Judging Others - Obviously we Need to

"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?

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?

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?

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?

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?

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?

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

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?

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?

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)?

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

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

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?

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?

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.