- This topic is empty.
-
Posts
-
dande48 wrote:
SamBee wrote:
Is the church even the same organization that was around when JS was alive? That’s contestable, particularly from the period just after his murder. We can certainly draw a line back to BY and claim to be the biggest successor, but the succession was hotly contested and I think BY had to reconstitute things in the chaos.
The Church claims it is. And JS claimed “We believe in the same organization that existed in the premitive Church”, i.e. back in the times of Jesus, Moses, Abraham, and even Adam. Shouldn’t we hold the Church accountable for their claims, even if they aren’t true?
They might say it, but are they? We’ve asked this question before here.
It does seem clear to me that the period just after JS’ murder was a massive disruption unlike any since he founded the church and after. I believe JS did foresee his own early death but I also think he never set up an effective succession plan. It was the long rule of Brigham Young which stabilized things.
In regard to JS’ claim, he also stated categorically that all other churches were in apostasy, so even if he claimed a direct link back to the ancient church, by his own admission there was a temporal gap of seven or eight hundred years.
Was Christianity the fulfillment of Judaism? Successful religion seems to often be a reimagining and reinterpretation of an already established and much older theological structure. Thus the new religion is fresh and exciting while at the same time tapping into the credibility of having been around for ages past. Roy wrote:
Was Christianity the fulfillment of Judaism? Successful religion seems to often be a reimagining and reinterpretation of an already established and much older theological structure. Thus the new religion is fresh and exciting while at the same time tapping into the credibility of having been around for ages past.
The Bahais are the fulfilment of Islam which is the fulfilment of Christianity which is the fulfilment of Judaism. Or so they claim.
They rope in many religions to support their claims. I’ve even seen Bahai materials quoting Joseph Smith.
How interesting! Back to the OP, should we not hold people accountable to the past actions of those to whom they claim succession (whether legitimate or not). In the example of Christianity, most Christians hold Moses to have been a prophet, and that the law of Moses was from God. Jesus felt he was a prophet. So while we don’t follow the “law of Moses” anymore, Christians still believe in a God who once declared we should stone gays, or women who weren’t virgins on their wedding night (as evidenced by the lack of hymen blood). Also, if an betrothed girl gets raped in town, she gets stoned, since she didn’t scream for help. But if the girl wasn’t betrothed, the guy only has to pay her father some money and marry her. The Mosaic law is disgustingly barbaric. Jehovah, as described by the OT, is barbaric and not worthy of worship. As wrong as some past LDS leaders have been, Moses was immensely worse. Shouldn’t those who hold Moses to be a prophet, answer for, or at least denounce such atrocities? Should we not raise an eyebrow at those who teach their children to love, respect, and revere Moses? Personally, I don’t think Moses ever existed. But the doctrines he was purported to have taught, and the ideals he represents are reprehensible, whether he existed or not.
dande48 wrote:
Back to the OP, should we not hold people accountable to the past actions of those to whom they claim succession (whether legitimate or not).In the example of Christianity, most Christians hold Moses to have been a prophet, and that the law of Moses was from God. Jesus felt he was a prophet. So while we don’t follow the “law of Moses” anymore, Christians still believe in a God who once declared we should stone gays, or women who weren’t virgins on their wedding night (as evidenced by the lack of hymen blood). Also, if an betrothed girl gets raped in town, she gets stoned, since she didn’t scream for help. But if the girl wasn’t betrothed, the guy only has to pay her father some money and marry her. The Mosaic law is disgustingly barbaric. Jehovah, as described by the OT, is barbaric and not worthy of worship. As wrong as some past LDS leaders have been, Moses was immensely worse. Shouldn’t those who hold Moses to be a prophet, answer for, or at least denounce such atrocities? Should we not raise an eyebrow at those who teach their children to love, respect, and revere Moses? Personally, I don’t think Moses ever existed. But the doctrines he was purported to have taught, and the ideals he represents are reprehensible, whether he existed or not.
My attitude is that if we aren’t in a long-term relationship with them, it should be easier to forgive them than if those same leaders and abusers were in a relationship with us today, and we had to interact regularly with them.
My attitude is that we should probably use the information to put boundaries around our lives as their divine connection is suspect if such divine leadership condoned such unfair practices. I do think we have every right to expect God to be fair and loving and kind. And that organizations that subscribe to, or claim a divine origin to display such characteristics themselves — even when it hurts them in the pocket book, in the membership list, or other temporal ways. It’s a higher standard than to which I would hold a corporation, or non-profit, but one that I think orgs with claims to divinity bring upon themselves.
As an ethics professor once told me, it’s a mistake to hold yourself out as ethical as all it does it turn you into a target. And it my view, it raises expectations considerably about the organization’s policies and habits. Organizations with a divine claim can’t have all the benefits (unquestioning obedience, for example) and not have any accountability in my opinion.
dande48 wrote:The Mosaic law is disgustingly barbaric. Jehovah, as described by the OT, is barbaric and not worthy of worship.
Believe it or not, there are also elements of Mosaic Law which were progressive at the time. An eye for an eye, sounds extreme to us now, but it was about de-escalating vendettas, that punishment should be equal to the crime. That if I steal a sheep off you, you’re allowed to take a sheep off me, instead of taking a whole flock.
There are even some bits in it about animal welfare, treating slaves or servants fairly and preventing the escalation of debt (which the western world still doesn’t do).
I think these elements get lost in the sexual stuff a bit.
Personally I consider the Old Testament a “mixed bag”.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.