The apostle Orson Pratt, presented that matter had intelligence. And that it was made up of particles. Each having intelligence. That it could collect itself into smaller groups of intelligences, or go into large groups. That it had 3 dimensions. These particles are extremely small. Far smaller than anything we are capable of seeing with microscopes. He also presented that intelligences have power within themselves. (Absurdities of Immaterialism, Orson Pratt, Liverpool, 1849).
Abraham 4:18 declares, "And the Gods watched those things which they had ordered until they obeyed." This seems to suggest that those creating had to get the matter to obey, and that this took time.
On 2 occassions I have come across members claiming to have seen these basic parts of matter with their spiritual eyes. And that these have intelligence.
This idea presents a far more rational concept of creation, to me, than a God that is all powerful next to nothing. What is the power of creation? According to Abraham an ability that allows you to order particles. And Orson Pratt is stating that particles have intelligence. Therefore God has mental ability to persuade particles to move. And God trained those creating this earth to use these abilities under the direction of Jesus Christ. All this sounds more accurate than magical powers of creation being passed on by this same magic.
These are just some thoughts to consider.
Monday, February 26, 2007
Thursday, February 22, 2007
How Genuine are Anti-Mormons?
Many years ago I remember looking through books for sale. Amidst them was a section against certain religions. There were pamphletes written against us, of course. But it was interesting to count the number of different publications. It almost seemed a testimony to the truth for anyone looking. There was one against the Catholics, one against Christian Science, one against the Cristadalphians, one against some others that I can't remember off-hand, three against Seventh Day Advantists, five against Jehovah's Witnesses, and twenty-six against us.
Reading claims against the church in most of the publications I have read or answered, I find that anyone reading a collection of them would recognise how fabricated most of it is. "Joseph Smith's mother was a gypsy", say some. Then they or some other one goes on to explain that they were running a farm. That is an interesting occupation for a gypsy. Then we have it that Joseph Smith's father was a gold digger. Also farming. A busy man. Then there are the ones that quote extremely old stats, while the writer pretends to know what he is talking about.
Then there is the irrational attempts to explain things away. "Joseph Smith had epileptic fits", say some in an attempt to say that his vision was a fit. Yet the same publication will go on to claim that he was a liar. So let's get this straight; he says he had a vision, so it must have been a fit, not a lie, yet he was a liar. Why do they even bother with the epilepsy explanation?
"I came out of Mormonism", says one lady. Then she tells us that she "taught Mormon theology for 2 years". Sounds impressive doesn't it? Why not just admit she taught kids in Junior Sunday School?
Then we have silly things like Joseph Smith's use of French when translating the Book of Mormon. Comments that Moroni wouldn't have used French. Do people actually fall for this nonsense? Moroni didn't use any of the English words Joseph Smith attributed to him either. That is what we call "translation".
Then we have all the attempts to claim the Book of Mormon is proven incorrect by archaeology. Interestingly the Bible is also proven incorrect by archaeology. No one then writes down the endless proven errors and conflicts of archaeologists.
Now we have the latest fad - genes. No significant gene link between the Middle East and the Americas is observable. Are we also supposed to take this seriously? Do we have the remains of a known Israelite from 600BC and a known Nephite from that time? The Lamanites are obviously genetically changed. A dill could work that out.
Then there are the sensationalising ones, that hit with strange doctrine and then quote something about Christ being our Saviour, as if to suggest that our doctrine is somehow in conflict of that concept, and he's just quoted a scripture to prove us in contradiction of the Bible. Whatever one may think of their morals, it is hard for me to believe that these writers are quite that stupid. I find them as genuine as a three-dollar bill.
Reading claims against the church in most of the publications I have read or answered, I find that anyone reading a collection of them would recognise how fabricated most of it is. "Joseph Smith's mother was a gypsy", say some. Then they or some other one goes on to explain that they were running a farm. That is an interesting occupation for a gypsy. Then we have it that Joseph Smith's father was a gold digger. Also farming. A busy man. Then there are the ones that quote extremely old stats, while the writer pretends to know what he is talking about.
Then there is the irrational attempts to explain things away. "Joseph Smith had epileptic fits", say some in an attempt to say that his vision was a fit. Yet the same publication will go on to claim that he was a liar. So let's get this straight; he says he had a vision, so it must have been a fit, not a lie, yet he was a liar. Why do they even bother with the epilepsy explanation?
"I came out of Mormonism", says one lady. Then she tells us that she "taught Mormon theology for 2 years". Sounds impressive doesn't it? Why not just admit she taught kids in Junior Sunday School?
Then we have silly things like Joseph Smith's use of French when translating the Book of Mormon. Comments that Moroni wouldn't have used French. Do people actually fall for this nonsense? Moroni didn't use any of the English words Joseph Smith attributed to him either. That is what we call "translation".
Then we have all the attempts to claim the Book of Mormon is proven incorrect by archaeology. Interestingly the Bible is also proven incorrect by archaeology. No one then writes down the endless proven errors and conflicts of archaeologists.
Now we have the latest fad - genes. No significant gene link between the Middle East and the Americas is observable. Are we also supposed to take this seriously? Do we have the remains of a known Israelite from 600BC and a known Nephite from that time? The Lamanites are obviously genetically changed. A dill could work that out.
Then there are the sensationalising ones, that hit with strange doctrine and then quote something about Christ being our Saviour, as if to suggest that our doctrine is somehow in conflict of that concept, and he's just quoted a scripture to prove us in contradiction of the Bible. Whatever one may think of their morals, it is hard for me to believe that these writers are quite that stupid. I find them as genuine as a three-dollar bill.
Tuesday, February 20, 2007
Capitalism, Communism, Socialism, Republicanism, Kings, Judges, Church
Excluding the church for a moment, I believe that, in their extreme, these government systems all come out to exactly the same thing. And, interestingly, it is the exact opposite to that which God has established for the church.
Man has had systems of government of some type since Adam arrived. Most governments are made up of bits of these systems. For example left wing governments (Communism, Socialism, Democratic Socialism and National Socialism (Nazis)) are about government control or involvement in industry and providing state services. Yet almost every country has a government providing some service for the people. And then there are defense contracts. Right wing governments (Capitalism, Republicanism, Kings and Judges) are about freedom of commerce and not getting involved in industry or government services. Again, almost every country has some degree of economic independance of the people.
Government Systems:- These are run by a Chairman, President or whatever he may be called. He has a small group around him that have control over industries, police, services etc. Under these are the remainder of a fairly larger council or government body of representatives. From there they branch out to local area leaders.
But what happens when these governments go to their extremes? We have seen what happens in history (some fairly modern).
The leader obtains great control by giving lots of power to his small group of aides. To make their power great he has to increase the power of his council. To make their power greater he must increase the power on the local level. Whether right or left wing, people will act exactly the same with power. The powerful people will live in better areas and better buildings, with far more access to provisions. They will have the power to exercise injustice. And this won't bother them in doing so. These powers are obtained because the people are weak through sin. They have little power of conscience. They seek revenge above repentance on those who offend them. And on criminals. Interestingly, a wise man once said that you can tell the strength of a people by how well they treat their prisoners. And these government systems show less and less interest for human life.
Now let's look at how the church should be run according to Scripture. It is an exact opposite of this system. The church has exactly the same as the "Government Systems" paragraph shown above. But the difference is that Christ taught that he came to serve, not to be served. Paul said that he made himself servant to all that he might gain more (1 Cor 9:19). D&C 121:37 tells us that leaders have no authority to use their position to attempt to have power over others. The church should be seen exactly the opposite of how we see governments outside of God's Kingdom. We see governments as a pyramid. The President at the top, his 12 leaders as the next section down and so on. But the church should be understood as an upside down pyramid, with the President down the bottom serving the whole (as any good government should be - as demonstrated by King Benjamin) and the members at the top being served the most. What we term "church leaders" should be called "church servants". This is the thinking Christ demonstrated.
Man has had systems of government of some type since Adam arrived. Most governments are made up of bits of these systems. For example left wing governments (Communism, Socialism, Democratic Socialism and National Socialism (Nazis)) are about government control or involvement in industry and providing state services. Yet almost every country has a government providing some service for the people. And then there are defense contracts. Right wing governments (Capitalism, Republicanism, Kings and Judges) are about freedom of commerce and not getting involved in industry or government services. Again, almost every country has some degree of economic independance of the people.
Government Systems:- These are run by a Chairman, President or whatever he may be called. He has a small group around him that have control over industries, police, services etc. Under these are the remainder of a fairly larger council or government body of representatives. From there they branch out to local area leaders.
But what happens when these governments go to their extremes? We have seen what happens in history (some fairly modern).
The leader obtains great control by giving lots of power to his small group of aides. To make their power great he has to increase the power of his council. To make their power greater he must increase the power on the local level. Whether right or left wing, people will act exactly the same with power. The powerful people will live in better areas and better buildings, with far more access to provisions. They will have the power to exercise injustice. And this won't bother them in doing so. These powers are obtained because the people are weak through sin. They have little power of conscience. They seek revenge above repentance on those who offend them. And on criminals. Interestingly, a wise man once said that you can tell the strength of a people by how well they treat their prisoners. And these government systems show less and less interest for human life.
Now let's look at how the church should be run according to Scripture. It is an exact opposite of this system. The church has exactly the same as the "Government Systems" paragraph shown above. But the difference is that Christ taught that he came to serve, not to be served. Paul said that he made himself servant to all that he might gain more (1 Cor 9:19). D&C 121:37 tells us that leaders have no authority to use their position to attempt to have power over others. The church should be seen exactly the opposite of how we see governments outside of God's Kingdom. We see governments as a pyramid. The President at the top, his 12 leaders as the next section down and so on. But the church should be understood as an upside down pyramid, with the President down the bottom serving the whole (as any good government should be - as demonstrated by King Benjamin) and the members at the top being served the most. What we term "church leaders" should be called "church servants". This is the thinking Christ demonstrated.
Tuesday, February 13, 2007
Doing Greater Works than Christ
John 14:12 states, "Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that believeth on me, the works that I do shall he do also; and greater works than these shall he do; because I go unto my Father."
Jesus Christ healed the sick, even those with leprosy. He made the blind see and the lame walk. Even those with life long illnesses and disabilities were cured.
He commanded the storm to stop and it stopped. He commanded a tree to die, and it did. He had nets so full of fish that they had trouble bringing them in. He had a fish give a coin to pay taxes. And to top off his visible miracles, he brought back Lazareth from the dead. And how can we even equal his work of the atonement, let alone do a greater work?
Why then did Jesus say to his apostles that they shall do greater works than him?
I believe the answer lies in a better examination of the statement. He has stated that the reason why they shall do greater works than him is, "because I go unto my Father". So how does him going to the Father make it that the apostles could do greater works? The answer must surely be that when he said "greater" he didn't mean the greatness of each individual work, but greater in number. Because he was only doing works for three and a half years, and then was going to the Father, the apostles would have opportunity to do a greater amount of works, having decades to do them in.
Jesus Christ healed the sick, even those with leprosy. He made the blind see and the lame walk. Even those with life long illnesses and disabilities were cured.
He commanded the storm to stop and it stopped. He commanded a tree to die, and it did. He had nets so full of fish that they had trouble bringing them in. He had a fish give a coin to pay taxes. And to top off his visible miracles, he brought back Lazareth from the dead. And how can we even equal his work of the atonement, let alone do a greater work?
Why then did Jesus say to his apostles that they shall do greater works than him?
I believe the answer lies in a better examination of the statement. He has stated that the reason why they shall do greater works than him is, "because I go unto my Father". So how does him going to the Father make it that the apostles could do greater works? The answer must surely be that when he said "greater" he didn't mean the greatness of each individual work, but greater in number. Because he was only doing works for three and a half years, and then was going to the Father, the apostles would have opportunity to do a greater amount of works, having decades to do them in.
Sunday, February 11, 2007
Can Our Country's Freedom be Lost by Good Intentions?
This that I am telling you here has actually happened in a country claiming itself to be free, while the inhabitants still think they are. I am selecting a particular state within the country that is in the Western World.
They said that children could be damaged by violent parents, so a government department needed to have authority to seize children from their parents without a court order. As death could occur while waiting. And the people said, "yes, we must stop child bashing." So the government passed a law giving them the right to remove anyone's children and it could take a year or more to get them back.
They said that women with violent husbands were too afraid to admit that their husband was beating them, so Police needed authority to arrest these husbands and put them in jail for up to 3 days without any trial. And the people said, "yes, we must stop wife bashing." So the government passed a law saying that the Police can arrest anyone and jail them for 3 days without trial, or any evidence needed. There is no reason why upon release the Police couldn't just take them out the front and then back in for another 3 days, etc.
They said that some sex offenders were known to be a threat to society by the jail system, but they had to release them after their sentence was over. And they wanted power to keep these offenders in jail. The people said, "yes, we have to stop the sex-offenders." So the jail system was given power to keep anyone in jail indefinately, even after their sentence is served, at their whim.
They said that drug dealers would hide their stuff if the drug squad had to get a court order each time they wanted to do a search. So Police wanted power to go into anyone's home and rip it to shreads and need not provide any evidence to explain why they chose to search the premises. They also said that they needed to protect their sources so wanted a law that they didn't have to prove why they conducted the search. The people said, "yes", we must get the drug dealers." So Police were given power to bash anyone's house and furniture to a pulp without accountability.
So if you have a wife, children and/or house and furniture or don't have an awfully good lawyer, who knows how to pay off the right people, be careful where you go in the western world.
They said that children could be damaged by violent parents, so a government department needed to have authority to seize children from their parents without a court order. As death could occur while waiting. And the people said, "yes, we must stop child bashing." So the government passed a law giving them the right to remove anyone's children and it could take a year or more to get them back.
They said that women with violent husbands were too afraid to admit that their husband was beating them, so Police needed authority to arrest these husbands and put them in jail for up to 3 days without any trial. And the people said, "yes, we must stop wife bashing." So the government passed a law saying that the Police can arrest anyone and jail them for 3 days without trial, or any evidence needed. There is no reason why upon release the Police couldn't just take them out the front and then back in for another 3 days, etc.
They said that some sex offenders were known to be a threat to society by the jail system, but they had to release them after their sentence was over. And they wanted power to keep these offenders in jail. The people said, "yes, we have to stop the sex-offenders." So the jail system was given power to keep anyone in jail indefinately, even after their sentence is served, at their whim.
They said that drug dealers would hide their stuff if the drug squad had to get a court order each time they wanted to do a search. So Police wanted power to go into anyone's home and rip it to shreads and need not provide any evidence to explain why they chose to search the premises. They also said that they needed to protect their sources so wanted a law that they didn't have to prove why they conducted the search. The people said, "yes", we must get the drug dealers." So Police were given power to bash anyone's house and furniture to a pulp without accountability.
So if you have a wife, children and/or house and furniture or don't have an awfully good lawyer, who knows how to pay off the right people, be careful where you go in the western world.
Friday, February 09, 2007
Our Lives Should be one Continual Advancement.
I was just looking at the picture of Christ's visit to the Americas, where some are standing on steps in the front. A child to his right-front. And most are standing in the background.
I often think about how wonderful it would have been to have been there for that visit. It isn't that I want to leave this time and go back to live then instead. But what an experience. How could anything in life second this?
When I was young (4-years-old) I went to a missionary revival meeting (having been brought up a Protestant). I determined to become a missionary for the rest of my life. Upon joining the church at 15 I had to be content with a 2 year mission. So when I went on my mission this was the ultimate life experience to me. But I soon began to feel strange in that all my life I had this large future ambition. Suddenly my future was empty of such a heavy divine purpose. The Holy Ghost said to me that my mission was God preparing me for marriage and other things. And that what he had ahead was greater than what I was then doing. This required a bit of adjustment of thinking.
When we were going home from our missions we all gave the traditional last testimony at the mission home. I remember saying that if at the end of my life I felt that my mission was the greatest spiritual experience of my life that would suggest that the rest of my life thereafter was a failure, as we should grow spiritually.
I have since had times that have exceeded my mission for spiritual growth. But I think we spend a lot of our lives waiting for something to happen: Christ's visit to the Americas re-enacted. Perhaps not quite so increadible, but we are waiting none the less. It is us who must lay the ground for the great things to happen. We have to learn to keep thinking big. And remember the statement "faith proceeds the miracle".
I often think about how wonderful it would have been to have been there for that visit. It isn't that I want to leave this time and go back to live then instead. But what an experience. How could anything in life second this?
When I was young (4-years-old) I went to a missionary revival meeting (having been brought up a Protestant). I determined to become a missionary for the rest of my life. Upon joining the church at 15 I had to be content with a 2 year mission. So when I went on my mission this was the ultimate life experience to me. But I soon began to feel strange in that all my life I had this large future ambition. Suddenly my future was empty of such a heavy divine purpose. The Holy Ghost said to me that my mission was God preparing me for marriage and other things. And that what he had ahead was greater than what I was then doing. This required a bit of adjustment of thinking.
When we were going home from our missions we all gave the traditional last testimony at the mission home. I remember saying that if at the end of my life I felt that my mission was the greatest spiritual experience of my life that would suggest that the rest of my life thereafter was a failure, as we should grow spiritually.
I have since had times that have exceeded my mission for spiritual growth. But I think we spend a lot of our lives waiting for something to happen: Christ's visit to the Americas re-enacted. Perhaps not quite so increadible, but we are waiting none the less. It is us who must lay the ground for the great things to happen. We have to learn to keep thinking big. And remember the statement "faith proceeds the miracle".
Monday, February 05, 2007
Why Negroes didn't get the Priesthood
I was asked to explain this situation in my questions site (the link being at the top of the page). And having done so, I felt it important enough to be presented here. Even though what I am about to say was given to me by inspiration, I can demonstrate it to be true, from scripture and church doctrine.
Having stated that, I must declare that the things I say are purely as a church member, not an authority of the church. And I have never heard or read a general authority of the church, living or past, make these comments. Or any other member. So I must declare them as only those things of which I have been informed by the Holy Ghost as one person. Not established church doctrine.
My purpose in placing this here was primarily in consideration of any negro who may be searching for understanding. Secondly for any other seeker of truth.
In the pre-existence Satan presented a plan that was impossible, but appealed to many. One third of all spirits present, in fact. Of the other two thirds many were not certain who to go with. They had concerns. Being loving, Heavenly Father made a deal with them that if they went down he would make sure that they couldn't go to outer darkness - which, apparently councerned them. To go there requires the priesthood. So he promised them that a mark would be put on them that no one would put them in the position they feared. In his love God placed a dark skin upon them to distinguish them from those wishing the priesthood. He made sure that these spirits were born to negro parents. Of more recent years there seems to have been reached a point where these have all come down already, or aren't in a position to receive that which concerned them. Consequently the priesthood has also been given to negros since that time.
Having stated that, I must declare that the things I say are purely as a church member, not an authority of the church. And I have never heard or read a general authority of the church, living or past, make these comments. Or any other member. So I must declare them as only those things of which I have been informed by the Holy Ghost as one person. Not established church doctrine.
My purpose in placing this here was primarily in consideration of any negro who may be searching for understanding. Secondly for any other seeker of truth.
In the pre-existence Satan presented a plan that was impossible, but appealed to many. One third of all spirits present, in fact. Of the other two thirds many were not certain who to go with. They had concerns. Being loving, Heavenly Father made a deal with them that if they went down he would make sure that they couldn't go to outer darkness - which, apparently councerned them. To go there requires the priesthood. So he promised them that a mark would be put on them that no one would put them in the position they feared. In his love God placed a dark skin upon them to distinguish them from those wishing the priesthood. He made sure that these spirits were born to negro parents. Of more recent years there seems to have been reached a point where these have all come down already, or aren't in a position to receive that which concerned them. Consequently the priesthood has also been given to negros since that time.
Sunday, February 04, 2007
Is it time we Updated the Book of Mormon etc?
The church is basically conservative, and keen to hold on to the "good old" rather than move to radical new ideas. I fully support this thinking overall. Generally, fads come and go. They often seem good at first glance, but time proves them wrong. Along with this, the church has held to using the good old KJV (King James Version of the Bible) (a version Joseph Smith supported in the early 1800s). Contrary to popular belief, and that stated at the front of the book, the KJV isn't the original 1600's version, but an update done in the 1770's. And our Book of Mormon English has remained as first published. It seems that the attitude has gone to the idea that we have learnt this language, so everyone can. Yet a few flaws exist in this philosophy.
Firstly a Russian Book of Mormon isn't written in old Russian. And a Romanian Book of Mormon isn't written in old Romanian. So it seems that speaking English is a disadvantage if you have difficulty learning an old version of your language.
Secondly, having worked with adults who have difficulty reading, it is straight out proposterous getting them to read a Book of Mormon. I ended up translating part of 1st Nephi, into English that they could read Click here to read it. It still has some very difficult words, as I didn't want to take risks of wrong translation. But at least it is understandable.
Thirdly, I quote things from the KJV when I really don't know the meaning of some words in them. I have always just made an assumption. "I trow not" (Luke 1:9). What average person would know what "trow" means? We just assume from the flow of converstation. Then there is the word "let", which to us means to allow. But then it meant to stop, or not allow.
Also a philosophy exists that by learning old English we can pray in a special language. That is true. But I would question how Nephi got past not praying in some ancient Hebrew dialect? And how does everyone who isn't speaking English get by? Were Jesus' prayers in ancient Hebrew?
I like being able to impress people outside the church by my ability to rattle off old English, too (not that I do that often, but it happens). But in the interest of spreading the gospel, and delivering it to all mankind equally, I think it time we started making a transition to understandable English.
Firstly a Russian Book of Mormon isn't written in old Russian. And a Romanian Book of Mormon isn't written in old Romanian. So it seems that speaking English is a disadvantage if you have difficulty learning an old version of your language.
Secondly, having worked with adults who have difficulty reading, it is straight out proposterous getting them to read a Book of Mormon. I ended up translating part of 1st Nephi, into English that they could read Click here to read it. It still has some very difficult words, as I didn't want to take risks of wrong translation. But at least it is understandable.
Thirdly, I quote things from the KJV when I really don't know the meaning of some words in them. I have always just made an assumption. "I trow not" (Luke 1:9). What average person would know what "trow" means? We just assume from the flow of converstation. Then there is the word "let", which to us means to allow. But then it meant to stop, or not allow.
Also a philosophy exists that by learning old English we can pray in a special language. That is true. But I would question how Nephi got past not praying in some ancient Hebrew dialect? And how does everyone who isn't speaking English get by? Were Jesus' prayers in ancient Hebrew?
I like being able to impress people outside the church by my ability to rattle off old English, too (not that I do that often, but it happens). But in the interest of spreading the gospel, and delivering it to all mankind equally, I think it time we started making a transition to understandable English.
Thursday, February 01, 2007
The Ability to Heal
In Hebrews 5:5-6 we are told that Jesus Christ received the Melchizedek Priesthood. Jesus gave this authority to his apostles and they eventually performed many mighty miracles. Male members eventually receive this priesthood. So how come Jesus could heal more effectively than we seem to? After all, it is the same priesthood. Doesn't God's power to heal just come zipping down that line of authority into our hands?
Healing takes spiritual effort and faith. Jesus noticed something go out of him when the woman touched his clothes to be healed (Mark 5:30). Luke 6:19 makes this same statement: "...for there went virtue out of him, and healed them all".
Scattered throughout the D&C we find many virtues that we must have for an effective use of the priesthood. It also states that if used for wrong reasons you have no priesthood authority (D&C 121:37).
Of the many virtues necessary to use priesthood, many relate to love. We must have love for the person we are healing. Love is so important in regard having heavenly type powers. The apostle John said, "God is love". How can a statement more plainly express how much love God has? This love is a driving power that helps us heal.
Receiving the priesthood gives us the authority to act in the name of Jesus Christ. Then we must add the ingredients to ourselves to make it effective, in such situations as healing. Heavenly Father is there to lend a hand to help us to fully bring out our latent abilities. The priesthood gives us the opportunities to develop ourselves to become more like our Heavenly Father.
Healing takes spiritual effort and faith. Jesus noticed something go out of him when the woman touched his clothes to be healed (Mark 5:30). Luke 6:19 makes this same statement: "...for there went virtue out of him, and healed them all".
Scattered throughout the D&C we find many virtues that we must have for an effective use of the priesthood. It also states that if used for wrong reasons you have no priesthood authority (D&C 121:37).
Of the many virtues necessary to use priesthood, many relate to love. We must have love for the person we are healing. Love is so important in regard having heavenly type powers. The apostle John said, "God is love". How can a statement more plainly express how much love God has? This love is a driving power that helps us heal.
Receiving the priesthood gives us the authority to act in the name of Jesus Christ. Then we must add the ingredients to ourselves to make it effective, in such situations as healing. Heavenly Father is there to lend a hand to help us to fully bring out our latent abilities. The priesthood gives us the opportunities to develop ourselves to become more like our Heavenly Father.
Tuesday, January 30, 2007
Who is more Romantic - Men or Women?
While I was having a chuckle here and there while writing this, the main point that I am expressing, I do believe.
I often hear women say how unromantic men are. They winge of how men spend their time out fixing the car, or watching sport etc. On the other hand, women say how romantic they are. After all, they enjoy moonlit (or candle lit) dinners, soft music, flowers and an evening out. So obviously they are more romantic.
Men are conned into believing this one sided propaganda. This is very irrational thinking. It is like me suggesting that if other people don't watch the tennis and I do they can't be interested in sport. Who says cutting lovely flowers off a bush, growing them to reproduce (as God has commanded them to) is romantic? And who decided that eating food you can't see properly is romantic either?
Then there is the guy doing the supposedly unromantic act of fixing the car so he can take his wife shopping. Or fixing the lawn mower so he can have her house area looking good during the day when he is at work.
Women say they love to be surprised with flowers. Yet do they surprise their husbands and go and do something romantic to him like watch the sport with him? Or go out and help him fix the car? Even GAs suggest that male members take their wives out. I think the one they missed was wives being romantic and going out to help their husbands.
In spite of what I have written there, I actually do find moonlight romantic. And I do enjoy romantic music. I have the drive to give a woman flowers, because I know what they mean to her, and I want to say that, if I feel that way. I almost never watch sport, personally.
But what I am really trying to get over is that men will see some things differently. And I have watched guys fixing a car and saying they need to get it done because their wife needs to go shopping. When the guy comes in the wife hasn't appreciated his act of love toward her. She isn't even aware of it. So I think it would be helpful to relationships if women widened their expressed view on what is romantic.
I often hear women say how unromantic men are. They winge of how men spend their time out fixing the car, or watching sport etc. On the other hand, women say how romantic they are. After all, they enjoy moonlit (or candle lit) dinners, soft music, flowers and an evening out. So obviously they are more romantic.
Men are conned into believing this one sided propaganda. This is very irrational thinking. It is like me suggesting that if other people don't watch the tennis and I do they can't be interested in sport. Who says cutting lovely flowers off a bush, growing them to reproduce (as God has commanded them to) is romantic? And who decided that eating food you can't see properly is romantic either?
Then there is the guy doing the supposedly unromantic act of fixing the car so he can take his wife shopping. Or fixing the lawn mower so he can have her house area looking good during the day when he is at work.
Women say they love to be surprised with flowers. Yet do they surprise their husbands and go and do something romantic to him like watch the sport with him? Or go out and help him fix the car? Even GAs suggest that male members take their wives out. I think the one they missed was wives being romantic and going out to help their husbands.
In spite of what I have written there, I actually do find moonlight romantic. And I do enjoy romantic music. I have the drive to give a woman flowers, because I know what they mean to her, and I want to say that, if I feel that way. I almost never watch sport, personally.
But what I am really trying to get over is that men will see some things differently. And I have watched guys fixing a car and saying they need to get it done because their wife needs to go shopping. When the guy comes in the wife hasn't appreciated his act of love toward her. She isn't even aware of it. So I think it would be helpful to relationships if women widened their expressed view on what is romantic.
Sunday, January 28, 2007
Meat - To eat or not to eat, that is the question?
There is more on this subject wihin scripture than I think most realise. Also the Scriptures are more interlinked than seems to be appreciated. The Old Testament law is discarded in the usual conversation of this subject, and reference is made to some interpretation of the New Testament to do this. But is this accurate?
D&C 49:18 states that whoever forbids a person from abstaining from meat (that man shouldn't eat it) is not ordained of God. A clear statement that God, firstly, regards it possible (at least) to be vegetarian. This, secondly, makes it obvious that he is not opposed to it at all. So why even bother mentioning it? It is fairly heavy in its way. He is saying a person commanding against vegetarianism is not from him.
D&c 89 contains the obvious statements. But how many examine them relative to past instruction? Note verses 14 and 15, "...and all wild animals that run or creep on the earth; And these hath God made for the use of man only in times of famine and excess of hunger." So does this mean we can eat domesticated pigs but not wild ones? As we domesticate dogs and cats can we eat them, also? God gave instruction of what he was talking about long ago. He had Moses write it down. No pigs, dogs, cats, camels, shark, dolphins, squid, octopus, crabs, crayfish, mussels, oisters, eagles, ants, cockroaches and so on. Because the Israelites of the time were so spiritually backward he made it a commandment, so at least some would follow it.
Have you questioned yourself as to why God would ask such a thing? It is because the meat of these things is worse than the meat of the other animals. Isn't that plain?
Now God has made it a request, not a commandment. But don't the scriptures tell us that it is a slothful and not a wise servant that needs to be commanded in all things (D&C 58:26). In regard meat he has said that it is pleasing to him that it shouldn't be eaten, unless it is cold or there is a famine.
As personal advice from personal inspiration let me advise anyone wishing to stop eating meat that they should break off it slowly. Quit all the really bad stuff mentioned above immediately. Then break off red meats, and just eat fish and chicken. Then break off the chicken. Then off the fish eventually. This should be done over a couple of years.
D&C 49:18 states that whoever forbids a person from abstaining from meat (that man shouldn't eat it) is not ordained of God. A clear statement that God, firstly, regards it possible (at least) to be vegetarian. This, secondly, makes it obvious that he is not opposed to it at all. So why even bother mentioning it? It is fairly heavy in its way. He is saying a person commanding against vegetarianism is not from him.
D&c 89 contains the obvious statements. But how many examine them relative to past instruction? Note verses 14 and 15, "...and all wild animals that run or creep on the earth; And these hath God made for the use of man only in times of famine and excess of hunger." So does this mean we can eat domesticated pigs but not wild ones? As we domesticate dogs and cats can we eat them, also? God gave instruction of what he was talking about long ago. He had Moses write it down. No pigs, dogs, cats, camels, shark, dolphins, squid, octopus, crabs, crayfish, mussels, oisters, eagles, ants, cockroaches and so on. Because the Israelites of the time were so spiritually backward he made it a commandment, so at least some would follow it.
Have you questioned yourself as to why God would ask such a thing? It is because the meat of these things is worse than the meat of the other animals. Isn't that plain?
Now God has made it a request, not a commandment. But don't the scriptures tell us that it is a slothful and not a wise servant that needs to be commanded in all things (D&C 58:26). In regard meat he has said that it is pleasing to him that it shouldn't be eaten, unless it is cold or there is a famine.
As personal advice from personal inspiration let me advise anyone wishing to stop eating meat that they should break off it slowly. Quit all the really bad stuff mentioned above immediately. Then break off red meats, and just eat fish and chicken. Then break off the chicken. Then off the fish eventually. This should be done over a couple of years.
Thursday, January 25, 2007
Where is the spirit world?
Soloman questioned, "Who knows if the spirit of man rises upward and if the spirit of the animal goes down into the earth?" (Eccles 3:20-21) (NIV).
Brigham Young stated, "When you lay down this tabernacle, where are you going? Into the spiritual world. Are you going into Abraham's bosom? No, not anywhere nigh there but into the spirit world. Where is the spirit world? It is right here. Do the good and evil spirits go together? Yes, they do. Do they both inhabit one kingdom? Yes, they do. Do they go to the sun? No. Do they go beyond the boundaries of the organized earth? No, they do not." (Discourses of Brigham Young 33:376:4).
Many people see the spirits of departed loved ones at their funerals. The spirit goes along to see who turns up (I suppose), and to follow the family and friends they are used to being with. I remember an incidence where a person had died and things were being thrown around the room from then on. Someone picked up the point that the spirit was upset that they were taking no notice of him, and supposing that he was gone. So they talked to him as if he was still sitting on his chair, and there was no problem thereafter.
Many have also seen spirits just being around the place. Some having messages for remaining relatives.
It would appear that once we are sent to earth we stay here until the whole thing is over. Unless we are resurrected and off doing something else.
Brigham Young stated, "When you lay down this tabernacle, where are you going? Into the spiritual world. Are you going into Abraham's bosom? No, not anywhere nigh there but into the spirit world. Where is the spirit world? It is right here. Do the good and evil spirits go together? Yes, they do. Do they both inhabit one kingdom? Yes, they do. Do they go to the sun? No. Do they go beyond the boundaries of the organized earth? No, they do not." (Discourses of Brigham Young 33:376:4).
Many people see the spirits of departed loved ones at their funerals. The spirit goes along to see who turns up (I suppose), and to follow the family and friends they are used to being with. I remember an incidence where a person had died and things were being thrown around the room from then on. Someone picked up the point that the spirit was upset that they were taking no notice of him, and supposing that he was gone. So they talked to him as if he was still sitting on his chair, and there was no problem thereafter.
Many have also seen spirits just being around the place. Some having messages for remaining relatives.
It would appear that once we are sent to earth we stay here until the whole thing is over. Unless we are resurrected and off doing something else.
Saturday, January 20, 2007
What is Deep Doctrine?
In my time as a member I have heard many talk of deep mysteries of the gospel. How many angels can you fit on a pin head? Can God scratch his right elbow with his right hand? Does God know how many planets are in existence throughout all eternity? Who was the first God? And the list is endless itself.
Are these "deep doctrine"? Or just fantasies to intellectualise the gospel into a concept for the learned? To spend time giving silly answers to silly questions, while convincing ones self of ones superior intelligence for being in such a superior discussion?
To me, doctrine worth discussing, and that has more chance of bringing out truth, must be doctrine that has some good intent in its asking. Abraham stood before Christ and posed the question, "wilt thou also destroy the righteous with the wicked" (Gen 18:23)? Was this an intellectual or heart felt question? In verse 25 Abraham asks Christ, "Shall not the judge of all the earth do right?" Plainly Abraham had concern in his questions. He wanted to be assured that God is good. Christ assured Abraham that he was. This is the sort of stuff that deep doctrine is made of. Deep spiritual experiences that give us knowledge about God and ourselves.
The deepest doctrine that I feel that exists within the church is that which is so often discussed, but rarely understood: Faith, repentence, baptism and the gift of the Holy Ghost. I have met only a few (and I mean a few) who actually perceive the full significance of this message.
As you get into the habit of discussing deep, heart felt, doctrine you will begin to think in wiser ways. And the Holy Ghost will be with you more, to give you greater understanding.
Are these "deep doctrine"? Or just fantasies to intellectualise the gospel into a concept for the learned? To spend time giving silly answers to silly questions, while convincing ones self of ones superior intelligence for being in such a superior discussion?
To me, doctrine worth discussing, and that has more chance of bringing out truth, must be doctrine that has some good intent in its asking. Abraham stood before Christ and posed the question, "wilt thou also destroy the righteous with the wicked" (Gen 18:23)? Was this an intellectual or heart felt question? In verse 25 Abraham asks Christ, "Shall not the judge of all the earth do right?" Plainly Abraham had concern in his questions. He wanted to be assured that God is good. Christ assured Abraham that he was. This is the sort of stuff that deep doctrine is made of. Deep spiritual experiences that give us knowledge about God and ourselves.
The deepest doctrine that I feel that exists within the church is that which is so often discussed, but rarely understood: Faith, repentence, baptism and the gift of the Holy Ghost. I have met only a few (and I mean a few) who actually perceive the full significance of this message.
As you get into the habit of discussing deep, heart felt, doctrine you will begin to think in wiser ways. And the Holy Ghost will be with you more, to give you greater understanding.
Thursday, January 18, 2007
The Dark side VS the Light side. Which power is greater and why?
I enjoyed watching the Star Wars movies. It was all very interesting watching the fight of good VS evil. But the logic suffered one obvious flaw. The dark side can't possibly be anywhere near as powerful as the light side (and that is a gross understatement).
Why not? After all, aren't good and evil exact opposites? Therefore the power of evil should be as powerful as the power of good, shouldn't it? And why is it that God is more powerful than Satan? Surely they should be equal in power.
The answer to this lies in the question of what makes good, good? And what makes evil, evil? Why is it "good" to love others, and "evil" to hate others? Could God just as easily have commanded us to hate others? The answer to this is that eternity has laws. They have always existed. If you punch your hand against a brick wall it will hurt. The same combination of circumstances on any planet throughout eternity will create the same result. The laws governing us, also govern God. Those laws include ways of acting upon substances to get them to form into planets etc. This requires enormous love by the person doing the holding of the planets together. No love - no power. It is as simple as that.
To understand this relative to dark and light sides, you could relate it to two people rowing in a raging river. Both are rowing as hard as they can. One is powering ahead and the other is going nowhere. What is the difference between the two? .... One is rowing with the current and the other is rowing against it. God is going with the laws of eternity, and Satan is trying to fight against them.
Why not? After all, aren't good and evil exact opposites? Therefore the power of evil should be as powerful as the power of good, shouldn't it? And why is it that God is more powerful than Satan? Surely they should be equal in power.
The answer to this lies in the question of what makes good, good? And what makes evil, evil? Why is it "good" to love others, and "evil" to hate others? Could God just as easily have commanded us to hate others? The answer to this is that eternity has laws. They have always existed. If you punch your hand against a brick wall it will hurt. The same combination of circumstances on any planet throughout eternity will create the same result. The laws governing us, also govern God. Those laws include ways of acting upon substances to get them to form into planets etc. This requires enormous love by the person doing the holding of the planets together. No love - no power. It is as simple as that.
To understand this relative to dark and light sides, you could relate it to two people rowing in a raging river. Both are rowing as hard as they can. One is powering ahead and the other is going nowhere. What is the difference between the two? .... One is rowing with the current and the other is rowing against it. God is going with the laws of eternity, and Satan is trying to fight against them.
Monday, January 15, 2007
Why Doesn't God convert us all by showing miracles and appearing (as with Paul)?
Alma the Younger and the sons of Mosiah were going around corrupting people, and turning them from the teachings of God. An angel appeared to them and they completely changed. They became great teachers for Christ. Paul (Saul at the time) went about imprisoning members of the church. Christ appeared to him, and he changed to eventually become a very powerful missionary. Many saw Christ's miracles and therefore listened to his words.
So why doesn't God just convert everyone like this?
Let's look at the other side of this for a moment. God showed great miracles in Egypt at the hands of Moses. Yet we get the impression that no Egyptians joined Israel. Even the Israelites did nothing but winge. Even when they got out of Egypt they continued to disbelieve and winge. They saw the miracle of water coming after Moses struck a rock. I'm sure you know I could go on and on with the miracles they saw. Did those who saw what happened at the Tower of Babel suddenly repent? And what of Daniel in the lion's den. Did the Babylonians take up following God because of this? The scribes and pharasees saw the miracles of Christ also. Did they believe in him and repent? In spite of all the miracles Christ demonstrated, when he told his followers who he really was many left (John 6:66).
In Luke 16:19-31 Christ gives the parable of Lazareth and the rich man. While there are some interesting concepts in it, the point of the parable was stated in the last verse. "And he said unto him, if they hear not Moses and the prophets, neither will they be persuaded, though one rose from the dead." This refutes the idea that if God appeared to someone they would believe.
So how does this fit with Paul and Alma etc? They genuinely believed they were doing the right thing. They went out with fervent effort to right things with what must have been open minds, just not catching the point. So these appearances opened them up to hear. But people are not normally like this. People convince themselves that they are genuine, but true examination would reveal differently, or God would have them see a miracle.
So why doesn't God just convert everyone like this?
Let's look at the other side of this for a moment. God showed great miracles in Egypt at the hands of Moses. Yet we get the impression that no Egyptians joined Israel. Even the Israelites did nothing but winge. Even when they got out of Egypt they continued to disbelieve and winge. They saw the miracle of water coming after Moses struck a rock. I'm sure you know I could go on and on with the miracles they saw. Did those who saw what happened at the Tower of Babel suddenly repent? And what of Daniel in the lion's den. Did the Babylonians take up following God because of this? The scribes and pharasees saw the miracles of Christ also. Did they believe in him and repent? In spite of all the miracles Christ demonstrated, when he told his followers who he really was many left (John 6:66).
In Luke 16:19-31 Christ gives the parable of Lazareth and the rich man. While there are some interesting concepts in it, the point of the parable was stated in the last verse. "And he said unto him, if they hear not Moses and the prophets, neither will they be persuaded, though one rose from the dead." This refutes the idea that if God appeared to someone they would believe.
So how does this fit with Paul and Alma etc? They genuinely believed they were doing the right thing. They went out with fervent effort to right things with what must have been open minds, just not catching the point. So these appearances opened them up to hear. But people are not normally like this. People convince themselves that they are genuine, but true examination would reveal differently, or God would have them see a miracle.
Thursday, January 11, 2007
Should a Woman show Cleavage?
Whenever I see a woman showing cleavage I feel she is insulting womanhood. I feel it a slight on my sisters (meaning all women). I also think to myself, "I didn't want to see that." I feel that this has been thrust upon me, and my choice has been taken away. If I wanted to see that I could buy pornography.
I also feel this is a thorn in the side of those men and women trying to straighten their lives out after lust problems.
Some women will use the excuse that the temperature is hot, and so it keeps them cool. Well, hey, why wear clothes at all? Why not just turn up naked and resolve the problem? I wear a shirt with a collar. At church I wear a tie. So am I to accept that it is right with God that women come partly clad but not me? What if I walked around showing the top of my bottom at church? After all, it would be cooler.
Spence W. Kimball said, "I wonder if our sisters realize the temptation they are flaunting before men when they leave their bodies partly uncovered or dress in tight-fitting, body-revealing, form-fitting sweaters." (Miracle of Forgiveness, 16:226)
Brigham YOung said, "I am ashamed to see the tight clothes -- to see the shape of the ladies." (Discourses of Brigham Young, 19:75). How would Brigham get on with cleavage, do you think?
In Matthew 5:28 Jesus says that anyone looking on a woman to lust after her has committed adultery with her already in his heart."- is that what you women want in a husband: An adulterer? Or in other women's husbands.
I think it is about time that women started respecting their womanhood far more. I am not talking to all women, as I notice some with respect for their bodies and womanhood. But I'm talking to those who perhaps haven't thought about it, or those who just don't care.
Before commenting, let me make it clear that I reserve the right to edit or delete your statement if it is unrelated to the post topic. I'm not interested in non-scriptural assumptions about any person's character.
I also feel this is a thorn in the side of those men and women trying to straighten their lives out after lust problems.
Some women will use the excuse that the temperature is hot, and so it keeps them cool. Well, hey, why wear clothes at all? Why not just turn up naked and resolve the problem? I wear a shirt with a collar. At church I wear a tie. So am I to accept that it is right with God that women come partly clad but not me? What if I walked around showing the top of my bottom at church? After all, it would be cooler.
Spence W. Kimball said, "I wonder if our sisters realize the temptation they are flaunting before men when they leave their bodies partly uncovered or dress in tight-fitting, body-revealing, form-fitting sweaters." (Miracle of Forgiveness, 16:226)
Brigham YOung said, "I am ashamed to see the tight clothes -- to see the shape of the ladies." (Discourses of Brigham Young, 19:75). How would Brigham get on with cleavage, do you think?
In Matthew 5:28 Jesus says that anyone looking on a woman to lust after her has committed adultery with her already in his heart."- is that what you women want in a husband: An adulterer? Or in other women's husbands.
I think it is about time that women started respecting their womanhood far more. I am not talking to all women, as I notice some with respect for their bodies and womanhood. But I'm talking to those who perhaps haven't thought about it, or those who just don't care.
Before commenting, let me make it clear that I reserve the right to edit or delete your statement if it is unrelated to the post topic. I'm not interested in non-scriptural assumptions about any person's character.
Tuesday, January 09, 2007
Science - Religion - One World Religion?
Cardinal Hisleves said, "In 2004 the Roman Catholic Church had over a Billion baptised members. This doesn't mean they all believed all the doctrines of the church; but were at least baptised".
Ayatollah Jasso says, "93% of Iranians are Shiite Muslims, and 99% of Iranians are Muslim. And the people sort of follow what we say".
Reverend Col R. Bakwards of the St. Moses' Baptist Church says, "although most of our doctrines aren't believed, people still come along to services and say the name of Christ. We tell them they are saved if they do that. I usually make a few brief quotes from the Bible in my sermons; and I did have to read it once to pass ministerial college. So we sort of believe some of it".
Professor of Religion Mynda Yabisness points out; "one religion has far superior numbers to these. Not only that, but its members believe everything their priest tells them without really investigating to see how true it is. It has a following of around 300 million people in the US and around 20 million in Australia. Its world following is staggering. The real number of followers worldwide couldn't possibly be guessed. Except by its priests (who really wouldn't know but would tell you they do; and their figures would be believed). That religion is called 'Modern Science'".
Ms D. Ur of Women's Lib says, "the Bible can't be right because it says God is a man; and we know he's a woman. And Einstein can't be right because he's a man too".
Mr Seakand Yullfind of Darwin states, "I know God has a church that is really his somewhere. All I've got to do is keep praying and looking until I find it".
Ayatollah Jasso says, "93% of Iranians are Shiite Muslims, and 99% of Iranians are Muslim. And the people sort of follow what we say".
Reverend Col R. Bakwards of the St. Moses' Baptist Church says, "although most of our doctrines aren't believed, people still come along to services and say the name of Christ. We tell them they are saved if they do that. I usually make a few brief quotes from the Bible in my sermons; and I did have to read it once to pass ministerial college. So we sort of believe some of it".
Professor of Religion Mynda Yabisness points out; "one religion has far superior numbers to these. Not only that, but its members believe everything their priest tells them without really investigating to see how true it is. It has a following of around 300 million people in the US and around 20 million in Australia. Its world following is staggering. The real number of followers worldwide couldn't possibly be guessed. Except by its priests (who really wouldn't know but would tell you they do; and their figures would be believed). That religion is called 'Modern Science'".
Ms D. Ur of Women's Lib says, "the Bible can't be right because it says God is a man; and we know he's a woman. And Einstein can't be right because he's a man too".
Mr Seakand Yullfind of Darwin states, "I know God has a church that is really his somewhere. All I've got to do is keep praying and looking until I find it".
Wednesday, January 03, 2007
How God stays happy while watching us sin
I often wondered about the dilemma of God’s love for sinners VS God’s happiness. As God loves us as much as he does, how could he have all this joy while seeing people sin? First and foremost is that the person committing the sin is increasing their hell. Secondly the victim suffers some physical and or emotional problem.
While on my mission this dilemma hit me quite strongly, at one point. At that time we had been sent out to a smallish town. One of our jobs was to assist the local branch, which only had one Melchizedek Priesthood holder. There were several families without member husbands. One had 2 females (18 and 16). The 18-year-old had been romantically interested in a missionary who went home and hadn’t written to her since. She chose an interest in me, but I discourage it. She got upset and left the church, along with her sister. This made me very saddened, as she had been quite enthusiastic. I felt a deep love for her as a person. In the process of this something happened that amazed me. While feeling all this sadness and love, my heart swelled within me by the love I felt. It raised me to a greater level than I had ever experienced. I felt almost guilty that amidst all my sorrow for her I felt so wonderful. The more I felt the sorrow and concern, the greater the wonderful feeling.
This answered my question. I had come to understand how God can have joy inside, in spite of all he has to put up with from us. In fact it is having us, and helping us through, that increases his joy.
While on my mission this dilemma hit me quite strongly, at one point. At that time we had been sent out to a smallish town. One of our jobs was to assist the local branch, which only had one Melchizedek Priesthood holder. There were several families without member husbands. One had 2 females (18 and 16). The 18-year-old had been romantically interested in a missionary who went home and hadn’t written to her since. She chose an interest in me, but I discourage it. She got upset and left the church, along with her sister. This made me very saddened, as she had been quite enthusiastic. I felt a deep love for her as a person. In the process of this something happened that amazed me. While feeling all this sadness and love, my heart swelled within me by the love I felt. It raised me to a greater level than I had ever experienced. I felt almost guilty that amidst all my sorrow for her I felt so wonderful. The more I felt the sorrow and concern, the greater the wonderful feeling.
This answered my question. I had come to understand how God can have joy inside, in spite of all he has to put up with from us. In fact it is having us, and helping us through, that increases his joy.
Sunday, December 31, 2006
Atonement and Judgement - Who Really Demands Justice?
The point of the atonement is to make us clean so that we may re-enter the presence of God (3 Nephi 27:19). Sin has made us filthy. But what is this filth? Yes, we can say it is sin that we have committed, but where does this filth actually exist and why? And why do we need it removed to be in God's presence?
The scriptures tell us that God so loved the world that he gave his only begotten Son (John 3:16). Why? To please himself? Did Christ really perform the atonement because Heavenly Father insisted for self indulgence? What kind of a God of love would that be?
I believe Mosiah 2:38 answers these questions. "Therefore if that man repenteth not, and remaineth and dieth an enemy to God, the demands of divine justice do awaken his immortal soul to a lively sense of his own guilt, which doth cause him to shrink from the presence of the Lord, and doth fill his breast with guilt, and pain and anguish, which is like an unquenchable fire, whose flame ascendeth up forever and ever."
This demonstrates that it is us who demands justice: Our "immortal soul". It also is stating that it is our own sense of guilt that causes us to stay out of God's presence. In addition to this it is saying that it is us who send ourselves to hell.
So how does this fit in with statements about Jesus being the judge, and the saints being judges etc? I believe this refers to the idea that any person who has taught us any truth is our judge in the sense that their words stand to praise or condemn us. Depending on whether we listened or not. Christ provided the atonement that anyone can accept. If a person doesn't then that also stands as condemnation in that judgement of ourselves. His words stand to condemn or praise; depending on our acceptance also.
Heavenly Father arranged for a saviour to come into us and do the suffering on our behalf. But this requires us to open to him and to really repent. A truly repentant person doesn't go out doing the same thing again. Jesus was the chosen saviour. And he suffered for these sins in the garden.
The scriptures tell us that God so loved the world that he gave his only begotten Son (John 3:16). Why? To please himself? Did Christ really perform the atonement because Heavenly Father insisted for self indulgence? What kind of a God of love would that be?
I believe Mosiah 2:38 answers these questions. "Therefore if that man repenteth not, and remaineth and dieth an enemy to God, the demands of divine justice do awaken his immortal soul to a lively sense of his own guilt, which doth cause him to shrink from the presence of the Lord, and doth fill his breast with guilt, and pain and anguish, which is like an unquenchable fire, whose flame ascendeth up forever and ever."
This demonstrates that it is us who demands justice: Our "immortal soul". It also is stating that it is our own sense of guilt that causes us to stay out of God's presence. In addition to this it is saying that it is us who send ourselves to hell.
So how does this fit in with statements about Jesus being the judge, and the saints being judges etc? I believe this refers to the idea that any person who has taught us any truth is our judge in the sense that their words stand to praise or condemn us. Depending on whether we listened or not. Christ provided the atonement that anyone can accept. If a person doesn't then that also stands as condemnation in that judgement of ourselves. His words stand to condemn or praise; depending on our acceptance also.
Heavenly Father arranged for a saviour to come into us and do the suffering on our behalf. But this requires us to open to him and to really repent. A truly repentant person doesn't go out doing the same thing again. Jesus was the chosen saviour. And he suffered for these sins in the garden.
Thursday, December 28, 2006
Why Must real Faith be in things that are True?
Alma 32:21 "And now as I said concerning faith--faith is not to have a perfect knowledge of things; therefore if ye have faith ye hope for things which are not seen, which are true."
Many will pose the question of faith demonstrated by people, in things that aren't true. What of idol worshippers, for example? When I first thought on this I couldn't see Alma's point either. But further consideration brought me to a new understanding. An extremist in some religions will give his life for his God. He does this feeling he will be saved by his God, for his valiant effort and sacrifice. But is Alma correct that this isn't faith at all?
I believe he is right. When a person deliberately denies reality and sets focus in one direction, is that true faith? It is only when a person faces his deepest feelings of doubt and is satisfied, that true faith can exist. In other words "blind faith" isn't faith, but just intelligence washing. We come to have faith in God because we try his suggestion and find it works. We eventually come to see that he is a reliable source of correct ideas. But each idea requires us to use our faith in him to actually follow it. Once we follow it, and see it working our faith grows even further.
Many will pose the question of faith demonstrated by people, in things that aren't true. What of idol worshippers, for example? When I first thought on this I couldn't see Alma's point either. But further consideration brought me to a new understanding. An extremist in some religions will give his life for his God. He does this feeling he will be saved by his God, for his valiant effort and sacrifice. But is Alma correct that this isn't faith at all?
I believe he is right. When a person deliberately denies reality and sets focus in one direction, is that true faith? It is only when a person faces his deepest feelings of doubt and is satisfied, that true faith can exist. In other words "blind faith" isn't faith, but just intelligence washing. We come to have faith in God because we try his suggestion and find it works. We eventually come to see that he is a reliable source of correct ideas. But each idea requires us to use our faith in him to actually follow it. Once we follow it, and see it working our faith grows even further.
Monday, December 25, 2006
This post is not what it first appears, so please read it through
Are you one of those successful people making the big amount you wish? Are you entirely satisfied with your current life style and its rewards?
You can become one of the top 0.0000000000000000000000000000024 % of people. And its simple. You can apply the same principles that have made those few before you so successful. Is your yearly income less than 300,000? How would you like to learn a way to increase that by 10 times?
You are obviously skeptical. But this can be tried and proven. What's more is I'm going to give it to you completely free. That is right; this great income maker completely free.
Do you realise that many people aren't making any income at all? Year by year some are actually losing 100,000 points or more. Have you been content to sit in the pews and just increase by only 200,000 points, by merely listening to someone else receiving revelation? And saying he'll do it for me, I'll just listen to him?
The secret is simple - Revelation.
You can use this same skill and increase your spiritual points by 3,000,000 points PER ANNUM or MORE. By it Moses freed Israel, Noah preserved the human family, Alma saved the Nephite nation from destruction. And, yes, you heard me right, this amazing gift is completely free. No postage and handling fees either.
Become one of the rare people to actually USE it daily.
You can become one of the top 0.0000000000000000000000000000024 % of people. And its simple. You can apply the same principles that have made those few before you so successful. Is your yearly income less than 300,000? How would you like to learn a way to increase that by 10 times?
You are obviously skeptical. But this can be tried and proven. What's more is I'm going to give it to you completely free. That is right; this great income maker completely free.
Do you realise that many people aren't making any income at all? Year by year some are actually losing 100,000 points or more. Have you been content to sit in the pews and just increase by only 200,000 points, by merely listening to someone else receiving revelation? And saying he'll do it for me, I'll just listen to him?
The secret is simple - Revelation.
You can use this same skill and increase your spiritual points by 3,000,000 points PER ANNUM or MORE. By it Moses freed Israel, Noah preserved the human family, Alma saved the Nephite nation from destruction. And, yes, you heard me right, this amazing gift is completely free. No postage and handling fees either.
Become one of the rare people to actually USE it daily.
Monday, December 18, 2006
Excommunication - Do members really understand it?
Many who are excommunicated feel that the church has rejected them as a person. Sadly some members seem to take this stance to re-affirm that idea - treating those excommunicated as second-class citizens. How should members see excommunication? And How should those excommunicated see it? To this there is an outward aspect before the world, and an inward aspect to assist the excommunicated member.
The outward aspect _ It can be said that the church is here to represent Jesus Christ. It also represents the members (thus the name of the church). If someone seriously misrepresents both of these then the church may feel obligated, in reverence to Christ and other members, to demonstrate that the person doesn't represent them, until change is clearly demonstrated.
The Inward Aspect _ Excommunication generally comes because a member has committed a sin that requires special work on their part to feel right with God about afterward. With many sins we can feel good once we have repented and sought God's forgiveness. But some things we do make us feel so bad about ourselves that we need to do what could be termed as "penance", so that we can feel right again. This can be a long process. The church provides an opportunity to make this a more effective and quicker process. This is excommunication.
Also when a person commits such a sin the Holy Ghost withdraws from them for a time. It is no longer a constant companion, because the person has cut off communication by their act. They feel unable to stand in God's presence, so to speak, within themselves. There is a feeling of being dirty. But the Holy Ghost can come back as the person works toward change and clearing out that feeling. So when the stake president declares a person excommunicated he is really only declaring something that has already happened anyway. He has the authority to withdraw the priesthood, as that is an authority within his area of responsibility. He can restore this authority at some point after re-baptism.
Some may question, what of where a person has been found guilty by a church court and later been proven innocent? Fortunately I think these things aren't the usual. Unfortunately prejudice etc may blind the revelatory ability of those who may otherwise be inspired. D&C 121:34-40 warns that this sort of thing can occur with church leaders. And those excommunicated members that are in this circumstance may be concerned about their standing with God. As I mentioned before it is the sin itself that removes the Holy Ghost from you. If the sin didn't occur then you will still have him with you as much as before. Your standing with God will not have diminished one iota. It is him that you will stand before at the judgement, and he judges by the heart, not after the hearing of the ears or the seeing of the eyes (Isa 11:3). Continue to support his church and those appointed to positions, regardless of their faults. It is about you and God, not you and people.To members generally I would say to realise that 1. You most likely don't really know that the person committed the offence. And 2. Even if the person did, you have sinned often enough yourself, so don't be high and mighty.
For those in this position I would just reiterate that excommunication is a helping process not a condemnation. Welcome the opportunity it creates for you and use it.
The outward aspect _ It can be said that the church is here to represent Jesus Christ. It also represents the members (thus the name of the church). If someone seriously misrepresents both of these then the church may feel obligated, in reverence to Christ and other members, to demonstrate that the person doesn't represent them, until change is clearly demonstrated.
The Inward Aspect _ Excommunication generally comes because a member has committed a sin that requires special work on their part to feel right with God about afterward. With many sins we can feel good once we have repented and sought God's forgiveness. But some things we do make us feel so bad about ourselves that we need to do what could be termed as "penance", so that we can feel right again. This can be a long process. The church provides an opportunity to make this a more effective and quicker process. This is excommunication.
Also when a person commits such a sin the Holy Ghost withdraws from them for a time. It is no longer a constant companion, because the person has cut off communication by their act. They feel unable to stand in God's presence, so to speak, within themselves. There is a feeling of being dirty. But the Holy Ghost can come back as the person works toward change and clearing out that feeling. So when the stake president declares a person excommunicated he is really only declaring something that has already happened anyway. He has the authority to withdraw the priesthood, as that is an authority within his area of responsibility. He can restore this authority at some point after re-baptism.
Some may question, what of where a person has been found guilty by a church court and later been proven innocent? Fortunately I think these things aren't the usual. Unfortunately prejudice etc may blind the revelatory ability of those who may otherwise be inspired. D&C 121:34-40 warns that this sort of thing can occur with church leaders. And those excommunicated members that are in this circumstance may be concerned about their standing with God. As I mentioned before it is the sin itself that removes the Holy Ghost from you. If the sin didn't occur then you will still have him with you as much as before. Your standing with God will not have diminished one iota. It is him that you will stand before at the judgement, and he judges by the heart, not after the hearing of the ears or the seeing of the eyes (Isa 11:3). Continue to support his church and those appointed to positions, regardless of their faults. It is about you and God, not you and people.To members generally I would say to realise that 1. You most likely don't really know that the person committed the offence. And 2. Even if the person did, you have sinned often enough yourself, so don't be high and mighty.
For those in this position I would just reiterate that excommunication is a helping process not a condemnation. Welcome the opportunity it creates for you and use it.
Tuesday, December 12, 2006
Romantic Dating Approaches - Are they safe, or creating problems
Some dating methods (of the romantic type) concern me. I wonder where the wisdom came from. I'd almost feel that Satan must have invented them. They work on deception and distancing from a person to obtain them. They can confuse men into thinking that whenever a woman says, "no", she means, "yes".
The logic of these methods is like suggesting that to create a good relationship with children parents are best to pretend they aren't interested in them. Parents should just act like they don't care and children will become more interested in their parents. Somehow that doesn't sound right to me.
My wife has, of recent years, died (she died young) and eventually I am thrown back into this nonsense again. This has caused me to more deeply analyse this mess. Particularly as some females have used this process on me. I have been given the "no" and afterwards informed by them that I should have realised this meant "yes". That sounds like a dangerous position for a man called "Look Who's STALKING 2". And a dangerous position for a woman who can find herself being raped while saying, "no".
Amidst all this, women claim more independance these days, yet insist the man make the first move (there are some rare exceptions to this). Yet a woman going to her bishop claiming that a male member is stalking her because he approached her a few times is taken seriously and a man can be branded very badly. Also women will then "warn" other women to avoid him. Because men aren't so inclined to speak out about their problems and women are, we hear an exceptionally large amount about abuse of women and the dangers of being one. I don't wish to detract from any of these issues in making this post. However, if women want men to understand them then they should be plain in their communications. If a women is interested in a guy she would have far better chance by merely demonstrating the fact. Some guys just aren't going to be interested. I realise that marriages occur in spite of this concept being used, but what is the failure rate of this process in comparison to marriage occurring in spite of it?
Then there is the "I've got a boyfriend" routine. This is supposed to make the guy more interested. My response to this has always been to leave females with boyfriends alone, as I wouldn't want someone coming along and taking mine. Also it suggests that a female has made up her mind and chosen. Respecting her right to make this choice, I accept her as out of bounds from then on.
But all this deception isn't a good start to a relationship either.
The logic of these methods is like suggesting that to create a good relationship with children parents are best to pretend they aren't interested in them. Parents should just act like they don't care and children will become more interested in their parents. Somehow that doesn't sound right to me.
My wife has, of recent years, died (she died young) and eventually I am thrown back into this nonsense again. This has caused me to more deeply analyse this mess. Particularly as some females have used this process on me. I have been given the "no" and afterwards informed by them that I should have realised this meant "yes". That sounds like a dangerous position for a man called "Look Who's STALKING 2". And a dangerous position for a woman who can find herself being raped while saying, "no".
Amidst all this, women claim more independance these days, yet insist the man make the first move (there are some rare exceptions to this). Yet a woman going to her bishop claiming that a male member is stalking her because he approached her a few times is taken seriously and a man can be branded very badly. Also women will then "warn" other women to avoid him. Because men aren't so inclined to speak out about their problems and women are, we hear an exceptionally large amount about abuse of women and the dangers of being one. I don't wish to detract from any of these issues in making this post. However, if women want men to understand them then they should be plain in their communications. If a women is interested in a guy she would have far better chance by merely demonstrating the fact. Some guys just aren't going to be interested. I realise that marriages occur in spite of this concept being used, but what is the failure rate of this process in comparison to marriage occurring in spite of it?
Then there is the "I've got a boyfriend" routine. This is supposed to make the guy more interested. My response to this has always been to leave females with boyfriends alone, as I wouldn't want someone coming along and taking mine. Also it suggests that a female has made up her mind and chosen. Respecting her right to make this choice, I accept her as out of bounds from then on.
But all this deception isn't a good start to a relationship either.
Sunday, December 10, 2006
Evolution - Is it true? (A continuation from the last topic which "evolved" into a discussion of this subject, so I'd advise a view of comments there)
People are faced with a lot of claims that we evolved from apes, and that there has been an evolutionary creation over an enormous period of time. This would also propose a continued evolutionary process.
The claim of millions of years is brought into scriptural conflict by D&C 77:6 "... the hidden things of his economy concerning this earth during the seven thousand years of its continuance, or its temporal existence." This is proposing that the only period that the earth will spend in a temporal existence (where things live and die) is 7 thousand years. This is also expressed in D&C 77:12 " ...even so, in the beginning of the seventh thousand years will the Lord God sanctify the earth, and complete the salvation of man..."
The millenium is also referred to as the time for the earth to rest (being a sabbath rest). The millenium is a thousand years. So if it is a sabbath rest then that also points to only 6 thousand years as coming before it.
The question also is one of whether evolution is a sound scientific principle as so many believe it to be?
The claim of millions of years is brought into scriptural conflict by D&C 77:6 "... the hidden things of his economy concerning this earth during the seven thousand years of its continuance, or its temporal existence." This is proposing that the only period that the earth will spend in a temporal existence (where things live and die) is 7 thousand years. This is also expressed in D&C 77:12 " ...even so, in the beginning of the seventh thousand years will the Lord God sanctify the earth, and complete the salvation of man..."
The millenium is also referred to as the time for the earth to rest (being a sabbath rest). The millenium is a thousand years. So if it is a sabbath rest then that also points to only 6 thousand years as coming before it.
The question also is one of whether evolution is a sound scientific principle as so many believe it to be?
Friday, December 01, 2006
Make up your mind - Jesus Christ or the teachings of man?
I'd like to begin by quoting my old missionary discussions.
Today man endeavours to explain truth through science, literature, philosophy and religion. ... Knowing the truth frees us from the consequences of following false information that can come to us from other people. Evil men deliberately teach false ideas as if they were the truth. On the other hand sincere individuals might lead us astray unintentionally. Regardless of the reason the Lord has continually reminded us to rely upon revelation for truth, and not on the ideas of men. End of quote.
The scriptures present (by my interpretation) some things that appear to be challenged by these 4 above methods at times. Do we just bend the scriptures to fit in with them, or make a proper challenge of the claims? If the claims are not proven sufficiently, why should I even begin to decide that I need to remould my beliefs? If we just drop our belief at the slightest sign of some apparent conflict, where is our faith? Is it the world that forms our belief mixed with scripture?
Firstly, the scriptures present to me that God had a plan for us to come to this earth. We accepted that plan. Plain, obvious sense tells me that he did not then take millions of years getting on with it. We may have been slow learning how to create things (those who were involved), but millions of years is ridiculous.
Next, any animals living on past worlds were resurrected and therefore any bones found here are from this creation. Again the scriptures (to me) present that when the animals were made they were brought to Adam to name. Thus Adam was coexistent with them, not millions of years after.
Jesus Christ clearly spoke against anger, not in its favour. I have never seen a person angry at someone who had happiness in their heart from it.
Jesus Christ also spoke equally plainly against lust. I also am yet to see a person with true joy yet lust in their eyes. The enormous increase in pornography has not decreased rape, as some "experts" claimed it would.
New parenting methods haven't decreased youth violence, as also claimed.
Divorces haven't produced all these contented women. Most sit around winging about their ex.
(these latter 2 statements are generalisations, as should be noted by the terms used).
Anything that I feel challenges the scriptures needs challenging itself. If irrefutable evidence exists to prove the worlds claim, THEN I will re-examine my view of a particular scripture. And not before.
So far none of these 4 methods above has presented anything that has held ground, where it appears to me to be in conflict with scripture.
Today man endeavours to explain truth through science, literature, philosophy and religion. ... Knowing the truth frees us from the consequences of following false information that can come to us from other people. Evil men deliberately teach false ideas as if they were the truth. On the other hand sincere individuals might lead us astray unintentionally. Regardless of the reason the Lord has continually reminded us to rely upon revelation for truth, and not on the ideas of men. End of quote.
The scriptures present (by my interpretation) some things that appear to be challenged by these 4 above methods at times. Do we just bend the scriptures to fit in with them, or make a proper challenge of the claims? If the claims are not proven sufficiently, why should I even begin to decide that I need to remould my beliefs? If we just drop our belief at the slightest sign of some apparent conflict, where is our faith? Is it the world that forms our belief mixed with scripture?
Firstly, the scriptures present to me that God had a plan for us to come to this earth. We accepted that plan. Plain, obvious sense tells me that he did not then take millions of years getting on with it. We may have been slow learning how to create things (those who were involved), but millions of years is ridiculous.
Next, any animals living on past worlds were resurrected and therefore any bones found here are from this creation. Again the scriptures (to me) present that when the animals were made they were brought to Adam to name. Thus Adam was coexistent with them, not millions of years after.
Jesus Christ clearly spoke against anger, not in its favour. I have never seen a person angry at someone who had happiness in their heart from it.
Jesus Christ also spoke equally plainly against lust. I also am yet to see a person with true joy yet lust in their eyes. The enormous increase in pornography has not decreased rape, as some "experts" claimed it would.
New parenting methods haven't decreased youth violence, as also claimed.
Divorces haven't produced all these contented women. Most sit around winging about their ex.
(these latter 2 statements are generalisations, as should be noted by the terms used).
Anything that I feel challenges the scriptures needs challenging itself. If irrefutable evidence exists to prove the worlds claim, THEN I will re-examine my view of a particular scripture. And not before.
So far none of these 4 methods above has presented anything that has held ground, where it appears to me to be in conflict with scripture.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
