The Old Rugged Cross

[_Aristotle Smith]

This interpretation suffers from the fact that Matthew has Jesus say he has not come to abolish the law, and yet many contemporary Christians believe that is exactly what he did.

This is a complicated issue and it depends on what you mean by law.

For example, all Protestants, Catholics, Orthodox, and Mormons would agree that the rites of the law of Moses no longer needed to be observed. I think everyone is agreed on this fact (but given my previous comment, I think it's wrong).

However, all Protestants, Catholics, Orthodox, and Mormons would agree that some form of law is still to be followed. This is usually defined as consisting in the ethical aspects of the law (10 commandments or Jesus 2 commandments).

In fact among Lutheran and Reformed this idea of law gets a lot of mileage as it shows what we ought to do, but don't. This is why the gospel is necessary on their account, the good news is that the law is in effect, we stand condemned, but Jesus fulfills it on our behalf.

What complicates this is that it depends on a separation between ethical and ritual requirements in the law that Jews in ancient times never would have made. Circumcision was as important as ethical requirements, simply because God commanded both and one is to do both.

This distinction can also lead to feelings of superiority. In protestantism the Mosaic law can be seen as the schoolmaster which one should get rid of after Christ. In Mormonism, there's an explicit teaching that Moses gave the Israelites the lesser law, sans Melchizedek priesthood and temple endowments, because they were a bunch of idiots. I find neither view helpful for understanding Paul and the gospels, plus I hardly need say that it's highly offensive to Jews.

[_consiglieri]

What complicates this is that it depends on a separation between ethical and ritual requirements in the law that Jews in ancient times never would have made. Circumcision was as important as ethical requirements, simply because God commanded both and one is to do both.

I agree this is something difficult to pin down, especially because of the sparcity of evidence we have, the questionable authenticity of some of it, and its incompleteness.

The best I can do is refer to Bart Ehrman, who as a non-believer would seem to have no dog in this fight, who opines that Paul does make a distinction between the ethical elements of the law (like the ten commandments you mention) which do need to be followed; and the ritual elements of the law (circumcision, sabbath observance, and kosher food laws) which do not need to be followed.

Paul seems to say it is okay (though not necessary) for Christian Jews to continue to follow these ritual elements of the law of Moses, but it would be anathema for a Gentile to yoke himself to the Mosaic ritual elements upon converting to Christianity.

Bart Ehrman feels Paul's accepted New Testament epistles seem pretty clear on this teaching, but laments the fact that nowhere does Paul tell us why he makes such a distinction.

All the Best!

--Consiglieri

[_consiglieri]

It's too bad I wasn't able to do that as a believer - I'm sure it would have been a freeing experience.

I first learned this when reading Brigham Young's statements about Adam (this was about twenty-years back). I kept trying to make Brigham Young teach modern Mormon Doctrine and was continually frustrated in the attempt. He just wasn't making any sense!

Then, for some reason, I approached this same corpus of teachings just trying to understand what Brigham Young was saying. All of a sudden, it was crystal clear.


Another interesting example is a verse in the Book of Moses that talks about men being "conceived in sin." Because this doesn't jibe with current Mormon doctrine, there is a gloss put on this passage to make it "mean" that men are conceived in the world, the world is full of sin, and therefore "men are conceived in sin" because they are conceived in the world.

This passage doesn't get brought up much in Church, but when it does, you can bet the obligatory gloss will be brought up along with it.

Last Sunday, a speaker in sacrament brought up the verse and didn't even get all the way through before she supplied the necessary gloss, lest somebody think the Book of Moses was endorsing something other than the "truth."

I think it makes more sense to just allow the author of that particular verse (whether God, Moses, Enoch or Joseph Smith) to be saying that the sexual act of creating a human being is somehow "sinful."

I may not agree with it, and the modern Church may not agree with it, but I am not going to get far in understanding what the author was trying to say by making him "mean" something else.

All the Best!

--Consiglieri

[_Aristotle Smith]

The best I can do is refer to Bart Ehrman, who as a non-believer would seem to have no dog in this fight, who opines that Paul does make a distinction between the ethical elements of the law (like the ten commandments you mention) which do need to be followed; and the ritual elements of the law (circumcision, sabbath observance, and kosher food laws) which do not need to be followed.

I have no problem with Ehrman saying that, in fact, I think he's probably right. I was just highlighting the fact that when a Christian brings up anything having to do with "the law," that person really needs to be careful in saying what they are referring to.

What made me want to do this was the initial claim that Matthew says the law is still in force, while Paul says the law is over. The problem is that many people inclined to think the Bible is crap will take the reference to "law" to be univocal and say the Bible is stupid because it contradicts itself. While I do think the Bible does contradict itself in places, I don't think this is one of them. Once you define "law" and look at the intended audience, the contradiction disappears.

by the way, I had a similar experience myself with respect to understanding scripture. They really opened up to me once I decided to stop glossing scripture with modern Mormon ideas and let them say what they were trying to say. My level of comprehension and the depth of the writings both increased by orders of magnitude. An unfortunate by product was that I left the LDS church.

[_consiglieri]

by the way, I had a similar experience myself with respect to understanding scripture. They really opened up to me once I decided to stop glossing scripture with modern Mormon ideas and let them say what they were trying to say. My level of comprehension and the depth of the writings both increased by orders of magnitude. An unfortunate by product was that I left the LDS church.

This has been a process for me.

When I joined the LDS Church 33-years ago, I had barely a passing acquaintance with the Bible.

As I read the Bible in light of Mormon teachings, many passages were illuminated that otherwise would have remained foggy.

But the opposite also happened--there were many places (especially in Paul) where what he said seemed hopelessly contradictory to what I had been taught was true.

I found myself sort of skimming through those parts, and "turning my head" to what was being said, only to give it my full attention once I was to a place where I felt on firmer ground.

While I was aware of what I was doing at the time, it bordered on the subconscious.

It is only much later in life I have realized that it is precisely those places in scripture that are difficult and challenging to what I currently believe that hold the most value and opportunity to learn.

As long as we read scripture solely for the reason of reaffirming what we already believe, we may fall into the category described by Paul as ever learning and never able to come to the knowledge of the truth.

All the Best!

--Consiglieri

[_harmony]

As long as we read scripture solely for the reason of reaffirming what we already believe, we may fall into the category described by Paul as ever learning and never able to come to the knowledge of the truth.

For some, truth is what they're told. Period. For some, truth is what they teach and they never think they can learn from a lesser learned individual.

I'm not a fan of Paul (for obvious reasons... his ideas about women have poisoned the well for centures), but he did get that part right.

[_Aristotle Smith]

As I read the Bible in light of Mormon teachings, many passages were illuminated that otherwise would have remained foggy.

Out of curiosity, is this still true? If so, which passages do you think remain clearer read in the light of Mormon teachings?

I can only really think of one where the Mormon interpretation is more compelling, 1 Cor 15:29. Please point out any others you might see.

[_moksha]

The big suffering of Jesus for sin is associated with bleeding from every pore here. This naturally gets associated to Luke 22:43-44. Unfortunately, Luke 22:43-44 is probably a late addition to the New Testament. Most modern translations put it in double brackets, signalling that the translators don't think it's original.

Common sense would suggest that cellular disruption on this level would have caused death within an hour of such disruption. Considering the Jewish aversion to things covered with blood, it would have caused quite a consternation among all viewers.

Without being able to pin this insistence of the primacy of the Gethsemane experience on polygamy theology, I assumed that it was due to the desire to be peculiar. That early 20th Century desire to remove the LDS Church from all things Christian may have lead both to the aversion of the Cross and the garden emphasis.

.

[_Hoops]

Matthew has a pro-law stance quite unlike Paul.

But if you consider them of equal authority, doesn't this Matthean quote somewhat undermine your position?

All the Best!

--Consiglieri

I would put it that mathew has a pro Israel stance.

[_zeezrom]

Do you think it bothers anyone to know that the symbols on Mormon temples have a closer similarity to Islamic symbols than Mainstream Christian symbols? (i.e. moon and stars)

Droopy and BC- does that bother you?