Taking a break from Church.

[Tacenda]

11 minutes ago, Calm said:

If you are playing at it, performing for others, you are looking at it in the wrong way.  Of course that would be difficult, like driving down a one way street the wrong way.

Performing as in, trying to fit in. Trying too hard to please, to have others in the ward like me. It's not easy, haha.

Edited June 17, 2022 by Tacenda

[MustardSeed]

21 hours ago, smac97 said:

Okay.  I can't get on board with the idea that premeditated and calculated disobedience to what are fairly basic commandments is preferable to obedience, even if it is more out of a sense of obligation than love.  I've been a father for 24 years now.  I can't imagine "taking a {premeditated and deliberate} break" from my obligations to my children.  If I need "healing," I need to find it in ways other than abandoning obligations to them

Several of my people who are (taking a break) or who have left are still committed to God, and are following their consciences and doing what they believe IS right.  They have their reasons to believe that our church is misguided. 
They are doing what they deeply feel is correct and what God wants for them.  I would never want anyone I love to do otherwise so I try to be respectful. 
 

As for covenants, my people all feel their covenants were made under false precepts.  Most do not live lascivious lives.  Most of the finest humans I know drink wine coffee and or tea.  I don’t see that as sinful if one is not presently committed to our church- the word of wisdom is so symbolic to me (I’ve never tasted any and likely never will) - I would hope a committed Jew or Seventh day would *never ever* touch pork but I’m gonna chow on a pulled pork sandwich any day I’m handed one  and feel pretty good about it  - and would offer the same absence of judgement to an ex Jew or Seveth day.  
In fact my friend “is” a resigned seventh day Adventist and I don’t resent her for her love of bacon.  She simply disagreed with the church, but still loves God and prays constantly.  I don’t think it’s on us to judge anyones path. 

Thank goodness. 

[Calm]

26 minutes ago, MustardSeed said:

In fact my friend “is” a resigned seventh day Adventist and I don’t resent her for her love of bacon.  She simply disagreed with the church, but still loves God and prays constantly.  I don’t think it’s on us to judge anyones path. 

When someone joins the Church and stops living the covenants that they made before, members don’t condemn them for that. I don’t see why some use a different standard for our own faith when they find it so easy to understand and accept when someone is heading into the Church rather than stepping out; they even admire those who choose the Church even after committing their life to another faith (think Catholic priest joining the Restored Church), breaking covenants as meaningful to their former community as any of our covenants are to us.
 

What matters to someone making a decision should be their own belief, not others’. It makes no sense to keep a covenant if you don’t see any meaning in it. It is a empty gesture in that case.

Edited June 17, 2022 by Calm

[MustardSeed]

32 minutes ago, Calm said:

It makes no sense to keep a covenant if you don’t see any meaning in it. It is a empty gesture in that case.

I agree with all, and will add this- i covenanted long ago to not drink coffee-,not sure I believe the way I believed when I made that promise.  I no longer think coffee is satans beverage. But I do keep the covenant because of my duty to the organization- I feel an obligation to follow that rule. To be a team player.  Right or wrong, it’s how I do it. I’m not sure it’s empty, but maybe it is. 

Edited June 17, 2022 by MustardSeed

[HappyJackWagon]

30 minutes ago, MustardSeed said:

Several of my people who are (taking a break) or who have left are still committed to God, and are following their consciences and doing what they believe IS right.  They have their reasons to believe that our church is misguided. 
They are doing what they deeply feel is correct and what God wants for them.  I would never want anyone I love to do otherwise so I try to be respectful. 
 

As for covenants, my people all feel their covenants were made under false precepts.  Most do not live lascivious lives.  Most of the finest humans I know drink wine coffee and or tea.  I don’t see that as sinful if one is not presently committed to our church- the word of wisdom is so symbolic to me (I’ve never tasted any and likely never will) - I would hope a committed Jew or Seventh day would *never ever* touch pork but I’m gonna chow on a pulled pork sandwich any day I’m handed one  and feel pretty good about it  - and would offer the same absence of judgement to an ex Jew or Seveth day.  
In fact my friend “is” a resigned seventh day Adventist and I don’t resent her for her love of bacon.  She simply disagreed with the church, but still loves God and prays constantly.  I don’t think it’s on us to judge anyones path. 

Thank goodness. 

Taken a step farther, some may even feel that some of the covenants have already been broken by the church.

Now, it may be argued that the covenant is between the person and God, not the person and the church. And there is truth to that, BUT what I have noticed is that those who only feel betrayed by the church, as opposed to feeling betrayed by God, are still able to find a spiritual home outside of the church. Those who feel betrayed by God are often done with God altogether.

[MustardSeed]

5 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

those who only feel betrayed by the church, as opposed to feeling betrayed by God, are still able to find a spiritual home outside of the church. Those who feel betrayed by God are often done with God altogether.

.Yes I see that as well. In my experience, I noticed that those who are angry with God don’t stop believing and often times do keep a lot of their covenants. It’s often those who are jarred by life‘s events who questioned the existence of God who are done with God all together.

[Calm]

1 hour ago, MustardSeed said:

I agree with all, and will add this- i covenanted long ago to not drink coffee-,not sure I believe the way I believed when I made that promise.  I no longer think coffee is satans beverage. But I do keep the covenant because of my duty to the organization- I feel an obligation to follow that rule. To be a team player.  Right or wrong, it’s how I do it. I’m not sure it’s empty, but maybe it is. 

If you are still committed to the organization, of course it isn’t empty.  I think one of the reasons it was given was to set us apart as a community by having a shared experience that was different than many not in the community, similar to wearing team colors, wearing a cross or CTR ring.  There is more to it than that and there can be pretty non trivial community markers, so I hope no one sees me as trivializing the WoW by using team colors as a comparison as it is simply an easily understood example, imo.

Edited June 17, 2022 by Calm

[The Nehor]

3 hours ago, bluebell said:

This post reminded me of a quote from Elder Christofferson's GC talk from last April.  In it he said:

"Our Father is willing to guide each of us along His covenant path with steps designed to our individual need and tailored to His plan for our ultimate happiness with Him."

These kinds of quotes I find so depressing. It doesn’t ever work like that for me.

[Tacenda]

9 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

These kinds of quotes I find so depressing. It doesn’t ever work like that for me.

Yes, probably not for most people, we don't dare say it out loud, how God is silent. Not saying you said this, it's just how I read it. 

[smac97]

1 hour ago, MustardSeed said:

Several of my people who are (taking a break) or who have left are still committed to God, and are following their consciences and doing what they believe IS right.  

I acknowledge that.  My point pertains more to the incompatibility of "taking a break" while still believing the Church is what it claims to be (or claiming to so believe).  

1 hour ago, MustardSeed said:

They have their reasons to believe that our church is misguided. 

Not sure what "misguided" means in this context.

1 hour ago, MustardSeed said:

They are doing what they deeply feel is correct and what God wants for them.  

I readily acknowledge that there are such folks about.  And in the absence of stewardship or authority, I remain silent as to any particular person's circumstances and choices.

The abstraction, though, remains.  I have a hard time envisioning a circumstance in which God commands or - as you put - "wants" someone to deliberately and premeditatively "take a break" from keeping His commandments.

1 hour ago, MustardSeed said:

I would never want anyone I love to do otherwise so I try to be respectful. 

Same here.

1 hour ago, MustardSeed said:

As for covenants, my people all feel their covenants were made under false precepts.

Folks in such circumstances aren't taking a "have your cake and eat it too" approach.  They are straight up rejecting the Restored Gospel and the Church that houses it.  That sort of thing has been happening since time out of mind.  But the circumstance I am addressing is the notion that someone can continue to claim some fealty to the Restored Gospel, while also claiming that God has commanded them, or wants them, to "take a break" from the covenants they have made.

1 hour ago, MustardSeed said:

Most do not live lascivious lives.  Most of the finest humans I know drink wine coffee and or tea.  I don’t see that as sinful if one is not presently committed to our church- the word of wisdom is so symbolic to me (I’ve never tasted any and likely never will) - I would hope a committed Jew or Seventh day would *never ever* touch pork but I’m gonna chow on a pulled pork sandwich any day I’m handed one  and feel pretty good about it  - and would offer the same absence of judgement to an ex Jew or Seveth day.  

I agree with you.  The Restored Gospel only works if you have faith that it is what it claims to be.  If an individual's faith falters or dies, such that the individual no longer accepts the truth claims of the Restored Gospel, then breaking covenants that were - in the eyes of the individual - void ab initio is an understandable thing.

My point, however, pertains to people who in some sense still believe in the Restored Gospel, and in the vitality of those covenants, but then claim that God has commanded or wants them to "take a break" from those covenants.

Thanks,

-Smac

[Calm]

39 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

These kinds of quotes I find so depressing. It doesn’t ever work like that for me.

Yes, it sounds like it is maximized for our own individual, unique benefit rather than what is likely the reality of the greatest benefit all around with individual shortcomings in the Plan being made up after death by the Atonement.  It just doesn’t make logical sense that God could both allow agency and yet minutely control the elements in everyone’s life to maximize their progress and the progress of everyone around them, rippling out throughout the earth for all time.  There will instead imo, be those who have to sacrifice or rather get sacrificed, get less than they need, so that others get the benefit that moves a community in general to a better place.  Definitely not fair if we just looked at mortality, but that’s not the whole picture.  
 

My guess is Laban getting beheaded wasn’t the best possible thing for his own personal progression, but it was good enough and Spirit Prison, which was likely his destination, would provide whatever he needed, even if it might take longer to penetrate than, say, a personal visit from Christ with Christ walking Laban through the all the consequences of his evil ways and showing him what he could be if he repented.  The scripture more or less makes it clear that there is a balancing act going on, not that Laban getting chopped was what he personally needed.  It was simple acceptable because the cost would have been too high for too many other people for him to survive and prevent at the very least the brass plates from going with Lehi, if not the entire expedition to the Americas (assuming the Lehites actually ended up there).

No one will ever convince me a baby suffering extraordinary pain from illness or being anyone being tortured or raped was the best thing that could happen to them and God set their lives up so those horrors could happen to them.

Edited June 17, 2022 by Calm

[manol]

1 hour ago, Tacenda said:

... we don't dare say it out loud, how God is silent. Not saying you said this, it's just how I read it. 

In my opinion God is not silent, but we may have to widen our search radius.

Edited June 17, 2022 by manol

[Calm]

Just now, manol said:

In my opinion God is not silent, but we do have to widen our search radius.

Sometimes it’s breadcrumbs instead of the still, small voice in my experience.

[filovirus]

4 hours ago, CA Steve said:

Our lives are filled with decisions that we look back on and know that we would have made differently. I went though the temple for the first time at 19. I am not the same person 40 years later nor do I view God the same way as I did at 19. When we marry in the temple we covenant to be together forever. Should temple divorce not be allowed? People change. As LDS, we are mortal beings making eternal promises we simply do not comprehend.

Again, it's the people who change, or want to break the covenants they have made with the person they have married and with God. God will always hold fast to his portion of the covenant. Will God advise divorce? Yes, but only after covenants have been broken by one or both spouses by abuse, neglect, unrighteous dominion, etc, or just one spouse falling out of love with the other and wanting it broken.

[smac97]

8 hours ago, Ipod Touch said:

Exceptions prove the rule.  So the fact that there are those for whom the "standard" Gospel plan doesn't "work", proves the general rule that adherence to covenants and working to resolve internal or external conflicts is generally the most appropriate and effective response.  But exceptions exist. 

I'm trying to formulate a hypothetical circumstance in which such "exceptions exist."  I can't think of one.  Deliberate and premeditated breaking of covenants?  As something God wants us to do?  Commands us to do?

8 hours ago, Ipod Touch said:

There are others who our Heavenly Father may have a different path. 

A "different path" from the covenants we have made?  From obedience to the commandments He has given us?

I just can't go along with that.  Several years ago Denver Snuffer said something similar:

Quote

Okay, I've given Bro. Snuffer's most recent post a solid read.  In the main, it is saddening.  A few thoughts (">" denotes quotes from his post):

> The church must act in accordance with one law, and I must act in accordance with another for the purposes of the Lord to be fulfilled.

 

==This is troubling.  I do not think the Lord operates this way.  I do not think He commands the leaders to obey one set of laws and then commands individual members of the Church to act crosswise to those laws.  God's house is a house of order.  This would be like me telling one of my children to obey the Law of Chastity but then telling another to violate it.  It just does not compute for me.

 

==I am also reminded of similar remarks made by Richard Dutcher when he was exiting the Church a few years back.  Specifically, he said "The past few years have been very difficult for me. I’ve been trying to continue my journey toward God while carrying a boat on my back. I hope no one will take offense at this metaphor. I’m not saying that all of us have to leave the boat of Mormonism behind. Many of you will arrive Home in these boats, I’m sure. But, for some unknown reason, our mutual Father in Heaven requires that I take another route."  Uh . . . no.  I don't think God works this way.  (Another brief observation: Elsewhere in his parting letter, Mr. Dutcher extols the virtues of "really expensive Irish beer" and Lapsang Souchong tea.  I suppose God gave him his own unique Word of Wisdom.  Convenient, that.)

 

==This sort of special pleading and justification coming from a person who is exiting the Church gives me some serious pause.  This pause relates to the person exiting, not the Church.  This pause is in response to the sentiment reflected above, which essentially consists of A) publishing statements to the world which B) aggrandize the exiting individual while C) trying to make the Church look bad and D) excuse the exiting individual from observance of the commandments and E) instead explains that God has given the exiting individual a unique / different / better / higher path to proceed on rather than staying in the Church.

 

==Well, I don't buy it.  I don't think God operates that way.

To be sure, there are all sorts of circumstances in which God allows those under covenant to break the commandments.  That's an everyday kind of thing, hence the need for repentance, forgiveness, etc.  But the idea of God mandating the violation of His own commandments is difficult for me.

I am reminded of this quote attributed to Joseph Smith (emphases added) :

Quote

 Happiness is the object and design of our existence, and will be the end thereof, if we pursue the path that leads to it; and this path is virtue, uprightness, faithfulness, holiness, and keeping all the commandments of God; but we cannot keep all the commandments without first knowing them, and we cannot expect to know all, or more than we now know, unless we comply with or keep those we have already received! That which is wrong under one circumstance, may be, and often is, right under another. God said, ‘Thou shalt not kill’; at another time he said, ‘Thou shalt utterly destroy.’ This is the principle on which the government of heaven is conducted, by revelation adapted to the circumstances in which the children of the Kingdom are placed. Whatever God requires is right, no matter what it is, although we may not see the reason thereof till long after the events transpire. If we seek first the kingdom of God, all good things will be added.

I need to give this some thought.

8 hours ago, Ipod Touch said:

Having said that, I think faith brings all of us back to the same point eventually.  Agreement on intangible doctrine is likely impossible, but it also isn't necessary.  I think a good rule of thumb is for all of us to treat struggling members with great compassion and let God work out the rest. 

It becomes hard when the individual is engaging is destructive or immoral behavior and claims it as something God wants them to do.  I think this is more likely to be a rationalization/justification than a genuine mandate from the Lord..

8 hours ago, Ipod Touch said:

There is no reason for us to assume a "judgemental" role.  Only God is omnipotent and only God is capable of judging path and behavior.

Well, no.  We are called upon to "judge" things all the time.  This article does a really good job at summarizing what I think is a correct understanding of the Lord's teaching: 

How Do We “Judge Righteous Judgment”?

A few key bits (emphases added) :

Quote

Have you ever been in a situation where somebody tried to correct another person by saying, “Judge not, that ye be not judged”? (Matthew 7:1). Few of Jesus’s teachings are more widely known than this one. Unfortunately, this phrase is not always correctly understood or applied. Our ability to benefit from this command will increase as we examine how Jesus Christ used it in His teachings and how His prophets have reiterated it through time.

Let’s begin by looking at how the Savior used this “judge not” phrase. Preceding this command are the first two chapters of His Sermon on the Mount (see Matthew 5–6). This sermon is filled with commands that set the bar of discipleship very high—so high, in fact, that nobody can succeed without the merciful help of the Lord. As we learn in those chapters, it is no longer enough for His followers to refrain from killing or committing adultery or to love only those who love us; it is now required to not get angry, not allow immoral thoughts to linger, and to love our enemies (see Matthew 5:13–47). Ultimately, true followers of Christ are to be “perfect, even as [their] Father which is in heaven is perfect” (Matthew 5:48). This includes praying, fasting secretly rather than publicly, and giving charitable gifts.

Immediately following these higher-law teachings, Jesus commanded, “Judge not, that ye be not judged.” Jesus understood that as disciples strive to live the principles and commandments taught in Matthew 5 and 6, it is easy to fall into the trap of noticing where others may be falling short of those ideals. Jesus continued, “For with what judgment ye judge, ye shall be judged” (Matthew 7:2). To drive this point further, Jesus clarified, “And why beholdest thou the mote that is in thy brother’s eye, but considerest not the beam that is in thine own eye?” (Matthew 7:3). He was clearly teaching that our ability to judge imperfections in others is nearly impossible because of the large construction-sized beams of imperfection blinding our own vision. Additionally, we do not understand all the surrounding issues, struggles, and circumstances that result in motes and beams in others’ eyes.

The Lord, however, knows everything and is therefore the only one who can see clearly and judge perfectly. In His wisdom and mercy, the Lord withholds His judgment and does not immediately condemn us for our failings. He continues to work with us through the process of time to “cast out the beam out of [our] own eye” so we can “see clearly” (Matthew 7:5).
...
In the Joseph Smith Translation of Matthew 7, we read, “Judge not unrighteously, that ye be not judged; but judge righteous judgment” (Joseph Smith Translation, Matthew 7:2 [in Matthew 7:1, footnote a]). Joseph Smith made some of his changes to the biblical text not to reflect what was originally said or written but to give prophetic interpretation and help clarify the meaning of certain passages. That seems to be the case with the changes here, based on what other scriptures (3 Nephi 14:1, for example) and modern prophets have said about judging. According to Joseph Smith’s addition to this passage in Matthew, Jesus is not telling us never to judge. He is commanding us to make sure the judgments we make are righteous.
...
Before being called to the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles in 1984, President Dallin H. Oaks, now First Counselor in the First Presidency, was a supreme court judge in the state of Utah. In 1998 he delivered a clarifying talk on the subject of judging. He said, “I have been puzzled that some scriptures command us not to judge and others instruct us that we should judge and even tell us how to do it.” He suggested that there is no contradiction between these scriptures if we “understand that there are two kinds of judging: final judgments, which we are forbidden to make, and intermediate judgments, which we are directed to make, but upon righteous principles.” This life is not the time for final judgments; those are reserved for the next. Additionally, we are not the ones who will make those final judgments; they are reserved for the Lord. Instructively, Jesus Christ Himself withheld such final judgments from many whom He could have condemned (for example, see Matthew 27:11–35; Luke 23:8–11; John 4; 8:1–11; 13:18–30).
...

In a memorable general conference talk, Elder Dieter F. Uchtdorf of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles stated:

“This topic of judging others could actually be taught in a two-word sermon. When it comes to hating, gossiping, ignoring, ridiculing, holding grudges, or wanting to cause harm, please apply the following:

“Stop it!

“It’s that simple. We simply have to stop judging others and replace judgmental thoughts and feelings with a heart full of love for God and His children. God is our Father. We are His children. We are all brothers and sisters. I don’t know exactly how to articulate this point of not judging others with sufficient eloquence, passion, and persuasion to make it stick.”
...
Our own sins and lack of perfect understanding disqualify us from being able to pass final judgments on anyone, including ourselves. We must, however, make constant intermediate judgments. We are to righteously judge actions, not condemn people. When those judgments are based on principles of righteousness, our focus will more fully turn to the Lord Jesus Christ. We will increasingly rely on His perfect judgment, mercy, and grace rather than on mortal accomplishments or imperfections as a basis for judging God, ourselves, and those around us.

I think that's right.

Thanks,

-Smac

[The Nehor]

1 hour ago, Tacenda said:

Yes, probably not for most people, we don't dare say it out loud, how God is silent. Not saying you said this, it's just how I read it. 

God is not silent to me. Not at all. I probably have an easier time talking to God than most. I am more tired of a lot of the guidance going nowhere.

[Ipod Touch]

30 minutes ago, smac97 said:

I'm trying to formulate a hypothetical circumstance in which such "exceptions exist."  I can't think of one.  Deliberate and premeditated breaking of covenants?  As something God wants us to do?  Commands us to do?

I remember a story about David eating some bread or something like that.

[manol]

Bluebell wrote:

4 hours ago, bluebell said:

This post reminded me of a quote from Elder Christofferson's GC talk from last April.  In it he said:

"Our Father is willing to guide each of us along His covenant path with steps designed to our individual need and tailored to His plan for our ultimate happiness with Him."

To which The Nehor responded:

1 hour ago, The Nehor said:

These kinds of quotes I find so depressing. It doesn’t ever work like that for me.

Imo the concept that God is willing to guide each of us, according to our individual needs, and that his plan is for our ultimate happiness, is absolutely correct.

But the concept that the only channel through which God may instruct us is the LDS Church, the only valid path being the one it prescribes (as implied by Elder Christofferson's quote), is imo overly restrictive of what God may do, and is reminiscent of the Christian creeds which said that everything God had to say was already in the Bible, therefore legitimizing the rejection of revelation for nearly two millenia (and to this day in the vast majority of the Christian world).  After we were baptized, the first thing they did was give us the Gift of the Holy Ghost.  Why bother, if all we would ever have to do is "follow the brethren"?  Why give us this incredible gift for recognizing truth, if we're supposed to bind it with limitations and/or put it on a shelf?

"EVERY THING which inviteth to do good, and to persuade to believe in Christ, is sent forth by the power and gift of Christ; wherefore ye may know with a perfect knowledge it is of God." (Moroni 7:16)

"The first and fundamental principle of our holy religion is, that we believe that we have a right to embrace all and every item of truth, without limitation or without being circumscribed or prohibited by the creeds or superstitious notions of men, or by the dominations of one another, when that truth is clearly demonstrated to our minds, and we have the highest degree of evidence of the same.” (Joseph Smith)

 

Edited June 17, 2022 by manol

[smac97]

41 minutes ago, Ipod Touch said:

Quote

I'm trying to formulate a hypothetical circumstance in which such "exceptions exist."  I can't think of one.  Deliberate and premeditated breaking of covenants?  As something God wants us to do?  Commands us to do?

I remember a story about David eating some bread or something like that.

It looks like this goes back to the Joseph Smith quote I posted previously:

Quote

Happiness is the object and design of our existence, and will be the end thereof, if we pursue the path that leads to it; and this path is virtue, uprightness, faithfulness, holiness, and keeping all the commandments of God; but we cannot keep all the commandments without first knowing them, and we cannot expect to know all, or more than we now know, unless we comply with or keep those we have already received! That which is wrong under one circumstance, may be, and often is, right under another. God said, ‘Thou shalt not kill’; at another time he said, ‘Thou shalt utterly destroy.’ This is the principle on which the government of heaven is conducted, by revelation adapted to the circumstances in which the children of the Kingdom are placed. Whatever God requires is right, no matter what it is, although we may not see the reason thereof till long after the events transpire. If we seek first the kingdom of God, all good things will be added.

However, I'm not sure that David eating the shewbread was authorized or mandated.  You will note that just prior to taking the shewbread, David lies to the high priest (1 Sam. 21:2).  Was that authorized/mandated by God?

Moreover, in Matthew 12, in which Pharisees confront Jesus about His disciples gathering wheat on the Sabbath, Jesus responded by referencing the story of David eating the shewbrad, and that what he had done "was not lawful" (v. 4, see also Leviticus 24:5-9).  Jesus then declares that what His disciples had done was lawful (v. 7 - "But if ye had known what this meaneth, I will have mercy, and not sacrifice, ye would not have condemned the guiltless") (emphasis added).

In other words, I think Jesus was pointing out that the Pharisees were messed up.  They were preoccupied with their own traditions and interpretation of things, even to the point of venerating David and excusing/rationalizing his wrongful conduct (a clear contravention of the Mosaic Law), while at the same time relying on their traditions and (mis)interpretations of the law to condemn His disciples' behavior (which was to gather wheat to eat on the Sabbath), which was lawful.  See, e.g., this article:

Quote

The disciples were not permitted by Jesus to break the law on this occasion (or any other) just because it was convenient (cf. Matthew 5:17-19). The Pharisees simply were wrong in their accusations. The only “law” Jesus’ disciples broke was the Pharisaical interpretation of the law (which seems to have been more sacred to the Pharisees than the law itself). In response to such hyper-legalism, Burton Coffman forcefully stated:

In the Pharisees’ view, the disciples were guilty of threshing wheat! Such pedantry, nit-picking, and magnification of trifles would also have made them guilty of irrigating land, if they had chanced to knock off a few drops of dew while passing through the fields! The Pharisees were out to “get” Jesus; and any charge was better than none (1984, p. 165, emp. added).

Jesus used the instruction of 1 Samuel 21 to get the Pharisees to recognize their insincerity, and to justify His disciples. David, a man about whom the Jews ever boasted, blatantly violated God’s law by eating the showbread, and yet the Pharisees justified him. On the other hand, Jesus’ disciples merely plucked some grain on the Sabbath while walking through a field, an act that the law did not forbid, and yet the Pharisees condemned them. Had the Pharisees not approved of David’s conduct, they could have responded by saying, “You judge yourself. You’re all sinners.” Their reaction to Jesus’ question, however, was that of hypocrites who had been exposed—silence.

Jesus then asked a second question, saying, “Have you not read in the law that on the Sabbath the priests in the temple profane the Sabbath, and are blameless?” (Matthew 12:5). Here, Jesus wanted the Pharisees to acknowledge that even the law itself condoned some work on the Sabbath day. Although the Pharisees acted as if all work was banned on this day, it was actually the busiest day of the week for priests.

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited June 17, 2022 by smac97

[CA Steve]

1 hour ago, filovirus said:

Again, it's the people who change, or want to break the covenants they have made with the person they have married and with God. God will always hold fast to his portion of the covenant. Will God advise divorce? Yes, but only after covenants have been broken by one or both spouses by abuse, neglect, unrighteous dominion, etc, or just one spouse falling out of love with the other and wanting it broken.

Yep, when I didn't marry my 2nd grade sweetheart it was because of abuse.

 

 

[Ipod Touch]

20 minutes ago, smac97 said:

However, I'm not sure that David eating the shewbread was authorized or mandated. 

Jesus clearly approved, no? Or at least realized that God wasn't really too concerned about this violation of the law because it was the expedient thing to do.  So rather than focus on the strict rote obedience to law, try to understand that commandments are meant to draw us closer to God and that there may be times where variance may be acceptable.

Now, I do recognize a potential problem here.  It would be simple to begin excusing any type of behavior as a "necessary exception."  And so I wouldn't favor spreading this message far and wide.  Rather, these things can be discussed and considered privately with family and priesthood leaders.

[Ipod Touch]

28 minutes ago, smac97 said:

In other words, I think Jesus was pointing out that the Pharisees were messed up.

I think you are correct.  The accusation of the Pharisees were nonsense and not based in the actual law of Moses.  That's why I don't think the example of Jesus' disciples is a good example.

[smac97]

9 minutes ago, Ipod Touch said:

I think you are correct.  The accusation of the Pharisees were nonsense and not based in the actual law of Moses.  That's why I don't think the example of Jesus' disciples is a good example.

Okay.  So how does that affect your comment about David and the shewbread?  You seemed to be citing it as an example of God authorizing/commanding someone to break a commandment.

Thanks,

-Smac

[smac97]

2 hours ago, Ipod Touch said:

Jesus clearly approved, no?

Actually, no.  I don't think He did.  He pointed to it as an example of the Pharisees rationalizing/justifying clearly "unlawful" conduct (eating shewbread) while elsewhere condemning conduct that was not unlawful (gathering wheat).

2 hours ago, Ipod Touch said:

Or at least realized that God wasn't really too concerned about this violation of the law because it was the expedient thing to do. 

I'm not sure that's a reasonable inference.

2 hours ago, Ipod Touch said:

So rather than focus on the strict rote obedience to law, try to understand that commandments are meant to draw us closer to God and that there may be times where variance may be acceptable.

David and the shewbread does not seem a good evidentiary basis for this proposition.

2 hours ago, Ipod Touch said:

Now, I do recognize a potential problem here.  It would be simple to begin excusing any type of behavior as a "necessary exception." 

Yes, that is a reasonable concern/observation.

2 hours ago, Ipod Touch said:

And so I wouldn't favor spreading this message far and wide.  Rather, these things can be discussed and considered privately with family and priesthood leaders.

Fair enough.  Priesthood leaders sometimes impose restrictions on rights and blessings enjoyed by Church members.  I find that to be materially distinguishable from a member voluntarily and deliberately and premeditatively choosing to "take a break" from the covenants and commandments by which such rights and blessings accrue.

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited June 17, 2022 by smac97

[Ipod Touch]

17 minutes ago, smac97 said:

You seemed to be citing it as an example of God authorizing/commanding someone to break a commandment.

I wouldn't use the word authorizing/commanding.  But rather something akin to kids with a curfew.  I want my son home by midnight on weekends.  But there have been times where he's come later than that, but there were reasons for it.  As a dad, I'm not going to be mad at or implement consequences for my son for being late.  I didn't "authorize" it, but I'm not upset by it either.  I'm also not going to change the general curfew rule.