about me

[questioning_seeker]

Hi all

I joined this forum last night and have already made two posts. This is my first foray into the world of forums and blogs of any type, so I'm not sure of the rules and protocols. I'm looking for a forum in which to discuss doctrinal issues and questions because I have a lot of ideas in my head that I'd like to sound out with others.

Here's a question that occured to me yesterday in Sunday School while we were looking at Matthew 6 and 7:

What conclusions can be drawn from the apparent difference between Matthew 5: 16 and Matthew 6: 1, 3? Remember, I'm looking for conclusions, not reconciliation. Clearly these two apparently opposing verses can be reconciled without much difficulty, but what conclusions can be drawn, perhaps about the inadequacies of language, or about Christ's teaching style, or about the way the Jews of that time learned things or any range of other things?.

ps I think that any person whose avatar is a ginger bread man risks having their head bitten off, even if they are a moderator, particularly if they have icing for eyes and lips :)

Edited March 7, 2011 by questioning_seeker
forgot to add the ps

[pam]

Heyyy I am one tough cookie.

[rameumptom]

You wouldn't want to mess with Pam. She's may look enticing from the front, but her bottom side is burnt and tastes like charcoal....

As for the scriptures you've asked about, it becomes a balancing act to do things for the right reasons. In this instance, we have to separate out the works of a truly humble follower of God from a Pharisee. When we are inwardly righteous, it shows forth in natural ways and others will see it come forth without us having to make any specific action to get their attention. When we stand in front of everyone and think "look at me, I'm wonderful!", then we are inwardly corrupt, while outwardly presenting an image.

I think these two do not contradict, but simply correlate or go in parallel together. We must not seek the glory of the world for ourselves, but must seek for the glory of God. This will help us distinguish between what must be done secretly and what must be done openly.

For example, we all frequently say both private and public prayers. Nothing wrong with that. However, in the private prayers I will often speak with God about things that are very dear to me, and perhaps things that should remain just between God and myself. This can even include telling him how I am pleased that I did well in something. In public prayers, OTOH, we are going to state different things that apply more for the group, and that will not reveal things that should stay secret or sacred.

[pam]

You wouldn't want to mess with Pam. She's may look enticing from the front, but her bottom side is burnt and tastes like charcoal....

And just how exactly do you know this Ram?

[rameumptom]

While looking at your avatar, I smelled something burning. so I turned my monitor backwards, and saw smoke billowing out with a charcoal smell!!!!

[questioning_seeker]

Thanks for your reply Rameumpton, you have reconciled the two apparent differences along pretty much the same lines I would have. The reconciliation of difference in this case is not too hard to do. I was pondering more along the lines of whta conclusions can be drawn from the apparent difference between these two scriptures. For example, of the many ways in which these two principles could have been taught, Christ chose to teach it in this way. Why? Because that was how the Jews best learned things? Because that is what best suited Christ's teaching styles? Because somewhere in the last 2,000 years, mistranslations have occured, distorting the message that we now have? Because what He was saying was clear and obvious to the Jews at the time and needed no further explanation? Because Matthew, and later Nephi didn't quite get it all down right the first time?

I think that If I was a teacher, I would have gone to greater lengths to more clearly distinguish between these two apparently different positions. That Christ did not do so raises some questions, the answers to which may help us better understand Him, His teachings or the culture and times He lived in.

ps and looking at the expression on the face of Pam's avatar - rather alarmed I'd say - you may be right about the state of her bottom.

Edited March 8, 2011 by questioning_seeker
forgot to add the ps

[rameumptom]

Perhaps the way to distinguish these is to consider that they are different commands being handled here: apples and oranges. One is about not bragging about the things one does, and the other is about doing good works in a celestial manner.

Second, how do we know we have all of Christ's words in this sermon? This sermon, as we have it, was written down decades after the event. It is very possible that Christ spoke for hours, and we only have a short revision of it all.

[pam]

Please could you all stop talking about my bottom. Sheesh.

[rameumptom]

Wow, someone is being sensitive today.

Here is a woman mourning over some of your relatives that have suffered the same injury as you:

http://t0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcTGr1jz-U3q6YEeDkP_da26Jfgf3kLpK4uFHeNujlFpuds9cGHf&t=1

[pam]

Be nice to me or I'll get some of my Islander Brothers after you.

[questioning_seeker]

Gooday Ram, thanks for your reply. The first part of your reply is just a reconciliation of the differences between the two scriptures. The second part is more interesting because it is one of many possible conclusions that can be drawn from this difference, ie, that perhaps not all of Christ's words from the Sermon on the Mount are contained within the scriptures. I'm not saying whether the written account of the Sermon on the Mount is complete or incomplete, I'm just suggesting that if one was trying to answer that question, then the apparent difference between these two verses could help to support a conclusion.

On another matter, Pam has claimed that she is a tough cookie. I think she is more a gingerbread (wo)man than a cookie and she possibly has identity issues :) . No doubt the toughness is further evidence of having been singed and burnt at some stage. All the unburnt gingerbread people I've met are soft and kind of crumbly.

Pam, loved the gingerbread huka.