Jump to content
Seriously No Politics ×

Shunning Former Members


Recommended Posts

11 minutes ago, Grug the Neanderthal said:

But Jesus didn’t say to only cut off the sin and not your brother. Jesus specifically said to cut your brother off so that you aren’t thrown into hell along with your brother. 

This gives me pause on if they really came from Jesus....

https://www.quora.com/Why-do-modern-Bible-versions-leave-out-Mark-9-44

Were Mark 9:44 and 9:46 removed from modern Bibles?

Modern translators are sometimes accused of having "deleted" or "removed" Mark 9:44 and 9:46 from the Bible. While it is true that both of those verses are not present in many modern translations (at least in the main body of the text), that kind of language assumes up front that these verses must be a genuine part of Mark's original work. Most scholars today, however, point out that these verses are not present in the earliest manuscripts we possess. Far from deleting the verses, these scholars claim the verses were added by later scribes. They were not a part of what Mark originally wrote. The question, then, isn't "why did modern translators delete the verses," but rather, "were these verses a part of the original gospel that Mark wrote in the first century?" Translators differ on their answers to this question. Thus, we must go to the manuscripts and examine the evidence.

Edited by Tacenda
Link to comment
4 hours ago, Navidad said:

What does it mean to you to be "unequally yoked together?" Is everyone who is not a member of the LDS church unrighteous, dark, of Belial, an infidel, one who worships idols, and unclean? Is everyone who is not a member of the LDS church an "unbeliever?" What does it mean to "yoke yourself of your family to them?" Who exactly are the "them you are referring to? Do you really think that II Cor. 6:14 is talking about (describing) those who do not belong to the LDS church? Your post brings up a lot of questions in my mind. Thanks in advance for your reply.
 

Yes, those that don't believe in the gospel are unbelievers, even more so those that once believed and no longer believe.  These are the very definition of unbeliever.

And I think we need to be careful about yoking ourselves and our family to them in any way.

But we can still interact, love, and not shun without creating a yoke that binds us.

Link to comment
1 minute ago, Tacenda said:

This gives me pause on if they really came from Jesus....

https://www.quora.com/Why-do-modern-Bible-versions-leave-out-Mark-9-44

Were Mark 9:44 and 9:46 removed from modern Bibles?

Modern translators are sometimes accused of having "deleted" or "removed" Mark 9:44 and 9:46 from the Bible. While it is true that both of those verses are not present in many modern translations (at least in the main body of the text), that kind of language assumes up front that these verses must be a genuine part of Mark's original work. Most scholars today, however, point out that these verses are not present in the earliest manuscripts we possess. Far from deleting the verses, these scholars claim the verses were added by later scribes. They were not a part of what Mark originally wrote. The question, then, isn't "why did modern translators delete the verses," but rather, "were these verses a part of the original gospel that Mark wrote in the first century?" Translators differ on their answers to this question. Thus, we must go to the manuscripts and examine the evidence.

Grug is using the JST (Joseph Smith Translation), so quoting Quora or "scholars" won't help.  Most people wouldn't even consider what Grug is quoting is from the bible since it can only be found in the JST.

Link to comment
Just now, webbles said:

He is saying to "cut off your brother" if that brother is going to cause you to go to hell.  The vast majority of "unbelievers" will not cause you to go to hell.  Just because someone leaves the church doesn't mean they will cause you to go to hell.  If they are actively tempting you and trying to get you to do sinful things, then yes, it might be prudent to cut them off.

Some people are fragile and might need to protect themselves to the extreme I suppose? 

Link to comment
18 hours ago, Grug the Neanderthal said:

What do you think it means to cut someone off like you would cut off an appendage? 

Well, from my perspective the first thing to realize when trying to understand this parable is that Jesus isn't speaking literally.  He's not telling me to literally cut off a hand or pluck out an eye.  It's an analogy.  So if he's not telling me to actually cut off things or people, what is He trying to teach?

I think He's teaching about priorities and providing a lesson on what needs to be most important to us.  It is better to give up something harmful than to lose our relationship with Him.  Those verses seem like a warning/reminder to keep our priorities in check.

Link to comment
16 minutes ago, Pyreaux said:

There are those you may love and care about that can be bad influences. They do say in shaking substance addiction, you really need to stop hanging out with your addict friends.

Yes that’s what I’m referring to.  Recovering addicts are quite fragile. 

Link to comment
57 minutes ago, Grug the Neanderthal said:

But Jesus didn’t say to only cut off the sin and not your brother. Jesus specifically said to cut your brother off so that you aren’t thrown into hell along with your brother. 

Would you provide a practical example from your personal relationships on how this was done?

Link to comment
1 hour ago, bluebell said:

Well, from my perspective the first thing to realize when trying to understand this parable is that Jesus isn't speaking literally.  He's not telling me to literally cut off a hand or pluck out an eye.  It's an analogy.  So if he's not telling me to actually cut off things or people, what is He trying to teach?

I think He's teaching about priorities and providing a lesson on what needs to be most important to us.  It is better to give up something harmful than to lose our relationship with Him.  Those verses seem like a warning/reminder to keep our priorities in check.

Jesus said to cut off your brother, like you would cut of your hand, in order to avoid being cast into hell along with your brother. But you don’t think he actually means to cut off association with your brother, he just means to cut off harmful things, not people?

Link to comment
1 minute ago, Grug the Neanderthal said:

Jesus said to cut off your brother, like you would cut of your hand, in order to avoid being cast into hell along with your brother. But you don’t think he actually means to cut off association with your brother, he just means to cut off harmful things, not people?

Did He mean to actually cut off your hand?  

Link to comment
2 hours ago, webbles said:

If they are actively tempting you and trying to get you to do sinful things, then yes, it might be prudent to cut them off.

Definitely, but I don’t think the Savior’s instructions in JST Mark 9 are limited to this scenario. I believe that his instruction covers a wider range of "offending and unrepentant brothers." I don’t think that someone has to be actively trying to tempt you to do sinful things in order to lead you astray. 

1 hour ago, CV75 said:

Would you provide a practical example from your personal relationships on how this was done?

A practical example of what the Savior was referring to is excommunication. People were cut off from the church because their grievous sins made them a threat to the rest of the members of the church. In most cases people who have been excommunicated weren’t going about actively trying to tempt people to commit sin. I know of real life examples of this from within my own ward and stake. 

Link to comment
14 minutes ago, Grug the Neanderthal said:

Definitely, but I don’t think the Savior’s instructions in JST Mark 9 are limited to this scenario. I believe that his instruction covers a wider range of "offending and unrepentant brothers." I don’t think that someone has to be actively trying to tempt you to do sinful things in order to lead you astray. 

A practical example of what the Savior was referring to is excommunication. People were cut off from the church because their grievous sins made them a threat to the rest of the members of the church. In most cases people who have been excommunicated weren’t going about actively trying to tempt people to commit sin. I know of real life examples of this from within my own ward and stake. 

Oh yes I mentioned this a bit earlier. I thought you were representing application in our personal lives.

Link to comment
6 minutes ago, Grug the Neanderthal said:

No, he explained that he meant to cut off your offending and unrepentant brother like you would cut off a hand in order to avoid being cast into hell along with your brother. 

Ok, but like I said, He doesn't actually expect or want us to cut off a hand to avoid sinning, right?  It's a analogy (or maybe metaphor is a more correct term?) giving an extreme example to teach about priorities (in my opinion).  

Sometimes we might have to stop associating with people because of their beliefs and/or actions, but that's an extreme course of action (like plucking out an eye or cutting off a foot would be an extreme reaction) and it is only done when the risk of spiritual destruction is significant.

 

Link to comment
5 minutes ago, bluebell said:

Sometimes we might have to stop associating with people because of their beliefs and/or actions, but that's an extreme course of action (like plucking out an eye or cutting off a foot would be an extreme reaction) and it is only done when the risk of spiritual destruction is significant.

Agreed.

But I don’t think we always recognize the spiritual danger associating with certain individuals, particularly former believers or believers who are no longer living by standards that are compatible with the restored gospel, puts us in. In fact I think we often don’t recognize just how real this danger is. 

Link to comment
59 minutes ago, Grug the Neanderthal said:

That, too. And I have stopped association or significantly reduced association with individuals who are doing things that I know are wrong and I don’t want to be around that. 

Of course. But when like Jesus and His disciples, you find yourself in the company of sinners in Matthew 9, you of course associate with them for the purpose of inviting and calling them to repentance by precept and example as socially appropriate.

I'm thinking of a combination of the two, where the wife stayed with her husband who left the Church, was very negative toward it (but kept/keeps his mouth shut, as he puts it) and had nothing to do with the religious upbringing of their children. She continued active and faithful, taught their children, and now grown, their families follow suit. Or the woman caught in adultery; He did not associate with her yet taught and warned, encouraged and did not condemn her.

Link to comment
1 hour ago, webbles said:

The instruction is very much a personal matter.  For some people, they can interact with whores, pharisees, sadducces, publicans, and all sorts of sinners and not be lead astray (see Christ for a good example).  For other people, a friend merely inviting them to drink alcohol could lead them astray (see a former alcoholic addict for a good example).  So I agree that it can cover a wide range but the range depends on each person.  Using these scriptures to condone wide spread shunning is incorrect.  Person A may need to "cut off" an "offending and unrepentant brother" while person B doesn't need to "cut them off".

And I would even think that as I become more Christ-like, the people I need to "cut off" become less and less because Christ didn't need to "cut off" anyone in His life.  He was able to interact with everyone and we should strive to become like Him.

I like Elder Craig. C. Christensen's talk about associating with those that fall away, at the 1:02 mark. https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/broadcasts?lang=eng&video=48418789453162053640&mode=watch

Link to comment
1 hour ago, CV75 said:

Of course. But when like Jesus and His disciples, you find yourself in the company of sinners in Matthew 9, you of course associate with them for the purpose of inviting and calling them to repentance by precept and example as socially appropriate.

I'm thinking of a combination of the two, where the wife stayed with her husband who left the Church, was very negative toward it (but kept/keeps his mouth shut, as he puts it) and had nothing to do with the religious upbringing of their children. She continued active and faithful, taught their children, and now grown, their families follow suit. Or the woman caught in adultery; He did not associate with her yet taught and warned, encouraged and did not condemn her.

I think it really just depends on the situation.

And course if someone departs from the faith or falls into serious sin, we should do what we can to reclaim them as Jesus did, not just immediately cut them off for good. 

Link to comment

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...