Christ says - Being Mormon is not essential for eternal life

[_Buffalo]

Jesus really was very ecumenical. As a Jew, the view on Samaritans would have been akin to how the LDS view the RLDS. Or FLDS. But Jesus didn't seem to care.

[_Drifting]

Jesus really was very ecumenical. As a Jew, the view on Samaritans would have been akin to how the LDS view the RLDS. Or FLDS. But Jesus didn't seem to care.

Yeah funny that.

It's also worth mentioning again that it was a parable - a story specifically for us to use as an example and Jesus explicitly tells us that religious denomination is not a deciding factor in gaining eternal life.

[_Buffalo]

Jesus really was very ecumenical. As a Jew, the view on Samaritans would have been akin to how the LDS view the RLDS. Or FLDS. But Jesus didn't seem to care.

Yeah funny that.

It's also worth mentioning again that it was a parable - a story specifically for us to use as an example and Jesus explicitly tells us that religious denomination is not a deciding factor in gaining eternal life.

Absolutely.

I seem to remember reading that the the woman at the well was likely Jesus' wife - which would explain his views on Samaritans. I don't remember where I read that or heard it. Does that ring a bell?

[_Benjamin McGuire]

I don't think this piece of narrative is a parable at all. We make that assumption because the format is something like a story, but, I think that we largely miss the context. The story actually follows the pattern of a legal discussion - very technical in nature, in which a question is asked, and then various examples are raised in which the question might occur - and those examples move from the most difficult and unusual circumstances to the most common and immediate.

The narrative starts with this introduction:

And behold, a certain lawyer stood up, and tempted him, saying, Master, what shall I do to inherit eternal life? He said unto him, What is written in the law? How readest thou?

So the lawyer comes to Jesus with this question. What is the purpose of the exchange? In such a setting, the lawyer is challenging Jesus. He already has an answer to the question (it does say, after all, that he was there to tempt and not to learn), and the underlying supposition is that he will attempt to embarrass Jesus or show him up by getting a response from Jesus and then offering a better one. So Jesus responds to the question with one of his own - Jesus asks: How do you understand the Law? And the lawyer responds:

And he answering said, Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all they heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy strength, and with all thy mind; and they neighbor as thyself. And he said unto him, Thou has answered right: this do, and thou shalt live. But he, willing to justify himself, said unto Jesus, And who is my neighbor?

So the lawyer provides a good answer (one in fact that Jesus himself uses in response to the priests and elders in Matthew 22:36-40). But, the lawyer still wants to engage in the debate. So he asks Jesus who the neighbor is. Its not a trivial question - much of the Law of Moses is dedicated to distinguishing between Israel and everyone else. Different rules applied when dealing with Israelites than with strangers or foreigners. Again, we assume that the Lawyer has some idea of how he would answer this question - but the question he is asking is where do we draw the line? This is a question of exclusion. Who does the Law of Moses apply to?

So Jesus responds - and he provides the first test case for the lawyer to consider:

And Jesus answering said, A certain man went down from Jerusalem to Jericho, and fell among thieves, which stripped him of his raiment, and who wounded him, and departed, leaving him half dead. And by chance there came down a certain priest that way: and when he saw him, he passed by on the other side.

So what is the nature of the test case? A man traveling from Jerusalem could be just about anybody. The venue itself doesn't suggest whether or not the man was an Israelite. He has no clothes (which presumably could function to help identify the man). But more than this, the one indicator that might indicate that he could be an Israelite is now in plain sight. Is he circumcised? If he wasn't, the priest could leave him there and the stipulation of Leviticus 19:18 (to love your neighbor as yourself) wouldn't apply. Of course, even if he was circumcised, there wouldn't necessarily be resolution. After all, the Samaritans practiced circumcision - and they certainly traveled the road between Jericho and Jerusalem. The man is half dead (unconscious) so he cannot simply be asked if he is an Israelite. As a priest, we also have to consider the implications of Leviticus 1:1-4 which makes it sinful for the priest to touch a corpse. There might certainly be other legal considerations, and of all the Israelites, the question in the case of the priest would be the most difficult. Jesus has then posed his lawyer challenger with a difficult legal question to be figured out. Is the priest justified in moving to the other side of the road and ignoring the man in the ditch?

Jesus then follows this up with the next case to be considered. It is the same situation, but with a Levite, for whom the cultic responsibilities and requirements were a bit less than for the priest:

And likewise a Levite, when he was at the place, came and looked on him, and passed by on the other side.

The Levite has similar concerns (although certainly without the issues of Leviticus 1:1-4 - although other restrictions as those in Numbers 19 would still apply). In fact, from the perspective of the lawyer, this distinction which Jesus seems to want to introduce, is moving from the most complex to the simplest situation. So the implied question here too is whether or not a Levite is justified in ignoring the man (that is, in not applying Leviticus 19:18).

Finally we get to the third test case. At this point, the lawyer is expecting the introduction of the Israelite with the least restrictions - your average every-day Israelite. After all, he still understands that we are asking the question - is the man in the ditch the neighbor to the priest, to the levite, and now potentially, to the common Israelite. And at this moment, Jesus pulls the proverbial rug out from underneath his feet:

But a certain Samaritan, as he journeyed, came where he was: and when he saw him, he had compassion on him, and went to him, and bound up his wounds, pouring in oil and wine, and set him on his own beast, and brought him to an inn, and took care of him.

Jesus has now completely altered the discussion. Of course, it is completely natural that a Samaritan would walk down that road (after all, part of the underlying legal issue seems to be whether or not the unconscious man is a potentially a Samaritan instead of an Israelite). The Samaritan might actually have experienced all of the same legal points (from a different perspective of course) from the Israelites. But, the Samaritan acts out of compassion. Now we could suppose, even then, that Jesus could return to the original discussion - he could ask the lawyer: "If the Samaritan asks with compassion on the man, are the Priest and the Levite justified in not treating the man as a neighbor?", but instead, Jesus asks the lawyer:

Which now of these three, thinkest thou, was the neighbor unto him that fell among the thieves? And he said, He that shewed mercy on him. Then said Jesus unto him, Go, and do thou likewise.

So we start by asking who a neighbor is, we end up illustrating a neighbor by what he does. And in doing so, Jesus has challenged the entire process of identifying a neighbor. Rather than conforming or contributing to the legalistic debate and identification, he has turned the Law of Moses on its ear, and made a neighbor into someone who helps those in need.

To go back to the OP, I think that perhaps what we want is missionaries that encouraged to be more service minded - proselyting opportunities will come from that (and perhaps they are uniquely positioned to follow this admonition - because they have constant interactions with everyone - not just a narrower group of friends, churchmembers, family, co-workers and so on). But I also think that if we are really wanting to follow the teachings of Jesus, we can also look for ways to server others regardless of their status or affiliations. We need to be very careful how we view others. This lesson cannot exist solely on a sort of religious playing field. Severe anti-emigration laws are about anything but being a good neighbor - they are distinctly non-Christlike. Ultra-nationalism, and patriotism can be just as bad, and have, in my opinion, no real place in the gospel of Jesus Christ, which doesn't recognize these borders.

Ben M.

[_subgenius]

I don't think this piece of narrative is a parable at all.
...
To go back to the OP, I think that perhaps what we want is missionaries that encouraged to be more service minded - proselyting opportunities will come from that (and perhaps they are uniquely positioned to follow this admonition - because they have constant interactions with everyone - not just a narrower group of friends, churchmembers, family, co-workers and so on).
...

Ben M.

Nicely done. Thank you

[_Buffalo]

The missionaries are not given incentive to or held accountable for giving service. They're only held accountable for weekly proselytizing numbers.

[_subgenius]

The missionaries are not given incentive to or held accountable for giving service. They're only held accountable for weekly proselytizing numbers.

weird, i just checked "Preach My Gospel" and though i found 2 pages in Chapter 9 (Finding People) the section titled "Go About Doing Good", i failed to find the part about being held accountable for "weekly proselytizing numbers".
Can you clarify or even substantiate your claim...beyond anything anecdotal or assumptive, of course.

[_Buffalo]

The missionaries are not given incentive to or held accountable for giving service. They're only held accountable for weekly proselytizing numbers.

weird, i just checked "Preach My Gospel" and though i found 2 pages in Chapter 9 (Finding People) the section titled "Go About Doing Good", i failed to find the part about being held accountable for "weekly proselytizing numbers".
Can you clarify or even substantiate your claim...beyond anything anecdotal or assumptive, of course.

You were never a missionary, I take it.

[_Drifting]

The missionaries are not given incentive to or held accountable for giving service. They're only held accountable for weekly proselytizing numbers.

weird, i just checked "Preach My Gospel" and though i found 2 pages in Chapter 9 (Finding People) the section titled "Go About Doing Good", i failed to find the part about being held accountable for "weekly proselytizing numbers".
Can you clarify or even substantiate your claim...beyond anything anecdotal or assumptive, of course.

How many pages did you find about proselytising (teaching people that Mormonism is the religion they should join)?

[_ldsfaqs]

25 ¶And, behold, a certain lawyer stood up, and tempted him, saying, Master, what shall I do to inherit eternal life?
26 He said unto him, What is written in the law? how readest thou?
27 And he answering said, Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy strength, and with all thy mind; and thy neighbour as thyself.
28 And he said unto him, Thou hast answered right: this do, and thou shalt live.
29 But he, willing to justify himself, said unto Jesus, And who is my neighbour?
30 And Jesus answering said, A certain man went down from Jerusalem to Jericho, and fell among thieves, which stripped him of his raiment, and wounded him, and departed, leaving him half dead.
31 And by chance there came down a certain priest that way: and when he saw him, he passed by on the other side.
32 And likewise a Levite, when he was at the place, came and looked on him, and passed by on the other side.
33 But a certain Samaritan, as he journeyed, came where he was: and when he saw him, he had compassion on him,
34 And went to him, and bound up his wounds, pouring in oil and wine, and set him on his own beast, and brought him to an inn, and took care of him.
35 And on the morrow when he departed, he took out two pence, and gave them to the host, and said unto him, Take care of him; and whatsoever thou spendest more, when I come again, I will repay thee.
36 Which now of these three, thinkest thou, was neighbour unto him that fell among the thieves?
37 And he said, He that shewed mercy on him. Then said Jesus unto him, Go, and do thou likewise.

It dawned on me yesterday when we were discussing this during Sunday School, that as well as kindness to others, Christ was making the point that religious affiliation to any particular sect is of little consequence in terms of eternal life.

Yes, Mormons know this already, which is why we don't have Ministry's "against" other religions, and don't preach against other religions.

A couple of weeks ago I was debunking some anti-mormon claims against Mormonism with this story.

Also look at Mark 9 & Luke 9..... Christ also makes clear here that while the Apostles concerns were valid, their implimentation was wrong. In other words, it's correct that the Apostles had the Lords Authority and were the only authorized to act in His Name, Christ showed that even those outside of the Church, if they were sincere and weren't against the Church, then they also in as much as they are able are also children of God/Christ.

In other words, yes, this is all Restored theology.

This was Christ relating a parable (a story not a real event) to answer the question about gaining Eternal life and He explicitly uses people from differing religious sects.
In short, He is telling us that it matters not what religion we follow. We will not be measured on that. We will be measured on our acts of kindness towards fellow human beings.

Yes, we will be measured by our hearts and actions, not if we have perfect knowledge or are in the Church. Yes, this is LDS Theology.

I pondered this last night and reached the conclusion, on the basis of this parable, that Christ would not approve of the Church's missionary programme as it is currently operated. 55,000 Church missionaries world wide are concentrating on the point that your religious persuasion is vital for Eternal life and in fact, you need to join the Mormon religion to be exalted.
By comparison the Church has only 8,000 or so missionaries out in the world being good Samaritans.

You now go too far...... A knowledge of the Truth is what changes lives.
The primary mission of the Church is to bring people to Christ. The fullness of the Gospel is important and has value, but the Gospel is about changing lives, not simply the absolute truth. But you error in thinking the Truth isn't also important. The more truth a man has compared to falsehood, the better chance he has of being his full potential.

Further, the Church is the Watchman to the nations. It is the Light of Christ to the World.
It's mission is to preserve and proclaim the word, so that all may be able to know and choose.

Being a Good Samaritan is important, but it's only "Giving a man a Fish" so that he might live another day.
The Gospel is about "Teaching a man to Fish", so that he might live for Eternity, and also bless the lives of others.

If the Church followed the guidance Christ gives in the above parable, surely they'd be 63,000 missionaries engaged in acts of humanitarian compassion and none proselytysing?

The man in the Good Samaritan story was asking a question on what he must do foremost for his personal salvation, and that is to help others. That is what the story was about. We are to serve others. Service comes in many forms.

The humanitarian aid wasn't the point of the story, it was an "example". Again, the service of others comes in many forms. The man at the moment needed help..... We are to help. At another time, we are to teach him the Gospel. This is also why we don't "force" the Gospel on others like Evangelicals do. We seek to find ways to serve, and to assist, if that's what's needed, and then the missionary might share the gospel if they wish to receive. Maybe you aren't aware, but the Missionary's are always looking for ways to serve, not only to teach.