LDS If the LDS religion is not legalistic and overbearing, then what's up with...

[devin553344]

Could you explain this?

The bible spells out worthiness of Bishops and Deacons, not members nor at baptism. At baptism they were all confessing their sins.

1 Timothy 3:2-12

2 A bishop then must be blameless, the husband of one wife, vigilant, sober, of good behaviour, given to hospitality, apt to teach;

3 Not given to wine, no striker, not greedy of filthy lucre; but patient, not a brawler, not covetous;

4 One that ruleth well his own house, having his children in subjection with all gravity;

5 (For if a man know not how to rule his own house, how shall he take care of the church of God?)

6 Not a novice, lest being lifted up with pride he fall into the condemnation of the devil.

7 Moreover he must have a good report of them which are without; lest he fall into reproach and the snare of the devil.

8 Likewise must the deacons be grave, not doubletongued, not given to much wine, not greedy of filthy lucre;

9 Holding the mystery of the faith in a pure conscience.

10 And let these also first be proved; then let them use the office of a deacon, being found blameless.

11 Even so must their wives be grave, not slanderers, sober, faithful in all things.

12 Let the deacons be the husbands of one wife, ruling their children and their own houses well.

 

[Rescued One]

"But they claim priesthood authority for mere members and that is probably when they should ask worthiness questions, not at baptism or membership."

I'm still confused. Are you saying that Mormons claim priesthood authority for mere members? In order to be ordained to the priesthood you are interviewed by the bishop and ordained if you're thought to be an obedient member. I don't think an obedient member is a mere member, do you?

 

[devin553344]

"But they claim priesthood authority for mere members and that is probably when they should ask worthiness questions, not at baptism or membership."

I'm still confused. Are you saying that Mormons claim priesthood authority for mere members? In order to be ordained to the priesthood you are interviewed by the bishop and ordained if you're thought to be an obedient member. I don't think an obedient member is a mere member, do you?

Yes they are members with no authority over the church. Priesthood of Melchizedek - Wikipedia

I think we need to be clear, worthiness does not make you more than a member. But as far as true worthiness Jesus said this: Matthew 22:14

"For many are called, but few are chosen"

And the question of the OP may be closer to whether one should be worthy to belong to a church. Legalistic?

 

[dzheremi]

You might want to ask ironhold what they meant by 'legalistic', as I started this thread as a result of ironhold's post in another thread where they claimed that the LDS religion isn't legalistic, while other religions are. I've provided examples of behaviors I consider legalistic in the OP: being obsessive in the level of detail requested to the point of giving people ideas for sins they would not have otherwise had (though I will grant, with regard to the video presented, it's not nothing to me that this is an LDS leader himself who is saying it shouldn't be done this way, though the fact that he needs to spell it out kinda gives you the idea that this behavior -- while probably not extremely common -- was not unheard of at the time, and the recent "Protect LDS children" movement to change how worthiness interviews are done would seem to indicate that there is still a problem in this area); controlling what members can speak about of their own lives/invoking authority to get people to be quiet; and expecting those who are just beginning to investigate your religion to already be living according to its code/judging them by whether or not they are.

Each one of these present a kind of inflexibility or lack of pastoral concern towards peoples' circumstances that I would say is characteristic of a legalistic mindset. But, no, it doesn't really have to do with whether or not a member is 'worthy' to belong to the LDS religion, or any other for that matter. That's not my concern, as I'm not seeking that LDS justify their legalism, only to explain how these things are understood within Mormonism so as to plausibly be able to claim that their religion is not legalistic. Or maybe the key is the "unlike others" part in the post which inspired this one (I don't know). Maybe Mormonism is only not legalistic relative to its characterization of other religions, in the same way that Mormons dismiss other restorationist religions as false because they don't have the features of Mormonism (Islam, for instance, lacks "priesthood keys", obviously), rather than because restorationism itself is bunk. I could see that, actually: "We're not legalistic, unlike these other people." "But you do XYZ." "Yeah, but we don't do XYZ like other people do." ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

 

[Peter1000]

1) Context
2) See my posts about pastoral responsibility toward the well-being of the community.
3) Note that Peter didn't investigate, scrutinize, and invade Ananias and Sapphira's personal lives.

-CryptoLutheran

Peter did not invade their personal lives? Are you serious. Read it again. When their personal life fraud to the Lord was uncovered by Peter, they lost their lives. This is the ultimate interview ending badly story. And the result was fear spread through the church.

Would you have left the church because of Ananias and Sapphira's deaths due to Peter uncovering their fraudulent behavior to the church and the Lord?

 

[ViaCrucis]

Peter did not invade their personal lives? Are you serious. Read it again. When their personal life fraud to the Lord was uncovered by Peter, they lost their lives. This is the ultimate interview ending badly story. And the result was fear spread through the church.

Would you have left the church because of Ananias and Sapphira's deaths due to Peter uncovering their fraudulent behavior to the church and the Lord?

I think it strange that you aren't able to differentiate between Peter confronting harmful and abusive behavior and engaging in invasive questioning into the personal lives of others.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[Peter1000]

I think it strange that you aren't able to differentiate between Peter confronting harmful and abusive behavior and engaging in invasive questioning into the personal lives of others.

-CryptoLutheran

Well, invasive questioning is never OK. I'm with you on that.

 

[Ironhold]

I could see that, actually: "We're not legalistic, unlike these other people." "But you do XYZ." "Yeah, but we don't do XYZ like other people do." ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

"Where's your cross? Then you're not Christian."

"You read that translation of the Bible? Then you're not Christian."

"You don't subscribe to such-and-such specific and exacting creed even though we ourselves aren't entirely sure what it means? Then you're not Christian."

And so on and so on and so on.

Are you trying to say that this never happens in mainline Christianity, and that every last one of us - myself included - who has borne witness to such things is lying?

One can readily find people whose definition of what makes one "Christian" essentially rules out anyone who isn't just like themselves.

How's that for legalism?

 

[dzheremi]

I'm sorry, Ironhold, this thread is about Mormonism, not Christianity.

Please take your complaints about Christianity to a different thread. Thank you.