Prophets Saw Our Day

[teddyaware]

In my opinion, you have to do a lot of pretzel twisting to try and ignore the actions and teachings of Christ on this issue. Do you think Christ considered "fleeing to Zion" rather than sitting down with sinners for dinner? And just where on this earth do you feel the scriptures are counseling this father to flee to, rather than include his daughter and the sinner she lives with to dinner? To Utah? Are you really going to counsel someone to go against the example of Christ Himself while He was on this earth in favor of a dubious interputation of one of HIs prophets?

I personally think when someone ignores what Christ himself taught and the example He set while on this earth and decides to act in just the opposite from His example, they put themselves in very dangerous company. Of course you can justify just about any position by finding a scripture as your justification for any action including murder, slavery, and yes shunning your own children from dinner, but at some point, doesn't one have to ask themselves if they are out of sync with the very basic message of Christ Himself? How did "As I have loved you, love one another" get so complicated? When in doubt, wouldn't it be better to error on the side of asking yourself "What would Christ do?"

What you advocate is noble and good. Nevertheless, the scriptures speak of times when nations ripen in iniquity and at those critical junctures the Lord's people must separate themselves from the wicked, just as Noah and his family did when they were to commanded to cease preaching the gospel and board the ark so as to separate themselves from the fate of the wicked.

Like it or not, the scriptures tell us physical separations of the righteous from the wicked have happened before and will happen again. But this doesn't mean the Lord gives up on these who have ripened in iniquity; rather, the location of the mission field is shifted from earth to the spirit world. As we read:

18 For Christ also hath once suffered for sins, the just for the unjust, that he might bring us to God, being put to death in the flesh, but quickened by the Spirit:

19 By which also he went and preached unto the spirits in prison;

20 Which sometime were disobedient, when once the longsuffering of God waited in the days of Noah, while the ark was a preparing, wherein few, that is, eight souls were saved by water. (1 Peter 3)

[california boy]

What you advocate is noble and good. Nevertheless, the scriptures speak of times when nations ripen in iniquity and at those critical junctures the Lord's people must separate themselves from the wicked, just as Noah and his family did when they were to commanded to cease preaching the gospel and board the ark so as to separate themselves from the fate of the wicked.

Like it or not, the scriptures tell us physical separations of the righteous from the wicked have happened before and will happen again. But this doesn't mean the Lord gives up on these who have ripened in iniquity; rather, the location of the mission field is shifted from earth to the spirit world. As we read:

18 For Christ also hath once suffered for sins, the just for the unjust, that he might bring us to God, being put to death in the flesh, but quickened by the Spirit:

19 By which also he went and preached unto the spirits in prison;

20 Which sometime were disobedient, when once the longsuffering of God waited in the days of Noah, while the ark was a preparing, wherein few, that is, eight souls were saved by water. (1 Peter 3)

Neither scripture applies to a daughter not being invited to dinner because of a sin but rather the blessings of the atonement. Your statement sounds much more in line what the Pharisees whose "thanked God that they were not like the sinners." But hey if you need the justification for your position, then you aren't the first to us the scriptures as justification.

I do have a question, just what kind of sinners was Christ eating with would be good enough for you to also eat with? You can tell I am having a little problem with wondering how someone could miss such a basic and consistent teaching of Christ that they would completely ignore both Christ's example and repeated teachings to justify your position.

[teddyaware]

Neither scripture applies to a daughter not being invited to dinner because of a sin but rather the blessings of the atonement. Your statement sounds much more in line what the Pharisees whose "thanked God that they were not like the sinners." But hey if you need the justification for your position, then you aren't the first to us the scriptures as justification.

I do have a question, just what kind of sinners was Christ eating with would be good enough for you to also eat with? You can tell I am having a little problem with wondering how someone could miss such a basic and consistent teaching of Christ that they would completely ignore both Christ's example and repeated teachings to justify your position.

I'm not missing it at all. How can I make myself more clear so you'll understand? My point is that the general rule of thumb is the followers of Christ should, by all means, "eat with the sinners," as it were, and try to help them come unto the light. But there are also times -- and granted they are few -- when the righteous must gather and separate themselves from the wicked who have ripened in iniquity, just as it happened in Noah's and Lot's day.

Can you not see that I'm in general agreement with your thesis, except for those rare occasions when the righteous must separate themselves from the wicked who have fully ripened in iniquity? These have utterly ejected the gospel and murdered the Prophets of God who were sent to bring them the word of salvation (i.e. eating dinner with the wicked); but these desperately wicked people totally reject and brutally murder those who sincerely try to be their friends. This is what is meant by ripening in iniquity...

Edited July 27, 2013 by teddyaware

[ERMD]

I am kinda surprised that you would be struggling with this question. I assume you believe in Christ and try to follow His example. He was pretty clear on how He handled this situation. Eating with sinners was never a problem for him. Are you trying to be more righteous than Christ himself?? You have to ask yourself the question, "Do I want to follow the Pharisee of Christ's day or do I want to follow Christ himself? What choice would the pharise make? What choice would Christ make.

He also cast the money changers out of the temple. He also told the adulteress to "go and sin no more."

[ERMD]

I've read Matthew 25, one of Christ's final parables in mortality and from that it's clear that yes, based on what you describe, you will most likely be found among the righteous on the right hand of God.

Matthew 25 teaches that when the the son of man returns in his glory he will gather "all nations" before him. The righteous will be welcomed into "life eternal" to "inherit the kingdom prepared" for them.

What important qualification will they meet? What outstanding obedience to commandments will they have shown? Simply this:

Fed the hungry

Gave drink to the thirsty

Took in the stranger

Clothed the naked

Visited the sick and imprisoned

The service and kindness you describe is your service and devotion to God because, "inasmuch as ye have done it unto one of the least of these my brethren, ye have done it unto me."

Other qualifications to meet are to make sacred covenants, keep them, and endure to the end.

[Calm]

He also cast the money changers out of the temple. He also told the adulteress to "go and sin no more."

And turned his back on his brethren to continue teaching those willing to listen.

Not agreeing the choice not to have dinner is correct, just saying even Christ was inconsistent in this area depending on how one interprets what he was doing while having dinner.

http://www.lds.org/scriptures/nt/matt/12.50?lang=eng#49

My question is they may have been sinners, but were they trying to learn to live better by associating with Christ or were they content in their sinning?

Edited July 28, 2013 by calmoriah

[rongo]

He also cast the money changers out of the temple. He also told the adulteress to "go and sin no more."

He also commanded His apostles not to preach to the Gentiles, and this made such an impression on them that it took a dramatic revelation and angelic ministry to overturn this. He also withered up a fig tree that didn't have fruit. As these and other examples illustrate, using Jesus as a battering ram to compel families to do or not do certain agenda-driven things is a mine field.

[Calm]

Also Matthew 10:35-37.

A man's foes shall be of his own household.

Edited July 28, 2013 by calmoriah

[california boy]

I'm not missing it at all. How can I make myself more clear so you'll understand? My point is that the general rule of thumb is the followers of Christ should, by all means, "eat with the sinners," as it were, and try to help them come unto the light. But there are also times -- and granted they are few -- when the righteous must gather and separate themselves from the wicked who have ripened in iniquity, just as it happened in Noah's and Lot's day.

Can you not see that I'm in general agreement with your thesis, except for those rare occasions when the righteous must separate themselves from the wicked who have fully ripened in iniquity? These have utterly ejected the gospel and murdered the Prophets of God who were sent to bring them the word of salvation (i.e. eating dinner with the wicked); but these desperately wicked people totally reject and brutally murder those who sincerely try to be their friends. This is what is meant by ripening in iniquity...

If you had made this statement in the beginning, then I would not have not questioned your statement. But you posted this idea of separating yourself from the wicked in relationship to Quest Beast struggling to know if he should invite his daughter and her girlfriend over for dinner. It was in that context that you were making the case that sometimes the right thing to do is to separate from the wicked. And it was that case that I was strongly pointing to Christ, His teachings, and example that clearly taught a completely different course of action. There is a HUGE difference between someone who "murders the prophets" and a daughter living in sin with her girlfriend. For that position, you have no scriptural support and have to go against the very teachings of Christ to support n my opinion.

[canard78]

I am kinda surprised that you would be struggling with this question. I assume you believe in Christ and try to follow His example. He was pretty clear on how He handled this situation. Eating with sinners was never a problem for him. Are you trying to be more righteous than Christ himself?? You have to ask yourself the question, "Do I want to follow the Pharisee of Christ's day or do I want to follow Christ himself? What choice would the pharise make? What choice would Christ make.

Hear, hear!

[canard78]

He also cast the money changers out of the temple. He also told the adulteress to "go and sin no more."

Just after he had said "he that is without sin cast the first stone."

If homosexuality is so heinous. Why is it that both Jesus during his mortal ministry and Joseph, during the restoration of the gospel made absolutely no reference at all to homosexuality?

Edited July 28, 2013 by canard78

[canard78]

Other qualifications to meet are to make sacred covenants, keep them, and endure to the end.

He doesn't say so in that parable. Simple qualification for eternal life is service. Nothing else included.

Besides, the purpose of making and keeping covenants is to create commitments and principles for living. These create actions, leading to habits, building character.

Every covenant we make is a covenant of service. Some, like Mormons, seem to need covenants to get us serving. Others seem to be to serve independently.

[Questing Beast]

Christ is always seen mingling with ADULT sinners. Where are the children? Am I to allow blatant disregard for my moral position in our home, simply because the now-adult children want to be included with their bf and gf? I have another daughter who has a bf half a dozen years older than she is, and she is seventeen, still a minor. She spends the nights often over at his apartment. Yet assures siblings and we her parents that they have never engaged in sex. Hard to comprehend but entirely possible. In any case, I have no evidence to the contrary other than my incredulous observation. She's always been "grownup" in her own mind, so is entirely ungovernable by any sort of "persuasion and long suffering", and I won't use compulsion to any degree, at this point in my fathering "career" being entirely convinced to let consequences do all the teaching, after I have lectured to excess and fallen silent.

We now have grandchildren included in Sunday dinner and other family gatherings. If I follow Cali boy's advice and "mingle with sinners" as Christ did, what kind of messages of acceptance are the grandchildren going to pick up? Confused messages, I'm suspecting. It seems to me that a child who has always been included in family events ought to respect the family's morals. Asking to be included with a bf or gf with which they are being knowingly immoral is unreasonable and even selfish. Throwing my asserted "anti gay" stance in my face is proof of that. I have not had the confrontation, yet. But I fear it....

[Calm]

Just after he had said "he that is without sin cast the first stone."

If homosexuality is so heinous. Why is it that both Jesus during his mortal ministry and Joseph, during the restoration of the gospel made absolutely no reference at all to homosexuality?

Possibly because there were no incidents of someone trying to justify such behaviour?

[why me]

Just after he had said "he that is without sin cast the first stone."

If homosexuality is so heinous. Why is it that both Jesus during his mortal ministry and Joseph, during the restoration of the gospel made absolutely no reference at all to homosexuality?

It wasn't on the radar at that the time when both walked the earth. It was naturally assumed that a family is a man and a woman as the ten commandments demonstrate.

Thou shalt not covet thy neighbour’s house, thou shalt not covet thy neighbour’s wife...

Thou shalt not commit adultery.

Both of the above seem to imply a man and a woman.

[WmLaw]

Christ is always seen mingling with ADULT sinners. Where are the children? Am I to allow blatant disregard for my moral position in our home, simply because the now-adult children want to be included with their bf and gf? I have another daughter who has a bf half a dozen years older than she is, and she is seventeen, still a minor. She spends the nights often over at his apartment. Yet assures siblings and we her parents that they have never engaged in sex. Hard to comprehend but entirely possible. In any case, I have no evidence to the contrary other than my incredulous observation. She's always been "grownup" in her own mind, so is entirely ungovernable by any sort of "persuasion and long suffering", and I won't use compulsion to any degree, at this point in my fathering "career" being entirely convinced to let consequences do all the teaching, after I have lectured to excess and fallen silent.

We now have grandchildren included in Sunday dinner and other family gatherings. If I follow Cali boy's advice and "mingle with sinners" as Christ did, what kind of messages of acceptance are the grandchildren going to pick up? Confused messages, I'm suspecting. It seems to me that a child who has always been included in family events ought to respect the family's morals. Asking to be included with a bf or gf with which they are being knowingly immoral is unreasonable and even selfish. Throwing my asserted "anti gay" stance in my face is proof of that. I have not had the confrontation, yet. But I fear it....

Being a parent isn't easy. I can empathize with the situation that you're in - my wife and I were on opposite sides of the issue years back, when my brother wanted to include his live-in girlfriend and her kids at family functions in our home.

The one thing I'd offer as food for thought - you almost concede that it would be ok if it were an adult only dinner, since you're concerned with the message that it sends to the children - I suggest that perhaps a lesson of love for our fellow man, without passing judgement, is a lesson that children should learn early.

[canard78]

It wasn't on the radar at that the time when both walked the earth. It was naturally assumed that a family is a man and a woman as the ten commandments demonstrate.

Thou shalt not covet thy neighbour’s house, thou shalt not covet thy neighbour’s wife...

Thou shalt not commit adultery.

Both of the above seem to imply a man and a woman.

And there was me thinking scripture was written 'for our day.'

The only scriptural stance against homosexuality is stuff that "seems to imply." The implied scripture is also often in a context of other instructions that we ignore today. We don't stone people to death. We don't expect women to remain silent. But some do still distort the scriptures to fit their homophobic prejudice.

Much like attitudes towards blacks was justified through a distortion of scripture.

[CV75]

If homosexuality is so heinous. Why is it that both Jesus during his mortal ministry and Joseph, during the restoration of the gospel made absolutely no reference at all to homosexuality?

Because everything they referenced in terms of marriage made it unecessary.

[CV75]

Besides, the purpose of making and keeping covenants is to ...

...multiply the childen of God both on earth and in heaven (Genesis 6:8; 9: 9, 11-13, 15-17; 15;18; and most of Genesis 17) -- every covenant ever made, even baptism, points to this objective.

[CV75]

The only scriptural stance against homosexuality is stuff that "seems to imply."

I think the modern scriptures take a clear stance against any sexual behavior outside of marriage simply by virtue of defining what marriage, virtue and chastity are -- the warning voice of the experts on homosexual relations have little to do with the commandments and covenants that have been revealed to be "eternal."

[Calm]

And there was me thinking scripture was written 'for our day.'

Well.....then why do we need continuing revelation?

[CV75]

Much like attitudes towards blacks was justified through a distortion of scripture.

In any case, the Parable of the Laborers applies -- it doesn't matter when we come on board, only that we do once invited, or once granted the opportunity in the next life if our circumstances require that.

[canard78]

I think the modern scriptures take a clear stance against any sexual behavior outside of marriage simply by virtue of defining what marriage, virtue and chastity are -- the warning voice of the experts on homosexual relations have little to do with the commandments and covenants that have been revealed to be "eternal."

So recognise their marriage and put them in the clear. We endorse straight marriages today that have no commitment for eternities.

Zina Huntington to Brigham Young is one example. Sealed for time only.

Helen Marr Kimball to Horace Whitney. He even stood in as proxy as she was sealed for eternity to Joseph but was having children with Horace.

We endorse marriages today of a previously-sealed widower with another man. The new couple has no promise for eternity, their marriage will end at death and yet they are celebrated and endorsed.

A dead woman married to multiple men will be sealed to all of them in temple family history work with a presumption that 'God will work it out in the end.'

The word of wisdom is "adapted to the capacity of the weak and the weakest of all saints, who are or can be called saints."

I'm grateful for that principle. Alcohol/cigarettes hold little appeal to me. I imagine that if the WoW were not mandated I would be comfortable with an 'in moderation' approach. Or maybe I wouldn't. For those who can't moderate I'm willing as a community to raise the bar (no pun intended) for their sake. I'm sure there are commandments which are more stringent for my sake and may be relaxed once we're strong enough to be independent. I admire atheists/agnostics who set their own standard and are still able to be moderate.

Where am I going with this?

The black priesthood restoration seems to have been sadly delayed due to the "capacity of the weak and the weakest of all saints, who are or can be called saints." Certain apostles included.

Persistence in excluding gays from the bounds and blessings of marriage is likely due to the same weakness of capacity.

[canard78]

In any case, the Parable of the Laborers applies -- it doesn't matter when we come on board, only that we do once invited, or once granted the opportunity in the next life if our circumstances require that.

I've no idea how this is relevant to the black priesthood ban and restoration.

[Calm]

So recognise their marriage and put them in the clear. We endorse straight marriages today that have no commitment for eternities.

If it was only the occurrence outside of marriage, then that would certainly be a valid argument. But there are things that could occur within a marriage that are just as sinful as they would be without the marriage....abuse for one thing. And if this is the case, then the sin should not be diminished by granting it a status that is not appropriate, just as it would be inappropriate to allow a man to rape a woman just because he was married to her as once the law allowed.

We endorse marriages today of a previously-sealed widower with another man.

Not really, maybe with another woman, but not another man last I checked.

A dead woman married to multiple men will be sealed to all of them in temple family history work with a presumption that 'God will work it out in the end.'

Which may involve her being married to all of them for all we know.

Edited July 29, 2013 by calmoriah