103 replies to this topic

[emeliza]

Hoops22, on Nov 13 2007, 03:53 PM, said:

No, His forgiveness is not dependent on our forgiving anyone.  When Christ was preaching He was preaching of a higher law yet to come at His death.

Well...His death has come now.  The higher law is now to be obeyed.  

Quote

Salvatory repentance is conceding who we are and who He is.  Christian repentance is a continuous process - and in this respect I agree.  

I don't think so.  If I believe in Christ, than I would need to follow what He says.  It has nothing to do with conceding what He has done or who we are.  We are sinners.  To be washed clean by Christ we must do what He tells us to do.  Then we are washed clean by the blood of Christ.  It is really awesome.  

Quote

Your view would follow that any unrepented sin would cancel our salvation.  I can't speak for you but there are a bunch that I have not repented of - so am I in trouble?

I would be punished for my sins if I don't repent of them.  It doesn't cancel my salvation.  But rather than have Christ pay for them, I would need to.  So yeah, if you are purposely not repenting of sins, you are in trouble in terms of  you will be punished for them.

[Anijen]

I do not believe that this parable is about works though it could be if you wanted to look at it that way.

I think that it is about love. Here is a man who squanders his inheritance, is he coming back because of repentance? I don't see too much repentance here, he is coming back to make his lifestyle easier on him. I see a very loving father who when he sees his son on his way back (at a long distance away) he goes to him and shows love toward him. The repentance process usually will take time sometimes even years. The love is always a constant and unconditional.

Our Father in Heaven as soon as he sees that we are turning again toward him he is running to us even when we are afar off. He welcomes us back and gives us the opportunity to once again be heirs to all that he has. The difference between God the Father and the father in the parable is that God never runs out of his inheritance. I cant explain that. All I know is its not measurable in our scientific, mathematical sense we now have.  It is like the baskets of fish it keeps on replenishing itself.

What does that say about us if we feel that an adulterer should not receive the same. If that adulterer has repented would you ask Christ to suffer more than he had? Perhaps more drops of Christ's blood were spilt because of more severe sins does it make the pure and perfect sacrifice less? No it does not.

Alma the Younger was described as the "vilest of sinners" (Mosiah 28:4) to me that would probably include some premarital sex perhaps even adultery. But he repented. He allowed the atonement to work in his life and he was probably translated (Alma 45:18) only translated people I know are very, very righteous.

[LifeOnaPlate]

Quote

Salvatory repentance is conceding who we are and who He is. Christian repentance is a continuous process - and in this respect I agree.

It takes belief, or as you say "conceding," but it takes more than belief. It takes faith. For Latter-day Saints, faith includes works.

For many Evangelicals, it seems faith includes works, but you can't call them works.

On a trip to the country of the Gaderenes, Christ and His disciples encountered a man possessed of evil spirits calling themselves "Legion." The unclean spirits recognized Christ; they even believed in Him:

Quote

    And when he went forth to land, there met him out of the city a certain man, which had devils long time, and ware no clothes, neither abode in any house, but in the tombs. When he saw Jesus, he cried out, and fell down before him, and with a loud voice said, What have I to do with thee, Jesus, thou Son of God most high? I beseech thee, torment me not. (For he had commanded the unclean spirit to come out of the man. For oftentimes it had caught him: and he was kept bound with chains and in fetters; and he brake the bands, and was driven of the devil into the wilderness) (Luke 8:27-29).

Christ cast the demons out, they took up the body of pigs, which quickly ran to their deaths. Their belief in the power of Christ- they specifically demonstrated belief in His power by requesting to be allowed to enter pigs,- was not faith, it was just belief, acknowledgment. Even sure knowledge isn't faith.

Brigham Young explained:

Quote

    A great many say, 'I believe the Gospel,' but continue to act wickedly, to do that which they know to be wrong. I wish you to fully understand that merely believing the Gospel, that Jesus is the Christ, in the Old and New Testaments, that Joseph Smith was a Prophet sent of God, and that the Book of Mormon is true, does not prepare you to become angels of light, sons and daughters of God, and joint heirs with Jesus Christ to a divine inheritance. Nor does mere belief entitle you to the possession of the crowns and thrones that you are anticipating.

    No, such preparation can be made, and such objects attained only by doing the work required of us by our Father in heaven, by obeying Him in all things, letting our will, dispositions, and feelings fall to our feet, to rise no more, from this time henceforth, and actually operating upon the principle that we will do the will of our Father in heaven, no matter what comes upon us. Then, if you are going to be killed by your enemies, or destroyed by the adversary, you can say, 'Kill away, destroy away,' (Brigham Young, Journal of Discourses 2:248).

Belief and acknowledgment didn't help the unclean spirits any more than it would help us to believe without having faith. Faith leads to action; that is what faith is: belief unto action.

James was explicit on the matter, even mentioning the belief of demons not being true faith:

Quote

    Even so faith, if it hath not works, is dead, being alone.

    Yea, a man may say, Thou hast faith, and I have works: shew me thy faith without thy works, and I will shew thee my faith by my works.

    Thou believest that there is one God; thou doest well: the devils also believe, and tremble (James 2:17-20).

The main object of Brigham's comments was that belief doesn't equal faith. Even the demons tremble. But they never had faith unto repentance, and that makes all the difference.

[Isaac]

Hoops22, on Nov 13 2007, 11:20 AM, said:

Yes, defining "work" would prove useful.  I never thought of repentance as a work.  

No.  We must agree to making "the change".  Now, whether God draws us to that change in a Calvinist way or not is another discussion, but regardless, I don't see repentance as a work.
Calvinist= He has not drawn them to Him.

Arminian = They have not made a "decision" for Christ.

Does that answer it?  I'm not sure where you're headed.

Yeah, but walking back from the far country he had wasted his substance in, with no money, in the middle of a famine can certainly be regarded as work...his father (God) meets him along the way or saw him when he was yet a great way off as the scripture says and ran to him and helped him the rest of the way, employed his servants to aid him etc...This also shows that the journey of the repenting soul is not easy, but God meets us along the way..."We are saved by Grace, after all we can do..."

[emeliza]

One thing you have to love about the scriptures is that the meaning can change due to when you read them and where you are.  They also tend to have many meanings within them.

Layers, like onions.  

[Isaac]

Hoops22, on Nov 13 2007, 12:02 PM, said:

Did the father forgive the son before our after this?

There is no question that it was after...absolutely no question...to beleive otherwise is to ignore the parable and inject your own doctrine into it...

[Isaac]

Anijen, on Nov 13 2007, 12:27 PM, said:

I do not believe that this parable is about works though it could be if you wanted to look at it that way.

I think that it is about love. Here is a man who squanders his inheritance, is he coming back because of repentance? I don't see too much repentance here, he is coming back to make his lifestyle easier on him. I see a very loving father who when he sees his son on his way back (at a long distance away) he goes to him and shows love toward him. The repentance process usually will take time sometimes even years. The love is always a constant and unconditional.


If you don't see repentence than you are missing it completely...

Our Father in Heaven as soon as he sees that we are turning again toward him he is running to us even when we are afar off. He welcomes us back and gives us the opportunity to once again be heirs to all that he has. The difference between God the Father and the father in the parable is that God never runs out of his inheritance. I cant explain that. All I know is its not measurable in our scientific, mathematical sense we now have.  It is like the baskets of fish it keeps on replenishing itself.

He did not come running as soon as the son decided to return...he was in a far country in the middle of a famine and had to return...His father did see him coming when he was a great way off, but he hardly pulled him from the pig pen or picked him up with a caravan of camels in the middle of the famished country  now did he? This story says the road to repentence is difficult, God will meet us along the way, and then return to us our former station...\

[Isaac]

bluebell, on Nov 13 2007, 08:59 AM, said:

In another thread, the topic of the prodigal son and salvation kept coming up, and there were quite a few different ideas about whether or not the prodigal son would receive exaltation, or simply salvation...

This is one of my favorite parables, and i really do love the treatment that Talmage gives it in his book, "Jesus the Christ".


Talmage, at this point in discussing the parable, moves to the faithful son's reaction to his wayward brother's return and says this-

"We are not justified in extolling the virtue of the repentance on the part of the prodigal above the faithful, plodding service of his brother, who had remained at home, true to the duties required of him.  The devoted son was the heir; the father did not disparage his worth, nor deny his deserts.  His displeasure over the rejoicing incident to the return of his wayward brother was an exhibition of illiberality and narrowness; but of the two brothers the elder was the more faithful, whatever his minor defects may have been."

In closing, on this parable, talmage remarks-

"There is no justification for the inference that a repentant sinner is to be given precedence over a righteous soul who had resisted sin; were such the way of God, then Christ, the one sinless Man, would be surpassed in the Father's esteem by regenerate offenders."

I am wondering how others interpret this parable-especially others not of the LDS faith.

Please share your thoughts...

This is also my favorite parable and I have a vested interest in understanding it correctly since I have been in a far country wasting my inheritence on rioutous living...I have studied this parable in depth for 15 years and I will comment on it in another post once I collect my thoughts, but I first want to comment on brother Talmages statement and tell you what I think HE IS NOT SAYING: He is not saying that the sons are not equal...he is saying the repentant son is not above the righteous one...The returing prodicals station as an heir is clearly restored, his station above that of the servants of the household is also established...His reward is not greater than the faithful son, but it is not less either...To believe otherwise is to deny that the atonement removes every blemish..."...Thou your sins be as scarlet...they shall be white as snow..."

[Drewm777]

Joseph Smith has some fascinating commentary on the parable that we seldom here.  It's in the Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith.  He shows that we really want to be the "bad" son and not the "good" one.  The good one is the pharisee.

I do not accept Spencer W. Kimball's interpretation in the least.

[Drewm777]

Quote

In reference to the prodigal son, I said it was a subject I had never dwelt upon; that it was understood by many to be one of the intricate subjects of the scriptures; and even the Elders of this Church have preached largely upon it, without having any rule of interpretation. What is the rule of interpretation? Just no interpretation at all. Understand it precisely as it reads. I have a key by which I understand the scriptures. I enquire, what was the question which drew out the answer, or caused Jesus to utter the parable? It is not national; it does not refer to Abraham, Israel or the Gentiles, in a national capacity, as some suppose. To ascertain its meaning, we must dig up the root and ascertain what it was that drew the saying out of Jesus. While Jesus was teaching the people, all the publicans and sinners drew near to hear Him; "and the Pharisees and scribes murmured, saying: This man receiveth sinners, and eateth with them." This is the keyword which unlocks the parable of the prodigal son. It was given to answer the murmurings and questions of the Sadducees and Pharisees, who were querying, finding fault, and saying, "How is it that this man as great as He pretends to be, eats with publicans and sinners?" Jesus was not put to it so, but He could have found something to illustrate His subject, if He had designed it for a nation or nations; but He did not. It was for men in an individual capacity; and all straining on this point is a bubble. "This man receiveth sinners and eateth with them." And he spake this parable unto themâ??"What man of you, having an hundred sheep, if he lose one of them doth not leave the ninety-and-nine in the wilderness, and go after that which is lost, until he find it? And when he hath found it, he layeth it on his shoulders, rejoicing. And when he cometh home, he calleth together his friends and neighbors, saying unto them, Rejoice with me; for I have found my sheep which was lost. I say unto you, that likewise joy shall be in heaven over one sinner that repenteth, more than over ninety-and-nine just persons which need no repentance." The hundred sheep represent one hundred Sadducees and Pharisees, as though Jesus had said, "If you Sadducees and Pharisees are in the sheepfold, I have no mission for you; I am sent to look up sheep that are lost; and when I have found them, I will back them up and make joy in heaven." This represents hunting after a few individuals, or one poor publican, which the Pharisees and Sadducees despised. He also gave them the parable of the woman and her ten pieces of silver, and how she lost one, and searching diligently, found it again, which gave more joy among the friends and neighbors than the nine which were not lost; like I say unto you, there is joy in the presence of the angels of God over one sinner that repenteth, more than over ninety-and-nine just persons that are so righteous; they will be damned anyhow; you cannot save them. (Jan. 29, 1843.)

[bluebell]

Isaac, on Nov 13 2007, 02:06 PM, said:

This is also my favorite parable and I have a vested interest in understanding it correctly since I have been in a far country wasting my inheritence on rioutous living...I have studied this parable in depth for 15 years and I will comment on it in another post once I collect my thoughts, but I first want to comment on brother Talmages statement and tell you what I think HE IS NOT SAYING: He is not saying that the sons are not equal...he is saying the repentant son is not above the righteous one...The returing prodicals station as an heir is clearly restored, his station above that of the servants of the household is also established...His reward is not greater than the faithful son, but it is not less either...To believe otherwise is to deny that the atonement removes every blemish..."...Thou your sins be as scarlet...they shall be white as snow..."

I agree Isaac.

Drewm777, on Nov 13 2007, 02:13 PM, said:

Joseph Smith has some fascinating commentary on the parable that we seldom here.  It's in the Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith.  He shows that we really want to be the "bad" son and not the "good" one.  The good one is the pharisee.

I do not accept Spencer W. Kimball's interpretation in the least.

What was SWK interpretation?  Off the top of my head, i don't remember it.

[Isaac]

Drewm777, on Nov 13 2007, 01:13 PM, said:

Joseph Smith has some fascinating commentary on the parable that we seldom here.  It's in the Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith.  He shows that we really want to be the "bad" son and not the "good" one.  The good one is the pharisee.

I do not accept Spencer W. Kimball's interpretation in the least.

Hey Drewnn, I am currently writing up my take on the parable, but I think Josephs take on it is correct, and injects an interesting dinamic to this parable I had not considered, which is a shame on me since I have loved this parable for so long...can you post what Joseph said on it? I think it would be useful to the discussion...

What about Spencer W. Kimballs interpretation do you disagree with?

[Drewm777]

Spencer W. Kimball (I believe in The Miracle of Forgiveness) basically says the prodigal son was forgiven but his inheretance was lost.  The "good" son was the better of the two and he would still receive his inheritance.  However, the quote above by Joseph Smith (I quoted it about Isaac) clearly shows that the "good" son was the Pharisee who thought so highly of himself and, like the 99 sheep, will be damned.

"l say there is joy in the presence of the angels of God over one sinner that repenteth, more than over ninety-and-nine just persons that are so righteous; they will be damned anyhow; you cannot save them" (Joseph Smith).

We do not want to be the 99 sheep.  We don't want to be the good son.  We want to be the one who recognizes we are lost.  All of us are!  Then after we've been found, we should become like Christ, the shepherd, to go find the others who are lost.

Edited by Drewm777, 13 November 2007 - 02:48 PM.

[Drewm777]

I for one am a prodigal son and I thank God for it. I recognize I am not a good son and that I don't deserve salvation.  However, I also recognize God's grace and goodness and mercy towards me.

[emeliza]

I am going to go back to my original thoughts.  We are all both of these children at different times in our lives, but our biggest problem is always going to be pride as that is what both sons had to deal with in some way or form.  

I am definitely a prodigal son, but I also think that I can work on staying near to Heavenly Father now rather than running off time and time again.  I would rather work with love for my Father, stay near Him, and not care about my inheritance or anyone else's for that matter.

[Drewm777]

emeliza, on Nov 13 2007, 02:52 PM, said:

I am going to go back to my original thoughts.  We are all both of these children at different times in our lives, but our biggest problem is always going to be pride as that is what both sons had to deal with in some way or form.  

I am definitely a prodigal son, but I also think that I can work on staying near to Heavenly Father now rather than running off time and time again.  I would rather work with love for my Father, stay near Him, and not care about my inheritance or anyone else's for that matter.

I think we can also be the father figure, the one who runs after the lost and helps them back.  But ALL of us must at sometime realize we're lost and we need to return.  If we haven't, we're fooling ourselves just like the Pharisees by thinking we're some how NOT "sinners" (the epithet they so quickly threw at Jesus' followers)

[koakaipo]

I think the prodigal son story is interesting because where the story ends. Like I think alot of times people elaborate alot about it in terms of "who" is getting "what" and stuff-but the story sorta ends abruptly and puts the focus on the good son's reaction to the father showing his rebellious son love. The good son is good, and yet he can't be happy that his brother has returned-cause he's only thinking "why didn't I get a cow for my birthday party???" It's so Jan Brady!!!

And the father is so cool cause he let's his son know he still loves him, all he has is his. But he gently redirects his son's attention-away from himself and what he "deserves"---and makes him focus on the fact he needs to be happy his brother has not been lost.

It's such a great reminder-this little part of the story- that God's love is not a scarcity-the guy next to you isn't your competition. You are all in this together. It's a great reminder of priorities and whether ours is directed in s self centered way, or in a more outward way. I think these are very important things to be reminded of too, in our American culture-cause we are big on competition and quatifying everything and thinking in terms of scarcity-of trying to get the biggest piece of the pie possible. We get so conditioned to think like that, sometimes this story is like getting ice cold water thrown in your face.

[Drewm777]

koakaipo, on Nov 13 2007, 02:55 PM, said:

I think the prodigal son story is interesting because where the story ends. Like I think alot of times people elaborate alot about it in terms of "who" is getting "what" and stuff-but the story sorta ends abruptly and puts the focus on the good son's reaction to the father showing his rebellious son love. The good son is good, and yet he can't be happy that his brother has returned-cause he's only thinking "why didn't I get a cow for my birthday party???" It's so Jan Brady!!!

And the father is so cool cause he let's his son know he still loves him, all he has is his. But he gently redirects his son's attention-away from himself and what he "deserves"---and makes him focus on the fact he needs to be happy his brother has not been lost.

It's such a great reminder-this little part of the story- that God's love is not a scarcity-the guy next to you isn't your competition. You are all in this together. It's a great reminder of priorities and whether ours is directed in s self centered way, or in a more outward way. I think these are very important things to be reminded of too, in our American culture-cause we are big on competition and quatifying everything and thinking in terms of scarcity-of trying to get the biggest piece of the pie possible. We get so conditioned to think like that, sometimes this story is like getting ice cold water thrown in your face.

are you that dancer guy?

[emeliza]

Drewm777, on Nov 13 2007, 05:56 PM, said:

are you that dancer guy?

LOL....You called Koakaipo a guy.

[Drewm777]

oops..


Are you that dancer..... GIRL?