A bridge too far?

[Sleeping in EQ]

Originally Posted by Indy Coug

How in the world can you construe my comments as Pharisaic? Certainly there is no basis to say that I'm advocating following a lower law at the expense of a higher law (healing on the Sabbath vs keeping the Sabbath holy).

I'm simply voicing my opposition not so much to the question of whether we should do everything the brethren "counsel", but the dismissive attitude some have voiced in the process.

How that amounts to Pharisaic is beyond me.

Indy, your comments here are so beautifully Pharisaic as to be artistic. I assert your legalistic approach, you object to my assertion, and then, in the very next sentence, you reaffirm a legalistic approach. It really is something to behold.

Have you ever put serious effort into understanding Romans? The KJV really butchers it and I suspect that that might play a role in LDS people not giving it much attention. It's so much easier to get insight from Paul's letter to the Romans in the NRSV, ESV, NET, REB, etc. that it isn't even funny. Paul discusses many approaches to understanding Jesus' relation to the OT, including the legal one, and does so in a way that can help someone consider Jesus' atonement in multiple paradigms.

Regardless, I like that there is a broad spectrum of approaches to these important issues, and I don't want you to think I'm trying to call you out for special scrutiny.