Misunderstanding the Scriptures

[etz]

But once again, we don't have the "metaphor," "allegory," "parable" "out" with respect to Jesus's commandments.

Once we acknowledge the legitimacy of the commands, then we are bound by baptismal, sacramental, and temple covenant to observe - that is, actually do - them, right?

So, does anyone have any real issue with the legitimacy of the Sermon on the Mount, repeated as it is thrice throughout scripture, and represented as literally being spoken by Christ?

And if there is no real issue, what is stopping you, whoever you are, from doing as you agreed to do?

[california boy]

5 hours ago, etz said:

Misunderstanding the Scriptures

 

 

Luke 6:30 reads: Give to every man that asketh of thee; and of him that taketh away thy goods ask them not again.

Every Bible that I am aware of translates Luke 6:30 substantially the same.

This commandment is repeated at least twice more in scripture.

Matthew 5:42 Give to him that asketh thee, and from him that would borrow of thee turn not thou away.

Two translators that I know of have rendered "ask" as "beg," but this is a distinction without a difference.

3 Nephi 12:42 Give to him that asketh thee, and from him that would borrow of thee turn thou not away.

The Book of Mormon was translated by the gift and power of God, and there is significant evidence that the text was revealed word-for-word to Joseph Smith, with the language being Early Modern English.  3 Nephi 12:42 would seem to be, therefore, what Jesus wants us to do, in English: give to all who ask.

Therefore, there can be no dispute, if the scriptures are true, that the Lord has commanded us to give to every man that asks of us.  Let's assume that we want to serve the Lord, and give as he has commanded; how much should we give to them that ask?  The Golden Rule gives us guidance, and, perhaps not coincidentally, follows the commandment to give in the gospel of Luke.

Luke 6:31 And as ye would that men should do to you, do ye also to them likewise.

If you wish your requests to be fulfilled as you make them, then do likewise to others.

If, on the other hand, you wish your requests to be fulfilled with mere words, or denied, then do likewise to others.

On the other hand, the Golden Rule also gives guidance for the kinds of requests a disciple of Christ ought not make.  If the request is one that you would wish not to fulfill, then the Golden Rule means you ought not request it of others.  It follows that if you make a request of someone that, if the tables were turned, you would not want to grant, then you do not love your neighbor as yourself, neither do you love God, for you do not do what he asked, but do what he has asked you not to do.

Does God grant every request?  He says so.

 

 

If we are supposed to become Gods, exalted on high, then we are also going to be doing what he does - which is what he's asked us to do: give to every man that asketh.

I must admit, I am a little confused by the intent of your posts.  Are you telling us how you interpret the scriptures and how you live your life as a result of your interpretations?

Or are you telling us how we should live ours.

If you are telling us how you live your life, I would love to hear more about how you have actually applied the principles you are citing and what things you have learned from doing so.

If you are just interested in standing on a soap box and telling others how to live theirs, then frankly your posts . seem a bit disingenuous.  

[waveslider]

5 minutes ago, etz said:

I'm not concerned with literal stuff being used as parables - as I pointed out above, the fact that a thing is a type and a shadow, or even a parable, does not preclude its literality.

Since Jesus used the word, "temple," as a parable, without flagging it as such, and in light of what you stated above, how do you reconcile what you previously wrote here:

2 hours ago, etz said:

Calling things which aren't flagged as parables "parables" spares us the difficulty of explaining that we don't believe what God has said, or that we don't believe what the prophets have reported God has said.

 

[etz]

There is no disingenuity involved.

Do you admit you have agreed by baptism, sacrament, and endowments, to actually do what Jesus commanded us to do?

And suppose further you don't merit exaltation if you do not do them, after having agreed to do them.  Suppose you shall be cast into hell for failing to do what you said you'd do.

Then do I not do you a favor by reminding you of what you have agreed to do? 

Is it not written that it becometh every man who has been warned to warn his neighbor?

If you were keeping the commandments, we would rejoice together in it.  What therefore accounts for the accusation of disingenuity?

[etz]

2 minutes ago, waveslider said:

Since Jesus used the word, "temple," as a parable, without flagging it as such, and in light of what you stated above, how do you reconcile what you previously wrote here:

 

Your question only becomes relevant if you take the position that Jesus wasn't being literal.  I've asked you if that's the position you're taking and you have thus far refused to answer.

For the third time: a thing being literal does not preclude it from being simultaneously parabolic; a thing being parabolic is not precluded from being simultaneously literal.

[ksfisher]

2 hours ago, etz said:

Calling things which aren't flagged as parables "parables" spares us the difficulty of explaining that we don't believe what God has said, or that we don't believe what the prophets have reported God has said.

But we really don't have that option with respect to the commandments, do we?  "Give to every man that asketh thee."  Metaphor?  Simile?  Parable?  Simplistic and naive idealism?  Or literal instruction?

How would a little child understand such a command from his parents?

So if someone was to come up to you and asks you for all your money and possesion, would you give them to him?

[waveslider]

3 minutes ago, etz said:

There is no disingenuity involved.

Do you admit you have agreed by baptism, sacrament, and endowments, to actually do what Jesus commanded us to do?

And suppose further you don't merit exaltation if you do not do them, after having agreed to do them.  Suppose you shall be cast into hell for failing to do what you said you'd do.

Then do I not do you a favor by reminding you of what you have agreed to do? 

Is it not written that it becometh every man who has been warned to warn his neighbor?

If you were keeping the commandments, we would rejoice together in it.  What therefore accounts for the accusation of disingenuity?

I'm still wondering why you have a problem with being told to give to everyone who asks, and when it is clarified further by Benjamin that it means we should give if we have to give and if we don't have anything to give then we should at least be willing to have given if we would have had something to offer?

I have seen you go in circles dancing around things, claiming that Jesus flags all his parables, even though he doesn't, at least when the literal meaning of certain words like temple and baptism can have more than one meaning. I am just confused why you have such a conundrum with being asked to give to everyone who asks? We don't own anything of our own, only what God has blessed us with anyway, so we have to ask why God has blessed us with things? is it because we need to selfishly hoard them, or is it so we can learn to bless others just as unselfishly as God does?

[etz]

3 minutes ago, ksfisher said:

So if someone was to come up to you and asks you for all your money and possesion, would you give them to him?

 

I suppose I would have to, if I had anything to give; I do not.  The price of keeping and teaching the commandments of Christ is one's life.

 

Luke 14

25 ¶And there went great multitudes with him: and he turned, and said unto them,

26 If any man come to me, and hate not his father, and mother, and wife, and children, and brethren, and sisters, yea, and his own life also, he cannot be my disciple.

27 And whosoever doth not bear his cross, and come after me, cannot be my disciple.

28 For which of you, intending to build a tower, sitteth not down first, and counteth the cost, whether he have sufficient to finish it?

29 Lest haply, after he hath laid the foundation, and is not able to finish it, all that behold it begin to mock him,

30 Saying, This man began to build, and was not able to finish.

31 Or what king, going to make war against another king, sitteth not down first, and consulteth whether he be able with ten thousand to meet him that cometh against him with twenty thousand?

32 Or else, while the other is yet a great way off, he sendeth an ambassage, and desireth conditions of peace.

33 So likewise, whosoever he be of you that forsaketh not all that he hath, he cannot be my disciple.

 

And it is most often the false disciples, the hypocrites, who persecute those who keep the commandments of God.

 

Matthe 18:7 ¶Woe unto the world because of offences! for it must needs be that offences come; but woe to that man by whom the offence cometh!

 

[JLHPROF]

8 minutes ago, etz said:

 

I suppose I would have to, if I had anything to give; I do not.  The price of keeping and teaching the commandments of Christ is one's life.

33 So likewise, whosoever he be of you that forsaketh not all that he hath, he cannot be my disciple.

Mormonism had a similar statement in their early history:

6th Lecture on Faith -
Let us here observe, that a religion that does not require the sacrifice of all things, never has power sufficient to produce the faith necessary unto life and salvation; for from the first existence of man, the faith necessary unto the enjoyment of life and salvation never could be obtained without the sacrifice of all earthly things: it was through this sacrifice, and this only, that God has ordained that men should enjoy eternal life; and it is through the medium of the sacrifice of all earthly things, that men do actually know that they are doing the things that are well pleasing in the sight of God. When a man has offered in sacrifice all that he has, for the truth's sake, not even withholding his life, and believing before God that he has been called to make this sacrifice, because he seeks to do his will, he does know most assuredly, that God does and will accept his sacrifice and offering, and that he has not nor will not seek his face in vain. Under these circumstances, then, he can obtain the faith necessary for him to lay hold on eternal life.

But more important than sacrificing everything is knowing what is God's specific will.
Otherwise you are running before you are sent and ignoring other scriptures in the process.
Like I Timothy 5:8 But if any provide not for his own, and specially for those of his own house, he hath denied the faith, and is worse than an infidel.

Edited October 20, 2016 by JLHPROF

[waveslider]

3 minutes ago, etz said:

11 minutes ago, ksfisher said:

So if someone was to come up to you and asks you for all your money and possesion, would you give them to him?

 

I suppose I would have to, if I had anything to give; I do not.  The price of keeping and teaching the commandments of Christ is one's life.

Perhaps a little wisdom would be in order. If someone were to ask that of me, I would offer employment, unless of coarse I was unable to do so, I would then just say in my heart that I wish I could but I only have sufficient to take care of my family.

[Calm]

2 hours ago, etz said:

I would find it more interesting when someone professes the Spirit has taught them to depart from keeping the commandments.

Do you keep all the commandments?

When you see someone asking for help on the street, what is your response?  

Do you have food, shelter, clothing, transportation means to offer?

Edited October 20, 2016 by Calm

[mfbukowski]

1 hour ago, etz said:

 

Oh my.

 

 

 

Hmmmm

Not a satisfactory answer in counseling people.

Thanks.  Best wishes.

[mfbukowski]

42 minutes ago, etz said:

I'm not concerned with literal stuff being used as parables - as I pointed out above, the fact that a thing is a type and a shadow, or even a parable, does not preclude its literality.

Oh my.  Then "literal" is a meaningless term.

 

Edited October 20, 2016 by mfbukowski

[etz]

13 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

Mormonism had a similar statement in their early history:

6th Lecture on Faith -
Let us here observe, that a religion that does not require the sacrifice of all things, never has power sufficient to produce the faith necessary unto life and salvation; for from the first existence of man, the faith necessary unto the enjoyment of life and salvation never could be obtained without the sacrifice of all earthly things: it was through this sacrifice, and this only, that God has ordained that men should enjoy eternal life; and it is through the medium of the sacrifice of all earthly things, that men do actually know that they are doing the things that are well pleasing in the sight of God. When a man has offered in sacrifice all that he has, for the truth's sake, not even withholding his life, and believing before God that he has been called to make this sacrifice, because he seeks to do his will, he does know most assuredly, that God does and will accept his sacrifice and offering, and that he has not nor will not seek his face in vain. Under these circumstances, then, he can obtain the faith necessary for him to lay hold on eternal life.

But more important than sacrificing everything is knowing what is God's specific will.
Otherwise you are running before you are sent and ignoring other scriptures in the process.
Like I Timothy 5:8 But if any provide not for his own, and specially for those of his own house, he hath denied the faith, and is worse than an infidel.

We take the sacred writings into our hands, and admit that they were given by direct inspiration for the good of man. We believe that God condescended to speak from the heavens and declare His will concerning the human family, to give them just and holy laws, to regulate their conduct, and guide them in a direct way, that in due time He might take them to Himself, and make them joint heirs with His Son. But when this fact is admitted, that the immediate will of heaven is contained in the Scriptures, are we not bound as rational creatures to live in accordance to all its precepts? Will the mere admission, that this is the will of heaven ever benefit us if we do not comply with all its teachings? Do we not offer violence to the Supreme Intelligence of heaven, when we admit the truth of its teachings, and do not obey them? Do we not descend below our own knowledge, and the better wisdom which heaven has endowed us with, by such a course of conduct? For these reasons, if we have direct revelations given us from heaven, surely those revelations were never given to be trifled with, without the trifler's incurring displeasure and vengeance upon his own head, if there is any justice in heaven; and that there is must be admitted by every individual who admits the truth and force of God's teachings, His blessings and cursings, as contained in the sacred volume. - TPJS, p. 53

[etz]

5 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

Hmmmm

Not a satisfactory answer in counseling people.

Thanks.  Best wishes.

If you do not understand the commandments, as your post made clear, then what do you teach your quorum, or family, or from the pulpit?  Clearly not the commandments of God.  Whose commandments, then, do you teach?

[etz]

9 minutes ago, Calm said:

Do you keep all the commandments?

When you see someone asking for help on the street, what is your response?  

Do you have food, shelter, clothing, transportation means to offer?

Yes.

Such as I have, I give.

No, I don't.

If these same questions were asked of you, would you want to give your answers publicly?

[etz]

10 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

Oh my.  Then "literal" is a meaningless term.

 

Suppose the fig tree Jesus cursed was intended as a parable - a type and a shadow of the future of the Jewish nation from that day forward.  

 

Yet it happened literally.

 

That would seem meaningful to me.

[Calm]

6 minutes ago, etz said:

No, I don't.

If these same questions were asked of you, would you want to give your answers publicly?

Why wouldn't I?

So you have no food, shelter or clothing of your own to offer?  You do not have a coat to give another who asks, you have no food you eat that you could give up and give another, a bed you sleep in you could get out of to give another?

Edited October 20, 2016 by Calm

[JLHPROF]

1 minute ago, etz said:

We take the sacred writings into our hands, and admit that they were given by direct inspiration for the good of man. We believe that God condescended to speak from the heavens and declare His will concerning the human family, to give them just and holy laws, to regulate their conduct, and guide them in a direct way, that in due time He might take them to Himself, and make them joint heirs with His Son. But when this fact is admitted, that the immediate will of heaven is contained in the Scriptures, are we not bound as rational creatures to live in accordance to all its precepts? Will the mere admission, that this is the will of heaven ever benefit us if we do not comply with all its teachings? Do we not offer violence to the Supreme Intelligence of heaven, when we admit the truth of its teachings, and do not obey them? Do we not descend below our own knowledge, and the better wisdom which heaven has endowed us with, by such a course of conduct? For these reasons, if we have direct revelations given us from heaven, surely those revelations were never given to be trifled with, without the trifler's incurring displeasure and vengeance upon his own head, if there is any justice in heaven; and that there is must be admitted by every individual who admits the truth and force of God's teachings, His blessings and cursings, as contained in the sacred volume. - TPJS, p. 53

 

The brethren who have spoken have been disposed to speak concerning the testimony they have within themselves of the truth of this Work.  It made me think of a circumstance in the history of Joseph Smith, in which I was an actor, relating to a few men in Nauvoo who sought to make it appear that the printed word was all in all, and immensely superior to the living testimony of the Holy Ghost in the believer, and to the power of the living Priesthood.  I attended one of their meetings, which was held in Joseph's house, arose to speak, and took for my text, "ye Saints of Latter days, I would not give you the ashes of a rye straw for every word that is contained in the Bible, Book of Mormon and Doctrine and Covenants, so far as their efficacy is concerned to save any man, independent of the living Priesthood of the Son of God, and the testimony of the Holy Ghost in the heart of the believer." Brigham Young - Journal of Discourses 10:339-340

There is no salvation between the two lids of the Bible without a legal administrator. Joseph Smith, Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, p. 319

 I thank God that I have got this old book; but I thank him more for the gift of the Holy Ghost. I have got the oldest book in the world; but I have got the oldest book in my heart, even the gift of the Holy Ghost. (Joseph Smith, HC  6:308)

Reading the experience of others, or the revelation given to them, can never give us a comprehensive view of our condition and true relation to God.  Knowledge of these things can only be obtained by experience through the ordinances of God set forth for that purpose.  Could you gaze into heaven five minutes, you would know more than you would by reading all that ever was written on the subject. — Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, p. 324

 

[etz]

Just now, Calm said:

Why wouldn't I?

I personally find inquiries into one's righteousness to be rather offputting.  I don't ask you, for example, whether you're keeping the commandments because I am not your judge, and I am forbidden to judge.  I simply trust that you are, until you tell me you're not.  There is no good purpose then to my asking you if you keep the commandments; such would imply hostility.

 

If you felt the same, that would suffice to answer your question.

[etz]

JLHPROF: Be honest, open, and frank in all your intercourse with mankind. - Joseph Smith

Or, more bluntly: be not coy, shy, and retiring, but make your claims known boldly, and forthrightly.

[Calm]

I am trying to understand how you can claim you are doing this on the one hand while denouncing others on the board for not following commandments on the other.  

Though perhaps I have misunderstood what appear to me as accustations of not understanding, wanting to take your life, etc.

[etz]

6 minutes ago, Calm said:

I am trying to understand how you can claim you are doing this on the one hand while denouncing others on the board for not following commandments on the other.  

Though perhaps I have misunderstood what appear to me as accustations of not understanding, wanting to take your life, etc.

Either MFB doesn't understand the commandments, or he feigns uncomprehension, on the face of it.  I assume he's honest until he tells me differently.  Seeking my life was done openly by The Nehor and Rain, was it? on the now-closed thread "Your Bill is Coming Due."  See Deuteronomy 24:6 - taking a man's means of support, as they sought to do, is considered trying for a man's life, by the law of God.

 

If you openly admit you don't keep the commandments, how is it a denouncement to believe you?

And if you say you don't understand them, how is it a denouncement to believe you?

Edited October 20, 2016 by etz

[Gray]

1 hour ago, etz said:

"The scriptures are not the literal words of God."

Except when they are.  You can't rule out the possibility that God spoke the words recorded exactly as they are recorded, can you?

One might, for example, perform a test on the words of Christ - as Alma taught, and as Christ himself suggested - and see what happens.

No, I don't think it's within the realm of any reasonable possibility that that is the case. 

[JLHPROF]

34 minutes ago, etz said:

JLHPROF: Be honest, open, and frank in all your intercourse with mankind. - Joseph Smith

Or, more bluntly: be not coy, shy, and retiring, but make your claims known boldly, and forthrightly.

But most importantly make your claims correct.