I was once asked to explain our beliefs further, by someone who had read the 13 Articles of Faith. This was my reply.
We believe that those who are meek will inherit this earth in it's resurrected and glorified state.
We believe that the kingdom of heaven belongs to those who aren't puffed up, but humble enough to hear what God is teaching.
We believe that those who are saddened by the sins of the world will be comforted by God.
We believe that if we hunger and thirst for righteousness we shall be filled by the Holy Ghost.
We believe that if pure in heart, we shall be seeing God at times.
We believe that if we have mercy to others God will be merciful to us.
We believe that God will truly consider us His children if we try to bring peace to conflict.
We believe that if no-one is saying evil against us falsely, and twisting our words and intentions, then we're doing something wrong.
We believe that great responsibility rests on us to be as Christ wants us to be, and if we aren't then we're no use to God (as the salt).
We believe that Christ in us should be shown in our actions.
We believe that Christ fulfilled the law by being the sacrifice.
I believe that if you can't keep the commandments of the law then you won't even be considered the least in the Kingdom of Heaven.
We believe that Christ taught greater commandments and asks us to obey those, not forgetting the law.
We believe that Christ requires us not to be angry, not to lust, to keep our thoughts pure, not to seek divorce, not to make oaths and promises, to turn the other cheek and to love others.
I believe God requires us to be perfect.
We believe that your Christian actions shouldn't be done to gain adoration from people, and it's therefore best people don't know what good you are doing for them.
We don't believe in having set prayers (though we do so in the case of ordinances, to ensure that all necessary points are stated) or repetition of statement, as God isn't deaf (or sleeping - to quote Elijah).
I believe reciting the "Lords' prayer" isn't advisable as most people seem to quote it with a piousness because they know it, don't mean it, and are so fixed on it rather than its meaning always fail to conclude the prayer in the name of Christ.
Monday, February 25, 2008
Tuesday, February 19, 2008
Philosophy - the Relationship to Scripture, Revelation and Reality
The purpose of scripture and revelation is to set a standard of rules, and give examples of how and why to apply them. They also teach us about ourselves and God, and how that relationship works. Then there is advice about what is to come. They, therefore, set an approach to life that is wisest to follow.
Philosophy comes from the opposite direction in that it puts the person in the driver's seat. The person invents the laws that they should follow, according to their perception of life. They decide what God is and how the relationship works. It gives them the opportunity to philosophise away or bend anything God has said that doesn't suit. That way they get to create their own religion in a fuller sense.
One obvious failure of philosophy is that it has no standard to find a concept true or false. Each idea is a matter of opinion. The natural man takes over from the truths taught by God. And as man pursues these concepts problems begin to happen. Then man philosophises away these problems, and so they continue.
Serious wars generally eventuate and people slowly begin to turn back to God in fear of the outcome if they don't. We saw this in the Second World War. Then in the 50's there was this great progress and blessing that came as the world followed better principles. The blessings went on into the 60's. But in the latter 60's there began to be a moving away from God. It increased into the 70's and by the 80's we began to suffer the consequences. Recessions, drought, unemployment, aids, increased violence, drugs and economic downturns.
But philosiphers give us excuses for these things. And governments keep our minds busy on meaningless projects like not using plastic bags and worrying about the claimed "Green-house Effect". As if this will make the world better and solve the real problems.
People demand that the government do something about social problems. So governments create more laws to restrict social rights, as if this will resolve it, while the problem itself gets worse, because people don't turn to the real cause. They want the government to curb the natural result of sin by getting "tough" on those involved in its outcome.
It is time we turned from man's philosophy and ideas of resolutions to life's problems and turned back to the tried and proven methods of God.
To some extent we can all be guilty of philosophising religion. To help us God has given us scripture, prophets and personal revelation.
Philosophy comes from the opposite direction in that it puts the person in the driver's seat. The person invents the laws that they should follow, according to their perception of life. They decide what God is and how the relationship works. It gives them the opportunity to philosophise away or bend anything God has said that doesn't suit. That way they get to create their own religion in a fuller sense.
One obvious failure of philosophy is that it has no standard to find a concept true or false. Each idea is a matter of opinion. The natural man takes over from the truths taught by God. And as man pursues these concepts problems begin to happen. Then man philosophises away these problems, and so they continue.
Serious wars generally eventuate and people slowly begin to turn back to God in fear of the outcome if they don't. We saw this in the Second World War. Then in the 50's there was this great progress and blessing that came as the world followed better principles. The blessings went on into the 60's. But in the latter 60's there began to be a moving away from God. It increased into the 70's and by the 80's we began to suffer the consequences. Recessions, drought, unemployment, aids, increased violence, drugs and economic downturns.
But philosiphers give us excuses for these things. And governments keep our minds busy on meaningless projects like not using plastic bags and worrying about the claimed "Green-house Effect". As if this will make the world better and solve the real problems.
People demand that the government do something about social problems. So governments create more laws to restrict social rights, as if this will resolve it, while the problem itself gets worse, because people don't turn to the real cause. They want the government to curb the natural result of sin by getting "tough" on those involved in its outcome.
It is time we turned from man's philosophy and ideas of resolutions to life's problems and turned back to the tried and proven methods of God.
To some extent we can all be guilty of philosophising religion. To help us God has given us scripture, prophets and personal revelation.
Monday, February 11, 2008
Crosses - Should we have them?
The noticeable difference between standing in an LDS chapel and standing in other churches is the obvious lack of adornment in an LDS chapel. Some flowers are a moderate decoration compared to stain-glass windows, crosses, and possibly statues etc. Then there is the question of whether we should wear crosses? Did Christ's Apostles wear crosses? The answer to that is very simple. No! Had they done so they would have been stoned.
Deut 5:8 "Thou shalt not make thee any graven image, or any likeness of anything that is in the heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the waters beneath the earth."
In plain English the law given by God to Moses forebad Israelites from making likenesses of anything whatsoever - no art or sculpture. When Solomon built the temple he had to get Gentiles to sculptor, and the things remained in the temple only. Archaeologists can't find any Israelite art because there wasn't any.
Some will quote something like the following text and propose that this vindicates wearing crosses.
Matt 10:38 "And he that taketh not his cross, and followeth after me, is not worthy of me."
I can assure you that he wasn't referring to a concept of wearing crucifixes. As is demonstrated in his own case, people who were to be crucified had to carry their own cross and then be crucified. Christ chose a dreadful thing and used it to make his point. That we must be ready to suffer the worst of things. This is in context of the verses around the statement. The whole subject matter is one of being prepared to sacrifice friends, family, comforts and life. It isn't a declaration of what jewellery to wear.
Let's consider the idea that our neighbour's son was murdered saving your life. By someone using a knife. Would you think of wearing a knife around your neck when you went to visit your neighbour? Would you regard that he would see this as some kind of respect? Because it is the last thing I would wear. I think he would see that as very sick.
God spoke strongly against any physical representation of him to Israel of old. What would make him change his mind now and think that physical representations (such as crosses) of him or his Son are acceptable? If you want to demonstrate your belief in Christ, live a Christ like life and people will see it in you (as Christ stated).
Deut 5:8 "Thou shalt not make thee any graven image, or any likeness of anything that is in the heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the waters beneath the earth."
In plain English the law given by God to Moses forebad Israelites from making likenesses of anything whatsoever - no art or sculpture. When Solomon built the temple he had to get Gentiles to sculptor, and the things remained in the temple only. Archaeologists can't find any Israelite art because there wasn't any.
Some will quote something like the following text and propose that this vindicates wearing crosses.
Matt 10:38 "And he that taketh not his cross, and followeth after me, is not worthy of me."
I can assure you that he wasn't referring to a concept of wearing crucifixes. As is demonstrated in his own case, people who were to be crucified had to carry their own cross and then be crucified. Christ chose a dreadful thing and used it to make his point. That we must be ready to suffer the worst of things. This is in context of the verses around the statement. The whole subject matter is one of being prepared to sacrifice friends, family, comforts and life. It isn't a declaration of what jewellery to wear.
Let's consider the idea that our neighbour's son was murdered saving your life. By someone using a knife. Would you think of wearing a knife around your neck when you went to visit your neighbour? Would you regard that he would see this as some kind of respect? Because it is the last thing I would wear. I think he would see that as very sick.
God spoke strongly against any physical representation of him to Israel of old. What would make him change his mind now and think that physical representations (such as crosses) of him or his Son are acceptable? If you want to demonstrate your belief in Christ, live a Christ like life and people will see it in you (as Christ stated).
Thursday, January 31, 2008
Thomas S. Monson - Called of God
Of Christ Rev 1:14 says, "His head and his hairs were white like wool, as white as snow; and his eyes were as a flame of fire."
Also of Christ D&C 110:3 says, "His eyes were as flame of fire..."
In reading this latter I had considered this a bit of writers license, and assumed Revelation's comment to just be being typical of the book.
Having been brought up in Protestantism I considered it impossible that I would ever see a living apostle. And upon joining the church I still hadn't got to see one at the time I went on my mission; as circumstance had it.
But then we were to have Thomas S. Monson come to a missionary meeting. So here I was to finally come to see a living apostle. I thought, "now remember, Doug, he isn't going to come in dressed like Moses and carrying a staff." I said this to keep my expectations of the person realistic (not that I thought he would come thus dressed).
I was somewhat disappointed to see him come in looking rather business like in his mannerisms. However while I was sitting out there during the process of the meeting I happened to look at him. His eyes were orange, like you would see in a photograph.
I thought, "no-one is going to believe me when I tell them this." So I looked to see if there was any reflection of light coming in the windows. I really knew it wasn't that, to cause such an effect, but I looked anyway. The sun was on the opposite side of the building, the windows were fogged style of glass, and they were all in shade.
I looked back and now his eyes were as fire. I looked into the eyes and it was like going right into an enormous furnace. It was as I had imagined Shadrach, Meshach and Abed-nego standing in a fire: Lots of space. This demonstrated that the Holy Ghost was with him.
I believe God was wanting to show me that, even though he may have had organising and business to do, he still had the Spirit in him, and was a true Apostle of Christ.
Also of Christ D&C 110:3 says, "His eyes were as flame of fire..."
In reading this latter I had considered this a bit of writers license, and assumed Revelation's comment to just be being typical of the book.
Having been brought up in Protestantism I considered it impossible that I would ever see a living apostle. And upon joining the church I still hadn't got to see one at the time I went on my mission; as circumstance had it.
But then we were to have Thomas S. Monson come to a missionary meeting. So here I was to finally come to see a living apostle. I thought, "now remember, Doug, he isn't going to come in dressed like Moses and carrying a staff." I said this to keep my expectations of the person realistic (not that I thought he would come thus dressed).
I was somewhat disappointed to see him come in looking rather business like in his mannerisms. However while I was sitting out there during the process of the meeting I happened to look at him. His eyes were orange, like you would see in a photograph.
I thought, "no-one is going to believe me when I tell them this." So I looked to see if there was any reflection of light coming in the windows. I really knew it wasn't that, to cause such an effect, but I looked anyway. The sun was on the opposite side of the building, the windows were fogged style of glass, and they were all in shade.
I looked back and now his eyes were as fire. I looked into the eyes and it was like going right into an enormous furnace. It was as I had imagined Shadrach, Meshach and Abed-nego standing in a fire: Lots of space. This demonstrated that the Holy Ghost was with him.
I believe God was wanting to show me that, even though he may have had organising and business to do, he still had the Spirit in him, and was a true Apostle of Christ.
Tuesday, January 22, 2008
Methods to Recognise Truth from Error
Having been asked to explain our beliefs on another site, I was called upon to talk of our opinion of the Bible. However as that isn't the only source of truth we have I had to extend the discussion to explain what we regard as sources of truth.
The Baptist minister had trouble with what he termed "changing doctrine" of the church. So I thought it best to explain just how, as an LDS, I determine which doctrines, of those I'm presented with, to recognise as the fullest truths. As the subject is so important I thought I'd share this information as a post on this site.
When my children were really little I told them never to touch a power socket/point/jack or power cords. As my oldest got on she was somewhat shocked to have me one day tell her to plug in a power cord. And as time went on I eventually taught her to take one apart and repair it. If, on the other hand, one of my children wasn't responsible with this freedom I would remove the right from them, and give them back the more basic law, until I felt I could give them another go. So is our Heavenly Father with us.
Two examples of this in the Bible are, first the giving of the law of Moses to Israel when previously the gospel of Jesus Christ was known (Heb 3:16 & 4:2), and second the re-establishment of the gospel of Jesus Christ at the time of John the Baptist (Lk 16:16).
While these situations may be considered by some to be "changing doctrine" nothing had really altered. It never was good to be angry with anyone, or to lust anyone etc. So Christ wasn't creating NEW concepts, but improving the information level.
Therefore as levels of knowledge, within the church generally, can rise and fall (e.g. read D&C 119 heading), the question arises as to how I determine what is the greater truth, as a sincerely searching LDS wishing to progress beyond the basic level?
There are many readable sources I can find information for consideration from. The first and primary readable source is the Standard Works (scriptures). Conference talks and books by past church leaders are good for ideas also.
But, in the end, these do pose some problems in being certain of the fullness of every statement contained therein. For example the prophets prior to Christ in the Book of Mormon and Old Testament could only speak from personal knowledge. And in spite of some inspiration their knowledge wasn't as full as ours should be: They didn't have the sermon on the mount to refer to etc. Their thinking reflected the law of Moses that they were under. So statements they made about God weren't made with as much additional knowledge in many cases.
Next, as the people they were speaking to were often even less informed, the level of information was a bit on the down side for this reason also. This same situation exists to some degree in the church today, as there are new members and those not really ready for deeper understanding, to consider. It is important to give people milk before meat (as Christ and Paul pointed out). So even those things stated by GAs today become limited, as a member stretches on in learning past those basics.
This leads next to the importance of prayer and revelation from the Holy Ghost. In addition to the Holy Ghost you can have personal, two-way, discussion with Heavenly Father or with Jesus Christ, as have had many before us. However even here some will protest that information can come from the wrong source and we may be being deceived. So how can we really know?
Quite simple. Several ways exist of knowing truth from error. These skills can be obtained by practice and looking into yourself. So even though some mistakes may initially be made you will soon get the hang of it. Just allow for the teething problems; keep yourself focused on Heavenly Father and Jesus Christ and you will be fine.
Firstly there is feeling from the messenger (if inspired - which truth generally will be). The dark side (Satan and his mates) are exactly that. And their ways are obvious - anger, hate, revenge, despair, greed, etc. On the other hand God gives freedom, has love, peace, forgiveness, patience and all those other good things.
Next, there is light in truth. If the thing is completely true it will cause light in you that your spirit will love (this light is actually visible to your spirit eyes). If it is only partially right it won't be exactly like that, but will still have some feeling of good. I then know it needs further work, but I'm on the right track. If it is completely wrong I won't feel this at all, and the Holy Ghost may inform me that I'm up the wrong track altogether.
Naturally it shouldn't oppose the highest of Scriptural messages (the sermon on the mount). This was delivered by Christ himself to an audience that had the spiritual interest to actually go out and listen. So that is the peak of his doctrine.
Then there is the fact that it fits in this place in eternity. If it can't fit in a spot in eternity then it is false. Search sincerely for that and you will find it.
It has to fit with reality. If real life seems to oppose the idea then either your perspective of real life needs examining or it is false.
Living principles have the obvious living test. That is that if you practice them fully for a sustained period and nurture them, they will make you feel good inside. Some principles require little testing, and some require extended effort, to prove. A simple test of living principles is to go to a hospital and visit a person not getting visitors. Put that person's face in your head afterward and think of how pleased they were you came. Then ask yourself if you can't feel a good feeling in your heart?
The Baptist minister had trouble with what he termed "changing doctrine" of the church. So I thought it best to explain just how, as an LDS, I determine which doctrines, of those I'm presented with, to recognise as the fullest truths. As the subject is so important I thought I'd share this information as a post on this site.
When my children were really little I told them never to touch a power socket/point/jack or power cords. As my oldest got on she was somewhat shocked to have me one day tell her to plug in a power cord. And as time went on I eventually taught her to take one apart and repair it. If, on the other hand, one of my children wasn't responsible with this freedom I would remove the right from them, and give them back the more basic law, until I felt I could give them another go. So is our Heavenly Father with us.
Two examples of this in the Bible are, first the giving of the law of Moses to Israel when previously the gospel of Jesus Christ was known (Heb 3:16 & 4:2), and second the re-establishment of the gospel of Jesus Christ at the time of John the Baptist (Lk 16:16).
While these situations may be considered by some to be "changing doctrine" nothing had really altered. It never was good to be angry with anyone, or to lust anyone etc. So Christ wasn't creating NEW concepts, but improving the information level.
Therefore as levels of knowledge, within the church generally, can rise and fall (e.g. read D&C 119 heading), the question arises as to how I determine what is the greater truth, as a sincerely searching LDS wishing to progress beyond the basic level?
There are many readable sources I can find information for consideration from. The first and primary readable source is the Standard Works (scriptures). Conference talks and books by past church leaders are good for ideas also.
But, in the end, these do pose some problems in being certain of the fullness of every statement contained therein. For example the prophets prior to Christ in the Book of Mormon and Old Testament could only speak from personal knowledge. And in spite of some inspiration their knowledge wasn't as full as ours should be: They didn't have the sermon on the mount to refer to etc. Their thinking reflected the law of Moses that they were under. So statements they made about God weren't made with as much additional knowledge in many cases.
Next, as the people they were speaking to were often even less informed, the level of information was a bit on the down side for this reason also. This same situation exists to some degree in the church today, as there are new members and those not really ready for deeper understanding, to consider. It is important to give people milk before meat (as Christ and Paul pointed out). So even those things stated by GAs today become limited, as a member stretches on in learning past those basics.
This leads next to the importance of prayer and revelation from the Holy Ghost. In addition to the Holy Ghost you can have personal, two-way, discussion with Heavenly Father or with Jesus Christ, as have had many before us. However even here some will protest that information can come from the wrong source and we may be being deceived. So how can we really know?
Quite simple. Several ways exist of knowing truth from error. These skills can be obtained by practice and looking into yourself. So even though some mistakes may initially be made you will soon get the hang of it. Just allow for the teething problems; keep yourself focused on Heavenly Father and Jesus Christ and you will be fine.
Firstly there is feeling from the messenger (if inspired - which truth generally will be). The dark side (Satan and his mates) are exactly that. And their ways are obvious - anger, hate, revenge, despair, greed, etc. On the other hand God gives freedom, has love, peace, forgiveness, patience and all those other good things.
Next, there is light in truth. If the thing is completely true it will cause light in you that your spirit will love (this light is actually visible to your spirit eyes). If it is only partially right it won't be exactly like that, but will still have some feeling of good. I then know it needs further work, but I'm on the right track. If it is completely wrong I won't feel this at all, and the Holy Ghost may inform me that I'm up the wrong track altogether.
Naturally it shouldn't oppose the highest of Scriptural messages (the sermon on the mount). This was delivered by Christ himself to an audience that had the spiritual interest to actually go out and listen. So that is the peak of his doctrine.
Then there is the fact that it fits in this place in eternity. If it can't fit in a spot in eternity then it is false. Search sincerely for that and you will find it.
It has to fit with reality. If real life seems to oppose the idea then either your perspective of real life needs examining or it is false.
Living principles have the obvious living test. That is that if you practice them fully for a sustained period and nurture them, they will make you feel good inside. Some principles require little testing, and some require extended effort, to prove. A simple test of living principles is to go to a hospital and visit a person not getting visitors. Put that person's face in your head afterward and think of how pleased they were you came. Then ask yourself if you can't feel a good feeling in your heart?
Tuesday, January 01, 2008
Men Becoming Gods - is this Biblical?
Joseph Smith wasn't backward in stating that the things he taught could be demonstrated in the Bible. Many religions try to present themselves as knowing the Bible. But all I see is a mess that isn't as Biblically supported as they claim. A teaching of the church that stands seriously opposed, and even accused by some of being blasphemous, is that man can eventually become as God is. Does the Bible teach this?
Gen 1:1 "In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth."
In Hebrew (which is the language it was written in) the word translated as "God" in the above verse is "Eloheim". Words ending in "im" in Hebrew are plural. It is like when we use an "s" at the end of a word. We would say, "one cherub", "two cherubs". They said, "one cherub", "two cherubim".
When Christ called to God from the cross he called out "Eloi", which means "My God" (Mark 15:34). In the Old Testament names are used with or without an "h" and the accompanying vowel. Thus the word "Eloheim" is also written "Eloim". Christ calls for "Eloi" the "i" at the end suggesting "My".
So now you understand this Hebrew word, we can see that Gen 1:1 literally says, "In the beginning GODS created the heavens and the earth." So why did the translators use the word "God" rather than "Gods" as it really says? - Indoctrination! People who want to continue believing that the Bible teaches that one God created the earth will want to ignore this or think up excuses for the poor translation. However this would only be to their own detriment. Why just continue to believe something false? You may think you like to keep with the old belief, but wait until you experience all the truth. You won't look back.
Thoughts would come to mind of the Bible talking of one God only. I will come to explain all this further on. But briefly I will mention (least I be misunderstood) that there is only one Father God and there is only one Lord Jesus Christ. Israel had but one God and Lord - Jesus Christ (Jehovah). The gods of other nations were false. So besides him there was no real God. Yet this didn't detract from the fact that the Father God existed. His statement was to keep it simple. This will be more evident as we go on. Remember that my objective isn't to force readers to believe that which they refuse to believe, but to demonstrate that the Bible teaches that men can become as God.
We are left with the question, "who were these Gods that created the earth," as mentioned in Genesis?
In Jn 10:34 Christ, quoting part of Psalms 82:6 states, "Ye are Gods". In verses 35-36 Christ goes on to state that if the people to whom the word came are Gods, how can he be blaspheming by merely stating that he is the son of one. Plainly Christ is declaring the word "Gods" in Psalms to be a plural form, with exactly the same value, as the word "God" used in his statement, "son of God". So he has given an equal status to these Gods, who were a group of men, as he has to the Father. Some of us can therefore be stated to be Gods as God is God, according to Christ. Are these the Gods referred to in Genesis?
What else do we find in the Bible declaring that men will be equal with God?
Rev 3:21 "To him that overcometh will I grant to sit down with me in my throne, even as I also overcame, and am set down with my father in his throne."
This is declaring that people who overcome will sit down with Christ in his throne, which is also the throne of our Heavenly Father. How could anything be more clear? The Bible is telling us that some people will equally co-reign with God.
Is there more in the Bible stating that man will rule in heaven?
Luke 12:43-44 "Blessed is that servant, whom his lord when he cometh shall find so doing. Of a truth I say unto you, that he will make him ruler over all that he hath."
"Ruler over ALL that he hath". More talk by Christ of men having an equal rulership in heaven with God.
What I have shown has proven conclusively that man will reign in heaven, and that some men are Gods. But for the sake of sceptics I will proceed to further demonstrate Biblically that man will reign equally in heaven with God.
Rom 8:16-17 "The Spirit itself beareth witness with our spirit, that we are the children of God: And if children, then heirs; heirs of God, and joint-heirs with Christ; if so be that we suffer with him, that we may be also glorified together."
This is stating that those righteous will be heirs also as Christ is an heir. A "joint-heir" is where the division is equal.
Rom 3:23 "For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God."
So what is it that has made us come short of having God's glory? Sin. Christ came and paid for the sins of the truly repentant, thus bringing us back that we can gain the glory of God.
2 Thess 2:14 "Whereunto he called by our gospel, to the obtaining of the glory of our Lord Jesus Christ."
Therefore by following the gospel we can obtain the same glory as Jesus Christ.
I would ask readers, "are we really to believe this teaching isn't Biblical?"
But let us go on, for the really died in the wool sceptics who are still trying to take this new information on board.
Psalms 136:2 "O give thanks unto the God of gods: for his mercy endureth forever."
In spite of the word "gods" being translated with a small "g", the original Hebrew uses the same word here as is used in Genesis 1:1, as quoted above. So he is termed "the God of Gods". Surely this can't mean God of the unreal, so called "gods" that the other nations had. That would make him God of nothing, or the God of bits of wood and stone. This verse is saying that he is the God of other Gods. What other Gods? Those Gods mentioned creating the earth? Those men who are Gods, mentioned by Christ and Psalms? Those Gods who will sit in God's throne and reign? Those joint-heirs with Christ?
Luke 16:12 "And if ye have not been faithful in that which is another man's, who shall give you that which is your own?"
What is this that Christ is stating that we can't have of our OWN if we aren't faithful with what is God's? If we are to believe that only our Heavenly Father can invent and own, how could we ever own anything anyway? His statement implies that we can have that which is exclusively our own, not God's, if we are faithful. This implies that we would have to create it ourselves, for it not to belong to God.
Speaking of Christ Isa 53:12 says, "Therefore will I divide him a portion with the great, and he shall divide the spoil with the strong; because he hath poured out his soul unto death: and he was numbered with the transgressors; and he bare the sin of many, and made intercession for the transgressors."
Who are these greats and strong that Christ will divide the spoil with? Plainly the joint-heirs and Gods of creation that the Bible talks of. And who are these Gods? They are the righteous of this earth that truly accept to follow Christ in ALL things.
We have but one God. And that is our Heavenly Father. We have only one Lord and Savior - Jesus Christ. But the Bible plainly teaches that we also are Gods in the making. That is our purpose in being here, and the destiny of those who are righteous. Learning how to create an earth, under Christ's direction, was just part of our education.
One point that I should mention for a fuller understanding, is that even though we gain the calling of doing that which Heavenly Father is doing, we never actually become as he would be at any time, as an individual, because he continues to grow also.
A blasphemous doctrine? Not according to Jesus Christ, Joseph Smith, Paul, Psalms, Moses and Isaiah.
Gen 1:1 "In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth."
In Hebrew (which is the language it was written in) the word translated as "God" in the above verse is "Eloheim". Words ending in "im" in Hebrew are plural. It is like when we use an "s" at the end of a word. We would say, "one cherub", "two cherubs". They said, "one cherub", "two cherubim".
When Christ called to God from the cross he called out "Eloi", which means "My God" (Mark 15:34). In the Old Testament names are used with or without an "h" and the accompanying vowel. Thus the word "Eloheim" is also written "Eloim". Christ calls for "Eloi" the "i" at the end suggesting "My".
So now you understand this Hebrew word, we can see that Gen 1:1 literally says, "In the beginning GODS created the heavens and the earth." So why did the translators use the word "God" rather than "Gods" as it really says? - Indoctrination! People who want to continue believing that the Bible teaches that one God created the earth will want to ignore this or think up excuses for the poor translation. However this would only be to their own detriment. Why just continue to believe something false? You may think you like to keep with the old belief, but wait until you experience all the truth. You won't look back.
Thoughts would come to mind of the Bible talking of one God only. I will come to explain all this further on. But briefly I will mention (least I be misunderstood) that there is only one Father God and there is only one Lord Jesus Christ. Israel had but one God and Lord - Jesus Christ (Jehovah). The gods of other nations were false. So besides him there was no real God. Yet this didn't detract from the fact that the Father God existed. His statement was to keep it simple. This will be more evident as we go on. Remember that my objective isn't to force readers to believe that which they refuse to believe, but to demonstrate that the Bible teaches that men can become as God.
We are left with the question, "who were these Gods that created the earth," as mentioned in Genesis?
In Jn 10:34 Christ, quoting part of Psalms 82:6 states, "Ye are Gods". In verses 35-36 Christ goes on to state that if the people to whom the word came are Gods, how can he be blaspheming by merely stating that he is the son of one. Plainly Christ is declaring the word "Gods" in Psalms to be a plural form, with exactly the same value, as the word "God" used in his statement, "son of God". So he has given an equal status to these Gods, who were a group of men, as he has to the Father. Some of us can therefore be stated to be Gods as God is God, according to Christ. Are these the Gods referred to in Genesis?
What else do we find in the Bible declaring that men will be equal with God?
Rev 3:21 "To him that overcometh will I grant to sit down with me in my throne, even as I also overcame, and am set down with my father in his throne."
This is declaring that people who overcome will sit down with Christ in his throne, which is also the throne of our Heavenly Father. How could anything be more clear? The Bible is telling us that some people will equally co-reign with God.
Is there more in the Bible stating that man will rule in heaven?
Luke 12:43-44 "Blessed is that servant, whom his lord when he cometh shall find so doing. Of a truth I say unto you, that he will make him ruler over all that he hath."
"Ruler over ALL that he hath". More talk by Christ of men having an equal rulership in heaven with God.
What I have shown has proven conclusively that man will reign in heaven, and that some men are Gods. But for the sake of sceptics I will proceed to further demonstrate Biblically that man will reign equally in heaven with God.
Rom 8:16-17 "The Spirit itself beareth witness with our spirit, that we are the children of God: And if children, then heirs; heirs of God, and joint-heirs with Christ; if so be that we suffer with him, that we may be also glorified together."
This is stating that those righteous will be heirs also as Christ is an heir. A "joint-heir" is where the division is equal.
Rom 3:23 "For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God."
So what is it that has made us come short of having God's glory? Sin. Christ came and paid for the sins of the truly repentant, thus bringing us back that we can gain the glory of God.
2 Thess 2:14 "Whereunto he called by our gospel, to the obtaining of the glory of our Lord Jesus Christ."
Therefore by following the gospel we can obtain the same glory as Jesus Christ.
I would ask readers, "are we really to believe this teaching isn't Biblical?"
But let us go on, for the really died in the wool sceptics who are still trying to take this new information on board.
Psalms 136:2 "O give thanks unto the God of gods: for his mercy endureth forever."
In spite of the word "gods" being translated with a small "g", the original Hebrew uses the same word here as is used in Genesis 1:1, as quoted above. So he is termed "the God of Gods". Surely this can't mean God of the unreal, so called "gods" that the other nations had. That would make him God of nothing, or the God of bits of wood and stone. This verse is saying that he is the God of other Gods. What other Gods? Those Gods mentioned creating the earth? Those men who are Gods, mentioned by Christ and Psalms? Those Gods who will sit in God's throne and reign? Those joint-heirs with Christ?
Luke 16:12 "And if ye have not been faithful in that which is another man's, who shall give you that which is your own?"
What is this that Christ is stating that we can't have of our OWN if we aren't faithful with what is God's? If we are to believe that only our Heavenly Father can invent and own, how could we ever own anything anyway? His statement implies that we can have that which is exclusively our own, not God's, if we are faithful. This implies that we would have to create it ourselves, for it not to belong to God.
Speaking of Christ Isa 53:12 says, "Therefore will I divide him a portion with the great, and he shall divide the spoil with the strong; because he hath poured out his soul unto death: and he was numbered with the transgressors; and he bare the sin of many, and made intercession for the transgressors."
Who are these greats and strong that Christ will divide the spoil with? Plainly the joint-heirs and Gods of creation that the Bible talks of. And who are these Gods? They are the righteous of this earth that truly accept to follow Christ in ALL things.
We have but one God. And that is our Heavenly Father. We have only one Lord and Savior - Jesus Christ. But the Bible plainly teaches that we also are Gods in the making. That is our purpose in being here, and the destiny of those who are righteous. Learning how to create an earth, under Christ's direction, was just part of our education.
One point that I should mention for a fuller understanding, is that even though we gain the calling of doing that which Heavenly Father is doing, we never actually become as he would be at any time, as an individual, because he continues to grow also.
A blasphemous doctrine? Not according to Jesus Christ, Joseph Smith, Paul, Psalms, Moses and Isaiah.
Tuesday, December 18, 2007
Feminism - a New Perspective
"Yes," says Mr Aver Aij of Knowsville, "I am a Masculinist, and we demand to be heard for a change. Throughout history women have never listened to our issues. Men have stopped talking thousands of years ago because women never listened. But now we are speaking out."
Mr Haddit of Ninetfive states, "I'm tired of heading off every day to the same meaningless, boring job of being a managing director. I want something in my life where I can look back on it and feel I really made a difference in someone's life. That someone is thankful for the work I have done. Where someone feels their life wouldn't have been as good without me being there. We men demand versatile, demanding and highly useful employment. We demand the right to stay at home and look after children, go out shopping, clean a house, cook meals and all those other highly important, useful and diversified things stay at home Mums get to do."
"'Man is the head of the home,' they say," states Mr Con D Me of Depression, "well you could have fooled me. Don't let my wife know that will you? When dating, she said, 'We'll discuss problems together when we are married.' I've come to find that to mean we will discuss it until I become frustrated with the illogical conversation, and just give up. It isn't worth the pain."
"Well," says Mr Spore Ting, "women are so unromantic. My wife never remembers football starting day each year. I have to remind her every year. And she doesn't even think to get me the football calendar. It's little things like this that show a man that a woman loves him. And they just don't think of them."
Mr Soreit of the Historical Society of Ancientstuff said, "in the past when serious wars have begun women have been keen to go back to their kitchens and tell men to go off and do the fighting. But we're tired of being used like that. Next time a big war begins we should send the women off (who have always claimed to be the same as men, when a long period of peace has been) and we stay at home and wait, for a change."
Mr D Um of the Longstay Psychiatric Centre says, "I went out wearing tight, high cut shorts showing my backside. You know; 'dressed to kill'. At 2AM I was on my way home and four women stopped in a car and wistled at me. Obviously I danced around provocatively. Just joking. You know. And they raped me! My psychiatrist said it was completely their fault and that I had nothing to do with it, of course. Naturally I shouldn't feel any guilt for what happened. After all a man should be able to wear whatever he wants."
Mr Crae Zee recently expressed his feelings on independence, "I'm tired of being only a half of a marriage partnership. I want to be married, but be independent. I have a right to my own life. I should be able to do what I want to do. My wife just doesn't understand that I need a life of my own. I need to pursue my hobbies and goals and have her work around them. It should just be like I'm still single, but I'm married. And my wife should understand that I don't have time to change our baby's soiled pants because I'm learning art."
Crae's brother Mr Lais Zee says, "I don't know that I want to do all that much. I'd just like to be a stay at home Dad, and watch Oprah and 'Daze of our Wives'. TV dinners are fine for everyone. They can just put them in the microwave. The house doesn't really need to be cleaned that often, and kids look after themselves these days. Why should I have to go to work? I sent out the wife."
"The place where I have trouble with women is that they aren't insensitive enough," said Hadd Unuff. Whenever I want to watch a good war movie they want to watch something like 'Brittle Women' or 'Sense and Insensibility'. We're all blood and guts inside, you know?"
"Yes," says Mr Mauve Eez, "I can be watching a war movie where all these men have just sacrificed their lives for the safety and rights of mankind, with others risking their lives to save their comrads, and my wife comes in and insensitively says how violent the movie is, and that such movies desensitize people. Have they no feeling? She prefers to watch movies about women sitting down crocheting (or doing nothing) and talking about whom they should marry. So that when they are married they can continue doing nothing and talk about the man they should have married instead."
Mr Haddit of Ninetfive states, "I'm tired of heading off every day to the same meaningless, boring job of being a managing director. I want something in my life where I can look back on it and feel I really made a difference in someone's life. That someone is thankful for the work I have done. Where someone feels their life wouldn't have been as good without me being there. We men demand versatile, demanding and highly useful employment. We demand the right to stay at home and look after children, go out shopping, clean a house, cook meals and all those other highly important, useful and diversified things stay at home Mums get to do."
"'Man is the head of the home,' they say," states Mr Con D Me of Depression, "well you could have fooled me. Don't let my wife know that will you? When dating, she said, 'We'll discuss problems together when we are married.' I've come to find that to mean we will discuss it until I become frustrated with the illogical conversation, and just give up. It isn't worth the pain."
"Well," says Mr Spore Ting, "women are so unromantic. My wife never remembers football starting day each year. I have to remind her every year. And she doesn't even think to get me the football calendar. It's little things like this that show a man that a woman loves him. And they just don't think of them."
Mr Soreit of the Historical Society of Ancientstuff said, "in the past when serious wars have begun women have been keen to go back to their kitchens and tell men to go off and do the fighting. But we're tired of being used like that. Next time a big war begins we should send the women off (who have always claimed to be the same as men, when a long period of peace has been) and we stay at home and wait, for a change."
Mr D Um of the Longstay Psychiatric Centre says, "I went out wearing tight, high cut shorts showing my backside. You know; 'dressed to kill'. At 2AM I was on my way home and four women stopped in a car and wistled at me. Obviously I danced around provocatively. Just joking. You know. And they raped me! My psychiatrist said it was completely their fault and that I had nothing to do with it, of course. Naturally I shouldn't feel any guilt for what happened. After all a man should be able to wear whatever he wants."
Mr Crae Zee recently expressed his feelings on independence, "I'm tired of being only a half of a marriage partnership. I want to be married, but be independent. I have a right to my own life. I should be able to do what I want to do. My wife just doesn't understand that I need a life of my own. I need to pursue my hobbies and goals and have her work around them. It should just be like I'm still single, but I'm married. And my wife should understand that I don't have time to change our baby's soiled pants because I'm learning art."
Crae's brother Mr Lais Zee says, "I don't know that I want to do all that much. I'd just like to be a stay at home Dad, and watch Oprah and 'Daze of our Wives'. TV dinners are fine for everyone. They can just put them in the microwave. The house doesn't really need to be cleaned that often, and kids look after themselves these days. Why should I have to go to work? I sent out the wife."
"The place where I have trouble with women is that they aren't insensitive enough," said Hadd Unuff. Whenever I want to watch a good war movie they want to watch something like 'Brittle Women' or 'Sense and Insensibility'. We're all blood and guts inside, you know?"
"Yes," says Mr Mauve Eez, "I can be watching a war movie where all these men have just sacrificed their lives for the safety and rights of mankind, with others risking their lives to save their comrads, and my wife comes in and insensitively says how violent the movie is, and that such movies desensitize people. Have they no feeling? She prefers to watch movies about women sitting down crocheting (or doing nothing) and talking about whom they should marry. So that when they are married they can continue doing nothing and talk about the man they should have married instead."
Thursday, November 29, 2007
The Bible as the Ultimate Authority - is this Possible?
I recently had, what I eventually came to realise was, a non-productive conversation with a Protestant, that brought to a head many other similar conversations I've had with Protestants. That is what prompted this post. For those who may not be aware "Protestantism" means all the churches claiming belief in Christ other than the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints and the Roman Catholic Church.
The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints holds direct revelation from God as the ultimate authority. Catholics hold the Pope to be God's mouthpiece, and the ultimate authority on earth. Protestantism rejects the Pope as an authority from God, and holds that the Bible is the ultimate authority. This means there is no higher authoritive source for what God has to say than the Bible, to the Protestant. In fact it holds the Bible as the one and only authority. All beliefs are claimed to have been derived from the Bible. And to have any religious opinion it must be supported from the Bible.
The question then arises as to how sensible is this concept? Is the Bible a sound ultimate authority? Questions could be gone into of which of the conflicting ancient manuscripts is the most correct. And what of the changes that were made where the original word can't be detected due to the many corrections made of that particular word, in spite of our science. Some of these changes are on very serious issues, that is why they were changed. Then there is the problem of opinion of what each Greek or Hebrew word, in the Bible, really meant to a people we can't interview to find the meanings of those words.
Protestants will claim that God wouldn't ALLOW the Bible to be interfered with: He would make sure that it came through perfect. But if that is true how is it that the vaste majority of people who have lived upon the earth haven't even had one? In fact Protestantism teaches that for the first approximately 2400 years (up to Moses) no scripture existed whatsoever: That the Bible is the only scripture that has ever existed. So what makes them think THEY are so special, that God has gone to some specific effort to make sure they have perfect Scriptures? God is no respector of persons.
But I'm not going into these problems in this post.
The biggest problem with the Bible as an ultimate authority is that when all is said and done it is subject to private interpretation. Whatever you demonstrate from the Bible they just make excuses for. Traditional interpretation is held above the actual words of the Bible.
God is said to have created man in his "image and likeness". They claim this doesn't mean in his physical likeness or image, but in some other undefinable sense. But God used these terms also in the law given to Moses. And no one denies that the commandment refers to making something that physically LOOKS like anything living (Ex 20:4).
We have loads of scriptures stating that God has a body looking like a man. What do they say though? Either 1. It was an angel. Or 2. It is speaking figuratively and there was no actual thing to see. Whichever we choose, they are claiming the Bible's statement isn't correct as written.
We have loads of scriptures stating that people have seen God. One where God himself states the person saw him. What do they say of these? The answer is the same as that above. And the quote where it says that no man has seen God at any time. A shame they couldn't understand that one by reading the others properly that say similar things, but explain better.
The Bible talks of baptism for the dead. But they tell us that doesn't count because it is only written once.
Christ speaks of going TO the Father and sending back the Holy Ghost, and Prostestantism tells us that the Bible teaches a trinity (almost all Protestants - with due respect to those who know otherwise). Even with their talk of magic transformations of Christ (to try and confuse the issue), we still have the Father sending back the Holy Ghost.
We have the Bible giving many scriptures showing that we existed before coming here to earth. Yet they reject these also and say that he just knew ABOUT us before, but didn't know us as the Bible states.
They say that God's claim of being our Father is that he is our inventor.
Jn 3:16 states that God sent Christ because he loved us so much. Yet Protestantism tells us God has no real passions, and he just says these words to try and explain as best he can.
I could go on and on. However these above demonstrate the point I'm saying.
They tell us that we should understand not to take these things as written. But I would ask then by what standard are they judging that we should take them as they interpret them? After all they reject the concept of logic relative to God. And particularly considering that their interpretation ISN'T what the Bible says.
How can the Bible be God's ultimate authority yet we aren't really to believe it to mean what it says where it conflicts with traditional interpretation? Even the most simple of statements are interpretable. According to Protestantism we can't even believe Christ when he tells us that God loves us (as he has no passions). See how silly this whole thing gets?
The Bible as an ultimate authority is a dismal failure. People quote it out of context probably more often than they quote it in context. Or maybe it's just that I notice these things and it seems that way.
Fortunately Christ sent the Holy Ghost to those who are ready to accept it and listen to him, rather than trying to tell God how things are. God himself should be our ultimate authority, as Joseph Smith discovered.
The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints holds direct revelation from God as the ultimate authority. Catholics hold the Pope to be God's mouthpiece, and the ultimate authority on earth. Protestantism rejects the Pope as an authority from God, and holds that the Bible is the ultimate authority. This means there is no higher authoritive source for what God has to say than the Bible, to the Protestant. In fact it holds the Bible as the one and only authority. All beliefs are claimed to have been derived from the Bible. And to have any religious opinion it must be supported from the Bible.
The question then arises as to how sensible is this concept? Is the Bible a sound ultimate authority? Questions could be gone into of which of the conflicting ancient manuscripts is the most correct. And what of the changes that were made where the original word can't be detected due to the many corrections made of that particular word, in spite of our science. Some of these changes are on very serious issues, that is why they were changed. Then there is the problem of opinion of what each Greek or Hebrew word, in the Bible, really meant to a people we can't interview to find the meanings of those words.
Protestants will claim that God wouldn't ALLOW the Bible to be interfered with: He would make sure that it came through perfect. But if that is true how is it that the vaste majority of people who have lived upon the earth haven't even had one? In fact Protestantism teaches that for the first approximately 2400 years (up to Moses) no scripture existed whatsoever: That the Bible is the only scripture that has ever existed. So what makes them think THEY are so special, that God has gone to some specific effort to make sure they have perfect Scriptures? God is no respector of persons.
But I'm not going into these problems in this post.
The biggest problem with the Bible as an ultimate authority is that when all is said and done it is subject to private interpretation. Whatever you demonstrate from the Bible they just make excuses for. Traditional interpretation is held above the actual words of the Bible.
God is said to have created man in his "image and likeness". They claim this doesn't mean in his physical likeness or image, but in some other undefinable sense. But God used these terms also in the law given to Moses. And no one denies that the commandment refers to making something that physically LOOKS like anything living (Ex 20:4).
We have loads of scriptures stating that God has a body looking like a man. What do they say though? Either 1. It was an angel. Or 2. It is speaking figuratively and there was no actual thing to see. Whichever we choose, they are claiming the Bible's statement isn't correct as written.
We have loads of scriptures stating that people have seen God. One where God himself states the person saw him. What do they say of these? The answer is the same as that above. And the quote where it says that no man has seen God at any time. A shame they couldn't understand that one by reading the others properly that say similar things, but explain better.
The Bible talks of baptism for the dead. But they tell us that doesn't count because it is only written once.
Christ speaks of going TO the Father and sending back the Holy Ghost, and Prostestantism tells us that the Bible teaches a trinity (almost all Protestants - with due respect to those who know otherwise). Even with their talk of magic transformations of Christ (to try and confuse the issue), we still have the Father sending back the Holy Ghost.
We have the Bible giving many scriptures showing that we existed before coming here to earth. Yet they reject these also and say that he just knew ABOUT us before, but didn't know us as the Bible states.
They say that God's claim of being our Father is that he is our inventor.
Jn 3:16 states that God sent Christ because he loved us so much. Yet Protestantism tells us God has no real passions, and he just says these words to try and explain as best he can.
I could go on and on. However these above demonstrate the point I'm saying.
They tell us that we should understand not to take these things as written. But I would ask then by what standard are they judging that we should take them as they interpret them? After all they reject the concept of logic relative to God. And particularly considering that their interpretation ISN'T what the Bible says.
How can the Bible be God's ultimate authority yet we aren't really to believe it to mean what it says where it conflicts with traditional interpretation? Even the most simple of statements are interpretable. According to Protestantism we can't even believe Christ when he tells us that God loves us (as he has no passions). See how silly this whole thing gets?
The Bible as an ultimate authority is a dismal failure. People quote it out of context probably more often than they quote it in context. Or maybe it's just that I notice these things and it seems that way.
Fortunately Christ sent the Holy Ghost to those who are ready to accept it and listen to him, rather than trying to tell God how things are. God himself should be our ultimate authority, as Joseph Smith discovered.
Thursday, November 15, 2007
Masturbation
Disclaimer - as I have recently been misquoted on another site I am declaring here that this article nowhere claims that masturbation causes cancer. I am surprised at the amount of responses that the opposing post received, considering that not one of his followers upon reading my article noticed that flaw in the claim of the writer. _ end of Disclaimer
This is a much debated, but highly important subject. General Authorites of the church are now speaking out more than ever before against masturbation. This is good, but many remain uncertain themselves or what to say to those involved.
Health
I only mention this subject as it is a point to keep in mind and to get it out of the way first, as it is the least important.
I remember seeing a picture of a guy with thick dark rings around his eyes from masturbation, and reading of people having to be locked up in mental institutions due to their constant need to masturbate. Of course people will say, "well that's not me." Yet on the other side it could be argued that those in the mental institutions would have originally said the same. It is true, however, that the vaste majority don't end up in institutions.
Additionally I should mention that there are those who's genitals get damaged by this at times.
Bad health can begin to occur within the body by having to restore liquids, used in the process, so often. This is also a problem for young people in the stages of growth. Long term health problems would obviously eventually derive from this taxing of resources during the growth period. It would equally cause problems for those getting older where their body is working to keep healthy in spite of deteriation. In fact there is no age at which this isn't an issue to some degree or other.
But these health issues are minor matters compared to the overall problems.
Social
Pornography places emphasis on people as objects. One reason is because you don't communicate with the person in the photo/movie. I once asked a rapist how it was that he could treat a person that way. He said it was because at that point he saw her as an object, not as a person. Pornography and masturbation create this thinking. People masturbating will probably be unaware of the more subtle changes that this has made in relationships with others. However those changes are there. We are a product of all our actions and thinking. we can't just do or think things negative about mankind and not have some negative effect. Strong feelings are produced during masturbation and the feelings prior. Many pornographic views don't show the person's face at all. For these reasons a person masturbating is less likely to appeal to the gender they wish to create a relationship with, as there will be a deeper sense of seeing that person as an object. This will diminish the human feelings the person would otherwise demonstrate naturally. Therefore less appeal to the other person: The person won't sense good respect.
Secretive
People buying pornography generally will be secretive about it. They may hide it from family and friends. There is a sneaking around when buying it, making sure that no one they know sees them. Then they hide their actions in using it. This deception shows also. Our character is effected by our actions and feelings, whether we like it or not. This deceptive part of our nature comes out in our relationships with others also. If we are honest in everything else people may find us honest overall. But it still will have a negative effect. As this shows in relationships with family and friends, and these are places where all negative effects should be disposed of, masturbation can destroy important relationships we already have.
Another problem relative to secrecy is that it can grow. Adultery is a possible outcome. Masturbation encourages having sexual feelings for anyone displaying sexual parts. People with religious feelings don't usually plan to become an adulterer. It comes as a part of having secret feelings.
Under age sex offences are another possible outcome of such secrecy. In spite of the false propaganda, most child sex offenders (at least those dealing with someone 8-years-old and above) are not habitual offenders. I also remember noting on a 60 Minutes program that there is only about a 6 % recidivism (re-offender) rate for child sex offenders. So child sex offences aren't generally performed by some strange breed of person. They can happen by secrecy and being drawn to sexual parts (a product of masturbation). There is often this feeling of a secret romantic relationship between the offender and the child.
Everyone does it?
I have often heard the joke that there are only 2 types of people, those who admit they masturbate and those who are lying. I can assure all readers that this is false. I don't, and I know many who don't. I have no problems with this. My wife died young and I haven't had any sexual action for many years. I don't miss it at all. Not because I couldn't, but I understand the spiritual aspect of this, which I will come to.
God's Opinion
Matthew 5:28 "But I say unto you, That whosoever looketh on a woman to lust after her hath committed adultery with her already in his heart."
Galatians 5:16 "This I say then, Walk in the Spirit, and ye shall not fulfil the lust of the flesh."
Galatians 5:24 "And they that are Christ's have crucified the flesh with the affections and lusts."
James 1:15 "Then when lust hath conceived, it bringeth forth sin: and sin, when it is finished, bringeth forth death."
Doctrine & Covenants 88:121 "Therefore, cease from all your light speeches, from all laughter, from all your lustful desires, from all your pride and light-mindedness, and from all your wicked doings."
Our Spirit
By "our spirit" I'm referring to that which is otherwise referred to as our "heart". This is by far the most significant factor. This area creates the question, "lust - good or bad?"
When a person gets on to a roller-coaster they take a ride which causes fear in their spirit. Their spirit comes to life more by this fear. People confuse this and call it "exhilarating" or "exciting". They want to go and do it again for this feeling. However if they actually inteviewed their spirit it would plead with them not to do it again.
Our heads are bad when it comes to interpreting our hearts. We feel strong sensations and interpret them. But is our interpretation correct? I remember the song, "there's a fine line between pleasure and pain". The truth is that there is no line between sexual pleasure and pain. People will sometimes use pain to increase sexual "pleasure". Some will go to great lengths with this. As ridiculous as it may sound to you, that feeling a person lusting interprets as "pleasure" is your spirit in pain. Increasing physical pain increases the spirits' pain sensation. To really come to see the truth of what I am claiming a person would need to start listening to their heart properly. This requires a process. Firstly a person would have to cease all sexual fantasies. Your mind is yours - don't forget that. Every time you begin to have a sexual fantasy you can either change it to a romantic fantasy where the heart feels the romance. Or you can make it a spiritual fantasy where you do wonderful, spiritual works for others and share heart feelings with them. Or, for that matter, you can do both these, as you wish. Seek to become one with your heart. Listen to it. Eventually you will begin to have communication, and you will come to understand yourself.
Children can be produced without lust, don't let the devil con you on that one. A beautiful relationship will exist between husband and wife. Getting rid of lust will increase the love in a marriage beyond belief. Try God's way and you will see it works, no matter how crazy it may sound. That is what we call "faith".
If you feel you need further assistance, read the whole of my article in "Masturbation; giving it up" - the link is at the top of the page ("Masturbation Problems").
This is a much debated, but highly important subject. General Authorites of the church are now speaking out more than ever before against masturbation. This is good, but many remain uncertain themselves or what to say to those involved.
Health
I only mention this subject as it is a point to keep in mind and to get it out of the way first, as it is the least important.
I remember seeing a picture of a guy with thick dark rings around his eyes from masturbation, and reading of people having to be locked up in mental institutions due to their constant need to masturbate. Of course people will say, "well that's not me." Yet on the other side it could be argued that those in the mental institutions would have originally said the same. It is true, however, that the vaste majority don't end up in institutions.
Additionally I should mention that there are those who's genitals get damaged by this at times.
Bad health can begin to occur within the body by having to restore liquids, used in the process, so often. This is also a problem for young people in the stages of growth. Long term health problems would obviously eventually derive from this taxing of resources during the growth period. It would equally cause problems for those getting older where their body is working to keep healthy in spite of deteriation. In fact there is no age at which this isn't an issue to some degree or other.
But these health issues are minor matters compared to the overall problems.
Social
Pornography places emphasis on people as objects. One reason is because you don't communicate with the person in the photo/movie. I once asked a rapist how it was that he could treat a person that way. He said it was because at that point he saw her as an object, not as a person. Pornography and masturbation create this thinking. People masturbating will probably be unaware of the more subtle changes that this has made in relationships with others. However those changes are there. We are a product of all our actions and thinking. we can't just do or think things negative about mankind and not have some negative effect. Strong feelings are produced during masturbation and the feelings prior. Many pornographic views don't show the person's face at all. For these reasons a person masturbating is less likely to appeal to the gender they wish to create a relationship with, as there will be a deeper sense of seeing that person as an object. This will diminish the human feelings the person would otherwise demonstrate naturally. Therefore less appeal to the other person: The person won't sense good respect.
Secretive
People buying pornography generally will be secretive about it. They may hide it from family and friends. There is a sneaking around when buying it, making sure that no one they know sees them. Then they hide their actions in using it. This deception shows also. Our character is effected by our actions and feelings, whether we like it or not. This deceptive part of our nature comes out in our relationships with others also. If we are honest in everything else people may find us honest overall. But it still will have a negative effect. As this shows in relationships with family and friends, and these are places where all negative effects should be disposed of, masturbation can destroy important relationships we already have.
Another problem relative to secrecy is that it can grow. Adultery is a possible outcome. Masturbation encourages having sexual feelings for anyone displaying sexual parts. People with religious feelings don't usually plan to become an adulterer. It comes as a part of having secret feelings.
Under age sex offences are another possible outcome of such secrecy. In spite of the false propaganda, most child sex offenders (at least those dealing with someone 8-years-old and above) are not habitual offenders. I also remember noting on a 60 Minutes program that there is only about a 6 % recidivism (re-offender) rate for child sex offenders. So child sex offences aren't generally performed by some strange breed of person. They can happen by secrecy and being drawn to sexual parts (a product of masturbation). There is often this feeling of a secret romantic relationship between the offender and the child.
Everyone does it?
I have often heard the joke that there are only 2 types of people, those who admit they masturbate and those who are lying. I can assure all readers that this is false. I don't, and I know many who don't. I have no problems with this. My wife died young and I haven't had any sexual action for many years. I don't miss it at all. Not because I couldn't, but I understand the spiritual aspect of this, which I will come to.
God's Opinion
Matthew 5:28 "But I say unto you, That whosoever looketh on a woman to lust after her hath committed adultery with her already in his heart."
Galatians 5:16 "This I say then, Walk in the Spirit, and ye shall not fulfil the lust of the flesh."
Galatians 5:24 "And they that are Christ's have crucified the flesh with the affections and lusts."
James 1:15 "Then when lust hath conceived, it bringeth forth sin: and sin, when it is finished, bringeth forth death."
Doctrine & Covenants 88:121 "Therefore, cease from all your light speeches, from all laughter, from all your lustful desires, from all your pride and light-mindedness, and from all your wicked doings."
Our Spirit
By "our spirit" I'm referring to that which is otherwise referred to as our "heart". This is by far the most significant factor. This area creates the question, "lust - good or bad?"
When a person gets on to a roller-coaster they take a ride which causes fear in their spirit. Their spirit comes to life more by this fear. People confuse this and call it "exhilarating" or "exciting". They want to go and do it again for this feeling. However if they actually inteviewed their spirit it would plead with them not to do it again.
Our heads are bad when it comes to interpreting our hearts. We feel strong sensations and interpret them. But is our interpretation correct? I remember the song, "there's a fine line between pleasure and pain". The truth is that there is no line between sexual pleasure and pain. People will sometimes use pain to increase sexual "pleasure". Some will go to great lengths with this. As ridiculous as it may sound to you, that feeling a person lusting interprets as "pleasure" is your spirit in pain. Increasing physical pain increases the spirits' pain sensation. To really come to see the truth of what I am claiming a person would need to start listening to their heart properly. This requires a process. Firstly a person would have to cease all sexual fantasies. Your mind is yours - don't forget that. Every time you begin to have a sexual fantasy you can either change it to a romantic fantasy where the heart feels the romance. Or you can make it a spiritual fantasy where you do wonderful, spiritual works for others and share heart feelings with them. Or, for that matter, you can do both these, as you wish. Seek to become one with your heart. Listen to it. Eventually you will begin to have communication, and you will come to understand yourself.
Children can be produced without lust, don't let the devil con you on that one. A beautiful relationship will exist between husband and wife. Getting rid of lust will increase the love in a marriage beyond belief. Try God's way and you will see it works, no matter how crazy it may sound. That is what we call "faith".
If you feel you need further assistance, read the whole of my article in "Masturbation; giving it up" - the link is at the top of the page ("Masturbation Problems").
Monday, November 05, 2007
Evolution - Is there a reason to believe?
Suppose you were called to be a juror in a court case where a man is charged with having murdered his ex-wife. You are told that the man lived in Perth (which is in the South-West of Australia). His ex-wife lived in Cairns (up in the North-East of Australia). This man is a salesman and has spent his life in the city. There is no record of him taking a plane, ship, bus, train or hiring a vehicle or boat. His photo was placed in the newspapers, and no one saw him travelling or staying at a hotel etc. So the Prosecutor sets out to prove that it is POSSIBLE for a person to cross the thousands of miles of desert on foot, finding waterholes and food, and thus murder his ex-wife and return home without being seen. Apart from the fact of how absurd this theory presented sounds to you, what is the obvious thought? Even IF it were possible for this to have occurred, the ability to commit a crime doesn't make a person guilty of having committed it.
Evolutionists have made this same change in the real question. They pose they need only prove evolution is POSSIBLE, and that will make it near enough to, if not, fact that man actually evolved from gorillas.
It is also presented that if any form of extinct species looking even remotely like man or gorilla is found, that this serves to prove it, as another "missing link". Wrong! It must be PROVEN that a gorilla changed into this extinct species, not that it is POSSIBLE. It then has to be PROVEN that the extinct species evolved into a man. By the logic they use I could just as easily present evidence that it is POSSIBLE that we are inventions of aliens, merely by finding evidence of space travel, or a myriad of other similarly "provable" claims.
I would call upon evolutionists to get back to the real question. Where is your absolute PROOF that man is an evolutionary step derived from gorillas? We all know you have none, and that you can't possibly ever have it. To prove what happened would require video filmed by the above mentioned aliens. So why don't we return to real science. Let's forget about dinosaur ages, ice ages, evolution and any other unprovable fantasies and return to teaching children and people generally what we actually know for a fact. Let's put these "scientists" to work on something that would be of value to mankind. How about economical ways to turn salt water into fresh water? - an end to drought. A cure for cancer would be nice. And a cure for asthma would be wonderful, while at it. I'm not talking about drugs and processes to keep a person alive, I'm talking of a cure. Of course these would have to be PROVEN ...... oh dear!
Evolutionists have made this same change in the real question. They pose they need only prove evolution is POSSIBLE, and that will make it near enough to, if not, fact that man actually evolved from gorillas.
It is also presented that if any form of extinct species looking even remotely like man or gorilla is found, that this serves to prove it, as another "missing link". Wrong! It must be PROVEN that a gorilla changed into this extinct species, not that it is POSSIBLE. It then has to be PROVEN that the extinct species evolved into a man. By the logic they use I could just as easily present evidence that it is POSSIBLE that we are inventions of aliens, merely by finding evidence of space travel, or a myriad of other similarly "provable" claims.
I would call upon evolutionists to get back to the real question. Where is your absolute PROOF that man is an evolutionary step derived from gorillas? We all know you have none, and that you can't possibly ever have it. To prove what happened would require video filmed by the above mentioned aliens. So why don't we return to real science. Let's forget about dinosaur ages, ice ages, evolution and any other unprovable fantasies and return to teaching children and people generally what we actually know for a fact. Let's put these "scientists" to work on something that would be of value to mankind. How about economical ways to turn salt water into fresh water? - an end to drought. A cure for cancer would be nice. And a cure for asthma would be wonderful, while at it. I'm not talking about drugs and processes to keep a person alive, I'm talking of a cure. Of course these would have to be PROVEN ...... oh dear!
Monday, October 15, 2007
Authority to Run God’s Church and Ordinances
Nearly all churches have some form of requirements for a person to preach. Mostly ministerial colleges need to be attended or a university degree in religious studies, need to be completed. Sometimes these can be done by correspondence. A certificate of successful completion from these institutions becomes the authority to become a minister/priest. In addition to this attainment, acceptance must still be obtained from the individual church itself. In spite of this system existing many observing it claim that authority isn't necessary or just comes out of the Bible, in some manner, while reading it. Some churches have it that authority must be handed down by one having authority themselves (which is what is happening, in a sense anyway, when acceptance is required), ordaining the next person. Only 2 churches claim an original line of authority from Jesus Christ (which line can be demonstrated from person to person back to Christ) himself. Those are the Roman Catholic Church and the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints.
The Catholic line of authority has some dubious instances however. On some occasions the method of passing this authority was when one group came in and killed the Pope and all his Cardinals, and took over as the new Pope by sitting in his seat, and calling his generals Cardinals. I don’t see this as a demonstration of passing on of authority. Additionally with one Pope they didn’t realise he was a she until he got pregnant. While the Bible and D&C demonstrate that a person shouldn’t expect perfection from church leaders, I think that is getting far beyond a safe line of authority. It opposes any scriptural way of passing authority.
Ordinances (such as baptism and the Lord's Supper/Communion/Sacrament) are performed in varying ways. And many doctrines and non-doctrines are taught by those proposing to speak in the name of Christ. So what does scripture say in this regard? What are the arguments for and against the necessity to have authority given by Jesus Christ or our Heavenly Father to run his church and perform the necessary ordinances? And, if necessary, why would God demand such authority to perform these ordinances?
Some Confusing Scriptures
Let's first look at some statements relative to casting out spirits and authority. The first of these is used by those in favour of no necessity for having authority. And another one is used to present that it is necessary. I'll throw them all in the pot and then we can look at it as a complete subject.
Mark 9:38-40 "And John answered him, saying, Master, we saw one casting out devils in your name, and he followed not us: and we forbad him, because he followed not us. But Jesus said, don't forbid him: For there is no man which shall do a miracle in my name, that can lightly speak evil of me. For he that is not against us is on our part."
Acts19:13-16 "Then certain of the vagabond Jews, exorcists, took upon them to call over them which had evil spirits the name of the Lord Jesus, saying, We adjure you by Jesus whom Paul preaches. And there were seven sons of one Sceva, a Jew, and chief of the priests, which did so. And the evil spirit answered and said, Jesus I know, and Paul I know; but who are you? the man in whom the evil spirit was leaped on them, and overcame them, and prevailed against them, so that they fled out of that house naked and wounded."
Luke 9:1 "Then he called his twelve disciples together, and gave them power and authority over all devils, and to cure diseases."
So first we are told that a man was casting out evil spirits in the name of Christ who wouldn't go with the apostles, and this didn't seem to bother Jesus. Then we are told that some men tried to cast out spirits in the name of Jesus and weren't accepted as having authority from him to do so. Next we have a quote of Jesus actually giving his apostles authority to cast out devils.
What can we deduce from this relative to needing or not needing authority. Clearly both Christ and the devils have held authority to be necessary. So what of this (seemingly out of place) first quote that could be interpreted that Christ couldn't care less? The evil spirits were obviously successfully removed. So the question arises as to whether this person really had authority or not? Why did the evil spirits obey him, but not these others who had no authority? This proves this person had authority on its own.
Should we conclude that Jesus was the only person giving authority and that no other revelation existed in Israel other than his. This isn't supported in scripture. Two people made prophesies at his attendance at the temple when a baby. Caiaphas received revelation that Christ would die for all nations (John 11:49-52). John the Baptist received revelation about Christ (Matthew 3:17). [Peter also received revelation while Christ was with them (Matthew 16:15-17).] So the revelation necessary to give authority existed among others. [John the Baptist automatically had priesthood authority as a descendant of Aaron – as declared by revelation to Moses.]
It is obvious that the person did have authority that the evil spirits couldn’t refute. Christ would have realised this also - note that Christ said, "there is no man which shall do a miracle in my name" in regard his statement. In other words his ability to perform this miracle has demonstrated his authority, from Christ’s point of view. This other person hadn’t been called to follow Christ around, apparently.
This scripture demonstrates that those claiming authority should be able to prove it by the capability to perform miracles, including casting out evil spirits.
I Peter 2:9 "But ye are a chosen generation, a royal priesthood, an holy nation, a peculiar people; that ye should show forth the praises of him who hath called you out of darkness into his marvellous light."
From this mention of a "royal priesthood" (he is speaking to people in the church - verse 7) it is presented by some that priesthood is automatically given to all males (he was writing to men, I Peter 1:22) who state a belief in Christ, regardless of church etc. If true, this would mean that no one had unique authority within any church, for starters. No minister would have any unique right to perform any ordinance. A child may just as well come up and perform an ordinance. You would be able to perform them in your own home, and no church would even be needed. Some may feel this a good idea. However is this how this scripture should be taken? These people to whom he was writing were already believers (which isn't debated). This only presents that all the men held the priesthood. I should also mention that it doesn't present that all priesthood was equal (the Scriptures speak of 3 priesthoods - Levitical, Aaronic and Melchizedek). It doesn't say anything about this priesthood they had, being automatic upon their belief, as claimed.
Now to the question of whether God should just give authority to everyone. What is the point of ordinances? They are symbols to represent things God wants us to come to understand. Symbols are like parables. Christ didn’t plan on everyone instantly understanding his parables (Matt 13:13). The symbols demonstrated through ordinances are to hide principles not all people are instantly able to understand. So if those symbols are done incorrectly, or with wrong words or ideas then the symbol becomes a false concept. Baptism by sprinkling being a classic case. The whole lesson of the symbolism is destroyed. Consider Genesis 4:2-5, which gives the story of Cain and Abel; where Cain gives an offering of his field harvest rather than the required lamb or kid in representation of Christ’s atonement. Because of these types of things God made order. He has made a priesthood, where revelation exists. That way he controls the entire manner in which the ordinances are performed.
Priesthood must be accompanied by revelation to know when to do what, in the name of Christ. So a person is required to have the Holy Ghost to use the priesthood effectively. Automatic priesthood would create confusion, with people attempting to do things they shouldn’t. There is a need to have an order where authority can be given or extracted where revelation dictates. Otherwise Christ’s name would come into disrepute (as has occurred due to false teachers).
For a Need of Authority
Hebrews 5:1&4-5 "For every high priest taken from among men is ordained for men in things pertaining to God, that he may offer both gifts and sacrifices for sins" & "And no man taketh this honour unto himself, but he that is called of God, as was Aaron. So also Christ glorified not himself to be made an high priest; but he that said unto him, Thou art my Son, to day have I begotten thee."
Mark 13:34 "For the Son of man is as a man taking a far journey, who left his house, and gave authority to his servants, and to every man his work, and commanded the porter to watch."
The Catholic line of authority has some dubious instances however. On some occasions the method of passing this authority was when one group came in and killed the Pope and all his Cardinals, and took over as the new Pope by sitting in his seat, and calling his generals Cardinals. I don’t see this as a demonstration of passing on of authority. Additionally with one Pope they didn’t realise he was a she until he got pregnant. While the Bible and D&C demonstrate that a person shouldn’t expect perfection from church leaders, I think that is getting far beyond a safe line of authority. It opposes any scriptural way of passing authority.
Ordinances (such as baptism and the Lord's Supper/Communion/Sacrament) are performed in varying ways. And many doctrines and non-doctrines are taught by those proposing to speak in the name of Christ. So what does scripture say in this regard? What are the arguments for and against the necessity to have authority given by Jesus Christ or our Heavenly Father to run his church and perform the necessary ordinances? And, if necessary, why would God demand such authority to perform these ordinances?
Some Confusing Scriptures
Let's first look at some statements relative to casting out spirits and authority. The first of these is used by those in favour of no necessity for having authority. And another one is used to present that it is necessary. I'll throw them all in the pot and then we can look at it as a complete subject.
Mark 9:38-40 "And John answered him, saying, Master, we saw one casting out devils in your name, and he followed not us: and we forbad him, because he followed not us. But Jesus said, don't forbid him: For there is no man which shall do a miracle in my name, that can lightly speak evil of me. For he that is not against us is on our part."
Acts19:13-16 "Then certain of the vagabond Jews, exorcists, took upon them to call over them which had evil spirits the name of the Lord Jesus, saying, We adjure you by Jesus whom Paul preaches. And there were seven sons of one Sceva, a Jew, and chief of the priests, which did so. And the evil spirit answered and said, Jesus I know, and Paul I know; but who are you? the man in whom the evil spirit was leaped on them, and overcame them, and prevailed against them, so that they fled out of that house naked and wounded."
Luke 9:1 "Then he called his twelve disciples together, and gave them power and authority over all devils, and to cure diseases."
So first we are told that a man was casting out evil spirits in the name of Christ who wouldn't go with the apostles, and this didn't seem to bother Jesus. Then we are told that some men tried to cast out spirits in the name of Jesus and weren't accepted as having authority from him to do so. Next we have a quote of Jesus actually giving his apostles authority to cast out devils.
What can we deduce from this relative to needing or not needing authority. Clearly both Christ and the devils have held authority to be necessary. So what of this (seemingly out of place) first quote that could be interpreted that Christ couldn't care less? The evil spirits were obviously successfully removed. So the question arises as to whether this person really had authority or not? Why did the evil spirits obey him, but not these others who had no authority? This proves this person had authority on its own.
Should we conclude that Jesus was the only person giving authority and that no other revelation existed in Israel other than his. This isn't supported in scripture. Two people made prophesies at his attendance at the temple when a baby. Caiaphas received revelation that Christ would die for all nations (John 11:49-52). John the Baptist received revelation about Christ (Matthew 3:17). [Peter also received revelation while Christ was with them (Matthew 16:15-17).] So the revelation necessary to give authority existed among others. [John the Baptist automatically had priesthood authority as a descendant of Aaron – as declared by revelation to Moses.]
It is obvious that the person did have authority that the evil spirits couldn’t refute. Christ would have realised this also - note that Christ said, "there is no man which shall do a miracle in my name" in regard his statement. In other words his ability to perform this miracle has demonstrated his authority, from Christ’s point of view. This other person hadn’t been called to follow Christ around, apparently.
This scripture demonstrates that those claiming authority should be able to prove it by the capability to perform miracles, including casting out evil spirits.
I Peter 2:9 "But ye are a chosen generation, a royal priesthood, an holy nation, a peculiar people; that ye should show forth the praises of him who hath called you out of darkness into his marvellous light."
From this mention of a "royal priesthood" (he is speaking to people in the church - verse 7) it is presented by some that priesthood is automatically given to all males (he was writing to men, I Peter 1:22) who state a belief in Christ, regardless of church etc. If true, this would mean that no one had unique authority within any church, for starters. No minister would have any unique right to perform any ordinance. A child may just as well come up and perform an ordinance. You would be able to perform them in your own home, and no church would even be needed. Some may feel this a good idea. However is this how this scripture should be taken? These people to whom he was writing were already believers (which isn't debated). This only presents that all the men held the priesthood. I should also mention that it doesn't present that all priesthood was equal (the Scriptures speak of 3 priesthoods - Levitical, Aaronic and Melchizedek). It doesn't say anything about this priesthood they had, being automatic upon their belief, as claimed.
Now to the question of whether God should just give authority to everyone. What is the point of ordinances? They are symbols to represent things God wants us to come to understand. Symbols are like parables. Christ didn’t plan on everyone instantly understanding his parables (Matt 13:13). The symbols demonstrated through ordinances are to hide principles not all people are instantly able to understand. So if those symbols are done incorrectly, or with wrong words or ideas then the symbol becomes a false concept. Baptism by sprinkling being a classic case. The whole lesson of the symbolism is destroyed. Consider Genesis 4:2-5, which gives the story of Cain and Abel; where Cain gives an offering of his field harvest rather than the required lamb or kid in representation of Christ’s atonement. Because of these types of things God made order. He has made a priesthood, where revelation exists. That way he controls the entire manner in which the ordinances are performed.
Priesthood must be accompanied by revelation to know when to do what, in the name of Christ. So a person is required to have the Holy Ghost to use the priesthood effectively. Automatic priesthood would create confusion, with people attempting to do things they shouldn’t. There is a need to have an order where authority can be given or extracted where revelation dictates. Otherwise Christ’s name would come into disrepute (as has occurred due to false teachers).
For a Need of Authority
Hebrews 5:1&4-5 "For every high priest taken from among men is ordained for men in things pertaining to God, that he may offer both gifts and sacrifices for sins" & "And no man taketh this honour unto himself, but he that is called of God, as was Aaron. So also Christ glorified not himself to be made an high priest; but he that said unto him, Thou art my Son, to day have I begotten thee."
Mark 13:34 "For the Son of man is as a man taking a far journey, who left his house, and gave authority to his servants, and to every man his work, and commanded the porter to watch."
Acts 13:1-3 "Now there were in the church that was at Antioch certain prophets and teachers; as Barnabas, and Simeon that was called Niger, and Lucius of Cyrene, and Manaen, which had been brought up with Herod the tetrarch, and Saul. As they ministered to the Lord, and fasted, the Holy Ghost said, Separate me Barnabas and Saul for the work whereunto I have called them. And when they had fasted and prayed, and laid their hands on them, they sent them away."
Acts 8:14-20 "Now when the apostles which were at Jerusalem heard that Samaria had received the word of God, they sent unto them Peter and John: Who, when they were come down, prayed for them, that they might receive the Holy Ghost: (For as yet he was fallen upon none of them: only they were baptised in the name of the Lord Jesus.) Then laid they their hands on them, and they received the Holy Ghost. And when Simon saw that through laying on of the apostles' hands the Holy Ghost was given, he offered them money, Give me also this power, that on whomsoever I lay hands, he may receive the Holy Ghost. But Peter said unto him, Thy money perish with thee, because thou hast thought that the gift of God may be purchased with money."
Mark 1:7-8 "And preached, saying, There comes one mightier than I after me, the latchet of whose shoes I am not worthy to stoop down and unloose. I indeed have baptised you with water: but he shall baptise you with the Holy Ghost."
Note particularly that the Holy Ghost gave direction to set apart Banabas and Saul, and that Philip could baptise but couldn’t give the Holy Ghost: It required Peter and John to come and do it. John the Baptist also (apparently) shared this later problem.
Argument is made that the priesthood only existed until Christ, who ended it by being the sacrifice. However that theory doesn’t stand with those Scriptures quoted above either. Nor does this idea stand as correct with the Scriptures originally quoted about authority and casting out evil spirits. Also, relative to priesthood continuing, note Isa 61:6, 66:21, I Pet 2:9, Rev 20:6, Rev 1:6, Rev 5:10. Priesthood was also used for other ordinances, not just that of sacrifice.
Me claiming that I have authority to speak and act for God purely because I’ve read the Scriptures would be like me claiming authority to speak and act for Woolworths because I read their catalogue.
The fact that Paul declared that even Christ himself couldn’t just claim authority, but needed the Father to give it to him, says it all to me.
Tuesday, September 25, 2007
The Protestant God or the LDS God?
Overall the average member may say that there is little difference. And some members, trying to turn the church into some pseudo Protestant church, promote the idea that they are virtually the same. However I will demonstrate that the 2 Gods are extremely different: There is only a superficial similarity of words.
PROOF
Firstly there is the question of proof. If you are a Protestant how do you demonstrate the existence of your god? The reality is that you can't. There is absolutely NO way to prove your god. Some may talk of archaeological evidence for the Bible. However there is an equal amount of archaeological argument against the Bible. So that gets us nowhere. Prayers may or may not be answered according to our request. Therefore he can't be proven that way.
Protestantism works on a completely blind faith principle. You don't do the things that you would really like to do, and that would make you happy. But do the things you don't want to do, and you won't really enjoy. Then in the end the god will bless you for doing those things you didn't like. I saw an example of this blind faith on my mission. I would bare testimony at the door. In regard my testimony of the existence of Christ, Protestants would almost always reply, "well, we hope so, don't we"?
And that is it in a nutshell: They HOPE so. Blind faith only. Which, of course, is not true faith, as true faith is in things that are true, and is built by demonstrating faith and seeing the good consequences. So we come to have faith (trust) in God that he will do what is right.
If you are an LDS how do you prove your god? Firstly we know that the Holy Ghost can actually communicate with us. And I have had burnings and other communications as have most LDS. Secondly Jesus Christ can appear to you and speak to you personally: Either in spirit form or physically. Thirdly Heavenly Father can appear to you and speak physically or his spirit showing. A fourth demonstration can occur by seeing some of God's glory. Fifthly we can have visions. Sixthly we can be taken to exceedingly high mountains etc and be shown real things. Seventhly we can have prophesies that come to pass. Eighthly we can perform miracles. Wow, what a difference!
BIBLICAL
I have often heard Protestants say how silly idol worshippers are for believing in a god that can't do anything. It just sits there, and that they have only carved it themselves. How can it be a god? But isn't their god the same? When does he talk to them? What does he do? A Protestant may say that their god holds everything together. But the idol worshippers made the same claim of their god. Elijah challenged the priests of Baal to prove their god. He had 2 alters built. One for them and one for him. They called on their god to call down fire from heaven and burn their sacrifice. Elijah mocked them and suggested that they call a bit louder as he may be sleeping. If I posed the same to the Protestant concept of god and the LDS concept of god, which would have fire come down from heaven? It certainly wouldn't be the god of Protestantism. "Perchance he sleepeth," said Elijah. It seems he's been asleep for nearly 2,000 years _ not one word of scripture nor demonstration as shown in scripture. Elijah would refute their belief of a dumb god. The God of the Bible is an awake and speaking being.
"Oh that was then", they will respond. Is God changeable? Or are we so advanced that we don't need him to speak to us? Is he so cheesed off with people having killed his son that he refuses to speak to us now? Is it that he doesn't care any more? Is he no longer a God of love? I re-pose: "Is God changeable"? Protestantism would have us believe he is.
WHAT DOES NATURE SAY?
Let's examine the rationality of both gods.
Protestant God:
Firstly we have a concept that has a god all powerful relative to absolutely nothing. God was out in nothing and was all powerful relative to it. That is an absurdity. How can something be all powerful with nothing to be all powerful relative to? Anything existing in nothing can't have power, for power is relative. Then we have the question of how this god that takes up a whole universe managed to fit into nothing? And what was this god doing in this nothing forever?
Then we have the concept that this god had existed FOREVER, but one day in the middle(?) of eternity he just suddenly decided to make something other than himself. How interesting!!!! Of course he always knew he was going to do this at this point in eternity because he is omniscient. But, in spite of this, he didn't do it before.
He apparently went on a spree and invented all sorts of things: Angels, planets, man, bananas etc. But the Protestants guarantee us that he won't do it again, and that he has never made a planet before. They know this for a fact, they tell us.
This god gave commandments to do things that won't make us happy. Why? Just so he could see some of us obey him. And what will he do to those who don't? He'll burn them in a fire forever and ever and ever. He will never have any mercy upon them. In his fierce anger this god of love will be ruthless and totally unforgiving - two attributes he forgot to demonstrate when here as Christ.
He loved us so much that he sent part of himself to suffer on the cross, while this part was also sipping wine with Herod and being in heaven (as he fills the universe and is everywhere).
This god sits there and watches rape, murder, adultery, bashing, child abuse, war, famine, pestilence etc all happening to his creations, and does nothing about it. Why not? Doesn't he have all power? What possible difference could it have if he interfered? He could interfere and have us all forget he even interfered! He has ALL power, and NO restriction. What kind of a god of love is this????
All those people who have lived in nations where the gospel was not preached will go to hell forever because this god invented them in that nation: They never even hear of Jesus Christ, let alone accept him. But, hey, I'm alright Jack!!!! "Sad, isn't it," says Mr. Protestant, with great empathy. "But isn't Jesus Christ wonderful?" "I'm saved by his grace and going to heaven." Isn't that how it goes?
This god invented 2 people and yet in spite of his omniscience didn't realise they would sin. Next, when they did, in his ruthless, unforgiving manner he made everyone else suffer who was born thereafter.
All this is derived from poor interpretation of the Bible and their imagination. The god of Protestantism is a clear demonstration of the heart of man: A ruthless, unforgiving, two faced being with an ego that fills the universe. He tells others to do all the things he doesn't. And tells them not to do what he does. The creators and believers of this god, unfortunately, have this in their hearts, in spite of some good actions (derived from better interpretations of other parts of the Bible).
LDS God:
The LDS God didn't create natural laws. He is an equal part in nature. He is what he is by his compliance with that nature. All things he does are natural. All things that he has assisted in placing upon this earth are as natural as he is. Doesn't space demonstrate the same laws no matter where you are within it? Heat, cold, magnetism etc all work everywhere. Isn't the universe full of matter? These are all natural things that exist. Once again the LDS god comes up trumps. He manipulated existing matter using eternal laws - no magic.
Man is actually made in his image and likeness. That is we are in his image - look exactly the same, and in his likeness - of the same make-up (body, spirit and intelligence). When an artist does a painting it is said to reflect him. Yet nothing the god of Protestantism created reflects him at all (apart from those things mentioned 2 paragraphs up). Some may claim that we think and that he thinks. A poor attempt considering that A. Is that all they can come up with as a reflection between the creator and his creations? And B. What kind of a similarity is that considering that God states the enormous difference between where his mind is and where ours are? A truly poor attempt at a reflection as an invention. Creation and the god of Protestantism are almost diametric opposites. But the LDS god perfectly reflects his creation. He is physical and it is physical. He uses natural forces and it uses natural forces.
The LDS god reflects his concept of marriage and fatherhood. Something that complies with his own commandment. Again the blending of reality and God - no mystical or schizophrenic god.
He loves and tells us that if we love also we can have the happiness he has. See this reflection of reality again. He tells us that happiness can come from service to others. I try it and it actually works. No doing things that won't make me happy and having to believe he will bless me later. And on the other hand the things he says won't bring happiness but appear as if they will, actually don't (as you will find by continual abstinence). All natural. No mysticism or contradictory concept. No magic wand.
The LDS god must allow us to learn by our terrible mistakes. If he changes outcomes we can't learn not to do evil. It is only by war that we learn to make peace with others. It is only by rape and other abuses that we learn to abhor lust and its consequences. It is only by deformity and sickness that we learn empathy, patience and to use wisdom in what we do and take into our bodies. And why do we need to learn these things? Because they are eternal laws that we as an eternal entity must know to grow true happiness inside, that stays with us eternally - to create heaven in us. Again the LDS god has real reasoning and intelligent purpose - as opposed to the whims of the god of Protestantism. He again fits with reality.
I would call to any of my Protestant brothers and sisters to find and accept the true God of Scripture. Christ came and demonstrated the real God - a person that will do ANYTHING he possibly can to help you be saved from hell. A person wanting to make you happy. A person who works 7 days a week, 24 hours a day in our service - "I came to serve not to be served." A person who loves without needing to be loved to do so. A person that doesn't hold grudges - "forgive them Father, for they know not what they do." God is a God of love beyond your comprehension. Forget all your negatives. That was a god given to a hard hearted people of the Old Testament - "do it or else." Open your hearts to the real God. A loving Father. A loving brother - Jesus Christ. The God of LDS, is God.
PROOF
Firstly there is the question of proof. If you are a Protestant how do you demonstrate the existence of your god? The reality is that you can't. There is absolutely NO way to prove your god. Some may talk of archaeological evidence for the Bible. However there is an equal amount of archaeological argument against the Bible. So that gets us nowhere. Prayers may or may not be answered according to our request. Therefore he can't be proven that way.
Protestantism works on a completely blind faith principle. You don't do the things that you would really like to do, and that would make you happy. But do the things you don't want to do, and you won't really enjoy. Then in the end the god will bless you for doing those things you didn't like. I saw an example of this blind faith on my mission. I would bare testimony at the door. In regard my testimony of the existence of Christ, Protestants would almost always reply, "well, we hope so, don't we"?
And that is it in a nutshell: They HOPE so. Blind faith only. Which, of course, is not true faith, as true faith is in things that are true, and is built by demonstrating faith and seeing the good consequences. So we come to have faith (trust) in God that he will do what is right.
If you are an LDS how do you prove your god? Firstly we know that the Holy Ghost can actually communicate with us. And I have had burnings and other communications as have most LDS. Secondly Jesus Christ can appear to you and speak to you personally: Either in spirit form or physically. Thirdly Heavenly Father can appear to you and speak physically or his spirit showing. A fourth demonstration can occur by seeing some of God's glory. Fifthly we can have visions. Sixthly we can be taken to exceedingly high mountains etc and be shown real things. Seventhly we can have prophesies that come to pass. Eighthly we can perform miracles. Wow, what a difference!
BIBLICAL
I have often heard Protestants say how silly idol worshippers are for believing in a god that can't do anything. It just sits there, and that they have only carved it themselves. How can it be a god? But isn't their god the same? When does he talk to them? What does he do? A Protestant may say that their god holds everything together. But the idol worshippers made the same claim of their god. Elijah challenged the priests of Baal to prove their god. He had 2 alters built. One for them and one for him. They called on their god to call down fire from heaven and burn their sacrifice. Elijah mocked them and suggested that they call a bit louder as he may be sleeping. If I posed the same to the Protestant concept of god and the LDS concept of god, which would have fire come down from heaven? It certainly wouldn't be the god of Protestantism. "Perchance he sleepeth," said Elijah. It seems he's been asleep for nearly 2,000 years _ not one word of scripture nor demonstration as shown in scripture. Elijah would refute their belief of a dumb god. The God of the Bible is an awake and speaking being.
"Oh that was then", they will respond. Is God changeable? Or are we so advanced that we don't need him to speak to us? Is he so cheesed off with people having killed his son that he refuses to speak to us now? Is it that he doesn't care any more? Is he no longer a God of love? I re-pose: "Is God changeable"? Protestantism would have us believe he is.
WHAT DOES NATURE SAY?
Let's examine the rationality of both gods.
Protestant God:
Firstly we have a concept that has a god all powerful relative to absolutely nothing. God was out in nothing and was all powerful relative to it. That is an absurdity. How can something be all powerful with nothing to be all powerful relative to? Anything existing in nothing can't have power, for power is relative. Then we have the question of how this god that takes up a whole universe managed to fit into nothing? And what was this god doing in this nothing forever?
Then we have the concept that this god had existed FOREVER, but one day in the middle(?) of eternity he just suddenly decided to make something other than himself. How interesting!!!! Of course he always knew he was going to do this at this point in eternity because he is omniscient. But, in spite of this, he didn't do it before.
He apparently went on a spree and invented all sorts of things: Angels, planets, man, bananas etc. But the Protestants guarantee us that he won't do it again, and that he has never made a planet before. They know this for a fact, they tell us.
This god gave commandments to do things that won't make us happy. Why? Just so he could see some of us obey him. And what will he do to those who don't? He'll burn them in a fire forever and ever and ever. He will never have any mercy upon them. In his fierce anger this god of love will be ruthless and totally unforgiving - two attributes he forgot to demonstrate when here as Christ.
He loved us so much that he sent part of himself to suffer on the cross, while this part was also sipping wine with Herod and being in heaven (as he fills the universe and is everywhere).
This god sits there and watches rape, murder, adultery, bashing, child abuse, war, famine, pestilence etc all happening to his creations, and does nothing about it. Why not? Doesn't he have all power? What possible difference could it have if he interfered? He could interfere and have us all forget he even interfered! He has ALL power, and NO restriction. What kind of a god of love is this????
All those people who have lived in nations where the gospel was not preached will go to hell forever because this god invented them in that nation: They never even hear of Jesus Christ, let alone accept him. But, hey, I'm alright Jack!!!! "Sad, isn't it," says Mr. Protestant, with great empathy. "But isn't Jesus Christ wonderful?" "I'm saved by his grace and going to heaven." Isn't that how it goes?
This god invented 2 people and yet in spite of his omniscience didn't realise they would sin. Next, when they did, in his ruthless, unforgiving manner he made everyone else suffer who was born thereafter.
All this is derived from poor interpretation of the Bible and their imagination. The god of Protestantism is a clear demonstration of the heart of man: A ruthless, unforgiving, two faced being with an ego that fills the universe. He tells others to do all the things he doesn't. And tells them not to do what he does. The creators and believers of this god, unfortunately, have this in their hearts, in spite of some good actions (derived from better interpretations of other parts of the Bible).
LDS God:
The LDS God didn't create natural laws. He is an equal part in nature. He is what he is by his compliance with that nature. All things he does are natural. All things that he has assisted in placing upon this earth are as natural as he is. Doesn't space demonstrate the same laws no matter where you are within it? Heat, cold, magnetism etc all work everywhere. Isn't the universe full of matter? These are all natural things that exist. Once again the LDS god comes up trumps. He manipulated existing matter using eternal laws - no magic.
Man is actually made in his image and likeness. That is we are in his image - look exactly the same, and in his likeness - of the same make-up (body, spirit and intelligence). When an artist does a painting it is said to reflect him. Yet nothing the god of Protestantism created reflects him at all (apart from those things mentioned 2 paragraphs up). Some may claim that we think and that he thinks. A poor attempt considering that A. Is that all they can come up with as a reflection between the creator and his creations? And B. What kind of a similarity is that considering that God states the enormous difference between where his mind is and where ours are? A truly poor attempt at a reflection as an invention. Creation and the god of Protestantism are almost diametric opposites. But the LDS god perfectly reflects his creation. He is physical and it is physical. He uses natural forces and it uses natural forces.
The LDS god reflects his concept of marriage and fatherhood. Something that complies with his own commandment. Again the blending of reality and God - no mystical or schizophrenic god.
He loves and tells us that if we love also we can have the happiness he has. See this reflection of reality again. He tells us that happiness can come from service to others. I try it and it actually works. No doing things that won't make me happy and having to believe he will bless me later. And on the other hand the things he says won't bring happiness but appear as if they will, actually don't (as you will find by continual abstinence). All natural. No mysticism or contradictory concept. No magic wand.
The LDS god must allow us to learn by our terrible mistakes. If he changes outcomes we can't learn not to do evil. It is only by war that we learn to make peace with others. It is only by rape and other abuses that we learn to abhor lust and its consequences. It is only by deformity and sickness that we learn empathy, patience and to use wisdom in what we do and take into our bodies. And why do we need to learn these things? Because they are eternal laws that we as an eternal entity must know to grow true happiness inside, that stays with us eternally - to create heaven in us. Again the LDS god has real reasoning and intelligent purpose - as opposed to the whims of the god of Protestantism. He again fits with reality.
I would call to any of my Protestant brothers and sisters to find and accept the true God of Scripture. Christ came and demonstrated the real God - a person that will do ANYTHING he possibly can to help you be saved from hell. A person wanting to make you happy. A person who works 7 days a week, 24 hours a day in our service - "I came to serve not to be served." A person who loves without needing to be loved to do so. A person that doesn't hold grudges - "forgive them Father, for they know not what they do." God is a God of love beyond your comprehension. Forget all your negatives. That was a god given to a hard hearted people of the Old Testament - "do it or else." Open your hearts to the real God. A loving Father. A loving brother - Jesus Christ. The God of LDS, is God.
Tuesday, May 15, 2007
Pre-Existence - What do we Know about it?
What do we know of ourselves before we came here to earth? What do the Scriptures say on this, and is there any other information we can derive from known facts?
In many places in the Scriptures we are told that we are the spirit children of our Heavenly Father. Many places in the Scriptures also demonstrate that spirits look like people (us).
D&C 131:7 tells us, "There is no such thing as immaterial matter. All spirit is matter, but it is more fine or pure, and can only be discerned by purer eyes."
So we know that our Heavenly Father had our spirit bodies made of a real substance. This means we had a beginning of our spirit, as such.
D&C 93:29 tells us, "Man was also in the beginning with God. Intelligence, or the light of truth, was not created or made, neither indeed can be." (also refer Abr 3:18)
So we also have an intelligence which was never created, but has existed forever. Then what is this intelligence? It is defined as light and truth, and the light of truth (as quoted above). D&C 93 tells us some other things about it. It must be free or it can't exist (verse 30). It exists less when it disobeys the principles God teaches (verse 39). As we accept and follow God's principles we exist more (and become more intelligent) (verse 28).
Abr 3:19 tells us, "And the Lord said unto me: These two facts do exist, that there are two spirits, one being more intelligent than the other; there shall be another more intelligent than they; I am the Lord they God. I am more intelligent than they all."
This tells us that intelligences have different levels intelligence from each other.
D&C 29:36 tells us that Satan rebelled along with a third of the host of heaven. Considering that mankind rebels and that spirits rebel, it must be that even as intelligences not all would have accepted God's plan. This informs us that in spite of seeing God infront of us not all obey him. I knew my father had more power than I did when a child, but that didn't mean that I believed in everything he told me.
Job 38:7 tells us that male spirits shouted for joy when the corner stone of the earth was laid. So we were really into having the earth done.
This is what the Scriptures inform us. So do we have any further information? Yes! Piles of it! The reason we have more information than that which is recorded in Scipture is because we continue to exist. We ARE that intelligence. Admittedly we have a lot of misconceptions about ourselves thrown at us from birth. But we can overcome these by belief in what God has informed us of and examining mankind.
There is lots of evidence that people reach out to each other with senses beyond the body (eg if we concentrate hard enough on another person they will become aware of us). So we can sense strong feelings from others.
We have memories. We have feelings for others. There is just a long list when you think about it. Our intelligence has these now, and has always had these.
Male intelligences think differently from female intelligences.
It is amazing just how much information about ourselves in the pre-existence we have when it is thought through.
In many places in the Scriptures we are told that we are the spirit children of our Heavenly Father. Many places in the Scriptures also demonstrate that spirits look like people (us).
D&C 131:7 tells us, "There is no such thing as immaterial matter. All spirit is matter, but it is more fine or pure, and can only be discerned by purer eyes."
So we know that our Heavenly Father had our spirit bodies made of a real substance. This means we had a beginning of our spirit, as such.
D&C 93:29 tells us, "Man was also in the beginning with God. Intelligence, or the light of truth, was not created or made, neither indeed can be." (also refer Abr 3:18)
So we also have an intelligence which was never created, but has existed forever. Then what is this intelligence? It is defined as light and truth, and the light of truth (as quoted above). D&C 93 tells us some other things about it. It must be free or it can't exist (verse 30). It exists less when it disobeys the principles God teaches (verse 39). As we accept and follow God's principles we exist more (and become more intelligent) (verse 28).
Abr 3:19 tells us, "And the Lord said unto me: These two facts do exist, that there are two spirits, one being more intelligent than the other; there shall be another more intelligent than they; I am the Lord they God. I am more intelligent than they all."
This tells us that intelligences have different levels intelligence from each other.
D&C 29:36 tells us that Satan rebelled along with a third of the host of heaven. Considering that mankind rebels and that spirits rebel, it must be that even as intelligences not all would have accepted God's plan. This informs us that in spite of seeing God infront of us not all obey him. I knew my father had more power than I did when a child, but that didn't mean that I believed in everything he told me.
Job 38:7 tells us that male spirits shouted for joy when the corner stone of the earth was laid. So we were really into having the earth done.
This is what the Scriptures inform us. So do we have any further information? Yes! Piles of it! The reason we have more information than that which is recorded in Scipture is because we continue to exist. We ARE that intelligence. Admittedly we have a lot of misconceptions about ourselves thrown at us from birth. But we can overcome these by belief in what God has informed us of and examining mankind.
There is lots of evidence that people reach out to each other with senses beyond the body (eg if we concentrate hard enough on another person they will become aware of us). So we can sense strong feelings from others.
We have memories. We have feelings for others. There is just a long list when you think about it. Our intelligence has these now, and has always had these.
Male intelligences think differently from female intelligences.
It is amazing just how much information about ourselves in the pre-existence we have when it is thought through.
Tuesday, May 08, 2007
Money - Abrahamic Syndrome
A concept preached in many places and also believed amongst many members is what I term "Abrahamic Syndrome".
"And Abram was very rich in cattle, in silver, and in gold." Gen 13:2
The Scriptures inform us that we will be blessed as we follow God. We see that the Nephites and those Israelites in the middle east prospered when they lived by God's commandments. By this logic a person that is righteous will be rich. But is this all the Scriptures give us on this subject? If it was that simple why wasn't Christ rich? And what of David who had to live in caves? And of Elijah who also lived in a cave? How rich was Joseph as a slave and in prison? And what of Jeremiah in a pit? Lehi and his family weren't rich in the wilderness. What do the Scriptures really teach on this subject? Jacob is a good place to begin this examination, as it is often quoted in support of the idea of seeking riches.
"But before ye seek for riches, seek ye for the kingdom of God. And after ye have obtained a hope in Christ ye shall obtain riches, if ye seek them; and ye will seek them for the intent to do good--to cloth the naked, and to feed the hungry, and to liberate the captive, and administer relief to the sick and afflicted." Jacob 2:18-19
A study of the book of Jacob will reveal that he was preaching to a hard hearted lot that weren't spiritually high at all. He is giving a really hard-hitting sermon on repentance. So to consider this doctrine that he is delivering as some kind of fulness of the gospel of Christ would be incorrect. But there are some things that can be learnt from these verses. He was speaking (note verse 12) AGAINST people being rich. And then he is saying that if you really HAVE to (ie you can't grasp the idea of all being equal) then at least seek them to do good.
Abrahamic Syndrome also existed amongst Jews at the time of Christ.
"And again I say unto you, It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle, than for a rich man to enter into the kingdom of God. When his disciples heard it, they were exceedingly amazed, saying, Who then can be saved?" Matt 19:24-25
Here Christ has presented that it is extremely difficult for a rich man to be saved. His apostles response to this was to ask the question that if a rich man has such difficulty being saved, then who can be saved? A plain declaration that they believed that the rich were far more likely to be saved, because they are favoured of God with riches - Abrahamic Syndrome. Christ, however, is teaching quite the opposite.
So what of Abraham etc?
This requires a new set of thinking. Abraham didn't regard the things he had as his. He regarded them as belonging to God. He was just a steward. He used them to demonstrate to those around that blessings come from following God. His lifestyle was not above his fellows. His tent would be as the tent of all those following him, unless he used it for entertaining guests. Even then his heart was not upon it or obtaining riches. His heart was on God. He observed the principle of consecration. It was like a lot of stuff just sitting there. This is totally different from people WANTING to be rich and have that which is above their brother.
In the quoted story in Matthew chapter 19 Christ tells the rich man that if he wants to be saved, to give ALL he has to the poor. Plainly Christ is not promoting riches. Christ was born in a barn thing. Doesn't that say it all?
"Two things have I required of thee; deny me them not before I die: Remove far from me vanity and lies: give me neither poverty nor riches; feed me with food convenient for me: Lest I be full, and deny thee, and say, who is the LORD? or lest I be poor, and steal, and take the name of my God in vain." Prov 30:7-9
Some wise points from Solomon.
"And Abram was very rich in cattle, in silver, and in gold." Gen 13:2
The Scriptures inform us that we will be blessed as we follow God. We see that the Nephites and those Israelites in the middle east prospered when they lived by God's commandments. By this logic a person that is righteous will be rich. But is this all the Scriptures give us on this subject? If it was that simple why wasn't Christ rich? And what of David who had to live in caves? And of Elijah who also lived in a cave? How rich was Joseph as a slave and in prison? And what of Jeremiah in a pit? Lehi and his family weren't rich in the wilderness. What do the Scriptures really teach on this subject? Jacob is a good place to begin this examination, as it is often quoted in support of the idea of seeking riches.
"But before ye seek for riches, seek ye for the kingdom of God. And after ye have obtained a hope in Christ ye shall obtain riches, if ye seek them; and ye will seek them for the intent to do good--to cloth the naked, and to feed the hungry, and to liberate the captive, and administer relief to the sick and afflicted." Jacob 2:18-19
A study of the book of Jacob will reveal that he was preaching to a hard hearted lot that weren't spiritually high at all. He is giving a really hard-hitting sermon on repentance. So to consider this doctrine that he is delivering as some kind of fulness of the gospel of Christ would be incorrect. But there are some things that can be learnt from these verses. He was speaking (note verse 12) AGAINST people being rich. And then he is saying that if you really HAVE to (ie you can't grasp the idea of all being equal) then at least seek them to do good.
Abrahamic Syndrome also existed amongst Jews at the time of Christ.
"And again I say unto you, It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle, than for a rich man to enter into the kingdom of God. When his disciples heard it, they were exceedingly amazed, saying, Who then can be saved?" Matt 19:24-25
Here Christ has presented that it is extremely difficult for a rich man to be saved. His apostles response to this was to ask the question that if a rich man has such difficulty being saved, then who can be saved? A plain declaration that they believed that the rich were far more likely to be saved, because they are favoured of God with riches - Abrahamic Syndrome. Christ, however, is teaching quite the opposite.
So what of Abraham etc?
This requires a new set of thinking. Abraham didn't regard the things he had as his. He regarded them as belonging to God. He was just a steward. He used them to demonstrate to those around that blessings come from following God. His lifestyle was not above his fellows. His tent would be as the tent of all those following him, unless he used it for entertaining guests. Even then his heart was not upon it or obtaining riches. His heart was on God. He observed the principle of consecration. It was like a lot of stuff just sitting there. This is totally different from people WANTING to be rich and have that which is above their brother.
In the quoted story in Matthew chapter 19 Christ tells the rich man that if he wants to be saved, to give ALL he has to the poor. Plainly Christ is not promoting riches. Christ was born in a barn thing. Doesn't that say it all?
"Two things have I required of thee; deny me them not before I die: Remove far from me vanity and lies: give me neither poverty nor riches; feed me with food convenient for me: Lest I be full, and deny thee, and say, who is the LORD? or lest I be poor, and steal, and take the name of my God in vain." Prov 30:7-9
Some wise points from Solomon.
Tuesday, May 01, 2007
The Wind Blows
John 3:8 "The wind blows where it chooses, and you hear the sound of it, but can't tell where it came from, and where its going: so is every one that is born of the Spirit."
What an interesting statement. Christ is saying that the acts and deeds of the righteous won't be understandable: They won't fit in with any known pattern. It states that such people will appear inconsistent. Christ taught this same thing when challenged in regard his apostles picking corn upon the sabbath. Remember that God was so fussy about resting on the sabbath that when Israel were collecting manna in the wilderness they weren't even allowed to go out and just collect it on the sabbath. So how would he feel about picking corn? Yet Christ put this off by quoting a concept of flexability due to circumstance.
Matt 12:3-4 "But he said unto them, Have ye not read what David did, when he was an hungred, and they that were with him; How he entered into the house of God, and did eat the showbread, which was not lawful for him to eat, neither for them which were with him, but only for the priests?"
The gospel does give a freedom. But how should this freedom be used? This built in flexability can be used for our destruction if we are not using the Spirit. Which gets back to the original quote. It is only those born of the Spirit (those who no longer sin - 1 Jn 5:18) that have obtained this ability to be guided purely by the Spirit. It requires a person to be purged of evil intent - no lust, anger against people, greed or pride. How can the Spirit be with us when we have such things in our heart. The constant companionship of the Spirit must be acheived through our righteous hearts. The Spirit has to feel good about being with us. But if we plan on eternal life we must acheive this relationship.
D&C 45:57 "For they that are wise and have received the truth, and have taken the Holy Spirit for their guide, and have not been deceived--verily I say unto you, they shall not be hewn down and cast into the fire, but shall abide the day."
This is saying that to be alright in the judgement we must have become totally guided by the Spirit. What Christ has said, in my original quote, is that the actions of such a person may not entirely fit in with some convention or normal set of rules. It will require the Spirit to understand such a person's actions. A good lesson not to judge others by the hearing of the ears or the seeing of the eyes (refer Isa 11:3).
What an interesting statement. Christ is saying that the acts and deeds of the righteous won't be understandable: They won't fit in with any known pattern. It states that such people will appear inconsistent. Christ taught this same thing when challenged in regard his apostles picking corn upon the sabbath. Remember that God was so fussy about resting on the sabbath that when Israel were collecting manna in the wilderness they weren't even allowed to go out and just collect it on the sabbath. So how would he feel about picking corn? Yet Christ put this off by quoting a concept of flexability due to circumstance.
Matt 12:3-4 "But he said unto them, Have ye not read what David did, when he was an hungred, and they that were with him; How he entered into the house of God, and did eat the showbread, which was not lawful for him to eat, neither for them which were with him, but only for the priests?"
The gospel does give a freedom. But how should this freedom be used? This built in flexability can be used for our destruction if we are not using the Spirit. Which gets back to the original quote. It is only those born of the Spirit (those who no longer sin - 1 Jn 5:18) that have obtained this ability to be guided purely by the Spirit. It requires a person to be purged of evil intent - no lust, anger against people, greed or pride. How can the Spirit be with us when we have such things in our heart. The constant companionship of the Spirit must be acheived through our righteous hearts. The Spirit has to feel good about being with us. But if we plan on eternal life we must acheive this relationship.
D&C 45:57 "For they that are wise and have received the truth, and have taken the Holy Spirit for their guide, and have not been deceived--verily I say unto you, they shall not be hewn down and cast into the fire, but shall abide the day."
This is saying that to be alright in the judgement we must have become totally guided by the Spirit. What Christ has said, in my original quote, is that the actions of such a person may not entirely fit in with some convention or normal set of rules. It will require the Spirit to understand such a person's actions. A good lesson not to judge others by the hearing of the ears or the seeing of the eyes (refer Isa 11:3).
Thursday, April 19, 2007
The Bible States that Prophets would and did exist After Christ.
I was watching a movie about Jeremiah, last night. It showed the Jews rejecting him as a prophet, claiming that God hadn't spoken to him. Yet he knew that God had, and couldn't deny it. I couldn't help but feel the parallel to Jesus Christ, Joseph Smith and even my own experiences with this. I have heard claims that God doesn't talk to people anymore. I have only heard of one Biblical verse remotely excuseable in being used to support this claim.
"God, who at sundry times and in divers manners spake in times past unto the fathers by the prophets, Hath in these last days spoken unto us by his son, whom he hath appointed heir of all things, by whom also he made the worlds." Heb 1:1-2.
This Scripture is interpreted by them thus - God who before spoke through prophets isn't going to do that anymore because he has now spoken to us by his son, and he said all that needs saying to mankind.
Interestingly people professing this interpretation still read the words of those very same past prophets that they profess to be unnecessary, as only Christ's words would be relevant, if we are to believe such an interpretation. Also they read Paul, Peter, and all those other, supposedly, unnecessary people that wrote after Christ's death. Or are they admitting that revelation is needed to understand what Christ was meaning?
However I don't see this text as saying that at all. To me Paul is saying how blessed we are to have the words of the son himself, rather than just prophets. To me the text says it plainly. I would interpret it thus - God who had only spoken to people through prophets prior to Christ had then spoken to them by his Son himself. That is all it has said: Nothing about no prophets or revelation in the future.
Some use Rev 22:18 where it states not to add to this book to support the idea of a lack of continued revelation, as it would become Scripture. However that is spoken in ignorance of the fact that the book being spoken of was the book just written - the book of Revelation (which John wrote). In fact that book was written before the books of John and 1st, 2nd and 3rd John, which he wrote 2 years later. Also Deut 4:2 says the same of adding to the first 5 books of Moses, yet we have 61 more in the Bible alone. Then Prov 30:6 gives the same warning, yet on went the books thereafter. All understood that this meant not to add or take bits out of the writings of these individual prophets or apostles. It had no reference to books written thereafter.
Not only doesn't the Bible declare any end of prophets and revelation, but it declares the continuance of such after Christ's death many times. Some try to excuse this by proposing that the meaning of the word "prophet" was different for them. However the same word is used to describe the OT prophets such as Isaiah etc. Or are they proposing that the word suddenly changed meaning at the death of Christ: A prophet before Christ receiving prophecy yet one after not doing so? I would also ask, can we have a prophet not receiving prophecy? The Scriptures plainly speak of the continuation of prophets.
"And in these days came prophets from Jerusalem unto Antioch." (Acts 11:27)
"And Judas and Silas, being prophets also themselves, exhorted the brethren with many words, and confirmed them. (Acts 15:32)
"And as we tarried there many days. there came down from Jedaea a certain prophet, named Agabus." (Acts 21:10)
"And are built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ himself being the chief corner stone." (Eph 2:20)
This verse is even saying that Christ built his church with apostles and prophets in it.
"Which in other ages was not made known unto the sons of men, as it is now revealed unto his holy apostles and prophets by the Spirit." (Eph 3:5)
Note here that apostles and prophets are there to reveal things NOT before revealed; for the church, from the Spirit. This plainly isn't an explaining of Christ's words, as some may propose.
"And he gave some, apostles; and some, propets; and some, evangelists; and some, pastors and teachers." (Eph 4:11)
Again we see these as being officers within his church organisation.
And what of the gift of prophecy promised to the faithful in 1 Cor 12:10?
"He that receiveth a propet in the name of a prophet shall receive a prophet's reward; and he that receiveth a righteous man in the name of a righteous man shall receive a righteous man's reward." (Matt 10:41)
What an odd statement to make if there never were to be prophets after him!
"Beware of false prophets, with come to you in sheeps's clothing, but inwardly they are ravening wolves. Ye shall know them by their fruits, Do men gather grapes of thorns, or figs of thistles? Even so every good tree bringeth forth good fruit, but a corrupt tree bringeth forth
evil fruit. A good tree cannot bring forth evil fruit, neither can a corrupt tree bring forth good fruit. Every tree that bringeth not forth good fruit is hewn down, and cast into the fire. Wherefore by their fruits ye shall know them." (Matt 7:15-20)
Here Christ has given us direction as to how to recognise false prophets from true ones. If there never were to be any prophets after his death why would it be necessary for him to give such instruction?
"God, who at sundry times and in divers manners spake in times past unto the fathers by the prophets, Hath in these last days spoken unto us by his son, whom he hath appointed heir of all things, by whom also he made the worlds." Heb 1:1-2.
This Scripture is interpreted by them thus - God who before spoke through prophets isn't going to do that anymore because he has now spoken to us by his son, and he said all that needs saying to mankind.
Interestingly people professing this interpretation still read the words of those very same past prophets that they profess to be unnecessary, as only Christ's words would be relevant, if we are to believe such an interpretation. Also they read Paul, Peter, and all those other, supposedly, unnecessary people that wrote after Christ's death. Or are they admitting that revelation is needed to understand what Christ was meaning?
However I don't see this text as saying that at all. To me Paul is saying how blessed we are to have the words of the son himself, rather than just prophets. To me the text says it plainly. I would interpret it thus - God who had only spoken to people through prophets prior to Christ had then spoken to them by his Son himself. That is all it has said: Nothing about no prophets or revelation in the future.
Some use Rev 22:18 where it states not to add to this book to support the idea of a lack of continued revelation, as it would become Scripture. However that is spoken in ignorance of the fact that the book being spoken of was the book just written - the book of Revelation (which John wrote). In fact that book was written before the books of John and 1st, 2nd and 3rd John, which he wrote 2 years later. Also Deut 4:2 says the same of adding to the first 5 books of Moses, yet we have 61 more in the Bible alone. Then Prov 30:6 gives the same warning, yet on went the books thereafter. All understood that this meant not to add or take bits out of the writings of these individual prophets or apostles. It had no reference to books written thereafter.
Not only doesn't the Bible declare any end of prophets and revelation, but it declares the continuance of such after Christ's death many times. Some try to excuse this by proposing that the meaning of the word "prophet" was different for them. However the same word is used to describe the OT prophets such as Isaiah etc. Or are they proposing that the word suddenly changed meaning at the death of Christ: A prophet before Christ receiving prophecy yet one after not doing so? I would also ask, can we have a prophet not receiving prophecy? The Scriptures plainly speak of the continuation of prophets.
"And in these days came prophets from Jerusalem unto Antioch." (Acts 11:27)
"And Judas and Silas, being prophets also themselves, exhorted the brethren with many words, and confirmed them. (Acts 15:32)
"And as we tarried there many days. there came down from Jedaea a certain prophet, named Agabus." (Acts 21:10)
"And are built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ himself being the chief corner stone." (Eph 2:20)
This verse is even saying that Christ built his church with apostles and prophets in it.
"Which in other ages was not made known unto the sons of men, as it is now revealed unto his holy apostles and prophets by the Spirit." (Eph 3:5)
Note here that apostles and prophets are there to reveal things NOT before revealed; for the church, from the Spirit. This plainly isn't an explaining of Christ's words, as some may propose.
"And he gave some, apostles; and some, propets; and some, evangelists; and some, pastors and teachers." (Eph 4:11)
Again we see these as being officers within his church organisation.
And what of the gift of prophecy promised to the faithful in 1 Cor 12:10?
"He that receiveth a propet in the name of a prophet shall receive a prophet's reward; and he that receiveth a righteous man in the name of a righteous man shall receive a righteous man's reward." (Matt 10:41)
What an odd statement to make if there never were to be prophets after him!
"Beware of false prophets, with come to you in sheeps's clothing, but inwardly they are ravening wolves. Ye shall know them by their fruits, Do men gather grapes of thorns, or figs of thistles? Even so every good tree bringeth forth good fruit, but a corrupt tree bringeth forth
evil fruit. A good tree cannot bring forth evil fruit, neither can a corrupt tree bring forth good fruit. Every tree that bringeth not forth good fruit is hewn down, and cast into the fire. Wherefore by their fruits ye shall know them." (Matt 7:15-20)
Here Christ has given us direction as to how to recognise false prophets from true ones. If there never were to be any prophets after his death why would it be necessary for him to give such instruction?
Wednesday, April 11, 2007
Scripture - Personal Revelation - Prophets
What is Scripture? I would see it as personal or national experiences relating to God or his word. So if we have a personal experience relating to God or his word, is that Scripture? Members are usually quick to throw in the "that is only Scripture for yourself, only the prophet receives revelation for the church" routine. But let's take a bit of time and think seriously about how we are to consider these experiences.
What if Heavenly Father or Jesus Christ appear to you, and you are told things that don't fit in with what is generally taught? This leads back to a greater examination of my original question. Here I would like to give a better answer to my original question. I would see Scripture as personal or national experiences relating to God or his word, written by men according to their understanding and memory. Also Scripture is put on the level of a particular people (according to their spiritual level). Thus the Old Testament teachings VS the New Testament teachings. Paul said that the gospel of Christ was taught to Israel at the time of Moses but they didn't accept it as they didn't have the faith required to live it (Heb 4:2). But prior to the Law of Moses being given because of spiritual ignorance, the gospel of Christ was taught. So the revelation given to a people is relevant to their ability to accept the doctrine to be given.
I can say from personal experience that misinterpretation is also a problem with revelation. A classic case of misinterpretation is the Chief High Priest (The Prophet) Caiaphas prophesying that Christ would die, so concluding it to be up to him to have it done (John 11:49-53). We can have the most wonderful of visions, be taken by the Spirit and shown great and marvelous things, and come back with entirely false ideas of what we have witnessed because of lack of understanding of certain associated principles. So why would God therefore give us such a vision or experience? Because he knows that eventually we will come to understand. Either that or it will create some useful effect.
I would say that overwhelmingly any personal revelation would be in harmony with what some prophet has already said. Often, though, it will be an ignored doctrine. Sharing these insights is OK where it doesn't conflict with the level the members around you are on. Or, in other words, they have to be able to live with what you are presenting without it creating circumstances where people can use your words to justify evil. Any good commandment can be taken and used for evil purposes. For examples _ The Pharisees went on at Christ for breaking the sabbath in healing someone. A Jew could have said that God had commanded them to rid Israel of Gentiles so kill a Greek merchant to take his money.
So have a good think about the full consequences of what you are about to reveal, because the devil is experienced at twisting these things. He's found a twist for it long before you found out about it. Work out what those twists are and be sure that the people you are thinking of revealing it to are ready for such information. Moses overestimated Israel's ability to handle the doctrine. Thus he smashed the gospel tablets and went and got the Law of Moses, as God knew would happen but had given Moses the chance to see.
What if Heavenly Father or Jesus Christ appear to you, and you are told things that don't fit in with what is generally taught? This leads back to a greater examination of my original question. Here I would like to give a better answer to my original question. I would see Scripture as personal or national experiences relating to God or his word, written by men according to their understanding and memory. Also Scripture is put on the level of a particular people (according to their spiritual level). Thus the Old Testament teachings VS the New Testament teachings. Paul said that the gospel of Christ was taught to Israel at the time of Moses but they didn't accept it as they didn't have the faith required to live it (Heb 4:2). But prior to the Law of Moses being given because of spiritual ignorance, the gospel of Christ was taught. So the revelation given to a people is relevant to their ability to accept the doctrine to be given.
I can say from personal experience that misinterpretation is also a problem with revelation. A classic case of misinterpretation is the Chief High Priest (The Prophet) Caiaphas prophesying that Christ would die, so concluding it to be up to him to have it done (John 11:49-53). We can have the most wonderful of visions, be taken by the Spirit and shown great and marvelous things, and come back with entirely false ideas of what we have witnessed because of lack of understanding of certain associated principles. So why would God therefore give us such a vision or experience? Because he knows that eventually we will come to understand. Either that or it will create some useful effect.
I would say that overwhelmingly any personal revelation would be in harmony with what some prophet has already said. Often, though, it will be an ignored doctrine. Sharing these insights is OK where it doesn't conflict with the level the members around you are on. Or, in other words, they have to be able to live with what you are presenting without it creating circumstances where people can use your words to justify evil. Any good commandment can be taken and used for evil purposes. For examples _ The Pharisees went on at Christ for breaking the sabbath in healing someone. A Jew could have said that God had commanded them to rid Israel of Gentiles so kill a Greek merchant to take his money.
So have a good think about the full consequences of what you are about to reveal, because the devil is experienced at twisting these things. He's found a twist for it long before you found out about it. Work out what those twists are and be sure that the people you are thinking of revealing it to are ready for such information. Moses overestimated Israel's ability to handle the doctrine. Thus he smashed the gospel tablets and went and got the Law of Moses, as God knew would happen but had given Moses the chance to see.
Tuesday, April 03, 2007
Polygamy - Monogamy - Which is Biblical?
Polygamy is a much debated subject, with all sorts of ideas presented. Questions arise as to its value and Biblical accuracy. The latter is easy to establish, as it is written rather than subject to opinion. Some quote Islam and harems to relate this to polygamy and present it as bad. I find that incredible hypocrisy. What are the statistics of divorce in the countries practicing monogamy? What are the statistics of adultery and fornication? If we took statistics of how many people those in "Christian" countries are having sex with, and how many those in Moslem countries are having sex with, I don't doubt at all that the average for "Christians" would be far higher than for those Moslems in countries practicing polygamy. So by the same logic that would make monogamy even worse. There are some problems in all countries. Islam and Christian. And problems are just going to occur where ever two or more people are living in the same area.
But I'm not interested in preaching the practice of polygamy. I have just presented quick defence against the general statement first made against it, in ignorance. It is claimed that the Bible speaks for monogamy. The point of this post is to examine the Biblical stance on the monogamy teaching. Three quotes are used to support the claim that it is Biblical.
I Tim 3:2 "A bishop then must be blameless, the husband of one wife, vigilant, sober, of good behaviour, given to hospitality, apt to teach."
I Tim 3:12 "Let the deacons be the husbands of one wife, ruling their children and their own houses well."
Titus 1:6 "If any be blameless, the husband of one wife, having faithful children not accused of riot or unruly."
These three quotes give a good argument for monogamy. But the translation is very dubious. When you see the word "one" in the New Testament it isn't all translated from the same Greek word. However these three verses do use the same Greek word. This Greek word "mia" is translated several ways according to the meaning derived from the text. It is translated as "one", "first", "a (certain)[a certain person, place or thing]" and an idiom of the language "other" (refer Strong's Concordance). The latter is obviously not the correct usage in this case. So we are left with a word that can equally be translated as "a wife", "one wife" or "first wife". All of these leave us with a different doctrine. A bishop should be the husband of "a wife", would make it that Paul was preaching that bishops must be married. A bishop should be the husband of "one wife", would make it that Paul was preaching an otherwise unpreached doctrine of monogamy. A bishop should be the husband of his "first wife", would make it that Paul was preaching that a bishop should not be a divorced person.
It must be remembered also that the Greek readers were left with the same options. Therefore Paul, in writing this, must have known that their understanding of his intent would be obvious. It should also be realised that Jews and Jewish influence existed among the readers, thus making Law of Moses doctrine underlying.
Absolutely nothing in the text gives away the answer as to which is the correct translation. But the one the translators chose is Biblically the least likely. The law of Moses even gives laws as to how to deal with a man's several wives. Biblical adultery for a man is to have sex with another man's wife, but for a woman it is for a married woman to have sex with anyone. A married man committing sex with an unmarried woman was committing fornication, not adultery. He had to marry her also and never divorce her, or be put to death. These laws and all the people with several wives in the Old Testament, who were supported by God, demonstrate that God hadn't opposed polygamy.
The law of Moses also states that the Chief High Priest must marry a virgin. This meant that he had to still be married to her. This shows the law of Moses preaching that a leader must be 1. married and 2. not divorced.
So of the three possible translations that could be made, the translators of the Bible chose the only one that is Biblically unsupported.
If monogamy was to be the new thing to do from the time of Christ, surely Jesus himself would have taught it. It seems a dreadful oversight if we are to believe that the apostles just happened to forget to mention such an astounding teaching. Jesus Christ doesn't use the words "one" and "wife" even in the same verse, let alone straight after each other.
But I'm not interested in preaching the practice of polygamy. I have just presented quick defence against the general statement first made against it, in ignorance. It is claimed that the Bible speaks for monogamy. The point of this post is to examine the Biblical stance on the monogamy teaching. Three quotes are used to support the claim that it is Biblical.
I Tim 3:2 "A bishop then must be blameless, the husband of one wife, vigilant, sober, of good behaviour, given to hospitality, apt to teach."
I Tim 3:12 "Let the deacons be the husbands of one wife, ruling their children and their own houses well."
Titus 1:6 "If any be blameless, the husband of one wife, having faithful children not accused of riot or unruly."
These three quotes give a good argument for monogamy. But the translation is very dubious. When you see the word "one" in the New Testament it isn't all translated from the same Greek word. However these three verses do use the same Greek word. This Greek word "mia" is translated several ways according to the meaning derived from the text. It is translated as "one", "first", "a (certain)[a certain person, place or thing]" and an idiom of the language "other" (refer Strong's Concordance). The latter is obviously not the correct usage in this case. So we are left with a word that can equally be translated as "a wife", "one wife" or "first wife". All of these leave us with a different doctrine. A bishop should be the husband of "a wife", would make it that Paul was preaching that bishops must be married. A bishop should be the husband of "one wife", would make it that Paul was preaching an otherwise unpreached doctrine of monogamy. A bishop should be the husband of his "first wife", would make it that Paul was preaching that a bishop should not be a divorced person.
It must be remembered also that the Greek readers were left with the same options. Therefore Paul, in writing this, must have known that their understanding of his intent would be obvious. It should also be realised that Jews and Jewish influence existed among the readers, thus making Law of Moses doctrine underlying.
Absolutely nothing in the text gives away the answer as to which is the correct translation. But the one the translators chose is Biblically the least likely. The law of Moses even gives laws as to how to deal with a man's several wives. Biblical adultery for a man is to have sex with another man's wife, but for a woman it is for a married woman to have sex with anyone. A married man committing sex with an unmarried woman was committing fornication, not adultery. He had to marry her also and never divorce her, or be put to death. These laws and all the people with several wives in the Old Testament, who were supported by God, demonstrate that God hadn't opposed polygamy.
The law of Moses also states that the Chief High Priest must marry a virgin. This meant that he had to still be married to her. This shows the law of Moses preaching that a leader must be 1. married and 2. not divorced.
So of the three possible translations that could be made, the translators of the Bible chose the only one that is Biblically unsupported.
If monogamy was to be the new thing to do from the time of Christ, surely Jesus himself would have taught it. It seems a dreadful oversight if we are to believe that the apostles just happened to forget to mention such an astounding teaching. Jesus Christ doesn't use the words "one" and "wife" even in the same verse, let alone straight after each other.
Tuesday, March 27, 2007
Adam - God Theory
When a prophet, Spencer W. Kimball made the following statement at general conference.
"We hope that you who teach in the various organizations, whether on the campuses or in our chapels, will always teach the orthodox truth. We warn you against the dissemination of doctrines which are not according to the scriptures and which are alleged to have been taught by some of the General Authorities of past generations. Such, for instance, is the Adam-God theory. We denounce that theory and hope that everyone will be cautioned against this and other kinds of false doctrine." Kimball, Spencer W. "Our Own Liahona." Ensign (Nov. 1976), p. 77-79.
This was a plain statement that current GAs disagree with the doctine of Adam being God, and that they feel Brigham Young's statements are misunderstood.
Typical Opinions Brigham Expressed:-
"Now hear it, 0 inhabitants of the earth, Jew and Gentile, saint and sinner! When our father Adam came into the Garden of Eden, he came into it with a celestial body, and brought Eve, one of his wives, with him. He helped to make and organize this world. He is Michael, the Archangel, the Ancient of Days, about whom holy men have written and spoken-He is our father and our God, and the only God with whom we have to do." Journal of Discourses, vol. 1, p. 50. (1852)
However in the very NEXT paragraph he stated, "It is true that the earth was organized by three distinct characters, namely, Eloheim, Yahovah, and Michael..." Any illusion that he was proposing Adam (Michael) to be Heavenly Father (Eloheim) is tossed out here. But for better understanding let's proceed anyway.
To try and understand what Brigham must have meant in the first bit I will present some possible ideas. Adam is a god, as are all who accept and follow the gospel of Christ in its fulness (John 10:35). And as he is the first parent in fallen flesh, and we are cut off because of the fall, he is the only god with whom we have to do patriachally (as to get to the Father we must go through the Son, not patriarchally).
Eve was one of his celestial wives, looking backward (ie she now being one of his celestial wives). He brought her with him. But she wasn't one of his celestial wives at the time he brought her.
He is the Ancient of Days, being our first father to live a life of years here (as stated in D&C 27:11).
Of course these are only assumptions of his intent, as he isn't available for comment.
Brigham said "When the Virgin Mary conceived the child Jesus, the Father had begotten him in his own likeness. He was not begotten by the Holy Ghost. And who is the Father? He is the first of the human family; and when he [Christ] took a tabernacle, it was begotten by his Father in heaven, after the same manner as the tabernacles of Cain, Abel, and the rest of the sons and daughters of Adam and Eve....
"Jesus, our elder brother, was begotten in the flesh by the same character that was in the Garden of Eden, and who is our Father in Heaven....
"Now, remember from this time forth, and forever, that Jesus Christ was not begotten by the Holy Ghost." Journal of Discourses. vol. 1, pp. 50-51.
Heavenly Father is the father of the human family (while Adam can be regarded so also).
Heavenly Father was also a character in the garden of Eden when talking to Adam and Eve (I'll quote Brigham on this soon)(even though Adam lived there permanently at the time). So it could be that we should be reading Brigham's statements based on his assumption of the knowledge of the hearers. Others propose that there were errors in recording by those writing his talk down. Either way the following adds insight.
Reading these quotes of Brigham bellow makes it very clear what he thought of Adam and God, and Adam to Christ:-
"We are all the children of Adam and Eve, and they are the offspring of Him who dwells in the heavens, the Highest Intelligence that dwells anywhere that we have any knowledge of."
"The greatest desire in the bosom of our Father Adam, or of his faithful children who are co-workers with God, our Father in Heaven, is to save the inhabitants of the earth" Discourses of Brigham Young. 2nd ed., p. 94.
"How has it transpired that theological truth is thus so widely disseminated? It is because God was once known on the earth among his children of mankind, as we know one another. Adam was as conversant with his Father who placed him upon this earth as we are conversant with our earthly parents. The Father frequently came to visit his son Adam, and talked and walked with him; and the children of Adam were more or less acquainted with him, and the things that pertain to God and to heaven were as familiar among mankind in the first ages of their existence on the earth, as these mountains are to our mountain boys." Discourses of Brigham Young, 2nd ed., p.159
"Our Lord Jesus Christ-the Savior, who has redeemed the world and all things pertaining to it, is the Only Begotten of the Father pertaining to the flesh. He is our Elder Brother, and the Heir of the family, and as such we worship him. He has tasted death for every man, and has paid the debt contracted by our first parents [Adam and Eve]." Discourses of Brigham Young, 2nd ed., p.40.
Now consider the following Scripture references:-
Jude 1:9 "Yet Michael the Archangel, when contending with the devil he disputed about the body of Moses, durst not bring against him a railing accusation, but said, the Lord rebuke thee."
D&C (Doctrine and Covenants) 78:15-16 "That you may come up unto the crown prepared for you, and be made rulers over many kingdoms, saith the Lord God, the Holy One of Zion [Jesus Christ], who hath established the foundations of Adam-ondi-Ahman; Who hath appointed Michael [Adam] your prince, and established his feet, and set him upon high. and given him the keys of salvation under the counsel and direction of the Holy One, who is without beginning of days and end of life."
D&C 29:34 "Wherefore, verily I say unto you that all things unto me are spiritual, and not at any time have I given unto you a law which was temporal; neither any man, nor the children of men; neither Adam, your father, whom I created."
Luke 3:38 "Which was the son of Enos, which was the son of Seth, which was the son of Adam, which was the son of God."
Moses 6:22 "And this is the genealogy of the sons of Adam, who was the son of God, with whom God, himself, conversed."
It is obvious from these latter collections that 1. Brigham Young didn't think Adam was our Heavenly Father or the father of Jesus Christ. And 2. (and most importantly) that the Scriptures oppose such a concept.
"We hope that you who teach in the various organizations, whether on the campuses or in our chapels, will always teach the orthodox truth. We warn you against the dissemination of doctrines which are not according to the scriptures and which are alleged to have been taught by some of the General Authorities of past generations. Such, for instance, is the Adam-God theory. We denounce that theory and hope that everyone will be cautioned against this and other kinds of false doctrine." Kimball, Spencer W. "Our Own Liahona." Ensign (Nov. 1976), p. 77-79.
This was a plain statement that current GAs disagree with the doctine of Adam being God, and that they feel Brigham Young's statements are misunderstood.
Typical Opinions Brigham Expressed:-
"Now hear it, 0 inhabitants of the earth, Jew and Gentile, saint and sinner! When our father Adam came into the Garden of Eden, he came into it with a celestial body, and brought Eve, one of his wives, with him. He helped to make and organize this world. He is Michael, the Archangel, the Ancient of Days, about whom holy men have written and spoken-He is our father and our God, and the only God with whom we have to do." Journal of Discourses, vol. 1, p. 50. (1852)
However in the very NEXT paragraph he stated, "It is true that the earth was organized by three distinct characters, namely, Eloheim, Yahovah, and Michael..." Any illusion that he was proposing Adam (Michael) to be Heavenly Father (Eloheim) is tossed out here. But for better understanding let's proceed anyway.
To try and understand what Brigham must have meant in the first bit I will present some possible ideas. Adam is a god, as are all who accept and follow the gospel of Christ in its fulness (John 10:35). And as he is the first parent in fallen flesh, and we are cut off because of the fall, he is the only god with whom we have to do patriachally (as to get to the Father we must go through the Son, not patriarchally).
Eve was one of his celestial wives, looking backward (ie she now being one of his celestial wives). He brought her with him. But she wasn't one of his celestial wives at the time he brought her.
He is the Ancient of Days, being our first father to live a life of years here (as stated in D&C 27:11).
Of course these are only assumptions of his intent, as he isn't available for comment.
Brigham said "When the Virgin Mary conceived the child Jesus, the Father had begotten him in his own likeness. He was not begotten by the Holy Ghost. And who is the Father? He is the first of the human family; and when he [Christ] took a tabernacle, it was begotten by his Father in heaven, after the same manner as the tabernacles of Cain, Abel, and the rest of the sons and daughters of Adam and Eve....
"Jesus, our elder brother, was begotten in the flesh by the same character that was in the Garden of Eden, and who is our Father in Heaven....
"Now, remember from this time forth, and forever, that Jesus Christ was not begotten by the Holy Ghost." Journal of Discourses. vol. 1, pp. 50-51.
Heavenly Father is the father of the human family (while Adam can be regarded so also).
Heavenly Father was also a character in the garden of Eden when talking to Adam and Eve (I'll quote Brigham on this soon)(even though Adam lived there permanently at the time). So it could be that we should be reading Brigham's statements based on his assumption of the knowledge of the hearers. Others propose that there were errors in recording by those writing his talk down. Either way the following adds insight.
Reading these quotes of Brigham bellow makes it very clear what he thought of Adam and God, and Adam to Christ:-
"We are all the children of Adam and Eve, and they are the offspring of Him who dwells in the heavens, the Highest Intelligence that dwells anywhere that we have any knowledge of."
"The greatest desire in the bosom of our Father Adam, or of his faithful children who are co-workers with God, our Father in Heaven, is to save the inhabitants of the earth" Discourses of Brigham Young. 2nd ed., p. 94.
"How has it transpired that theological truth is thus so widely disseminated? It is because God was once known on the earth among his children of mankind, as we know one another. Adam was as conversant with his Father who placed him upon this earth as we are conversant with our earthly parents. The Father frequently came to visit his son Adam, and talked and walked with him; and the children of Adam were more or less acquainted with him, and the things that pertain to God and to heaven were as familiar among mankind in the first ages of their existence on the earth, as these mountains are to our mountain boys." Discourses of Brigham Young, 2nd ed., p.159
"Our Lord Jesus Christ-the Savior, who has redeemed the world and all things pertaining to it, is the Only Begotten of the Father pertaining to the flesh. He is our Elder Brother, and the Heir of the family, and as such we worship him. He has tasted death for every man, and has paid the debt contracted by our first parents [Adam and Eve]." Discourses of Brigham Young, 2nd ed., p.40.
Now consider the following Scripture references:-
Jude 1:9 "Yet Michael the Archangel, when contending with the devil he disputed about the body of Moses, durst not bring against him a railing accusation, but said, the Lord rebuke thee."
D&C (Doctrine and Covenants) 78:15-16 "That you may come up unto the crown prepared for you, and be made rulers over many kingdoms, saith the Lord God, the Holy One of Zion [Jesus Christ], who hath established the foundations of Adam-ondi-Ahman; Who hath appointed Michael [Adam] your prince, and established his feet, and set him upon high. and given him the keys of salvation under the counsel and direction of the Holy One, who is without beginning of days and end of life."
D&C 29:34 "Wherefore, verily I say unto you that all things unto me are spiritual, and not at any time have I given unto you a law which was temporal; neither any man, nor the children of men; neither Adam, your father, whom I created."
Luke 3:38 "Which was the son of Enos, which was the son of Seth, which was the son of Adam, which was the son of God."
Moses 6:22 "And this is the genealogy of the sons of Adam, who was the son of God, with whom God, himself, conversed."
It is obvious from these latter collections that 1. Brigham Young didn't think Adam was our Heavenly Father or the father of Jesus Christ. And 2. (and most importantly) that the Scriptures oppose such a concept.
Tuesday, March 20, 2007
Homosexuality and Lesbianism
Most, if not all, would be aware that the Scriptures speak quite clearly against these lifestyles. So I'm not really interested in looking at it from that approach in this post.
The prophet John Taylor stated, ".. it takes a woman and a man to make a man." 1877 Journal of Discourses 19:245
For homosexuality to be a correct lifestyle John Taylor would need to be incorrect. Such a lifestyle proposes that a man can be whole with another man, or whole on his own. It would equally suggest that women can be lesbians and be whole on their own, also.
I'd again like to quote from John Taylor _
"Sisters, you are eminently constituted for this work. God has given you both the desire and ability to do it; you can enter into the sympathies of others, and you can better appreciate their feelings than we men can, and you are altogether more competent to minister in such affairs. Hence the Prophet Joseph Smith, in his day, organized a Female Relief Society.." Journal of Discourses 19:245
Looking at John Taylor's claim he is proposing women to be different from men (which I think none reading would dispute). He mentions that women are more into the heart issues. This doesn't mean men don't have a heart, as Jesus Christ is a man (for starters). But it means that a good woman is more that way than an EQUALLY good man, or a bad woman as to an EQUALLY bad man.
This then establishes that a man and a man relationship isn't as complete as a man and a woman, because the latter relationship is MORE capable of dealing with heart issues. Note that I have emphasised the word "MORE". This is to again say that I have not proposed men have no heart, only that women are better in this area overall.
Men are better in the cold logic area than women. This is helpful where the heart may lead to wrong decisions. This is not proposing that women have no logic. It is saying that a good man has more logic than an EQUALLY good woman, and a bad man has more logic than an EQUALLY bad woman.
So a woman and woman relationship isn't as complete as a man and a woman relationship either. It hasn't as good an ability to deal with logical issues.
Someone may argue, well what if my same sex partner is good, isn't that better than me marrying a bad person of the opposite sex? The point is to find someone of the opposite sex that matches you and grow together.
Gen 2:18 "And the LORD God said, It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him an helper OPPOSITE to him." (UMC - Unauthorised More Correct version). Note the word "opposite", rather than "meet" as used in the AKJ (Authorised King James version). While the use of the word "meet" isn't incorrect in intension, the word "opposite" is a more accurate translation of the actual Hebrew word used. It means opposite or facing from the other side (according to Strong's Concordance). And it is appropriate to the point of obtaining a complete balance in a relationship.
So far I have dealt with the imbalances of each individual sex. But the other point I would like to bring out is that of what a marriage actually is. Is marriage a sex license, to feel accepted with God or society? Or is it for saying we will live together and share time together? Is it for saying we love one another so much that we are prepared to live under the same roof? These may be side lines to marriage, but aren't what it is.
Marriage was given for man and woman to produce offspring, and raise those children in an environment that would give the child complete balance and instruction within a secure relationship. If we add other good things to it, that is fine, provided we don't forget what a marriage actually is. It is because society has forgotten what marriage actually is that we have 8-year-olds having sex to gain experience, a "try before you buy" system, and misconceptions of gender.
I love my brother very much, and my sons. I loved Spencer W. Kimball. I love Heavenly Father and Jesus Christ. I love the latter two more than anyone else I love. I would love to go home and live in Heavenly Father's presence. Living with someone you love is wonderful. But I can't produce offspring with them. That love isn't what marriage is about. And sex must be reserved for that which it is naturally for _ having children. Whatever fulfilment a person may feel they have in these lifestyles is nothing to that which you can have in a correct relationship with the right person of the opposite gender.
The prophet John Taylor stated, ".. it takes a woman and a man to make a man." 1877 Journal of Discourses 19:245
For homosexuality to be a correct lifestyle John Taylor would need to be incorrect. Such a lifestyle proposes that a man can be whole with another man, or whole on his own. It would equally suggest that women can be lesbians and be whole on their own, also.
I'd again like to quote from John Taylor _
"Sisters, you are eminently constituted for this work. God has given you both the desire and ability to do it; you can enter into the sympathies of others, and you can better appreciate their feelings than we men can, and you are altogether more competent to minister in such affairs. Hence the Prophet Joseph Smith, in his day, organized a Female Relief Society.." Journal of Discourses 19:245
Looking at John Taylor's claim he is proposing women to be different from men (which I think none reading would dispute). He mentions that women are more into the heart issues. This doesn't mean men don't have a heart, as Jesus Christ is a man (for starters). But it means that a good woman is more that way than an EQUALLY good man, or a bad woman as to an EQUALLY bad man.
This then establishes that a man and a man relationship isn't as complete as a man and a woman, because the latter relationship is MORE capable of dealing with heart issues. Note that I have emphasised the word "MORE". This is to again say that I have not proposed men have no heart, only that women are better in this area overall.
Men are better in the cold logic area than women. This is helpful where the heart may lead to wrong decisions. This is not proposing that women have no logic. It is saying that a good man has more logic than an EQUALLY good woman, and a bad man has more logic than an EQUALLY bad woman.
So a woman and woman relationship isn't as complete as a man and a woman relationship either. It hasn't as good an ability to deal with logical issues.
Someone may argue, well what if my same sex partner is good, isn't that better than me marrying a bad person of the opposite sex? The point is to find someone of the opposite sex that matches you and grow together.
Gen 2:18 "And the LORD God said, It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him an helper OPPOSITE to him." (UMC - Unauthorised More Correct version). Note the word "opposite", rather than "meet" as used in the AKJ (Authorised King James version). While the use of the word "meet" isn't incorrect in intension, the word "opposite" is a more accurate translation of the actual Hebrew word used. It means opposite or facing from the other side (according to Strong's Concordance). And it is appropriate to the point of obtaining a complete balance in a relationship.
So far I have dealt with the imbalances of each individual sex. But the other point I would like to bring out is that of what a marriage actually is. Is marriage a sex license, to feel accepted with God or society? Or is it for saying we will live together and share time together? Is it for saying we love one another so much that we are prepared to live under the same roof? These may be side lines to marriage, but aren't what it is.
Marriage was given for man and woman to produce offspring, and raise those children in an environment that would give the child complete balance and instruction within a secure relationship. If we add other good things to it, that is fine, provided we don't forget what a marriage actually is. It is because society has forgotten what marriage actually is that we have 8-year-olds having sex to gain experience, a "try before you buy" system, and misconceptions of gender.
I love my brother very much, and my sons. I loved Spencer W. Kimball. I love Heavenly Father and Jesus Christ. I love the latter two more than anyone else I love. I would love to go home and live in Heavenly Father's presence. Living with someone you love is wonderful. But I can't produce offspring with them. That love isn't what marriage is about. And sex must be reserved for that which it is naturally for _ having children. Whatever fulfilment a person may feel they have in these lifestyles is nothing to that which you can have in a correct relationship with the right person of the opposite gender.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)