- This topic is empty.
-
Posts
-
DJ: Ok, you did it. You mentioned circumcision. Which reminds me of one of the funniest bits Jim Gaffagan did. It is irreverent, so I hope I don’t offend anyone. But it is ridiculously funny.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xzfiNXXHLaEhttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xzfiNXXHLaE” class=”bbcode_url”> DarkJedi wrote:SamBee wrote:Perhaps we should revive circumcision as a qualification. The High Priests and GAs can go first.
(Didn’t early Mormonism have some attempt to revive it?)
I wouldn’t be surprised if the early modern church did try to revive circumcision, it would seem to fit some of the early thinking, and Jews and Muslims do still observe it. As for HPs and GAs being first, keep in mind that most of us were born in an era when it was almost universal to circumcise baby boys – so most of us already are sans any ceremony. Aside from the religious aspect, I am actually a fan of circumcision but that’s another discussion for a different forum.Happened to a few American relatives of mine, but not common outside the USA in Gentile/Kaffir circles!
opentofreedom wrote:DJ: Ok, you did it. You mentioned circumcision. Which reminds me of one of the funniest bits Jim Gaffagan did. It is irreverent, so I hope I don’t offend anyone.
But it is ridiculously funny.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xzfiNXXHLaEhttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xzfiNXXHLaE” class=”bbcode_url”> I didn’t bring it up, SamBee did, but the video is funny.
SamBee wrote:DarkJedi wrote:SamBee wrote:Perhaps we should revive circumcision as a qualification. The High Priests and GAs can go first.
(Didn’t early Mormonism have some attempt to revive it?)
I wouldn’t be surprised if the early modern church did try to revive circumcision, it would seem to fit some of the early thinking, and Jews and Muslims do still observe it. As for HPs and GAs being first, keep in mind that most of us were born in an era when it was almost universal to circumcise baby boys – so most of us already are sans any ceremony. Aside from the religious aspect, I am actually a fan of circumcision but that’s another discussion for a different forum.Happened to a few American relatives of mine, but not common outside the USA in Gentile/Kaffir circles!
You’re right, I should have clarified American men (or babies in this case). And since the vast majority of GAs are white American men older than 40, it’s a safe bet most of them were circumcised as infants.
I have loved that Gaffagan bit since I first saw it. Hilarious! Sorry, I used “kaffir” there to mean non-Muslim, not in the South African sense. 😳 Given Jesus’ remarks about the Pharisees and Sadducees in the NT, I would say he wasn’t a fan of dogmatic organizations and authoritarian leadership. Unknown wrote:Given Jesus’ remarks about the Pharisees and Sadducees in the NT, I would say he wasn’t a fan of dogmatic organizations and authoritarian leadership.
I would agree with that, and I don’t believe he was a fan of the types of rules imposed by them. I think there is a correlation in today’s church, wearing white shirts to pass the sacrament for instance. There’s nothing scrioptural to support that, but it is a “rule” put into place by some more dogmatic and authoritarian types.
Actually, DJ, I think that isn’t a very good example – even though there are LOTS of other examples that make the point. I say that simply because there is a reasonable symbolism behind the concept of wearing white to pass the sacrament, and Elder Holland explained that symbolism in General Conference (the connection to the white we wear at baptism and seeing the sacrament as a renewal of the cleansing that is symbolized by baptism). Also, he said (and the CHI says clearly) that it is not a requirement, even if many members and leaders take it to that level. Also, just to say this, Jesus definitely abhorred the type of authoritarian rule-making (building hedges about the law) that was typified by the Pharisees, and there is no indication he personally oversaw the organization of a traditional church – but he did draw followers – and had a Treasurer – and “held meetings” – and taught an official theology –
and taught very explicit rules that, in many cases, were even stricter than the rules of the time– and told people to leave their families and follow him – etc. He might not have formed a church and built synagogues, but he was a radical in many ways. It wasn’t that he was all touchy-feely and didn’t approve of strict rules; it was that he didn’t approve of the exclusivity that rejected large populations or the leadership that exempted itself from the rules they imposed on everyone else (the hypocrisy that was rampant in that day). (In that regard, I think the LDS Church does a pretty good job – since I think the leadership generally “follows the rules they preach” quite well.) I think it is a stretch to say he wouldn’t have approved of his followers establishing a “church” (or, more properly, given the time, a “sect”) – so I think it is a stretch to say he was opposed to organized religion.
I don’t disagree, Curtis, and yes, there are many other examples. I do understand the symbolism of the white shirt and I know there have been statements from the Q15 about wearing a white shirt not being a necessity. I have also experienced a bishop where if the young man wasn’t wearing a white shirt and tie he didn’t pass, even if that meant asking an elder to do so in his place. I think this is exactly the kind of thing Jesus preached against and why he was successful – he gave hope to many Jews who otherwise had no hope, and he did it at the risk of his own life (which of course he ultimately did sacrifice). I hope I didn’t imply anywhere that I think Jesus was opposed to organized religion, because I certainly don’t believe that.
Quote:I have also experienced a bishop where if the young man wasn’t wearing a white shirt and tie he didn’t pass, even if that meant asking an elder to do so in his place.
Yep, even really good people can be absolutely blind to their blind spots and the harm those blind spots cause. I try to remember that as a general rule.
Curtis wrote:Also, just to say this, Jesus definitely abhorred the type of authoritarian rule-making (building hedges about the law) that was typified by the Pharisees, and there is no indication he personally oversaw the organization of a traditional church – but he did draw followers – and had a Treasurer – and “held meetings” – and taught an official theology –
and taught very explicit rules that, in many cases, were even stricter than the rules of the time– and told people to leave their families and follow him – etc. He might not have formed a church and built synagogues, but he was a radical in many ways. It wasn’t that he was all touchy-feely and didn’t approve of strict rules; it was that he didn’t approve of the exclusivity that rejected large populations or the leadership that exempted itself from the rules they imposed on everyone else (the hypocrisy that was rampant in that day). (In that regard, I think the LDS Church does a pretty good job – since I think the leadership generally “follows the rules they preach” quite well.) I think it is a stretch to say he wouldn’t have approved of his followers establishing a “church” (or, more properly, given the time, a “sect”) – so I think it is a stretch to say he was opposed to organized religion.
I think it’s interesting that the pharisees were strict in their observance of the law because they were trying to raise the level of obedience of ordinary persons to what was expected of those who served in the temple and criticism of them comes because of their forgetting the spirit of the law. Interesting parallels for today, don’t you think?
Curtis wrote:Also, just to say this, Jesus definitely abhorred the type of authoritarian rule-making (building hedges about the law) that was typified by the Pharisees, and there is no indication he personally oversaw the organization of a traditional church – but he did draw followers – and had a Treasurer – and “held meetings” – and taught an official theology –
and taught very explicit rules that, in many cases, were even stricter than the rules of the time– and told people to leave their families and follow him – etc.
There are a few teachings of Jesus that I might interpret to be stricter rules, i.e. not committing adultery became not lusting after a woman, but even this, to me, isn’t a stricter rule; it’s not enforceable or even observable to any outside eye. I think the purpose of this “stricter” rule and others was to enable us to become our own judges by forcing us to turn inward. I don’t think he was teaching a stricter rule, I think he was teaching the spirit of the law.
When I think of the two great commandments, I don’t think of them as stricter rules, I think of them as a liberating guide to happiness.
GBSmith wrote:I think it’s interesting that the pharisees were strict in their observance of the law because they were trying to raise the level of obedience of ordinary persons to what was expected of those who served in the temple and criticism of them comes because of their forgetting the spirit of the law. Interesting parallels for today, don’t you think?
In some ways I think The Church today is comparable to the religion of the Pharisees and Sadducees. We have a long checklist of commandments we must adhere to in order to be in good standing. I do agree with the spirit behind most of them and haven’t changed much about my habits since I’ve started questioning things.
Consider the word of wisdom. What is the spirit of the law behind it? Treat your body as a temple, be careful of what you put into it, love yourself. Shouldn’t we, then, allow science to determine what is good or bad for our physical health as we learn more about the human body and nutrition? Otherwise it is an exercise in obedience to authority, which is a large part of mormonism and from what I can gather, was not a part of Jesus’ teachings.
Most people who have contemplated it have come to the conclusion that if Jesus were to come back to the earth today, he would approve of how they live their lives and would call everyone else to repentance. Just sayin’. Great points, everyone.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.