This is a continuation of an analysis of a controversial talk by Brother Ezra Taft Benson (then president of the quorum of the twelve). In it he presented 14 fundamentals to following a president of the church. Not all 14 have drawn criticism, but I'll cover all anyway. This is for the purpose of seeing his intent and making facts clearer.
Sixth Claim: The prophet does not have to say “Thus saith the Lord” to give us scripture.
To support this claim he says the following,
"Sometimes there are those who argue about words. They might say the prophet gave us counsel but that we are not obliged to follow it unless he says it is a commandment. But the Lord says of the Prophet, 'Thou shalt give heed unto all his words and commandments which he shall give unto you.' (D&C 21:4.)
And speaking of taking counsel from the prophet, in D&C 108:1, the Lord states:
'Verily thus saith the Lord unto you, my servant Lyman: Your sins are forgiven you, because you have obeyed my voice in coming up hither this morning to receive counsel of him whom I have appointed.'
Said Brigham Young, 'I have never yet preached a sermon and sent it out to the children of men, that they may not call scripture.' (Journal of Discourses, 13:95.)"
Firstly D&C 21:4 goes on to say, in the same verse, "AS he receiveth them, walking in all holiness before me." These are 2 significant additions to that which Brother Benson has presented. It is only those things the president has received from God, as he walks in all holiness before him, that we need to regard to be commandments from God. How can we know which is which if he doesn't declare it to be from the Lord?
D&C 108:1 doesn't say whether Joseph Smith had or hadn't said "thus saith the Lord." It would be incredibly likely that he, in fact, did.
In regard to anyone sent forth to preach the gospel the D&C states,
"And this is the ensample unto them, that they shall speak as they are moved upon by the Holy Ghost. And whatsoever they shall speak when moved upon by the Holy Ghost shall be scripture, shall be the will of the Lord, shall be the mind of the Lord, shall be the word of the Lord, shall be the voice of the Lord, and the power of God unto salvation." D&C 68:3-4.
So it would be wise to remember that this isn't unique to the president of the church, by any means. In fact anyone speaking by the Holy Ghost can be considered as speaking Scripture where the words he is then speaking are coming directly from the Holy Ghost. Even if the man has no official position (as we see demonstrated many times in Scripture, such as with the child Samuel receiving revelation to give to the prophet Eli [1 Sam 3]).
Harold B. Lee has declared that the president should present any additional revelation to the church for a sustaining vote. Thus he would be declaring it such when it was from the Lord. So while technically what Bro Benson says is true, to be ACCEPTED as Scripture, by the church, he would have to declare it such.
Seventh Claim: The prophet tells us what we need to know, not always what we want to know.
To support this claim he states,
“'Thou has declared unto us hard things, more than we are able to bear,' complained Nephi’s brethren. But Nephi answered by saying, 'The guilty taketh the truth to be hard, for it cutteth them to the very center.' (1 Ne. 16:1–2.)
Said President Harold B. Lee:
'You may not like what comes from the authority of the Church. It may conflict with your political views. It may contradict your social views. It may interfere with some of your social life … Your safety and ours depends upon whether or not we follow … Let’s keep our eye on the President of the Church.' (Conference Report, October 1970, p. 152–153.)
But it is the living prophet who really upsets the world. 'Even in the Church,' said President Kimball, 'many are prone to garnish the sepulchres of yesterdays prophets and mentally stone the living ones.' (Instructor, 95:527.)
Why? Because the living prophet gets at what we need to know now, and the world prefers that prophets either be dead or worry about their own affairs. Some so-called experts of political science want the prophet to keep still on politics. Some would-be authorities on evolution want the prophet to keep still on evolution. And so the list goes on and on.
How we respond to the words of a living prophet when he tells us what we need to know, but would rather not hear, is a test of our faithfulness.
Said President Marion G. Romney, 'It is an easy thing to believe in the dead prophets, but it is a greater thing to believe in the living prophets.' And then he gives this illustration:
'One day when President Grant was living, I sat in my office across the street following a general conference. A man came over to see me, an elderly man. He was very upset about what had been said in this conference by some of the Brethren, including myself. I could tell from his speech that he came from a foreign land. After I had quieted him enough so he would listen, I said, ‘Why did you come to America?’ ‘I am here because a prophet of God told me to come.’ ‘Who was the prophet?’ I continued. ‘Wilford Woodruff.’ ‘Do you believe Wilford Woodruff was a prophet of God?’ ‘Yes, sir.’
'Then came the sixty-four dollar question, ‘Do you believe that Heber J. Grant is a prophet of God?’ His answer, ‘I think he ought to keep his mouth shut about old-age assistance.’
'Now I tell you that a man in his position is on the way to apostasy. He is forfeiting his chances for eternal life. So is everyone who cannot follow the living prophet of God.' (Conference Report, April 1953, p. 125.)"
I must start by pointing out that Nephi wasn't the president of the church in making his statement. So it isn't a relavent quote for what Brother Benson is trying to present. However I would support the use of this text for the subject, as in reality this statement applies to all people asking anyone to change their ways for good.
A relevant question in regard Brother Romney's story is whether the man he quotes actually HAS apostatised? Had he waited to find out, and it being so, it would make quoting the story closer to being justified.
I know a guy who still, after over 30 years of disagreeing with a decision of Spencer Kimball's, is very active and having one-on-one communication with God. So if he's on his way to apostacy he's taking a long time getting there. I also don't believe that the direction of Brother Kimball's was something anyone needed to know (as Brother Benson feels it would be). In fact I can assure you that it wasn't. We have to keep in mind that these people are human and have human frailties. To put them up on a pedistal and expect to keep them there we must bury our heads in the sand. Which isn't very helpful spiritually.
So while I believe in the statement overall I don't support it as some absolute.
Eighth Claim: The Prophet is not limited by men’s reasoning.
In support Bro Benson states,
"There will be times when you will have to choose between the revelation of God and reasoning of men—between the prophet and the professor.
Said the Prophet Joseph Smith,
'Whatever God requires is right, no matter what it is, although we may not see the reason thereof until long after the events transpire.' (Scrapbook of Mormon Literature, vol. 2, p. 173).
Would it seem reasonable to an eye doctor to be told to heal a blind man by spitting in the dirt, making clay and applying it to the man’s eyes and then telling him to wash in a contaminated pool? Yet this is precisely the course that Jesus took with one man, and he was healed. (See John 9:6–7.) Does it seem reasonable to cure leprosy by telling a man to wash seven times in a particular river, yet this is precisely what the prophet Elisha told a leper to do, and he was healed. (See 2 Kgs. 5.)
'For my thoughts are not your thoughts, neither are your ways my ways, saith the Lord. For as the heavens are higher than the earth, so are my ways higher than your ways, and my thoughts than your thoughts.' (Isa. 55:8–9.)"
I would have to support him in this statement. Again I would qualify that any prophetic person is in the same situation. But this doesn't alter the truth of it as applying to the President of the church.
Sunday, October 17, 2010
Tuesday, September 28, 2010
The Value of a Life
I have read of a sermon by a funeral parlour minister in which he mentioned that the sun always looms larger on the horizon - at the very pont of its exchange between heaven and earth. He pointed out how that human life is like that in that it is only at the point of exchange between heaven and earth (at birth and death) that the true worth of a person's life is realized.
When a pop singer dies he suddenly becomes more famous than he may have ever been in life. We may say little to a relative until they pass on; and then we wish we had said more.
I remember when young watching westerns. The baddie and the goodie would face each other out in the street and go for their guns. Of course the goodie won. It all seemed so glorious to me at that age. I had my own set of toy guns and holsters. I'd watch movies about the Roman legions and their conquest of the opposition. The power and the glory bit hit me. The Egyptian empire the same.
Yet when I joined the army my perspective altered dramatically. They took us down the range and set up a 44 gallon (200 litre) drum full of water. They fired a shot at it and then took us over to see the result. It had a small hole in the front where the bullet had gone in. But the entire back of the drum was ripped apart. They told us that this is what happens to people when the bullet hits.
Along with this they showed how the bullet could travel through a double brick wall and kill whoever was on the other side: There was no way to avoid them. They travel faster than sound, so if you hear the sound it missed.
Then I found myself at the firing range looking at a human like target. It really began to sink in that they were anticipating that I would kill a human being.
The reality of a person being killed hit me very strongly. I remember my mother speaking of hundreds or thousands dying in some disaster. While my mother and whoever she was speaking to would demonstrate their grief at the loss of life, I had felt nothing. Yet at this point the death of 5 people suddenly began to feel a major catastrophy to me.
Since that time Heavenly Father and I have had discussions on the subject; and I now have assurance in his wisdom in when people pass on to the spirit world. Yet it is sad to lose a loved one: We miss them.
When I now look back at those empires and westerns I see a different thing. I see the problems in the background. I see the wasted death, inequality and corruption that comes by not following what God lays down for peace and happiness.
When a pop singer dies he suddenly becomes more famous than he may have ever been in life. We may say little to a relative until they pass on; and then we wish we had said more.
I remember when young watching westerns. The baddie and the goodie would face each other out in the street and go for their guns. Of course the goodie won. It all seemed so glorious to me at that age. I had my own set of toy guns and holsters. I'd watch movies about the Roman legions and their conquest of the opposition. The power and the glory bit hit me. The Egyptian empire the same.
Yet when I joined the army my perspective altered dramatically. They took us down the range and set up a 44 gallon (200 litre) drum full of water. They fired a shot at it and then took us over to see the result. It had a small hole in the front where the bullet had gone in. But the entire back of the drum was ripped apart. They told us that this is what happens to people when the bullet hits.
Along with this they showed how the bullet could travel through a double brick wall and kill whoever was on the other side: There was no way to avoid them. They travel faster than sound, so if you hear the sound it missed.
Then I found myself at the firing range looking at a human like target. It really began to sink in that they were anticipating that I would kill a human being.
The reality of a person being killed hit me very strongly. I remember my mother speaking of hundreds or thousands dying in some disaster. While my mother and whoever she was speaking to would demonstrate their grief at the loss of life, I had felt nothing. Yet at this point the death of 5 people suddenly began to feel a major catastrophy to me.
Since that time Heavenly Father and I have had discussions on the subject; and I now have assurance in his wisdom in when people pass on to the spirit world. Yet it is sad to lose a loved one: We miss them.
When I now look back at those empires and westerns I see a different thing. I see the problems in the background. I see the wasted death, inequality and corruption that comes by not following what God lays down for peace and happiness.
Sunday, September 19, 2010
Fourteen Fundamentals Examined Part 4
This is a continuation of an analysis of a controversial talk by Brother Ezra Taft Benson (then president of the quorum of the twelve). In it he presented 14 fundamentals to following a president of the church. Not all 14 have drawn criticism, but I'll cover all anyway. This is for the purpose of seeing his intent and making facts clearer.
Ninth Claim: The prophet can receive revelation on any matter—temporal or spiritual.
To explain and support this claim he presented the following _
"Said Brigham Young:
'Some of the leading men in Kirtland were much opposed to Joseph the Prophet, meddling with temporal affairs …
'In a public meeting of the Saints, I said, ‘Ye Elders of Israel, … will some of you draw the line of demarcation, between the spiritual and temporal in the kingdom of God, so that I may understand it?’ Not one of them could do it …
'I defy any man on earth to point out the path a Prophet of God should walk in, or point out his duty, and just how far he must go, in dictating temporal or spiritual things. Temporal and spiritual things are inseparably connected, and ever will be.' (Journal of Discourses, 10:363–64.)"
As with Brigham people have often presented to me that the prophet is correct in all things spiritual, but doesn't have to be in temporal things. To which I have never been able to find anyone capable of proving to me where one finishes and the other starts. Even something as seemingly temporal as going to the toilet has spiritual significance in looking after the body we have been given.
Some would point out that claim isn't unique to the president of the church, but counts for all. This is true. There is only one of these 14 claims that I find totally unique to the president of the church. Yet it has to continually be remembered that he didn't claim them to be unique to the president.
Tenth Claim: The prophet may well advise on civic matters.
"When a people are righteous, they want the best to lead them in government. Alma was the head of the Church and of the government in the Book of Mormon; Joseph Smith was mayor of Nauvoo and Brigham Young was governor of Utah. Isaiah was deeply involved in giving counsel on political matters and of his words the Lord himself said, 'Great are the words of Isaiah.' (3 Ne. 23:1.)"
This seems a restructuring of the last claim to some degree. And it seems a bit of a simplistic statement, as anyone can advise on civic matters. I think he is suggesting that the president could be inspired with answers on civic matters. Again this could be the case with anyone able to receive revelation. But it is worth noting, and seems indisputable.
Eleventh Claim: The two groups who have the greatest difficulty in following the prophet are the proud who are learned and the proud who are rich.
To justify this concept he presents the following _
"The learned may feel the prophet is only inspired when he agrees with them, otherwise the prophet is just giving his opinion—speaking as a man. The rich may feel they have no need to take counsel of a lowly prophet.
In the Book of Mormon we read:
'O that cunning plan of the evil one! O the vainness, and the frailties, and the foolishness of men! When they are learned they think they are wise, and they hearken not unto the counsel of God, for they set it aside, supposing they know of themselves, wherefore, their wisdom is foolishness and it profiteth them not. And they shall perish.
'But to be learned is good if they hearken unto the counsels of God.
'And whoso knocketh, to him will he open; and the wise, and the learned, and they that are rich, who are puffed up because of their learning, and their wisdom, and their riches—yea, they are they whom he despiseth; and save they shall cast things away, and consider themselves fools before God, and come down in the depths of humility, he will not open unto them.' (2 Ne. 9:28–29, 42)"
While fully supporting the part of the claim that says that those that consider themselves wise and rich are hard of spiritual hearing; I would have to add a third member to the group to make it complete.
When Satan came to Christ and Eve he made an attack upon each of our 3 parts - intelligence, spirit body and physical body. These were intelligence - "desired to make one wise" "if you are the Son of God cast yourself down" (this is the "pride of life" [learned]). Spirit body - "pleasant to the eyes" "all these things will I give thee" (this is the "lust of the eyes" [rich]) And the Physical body - "good for food" "turn this stone into bread" (this is the "lust of the flesh"). (Gen 3:6, Matt 4:2-9, 1 Jn 2:16)
So to me he has only represented two groups of the three. While pride and greed are serious problems, so is lust of the flesh. I don't see this group as being inferior problems to the other two. With the inclusion of this group I'm quite in agreement with him.
Ninth Claim: The prophet can receive revelation on any matter—temporal or spiritual.
To explain and support this claim he presented the following _
"Said Brigham Young:
'Some of the leading men in Kirtland were much opposed to Joseph the Prophet, meddling with temporal affairs …
'In a public meeting of the Saints, I said, ‘Ye Elders of Israel, … will some of you draw the line of demarcation, between the spiritual and temporal in the kingdom of God, so that I may understand it?’ Not one of them could do it …
'I defy any man on earth to point out the path a Prophet of God should walk in, or point out his duty, and just how far he must go, in dictating temporal or spiritual things. Temporal and spiritual things are inseparably connected, and ever will be.' (Journal of Discourses, 10:363–64.)"
As with Brigham people have often presented to me that the prophet is correct in all things spiritual, but doesn't have to be in temporal things. To which I have never been able to find anyone capable of proving to me where one finishes and the other starts. Even something as seemingly temporal as going to the toilet has spiritual significance in looking after the body we have been given.
Some would point out that claim isn't unique to the president of the church, but counts for all. This is true. There is only one of these 14 claims that I find totally unique to the president of the church. Yet it has to continually be remembered that he didn't claim them to be unique to the president.
Tenth Claim: The prophet may well advise on civic matters.
"When a people are righteous, they want the best to lead them in government. Alma was the head of the Church and of the government in the Book of Mormon; Joseph Smith was mayor of Nauvoo and Brigham Young was governor of Utah. Isaiah was deeply involved in giving counsel on political matters and of his words the Lord himself said, 'Great are the words of Isaiah.' (3 Ne. 23:1.)"
This seems a restructuring of the last claim to some degree. And it seems a bit of a simplistic statement, as anyone can advise on civic matters. I think he is suggesting that the president could be inspired with answers on civic matters. Again this could be the case with anyone able to receive revelation. But it is worth noting, and seems indisputable.
Eleventh Claim: The two groups who have the greatest difficulty in following the prophet are the proud who are learned and the proud who are rich.
To justify this concept he presents the following _
"The learned may feel the prophet is only inspired when he agrees with them, otherwise the prophet is just giving his opinion—speaking as a man. The rich may feel they have no need to take counsel of a lowly prophet.
In the Book of Mormon we read:
'O that cunning plan of the evil one! O the vainness, and the frailties, and the foolishness of men! When they are learned they think they are wise, and they hearken not unto the counsel of God, for they set it aside, supposing they know of themselves, wherefore, their wisdom is foolishness and it profiteth them not. And they shall perish.
'But to be learned is good if they hearken unto the counsels of God.
'And whoso knocketh, to him will he open; and the wise, and the learned, and they that are rich, who are puffed up because of their learning, and their wisdom, and their riches—yea, they are they whom he despiseth; and save they shall cast things away, and consider themselves fools before God, and come down in the depths of humility, he will not open unto them.' (2 Ne. 9:28–29, 42)"
While fully supporting the part of the claim that says that those that consider themselves wise and rich are hard of spiritual hearing; I would have to add a third member to the group to make it complete.
When Satan came to Christ and Eve he made an attack upon each of our 3 parts - intelligence, spirit body and physical body. These were intelligence - "desired to make one wise" "if you are the Son of God cast yourself down" (this is the "pride of life" [learned]). Spirit body - "pleasant to the eyes" "all these things will I give thee" (this is the "lust of the eyes" [rich]) And the Physical body - "good for food" "turn this stone into bread" (this is the "lust of the flesh"). (Gen 3:6, Matt 4:2-9, 1 Jn 2:16)
So to me he has only represented two groups of the three. While pride and greed are serious problems, so is lust of the flesh. I don't see this group as being inferior problems to the other two. With the inclusion of this group I'm quite in agreement with him.
Tuesday, September 07, 2010
Hypocracy in Regard Child Pornography?
I have sometimes wondered about just how much underage pornography existed on the internet. Recently I finally got around to investigating the matter.
Most would probably be aware that displaying a female of 18 or over for pornographic purposes is at least legal. So I set out to find what could be obtained in regard those of 12 to 17. It wasn't long before I discovered, much to my horror, that typing in anything about that age group brought up pictures of girls between 6 and 11. Some even boasted as young as 3 years old.
What I typed in was things such as _ 14 yo sexy nude. I varied it to 15 yo and even down to 12 yo. Yet the overwhelming response was to obtain sites where although those figures were quoted on the page to draw in visitors the girls shown were what they term a Lolita or Preteen (someone 11 yo or under). - amazing what you learn on the internet.
While the girls weren't naked they certainly weren't well dressed. The intent was obvious as picture after picture appeared with them dressed in skimpy bikinis or high cut shorts etc.
The sites presented that this was legal because the girls weren't naked.
The thing that seemed eqally bewildering to me was that in spite of this no site posted such pictures of girls of 12 to 17. There were those sites that offered downloads that you could pay for of 14 yo girls etc, yet they displayed none.
What insanity! We can see a 6 yo inappropriately displayed, while pictures of a 16 yo in such pose are policed.
Obviously we need to put some judges, lawyers and politicians on the case that aren't visiting the sites themselves. It seems they weren't visiting the sites with those older but underaged. Is that cynicism, Doug, or have you just been reading the Book of Mormon too much?
I think it time to change the laws sufficiently to disallow such legal pornography also.
Most would probably be aware that displaying a female of 18 or over for pornographic purposes is at least legal. So I set out to find what could be obtained in regard those of 12 to 17. It wasn't long before I discovered, much to my horror, that typing in anything about that age group brought up pictures of girls between 6 and 11. Some even boasted as young as 3 years old.
What I typed in was things such as _ 14 yo sexy nude. I varied it to 15 yo and even down to 12 yo. Yet the overwhelming response was to obtain sites where although those figures were quoted on the page to draw in visitors the girls shown were what they term a Lolita or Preteen (someone 11 yo or under). - amazing what you learn on the internet.
While the girls weren't naked they certainly weren't well dressed. The intent was obvious as picture after picture appeared with them dressed in skimpy bikinis or high cut shorts etc.
The sites presented that this was legal because the girls weren't naked.
The thing that seemed eqally bewildering to me was that in spite of this no site posted such pictures of girls of 12 to 17. There were those sites that offered downloads that you could pay for of 14 yo girls etc, yet they displayed none.
What insanity! We can see a 6 yo inappropriately displayed, while pictures of a 16 yo in such pose are policed.
Obviously we need to put some judges, lawyers and politicians on the case that aren't visiting the sites themselves. It seems they weren't visiting the sites with those older but underaged. Is that cynicism, Doug, or have you just been reading the Book of Mormon too much?
I think it time to change the laws sufficiently to disallow such legal pornography also.
Thursday, August 19, 2010
Fourteen Fundamentals Examined Part 5
Ezra Taft Benson (president of the Quorum of the Twelve apostles at the time) gave a talk entitled “Fourteen Fundamentals in Following the Prophet” (Address given Tuesday, February 26, 1980 at Brigham Young University).
His claims are somewhat controversial. In fact even some relatively conservative members have given them negative reviews of late, not just the DAMs. It is neither my intention to defend over simplifications he's given, on the one hand, nor to find fault where it doesn't exist, on the other. So I am seeking to do a realistic appraisal of his claims a few at a time.
In looking at his statements I think we have to remember that he was talking at BYU. He wasn't anticipating that his words would be analysed under a microscope on the internet. Also I think the talk was anticipated to be simplistic, not used as a doctrinal backing for a particular line of thought (as has occurred).
Also we need to observe that, except for one, these qualities aren't entirely unique to the president of the church. He has only attempted to inform us what to keep in mind in following instructions from the president.
Brother Benson states the following, "Here then is the grand key — Follow the prophet — and here are fourteen fundamentals in following the prophet." He then qualifies that when he uses the term "the prophet," he means "the President of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints." This qualifying of the title "the prophet" is important to the subject, as we view the claims.
I'm doing these back to front as that way when they are completed they can be read from start to finish. Claims 12 and 13 shouldn't really have much controversy from a church member's point of view. But claim 14 does need some discussion to put it in a more universally understood manner.
Claim Twelve: The prophet will not necessarily be popular with the world or the worldly.
"As a prophet reveals the truth it divides the people. The honest in heart heed his words but the unrighteous either ignore the prophet or fight him. When the prophet points out the sins of the world, the worldly either want to close the mouth of the prophet, or else act as if the prophet didn’t exist, rather than repent of their sins. Popularity is never a test of truth. Many a prophet has been killed or cast out. As we come closer to the Lord’s second coming you can expect that as the people of the world become more wicked, the prophet will be less popular with them."
I don't think that too many would disagree with this. The only thing that I feel some would like to qualify is that it pertains to anyone preaching the gospel of Christ. So all members who speak out must expect the same.
Claim Thirteen: The prophet and his counsellors make up the First Presidency—The highest quorum in the Church.
"In the Doctrine and Covenants the Lord refers to the First Presidency as “the highest council of the Church” (D&C 107:80) and says “whosoever receiveth me, receiveth those, the First Presidency, whom I have sent …” (D&C 112:20)."
I don't think any member would have trouble with this Claim.
It should be remembered that he didn't claim the 14 fundamentals were all unique to the president; only that they should be remembered in following him. But this one is the one that is unique and fully qualified.
Claim Fourteen: The prophet and the presidency—the living prophet and the First Presidency—follow them and be blessed—reject them and suffer.
"...In a general conference of the Church, President N. Eldon Tanner stated:
“The Prophet spoke out clearly on Friday morning, telling us what our responsibilities are …
“A man said to me after that, ‘You know, there are people in our state who believe in following the Prophet in everything they think is right, but when it is something they think isn’t right, and it doesn’t appeal to them, then that’s different.’ He said, ‘Then they become their own prophet. They decide what the Lord wants and what the Lord doesn’t want.’
“I thought how true, and how serious when we begin to choose which of the covenants, which of the commandments we will keep and follow, we are taking the law of the Lord into our own hands and become our own prophets, and believe me, we will be led astray, because we are false prophets to ourselves when we do not follow the Prophet of God. No, we should never discriminate between these commandments, as to those we should and should not keep.” (CR, October 1966, p. 98.)..."
I agree with this idea in the main. The only problem with this type of thinking is that it refutes the teaching of even past presidents that we should be getting our own revelation and become a prophet unto ourselves. It blocks a person from personal spiritual progress beyond the point that the president receives revelation for the weak and weakest of Saints (D&C 89:3). It also ignores the point that some members feel the importance of living higher commandments that have been extracted from members generally, because of failure to abide higher laws of God (D&C Section 119 heading).
The Prophet Caiaphas received revelation about Christ. He interpreted its application to mean that they should seek the death of Christ (Jn 11:49-53). Should I have followed the president of the church (the Prophet Caiaphas) had I been there?
1 Kings 13:18 states that a prophet lied deliberately to another prophet, causing his death. The story also demonstrates another prophet disobeying God (verse 26 states that this man was a prophet).
The prophet Balaam got the Israelites to do wickedly. His idea was to make God displeased with them so he could get paid by the king of the Moabites to curse them with God's approval. (Num 22:17,Rev 2:14)
So had I been a Jew at the time of Caiaphas would I have suffered if I didn't follow his council in regard opposing Christ? Was the prophet who was lied to by another prophet blessed because he followed his lie? Certainly not. And could I have supported the prophet Balaam in his wickedness and have been blessed?
Brigham Young stated _
"There are those among this people who are influenced, controlled, and biased in their thoughts, actions, and feelings by some other individual or family, on whom they place their dependence for spiritual and temporal instruction, and for salvation in the end. These persons do not depend upon themselves for salvation, but upon another of their poor, weak, fellow mortals. 'I do not depend upon any inherent goodness of my own,' say they, 'to introduce me into the kingdom of glory, but I depend upon you, brother Joseph, upon you, brother Brigham, upon you, brother Heber, or upon you, brother James; I believe your judgment is superior to mine, and consequently I let you judge for me; your spirit is better than mine, therefore you can do good for me; I will submit myself wholly to you, and place in you all my confidence for life and salvation; where you go I will go, and where you tarry there I will stay; expecting that you will introduce me through the gates into the heavenly Jerusalem.'" (Journal of Discourses: 1:Brigham Young 1853/02/20 : 310)
We have to do a lot more than just sit around like blind fools following another person other than Jesus Christ and Heavenly Father. We have to use revelation to gain eternal life (D&C 42:61 and 45:57). This is the thing that makes us different to any other religion claiming to follow Christ. We can talk to God and have him talk back. Either through the Holy Ghost, Jesus Christ or Heavenly Father.
Additionally Brigham stated _
"Now those men, or those women, who know no more about the power of God, and the influences of the Holy Spirit, than to be led entirely by another person, suspending their own understanding, and pinning their faith upon another's sleeve, will never be capable of entering into the celestial glory, to be crowned as they anticipate; they will never be capable of becoming Gods. They cannot rule themselves, to say nothing of ruling others..." (Journal of Discourses: 1:Brigham Young 1853/02/20 : 310)
Summary
From this examination of Brother Benson's talk we should be able to see that his intention was to encourage people to have faith in the person that God has chosen as mouthpiece for him in the church organisation. It is important to members and non-members to be looking to this source of truth. To propose that the president of the church is somehow flawless or that all he says is as if God were speaking, is an extreme, it is true. But to rip Brother Benson apart because he should have been less emphatic seems an even greater extreme to me.
His claims are somewhat controversial. In fact even some relatively conservative members have given them negative reviews of late, not just the DAMs. It is neither my intention to defend over simplifications he's given, on the one hand, nor to find fault where it doesn't exist, on the other. So I am seeking to do a realistic appraisal of his claims a few at a time.
In looking at his statements I think we have to remember that he was talking at BYU. He wasn't anticipating that his words would be analysed under a microscope on the internet. Also I think the talk was anticipated to be simplistic, not used as a doctrinal backing for a particular line of thought (as has occurred).
Also we need to observe that, except for one, these qualities aren't entirely unique to the president of the church. He has only attempted to inform us what to keep in mind in following instructions from the president.
Brother Benson states the following, "Here then is the grand key — Follow the prophet — and here are fourteen fundamentals in following the prophet." He then qualifies that when he uses the term "the prophet," he means "the President of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints." This qualifying of the title "the prophet" is important to the subject, as we view the claims.
I'm doing these back to front as that way when they are completed they can be read from start to finish. Claims 12 and 13 shouldn't really have much controversy from a church member's point of view. But claim 14 does need some discussion to put it in a more universally understood manner.
Claim Twelve: The prophet will not necessarily be popular with the world or the worldly.
"As a prophet reveals the truth it divides the people. The honest in heart heed his words but the unrighteous either ignore the prophet or fight him. When the prophet points out the sins of the world, the worldly either want to close the mouth of the prophet, or else act as if the prophet didn’t exist, rather than repent of their sins. Popularity is never a test of truth. Many a prophet has been killed or cast out. As we come closer to the Lord’s second coming you can expect that as the people of the world become more wicked, the prophet will be less popular with them."
I don't think that too many would disagree with this. The only thing that I feel some would like to qualify is that it pertains to anyone preaching the gospel of Christ. So all members who speak out must expect the same.
Claim Thirteen: The prophet and his counsellors make up the First Presidency—The highest quorum in the Church.
"In the Doctrine and Covenants the Lord refers to the First Presidency as “the highest council of the Church” (D&C 107:80) and says “whosoever receiveth me, receiveth those, the First Presidency, whom I have sent …” (D&C 112:20)."
I don't think any member would have trouble with this Claim.
It should be remembered that he didn't claim the 14 fundamentals were all unique to the president; only that they should be remembered in following him. But this one is the one that is unique and fully qualified.
Claim Fourteen: The prophet and the presidency—the living prophet and the First Presidency—follow them and be blessed—reject them and suffer.
"...In a general conference of the Church, President N. Eldon Tanner stated:
“The Prophet spoke out clearly on Friday morning, telling us what our responsibilities are …
“A man said to me after that, ‘You know, there are people in our state who believe in following the Prophet in everything they think is right, but when it is something they think isn’t right, and it doesn’t appeal to them, then that’s different.’ He said, ‘Then they become their own prophet. They decide what the Lord wants and what the Lord doesn’t want.’
“I thought how true, and how serious when we begin to choose which of the covenants, which of the commandments we will keep and follow, we are taking the law of the Lord into our own hands and become our own prophets, and believe me, we will be led astray, because we are false prophets to ourselves when we do not follow the Prophet of God. No, we should never discriminate between these commandments, as to those we should and should not keep.” (CR, October 1966, p. 98.)..."
I agree with this idea in the main. The only problem with this type of thinking is that it refutes the teaching of even past presidents that we should be getting our own revelation and become a prophet unto ourselves. It blocks a person from personal spiritual progress beyond the point that the president receives revelation for the weak and weakest of Saints (D&C 89:3). It also ignores the point that some members feel the importance of living higher commandments that have been extracted from members generally, because of failure to abide higher laws of God (D&C Section 119 heading).
The Prophet Caiaphas received revelation about Christ. He interpreted its application to mean that they should seek the death of Christ (Jn 11:49-53). Should I have followed the president of the church (the Prophet Caiaphas) had I been there?
1 Kings 13:18 states that a prophet lied deliberately to another prophet, causing his death. The story also demonstrates another prophet disobeying God (verse 26 states that this man was a prophet).
The prophet Balaam got the Israelites to do wickedly. His idea was to make God displeased with them so he could get paid by the king of the Moabites to curse them with God's approval. (Num 22:17,Rev 2:14)
So had I been a Jew at the time of Caiaphas would I have suffered if I didn't follow his council in regard opposing Christ? Was the prophet who was lied to by another prophet blessed because he followed his lie? Certainly not. And could I have supported the prophet Balaam in his wickedness and have been blessed?
Brigham Young stated _
"There are those among this people who are influenced, controlled, and biased in their thoughts, actions, and feelings by some other individual or family, on whom they place their dependence for spiritual and temporal instruction, and for salvation in the end. These persons do not depend upon themselves for salvation, but upon another of their poor, weak, fellow mortals. 'I do not depend upon any inherent goodness of my own,' say they, 'to introduce me into the kingdom of glory, but I depend upon you, brother Joseph, upon you, brother Brigham, upon you, brother Heber, or upon you, brother James; I believe your judgment is superior to mine, and consequently I let you judge for me; your spirit is better than mine, therefore you can do good for me; I will submit myself wholly to you, and place in you all my confidence for life and salvation; where you go I will go, and where you tarry there I will stay; expecting that you will introduce me through the gates into the heavenly Jerusalem.'" (Journal of Discourses: 1:Brigham Young 1853/02/20 : 310)
We have to do a lot more than just sit around like blind fools following another person other than Jesus Christ and Heavenly Father. We have to use revelation to gain eternal life (D&C 42:61 and 45:57). This is the thing that makes us different to any other religion claiming to follow Christ. We can talk to God and have him talk back. Either through the Holy Ghost, Jesus Christ or Heavenly Father.
Additionally Brigham stated _
"Now those men, or those women, who know no more about the power of God, and the influences of the Holy Spirit, than to be led entirely by another person, suspending their own understanding, and pinning their faith upon another's sleeve, will never be capable of entering into the celestial glory, to be crowned as they anticipate; they will never be capable of becoming Gods. They cannot rule themselves, to say nothing of ruling others..." (Journal of Discourses: 1:Brigham Young 1853/02/20 : 310)
Summary
From this examination of Brother Benson's talk we should be able to see that his intention was to encourage people to have faith in the person that God has chosen as mouthpiece for him in the church organisation. It is important to members and non-members to be looking to this source of truth. To propose that the president of the church is somehow flawless or that all he says is as if God were speaking, is an extreme, it is true. But to rip Brother Benson apart because he should have been less emphatic seems an even greater extreme to me.
Thursday, August 05, 2010
Does God Really Want us to Obtain Food by the Sweat of our Brows?
I have often heard claim that God commanded us to work for a living. While I don't dispute that work is a good thing, and Solomon made some statements supporting it, is it true to attribute such a commandment to God? Or should we just stick to pointing out its importance to our balanced developement?
Moses 5:1 says, "...Adam began to till the earth, and to have dominion over all the beasts of the field, and to eat his bread by the sweat of his brow, as I the Lord had commanded him..."
This is interpreted by many to say that the commandment that God was referring to was the latter statement about work.
As a contradiction to this claim we have the following statement by Christ to his disciples, relative to obtaining food and clothing etc.
"But you seek first the kingdom of God, and his righteousness; and all these things shall be added to you." Matt 6:33
This presents that some are called upon to look to God for sustanance. So how could God be giving two contrary instructions making one a commandment? - particularly both being in the gospel.
Looking at the idea that we are commanded to work we can also quote the statement to Adam, made by God, in the Garden of Eden.
"In the sweat of your face shall you eat bread, until you return to the ground; for out of it were you taken: for dust you are, and to dust shall you return." Gen 3:19
Quoted on its own, one option would be to read this as a commandment. So let's look at the surrounding statements to see what they reveal relative to what this statement means.
Looking back at verse 17 we find _
"And to Adam he said, Because you have listened to what your wife said, and have eaten of the tree of which I commanded you, saying, You shall not eat of it: cursed is the ground for your sake; in sorrow shall you eat of it all the days of your life; Thorns also and thistles shall it bring forth to you; and you shall eat the herb of the field." Gen 3:17-18
So God has pronounced a curse upon Adam because of his wrong action (as declared in verses 17-19 inclusive). The parts of this curse are that because of evil actions _
1. The ground won't produce its best.
2. Thorns and thistles will infest the ground.
3. That from then on we had to eat herbs also, instead of just seeds and fruit (Gen 1:29).
4. That we will now have to sweat from the work to get the ground to produce things.
5. That we will die and our bodies rot to dust.
Yet looking at this, number 4 doesn't come out as a commandment, merely a part of a curse. To turn these into commandments would be ridiculous looking at number 5 (not to mention the absurdity of seeing the first 2 as commandments).
So while I support productive living, I see this verse as being quoted out of context.
What does it matter, some may ask? It matters because God is giving a lesson for use in these verses which is being obscured by incorrect interpretation by people.
It would be better to quote Christ, in regard working _
"My Father is working up until now, and I work." John 5:17
This presents that both Christ and Heavenly Father are always working. Thus if we wish to do the same as them afterward, we must learn the principle of work now. Of course this is a spiritual work that they are engaged in.
Moses 5:1 says, "...Adam began to till the earth, and to have dominion over all the beasts of the field, and to eat his bread by the sweat of his brow, as I the Lord had commanded him..."
This is interpreted by many to say that the commandment that God was referring to was the latter statement about work.
As a contradiction to this claim we have the following statement by Christ to his disciples, relative to obtaining food and clothing etc.
"But you seek first the kingdom of God, and his righteousness; and all these things shall be added to you." Matt 6:33
This presents that some are called upon to look to God for sustanance. So how could God be giving two contrary instructions making one a commandment? - particularly both being in the gospel.
Looking at the idea that we are commanded to work we can also quote the statement to Adam, made by God, in the Garden of Eden.
"In the sweat of your face shall you eat bread, until you return to the ground; for out of it were you taken: for dust you are, and to dust shall you return." Gen 3:19
Quoted on its own, one option would be to read this as a commandment. So let's look at the surrounding statements to see what they reveal relative to what this statement means.
Looking back at verse 17 we find _
"And to Adam he said, Because you have listened to what your wife said, and have eaten of the tree of which I commanded you, saying, You shall not eat of it: cursed is the ground for your sake; in sorrow shall you eat of it all the days of your life; Thorns also and thistles shall it bring forth to you; and you shall eat the herb of the field." Gen 3:17-18
So God has pronounced a curse upon Adam because of his wrong action (as declared in verses 17-19 inclusive). The parts of this curse are that because of evil actions _
1. The ground won't produce its best.
2. Thorns and thistles will infest the ground.
3. That from then on we had to eat herbs also, instead of just seeds and fruit (Gen 1:29).
4. That we will now have to sweat from the work to get the ground to produce things.
5. That we will die and our bodies rot to dust.
Yet looking at this, number 4 doesn't come out as a commandment, merely a part of a curse. To turn these into commandments would be ridiculous looking at number 5 (not to mention the absurdity of seeing the first 2 as commandments).
So while I support productive living, I see this verse as being quoted out of context.
What does it matter, some may ask? It matters because God is giving a lesson for use in these verses which is being obscured by incorrect interpretation by people.
It would be better to quote Christ, in regard working _
"My Father is working up until now, and I work." John 5:17
This presents that both Christ and Heavenly Father are always working. Thus if we wish to do the same as them afterward, we must learn the principle of work now. Of course this is a spiritual work that they are engaged in.
Wednesday, July 14, 2010
The Effect of the Fall Took about 2400 Years to Complete.
Reading the Scriptures a person could come to the opinion that the fall was an instant action that was a once off. But the Scriptures demonstrate that the fall actually took place over a long period of time.
We should first look at how long Adam lived. God told Adam and Eve _
"But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, you shall not eat of it: for in the day that you eat from it you will surely die." Gen 2:17
This word "day" means a time; and is used in regard the creation to mean one period of light and a period of darkness, by the measure that God was using for the creation (Gen 1:13). It should be noted that our sun, from which we draw time, wasn't made until days into the creation (Gen 1:16-19). So how long was this day that Adam would die within if he transgressed?
The Scriptures inform us that it was a thousand years (2 Pet 3:8, Abr 3:4). And how long did Adam live?
"And all the days that Adam lived were nine hundred and thirty years: and he died." Gen 5:5 (Also note Moses 6:12)
So in the day (thousand year period) that Adam transgressed he died, as God declared. In fact no one lived beyond the day.
Yet this didn't end the fall. The fall is demonstrated to have continued as a result of ongoing sin. The shortest lifespan before Noah was Noah's father Lamech living for 777 years (Gen 5:31). Yet Noah himself lived longer than Adam (Gen 9:29). So it took more than those generations to really show what was happening.
Gen 6:3 has the Lord declaring man's days to be 120 years. But this is put in the wrong place, because this is a long time before that became true. After the flood we see from the genealogy a great drop in the life-span from generation to generation. We see in the genealogy of Shem, the son of Noah _
Gen 11:12-13 Arphaxad lived for 438 years only.
Gen 11:14-15 Salah lived for 433 years.
Gen 11:16-17 Eber lived for 464 years.
Gen 11:18-19 Peleg lived for 239 years.
Gen 11:20-21 Reu lived for 239 years.
Gen 11:22-23 Serug lived for 230 years.
Gen 11:24-25 Nahor lived for 148 years.
Gen 11:32 Terah lived 205 years.
Gen 25:7 Abraham lived 175 years.
While this is a strange decline, it is demonstrating that the fall wasn't instant. Matter changed over the time. This change is another reason why "scientific" dating methods are useless before Moses, as the fall didn't have its full effect. No one can possibly understand what matter was like during that time, and at what rate it was affected. Particularly since we have no idea what matter was like originally (before the fall).
Also of note is that while Noah lived for over 900 years, his grandson (Arphaxad) only lived over 400 years. So obviously Noah's righteousness needs to be taken into consideration. Yet in spite of hick-ups the decline after the flood was rapid.
Moses declared that by his time people were living only 70 to 80 years at best _
"The days of our years are seventy; and if by reason of strength they be eighty, yet is their strength labour and sorrow; for it is soon cut off, and we fly away."
Considering that we live around that time now, it suggests that no further falling of matter occurred thereafter.
We should first look at how long Adam lived. God told Adam and Eve _
"But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, you shall not eat of it: for in the day that you eat from it you will surely die." Gen 2:17
This word "day" means a time; and is used in regard the creation to mean one period of light and a period of darkness, by the measure that God was using for the creation (Gen 1:13). It should be noted that our sun, from which we draw time, wasn't made until days into the creation (Gen 1:16-19). So how long was this day that Adam would die within if he transgressed?
The Scriptures inform us that it was a thousand years (2 Pet 3:8, Abr 3:4). And how long did Adam live?
"And all the days that Adam lived were nine hundred and thirty years: and he died." Gen 5:5 (Also note Moses 6:12)
So in the day (thousand year period) that Adam transgressed he died, as God declared. In fact no one lived beyond the day.
Yet this didn't end the fall. The fall is demonstrated to have continued as a result of ongoing sin. The shortest lifespan before Noah was Noah's father Lamech living for 777 years (Gen 5:31). Yet Noah himself lived longer than Adam (Gen 9:29). So it took more than those generations to really show what was happening.
Gen 6:3 has the Lord declaring man's days to be 120 years. But this is put in the wrong place, because this is a long time before that became true. After the flood we see from the genealogy a great drop in the life-span from generation to generation. We see in the genealogy of Shem, the son of Noah _
Gen 11:12-13 Arphaxad lived for 438 years only.
Gen 11:14-15 Salah lived for 433 years.
Gen 11:16-17 Eber lived for 464 years.
Gen 11:18-19 Peleg lived for 239 years.
Gen 11:20-21 Reu lived for 239 years.
Gen 11:22-23 Serug lived for 230 years.
Gen 11:24-25 Nahor lived for 148 years.
Gen 11:32 Terah lived 205 years.
Gen 25:7 Abraham lived 175 years.
While this is a strange decline, it is demonstrating that the fall wasn't instant. Matter changed over the time. This change is another reason why "scientific" dating methods are useless before Moses, as the fall didn't have its full effect. No one can possibly understand what matter was like during that time, and at what rate it was affected. Particularly since we have no idea what matter was like originally (before the fall).
Also of note is that while Noah lived for over 900 years, his grandson (Arphaxad) only lived over 400 years. So obviously Noah's righteousness needs to be taken into consideration. Yet in spite of hick-ups the decline after the flood was rapid.
Moses declared that by his time people were living only 70 to 80 years at best _
"The days of our years are seventy; and if by reason of strength they be eighty, yet is their strength labour and sorrow; for it is soon cut off, and we fly away."
Considering that we live around that time now, it suggests that no further falling of matter occurred thereafter.
Thursday, June 24, 2010
Who's More Racial Prejudice, Latter-Day Saints, Protestants or Atheists?
I have heard claims of prejudice aimed at church members due to the negros not receiving the priesthood prior to 1978. This has been done by both Protestants and Atheists. Yet what is the reality? Who's belief could really be demonstrated as the most racial prejudice?
Yet an aditional advantage that the negro didn't do temple ordinances is that they have often been slaves. This would have been a compromise to such. Also masters could have demanded they use the priesthood for incorrect reasons.
But leaving these points aside let's look at the ideas of all 3.
Latter-Day Saints
There is not a person of any race that has been witheld from baptism at any time. Even after people are DEAD they can still accept the gospel of Christ REGARDLESS of what race they came from, or what time they lived in: Every person who has lived upon this earth will have a chance to accept Jesus Christ. Also the gift of the Holy Ghost has been bestowed upon all who wish to accept it.
While, prior to coming here, the negros didn't wish to receive the priesthood during this life (this restricts ordinances available), they still have the same opportunity to change their minds after death. There is no eternal restriction on them whatsoever.
While translating the Book of Abraham, Joseph Smith recorded in regard the negro, Pharoah (grandson of Ham), "Pharoah, being a righteous man, established his kingdom and judged his people wisely and justly all his days..." Abraham 1:26
So we have a wise and just negro king. Hardly a concept of inferior negros.
Atheism
The Atheist would have us believe we evolved (generally speaking). This is a process of survival of the fittest. It teaches a progress of creatures.
They would have us believe that we evolved in stages to become the superior being we are today. In this process we first had what people? The blacks! This is their version of the inferior of us human beings. Then came the brown races next. They propose we have progressed through to become the superior white race of modern science.
So much for Atheists.
Protestantism
Well, where do I start?
Protestantism teaches that only in the land of Israel were people that were talked to by God. This means that every other being on earth for all those years are doomed to hell forever. To burn and burn and burn forever, because they didn't belong to the right race.
What is more they consider that even before Jacob (Israel) only a few select people had any communication with God. Thus almost everyone on earth for about 4 thousand years are all doomed to hell because they weren't in the right place or of the right race.
Then came Christ who eventually had the gospel spread further. Yet what of all the people in North and South America, most of the African continent, Australia, New Zealand, Samoa and all the rest of those islands and most of Asia? Again we have enormous racial prejudice.
This went on for well over another thousand years. So we end up with well over 5 thousand years of amazing racial prejudice.
And what of today? We have China having gone through over 60 years of communist rule with no religion allowed. This is a nation that has by far the largest population of any country in the world. Our Protestant friends have them all going off to hell to burn. Hey, burn the lot, you say! Here a billion burnt, there a billion burnt. "I'm saved though," says Mr and Mrs Protestant. "I can't understand these people who are prejudice against the Chinese," they say.
Looking at it
It is very obvious that certain races have been more blessed than others. Whether a person wants to claim this as some luck or whatever is up to them. But the Scriptures clearly show that God has selected some races (such as Israel) and places to put down the spirits that were showing the most potential. However it has to be also observed that some good spirits have gone into all races. He has also put some bad spirits into all races. So we can't just judge a person by their race.
Yet an aditional advantage that the negro didn't do temple ordinances is that they have often been slaves. This would have been a compromise to such. Also masters could have demanded they use the priesthood for incorrect reasons.
But leaving these points aside let's look at the ideas of all 3.
Latter-Day Saints
There is not a person of any race that has been witheld from baptism at any time. Even after people are DEAD they can still accept the gospel of Christ REGARDLESS of what race they came from, or what time they lived in: Every person who has lived upon this earth will have a chance to accept Jesus Christ. Also the gift of the Holy Ghost has been bestowed upon all who wish to accept it.
While, prior to coming here, the negros didn't wish to receive the priesthood during this life (this restricts ordinances available), they still have the same opportunity to change their minds after death. There is no eternal restriction on them whatsoever.
While translating the Book of Abraham, Joseph Smith recorded in regard the negro, Pharoah (grandson of Ham), "Pharoah, being a righteous man, established his kingdom and judged his people wisely and justly all his days..." Abraham 1:26
So we have a wise and just negro king. Hardly a concept of inferior negros.
Atheism
The Atheist would have us believe we evolved (generally speaking). This is a process of survival of the fittest. It teaches a progress of creatures.
They would have us believe that we evolved in stages to become the superior being we are today. In this process we first had what people? The blacks! This is their version of the inferior of us human beings. Then came the brown races next. They propose we have progressed through to become the superior white race of modern science.
So much for Atheists.
Protestantism
Well, where do I start?
Protestantism teaches that only in the land of Israel were people that were talked to by God. This means that every other being on earth for all those years are doomed to hell forever. To burn and burn and burn forever, because they didn't belong to the right race.
What is more they consider that even before Jacob (Israel) only a few select people had any communication with God. Thus almost everyone on earth for about 4 thousand years are all doomed to hell because they weren't in the right place or of the right race.
Then came Christ who eventually had the gospel spread further. Yet what of all the people in North and South America, most of the African continent, Australia, New Zealand, Samoa and all the rest of those islands and most of Asia? Again we have enormous racial prejudice.
This went on for well over another thousand years. So we end up with well over 5 thousand years of amazing racial prejudice.
And what of today? We have China having gone through over 60 years of communist rule with no religion allowed. This is a nation that has by far the largest population of any country in the world. Our Protestant friends have them all going off to hell to burn. Hey, burn the lot, you say! Here a billion burnt, there a billion burnt. "I'm saved though," says Mr and Mrs Protestant. "I can't understand these people who are prejudice against the Chinese," they say.
Looking at it
It is very obvious that certain races have been more blessed than others. Whether a person wants to claim this as some luck or whatever is up to them. But the Scriptures clearly show that God has selected some races (such as Israel) and places to put down the spirits that were showing the most potential. However it has to be also observed that some good spirits have gone into all races. He has also put some bad spirits into all races. So we can't just judge a person by their race.
Monday, June 14, 2010
LDS Doctrine? Church Doctrine? What is it?
The question is sometimes put forward of what the church actually believes. And what do I believe myself? Do all LDS believe the same thing? And if not, then why not? And if so why do some general authorities seem to have opposing opinions here and there over the years?
If all members (regardless of their areas of responsibility in the church - callings) believed the same thing then something would be very wrong.
"For look, this is what the Lord God says: I will give to the children of men line upon line, precept upon precept, here a little and there a little; and blessed are those who take note of my precepts, and lend an ear to my counsel, for they shall learn wisdom; for to him that receives I will give more; and from them that shall say, We have enough, from them shall be taken away even that which they have." 2 Nephi 28:30
Here Nephi has expressed that the Lord gives a person knowledge a piece at a time, as they are ready. And those who don't accept it not only won't get any more, but will actually start to lose that which they have. In regard this idea Alma expresses that God won't even make it available to those who don't accept and enthusiastically obey what he has already given.
"And now Alma began to expound these things to him saying: It is given to many to know the mysteries of God; nevertheless they are laid under a strict command that they shall not impart only according to the portion of his word which he grants to the children of men, according to the heed and diligence which they give to him. And therefore, he that will harden his heart, the same receives the lesser portion of the word; and he that will not harden his heart, to him is given the greater portion of the word, until it is given to him to know the mysteries of God until he knows them in full. And they that will harden their hearts, to them is given the lesser portion of the word until they know nothing concerning his mysteries..." Alma 12:9-11
This statement of Alma's points out the huge gap that will exist between those accepting previously hidden knowledge and those who don't. It also points out that the diligence with which they accept and obey the knowledge counts. Additionally it is presenting that people will grow in this knowledge until they know the mysteries in full. This latter is saying that the person does this by a growth process that obviously takes time. Thus people will be on different levels of doctrinal understanding on each of the many subjects we need to learn.
These new doctrines must be learnt independently. They aren't taught by presidents of the church. The president of the church very rarely presents new doctrine. The last time was in 1978. Thus the rate of learning new doctrine is the responsibility of the individual.
The then president of the church, Joseph Smith, taught this same principle.
"Joseph Smith taught that every man and woman should seek the Lord for wisdom, that they might get knowledge from Him who is the fountain of knowledge.." George A. Smith (Deseret News: Semiweekly; Nov 29 1870)
"The things of God are of deep import; and time, and experience, and careful and ponderous and solemn thoughts can only find them out. Thy mind, O man: if thou wilt lead a soul unto salvation, must stretch as high as the utmost heavens, and search into and contemplate the darkest abyss, and the broad expanse of eternity- thou must commune with God." Joseph Smith (History of the Church 3:295-296, Mar 20 1839)
Many such truths exist in the Scriptures and in comments expressed by some past members with all sorts of callings (including those assigned as church president). As the Spirit works in us to enlighten our understanding we can reject this or accept it. Thus we have a great difference in opinion of individuals regardless of their positions.
We also see differences of levels of doctrinal understanding existing within the church just after Christ died.
"I have fed you with milk, and not with meat: for before now you were not able to bear it, and even now you are not able." 1 Cor 3:2
So Paul is declaring he had knowledge which he wasn't giving to the Corinthians. In regard this knowledge he said that they should be receiving it, but were too slack.
"For by this time you ought to be teachers, yet you have need that one teaches you again that which is the first principles of the oracles of God; and have become one of those that has need of milk, and not of strong meat. For every one that uses milk is unskilful in the word of righteousness: for he is a babe. But strong meat belongs to them that are of full age, even those who by reason of use have their senses exercised to discern both good and evil." Heb 5:12-14
When Christ was doing his mission there was also a difference of ability to understand his sayings in the Jewish church of God (originally established through Moses).
"There was a division among the Jews for these sayings." John 10:19
At the time of Moses there was a similar circumstance. In regard Israel at Moses' time Paul stated,
"For we also have had the gospel preached to us, just as they did; but the message they heard was of no value to them, because those who heard did not combine it with faith." Heb 4:2
So a variety of understanding is going to exist among members at any time of history. Today is no different.
Yet in regard what could be classified as church doctrine this would depend on what church member you asked. I believe we have to make a line between church doctrine and doctrine believed by church members. To me the church doctrine should be the basics presented in the Standard Works of Scripture. That is that we believe in Jesus Christ as the special Son of Heavenly Father. We believe that Heavenly Father and Jesus Christ are resurrected human beings and that we are entirely in their image AND likeness. We believe that he atoned for the sins of those who truly repent. And he makes possible the resurrection. We believe that the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints is the kingdom of God on earth. We believe that God has given authority to certain men within the church to perform the sacred ordinances as he would have them done. We believe in revelation from God to mankind. We believe in using the gift of the Holy Ghost. We believe in prayer. We believe in learning and doing those things that God would have us do. We believe in the restoration of authority by Jesus Christ to Joseph Smith.
In fact we could turn to the 13 Articles of Faith, and use those as a statement of what church doctrine is.
There are members that want to add seemingly endless amounts of manuals, magazines, books of their choice and other materials to the above list. Promoters of this seem to only believe these materials where they agree with them. If they don't they will usually say that it isn't what the current prophet is saying (Where the quote isn't from him - which is most of the time), and suddenly that makes that source incorrect for that quote. Sadly they will even try this sometimes with the Standard Works.
In regard these materials and "the current prophet" philosophies I'd like to give two quotes, from such materials and the current prophet at the time; Harold B. Lee:
"Stand Ye in Holy Places" by Harold B. Lee 15:162:6
"It is not to be thought that every word spoken by the General Authorities is inspired, or that they are moved upon by the Holy Ghost in everything they write. I don't care what his position is, if he writes something or speaks something that goes beyond anything that you can find in the standard church works, unless that one be the prophet, seer, and revelator--please note that one exception--you may immediately say, "Well, that is his own idea." And if he says something that contradicts what is found in the standard church works, you may know by that same token that it is false, REGARDLESS OF THE POSITION OF THE MAN WHO SAYS IT [my emphasis]." Also quoted in the Seminaries and Institute manual (1974), printed when he was the current prophet.
When church president, Harold B. Lee said in a European area conference:
"If anyone, regardless of his position in the Church, were to advance a doctrine that is not substantiated by the standard Church works, meaning the Bible, the Book of Mormon, the Doctrine and Covenants, and the Pearl of Great Price, you may know that his statement is merely his private opinion. The only one authorized to bring forth any new doctrine is the President of the Church, who, when he does, will declare it as revelation from God, and it will be so accepted by the Council of the Twelve and sustained by the body of the Church. And if any man speak a doctrine which contradicts what is in the standard Church works, you may know by that same token that it is false and you are not bound to accept it as truth." The First Area General Conference for Germany, Austria, Holland, Italy, Switzerland, France, Belgium, and Spain of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, held in Munich Germany, August 24-26, 1973, with Reports and Discourses, 69.
When new doctrine is sustained by the members then it is placed in the Standard Works. These are the only materials that are accepted church doctrine by the entire membership. We don't sustain opinions of men as Scripture merely by sustaining them in their callings. Else I would be claiming that every word spoken by the Mia Maids teacher is the mind and will of the Lord. Let's get real.
To my LDS doctrine, I use the Spirit, as Alma has suggested. I believe direct revelation is given to anyone who serves God and seeks the truth. As this includes myself, I believe in that which I have been inspired with. I have found all the things Heavenly Father, Jesus Christ and the Holy Ghost say to be true. Whether I'm reading the Scriptures or listening to the opinions of people, I listen to the Holy Ghost to advise in regard to its truth and application.
If all members (regardless of their areas of responsibility in the church - callings) believed the same thing then something would be very wrong.
"For look, this is what the Lord God says: I will give to the children of men line upon line, precept upon precept, here a little and there a little; and blessed are those who take note of my precepts, and lend an ear to my counsel, for they shall learn wisdom; for to him that receives I will give more; and from them that shall say, We have enough, from them shall be taken away even that which they have." 2 Nephi 28:30
Here Nephi has expressed that the Lord gives a person knowledge a piece at a time, as they are ready. And those who don't accept it not only won't get any more, but will actually start to lose that which they have. In regard this idea Alma expresses that God won't even make it available to those who don't accept and enthusiastically obey what he has already given.
"And now Alma began to expound these things to him saying: It is given to many to know the mysteries of God; nevertheless they are laid under a strict command that they shall not impart only according to the portion of his word which he grants to the children of men, according to the heed and diligence which they give to him. And therefore, he that will harden his heart, the same receives the lesser portion of the word; and he that will not harden his heart, to him is given the greater portion of the word, until it is given to him to know the mysteries of God until he knows them in full. And they that will harden their hearts, to them is given the lesser portion of the word until they know nothing concerning his mysteries..." Alma 12:9-11
This statement of Alma's points out the huge gap that will exist between those accepting previously hidden knowledge and those who don't. It also points out that the diligence with which they accept and obey the knowledge counts. Additionally it is presenting that people will grow in this knowledge until they know the mysteries in full. This latter is saying that the person does this by a growth process that obviously takes time. Thus people will be on different levels of doctrinal understanding on each of the many subjects we need to learn.
These new doctrines must be learnt independently. They aren't taught by presidents of the church. The president of the church very rarely presents new doctrine. The last time was in 1978. Thus the rate of learning new doctrine is the responsibility of the individual.
The then president of the church, Joseph Smith, taught this same principle.
"Joseph Smith taught that every man and woman should seek the Lord for wisdom, that they might get knowledge from Him who is the fountain of knowledge.." George A. Smith (Deseret News: Semiweekly; Nov 29 1870)
"The things of God are of deep import; and time, and experience, and careful and ponderous and solemn thoughts can only find them out. Thy mind, O man: if thou wilt lead a soul unto salvation, must stretch as high as the utmost heavens, and search into and contemplate the darkest abyss, and the broad expanse of eternity- thou must commune with God." Joseph Smith (History of the Church 3:295-296, Mar 20 1839)
Many such truths exist in the Scriptures and in comments expressed by some past members with all sorts of callings (including those assigned as church president). As the Spirit works in us to enlighten our understanding we can reject this or accept it. Thus we have a great difference in opinion of individuals regardless of their positions.
We also see differences of levels of doctrinal understanding existing within the church just after Christ died.
"I have fed you with milk, and not with meat: for before now you were not able to bear it, and even now you are not able." 1 Cor 3:2
So Paul is declaring he had knowledge which he wasn't giving to the Corinthians. In regard this knowledge he said that they should be receiving it, but were too slack.
"For by this time you ought to be teachers, yet you have need that one teaches you again that which is the first principles of the oracles of God; and have become one of those that has need of milk, and not of strong meat. For every one that uses milk is unskilful in the word of righteousness: for he is a babe. But strong meat belongs to them that are of full age, even those who by reason of use have their senses exercised to discern both good and evil." Heb 5:12-14
When Christ was doing his mission there was also a difference of ability to understand his sayings in the Jewish church of God (originally established through Moses).
"There was a division among the Jews for these sayings." John 10:19
At the time of Moses there was a similar circumstance. In regard Israel at Moses' time Paul stated,
"For we also have had the gospel preached to us, just as they did; but the message they heard was of no value to them, because those who heard did not combine it with faith." Heb 4:2
So a variety of understanding is going to exist among members at any time of history. Today is no different.
Yet in regard what could be classified as church doctrine this would depend on what church member you asked. I believe we have to make a line between church doctrine and doctrine believed by church members. To me the church doctrine should be the basics presented in the Standard Works of Scripture. That is that we believe in Jesus Christ as the special Son of Heavenly Father. We believe that Heavenly Father and Jesus Christ are resurrected human beings and that we are entirely in their image AND likeness. We believe that he atoned for the sins of those who truly repent. And he makes possible the resurrection. We believe that the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints is the kingdom of God on earth. We believe that God has given authority to certain men within the church to perform the sacred ordinances as he would have them done. We believe in revelation from God to mankind. We believe in using the gift of the Holy Ghost. We believe in prayer. We believe in learning and doing those things that God would have us do. We believe in the restoration of authority by Jesus Christ to Joseph Smith.
In fact we could turn to the 13 Articles of Faith, and use those as a statement of what church doctrine is.
There are members that want to add seemingly endless amounts of manuals, magazines, books of their choice and other materials to the above list. Promoters of this seem to only believe these materials where they agree with them. If they don't they will usually say that it isn't what the current prophet is saying (Where the quote isn't from him - which is most of the time), and suddenly that makes that source incorrect for that quote. Sadly they will even try this sometimes with the Standard Works.
In regard these materials and "the current prophet" philosophies I'd like to give two quotes, from such materials and the current prophet at the time; Harold B. Lee:
"Stand Ye in Holy Places" by Harold B. Lee 15:162:6
"It is not to be thought that every word spoken by the General Authorities is inspired, or that they are moved upon by the Holy Ghost in everything they write. I don't care what his position is, if he writes something or speaks something that goes beyond anything that you can find in the standard church works, unless that one be the prophet, seer, and revelator--please note that one exception--you may immediately say, "Well, that is his own idea." And if he says something that contradicts what is found in the standard church works, you may know by that same token that it is false, REGARDLESS OF THE POSITION OF THE MAN WHO SAYS IT [my emphasis]." Also quoted in the Seminaries and Institute manual (1974), printed when he was the current prophet.
When church president, Harold B. Lee said in a European area conference:
"If anyone, regardless of his position in the Church, were to advance a doctrine that is not substantiated by the standard Church works, meaning the Bible, the Book of Mormon, the Doctrine and Covenants, and the Pearl of Great Price, you may know that his statement is merely his private opinion. The only one authorized to bring forth any new doctrine is the President of the Church, who, when he does, will declare it as revelation from God, and it will be so accepted by the Council of the Twelve and sustained by the body of the Church. And if any man speak a doctrine which contradicts what is in the standard Church works, you may know by that same token that it is false and you are not bound to accept it as truth." The First Area General Conference for Germany, Austria, Holland, Italy, Switzerland, France, Belgium, and Spain of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, held in Munich Germany, August 24-26, 1973, with Reports and Discourses, 69.
When new doctrine is sustained by the members then it is placed in the Standard Works. These are the only materials that are accepted church doctrine by the entire membership. We don't sustain opinions of men as Scripture merely by sustaining them in their callings. Else I would be claiming that every word spoken by the Mia Maids teacher is the mind and will of the Lord. Let's get real.
To my LDS doctrine, I use the Spirit, as Alma has suggested. I believe direct revelation is given to anyone who serves God and seeks the truth. As this includes myself, I believe in that which I have been inspired with. I have found all the things Heavenly Father, Jesus Christ and the Holy Ghost say to be true. Whether I'm reading the Scriptures or listening to the opinions of people, I listen to the Holy Ghost to advise in regard to its truth and application.
Thursday, May 27, 2010
The Greatest verse in Scripture
A person could ask, "which solitary verse of Scripture contains the greatest message?" There are a lot of verses in the running. And I'm sure not everyone would agree with me. But in my opinion I believe the answer is Mosiah 3:19.
"For the natural man is an enemy to God, and has been from the fall of Adam, and will be, forever and ever, unless he yields to the enticings of the Holy Spirit, and putteth off the natural man and becometh a saint through the atonement of Christ the Lord, and becometh as a child, submissive, meek, humble, patient, full of love, willing to submit to all things which the Lord seeth fit to inflict upon him, even as a child doth submit to his father."
This verse gives several important messages. Firstly it tells us that even though as a natural man we will sin and would be cut off forever, we can listen to the Holy Spirit, and put off the natural man. In other words we are not doomed to sin, as so many would try to claim. What a wonderful message. I can actually live a righteous life! I can put off sin, and never sin again. To a person such as myself, who was brought up a Protestant doomed to sin, this is just so wonderful. It fills my heart with joy. I can live a clean life, in harmony with eternal laws of love and life.
It tells me that I can be guided as to what is good and bad by the Holy Spirit. Again this message is just so amazing to me. I can have communication with the heavens. I need not remain in ignorance, as I had come to believe from my heritage. And I can be completely informed of what to do, and what not to do.
Not only don't I have to sin anymore but it tells my that my past sins can be removed by Jesus Christ, so that I need not wear them anymore. I can become a Saint (Greek equivalent to Hebrew word used relative to the sacrific - without spot or blemish - a pure person).
It states that we can become as a child in a spiritual way. We not only needn't sin, but we can, in fact, become sanctified people, full of all the most wonderful virtues in all eternity. How many people have I heard try to tell me I can't be perfect (let alone sanctified), or not in this life?
I used to hear people go on about how great King Benjamin's address was and couldn't see it at the time. My opinion has done a reverse on that one. And this verse sums it all up, IMO.
"For the natural man is an enemy to God, and has been from the fall of Adam, and will be, forever and ever, unless he yields to the enticings of the Holy Spirit, and putteth off the natural man and becometh a saint through the atonement of Christ the Lord, and becometh as a child, submissive, meek, humble, patient, full of love, willing to submit to all things which the Lord seeth fit to inflict upon him, even as a child doth submit to his father."
This verse gives several important messages. Firstly it tells us that even though as a natural man we will sin and would be cut off forever, we can listen to the Holy Spirit, and put off the natural man. In other words we are not doomed to sin, as so many would try to claim. What a wonderful message. I can actually live a righteous life! I can put off sin, and never sin again. To a person such as myself, who was brought up a Protestant doomed to sin, this is just so wonderful. It fills my heart with joy. I can live a clean life, in harmony with eternal laws of love and life.
It tells me that I can be guided as to what is good and bad by the Holy Spirit. Again this message is just so amazing to me. I can have communication with the heavens. I need not remain in ignorance, as I had come to believe from my heritage. And I can be completely informed of what to do, and what not to do.
Not only don't I have to sin anymore but it tells my that my past sins can be removed by Jesus Christ, so that I need not wear them anymore. I can become a Saint (Greek equivalent to Hebrew word used relative to the sacrific - without spot or blemish - a pure person).
It states that we can become as a child in a spiritual way. We not only needn't sin, but we can, in fact, become sanctified people, full of all the most wonderful virtues in all eternity. How many people have I heard try to tell me I can't be perfect (let alone sanctified), or not in this life?
I used to hear people go on about how great King Benjamin's address was and couldn't see it at the time. My opinion has done a reverse on that one. And this verse sums it all up, IMO.
Tuesday, May 11, 2010
The President of the Church will Never Lead the Church Astray - What Does that Mean?????
After the first Manifeso at the back of the Doctrine and Covenants, we have quotes from 3 talks by Wilford Woodruff. This is one of those quotes.
"The Lord will never permit me or any other man who stands as President of this Church to lead you astray. It is not in the programme. It is not in the mind of God. If I were to attempt that, the Lord would remove me out of my place, and so He will any other man who attempts to lead the children of men astray from the oracles of God and from their duty." (Sixty-first Semiannual General Conference of the Church, Monday, October 6, 1890, Salt Lake City, Utah. Reported in Deseret Evening News, October 11, 1890, p. 2.)
This was stated because of the great opposition he faced from church members and leaders due to his declaration opposing the present practice of plural marriage.
The problem was that such a declaration opposes practicing the fulness of the gospel of Jesus Christ. Question was made as to his authority to discourage the practice of eternally unchangeable laws.
He goes on to explain why he felt to do so in the next 2 quotes given.
So his statement should be kept in context.
Today there are those that choose to believe that this is a reason to feel that nothing the President of the church says can be wrong. However that statement not only says that the President of the church would be removed out of his place but that ANYONE attempting to lead people astray, from the words of God, would.
To be moved out of their place they must have some "place" to be moved out of. It is posing church positions. So are we to believe that all bishops, stake presidents, high councilmen, elder's quarum presidents, relief society presidents, scout leaders, class secretaries, ward mission leaders, home teachers, visiting teachers etc are infallible in their offices: That every word they say is the mind and will of God?
Because that's what you would have to believe to use Wilford Woodruff's statement as used by some, concerning opinions expressed by the president of the church.
Note also that he states that it would have to be a deliberate attempt to lead astray, on behalf of the leader - "...If I were to attempt that...any other man who attempts to lead the children of men astray..."
I think we have to use a bit of sense in our understanding of his intention. He is posing that such a major change, as he was presenting, wouldn't be allowed by God if it were wrong. To make more out of it not only is ridiculous (as demonstrated 3 paragraphs above) but doesn't fit in the context, nor with other statements of church presidents to the contrary.
Additionally such thinking leaves members open to anti-material where they demonstrate the differences of ideas expressed by church presidents and other GAs. We need to move beyond such ideas, as we learn in the gospel.
I'm not proposing that the President of the church isn't directed by God, at times God chooses, to make certain changes etc. What I'm saying is that he isn't under constant revelation when speaking.
The idea that we should look to another man, in some position, to tell us what God has to say, is essential for new members, those with mental retardation problems, children under 8, those who have recently reactivated, people suffering altzeimers disease, those coming to church only for social reasons and those having serious troubles seeing the point in obeying God (such as Israel at the time of Moses).
For any others there are 2 men that actually ARE infallible. One we call "Heavenly Father." And the other we call "Jesus Christ." Fortunately both are very much available for comment. You don't need to book an appointment to see them. You can just ask at any time.
Along with them we have the Holy Ghost, who is quite happy to reside inside you ALL the time. He can guide you in anything. He also is infallible.
That sounds a much better idea to me. The other is just being spiritually lazy, in my opinion.
"The Lord will never permit me or any other man who stands as President of this Church to lead you astray. It is not in the programme. It is not in the mind of God. If I were to attempt that, the Lord would remove me out of my place, and so He will any other man who attempts to lead the children of men astray from the oracles of God and from their duty." (Sixty-first Semiannual General Conference of the Church, Monday, October 6, 1890, Salt Lake City, Utah. Reported in Deseret Evening News, October 11, 1890, p. 2.)
This was stated because of the great opposition he faced from church members and leaders due to his declaration opposing the present practice of plural marriage.
The problem was that such a declaration opposes practicing the fulness of the gospel of Jesus Christ. Question was made as to his authority to discourage the practice of eternally unchangeable laws.
He goes on to explain why he felt to do so in the next 2 quotes given.
So his statement should be kept in context.
Today there are those that choose to believe that this is a reason to feel that nothing the President of the church says can be wrong. However that statement not only says that the President of the church would be removed out of his place but that ANYONE attempting to lead people astray, from the words of God, would.
To be moved out of their place they must have some "place" to be moved out of. It is posing church positions. So are we to believe that all bishops, stake presidents, high councilmen, elder's quarum presidents, relief society presidents, scout leaders, class secretaries, ward mission leaders, home teachers, visiting teachers etc are infallible in their offices: That every word they say is the mind and will of God?
Because that's what you would have to believe to use Wilford Woodruff's statement as used by some, concerning opinions expressed by the president of the church.
Note also that he states that it would have to be a deliberate attempt to lead astray, on behalf of the leader - "...If I were to attempt that...any other man who attempts to lead the children of men astray..."
I think we have to use a bit of sense in our understanding of his intention. He is posing that such a major change, as he was presenting, wouldn't be allowed by God if it were wrong. To make more out of it not only is ridiculous (as demonstrated 3 paragraphs above) but doesn't fit in the context, nor with other statements of church presidents to the contrary.
Additionally such thinking leaves members open to anti-material where they demonstrate the differences of ideas expressed by church presidents and other GAs. We need to move beyond such ideas, as we learn in the gospel.
I'm not proposing that the President of the church isn't directed by God, at times God chooses, to make certain changes etc. What I'm saying is that he isn't under constant revelation when speaking.
The idea that we should look to another man, in some position, to tell us what God has to say, is essential for new members, those with mental retardation problems, children under 8, those who have recently reactivated, people suffering altzeimers disease, those coming to church only for social reasons and those having serious troubles seeing the point in obeying God (such as Israel at the time of Moses).
For any others there are 2 men that actually ARE infallible. One we call "Heavenly Father." And the other we call "Jesus Christ." Fortunately both are very much available for comment. You don't need to book an appointment to see them. You can just ask at any time.
Along with them we have the Holy Ghost, who is quite happy to reside inside you ALL the time. He can guide you in anything. He also is infallible.
That sounds a much better idea to me. The other is just being spiritually lazy, in my opinion.
Tuesday, May 04, 2010
Judging Others - Obviously we Need to
"Do not judge, or you too will be judged." Matt 7:1
This sounds simple enough. But does this interpretation make sense? We actually want to be judged, or how do we go to be with God? We also want to be judged correctly by others. We like receiving credit where credit is due, for starters.
So obviously this would be better interpreted to say that we shouldn't judge with a condemning heart, so that we won't be judged by a condemning heart.
Amidst this it could also be looked at to say that if we judge others with a condemning and unforgiving heart, that we will judge and condemn ourselves by the same standard: We won't really accept in our hearts that Christ's atonement can cleanse a person who has made errors (which includes ourselves).
As Christ stated _
"...Forgive, and it shall be forgiven you" Luke 6:37 or "Forgive us our debts as we also have forgiven our debtors." Matt 6:12
We will notice that others have done evil to us or others. Recognising that others have done evil isn't a bad thing. How can we avoid doing evil ourselves if we don't know recognise evil? But Christ is saying to forgive.
Christ warns, "but beware of men..." (Matt 10:16) [Some women may echo that]. But in all seriousness, he is saying to be wary of people in our dealings with them. This requires judgement.
We also have to find a marriage partner. While revelation as to whom to marry is advised, there is still a need for us to understand the person and whether they are suitable - judgement. The same applies if we have children. How can we help them to learn and in their squabbles if we don't judge them?
And what of bishops and stake presidents etc in dealing with confessions or accusations of serious offences.
So how do we judge righteous judgement?
Isaiah says in regard to Christ _
"...he shall not judge after the sight of his eyes, neither reprove after the hearing of his ears." Isa 11:3
We have the tendency to judge people by their actions and words. Yet he is saying this isn't fair judgement. This then requires us to learn to judge by the intent of their heart and the perception in their mind. It is impossible to judge such a way without either an ability to see inside others or to use the Holy Ghost or both.
Moroni states the following _
"For look, my brethren, it is given to you to judge, that you may know good from evil... so, I show to you the way to judge; for every thing which invites to do good, and to persuade to believe in Christ, is sent forward by the power and gift of Christ; so you may know with a perfect knowledge it is of God." Mor 7:15-16
So Moroni is telling us how to judge. He's gone on in verse 17 to declare that those who subject themselves to the devil can be determined by the criteria of judgement he has set forth. Obviously, therefore, he hasn't regarded Christ's statement as posing that we don't judge people.
Either way I wish to stress again that the Holy Ghost is best used in any judgement we make. And if our judgement is made with a view to helping others move on from mistakes, we will accept our mistakes with the same attitude.
This sounds simple enough. But does this interpretation make sense? We actually want to be judged, or how do we go to be with God? We also want to be judged correctly by others. We like receiving credit where credit is due, for starters.
So obviously this would be better interpreted to say that we shouldn't judge with a condemning heart, so that we won't be judged by a condemning heart.
Amidst this it could also be looked at to say that if we judge others with a condemning and unforgiving heart, that we will judge and condemn ourselves by the same standard: We won't really accept in our hearts that Christ's atonement can cleanse a person who has made errors (which includes ourselves).
As Christ stated _
"...Forgive, and it shall be forgiven you" Luke 6:37 or "Forgive us our debts as we also have forgiven our debtors." Matt 6:12
We will notice that others have done evil to us or others. Recognising that others have done evil isn't a bad thing. How can we avoid doing evil ourselves if we don't know recognise evil? But Christ is saying to forgive.
Christ warns, "but beware of men..." (Matt 10:16) [Some women may echo that]. But in all seriousness, he is saying to be wary of people in our dealings with them. This requires judgement.
We also have to find a marriage partner. While revelation as to whom to marry is advised, there is still a need for us to understand the person and whether they are suitable - judgement. The same applies if we have children. How can we help them to learn and in their squabbles if we don't judge them?
And what of bishops and stake presidents etc in dealing with confessions or accusations of serious offences.
So how do we judge righteous judgement?
Isaiah says in regard to Christ _
"...he shall not judge after the sight of his eyes, neither reprove after the hearing of his ears." Isa 11:3
We have the tendency to judge people by their actions and words. Yet he is saying this isn't fair judgement. This then requires us to learn to judge by the intent of their heart and the perception in their mind. It is impossible to judge such a way without either an ability to see inside others or to use the Holy Ghost or both.
Moroni states the following _
"For look, my brethren, it is given to you to judge, that you may know good from evil... so, I show to you the way to judge; for every thing which invites to do good, and to persuade to believe in Christ, is sent forward by the power and gift of Christ; so you may know with a perfect knowledge it is of God." Mor 7:15-16
So Moroni is telling us how to judge. He's gone on in verse 17 to declare that those who subject themselves to the devil can be determined by the criteria of judgement he has set forth. Obviously, therefore, he hasn't regarded Christ's statement as posing that we don't judge people.
Either way I wish to stress again that the Holy Ghost is best used in any judgement we make. And if our judgement is made with a view to helping others move on from mistakes, we will accept our mistakes with the same attitude.
Thursday, April 22, 2010
Jewellery - Yes or No?
Question does arise about the wearing of jewellery, considering some things written in Scripture and the statement by the First Presidency. There seems to be a vanity aspect suggested.
"In like manner also, that women adorn themselves in modest apparel, with reverence and soundness of mind; not with braided hair, or gold, or pearls, or costly array." 1 Timothy 2:9
This speaks against elaborate hair styles, wearing gold or pearls or wearing expensive clothes.
I certainly detect a cynicism in Isaiah toward jewellery in these next verses quoted from him _
"In that day the Lord will take away the bravery of their tinkling ornaments, and cauls, and round tires like the moon; The chains and the bracelets, and the mufflers; The bonnets, and the ornaments of the legs, and the headbands, and the tablets, and the ear-rings; The rings, and nose jewels; The changeable suits of apparel, and the mantles, and the wimples, and the crisping-pins; The glasses, and the fine linen, and hoods, and the veils." 2 Nephi 13:18-23 (Compare Isaiah Chapter 3)
This following statement leaves us with some questions.
From "True to the Faith" - Put out by the church and Endorsed by the First Presidency
Page 27 "Body Piercing" _
"Latter-day prophets strongly discourage the piercing of the body except for medical purposes. If girls or women desire to have their ears pierced, they are encouraged to wear
only one pair of modest earrings."
The first statement says that piercing of the body is STRONGLY discouraged. It then goes on to say that "IF" women desire to have their ears pierced anyway, for ear-rings, make them small and only one pair. Though I may be accused by women of reading something into this, I see this as really saying that women would be better off not wearing any.
The following plainly associates pride and vanity with the wearing of jewellery.
"Behold, O God, they cry unto thee, and yet their hearts are swallowed up in their pride. Behold, O God, they cry unto thee with their mouths, while they are puffed up, even to greatness, with the vain things of the world. Behold, O my God, their costly apparel, and their ringlets, and their bracelets, and their ornaments of gold, and all their precious things which they are ornamented with; and behold, their hearts are set upon them, and yet they cry unto thee and say--We thank thee, O God, for we are a chosen people unto thee, while others shall perish." Alma 31:27-28
The Apostle Peter adds his thoughts on the subject_
"Whose adorning let it not be that outward adorning of plaiting the hair, and of wearing of gold, or of putting on of apparel." 1 Peter 3:3
Again we see this advising not to do fancy things with hair, wear jewellery or wearing fancy clothes.
(Thanks, yeti, for the NT quotes)
"In like manner also, that women adorn themselves in modest apparel, with reverence and soundness of mind; not with braided hair, or gold, or pearls, or costly array." 1 Timothy 2:9
This speaks against elaborate hair styles, wearing gold or pearls or wearing expensive clothes.
I certainly detect a cynicism in Isaiah toward jewellery in these next verses quoted from him _
"In that day the Lord will take away the bravery of their tinkling ornaments, and cauls, and round tires like the moon; The chains and the bracelets, and the mufflers; The bonnets, and the ornaments of the legs, and the headbands, and the tablets, and the ear-rings; The rings, and nose jewels; The changeable suits of apparel, and the mantles, and the wimples, and the crisping-pins; The glasses, and the fine linen, and hoods, and the veils." 2 Nephi 13:18-23 (Compare Isaiah Chapter 3)
This following statement leaves us with some questions.
From "True to the Faith" - Put out by the church and Endorsed by the First Presidency
Page 27 "Body Piercing" _
"Latter-day prophets strongly discourage the piercing of the body except for medical purposes. If girls or women desire to have their ears pierced, they are encouraged to wear
only one pair of modest earrings."
The first statement says that piercing of the body is STRONGLY discouraged. It then goes on to say that "IF" women desire to have their ears pierced anyway, for ear-rings, make them small and only one pair. Though I may be accused by women of reading something into this, I see this as really saying that women would be better off not wearing any.
The following plainly associates pride and vanity with the wearing of jewellery.
"Behold, O God, they cry unto thee, and yet their hearts are swallowed up in their pride. Behold, O God, they cry unto thee with their mouths, while they are puffed up, even to greatness, with the vain things of the world. Behold, O my God, their costly apparel, and their ringlets, and their bracelets, and their ornaments of gold, and all their precious things which they are ornamented with; and behold, their hearts are set upon them, and yet they cry unto thee and say--We thank thee, O God, for we are a chosen people unto thee, while others shall perish." Alma 31:27-28
The Apostle Peter adds his thoughts on the subject_
"Whose adorning let it not be that outward adorning of plaiting the hair, and of wearing of gold, or of putting on of apparel." 1 Peter 3:3
Again we see this advising not to do fancy things with hair, wear jewellery or wearing fancy clothes.
(Thanks, yeti, for the NT quotes)
Monday, April 12, 2010
Should We Oppose Age Gaps in Marriages?
ALL THINGS BEING EQUAL, it is only logical that we should desire to see married, some single person of 50 to some single person of around the same age. And the same would be said of those around 18.
When a person talks about marrying a person of a different generation, some people can get very upset (particularly if the older is male). The conversation then flows into some irrational logic. Yet even though the presentation is illogical, there are several arguments that present some thoughts for consideration.
It is argued that there is a better ability to communicate on such things as music, technology, history and life in general, if people have lived around the same length of time. It is suggested (in line with this) that the older person would be disadvantaged by an inferior conversation.
It is also presented that the younger person will have less life experience, which can create conflicts of direction in areas such as loans etc. Young people haven't had the experience of having to wait years to pay off a debt (for example), so would be more inclined to get into debt.
On the other side it is argued that the young person is healthier and therefore may have to look after their spouse when sick (which would be more often the case). They also have the disadvantage of losing their spouse when still relatively young. Additionally there is more chance that both would be there for the children when growing up if the couple were young.
These two sides of the argument can be viewed as subtractive or additive. That is that on the one side we could argue that the disadvantage to one is an advantage to the other and visa versa. Thus making it that both are advantaged by the relationship in ways. Or we could view them as additive problems, thus viewing that the relationship is doubly disadvantaged - the latter negative view seems to be the most common trend.
This desire to make it a double disadvantage (a one sided viewpoint) makes me tend to feel that there are other deep-seated reasons for people's negativity. Perhaps jealousy, by men, if the older is a male. Perhaps fear by women of losing their husbands to a younger woman where married, or fear of not being able to compete where divorced, widowed or still single.
But looking at the ideas; the argument in regard the children is a bit weak in that if the person were able to produce children still, they would usually be able to be there for their upbringing. That they may not be young enough to run around with their children could be used in regard couples having children at 40. Or we could say that disabled people therefore shouldn't have children, using such logic. Love and time is the thing children really need.
The argument in regard communication has an opponent from those in successful multicultural marriages. It is true that multicultural marriages can also create problems. And it is better to marry those from the same culture, ALL THINGS BEING EQUAL. But many of these marriages thrive.
The argument of one partner passing on earlier is still relavant. But I must present in regard that idea that my wife always said that she would outlive me by at least 8 years, because she was 6 years younger and a female (females statistically outlive males). Yet she died at a young age; and I (hopefully) have many years ahead yet. So it is only a generalisation.
I would also argue that as we believe Christ's second coming and the resurrection of the righteous isn't really that far off, it is a bit of a dead arguement (no pun intended). GAs have come forward with some heavy feelings relative to the fact that this generation will be well and truly alive when Christ comes. I would second that revelation.
Yet ALL THINGS BEING EQUAL some of these arguments have a degree of merit. But all things are rarely equal.
For example, I knew a man who's parents were 26 years apart in marriage. He raved of how well they got on together. Yet I have seen many of around the same age as each other and their marriage was a failure. I have seen the same with many living together.
I know an Australian man who is married to a Malasian woman, who additionally is much younger than him. Their marriage is wonderful to see. Yet he was first married to an Australian of around the same age, and it was a disaster.
In the church there is a desire to separate Young Adults (those over 18 but too young for Single Adults) from Single Adults (those 30 and over). This has created many serious problems over the years. For example I remember one guy turning 30 who had a girlfriend of about 25. There became serious conflict in that she wasn't permitted to go to Single Adult activities and he couldn't go to Young Adult activities. Stake leaders there were adamant that was the instruction and must be obeyed regardless of any human feelings - The military would have been proud of them.
(I'd personally suggest the church take on a more flexable and sensible stance, and create a 5 year zone on either side - thus allowing couples to be up to 10 years apart, yet still able to attend activities together). Additionally we can make some Single Adult activities able to be attended by Young Sinlge Adults, of any age, where the YSA is dating a SA. Remember we are wanting members to marry members.
So what do the Scriptures say in regard marriage and age difference? Has God given any commandment in regard ages in marriage? Surely if he had some policy it would be in there.
The answer to the latter question is, "NO." God has given no limitation whatsoever. It is left to each individual to consider how they feel. But most civilizations are or have married at 13 +.
In regard difference of ages of husband and wife we have some interesting information about Abraham.
Gen 17:17 Abraham was 10 years older than Sarah. As people usually married at around 13 then, it is quite possible that he was 23 and her 13.
Gen 21:5-7 Abraham was 100 years old when Issac was born, and considered old.
Gen 18:13 Sarah laughed at the idea of her being able to have a son, because of her age (as Abraham was 100, Sarah must have been 90).
Gen 23:1 Sarah dies at 127. Thus Abraham was 137.
Gen 25:1-2 Abraham took another wife - Keturah, who bore him 6 sons.
She had to be MANY years his junior. The chances are that she was probably a virgin of about 13; as historical writings present that as the common age for marriage in Ancient Egypt (for example).
Yet even if we are too prudish to believe that, we still must remember that if Sarah laughed at having children at 90, it must have been well beyond the child bearing age. So Keturah had to have been young enough to have had at least 6 children (as 6 of her sons were named). Sensibly we would have to suppose that she couldn't have been older than 60 at maximum. That would make him 77 years older at absolute minimum.
Gen 25:6 Additionally Abraham took concubines who were young enough to have children also.
Joseph Smith married 7 young women who were too young to be in the Young Sinlge Adults program when he was well in the classification of the Single Adult's age. He, additionally, married some women who were old enough to be his mother.
So how would these stake leaders have responded to that? - Joseph, you can't date these young women or older women!
There's no good using the old "oh, but that was back then," routine. As if to suggest that somehow human beings were different in the past and had 10 arms, 5 legs and 3 heads. They were just like us.
This leads us back to our 2 presented problems with age gaps in marriage. Why did Abraham and Joseph Smith consider it alright to marry someone whom they wouldn't be married to for very long before dying? Joseph Smith received revelation yet he married some young women one year before he died.
The arguments fail to take into account the whole point of marriage. Marriage is an ETERNAL contract. When you die has little significance in it. Let's assume you have a young unmarried daughter and that 2 men come to you with the view of marrying her. One man is the same age as your daughter. The other is 3 times her age. The one who is 3 times her age, you have been inspired, will gain eternal life. The other you are unsure of in that direction. Which do you advise your daughter to marry? I can assure you that my choice would be the older one, that could take my daughter to eternal life forever.
And the thing that matters in an eternal marriage is spiritual compatability. Our priorities shouldn't be set by looks, age, educational standard, nationality, ability to sexually entertain, wealth or any other such worldly irrelevancies.
The reason we have such a priority of marrying in the temple is that it is an eternal contract. When I consider whom to marry I am interested in whether she is really ready to obey God without leaning to the ideas of the world. In conversation I'm not so interested in whether she knows this singing group or that one; but whether she has a thirst for truth. I don't care where she's been in the world, as much as I care where she is going in her spiritual pursuit. I'm not so concerned with her educational standard, more her moral standard. I'm not so concerned about her closeness to me in age, but her closeness to God.
Let's get our priorities in order.
When a person talks about marrying a person of a different generation, some people can get very upset (particularly if the older is male). The conversation then flows into some irrational logic. Yet even though the presentation is illogical, there are several arguments that present some thoughts for consideration.
It is argued that there is a better ability to communicate on such things as music, technology, history and life in general, if people have lived around the same length of time. It is suggested (in line with this) that the older person would be disadvantaged by an inferior conversation.
It is also presented that the younger person will have less life experience, which can create conflicts of direction in areas such as loans etc. Young people haven't had the experience of having to wait years to pay off a debt (for example), so would be more inclined to get into debt.
On the other side it is argued that the young person is healthier and therefore may have to look after their spouse when sick (which would be more often the case). They also have the disadvantage of losing their spouse when still relatively young. Additionally there is more chance that both would be there for the children when growing up if the couple were young.
These two sides of the argument can be viewed as subtractive or additive. That is that on the one side we could argue that the disadvantage to one is an advantage to the other and visa versa. Thus making it that both are advantaged by the relationship in ways. Or we could view them as additive problems, thus viewing that the relationship is doubly disadvantaged - the latter negative view seems to be the most common trend.
This desire to make it a double disadvantage (a one sided viewpoint) makes me tend to feel that there are other deep-seated reasons for people's negativity. Perhaps jealousy, by men, if the older is a male. Perhaps fear by women of losing their husbands to a younger woman where married, or fear of not being able to compete where divorced, widowed or still single.
But looking at the ideas; the argument in regard the children is a bit weak in that if the person were able to produce children still, they would usually be able to be there for their upbringing. That they may not be young enough to run around with their children could be used in regard couples having children at 40. Or we could say that disabled people therefore shouldn't have children, using such logic. Love and time is the thing children really need.
The argument in regard communication has an opponent from those in successful multicultural marriages. It is true that multicultural marriages can also create problems. And it is better to marry those from the same culture, ALL THINGS BEING EQUAL. But many of these marriages thrive.
The argument of one partner passing on earlier is still relavant. But I must present in regard that idea that my wife always said that she would outlive me by at least 8 years, because she was 6 years younger and a female (females statistically outlive males). Yet she died at a young age; and I (hopefully) have many years ahead yet. So it is only a generalisation.
I would also argue that as we believe Christ's second coming and the resurrection of the righteous isn't really that far off, it is a bit of a dead arguement (no pun intended). GAs have come forward with some heavy feelings relative to the fact that this generation will be well and truly alive when Christ comes. I would second that revelation.
Yet ALL THINGS BEING EQUAL some of these arguments have a degree of merit. But all things are rarely equal.
For example, I knew a man who's parents were 26 years apart in marriage. He raved of how well they got on together. Yet I have seen many of around the same age as each other and their marriage was a failure. I have seen the same with many living together.
I know an Australian man who is married to a Malasian woman, who additionally is much younger than him. Their marriage is wonderful to see. Yet he was first married to an Australian of around the same age, and it was a disaster.
In the church there is a desire to separate Young Adults (those over 18 but too young for Single Adults) from Single Adults (those 30 and over). This has created many serious problems over the years. For example I remember one guy turning 30 who had a girlfriend of about 25. There became serious conflict in that she wasn't permitted to go to Single Adult activities and he couldn't go to Young Adult activities. Stake leaders there were adamant that was the instruction and must be obeyed regardless of any human feelings - The military would have been proud of them.
(I'd personally suggest the church take on a more flexable and sensible stance, and create a 5 year zone on either side - thus allowing couples to be up to 10 years apart, yet still able to attend activities together). Additionally we can make some Single Adult activities able to be attended by Young Sinlge Adults, of any age, where the YSA is dating a SA. Remember we are wanting members to marry members.
So what do the Scriptures say in regard marriage and age difference? Has God given any commandment in regard ages in marriage? Surely if he had some policy it would be in there.
The answer to the latter question is, "NO." God has given no limitation whatsoever. It is left to each individual to consider how they feel. But most civilizations are or have married at 13 +.
In regard difference of ages of husband and wife we have some interesting information about Abraham.
Gen 17:17 Abraham was 10 years older than Sarah. As people usually married at around 13 then, it is quite possible that he was 23 and her 13.
Gen 21:5-7 Abraham was 100 years old when Issac was born, and considered old.
Gen 18:13 Sarah laughed at the idea of her being able to have a son, because of her age (as Abraham was 100, Sarah must have been 90).
Gen 23:1 Sarah dies at 127. Thus Abraham was 137.
Gen 25:1-2 Abraham took another wife - Keturah, who bore him 6 sons.
She had to be MANY years his junior. The chances are that she was probably a virgin of about 13; as historical writings present that as the common age for marriage in Ancient Egypt (for example).
Yet even if we are too prudish to believe that, we still must remember that if Sarah laughed at having children at 90, it must have been well beyond the child bearing age. So Keturah had to have been young enough to have had at least 6 children (as 6 of her sons were named). Sensibly we would have to suppose that she couldn't have been older than 60 at maximum. That would make him 77 years older at absolute minimum.
Gen 25:6 Additionally Abraham took concubines who were young enough to have children also.
Joseph Smith married 7 young women who were too young to be in the Young Sinlge Adults program when he was well in the classification of the Single Adult's age. He, additionally, married some women who were old enough to be his mother.
So how would these stake leaders have responded to that? - Joseph, you can't date these young women or older women!
There's no good using the old "oh, but that was back then," routine. As if to suggest that somehow human beings were different in the past and had 10 arms, 5 legs and 3 heads. They were just like us.
This leads us back to our 2 presented problems with age gaps in marriage. Why did Abraham and Joseph Smith consider it alright to marry someone whom they wouldn't be married to for very long before dying? Joseph Smith received revelation yet he married some young women one year before he died.
The arguments fail to take into account the whole point of marriage. Marriage is an ETERNAL contract. When you die has little significance in it. Let's assume you have a young unmarried daughter and that 2 men come to you with the view of marrying her. One man is the same age as your daughter. The other is 3 times her age. The one who is 3 times her age, you have been inspired, will gain eternal life. The other you are unsure of in that direction. Which do you advise your daughter to marry? I can assure you that my choice would be the older one, that could take my daughter to eternal life forever.
And the thing that matters in an eternal marriage is spiritual compatability. Our priorities shouldn't be set by looks, age, educational standard, nationality, ability to sexually entertain, wealth or any other such worldly irrelevancies.
The reason we have such a priority of marrying in the temple is that it is an eternal contract. When I consider whom to marry I am interested in whether she is really ready to obey God without leaning to the ideas of the world. In conversation I'm not so interested in whether she knows this singing group or that one; but whether she has a thirst for truth. I don't care where she's been in the world, as much as I care where she is going in her spiritual pursuit. I'm not so concerned with her educational standard, more her moral standard. I'm not so concerned about her closeness to me in age, but her closeness to God.
Let's get our priorities in order.
Wednesday, March 31, 2010
Trinity - Does the Bible Teach This?
In some churches the concept is believed of a triune God. The concept states that the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost are all one mass: Not totally separate beings.
Hundreds of years after the death of the original apostles the Roman Emperors decided to take over control of the church. They set themselves up as the decider of doctrine on God's behalf. However a power struggle existed with the old authority and them taking over with their priests. To cement their authority their priests and doctrines had to be victorious.
A man named Arian presented a doctrine (we don't know the doctrine totally because we only have the Roman's version of it, and a person's version of their opponent's doctrine is often exaggerated and distorted. But we can establish some things). Arian had many others who agreed with him. His belief was that the Father and the Son were separate beings, and that the Father was superior to the Son. He stated that while on earth Jesus was just a man like any other, and that by obedience to God He earned His place in Heaven, just as any of us must.
`
The trinity doctrine was put forward to combat Arian, so that he wouldn't have control. Also a new word was invented for God which meant "of the same substance", to replace the word that had been used, which meant "of similar substance".
A creed was made to explain God (which ultimately concluded that He couldn't be explained). But looking at the trinity it says there's one omnipotent but three omnipotents, one omnipresent but three omnipresent etc. So basically we have one being with three identities in it. The question comes as to whether the Scriptures, or even just the Bible preaches or even supports such a being.
The question as to whether the Bible preaches such a being is the easiest part to answer. Even those who preach the trinity admit, verbally and in books, that the Bible doesn't clearly state the trinity concept anywhere: There is no statement saying anything like, "God is one God, but three Gods." So does the Bible actually, at least support the concept? We'll look at those statements which are used by those people believing in the trinity and those that oppose it.
Supporting the Trinity Concept
Deuteronomy 6:4 _ "Hear, O Israel: the LORD our God, the LORD is one!"
This doesn't exactly state anything about a trinity, of course, but is used to establish that in some way The LORD is one. This "LORD" of the Old Testament is Jesus Christ (the name "Jehovah", as used here, is Jesus Christ). And He is one. No one disputes that. This is merely stating that Jesus Christ is the God of Israel, and the only God that they got.
John 10:30 here Jesus says _ "I and My Father are one."
Again this says nothing of a trinity, but states that in some way the Father and Son are one. He doesn't explain in this verse what He means by the statement, but a look around this chapter gives us some clues that He wasn't saying that He was the actual Father Himself. The Jews accused Jesus of saying that He was God (verse 33). However He denies this implication in verses 34 - 36, "Jesus answered them, 'Is it not written in your law, 'I said, 'You are gods''? If he called them gods, to whom the word of God came (and the Scripture cannot be broken), Do you say of Him whom the Father sanctified and sent into the world, 'You are blaspheming,' because I said, 'I am the Son of God'?"
1 John 5:7 _ "For there are three who bear witness in heaven; the Father, the Word, and the Holy Spirit; and these three are one."
For those with more modern versions this probably won't be what you're reading. The oldest Greek manuscript of the book of 1st John that has been found, doesn't include this statement at all. In other words it appears some priest added it to a later manuscript to give some scriptural support for the trinity concept. The NIV version (which is quite popular these days) doesn't include this. Nor do many others. This means that they accept that this wasn't originally there.
1 Corinthians 8:6 _ "Yet for us there is one God, the Father, of whom are all things, and we for Him; and one Lord Jesus Christ, through whom are all things, and through whom we live."
This is fairly straightforward. It's stating that there is one God: whom it even qualifies to be the Father. And then it's stating that there is one Lord: whom it qualifies as Jesus Christ. No one is scripturally disputing the existence of both beings. But, again, this says nothing of any trinity. Nor does this particular Scripture even give a hint of a possibility of a trinity. Yet these Scripture references being given are those used.
John 14:8 - 9 _ "Philip said to Him, 'Lord, show us the Father, and it is sufficient for us.' Jesus said to him, 'Have I been with you so long, and yet you have not known Me, Philip? He who has seen Me has seen the Father; so how can you say, 'Show us the Father''?"
This can appear as if Jesus is stating that He is actually the Father Himself. However a bit of a look at the verses around reveal that this isn't the case. You can't just take bits out of the Scriptures that you like and ignore the rest. The very next verse (verse 10) states, "Do you not believe that I am in the Father, and the Father in Me? The words that I speak to you I do not speak on My own authority; but the Father who dwells in Me does the works." In other words He's stating that the reason He's calling Himself the Father is because He's doing the works the Father wants Him to do. Also if the Father were there in that situation, that is exactly what the Father would be doing. And therefore in seeing Him you're seeing the Father. Three verses later (verse 12) He states, "Most assuredly, I say to you, he who believes in Me, the works that I do he will do also; and greater works than these he will do, because I go to My Father." If He meant that He was literally the Father why would He then state that He was going TO the Father? Clearly His talk of the Father being actually in Him, or Him being the Father in a sense, doesn't relate to a physical joint-being concept any more than Jesus Christ or God being in us does. But we will come to more on this.
1 Timothy 3:16 _ "And without controversy great is the mystery of godliness: God was manifest in the flesh, justified in the Spirit, seen by angels, preached among the Gentiles, believed on in the world, received up in glory."
The statement about God being manifest in the flesh doesn't mean that the Father became flesh Himself. It would refer to the same sense as when Jesus was talking to Philip (as explained above). Either that or this is using the term "God" to define Jesus Christ Himself, in this case. Whichever it is, the Scripture states nothing of a triune God. No one is scripturally disputing that Jesus Christ was received up in glory to sit with God in His throne. Jesus Christ is the God of Israel. But He isn't the Father, as He made clear Himself (we will come to those Scriptures which oppose the concept of a trinity - though some we've mentioned seem to do so on their own).
John 1:1 _ "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God."
Yet what does the text actually say in Greek? This is the Greek _
"In beginning was the word, and the word was forward to [ie. toward] the God, and a God was the word."
Unfortunately for the trinitarians this is very interpretable. Plainly the reference to "the word" has symbolic reference only (ie. Christ was not a word). So the verse has to be read with this in mind. Also a literal translation renders it that "a God" was the word. Other people are also refered to as becoming Gods (Jn 10:34-35). So this of itself is too ambiguous. This could imply, for example, that by the word being toward the god, became a god himself. Also the verse could imply that god was the word in the sense that the word spoken by Christ [ie. the gospel] was god's word.
Again, however, there is no trinity stated.
As can be seen from above, the Bible itself (from which the trinity concept supposedly derived) is rather devoid of any substantial support for the trinitarian concept. In fact it's rather short on even vague connection with the concept. There is no Scripture which states that the three beings (Father, Son and Holy Ghost) are one in substance and mass, as is presented in the trinity concept.
Opposing the Trinity Concept
Matthew 19:16 - 17 _ concerning Jesus it says, "Now behold, one came and said to Him, 'Good Teacher, what good thing shall I do that I may have eternal life?' So He said to him, 'Why do you call Me good? No one is good but One, that is, God. But if you want to enter into life, keep the commandments'."
Here we have Jesus saying that He isn't to be considered as "Good" but only God is. So if He were God literally then this statement would be a lie.
Acts 4:32 _ "Now the multitude of those who believed were of one heart and one soul; neither did anyone say that any of the things he possessed was his own, but they had all things in common."
This Scripture gives us some understanding as to how many can be "one" in Scriptural thinking. It says the "multitude" were of "one heart" and "one soul". If this were a Scripture about God people could get it confused and think it supported the trinity idea. So looking at the whole doctrine presented in Scripture is important to a proper understanding.
Romans 12:5 _ "So we, being many, are one body in Christ, and individually members of one another."
Again we have reference to the concept of many being one. In fact here we have a statement of many being "one body". Also it's stating that these people were "members of one another". This would be very confusing stuff if it were being said of the Father, Son and Holy Ghost. We know that these members were all individuals, and not many in one mass. So it must be remembered that this manner of speaking was common.
1 Cor 6:16 - 17 _ "Or do you not know that he who is joined to a harlot is one body with her? For 'the two' He says, 'shall become one flesh'. But he who is joined to the Lord is one spirit with Him."
It talks (as in Genesis) of husbands and wives being "one flesh". We know this doesn't mean so in a literal sense. Also it speaks here of believers being one Spirit with the Lord. Should we believe that this means literally? Of course the answer is, "no".
John 12:50 _ "And I know that His command is everlasting life. Therefore, whatever I speak, just as the Father has told me, so I speak."
So Jesus Christ is stating here that it isn't His own ideas that He speaks, but the Father's ideas. If He were the Father, as some confuse certain verses to presume, this wouldn't make any sense, as Jesus' opinion would be His (the Father's) own opinion.
Acts 2:33 _ It says of Jesus, "Therefore being exalted to the right hand of God, and having received from the Father the promise of the Holy Spirit, He poured out this which you now see and hear."
Well this presents a fairly clear message of separate beings, not one. We have Jesus Christ being on God's right-hand side, as opposed to being His right hand (a bit of humour there). We also have the Father promising the Son that the Holy Ghost would be poured out. This latter part seems an even stranger statement in that the trinitarian translation would have the Father promising Himself that He'd pour Himself out. No wonder there is so much talk of God being "incomprehensible". I'd be very confused with that. I hope anyone who was uncertain about the trinity concept has come to see by this point that it isn't supported in the Scriptures. But just in case more convincing is required, or would be appreciated, I'll go on.
John Chapter 17
Verse 1 _ "Jesus spoke these words, lifted up His eyes to heaven, and said: 'Father, the hour has come. Glorify Your Son, that Your Son also may glorify You."
Jesus has "lifted up His eyes to heaven" and talked to the Father. Jesus is making a request of the Father. Jesus is saying that He'd like the Father to Glorify Him (Jesus), so that He can glorify the Father. Would this conversation make any sense at all if He (Jesus) was the Father? Jesus is praying! He's actually praying to God! If He were the Father would He be praying to Himself? Surely this would be madness. Jesus is coming to the time of the atonement, and He is asking for His God's support.
Verse 2 _ "As You have given Him authority over all flesh, that He should give eternal life to as many as You have given Him."
So God (the Father) has given Jesus authority. Didn't Jesus just have it, being the Father Himself? Jesus didn't seem to think so, and that will do me. Next we have Jesus only being able to give eternal life to those whom the Father chooses. Jesus is speaking to the Father as a man to His God, not as equals or parts of the same being. Verse 3 informs us that we have to come to know both the Father and the Son, it doesn't say we just have to know one being or three beings, but two beings.
Verse 4 _ "I have glorified You on the earth. I have finished the work which You have given Me to do."
The Father has given the Son this work to do. The Son hasn't given Himself the work. Also the Son hasn't glorified Himself, but the Father. If He were the Father, literally, He would have given Himself the work and be glorifying Himself. But this doesn't present this here. So again we have a separate Father and Son. We have the Father directing a Son as to what to do and when.
Verses 6 - 10 continue with this same concept with Jesus saying to the Father things like "You gave them to Me" and "They were Yours" and "I have manifested Your name" and "all things which You have given Me are from You" and "You have given Me" and "You sent Me" and "I pray for them".
Verse 11 _ "Now I am no longer in the world, but these are in the world, and I come to You. Holy Father, keep through Your name those whom You have given Me, that they may be one as We are."
Here Jesus speaks of this oneness between Him and the Father. But note that He's asking that the Apostles (which are the people He's talking about) can be one as He and the Father are one. Is He asking that the Apostles become one mass or substance? _ A twelve in one? If He was the Father didn't seem to grant this request. I think it's rather obvious, again, that this isn't a oneness of being, but of doctrine and love.
Verse 20 - 21 _ "I do not pray for these alone, but also for those who will believe in Me through their word; That they all may be one, as You, Father, are in Me, and I in You; that they also may be one in Us, that the world may believe that You sent Me."
So Jesus is asking that not only He and the Father and twelve Apostles be one, but that everybody else who believes in their word (Acts talks of 500 people being present at His ascension) being one "AS" they are one. So in the same way the Father and Son are one, all these others are to be one with them also _ hundreds in one.
Verse 23 says "I in them and You in Me; that they may be made perfect in one, and that the world may know that You have sent Me, and have loved them as You loved Me."
This refers to Jesus being "in" His Apostles and the Father being "in" Him. It talks of being made perfect in one. Over and over we see that the oneness referred to isn't one mass. Jesus and the Father and the Holy Ghost being in us doesn't make us really all one substance, as the trinity doctrine claims.
Matthew 20:23 _ "So He said to them, 'You will indeed drink My cup, and be baptised with the baptism that I am baptised with; but to sit on My right hand and on My left is not Mine to give, but it is for those for whom it is prepared by My Father."
The Son is stating that He has no authority to decide who is going to sit on His right and left in the Kingdom of God. He's saying this is something only the Father has worked out. So how does this fit with the idea that He is the Father? Obviously He wasn't meaning to take the concept of Him being the Father literally.
Matthew 26:39 _ "He went a little farther and fell on His face, and prayed, saying, 'O My Father, if it is possible, let this cup pass from Me; nevertheless, not as I will, but as You will.'
In this verse Jesus is asking that He not have to do the atonement. He, of Himself found it an enormously difficult thing to perform. But in spite of this He said to the Father that He was willing to suffer it (in obedience to the Father) if the Father really wanted Him to. Does this portray that Jesus is the Father? This totally opposes the trinity concept.
Luke 22:43 _ "Then an angel appeared to Him from heaven, strengthening Him."
This was at the time of the atonement in the garden, and He needed an angel to help Him. So let's get this straight in our minds: We have the God of the universe, who's holding everything together, needing an angel to give Him extra strength. Does this sound right to you? Is God a little short on strength? Yet clearly this is what we have here if we are to believe that Jesus and the Father are the one being. This presents a VERY human Jesus Christ, not a God. At the same time we must realise that by His obedience in the pre-existence and this earth life He is the God of Israel etc. But He went through an earth life to gain a body and experience just like everybody else. He, however, didn't sin, and thus could perform the atonement. He also made the resurrection possible.
Luke 23:46 _ "And when Jesus had cried out with a loud voice, He said, 'Father, into Your hands I commit My spirit'. Having said this, He breathed His last."
Jesus has told the Father that He's committing His SPIRIT to the Father. How can He do that if He and the Father are the same spirit? Didn't the Father already have His own Spirit? Should we believe that Jesus Christ had just temporarily borrowed the Father's spirit? This is telling us that Jesus' spirit is separate to the Father's spirit. How untrinitarian a statement can you get.
Matthew 27:46 _ "And about the ninth hour Jesus cried out with a loud voice, saying, 'Eli, Eli, lama sabachthani?' That is, 'My God, My God, why have You forsaken Me?'"
Jesus has stated that the Father has left Him. How could that be unless they are separate to be able to be away from each other? If they were one being and mass how could He leave Himself? And why even ask why, considering you would know why you were doing something, wouldn't you?
Luke 3:1 _ "And Jesus increased in wisdom and stature, and in favour with God and man."
To believe Jesus is God the Father we would have to believe that he grew in favor with himself. Additionally, considering that he is supposed to be complete and ultimate already, how does he grow in favor with himself?
Summation on the Trinity
There are many Scriptures showing that the concept of the trinity is a man made, not God inspired, doctrine. The Bible clearly demonstrates that Jesus Christ and God the Father are separate individuals. Again I should point out that even many people supporting the trinity idea admit that there is no Biblical statement that actually states it: Nothing says anything about there being three in the one mass, or that there is three Gods in one actual God. There are statements that mention that God is one. But as we have seen, there are also statements about large groups of people being one, too.
Hundreds of years after the death of the original apostles the Roman Emperors decided to take over control of the church. They set themselves up as the decider of doctrine on God's behalf. However a power struggle existed with the old authority and them taking over with their priests. To cement their authority their priests and doctrines had to be victorious.
A man named Arian presented a doctrine (we don't know the doctrine totally because we only have the Roman's version of it, and a person's version of their opponent's doctrine is often exaggerated and distorted. But we can establish some things). Arian had many others who agreed with him. His belief was that the Father and the Son were separate beings, and that the Father was superior to the Son. He stated that while on earth Jesus was just a man like any other, and that by obedience to God He earned His place in Heaven, just as any of us must.
`
The trinity doctrine was put forward to combat Arian, so that he wouldn't have control. Also a new word was invented for God which meant "of the same substance", to replace the word that had been used, which meant "of similar substance".
A creed was made to explain God (which ultimately concluded that He couldn't be explained). But looking at the trinity it says there's one omnipotent but three omnipotents, one omnipresent but three omnipresent etc. So basically we have one being with three identities in it. The question comes as to whether the Scriptures, or even just the Bible preaches or even supports such a being.
The question as to whether the Bible preaches such a being is the easiest part to answer. Even those who preach the trinity admit, verbally and in books, that the Bible doesn't clearly state the trinity concept anywhere: There is no statement saying anything like, "God is one God, but three Gods." So does the Bible actually, at least support the concept? We'll look at those statements which are used by those people believing in the trinity and those that oppose it.
Supporting the Trinity Concept
Deuteronomy 6:4 _ "Hear, O Israel: the LORD our God, the LORD is one!"
This doesn't exactly state anything about a trinity, of course, but is used to establish that in some way The LORD is one. This "LORD" of the Old Testament is Jesus Christ (the name "Jehovah", as used here, is Jesus Christ). And He is one. No one disputes that. This is merely stating that Jesus Christ is the God of Israel, and the only God that they got.
John 10:30 here Jesus says _ "I and My Father are one."
Again this says nothing of a trinity, but states that in some way the Father and Son are one. He doesn't explain in this verse what He means by the statement, but a look around this chapter gives us some clues that He wasn't saying that He was the actual Father Himself. The Jews accused Jesus of saying that He was God (verse 33). However He denies this implication in verses 34 - 36, "Jesus answered them, 'Is it not written in your law, 'I said, 'You are gods''? If he called them gods, to whom the word of God came (and the Scripture cannot be broken), Do you say of Him whom the Father sanctified and sent into the world, 'You are blaspheming,' because I said, 'I am the Son of God'?"
1 John 5:7 _ "For there are three who bear witness in heaven; the Father, the Word, and the Holy Spirit; and these three are one."
For those with more modern versions this probably won't be what you're reading. The oldest Greek manuscript of the book of 1st John that has been found, doesn't include this statement at all. In other words it appears some priest added it to a later manuscript to give some scriptural support for the trinity concept. The NIV version (which is quite popular these days) doesn't include this. Nor do many others. This means that they accept that this wasn't originally there.
1 Corinthians 8:6 _ "Yet for us there is one God, the Father, of whom are all things, and we for Him; and one Lord Jesus Christ, through whom are all things, and through whom we live."
This is fairly straightforward. It's stating that there is one God: whom it even qualifies to be the Father. And then it's stating that there is one Lord: whom it qualifies as Jesus Christ. No one is scripturally disputing the existence of both beings. But, again, this says nothing of any trinity. Nor does this particular Scripture even give a hint of a possibility of a trinity. Yet these Scripture references being given are those used.
John 14:8 - 9 _ "Philip said to Him, 'Lord, show us the Father, and it is sufficient for us.' Jesus said to him, 'Have I been with you so long, and yet you have not known Me, Philip? He who has seen Me has seen the Father; so how can you say, 'Show us the Father''?"
This can appear as if Jesus is stating that He is actually the Father Himself. However a bit of a look at the verses around reveal that this isn't the case. You can't just take bits out of the Scriptures that you like and ignore the rest. The very next verse (verse 10) states, "Do you not believe that I am in the Father, and the Father in Me? The words that I speak to you I do not speak on My own authority; but the Father who dwells in Me does the works." In other words He's stating that the reason He's calling Himself the Father is because He's doing the works the Father wants Him to do. Also if the Father were there in that situation, that is exactly what the Father would be doing. And therefore in seeing Him you're seeing the Father. Three verses later (verse 12) He states, "Most assuredly, I say to you, he who believes in Me, the works that I do he will do also; and greater works than these he will do, because I go to My Father." If He meant that He was literally the Father why would He then state that He was going TO the Father? Clearly His talk of the Father being actually in Him, or Him being the Father in a sense, doesn't relate to a physical joint-being concept any more than Jesus Christ or God being in us does. But we will come to more on this.
1 Timothy 3:16 _ "And without controversy great is the mystery of godliness: God was manifest in the flesh, justified in the Spirit, seen by angels, preached among the Gentiles, believed on in the world, received up in glory."
The statement about God being manifest in the flesh doesn't mean that the Father became flesh Himself. It would refer to the same sense as when Jesus was talking to Philip (as explained above). Either that or this is using the term "God" to define Jesus Christ Himself, in this case. Whichever it is, the Scripture states nothing of a triune God. No one is scripturally disputing that Jesus Christ was received up in glory to sit with God in His throne. Jesus Christ is the God of Israel. But He isn't the Father, as He made clear Himself (we will come to those Scriptures which oppose the concept of a trinity - though some we've mentioned seem to do so on their own).
John 1:1 _ "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God."
Yet what does the text actually say in Greek? This is the Greek _
"In beginning was the word, and the word was forward to [ie. toward] the God, and a God was the word."
Unfortunately for the trinitarians this is very interpretable. Plainly the reference to "the word" has symbolic reference only (ie. Christ was not a word). So the verse has to be read with this in mind. Also a literal translation renders it that "a God" was the word. Other people are also refered to as becoming Gods (Jn 10:34-35). So this of itself is too ambiguous. This could imply, for example, that by the word being toward the god, became a god himself. Also the verse could imply that god was the word in the sense that the word spoken by Christ [ie. the gospel] was god's word.
Again, however, there is no trinity stated.
As can be seen from above, the Bible itself (from which the trinity concept supposedly derived) is rather devoid of any substantial support for the trinitarian concept. In fact it's rather short on even vague connection with the concept. There is no Scripture which states that the three beings (Father, Son and Holy Ghost) are one in substance and mass, as is presented in the trinity concept.
Opposing the Trinity Concept
Matthew 19:16 - 17 _ concerning Jesus it says, "Now behold, one came and said to Him, 'Good Teacher, what good thing shall I do that I may have eternal life?' So He said to him, 'Why do you call Me good? No one is good but One, that is, God. But if you want to enter into life, keep the commandments'."
Here we have Jesus saying that He isn't to be considered as "Good" but only God is. So if He were God literally then this statement would be a lie.
Acts 4:32 _ "Now the multitude of those who believed were of one heart and one soul; neither did anyone say that any of the things he possessed was his own, but they had all things in common."
This Scripture gives us some understanding as to how many can be "one" in Scriptural thinking. It says the "multitude" were of "one heart" and "one soul". If this were a Scripture about God people could get it confused and think it supported the trinity idea. So looking at the whole doctrine presented in Scripture is important to a proper understanding.
Romans 12:5 _ "So we, being many, are one body in Christ, and individually members of one another."
Again we have reference to the concept of many being one. In fact here we have a statement of many being "one body". Also it's stating that these people were "members of one another". This would be very confusing stuff if it were being said of the Father, Son and Holy Ghost. We know that these members were all individuals, and not many in one mass. So it must be remembered that this manner of speaking was common.
1 Cor 6:16 - 17 _ "Or do you not know that he who is joined to a harlot is one body with her? For 'the two' He says, 'shall become one flesh'. But he who is joined to the Lord is one spirit with Him."
It talks (as in Genesis) of husbands and wives being "one flesh". We know this doesn't mean so in a literal sense. Also it speaks here of believers being one Spirit with the Lord. Should we believe that this means literally? Of course the answer is, "no".
John 12:50 _ "And I know that His command is everlasting life. Therefore, whatever I speak, just as the Father has told me, so I speak."
So Jesus Christ is stating here that it isn't His own ideas that He speaks, but the Father's ideas. If He were the Father, as some confuse certain verses to presume, this wouldn't make any sense, as Jesus' opinion would be His (the Father's) own opinion.
Acts 2:33 _ It says of Jesus, "Therefore being exalted to the right hand of God, and having received from the Father the promise of the Holy Spirit, He poured out this which you now see and hear."
Well this presents a fairly clear message of separate beings, not one. We have Jesus Christ being on God's right-hand side, as opposed to being His right hand (a bit of humour there). We also have the Father promising the Son that the Holy Ghost would be poured out. This latter part seems an even stranger statement in that the trinitarian translation would have the Father promising Himself that He'd pour Himself out. No wonder there is so much talk of God being "incomprehensible". I'd be very confused with that. I hope anyone who was uncertain about the trinity concept has come to see by this point that it isn't supported in the Scriptures. But just in case more convincing is required, or would be appreciated, I'll go on.
John Chapter 17
Verse 1 _ "Jesus spoke these words, lifted up His eyes to heaven, and said: 'Father, the hour has come. Glorify Your Son, that Your Son also may glorify You."
Jesus has "lifted up His eyes to heaven" and talked to the Father. Jesus is making a request of the Father. Jesus is saying that He'd like the Father to Glorify Him (Jesus), so that He can glorify the Father. Would this conversation make any sense at all if He (Jesus) was the Father? Jesus is praying! He's actually praying to God! If He were the Father would He be praying to Himself? Surely this would be madness. Jesus is coming to the time of the atonement, and He is asking for His God's support.
Verse 2 _ "As You have given Him authority over all flesh, that He should give eternal life to as many as You have given Him."
So God (the Father) has given Jesus authority. Didn't Jesus just have it, being the Father Himself? Jesus didn't seem to think so, and that will do me. Next we have Jesus only being able to give eternal life to those whom the Father chooses. Jesus is speaking to the Father as a man to His God, not as equals or parts of the same being. Verse 3 informs us that we have to come to know both the Father and the Son, it doesn't say we just have to know one being or three beings, but two beings.
Verse 4 _ "I have glorified You on the earth. I have finished the work which You have given Me to do."
The Father has given the Son this work to do. The Son hasn't given Himself the work. Also the Son hasn't glorified Himself, but the Father. If He were the Father, literally, He would have given Himself the work and be glorifying Himself. But this doesn't present this here. So again we have a separate Father and Son. We have the Father directing a Son as to what to do and when.
Verses 6 - 10 continue with this same concept with Jesus saying to the Father things like "You gave them to Me" and "They were Yours" and "I have manifested Your name" and "all things which You have given Me are from You" and "You have given Me" and "You sent Me" and "I pray for them".
Verse 11 _ "Now I am no longer in the world, but these are in the world, and I come to You. Holy Father, keep through Your name those whom You have given Me, that they may be one as We are."
Here Jesus speaks of this oneness between Him and the Father. But note that He's asking that the Apostles (which are the people He's talking about) can be one as He and the Father are one. Is He asking that the Apostles become one mass or substance? _ A twelve in one? If He was the Father didn't seem to grant this request. I think it's rather obvious, again, that this isn't a oneness of being, but of doctrine and love.
Verse 20 - 21 _ "I do not pray for these alone, but also for those who will believe in Me through their word; That they all may be one, as You, Father, are in Me, and I in You; that they also may be one in Us, that the world may believe that You sent Me."
So Jesus is asking that not only He and the Father and twelve Apostles be one, but that everybody else who believes in their word (Acts talks of 500 people being present at His ascension) being one "AS" they are one. So in the same way the Father and Son are one, all these others are to be one with them also _ hundreds in one.
Verse 23 says "I in them and You in Me; that they may be made perfect in one, and that the world may know that You have sent Me, and have loved them as You loved Me."
This refers to Jesus being "in" His Apostles and the Father being "in" Him. It talks of being made perfect in one. Over and over we see that the oneness referred to isn't one mass. Jesus and the Father and the Holy Ghost being in us doesn't make us really all one substance, as the trinity doctrine claims.
Matthew 20:23 _ "So He said to them, 'You will indeed drink My cup, and be baptised with the baptism that I am baptised with; but to sit on My right hand and on My left is not Mine to give, but it is for those for whom it is prepared by My Father."
The Son is stating that He has no authority to decide who is going to sit on His right and left in the Kingdom of God. He's saying this is something only the Father has worked out. So how does this fit with the idea that He is the Father? Obviously He wasn't meaning to take the concept of Him being the Father literally.
Matthew 26:39 _ "He went a little farther and fell on His face, and prayed, saying, 'O My Father, if it is possible, let this cup pass from Me; nevertheless, not as I will, but as You will.'
In this verse Jesus is asking that He not have to do the atonement. He, of Himself found it an enormously difficult thing to perform. But in spite of this He said to the Father that He was willing to suffer it (in obedience to the Father) if the Father really wanted Him to. Does this portray that Jesus is the Father? This totally opposes the trinity concept.
Luke 22:43 _ "Then an angel appeared to Him from heaven, strengthening Him."
This was at the time of the atonement in the garden, and He needed an angel to help Him. So let's get this straight in our minds: We have the God of the universe, who's holding everything together, needing an angel to give Him extra strength. Does this sound right to you? Is God a little short on strength? Yet clearly this is what we have here if we are to believe that Jesus and the Father are the one being. This presents a VERY human Jesus Christ, not a God. At the same time we must realise that by His obedience in the pre-existence and this earth life He is the God of Israel etc. But He went through an earth life to gain a body and experience just like everybody else. He, however, didn't sin, and thus could perform the atonement. He also made the resurrection possible.
Luke 23:46 _ "And when Jesus had cried out with a loud voice, He said, 'Father, into Your hands I commit My spirit'. Having said this, He breathed His last."
Jesus has told the Father that He's committing His SPIRIT to the Father. How can He do that if He and the Father are the same spirit? Didn't the Father already have His own Spirit? Should we believe that Jesus Christ had just temporarily borrowed the Father's spirit? This is telling us that Jesus' spirit is separate to the Father's spirit. How untrinitarian a statement can you get.
Matthew 27:46 _ "And about the ninth hour Jesus cried out with a loud voice, saying, 'Eli, Eli, lama sabachthani?' That is, 'My God, My God, why have You forsaken Me?'"
Jesus has stated that the Father has left Him. How could that be unless they are separate to be able to be away from each other? If they were one being and mass how could He leave Himself? And why even ask why, considering you would know why you were doing something, wouldn't you?
Luke 3:1 _ "And Jesus increased in wisdom and stature, and in favour with God and man."
To believe Jesus is God the Father we would have to believe that he grew in favor with himself. Additionally, considering that he is supposed to be complete and ultimate already, how does he grow in favor with himself?
Summation on the Trinity
There are many Scriptures showing that the concept of the trinity is a man made, not God inspired, doctrine. The Bible clearly demonstrates that Jesus Christ and God the Father are separate individuals. Again I should point out that even many people supporting the trinity idea admit that there is no Biblical statement that actually states it: Nothing says anything about there being three in the one mass, or that there is three Gods in one actual God. There are statements that mention that God is one. But as we have seen, there are also statements about large groups of people being one, too.
Monday, March 15, 2010
Homosexuality and Lesbianism - Genetic?
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.
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
