Prodical Son Question

[RevTestament]

1 hour ago, Islander said:

We can not forget that the scriptures are here for us but they were not written to us. We can not read meaning into them. They mean what they really mean in the context in which it was offered. So, we have to get 1st century "glassses", as it were, in order to see into the literary figures. The central figure of the parable is the Father, not the prodigal or the "responsible"son. The message in the parable relates to the mercy, grace and lovingkindness of the Father for his wayward son. "...But when he was yet a great way off, his father saw him, and had compassion, and ran, and fell on his neck, and kissed him." v.20. The father has been waiting and looking out for is lost son. The father rejoiced that his son has returned. The lost son has repented and confessed his sins before his father and a celebration was in order. "In the same way, I tell you, there is joy in the presence of the angels of God over one sinner who repents." Luke 15:10. That is the central message of the parable. There are some peripheral issues that we can glean from the story line but we can inject other meaning that was not intended by the Savior nor perceived by the audience. Something is clear; the "steady" son did not have the heart of the father, there is no mercy or forgiveness in him. He seems to lack understanding of what repentance and grace are offered to the repentant soul. But that is not the central issue of the ,parable.

It is you who is reading into it what is not there. Where does it say the obedient son lacked mercy? You are as guilty as you say I am. This is a parable given by our Savior - it does not necessarily comport with contemporaneous ideals and norms. That too is something you are imposing on Him. In some of His parables He refers to Himself as a hard man - reaping where He has not sown - just some food for thought.

[Calm]

1 hour ago, Islander said:

So, we have to get 1st century "glassses", as it were, in order to see into the literary figures.

Good luck with that (it is a great idea, but impossible to achieve in my view).

[Duncan]

This is killing me, it's Prodigal!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!😁

[Islander]

1 hour ago, RevTestament said:

It is you who is reading into it what is not there. Where does it say the obedient son lacked mercy? You are as guilty as you say I am. This is a parable given by our Savior - it does not necessarily comport with contemporaneous ideals and norms. That too is something you are imposing on Him. In some of His parables He refers to Himself as a hard man - reaping where He has not sown - just some food for thought.

You are in fact conceding my point. We can not attach contemporary ideas or themes to the parable. But from the scriptures, it  clear that he is angry that his father is celebrating the return of his "lost" son. Look at the words. "as soon as this thy son was come..."  This is his BROTHER and he can't even bring himself to say it. His father is happy and rejoices: "for this thy brother was dead, and is alive again; and was lost, and is found." But the other son's anger can't let him see it. He is in fact arguing that the father is wrong in celebrating on account of his brother's past sins. In other words, he is NOT willing to offer his brother forgiveness, compassion and allow for the mercy of God to restore him. If you can't see it in the scriptures I don't know what else to say, brother.

[RevTestament]

3 minutes ago, Islander said:

You are in fact conceding my point. We can not attach contemporary ideas or themes to the parable. But from the scriptures, it  clear that he is angry that his father is celebrating the return of his "lost" son. Look at the words. "as soon as this thy son was come..."  This is his BROTHER and he can't even bring himself to say it. His father is happy and rejoices: "for this thy brother was dead, and is alive again; and was lost, and is found." But the other son's anger can't let him see it. He is in fact arguing that the father is wrong in celebrating on account of his brother's past sins. In other words, he is NOT willing to offer his brother forgiveness, compassion and allow for the mercy of God to restore him. If you can't see it in the scriptures I don't know what else to say, brother.

Being angry or upset is not quite the same as having no mercy. Christ was angry with the money changers. Quite often the parables are really about the kingdom of heaven. I am simply drawing those parallels. It has nothing to do with placing the parable in modern context - or seeing it through modern eyes. The scriptures do not say that he was angry with his brother or unwilling to welcome him. He just was put off that his brother seemed to get all this attention and favorable treatment. Again, you are reading the modern, typical response into this story. You are reading into it what you think it must mean.

[Islander]

This is from the Church's manual:

“This son is not so much angry that the other has come home as he is angry that his parents are so happy about it. Feeling unappreciated and perhaps more than a little self-pity, this dutiful son—and he is wonderfully dutiful—forgets for a moment that he has never had to know filth or despair, fear or self-loathing. He forgets for a moment that every calf on the ranch is already his and so are all the robes in the closet and every ring in the drawer. He forgets for a moment that his faithfulness has been and always will be rewarded. …

“… He has yet to come to the compassion and mercy, the charitable breadth of vision to see that this is not a rival returning. It is his brother. …

“Certainly this younger brother had been a prisoner—a prisoner of sin, stupidity, and a pigsty. But the older brother lives in some confinement, too. He has, as yet, been unable to break out of the prison of himself. He is haunted by the green-eyed monster of jealousy”

"The Other Prodigal" By Elder Jeffrey R. Holland Of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles

[mfbukowski]

2 hours ago, Islander said:

His father is happy and rejoices: "for this thy brother was dead, and is alive again; and was lost, and is found.

I don't think we can put ourselves in a first century context here.

Someone disappeared over the hill on perhaps a routine  task, and you might never see them again and never know what happened.

If you were out of sight there is no possibility of communication.

The real possibility of death and losing people forever must have been a constant presence.  

If one did not return home as scheduled one might very well have left this mortal plane.

Any return after an unexpected lengthy delay might have seemed like a resurrection.

To whom would would one report a missing person? And how would do that, even if there were?  It must have felt as if every person was an island unto themselves, and connections between people very tenuous.

I don't think we can even imagine that now with cell phones and other communication devices being so easy to use and ever present, and that's just one aspect of all the cultural and other dynamics going on in this story.

We have no real clue. 

 

[Islander]

4 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

I don't think we can put ourselves in a first century context here.

Someone disappeared over the hill on perhaps a routine  task, and you might never see them again and never know what happened.

If you were out of sight there is no possibility of communication.

The real possibility of death and losing people forever must have been a constant presence.  

If one did not return home as scheduled one might very well have left this mortal plane.

Any return after an unexpected lengthy delay might have seemed like a resurrection.

To whom would would one report a missing person? And how would do that, even if there were?  It must have felt as if every person was an island unto themselves, and connections between people very tenuous.

I don't think we can even imagine that now with cell phones and other communication devices being so easy to use and ever present, and that's just one aspect of all the cultural and other dynamics going on in this story.

We have no real clue. 

 

Brother, you just did! That is why the father is overjoy that his son is back. And that is the context; a long lost, thought dead son that suddenly is alive and well, humbled and repentant. And the father wants to celebrate, receives his son in gladness, offers forgiveness, grace and full restoration to the fold of the family. The meaning of the parable is provided by the Savior: "I say unto you, that likewise joy shall be in heaven over one sinner that repenteth, more than over ninety and nine just persons, which need no repentance." Luke 15:7

[Lemuel]

On 1/27/2020 at 4:25 PM, Kevin Christensen said:

Joseph Smith said that his key to understanding a parable is to look at the question that drew it out.  And in this case, the question is, "Why is Jesus hanging out with sinners?"

So he tells three parables together.  The lost sheep, the lost coin, and the parable of the Father with Two sons.  The parable is directed to those who think that because they are righteous and therefore, ought to be given exclusive attention.  The first two parables are invitations to rejoice in finding that which is lost.  And the third parable shows a father rejoicing that his lost son, a bit more important than a coin or a sheep.  The father runs to the penitent son, discarding convention and propriety in doing so.  He doesn't wait for the son to be brought to him for judgment.  He doesn't say, "So.. you've come crawling back... perhaps I could use a pig swiller."  Rather the shoes, the robe and the ring, the embrace, and the feast indicate exactly how he feels, and they all have temple and familial resonance.  And in the third parable, the Father is clearly the protagonist.  The wandering son is not the protagonist, but rather, a plot element equivalent to the coin or lost sheep.  The Faithful son represents the people Pharisees and scribes who asked the question in the first place, and apparently, they didn't "get" how the first two parables answered the initial question.  So the third parable is directed pointedly at them.  Structurally, the faithful son is the antagonist. And in the third parable, we are left dangling as to whether the Faithful son is ever going to get it.  The faithful son uses language of distance, rather than intimacy.  "thy son" not, "my brother."  He sees himself as having worked as an employee ("these many years do I serve thee"), rather than as a loving son.   And his concern is entirely resentful "thou never gavest me a kid... thy son has devoured thy living with harlots..."  He is angry, resentful, self-righteous, and the Father has to come and entreat him. 

Concern over shares entirely misses the point.  Will God not have enough?  "It is meet that we should make merry and be glad..."

The Parables of Jesus and the Interpretation of the Scriptures, TPJS pp. 276-277

In reference to the prodigal son, I said it was a subject I had never dwelt upon; that it was understood by many to be one of the intricate subjects of the scriptures; and even the Elders of this Church have preached largely upon it, without having any rule of interpretation. What is the rule of interpretation? Just no interpretation at all. Understand it precisely as it reads. I have a key by which I understand the scriptures. I enquire, what was the question which drew out the answer, or caused Jesus to utter the parable? It is not national; it does not refer to Abraham, Israel or the Gentiles, in a national capacity, as some suppose. To ascertain its meaning, we must dig up the root and ascertain what it was that drew the saying out of Jesus.

While Jesus was teaching the people, all the publicans and sinners drew near to hear Him; “and the Pharisees and scribes murmured, saying: This man receiveth sinners, and eateth with them.” This is the keyword which unlocks the parable of the prodigal son. It was given to answer the murmurings and questions of the Sadducees and Pharisees, who were querying, finding fault, and saying, “How is it that this man as great as He pretends to be, eats with publicans and sinners?” Jesus was not put to it so, but He could have found something to illustrate His subject, if He had designed if for nation or nations; but He did not. It was for men in an individual capacity; and all straining on this point is a bubble. “This man receiveth sinners and eateth with them.”

And he spake this parable unto them–“What man of you, having an hundred sheep, if he lose one of them doth not leave the ninety-and-nine in the wilderness, and go after that which is lost, until he find it? And when he hath found it, he layeth it on his shoulders, rejoicing. And when he cometh home, he calleth together his friends and neighbors, saying unto them, Rejoice with me; for I have found my sheep which was lost. I say unto you, that likewise joy shall be in heaven over one sinner that repenteth, more than over ninety-and-nine just persons which need no repentance.” The hundred sheep represent one hundred Sadducees and Pharisees are in the sheepfold, I have no mission for you; I am sent to look up sheep that are lost; and when I have found them, I will back them up and make joy in heaven.” This represents hunting after a few individuals, or one poor publican, which the Pharisees and Sadducees despised.

He also gave them the parable of the woman and her ten pieces of silver, and how she lost one, and searching diligently, found it again, which gave more joy among the friends and neighbors than the nine which were not lost; like I say unto you, there is joy in the presence of the angels of God over one sinner that repenteth, more than over ninety-and-nine just persons that are so righteous; they will be damned anyhow; you cannot save them. (Jan. 29, 1843.) DHC 5:260-262.

 

Edited January 31, 2020 by Lemuel
repeat--delete

[Lemuel]

On 1/27/2020 at 4:25 PM, Kevin Christensen said:

Joseph Smith said that his key to understanding a parable is to look at the question that drew it out.  And in this case, the question is, "Why is Jesus hanging out with sinners?"

So he tells three parables together.  The lost sheep, the lost coin, and the parable of the Father with Two sons.  The parable is directed to those who think that because they are righteous and therefore, ought to be given exclusive attention.  The first two parables are invitations to rejoice in finding that which is lost.  And the third parable shows a father rejoicing that his lost son, a bit more important than a coin or a sheep.  The father runs to the penitent son, discarding convention and propriety in doing so.  He doesn't wait for the son to be brought to him for judgment.  He doesn't say, "So.. you've come crawling back... perhaps I could use a pig swiller."  Rather the shoes, the robe and the ring, the embrace, and the feast indicate exactly how he feels, and they all have temple and familial resonance.  And in the third parable, the Father is clearly the protagonist.  The wandering son is not the protagonist, but rather, a plot element equivalent to the coin or lost sheep.  The Faithful son represents the people Pharisees and scribes who asked the question in the first place, and apparently, they didn't "get" how the first two parables answered the initial question.  So the third parable is directed pointedly at them.  Structurally, the faithful son is the antagonist. And in the third parable, we are left dangling as to whether the Faithful son is ever going to get it.  The faithful son uses language of distance, rather than intimacy.  "thy son" not, "my brother."  He sees himself as having worked as an employee ("these many years do I serve thee"), rather than as a loving son.   And his concern is entirely resentful "thou never gavest me a kid... thy son has devoured thy living with harlots..."  He is angry, resentful, self-righteous, and the Father has to come and entreat him. 

Concern over shares entirely misses the point.  Will God not have enough?  "It is meet that we should make merry and be glad..."

The Parables of Jesus and the Interpretation of the Scriptures, TPJS pp. 276-277

In reference to the prodigal son, I said it was a subject I had never dwelt upon; that it was understood by many to be one of the intricate subjects of the scriptures; and even the Elders of this Church have preached largely upon it, without having any rule of interpretation. What is the rule of interpretation? Just no interpretation at all. Understand it precisely as it reads. I have a key by which I understand the scriptures. I enquire, what was the question which drew out the answer, or caused Jesus to utter the parable? It is not national; it does not refer to Abraham, Israel or the Gentiles, in a national capacity, as some suppose. To ascertain its meaning, we must dig up the root and ascertain what it was that drew the saying out of Jesus.

While Jesus was teaching the people, all the publicans and sinners drew near to hear Him; “and the Pharisees and scribes murmured, saying: This man receiveth sinners, and eateth with them.” This is the keyword which unlocks the parable of the prodigal son. It was given to answer the murmurings and questions of the Sadducees and Pharisees, who were querying, finding fault, and saying, “How is it that this man as great as He pretends to be, eats with publicans and sinners?” Jesus was not put to it so, but He could have found something to illustrate His subject, if He had designed if for nation or nations; but He did not. It was for men in an individual capacity; and all straining on this point is a bubble. “This man receiveth sinners and eateth with them.”

And he spake this parable unto them–“What man of you, having an hundred sheep, if he lose one of them doth not leave the ninety-and-nine in the wilderness, and go after that which is lost, until he find it? And when he hath found it, he layeth it on his shoulders, rejoicing. And when he cometh home, he calleth together his friends and neighbors, saying unto them, Rejoice with me; for I have found my sheep which was lost. I say unto you, that likewise joy shall be in heaven over one sinner that repenteth, more than over ninety-and-nine just persons which need no repentance.” The hundred sheep represent one hundred Sadducees and Pharisees are in the sheepfold, I have no mission for you; I am sent to look up sheep that are lost; and when I have found them, I will back them up and make joy in heaven.” This represents hunting after a few individuals, or one poor publican, which the Pharisees and Sadducees despised.

He also gave them the parable of the woman and her ten pieces of silver, and how she lost one, and searching diligently, found it again, which gave more joy among the friends and neighbors than the nine which were not lost; like I say unto you, there is joy in the presence of the angels of God over one sinner that repenteth, more than over ninety-and-nine just persons that are so righteous; they will be damned anyhow; you cannot save them. (Jan. 29, 1843.) DHC 5:260-262.

 

 

We are all fallen and eating slop with the pigs.  Some of us realize it and want to come home.  Part of me wonders if the older brother in the parable is a spirit who hasn't yet entered mortality, and from the point of an observer, thinks it should be easy.

[Lemuel]

On 1/27/2020 at 4:25 PM, Kevin Christensen said:

Joseph Smith said that his key to understanding a parable is to look at the question that drew it out.  And in this case, the question is, "Why is Jesus hanging out with sinners?"

So he tells three parables together.  The lost sheep, the lost coin, and the parable of the Father with Two sons.  The parable is directed to those who think that because they are righteous and therefore, ought to be given exclusive attention.  The first two parables are invitations to rejoice in finding that which is lost.  And the third parable shows a father rejoicing that his lost son, a bit more important than a coin or a sheep.  The father runs to the penitent son, discarding convention and propriety in doing so.  He doesn't wait for the son to be brought to him for judgment.  He doesn't say, "So.. you've come crawling back... perhaps I could use a pig swiller."  Rather the shoes, the robe and the ring, the embrace, and the feast indicate exactly how he feels, and they all have temple and familial resonance.  And in the third parable, the Father is clearly the protagonist.  The wandering son is not the protagonist, but rather, a plot element equivalent to the coin or lost sheep.  The Faithful son represents the people Pharisees and scribes who asked the question in the first place, and apparently, they didn't "get" how the first two parables answered the initial question.  So the third parable is directed pointedly at them.  Structurally, the faithful son is the antagonist. And in the third parable, we are left dangling as to whether the Faithful son is ever going to get it.  The faithful son uses language of distance, rather than intimacy.  "thy son" not, "my brother."  He sees himself as having worked as an employee ("these many years do I serve thee"), rather than as a loving son.   And his concern is entirely resentful "thou never gavest me a kid... thy son has devoured thy living with harlots..."  He is angry, resentful, self-righteous, and the Father has to come and entreat him. 

Concern over shares entirely misses the point.  Will God not have enough?  "It is meet that we should make merry and be glad..."

The Parables of Jesus and the Interpretation of the Scriptures, TPJS pp. 276-277

In reference to the prodigal son, I said it was a subject I had never dwelt upon; that it was understood by many to be one of the intricate subjects of the scriptures; and even the Elders of this Church have preached largely upon it, without having any rule of interpretation. What is the rule of interpretation? Just no interpretation at all. Understand it precisely as it reads. I have a key by which I understand the scriptures. I enquire, what was the question which drew out the answer, or caused Jesus to utter the parable? It is not national; it does not refer to Abraham, Israel or the Gentiles, in a national capacity, as some suppose. To ascertain its meaning, we must dig up the root and ascertain what it was that drew the saying out of Jesus.

While Jesus was teaching the people, all the publicans and sinners drew near to hear Him; “and the Pharisees and scribes murmured, saying: This man receiveth sinners, and eateth with them.” This is the keyword which unlocks the parable of the prodigal son. It was given to answer the murmurings and questions of the Sadducees and Pharisees, who were querying, finding fault, and saying, “How is it that this man as great as He pretends to be, eats with publicans and sinners?” Jesus was not put to it so, but He could have found something to illustrate His subject, if He had designed if for nation or nations; but He did not. It was for men in an individual capacity; and all straining on this point is a bubble. “This man receiveth sinners and eateth with them.”

And he spake this parable unto them–“What man of you, having an hundred sheep, if he lose one of them doth not leave the ninety-and-nine in the wilderness, and go after that which is lost, until he find it? And when he hath found it, he layeth it on his shoulders, rejoicing. And when he cometh home, he calleth together his friends and neighbors, saying unto them, Rejoice with me; for I have found my sheep which was lost. I say unto you, that likewise joy shall be in heaven over one sinner that repenteth, more than over ninety-and-nine just persons which need no repentance.” The hundred sheep represent one hundred Sadducees and Pharisees are in the sheepfold, I have no mission for you; I am sent to look up sheep that are lost; and when I have found them, I will back them up and make joy in heaven.” This represents hunting after a few individuals, or one poor publican, which the Pharisees and Sadducees despised.

He also gave them the parable of the woman and her ten pieces of silver, and how she lost one, and searching diligently, found it again, which gave more joy among the friends and neighbors than the nine which were not lost; like I say unto you, there is joy in the presence of the angels of God over one sinner that repenteth, more than over ninety-and-nine just persons that are so righteous; they will be damned anyhow; you cannot save them. (Jan. 29, 1843.) DHC 5:260-262.

 

 

We are all fallen and eating slop with the pigs.  Some of us realize it and want to come home.  Part of me wonders if the older brother in the parable is a spirit who hasn't yet entered mortality, and from the point of an observer, thinks it should be easy.

[The Nehor]

I see a more practical take on the parable. Many lifelong diligent members seeking to do good lead lives peppered with trials like poverty, disability, emotional distress, family members who have wandered, and keep pressing forward. At times those who have strayed and returned are feted for it not just by people happy for their return but by God. They are often quickly blessed temporally and spiritually. This can be a trial of faith to the dutiful member who has prayed and sought for the things that seem to be granted almost trivially to another while they endured the “heat of the day” and did not get that relief. The prodigal got the fatted calf. The dutiful son still did not get the lamb so he could have some fun with his friends and the father does not state that yeah, it is a little unfair nor does the father give him some lambs when he complains. 

[Stargazer]

On 1/27/2020 at 1:06 AM, InCognitus said:

But isn't there a big difference between the parable of the vineyard workers and the story of the prodigal son, in that the prodigal son knew his father and received goods from him from the beginning, but went off and squandered away his inheritance, and then ultimately came back with the desire to merely be one of his father's servants?  But the vineyard workers were hired on at different times of the day because they didn't know any better, they were standing around idle "because no man hath hired us" (Matt 20:7). 

Edit:  Ultimately the wayward son was given a robe and had his father's ring put on his hand, signifying that he was accepted back fully as one of the family.  But to the son that remained with him, he said, "Son, thou art ever with me, and all that I have is thine".  (Luke 15:31)   I'm just trying to figure out if there is a distinction to be made here.

What I take from this parable is that the son who was prodigal, but came back, is one who inherited salvation, but not exaltation.  A familiar example is King David, whose crime of murdering Uriah could be repented of, and thus he will be saved in the end (Ps. 16:10), but he was no longer worthy of exaltation (DC 132:39).  

Those who inherit the Terrestrial Kingdom are heirs of salvation, or, in other words, Christ's atonement covers them and they do not have to suffer for their own sins. But according to DC 76:59, "These are they who are not valiant in the testimony of Jesus; wherefore, they obtain not the crown over the kingdom of our God."  I emphasize crown here because the crown represents rule, and a higher burden of glory, which is that which those who inherit the Celestial Kingdom receive.

As for the parable of the vineyard workers, it emphasizes that salvation is not a matter of degree, but all who are saved receive the same reward, whether they came early or late. By salvation I mean relief from judgment and justice, or in other words relief from suffering for one's own sins through the blood of Christ:

Therefore I command you to repent—repent, lest I smite you by the rod of my mouth, and by my wrath, and by my anger, and your sufferings be sore — how sore you know not, how exquisite you know not, yea, how hard to bear you know not. For behold, I, God, have suffered these things for all, that they might not suffer if they would repent; But if they would not repent they must suffer even as I; Which suffering caused myself, even God, the greatest of all, to tremble because of pain, and to bleed at every pore, and to suffer both body and spirit—and would that I might not drink the bitter cup, and shrink— Nevertheless, glory be to the Father, and I partook and finished my preparations unto the children of men. (DC 19:15-19)

But exaltation requires being valiant in the testimony of Jesus.  And it is a burden of glory above that which is required of those who inherit the Terrestrial. As it says of them in DC 76:50-70:

Wherefore, all things are theirs, whether life or death, or things present, or things to come, all are theirs and they are Christ’s, and Christ is God’s.

Which is what is said in Romans 8:17: "And if children, then heirs; heirs of God, and joint-heirs with Christ;"

 

[Sunslight]

51 minutes ago, Stargazer said:

What I take from this parable is that the son who was prodigal, but came back, is one who inherited salvation, but not exaltation.  A familiar example is King David, whose crime of murdering Uriah could be repented of, and thus he will be saved in the end (Ps. 16:10), but he was no longer worthy of exaltation (DC 132:39).  

Those who inherit the Terrestrial Kingdom are heirs of salvation, or, in other words, Christ's atonement covers them and they do not have to suffer for their own sins. But according to DC 76:59, "These are they who are not valiant in the testimony of Jesus; wherefore, they obtain not the crown over the kingdom of our God."  I emphasize crown here because the crown represents rule, and a higher burden of glory, which is that which those who inherit the Celestial Kingdom receive.

As for the parable of the vineyard workers, it emphasizes that salvation is not a matter of degree, but all who are saved receive the same reward, whether they came early or late. By salvation I mean relief from judgment and justice, or in other words relief from suffering for one's own sins through the blood of Christ:

Therefore I command you to repent—repent, lest I smite you by the rod of my mouth, and by my wrath, and by my anger, and your sufferings be sore — how sore you know not, how exquisite you know not, yea, how hard to bear you know not. For behold, I, God, have suffered these things for all, that they might not suffer if they would repent; But if they would not repent they must suffer even as I; Which suffering caused myself, even God, the greatest of all, to tremble because of pain, and to bleed at every pore, and to suffer both body and spirit—and would that I might not drink the bitter cup, and shrink— Nevertheless, glory be to the Father, and I partook and finished my preparations unto the children of men. (DC 19:15-19)

But exaltation requires being valiant in the testimony of Jesus.  And it is a burden of glory above that which is required of those who inherit the Terrestrial. As it says of them in DC 76:50-70:

Wherefore, all things are theirs, whether life or death, or things present, or things to come, all are theirs and they are Christ’s, and Christ is God’s.

Which is what is said in Romans 8:17: "And if children, then heirs; heirs of God, and joint-heirs with Christ;"

 

And yet, in the parable the Father receives back his son who is no longer dead. If a son, then heir.

[Stargazer]

10 hours ago, Sunslight said:

And yet, in the parable the Father receives back his son who is no longer dead. If a son, then heir.

Yes, but not in the same status as the faithful son. He is burdened with exaltation; the other is not.

And while parables are for teaching of principles, they generally do not constitute a source of detailed doctrine. The father in the parable is mortal human and will die; the Father in reality is anything but.

[Sunslight]

4 hours ago, Stargazer said:

Yes, but not in the same status as the faithful son. He is burdened with exaltation; the other is not.

And while parables are for teaching of principles, they generally do not constitute a source of detailed doctrine. The father in the parable is mortal human and will die; the Father in reality is anything but.

I think our problem is in reading the parable is trying to equate different glories with the two sons. We shouldn't do that, Christ wasn't meaning any such thing.

It's the same exact story with the shepherd leaving the 99 sheep to go find the lost 1 and when he finds it he rejoices. Christ then equates that joy to the 1 sinner who repents and gains heaven. And yet, in that parable we never say the 1 lost sheep gains a lesser glory. The two parables are saying the same exact thing.

[Stargazer]

2 hours ago, Sunslight said:

I think our problem is in reading the parable is trying to equate different glories with the two sons. We shouldn't do that, Christ wasn't meaning any such thing.

It's the same exact story with the shepherd leaving the 99 sheep to go find the lost 1 and when he finds it he rejoices. Christ then equates that joy to the 1 sinner who repents and gains heaven. And yet, in that parable we never say the 1 lost sheep gains a lesser glory. The two parables are saying the same exact thing.

Christ didn't mean any such thing?  Well, what did he mean, then?  I don't see how you can read the same glory for both sons into the parable. But, I guess the parable doesn't NEED to do it.  We're being presented with basic Gospel truths here, not the advanced stuff.

[Sunslight]

17 minutes ago, Stargazer said:

Christ didn't mean any such thing?  Well, what did he mean, then?  I don't see how you can read the same glory for both sons into the parable. But, I guess the parable doesn't NEED to do it.  We're being presented with basic Gospel truths here, not the advanced stuff.

No, Christ didn't mean any such thing of differing glories here. He is speaking very plainly about saving the repentant. The son returns and repents. To say that this son is not qualified for the kingdom of heaven is a mockery of the atonement.

Edited February 4, 2020 by Sunslight

[Ahab]

18 minutes ago, Stargazer said:

Christ didn't mean any such thing?  Well, what did he mean, then?  I don't see how you can read the same glory for both sons into the parable. But, I guess the parable doesn't NEED to do it.  We're being presented with basic Gospel truths here, not the advanced stuff.

Think of the 2 men as 2 members of the Church, one who keeps attending Church meetings and serves in Church callings and tries to keep free from sin, while the other man stops attending Church meetings and stops serving in Church callings and gets carried away with sin.

Then at some point the "less active" member of the Church starts coming back to Church meetings and wants to repent of his sins while trying to live his life on the farm in the Church as a faithful member should.

There was still time for him to come back and repent from his sins.  He wasn't dead, yet.  He probably didn't grow as much, spiritually, as the faithful member who didn't stray from the Church but he can still be redeemed and receive celestial glory.

[Stargazer]

1 hour ago, Sunslight said:

No, Christ didn't mean any such thing of differing glories here. He is speaking very plainly about saving the repentant. The son returns and repents. To say that this son is not qualified for the kingdom of heaven is a mockery of the atonement.

I disagree somewhat with your last sentence, because of the generic term "kingdom of heaven." Does it mean Telestial, Terrestrial, or Celestial Kingdom?  And I say that the atonement is not mocked if a repentant soul is worthy of the Terrestrial but not the Celestial Kingdom.

For example, King David lost his exaltation despite his repentance.  But he retained his salvation because of repentance. Thus his sins are atoned for by Christ's blood.

 

 

[Stargazer]

1 hour ago, Ahab said:

Think of the 2 men as 2 members of the Church, one who keeps attending Church meetings and serves in Church callings and tries to keep free from sin, while the other man stops attending Church meetings and stops serving in Church callings and gets carried away with sin.

Then at some point the "less active" member of the Church starts coming back to Church meetings and wants to repent of his sins while trying to live his life on the farm in the Church as a faithful member should.

There was still time for him to come back and repent from his sins.  He wasn't dead, yet.  He probably didn't grow as much, spiritually, as the faithful member who didn't stray from the Church but he can still be redeemed and receive celestial glory.

Of course! 

I have no argument with this, but we're not talking about two real sons here, we are talking about hypothetical sons in an analogy. One squandered his inheritance and one who did not.  The squanderer, lost his inheritance, but retains his position in the family and lives off his father's generosity.   But the other son gets all that is left after his father dies.  The first son is analogous to a person who repents and because of Christ's Atonement inherits the Terrestrial Kingdom, but not the Celestial. The second son is analogous to a person who likewise repents, but because he was valiant in the testimony of Jesus (see D&C 76) he inherits the Celestial Kingdom.

And again, we're talking about a parable, a teaching aid, and not a literal situation.  Try not to take parables too literally!  They aren't about earthly inheritances, sums left with moneychangers, labor disputes, or casting seeds onto various qualities of ground.  They teach principles.  An example of taking a parable too literally would be to take the parable of the workers in the vineyard to mean that all the workers in the factory or on the farm must be paid the same amount of money, regardless of how long they worked, their skill level, or which job they had. It doesn't mean that at all, because it is an analogy for salvation -- all those who are saved from sin by the Atonement receive the same salvation.  But the parable doesn't deal with exaltation, because that is not what Jesus was teaching at the time he gave it.

All repentant sinners inherit salvation through the Atonement of Christ!  I am not arguing that a Prodigal won't be forgiven and worthy of the Atonement.  I am saying that beyond this, failing to be "valiant in the testimony of Jesus" as it says in D&C 76, leads to the Terrestrial, not the Celestial Kingdom.  Or else why is there a Terrestrial Kingdom?  The answer is: not all of those worthy of the Terrestrial will be worthy of the Celestial. The Celestial Kingdom is for those "worthy of a far more, and an exceeding, and an eternal weight of glory." (DC 132:15)

[Sunslight]

52 minutes ago, Stargazer said:

I disagree somewhat with your last sentence, because of the generic term "kingdom of heaven." Does it mean Telestial, Terrestrial, or Celestial Kingdom?  And I say that the atonement is not mocked if a repentant soul is worthy of the Terrestrial but not the Celestial Kingdom.

For example, King David lost his exaltation despite his repentance.  But he retained his salvation because of repentance. Thus his sins are atoned for by Christ's blood.

 

 

But Christ isn't speaking of differing glories here. He is speaking of the Fathers kingdom where he and the Son will dwell.

[Ahab]

7 minutes ago, Stargazer said:

Of course! 

I have no argument with this, but we're not talking about two real sons here, we are talking about hypothetical sons in an analogy. One squandered his inheritance and one who did not.  The squanderer, lost his inheritance, but retains his position in the family and lives off his father's generosity.   But the other son gets all that is left after his father dies.  The first son is analogous to a person who repents and because of Christ's Atonement inherits the Terrestrial Kingdom, but not the Celestial. The second son is analogous to a person who likewise repents, but because he was valiant in the testimony of Jesus (see D&C 76) he inherits the Celestial Kingdom.

And again, we're talking about a parable, a teaching aid, and not a literal situation.  Try not to take parables too literally!  They aren't about earthly inheritances, sums left with moneychangers, labor disputes, or casting seeds onto various qualities of ground.  They teach principles.  An example of taking a parable too literally would be to take the parable of the workers in the vineyard to mean that all the workers in the factory or on the farm must be paid the same amount of money, regardless of how long they worked, their skill level, or which job they had. It doesn't mean that at all, because it is an analogy for salvation -- all those who are saved from sin by the Atonement receive the same salvation.  But the parable doesn't deal with exaltation, because that is not what Jesus was teaching at the time he gave it.

All repentant sinners inherit salvation through the Atonement of Christ!  I am not arguing that a Prodigal won't be forgiven and worthy of the Atonement.  I am saying that beyond this, failing to be "valiant in the testimony of Jesus" as it says in D&C 76, leads to the Terrestrial, not the Celestial Kingdom.  Or else why is there a Terrestrial Kingdom?  The answer is: not all of those worthy of the Terrestrial will be worthy of the Celestial. The Celestial Kingdom is for those "worthy of a far more, and an exceeding, and an eternal weight of glory." (DC 132:15)

There are a few points I take from the parable to try to understand the principle that our Lord intended to teach, and I have tried to illustrate those points for you with other examples.   One point I take is that the Father is still on the farm, has not died, and the farm is still in operation.  And yet even though he has not died and his farm is ongoing he has somehow given one of his sons what he would inherit from him in some form in which that son can "spend" it all, leaving him with no more of what his Father had given to him.  That's why I used the example of money to illustrate how he spent what he received from his Father.  Assuming there are no other children the Father would have given 50% of the then current value of the farm while the other son would inherit the farm if the Father should ever die.  But since the Father in this case won't ever die, as he represents our Father in heaven, and the farm will continue to grow in value as long as the farm is in operation and producing, which will be forever, the farm will be worth more and  more as time goes on and the prodigal son will still have something of value to gain from the farm.  So it's not as if all hope is gone for the prodigal son to inherit his portion of the farm.  He received some portion of the farm before he went away but the farm will continue and he can still own the farm along with his Father, who will never die, as they continue to work the farm forever.

Your idea seems to suppose there is no way for the prodigal son to inherit/share the farm with his Father and brother once he returns to the Father and works on the farm, but the farm will never get sold, the Father will never die, and they will all work together on the farm, forever.

[Sunslight]

49 minutes ago, Stargazer said:

Of course! 

I have no argument with this, but we're not talking about two real sons here, we are talking about hypothetical sons in an analogy. One squandered his inheritance and one who did not.  The squanderer, lost his inheritance, but retains his position in the family and lives off his father's generosity.   But the other son gets all that is left after his father dies.  The first son is analogous to a person who repents and because of Christ's Atonement inherits the Terrestrial Kingdom, but not the Celestial. The second son is analogous to a person who likewise repents, but because he was valiant in the testimony of Jesus (see D&C 76) he inherits the Celestial Kingdom.

And again, we're talking about a parable, a teaching aid, and not a literal situation.  Try not to take parables too literally!  They aren't about earthly inheritances, sums left with moneychangers, labor disputes, or casting seeds onto various qualities of ground.  They teach principles.  An example of taking a parable too literally would be to take the parable of the workers in the vineyard to mean that all the workers in the factory or on the farm must be paid the same amount of money, regardless of how long they worked, their skill level, or which job they had. It doesn't mean that at all, because it is an analogy for salvation -- all those who are saved from sin by the Atonement receive the same salvation.  But the parable doesn't deal with exaltation, because that is not what Jesus was teaching at the time he gave it.

All repentant sinners inherit salvation through the Atonement of Christ!  I am not arguing that a Prodigal won't be forgiven and worthy of the Atonement.  I am saying that beyond this, failing to be "valiant in the testimony of Jesus" as it says in D&C 76, leads to the Terrestrial, not the Celestial Kingdom.  Or else why is there a Terrestrial Kingdom?  The answer is: not all of those worthy of the Terrestrial will be worthy of the Celestial. The Celestial Kingdom is for those "worthy of a far more, and an exceeding, and an eternal weight of glory." (DC 132:15)

They are all good arguments in favor of a modern LDS paradigm. The parable however covers no such glories but rather to teach about finding that which was lost or saving that which is lost. That represents every single one of us who get lost and must return to the fold.

[Stargazer]

3 hours ago, Ahab said:

There are a few points I take from the parable to try to understand the principle that our Lord intended to teach, and I have tried to illustrate those points for you with other examples.   One point I take is that the Father is still on the farm, has not died, and the farm is still in operation.  And yet even though he has not died and his farm is ongoing he has somehow given one of his sons what he would inherit from him in some form in which that son can "spend" it all, leaving him with no more of what his Father had given to him.  That's why I used the example of money to illustrate how he spent what he received from his Father.  Assuming there are no other children the Father would have given 50% of the then current value of the farm while the other son would inherit the farm if the Father should ever die.  But since the Father in this case won't ever die, as he represents our Father in heaven, and the farm will continue to grow in value as long as the farm is in operation and producing, which will be forever, the farm will be worth more and  more as time goes on and the prodigal son will still have something of value to gain from the farm.  So it's not as if all hope is gone for the prodigal son to inherit his portion of the farm.  He received some portion of the farm before he went away but the farm will continue and he can still own the farm along with his Father, who will never die, as they continue to work the farm forever.

Your idea seems to suppose there is no way for the prodigal son to inherit/share the farm with his Father and brother once he returns to the Father and works on the farm, but the farm will never get sold, the Father will never die, and they will all work together on the farm, forever.

If you insist upon taking the parable literally, go ahead.

I don't think our Father in Heaven is predominantly concerned with farming, but that's just my opinion.