Isn't It Time We Call Ourselves Out?

[Scott Lloyd]

neither am I. I'm not trying to say my ideas expressed here are anything more than an effort to discuss them. Let's just say, in each case, my thoughts are still a work in progress and I'm not at all comfortable elevating my thoughts to an established conclusion.

Drawing upon the Master's reproach of the Pharisees as a tool of personal introspection so as to avoid such errors in one's own life is one thing.

 

But you seemed to go beyond that and issue blanket accusations against the Church of Jesus Christ as an institution and many of its faithful members. That strikes me as unrighteous judgment, and it is what I and, I think, Smac and others object to.

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

This thread is a waste. Nothing good is going to come from it. Carry on.

[stemelbow]

Drawing upon the Master's reproach of the Pharisees as a tool of personal introspection so as to avoid such errors in one's own life is one thing.

 

But you seemed to go beyond that and issue blanket accusations against the Church of Jesus Christ as an institution and many of its faithful members. That strikes me as unrighteous judgment, and it is what I and, I think, Smac and others object to.

And that you object to it, and say as much, is great. I appreciate the thoughts. I'd wonder, though, that if Christ felt the need to issue blanket accusations against a group and many of its faithful members and such accusations were necessary to put in scripture, it is not so bad for us to stop and think if our group is worthy of His condemnation. Indeed, I think it ought to be in consideration. I assume many Pharisees, in their day, were good people, good in every way many LDS people are.

I maintain it's a fair question and an interesting topic to explore.

[smac97]

I was thinking more along the lines of your effort to turn this on me as if I don't do enough.

I don't know what you do, except that you have risen up to call the Church to repentance and to publicly castigate your faith and your co-religionists for not living up to whatever high-and-mighty level you have arbitrarily set.

 

WHy presume to think I don't do enough?

In my experience, people who are striving to live the Gospel don't rise up to publicly condemn the Church, accuse it and its adherents of the most profound sins, make such accusations while utterly disregarding all of the efforts by the Church and its members to serve others in various ways, and so on.

But I suppose my conjecture was in error. You're doing everything you are supposed to be doing, so much so that you are entitled to rise up and publicly condemn the Church as a whole for not doing as good a job as you manage to achieve.

So bully for you. You've got the whole Living-the-Gospel thing down pat. When you condemn the entire Church and make public accusations against it, we ought to all just shut up and take whatever our betters choose to dish out to us.

 

I agree, we're in this together. Talking things through is helpful. I gave anecdotal observations to spark discussion here. You gave condemnations of me, a person you presumably don't know.

You took it upon yourself to "call ourselves out," to publicly accuse the Church in its entirety of being Pharisaic and hypocritical, that the Church is "arbitrarily shutting people out of the kingdom of heaven," that the Church is "making it impossible for us to get in (to the Kingdom of Heaven)" (?!), that the Church neglects widows, that the Church's missionary efforts are profoundly misguided and even "destructive", that the Church improperly venerates temples, that the Church has forgotten "weightier matters--judgment, mercy, and faith," and so on.

These are your accusations. Public accusations. Against the Church in its entirety. I took, and continue to take, exception to the verity of these accusations, and to the impropriety of self-selected members of the Church rising up to condemn the Church as a whole.

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited June 8, 2015 by smac97

[why me]

I think that the pharisees get a bad rap. When one searches jewish sources, the pharisees were rather good. However, the sadducees had a problem:

 

In contradistinction to the Sadducees, who were satisfied with the political life committed to their own power as the ruling dynasty, the Pharisees represented the views and hopes of the people. The same was the case with regard to the belief in angels and demons. As Ecclesiastes and Ecclesiasticus indicate, the upper classes adhered for a long time to the Biblical view concerning the soul and the hereafter, caring little for the Angelology and Demonology of the Pharisees. These used them, with the help of the Ma'aseh Bereshit and Ma'aseh Merkabah, not only to amplify the Biblical account, but to remove from the Bible anthropomorphisms and similarly obnoxious verbiage concerning the Deity by referring them to angelic and intermediary powers (for instance, Gen. i. 26), and thereby to gradually sublimate and spiritualize the conception of God.

Ethics.

The Pharisees are furthermore described by Josephus as extremely virtuous and sober, and as despising luxuries; and Ab. R. N. v. affirms that they led a life of privation. The ethics of the Pharisees is based upon the principle "Be holy, as the Lord your God is holy" (Lev. xix. 2, Hebr.); that is, strive to imitate God (Sifra and Tan., Ḳedoshim, 1; Mek., Shirah, 3; Sifre, Deut. 49; comp. Matt. v. 48: "Be ye therefore perfect, even as your Father which is in heaven is perfect"). So "Love thy neighbor as thyself" is declared by them to be the principal law (Shab. 30a; Ab. R. N., text B, xxvi. [ed. Schechter, p. 53]; Sifra, Ḳedoshim, 4) and, in order to demonstrate its universality, to be based on the verse declaring man to be made in the image of God (Gen. v. 1). "As He makes the sun shine alike upon the good and the evil," so does He extend His fatherly love to all (Shir ha-Shirim Zuṭa, i.; Sifre, Num. 134, Deut. 31, 40). Heathenism is hated on account of the moral depravity to which it leads (Sifre, Num. 157), but the idolater who becomes an observer of the Law ranks with the high priest (Sifra, Aḥare Mot, 13). It is a slanderous misrepresentation of the Pharisees to state that they "divorced morality and religion," when everywhere virtue, probity, and benevolence are declared by them to be the essence of the Law (Mak. 23b-24a; Tosef., Peah, iv. 19; et al.; see Ethics).

The Charge of Hypocrisy.

Nothing could have been more loathsome to the genuine Pharisee than Hypocrisy. "Whatever good a man does he should do it for the glory of God" (Ab. ii. 13; Ber. 17a). Nicodemus is blamed for having given of his wealth to the poor in an ostentatious manner (Ket. 66b). An evil action may be justified where the motive is a good one (Ber. 63a). Still, the very air of sanctity surrounding the life of the Pharisees often led to abuses. Alexander Jannæus warned his wife not against the Pharisees, his declared enemies, but against "the chameleon- or hyena- ["ẓebo'im"-] like hypocrites who act like Zimri and claim the reward of Phinehas:" (Soṭah 22b). An ancient baraita enumerates seven classes of Pharisees, of which five consist of either eccentric fools or hypocrites: (1) "the shoulder Pharisee," who wears, as it were, his good actions. ostentatiously upon his shoulder; (2) "the wait-a-little Pharisee," who ever says, "Wait a little, until I have performed the good act awaiting me"; (3), "the bruised Pharisee," who in order to avoid looking at a woman runs against the wall so as to bruise himself and bleed; (4) "the pestle Pharisee," who walks with head down like the pestle in the mortar; (5) "the ever-reckoning Pharisee," who says, "Let me know what good I may do to counteract my neglect"; (6) "the God-fearing Pharisee," after the manner of Job; (7) "the God-loving Pharisee," after the manner of Abraham (Yer. Ber. ix. 14b; Soṭah 22b; Ab. R. N., text A, xxxvii.; text B, xlv. [ed. Schechter, pp. 55, 62]; the explanations in both Talmuds vary greatly; see Chwolson, "Das Letzte-Passahmahl," p. 116). R. Joshua b. Hananiah, at the beginning of the second century, calls eccentric Pharisees "destroyers of the world" (Soṭah iii. 4); and the term "Pharisaic plagues" is frequently used by the leaders of the time (Yer. Soṭah iii. 19a).

 

I think that we need to put what jesus said in context.

 

Party representing the religious views, practises, and hopes of the kernel of the Jewish people in the time of the Second Temple and in opposition to the priestly Sadducees. They were accordingly scrupulous observers of the Law as interpreted by the Soferim, or Scribes, in accordance with tradition. No true estimate of the character of the Pharisees can be obtained from the New Testament writings, which take a polemical attitude toward them (see New Testament), nor from Josephus, who, writing for Roman readers and in view of the Messianic expectations of the Pharisees, represents the latter as a philosophical sect. "Perisha" (the singular of "Perishaya") denotes "one who separates himself," or keeps away from persons or things impure, in order to attain the degree of holiness and righteousness required in those who would commune with God (comp., for "Perishut" and "Perisha," Tan., Wayeẓe, ed. Buber, p. 21; Abot iii. 13; Soṭah ix. 15; Midr. Teh. xv. 1; Num. R. x. 23; Targ. Gen. xlix. 26).

 

http://www.jewishencyclopedia.com/articles/12087-pharisees

[Scott Lloyd]

And that you object to it, and say as much, is great. I appreciate the thoughts. I'd wonder, though, that if Christ felt the need to issue blanket accusations against a group and many of its faithful members and such accusations were necessary to put in scripture, it is not so bad for us to stop and think if our group is worthy of His condemnation. Indeed, I think it ought to be in consideration. I assume many Pharisees, in their day, were good people, good in every way many LDS people are.

I maintain it's a fair question and an interesting topic to explore.

Those to whom Christ directed His reproach deserved it in every way. I have no doubt of that, because, well, it was Christ who issued the condemnation, and Christ was perfect, the only perfect Being to have ever lived in mortality.

 

I am unaware of any record of Christ endorsing or approving of blanket accusations against His Church in the latter days by those who take it upon themselves to find fault.

 

That, to me, is a key difference.

Edited June 8, 2015 by Scott Lloyd

[why me]

I don't know what you do, except that you have risen up to call the Church to repentance and to publicly castigate your faith and your co-religionists for not living up to whatever high-and-mighty level you have arbitrarily set.

 

Thanks,

-Smac

This is one of the problems that we are having at the moment: members who are castigating the church for what they think it should be or not be. What to do? We have many members of this board who are now posting who fit inside this box. I would rather have geniune critics on the board like in the good old days when there was a clear line of demarcation between critic and member. Now we have members as critics. Hard to know what to do or say in these circumstances.

[Scott Lloyd]

I think that the pharisees get a bad rap. When one searches jewish sources, the pharisees were rather good. However, the sadducees had a problem:

 

In contradistinction to the Sadducees, who were satisfied with the political life committed to their own power as the ruling dynasty, the Pharisees represented the views and hopes of the people. The same was the case with regard to the belief in angels and demons. As Ecclesiastes and Ecclesiasticus indicate, the upper classes adhered for a long time to the Biblical view concerning the soul and the hereafter, caring little for the Angelology and Demonology of the Pharisees. These used them, with the help of the Ma'aseh Bereshit and Ma'aseh Merkabah, not only to amplify the Biblical account, but to remove from the Bible anthropomorphisms and similarly obnoxious verbiage concerning the Deity by referring them to angelic and intermediary powers (for instance, Gen. i. 26), and thereby to gradually sublimate and spiritualize the conception of God.

Ethics.

The Pharisees are furthermore described by Josephus as extremely virtuous and sober, and as despising luxuries; and Ab. R. N. v. affirms that they led a life of privation. The ethics of the Pharisees is based upon the principle "Be holy, as the Lord your God is holy" (Lev. xix. 2, Hebr.); that is, strive to imitate God (Sifra and Tan., Ḳedoshim, 1; Mek., Shirah, 3; Sifre, Deut. 49; comp. Matt. v. 48: "Be ye therefore perfect, even as your Father which is in heaven is perfect"). So "Love thy neighbor as thyself" is declared by them to be the principal law (Shab. 30a; Ab. R. N., text B, xxvi. [ed. Schechter, p. 53]; Sifra, Ḳedoshim, 4) and, in order to demonstrate its universality, to be based on the verse declaring man to be made in the image of God (Gen. v. 1). "As He makes the sun shine alike upon the good and the evil," so does He extend His fatherly love to all (Shir ha-Shirim Zuṭa, i.; Sifre, Num. 134, Deut. 31, 40). Heathenism is hated on account of the moral depravity to which it leads (Sifre, Num. 157), but the idolater who becomes an observer of the Law ranks with the high priest (Sifra, Aḥare Mot, 13). It is a slanderous misrepresentation of the Pharisees to state that they "divorced morality and religion," when everywhere virtue, probity, and benevolence are declared by them to be the essence of the Law (Mak. 23b-24a; Tosef., Peah, iv. 19; et al.; see Ethics).

The Charge of Hypocrisy.

Nothing could have been more loathsome to the genuine Pharisee than Hypocrisy. "Whatever good a man does he should do it for the glory of God" (Ab. ii. 13; Ber. 17a). Nicodemus is blamed for having given of his wealth to the poor in an ostentatious manner (Ket. 66b). An evil action may be justified where the motive is a good one (Ber. 63a). Still, the very air of sanctity surrounding the life of the Pharisees often led to abuses. Alexander Jannæus warned his wife not against the Pharisees, his declared enemies, but against "the chameleon- or hyena- ["ẓebo'im"-] like hypocrites who act like Zimri and claim the reward of Phinehas:" (Soṭah 22b). An ancient baraita enumerates seven classes of Pharisees, of which five consist of either eccentric fools or hypocrites: (1) "the shoulder Pharisee," who wears, as it were, his good actions. ostentatiously upon his shoulder; (2) "the wait-a-little Pharisee," who ever says, "Wait a little, until I have performed the good act awaiting me"; (3), "the bruised Pharisee," who in order to avoid looking at a woman runs against the wall so as to bruise himself and bleed; (4) "the pestle Pharisee," who walks with head down like the pestle in the mortar; (5) "the ever-reckoning Pharisee," who says, "Let me know what good I may do to counteract my neglect"; (6) "the God-fearing Pharisee," after the manner of Job; (7) "the God-loving Pharisee," after the manner of Abraham (Yer. Ber. ix. 14b; Soṭah 22b; Ab. R. N., text A, xxxvii.; text B, xlv. [ed. Schechter, pp. 55, 62]; the explanations in both Talmuds vary greatly; see Chwolson, "Das Letzte-Passahmahl," p. 116). R. Joshua b. Hananiah, at the beginning of the second century, calls eccentric Pharisees "destroyers of the world" (Soṭah iii. 4); and the term "Pharisaic plagues" is frequently used by the leaders of the time (Yer. Soṭah iii. 19a).

 

I think that we need to put what jesus said in context.

 

Party representing the religious views, practises, and hopes of the kernel of the Jewish people in the time of the Second Temple and in opposition to the priestly Sadducees. They were accordingly scrupulous observers of the Law as interpreted by the Soferim, or Scribes, in accordance with tradition. No true estimate of the character of the Pharisees can be obtained from the New Testament writings, which take a polemical attitude toward them (see New Testament), nor from Josephus, who, writing for Roman readers and in view of the Messianic expectations of the Pharisees, represents the latter as a philosophical sect. "Perisha" (the singular of "Perishaya") denotes "one who separates himself," or keeps away from persons or things impure, in order to attain the degree of holiness and righteousness required in those who would commune with God (comp., for "Perishut" and "Perisha," Tan., Wayeẓe, ed. Buber, p. 21; Abot iii. 13; Soṭah ix. 15; Midr. Teh. xv. 1; Num. R. x. 23; Targ. Gen. xlix. 26).

 

http://www.jewishencyclopedia.com/articles/12087-pharisees

So in saying the things He did, Christ was too hard on them? Is that your position?

[stemelbow]

I don't know what you do, except that you have risen up to call the Church to repentance and to publicly castigate your faith and your co-religionists for not living up to whatever high-and-mighty level you have arbitrarily set.

 

In my experience, people who are striving to live the Gospel don't rise up to publicly condemn the Church, accuse it and its adherents of the most profound sins, make such accusations while utterly disregarding all of the efforts by the Church and its members to serve others in various ways, and so on.

But I suppose my conjecture was in error. You're doing everything you are supposed to be doing, so much so that you are entitled to rise up and publicly condemn the Church as a whole for not doing as good a job as you manage to achieve.

So bully for you. You've got the whole Living-the-Gospel thing down pat. When you condemn the entire Church and make public accusations against it, we ought to all just shut up and take whatever our betters choose to dish out to us.

 

You took it upon yourself to "call ourselves out," to publicly accuse the Church in its entirety of being Pharisaic and hypocritical, that the Church is "arbitrarily shutting people out of the kingdom of heaven," that the Church is "making it impossible for us to get in (to the Kingdom of Heaven)" (?!), that the Church neglects widows, that the Church's missionary efforts are profoundly misguided and even "destructive", that the Church improperly venerates temples, that the Church has forgotten "weightier matters--judgment, mercy, and faith," and so on.

These are your accusations. Public accusations. Against the Church in its entirety. I took, and continue to take, exception to the verity of these accusations, and to the impropriety of self-selected members of the Church rising up to condemn the Church as a whole.

Thanks,

-Smac

Hey Smac. My advice: Don't be so afraid. I'm just talking on a message board. My thoughts are my thoughts. I mean no offense to anyone at all. When I think of groups of people I don't value one group over another, or at least try not to. I don't think LDS are any more righteous than most other people. No doubt in every group there are difficult ones and some have more difficult ones than others. Perhaps that was the case with the Pharisees. But perhaps the Pharisees were mucyh like the rest of us--they are people trying their best. We're all a bit hypocritical.

I certainly don't think all is well in Zion. I think we have problems and it's important for us to be able to uncover our problems and move forward. I think that's the job of us all. You seem to think by doing so, any individual member, is overstepping. I accept that we disagree on that. I don't want to wait around. I want to explore the welfare of my soul with my fellow religionists.

I wish you the best.

[Gray]

See what I mean? There is great cultural resistance to institutional introspection. It's interpreted as disloyalty. 

Edited June 8, 2015 by Gray

[stemelbow]

Those to whom Christ directed His reproach deserved it in every way. I have no doubt of that, because, well, it was Christ who issued the condemnation, and Christ was perfect, the only perfect Being to have ever lived in mortality.

Well of course, we're using the record attributed to Matthew here, a record which is regularly accepted as written not by Matthew but attributed to him. So we have a writing of someone who lived after Matthew recording from various sources, and perhaps in some cases, rumored events from Jesus' life, in order, it's been argued to correct the record attributed to Mark. So it's tough to be completely certain.

 

I am unaware of any record of Christ endorsing or approving of blanket accusations against His Church in the latter days by those who take it upon themselves to find fault.

 

That, to me, is a key difference.

And I appreciate your right to disagree with me. Have fun, Scott. All the best.

[stemelbow]

See what I mean? There is great cultural resistance to institutional introspection. It's interpreted as disloyalty.

I see. Makes ya wonder if it's a problem worthy of holding us back?

[The Nehor]

If you see it as a problem for "us" then fix it for "you". It institutional correction is needed I trust God enough to communicate his will to those in charge. Too many members want to castigate on the macro level which is basically code for "someone else should do something".

[Calm]

I2Sometimes we seem more concerned with the ornate than the actual object of import. We love our temples and are proud of their beauty, forgetting that it isn't the beauty that is important, it isn't the appearance of being a part of it that is important.

I wish you had been able to be present at the third session of the Payson Temple dedication yesterday. It may have given you a completely different viewpoint.

What I can describe wont be even close to what was said and Pres. Eyring's talk was so gentle and powerful at the same time I find it very hard to remember the specifics of what was said besides him, but maybe I can at least point in the right direction.

It was emphasizes over and over again that the temple is the House of the Lord, also that temples are dedicated to the Father and the Son. These are their homes and we build them as part of an external witness that we believe in God, that Christ died and lives again and that the Spirit is available to bring each of us who seek face to face with God (though Pres Eyring and Elder Andersen made it very clear that how this happens will be different for each individual). When anyone looks upon a temple they will know that we believe in God and that we are willing to devote ourselves to his worship and work.

Can you imagine what it would mean if the whole world was like certain places in Utah where you can see four temples from one spot? What kind of witness to the Saints' love and trust in their Lord that would be?

President Eyring spoke of visiting the LA Temple when it was still just a steel shell and being concerned because of the need to make drastic changes to the original plans to fit the budget, he prayed as he entered that this temple would be acceptable to the Lord and he received the same witness there that he had in his first temple experience, that this was a place where he felt he had been before because it was a place where God came and his children gathered around him as they did in the premortal world and would again in the next life. It did not have to be the beautiful finished, dedicated structure before it became a place where one could come and be in the Presence of the Lord. It is not the ornateness that makes a temple a temple but the concious, continuous, consecrated effort to come together as a community in that place to present ourselves to God and receive back from him his teachings, instructions and above all else his love as we have given him our full heart and trust through our devotion....part of which is the beautifying of his houses to the best of our abilities as a visual witness to our joy that he comes to be among us.

I could write much more, but I have to go and it is likely something that needs to be experienced for oneself. May add some thoughts later though.

[Scott Lloyd]

This is one of the problems that we are having at the moment: members who are castigating the church for what they think it should be or not be. What to do? We have many members of this board who are now posting who fit inside this box. I would rather have geniune critics on the board like in the good old days when there was a clear line of demarcation between critic and member. Now we have members as critics. Hard to know what to do or say in these circumstances.

As Stephen Robinson put it a generation ago:

 

Give me a Walter Martin anytime, a good stout wolf with his own fur on, instead of those more timid or sly parading around in their ridiculous fleeces with their teeth and tails hanging out. Give me "Ex-Mormons for Jesus" or the Moody Bible Tract Society, who are at least honest about their anti-Mormon agenda. ... I prefer my anti-Mormons straight up.

 

[why me]

So in saying the things He did, Christ was too hard on them? Is that your position?

I think that we need to remember what was the purpose of the NT. And who was the audience for the NT writers. It may have been expediant of the NT writers to be critical of them by including that verse in the NT. But the main 'hypocrites' were the sadducees and not the pharisees. 

 

No true estimate of the character of the Pharisees can be obtained from the New Testament writings, which take a polemical attitude toward them (see New Testament), nor from Josephus, who, writing for Roman readers and in view of the Messianic expectations of the Pharisees, represents the latter as a philosophical sect. "

 

From my above link.

[why me]

As Stephen Robinson put it a generation ago:

The thing is, for us long time members of this board, we now need to treat these board members with cotton candy or we get a dozen reports to the mods who then act against the poster being reported. Whereas before, we could put them in their place through tough love. I can say that both you and I know what is behind the facade of their posts since we have been on various boards for years.

[stemelbow]

I wish you had been able to be present at the third session of the Payson Temple dedication yesterday. It may have given you a completely different viewpoint.

What I can describe wont be even close to what was said and Pres. Eyring's talk was so gentle and powerful at the same time I find it very hard to remember the specifics of what was said besides him, but maybe I can at least point in the right direction.

It was emphasizes over and over again that the temple is the House of the Lord, also that temples are dedicated to the Father and the Son. These are their homes and we build them as part of an external witness that we believe in God, that Christ died and lives again and that the Spirit is available to bring each of us who seek face to face with God (though Pres Eyring and Elder Andersen made it very clear that how this happens will be different for each individual). When anyone looks upon a temple they will know that we believe in God and that we are willing to devote ourselves to his worship and work.

Can you imagine what it would mean if the whole world was like certain places in Utah where you can see four temples from one spot? What kind of witness to the Saints' love and trust in their Lord that would be?

That'd be awesome. But the Church would have to be the majority in the world, and as it is, we don't really want that, it seems to me. In order to be the majority we'd have to do a lot of things we don't want.

President Eyring spoke of visiting the LA Temple when it was still just a steel shell and being concerned because of the need to make drastic changes to the original plans to fit the budget, he prayed as he entered that this temple would be acceptable to the Lord and he received the same witness there that he had in his first temple experience, that this was a place where he felt he had been before because it was a place where God came and his children gathered around him as they did in the premortal world and would again in the next life. It did not have to be the beautiful finished, dedicated structure before it became a place where one could come and be in the Presence of the Lord. It is not the ornateness that makes a temple a temple but the concious, continuous, consecrated effort to come together as a community in that place to present ourselves to God and receive back from him his teachings, instructions and above all else his love as we have given him our full heart and trust through our devotion....part of which is the beautifying of his houses to the best of our abilities as a visual witness to our joy that he comes to be among us.

I could write much more, but I have to go and it is likely something that needs to be experienced for oneself. May add some thoughts later though.

It sounds lovely.

[Gray]

If you see it as a problem for "us" then fix it for "you". It institutional correction is needed I trust God enough to communicate his will to those in charge. Too many members want to castigate on the macro level which is basically code for "someone else should do something".

 

I feel the same way about my home teaching. God can deliver the message if indeed one needs delivering. 

Edited June 8, 2015 by Gray

[ERayR]

I mean call the Church, meaning us, out for being a Pharisaic org?

Interesting in GD yesterday, no? Assuming everyone is on the same schedule as our ward--Woe unto you,...Hypocrites"

Going to Matthew 23 wherein Christ is said to have condemn the scribes and Pharisees.

Vs 13

The more I sit in Church, the more I discuss with other LDS soteriology, I feel like we're arbitrarily shutting people out of the kingdom of heaven, making it impossible for us to get in, and often, Church members seem gleeful expressing how many won't make it. Is this not us?

Vs 14

Not sure we figured out what was meant by devouring widows' houses, so any insight is appreciated here. Making long showy prayers seems applicable to much of LDS meetings' prayers to me. I fear we forget the widows often, if that holds any meaning here--we get pretty busy in life. We get a little more showy than substance. This seems very applicable to our modern church.

vs 15

If applicable as it seems to me, ouch! We expend a lot of effort to compass sea and land to make one proselyte, and with the attitude we often carry it may be more destructive than helpful, I fear.

vs 16 - 22

Sometimes we seem more concerned with the ornate than the actual object of import. We love our temples and are proud of their beauty, forgetting that it isn't the beauty that is important, it isn't the appearance of being a part of it that is important. I don't know, I might be stretching a little on this one.

vs 23 - 24

I've certainly felt like I myself and my fellow Church goers get caught up in things like tithing, whether we are exactly observant there and forget that weightier matters--judgment, mercy, and faith. I feel on this we strain at a gnat and swallow a camel.

vs 25 - 26

We can certainly seem to worry more about appearing clean for the outside and forget that we are no more clean than others. I have a big concern that this is a big problem that is only growing.

vs 27 - 28

I hate thinking on this because I know of so much personal pain and anguish in the Church. But I think there is plenty applicable here as well. I fear I too am inwardly unclean, full of dead men's bones, but somehow come off trying to appear as righteous.

vs 29 - 39

We wont' see Christ until we can say, "Blessed is he that cometh in the name of the Lord". We certainly feel blessed to have our prophets and apostles, but perhaps we still aren't quite getting it. perhaps we're still unable to comprehend that which He needs us to comprehend. Our love for our apostles and prophets has not brought Christ unto us. Not until sometime in the future when change has affected us and we are more apt to feel blessed for those whom the Lord sends.

Some of my thoughts from yesterday. the class, as little as I participated as to not upset, seemed to disagree with me and felt defensive as I asked questions, so I thougth I'd bring it here for discussion.

 

I am sorry that you live in an area where the Church is in such a state of disrepair.  Your description of the Church in no way resembles the corner of the vineyard where I reside. 

[ttribe]

This is one of the problems that we are having at the moment: members who are castigating the church for what they think it should be or not be. What to do? We have many members of this board who are now posting who fit inside this box. I would rather have geniune critics on the board like in the good old days when there was a clear line of demarcation between critic and member. Now we have members as critics. Hard to know what to do or say in these circumstances.

 

 

As Stephen Robinson put it a generation ago:

 

 

The thing is, for us long time members of this board, we now need to treat these board members with cotton candy or we get a dozen reports to the mods who then act against the poster being reported. Whereas before, we could put them in their place through tough love. I can say that both you and I know what is behind the facade of their posts since we have been on various boards for years.

 

Wait, are you two trying to suggest that stem is an "anti-Mormon" wolf-in-sheep's clothing?   That would be hilarious if it wasn't so sad.

[Gray]

People who aren't either fundamentalist or anti-Mormon make both groups uncomfortable. 

Edited June 8, 2015 by Gray

[Scott Lloyd]

Wait, are you two trying to suggest that stem is an "anti-Mormon" wolf-in-sheep's clothing?   That would be hilarious if it wasn't so sad.

For my part, the answer is no. I think stemelbow misguided in some respects, but I would not apply either of those terms to him.

 

I have to say, though, when I see threads such as this one, I'm led to say in my heart, "Who needs anti-Mormons."

[tonie]

 

Oh, the irony.

  Let's stop rising up to condemn others, and get to work. We're all in this together, and we don't really advance the Lord's work by the kind of navel-gazing, judgmental, condemnatory bile you have spewed against your own faith and co-religionists.

Thanks,

-Smac

 

 

Oh the irony, indeed

 

How many threads and post did you create condemning and passing judgment on Kate Kelly (even before she was excommunicated)?

I would say the OP has raised a very important issue that, we Saints, need to do a lot of self-reflection on.

 

 

That would be ... none. I don't think I ever condemned Kate Kelly. And her local leaders adjudicated her conduct as amounting to apostate behavior.

Thanks,

-Smac

 

There is indeed an irony to your first comment in this thread.

 

You haven't created any threads specifically about Kate Kelly and/or Ordain Women, and you haven't posted about Kate Kelly? And if you did, those threads/comments were not ment to vilify or cast disparagment on Kate Kelly and her involvment with Ordain Women.

 

How many times have you posted on this message board labeling Kate Kelly "dishonest"? But we need to not be judgemental right....except when you discuss(ed) you Kate Kelly?

[smac97]

Hey Smac. My advice: Don't be so afraid.

I'm not afraid.

 

I'm just talking on a message board.

You are broadcasting calumnies against your own faith and co-religionists to the world.

 

My thoughts are my thoughts. I mean no offense to anyone at all.

You took it upon yourself to "call ourselves out," to publicly accuse the Church in its entirety of being Pharisaic and hypocritical, that the Church is "arbitrarily shutting people out of the kingdom of heaven," that the Church is "making it impossible for us to get in (to the Kingdom of Heaven)" (?!), that the Church neglects widows, that the Church's missionary efforts are profoundly misguided and even "destructive", that the Church improperly venerates temples, that the Church has forgotten "weightier matters--judgment, mercy, and faith," and so on.

You said all these things, but you did not mean to give offense?

Come again?

 

When I think of groups of people I don't value one group over another, or at least try not to. I don't think LDS are any more righteous than most other people. No doubt in every group there are difficult ones and some have more difficult ones than others. Perhaps that was the case with the Pharisees. But perhaps the Pharisees were mucyh like the rest of us--they are people trying their best. We're all a bit hypocritical.

First, this seems like an attempt to retroactively justify you execrable comparison of the LDS Church to the Pharisees.

Second, the Savior condemned the Pharisees. That merits a separate thread if you like. But I think to characterize them as merely "people trying to do their best" is to wrest the scriptures. I just don't think Jesus was in the habit of condemning people who are "trying to do their best."

Third, if you really believe that the Latter-day Saints really are "trying to do their best," then why the need to "call them out?"

 

I certainly don't think all is well in Zion.

Nor do I. But that does not justify your condemnations of the Church.

 

I think we have problems and it's important for us to be able to uncover our problems and move forward.

I think we do that on an individual level. It is not within our stewardship to call the Church in its entirety to repentance, as you have done. Or to accuse the Church in its entirety of gross sin, as you have done.

If a husband and wife are having marital difficulties, the husband does his marital relationship any favors by betraying his wife's trust and confidence by going online and publishing to the world all of the things he thinks she is doing wrong.

 

I think that's the job of us all.

That's the job of us to assess ourselves individually. It is not our place to accuse those not within our stewardship of gross moral failings (like comparing the Latter-day Saints to a group complicit in the crucifixion of Jesus Christ).

 

You seem to think by doing so, any individual member, is overstepping. I accept that we disagree on that. I don't want to wait around. I want to explore the welfare of my soul with my fellow religionists.

I wish you the best.

By publicly accusing me (along with the rest of the Church) of being a pharisee and a hypocrite?

Wow. With friends like these...

-Smac

Edited June 8, 2015 by smac97