WWJD

[Guest]

What would Jesus do?

I wonder about this statement all the time.  I study, pray, and ponder and I'm never able to get a clear answer.  Maybe because I'm trying to get specifics where only guidance is and should be offered.  The problem comes when we consider those things that "everyone does."  And I'm troubled that I sometimes don't know how Jesus would do it today.

This morning we were driving extra early because a specially early seminary event was happening.  Driving down the road and virtually no one else on the road, Ffenix noticed I was doing 60 in a 50 zone.  Ever since he's been learning to drive he is always conscious of the speed limit.  He's an exception to the "everyone does it" mantra.  He is also very conscious of the AoF (including #12).  So, without him telling me he disapproved, I could see him gesturing and posturing in a manner that spoke volumes.  I began thinking of the line of reasoning I'd use to justify what I was doing.  While much passed, the end of the thought train was to ask "What would Jesus do?"

If it were Ffenix, I'm sure he'd say,"He'd stay within the speed limit."

For me, I really wonder.  Does something like obeying a speed limit sign really affect our spirituality?  Is it still considered a sin?  Would Jesus ignore it?  I suppose not.  Then why am I thinking it's perfectly fine?

While I used traffic laws here as the example that occurred this morning, many things happen every day that I realize that even many faithful individuals in and out of our faith simply do because that's our culture.  So, what do y'all think of this?

Edited March 4, 2016 by Guest

[The Folk Prophet]

I think the only real answer to what Jesus would do if He were in our shoes in our time, etc., is to follow the Spirit. I think many people (including myself) just do things because everyone does and do not even bother to consider if they should change or not. 

I thought of this:

https://www.lds.org/general-conference/2015/10/what-lack-i-yet?lang=eng

[MrShorty]

Interesting question. We often find ourselves talking about balancing things, like "justice" and "mercy" or "letter of the law" and "spirit of the law". Would Jesus "obey the law with exactness" -- even for laws like this that do not have a moral right/wrong underpinning. Or would Jesus look at the purpose of the law (to promote traffic order and safety) and judge for himself that "10 over does not impair traffic flow or safety in this circumstance"? There is an element of our philosophy that puts high value on obedience to divine law, even when it is inconvenient or not understood. There is also an element of learning what is behind law and having enough flexibility to let people govern themselves. I don't think I know the final answer to this.

[Guest MormonGator]

26 minutes ago, MrShorty said:

Interesting question. We often find ourselves talking about balancing things, like "justice" and "mercy" or "letter of the law" and "spirit of the law". Would Jesus "obey the law with exactness" -- even for laws like this that do not have a moral right/wrong underpinning. Or would Jesus look at the purpose of the law (to promote traffic order and safety) and judge for himself that "10 over does not impair traffic flow or safety in this circumstance"? There is an element of our philosophy that puts high value on obedience to divine law, even when it is inconvenient or not understood. There is also an element of learning what is behind law and having enough flexibility to let people govern themselves. I don't think I know the final answer to this.

Several times Jesus addressed the Pharisees and smacked them down, didn't He? 

[MrShorty]

19 minutes ago, MormonGator said:

Several times Jesus addressed the Pharisees and smacked them down, didn't He? 

But was that because they were "too" obedient? Does Jesus's treatment of the Pharisees mean that obedience was unimportant? I think the scriptural accounts of how Jesus treated the Pharisees are supposed to teach us something about obedience. What do we learn, and how does it apply to obeying simple traffic laws?

[Guest]

Jesus had authority that we certainly don't have. 

[The Folk Prophet]

8 minutes ago, MrShorty said:

But was that because they were "too" obedient?

Quite the contrary. It was because they were not obedient. Sure, they were obedient to their man made laws. But they disregarded God's laws. The problem with the Pharisees was not that they obeyed -- it's that they only obeyed what they cared about and ignored God.

[yjacket]

Well I think of it a little bit differently.  There is ample discussion and thought to suggest that the Jews and many of his followers at the time saw him as a political Savior to save them from oppressive Roman law and that he was seen as a threat not just religiously but also politically.

So I think of it not whether I should obey the law, but is this particular law just or in harmony with gospel teachings and principles. So in my mind going 10 over, is it a sin, no; what would Jesus do? well that is were the Spirit would lead.  But then again Christ would go above and beyond the law, it wouldn't be just "I'm going over the speed limit so I should slow down", but it would be "am I traveling the right speed to ensure the safety of myself and of others", but that's my 2 cents.

[NightSG]

2 hours ago, Carborendum said:

While much passed, the end of the thought train was to ask "What would Jesus do?"

Considering the difficulty of getting Him a driver's license, (No birth certificate, over two thousand years old, etc.) I'm guessing He would just hire a driver.

[Guest MormonGator]

22 minutes ago, MrShorty said:

But was that because they were "too" obedient? Does Jesus's treatment of the Pharisees mean that obedience was unimportant? I think the scriptural accounts of how Jesus treated the Pharisees are supposed to teach us something about obedience. What do we learn, and how does it apply to obeying simple traffic laws?

I agree with you, for what it's worth. I think He spoke out against the Pharisees because they were too pedantic and legalistic. 

Edited March 4, 2016 by MormonGator

[Vort]

21 minutes ago, MormonGator said:

I agree with you, for what it's worth. I think He spoke out against the Pharisees because they were too pedantic and legalistic. 

Jesus left no doubt why he spoke out against the Pharisees and the scribes: Because they were hypocrites. Pedantry and legalism were not problems per se, but merely symptoms of their deep hypocrisy, so deeply rooted that in many instances they had lost the ability to recognize it. Losing the ability to recognize one's own hypocrisy is known as cynicism, and is to be avoided at all costs.

It is important here to note that "hypocrisy" does not mean what many claim it means. They define it as not living up to one's standards. That is false, of course; no one (with the exception of Jesus Christ) who has Godly standards lives up to them at all times. It is not hypocrisy to tell your children not to smoke, even as you take a drag from your cigarette. The essence of hypocrisy is putting on a false face, trying to convince others (and perhaps yourself) that you have some virtue that, in reality, you do not have. It is the ultimate expression of the "perception is reality" attitude. Politicians are often an easy example of blatant hypocrisy, but in reality it exists all around us.

Not all Pharisees and scribes were hypocrites. Jesus condemned them as a group, but counted some of them among his followers. It was most definitely NOT superobedience or even hidebound attitudes that constituted hypocrisy.

[MrShorty]

35 minutes ago, yjacket said:

So I think of it not whether I should obey the law, but is this particular law just or in harmony with gospel teachings and principles. So in my mind going 10 over, is it a sin, no; what would Jesus do? well that is were the Spirit would lead.  But then again Christ would go above and beyond the law, it wouldn't be just "I'm going over the speed limit so I should slow down", but it would be "am I traveling the right speed to ensure the safety of myself and of others", but that's my 2 cents.

Good thought. To perhaps extend the thought -- All else being equal, so safety and other "spirit of the law" things are equally met at the speed limit, at 10 under, or at 10 over, how does the sinless Savior of the world treat laws like speed limit laws? Exact obedience unless there is a good reason to go 10 over (ox in the more kind of thing)? Or whatever He feels like at the time?

I am reminded of this discussion:

To quote Anddenex quoting Elder Scott (post #6 in the linked thread):

Quote

On my mission Elder Richard G. Scott defined the spirit of the law, "The spirit of the law is living the letter of the law in the right spirit."  I have not come across a better definition.  An individual cannot, and never will, comprehend the spirit of the law unless they have lived the letter of the law to its fullest.

How does this apply to things like traffic laws?

Edited March 4, 2016 by MrShorty

[Guest MormonGator]

22 minutes ago, Vort said:

It is not hypocrisy to tell your children not to smoke, even as you take a drag from your cigarette. 

We are going to go around in circles in this one, I think. 

It is hypocrisy, but it's a different kind of hypocrisy. I don't want to say it's a "good kind" but it's not really a bad kind of hypocrisy. So is telling someone to avoid divorce if you've been divorced and know the pain. Same with abortion. If you are a woman who has had an abortion it sort of does make you a hypocrite to preach against it-even though you have that right, and again, it's a different kind of hypocrisy.  

 While I agree it's better to admit there are standards that we have a hard time living up to them, that doesn't mean that your (Again, not you meaning Vort) credibility isn't shaken (at least partially)  when you try to tell others to live a path you have not personally done. That's one of the reasons we don't take Jimmy Swaggart or Ted Haggard seriously anymore. 

Edited March 4, 2016 by MormonGator

[Vort]

53 minutes ago, MormonGator said:

We are going to go around in circles in this one, I think. 

It is hypocrisy, but it's a different kind of hypocrisy. I don't want to say it's a "good kind" but it's not really a bad kind of hypocrisy. So is telling someone to avoid divorce if you've been divorced and know the pain. Same with abortion. If you are a woman who has had an abortion it sort of does make you a hypocrite to preach against it-even though you have that right, and again, it's a different kind of hypocrisy.  

 While I agree it's better to admit there are standards that we have a hard time living up to them, that doesn't mean that your (Again, not you meaning Vort) credibility isn't shaken (at least partially)  when you try to tell others to live a path you have not personally done. That's one of the reasons we don't take Jimmy Swaggart or Ted Haggard seriously anymore. 

Actually, I would argue that Jimmy Swaggart and Ted Haggard are not taken seriously precisely because they are hypocrites (of the hypocritical kind). They are the latest version of Jim and Tammy Faye Bakker, who themselves were merely continuing players in a millenia-long and sordid play. Their special kind of hypocrisy involves what Mormons call "priestcraft", which is the selling of things that are or should be kept sacred. It is a specialized type of prostitution, except instead of selling your sexuality, you sell your presumed spiritual authority. The nature of this kind of hypocrisy is such that it seems almost always to involve sexual sin.

I very much disagree (though hopefully in a friendly tone) with classifying the smoker preaching against smoking or the abortionist preaching against abortion as hypocrisy of any kind -- unless they are trying to portray themselves as completely unstained by the act of smoking or aborting babies. If I am proud but I say, "Pride is a grevious sin, and we should try to avoid it," I am not being hypocritical. I am preaching truth, even from an imperfect state. I'm not pretending to be without pride, but just noting that pridefulness is evil and we should avoid it.

If it required perfection in something to teach truths about that thing, either for or against some actions, there would be precious few who could speak about anything, and we would be in the position of the wicked and filthy world, accepting all manner of evil because no one speaks up against it.

When Jesus condemned as hypocrites the scribes and Pharisees, he most definitely was not condemning them for preaching the gospel. He was condemning them for pretending to virtue, and under that virtue speaking words of condemnation to others. To the hypocrites who brought to him the woman taken in adultery, he veiled the contempt he must have felt and instead exposed their hypocrisy for all to see, until they, ashamed, went away. They were guilty of sin -- probably the very sin they had taken the woman for -- yet they demanded "justice". In contrast, to the woman, who definitely was an adulterer, and thus (one might argue) a hypocrite, Jesus simply told her that he did not at that time condemn her, and she was to go and cease the sinful life she had led.

I fear that, at times, I might have feelings of outrage or condemnation for the foolishness of others, feelings which make me a real hypocrite, the kind Jesus despised. But I try not to fear very much, and instead have faith that as long as I am sincerely trying, the Lord's atonement will cover my weakness and guilt. But when I say that we should to this and avoid doing that, even when I do not consistently do this and fail to always avoid doing that, I am no hypocrite, just another imperfect man trying to preach a perfect gospel.

[Guest MormonGator]

7 minutes ago, Vort said:

I very much disagree (though hopefully in a friendly tone)

It's always friendly between us, and I say that in all humility and seriousness. If we agreed on everything the internet would have died off in1998. 

[The Folk Prophet]

14 minutes ago, Vort said:

He was condemning them for pretending to virtue, and under that virtue speaking words of condemnation to others.

And for murdering the prophets...and the like.

[NeuroTypical]

1 hour ago, Vort said:

Actually, I would argue that Jimmy Swaggart and Ted Haggard are not taken seriously precisely because they are hypocrites (of the hypocritical kind). They are the latest version of Jim and Tammy Faye Bakker, who themselves were merely continuing players in a millenia-long and sordid play. Their special kind of hypocrisy involves what Mormons call "priestcraft", which is the selling of things that are or should be kept sacred. It is a specialized type of prostitution, except instead of selling your sexuality, you sell your presumed spiritual authority. The nature of this kind of hypocrisy is such that it seems almost always to involve sexual sin.

 

Yeah, Ted Haggard isn't taken seriously any more here in his homebase of Colorado Springs, is because he was caught having sex with male prostitutes that he would buy meth from.  

And it's not really a matter of "not taking him seriously", it's more of a matter of the New Life Church and affiliates have emptied their bookstores of his books, replaced all the pamphlets and materials, hired new people, and just don't talk or think about him any more.  I was there when it happened and know some of the people who were close to him.  Kind of the same thing that I'd expect would happen if one of our Stake Presidents or GA's got caught doing something like that.

Edited March 4, 2016 by NeuroTypical

[mirkwood]

5 hours ago, Carborendum said:

  So, what do y'all think of this?

License, registration and insurance please.

[NightSG]

17 minutes ago, mirkwood said:

License, registration and insurance please.

"You don't need to see My license."

[Guest LiterateParakeet]

Carb, I find it more helpful to ask, "What would the Savior have me do?"  

Interestingly, I think what he might expect from me today may be greater than what he expected years ago...because greater light, greater expectations.  In like kind, I imagine he expects more of me than he does of a non-member and so forth. 

[Guest]

54 minutes ago, mirkwood said:

License, registration and insurance please.

Maybe slightly off topic.  But I am curious.  In all seriousness...

Mirk,

If it was 5:00 AM with virtually no traffic.  And you clocked someone doing 60 on a major artery (but not a freeway) where the posted speed limit is 50*, would you turn your lights on and go after him?

*I was mistaken.  The posted limit there was actually 55 mph.  But the question would be more pressing at 50 mph.

[Blackmarch]

7 hours ago, Carborendum said:

What would Jesus do?

I wonder about this statement all the time.  I study, pray, and ponder and I'm never able to get a clear answer.  Maybe because I'm trying to get specifics where only guidance is and should be offered.  The problem comes when we consider those things that "everyone does."  And I'm troubled that I sometimes don't know how Jesus would do it today.

This morning we were driving extra early because a specially early seminary event was happening.  Driving down the road and virtually no one else on the road, Ffenix noticed I was doing 60 in a 50 zone.  Ever since he's been learning to drive he is always conscious of the speed limit.  He's an exception to the "everyone does it" mantra.  He is also very conscious of the AoF (including #12).  So, without him telling me he disapproved, I could see him gesturing and posturing in a manner that spoke volumes.  I began thinking of the line of reasoning I'd use to justify what I was doing.  While much passed, the end of the thought train was to ask "What would Jesus do?"

If it were Ffenix, I'm sure he'd say,"He'd stay within the speed limit."

For me, I really wonder.  Does something like obeying a speed limit sign really affect our spirituality?  Is it still considered a sin?  Would Jesus ignore it?  I suppose not.  Then why am I thinking it's perfectly fine?

While I used traffic laws here as the example that occurred this morning, many things happen every day that I realize that even many faithful individuals in and out of our faith simply do because that's our culture.  So, what do y'all think of this?

flip tables and whip people....

On a serious note I have a hard time picturing him driving.

[NightSG]

14 minutes ago, Blackmarch said:

On a serious note I have a hard time picturing him driving.

Especially in places like Dallas, where the middle finger is pretty much mandatory.

[Guest MormonGator]

1 hour ago, NightSG said:

Especially in places like Dallas, where the middle finger is pretty much mandatory.

I've driven all over the nation and the worst drivers are in Atlanta, Boston and LA in my view. Every city thinks they have the worst though. 

[zil]

Have you driven in Salt Lake?  Apparently Mormons think the world will end if you get there before they do.  Some of them think it's their job to keep you from exceeding the speed limit.  Some think marriage is the only allowable form of merging.  And most of them would prefer to tailgate rather than use the next lane over to pass you.  Those who will use the next lane to pass you seem to enjoy first tailgating, then jerking into the next lane, passing you, and then jerking back in front of you (all while you're the only two people in sight).  And a surprising number of them seem confuse "singing at the top of your lungs in the car behind them" with "threatening to blast them into outer darkness from the car behind them".