Priesthood authority not as concrete as we thought

[_ludwigm]

The only ritual that really counts is this: bow your head and bend your knee before God.

And say yes.

(You have forgotten the most important one.)

[_Chap]

Exactly. It is clear from the whole tenor of the unfolding prophetic content of the Old and New Testaments that God has progressively revealed to humanity that one of the most important things to Him is that human beings should perform certain rituals correctly.

There is not a lot He cares about more than that, I should think. Jesus repeated this lesson to His disciples over and over again, and made it plain that his mission on earth was mainly about getting ritual right. And his apostles taught it too: "If I speak with the tongues of men and angels, but do not do my rituals correctly, I am as nothing", said Paul. Of course that's what the epistle said before it was altered by apostates: I am quoting from the Restored Version.

The Law of Moses says this.

I'm not quite sure what you mean by 'this' (obviously you realise that my previous post was ironical).

Says what? Does LDS theology hold that Leviticus is to be taken as the last word from the deity of the CoJCoLDS on how human beings are to behave? Or what? Don't you think that such something like this might represent a further revelation (in LDS terms) on the subject of the relative importance to be attached to proper performance of ritual as against ethical behaviour:

Amos 5:

21 ¶ I hate, I despise your feast days, and I will not smell in your solemn assemblies.
22 Though ye offer me burnt offerings and your meat offerings, I will not accept them: neither will I regard the peace offerings of your fat beasts.
23 Take thou away from me the noise of thy songs; for I will not hear the melody of thy viols.
24 But let judgment run down as waters, and righteousness as a mighty stream.

Then if you read about Jesus the man went out and got baptized and then insisted you had to be born of water like he was. Then he instituted a new ritual at Passover and told his followers to continue to do it in remembrance of him. Of course it wasn't exclusively about ritual but feel free to beat that strawman as much as you like. He won't put up any resistance.

I do think that there is a rather 'strawman' use of 'strawman' here ... but let that pass.

The Gospels and the Acts of the Apostles refer to Jesus taking part in John's 'baptism'. The word for what John did comes from the original Greek βαπτίζω, which can be used for just plain washing - it is for instance the word used in Luke 11:38 and Mark 7:3–4a for a formal kind of cleansing with water, as before a meal - though there it is translated as 'washing' by most Christian translators (see Wikipedia for more). We have no trace in the New Testament of any interest by Jesus in prescribing how his followers should carry out this special washing in the mode possibly said to have been used by John to signify repentance. It is by no means agreed amongst New Testament scholars that Jesus himself actually baptized anybody.

That is not surprising, since in several instances Jesus is shown as neglecting or even condemning close attention to ritual requirements: see for instance Luke 11:

37 And as he spake, a certain Pharisee besought him to dine with him: and he went in, and sat down to meat.
38 And when the Pharisee saw it, he marvelled that he had not first washed before dinner.
39 And the Lord said unto him, Now do ye Pharisees make clean the outside of the cup and the platter; but your inward part is full of cravening and wickedness.
40 Ye fools, did not he that made that which is without make that which is within also?
41 But rather give calms of such things as ye have; and, behold, all things are clean unto you.

As for the final Pesach meal that Jesus is said to have eaten with his disciples: I can see no sign there that he thought he was instituting a ritual (in the sense of a prescribed act that is only valid if performed according to prescription), as opposed to taking a pre-existing Jewish custom and asking that it be done by his disciples in future in remembrance of him.

Of course it wasn't exclusively about ritual ...

Wouldn't it be more accurate to say that the Jesus of the New Testament is hardly about ritual at all , and that where ritual is referred to he usually honors it more in the breach than the observance?

And is it not just a little hard to reconcile the Jesus of the New Testament with a religion that teaches that it is of the utmost importance for one's eternal destiny to wear the right clothes, say the right words, make the right gestures - or, in a word, to conduct the right rituals?

But no doubt I shall be told that the New Testament Jesus is a straw man.

[_Black Moclips]

You know, I was thinking about the temple the other day and the changes that were made back in the 1990's where they removed the penalties and such. My first temple experience was shortly after the changes, so I never did them. It wasn't until a few years ago that I actually discovered what was changed, and it really creeped my out. I felt pretty darn weird after going through the temple the first time. Had it been before the changes, I might have arrived where I am now a lot quicker (so I guess in the church's eyes the plan worked).

In any case, I thought to myself "I can't see JC himself performing these penalty signs". It just isn't who JC is in the scriptures. Anyway, I second Chaps thoughts about JC not being into rituals, but rather more focused on the inner, rather than the outer. JC did a 180 on how the pharisees were doing things, and us Mormons have done a 180 back the other way (with respect to performances, appearances, and rituals and their importance).

[_The Nehor]

Wouldn't it be more accurate to say that the Jesus of the New Testament is hardly about ritual at all , and that where ritual is referred to he usually honors it more in the breach than the observance?

And is it not just a little hard to reconcile the Jesus of the New Testament with a religion that teaches that it is of the utmost importance for one's eternal destiny to wear the right clothes, say the right words, make the right gestures - or, in a word, to conduct the right rituals?

But no doubt I shall be told that the New Testament Jesus is a straw man.

I think it would be more fair to say that Jesus despised man-made ritual. The rituals he condemns are universally those added to his Law which he himself claims to have given. He appears to dislike ritual for ritual's sake but has no problem introducing more from God or following those that God (i.e. he) gave.

[_Chap]

Wouldn't it be more accurate to say that the Jesus of the New Testament is hardly about ritual at all , and that where ritual is referred to he usually honors it more in the breach than the observance?

And is it not just a little hard to reconcile the Jesus of the New Testament with a religion that teaches that it is of the utmost importance for one's eternal destiny to wear the right clothes, say the right words, make the right gestures - or, in a word, to conduct the right rituals?

But no doubt I shall be told that the New Testament Jesus is a straw man.

I think it would be more fair to say that Jesus despised man-made ritual. The rituals he condemns are universally those added to his Law which he himself claims to have given. He appears to dislike ritual for ritual's sake but has no problem introducing more from God or following those that God (i.e. he) gave.

Luke chapter 6:

1 And it came to pass on the second sabbath after the first, that he went through the corn fields; and his disciples plucked the ears of corn, and did eat, rubbing them in their hands.
2 And certain of the Pharisees said unto them, Why do ye that which is not lawful to do on the sabbath days?
3 And Jesus answering them said, Have ye not read so much as this, what David did, when himself was an hungred, and they which were with him;
4 How he went into the house of God, and did take and eat the shewbread, and gave also to them that were with him; which it is not lawful to eat but for the priests alone?
5 And he said unto them, That the Son of man is Lord also of the sabbath.

Neither the law against working on the Sabbath or the law against other than priests eating the shewbread (or other sacrificial food of that kind) were thought by the Jews of Jesus's time to be man-made, but are presented in the Old Testament as made by God himself. Yet Jesus approved the breaking of both these prohibitions.