Contradictions and Jesus

[huckelberry]

I find myself mulling over a further thought regarding that verse finishing the sermon on the mount in Matthew. The verse finds Jesus standing in the role of judge and being called lord. Nothing like that is found earlier in the sermon. Jesus is pictured as teaching a crowd of people curious about him but miles away from thinking of him as lord. It would make no sense for Jesus to suddenly propose that he will arbitrarily reject people. How is a crowd of curious hearers going to relate to that. But this sudden claim to be lord and judge, Gods roles, is way out of place in Jesus comments through out the synoptics. I think it is clear that Matthew sniped a piece of tradition from elsewhere to act as a finish to the sermon. I find myself thinking that the kind of threat and warning in the phrase , i never knew you, is like some parables of warning. There is a wedding feast where everybody is invited but those who show up with no wedding garments are rejected. I suspect Matthew had a piece of such a parable and found it would in rhetorical terms make a good finish to the sermon on the mount.

I do not know if that eases the threat Stem sees. Stem your concern that nobody is perfect presents a valid question.

[Dr Moore]

To answer your question more clearly, Jesus himself didn't teach the harshness of the law, but embodied and taught the Law of love and presented it as the fulfilment of any previous law. This certainly came across as a contradiction to the Law that the "scribes and Pharisees" proscribed on the people. And Jesus consistently challenged them on their harsh and oppressive interpretation of the law, accusing them of being hypocrites for their legalistic attitudes and of laying heavy burdens on the people. He contrasted the purity and simplicity of childlike faith with the impossible demands of the religious leaders of the day.

Makes sense. From what I remember, the original law was harsh and specific, because the children of God kept falling into sin and idolatry, and needed the precision with harsh punishments. Jesus brought a "higher" law in which followers were expected to "look up" and exercise judgment based on moral guidelines.

Which is all very different from Jesus contradicting himself to sort of have his cake and eat it too -- not a great pattern match.

But the point is well made and I guess if we make wide allowances, then the LDS analogous pattern today would be:

Home patriarchy = lesser law. Equality in marriage = higher law.
Temple patriarchy = lesser law. Temple gender equality = higher law.
Racism = lesser law. Race equality = higher law.
Bigotry = lesser law. Love LGBTQ+ = higher law.

etc. etc.

[Dr Moore]

Do contradictions in Mormonism also indicate cumulative hedging to gaslight questioning members without ever admitting to being wrong, or having to apologize for being spectacularly wrong?

For instance: scriptures and the teachings of living prophets are the word of God, should be followed and studied carefully every day, but prophets are not infallible and should not be held to account for things they say.

[Philo Sofee]

Do contradictions in Mormonism also indicate cumulative hedging to gaslight questioning members without ever admitting to being wrong, or having to apologize for being spectacularly wrong?

For instance: scriptures and the teachings of living prophets are the word of God, should be followed and studied carefully every day, but prophets are not infallible and should not be held to account for things they say.

Nice. I suggest as well one of the singular indubitable damning contradictions is when living prophets protest the earlier prophets revelations as being only their opinions. This has literally destroyed Mormonism's chief claim of actual and real revelation. The Holy Ghost, as we have from innumerable testimonies of tens of thousands of Mormons in those days living those words(!) and testifying they KNOW they are true, are ignored by today's beanheads. It destroys everything they say about the Holy Ghost being a testator, as well as the manner in which one "knows" truth, since the Holy Ghost cannot testify to something that is not true. Yet it has done exactly that. Yet it has to many hundreds of thousands and millions through the decades. An insane contradiction. Now we are told that was just a man's opinion. This strategy is the single largest boner ever produced. Today's prophets are just stupid for using it and allowing it to be used. Of course, since they have dumbed down the congregations to the point that few will actually think through the implications, perhaps they are safe... for now. But not from this message board. They have destroyed what all anti-Mormons could not, the very concept of being the one true church through and because of revelation. If that doesn't shock Mormons they truly don't know what is going on. I put this on the same powerful category as DNA and the Book of Mormon refuted. The Mormon prophets are Jesus's own enemies, and he supposedly called them! I cannot roll my eyes hard enough.

[IHAQ]

Do contradictions in Mormonism also indicate cumulative hedging to gaslight questioning members without ever admitting to being wrong, or having to apologize for being spectacularly wrong?

For instance: scriptures and the teachings of living prophets are the word of God, should be followed and studied carefully every day, but prophets are not infallible and should not be held to account for things they say.

I think a good example of this would be on the subject of race. In the essay'Race And The Priesthood' it is put forward that "...the Church disavows the theories advanced in the past that black skin is a sign of divine disfavor or curse,".

Yet within the canon, and therefore current doctrine of the Church, we find the teaching that God "...had caused the cursing to come upon them, yea, even a sore cursing, because of their iniquity. For behold, they had hardened their hearts against him, that they had become like unto a flint; wherefore, as they were white, and exceedingly fair and delightsome, that they might not be enticing unto my people the Lord God did cause a skin of blackness to come upon them." (2nd Nephi 5:21).

You cannot simultaneously disavow something and have it in the canon as doctrine.