The LDS members and the Kingdom of God

[_Franktalk]

Hi Sheryl,

I have often pondered this very thing. I have conflicts on this issue. Jesus said that we would all save an animal that fell into a ditch even on the Sabbath. So if we can save an animal we can also save our family if it is in peril. But where does one draw the line? If we see someone as a threat can we act even though we know that sometime we may be in error? I have to say it all boils down to intent. If our desire is to kill then it is wrong but if we use lethal force to protect it is right? But that too can be all screwed up. Many people have fought wars one country with another. Many of these were from a perceived threat of land, goods, religion, and culture to name a few. Even Hitler had what he thought were noble reasons for doing what he did. I think that many of our reasons are good but many are bad. What I know for sure is that each of us learns from our own actions and the actions of others. I guess what is important is not to repeat errors.

[_Roger Morrison]

Sheryl, thank You for your thoughts re the shooting & on homosexuality! I readily say "Amen"!
Would like to say more, but out-of-town family just came in... Maybe later as your understanding of really Jesus stuff runs counter to the old-time-religion stuff that tends to contaminate humanity with fear and loathing...
Highest regards, Roger

[_sheryl]

Hi Sheryl,

I have often pondered this very thing. I have conflicts on this issue. Jesus said that we would all save an animal that fell into a ditch even on the Sabbath. So if we can save an animal we can also save our family if it is in peril. But where does one draw the line? If we see someone as a threat can we act even though we know that sometime we may be in error? I have to say it all boils down to intent. If our desire is to kill then it is wrong but if we use lethal force to protect it is right? But that too can be all screwed up. Many people have fought wars one country with another. Many of these were from a perceived threat of land, goods, religion, and culture to name a few. Even Hitler had what he thought were noble reasons for doing what he did. I think that many of our reasons are good but many are bad. What I know for sure is that each of us learns from our own actions and the actions of others. I guess what is important is not to repeat errors.

You are right Frank in what you are implying: things are not as black and white as they might seem. What is right and good is not absolute. What might be good in one situation might be evil in another, and so we are to pray for wisdom. It is Wisdom, God's Wisdom that allows us to discern what is right and good, what is best, in a given situation.

And yes, wisdom also comes from experience. From trial and error. And so how can we say that someone who has learned or is learning from a deed has done something evil.

All things work for the good of those who love God and are called according to his purposes.

This scripture points to a differentiation that we can address - what is of Caesar's or of this world, or for the world's purposes, and what is of God's, or for God's purposes. Another way to put this, what is of the Law (that which sustains creation) and what is of Grace (that which leads to liberation or salvation). Yes, both are ultimately for God's purposes, but here we see a teaching of two standards of conduct. Jesus came to call the elect or those who have evolved sufficiently (those who love God and are called according to his purposes) to the higher standard, to what we can call the standard of love. Those who are not ready live by this standard, are to live by the Law.

And so when we speak of the Hitlers of this world, we are speaking of something according to the Law. And yes this worldly situation was so large that the elect, those who live by love, were caught up in it as well. Some of the elect were forced into circumstances requiring their direct involvement, the draft for example, or their homes being invaded. The elect who were not forced into direct involvement became involved out of love. Those with wisdom knew how to pray according to the Law, to invoke the Law upon evil, to bring it to a halt. Such say that according to the Law, a lesser evil - the United States at war, defeated a greater evil, the Axis countries. As scripture teaches us though the Law is necessary, those who live by it and not by faith or by Grace can do no good, so all that they do is evil. But still we have greater and we have lesser evil. And sometimes the greater evil needs to be abolished so that this world can be sustained as a fitting place for the evolution of souls.

Remember Jesus teaching that though he brought Grace into the world, the Law still stood until all is accomplished, until all are redeemed? (And as the Jews at the time understood - Jesus was speaking of more than simply the Torah, but all the Laws of God that bring creation into being and sustain it. The Law existing in this world is a reflection of that Law. How it appears in this world is dependent upon the evolutionary state of humanity.)

And so the question is what are we personally living by, the Law or Grace? If we are no longer living according to the Law, but by Grace, we are no longer compelled by our bestial self, but instead always compelled by love. Some of us though still living according to our bestial self will experience Grace from time to time, for those living by Grace do so for all of us.

The situation of healing on the Sabbath is speaking of living by Grace. Not being confined by something outside of us telling us what is right and what is wrong, but being moved internally by the Holy Spirit. Again, not all in this world are ready to live like this. The Law is for them.

Now if we apply this wisdom to the situations under question, a young black being murdered by a gun, or those practicing homosexuality being murdered by words, something else might be seen. Even the Law itself is not stagnant in this world, but ever evolving to match the evolution of humanity. At one time, in harmony with the Law, it would have been logical to assume that a young black man with a hoodie walking at night around a neighborhood not his own was probably up to no good. But this is no longer the case - such assumptions are not in harmony with the Law governing us presently, and they certainly are not in alignment with Grace.

A person living under the Law would have been expected in years past to correctly sense danger in such situations. A person though living under Grace, then and now, would have never felt personally in danger. If, for example, a child had been with them in the past, they probably would have made sure he or she was safe at home, but then on their own have gone out to see if they could help the black youth (helping him would include helping him to not commit a crime). It would have been the same then and now - a person living by Grace would seek first to assist, not seek first to defend themselves.

Let's look at the case of homosexuality. According to the Law there was a time when homosexuality was a danger to humanity. Back in the days of Paul, homosexuality meant the rape of young men - homosexuals working the greatest evil by seeking pleasure by bringing harm of others. Of course such despicable behavior was against the Law of God. But this is no longer the case. Homosexuality today means that more of us are able to enter into permanent loving relationships, sharing our lives intimately with another and becoming valuable assets to society.

Those who think that God's Law is against this do not understand God's Law.

And those who live by Grace would never even consider condemning love in any form. So those speaking against homosexuality are the same as those speaking against young blacks walking through neighborhoods not their own, they are not working in harmony with God's Law as it is appears in today's world, much less functioning according to Grace.

Shalom!

Sheryl

[_Franktalk]

Hi Sheryl,

What you say is the way I see scripture as well. It has three states defined. The lowest is when all of the godliness is ignored and man becomes the natural beast. Then there is the law in which most operate. Where men go through life trying to do the right thing but not knowing in many cases what is right. Then at a spiritual level the world is cast aside and love of our fellow man is the guiding principle.

As for love in a homosexual relationship I see your point. Love in any form is a good thing. In both homosexual and heterosexual sex love can be removed and just the carnal is in play. In both cases when we are ruled by the natural beast we have embraced the world and turned from our Father.

Thanks for taking the time to write your post. I am sure that I am not the only one that enjoyed your comments.

Frank

[_bcuzbcuz]

Now one might say that the defensive action of shooting someone with a gun is different that a defensive action of shooting someone with words. But given the teachings of Jesus, I beg to differ. Check out [url=Matthew 5:20-22]Matthew 5[/url]. We murder with our words just the same as we can murder with a gun.

And so I offer that we are all murders, murdering others with our words, feeling justified because of a perceived threat, a threat to ourselves which Jesus, 2000 years ago, taught us is nonexistent.

We sin, we speak poorly of others, even react physically defensively, because we perceive something as being a threat to us, Jesus taught us that this is wrong. No one can actually harm who we really are.
Shalom!

Sheryl

I appreciate your thoughts regarding my question. While I agree that words can damage, I think the physical act of pulling a weapon, like a gun, is pulling forth a weapon of violence with intent for violence. The age when humanity used weapons strictly for hunting is past. Carrying a gun for defense is carrying a gun for violence.

I can see usefulness in words, I find no usefulness in weapons. Carrying a weapon will not protect me or my family from harm any more than wearing a seatbelt in a plane will stop the plane from crashing. Harm can come in many forms. It can be violence by strangers or evilness on the internet. Weapons of violence are equally ineffectual to both harms.

I get the feeling that for you, the commandment, "Thou shalt not kill" means exactly that. I agree completely. And I think we are equally responsible for our actions and words to protect life. That's why I would run into a burning building, and why I would try to save those in the building. Just because they are strangers doesn't mean my life is more valuable.

[_sheryl]

Hi Sheryl,

What you say is the way I see scripture as well. It has three states defined. The lowest is when all of the godliness is ignored and man becomes the natural beast. Then there is the law in which most operate. Where men go through life trying to do the right thing but not knowing in many cases what is right. Then at a spiritual level the world is cast aside and love of our fellow man is the guiding principle.

As for love in a homosexual relationship I see your point. Love in any form is a good thing. In both homosexual and heterosexual sex love can be removed and just the carnal is in play. In both cases when we are ruled by the natural beast we have embraced the world and turned from our Father.

Thanks for taking the time to write your post. I am sure that I am not the only one that enjoyed your comments.

Frank

Shabbat Shalom Frank!

I like the three distinctions that you made. Let's use them in an example.

When we realize that human consciousness is evolving, we likewise realize that God's revelation of himself is likewise evolving, for as we evolve God can reveal more of Godself to us.

Let's look a culture in which men still behave like animals, like the beasts of the field, without being able to control their animal responses. Wouldn't it be loving, and even wise, for a woman to cover all her hair and skin with clothing, so that she would not be the cause of men stumbling, or succumbing to their bestial natures?

We might even be able to see that in a bestial culture, the Law of Love would require women to clothe themselves completely.

But let's look at a culture that has evolved a bit, so that most men are able to control their bestial natures, and there are laws in place to protect women from the men who cannot. The burden is no longer on the woman, she in this evolved culture is given a bit more freedom, such that it would now be unloving to demand that all women clothe themselves in the same way. It would not only be unloving, but also unwise. For in a society that was evolving, becoming able to control their bestial natures, a potential temptation is needed, so that those who are still behaving bestial can either see themselves and overcome, or be revealed by the Law and receive the help that they need.

And so to say that the appearance of God's Law is absolute is a grave misunderstanding. It is more accurate to call it a Law of Love, as Paul did, and as humanity's ability to love expands, the actual physical Law reduces. Or for those of humanity whose ability to love has expanding, the law applicable to them has reduced. Why surely at some point, when all carnal or bestial nature is overcome, clothing itself will be optional - purely as an expression of the role self is playing.

And it is revealed in scripture that in heaven we are like angels, neither male nor female, and so any reflection of the Law that is gender or race specific will eventually pass away. Gosh we have already seen it with slavery. The Torah gives laws governing slavery thereby giving the appearance that God endorses slavery. We know better, just as we are now knowing better that any Biblical condemnation of homosexuality was not an expression of God's position against same sex relationship, but a restraint needed at that time, against an unloving practice.

God is a living God, and what he reveals to himself is living, right here and right now. It is not something that is stagnant, the same yesterday as it is today, for we are not the same. Shoot, we can see this in our individual lives. What we can receive from God now is so much greater than what we were able to receive from God 20 years ago.

Shalom!

Sheryl

[_sheryl]

I appreciate your thoughts regarding my question. While I agree that words can damage, I think the physical act of pulling a weapon, like a gun, is pulling forth a weapon of violence with intent for violence. The age when humanity used weapons strictly for hunting is past. Carrying a gun for defense is carrying a gun for violence.

I can see usefulness in words, I find no usefulness in weapons. Carrying a weapon will not protect me or my family from harm any more than wearing a seatbelt in a plane will stop the plane from crashing. Harm can come in many forms. It can be violence by strangers or evilness on the internet. Weapons of violence are equally ineffectual to both harms.

I get the feeling that for you, the commandment, "Thou shalt not kill" means exactly that. I agree completely. And I think we are equally responsible for our actions and words to protect life. That's why I would run into a burning building, and why I would try to save those in the building. Just because they are strangers doesn't mean my life is more valuable.

Hi bcuzbcuz!

Yes, I agree, most of us here would run into a burning building to save those inside. The difference I was pointing to was our perception of the burning building. In my tradition, we consider this whole world a burning building and many righteous souls incarnate here purely to save those who are trapped.

So that existing in this world is running into the burning building. And when we see an actual building on fire, we might not consider that to be the greatest threat to those trapped inside.

You might remember a teaching from Jesus, do not worry about those who can kill your body, but he who can destroy both soul and body. And so my response to you was yes, we should act to preserve physical life, but that there is something more precious than physical life and that is eternal life of the soul.

The example that was given was that only one could be saved. My response was that I would value the souls of the whole group over the physical life of one. If on the other hand, I could have saved them all physically, I would have done so, and then later used the close call on their physical lives to perhaps engage in a conversation about eternal life.

Now that I look at this again, may I offer you a different response. My own ability to help souls here has some value, my own life has value - which I negated in a self righteous way in the first response, and so I see now that it would not be wise to give up my own life unless God guided me to do so, for the benefit of others. And so if I could only save one, along with myself, I would cry out to God which one which one! looking for guidance in who to quickly grab, whose life would bring the most benefit to humanity. I would have to put all self judgment aside and look to God to guide. For a baby can grow up to be a serial killer, just as an old crippled person could be the one to inspire a child to grow up to find a cure for cancer.

Shabbat Shalom!

Sheryl

[_Roger Morrison]

Sheryl
You said:All things work for the good of those who love God and are called according to his purposes.
While that may be, according to some scripture, it seems counter to the teaching that God is unconditionally bound to "bless according to an action of a person." Regardless of their faith, or love of God. Fortunately, the sun shines and the rain falls on everyone. Otherwise God would be a cursing God, not a loving God...

This scripture points to a differentiation that we can address - what is of Caesar's or of this world, or for the world's purposes, and what is of God's, or for God's purposes. Another way to put this, what is of the Law (that which sustains creation) and what is of Grace (that which leads to liberation or salvation). Yes, both are ultimately for God's purposes, but here we see a teaching of two standards of conduct. Jesus came to call the elect or those who have evolved sufficiently (those who love God and are called according to his purposes) to the higher standard, to what we can call the standard of love. Those who are not ready live by this standard, are to live by the Law.

Sheryl: Respectfully, it seems as if you might not be in line with your suggestion that scriptures were written at a time of limited knowledge and understanding, to serve the purpose of their times. "Law", today is not limited to God or judiciary but much broader to scientific laws; natural laws, from which there is no escape. Whether believer or atheist there is no escaping gravity, etc. "God's purpose" (your words) is served by those who do what is right to benefit humanity and the universe. I think the "elect" are lovers of humanity. Whatever their religious or political leaning.

And so when we speak of the Hitlers of this world, we are speaking of something according to the Law. And yes this worldly situation was so large that the elect, those who live by love, were caught up in it as well. Some of the elect were forced into circumstances requiring their direct involvement, the draft for example, or their homes being invaded. The elect who were not forced into direct involvement became involved out of love. Those with wisdom knew how to pray according to the Law, to invoke the Law upon evil, to bring it to a halt. Such say that according to the Law, a lesser evil - the United States at war, defeated a greater evil, the Axis countries. As scripture teaches us though the Law is necessary, those who live by it and not by faith or by Grace can do no good, so all that they do is evil. But still we have greater and we have lesser evil. And sometimes the greater evil needs to be abolished so that this world can be sustained as a fitting place for the evolution of souls.

As I see it, "the Evolution of souls" is an ongoing process, as much carried forth, generally speaking, by humanitarians than by theologians and theocrats. "The evolutionary state of humanity" (your words) has advanced further in the last 70 years than ever before...

And so the question is what are we personally living by, the Law or Grace? If we are no longer living according to the Law, but by Grace, we are no longer compelled by our bestial self, but instead always compelled by love. Some of us though still living according to our bestial self will experience Grace from time to time, for those living by Grace do so for all of us.

Let's look at the case of homosexuality. According to the Law there was a time when homosexuality was a danger to humanity. Back in the days of Paul, homosexuality meant the rape of young men - homosexuals working the greatest evil by seeking pleasure by bringing harm of others. Of course such despicable behavior was against the Law of God. But this is no longer the case. Homosexuality today means that more of us are able to enter into permanent loving relationships, sharing our lives intimately with another and becoming valuable assets to society. Those who think that God's Law is against this do not understand God's Law.

And those who live by Grace would never even consider condemning love in any form. So those speaking against homosexuality are the same as those speaking against young blacks walking through neighborhoods not their own, they are not working in harmony with God's Law as it is appears in today's world, much less functioning according to Grace.
Very enlightened understanding!

[_Franktalk]

Roger,

Just how much do you accept the understanding of this universe as described by man? Do you see that understanding as an absolute? What if the laws of this universe were an arbitrary element in the creation of this universe. What if we could have all kinds of universes with all kinds of laws governing the parts of each universe. This concept of different laws for different universes is not new and is pretty much accepted as possible by many scientist. So where does that leave you with your understanding of gravity, or any other measured thing in this universe? In my mind it makes all of the laws or parts of this universe not an absolute. To seek an absolute we must go beyond this creation and seek answers there. I think of this universe as a box, a created box. I seek outside the box. Please don't get me wrong I love to study the relationships of the parts of this universe. I know a lot about what people call science. But I place it low on the shelf of things which I hold to be truth. To me all of the observations and theories of science are limited in scope, limited to this realm and are not absolutes. This understanding of mine has allowed me to cast off this world quite nicely and seek answers elsewhere. In my world I see people who are wrapped up in this world and can't see the larger picture. It is like the old saying it is hard to drain the swamp when you are up to your neck in alligators. But from where I sit the alligators are phantoms that only have power if you give it to them.

http://www.physics.sfsu.edu/~lwilliam/s ... index.html

Many have taken the anthropic principle and declared that we are just one of an infinite number of different universes. They say that we are lucky that we are here so life could develop. What do you say?

[_sheryl]

Sheryl
You said:All things work for the good of those who love God and are called according to his purposes.
While that may be, according to some scripture, it seems counter to the teaching that God is unconditionally bound to "bless according to an action of a person." Regardless of their faith, or love of God. Fortunately, the sun shines and the rain falls on everyone. Otherwise God would be a cursing God, not a loving God...

Hi Roger!

I think I will differ in what you might have heard before.

God has free will. He is not unconditionally bound to do anything or not do anything. However the Law that God established to sustain and evolve creation is in place and will function according to design, unless 'God interferes'. God's interference with the Law is called Grace. Actually God is Grace, but we could not endure God's full Grace, or a full revelation of himself, so the Law was created to infuse creation with gradations of Grace according to each's ability to receive. The Law thus measures or tests our ability to be blessed, and then gives blessings according to what has been dictated by Law.

We have to understand that the Old Testament was written according to how God was perceived thousands of years ago. The New Testament was a New Revelation of God given to a people's who could receive more of God. Today, there continues to be a New Revelation of God occurring, according to what can be received today by a continually evolving humanity.

With each New Revelation we are not seeing a new God but seeing God more deeply and more clearly.

Sheryl: Respectfully, it seems as if you might not be in line with your suggestion that scriptures were written at a time of limited knowledge and understanding, to serve the purpose of their times. "Law", today is not limited to God or judiciary but much broader to scientific laws; natural laws, from which there is no escape. Whether believer or atheist there is no escaping gravity, etc. "God's purpose" (your words) is served by those who do what is right to benefit humanity and the universe. I think the "elect" are lovers of humanity. Whatever their religious or political leaning.

Indeed the elect are lovers of humanity and are not confined to a specific religious or political leaning. Elect merely means a big brother or sister when it comes to souls, one who is more equipped with overcoming the darkness in this world (darkness being rooted in our delusion of separation resulting in lack and unworthiness.)

And yes, by Law I included all physical laws as well. Logos is what runs everything in all realms of creation! I am not sure though what you mean by me not being in line with my suggestion that scriptures are in line with what humanity is able to receive and understand of God. Surely we see a parallel between scientific discovery and what of God man is able to receive and understand. I guess I am not understanding your comment, for I see science in harmony with spiritual revelation. Often spiritual revelation precedes scientific discovery. Often this is not realized because knowledge of spiritual revelation is not held by the masses.

As I see it, "the Evolution of souls" is an ongoing process, as much carried forth, generally speaking, by humanitarians than by theologians and theocrats. "The evolutionary state of humanity" (your words) has advanced further in the last 70 years than ever before...

Those evolving the most quickly will indeed not be those who hold blindly to older revelations of God, not allowing the New Revelations to provide a greater understanding of the Old. It does not matter what society calls them, in all categories that you offered there are probably those who hold up barriers to evolution and those who join gleefully in it. And yes, humanity has been evolving more rapidly in the last 70 years. It is called a quickening, brought on the by the Second Coming.


Shalom!

Sheryl