Prophetic Flaws in Scripture

[Anonymous]

dande48 wrote:

SamBee wrote:

However I do not think it is helpful to see Jesus as flawed. All other scriptural characters (except HF), yes, but Jesus no. In this case, Jesus should be an ideal to aspire to, not someone to be dragged down to our level.

I hope this isn’t going too off topic, but why does Christ need to be perfect? Why does HF need to be perfect? And why do we need to aspire to be perfect? I understand there’s the whole belief that he had to be perfect to perform the atonement, etc, but why? Personally, I still fail to see how inflicting punishment on an innocent third party somehow absolves the perpetrator, nor do I feel it’s right or helpful to expect someone else to suffer the consequences of your mistakes. We should take responsibility for our mistakes, make reparations when possible, learn and grow from them. Wanting them to be “washed away”, and paid for by someone else feels counterproductive. My mistakes have made me who I am.

Personally, I think “perfection” is one of those things a lot of people strive for, but would find it unbearably boring once they obtained it. Not to mention, a perfect person would be much harder to relate to.

I pretty much agree. “Little Lord Jesus no crying he makes”? Yeah, right, he was a baby like any other human baby. Further scripture tells us (D&C 93):

Quote:

12 And I, John, saw that he received not of the a fulness at the first, but received bgrace for grace;

13 And he received not of the fulness at first, but continued from agrace to grace, until he received a fulness;

14 And thus he was called the aSon of God, because he received not of the fulness at the first.

There are cross references as well, but I’m not beating anyone over the head with this. My own belief is that Jesus was fully God AND fully human. I do believe he understands us because he did descend below all things and that was part of his mission. In my own (probably warped) mind he experienced things both in mortality and during His atonement that were part of his “descent.” Perfection in my view is a process that takes eons – God is probably there, Jesus may not have been until after the resurrection or maybe even sometime after that (again IMO).

Then there’s the whole side of me that wonders why we even really need a savior, and if we do why does this savior have to be perfect?

Lastly in this regard, many of Joseph’s earlier teachings were more unitarian (and it can be inferred from the BoM) – a core unitarian belief is that God is the only God, and Jesus is not necessarily a God and calling him the Son of God is not necessarily literal.

[Anonymous]

DarkJedi wrote:

Lastly in this regard, many of Joseph’s earlier teachings were more unitarian (and it can be inferred from the BoM) – a core unitarian belief is that God is the only God, and Jesus is not necessarily a God and calling him the Son of God is not necessarily literal.

Didn’t the first edition of the BOM equate Jesus with God/the Eternal Father, rather than the Son of God? I thought it was later teachings that actually distinguished the two. I do think at the time of Jesus, when most people called themselves a “son of God” or “child of God”, it was used in the familial, spiritual, metaphorical sense, much like we use the term today. In fact, we’ve got this bit of dialogue pointing to Jesus meaning it metaphorically:

John 10:33-36 wrote:

The Jews answered him, saying, For a good work we stone thee not; but for blasphemy; and because that thou, being a man, makest thyself God.

Jesus answered them, Is it not written in your law, I said, Ye are gods?

If he called them gods, unto whom the word of God came, and the scripture cannot be broken;

Say ye of him, whom the Father hath sanctified, and sent into the world, Thou blasphemest; because I said, I am the Son of God?

If Jesus really were the literal Son of God, this response seems awfully deceptive, as he would’ve been claiming to be using the term metaphorically, when he was actually using it literally (which is what the Pharisees were accusing him of). Also, there isn’t any reference to Jesus calling himself God, outside of John. It seems implausible to me that those earlier authors would skip over such an important detail, were Jesus to make that claim. Plus, in all earlier manuscripts of Luke, after Jesus is baptized, God is recorded as saying: “Thou art my Son; this day have I begotten thee.”, which also points to God both quoting the messianic prophecy in Psalms 2:7, but also using the term “Son” metaphorically and not literally. It took a few centuries for them to change this.

It’s completely fine to believe Jesus was perfect and literally the “Son of God”, and there are lot of thoughts onto what that actually means, and the actual nature of Christ. I remember a few places in the NT, where Paul is actually admonishing the importance of believing Christ “in the flesh”, because certain sects had popped up which believed Jesus was only a spirit. It’s not so cut and dry, even within the first few decades after Christ’s death. But I think it’s very understandable, reasonable, and even useful for certain Christians believe he was not the literal “Son of God”, nor perfect.

[Anonymous]

dande48 wrote:

I hope this isn’t going too off topic, but why does Christ need to be perfect? Why does HF need to be perfect? And why do we need to aspire to be perfect?

I’ve found more power in the stories told in the gospels by viewing Jesus as a regular, everyday Joe that woke up to his divine nature. A divine nature that we all possess but fail to see.

[Anonymous]

dande48 wrote:

I hope this isn’t going too off topic, but why does Christ need to be perfect?

For the same reason any serious athlete goes for gold and not for fourth prize. Christ is an exemplar, not someone we should pull down and excuse our failures by. Jesus is there to get past our failures not to encourage them.

Baby Jesus had to have his diaper changed (or swaddling if you wish to be more accurate), but that isn’t a great way of looking at him because it doesn’t help us progress.

Quote:

Personally, I still fail to see how inflicting punishment on an innocent third party somehow absolves the perpetrator, nor do I feel it’s right or helpful to expect someone else to suffer the consequences of your mistakes.

Because it is the ultimate example of service. We do this all the time with our children, and excuse things that they do, we help them to learn their mistakes are wrong. Sometimes in life we have to take a beating for someone else, either by choice or by accident. If Jesus is guilty of something then we will focus on that, rather than the fact he did us this great aervice.

It is an example of service and is an example of how to break cycles of debt and revenge.

[Anonymous]

Well said, Sam.

There is power in the concept of a Savior and Redeemer, literal or symbolic, even though that concept can be distorted and manipulated, as well. I think forcing only one view actually distorts and minimizes its power, so I never argue with anyone who finds power in a view I don’t share – unless I see that view as inordinately harmful or in opposition to Jesus’ recorded teachings.

[Anonymous]

Old Timer wrote:

There is power in the concept of a Savior and Redeemer….

Agreed, and I like the concept either way. I do believe and hope that Jesus really is as we are taught and really is the Son of God. I do have my questions though, questions which will probably not be answered in my earthly life. So I can reach a middle way understanding if that’s what it takes for me to have faith. Is it possible Jesus really is the literal Son of God and actually suffered in some incomprehensible way to pay for all of our sins? Absolutely. Is it also possible the whole idea is more symbolic than “real” (actual, physical)? Yep. Are there more possibilities than these two? Probably many.

Quote:

I think forcing only one view actually distorts and minimizes its power, so I never argue with anyone who finds power in a view I don’t share…

Yep, like so many other things. I believe the bread and water in the sacrament is the Bread of Life and the Living Water. Many Catholics believe in transubstantiation. Others see other symbolic meaning in the sacrament or no meaning at all. Individual faith is individual, and I think a major theme in the recent changes is that we figure out what we individually believe for ourselves (Elder Bednar said as much just a few weeks ago).

So, if belief in a perfect Son of God Savior and perfect or near perfect prophets is what you need that’s wonderful for you. If you believe otherwise and it works for you, that’s also wonderful.

Quote:

For now we see in a mirror, dimly [in a riddle], but then we will see face to face. Now I know only in part; then I will know fully, even as I have been fully known.

[Anonymous]

I love the different perspectives on this thread. For myself, I love words, they have great power so I like to look up their origins. The origin of the word perfect, actually means complete. In this sense, I can see that Jesus was perfect in that he completed the atonement. It also gives me hope when I read “be ye therefore perfect” I cannot be “perfect” by today’s definition. I CAN, be complete, and I CAN complete the tasks given me. Such as caring for my children, supporting my husband, being a friend to those I love. In this sense, for me at least, the idea of being perfect is not stressful, but empowering. It also helps me see how flawed leaders may actually be the right person to accomplish a certain thing at a certain time, flawed though they may be.

[Anonymous]

Jaxzmin801 wrote:

The origin of the word perfect, actually means complete.

I like that. :thumbup:

[Anonymous]

Jaxzmin801 wrote:

I love the different perspectives on this thread. For myself, I love words, they have great power so I like to look up their origins. The origin of the word perfect, actually means complete. In this sense, I can see that Jesus was perfect in that he completed the atonement.

Thank you for sharing! I needed to hear this. Recently I’ve been struggling with my perspective of Jesus because my whole life I felt the church painted this picture of him as this perfect, humble, kind person while he was on the earth and that’s how I viewed him. Then this last week, I was studying Jesus last days for Easter when I came across the scriptures about him casting people out of the temple when he went to cleanse it, (if anyone’s wondering, it’s found in Matthew 21:12-16). After reading those verses I realized Jesus wasn’t perfect and I didn’t know how to view his life, but now after reading your post I feel like I’ve found my answer so thank you!

Jaxzmin801 wrote:

I cannot be “perfect” by today’s definition. I CAN, be complete, and I CAN complete the tasks given me. Such as caring for my children, supporting my husband, being a friend to those I love. In this sense, for me at least, the idea of being perfect is not stressful, but empowering.

I love this. It’s given be a different and better perspective of my life.

[Anonymous]

This is the Church of Jesus Christ of Imperfect Saints.

“Have I not chosen you, the Twelve? Yet one of you is a devil!” – John 6:71

[Anonymous]

Daughter1 wrote:

Your mention of Jesus claiming perfection made me realize that He did claim perfection. But it also makes me modify my timeline for when He attained it. He only claims perfection after His resurrection. When He visits the Nephites and gives the Sermon on the Mount equivalent, He ends with the admonition to “be perfect even as I and your Father in Heaven are perfect.” When He gives the original Sermon prior to His death, He only says “be perfect even as your Father in Heaven is perfect.” So He is not perfect until after His death and resurrection. I think dande’s point about Christ’s thoughts on how we interpret His story today ties in really well with this, as well as Curt’s point about the Atonement covering Christ too.

I personally view what is spoken by JC in the BoM to be JS putting words in Jesus’ mouth. However, it is somewhat fascinating to me that the LDS church is somewhat of two minds on the issue of the perfection of Jesus. We believe that Jesus was perfect in that He was forever without sin. However, we also believe that he was imperfect in some ways that included his mortal condition with his ability to need food, to need rest, to grow and to learn, presumably to get sick occasionally, and to eventually die. In this way we tend to have the best of both docrinal worlds on the subject. Any verses that reference imperfections in Jesus are talking about his mortal condition. Any verses that talk about his perfection are talking about his sinlessness or his eventual resurection and/or exaltation. It is a fascinating way to harmonize seemingly contradictory scriptures.

[Anonymous]

I agree the God (perfect) Jesus and the human (imperfect?) Jesus are one of the many paradoxes in Mormonism and to some extent Christianity in general. There are Christians and some Mormons who see Jesus as fully God and fully human simultaneously. My own view is pretty close to that, I’m just not completely sure about the God part.

[Anonymous]

Daughter1 wrote:

“God wouldn’t choose someone with a pride issue to lead His people. He would choose someone good!”

Sometimes I wonder where we get this idea that prophets need to be super-righteous spiritual giants. I guess it fits with our ideas about worthiness requirements for blessings, but it seems like many of the prophets in the scriptures (especially the Old Testament) are not what we would really call “righteous.”

I’ve come to believe something that could be described as the “flawed, but useful” hypothesis for prophets. Instead of thinking that God strengthens prophets to overcome their weaknesses, I prefer to think that God uses prophets for what they’re good at in spite of their weaknesses. For example, David clearly sinned, but he was a good political and military leader to build up the kingdom of Israel. I disagree with most of the doctrine Brigham Young taught, but he was a very strong leader for leading the saints across the plains and building a city from scratch. Nephi may have been an annoying self-righteous younger brother, but he was pretty good at building things like a bow and a boat to get his family to the promised land. Moses got himself into a lot of trouble, but he did have the guts to challenge Pharaoh and get the people out of Egypt.

I think maybe God doesn’t even need prophets to be righteous. Maybe he just needs them to have certain skills at the right time for his purposes. I guess it’s a pretty unorthodox opinion, but it helps me make sense of the behavior of prophets in the scriptures as well as in church history.

[Anonymous]

Arrakeen wrote:

I’ve come to believe something that could be described as the “flawed, but useful” hypothesis for prophets. Instead of thinking that God strengthens prophets to overcome their weaknesses, I prefer to think that God uses prophets for what they’re good at in spite of their weaknesses. For example, David clearly sinned, but he was a good political and military leader to build up the kingdom of Israel. I disagree with most of the doctrine Brigham Young taught, but he was a very strong leader for leading the saints across the plains and building a city from scratch. Nephi may have been an annoying self-righteous younger brother, but he was pretty good at building things like a bow and a boat to get his family to the promised land. Moses got himself into a lot of trouble, but he did have the guts to challenge Pharaoh and get the people out of Egypt.

I think maybe God doesn’t even need prophets to be righteous. Maybe he just needs them to have certain skills at the right time for his purposes. I guess it’s a pretty unorthodox opinion, but it helps me make sense of the behavior of prophets in the scriptures as well as in church history.

I love this idea. It’s a great way of understanding why God put His trust in these people. It takes the idea from flawed individuals to the even more relatable reality that everyone has strengths and weaknesses. We cannot focus just on one or the other if we want to truly understand and appreciate the person. I started the thread because I think we often focus only on the strength whole ignoring the great lessons the weakness teaches. But I love even more your juxtaposition of the weakness alongside the strength. They couldn’t have been the leaders they were without both.

[Anonymous]

Arrakeen, that is an excellent summary of how I view Brigham Young: multiple, serious flaws but perhaps the only person who could have kept the early members together and actually built a lasting society in a wasteland.

That description doesn’t depend on the truthfulness of the movement he led, so it allows me to try to be charitable regardless. Did “we” suffer as a result of his leadership? I believe so – but “we” survived to overcome those sufferings. That is not inconsequential; it is meaningful.

[Author]

Posts