Christs And The Scribes And Pharisees

[wenglund]

I another now locked thread, wayfare purported:

Let's investigate the use of Jesus Christ's words you quote above. Relative to the Church structure of the time, who were the Scribes and Pharisees? The scribes were originally the copyists of the Torah, the Law, but they declared themselves, much to Jesus's disdain, to be the "Interpreters" of the scripture. The Pharisees were the rabbinical Jews who "built a fence around the law" using oral tradition (Talmud), coupled with extensive scripture study. The Scribes and Pharisees saw themselves as the defenders of the faith, and sought to vilify and condemn those who struggled with their faith, who did not embody the purity they demanded, or were involved in occupations they considered unworthy of being a full-standing Jew.

Are you seriously suggesting that Christ's disdain for the Scribes and Pharisees was because they interpreted scriptures and considered themselves the primary interpreters, and styled themselves as experts in scriptural knowledge, and defended their faith?

I ask because my interpretation of the scriptures and my knowledge of Christ from the scriptures is quite different from your interpretation and knowledge of the scriptures and the faith you seem here to defend. I was under the impression that Christ condemned the Scribes and Pharisees because they criticized and fought against Christ (often twisting the meaning of the scriptures to further their ends), and were intent on destroying him and the earthly kingdom he was in the process of establishing at the time. Am I wrong? Is your interpretation primary?

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[wayfarer]

Are you seriously suggesting that Christ's disdain for the Scribes and Pharisees was because they interpreted scriptures and considered themselves the primary interpreters, and styled themselves as experts in scriptural knowledge, and defended their faith?

He did take exception to their scriptural exegesis in several occasions:

John 5:39 (Ye) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me.

Their interpretation of Scripture was that an understanding of the Torah granted life (in some way), and they failed to have the proper understanding of them as a witness to the Christ.

They did recognize themselves as the primary interpreters of the Law:

Matthew 23:1-2: Then spake Jesus to the multitude, and to his disciples,Saying, The scribes and the Pharisees sit in Moses’ seat.

HIs objection to them was not that they attacked the Christ, but rather, they're attitude toward the flock:

Matthew 23:3-7 All therefore whatsoever they bid you observe, that observe and do; but do not ye after their works: for they say, and do not. For they bind heavy burdens and grievous to be borne, and lay them on men’s shoulders; but they themselves will not move them with one of their fingers.

This has direct reference to the Rabbinical tradition (Pharisees) that places additional requirements around the law -- the "fence around the law", embodied in the Talmudic oral transmission that was not yet written down at the time.

He took exception to their elitism:

Matthew 23:4-7 But all their works they do for to be seen of men: they make broad their phylacteries, and enlarge the borders of their garments, And love the uppermost rooms at feasts, and the chief seats in the synagogues, And greetings in the markets, and to be called of men, Rabbi, Rabbi.

I see very little in Christ's objection to Pharisees and Scribes based upon their attack of the Christ -- he engaged them on this, defended his claims, but did not attack them in return for being attacked by them. His personal attacks on Pharisees was unrelated to their attack on the Christ, but rather, their priestcrafts (money-changing in the temple) and hypocrisy (noted above).

I ask because my interpretation of the scriptures and my knowledge of Christ from the scriptures is quite different from your interpretation and knowledge of the scriptures and the faith you seem here to defend.

A difference in opinion about scriptural exegisis was never a cause for Jesus's disdain for these guys. He pointed out their lack of understanding of Scripture, as it related to the Christ, but that was never a cause for condemnation.

I was under the impression that Christ condemned the Scribes and Pharisees because they criticized and fought against Christ (often twisting the meaning of the scriptures to further their ends), and were intent on destroying him and the earthly kingdom he was in the process of establishing at the time. Am I wrong?

Without doing an exhaustive study if each condemnatory instance, I will CFR myself on my basic view that most all of his "condemnations" of the Pharisees and Scribes were due to hypocrisy. This didn't mean that he ignored their attacks on him personally. He defended his claims using scripture. He pointed out where they were wrong, using scripture. He asked questions. In the mode of defending his claims, he never condemned them or went to ad-hominem. His use of ad-hominem was in judgment as the ultimate judge in israel: The Pharisees and Scribes, sitting on Moses seat of authority, or so they presumed, had squandered their leadership and priesthood, and were condemned for their hypocrisy as leaders.

This is a very different approach than self-styled apologists who go out after other members, especially those struggling in faith, and condemn them as "wolves in sheeps' clothing", "brazen hypocrites", or "anti-christs". I fully accept that we need to defend the King and Kingdom, especially, as Elder Maxwell charged, against the blatent falsehoods being claimed by anti-mormon advocates. When our enemies contort mormon doctrine and belief into something it is not, we have the right and obligation to correct their falsehoods. When William Lane Craig attacks mormons for our doctrine on God, then we ought to have our own position clearly delineated on what we believe about God and why it is the way it is. Some of our apologists, rather than engaging on the topic, got into an attack mode with Craig, and that just makes us look silly.

Whether we like it or not, Mormon Apologists, employed by BYU, sit in a modern equivalent of "Moses' seat". In sitting in that seat, they should defend the faith, correct the claims, and be scripturally and academically rigorous in what they do. They should emulate what Jesus taught and did, as far as defending the faith without personal attack. They should leave the condemnation of Church members and leaders to the authorized priesthood Judges in Israel.

Worse, when our Apologists adopt the techniques of the enemy, to attack the man rather than the argument; when they say that those who struggle are not entitled to be called Mormons or Latter-day Saints, then I wonder what side of Jesus's condemnation they sit upon. It doesn't matter if the enemy attacks them personally. They must be above it.

Is your interpretation primary?

I think my more extended interpretation is above.

[Calm]

Whether we like it or not, Mormon Apologists, employed by BYU

Just to be clear....

Are you claiming that BYU employs people for the purpose of being an apologist? That this is part of anyone's job?

[wayfarer]

Just to be clear....

Are you claiming that BYU employs people for the purpose of being an apologist? That this is part of anyone's job?

Nope. Not what I said, though easy to misconstrue that. Two separate facts: They are apologists. They (at least some) are employed by BYU. Their employment by BYU puts them into a category of being, as I said, in the modern equivalent of Moses' seat -- as BYU religion and history professors, they carry what many might consider the highest credentials to talk about "Mormon History" and intepret "Mormon Scripture", although we all know that doctrinal interpretation is the exclusive provenance of the Q12 & FP. I was saying they are "metaphorically" in Moses' seat.

Edited: As well, when they were writing for MI, they were working under the imprimatur of the Church, whether they got paid or not. That, again, would be a metaphorical "Moses Seat" -- moses being the interpreter of the Law.

Edited February 22, 2013 by wayfarer

[yootaw]

Just to be clear....

Are you claiming that BYU employs people for the purpose of being an apologist? That this is part of anyone's job?

Also in interest of clarity, are any of these apologetic activities completed using BYU owned resources?

[Curious]

He did take exception to their scriptural exegesis in several occasions:

John 5:39 (Ye) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me.

Their interpretation of Scripture was that an understanding of the Torah granted life (in some way), and they failed to have the proper understanding of them as a witness to the Christ.

They did recognize themselves as the primary interpreters of the Law:

Matthew 23:1-2: Then spake Jesus to the multitude, and to his disciples,Saying, The scribes and the Pharisees sit in Moses’ seat.

HIs objection to them was not that they attacked the Christ, but rather, they're attitude toward the flock:

Matthew 23:3-7 All therefore whatsoever they bid you observe, that observe and do; but do not ye after their works: for they say, and do not. For they bind heavy burdens and grievous to be borne, and lay them on men’s shoulders; but they themselves will not move them with one of their fingers.

This has direct reference to the Rabbinical tradition (Pharisees) that places additional requirements around the law -- the "fence around the law", embodied in the Talmudic oral transmission that was not yet written down at the time.

He took exception to their elitism:

Matthew 23:4-7 But all their works they do for to be seen of men: they make broad their phylacteries, and enlarge the borders of their garments, And love the uppermost rooms at feasts, and the chief seats in the synagogues, And greetings in the markets, and to be called of men, Rabbi, Rabbi.

I see very little in Christ's objection to Pharisees and Scribes based upon their attack of the Christ -- he engaged them on this, defended his claims, but did not attack them in return for being attacked by them. His personal attacks on Pharisees was unrelated to their attack on the Christ, but rather, their priestcrafts (money-changing in the temple) and hypocrisy (noted above).

A difference in opinion about scriptural exegisis was never a cause for Jesus's disdain for these guys. He pointed out their lack of understanding of Scripture, as it related to the Christ, but that was never a cause for condemnation.

Without doing an exhaustive study if each condemnatory instance, I will CFR myself on my basic view that most all of his "condemnations" of the Pharisees and Scribes were due to hypocrisy. This didn't mean that he ignored their attacks on him personally. He defended his claims using scripture. He pointed out where they were wrong, using scripture. He asked questions. In the mode of defending his claims, he never condemned them or went to ad-hominem. His use of ad-hominem was in judgment as the ultimate judge in israel: The Pharisees and Scribes, sitting on Moses seat of authority, or so they presumed, had squandered their leadership and priesthood, and were condemned for their hypocrisy as leaders.

This is a very different approach than self-styled apologists who go out after other members, especially those struggling in faith, and condemn them as "wolves in sheeps' clothing", "brazen hypocrites", or "anti-christs". I fully accept that we need to defend the King and Kingdom, especially, as Elder Maxwell charged, against the blatent falsehoods being claimed by anti-mormon advocates. When our enemies contort mormon doctrine and belief into something it is not, we have the right and obligation to correct their falsehoods. When William Lane Craig attacks mormons for our doctrine on God, then we ought to have our own position clearly delineated on what we believe about God and why it is the way it is. Some of our apologists, rather than engaging on the topic, got into an attack mode with Craig, and that just makes us look silly.

Whether we like it or not, Mormon Apologists, employed by BYU, sit in a modern equivalent of "Moses' seat". In sitting in that seat, they should defend the faith, correct the claims, and be scripturally and academically rigorous in what they do. They should emulate what Jesus taught and did, as far as defending the faith without personal attack. They should leave the condemnation of Church members and leaders to the authorized priesthood Judges in Israel.

Worse, when our Apologists adopt the techniques of the enemy, to attack the man rather than the argument; when they say that those who struggle are not entitled to be called Mormons or Latter-day Saints, then I wonder what side of Jesus's condemnation they sit upon. It doesn't matter if the enemy attacks them personally. They must be above it.

I think my more extended interpretation is above.

BINGO!

Great post, Wayferer!

[wenglund]

Now I am really confused. At first, I thought you were comparing LDS apologists to Scribes and Pharisees because they interpreted the scriptures and defended the faith and positioned themselves as knowledgeable about the scriptures, and through guilt by association, brought the apologists under the same condemnation as Christ allegedly render to the Scribes and Pharisees.

Correct me if I am wrong, but you now seem to be associating LDS apologists with the Scribes and Pharisees for their alleged hypocrisy and ad hominems.

What strikes me as ironic, is that in the process of decrying ad hominems, you seem to be here engaging in ad hominems--and this against the defenders of the faith, which would constitute the very hypocrisy you suggest that Christ had soundly condemned. Am I wrong about that?

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[William Schryver]

BINGO!

Great post, Wayferer!

Man! How many MDB sock puppets have been registered here in the past couple weeks? I've lost count.

At any rate, I prepared the following post for the now-locked thread, and I think I will go ahead and post it here:

I don't understand why members on here are not more upset and shocked at the contents of the quotes in the paper on John Dehlin. Isn't the author a Bishop? Would he treat a member of his ward in this manner whether he was inactive or was trying to repent and come back? This man represents Christ's church and what he's written is anything but Christlike. Who cares about fighting over what to technically call it (a hit piece or not a hit piece)? I cannot believe there are members here who are defending the writing of such a shameful article.

I always get a good chuckle when the most recent sock puppet incarnations from MDB show up on this board, complete with all the faux moral outrage that is so typical of that place.

.

.

.

canard78:

If I read you right you're implying that he can't have read all of it because the quotes he used are all from the first 1/4 and if he'd read to the end he'd have used quotes from that part because that unquoted is far juicier (or more of a 'hit piece') than the first part.

Yes, in my opinion, the last part is "far juicier" in that it more devastatingly employs Dehlin's own words and deeds to expose his true intentions and objectives. After scanning through that portion of the paper again this morning, I am more convinced than ever that Doctor Scratch does not have and has not read Greg Smith's long-anticipated article. Of course, Scratch is more than welcome to prove me wrong by simply posting the first paragraphs from Part 3 and Part 4, and the closing paragraph of the article--then we will know for certain that he has read the entire paper and is thereby qualified to review it.

As for the quotes Scratch does provide from the article, let's quickly review them:

Even the sceptical mind must be prepared to accept the unacceptable when there is no alternative. If it looks like a duck, and quacks like a duck, we have at least to consider the possibility that we have a small aquatic bird of the family Anatidae on our hands.

— Douglas Adams

No gratuitous ad hominem attack there.

I confess that when I first heard the term “New Order Mormon,” I thought they were LDS fans of the English alternative band New Order, which provided the soundtrack to dances in my undergraduate days.

An embarrassing confession for Smith, but otherwise no gratuitous ad hominem attack there.

When I use the term “apostasy” or “apostate” in this paper, I intend the neutral, sociological sense. I will, however, prefer the more neutral term “leavetaker” where possible. I use it in a generic sense to refer to any member who is withdrawing, to whatever degree, from full religious participation. Stylistic or citation reasons may, however, occasionally necessitate the use of the other terms.

Good, solid definition of terms paragraph.

John Dehlin has been a particularly vocal and visible leavetaker from traditional or literal-faith Mormonism. His publications and statements are particularly apt for examination because his public status has changed repeatedly. He began as a believer with questions, then became a more overt doubter that still planned to remain active in the church, and finally announced his status as an unbeliever. His shifts have been self-chronicled over the last few years on-line. He affirmatively seeks to gather others like him and build rapport among them, all built on the foundation of resources he provides. What he has said and written is therefore a necessary study for understanding the NOM approach that the Internet has facilitated.

Nothing but the indisputable facts of history in that.

Dehlin is likely unknown to most members; he is probably best known on-line for his podcast series Mormon Stories. He has twice discontinued the podcast but then resumed it, together with appeals for ongoing financial support. Dehlin will be paid a salary of $40,000 dollars by his non-profit organization in 2012.

and

“The donations you send to Mormon Stories go for the very basics: web hosting fees, domain names, audio equipment, conference costs, food and health insurance for my family, etc.” John Dehlin, “298: We Really Need Your Support,” 28 October 2011, http://mormonstories.org/?p=2151.

and

Dehlin portrays the church’s motives as mercenary, while claiming his actions are free of such motivations. “The financial benefits are not there [in podcasts],” he demurs, but “the social benefits are amazing.”

and

“Don’t . . . say I’m being like the church and authoritative and controlling, because I have very different goals. I’m not trying to line my pockets or push people one way or the other” (John Larsen and Zilpa Larsen, “Episode 180: John Dehlin,” podcast interview by John Dehlin, 2 January 2012, 20:35, 36:26–36:34, http://www.mormonexpression.com.) Dehlin apparently believes that his $40,000 salary doesn't put him in the same category.

Smith rather dispassionately exposes Dehlin's rather substantial pecuniary interest in his podcast empire. So what? Is there something objectionable in any of that? Not that I can see.

(Because of the board limitation on the number of quote blocks in a single post, this post continued in my next post below ...)

Edited February 22, 2013 by William Schryver

[mathonihah]

He did take exception to their scriptural exegesis in several occasions:

John 5:39 (Ye) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me.

Their interpretation of Scripture was that an understanding of the Torah granted life (in some way), and they failed to have the proper understanding of them as a witness to the Christ.

They did recognize themselves as the primary interpreters of the Law:

Matthew 23:1-2: Then spake Jesus to the multitude, and to his disciples,Saying, The scribes and the Pharisees sit in Moses’ seat.

HIs objection to them was not that they attacked the Christ, but rather, they're attitude toward the flock:

Matthew 23:3-7 All therefore whatsoever they bid you observe, that observe and do; but do not ye after their works: for they say, and do not. For they bind heavy burdens and grievous to be borne, and lay them on men’s shoulders; but they themselves will not move them with one of their fingers.

This has direct reference to the Rabbinical tradition (Pharisees) that places additional requirements around the law -- the "fence around the law", embodied in the Talmudic oral transmission that was not yet written down at the time.

He took exception to their elitism:

Matthew 23:4-7 But all their works they do for to be seen of men: they make broad their phylacteries, and enlarge the borders of their garments, And love the uppermost rooms at feasts, and the chief seats in the synagogues, And greetings in the markets, and to be called of men, Rabbi, Rabbi.

I see very little in Christ's objection to Pharisees and Scribes based upon their attack of the Christ -- he engaged them on this, defended his claims, but did not attack them in return for being attacked by them. His personal attacks on Pharisees was unrelated to their attack on the Christ, but rather, their priestcrafts (money-changing in the temple) and hypocrisy (noted above).

A difference in opinion about scriptural exegisis was never a cause for Jesus's disdain for these guys. He pointed out their lack of understanding of Scripture, as it related to the Christ, but that was never a cause for condemnation.

Without doing an exhaustive study if each condemnatory instance, I will CFR myself on my basic view that most all of his "condemnations" of the Pharisees and Scribes were due to hypocrisy. This didn't mean that he ignored their attacks on him personally. He defended his claims using scripture. He pointed out where they were wrong, using scripture. He asked questions. In the mode of defending his claims, he never condemned them or went to ad-hominem. His use of ad-hominem was in judgment as the ultimate judge in israel: The Pharisees and Scribes, sitting on Moses seat of authority, or so they presumed, had squandered their leadership and priesthood, and were condemned for their hypocrisy as leaders.

This is a very different approach than self-styled apologists who go out after other members, especially those struggling in faith, and condemn them as "wolves in sheeps' clothing", "brazen hypocrites", or "anti-christs". I fully accept that we need to defend the King and Kingdom, especially, as Elder Maxwell charged, against the blatent falsehoods being claimed by anti-mormon advocates. When our enemies contort mormon doctrine and belief into something it is not, we have the right and obligation to correct their falsehoods. When William Lane Craig attacks mormons for our doctrine on God, then we ought to have our own position clearly delineated on what we believe about God and why it is the way it is. Some of our apologists, rather than engaging on the topic, got into an attack mode with Craig, and that just makes us look silly.

Whether we like it or not, Mormon Apologists, employed by BYU, sit in a modern equivalent of "Moses' seat". In sitting in that seat, they should defend the faith, correct the claims, and be scripturally and academically rigorous in what they do. They should emulate what Jesus taught and did, as far as defending the faith without personal attack. They should leave the condemnation of Church members and leaders to the authorized priesthood Judges in Israel.

Worse, when our Apologists adopt the techniques of the enemy, to attack the man rather than the argument; when they say that those who struggle are not entitled to be called Mormons or Latter-day Saints, then I wonder what side of Jesus's condemnation they sit upon. It doesn't matter if the enemy attacks them personally. They must be above it.

I think my more extended interpretation is above.

I agree with a lot of the things you have said; but I take issue with these:

“The Pharisees and Scribes, sitting on Moses seat of authority, or so they presumed, had squandered their leadership and priesthood, and were condemned for their hypocrisy as leaders.”

“Whether we like it or not, Mormon Apologists, employed by BYU, sit in a modern equivalent of "Moses' seat".”

Firstly, the scribes and Pharisees were not priests; they didn’t have any priesthood. They were not Levites, nor were they of the descendents of Aaron. They were just learned in the “Law,” and thus had taken upon themselves to act as the spiritual guides and leaders of the people. See here for brief description.

Secondly, the LDS Apologists are not the “modern equivalent of "Moses' seat".” No chance! The “modern equivalent of "Moses' seat"” in the LDS Church today would be the General Authorities, and to a lesser extent the local authorities of the Church.

[William Schryver]

(... continued from above)

Next quote:

I began by reading Dehlin’s public Facebook feed and exploring his websites. These led me to wonder what LDS critics and former Mormons were saying about him, so I searched a few message boards. I then consulted a few of Dehlin’s more popular podcast episodes, and two interviews with him on other podcasts: one by a source that seems relatively friendly to the church, and one by the hostile, ex-Mormon Larsens. There were a few other podcasts or posts which I had read or heard about, but not taken note of, since I was not then contemplating a review of his writings and other contributions. Colleagues helped me to locate these.

Smith describes his methodology. Nothing objectionable there.

In September 2011, Dehlin praised the “really important work here” as he pointed his Facebook readers to a list of “The Worst Talks Ever” given by church leaders. While one or two of the talks have perhaps not worn terribly well, some of these “worst” talks were given by church presidents or current apostles. (Table 1 lists some of the talks, their date of address, and a brief summary of their contents. The reader is encouraged to read them in full.)

Most of these talks fall in into three broad (but not mutually exclusive) categories: (1) talks that involved matters of priesthood and apostolic authority, (2) talks that spoke of sexual morality and other commandments, and (3) those addressed to critics within and without the church. The table indicates such categories in square brackets.

Smith cites the somewhat famous episode where Dehlin publicly excoriates several current and former leaders of the Church for having delivered what he (Dehlin) regards as sermons that have done some kind of damage to the membership of the Church -- presumably by encouraging them to live chaste and moral lives.

Here Smith does unknowing members of the Church a great favor by alerting them to the fact that this Dehlin guy is publicly denigrating the leadership of the Church and their teachings to the Saints.

Dehlin’s listeners are also directed to what he called “one of my favorite [podcast] . . . episodes ever,” dedicated to a discussion intended to “help many LDS couples.”[37] Here we are told that LDS intimate relationships might be enhanced by the use of masturbation and erotica. Mormon Stories tells us:

Mormon Stories wrote:

So today I’m diverging from the usual Mormon Stories format in that I am not interviewing a Mormon—I wanted to try and get a more objective perspective on the topic, and let’s try not to get the Mormon bias in the way, although I realize there are always biases.

Mormon Stories offers us “objective” material asserting that masturbation and soft-core pornography or erotica has been unfairly stigmatized by LDS doctrine.

and

Dehlin tells us.... that “masturbation can keep you from moral transgressions” (Parker interview, 17:06.) Theologically, this might be likened to praising tobacco because it keeps you from smoking crack cocaine. The fantasy life and inflamed passions that almost invariably accompany masturbation might also serve as a type of gateway to more serious sin.

So Smith illustrates one of Dehlin's most troubling tendencies: his open disagreement with the leaders of the Church in terms of their teachings on sexual morality. How exactly is this objectionable? I, for one, don't see it. I would imagine the only people who would find this objectionable are those who champion sexual immorality. Unfortunately, there are lots of those kinds of people in our world.

OK, Scratch gives us one more quote from the Smith article, from a portion of the paper where Smith has documented Dehlin's elaborate public encouragement of the Saints to, as necessary, lie to their priesthood leaders in temple recommend interviews. (It's really quite stunning to see the nature of Dehlin's rationalizations in this regard!)

But Dehlin has reassured us that the one conducting the interview cannot ask further questions and so if he can persuade us that this tortured reading is plausible, he has succeeded. “Please know,” we’re again told, “that I am not in any way advocating dishonesty or deception here.” It is not credible to counsel deliberate and calculated withholding of information and claim that one is not advocating dishonesty and deception.

Isn't that special?

In any event, I have yet to see anything that could be accurately characterized as "objectionable," nor can I imagine upon what basis someone could characterize these things as objectionable.

Perhaps some of Dehlin's supporters could explain it to me.

[William Schryver]

I want to reiterate that: I am more convinced than ever that Doctor Scratch does not have and has not read Greg Smith's long-anticipated article. Of course, Scratch is more than welcome to prove me wrong by simply posting the first paragraphs from Part 3 and Part 4, and the closing paragraph of the article--then we will know for certain that he has read the entire paper and is thereby qualified to review it.

[rodheadlee]

Whether we like it or not, Mormon Apologists, employed by BYU, sit in a modern equivalent of "Moses' seat". In sitting in that seat, they should defend the faith, correct the claims, and be scripturally and academically rigorous in what they do. They should emulate what Jesus taught and did, as far as defending the faith without personal attack. They should leave the condemnation of Church members and leaders to the authorized priesthood Judges in Israel.

Worse, when our Apologists adopt the techniques of the enemy, to attack the man rather than the argument; when they say that those who struggle are not entitled to be called Mormons or Latter-day Saints, then I wonder what side of Jesus's condemnation they sit upon. It doesn't matter if the enemy attacks them personally. They must be above it.

I think my more extended interpretation is above.

That analogy doesn't work for me. The GAs would be sitting in the Moses' seat of todays Church not some apologist.

[Ahab]

I agree with a lot of the things you have said; but I take issue with these:

“The Pharisees and Scribes, sitting on Moses seat of authority, or so they presumed, had squandered their leadership and priesthood, and were condemned for their hypocrisy as leaders.”

“Whether we like it or not, Mormon Apologists, employed by BYU, sit in a modern equivalent of "Moses' seat".”

Firstly, the scribes and Pharisees were not priests; they didn’t have any priesthood. They were not Levites, nor were they of the descendents of Aaron. They were just learned in the “Law,” and thus had taken upon themselves to act as the spiritual guides and leaders of the people. See here for brief description.

Secondly, the LDS Apologists are not the “modern equivalent of "Moses' seat".” No chance! The “modern equivalent of "Moses' seat"” in the LDS Church today would be the General Authorities, and to a lesser extent the local authorities of the Church.

Correct, but I think wayfarer was saying that people think of BYU professors as being the equivalent of the Scribes and Pharisees, aside from the fact that BYU professors are generally correct in their understanding of things divine while the Scribes and Pharisees were generally wrong... with some exceptions on both sides.

I do take issue with him saying they occupied "Mose's seat", though, at least with the authority to sit there. They didn't, unless they had or have the requisite priesthood authority that Moses had, which is the priesthood of God after the order of Melchizedek.

Edited February 22, 2013 by Ahab

[wayfarer]

I agree with a lot of the things you have said; but I take issue with these:

“The Pharisees and Scribes, sitting on Moses seat of authority, or so they presumed, had squandered their leadership and priesthood, and were condemned for their hypocrisy as leaders.”

“Whether we like it or not, Mormon Apologists, employed by BYU, sit in a modern equivalent of "Moses' seat".”

Firstly, the scribes and Pharisees were not priests; they didn’t have any priesthood. They were not Levites, nor were they of the descendents of Aaron. They were just learned in the “Law,” and thus had taken upon themselves to act as the spiritual guides and leaders of the people. See here for brief description.

Secondly, the LDS Apologists are not the “modern equivalent of "Moses' seat".” No chance! The “modern equivalent of "Moses' seat"” in the LDS Church today would be the General Authorities, and to a lesser extent the local authorities of the Church.

thank you so much for correcting me. i erred in implying that the Scribes and Pharisees had any actual authority. Not being Koheinim, their only authority had to be self-appointed, correct? Yet Jesus condemned them, and said the following: "Matthew 23:1-2: Then spake Jesus to the multitude, and to his disciples,Saying, The scribes and the Pharisees sit in Moses’ seat."

how, then, are the scribes and pharisees "in moses seat" per the words of Christ? could it be that they self-appointed to be the interpreters of scripture?

[wayfarer]

That analogy doesn't work for me. The GAs would be sitting in the Moses' seat of todays Church not some apologist.

please explain this: Matthew 23:1-2: Then spake Jesus to the multitude, and to his disciples,Saying, The scribes and the Pharisees sit in Moses’ seat. according to a post above, the scribes and pharisees didn't have actual authority--they self appointed. sound familiar?

[Ahab]

how, then, are the scribes and pharisees "in moses seat" per the words of Christ? could it be that they self-appointed to be the interpreters of scripture?

Okay, you can give me a point now, since I got the correct answer in just before you wrote your post.

[wayfarer]

Okay, you can give me a point now, since I got the correct answer in just before you wrote your post.

done! (at least on this post -- i couldn't give you one on the original, claiming that modern apologists get anything right...)

[mathonihah]

thank you so much for correcting me. i erred in implying that the Scribes and Pharisees had any actual authority. Not being Koheinim, their only authority had to be self-appointed, correct? Yet Jesus condemned them, and said the following: "Matthew 23:1-2: Then spake Jesus to the multitude, and to his disciples,Saying, The scribes and the Pharisees sit in Moses’ seat."

how, then, are the scribes and pharisees "in moses seat" per the words of Christ? could it be that they self-appointed to be the interpreters of scripture?

The complete quote is as follows:

“Then spake Jesus to the multitude, and to his disciples,

“Saying, The scribes and the Pharisees sit in Moses’ seat:

“All therefore

whatsoever they bid you observe, that observe and do;

but do not ye after their works: for they say, and do not.” (Matthew 32:1–3)

The scribes and Pharisees were "self-appointed" teachers of the Law, that is true; but in general they understood and applied the law correctly (which the rest of the population had little knowledge of), therefore they sat in Moses' seat in the sense that they taught the Law of Moses to the ignorant population. And they were the only teachers of the Law that they had at that time. But at the same time they were hypocrites, and said one thing and did another. The LDS Church today functions differently. We have legitimate and authorized teachers of the gospel today who do more or less the same kind of thing for the Church that they did for the Jews at that time, who are therefore the correct people to apply the title of "sitting in Moses' seat" (or "Jesus' seat"). The Apologists don't even come close!

Edited February 22, 2013 by mathonihah

[Ahab]

done! (at least on this post -- i couldn't give you one on the original, claiming that modern apologists get anything right...)

But we do!!!... at least sometimes.

You can give me another point now, please.

[Yep]

I another now locked thread, wayfare purported:

Are you seriously suggesting that Christ's disdain for the Scribes and Pharisees was because they interpreted scriptures and considered themselves the primary interpreters, and styled themselves as experts in scriptural knowledge, and defended their faith?

I ask because my interpretation of the scriptures and my knowledge of Christ from the scriptures is quite different from your interpretation and knowledge of the scriptures and the faith you seem here to defend. I was under the impression that Christ condemned the Scribes and Pharisees because they criticized and fought against Christ (often twisting the meaning of the scriptures to further their ends), and were intent on destroying him and the earthly kingdom he was in the process of establishing at the time. Am I wrong? Is your interpretation primary?

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

I have recently taken the position that the scribes and pharisees were held in contempt because they viewed being theologically trained as of more value than being called of God. At the time an educated theologian was viewed in higher regard than the priest, unless I am mistaken. I believe that this is one of the reasons that Christ picked the apostles from among those without a training in theological education. I believe that the choices as to the apostles probably was taken as a slap in the face to the scribes and pharisees, and probably one of the major reasons for their strong antagonism towards Christ. I think often apologists and theologians run the risk of their pride placing them in a similar position; apologists and theologians must be careful in their view of their own value and position.

Edited February 22, 2013 by Yep

[Freedom]

Correct, but I think wayfarer was saying that people think of BYU professors as being the equivalent of the Scribes and Pharisees, aside from the fact that BYU professors are generally correct in their understanding of things divine while the Scribes and Pharisees were generally wrong... with some exceptions on both sides.

I do take issue with him saying they occupied "Mose's seat", though, at least with the authority to sit there. They didn't, unless they had or have the requisite priesthood authority that Moses had, which is the priesthood of God after the order of Melchizedek.

The question is, however, who are these people? I do not know of anybody in the church who considers BYU instructors to be authorities on anything other then their respective disciplines.

[Freedom]

I have recently taken the position that the scribes and pharisees were held in contempt because they viewed being theologically trained as of more value than being called of God. At the time an educated theologian was viewed in higher regard than the priest, unless I am mistaken. I believe that this is one of the reasons that Christ picked the apostles from among those without a training in theological education. I believe that the choices as to the apostles probably was taken as a slap in the face to the scribes and pharisees, and probably one of the major reasons for their strong antagonism towards Christ. I think often apologists and theologians run the risk of their pride placing them in a similar position; apologists and theologians must be careful in their view of their own value and position.

The consistent criticism is their hypocrisy not their education. Christ did call people from among their ranks, but he called people according to their worthiness and not out of spite. I do not know of any apologist who supposes themselves to be authorities above the leaders of the church. Those who have done so find themselves out of the church. Apologists do not challenge church teachings, they challenge the critics. I take the writings of apologists with a grain of salt. They are dealing with issues that are speculative by their very nature and rarely have anything to do with the principles and ordinances of the church. I greatly admire their work and I consider myself to be an apologists, but to compare an apologist to a scribe or pharisee is juvenile, patronizing and patently absurd.

[Ahab]

The question is, however, who are these people? I do not know of anybody in the church who considers BYU instructors to be authorities on anything other then their respective disciplines.

I noticed that you said "anybody in the church". Sounds like you can at least see a distinction between people in the church and out of it. And here you are saying they are or at least can be authorities on their respective disciplines. How much authority, though? And does the fact that they have authority from God to know the things of God mean they really know it on all that they teach?

I have seen some members of the Church say things reflecting how they think BYU professors are more knowledgable and have more authority in the Church than an average man who honors the priesthood of God, but I have yet to see any proof that they really do.

[wenglund]

I have recently taken the position that the scribes and pharisees were held in contempt because they viewed being theologically trained as of more value than being called of God. At the time an educated theologian was viewed in higher regard than the priest, unless I am mistaken. I believe that this is one of the reasons that Christ picked the apostles from among those without a training in theological education. I believe that the choices as to the apostles probably was taken as a slap in the face to the scribes and pharisees, and probably one of the major reasons for their strong antagonism towards Christ. I think often apologists and theologians run the risk of their pride placing them in a similar position; apologists and theologians must be careful in their view of their own value and position.

That is an interesting perspective. However, while the risk to apologists of pride placing them in the same position as Scribes and Pharisees as you suggestr, my experience has been that the risk has not been realized. Rather, I would think that were there any realization of the risk of pride, where men lean more on their own understanding and authority rather than on God and his authority, it would more likely be found among the ranks of the Church's critics. Am I wrong?

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[Yep]

The consistent criticism is their hypocrisy not their education. Christ did call people from among their ranks, but he called people according to their worthiness and not out of spite. I do not know of any apologist who supposes themselves to be authorities above the leaders of the church. Those who have done so find themselves out of the church. Apologists do not challenge church teachings, they challenge the critics. I take the writings of apologists with a grain of salt. They are dealing with issues that are speculative by their very nature and rarely have anything to do with the principles and ordinances of the church. I greatly admire their work and I consider myself to be an apologists, but to compare an apologist to a scribe or pharisee is juvenile, patronizing and patently absurd.

"The consistent criticism is their hypocrisy not their education." Agreed.

However, they were also criticized for their interpretations of scripture. Reading apologists' writings, I often find their statements to hold an air of authority. Interacting with apologists, I often feel that they hold their interpretation as being the correct one. I would state that the following hypothetical situation: given a self-proclaimed messiah coming now, with little statement from the Church authorities either way concerning this person's validity, many apologists would respond similarly if said person held a position that blatantly conflicted with their interpretations. I am not stating that all, or even most, LDS apologists fit in this, but I do believe that many would. I believe that the Christian world at large holds their theologians and apologists in higher regard than the men of the cloth whichever religion they may be. I believe that we as LDS hold out against this, but it is sometimes seen that members hold our theologians and apologists in too high regard imo.

I apologize for offending you, that is not my intent, I do believe that the theologians and apologists must be careful to not fall into the type that was the scribes and pharisees. I do think a scribe or pharisee would have also viewed my comments as juvenile, patronizing and patently absurd.