Keeping The Sabbath: The Jewish Theocracy At The Time Of Christ

[Stone holm]

Given that one of the most frequent charges against Christ leveled by the Jewish establishment at the time was Sabbath breaking, we frequently think scornfully of the detailed rules established by the Jewish hierarchy at the time. We often ascribe that to corruption, hypocrisy, and distracting the common people from more serious greed of the elite. Let me suggest another explanation. While at the time Judah was a conquered and occupied nation, part of the Statecraft of the Romans was to leave various parts of the legal structure under the local control of puppet elites. For Jerusalem, that meant a puppet king and a type of theocracy. Since sabbath breaking had more than just a spiritual impact and involved civil consequences for Jews, it is not surprising that very detailed rules would develop. These may not have been intended to overly restrict, but rather to make it easier FO all concerned to know when they had violated the Sabbath. The downside of such theocracies is that they can find themselves in the losing game of trying to convict their own God. Perhaps we moderns might benefit from remembering that.

[volgadon]

Three things that are often forgotten.

1) There was a sincere desire to avoid desecration of the Sabbath (it could have cosmic repercussions, too) while recognising that the general principles in the Bible didn't cover all of the various scenarios of everyday life.

2) Many pharisaic groups had similar attitudes to the Sabbath as Jesus did.

3) Jesus himself built hedges around the Torah.

[Stone holm]

Three things that are often forgotten.

1) There was a sincere desire to avoid desecration of the Sabbath (it could have cosmic repercussions, too) while recognising that the general principles in the Bible didn't cover all of the various scenarios of everyday life.

2) Many pharisaic groups had similar attitudes to the Sabbath as Jesus did.

3) Jesus himself built hedges around the Torah.

The flip side is if something is not monitored because it involves gray areas it also tends to not be obeyed, example only those portions of the W of W which involve complete abstinence are enforced via T recommend interviews. Hence uncontrolled obesity and over indulgence in meat eating does not impact Temple worthiness, but a cup of coffee does.

[CV75]

The flip side is if something is not monitored because it involves gray areas it also tends to not be obeyed, example only those portions of the W of W which involve complete abstinence are enforced via T recommend interviews. Hence uncontrolled obesity and over indulgence in meat eating does not impact Temple worthiness, but a cup of coffee does.

Should gray areas be monitored?

In any case, I’m not sure the temple recommend question (“Do your keep the Word of Wisdom?” with its “Yes/No” response) is an effective monitoring tool (or designed or intended to be one) for preventing the effects of taking things or amounts into the body that are not good for it.

I think understanding the doctrine taught in D&C 89 leads to obedience and the promised blessings. Monitoring is primarily self-monitoring, and is only ancillary to understanding and obedience. Secondary to that, one might need and appreciate any monitoring by family and other groups (including the members and leaders of Church units and quorums), and of course God monitors everyone whether they like it or not. But the most effective monitoring (self-monitoring) is as voluntary as being obedient, and is far from being the prime motivator for obedience. People don't monitor themselves to ensure obedience; they obey because they understand, and with the help of the Spirit become self-aware and aware of the world around them (which is a more advanced form of self-monitoring).

How would you propose to monitor and address “uncontrolled obesity and over indulgence in meat eating” through the temple recommend process in relation to others' obedience to the Word of Wisdom?

[thesometimesaint]

For we LDS do have the hymn "Dearest Children God is Near You."

I'm not sure I can agree with all that. One of the interesting ideas in Sociology is that a watched people act and react differently than one that isn't.. While no one really wants anarchy, no one really wants a police state either.

[Stone holm]

Should gray areas be monitored?

In any case, I’m not sure the temple recommend question (“Do your keep the Word of Wisdom?” with its “Yes/No” response) is an effective monitoring tool (or designed or intended to be one) for preventing the effects of taking things or amounts into the body that are not good for it.

I think understanding the doctrine taught in D&C 89 leads to obedience and the promised blessings. Monitoring is primarily self-monitoring, and is only ancillary to understanding and obedience. Secondary to that, one might need and appreciate any monitoring by family and other groups (including the members and leaders of Church units and quorums), and of course God monitors everyone whether they like it or not. But the most effective monitoring (self-monitoring) is as voluntary as being obedient, and is far from being the prime motivator for obedience. People don't monitor themselves to ensure obedience; they obey because they understand, and with the help of the Spirit become self-aware and aware of the world around them (which is a more advanced form of self-monitoring).

How would you propose to monitor and address “uncontrolled obesity and over indulgence in meat eating” through the temple recommend process in relation to others' obedience to the Word of Wisdom?

While in a sense the Temple Recommend interviews are "self-monitoring" in that the question is asked and may, or may not, get a truthful answer. But if the question is responded to with a question -- the Bishop will get more specific and the specifics will only include what I indicated previously the "black and whites" and not the gray areas and if the Bishop knows the answer he receives is not true, he will deny the Recommend. I am not saying that I would propose greater monitoring -- what I am saying is that where there are consequences, the people will demand specific rules. In the case of the W of W, the specific black and white rules wind up being the only ones enforced via the Temple Recommend process, back in Christ's day there remained severe consequences for Sabbath breaking so you have the authorities coming up with very specific rules for determining whether the Sabbath was broken. That is the nature of theocracies, and it is in part why they are dangerous because they tend towards detailing how a person's life is led down to minutiae. Theocracies whether they be Jewish, Muslim or Christian will tend towards such control as people demand to know what the rules are that govern their life. Right now the principal theocracies are all Muslim, but you can see the theocratic impulse in America from certain sectors of Christianity.

[CV75]

While in a sense the Temple Recommend interviews are "self-monitoring" in that the question is asked and may, or may not, get a truthful answer. But if the question is responded to with a question -- the Bishop will get more specific and the specifics will only include what I indicated previously the "black and whites" and not the gray areas and if the Bishop knows the answer he receives is not true, he will deny the Recommend. I am not saying that I would propose greater monitoring -- what I am saying is that where there are consequences, the people will demand specific rules. In the case of the W of W, the specific black and white rules wind up being the only ones enforced via the Temple Recommend process, back in Christ's day there remained severe consequences for Sabbath breaking so you have the authorities coming up with very specific rules for determining whether the Sabbath was broken. That is the nature of theocracies, and it is in part why they are dangerous because they tend towards detailing how a person's life is led down to minutiae. Theocracies whether they be Jewish, Muslim or Christian will tend towards such control as people demand to know what the rules are that govern their life. Right now the principal theocracies are all Muslim, but you can see the theocratic impulse in America from certain sectors of Christianity.

I don’t think anyone can prescribe how a Bishop will answer a question that has been used to answer his temple recommend question, nor how black, white or gray his response may be, nor his conclusion in relation to approving the temple recommend. But I’m getting that you do not see the LDS Church operating under a highly codified and regimented version of the Word of Wisdom, as much as some (questionable as to who, really...) may want it to.

Joseph Smith led a theocracy of sorts, and the Lord’s millennial reign will be a theocracy, but I do not see the dangers you are alluding to in those instances (Joseph Smith taught people to govern themselves, and the Church today emphasizes that principle along with inspiration in the handbooks).

What are the certain sectors of American Christianity that are seeking to correct such things as “uncontrolled obesity and over indulgence in meat eating” through religious codification and the monitoring thereof? I know Mayor Bloomberg tried, but I don’t see him as heading a theocracy.

[Stone holm]

I don’t think anyone can prescribe how a Bishop will answer a question that has been used to answer his temple recommend question, nor how black, white or gray his response may be, nor his conclusion in relation to approving the temple recommend. But I’m getting that you do not see the LDS Church operating under a highly codified and regimented version of the Word of Wisdom, as much as some (questionable as to who, really...) may want it to.

Joseph Smith led a theocracy of sorts, and the Lord’s millennial reign will be a theocracy, but I do not see the dangers you are alluding to in those instances (Joseph Smith taught people to govern themselves, and the Church today emphasizes that principle along with inspiration in the handbooks).

What are the certain sectors of American Christianity that are seeking to correct such things as “uncontrolled obesity and over indulgence in meat eating” through religious codification and the monitoring thereof? I know Mayor Bloomberg tried, but I don’t see him as heading a theocracy.

I was just going by my experience in dealing with this during Temple Recommend interviews and my observation of other Bishops -- I didn't mean to say that was a mandated response when asked the question, but I would say I think it is a pretty accurate view of how the vast number of Bishop's would respond to the question. I was once in a Branch where the Branch President was accused of denying T Recommends for obesity, but he denied that he was doing so and knowing him very well personally and the people involved -- I would tend to believe him rather than the ones who were complaining. Although, there would have been a fair number in the Ward who would have backed him had he been denying the individuals in question on that basis and I would have as well. I didn't say there were certain sectors of American Christianity seeking to correct such things as obesity and over indulgence in meat eating, in fact I know of no such pushes by the Christian communities. I do know of certain sectors of American Christianity which are seeking to regulate sexual relations and women's pregnancies and similar issues. If in power, they would also seek to regulate music, entertainment, attire, etc. and some sectors would seek to regulate things like interracial marriage.

[CV75]

I do know of certain sectors of American Christianity which are seeking to regulate sexual relations and women's pregnancies and similar issues. If in power, they would also seek to regulate music, entertainment, attire, etc. and some sectors would seek to regulate things like interracial marriage.

And I know of certain sectors of Amercian Christianity that do not. They all have as much a say in the public square, to the extent they wish to organizae and participate, as anyone else. I try to be as involved as I can be to help the best proposals win.

I just don't see how any group could succeed in American politics to change our constitutional form of government into a theocracy, however much as they might want to. Has such a movement earned a color yet, like the Red Scare?

[Stone holm]

And I know of certain sectors of Amercian Christianity that do not. They all have as much a say in the public square, to the extent they wish to organizae and participate, as anyone else. I try to be as involved as I can be to help the best proposals win.

I just don't see how any group could succeed in American politics to change our constitutional form of government into a theocracy, however much as they might want to. Has such a movement earned a color yet, like the Red Scare?

Like the red scare, no I don't think the Dominionist have a color associated with them, though because of their close association geographically with the Confederacy, I would guess they prefer white.

[CV75]

Like the red scare, no I don't think the Dominionist have a color associated with them, though because of their close association geographically with the Confederacy, I would guess they prefer white.

Is that all you've got? How does that even warrant a thread?

[Stone holm]

Is that all you've got? How does that even warrant a thread?

Not sure I understand this comment. Do you live in a community that is not constantly bombarded with people referring to Mormonism as a cult? Well good for you.

[CV75]

Not sure I understand this comment. Do you live in a community that is not constantly bombarded with people referring to Mormonism as a cult? Well good for you.

What does that have to do with your not offering any examples of credible efforts to theocratically regulate music, entertainment, attire, etc. for the American people? Lots of people and groups have unique/concervative/fringe/marginalized religious beliefs that will never get any traction politically or governmentally.

The OP was quite general in principle, and now you are suggesting it applies to a very specific but undefined situation. What American community is under threat of a group that is pushing for an oppressive theocracy, and what does anti-Mormonism have to do with anyone's desire / efforts to theocratically regulate music, entertainment, attire, etc. in such a community, or for Amerians at large?

[Stone holm]

What does that have to do with your not offering any examples of credible efforts to theocratically regulate music, entertainment, attire, etc. for the American people? Lots of people and groups have unique/concervative/fringe/marginalized religious beliefs that will never get any traction politically or governmentally.

The OP was quite general in principle, and now you are suggesting it applies to a very specific but undefined situation. What American community is under threat of a group that is pushing for an oppressive theocracy, and what does anti-Mormonism have to do with anyone's desire / efforts to theocratically regulate music, entertainment, attire, etc. in such a community, or for Amerians at large?

Not sure where you are getting this, but sure the Christian Right if it ever got the power it seeks, would aim for legislation on all those things as they wish to establish a theocracy in the United States. If, however, I start citing examples of this the thread will get locked for going political

[CV75]

Not sure where you are getting this, but sure the Christian Right if it ever got the power it seeks, would aim for legislation on all those things as they wish to establish a theocracy in the United States. If, however, I start citing examples of this the thread will get locked for going political

I don't want to lock thread either, but there are all kinds of spectra and kinds of political, sociological, and conversational definitons/terms/labels/epithets (depending) like Christian, Christian Right, Dominionists, theocracy, etc.

I think you can answer my questions without making it political if you tried. Just don't name the group, and stick to general principles. How else can you convince people there is a real problem to be concerned about in the first place?

How is such a detrimental pro-theocracy Christian group (you seem to know who it is) actually gaining power in the USA? Are they doing it against the will of the people? How? In what moral / religious area(s) such as those you mentioned is such a group actually making progress?

[Stone holm]

I don't want to lock thread either, but there are all kinds of spectra and kinds of political, sociological, and conversational definitons/terms/labels/epithets (depending) like Christian, Christian Right, Dominionists, theocracy, etc.

I think you can answer my questions without making it political if you tried. Just don't name the group, and stick to general principles. How else can you convince people there is a real problem to be concerned about in the first place?

How is such a detrimental pro-theocracy Christian group (you seem to know who it is) actually gaining power in the USA? Are they doing it against the will of the people? How? In what moral / religious area(s) such as those you mentioned is such a group actually making progress?

Do you think the theocracy at the time of Christ existed against the will of the people?

[CV75]

Do you think the theocracy at the time of Christ existed against the will of the people?

When you can or want to actually answer questions as part of a discussion, I will engage.

[Stone holm]

When you can or want to actually answer questions as part of a discussion, I will engage.

Actually was just trying to bring the thread back to the original topic. I think for the most part the Jews at the time supported the theocracy in part, although not the Herodians in particular -- but they did support the Sanhedrin. The theocracy, although possibly not Herod, viewed Christ as a threat to their establishment which maintained control by the administration of their various rules which were religious based. The rules had developed on the implicit demand of the people because there were real time temporal physical or financial consequences for the violation of the same. As a result the rules became cluttered with minutiae aimed at making sure any specific doctrine was adhered to. In the Church, although they discourage referrng to it as Church courts, has a similar system but the consequences are not as temporal and definitely not of a physical or financial consequence (except possibly for Church or BYU employees and students). Part of the Church monitoring system is the Temple Recommend interview process, some of the questions are rather vague -- but when it comes to the Word of Wisdom when it comes down to the tire htting road -- all that counts is whether you are complying with the specific abstinence requirements anything contained in it which allows for wiggle room is not actually enforced in the form of denying a Temple Recommend. Although we may not think of it as such, the denial of a Temple Recommend is a form of discipline as it lowers in essence the ability of a member to full participate in the Gospel.