NOM

The Hardest Question: "What would Jesus do?"

We drop "What would Jesus do?" on children like it is some kind of talisman:
"Look, they didn't get a piece of pie! What would Jesus do?"
"Stop. Don't call people names! What would Jesus do?"
"I know they're different than you. What would Jesus do?"

Want to have some fun? Drop the hardest question on yourself:

"There's an underclass of lazy people who won't work but, what would Jesus do?"
"My political enemies are all fools who are full of hate but, what would Jesus do?"
"They're sinful. They simply are perverts who love to sin but, what would Jesus do?"

Not so simple now that we're older, wiser and the world more nuanced. How could be possibly be kind to, empathetic with, or even associate with Trump supporters--or Democrats? Let's face it. They're just wrong. The LDS Church has solved this association problem with Gays and their Families very simply:

November 3, 2015

Policies on Ordinances for Children of a Parent Living in a Same-Gender Relationship

The following additions to Handbook 1 have been approved by the Council of the First Presidency and the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles for immediate implementation.

Handbook 1 16.13 will be added as follows: Children of a Parent Living in a Same-Gender Relationship
A natural or adopted child of a parent living in a same-gender relationship, whether the couple is married or cohabiting, may not receive a name and a blessing. A natural or adopted child of a parent living in a same-gender relationship, whether the couple is married or cohabiting, may be baptized and confirmed, ordained, or recommended for missionary service only as follows: A mission president or a stake president may request approval from the Office of the First Presidency to baptize and confirm, ordain, or recommend missionary service for a child of a parent who has lived or is living in a same-gender relationship when he is satisfied by personal interviews that both of the following requirements are met:

1. The child accepts and is committed to live the teachings and doctrine of the Church, and specifically disavows the practice of same-gender cohabitation and marriage.

2. The child is of legal age and does not live with a parent who has lived or currently lives in a same-gender cohabitation relationship or marriage.

Very simply put it says, we'll make the kids disappear. They won't want to be here, they won't be here and we'll deny them all association with our members by denying them membership as children. It's really quite brilliant. By denying blessings to the children because of the actions of their parents we can solve all the problems of being gentle, generous or associated with underage children of gay parents. THEN if they'll drop the hammer on their parents we can bring them in as members is good standing. Gay marriage will not be a problem because it won't exist.

Now, ask yourself The Hardest Question: What would Jesus do? Refuse to let the children "come unto him"? Punish children for someone else's transgressions? Turn a blind eye, ear and heart? This is why the banishment of Children of Same Sex Couples is so very elegant, it simply disappears the problem. Is that how Jesus would handle this? What would Jesus do? For many this doctrine/instruction/rule cannot be stomached and tens of thousands have severed their relationship with the LDS Church. With Christmas just past and a New Year approaching we should ask ourselves "What would Jesus do?" a lot more. Thinking about flipping someone off in traffic? What would Jesus do. Good time to berate that waitress? What would Jesus do? Got a crazy political Uncle at the big shindig and he's talking smack? What would Jesus do?

I would offer that in a lot of our current problems Christ would simply "grin and bear it"--make that "Smile and bear it." Yup. Jesus would probably treat Uncle Crazy Pants the same way he treated the mob thirsting for the blood of the Adulteress. Quietly. With pondering. By looking at them and seeing confused, sinful humans and feeling sympathy for them. Extend Grace to them. Yes I know that sounds silly in a world of name calling and accusations but WHAT WOULD JESUS DO? Not the "angry, end the world, make the sinners suffer Jesus" but the "Forbid them not to come unto me Jesus"

Tough huh? How should we deal with our fellow man even those hoodwinked or gas-lighted by political ideals not our own? Do you live in a world where Jesus argues with The Father about "All of them? ALL of them? You want me to suffer for ALL OF THEM?" Or he smiles and bears it with a "Thy will be done."

Happy New Year!

Amen brother. If it were only that simple for the church. I do think it can be that simple for my kids, but the culture will complicate it all i.am affraid.

Just to be difficult...........

I have always been a bit bothered by this question, "what would jesus do?"

We really have no idea what anyone else would do.

Jesus the person, or jesus the concept could also be two very different things. The scantiness of the record and the tendency to embellish history with things that sound nice and can be used to manipulate others is a real problem. Trying to understand the mind of someone so long ago IMHO is a crap shoot at best.

It seems that everyone uses this question to try to persuade others to agree with their idea of what is good. My jesus would not do that. My jesus wouldn't think that, but someone else's jesus thinks it's ok to join in the crusade to fight the heathen, shun heretics, or ban children of gay couples from the synagogues.

So many opposing things have been justified by someone's idea that this is what jesus would do, that the question becomes irrelevant.

I think the idea is right...... what is the right decision? Is it kind? Is it moral? etc.

Let's just leave jesus out of the process.

Thank you, Brent, for a thoughtful and thought-provoking post. Not only does attempting to apply the principal to "adult situations" show the weakness and hypocrisy of many who allegedly embrace the idea, IMO it also demonstrates its limitations (as No Tof talked about). It's a useful and idealistic concept, but the more I study systems of morality the more I feel there is no "one size fits all" morality, and especially no fixed set of rules. We can and should have basic guiding principals, but ultimately many situations are complex and difficult to come up with a single "right" answer. Our moral decisions and behaviors need to be justifiable under those principles, but often can't conform to a fixed ideal.

fh451

This is a joke, but it contains an uncomfortable amount of truth:



Jesus was a Jewish radical. When he stated "The Kingdom of heaven is like unto leaven" (Matt 13:33), this would have been shocking to believing Jews of his day. It's considered a lightweight parable to us, but devout Jewish believers would not have been happy with this comparison. Yeast was considered a corruption, despite it's obvious use in bread making. Modern Christians don't give matzah a lot of thought, but production of unleavened bread was serious business in first century Judea and still very much so in believing Jewish communities today.

Whoever the real Jesus was, he was more spiritually and politically radical than most Sunday Schools would find comfortable. I am confident that should Jesus show up in a glorious Second Coming, a lot of devout people will be shocked about who survives His appearance. Whatever it is that Jesus would do is going to make insular religious and political hierarchies very uncomfortable, including the 15 members of the apostolic board of directors of a particular Salt Lake City based church.

It was one of the more painful points of cogdis for me on my journey out as to where I would land postmo. I tried for a while to make the pilgrimage back to pure Christianity into the NT, but ultimately I knew in my heart that those words were written by men. All scripture and religion unraveled for me and there was no man-made institution to go to and ultimately no white haired old man in the unseen world to confide in. There was still some power in the universe that allowed me to be incredibly amazed at my existence and I quickly settled in and felt freedom to be on a path of continual discovery and wonderment.

With the angel and devil gone off my shoulders, I've embraced altruism as the hope for our species. Religions appear to me to be mostly getting in the way of positive human progression and survival. In summary, for me, it's no longer what would Jesus do, but what would an altruistic human do to make the world a better place for humans and all living things. The question can still fall into conflict, but much less so than if you put some man-made dogmatic spin on it.

The good news is that dogmatic religions are on the decline, at least in this country:
http://www.ocregister.com/articles/focu ... igion.html

Couple that with all the other positive trends (never talked about by governments, the media or religions):
https://ourworldindata.org/

Look at all the numbers and stats and you'll see that things are looking up for humans and the world. So tell all the fear mongering doomsday religionist and media outlets to Foff and let's keep the positive trends going. I will say that on NPR at least they mentioned the new Ebola vaccine this past week.

Corsair wrote:This is a joke, but it contains an uncomfortable amount of truth:

I am surprised by how many politically conservative Christians and Mormons have I have heard state that driving out the money changers is their favorite Jesus story. They care much less for the guy who tells us to render unto Caesar, forgive seven times seventy, and sell all we have and give it to the poor.

If we could all rally around the "love your enemies" Jesus I think we'd be off to a good start.

What would Jesus do indeed:

My friends or family are doing things expressly forbidden by my holy book (like gay marriage perhaps?), what would Jesus do?

If any man come to me, and hate not his father, and mother, and wife, and children, and brethren, and sisters, yea, and his own life also, he cannot be my disciple.

But wait...should I cut them out of my life?? What say you Jesus?

And if thy right hand offend thee, cut it off, and cast it from thee: for it is profitable for thee that one of thy members should perish, and not that thy whole body should be cast into hell.

But Jesus...they're my family!?

There came then his brethren and his mother, and, standing without, sent unto him, calling him.
And the multitude sat about him, and they said unto him, Behold, thy mother and thy brethren without seek for thee.
And he answered them, saying, Who is my mother, or my brethren?
And he looked round about on them which sat about him, and said, Behold my mother and my brethren!
For whosoever shall do the will of God, the same is my brother, and my sister, and mother.

There's an underclass of lazy people who won't work but, what would Jesus do?
The parable of a returning nobleman (Jesus):

And it came to pass, that when he was returned, having received the kingdom, then he commanded these servants to be called unto him, to whom he had given the money, that he might know how much every man had gained by trading. Then came the first, saying, Lord, thy pound hath gained ten pounds. And he said unto him, Well, thou good servant: because thou hast been faithful in a very little, have thou authority over ten cities. And the second came, saying, Lord, thy pound hath gained five pounds. And he said likewise to him, Be thou also over five cities. And another came, saying, Lord, behold, here is thy pound, which I have kept laid up in a napkin: For I feared thee, because thou art an austere man: thou takest up that thou layedst not down, and reapest that thou didst not sow. And he saith unto him, Out of thine own mouth will I judge thee, thou wicked servant. Thou knewest that I was an austere man, taking up that I laid not down, and reaping that I did not sow: Wherefore then gavest not thou my money into the bank, that at my coming I might have required mine own with usury? And he said unto them that stood by, Take from him the pound, and give it to him that hath ten pounds. (And they said unto him, Lord, he hath ten pounds.) For I say unto you, That unto every one which hath shall be given; and from him that hath not, even that he hath shall be taken away from him.

Dang...you better put in work for Jesus...

My political enemies are all fools who are full of hate but, what would Jesus do?
From the same parable the returning nobleman:

But those mine enemies, which would not that I should reign over them, bring hither, and slay them before me.

Love your enemies??? Maybe not...

I appreciate the sentiment you're laying down Brent however I've always been a little frustrated (even as a believer) with people who claim Jesus was "just about love!!" Or that Jesus would "grin and bear it". I'm glad that most people like to think of Jesus in the "Forbid them not" and "Love your enemies" sort of way but people who insist this encompasses who Jesus was seem to be gas-lighting those of us who doubt Jesus is the pinnacle of righteousness we should all strive towards.

I always think of that question, of what Jesus would do, as an invitation to be a better me and perhaps to chill out if I am too worked up about a given situation.

Regardless of our religious orientation, that question could serve as our "be nice" reminder.

What would Krishna do? Reveal the true nature of existence and scare the hell out of us in the process.

What would Marilyn Monroe do? Stand on a subway grate and wait for a puff of warm air.

It's a mindset issue as mentioned. When the curtain falls the real question is: Was I good to my fellow man? Was I compassionate, generous, merciful? Did I turn my back or step up?

Brent wrote:It's a mindset issue as mentioned. When the curtain falls the real question is: Was I good to my fellow man? Was I compassionate, generous, merciful? Did I turn my back or step up?

I'm with you. That is what life is all about.

I've had this conversation a number of times IRL lately and at the risk of violating the tenants of my own religion, Don'tbeadick-ism (honestly I'm not very faithful...but I try!!), I don't think that is what religion is about. That's one of the hardest questions for me...does religion in all it's many iterations just get in the way of being a good person.

Mormonism at the end of the day is about obedience. Unfortunately much of that obedience is tied up in what a handful of old men have to say. Christianity is a little more flexible but at the end of the day it's about complete devotion to Christ and ultimately ends on obedience as well. There is most definitely contention about what it means to be a "true" disciple of all these faith traditions but for every Mormon building Bridges there are some who chastise those "seeking smooth gods...who don't rock the boat...and pat us on the head while we giggle and pick marigolds". For every christian who seeks to accept homosexuals into the fold, there's those who express disgust at these "liberal" and "non-biblical" sorts.

From a personal, anecdotal POV I've seen that it's not really about being a good person. My wife and I are the same moral people now as we were when we participated fully in the church. And yet, we've seen the fear in our friend's and family's eyes when we make non-faithful statements. The same fear we see in christian friends when I say I don't accept Jesus as my lord and savior.

So I'm not sure what the best approach to all this is but when some insist we consider only the "good" and palatable things Jesus allegedly said it feels like veering dangerously into "Give Joseph a break" territory. But I appreciate the conversation, Happy new year!

Brent wrote:It's a mindset issue as mentioned. When the curtain falls the real question is: Was I good to my fellow man? Was I compassionate, generous, merciful? Did I turn my back or step up?

I agree - it's a mind-set issue.
What does it mean to be good to my fellow man?
What would Jesus do?
Jesus was kind, but he didn't kiss ass just to be liked or to avoid being shunned.
He wasn't afraid to point out ugly facts - even when he knew he'd be harassed, tortured and killed.
Why?
Because to him, truth was more important. It was more loving to call things what they were than BS just to be religiously/politically correct.