- This topic is empty.
-
Posts
-
By “pure Mormonism” I mean the actual theology, stripped of cultural influence (of the isolated multi-generational lines AND new converts) and/or “apostasy”. I don’t believe Joseph restored the perfect (full, complete, whole) Gospel all at once, and I think that’s obvious in our canon. “Pure Mormonism” is a bit of an idealized construct, since I don’t believe it’s ever existed fully – and since, ironically, my own perception of it, by definition, is subjective and incomplete. It’s a term I made up to encapsulate that for which we should strive – and as a way to distinguish cultural aspects of the Church from “the Gospel”.
Ray, I like what you have to say about pure Mormonism. I would like a little of my own slant on the word Mormonism. In my view the word Mormon vs. Latter Day Saint has explicit cultural connotations. For me when I am making a statement about my culture that I grow up in I make it a point to us the word Mormon. When I am trying to talk about the pure religion I typically talk about the Gospel. Again the idea of religion completely separate from culture is an idealized concept. The main way we learn about the gospel is through prophets or teachers who all have their own personality and cultural beliefs and I think these always color anything these people teach. When Isaiah prophesies I do not think he is speaking in the voice of God. It is his voice and if another man was in his calling at the same time these prophesy would come from his voice.
Thanks for starting up this conversation again, Featherina! I have a great interest in both Christianity (obviously, with the whole LDS thing) and Buddhism. I’ve noticed that people tend to want to reconcile their interests – it’s human nature – and in this case they want to reconcile their belief in Jesus’ teachings with a Buddhist world-view. As I have argued earlier on in this thread, I feel that they are miles apart, and I can prove it. Featherina wrote:Just these last 4 months, my perspective has changed so much! Spiritual searching, NOM, friends & a book, “Putting on the Mind of Christ” (by Jim Marion) all contributed. This book is about how Christ was not Jesus’ last name…& how “Christ” consciousness is what Jesus had & probably Buddha & others, as well & how we can all achieve it.
Ah, yes, Christ consciousness, that New Age nugget… New Age authors and teachers would have us believe that “Christ” was a title that was applied to all the great sages of the past, and that every individual has the potential to receive that title by tapping into “Christ Consciousness”. The truth is that “Christ” is the Greek version of “Messiah”, a Jewish concept of ONE promised individual who would establish the Kingdom of God.
Featherina wrote:When the Pharisees asked about when the kingdom of God would come, Jesus answered, “The kingdom of God cometh not with observation: Neither shall they say, Lo here! or, lo there! for, behold, the kingdom of God is within you.” I also wondered how I could have a realtionship with Jesus, when I don’t pray to him, & a relationship is only as good as its communication. Jesus also, when called, “Good Master” corrected him & said there is none good, but God.
1) The Kingdom of God:One reason why a lot of the Jews did not accept Jesus as the Messiah is because they expected a temporal saviour, one who would save them from bondage under the Roman Empire. When Jesus said “the kingdom of God is within you” (Luke 17), he was responding to the Pharisees (uber religious Jews of the day) who were asking him when the Kingdom of God would come. Jesus corrected them, because they thought the initial appearance of the Messiah was to establish the temporal kingdom. They misunderstood the prophecy… Read the Daniel 9:25-27, an OT Messianic prophecy, it says that “Messiah will be cut off”, which we understand to refer to his crucifixion. If you read on in Luke 17, you will see that he goes on to describe his Second Coming. THAT is when he will establish his temporal kingdom. In the mean time, we can be citizens of his heavenly kingdom by becoming followers of Jesus Christ. That is what he is likely referring to when he says “the kingdom of God is within you”. Observe the context of his answer, and you will see that the meaning is more clear!
2) Relationship with / Praying to Jesus:While it is current LDS policy not to pray to Jesus, I would argue that it was historically accepted. People prayed to Jesus in the New Testament and he never rebuked them. We have another thread on that here: http://www.staylds.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=6&t=760http://www.staylds.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=6&t=760” class=”bbcode_url”> 3) None is good but God:Would you say that Jesus was not good??? I think he is probably the only person in existence who CAN be called “good”. Jesus was trying to get this disciple to think about his identity. It was against Jewish law for a mortal to claim to be God, so Jesus could not come right out and announce his divinity. But throughout the NT he affirmed his divinity by offering hints such as this one. He isn’t saying he’s not good – everything else in the scriptures contradict that idea. Jesus was the onlycompletely good man. Featherina wrote:Still, I was taught that a requirement for heaven, is to believe in Jesus Christ, so I had never imagined that my belief in Jesus as my Lord & Savior could hinder my spiritual progress. Marion wrote, “By putting Jesus on an unreachable pedestal so that others such as Buddha & Muhammad can’t get near him (that is, by understanding Jesus
onlyas divine & the others only as human), we also prevent ourselvesfrom getting near Jesus. We set up a major obstacle to our realization of Christ Counsciousness & our own entrance into the Kingdom.” What did Jesus say about the entrance to the kingdom? “I am the gate; whoever enters through me will be saved”. (John 10:9, see whole chapter).
How does Marion say we enter the kingdom? If not by Jesus, then how? Jesus said that anyone who tried to get in another way is a theif and a robber (John 10:1).
A lot of people put Jesus on this unreachable pedestal and view him as an austere and incomprehensible figure. I get a different view of him from the scriptures – deity who loved his creation so much that he brought himself within reach… he became a human being in order to interact with us and endure the worst that human experience has to offer. That isn’t an unreachable God to me, that is a God who very much desires to be within our reach.
I am so loving the work of Joseph Campbell! The reason we recognize the teachings of the NT in Buddhism and every other mythology is because it is all the same story told and retold with different language and names. It is the human story. Mapleleaf, I just read Daniel 9 and I fail to see the connection to Jesus the Christ. The correct translation is rendered “an anointed one” and “an anointed ruler” not “Messiah.” It does not appear that the Isrealites were awaiting one particular “Messiah” or one “anointed one.” Also, the timeline that is given in Daniel makes it extremely difficult to apply it to Jesus. The timeframe starts with the Edict of Cyrus that was issued in 538 BCE. Seventy weeks from that doesn’t get us to Jesus.
It is much more likely that this passage was believed to have been fulfilled already when it was written (ie it was written after it had already happened). The idea of one man atoning for the sins of another is against the Law of Moses and there would be no Jew awaiting something unlawful. So, in a very Jewish way Jesus could be more easily seen as someone we should copy than one who atoned for the sins of the world.
That puts us right back to the concept of us all being capable of being a Christ or a Buddha. All of us can take upon ourselves the very name of Christ. I love the “Light of Christ” concept. I think it is the same as Inner Christ or Christ Consiousness or any of the other names people put on it. Words are merely symbols of the ineffable and transcendant. The words aren’t the truth, they can only point us towards it.
just me wrote:It does not appear that the Isrealites were awaiting one particular “Messiah” or one “anointed one.”
Yes, the Israelites were awaiting one particular Messiah, and still are to this day. There are both scriptural and secular sources that make this clear:
Online encyclopedia entry on “Messiah”:“In Judaism, a man who would be sent by God to restore Israel and reign righteously for all mankind. The idea developed among the Jews especially in their adversity, and such a conception is clearly indicated in Isaiah 9.” ( http://www.encyclopedia.com/topic/Messiah.aspx )From a website about Judaism:“Belief in the eventual coming of the mashiach is a basic and fundamental part of traditional Judaism… In the Shemoneh Esrei prayer, recited three times daily, we pray for all of the elements of the coming of the mashiach: ingathering of the exiles; restoration of the religious courts of justice; an end of wickedness, sin and heresy; reward to the righteous; rebuilding of Jerusalem; restoration of the line of King David; and restoration of Temple service.” ( http://www.jewfaq.org/mashiach.htm )Some scriptural snippets:“The first thing Andrew did was to find his brother Simon and tell him, “We have found the Messiah” (that is, the Christ).” (John 1:41); “”He saved others; let him save himself if he is the Christ of God, the Chosen One.”” (Luke 24:35); “The woman said, “I know that Messiah” (called Christ) “is coming. When he comes, he will explain everything to us.” Then Jesus declared, “I who speak to you am he.”” (John 4:25-26); “Come, see a man who told me everything I ever did. Could this be the Christ?” (John 4:29). Clearly it was/is part of the belief system, and people were well aware of it in Jesus’ day.
just me wrote:Mapleleaf, I just read Daniel 9 and I fail to see the connection to Jesus the Christ. The correct translation is rendered “an anointed one” and “an anointed ruler” not “Messiah.” … Also, the timeline that is given in Daniel makes it extremely difficult to apply it to Jesus. The timeframe starts with the Edict of Cyrus that was issued in 538 BCE. Seventy weeks from that doesn’t get us to Jesus.
Oh ye of little faith!
70 weeks, seven days a week. 70 x 7 = 490 days. 455 BC + 490 years = 35 AD. (The seventieth week was when Messiah would be “cut off” in the middle of the week, leaving Jesus’ death at about 33 AD). Fascinating, isn’t it?
just me wrote:The idea of one man atoning for the sins of another is against the Law of Moses and there would be no Jew awaiting something unlawful.
Daniel 9:27 – “And he shall confirm the covenant with many for one week: and in the midst of the week he shall cause the sacrifice and the oblation to cease.” The Messiah would cause the Jewish temple sacrifice to cease? But that was their method of atoning for their sins. How could they just eliminate their method for atoning for sins? Well, another way would have to have been provided. In the middle of that week Messiah was cut off, or killed, but not for himself. Isn’t it clear? Messiah would be killed for our sins, and it would end the need for ritual sacrifice!
just me wrote:I am so loving the work of Joseph Campbell! The reason we recognize the teachings of the NT in Buddhism and every other mythology is because it is all the same story told and retold with different language and names. It is the human story.
And that about says all you need to know!
MapleLeaf wrote:just me wrote:It does not appear that the Isrealites were awaiting one particular “Messiah” or one “anointed one.”
Yes, the Israelites were awaiting one particular Messiah, and still are to this day.
I’m reading a book called “How Jesus Became Christian” by Barrie Wilson. Very educational, but not an “exciting” read…I’ll review it here later. One point he makes is that the Jews (particularly the Pharisees, Sadducees, and the Essenes) alternated between who was “in charge” of the Jewish nation (they had different roles, philosophies, and varying degrees of diligence wrt lifestyle)…but during the century before Jesus, and for a period after his life, their concept of a “Messiah” was quite different than what we assume it to be.
First, to them, the idea of an afterlife was not clear. It certainly was not emphasized in that period. Simply, the Messiah was the prophecied “hero” that was to free them from the bondage they always found themselves in. Whether from Hellenization, or control by the Romans, etc., they felt that living the Law of the Torah correctly would bring the Messiah to free them in this life.
The more modern addition of living righteously for a reward of an afterlife of peace and happiness didn’t really gel until centuries later…of course, as Campbell says, with the melding of the various mythologies.
Ray, Thanks for clarifying “pure Mormonism.” MapleLeaf,
This is all really new to me, so I hesitate to share. I’ll just give you my perspective at this point (which could change).
The Old & New testaments have been through a lot! But even the pure version is likely not meant to be taken literally – but by the spirit…which, is partly what Jesus meant when he explained why he taught in parables. I know that to say I don’t believe in Jesus in the traditional way, causes many to freak out & say I’m going to hell. But what’s hell – & what’s heaven? Aren’t they relative – & personal? I’m not sure what I believe about Jesus – but I think that he is misinterpreted. I’m thinking that Jesus was/is most evolved & the only leader – who has shown us the way to the kingdom of God. In order to get there, we must follow his example – & go within. Interpretation of “his example” is key.
What is the kingdom of God? We’re taught that it’s the highest mansion or Celestial Kingdom – a place we get to go to after earning it in this life. How in the world is someone who is as shallow as a plate, but who’s done all of the “requirements” going to even recognize the depth of God? It only makes sense that since our spirit is accessed within us – that the kingdom of God is within. Our ultimate goal is to be happy & with God, who is LOVE…Opposition in all things…So, to become LOVE, we must overcome all that ego/baggage that keeps us from loving…& “he who does not go within, goes without.”
Still, I definetely don’t want to take the carpet out from anyone who feels power & spirit in faith in Jesus. In fact, I believe that the intent, spirit & feeling we put into things is more important than what our specific beliefs are. Religion is potentially a tool to getting us thinking & feeling higher, more spiritually. Also, as I mentioned, I’m still learning & need to meditate & soul-search more before I really conclude anything…if I ever do conclude anything.
Featherina wrote:… I’m still learning & need to meditate & soul-search more before I really conclude anything…if I ever do conclude anything.
Nice approach, IMO. I think the secret is not to ever conclude anything!
Messiah and Christ(os) both mean “anointed one” in Hebrew and Greek respectively. They’re virtually synonyms. Christ in the New Testament is just a translation of the term “messiah” in the OT. Similar concepts can be found in other religions including Buddhism and Islam, see here –
Featherina, there’s a post and thread here about whether or not Jesus was an actal historical figure. I think that’s the one with some interesting comments on how people view Jesus. If anyone can find it and link it, go for it. I’m a bit rushed right now. 
Rix – yeah, it’s humbling to know that we’ll never know everything. Ray – Thanks, I’ll look for it. (Kindof like scripture-staylds search
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.