Jump to content

The Underlying Principles For Mark E Petersen's Address


Recommended Posts

Bobbieaware...I need to pass out soon and have neither paper or memory to takes notes on, so posting questions now...imagine me posting them later separately if you prefer, no hurry to get them answered.

When you say you are sympathetic to Elder Petersen ((plus a few other things you wrote that for me were ambiguous), do you mean you feel positive towards him personally and support him as a person/leader in general or do you mean you believe the teachings in his talk are true (relevant to the time period he ascribed to them)? You mentioned before iirc that some things he said were harsh and blunt, but I don't remember you saying wrong. So do you see anything in the talk as wrong...either specific teachings and/or the approval of segregationist behaviour?

I think this is one question just split into a couple to be clear on what I am asking. If still not clear, let me know and I will try again.

If you've answered before, I would appreciate a post direction as it has been hard to keep track of conversations this past week, especially today.

Edited by calmoriah
Link to comment

As far as I can tell, we postulate ONE decision we had to make in premortality- to follow Lucifer or not.

 

What ELSE was there to be valiant about or not valiant about??   We were floating around as spirit children presumably in the direct presence of God under his and Mother's direct and constant supervision and presumably with direct full access to the Holy Ghost.

 

What was there to mess up?  What powers did we have to misuse?  What choices to make?  To disobey in how to create a tree on another planet maybe?  Did we have those powers supposedly??  Maybe make a three headed chicken?

 

I mean seriously this whole thing makes no sense to me- the idea that we might have been "less valiant"--  IN WHAT???

 

To me the entire purpose of postulating a preexistence at all is to account for the belief that spirits are eternal in both directions- the past and the future- and then provide an explanation for appearances of the premortal Christ, etc.

 

What else is there which is scriptural?  Did I miss something?

Edited by mfbukowski
Link to comment

 

 

What ELSE was there to be valiant about or not valiant about??   We were floating around as spirit children presumably in the direct presence of God under his and Mother's direct and constant supervision and presumably with direct full access to the Holy Ghost.

 

 

 

All 20,000,000,000 of us  "We were floating around as spirit children presumably in the direct presence of God under his and Mother's direct and constant supervision and presumably with direct full access to the Holy Ghost."  Gad, what a headache for our parents.  No wonder some of us turned out rotten, we didn't get much attention and rebelled.

Link to comment

Bobbieaware...I need to pass out soon and have neither paper or memory to takes notes on, so posting questions now...imagine me posting them later separately if you prefer, no hurry to get them answered.

When you say you are sympathetic to Elder Petersen ((plus a few other things you wrote that for me were ambiguous), do you mean you feel positive towards him personally and support him as a person/leader in general or do you mean you believe the teachings in his talk are true (relevant to the time period he ascribed to them)? You mentioned before iirc that some things he said were harsh and blunt, but I don't remember you saying wrong. So do you see anything in the talk as wrong...either specific teachings and/or the approval of segregationist behaviour?

I think this is one question just split into a couple to be clear on what I am asking. If still not clear, let me know and I will try again.

If you've answered before, I would appreciate a post direction as it has been hard to keep track of conversations this past week, especially today.

Thanks for the nice post. I was around in the days before the ban ended and I remember how we struggled trying to make sense of the whole thing, and, quite frankly, how embarrassing it was to have to deal with -- but deal with it we did. Although I had a personal witness the ban was eventually going to end, even so I knew when it finally did end it would continue to be a Church public relations problem for many years to come. But my joy was unrestrained when the ban was finally lifted. I was walking on cloud nine for days.

But when speaking of Elder Petersen's speach, it must be understood his thinking on the subject was informed by many no-holds-barred statements from earlier apostles and prophets, and by controversial passages found in the Book of Mormon and the Pearl of Great Price that, like it or not, seem to legitimize some ideas that are anathema in today's politically correct secular world.

Just as an aside,I believe it's likely those politically incorrect passages found in the Book of Mormon and the Pearl of Great Price are going to eventually cause a lot of problems for the Church, with some members even making demands that the "offending" passages be expunged and discarded. This refusal to believe these controversial passages mean what they clearly are intended to mean.seems to already be beginning to cause some ripples. In fact, just the other day a Chuch scholar said we can just disregard the controversial passages of scripture by asserting that the words of the prophets are flexible, ambiguous and malleable, and that if it ever becomes embarrassing or inconvenient for the Church to take the some of the words of the prophets literally,, just tell the world that the verses don't mean what they actually appear to say if taken at face value.

if some think it's quite a spectacle to see a former Apostle of God getting thrown down the stairs by active Church members today, just wait till you see the hubbub that's caused when the politically correct of the Church want to see whole passages of the Book of Mormon (the most correct book on earth) expunged. And if you think I'm becoming unhinged, just remember the angel's words to Nephi that designing ancient men expunged whole sections of scripture from the Bible because they didn't like the message.

Now I don't believe those controversial passages are ever going to actually end up being removed, but I do believe we are only at the early stages of a controversy that will eventually flash into a full-blown firestorm. And here's the real problem, a problem that's going to require a lot of awareness and vigilance on the part of the faithful in order to remain seated and secured in the Good Ship Zion. Think of this: what better way to get the members of the Church to begin to turn away from the prophets than to find and publicize unpopular and seemingly insensitive statements from past prophets, and then gin up the members in outrage until it becomes routine and comfortable to throw the Lord's anointed under the bus, all the while feeling totally justified for doing so. And what happens if the Church never issues official apologies for theses politically incorrect statements made by former prophets? Well the positions of the disaffected will likely become even more hardened as the fabric of the Church begins to be torn apart.

So what's the bottom line? I can only speak for myself, but I am one who's not going to be found among the ranks of those who are beginning to find it comfortable and easy to condemn our former leaders. I won't join in, even though there may appear to be some justifications for doing so, because I believe if I do so I might very well fall into Satan's trap. After many years of practice, he's a expert when it comes to generating apostasy. And I so I hope folks here will understand if In chose to follow the counsel of the prophets to not speak evil of the Lord's anointed.

I know Apostle Petersen was a good man and I hope that by cutting him some slack perhaps the Lord will cut me some slack for my many imperfections,. I will judge the man by the totality of his life and work, and not by statements made in the day and time of a very different Church and world.

I'm now going to leave this site for a while and listen to some of Apostle Petersen's wonderful General conference addresses,

Edited to add: I just listened to 3 of Elder Petersen's General Conferenve addresses and he was a marvelous and very powerful speaker. The addresses I listened to were given between 25 and 30 years after his controversial speech, and all of them were given after the ban was lifted. But one thing was still clearly evident in all three of these addresses: he was a conscious and unapologetic defender of traditional Mormonism. But it must also be remembered that if he hadn't put forth his yes vote for the lifting of the ban, the ban might not have been lifted until several years later (there needed to be a full unanimity of agreement in both the First Presidency and the Quorum of the Twelve in order for the ban to be lifted). So the controversial champion of traditional Mormonism voted to lift the ban, when 24 years earlier he wasn't sure the ban would ever be lifted. However grudgingly, let's all at least unite in praise for this inspired act of love, reconciliation and outreach from Mark E Petersen.

Edited by Bobbieaware
Link to comment

Here is my intention: SInce this subject is so controversial and pitfall-ridden, I'm more comfortable taking things one specific point in argument at a time. And because it seems I'm one of the few (if not the one and only) participant on this board willing to be sympathetic to the pre-1978 Church and Elder Petersen, I want to stay focused like an eagle on any incoming rhetorical bombs.

And your suggestion that I'm trying to control the conversation like a prosecutor is incorrect. Understand, I'm the defendant here, not the prosecutor. And like any defendant being prosecuted by a hostile prosecutor, with a courtroom filled with spectators who have alrrady prejudged me as guilty as charged, I prefer to take one point in rgument or question at a time, so that I can thoughtfully focus on crafting an honest. pertinent and effective response without focusing on 30 things at once.

Since I'm the one in the proverbial hotseat, I prefer that the hostile prosecution pose one argument or ask one question at a time. I am willing to participate but not put my head on a chopping block. If people don't like it, there are plenty of other topics to focus upon. In the previously locked thread on this subject, I already more than proved I am willing to be fully responsive to each point of argument or question. So let the prosecutor make a case or ask some questions and I'll be happy to answer.

But do realize that I'm wise enough to know when a sky darkened by birds of prey is waiting to descend and pounce on the first sign of weakness. Anyway, if my case is so weak and the prosecution's case is all but a fait accompli, it should be easy enough to dispatch me to the dungeon soon enough.

Just quickly, I'm catching up on reading as it's been a busy day (a good one though!). But for clarity, I really am not trying to be hostile....I'm almost never hostile, in my day-to-day and certainly not on this board. The tone you can read in the OP's is one presenting a position in a fairly even, calm tone with some points being emphasized, but nothing excessively impassioned (that was my "voice" while I was writing it. I can be pointed at times and don't beat around the bush....but honestly, I'm not the hostile prosecution. This isn't a court case and I don't view this in anyway like that. On that note, breath easy. No dungeons, no prisons, no courts. I disagree with you and on some points think you're wrong, but not enough to put you on any form of a proverbial chopping block. 

 

With luv,

BD

Edited by BlueDreams
Link to comment

Reminds me of the Japanese, they were very special leading up to the Second World War, they thought they should rule Korea and China and others.  The Germans also were a supreme race and tried to rule much of Europe.  LDS seemed to me to want to feel special to God, being of a "White and Delightsome skin color."  Everyone wants to feel special.

 

The original Book of Mormon has it as fair and delightsome.

Link to comment

But for now, as I've already made clear, I will now answer one of your questions: The reason why. I said I would have answered "I don't no" to the question as to whether or not those under the ban prior to 1978 would one day receive the priesthood is because that was the official position of the Church, as stated by Mark E Petersen in his address. So if I was teaching a Gospel doctrine class before 1978, and a class member asked me if I believed the ban would ever be lifted, I would have said I "I don't know," because to say otherwise would have been to contradict the leaders of the Church. Unlike some Members of the Church, I have never been one to come out in open opposition to the leaders of the Church. Because I knew the revelation I received to the contrary was private and meant to be kept close to my heart, I hope you'll excuse me that I didn't go around shouting to the rafters that the church leaders were in error.

 

 

Part of me is saying that I can understand this “I don’t know” a little better. A part of me is conflicted because I wasn’t directly asking about the ban being lifted, but whether you would have believed I would have been a servant in the CK. Which wasn’t part of the ban and there was some flexibility as to how this was interpreted (Petersen was just one, more conservative, view). But I think that part of the confusion that has occurred is due to the fact that there’s this blurring of past and present in response, a reification of the Ban as doctrinally correct (when it did hold some doctrinal blunders) and the assertion that the overarching thrust to his address is true.

 

I’m having a hard time figuring out what you do or don’t agree within Petersen’s address. For example, you pointed to RPN’s post as indicative of your beliefs about this. But Petersen’s address directly contradicts this in one of his major points. He leads to a premise that our varying degrees of righteousness and sinning followed us into this life, deciding where we go. So In a sense, God really does care whether one was a young woman who dies in a shanty during childbirth, a king, etc because they “deserved” a specific station due to their valiance or wickedness. It was not ‘enough’ that they chose Christ, because some people chose Him better or made better pre-earth decisions beyond the big one of Christ v. Lucifer (again according to Petersen’s premise). The direct quote is this:

Is there any reason to think that the same principle [that sins committed here decide our places in the eternal world] of rewards and punishments did not apply to us and our deeds in the pre-existent world as will apply hereafter? Is there reason then why the type of birth we receive in this life is not a reflection of our worthiness or lack of it in the pre-existent life? We must accept the justice of God. He is fair to all. He is no respecter of persons. He will meet to us according to what we deserve.

With that in mind, we can account in no other way for the birth of sons of the children of God in darkest Africa, or in floodridden China, or among the starving hordes of India, while some of the rest of us are born in the United States? ….there are rewards and punishments, fully in harmony with His established policy in dealing with sinners and saints, regarding all according to their deeds.

 

 

That means everyone on earth is not equal in His eyes. They may prove themselves, but Petersen makes it very clear that some people can do all they can and will not get the same placement in the eternities. Those implications are intrinsically tied to his premises…premises that directly conflict with what RPN mentions.

 

Part of my issue is that your previous posts did not really differentiate between this, nor did it make much of an argument for this

 

I don't know if you're aware of the following important fact, but the prophet Alma puts the members of the Church under a very strict commandment that they are not to blab out personal revelations that are meant to be held sacred.

 

 

I would like to know which verse you’re talking about. I’m aware of a few that have similar premises, but I would like to see the one you’re specifically thinking about. I personally, don’t think that you had to ‘blab’ about your personal revelation. I personally would have done so differently (basing this on my personal experience).

 

Also I don’t think you actually believe most of these implications. The problem I have is that you can’t separate these implications from what Petersen outlines as his line of reasoning. They’re the simple logical conclusions based off of them….and they are ludicrous.

 

I then have further issues, because it’s difficult to nail down what you’re insisting when defending Petersen. You state that you believe in a similar way as RPN, but the reason I even responded was because you inferred that Petersen could be right, here:

And oh what cognitive dissonance will grip the minds and hearts of the masses if it turns out that Elder Peterson was correct! It is possible, you know? After all, since we don't know, who can say for sure he wasn't right?

 

Before that you mentioned this:

In his day, Elder Peterson could speak his mind on the karmic principle, and even provide specific "examples" of what he believed to be the principle in action, without facing much backlash because the topic wasn't nearly as "hot button" in the early 50s as it is today. But in today's politically correct environment, if anyone has what they believe are real-life examples of how the karmic principle operates, it would be more than wise for that man to keep his opinions to himself.

 

And my point is and always has been, that you most certainly can assume Petersen was wrong on this issue. The reason isn’t because of some issue with PC-ness…but that the very logical implications from this are horrifying (permissiveness of racist/classist beliefs and general inequity). There is no way to get around that from Petersen’s position.

 

Oh, missed this point from you:

 

Here is my intention: SInce this subject is so controversial and pitfall-ridden, I'm more comfortable taking things one specific point in argument at a time. And because it seems I'm one of the few (if not the one and only) participant on this board willing to be sympathetic to the pre-1978 Church and Elder Petersen, I want to stay focused like an eagle on any incoming rhetorical bombs.

 

 

I think you’ve misread my intention. I don’t think poorly of the pre-1978 church or of Elder Petersen. I don’t know him. He died 4 years before I was even born. And I believe Teancum when he states that his conference talks were enjoyable. I’ve never assumed he wasn’t a good apostle. I’m proud of my ancestors who were apart of the pre-1978 church up until Nauvoo. I don’t blame them for not being able to transcend time and space to have perfect views. In many ways they often did do better than expected. And I hold sympathy to them, because from time to time I catch myself with views that may or may not be in line with Christ. Sympathy, to me, does not extend to excusing away racism and noting that, at times, they were all very flawed in their reasoning. I think that of my own mother, grandmother, aunts, and uncles…all of which hold beliefs that I feel are in fundamental error at times. I also love them, recognize they’ve been through more at times than I could handle, and generally respect them. I can denounce this talk and the said beliefs in it without throwing Petersen under the proverbial bus. But I don’t feel the need to defend him on this. He was wrong. He was in a time and place that made hold his assumptions very easy….but in the long run he was just plain wrong.

 

With luv,

BD

Link to comment

Just wanted to let Blue Dreams know how much I love and admire her.  :Your enduring strength and patience is just astounding to me.

You have surpassed the concept of valiance and just respect you so much. 

 

I can't comment anything on this thread..because to me a proves a point with my own interpretation of God.  I just don't believe that Petersen was or had any spiritual ties with God on this matter.  In which case, if there is no Prophets, Seers and Revelators that can really speak for God, where does that leave anyone in the church?

Well, shucks, you've made me blush (I'm terrible at taking compliments....one of my quarky flaws). But thanks Jeanne.

 

I don't what Petersen's spiritual ties were with God on this matter, but I don't think he was any better or worse than me. It's hard to read past assumptions, especially when everybody holds them to be true and there is no major push in one's life to see otherwise. Even for me, where there was a big discrepancy, it took me a while to alter some of my view on this topic...but I don't think that means he couldn't speak for God or that prophets today can't. Anymore than I question my own connection to God (who I lovingly call the Guy Upstairs). We all learn line upon line. But I'll stop there because I feel like a good chunk of that other thread focused on this and I don't want to do that for this one. 

 

With luv,

BD

Link to comment

I would just point out that while BlueDreams is correct in her logic about the uncomfortable results of this line of thinking, there have been LDS leaders who saw the same line of logic but did not shrink from the implications, but instead classified them as logical doctrine and taught as much. 

 

It wasn't an isolated statement by Elder Petersen.

 

 

Thanks, cinepro. I doubt they would have seen the discomfort...in large part because how we view each other has fundamentally shifted. I took a very cool civil rights class (got to visit alabama and georgia and do the selma walk across as part of it!) and that's one of the things that struck me...we've gone through a fundamental shift about how we view the person of a different skin, culture, etc. We still have space to grow obvious, but our comfort with the idea of a irrevocable difference between the races is one thing that you can poignantly see based on the tone of many previous discourses from LDS and non-LDS alike. And I do think that both LDS and non-lds experiences to move this were often very God-inspired. 

 

With luv,

BD

Link to comment

I'm going to answer in the affirmative, that yes, our actions and valiance in the preexistence plays a role in our mortal circumstances. I don't believe that means that valiance = a more affluent, racially-specific existence, or leadership in the church. It can mean birth into the covenant and leadership, but limiting it to such also limits the scope of the Gospel. The Gospel of Christ includes many of the moral, familial, political, and social teachings of Lao Tzu, Confucius, Dietrich Bonhoeffer, Tennyson, Philo Judaeus, Socrates, Nelson Mandela, Ben Gurion, etc. I believe that many valiant spirits were sent and born into circumstances where they would face difficulty, poverty, deprivation, racial prejudice. I believe that many would not experience or even know of the church, priesthood, or Christ. Yet God needed them in those areas to further his cause and strengthen his Kingdom.

 

My personal beliefs probably fall somewhere between you and Mfb on this one. I think where we are placed is more than happenstance and that we are given places/positions where the Lord expects us to expand a greater level of His truths. But I think we focus too much on leaders of this or that era when we mention this...or just people in general that we've come to socially admire. I think we all passed the test with flying colors and it was a pass/fail sort of thing (well in this case true/false)....you couldn't be kinda right or sorta valiant. But where we are place in my mind is like deciding how to best cut a gem. We all had differing manifestations and talents that could best be exhibited in certain experiences. I also think there are those that the Lord, earth, etc weeped for because they were sending them in terrible circumstances where few could hope to reach this because of the wickedness of the people and where satan had "veiled the whole face of the earth with darkness" (see moses 7:26-30 to kinda get where I'm coming from).

 

Hope this makes sense...it's near the end of my coherency (not a night owl)   

 

with luv,

BD

Link to comment

Part of me is saying that I can understand this “I don’t know” a little better. A part of me is conflicted because I wasn’t directly asking about the ban being lifted, but whether you would have believed I would have been a servant in the CK. Which wasn’t part of the ban and there was some flexibility as to how this was interpreted (Petersen was just one, more conservative, view). But I think that part of the confusion that has occurred is due to the fact that there’s this blurring of past and present in response, a reification of the Ban as doctrinally correct (when it did hold some doctrinal blunders) and the assertion that the overarching thrust to his address is true.

I’m having a hard time figuring out what you do or don’t agree within Petersen’s address. For example, you pointed to RPN’s post as indicative of your beliefs about this. But Petersen’s address directly contradicts this in one of his major points. He leads to a premise that our varying degrees of righteousness and sinning followed us into this life, deciding where we go. So In a sense, God really does care whether one was a young woman who dies in a shanty during childbirth, a king, etc because they “deserved” a specific station due to their valiance or wickedness. It was not ‘enough’ that they chose Christ, because some people chose Him better or made better pre-earth decisions beyond the big one of Christ v. Lucifer (again according to Petersen’s premise). The direct quote is this:

That means everyone on earth is not equal in His eyes. They may prove themselves, but Petersen makes it very clear that some people can do all they can and will not get the same placement in the eternities. Those implications are intrinsically tied to his premises…premises that directly conflict with what RPN mentions.

Part of my issue is that your previous posts did not really differentiate between this, nor did it make much of an argument for this

I would like to know which verse you’re talking about. I’m aware of a few that have similar premises, but I would like to see the one you’re specifically thinking about. I personally, don’t think that you had to ‘blab’ about your personal revelation. I personally would have done so differently (basing this on my personal experience).

Also I don’t think you actually believe most of these implications. The problem I have is that you can’t separate these implications from what Petersen outlines as his line of reasoning. They’re the simple logical conclusions based off of them….and they are ludicrous.

I then have further issues, because it’s difficult to nail down what you’re insisting when defending Petersen. You state that you believe in a similar way as RPN, but the reason I even responded was because you inferred that Petersen could be right, here:

Before that you mentioned this:

And my point is and always has been, that you most certainly can assume Petersen was wrong on this issue. The reason isn’t because of some issue with PC-ness…but that the very logical implications from this are horrifying (permissiveness of racist/classist beliefs and general inequity). There is no way to get around that from Petersen’s position.

Oh, missed this point from you:

I think you’ve misread my intention. I don’t think poorly of the pre-1978 church or of Elder Petersen. I don’t know him. He died 4 years before I was even born. And I believe Teancum when he states that his conference talks were enjoyable. I’ve never assumed he wasn’t a good apostle. I’m proud of my ancestors who were apart of the pre-1978 church up until Nauvoo. I don’t blame them for not being able to transcend time and space to have perfect views. In many ways they often did do better than expected. And I hold sympathy to them, because from time to time I catch myself with views that may or may not be in line with Christ. Sympathy, to me, does not extend to excusing away racism and noting that, at times, they were all very flawed in their reasoning. I think that of my own mother, grandmother, aunts, and uncles…all of which hold beliefs that I feel are in fundamental error at times. I also love them, recognize they’ve been through more at times than I could handle, and generally respect them. I can denounce this talk and the said beliefs in it without throwing Petersen under the proverbial bus. But I don’t feel the need to defend him on this. He was wrong. He was in a time and place that made hold his assumptions very easy….but in the long run he was just plain wrong.

With luv,

BD

Hi BD. Please understand that while you may not want to put my head on the chopping block, there are plenty of other people reading these posts who may want to put my head there.

Now as I have previously stipulated, I will answer one point or question at a time.

If one reads and understands D&C 132, it is made very obvious that Elder Petersen was speaking of servants (the Lord's word) in the Celestial as being those made it to the celestial kingdom by were not married in the temple. And since the priesthood ban was in effect in 1954, and since those under the ban could not receive the ordinance of eternal marriage, that would mean they would enter the celestial kingdom as servants -- by the Lord's own word and not by Mark E Petersen's word. Elder Petersen was simply the messenger.

Here's the problem (and this problem is another reason why I want to go one point or question at a time): Putting this as gently as I can say it, I've read enough of your posts to know you are a very intelligent and highly insightful person. But there is one thing lacking. As one who is very well acquainted with the scriptures, I can also see by your posts that your are not as well acquainted with the scriptures as you might be. And so rather than relying on me or someone else to help you come to understand the doctrines of the kingdom, why not devote far more time to diligent scripture study so that you can experience the joy of spiritual discovery and enlightenment on your own?

Here's an example of what I mean: If you had been familiar enough with the scriptures, you would have known the reason why Elder Petersen spoke of servants in the celestial kingdom is because of what's written in D&C 132 concerning those who had not received the ordinance of eternal marriage and for that reason being only worthy to become servants. There is no other reason why the word servants is used because there will be many people of ALL RACES who wiill be servants in the celestial kingdom. The verse in question was referring to anyone who FOR ANY REASON had not received the ordinance of eternal marriage. And now that the ban has been lifted, the only folks who were previously under the ban, both past and present, who will become servants in the celestial kingdom are those who by their own will and choice neglected to receive the and magnify the ordinance of eternal marriage

It's frustrating to encounter those who are filled with so many doubts and questions they want someone else to answer for them when it would be far better, and much more beneficial, if theses folks could learn how to get the answers on their own. Living on borrowed light is never a good idea, and that's why I balance my participation on this board (I'm actually trying to cut back) with scripture study and spending time listening to General Conference addresses, both old and new. After many years of study and practice, I've learned how to get answers on my own, and you can do it too. The difference between those who can find the answers on their own (with God's help), and those who can't, is like comparing the sun to the moon. The sun has intense light and energy within itself, while the moon can only reflect a greatly diminished portion of the sun's internal light and energy. Each member of the Church should strive to be much more like unto the sun and not at all like the moon. Always remember to moral of the parable of the 10 virgins. And most importantly, remember that the answers you get on your own stick with you and become an anchor to the soul; but the answers you get from someone else are like eating cotton candy for dinner. This is why we're even told to get independent spiritual confirmation when our prophets speak to us.

The above kind of coaching is frowned upon on this board, but my words are spoken with sincerity and with hope for the day when your questions and doubts will be swallowed up in the Light of the Lord.

Edited by Bobbieaware
Link to comment
Well I’ll repost my thoughts; 

 

May the Lord forgive me but I’m going to argue with Mark E. Peterson and I guess with Joseph Fielding Smith whom he quotes. 

 

He says “we must accept the fact of pre-existence, and that in our pre-existence we had free agency.” and that the Lord somehow judged us before we came to earth and placed us in our various situations here based on our actions there.  

 

He quotes Eze 18

 

“The soul that sinneth, it shall die. The son shall not bear the iniquity of the father, neither shall the father bear the iniquity of the son: the righteousness of the righteous shall be upon him, and the wickedness of the wicked shall be upon him.” 

 

And then draws the conclusion that anyone born black had made choices in their pre-earth life to cause them to be born unworthy of the priesthood. 

 

“9. Is there any reason to think that the same principles of rewards and punishments did not apply to us and our deeds in the pre-existent world as will apply hereafter? Is there reason then why the type of birth we receive in this life is not a reflection of our worthiness or lack of it in the pre-existent life? We must accept the justice of God. He is fair to all. His is not a respector of persons. He will mete to us according to what we deserve.”

 

But what of John 9 where there is a man blind since birth;

“ And his disciples asked him, saying, Master, who did sin, this man, or his parents, that he was born blind? Jesus answered, Neither hath this man sinned, nor his parents: but that the works of God should be made manifest in him.” 

 

It seems we are not cursed with some earthly curse because of actions done in our pre-earth lives. 

 

Instead there is a parable in D&C 88 which I think helps explain what was happening. A man sends his twelve servants out into the field and then visits them one by one. 

 

“58 And thus they all received the light of the countenance of their lord, every man in his hour, and in his time, and in his season—

 

 59 Beginning at the first, and so on unto the last, and from the last unto the first, and from the first unto the last;

 

 60 Every man in his own order, until his hour was finished, even according as his lord had commanded him, that his lord might be glorified in him, and he in his lord, that they all might be glorified.”

 

Not one of his servants received more glory than another just at different times. And as has been quoted by others here “…that curse will be removed from the seed of Cain, and they will then come up and possess the Priesthood, and receive all the blessings which we are now entitled to." BY

 

Those children of God who died without the priesthood blessing which consist of nearly all of our Father’s children will receive those blessings.   

 

There is a passage from the Book of Mormon which he did not add to the mix from which he developed his theories. 

 

 "Wherefore, ye shall remember your children, how that ye have grieved their hearts because of the example that ye have set before them; and also, remember that ye may, because of your filthiness, bring your children unto destruction, and their sins be heaped upon your heads at the last day." Jacob 3, see also D&C 29: 47-48

 

Couldn’t we apply this to Cain? Lots of men kill and we know they will receive forgiveness of sins at some point but not so with Cain he is perdition. He took his children and dwelt in the land of Nod or he separated himself and his family from the people of God. He was a poor example and didn’t teach his children to serve God, so the sins of his children are placed upon his head. 

 

In a sense not having the priesthood is a blessing “but sin is not imputed when there is no law” and “Therefore to him that knoweth to do good, and doeth it not, to him it is sin” Rom 5:13, James 4:17

 

And from Luke 12;

“And that servant, which knew his lord’s will, and prepared not himself, neither did according to his will, shall be beaten with many stripes.

 But he that knew not, and did commit things worthy of stripes, shall be beaten with few stripes. For unto whomsoever much is given, of him shall be much required: and to whom men have committed much, of him they will ask the more.”

 

And lastly 

“ And they shall come from the east, and from the west, and from the north, and from the south, and shall sit down in the kingdom of God. And, behold, there are last which shall be first, and there are first which shall be last.” Luke 13

 

I just think there are many who assume they are going to be first to march into the Celestial Kingdom who are going to be surprised they came in last.  

Link to comment

Iirc which after 45 min sleep last night isn't great, those who are baptized and lack temple ordinances have plenty of time in paradise before final judgment where they are assigned a kingdom. BY's and others' understanding seemed to have them last in line but that still wouldn't have them as servants.

Link to comment

We also talk about how marriage is not something that occurs in heaven but those who die without marriage who are worthy of it get the chance, so sealings must occur in paradise which is part of this life and not heaven which occurs when we are resurrected.

Link to comment

Hi Jude….yeah, I didn’t even see this in the other thread, it got pretty dense with posting over there

 

May the Lord forgive me but I’m going to argue with Mark E. Peterson and I guess with Joseph Fielding Smith whom he quotes.

He says “we must accept the fact of pre-existence, and that in our pre-existence we had free agency.” and that the Lord somehow judged us before we came to earth and placed us in our various situations here based on our actions there. 

 

- I do think we had moral agency or we wouldn't have Satan and all that (ie. we could choose the Lord's way or not). But what I don’t know, and what one can’t know, based on the scriptures is how he placed us in our various situations. You can see my post to halconero to see my thoughts on that one a little more. But to add to the idea of Moral agency, I do think our actual agency was limited because of our environment....there was less space for variance in moral choice when our Heavenly Parents are right before us and there is absolute certainty of their Rightness and Goodness. 

 

But what of John 9 where there is a man blind since birth;
“ And his disciples asked him, saying, Master, who did sin, this man, or his parents, that he was born blind? Jesus answered, Neither hath this man sinned, nor his parents: but that the works of God should be made manifest in him.”

It seems we are not cursed with some earthly curse because of actions done in our pre-earth lives.

 

Good point, I forgot about that scripture when reading this.

 

Couldn’t we apply this to Cain? Lots of men kill and we know they will receive forgiveness of sins at some point but not so with Cain he is perdition. He took his children and dwelt in the land of Nod or he separated himself and his family from the people of God. He was a poor example and didn’t teach his children to serve God, so the sins of his children are placed upon his head.

 

It most certainly could apply to Cain and I have no problem with that. My problem is our assumptions with who Cain’s descendants were. It was assumed blacks were by the early church, based on protestant false-teachings used to justify slavery that 1 – cain’s mark was dark skin and 2 – that cain’s descendant was everyone descending from black Africans. Neither of which can be supported by reading the texts themselves. You have to assume that first to read it there. Not even JS, who did not institute the ban and showed no problems giving priesthood callings and keys to black men, questioned the seed of Cain and/or ham beliefs that circulated during that time....which also indicates that the priesthood ban wasn't necessary or it would have started from the beginning. In essence the line to who would receive a visiting from the Lord was arbitrarily decided based on the prejudices and racial pressures of their era in the 1850’s….not from an actual cursing based on the black person’s sins (or their fathers’ sins), but on the sins and failures of their white brothers both LDS and not.

 

In a sense not having the priesthood is a blessing “but sin is not imputed when there is no law” and “Therefore to him that knoweth to do good, and doeth it not, to him it is sin” Rom 5:13, James 4:17

 

 

I don’t think that not receiving the priesthood in any circumstance could be considered a blessing. But rather that the consequences of having said accountability would be a greater problem than them not. It’s the lesser of two bads. One last thing, from my study of these curses, the hereditary continuance of Cain’s curse may not be as we assume. Lamech, one of his descendants, is re-cursed by partaking in the same satanic ordinances that his predecessor does. His wives are the heroines who point out said evil. After this women are barred from having these corrupt teachings and people are introduced to it in a singular basis. So though they were separated, the actual curse/mark seems to be tied to active participation in satanic ritual and secret combinations.

 

I just think there are many who assume they are going to be first to march into the Celestial Kingdom who are going to be surprised they came in last. 

 

 

Yes, also probably true….I guess we’ll wait and see :)

 

With luv,

BD

Edited by BlueDreams
Link to comment
Hi BD. Please understand that while you may not want to put my head on the chopping block, there are plenty of other people reading these posts who may want to put my head there.

 

Hello Bobbie, I haven’t seen anyone do that here yet on this thread…and if they do you or I are welcome to report them….I asked, after all for civility. Chopping blocks are naturally uncivil.

 

If one reads and understands D&C 132, it is made very obvious that Elder Petersen was speaking of servants (the Lord's word) in the Celestial as being those made it to the celestial kingdom by were not married in the temple. And since the priesthood ban was in effect in 1954, and since those under the ban could not receive the ordinance of eternal marriage, that would mean they would enter the celestial kingdom as servants -- by the Lord's own word and not by Mark E Petersen's word. Elder Petersen was simply the messenger.

 

Yes, I’m aware of where Elder Petersen got it, what is missing is his conclusions about what it means. This conclusion ignores paradise and the work done there. A work that other prophets and apostles stated would be done for everyone (no exceptions), because it had to be, before the end of the millennium and the final judgment...which would then be when we are ascribed are eternal glories. Most assumed that’s when people of african descent would get these blessings…not that they never would, but that they would be the last to have said opportunity. So even in this era there was other options to how it could be interpreted and there wasn’t a good reason to assume that even if they followed the Lord to the end of their days to the best of their abilities, they would still when presented the ordinance of exaltation only be servants.

Here's the problem (and this problem is another reason why I want to go one point or question at a time): Putting this as gently as I can say it, I've read enough of your posts to know you are a very intelligent and highly insightful person. But there is one thing lacking. As one who is very well acquainted with the scriptures, I can also see by your posts that your are not as well acquainted with the scriptures as you might be. And so rather than relying on me or someone else to help you come to understand the doctrines of the kingdom, why not devote far more time to diligent scripture study so that you can experience the joy of spiritual discovery and enlightenment on your own?

 

 

Well that’s quite a few assumptions all in one pot. I’ve read DC 132 several times, Bobbie…and very well knew where Petersen was getting his servants thing. My problem was in his interpretation and assertions based on this. He makes several assumptions that are loosely based on a few scriptures but several of his points of missing a direct scriptural correlation (like what I mentioned). 

 

And not that it’s any of your business, but I’m currently reading the BoM (slowly) in Spanish aloud, enjoy topic studying, will listen to a number of conference talks a month, and prep for my lessons for several hours usually. I won’t say that I couldn’t read more. I could and I want to. I miss my mission days where I would squeeze several hrs a day to study. But I read consistently and have missed only a handful of days of scripture study since I was 15.

 

I’m asking for your scriptural proofs because I’m learning that we see and read the same scriptures very differently. I want to know what you’re reading and then HOW you read it. From all of this, I get vague references from you, but I’ve seen very few actual scriptural disseminations that give credence to Petersen’s points or to yours.

 

And as much as I study the scriptures, It’s not going to make me a mindreader….I can’t read them and see your perspective on them, Bobbie. You are you. I can only get that from you. There’s a reason we have Sunday school: it’s not to learn from the marvelous teacher who knows better, but to learn from each others different perspectives of the Gospel. Likewise, when I ask, I’m not expecting you to expound and teach me….I’m asking you to illuminate your perspective so that I can chew on it and make my own personal decisions about it.

 

Here's an example of what I mean: If you had been familiar enough with the scriptures, you would have known the reason why Elder Petersen spoke of servants in the celestial kingdom is because of what's written in D&C 132 concerning those who had not received the ordinance of eternal marriage and for that reason being only worthy to become servants. There is no other reason why the word servants is used because there will be many people of ALL RACES who wiill be servants in the celestial kingdom. The verse in question was referring to anyone who FOR ANY REASON had not received the ordinance of eternal marriage. And now that the ban has been lifted, the only folks who were previously under the ban, both past and present, who will become servants in the celestial kingdom are those who by their own will and choice neglected to receive the and magnify the ordinance of eternal marriage

 

 

See above and see Cal’s response

It's frustrating to encounter those who are filled with so many doubts and questions they want someone else to answer for them when it would be far better, and much more beneficial, if theses folks could learn how to get the answers on their own. Living on borrowed light is never a good idea, and that's why I balance my participation on this board (I'm actually trying to cut back) with scripture study and spending time listening to General Conference addresses, both old and new. After many years of study and practice, I've learned how to get answers on my own, and you can do it too…..

The above kind of coaching is frowned upon on this board, but my words are spoken with sincerity and with hope for the day when your questions and doubts will be swallowed up in the Light of the Lord.

 

 

I’m sure you have good intentions. But, again, you misread me. I don’t have a lot of doubts and questions about this topic and I certainly don’t expect you (or any human for that matter) to be able to answer the few loose ends that I still have.  They’ve come from years of studying, pondering, and praying this issue out….not all at once and it certainly wasn’t my focus most of the time. But I was invested in understanding this better and I still enjoy learning about it. This study leads me to the belief that several of our leaders were wrong on this topic to varying degrees. McConkie himself noted to forget all that he’d previously said, (and to me) because it was based on suppositions about the Ban were proven false by its removal. I, over time, have listened to many people’s opinions about this (and other things of course) but rarely take anyone by their word….even voices that I largely agreed with, I would study it out for myself, look up the base material, and learn. Especially if I had questions.

 

Which is probably why the board frowns upon this sort of advice: you’re assuming a spiritual trajectory and approach upon me that just isn’t so. I am naturally aversive of working on “borrowed light”….just because I’ve questioned you on your perspective doesn’t mean that I, myself, am riddled with doubts and questions when it come to God and His truths.

 

With luv,

BD

Edited by BlueDreams
Link to comment

As far as I can tell, we postulate ONE decision we had to make in premortality- to follow Lucifer or not.

 

What ELSE was there to be valiant about or not valiant about??   We were floating around as spirit children presumably in the direct presence of God under his and Mother's direct and constant supervision and presumably with direct full access to the Holy Ghost.

 

What was there to mess up?  What powers did we have to misuse?  What choices to make?  To disobey in how to create a tree on another planet maybe?  Did we have those powers supposedly??  Maybe make a three headed chicken?

 

I mean seriously this whole thing makes no sense to me- the idea that we might have been "less valiant"--  IN WHAT???

 

To me the entire purpose of postulating a preexistence at all is to account for the belief that spirits are eternal in both directions- the past and the future- and then provide an explanation for appearances of the premortal Christ, etc.

 

What else is there which is scriptural?  Did I miss something?

 

 

How about the BoA that talks about the noble and great ones being for ordained to be prophets,etc?

Link to comment

I am not going to get into the specifics of the questions that have been discussed in this thread. I just do not feel that debating the nuances of something that a prophet had spoken years ago is hardly fruitful. I would like to bring attention to a quote by Bruce R. after the 1978 revelation.

"Forget everything that I have said, or what President Brigham Young or President George Q. Cannon or whomsoever has said in days past that is contrary to the present revelation. We spoke with a limited understanding and without the light and knowledge that now has come into the world."

 

That bit of advice I have tried to take. Of course, it is something a prophet has said, now quite a few years in the past, but I was alive and attentive when he first said it.

Link to comment

Hello Bobbie, I haven’t seen anyone do that here yet on this thread…and if they do you or I are welcome to report them….I asked, after all for civility. Chopping blocks are naturally uncivil.

Yes, I’m aware of where Elder Petersen got it, what is missing is his conclusions about what it means. This conclusion ignores paradise and the work done there. A work that other prophets and apostles stated would be done for everyone (no exceptions), because it had to be, before the end of the millennium and the final judgment...which would then be when we are ascribed are eternal glories. Most assumed that’s when people of african descent would get these blessings…not that they never would, but that they would be the last to have said opportunity. So even in this era there was other options to how it could be interpreted and there wasn’t a good reason to assume that even if they followed the Lord to the end of their days to the best of their abilities, they would still when presented the ordinance of exaltation only be servants.

Well that’s quite a few assumptions all in one pot. I’ve read DC 132 several times, Bobbie…and very well knew where Petersen was getting his servants thing. My problem was in his interpretation and assertions based on this. He makes several assumptions that are loosely based on a few scriptures but several of his points of missing a direct scriptural correlation (like what I mentioned).

And not that it’s any of your business, but I’m currently reading the BoM (slowly) in Spanish aloud, enjoy topic studying, will listen to a number of conference talks a month, and prep for my lessons for several hours usually. I won’t say that I couldn’t read more. I could and I want to. I miss my mission days where I would squeeze several hrs a day to study. But I read consistently and have missed only a handful of days of scripture study since I was 15.

I’m asking for your scriptural proofs because I’m learning that we see and read the same scriptures very differently. I want to know what you’re reading and then HOW you read it. From all of this, I get vague references from you, but I’ve seen very few actual scriptural disseminations that give credence to Petersen’s points or to yours.

And as much as I study the scriptures, It’s not going to make me a mindreader….I can’t read them and see your perspective on them, Bobbie. You are you. I can only get that from you. There’s a reason we have Sunday school: it’s not to learn from the marvelous teacher who knows better, but to learn from each others different perspectives of the Gospel. Likewise, when I ask, I’m not expecting you to expound and teach me….I’m asking you to illuminate your perspective so that I can chew on it and make my own personal decisions about it.

See above and see Cal’s response

I’m sure you have good intentions. But, again, you misread me. I don’t have a lot of doubts and questions about this topic and I certainly don’t expect you (or any human for that matter) to be able to answer the few loose ends that I still have. They’ve come from years of studying, pondering, and praying this issue out….not all at once and it certainly wasn’t my focus most of the time. But I was invested in understanding this better and I still enjoy learning about it. This study leads me to the belief that several of our leaders were wrong on this topic to varying degrees. McConkie himself noted to forget all that he’d previously said, (and to me) because it was based on suppositions about the Ban were proven false by its removal. I, over time, have listened to many people’s opinions about this (and other things of course) but rarely take anyone by their word….even voices that I largely agreed with, I would study it out for myself, look up the base material, and learn. Especially if I had questions.

Which is probably why the board frowns upon this sort of advice: you’re assuming a spiritual trajectory and approach upon me that just isn’t so. I am naturally aversive of working on “borrowed light”….just because I’ve questioned you on your perspective doesn’t mean that I, myself, am riddled with doubts and questions when it come to God and His truths.

With luv,

BD

Again, I am going to answer only one of your points because if I answered them all I'd be writing all night.

One of the reasons why I got the impression you needed to do more scripture study, before getting too deeply into this difficult subject, is because on the previous thread you seemed to take offense when I used the word "great" to describe those who were especially valiant in the pre-earth life. Correct me if I'm wrong, but it seemed to me you thought my use of the word "great" was some sort of allusion to a worldly sort of greatness, rather than pointing to the kind of spiritual greatness that will cause the Lord to say to the especially valiant in this life, "well done thou good and faithful servant." I marveled that you would find my use of the word "great" indicative of a kind of worldly boastfulness when most any member with a basic knowledge of the Standard Works would have known the expression "noble and great ones" is part of one of the most famous declarations made by Lord in all the LDS canon of scripture. So I thought to myself, "how am I going to dialogue with someone who is so unaware of the scriptures that she would take exception to my recalling one of the most well-known, and inspiring pronouncements made by the Lord himself?" This baffling incident is another reason why I thought it best to take things one specific point at a time, as I figured my constantly having to correct such errors would become too frustrating and time consuming. At any rate, I know you will clarify any incorrect impressions I might have about the earlier portion of our dialogue I discussed above.

But here's what.I suggest: After making any clarifications to what I said above, if you're willing, you can answer questions -- one at a time -- that I will pose to you. I suggest we pursue this new format because it appears you don"t want take me up on my suggestion that you should ask me questions, one at a time. But if you are willing, for the sake of clarity I suggest you keep your answers specific, concise and directly responsive to each of my questions. So if you are game, here is your first question:

1) Do you believe the scriptural accounts that testify the Lord has pronounced curses -- or threatened to pronounce curses -- on certain individuals, groups, nations, and even blood lineages?

Edited to add: if you want to ask me a question after you've answered mine, please do. But be sure to ask only one specific question at a time,

Edited by Bobbieaware
Link to comment

My views, which I think are shared by Armand Mauss, who has written extensively on the subject of race in the church.

 

The entire reason for the priesthood ban was Brigham Young's idea to get Utah admitted to the Union after the Missouri Compromise.  He wanted to appease the south after it appeared that the Mormons were sympathetic with the abolutionists and with runaway slaves.  The reason he wanted Utah to be made a state was to have home rule, which a territory didn't have.  However, when it became apparent the feds and the Republican Party were out to persecute him and possible kill him, he didn't do anything about the bad rule -- probably because there was hardly any pressure for it locally.

 

When the Church came into more contact with Africans who wanted admission to the Church, the Brethren rather uncomfortably saw no basis for the ban but felt that Brigham Young, who was now dead, should be respected.  Then, the sad teaching of valiancy in the pre-existence was developed on the basis of some oblique but correct statements in the Book of Abraham; it it helped some people explain what was looking more and more like a racist doctrine.  

 

Unfortunately, the Brethren are human.  Some were racist and when the Civil Rights movement hit, some piled on to help resist the passage of the Civil Rights Act.  At the time of the Civil Rights Act fight, many in the church and elsewhere were convinced that Communists were behind the movement.  The Brethren weren't much at being racists, but they were rabid anti-communist.

 

But, in truth, there is no basis in revelation for the bad in the first place, and the valiancy doctrine in the second place, but there was a revelation opening the church up to all worthy men, just as it was the case when Peter finally received his revelation. 

Edited by Bob Crockett
Link to comment

Again, I am going to answer only one of your points because if I answered them all I'd be writing all night.

One of the reasons why I got the impression you needed to do more scripture study, before getting too deeply into this difficult subject, is because on the previous thread you seemed to take offense when I used the word "great" to describe those who were especially valiant in the pre-earth life. Correct me if I'm wrong, but it seemed to me you thought my use of the word "great" was some sort of allusion to a worldly sort of greatness, rather than pointing to the kind of spiritual greatness that will cause the Lord to say to the especially valiant in this life, "well done thou good and faithful servant." I marveled that you would find my use of the word "great" indicative of a kind of worldly boastfulness when most any member with a basic knowledge of the Standard Works would have known the expression "noble and great ones" is part of one of the most famous declarations made by Lord in all the LDS canon of scripture. So I thought to myself, "how am I going to dialogue with someone who is so unaware of the scriptures that she would take exception to my recalling one of the most well-known, and inspiring pronouncements made by the Lord himself?" This baffling incident is another reason why I thought it best to take things one specific point at a time, as I figured my constantly having to correct such errors would become too frustrating and time consuming. At any rate, I know you will clarify any incorrect impressions I might have about the earlier portion of our dialogue I discussed above.

 

No I always knew you were referencing the PoGP. I looked back and i think you're talking about the series of questions I asked you about my family. The reason I did was less about you and more about Petersen, who made it very explicit that he viewed certain social statuses as indicative of the pre-mortal status as great and noble (or more often, not). You had stated by this time that you believed many of his underlying principles and general thoughts and this was on the list of his major themes in his address. I was seeing exactly what you found in this social sphere as indicative of our premortal sphere. I chose not to be abstract about it, because this isn't a faceless question. It has real-life application as to how, for example, me or my family would be seen, then and now. hope that clarifies things a little.

 

But here's what.I suggest: After making any clarifications to what I said above, if you're willing, you can answer questions -- one at a time -- that I will pose to you. I suggest we pursue this new format because it appears you don"t want take me up on my suggestion that you should ask me questions, one at a time. But if you are willing, for the sake of clarity I suggest you keep your answers specific, concise and directly responsive to each of my questions.

 

 

I'm fine answering questions, but I'd like to point out that I haven't actually asked you any questions in this thread for the reason that I want a discussion of ideas moreso than a Q+A session. You answered my 4 main ones and I was willing to just build a discussion around those answers and some of my thoughts about that.  

So if you are game, here is your first question:

1) Do you believe the scriptural accounts that testify the Lord has pronounced curses -- or threatened to pronounce curses -- on certain individuals, groups, nations, and even blood lineages?

 

Bobbie....I'm pretty sure you asked me that one....well at least something pretty close to that:

 

1) Do you believe the Book of Mormon account that speaks of the curse God placed upon the Lamanites?

2) Do you believe the Book of Moses account concerning the descendants of Cain being denied the right to the Priestood?

 

 

My answers to those were:

 

1) Yes, but not in a belief that the mark of said curse has anything to do with skin tone or race. THat is placing racist ideologies of the 19th and 20th century into the book.

2) Yes, but not in a belief that we know who these decsendants are, what the mark even was, whether it was physically transmitted over generations, or that the qualifiers for a right to the priesthood would have been different from the Lamanites...ie. repent and be cleansed. So basically, also no in the antiquated beliefs surround cain's cursing (or ham's) based on a religious philosophy dating well prior to JS to justify the practice of slavery.

 

 

But if you want the answers in a different way time, I believe the accounts that the Lord pronounced curses on varying people (both individually and communally). But I get the feeling that we probably would disagree as to what this means. My full answer is in a study I'm working on that is currently 15 pages long on a word document...so I'll spare you that. The short answer is that I believe most people cursed by God generally brought most of the cursings and the indicators of said cursings on themselves...similar to an excommunication, where the circumstances and causes aren't really punitive but a natural expectation for a specific act. I also think that removal of those curses are relatively more easy and more immediate than most have ascribed to them. 

 

EDIT: you may want to also look at my answer to Jude2 on this thread (post #42) for more thought on this.

 

My only question is how do you see this fitting into what I've stated at the beginning...or at least to your position on things?

 

With luv,

BD

Edited by BlueDreams
Link to comment

Mark 9: 34 But they held their peace: for by the way they had adisputed among themselves, who should be the bgreatest.



  35 And he sat down, and called the twelve, and saith unto them, If any man desire to be afirstthe same shall be last of all, and bservant of all.



  

Matthew 23:   12 And whosoever shall aexalt himself shall be babased; and he that shall chumble himself shall be exalted.

 

Matthew 20:  25 But Jesus called them unto him, and said, Ye know that the princes of the Gentiles exercise dominion over them, and they that are great exercise authority upon them.

  26 But it shall not be so among you: but whosoever will be agreat among you, let him be your bminister;



  27 And whosoever awill be chief among you, let him be your bservant:




  28 Even as the aSon of man came not to be ministered unto, but to minister, and to bgive his life a cransom for many.

 

Matthew 19:




  29 And every one that hath aforsaken houses, or brethren, or sisters, or father, or mother, or wife, or children, or lands, for my bname’s sake, shall receive an hundredfold, and shall inherit ceverlasting life.



Matthew 19
  30 But many that are afirst shall be lastand the last shall be first.




 

Edited by rodheadlee
Link to comment
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...