1St Century Christian

[Ron Beron]

Utterly false. Prophecy always trumps academia where the two disagree--provided that the prophecy is genuine and comes from God. The only "evidence" that is required in such a case is the witness of the Spirit that the prophecy is genuine and of God. If your presumption is valid, the the Book of Abraham is not genuine, because according to all the "academic" evidence it is not. But the witness of the Spirit tells me that it is, and that is what I go by.

And there's the rub. While the majority of us accept JS at face value we would be less inclined to agree with him when he discussed political or scientific issues. In Joseph's own words sometimes he spoke as a man while other times he spoke as a prophet. HIs perceptions of 1st century Christianity was based on his rejection of the creeds and sects of his time. He knew an apostasy occurred in the 1st century not because he understood the world at that time, but he understood too well the world of his time and God's pronouncements against the excesses of the then religionists.

[CASteinman]

I have, however rejected your interpretation of his words, though.

My interpretation is not particularly exotic. I am using standard dictionary definitions of words and standard grammar rules.

Fortunately, we do have an inkling of what occurred 2000 years ago which has been left in the archaeological, literary and scriptural evidences.

I would agree. We have some clues. Joseph Smith had revelation.

The role of the academic is to sift through it and come up with the best educated guess.

Yes, and so they do. But Revelation is better.

It is the role of the prophet to give us the word of God.

Joseph Smith had a somewhat expanded role beyond that.

While there might be conflict it is simply one of understanding a seeming conflict of zeal/knowledge.

Here is the conflict:

You say that the early apostles taught the Saints to sell their stuff and to not get married because Jesus was coming soon. You base that on scholarship and a few certain scriptures -- but rejecting the modifications Joseph Smith made.

I say that the early apostles did not teach the Saints to sell their stuff and to not get married because Jesus was coming soon. In fact, I say, that they said the rumors that they taught such things is false and they encourage the Saints to not be troubled about such things. I base that on the exact same scriptures you have that support your view -- except I include the modifications that Joseph Smith made plus I add another scripture that is not modified and shows Paul teaching exactly opposite of what you claim. I am not making any appeals to modern Scholarship.

So the two key variable differences in our positions is that you use Scholarship and I have ignored it. While I use Joseph Smith's inspired words and you ignore those.

That is the net total of the disagreement.

And there is almost no way to get around that. Edges might change, you might say that you accept the inspired words of Joseph Smith but only just so far -- and prefer the interpretations of scholars. I might say that I accept the words of Scholars up to a point as long as they don't contradict Joseph Smith. But either way, there is a gap that shall apparently not be crossed: Scholarship vs Inspiration to Joseph Smith.

Edited July 3, 2012 by CASteinman

[CASteinman]

And there's the rub. While the majority of us accept JS at face value we would be less inclined to agree with him when he discussed political or scientific issues. In Joseph's own words sometimes he spoke as a man while other times he spoke as a prophet. HIs perceptions of 1st century Christianity was based on his rejection of the creeds and sects of his time. He knew an apostasy occurred in the 1st century not because he understood the world at that time, but he understood too well the world of his time and God's pronouncements against the excesses of the then religionists.

The inspired version of the Bible work was conducted under the command and direction of God to a Prophet of God. Which makes it something different than the idle musings of Joseph Smith, the man.

[Ron Beron]

'CASteinman'

My interpretation is not particularly exotic. I am using standard dictionary definitions of words and standard grammar rules.

Your semantics is not at question only your scholarly interpretation.

Yes, and so they do. But Revelation is better.

Yes, I agree, but hopefully you are not comparing the revelations of the 1st century prophets to JS. They are unique and distinct.

You say that the early apostles taught the Saints to sell their stuff and to not get married because Jesus was coming soon. You base that on scholarship and a few certain scriptures -- but rejecting the modifications Joseph Smith made.

What modifications? Where did JS contradict what the early saints did?

I say that the early apostles did not teach the Saints to sell their stuff and to not get married because Jesus was coming soon. In fact, I say, that they said the rumors that they taught such things is false and they encourage the Saints to not be troubled about such things. I base that on the exact same scriptures you have that support your view -- except I include the modifications that Joseph Smith made plus I add another scripture that is not modified and shows Paul teaching exactly opposite of what you claim. I am not making any appeals to modern Scholarship.

Where did Joseph make any comment on the social nature of the early saints? May I make the suggestion you read H. Nibley's When the Lights Went Out. http://maxwellinstit...ooks/?bookid=43

(1) Jesus announced in no uncertain terms that his message would be rejected by all men, as the message of the prophets had been before,⁶ and that he would soon leave the world to die in its sins and seek after him in vain.⁷ The light was soon to depart, leaving a great darkness "in which no man can work," while "the prince of this world" would remain, as usual, in possession of the field.⁸ (2) In their turn the disciples were to succeed no better than their Lord: "If they have called the master of the house Beelzebub, how much more shall they call them of his household?"⁹ Like him they were to be "hated of all men," going forth as sheep among wolves, "sent last as it were appointed unto death,"¹⁰ with the promise that as soon as they completed their mission the end would come.¹¹

(3) But what of the church? Those who accepted the teaching were to suffer exactly the same fate as the Lord and the apostles; they were advised to "take . . . the prophets . . . for an example of suffering affliction and of patience," and to "think it not strange concerning the fiery trial which is to try" them, but rejoice rather to suffer as Christ did "in the flesh . . . that we may be also glorified together."¹² After them too the prince of this world was waiting to take over; they too were to be lambs among wolves, rejected as were the Master and the disciples: "The world knoweth us not because it knew him not."¹³ Knowing that "whosoever will save his life must lose it," they openly disavowed any expectation of success, individual or collective, in this world.¹⁴ (4) As for the doctrine, it was to receive the same rough treatment, soon falling into the hands of worldly men who would pervert the gospel of Christ from a thing the world found highly obnoxious to something it was willing to embrace, for such has always been the fate of God's revelations to men.¹⁵

(5) All this bodes ill for the interval between the ascension and the parousia, or second coming; the Zwischenzeit was to be a bad time and a long one.¹⁶ What is more, it begins almost immediately, the apostles themselves calling attention to all the fatal signs, and marveling only that it has come so soon.¹⁷ As soon as the Lord departs there comes "the lord of this world, and hath nothing in me"; in the very act of casting out the Lord of the vineyard the usurpers seize it for themselves, to remain in possession until his return;¹⁸ no sooner does he sow his wheat than the adversary sows tares, and only when the Lord returns again can the grain be "gathered together," that is, into a church, the ruined field itself being not the church but specifically "the world."¹⁹ After the sheep come the wolves, "not sparing the flock," which enjoys no immunity (Acts 20:29); after sound doctrine come fables;²⁰ after the charismatic gifts only human virtues (1 Corinthians 13:8, 13). The list is a grim one, but it is no more impressive than (6) the repeated insistence that there is to be an end, not the end of the world, but "the consummation of the age."²¹ It is to come with the completion of the missionary activities of the apostles, and there is no more firmly rooted tradition in Christendom than the teaching that the apostles completed the assigned preaching to the nations in their own persons and in their own time, so that the end could come in their generation.²²

(7) It was no imaginary end. When the saints were asked to "endure to the end," that meant just one thing, as Tertullian observes—to suffer death.²³ When the sorely pressed Christians need "a strong comfort," the only comfort forthcoming is the promise of the resurrection and the assurance of salvation "whether we live or die."²⁴ Never is there any mention of relief on the way, of happy times ahead, of final victory for the cause, or of the consoling thought that generations yet unborn will call one blessed. Such assurances belong to a later age; the only encouragement the first Christians ever got is that given to soldiers making a last-ditch stand: they are ordered not to attack but "to have long patience," grimly hanging on "to the end," because only by so doing can they show their worthiness to inherit eternal life.²⁵

But we are told not only of one but explicitly of two ways in which the ancient church was to make its exit. ( For far more numerous than those true saints who were to give their lives as witnesses were those who were to succumb to the blandishments of false teachers. The fate of the vast majority of Christians was not to be overcome by a frontal attack—true martyrs were relatively few—but to be led astray by perverters.²⁶ The spoilers do not destroy the vineyard but "seize the inheritance" for themselves; we read of betrayal, disobedience, corruptions; of deceivers, perverters, traitors; of wresting the scriptures, denying the gifts, quenching the Spirit, turning love into hate, truth to fables, sheep to wolves; of embracing "another gospel," and so forth. The offenders are not pagans but loudly professing Christians.²⁷ As, once the prophets are dead, everyone paints their tombs with protestations of devotion, so "when the master of the house has risen up and shut the door," shall the eager host apply for admission to his company—too late.²⁸ The apostasy described in the New Testament is not desertion of the cause, but perversion of it, a process by which "the righteous are removed, and none perceives it."²⁹ The Christian masses do not realize what is happening to them; they are "bewitched" by a thing that comes as softly and insidiously as the slinging of a noose.³⁰ It is an old familiar story, as Rudolf Bultmann notes: "The preaching of Jesus does not hold out any prospect for the future of the people. . . . The present people does not behave otherwise than its predecessors who had persecuted and killed the prophets. . . . The message of Jesus does not contain any promise of the splendid future of Israel."³¹ (9) As is well known, the early Christians viewed the future with a mixture of fear and longing, of longing for the triumphant return of the Lord but of deadly fear of the long and terrible rule of the cosmoplanes that had to come first. So great is the dread of what they know lies ahead, that devout fathers of the church pray for the indefinite postponement of the Day of the Lord itself as the price of delaying the rule of darkness.³²

(10) The apostolic fathers denounce with feeling the all too popular doctrine that God's church simply cannot fail. All past triumphs, tribulations, and promises, they insist, will count for nothing unless the people now repent and stand firm in a final test that lies just ahead; God's past blessings and covenants, far from being a guarantee of immunity (as many fondly believe) are the very opposite, for "the greater the knowledge we have received, the greater rather is the danger in which we lie."³³ The case of the Jews, to say nothing of the fallen angels, should prove that we are never safe.³⁴ God will surely allow his people to perish if they continue in the way they are going—he will hasten their dissolution: "Since I called and ye hearkened not . . . therefore I in my turn will laugh at your destruction. . . . For there will come a time when you will call upon me and I shall not hear you."³⁵ The apostolic fathers compare the church to fallen Israel and confirm their solemn warnings by citing the most lurid and uncompromising passages of scripture.³⁶ (11) They see the church running full speed in the wrong direction and in great distress of mind plead with it to do an about-face "before it is too late," as it soon will be.³⁷ For their whole concern is not to make new converts but rather "to save from perishing a soul that has already known Christ," seeing to it that as many as possible pass "the fiery test ahead," keep the faith that most are losing, and so reach the goal of glory beyond.³⁸ They know that the names of Christ and Christian carry on but find no comfort in that since those names are being freely used by impostors and corrupters,³⁹ whom "the many" are gladly following.⁴⁰

And there is almost no way to get around that. Edges might change, you might say that you accept the inspired words of Joseph Smith but only just so far -- and prefer the interpretations of scholars. I might say that I accept the words of Scholars up to a point as long as they don't contradict Joseph Smith. But either way, there is a gap that shall apparently not be crossed: Scholarship vs Inspiration to Joseph Smith.

Joseph would be the first to say to test his words. I am doing that and so should you.

Further, we read in IIThess 2:2 that the Parousia has already taken place..."we ask you, brothers and sisters,³ 2:2 not to be easily⁴ shaken from your composure or disturbed by any kind of spirit or message or letter allegedly from us,⁵ to the effect that the day of the Lord is already here. 2:3 Let no one deceive you in any way. For that day will not arrive until the rebellion comes⁶ and the man of lawlessness⁷ is revealed, the son of destruction.^8"

Edited July 3, 2012 by Ron Beron

[zerinus]

I think you got it wrong. Ron Beron, LDS, has a brief conversation with a professional and her default reaction is to assume she's being attacked?

First, the fact that she is a "professional" has nothing to do with anything. Secondly, her reaction is not to "assume she is being attacked;" but to make her position known in advance, so as to leave no one in doubt about where she stands.

While there certainly are EVs (and others) who attack different faiths I disagree that there is a tendency to do so.

It is a more than a "tendency;" it is a systematic attempt by their activists, preachers, and ministers (with a few rare exceptions).

I think you would be hard-pressed to provide any kind of data to support the notion that this is a generally accepted or majority tendency.

Not true. All one needs to do is to search the Internet.

So, you believe there was a unity of teaching among the apostles and unity of practice and belief by the members of the pre-apostate church?

No, there were disagreements; but there was also unity in the form of the leadership provided by the Apostles. The disagreements were resolved by revelation by the Apostles. The real disagreements (leading to division and separation into factions) started after the death of the Apostles.

[zerinus]

The apostasy, as we know it probably did occur shortly after the death of apostles so I gather her comment was meant to include the original gospel of Jesus without the adulteration of succeeding beliefs including Paul, Maricon (yes!...Marcion), and other patricians and heretics.

I don't know how you come to the conclusion that Paul's teachings constitute an adulteration of the "original gospel of Jesus". He was called of the Lord; and he claimed to preach nothing but "Jesus Christ, and him crucified" (1 Corinthians 2:2). I am baffled by your comments.

With regard to Marcion, I do not claim familiarity with his writings; but if your assessment of him is of the same calibre as Paul's, then I would say it is likely to be equally unreliable.

As far as the Patristics in general are concerned, I do have some familiarity with them, and for the most part I do not find their teachings to be objectionable from an LDS point of view. In fact, I find much of it quite edifying.

Edited July 3, 2012 by zerinus

[zerinus]

And there's the rub. While the majority of us accept JS at face value we would be less inclined to agree with him when he discussed political or scientific issues.

You need to give specific examples. I find nearly all of his teachings to have been inspired, including political and, to the extent that he made them, scientific comments. Did you have any particular comments in mind, either on science or politics?

In Joseph's own words sometimes he spoke as a man while other times he spoke as a prophet.

So what? Unless you can reduce it to something concrete that he said, and explain how it was inspired or not, that observation in and of itself means nothing.

HIs perceptions of 1st century Christianity was based on his rejection of the creeds and sects of his time.

I have no idea what you are referring to. You need to give specific examples for me to comment.

He knew an apostasy occurred in the 1st century not because he understood the world at that time, but he understood too well the world of his time and God's pronouncements against the excesses of the then religionists.

I don't know how you can read his mind, and I don't know what is the background to your observation. You are not providing me with a context to go by.

[Gervin]

It is a more than a "tendency;" it is a systematic attempt by their activists, preachers, and ministers (with a few rare exceptions).

Not true. All one needs to do is to search the Internet.

I believe you're wrong so here's a CFR - or, if you'd like, here is a list of the churches and pastors - which are the "rare exceptions?" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_the_largest_Protestant_churches_in_the_United_States

No, there were disagreements; but there was also unity in the form of the leadership provided by the Apostles. The disagreements were resolved by revelation by the Apostles. The real disagreements (leading to division and separation into factions) started after the death of the Apostles.

CFR.

Christianity did not start out as a unified movement. We have to remember that the disciples were probably dispersed at a very early time.... That is, at a time where there was no fixed formulation what the set of Christian beliefs should be. What Christian rituals should be. What they should think about Jesus or what they should tell about Jesus. The sources that we have tell us that Christianity started as a very diverse movement, as the founding of churches... moved into very different cultural and language contexts....

- Helmut Koester, John H. Morison Professor of New Testament Studies and Winn Professor of Ecclesiastical History Harvard Divinity School

[Kerry A. Shirts]

You can only say "No" as an act of Faith (or lack of it) not as a fact.

And you can only say yes as an act of faith, so now what?

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

And you can only say yes as an act of faith, so now what?

I knew it would come to this sooner or later. Looking forward to the next reply.

[zerinus]

I believe you're wrong so here's a CFR - or, if you'd like, here is a list of the churches and pastors - which are the "rare exceptions?" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_the_largest_Protestant_churches_in_the_United_States

You are going about this the wrong way. Here are a number of prominent sites (or groups) proclaiming that Mormons are not Christians (1, 2, 3, 4, 5). Show me a list of prominent Evangelical priests, teachers, preachers, ministers, activists, members etc. who have publicly disavowed such statements, and distanced themselves from them (with the exception of one of two isolated individuals like Richard Mouw, and a couple of others).

CFR.

Christianity did not start out as a unified movement. We have to remember that the disciples were probably dispersed at a very early time.... That is, at a time where there was no fixed formulation what the set of Christian beliefs should be. What Christian rituals should be. What they should think about Jesus or what they should tell about Jesus. The sources that we have tell us that Christianity started as a very diverse movement, as the founding of churches... moved into very different cultural and language contexts....

- Helmut Koester, John H. Morison Professor of New Testament Studies and Winn Professor of Ecclesiastical History Harvard Divinity School

I am not going to get into a protracted debate with you about the ins and outs of early Christian history. My observations are based on the New Testament, and I stick to what I have said in my previous post. No need to elaborate on that any further.

Edited July 3, 2012 by zerinus

[CASteinman]

And you can only say yes as an act of faith, so now what?

Well, you have gotten exactly to my point. When there are such contradictions, you can choose to have faith in scholarship or you can choose to have faith in the Inspiration of God to His Prophet.

Its a choice.

Edited July 3, 2012 by CASteinman

[3DOP]

I look forward to discussing this with you when you return. I was Catholic for many years and, in fact, considered entering the priesthood at one time so, while I respect the roots I grew up with, I still have some differences in theology.

Hi Ron.

I'm back for a few days anyway.

Your comment was in response to my admission that the Latter-day Catholic Church today looks a lot different than the Former-day Catholic Church of the 1st Century. Obviously, if there is a discontinuity, then they are two different churches and "today's Catholic Church" would be apostate. I suggested that it would be like trying to identify an adult by baby pictures. I can't decide which is the true church on the basis of how the church appears in the Bible alone, even though that needs to be considered. But just as I can provide other evidence to convince someone that a baby picture is me, so the true church needs to be able to make a similar case that it was once that first century church.

3DOP

Edited July 3, 2012 by 3DOP

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

Well, you have gotten exactly to my point. When there are such contradictions, you can choose to have faith in scholarship or you can choose to have faith in the Inspiration of God to His Prophet.

Its a choice.

I will just say that that was not Kerry's point at all. I think you missed it.

[zerinus]

The thread of the argument has been as follows:

Without reference to modern revelation:

It is exactly this lack of reference to modern revelation where you go astray.

I feel inclined to end this discussion because you are going pretty far afield of the topic of this thread and also of the original item I objected to and constantly bringing up things that do not matter and at the same time, when they do matter, ignoring the modern revelations.

I see no point in continuing.

It would not go astray if you took ancient prophecy as a fact in and of itself separate from modern revelation which has different paradigms. BTW, the topic and thread were mine and the consistency is evident since the question was in what ways are LDS like 1st century Christians. Unless you are willing and able to see the world through the eyes and mind of a 1st century Jewish Christian then all you have left is the understanding of a 21st century Mormon. Nothing wrong with that, but then you have a half finished jigsaw puzzle.

Thank you not continuing.

Not one of the people on this board, and not one of the people whose words you study is able to see through the eyes and mind of a first century Jew better than Joseph Smith when it was revealed to him by God. You reject this light and truth. I don't know why. But we are at an impasse.

That is pure heresay........we have no idea how well Joseph Smith knew the first century Jewish mind........ it is all assumed he knew more.

You can only say that by rejecting the power of God.

No. God illumined Joseph's mind in relation to the truths and interpretations he was to share with this dispensation. That doesn't mean that the power of God taught Joseph the intricacies and nuances of 1st c. Judaisms. Let us take a "secular" example, Joseph's study of Hebrew. It wasn't brilliant, Joseph made some very basic mistakes, but God used them as vehicles for opening Joseph's mind to further revelation.

You can only say "No" as an act of Faith (or lack of it) not as a fact.

And you can only say yes as an act of faith, so now what?

Well, you have gotten exactly to my point. When there are such contradictions, you can choose to have faith in scholarship or you can choose to have faith in the Inspiration of God to His Prophet.

Its a choice.

I will just say that that was not Kerry's point at all. I think you missed it.

It seems to me that the thread of the argument has been broken at several points, and gone in a tangent leading to several dead ends. All the participants it seems need to retrace their steps, and see where they went in a tangent instead of logically following the original line of argument.

Edited July 3, 2012 by zerinus

[CASteinman]

I will just say that that was not Kerry's point at all. I think you missed it.

No, It was not Kerry's point at all. I know that. It was my point. As I said "You have gotten exactly to MY point".

Edited July 3, 2012 by CASteinman

[CASteinman]

It seems to me that the thread of the argument has been broken at several points, and gone in a tangent leading to several dead ends. All the participants it seems need to retrace their steps, and see where they went in a tangent instead of logically following the original line of argument.

It might be different people talking about different things. I think, though, that I have stayed pretty much on the same beam.

[Kerry A. Shirts]

Well, you have gotten exactly to my point. When there are such contradictions, you can choose to have faith in scholarship or you can choose to have faith in the Inspiration of God to His Prophet.

Its a choice.

I don't have to have faith in either.....I can reason it out exploring the evidences for myself. Just because someone says it does not mean it is the truth, it could very well be that person's bias, even a prophet's bias. A prophet can even be biased in that he thinks God Almighty gave him the information, but we only have his statement, no demonstrable evidence. Saying we have faith is simply a way of saying we don't know, but since we want to believe a particular way, we have faith in it, but there is no evidence, hence I stand by my correct statement about Joseph Smith. There is simply no way to understand what he understood about the first or early Christians, nor whether his knowledge is superior to today's scholarship. It is all a faith proposition with no evidence. We are not forced to believe anything without evidence. That is rational, it is reasonable, and it is all I am saying.

[Ron Beron]

I don't know how you come to the conclusion that Paul's teachings constitute an adulteration of the "original gospel of Jesus". He was called of the Lord; and he claimed to preach nothing but "Jesus Christ, and him crucified" (1 Corinthians 2:2). I am baffled by your comments.

With regard to Marcion, I do not claim familiarity with his writings; but if your assessment of him is of the same calibre as Paul's, then I would say it is likely to be equally unreliable.

As far as the Patristics in general are concerned, I do have some familiarity with them, and for the most part I do not find their teachings to be objectionable from an LDS point of view. In fact, I find much of it quite edifying.

From my studies I have found Paul to be generally a false apostle. First, he acquiesces in the death of disciples, possible even James. Secondly, he seeks the destruction of fledgling Jesus Movement which is only aborted when on the way to Damascus to inquire further into the movement is "blindsided" by his call. Fourth, he attempted to assume authority over the Jerusalem Church and James. Fifth, he altered both the message and person of Jesus by denying the law and marginalizing the physical Jesus in favor of a cosmic Christ. Other than that I have no problem with him.

[Ron Beron]

'zerinus'

You need to give specific examples. I find nearly all of his teachings to have been inspired, including political and, to the extent that he made them, scientific comments. Did you have any particular comments in mind, either on science or politics?

Not the time nor place. Different thread.

[Ron Beron]

Well, you have gotten exactly to my point. When there are such contradictions, you can choose to have faith in scholarship or you can choose to have faith in the Inspiration of God to His Prophet.

Its a choice.

Or we can have faith in both. Joseph did.

“Teach one another words of wisdom; yea, seek ye out of the best books words of wisdom; seek learning, even by study and also by faith” ( D&C 88:118 ). “Study and learn and become acquainted with all good books, and with languages, tongues and people” ( D&C 90:15 ). “Obtain a knowledge of history, and of countries, and of kingdoms, of laws of God and man” ( D&C 93:53 ). “Let every man learn his duty” ( D&C 107:99 ). “Let him that is ignorant learn wisdom” ( D&C 136:32 ).

I'm pretty content with this.

[volgadon]

I'm sure we've all heard this lesson in Sunday School.

http://www.lds.org/manual/old-testament-gospel-doctrine-teachers-manual/lesson-43-the-shepherds-of-israel?lang=eng&query=benson+shepherd

Ask class members to listen for answers to this question in the following quotation from President Ezra Taft Benson (you may want to have a class member read the quotation):

“In Jesus’ time, the Palestinian shepherd was noted for his protection of his sheep. Unlike modern sheepherders, the shepherd always walked ahead of his flock. He led them. The shepherd knew each of the sheep and usually had a name for each. The sheep knew his voice and trusted him and would not follow a stranger. Thus, when called, the sheep would come to him. (See John 10:14, 16.)

“At night shepherds would bring their sheep to a corral called a sheepfold. High walls surrounded the sheepfold, and thorns were placed on top of these walls to prevent wild animals and thieves from climbing over.

“Sometimes, however, a wild animal driven by hunger would leap over the walls into the midst of the sheep, frightening them. Such a situation separated the true shepherd—one who loved his sheep—from the hireling—one who worked only for pay and duty.

“The true shepherd was willing to give his life for the sheep. He would go in amongst the sheep and fight for their welfare. The hireling, on the other hand, valued his own personal safety above the sheep and would usually flee from the danger” (in Conference Report, Apr. 1983, 61; or Ensign, May 1983, 43).

Well, it is baloney.

First, a shepherd and a sheepherder are one and the same. Both herd sheep. Second, unless both human and animal nature has drastically changed in 2000 years, president Benson's description doesn't hold up to scrutiny. Were a shepherd always to walk in front of his sheep, he'd have almost none of his flock left at the end of the day. Sheep scatter. They wander off, get lost, get spooked, get stuck, get hurt, etc. A shepherd is dynamic. Sometimes he leads, sometimes he herds the flock from behind, sometimes from the side, but never sticks to one and only one position. Sure, the sheep might recognise their shepherd's voice, but that doesn't mean they will always obey it. Sheep tend to obey whoever threatens and drives them. Curses, kicks, pebbles and a threatening wave of a staff do the trick. A shepherd might have a name for every sheep if the herd were tiny. Otherwise, they'd only name their favourites or any with unusual characteristics. In the Middle-East, herds tend to range quite far, so very rarely did they spend the night in a sheepfold. Just look at Jacob's litany to Laban. The willingness of a shepherd, or, rather, the owner, to risk his life for his sheep has been greatly overstated. Very few would risk their lives when confronted by a wild animal such as a wolf or lion. A sheep or two were rarely worth leaving your wife widowed and your children orphaned. Also, who would care for the large number of surviving sheep were you killed? Even if you weren't killed, you ran the rik of being maimed and disabled for life, thus becoming an intolerable burden on your family. What is even more interesting, a hireling's willingness to fight has actually been understated. The majority of shepherds in the Middle-East were hirelings. There was some pretty stiff competition. If you easily lost a herd entrusted to you, not a soul would hire you again and your ill-reputation would make the rounds! You'd never even have the chance to gather your own herd. The prophet Amos revealed another dimension to this. A poor hireling might often fight a wild animal for the sheep, but for selfish reasons. As he was not held liable for any sheep slain by beasts, he'd either want to preserve proof, such as an ear, or hoof, but also, were he to drive off the beast, he could eat the sheep himself with none the wiser.

I grew up in Israel. I've seen plenty of Bedouin herd sheep. Quite often they were visible from our backyard. I've also read quite a few books on Bedouin shepherds. It is a shame there is no English translation, or I'd recommend Pesach Bar-Adon's In the Tents of Kedar. Pesach was a former rabbinical student, and later on a military man, politician and archaeologist. In the early part of the 20th c. he lived as a Bedouin shepherd. The book describes his experience, their way of life and their lore. Nothing from what I've studied or from what I've personally witnessed has matched what president Benson wrote about shepherds. A couple of years ago, in a Utah ward, this quote was given. I decided to share more or less what I've written here, albeit not in so much detail. An old guy thanked me and said he'd always puzzled as to why Palestinian sheep were so different to any that he knew. Now it made sense. In his youth he herded sheep in Wyoming, so there was more than a passing knowledge of their behaviour. Do I have to choose president Benson's misapplication of the Saviour's teaching over what I've personally seen? Does it indicate a lack of faith on my part?

[Ron Beron]

I'm sure we've all heard this lesson in Sunday School.

http://www.lds.org/m...benson shepherd

Ask class members to listen for answers to this question in the following quotation from President Ezra Taft Benson (you may want to have a class member read the quotation):

“In Jesus’ time, the Palestinian shepherd was noted for his protection of his sheep. Unlike modern sheepherders, the shepherd always walked ahead of his flock. He led them. The shepherd knew each of the sheep and usually had a name for each. The sheep knew his voice and trusted him and would not follow a stranger. Thus, when called, the sheep would come to him. (See John 10:14, 16.)

“At night shepherds would bring their sheep to a corral called a sheepfold. High walls surrounded the sheepfold, and thorns were placed on top of these walls to prevent wild animals and thieves from climbing over.

“Sometimes, however, a wild animal driven by hunger would leap over the walls into the midst of the sheep, frightening them. Such a situation separated the true shepherd—one who loved his sheep—from the hireling—one who worked only for pay and duty.

“The true shepherd was willing to give his life for the sheep. He would go in amongst the sheep and fight for their welfare. The hireling, on the other hand, valued his own personal safety above the sheep and would usually flee from the danger” (in Conference Report, Apr. 1983, 61; or Ensign, May 1983, 43).

Well, it is baloney.

First, a shepherd and a sheepherder are one and the same. Both herd sheep. Second, unless both human and animal nature has drastically changed in 2000 years, president Benson's description doesn't hold up to scrutiny. Were a shepherd always to walk in front of his sheep, he'd have almost none of his flock left at the end of the day. Sheep scatter. They wander off, get lost, get spooked, get stuck, get hurt, etc. A shepherd is dynamic. Sometimes he leads, sometimes he herds the flock from behind, sometimes from the side, but never sticks to one and only one position. Sure, the sheep might recognise their shepherd's voice, but that doesn't mean they will always obey it. Sheep tend to obey whoever threatens and drives them. Curses, kicks, pebbles and a threatening wave of a staff do the trick. A shepherd might have a name for every sheep if the herd were tiny. Otherwise, they'd only name their favourites or any with unusual characteristics. In the Middle-East, herds tend to range quite far, so very rarely did they spend the night in a sheepfold. Just look at Jacob's litany to Laban. The willingness of a shepherd, or, rather, the owner, to risk his life for his sheep has been greatly overstated. Very few would risk their lives when confronted by a wild animal such as a wolf or lion. A sheep or two were rarely worth leaving your wife widowed and your children orphaned. Also, who would care for the large number of surviving sheep were you killed? Even if you weren't killed, you ran the rik of being maimed and disabled for life, thus becoming an intolerable burden on your family. What is even more interesting, a hireling's willingness to fight has actually been understated. The majority of shepherds in the Middle-East were hirelings. There was some pretty stiff competition. If you easily lost a herd entrusted to you, not a soul would hire you again and your ill-reputation would make the rounds! You'd never even have the chance to gather your own herd. The prophet Amos revealed another dimension to this. A poor hireling might often fight a wild animal for the sheep, but for selfish reasons. As he was not held liable for any sheep slain by beasts, he'd either want to preserve proof, such as an ear, or hoof, but also, were he to drive off the beast, he could eat the sheep himself with none the wiser.

I grew up in Israel. I've seen plenty of Bedouin herd sheep. Quite often they were visible from our backyard. I've also read quite a few books on Bedouin shepherds. It is a shame there is no English translation, or I'd recommend Pesach Bar-Adon's In the Tents of Kedar. Pesach was a former rabbinical student, and later on a military man, politician and archaeologist. In the early part of the 20th c. he lived as a Bedouin shepherd. The book describes his experience, their way of life and their lore. Nothing from what I've studied or from what I've personally witnessed has matched what president Benson wrote about shepherds. A couple of years ago, in a Utah ward, this quote was given. I decided to share more or less what I've written here, albeit not in so much detail. An old guy thanked me and said he'd always puzzled as to why Palestinian sheep were so different to any that he knew. Now it made sense. In his youth he herded sheep in Wyoming, so there was more than a passing knowledge of their behaviour. Do I have to choose president Benson's misapplication of the Saviour's teaching over what I've personally seen? Does it indicate a lack of faith on my part?

That does it!!...I'm leaving the church! Good story, esp., the sheepherder from Wyoming.

[CASteinman]

I don't have to have faith in either.

Yes, I agree. Not having faith in Scholarship or in Revelation is also a choice available to you. Hard way to go though.

Edited July 4, 2012 by CASteinman

[CASteinman]

Or we can have faith in both. Joseph did.

If you will notice, I was referring to when there is a choice presented because of conflict. Its a choice.