The Old Rugged Cross

[_consiglieri]

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.

My understanding from current New Testament scholarship is that Paul likely held a high opinion of women, perhaps influenced to some extent by the wealthy women in whose homes his churches met. Some passages reflect this, such as women being allowed to prophesy.

But then somebody after Paul came along and interpolated into his writings negative things about women, such as forbidding them to speak in church. This may account for why it is the one epistle of 1st Corinthians seems to say both, which seems somewhat contradictory, unless women were to have a way to prophesy without speaking. ;^)

The pastoral epistles of Titus and the Timothies which take up this negative refrain toward women are usually attributed to a later author than Paul seeking to lay down scriptural support for this position in a church that had already taken a turn away from Paul's more enlightened view.

All the Best!

--Consiglieri

[_consiglieri]

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.

It has now been over thirty years since I first read the New Testament as a Mormon (which, in the interests of full disclosure, was also the first time I had ever read the New Testament).

But even with the passage of years, the passages regarding authority to do certain things but not others were informed by the Mormon doctrine I had learned.

For instance, John the Baptist's statement that he could baptize only with water, but that one was coming after him mightier than he who would also baptize with fire and the Holy Ghost.

This distinction continues into Acts where Philip (the evangelist) teaches the Samaritans (chapter 8?) and can seemingly only baptize them, but then calls for two apostles from Jerusalem in order to give them the gift of the Holy Ghost.

When Simon Magus sees this, he is converted, but it appears his mere belief does not allow him to perform this ordinance (i.e., I see no "priesthood of believers" here). Instead, he offers to pay the apostles that he may have this power.

Another thread in the New Testament is the importance of works in our final judgment, if not our salvation. I once read through the New Testament just looking for passages under this heading and came up with 181 by the time I was done. Other passages seem clear that ordinances are essential, as well (e.g., John 3:5).

Joseph Smith's teaching that men are saved by faith and works through ordinances seems to make sense of all these different New Testament passages, rather than requiring a great deal of explaining away of what appears to be their plain meaning.

In the end, my view has become that there is no single religious philosophy that can take into account all the New Testament, mainly because there are many things in the New Testament that contradict each other.

No matter the philosophy, there will be outlier passagers that must be explained away as meaning something other than they appear to say.

My experience has been that the philosophy of Mormonism seems to do a better job of incorporating more of the New Testament text, and leaving fewer outlier passages to be explained, than any other religious system with which I am familiar.

Obviously this is a subjective opinion and reasonable minds will differ.

All the Best!

--Consiglieri

[_consiglieri]

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.

I believe this to be an important factor, as well.

Early Mormonism likely associated the cross with apostate Christianity and hence began the practice of eschewing it.

The reasons to explain this aversion likely came later.

In other words, I doubt Mormons stopped using the cross because it is the emblem of Christ's death and we focus on his resurrection. Rather, Mormons stopped using the cross because of a visceral reaction to it as a symbol of apostasy, and also a symbol of their perceived enemies responsibile for much of their persecution.

The reasons followed.

Sort of like the black priesthood ban.

All the Best!

--Consiglieri

[_zeezrom]

What would offend my TBM family more?

Wearing this on a necklace at the next family reunion:



Or wearing this on a necklace at the next family reunion:



?

[_Buffalo]

What would offend my TBM family more?

Wearing this on a necklace at the next family reunion:



Or wearing this on a necklace at the next family reunion:



?

The cross, definitely.

[_consiglieri]

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

Fair enough. But is it possible you would put it that way to relieve yourself of the cognitive dissonance involved in putting it the other way? ;^)

Remember, it is Matthew alone that contains the parable of the sheep and the goats; a parable that speaks forcefully of eternal judgment based solely on works with no reference to belief.

All the Best!

--Consiglieri

[_Hoops]

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

Fair enough. But is it possible you would put it that way to relieve yourself of the cognitive dissonance involved in putting it the other way? ;^)

Remember, it is Matthew alone that contains the parable of the sheep and the goats; a parable that speaks forcefully of eternal judgment based solely on works with no reference to belief.

I suppose you could accuse me of anything, much of it for good reasons. If one takes Mathew isolation, then certainly one would arrive at a different place in terms of works/grace. But one shouldn't take Mathew in isolation, or any other verse, book. or dispensation. So now we're left with reconciling Mathew with the rest of the Bible. I think it can be done cohesively and still keep in tact Mathew's intensity.

[_consiglieri]

I suppose you could accuse me of anything, much of it for good reasons. If one takes Mathew isolation, then certainly one would arrive at a different place in terms of works/grace. But one shouldn't take Mathew in isolation, or any other verse, book. or dispensation. So now we're left with reconciling Mathew with the rest of the Bible. I think it can be done cohesively and still keep in tact Mathew's intensity.

First, I want to make it clear I am not accusing you of anything, nor would I because whether your preference for considering Matthew's a "pro-Israel stance" over a "pro-law stance" is based on your religious views is something only you can determine.

That's why I raised it only as a possibility. I can state with definiteness, however, that this is the kind of scriptural eisegesis I have historically engaged in from a Mormon perspective. Now that I recognize it for what it is, I try my best to eschew it.

But I do think your attempt to read Matthew in conjunction with the rest of the Bible, and let other Bible writers determine what Matthew meant, is misguided.

Matthew (or whoever!) did not write his gospel with the rest of the New Testament at hand (with the possible exceptions of Luke and Q).

Matthew had a point of view specific to himself that should not be clouded by trying to make it conform to the point of view of others.

That is my position, though I understand you may feel differently.

All the Best!

--Consiglieri

P.S. "Eschew" is my word of the day.