Should we observe the Sabbath on Saturday?

I have heard much debate over what day of the week God insists we observe as a Sabbath. This isn't a new debate but existed after the church had lost revelatory direction (ie no one was worthy of revelation from God any more). At least three concepts emerged during this time, and still are debated today. This subject may seem very confusing, so I hope the following will clear this up for you. Even though what I'm about to present is involved I will endeavour to make it simple at the time of conclusion. These three arguments are 1. That we must have a Sabbath day on Saturday. 2. That we must have a Sabbath day on Sunday. 3. That it doesn't matter what day you observe it on, as long as you have one.

This particular post will only be examining the concept of whether we should be holding our Sabbath days on Saturday. I will get to the rest in further posts.

Talk about people being sun worshippers because they worship on Sunday and other such superstitious nonsense will be avoided: Using such logic I would therefore have to conclude a person worshipping on Saturday to be a Saturn worshipper - as Saturday is named after Saturn. Also the claim that the sun is symbolic of the light of the gospel and so worshipping on Sunday brings us out of spiritual darkness is an argument to the ignorant. So I will be sticking to logical arguments from Scripture only.

Let's look at the Scriptures quoted by those trying to prove that you MUST worship on Saturday.

"Thus the heavens and the earth were finished, and all the host of them. And on the seventh day God ended his work which he had made; and he rested on the seventh day from all his work which he had made. And God blessed the seventh day, and sanctified it: because that in it he had rested from all his work which God created and made." Genesis 2:1-3

This is quoted to point out that God has had a Sabbath, and to propose that because the Jews honoured the Sabbath on Saturday at the time of Christ, it must have been a Saturday that God honoured at the creation. I will come back to examining this claim when the other scriptures have been presented.

"In the end of the Sabbath, as it began to dawn toward the first day of the week, came Mary Magdalene and the other Mary to see the sepulchre." Mark 16:1-2&9 "And when the Sabbath was past, Mary Magdalene, and Mary the mother of James, and Salome, had bought sweet spices, that they might come and anoint him. And very early in the morning the first day of the week, they came unto the sepulchre at the rising of the sun." & "Now when Jesus was risen early the first day of the week, he appeared first to Mary Magdalene, out of whom he had cast seven devils." Luke 23:54-56 "And that day was the preparation, and the Sabbath drew on. And the women also, which came with him from Galilee, followed after, and beheld the sepulchre, and how his body was laid. And they returned, and prepared spices and ointments; and rested the Sabbath day according to the commandment." Matthew 28:1

These are quoted to suggest that Christ rested on the Sabbath day, which at this time was a Saturday. However, firstly, Saturday was the day that they were holding their Sabbath. Therefore even if this was a demonstration of a Sabbath rest, it doesn't hold that he would not have rested on Thursday (for example) had the Jews observed that day. The rest of this interpretation could only be the case if there is no doubt that A. Christ stayed in the tomb, and actually did rest: B. That he only spent the Sabbath (one day) in the tomb: and C. That he stayed in the tomb to demonstrate a Sabbath rest. However all of these are questionable. A. I Peter 3:18-19 suggests that when put to death Christ's spirit went and preached to spirits. B. It is proposed that when Christ said he would spend three days in the earth that he must have meant Friday night, Saturday and the night, and the beginning of Sunday. But is this true? In Matthew 12:40 Christ said, "For as Jonas was three days and three NIGHTS in the whale's belly; so shall the Son of man be three days and three NIGHTS in the heart of the earth." This means all Thursday, all Friday and then all Saturday. Then to rise on Sunday morning. Confusion arises because the Scriptures talk of the body needing to be quickly buried because of the coming Sabbath. But the coming Sabbath spoken of wasn't the weekly Sabbath (in the law of Moses there were several Sabbaths, not just the weekly one). That year there was another Sabbath due on Thursday. So he was crucified on Wednesday and quickly buried to be "in the heart of the earth" for the three days and nights and arose Saturday night to be already risen when the women came to the tomb Sunday morning. C. Neither Christ, any of the apostles with him nor Paul (ie the New Testament) ever claimed Christ stayed in the tomb to demonstrate a Sabbath rest. Which they would have done had it been a point Christ wished to demonstrate.

Luke 4:16 states regarding Christ, "And he came to Nazareth, where he had been brought up: and, as his custom was, he went into the synagogue on the Sabbath day, and stood up to read."

This is presented to show that Christ had a custom of going into synagogues on the Sabbath day (a Saturday at this time). Two points stand out regarding this. Firstly he spent 40 days in the wilderness (Matthew 4:1-2) not going to the synagogue on a Saturday. Secondly he obviously would obey the Law of Moses and observe the Sabbath on the Saturday they were observing it on. This, again, doesn't prove that a Sabbath must be held on Saturday.

Revelation 1:10 "I was in the Spirit on the Lord's day, and heard behind me a great voice, as of a trumpet." Along with this is quoted Ephesians 3:9 "And to make all men see what is the fellowship of the mystery, which from the beginning of the world hath been hid in God, who created all things by Jesus Christ."

It is stated that the Lord made the Sabbath in the beginning (during creation). Then this Sabbath is associated with this quote of the Lord's day (saying it must be the same day). Then it is proposed that because Saturday was the Sabbath at the time of Christ and the Lord made the Sabbath originally, that this Lord's day is a Saturday. This is pure supposition however. I should briefly point out here that there isn't even any evidence that the original Sabbath was a Saturday (as this claims).

"For the Son of man is Lord even of the Sabbath day." Matthew 12:8

This is quoted to present the idea that Christ ("the Son of Man") is here accepting the Sabbath (Saturday) as important and his. However when we look at what he is talking about we find very differently. Verse 1 of this chapter has stated, "At that time Jesus went on the Sabbath day through the corn; and his disciples were hungry, and began to pluck the ears of corn, and to eat." Christ then mentions to the Pharisees (who were accusing him of letting his apostles break the Sabbath) of people breaking the law where necessary, to justify his apostles breaking the Sabbath commandment. An example being verse 5, "Or haven't you read in the law, how that on the Sabbath days the priests in the temple profane the Sabbath, and are blameless?" So in verse 8 he is stating his ability to ignore the Sabbath, as its Lord.

"But the seventh day is the Sabbath of the LORD your God: in it you shall not do any work, you, nor your son, nor your daughter, your manservant, nor your maidservant, nor your cattle, nor your stranger that is within your gates" Exo 20:10

No one denies the existence of the Sabbath commandment in the law. But this states nothing about this day being observed on a Saturday. Nor do any Old Testament books claim that Saturday was the day they observed, at the time Moses gave the law to them.

"But pray you that your flight be not in the winter, neither on the Sabbath day" Matt 24:20

This is used to present that the Sabbath was still observed after Christ (as this was presented regarding the future - particularly just before Christ's coming). It is then proposed that this Sabbath must be the Saturday then observed. We would have to ask, though, why would people be worried about fleeing on a Saturday (these days) when they aren't even observing a Sabbath on Saturday? There are more people observing other days as Sabbaths in Jerusalem today. Then there is the point that we still don't have a statement here that Saturday is the day this Sabbath would be on. On top of that we have no statement that Saturday is the day it has to be on. So it's still all speculation and unstated inference (ie no statement of Saturday at all).

"For as the new heavens and the new earth, which I will make, shall remain before me, says the LORD, so shall your seed and your name remain. And it shall come to pass, that from one new moon to another, and from one Sabbath to another, shall all flesh come to worship before me, says the LORD." Isaiah 66:22-23

This speaks in future tense and mentions the observance of Sabbaths. It should be noted, on the other hand though, that it also mentions new moons (an observance of the Law of Moses not practiced today). So it is questionable whether this pertains to a time after Christ (remembering this was written around 700 years before his birth). All that aside, we again have nothing about a Sabbath being on Saturday (the object of the claim).

"And he said to them, The Sabbath was made for man, and not man for the Sabbath" Mark 2:27-28

What is Christ presenting here? He was answering those who were complaining because of him healing on the Sabbath. He has stated that the Sabbath was made to serve man, not man being made to serve the Sabbath. In other words people are more important than the Sabbath day. Should we then believe that this same Christ will send people to hell for holding their Sabbath on some specific day of the week?

"And Adam said, This is now bone of my bones, and flesh of my flesh: she shall be called Woman, because she was taken out of Man. Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave to his wife: and they shall be one flesh." Gen 2:23-24

With this it is stated that as God hasn't changed this law of marriage given just after the creation neither has he changed his Sabbath given at this time also. And therefore he wouldn't change the day. But we know that God has given different laws to different people depending on their readiness to observe them. Hebrews 3:16-4:2 tells us that the people that Moses lead out of Egypt had the gospel of Christ preached to them, but they rejected it. Thus God gave them what is termed "the Law of Moses". Sacrifices also became unnecessary with Christ having come and demonstrating their point. So God has changed laws given. And therefore why would I believe that something as simple as what day of a week something is done on, could not easily be changed - if we are to believe that was originally a Saturday anyway?

"And when the Jews were gone out of the synagogue, the Gentiles besought that these words might be preached to them the next Sabbath." & "And the next Sabbath day came almost the whole city together to hear the word of God." Act 13:42&44

Here we have Paul and Barnabas attending a Jewish synagogue. But did they attend it to honour the Sabbath day on Saturday or did they attend to preach to the Jews there? Some may argue, "both". This isn't stated either way. But two things come to mind. Firstly Acts 21:24&26 has Paul going into the temple and purifying himself ready to do sacrifices. These things were no longer necessary observances. Yet Paul did them so that it could not be said that he had no respect for the law (verse 24). Attendance at a synagogue would say exactly the same. Secondly he not only preached to the Jews there, but the Gentiles showed interest also. Where could he find a better audience to preach to? So to claim that their purpose in going to the synagogue was to worship God on Saturday is a guess at best. Whatever we believe it would be purposeless to go on another day, because Saturday is the day that people would be there for a service.

"And Paul, as his manner was, went in to them, and three Sabbath days reasoned with them out of the Scriptures." Acts 17:2

This isn't saying anything different, but just mentions that going into synagogues and reasoning with them was his "manner" (something he did). In fact it points more to the idea that he was there for that specific purpose rather than to honor Saturday.

In summary of this subject the only reasonably provable argument is that Christ was brought up going on Saturday and didn't say anything in objection to the day of the week he was observing. Yet this argument can only have possible merit if we are to believe that God now insists that we practice it on some other day of the week (such as Sunday) instead - thus making the particular day observed an issue.

This idea seems to be an example of where Christ warned to beware of the leaven (added ideas) of the Pharisees.

I'll come to the Sunday only concept next.

An Examination of Hebrews Chapter 7

1 "This Melchizedek was King of Salem and priest of the God Most High. He met Abraham returning from the defeat of the kings and blessed him,"
2 "To whom also Abraham gave him a tenth of everything. First, his name means 'King of righteousness'; then also, 'King of Salem' meaning 'King of peace.'"

Some confusion arises here by the term "King of peace." Some wonder if this is Christ being spoken of. Yet Christ is referred to as the "Prince of Peace' not "King of Peace." I would interpret this as saying that the word "Salem" means "peace."

This confusion continues into the next verse.

3 "Without father, without mother, without genealogy, without beginning of days or end of life, like the Son of God he remains a priest forever."

Some ask whether this refers to Christ? But the answer to this is answered simply.

We have 3 statements _

(a). "Without father." Is this true that Christ was "without father?"

Matt 16:16 answers this question - "And Simon Peter answered and said, You are the Christ, the Son of the living God." Also refer Matt 14:33, 8:29 and 26:63

(b). "Without mother." Was Christ "without mother?"

Matt 1:18 answers this question - "Now the birth of Jesus Christ was on this wise: When as his mother Mary...." Also refer Matt 1:23 & 25, 2:11 & 13, Luke 1:30-31

(c). "Without genealogy."

Matt 1:1 "The book of the generations of Jesus Christ, the son of David, the son of Abraham." Also refer Matt 21:9, Isa 11:1 and Jer 23:5

As a spirit Christ was also the Son of God.

"Who is the image of the invisible God, the firsborn of every creature."

Also the text states in regard Melchizedek that LIKE the Son of God he remains a priest forever. So this doesn't come over as if he is speaking of Melchizedek as the Son of God.

The text states that the Melchizedek priesthood remains with people who are given it forever. As it is eternal it seems logical to conclude that this reference is to the priesthood itself, and that the holder maintains it continuously as it has no beginning or end.

4 "Just think how great he was: Even the patriarch Abraham gave him a tenth of the plunder!"

This makes reference to the greatness of Melchizedek.

5 "Now the law requires the descendants of Levi who become priests to collect a tenth from the people--that is, their brothers--even though their brothers are descended from Abraham."

Only those of the tribe of Levi could become priests (whether Aaronic or Levitical priesthood). Aaron was also of the tribe of Levi (he and Moses were great grandchildren of Levi). And as the other tribes of Israel were also children of Jacob (Israel) and he was the grandson of Abraham, all tribes of Israel are brothers.

6 "This man, however, did not trace his descent from Levi, yet he collected a tenth from Abraham and blessed him who had the promises."
7 "And without doubt the lesser person is blessed by the greater."

In spite of not being of Levi, Melchizedek collected tithes from Abraham and blessed him. Therefore Melchizedek must have been greater than Abraham.

8 "In the one case, the tenth is collected by men who die; but in the other case, by him who is declared to be living."

The Levitical priesthood dies when the person does. But Melchizedek's priesthood (the Melchizedek priesthood) is eternal and so remains with him even though he is physically dead ("he remains a priest forever" verse 3).

9 "One might even say that Levi, who collects the tenth, paid the tenth through Abraham,"
10 "because when Melchizedek met Abraham, Levi was still in the body of his ancestor."

Abraham was the Great-great-great-great Grandfather of Levi, through whom the priests at Paul's time could all attribute their priesthood, and as Abraham was paying tithing to Melchizedek, so Levi, in a sense, paid tithing to the holder of the greater priesthood.

11 "If perfection could have been attained through the Levitical priesthood (for on the basis of it the law was given to the people), why was there still need for another priest to come--one in the order of Melchizedek, not in the order of Aaron?"
12 "For when there is a change of the priesthood, there must also be a change of the law."

Paul is presenting that a greater priesthood can only be necessary where a greater law is given.

13 "He of whom these things are said belonged to a different tribe, and no one from that tribe has ever served at the altar."
14 "For it is clear that our Lord descended from Judah, and in regard to that tribe Moses said nothing about priests."

The Jews were descended from Judah, which was Levi's brother. Jews had no right to priesthood. All priesthood holders were from the tribe of Levi. John the Baptist was a descendant of Aaron, for example (of Levi). Thus he had authority to baptise. Jesus, being of Judah, was from a tribe not entitled to priesthood.

15 "And what we have said is even more clear if another priest like Melchizedek appears,"
16 "one who has become a priest not on the basis of a regulation as to his ancestry but on the basis of the power of an indestructible life."
17 "For it is declared: 'You are a priest forever, in the order of Melchizedek.'"
18 "The former regulation is set aside because it was weak and useless"
19 "(for the law made nothing perfect), and a better hope is introduced, by which we draw near to God."

So the new priesthood for the gospel is the Melchizedek priesthood; and the lower priesthoods aren't required within it (though we use the Aaronic priesthood for preparing men for the greater priesthood).

20 "And it was not without an oath! Others became priests without any oath,"
21 "but he became a priest with an oath when God said to him: "The Lord has sworn and will not change his mind: 'You are a priest forever.'""

God made a promise that holders of the Melchizedek priesthood would have that priesthood forever. But to the lesser priesthood holders no such promise was given.

22 "Because of this oath, Jesus has become the guarantee of a better covenant."

Because God gave this promise in regard to Melchizedek priesthood holders and Jesus has that priesthood also, we can have a guarantee that the ordinances Jesus did are permanent.

23 "Now there have been many of those priests, since death prevented them from continuing in office;"

Again Paul is reminding us that the death of a priest of the other priesthoods ends their priesthood rights.

24 "but because he continues, he has an everlasting priesthood."

The meaning of this sentence isn't very clear in English. What he is saying is in line with the whole course of the conversation here. He is really saying that because the priesthood that Jesus has continues, rather than ending at death, and he (Jesus) holds that priesthood, it is everlasting.

25 "Therefore he is able to save completely those who come to God through him, because he always lives to intercede for them."

This idea that Jesus always "lives" may seem a little odd, as many were resurrected also when Jesus was resurrected, and could also be said to be always alive. But this refers to the fact that he is alive with the ever living priesthood (as Paul has been demonstrating throughout the conversation) which allows him to make constant intercession.

26 "Such a high priest meets our need--one who is holy, blameless, pure, set apart from sinners, exalted above the heavens."
27 "Unlike the other high priests, he does not need to offer sacrifices day after day, first for his own sins, and then for the sins of the people. He sacrificed for their sins once for all when he offered himself."
28 "For the law appoints as high priests men who are weak; but the oath, which came after the law, appointed the Son, who has been made perfect forever."

Here Paul is pointing out that Jesus is the perfect one to interceed. He points out that the other priests that are under the law have to keep making sacrifices for their own sins, as they are spiritually weak. But now God has given us this perfect priesthood of promise (the Melchizedek priesthood), for those no longer under the law, he has, with it, appointed a priest that is perfect forever also.

It must be remembered that sacrifices weren't the only calling of a priest. He had to do such things as declare lepers free of leprocy. They had judgement callings also. Revelation was required by the President of the priesthood (Chief High priest). Baptism required such, as does the sacrament/communion.

A Deeper Examination of Priesthood and lines of Authority - Ecclesiology

Ecclesiology (priesthood offices) relative to God is far more than ecclesiology within the church structure itself. This also looks at personal ecclesiology with God.

Relative to members, the church is an organisation where people can be certain of having the correct ordinances done as God would have them. This is important so that the true meaning of symbols can be found (as the symbol is done correctly and with the right words). Also it ensures that all necessary ordinances are performed. For new members the church provides a doctrinal beginning. For weak members it provides a continual source of basic instruction. Also it gives opportunities for service to others. It provides a forum for religious education for families and individuals. Along with this it provides a system of emotional and physical support. Then there are social and sporting activities.

However the church is only where we start our trip to God. And this must be remembered in this examination. Each person must create their own personal relationship with Heavenly Father and Jesus Christ. That becomes the “church” that is going to matter to each person. Each member must make themselves a prophet of God in their church (whether male or female). They must seek to walk and talk with God face to face. And be in tune with the Holy Ghost to obtain direction as required. Then secondly men must create a church of their family and become the prophet of that also. THEN we get to the LDS church.

To explain this point more clearly - some may question why it is that I believe in the church and yet this or that person in authority made this or that mistake? But my belief ISN’T in church people. My belief is in the Godhead. I have failed them, they have never failed me. I have been wrong, but they are ALWAYS right. Yet church leaders will fail. They will get things wrong. D&C 121 makes that extremely clear. But God never will. Christ set up the church as his church for us. So I fully support it and those in positions of responsibility (within the realms of their authority), regardless of their faults.

My doctrine is built on revelation and guidance that I have received while I read the Scriptures, hear talks at church and talk with Heavenly Father and the Holy Ghost. So the ecclesiology that is most important to me as an LDS is my priestly position in my personal church to God. God could send me out into the desert for the rest of my life, never to see the church again, and my spirituality wouldn’t be affected in the slightest, because God is there too.

Having made that clear (hopefully) I turn to ecclesiology in the church.

The church itself isn’t a monarchy with a leader that tells everyone what they will believe about everything in their own personal church. Nor are the local leaders to establish what members will believe. While some local leaders may tend to see themselves this way due to worldly influences (D&C 121:39), it isn’t the way it is intended (D&C 121:37). The church is a theocratic democracy. Thus it is called the Church of Jesus Christ (theocratic) of Latter-Day Saints (democracy).

Yet there is a responsibility placed upon local leaders to ensure that things stated from the pulpit and by teachers don’t seriously conflict with Scripture (our standards for belief).

This situation was also demonstrated by the early Apostles, who had varying opinions about doctrine and what commandments to obey. Circumcision and food offered to idols were two of these subjects. While decisions were reached on some subjects, disputes still went on. So there is some degree of flexibility of doctrine and personal feelings on what level of commandments to follow and how. In other words, while it is necessary to obey basic commandments to maintain church membership, there is no actual doctrinal domination beyond extreme basics. This is in harmony with the principle that we are to learn the truth line upon line and precept upon precept, individually.

The crux is that Christ can only give, the church generally, doctrinal understanding and commandments according to the ability of the Saints to accept and obey those concepts and commandments (1 Cor 3:1-3, D&C 89:3, D&C 119 Heading, Heb 4:2). These general concepts and commandments given to the Saints come through revelation to the President of the Melchizedek Priesthood for the church (termed “The Prophet”). In reality the church should be full of prophets. And there certainly are many in the church. Prophecy is one gift of the Spirit.

So as far as doctrine goes, while an individual may be able to speak on behalf of God relative to revelation he/she has received on a particular subject, no one can authoritatively speak on behalf of over 13 million people, in regard anything but extremely basic concepts. Beside this point the amount of subjects to cover and knowledge in each required by any one person to be able to do so proficiently, would be beyond comprehension. i.e. the enormous web of interlocked concepts within the church’s theology and the depth you could go to on so many is virtually endless. Then there would be the problem of passing many immensely deep concepts onto the general membership and having them be able to understand them. It would be as ridiculous as taking a five year old starting school and getting them to do a doctorate.

However God has chosen some great individuals to fill the office of “The Prophet” in these latter days. Though it has to be remembered also that if God has an Elijah (similar type person) living today he obviously wouldn’t make him “The Prophet”, as it would be hard to explain a man not dying (for starters). Different people grow by different challenges. So I don’t believe God always chooses the most righteous and knowledgeable person on earth in choosing “The Prophet”. But chooses the most appropriate person available, that wouldn’t be held back by such position.

There is a quorum of 12 Apostles, who are called to be special witnesses of Jesus Christ. “The Prophet” usually has 2 councillors, who are also Apostles. “The Prophet” is also an Apostle. The church works opposite from the world in that “The Prophet” is at the bottom serving all. Then the 12 Apostles are next up the line, and so on until the general membership, who are at the top, being served the most. The membership all sustain these servants, by raised hand, twice yearly.

There are 2 priesthoods available at this time. That is the Aaronic Priesthood and the Melchizedek Priesthood. Present offices within the Aaronic Priesthood are deacon, teacher and priest. Present offices within the Melchizedek Priesthood are elder and high priest. As impressive as the latter may sound it is extremely common in the church. Offices generally come by age provided the recipient is worthy.

The Aaronic Priesthood is organised by the bishop of each “ward” (collection of Saints in a prescribed area). Whereas the Melchizedek Priesthood is organised by the Stake President. A “stake” contains several wards.

Women don’t receive these priesthoods, as their callings are in a different direction. God has never had any desire to turn women into pseudo men or visa-versa.

The priesthood is a line of authority to act in the name of Jesus Christ. There are “keys” (automatic right to revelation for an office) associated with callings within the priesthood. That is all that priesthood is. Yet these 2 things are extremely important to running the church.

There is a power within us that can be used while using the priesthood for healing etc: Sort of like the power in a power cord situation - the cord (priesthood) isn’t the power (electricity) but the power is IN the cord when the power is switched on through personal righteousness and faith.

Mostly independent of priesthood office there are callings within the church. These are positions of service within the church which I would have to include in a discussion on ecclesiology, as they are part of the administrative structure. There are so many I will just describe each general area.

There is Relief Society and Young Women’s for women, Primary for children, Sunday School for all and Priesthood Quorums for men. Sporting, social and education also have administrative structures, usually reporting to the Stake leader. Then there are missions, administered through a different structure from the wards and stake. Also the Church Education System is separate, yet the bishop chooses the actual ward seminary teacher. But all these eventually report to the Apostles, and from there to “The Prophet”. So it is a branched out organisation, not a single line.

Sabbath - What are Correct Sabbath Activities?

What should a person honouring the sabbath day do, and be expecting of the day?

In regard the first of these I have heard mothers say that the Sabbath is a constant run around; getting the kids ready for church and getting home to prepare meals etc. Then it has added challenge if they have a teaching calling. They question what kind of a rest day is it? I knew a man who went to church and then slept most of the day, as that was his rest day. Should I watch TV or listen to the radio?

Exodus 35:2-3 states _ "Six days shall work be done, but on the seventh day there shall be to you a holy day, a sabbath of rest to the LORD: whoever does work in it shall be put to death. You shall kindle no fire in a place you inhabit on the sabbath day."

To light a fire required cutting and carrying wood, starting a fire. This would have restricted food preparation which would have additionally required heavy lifting of cooking utensils. It was quite a chore compared to switching on a stove or microwave and carrying a saucepan. Obviously though, involved cooking would be an infringement still. But this is for you to decide, with help from the Holy Spirit. Whatever you do must rest well with your conscience in reality.

To understand this we need to consider what the idea of a sabbath day actually is. Why did God give the sabbath day commandment? How can taking one day aside out of seven help us spiritually?

To answer that let's look at what if God gave no sabbath day. What spiritual thought would the average Israelite have had? The vast majority would have had almost none. And would quickly have turned to idol worship and sacrificed their firstborn children in the fires of Molech etc. This is an extreme example to demonstrate God's wisdom and purpose in making a sabbath day.

In reality we should attempt to make our entire life built around spiritual things and being more God like. Thus we would have seven sabbath days a week in our hearts. However because we don't do this we need to have a sabbath day. This day should be a day of spiritual rest from unspiritual things of the world. These unspiritual things don't include motherly or fatherly duties. In regard such work on the sabbath day Jesus said, "My Father has been working up until this time, and I am working" (John 5:17). That work for the Father is looking after us His children.

So is watching TV or listening to the radio what would constitute "unspiritual things of the world"? I don't see too much spirituality on the TV myself (though I hardly ever watch it for that reason anyway). There are spiritual things that could be watched on the sabbath, such as conference videos or wholesome religious movies. The LDS distribution centre put out some of these. And the radio commentators often express sexual inuendo to suggest this thinking is normal. Thus it lowers moral standards in people's heads, suggesting we should think like that. As a side issue here, I find it a typical trick of Satan that those with one track minds are termed "broad minded", to hide the opposite reality.

To summarise then it is important to remain focused on the whole point of a sabbath. Whatever you do it should support God's concept of increasing you as a spiritual person by getting closer to Him. Scripture study, pondering upon spiritual things, prayer and service to others are the best things to accomplish this.

Protestants and Judgement - God is Love?

As an LDS I know that an acceptance of Jesus as my Savior is necessary. Yet I also know that this salvation is from the hell faced after sinning. And that then sanctification is required to obtain the greatest gift of following God - eternal life. Yet Protestantism believes that there is only one hell situation and only one other state - Heaven (that the "Paradise" referred to is the same as the Kingdom of Heaven etc). Therefore they conclude that salvation from hell automatically MUST put you in heaven.

In this post I will create a glimpse into this judgement, as mankind are judged; for you to explore how scripturally and morally correct or incorrect Protestant judgement seems to you.

The prophet Abraham questioned God and asked, "...Shall not the judge of all the earth do right?" Gen 18:25

God's response to this question was to demonstrate to Abraham that he would do right (by Abraham's standard) (Gen 18:23-32).

In Romans 3:5-6 Paul poses that if God were not ethical in his judgement "...how could God judge the world?"

"...That God is unjust ... (speaking from a MAN'S viewpoint). Certainly not! If that were so, how could God judge the world?"

A clear statement that God's judgement is FAIR and true from OUR perspective of such also. This is further evidence that God's judgement will be right by a standard that even we can understand.

However the Protestants inform us that the criteria for God's judgement is that all those who have accepted Jesus as their personal Savior while alive will go to heaven, regardless of their spiritual lifestyle. They further claim that the rest will all go to the final hell: You must accept the name of Jesus or spend forever burning. They say that those living before Jesus are to be judged by a different criteria. They are to be judged by their obedience to the Laws that God gave to Moses or those before.

This afore mentioned acceptance of Jesus is proposed to only need be performed with the mouth, and that inside you passively accept the idea that God raised him from the dead. And Romans 10:9 is quoted to support this claim.

"For if you will confess with your mouth the Lord Jesus, and shall believe in your heart that God has raised him from the dead, you shall be saved."

Their interpretation of this verse makes it that this acceptance can even be done on your death bed.

So I would like to make an examination of the final judgement looking at it from a Protestant viewpoint. This following is a glimpse of the judgement as books are opened and the dead are judged, by the God of Protestantism, from those things written (Rev 20:12). Remember that we are informed that even we humans will realise the judgement of the real God is just.

I've made an unconfirmed assumption in regard one historical figure, purely for the sake of the point. We begin our look as one person's judgement has been concluded and the next needs to be called in.

God speaking: "Who is next to be judged, clerk?"

Clerk: "Jim Brown, Your Worship."

God: "Well send him in."

God: "Jim, the books say that you spent your life as a thief. You did help your mother sometimes: Apparently she was suffering with an inability to move. However you murdered the butcher when caught stealing from him. There is a large list of other medium offences. This should send you to hell, of course. But the books further inform us that you confessed the name of Jesus. You will go to heaven. Clerk, send him to heaven and bring in the next one."

Clerk: "This next person is Wati Haini."

God: "Wati you risked your life to save your tribe from tigers on several occasions and did many other good things. Only some minor bad things occurred. But I note you didn't get to confess the name of Jesus before you died."

Wati: "I never heard such a name."

God: "Ignorance is no exception to the law. You MUST have confessed the name of Jesus to get into heaven, regardless of where you are born. Clerk, send him to hell forever."

God: "Clerk, there is no sense sending in anyone who never heard the name of Jesus in their lifetime, as they will be automatically going to hell, having not accepted his name. So just send them to hell and that should at least save the court's time with many senseless cases."

Clerk: "Yes, Your Worship. I'll see to that. The next case is Adolf Hitler."

God: "Adolf, it is noted that you didn't smoke or drink alcohol. Those were, at least, good examples to others. However it mentions that you are responsible for the death of millions. You murdered and began wars that caused not only death but many other atrocities. You would be well and truly a candidate for hell. But I note here that you confessed Jesus as your Savior before dying. You will therefore go to heaven. Clerk, send him to heaven and bring in the next one."

Clerk: "The next one is Gandhi, Your Worship."

God: "It says here that you were a pacifist and curbed a lot of potential violence in India. And it also says that you did a lot of service and gave encouragement to others. Unfortunately it says nothing of you confessing Jesus as your personal Savior. Clerk, send him to hell and bring in the next."

Clerk: "We felt it easier to bring in the next two together as they both got struck by a bus at the same time. Paul Amos died instantly, but his brother Peter lived for about 5 minutes before dying."

God: "I see here that both of you lived lives of about the same value: Some small good, some small bad. No major infringements. However I note here Peter that you decided to confess the name of Jesus in the 5 minutes before dying. You therefore go to heaven and your brother, who didn't get such time to confess, goes to hell. Next case."

Clerk: "Since we did so well with the last dual case we thought we may present the next 2 together as well." We have Samuel Ben Joseph an Israelite who lived before Christ and Thomas Handel who lived after Christ."

God: "I see Samuel that you lived a very upright life overall. You visited those in prison, gave relief to the sick, clothed the naked, fed the poor and did very little wrong. So you can go to heaven. Yet you, Thomas, stole from people, raped women, murdered children and did almost no good at all. But it states here that you confessed Jesus as your Savior. You both obviously go to heaven. Next."

Clerk: "I've got 2 men here who lived before Christ, David Ben Judah and Levi Ben Eli."

God: "David, your good works obtain a good work value (GWV) of 10,001 and your evil works obtain a evil work value (EWV) of 10,002 in your lifetime. As you lived before Jesus you are judged on these works and your bad ones outweigh your good ones by 1, you go to hell forever. Levi, you get 10,002 in GWV but only 10,001 in EWV. As your good works outweigh your bad works by 1 you go to heaven forever."

Clerk: "We've got 2 women here who lived next to each other. Jill Smith and Betty Jones."

Jill Smith: "Yes, God, I told Betty that if she didn't come to church with me she would go to hell. And that I would look down from heaven and say to her, 'I told you that you should have listened to me and come to church.'"

God: "I see here that you both lived lives about the same. But, of course, Jill is right Betty, you should have listened; and now she can spend eternity telling you that, as you are burning in hell. Next case."

Clerk: "Purity Young is next."

God: "Purity, I see you were well named. Truly a beautiful person. An enormous love of others. A dedication to your husband, children and grandchildren. Appreciated for all your hard work for others. You apparently risked your life on several occasions to save other people. And eventually gave your life in such an event. However it is noted that you had some problem accepting that I, the God of Protestantism, could be a true God, yet so unjust. You quoted 1 John 4:8 that says, 'God is love.' You failed to understand that was just propaganda. As you therefore haven't accepted Jesus you go to hell. Next."

Clerk: "The next one was Doug Towers. But he said that if you're God he'd feel more comfortable with his conscience by going and burning in hell with Purity and Gandhi, so he went there."

The Effect We can have in Eternity

As I have pondered upon just how the whole system of eternity and intelligences is, I have from time to time come across the thought of how Heavenly Father has effected things.

We know that we all have a spirit body (including the animals D&C 77:2A) that was born to heavenly parents (Heb 12:9). And we know that we have always (even before our spirit body was born) been an intelligence that was never created or made, and can't be (D&C 93:29).

When this time has ceased if we have been faithful we know that we will take upon ourselves to assist existing Heavenly Fathers and Mothers by becoming Heavenly Fathers or Mothers elsewhere.

So what is it that they do?

"For behold, this is my work and my glory - To bring to pass the immortality and eternal life of man." Moses 1:39

Heavenly Father and Jesus Christ work in our service 24-7.

"Jesus said to them, 'My Father is always at his work to this very day, and I, too, am working.'" (NIV) John 5:17

"And whoever of you will be the chiefest, shall be the servant of all. For even the Son of man didn't come to be ministered to, but to minister..." Mark 10:45

Part of our heavenly parents' work was to bear our intelligence a spirit body. It would seem that eternity is not only full of endless space, but also endless intelligences within it. So heavenly parents provide the opportunity for these intelligences (as ourselves) to receive a fullness of joy through providing a spirit body and a process whereby we obtain a physical body. This gives us greater experience and enlargens us as individual intelligences.

As we know Heavenly Father also had a Heavenly Father who taught him. And this is an endless process back, as eternal as "time" (written for simplicity) and space itself - having neither beginning nor ending.

When I consider upon the endless intelligences and this process that exists, I can't help but see the eternally increasing immense difference one man or one woman can make by living correctly. Even if, on this planet, only 14 million women receive eternal life, can you begin to perceive the eternal consequences of our Heavenly Father's actions?

Each of those 14 million women will end up having countless future heavenly parents. Who will go on and do the same. And the man's effect is even greater in the numbers sense.

The mind truly boggles at what we can do, as just one individual, by assisting in this continued act of service.

A Second Revolution

Over the history of man, talk of a need for revolution hangs around. Today is no different. People feel that the government isn't doing this or that the right way. Often there is something to what is being said.

Many countries have had great bloodbaths of revolutions. Yet the blood keeps flowing long after the revolution, because there never was agreement on what to change to and the problems haven't been solved.

The French revolution must be the most repulsive I am aware of. Not only did they murder the monarchy and all relatives, but all their servants. They murdered all the rich and their servants. They murdered the founders of the revolution and anyone else they felt like murdering to appease the crowds. From all this finally came Napoleon, who continued the rampage of murder through his armies (hardened to conquest through such a bloody revolution).

Doctrine and Covenants 87 gives prophesy in regard the wars of the latter-days. Amidst it all it says that the Gentiles (meaning those who aren't Lamanites) shall have a terrible time (v5). Obviously this is speaking of the United States, as where but the Americas are there Israelites in such large number mixed with Gentiles in such large number?

"And it shall come to pass also that the remnants who are left of the land will marshal themselves, and shall become exceedingly angry, and shall vex the Gentiles with a sore vexation."

Verse 6 seems to extend out to a earth wide problem.

"And thus, with the sword and by bloodshed the inhabitants of the earth shall mourn; and with famine, and plague, and earthquake, and the thunder of heaven, and the fierce and vivid lightning also, shall the inhabitants of the earth be made to feel the wrath, and indignation, and chastening hand of an Almighty God, until the consumption decreed hath made a full end of all nations;"

So it seems we will have more than what we could term a "Second Revolution." Yet I don't think those calling for one would be too happy with what they will get. The trouble with starting revolutions is the question of who is going to stop it and where.

Jesus Christ was raised in the midst of a terrible regime. Corruption was that wide that John the Baptist made mention of it to the soldiers who asked what they should do.

"And the soldiers likewise demanded of him, saying, And what shall we do? And he said unto them, Do violence to no man, neither accuse any falsely; and be content with your wages." (Luke 3:14).

Yet note that even though he could have, Christ knew that changing the government was pointless unless the people were different. A revolution can't help unless it is against a government in another place (as the American Revolution was). For the government is only an extension of the people. In other words people only get the government they deserve.

Christ knew that the answer to improving the government was to improve the people.

Jesus Christ - a Deeper Evaluation

I would first state that people's opinions of Deity is based on personal perception rather than a universal religious opinion. Therefore what I'm to present here is my personal opinion only, and not the opinion of all Latter-Day Saints.

Generally I find evaluations of Jesus Christ as being somewhat airy-fair, with the suggestion of him being some half man - half God type of thing. I therefore felt it necessary to mention some of the more ignored facts about what he actually was/is.

Jesus Christ is Jehovah of the Old Testament. He is the only begotten of the Father (Heavenly Father) in the flesh (meaning fallen flesh). He is the Lord God of Israel. He isn’t the Father himself, but he is the Father in the sense that he reflects the feelings, actions and thoughts of the Father (John 14:8-12). Therefore in the flesh he is the Son, but by the feelings of his heart, and subjecting his will to the Father, he becomes a reflection of the Father in actions. Thus he can be said to be the Father and the Son (Mosiah 15:2).

The Father is always greater than the Son (John 14:28). But by Jesus living the perfect life he lived and the things he has done, he has an equality of STATUS with the Father.

As with all living beings Jesus Christ is made of three parts (not to be confused with the false trinity concept) - intelligence, spirit body and physical body. He is an eternal intelligence; as all intelligences are eternal (including ours). He was eventually born as a spirit: The first born spirit child to our Heavenly Father (Col 1:15). Thus he received a spirit body at that time. We were all born after him. So he is our elder brother as spirit children of our Heavenly Father (Matt 6:9 - note "OUR father").

Jesus (from his personal growth point of view) came to earth to get a physical body. He had to go through the same process we all do, of learning and growing as a physical individual (Luke 2:52). He had to gain the experience of raising a family and learning to be a good husband and father (I'll go into this further down). He had to die and be resurrected to obtain exaltation. He learnt to make the right choices by watching the problems sin caused in others, rather than having to experience any himself (as we do because we aren’t as intelligent as he is. Abr 3:19). i.e. we often have to make mistakes to learn particular things, yet some things we learn by seeing the problems those things give to others. This requires us to also listen to the Holy Spirit often. Because He learnt everything by others mistakes and listening to the Spirit, rather than having to make any mistakes himself, He didn’t sin.

Jesus Christ’s special mission consisted of 2 essential parts. Firstly he atoned for the sins, of those who truly repent, in the garden of Gethsemane and on the cross. Secondly as he is the firstborn as a spirit, so he also was the firstborn from the dead (1 Cor 15:20 & 23). He made the resurrection of all occur by his death and resurrection.

Luke 1:35 presents, in regard the birth of Christ, that the Holy Ghost came upon Mary to assist her, and the Father came, and by the action performed Jesus was the son of God (which is virtually an instantaneous action, done strictly in great love). Science claims that a person whose sweat was as great drops of blood (as Jesus' blood was - Luke 22:44) would die long before reaching such a stage. Having a glorified resurrected father made it possible for Jesus to perform the atonement without his body dying in the process.

As a side mission he also set up his church at that time, by teaching the fulness of the gospel and giving authority.

Before we came here he had the special position of being in charge of the creation of the earth. Heavenly Father was the instigator. Jesus Christ was the foreman. And we (those able and interested in helping) were the learners. However it is Jesus Christ that is governing this area. He therefore can be considered our God in that sense. To get to the Father you MUST go through the Son. All communication with the Father is channelled through the Son. So he is our mediator in several ways.

As you would probably be aware, the name “Jesus” is the English version of a Greek word (as the NT was written in Greek). His real name was most likely “Yeshua”, as he was a Jew. Several titles are given to Jesus. Firstly we have “Messiah”, which is the OT equivalent of “Christ” as used in the NT, B of M, D&C and P of GP. That is referring to the fact that he was the chosen one that was anointed (as the word means) in the pre-existence for the special work that he performed.

He also has titles such as “Saviour” and “Redeemer” that relate to the fact that he saves those repentant from hell by his atonement, and that he redeems us all from physical death by his resurrection.

As Jesus Christ is the key within the whole plan Heavenly Father laid before us, we talk of “the gospel of Jesus Christ”. The good news includes the fact that we can have forgiveness of sins and resurrection (this body will be repaired and we will live forever in it) because of Jesus Christ.

When we pray, we pray to Heavenly Father through Christ, as he stated (John 16:23). We don’t pray to the Lord (Jesus Christ) through Jesus Christ. Therefore any thinking LDS, if quoting the Lord’s prayer, should conclude it with, “in the name of Jesus Christ, Amen.”

Having taken upon himself the sins of mankind in the garden and suffered to relieve us of the pain for our sins; his body being a mess after such a feat; and having completed his task, he went to fulfil the final act of dying an ignominious death. Thus, in a sense, he took our sins and nailed them to the cross. He died because he had saved us from our sins. Paul made great point of this particular part of the act, probably because it was the only part that people could understand the pain involved in. However his greatest pain, by far, was in the garden where he bled from every pore. He required an angel to help him (Luke 22:43), and did it in stages, not all at once (Matt 26:38-44). The shear agony of that act is far beyond our comprehension. He not only suffered for EVERY sin individually, that every person on earth who truly repents has done, but (it is suggested) also for all repentant on many other planets.

His premature death also served to quicken the time for resurrection of those awaiting it that rose at that time (Matt 27:52-53). Thus Christ was eager to die then for that purpose also.

Jesus Christ, as the High Priest and a leader (Heb 5:10, Heb 6:20), definitely was married or he would have been rejected (the law of Moses makes NO exceptions) (Lev 21:10+13). Also he needed a wife for eternal marriage, as is required to be a God.

Immediately after death, while still a spirit, Jesus Christ organised the teaching of the gospel to the dead (1 Pet 3:18-20). He spent 3 days and 3 nights in the heart of the earth (Matt 12:40). It would seem that he was crucified on Wednesday and placed in the tomb. He spent Wed night, Thur night and Fri night in the tomb. Making the 3 days Thur, Fri and Saturday. He rose during Saturday night (remembering that their day went from morning to morning, not the middle of the night to the middle of the night, as ours does. When the women came early in the morning of the Sunday he was already resurrected. There is confusion about the reference of him being needed to be put in the tomb quickly for the coming sabbath. However this wasn’t the weekly sabbath as has been supposed, but one of the other sabbaths of the law of Moses observed at that time of year.

After resurrection he went to the Americas and taught the gospel there. He also went to many other places.

He directs the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints to the degree members are prepared to hear. He has given it his full authority to perform those functions required.

He will return again for what is termed his “second coming”. He will also have what could be termed a “third coming” at the end when everything will be finalised. He and Adam will present the whole thing, completed, back to Heavenly Father at the end.

What was the Original Sin (transgression)? - Answered by Oaks.

I'm not one to deviate too far from the Standard Works of the Church (the Scriptures) in establishing doctrine. I therefore don't hold to just taking things GAs say as gospel. However I did find two interesting statements in Brother Oaks (an apostle) talk in the Sunday afternoon session. Both are supported in the Scriptures anyway. The one I wish to discuss here is his statement about what the original sin (transgression) actually was.

Some Anti-Mormon literature quotes Satan claiming that Adam and Eve could become as Gods.

"For God knows that in the day you eat of it, then your eyes shall be opened, and you shall be as Gods, knowing good from evil." Gen 3:5

It then proposes that Joseph Smith taught this, so must be following Satan. However in the same chapter (verse 22) it says,

"And the LORD God said, See, the man is become as one of us to know good and evil: and now, least he put forward his hand, and take also of the tree of life, and eat, and live for ever:"

So God has supported the concept that Adam and Eve had become as them in that they knew good from evil. I had always viewed that as the end of the subject.

However Brother Oaks presents the following,

"Some people think the fall of man had something to do with sex, but that is a mistake. . . . What Satan put into the heads of our remote ancestors was the idea that they could ‘be like gods’—could set up on their own as if they had created themselves—be their own masters—invent some sort of happiness for themselves outside God, apart from God." Unselfish Service

I have many times searched to understand what the original sin was. I felt strange that God had not seen that the answer was there somewhere. Yet here Brother Oaks has declared his opinion that it is.

When I heard this it just made such sense. For starters the answer IS under our nose. Secondly we have a transgression only, not a sin (transgression of the law). Yet a feeling that would lower their righteousness enough to begin the fall.

Television - The Drug of a Nation or a Useful Tool?

Having been a TV technician for some years I had to listen to the droll conversations on some of the daytime soaps. It was required to test TVs after repair or to re-create problems where failure was intermitent. Such things as "Daze of our Wives," "General Despicable" and "the Bald and the Beautiful" were suffered with great despair (these channels were picked up easily). When I did repairs at home I put on test patterns with decent music (oh, what relief).

A person could ask why these women watch such rubbish? I did find (in the defence of some) that there was a bit of a social requirement. To be able to join in conversation with other older women an old woman could feel forced to begin watching this stuff.

Yet even the rest of the things that are on TV seem a bit of an insult to my intelligence. Even watching so called "documentaries" I feel I am being mindwashed with loads of unestablished "facts."

Also watching nature studies I'm plagued with hypothetical concepts such as things being millions or even tens of thousands of years old. They begin by saying "scientists believe." But after saying that once or twice they then proceed by talking as if these beliefs are facts. They then build "fact" upon "fact."

As I don't really have great interest in watching someone else play games (sport) I am left with nothing to watch but the news (????). Yet for those able to enjoy watching sport it at least has some purpose.

The news is always negative. They say one positive story toward the end of the news, and then all smile, as if to say, "there, we give positive news too." Consequently I rarely watch the news either. People tell me anything that is important.

It seems a strange set of events that here I am as an ex-TV technician, and I rarely watch television. I borrow some movies from the video library. But that is a difficult choice. I can spend an hour looking through a video library and walk out with nothing. Just as well there are computer games.

Death - How should we Respond and Deal with it - What is the State of the Dead?

First I should mention that I have been dead twice; and remember it well. Secondly I have seen the dead in their everyday existence, as I see spirits from time to time. I bring this up to point out that things I'm saying are more than me just speculating.

A point I would like to raise at the beginning is that those left behind should try and consider the feelings of the person who has passed on. This person is still present. They haven't actually gone anywhere (I have discussed this point before, and it can be read on my "Obscure Doctrines" site - the link is at the top of the page). Their spirit is watching and listening.

Now consider how you would feel if you had passed on and everyone is absolutely miserable? What is more, they are ignoring your presence altogether. They are not listening to you trying to comfort them that you are OK.

So for those who have had someone pass on, just keep that thought in mind too.

As LDS we can tend to be philosophical about death, and just accept it as part of the eternal plan. While this understanding is a huge advantage, it still is difficult when we are faced with the passing of a loved one, or are called upon to comfort those who have.

Some left behind attempt to find some justice in the death. They see death as some ultimate penalty (after all it is given as such in scripture and in some justice systems). Therefore they search to understand what the deceased did wrong, in disbelief that they were that bad. They may tend to blame God for some injustice, in having allowed this person to die. Yet all LDS should be aware that it is just an inevitable step in God's plan, that happens to all at some point. Heavenly Father knows the best time for this to occur in each individual's life. He has taken this into account for each individual he places in any situation (before birth).

We are all different, and therefore require different lessons in life. Heavenly Father seeks to provide the lessons that each person needs for that individual to achieve their highest potential. And some of that experience will be provided in the spirit world, in the vast majority of cases.

We came here to earth to get a physical body. Obviously upon death we will miss that extra thing we have got used to having and went to all this trouble to get.

"For the dead had looked upon the long absence of their spirits from their bodies as a bondage." D&C 138:50

Fortunately Jesus Christ came and made resurrection available to all. And that is what I look forward to; along with going home (to Heavenly Father) upon being resurrected.

The dead have the same situation we have in that they are here: Their lives are normal. Spirit Prison, Hell and Paradise are all mental states, not areas. And missionary work there is by members as much as missionaries (or should be - as here).

When I was working as a night-patrolman for a security firm I was assigned a place we referred to as "the Wool Sheds" (as part of my area). We had to enter the sheds and walk through them and check various areas. Those who had done this place made mention of the fact of it being haunted: They could feel the presence of something other than themselves. One adamantly denied the existence of a God but said, "you know you are not alone in the Wool Sheds."

I could feel them also. One night I looked and saw many spirits standing around talking. These were those who had worked at the sheds during the over a century it had been there for. Their clothes demonstrated their eras. Some on one side saw me coming and eagerly came over to try and scare me. The rest over that side just took vague notice of this situation and went on with their various conversations or just watched me.

My experience only contributes to the enormous amount of sittings of the dead that so many others have also experienced. The only reason I mention it is that it was obvious from the experience that these people were neither in fire (and, obviously, the ones coming to scare me didn't have good intent) and that there were no prison walls or bars: People interact freely, as here.

General Authorities have pointed out that the generation now living will be there for Christ's second coming. I would add my testimony to that which I have also received through the Spirit. Therefore we live in a fortunate time in that the resurrection of the righteous will soon be upon us. Even those righteous dying now will have little time to spend without their bodies. All the Celestials and Terrestial dead will be resurrected. I certainly look forward to this.

It will be a great thing to see our friends and relatives who are now in the spirit state.

All's Well in Zion VS Dissension and Murmuring - the Right(?) to Question

The devil is prophesied to use several tricks in the latter days, in order to keep mankind from gaining eternal life. Among these tricks one is particularly centred at church members.

"And others will he pacify, and lull them away into carnal security, that they will say: All is well in Zion; yea, Zion prospereth, all is well--and thus the devil cheateth their souls, and leadeth them away carefully down to hell." 2 Nephi 28:21

Naturally no one uses this exact term. But many times I find members saying that all is well in the church (Zion). Any question or challenge to the way things are running is frowned upon by some. Words such as "dissension" and "murmuring" are used to suggest the person having a desire for improvement is off with the devil.

Now we all know that dissension isn't good. And just winging isn't good either. Neither of these things are likely to create a better situation. But is all critique negative? If so Jesus Christ would stand accused of being negative and of the devil. As would Isaiah, Abinadi, and the list is almost endless.

Modern day prophets have often spoken of the positive things that are happening in the church. But the prophets also speak of the improvements we need to make as individuals. This isn't an "all's well" preaching. Yet mentioning the problems doesn't make them guilty of dissension or murmuring against us, either.

D&C 121:34-40 warns us that leaders in the church will make errors, and that all won't be well. So is God guilty of murmuring against church leaders? Sensible examination is important. And questioning of decisions that a person can't accept isn't dissension away from God either. I have questioned God and his decisions; and he took no offence. Neither did he propose that I had no right to question. Neither did he propose that I was off with the devil for questioning.

Abraham questioned God's decision and posed that surely he would do the right thing in regard destroying Sodom and Gomorrah (Gen 18:23-25). Is this dissension? Murmuring? The Lord didn't take offence at it. In fact he fully answered all his questions.

So is all well in the church? Obviously not. God gave the word of wisdom directed at the "weak and weakest of Saints". Has he added to it since because of advancement of the Saints? No. In fact he had to turn part of it into a commandment - a backward step. Then there is tithing. Another Law of Moses concept we still are called upon to practice - though let me state that great blessings come from obeying the Law of Moses.

Then we have bishops etc leaving their families to take the chief seats in the synagogues, also contrary to Christ's statement against this (Matt 23:6). Obviously if a person is speaking or conducting the meeting it is logical to be there. I can also see that for general (or stake) conferences, to get the idea of church structure, every six months.

The Book of Mormon presents that God inspired (Protestant(?)) reformers to question. And where would we be without it?

So is saying, "hey, what's going on?" murmuring and dissension?

I believe that sensible questioning is our responsibility. If we start leaving the church because of it, then we are off line. But I believe in the right to question.

Psychiatry/Psychology a Science or another false Religion? - ADD/ADHD or just NDS

In the 1940's if a child started belting into other children he was smacked severely. This curbed his behaviour. Order was maintained in class rooms with straps or sticks where considered necessary. Children went to school with a large degree of safety (which was particularly relevant to boys). This continued through the 50's and 60's. However in the 70's Dr. Spock (a Psychiatrist) wrote a book "informing"(?) everyone that smacking is actually harmful to raising children: That it teaches violence.

Interestingly the people who accepted this idea were people who had (of course) been smacked themselves, and yet felt such pacifism (though often it was just laziness) that the idea appealed to them. Yes, this was the 70's: The decade where all these smacked children protested against war and many were more prepared to go to goal than war. In the late 60's and 70's so many strived to promote peace, with people using the two fingers in a peace symbol. It was a time when people were saying that criminals shouldn't be executed, and that serious effort should be put into reforming them. The time when people began to talk of saving trees and animals. So Dr. Spock's book was welcomed with open arms.

So where were all these violent people produced by this smacking? There were violent people; as there always is. Yet strong ideas of pacifism came forward.

Today, we live in a generation where a large proportion are unsmacked children. Have we seen a decrease in violence; as Dr. Spock promised? If a child belts another child today he is sent to a psychiatrist who declares he has ADHD (or some such thing) and drugs are prescribed to sedate his behaviour. Isn't it great that we have learnt how to solve violent children problems without smacking? We don't need to give them a smack, we can just give them smack (ie. drugs)!

I came across a person in goal for bank robbery in counselling. He had been "analysed" as having ADHD and given drugs when young. He got used to the drugs and increased his dosage. It became so bad that he eventually took to bank robbing to support his habit.

The question that arises is just how accurate is this whole child syndrome concept? Was his problem really ADHD or was it just NDS (No Discipline Syndrome)? Would a smack (or even some other form of discipline) have saved him from becoming a drug using bank robber? I believe the answer is, "Yes."

This is not to claim that all people who rob banks have never been smacked, of course. But I believe that in many instances these syndromes are utter nonsense. When young (and since) I watched children behave exactly the same, who got smacks and ceased such behaviour. How did these kids get by without drugs and being "diagnosed". They managed to control themselves without any psychiatrists.

I'm not against the concept of having good psychiatry or psychology. But, as with medical practice, if an method doesn't produce the proposed cure it is time to discard it.

Requirements to Commit the Unpardonable Sin

The Scriptures lay out some fairly stiff requirements for us to qualify as a person able to commit the unpardonable sin. It isn't just a case of having been baptised. In fact this isn't even given as a requirement. But, obviously, spiritual rebirth would be a requirement.

And if a person commits the unpardonable sin, what is their situation?

In regard the fornication that Alma's son, Corianton, committed, Alma said_

"Know you not, my son, that these things are an abomination in the sight of the Lord; yes, most abominable above all sins save it be the shedding of innocent blood or denying the Holy Ghost? For see, if you deny the Holy Ghost when it once has had place in you, and you know that you deny it, see, this is a sin which is unpardonable; yes, and whosoever murders against the light and knowledge of God, it is not easy for him to obtain forgiveness; yes, I say to you, my son, that it is not easy for him to obtain a forgiveness." Alma 39:5-6

This sets forth the idea that upon committing the unpardonable sin forgiveness has to be worked for, and is difficult. So why is it unpardonable if forgiveness can be obtained even if by difficulty?

"Wherefore I say to you, All manner of sin and blasphemy shall be forgiven to men: but the blasphemy against the Holy Ghost shall not be forgiven to men." Matt 12:31

This is setting forth that this blasphemy can't be forgiven at all. Why this apparent contradiction of statement? This is further brought up by Luke.

"And whosoever shall speak a word against the Son of man, it shall be forgiven him: but to him that blasphemes against the Holy Ghost it shall not be forgiven." Luke 12:10

The D&C also supports the idea that the sin can't be forgiven at all.

"The blasphemy against the Holy Ghost, which shall not be forgiven in the world nor out of the world, is in that you commit murder wherein you shed innocent blood, and assent to my death, after you have received my new and everlasting covenant, says the Lord God.." D&C 132:27

Paul appears to answer this apparent contradiction.

"For it is impossible for those who were once enlightened, and have tasted of the heavenly gift, and were made partakers of the Holy Ghost, And have tasted the good word of God, and the powers of the world to come, If they shall fall away, to renew them again to repentance; seeing they crucify to themselves the Son of God afresh, and put him to an open shame." Heb 6:4-6

In other words they can't have Christ suffer on behalf of their sins again. The Scriptures above are pointing out that while forgiveness can be worked at, Christ's atonement can't help. You have to do it yourself. This is mentioned in the D&C.

"For see, I, God, have suffered these things for all, that they might not suffer if they would repent; But if they would not repent they must suffer even as I." D&C 19:16-17

The big emphasis on being able to commit the unpardonable sin is the knowledge of the person. Note the following statement (about himself) by Paul _

"Who was before a blasphemer, and a persecutor, and injurious: but I obtained mercy, because I did it ignorantly in unbelief." 1 Tim 1:13

Also note _

"For if after they have escaped the pollutions of the world through the knowledge of the Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ, they are again entangled therein, and overcome, the latter end is worse with them than the beginning. For it had been better for them not to have known the way of righteousness, than, after they have known it, to turn from the holy commandment delivered to them." 2 Pet 2:20-21

For those who make no effort to redeem themselves in any way from the situation of having committed the unpardonable sin we should note the following _

"Thus says the Lord concerning all those who know my power, and have been made partakers of it, and allowed themselves through the power of the devil to be overcome, and to deny the truth and defy my power-- They are they who are the sons of perdition, of whom I say that it had been better for them never to have been born; For they are vessels of wrath, doomed to suffer the wrath of God, with the devil and his angels in eternity; Concerning whom I have said there is no forgiveness in this world nor in the world to come-- Having denied the Holy Spirit after having received it, and having denied the Only Begotten Son of the Father, having crucified him to themselves and put him to an open shame. These are they who shall go away into the lake of fire and brimstone, with the devil and his angels-- And the only ones on whom the second death shall have any power; Yes, surely, the only ones who shall not be redeemed in the due time of the Lord, after the sufferings of his wrath. D&C 76:31-38

So, in summary, we see that there is quite a lot to actually committing the unpardonable sin. It isn't just a case of joining the church and then murdering someone. A great spiritual change is first required.

And this only makes sense. To rise high enough to gain eternal life we must gain a high level of knowledge and spirituality. To go low enough to go with the devil we must have an equal understanding and spirituality, to fall from. Or, as the saying goes, "the higher they are the harder they fall." Yet life is always better at the top (in spiritual things, anyway).

Did the Prophet Caiaphas have authority from God?

Catholicism has presented to us that the Jews had no authority, and that it was Rome that appointed the High Priest. This concept has continued on into Protestantism and then even into the church. Interestingly our Bishops have authority given to them, by the state, to perform marriages. Without this authority they couldn't do so.

Rome, naturally, had to approve all political positions before they could be filled. And the position of the Presiding (Chief) High Priest for Israel was included. Yet was this merely approval or, as some propose, that Rome actually chose who would fill the position?

At the time of Moses, God set forth that from Aaron on, Aaron's descendants had automatic entitlement to the office, provided they were the oldest son of the oldest son etc, back to Aaron. In other words Aaron's oldest living son became the next President of the priesthood. His oldest living son became the next one, etc. So by this instruction from God, Caiaphas was the oldest son, and a descendant of Aaron.

Yet if Catholicism is correct then the Jews had somehow lost the line of authority or that Rome had appointed those with no authority instead. They claim the Jews to have had no authority. But does the New Testament support this or teach the opposite? And, if the latter, did Caiaphas continue to have authority after Christ?

In regard to the father of John the Baptist Luke says _

"There was in the days of Herod, the king of Judea, a certain priest named Zacharias, of the course of Abia: and his wife was of the daughters of Aaron, and her name was Elizabeth." Luke 1:5

This is speaking of the priestly course of Abia (Abijah) as mentioned in the Old Testament (1 Chron 24:10, Neh 12:4). It demonstrates that Zacharias had authority and was of Aaron directly.

Furthermore when Zacharias went into the temple and was visited by the angel Gabriel, Gabriel said nothing about him not having authority to be there.

So having established that priesthood authority did exist among the Jews, the question then becomes, was Caiaphas himself a true President of the Priesthood?

"And one of them, named Caiaphas, being the high priest that same year, said to them, You know nothing at all. Nor consider that it is expedient for us, that one man should die for the people, and that the whole nation not perish. AND THIS HE SPOKE NOT OF HIMSELF: BUT BEING HIGH PRIEST THAT YEAR, HE PROHESIED that Jesus should die for that nation. And not for that nation only..." John 11:49-52

This is clearly stating that Caiaphas was an authorised prophet of God, and that he had received revelation that was true.

So how did Jesus respond to Caiaphas's authority?

while Jesus knocked many of the ideas of the church leaders, he, nevertheless, supported the point that they sat in Moses seat of authority and should be obeyed.

"Then spoke Jesus to the multitude, and to his disciples, Saying, The scribes and pharisees sit in Moses' seat: All therefore whatever they bid you observe, that observe and do; but do not you after their works: for they say, and don't do it themselves." Matt 23:1-3

When Jesus was judged of the Jewish council, Mathew records that Jesus spoke nothing all night. That is until Caiaphas commanded him to answer his question. THEN Jesus answered.

"And the high priest arose, and said to him, Do you answer nothing? what is it which these witness against you? But Jesus held his peace. And the high priest answered and said to him, I adjure you by the living God, that you tell me whether you be the Christ, the Son of God. Jesus said to him, You have said..." Matt 26:62-64

So Caiaphas still had authority at this point.

Then did he lose authority after this, because he crucified Christ (as some others propose)?

"And you shall gird them with girdles, Aaron and his sons, and put the bonnets on them: and the priest's office shall be theirs for a perpetual statute: and you shall consecrate Aaron and his sons." Exo 29:9

God declared that this was a perpetual (never ending) situation. In other words nothing the High Priest does can effect his right to that office, provided he fulfilled the requirements laid down of washing and leaving alone dead bodies etc, for a period before performing his duties.

Some may question how it could be that there were 2 prophets upon the earth at the same time - Caiaphas and Peter (for example). Yet there are many prophets upon the earth right now. Also there was some form of president of the priesthood in the Americas at this time. And it would seem possible that there were others in other islands of the seas. Caiaphas had a right to automatic revelation for the Israelite church God had set up through Moses, and Peter had that right in the church of Jesus Christ.

"I tried to live that/the Commandment/s and it Didn't work," some say - Why Not?

I have had people tell me that they tried living as God said and it didn't work. Considering that God is promising us joy and peace as we do as he says, surely as we do right we will gain a happiness inside.

Alma chapter 32 has Alma likening faith to a grain of seed that is planted and grown. The first time I read this I viewed it as being a bit long winded (unnecessarily long). It seemed somewhat repetitious. But re-reading has made me view it differently. I have found that each step he has outlined is important in learning the truth of what God has presented.

While this is from the Book of Mormon, and I realise not all readers believe in this volume as being from God, I would urge all to continue reading, as these steps he outlines work regardless of what religious beliefs you may have - its a non-denominational claim. I'll put it into understandable language for those not used to old English.

Verses 26-29 "Now, as I said concerning faith--that it was not a perfect knowledge--even so it is with my words. You cannot know of their surety at first, to perfection, any more than faith is a perfect knowledge. But note, if you will awake and arouse your faculties, even to an experiment upon my words, and exercise a particle of faith, yes, even if you can no more than desire to believe, let this desire work in you, even until you believe in a manner that you can give place for a portion of my words.

Now, we will compare the word to a seed. Now, if you give place, that a seed may be planted in your heart, consider, if it be a true seed, or a good seed, if you do not cast it out by your unbelief, that you will resist the Spirit of the Lord, note, it will begin to swell within your breasts; and when you feel these swelling motions, you will begin to say within yourselves--It must be a good seed, or that the word is good, for it begins to enlarge my soul; yes, it begins to enlighten my understanding, yes, it begins to be delicious to me. Now consider, would not this increase your faith? I say to you, Yes; nevertheless it has not grown up to a perfect knowledge."

The problem that can arise here is that people will start to feel they have reached the end of the investigation. But Alma presents that this isn't all there is to it. And so when it eventually fails (as they haven't completed all the steps Alma mentions) they end up saying it didn't work. But let's go on with what Alma states.

Verses 30-33 "But note, as the seed swells, and sprouts, and begins to grow, then you would have to say that the seed is good; for look it swells, and sprouts, and begins to grow. And now consider, will not this strengthen your faith? Yes, it will strengthen your faith: for you will say I know that this is a good seed; for look it sprouts and begins to grow. And now, consider, are you sure that this is a good seed? I say to you, Yes; for every seed brings forth to its own likeness. Therefore, if a seed grows it is good, but if it doesn't grow, see it is not good, therefore it is cast away. And now, note, because you have tried the experiment, and planted the seed, and it swells and sprouts, and begins to grow, you must needs know that the seed is good."

So there is a need to continue having this growing of the seed (concept) and examining the your feelings.

Verses 34-36 "And now, consider, is your knowledge perfect? Yes, your knowledge is perfect in that thing, and your faith is dormant; and this because you know, for you know that the word has swelled your souls, and you also know that it has sprouted up, that your understanding does begin to be enlightened, and your mind does begin to expand. O then, is not this real? I say to you, Yes, because it is light; and whatsoever is light, is good, because it is discernible, therefore you must know that it is good; and now consider, after you have tasted this light is your knowledge perfect? Note I say to you, No; neither must you lay aside your faith, for you have only exercised your faith to plant the seed that you might try the experiment to know if the seed was good."

So here he has presented that even though you now know it to be true the learning still isn't over: You are still in the learning stage. Again, if a person quits here they will eventually say that it didn't work.

Verses 37-39 "And see, as the tree begins to grow, you will say: Let us nourish it with great care, that it may get root, that it may grow up, and bring forth fruit to us. And now note, if you nourish it with much care it will get root, and grow up, and bring forth fruit. But if you neglect the tree, and take no thought for its nourishment, note it will not get any root; and when the heat of the sun comes and scorches it, because it has no root it withers away, and you pluck it up and cast it out. Now, this is not because the seed was not good, neither is it because the fruit of it would not be desirable; but it is because your ground is barren, and you will not nourish the tree, therefore you cannot have the fruit of it."

So we must actually wait to see the full end of our efforts and the fruit that comes from following God. Only then will our testimony of that thing have full strength.

verses 40-41 "And thus, if you will not nourish the word, looking forward with an eye of faith to the fruit thereof, you can never pluck of the fruit of the tree of life. But if you will nourish the word, yes, nourish the tree as it begins to grow, by your faith with great diligence, and with patience, looking forward to the fruit of it, it shall take root; and behold it shall be a tree springing up to everlasting life."

I have seen people come alive upon reading the Book of Mormon, only to see them fade back and become worse than when they started, by rejecting it due to an assumed inability to live some commandment. The truth requires effort to find AND come to know it is true. I wish you all well in your pursuit of truth.

Our Responsibility VS Listening to Prophets

Last Sunday in priesthood class we were reading chapter 22 of the lesson manual. There were several quotes of Joseph Smith's relative to our responsibility in regard learning (quotes I give in this post are all cited in that lesson manual). Yet, sadly, I found so much of the class ready to just hand their learning over to another person/s. For example the last statement of the lesson material quotes the following-

"God hath not revealed anything to Joseph, but what He will make known unto the Twelve, and even the least Saint may know all things as fast as he is able to bear them.." Joseph Smith (History of the Church 3:380, 1839 discourse reported by Willard Richards).

This was interpreted to mean that we should just listen to prophets and apostles. Yet the statement to me teaches exactly the opposite. Joseph Smith is trying to inform members generally and the Twelve that they can have personal revelation, rather than thinking that they have to wait for prophets to tell them.

If we are to believe that all our new knowledge must come from prophets then we are in a sad state indeed. The last new (ie. never having been revealed to the church generally, of, at least, recent times) thing a prophet said was by Spencer W. Kimball in regard the priesthood in 1978. Over thirty years ago!

Are we to believe that this is what Joseph Smith meant in his quote above? Is this the least Saint coming to "know all things as fast as he can bear them"?

I had someone leave a comment, on this site, saying, in accusational form, that I had a preoccupation with theology. I had to, obviously, be complemented by this attempted slur. Yet this also further increased my concern in regard the laziness that so many in the church demonstrate toward their own salvation. Here we are, a people saying we want to be Gods and Godesses, and this person is suggesting that my interest in theology (the study of the things of God) is a bad thing. That almost sends shivers down my spine, considering that I think I know (online) who the person was (a church member).

The doctrinal responsibility of the prophet for the church is to give that which can be accepted by the weak and weakest of Saints (D&C 89:3). Must we remain no further raised in doctrine than that?

If we want eternal life we must begin to think like that which we plan to be. We must be getting more knowledge of what God is doing and why. We must come to think as God thinks. Christ prayed that his believers would be one with him and the Father (John 17:21-23). This oneness can only be acheived when we do that which the Father would do. How can we do such without knowing the thoughts and feelings of the Father? No man can teach us this, no matter how eloquent his speaking ability. Only the Father can help us understand how he feels. And the Holy Ghost is the only continued instructor.

I certainly don't advocate that we shouldn't listen to prophets, of course. But it must be remembered that our gaining of eternal life can only be acheived by us taking on the responsibility for our own learning beyond the basics. There are no Gods with only a basic knowledge.

Joseph Smith made it plain that if the members wait to just learn it from prophets they will only receive backward doctrine _

"The Israelites prayed that God would speak to Moses and not to them; in consequence of which he cursed them with a carnal law." Joseph Smith (History of the Church, 5:555, Aug. 27 1843)

To learn the greater laws we must accept responsibility for our own learning.

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

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

Should we believe our own soul will gain salvation without following this instruction?

"..A man is saved no faster than he gets knowledge..." Joseph Smith (History of the Church, 4:588, Apr 10 1842)

So will I have to wait yet another 30 years before I get more knowledge from the prophet to help me in my salvation? Christ may well be here by then, for his second coming, and it could be a bit late.

Joseph Smith has plainly taught that it is up to us to do something serious about learning the things of God, beyond that which any man can teach us.

My advice, beyond taking Joseph Smith's words seriously, is to remember to keep your feet on the ground while your head is in the clouds, or you may find yourself carried away by strange winds. In other words use your heart and the Spirit as well as your head. And seek knowledge for righteous reasons, rather than the vanity of having others consider you wise.

Protestant / Catholic Preface to the Bible

In my many discussions with Protestants (and having been raised one) I have come to understand their official declaration relative to the Bible and its interpretation. The following represents it as it has been explained/taught to me (some don't share point 3 and/or point 19). This is the preface that the Protestants seem to feel belongs at the front of the Bible, but somehow was forgotten. (Most of these things are also agreed to by Catholicism).

"Preface
While these 66 books are totally correct and don't require revelation to interpret, we must make the following clarifications. And while you can't add to or subtract from Scripture we do have to make the following additions to compensate for misunderstandings that do arise.

1. All the talk of God having body parts is not to be taken literally.
2. All talk of people seeing God and God claiming to have been seen is referring to an angel or cloud only.
3. All talk of Christ being separate from Heavenly Father isn't to be taken literally either.
4. Most talk of "Gods" in the Hebrew script has been altered to the word "God" in English for your convenience.
5. In spite of the enormous size of this collection of books God really doesn't want, nor expect, us to understand him at all, as he's not understandable.
6. It must be understood that all attempts God makes to explain himself are purely for his entertainment only.
7. Any comments God makes about having emotions are just to make some meaningless attempt to appease us, and we should know he doesn't mean it.
8. All talk of God being in one place in any way are just God's confusing way of speaking.
9. All statements referring to Heavenly Father as the father of spirits, change to say that he whipped up our spirits out of thin air.
10. Where it speaks of God creating things in the beginning, change that to "magically whipped up from nothing."
11. All reference to and quotes in the Bible from books no longer present are from books that have been removed for your safety.
12. Though Moses says not to add to his books (the first 5 books of the Old Testament)(Deut 4:2) all the other 61 books, that finally made it into the volume we have today, are fully authorised, but no more than 61 extra are allowed.
13. All talk of Jesus being resurrected with, eating with, being seen having and coming back for his 2nd coming with a body are to be ignored, as he doesn't have one, but just whips it up for appearance sake.
14. All talk of us being in "the image and likeness of God" are to be altered to say "we have some vague similarity to God."
15. Every place where it says that Jesus cried, was surprised or grew in knowledge or any other such statement demonstrating lack of previous knowledge or demonstrating emotion, must be ignored, as he doesn't have emotions and was omniscient (knew everything already).
16. All statements of prophets after Christ in the New Testament books must be disregarded, as no prophets existed after Christ.
17. All mention of priesthood and authority from God being necessary after Christ must be forgotten.
18. All doctrinal discussion Christ made is purely for entertainment only, and isn't really important.
19. God now accepts homosexuality, lesbianism, women ministers and all other modern trends, in spite of his ways being unchangeable.
20. In spite of 4 thousand years of him doing so being recorded in the Bible, and God stating that his ways don't change, God changed his ways some time not long after Christ's death, and is not going to appear to anyone or speak to anyone again.
21. Though God is omniscient (all knowing) he wasn't aware that Adam and Eve would eat the fruit in the garden of Eden or that he would have to flood the world at the time of Noah, when he made the world.

Any other additions to, subtractions from, alterations of words from or explanations of the Bible must be done by majority consent of Protestantism or the Pope (for Catholics), to be classified as 'authorised'."

Neither I nor God endorse this preface.

Pedophilia (Paedophilia) - Why does it Happen? Part 2 (Final)

For those who haven't read Part 1 I'd strongly suggest doing so before reading this.

The Problem of Close Relatives
Owing to the pressure within society, as outlined in my last post, and desiring to be accepted as a woman, girl can tend to try out her sex appeal to see how she rates. She will tend to try this out on the male she feels safest with. This will often be a father or stepfather, uncle or close family friend _ or all, if not receiving a response. This can lead to serious problems if the male involved feels dissatisfied in his relationship, regards that the young person seems to know her own mind (and therefore he accepts her as a woman) and lust has a place in his life. The latter is the basis of what can happen from there. Yes, his wife will obviously have some problems too, but his lust problem is what will cause his actions.

False Allegations
A serious problem in our society today is the incredible ease with which an innocent person can be gaoled for rape, or sexual acts relative to children. Lots of noise is occurring about people (centred at men) not being found out. While all should be appalled if this be the case, this has created a mass hysteria about sex crime allegations. While someone accused of murder needs to be proven guilty, a man accused of sex crimes (particularly those involving children) must prove his innocence _ an incredibly difficult thing to do.

Twisted interpretations of phone conversations and innuendo become "evidence" in courtrooms that juries (also people in the same society) accept. Those convicted (particularly where bad "evidence" isn't exposed) feel that the government funded defence lawyers they were given were either amazingly inept or supporting the states case to convict, in spite of being there to defend _ some making the other side look good (I have witnessed one such case myself).

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

Some argue (relative to child claims) that, "children don't lie, particularly about these things." Having had 7 children myself I can assure you that children can be convinced of anything very easily. My oldest son went through a time at one stage (for about 6 months, after a particular trauma), when about 6-years-old where he would lie about anything and be quite convinced it was true. It was so bad that he would lie saying that something plainly in his hand wasn't there. Children certainly DO lie. And in divorce situations Mommy can convince the children eventually that Daddy is a bad person. What's worse is that children can easily be made to believe that something occurred which didn't. They only need to be told often enough, particularly if tired _ they start to visualise it in their head and it becomes real. This is particularly easy when it is loosely based on an actual (harmless) event.

I remember sitting down with my children (the oldest was about 12 years old at the time) and in about 10 minutes I convinced them that we definitely NEEDED a yacht, and that all our problems would be solved if we had one. The purpose of this was to demonstrate that we can convince ourselves that we need anything, but we should be sensible and realise that we don't need it at all. But the point is that it only took 10 minutes to convince them of such a ridiculous claim.
We are on the one hand saying that they are children, and therefore not capable of making an informed decision about sex. Yet on the other hand saying that they are all-knowing when giving testimony against the proposed offender. This is a contradiction.

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

Who's Responsable?
While some civilisations and peoples get married at younger ages, people in our society are thinking in child mode through early teens, and not given serious, adult responsibility. The whole society presents this, even at school. Thus people in early teens act according to what they are told they are _ on their way to being adults, but it's a long way off yet. They don't think like an adult. Even at 18 the idea of marriage is a fantasy. They aren't prepared for the reality, or seriousness of marriage and life's' problems (generally speaking): Many haven't even learnt to cook meals for a family, or use a washing machine. As mentioned before, however, they are bombarded with sex, and the concept that they have to fit in with this "ALL IMPORTANT" thing. So in spite of not being of legal marriageable age, the temptation is to see what this thing is all about, and what's true and what isn't. Questions arise in the young mind and doubts, as to how well they will fit in with this.

A young person may then demonstrate sexual interest to an adult. Things then transpire, leaving the youth very confused in the end of it all, and sometimes the older person equally so. It sometimes happens that the youth takes to it like a duck to water. The youth may also conduct sexual relationships with other youth _ no better (in fact it could be argued that two youths are then being sexually abused rather than just one).

So how much is the youth/victim responsible in sex related cases? The only person who truly knows the full extent of the physical and emotional agreement and desire for the act to have occurred is the victim. The only person who knows just how much the person made an informed decision is also the victim.

This raises the obvious question as to whom, but God, KNOWS everything? The usual thinking of people is that 100% of the blame must be shared between the two involved and to place it all on the older person.

However the first flaw (of many) in this is that it is doubtful that either the perpetrator or the victim are really that well informed, or the crime wouldn't have taken place. So can we accept the concept of a partly ignorant, totally evil perpetrator? Common sense and fairness say that you can’t - That is the very point being made about children.

Also society itself must take part of the blame for accepting sex as so important, and for allowing and promoting sexual misconduct. Wasn't the perpetrator brought up in the society? I often hear people talk about how dishonest politicians are, but if people in society were all honest so would the politicians be, as they come from the society. Sex offenders are being created by the society.

On the other side of the point, we must remember that we are free to make our own decisions, and only we are responsible for what we do. That may seem a contradiction, but it isn't. A crime (such as a bank robbery) may be committed by several people, but each person is 100% responsible individually for their actions relative to their understanding. Crimes aren't one thing where we must delegate 100% of the blame to the contributors in some distribution. To explain that better if we had 3 people rob a bank we can't say that each is 33.3% responsible. Yet because 3 are involved, each isn't 100% to blame (morally) for all that may go on. And then there are motives and ignorance to consider. Equally a person committing a sex crime is only 100% responsible for his/her actions relative to his/her understanding.

The victim is in exactly the same position, and to deny them a right to correct their lives (if they were actively involved in it's occurrence to any degree) is a crime in itself. A concerned victim should prayerfully examine the situation, and with God's (for He knows the heart and judges correctly) help sort out what happened and why. This can be a difficult and drawn out process that requires LOTS of prayer and listening to the Holy Spirit. It also requires LOTS of honest self-examination. But without this process the doubts, anger and uncertainty just go on.

Those involved with the victim such as family, friends, some counsellors etc are referred to as "secondary victims". These will have good intensions, but often give bad advice in ignorance. The first thing they are eager to do is remove any thought of examining personal involvement, by assuring the person they had nothing to do with it. This can actually serve to create a victim feeling that may not have otherwise existed, or deepen the feeling.

The leader of a victims of crime organisation once told me that the greatest hurdle to victims getting over their problem is secondary victims.

For example a 14-year-old girl who has had a sexual relationship with an older guy may only feel confused by the experience. By the time the well meaning mother, siblings, counsellors, teachers, friends and particularly police have finished, she could feel she was greatly abused and is depressed. They have created a victim. What is worse is that they keep her there by constant reminders.

I have actually seen a woman of 20 become almost suicidal by such "help." Two years before, when the problem came out, she was just prepared to move on, and quite content. Her teacher noted that she had been "happy and generally pleasant." But after about 6 months of family, counsellors etc "helping" her, he noted that she had changed her mood and was now "unhappy."

So those really wanting to help these people must first learn positive moving forward, not negative looking backward. Even though some initial looking back can help to some degree, the session should end with positive thoughts in regard to it (eg. "it is good that steps can be taken to ensure it doesn't happen again" - I'll explain this soon). Other than initial unwinding, the main purpose for looking backward should only be for self-evaluation by the victim.

If a victim feels that they were partly to blame (no matter how small) it requires a repentance process. Again, listening to the Holy Spirit to assist in this and lots of prayer, Scripture reading and service to others (eg. visiting the sick) all help in creating a new person that you can feel proud of. Asking Heavenly Father to forgive you is also important in this process. Doing these things will also help you see it all in a much clearer light, as God is closer to you and the Holy Ghost inspires with truth.

Giving Power Back to Victims
Don't become a problem to a victim moving on if you are a secondary victim. It is so easy to go into gripe sessions about the perpetrator. That is the LAST thing the victim needs: Dwelling on the crime is just re-living it.

A total victim (someone who has had no input to the crime) and those who had little input, feels violated. They feel self-doubt and fear of it happening again. What they need most is to feel that they can control whether it happens to them again. Therefore it is important to give them reasons why it happened that they can do something about. Saying it was all the other person's fault and they had no input, leaves them helpless to stop it happening again - this is the worst thing to do (whether you, personally, want to believe it to be true or not isn't the point).

To empower the victim requires an examination of the things God has said in this regard. In Gen 3:16-19 God outlines the relationship between sin and consequences. Also God told Israel (including the Nephites) that if they did what he said they would have protection by their living. He told them that if they did wrong things, that enemies would come upon them, famine would occur etc. We all put out feelings, whether we notice it or not. We also receive the feelings of the society around us. I used to notice that when I went to a local beach resort that I could feel the relaxed atmosphere while still miles/kilometres away. On the way back it became the opposite on returning to the city.

So we can change people's reactions to us by changing ourselves inside. You may feel that the victim was a nice person. Just being a relatively nice person won't save them from the bad consequences of the evil within the society. You have to become exceptional. This should be the challenge given to the victim.

This, then, gives them hope and something to do in regard to it. They NEED this.

Paedophiles
For those concerned that they have a problem in this area I would suggest making a list of High Risk Situations that you'd be best to avoid, if possible. If you can't avoid them (and even if you can), also create a list of responses that you will do if you start to consider doing something that's not right.

Some things to avoid include drugs, alcohol, being tired, brooding, getting angry, making quick decisions, blocking yourself off from people or hurting people.

Some things to look at doing include thinking about your thinking, fasting and praying for God's help (but remember the actions come from you), talking to someone about your problems (a bishop / minister would be strongly advisable), express your feelings and work out a plan for your life etc. I know you feel embarrassed about going to someone to talk about it, but it is vital that you do. You must end the secrecy problem.

A person who has had trouble in regard to sex with children would need to make some out-of-bounds areas and some things to avoid. The following are some ideas: -

Don't be in the presence of children alone: Have another adult with you (preferably one who is aware of the problem).
Don't use cameras (including video cameras).
Avoid living near or going to parks, schools, play areas or any other place where children gather.
When at church, avoid the areas where the children will be (as best as possible).
Try to avoid friendships with people who have children: This would need to include possible marriage partners (if you are unmarried).

This list may present things that are impractical; particularly if you are married and have children or a school teacher etc. It is a guide only, and to give you an idea as to the sorts of things to have. You need to look at the areas that you feel pose a risk for you. But this is in no way a substitute for the real answer: And that is to change yourself inside.

The best idea is to have a mental block against it. You need to visualise yourself not doing it _ remember that your mind and your hands are yours. Keep that focus _ DON'T LET GO OF IT.

Consider the justifications you've used before and after the wrong. Think about these justifications and pray to God about them, and listen to the spirit. Create a good set of answers to these justifications to prove them wrong _ which with Gods' help, and trust in Him you will be able to do.

It is important to go through what you have done and what you should have done instead. The best idea is to write down what you did in blue or black pen, and then writing what you should have done in another colour (perhaps red). Then keep the list with you.

If you are desirous to make change this is a wonderful thing. I would recommend an entire change of your perspective of the whole situation. This will completely resolve your problem and improve your life in marvellous ways. I'd suggest studying the following links Lust Problems and Masturbation Problems