103 replies to this topic

[koakaipo]

hahaha, no. But it's time for me to change my avatar-it's been over a year-that's some mormon kid ona dance show who made me laugh alot.

ps-I must come off super butch in my posts-people always think I"m a dude!haahah

Edited by koakaipo, 13 November 2007 - 03:01 PM.

[selek]

Isaac, on Nov 13 2007, 02:36 PM, said:

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?

One thing that never ceases to amaze me about this parable is the number of people who wish to aportion a new inheritance for the prodigal.  I simply cannot see that from the scriptural text or the cultural context.  It simply isn't doctrinal, IMHO.  

Being just, the father simply has no option of setting aside a new portion of the estate for the prodigal.

The son asked for all that was due him and promptly squandered it.  He has nothing left, nor will he receive again in the future.  He has no further or future claim on his father's estate.  As the father himself admits to the faithful son "All that I have is thine."

Upon redemption and repentance, the prodigal is no less his father's son, but all that remains of the family estate belongs to the faithful brother.  The prodigal cannot receive an inheritance without robbing the faithful brother of his due.

If the faithful brother, in turn, chooses to share the kingdom with the prodigal (as Christ does with us), then that is his choice to do so- but the prodigal, despite the forgiveness given him, has no claim on the estate.

This is supported by the law of the time and by the prodigal's initial intent to become a wage-earner in his father's home.

We in turn, having been forgiven our sins and reclaimed, have no claim on Heavenly Father's kingdom.  We receive no inheritance as heirs.  What we will receive- even all that the Father has- we receive only through Christ, our faithful brother.

Yes, the faithful brother was prideful and needed correction- but his sin does not release the prodigal from the consequences of his choices, nor does it lessen his foolishness.

Nowhere in the Scriptures can you find doctrine to indicate that are we released from the temporal consequences of our choices- only the spiritual ones.  And even then, the law is fulfilled.

There are spiritual consequences for our sins.  The difference is, Christ has shouldered those consequences and has borne the stripes for them.

Likewise, the faithful brother can choose to bear a portion of the consequences of the prodigal's sin and offer him an inheritance if he so chooses.  

But the law must still be fulfilled.

Edited by selek, 13 November 2007 - 03:03 PM.

[koakaipo]

hahah, nope, not the girl either. She was just the dance partner of the mormon rm kid on the dance show. He got her to read the Book of Mormon though when they were partners-I thought that was cute.

[emeliza]

koakaipo, on Nov 13 2007, 06:00 PM, said:

hahah, nope, not the girl either. She was just the dance partner of the mormon rm kid on the dance show. He got her to read the Book of Mormon though when they were partners-I thought that was cute.

I didn't think you were a guy....just so you know.  Course I also remember you talking about working at that tourist place in Hawaii were you had to wear a coconut top.....so that sort of stuck out that you weren't a guy.

[Anijen]

Isaac, on Nov 13 2007, 03:06 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

[koakaipo]

emeliza, on Nov 13 2007, 04:03 PM, said:

I didn't think you were a guy....just so you know.  Course I also remember you talking about working at that tourist place in Hawaii were you had to wear a coconut top.....so that sort of stuck out that you weren't a guy.

haha, well, you know what I notice? Gals tend to know I"m a gal. But I must have a touch of the butch in my posts cause guys always call me fella and stuff like that!LOL:)

[Lightbearer]

Elder Jeffery R. Holland gives an interesting take on the parable of the Prodigal Son:

Quote

(Jeffrey R. Holland,  â??The Other Prodigal,â?  Liahona,  Jul 2002,�?   69â??72)
Among the most memorable parables the Savior ever told is the story of a foolish younger brother who went to his father, asked for his portion of the estate, and left home to squander his inheritance, the scripture says, in â??riotous living.â? 1 His money and his friends disappeared sooner than he thought possibleâ??they always doâ??and a day of terrible reckoning came thereafterâ??it always does. In the downward course of all this he became a keeper of pigs, one so hungry, so stripped of sustenance and dignity that he â??would fain have filled his belly with the husks that the swine did eat.â? But even that consolation was not available to him.
Then the scripture says encouragingly, â??He came to himself.â? He determined to find his way home, hoping to be accepted at least as a servant in his fatherâ??s household. The tender image of this boyâ??s anxious, faithful father running to meet him and showering him with kisses is one of the most moving and compassionate scenes in all of holy writ. It tells every child of God, wayward or otherwise, how much God wants us back in the protection of His arms.
But being caught up in this younger sonâ??s story, we can miss, if we are not careful, the account of an elder son, for the opening line of the Saviorâ??s account reads, â??A certain man had two sonsâ?â??and He might have added, â??both of whom were lost and both of whom needed to come home.â?
The younger son has returned, a robe has been placed on his shoulders and a ring on his finger, when the older son comes on the scene. He has been dutifully, loyally working in the field, and now he is returning. The language of parallel journeys home, though from very different locations, is central to this story.
As he approaches the house, he hears the sounds of music and laughter.
â??And he called one of the servants [note that he has servants], and asked what these things meant.
â??And [the servant] said unto him, Thy brother is come; and thy father hath killed the fatted calf, because he hath received him safe and sound.
â??And [the older brother] was angry, and would not go in: therefore came his father out, and intreated him.â?
You know the conversation they then had. Surely, for this father, the pain over a wayward child who had run from home and wallowed with swine is now compounded with the realization that this older, wiser brother, the younger boyâ??s childhood hero as older brothers always are, is angry that his brother has come home.
No, I correct myself. This son is not so much angry that the other has come home as he is angry that his parents are so happy about it. Feeling unappreciated and perhaps more than a little self-pity, this dutiful sonâ??and he is wonderfully dutifulâ??forgets for a moment that he has never had to know filth or despair, fear or self-loathing. He forgets for a moment that every calf on the ranch is already his and so are all the robes in the closet and every ring in the drawer. He forgets for a moment that his faithfulness has been and always will be rewarded.
No, he who has virtually everything, and who has in his hardworking, wonderful way earned it, lacks the one thing that might make him the complete man of the Lord he nearly is. He has yet to come to the compassion and mercy, the charitable breadth of vision to see that this is not a rival returning. It is his brother. As his father pled with him to see, it is one who was dead and now is alive. It is one who was lost and now is found.
Certainly this younger brother had been a prisonerâ??a prisoner of sin, stupidity, and a pigsty. But the older brother lives in some confinement, too. He has, as yet, been unable to break out of the prison of himself. He is haunted by the green-eyed monster of jealousy. 2 He feels taken for granted by his father and disenfranchised by his brother, when neither is the case. He has fallen victim to a fictional affront. As such he is like Tantalus of Greek mythologyâ??he is up to his chin in water, but he remains thirsty nevertheless. One who has heretofore presumably been very happy with his life and content with his good fortune suddenly feels very unhappy simply because another has had some good fortune as well.
Who is it that whispers so subtly in our ear that a gift given to another somehow diminishes the blessings we have received? Who makes us feel that if God is smiling on another, then He surely must somehow be frowning on us? You and I both know who does thisâ??it is the father of all lies. 3 It is Lucifer, our common enemy, whose cry down through the corridors of time is always and to everyone, â??Give me thine honor.â? 4
It has been said that envy is the one sin to which no one readily confesses, but just how widespread that tendency can be is suggested in the old Danish proverb, â??If envy were a fever, all the world would be ill.â? The parson in Chaucerâ??s Canterbury Tales laments it because it is so far-reachingâ??it can resent anything, including any virtue and talent, and it can be offended by everything, including every goodness and joy. 5 As others seem to grow larger in our sight, we think we must therefore be smaller. So, unfortunately, we occasionally act that way.
How does this happen, especially when we wish so much that it would not? I think one of the reasons is that every day we see allurements of one kind or another that tell us what we have is not enough. Someone or something is forever telling us we need to be more handsome or more wealthy, more applauded or more admired than we see ourselves as being. We are told we havenâ??t collected enough possessions or gone to enough fun places. We are bombarded with the message that on the worldâ??s scale of things we have been weighed in the balance and found wanting. 6 Some days it is as if we have been locked in a cubicle of a great and spacious building where the only thing on the TV is a never-ending soap opera entitled Vain Imaginations. 7
But God does not work this way. The father in this story does not tantalize his children. He does not mercilessly measure them against their neighbors. He doesnâ??t even compare them with each other. His gestures of compassion toward one do not require a withdrawal or denial of love for the other. He is divinely generous to both of these sons. Toward both of his children he extends charity. I believe God is with us the way my precious wife, Pat, is with my singing. She is a gifted musician, something of a musical genius, but I couldnâ??t capture a musical note with Velcro. And yet I know she loves me in a very special way when I try to sing. I know that because I can see it in her eyes. They are the eyes of love.
One observer has written: â??In a world that constantly compares people, ranking them as more or less intelligent, more or less attractive, more or less successful, it is not easy to really believe in a [divine] love that does not do the same. When I hear someone praised,â? he says, â??it is hard not to think of myself as less praiseworthy; when I read about the goodness and kindness of other people, it is hard not to wonder whether I myself am as good and kind as they; and when I see trophies, rewards, and prizes being handed out to special people, I cannot avoid asking myself why that didnâ??t happen to me.â? 8 If left unresisted, we can see how this inclination so embellished by the world will ultimately bring a resentful, demeaning view of God and a terribly destructive view of ourselves. Most â??thou shalt notâ? commandments are meant to keep us from hurting others, but I am convinced the commandment not to covet is meant to keep us from hurting ourselves.
How can we overcome such a tendency so common in almost everyone? For one thing, we can do as these two sons did and start making our way back to the Father. We should do so with as much haste and humility as we can summon. Along the way we can count our many blessings and we can applaud the accomplishments of others. Best of all, we can serve others, the finest exercise for the heart ever prescribed. But finally these will not be enough. When we are lost, we can â??come to ourselves,â? but we may not always be able to â??find ourselves,â? and, worlds without end, we cannot â??save ourselves.â? Only the Father and His Only Begotten Son can do that. Salvation is in Them only. So we pray that They will help us, that They will â??come outâ? to meet and embrace us and bring us into the feast They have prepared.
They will do this! The scriptures are replete with the promise that Godâ??s grace is sufficient. 9 This is one arena where no one has to claw or compete. Nephi declares that the Lord â??loveth the [whole] worldâ? and has given salvation freely.
â??Hath [He] commanded any that they should not partake of his goodness?â? Nephi asks. No! â??All â?¦ are privileged the one like unto the other, and none are forbidden [at His hand].â?
â??Come unto me all ye ends of the earth,â? He pleads, and buy milk without money and honey without price. 10All are privileged, the one like unto the other. Walk peacefully. Walk confidently. Walk without fear and without envy. Be reassured of Heavenly Fatherâ??s abundance to you always.
As we do this, we can help others, calling down blessings on them even as they make supplication for us. We can cheer every talent and ability, wherever it is bestowed, thus making life here more nearly what it will be like in heaven.
It will help us always to remember Paulâ??s succinct prioritizing of virtuesâ??â??Now abideth faith, hope, charity, these three; but the greatest of these is charity.â? 11 He reminds us we are all of the body of Christ, and that all members, whether comely or feeble, are adored, essential, and important. We feel the depth of his plea that there be â??no schism in the body, but that the members â?¦ have the same care one for another. And [when] one member suffer[s], all the members suffer with it; or [when] one member [is] honoured, all the members rejoice.â? 12 That incomparable counsel helps us remember that the word generosity has the same derivation as the word genealogy, both coming from the Latin genus, meaning of the same birth or kind, the same family or gender. 13 We will always find it easier to be generous when we remember that this person being favored is truly one of our own.
Brothers and sisters, I testify that no one of us is less treasured or cherished of God than another. I testify that He loves each of usâ??insecurities, anxieties, self-image, and all. He doesnâ??t measure our talents or our looks; He doesnâ??t measure our professions or our possessions. He cheers on every runner, calling out that the race is against sin, not against each other. I know that if we will be faithful, there is a perfectly tailored robe of righteousness ready and waiting for everyone, 14 â??robes â?¦ made â?¦ white in the blood of the Lamb.â? 15 May we encourage each other in our effort to win that prize is my earnest prayer, in the name of Jesus Christ, amen.
Notes
1. See Luke 15:11â??32.
2. See William Shakespeare, The Merchant of Venice, act 3, scene 2, line 110.
3. See 2 Ne. 2:18.
4. Moses 4:1.
5. See Geoffrey Chaucer, The Canterbury Tales, ed. Walter W. Skeat (1929), 534â??35.
6. See Dan. 5:27 (double entendre doubly intended).
7. See 1 Ne. 12:18.
8. Henri J. M. Nouwen, The Return of the Prodigal Son (1992), 103.
9. See Ether 12:26; Moro. 10:32; D&C 17:8.
10. See 2 Ne. 26:24â??28; emphasis added.
11. 1 Cor. 13:13.
12. See 1 Cor. 12:25â??26.
13. I am indebted to Henri Nouwen for pointing out this etymological link.
14. See Isa. 61:10; 2 Ne. 4:33; 2 Ne. 9:14.
15. Rev. 7:14.

Sorry for the long post but I thought it better to quote than to offer a link. I think that Elder Holland may have hit upon the real meaning of the story. Rather than just being about repentance it is about compassion for all of God's children. This probably hit home to the Pharasees that lacked compassion as well as those who were "coming to themself" by repenting and coming back.

[LifeOnaPlate]

There are many "real meanings" of the parable, imo.

[Hammer]

LifeOnaPlate, on Nov 13 2007, 11:14 AM, said:

YOU'RE the prodigal son, BC. And what's with this "greater reward?" That notion as you have expressed it runs contrary to the gospel of Jesus Christ as I understand it. I remember another parable about laborers in the vineyard. Elder Oaks has somewhat to say concerning the "reward" interpretation:
I agree; and you're the prodigal, too.

Though many want to use the eleventh hour coming to the vineyard thing for the repentant, I believe it is for the converted. The truly converted.

The prodical son however is definitely about repentance. It definitely shows that the repentant receives a welcome that is all about the level of joy we feel when those who were lost are found. This joy supercedes the joy we feel about those who are dedicated reliable saints who can always be counted on to be true and faithful.

We shouldn't compare one with the other. They are like comparing slow students with smart students. Some get it right quicker and the first time around. Others take longer to get it right. It is indeed something to rejoice about when a slow student finally gets it. You don't rejoice as much when a smart student gets it. But you do feel glad they get it and don't take as much work, stress, and head ache.

Sinners are like slow students. They take the long way to get there. Because of it they are behind the smart ones.

If you want my take on this eternal perspective, and even if you don't here it is:

Everyone will eventually get to the highest degree. They just won't get there at the same time depending upon how continuously righteous they are. How grievous their sins/detours are--how long it takes them to repent and get back on the road going to the final destination.

Consider a trip in a car as an analogy. Some run out of gas, some get a flat tire. Some have a great car that takes them all the way without any stops that would delay them.

[thesometimesaint]

Hammer:

I don't believe that there is a "final destination". If Eternal Progression is applicable to Celestial beings as well then there can be no Final Destination.

[koakaipo]

I personally don't think this parable is like some checklist template of doctrines really. I think it's this story that is rich with meaning and insight.

Just because the story doesn't really point to certain doctrines, doesn't mean we have to force them into the story. I think the interesting thing for instance is that the dad says all that is mine is the older sons-and yet he just gave the big cow away to the younger son. So, is that literally true what he's saying? Does it line up with who is getting what portion of the literal inheritance of this man?

I think the strength of this parable is that it doesn't give us the whole story-we don't know how the older son responds to the father at the end. We don't know if the party went down, or if the prodigal son messed up again. But we are given a number of situations that we can all relate to and gain greater u nderstanding, cause we all have a bit of the prodigal AND the good son in us. Most of us are hybrids in that regard.

Edited by koakaipo, 13 November 2007 - 03:35 PM.

[Isaac]

Luke 15
Todays reflections

To understand this scripture we must first understand the setting and the question, or questioning which caused Jesus to utter the Parable (Which is what Joseph Smith teaches us to do when reading parables). Jesus was in the house of a Chief Pharisee, and as was the custom, the seating was arranged and awarded according to ones stationâ?¦Jesus received those which normally would not be allowed at the table; namely, the Publicans and sinnersâ?¦

1 THEN drew near unto him all the publicans and sinners for to hear him.

And now the question which caused Jesus to utter the parable:

  2 And the Pharisees and scribes murmured, saying, This man receiveth sinners, and eateth with them.

These men are sinners and deserve no seat at the table, and should not even be present at the Feastâ?¦

Perceiving the question within their hearts, or perhaps hearing their murmurings, Jesus actually tells three parables, which when taken together, reveal the various characters involved in salvation, the process of repentance, the rewards of repentance, and the rewards of the faithfulâ?¦Upon understanding these stories, we should have a picture of what the Gospel of Jesus Christ is all aboutâ?¦Indeed it is contained beautifully, and completely in these three stories, and they really must be treated togetherâ?¦


  3 �?¶ And he spake this parable unto them, saying,
  4 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?
  5 And when he hath found it, he layeth it on his shoulders, rejoicing.

These verses tell me, that there are instances where The Lord will intervene and seek those wayward souls who have wandered from the flock and carry them back to the fold. How he does this should be familiar to anyone who has wandered for a time, or who has helped to bring people back to the foldâ?¦From these versus, it should simply be clear that he does it.

  6 And when he cometh home, he calleth together his friends and neighbours, saying unto them, Rejoice with me; for I have found my sheep which was lost.
  7 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.

Where did this lost soul repent in this instance? I imagine it was as soon as he saw the hand of The Lord reaching into his life, or maybe it was while he journeyed with The Lord back to the Fold, but the point here is not when necessarily, but that he did repent, and the Lord is the one who prompted that repentanceâ?¦

Now who are the neighbors in this 1st story with whom The Lord celebrates? That is answered in the next parable:

  8 �?¶ Either what woman having ten pieces of silver, if she lose oneapiece, doth not light a candle, and sweep the house, and seek diligently till she find it?
  9 And when she hath found it, she calleth her friends and her neighbours together, saying, Rejoice with me; for I have found the piece which I had lost.
  10 Likewise, I say unto you, there is joy in the presence of the angels of God over one sinner that repenteth.

So the neighbors here, are The Angels of God, and they are called together to celebrate another successful â??findâ?â?¦Here plainly, the woman did the work, and the coin did nothing of consequence, but the point of this story is just who it is that celebrates with God, and not what is necessary for repentanceâ?¦That is explained  more fully in the final storyâ?¦


  11 �?¶ And he said, A certain man had two sons:
  12 And the younger of them said to his father, Father, give me the portion of goods that falleth to me. And he divided unto them his living.
  13 And not many days after the younger son gathered all together, and took his journey into a far country, and there wasted his substance with riotous living.
14 And when he had spent all, there arose a mighty famine in that land; and he began to be in want.


3 Points here, I wish to make very clear so they can be revisited later:
1. The son journeyed to a far country
2. He wasted his inheritance
3. A famine arose and he began to starve.

So what did he do? He attempted to do what any man would do who had forgotten the source of his substance that was wastedâ?¦He tried to find a substitute for it.

    15 And he went and joined himself to a citizen of that country; and he sent him into his fields to feed swine.
  16 And he would fain have filled his belly with the husks that the swine did eat: and no man gave unto him.

Who is Jesus directing his comments to? The sinners in part, but mostly the Pharisees�Who were the Pharisees� Doctors of the Jewish Law. What does that law say about pigs? Well they are forbidden� So what is Christ doing here with this picture?

To me he is painting an awful picture (for the Pharisees)  of the fallen state of a man who has lost his stationâ?¦He has been reduced to feeding pigs, and even worse, he looks at what they are eating and wants the same for himselfâ?¦ My mother has a farm in Eastern Oregon, with many different animalsâ?¦just about everything you will find on a traditional farmâ?¦goats, sheep, horses, cows, chickens and PIGSâ?¦By far, the most disgusting animal on the farm is a pigâ?¦Oh, but what about those cute little pink piglets etc? Well, let me assure you that they are the only redeeming quality  for a pig aside from their taste!  They root about with their entire faces in the mud mixed with their own excrement, they then stick their entire heads, and feet into the trough (my moms hogs are strictly corn fed...since my Mom is the bestâ?¦) and root about in the corn meal, mixing in the mud, feces, water and corn into a lovely blend which they then eat with vigorous abandon! It is truly horrifying to watch! This prodical has truly fallen indeed!


  17 And when he came to himself, he said, How many hired servants of my fatherâ??s have bread enough and to spare, and I perish with hunger!

This to me is the illustrative of what a Mormon would refer to as the first step in repentance: REALIZATION. He understands his fallen state, and remembers the prosperity of those who serve his fatherâ?¦This suposed substitute for substance is wholey inadequate (he has realized)  for sustaining him...


  18 I will arise and go to my father, and will say unto him, Father, I have sinned against heaven, and before thee,
  19 And am no more worthy to be called thy son: make me as one of thy hired servants.

Step 2 is confession which he resolves to doâ?¦notice he is merely going to ask to be a servant and not a sonâ?¦

  20 And he arose, and came to his father. But when he was yet a great way off, his father saw him, and had compassion, and ran, and fell on his neck, and kissed him.


So some other posters confused this part and assumed that the father simply came and got him, (as the other two stories illustrated) but in this case the lost son was in a far country and it is clear, that he atleast began the long and difficult journey back to his Fathersâ?¦To me this is a symbol of repentance, and a forsaking of the world in which the sin was committedâ?¦a forsaking of sinâ?¦God meets him along the way, making the rest of the journey less burdensomeâ?¦

The confession as he had resolved to do:

  21 And the son said unto him, Father, I have sinned against heaven, and in thy sight, and am no more worthy to be called thy son.

The Father recognizes the fallen state of his son, his wearied and emaciated appearance, his famished tongue, and hungry bellyâ?¦The repentance road has not been easyâ?¦

  22 But the father said to his servants, Bring forth the best robe, and put it on him; and put a ring on his hand, and shoes on his feet:

And here we have the restoration of his sons status as a lord in his houseâ?¦The lesser servants are called upon to furnish him with the symbols of his station of prosperity by  (for indeed giving him a ring and robe has nothing to do with mere survival, but has to do with his station as a Lord in his fathers house)  placing shoes upon his feet themselves and not merely giving them to him.


  23 And bring hither the fatted calf, and kill it; and let us eat, and be merry:
  24 For this my son was dead, and is alive again; he was lost, and is found. And they began to be merry.
  25 Now his elder son was in the field: and as he came and drew nigh to the house, he heard musick and dancing.
  26 And he called one of the servants, and asked what these things meant.
  27 And he said unto him, Thy brother is come; and thy father hath killed the fatted calf, because he hath received him safe and sound.
  28 And he was angry, and would not go in: therefore came his father out, and intreated him.
  29 And he answering said to his father, Lo, these many years do I serve thee, neither transgressed I at any time thy commandment: and yet thou never gavest me a kid, that I might make merry with my friends:
  30 But as soon as this thy son was come, which hath devoured thy living with harlots, thou hast killed for him the fatted calf.
31 And he said unto him, Son, thou art ever with me, and all that I have is thine.
32 It was meet that we should make merry, and be glad: for this thy brother was dead, and is alive again; and was lost, and is found.



And here we have the lament of our beloved "Pharisee", the faithful son, who had wasted nothing, but had served true and faithfulâ?¦All that God has is still his, since The Lords inheritance is without limit as his father assures himâ?¦But the fathers response has nothing to do with inheritance for the prodical, (that question had already been settled by the ring and robe and subservience of the servants in the house) but he is justifying the need to have a celebration for the returning heirâ?¦A restoration to his place at the table, just like these sinners and publicans were sitting at the table to hear the Master whom they knewâ?¦Who had gathered them there? Surely the Lordâ?¦How had they come to know him and been invited at the table? Perhaps the Lord had gone out into the wayplaces of the earth and gathered them up(like in his first story) , perhaps many had journeyed from a far country ravished by famine themselves and finally found rest at the feet of The Lord. However they got there, the point is that the Lord received them, and gave them place at his table, not in the next room, or seated on the floor scrapping up the cast off scraps from the more honored guests, but as honored guests themselves, having their sup with The Lordâ?¦

[LifeOnaPlate]

Hammer, on Nov 13 2007, 03:17 PM, said:

Sinners are like slow students. They take the long way to get there. Because of it they are behind the smart ones.

Welcome to the short bus, then. The one everyone is riding, except Christ, of course.

[Isaac]

selek, on Nov 13 2007, 02:00 PM, said:

One thing that never ceases to amaze me about this parable is the number of people who wish to aportion a new inheritance for the prodigal.  I simply cannot see that from the scriptural text or the cultural context.  It simply isn't doctrinal, IMHO.  

It is doctrinal...your entire post is filled with false doctrine I am sorry to say...

Being just, the father simply has no option of setting aside a new portion of the estate for the prodigal.

Not so at all...Mercy (Christs sacrifice) satisfies the demands of Justice for the penitent, and Gods inheritence is limitless therefore it can be protioned out again...

The son asked for all that was due him and promptly squandered it.  


As do we all to some degree or another...

He has nothing left, nor will he receive again in the future.  He has no further or future claim on his father's estate.  As the father himself admits to the faithful son "All that I have is thine."

Yep it is, and it is also gven to everyone who repents and enters his kingdom...again the inheritence is limitless...

Upon redemption and repentance, the prodigal is no less his father's son, but all that remains of the family estate belongs to the faithful brother.  The prodigal cannot receive an inheritance without robbing the faithful brother of his due.

This is completely false. There is not limit to Gods estate and the older son loses nothing simply because his younger brother gets his...

If the faithful brother, in turn, chooses to share the kingdom with the prodigal (as Christ does with us), then that is his choice to do so- but the prodigal, despite the forgiveness given him, has no claim on the estate.

Also false...He has claim because mercy satisfies the demands of justice.

This is supported by the law of the time and by the prodigal's initial intent to become a wage-earner in his father's home.

He had that intent because it was all he thought he could hope to recieve...His Father shows him differently.

We in turn, having been forgiven our sins and reclaimed, have no claim on Heavenly Father's kingdom.  We receive no inheritance as heirs.  What we will receive- even all that the Father has- we receive only through Christ, our faithful brother.

...Mercy satisfies the demands of Justice...We recieve an inheritence because of the mercy and sacrifice of Christ. It is because of his grace, and our repentence that we are "joint heirs" with him as it states in Holy Writ...

Yes, the faithful brother was prideful and needed correction- but his sin does not release the prodigal from the consequences of his choices, nor does it lessen his foolishness.

He suffered the consequences of his choices through his trials in a famished land and his road to repentence as he journeyed back to his Fathers house...His Father suspended those consequences as soon as he saw his sons repentnece as genuiune and accepted him into his household and established his station above that of his other servants.


Nowhere in the Scriptures can you find doctrine to indicate that are we released from the temporal consequences of our choices- only the spiritual ones.  And even then, the law is fulfilled.

THis parable has nothing to do with temporal blessings, but our inheritence in a heavenly kingdom...and actually there are many instances in which the penitent are released from the temporal consequence of their sins that they adequately repent of and forsake...


There are spiritual consequences for our sins.  The difference is, Christ has shouldered those consequences and has borne the stripes for them.

So why then do you deny the reward for those whose sins who have been washed away by Christ? IF GOd remembers our sins no more when we repent, then how does he deny us the inheritence when we have truely repented and taken his name upon us?

Likewise, the faithful brother can choose to bear a portion of the consequences of the prodigal's sin and offer him an inheritance if he so chooses.  

False...THe faithful brother in this story is not Jesus, it is a Pharisee, and is also a symbol of those who would deny the returing prodical his place at the masters table...Christ would never behave as the older brother in this stroy...

But the law must still be fulfilled.

False...Repentence and CHrists blood removes the eternal consequence of sin, and restores us to our heavenly inheritence...satisfying the damnds set forth by the law...

[selek]

Quote

It is doctrinal...your entire post is filled with false doctrine I am sorry to say...

Sorry, but you're going to have to prove that rather than merely assert it.

Quote

Not so at all...Mercy (Christs sacrifice) satisfies the demands of Justice for the penitent, and Gods inheritence is limitless therefore it can be protioned out again...

Yes- God's estate (kingdom) is limitless, but the estate of the father in the parable is not.

Quote

Yep it is, and it is also gven to everyone who repents and enters his kingdom...again the inheritence is limitless...

And that's where your analysis of the parable breaks down.  There is not a single one of us who can re-enter the kingdom except through Christ. By law, the kingdom belongs to the faithful son- Christ.  We have no claim on our inheritance, having squandered it through sin and riotous living.  Our only recourse is the mercy of our faithful brother.

Quote

This is completely false. There is not limit to Gods estate and the older son loses nothing simply because his younger brother gets his...

But the parable is only an approximation- not an accurate representation of God's kingdom.  The estate in the parable is finite and the inheritance belongs to the faithful brother alone.

Quote

Also false...He has claim because mercy satisfies the demands of justice.

Are you familiar with the essential element of Mormon belief which states plainly that mercy cannot rob justice?  The price must be paid, or God becomes a liar, a lawbreaker, and a respecter of persons.  That is why Christ's atoning sacrifice was necessary.

This is a critical point, one often overlooked and usually dismissed.  Why can God not simply forgive- why did he feel it necessary to see his son murdered?  Because he cannot be God and violate the law.  He cannot rob justice and still be just.  The price must be paid.

God cannot offer mercy to the unrepentant- the price must be paid.  God cannot violate the law, which is why an atoning sacrifice was necessary.  Christ paid it on our behalf, which is why he can say, "No man can come unto the Father except through me."

Quote

He had that intent because it was all he thought he could hope to recieve...His Father shows him differently.

  This assertion is not support either by the text or the context.  It is an unwarranted assumption that turns the Gospel on it's head.

We in turn, having been forgiven our sins and reclaimed, have no claim on Heavenly Father's kingdom ourselves.  Our inheritance has been squandered. We receive no inheritance as heirs. What we receive- even all that the Father has- we receive only through Christ, our faithful brother.

Quote

...Mercy satisfies the demands of Justice...We recieve an inheritence because of the mercy and sacrifice of Christ. It is because of his grace, and our repentence that we are "joint heirs" with him as it states in Holy Writ...

  Mercy CANNOT rob justice.  We become heirs again through Christ- a gift he offers us.  We have no claim without him.

Quote

He suffered the consequences of his choices through his trials in a famished land and his road to repentence as he journeyed back to his Fathers house...His Father suspended those consequences as soon as he saw his sons repentnece as genuiune and accepted him into his household and established his station above that of his other servants.

  He received a ring and a robe, and was welcomed with great joy.  These tokens do not justify the idea of a complete dismissal of the consequences.  The text and context do not allow it, and in fact contradict it.  Even after the prodigal receives thes gifts, the faithful son is told, "All that I have is thine."

Not, "All that I have, less the forty acres I am going to cede to your brother the day after tomorrow, is thine."

Quote

THis parable has nothing to do with temporal blessings, but our inheritence in a heavenly kingdom...and actually there are many instances in which the penitent are released from the temporal consequence of their sins that they adequately repent of and forsake...

As with nearly all parables or analogies, it is an imperfect metaphor.  There is nothing in this parable to indicate that the Prodigal has been released from the consequences of his choices.  Yes he is welcomed back with great joy and fanfare- which demonstrates the value of an individual soul to God- but nothing here demonstrates that the father was going to pretend it never happened.

Quote

So why then do you deny the reward for those whose sins who have been washed away by Christ? IF GOd remembers our sins no more when we repent, then how does he deny us the inheritence when we have truely repented and taken his name upon us?

God cannot offer us blessings for the good we have not done.  Our redemption comes not from the Father but from the Son.  Check your scriptures again- "no man comes unto the Father except through me".  It is by Christ's sacrifice- the son's mercy that we are redeemed.

The law is fulfilled in Christ, not broken.

Quote

False...THe faithful brother in this story is not Jesus, it is a Pharisee, and is also a symbol of those who would deny the returing prodical his place at the masters table...Christ would never behave as the older brother in this stroy...

There are other interpretations to the story, though I agree that Christ would not act as petulantly as did the faithful brother.

Quote

False...Repentence and CHrists blood removes the eternal consequence of sin, and restores us to our heavenly inheritence...satisfying the damnds set forth by the law...

Wrong- Christ's blood fulfills the law.  He took the consequences of the sin upon himself and paid our debts.  The debt is still paid.  The law is still fulfilled.


One more thing......the "quote" function is every bit as easy to use as the "bold" function and makes it a heck of a lot easier to compose replies.

Can you try using that one in the future?

Edited by selek, 13 November 2007 - 05:30 PM.

[Drewm777]

Isaac, did you catch the quote I provided from Joseph Smith.  He spoke at length on the topic.   I think it substantiates your view.

Quote

Welcome to the short bus, then. The one everyone is riding, except Christ, of course.

You nailed that on the head, LifeOnaPlate

[alter idem]

Drewm777, on Nov 13 2007, 02:49 PM, said:

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.

President Hinckley agrees;

   "I know of no more beautiful story in all literature than that found in the fifteenth chapter of Luke. It is the story of a repentant son and a forgiving father. It is the story of a son who wasted his inheritance in riotous living, rejecting his fatherâ??s counsel, spurning those who loved him. When he had spent all, he was hungry and friendless, and â??when he came to himselfâ? (Luke 15:17), he turned back to his father, who, on seeing him afar off, â??ran, and fell on his neck, and kissed himâ? (Luke 15:20).

    I ask you to read that story. Every parent ought to read it again and again. It is large enough to encompass every household, and enough larger than that to encompass all mankind, for are we not all prodigal sons and daughters who need to repent and partake of the forgiving mercy of our Heavenly Father and then follow His example?  (Of You It Is Required to Forgiveâ??,â? Ensign, Jun 1991)

(bold added for emphasis)

[Isaac]

selek, on Nov 13 2007, 04:25 PM, said:

Sorry, but you're going to have to prove that rather than merely assert it.

I did in my post, as well as the other one in which I posted a commentary on Luke 15...


Yes- God's estate (kingdom) is limitless, but the estate of the father in the parable is not.

The Father in the parable is God!

And that's where your analysis of the parable breaks down.  There is not a single one of us who can re-enter the kingdom except through Christ.

I never said otherwise...We repent, and CHrists blood satisfies the demands of the Law...We are not punished eternally for sins that have been repented of and washed clean of by the Blood of Jesus...

By law, the kingdom belongs to the faithful son- Christ.  

THe faithful son in this parable is not Jesus

We have no claim on our inheritance, having squandered it through sin and riotous living.  Our only recourse is the mercy of our faithful brother.

Again, our claim has nothing to do with the faithful brother who is not Jesus in this parable...He is not Jesus, nor is he the judge...The Father makes that decision...

But the parable is only an approximation- not an accurate representation of God's kingdom.  The estate in the parable is finite and the inheritance belongs to the faithful brother alone.

The ring and robe, as symbols are very significant to Jesus hearers and not just nice decorative presents to make the son feel better...They are symbols of his restored station...This is not an interpretive stretch by any means, but comes from an understanding of Jewish culture and customs...


Are you familiar with the essential element of Mormon belief which states plainly that mercy cannot rob justice?  The price must be paid, or God becomes a liar, a lawbreaker, and a respecter of persons.  That is why Christ's atoning sacrifice was necessary.

Exactly what I said???I am Mormon and I am very familiar with the relationship of justice and mercy...Are you familiar with the essential Mormon belief that Christs sacrifice(mercy) satisfies the demands of justice for those who access that sacrifice through meaningful repentence?...I don't know how I can make that more clear...

This is a critical point, one often overlooked and usually dismissed.  Why can God not simply forgive- why did he feel it necessary to see his son murdered?  Because he cannot be God and violate the law.  He cannot rob justice and still be just.  The price must be paid.

Yes, it was paid by CHrist...we agree on that. I think you are missaplying what I am saying and thinking that somehow CHrist is not responsible for our salvation...You seem to be saying that we must be punished for our sins even though Christ paid for them? When we repent, mercy satisfies justice...otherwise we would all be in hell...its a simple law also, but not always easily applied...


God cannot offer mercy to the unrepentant- the price must be paid.  God cannot violate the law, which is why an atoning sacrifice was necessary.  Christ paid it on our behalf, which is why he can say, "No man can come unto the Father except through me."

I never said anywhere in any of my posts that God offers mercy to the unrepentant...IF I did, its a typo...I was very clear that mercy is accessed by the penitent...


  This assertion is not support either by the text or the context.  It is an unwarranted assumption that turns the Gospel on it's head.

It's right there in the text Selek! He has his servants restore the sons station as an heir...THe shoes, robe and ring are significant, as is the Fathers insistance that those objects be placed on him by the servants, not just given...THis is an honor bestowed on men belonging to his household...It is Jewish custom...


We in turn, having been forgiven our sins and reclaimed, have no claim on Heavenly Father's kingdom ourselves.  Our inheritance has been squandered. We receive no inheritance as heirs. What we receive- even all that the Father has- we receive only through Christ, our faithful brother.

This is absolutely false to say that we receive no inheritence as heirs...It is true that we receive no inheritence as heirs without the merits and mercy of Christ which allows us the blessed opportunity to repent of our sins, but we are "joint heirs" with CHrist...We receive all that the father has, just as he did, because of him, not because of us...

  Mercy CANNOT rob justice.  We become heirs again through Christ- a gift he offers us.  We have no claim without him.

I never claimed otherwise...anywhere...ever! Nor do I believe that...you are putting words in my mouth...


  He received a ring and a robe, and was welcomed with great joy.  These tokens do not justify the idea of a complete dismissal of the consequences.  

He suffered many consequences...He was beaten and battered by the world and would continue to do so, were it not for his genuine repentence and mercy of the father...


The text and context do not allow it, and in fact contradict it.  Even after the prodigal receives thes gifts, the faithful son is told, "All that I have is thine."

The text and context actually do...YOu keep claiming that the older son in this story is Jesus and that is simply not true...


Not, "All that I have, less the forty acres I am going to cede to your brother the day after tomorrow, is thine."
As with nearly all parables or analogies, it is an imperfect metaphor.

Yep, GOd's inheritence is limitless, therefore all can be given to all who accept the covenant relationship with CHrist...ie, acceptance of his sacrifice, taking his name upon us, and our continued repentence etc....Just what part of his kingdom do you feel will be denied to those who have accepted CHrist, make sacred covenants, and then repent when they do not?

There is nothing in this parable to indicate that the Prodigal has been released from the consequences of his choices.  Yes he is welcomed back with great joy and fanfare- which demonstrates the value of an individual soul to God- but nothing here demonstrates that the father was going to pretend it never happened.

We do not get that from this parable, but sins that are repented of (we are taught in the church) are remembered no more by God...SO again, if that is true, how can he then deny someone their rightful place as a joint heir with CHrist if his sins are no longer in his perfect memory?


God cannot offer us blessings for the good we have not done.

I would never say he would...We receive blessings based upon the laws upon which they are predicated...
Our redemption comes not from the Father but from the Son.  Check your scriptures again- "no man comes unto the Father except through me".  It is by Christ's sacrifice- the son's mercy that we are redeemed.


I never said otherwise...ever....I am not Jewish mind you...It seems that you are denying that CHrists blood  and our repentence will still not restore our inheritence as joint heirs with CHrist...if that is what you are saying, then I repeat that this is not true...


The law is fulfilled in Christ, not broken.

I never said it was broken or negated...I said his sacrifice and our repentence satisfies the demands of justice...

There are other interpretations to the story, though I agree that Christ would not act as petulantly as did the faithful brother.
Wrong- Christ's blood fulfills the law.  

I never said his sacrifice did not fulfill the law...I am saying exactly what you are...geez...

He took the consequences of the sin upon himself and paid our debts.  The debt is still paid.  The law is still fulfilled.
One more thing......the "quote" function is every bit as easy to use as the "bold" function and makes it a heck of a lot easier to compose replies.

Can you try using that one in the future?

I thought I was...I don't see my original post in your answers to me either...


Selek..I understand Mormon doctrine very well...I think the only thing we seem to disagree on is the end result of the story...I believe that as part of my covenant relationship with CHrist, that as I repent, (by repentence i am refering to the way we mormons are taught to repent...recognition, sorrow, restitution, forsaking, confession, and asking forgiveness etc...) his sacrifice washes away my sins...They are gone, therefore I am entitled to the same heavenly blessings that a member of the church who had never strayed will receive...THat is all I am saying...You seemed to be saying that if I strayed fron the church, that despite my genuine repentence I would somehow be denied those blessings...If that is not what you were saying, then great! If you do believe that to be Mormon Doctrine, then that is where we will have to part company...

[alter idem]

selek, on Nov 13 2007, 03:00 PM, said:

One thing that never ceases to amaze me about this parable is the number of people who wish to aportion a new inheritance for the prodigal.  I simply cannot see that from the scriptural text or the cultural context.  It simply isn't doctrinal, IMHO.  

Being just, the father simply has no option of setting aside a new portion of the estate for the prodigal.

The son asked for all that was due him and promptly squandered it.  He has nothing left, nor will he receive again in the future.  He has no further or future claim on his father's estate.  As the father himself admits to the faithful son "All that I have is thine."

Upon redemption and repentance, the prodigal is no less his father's son, but all that remains of the family estate belongs to the faithful brother.  The prodigal cannot receive an inheritance without robbing the faithful brother of his due.

You are thinking of this only in earthly terms of limited resources.  Jesus was not talking about limited resources--he was referring to our Father in Heaven and what he can give us.  He can restore the inheritance of the prodigal--and it will not affect the older son.  As he said, "All that I have is thine".  The older son is rightfully concerned because as Isaac pointed out, the Prodigal has been recognized (by the robe, the ring and the shoes) once again as an heir to his father.  His position in the family has been restored.  For references to this, read the article I have linked to;

http://www.ldsmag.co.../07024nt18.html

Quote

If the faithful brother, in turn, chooses to share the kingdom with the prodigal (as Christ does with us), then that is his choice to do so- but the prodigal, despite the forgiveness given him, has no claim on the estate.

I disagree.  I don't see Christ as the older son--this parable is about us. We are the prodigals and we are the older sons.  And neither son has any "right" to his father's estate.   The older son has no more right than the younger son.  They are heirs only if their father chooses to make them such--which our Father in Heaven has chosen to do.  Not because we have a right to it, but because he desires us to be heirs.

Quote

This is supported by the law of the time and by the prodigal's initial intent to become a wage-earner in his father's home.

We in turn, having been forgiven our sins and reclaimed, have no claim on Heavenly Father's kingdom.  We receive no inheritance as heirs.  What we will receive- even all that the Father has- we receive only through Christ, our faithful brother.

I don't agree that "we receive no inheritance as heirs".  That we are "heirs" is mentioned a number of times in the scriptures.  ie, "That being justified by his grace, we should be made heirs according to the hope of eternal life." Sin we cannot avoid.  If sin alone lost us our heirship, than none of us could be heirs.  It is unrepentant sin that loses us our heirship.  That is why we are made heirs through Christ "Wherefore thou art no more a servant, but a son; and if a son, then an heir of God through Christ." Gal. 4:7

Quote

Yes, the faithful brother was prideful and needed correction- but his sin does not release the prodigal from the consequences of his choices, nor does it lessen his foolishness.

The faithful brother was more the prideful--he was unforgiving, of which the Lord said;  "he that forgiveth not his brother his trespasses standeth condemned before the Lord; for there remaineth in him the greater sin." (D&C 64:9)  

Quote

Nowhere in the Scriptures can you find doctrine to indicate that are we released from the temporal consequences of our choices- only the spiritual ones.  And even then, the law is fulfilled.

There are spiritual consequences for our sins.  The difference is, Christ has shouldered those consequences and has borne the stripes for them.  Likewise, the faithful brother can choose to bear a portion of the consequences of the prodigal's sin and offer him an inheritance if he so chooses.  

But the law must still be fulfilled.

I think the problem is that you are looking at this parable from a temporal outlook.  It is talking about eternal things-- From the article I linked to;

Breck Englund states:  "How is it possible that a son guilty of such atrocious sin can be restored? How can he regain what has been irretrievably lost?

Even if we repent, we certainly cannot claim that inheritance on our own. We can never repay what has been squandered and never make up for all that has been lost. But there is One who can: â??There is no flesh that can dwell in the presence of God, save it be through the merits, and mercy, and grace of the Holy Messiah.â? Through the Atonement of Jesus Christ we can once again find ourselves â??encircled about eternally in the arms of his love.â?


Jesus is not talking about a finite inheritance.  He's talking about eternal blessings--which are infinite.

[LifeOnaPlate]

Selek, I like you, buddy, but your interpretation of the Prodigal Son is way off.