When Eve and Jesus were tempted 3 perspectives were used to tempt them (Gen 3:6) (Matt 4:2-10).
1. The desire of the flesh
Pleasing to the taste, you're hungry turn the stone to bread to eat.
2. What the eye could see
Pleasing to the eye, all these kingdoms you see I will give you.
3. Pride
Desired to make one wise, throw yourself down if you are the Son of God and prove it.
The apostle John stated, "For all that is in the world, the lust of the flesh, and the lust of the eyes, and the pride of life, is not of the Father, but is of the world." 1 Jn 2:16.
Question arises as to why there are 3 things to be wary of relative to temptation? Why hasn't Satan or some prophet or apostle come up with a 4th or 5th aspect?
Everyone is aware that we have a physical body. Every person with even a minuscule amount of feeling should be aware that we have feelings from inside our torso area. Yet most people have little understanding of our make-up beyond that.
People sometimes fall deeply in love with someone. They feel all these butterfly feelings etc. Their heart is really alive in this feeling. But what is this heart that is so alive? And why do people fall in love?
Some people have a flesh romance. The other person's body appeals to them, and the relationship is mostly built on that focus. Others feel that looking at the person's face and eyes appeals to them, and the body being a reasonable shape is sufficient. It is a pleasing to the eye experience. But then there are those who's relationship doesn't focus on either of these aspects. They feel a mental oneness with the person, and couldn't care less what they look like. Many would have some degree of each of these aspects in their relationship, but I'm referring to focus.
In all this again we see these same 3 aspects reflected in our relationships. We have had 3 aspects to our existence. We are now experiencing our flesh time. Before that we had a spirit time, after being born children of our heavenly parents - Heavenly Father and our mother in heaven. From that point on we have a body (spirit body) to begin seeing things, rather than just perceiving by feelings. Before getting that spirit body we were defined as an "intelligence" only (D&C 93:29), and had existed forever.
So the attacks by evil, and the ways we have to perceive our relationships are - feelings of the flesh, feelings from our spirit by seeing, and appealing to the deeper feelings of our eternal intelligence.
Many wonder why people can be so in love when getting married, and yet end up getting divorced? I can easily answer this question. I have had females tell me that they are in love with me, and I have felt all these powerful loving feelings from them. Yet the deep respect that should come from the mental type of love doesn't exist, or is very minor in them. In these cases as soon as they have to live with the person, and the reality that this is a lifetime commitment (at least), dawns on them, then the "in love" aspect dies, as it has no firm foundation: It was all just illusionary - pleasing to the eye. The only true security lies in the deeper spiritual love, which those "in love" by sight think they already have as a side effect of their feelings. (I should mention that there is nothing wrong with being "in love" of itself). A sure test of the strength of that deeper love existing is demonstrated when a person comes to accept your beliefs when theirs are opposite. And a person laughing at your beliefs, as a first response, can't love you enough that way, at that time.
The interesting thing is that these 3 parts of our being have created ideas of their own, in a sense. Because we have forgotten our pre-existence we have created a new set of ideas built upon the experiences of this earth time. Yet in spite of this, inside, the other 2 exist and have some understanding of eternal things. And this does create some conflict between the desires of our mind and the knowledge from our pre-existence. Not only that but we can have conflict with that which our spirit recognises as wrong by analysing it next to eternal truth (conscience). Getting in touch with our heart (spirit) and our deeper self, from the intelligence only time, will help us understand ourselves better and avoid self-conflict. I have had wonderfully spiritual and meaningful experiences by seeking to become one with myself. I listen to my spirit inside. That way these 3 existences can become one.
It would seem from my experiences in this that there was a vague forgetting, for a time, of our former time as an intelligence when we took on a spirit body. While it has some advantages for various reasons, I believe that our present forgetting of our pre-existence is because of our transition to our physical body. I have had several memories come through from my pre-existence, from time to time in my life. And some before I had even heard the concept of pre-existing and had been taught that I was invented at conception.
It seems interesting that while we don't believe in the Catholic concept of a triune God, we are, in fact, a trinity nevertheless (being made of 3 parts). The even stranger irony is that Heavenly Father is also a trinity of himself (being made up of these same 3 parts). And Jesus Christ is also a trinity of himself. But the Holy Ghost is only a duity, as he has no physical body (D&C 130:22). Just to qualify that, least I be misunderstood, while we don't believe in the Catholic trinity concept of the Father, Son and Holy Ghost as one God, we do believe in 3 parts to Heavenly Father himself (body, spirit body and intelligence).
This understanding of ourselves and our 3 parts gives us a greater ability to work out what we are doing and why. It allows us to become one, and make better direction in our lives. And it gives us the opportunity to end the conflict within ourselves, by listening to our other part's opinions. This also makes it far easier to live those principles that Christ taught, as we develop perfect contact with our conscience.
Thursday, June 05, 2008
Tuesday, May 27, 2008
Eternal Marriage - What is the Biblical Support?
As members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints we know there will be those who are married even after death (D&C 131:1-4). Yet many non-members find this hard to believe. Particularly those who are religious tend to come to see even loving sex as a bad thing that God tolerates, rather than extols. For example, the Catholics hold up what they term "the Blessed Virgin Mary" as being superior, claiming she never had sex at any time during her entire life, and that Jesus was an only child. And their priests and nuns don't marry either.
And while Protestantism claims its support of sex within marriage, claiming it to be clean, if you want to find their true feelings just propose that Jesus followed God's command and was married, and watch the reaction. "How could God stoop so low," is how they respond in their thinking. They can accept he could stoop to be born, to eat, to drink and even go to the toilet. But suggest him having sex and their real feelings are apparent. So what does life and the Bible really say in support of loving sex, having children and doing this eternally? And what are those things that confuse people on this subject?
I should first present that the greater good a thing can do and be, the greater evil can be done by the same principle. Thus while sex is a good and wonderful thing when performed for the right reasons, in an entirely loving way, it can be the cause of enormous evil when the opposite applies. And everything in between will be exactly that - in between total good and total evil. Thus people's perception of the goodness of marriage is affected by their deep seated perception of the righteousness or evil of sex. To those who see sex as something lesser than a totally righteous act, talking of eternal marriage seems to be talking of an eternity of performing an unrighteous act. And I can only recommend to such people that they prayerfully re-evaluate sex. I have a link at the top of the page called "sex problems", which I'd advise you click, read and apply.
Sadducees Question
Many have been of the opinion that there is no eternity of marriage, being confused by a conversation between Christ and the Sadducees. The Sadducees presented a question of a woman who's husband died. The Law of Moses states that the oldest brother of the dead man must take her to wife (this commandment was given to ensure the wife was looked after upon the death of her husband - remembering they had plural marriage, so it made no difference if the brother was already married). The Sadducees posed the brother dying also and through seven brothers, with this occurring with them all. Then the woman dies. So who should be her husband in the resurrection, they questioned?
Matt 22:20-30 "Jesus answered and said unto them, Ye do err, not knowing the scriptures, nor the power of God. For in the resurrection they neither marry, nor are given in marriage, but are as the angels of God in heaven."
When this says "in the resurrection" the word "in" is translated from the Greek word "en", that is also translated as "at" (by implication "at that specific time"), in the Bible. So that gives us a clearer understanding of the statement, in that he is saying that there are to be no marriages performed during the process of the resurrection itself.
Those deciding that this opposes marriage in heaven are making assumptions of things beyond what the text actually says. The text tells us that angels in heaven aren't married. The first assumption they make is that angels are the only beings in heaven other than God. It doesn't say that no one is married in heaven. Nor does it say that the woman in question isn't married in heaven. What it states is that there is no marriage performed at that point. Jesus has presented that the Scriptures answer the question and that people don't get married nor give anyone in marriage when resurrected to change the answer already given in the Scriptures.
Jesus has pointed out that they have made the error of not understanding the Scriptures nor the power of God, in asking this question. So what did their Scriptures (the Old Testament) tell them to answer the question? Does the Old Testament say that no one is married in heaven? No. To the contrary. They tell us that the wife in the discussion wouldn't be removed from her original marriage (ie her first husband - as they are "one flesh" Gen 2:24). The fact that the brothers had to marry her after his death doesn't detract from this. No one gets married in heaven including angels in heaven (ie those in the lower 2 degrees - as the highest degree are Gods, not angels). All marriages will be performed on earth before the final resurrection. And no changes will be made thereafter, it would seem.
Jesus said concerning marriage, "Wherefore they are no more twain, but one flesh. What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder." Matt 19:6
Note that Jesus has said, "they are NO MORE TWAIN." That means that these two perfect people (he was speaking of Adam and Eve) NEVER again will be separate. It was an eternal union.
So when Jesus talks of them not understanding the power of God what did he mean? How would God be demonstrating power by doing nothing? He is saying that the power of God is demonstrated in maintaining this joining together of the husband and wife even beyond the grave and at and beyond the resurrection.
Anyone claiming this is stating no marriage will exist at all in heaven would therefore have to demonstrate where Christ was quoting this from in the Old Testament. And then demonstrate HOW this lack of action would prove the power of God. Are we to propose that he is proving his power when he can't sustain that oneness (that he has declared) beyond the grave?
Is Marriage for an Inferior Class?
Matt 19 contains a discussion which is also often misunderstood, leaving some feeling that marriage is for some spiritually inferior group. Christ was discussing divorce with his disciples. He states in verse 8 that divorce was not done until Moses, and it was given only because of their hardness of heart. He then goes on in verse 9 to state,
"And I say unto you, Whosoever shall put away his wife, except it be for fornication, and shall marry another, committeth adultery: and whoso marrieth her which is put away doth commit adultery."
Verse 10 then has his disciples posing that if the case be so with the man then it isn't good to marry. Christ's response gives some the mistaken idea that he is stating it better not to marry at all, in spite of God's initial commandment in Genesis. But the disciples stated "IF the case be so with the man." What case? The case just proposed in the statement Christ made, where a man divorcing his wife and marrying another would be guilty of adultery. And where a man marrying a divorced woman would be committing adultery.
Christ then goes on to explain that this is a hard concept for most people in this situation to follow (verse 11), and presents that those divorced people would be better off to remain unmarried (verse 12). I should personally say in regard this that it seems possible that an entire spiritual re-birth may alter this situation. There are those divorced people who have been instructed of the Holy Ghost to re-marry years later, and after great change has occurred. I would therefore recommend serious and prayerful consideration of the application of this to each individual. But he definitely seems to oppose the idea of someone getting a divorce and just going out and marrying someone else, IMO.
Paul makes some comments that also confuse some people, in regard not getting married. This issue I have discussed before relative to Paul being married, but will repeat the main points here.
1 Cor 7:1 "Now concerning the things whereof ye wrote unto me: It is good for a man not to touch a woman."
1 Cor 7:7-8 "For I would that all men were even as I myself. But every man hath his proper gift of God, one after this manner, and another after that. I say therefore to the unmarried and widows, It is good for them if they abide even as I."
The problem with reading this is that we have only one side of this conversation. What were the things that they had written to him that he was answering from the viewpoint of? I would present to you that this conversation is the same as that which Jesus had with his disciples concerning the divorced. Paul, having previously been a dedicated Pharisee, would have been married. The law of Moses declared that leaders were to be married. It was a commandment. But his wife would have been an equally devout Jewess, who would have been horrified by his change of religion.
Therefore these "unmarried" he is referring to, that are best not getting married, are those who are divorced. Widows are already married and sealed to a husband for eternity. It is an interesting philosophy he is presenting that they would be better to involve themselves in spiritual work rather than re-marrying. It does have some sense to it. I should further point out to those unaware, that he has stated that these ideas AREN'T commandments (verse 6), but ideas he is presenting as advice. Verse 2 should also be read in considering these ideas.
However (returning to the subject) he isn't presenting that previously unmarried people don't get married or that marriage is for those who can't control themselves (as verse 2 may leave people with that opinion if not understood in the context that it is speaking to the divorced).
So what are God's feelings on Marriage?
"Marriage is honourable in all, and the bed undefiled: but whoremongers and adulterers God will judge." Heb 13:4
In the beginning God gave Adam and Eve a blessing, and in that instructed that they are to produce offspring (Gen 1:27-28). So the very first recorded instruction to mankind was to have children. Here we have two perfect people (in the sense that they had not transgressed at this point) being given that child bearing is a thing that perfect people would do. Therefore child bearing isn't for some imperfect class of people, as some propose.
Therefore as perfect people in the beginning were given child bearing as a primary function of male-female relationships, should we consider it surprising that God would have this continue to be a primary function of male-female relationships? And should we consider it so surprising that it would continue to be the primary function of male-female relationships when we are brought back to that perfect physical state again by resurrection?
Gen 2:18 says in regard to Adam, "And the Lord God said, it is not good that the man should be alone..."
This clearly presents that it isn't good for a perfect man (which Adam then was) to be without a wife.
Paul states, "Nevertheless neither is the man without the woman, nor the woman without the man, in the Lord." 1 Cor 11:11
Paul further states that a woman must have a husband above her in her relationship with God.
1 Cor 11:3 "But I would have you know, that the head of every man is Christ; and the head of the woman is the man; and the head of Christ is God."
In other words to the man it is God through Christ. But to the woman it is God through Christ, through her husband.
1 Pet 3:7 mentions that husbands and wives are "heirs together" of the grace of life.
Therefore we have all this talk of the oneness of husband and wife, that God has made them one flesh and they shouldn't be separated, that they are "no more" twain but one, that the woman must have a man to be in the Lord, that it isn't good for a perfect man to be alone and that both are heirs together of eternal life. Weighing that against the other side were we have nothing stating that the oneness of flesh of a married couple is to be extinguished afterwards. So Biblical support comes out strongly in favour of the concept of eternal marriage to those obtaining perfection.
And while Protestantism claims its support of sex within marriage, claiming it to be clean, if you want to find their true feelings just propose that Jesus followed God's command and was married, and watch the reaction. "How could God stoop so low," is how they respond in their thinking. They can accept he could stoop to be born, to eat, to drink and even go to the toilet. But suggest him having sex and their real feelings are apparent. So what does life and the Bible really say in support of loving sex, having children and doing this eternally? And what are those things that confuse people on this subject?
I should first present that the greater good a thing can do and be, the greater evil can be done by the same principle. Thus while sex is a good and wonderful thing when performed for the right reasons, in an entirely loving way, it can be the cause of enormous evil when the opposite applies. And everything in between will be exactly that - in between total good and total evil. Thus people's perception of the goodness of marriage is affected by their deep seated perception of the righteousness or evil of sex. To those who see sex as something lesser than a totally righteous act, talking of eternal marriage seems to be talking of an eternity of performing an unrighteous act. And I can only recommend to such people that they prayerfully re-evaluate sex. I have a link at the top of the page called "sex problems", which I'd advise you click, read and apply.
Sadducees Question
Many have been of the opinion that there is no eternity of marriage, being confused by a conversation between Christ and the Sadducees. The Sadducees presented a question of a woman who's husband died. The Law of Moses states that the oldest brother of the dead man must take her to wife (this commandment was given to ensure the wife was looked after upon the death of her husband - remembering they had plural marriage, so it made no difference if the brother was already married). The Sadducees posed the brother dying also and through seven brothers, with this occurring with them all. Then the woman dies. So who should be her husband in the resurrection, they questioned?
Matt 22:20-30 "Jesus answered and said unto them, Ye do err, not knowing the scriptures, nor the power of God. For in the resurrection they neither marry, nor are given in marriage, but are as the angels of God in heaven."
When this says "in the resurrection" the word "in" is translated from the Greek word "en", that is also translated as "at" (by implication "at that specific time"), in the Bible. So that gives us a clearer understanding of the statement, in that he is saying that there are to be no marriages performed during the process of the resurrection itself.
Those deciding that this opposes marriage in heaven are making assumptions of things beyond what the text actually says. The text tells us that angels in heaven aren't married. The first assumption they make is that angels are the only beings in heaven other than God. It doesn't say that no one is married in heaven. Nor does it say that the woman in question isn't married in heaven. What it states is that there is no marriage performed at that point. Jesus has presented that the Scriptures answer the question and that people don't get married nor give anyone in marriage when resurrected to change the answer already given in the Scriptures.
Jesus has pointed out that they have made the error of not understanding the Scriptures nor the power of God, in asking this question. So what did their Scriptures (the Old Testament) tell them to answer the question? Does the Old Testament say that no one is married in heaven? No. To the contrary. They tell us that the wife in the discussion wouldn't be removed from her original marriage (ie her first husband - as they are "one flesh" Gen 2:24). The fact that the brothers had to marry her after his death doesn't detract from this. No one gets married in heaven including angels in heaven (ie those in the lower 2 degrees - as the highest degree are Gods, not angels). All marriages will be performed on earth before the final resurrection. And no changes will be made thereafter, it would seem.
Jesus said concerning marriage, "Wherefore they are no more twain, but one flesh. What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder." Matt 19:6
Note that Jesus has said, "they are NO MORE TWAIN." That means that these two perfect people (he was speaking of Adam and Eve) NEVER again will be separate. It was an eternal union.
So when Jesus talks of them not understanding the power of God what did he mean? How would God be demonstrating power by doing nothing? He is saying that the power of God is demonstrated in maintaining this joining together of the husband and wife even beyond the grave and at and beyond the resurrection.
Anyone claiming this is stating no marriage will exist at all in heaven would therefore have to demonstrate where Christ was quoting this from in the Old Testament. And then demonstrate HOW this lack of action would prove the power of God. Are we to propose that he is proving his power when he can't sustain that oneness (that he has declared) beyond the grave?
Is Marriage for an Inferior Class?
Matt 19 contains a discussion which is also often misunderstood, leaving some feeling that marriage is for some spiritually inferior group. Christ was discussing divorce with his disciples. He states in verse 8 that divorce was not done until Moses, and it was given only because of their hardness of heart. He then goes on in verse 9 to state,
"And I say unto you, Whosoever shall put away his wife, except it be for fornication, and shall marry another, committeth adultery: and whoso marrieth her which is put away doth commit adultery."
Verse 10 then has his disciples posing that if the case be so with the man then it isn't good to marry. Christ's response gives some the mistaken idea that he is stating it better not to marry at all, in spite of God's initial commandment in Genesis. But the disciples stated "IF the case be so with the man." What case? The case just proposed in the statement Christ made, where a man divorcing his wife and marrying another would be guilty of adultery. And where a man marrying a divorced woman would be committing adultery.
Christ then goes on to explain that this is a hard concept for most people in this situation to follow (verse 11), and presents that those divorced people would be better off to remain unmarried (verse 12). I should personally say in regard this that it seems possible that an entire spiritual re-birth may alter this situation. There are those divorced people who have been instructed of the Holy Ghost to re-marry years later, and after great change has occurred. I would therefore recommend serious and prayerful consideration of the application of this to each individual. But he definitely seems to oppose the idea of someone getting a divorce and just going out and marrying someone else, IMO.
Paul makes some comments that also confuse some people, in regard not getting married. This issue I have discussed before relative to Paul being married, but will repeat the main points here.
1 Cor 7:1 "Now concerning the things whereof ye wrote unto me: It is good for a man not to touch a woman."
1 Cor 7:7-8 "For I would that all men were even as I myself. But every man hath his proper gift of God, one after this manner, and another after that. I say therefore to the unmarried and widows, It is good for them if they abide even as I."
The problem with reading this is that we have only one side of this conversation. What were the things that they had written to him that he was answering from the viewpoint of? I would present to you that this conversation is the same as that which Jesus had with his disciples concerning the divorced. Paul, having previously been a dedicated Pharisee, would have been married. The law of Moses declared that leaders were to be married. It was a commandment. But his wife would have been an equally devout Jewess, who would have been horrified by his change of religion.
Therefore these "unmarried" he is referring to, that are best not getting married, are those who are divorced. Widows are already married and sealed to a husband for eternity. It is an interesting philosophy he is presenting that they would be better to involve themselves in spiritual work rather than re-marrying. It does have some sense to it. I should further point out to those unaware, that he has stated that these ideas AREN'T commandments (verse 6), but ideas he is presenting as advice. Verse 2 should also be read in considering these ideas.
However (returning to the subject) he isn't presenting that previously unmarried people don't get married or that marriage is for those who can't control themselves (as verse 2 may leave people with that opinion if not understood in the context that it is speaking to the divorced).
So what are God's feelings on Marriage?
"Marriage is honourable in all, and the bed undefiled: but whoremongers and adulterers God will judge." Heb 13:4
In the beginning God gave Adam and Eve a blessing, and in that instructed that they are to produce offspring (Gen 1:27-28). So the very first recorded instruction to mankind was to have children. Here we have two perfect people (in the sense that they had not transgressed at this point) being given that child bearing is a thing that perfect people would do. Therefore child bearing isn't for some imperfect class of people, as some propose.
Therefore as perfect people in the beginning were given child bearing as a primary function of male-female relationships, should we consider it surprising that God would have this continue to be a primary function of male-female relationships? And should we consider it so surprising that it would continue to be the primary function of male-female relationships when we are brought back to that perfect physical state again by resurrection?
Gen 2:18 says in regard to Adam, "And the Lord God said, it is not good that the man should be alone..."
This clearly presents that it isn't good for a perfect man (which Adam then was) to be without a wife.
Paul states, "Nevertheless neither is the man without the woman, nor the woman without the man, in the Lord." 1 Cor 11:11
Paul further states that a woman must have a husband above her in her relationship with God.
1 Cor 11:3 "But I would have you know, that the head of every man is Christ; and the head of the woman is the man; and the head of Christ is God."
In other words to the man it is God through Christ. But to the woman it is God through Christ, through her husband.
1 Pet 3:7 mentions that husbands and wives are "heirs together" of the grace of life.
Therefore we have all this talk of the oneness of husband and wife, that God has made them one flesh and they shouldn't be separated, that they are "no more" twain but one, that the woman must have a man to be in the Lord, that it isn't good for a perfect man to be alone and that both are heirs together of eternal life. Weighing that against the other side were we have nothing stating that the oneness of flesh of a married couple is to be extinguished afterwards. So Biblical support comes out strongly in favour of the concept of eternal marriage to those obtaining perfection.
Thursday, May 15, 2008
Why Protestants don't want to accept our Boring God.
Many members may wonder why Protestants aren't all flying into the church as fast as they can. But in reality one big problem is that they like their version of God. Our God is boring from their perspective.
Let's look at our God for a moment. While we know that he is glorified and resurrected, able to do anything with matter and hold countless planetary systems together, he is however a man. I mean, how boring is that?
Our God is made of flesh (yes, glorified and resurrected, but a flesh type of thing). He has veins and all that usual stuff.
What is more, he has a wife. How droll. How everyday.
Then we tell them he had kids. Now that is really getting very hum drum. He had to raise us and put up with all those usual problems of rebellious children. What's exotic and exciting about that, I ask?
Further he has all the usual emotions, just like we do. This is super boring. He is too realistic, no imagination. It needs a bit of Alice in Wonderland or the Wizard of Oz: Some Spice.
Now let's look at the version they enjoy.
He fills the universe, yet he may not be in your heart even though he is your heart.
Yeah! Now we're talking! How about a bit of Star Wars?
He is supremely powerful and made all space and laws without actually having any laws to do this with.
Oh, this is getting real cool. But let's add more mysticism.
There are three of them, but only one.
Well this is the stuff a good yarn is made of. But more, more.
While he fills the universe he isn't actually made of anything to fill it.
Now that is a wopper!
And just to add to that he is a spirit yet even people who see spirits can't see him.
Yes, that sounds really mystical. But can't you add more to that?
Yet you can see God in everything because he is in everything, though there is nothing to see.
Can we make it more exciting, can we, can we? How about we make him even more confusing?
He loves us, but has no emotions.
Oh, that is a good one. Can we make him even more mystical still? I like the mystical bits.
While we must follow rules like loving one another, he can do whatever he likes and just make rules for himself as he goes.
Wow, he's IS all powerful. And how about some magic?
He made thought out of nothing and made us into thinking beings.
He made our thoughts out of absolutely nothing? Wow. Now THAT is magic. What other magical things did he do, give us more?
(Hmmm, what can I say to make it even better) He made EVERYTHING out of nothing.
EVERYTHING out of nothing? Now that is really out there. This god is really exciting.
Yes Brothers and Sisters I'm afraid we just can't compete with that for entertainment. But I must say that I am extremely grateful for a REAL God that actually IS loving and cares for us. I love the fact that he understands us because he isn't mystical or magical, but a person: A loving Father. Isn't reality wonderful?
Let's look at our God for a moment. While we know that he is glorified and resurrected, able to do anything with matter and hold countless planetary systems together, he is however a man. I mean, how boring is that?
Our God is made of flesh (yes, glorified and resurrected, but a flesh type of thing). He has veins and all that usual stuff.
What is more, he has a wife. How droll. How everyday.
Then we tell them he had kids. Now that is really getting very hum drum. He had to raise us and put up with all those usual problems of rebellious children. What's exotic and exciting about that, I ask?
Further he has all the usual emotions, just like we do. This is super boring. He is too realistic, no imagination. It needs a bit of Alice in Wonderland or the Wizard of Oz: Some Spice.
Now let's look at the version they enjoy.
He fills the universe, yet he may not be in your heart even though he is your heart.
Yeah! Now we're talking! How about a bit of Star Wars?
He is supremely powerful and made all space and laws without actually having any laws to do this with.
Oh, this is getting real cool. But let's add more mysticism.
There are three of them, but only one.
Well this is the stuff a good yarn is made of. But more, more.
While he fills the universe he isn't actually made of anything to fill it.
Now that is a wopper!
And just to add to that he is a spirit yet even people who see spirits can't see him.
Yes, that sounds really mystical. But can't you add more to that?
Yet you can see God in everything because he is in everything, though there is nothing to see.
Can we make it more exciting, can we, can we? How about we make him even more confusing?
He loves us, but has no emotions.
Oh, that is a good one. Can we make him even more mystical still? I like the mystical bits.
While we must follow rules like loving one another, he can do whatever he likes and just make rules for himself as he goes.
Wow, he's IS all powerful. And how about some magic?
He made thought out of nothing and made us into thinking beings.
He made our thoughts out of absolutely nothing? Wow. Now THAT is magic. What other magical things did he do, give us more?
(Hmmm, what can I say to make it even better) He made EVERYTHING out of nothing.
EVERYTHING out of nothing? Now that is really out there. This god is really exciting.
Yes Brothers and Sisters I'm afraid we just can't compete with that for entertainment. But I must say that I am extremely grateful for a REAL God that actually IS loving and cares for us. I love the fact that he understands us because he isn't mystical or magical, but a person: A loving Father. Isn't reality wonderful?
Tuesday, May 06, 2008
Science and Religion
Some will propose that religion and "Modern Science" can meet in a perfect union: That there need be no opposition. Is this concept true?
There is no greater scientist than God. Science is a wonderful thing when it is true. Even some theories are reasonable models to use for development and repair. I spent years as a TV technician and used the theoretic atomic model for circuit board repairs and designing my own electronic equipment. This generally served as a passable concept for me to envisage what to expect and where.
But in reality the term "scientific theory" is an oxymoron. "Science" means "knowledge" or to know. "Theory" means that you are making an assumption, and don't know at all. And this point seems to be forgotten by some that get caught up in the perception of knowledge and wisdom that many theory scientists go to a lot of trouble to present.
Some may pose that such theories are a continual evolution of ideas. And it is true that the theory expands in time. But that doesn't make it any more correct of itself.
What of where it challenges what God has said? Do we compromise God's word to fit in with man's present perceptions? I have had some on-line tell me that they are a member, but regard the Scriptures can be compromised to comply with what science says: They remould what God has given to fit in with man! This is turning science into a greater religion than that of God's.
These obvious conflicts became apparent to me when at 5-years-old I went to a museum, with the school, and was told some bones were millions of years old. Knowing the Bible said otherwise I questioned the teller of this tale (who worked for the museum) 3 times before he admitted that the bones weren't real, as he had been claiming. I questioned him a further 3 times before he admitted they weren't out the back either (as he had then claimed). He then claimed they were in Germany. I then had to question him a further 3 times before he admitted that they only had part of a leg bone.
This experience has made me seriously question the most basic of claims of "modern science". And I have been glad that I have. For many lies, distortions and misrepresentations have been thrown at us. I could go into each as a subject of its own. And some of these I've briefly presented on this site in the past. But I'm looking at this subject from a faith in God VS faith in man concept.
This choice of holding what man says above what God says has dangerous consequences for individuals and society. We can begin to philosophise other things God says, and begin to create unclear lines of action and intent. I think it important that I leave no one in doubt that theory science and God aren't in harmony in many areas.
Abr 3:4 tells us that a day with God, by his reckoning, is as a thousand years on this earth. It even explains why. The VERY NEXT chapter tells us that the earth was created in a day (one time of light and one time of darkness). Now we'd have to be very imaginative to propose that this doesn't mean the 7 days of creation were 7,000 years only.
Next the D&C tells us that man will only spend 7 thousand years upon the earth (that includes the, as yet not arrived, millennium)(D&C 77:12A)(also note 2 Pet 3:8).
Now how do these things fit with the claim of modern science that the earth has been here for millions of years? And what of the proposed "Ice Age"?
Abr 3:24 tells us that some of us came down to create the earth for us all to dwell on. So here we are with this great plan, and off we go to make these things. Now I know we weren't experienced, but let's be realistic. Are we to propose this effort took us MILLIONS of years: That we floundered around for that long? And did we do this, by trying to get lava to do this and that for us etc, and a big bang to occur? How does this fit with Abr 4:18 that says that we watched those things until they obeyed? This demonstrates that we did all the creation actions ourselves.
Then we have the classic - evolution. Considering that Moses version in Genesis chapter 1 has man put here during the 6th day, and the animals in the same day (a thousand year period), and fish and birds the day before, we have a definite challenge to the theory. Add to that the point that the insects were made AFTER the birds and fish (on the same day as animals and man) and we really are lost to the theory of evolution.
Luke 3:38 and Moses 6:22 both declare that Adam was God's son (not as Jesus Christ is, who is the only begotten in the fallen flesh).
Now I would pose the question, are we to believe God to be smarter than man or visa-versa? Do we have faith, or do we crumble at the first sign of a challenge to our beliefs?
The Book of Mormon speaks of steel long before the proposed "iron age". This idea was rejected by "modern science" for many years, until they were proven wrong again. So who should we have believed?
Any student of science knows that ideas in science keep changing. We like to hope that the new opinion is actually correct THIS TIME.
It seems a simple mathematical equation to me. God is right 100% of the time, the first time. Man SOMETIMES gets it right eventually, and extremely rarely the first time. Ummm... Let me see. Who will I follow?
There is no greater scientist than God. Science is a wonderful thing when it is true. Even some theories are reasonable models to use for development and repair. I spent years as a TV technician and used the theoretic atomic model for circuit board repairs and designing my own electronic equipment. This generally served as a passable concept for me to envisage what to expect and where.
But in reality the term "scientific theory" is an oxymoron. "Science" means "knowledge" or to know. "Theory" means that you are making an assumption, and don't know at all. And this point seems to be forgotten by some that get caught up in the perception of knowledge and wisdom that many theory scientists go to a lot of trouble to present.
Some may pose that such theories are a continual evolution of ideas. And it is true that the theory expands in time. But that doesn't make it any more correct of itself.
What of where it challenges what God has said? Do we compromise God's word to fit in with man's present perceptions? I have had some on-line tell me that they are a member, but regard the Scriptures can be compromised to comply with what science says: They remould what God has given to fit in with man! This is turning science into a greater religion than that of God's.
These obvious conflicts became apparent to me when at 5-years-old I went to a museum, with the school, and was told some bones were millions of years old. Knowing the Bible said otherwise I questioned the teller of this tale (who worked for the museum) 3 times before he admitted that the bones weren't real, as he had been claiming. I questioned him a further 3 times before he admitted they weren't out the back either (as he had then claimed). He then claimed they were in Germany. I then had to question him a further 3 times before he admitted that they only had part of a leg bone.
This experience has made me seriously question the most basic of claims of "modern science". And I have been glad that I have. For many lies, distortions and misrepresentations have been thrown at us. I could go into each as a subject of its own. And some of these I've briefly presented on this site in the past. But I'm looking at this subject from a faith in God VS faith in man concept.
This choice of holding what man says above what God says has dangerous consequences for individuals and society. We can begin to philosophise other things God says, and begin to create unclear lines of action and intent. I think it important that I leave no one in doubt that theory science and God aren't in harmony in many areas.
Abr 3:4 tells us that a day with God, by his reckoning, is as a thousand years on this earth. It even explains why. The VERY NEXT chapter tells us that the earth was created in a day (one time of light and one time of darkness). Now we'd have to be very imaginative to propose that this doesn't mean the 7 days of creation were 7,000 years only.
Next the D&C tells us that man will only spend 7 thousand years upon the earth (that includes the, as yet not arrived, millennium)(D&C 77:12A)(also note 2 Pet 3:8).
Now how do these things fit with the claim of modern science that the earth has been here for millions of years? And what of the proposed "Ice Age"?
Abr 3:24 tells us that some of us came down to create the earth for us all to dwell on. So here we are with this great plan, and off we go to make these things. Now I know we weren't experienced, but let's be realistic. Are we to propose this effort took us MILLIONS of years: That we floundered around for that long? And did we do this, by trying to get lava to do this and that for us etc, and a big bang to occur? How does this fit with Abr 4:18 that says that we watched those things until they obeyed? This demonstrates that we did all the creation actions ourselves.
Then we have the classic - evolution. Considering that Moses version in Genesis chapter 1 has man put here during the 6th day, and the animals in the same day (a thousand year period), and fish and birds the day before, we have a definite challenge to the theory. Add to that the point that the insects were made AFTER the birds and fish (on the same day as animals and man) and we really are lost to the theory of evolution.
Luke 3:38 and Moses 6:22 both declare that Adam was God's son (not as Jesus Christ is, who is the only begotten in the fallen flesh).
Now I would pose the question, are we to believe God to be smarter than man or visa-versa? Do we have faith, or do we crumble at the first sign of a challenge to our beliefs?
The Book of Mormon speaks of steel long before the proposed "iron age". This idea was rejected by "modern science" for many years, until they were proven wrong again. So who should we have believed?
Any student of science knows that ideas in science keep changing. We like to hope that the new opinion is actually correct THIS TIME.
It seems a simple mathematical equation to me. God is right 100% of the time, the first time. Man SOMETIMES gets it right eventually, and extremely rarely the first time. Ummm... Let me see. Who will I follow?
Tuesday, April 22, 2008
Justice
I was just listening to a song that talked of how we all needed a city of justice (among other things). It made me think of the many times I have thought upon and discussed this subject with others. We tend to like the idea of someone to see that justice is done: A batman, superman, a sincere lawyer etc. But what exactly IS justice, becomes the question?
We can answer that technically and say that something is justified when it is aligned correctly. We can say that justice is served when a wrongdoer suffers for their wrong actions. However while justice can be considered to be fair, is justice wise? Does justice produce the best result?
For example the atonement of Christ actually robs justice of penalising the real perpetrator: Christ (an innocent person) suffers instead to satisfy justice. Now while that may be fair, in as much as that someone has suffered for the wrong, it isn't really what people expect who are looking for revenge. And if I pay someone's fine for them because they can't afford it, is this really justice either?
Courts dispense what they say is justice. Yet nothing is really justified by it: The result to the victim is rarely changed by such action. So what we term justice doesn't make things better. Penalising wrong doers may make them change or think better next time such an idea comes into their heads. But this should be considered as discipline rather than justice. Justice is to bring things back to an equal state. Penalising someone in the claim of doing justice is proposing that two wrongs make a right. But they don't.
A person committing a crime will generally make it the other person's fault that they are committing a crime against them - two wrongs making a right. So what is a court system saying to them where they propose they are out to do justice by making them suffer? They are supporting the thinking of the offender: Using the same logic.
Instead of proposing that some weird version of justice (which seems done more with an attitude that revenge = justice) has occurred because someone has been locked in a cage, we should be treating and declaring the situation as an education program. After all, God declared how real justice works when he declared "an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth." And Christ declared that this isn't the way a person desiring to become like God should be thinking, but they should forgive (Matt 5:38-39).
Yet we live in a world where Law of Moses type rules need to be instituted for a Law of Moses type people. So I'm not proposing we don't support a legal system. I'm saying that we should encourage better direction in regard re-education of inmates of prisons.
A side issue in this is that too often I hear people use terms about someone saying such things as "he is a bank robber" or he is a "sex offender" etc. It is just as well God doesn't view us that way. In reality the person is someone who has committed a bank robbery, not a bank robber. The latter becomes a label that the person is stuck with even if they are in fact a butcher, baker etc. Otherwise we should all be constantly referred to as "liars" if we have lied at least once in our lifetime.
If someone does something terrible what should we really be looking for? When you hear of a person committing a bad sex crime do you feel a revenge mentality or hope he repents and Christ's atonement covers him so he doesn't need to suffer?
My observation is that people have been mindwashed to desire revenge on wrongdoers in these last decades. Whereas the 70's were about love and helping wrongdoers to correct their lives. Unfortunately I find religious people are the worst offenders when it comes to being judgemental. Yet while we should judge sin as very wrong, our desire for the offender should be for them to change and gain true joy REGARDLESS of what they have done.
People will say, "well, that is alright provided the person didn't commit a ---- crime." In other words they are saying that their own sins are alright but this other person's sin isn't forgivable. WHAT NONSENSE! Christ stated that "ALL sins shall be forgiven" (except blasphemy against the Holy Ghost) (Mark 3:28-29). James states that regardless of what sin you commit you are just as bad (Jam 2:10-11).
Justice naturally occurs without us or God having to do anything. When a person does an evil act that act is permanently in their heart. They will suffer internally until they truly feel they have satisfied the demands of justice inside themselves (Mosiah 2:38). Unless they accept the atonement of Christ through repentance.
Unfortunately man's version of justice, in our minds, seems to get distorted by bad (or lack of good) emotions. I have heard so many talk of justice, yet God doesn't seem to see it the same way people tend to think. The song that I quoted above along with talking of a city of justice also refers to a city of love.
One day we hope to be Gods. Therefore we must learn divine forgiveness through divine love rather than talk of justice.
We can answer that technically and say that something is justified when it is aligned correctly. We can say that justice is served when a wrongdoer suffers for their wrong actions. However while justice can be considered to be fair, is justice wise? Does justice produce the best result?
For example the atonement of Christ actually robs justice of penalising the real perpetrator: Christ (an innocent person) suffers instead to satisfy justice. Now while that may be fair, in as much as that someone has suffered for the wrong, it isn't really what people expect who are looking for revenge. And if I pay someone's fine for them because they can't afford it, is this really justice either?
Courts dispense what they say is justice. Yet nothing is really justified by it: The result to the victim is rarely changed by such action. So what we term justice doesn't make things better. Penalising wrong doers may make them change or think better next time such an idea comes into their heads. But this should be considered as discipline rather than justice. Justice is to bring things back to an equal state. Penalising someone in the claim of doing justice is proposing that two wrongs make a right. But they don't.
A person committing a crime will generally make it the other person's fault that they are committing a crime against them - two wrongs making a right. So what is a court system saying to them where they propose they are out to do justice by making them suffer? They are supporting the thinking of the offender: Using the same logic.
Instead of proposing that some weird version of justice (which seems done more with an attitude that revenge = justice) has occurred because someone has been locked in a cage, we should be treating and declaring the situation as an education program. After all, God declared how real justice works when he declared "an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth." And Christ declared that this isn't the way a person desiring to become like God should be thinking, but they should forgive (Matt 5:38-39).
Yet we live in a world where Law of Moses type rules need to be instituted for a Law of Moses type people. So I'm not proposing we don't support a legal system. I'm saying that we should encourage better direction in regard re-education of inmates of prisons.
A side issue in this is that too often I hear people use terms about someone saying such things as "he is a bank robber" or he is a "sex offender" etc. It is just as well God doesn't view us that way. In reality the person is someone who has committed a bank robbery, not a bank robber. The latter becomes a label that the person is stuck with even if they are in fact a butcher, baker etc. Otherwise we should all be constantly referred to as "liars" if we have lied at least once in our lifetime.
If someone does something terrible what should we really be looking for? When you hear of a person committing a bad sex crime do you feel a revenge mentality or hope he repents and Christ's atonement covers him so he doesn't need to suffer?
My observation is that people have been mindwashed to desire revenge on wrongdoers in these last decades. Whereas the 70's were about love and helping wrongdoers to correct their lives. Unfortunately I find religious people are the worst offenders when it comes to being judgemental. Yet while we should judge sin as very wrong, our desire for the offender should be for them to change and gain true joy REGARDLESS of what they have done.
People will say, "well, that is alright provided the person didn't commit a ---- crime." In other words they are saying that their own sins are alright but this other person's sin isn't forgivable. WHAT NONSENSE! Christ stated that "ALL sins shall be forgiven" (except blasphemy against the Holy Ghost) (Mark 3:28-29). James states that regardless of what sin you commit you are just as bad (Jam 2:10-11).
Justice naturally occurs without us or God having to do anything. When a person does an evil act that act is permanently in their heart. They will suffer internally until they truly feel they have satisfied the demands of justice inside themselves (Mosiah 2:38). Unless they accept the atonement of Christ through repentance.
Unfortunately man's version of justice, in our minds, seems to get distorted by bad (or lack of good) emotions. I have heard so many talk of justice, yet God doesn't seem to see it the same way people tend to think. The song that I quoted above along with talking of a city of justice also refers to a city of love.
One day we hope to be Gods. Therefore we must learn divine forgiveness through divine love rather than talk of justice.
Monday, April 14, 2008
Movies and Morals - Even LDS movies need serious refining
I think almost everyone would oppose something in some movie made by someone somewhere. However what does it have to be for us to reject it, is the question to ask ourselves?
Often I hear such statements as, "what would Christ do?" But how seriously do we apply such thinking when faced with what to watch, considering there is probably almost (if not) nothing he would watch. We make excuses to accept watching things. I know myself that I can tend to think, "well that is life", "its entertaining anyway", "I'll just get through this bit and it might improve", "that may be the only part like that", "its a good examination of reality", "I payed to hire it so I'll try to persist", "if I get too fussy I'll never watch anything", etc.
The point is to remember that Christ just doesn't make excuses. He doesn't turn (even slightly) to the right hand or to the left of straight down the line. He makes Nephi look flexible. There seems to be some in Hollywood who have taken on board the idea that people may not all wish for lust, inappropriate violence, theft, adultery, anger, swearing and vengeance. And this number seems to be expanding (albeit very little), which is encouraging. On the other hand there are so many who just seem to get worse.
But many things come through in a subtle way, even by those who may mean well. I have watched a few LDS movies (made by members, not the church) which left me feeling disappointed. I suppose I always tend to expect the best from those who have dedicated their lives to such. Therefore I always hope for perfection, or something close to it, in those professing a serious desire to be a God or Goddess.
I have watched "The Singles Ward", its sequel and "the dance". I guess I had high expectations from LDS movies. They left me feeling that I had just watched an acceptable Gentile (Israel being church members and Gentiles being non-members) movie with LDS themes. These movies portray absurd ideas relative to dating. Concepts of dating non-members as if they will just join the church because you are a member are absolutely ridiculous. Dating inactives is also as crazy. While they do portray a change of heart by people, in some cases, the chance of this just happening to one specific chosen individual (assuming about half the members were brought up in the church - six and a half million converts, six and a half billion world population [a bit simplistic, in calculation, I know, but it can't be too far off the mark]) is about one in a million.
"the dance" portrays dating a female with very low moral dress standards. Also, again, a Gentile.
Is this what we are to come up with as a people set aside by God? Must our standards try to copy the world's? What this comes down to are serious turns to the right hand and to the left. No excuses make it right. I expect it from Gentiles. But let's try to get Israel to live and do as God would have us. Push for better LDS productions than that.
Often I hear such statements as, "what would Christ do?" But how seriously do we apply such thinking when faced with what to watch, considering there is probably almost (if not) nothing he would watch. We make excuses to accept watching things. I know myself that I can tend to think, "well that is life", "its entertaining anyway", "I'll just get through this bit and it might improve", "that may be the only part like that", "its a good examination of reality", "I payed to hire it so I'll try to persist", "if I get too fussy I'll never watch anything", etc.
The point is to remember that Christ just doesn't make excuses. He doesn't turn (even slightly) to the right hand or to the left of straight down the line. He makes Nephi look flexible. There seems to be some in Hollywood who have taken on board the idea that people may not all wish for lust, inappropriate violence, theft, adultery, anger, swearing and vengeance. And this number seems to be expanding (albeit very little), which is encouraging. On the other hand there are so many who just seem to get worse.
But many things come through in a subtle way, even by those who may mean well. I have watched a few LDS movies (made by members, not the church) which left me feeling disappointed. I suppose I always tend to expect the best from those who have dedicated their lives to such. Therefore I always hope for perfection, or something close to it, in those professing a serious desire to be a God or Goddess.
I have watched "The Singles Ward", its sequel and "the dance". I guess I had high expectations from LDS movies. They left me feeling that I had just watched an acceptable Gentile (Israel being church members and Gentiles being non-members) movie with LDS themes. These movies portray absurd ideas relative to dating. Concepts of dating non-members as if they will just join the church because you are a member are absolutely ridiculous. Dating inactives is also as crazy. While they do portray a change of heart by people, in some cases, the chance of this just happening to one specific chosen individual (assuming about half the members were brought up in the church - six and a half million converts, six and a half billion world population [a bit simplistic, in calculation, I know, but it can't be too far off the mark]) is about one in a million.
"the dance" portrays dating a female with very low moral dress standards. Also, again, a Gentile.
Is this what we are to come up with as a people set aside by God? Must our standards try to copy the world's? What this comes down to are serious turns to the right hand and to the left. No excuses make it right. I expect it from Gentiles. But let's try to get Israel to live and do as God would have us. Push for better LDS productions than that.
Tuesday, April 01, 2008
Atonement Theories - so many yet God still comes out looking deficient.
The Snarkernacle at http://snarkernacle.blogspot.com/2008/01/stop-thinking-about-yourself-and-start.html recently drew my attention to the ongoing discussions of atonement theories on LDS blogs. Reading through these theories I had to feel that they underestimated God in one form or another: It seemed that whatever way each theory went God came out with personality problems.
I realise that the church was generally built by ex-Protestants, who's churches are themselves built by ex-Catholics. This makes a strange Roman God to transform from, to begin with. And considering that the Scriptures do partially support the confusing God of vengeance (in so many places) and yet mercy (in other places), it is no surprise that confusion would exist on God's true personality and reasoning.
If a theory is approached with such a confused being as the God OF the theory, then the theory will be incorrect. To get the concept correct requires an understanding of the true nature of God in the first place. While some of these theories did represent the true God in parts, because of, what I would see as, false perceptions existing, in other areas they come adrift.
So to fully understand the atonement a person must completely reform their view of the relationship between man, God and eternal laws until it is correct. The hardest doctrine for people to grasp (particularly considering the Law of Moses style God presented to the hard hearted in the Scriptures) is the first I will come to.
First we need to actually BELIEVE that "God is love", rather than just quote it. Not love to only those who accept and obey him, but love to all - that he causes the sun to rise on the evil and the good. That God is actually TOTALLY impartial. If God is love then can we really believe that God will cause anyone to actually suffer pain and not allow them into his presence: That he will personally inflict agony upon those he loves - his own children? Even a good parent only disciplines a child so that the child will learn to do right in the future. And Christ made it obvious (to a more enlightened audience) that we can relate to God as a better father than we are (Matt 7:9-11).
Of those who have known the truth and rejected it Mosiah 2:37-38 says,
"...therefore he listeth to obey the evil spirit, and becometh an enemy to all righteousness; therefore, the Lord has no place in him, for he dwelleth not in unholy temples. Therefore if that man repenteth not, and remaineth and dieth an enemy to God, the demands of divine justice do awaken his immortal soul to a lively sense of his own guilt, which doth cause him to shrink from the presence of the Lord, and doth fill his breast with guilt, and pain, and anguish, which is like an unquenchable fire, whose flame ascendeth up forever and ever."
So what has caused the pain? And why doesn't the Lord dwell in them: Is it because he hates them? The person has made themselves an enemy to "righteousness". So the Lord (being righteous) CAN'T dwell in him as it is contrary to the nature of the Lord. And it is the person's sense of justice from their OWN immortal soul that causes them to both suffer and feel separated from God. NOT GOD. These things are SELF imposed. God wants to free us from them; not create them.
We are separate and free individuals. God can't just bash the door down and make us feel good inside. We have to open up and let him come in and help.
So he used the same plan that is used for all people's throughout eternity for removing the pain from past sins, so that the repentant can move on and become one with God during this life (where possible) or as a spirit before the resurrection.
So that is why an atonement is necessary.
Another question considered is how does the atonement cover people of all time periods, when Christ didn't even live until about 4,000 years after the beginning? This same question relates to questions such as how the brother of Jared saw Christ's flesh? And how is it that Christ came to Abraham and ate with him? This may be a bit of a mind bender to understand as we are used to time things. But God dwells in eternity (we do also in reality but just don't see it because of change and decay) (Eccles 3:15) whereas we see things as a time line. Relative to the atonement and putting it simply, Christ's mind could go into eternity and come back into any time of this earth. This is how God has shown people the future.
So how does the atonement work?
I would first like to mention an experience I had when a teenager. I had done something wrong years before. Every time I thought of this thing (I can't actually remember what it was now) I felt terrible inside. However one day when I thought upon it a voice inside me (my spirit) said in an assured tone, "I have suffered enough for that."
As we open our hearts to Christ in true repentance he is able to come into our hearts from the garden of Gethsemane (which has already occurred, from his perspective, long ago) and suffer the pain for each and every sin. Our conscience inside feels this pain being suffered and accepts that as sufficient payment and feels appeased (our sense of justice is appeased). He suffers individual pain for each individual sin until we feel that is enough pain for that particular sin (depending on its size). The same applies to those who lived even before he was born. Thus such people as Enoch had their conscience cleared and could go on and grow in righteousness. This fact is demonstrated in the Law given to Moses where every man had to offer an INDIVIDUAL sacrifice outside the temple door (signifying the sacrifice in the garden). So individual pain had to be suffered for each individual. Whereas the sacrifice outside the camp (signifying his death on the cross) was only one sacrifice that covered everyone.
Some may question how he could do that in such a limited time? Yet if you think about your thinking at times you will realise that you often process a lot of thoughts within a second or even less. Several entire concepts can pass through your mind before you could blink your eye.
Now the question comes as to why Christ was the only one who could perform the atonement? Firstly it had to be someone who had no sins of his own harrowing up his own conscience. Jehovah (Jesus Christ) was just that type of person that wasn't going to make a mistake: He could see it was wrong without having to actually mess up first. Secondly he needed a body that was perfect enough to withstand the pain required. So his father was Heavenly Father in order that he had a part of him as coming from a perfect being.
So where does the cross fit in with this?
Having gained a body and living a life (which as our brother he needed to do also). Having learnt the truths relative to righteous life living. Having done a mission and preached the gospel. Having performed the atonement act. Having at that point ruined his body by doing the atonement. Knowing that some had waited thousands of years to be resurrected and were eager for that resurrection. He knew it was time to die. His manner of death set an example of dying a painful way, that no one could argue that they are asked to suffer more. So, as he had to die having ruined his body, he took the physical result of our sins and nailed it to the cross.
As he was sinless and had a body that wasn't able to die at the time of his death, he had no trouble resurrecting his body. From this time resurrection became available to others.
One day (during this life) I hope to actually understand why no one could be resurrected until he was. My understanding of the physical nature of a resurrected body is zero, other than it won't die and its state is relative to the righteousness of the owner.
I realise that the church was generally built by ex-Protestants, who's churches are themselves built by ex-Catholics. This makes a strange Roman God to transform from, to begin with. And considering that the Scriptures do partially support the confusing God of vengeance (in so many places) and yet mercy (in other places), it is no surprise that confusion would exist on God's true personality and reasoning.
If a theory is approached with such a confused being as the God OF the theory, then the theory will be incorrect. To get the concept correct requires an understanding of the true nature of God in the first place. While some of these theories did represent the true God in parts, because of, what I would see as, false perceptions existing, in other areas they come adrift.
So to fully understand the atonement a person must completely reform their view of the relationship between man, God and eternal laws until it is correct. The hardest doctrine for people to grasp (particularly considering the Law of Moses style God presented to the hard hearted in the Scriptures) is the first I will come to.
First we need to actually BELIEVE that "God is love", rather than just quote it. Not love to only those who accept and obey him, but love to all - that he causes the sun to rise on the evil and the good. That God is actually TOTALLY impartial. If God is love then can we really believe that God will cause anyone to actually suffer pain and not allow them into his presence: That he will personally inflict agony upon those he loves - his own children? Even a good parent only disciplines a child so that the child will learn to do right in the future. And Christ made it obvious (to a more enlightened audience) that we can relate to God as a better father than we are (Matt 7:9-11).
Of those who have known the truth and rejected it Mosiah 2:37-38 says,
"...therefore he listeth to obey the evil spirit, and becometh an enemy to all righteousness; therefore, the Lord has no place in him, for he dwelleth not in unholy temples. Therefore if that man repenteth not, and remaineth and dieth an enemy to God, the demands of divine justice do awaken his immortal soul to a lively sense of his own guilt, which doth cause him to shrink from the presence of the Lord, and doth fill his breast with guilt, and pain, and anguish, which is like an unquenchable fire, whose flame ascendeth up forever and ever."
So what has caused the pain? And why doesn't the Lord dwell in them: Is it because he hates them? The person has made themselves an enemy to "righteousness". So the Lord (being righteous) CAN'T dwell in him as it is contrary to the nature of the Lord. And it is the person's sense of justice from their OWN immortal soul that causes them to both suffer and feel separated from God. NOT GOD. These things are SELF imposed. God wants to free us from them; not create them.
We are separate and free individuals. God can't just bash the door down and make us feel good inside. We have to open up and let him come in and help.
So he used the same plan that is used for all people's throughout eternity for removing the pain from past sins, so that the repentant can move on and become one with God during this life (where possible) or as a spirit before the resurrection.
So that is why an atonement is necessary.
Another question considered is how does the atonement cover people of all time periods, when Christ didn't even live until about 4,000 years after the beginning? This same question relates to questions such as how the brother of Jared saw Christ's flesh? And how is it that Christ came to Abraham and ate with him? This may be a bit of a mind bender to understand as we are used to time things. But God dwells in eternity (we do also in reality but just don't see it because of change and decay) (Eccles 3:15) whereas we see things as a time line. Relative to the atonement and putting it simply, Christ's mind could go into eternity and come back into any time of this earth. This is how God has shown people the future.
So how does the atonement work?
I would first like to mention an experience I had when a teenager. I had done something wrong years before. Every time I thought of this thing (I can't actually remember what it was now) I felt terrible inside. However one day when I thought upon it a voice inside me (my spirit) said in an assured tone, "I have suffered enough for that."
As we open our hearts to Christ in true repentance he is able to come into our hearts from the garden of Gethsemane (which has already occurred, from his perspective, long ago) and suffer the pain for each and every sin. Our conscience inside feels this pain being suffered and accepts that as sufficient payment and feels appeased (our sense of justice is appeased). He suffers individual pain for each individual sin until we feel that is enough pain for that particular sin (depending on its size). The same applies to those who lived even before he was born. Thus such people as Enoch had their conscience cleared and could go on and grow in righteousness. This fact is demonstrated in the Law given to Moses where every man had to offer an INDIVIDUAL sacrifice outside the temple door (signifying the sacrifice in the garden). So individual pain had to be suffered for each individual. Whereas the sacrifice outside the camp (signifying his death on the cross) was only one sacrifice that covered everyone.
Some may question how he could do that in such a limited time? Yet if you think about your thinking at times you will realise that you often process a lot of thoughts within a second or even less. Several entire concepts can pass through your mind before you could blink your eye.
Now the question comes as to why Christ was the only one who could perform the atonement? Firstly it had to be someone who had no sins of his own harrowing up his own conscience. Jehovah (Jesus Christ) was just that type of person that wasn't going to make a mistake: He could see it was wrong without having to actually mess up first. Secondly he needed a body that was perfect enough to withstand the pain required. So his father was Heavenly Father in order that he had a part of him as coming from a perfect being.
So where does the cross fit in with this?
Having gained a body and living a life (which as our brother he needed to do also). Having learnt the truths relative to righteous life living. Having done a mission and preached the gospel. Having performed the atonement act. Having at that point ruined his body by doing the atonement. Knowing that some had waited thousands of years to be resurrected and were eager for that resurrection. He knew it was time to die. His manner of death set an example of dying a painful way, that no one could argue that they are asked to suffer more. So, as he had to die having ruined his body, he took the physical result of our sins and nailed it to the cross.
As he was sinless and had a body that wasn't able to die at the time of his death, he had no trouble resurrecting his body. From this time resurrection became available to others.
One day (during this life) I hope to actually understand why no one could be resurrected until he was. My understanding of the physical nature of a resurrected body is zero, other than it won't die and its state is relative to the righteousness of the owner.
Monday, March 17, 2008
Are we really God, as the Catholics/Protestants Propose?
Catholicism/Protestantism complains because we say that we can become Gods. Yet their doctrine says that we are God himself right now, and will continue to be forever. Additionally their God is some kind of masochist who is going to send some of himself to hell forever!
As LDS we know that each intelligence has existed forever. No one can make intelligences (D&C 93:29). We are an intelligence inside our spirit body, which is inside our physical body. Yet this isn't what is believed by others.
The Catholic/Protestant version of our existence.
They say that God is not only the inventor of all things but he is in all things and is all things. They say that God is the inventor of our minds: We wouldn't be thinking if he wasn't there. We wouldn't exist. So examining the logic of this it ends up being that we are, in fact, God! And he is us!
According to the claim what are we? We are nothing other than that which is God. God not only invented our thinking, but if we can't think without him, and he invented the ability to think, then our thinking must be him thinking (remember that nothing exists that isn't made and maintained by him, and that he created the bounds in which I think). I can't think if he isn't there, so I have no independant thought. It must be remembered in trying to understand this that nothing exists but God and that which exists by him. Therefore everything existing is him. There is nothing else. No wonder the Catholic/Protestant god is so schizophrenic.
And as all matter is invented by him, continues to exist because of him and he is in all things, then this body I have is also him. The same would have to be said for my spirit body.
This, of course, would leave us with Satan being God too. Man, are they for real?
Us being God. Hmmm.... I don't think so! The stupidity is that they would SAY that they don't think so either. Yet that is the reality of their claim. Back to the Bible people, I think that requires a lot more reading.
As LDS we know that each intelligence has existed forever. No one can make intelligences (D&C 93:29). We are an intelligence inside our spirit body, which is inside our physical body. Yet this isn't what is believed by others.
The Catholic/Protestant version of our existence.
They say that God is not only the inventor of all things but he is in all things and is all things. They say that God is the inventor of our minds: We wouldn't be thinking if he wasn't there. We wouldn't exist. So examining the logic of this it ends up being that we are, in fact, God! And he is us!
According to the claim what are we? We are nothing other than that which is God. God not only invented our thinking, but if we can't think without him, and he invented the ability to think, then our thinking must be him thinking (remember that nothing exists that isn't made and maintained by him, and that he created the bounds in which I think). I can't think if he isn't there, so I have no independant thought. It must be remembered in trying to understand this that nothing exists but God and that which exists by him. Therefore everything existing is him. There is nothing else. No wonder the Catholic/Protestant god is so schizophrenic.
And as all matter is invented by him, continues to exist because of him and he is in all things, then this body I have is also him. The same would have to be said for my spirit body.
This, of course, would leave us with Satan being God too. Man, are they for real?
Us being God. Hmmm.... I don't think so! The stupidity is that they would SAY that they don't think so either. Yet that is the reality of their claim. Back to the Bible people, I think that requires a lot more reading.
Thursday, March 06, 2008
Women and the Priesthood - What is Priesthood?
I'm not backward in stating that my perception of feminism is that it has caused serious damage to my sisters, telling them that there is something wrong with doing what our Heavenly Mother does. And that they must do what men do to be a real person. And this isn't written to attempt to appease such. Nevertheless rather than the "men get the priesthood, why can't we be like men" routine, many women do ask sensibly why they don't get the priesthood: After all it is an important thing for men to have?
It has been quoted by those in favour that some individuals made references to there being priestesses in the eternities, when this time is over. So if there are to be goddesses who have priesthood why not now? Also some suggest that there is a concept of women having priesthood now implied in something.
The point that I would present to these women is that they in fact DO have priesthood. But their calling isn't to perform ordinances. Nor will it be in the eternities. This priesthood is automatic, and therefore requires no ordination.
So what does a goddess actually do? Does she sit and govern planets and organise the construction of planetary systems? No! This is what males do.
Well why don't females do this? Because females aren't men. Nor do men do what women are best at for the eternities. Men do what men are best at.
The first calling God gave women (and men, for that matter) was thus, "..Be fruitful, and multiply..." (Moses 2:28).
Godesses spend eternity having and raising children.
Women may wish to point out that they can't give priesthood blessings to their children when sick etc. Yes, that is true. But God will do these things for the woman who asks in sincere prayer (if it be what is best for all concerned). For men it is important for them to learn to develop the powers within them that they will have to use to hold worlds together. Women don't do this. So God has designed the perfect system for the perfect situation (ie a complete family with the man present), and has a failsafe mechanism where He is there to answer prayer anyway.
The question would then be asked, "why do godesses need priesthood?"
This gets to the question of WHAT exactly is priesthood? Joseph Fielding Smith declared that it is nothing MORE or LESS than the AUTHORITY to act in the name of Christ (as is declared in D&C 121 and 84:21). Talking of "power OF the priesthood" and "power IN the priesthood" doesn't mean that the priesthood is a power of itself. I can talk of power in an electric cord, but the cord has no power at all when the power source is removed. To have power in the priesthood, to make things physically happen, we must do certain things that produce that power. Thus some perform greater miracles than others by using exactly the SAME priesthood. Righteous living creates the power in us (as the Scriptures declare over and over).
Obviously priesthood for Christ would be the authority to do things in the name of Heavenly Father.
So supposing I become a God, what will my priesthood actually be? The authority to act in the name of .....? What is Heavenly Father's priesthood?
If we, as a God, require priesthood, then Heavenly Father, as a God also, must therefore require priesthood. So Heavenly Father has authority to act in the name of his God. Why?
Eternal law makes it that eternal families are important for a better existence. So we have all this sealing of families.
We are told that as we make worlds this will add glory to our Heavenly Father. Why? Because these then become his grand-children in a sense. You see it is a continual family spreading.
To do these things (ie having children to the glory of our Heavenly Father) requires authority from Him to act in his name. Thus for a woman to have children in the name of God requires authority from God (ie priesthood).
Now I would pose the question then that isn't it true that women are at this time having children to the glory of God? And didn't Heavenly Father himself give this authority to Eve, and through her to all women?
I realise this won't satisfy raging feminists that just don't see the wonderful beauty of bearing children, in its true value. But you do have this privilege and priesthood which I never will. I seek to do the best with those things that I am privileged with.
It has been quoted by those in favour that some individuals made references to there being priestesses in the eternities, when this time is over. So if there are to be goddesses who have priesthood why not now? Also some suggest that there is a concept of women having priesthood now implied in something.
The point that I would present to these women is that they in fact DO have priesthood. But their calling isn't to perform ordinances. Nor will it be in the eternities. This priesthood is automatic, and therefore requires no ordination.
So what does a goddess actually do? Does she sit and govern planets and organise the construction of planetary systems? No! This is what males do.
Well why don't females do this? Because females aren't men. Nor do men do what women are best at for the eternities. Men do what men are best at.
The first calling God gave women (and men, for that matter) was thus, "..Be fruitful, and multiply..." (Moses 2:28).
Godesses spend eternity having and raising children.
Women may wish to point out that they can't give priesthood blessings to their children when sick etc. Yes, that is true. But God will do these things for the woman who asks in sincere prayer (if it be what is best for all concerned). For men it is important for them to learn to develop the powers within them that they will have to use to hold worlds together. Women don't do this. So God has designed the perfect system for the perfect situation (ie a complete family with the man present), and has a failsafe mechanism where He is there to answer prayer anyway.
The question would then be asked, "why do godesses need priesthood?"
This gets to the question of WHAT exactly is priesthood? Joseph Fielding Smith declared that it is nothing MORE or LESS than the AUTHORITY to act in the name of Christ (as is declared in D&C 121 and 84:21). Talking of "power OF the priesthood" and "power IN the priesthood" doesn't mean that the priesthood is a power of itself. I can talk of power in an electric cord, but the cord has no power at all when the power source is removed. To have power in the priesthood, to make things physically happen, we must do certain things that produce that power. Thus some perform greater miracles than others by using exactly the SAME priesthood. Righteous living creates the power in us (as the Scriptures declare over and over).
Obviously priesthood for Christ would be the authority to do things in the name of Heavenly Father.
So supposing I become a God, what will my priesthood actually be? The authority to act in the name of .....? What is Heavenly Father's priesthood?
If we, as a God, require priesthood, then Heavenly Father, as a God also, must therefore require priesthood. So Heavenly Father has authority to act in the name of his God. Why?
Eternal law makes it that eternal families are important for a better existence. So we have all this sealing of families.
We are told that as we make worlds this will add glory to our Heavenly Father. Why? Because these then become his grand-children in a sense. You see it is a continual family spreading.
To do these things (ie having children to the glory of our Heavenly Father) requires authority from Him to act in his name. Thus for a woman to have children in the name of God requires authority from God (ie priesthood).
Now I would pose the question then that isn't it true that women are at this time having children to the glory of God? And didn't Heavenly Father himself give this authority to Eve, and through her to all women?
I realise this won't satisfy raging feminists that just don't see the wonderful beauty of bearing children, in its true value. But you do have this privilege and priesthood which I never will. I seek to do the best with those things that I am privileged with.
Monday, February 25, 2008
More Articles of Faith
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.
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.
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)