Isn't It Time We Call Ourselves Out?

[Scott Lloyd]

That was my assertion, and I've provided the reference a few posts up.

The passage refers to the chief priests and the scribes, not the Pharisees.

 

And the sense I get is that on this occasion they were trying to entrap Him so as to have wherewith to accuse Him. His response deftly avoided the trap.

 

In other settings, Christ did declare His authority.

Edited June 10, 2015 by Scott Lloyd

[ttribe]

You apologized "for resorting to snarkiness to make the point."

 

It was the point itself, not just the snarkiness in the delivery, that I objected to.

 

But I'm not inclined to carry this on either.

 

The "point itself" was at the root of the snarkiness.

 

I suppose that will teach me to try to be "reasonable"; it goes unappreciated anyway.

Edited June 10, 2015 by ttribe

[HappyJackWagon]

I think you missed my point. Whatever its authorship, the Book of Hebrews is a part of scripture, and I'm observing a trend here that if you don't like or agree with a passage, discredit it by disputing its authorship.

 

And the CFR did not have reference to the authorship of Hebrews (I really don't care much about that controversy at the moment), but rather, to your assertion that the Christ declined to tell the Pharisees His authority.

But the point is, you can't look at the scriptures as the literal words of Christ. These are accounts written by unknown authors 100+ years after Christ lived. So in that sense, searching for the exact words of Christ is impossible. Citing the scriptures as an absolute authority of literal truth is problematic in this case, as well as others. It would be like me writing a letter as though I were Joseph Smith. 2000 years from now it may seem like I was close enough to his time to get it right but the truth is I wouldn't be able to share first hand detail of his experience or teachings so the Letter of Joseph (actually written by Jackwagon) may not be that credible in defining eternal truth claims, even if it did happen to be canonized as part of his writings at some point.

Edited June 10, 2015 by HappyJackWagon

[Gray]

The passage refers to the chief priests and the scribes, not the Pharisees.

 

And the sense I get is that they were trying to entrap Him so as to have wherewith to accuse Him. His response deftly avoided the trap.

 

In other settings, Christ did declare His authority.

 

Good observation, it doesn't specifically say that they were pharisees, though they may have been. 

Edited June 10, 2015 by Gray

[stemelbow]

I think you missed my point. Whatever its authorship, the Book of Hebrews is a part of scripture, and I'm observing a trend here that if you don't like or agree with a passage, discredit it by disputing its authorship.

My disputing the authorship of Matthew was not in any way meant to discredit the passage, nor to suggest I didn't like it. It was an effort, at least for me, to suggest Bluebell could possibly have a point when she suggested Jesus' condemnation of Pharisees was not done with a broad brush. I was allowing room for her point to survive, as I saw it. But had nothing whatever to do with discrediting the passage, as the passage itself supported my position on the particular point we were discussing.

And I'm with Gray, I often just go with the scholarly consensus when it comes to this stuff. Who disputes that we don't know the author of Matthew? And if they do, on what grounds? Sounds like a wholly unrelated topic, but sometimes these discussions follow down different rabbit trails.

[Calm]

yes, I believe I've heard you tell me that already. I disagree. You're unwilling to budge. I'm unwilling to accept the notion that I can't work to fix and that God will not inspire average members to help the rest.

 

Exploration is great, but doesn't change anything.  In what way do you see your conversation as constructive...what is the result that will come of it that will heal and bring good things to yourself and others?

[stemelbow]

At the very least the criticism needs to go beyond just being criticism and into something constructive.   Criticism on its own is neither dialogue or constructive.

So to be clear, are you accusing me of just criticizing, not willing to have a dialogue and not being constructive?

 

And just assuming that because there are others who see things in a more positive light there will be enough balance to be constructive, thus one is best involved by pointing out the negative since no one else will do it is not a balanced approach.  The same individual that provides negative comments needs to point out positive, healthy foundations and positive, healthy movements forward even if those are not the ones decided to be followed by others because if they don't shine as bright a light on the good stuff as the bad, then the bonds of trust and acceptance that this person is not there just to mock will not be well enough established.  Criticism to be effective in a community, must come from those who are trusted because they earned it (something that isn't easily done in the surreal environment of the internet where one often has no definite information about the person saying something.

Fewf! Makes ya wonder why we don't read how Christ spoke of the positive aspects of the Pharisees when he offered His criticisms. I mean I mostly agree with you, but to suggest criticism always needs to be accompanied by positive seems unreasonable.

 

Love may be something that should be given wholeheartedly without testing first, but trust needs more than just a trusting heart to be healthy, it needs a recipient that deserves that trust.

 

That is one reason why criticism that focuses on oneself and what one can do is usually the most effective and why pouring it out for others that one does not have extensive knowledge of their personal situations and why they do what they do generally has little effectiveness.

But if the group talks about any possible problems and the group realizes the errors they've been promoting than the group can certainly be edified. And sometimes, as it is, the group doesn't know their error until someone, perhaps one of their own, notifies them of the problem in an effort to discuss.

[Calm]

And seeing how the Pharisees were condemned as a group, why can't we pose the question with a "we" instead of an "I"?

Because of what happens way too often when less than perfect people start to condemn groups rather than individuals (an extreme case would be racism).

[ttribe]

Exploration is great, but doesn't change anything.  In what way do you see your conversation as constructive...what is the result that will come of it that will heal and bring good things to yourself and others?

 

Learning.

 

Considering new ways to look at the world.

 

Get a better understanding of our fellow church/community members.

 

The chance to reconsider whether I (we?) may be able to improve in even the smallest measure.

 

Getting feedback on thinking and ideas.

 

Seeing how other people deal with the issues under discussion.

[Scott Lloyd]

My disputing the authorship of Matthew was not in any way meant to discredit the passage, nor to suggest I didn't like it. It was an effort, at least for me, to suggest Bluebell could possibly have a point when she suggested Jesus' condemnation of Pharisees was not done with a broad brush. I was allowing room for her point to survive, as I saw it. But had nothing whatever to do with discrediting the passage, as the passage itself supported my position on the particular point we were discussing.

 

Fair enough. But it leaves me wondering about the purpose of bringing up the matter of authorship in the first place then.

 

And I'm with Gray, I often just go with the scholarly consensus when it comes to this stuff. Who disputes that we don't know the author of Matthew? And if they do, on what grounds? Sounds like a wholly unrelated topic, but sometimes these discussions follow down different rabbit trails.

 

The sense I get from a quick Internet search is that the authorship is not a settled matter. That is, reference to some sort of ethereal "scholarly consensus" is not reason enough all by itself for me to conclude definitively that Matthew was not the author.

[Calm]

Yes, that seems to have been the reasoning of the Pharisees too.

Please show that the issue with criticism the Pharisees had is the same problem here, that they were comfortable and doing great at exploring criticisms in themselves and it just was a problem when it came to those they didn't see as having authority over them offering criticism.

[stemelbow]

Exploration is great, but doesn't change anything.  In what way do you see your conversation as constructive...what is the result that will come of it that will heal and bring good things to yourself and others?

That's the point of exploration, really. I go in not knowing the result. Sometime along the way the result might need to be defined in order for resolution.

I've said many times on this board, in many ways, I don't think all is well in Zion. I think that suggests there is always room for improvement.

[stemelbow]

Because of what happens way too often when less than perfect people start to condemn groups rather than individuals (an extreme case would be racism).

And because of what happens when less than perfect people condemn individuals too. It's surely a problem. But, inside groups it seems quite healthy to be able to discuss perceived issues and problems that someone within the group suspects or recognizes.

[stemelbow]

The sense I get from a quick Internet search is that the authorship is not a settled matter. That is, reference to some sort of ethereal "scholarly consensus" is not reason enough all by itself for me to conclude definitively that Matthew was not the author.

It's a matter of sources. From what I understand there really isn't any serious debating that the authorship of Matthew is unknown--at least not that is taken seriously from a scholarly perspective. Conservative religionists dispute the conclusion that Matthew's authorship is unknown, sure, but the basis is usually to suggest it must be Matthew because scripture is scripture.

[Calm]

I view this is as a systemic problem. It's a great way to pass the buck and not take responsibility because it's  "not MY problem or MY responsibility." Think of all the good that could be done if people were empowered to work within the church to make things better and not worry so much that the Great Bureaucrat In the Sky will be upset because we don't know our place. God (not the great Bureaucrat in the Sky) gave us minds and passions that allow us to act for ourselves and not be merely acted upon.

I think there is much history that change can come to the Church organization through the individual...but not by the individual standing there pontificating on what leadership is doing wrong, but taking the leadership role they have been given, however large or small and putting their all into it, including following the Spirit in making changes to it.

 

I have seen humanitarian efforts grow to cover several stakes worth in just a few years because a family with no priesthood authority over their ward but with family and friends who saw their actions they did on their own and desired to emulate them joining in the effort to fulfill a need their neighbor had seen.

 

I have seen a yearly multistake function develop because one choir director fulfill his stewardship for his ward and others viewed it and wanted the good fruit so the leaders expanded his stewardship.

 

History tells us this is what happened with the Sunday School, Primary and other now essential structures in our church.  People doing their best with their own stewardship and offering others to join them, but not attempting to force others to accept their stewardship just because they believed deeply in their own heart that it was the solution...and it well may have been as demonstrated by acceptance by those who did have stewardship.

 

I have yet to see anything effective come from discussions about what is wrong with the Church in general that begin and stop there.  If anyone has some evidence, please show it.

Edited June 10, 2015 by calmoriah

[stemelbow]

Please show that the issue with criticism the Pharisees had is the same problem here, that they were comfortable and doing great at exploring criticisms in themselves and it just was a problem when it came to those they didn't see as having authority over them offering criticism.

He wouldn't need to show that to suggest, it seems Pharisees had a problem accepting Christ's criticism because they expected it to come from someone with, what they saw, as authority.

[Gray]

The sense I get from a quick Internet search is that the authorship is not a settled matter. That is, reference to some sort of ethereal "scholarly consensus" is not reason enough all by itself for me to conclude definitively that Matthew was not the author.

 

I think it's pretty settled that Matthew was very likely not the author. The only reason why anyone thinks Matthew wrote it is from tradition. I don't believe the book itself claims to have been written by Matthew. 

[Calm]

You totally don't get his point. The pharisees wouldn't listen because they didn't view it as within Christ's stewardship. That is the similarity to some positions on this board.

So show that they were willing to consider criticism that came from someone who they saw had authority rather than pretty much rejecting it all.

[Gray]

Please show that the issue with criticism the Pharisees had is the same problem here, that they were comfortable and doing great at exploring criticisms in themselves and it just was a problem when it came to those they didn't see as having authority over them offering criticism.

 

Please see: http://www.mormondialogue.org/topic/65471-isnt-it-time-we-call-ourselves-out/page-14#entry1209503336

 

For my clarification

[stemelbow]

I think there is much history that change can come to the Church organization through the individual...but not by the individual standing there pontificating on what leadership is doing wrong, but taking the leadership role they have been given, however large or small and putting their all into it, including following the Spirit in making changes to it.

I'm not pontificating on what leadership is doing wrong.

 

I have seen humanitarian efforts grow to cover several stakes worth in just a few years because a family with no priesthood authority over their ward but with family and friends who saw their actions they did on their own and desired to emulate them joining in the effort to fulfill a need their neighbor had seen.

Excellent example--solutions need not come from those who have authority or certain callings, they can come from anyone.

 

I have seen a yearly multistake function develop because one choir director fulfill his stewardship for his ward and others viewed it and wanted the good fruit so the leaders expanded his stewardship.

 

History tells us this is what happened with the Sunday School, Primary and other now essential structures in our church.  People doing their best with their own stewardship and offering others to join them, but not attempting to force others to accept their stewardship just because they believed deeply in their own heart that it was the solution...and it well may have been as demonstrated by acceptance by those who did have stewardship.

 

I have yet to see anything effective come from discussions about what is wrong with the Church in general that begin and stop there.  If anyone has some evidence, please show it.

Nothing? Is all well in Zion in yoru view? if not, in what ways is not all well?

[Tacenda]

yes, I believe I've heard you tell me that already. I disagree. You're unwilling to budge. I'm unwilling to accept the notion that I can't work to fix and that God will not inspire average members to help the rest. Time to admit impasse, it seems to me, and move on.

In the mean time I think i'll continue to accept that others have perspectives that allow me to join them and explore this issue further.

BTW, are you the poster that went by lvj(number) but changed your name?

I agree, we'd be in the dark ages if everyone sucked it up. Joseph Smith would be an unknown figure to most.

[Calm]

 Citing the scriptures as an absolute authority of literal truth is problematic in this case, as well as others. 

Even so, if one is going to use scriptures as authority in some way, one needs to be consistent beyond a "I agree with this, so I accept it as inspired by God" and a "I don't agree with this, so just man's writings"....especially if one is using scripture to support one's point in a discussion.

[Calm]

So to be clear, are you accusing me of just criticizing, not willing to have a dialogue and not being constructive?

 

Not all the time, but I am not seeing anything that could be used as a foundation to promote effective change being discussed in this thread so far.

[stemelbow]

Even so, if one is going to use scriptures as authority in some way, one needs to be consistent beyond a "I agree with this, so I accept it as inspired by God" and a "I don't agree with this, so just man's writings"....especially if one is using scripture to support one's point in a discussion.

Don't see why. In nearly avenue of learning people can cite certain scholars for one point while disagreeing with the same scholar on another point. If a book written by a scholar is used to argue evolution and later in that book, the author insists upon no God, anyone can use the arguments presented in the book regarding evolution if he/she sees fit, but need not regard the scholars opinion about God pertinent, and need not agree.

[stemelbow]

Not all the time, but I am not seeing anything that could be used as a foundation to promote effective change being discussed in this thread so far.

I think that was the point of the OP. I pointed out what I had observed and if problems can be detected the next step is to figure out how to fix.