Losing My Testimony

[Timpman]

Hi, I'm back and crazier than ever (actually, I am getting an appointment with a doc to probably diagnose me with ADHD).

So I'm having a hard time because I've been reading some stuff in the Old Testament. Ha, you thought I was going to name some anti book. Anyway, these verses from Exodus just blow my mind:

Chapter 21

The Lord reveals his laws pertaining to servants, plural marriage, the death penalty for various offenses, the giving of an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth, and the damage done by oxen.

1 Now these are the judgments which thou shalt set before them.

2 If thou buy an Hebrew servant, six years he shall serve: and in the seventh he shall go out free for nothing.

3 If he came in by himself, he shall go out by himself: if he were married, then his wife shall go out with him.

4 If his master have given him a wife, and she have born him sons or daughters; the wife and her children shall be her master’s, and he shall go out by himself.

5 And if the servant shall plainly say, I love my master, my wife, and my children; I will not go out free:

6 Then his master shall bring him unto the judges; he shall also bring him to the door, or unto the door post; and his master shall bore his ear through with an aul; and he shall serve him for ever.

7 ¶And if a man sell his daughter to be a maidservant, she shall not go out as the menservants do.

Exodus 21 

So someone could "buy an Hebrew servant" and after six years the servant (slave) would have to be let loose, unless the slave is a maidservant, in which case she could be kept for life (verse 7). Why did God condone slavery? I must have grown up in ignorance because I have always thought that God wants people to be free.

And families don't seem to be very sacred. Verse 4 explains that a man would have to leave his wife and children behind if he leaves after the six years. What's up with that?

[Timpman]

Oh, and there's these verses from the same chapter:

20 ¶And if a man smite his servant, or his maid, with a rod, and he die under his hand; he shall be surely punished.

21 Notwithstanding, if he continue a day or two, he shall not be punished: for he is his money.

So, if a man smites his slave and the slave dies right away, the owner will be punished. However, if the slave survives a day or two, it's okay!

[Dravin]

You do realize the Law of Moses is a combination of religious and secular law? And that the Children of Israel had some issues with the whole hardness of their hearts thing? Divorce is one example where the Jesus in the New Testament specifically points out that the law they were living under was because they were too hardened to accept the higher law of no divorce.

Heck, currently we don't live the celestial law concerning marriage inasmuch as one can still become divorced in the eyes of the Church for other than adultery and remarry and not be held accountable as adulterers. Elder Oak had this to say about divorce:

The kind of marriage required for exaltation—eternal in duration and godlike in quality—does not contemplate divorce. In the temples of the Lord, couples are married for all eternity. But some marriages do not progress toward that ideal. Because “of the hardness of [our] hearts,” the Lord does not currently enforce the consequences of the celestial standard.

Link: Divorce - general-conference

My point? You are forgetting line upon line and precept upon precept, you are forgetting that the Children of Israel had been living in apostasy in Egypt, were not ready for the higher law and ended up being given:

1 And the Lord said unto Moses, Hew thee two other tables of stone, like unto the first, and I will write upon them also, the words of the law, according as they were written at the first on the tables which thou brakest; but it shall not be according to the first, for I will take away the priesthood out of their midst; therefore my holy order, and the ordinances thereof, shall not go before them; for my presence shall not go up in their midst, lest I destroy them.

2 But I will give unto them the law as at the first, but it shall be after the law of a carnal commandment; for I have sworn in my wrath, that they shall not enter into my presence, into my rest, in the days of their pilgrimage. Therefore do as I have commanded thee, and be ready in the morning, and come up in the morning unto mount Sinai, and present thyself there to me, in the top of the mount.

Read Exodus 32 and 33 for the lead up (taking note of the JST).

Edited June 6, 2012 by Dravin

[JesusParadox]

Did you enjoy having a testimony? From your post it seems like you did and are struggling with its loss. If that is the case why don't you cast aside all doubt. Like was said multiple times last GC replace fear with faith.

Two Options:

1. Continue to build your testimony and experience the joy of having one.

2. Lose your testimony and not experience the joy that comes from having one.

The bottom line is, we can all cultivate faith within ourselves, the choice is yours.

[NeuroTypical]

Hi, I'm back and crazier than ever (actually, I am getting an appointment with a doc to probably diagnose me with ADHD).

All I have to say about that, is welcome to the club! ADHD isn't near as crazy as it used to be. Too many sucessful, brilliant, funny people have it. If that's your diagnosis, then roll with it. It's hardly like getting diagnosed with cancer.

As for your questions about how God dealt with people 3000 years ago, I'd just suggest you study secular history about the type of people who lived 3000 years ago. Those people were the real crazy people. Nobody thought about things in terms of human dignity, or rights, or equality. Those are all relatively new ideas. The notion of freeing a slave (with his wife no less), was actually a step up for them.

The claim is that God is all-powerful and all-good. But He has the disadvantage of having to deal with us humans in terms we can accept.

[Maureen]

Timpman,

Here's a brief explanation.

Understanding Old Testament Slavery - BibleBridge Bible Courses

M.

[Timpman]

Dravin, I appreciate your post. The verses I posted seem to be a religious law and not a secular one because the chapter heading says "The Lord reveals his laws pertaining to servants."

MasterOrator, I did enjoy having a testimony. Things seems to complicated now.

Loudmouth, it just seems that God could have said "Thou shalt not make slaves of one another" even though the people were rotten.

[Timpman]

And I really really hope that I have ADHD and that medication, therapy, and exercise will help. That will be a lot better than my current depression and anxiety.

[Dravin]

Dravin, I appreciate your post. The verses I posted seem to be a religious law and not a secular one because the chapter heading says "The Lord reveals his laws pertaining to servants."

The thing is that the Lord was setting up both secular and religious law, they were intertwined. You have a people who were in subjugation in Egypt who were rather suddenly out in the middle of nowhere and a government pretty much had to be created from scratch. Which means better to give laws governing the treatment of slaves rather than decide to be mute on the subject, particularly if it is unlikely that a command of, "No slaves" isn't going to work given the culture and time period these people were living in.

Edited June 6, 2012 by Dravin

[Timpman]

Maureen, I read that page you linked and it's great. Thanks. So when are you going to join the Church?

[beefche]

Timpman, I know you mean that in a teasing manner and only have good intentions, but Maureen is not a member of the LDS faith and doesn't have intentions to do so.

It's a difficult position to place someone in when we ask them such things. She doesn't want to offend others with explaining why she isn't and won't join the LDS church. And I'm sure she gets tired of being asked that all the time.

This post isn't to offend you, but just gently remind you (and others) that our non-LDS friends on this site are wonderful people and we shouldn't push them (even in a teasing manner) to defend why they aren't becoming members of the LDS faith.

[Maureen]

Maureen, I read that page you linked and it's great. Thanks. So when are you going to join the Church?

The same thing was asked me when I was 17 years old. Somethings change and somethings repeat themselves. :)

Like beefche mentioned I am non-LDS and am quite happy with my religious choices and I'm not planning on changing anytime sooner or later.

M.

[mnn727]

Loudmouth, it just seems that God could have said "Thou shalt not make slaves of one another" even though the people were rotten.

Think of it the same as The Word of Wisdom - it was not a law to begin with because the people couldn't handle it.

Had God said no slaves to the people in Moses times they would have drifted (or even ran) away from God. Yet if he told them they had to be set free in 6 years, that wasn't so hard to take.

I do agree that the Laws of Moses had many laws not from God. God pretty much allows free will even when mankind adds to his words.

[Timpman]

Many, many people inside and outside of the church can't seem to handle current commandments! That's why I don't understand that argument.

[Timpman]

Well, it doesn't matter. I will stick with the faith.

[HEthePrimate]

Timpman, not everyone here will agree with me, but I think the scriptures are not perfect. They contain messages from God mixed with the philosophies and opinions of the men who wrote them. Even prophets are not infallible.

Also, I think God tends to work with people where they are. That is to say, he doesn't expect humans to get everything right all at once, so he takes people as they are, and in their social milieu, and tries to help us improve ourselves. Thousands of years ago, slavery was considered an acceptable/normal practice in many societies. Maybe God didn't approve of it, but he may have realized it would be an exercise in futility to try to convince humans to suddenly abandon the thousands-year-old tradition of slavery all at once. So instead, he instituted rules on how to treat slaves better, and and who could or could not be taken as slaves. He improved the situation for people who were slaves, and he started limiting the scope of slavery little by little. Over the centuries and millennia, God kept working with the human race, improving them step by step, until we got to the point where we are now, where slavery still exists, but is not considered acceptable, and is practiced much less than it used to.

We still have tons of work to do, but in some things we've come a long way. God is still there, and still working with us.

So, just because something appears in the scriptures doesn't mean it's actually condoned by God. IMHO.

Peace.

[MarginOfError]

In the same vein as HEP

The following comes from a scene of The West Wing (Season 1, Ep. 14, "Take This the Sabbath Day"). A high profile capital case has just been reviewed by the Supreme Court; the conviction and sentence were upheld. The staff of the West Wing now has just over 48 hours to decide if the President should commute the death sentence.

This scene is a particularly profound moment. Toby, the Communications Director, has gone to see his rabbi about the issue. The dialog follows:

TOBY: The Torah doesn’t prohibit capital punishment.

RABBI GLASSMAN: No.

TOBY: It says, “An eye for an eye.”

RABBI GLASSMAN: You know what it also says? It says a rebellious child can be brought to the city gates and stoned to death. It says homosexuality is an abomination and punishable by death. It says men can be polygamous and slavery is acceptable. For all I know, that thinking reflected the best wisdom of its time, but it’s just plain wrong by any modern standard. Society has a right to protect itself, but it doesn’t have a right to be vengeful. It has a right to punish, but it doesn’t have a right to kill.

I think the same principle applies here.

[Shawn_]

Maybe the Lord looked upon the people of Israel with sadness as He provided them with lower laws because they would not live the higher law. I wonder if my wife and I do that with our kids.

[Vort]

In the same vein as HEP

The following comes from a scene of The West Wing (Season 1, Ep. 14, "Take This the Sabbath Day"). A high profile capital case has just been reviewed by the Supreme Court; the conviction and sentence were upheld. The staff of the West Wing now has just over 48 hours to decide if the President should commute the death sentence.

This scene is a particularly profound moment. Toby, the Communications Director, has gone to see his rabbi about the issue. The dialog follows:

TOBY: The Torah doesn’t prohibit capital punishment.

RABBI GLASSMAN: No.

TOBY: It says, “An eye for an eye.”

RABBI GLASSMAN: You know what it also says? It says a rebellious child can be brought to the city gates and stoned to death. It says homosexuality is an abomination and punishable by death. It says men can be polygamous and slavery is acceptable. For all I know, that thinking reflected the best wisdom of its time, but it’s just plain wrong by any modern standard. Society has a right to protect itself, but it doesn’t have a right to be vengeful. It has a right to punish, but it doesn’t have a right to kill.

What an unmitigatedly stupid scene. Excellent example of why I don't watch such trash.

[Wingnut]

I think there's an element of choice to losing one's testimony. I don't believe that the testimony just fades or goes away -- I believe that we choose to abandon it because sometimes it's too hard to keep going.

Last week, my brother and sister both received their endowments. My brother is going on a mission, and my sister has prepared for this as the next step in her spiritual progression, despite neither current marriage nor mission prospects. My brother had a good experience, and, while still in the temple, so did my sister. The moment she stepped foot outside, though, she had an overwhelming feeling that she never wanted to go back. She suddenly felt uncomfortable and out of place with everything she had just experienced. It caused her to question everything she'd ever learned in the church. She said that rather than being a faith-building experience, it was a faith-hurting one. That night, she stayed up until 2am, searching the scriptures and pondering, seeking a reason to go back. She decided that she need to go back, and as soon as humanly possible, or she'd never make it back to the temple again. That was Friday. She went again yesterday for the second time. She told me last night that though there is still a lot of learning for her to do, she feels much better about the temple and the endowment ordinance. She described it as a black and white difference. She is no longer hesitant.

My point in sharing this highly personal story is to illustrate that my sister found herself teetering on the edge with regard to her testimony. She recognized this, and instead of letting it go, which might have been the easiest thing to do, she fought for her testimony. She made an active choice to try to hold onto it. And I believe that she will come out stronger for it.

Edited June 6, 2012 by Wingnut

[HEthePrimate]

What an unmitigatedly stupid scene. Excellent example of why I don't watch such trash.

Why is it "unmitigatedly stupid"? It's one thing to say it's stupid, but surely there has to be a reason you feel that way.

[Guest kyolive123]

Ladies and gentlemen Calgary Escort Looking forward Calgary Escorts they were also competing against each other Calgary Asian Escort we can seize the opportunities Calgary Asian Escorts the challenges

[Jamie123]

What an unmitigatedly stupid scene. Excellent example of why I don't watch such trash.

Why is it "unmitigatedly stupid"? It's one thing to say it's stupid, but surely there has to be a reason you feel that way.

Vort - I know the "cherrypicking scripture" argument has become hackneyed in recent years, particularly since Richard Dawkins used it in The God Delusion, but I'd be interested to know why you dismiss it as "stupid".

[Saldrin]

Hi, I'm back and crazier than ever (actually, I am getting an appointment with a doc to probably diagnose me with ADHD).

So I'm having a hard time because I've been reading some stuff in the Old Testament. Ha, you thought I was going to name some anti book. Anyway, these verses from Exodus just blow my mind:

So someone could "buy an Hebrew servant" and after six years the servant (slave) would have to be let loose, unless the slave is a maidservant, in which case she could be kept for life (verse 7). Why did God condone slavery? I must have grown up in ignorance because I have always thought that God wants people to be free.

And families don't seem to be very sacred. Verse 4 explains that a man would have to leave his wife and children behind if he leaves after the six years. What's up with that?

God does not condone slavery.

[Vort]

Why is it "unmitigatedly stupid"? It's one thing to say it's stupid, but surely there has to be a reason you feel that way.

Vort - I know the "cherrypicking scripture" argument has become hackneyed in recent years, particularly since Richard Dawkins used it in The God Delusion, but I'd be interested to know why you dismiss it as "stupid".

Because Rabbi Glassman, a shameless liar, is portrayed as a sage.