LDS (Mormonism) Deep Doctrine

Who's Who in "Mormonism"?

2012-02-05T17:20:00.000-06:00

I remember when I first got baptised and went the next day to talk to a local minister, that I knew well, about this. His response was to bring out this book with things against the church. He talked of Brigham Young and other people and events I knew nothing about.

At the time all I could think was that the Holy Ghost had told me to join the church and the Spirit was in it, and so it must be right, and there must be answers to these accusations. So I thought a rundown on who's who could be of value to some. If I've forgotten anyone significant feel free to comment and include them.

Before beginning I should define what "Mormonism" actually is. It refers to the truth: Those things Jesus Christ came and taught, and the Holy Ghost and Heavenly Father teach.

I could get technical and say that the highest position in the truth are eternal laws. But we'll keep it simple.

The highest position in the truth is that of the Father God. He is referred to as "Heavenly Father."
Secondly comes Jesus Christ, who is also a God; and referred to generally in Scripture as "Lord."
Thirdly comes The Holy Ghost. He isn't a God in the same sense, but reveals the Father God and the Lord Jesus. He teaches us and helps us create a relationship with Heavenly Father and Jesus Christ.

Next in position is us. All people are equal children of Heavenly Father and Heavenly Mother.

In addition to this we have the church that Jesus Christ set up for us, his brothers and sisters. The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints is part of the truth; as it sets out to teach those things that Heavenly Father and Jesus Christ would have for the majority of members to learn. Within this he has created a structured organisation. Meaning that there are offices within it for different functions.

The First Presidency is often composed of 3 men. Firstly we have what is termed "the President of the Church." Another term we use for him is "The Prophet." This term is used as he is the only one who is to receive revelation that is to be placed before the membership, sustained as revelation and placed within the Current Scripture. All members should be prophets for themselves etc. But this is a special prophet for the church as a whole.

His main role is as president, making operational decisions and encouragement to members.

The president has counselors who are also apostles (though not acting within the Council of Twelve Apostles - which comes next). They assist him in his role so that they can stand in his place where required (though they can't receive new doctrine for the church for sustaining).

The presidents of the church that we have had so far are (in order) _
Joseph Smith, Brigham Young, John Taylor, Wilford Woodruff, Lorenzo Snow, Joseph F. Smith, Heber J. Grant, George Albert Smith, David O. Mc Kay, Joseph Fielding Smith, Harold B. Lee, Spencer W. Kimball, Ezra Taft Benson, Howard W. Hunter, Gordon B. Hinckley and Thomas S. Monson.

Next comes the Council of 12 Apostles. There are always 12 in this council. They get assigned areas of responsibility within the church. Upon the death of "The Prophet" the next prophet becomes the apostle that has served as an apostle the longest period of time.

Additionally to this we have several other groups that also make up what is termed "General Authorities" (often referred to as GA's). Prophets and apostles also are GA's. These other groups have areas of responsibility within the church structure.

Arguably the "Standard Works" (Bible, Book of Mormon, Doctrine and Covenants, and Pearl of Great Price) hold the greatest authority within the church. I'm not saying "arguably" because it should be in dispute, but some are too lazy to read, ponder and pray. They lean on another of their mere mortal brothers to bring them to eternal life. Something Brigham Young said they should not be doing.

Church members generally place large authority to any comments made by Joseph Smith. Other "prophets" carry the next greatest weight. Particularly the "Current Prophet" gets special attention when comments of prophets are in disagreement.

This gets to a problem in quoting GAs (even past "Prophets"). If it doesn't suit it will be said that the "Current Prophet" hasn't said that.

"Prophets" will sometimes disagree with each other as not every word they say or acts they do are by revelation. We see examples of this in Scripture. For example Moses wouldn't circumcise his children as God commanded. His wife had to do it (Ex 4:25-26).

Some non-members feel that by demonstrating differences of opinion of past GAs that this somehow disproves "Mormonism." It must be remembered that the church isn't "Mormonism." "Mormonism" (the truth) is God's religion. It is based on eternal laws. The church is not a group of people who already have all the truth. The church is theoretically a group of people endeavouring to discover that truth more fully through revelation.

Should We go to War?

2012-01-21T01:59:00.002-06:00

There is question that arises in the hearts of some as to the rights or wrongs of going to war. While the Scriptures present some positive aspects, relative to war, many don't feel right in themselves about killing other people. There is quotes such as "thou shalt not kill," don't get angry at others and "love your enemies." It is questioned that Christ taught the latter two things as higher doctrines.

When I was young I was into the westerns and the goody beating the baddy. The goody had a faster draw in westerns or was a better shot in war movies. Both were good at ducking bullets and knowing what else to do to avoid getting shot. It was glorified in my eyes.

When I was about to turn 19 I joined the army for 3 years of service. When I got out on the range they showed us what modern weapons do. I was stunned to find that 1. You couldn't possibly duck a bullet as it travels so fast that it will hit you before you get to hear it. 2. You can't duck behind a tree or a brick wall as the bullet will travel through them. 3. It was demonstrated what a bullet does to a person by ripping their entire back out.

Yet the biggest wake-up was when firing down range at a human like target. The reality of the fact that they were expecting me to actually kill someone really hit home. For the first 2 and a half years of my time in the army I doubt that I would have fired a shot had I been called upon to go to a warzone.

One day I was called upon to be in primary. As I looked at the children sitting there I began to think about them and their chances of obtaining eternal life. It occurred to me that if the communists took over that none of them would have any chance of receiving the gospel in this life. It suddenly hit me that if we didn't reserve the right to hear the truth that these children wouldn't have that hope that I had. For that last half year I believe that it was possible that I might have gone to war if called upon to do so.

Years later amidst the hysteria about children and abuse, suspicions were raised about me as a father, by a neighbor of a different religion. I suddenly realised that I was prepared to defend my children to the death if these (?) attempted to take my children from me. I realised that my children's chance of receiving the gospel would be very slim if they were removed. It was amazing to me how I suddenly transformed from a real pacifist to someone ready to take on the whole country if necessary. All my army training came flooding back: Suddenly I could remember everything I had ever been taught.

I came to understand Nephi, Moroni, Mormon and all the rest of them. The eternal life of a person means more than the physical life of a million people who refuse to accept the truth.

Who's Son was Jesus Christ?

2012-01-02T17:08:00.000-06:00

Having just had Christmas pass I reflected on that birth and what brought it about. I was reminded of the confusion that exists to some over who actually fathered the child.

Tradition from the Catholics has passed down the idea that Jesus Christ was somehow fathered by the Holy Ghost. This is understandable if all we had was the version in Matthew. It sounds like it could be suggesting that the Holy Ghost actually fathered the child.

"Now the birth of Jesus happened like this: When his mother Mary was espoused to Joseph, before they came together, she was found with child of the Holy Ghost....for that which is conceived in her is of the Holy Ghost." Matt 1:18 & 20

Let's look at what it actually says in the most original Greek text that we have _

"Of the now Jesus Anointed the birth thus was. Being espoused for the mother of him Mary to the Joseph, before either came together them, she was found in womb having by a spirit holy. Joseph and the husband of her, a just man being and not willing her to publicly expose, was inclined secretly to release her. These but of him thinking on, lo a messenger of a Lord in a dream appeared to him, saying: Joseph, son of David, not thou shouldst fear to take Mary the wife of thee; that for in her being found, by a spirit is holy." The Emphatic Diaglott (Interlinear Text) 1865 by Benjamin Wilson

This is a very different statement altogether. While this presents the presence of the Holy Ghost it doesn't say that the Holy Ghost fathered the child, as the King James Version implies.

Luke presents that while the Holy Ghost came upon Mary so also did the Father. Further Luke presents firstly that he shall be referred to as God's Son and secondly he repeats this with the comment that this was because of the actions of the Father during the process of overshadowing.

"He shall be great, and shall be called the Son of the Highest: and the Lord God shall give to him the throne of his father David...Then Mary said to the angel, How will this be seeing I have not known a man? And the angel answered and said to her, the Holy Ghost shall come upon you and the power of the Highest shall overshadow you: therefore also that holy thing which shall be born of you shall be called the Son of God." Luke 1:32 & 34-35

Looking at the original Greek doesn't alter this perspective _

"This shall be great, and a son of highest he shall be called; and shall give to him a Lord the God the throne of David the father of him... Said but Mary to the messenger: How shall be this, since a man not I know? And answering the messenger said to her: A spirit holy shall come upon thee, and a power of highest shall overshadow thee; therefore and the being begotten holy, shall be called a son of God." The Emphatic Diaglott (Interlinear Text) 1865 by Benjamin Wilson

references to the Diaglott can be found at the following site _

http://lookhigher.net/englishbibles/theemphaticdiaglott/luke/1.html

It is interesting to note that he isn't referred to as "the Son of God" but "a Son of God." This is consistent with other parts of Scripture such as the Sermon on the Mount, where Jesus prays to "our" Father which is in Heaven. And the many notes to God being our Father. Also Adam is referred to as having God as the literal father of his flesh (Luke 3:38). Yet Jesus Christ is the only begotten in the fallen flesh and the special Anointed One.

Christmas or Santamas?

2011-12-10T00:03:00.002-06:00

It's coming to that time of the year again. Presents, family get togethers (in some cases), holidays, and calculating your finances.

As we wander through the various shopping centres we are faced with endless enticements. We hear Jingle Bells and a collection of other Santamas songs. If we are lucky we may even hear some Christmas ones included. We see big images of Santa and, if you are like me, you recognise atheisms hand in the loss of Christmas. Movies and cartoons on television further indoctrinate children to see Christmas as Santamas.

I remember when young, people telling me that Christmas is about giving. They said it is better to give than to receive. Yet to me this wasn't how I felt. Mind you I wasn't too impressed when aunties gave me socks, handkercheifs or underwear. But as my mother was a single parent (my parents having split and divorced when I was one) she was glad to save some money on those items.

I never really found the joy in giving instead of receiving at Christmas until I went on my mission in December. No presents had come but I was out serving others. Suddenly I felt the good feeling that comes from service without expecting something.

The concept of Santa is the idea that some guy is just going to give you something you don't really deserve. The focus isn't on going out and doing this to others. It is on the concept of just receiving something. This is opposite to what Christ taught of giving of yourself to others, and wanting nothing in return.

The sorts of things that would really make a true Christmas would be to look forward to acts of service on this day, to remember that Christ came (among other things) to give of himself.

I'd like to wish everyone a happy Christmas time. Think on the poor and lonely. And if you help them out your Christmas will be so much the better.

My God; What is He?

2011-11-09T17:55:00.002-06:00

Let me first notify my readers that my long absence has been due to a stroke and heart failure. All going well I'll be getting back into it now. I wish to thank all those who visit my site, for their dedication to truth and for giving me the privilege of being able to communicate to others those things that I know to be eternally important. Now to the subject.

The greatest things of the gospel, to me, are the love of the Father and Jesus Christ and the miracle of the change following them can make in our lives. Accompanied by these is the beautiful truths that await us as we learn from God the principles of eternity.

Jesus Christ stated _

"And this is life eternal, that they might know you the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom you have sent." John 17:3

The best way to come to understand someone is to create a two-way communication with that person: Walking and talking with the Father and the Son, and having the constant inner-dwelling of the Holy Ghost.

So what is God to me at this present stage?

Firstly I accept that eternal laws exist that restrict what God can and can't do. We are told that God cannot lie, for example. Lehi tells us that if the laws weren't the way they are that God wouldn't be God. Appreciating that God is restricted by eternal laws helps me, then, to come to see that God is a loving, caring Father, not an all powerful, two-faced lunatic.

In saying this let me state that, as he can't bend eternal laws, we are stuck with the consequences of our actions (other than Christ suffering for our sins instead [of the truly repentant] and making the resurrection possible). God cannot wave a magic wand and make us perfect people, capable of living Celestial Laws. While many Scripture texts set down the idea of billions of independent trials at which gigantic books will be opened containing our life history and countless hours will be spent reading out the good and bad each of us has done, this isn't all the Scriptures say. Jesus says that he will judge no man, and that it is his words that judge us: That the Saints and Jesus shall judge in that they have delivered the message and others have either accepted or rejected them. King Benjamin also sets down this idea _

"Therefore if that man doesn't repent, and remains and dies an enemy to God, the demands of divine justice do awaken his immortal soul to a lively sense of his own guilt, which causes him to shrink form the presence of the Lord, and fills his breast with guilt, and pain, and anguish, which is like an unquenchable fire, whose flame ascends up forever and ever." Mos 2:38

This points out that judgement doesn't come so much from a vengeful God, but comes from inside us. This presents, then, that God is trying to spare us from the natural and eternal consequences of our own wrong thoughts and actions. My God wants us all to come home and will do all he can to make it happen.

Yet as we have free agency most will never seek that kind of righteousness. For as all things are equal there will be those who choose total wickedness and those who choose total righteousness with the vast majority on various levels in between.

God welcomes our friendship and a loving father-son/daughter relationship with him. He is yearning for this with all of us. We have to raise our spiritual thoughts to the point of coming to walk and talk with him and the Son.

Externalizing - Examining Psychology Part 1

2011-07-30T18:27:00.003-05:00

Before examining the intriguing world of psychology I had a term titled "excuses." Psychology makes an art form of dissecting this into more understandable parts. The one I'd like to examine in this post is externalizing. An explanation of this is given as follows _

EXTERNALIZING
By shifting the blame for your offending behavior on to some one else, you avoid responsibility for the offense. It is often common to externalize blame prior to a court appearance. Examples include: “She came on to me, it was her idea”; “My wife said I should teach her daughter about sex; “My uncle did it to me - it's in our family”

Externalizing can cross over into some of the other areas of excuses that can be given. So the lines aren't always clear. Yet by keeping the focus on the name we can get the idea.

As the example given above is set at sex-offenders only, I'd like to look at some other areas.

We can attempt to externalize shop-lifting by saying things such as, "my brother dared me," "my mother wanted the item," "they rip people off with their prices, so its only fair they get ripped off."

We can attempt to justify violence against another by saying that he asked for it by some statement or action.

Understanding that these types of excuses do not excuse the action or lack thereof, is very important. However on the other side this has created an atmosphere where Psychology has been turned into a science rather than a collection of good philosophies.

The other side of the examples above is that some may actually believe them deep down. And they may be accurate in some instances. Most psychologists just hear something that fits under an excuse type and then label it with that excuse.

Qualifying Actions VS Externalizing:

A lady comes up to you and asks you to help her put some items in her car. You begin to help and out comes a store detective to arrest you both for theft as she had not paid for the items.

When in jail you face the (mostly) dreaded prison psychologist. You inform them that you only did it because she asked. They inform you that you are externalizing the blame. So what happened to qualifying actions? Where does that fit in their science?

What has started as a good philosophy has now become a science of keeping the innocent in jail and releasing the guilty. Here we are talking about real people like you and I. Kept in jail by another one of man's non-sciences.

Giving Good Talks

2011-07-09T10:22:00.001-05:00

I think all of us get wandering minds in the middle of listening to someone's talk. We feel the talk has bogged down and is no longer interesting enough to keep listening (if it ever was). Do you get like that? I'm sure you do.

So I took note of what makes me suddenly listen to what someone is saying and the type of talks where I'd be lucky to hear much at all. Naturally everyone is different. Yet when I have given talks I must say that I get a good response from people telling me they enjoyed it. Also I look out and see people mostly looking at me in interest. So what's the trick to a good talk?

The main thing is that YOU find it interesting. If you find it interesting then you are more likely to convey that feeling to the congregation. If the subject stirs you then you have more chance to stir them with that passion.

I have noted that where a person is almost entirely reading out what some GA has said I'm lucky not to fall asleep. Why? Because it isn't really the thoughts and feelings of the reader. The reader may almost just as well be quoting Shakespear. Perhaps they completely agree with the GA. But it still doesn't come over with that same passion as when written in your own words.

When a person opens up their heart in part of the talk (usually done on a personal experience) I suddenly listen. And will keep listening until they revert back to quoting some other GA.

Also another thing that turns me off talks is when a person seems to just deliberately quote GAs. For example one member said, Elder Some B. Oddy of the Council of Twelve said, "love one another." Well, I'm glad he informed me that one of the 12 said it, now I can know its fact. Is that a bit of cynicism I detect there, Doug? Jesus Christ obviously wasn't enough of an authority for this person. Perhaps if we referred to him as "President Jesus Christ" he might get more respect out of this guy.

If I feel a bit nervous then I focus on the importance of my message to the congregation. This takes my mind off myself and puts it on the subject. That additionally helps it come over with feeling.

Of course if you are going to write your own talk then you need to do some research. You also need to pray for help and the Spirit to guide you. And this is imperative for a good talk. This means you learn and develop a closer relationship with God. Another of the benefits of writing your own talk.

And finally, throw in a bit of light, on subject, humor here and there.

What Evidences Do I Have that the Scriptures and Church are True?

2011-06-10T06:19:00.003-05:00

In my time in the church I have heard many arguments against it. I also have heard atheists speak against all our Scripture, including the Bible. Many ask me why a person, educated as I am, believes such notions? And they will pose the question of proof.

Yet their attitude in asking the question demonstrates that they aren't really interested in hearing it answered. It just becomes a cliche. And therefore when I answer it they didn't want to hear that, and so dispel it as more strange notions.

Many try to discredit the church by making claims of discrepancies in Egyptology, DNA, "modern science" and interpretations of Biblical texts. Also attempts are made at sensationalizing, claims of plagiarism and changes of opinions among general authorities of the church. Then there are claims against Joseph Smith or Brigham Young.

While all these things can be answered, what is my knowledge, of an outward nature, that the church is really what it says it is? Where is the evidence justifying my faith?

Man has tried to explain truth in science, literature, philosophy, psychology and religion. Yet all man's efforts don't bring true answers that really solve social, economic and psychological problems. Nor do they make sense when deeply analyzed. Man also gets lost in many areas of unscientific "science" falsely so called. Psychologists tell us that anger is normal and good. While Christ tells us it is extremely bad.

So who is right? Is Christ correct, or psychologists? The answers to these types of questions stand as a testimony to me of the correctness of Scripture, the divine direction given to prophets and apostles in the Scriptures, and the importance of them in my life.

I have found that being angry with people distorts true judgment. Not only for the issue, but it seems to affect many other decisions I make. Getting rid of anger brings a peace to my heart. One for Christ. Minus one for man's psychology.

Joseph Smith claimed revelation that we have sinned by our eighth birthday and therefore require baptism. At some time while 7 I started to feel terrible when I did something wrong. I had never heard this doctrine at that age, and hadn't even heard of Joseph Smith. Yet what he says he was inspired with was true. One for Joseph Smith.

He also claimed revelation that we are an intelligence and that is light and truth. He additionally said that as we sin so we lose light and truth. In other words we lose our existence to some degree. The more I have followed God's instructions the more I have felt life in me. This testifies to the truth of what Joseph Smith has stated.

Additionally I have noted my ability to think clearly improves when reading the Book of Mormon. Many things in life seem to run better. People respond better overall. I have seen this in the life of others also. I also demonstrated this in the life of a non-member who tried this suggestion. He couldn't deny the amazing changes that had occurred in his life since he began to read that book. Another one for the Scriptures and Joseph Smith.

Jesus Christ tells me not to lust. The world tells me that lust is good. As I have given up lust I have felt much better inside. And my love of others has come out more. Another one for Jesus Christ.

Alma 32 gives a run down on using faith that I have found by experience is perfectly correct in every detail. Another one for the Scriptures and Joseph Smith.

The world tells us that it is good to be rich. The Scriptures tell us it is bad to be rich. I have found the truth again of what the Scriptures say. Financial peace comes through trusting that as you do what God would have you do he will see that you come through whatever financial challenges you face.

Whether it be loving those who abuse you, or whatever concept we have placed before us, I have found God is right and the world is wrong. My logic, through personal experiences, tells me this is impossible, unless this knowledge comes from a source far beyond the intelligence of man.

So I have a myriad of physical evidences of the truth of Heavenly Father, Jesus Christ, the Scriptures, the LDS church and Joseph Smith.

Becoming Like God

2011-05-21T19:19:00.002-05:00

When we look at sport or academic achievements they can often be based on our ability rated against the ability of others: Can I run faster, lift more weight, learn spelling better, etc. So we can often tend to suppose that if we are about equal (or particularly better) with others in things all is well enough.

Yet suppose we were to look at carpentry that way for a moment. I decide I want to be a carpenter and build a house. If my carpentry skills are equal to those around me what kind of house would I build: How safe would it be? I wouldn't like to have my family living in it! Nor would I if my next door neighbors built it. So why would I judge my carpentry abilities by others? It has to be a question of ability to do the job.

The church could be likened to a carpentry training center. But what if those teaching and those learning only went so far in their education and refused to go further? The church is geared to only teach basic skills. The further learning must be obtained from the professionals (Heavenly Father, Jesus Christ and the Holy Ghost).

In this carpentry idea I would need to do studies on safe building methods, and many hours of application of the principles learnt. I would have to start with smaller objects and work my way up through doing smaller buildings etc.

So do we become like God by doing church callings and listening to "the prophet?"

Certainly all callings should assist us in learning to feel and see the importance and beauty of service to others. And listening to nice people and reading the Scriptures are great ideas. But to know how we are going in our quest to become a God requires a more relevant test than this. And to get the skills requires greater studies.

"And the Lord said, If you had faith as a grain of mustard seed, you might say to this sycamine tree, Be plucked up by the root, and be planted in the sea; and it should obey you." Luke 17:6

Have you done that lately? Commanded a tree to be plucked up and planted somewhere else? If we are to control planets then we must apply principles that will make us able to do so.

Now I know some will say that this isn't to be taken literally, but that you have to ask God, and he will do it. Yes, I was brought up believing that too. Then one day I read it without man's indoctrinated interpretation. It says, "obey you." Not, "obey God." God doesn't need to improve his faith to move a tree. Nor does he need us to improve our faith so that he can move a tree. We do. To become like a carpenter we must practice carpentry where required.

I'm not suggesting you go out and try to move trees as an exercise. It has to be done with the right heart. Love is a good motivator. But many opportunities are available for you to develop this ability. Healing others is a good starting area. Blessings to children when injured or hitting their heads is good.

Let's look at the story of Peter walking on water _

"And Peter answered him and said, Lord, if it be you, bid me come to you on the water. And he said, Come. And when Peter came down out of the ship, he walked on the water, to go to Jesus. But when he saw the wind boisterous, he was afraid; and beginning to sink, he cried, saying, Lord, save me. And immediately Jesus stretched out his hand, and caught him, and said to him, O you of little faith, why did you doubt?" Matthew 14:28-31

So it was Peter's faith, and then lack of it, that made it possible for Peter to walk on the water. If it were really Jesus that was holding him up then he wouldn't have begun to sink, as Jesus' faith was constant.

In the Book of Abraham we read _

"And the Gods watched those things which they had ordered until they obeyed." Abraham 4:18

Why did it take time for them to obey? Because we were learning. So we took time to get it done. If God himself had done the job it wouldn't have taken 6 days. He could have had it done in next to no time.

The real test, then, of how close we are to our objective is how well we can control objects for such things as healing. Also how much time we have spent in personal two-way learning communication with our Heavenly Father. Of course this will also be demonstrated in the love we would feel in our hearts for others.

Understanding Romans Chapter 7, Did Paul Teach that we have to Sin?

2011-05-01T16:33:00.001-05:00

In my opinion Paul would have to be the most often misunderstood of all Scriptural writers. In the case of this chapter the problem is increased by some poor sentence re-construction between languages.

For example of what I mean let us look at the German expression, "sprechen sie Deutsch." We say that this says, "do you speak German." But "sprechen" is a verb in German, as it ends in "en." Thus it is literally "speaking" in English. "Sie" means "you." And "Deutsch" is "German." So literally it says, "speaking you German." Yet this doesn't convey the meaning to English speaking peoples. A more accurate translation to maintain the original words AND intent would be to say, "are you capable of speaking German?"

In this examination I have looked over the original sentence structure and words. I found the structure used in translations is very questionable in parts. Therefore I would like to unravel the mystery of this chapter and present what I find Paul really said.

1 "Don't you know, brothers, (for I speak to them that know the law,) how that the law has authority over a man only as long as he's alive?"

He then goes on to give an example to demonstrate what he is trying to say next.

2 "For the woman that has a husband is bound by the law to her husband so long as he's alive; but if the husband be dead, she is released from the law of her husband."
3 "So then if, while her husband is alive, she marries another man, she shall be called an adulteress: but if her husband is dead, she is free from that law; so that she is no adulteress, though she has married another man."
4 "So, my brothers, you also have become dead to the law by the body of Christ; that you might be married to another, even to him who is raised from the dead, that we should bear fruit to God."
5 "For when we were in the flesh, the passions of sins, which were by the law, did work in our members to bear the fruit of death."
6 "But now we are delivered from the law, that being dead wherein we were held; that we should serve in newness of spirit, and not in the oldness of the letter."

Considering verse 4, the subject flow and the sentence structure in Greek I believe this latter verse would be better interpreted _

06 "But now we are delivered from the law, us being dead to that which held us; that we should serve in newness of spirit, and not in the oldness of that which is written."

The significance of this is that Christ implied that the law doesn't actually pass away, but must be fulfilled within the heart of each individual, separately.

It is important to also note here that Paul has mentioned being free from the law of death through Christ. Yet in this chapter he goes on to speak of his situation while previously under the law.

7 "What shall we say then? Is the law sin? Certainly not. Indeed, I would not have known what sin was, but by the law: for I had not known lust, except the law had said, You shall not covet."

So the law itself doesn't make people do evil. Nor is it evil. People do evil, but the law makes them aware it is evil so they can change from doing evil.

8 "But sin, taking occasion by the commandment, wrought in me all manner of concupiscence. For without the law sin was dead."

That latter verse is about as clear as mud to most people. Let me present the following rendering for consideration _

8 "But sin was produced (only existing because of the commandment) using all my covetous desires. For without the law sin was dead."

What he is saying here is that though you can have covetous desires that make you do evil, before knowing the law, once you know the law, by doing those things you have sinned, because you knew not to do them.

9 "For I was alive without the law once: but when the commandment came, sin was reborn, and I died."
10 "And the commandment, which was ordained to life, I found to be to death."

This is just a continuation of the same logic. We are condemned by our knowledge of that which is evil if we do that evil in the knowledge that it is evil: It creates a spiritual death by disobedience.

11 "For sin, taking occasion by the commandment, deceived me, and by it killed me."

I would interpret it _

11 "But sin was produced (only existing because of the commandment) deceived me, and by it killed me."

Once again he is pointing out that evil acts have become sins to him because of the commandments he's received. And so spiritual death has come to him by him deliberately sinning.

12 "Wherefore the law is holy, and the commandment holy, and just, and good."
13 "Was then that which is good made death to me? God forbid. But sin, that it might appear sin, working death in me by that which is good; that sin by the commandment might become exceeding sinful."

Would be better stated _

13 "Did that which is good become death to me? Definitely not. But the good [commandment] showing me the sin caused death in me, and therefore it was shown to be greater evil by the commandment."

He is stating that the law wasn't to his detriment in making him aware of the evil of his actions; but helped him in understand just how truly evil his actions were.

14 "For we know that the law is spiritual: but I am carnal, sold under sin."
15 "For that which I do I allow not: for what I would, that do I not; but what I hate, that do I."
16 "If then I do that which I don't want to, I consent to the law that it is good."
17 "Now then it is no more I that do it, but sin that dwells in me."
18 "For I know that in me (that is, in my flesh,) dwells no good thing: for to will is present with me; but how to perform that which is good I can't find."
19 "For the good that I want, I don't do: but the evil which I don't want to do, that I do."

Paul is saying that when controlled by the carnal man he does what his mind is saying is wrong according to his teachings from the law. As the law opposes his carnal actions it shows the law to be good. It isn't the desire of his mind to do it but the carnal feelings within, that he allows to act. This happens because the flesh seeks its own desires, not those of his spiritual well being. His spirit wants to do good acts that raise the spirit, but the flesh, uncontrolled, does the opposite.

20 "Now if I do what I don't want to, it is no more I that do it, but sin that dwells in me."

This verse sounds a little strange. Some use it to justify sinning, claiming that it isn't their fault, but the fault of sin that is in them: That they had no choice. However this isn't what he is saying. He is saying that it isn't the choice of his mind but the choice of his uncontrolled flesh. He comes to answer how to deal with this problem in the next chapter; and so I will lightly touch on that at the end.

21 "I find then a law, that, when I would do good, evil is present with me."
22 "For I delight in the law of God after the inward man:"
23 "But I see another law in my members, warring against the law of my mind, and bringing me into captivity to the law of sin which is in my members."
24 "What a wretched man that I am! who shall deliver me from the body of this death?"
25 "I thank God through Jesus Christ our Lord. So then with the mind I myself serve the law of God; but with the flesh the law of sin."

So here he is capping off his whole chapter with the point that while the law is good, it isn't sufficient, because it still leaves this conflict between the demands of the law and the desires of his flesh. He is saying that it is extremely difficult to near on impossible to live the law of Moses and have spiritual harmony: Perfection seems out of the question.

But along comes the gospel of Jesus Christ. The gospel eliminates the problem by making spiritual laws of the heart its focus. Thus when Jesus Christ finished his sermon to the Nephites and Sermon on the Mount to the Jews he said, "Therefore be perfect.." Matt 5:48, 3 Nep 12:48

The next chapter of Romans goes on to say _

1 "There is therefore now no condemnation to them which are in Christ Jesus, who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit... That the righteousness of the law might be fulfilled in us, who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit. For they that are after the flesh do mind the things of the flesh; but they that are after the Spirit the things of the Spirit. For to be carnally minded is death; but to be spiritually minded is life and peace."
Romans 8:1 & 4-6

Thus we see that chapter 7 isn't some justification for sin or some statement that we are doomed to sin. It is a statement that we have serious problems being perfect while under the law.

Excommunicated Members that are Innocent Can Still go to the Celestial Kingdom

2011-04-15T17:07:00.001-05:00

I have been instructed for years that only baptized members will get into the Celestial Kingdom.

Those people that are valiant in that good works will get into the Terrestial Kingdom.

And all the unrepentant sinners will go to the Telestial, apart from the rare sons of Perdition.

For much of my member life I was instructed that church courts were conducted by inspiration and that all decisions were thus correct. This meant that all excommunicated members were unable to obtain the Celestial Kingdom without repentance and re-baptism.

Yet over latter years I have come to see problems with this simplistic viewpoint. Also personal guidance by the Spirit brought some of it into question. And recently a Scripture text was pointed out that supported that guidance.

The message of this text has significance to the excommunicated members who were never guilty of the sins of which they were accused, but were still found guilty by church courts. Sad as it may be, and as much as we may like to believe otherwise, it is far too prevalent.

"The heavens were opened upon us, and I beheld the celestial kingdom of God, and the glory thereof, whether in the body or out I cannot tell....I saw Father Adam and Abraham; and my father and my mother; my brother Alvin, that has long since slept; And marveled how it was that he had obtained an inheritance in that kingdom, seeing that he had departed this life before the Lord had set his hand to gather Israel the second time, and had not been baptized for the remission of sins. Thus came the voice of the Lord unto me, saying: All who have died without a knowledge of this gospel, who would have received it if they had been permitted to tarry, shall be heirs of the celestial kingdom of God; Also all that shall die henceforth without a knowledge of it, who would have received it with all their hearts, shall be heirs of that kingdom; For I, the Lord, will judge all men according to their works, according to the desire of their hearts." D&C 137:1 & 5-9

This demonstrates that it is really by our works and the desires of our hearts that we will or will not enter in. As these excommunicated people can't repent and show remorse for undone deeds, they can never satisfy the demands of the church court system, to obtain re-baptism. Yet these people need not fear as they fit in the category of those unable to be baptized in this life.

We see an additional instance of people unable to be baptized who also enter into the Celestial Kingdom _

"And I also beheld that all children who die before they arrive at the years of accountability are saved in the celestial kingdom of heaven." D&C 137:10

Searching for Meaning - My Membership in God's Kingdom

2011-03-26T16:40:00.000-05:00

As I have looked over the various discussions on the internet I have found that it isn't uncommon for members (generally females - but I think that is only because they discuss heart issues) to be struggling with finding meaning in their church membership. They express their deep concerns with this problem, particularly when they believe in the Book of Mormon etc.

I have recently read of one sister's struggles, who has had her father leave the church; and he had been a bishop and her rock to rely on in regard the church.

People will often quote how they enjoyed youth activities and even service in the church. And often how they were greatly influenced for good by some member who may have been a teacher etc. Yet the struggle inside themselves goes on to find identity and a oneness with it all.

Some more active members may point and say, "oh well, they were probably smoking and not paying their tithing, I'll bet." And it certainly is true that this doesn't contribute to feeling part of the thing. But if these problems do exist they may just be another sign of the true problem, rather than its cause. Healing these problems may only be healing the symptoms.

So what should all really be looking for in our church membership? How do we make it fulfilling? Why do some carry on for years and then suddenly go off, while others carry on for years without deviating?

The answer is actually in the name of the church, and we hear it all the time. Jesus Christ. No, I'm not blaspheming. That is what is missing in people's church experience. I will explain this in more detail. But put simply; they are trying to create a relationship within the church system rather than a relationship with deity. Then wondering why they don't feel spiritually fulfilled.

Jesus Christ said, "For this is life eternal, that they might know you, the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom you have sent." John 17:3

The life Christ promises is by developing a personal relationship with Heavenly Father and Jesus Christ. It isn't about developing a personal belief in the bishop or other church administrators. These may be wonderful people. Some may be very inspired. But creating a relationship with them won't produce eternal life. And trying it this way is just attempting a short cut.

"And Enoch walked with God: and was not, for God took him." Gen 5:24

When we read of someone speaking to God face to face or walking with God it is sad that so many just put it off as something done by someone in some exalted position - "the prophet." Yet Joseph Smith had no position when visited by Heavenly Father and Jesus Christ due to the enormous faith and sincerity of his prayer at 14. And what position did Lehi have when called upon to preach to those in Jerusalem (he had no priesthood authority at all)? And what of the child Samuel who was spoken to by God to give instruction to the prophet (church president) Eli?

Jesus Christ stated, "Draw near to me and I will draw near to you, seek me diligently and you shall find me; ask, and you shall receive; knock, and it shall be opened to you." D&C 88:63

Jesus also stated, "See, I stand at the door, and knock: if any man hear my voice, and open the door, I will come in to him, and will dine with him, and he with me." Revelation 3:20

In these verses Jesus has presented that he stands at the door and knocks. Note that he is there waiting for us. As we draw near to him he can draw near to us. He promises us that he is very willing to create this communication and oneness with us, it only requires our willingness also to make it happen. We have to open the door to our hearts to him in all sincerity, so that he can enter: He can't kick the door down. We are free and independent; and must remain so (D&C 93:30).

Some may ask then, what should my feelings in regard the church organisation be?

We need to learn to worship God all week in the heart; then go to church with the idea of finding opportunities to serve others. If something I say can make it easier for someone to live the gospel more fully then I have done good. Many opportunities exist for service in the church through callings. If we don't have a calling we can find service opportunities there ourselves. Even such things as thinking and presenting comments in Sunday School and Priesthood/Relief Society/Young Women's can help others to focus on their spiritual life. Don't underestimate the importance of such things.

Jesus prayed to the Father in regard all those who believe in him _

"That they all may be one as you, Father, are in me, and I in you, that they also may be one in us...." John 17:21

Jesus Christ wants us to be one with him and the Father. We need to get into our heads that we can have that perfect oneness and come to know them as well as we know ourselves. Through this oneness our life in the church will obtain true and full meaning.

The Apostasy Predicted in the Bible

2011-03-13T17:10:00.001-05:00

A lot has been written on the subject of the apostasy. Yet I would like to look at it from a Biblical point.

The apostle Paul notes the changing of doctrine that had been occurring in Galatia:

"I marvel that you are so soon removed from him that called you to the grace of Christ, to another gospel: Which is not another; but there be some that trouble you, and would pervert the gospel of Christ." Galatians 1:6-7

Paul further mentions the divisions that were already occurring in the break-up of the church in Corinth at that time:

"Now I implore you, brothers, by the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that you all speak the same thing, and that there be no divisions among you; but that you be perfectly joined together in the same mind and in the same judgment. For it has been told to me regarding you, my brothers, by them which are of the house of Chloe, that there are contentions among you. Now this I say, that every one of you says, I am of Paul; and I of Apollos; and I of Cephas; and I of Christ. Is Christ divided? was Paul crucified for you? or were you baptized in the name of Paul?" 1 Corinthians 1:10-13

Paul states later to them:

"Now in this that I'm declaring to you I don't praise you, you are coming together not for the better, but for the worse. For first of all, when you come together in the church, I hear that there are divisions among you; and I partly believe it." 1 Corinthians 11:17-18

When writing to Titus Paul said in regard those in the church:

"For there are many unruly and vain talkers and deceivers, especially those of the circumcision." Titus 1:10

Peter stated:

"... Paul also according to the wisdom given to him has written to you; As also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things; in which are some things hard to be understood, which they that are unlearned and unstable wrest, as they do also the other scriptures, to their own destruction." 2 Peter 3:15-16

The apostle Paul presented that the members of the church at his time shouldn't regard that Christ had come yet. He points out that a falling away of the church had to come first:

"We are requesting of you, brothers, regarding the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, and us gathering together to him, That you don't soon be shaken in mind, or be troubled, neither by spirit, nor by word, nor by letter as from us, as that the day of Christ is here. Let no man deceive you by any means: for that day shall not come, except there come an apostasy [Greek - apostastasia] first, and that man of sin be revealed, the son of perdition; Who will oppose and exalt himself above all that is called God, or that is worshipped; so that he sets himself up in the temple of God, proclaiming himself to be a God. ... And now you know what is being presently held back, that when his time comes he might be revealed. For the mystery of iniquity is already working: only he who now holds back [God] will hold back, until he [God] is removed from it [altogether]. And then shall that Wicked one be revealed, whom the Lord shall consume with the spirit of his mouth, and shall destroy with the brightness of his coming: Even him, whose coming is after the working of Satan with all power and signs and lying wonders." 2 Thessalonians 2:1-9

Here Paul has presented that no one should regard that Christ will be coming until the church falls away and the true God is removed from it. Also that God is holding it back from happening at that point. He states that in charge of the apostate church one will arise claiming to be a God on earth. This latter prophesy could have been regarded as having being fulfilled not long after this time by Roman emperors or by the Pope.

Pope Pius V said, "The Pope and God are the same, so he has all power in Heaven and earth." quoted in Barclay, Cities Petrus Bertanous Chapter XXVII: 218.

Vatican Document:
"He [the Pope] can pronounce sentences and judgments in contradiction to the rights of nations, to the law of God and man...he can free himself from the commands of the apostles, he being their superior, and from the rules of the Old Testament...The Pope has power to change times, to abrogate laws, and to dispense with all things, even to the precepts of Christ." Decretal de Translat. Episcop. Cap.

Furthermore Paul is presenting that this "wicked one" will still be here when Christ comes again for Christ to "destroy [him] with the brightness of his coming". So this rules out Roman emperors, only leaving the Pope.

When writing to Timothy, Paul again mentions the fact that the church will lose its truth:

"For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine; but after their own lusts shall they heap to themselves teachers, having itching ears; And they shall turn away their ears from the truth, and shall be turned to fables." 2 Timothy 4:3-4

This had to be speaking of the church as a whole, as people are always creating false teachers.

So a complete moving away from the truth has been in the beginning of its action at the time just after Christ; and has eventually occurred fully. Some truths remained through the publication of the Bible. But a lot of this was distorted by the ideas men had come to accept as truth. This is why it was necessary for the truth to be restored to mankind once again by revelation from God himself. God has set up his Church upon the earth again. It was set up by revelation, as in New Testament and Old Testament times. This means that people can be assured that the true ordinances of God are being performed in the right way, and a source of the whole truth is available to all. This is the purpose of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints.

Protestant Experts Declare Protestant Biblical and Theological Knowledge and Belief is Poor.

2011-02-26T17:08:00.000-06:00

While looking up something else on the internet I came across an interesting article at theologicalstudies.org. The article was entitled "Crisis in America’s Churches: Bible Knowledge at All-Time Low" by Michael J. Vlach, Ph.D. So I'm quoting from that somewhat in this post. It additionally states that the problem isn't unique to the USA.

I'll make some comments in regard these facts after presenting what I feel are the most important points stated.

"A crisis of basic biblical and theological knowledge exists in America’s churches, and church leaders must do all they can to address this growing problem, so say experts monitoring the beliefs of people in Christian churches across the United States.

'The Christian body in America is immersed in a crisis of biblical illiteracy,' warns researcher George Barna. 'How else can you describe matters when most churchgoing adults reject the accuracy of the Bible, reject the existence of Satan, claim that Jesus sinned, see no need to evangelize, believe that good works are one of the keys to persuading God to forgive their sins, and describe their commitment to Christianity as moderate or even less firm?'" Barna Research Online, “Religious Beliefs Vary Widely by Denomination,” www.barna.org/cgi-bin/PagePressRelease.asp?PressReleaseID=92&Reference=B, June 25, 2001.

Vlach also points out that "The most widely known Bible verse among adult and teen believers is 'God helps those who help themselves'—which is not actually in the Bible."

He further points out that less than 10% of Protestants use the Bible, rather than the world view, in making life decisions.

He goes on to state _

"Gary Burge, professor of New Testament at Wheaton College in Wheaton, Illinois... points to research at Wheaton College in which the biblical and theological literacy of incoming freshmen have been monitored. One-third could not identify Matthew as an apostle from a list of New Testament names."
Gary M. Burge, “The Greatest Story Never Read: Recovering biblical literacy in the church”

"Like Burge, George Lindbeck, the famous Yale theologian, has commented on the decreasing knowledge of Scripture from a professor’s perspective.

'When I first arrived at Yale, even those who came from nonreligious backgrounds knew the Bible better than most of those now who come from churchgoing families,' he says." George A. Lindbeck, “The Church’s Mission to a Postmodern Culture,” Postmodern Theology: Christian Faith in a Pluralist World (San Francisco: Harper & Row Publishers, 1989), 45

"This is also the view of theologian and author David Wells. 'I have watched with growing disbelief as the evangelical church has cheerfully plunged into astounding theological illiteracy.'" David F. Wells, No Place for Truth or Whatever Happened to Evangelical Theology? (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1993), 4.

In regard Barna, Vlach states _

"In his study of the beliefs of mainline Protestants (including Methodists, Lutherans, Presbyterians, and Episcopalians), Barna documented...Only 35% of mainline Protestant church members believe Christ was sinless; 34% believe the Bible is totally accurate; 27% agree that works don’t earn heaven; and 20% believe Satan is real.

Of Baptists (any type) in America, only 34% believe Satan is real. Only 43% believe that works don’t earn heaven. ... Only 55% affirm that Christ was sinless, and 66% hold that the Bible is totally accurate.

Of nondenominational Christian churches, Barna reports that 48% believe Satan is real; 60% say works don’t earn heaven; 63% affirm the sinlessness of Christ; and 70% believe the Bible is totally accurate." “Religious Beliefs Vary Widely by Denomination.”

Vlach asks, "whatever happened to theology?"

He quotes Burge further _

"'many Christian churches have abandoned serious Bible exposition and theological teaching.'

'Rather than explaining the historical setting of a passage, texts become springboards for devotional reflection,' he notes. 'Biblical passages are taken out of context as the preacher searches for those stories that evoke the responses or attitudes desired.' As a result, 'The heart of a ‘good’ sermon is fast becoming the ‘emotional work’ that can be done in 20 minutes preaching time.'

'That is it in a nutshell,' he says. 'Christian faith is not being built on the firm foundation of hard-won thoughts, ideas, history, or theology. Spirituality is being built on private emotional attachments.'” Burge, “The Greatest Story Never Read.”

"A third reason for biblical and theological illiteracy today is the tremendous influence unbiblical philosophies and worldviews are having on churchgoers. Liberalism promotes that the Bible is a human construct and not a divine document. In doing so, it continues to assail the traditional ... [Protestant] views of the inerrancy of the Bible, deity of Christ, reality of Satan, substitutionary atonement, and other key doctrines of the ... [Protestant] faith... Postmodernism has convinced many that there are no universal truths."

Vlach also states, "Only 32% of born-again ... [Protestants] still believe in the existence of absolute moral truth."

"Many Christians accept elements of these unbiblical worldviews without even knowing it. Because of this, Barna and Mark Hatch have noted that “we cannot really call the faith of American Christians a Bible-based faith.” George Barna and Mark Hatch, Boiling Point: It Only Takes One Degree (Ventura: Regal, 2001), 187.

"According to Barna and Hatch, Christians today have accepted and combined so many ideas from other worldviews and religions that they have created their own faith system.

But what can church leaders do about this crisis?"

Years ago Protestant church leaders got together to see what they could do about the failing numbers of church goers. They surveyed people to find out what they had against going to church. One of the big reasons people gave as an excuse was that the various religions professing belief in Christ couldn't even agree with each other. To combat this there became a need to water down theology. A new catch phrase was made, "as long as you believe in Christ." This made theology obsolete. It didn't matter what you thought God was, whether you accepted evolution, homosexuality, female ministers or any other anti-Biblical idea. As long as you profess Christ as your Savior you are saved.

So with that belief what does any of this matter? Yet even these Protestant theologians can see that the Protestant religions have become non-religions. For without theology what is Christ? Are we really to believe that all God demands is the knowledge of a name that we are prepared to speak? If so then I know a lot of blasphemers that are going to do really well in heaven. They are constantly confessing the name of Jesus and that he is the Christ. As Christ himself stated the devils know that he is the Christ. And we even have recorded instances in the New Testament books of evil spirits confessing that Jesus is the Christ.

Without theology Jesus Christ is just a name. It is what that name represents that counts. "And this is life eternal that they might know you, the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom you have sent," (Jn 17:3) said Christ. So a knowledge of Heavenly Father and Jesus Christ is essential. Without theology how can we know them? This coming to know someone takes time and much communication. It requires hearing their ideas and coming to understand why they think that way. We don't just know someone by knowing of them.

In looking at these statistics it is at least reassuring that most have noticed that the Scriptures state that you won't get into heaven without works. Yet I should qualify that to obtain forgiveness of sins doesn't require good works. It does, however, require a person to stop doing bad works (sinning). Protestantism doesn't understand that there is a difference between being saved from the hell we suffer for our sins, and getting into the Kingdom of Heaven.

Protestants themselves produce specials trying to make the Bible more palatable. I have seen them say that the Pharaoh's chariots merely got stuck in the mud, rather than drowning the Egyptians. An absolute nonsense to anyone who knows that chariots were deliberately made light so as to be fast. The Israelites were told to take all the gold they could from the Egyptians and with all their own goods obviously put on wagons, the chariots would have far more chance of making it across the mud.

Yet if their own ministers present this changing of the Bible to diminish God then what would we expect from the members? Also those trying to fit in with evolution, billions of years old earth and other such modern science religious drivel are going to have to sacrifice Biblical accuracy for modern trends.

And these problems have even crept into the LDS church. Fortunately our statistics are far superior to these. Yet there are enough that are attempting to change that. Even among our general authorities we have had those deceived in these areas. It is important that we hold to Scriptural truths and don't discard them for the trends of the world. We must remain truly Christian and not discard our heritage of a real BELIEF IN Christ.

Looking at claims against Joseph Smith's Prophesies.

2011-02-14T01:08:00.000-06:00

Prophesying is a difficult thing to do. The biggest problem we face when being told things by God is our interpretations of the things stated. We hear it with our thinking. I remember once being given a revelation where I was even taken out by Christ and shown the answer to a question I had asked. Yet upon returning I interpreted the information incorrectly in part, due to my ignorance in another area. It wasn't until about 8 years later that I realised my error.

I think the greatest classic case of this in Scripture was Caiaphas in regard Christ _

"And one of them, named Caiaphas, being the high priest that same year, said to them, You know nothing at all, Nor consider that it is expedient for us, that one man should die for the people, and that the whole nation doesn't perish. And this he said not of himself: but being high priest that year, he prophesied that Jesus should die for that nation; And not for that nation only, but that also he should gather together in one the children of God that were scattered abroad. Then from that day forth they took counsel together for to put him to death." John 11:49-53

So had we asked the prophet Caiaphas what the revelation had said, he would say that he was told Christ was to be killed for the sake of everyone; and it was their responsibility to have it done.

Joseph Smith took his revelation that if he lived to be 85 he would see Christ come, to mean that Christ would definitely come at that time, even if he didn't live to be 85.

Yet some prophesies are a case of, "if you do X, Y will happen." I have seen this to be true myself. When I haven't done X, Y didn't happen. However when I did X, Y did happen. The Scriptures contain many such prophesies in instruction format to us all. If we follow what God says certain blessings will come. The tithing and word of wisdom promises being examples of this (Mal 3:10-12, D&C 89:18-21). If we do wrong things then wrong things will happen (not that all wrong comes upon us from our mistakes, as we also suffer for the wrongs of society, the world, our families, friends etc). Yet these all fit in the same prophesy.

"Therefore, you son of man, say to the children of your people, The righteousness of the righteous will not deliver him in the day of his transgression: as for the wickedness of the wicked, he shall not fall thereby in the day that he turns from his wickedness; neither shall the righteous be able to live for his righteousness in the day that he sins. When I shall say to the righteous, that he shall surely live; if he trust to his own righteousness, and commit iniquity, all his righteousnesses shall not be remembered; but for his iniquity that he has committed, he shall die for it." Ezekiel 33:12-13

In other words if God makes a prophetic promise to a person (or for that matter a people) if they then turn away from him, the promise no longer stands.

And many prophesies Joseph Smith received were of this type that Ezekiel refers to. Promises were made when people were doing the right thing, yet as time progressed they turned away from God, and so the promise became null and void.

Many accusations have been thrown at Joseph Smith claiming that many of his revelations proved to be wrong. While it would be silly to claim that a man who had a prophetic calling thrust upon him with so little time to learn and no one to learn from, made no teething mistakes; let's examine some of these claims taken from Anti-LDS sites online.

"If Joseph Smith was a true prophet from God, then his prophecies should have come to pass. However, there are plenty of cases where they did not. For example, Joseph Smith claimed that before 1891, and before he reached the age of 85, Jesus Christ would return. Well, Joseph Smith did not reach the age of 85 - he was murdered on the 27th of July 1844. And we know that Jesus Christ didn't return before 1891, bringing an end to the present world order."

The statement that Joseph received said that IF he lived to be 85 he would see Christ coming (D&C 130:15). This means that had events been such that Joseph Smith stayed away rather than going back to be murdered his continued life would have changed events that significantly.

"Smith also predicted the demise of the government of the state of Missouri which had displeased him - this never happened." He prophesied that the civil war would not result in the freedom of 'Ham' - this could not happen until the millenium according to Smith. Here again Smith was demonstrating just what a false prophet he was."

As to the then government of Missouri. That political party lost the next election and dissolved soon afterward.

In regard Ham's descendants (which were pre-flood Canaanites) the Bible tells us _

"And he said cursed be Canaan; a servant of servants shall he be to his brothers. And he said, Blessed be the Lord God of Shem; and Canaan shall be his servant. God shall enlarge Japheth, and he shall swell in the tents of Shem and Canaan shall be his servant." Gen 9:25-27

Note it mentions that of the 3 sons of Noah only Shem and Japheth will have Canaan as servants. So who was Canaan? Only Ham is left of the 3 sons. And why call him Canaan since he was their brother? Surely he would have his children as the same descent as his brothers, wouldn't he? Obviously not. Ham must therefore have married a Canaanite. and why was her race predominant?

And who have been servants more than others of races upon the earth? The negros, is the answer.

Are the negros no longer slaves? Did the Civil war end the slavery of even the negros in the USA? I would argue that negros today, while having much greater freedom generally, are still not in equal situation to whites completely. So I would see that the prophesy of Joseph Smith and Genesis chapter 9 is still valid.

"Smith prophesied in 1832 concerning the American civil war that the British would get involved and the war would extend to all nations. This is just one of his false prophecies concerning the American civil war."

As to the British getting involved in the Civil war. D&C 87:3 doesn't state that Britain will come to the aid of the confederacy. It states that they would be called upon to do so. And they were so called upon. Prophesies must be examined very carefully WITHOUT additions.

It then states that Britain would do the same, as would other nations. This is presenting a tendency toward world wars and large unions would then arise. This happened only around 50 years after the conclusion of the Civil War in 1914. Then only 31 years later we had wars that put almost everyone on earth at war in 1939. Nations were calling upon nations to assist and forming large alliances. Just over 50 years after the Civil War ended "the League of Nations" was formed. After this came the United Nations that we have today. This wasn't done before on anything like the present scale.

Then in verse 4 it goes on to mention the coming problems which aren't upon us just yet (enjoy the peace). Then in verse 5 he mentions the rising of the Lamanites (across the Americas) against the Gentiles, as is prophesied in the Book of Mormon. Then in verse 6 .... well... pray hard and keep close to the Lord.

It should also be remembered that in this prophesy he has predicted the Civil War, what state it would begin in and what it was about.

It is very important to read prophesies carefully rather than a quick scanning. Listenning to prophesy correctly is an art form where we learn from our mistakes. After enough errors we wake up to stop adding our own bits to it. Just listen to the instruction and take it on face value.

Blessed Assurance

2011-02-01T02:21:00.002-06:00

I was listening to a song that I was raised on in my Protestant years. The first verse says _

"Blessed assurance, Jesus is mine!
O what a foretaste of glory divine!
Heir of salvation, purchase of God,
born of his Spirit, washed in his blood."

It goes on to say _

"This is my story, this is my song,
praising my Savior all the day long."

And the last verse says _

"Perfect submission, all is at rest;
I in my Savior am happy and blessed,
watching and waiting, looking above,
filled with his goodness, lost in his love."

A very optimistic viewpoint with some things that I think are noteworthy.

This person confesses perfect submission. I can't really in all honesty before God claim perfect submission. In some things I am lacking perfect faith. Questions come to mind such as what if God said that being in love wasn't a good idea? Or if he said he didn't want me to marry again until after the resurrection (though he has indicated otherwise - yet the question still is valid)? And what if I married a woman and a week later plural marriage becomes legal again and God asks me to marry another woman right there and then?

The Spirit has asked me to do things years ago that I was embarrassed to do. And in some I failed. Perfect submission is truly a challenge. We want God to guide us, but we wish to steer.

It is also an interesting statement that he has Jesus and this is a foretaste of divine glory. As a church that is what we also teach as a unique doctrine. For we are the only church professing Christ and stating that we will receive the same glory as divinity if we live righteously.

Having tasted the goodness of God I can't say that I'm anything like "filled" with it, unfortunately. Even Jesus Christ is inferior to the Father in that sense. Yet next to our Lord Jesus Christ I also am nothing like "filled" with his goodness, other than the feelings I get from being one with them to some degree, and having the Holy Ghost.

I am truly grateful for the atonement of Christ in my life and the lives of those who have accepted it. It brings peace to my heart that all truly is "at rest" in that sense. I am also grateful for the resurrection being available to all. We should feel confident that we are one with Christ and Heavenly Father.

Divorce Figures are Misleading

2011-01-16T14:48:00.001-06:00

I was looking through the old documents on my computer and came across an article on divorce.

Holy Matrimony
In Era of Divorce, Mormon Temple Weddings Are Built to Last
By WILLIAM LOBDELL
LA TImes Saturday, April 8, 2000

He states the following after speaking of Born Againer's statistics_

"The picture isn't rosier for other Christians or Jews. The survey showed their divorce rates about the same as the national average."

The problem with these statistics is that those people with no religious ideas are unlikely to get married until the relationship has established itself. In other words it has already survived years of initial struggle. Therefore they shouldn't be getting divorced at the same rate as those who marry before starting to live together.

Weighing in this factor the statistics for those calling themselves "Christians" and Jews is far better than for those who aren't.

God (in the Law given to Moses) made it that people who have sex together (even once) were to marry and never divorce (Deut 23:28-29). So God sees these people as married. Considering the amount of people who just live together without marrying formally, and the amount of break-ups from those relationships, the real "divorce" rate is far higher. And considering that pre-marital sex is more likely to occur with non-religious people, the rate of real divorce among them is far higher still.

I must say on the other side though, that the amount of divorces among people who have gone to the temple isn't as good as the figures sound. The article goes on to say _

"There is a ray of marital hope, however. And that comes from the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints--specifically, from those Mormons who marry in a temple. While other Mormons divorce at the usual rate, only 6% of those who undergo the demanding temple marriage, break up, according to Brigham Young University professor Daniel K. Judd."

Sounds impressive, doesn't it? But I can't say that all is well in Zion, because this logic is flawed also. I know 4 people in my family that are still married in the temple but are legally divorced! 2 of them have re-married and their ex-spouses are still alive.

I could have a dozen temple marriages still valid and yet have a dozen legal divorces.

We'd need to start following God's directions in regard to marriage if we want great divorce figures. We need to revise our thinking. So here is some blunt advice that you will probably hate me for giving.

Men
Women need conversation much more than we men do, even when you are tired. Women get stressed easily (as they run more on emotions); have patience and give them time to unwind using conversation. If your wife snaps at you, just say to yourself, "it must be that time of the month" (even if you know it isn't). Men can tend to feel that all is well when there are few arguments happening, where once there were more. This may not be the good sign you think it is. This often means that she is holding it all inside and is giving up (particularly where it is accompanied by less general conversation). Take her out and talk to her more, while you still have a wife.

That probably sounds good to the women. But now its your turn.

Women
God declared man the RULER of the home (Gen 3:16, Moses 4:22), not a figurehead. Anyone telling you differently to God has got themselves confused. Women, you aren't men, stop trying to pretend you are one. You don't need a career other than learning to become mothers, wives and carers. Houses etc can be bought WHEN finances allow, not because you want one. Women, men don't believe that giving flowers and remembering dates means you love someone, so if they don't do these things all the time it doesn't mean they don't love you. Men also are entitled to a good break (often done by unwinding watching sport).

Endless Celestial Sex? What are we Told in Regard This?

2010-12-31T23:33:00.002-06:00

Question has arisen in regard the idea of Heavenly Father and our Heavenly Mothers needing to have "endless celestial sex" in order to produce the billions of spirit bodies required for our intelligences. After all there are billions of people on this planet alone. Therefore one could conclude that Heavenly Father needed to have sex billions of times. Yet is this the fact?

In addition to this question some aren't sure whether Gods engage in sex at all. Is God really our Heavenly Father or just our Heavenly Inventor? some pose. Is Heavenly Mother just really a Heavenly Nanny, that raised, but did not bear us?

Brigham Young stated _
"[God] created man, as we create our children; for there is no other process of creation in heaven, on the earth, in the earth, or under the earth, or in all the eternities, that is, that were, or that ever will be." Brigham Young, Journal of Discourses 11:122

So Brigham is declaring that the act of sex, conception, pregnancy and delivery is the only method by which any creation of any living entity takes place. Of course some animals and insects lay eggs etc. Yet parenthood is required. Families are truly eternal.

Joseph Smith confirms this _
"Whenever did a tree or anything spring into existence without a progenitor?" Teachings of the Prophet JS Section 6 1843-1844:373:1

Therefore all bodies have to be created by parental processes according to both Brigham and Joseph.

Paul confirms this further by presenting the relationship of Heavenly Father as a father relating to the way our fleshly fathers are fathers _
"Furthermore we have had fathers of our flesh which corrected us, and we gave them reverence: shall we not much rather be in subjection to the Father of spirits, and live?" Hebrews 12:9

Jesus Christ also mentions this concept _
"Or what man is there of you, whom if his son ask bread, will he give him a stone? Or if he ask a fish, will he give him a serpent? If you then, being evil, know how to give good gifts to your children, how much more shall your Father which is in heaven give good things to them that ask him?" Matthew 7:9-11

If they meant something different than a father in the real sense then these texts would lose context, for how can you relate cheese to chalk?

D&C 77:2 informs us that _
"...the spirit of man in the likeness of his person, as also the spirit of the beast, and every other creature which God has created."

So the spirit bodies of all living creatures are in the likeness of their physical bodies. This means that all creatures had eternal parents that look the same as them. All those parents had them as spirit children in the pre-existence.

That there was a birth process rather than our spirit bodies being invented is additionally evidenced by the fact that Jesus Christ was the first born spirit.

In regard Christ Paul writes _
"Who is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of every creature." Col 1:15

Then there is the fact that some are considered to have been brought forth in the morning of this process. Even Lucifer is one of those sons of the morning (D&C 76:26).

So if God just invented our spirit bodies, he surely could have just done a bulk lot and done us all together.

Bruce R. McConkie _"Our spirit bodies had their beginning in pre-existence when we were born as the spirit children of God our Father. Through that birth process spirit element was organized into intelligent entities." Mormon Doctrine, p. 750

We know from the D&C that our intelligences were eternal, and therefore existed before we were born to Heavenly Father and Heavenly Mother as spirit children.

"Man was also in the beginning with God. Intelligence, or the light of truth, was not created or made, neither indeed can be." D&C 93:29

Naturally when it uses the term "man" it is referring to those who eventually become mankind. Man was not actually made as man until the creation of Adam and Eve. Yet our intelligences are eternal and we made the decision to go along with Heavenly Father's idea to become part of his family and receive spirit bodies. We grew and made decisions. But when it came to getting a physical body one third decided to go no further with our Heavenly Parents plan. They followed Satan and refused to get physical bodies.

Question is presented of how parents with physical bodies can produce spirit bodies? After all don't physical parents produce physical bodied children here on earth? Note the following from Brigham Young.

"the Father actually begat the spirits, and they were brought forth and lived with Him. Then He commenced the work of creating earthly tabernacles, precisely as he had been created in this flesh himself, by partaking of the course material that was organized and composed this earth, until His system was charged with it, consequently the tabernacles of His children were organized from the coarse materials of this earth." Journal of Discourses : 4 : Brigham Young 1857/02/08 :215

So when our Heavenly Parents had Adam and Eve all that was necessary for them to produce children made from the dust of this earth was for them to partake of the dust of this earth until they had sufficient to produce the 2 children. Thus the babies that God and Goddesses produce are made of the substances that they eat. To produce physical bodies they eat physical matter and to produce spirit bodies they just eat spirit matter.

Note also that he is stating that the matter had to be inside Heavenly Father for the beings to be created. This also supports the idea of a birth rather than a popped up creation.

One would question why we need parents? The answer is that when our spirit is placed in our physical body it has no idea how to get a body to function. The time in the womb is a time when our spirit learns this skill. When we come out we have to additionally learn to move our bodies and speak. All this also takes time. How can you possibly take a spirit and just place it in a body and have the person live? It can't be done. Also our spirit bodies required similar adjustment to. We need parents.

Yet amidst all this the idea has been presented that our Heavenly Parents would need to be in a constant state of having sex to produce all these offspring. This is false.

When the average healthy male has sex with a woman he will place in her between 40 million and 1.2 billion sperm in ejaculation. Unfortunately, us being fallen beings, there is a good chance that absolutely none of the sperm will obtain the objective. All those sperm will have died in vain.

Yet what if the producer of those sperm is a glorified immortal being? Will the multitude of sperm die? Of course not! They will live on and the mother can store them until required. (Sorry to those who may wish otherwise, but no endless celestial sex).

Additionally God's ability to produce the numbers required would obviously be far superior to the average healthy fallen male. Thus it may only be required for him to do so once with each wife to produce untold billions.

I must add to this that Godlike sex is absolutely nothing like what is commonly practiced among mankind. It is a spiritual activity that doesn't register physical responses (ie no lust). It works on a spirit to spirit love basis. Physical bodies are required, but no physical focus is done.

Arguments Against the LDS Church by Anti-Mormon Sites.

2010-12-22T16:48:00.000-06:00

I am choosing one site and looking at the arguments presented from it. I will choose a site from time to time and examine those also. The site presents the idea that it is quoting Biblical texts to oppose church doctrine. I am just taking the first claims that it makes, for the moment, due to time and space restrictions.

The Bible & Christianity	The Book of Mormon & Mormonism
On The Bible
The words of God and Jesus cannot wither, fade, fall or pass away; this Bible, the Word of God, cannot be corrupted. (Isaiah 40:8; Matthew 24:35; Luke 21:33; 1 Peter 1:23-25) 1. WHAT THE BIBLE SAYS ABOUT HIS WORD STANDING FOREVER: My words shall not pass away. Mat 24:35 Not the smallest letter shall disappear Mat 5:18 Forever, thy word is settled Psa 119:89 Word of God shall stand forever 1Pe 1:25 Grass Wither, Word stands forever. Isa 40:8 2. THE BIBLE CLAIMS TO BE THE INSPIRED WORD OF GOD: All scripture inspired. 2Ti 3:16, 17 Holy Spirit author of Bible 2Pe 1:21 The word of God, living and active Hbr 4:12 Absolutely trustworthy 1Ki 8:56 The Lord speaks it will be fulfilled Eze 12:25 Given us all things that pertain to life. 2Pe 1:3 Power of God for salvation Rom 1:16 Gives hope Rom 15:4 Gives, knowledge of eternal life. 1Jo 5:13 4. ANY BORN AGAIN BELIEVER CAN UNDERSTAND THE BIBLE: Gives light in dark places 2Pe 1:19 Purifies the life Psa 119:9 Believers share a common teacher, the Holy Spirit Eph 4:4, 5 If he does not depend mans wisdom 2Cr 2:9-14 If he lets the Bible instruct him 2Ti 3:16 If he searches the scriptures regularly, daily Act 17:11 If he seeks to get his approval from the Bible 2Ti 2:15 If Christ is his only Master. Mat 23:8-12 5. ITS WORD IS SACRED, NOT TO BE ALTERED: Do not add or take away. Deu 12:32 Do not add to His words Psa 30:6 If any man add, God will add plagues Rev 22:18 If any one takes away, God will take away Rev 22:19 Manuscript evidence proves that the Bible has not undergone any changes. There are 24,000 partial and complete, ancient handwritten manuscript copies of the New Testament, as well as hundreds of the Old Testament, dating back to the third century. The Dead Sea Scrolls that were found contained all the books of the Old Testament except the book of Esther. These scrolls have been dated as far back as 300-200 B.C. Therefore, the Bible the early church had 2000 years ago is the same Bible we have today. (Reference: www.alwaysbeready.com DVD Trustworthiness of the Bible by Charlie Campbell.)	The Bible has been corrupted by errors of translation and transmission, as well as by deliberate action. (WMT; CJS; 1 Nephi 13:26-29, BOM) The Book of Mormon is purported to be "a second witness to the Bible"-a witness that condemns and claims the Bible is in error. 1 Nephi 13:24-40 informs us that many "plain and precious things" are taken from the Bible, (verse 28), and 2 Nephi chapter twenty-nine states that anyone who claims the Bible is sufficient and they need no other book is "a fool." The Mormon church has four books which are accepted as scripture. "By the standard works of the Church is meant the following four volumes of scripture: The Bible, Book of Mormon, Doctrine and Covenants, and Pearl of Great Price. The Church uses the King James Version of the Bible, but acceptance of the Bible is coupled with a reservation that it is true only insofar as translated correctly, (Eighth Article of Faith.) The other three, having been revealed in modern times in English, are accepted without qualification." (Mormon Doctrine, Bruce McConkie, Pg 764). NOTE: The Mormon Church makes this statement about the Bible: "After the book (Bible) hath gone forth through the hands of the great and abominable church...there are many plain and precious things taken away from the book." 1 Nephi 13:28 There is no evidence for this statement. Christ promised to be with his church always, even to the end of the world. Matthew 28:20 and the Holy Spirit has been given to the church forever, John 14:16, by whose guidance the church continues to live and work. Because of the guiding of the Spirit, through the word there is no need for the Book of Mormon, Doctrine and Covenants or Pearl of Great Price. There are over 25,000 archaeological discoveries proving the accuracy and trustworthiness of the Bible. There are NO archaeological discoveries supporting the existence of the Book of Mormon's cities, battles, people groups, nor have their alleged artifacts (i.e. Kinderhook plates) been proven authentic-- they in fact have been proven to be a hoax.

Evidence for the Bible

While on the one hand I support the fact that the Bible is a true record, to claim archaeological evidence is a false claim. The only real EVIDENCE, is evidence to support the fact that Jerusalem existed and that names used in the NT were genuine names used by people in that area. Also we have evidence that a church following Christ existed a century later. Yet even that evidence came from the Catholic church itself.

The suggestion that the Dead Sea scrolls could date at around 300-200 BC are extremely optomistic. The Wikipedia gives dates of 150 BC to 70 AD. Additionally there is difference in words given in these scrolls and those in the Old Testament. Some showing great diversity from what we have written in the Old Testament today.

While these texts provide a much older text of the Old Testament, that the Old Testament existed at that time should never really have been in doubt. After all the New Testament texts had quoted from it at that time, so why would we believe that it didn't exist at that time? The question is whether there is evidence of it being dated beyond that time?

One big problem we face in proving the Bible is that God's law forbad Israel from making any art _ "You shall not make any graven image or any likeness of anything that is in the sky above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the waters beneath the earth." Deut 5:8. When Solomon built the temple he had to get Gentiles from other nations to do any carving that was required. Therefore archaeologists can only find crude artifacts and not many at that. There is no evidence of any great civilization having existing in that area.

Additionally the Romans completely destroyed Jerusalem in 70 AD and probably destroyed many other Jewish settlements in the surrounding area at the same time. So nothing remains there either.

Unfortunately no record has been found showing any Babylonian conquest of any people called Israelites or Jews. Neither has any Persian or Assyrian records been found of such. Yet records are found of other conquests they had. No record of Moses nor of any Egyptian King being drowned in the sea. No record of Joseph or Israel in Egypt either. No record of Philistines, King David or even Solomon's kingdom. Neither is there record of the Egyptians defeat of Josiah.

While claims are made of discovering Jericho no real evidence has been forthcoming to prove the town was really Jericho.

On the other hand evidence for the Book of Mormon is so overwhelming that it has been proven in a court of law to be an authentic history of the Ancient American people. Thus in the front of the book the church has been permitted to mention that the book was "translated" by Joseph Smith rather than, as it used to have to say, "written by Joseph Smith." Protestants opposed it and lost the case. So if it is so obviously a fraud then why was it PROVEN authentic by an unbiased court system?

Ironically the greatest archaeological evidence for the Bible is the Book of Mormon; whether Protestants like it or not.

In regard the suggestion that the Bible is flawless, even protestant and Catholic leaders and writers say otherwise.

http://catholic-resources.org/Bible/English_Translations.htm states the following _

*No original manuscript of any biblical book has survived! All of the texts written by the biblical authors themselves have been lost or destroyed over the centuries. All we have are copies of copies of copies, most of them copied hundreds of years after the original texts were written.

*The extant manuscripts contain numerous textual variations! There are literally thousands of differences in the surviving biblical manuscripts, many of them minor (spelling variations, synonyms, different word orders), but some of them major (whole sections missing or added).

*Important old manuscripts were found in the last 200 years! Recent discoveries of older manuscripts (esp. the Dead Sea Scrolls and the Codex Sinaiticus) have helped scholars get closer to the original text of the Bible, so that modern translations can be more accurate than medieval ones.

*The meanings of some biblical texts are unknown or uncertain! Some Hebrew or Greek words occur only once in the Bible, but nowhere else in ancient literature, so their exact meanings are unknown; and some biblical phrases are ambiguous, with more than one possible meaning. Ancient languages are very different from modern languages! Not only do Ancient Hebrew and Greek use completely different alphabets and vocabularies, but their grammatical rules and structures (word order, prepositions, conjugations of verbs, etc.) are very different from modern English.

*Every "translation" is already inevitably an "interpretation"! Anyone who knows more than one modern language realizes that "translations" often have meanings that are slightly different from the original, and that different people inevitably translate the same texts in slightly different ways.

*All living languages continually change and develop over time! Not only is "Modern English" very different from 16th century English, but the language used in Great Britain, America, Australia, and other countries are slightly different from each other (in spelling, grammar, idioms, word meanings, etc.).

*Cultural developments require new sensitivities in language! Recent awareness of the evils of racism, sexism, anti-Semitism, and other forms of discrimination have shown have certain language is slanted or biased, with corresponding efforts to develop more "inclusive" language alternatives.

Even the ultra Protestant site "Carm" admits the problem with the following absurdly optomistic claim _

"The internal consistency of the New Testament documents is about 99.5% textually pure." (http://carm.org/manuscript-evidence)

The Wikipedia states in regard the ancient Sinaiticus Codex used in many Bible translations _

"The codex has been corrected many thousands of times, making it one of the most corrected manuscripts in existence" (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Codex_Sinaiticus)

http://www.1611kingjamesbible.com/manuscripts.html/ states the following _

"The NASB, the NIV, the Jehovah's Witness bible ("New World Translation"), and most modern translations and paraphrases use the Westcott and Hort Greek Text, which is supported by only a small portion (5% or less) of existing manuscripts, including Codex Vaticanus, Codex Sinaiticus, Alexandrian Codex, Parisian Codex, and Codex Bezae.

For obvious reasons, this text is referred to as the "Minority Texts." Westcott and Hort relied heavily on the Vaticanus and Sinaiticus for their Greek Text, which is particularly odd, considering the fact that these two codices contradict each other over 3,000 times in the gospels alone."

Also note _

http://ezinearticles.com/?The-Bible---Original-Text-Versus-Translations&id=762720

In regard the arguments themselves.

1.The Book of Mormon doesn't dispute that whatever God says stands and will not fail. It mentions that the Bible text has been played with. The Bible quotes given don't prove to the contrary.

2.The Book of Mormon doesn't dispute that the Bible was an inspired document. What it is stating is that man has fiddled with it AFTERWARD.

3.The Church clearly declares that the fulness of the everlasting gospel is contained in the Bible. In fact it is contained in the New Testament. This, however, doesn't invalidate the advantages of additional understanding that can be obtained from reading the Old Testament nor any other Scripture that can be obtained, as all Scripture is profitable for all (2 Tim 3:16-17).

It should further be noted that according to the Bible the Old Testament and a testimony of Christ is sufficient for salvation without the New Testament at all. Paul tells Timothy, "and that from a child you have had the holy Scripture [obviously not the 2 books of Timothy for starters] which are able to make you wise unto salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus." (2 Tim 3:15). The Scriptures he was brought up with as a child can't have included the then unwritten books of the New Testament. So even the New Testament isn't necessary for salvation. Yet why would we go without these 27 extra books in the New Testament?

4.If this were true we wouldn't have the millions of "Christian" churches all claiming to follow the Bible, but seeing it differently.

5.No one has claimed that God's word should be changed. They have stated that it already has been changed and needs to be put back where it was.

If any of the antis who read this wish for me to answer their site I am quite happy to do so provided it has something worth answering in it. Many sites just contain inuendo and quote from dubious sources. Also posing arguments about dead people is meaningless as they aren't here to explain their words. You need to have something either from the Bible, additional scripture or life to demonstrate your opinion that the church is incorrect. Any links to anti sites made in comments will be removed, unless I deem them relevant.

Fourteen Fundamentals Examined Part 1

2010-12-14T20:08:00.002-06:00

Ezra Taft Benson, President of the Quorum of the Twelve apostles at the time, gave a talk entitled “Fourteen Fundamentals in Following the Prophet” (Address given Tuesday, February 26, 1980 at Brigham Young University).

His claims are somewhat contraversial. In fact even some relatively conservative members have ripped them to pieces of late, not just the DAMs. In fairness to him I thought it wise to do examinations of the claims of this talk. I won't do all 14 at once though.

It is neither my intention to defend falsehood on the one hand, nor to find fault where it doesn't exist, on the other. So I am seeking to do a realistic appraisal of his claims.

In looking at his statements I think we have to remember that he was talking at BYU. He wasn't anticipating that his words would be analysed under a microscope on the internet. Also I think the talk was anticipated to be simplistic, not used as a doctrinal backing for a particular line of thought (as has occurred).

Also we need to observe that, except for one, these qualities aren't entirely unique to the president of the church. He has only attempted to inform us what to keep in mind in following instructions from the president.

Brother Benson states the following, "Here then is the grand key — Follow the prophet — and here are fourteen fundamentals in following the prophet." He then qualifies that when he uses the term "the prophet," he means "the President of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints." This qualifying of the title "the prophet" is important to the subject, as we view the claims.

First Claim: The prophet is the only man who speaks for the Lord in everything.

To support this claim he quotes the following
"In section 132 verse 7 of the Doctrine and Covenants the Lord speaks of the prophet—the president—and says:
'There is never but one on the earth at a time on whom this power and the keys of this priesthood are conferred.'

Then in section 21 verses 4–6, the Lord states:
'Wherefore, meaning the church, you shall give heed to all his words and commandments which he shall give to you as he receives them, walking in all holiness before me; For his word you shall receive, as if from my own mouth, in all patience and faith. For by doing these things the gates of hell shall not prevail against you.'”

Firstly we have an incredibly ambiguous statement. It needs a LOT of defining. What does he mean; the president speaks for the Lord in "EVERYTHING?" For example, the president couldn't instruct on how to fly a Concorde. And we know Brother Benson's not implying he could. So we need to examine just what he is proposing.

His real meaning should be revealed by the references he's quoted.

The first one points out that only the president has the full set of keys (entitlement to automatic revelation for an office). The second reference informs us that WHEN a president receives revelation from God that revelation should be accepted as if God himself had said it.

In regard this latter I think it important to mention that this promise isn't unique to the president of the church.

"What I the Lord have spoken, I have spoken, and I excuse not myself; and though the heavens and the earth pass away, my word shall not pass away, but shall all be fulfilled, whether by my own voice or by the voice of my servants, it is the same." D&C 1:38

So if God speaks to ANY of his servants and they pass that message on, it is the same as if God himself has said it.

In regard to anyone sent forth to preach the gospel the D&C states,

"And this is the example to them, that they shall speak as they are moved upon by the Holy Ghost. And whatever they shall speak when moved upon by the Holy Ghost shall be scripture, shall be the will of the Lord, shall be the mind of the Lord, shall be the word of the Lord, shall be the voice of the Lord, and the power of God unto salvation." D&C 68:3-4.

I would further expand that and say that anyone who is moved upon by the Holy Ghost to say anything, is speaking for the Lord. And what they say in that regard is to be taken as if God himself were speaking.

It should be noted that the texts quoted by Brother Benson don't claim that all things the president says are the words of God. What they say is that IF he is walking in all holiness before God then the words God has GIVEN him come from God. Not everything that the president says has been received by revelation. He has many of his own opinions, as we all do.

So considering all the disecting that is going on, his first claim would be better to have stated,
"The president of the church is the only man who is automatically entitled to speak for the Lord in all things relative to the church organisation and its basic teachings. And he also joins all his brothers and sisters in that when any of God's servants are instructed of God they may speak as if God himself has spoken."

Second Claim: The living prophet is more vital to us than the Standard Works.

To support this claim he refers to a statement that was made by Brigham Young and supported by Joseph Smith, after an erroneous claim was made by a particular local leader. The claim was the following,

"You have got the word of God before you here in the Bible, Book of Mormon, and Doctrine and Covenants; you have the written word of God, and you who give revelations should give revelations according to those books, as what is written in those books is the word of God. We should confine ourselves to them."

Brother Brigham got up and made a statement to the extreme opposite of this extreme statement. Amidst it he said,

"When compared with the living oracles those books are nothing to me; those books do not convey the word of God direct to us now, as do the words of a Prophet or a man bearing the Holy Priesthood in our day and generation. I would rather have the living oracles than all the writing in the books."

Are we serious? Did he really think before saying this or has he just gone off to the other extreme, to combat the nonsense he has just heard? I believe that if I spoke to Brigham today he would admit it was the latter.

The words of the Savior in the sermon on the mount are the most important things that can be said. Nothing ANY person speaking today says is "more vital". This is why he delivered the same message when he came to the Americas. This is why this same message is taught by disguise in the temple.

Yet, as God was restoring many truths to the earth at that time, it is reasonable to see Joseph Smith's message as extremely vital to Brigham. Yet Thomas S. Monson hasn't come up with any new doctrine. His use is in administrative areas within the church and encouragement.

Brother Benson's claim could have been better to have said,
"Continued revelation to a living president is vital, to keep the church and basic doctrines taught, where God would have them at this time."

You can find the other 4 sections to this posted on the following dates:
Part 2 Nov 29
Part 3 Oct 18
Part 4 Sep 19
Part 5 Aug 20

Fourteen Fundamentals Examined Part 2

2010-11-28T16:07:00.002-06:00

This is a continuation, examining 14 contraversial claims made by Ezra Taft Benson in regard following prophets.

Third Claim: The living prophet is more important to us than a dead prophet.

To support and define this claim he quotes the following

"God’s revelation to Adam did not instruct Noah how to build the Ark. Noah needed his own revelation. Therefore the most important prophet so far as you and I are concerned is the one living in our day and age to whom the Lord is currently revealing His will for us. Therefore the most important reading we can do is any of the words of the prophet contained each month in our Church Magazines. Our instructions about what we should do for each six months are found in the General Conference addresses which are printed in the Church magazine.
Beware of those who would set up the dead prophets against the living prophets, for the living prophets always take precedence."

To support this he starts off with a good arguement. Which certainly fares well as one side of the equation. But without considering the other side at all, he then says that church magazines are better than the Scriptures. Then he presents his opinion that living prophets take presedence over dead ones.

I would present the following statement from Harold B. Lee, who was president at the time he said it.

"If anyone, regardless of his position in the Church, were to advance a doctrine that is not substantiated by the standard Church works, meaning the Bible, the Book of Mormon, the Doctrine and Covenants, and the Pearl of Great Price, you may know that his statement is merely his private opinion. The only one authorized to bring forth any new doctrine is the President of the Church, who, when he does, will declare it as revelation from God, and it will be so accepted by the Council of the Twelve and sustained by the body of the Church. And if any man speak a doctrine which contradicts what is in the standard Church works, you may know by that same token that it is false and you are not bound to accept it as truth." The First Area General Conference for Germany, Austria, Holland, Italy, Switzerland, France, Belgium, and Spain of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, held in Munich Germany, August 24-26, 1973, with Reports and Discourses, 69.

This presents that no one's words can just be taken as the mind and will of the Lord. Their words must be supported by the Scriptures to be regarded as anything but personal opinion. In the case of the president there is exception WHERE it is presented to the church and sustained as new doctrine. In such cases it is then placed in the Standard Works to become part of the accepted doctrine of the church. Sustaining people to positions DOESN'T mean we sustain every opinion they present.

If these statements of the president were the mind and will of the Lord at the time of Harold B. Lee, are we to believe that God changed his ways between 1973 and 1980? And was this acceptable because Brother Lee was dead when Brother Benson (who was then president of the quorum of twelve) proposed this?

The death of an individual does NOT alter truth. Those principles Christ preached in the Scriptures to Joseph Smith, Christ's apostles and other inspired men are as relevant today as they were on the day they were written. They don't become removeable truths because the people who stated them have since died.

Jesus Christ's sermon on the mount is far more important to us than anything any prophet states or stated throughout history. You'll find it in the Standard Works written by dead apostles.

I think Brother Benson's statement would have been better to have said,
"The living president may, at any time, receive revelation that we need to hear at this time. Therefore as a suppliment to Scripture reading I would advise reading of what the current president is talking about."

Fourth Claim: The prophet will never lead the Church astray.

In support of this claim he quotes the following from Brother Wilford Woodruff,

“I say to Israel, the Lord will never permit me or any other man who stands as president of the Church to lead you astray. It is not in the program. It is not in the mind of God.” (The Discourses of Wilford Woodruff, pp. 212–13.)

Then he presents the following from Brother Marion G. Romney (of the Council of Twelve),

“I remember years ago when I was a bishop I had President Heber J. Grant talk to our ward. After the meeting I drove him home … Standing by me, he put his arm over my shoulder and said: ‘My boy, you always keep your eye on the President of the Church and if he ever tells you to do anything, and it is wrong, and you do it, the Lord will bless you for it.’ Then with a twinkle in his eye, he said, ‘But you don’t need to worry. The Lord will never let his mouthpiece lead the people astray.’ ” (Conference Report, October 1960, p. 78.)

I have written on this matter in a recent post. So some of this will be a direct quote from that post.

This was stated because of the great opposition he faced from church members and leaders due to his declaration opposing the present practice of plural marriage. So his statement should be kept in context.

Today there are those that choose to believe that this is a reason to feel that nothing the President of the church says can be wrong. However that statement not only says that the President of the church would be removed out of his place but that ANYONE attempting to lead people astray, from the words of God, would.

To be moved out of their place they must have some "place" to be moved out of. It is posing church positions. So are we to believe that all bishops, stake presidents, high councilmen, elder's quorum presidents, relief society presidents, scout leaders, class secretaries, ward mission leaders, home teachers, visiting teachers etc are infallible in their offices: That every word they say is the mind and will of God?

Because that's what you would have to believe to use Wilford Woodruff's statement as used by some, concerning opinions expressed by the president of the church.

Note also that he states that it would have to be a deliberate attempt to lead astray, on behalf of the leader - "...If I were to attempt that...any other man who attempts to lead the children of men astray..."

I think we have to use a bit of sense in our understanding of his intention. He is posing that such a major change, as he was presenting, wouldn't be allowed by God if it were wrong. To make more out of it not only is ridiculous (as demonstrated 3 paragraphs above) but doesn't fit in the context, nor with other statements of church presidents to the contrary.

Additionally such thinking leaves members open to anti-material where they demonstrate the differences of ideas expressed by church presidents and other GAs. We need to move beyond such ideas, as we learn in the gospel.

The idea that we should look to another man, in some position, to tell us what God has to say, is essential for new members, those with mental retardation problems, children under 8, those who have recently reactivated, people suffering altzeimers disease, those coming to church only for social reasons and those having serious troubles seeing the point in obeying God (such as Israel at the time of Moses).

For any others there are 2 men that actually ARE infallible. One we call "Heavenly Father." And the other we call "Jesus Christ." Fortunately both are very much available for comment. You don't need to book an appointment to see them. You can just ask at any time.

Along with them we have the Holy Ghost, who is quite happy to reside inside you ALL the time. He can guide you in anything. He also is infallible.

That sounds a much better idea to me. The other is just being spiritually lazy, in my opinion.
I have to add that if Brother Woodruff's statement were to be taken as Brother Benson suggests then how did the apostacy occur? Someone lead the church astray as its president.

I would further add that Brother Grant's teaching of blind obedience would only be suitable when a person is incapable of receiving personal guidance from the Holy Ghost. Otherwise they'd better get on their knees and find out or they will be accountable for what they do.

His statement would have been better to have stated _God seems to have suggested that no further restoration will be occurring before the millenium. Therefore the president of the church will continue to have God's authority.

Fifth Claim: The prophet is not required to have any particular earthly training or diplomas to speak on any subject or act on any matter at any time.

To define this idea he states the following,

"Sometimes there are those who feel their earthly knowledge on a certain subject is superior to the heavenly knowledge which God gives to his prophet on the same subject. They feel the prophet must have the same earthly credentials or training which they have had before they will accept anything the prophet has to say that might contradict their earthly schooling. How much earthly schooling did Joseph Smith have? Yet he gave revelations on all kinds of subjects. We haven’t yet had a prophet who earned a doctorate degree in any subject. We encourage earthly knowledge in many areas, but remember if there is ever a conflict between earthly knowledge and the words of the prophet, you stand with the prophet and you’ll be blessed and time will show you have done the right thing."

I would fully support this claim: Relative to the subject it is completely correct. The only thing I would add to this (in the interest of perspective) is that this not only pertains to the president, but to those statements in Scripture and any statement by a person receiving revelation.

Reasons Why Anti-Women Sentiment and Injustice is Rising in our Society, Part 2

2010-11-15T20:00:00.001-06:00

Due to the contraversial nature of this subject I feel it necessary to first remind readers that blogs aren't official church sites (as I've stated at the top of the site). This is my own personal observations with some references to what God has said.

Serious problems also exist in the area of protection orders. I counselled with two women who were having marriage disputes where both wives took out protection orders against their husbands (both of whom WERE violent - I knew them). The first made big point of how violent he was and how scared she was of him. She was definitely committed to not having him back. The next thing I know he's back and she's accepted it. This left me rather confused. With the second she was actually physically shaking with fear about what he might do to her and the children. She asked if I would come over if he turned up. He did turn up. And I gave it a couple of minutes (listening for any sound of violence, as they were next door). Upon going over I found her no longer shaking with fear. I realised that she was no longer shaking because she was talking with him rather than thinking of what could happen any moment when unable to see him _ as had been the case before. So the latter seemed preferable. In other words the protection order hadn't really worked against these two violent husbands, because of the wives genuine fears.

On the other hand let's consider the case of Bill and Alice, who'd been married for about 20 years and things weren't going well. During their marriage Alice had initiated any violence that had occurred _ She had hit and kicked Bill four times, and Bill had hit back once and kicked back once in those years _ while not a perfect record, certainly for either to claim the other a serious threat would be a wild exaggeration.

However Alice wanted a divorce, but wanted to live in the home (rented in Bills' name) and wanted custody of the children. She also wanted justification with her local church, where her husband had good standing. In the hall-way one day, while arguing, she pushed against him with her chest goading him, asking continually, "what are you going to do about it, go on, what are you going to do about it?" He regarded this as a claim that he wouldn't dare punch her _ as happens in schoolyards etc. So, foolishly, he gave her a small punch in the side, where he calculated she had plenty of flab to handle it.

Unfortunately, by this action she had justification to take out a court order against him, and did so. At this point she had hit him 4 times and he'd hit her 3 times, but he had a court order against him. This, truly, was a farce, and an abuse of the point of the law. Unfortunately this is all I hear from the many examples I've seen and heard of. If some court orders are actually working against truly violent husbands it would appear to be rare, and far outweighed by the abuse that's happening.

I urge all to consider these problems and refrain from extreme notions. More laws don’t resolve the problem, it requires a new thinking: Doing things God’s way for a change. Another great problem that shows up in all these areas is the very long jail sentences given to the proposed perpetrators of sex crimes. While all care must be given to protect women, equal care must be employed, by a just society, to protect innocent men from being incarcerated at the rate, and for the lengthy periods for which they presently are being.

This is a suitable condition from Satan's point of view as it turns men off women and therefore creates more homosexual and lesbian problems. I couldn't tell you how many men I have come across who are now anti-women because of the apparent lack of fairness within society relative to men. Men complain that the women are more likely to get custody of the children, even when the woman has demonstrated serious problems. Women are more likely to get use, therefore, of the house.

These problems and the threat of going to jail for sex crimes not committed are all responsible. Men complain that their ex-wives have actually threatened such against them if they argue custody etc.

One further point in this regard is the freedom from prosecution for those making such claims. When God gave the law to Moses He made sure that there was fair penalty to those abusing it. Deuteronomy 19:18-19 states that if a person is found to be bearing false witness that the penalty for them shall be the penalty that would have been given to the accused. With such penalties we'd find far less court cases of sex claims, I'm sure. The Police involved in these things should also be sent to jail when it is obvious that they have been involved in the lie.

Sooner or later all this will swing back against women, and this I don't wish to see. I urge women, for their own futures' sake, to refrain from abusing these laws for personal gain, and advise their friends the same.

The real answers to a nation’s ills were delivered by Jesus Christ around 2000 years ago. He was raised under the leadership of a tyrannical government (the Romans) whom he made no attempt to depose. He knew that the answer lay in changing peoples' hearts. Make the people better and all these problems will fade away. However I'd also advise people to petition politicians for fairer and more sensible laws.

Reasons Why Anti-Women Sentiment and Injustice is Rising in our Society

2010-11-01T01:47:00.000-05:00

As the subject is so large I will be putting this out in 2 pieces.

Due to the contraversial nature of this subject I feel it necessary to first remind readers that blogs aren't official church sites (as I've stated at the top of the site). This is my own personal observations with some references to what God has said.

A serious problem in our society today is the incredible ease with which an innocent man can be jailed for rape, or sexual acts relative to children. Lots of noise is occurring about men not being found out. This is all focused on men having sexual problems. While all should be appalled if people of either sex aren't being found out, this has created a mass hysteria about sex crime allegations. While someone accused of murder needs to be proven guilty, a man accused of sex crimes (particularly those involving children) must prove his innocence _ an incredibly difficult thing to do. Twisted interpretations of phone conversations and innuendo become "evidence" in courtrooms that juries (also people in the same society) accept. Those convicted (particularly where bad "evidence" isn't exposed) feel that the government funded defence lawyers they were given were either amazingly inept or supporting the states case to convict in spite of being there to defend _ some making the other side look good.

It is a blight on our society that a cheesed-off ex-wife can send an innocent man to jail for 15 years, at public expense, and (just to add insult to injury) be compensated with tens of thousands of dollars or more, also at public expense.

Some argue (relative to child claims) that "children don't lie, particularly about these things." The structure of this sentence is a lie in itself. Let's examine it. "Children don't lie" it starts with. Then before people can realise what rubbish that is they then add the unknown factor - "partiularly about these things." Of course people have no idea whether they do or don't, and so assume it to be true. This shows a typical way the devil implants false perceptions into people's heads. It has been shown over and over again that children do lie about these things. Children certainly DO lie. What's worse is that children can easily be made to believe that something occurred which didn't. They only need to be told often enough, particularly if tired _ they start to visualise it in their head and it becomes real. This is particularly easy when it is loosely based on an actual (harmless) event. We are on the one hand saying that they are children, and therefore not capable of making an informed decision about sex. Yet on the other hand saying that they are all-knowing when giving testimony against the proposed offender. This is a contradiction.

No one would sensibly propose that allegations aren't looked into, but it should be treated as any other allegation where good evidence must be presented to convict. Those lawyers there to defend must do so with genuine earnestness. If a case doesn't have such evidence it's time to accept that most probably it's because the person actually didn't do it, and the proposed crime didn't occur at all. If you think that the legal system is bad that all those accused who aren't convicted are guilty, then by the same logic you would have to conclude that all convicted by that bad system are innocent. By focusing your thoughts on only one side (i.e. he did it and got away with it) thinking becomes twisted and true justice lost.

Serious difficulties also exist relative to rape. While it is true to say that "rape is rape", it is a bit like saying, "theft is theft" or "murder is murder". All these statements are true but courts make varying penalties in the latter two. A person has even murdered, been found guilty and then sent home, because of the circumstances surrounding the crime. Rape, however, seems to be treated quite differently; which is wrong. There are great differences in degree of rape and its effect and surrounding circumstances. While I abhor rape, and there is no such thing as a justified or right rape, I think it incredibly unjust to throw all rapes together as if a totally equal act.

To quote one extreme: I remember years ago when I was in the army, I was on guard duty and a young woman approached me (we'll call her Rose) and said that she wished to complain because some army fellows had raped her. I knew this young woman by sight as she was in the army canteen every night and it was known that several guys would buy her drinks for the evening and at some point they would all go out and she would have sex with them all. This apparently happened every night, and I knew some who had been through this with her. I, myself, had seen her there whenever there myself (as much as I bothered to remember). Morally all were doing an incorrect act. Both Rose and those guys involved each night were abusing a wonderful thing _ the ability to procreate (have children).

When I called out the guard commander and he heard the allegation he seemed to be even more surprised than I was when she told me (I'd only been there several months). I would assume that several guys had bought her drinks, taken her out and been a bit pushy. She may have felt that she wasn't being charmed enough, and wanted to be charmed first. And they've felt that they'd paid the price in buying her the beer. This doesn't make it right to just take sex against her will, naturally. But what kind of a deal was this anyway? Is it a good and wholesome one?

But look at a woman who is walking home from work because her car broke down, minding her own business, and a carload of guys force her into a car and rape her. The latter is a far more aggressive action upon a far less involved woman. Also the question would arise as to how much trauma each of these women actually went through in this process. Rose, while showing a sign of feeling indignant, was very casual about it all, and showed no sign of trauma whatsoever. Considering that some women end up severely traumatised and even some in a mental institution by violent, aggressive rapes, I think in order that we have true justice we need to make some segregation somewhere. I must also say that I personally feel it a belittling of violent and aggressive rape victims to throw them in with situations like that of Rose (without detracting from the seriousness of that which happened to Rose).

Along with this I see Rose guilty of assisting in the creation of rapists, and feel a penalty must be placed upon her.

Also a problem in all this is wife / girlfriend rape, where an accepted sexual relationship already exists, but has been violated. At what point did the woman say "no", and how convincingly did she convey this opinion? What if she says, "no", then he gives some reason for continuing, and she makes no further statement but makes some "humph" sound, and all this happens during the process of them having sex? He may have said something he shouldn't have and then apologised. Afterward she starts to feel miffed about it and claims rape against him. On the other hand there can be genuine violent rape by a husband / boyfriend (there are also cases of violence against husbands).

Because of the many things that can occur in this regard I think a distinction has to be made between where permission for sex has already been given and not formerly retracted, and where never given. This area also is far too open for serious abuse by a disgruntled spouse / partner.

It is interesting to note that God doesn't allow a wife to testify in regard her husband in the law of Moses. And by the same law a person who has sex with someone at all must marry them. So the same would apply for a live-in partner. He wasn't stupid in making these laws. He knew the abuse that would occur.

This attack and injustice upon men has brought out a lot of anti-women sentiment. Particularly amongst those affected and due to the many other problems, some of which I will discuss in the next part.

Fourteen Fundamentals Examined Part 3

2010-10-17T23:58:00.000-05:00

This is a continuation of an analysis of a controversial talk by Brother Ezra Taft Benson (then president of the quorum of the twelve). In it he presented 14 fundamentals to following a president of the church. Not all 14 have drawn criticism, but I'll cover all anyway. This is for the purpose of seeing his intent and making facts clearer.

Sixth Claim: The prophet does not have to say “Thus saith the Lord” to give us scripture.

To support this claim he says the following,

"Sometimes there are those who argue about words. They might say the prophet gave us counsel but that we are not obliged to follow it unless he says it is a commandment. But the Lord says of the Prophet, 'Thou shalt give heed unto all his words and commandments which he shall give unto you.' (D&C 21:4.)

And speaking of taking counsel from the prophet, in D&C 108:1, the Lord states:

'Verily thus saith the Lord unto you, my servant Lyman: Your sins are forgiven you, because you have obeyed my voice in coming up hither this morning to receive counsel of him whom I have appointed.'

Said Brigham Young, 'I have never yet preached a sermon and sent it out to the children of men, that they may not call scripture.' (Journal of Discourses, 13:95.)"

Firstly D&C 21:4 goes on to say, in the same verse, "AS he receiveth them, walking in all holiness before me." These are 2 significant additions to that which Brother Benson has presented. It is only those things the president has received from God, as he walks in all holiness before him, that we need to regard to be commandments from God. How can we know which is which if he doesn't declare it to be from the Lord?

D&C 108:1 doesn't say whether Joseph Smith had or hadn't said "thus saith the Lord." It would be incredibly likely that he, in fact, did.

In regard to anyone sent forth to preach the gospel the D&C states,

"And this is the ensample unto them, that they shall speak as they are moved upon by the Holy Ghost. And whatsoever they shall speak when moved upon by the Holy Ghost shall be scripture, shall be the will of the Lord, shall be the mind of the Lord, shall be the word of the Lord, shall be the voice of the Lord, and the power of God unto salvation." D&C 68:3-4.

So it would be wise to remember that this isn't unique to the president of the church, by any means. In fact anyone speaking by the Holy Ghost can be considered as speaking Scripture where the words he is then speaking are coming directly from the Holy Ghost. Even if the man has no official position (as we see demonstrated many times in Scripture, such as with the child Samuel receiving revelation to give to the prophet Eli [1 Sam 3]).

Harold B. Lee has declared that the president should present any additional revelation to the church for a sustaining vote. Thus he would be declaring it such when it was from the Lord. So while technically what Bro Benson says is true, to be ACCEPTED as Scripture, by the church, he would have to declare it such.

Seventh Claim: The prophet tells us what we need to know, not always what we want to know.

To support this claim he states,

“'Thou has declared unto us hard things, more than we are able to bear,' complained Nephi’s brethren. But Nephi answered by saying, 'The guilty taketh the truth to be hard, for it cutteth them to the very center.' (1 Ne. 16:1–2.)

Said President Harold B. Lee:

'You may not like what comes from the authority of the Church. It may conflict with your political views. It may contradict your social views. It may interfere with some of your social life … Your safety and ours depends upon whether or not we follow … Let’s keep our eye on the President of the Church.' (Conference Report, October 1970, p. 152–153.)

But it is the living prophet who really upsets the world. 'Even in the Church,' said President Kimball, 'many are prone to garnish the sepulchres of yesterdays prophets and mentally stone the living ones.' (Instructor, 95:527.)

Why? Because the living prophet gets at what we need to know now, and the world prefers that prophets either be dead or worry about their own affairs. Some so-called experts of political science want the prophet to keep still on politics. Some would-be authorities on evolution want the prophet to keep still on evolution. And so the list goes on and on.

How we respond to the words of a living prophet when he tells us what we need to know, but would rather not hear, is a test of our faithfulness.

Said President Marion G. Romney, 'It is an easy thing to believe in the dead prophets, but it is a greater thing to believe in the living prophets.' And then he gives this illustration:

'One day when President Grant was living, I sat in my office across the street following a general conference. A man came over to see me, an elderly man. He was very upset about what had been said in this conference by some of the Brethren, including myself. I could tell from his speech that he came from a foreign land. After I had quieted him enough so he would listen, I said, ‘Why did you come to America?’ ‘I am here because a prophet of God told me to come.’ ‘Who was the prophet?’ I continued. ‘Wilford Woodruff.’ ‘Do you believe Wilford Woodruff was a prophet of God?’ ‘Yes, sir.’
'Then came the sixty-four dollar question, ‘Do you believe that Heber J. Grant is a prophet of God?’ His answer, ‘I think he ought to keep his mouth shut about old-age assistance.’

'Now I tell you that a man in his position is on the way to apostasy. He is forfeiting his chances for eternal life. So is everyone who cannot follow the living prophet of God.' (Conference Report, April 1953, p. 125.)"

I must start by pointing out that Nephi wasn't the president of the church in making his statement. So it isn't a relavent quote for what Brother Benson is trying to present. However I would support the use of this text for the subject, as in reality this statement applies to all people asking anyone to change their ways for good.

A relevant question in regard Brother Romney's story is whether the man he quotes actually HAS apostatised? Had he waited to find out, and it being so, it would make quoting the story closer to being justified.

I know a guy who still, after over 30 years of disagreeing with a decision of Spencer Kimball's, is very active and having one-on-one communication with God. So if he's on his way to apostacy he's taking a long time getting there. I also don't believe that the direction of Brother Kimball's was something anyone needed to know (as Brother Benson feels it would be). In fact I can assure you that it wasn't. We have to keep in mind that these people are human and have human frailties. To put them up on a pedistal and expect to keep them there we must bury our heads in the sand. Which isn't very helpful spiritually.

So while I believe in the statement overall I don't support it as some absolute.

Eighth Claim: The Prophet is not limited by men’s reasoning.

In support Bro Benson states,

"There will be times when you will have to choose between the revelation of God and reasoning of men—between the prophet and the professor.

Said the Prophet Joseph Smith,
'Whatever God requires is right, no matter what it is, although we may not see the reason thereof until long after the events transpire.' (Scrapbook of Mormon Literature, vol. 2, p. 173).

Would it seem reasonable to an eye doctor to be told to heal a blind man by spitting in the dirt, making clay and applying it to the man’s eyes and then telling him to wash in a contaminated pool? Yet this is precisely the course that Jesus took with one man, and he was healed. (See John 9:6–7.) Does it seem reasonable to cure leprosy by telling a man to wash seven times in a particular river, yet this is precisely what the prophet Elisha told a leper to do, and he was healed. (See 2 Kgs. 5.)

'For my thoughts are not your thoughts, neither are your ways my ways, saith the Lord. For as the heavens are higher than the earth, so are my ways higher than your ways, and my thoughts than your thoughts.' (Isa. 55:8–9.)"

I would have to support him in this statement. Again I would qualify that any prophetic person is in the same situation. But this doesn't alter the truth of it as applying to the President of the church.

The Value of a Life

2010-09-28T16:23:00.002-05:00

I have read of a sermon by a funeral parlour minister in which he mentioned that the sun always looms larger on the horizon - at the very pont of its exchange between heaven and earth. He pointed out how that human life is like that in that it is only at the point of exchange between heaven and earth (at birth and death) that the true worth of a person's life is realized.

When a pop singer dies he suddenly becomes more famous than he may have ever been in life. We may say little to a relative until they pass on; and then we wish we had said more.

I remember when young watching westerns. The baddie and the goodie would face each other out in the street and go for their guns. Of course the goodie won. It all seemed so glorious to me at that age. I had my own set of toy guns and holsters. I'd watch movies about the Roman legions and their conquest of the opposition. The power and the glory bit hit me. The Egyptian empire the same.

Yet when I joined the army my perspective altered dramatically. They took us down the range and set up a 44 gallon (200 litre) drum full of water. They fired a shot at it and then took us over to see the result. It had a small hole in the front where the bullet had gone in. But the entire back of the drum was ripped apart. They told us that this is what happens to people when the bullet hits.

Along with this they showed how the bullet could travel through a double brick wall and kill whoever was on the other side: There was no way to avoid them. They travel faster than sound, so if you hear the sound it missed.

Then I found myself at the firing range looking at a human like target. It really began to sink in that they were anticipating that I would kill a human being.

The reality of a person being killed hit me very strongly. I remember my mother speaking of hundreds or thousands dying in some disaster. While my mother and whoever she was speaking to would demonstrate their grief at the loss of life, I had felt nothing. Yet at this point the death of 5 people suddenly began to feel a major catastrophy to me.

Since that time Heavenly Father and I have had discussions on the subject; and I now have assurance in his wisdom in when people pass on to the spirit world. Yet it is sad to lose a loved one: We miss them.

When I now look back at those empires and westerns I see a different thing. I see the problems in the background. I see the wasted death, inequality and corruption that comes by not following what God lays down for peace and happiness.

Fourteen Fundamentals Examined Part 4

2010-09-19T00:37:00.000-05:00

Hypocracy in Regard Child Pornography?

2010-09-07T02:52:00.001-05:00

I have sometimes wondered about just how much underage pornography existed on the internet. Recently I finally got around to investigating the matter.

Most would probably be aware that displaying a female of 18 or over for pornographic purposes is at least legal. So I set out to find what could be obtained in regard those of 12 to 17. It wasn't long before I discovered, much to my horror, that typing in anything about that age group brought up pictures of girls between 6 and 11. Some even boasted as young as 3 years old.

What I typed in was things such as _ 14 yo sexy nude. I varied it to 15 yo and even down to 12 yo. Yet the overwhelming response was to obtain sites where although those figures were quoted on the page to draw in visitors the girls shown were what they term a Lolita or Preteen (someone 11 yo or under). - amazing what you learn on the internet.

While the girls weren't naked they certainly weren't well dressed. The intent was obvious as picture after picture appeared with them dressed in skimpy bikinis or high cut shorts etc.

The sites presented that this was legal because the girls weren't naked.
The thing that seemed eqally bewildering to me was that in spite of this no site posted such pictures of girls of 12 to 17. There were those sites that offered downloads that you could pay for of 14 yo girls etc, yet they displayed none.

What insanity! We can see a 6 yo inappropriately displayed, while pictures of a 16 yo in such pose are policed.

Obviously we need to put some judges, lawyers and politicians on the case that aren't visiting the sites themselves. It seems they weren't visiting the sites with those older but underaged. Is that cynicism, Doug, or have you just been reading the Book of Mormon too much?

I think it time to change the laws sufficiently to disallow such legal pornography also.

Fourteen Fundamentals Examined Part 5

2010-08-19T20:04:00.003-05:00

Ezra Taft Benson (president of the Quorum of the Twelve apostles at the time) gave a talk entitled “Fourteen Fundamentals in Following the Prophet” (Address given Tuesday, February 26, 1980 at Brigham Young University).

His claims are somewhat controversial. In fact even some relatively conservative members have given them negative reviews of late, not just the DAMs. It is neither my intention to defend over simplifications he's given, on the one hand, nor to find fault where it doesn't exist, on the other. So I am seeking to do a realistic appraisal of his claims a few at a time.
In looking at his statements I think we have to remember that he was talking at BYU. He wasn't anticipating that his words would be analysed under a microscope on the internet. Also I think the talk was anticipated to be simplistic, not used as a doctrinal backing for a particular line of thought (as has occurred).

Also we need to observe that, except for one, these qualities aren't entirely unique to the president of the church. He has only attempted to inform us what to keep in mind in following instructions from the president.

Brother Benson states the following, "Here then is the grand key — Follow the prophet — and here are fourteen fundamentals in following the prophet." He then qualifies that when he uses the term "the prophet," he means "the President of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints." This qualifying of the title "the prophet" is important to the subject, as we view the claims.

I'm doing these back to front as that way when they are completed they can be read from start to finish. Claims 12 and 13 shouldn't really have much controversy from a church member's point of view. But claim 14 does need some discussion to put it in a more universally understood manner.

Claim Twelve: The prophet will not necessarily be popular with the world or the worldly.

"As a prophet reveals the truth it divides the people. The honest in heart heed his words but the unrighteous either ignore the prophet or fight him. When the prophet points out the sins of the world, the worldly either want to close the mouth of the prophet, or else act as if the prophet didn’t exist, rather than repent of their sins. Popularity is never a test of truth. Many a prophet has been killed or cast out. As we come closer to the Lord’s second coming you can expect that as the people of the world become more wicked, the prophet will be less popular with them."

I don't think that too many would disagree with this. The only thing that I feel some would like to qualify is that it pertains to anyone preaching the gospel of Christ. So all members who speak out must expect the same.

Claim Thirteen: The prophet and his counsellors make up the First Presidency—The highest quorum in the Church.

"In the Doctrine and Covenants the Lord refers to the First Presidency as “the highest council of the Church” (D&C 107:80) and says “whosoever receiveth me, receiveth those, the First Presidency, whom I have sent …” (D&C 112:20)."

I don't think any member would have trouble with this Claim.

It should be remembered that he didn't claim the 14 fundamentals were all unique to the president; only that they should be remembered in following him. But this one is the one that is unique and fully qualified.

Claim Fourteen: The prophet and the presidency—the living prophet and the First Presidency—follow them and be blessed—reject them and suffer.

"...In a general conference of the Church, President N. Eldon Tanner stated:
“The Prophet spoke out clearly on Friday morning, telling us what our responsibilities are …
“A man said to me after that, ‘You know, there are people in our state who believe in following the Prophet in everything they think is right, but when it is something they think isn’t right, and it doesn’t appeal to them, then that’s different.’ He said, ‘Then they become their own prophet. They decide what the Lord wants and what the Lord doesn’t want.’
“I thought how true, and how serious when we begin to choose which of the covenants, which of the commandments we will keep and follow, we are taking the law of the Lord into our own hands and become our own prophets, and believe me, we will be led astray, because we are false prophets to ourselves when we do not follow the Prophet of God. No, we should never discriminate between these commandments, as to those we should and should not keep.” (CR, October 1966, p. 98.)..."

I agree with this idea in the main. The only problem with this type of thinking is that it refutes the teaching of even past presidents that we should be getting our own revelation and become a prophet unto ourselves. It blocks a person from personal spiritual progress beyond the point that the president receives revelation for the weak and weakest of Saints (D&C 89:3). It also ignores the point that some members feel the importance of living higher commandments that have been extracted from members generally, because of failure to abide higher laws of God (D&C Section 119 heading).

The Prophet Caiaphas received revelation about Christ. He interpreted its application to mean that they should seek the death of Christ (Jn 11:49-53). Should I have followed the president of the church (the Prophet Caiaphas) had I been there?

1 Kings 13:18 states that a prophet lied deliberately to another prophet, causing his death. The story also demonstrates another prophet disobeying God (verse 26 states that this man was a prophet).

The prophet Balaam got the Israelites to do wickedly. His idea was to make God displeased with them so he could get paid by the king of the Moabites to curse them with God's approval. (Num 22:17,Rev 2:14)

So had I been a Jew at the time of Caiaphas would I have suffered if I didn't follow his council in regard opposing Christ? Was the prophet who was lied to by another prophet blessed because he followed his lie? Certainly not. And could I have supported the prophet Balaam in his wickedness and have been blessed?

Brigham Young stated _
"There are those among this people who are influenced, controlled, and biased in their thoughts, actions, and feelings by some other individual or family, on whom they place their dependence for spiritual and temporal instruction, and for salvation in the end. These persons do not depend upon themselves for salvation, but upon another of their poor, weak, fellow mortals. 'I do not depend upon any inherent goodness of my own,' say they, 'to introduce me into the kingdom of glory, but I depend upon you, brother Joseph, upon you, brother Brigham, upon you, brother Heber, or upon you, brother James; I believe your judgment is superior to mine, and consequently I let you judge for me; your spirit is better than mine, therefore you can do good for me; I will submit myself wholly to you, and place in you all my confidence for life and salvation; where you go I will go, and where you tarry there I will stay; expecting that you will introduce me through the gates into the heavenly Jerusalem.'" (Journal of Discourses: 1:Brigham Young 1853/02/20 : 310)

We have to do a lot more than just sit around like blind fools following another person other than Jesus Christ and Heavenly Father. We have to use revelation to gain eternal life (D&C 42:61 and 45:57). This is the thing that makes us different to any other religion claiming to follow Christ. We can talk to God and have him talk back. Either through the Holy Ghost, Jesus Christ or Heavenly Father.

Additionally Brigham stated _
"Now those men, or those women, who know no more about the power of God, and the influences of the Holy Spirit, than to be led entirely by another person, suspending their own understanding, and pinning their faith upon another's sleeve, will never be capable of entering into the celestial glory, to be crowned as they anticipate; they will never be capable of becoming Gods. They cannot rule themselves, to say nothing of ruling others..." (Journal of Discourses: 1:Brigham Young 1853/02/20 : 310)

Summary
From this examination of Brother Benson's talk we should be able to see that his intention was to encourage people to have faith in the person that God has chosen as mouthpiece for him in the church organisation. It is important to members and non-members to be looking to this source of truth. To propose that the president of the church is somehow flawless or that all he says is as if God were speaking, is an extreme, it is true. But to rip Brother Benson apart because he should have been less emphatic seems an even greater extreme to me.

Does God Really Want us to Obtain Food by the Sweat of our Brows?

2010-08-05T20:18:00.001-05:00

I have often heard claim that God commanded us to work for a living. While I don't dispute that work is a good thing, and Solomon made some statements supporting it, is it true to attribute such a commandment to God? Or should we just stick to pointing out its importance to our balanced developement?

Moses 5:1 says, "...Adam began to till the earth, and to have dominion over all the beasts of the field, and to eat his bread by the sweat of his brow, as I the Lord had commanded him..."

This is interpreted by many to say that the commandment that God was referring to was the latter statement about work.

As a contradiction to this claim we have the following statement by Christ to his disciples, relative to obtaining food and clothing etc.

"But you seek first the kingdom of God, and his righteousness; and all these things shall be added to you." Matt 6:33

This presents that some are called upon to look to God for sustanance. So how could God be giving two contrary instructions making one a commandment? - particularly both being in the gospel.

Looking at the idea that we are commanded to work we can also quote the statement to Adam, made by God, in the Garden of Eden.

"In the sweat of your face shall you eat bread, until you return to the ground; for out of it were you taken: for dust you are, and to dust shall you return." Gen 3:19

Quoted on its own, one option would be to read this as a commandment. So let's look at the surrounding statements to see what they reveal relative to what this statement means.

Looking back at verse 17 we find _

"And to Adam he said, Because you have listened to what your wife said, and have eaten of the tree of which I commanded you, saying, You shall not eat of it: cursed is the ground for your sake; in sorrow shall you eat of it all the days of your life; Thorns also and thistles shall it bring forth to you; and you shall eat the herb of the field." Gen 3:17-18

So God has pronounced a curse upon Adam because of his wrong action (as declared in verses 17-19 inclusive). The parts of this curse are that because of evil actions _

1. The ground won't produce its best.

2. Thorns and thistles will infest the ground.

3. That from then on we had to eat herbs also, instead of just seeds and fruit (Gen 1:29).

4. That we will now have to sweat from the work to get the ground to produce things.

5. That we will die and our bodies rot to dust.

Yet looking at this, number 4 doesn't come out as a commandment, merely a part of a curse. To turn these into commandments would be ridiculous looking at number 5 (not to mention the absurdity of seeing the first 2 as commandments).

So while I support productive living, I see this verse as being quoted out of context.

What does it matter, some may ask? It matters because God is giving a lesson for use in these verses which is being obscured by incorrect interpretation by people.

It would be better to quote Christ, in regard working _

"My Father is working up until now, and I work." John 5:17

This presents that both Christ and Heavenly Father are always working. Thus if we wish to do the same as them afterward, we must learn the principle of work now. Of course this is a spiritual work that they are engaged in.

The Effect of the Fall Took about 2400 Years to Complete.

2010-07-14T21:51:00.000-05:00

Reading the Scriptures a person could come to the opinion that the fall was an instant action that was a once off. But the Scriptures demonstrate that the fall actually took place over a long period of time.

We should first look at how long Adam lived. God told Adam and Eve _

"But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, you shall not eat of it: for in the day that you eat from it you will surely die." Gen 2:17

This word "day" means a time; and is used in regard the creation to mean one period of light and a period of darkness, by the measure that God was using for the creation (Gen 1:13). It should be noted that our sun, from which we draw time, wasn't made until days into the creation (Gen 1:16-19). So how long was this day that Adam would die within if he transgressed?

The Scriptures inform us that it was a thousand years (2 Pet 3:8, Abr 3:4). And how long did Adam live?

"And all the days that Adam lived were nine hundred and thirty years: and he died." Gen 5:5 (Also note Moses 6:12)

So in the day (thousand year period) that Adam transgressed he died, as God declared. In fact no one lived beyond the day.

Yet this didn't end the fall. The fall is demonstrated to have continued as a result of ongoing sin. The shortest lifespan before Noah was Noah's father Lamech living for 777 years (Gen 5:31). Yet Noah himself lived longer than Adam (Gen 9:29). So it took more than those generations to really show what was happening.

Gen 6:3 has the Lord declaring man's days to be 120 years. But this is put in the wrong place, because this is a long time before that became true. After the flood we see from the genealogy a great drop in the life-span from generation to generation. We see in the genealogy of Shem, the son of Noah _

Gen 11:12-13 Arphaxad lived for 438 years only.
Gen 11:14-15 Salah lived for 433 years.
Gen 11:16-17 Eber lived for 464 years.
Gen 11:18-19 Peleg lived for 239 years.
Gen 11:20-21 Reu lived for 239 years.
Gen 11:22-23 Serug lived for 230 years.
Gen 11:24-25 Nahor lived for 148 years.
Gen 11:32 Terah lived 205 years.
Gen 25:7 Abraham lived 175 years.

While this is a strange decline, it is demonstrating that the fall wasn't instant. Matter changed over the time. This change is another reason why "scientific" dating methods are useless before Moses, as the fall didn't have its full effect. No one can possibly understand what matter was like during that time, and at what rate it was affected. Particularly since we have no idea what matter was like originally (before the fall).

Also of note is that while Noah lived for over 900 years, his grandson (Arphaxad) only lived over 400 years. So obviously Noah's righteousness needs to be taken into consideration. Yet in spite of hick-ups the decline after the flood was rapid.

Moses declared that by his time people were living only 70 to 80 years at best _

"The days of our years are seventy; and if by reason of strength they be eighty, yet is their strength labour and sorrow; for it is soon cut off, and we fly away."

Considering that we live around that time now, it suggests that no further falling of matter occurred thereafter.

Who's More Racial Prejudice, Latter-Day Saints, Protestants or Atheists?

2010-06-24T20:44:00.000-05:00

I have heard claims of prejudice aimed at church members due to the negros not receiving the priesthood prior to 1978. This has been done by both Protestants and Atheists. Yet what is the reality? Who's belief could really be demonstrated as the most racial prejudice?

Yet an aditional advantage that the negro didn't do temple ordinances is that they have often been slaves. This would have been a compromise to such. Also masters could have demanded they use the priesthood for incorrect reasons.

But leaving these points aside let's look at the ideas of all 3.

Latter-Day Saints

There is not a person of any race that has been witheld from baptism at any time. Even after people are DEAD they can still accept the gospel of Christ REGARDLESS of what race they came from, or what time they lived in: Every person who has lived upon this earth will have a chance to accept Jesus Christ. Also the gift of the Holy Ghost has been bestowed upon all who wish to accept it.

While, prior to coming here, the negros didn't wish to receive the priesthood during this life (this restricts ordinances available), they still have the same opportunity to change their minds after death. There is no eternal restriction on them whatsoever.

While translating the Book of Abraham, Joseph Smith recorded in regard the negro, Pharoah (grandson of Ham), "Pharoah, being a righteous man, established his kingdom and judged his people wisely and justly all his days..." Abraham 1:26

So we have a wise and just negro king. Hardly a concept of inferior negros.

Atheism

The Atheist would have us believe we evolved (generally speaking). This is a process of survival of the fittest. It teaches a progress of creatures.

They would have us believe that we evolved in stages to become the superior being we are today. In this process we first had what people? The blacks! This is their version of the inferior of us human beings. Then came the brown races next. They propose we have progressed through to become the superior white race of modern science.

So much for Atheists.

Protestantism

Well, where do I start?

Protestantism teaches that only in the land of Israel were people that were talked to by God. This means that every other being on earth for all those years are doomed to hell forever. To burn and burn and burn forever, because they didn't belong to the right race.

What is more they consider that even before Jacob (Israel) only a few select people had any communication with God. Thus almost everyone on earth for about 4 thousand years are all doomed to hell because they weren't in the right place or of the right race.

Then came Christ who eventually had the gospel spread further. Yet what of all the people in North and South America, most of the African continent, Australia, New Zealand, Samoa and all the rest of those islands and most of Asia? Again we have enormous racial prejudice.

This went on for well over another thousand years. So we end up with well over 5 thousand years of amazing racial prejudice.

And what of today? We have China having gone through over 60 years of communist rule with no religion allowed. This is a nation that has by far the largest population of any country in the world. Our Protestant friends have them all going off to hell to burn. Hey, burn the lot, you say! Here a billion burnt, there a billion burnt. "I'm saved though," says Mr and Mrs Protestant. "I can't understand these people who are prejudice against the Chinese," they say.

Looking at it
It is very obvious that certain races have been more blessed than others. Whether a person wants to claim this as some luck or whatever is up to them. But the Scriptures clearly show that God has selected some races (such as Israel) and places to put down the spirits that were showing the most potential. However it has to be also observed that some good spirits have gone into all races. He has also put some bad spirits into all races. So we can't just judge a person by their race.

LDS Doctrine? Church Doctrine? What is it?

2010-06-14T21:17:00.000-05:00

The question is sometimes put forward of what the church actually believes. And what do I believe myself? Do all LDS believe the same thing? And if not, then why not? And if so why do some general authorities seem to have opposing opinions here and there over the years?

If all members (regardless of their areas of responsibility in the church - callings) believed the same thing then something would be very wrong.

"For look, this is what the Lord God says: I will give to the children of men line upon line, precept upon precept, here a little and there a little; and blessed are those who take note of my precepts, and lend an ear to my counsel, for they shall learn wisdom; for to him that receives I will give more; and from them that shall say, We have enough, from them shall be taken away even that which they have." 2 Nephi 28:30

Here Nephi has expressed that the Lord gives a person knowledge a piece at a time, as they are ready. And those who don't accept it not only won't get any more, but will actually start to lose that which they have. In regard this idea Alma expresses that God won't even make it available to those who don't accept and enthusiastically obey what he has already given.

"And now Alma began to expound these things to him saying: It is given to many to know the mysteries of God; nevertheless they are laid under a strict command that they shall not impart only according to the portion of his word which he grants to the children of men, according to the heed and diligence which they give to him. And therefore, he that will harden his heart, the same receives the lesser portion of the word; and he that will not harden his heart, to him is given the greater portion of the word, until it is given to him to know the mysteries of God until he knows them in full. And they that will harden their hearts, to them is given the lesser portion of the word until they know nothing concerning his mysteries..." Alma 12:9-11

This statement of Alma's points out the huge gap that will exist between those accepting previously hidden knowledge and those who don't. It also points out that the diligence with which they accept and obey the knowledge counts. Additionally it is presenting that people will grow in this knowledge until they know the mysteries in full. This latter is saying that the person does this by a growth process that obviously takes time. Thus people will be on different levels of doctrinal understanding on each of the many subjects we need to learn.

These new doctrines must be learnt independently. They aren't taught by presidents of the church. The president of the church very rarely presents new doctrine. The last time was in 1978. Thus the rate of learning new doctrine is the responsibility of the individual.

The then president of the church, Joseph Smith, taught this same principle.

"Joseph Smith taught that every man and woman should seek the Lord for wisdom, that they might get knowledge from Him who is the fountain of knowledge.." George A. Smith (Deseret News: Semiweekly; Nov 29 1870)

"The things of God are of deep import; and time, and experience, and careful and ponderous and solemn thoughts can only find them out. Thy mind, O man: if thou wilt lead a soul unto salvation, must stretch as high as the utmost heavens, and search into and contemplate the darkest abyss, and the broad expanse of eternity- thou must commune with God." Joseph Smith (History of the Church 3:295-296, Mar 20 1839)

Many such truths exist in the Scriptures and in comments expressed by some past members with all sorts of callings (including those assigned as church president). As the Spirit works in us to enlighten our understanding we can reject this or accept it. Thus we have a great difference in opinion of individuals regardless of their positions.

We also see differences of levels of doctrinal understanding existing within the church just after Christ died.

"I have fed you with milk, and not with meat: for before now you were not able to bear it, and even now you are not able." 1 Cor 3:2

So Paul is declaring he had knowledge which he wasn't giving to the Corinthians. In regard this knowledge he said that they should be receiving it, but were too slack.

"For by this time you ought to be teachers, yet you have need that one teaches you again that which is the first principles of the oracles of God; and have become one of those that has need of milk, and not of strong meat. For every one that uses milk is unskilful in the word of righteousness: for he is a babe. But strong meat belongs to them that are of full age, even those who by reason of use have their senses exercised to discern both good and evil." Heb 5:12-14

When Christ was doing his mission there was also a difference of ability to understand his sayings in the Jewish church of God (originally established through Moses).

"There was a division among the Jews for these sayings." John 10:19

At the time of Moses there was a similar circumstance. In regard Israel at Moses' time Paul stated,

"For we also have had the gospel preached to us, just as they did; but the message they heard was of no value to them, because those who heard did not combine it with faith." Heb 4:2

So a variety of understanding is going to exist among members at any time of history. Today is no different.

Yet in regard what could be classified as church doctrine this would depend on what church member you asked. I believe we have to make a line between church doctrine and doctrine believed by church members. To me the church doctrine should be the basics presented in the Standard Works of Scripture. That is that we believe in Jesus Christ as the special Son of Heavenly Father. We believe that Heavenly Father and Jesus Christ are resurrected human beings and that we are entirely in their image AND likeness. We believe that he atoned for the sins of those who truly repent. And he makes possible the resurrection. We believe that the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints is the kingdom of God on earth. We believe that God has given authority to certain men within the church to perform the sacred ordinances as he would have them done. We believe in revelation from God to mankind. We believe in using the gift of the Holy Ghost. We believe in prayer. We believe in learning and doing those things that God would have us do. We believe in the restoration of authority by Jesus Christ to Joseph Smith.

In fact we could turn to the 13 Articles of Faith, and use those as a statement of what church doctrine is.

There are members that want to add seemingly endless amounts of manuals, magazines, books of their choice and other materials to the above list. Promoters of this seem to only believe these materials where they agree with them. If they don't they will usually say that it isn't what the current prophet is saying (Where the quote isn't from him - which is most of the time), and suddenly that makes that source incorrect for that quote. Sadly they will even try this sometimes with the Standard Works.

In regard these materials and "the current prophet" philosophies I'd like to give two quotes, from such materials and the current prophet at the time; Harold B. Lee:

"Stand Ye in Holy Places" by Harold B. Lee 15:162:6
"It is not to be thought that every word spoken by the General Authorities is inspired, or that they are moved upon by the Holy Ghost in everything they write. I don't care what his position is, if he writes something or speaks something that goes beyond anything that you can find in the standard church works, unless that one be the prophet, seer, and revelator--please note that one exception--you may immediately say, "Well, that is his own idea." And if he says something that contradicts what is found in the standard church works, you may know by that same token that it is false, REGARDLESS OF THE POSITION OF THE MAN WHO SAYS IT [my emphasis]." Also quoted in the Seminaries and Institute manual (1974), printed when he was the current prophet.

When church president, Harold B. Lee said in a European area conference:

"If anyone, regardless of his position in the Church, were to advance a doctrine that is not substantiated by the standard Church works, meaning the Bible, the Book of Mormon, the Doctrine and Covenants, and the Pearl of Great Price, you may know that his statement is merely his private opinion. The only one authorized to bring forth any new doctrine is the President of the Church, who, when he does, will declare it as revelation from God, and it will be so accepted by the Council of the Twelve and sustained by the body of the Church. And if any man speak a doctrine which contradicts what is in the standard Church works, you may know by that same token that it is false and you are not bound to accept it as truth." The First Area General Conference for Germany, Austria, Holland, Italy, Switzerland, France, Belgium, and Spain of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, held in Munich Germany, August 24-26, 1973, with Reports and Discourses, 69.

When new doctrine is sustained by the members then it is placed in the Standard Works. These are the only materials that are accepted church doctrine by the entire membership. We don't sustain opinions of men as Scripture merely by sustaining them in their callings. Else I would be claiming that every word spoken by the Mia Maids teacher is the mind and will of the Lord. Let's get real.

To my LDS doctrine, I use the Spirit, as Alma has suggested. I believe direct revelation is given to anyone who serves God and seeks the truth. As this includes myself, I believe in that which I have been inspired with. I have found all the things Heavenly Father, Jesus Christ and the Holy Ghost say to be true. Whether I'm reading the Scriptures or listening to the opinions of people, I listen to the Holy Ghost to advise in regard to its truth and application.

The Greatest verse in Scripture

2010-05-27T20:47:00.000-05:00

A person could ask, "which solitary verse of Scripture contains the greatest message?" There are a lot of verses in the running. And I'm sure not everyone would agree with me. But in my opinion I believe the answer is Mosiah 3:19.

"For the natural man is an enemy to God, and has been from the fall of Adam, and will be, forever and ever, unless he yields to the enticings of the Holy Spirit, and putteth off the natural man and becometh a saint through the atonement of Christ the Lord, and becometh as a child, submissive, meek, humble, patient, full of love, willing to submit to all things which the Lord seeth fit to inflict upon him, even as a child doth submit to his father."

This verse gives several important messages. Firstly it tells us that even though as a natural man we will sin and would be cut off forever, we can listen to the Holy Spirit, and put off the natural man. In other words we are not doomed to sin, as so many would try to claim. What a wonderful message. I can actually live a righteous life! I can put off sin, and never sin again. To a person such as myself, who was brought up a Protestant doomed to sin, this is just so wonderful. It fills my heart with joy. I can live a clean life, in harmony with eternal laws of love and life.

It tells me that I can be guided as to what is good and bad by the Holy Spirit. Again this message is just so amazing to me. I can have communication with the heavens. I need not remain in ignorance, as I had come to believe from my heritage. And I can be completely informed of what to do, and what not to do.

Not only don't I have to sin anymore but it tells my that my past sins can be removed by Jesus Christ, so that I need not wear them anymore. I can become a Saint (Greek equivalent to Hebrew word used relative to the sacrific - without spot or blemish - a pure person).

It states that we can become as a child in a spiritual way. We not only needn't sin, but we can, in fact, become sanctified people, full of all the most wonderful virtues in all eternity. How many people have I heard try to tell me I can't be perfect (let alone sanctified), or not in this life?

I used to hear people go on about how great King Benjamin's address was and couldn't see it at the time. My opinion has done a reverse on that one. And this verse sums it all up, IMO.

The President of the Church will Never Lead the Church Astray - What Does that Mean?????

2010-05-11T20:19:00.001-05:00

After the first Manifeso at the back of the Doctrine and Covenants, we have quotes from 3 talks by Wilford Woodruff. This is one of those quotes.

"The Lord will never permit me or any other man who stands as President of this Church to lead you astray. It is not in the programme. It is not in the mind of God. If I were to attempt that, the Lord would remove me out of my place, and so He will any other man who attempts to lead the children of men astray from the oracles of God and from their duty." (Sixty-first Semiannual General Conference of the Church, Monday, October 6, 1890, Salt Lake City, Utah. Reported in Deseret Evening News, October 11, 1890, p. 2.)

This was stated because of the great opposition he faced from church members and leaders due to his declaration opposing the present practice of plural marriage.

The problem was that such a declaration opposes practicing the fulness of the gospel of Jesus Christ. Question was made as to his authority to discourage the practice of eternally unchangeable laws.

He goes on to explain why he felt to do so in the next 2 quotes given.

So his statement should be kept in context.

Today there are those that choose to believe that this is a reason to feel that nothing the President of the church says can be wrong. However that statement not only says that the President of the church would be removed out of his place but that ANYONE attempting to lead people astray, from the words of God, would.

To be moved out of their place they must have some "place" to be moved out of. It is posing church positions. So are we to believe that all bishops, stake presidents, high councilmen, elder's quarum presidents, relief society presidents, scout leaders, class secretaries, ward mission leaders, home teachers, visiting teachers etc are infallible in their offices: That every word they say is the mind and will of God?

Because that's what you would have to believe to use Wilford Woodruff's statement as used by some, concerning opinions expressed by the president of the church.

Note also that he states that it would have to be a deliberate attempt to lead astray, on behalf of the leader - "...If I were to attempt that...any other man who attempts to lead the children of men astray..."

I think we have to use a bit of sense in our understanding of his intention. He is posing that such a major change, as he was presenting, wouldn't be allowed by God if it were wrong. To make more out of it not only is ridiculous (as demonstrated 3 paragraphs above) but doesn't fit in the context, nor with other statements of church presidents to the contrary.

Additionally such thinking leaves members open to anti-material where they demonstrate the differences of ideas expressed by church presidents and other GAs. We need to move beyond such ideas, as we learn in the gospel.

I'm not proposing that the President of the church isn't directed by God, at times God chooses, to make certain changes etc. What I'm saying is that he isn't under constant revelation when speaking.

The idea that we should look to another man, in some position, to tell us what God has to say, is essential for new members, those with mental retardation problems, children under 8, those who have recently reactivated, people suffering altzeimers disease, those coming to church only for social reasons and those having serious troubles seeing the point in obeying God (such as Israel at the time of Moses).

For any others there are 2 men that actually ARE infallible. One we call "Heavenly Father." And the other we call "Jesus Christ." Fortunately both are very much available for comment. You don't need to book an appointment to see them. You can just ask at any time.

Along with them we have the Holy Ghost, who is quite happy to reside inside you ALL the time. He can guide you in anything. He also is infallible.

That sounds a much better idea to me. The other is just being spiritually lazy, in my opinion.

Judging Others - Obviously we Need to

2010-05-04T20:18:00.000-05:00

"Do not judge, or you too will be judged." Matt 7:1

This sounds simple enough. But does this interpretation make sense? We actually want to be judged, or how do we go to be with God? We also want to be judged correctly by others. We like receiving credit where credit is due, for starters.

So obviously this would be better interpreted to say that we shouldn't judge with a condemning heart, so that we won't be judged by a condemning heart.

Amidst this it could also be looked at to say that if we judge others with a condemning and unforgiving heart, that we will judge and condemn ourselves by the same standard: We won't really accept in our hearts that Christ's atonement can cleanse a person who has made errors (which includes ourselves).

As Christ stated _

"...Forgive, and it shall be forgiven you" Luke 6:37 or "Forgive us our debts as we also have forgiven our debtors." Matt 6:12

We will notice that others have done evil to us or others. Recognising that others have done evil isn't a bad thing. How can we avoid doing evil ourselves if we don't know recognise evil? But Christ is saying to forgive.

Christ warns, "but beware of men..." (Matt 10:16) [Some women may echo that]. But in all seriousness, he is saying to be wary of people in our dealings with them. This requires judgement.

We also have to find a marriage partner. While revelation as to whom to marry is advised, there is still a need for us to understand the person and whether they are suitable - judgement. The same applies if we have children. How can we help them to learn and in their squabbles if we don't judge them?

And what of bishops and stake presidents etc in dealing with confessions or accusations of serious offences.

So how do we judge righteous judgement?

Isaiah says in regard to Christ _

"...he shall not judge after the sight of his eyes, neither reprove after the hearing of his ears." Isa 11:3

We have the tendency to judge people by their actions and words. Yet he is saying this isn't fair judgement. This then requires us to learn to judge by the intent of their heart and the perception in their mind. It is impossible to judge such a way without either an ability to see inside others or to use the Holy Ghost or both.

Moroni states the following _

"For look, my brethren, it is given to you to judge, that you may know good from evil... so, I show to you the way to judge; for every thing which invites to do good, and to persuade to believe in Christ, is sent forward by the power and gift of Christ; so you may know with a perfect knowledge it is of God." Mor 7:15-16

So Moroni is telling us how to judge. He's gone on in verse 17 to declare that those who subject themselves to the devil can be determined by the criteria of judgement he has set forth. Obviously, therefore, he hasn't regarded Christ's statement as posing that we don't judge people.

Either way I wish to stress again that the Holy Ghost is best used in any judgement we make. And if our judgement is made with a view to helping others move on from mistakes, we will accept our mistakes with the same attitude.

Jewellery - Yes or No?

2010-04-22T20:58:00.001-05:00

Question does arise about the wearing of jewellery, considering some things written in Scripture and the statement by the First Presidency. There seems to be a vanity aspect suggested.

"In like manner also, that women adorn themselves in modest apparel, with reverence and soundness of mind; not with braided hair, or gold, or pearls, or costly array." 1 Timothy 2:9

This speaks against elaborate hair styles, wearing gold or pearls or wearing expensive clothes.

I certainly detect a cynicism in Isaiah toward jewellery in these next verses quoted from him _

"In that day the Lord will take away the bravery of their tinkling ornaments, and cauls, and round tires like the moon; The chains and the bracelets, and the mufflers; The bonnets, and the ornaments of the legs, and the headbands, and the tablets, and the ear-rings; The rings, and nose jewels; The changeable suits of apparel, and the mantles, and the wimples, and the crisping-pins; The glasses, and the fine linen, and hoods, and the veils." 2 Nephi 13:18-23 (Compare Isaiah Chapter 3)

This following statement leaves us with some questions.

From "True to the Faith" - Put out by the church and Endorsed by the First Presidency
Page 27 "Body Piercing" _
"Latter-day prophets strongly discourage the piercing of the body except for medical purposes. If girls or women desire to have their ears pierced, they are encouraged to wear
only one pair of modest earrings."

The first statement says that piercing of the body is STRONGLY discouraged. It then goes on to say that "IF" women desire to have their ears pierced anyway, for ear-rings, make them small and only one pair. Though I may be accused by women of reading something into this, I see this as really saying that women would be better off not wearing any.

The following plainly associates pride and vanity with the wearing of jewellery.

"Behold, O God, they cry unto thee, and yet their hearts are swallowed up in their pride. Behold, O God, they cry unto thee with their mouths, while they are puffed up, even to greatness, with the vain things of the world. Behold, O my God, their costly apparel, and their ringlets, and their bracelets, and their ornaments of gold, and all their precious things which they are ornamented with; and behold, their hearts are set upon them, and yet they cry unto thee and say--We thank thee, O God, for we are a chosen people unto thee, while others shall perish." Alma 31:27-28

The Apostle Peter adds his thoughts on the subject_

"Whose adorning let it not be that outward adorning of plaiting the hair, and of wearing of gold, or of putting on of apparel." 1 Peter 3:3

Again we see this advising not to do fancy things with hair, wear jewellery or wearing fancy clothes.

(Thanks, yeti, for the NT quotes)

Should We Oppose Age Gaps in Marriages?

2010-04-12T21:33:00.001-05:00

ALL THINGS BEING EQUAL, it is only logical that we should desire to see married, some single person of 50 to some single person of around the same age. And the same would be said of those around 18.

When a person talks about marrying a person of a different generation, some people can get very upset (particularly if the older is male). The conversation then flows into some irrational logic. Yet even though the presentation is illogical, there are several arguments that present some thoughts for consideration.

It is argued that there is a better ability to communicate on such things as music, technology, history and life in general, if people have lived around the same length of time. It is suggested (in line with this) that the older person would be disadvantaged by an inferior conversation.

It is also presented that the younger person will have less life experience, which can create conflicts of direction in areas such as loans etc. Young people haven't had the experience of having to wait years to pay off a debt (for example), so would be more inclined to get into debt.

On the other side it is argued that the young person is healthier and therefore may have to look after their spouse when sick (which would be more often the case). They also have the disadvantage of losing their spouse when still relatively young. Additionally there is more chance that both would be there for the children when growing up if the couple were young.

These two sides of the argument can be viewed as subtractive or additive. That is that on the one side we could argue that the disadvantage to one is an advantage to the other and visa versa. Thus making it that both are advantaged by the relationship in ways. Or we could view them as additive problems, thus viewing that the relationship is doubly disadvantaged - the latter negative view seems to be the most common trend.

This desire to make it a double disadvantage (a one sided viewpoint) makes me tend to feel that there are other deep-seated reasons for people's negativity. Perhaps jealousy, by men, if the older is a male. Perhaps fear by women of losing their husbands to a younger woman where married, or fear of not being able to compete where divorced, widowed or still single.

But looking at the ideas; the argument in regard the children is a bit weak in that if the person were able to produce children still, they would usually be able to be there for their upbringing. That they may not be young enough to run around with their children could be used in regard couples having children at 40. Or we could say that disabled people therefore shouldn't have children, using such logic. Love and time is the thing children really need.

The argument in regard communication has an opponent from those in successful multicultural marriages. It is true that multicultural marriages can also create problems. And it is better to marry those from the same culture, ALL THINGS BEING EQUAL. But many of these marriages thrive.

The argument of one partner passing on earlier is still relavant. But I must present in regard that idea that my wife always said that she would outlive me by at least 8 years, because she was 6 years younger and a female (females statistically outlive males). Yet she died at a young age; and I (hopefully) have many years ahead yet. So it is only a generalisation.

I would also argue that as we believe Christ's second coming and the resurrection of the righteous isn't really that far off, it is a bit of a dead arguement (no pun intended). GAs have come forward with some heavy feelings relative to the fact that this generation will be well and truly alive when Christ comes. I would second that revelation.

Yet ALL THINGS BEING EQUAL some of these arguments have a degree of merit. But all things are rarely equal.

For example, I knew a man who's parents were 26 years apart in marriage. He raved of how well they got on together. Yet I have seen many of around the same age as each other and their marriage was a failure. I have seen the same with many living together.

I know an Australian man who is married to a Malasian woman, who additionally is much younger than him. Their marriage is wonderful to see. Yet he was first married to an Australian of around the same age, and it was a disaster.

In the church there is a desire to separate Young Adults (those over 18 but too young for Single Adults) from Single Adults (those 30 and over). This has created many serious problems over the years. For example I remember one guy turning 30 who had a girlfriend of about 25. There became serious conflict in that she wasn't permitted to go to Single Adult activities and he couldn't go to Young Adult activities. Stake leaders there were adamant that was the instruction and must be obeyed regardless of any human feelings - The military would have been proud of them.

(I'd personally suggest the church take on a more flexable and sensible stance, and create a 5 year zone on either side - thus allowing couples to be up to 10 years apart, yet still able to attend activities together). Additionally we can make some Single Adult activities able to be attended by Young Sinlge Adults, of any age, where the YSA is dating a SA. Remember we are wanting members to marry members.

So what do the Scriptures say in regard marriage and age difference? Has God given any commandment in regard ages in marriage? Surely if he had some policy it would be in there.

The answer to the latter question is, "NO." God has given no limitation whatsoever. It is left to each individual to consider how they feel. But most civilizations are or have married at 13 +.

In regard difference of ages of husband and wife we have some interesting information about Abraham.

Gen 17:17 Abraham was 10 years older than Sarah. As people usually married at around 13 then, it is quite possible that he was 23 and her 13.
Gen 21:5-7 Abraham was 100 years old when Issac was born, and considered old.
Gen 18:13 Sarah laughed at the idea of her being able to have a son, because of her age (as Abraham was 100, Sarah must have been 90).
Gen 23:1 Sarah dies at 127. Thus Abraham was 137.
Gen 25:1-2 Abraham took another wife - Keturah, who bore him 6 sons.
She had to be MANY years his junior. The chances are that she was probably a virgin of about 13; as historical writings present that as the common age for marriage in Ancient Egypt (for example).

Yet even if we are too prudish to believe that, we still must remember that if Sarah laughed at having children at 90, it must have been well beyond the child bearing age. So Keturah had to have been young enough to have had at least 6 children (as 6 of her sons were named). Sensibly we would have to suppose that she couldn't have been older than 60 at maximum. That would make him 77 years older at absolute minimum.

Gen 25:6 Additionally Abraham took concubines who were young enough to have children also.

Joseph Smith married 7 young women who were too young to be in the Young Sinlge Adults program when he was well in the classification of the Single Adult's age. He, additionally, married some women who were old enough to be his mother.

So how would these stake leaders have responded to that? - Joseph, you can't date these young women or older women!

There's no good using the old "oh, but that was back then," routine. As if to suggest that somehow human beings were different in the past and had 10 arms, 5 legs and 3 heads. They were just like us.

This leads us back to our 2 presented problems with age gaps in marriage. Why did Abraham and Joseph Smith consider it alright to marry someone whom they wouldn't be married to for very long before dying? Joseph Smith received revelation yet he married some young women one year before he died.

The arguments fail to take into account the whole point of marriage. Marriage is an ETERNAL contract. When you die has little significance in it. Let's assume you have a young unmarried daughter and that 2 men come to you with the view of marrying her. One man is the same age as your daughter. The other is 3 times her age. The one who is 3 times her age, you have been inspired, will gain eternal life. The other you are unsure of in that direction. Which do you advise your daughter to marry? I can assure you that my choice would be the older one, that could take my daughter to eternal life forever.

And the thing that matters in an eternal marriage is spiritual compatability. Our priorities shouldn't be set by looks, age, educational standard, nationality, ability to sexually entertain, wealth or any other such worldly irrelevancies.

The reason we have such a priority of marrying in the temple is that it is an eternal contract. When I consider whom to marry I am interested in whether she is really ready to obey God without leaning to the ideas of the world. In conversation I'm not so interested in whether she knows this singing group or that one; but whether she has a thirst for truth. I don't care where she's been in the world, as much as I care where she is going in her spiritual pursuit. I'm not so concerned with her educational standard, more her moral standard. I'm not so concerned about her closeness to me in age, but her closeness to God.

Let's get our priorities in order.

Trinity - Does the Bible Teach This?

2010-03-31T21:55:00.000-05:00

In some churches the concept is believed of a triune God. The concept states that the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost are all one mass: Not totally separate beings.

Hundreds of years after the death of the original apostles the Roman Emperors decided to take over control of the church. They set themselves up as the decider of doctrine on God's behalf. However a power struggle existed with the old authority and them taking over with their priests. To cement their authority their priests and doctrines had to be victorious.

A man named Arian presented a doctrine (we don't know the doctrine totally because we only have the Roman's version of it, and a person's version of their opponent's doctrine is often exaggerated and distorted. But we can establish some things). Arian had many others who agreed with him. His belief was that the Father and the Son were separate beings, and that the Father was superior to the Son. He stated that while on earth Jesus was just a man like any other, and that by obedience to God He earned His place in Heaven, just as any of us must.
`
The trinity doctrine was put forward to combat Arian, so that he wouldn't have control. Also a new word was invented for God which meant "of the same substance", to replace the word that had been used, which meant "of similar substance".

A creed was made to explain God (which ultimately concluded that He couldn't be explained). But looking at the trinity it says there's one omnipotent but three omnipotents, one omnipresent but three omnipresent etc. So basically we have one being with three identities in it. The question comes as to whether the Scriptures, or even just the Bible preaches or even supports such a being.

The question as to whether the Bible preaches such a being is the easiest part to answer. Even those who preach the trinity admit, verbally and in books, that the Bible doesn't clearly state the trinity concept anywhere: There is no statement saying anything like, "God is one God, but three Gods." So does the Bible actually, at least support the concept? We'll look at those statements which are used by those people believing in the trinity and those that oppose it.

Supporting the Trinity Concept

Deuteronomy 6:4 _ "Hear, O Israel: the LORD our God, the LORD is one!"

This doesn't exactly state anything about a trinity, of course, but is used to establish that in some way The LORD is one. This "LORD" of the Old Testament is Jesus Christ (the name "Jehovah", as used here, is Jesus Christ). And He is one. No one disputes that. This is merely stating that Jesus Christ is the God of Israel, and the only God that they got.

John 10:30 here Jesus says _ "I and My Father are one."

Again this says nothing of a trinity, but states that in some way the Father and Son are one. He doesn't explain in this verse what He means by the statement, but a look around this chapter gives us some clues that He wasn't saying that He was the actual Father Himself. The Jews accused Jesus of saying that He was God (verse 33). However He denies this implication in verses 34 - 36, "Jesus answered them, 'Is it not written in your law, 'I said, 'You are gods''? If he called them gods, to whom the word of God came (and the Scripture cannot be broken), Do you say of Him whom the Father sanctified and sent into the world, 'You are blaspheming,' because I said, 'I am the Son of God'?"

1 John 5:7 _ "For there are three who bear witness in heaven; the Father, the Word, and the Holy Spirit; and these three are one."

For those with more modern versions this probably won't be what you're reading. The oldest Greek manuscript of the book of 1st John that has been found, doesn't include this statement at all. In other words it appears some priest added it to a later manuscript to give some scriptural support for the trinity concept. The NIV version (which is quite popular these days) doesn't include this. Nor do many others. This means that they accept that this wasn't originally there.

1 Corinthians 8:6 _ "Yet for us there is one God, the Father, of whom are all things, and we for Him; and one Lord Jesus Christ, through whom are all things, and through whom we live."

This is fairly straightforward. It's stating that there is one God: whom it even qualifies to be the Father. And then it's stating that there is one Lord: whom it qualifies as Jesus Christ. No one is scripturally disputing the existence of both beings. But, again, this says nothing of any trinity. Nor does this particular Scripture even give a hint of a possibility of a trinity. Yet these Scripture references being given are those used.

John 14:8 - 9 _ "Philip said to Him, 'Lord, show us the Father, and it is sufficient for us.' Jesus said to him, 'Have I been with you so long, and yet you have not known Me, Philip? He who has seen Me has seen the Father; so how can you say, 'Show us the Father''?"

This can appear as if Jesus is stating that He is actually the Father Himself. However a bit of a look at the verses around reveal that this isn't the case. You can't just take bits out of the Scriptures that you like and ignore the rest. The very next verse (verse 10) states, "Do you not believe that I am in the Father, and the Father in Me? The words that I speak to you I do not speak on My own authority; but the Father who dwells in Me does the works." In other words He's stating that the reason He's calling Himself the Father is because He's doing the works the Father wants Him to do. Also if the Father were there in that situation, that is exactly what the Father would be doing. And therefore in seeing Him you're seeing the Father. Three verses later (verse 12) He states, "Most assuredly, I say to you, he who believes in Me, the works that I do he will do also; and greater works than these he will do, because I go to My Father." If He meant that He was literally the Father why would He then state that He was going TO the Father? Clearly His talk of the Father being actually in Him, or Him being the Father in a sense, doesn't relate to a physical joint-being concept any more than Jesus Christ or God being in us does. But we will come to more on this.

1 Timothy 3:16 _ "And without controversy great is the mystery of godliness: God was manifest in the flesh, justified in the Spirit, seen by angels, preached among the Gentiles, believed on in the world, received up in glory."

The statement about God being manifest in the flesh doesn't mean that the Father became flesh Himself. It would refer to the same sense as when Jesus was talking to Philip (as explained above). Either that or this is using the term "God" to define Jesus Christ Himself, in this case. Whichever it is, the Scripture states nothing of a triune God. No one is scripturally disputing that Jesus Christ was received up in glory to sit with God in His throne. Jesus Christ is the God of Israel. But He isn't the Father, as He made clear Himself (we will come to those Scriptures which oppose the concept of a trinity - though some we've mentioned seem to do so on their own).

John 1:1 _ "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God."

Yet what does the text actually say in Greek? This is the Greek _

"In beginning was the word, and the word was forward to [ie. toward] the God, and a God was the word."

Unfortunately for the trinitarians this is very interpretable. Plainly the reference to "the word" has symbolic reference only (ie. Christ was not a word). So the verse has to be read with this in mind. Also a literal translation renders it that "a God" was the word. Other people are also refered to as becoming Gods (Jn 10:34-35). So this of itself is too ambiguous. This could imply, for example, that by the word being toward the god, became a god himself. Also the verse could imply that god was the word in the sense that the word spoken by Christ [ie. the gospel] was god's word.

Again, however, there is no trinity stated.

As can be seen from above, the Bible itself (from which the trinity concept supposedly derived) is rather devoid of any substantial support for the trinitarian concept. In fact it's rather short on even vague connection with the concept. There is no Scripture which states that the three beings (Father, Son and Holy Ghost) are one in substance and mass, as is presented in the trinity concept.

Opposing the Trinity Concept

Matthew 19:16 - 17 _ concerning Jesus it says, "Now behold, one came and said to Him, 'Good Teacher, what good thing shall I do that I may have eternal life?' So He said to him, 'Why do you call Me good? No one is good but One, that is, God. But if you want to enter into life, keep the commandments'."

Here we have Jesus saying that He isn't to be considered as "Good" but only God is. So if He were God literally then this statement would be a lie.

Acts 4:32 _ "Now the multitude of those who believed were of one heart and one soul; neither did anyone say that any of the things he possessed was his own, but they had all things in common."

This Scripture gives us some understanding as to how many can be "one" in Scriptural thinking. It says the "multitude" were of "one heart" and "one soul". If this were a Scripture about God people could get it confused and think it supported the trinity idea. So looking at the whole doctrine presented in Scripture is important to a proper understanding.

Romans 12:5 _ "So we, being many, are one body in Christ, and individually members of one another."

Again we have reference to the concept of many being one. In fact here we have a statement of many being "one body". Also it's stating that these people were "members of one another". This would be very confusing stuff if it were being said of the Father, Son and Holy Ghost. We know that these members were all individuals, and not many in one mass. So it must be remembered that this manner of speaking was common.

1 Cor 6:16 - 17 _ "Or do you not know that he who is joined to a harlot is one body with her? For 'the two' He says, 'shall become one flesh'. But he who is joined to the Lord is one spirit with Him."

It talks (as in Genesis) of husbands and wives being "one flesh". We know this doesn't mean so in a literal sense. Also it speaks here of believers being one Spirit with the Lord. Should we believe that this means literally? Of course the answer is, "no".

John 12:50 _ "And I know that His command is everlasting life. Therefore, whatever I speak, just as the Father has told me, so I speak."

So Jesus Christ is stating here that it isn't His own ideas that He speaks, but the Father's ideas. If He were the Father, as some confuse certain verses to presume, this wouldn't make any sense, as Jesus' opinion would be His (the Father's) own opinion.

Acts 2:33 _ It says of Jesus, "Therefore being exalted to the right hand of God, and having received from the Father the promise of the Holy Spirit, He poured out this which you now see and hear."

Well this presents a fairly clear message of separate beings, not one. We have Jesus Christ being on God's right-hand side, as opposed to being His right hand (a bit of humour there). We also have the Father promising the Son that the Holy Ghost would be poured out. This latter part seems an even stranger statement in that the trinitarian translation would have the Father promising Himself that He'd pour Himself out. No wonder there is so much talk of God being "incomprehensible". I'd be very confused with that. I hope anyone who was uncertain about the trinity concept has come to see by this point that it isn't supported in the Scriptures. But just in case more convincing is required, or would be appreciated, I'll go on.

John Chapter 17

Verse 1 _ "Jesus spoke these words, lifted up His eyes to heaven, and said: 'Father, the hour has come. Glorify Your Son, that Your Son also may glorify You."

Jesus has "lifted up His eyes to heaven" and talked to the Father. Jesus is making a request of the Father. Jesus is saying that He'd like the Father to Glorify Him (Jesus), so that He can glorify the Father. Would this conversation make any sense at all if He (Jesus) was the Father? Jesus is praying! He's actually praying to God! If He were the Father would He be praying to Himself? Surely this would be madness. Jesus is coming to the time of the atonement, and He is asking for His God's support.

Verse 2 _ "As You have given Him authority over all flesh, that He should give eternal life to as many as You have given Him."

So God (the Father) has given Jesus authority. Didn't Jesus just have it, being the Father Himself? Jesus didn't seem to think so, and that will do me. Next we have Jesus only being able to give eternal life to those whom the Father chooses. Jesus is speaking to the Father as a man to His God, not as equals or parts of the same being. Verse 3 informs us that we have to come to know both the Father and the Son, it doesn't say we just have to know one being or three beings, but two beings.

Verse 4 _ "I have glorified You on the earth. I have finished the work which You have given Me to do."

The Father has given the Son this work to do. The Son hasn't given Himself the work. Also the Son hasn't glorified Himself, but the Father. If He were the Father, literally, He would have given Himself the work and be glorifying Himself. But this doesn't present this here. So again we have a separate Father and Son. We have the Father directing a Son as to what to do and when.

Verses 6 - 10 continue with this same concept with Jesus saying to the Father things like "You gave them to Me" and "They were Yours" and "I have manifested Your name" and "all things which You have given Me are from You" and "You have given Me" and "You sent Me" and "I pray for them".

Verse 11 _ "Now I am no longer in the world, but these are in the world, and I come to You. Holy Father, keep through Your name those whom You have given Me, that they may be one as We are."

Here Jesus speaks of this oneness between Him and the Father. But note that He's asking that the Apostles (which are the people He's talking about) can be one as He and the Father are one. Is He asking that the Apostles become one mass or substance? _ A twelve in one? If He was the Father didn't seem to grant this request. I think it's rather obvious, again, that this isn't a oneness of being, but of doctrine and love.

Verse 20 - 21 _ "I do not pray for these alone, but also for those who will believe in Me through their word; That they all may be one, as You, Father, are in Me, and I in You; that they also may be one in Us, that the world may believe that You sent Me."

So Jesus is asking that not only He and the Father and twelve Apostles be one, but that everybody else who believes in their word (Acts talks of 500 people being present at His ascension) being one "AS" they are one. So in the same way the Father and Son are one, all these others are to be one with them also _ hundreds in one.

Verse 23 says "I in them and You in Me; that they may be made perfect in one, and that the world may know that You have sent Me, and have loved them as You loved Me."

This refers to Jesus being "in" His Apostles and the Father being "in" Him. It talks of being made perfect in one. Over and over we see that the oneness referred to isn't one mass. Jesus and the Father and the Holy Ghost being in us doesn't make us really all one substance, as the trinity doctrine claims.

Matthew 20:23 _ "So He said to them, 'You will indeed drink My cup, and be baptised with the baptism that I am baptised with; but to sit on My right hand and on My left is not Mine to give, but it is for those for whom it is prepared by My Father."

The Son is stating that He has no authority to decide who is going to sit on His right and left in the Kingdom of God. He's saying this is something only the Father has worked out. So how does this fit with the idea that He is the Father? Obviously He wasn't meaning to take the concept of Him being the Father literally.

Matthew 26:39 _ "He went a little farther and fell on His face, and prayed, saying, 'O My Father, if it is possible, let this cup pass from Me; nevertheless, not as I will, but as You will.'

In this verse Jesus is asking that He not have to do the atonement. He, of Himself found it an enormously difficult thing to perform. But in spite of this He said to the Father that He was willing to suffer it (in obedience to the Father) if the Father really wanted Him to. Does this portray that Jesus is the Father? This totally opposes the trinity concept.

Luke 22:43 _ "Then an angel appeared to Him from heaven, strengthening Him."

This was at the time of the atonement in the garden, and He needed an angel to help Him. So let's get this straight in our minds: We have the God of the universe, who's holding everything together, needing an angel to give Him extra strength. Does this sound right to you? Is God a little short on strength? Yet clearly this is what we have here if we are to believe that Jesus and the Father are the one being. This presents a VERY human Jesus Christ, not a God. At the same time we must realise that by His obedience in the pre-existence and this earth life He is the God of Israel etc. But He went through an earth life to gain a body and experience just like everybody else. He, however, didn't sin, and thus could perform the atonement. He also made the resurrection possible.

Luke 23:46 _ "And when Jesus had cried out with a loud voice, He said, 'Father, into Your hands I commit My spirit'. Having said this, He breathed His last."

Jesus has told the Father that He's committing His SPIRIT to the Father. How can He do that if He and the Father are the same spirit? Didn't the Father already have His own Spirit? Should we believe that Jesus Christ had just temporarily borrowed the Father's spirit? This is telling us that Jesus' spirit is separate to the Father's spirit. How untrinitarian a statement can you get.

Matthew 27:46 _ "And about the ninth hour Jesus cried out with a loud voice, saying, 'Eli, Eli, lama sabachthani?' That is, 'My God, My God, why have You forsaken Me?'"

Jesus has stated that the Father has left Him. How could that be unless they are separate to be able to be away from each other? If they were one being and mass how could He leave Himself? And why even ask why, considering you would know why you were doing something, wouldn't you?

Luke 3:1 _ "And Jesus increased in wisdom and stature, and in favour with God and man."

To believe Jesus is God the Father we would have to believe that he grew in favor with himself. Additionally, considering that he is supposed to be complete and ultimate already, how does he grow in favor with himself?

Summation on the Trinity

There are many Scriptures showing that the concept of the trinity is a man made, not God inspired, doctrine. The Bible clearly demonstrates that Jesus Christ and God the Father are separate individuals. Again I should point out that even many people supporting the trinity idea admit that there is no Biblical statement that actually states it: Nothing says anything about there being three in the one mass, or that there is three Gods in one actual God. There are statements that mention that God is one. But as we have seen, there are also statements about large groups of people being one, too.

Homosexuality and Lesbianism - Genetic?

2010-03-15T21:22:00.001-05:00

Sexual attraction is very individual. Some are attracted to fat people and others to thin. Some are attracted to tanned people and others to milky white. Some go for blondes and others redheads etc. Long hair or short? If kept in sensible proportion these things are basically harmless. And no one cares about which you choose. Yet homosexuality and lesbianism are a different matter, as they oppose the purpose of marriage.

There are claims of people being born that way, and all sorts of things. There’s talk of it being in the genes _ that a person is genetically that way inclined. Scientific studies have been conducted by groups for and against, and it has been scientifically proven and scientifically disproved. It depends on who paid for the "evidence" as to what the "evidence" is. This leaves us with no certainty from a scientific viewpoint.

In the 1950's guys went for girls that had arms slightly wider than the current trend. The Chinese went for fat women because they were rare: It demonstrated wealth. So why do we now go for thin women? How could this be genetic? We would have to have the majority of males with this sudden change in genes.

Women in the 1970's went for men with hairy chests. Now the look is hairless that attracts females. So have the females changed genes too?

Obviously not! Our thoughts and perceptions aren't brought about by genes. Our sexual desire for thin women or women's desire for hairless men is no more genetic than choosing to like males or females is. We form opinions and then either reject them or entrench them.

Once entrenched, however, they can be difficult to shift. And doing so will take some time.

There is much confusion due to all the hype and deception that is placed around. And some question whether it is alright to live homosexual or lesbian lifestyles. To get to the truth we need to approach the subject with fresh thinking, unencumbered by the propaganda.

Is there Evidence that Homosexuality and Lesbianism are Unnatural?
A look at animals gives us the answer. Observing them doesn’t reveal homosexual / lesbian relationships as a standard way of living. I was brought up in an area where I got to see many dogs wandering the streets. While I have seen dogs try to relieve their frustration, even on lampposts, whenever a male dog attempts anal penetration with another male the one underneath immediately throws the other off. If such were a natural thing then why didn’t I see homosexual and lesbian relationships with these dogs? Nor have I seen such with the many stray cats we had.

Some will quote claims of homosexual activity occurring with some animal in some distant land. I haven't seen any filmed evidence of this being true. Nor in regard lesbian activity. Yet even if rare cases exist, surely animals should have an equal ratio of lesbians and homosexuals as humans have, if it is natural. Why would it be limited to humans only or humans and some rare cases in the animal kingdom?

So we see that homosexuality and lesbianism are concepts produced by the human mind, not nature.

Now We've Established that it isn't Natural; Is it Alright Anyway?
God gives us commandments and instructions because he knows it best for US to follow the concepts: That WE will benefit from following it. From a Scriptural point of view it is clearly opposed by God. For example, under the Law of Moses the penalty was death (Leviticus 20:13).

Paul also presented that women and men were to refrain from such practices _

"For this reason God gave them up to vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use to that which is against nature: And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was due." (Romans 1:26-27).

So God has a reason for considering them extremely negative to the development of a person.

Further Thoughts
My son informed me that, in his class, one third of the females ventured into lesbian relationships at some point. He observed that one particular female's arrival propted this. Yet the majority of the girls eventually returned to heterosexual relationships. This demonstrates that lesbian behavior had been performed by choice, and ended by choice. This was clearly a mental, not biological decision.

I have done quite a lot of counselling of sex-offenders in jails. Of those dealing with children under the age of 8, almost all were either practicing homosexual or bi-sexual lifestyles. Of those strictly dealing with children over that age, that were habitual offenders (ie had been imprisoned at least twice for the same crime), almost all were practicing homosexual lifesyles; and the remaining few were practicing bi-sexual lifestyles. I would assume that somewhere there would be exceptions to that. I just haven't had the experience of working with any, in the many I've dealt with.

I'm not suggesting that all those practicing homosexuality are sex-offenders waiting to happen. I raise this point to present that sexaul distortion is definately associated with acts outside of that which God has stated to be the natural lifestyle. And those with one distortion are more likely to expand to another, regardless of what distortion we are discussing. So it is no good putting your head in the sand and saying that all's well with homosexuality and lesbianism.

One arguement is that they seem harmless and personal only. Those presently practicing homosexual and lesbian lifestyles may argue that the other person was willing. So where is the problem if no further distortion exists?

The problem can be looked at from two points of view. The first is what you are missing by not having a good heterosexual marriage. The second is the problems caused to a person (and the effect thereby on society). I'll deliberately start with the second, as it's the negative, and end up on the first, as it's the positive.

Any sexual distortion creates problems (even those of a heterosexual nature). God equally condemned to death those practising adultery. He condemns anything outside of sex within marriage. Why?

I read through the Scriptures and feel a great love for certain prophets. I have a great love for my mother, brother and stepfather. I love and admire deeply a woman who's happily married. I love her for her oneness with Heavenly Father and Jesus Christ, and she has been a great example to me. But I have no desire at all to have sex with her, because that isn't the nature of our relationship. Us loving people is a good and righteous thing. Sex is a good, righteous and natural thing for having children _ that is its purpose. In having sex with a husband or wife, a person is fulfilling this natural thing.

The Apostle Paul states that by following the flesh he could never be free, and following Christ as is required. He states that it was only by submitting the flesh to the will of his spirit and that of the Holy Spirit that he could have true freedom and follow Christ (Refer Romans 8:4-14).

The flesh will always lead astray. All sexual acts contrary to that which God ordained were born to the flesh, and servitude to its desires. Servitude to the flesh creates theft, greed, covetousness, murder, violence, sexual abuse, war, family break-ups and every other evil. Homosexuality and lesbianism are all destructive of the person, no matter who they are. Only ceasing these things will bring true happiness.

But to get to a better point _ what are people missing by not being in a good heterosexual marriage? Any married couple, by putting aside selfishness, can achieve a wonderful, spirit centred marriage. But this also requires a putting aside the desires of the flesh. The marriage must be centred on the spiritual and your relationship with the Father and Son. You must be listening to the Holy Ghost for guidance in the ways of truth. Can a righteous man or woman not totally love and admire a righteous person? And if this person is your marriage partner, living in a relationship as God stated (man - woman) there is no greater thing.

If your marriage isn't / wasn't like this it is because you aren't righteous, and therefore must change to become so. It's no good blaming the partner until personal righteousness is obtained (and then you'll know better than to blame someone else anyway). 1 Corinthians 10:13 tells us that any sin that tempts us is also given to everyone else, but that God won't allow you to be tempted beyond your ability to resist, and He'll make a way for you to get out of it. So no one HAS to sin. Only the devil wants you to believe such nonsense.

We all know that everybody has sinned at some time in our life (Romans 3:23, 1 John 1:8), but we don't need to continue doing so once we grab the point (1 John 2:15-17, 1 John 2:9-10). With a marriage centred around love and Gods' commandment to have children ("..be fruitful and multiply.." Gen 1:28) a perfect and whole union will exist. As the couple serve God and mankind together so their love and respect for each other will expand and expand.

Isn't this what anyone would want? Try God's way COMPLETELY for a year and see what you end up. God knows what He's talking about. That is the hardest lesson for us to learn. Children often think that they know better than their parents. We have the same problem with our Heavenly Father. Things SEEM different to the way He says they are, until we sincerely try it His way, and then we see in time that He's right. The law of tithing doesn't make logical sense until you do it sincerely wanting to follow God. Then watch what happens. Is it logical that you can give away 10% of what you have and end up better off (Ref Malachi 3:10-12)? The answer ought to be "no". But it works in spite of that, as I can tell you from personal experience.

Equally so do all of Gods' instructions work. All sexual acts outside of a righteous marriage situation will not bring you anything like the wonderful experience you can have, and that God wants you to have also.

If you have had this problem and want to overcome it, there is hope. Firstly you have to accept that you AREN'T genetically predispositioned to practice homosexual or lesbian lifestyles. As surely as no-one is predispositioned to go for blondes. You are only mentally predispositioned by your experiences. And therefore all you have to do is re-program your thinking.

So don't give up just because you still have incorrect orientations after a month. It can take years. But I can assure you that as surely as people give up lust completely, so orientations can be changed.

Media Reporting and Justice - Just Witch-Hunting?

2010-02-25T19:39:00.000-06:00

At many stages of man's existence upon the earth there have been what we term "witch-hunts" against some particular type of crime, race or idea. Not only did the early Saints have to face this, but even in these latter-days such persecution has cost the lives of Latter-Day Saints (such as Joseph and Hyrum Smith).

Today much hysteria and witch-hunt logic exists relative to certain serious crimes. Such things as drug dealing and paedophilia can be used to create strong feelings of anger against proposed perpetrators. Such anger is used by Satan to distort truth and cause many innocent men (mostly men cop this) to suffer as a consequence.

I would like to quote the following media article. I would say that this article is far fairer than any other I have read on the subject. So I feel it the best to use for examination of the more subtle ways that people can be influenced. The report even gives some of the views of both sides. I have added the paragraph numbers for convenience.

******************************************************

Charges Dropped Against Man Accused of Sex Abuse
October 16th, 2007 @ 6:03pm
Sandra Yi and Andrew Adams Reporting

[1] On the day a man was supposed to go on trial for sexually abusing two young girls, prosecutors dropped the charges.

[2] Prosecutors didn't think they could convince a jury to convict.

[3] The girls' family expressed anger about the turn in the case, calling it an injustice. Michelle Galloway, a relative of the young girls, said, "These children have not been protected by the state of Utah, by the prosecutors."

[4] Galloway has a calendar that documents the time and place of each alleged sexual assault against the two little girls by 50-year-old Dan Kaighn. The girls' mother kept track of it. Galloway says, "This is imprinted in their minds and on their souls, so they will never forget entirely, and it has impacted every day of their lives."

[5] Prosecutors said the girls' stories became too vague when questioned by other attorneys; that's one reason they decided to drop the case.

[6] Randy Kennard, with the Utah County Attorney's Office, says, "I would be the last one to say that it is not possible these crimes didn't occur. But we have an ethical responsibility to not pursue charges unless we have a reasonable belief that we can succeed in a jury trial."

[7] The girls first told their mother they were being abused in 2002, but there wasn't enough evidence to pursue charges.

[8] Two years later, a second investigation led to Kaighn's arrest. The case dragged on in court for three years. The girls' relatives say that made it hard for the girls, who are now 7 and 8 years old, to remember all the details.

[9] Kaighn has always denied the allegations and passed two polygraph tests. Michael Esplin, Kaighn's attorney, said, "He's had trouble getting a job with allegations like this. His options are limited in terms of ... teaching is out."

[10] He says Kaighn is trying to get his life back. The girls' family says they have no choice but to try and move on too. Their focus now is to protect them and other children.

[11] Galloway says, "Unfortunately, we cannot trust what's beyond our reach, so we have to know where our children are, who they are with and what's happening to them."

[12] Kaighn, who was once a teacher, is now working as a waiter in another state.

[13] The girls' family has a protective order against him.

**********************************************************

You may feel this is a very unbiased report. But it is poorly written if we are to remain unbiased. The first paragraph can present that the accused is guilty. It states that the man was supposed to go on trial for sexually abusing two young girls. This later part presents an inference that the crime happened. Also the word "supposed" presents that he got away with something that should have occurred.

This would be better stated that there had been a desire to make a trial in regard claims that a man had sexually abused two young girls.

The second paragraph should state, "Prosecutors didn't feel there was enough evidence to prove that the crimes occurred."

The third paragraph suggests that the case had actually turned by this change in stance of the Lawyers. This makes the inference that things were going well before.

In the fourth paragraph we are informed that the mother and a relative kept a diary of the proposed abuse. Are we serious? What was the mother doing? Did she go along and watch the abuse and record it in her diary as it was happening? If so, she should be going to jail herself.

In this paragraph this relative is quoted as saying, "this is imprinted in their minds and on their souls..." Yet in the next paragraph it says, "Prosecutors said the girls' stories became too vague when questioned by other attorneys." And paragraph 8 states, "The girls' relatives say that made it hard for the girls, ... to remember all the details." This seems strange for acts that are supposedly "imprinted in their minds." Good sounding journalism, but what about unbiased reporting?

In paragraph 6 we have Randy Kennard quoted as saying that he has to admit that it isn't impossible for the man to be innocent, yet then claiming they don't feel confident that they can show that he is guilty. What rubbish! If there is insufficient evidence to prove the case how can he claim it merely isn't impossible that he is innocent? If there is so little evidence, how is he so convinced that he is guilty? I'm glad he's not my defence lawyer.

The next paragraph (7) presents the idea that the girls claims are true, in the way it is written.

Perhaps paragraph 8 may have been less biased had it pointed out that the jury obviously didn't find the girls testimonies as being consistent; else he would have been convicted. The jury obviously felt the stories may have been contrived.

Paragraph 11 has an interesting quote from Galloway, again. She says, "we have to know where our children are, who they are with and what's happening to them." This is a strange statement considering that the mother says she not only knew where they were but was recording the details.

The article both starts and ends with negatives toward the accused (paragraphs 1 and 13).

I rest my case.

One of the many problems with this type of reporting is that it incites vigilantes to go out and exact "Justice." I remember the situation of a man in jail of about 45. He was murdered by 2 young inmates who had concluded that he must have been a paedophile. There were some of such in that prison. But this man was in for drink driving. This is typical of Satan. He has persuaded them to murder this man who hadn't committed such a crime. We must be careful of what we accept as input. Trial by media is not a trial at all.

Under What Circumstances Should Children Not Obey Parents?

2010-02-10T21:17:00.000-06:00

In the Law given to Moses we have the 10 Commandments telling us (among other things) _

"Honour your father and your mother: that your days may be long in the land which the Lord your God gave you." Exodus 20:12

In addition to this Paul informs us _

"Children, obey your parents in the Lord: for this is right. Honour your father and mother; (which is the first commandment with promise)." Eph 6:1-2

Yet Christ states _

"Don't think that I came to send peace on earth: I didn't come to send peace, but a sword. For I came to set a man at variance against his father, the daughter against her mother... And a man's foes will be those of his own household." Matt 10:34-36

The Old Testament qualifies what honoring parents actually entails. Or at least it qualifies what it isn't. Cursing your parents or being an alcoholic and glutton, against the parents instructions, are cited as disobedience to this commandment. And the penalty for such was death (serious stuff)(Exod 21:17)(Deut 21:18-21).

But this is all that is stated in qualifying how the commandment was intended to be taken.

Paul's statement is a bit more to the point, by using the term "obey." Though he qualifies it by saying that the parents must be "in the Lord." And we may interpret Christ's statement to imply that the "variance" would be more likely to be with non-member parents. Thus they certain couldn't be said to be "in the Lord."

When Lamoni refused to obey his father's command to kill Ammon, Ammon didn't dispute Lamoni's right to disobey his parent's request (Alma 20:14-15).

Abraham chapter 1 implies that Abraham has disobeyed his father by refusing to turn to idol worship.

While these might seem obvious, it demonstrates that the idea of being obedient to parents has a lot of flexability within it; from a spiritual perspective, at least.

While both my mother and step-father are in the church, I wouldn't accept to have them tell me what to do in regard spiritual or temporal things. In fact sometimes they have advised me contrary to what the Spirit has advised. I will listen to their counsel. But then I would turn to the Spirit for understanding of what I should do. And we should be led of the Spirit if we wish to obtain eternal life (D&C 45:57, 42:61, 4th Article of Faith).

It should also be noted that in making his statement Paul uses the term "children." So what was a "child" to Paul?

Historic writings and the Bible seem to point to the age of 12 as the age of becoming an adult. Egyptians at the time of Ankenaten and Tutankamen were marrying at around 13. Such still occurs in many countries now. Christ's experience at the temple at 12 seems to be quoted as some kind of coming of age (though Luke mentioned that Jesus continued to honor the commandment at that point, and not just obey his Father [God])(Luke 2:51).

Moses talked of man being the head of the home in a marriage. Moses then states _

"Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave to his wife: And they shall be one flesh." (Gen 2:24)

So the woman has left her parent's authority and come under her husband's. And he has left his parents and has to govern his family himself. This seems to legally end the commandment to honor parents (not that there is anything wrong with giving ear to righteous parents thereafter).

We, therefore, would have to conclude that Paul's reference to "children" implied those unmarried. This makes sense when we consider that the word "woman" and the word "wife" are exactly the same word in both the Hebrew and Greek (demonstrating that marriage and womanhood go together).

Yet in our society people aren't marrying until later ages. People often don't get married until 20+. So Paul's advice becomes a little bit difficult, as we have young adults (particularly by Paul's standard of age) still at home with their parents.

Housework requires doing. All living under the same roof must do their share. And as the patriarch in the home this is for the father to delegate. Financial responsibility is placed upon the young person as they receive employment, to assist with living expenses in the home. And consideration should be given, by young people, to parents, to let them know where they are going and when they will be home: This is a common courtesy that even parents would be doing with each other.

But young people must be given freedom of religion and emotional expression, where such doesn't conflict with the rights of others, and those areas mentioned in the paragraph above.

In my experiences I have seen 2 sides to this problem of parents and their children relative to honoring parents. Firstly I have seen where children need holding back. And secondly I have seen where parents suppress their children, using this commandment to authorise their power to suppress.

This latter is where I re-emphasise my statement in the second last paragraph that freedom of religion (including all forms of religious expression) and emotion (including all forms of emotional expression) must be given, where such doesn't conflict with the rights of others.

Defending the Church

2010-02-03T02:32:00.000-06:00

Unfortunately money is to be made from writing material against churches _ "bash material". Though I could easily write such stuff myself, how could I ever face God after having done so (apart from the spiritual damage to myself)? Many who write these things do so in total ignorance, and are just out for the money. There are, however, some few (and I hope for their sake it's very few) who do it knowing the truth but deliberately blinding themselves to that testimony; for those we should feel saddened.

The first thing most writers of bash material attempt to do is to appear knowledgeable of the subject. This means quoting statistics about the church. Often these statistics are incredibly out of date, and one gets the feeling from reading on that the person has taken other bash material and just taken bits from each. Most of the bash material, that I have read against churches, has been written by seemingly ignorant people.

The next thing done in most cases is the writer praises certain aspects of the church, such as no smoking, or drinking of alcohol, the sports and youth programs, unpaid missionaries, the genealogical facilities, etc. The purpose in this is to make the writer sound as if they are without prejudice. This is often mingled with the first step in smaller or more direct publications. Some bash material will continue scattering this approach throughout the publication in order to remain sounding unprejudiced.

First Things To Look For

Having stated these techniques let's look at some generalisations about the material. Firstly you will find the arguments have more holes in them than Swiss cheese. The larger the material, the more the contradictions contained therein. A classic is the claim I have often read, that we don't believe in Jesus Christ. Yet the same material will go on to state that Joseph Smith claimed that God the Father and Jesus Christ appeared to him. Some will go on further to state that The Book of Mormon claims that this same person we supposedly don't believe in (that is Jesus Christ) visited the Americas. Any thinking person should be able to see from these latter two claims that (a.) We believe that He lived, (b.) That He still does, (c.) That He has power therefore over death, and, (d.) Is in special favour with The Father.

I have also seen claimed that Joseph Smiths' mother was a Gipsy, and that he was a gold digger. Yet the same publications will often go on to state that the family were on a farm at the time of the first vision. This is an unusual place for Gipsies and gold diggers. My encyclopaedia tells me that Gipsies did not arrive in North America till the late 1800's_ making her about 100 years before her time (though one could not expect the average reader to be aware of that).

If the writer has been a member of the church they will often exaggerate their involvement by quoting general authorities they've met as being "friends".

Innuendo and misrepresentation are what makes up almost the whole material in smaller publications. And/or it will go for the shock/scare approach.

Never be conned by the pamphlet or another person into adopting a point of view that it/they tell you Mormons have. To quote an example of this: While on my mission my companion and I had opportunity to bare our testimony before about a third of a minister's congregation. Before we started however, the minister butted in and said to them, "by the way they do this because they believe that this testimony will be brought up against you at the judgement". My companion then went on to bare his testimony in that attitude, instead of with love and concern. What the minister said was correct _ we do believe that the testimony will be brought against them in the judgement; but in most cases, testimony is given so that people may feel it's truth and be converted. If you do not like the way the church doctrine is defined, redefine it. If someone says, "Well that's what this material is saying," Then you say that once they are more familiar with Christ's' doctrine, that they will come to sense what is wrong with it, (assuming that you cannot define what is wrong with it).

The main way this problem arises is in the material's automatic assumption that you must defend every word stated anywhere, by any general authority. In fact some will quote statements they made before they even became one.

What Do You Really Need To Defend

In 1890, and in 1978 declarations were put before the general membership of the church, and were sustained as Scripture. Sections 137 and 138 of the Doctrine and Covenants have recently gone through the same process. These joined the rest of the Scriptures sustained by the general membership in our Standard Works, ie. The Bible, The Book of Mormon, The Doctrine and Covenants, and The Pearl of Great Price. As stated by President Harold B. Lee, "These are the standard by which we judge". He goes on further to state that any statement made that is not couched and supported by the standard works should only be regarded as opinion, regardless of the position of the man who said it. These statements do not mean that the prophet doesn't receive revelation. What it means is that you should not attempt to defend anything other than what you know to be accepted by the general church membership as Scripture ie. The Standard Works.

If you attempt to defend anything else, (1.) You are being unfair to the church membership; and (2.) You will come unstuck, as you find yourself trying to defend more and more obscure books, and by people who may not even have been general authorities (at all, or when they wrote them). You probably do not know the name of every general authority who's lived, and the people to whom you are speaking wouldn't either. I remember an instance when some members were listening to some bash material and circumstances had me there to defend the church. The person from another church said, "well Brigham Young said that his discourses are as good as Scripture". To which the Holy Ghost inspired me with the reply, "If I say something is as good as done, is it done or not?". The man said something about that not being much of an answer and quoted Brigham Young again, to which the Holy Ghost said to again give the same response. Don't be conned by someone into thinking your answer isn't satisfactory. The Standard Works are all you should, or need to defend, and you stick by that regardless of what they say, EVEN IF THE STATEMENT IS EASY TO DEFEND. If you defend one such statement, you have shifted ground. DON'T

Personal Preparation

The first thing to know is that there is an answer to every argument. Be assured of that. If you don't happen to know what it is don't be afraid to say, "well I don't know everything yet. I know there is an answer to your question, as the church is true, but I do not at this time know what it is". Let me add though that to date I have never had to say that, in my many experiences, and some going for 2-3 hours. This I mention for two reasons. Both of which are important to remember. (1.) That there truly is an answer to every argument against the church. And, (2.) That you should seek, and pray for the guidance of the Holy Ghost, in any spiritual endeavour. If you feel you have trouble getting things from the Holy Ghost, I would suggest reading Luke 11: 5 -13.

How much more would God give the Holy Spirit to one attempting to serve another?

Do not feel you have to have all the answers before you can answer claims against the church. However it would make your job a lot easier if you read the Standard Works you are attempting to defend. So an important part is regular personal Scripture study. Think about what you read so it becomes alive to you, and part of you _ you can see it's fulfilment around you; those who hate are not happy, those who love have the peace inside Christ promised, etc.

Plant firmly in your mind that you aren't there to argue your point with contention. The Holy Ghost will have difficulty communicating with you if you are contentious. If you find yourself feeling irate in a conversation of this nature recognise that you are probably irate at the ignorance, lies, and deceit. So put your interest in the person's personal welfare back firmly as first thought. Then the Holy Ghost will come to you as you're feeling love and concern.

Church History

This is the easiest area to deal with, yet some bash material only contains allegations about church leaders, and other notable (and sometimes some obscure, I should add) characters of church history. Many and varied are the allegations.

We have the claim that the three witnesses denied that they saw the gold plates. Yet we have witness that they did not.

A man was paid a large sum of money to go around and find people to sign affidavits against Joseph Smith. Some (at least) received money to sign them _ compensation for their time (though Joseph Smith obtained enough real enemies). Yet on the other hand we have witness of great people who highly praised him. The same goes for other church leaders. So the arguments are meaningless. Nothing can be resolved, or proven as there is as much for, as against. Neither side can prove the truth of either side of the testimonies. That stories, and testimonies exist against him would only stand as evidence that he was called of God, rather than the other way. We see evidence of this in the New Testament where the guards were bribed to claim that the apostles had come and taken the body of Jesus (Matt 28:12 -13). This evidence, from the guards, was used to make the apostles look like thieves, and liars. Verse 15 of that chapter states that the story against them stuck _ it did not go away. Today it would be the kind of thing put in bash pamphlets, and books. So while the stories and testimonies for and against church leaders, past and present, may leave us nowhere, these opposing testimonies do serve as a necessary sign in their favour. Jesus Christ clearly stated that all manner of evil would be said against His followers (eg. Matt 10:25). If you lived at the time of Christ what could you say in defence against these allegations against His apostles? So when faced with any allegations about Joseph Smith, Brigham Young, etc., regarding anything they supposedly did, you just say that the arguments are meaningless as nothing can be proven either for, or against. I found this out from experience. Even having answered all the arguments put to me against Brigham Young, and Joseph Smith, people would say, "Well your story of those events is different to those stated in this book." Therefore they were left unsure. So the best thing is to just tell them why it is a meaningless discussion and suggest that your discussion should turn to something where things can be resolved by someone earnestly seeking the truth.

The most important tool you need for such conversations is the Holy Ghost. Having him there you will be able to answer anything.

Does the Bible Teach a Pre-existence of Our Spirit?

2010-01-15T19:49:00.000-06:00

Protestantism and Catholicism teach that we came into existence, as a being, somewhere between conception and birth. They conclude that our inner being is an invention by God.

In support of this claim they will quote Gen 2:7 _

"And the Lord God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul."

They claim that the word "soul" must mean our inner being. However a look at Gen 19:19-20 brings this into doubt. Here we have Lot being told to flee before the destruction of the whole area and all cities within. Lot says _

"Look now, your servant [me] has found grace in your sight, and you have magnified your mercy, which you have shown to me in saving my life; and I cannot escape to the mountain, in case some evil takes me, and I die: Look now, this city is near for me to flee to, and it is a little one: Oh, let me escape there, (isn't it only a little one?) and my soul shall live."

So lot has been worried that he would be killed if going to the mountain. And requests refuge in a small city so his SOUL shall live. Obviously he's saying his soul includes his body. Therefore the quote in Gen 2:7 can't be used to claim the invention of our inner being, but only the beginning of a living human: One that dies at death.

Also note that Abraham asked Sarah, his wife, to say she was his sister so that he wouldn't be killed when they went to Egypt _

"Say, I pray you, that you are my sister: so that it may be well with me for your sake; and my soul shall live because of you."

This is also pointing out that the soul would die if he were killed. Yet our inner being goes on after death. So only we as a human being have come into existence between conception and birth, not our spirit.

Looking at the Bible, then, what does it say in regard to when we, as an entity, began to exist?

I've not found the Bible giving us an answer on that. But it does state that we existed before coming here. There are several texts that clearly demonstrate that man existed before. So often quoted we see the one in Jeremiah.

"Before I formed you in the belly I knew you, and before you came forth out of the womb I sanctified you, and I ordained you a prophet to the nations." Jer 1:5

Now note that it doesn't say that God knew OF him before he was formed in the belly, but that he KNEW him. He also states that Jeremiah had actually had an ordination before this. And also sanctified. - Hard to ordain a non-existence.

It should be pointed out in looking at this subject that we shouldn't be coming to the subject with the doctrine that we didn't exist before, and then having to show great demonstration that we did. We should be coming to the subject with an open and inquiring mind to find out what the Bible actually teaches concerning this subject: When did we come into existence according to the Bible.

"For whom he did foreknow, he also did predestinate to be conformed to the image of his Son, that he might be the firstborn among many brethren." Rom 8:29

Again here we are informed that God knew people before they were born. Now why bother to say such a thing if we didn't exist then? And note, once more he hasn't stated that he knew of them, but that he knew them.

"And that he might make known the riches of his glory on the vessels of mercy, which he had afore prepared to glory. Even us..." Rom 9:23-24

Here he has stated that before coming here he had in some way PREPARED us for glory. A difficult thing to do if we didn't exist.

But these texts are just the warm-ups. This next statement of the disciples leaves no doubt that they believed in a pre-existence of our spirit. And Christ made no dispute of the doctrine.

"And his disciples asked him, saying, master, who did sin, this man, or his parents, that he was born blind?" John 9:2

How can a man sin before being born, unless he existed before, to sin?

Remember that if you come to this subject looking for endless Biblical evidence to prove a point you will hardly ever find any truth. It isn't a question of whether we can invent some other meaning for a statement. We must examine this from the question of whether the Bible presents that man existed before or was invented at birth. And what support is there for either idea. And in this regard the Bible strongly comes out in favor of our spirits existing before birth.

"In hope of eternal life, which God, that cannot lie, promised before the world began." Titus 1:2

To whom did God promise this eternal life, before the world began? If there was no person who could gain eternal life in existence before the world began, who was he promising it to?

There are other texts which could be used. But these are obvious ones that set forth the truth to anyone who is actually interested in God's opinion, rather than traditions of men.

There are those people who have remembered back to parts of their pre-existence. I have had some experiences of this myself.

Do the Scriptures say that 50% of church members gain Eternal Life?

2009-12-25T21:38:00.000-06:00

A doctrine has become widely spread throughout the church, quoting some verses to present that half the church will gain Eternal Life. The support for this is almost entirely derived from parables. So let's examine the arguments for and against.

Supporting the 50% Concept

Matthew Chapter 12:1-12 States _ "Then shall the kingdom of heaven be likened to ten virgins, that took their lamps, and went forward to meet the bridegroom. And five of them were wise, and five were foolish. They that were foolish took their lamps, and took no oil with them: But the wise took oil in their vessels with their lamps. While the bridegroom tarried, they all slumbered and slept. And at midnight there was a cry made, Look, the bridegroom is coming; go you out to meet him. Then all those virgins arose, and trimmed their lamps. And the foolish said to the wise, Give us of your oil; for our lamps are gone out. But the wise answered, saying, Not so; in case there is not enough for us and you: but you go instead to them that sell, and buy for yourselves. And while they went to buy, the bridegroom came; and they that were ready went in with him to the marriage: and the door was shut. Afterward came also the other virgins, saying, Lord, Lord, open to us. But he answered and said, surely I say to you, I don't know you."

There is also quotes of a just as opposed to an unjust steward, wheat and tares growing together etc. But are these statistical figures or just opposites Christ used? Was half just an obvious choice for this parable of virgins. The other parables showing opposites say nothing of 50% at all and therefore aren't worth quoting here.

Matthew 24:38-42 says _ "For as in the days that were before the flood they were eating and drinking, marrying and giving in marriage, until the day that Noe entered into the ark, And knew not until the flood came, and took them all away; so shall also the coming of the Son of man be. Then shall two be in the field; the one shall be taken, and the other left. Two women shall be grinding at the mill; the one shall be taken, and the other left. Watch therefore: for ye know not what hour your Lord doth come."

Again the question arises as to whether we should take this figure used by Christ as more than merely suggesting that some will be taken in the resurrection and some won't?

Opposing the 50% Concept

If we are to use the parable of the ten virgins as statistics it would pose some serious problems. Let's examine another parable Christ taught.

Matthew 25:14-30 states _ " For the kingdom of heaven is as a man travelling into a far country, who called his own servants, and delivered to them his goods. And to one he gave five talents, to another two, and to another one; to every man according to his several ability; and straight away took his journey. Then he that had received the five talents went and traded with the same, and made them another five talents. And likewise he that had received two, he also gained another two. But he that had received one went and digged in the earth, and hid his lord's money. After a long time the lord of those servants came, and took account with them. And so he that had received five talents came and brought another five talents, saying, Lord, you delivered to me five talents: look, I have gained, beside them, five talents more. His lord said to him, Well done, you good and faithful servant: you have been faithful over a few things, I will make you ruler over many things: you enter into the joy of your lord. He also that had received two talents came and said, Lord, you delivered to me two talents: look, I have gained two other talents beside them. His lord said to him, Well done, good and faithful servant; you have been faithful over a few things, I will make you ruler over many things: you enter into the joy of your lord. Then he which had received the one talent came and said, Lord, I knew you that you are a hard man, reaping where you have not sown, and gathering where you have not strawed: And I was afraid, and went and hid your talent in the earth: so, there you have what is yours. His lord answered and said to him, you wicked and slothful servant, you knew that I reap where I didn't sow, and gather where I have not strawed: You should therefore to have put my money to the exchangers, and then at my coming I should have received mine own with usury. Take therefore the talent from him, and give it to him which has ten talents. For to every one that has shall be given, and he shall have abundance: but from him that has not shall be taken away even that which he has. And cast you the unprofitable servant into outer darkness: there shall be weeping and gnashing of teeth."

This parable was given straight after the one of ten virgins. But it has 3 stewards with 2 gaining more and only one being sent to outer darkness. So should we conclude that Christ had changed his mind and decided that 66.6% of the church would make it instead? These are just convenient figures used in parables not statistics.

We have the parable of the merchant who went and sold all he had for the pearl. Should we then conclude that Christ meant 100% of the church would make it? I could go on with how silly this would be from the parables point of view. But what other Scriptures refute this?

"Look, there are many called, but few are chosen…" D&C 121:34

So many are called to positions of responsibility within the priesthood, but FEW will actually measure up to the responsibility. While still in this same discussion (it ends in verse 40) we are informed that "almost all men" given such authority will fail to measure up (verse 39). Therefore few priesthood leaders would be among the 50%. And considering that this 50% that are righteous would have to consist of almost no men (as the converse of "almost all men"), sensibly we would have to conclude that the 50% would almost entirely be women. Thus making almost 100% of the women in the church making it (sounds great for the women).

"Many will say to me in that day, Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in your name? And in your name have cast out devils? And in your name done many wonderful works? And then will I profess to them, I never knew you: depart form me, you that work iniquity." Matt 7:22-23

So what percentage of the church members have cast out devils, prophesied and done many wonderful works?

50%????

It would be my opinion that far more than 50% of church members would deem themselves unable to perform these tasks. Yet Christ says that many, even having done so, won’t enter into the kingdom of heaven.

Intelligence = Academia (learning in schools)?

2009-12-07T17:12:00.000-06:00

I often hear it quoted that "the glory of God is intelligence, or, in other words, light and truth" (D&C 93:36).

This is immediately related, by the speaker, to education. It is claimed that if we go and do academic studies at a state or private learning institution, our intelligence will increase. Yet that interpretation detracts from the real message being delivered there in D&C 93. If our education facilities were teaching just truth, that would even then only have slight relevance. The truth and light referred to in this section are spiritual truths that will cause a person not to sin.

The verses following the one above say, [verses 37-39] "Light and truth forsake that evil one. Every spirit of man was innocent in the beginning; and God having redeemed man from the fall, men became again, in their infant state, innocent before God. And that wicked one comes and takes away light and truth, through disobedience, from the children of men, and because of the tradition of their fathers."

This doesn't seem to refer to our ability to add and subtract.

Intelligence is increased, not by going to school, but by accepting spiritual truth and obeying it (as is demonstrated as the obvious converse of the scripture text quoted above).

It seems to me that our level of intelligence is demonstrated by our ability to take in correct information, recognise and reject false information, and then the right application of that correct information.

Therefore the school where intelligence is achieved, is where we listen to and follow Heavenly Father, Jesus Christ and the Holy Ghost, as instructors.

We are BOTH Predestined and Foreordination - There isn't a conflict

2009-11-16T19:52:00.000-06:00

On my mission I had the experience where my companion was in debate with a Protestant on this issue. My companion was strongly arguing that we aren't predestined, but foreordained. The Protestant was strongly contending that the Bible was right and we are predestined. In listening to them they were both saying the same thing, but insisting on different words. So in looking at this subject it is important to look at what we are talking about, rather than being pedantic about words.

There are those that have incorrect ideas on what predestination actually means in Scripture. So often I have heard the statement within the church that we aren't predestined, but are foreordained. Yet what is it that has caused this to become an issue?

One of the doctrines of the religious reformer, Calvin, is a doctrine referred to as "unconditional election." This doctrine espouses that God made some people whom he will make do the right thing: That they have no free choice.

Some people expand this to make it that ALL people have been selected by God to either go to heaven or hell: That in all things we do we have no real choice and that God preset that we would do those things. Paul's statements in regard predestination are the source of this doctrine.

In regard this the Wikipedia states _

"The doctrine does not hold that every influence of God's Holy Spirit cannot be resisted, but that the Holy Spirit is able to overcome all resistance and make his influence irresistible and effective. Thus, when God sovereignly purposes to save someone, that individual certainly will be saved."

To battle this false doctrine it has been presented that it must be a false translation. Yet the word from which it is translated is a compilation of two words that mean "before" and "limiting the bounds." So the word comes to a meaning of a preset limit of bounds - predestined.

Looking at one such Scripture we have _

"According as he has chosen us in him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and without blame before him in love: Having predestinated us to the adoption of children by Jesus Christ to himself, according to the good pleasure of his will." Eph 1:4-5

Those in favor of "unconditional election" interpret this to mean that God has felt pleased to randomly choose these people and save them. Yet our understanding of the pre-existence makes this clear. God is pleased that 1. He can save them because of Christ's atonement. And 2. He is glad because he knew they would be righteous. As that was the type of spirits they were "before the foundation of the world."

However confusion still exists as there is question on how a person can be both predestined, yet have choice?

There are 2 levels on which we are predestined. The first is that God knew what type of person we were and would therefore become. The second relates to the time-eternity factor and is more likely to be what Paul is referring to.

Tomorrow I will get out of bed at a certain time. What that time is I don't presently know. Yet if I could see in eternity (as God does) that would be answered. A deeper point in this regard is that there is only one time I will get out of bed tomorrow. So even though I have a choice in when I get out of bed, I am destined to get out of bed at that time: There is no other time I will get out of bed tomorrow - choice or no choice.

God has shown the future to many righteous people. Moroni said that he had seen us _

"Behold, I speak to you as if you were present, and yet you are not. But see, Jesus Christ has shown you to me, and I know your doing." Mormon 8:35

So what he saw us doing we will do. Not because we have to, but because that is what we will choose.

God worked out the best things for us to do for our individual growth. And he put us in a place and circumstance where we would have those things (AS BEST AS IS AVAILABLE). In doing this he knew what opportunities we would develop with and those we'd fail with. Yet in all this, these are our choices.

Paul's statement doesn't propose that those he is speaking to were there by luck.

"For whom he did foreknow, he also did predestinate to be conformed to the image of his Son, that he might be the firstborn among many brethren. Moreover whom he did predestinate, them he also called: and whom he called, them he also justified: and whom he justified, them he also glorified." Rom 8:29-30

If this were merely a foreordination spoken of here (from which some could fail) how could he have them all "glorified"?

Obviously this is proposing that ALL those who had a knowing relationship with God before coming here WILL live so as that they will be glorified. Yet this is done by their choices.

Could Jesus have chosen to sin? Yes. But did he? No. Was this foreknown? Yes. Was it his destiny, therefore, not to sin? Yes. Was it by his choice that he didn't? Yes. - Foreordained yet predestined.

Does the Church Teach that we should be Right Wing? - A bit of Humour

2009-11-09T20:27:00.001-06:00

I thought I'd break away from my usual heavy stuff and put out a bit of offbeat fluff.

The church is generally considered to be somewhat right wing by its conservative approach to life: That old fashioned ideas shouldn't be discarded. But does the church tend to mind-wash us to support right wing political parties?

Suspicion does arise when we look at such things as CTR rings etc. - Choose the left? No, Choose the RIGHT!

And what does the hymn say? "Choose the RIGHT when a choice is placed before you." Could this be suggesting what to choose at the polling booth? This brings grave concerns of buried inference.

We have the statement that it is those on Christ's RIGHT-hand side that will be caught up into heaven. And those on the LEFT...well... Very suspicious, indeed.

As I sit there singing "God Speed the Right," I find myself pondering further.

And when Jacob blessed Ephraim and Manasseh, what was it that indicated that Ephraim got the greater blessing? - Jacob placed his RIGHT hand on to Ephraim.

What of the Psalm that says, "Hear the right, O LORD.."? Is this suggesting that God doesn't listen to left wing people?

Then next I find I'm singing "do what is RIGHT let the consequence follow." Hmmm????

Yet there is hope for the left wing. Christ said that he would like to take those in Jerusalem and protect them as a hen gathers her chicks under her wings. Note it says "wings" plural. So this would seem to suggest that even lefties have a chance, after all.

Is it True that it Doesn't Matter what Day of the week you Observe as a Sabbath?

2009-10-26T21:30:00.000-05:00

Many of the Scriptures I have used in discussing the Saturday and Sunday arguements (in previous posts) could be used here. But I'll refrain from using most of them as I have presented this argument to some degree in refuting the other 2 arguments. However some will be used.

Exo 20:9-10 "Six days shall you labour, and do all your work: But the seventh day is the Sabbath of the LORD your God: in it you shall not do any work, you, nor your son, nor your daughter, your manservant, nor your maidservant, nor your cattle, nor your stranger that is within your gates"

This states that 6 days (it doesn't state which 6 days) you should do any work you need to do. And then on the seventh you should rest from such physical labours and honour as a Sabbath day (again, no mention of it being compulsory to select a specific day of the week to do this on).

Another argument is that if God were fussy about which actual day of the week was to be observed why didn't he make it clear, like all the other commandments. God has gone to great lengths to explain which foods were not to be eaten. He went to great lengths to explain priestly duties. He went into so much detail as to how to treat lepers. The tabernacle specifics go on and on. He has explained the different penalties for murder depending. He has explained in detail who not to marry in the family. And I could go on. So are we to believe that he made such a serious oversight as to not make it plain which day he was insistent that we have our Sabbath on?

Along with this comes the question that if it was a particular day of the week that had to be observed or else, why didn't he make some sign turn up on that day each week so there would be no confusion? That way no one would have an excuse to confuse it. And that way all would know what he wanted them to do. He could have made it that the sky goes purple once a week through some strange phenomenon.

The next point is, did God rest on a Saturday? This would be pure speculation to conclude that we know he did. Our sun (from which we draw our night and day periods) wasn't even created until the fourth day of creation (Genesis 1:16-19). The scriptures tell us that a day with God is as a thousand years (2 Peter 3:8, and this is demonstrated in the days mentioned in some revelations which took that many thousand years to occur). So if this applies here then he rested for a thousand years which included every day of the week.

The next point in this same vein is, "which day was even observed by Israel initially" (when the law was received by Moses)? Again we have no scriptural support for any specific day. But one thing bears keeping in mind if anyone claims they know for sure that it was a specific day; Israel spent many years in captivity through worshipping idols, and left the following of God many times anyway. Are we to believe that on all these occasions they even considered to begin holding their sabbath day on the day of the week they used to observe, when they finally returned to worshipping God? They would naturally work six days and rest on the seventh, as commanded, from that day (whatever day it was).

In Summary

Nowhere in scripture is anyone commanded to observe any specific day of the week. There is no certainty whatsoever as to what day God rested on after creation. There is no certainty what day Moses originally got Isreal to rest on. There is no foundation for a debate on what day of the week God insists on us having as a Sabbath. God has made no such insistence. This is the leaven of the Pharisees Christ warned against: Doctrine invented by man. It is trying to strain at a gnat while swallowing a camel. What matters is how you observe your Sabbath day, not when. Don't get sucked into believing such things to be doctrines of God.

Must a Sabbath be held on Sunday?

2009-10-08T20:43:00.001-05:00

This follows on from the last post which was about the Sabbath and Saturday. So you may wish to read that first.

When the church was restored in 1830 it was common practice to hold a Sabbath day on Sunday. Shops closed on Sunday and there was no work available. Consequently it was obvious that Sunday was the perfect day for holding Sabbath meetings and practicing the Sabbath commandment.

Yet some hold that God is insistent on the Sabbath being practiced on this particular day of the week. ie that we couldn't hold it on some other day if we were in a Moslem country (for example).

Let's look at some of the scripture quotes they use to support this idea.

"The first day of the week cometh Mary Magdalene early, when it was yet dark, to the sepulchre, and saw the stone taken away from the sepulchre." & "Then the same day at evening, being the first day of the week, when the doors were shut where the disciples were assembled for fear of the Jews, came Jesus and stood in the midst, and said to them, Peace to you." & "And after eight days again his disciples were within, and Thomas with them: then came Jesus, the doors being shut, and stood among them, and said, Peace be to you." Jn 20:1&19&26

Here it is proposed that the apostles began to worship on the first day of the week (Sunday) because Christ was resurrected on that day in acceptance of a new sabbath. It appears to be true that Christ was resurrected on a Sunday. But to say that was to show respect to the day would need to be shown in Scripture, not just proposed. It says the apostles were gathered together on Sunday but doesn't present that this was necessarily a religious service (and considering they weren't even aware of his resurrection at this point they couldn't be honouring Sunday because of it). Then it says EIGHT days later they were together again. Some use the twist of concepts used in regard the 3 days and 3 nights Christ was in the earth to say they must have been counting the day they were in and the day they had been in. However this not only has no evidence, but, as I have shown before, is incorrect. As surely as Christ spent 3 days and 3 NIGHTS in the tomb so these occurrences are 8 days apart. So this would make Monday the new day of worship (if we were to believe such).

"And on the first day of the week, when the disciples came together to break bread, Paul preached to them, ready to depart the next day; and continued his speech until midnight." Act 20:7

Clearly here they are together on a Sunday having a service of some sort. But does this mean they hadn't just observed the Jewish Sabbath and Paul done his usual of debating with them out of the Scriputes on Saturday? The next text poses some extra questions in this regard and so I will quote this and discuss them together.

"Now concerning the collection for the saints, as I have given order to the churches of Galatia, you do the same. On the first day of the week let every one of you lay by him in store, as God has prospered him, that there be no gatherings when I come." I Cor 16:1-2

What "gatherings" are referred to here? Obviously he's not saying not to have any church gatherings when he comes. So he is speaking of gathering the collections of whatever for the saints (church members) of things that he doesn't want collected when he gets there. The collections are obviously involved. Could I propose collecting food, clothing, furniture etc would be the things he wouldn't want people involved in when he arrived to preach to them. Is this work the sort of thing for people to be involved in on a Sabbath? I'll leave you to answer that one, but plainly there was a tendency for them to see the first day of the week as a day to attend to things not done while at synagogues preaching on Saturday. But neither of these demonstrate that God insists on Sunday as a new Sabbath. Surely if this were a new day or commandment he would have made it clear?

"I was in the Spirit on the Lord's day, and heard behind me a great voice, as of a trumpet" Revelation 1:10

Yep, that's right, this was also used by those claiming Saturday is the day God insists on. The Sunday supporters claim this to be a new day Christ was instituting called "the Lord's day" to replace the Sabbath day. This text doesn't say what day this "Lord's day" even is. So the argument has no foundation.

The final argument against Saturday worth mentioning (as stated before statements of darkness being evil etc as a claim for SUNday worship will be ignored as nonsense for the ignorant) is to point out that the Sabbath command is not repeated in the New Testament.

Yet this wouldn't support the idea that Sunday is some new day, even if we were to accept it had some significant message. There is no statement that categorically declares that no one should now live a Sabbath day or that it can't be practiced on a Saturday, if you wish to, and must be practiced on Sunday.

As Sunday is a day that some still close their businesses on it is only logical to continue observing the Sabbath on Sunday. But to make it a commandment that we must make it a Sunday isn't supported in Scripture, in my opinion.

Should we observe the Sabbath on Saturday?

2009-09-24T20:12:00.003-05:00

I have heard much debate over what day of the week God insists we observe as a Sabbath. This isn't a new debate but existed after the church had lost revelatory direction (ie no one was worthy of revelation from God any more). At least three concepts emerged during this time, and still are debated today. This subject may seem very confusing, so I hope the following will clear this up for you. Even though what I'm about to present is involved I will endeavour to make it simple at the time of conclusion. These three arguments are 1. That we must have a Sabbath day on Saturday. 2. That we must have a Sabbath day on Sunday. 3. That it doesn't matter what day you observe it on, as long as you have one.

This particular post will only be examining the concept of whether we should be holding our Sabbath days on Saturday. I will get to the rest in further posts.

Talk about people being sun worshippers because they worship on Sunday and other such superstitious nonsense will be avoided: Using such logic I would therefore have to conclude a person worshipping on Saturday to be a Saturn worshipper - as Saturday is named after Saturn. Also the claim that the sun is symbolic of the light of the gospel and so worshipping on Sunday brings us out of spiritual darkness is an argument to the ignorant. So I will be sticking to logical arguments from Scripture only.

Let's look at the Scriptures quoted by those trying to prove that you MUST worship on Saturday.

"Thus the heavens and the earth were finished, and all the host of them. And on the seventh day God ended his work which he had made; and he rested on the seventh day from all his work which he had made. And God blessed the seventh day, and sanctified it: because that in it he had rested from all his work which God created and made." Genesis 2:1-3

This is quoted to point out that God has had a Sabbath, and to propose that because the Jews honoured the Sabbath on Saturday at the time of Christ, it must have been a Saturday that God honoured at the creation. I will come back to examining this claim when the other scriptures have been presented.

"In the end of the Sabbath, as it began to dawn toward the first day of the week, came Mary Magdalene and the other Mary to see the sepulchre." Mark 16:1-2&9 "And when the Sabbath was past, Mary Magdalene, and Mary the mother of James, and Salome, had bought sweet spices, that they might come and anoint him. And very early in the morning the first day of the week, they came unto the sepulchre at the rising of the sun." & "Now when Jesus was risen early the first day of the week, he appeared first to Mary Magdalene, out of whom he had cast seven devils." Luke 23:54-56 "And that day was the preparation, and the Sabbath drew on. And the women also, which came with him from Galilee, followed after, and beheld the sepulchre, and how his body was laid. And they returned, and prepared spices and ointments; and rested the Sabbath day according to the commandment." Matthew 28:1

These are quoted to suggest that Christ rested on the Sabbath day, which at this time was a Saturday. However, firstly, Saturday was the day that they were holding their Sabbath. Therefore even if this was a demonstration of a Sabbath rest, it doesn't hold that he would not have rested on Thursday (for example) had the Jews observed that day. The rest of this interpretation could only be the case if there is no doubt that A. Christ stayed in the tomb, and actually did rest: B. That he only spent the Sabbath (one day) in the tomb: and C. That he stayed in the tomb to demonstrate a Sabbath rest. However all of these are questionable. A. I Peter 3:18-19 suggests that when put to death Christ's spirit went and preached to spirits. B. It is proposed that when Christ said he would spend three days in the earth that he must have meant Friday night, Saturday and the night, and the beginning of Sunday. But is this true? In Matthew 12:40 Christ said, "For as Jonas was three days and three NIGHTS in the whale's belly; so shall the Son of man be three days and three NIGHTS in the heart of the earth." This means all Thursday, all Friday and then all Saturday. Then to rise on Sunday morning. Confusion arises because the Scriptures talk of the body needing to be quickly buried because of the coming Sabbath. But the coming Sabbath spoken of wasn't the weekly Sabbath (in the law of Moses there were several Sabbaths, not just the weekly one). That year there was another Sabbath due on Thursday. So he was crucified on Wednesday and quickly buried to be "in the heart of the earth" for the three days and nights and arose Saturday night to be already risen when the women came to the tomb Sunday morning. C. Neither Christ, any of the apostles with him nor Paul (ie the New Testament) ever claimed Christ stayed in the tomb to demonstrate a Sabbath rest. Which they would have done had it been a point Christ wished to demonstrate.

Luke 4:16 states regarding Christ, "And he came to Nazareth, where he had been brought up: and, as his custom was, he went into the synagogue on the Sabbath day, and stood up to read."

This is presented to show that Christ had a custom of going into synagogues on the Sabbath day (a Saturday at this time). Two points stand out regarding this. Firstly he spent 40 days in the wilderness (Matthew 4:1-2) not going to the synagogue on a Saturday. Secondly he obviously would obey the Law of Moses and observe the Sabbath on the Saturday they were observing it on. This, again, doesn't prove that a Sabbath must be held on Saturday.

Revelation 1:10 "I was in the Spirit on the Lord's day, and heard behind me a great voice, as of a trumpet." Along with this is quoted Ephesians 3:9 "And to make all men see what is the fellowship of the mystery, which from the beginning of the world hath been hid in God, who created all things by Jesus Christ."

It is stated that the Lord made the Sabbath in the beginning (during creation). Then this Sabbath is associated with this quote of the Lord's day (saying it must be the same day). Then it is proposed that because Saturday was the Sabbath at the time of Christ and the Lord made the Sabbath originally, that this Lord's day is a Saturday. This is pure supposition however. I should briefly point out here that there isn't even any evidence that the original Sabbath was a Saturday (as this claims).

"For the Son of man is Lord even of the Sabbath day." Matthew 12:8

This is quoted to present the idea that Christ ("the Son of Man") is here accepting the Sabbath (Saturday) as important and his. However when we look at what he is talking about we find very differently. Verse 1 of this chapter has stated, "At that time Jesus went on the Sabbath day through the corn; and his disciples were hungry, and began to pluck the ears of corn, and to eat." Christ then mentions to the Pharisees (who were accusing him of letting his apostles break the Sabbath) of people breaking the law where necessary, to justify his apostles breaking the Sabbath commandment. An example being verse 5, "Or haven't you read in the law, how that on the Sabbath days the priests in the temple profane the Sabbath, and are blameless?" So in verse 8 he is stating his ability to ignore the Sabbath, as its Lord.

"But the seventh day is the Sabbath of the LORD your God: in it you shall not do any work, you, nor your son, nor your daughter, your manservant, nor your maidservant, nor your cattle, nor your stranger that is within your gates" Exo 20:10

No one denies the existence of the Sabbath commandment in the law. But this states nothing about this day being observed on a Saturday. Nor do any Old Testament books claim that Saturday was the day they observed, at the time Moses gave the law to them.

"But pray you that your flight be not in the winter, neither on the Sabbath day" Matt 24:20

This is used to present that the Sabbath was still observed after Christ (as this was presented regarding the future - particularly just before Christ's coming). It is then proposed that this Sabbath must be the Saturday then observed. We would have to ask, though, why would people be worried about fleeing on a Saturday (these days) when they aren't even observing a Sabbath on Saturday? There are more people observing other days as Sabbaths in Jerusalem today. Then there is the point that we still don't have a statement here that Saturday is the day this Sabbath would be on. On top of that we have no statement that Saturday is the day it has to be on. So it's still all speculation and unstated inference (ie no statement of Saturday at all).

"For as the new heavens and the new earth, which I will make, shall remain before me, says the LORD, so shall your seed and your name remain. And it shall come to pass, that from one new moon to another, and from one Sabbath to another, shall all flesh come to worship before me, says the LORD." Isaiah 66:22-23

This speaks in future tense and mentions the observance of Sabbaths. It should be noted, on the other hand though, that it also mentions new moons (an observance of the Law of Moses not practiced today). So it is questionable whether this pertains to a time after Christ (remembering this was written around 700 years before his birth). All that aside, we again have nothing about a Sabbath being on Saturday (the object of the claim).

"And he said to them, The Sabbath was made for man, and not man for the Sabbath" Mark 2:27-28

What is Christ presenting here? He was answering those who were complaining because of him healing on the Sabbath. He has stated that the Sabbath was made to serve man, not man being made to serve the Sabbath. In other words people are more important than the Sabbath day. Should we then believe that this same Christ will send people to hell for holding their Sabbath on some specific day of the week?

"And Adam said, This is now bone of my bones, and flesh of my flesh: she shall be called Woman, because she was taken out of Man. Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave to his wife: and they shall be one flesh." Gen 2:23-24

With this it is stated that as God hasn't changed this law of marriage given just after the creation neither has he changed his Sabbath given at this time also. And therefore he wouldn't change the day. But we know that God has given different laws to different people depending on their readiness to observe them. Hebrews 3:16-4:2 tells us that the people that Moses lead out of Egypt had the gospel of Christ preached to them, but they rejected it. Thus God gave them what is termed "the Law of Moses". Sacrifices also became unnecessary with Christ having come and demonstrating their point. So God has changed laws given. And therefore why would I believe that something as simple as what day of a week something is done on, could not easily be changed - if we are to believe that was originally a Saturday anyway?

"And when the Jews were gone out of the synagogue, the Gentiles besought that these words might be preached to them the next Sabbath." & "And the next Sabbath day came almost the whole city together to hear the word of God." Act 13:42&44

Here we have Paul and Barnabas attending a Jewish synagogue. But did they attend it to honour the Sabbath day on Saturday or did they attend to preach to the Jews there? Some may argue, "both". This isn't stated either way. But two things come to mind. Firstly Acts 21:24&26 has Paul going into the temple and purifying himself ready to do sacrifices. These things were no longer necessary observances. Yet Paul did them so that it could not be said that he had no respect for the law (verse 24). Attendance at a synagogue would say exactly the same. Secondly he not only preached to the Jews there, but the Gentiles showed interest also. Where could he find a better audience to preach to? So to claim that their purpose in going to the synagogue was to worship God on Saturday is a guess at best. Whatever we believe it would be purposeless to go on another day, because Saturday is the day that people would be there for a service.

"And Paul, as his manner was, went in to them, and three Sabbath days reasoned with them out of the Scriptures." Acts 17:2

This isn't saying anything different, but just mentions that going into synagogues and reasoning with them was his "manner" (something he did). In fact it points more to the idea that he was there for that specific purpose rather than to honor Saturday.

In summary of this subject the only reasonably provable argument is that Christ was brought up going on Saturday and didn't say anything in objection to the day of the week he was observing. Yet this argument can only have possible merit if we are to believe that God now insists that we practice it on some other day of the week (such as Sunday) instead - thus making the particular day observed an issue.

This idea seems to be an example of where Christ warned to beware of the leaven (added ideas) of the Pharisees.

I'll come to the Sunday only concept next.

An Examination of Hebrews Chapter 7

2009-09-14T21:16:00.000-05:00

1 "This Melchizedek was King of Salem and priest of the God Most High. He met Abraham returning from the defeat of the kings and blessed him,"
2 "To whom also Abraham gave him a tenth of everything. First, his name means 'King of righteousness'; then also, 'King of Salem' meaning 'King of peace.'"

Some confusion arises here by the term "King of peace." Some wonder if this is Christ being spoken of. Yet Christ is referred to as the "Prince of Peace' not "King of Peace." I would interpret this as saying that the word "Salem" means "peace."

This confusion continues into the next verse.

3 "Without father, without mother, without genealogy, without beginning of days or end of life, like the Son of God he remains a priest forever."

Some ask whether this refers to Christ? But the answer to this is answered simply.

We have 3 statements _

(a). "Without father." Is this true that Christ was "without father?"

Matt 16:16 answers this question - "And Simon Peter answered and said, You are the Christ, the Son of the living God." Also refer Matt 14:33, 8:29 and 26:63

(b). "Without mother." Was Christ "without mother?"

Matt 1:18 answers this question - "Now the birth of Jesus Christ was on this wise: When as his mother Mary...." Also refer Matt 1:23 & 25, 2:11 & 13, Luke 1:30-31

(c). "Without genealogy."

Matt 1:1 "The book of the generations of Jesus Christ, the son of David, the son of Abraham." Also refer Matt 21:9, Isa 11:1 and Jer 23:5

As a spirit Christ was also the Son of God.

"Who is the image of the invisible God, the firsborn of every creature."

Also the text states in regard Melchizedek that LIKE the Son of God he remains a priest forever. So this doesn't come over as if he is speaking of Melchizedek as the Son of God.

The text states that the Melchizedek priesthood remains with people who are given it forever. As it is eternal it seems logical to conclude that this reference is to the priesthood itself, and that the holder maintains it continuously as it has no beginning or end.

4 "Just think how great he was: Even the patriarch Abraham gave him a tenth of the plunder!"

This makes reference to the greatness of Melchizedek.

5 "Now the law requires the descendants of Levi who become priests to collect a tenth from the people--that is, their brothers--even though their brothers are descended from Abraham."

Only those of the tribe of Levi could become priests (whether Aaronic or Levitical priesthood). Aaron was also of the tribe of Levi (he and Moses were great grandchildren of Levi). And as the other tribes of Israel were also children of Jacob (Israel) and he was the grandson of Abraham, all tribes of Israel are brothers.

6 "This man, however, did not trace his descent from Levi, yet he collected a tenth from Abraham and blessed him who had the promises."
7 "And without doubt the lesser person is blessed by the greater."

In spite of not being of Levi, Melchizedek collected tithes from Abraham and blessed him. Therefore Melchizedek must have been greater than Abraham.

8 "In the one case, the tenth is collected by men who die; but in the other case, by him who is declared to be living."

The Levitical priesthood dies when the person does. But Melchizedek's priesthood (the Melchizedek priesthood) is eternal and so remains with him even though he is physically dead ("he remains a priest forever" verse 3).

9 "One might even say that Levi, who collects the tenth, paid the tenth through Abraham,"
10 "because when Melchizedek met Abraham, Levi was still in the body of his ancestor."

Abraham was the Great-great-great-great Grandfather of Levi, through whom the priests at Paul's time could all attribute their priesthood, and as Abraham was paying tithing to Melchizedek, so Levi, in a sense, paid tithing to the holder of the greater priesthood.

11 "If perfection could have been attained through the Levitical priesthood (for on the basis of it the law was given to the people), why was there still need for another priest to come--one in the order of Melchizedek, not in the order of Aaron?"
12 "For when there is a change of the priesthood, there must also be a change of the law."

Paul is presenting that a greater priesthood can only be necessary where a greater law is given.

13 "He of whom these things are said belonged to a different tribe, and no one from that tribe has ever served at the altar."
14 "For it is clear that our Lord descended from Judah, and in regard to that tribe Moses said nothing about priests."

The Jews were descended from Judah, which was Levi's brother. Jews had no right to priesthood. All priesthood holders were from the tribe of Levi. John the Baptist was a descendant of Aaron, for example (of Levi). Thus he had authority to baptise. Jesus, being of Judah, was from a tribe not entitled to priesthood.

15 "And what we have said is even more clear if another priest like Melchizedek appears,"
16 "one who has become a priest not on the basis of a regulation as to his ancestry but on the basis of the power of an indestructible life."
17 "For it is declared: 'You are a priest forever, in the order of Melchizedek.'"
18 "The former regulation is set aside because it was weak and useless"
19 "(for the law made nothing perfect), and a better hope is introduced, by which we draw near to God."

So the new priesthood for the gospel is the Melchizedek priesthood; and the lower priesthoods aren't required within it (though we use the Aaronic priesthood for preparing men for the greater priesthood).

20 "And it was not without an oath! Others became priests without any oath,"
21 "but he became a priest with an oath when God said to him: "The Lord has sworn and will not change his mind: 'You are a priest forever.'""

God made a promise that holders of the Melchizedek priesthood would have that priesthood forever. But to the lesser priesthood holders no such promise was given.

22 "Because of this oath, Jesus has become the guarantee of a better covenant."

Because God gave this promise in regard to Melchizedek priesthood holders and Jesus has that priesthood also, we can have a guarantee that the ordinances Jesus did are permanent.

23 "Now there have been many of those priests, since death prevented them from continuing in office;"

Again Paul is reminding us that the death of a priest of the other priesthoods ends their priesthood rights.

24 "but because he continues, he has an everlasting priesthood."

The meaning of this sentence isn't very clear in English. What he is saying is in line with the whole course of the conversation here. He is really saying that because the priesthood that Jesus has continues, rather than ending at death, and he (Jesus) holds that priesthood, it is everlasting.

25 "Therefore he is able to save completely those who come to God through him, because he always lives to intercede for them."

This idea that Jesus always "lives" may seem a little odd, as many were resurrected also when Jesus was resurrected, and could also be said to be always alive. But this refers to the fact that he is alive with the ever living priesthood (as Paul has been demonstrating throughout the conversation) which allows him to make constant intercession.

26 "Such a high priest meets our need--one who is holy, blameless, pure, set apart from sinners, exalted above the heavens."
27 "Unlike the other high priests, he does not need to offer sacrifices day after day, first for his own sins, and then for the sins of the people. He sacrificed for their sins once for all when he offered himself."
28 "For the law appoints as high priests men who are weak; but the oath, which came after the law, appointed the Son, who has been made perfect forever."

Here Paul is pointing out that Jesus is the perfect one to interceed. He points out that the other priests that are under the law have to keep making sacrifices for their own sins, as they are spiritually weak. But now God has given us this perfect priesthood of promise (the Melchizedek priesthood), for those no longer under the law, he has, with it, appointed a priest that is perfect forever also.

It must be remembered that sacrifices weren't the only calling of a priest. He had to do such things as declare lepers free of leprocy. They had judgement callings also. Revelation was required by the President of the priesthood (Chief High priest). Baptism required such, as does the sacrament/communion.

A Deeper Examination of Priesthood and lines of Authority - Ecclesiology

2009-09-08T20:32:00.001-05:00

Ecclesiology (priesthood offices) relative to God is far more than ecclesiology within the church structure itself. This also looks at personal ecclesiology with God.

Relative to members, the church is an organisation where people can be certain of having the correct ordinances done as God would have them. This is important so that the true meaning of symbols can be found (as the symbol is done correctly and with the right words). Also it ensures that all necessary ordinances are performed. For new members the church provides a doctrinal beginning. For weak members it provides a continual source of basic instruction. Also it gives opportunities for service to others. It provides a forum for religious education for families and individuals. Along with this it provides a system of emotional and physical support. Then there are social and sporting activities.

However the church is only where we start our trip to God. And this must be remembered in this examination. Each person must create their own personal relationship with Heavenly Father and Jesus Christ. That becomes the “church” that is going to matter to each person. Each member must make themselves a prophet of God in their church (whether male or female). They must seek to walk and talk with God face to face. And be in tune with the Holy Ghost to obtain direction as required. Then secondly men must create a church of their family and become the prophet of that also. THEN we get to the LDS church.

To explain this point more clearly - some may question why it is that I believe in the church and yet this or that person in authority made this or that mistake? But my belief ISN’T in church people. My belief is in the Godhead. I have failed them, they have never failed me. I have been wrong, but they are ALWAYS right. Yet church leaders will fail. They will get things wrong. D&C 121 makes that extremely clear. But God never will. Christ set up the church as his church for us. So I fully support it and those in positions of responsibility (within the realms of their authority), regardless of their faults.

My doctrine is built on revelation and guidance that I have received while I read the Scriptures, hear talks at church and talk with Heavenly Father and the Holy Ghost. So the ecclesiology that is most important to me as an LDS is my priestly position in my personal church to God. God could send me out into the desert for the rest of my life, never to see the church again, and my spirituality wouldn’t be affected in the slightest, because God is there too.

Having made that clear (hopefully) I turn to ecclesiology in the church.

The church itself isn’t a monarchy with a leader that tells everyone what they will believe about everything in their own personal church. Nor are the local leaders to establish what members will believe. While some local leaders may tend to see themselves this way due to worldly influences (D&C 121:39), it isn’t the way it is intended (D&C 121:37). The church is a theocratic democracy. Thus it is called the Church of Jesus Christ (theocratic) of Latter-Day Saints (democracy).

Yet there is a responsibility placed upon local leaders to ensure that things stated from the pulpit and by teachers don’t seriously conflict with Scripture (our standards for belief).

This situation was also demonstrated by the early Apostles, who had varying opinions about doctrine and what commandments to obey. Circumcision and food offered to idols were two of these subjects. While decisions were reached on some subjects, disputes still went on. So there is some degree of flexibility of doctrine and personal feelings on what level of commandments to follow and how. In other words, while it is necessary to obey basic commandments to maintain church membership, there is no actual doctrinal domination beyond extreme basics. This is in harmony with the principle that we are to learn the truth line upon line and precept upon precept, individually.

The crux is that Christ can only give, the church generally, doctrinal understanding and commandments according to the ability of the Saints to accept and obey those concepts and commandments (1 Cor 3:1-3, D&C 89:3, D&C 119 Heading, Heb 4:2). These general concepts and commandments given to the Saints come through revelation to the President of the Melchizedek Priesthood for the church (termed “The Prophet”). In reality the church should be full of prophets. And there certainly are many in the church. Prophecy is one gift of the Spirit.

So as far as doctrine goes, while an individual may be able to speak on behalf of God relative to revelation he/she has received on a particular subject, no one can authoritatively speak on behalf of over 13 million people, in regard anything but extremely basic concepts. Beside this point the amount of subjects to cover and knowledge in each required by any one person to be able to do so proficiently, would be beyond comprehension. i.e. the enormous web of interlocked concepts within the church’s theology and the depth you could go to on so many is virtually endless. Then there would be the problem of passing many immensely deep concepts onto the general membership and having them be able to understand them. It would be as ridiculous as taking a five year old starting school and getting them to do a doctorate.

However God has chosen some great individuals to fill the office of “The Prophet” in these latter days. Though it has to be remembered also that if God has an Elijah (similar type person) living today he obviously wouldn’t make him “The Prophet”, as it would be hard to explain a man not dying (for starters). Different people grow by different challenges. So I don’t believe God always chooses the most righteous and knowledgeable person on earth in choosing “The Prophet”. But chooses the most appropriate person available, that wouldn’t be held back by such position.

There is a quorum of 12 Apostles, who are called to be special witnesses of Jesus Christ. “The Prophet” usually has 2 councillors, who are also Apostles. “The Prophet” is also an Apostle. The church works opposite from the world in that “The Prophet” is at the bottom serving all. Then the 12 Apostles are next up the line, and so on until the general membership, who are at the top, being served the most. The membership all sustain these servants, by raised hand, twice yearly.

There are 2 priesthoods available at this time. That is the Aaronic Priesthood and the Melchizedek Priesthood. Present offices within the Aaronic Priesthood are deacon, teacher and priest. Present offices within the Melchizedek Priesthood are elder and high priest. As impressive as the latter may sound it is extremely common in the church. Offices generally come by age provided the recipient is worthy.

The Aaronic Priesthood is organised by the bishop of each “ward” (collection of Saints in a prescribed area). Whereas the Melchizedek Priesthood is organised by the Stake President. A “stake” contains several wards.

Women don’t receive these priesthoods, as their callings are in a different direction. God has never had any desire to turn women into pseudo men or visa-versa.

The priesthood is a line of authority to act in the name of Jesus Christ. There are “keys” (automatic right to revelation for an office) associated with callings within the priesthood. That is all that priesthood is. Yet these 2 things are extremely important to running the church.

There is a power within us that can be used while using the priesthood for healing etc: Sort of like the power in a power cord situation - the cord (priesthood) isn’t the power (electricity) but the power is IN the cord when the power is switched on through personal righteousness and faith.

Mostly independent of priesthood office there are callings within the church. These are positions of service within the church which I would have to include in a discussion on ecclesiology, as they are part of the administrative structure. There are so many I will just describe each general area.

There is Relief Society and Young Women’s for women, Primary for children, Sunday School for all and Priesthood Quorums for men. Sporting, social and education also have administrative structures, usually reporting to the Stake leader. Then there are missions, administered through a different structure from the wards and stake. Also the Church Education System is separate, yet the bishop chooses the actual ward seminary teacher. But all these eventually report to the Apostles, and from there to “The Prophet”. So it is a branched out organisation, not a single line.

Sabbath - What are Correct Sabbath Activities?

2009-08-24T20:30:00.000-05:00

What should a person honouring the sabbath day do, and be expecting of the day?

In regard the first of these I have heard mothers say that the Sabbath is a constant run around; getting the kids ready for church and getting home to prepare meals etc. Then it has added challenge if they have a teaching calling. They question what kind of a rest day is it? I knew a man who went to church and then slept most of the day, as that was his rest day. Should I watch TV or listen to the radio?

Exodus 35:2-3 states _ "Six days shall work be done, but on the seventh day there shall be to you a holy day, a sabbath of rest to the LORD: whoever does work in it shall be put to death. You shall kindle no fire in a place you inhabit on the sabbath day."

To light a fire required cutting and carrying wood, starting a fire. This would have restricted food preparation which would have additionally required heavy lifting of cooking utensils. It was quite a chore compared to switching on a stove or microwave and carrying a saucepan. Obviously though, involved cooking would be an infringement still. But this is for you to decide, with help from the Holy Spirit. Whatever you do must rest well with your conscience in reality.

To understand this we need to consider what the idea of a sabbath day actually is. Why did God give the sabbath day commandment? How can taking one day aside out of seven help us spiritually?

To answer that let's look at what if God gave no sabbath day. What spiritual thought would the average Israelite have had? The vast majority would have had almost none. And would quickly have turned to idol worship and sacrificed their firstborn children in the fires of Molech etc. This is an extreme example to demonstrate God's wisdom and purpose in making a sabbath day.

In reality we should attempt to make our entire life built around spiritual things and being more God like. Thus we would have seven sabbath days a week in our hearts. However because we don't do this we need to have a sabbath day. This day should be a day of spiritual rest from unspiritual things of the world. These unspiritual things don't include motherly or fatherly duties. In regard such work on the sabbath day Jesus said, "My Father has been working up until this time, and I am working" (John 5:17). That work for the Father is looking after us His children.

So is watching TV or listening to the radio what would constitute "unspiritual things of the world"? I don't see too much spirituality on the TV myself (though I hardly ever watch it for that reason anyway). There are spiritual things that could be watched on the sabbath, such as conference videos or wholesome religious movies. The LDS distribution centre put out some of these. And the radio commentators often express sexual inuendo to suggest this thinking is normal. Thus it lowers moral standards in people's heads, suggesting we should think like that. As a side issue here, I find it a typical trick of Satan that those with one track minds are termed "broad minded", to hide the opposite reality.

To summarise then it is important to remain focused on the whole point of a sabbath. Whatever you do it should support God's concept of increasing you as a spiritual person by getting closer to Him. Scripture study, pondering upon spiritual things, prayer and service to others are the best things to accomplish this.

Protestants and Judgement - God is Love?

2009-08-14T00:13:00.002-05:00

As an LDS I know that an acceptance of Jesus as my Savior is necessary. Yet I also know that this salvation is from the hell faced after sinning. And that then sanctification is required to obtain the greatest gift of following God - eternal life. Yet Protestantism believes that there is only one hell situation and only one other state - Heaven (that the "Paradise" referred to is the same as the Kingdom of Heaven etc). Therefore they conclude that salvation from hell automatically MUST put you in heaven.

In this post I will create a glimpse into this judgement, as mankind are judged; for you to explore how scripturally and morally correct or incorrect Protestant judgement seems to you.

The prophet Abraham questioned God and asked, "...Shall not the judge of all the earth do right?" Gen 18:25

God's response to this question was to demonstrate to Abraham that he would do right (by Abraham's standard) (Gen 18:23-32).

In Romans 3:5-6 Paul poses that if God were not ethical in his judgement "...how could God judge the world?"

"...That God is unjust ... (speaking from a MAN'S viewpoint). Certainly not! If that were so, how could God judge the world?"

A clear statement that God's judgement is FAIR and true from OUR perspective of such also. This is further evidence that God's judgement will be right by a standard that even we can understand.

However the Protestants inform us that the criteria for God's judgement is that all those who have accepted Jesus as their personal Savior while alive will go to heaven, regardless of their spiritual lifestyle. They further claim that the rest will all go to the final hell: You must accept the name of Jesus or spend forever burning. They say that those living before Jesus are to be judged by a different criteria. They are to be judged by their obedience to the Laws that God gave to Moses or those before.

This afore mentioned acceptance of Jesus is proposed to only need be performed with the mouth, and that inside you passively accept the idea that God raised him from the dead. And Romans 10:9 is quoted to support this claim.

"For if you will confess with your mouth the Lord Jesus, and shall believe in your heart that God has raised him from the dead, you shall be saved."

Their interpretation of this verse makes it that this acceptance can even be done on your death bed.

So I would like to make an examination of the final judgement looking at it from a Protestant viewpoint. This following is a glimpse of the judgement as books are opened and the dead are judged, by the God of Protestantism, from those things written (Rev 20:12). Remember that we are informed that even we humans will realise the judgement of the real God is just.

I've made an unconfirmed assumption in regard one historical figure, purely for the sake of the point. We begin our look as one person's judgement has been concluded and the next needs to be called in.

God speaking: "Who is next to be judged, clerk?"

Clerk: "Jim Brown, Your Worship."

God: "Well send him in."

God: "Jim, the books say that you spent your life as a thief. You did help your mother sometimes: Apparently she was suffering with an inability to move. However you murdered the butcher when caught stealing from him. There is a large list of other medium offences. This should send you to hell, of course. But the books further inform us that you confessed the name of Jesus. You will go to heaven. Clerk, send him to heaven and bring in the next one."

Clerk: "This next person is Wati Haini."

God: "Wati you risked your life to save your tribe from tigers on several occasions and did many other good things. Only some minor bad things occurred. But I note you didn't get to confess the name of Jesus before you died."

Wati: "I never heard such a name."

God: "Ignorance is no exception to the law. You MUST have confessed the name of Jesus to get into heaven, regardless of where you are born. Clerk, send him to hell forever."

God: "Clerk, there is no sense sending in anyone who never heard the name of Jesus in their lifetime, as they will be automatically going to hell, having not accepted his name. So just send them to hell and that should at least save the court's time with many senseless cases."

Clerk: "Yes, Your Worship. I'll see to that. The next case is Adolf Hitler."

God: "Adolf, it is noted that you didn't smoke or drink alcohol. Those were, at least, good examples to others. However it mentions that you are responsible for the death of millions. You murdered and began wars that caused not only death but many other atrocities. You would be well and truly a candidate for hell. But I note here that you confessed Jesus as your Savior before dying. You will therefore go to heaven. Clerk, send him to heaven and bring in the next one."

Clerk: "The next one is Gandhi, Your Worship."

God: "It says here that you were a pacifist and curbed a lot of potential violence in India. And it also says that you did a lot of service and gave encouragement to others. Unfortunately it says nothing of you confessing Jesus as your personal Savior. Clerk, send him to hell and bring in the next."

Clerk: "We felt it easier to bring in the next two together as they both got struck by a bus at the same time. Paul Amos died instantly, but his brother Peter lived for about 5 minutes before dying."

God: "I see here that both of you lived lives of about the same value: Some small good, some small bad. No major infringements. However I note here Peter that you decided to confess the name of Jesus in the 5 minutes before dying. You therefore go to heaven and your brother, who didn't get such time to confess, goes to hell. Next case."

Clerk: "Since we did so well with the last dual case we thought we may present the next 2 together as well." We have Samuel Ben Joseph an Israelite who lived before Christ and Thomas Handel who lived after Christ."

God: "I see Samuel that you lived a very upright life overall. You visited those in prison, gave relief to the sick, clothed the naked, fed the poor and did very little wrong. So you can go to heaven. Yet you, Thomas, stole from people, raped women, murdered children and did almost no good at all. But it states here that you confessed Jesus as your Savior. You both obviously go to heaven. Next."

Clerk: "I've got 2 men here who lived before Christ, David Ben Judah and Levi Ben Eli."

God: "David, your good works obtain a good work value (GWV) of 10,001 and your evil works obtain a evil work value (EWV) of 10,002 in your lifetime. As you lived before Jesus you are judged on these works and your bad ones outweigh your good ones by 1, you go to hell forever. Levi, you get 10,002 in GWV but only 10,001 in EWV. As your good works outweigh your bad works by 1 you go to heaven forever."

Clerk: "We've got 2 women here who lived next to each other. Jill Smith and Betty Jones."

Jill Smith: "Yes, God, I told Betty that if she didn't come to church with me she would go to hell. And that I would look down from heaven and say to her, 'I told you that you should have listened to me and come to church.'"

God: "I see here that you both lived lives about the same. But, of course, Jill is right Betty, you should have listened; and now she can spend eternity telling you that, as you are burning in hell. Next case."

Clerk: "Purity Young is next."

God: "Purity, I see you were well named. Truly a beautiful person. An enormous love of others. A dedication to your husband, children and grandchildren. Appreciated for all your hard work for others. You apparently risked your life on several occasions to save other people. And eventually gave your life in such an event. However it is noted that you had some problem accepting that I, the God of Protestantism, could be a true God, yet so unjust. You quoted 1 John 4:8 that says, 'God is love.' You failed to understand that was just propaganda. As you therefore haven't accepted Jesus you go to hell. Next."

Clerk: "The next one was Doug Towers. But he said that if you're God he'd feel more comfortable with his conscience by going and burning in hell with Purity and Gandhi, so he went there."

The Effect We can have in Eternity

2009-08-03T21:19:00.001-05:00

As I have pondered upon just how the whole system of eternity and intelligences is, I have from time to time come across the thought of how Heavenly Father has effected things.

We know that we all have a spirit body (including the animals D&C 77:2A) that was born to heavenly parents (Heb 12:9). And we know that we have always (even before our spirit body was born) been an intelligence that was never created or made, and can't be (D&C 93:29).

When this time has ceased if we have been faithful we know that we will take upon ourselves to assist existing Heavenly Fathers and Mothers by becoming Heavenly Fathers or Mothers elsewhere.

So what is it that they do?

"For behold, this is my work and my glory - To bring to pass the immortality and eternal life of man." Moses 1:39

Heavenly Father and Jesus Christ work in our service 24-7.

"Jesus said to them, 'My Father is always at his work to this very day, and I, too, am working.'" (NIV) John 5:17

"And whoever of you will be the chiefest, shall be the servant of all. For even the Son of man didn't come to be ministered to, but to minister..." Mark 10:45

Part of our heavenly parents' work was to bear our intelligence a spirit body. It would seem that eternity is not only full of endless space, but also endless intelligences within it. So heavenly parents provide the opportunity for these intelligences (as ourselves) to receive a fullness of joy through providing a spirit body and a process whereby we obtain a physical body. This gives us greater experience and enlargens us as individual intelligences.

As we know Heavenly Father also had a Heavenly Father who taught him. And this is an endless process back, as eternal as "time" (written for simplicity) and space itself - having neither beginning nor ending.

When I consider upon the endless intelligences and this process that exists, I can't help but see the eternally increasing immense difference one man or one woman can make by living correctly. Even if, on this planet, only 14 million women receive eternal life, can you begin to perceive the eternal consequences of our Heavenly Father's actions?

Each of those 14 million women will end up having countless future heavenly parents. Who will go on and do the same. And the man's effect is even greater in the numbers sense.

The mind truly boggles at what we can do, as just one individual, by assisting in this continued act of service.

A Second Revolution

2009-07-20T21:10:00.002-05:00

Over the history of man, talk of a need for revolution hangs around. Today is no different. People feel that the government isn't doing this or that the right way. Often there is something to what is being said.

Many countries have had great bloodbaths of revolutions. Yet the blood keeps flowing long after the revolution, because there never was agreement on what to change to and the problems haven't been solved.

The French revolution must be the most repulsive I am aware of. Not only did they murder the monarchy and all relatives, but all their servants. They murdered all the rich and their servants. They murdered the founders of the revolution and anyone else they felt like murdering to appease the crowds. From all this finally came Napoleon, who continued the rampage of murder through his armies (hardened to conquest through such a bloody revolution).

Doctrine and Covenants 87 gives prophesy in regard the wars of the latter-days. Amidst it all it says that the Gentiles (meaning those who aren't Lamanites) shall have a terrible time (v5). Obviously this is speaking of the United States, as where but the Americas are there Israelites in such large number mixed with Gentiles in such large number?

"And it shall come to pass also that the remnants who are left of the land will marshal themselves, and shall become exceedingly angry, and shall vex the Gentiles with a sore vexation."

Verse 6 seems to extend out to a earth wide problem.

"And thus, with the sword and by bloodshed the inhabitants of the earth shall mourn; and with famine, and plague, and earthquake, and the thunder of heaven, and the fierce and vivid lightning also, shall the inhabitants of the earth be made to feel the wrath, and indignation, and chastening hand of an Almighty God, until the consumption decreed hath made a full end of all nations;"

So it seems we will have more than what we could term a "Second Revolution." Yet I don't think those calling for one would be too happy with what they will get. The trouble with starting revolutions is the question of who is going to stop it and where.

Jesus Christ was raised in the midst of a terrible regime. Corruption was that wide that John the Baptist made mention of it to the soldiers who asked what they should do.

"And the soldiers likewise demanded of him, saying, And what shall we do? And he said unto them, Do violence to no man, neither accuse any falsely; and be content with your wages." (Luke 3:14).

Yet note that even though he could have, Christ knew that changing the government was pointless unless the people were different. A revolution can't help unless it is against a government in another place (as the American Revolution was). For the government is only an extension of the people. In other words people only get the government they deserve.

Christ knew that the answer to improving the government was to improve the people.

Jesus Christ - a Deeper Evaluation

2009-06-22T21:03:00.002-05:00

I would first state that people's opinions of Deity is based on personal perception rather than a universal religious opinion. Therefore what I'm to present here is my personal opinion only, and not the opinion of all Latter-Day Saints.

Generally I find evaluations of Jesus Christ as being somewhat airy-fair, with the suggestion of him being some half man - half God type of thing. I therefore felt it necessary to mention some of the more ignored facts about what he actually was/is.

Jesus Christ is Jehovah of the Old Testament. He is the only begotten of the Father (Heavenly Father) in the flesh (meaning fallen flesh). He is the Lord God of Israel. He isn’t the Father himself, but he is the Father in the sense that he reflects the feelings, actions and thoughts of the Father (John 14:8-12). Therefore in the flesh he is the Son, but by the feelings of his heart, and subjecting his will to the Father, he becomes a reflection of the Father in actions. Thus he can be said to be the Father and the Son (Mosiah 15:2).

The Father is always greater than the Son (John 14:28). But by Jesus living the perfect life he lived and the things he has done, he has an equality of STATUS with the Father.

As with all living beings Jesus Christ is made of three parts (not to be confused with the false trinity concept) - intelligence, spirit body and physical body. He is an eternal intelligence; as all intelligences are eternal (including ours). He was eventually born as a spirit: The first born spirit child to our Heavenly Father (Col 1:15). Thus he received a spirit body at that time. We were all born after him. So he is our elder brother as spirit children of our Heavenly Father (Matt 6:9 - note "OUR father").

Jesus (from his personal growth point of view) came to earth to get a physical body. He had to go through the same process we all do, of learning and growing as a physical individual (Luke 2:52). He had to gain the experience of raising a family and learning to be a good husband and father (I'll go into this further down). He had to die and be resurrected to obtain exaltation. He learnt to make the right choices by watching the problems sin caused in others, rather than having to experience any himself (as we do because we aren’t as intelligent as he is. Abr 3:19). i.e. we often have to make mistakes to learn particular things, yet some things we learn by seeing the problems those things give to others. This requires us to also listen to the Holy Spirit often. Because He learnt everything by others mistakes and listening to the Spirit, rather than having to make any mistakes himself, He didn’t sin.

Jesus Christ’s special mission consisted of 2 essential parts. Firstly he atoned for the sins, of those who truly repent, in the garden of Gethsemane and on the cross. Secondly as he is the firstborn as a spirit, so he also was the firstborn from the dead (1 Cor 15:20 & 23). He made the resurrection of all occur by his death and resurrection.

Luke 1:35 presents, in regard the birth of Christ, that the Holy Ghost came upon Mary to assist her, and the Father came, and by the action performed Jesus was the son of God (which is virtually an instantaneous action, done strictly in great love). Science claims that a person whose sweat was as great drops of blood (as Jesus' blood was - Luke 22:44) would die long before reaching such a stage. Having a glorified resurrected father made it possible for Jesus to perform the atonement without his body dying in the process.

As a side mission he also set up his church at that time, by teaching the fulness of the gospel and giving authority.

Before we came here he had the special position of being in charge of the creation of the earth. Heavenly Father was the instigator. Jesus Christ was the foreman. And we (those able and interested in helping) were the learners. However it is Jesus Christ that is governing this area. He therefore can be considered our God in that sense. To get to the Father you MUST go through the Son. All communication with the Father is channelled through the Son. So he is our mediator in several ways.

As you would probably be aware, the name “Jesus” is the English version of a Greek word (as the NT was written in Greek). His real name was most likely “Yeshua”, as he was a Jew. Several titles are given to Jesus. Firstly we have “Messiah”, which is the OT equivalent of “Christ” as used in the NT, B of M, D&C and P of GP. That is referring to the fact that he was the chosen one that was anointed (as the word means) in the pre-existence for the special work that he performed.

He also has titles such as “Saviour” and “Redeemer” that relate to the fact that he saves those repentant from hell by his atonement, and that he redeems us all from physical death by his resurrection.

As Jesus Christ is the key within the whole plan Heavenly Father laid before us, we talk of “the gospel of Jesus Christ”. The good news includes the fact that we can have forgiveness of sins and resurrection (this body will be repaired and we will live forever in it) because of Jesus Christ.

When we pray, we pray to Heavenly Father through Christ, as he stated (John 16:23). We don’t pray to the Lord (Jesus Christ) through Jesus Christ. Therefore any thinking LDS, if quoting the Lord’s prayer, should conclude it with, “in the name of Jesus Christ, Amen.”

Having taken upon himself the sins of mankind in the garden and suffered to relieve us of the pain for our sins; his body being a mess after such a feat; and having completed his task, he went to fulfil the final act of dying an ignominious death. Thus, in a sense, he took our sins and nailed them to the cross. He died because he had saved us from our sins. Paul made great point of this particular part of the act, probably because it was the only part that people could understand the pain involved in. However his greatest pain, by far, was in the garden where he bled from every pore. He required an angel to help him (Luke 22:43), and did it in stages, not all at once (Matt 26:38-44). The shear agony of that act is far beyond our comprehension. He not only suffered for EVERY sin individually, that every person on earth who truly repents has done, but (it is suggested) also for all repentant on many other planets.

His premature death also served to quicken the time for resurrection of those awaiting it that rose at that time (Matt 27:52-53). Thus Christ was eager to die then for that purpose also.

Jesus Christ, as the High Priest and a leader (Heb 5:10, Heb 6:20), definitely was married or he would have been rejected (the law of Moses makes NO exceptions) (Lev 21:10+13). Also he needed a wife for eternal marriage, as is required to be a God.

Immediately after death, while still a spirit, Jesus Christ organised the teaching of the gospel to the dead (1 Pet 3:18-20). He spent 3 days and 3 nights in the heart of the earth (Matt 12:40). It would seem that he was crucified on Wednesday and placed in the tomb. He spent Wed night, Thur night and Fri night in the tomb. Making the 3 days Thur, Fri and Saturday. He rose during Saturday night (remembering that their day went from morning to morning, not the middle of the night to the middle of the night, as ours does. When the women came early in the morning of the Sunday he was already resurrected. There is confusion about the reference of him being needed to be put in the tomb quickly for the coming sabbath. However this wasn’t the weekly sabbath as has been supposed, but one of the other sabbaths of the law of Moses observed at that time of year.

After resurrection he went to the Americas and taught the gospel there. He also went to many other places.

He directs the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints to the degree members are prepared to hear. He has given it his full authority to perform those functions required.

He will return again for what is termed his “second coming”. He will also have what could be termed a “third coming” at the end when everything will be finalised. He and Adam will present the whole thing, completed, back to Heavenly Father at the end.

What was the Original Sin (transgression)? - Answered by Oaks.

2009-05-25T21:20:00.000-05:00

I'm not one to deviate too far from the Standard Works of the Church (the Scriptures) in establishing doctrine. I therefore don't hold to just taking things GAs say as gospel. However I did find two interesting statements in Brother Oaks (an apostle) talk in the Sunday afternoon session. Both are supported in the Scriptures anyway. The one I wish to discuss here is his statement about what the original sin (transgression) actually was.

Some Anti-Mormon literature quotes Satan claiming that Adam and Eve could become as Gods.

"For God knows that in the day you eat of it, then your eyes shall be opened, and you shall be as Gods, knowing good from evil." Gen 3:5

It then proposes that Joseph Smith taught this, so must be following Satan. However in the same chapter (verse 22) it says,

"And the LORD God said, See, the man is become as one of us to know good and evil: and now, least he put forward his hand, and take also of the tree of life, and eat, and live for ever:"

So God has supported the concept that Adam and Eve had become as them in that they knew good from evil. I had always viewed that as the end of the subject.

However Brother Oaks presents the following,

"Some people think the fall of man had something to do with sex, but that is a mistake. . . . What Satan put into the heads of our remote ancestors was the idea that they could ‘be like gods’—could set up on their own as if they had created themselves—be their own masters—invent some sort of happiness for themselves outside God, apart from God." Unselfish Service

I have many times searched to understand what the original sin was. I felt strange that God had not seen that the answer was there somewhere. Yet here Brother Oaks has declared his opinion that it is.

When I heard this it just made such sense. For starters the answer IS under our nose. Secondly we have a transgression only, not a sin (transgression of the law). Yet a feeling that would lower their righteousness enough to begin the fall.

Television - The Drug of a Nation or a Useful Tool?

2009-05-14T20:07:00.000-05:00

Having been a TV technician for some years I had to listen to the droll conversations on some of the daytime soaps. It was required to test TVs after repair or to re-create problems where failure was intermitent. Such things as "Daze of our Wives," "General Despicable" and "the Bald and the Beautiful" were suffered with great despair (these channels were picked up easily). When I did repairs at home I put on test patterns with decent music (oh, what relief).

A person could ask why these women watch such rubbish? I did find (in the defence of some) that there was a bit of a social requirement. To be able to join in conversation with other older women an old woman could feel forced to begin watching this stuff.

Yet even the rest of the things that are on TV seem a bit of an insult to my intelligence. Even watching so called "documentaries" I feel I am being mindwashed with loads of unestablished "facts."

Also watching nature studies I'm plagued with hypothetical concepts such as things being millions or even tens of thousands of years old. They begin by saying "scientists believe." But after saying that once or twice they then proceed by talking as if these beliefs are facts. They then build "fact" upon "fact."

As I don't really have great interest in watching someone else play games (sport) I am left with nothing to watch but the news (????). Yet for those able to enjoy watching sport it at least has some purpose.

The news is always negative. They say one positive story toward the end of the news, and then all smile, as if to say, "there, we give positive news too." Consequently I rarely watch the news either. People tell me anything that is important.

It seems a strange set of events that here I am as an ex-TV technician, and I rarely watch television. I borrow some movies from the video library. But that is a difficult choice. I can spend an hour looking through a video library and walk out with nothing. Just as well there are computer games.

Death - How should we Respond and Deal with it - What is the State of the Dead?

2009-04-23T20:39:00.000-05:00

First I should mention that I have been dead twice; and remember it well. Secondly I have seen the dead in their everyday existence, as I see spirits from time to time. I bring this up to point out that things I'm saying are more than me just speculating.

A point I would like to raise at the beginning is that those left behind should try and consider the feelings of the person who has passed on. This person is still present. They haven't actually gone anywhere (I have discussed this point before, and it can be read on my "Obscure Doctrines" site - the link is at the top of the page). Their spirit is watching and listening.

Now consider how you would feel if you had passed on and everyone is absolutely miserable? What is more, they are ignoring your presence altogether. They are not listening to you trying to comfort them that you are OK.

So for those who have had someone pass on, just keep that thought in mind too.

As LDS we can tend to be philosophical about death, and just accept it as part of the eternal plan. While this understanding is a huge advantage, it still is difficult when we are faced with the passing of a loved one, or are called upon to comfort those who have.

Some left behind attempt to find some justice in the death. They see death as some ultimate penalty (after all it is given as such in scripture and in some justice systems). Therefore they search to understand what the deceased did wrong, in disbelief that they were that bad. They may tend to blame God for some injustice, in having allowed this person to die. Yet all LDS should be aware that it is just an inevitable step in God's plan, that happens to all at some point. Heavenly Father knows the best time for this to occur in each individual's life. He has taken this into account for each individual he places in any situation (before birth).

We are all different, and therefore require different lessons in life. Heavenly Father seeks to provide the lessons that each person needs for that individual to achieve their highest potential. And some of that experience will be provided in the spirit world, in the vast majority of cases.

We came here to earth to get a physical body. Obviously upon death we will miss that extra thing we have got used to having and went to all this trouble to get.

"For the dead had looked upon the long absence of their spirits from their bodies as a bondage." D&C 138:50

Fortunately Jesus Christ came and made resurrection available to all. And that is what I look forward to; along with going home (to Heavenly Father) upon being resurrected.

The dead have the same situation we have in that they are here: Their lives are normal. Spirit Prison, Hell and Paradise are all mental states, not areas. And missionary work there is by members as much as missionaries (or should be - as here).

When I was working as a night-patrolman for a security firm I was assigned a place we referred to as "the Wool Sheds" (as part of my area). We had to enter the sheds and walk through them and check various areas. Those who had done this place made mention of the fact of it being haunted: They could feel the presence of something other than themselves. One adamantly denied the existence of a God but said, "you know you are not alone in the Wool Sheds."

I could feel them also. One night I looked and saw many spirits standing around talking. These were those who had worked at the sheds during the over a century it had been there for. Their clothes demonstrated their eras. Some on one side saw me coming and eagerly came over to try and scare me. The rest over that side just took vague notice of this situation and went on with their various conversations or just watched me.

My experience only contributes to the enormous amount of sittings of the dead that so many others have also experienced. The only reason I mention it is that it was obvious from the experience that these people were neither in fire (and, obviously, the ones coming to scare me didn't have good intent) and that there were no prison walls or bars: People interact freely, as here.

General Authorities have pointed out that the generation now living will be there for Christ's second coming. I would add my testimony to that which I have also received through the Spirit. Therefore we live in a fortunate time in that the resurrection of the righteous will soon be upon us. Even those righteous dying now will have little time to spend without their bodies. All the Celestials and Terrestial dead will be resurrected. I certainly look forward to this.

It will be a great thing to see our friends and relatives who are now in the spirit state.

All's Well in Zion VS Dissension and Murmuring - the Right(?) to Question

2009-04-07T20:05:00.001-05:00

The devil is prophesied to use several tricks in the latter days, in order to keep mankind from gaining eternal life. Among these tricks one is particularly centred at church members.

"And others will he pacify, and lull them away into carnal security, that they will say: All is well in Zion; yea, Zion prospereth, all is well--and thus the devil cheateth their souls, and leadeth them away carefully down to hell." 2 Nephi 28:21

Naturally no one uses this exact term. But many times I find members saying that all is well in the church (Zion). Any question or challenge to the way things are running is frowned upon by some. Words such as "dissension" and "murmuring" are used to suggest the person having a desire for improvement is off with the devil.

Now we all know that dissension isn't good. And just winging isn't good either. Neither of these things are likely to create a better situation. But is all critique negative? If so Jesus Christ would stand accused of being negative and of the devil. As would Isaiah, Abinadi, and the list is almost endless.

Modern day prophets have often spoken of the positive things that are happening in the church. But the prophets also speak of the improvements we need to make as individuals. This isn't an "all's well" preaching. Yet mentioning the problems doesn't make them guilty of dissension or murmuring against us, either.

D&C 121:34-40 warns us that leaders in the church will make errors, and that all won't be well. So is God guilty of murmuring against church leaders? Sensible examination is important. And questioning of decisions that a person can't accept isn't dissension away from God either. I have questioned God and his decisions; and he took no offence. Neither did he propose that I had no right to question. Neither did he propose that I was off with the devil for questioning.

Abraham questioned God's decision and posed that surely he would do the right thing in regard destroying Sodom and Gomorrah (Gen 18:23-25). Is this dissension? Murmuring? The Lord didn't take offence at it. In fact he fully answered all his questions.

So is all well in the church? Obviously not. God gave the word of wisdom directed at the "weak and weakest of Saints". Has he added to it since because of advancement of the Saints? No. In fact he had to turn part of it into a commandment - a backward step. Then there is tithing. Another Law of Moses concept we still are called upon to practice - though let me state that great blessings come from obeying the Law of Moses.

Then we have bishops etc leaving their families to take the chief seats in the synagogues, also contrary to Christ's statement against this (Matt 23:6). Obviously if a person is speaking or conducting the meeting it is logical to be there. I can also see that for general (or stake) conferences, to get the idea of church structure, every six months.

The Book of Mormon presents that God inspired (Protestant(?)) reformers to question. And where would we be without it?

So is saying, "hey, what's going on?" murmuring and dissension?

I believe that sensible questioning is our responsibility. If we start leaving the church because of it, then we are off line. But I believe in the right to question.

Psychiatry/Psychology a Science or another false Religion? - ADD/ADHD or just NDS

2009-03-12T20:10:00.000-05:00

In the 1940's if a child started belting into other children he was smacked severely. This curbed his behaviour. Order was maintained in class rooms with straps or sticks where considered necessary. Children went to school with a large degree of safety (which was particularly relevant to boys). This continued through the 50's and 60's. However in the 70's Dr. Spock (a Psychiatrist) wrote a book "informing"(?) everyone that smacking is actually harmful to raising children: That it teaches violence.

Interestingly the people who accepted this idea were people who had (of course) been smacked themselves, and yet felt such pacifism (though often it was just laziness) that the idea appealed to them. Yes, this was the 70's: The decade where all these smacked children protested against war and many were more prepared to go to goal than war. In the late 60's and 70's so many strived to promote peace, with people using the two fingers in a peace symbol. It was a time when people were saying that criminals shouldn't be executed, and that serious effort should be put into reforming them. The time when people began to talk of saving trees and animals. So Dr. Spock's book was welcomed with open arms.

So where were all these violent people produced by this smacking? There were violent people; as there always is. Yet strong ideas of pacifism came forward.

Today, we live in a generation where a large proportion are unsmacked children. Have we seen a decrease in violence; as Dr. Spock promised? If a child belts another child today he is sent to a psychiatrist who declares he has ADHD (or some such thing) and drugs are prescribed to sedate his behaviour. Isn't it great that we have learnt how to solve violent children problems without smacking? We don't need to give them a smack, we can just give them smack (ie. drugs)!

I came across a person in goal for bank robbery in counselling. He had been "analysed" as having ADHD and given drugs when young. He got used to the drugs and increased his dosage. It became so bad that he eventually took to bank robbing to support his habit.

The question that arises is just how accurate is this whole child syndrome concept? Was his problem really ADHD or was it just NDS (No Discipline Syndrome)? Would a smack (or even some other form of discipline) have saved him from becoming a drug using bank robber? I believe the answer is, "Yes."

This is not to claim that all people who rob banks have never been smacked, of course. But I believe that in many instances these syndromes are utter nonsense. When young (and since) I watched children behave exactly the same, who got smacks and ceased such behaviour. How did these kids get by without drugs and being "diagnosed". They managed to control themselves without any psychiatrists.

I'm not against the concept of having good psychiatry or psychology. But, as with medical practice, if an method doesn't produce the proposed cure it is time to discard it.

Requirements to Commit the Unpardonable Sin

2009-02-23T19:18:00.000-06:00

The Scriptures lay out some fairly stiff requirements for us to qualify as a person able to commit the unpardonable sin. It isn't just a case of having been baptised. In fact this isn't even given as a requirement. But, obviously, spiritual rebirth would be a requirement.

And if a person commits the unpardonable sin, what is their situation?

In regard the fornication that Alma's son, Corianton, committed, Alma said_

"Know you not, my son, that these things are an abomination in the sight of the Lord; yes, most abominable above all sins save it be the shedding of innocent blood or denying the Holy Ghost? For see, if you deny the Holy Ghost when it once has had place in you, and you know that you deny it, see, this is a sin which is unpardonable; yes, and whosoever murders against the light and knowledge of God, it is not easy for him to obtain forgiveness; yes, I say to you, my son, that it is not easy for him to obtain a forgiveness." Alma 39:5-6

This sets forth the idea that upon committing the unpardonable sin forgiveness has to be worked for, and is difficult. So why is it unpardonable if forgiveness can be obtained even if by difficulty?

"Wherefore I say to you, All manner of sin and blasphemy shall be forgiven to men: but the blasphemy against the Holy Ghost shall not be forgiven to men." Matt 12:31

This is setting forth that this blasphemy can't be forgiven at all. Why this apparent contradiction of statement? This is further brought up by Luke.

"And whosoever shall speak a word against the Son of man, it shall be forgiven him: but to him that blasphemes against the Holy Ghost it shall not be forgiven." Luke 12:10

The D&C also supports the idea that the sin can't be forgiven at all.

"The blasphemy against the Holy Ghost, which shall not be forgiven in the world nor out of the world, is in that you commit murder wherein you shed innocent blood, and assent to my death, after you have received my new and everlasting covenant, says the Lord God.." D&C 132:27

Paul appears to answer this apparent contradiction.

"For it is impossible for those who were once enlightened, and have tasted of the heavenly gift, and were made partakers of the Holy Ghost, And have tasted the good word of God, and the powers of the world to come, If they shall fall away, to renew them again to repentance; seeing they crucify to themselves the Son of God afresh, and put him to an open shame." Heb 6:4-6

In other words they can't have Christ suffer on behalf of their sins again. The Scriptures above are pointing out that while forgiveness can be worked at, Christ's atonement can't help. You have to do it yourself. This is mentioned in the D&C.

"For see, I, God, have suffered these things for all, that they might not suffer if they would repent; But if they would not repent they must suffer even as I." D&C 19:16-17

The big emphasis on being able to commit the unpardonable sin is the knowledge of the person. Note the following statement (about himself) by Paul _

"Who was before a blasphemer, and a persecutor, and injurious: but I obtained mercy, because I did it ignorantly in unbelief." 1 Tim 1:13

Also note _

"For if after they have escaped the pollutions of the world through the knowledge of the Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ, they are again entangled therein, and overcome, the latter end is worse with them than the beginning. For it had been better for them not to have known the way of righteousness, than, after they have known it, to turn from the holy commandment delivered to them." 2 Pet 2:20-21

For those who make no effort to redeem themselves in any way from the situation of having committed the unpardonable sin we should note the following _

"Thus says the Lord concerning all those who know my power, and have been made partakers of it, and allowed themselves through the power of the devil to be overcome, and to deny the truth and defy my power-- They are they who are the sons of perdition, of whom I say that it had been better for them never to have been born; For they are vessels of wrath, doomed to suffer the wrath of God, with the devil and his angels in eternity; Concerning whom I have said there is no forgiveness in this world nor in the world to come-- Having denied the Holy Spirit after having received it, and having denied the Only Begotten Son of the Father, having crucified him to themselves and put him to an open shame. These are they who shall go away into the lake of fire and brimstone, with the devil and his angels-- And the only ones on whom the second death shall have any power; Yes, surely, the only ones who shall not be redeemed in the due time of the Lord, after the sufferings of his wrath. D&C 76:31-38

So, in summary, we see that there is quite a lot to actually committing the unpardonable sin. It isn't just a case of joining the church and then murdering someone. A great spiritual change is first required.

And this only makes sense. To rise high enough to gain eternal life we must gain a high level of knowledge and spirituality. To go low enough to go with the devil we must have an equal understanding and spirituality, to fall from. Or, as the saying goes, "the higher they are the harder they fall." Yet life is always better at the top (in spiritual things, anyway).

Did the Prophet Caiaphas have authority from God?

2009-02-09T19:12:00.001-06:00

Catholicism has presented to us that the Jews had no authority, and that it was Rome that appointed the High Priest. This concept has continued on into Protestantism and then even into the church. Interestingly our Bishops have authority given to them, by the state, to perform marriages. Without this authority they couldn't do so.

Rome, naturally, had to approve all political positions before they could be filled. And the position of the Presiding (Chief) High Priest for Israel was included. Yet was this merely approval or, as some propose, that Rome actually chose who would fill the position?

At the time of Moses, God set forth that from Aaron on, Aaron's descendants had automatic entitlement to the office, provided they were the oldest son of the oldest son etc, back to Aaron. In other words Aaron's oldest living son became the next President of the priesthood. His oldest living son became the next one, etc. So by this instruction from God, Caiaphas was the oldest son, and a descendant of Aaron.

Yet if Catholicism is correct then the Jews had somehow lost the line of authority or that Rome had appointed those with no authority instead. They claim the Jews to have had no authority. But does the New Testament support this or teach the opposite? And, if the latter, did Caiaphas continue to have authority after Christ?

In regard to the father of John the Baptist Luke says _

"There was in the days of Herod, the king of Judea, a certain priest named Zacharias, of the course of Abia: and his wife was of the daughters of Aaron, and her name was Elizabeth." Luke 1:5

This is speaking of the priestly course of Abia (Abijah) as mentioned in the Old Testament (1 Chron 24:10, Neh 12:4). It demonstrates that Zacharias had authority and was of Aaron directly.

Furthermore when Zacharias went into the temple and was visited by the angel Gabriel, Gabriel said nothing about him not having authority to be there.

So having established that priesthood authority did exist among the Jews, the question then becomes, was Caiaphas himself a true President of the Priesthood?

"And one of them, named Caiaphas, being the high priest that same year, said to them, You know nothing at all. Nor consider that it is expedient for us, that one man should die for the people, and that the whole nation not perish. AND THIS HE SPOKE NOT OF HIMSELF: BUT BEING HIGH PRIEST THAT YEAR, HE PROHESIED that Jesus should die for that nation. And not for that nation only..." John 11:49-52

This is clearly stating that Caiaphas was an authorised prophet of God, and that he had received revelation that was true.

So how did Jesus respond to Caiaphas's authority?

while Jesus knocked many of the ideas of the church leaders, he, nevertheless, supported the point that they sat in Moses seat of authority and should be obeyed.

"Then spoke Jesus to the multitude, and to his disciples, Saying, The scribes and pharisees sit in Moses' seat: All therefore whatever they bid you observe, that observe and do; but do not you after their works: for they say, and don't do it themselves." Matt 23:1-3

When Jesus was judged of the Jewish council, Mathew records that Jesus spoke nothing all night. That is until Caiaphas commanded him to answer his question. THEN Jesus answered.

"And the high priest arose, and said to him, Do you answer nothing? what is it which these witness against you? But Jesus held his peace. And the high priest answered and said to him, I adjure you by the living God, that you tell me whether you be the Christ, the Son of God. Jesus said to him, You have said..." Matt 26:62-64

So Caiaphas still had authority at this point.

Then did he lose authority after this, because he crucified Christ (as some others propose)?

"And you shall gird them with girdles, Aaron and his sons, and put the bonnets on them: and the priest's office shall be theirs for a perpetual statute: and you shall consecrate Aaron and his sons." Exo 29:9

God declared that this was a perpetual (never ending) situation. In other words nothing the High Priest does can effect his right to that office, provided he fulfilled the requirements laid down of washing and leaving alone dead bodies etc, for a period before performing his duties.

Some may question how it could be that there were 2 prophets upon the earth at the same time - Caiaphas and Peter (for example). Yet there are many prophets upon the earth right now. Also there was some form of president of the priesthood in the Americas at this time. And it would seem possible that there were others in other islands of the seas. Caiaphas had a right to automatic revelation for the Israelite church God had set up through Moses, and Peter had that right in the church of Jesus Christ.

"I tried to live that/the Commandment/s and it Didn't work," some say - Why Not?

2009-01-22T19:15:00.000-06:00

I have had people tell me that they tried living as God said and it didn't work. Considering that God is promising us joy and peace as we do as he says, surely as we do right we will gain a happiness inside.

Alma chapter 32 has Alma likening faith to a grain of seed that is planted and grown. The first time I read this I viewed it as being a bit long winded (unnecessarily long). It seemed somewhat repetitious. But re-reading has made me view it differently. I have found that each step he has outlined is important in learning the truth of what God has presented.

While this is from the Book of Mormon, and I realise not all readers believe in this volume as being from God, I would urge all to continue reading, as these steps he outlines work regardless of what religious beliefs you may have - its a non-denominational claim. I'll put it into understandable language for those not used to old English.

Verses 26-29 "Now, as I said concerning faith--that it was not a perfect knowledge--even so it is with my words. You cannot know of their surety at first, to perfection, any more than faith is a perfect knowledge. But note, if you will awake and arouse your faculties, even to an experiment upon my words, and exercise a particle of faith, yes, even if you can no more than desire to believe, let this desire work in you, even until you believe in a manner that you can give place for a portion of my words.

Now, we will compare the word to a seed. Now, if you give place, that a seed may be planted in your heart, consider, if it be a true seed, or a good seed, if you do not cast it out by your unbelief, that you will resist the Spirit of the Lord, note, it will begin to swell within your breasts; and when you feel these swelling motions, you will begin to say within yourselves--It must be a good seed, or that the word is good, for it begins to enlarge my soul; yes, it begins to enlighten my understanding, yes, it begins to be delicious to me. Now consider, would not this increase your faith? I say to you, Yes; nevertheless it has not grown up to a perfect knowledge."

The problem that can arise here is that people will start to feel they have reached the end of the investigation. But Alma presents that this isn't all there is to it. And so when it eventually fails (as they haven't completed all the steps Alma mentions) they end up saying it didn't work. But let's go on with what Alma states.

Verses 30-33 "But note, as the seed swells, and sprouts, and begins to grow, then you would have to say that the seed is good; for look it swells, and sprouts, and begins to grow. And now consider, will not this strengthen your faith? Yes, it will strengthen your faith: for you will say I know that this is a good seed; for look it sprouts and begins to grow. And now, consider, are you sure that this is a good seed? I say to you, Yes; for every seed brings forth to its own likeness. Therefore, if a seed grows it is good, but if it doesn't grow, see it is not good, therefore it is cast away. And now, note, because you have tried the experiment, and planted the seed, and it swells and sprouts, and begins to grow, you must needs know that the seed is good."

So there is a need to continue having this growing of the seed (concept) and examining the your feelings.

Verses 34-36 "And now, consider, is your knowledge perfect? Yes, your knowledge is perfect in that thing, and your faith is dormant; and this because you know, for you know that the word has swelled your souls, and you also know that it has sprouted up, that your understanding does begin to be enlightened, and your mind does begin to expand. O then, is not this real? I say to you, Yes, because it is light; and whatsoever is light, is good, because it is discernible, therefore you must know that it is good; and now consider, after you have tasted this light is your knowledge perfect? Note I say to you, No; neither must you lay aside your faith, for you have only exercised your faith to plant the seed that you might try the experiment to know if the seed was good."

So here he has presented that even though you now know it to be true the learning still isn't over: You are still in the learning stage. Again, if a person quits here they will eventually say that it didn't work.

Verses 37-39 "And see, as the tree begins to grow, you will say: Let us nourish it with great care, that it may get root, that it may grow up, and bring forth fruit to us. And now note, if you nourish it with much care it will get root, and grow up, and bring forth fruit. But if you neglect the tree, and take no thought for its nourishment, note it will not get any root; and when the heat of the sun comes and scorches it, because it has no root it withers away, and you pluck it up and cast it out. Now, this is not because the seed was not good, neither is it because the fruit of it would not be desirable; but it is because your ground is barren, and you will not nourish the tree, therefore you cannot have the fruit of it."

So we must actually wait to see the full end of our efforts and the fruit that comes from following God. Only then will our testimony of that thing have full strength.

verses 40-41 "And thus, if you will not nourish the word, looking forward with an eye of faith to the fruit thereof, you can never pluck of the fruit of the tree of life. But if you will nourish the word, yes, nourish the tree as it begins to grow, by your faith with great diligence, and with patience, looking forward to the fruit of it, it shall take root; and behold it shall be a tree springing up to everlasting life."

I have seen people come alive upon reading the Book of Mormon, only to see them fade back and become worse than when they started, by rejecting it due to an assumed inability to live some commandment. The truth requires effort to find AND come to know it is true. I wish you all well in your pursuit of truth.

Our Responsibility VS Listening to Prophets

2009-01-05T20:29:00.000-06:00

Last Sunday in priesthood class we were reading chapter 22 of the lesson manual. There were several quotes of Joseph Smith's relative to our responsibility in regard learning (quotes I give in this post are all cited in that lesson manual). Yet, sadly, I found so much of the class ready to just hand their learning over to another person/s. For example the last statement of the lesson material quotes the following-

"God hath not revealed anything to Joseph, but what He will make known unto the Twelve, and even the least Saint may know all things as fast as he is able to bear them.." Joseph Smith (History of the Church 3:380, 1839 discourse reported by Willard Richards).

This was interpreted to mean that we should just listen to prophets and apostles. Yet the statement to me teaches exactly the opposite. Joseph Smith is trying to inform members generally and the Twelve that they can have personal revelation, rather than thinking that they have to wait for prophets to tell them.

If we are to believe that all our new knowledge must come from prophets then we are in a sad state indeed. The last new (ie. never having been revealed to the church generally, of, at least, recent times) thing a prophet said was by Spencer W. Kimball in regard the priesthood in 1978. Over thirty years ago!

Are we to believe that this is what Joseph Smith meant in his quote above? Is this the least Saint coming to "know all things as fast as he can bear them"?

I had someone leave a comment, on this site, saying, in accusational form, that I had a preoccupation with theology. I had to, obviously, be complemented by this attempted slur. Yet this also further increased my concern in regard the laziness that so many in the church demonstrate toward their own salvation. Here we are, a people saying we want to be Gods and Godesses, and this person is suggesting that my interest in theology (the study of the things of God) is a bad thing. That almost sends shivers down my spine, considering that I think I know (online) who the person was (a church member).

The doctrinal responsibility of the prophet for the church is to give that which can be accepted by the weak and weakest of Saints (D&C 89:3). Must we remain no further raised in doctrine than that?

If we want eternal life we must begin to think like that which we plan to be. We must be getting more knowledge of what God is doing and why. We must come to think as God thinks. Christ prayed that his believers would be one with him and the Father (John 17:21-23). This oneness can only be acheived when we do that which the Father would do. How can we do such without knowing the thoughts and feelings of the Father? No man can teach us this, no matter how eloquent his speaking ability. Only the Father can help us understand how he feels. And the Holy Ghost is the only continued instructor.

I certainly don't advocate that we shouldn't listen to prophets, of course. But it must be remembered that our gaining of eternal life can only be acheived by us taking on the responsibility for our own learning beyond the basics. There are no Gods with only a basic knowledge.

Joseph Smith made it plain that if the members wait to just learn it from prophets they will only receive backward doctrine _

"The Israelites prayed that God would speak to Moses and not to them; in consequence of which he cursed them with a carnal law." Joseph Smith (History of the Church, 5:555, Aug. 27 1843)

To learn the greater laws we must accept responsibility for our own learning.

"Joseph Smith taught that every man and woman should seek the Lord for wisdom, that they might get knowledge from Him who is the fountain of knowledge.." George A. Smith (Deseret News: Semiweekly; Nov 29 1870)

"The things of God are of deep import; and time, and experience, and careful and ponderous and solemn thoughts can only find them out. Thy mind, O man: if thou wilt lead a soul unto salvation, must stretch as high as the utmost heavens, and search into and contemplate the darkest abyss, and the broad expanse of eternity- thou must commune with God." Joseph Smith (History of the Church 3:295-296, Mar 20 1839)

Should we believe our own soul will gain salvation without following this instruction?

"..A man is saved no faster than he gets knowledge..." Joseph Smith (History of the Church, 4:588, Apr 10 1842)

So will I have to wait yet another 30 years before I get more knowledge from the prophet to help me in my salvation? Christ may well be here by then, for his second coming, and it could be a bit late.

Joseph Smith has plainly taught that it is up to us to do something serious about learning the things of God, beyond that which any man can teach us.

My advice, beyond taking Joseph Smith's words seriously, is to remember to keep your feet on the ground while your head is in the clouds, or you may find yourself carried away by strange winds. In other words use your heart and the Spirit as well as your head. And seek knowledge for righteous reasons, rather than the vanity of having others consider you wise.

Protestant / Catholic Preface to the Bible

2008-12-15T19:19:00.000-06:00

In my many discussions with Protestants (and having been raised one) I have come to understand their official declaration relative to the Bible and its interpretation. The following represents it as it has been explained/taught to me (some don't share point 3 and/or point 19). This is the preface that the Protestants seem to feel belongs at the front of the Bible, but somehow was forgotten. (Most of these things are also agreed to by Catholicism).

"Preface
While these 66 books are totally correct and don't require revelation to interpret, we must make the following clarifications. And while you can't add to or subtract from Scripture we do have to make the following additions to compensate for misunderstandings that do arise.

1. All the talk of God having body parts is not to be taken literally.
2. All talk of people seeing God and God claiming to have been seen is referring to an angel or cloud only.
3. All talk of Christ being separate from Heavenly Father isn't to be taken literally either.
4. Most talk of "Gods" in the Hebrew script has been altered to the word "God" in English for your convenience.
5. In spite of the enormous size of this collection of books God really doesn't want, nor expect, us to understand him at all, as he's not understandable.
6. It must be understood that all attempts God makes to explain himself are purely for his entertainment only.
7. Any comments God makes about having emotions are just to make some meaningless attempt to appease us, and we should know he doesn't mean it.
8. All talk of God being in one place in any way are just God's confusing way of speaking.
9. All statements referring to Heavenly Father as the father of spirits, change to say that he whipped up our spirits out of thin air.
10. Where it speaks of God creating things in the beginning, change that to "magically whipped up from nothing."
11. All reference to and quotes in the Bible from books no longer present are from books that have been removed for your safety.
12. Though Moses says not to add to his books (the first 5 books of the Old Testament)(Deut 4:2) all the other 61 books, that finally made it into the volume we have today, are fully authorised, but no more than 61 extra are allowed.
13. All talk of Jesus being resurrected with, eating with, being seen having and coming back for his 2nd coming with a body are to be ignored, as he doesn't have one, but just whips it up for appearance sake.
14. All talk of us being in "the image and likeness of God" are to be altered to say "we have some vague similarity to God."
15. Every place where it says that Jesus cried, was surprised or grew in knowledge or any other such statement demonstrating lack of previous knowledge or demonstrating emotion, must be ignored, as he doesn't have emotions and was omniscient (knew everything already).
16. All statements of prophets after Christ in the New Testament books must be disregarded, as no prophets existed after Christ.
17. All mention of priesthood and authority from God being necessary after Christ must be forgotten.
18. All doctrinal discussion Christ made is purely for entertainment only, and isn't really important.
19. God now accepts homosexuality, lesbianism, women ministers and all other modern trends, in spite of his ways being unchangeable.
20. In spite of 4 thousand years of him doing so being recorded in the Bible, and God stating that his ways don't change, God changed his ways some time not long after Christ's death, and is not going to appear to anyone or speak to anyone again.
21. Though God is omniscient (all knowing) he wasn't aware that Adam and Eve would eat the fruit in the garden of Eden or that he would have to flood the world at the time of Noah, when he made the world.

Any other additions to, subtractions from, alterations of words from or explanations of the Bible must be done by majority consent of Protestantism or the Pope (for Catholics), to be classified as 'authorised'."

Neither I nor God endorse this preface.