Damien the Leper Posted May 26, 2015 Posted May 26, 2015 I've been doing some minor research in this area recently as Christians and pastors have expressed a death penalty solution for LGBT persons. Citing the OT as the basis for genocide, I find the practice and theory of theonomy to be highly problematic.Looking East, we see radicalized Islam proclaiming Sharia Law and a society based on principles of theonomy.Just to be clear, this isn't an LGBT thread. I was using an example.What Im curious about is the LDS perspective on theonomy and its relationship to the Plan of Salvation (if there really is a relationship).
sethpayne Posted May 26, 2015 Posted May 26, 2015 (edited) I've been doing some minor research in this area recently as Christians and pastors have expressed a death penalty solution for LGBT persons. Citing the OT as the basis for genocide, I find the practice and theory of theonomy to be highly problematic.Looking East, we see radicalized Islam proclaiming Sharia Law and a society based on principles of theonomy.Just to be clear, this isn't an LGBT thread. I was using an example.What Im curious about is the LDS perspective on theonomy and its relationship to the Plan of Salvation (if there really is a relationship). IMO, it has no relationship with the Plan of Salvation. Jesus fulfilled the law and the BoM is fairly clear that there is no need to observe it after His sacrifice. I wonder if these Christians promoting the continuation of the Law of Moses live in accordance with *everything* spelled out in Leviticus. Somehow I doubt it. Which means that theonomy is simply another exercise in cherry-picking from the OT when it becomes convenient to support any particular view. Edited May 26, 2015 by sethpayne
Damien the Leper Posted May 26, 2015 Author Posted May 26, 2015 IMO, it has no relationship with the Plan of Salvation. Jesus fulfilled the law and the BoM is fairly clear that there is no need to observe it after His sacrifice. I wonder if these Christians promoting the continuation of the Law of Moses live in accordance with *everything* spelled out in Leviticus. Somehow I doubt it. Which means that theonomy is simply another exercise in cherry-picking from the OT when it becomes convenient to support any particular view.Interesting, Seth. Does intensifying the Law fall under fulfilling it from an LDS perspective? I ask in light of the Sermon on the Mount.I agree with the cherry picking. It has much to do with agenda. One cannot cite Leviticus concerning homosexuality without bringing a ton of heat on themselves.
BookofMormonLuvr Posted May 26, 2015 Posted May 26, 2015 The sacrifices, offerings, and punishments (performances & ordinances) were done away with the sacrifice of Jesus. The commandments of the LORD couched within the Law are eternal and should still be observed.Thus...Homosexual behavior (and all other illicit sexual relationships) is still a sin, but we don't go around executing practicing homosexuals or adulterers. Why? Because Jesus paid the punishment for that sin for all who repent.We should keep Feasts as they point to Jesus, but we no longer offer sacrifices and offerings during those times (at least for now) because He is the sacrifice and offering.So the truth lies somewhere in the middle of keeping every single thing found within the Law and the complete doing away with the Law.
Damien the Leper Posted May 26, 2015 Author Posted May 26, 2015 I appreciate your response, as always.But I'm still curious about the relationship between intensifying the Law and fulfilling it. Also, I'm concerned with theocratic ideology as it can easily be confused with theonomy. Theocracy and theonomy are enemies to agency, IMO. Therefore, they have no place in modern society.
BookofMormonLuvr Posted May 26, 2015 Posted May 26, 2015 I appreciate your response, as always.But I'm still curious about the relationship between intensifying the Law and fulfilling it.Also, I'm concerned with theocratic ideology as it can easily be confused with theonomy.Theocracy and theonomy are enemies to agency, IMO. Therefore, they have no place in modern society.One could argue that any set of laws is an enemy to agency.
JLHPROF Posted May 26, 2015 Posted May 26, 2015 I appreciate your response, as always.But I'm still curious about the relationship between intensifying the Law and fulfilling it.Also, I'm concerned with theocratic ideology as it can easily be confused with theonomy.Theocracy and theonomy are enemies to agency, IMO. Therefore, they have no place in modern society. That depends on the source of the theocracy. If it actually IS God himself, then it absolutely has a place. Violation of God's laws have always resulted in a reduction of agency. Agency grows with righteousness and reduces with wickedness. Now a theocracy that is run by men is an entirely different story.As for theonomy, I agree with the others who have posted - The mosaic law was fulfilled in Christ and does not form a God required basis for any law in our society today.
sethpayne Posted May 26, 2015 Posted May 26, 2015 (edited) Interesting, Seth. Does intensifying the Law fall under fulfilling it from an LDS perspective? I ask in light of the Sermon on the Mount. That is a very interesting question, Valentinus. I would say that the only thing that "intensifies" the law would be the making of covenants. So we certainly carry over the Abrahamic covenant (of which the Law of Moses was part for a long while) but given that we operate after Jesus' atonement, I think the content changes. But the intensity with which we keep those covenants either remains the same or goes up as we are called to live the "higher law." In other words, I think that Latter-day Saints are charged to keep their baptismal covenant (among others) just as fervently or intensely as ancient Israel kept their covenants. But I see no doctrinal or scriptural reason to carry the *specific elements* of the old covenant into the new. When I read the Sermon on the Mount I see Jesus not repudiating the Law of Moses but rather, turning our focus onto the true purpose and meaning behind the law: Love God and love others. ** edited the first paragraph for clarity Edited May 26, 2015 by sethpayne 1
BookofMormonLuvr Posted May 26, 2015 Posted May 26, 2015 If I am now understanding the question correctly, in my own words it would be:How much should a society use God's commandments as a rational for making laws in it's civil society?Is that correct?
mfbukowski Posted May 26, 2015 Posted May 26, 2015 Ask the Mormon Democrats. I want all these stupid laws off my back.
sethpayne Posted May 26, 2015 Posted May 26, 2015 Ask the Mormon Democrats. I want all these stupid laws off my back. Troublemaker! I'm telling TSSS and The Nehor! 1
thesometimesaint Posted May 26, 2015 Posted May 26, 2015 Troublemaker! I'm telling TSSS and The Nehor! I'm here. I'm fine with God ruling as he chooses. Man with Theonomy not at all.SEE http://www.rawstory.com/2015/05/arizona-pastors-wife-condemns-liberal-duggars-sexual-deviants-should-be-executed/
mfbukowski Posted May 26, 2015 Posted May 26, 2015 I'm here. I'm fine with God ruling as he chooses. Man with Theonomy not at all.SEE http://www.rawstory.com/2015/05/arizona-pastors-wife-condemns-liberal-duggars-sexual-deviants-should-be-executed/VERY disturbing stuff. We gotta burn those kind of people that advocate that!!
mfbukowski Posted May 26, 2015 Posted May 26, 2015 Troublemaker! I'm telling TSSS and The Nehor!NO NO NO! Anything but The Nehor!! Pulleeeeeeze don't throw me in the Nehor patch! 1
mfbukowski Posted May 26, 2015 Posted May 26, 2015 If I am now understanding the question correctly, in my own words it would be:How much should a society use God's commandments as a rational for making laws in it's civil society?Is that correct? Seriously the problem here is interpretation of what God's laws are. I kind of prefer the Golden Rule. THAT is just civilized behavior, and everyone can get behind that. Elitism is elitism from the left or the right. The problem is thinking that one has the answer that applies to everyone. I think God wants us to have our agency and then let him sort them out later. 3
CV75 Posted May 26, 2015 Posted May 26, 2015 I've been doing some minor research in this area recently as Christians and pastors have expressed a death penalty solution for LGBT persons. Citing the OT as the basis for genocide, I find the practice and theory of theonomy to be highly problematic.Looking East, we see radicalized Islam proclaiming Sharia Law and a society based on principles of theonomy.Just to be clear, this isn't an LGBT thread. I was using an example.What Im curious about is the LDS perspective on theonomy and its relationship to the Plan of Salvation (if there really is a relationship).For the basis of levying penalties, I think we would be more inclined to use the New Testament and Triple combination to supersede any punishments laid out in the Law of Moses.
ERayR Posted May 26, 2015 Posted May 26, 2015 One could argue that any set of laws is an enemy to agency. Not really it only changes the parameter in which to exercise your agency. You still have agency.
mfbukowski Posted May 26, 2015 Posted May 26, 2015 I've been doing some minor research in this area recently as Christians and pastors have expressed a death penalty solution for LGBT persons. Citing the OT as the basis for genocide, I find the practice and theory of theonomy to be highly problematic.Looking East, we see radicalized Islam proclaiming Sharia Law and a society based on principles of theonomy.Just to be clear, this isn't an LGBT thread. I was using an example.What Im curious about is the LDS perspective on theonomy and its relationship to the Plan of Salvation (if there really is a relationship).I'm gonna start calling myself the Annhilator of Marshmallows! That's an interesting word. Nihil means "nothing" so does a-nihil mean "not nothing"?
mfbukowski Posted May 26, 2015 Posted May 26, 2015 One could argue that any set of laws is an enemy to agency.Nope. Self-determination is the only true "freedom". It's what God does. It is voluntarily taking on rules and maxims that one creates or adopts rationally for oneself. I think that God voluntarily agrees, for example, to obey the laws of physics. When we drive on the right side of the street in a country that accepts that custom, we actually CREATE freedom by accepting that rule. We get to drive down the street without getting in head-on collisions every block or two. Isaiah Berlin called it "positive liberty". http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Two_Concepts_of_Liberty We only have "unalienable rights" because we believe we do and everyone agrees to treat each other as if that is the case.
ttribe Posted May 26, 2015 Posted May 26, 2015 I'm here. I'm fine with God ruling as he chooses. Man with Theonomy not at all.SEE http://www.rawstory.com/2015/05/arizona-pastors-wife-condemns-liberal-duggars-sexual-deviants-should-be-executed/ Why, oh why, did they have to be in Arizona? Are we trying to catch up to Florida in the crazy? 2
thesometimesaint Posted May 26, 2015 Posted May 26, 2015 Why, oh why, did they have to be in Arizona? Are we trying to catch up to Florida in the crazy? I wish I knew. Both are beautiful states. It's a shame really.
3DOP Posted May 27, 2015 Posted May 27, 2015 I've been doing some minor research in this area recently as Christians and pastors have expressed a death penalty solution for LGBT persons. Citing the OT as the basis for genocide, I find the practice and theory of theonomy to be highly problematic.Looking East, we see radicalized Islam proclaiming Sharia Law and a society based on principles of theonomy.Just to be clear, this isn't an LGBT thread. I was using an example.What Im curious about is the LDS perspective on theonomy and its relationship to the Plan of Salvation (if there really is a relationship). It seems difficult to expect Mormons to have any perspective on "Theonomy". You are talking about the late 20th Century Reformed movement which looks to the Old Testament law as the standard for a post-millenial reign of Christ? They don't know about Bahnsen, or Rushdoony or his son-in-law, Gary North. I followed the movement which was also at the time called, Christian Reconstruction, pretty closely in the 80's and 90's. Given the trends, I don't think LGBT's have much to worry about. Heh...I would sooner expect Theonomists to be martyred than LGBT's! 1
Damien the Leper Posted May 27, 2015 Author Posted May 27, 2015 Why, oh why, did they have to be in Arizona? Are we trying to catch up to Florida in the crazy?And in Tempe near the Scum Devils.
Damien the Leper Posted May 27, 2015 Author Posted May 27, 2015 Awesome contributions and insight from everyone. Thank you so much.
Russell C McGregor Posted May 27, 2015 Posted May 27, 2015 I've been doing some minor research in this area recently as Christians and pastors have expressed a death penalty solution for LGBT persons. Citing the OT as the basis for genocide, I find the practice and theory of theonomy to be highly problematic. Looking East, we see radicalized Islam proclaiming Sharia Law and a society based on principles of theonomy. Just to be clear, this isn't an LGBT thread. I was using an example. What Im curious about is the LDS perspective on theonomy and its relationship to the Plan of Salvation (if there really is a relationship). Do you have any sources, or any links to what they've got to say for themselves? Based upon your summary, they sound like nutjobs whom most Latter-day Saints will just ignore; and, as 3DOP pointed out, given current social trends, they are more likely to get the chop than anyone they might like to stone. Or maybe they are stoned already... 4
Recommended Posts