Mormon Noahide Laws

[Robert F. Smith]

I'm not so sure about this. Given how His first coming happened, if Christ comes again, He will probably have a number of followers in leadership who do not fit the general expectation. Also, it seems much of his following was not viewed very highly in Jewish circles. I doubt a majority, or perhaps not even a minority, of His self-stated "followers" will be in the group who support him before every knee bows. His followers will be those who live their lives properly and not necessarily those who are members of any specific denomination.

Yeh, and if he wears sandals, a robe, a beard and long hair, and makes inappropriate claims, he'll probably be taken by the local constabulary directly to mental health court and given the necessary drugs and therapy.  His disciples in that case will be his fellow inmates in a state mental hospital.  Denominationalism will be the least of his concerns.  

[Hillel2]

So from that it would seem that Muslims living in Israel, who abide the precepts of their religion and don't engage in violent acts, are okay?

I'm not sure it's something we've given a lot of thought towards. The Western Zion is looked upon as an eschatological community, even though it also harks back to an antediluvian community under the leadership of Enoch, in which the people were of one heart and one mind, dwelt in righteousness, and there was no poor among them.

As far as standards of modest dress are concerned, I'm not sure that's something we would look to legislate, but rather teach as a principle. Here (in New Zealand) there was a case not long ago where a group of Japanese students showed up at an LDS youth dance in their school uniforms. They'd been invited by a Mormon they'd met here. The girls' skirts were rather short, and some of the adult leaders wanted to send them away, as we would with our own local youth. However, when they considered that the girls didn't have anything else to change into, so refusing to let them in in their uniforms would mean not letting them in at all, it was decided to give them a pass.

They still had to keep to the other standards of behaviour (and substance consumption!) while at the dance. I hope they had a good experience there.

Hello. Per the Muslims...ABSOLUTELY. Muslims and Christians and, for all practical intents and purposes, most religious groups today are NOT to be considered idolators under Rabbinic Law. I would even add that, in historical terms, Muslims carry greater clout with Jewish thinkers because of the doctrine of Tawhid (oneness of G-d)/(Hebrew: yehidut). Christians, a little less because of such notions as the Trinity. I am always amazed when people tell me (and sadly many have) that the Jews need to drive the Muslims out of the Holy Land (or worse). Such policy is completely un-Rabbinic unless Muslims were judged idolators (which they have never been).

 

It seems to me that, if one  were to establish a theocracy, democratic or otherwise, there would be certain rules that would apply to the whole...otherwise, what's the point of a theocracy...we could just live the "Law" as we always have. That's why i was wondering about the notion of an LDS theocracy...if one were set up, what rules would i (non-LDS) be expected to follow. This was a practical problem in the Holy Land but not one in the United States so i can understand why not a whole lot of thought has been given it...but if there were to be universal rules issued from an LDS governing body, what, if any, would they be...i'd be very curious. :-)

[Hillel2]

What democratic state? Zion is a monarchy with Jesus as king.

 

It will not be established generally until the king returns in person. I do not imagine that any non-LDS will belong to Zion until that day comes when every knee shall bow. I do not know what laws he will implement except that freedom of worship will still exist. Beyond that I have nobe idea. I do trust him to rule justly.

Hello. Per Your quote...every knee shall bow...when the Messianic Kingdom is established on earth, does this mean that every one will accept LDS teaching? Along the same lines...is it possible for universal telestial recognition of the Gospel and Agency to exist side-by-side in that time...to my thinking that would be contradictory but perhaps there is a way to explain it?

 

The reason i ask is because in Jewish thought no-one will be allowed to become Jewish right before and  AFTER the Messiah comes...that would be considered opportunistic. Nevertheless, the righteous of all nations will continue to dwell on earth. The only stipulation for being righteous is to follow the Noahide Laws.

 

So if everyone does not accept the Gospel but they are compelled to accept Jesus' authority, would there be rules which the non-acceptors would be required to follow...what would those rules be... Even if these are not currently codified a la NL's, perhaps folks have some kind of list rolling around in there head, e.g. universal modest dress, no alcohol except in non-LDS faith traditions where it  plays a role etc.

[JAHS]

1) I think you're conflating my presentation on Rabbinic Judaism's view on the law with how I view laws and commandments in Latter-day Saint doctrine. That was not my intention. I was merely giving a background on the Noahide Laws, and area that I've crossed in my academic studies.

 

2) No, I'm not trying to play a game of who gets in to heaven. Instead, I'm actually looking closer at us Latter-day Saints. Which laws, revelations, and the such do we believe are only obligatory on us as a people?

 

3) This is a board which analyzes doctrine. So....why not analyze the applicability of it? I'm not talking about judgement, about what you personally have to do or not do to get into heaven. The point of this exercise is to get us beyond universalizing all of our scripture, laws, and prophecies.

 

For example, Valentinus raised a point in another thread that he contends that Latter-day Saint marriage doctrine is only authoritative for Latter-day Saints who have taken on those views and covenants. I want to discuss that point. Is the Family Proclamation relevant only for Latter-day Saints? The whole world? Is the Law of Chastity/Word of Wisdom/Tithing/Sabbath day something the only concerns members, or are they relevant for the whole world?

I would say in God's eyes they are all relevant for the whole world; He wants everyone to be in his kingdom. However he gives man their agency to choose to accept it or not.  As far as members of the church are concerned, we have made promises to live the laws and doctrines of the church and we should not judge others who have not made the same promises. 

The Proclamation on the family was addressed to the whole world and is therefore relevant to the whole world as well as all other laws God has given through his prophets. If the world does not want to accept them that is their choice and they will receive a level of salvation comparable to what they have accepted.

[The Nehor]

I'm not so sure about this. Given how His first coming happened, if Christ comes again, He will probably have a number of followers in leadership who do not fit the general expectation. Also, it seems much of his following was not viewed very highly in Jewish circles. I doubt a majority, or perhaps not even a minority, of His self-stated "followers" will be in the group who support him before every knee bows. His followers will be those who live their lives properly and not necessarily those who are members of any specific denomination.

 

Of course when he came to the Jews they were in a state of general apostasy from leadership down. A more analogous example would be Christ visiting the Nephites where he first purged the bulk of the wicked via natural disasters and then showed up and organized his leadership out of the existing prophets. Don't think your comparison holds up.

[The Nehor]

Hello. Per Your quote...every knee shall bow...when the Messianic Kingdom is established on earth, does this mean that every one will accept LDS teaching? Along the same lines...is it possible for universal telestial recognition of the Gospel and Agency to exist side-by-side in that time...to my thinking that would be contradictory but perhaps there is a way to explain it?

 

No, in fact Joseph Smith taught that some would still follow other faiths even after Christ has returned. I don't know how long that condition will persist but it will happen. It is not really logically consistent to acknowledge Jesus as King of the earth and Jesus accepting the LDS church as his kingdom and still be a Baptist or a Catholic or a Muslim but the human race has continually demonstrated its ability to hold contradictory beliefs in the face of all reason so I see not reason why that should change when the Savior returns.

 

The reason i ask is because in Jewish thought no-one will be allowed to become Jewish right before and  AFTER the Messiah comes...that would be considered opportunistic. Nevertheless, the righteous of all nations will continue to dwell on earth. The only stipulation for being righteous is to follow the Noahide Laws.

 

I don't think God minds opportunistic conversion. God seems to have little regard for his own dignity. He accepts people who come to him out of a desire to escape hell or because he is their last option after every other door is closed or for other ignoble reasons. In scripture God portrays himself as a cuckold constantly forgiving his wife who runs after adulterous lovers and forgives her when she returns from her abusers. I believe in death bed repentance if it is sincere and strong enough to change someone. The moral reprobate may die seeking forgiveness but God will see if it sticks when he gets to the other side and is given whatever their equivalents to a calling and a home teaching list are.

 

Those who abide a Terrestrial law will survive the Lord's Coming. Adherence to the LDS faith is not a requirement to live that law.

 

So if everyone does not accept the Gospel but they are compelled to accept Jesus' authority, would there be rules which the non-acceptors would be required to follow...what would those rules be... Even if these are not currently codified a la NL's, perhaps folks have some kind of list rolling around in there head, e.g. universal modest dress, no alcohol except in non-LDS faith traditions where it  plays a role etc.

 

No idea. I trust the Savior to get it right but I wouldn't presume to anticipate him as if I know his mind.

[halconero]

I would say in God's eyes they are all relevant for the whole world; He wants everyone to be in his kingdom. However he gives man their agency to choose to accept it or not.  As far as members of the church are concerned, we have made promises to live the laws and doctrines of the church and we should not judge others who have not made the same promises. 

The Proclamation on the family was addressed to the whole world and is therefore relevant to the whole world as well as all other laws God has given through his prophets. If the world does not want to accept them that is their choice and they will receive a level of salvation comparable to what they have accepted.

 

Perhaps it's a fault of me phrasing it wrong, but I think I'm talking about authoritativeness vs. relevancy. This perhaps will answer Hillel's questions about the establishment of the political Zion.

 

We acknowledge in the Gospel Principle's manual that not everyone remaining on the earth following the Saviour's coming will be members of his church, but they will be citizens of his kingdom. They are not necessarily under commandment to obey certain laws until after baptism into the covenant, but they will have to obey certain political laws following the abolishment of every world nation-state.

 

We might call theses Zion laws the Mormon equivalent of the Noahide laws. Commandments authoritative, revealed, and given to all of humanity. Yes, of course God invites all and commands all to come unto his church and be baptized, and then follows things like the Word of Wisdom and Tithing. But remembers, those proceed the covenant, not precede it.

[VideoGameJunkie]

I had to give up a great job opportunity because they were forcing me to work Sundays and I wanted to keep the Sabbath Day holy. No job, but at least I kept covenants.

[Hillel2]

Perhaps it's a fault of me phrasing it wrong, but I think I'm talking about authoritativeness vs. relevancy. This perhaps will answer Hillel's questions about the establishment of the political Zion.

 

We acknowledge in the Gospel Principle's manual that not everyone remaining on the earth following the Saviour's coming will be members of his church, but they will be citizens of his kingdom. They are not necessarily under commandment to obey certain laws until after baptism into the covenant, but they will have to obey certain political laws following the abolishment of every world nation-state.

 

We might call theses Zion laws the Mormon equivalent of the Noahide laws. Commandments authoritative, revealed, and given to all of humanity. Yes, of course God invites all and commands all to come unto his church and be baptized, and then follows things like the Word of Wisdom and Tithing. But remembers, those proceed the covenant, not precede it.

Thank You to both Nehor and Halconero...You pretty much answered MY questions. I even had the term "Zion laws" in my head as a kind of equivalent. I'd still love to know what those laws might be but i can accept the notion that we won't know until we get there and a higher authority informs us. I have often been asked by Christians what Jews expect the Messianic age to look like. We have certain "definites" but the bottom line is we don't know.

 

I am inclined to think we need to live our lives with a certain amount of integrity or death bed conversions won't do us much good. However, I thought Nehor's notion G-d accepting opportunists was interesting and YES there is scripture there to back that up. I would also suppose that death bed conversions are ok inasmuch as one has the opportunity to make progress after death. I cannot understand the Protestant notion that death bed conversions can have much validity but that is MY mindset.

[Jacob]

Of course when he came to the Jews they were in a state of general apostasy from leadership down. A more analogous example would be Christ visiting the Nephites where he first purged the bulk of the wicked via natural disasters and then showed up and organized his leadership out of the existing prophets. Don't think your comparison holds up.

I don't believe they were in Apostasy. I believe that they had gone beyond the law and had a mistaken sense of their personal value compared to others within the Church as well as general mankind. They had made, or interpreted, laws and they were using these to judge others even though God had not stated these things. Tradition being viewed just as important as the law. The scholars holding more weight with the church membership than the priests. Similar to LDS judgement on people with tattoos, extra earrings, etc. Those who judge others based in LDS laws that those individuals are not expected to live. The LDS appear very similar to me.

[The Nehor]

I don't believe they were in Apostasy. I believe that they had gone beyond the law and had a mistaken sense of their personal value compared to others within the Church as well as general mankind. They had made, or interpreted, laws and they were using these to judge others even though God had not stated these things. Tradition being viewed just as important as the law. The scholars holding more weight with the church membership than the priests. Similar to LDS judgement on people with tattoos, extra earrings, etc. Those who judge others based in LDS laws that those individuals are not expected to live. The LDS appear very similar to me.

You have a weird view of 1st Century Judaism if you think their problems were comparable to counsel to avoid body markings and piercings. I have also never seen this horrific judgmentalism you seem to imagine we have.

I have been involved in missionary work for the past 5 years and have not seen this harsh condemnation despite many with multiple earring and/or tattoos coming. The bulk of those who whine about this are those who want to smear the church. Few have any actual experience with this supposedly widespread shunning.

Edited September 3, 2015 by The Nehor

[Jacob]

You have a weird view of 1st Century Judaism if you think their problems were comparable to counsel to avoid body markings and piercings. I have also never seen this horrific judgmentalism you seem to imagine we have.

I have been involved in missionary work for the past 5 years and have not seen this harsh condemnation despite many with multiple earring and/or tattoos coming. The bulk of those who whine about this are those who want to smear the church. Few have any actual experience with this supposedly widespread shunning.

It was my experience personally and my wife's. We have tattoos, my partner was not allowed to stand with her son when he received an award in the cub scouts. The explanation given her by the bishop is that the children did not need to have her stand in front of the children showing a tattoo and wearing a sleeveless shirt. She is, and was, not LDS. I have received constant criticism over my entire life due to my skating as a profession in my late teens and early 20's. I was told that I was not a good role model because my hair was long and many skaters were doing drugs, had tattoos and were generally viewed as disreputable. I have a beard now, I was told that a beard was not appropriate and that I would be unable to hold a position of authority because of this. I am not LDS and have not been in quite a long time. I had a neighbor who does not know I was ever LDS tell me that because I drank coffee I would not go to Heaven. My son was told by a friend's mother that her son could not associate with him because we are not LDS. My son is LDS and goes to church when he can, I support him. We threw a BBQ for our neighborhood. One of the neighbors told my wife that they, and the rest of the LDS neighbors, would not come because we drink alcohol. My wife told her that we were not planning on having alcohol present because we knew our neighbors were LDS. The woman said that it didn't matter. We approached the local bishopric asking to be invited to events for families in the area so that our children could get to know children in the area we moved to. The ward threw a family activity two weeks later at the park next to our house, we weren't invited. I am being sensitive now, but I feel it is warranted. The behavior I have personally experienced appears much the same as what I perceive the behavior of the Jews in the New Testament to be portrayed.

 

All of this being said, I also have many very warm and welcoming LDS friends and have lived in wards that were inviting. That being said, the element is present and is strong in some areas. I don't believe that the presence of this type of behavior was necessarily prevalent in the NT time, but it was present and the examples in the NT are probably extreme and used to provide a teaching moment. I believe that it was probably similar to the LDS people now. Good LDS people are very good, the other end of the spectrum seems to be very bad.

[The Nehor]

It was my experience personally and my wife's. We have tattoos, my partner was not allowed to stand with her son when he received an award in the cub scouts. The explanation given her by the bishop is that the children did not need to have her stand in front of the children showing a tattoo and wearing a sleeveless shirt. She is, and was, not LDS. I have received constant criticism over my entire life due to my skating as a profession in my late teens and early 20's. I was told that I was not a good role model because my hair was long and many skaters were doing drugs, had tattoos and were generally viewed as disreputable. I have a beard now, I was told that a beard was not appropriate and that I would be unable to hold a position of authority because of this. I am not LDS and have not been in quite a long time. I had a neighbor who does not know I was ever LDS tell me that because I drank coffee I would not go to Heaven. My son was told by a friend's mother that her son could not associate with him because we are not LDS. My son is LDS and goes to church when he can, I support him. We threw a BBQ for our neighborhood. One of the neighbors told my wife that they, and the rest of the LDS neighbors, would not come because we drink alcohol. My wife told her that we were not planning on having alcohol present because we knew our neighbors were LDS. The woman said that it didn't matter. We approached the local bishopric asking to be invited to events for families in the area so that our children could get to know children in the area we moved to. The ward threw a family activity two weeks later at the park next to our house, we weren't invited. I am being sensitive now, but I feel it is warranted. The behavior I have personally experienced appears much the same as what I perceive the behavior of the Jews in the New Testament to be portrayed.

 

All of this being said, I also have many very warm and welcoming LDS friends and have lived in wards that were inviting. That being said, the element is present and is strong in some areas. I don't believe that the presence of this type of behavior was necessarily prevalent in the NT time, but it was present and the examples in the NT are probably extreme and used to provide a teaching moment. I believe that it was probably similar to the LDS people now. Good LDS people are very good, the other end of the spectrum seems to be very bad.

I would ask if you are my cousin but his son is not old enough to be a Cub Scout.

[Jacob]

I would ask if you are my cousin but his son is not old enough to be a Cub Scout.

Lol, My oldest is working on his degree, so probably not me ;-)

[Stargazer]

Laws all people of the earth should live:

 

13. Don't take the last cookie

 

This is going to leave a lot of stale cookies lying about.

[JAHS]

This is going to leave a lot of stale cookies lying about.

OK. Just wait till no one is watching. 

[pogi]

The only law that I view as applicable to all is this:  Do not violate the dictates of your own conscience.  

[pogi]

cialis 20 mg street value registered users

http://cialis-withoutadoctorprescription.net">cialis without prescription

</a> - cialis dosage 30 mg yabb

buy cialis online you cannot delete your posts in this forum

 

And remember, if you experience an erection for 4 hours or more, call your doctor!

[The Nehor]

The only law that I view as applicable to all is this:  Do not violate the dictates of your own conscience.  

 

What if your conscience is a moral reprobate?

[volgadon]

On ‎02‎/‎09‎/‎2015 at 9:23 PM, Russell C McGregor said:

So from that it would seem that Muslims living in Israel, who abide the precepts of their religion and don't engage in violent acts, are okay?

 

 

 

The first Ashkenazi Chief Rabbi of Israel ruled that Muslims and Christias are Noahides, that they are gerim toshavim (resident strangers in the biblical parlance), and thus deservingof equal rights.

[salgare]

On 9/22/2015 at 6:21 PM, pogi said:

The only law that I view as applicable to all is this:  Do not violate the dictates of your own conscience.  

The atheist argument on morality is a pretty strong one.  In this thread we see examples of different intelligences, some considered supernatural and the likes of pogi's simply human conscience being the source of morality.

You've got to love that Seven Laws of Noah easy as it looks.  However I'd suggest that it lacks things a human conscience would flinch at.  I don't know if being lacking classifies it as immoral, but it certainly leaves the conscience with a higher morality than the God given one.

Lets take the Ten Commandments.  Once again a list, for the most part, of serious sins leaving many holes that ones own conscience is left to fill in.  Once again leaving the conscience of humans with a higher morality than the God given one.

When we get into the Bible and find a God that commands his people to break even the Ten Commandments and Noahide law (genocides, bashing babies heads on the rocks, slavery etc.) the healthy conscience would scream out.

And then we move into an area that volgadon introduced me to the other day, namely particularism.  If I understood him correctly the 613 Mitzvot of the Jewish tradition would be an example of this.  Now I don't know those 613 commandments, I have not looked at them for years.  However I suspect that close analysis of that list might have items which are offensive to the human conscience.

Taking a different particularism, Mormonism there definitely are teachings that are offensive to the "Natural Man's" conscience.  With a religious requirement to ignore ones own conscience to follow a tenuous morality already exhibited in that God.

What becomes scary is when our conscience becomes numb to obviously immoral behaviors.  And what is crazier yet is we become biased and blind to our own particular flavor of God given morality, and yet can so readily see it in other peoples flavor of God given morality.

 

Edited January 7, 2016 by salgare