Recently, my Facebook feed has been filled with comments, memes, and images regarding some shocking changes that the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints made to a handbook of instructions for church leaders regarding homosexuality and apostasy.
The headlines in blogs and from the stories of news organizations emphasized only one possible outcome of the changes: that Mormon Leaders would refuse baptism to the children of gays.
I read a number of reactions that ranged from people encouraging trust in the leaders of the church to posting apologetic explanations to people considering leaving the Mormon church because of this shocking truth.
I was a bit surprised at the volume of reactions to this news. It seemed to me that after the headline had drawn traffic and people saw what it was really about, some new bit of information would draw attention away and it would be rapidly forgotten. Days later, I still see numerous posts, comments, and reactions to this news. I have read posts wherein people still express shock and surprise that the Mormon church would implement such a policy that seems to target individuals based on their sexual orientation.
If you are among those who were shocked by the new details from the Mormon Handbook of Instructions, then perhaps you could particularly benefit from learning the shocking details from the Other Mormon Handbook. You know, the one that no one seems to be talking about, but that makes policies on apostasy seem as shocking as the fact that the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints believes in Jesus Christ... Even if you are not among those shocked by the recent policy news, the shocking details from the Other Mormon Handbook, will still be beneficial.
Of course, by Other Mormon Handbook, I mean The Book of Mormon: Another Testament of Jesus Christ.
The circumstances of this books arrival and the claims made in this book are more shocking than any policy decision the church has ever made (and that includes decisions regarding plural marriage, priesthood availability, or sticking with the Boy Scouts). Think about it. A young man in upstate New York was personally visited by an Angel and told about a book of scripture, hidden for centuries, written in a language that no one spoke, and that the record had been inscribed on plates of gold. Additionally, this record represented proof that peoples who had inhabited the American continent ages earlier had been Christians, and that they had fallen apart when they rejected Christ.
If these claims are not shocking enough, Mormons claim that Joseph Smith Junior, an uneducated laborer, was able to translate this record into English through the power of God himself. As miraculous as the use of diverse tongues on the Day of Pentecost (Acts 2), this young man not only produced a translation in a short time, but did it while enemies tried to attack him and his supporters. He also persuaded friends to help finance its publication, which was not an inexpensive investment. After it was done, he stood behind the work that he claimed God had helped him perform by saying: "I told the brethren that the Book of Mormon was the most correct of any book on earth, and the keystone of our religion, and a man would get nearer to God by abiding by its precepts, than by any other book." (Introduction to the Book of Mormon)
The idea that it is the most correct book is certainly shocking, but that a man would get nearer to God by abiding by its precepts than by any other book, is incredibly bold.
Rational individuals should immediately demand (in light of these shocking details and claims) what the Mormon Church intends to do to back them up (if they haven't already).
Of course, the way in which the Mormon Church backs up these claims is perhaps more shocking than anything else. This translation is not in some "leaders-only" handbook or kept in a vault in the mountains near Salt Lake City. The Church has gone to great lengths and great expense to make this handbook available to everyone. If you like to read physical books, check here: https://www.mormon.org/free-book-of-mormon. You can read it online for free here: https://www.lds.org/scriptures/bofm?lang=eng. Yes, there's an app for it too: https://play.google.com/store/books/details/The_Church_of_Jesus_Christ_of_Latter_day_Saints_Th?id=oAkd9j3xSqoC. Additionally, volunteer missionaries across the world are eager to provide individual support as you put the shocking claims of the Mormons to the test by reading this book and praying to God to come to your own conclusion.
For those who are already members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints, the need to read the Book of Mormon has not diminished. Shocks from changes in church policies (or any other aspect of the faith) are best handled by returning to this handbook, which laid the foundation of the Mormon Church. If you have read it, read it again. If you have not read from it today, read from it today. If you have not prayed to our Heavenly Father regarding the shocking claims that it makes and that it represents, pray today. If you have prayed, but you have not been willing to act according to the answer you have received, then read it some more. If you have prayed, but you do not believe that God will answer your prayer, then read it some more.
Ultimately, the more that you read, study, consider, and pray about the Book of Mormon, the more you will see that the claims, practices, policies, and traditions in the Mormon Church are not shocking at all. The real shock is that Jesus Christ (who is very much alive and well) is reaching out to you in a personal way through this book. Joseph Smith was not exaggerating or being rhetorical when he said that you could get nearer to God by abiding by its precepts than by any other book. Whatever other news headlines arise in the future, you can be confident that God lives and that he will make sure everything works out in the end. In the end, he is coming to save us all.
Monday, November 9, 2015
Saturday, June 27, 2015
What Type of Marriage Discrimination Will Gay Marriage Advocates Continue To Support?
I have seen many rainbow picture profiles on Facebook and many "love wins" sentiments after the 5-4 ruling by the United States Supreme Court in which they used the 14th amendment to discover a "right to marry." There are numerous legal reasons why this move represents a dangerous precedent, and how wrong it is for justices to find "implied rights" are more important that explicitly stated rights (such as in the 10th amendment). For those that have interest in the legal side of this (or those who claim that defense of traditional marriage is indefensible), reading the dissents of the four justices who did not support this finding is illuminating.
I am not going to repeat the legal reasons that this supreme court ruling was bad. I want to focus on something more emotional, and far more common.
It is no secret that I have vehemently opposed gay marriage. In response to the points that I have made, I have been told the following:
I am not going to repeat the legal reasons that this supreme court ruling was bad. I want to focus on something more emotional, and far more common.
It is no secret that I have vehemently opposed gay marriage. In response to the points that I have made, I have been told the following:
- That I "probably don't have a lot of gay friends"
- That I have a phobia of homosexuals
- That I am a bigot
- That I am hateful
- That I don't understand the Bible
- That God just wants people to love each other (and that sin does not exist)
- That I might be gay myself if I am "threatened"
- That I am fighting against "civil" or "human" rights
- That I am encouraging (or even inciting) violence
- That I am being judgmental, and therefore will burn in hell
The list is not comprehensive, but it never ceases to amaze me how many accusations are made about any person who believes in traditional marriage.
Now that the Supreme Court has ruled that individuals have a right to be married, the question I have for gay marriage advocates is whether they plan to extend these rights to everyone. (This is a rhetorical question, I don't want you to tell me about it, I want you to actually open your mind to the consequences of "love" "winning.")
Take for example the polygamous group. (Now before you say that this is a straw man argument, and no one is advocating for it, read this article) So if seven people decide that they are in "love", how can a person say that they should be denied the right to marry? Obviously not because we adhere to a standard of traditional marriage. If you are opposed to polygamy, let me suggest the following reasons:
- That you "probably don't have a lot of polygamous friends"
- That you have a phobia of polygamists
- That you are a bigot
- That you are hateful
- That you don't understand the Bible
- That God just wants people to love each other (and that sin does not exist)
- That you might have polygamous desires yourself if you are"threatened"
- That you are fighting against "civil" or "human" rights
- That you are encouraging (or even inciting) violence
- That you are being judgmental, and therefore will burn in hell
Take for example the biological brother and sister that have fallen in love, but that the state will not issue a marriage license because they are related. If marriage is a right, then who are you to say that being related should deprive a person of this right? If you still disagree that incestuous relationships should be able to have legal recognition in the form of marriage, may I suggest the following reasons that you believe this:
- That you "probably don't have a lot of incestuous friends"
- That you have a phobia of incest
- That you are a bigot
- That you are hateful
- That you don't understand the Bible
- That God just wants people to love each other (and that sin does not exist)
- That you might have incestuous desires yourself if you are"threatened"
- That you are fighting against "civil" or "human" rights
- That you are encouraging (or even inciting) violence
- That you are being judgmental, and therefore will burn in hell
Take for example the man that has fallen in love with his pet dog. They would like to make their love officially recognized in the form of marriage. Who are you to say that the dog doesn't love its owner. I have spoken to many vegetarians who insist that animals have all the same feelings that humans have, and that the most important of those feelings is love. Who are you to say that this type of relationship is "not natural." For thousands of years the majority of civilization believed the exact same thing about homosexuality (and many still do.) Just because Leviticus 18:23 says "Neither shalt thou lie with any beast to defile thyself therewith: neither shall any woman stand before a beast to lie down thereto: it is confusion" doesn't mean anything. After all, the Bible also forbids eating pork or women speaking in church, so you can't accept everything in the Bible... right? Certainly this form of "love" may not be traditional, but the man has a right to be married, and if you try to discriminate against the form of his love, it can only be because:
- That you "probably don't have a lot of animal-loving friends"
- That you have a phobia of human-animal relationships
- That you are a bigot
- That you are hateful
- That you don't understand the Bible
- That God just wants people to love each other (and that sin does not exist)
- That you might have bestiality desires yourself if you are"threatened"
- That you are fighting against "civil" or "human" rights
- That you are encouraging (or even inciting) violence
- That you are being judgmental, and therefore will burn in hell
Take for example the forty-year-old man that has fallen in love with a twelve-year-old boy. The boy says that he is happy with the man, and who are you to say their relationship is taboo? Of course, the boy may not be an adult, to which traditional marriage relationships typically are limited, but tradition is not the basis for love anymore, right? It's only love. Nothing else matters, right? And who are you to say that the boy is not capable of being in love? If young people are not capable of love, then are you advocating banning relationships in high school between students who are under the age of eighteen? No more "cutest couple" in the year book, right? Your "girlfriend" or "boyfriend" is not allowed. There are no gay teens, right, since they are too young to understand or participate in sexual activities, right? Or perhaps you truly believe that "love" should win? Perhaps the pedophile is just another "non-traditional" relationship that has been negatively stereotyped by society. No? Then perhaps you say this because:
- That you "probably don't have a lot of pedophile friends"
- That you have a phobia of pedophilia
- That you are a bigot
- That you are hateful
- That you don't understand the Bible
- That God just wants people to love each other (and that sin does not exist)
- That you might have pedophilia desires yourself if you are"threatened"
- That you are fighting against "civil" or "human" rights
- That you are encouraging (or even inciting) violence
- That you are being judgmental, and therefore will burn in hell
If you are a gay marriage advocate, you may be tempted to let me know about how these ideas are totally different than those of gay marriage. You may be tempted to shout "slippery slope" or "no one is going to advocate that" or "straw man" or whatever else makes you feel better about the fact that you believe (as I do) that there should be some discrimination in who we permit to marry. Please, before you begin sending me messages about how awful a human being I am... consider for just a moment that perhaps gay marriage advocates are not so very different from the traditionalists, cake bakers, and people of faith that many of them tend to demonize.
If the reasons for why you might be opposed to bestiality, pedophilia, incest, and other unnatural relationships are not accurately represented by the bullet point lists... then consider for a moment the possibility that the reason I am opposed to homosexual marriage may not be accurately represented by these things either.
Additionally, if you have thrown "traditional marriage" out the window as a valid reason to discriminate against other unorthodox types of unions, consider for a moment the actual reasons that you are opposed to them. Examine why you believe that some types of unions are not good, and should not be condoned by society.
It is my earnest hope that perhaps, in the moment when you struggle to define why it is OK to discriminate against some marriages, that you will see that advocates of traditional marriage are not the demons they are painted to be.
Monday, May 4, 2015
Being like a sheep
Most Christians do not take issue with the idea that Christ is like a shepherd, which is good because Jesus was the source of this analogy:
"I am the good shepherd: the good shepherd giveth his life for the sheep. But he that is an hireling, and not the shepherd, whose own the sheep are not, seeth the wolf coming, and leaveth the sheep, and fleeth: and the wolf catcheth them, and scattereth the sheep. The hireling fleeth, because he is an hireling, and careth not for the sheep. I am the good shepherd, and know my sheep, and am known of mine." (John 16:11-14)
The point with which many Christians seem to take issue is the idea of the sheep. I have personally been called a "sheep" and a "blind follower." I know many people who have been ridiculed for not questioning church leaders, and I have seen those that do rebel against their religious authorities defend themselves by asking if they are "not allowed to question."
I would like to tell a story to illustrate a point regarding sheep:
Once there was a good shepherd that had a flock of sheep. He kept watch over them with the help of a faithful sheep dog. Together, they spent their time in a beautiful meadow near a cool clear river of water. The sheep loved grazing and being with the shepherd in the sunshine, and they trusted his care as they slept at night.
Not far from the meadow was a dark thick forest that frightened the sheep. There were odd creaks and groans that echoed from within the mysterious darkness, and the sheep were certain that there were dangerous predators in the wood.
After many days, the shepherd turned to the sheep and spoke to them saying: "follow me into the woods." He then turned and walked toward the dark forest. The sheep whispered among one another, but after a few moments, the dog began encouraging the sheep to follow, and the majority of the sheep headed toward their shepherd. There was a group of sheep that became angry at the situation, and resolved to remain behind. They called to the other sheep telling them that they would be killed in the forest, and that it was madness to follow the shepherd with no reason.
Eventually, the sheep dog came back and confronted the group of defiant sheep. He told them that the shepherd had asked them to go to the woods, and that they should follow.
"Why?" asked one of the sheep.
"Trust in the judgement of the shepherd, and trust in his power to protect you," encouraged the dog.
"That's it?" snorted the sheep. "Just blindly follow?! Am I not allowed to ask questions?!"
"Of course you're allowed to ask questions," said the dog. "But do not let your questions keep you from following the shepherd."
"But I don't even know that he has our best interests at heart," replied the sheep. "There could be dangerous creatures in the wood. Also, there is not enough sunlight for grass to grow on the forest floor... what would we eat? What would we drink?"
"Has the shepherd ever given you reason to think he does not care for you?" asked the dog.
"He has now," replied the sheep defiantly. "If he has good reason, let him come and explain himself."
"He has good reason," said the dog. "Go to him and see it if you will..."
"We will stay where it is safe," replied the sheep. The dog shook his head in sorrow.
"I hope you will reconsider," said the dog. The dog turned and rushed into the woods.
The sheep that remained returned to the grazing, the water, and the sunshine. They felt free from having to follow blindly, and they laughed at the foolish sheep that were likely starving or dead in the ominous forest. Their happiness persisted for several days, and their friendships with one another seemed to strengthen. They were happy that they had left the shepherd.
One night as they slept, they were awakened by noise. As they opened their eyes and looked around, they found themselves surrounded by orcs with sharp teeth and drawn swords. One of the orcs stepped up and shouted.
"Looks like meat's back on the menu boys!"
Of course, this is obviously made up. The idea is that the blindly obedient were spared and the defiant questioners were consumed. The counsel of the scriptures was not trust in your critical thinking skills with all your heart but instead "Trust in the Lord with all thine heart; and lean not unto thine own understanding. In all thy ways acknowledge him, and he shall direct thy paths." (Proverbs 3:4-5)
Of course it is allowed to have questions, but do not let questions keep you from following the shepherd. In the end, he will save those that trust in him.
Thursday, March 26, 2015
If judging is wrong, then God won't judge... right?
Phil Robertson from Duck Dynasty (a show I admittedly have never watched), has once again waded into controversy with the following statement (taken from this link):
Of course, atheists are quickly shouting that this is a "straw man" argument... that no one is advocating these practices, and that this example is outrageous and argumentative.
I know a couple atheists, and I have definitely never heard anything to make me think that they would advocate such behavior. In fact, I frequently see these people advocating for kindness and benevolence, and often for individuals who are disadvantaged... quite different from the hypothetical antagonists in Phil Robertson's example.
General advocacy for benevolence seems to be prevalent, even as religious devotion seems to wane. I have frequently seen memes and articles that decry exclusion, bullying, and the practice of judging others... many of which are quite clever. I saw a meme that said "don't judge me because I sin differently from you" (apparently President Uchtdorf saw something similar). Certainly this thought is not reserved as a slogan for agnostics; it definitely resonates with Christians. Jesus himself said "Judge not, that ye be not judged. For with what judgment ye judge, ye shall be judged: and with what measure ye mete, it shall be measured to you again." (Matthew 7:1-2)
I myself have been accused of being excessively judgmental, and in spite of the irony that individuals have judged me as being so, there is certainly room for me to improve.
That having been said, all the "hold hands and sing kumbaya" sentiment can distract from legitimate problems that exist in society. While the vast majority of people would never break into a home and perform violent acts for entertainment, there exist some that would and do. The media has shared stories of people who have killed dozens in schools and theaters. Enemies in foreign lands share their own videos of brutal executions with knives or with fire. There exist areas of the world where even innocent children are exploited as slaves to slake the lust of adults. There are few people who would suggest that such deeds are "right" or that the perpetrators of such crimes should not be judged because they "sin differently."
Additionally, there exist people that believe they are justified in committing acts that society at large considers atrocious. Consider the example of Nehor from the Book of Mormon. He was a large and mighty man that preached the "judge not" brand of religion:
"And he also testified unto the people that all mankind should be saved at the last day, and that they need not fear nor tremble, but that they might lift up their heads and rejoice; for the Lord had created all men, and had also redeemed all men; and, in the end, all men should have eternal life." (Alma 1:4)
This idea was popular, and Nehor boldly went preaching against the church of God, which advocated not only righteous living, but also repentance for sinners. In other words, the church taught that bad men should become good, and good men should become better. They judged unrighteousness as being bad.
In the process of "educating" these "ignorant" Christians, Nehor sought them out for argument and debate. On one such occasion, he found an elderly man named Gideon who resisted Nehor's teachings. Anger led to violence. Nehor slew Gideon.
Instead of admitting that what he had done was wrong, he actually held to his doctrine of universal salvation. He defended himself boldly, and insisted that what he had done was not wrong. Of course, the law saw it otherwise, and Nehor was executed for his crimes.
Of course, Nehor is not the first one to become confused as to what is right and what is wrong... and that is the real question that Phil Robertson was illustrating in his example... How do you know what is right and what is wrong?
Those that embrace atheism may be quick to shout "straw man," but for a group of people that claim to espouse reason, there is no consensus about how to answer this question. Without an answer to this question, how does one answer the question "why not murder, rape, and steal?" It cannot be answered by "because these practices are wrong" without the existence of universal right and wrong. I suppose it could be answered by "because these practices are illegal" but in many places, gay marriage is illegal, and most atheists I know are in favor of legalizing this practice. So if morality cannot be coupled to the law, then what? Harm? What if a society does not recognize something as harmful... or cannot currently prove that something is harmful? Who will do the study on whether intimate relationships between humans and animals is harmful? Are there some applications of eugenics that have a net positive effect on society? Who can prove otherwise?
Also, to whom must something be proven? What if someone performs an act without knowing it could be harmful (a lobotomy for example, which is now considered harmful)? And if not knowing something is harmful makes it unethical, can ignorance excuse unethical behaviors such as robbery, murder, rape, etc...?
While evolutionary biology has become popular in classrooms and creationism has fallen into controversy, the ethical implications of saying that people are "intelligent animals" are rarely considered. If evolutionary fitness is the means by which humans became the dominant species on the planet, then are we on equal moral standing as cattle? Certainly there are some humans who would like to criminalize the slaughter of pigs, cattle, chickens, and other animals for human consumption... but does that also mean we should prosecute lions, hyenas, leopards, wolves, and other predators for murder? Is there a moral difference in killing a human, a dog, a rat, or a cockroach? If so, what causes this difference?
Even though these ethical questions can be difficult to answer, there seems to be a general understanding that is common to most humans. The feeling of guilt for doing something that a parent has forbidden is present even in very young children. The sense of happiness that comes from helping another is also found in young children. There is something intangible that is present in all humans that steers us toward goodness and virtue, and repels us from evil and vice. Of course, its intangibility, as well as a number of other factors, can cause this to diminish or even disappear for some... Nehor was a clear example of this.
Ultimately, this intangible force is to help us to recognize other things beyond our immediate perception. This is precisely why Jesus taught:
"I am the good shepherd, and know my sheep, and am known of mine." (John 10:14, emphasis added)
The ability to recognize right can also lead us to recognize our God. Honing this spiritual awareness is a fundamental purpose to the mortal experience.
While it may be popular to say "judge not," or that "judging is wrong," it is important to know that these thoughts do not remove the personal responsibility of each individual. Ignorance, popularity, available proof, empirical evidence, or evolutionary biology will not be sufficient defenses on that day when a man stands before God to be judged. This is not to say that there is no mercy... the power of Jesus Christ is available to those that have faith, repent, and live as he taught.
Yes, Jesus did condemn hypocritical judgment. Yes, Christ said "he that is without sin among you, let him first cast a stone at her..." (John 8:7) But he also said "go, and sin no more..." and "except your righteousness shall exceed the righteousness of the scribes and Pharisees, ye shall in no case enter into the kingdom of heaven." (Matthew 5:20) Vital to following Christ is changing our lives to better. Vital to salvation is learning and doing good. (James 1:22)
Also, if all judgement were wrong... then Christ would not be a judge himself. Consider this passage:
"Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father which is in heaven. Many will say to me in that day, Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in thy name? and in thy name have cast out devils? and in thy name done many wonderful works? And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, ye that work iniquity." (Matthew 7:21-23, emphasis added) In the end, though right and wrong are nearly impossible to comprehend alone, the man that truly follows Christ can be confident that he is doing right.
People can say what they may about Phil Robertson's example, his show, and his facial hair... but in the end there is definitely value in understanding the importance of God as a source of goodness, authority, and judgement.
“I’ll make a bet with you. Two guys break into an atheist’s home. He has a little atheist wife and two little atheist daughters. Two guys break into his home and tie him up in a chair and gag him and then they take his two daughters in front of him and rape both of ‘em and then shoot him and they take his wife and decapitate her head off in from of him. And then they can look at him and say isn’t it great that I don’t have to worry about being judged … there’s no right or wrong … and then you take a sharp knife and take his manhood and hold it in front of him and say wouldn’t it be something if this was something wrong with this, but you’re the one who says there's no God, there’s no right, there’s no wrong…. so we’re just having fun. We’re sick in the head. Have a nice day.”
Of course, atheists are quickly shouting that this is a "straw man" argument... that no one is advocating these practices, and that this example is outrageous and argumentative.
I know a couple atheists, and I have definitely never heard anything to make me think that they would advocate such behavior. In fact, I frequently see these people advocating for kindness and benevolence, and often for individuals who are disadvantaged... quite different from the hypothetical antagonists in Phil Robertson's example.
General advocacy for benevolence seems to be prevalent, even as religious devotion seems to wane. I have frequently seen memes and articles that decry exclusion, bullying, and the practice of judging others... many of which are quite clever. I saw a meme that said "don't judge me because I sin differently from you" (apparently President Uchtdorf saw something similar). Certainly this thought is not reserved as a slogan for agnostics; it definitely resonates with Christians. Jesus himself said "Judge not, that ye be not judged. For with what judgment ye judge, ye shall be judged: and with what measure ye mete, it shall be measured to you again." (Matthew 7:1-2)
I myself have been accused of being excessively judgmental, and in spite of the irony that individuals have judged me as being so, there is certainly room for me to improve.
That having been said, all the "hold hands and sing kumbaya" sentiment can distract from legitimate problems that exist in society. While the vast majority of people would never break into a home and perform violent acts for entertainment, there exist some that would and do. The media has shared stories of people who have killed dozens in schools and theaters. Enemies in foreign lands share their own videos of brutal executions with knives or with fire. There exist areas of the world where even innocent children are exploited as slaves to slake the lust of adults. There are few people who would suggest that such deeds are "right" or that the perpetrators of such crimes should not be judged because they "sin differently."
Additionally, there exist people that believe they are justified in committing acts that society at large considers atrocious. Consider the example of Nehor from the Book of Mormon. He was a large and mighty man that preached the "judge not" brand of religion:
"And he also testified unto the people that all mankind should be saved at the last day, and that they need not fear nor tremble, but that they might lift up their heads and rejoice; for the Lord had created all men, and had also redeemed all men; and, in the end, all men should have eternal life." (Alma 1:4)
This idea was popular, and Nehor boldly went preaching against the church of God, which advocated not only righteous living, but also repentance for sinners. In other words, the church taught that bad men should become good, and good men should become better. They judged unrighteousness as being bad.
In the process of "educating" these "ignorant" Christians, Nehor sought them out for argument and debate. On one such occasion, he found an elderly man named Gideon who resisted Nehor's teachings. Anger led to violence. Nehor slew Gideon.
Instead of admitting that what he had done was wrong, he actually held to his doctrine of universal salvation. He defended himself boldly, and insisted that what he had done was not wrong. Of course, the law saw it otherwise, and Nehor was executed for his crimes.
Of course, Nehor is not the first one to become confused as to what is right and what is wrong... and that is the real question that Phil Robertson was illustrating in his example... How do you know what is right and what is wrong?
Those that embrace atheism may be quick to shout "straw man," but for a group of people that claim to espouse reason, there is no consensus about how to answer this question. Without an answer to this question, how does one answer the question "why not murder, rape, and steal?" It cannot be answered by "because these practices are wrong" without the existence of universal right and wrong. I suppose it could be answered by "because these practices are illegal" but in many places, gay marriage is illegal, and most atheists I know are in favor of legalizing this practice. So if morality cannot be coupled to the law, then what? Harm? What if a society does not recognize something as harmful... or cannot currently prove that something is harmful? Who will do the study on whether intimate relationships between humans and animals is harmful? Are there some applications of eugenics that have a net positive effect on society? Who can prove otherwise?
Also, to whom must something be proven? What if someone performs an act without knowing it could be harmful (a lobotomy for example, which is now considered harmful)? And if not knowing something is harmful makes it unethical, can ignorance excuse unethical behaviors such as robbery, murder, rape, etc...?
While evolutionary biology has become popular in classrooms and creationism has fallen into controversy, the ethical implications of saying that people are "intelligent animals" are rarely considered. If evolutionary fitness is the means by which humans became the dominant species on the planet, then are we on equal moral standing as cattle? Certainly there are some humans who would like to criminalize the slaughter of pigs, cattle, chickens, and other animals for human consumption... but does that also mean we should prosecute lions, hyenas, leopards, wolves, and other predators for murder? Is there a moral difference in killing a human, a dog, a rat, or a cockroach? If so, what causes this difference?
Even though these ethical questions can be difficult to answer, there seems to be a general understanding that is common to most humans. The feeling of guilt for doing something that a parent has forbidden is present even in very young children. The sense of happiness that comes from helping another is also found in young children. There is something intangible that is present in all humans that steers us toward goodness and virtue, and repels us from evil and vice. Of course, its intangibility, as well as a number of other factors, can cause this to diminish or even disappear for some... Nehor was a clear example of this.
Ultimately, this intangible force is to help us to recognize other things beyond our immediate perception. This is precisely why Jesus taught:
"I am the good shepherd, and know my sheep, and am known of mine." (John 10:14, emphasis added)
The ability to recognize right can also lead us to recognize our God. Honing this spiritual awareness is a fundamental purpose to the mortal experience.
While it may be popular to say "judge not," or that "judging is wrong," it is important to know that these thoughts do not remove the personal responsibility of each individual. Ignorance, popularity, available proof, empirical evidence, or evolutionary biology will not be sufficient defenses on that day when a man stands before God to be judged. This is not to say that there is no mercy... the power of Jesus Christ is available to those that have faith, repent, and live as he taught.
Yes, Jesus did condemn hypocritical judgment. Yes, Christ said "he that is without sin among you, let him first cast a stone at her..." (John 8:7) But he also said "go, and sin no more..." and "except your righteousness shall exceed the righteousness of the scribes and Pharisees, ye shall in no case enter into the kingdom of heaven." (Matthew 5:20) Vital to following Christ is changing our lives to better. Vital to salvation is learning and doing good. (James 1:22)
Also, if all judgement were wrong... then Christ would not be a judge himself. Consider this passage:
"Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father which is in heaven. Many will say to me in that day, Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in thy name? and in thy name have cast out devils? and in thy name done many wonderful works? And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, ye that work iniquity." (Matthew 7:21-23, emphasis added) In the end, though right and wrong are nearly impossible to comprehend alone, the man that truly follows Christ can be confident that he is doing right.
People can say what they may about Phil Robertson's example, his show, and his facial hair... but in the end there is definitely value in understanding the importance of God as a source of goodness, authority, and judgement.
Thursday, March 12, 2015
Peaceful feelings of total destruction
After the books of Nephi and the book of Jacob, there are a number of short books in the Book of Mormon. It can be easy to overlook these books... and while many latter day saints remember the story about Enos praying all day and night, few recall the details of Jarom, or the numerous individuals in the book of Omni.
Of course, the prayer of Enos is significant. The determination he had in persistently seeking an answer from God, and that faith he had in believing the answers when they came represent important lessons in communicating with our Father in Heaven. The fact that his guilt was swept away is moving for those that have experienced the miracle of Christ's power, and the mercy of his forgiveness. His beneficence is demonstrated in how he immediately prayed for the salvation of his people, the Nephites. It is notable to realize that he spent effort on behalf of the Lamanites, who continually sought to kill his people. It is important that he hoped for the welfare of the records of his people, so that, in time, the Lamanites might have knowledge of and peace through Jesus Christ.
Having had what he described as "rest" (Enos 1:17), he went to his people to persuade them to believe in Christ. After having a spiritual experience as he had, where he obtained peace, confidence, and joy... one might imagine the means by which he taught his people would be expressed in a similar tone. It would not be unreasonable to think he would emphasize the love and mercy of God to all those who would come to him.
Instead, he records the following:
"And there was nothing save it was exceeding harshness, preaching and prophesying of wars, and contentions, and destructions, and continually reminding them of death, and the duration of eternity, and the judgments and the power of God, and all these things—stirring them up continually to keep them in the fear of the Lord. I say there was nothing short of these things, and exceedingly great plainness of speech, would keep them from going down speedily to destruction." (Enos 1:23)
Certainly there are few things that inspire feelings of peace, love, and harmony more than threatening of "wars, and contentions, and destructions, and continually reminding them of death, and the duration of eternity..." (Sarcasm... in case that was unclear.)
To the saints in the latter days... this may seem odd. When I attend conference and hear the words of modern day apostles and prophets, I come away with the idea that they do not use the same approach Enos did. In fact, it is frequently that these men plead with us to be a little bit better, to try a little harder, and to be a little kinder. While the call to repentance is not absent from their messages, it is always accompanied by descriptions of the love and mercy of the Son of God.
Perhaps even adding to the contrast is the fact that in the latter days, there are numerous prophecies that indicate the increased danger and destruction that will prevail in the last days. Consider these examples:
With great perils in the last days, more so than in any other time, it can seem confusing as to why the strategy of Enos is not employed more frequently. Why do we hear so little about the threats of "wars, and contentions, and destructions?" Why are we not continually reminded of death and the duration of eternity?
I suggest that we are given these reminders, but indirectly. We are asked to read the scriptures. We are asked to study the Bible and the Book of Mormon. We are taught that the messages of these ancient prophets (especially those in the Book of Mormon) are specifically intended for us in modern times.
It becomes everyone who reads these scriptures not to skim over the short books or the minor prophets. There are messages in many of them (both the Bible and the Book of Mormon) that warn us of the dangers that come from not heeding the counsel of the Lord. There are promises and examples that demonstrate the power and peace available to those that do follow him. These messages blend well with the teachings of modern prophets and apostles that remind us of the great love that Christ has for us... such that it becomes easy to see that God is actively trying not only to grant us incredible blessings, but also that he is trying to save us from terrible harm.
Perhaps being aware of what awful destruction awaits those that fend for themselves rather than come to Christ can provide a feeling of peace and confidence.
The famous Confederate General Stonewall Jackson is quoted as saying this:
"Captain, my religious belief teaches me to feel as safe in battle as in bed. God has fixed the time for my death. I do not concern myself about that, but to be always ready, no matter when it may overtake me. Captain, that is the way all men should live, and then all would be equally brave." (The Oxford Dictionary of Civil War Quotations, 2006)
Of course, the prayer of Enos is significant. The determination he had in persistently seeking an answer from God, and that faith he had in believing the answers when they came represent important lessons in communicating with our Father in Heaven. The fact that his guilt was swept away is moving for those that have experienced the miracle of Christ's power, and the mercy of his forgiveness. His beneficence is demonstrated in how he immediately prayed for the salvation of his people, the Nephites. It is notable to realize that he spent effort on behalf of the Lamanites, who continually sought to kill his people. It is important that he hoped for the welfare of the records of his people, so that, in time, the Lamanites might have knowledge of and peace through Jesus Christ.
Having had what he described as "rest" (Enos 1:17), he went to his people to persuade them to believe in Christ. After having a spiritual experience as he had, where he obtained peace, confidence, and joy... one might imagine the means by which he taught his people would be expressed in a similar tone. It would not be unreasonable to think he would emphasize the love and mercy of God to all those who would come to him.
Instead, he records the following:
"And there was nothing save it was exceeding harshness, preaching and prophesying of wars, and contentions, and destructions, and continually reminding them of death, and the duration of eternity, and the judgments and the power of God, and all these things—stirring them up continually to keep them in the fear of the Lord. I say there was nothing short of these things, and exceedingly great plainness of speech, would keep them from going down speedily to destruction." (Enos 1:23)
Certainly there are few things that inspire feelings of peace, love, and harmony more than threatening of "wars, and contentions, and destructions, and continually reminding them of death, and the duration of eternity..." (Sarcasm... in case that was unclear.)
To the saints in the latter days... this may seem odd. When I attend conference and hear the words of modern day apostles and prophets, I come away with the idea that they do not use the same approach Enos did. In fact, it is frequently that these men plead with us to be a little bit better, to try a little harder, and to be a little kinder. While the call to repentance is not absent from their messages, it is always accompanied by descriptions of the love and mercy of the Son of God.
Perhaps even adding to the contrast is the fact that in the latter days, there are numerous prophecies that indicate the increased danger and destruction that will prevail in the last days. Consider these examples:
- "This know also, that in the last days perilous times shall come. For men shall be lovers of their own selves, covetous, boasters, proud, blasphemers, disobedient to parents, unthankful, unholy, Without natural affection, trucebreakers, false accusers, incontinent, fierce, despisers of those that are good, Traitors, heady, highminded, lovers of pleasures more than lovers of God; Having a form of godliness, but denying the power thereof: from such turn away. For of this sort are they which creep into houses, and lead captive silly women laden with sins, led away with divers lusts, Ever learning, and never able to come to the knowledge of the truth." (2 Timothy 3:1-7)
- "And he opened his mouth in blasphemy against God, to blaspheme his name, and his tabernacle, and them that dwell in heaven. And it was given unto him to make war with the saints, and to overcome them: and power was given him over all kindreds, and tongues, and nations." (Revelation 13:6-7)
- "For nation shall rise against nation, and kingdom against kingdom: and there shall be famines, and pestilences, and earthquakes, in divers places. All these are the beginning of sorrows. 9 Then shall they deliver you up to be afflicted, and shall kill you: and ye shall be hated of all nations for my name’s sake. And then shall many be offended, and shall betray one another, and shall hate one another. And many false prophets shall rise, and shall deceive many. And because iniquity shall abound, the love of many shall wax cold." (Matthew 24:7-12)
With great perils in the last days, more so than in any other time, it can seem confusing as to why the strategy of Enos is not employed more frequently. Why do we hear so little about the threats of "wars, and contentions, and destructions?" Why are we not continually reminded of death and the duration of eternity?
I suggest that we are given these reminders, but indirectly. We are asked to read the scriptures. We are asked to study the Bible and the Book of Mormon. We are taught that the messages of these ancient prophets (especially those in the Book of Mormon) are specifically intended for us in modern times.
It becomes everyone who reads these scriptures not to skim over the short books or the minor prophets. There are messages in many of them (both the Bible and the Book of Mormon) that warn us of the dangers that come from not heeding the counsel of the Lord. There are promises and examples that demonstrate the power and peace available to those that do follow him. These messages blend well with the teachings of modern prophets and apostles that remind us of the great love that Christ has for us... such that it becomes easy to see that God is actively trying not only to grant us incredible blessings, but also that he is trying to save us from terrible harm.
Perhaps being aware of what awful destruction awaits those that fend for themselves rather than come to Christ can provide a feeling of peace and confidence.
The famous Confederate General Stonewall Jackson is quoted as saying this:
"Captain, my religious belief teaches me to feel as safe in battle as in bed. God has fixed the time for my death. I do not concern myself about that, but to be always ready, no matter when it may overtake me. Captain, that is the way all men should live, and then all would be equally brave." (The Oxford Dictionary of Civil War Quotations, 2006)
Friday, February 27, 2015
The Tongue of Angels
When I was very young, I remember going on trips to Los Angeles to visit the LDS Temple there. It is a large building set up on a hill on Santa Monica Blvd, surrounded by lovely landscaping without fountains and trees. The outside of this temple, for the most part, is plain. It does not have the ornate granite look on the temple in Salt Lake City, nor does it have the stunning white spires of the temple in San Diego or the temple in Washington DC. Perhaps it is because of its plain appearance that the golden statue fixed to the top of it always seemed to stand out to me.
The golden statue depicts an angel sounding a trumpet facing the east. The concept comes from a biblical depiction in the book of Revelation, chapter 14, verses 6-7: "And I saw another angel fly in the midst of heaven, having the everlasting gospel to preach unto them that dwell on the earth, and to every nation, and kindred, and tongue, and people, Saying with a loud voice, Fear God, and give glory to him; for the hour of his judgment is come: and worship him that made heaven, and earth, and the sea, and the fountains of waters."
The fulfillment of John's prophecy was realized when the angel Moroni appeared to the prophet Joseph Smith, and brought a message that led to the translation of the Book of Mormon, which contains a record that confirms the divinity of Jesus Christ and his everlasting gospel, and is actively being distributed to nations all over the world.
The concept of an angel bringing a message from God is not unique to the coming of the Book of Mormon. The Bible names the angel Gabriel as the messenger who brought the news of Christ's birth to Mary. There are numerous passages where angels have come to bring messages, warnings, or instruction from heaven. Even going back to the garden of Eden, God placed Cherubim and a flaming sword to keep the way of the tree of life.
Over time, popular culture has influenced the impressions men have had of how angels appear and interact with people. Small, plump, nude babies with feathered wings are popular in some depictions, perhaps portraying some sort of innocence. Elegant figures with ornate dresses are common sights at the tops of Christmas trees.
Though I know they are not accurate representations, I confess to being impressed with fantasy portrayals of angels with majestic wings, bright armor, and shining swords. Though I do not typically include images in my posts, I thought these might be enjoyable:
As entertaining as these fantasy characters are, the actual divine messengers do not appear like this. In fact, because they are messengers it is rare that visibility is important at all in their work... The Book of Mormon prophet Nephi expounded a bit on this when he was trying to explain the concept of "speaking with the tongue of angels" (2 Nephi 32:2-3)
The idea is that angels speak by the power of the Holy Ghost. The methods by which the Holy Ghost, or the Spirit of God communicates are found in various places in the scriptures.
Consider the disciples on the road to Emmaus who spoke with the resurrected Christ. After hearing his teachings, they confirmed with one another this spiritual influence by saying "Did not our heart burn within us, while he talked with us by the way, and while he opened to us the scriptures?" (Luke 24:32)
Consider the word of the Lord coming to the prophet Elijah on Horeb. He recognized the messenger that prepared him for his journey as an angel, and he knew enough to realize that the wind and the fire and the earthquake were not the voice of the Lord... After these things came a still small voice, which he recognized, and answered. (1 Kings 19)
Consider the teachings of the Apostle Paul in Galatians: "But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, longsuffering, gentleness, goodness, faith, Meekness, temperance: against such there is no law." (Galatians 5:22-23)
The other important emphasis of Nephi is not just the method by which they speak, but the message they speak: "Angels speak by the power of the Holy Ghost; wherefore, they speak the words of Christ. Wherefore, I said unto you, feast upon the words of Christ; for behold, the words of Christ will tell you all things what ye should do." (2 Nephi 32:3)
The message of angels is the message of God. When the voice of the Father has been heard, it is almost always to point us toward his son, Jesus Christ. (Mark 1:11, 2 Nephi 31:11, 2 Peter 1:17, Matthew 17:5, JSH 1:17)
Because the teaching of Christ is to have faith, to repent, and to follow him... so is the message of an angel. Of course there may be certain circumstances where more specific guidance is needed, but for the vast majority of people... they are probably already aware of things they ought to be doing better. Anyone who has felt persuaded to change their life to become a better person has, most likely, been persuaded by the tongue of angels.
While it is fine for fantasy stories to portray angels as powerful divine warriors, for the vast majority of the time, they need not seem aloof or withdrawn... in truth, the tongue of angels can be heard by those who listen.
Friday, February 13, 2015
Hellfire and Damnation (no, seriously)
When I was growing up, I had a large number of friends that had different Christian beliefs. Some of them were Catholic, and some held to protestant views. Many of them agreed that the general plan for humanity after life was over involved a judgement before God and an eternal life in either heaven or hell. Though we never had long discussions about these subjects... there was a general consensus that going to heaven meant living with God in peace and happiness, and going to hell meant perpetual torture at the hands of the devil.
As a latter day saint, my instruction in the plan of salvation was a bit more complicated than the view that humans were created here on earth, and that based on our faith or behavior (or a combination of faith and behaviors) we would be assigned our eternal destination of eternal peace or eternal pain.
The Mormon view of the plan of salvation involves life beginning before mortality... such that being called children of God was not some figurative statement representing divine affection for humanity. Similar to other views, it included mortality, and at death, some form of judgement where people would be assigned a destination of peace and rest or pain and confinement... but that these places would only be temporary. After the end of the earth, there will be another judgement wherein people will be assigned permanent destinations in one of three kingdoms of differing glories.
Some people found this interpretation confusing, and inconsistent with scripture. Of course, few of them were aware of the passage in 1 Corinthians 15:40-42:
"There are also celestial bodies, and bodies terrestrial: but the glory of the celestial is one, and the glory of the terrestrial is another. There is one glory of the sun, and another glory of the moon, and another glory of the stars: for one star differeth from another star in glory. So also is the resurrection of the dead. It is sown in corruption; it is raised in incorruption..."
In my young mind, I believed this settled the question, but as I grew older, and read from the scriptures more on my own, I became confused as to why so many prophets and scripture passages used the heaven and hell model if it was incomplete.
Consider in the Book of Mormon, 2 Nephi 9:34 - "Wo unto the liar, for he shall be thrust down to hell." What does that even mean? A person who lies (and presumably does not repent of this sin) will be sent to a lake of fire for perpetual torture? Or a person will be uncomfortable for a temporary amount of time until final judgement where they will inherit a lesser kingdom? Why say "hell" if it is so ambiguous?
Consider also the imagery in 2 Nephi 9:15-16 - "And it shall come to pass that when all men shall have passed from this first death unto life, insomuch as they have become immortal, they must appear before the judgment-seat of the Holy One of Israel; and then cometh the judgment, and then must they be judged according to the holy judgment of God. And assuredly, as the Lord liveth, for the Lord God hath spoken it, and it is his eternal word, which cannot pass away, that they who are righteous shall be righteous still, and they who are filthy shall be filthy still; wherefore, they who are filthy are the devil and his angels; and they shall go away into everlasting fire, prepared for them; and their torment is as a lake of fire and brimstone, whose flame ascendeth up forever and ever and has no end."
Why describe everlasting fire, and torment as a lake of fire and brimstone with unquenchable flames if these things do not exist?
Even Jesus himself said "...but whosoever shall say, Thou fool, shall be in danger of hell fire." (Matthew 5:22)
Ultimately, the idea is that sin is bad. This is particularly important when discussing sinful behavior that does not seem to produce harmful consequences. If two adults consent to extramarital intimacy, who is getting harmed? If a person decides to indulge in some substance abuse in the privacy of their own home, who is getting harmed? If a person decides to steal from someone who has an abundance of wealth and insurance to cover their losses, who is getting harmed? If a person takes credit for things they did not do, what does it really hurt if they gain a small advantage?
It is a constant need for religion to convey the seriousness of actions that do not seem immediately harmful. Unfortunately, the difficulty in doing so increases when faiths get into petty arguments regarding minutia and ignore elements that can truly erode the moral strength of society. As time has passed, it has become increasingly popular for those who seek to establish secularism to mock those who try to maintain protections for time-honored social values. Some of this mockery is even understandable as there have been some who have used religious and other persuasion to benefit themselves rather than their congregations or society in general. Requesting evidence and clarity can help reduce the influence of falsehoods that inflate themselves with religious imagery such as ascending flames, lakes of fire, and perpetual damnation.
That having been said, the idea of hellfire and damnation is still important where the deeds of individuals cause unseen harm. Whether the actions involve drinking contaminated water, avoiding potentially life-saving vaccinations, or transgressing the commandments of God... these deeds can result in actual harm. Though the victims of bad water or a lack of vaccines can be observed to have been harmed in a relatively short period of time... the victims of some sinful behavior may not be revealed in a single lifetime, but that does not mean the crimes are imaginary. The real victim of transgression actually experienced the torturous consequences of this behavior... and it is his prophets and apostles who through the ages have described the effects as being like unending flames, perpetual torment, and lakes of fire and brimstone. In any sin, Jesus Christ is a victim. The thoughtless idle words and deeds of men literally caused a person to endure such crippling pain that blood oozed out of his skin. (Luke 22:44)
These actual consequences of sin fall upon those that commit them unless they agree to accept the saving power of Jesus Christ... which literally saves men from having to endure these horrendous ordeals. Understanding not only that God has tremendous rewards for those that heed his words, but that he literally seeks to prevent tremendous harm from coming upon us, should motivate us to better keep his laws. No doubt, there are many reasons to choose the right... and even if avoiding hellfire and damnation are among them, then humanity is better off than it otherwise would be.
As a latter day saint, my instruction in the plan of salvation was a bit more complicated than the view that humans were created here on earth, and that based on our faith or behavior (or a combination of faith and behaviors) we would be assigned our eternal destination of eternal peace or eternal pain.
The Mormon view of the plan of salvation involves life beginning before mortality... such that being called children of God was not some figurative statement representing divine affection for humanity. Similar to other views, it included mortality, and at death, some form of judgement where people would be assigned a destination of peace and rest or pain and confinement... but that these places would only be temporary. After the end of the earth, there will be another judgement wherein people will be assigned permanent destinations in one of three kingdoms of differing glories.
Some people found this interpretation confusing, and inconsistent with scripture. Of course, few of them were aware of the passage in 1 Corinthians 15:40-42:
"There are also celestial bodies, and bodies terrestrial: but the glory of the celestial is one, and the glory of the terrestrial is another. There is one glory of the sun, and another glory of the moon, and another glory of the stars: for one star differeth from another star in glory. So also is the resurrection of the dead. It is sown in corruption; it is raised in incorruption..."
In my young mind, I believed this settled the question, but as I grew older, and read from the scriptures more on my own, I became confused as to why so many prophets and scripture passages used the heaven and hell model if it was incomplete.
Consider in the Book of Mormon, 2 Nephi 9:34 - "Wo unto the liar, for he shall be thrust down to hell." What does that even mean? A person who lies (and presumably does not repent of this sin) will be sent to a lake of fire for perpetual torture? Or a person will be uncomfortable for a temporary amount of time until final judgement where they will inherit a lesser kingdom? Why say "hell" if it is so ambiguous?
Consider also the imagery in 2 Nephi 9:15-16 - "And it shall come to pass that when all men shall have passed from this first death unto life, insomuch as they have become immortal, they must appear before the judgment-seat of the Holy One of Israel; and then cometh the judgment, and then must they be judged according to the holy judgment of God. And assuredly, as the Lord liveth, for the Lord God hath spoken it, and it is his eternal word, which cannot pass away, that they who are righteous shall be righteous still, and they who are filthy shall be filthy still; wherefore, they who are filthy are the devil and his angels; and they shall go away into everlasting fire, prepared for them; and their torment is as a lake of fire and brimstone, whose flame ascendeth up forever and ever and has no end."
Why describe everlasting fire, and torment as a lake of fire and brimstone with unquenchable flames if these things do not exist?
Even Jesus himself said "...but whosoever shall say, Thou fool, shall be in danger of hell fire." (Matthew 5:22)
Ultimately, the idea is that sin is bad. This is particularly important when discussing sinful behavior that does not seem to produce harmful consequences. If two adults consent to extramarital intimacy, who is getting harmed? If a person decides to indulge in some substance abuse in the privacy of their own home, who is getting harmed? If a person decides to steal from someone who has an abundance of wealth and insurance to cover their losses, who is getting harmed? If a person takes credit for things they did not do, what does it really hurt if they gain a small advantage?
It is a constant need for religion to convey the seriousness of actions that do not seem immediately harmful. Unfortunately, the difficulty in doing so increases when faiths get into petty arguments regarding minutia and ignore elements that can truly erode the moral strength of society. As time has passed, it has become increasingly popular for those who seek to establish secularism to mock those who try to maintain protections for time-honored social values. Some of this mockery is even understandable as there have been some who have used religious and other persuasion to benefit themselves rather than their congregations or society in general. Requesting evidence and clarity can help reduce the influence of falsehoods that inflate themselves with religious imagery such as ascending flames, lakes of fire, and perpetual damnation.
That having been said, the idea of hellfire and damnation is still important where the deeds of individuals cause unseen harm. Whether the actions involve drinking contaminated water, avoiding potentially life-saving vaccinations, or transgressing the commandments of God... these deeds can result in actual harm. Though the victims of bad water or a lack of vaccines can be observed to have been harmed in a relatively short period of time... the victims of some sinful behavior may not be revealed in a single lifetime, but that does not mean the crimes are imaginary. The real victim of transgression actually experienced the torturous consequences of this behavior... and it is his prophets and apostles who through the ages have described the effects as being like unending flames, perpetual torment, and lakes of fire and brimstone. In any sin, Jesus Christ is a victim. The thoughtless idle words and deeds of men literally caused a person to endure such crippling pain that blood oozed out of his skin. (Luke 22:44)
These actual consequences of sin fall upon those that commit them unless they agree to accept the saving power of Jesus Christ... which literally saves men from having to endure these horrendous ordeals. Understanding not only that God has tremendous rewards for those that heed his words, but that he literally seeks to prevent tremendous harm from coming upon us, should motivate us to better keep his laws. No doubt, there are many reasons to choose the right... and even if avoiding hellfire and damnation are among them, then humanity is better off than it otherwise would be.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)