Thinking like a Pharisee

[Vort]

I began this as a response to MorningStar's Sabbath day discussion, but I decided it kind of went far afield from that issue, so I'm creating a new thread for it and cutting out the Sabbath-day-specific stuff.

I am fascinated by the mindset exemplified by the Pharisees. I think it is a feature of the Jewish religion, though I assume it's cultural rather than racial or specifically religious. I noticed an example in a Seattle Times article this last week. The religion columnist, a rabbi (I think), talked about the importance of religious tradition and how the "I'm-spiritual-but-not-religious" camp fell short. (Btw, I completely agree with him on that point.) To illustrate this, he told of how some Jewish kid a couple of centuries ago had a burning desire to learn lots of secular knowledge, but was of course prohibited from reading anything but the Torah. After all, if you're going to read, why read anything else? So instead, he found a way to read everything he wanted to read by doing his reading in the only place where he was prohibited from reading the Torah. Lots and lots of restroom time for this kid, who of course grew up to become an important and well-known scholar.

The columnist's point was to laud the guy and show how, if we're resourceful, we can work from within our religious tradition to gain the experiences we want while still digging deeply into our own faith. But to my simple mind, it was a testament to the mindset that Jesus seemed to cry against, endemic in ancient Judaism but certainly not unique to it, where people pretend to adopt a philosophy but then spend their time searching for how to circumvent what they supposedly believe. We see it in Mormonism all the time:

• "I can drink this tea because it's iced tea, so it's not a hot drink."
• "I avoid alcoholic drinks, but Nyquil doesn't count."
• "Going to the football game on Sunday is a family activity."
• "I sustain my leaders, but I don't want to do what the bishop asks, so I don't have to."
• "As long as we keep our hands over our clothes, it's okay."
• "Let's drive down to Vegas and get married, spend the weekend in a hotel, then get a quickie divorce and make it back to Provo in time for Monday classes. No harm, no foul!"
• "I don't need to treat this person charitably, because he is saying false stuff and attacking what I believe."

It's human nature and part of our fallen condition; I expect we all have done such things. But some religions and other organizations seem to institutionalize this rationale. I think of the hellish existence that was ancient Sparta, where the boys were taken from their homes at age 6 or 7 and put into a brutal existence that included the necessity of stealing food from the other boys -- only if you were caught, you were beaten. I am quite sure that this is not what our Father in heaven ever intended for us, and especially not at Church.

[Anddenex]

The religion columnist, a rabbi (I think), talked about the importance of religious tradition and how the "I'm-spiritual-but-not-religious" camp fell short. (Btw, I completely agree with him on that point.)

I, also, completely agree with the sentiment above. I have never understood the sentiment of dividing being religious and spiritual. The relationship between these two words appear symbiotic in nature (if I used symbiotic correctly).

If I am spiritual, then I will be religious also (how one is religious will vary upon personal belief, personal testimony, and culture). If I lack in religious efforts, then my spirituality will dwindle as well. Most, not all, of the people I hear that speak this sentiment are typically people who profess a belief in God, but in their actions, there is no apparent sign or fruit which God they believe in.

It's human nature and part of our fallen condition; I expect we all have done such things. But some religions and other organizations seem to institutionalize this rationale. I think of the hellish existence that was ancient Sparta, where the boys were taken from their homes at age 6 or 7 and put into a brutal existence that included the necessity of stealing food from the other boys -- only if you were caught, you were beaten. I am quite sure that this is not what our Father in heaven ever intended for us, and especially not at Church.

Since Apple.... shared a book with me a quote from Joseph Fielding Smith, strikes a huge chord,

Agency gives us the privilege to accept and be loyal to our Lord's commandments, but it has never given us a right to reject them. Every man who rejects the commandments of our Father in heaven is rebellious (emphasis added; Conference Report, April 1967, 120-121) -- The citation is for Mordorbund :)

Until reading this book and this quote, I have honestly never consider myself "in rebellion," however after reading this quote -- it does make me wonder. When we openly refuse to keep a commandment we know to be true, yes, I would have to say, we are in rebellion.

It a more humbling thought.

[dahlia]

Before I can think about this intellectually - you mean I'm not supposed to take Nyquil? Actually, Nyquil makes me have terrible nightmares, but I use Dayquil in order to function. Did you really mean that one shouldn't take medications that may have a sedative effect?

[Guest]

I've never heard we weren't supposed to take Nyquil. I think that's a personal thing. Personally, I don't take it because I like it a little too much.

[Guest gopecon]

I think a part of why this type of thinking is a part of LDS culture is because we believe that commandments really do matter. Unlike some (not all) of our Christian brethren whose belief in easy grace or a quick confession can absolve them of sin, we believe that commandments are a bit more serious. Not that we are inherently better, but believing that the Word of Wisdom matters will lead one who breaks it to rationalize the behavior (e.g. only hot drinks are prohibited, so iced tea is okay) differently from someone who is already "saved" and can just write off sins as something we all do because no one is perfect.

[Vort]

Before I can think about this intellectually - you mean I'm not supposed to take Nyquil? Actually, Nyquil makes me have terrible nightmares, but I use Dayquil in order to function. Did you really mean that one shouldn't take medications that may have a sedative effect?

I was giving some top-of-the-head examples, not making doctrinal pronouncements. Nyquil has (or had) alcohol, and some Mormons would look forward to their Nyquil cocktail before bed with perhaps a bit too much anticipation. I took Nyquil as a child. I don't as an adult, but I'm not convinced that drinking medicine that contains alcohol is what the Lord meant by "strong drinks". Nevertheless, I try to keep my distance just because I don't want alcohol consumption to be a part of my life. (Except that I have no qualms about eating food that is prepared with rice wine or wine cooked into the pasta sauce. As long as they have been cooked, though I know full well that in an azeotrope of water and alcohol, all the alcohol does not "cook out". Even my inconsistencies are inconsistent.)

[Dravin]

Before I can think about this intellectually - you mean I'm not supposed to take Nyquil? Actually, Nyquil makes me have terrible nightmares, but I use Dayquil in order to function. Did you really mean that one shouldn't take medications that may have a sedative effect?

Vort is making a connection with the alcohol contained in various Nyquil formulations. Not all of the formulations contain alcohol but it seems clear from the context, for me at least, that the alcohol content is what he is getting at.

@Vort: I think the trickiest thing is distinguishing where the line is between trying to apply principles and understanding, and Pharisaical thought. I think two things are the greatest guard between slipping from the former to the latter. The first is intent, and the second is personal revelation (or when directly applicable general revelation). We can honestly ponder if we are apply principles correctly and then seek confirmation through revelation.

[MrShorty]

Maybe I'm not quite clear on what it means to "think like a Pharisee," but it seems to me that there are two sides to the pharasiacal (is that a word) thinking. As you've pointed out, there is the "rationalization" of sin. "Just this once" or "that commandment doesn't apply to me" and so on.

But isn't another side of Pharasiacal thinking creating commandments where there are none? Sabbath day restrictions are a favorite example. The commandment is to "keep the Sabbath day holy and rest on the Sabbath." So, they took the basic commandment added layers to it and came up with additional commandments on what was allowable and what wasn't (if my SS lessons were accurate, these even included counting how many steps one could walk). I think this shows up in some ways in WoW discussions. "White bread is essentially poison, so I believe God commands us not to eat white bread (or donuts or candy or soda pop with or without caffeine and so on)." It just doesn't seem right to me to be making up commandments for the sake of making up commandments, either. Am I out in left field on this? Or maybe I'm confusing the Pharisees with some other group.

[mordorbund]

Before this thread gets too far down the trail of specifics, I'll add my 2 bits (I'm feeling generous today). I think the cause of this is that we first learn gospel principles through specific steps. I learned to keep the Sabbath day holy because we only watched G-rated movies on that day. I learned about repentance by following the ABCD's process. I learned about fasting because once a month Mom didn't make breakfast. I think these were all age appropriate for me growing up, but hopefully I've grown past that to see the principles behind the practices. For me, that means my Sabbath activities are even more restrictive, repentance is more introspective and sanctifying, and sacrifice is even more painful in focus.

I find that in the spirit of justification (not the scriptural kind, but the false, fallen-man kind) I will look for loopholes. I admit that when I do that I often use a strawman - I'm not concerned about the Lord's day, but whether or not someone's working; I'm not concerned whether I've truly changed but just that some form of restitution was made; rather than sacrificing my idols, I will just make sure something is on the altar. As my wife pointed out to me, "Anytime an argument starts with 'technically', it doesn't matter how well-crafted or true it is, the debate does not end peacefully." I think that applies here too.

Occasionally, progress in a principle also means that I can be freer about some practices, but if I'm being honest that's rarely the case. Even in cases where "all things are lawful for me" I should still exercise judgment lest I cause another to fall by my example. For instance, when Elder Parley Pratt died his son finished his autobiography for him. He used entries in his father's journal to describe the Apostle's final mission journey. He even included such tedium as the miles traveled over the course of the day - except for Sunday. It appears he was concerned that such a public example would encourage the saints to take the Sabbath lightly (do you know where the GA's eat on the Sabbath?, and such). I think there is great wisdom in such a course.

[prisonchaplain]

We don't drink alcohol. We are to avoid the appearance of evil. Therefore, I'll not drink sparkling apple cider in public, because it has the appearance of champagne. In fact, let's add it to the WOW.

That, in my always humble opinion, would be Christian/LDS Pharisaism.

[Just_A_Guy]

We don't drink alcohol. We are to avoid the appearance of evil. Therefore, I'll not drink sparkling apple cider in public, because it has the appearance of champagne. In fact, let's add it to the WOW.

That, in my always humble opinion, would be Christian/LDS Pharisaism.

Of course, in Romans 14, Paul talks about (going from memory here) his own practice of not eating meat bought in a standard meat market (where much of the meat had been killed as part of pagan sacrifice rituals) on the grounds that, even though he of himself knows there's nothing wrong with doing so, he is aware that his publicly indulging may cause other Church members to stumble.

Going back to the OP: I think we rationalize and seek for loopholes because we don't (yet) (perfectly) love the Lord and His Law. If/when we were completely converted to Him, we would seek opportunities to be obedient.

[dahlia]

Oh, alcohol in the Nyquil. OK. Never looked. I just wanted the drugs. : )

[NightSG]

(Except that I have no qualms about eating food that is prepared with rice wine or wine cooked into the pasta sauce. As long as they have been cooked, though I know full well that in an azeotrope of water and alcohol, all the alcohol does not "cook out". Even my inconsistencies are inconsistent.)

Well, if you really wanted to avoid all alcohol, you'd be one of those demanding rice cakes for Sacrament, too. (Or at least soda bread.)

I looked it up to see what the content would actually be, and there's an old Dept of Agriculture report that claims up to 2% alcohol content after baking. That's interesting, considering that "non-alcoholic" beer ("near beer") is limited to 0.5%, and "low alcohol" beer is 1.2%. (Probably along the lines of the medieval "small beer" that was a safer alternative to the polluted water.)

Anybody want to go get hammered on Mrs Baird's?

[Dravin]

(Probably along the lines of the medieval "small beer" that was a safer alternative to the polluted water.)

It should be pointed out the safety came from the fact that the wort is boiled in the brewing process.

[NightSG]

It should be pointed out the safety came from the fact that the wort is boiled in the brewing process.

Initial safety, certainly, but the alcohol content would have also helped it stay safe longer than simple boiled water. That was almost certainly a factor on long journeys...and getting drunk on 1.2% beer would be about as tough as getting drunk on 2% bread.

[Dravin]

Initial safety, certainly, but the alcohol content would have also helped it stay safe longer than simple boiled water. That was almost certainly a factor on long journeys...and getting drunk on 1.2% beer would be about as tough as getting drunk on 2% bread.

Do you have any sources that a few percent alcohol content is an efficacious disinfectant?

Edited March 1, 2013 by Dravin

[NightSG]

Do you have any sources that a few percent alcohol content is an efficacious disinfectant?

Remember, in the case of small beer or similarly weak wines of the time, you're not trying to disinfect, as that's already been done by the boiling; you're just trying to slow the growth of any new microbes.

I don't have the references at hand, but from my homebrewing days, I know the level of yeast activity drops off as alcohol content increases, up to 6-8% for most beer and wine yeasts, when they go effectively dormant. It stands to reason that for other microbes as well, an increase in the alcohol content would translate to a decrease in their reproduction.

I also worked in a cream cheese plant for a while, and a relatively tiny amount (5 gallons or less)of leftover diluted sanitizer from the lines could stall a 1200 gallon batch of starter culture to the point of taking 2-3 times as long to reach full potential. Delaying spoilage by 100-200% would be pretty significant.

It's also possible that some of the effect was a result of a change in pH making the resulting beverage even less hospitable to microbes that would infest water or fresh juices.

[Dravin]

I don't have the references at hand, but from my homebrewing days, I know the level of yeast activity drops off as alcohol content increases, up to 6-8% for most beer and wine yeasts, when they go effectively dormant.

Small beers aren't 6-8% alcohol though.

I also worked in a cream cheese plant for a while, and a relatively tiny amount (5 gallons or less)of leftover diluted sanitizer from the lines could stall a 1200 gallon batch of starter culture to the point of taking 2-3 times as long to reach full potential. Delaying spoilage by 100-200% would be pretty significant.

Will the alcohol concentration of a small beer delay spoilage by 100% to 200%? Clearly some level of alcohol content will act as an efficacious microbial growth retardant. The question is just how much of a retardant the alcohol concentration of a near beer is to microbial growth.

It's also possible that some of the effect was a result of a change in pH making the resulting beverage even less hospitable to microbes that would infest water or fresh juices.

It wouldn't surprise me if multiple factors were at work, but you were (are?) putting it on the alcohol content of small beer. Such that as I read it the claim is if you took two barrels of boiled water and added enough alcohol to get one to small beer alcohol content that there will be a noticeable difference in how long the two barrels will remain potable.

Edited March 1, 2013 by Dravin

[NightSG]

Small beers aren't 6-8% alcohol though.

No. Probably in the 1-3% range.

Will the alcohol concentration of a small beer delay spoilage by 100% to 200%? Clearly some level of alcohol content will act as an efficacious microbial growth retardant. The question is just how much of a retardant the alcohol concentration of a near beer is to microbial growth.

That depends largely on the prevailing microbes in the storage environment. Considering that, at the time, there were a lot of pathogens that we have now all but eradicated with simple hygiene, I suspect that a lot of food spoilage came from relatively weak microbes too.

It wouldn't surprise me if multiple factors were at work, but you were (are?) putting it on the alcohol content of small beer. Such that as I read it the claim is if you took two barrels of boiled water and added enough alcohol to get one to small beer alcohol content that there will be a noticeable difference in how long the two barrels will remain potable.

It wouldn't be a particularly tough test; brew a double batch, split it and don't pitch yeast in half. Of course, the uninoculated half would probably still ferment from wild yeast, which is what happened then too. Fermentation was and is basically a form of mild spoilage that leaves the liquid in a still-potable form...which brings to mind another mechanism favoring the beer; any other microbe would be in competition with the yeast for sugar content.

Presumably, small beer was still live, (i.e. not reheated or filtered to kill or remove the yeast) so it would have also been a great source of B vitamins, (which, among other things, help to regulate fluid uptake) and the yeast would have continued to compete with other microbes until consumed.

Of course, sour beer and/or wine was also common, and probably for the same reasons. I don't have my brewing setup anymore, or I'd try the above. I might get a small rig again someday, though, as a couple of my mistakes (mead and ginger beer that acetified) were quite useful as specialized vinegars. (Spam sliced and sauteed in ginger vinegar is actually quite good.)

[Dravin]

Ginger vinegar sounds like it has some potential, if nothing else in use in east Asain style marinades. Okay, I've probably derailed the thread enough now, I'll be good. I do appreciate your responses to my questions NightSG.

[talisyn]

I admit to my own Pharisee tendencies, like not using the really good vanilla, instead using some brown vanillaish alcohol-free stuff when I bake cookies, in case some person who may or may not look like me wants to eat cookie dough. I think another example (from my own family) is how my caffeine-free soda family is still insistent that caffeine in soda is still against the spirit of the word of wisdom

I think it's easy to follow rules instead of following the reasons behind the rules. Requires less thinking.

Speaking of thinking, what does this mean:

"As long as we keep our hands over our clothes, it's okay."

I'm thinking of tornadoes O.o

[Dravin]

Speaking of thinking, what does this mean:

I'm thinking of tornadoes O.o

It's probably a reference to petting.

Edited March 2, 2013 by Dravin

[Suzie]

Those are very good examples. The ones I associate more with Pharisaic way of thinking within our midst (and as I said in an older thread) are those who see/gossip/murmur about others who look different or think differently than what is perceived to be the norm, or their circumstances are just different than the rest.

For example those who do not wear a white shirt to go to Church or have a beard and are seen/labeled as "rebels" "unworthy" or they "lack spirituality", perhaps those whose children are not active in the Church or those members coming without their spouses because they are less active. Is it that sometimes we somewhat feel good about ourselves when we see them and think inside ourselves "how lucky I am NOT like Sister X or Brother Y?"? Is it that sometimes we do not realize how judgmental we are towards others instead of stretching our hand and heart towards them? Is it that their unfortunate situation or their differences makes US feel superior to our brethren and more righteous and more spiritual?

Jesus never had an issue with what the Pharisees were teaching but with their behavior. We can have the truth yes but if our behavior doesn't match the teachings we profess to have it doesn't benefit us or anyone else but we are here to learn, hopefully we will learn the lesson.

[prisonchaplain]

Of course, in Romans 14, Paul talks about (going from memory here) his own practice of not eating meat bought in a standard meat market (where much of the meat had been killed as part of pagan sacrifice rituals) on the grounds that, even though he of himself knows there's nothing wrong with doing so, he is aware that his publicly indulging may cause other Church members to stumble.

From this I take the question of whether or not to drink sparkling cider in public as legitimate. Judgments about other believers' spirituality, based upon whether they chose to partake in apple cider--that would be Pharisaism.

[Traveler]

I will begin by saying I struggle with being more of a Pharisee than a disciple of Christ. I think that those that criticize Pharisees may be on their way to becoming one of them - the exception, of course is Jesus. I think the problem of the Pharisees, as well as myself is the desire to be right concerning doctrine rather than compassionate and loving towards others.

Thus I believe the first problem of a Pharisee is to discuss the correctness of certain doctrines and the incorrectness of others interpretation of doctrine. I am very good at this and I think it comes in part because or rigorous study of scripture. It is a paradox - at least for me. The more I study the more I know and understand and the more I think it important to point out to others their flaws in their religious thinking. So as I look for Pharisees - I see a reflection of myself and that is most discouraging.

The second problem of Pharisees is the doctrine I struggle with the most of all other doctrines. That is the doctrine of being meek. I have tried to understand this doctrine and every time I think I have finely made sense of it - I become prideful of my accomplishment. But it is worse that that ---- I do not enjoy meek talks or having a meek teacher in Sunday School or Priesthood. Every once in a while I run across a genuinely meek person and to be honest they drive me nuts. I had a younger brother that was truly meek and he just did not fit with his siblings of "over achievers". The only other really good example of meekness was my mother and so I usually thought of my meek brother as a "mama's boy". My brother was taken by an accident shortly after returning from his mission. Many thought his death tragic but in a personal revelation I learned that his life had been extended - not cut short.

The point of my post is to warn about the temptation to criticize Pharisees by becoming one of them in criticizing someone we should be uplifting and praising - especially when they are more compassionate and their hearts more kind and consiterate of others than those of us that find it necessary to criticize them. See!!! there I go again - finding some backhanded way to criticize.

The Traveler