Sexual attraction is very individual. Some are attracted to fat people and others to thin. Some are attracted to tanned people and others to milky white. Some go for blondes and others redheads etc. Long hair or short? If kept in sensible proportion these things are basically harmless. And no one cares about which you choose. Yet homosexuality and lesbianism are a different matter, as they oppose the purpose of marriage.
There are claims of people being born that way, and all sorts of things. There’s talk of it being in the genes _ that a person is genetically that way inclined. Scientific studies have been conducted by groups for and against, and it has been scientifically proven and scientifically disproved. It depends on who paid for the "evidence" as to what the "evidence" is. This leaves us with no certainty from a scientific viewpoint.
In the 1950's guys went for girls that had arms slightly wider than the current trend. The Chinese went for fat women because they were rare: It demonstrated wealth. So why do we now go for thin women? How could this be genetic? We would have to have the majority of males with this sudden change in genes.
Women in the 1970's went for men with hairy chests. Now the look is hairless that attracts females. So have the females changed genes too?
Obviously not! Our thoughts and perceptions aren't brought about by genes. Our sexual desire for thin women or women's desire for hairless men is no more genetic than choosing to like males or females is. We form opinions and then either reject them or entrench them.
Once entrenched, however, they can be difficult to shift. And doing so will take some time.
There is much confusion due to all the hype and deception that is placed around. And some question whether it is alright to live homosexual or lesbian lifestyles. To get to the truth we need to approach the subject with fresh thinking, unencumbered by the propaganda.
Is there Evidence that Homosexuality and Lesbianism are Unnatural?
A look at animals gives us the answer. Observing them doesn’t reveal homosexual / lesbian relationships as a standard way of living. I was brought up in an area where I got to see many dogs wandering the streets. While I have seen dogs try to relieve their frustration, even on lampposts, whenever a male dog attempts anal penetration with another male the one underneath immediately throws the other off. If such were a natural thing then why didn’t I see homosexual and lesbian relationships with these dogs? Nor have I seen such with the many stray cats we had.
Some will quote claims of homosexual activity occurring with some animal in some distant land. I haven't seen any filmed evidence of this being true. Nor in regard lesbian activity. Yet even if rare cases exist, surely animals should have an equal ratio of lesbians and homosexuals as humans have, if it is natural. Why would it be limited to humans only or humans and some rare cases in the animal kingdom?
So we see that homosexuality and lesbianism are concepts produced by the human mind, not nature.
Now We've Established that it isn't Natural; Is it Alright Anyway?
God gives us commandments and instructions because he knows it best for US to follow the concepts: That WE will benefit from following it. From a Scriptural point of view it is clearly opposed by God. For example, under the Law of Moses the penalty was death (Leviticus 20:13).
Paul also presented that women and men were to refrain from such practices _
"For this reason God gave them up to vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use to that which is against nature: And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was due." (Romans 1:26-27).
So God has a reason for considering them extremely negative to the development of a person.
Further Thoughts
My son informed me that, in his class, one third of the females ventured into lesbian relationships at some point. He observed that one particular female's arrival propted this. Yet the majority of the girls eventually returned to heterosexual relationships. This demonstrates that lesbian behavior had been performed by choice, and ended by choice. This was clearly a mental, not biological decision.
I have done quite a lot of counselling of sex-offenders in jails. Of those dealing with children under the age of 8, almost all were either practicing homosexual or bi-sexual lifestyles. Of those strictly dealing with children over that age, that were habitual offenders (ie had been imprisoned at least twice for the same crime), almost all were practicing homosexual lifesyles; and the remaining few were practicing bi-sexual lifestyles. I would assume that somewhere there would be exceptions to that. I just haven't had the experience of working with any, in the many I've dealt with.
I'm not suggesting that all those practicing homosexuality are sex-offenders waiting to happen. I raise this point to present that sexaul distortion is definately associated with acts outside of that which God has stated to be the natural lifestyle. And those with one distortion are more likely to expand to another, regardless of what distortion we are discussing. So it is no good putting your head in the sand and saying that all's well with homosexuality and lesbianism.
One arguement is that they seem harmless and personal only. Those presently practicing homosexual and lesbian lifestyles may argue that the other person was willing. So where is the problem if no further distortion exists?
The problem can be looked at from two points of view. The first is what you are missing by not having a good heterosexual marriage. The second is the problems caused to a person (and the effect thereby on society). I'll deliberately start with the second, as it's the negative, and end up on the first, as it's the positive.
Any sexual distortion creates problems (even those of a heterosexual nature). God equally condemned to death those practising adultery. He condemns anything outside of sex within marriage. Why?
I read through the Scriptures and feel a great love for certain prophets. I have a great love for my mother, brother and stepfather. I love and admire deeply a woman who's happily married. I love her for her oneness with Heavenly Father and Jesus Christ, and she has been a great example to me. But I have no desire at all to have sex with her, because that isn't the nature of our relationship. Us loving people is a good and righteous thing. Sex is a good, righteous and natural thing for having children _ that is its purpose. In having sex with a husband or wife, a person is fulfilling this natural thing.
The Apostle Paul states that by following the flesh he could never be free, and following Christ as is required. He states that it was only by submitting the flesh to the will of his spirit and that of the Holy Spirit that he could have true freedom and follow Christ (Refer Romans 8:4-14).
The flesh will always lead astray. All sexual acts contrary to that which God ordained were born to the flesh, and servitude to its desires. Servitude to the flesh creates theft, greed, covetousness, murder, violence, sexual abuse, war, family break-ups and every other evil. Homosexuality and lesbianism are all destructive of the person, no matter who they are. Only ceasing these things will bring true happiness.
But to get to a better point _ what are people missing by not being in a good heterosexual marriage? Any married couple, by putting aside selfishness, can achieve a wonderful, spirit centred marriage. But this also requires a putting aside the desires of the flesh. The marriage must be centred on the spiritual and your relationship with the Father and Son. You must be listening to the Holy Ghost for guidance in the ways of truth. Can a righteous man or woman not totally love and admire a righteous person? And if this person is your marriage partner, living in a relationship as God stated (man - woman) there is no greater thing.
If your marriage isn't / wasn't like this it is because you aren't righteous, and therefore must change to become so. It's no good blaming the partner until personal righteousness is obtained (and then you'll know better than to blame someone else anyway). 1 Corinthians 10:13 tells us that any sin that tempts us is also given to everyone else, but that God won't allow you to be tempted beyond your ability to resist, and He'll make a way for you to get out of it. So no one HAS to sin. Only the devil wants you to believe such nonsense.
We all know that everybody has sinned at some time in our life (Romans 3:23, 1 John 1:8), but we don't need to continue doing so once we grab the point (1 John 2:15-17, 1 John 2:9-10). With a marriage centred around love and Gods' commandment to have children ("..be fruitful and multiply.." Gen 1:28) a perfect and whole union will exist. As the couple serve God and mankind together so their love and respect for each other will expand and expand.
Isn't this what anyone would want? Try God's way COMPLETELY for a year and see what you end up. God knows what He's talking about. That is the hardest lesson for us to learn. Children often think that they know better than their parents. We have the same problem with our Heavenly Father. Things SEEM different to the way He says they are, until we sincerely try it His way, and then we see in time that He's right. The law of tithing doesn't make logical sense until you do it sincerely wanting to follow God. Then watch what happens. Is it logical that you can give away 10% of what you have and end up better off (Ref Malachi 3:10-12)? The answer ought to be "no". But it works in spite of that, as I can tell you from personal experience.
Equally so do all of Gods' instructions work. All sexual acts outside of a righteous marriage situation will not bring you anything like the wonderful experience you can have, and that God wants you to have also.
If you have had this problem and want to overcome it, there is hope. Firstly you have to accept that you AREN'T genetically predispositioned to practice homosexual or lesbian lifestyles. As surely as no-one is predispositioned to go for blondes. You are only mentally predispositioned by your experiences. And therefore all you have to do is re-program your thinking.
So don't give up just because you still have incorrect orientations after a month. It can take years. But I can assure you that as surely as people give up lust completely, so orientations can be changed.
Monday, March 15, 2010
Thursday, February 25, 2010
Media Reporting and Justice - Just Witch-Hunting?
At many stages of man's existence upon the earth there have been what we term "witch-hunts" against some particular type of crime, race or idea. Not only did the early Saints have to face this, but even in these latter-days such persecution has cost the lives of Latter-Day Saints (such as Joseph and Hyrum Smith).
Today much hysteria and witch-hunt logic exists relative to certain serious crimes. Such things as drug dealing and paedophilia can be used to create strong feelings of anger against proposed perpetrators. Such anger is used by Satan to distort truth and cause many innocent men (mostly men cop this) to suffer as a consequence.
I would like to quote the following media article. I would say that this article is far fairer than any other I have read on the subject. So I feel it the best to use for examination of the more subtle ways that people can be influenced. The report even gives some of the views of both sides. I have added the paragraph numbers for convenience.
******************************************************
Charges Dropped Against Man Accused of Sex Abuse
October 16th, 2007 @ 6:03pm
Sandra Yi and Andrew Adams Reporting
[1] On the day a man was supposed to go on trial for sexually abusing two young girls, prosecutors dropped the charges.
[2] Prosecutors didn't think they could convince a jury to convict.
[3] The girls' family expressed anger about the turn in the case, calling it an injustice. Michelle Galloway, a relative of the young girls, said, "These children have not been protected by the state of Utah, by the prosecutors."
[4] Galloway has a calendar that documents the time and place of each alleged sexual assault against the two little girls by 50-year-old Dan Kaighn. The girls' mother kept track of it. Galloway says, "This is imprinted in their minds and on their souls, so they will never forget entirely, and it has impacted every day of their lives."
[5] Prosecutors said the girls' stories became too vague when questioned by other attorneys; that's one reason they decided to drop the case.
[6] Randy Kennard, with the Utah County Attorney's Office, says, "I would be the last one to say that it is not possible these crimes didn't occur. But we have an ethical responsibility to not pursue charges unless we have a reasonable belief that we can succeed in a jury trial."
[7] The girls first told their mother they were being abused in 2002, but there wasn't enough evidence to pursue charges.
[8] Two years later, a second investigation led to Kaighn's arrest. The case dragged on in court for three years. The girls' relatives say that made it hard for the girls, who are now 7 and 8 years old, to remember all the details.
[9] Kaighn has always denied the allegations and passed two polygraph tests. Michael Esplin, Kaighn's attorney, said, "He's had trouble getting a job with allegations like this. His options are limited in terms of ... teaching is out."
[10] He says Kaighn is trying to get his life back. The girls' family says they have no choice but to try and move on too. Their focus now is to protect them and other children.
[11] Galloway says, "Unfortunately, we cannot trust what's beyond our reach, so we have to know where our children are, who they are with and what's happening to them."
[12] Kaighn, who was once a teacher, is now working as a waiter in another state.
[13] The girls' family has a protective order against him.
**********************************************************
You may feel this is a very unbiased report. But it is poorly written if we are to remain unbiased. The first paragraph can present that the accused is guilty. It states that the man was supposed to go on trial for sexually abusing two young girls. This later part presents an inference that the crime happened. Also the word "supposed" presents that he got away with something that should have occurred.
This would be better stated that there had been a desire to make a trial in regard claims that a man had sexually abused two young girls.
The second paragraph should state, "Prosecutors didn't feel there was enough evidence to prove that the crimes occurred."
The third paragraph suggests that the case had actually turned by this change in stance of the Lawyers. This makes the inference that things were going well before.
In the fourth paragraph we are informed that the mother and a relative kept a diary of the proposed abuse. Are we serious? What was the mother doing? Did she go along and watch the abuse and record it in her diary as it was happening? If so, she should be going to jail herself.
In this paragraph this relative is quoted as saying, "this is imprinted in their minds and on their souls..." Yet in the next paragraph it says, "Prosecutors said the girls' stories became too vague when questioned by other attorneys." And paragraph 8 states, "The girls' relatives say that made it hard for the girls, ... to remember all the details." This seems strange for acts that are supposedly "imprinted in their minds." Good sounding journalism, but what about unbiased reporting?
In paragraph 6 we have Randy Kennard quoted as saying that he has to admit that it isn't impossible for the man to be innocent, yet then claiming they don't feel confident that they can show that he is guilty. What rubbish! If there is insufficient evidence to prove the case how can he claim it merely isn't impossible that he is innocent? If there is so little evidence, how is he so convinced that he is guilty? I'm glad he's not my defence lawyer.
The next paragraph (7) presents the idea that the girls claims are true, in the way it is written.
Perhaps paragraph 8 may have been less biased had it pointed out that the jury obviously didn't find the girls testimonies as being consistent; else he would have been convicted. The jury obviously felt the stories may have been contrived.
Paragraph 11 has an interesting quote from Galloway, again. She says, "we have to know where our children are, who they are with and what's happening to them." This is a strange statement considering that the mother says she not only knew where they were but was recording the details.
The article both starts and ends with negatives toward the accused (paragraphs 1 and 13).
I rest my case.
One of the many problems with this type of reporting is that it incites vigilantes to go out and exact "Justice." I remember the situation of a man in jail of about 45. He was murdered by 2 young inmates who had concluded that he must have been a paedophile. There were some of such in that prison. But this man was in for drink driving. This is typical of Satan. He has persuaded them to murder this man who hadn't committed such a crime. We must be careful of what we accept as input. Trial by media is not a trial at all.
Today much hysteria and witch-hunt logic exists relative to certain serious crimes. Such things as drug dealing and paedophilia can be used to create strong feelings of anger against proposed perpetrators. Such anger is used by Satan to distort truth and cause many innocent men (mostly men cop this) to suffer as a consequence.
I would like to quote the following media article. I would say that this article is far fairer than any other I have read on the subject. So I feel it the best to use for examination of the more subtle ways that people can be influenced. The report even gives some of the views of both sides. I have added the paragraph numbers for convenience.
******************************************************
Charges Dropped Against Man Accused of Sex Abuse
October 16th, 2007 @ 6:03pm
Sandra Yi and Andrew Adams Reporting
[1] On the day a man was supposed to go on trial for sexually abusing two young girls, prosecutors dropped the charges.
[2] Prosecutors didn't think they could convince a jury to convict.
[3] The girls' family expressed anger about the turn in the case, calling it an injustice. Michelle Galloway, a relative of the young girls, said, "These children have not been protected by the state of Utah, by the prosecutors."
[4] Galloway has a calendar that documents the time and place of each alleged sexual assault against the two little girls by 50-year-old Dan Kaighn. The girls' mother kept track of it. Galloway says, "This is imprinted in their minds and on their souls, so they will never forget entirely, and it has impacted every day of their lives."
[5] Prosecutors said the girls' stories became too vague when questioned by other attorneys; that's one reason they decided to drop the case.
[6] Randy Kennard, with the Utah County Attorney's Office, says, "I would be the last one to say that it is not possible these crimes didn't occur. But we have an ethical responsibility to not pursue charges unless we have a reasonable belief that we can succeed in a jury trial."
[7] The girls first told their mother they were being abused in 2002, but there wasn't enough evidence to pursue charges.
[8] Two years later, a second investigation led to Kaighn's arrest. The case dragged on in court for three years. The girls' relatives say that made it hard for the girls, who are now 7 and 8 years old, to remember all the details.
[9] Kaighn has always denied the allegations and passed two polygraph tests. Michael Esplin, Kaighn's attorney, said, "He's had trouble getting a job with allegations like this. His options are limited in terms of ... teaching is out."
[10] He says Kaighn is trying to get his life back. The girls' family says they have no choice but to try and move on too. Their focus now is to protect them and other children.
[11] Galloway says, "Unfortunately, we cannot trust what's beyond our reach, so we have to know where our children are, who they are with and what's happening to them."
[12] Kaighn, who was once a teacher, is now working as a waiter in another state.
[13] The girls' family has a protective order against him.
**********************************************************
You may feel this is a very unbiased report. But it is poorly written if we are to remain unbiased. The first paragraph can present that the accused is guilty. It states that the man was supposed to go on trial for sexually abusing two young girls. This later part presents an inference that the crime happened. Also the word "supposed" presents that he got away with something that should have occurred.
This would be better stated that there had been a desire to make a trial in regard claims that a man had sexually abused two young girls.
The second paragraph should state, "Prosecutors didn't feel there was enough evidence to prove that the crimes occurred."
The third paragraph suggests that the case had actually turned by this change in stance of the Lawyers. This makes the inference that things were going well before.
In the fourth paragraph we are informed that the mother and a relative kept a diary of the proposed abuse. Are we serious? What was the mother doing? Did she go along and watch the abuse and record it in her diary as it was happening? If so, she should be going to jail herself.
In this paragraph this relative is quoted as saying, "this is imprinted in their minds and on their souls..." Yet in the next paragraph it says, "Prosecutors said the girls' stories became too vague when questioned by other attorneys." And paragraph 8 states, "The girls' relatives say that made it hard for the girls, ... to remember all the details." This seems strange for acts that are supposedly "imprinted in their minds." Good sounding journalism, but what about unbiased reporting?
In paragraph 6 we have Randy Kennard quoted as saying that he has to admit that it isn't impossible for the man to be innocent, yet then claiming they don't feel confident that they can show that he is guilty. What rubbish! If there is insufficient evidence to prove the case how can he claim it merely isn't impossible that he is innocent? If there is so little evidence, how is he so convinced that he is guilty? I'm glad he's not my defence lawyer.
The next paragraph (7) presents the idea that the girls claims are true, in the way it is written.
Perhaps paragraph 8 may have been less biased had it pointed out that the jury obviously didn't find the girls testimonies as being consistent; else he would have been convicted. The jury obviously felt the stories may have been contrived.
Paragraph 11 has an interesting quote from Galloway, again. She says, "we have to know where our children are, who they are with and what's happening to them." This is a strange statement considering that the mother says she not only knew where they were but was recording the details.
The article both starts and ends with negatives toward the accused (paragraphs 1 and 13).
I rest my case.
One of the many problems with this type of reporting is that it incites vigilantes to go out and exact "Justice." I remember the situation of a man in jail of about 45. He was murdered by 2 young inmates who had concluded that he must have been a paedophile. There were some of such in that prison. But this man was in for drink driving. This is typical of Satan. He has persuaded them to murder this man who hadn't committed such a crime. We must be careful of what we accept as input. Trial by media is not a trial at all.
Wednesday, February 10, 2010
Under What Circumstances Should Children Not Obey Parents?
In the Law given to Moses we have the 10 Commandments telling us (among other things) _
"Honour your father and your mother: that your days may be long in the land which the Lord your God gave you." Exodus 20:12
In addition to this Paul informs us _
"Children, obey your parents in the Lord: for this is right. Honour your father and mother; (which is the first commandment with promise)." Eph 6:1-2
Yet Christ states _
"Don't think that I came to send peace on earth: I didn't come to send peace, but a sword. For I came to set a man at variance against his father, the daughter against her mother... And a man's foes will be those of his own household." Matt 10:34-36
The Old Testament qualifies what honoring parents actually entails. Or at least it qualifies what it isn't. Cursing your parents or being an alcoholic and glutton, against the parents instructions, are cited as disobedience to this commandment. And the penalty for such was death (serious stuff)(Exod 21:17)(Deut 21:18-21).
But this is all that is stated in qualifying how the commandment was intended to be taken.
Paul's statement is a bit more to the point, by using the term "obey." Though he qualifies it by saying that the parents must be "in the Lord." And we may interpret Christ's statement to imply that the "variance" would be more likely to be with non-member parents. Thus they certain couldn't be said to be "in the Lord."
When Lamoni refused to obey his father's command to kill Ammon, Ammon didn't dispute Lamoni's right to disobey his parent's request (Alma 20:14-15).
Abraham chapter 1 implies that Abraham has disobeyed his father by refusing to turn to idol worship.
While these might seem obvious, it demonstrates that the idea of being obedient to parents has a lot of flexability within it; from a spiritual perspective, at least.
While both my mother and step-father are in the church, I wouldn't accept to have them tell me what to do in regard spiritual or temporal things. In fact sometimes they have advised me contrary to what the Spirit has advised. I will listen to their counsel. But then I would turn to the Spirit for understanding of what I should do. And we should be led of the Spirit if we wish to obtain eternal life (D&C 45:57, 42:61, 4th Article of Faith).
It should also be noted that in making his statement Paul uses the term "children." So what was a "child" to Paul?
Historic writings and the Bible seem to point to the age of 12 as the age of becoming an adult. Egyptians at the time of Ankenaten and Tutankamen were marrying at around 13. Such still occurs in many countries now. Christ's experience at the temple at 12 seems to be quoted as some kind of coming of age (though Luke mentioned that Jesus continued to honor the commandment at that point, and not just obey his Father [God])(Luke 2:51).
Moses talked of man being the head of the home in a marriage. Moses then states _
"Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave to his wife: And they shall be one flesh." (Gen 2:24)
So the woman has left her parent's authority and come under her husband's. And he has left his parents and has to govern his family himself. This seems to legally end the commandment to honor parents (not that there is anything wrong with giving ear to righteous parents thereafter).
We, therefore, would have to conclude that Paul's reference to "children" implied those unmarried. This makes sense when we consider that the word "woman" and the word "wife" are exactly the same word in both the Hebrew and Greek (demonstrating that marriage and womanhood go together).
Yet in our society people aren't marrying until later ages. People often don't get married until 20+. So Paul's advice becomes a little bit difficult, as we have young adults (particularly by Paul's standard of age) still at home with their parents.
Housework requires doing. All living under the same roof must do their share. And as the patriarch in the home this is for the father to delegate. Financial responsibility is placed upon the young person as they receive employment, to assist with living expenses in the home. And consideration should be given, by young people, to parents, to let them know where they are going and when they will be home: This is a common courtesy that even parents would be doing with each other.
But young people must be given freedom of religion and emotional expression, where such doesn't conflict with the rights of others, and those areas mentioned in the paragraph above.
In my experiences I have seen 2 sides to this problem of parents and their children relative to honoring parents. Firstly I have seen where children need holding back. And secondly I have seen where parents suppress their children, using this commandment to authorise their power to suppress.
This latter is where I re-emphasise my statement in the second last paragraph that freedom of religion (including all forms of religious expression) and emotion (including all forms of emotional expression) must be given, where such doesn't conflict with the rights of others.
"Honour your father and your mother: that your days may be long in the land which the Lord your God gave you." Exodus 20:12
In addition to this Paul informs us _
"Children, obey your parents in the Lord: for this is right. Honour your father and mother; (which is the first commandment with promise)." Eph 6:1-2
Yet Christ states _
"Don't think that I came to send peace on earth: I didn't come to send peace, but a sword. For I came to set a man at variance against his father, the daughter against her mother... And a man's foes will be those of his own household." Matt 10:34-36
The Old Testament qualifies what honoring parents actually entails. Or at least it qualifies what it isn't. Cursing your parents or being an alcoholic and glutton, against the parents instructions, are cited as disobedience to this commandment. And the penalty for such was death (serious stuff)(Exod 21:17)(Deut 21:18-21).
But this is all that is stated in qualifying how the commandment was intended to be taken.
Paul's statement is a bit more to the point, by using the term "obey." Though he qualifies it by saying that the parents must be "in the Lord." And we may interpret Christ's statement to imply that the "variance" would be more likely to be with non-member parents. Thus they certain couldn't be said to be "in the Lord."
When Lamoni refused to obey his father's command to kill Ammon, Ammon didn't dispute Lamoni's right to disobey his parent's request (Alma 20:14-15).
Abraham chapter 1 implies that Abraham has disobeyed his father by refusing to turn to idol worship.
While these might seem obvious, it demonstrates that the idea of being obedient to parents has a lot of flexability within it; from a spiritual perspective, at least.
While both my mother and step-father are in the church, I wouldn't accept to have them tell me what to do in regard spiritual or temporal things. In fact sometimes they have advised me contrary to what the Spirit has advised. I will listen to their counsel. But then I would turn to the Spirit for understanding of what I should do. And we should be led of the Spirit if we wish to obtain eternal life (D&C 45:57, 42:61, 4th Article of Faith).
It should also be noted that in making his statement Paul uses the term "children." So what was a "child" to Paul?
Historic writings and the Bible seem to point to the age of 12 as the age of becoming an adult. Egyptians at the time of Ankenaten and Tutankamen were marrying at around 13. Such still occurs in many countries now. Christ's experience at the temple at 12 seems to be quoted as some kind of coming of age (though Luke mentioned that Jesus continued to honor the commandment at that point, and not just obey his Father [God])(Luke 2:51).
Moses talked of man being the head of the home in a marriage. Moses then states _
"Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave to his wife: And they shall be one flesh." (Gen 2:24)
So the woman has left her parent's authority and come under her husband's. And he has left his parents and has to govern his family himself. This seems to legally end the commandment to honor parents (not that there is anything wrong with giving ear to righteous parents thereafter).
We, therefore, would have to conclude that Paul's reference to "children" implied those unmarried. This makes sense when we consider that the word "woman" and the word "wife" are exactly the same word in both the Hebrew and Greek (demonstrating that marriage and womanhood go together).
Yet in our society people aren't marrying until later ages. People often don't get married until 20+. So Paul's advice becomes a little bit difficult, as we have young adults (particularly by Paul's standard of age) still at home with their parents.
Housework requires doing. All living under the same roof must do their share. And as the patriarch in the home this is for the father to delegate. Financial responsibility is placed upon the young person as they receive employment, to assist with living expenses in the home. And consideration should be given, by young people, to parents, to let them know where they are going and when they will be home: This is a common courtesy that even parents would be doing with each other.
But young people must be given freedom of religion and emotional expression, where such doesn't conflict with the rights of others, and those areas mentioned in the paragraph above.
In my experiences I have seen 2 sides to this problem of parents and their children relative to honoring parents. Firstly I have seen where children need holding back. And secondly I have seen where parents suppress their children, using this commandment to authorise their power to suppress.
This latter is where I re-emphasise my statement in the second last paragraph that freedom of religion (including all forms of religious expression) and emotion (including all forms of emotional expression) must be given, where such doesn't conflict with the rights of others.
Wednesday, February 03, 2010
Defending the Church
Unfortunately money is to be made from writing material against churches _ "bash material". Though I could easily write such stuff myself, how could I ever face God after having done so (apart from the spiritual damage to myself)? Many who write these things do so in total ignorance, and are just out for the money. There are, however, some few (and I hope for their sake it's very few) who do it knowing the truth but deliberately blinding themselves to that testimony; for those we should feel saddened.
The first thing most writers of bash material attempt to do is to appear knowledgeable of the subject. This means quoting statistics about the church. Often these statistics are incredibly out of date, and one gets the feeling from reading on that the person has taken other bash material and just taken bits from each. Most of the bash material, that I have read against churches, has been written by seemingly ignorant people.
The next thing done in most cases is the writer praises certain aspects of the church, such as no smoking, or drinking of alcohol, the sports and youth programs, unpaid missionaries, the genealogical facilities, etc. The purpose in this is to make the writer sound as if they are without prejudice. This is often mingled with the first step in smaller or more direct publications. Some bash material will continue scattering this approach throughout the publication in order to remain sounding unprejudiced.
First Things To Look For
Having stated these techniques let's look at some generalisations about the material. Firstly you will find the arguments have more holes in them than Swiss cheese. The larger the material, the more the contradictions contained therein. A classic is the claim I have often read, that we don't believe in Jesus Christ. Yet the same material will go on to state that Joseph Smith claimed that God the Father and Jesus Christ appeared to him. Some will go on further to state that The Book of Mormon claims that this same person we supposedly don't believe in (that is Jesus Christ) visited the Americas. Any thinking person should be able to see from these latter two claims that (a.) We believe that He lived, (b.) That He still does, (c.) That He has power therefore over death, and, (d.) Is in special favour with The Father.
I have also seen claimed that Joseph Smiths' mother was a Gipsy, and that he was a gold digger. Yet the same publications will often go on to state that the family were on a farm at the time of the first vision. This is an unusual place for Gipsies and gold diggers. My encyclopaedia tells me that Gipsies did not arrive in North America till the late 1800's_ making her about 100 years before her time (though one could not expect the average reader to be aware of that).
If the writer has been a member of the church they will often exaggerate their involvement by quoting general authorities they've met as being "friends".
Innuendo and misrepresentation are what makes up almost the whole material in smaller publications. And/or it will go for the shock/scare approach.
Never be conned by the pamphlet or another person into adopting a point of view that it/they tell you Mormons have. To quote an example of this: While on my mission my companion and I had opportunity to bare our testimony before about a third of a minister's congregation. Before we started however, the minister butted in and said to them, "by the way they do this because they believe that this testimony will be brought up against you at the judgement". My companion then went on to bare his testimony in that attitude, instead of with love and concern. What the minister said was correct _ we do believe that the testimony will be brought against them in the judgement; but in most cases, testimony is given so that people may feel it's truth and be converted. If you do not like the way the church doctrine is defined, redefine it. If someone says, "Well that's what this material is saying," Then you say that once they are more familiar with Christ's' doctrine, that they will come to sense what is wrong with it, (assuming that you cannot define what is wrong with it).
The main way this problem arises is in the material's automatic assumption that you must defend every word stated anywhere, by any general authority. In fact some will quote statements they made before they even became one.
What Do You Really Need To Defend
In 1890, and in 1978 declarations were put before the general membership of the church, and were sustained as Scripture. Sections 137 and 138 of the Doctrine and Covenants have recently gone through the same process. These joined the rest of the Scriptures sustained by the general membership in our Standard Works, ie. The Bible, The Book of Mormon, The Doctrine and Covenants, and The Pearl of Great Price. As stated by President Harold B. Lee, "These are the standard by which we judge". He goes on further to state that any statement made that is not couched and supported by the standard works should only be regarded as opinion, regardless of the position of the man who said it. These statements do not mean that the prophet doesn't receive revelation. What it means is that you should not attempt to defend anything other than what you know to be accepted by the general church membership as Scripture ie. The Standard Works.
If you attempt to defend anything else, (1.) You are being unfair to the church membership; and (2.) You will come unstuck, as you find yourself trying to defend more and more obscure books, and by people who may not even have been general authorities (at all, or when they wrote them). You probably do not know the name of every general authority who's lived, and the people to whom you are speaking wouldn't either. I remember an instance when some members were listening to some bash material and circumstances had me there to defend the church. The person from another church said, "well Brigham Young said that his discourses are as good as Scripture". To which the Holy Ghost inspired me with the reply, "If I say something is as good as done, is it done or not?". The man said something about that not being much of an answer and quoted Brigham Young again, to which the Holy Ghost said to again give the same response. Don't be conned by someone into thinking your answer isn't satisfactory. The Standard Works are all you should, or need to defend, and you stick by that regardless of what they say, EVEN IF THE STATEMENT IS EASY TO DEFEND. If you defend one such statement, you have shifted ground. DON'T
Personal Preparation
The first thing to know is that there is an answer to every argument. Be assured of that. If you don't happen to know what it is don't be afraid to say, "well I don't know everything yet. I know there is an answer to your question, as the church is true, but I do not at this time know what it is". Let me add though that to date I have never had to say that, in my many experiences, and some going for 2-3 hours. This I mention for two reasons. Both of which are important to remember. (1.) That there truly is an answer to every argument against the church. And, (2.) That you should seek, and pray for the guidance of the Holy Ghost, in any spiritual endeavour. If you feel you have trouble getting things from the Holy Ghost, I would suggest reading Luke 11: 5 -13.
How much more would God give the Holy Spirit to one attempting to serve another?
Do not feel you have to have all the answers before you can answer claims against the church. However it would make your job a lot easier if you read the Standard Works you are attempting to defend. So an important part is regular personal Scripture study. Think about what you read so it becomes alive to you, and part of you _ you can see it's fulfilment around you; those who hate are not happy, those who love have the peace inside Christ promised, etc.
Plant firmly in your mind that you aren't there to argue your point with contention. The Holy Ghost will have difficulty communicating with you if you are contentious. If you find yourself feeling irate in a conversation of this nature recognise that you are probably irate at the ignorance, lies, and deceit. So put your interest in the person's personal welfare back firmly as first thought. Then the Holy Ghost will come to you as you're feeling love and concern.
Church History
This is the easiest area to deal with, yet some bash material only contains allegations about church leaders, and other notable (and sometimes some obscure, I should add) characters of church history. Many and varied are the allegations.
We have the claim that the three witnesses denied that they saw the gold plates. Yet we have witness that they did not.
A man was paid a large sum of money to go around and find people to sign affidavits against Joseph Smith. Some (at least) received money to sign them _ compensation for their time (though Joseph Smith obtained enough real enemies). Yet on the other hand we have witness of great people who highly praised him. The same goes for other church leaders. So the arguments are meaningless. Nothing can be resolved, or proven as there is as much for, as against. Neither side can prove the truth of either side of the testimonies. That stories, and testimonies exist against him would only stand as evidence that he was called of God, rather than the other way. We see evidence of this in the New Testament where the guards were bribed to claim that the apostles had come and taken the body of Jesus (Matt 28:12 -13). This evidence, from the guards, was used to make the apostles look like thieves, and liars. Verse 15 of that chapter states that the story against them stuck _ it did not go away. Today it would be the kind of thing put in bash pamphlets, and books. So while the stories and testimonies for and against church leaders, past and present, may leave us nowhere, these opposing testimonies do serve as a necessary sign in their favour. Jesus Christ clearly stated that all manner of evil would be said against His followers (eg. Matt 10:25). If you lived at the time of Christ what could you say in defence against these allegations against His apostles? So when faced with any allegations about Joseph Smith, Brigham Young, etc., regarding anything they supposedly did, you just say that the arguments are meaningless as nothing can be proven either for, or against. I found this out from experience. Even having answered all the arguments put to me against Brigham Young, and Joseph Smith, people would say, "Well your story of those events is different to those stated in this book." Therefore they were left unsure. So the best thing is to just tell them why it is a meaningless discussion and suggest that your discussion should turn to something where things can be resolved by someone earnestly seeking the truth.
The most important tool you need for such conversations is the Holy Ghost. Having him there you will be able to answer anything.
The first thing most writers of bash material attempt to do is to appear knowledgeable of the subject. This means quoting statistics about the church. Often these statistics are incredibly out of date, and one gets the feeling from reading on that the person has taken other bash material and just taken bits from each. Most of the bash material, that I have read against churches, has been written by seemingly ignorant people.
The next thing done in most cases is the writer praises certain aspects of the church, such as no smoking, or drinking of alcohol, the sports and youth programs, unpaid missionaries, the genealogical facilities, etc. The purpose in this is to make the writer sound as if they are without prejudice. This is often mingled with the first step in smaller or more direct publications. Some bash material will continue scattering this approach throughout the publication in order to remain sounding unprejudiced.
First Things To Look For
Having stated these techniques let's look at some generalisations about the material. Firstly you will find the arguments have more holes in them than Swiss cheese. The larger the material, the more the contradictions contained therein. A classic is the claim I have often read, that we don't believe in Jesus Christ. Yet the same material will go on to state that Joseph Smith claimed that God the Father and Jesus Christ appeared to him. Some will go on further to state that The Book of Mormon claims that this same person we supposedly don't believe in (that is Jesus Christ) visited the Americas. Any thinking person should be able to see from these latter two claims that (a.) We believe that He lived, (b.) That He still does, (c.) That He has power therefore over death, and, (d.) Is in special favour with The Father.
I have also seen claimed that Joseph Smiths' mother was a Gipsy, and that he was a gold digger. Yet the same publications will often go on to state that the family were on a farm at the time of the first vision. This is an unusual place for Gipsies and gold diggers. My encyclopaedia tells me that Gipsies did not arrive in North America till the late 1800's_ making her about 100 years before her time (though one could not expect the average reader to be aware of that).
If the writer has been a member of the church they will often exaggerate their involvement by quoting general authorities they've met as being "friends".
Innuendo and misrepresentation are what makes up almost the whole material in smaller publications. And/or it will go for the shock/scare approach.
Never be conned by the pamphlet or another person into adopting a point of view that it/they tell you Mormons have. To quote an example of this: While on my mission my companion and I had opportunity to bare our testimony before about a third of a minister's congregation. Before we started however, the minister butted in and said to them, "by the way they do this because they believe that this testimony will be brought up against you at the judgement". My companion then went on to bare his testimony in that attitude, instead of with love and concern. What the minister said was correct _ we do believe that the testimony will be brought against them in the judgement; but in most cases, testimony is given so that people may feel it's truth and be converted. If you do not like the way the church doctrine is defined, redefine it. If someone says, "Well that's what this material is saying," Then you say that once they are more familiar with Christ's' doctrine, that they will come to sense what is wrong with it, (assuming that you cannot define what is wrong with it).
The main way this problem arises is in the material's automatic assumption that you must defend every word stated anywhere, by any general authority. In fact some will quote statements they made before they even became one.
What Do You Really Need To Defend
In 1890, and in 1978 declarations were put before the general membership of the church, and were sustained as Scripture. Sections 137 and 138 of the Doctrine and Covenants have recently gone through the same process. These joined the rest of the Scriptures sustained by the general membership in our Standard Works, ie. The Bible, The Book of Mormon, The Doctrine and Covenants, and The Pearl of Great Price. As stated by President Harold B. Lee, "These are the standard by which we judge". He goes on further to state that any statement made that is not couched and supported by the standard works should only be regarded as opinion, regardless of the position of the man who said it. These statements do not mean that the prophet doesn't receive revelation. What it means is that you should not attempt to defend anything other than what you know to be accepted by the general church membership as Scripture ie. The Standard Works.
If you attempt to defend anything else, (1.) You are being unfair to the church membership; and (2.) You will come unstuck, as you find yourself trying to defend more and more obscure books, and by people who may not even have been general authorities (at all, or when they wrote them). You probably do not know the name of every general authority who's lived, and the people to whom you are speaking wouldn't either. I remember an instance when some members were listening to some bash material and circumstances had me there to defend the church. The person from another church said, "well Brigham Young said that his discourses are as good as Scripture". To which the Holy Ghost inspired me with the reply, "If I say something is as good as done, is it done or not?". The man said something about that not being much of an answer and quoted Brigham Young again, to which the Holy Ghost said to again give the same response. Don't be conned by someone into thinking your answer isn't satisfactory. The Standard Works are all you should, or need to defend, and you stick by that regardless of what they say, EVEN IF THE STATEMENT IS EASY TO DEFEND. If you defend one such statement, you have shifted ground. DON'T
Personal Preparation
The first thing to know is that there is an answer to every argument. Be assured of that. If you don't happen to know what it is don't be afraid to say, "well I don't know everything yet. I know there is an answer to your question, as the church is true, but I do not at this time know what it is". Let me add though that to date I have never had to say that, in my many experiences, and some going for 2-3 hours. This I mention for two reasons. Both of which are important to remember. (1.) That there truly is an answer to every argument against the church. And, (2.) That you should seek, and pray for the guidance of the Holy Ghost, in any spiritual endeavour. If you feel you have trouble getting things from the Holy Ghost, I would suggest reading Luke 11: 5 -13.
How much more would God give the Holy Spirit to one attempting to serve another?
Do not feel you have to have all the answers before you can answer claims against the church. However it would make your job a lot easier if you read the Standard Works you are attempting to defend. So an important part is regular personal Scripture study. Think about what you read so it becomes alive to you, and part of you _ you can see it's fulfilment around you; those who hate are not happy, those who love have the peace inside Christ promised, etc.
Plant firmly in your mind that you aren't there to argue your point with contention. The Holy Ghost will have difficulty communicating with you if you are contentious. If you find yourself feeling irate in a conversation of this nature recognise that you are probably irate at the ignorance, lies, and deceit. So put your interest in the person's personal welfare back firmly as first thought. Then the Holy Ghost will come to you as you're feeling love and concern.
Church History
This is the easiest area to deal with, yet some bash material only contains allegations about church leaders, and other notable (and sometimes some obscure, I should add) characters of church history. Many and varied are the allegations.
We have the claim that the three witnesses denied that they saw the gold plates. Yet we have witness that they did not.
A man was paid a large sum of money to go around and find people to sign affidavits against Joseph Smith. Some (at least) received money to sign them _ compensation for their time (though Joseph Smith obtained enough real enemies). Yet on the other hand we have witness of great people who highly praised him. The same goes for other church leaders. So the arguments are meaningless. Nothing can be resolved, or proven as there is as much for, as against. Neither side can prove the truth of either side of the testimonies. That stories, and testimonies exist against him would only stand as evidence that he was called of God, rather than the other way. We see evidence of this in the New Testament where the guards were bribed to claim that the apostles had come and taken the body of Jesus (Matt 28:12 -13). This evidence, from the guards, was used to make the apostles look like thieves, and liars. Verse 15 of that chapter states that the story against them stuck _ it did not go away. Today it would be the kind of thing put in bash pamphlets, and books. So while the stories and testimonies for and against church leaders, past and present, may leave us nowhere, these opposing testimonies do serve as a necessary sign in their favour. Jesus Christ clearly stated that all manner of evil would be said against His followers (eg. Matt 10:25). If you lived at the time of Christ what could you say in defence against these allegations against His apostles? So when faced with any allegations about Joseph Smith, Brigham Young, etc., regarding anything they supposedly did, you just say that the arguments are meaningless as nothing can be proven either for, or against. I found this out from experience. Even having answered all the arguments put to me against Brigham Young, and Joseph Smith, people would say, "Well your story of those events is different to those stated in this book." Therefore they were left unsure. So the best thing is to just tell them why it is a meaningless discussion and suggest that your discussion should turn to something where things can be resolved by someone earnestly seeking the truth.
The most important tool you need for such conversations is the Holy Ghost. Having him there you will be able to answer anything.
Friday, January 15, 2010
Does the Bible Teach a Pre-existence of Our Spirit?
Protestantism and Catholicism teach that we came into existence, as a being, somewhere between conception and birth. They conclude that our inner being is an invention by God.
In support of this claim they will quote Gen 2:7 _
"And the Lord God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul."
They claim that the word "soul" must mean our inner being. However a look at Gen 19:19-20 brings this into doubt. Here we have Lot being told to flee before the destruction of the whole area and all cities within. Lot says _
"Look now, your servant [me] has found grace in your sight, and you have magnified your mercy, which you have shown to me in saving my life; and I cannot escape to the mountain, in case some evil takes me, and I die: Look now, this city is near for me to flee to, and it is a little one: Oh, let me escape there, (isn't it only a little one?) and my soul shall live."
So lot has been worried that he would be killed if going to the mountain. And requests refuge in a small city so his SOUL shall live. Obviously he's saying his soul includes his body. Therefore the quote in Gen 2:7 can't be used to claim the invention of our inner being, but only the beginning of a living human: One that dies at death.
Also note that Abraham asked Sarah, his wife, to say she was his sister so that he wouldn't be killed when they went to Egypt _
"Say, I pray you, that you are my sister: so that it may be well with me for your sake; and my soul shall live because of you."
This is also pointing out that the soul would die if he were killed. Yet our inner being goes on after death. So only we as a human being have come into existence between conception and birth, not our spirit.
Looking at the Bible, then, what does it say in regard to when we, as an entity, began to exist?
I've not found the Bible giving us an answer on that. But it does state that we existed before coming here. There are several texts that clearly demonstrate that man existed before. So often quoted we see the one in Jeremiah.
"Before I formed you in the belly I knew you, and before you came forth out of the womb I sanctified you, and I ordained you a prophet to the nations." Jer 1:5
Now note that it doesn't say that God knew OF him before he was formed in the belly, but that he KNEW him. He also states that Jeremiah had actually had an ordination before this. And also sanctified. - Hard to ordain a non-existence.
It should be pointed out in looking at this subject that we shouldn't be coming to the subject with the doctrine that we didn't exist before, and then having to show great demonstration that we did. We should be coming to the subject with an open and inquiring mind to find out what the Bible actually teaches concerning this subject: When did we come into existence according to the Bible.
"For whom he did foreknow, he also did predestinate to be conformed to the image of his Son, that he might be the firstborn among many brethren." Rom 8:29
Again here we are informed that God knew people before they were born. Now why bother to say such a thing if we didn't exist then? And note, once more he hasn't stated that he knew of them, but that he knew them.
"And that he might make known the riches of his glory on the vessels of mercy, which he had afore prepared to glory. Even us..." Rom 9:23-24
Here he has stated that before coming here he had in some way PREPARED us for glory. A difficult thing to do if we didn't exist.
But these texts are just the warm-ups. This next statement of the disciples leaves no doubt that they believed in a pre-existence of our spirit. And Christ made no dispute of the doctrine.
"And his disciples asked him, saying, master, who did sin, this man, or his parents, that he was born blind?" John 9:2
How can a man sin before being born, unless he existed before, to sin?
Remember that if you come to this subject looking for endless Biblical evidence to prove a point you will hardly ever find any truth. It isn't a question of whether we can invent some other meaning for a statement. We must examine this from the question of whether the Bible presents that man existed before or was invented at birth. And what support is there for either idea. And in this regard the Bible strongly comes out in favor of our spirits existing before birth.
"In hope of eternal life, which God, that cannot lie, promised before the world began." Titus 1:2
To whom did God promise this eternal life, before the world began? If there was no person who could gain eternal life in existence before the world began, who was he promising it to?
There are other texts which could be used. But these are obvious ones that set forth the truth to anyone who is actually interested in God's opinion, rather than traditions of men.
There are those people who have remembered back to parts of their pre-existence. I have had some experiences of this myself.
In support of this claim they will quote Gen 2:7 _
"And the Lord God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul."
They claim that the word "soul" must mean our inner being. However a look at Gen 19:19-20 brings this into doubt. Here we have Lot being told to flee before the destruction of the whole area and all cities within. Lot says _
"Look now, your servant [me] has found grace in your sight, and you have magnified your mercy, which you have shown to me in saving my life; and I cannot escape to the mountain, in case some evil takes me, and I die: Look now, this city is near for me to flee to, and it is a little one: Oh, let me escape there, (isn't it only a little one?) and my soul shall live."
So lot has been worried that he would be killed if going to the mountain. And requests refuge in a small city so his SOUL shall live. Obviously he's saying his soul includes his body. Therefore the quote in Gen 2:7 can't be used to claim the invention of our inner being, but only the beginning of a living human: One that dies at death.
Also note that Abraham asked Sarah, his wife, to say she was his sister so that he wouldn't be killed when they went to Egypt _
"Say, I pray you, that you are my sister: so that it may be well with me for your sake; and my soul shall live because of you."
This is also pointing out that the soul would die if he were killed. Yet our inner being goes on after death. So only we as a human being have come into existence between conception and birth, not our spirit.
Looking at the Bible, then, what does it say in regard to when we, as an entity, began to exist?
I've not found the Bible giving us an answer on that. But it does state that we existed before coming here. There are several texts that clearly demonstrate that man existed before. So often quoted we see the one in Jeremiah.
"Before I formed you in the belly I knew you, and before you came forth out of the womb I sanctified you, and I ordained you a prophet to the nations." Jer 1:5
Now note that it doesn't say that God knew OF him before he was formed in the belly, but that he KNEW him. He also states that Jeremiah had actually had an ordination before this. And also sanctified. - Hard to ordain a non-existence.
It should be pointed out in looking at this subject that we shouldn't be coming to the subject with the doctrine that we didn't exist before, and then having to show great demonstration that we did. We should be coming to the subject with an open and inquiring mind to find out what the Bible actually teaches concerning this subject: When did we come into existence according to the Bible.
"For whom he did foreknow, he also did predestinate to be conformed to the image of his Son, that he might be the firstborn among many brethren." Rom 8:29
Again here we are informed that God knew people before they were born. Now why bother to say such a thing if we didn't exist then? And note, once more he hasn't stated that he knew of them, but that he knew them.
"And that he might make known the riches of his glory on the vessels of mercy, which he had afore prepared to glory. Even us..." Rom 9:23-24
Here he has stated that before coming here he had in some way PREPARED us for glory. A difficult thing to do if we didn't exist.
But these texts are just the warm-ups. This next statement of the disciples leaves no doubt that they believed in a pre-existence of our spirit. And Christ made no dispute of the doctrine.
"And his disciples asked him, saying, master, who did sin, this man, or his parents, that he was born blind?" John 9:2
How can a man sin before being born, unless he existed before, to sin?
Remember that if you come to this subject looking for endless Biblical evidence to prove a point you will hardly ever find any truth. It isn't a question of whether we can invent some other meaning for a statement. We must examine this from the question of whether the Bible presents that man existed before or was invented at birth. And what support is there for either idea. And in this regard the Bible strongly comes out in favor of our spirits existing before birth.
"In hope of eternal life, which God, that cannot lie, promised before the world began." Titus 1:2
To whom did God promise this eternal life, before the world began? If there was no person who could gain eternal life in existence before the world began, who was he promising it to?
There are other texts which could be used. But these are obvious ones that set forth the truth to anyone who is actually interested in God's opinion, rather than traditions of men.
There are those people who have remembered back to parts of their pre-existence. I have had some experiences of this myself.
Friday, December 25, 2009
Do the Scriptures say that 50% of church members gain Eternal Life?
A doctrine has become widely spread throughout the church, quoting some verses to present that half the church will gain Eternal Life. The support for this is almost entirely derived from parables. So let's examine the arguments for and against.
Supporting the 50% Concept
Matthew Chapter 12:1-12 States _ "Then shall the kingdom of heaven be likened to ten virgins, that took their lamps, and went forward to meet the bridegroom. And five of them were wise, and five were foolish. They that were foolish took their lamps, and took no oil with them: But the wise took oil in their vessels with their lamps. While the bridegroom tarried, they all slumbered and slept. And at midnight there was a cry made, Look, the bridegroom is coming; go you out to meet him. Then all those virgins arose, and trimmed their lamps. And the foolish said to the wise, Give us of your oil; for our lamps are gone out. But the wise answered, saying, Not so; in case there is not enough for us and you: but you go instead to them that sell, and buy for yourselves. And while they went to buy, the bridegroom came; and they that were ready went in with him to the marriage: and the door was shut. Afterward came also the other virgins, saying, Lord, Lord, open to us. But he answered and said, surely I say to you, I don't know you."
There is also quotes of a just as opposed to an unjust steward, wheat and tares growing together etc. But are these statistical figures or just opposites Christ used? Was half just an obvious choice for this parable of virgins. The other parables showing opposites say nothing of 50% at all and therefore aren't worth quoting here.
Matthew 24:38-42 says _ "For as in the days that were before the flood they were eating and drinking, marrying and giving in marriage, until the day that Noe entered into the ark, And knew not until the flood came, and took them all away; so shall also the coming of the Son of man be. Then shall two be in the field; the one shall be taken, and the other left. Two women shall be grinding at the mill; the one shall be taken, and the other left. Watch therefore: for ye know not what hour your Lord doth come."
Again the question arises as to whether we should take this figure used by Christ as more than merely suggesting that some will be taken in the resurrection and some won't?
Opposing the 50% Concept
If we are to use the parable of the ten virgins as statistics it would pose some serious problems. Let's examine another parable Christ taught.
Matthew 25:14-30 states _ " For the kingdom of heaven is as a man travelling into a far country, who called his own servants, and delivered to them his goods. And to one he gave five talents, to another two, and to another one; to every man according to his several ability; and straight away took his journey. Then he that had received the five talents went and traded with the same, and made them another five talents. And likewise he that had received two, he also gained another two. But he that had received one went and digged in the earth, and hid his lord's money. After a long time the lord of those servants came, and took account with them. And so he that had received five talents came and brought another five talents, saying, Lord, you delivered to me five talents: look, I have gained, beside them, five talents more. His lord said to him, Well done, you good and faithful servant: you have been faithful over a few things, I will make you ruler over many things: you enter into the joy of your lord. He also that had received two talents came and said, Lord, you delivered to me two talents: look, I have gained two other talents beside them. His lord said to him, Well done, good and faithful servant; you have been faithful over a few things, I will make you ruler over many things: you enter into the joy of your lord. Then he which had received the one talent came and said, Lord, I knew you that you are a hard man, reaping where you have not sown, and gathering where you have not strawed: And I was afraid, and went and hid your talent in the earth: so, there you have what is yours. His lord answered and said to him, you wicked and slothful servant, you knew that I reap where I didn't sow, and gather where I have not strawed: You should therefore to have put my money to the exchangers, and then at my coming I should have received mine own with usury. Take therefore the talent from him, and give it to him which has ten talents. For to every one that has shall be given, and he shall have abundance: but from him that has not shall be taken away even that which he has. And cast you the unprofitable servant into outer darkness: there shall be weeping and gnashing of teeth."
This parable was given straight after the one of ten virgins. But it has 3 stewards with 2 gaining more and only one being sent to outer darkness. So should we conclude that Christ had changed his mind and decided that 66.6% of the church would make it instead? These are just convenient figures used in parables not statistics.
We have the parable of the merchant who went and sold all he had for the pearl. Should we then conclude that Christ meant 100% of the church would make it? I could go on with how silly this would be from the parables point of view. But what other Scriptures refute this?
"Look, there are many called, but few are chosen…" D&C 121:34
So many are called to positions of responsibility within the priesthood, but FEW will actually measure up to the responsibility. While still in this same discussion (it ends in verse 40) we are informed that "almost all men" given such authority will fail to measure up (verse 39). Therefore few priesthood leaders would be among the 50%. And considering that this 50% that are righteous would have to consist of almost no men (as the converse of "almost all men"), sensibly we would have to conclude that the 50% would almost entirely be women. Thus making almost 100% of the women in the church making it (sounds great for the women).
"Many will say to me in that day, Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in your name? And in your name have cast out devils? And in your name done many wonderful works? And then will I profess to them, I never knew you: depart form me, you that work iniquity." Matt 7:22-23
So what percentage of the church members have cast out devils, prophesied and done many wonderful works?
50%????
It would be my opinion that far more than 50% of church members would deem themselves unable to perform these tasks. Yet Christ says that many, even having done so, won’t enter into the kingdom of heaven.
Supporting the 50% Concept
Matthew Chapter 12:1-12 States _ "Then shall the kingdom of heaven be likened to ten virgins, that took their lamps, and went forward to meet the bridegroom. And five of them were wise, and five were foolish. They that were foolish took their lamps, and took no oil with them: But the wise took oil in their vessels with their lamps. While the bridegroom tarried, they all slumbered and slept. And at midnight there was a cry made, Look, the bridegroom is coming; go you out to meet him. Then all those virgins arose, and trimmed their lamps. And the foolish said to the wise, Give us of your oil; for our lamps are gone out. But the wise answered, saying, Not so; in case there is not enough for us and you: but you go instead to them that sell, and buy for yourselves. And while they went to buy, the bridegroom came; and they that were ready went in with him to the marriage: and the door was shut. Afterward came also the other virgins, saying, Lord, Lord, open to us. But he answered and said, surely I say to you, I don't know you."
There is also quotes of a just as opposed to an unjust steward, wheat and tares growing together etc. But are these statistical figures or just opposites Christ used? Was half just an obvious choice for this parable of virgins. The other parables showing opposites say nothing of 50% at all and therefore aren't worth quoting here.
Matthew 24:38-42 says _ "For as in the days that were before the flood they were eating and drinking, marrying and giving in marriage, until the day that Noe entered into the ark, And knew not until the flood came, and took them all away; so shall also the coming of the Son of man be. Then shall two be in the field; the one shall be taken, and the other left. Two women shall be grinding at the mill; the one shall be taken, and the other left. Watch therefore: for ye know not what hour your Lord doth come."
Again the question arises as to whether we should take this figure used by Christ as more than merely suggesting that some will be taken in the resurrection and some won't?
Opposing the 50% Concept
If we are to use the parable of the ten virgins as statistics it would pose some serious problems. Let's examine another parable Christ taught.
Matthew 25:14-30 states _ " For the kingdom of heaven is as a man travelling into a far country, who called his own servants, and delivered to them his goods. And to one he gave five talents, to another two, and to another one; to every man according to his several ability; and straight away took his journey. Then he that had received the five talents went and traded with the same, and made them another five talents. And likewise he that had received two, he also gained another two. But he that had received one went and digged in the earth, and hid his lord's money. After a long time the lord of those servants came, and took account with them. And so he that had received five talents came and brought another five talents, saying, Lord, you delivered to me five talents: look, I have gained, beside them, five talents more. His lord said to him, Well done, you good and faithful servant: you have been faithful over a few things, I will make you ruler over many things: you enter into the joy of your lord. He also that had received two talents came and said, Lord, you delivered to me two talents: look, I have gained two other talents beside them. His lord said to him, Well done, good and faithful servant; you have been faithful over a few things, I will make you ruler over many things: you enter into the joy of your lord. Then he which had received the one talent came and said, Lord, I knew you that you are a hard man, reaping where you have not sown, and gathering where you have not strawed: And I was afraid, and went and hid your talent in the earth: so, there you have what is yours. His lord answered and said to him, you wicked and slothful servant, you knew that I reap where I didn't sow, and gather where I have not strawed: You should therefore to have put my money to the exchangers, and then at my coming I should have received mine own with usury. Take therefore the talent from him, and give it to him which has ten talents. For to every one that has shall be given, and he shall have abundance: but from him that has not shall be taken away even that which he has. And cast you the unprofitable servant into outer darkness: there shall be weeping and gnashing of teeth."
This parable was given straight after the one of ten virgins. But it has 3 stewards with 2 gaining more and only one being sent to outer darkness. So should we conclude that Christ had changed his mind and decided that 66.6% of the church would make it instead? These are just convenient figures used in parables not statistics.
We have the parable of the merchant who went and sold all he had for the pearl. Should we then conclude that Christ meant 100% of the church would make it? I could go on with how silly this would be from the parables point of view. But what other Scriptures refute this?
"Look, there are many called, but few are chosen…" D&C 121:34
So many are called to positions of responsibility within the priesthood, but FEW will actually measure up to the responsibility. While still in this same discussion (it ends in verse 40) we are informed that "almost all men" given such authority will fail to measure up (verse 39). Therefore few priesthood leaders would be among the 50%. And considering that this 50% that are righteous would have to consist of almost no men (as the converse of "almost all men"), sensibly we would have to conclude that the 50% would almost entirely be women. Thus making almost 100% of the women in the church making it (sounds great for the women).
"Many will say to me in that day, Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in your name? And in your name have cast out devils? And in your name done many wonderful works? And then will I profess to them, I never knew you: depart form me, you that work iniquity." Matt 7:22-23
So what percentage of the church members have cast out devils, prophesied and done many wonderful works?
50%????
It would be my opinion that far more than 50% of church members would deem themselves unable to perform these tasks. Yet Christ says that many, even having done so, won’t enter into the kingdom of heaven.
Monday, December 07, 2009
Intelligence = Academia (learning in schools)?
I often hear it quoted that "the glory of God is intelligence, or, in other words, light and truth" (D&C 93:36).
This is immediately related, by the speaker, to education. It is claimed that if we go and do academic studies at a state or private learning institution, our intelligence will increase. Yet that interpretation detracts from the real message being delivered there in D&C 93. If our education facilities were teaching just truth, that would even then only have slight relevance. The truth and light referred to in this section are spiritual truths that will cause a person not to sin.
The verses following the one above say, [verses 37-39] "Light and truth forsake that evil one. Every spirit of man was innocent in the beginning; and God having redeemed man from the fall, men became again, in their infant state, innocent before God. And that wicked one comes and takes away light and truth, through disobedience, from the children of men, and because of the tradition of their fathers."
This doesn't seem to refer to our ability to add and subtract.
Intelligence is increased, not by going to school, but by accepting spiritual truth and obeying it (as is demonstrated as the obvious converse of the scripture text quoted above).
It seems to me that our level of intelligence is demonstrated by our ability to take in correct information, recognise and reject false information, and then the right application of that correct information.
Therefore the school where intelligence is achieved, is where we listen to and follow Heavenly Father, Jesus Christ and the Holy Ghost, as instructors.
This is immediately related, by the speaker, to education. It is claimed that if we go and do academic studies at a state or private learning institution, our intelligence will increase. Yet that interpretation detracts from the real message being delivered there in D&C 93. If our education facilities were teaching just truth, that would even then only have slight relevance. The truth and light referred to in this section are spiritual truths that will cause a person not to sin.
The verses following the one above say, [verses 37-39] "Light and truth forsake that evil one. Every spirit of man was innocent in the beginning; and God having redeemed man from the fall, men became again, in their infant state, innocent before God. And that wicked one comes and takes away light and truth, through disobedience, from the children of men, and because of the tradition of their fathers."
This doesn't seem to refer to our ability to add and subtract.
Intelligence is increased, not by going to school, but by accepting spiritual truth and obeying it (as is demonstrated as the obvious converse of the scripture text quoted above).
It seems to me that our level of intelligence is demonstrated by our ability to take in correct information, recognise and reject false information, and then the right application of that correct information.
Therefore the school where intelligence is achieved, is where we listen to and follow Heavenly Father, Jesus Christ and the Holy Ghost, as instructors.
Monday, November 16, 2009
We are BOTH Predestined and Foreordination - There isn't a conflict
On my mission I had the experience where my companion was in debate with a Protestant on this issue. My companion was strongly arguing that we aren't predestined, but foreordained. The Protestant was strongly contending that the Bible was right and we are predestined. In listening to them they were both saying the same thing, but insisting on different words. So in looking at this subject it is important to look at what we are talking about, rather than being pedantic about words.
There are those that have incorrect ideas on what predestination actually means in Scripture. So often I have heard the statement within the church that we aren't predestined, but are foreordained. Yet what is it that has caused this to become an issue?
One of the doctrines of the religious reformer, Calvin, is a doctrine referred to as "unconditional election." This doctrine espouses that God made some people whom he will make do the right thing: That they have no free choice.
Some people expand this to make it that ALL people have been selected by God to either go to heaven or hell: That in all things we do we have no real choice and that God preset that we would do those things. Paul's statements in regard predestination are the source of this doctrine.
In regard this the Wikipedia states _
"The doctrine does not hold that every influence of God's Holy Spirit cannot be resisted, but that the Holy Spirit is able to overcome all resistance and make his influence irresistible and effective. Thus, when God sovereignly purposes to save someone, that individual certainly will be saved."
To battle this false doctrine it has been presented that it must be a false translation. Yet the word from which it is translated is a compilation of two words that mean "before" and "limiting the bounds." So the word comes to a meaning of a preset limit of bounds - predestined.
Looking at one such Scripture we have _
"According as he has chosen us in him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and without blame before him in love: Having predestinated us to the adoption of children by Jesus Christ to himself, according to the good pleasure of his will." Eph 1:4-5
Those in favor of "unconditional election" interpret this to mean that God has felt pleased to randomly choose these people and save them. Yet our understanding of the pre-existence makes this clear. God is pleased that 1. He can save them because of Christ's atonement. And 2. He is glad because he knew they would be righteous. As that was the type of spirits they were "before the foundation of the world."
However confusion still exists as there is question on how a person can be both predestined, yet have choice?
There are 2 levels on which we are predestined. The first is that God knew what type of person we were and would therefore become. The second relates to the time-eternity factor and is more likely to be what Paul is referring to.
Tomorrow I will get out of bed at a certain time. What that time is I don't presently know. Yet if I could see in eternity (as God does) that would be answered. A deeper point in this regard is that there is only one time I will get out of bed tomorrow. So even though I have a choice in when I get out of bed, I am destined to get out of bed at that time: There is no other time I will get out of bed tomorrow - choice or no choice.
God has shown the future to many righteous people. Moroni said that he had seen us _
"Behold, I speak to you as if you were present, and yet you are not. But see, Jesus Christ has shown you to me, and I know your doing." Mormon 8:35
So what he saw us doing we will do. Not because we have to, but because that is what we will choose.
God worked out the best things for us to do for our individual growth. And he put us in a place and circumstance where we would have those things (AS BEST AS IS AVAILABLE). In doing this he knew what opportunities we would develop with and those we'd fail with. Yet in all this, these are our choices.
Paul's statement doesn't propose that those he is speaking to were there by luck.
"For whom he did foreknow, he also did predestinate to be conformed to the image of his Son, that he might be the firstborn among many brethren. Moreover whom he did predestinate, them he also called: and whom he called, them he also justified: and whom he justified, them he also glorified." Rom 8:29-30
If this were merely a foreordination spoken of here (from which some could fail) how could he have them all "glorified"?
Obviously this is proposing that ALL those who had a knowing relationship with God before coming here WILL live so as that they will be glorified. Yet this is done by their choices.
Could Jesus have chosen to sin? Yes. But did he? No. Was this foreknown? Yes. Was it his destiny, therefore, not to sin? Yes. Was it by his choice that he didn't? Yes. - Foreordained yet predestined.
There are those that have incorrect ideas on what predestination actually means in Scripture. So often I have heard the statement within the church that we aren't predestined, but are foreordained. Yet what is it that has caused this to become an issue?
One of the doctrines of the religious reformer, Calvin, is a doctrine referred to as "unconditional election." This doctrine espouses that God made some people whom he will make do the right thing: That they have no free choice.
Some people expand this to make it that ALL people have been selected by God to either go to heaven or hell: That in all things we do we have no real choice and that God preset that we would do those things. Paul's statements in regard predestination are the source of this doctrine.
In regard this the Wikipedia states _
"The doctrine does not hold that every influence of God's Holy Spirit cannot be resisted, but that the Holy Spirit is able to overcome all resistance and make his influence irresistible and effective. Thus, when God sovereignly purposes to save someone, that individual certainly will be saved."
To battle this false doctrine it has been presented that it must be a false translation. Yet the word from which it is translated is a compilation of two words that mean "before" and "limiting the bounds." So the word comes to a meaning of a preset limit of bounds - predestined.
Looking at one such Scripture we have _
"According as he has chosen us in him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and without blame before him in love: Having predestinated us to the adoption of children by Jesus Christ to himself, according to the good pleasure of his will." Eph 1:4-5
Those in favor of "unconditional election" interpret this to mean that God has felt pleased to randomly choose these people and save them. Yet our understanding of the pre-existence makes this clear. God is pleased that 1. He can save them because of Christ's atonement. And 2. He is glad because he knew they would be righteous. As that was the type of spirits they were "before the foundation of the world."
However confusion still exists as there is question on how a person can be both predestined, yet have choice?
There are 2 levels on which we are predestined. The first is that God knew what type of person we were and would therefore become. The second relates to the time-eternity factor and is more likely to be what Paul is referring to.
Tomorrow I will get out of bed at a certain time. What that time is I don't presently know. Yet if I could see in eternity (as God does) that would be answered. A deeper point in this regard is that there is only one time I will get out of bed tomorrow. So even though I have a choice in when I get out of bed, I am destined to get out of bed at that time: There is no other time I will get out of bed tomorrow - choice or no choice.
God has shown the future to many righteous people. Moroni said that he had seen us _
"Behold, I speak to you as if you were present, and yet you are not. But see, Jesus Christ has shown you to me, and I know your doing." Mormon 8:35
So what he saw us doing we will do. Not because we have to, but because that is what we will choose.
God worked out the best things for us to do for our individual growth. And he put us in a place and circumstance where we would have those things (AS BEST AS IS AVAILABLE). In doing this he knew what opportunities we would develop with and those we'd fail with. Yet in all this, these are our choices.
Paul's statement doesn't propose that those he is speaking to were there by luck.
"For whom he did foreknow, he also did predestinate to be conformed to the image of his Son, that he might be the firstborn among many brethren. Moreover whom he did predestinate, them he also called: and whom he called, them he also justified: and whom he justified, them he also glorified." Rom 8:29-30
If this were merely a foreordination spoken of here (from which some could fail) how could he have them all "glorified"?
Obviously this is proposing that ALL those who had a knowing relationship with God before coming here WILL live so as that they will be glorified. Yet this is done by their choices.
Could Jesus have chosen to sin? Yes. But did he? No. Was this foreknown? Yes. Was it his destiny, therefore, not to sin? Yes. Was it by his choice that he didn't? Yes. - Foreordained yet predestined.
Monday, November 09, 2009
Does the Church Teach that we should be Right Wing? - A bit of Humour
I thought I'd break away from my usual heavy stuff and put out a bit of offbeat fluff.
The church is generally considered to be somewhat right wing by its conservative approach to life: That old fashioned ideas shouldn't be discarded. But does the church tend to mind-wash us to support right wing political parties?
Suspicion does arise when we look at such things as CTR rings etc. - Choose the left? No, Choose the RIGHT!
And what does the hymn say? "Choose the RIGHT when a choice is placed before you." Could this be suggesting what to choose at the polling booth? This brings grave concerns of buried inference.
We have the statement that it is those on Christ's RIGHT-hand side that will be caught up into heaven. And those on the LEFT...well... Very suspicious, indeed.
As I sit there singing "God Speed the Right," I find myself pondering further.
And when Jacob blessed Ephraim and Manasseh, what was it that indicated that Ephraim got the greater blessing? - Jacob placed his RIGHT hand on to Ephraim.
What of the Psalm that says, "Hear the right, O LORD.."? Is this suggesting that God doesn't listen to left wing people?
Then next I find I'm singing "do what is RIGHT let the consequence follow." Hmmm????
Yet there is hope for the left wing. Christ said that he would like to take those in Jerusalem and protect them as a hen gathers her chicks under her wings. Note it says "wings" plural. So this would seem to suggest that even lefties have a chance, after all.
The church is generally considered to be somewhat right wing by its conservative approach to life: That old fashioned ideas shouldn't be discarded. But does the church tend to mind-wash us to support right wing political parties?
Suspicion does arise when we look at such things as CTR rings etc. - Choose the left? No, Choose the RIGHT!
And what does the hymn say? "Choose the RIGHT when a choice is placed before you." Could this be suggesting what to choose at the polling booth? This brings grave concerns of buried inference.
We have the statement that it is those on Christ's RIGHT-hand side that will be caught up into heaven. And those on the LEFT...well... Very suspicious, indeed.
As I sit there singing "God Speed the Right," I find myself pondering further.
And when Jacob blessed Ephraim and Manasseh, what was it that indicated that Ephraim got the greater blessing? - Jacob placed his RIGHT hand on to Ephraim.
What of the Psalm that says, "Hear the right, O LORD.."? Is this suggesting that God doesn't listen to left wing people?
Then next I find I'm singing "do what is RIGHT let the consequence follow." Hmmm????
Yet there is hope for the left wing. Christ said that he would like to take those in Jerusalem and protect them as a hen gathers her chicks under her wings. Note it says "wings" plural. So this would seem to suggest that even lefties have a chance, after all.
Monday, October 26, 2009
Is it True that it Doesn't Matter what Day of the week you Observe as a Sabbath?
Many of the Scriptures I have used in discussing the Saturday and Sunday arguements (in previous posts) could be used here. But I'll refrain from using most of them as I have presented this argument to some degree in refuting the other 2 arguments. However some will be used.
Exo 20:9-10 "Six days shall you labour, and do all your work: But the seventh day is the Sabbath of the LORD your God: in it you shall not do any work, you, nor your son, nor your daughter, your manservant, nor your maidservant, nor your cattle, nor your stranger that is within your gates"
This states that 6 days (it doesn't state which 6 days) you should do any work you need to do. And then on the seventh you should rest from such physical labours and honour as a Sabbath day (again, no mention of it being compulsory to select a specific day of the week to do this on).
Another argument is that if God were fussy about which actual day of the week was to be observed why didn't he make it clear, like all the other commandments. God has gone to great lengths to explain which foods were not to be eaten. He went to great lengths to explain priestly duties. He went into so much detail as to how to treat lepers. The tabernacle specifics go on and on. He has explained the different penalties for murder depending. He has explained in detail who not to marry in the family. And I could go on. So are we to believe that he made such a serious oversight as to not make it plain which day he was insistent that we have our Sabbath on?
Along with this comes the question that if it was a particular day of the week that had to be observed or else, why didn't he make some sign turn up on that day each week so there would be no confusion? That way no one would have an excuse to confuse it. And that way all would know what he wanted them to do. He could have made it that the sky goes purple once a week through some strange phenomenon.
The next point is, did God rest on a Saturday? This would be pure speculation to conclude that we know he did. Our sun (from which we draw our night and day periods) wasn't even created until the fourth day of creation (Genesis 1:16-19). The scriptures tell us that a day with God is as a thousand years (2 Peter 3:8, and this is demonstrated in the days mentioned in some revelations which took that many thousand years to occur). So if this applies here then he rested for a thousand years which included every day of the week.
The next point in this same vein is, "which day was even observed by Israel initially" (when the law was received by Moses)? Again we have no scriptural support for any specific day. But one thing bears keeping in mind if anyone claims they know for sure that it was a specific day; Israel spent many years in captivity through worshipping idols, and left the following of God many times anyway. Are we to believe that on all these occasions they even considered to begin holding their sabbath day on the day of the week they used to observe, when they finally returned to worshipping God? They would naturally work six days and rest on the seventh, as commanded, from that day (whatever day it was).
In Summary
Nowhere in scripture is anyone commanded to observe any specific day of the week. There is no certainty whatsoever as to what day God rested on after creation. There is no certainty what day Moses originally got Isreal to rest on. There is no foundation for a debate on what day of the week God insists on us having as a Sabbath. God has made no such insistence. This is the leaven of the Pharisees Christ warned against: Doctrine invented by man. It is trying to strain at a gnat while swallowing a camel. What matters is how you observe your Sabbath day, not when. Don't get sucked into believing such things to be doctrines of God.
Exo 20:9-10 "Six days shall you labour, and do all your work: But the seventh day is the Sabbath of the LORD your God: in it you shall not do any work, you, nor your son, nor your daughter, your manservant, nor your maidservant, nor your cattle, nor your stranger that is within your gates"
This states that 6 days (it doesn't state which 6 days) you should do any work you need to do. And then on the seventh you should rest from such physical labours and honour as a Sabbath day (again, no mention of it being compulsory to select a specific day of the week to do this on).
Another argument is that if God were fussy about which actual day of the week was to be observed why didn't he make it clear, like all the other commandments. God has gone to great lengths to explain which foods were not to be eaten. He went to great lengths to explain priestly duties. He went into so much detail as to how to treat lepers. The tabernacle specifics go on and on. He has explained the different penalties for murder depending. He has explained in detail who not to marry in the family. And I could go on. So are we to believe that he made such a serious oversight as to not make it plain which day he was insistent that we have our Sabbath on?
Along with this comes the question that if it was a particular day of the week that had to be observed or else, why didn't he make some sign turn up on that day each week so there would be no confusion? That way no one would have an excuse to confuse it. And that way all would know what he wanted them to do. He could have made it that the sky goes purple once a week through some strange phenomenon.
The next point is, did God rest on a Saturday? This would be pure speculation to conclude that we know he did. Our sun (from which we draw our night and day periods) wasn't even created until the fourth day of creation (Genesis 1:16-19). The scriptures tell us that a day with God is as a thousand years (2 Peter 3:8, and this is demonstrated in the days mentioned in some revelations which took that many thousand years to occur). So if this applies here then he rested for a thousand years which included every day of the week.
The next point in this same vein is, "which day was even observed by Israel initially" (when the law was received by Moses)? Again we have no scriptural support for any specific day. But one thing bears keeping in mind if anyone claims they know for sure that it was a specific day; Israel spent many years in captivity through worshipping idols, and left the following of God many times anyway. Are we to believe that on all these occasions they even considered to begin holding their sabbath day on the day of the week they used to observe, when they finally returned to worshipping God? They would naturally work six days and rest on the seventh, as commanded, from that day (whatever day it was).
In Summary
Nowhere in scripture is anyone commanded to observe any specific day of the week. There is no certainty whatsoever as to what day God rested on after creation. There is no certainty what day Moses originally got Isreal to rest on. There is no foundation for a debate on what day of the week God insists on us having as a Sabbath. God has made no such insistence. This is the leaven of the Pharisees Christ warned against: Doctrine invented by man. It is trying to strain at a gnat while swallowing a camel. What matters is how you observe your Sabbath day, not when. Don't get sucked into believing such things to be doctrines of God.
Thursday, October 08, 2009
Must a Sabbath be held on Sunday?
This follows on from the last post which was about the Sabbath and Saturday. So you may wish to read that first.
When the church was restored in 1830 it was common practice to hold a Sabbath day on Sunday. Shops closed on Sunday and there was no work available. Consequently it was obvious that Sunday was the perfect day for holding Sabbath meetings and practicing the Sabbath commandment.
Yet some hold that God is insistent on the Sabbath being practiced on this particular day of the week. ie that we couldn't hold it on some other day if we were in a Moslem country (for example).
Let's look at some of the scripture quotes they use to support this idea.
"The first day of the week cometh Mary Magdalene early, when it was yet dark, to the sepulchre, and saw the stone taken away from the sepulchre." & "Then the same day at evening, being the first day of the week, when the doors were shut where the disciples were assembled for fear of the Jews, came Jesus and stood in the midst, and said to them, Peace to you." & "And after eight days again his disciples were within, and Thomas with them: then came Jesus, the doors being shut, and stood among them, and said, Peace be to you." Jn 20:1&19&26
Here it is proposed that the apostles began to worship on the first day of the week (Sunday) because Christ was resurrected on that day in acceptance of a new sabbath. It appears to be true that Christ was resurrected on a Sunday. But to say that was to show respect to the day would need to be shown in Scripture, not just proposed. It says the apostles were gathered together on Sunday but doesn't present that this was necessarily a religious service (and considering they weren't even aware of his resurrection at this point they couldn't be honouring Sunday because of it). Then it says EIGHT days later they were together again. Some use the twist of concepts used in regard the 3 days and 3 nights Christ was in the earth to say they must have been counting the day they were in and the day they had been in. However this not only has no evidence, but, as I have shown before, is incorrect. As surely as Christ spent 3 days and 3 NIGHTS in the tomb so these occurrences are 8 days apart. So this would make Monday the new day of worship (if we were to believe such).
"And on the first day of the week, when the disciples came together to break bread, Paul preached to them, ready to depart the next day; and continued his speech until midnight." Act 20:7
Clearly here they are together on a Sunday having a service of some sort. But does this mean they hadn't just observed the Jewish Sabbath and Paul done his usual of debating with them out of the Scriputes on Saturday? The next text poses some extra questions in this regard and so I will quote this and discuss them together.
"Now concerning the collection for the saints, as I have given order to the churches of Galatia, you do the same. On the first day of the week let every one of you lay by him in store, as God has prospered him, that there be no gatherings when I come." I Cor 16:1-2
What "gatherings" are referred to here? Obviously he's not saying not to have any church gatherings when he comes. So he is speaking of gathering the collections of whatever for the saints (church members) of things that he doesn't want collected when he gets there. The collections are obviously involved. Could I propose collecting food, clothing, furniture etc would be the things he wouldn't want people involved in when he arrived to preach to them. Is this work the sort of thing for people to be involved in on a Sabbath? I'll leave you to answer that one, but plainly there was a tendency for them to see the first day of the week as a day to attend to things not done while at synagogues preaching on Saturday. But neither of these demonstrate that God insists on Sunday as a new Sabbath. Surely if this were a new day or commandment he would have made it clear?
"I was in the Spirit on the Lord's day, and heard behind me a great voice, as of a trumpet" Revelation 1:10
Yep, that's right, this was also used by those claiming Saturday is the day God insists on. The Sunday supporters claim this to be a new day Christ was instituting called "the Lord's day" to replace the Sabbath day. This text doesn't say what day this "Lord's day" even is. So the argument has no foundation.
The final argument against Saturday worth mentioning (as stated before statements of darkness being evil etc as a claim for SUNday worship will be ignored as nonsense for the ignorant) is to point out that the Sabbath command is not repeated in the New Testament.
Yet this wouldn't support the idea that Sunday is some new day, even if we were to accept it had some significant message. There is no statement that categorically declares that no one should now live a Sabbath day or that it can't be practiced on a Saturday, if you wish to, and must be practiced on Sunday.
As Sunday is a day that some still close their businesses on it is only logical to continue observing the Sabbath on Sunday. But to make it a commandment that we must make it a Sunday isn't supported in Scripture, in my opinion.
When the church was restored in 1830 it was common practice to hold a Sabbath day on Sunday. Shops closed on Sunday and there was no work available. Consequently it was obvious that Sunday was the perfect day for holding Sabbath meetings and practicing the Sabbath commandment.
Yet some hold that God is insistent on the Sabbath being practiced on this particular day of the week. ie that we couldn't hold it on some other day if we were in a Moslem country (for example).
Let's look at some of the scripture quotes they use to support this idea.
"The first day of the week cometh Mary Magdalene early, when it was yet dark, to the sepulchre, and saw the stone taken away from the sepulchre." & "Then the same day at evening, being the first day of the week, when the doors were shut where the disciples were assembled for fear of the Jews, came Jesus and stood in the midst, and said to them, Peace to you." & "And after eight days again his disciples were within, and Thomas with them: then came Jesus, the doors being shut, and stood among them, and said, Peace be to you." Jn 20:1&19&26
Here it is proposed that the apostles began to worship on the first day of the week (Sunday) because Christ was resurrected on that day in acceptance of a new sabbath. It appears to be true that Christ was resurrected on a Sunday. But to say that was to show respect to the day would need to be shown in Scripture, not just proposed. It says the apostles were gathered together on Sunday but doesn't present that this was necessarily a religious service (and considering they weren't even aware of his resurrection at this point they couldn't be honouring Sunday because of it). Then it says EIGHT days later they were together again. Some use the twist of concepts used in regard the 3 days and 3 nights Christ was in the earth to say they must have been counting the day they were in and the day they had been in. However this not only has no evidence, but, as I have shown before, is incorrect. As surely as Christ spent 3 days and 3 NIGHTS in the tomb so these occurrences are 8 days apart. So this would make Monday the new day of worship (if we were to believe such).
"And on the first day of the week, when the disciples came together to break bread, Paul preached to them, ready to depart the next day; and continued his speech until midnight." Act 20:7
Clearly here they are together on a Sunday having a service of some sort. But does this mean they hadn't just observed the Jewish Sabbath and Paul done his usual of debating with them out of the Scriputes on Saturday? The next text poses some extra questions in this regard and so I will quote this and discuss them together.
"Now concerning the collection for the saints, as I have given order to the churches of Galatia, you do the same. On the first day of the week let every one of you lay by him in store, as God has prospered him, that there be no gatherings when I come." I Cor 16:1-2
What "gatherings" are referred to here? Obviously he's not saying not to have any church gatherings when he comes. So he is speaking of gathering the collections of whatever for the saints (church members) of things that he doesn't want collected when he gets there. The collections are obviously involved. Could I propose collecting food, clothing, furniture etc would be the things he wouldn't want people involved in when he arrived to preach to them. Is this work the sort of thing for people to be involved in on a Sabbath? I'll leave you to answer that one, but plainly there was a tendency for them to see the first day of the week as a day to attend to things not done while at synagogues preaching on Saturday. But neither of these demonstrate that God insists on Sunday as a new Sabbath. Surely if this were a new day or commandment he would have made it clear?
"I was in the Spirit on the Lord's day, and heard behind me a great voice, as of a trumpet" Revelation 1:10
Yep, that's right, this was also used by those claiming Saturday is the day God insists on. The Sunday supporters claim this to be a new day Christ was instituting called "the Lord's day" to replace the Sabbath day. This text doesn't say what day this "Lord's day" even is. So the argument has no foundation.
The final argument against Saturday worth mentioning (as stated before statements of darkness being evil etc as a claim for SUNday worship will be ignored as nonsense for the ignorant) is to point out that the Sabbath command is not repeated in the New Testament.
Yet this wouldn't support the idea that Sunday is some new day, even if we were to accept it had some significant message. There is no statement that categorically declares that no one should now live a Sabbath day or that it can't be practiced on a Saturday, if you wish to, and must be practiced on Sunday.
As Sunday is a day that some still close their businesses on it is only logical to continue observing the Sabbath on Sunday. But to make it a commandment that we must make it a Sunday isn't supported in Scripture, in my opinion.
Thursday, September 24, 2009
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.
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.
Monday, September 14, 2009
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.
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.
Tuesday, September 08, 2009
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.
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.
Monday, August 24, 2009
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.
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.
Friday, August 14, 2009
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."
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."
Monday, August 03, 2009
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.
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
