You are all a bunch of Pharisees

[Jeff Lebowski]

...according to this guy anyway.

http://www.sixteensmallstones.org/ha...rmon-pharisees

In recent years, a number of Mormon intellectuals have been spreading the meme that what matters in the church is not correct belief (orthodoxy) but correct practice (orthopraxy). In other words, like the Catholic contact I met years ago, they believe that it doesn’t really matter if you believe in the principles and doctrines that the leaders of the church teach. So long as you conform to the practices that the church can easily measure, such as paying tithes, obeying the dietary restrictions of the Word of Wisdom, attending church meetings, and holding regular family night, then you are a good, faithful Mormon and beyond reproach, even if you spend your time on the internet, and elsewhere, trying to convince others to adopt unorthodox beliefs that are clearly contrary to church teachings and leaders.

Let’s call this “Orthopraxy” meme what it is: Pharisaism. Those who practice Mormonism after this fashion are modern Mormon Pharisees.

[TripletDaddy]

Ironic. I would think that the position he is describing is one a non-intellectual would attempt to advance.

He lost me when he said that orthoprax LDS feel that they are "beyond reproach" and "good and faithful" simply because they are doing the outward stuff.

If CUF demonstrates anything, it is that those that cannot reconcile their orthopraxy with their orthdoxy experience great inner turmoil, far from the self-satisfaction he describes.

[Indy Coug]

[Moliere]

...according to this guy anyway.

http://www.sixteensmallstones.org/ha...rmon-pharisees

Maybe I'm misreading this, but I think he's saying that we are basicallly saved by works and not grace. This is not too far from the Mormonism I was taught as a kid, although there was a bit of emphasis on having the "right heart" while keeping the commandments.

[UtahDan]

Right because the Pharisees where non-believers.

I came this close to wasting some time to tell him how utterly backwards he has it. But I'm trying to be better about just letting people be wrong without comment.

[SeattleUte]

He's ignorant. A pharisee is a completely inapt analogy. He doesn't know what they were.

[pellegrino]

He's ignorant. A pharisee is a completely inapt analogy. He doesn't know what they were.

This is the correct answer. Plus, he equates modern TBM, orthodox Mormons with the Sadducees. Wasn't Christ equally critical of them and their practices? Didn't they deny Christ just as much as their rivals the Pharisees?

[jay santos]

...according to this guy anyway.

http://www.sixteensmallstones.org/ha...rmon-pharisees

I actually agree. The Pharisees lived the law, but they rejected Christ. I'm all for the intellectuals, but when they whine about their level of worship being labeled as substandard, it's hard for me to sympathize.

But the Pharasaism of intellectuals is less damaging (at least to me) than the Pharasaism of those that are both orthoprax and orthodox.

[Jeff Lebowski]

I actually agree. The Pharisees lived the law, but they rejected Christ. I'm all for the intellectuals, but when they whine about their level of worship being labeled as substandard, it's hard for me to sympathize.

But the Pharasaism of intellectuals is less damaging (at least to me) than the Pharasaism of those that are both orthoprax and orthodox.

That seems like a strawman to me.

[jay santos]

That seems like a strawman to me.

I'm specifically recalling the thread we discussed a quote from Bob Millet that was something like "we welcome all types of LDS but if you don't believe Jesus was real, your type of faith is less powerful than those do believe in the actuality". Something like that. As far as I remember, there were intellectuals here and referenced to who exist in other spheres that were offended by that.

[Jeff Lebowski]

I'm specifically recalling the thread we discussed a quote from Bob Millet that was something like "we welcome all types of LDS but if you don't believe Jesus was real, your type of faith is less powerful than those do believe in the actuality". Something like that. As far as I remember, there were intellectuals here and referenced to who exist in other spheres that were offended by that.

That's not how I recall the discussion going down, but I could be wrong.

By the way, you are every bit as much an intellectual (and unorthodox) as anyone here so stop pretending we are talking about other people.

[SeattleUte]

This is the correct answer. Plus, he equates modern TBM, orthodox Mormons with the Sadducees. Wasn't Christ equally critical of them and their practices? Didn't they deny Christ just as much as their rivals the Pharisees?

Actually, progressive Mormons are more like Christians; orthodox Mormons more like Pharisees. The main difference between Sadducees and Pharisees was their views on resurrection, eternal life. Sadducees rejected the later books of the Torah where these more mystical Eastern or Hellenized ideas were introduced. (Daniel bears influences of Zoroastrianism, a quasi-monotheistic religion with its own brilliant scripture that was popular among Persian nobility during the Persian captivity.)

However, progressive Mormons, like Christians, reject many traditional "legalisms" of their faith. Sadducees and Pharisees alike were strict observers of the law. In fact, a truly enlightened view of Christianity appreciates that Christianity is the product of fusion or symbiosis among various viewpoints, including most obviously Judaism and Greek philosophy.

Thus, Paul was a noble who spoke Greek, the lingua franca of intellectuals of the day, and was a friend of Herod's court, etc. Christians were worldly, learned. Christianity reveres Philo and Josephus, two Greek speaking intellectuals whose ideas shaped Christianity through the ages, including probably the (anonymous) authors of the original Gospels. The authors of the Gospels wrote the original texts in Greek, which speaks volumes. They were intellectuals creating a new order.

More than anyone here I'm more like Paul. An apostate and revolutionary against the faith of his fathers who has constructed an original and radical outlook. Lebowski is like a very brilliant Hellenized Jewish sage who helped to usher in the new epoch of Judaism minus sacrifices and other atavistic beliefs.

Progressive Mormons are most like Christ and his disciples, Orthodox Mormons like Pharisees, if you want to apply these analogies.

[jay santos]

That's not how I recall the discussion going down, but I could be wrong.

By the way, you are every bit as much an intellectual (and unorthodox) as anyone here so stop pretending we are talking about other people.

Maybe, but I like to split my brain up so much, it's hard (for even me) to know which side is talking.

[Green Monstah]

I didn't read the article for lack of time, but it seems like he's setting up a false dichotomy.

There are many who are somewhere between the two and who in the absence of unbridled orthodoxy have clung to orthopraxy while we sort out our beliefs.

I'm guessing he's taking aim at John Dehlin's approach (the church can still be good even if not true), which is unfortunate.

[Portland Ute]

Thus, Paul was a noble who spoke Greek, the lingua franca of intellectuals of the day, and was a friend of Herod's court, etc. Christians were worldly, learned. Christianity reveres Philo and Josephus, two Greek speaking intellectuals whose ideas shaped Christianity through the ages, including probably the (anonymous) authors of the original Gospels. The authors of the Gospels wrote the original texts in Greek, which speaks volumes. They were intellectuals creating a new order.

More than anyone here I'm more like Paul. An apostate and revolutionary against the faith of his fathers who has constructed an original and radical outlook.