably more damning" is what I actually said. This is not an assumption (which carries in my mind the implication of certainty or 100% probability), but rather an assigning of a low probability, a Bayesian prior on that and future assertions if you will.
If one comes across an assertion, especially a controversial one, one naturally demands proof. If proof is cannot be provided, I cannot help but note that the assertion is likely unfounded. Indeed, no proof is decidedly worse than even weak proof. (Thanks for already pointing this out Camus)
For Dagonee: This is specifically why I chose "damning" rather than your second phrase. Weak proof only damages the current assertion being made. No proof (indeed, active avoidance of proof) is not only damaging to the assertion but causes *everlasting* damage to any future claims, since it is more likely that no proof will be provided for those as well.
He/she is certainly entitled to not answer, which is why I noted at the beginning "fair enough." However, I am fully entitled to be skeptical about the claim. If pointing out my skepticism publically counts as pressure or bad taste, then I think I'm ok with that as long as it is kept in mind that it was intended as neither.
Occasional: Why would I ask if I was not interested? As MPH point touched, why would I suspend judgement on whether your analogy of "evolution" was appropriate until you had fully made your case, if indeed I had already made up my mind?
Posts: 7593 | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
Yes. I don't think that story validates kmboots' claim that Christ doesn't want us to judge others for their sexual (im)morality.
Posts: 14554 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Scott R: As far as I can see, Christ, in one highly suspicious incident where people were trying to get him to criminalize himself, did not kill a woman taken in adultery.
And then he said, "Go now, and sin no more." If that's not a judgement, what is? All he's refusing to do is to apply the death penalty.
(You will understand that I do not believe this incident actually happened.)
Oh I don't think Jesus was saying that he himself could not judge others. You will find MANY instances where Jesus calls it how he sees it.
I'm in the crowd who believes God wants us to judge righteously not "You must never judge others."
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
kmbboots, that shouldn't be surprising. If we had the same understanding of the gospel we would probably be in the same denomination.
Posts: 2207 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
It is surprising to me just how different. I have experienced several different denominations and yours is the first I've heard that advocated judging our neighbors.
Too much a derail to go into here, I think. And the gap seems too wide to be bridged. Some new insight for me into LDS, though.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
In fairness to the Mormons, I must say I've never heard of any denomination that did, in fact, refrain from judging their neighbours.
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think it's fair to say that there are plenty of Catholics, Protestants and LDS alike who are all too willing to pass judgement on other people's sexual morality, whether or not they have any comprehension of that person's sexual mores, or, in fact, even know that person.
I also wish to say that I land pretty solidly in Kate's court on this one with regards to any sin, not just sexual sin. I see a lot in the Gospels about being more concerned with the planks in our own eyes than the specks in our neighbors', several instances and variations of "as you judge others, so will you be judged", many injunctions and epithets hurled against those who were considered the most righteous in the community (and at any in general who considered themselves righteous or upstanding), and of course the parables of the Prodigal Son and, to a lesser extent, the Good Samaritan which pretty much turn justice on its ear.
So, I think there's precedent within Christianity for considering ourselves to not own the yardstick by which others are to be measured.
Posts: 3846 | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
In regards to the leaving the door open/having a window in the door during meetings, our library's group study rooms have a window in the front of them, and as far as I know, the students have no trouble refraining from jumping each others' bones in that situation. So one more vote for windows.
posted
"It is surprising to me just how different. I have experienced several different denominations and yours is the first I've heard that advocated judging our neighbors."
I think "advocating" is going too far in LDS beliefs. More like, we must make judgements because we must decide how best to interact with a sinful world. It goes, I think, into the LDS understanding of authority. Many times we are responsible for people within our spheres of spiritual influence. This includes family, congregations, visiting and home teaching, etc. We are asked to take care of ourselves and others. It's not about judging so much as taking care of others.
Posts: 2207 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
