DiscussMormonism.com

What is the central moral quality of a life centered in God? What is the central moral quality that should be embodied within a community?

Christian theologian Marcus Borg argues that Jesus’ answer to these questions was compassion. Even more significantly, Borg argues that Jesus was directly challenging the dominant sociopolitical paradigm of first-century Jewish Palestine, which emphasized purity instead of compassion. I’ve summarized Borg’s argument here:

http://in-fide-scientiam.com/2013/10/27/compassion-versus-purity/

Borg’s perspective raises a number of interesting questions for Mormons, including:

• What are the differences between the way that purity was understood in Jesus’ social world and the way that it is talked about in the church today? What are the similarities?
• To what extent does the church emphasize compassion? To what extent does the church emphasize purity?
• To what extent does the church operate to break down the types of social boundaries that existed in Jesus’ social world (righteous versus sinner, male versus female, rich versus poor, etc.)? To what extent does the church reinforce those social boundaries?

Human nature seems to inherently hold the prime directive as 'survival'. In that it is built into ones genes that first and foremost one takes care of ones self and then ones own. When one has children the prime directive seems (at least as my own feelings go) to shift to 'survival of the children' first and of ones self takes second place. If the claims of Christ's teachings in the New Testament are accurate, then He seemed to be advocating the prime directive as 'love thy neighbour as thy self' or, as I define that, collectively ensuring ones community is looked out for in terms of the basic necessities of life.

The prime directive that the Church seems to promote, is one of recruitment.
The be all and end all of current Mormonism is that members need to do all they can to get people into the waters of baptism.
Christian charity of the likes that Christ promoted, are in at least second place as far as the current Church is concerned.
Ward and Stake mission plans, General Conference themes etc are all aimed at 'hastening the work' which in normal speak, is 'get more members recruited and get lapsed members back into the pews'. It is not aimed at encouraging members to help out more with the homeless, the needy, the impoverished etc with no ulterior motive other than 'loving they neighbour'. Everything the current Church teaches, promotes, encourages, exhorts etc has the prime directive of recruitment.

tomhardman wrote:What is the central moral quality of a life centered in God? What is the central moral quality that should be embodied within a community?

Christian theologian Marcus Borg argues that Jesus’ answer to these questions was compassion. Even more significantly, Borg argues that Jesus was directly challenging the dominant sociopolitical paradigm of first-century Jewish Palestine, which emphasized purity instead of compassion. I’ve summarized Borg’s argument here:

http://in-fide-scientiam.com/2013/10/27/compassion-versus-purity/

Borg’s perspective raises a number of interesting questions for Mormons, including:

• What are the differences between the way that purity was understood in Jesus’ social world and the way that it is talked about in the church today? What are the similarities?
• To what extent does the church emphasize compassion? To what extent does the church emphasize purity?
• To what extent does the church operate to break down the types of social boundaries that existed in Jesus’ social world (righteous versus sinner, male versus female, rich versus poor, etc.)? To what extent does the church reinforce those social boundaries?

I found Borg's essay very thought provoking and compelling, but I don't know that it has as much applicability to LDS beliefs and practices as you seem to suggest. My disaffection with the LDS Church is almost entirely due to the obvious falsity of its foundational truth and historical claims.

Though I have little doubt that there may be and probably are wards that are highly stratified socially, where the more well-to-do lack compassion for their poorer, fellow members, I have rarely encountered any evidence of that in any of the many wards of which I have been a member. I and my family have usually been among the less wealthy of the wards we attended, but we have almost always been well received by even by some of the wealthiest members of those wards and have even been welcomed as invited guests in their homes.

The local ward in the community where I now live seems to be particularly compassionate towards its less fortunate members, judging by the compassionate help and care my wife and her fellow Relief Society sisters give to the impoverished and elderly, single and widowed women they are assigned to as visiting teachers. I am particularly thinking of one sweet, diabetic and partially blind old lady who would be particularly destitute were it not for the love and help my sweet wife and her partner give to this lady.

I criticize the Church and its practices and truth claims too, but let's not fail to give credit where credit is due. or try to make it look worse than it really is.

Bazooka wrote:Human nature seems to inherently hold the prime directive as 'survival'. In that it is built into ones genes that first and foremost one takes care of ones self and then ones own. When one has children the prime directive seems (at least as my own feelings go) to shift to 'survival of the children' first and of ones self takes second place. If the claims of Christ's teachings in the New Testament are accurate, then He seemed to be advocating the prime directive as 'love thy neighbour as thy self' or, as I define that, collectively ensuring ones community is looked out for in terms of the basic necessities of life.

The prime directive that the Church seems to promote, is one of recruitment.
The be all and end all of current Mormonism is that members need to do all they can to get people into the waters of baptism.
Christian charity of the likes that Christ promoted, are in at least second place as far as the current Church is concerned.
Ward and Stake mission plans, General Conference themes etc are all aimed at 'hastening the work' which in normal speak, is 'get more members recruited and get lapsed members back into the pews'. It is not aimed at encouraging members to help out more with the homeless, the needy, the impoverished etc with no ulterior motive other than 'loving they neighbour'. Everything the current Church teaches, promotes, encourages, exhorts etc has the prime directive of recruitment.

I think there is a lot of validity to that criticism, but what if part of the motivation for recruiting new members and reactivating lapsed members is to increase the number of people who are actively working help the homeless, the needy, the impoverished etc.? Is there anything intrinsically wrong with that?

Jesus was a true religious revolutionary for his time. While Jesus would have endorsed the idea of praying, the religious ideals of pay and obey were more the stuff of the Sanhedrin and would fit closer to the idea of purity.

Love and forgiveness instead of an eye for an eye. Mercy trumping justice (TBMS will always argue on the side of justice rather than mercy). These were revolutionary concepts at that time and stood in contrast to the Mosaic Code.

moksha wrote:Jesus was a true religious revolutionary for his time. While Jesus would have endorsed the idea of praying, the religious ideals of pay and obey were more the stuff of the Sanhedrin and would fit closer to the idea of purity.

Love and forgiveness instead of an eye for an eye. Mercy trumping justice (TBMS will always argue on the side of justice rather than mercy). These were revolutionary concepts at that time and stood in contrast to the Mosaic Code.

Jesus' teachings and philosophy were not entirely unique even in his own time. Hillel the Elder, who died around 10 CE and was one of the most important figures in Jewish history and philosophy, taught essentially what Jesus did about moral behavior and how to treat one's fellow men. He taught:

What is hateful to you, do not do to your fellow: this is the whole Torah; the rest is commentary; go and learn.

He was certainly well known in his own time, and it is inconceivable to me that Jesus would not have known of him and his teachings. It is far from improbable that Jesus not only knew of Hillel, but may even have patterned his own life and ministry after that of Hillel (assuming, of course, that Jesus Christ was a real, historical character). See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hillel_the_Elder

Much of what Yeshua preached was very old Greek philosophy. Judea had been a Greek colony for hundreds of years before the time of Yeshua. The first version of the Golden Rule (do unto others as you would have them do unto you) is from Pittacus, 640–568 BC.

Jesus's material was first class, but not original.

The Indian Emperor Ashoka in the 3rd Century BCE probably had some influence when he sent out Dharma Bhanaks (Buddhist Missionaries) to such unimaginable far-flung places as Athens, Alexandria, Antioch and Nazareth. These Buddhists were able to mix their thought with local culture till all that was left were mere wisps of influence. Their teachings in the East maintained more of the basics mixed in with local thought. Even the name remained, The Church of Siddhartha the Earth and Sky Toucher.

moksha wrote:The Indian Emperor Ashoka in the 3rd Century BCE probably had some influence when he sent out Dharma Bhanaks (Buddhist Missionaries) to such unimaginable far-flung places as Athens, Alexandria, Antioch and Nazareth. These Buddhists were able to mix their thought with local culture till all that was left were mere wisps of influence. Their teachings in the East maintained more of the basics mixed in with local thought. Even the name remained, The Church of Siddhartha the Earth and Sky Toucher.

Interesting. I wonder if that's why I frequently come across the word "tenchi" (meaning "heaven and earth") so often in study of Japanese martial arts.

Quasimodo wrote:Much of what Yeshua preached was very old Greek philosophy. Judea had been a Greek colony for hundreds of years before the time of Yeshua. The first version of the Golden Rule (do unto others as you would have them do unto you) is from Pittacus, 640–568 BC.

Jesus's material was first class, but not original.

Yes, that is undoubtedly true as well.