Isn't It Time We Call Ourselves Out?

[stemelbow]

Have you studied what the Pharisees actually practiced and why it made sense for Christ to condemn them in that context?

I'm not an expert on the topic but I've read some. I don't think their practice puts them in some exclusively evil class of people--not by a long shot. Do you? they seemed to be people who thought they were doing good, largely. Surely their were bad apples. There always are.

It's odd to me we are so proud of not being pharisaic when we all can be and it seems to me we all largely tend to be.

[stemelbow]

From my limited study, it seemed that Christ's biggest complaint against the Pharisees was that they often followed the letter of the Law while ignoring the spirit of the Law.  While I believe that most saints attempt to do both, I think we can all acknowledge ways in which we demand technical compliance with the Law (i.e., no coffee, tea, alcohol or tobacco), while, in some cases, ignoring the spirit of the Law (i.e., consuming copious amounts of Coca-Cola, meat and Ben & Jerry's).

 

In fact, one of the most poignant examples for me involved the great George Romney.  As is pointed out every 27 posts on this board, Brother Romney took part in a civil rights march.  However, Brother Romney never marched with Dr. King and in fact, missed the largest march in Detroit on June 23, 1963 because it fell on a Sunday.  Brother Romney strictly observed the Sabbath, but in doing so, I think he missed out on a great chance to help the Church avoid the "racist" label it would later acquire.  Interestingly, I'm sure that some will jump to the defense of Gov. Romney and let me be clear: It is NOT my intention to defame him in any way (he's my favorite Mormon politician of all-time). That being said, my reading of the NT tells me that Christ would have been at the march.  In fact, my reading of the history of the 20th century tells me that He WAS at that march.

 

Another of Christ's complaints about the Pharisees was that they were quick to condemn Christ for being in the presence of sinners.  The Pharisees very simply didn't smoke, drink or chew or go with Jews that do.  Yet, Christ would actually seek out the sinners and want to be in their presence.  Most notably to me, when Christ saw the Chief tax-collector Zacheus, He did NOT invite Zacheus to dine with Him and the disciples at the home of Mary and Martha (or at the temple pot luck dinner).  Instead, Christ invited Himself over to Zacheus home, which was very likely the first century equivalent of the Bada Bing Club from the Sopranos (oh yeah, the Sopranos was a show on HBO a few years back ... oh yeah, HBO is a cable television network ... oh yeah, television is ... sorry, I couldn't help myself).  I truly believe that Jesus did that because He wanted to reach more than Zacheus, but also his fellow sinners.  Yet, as saints, I suspect that most of us take the opposite approach.  Sure, we're more than happy to invite a sinner to church or to visit us in our homes or come to our ward picnic / trunk-or-treat / etc.  But are we willing to go where the rest of the sinners are?

 

In fairness, I suspect that the answer varies widely from saint to saint.  Some of us are good at following the letter and the spirit.  Others of us struggle on one or more ends of the spectrum.  But if that isn't something that should be discussed on a MORMON discussion board, I'm not sure what should be discussed.

Another awesome contribution. This and other posts make this thread worth starting in my mind.

Oh man, your example speaks well to the topic. Another straining at a gnat to swallow a camel example, as I see it, is the campaign against SSM. I'd say the reason why SSm is becoming universally accepted--the opposing side has been seen as making a big deal for no reason.

[stemelbow]

I believe that the OP used the pronoun WE when suggesting pharisaical actions. That means he included himself in the criticism. He did paint with a fairly broad brush and got the " physician heal thyself " response. I would have liked to have had a couple of specific examples of how the current members discourage others from joining the church. Personally I have seen non-members reject the church where it is in a majority position because they felt ostracized by the " in crowd " .I doubt there is much of this attitude where LDS are a miniscule percentage of the area. Do WE ( I am asking for it ) look down on the non-members because they drink and smoke and do drugs and do the nasty? Do WE do the same things and yet portray a holier than thou attitude when in the Church environment , thus enabling the title hypocrites?

I think your questions illustrate my point well enough. I've known many, even where the Church is the minority, who have felt like they were pushed out of the Church rather than embraced into it. you know 10 people can be welcoming and loving and one might be a little self-righteous, thoughtless and rude, and that can chase someone away.

I had an interesting conversation with a non-member the other day who had lived around Mormons for much of his life and in various communities. He expressed that he saw members fight like dogs with each other but band together to cut out the ' outsider ' when it came to business dealings. He was not interested at all in investigating because of such experiences. Can WE acknowledge the accuracy of these criticisms or do WE reject them out of hand?

I say acknowledge.

[thesometimesaint]

Jesus was tougher on the pharisees than any other group. They were supposed to know the laws and the prophets. They were quick to condemn and slow to forgive. They wore the cloak of piety, but were vipers under it. It is sad to see they are still with us under a different name.

[stemelbow]

Ok let's discuss. When you say "we" do you mean the 15? The Apostles and the prophets and his counselors ? Or do you mean various members that fit the mold?  Do you include yourself in that mold? The Church is us.

When I say "we" I mean the Church--the us. The Church to me is those whom I attend Church with.

I don't go to the Temple because they won't let me in. When you go to the Temple do you go with a broken heart and a contrite spirit? or do go to be seen by your relatives, neighbors and employer? I suppose my heart is not broken enough and my spirit is not contrite enough or they might let me in. None of my relatives, neighbors, friends or employers are in the Church so I don't need to be seen. I do fear dying and facing my ancestors and them asking me why I haven't got their Temple work done. Perhaps you could help? PM me if you want to help me get my Temple work done. If not, no problem. I suppose it's sad that the sum of my Mormon friends are contained in this board and I haven't even met anyone in person. I guess that's because we are constantly in transit.

I love the temple. I hope and pray you will be going back, or going for the first time someday. I hope my intent in going is pure. Feel free to PM me. I'd be happy to take your names to the temple. You can submit them yourself and let other do their work too.

 

I used to feel the Church was hypocritical in it's application of the WOW. But after many years of reflection I'm sure it's about obedience to the Lord , to see if I will do what He has asked me to do.

 

I'm off to work so I can't post again until tonight.

Yeah...I can see balance in keeping commandments and not being pharisaic. But, there's a thin line particularly as we start to see the keeping of commandments as our accomplishments that brings us blessings and salvation--at least that's my view.

[Meadowchik]

Humility is always, always, a necessity. Maybe we do have a million years to go before we don't resemble the Pharisees. But salvation is not all-or-nothing as a group, it is an individual encounter with Jesus Christ.

 

The question I ask is with this post is, "how helpful is it?" So, it is helpful to universally call out the Church?

 

There are individuals in the church with experience and faith and devotion that would put most of us in awe and put many of us to shame. They don't deserve the chastisement, in my opinion. One thing that comes to mind is the acknowledgment that I may feel convicted about what I believe, believe it most sincerely and honestly, and you may do the same with your beliefs, and we may both disagree. That these facts exist is one humility calls us to accept.  Expand that to how we perceive others around us.  Does a universal call-out really take into account all the ground that individuals and even groups have covered, repenting, working to be better, striving to love better?

[stemelbow]

Humility is always, always, a necessity. Maybe we do have a million years to go before we don't resemble the Pharisees. But salvation is not all-or-nothing as a group, it is an individual encounter with Jesus Christ.

 

The question I ask is with this post is, "how helpful is it?" So, it is helpful to universally call out the Church?

 

There are individuals in the church with experience and faith and devotion that would put most of us in awe and put many of us to shame. They don't deserve the chastisement, in my opinion. One thing that comes to mind is the acknowledgment that I may feel convicted about what I believe, believe it most sincerely and honestly, and you may do the same with your beliefs, and we may both disagree. That these facts exist is one humility calls us to accept.  Expand that to how we perceive others around us.  Does a universal call-out really take into account all the ground that individuals and even groups have covered, repenting, working to be better, striving to love better?

Thanks for the great post. Mine is a question--should there be a call out? I think you make some good points. Certainly there are many in the church who don't need it. I think there were probably some Pharisees and Scribes who didn't fit with the condemnations too. So that point makes me wonder. But I'm not about to send letters to the first presidency, find a way to call the Church to repentance just yet. Just eager to hear people's thoughts as you have given.

Thanks.

[Gray]

Humility is always, always, a necessity. Maybe we do have a million years to go before we don't resemble the Pharisees. But salvation is not all-or-nothing as a group, it is an individual encounter with Jesus Christ.

 

The question I ask is with this post is, "how helpful is it?" So, it is helpful to universally call out the Church?

 

There are individuals in the church with experience and faith and devotion that would put most of us in awe and put many of us to shame. They don't deserve the chastisement, in my opinion. One thing that comes to mind is the acknowledgment that I may feel convicted about what I believe, believe it most sincerely and honestly, and you may do the same with your beliefs, and we may both disagree. That these facts exist is one humility calls us to accept.  Expand that to how we perceive others around us.  Does a universal call-out really take into account all the ground that individuals and even groups have covered, repenting, working to be better, striving to love better?

 

It's true that a gentler, pastoral approach can give the best results. The natural reaction to being "called out" is to get defensive and retrench. It's human nature. 

[Meadowchik]

Thanks for the great post. Mine is a question--should there be a call out? I think you make some good points. Certainly there are many in the church who don't need it. I think there were probably some Pharisees and Scribes who didn't fit with the condemnations too. So that point makes me wonder. But I'm not about to send letters to the first presidency, find a way to call the Church to repentance just yet. Just eager to hear people's thoughts as you have given.

Thanks.

 

Personally, my general opinion of the Church is optimistic.  I've worshipped in several countries and home wards and have seen the gospel at work in every ward in which I've been a member. I'm not saying there haven't been problems, but I tend to react to a call out the same way I felt when our neighbor--who is also a member-- basically made a call-to-repentence comment in Sunday School last week. What I perceived from him was less of a personal introspection and more of a "how can I poke you guys in the eyes with this stick of blame?" This fellow seems to be constantly finding fault within others and never himself. That's something perceived not in his words, because verbally he does not explicitly leave himself out, but that's the sense I get.

 

What is more likely to move me to self-examination is if, for example, this neighbor friend spoke of his own repentence, his own seeing-the-light-and-being-blessed-for-it experience.  Or if someone spoke of concrete things where they felt I've done them wrong.  Personally, I feel like I have so much to do that I am treading water, I already know I'm inadequate!  I need God to help me know what to set aside for tomorrow and what to do today!

[Meadowchik]

It's true that a gentler, pastoral approach can give the best results. The natural reaction to being "called out" is to get defensive and retrench. It's human nature. 

 

Yes, it is human nature to be defensive when criticised.  It's also human nature to criticise:call out when we want to spread or repel blame from ourselves. 

 

So, in the face of criticism, how to react?  Short answer: the Spirit or science; the latter effectively means just being reasonable, examining the evidence.

[Mystery Meat]

Thanks for the great post. Mine is a question--should there be a call out? I think you make some good points. Certainly there are many in the church who don't need it. I think there were probably some Pharisees and Scribes who didn't fit with the condemnations too. So that point makes me wonder. But I'm not about to send letters to the first presidency, find a way to call the Church to repentance just yet. Just eager to hear people's thoughts as you have given.

Thanks.

 

There should be a call out, as guided by the Spirit. One sure way to know it is not by the Spirit is when someone is seeking to call out those for whom he does not have stewardship. In such a case, if it is not of the Spirit it could only be from somewhere else.

[Gray]

There should be a call out, as guided by the Spirit. One sure way to know it is not by the Spirit is when someone is seeking to call out those for whom he does not have stewardship. In such a case, if it is not of the Spirit it could only be from somewhere else.

 

History repeats itself in amusing ways sometimes. 

[bluebell]

Most people are sincere people. Why would I assume the Pharisees were any different? They prayed and in so doing, I assume, thought they were doing so sincerely. Many of them were probably very sincere in their prayers. But the whole got condemnation because some, most, or however many were saying long ol' prayers to sound all high and mighty. Now, that seems like a small thing--it happens in the Church all the time, it seems to me. But it was something Christ seemed to think was a problem.

 

It just seems weird that you think that Christ would call sincere people trying to be righteous hypocrites i guess.  Hypocrites, as i understand the term, are those who preach righteousness but are not trying to act righteous themselves.  They are, by definition, insincere.

 

Hypocrite:

 

a person who pretends to have virtues, moral or religious beliefs,principles, etc., that he or she does not actually possess, especially aperson whose actions belie stated beliefs.

2.

a person who feigns some desirable or publicly approved attitude,especially one whose private life, opinions, or statements belie his orher public statements.

A pretender, or someone who feigns something, is not sincere.  They are also not trying to make good choices.

 

What definition of 'hypocrite' are you using??

[stemelbow]

It just seems weird that you think that Christ would call sincere people trying to be righteous hypocrites i guess.

That's not what I'm saying. I am saying that Pharisees were a group of people and in that group, most likely, there were many sincere people (people who thought they were doing their best).

I would say though, I think I am sincere, sometimes, when in fact I'm not. I just don't admit it to myself. I don't know if i'm an oddball who is different from everyone else. I guess I could be.

[tonie]

It just seems weird that you think that Christ would call sincere people trying to be righteous hypocrites i guess.  Hypocrites, as i understand the term, are those who preach righteousness but are not trying to act righteous themselves.  They are, by definition, insincere.

 

Hypocrite:

 

a person who pretends to have virtues, moral or religious beliefs,principles, etc., that he or she does not actually possess, especially aperson whose actions belie stated beliefs.

2.

a person who feigns some desirable or publicly approved attitude,especially one whose private life, opinions, or statements belie his orher public statements.

A pretender, or someone who feigns something, is not sincere.  They are also not trying to make good choices.

 

What definition of 'hypocrite' are you using??

 

what definition was Christ using when he spoke; speaking in a different language at that.

[bluebell]

That's not what I'm saying. I am saying that Pharisees were a group of people and in that group, most likely, there were many sincere people (people who thought they were doing their best).

I would say though, I think I am sincere, sometimes, when in fact I'm not. I just don't admit it to myself. I don't know if i'm an oddball who is different from everyone else. I guess I could be.

 

Given the definition of the word hypocrite, do you think that Christ was talking to those pharisees who were sincere and were honestly trying their best?

[bluebell]

what definition was Christ using when he spoke; speaking in a different language at that.

 

Well, according to the Greek word used for hypocrite, He meant 'an actor or a pretender'.  So, pretty much the english equivalent of the word.

 

Edit to add-i don't speak greek so I used strong's concordance.

Edited June 9, 2015 by bluebell

[stemelbow]

Given the definition of the word hypocrite, do you think that Christ was talking to those pharisees who were sincere and were honestly trying their best?

He just said Scribes and Pharisees. He didn't point certain scribes and Pharisees out--at least that's how it was reported to us.

Edited June 9, 2015 by stemelbow

[Scott Lloyd]

That's not what I'm saying. I am saying that Pharisees were a group of people and in that group, most likely, there were many sincere people (people who thought they were doing their best).

 

 

Do you believe Christ was overly harsh or off-base or unwise in His behavior and words? If you had been there at the time would you have told Him He needed to tone down the rhetoric? That He was likely to hurt the feelings of sincere people who, after all, were trying to do their best?

 

 

I would say though, I think I am sincere, sometimes, when in fact I'm not. I just don't admit it to myself. I don't know if i'm an oddball who is different from everyone else. I guess I could be.

 

If you can see that tendency in yourself, is it any less likely that those to whom Christ was directing this harsh reproach would likewise have deluded themselves into believing they were trying to do their best and probably would have said so had they been asked?

Edited June 9, 2015 by Scott Lloyd

[bluebell]

He just said Scribes and Pharisees. He didn't point certain scribes and Pharisees out--at least that's how it was reported to us.

 

Yes, i know.  But Christ doesn't paint with a broad brush so i think we can easily know that He would never call someone a hypocrite that wasn't actually being one, just because they were a member of the same group.  

 

Besides that, He always seemed to be talking to the pharisees who were specifically present and behaving like hypocrites in their condemnation of Him.  He didn't use that word to label everyone who disbelieved in Him or didn't follow Him.  He used it in speaking about specific behavior.

 

So again, given the definition of the word hypocrite, do you honestly believe He would call someone that who was sincere and trying their best?

[stemelbow]

Do you believe Christ was overly harsh or off-base or unwise in His behavior and words?

no. I don't.

If you had been there at the time would you have told Him He needed to tone down the rhetoric?

Perhaps if I were a Pharisee who thought himself sincere, I might have.

That He was likely to hurt the feelings of sincere people who, after all, were trying to do their best?

I guess He could have hurt the feelings of some people who were not being hypocritical. it's possible. Not sure what happened exactly or how it happened. The NT doesn't tell us everything and it's possible that the book attributed to Matthew has the story wrong as it was handed down mostly, it seems, orally.

 

If you can see that tendency in yourself, is it any less likely that those to whom Christ was directing this harsh reproach would likewise have deluded themselves into believing they were trying to do their best and probably would have said so had they been asked?

I don't know what any of them were thinking, much less Christ.

[stemelbow]

Yes, i know.  But Christ doesn't paint with a broad brush so i think we can easily know that He would never call someone a hypocrite that wasn't actually being one, just because they were a member of the same group.

It's just as likely that whoever wrote Matthew did not have the story correct. If Christ said ye scribes and Pharisees and then went on to denote their sins with the possibility that the sin does not apply to all scribes and Pharisees then it seems He did paint with a broad brush. With any sizable group their are many varieties and complexities. People are individual.

 

Besides that, He always seemed to be talking to the pharisees who were specifically present and behaving like hypocrites in their condemnation of Him.  He didn't use that word to label everyone who disbelieved in Him or didn't follow Him.  He used it in speaking about specific behavior.

And sadly we treat his condemnations as if the whole of the scribes and Pharisees were evil. But in Matthew 23, Jesus wasn't talking to Scribes and Pharisees. he was talking to His disciples about the groups named scribes and Pharisees. As reported he painted with a broad brush.

 

So again, given the definition of the word hypocrite, do you honestly believe He would call someone that who was sincere and trying their best?

Oddly enough most people are sincere and trying their best and yet most people can be hypocritical at some point. In answering Peter Jesus says, "Ye hypocrites, ye can discern the face of the sky and of the earth; but how is it that ye do not discern this time?" (luke 12:56)

In my judgment, Peter was a pretty sincere dude. But he was included in a condemnation of being a hypocrite. Not so bad...we're all hypocritical at times.

Edited June 9, 2015 by stemelbow

[Scott Lloyd]

no. I don't.

Perhaps if I were a Pharisee who thought himself sincere, I might have.

I guess He could have hurt the feelings of some people who were not being hypocritical. it's possible. Not sure what happened exactly or how it happened. The NT doesn't tell us everything and it's possible that the book attributed to Matthew has the story wrong as it was handed down mostly, it seems, orally.

 

I don't know what any of them were thinking, much less Christ.

It appears you don't have a lot of confidence in the veracity of the Book of Matthew, yet you readily use it as a pretext to "call out" (your words) the Church of Jesus Christ.

[Scott Lloyd]

Oddly enough most people are sincere and trying their best and yet most people can be hypocritical at some point. In answering Peter Jesus says, "Ye hypocrites, ye can discern the face of the sky and of the earth; but how is it that ye do not discern this time?" (luke 12:56)

In my judgment, Peter was a pretty sincere dude. But he was included in a condemnation of being a hypocrite. Not so bad...we're all hypocritical at times.

Reading the verse in context, I don't get the sense he is addressing Peter or his apostles when he uses those words. Perhaps there is something I'm missing or unaware of.

[stemelbow]

It appears you don't have a lot of confidence in the veracity of the Book of Matthew, yet you readily use it as a pretext to "call out" (your words) the Church of Jesus Christ.

I haven't called out the Church of Jesus Christ. I asked a question about whether it is possible we fit the condemnations as recorded in Matthew. It seems like, speaking generally, or painting with a broad brush as Christ was reported to have done, it's possible the same condemnations that scribes and Pharisees received might need to be leveled at the modern Church of Jesus Christ. Not because he hates us, or has rejected us, or has designs to send us all to hell, but because He loves us.