Seminarysnoozer

Here is the real question though, when it comes to respecting the law, when the two clash as is it seems to be from this discussion, is it better to respect God's law or the law of the land? Is it better to give importance to the guidelines Christ gave us or try to justify a little tweeking of Christ's laws to make it fit into the law of the land, thus giving more importance to the laws of the land over Christ's commandments? (I am not saying disobeying the law of the land - for those of you that want to find an area of weakness to attack my post, I am just saying where one's priority is) I believe those people that don't respect the law would be better off learning the love of Christ where it seems that many who have posted on this thread have settled with the idea that the only way to get those people to change their ways is to make sure punishment is dealt. That is sooo sad to me. If, we who are Christian have lost hope in that idea, then I guess there is no hope for the criminal. Are we promoting hope in Christ or not?

I am not your judge and it is unfair to try to put me in such a position so that you might defend a specific decision. I wouldn't begin to understand all the details of such a thing and this goes against everything that I am saying. If you want to comment on such matters go ahead. Go ahead and tell us how you make that fit into what Jesus said; "39 But I say unto you, That ye resist not evil: but whosoever shall smite thee on thy right cheek, turn to him the other also. 40And if any man will sue thee at the law, and take away thy coat, let him have thy cloke also. 41 And whosoever shall compel thee to go a mile, go with him twain. 42 Give to him that asketh thee, and from him that would borrow of thee turn not thou away. 43¶Ye have heard that it hath been said, Thou shalt love thy neighbour, and hate thine enemy. 44But I say unto you, Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully use you, and persecute you"

I said "seek out" in that sentence, which you still keep leaving out of your interpretation. This makes it hard to have a conversation with you when you leave out the key words. "Seek out" meaning they enjoy talking about it, or they go beyond what they have been assigned to carry out or have responsibility over. You keep taking that out of your responses. If you plugged in "killing" to this discussion in place of "punishing" you will see where I am coming from. If a soldier sneaks out of camp in the middle of a war to kill his enemy while they sleep only because he enjoys the act of killing and seeks it out, that is different than the killing that takes place on the battlefield under the direction and order of his superiors. If one enjoys the idea of punishing and seeks it out and takes on the responsibility themselves to judge and punish, I think that is wrong. Just like if a soldier learns to enjoy killing and develops a blood lust. In our litigiousness society, where many crimes are on TV, we have come to enjoy the idea of someone getting punished for their crimes. I don't think that is Christian-like. To watch a show on TV, for example, that attempts to outline a case of murder or what have you and one sits in their easy-chair and says to themselves "I think that guy should get thrown away in jail for life"is not Christlike either. That comes from a lust for punishment. So, it is best not to bother ourselves with such punishments. Yes, if there is something that is under our purview such as raising kids or if you are a policeman and that is your job etc, then yes you have to use some judgment, but even then I would hope those people don't "seek out" or develop a liking to punishments. Related to the point of this thread, I don't think we have to worry about making sure someone gets punished in this life. We should desire that they repent and make restitution as they have already started the process of repenting. Otherwise, we don't have to worry whether someone gets the death penalty or life in jail.

You are greatly exaggerating what I said and I think you need to take a breath and really look at what I wrote. I said that as Christians we shouldn't be worried about making sure people get punished. You are taking that to mean that I don't think people should be punished at all. And I am saying, give to Caesar what belongs to Caesar ... which is what D&C 134: 5 says,"that all governments have a right to enact such laws as in their own judgments are best calculated." We shouldn't be concerned with such matters, it is left to the government to use their best calculations to figure this out. But as individuals, I am not going to sit and watch the latest Dateline show or the evening news and debate with my family, "oh, that guy should get the death penalty." I think to desire that someone gets the death penalty for a murder or gets so many years in prison is not Christlike. .... the key word here being DESIRE. You are trying to turn my discussion about what is in a person's heart into absolutes, into specific laws and rules which is not how we are judged anyways. As Christlike individuals there is no benefit in worrying about whether someone will get their full and just punishment because whatever they deserve they will get at Judgment day. Read verse 10 of that same section; "We believe that all religious societies have a right to deal with their members for disorderly conduct, according to the rules and regulations of such societies; provided that such dealings be for fellowship and good standing; but we do not believe that any religious society has authority to try men on the right of property or life, to take from them this world’s goods, or to put them in jeopardy of either life or limb, or to inflict any physical punishment upon them. They can only excommunicate them from their society, and withdraw from them their fellowship." and verse 9 :"We do not believe it just to mingle religious influence with civil government, whereby one religious society is fostered and another proscribed in its spiritual privileges, and the individual rights of its members, as citizens, denied." Accepting it and pushing for it are two different things. We should not be pushing for punishments, desiring that someone else gets punished or take any kind of pride or pleasure or sense of responsibility(which is the same as pride) in punishments. If one feels like it is their personal duty to make sure someone gets punished (i.e. - hiring a lawyer to make sure someone gets the full extent of the law thrown at them), I believe that person has crossed the line beyond what "Christlike" means. That is my opinion.

Spiritual death.

I wouldn't say that, but why are you trying to catch me in my words? I don't think teachers should "punish" kids. I would hope that they would be able to resolve the situation without punishment. What is it that you think Jesus was trying to teach then when he said to give the man your cloke who sues you at law and not to resist evil then? Under what circumstances do you think you have the right to know someone well enough to judge them and punish them?

I am not in "favor" for those ways of dealing with things that would bring chaos to our world if we didn't do anything about it. But if the 'less than best way' to deal with those things is all we have, then I accept it. That doesn't mean that I would promote it or seek it out or ask for more punishments as a Christian. I tell my children all the time "two wrongs don't make a right". Is that a wrong teaching? Or should I promote an "eye for an eye" mentality. "If a kid hits you in school, hit him back?" Or, "If a kid hits you in school, make sure the principle knows about it so he can get punished?" ... No, what I tell my children is, if a kid does something wrong to you then you tell them to stop, show them love, put an arm around them and be their friend. If that doesn't work then stay away from them. If it continues then you can tell your teacher, privately but try to be their friend first. Is that wrong?

I have a hard time with this, of course, no one is perfect. I try to correct my children's behavior with positive reinforcement and calm discussion. I limit activity and exposure to things that they are not mature enough to have in their lives but I don't see that as a "punishment". Again, I am not perfect. But, that doesn't diminish the goal of being Christlike in every way we can. Don't get me wrong, I think the laws of the land are very important to keep civility and our freedoms but I don't think that we should bother ourselves with making sure someone is punished to the maximum degree allowable by law, for example, in any given crime. We shouldn't be hiring lawyers to make sure someone is sentenced to death or gets the maximum amount of jail time for something they did etc. Likewise, we shouldn't worry about it or be concerned about how much punishment someone gets in this life for their crimes and sins. Leave that to those that find that kind of thing important. If you want to be critical about what I am saying then explain to me what those versus in Matthew means to you. What does it mean to love your enemies and to hand him your cloke, to those that sue you at the law? ...to turn the other cheek? What does it mean to you to not resist evil as it is said from the mouth of Jesus?

Then, you didn't read the whole sentence. I said "seek out punishments" for someone else. This isn't referring to oneself and the repentance process.

This is why, I think for us we shouldn't worry about earthly punishments. Give to Caesar that which belongs to Caesar. I have a hard time understanding how one who claims they are christian would seek out any punishments for anyone in this life. The punishments that God will ask of the individual will be based in Eternal laws which will be just and true, so there is no reason to worry about whether a person will be punished correctly or not for their sins. This is why sometimes victims of crimes will be hurt twice, once for the crime itself and secondly if they don't have forgiveness in their hearts, that is a huge test, I think one of the most difficult tests in this life. For us, our christian duty is to always forgive; Matthew 5:38 "Ye have heard that it hath been said, An eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth: 39 But I say unto you, That ye resist not evil: but whosoever shall smite thee on thy right cheek, turn to him the other also. 40 And if any man will sue thee at the law, and take away thy coat, let him have thy cloke also. 41 And whosoever shall compel thee to go a mile, go with him twain. 42 Give to him that asketh thee, and from him that would borrow of thee turn not thou away. 43 Ye have heard that it hath been said, Thou shalt love thy neighbour, and hate thine enemy. 44But I say unto you, Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully use you, and persecute you"

There is one thing my brother tells me is not confidential that I thought would be; he told me that if a man was married in the temple, got divorced but not a temple divorce and married again that the previous marriage remains on his church records. It seems, then, all the bishopric would know which men have been married in the temple previously. I was a little surprised by that. I am surprised that they don't simply have on the record 'endowment' or 'temple married' as opposed to listing the previous marriage.

I appreciate your comments and your willingness to share your experiences which are valuable. My intentions were never to discredit anybody's experiences only to try to better understand how those interactions work. And I, especially, am not posting these things with any intent to judge. I think we are all in the same boat, pretty much. Thanks for sharing your experiences. :) If you have seen some of my other posts and questions posed on this forum, you'll see I have an interest in how the spirit interacts with the body, and what the spirit (heavenly influences) and body (carnal influences) represent. I find that topic very interesting.

That is exactly what I have been saying to be careful about, "he can take claims of worldly thing around and against you". I think that is true, that the devil's attacks are via the worldly things around us like you said, not a direct attack on the spirit. That exactly is and was my point. "Possession" seems to claim that the devil can attack our spirits directly, without any invitation. I disagree with that. He can only have influence on our spirit via our bodies and only if we let him. I don't think I have been saying anything against preparation or armor against the devil. However, I think one that suggests that there is a possibility of an uninvited attack on the spirit would be saying that. I have been suggesting that the preparedness should be given to the right place, which is the body. By doing that we keep the spirit strong and in charge. We don't want to be led by the body but led by our spirits. If anything, I have been saying to be more prepared, then someone who claims that the spirits of the devil can randomly push ones spirit out of their body and "possess" them. The preparation, of course, is to keep your physical temple clean and in tune with your own spirit. We haven't been talking about 'righteousness' or self righteousness though, that is your emotional bent on what I have been saying. ... I don't think we disagree as far as that goes. All souls born into this world have power over the devil unless they weaken themselves. That is not a self-righteous statement. I have only been talking about what a "possession" is or could be and therefore what an exorcism is. The devil cannot "spiritually attack" anyone or harm anyone unless the spirit is weakened first by the person letting the devil's influences over the body affect them spiritually first. I am convinced of my spirits power over the devil but I am equally as frightened as you are stating when it comes to the physical influences he has. I think most people think that "possession" is the spirit of the devil going toe to toe with that persons spirit but in reality it is the spirit of the devil affecting the body which in turn affects the spirit. I am simply pointing the line of defense is at the body which includes the purity of thoughts and passions. “All beings who have bodies have power over those who have not. The devil has no power over us only as we permit him. The moment we revolt at anything which comes from God, the devil takes power” (Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, sel. Joseph Fielding Smith [1976], 181). “The spirit is pure, and under the special control and influence of the Lord, but the body is of the earth, and is subject to the power of the Devil, and is under the mighty influence of that fallen nature that is of the earth. If the spirit yields to the body, the Devil then has power to overcome the body and spirit of that man, and he loses both. “Recollect, brethren and sisters, every one of you, that when evil is suggested to you, when it arises in your hearts, it is through the temporal organization. When you are tempted, buffeted, and step out of the way inadvertently; when you are overtaken in a fault, or commit an overt act unthinkingly; when you are full of evil passion, and wish to yield to it, then stop and let the spirit, which God has put into your tabernacles, take the lead. If you do that, I will promise that you will overcome all evil, and obtain eternal lives. But many, very many, let the spirit yield to the body, and are overcome and destroyed” (Discourses of Brigham Young, sel. John A. Widtsoe [1941], 70).

I think my interpretation is based in two things, one is that I worked in the medical field but the other is that I do not fear the devil. As Brigham Young has explained, the devil does not have power over our spirits, he just claims domain over earthly, worldly things such as our bodies. In someone who is righteous and in tune I believe the only thing the devil can do is to physically wrestle the body. How exactly he does that I do not know. But, I don't think he pushes our spirit out of the way so he can gain control of the body. I don't discount the possibility of "exorcism" I am simply proposing a possible explanation of an event that could not otherwise be explained back then .... to some degree. I wasn't there, all we have is what is written about what they experienced. Just realize though, that people "experience" hallucinations, delirium and dreams. I think in the Newel Knight case, one has to try to separate the part of the story that is told by Newel while he is not in his right mind or semi-conscious and the part witnessed by the people there including Joseph Smith. The difference, to me, in the Joseph Smith vision is that his thoughts were clear after the struggle but that is my perception based in faith. It was a true miracle, I have no doubt. I was never arguing that point and I would say the same about the miracles Jesus performed. Jesus has shown his ability to overcome this carnal body and through him and his power our ability to overcome this carnal body, that is the message of his "exorcisms". I don't think Jesus' message is how to win a fight with the devil if he surprise attacks you.

I believe it but you have to realize that a personal "experience" may not be what actually happened. Here is a guy that felt sick of body and mind for some time. His appearance alarmed his wife. Joseph Smith was called in and he could immediately tell that he was "suffering very much in his mind". Those are his words, not mine. And then it sounds to me like he had a seizure. He was sick, confused and then suddenly went into distortions, ultimately resulting in what sounds to me like opisthotonos - "he was caught up off the floor of the apartment and tossed about most fearfully" Opisthotonos is a sudden contraction of the body that causes an arching of the back, head back and appears as if someone comes off the floor. I've seen that myself, several times. It is a very scary thing. Finally Joseph gets hold of his hand. After a seizure people are confused and say all sorts of strange, half awake - half asleep things. Joseph blessed him and then he was calm. At the end of the story, he says "As soon as consciousness returned, his bodily weakness was such that we were obliged to lay him upon his bed and wait upon him for some time." So, his descriptions of seeing a devil leave and him flying up to the ceiling were while he was unconscious. Yes, the people around him saw Joseph calm him down through the power of God and rebuke a "devil", in other words an ailment of the body, possibly. Newel said that he could see a 'devil fly out of him' at a time that he was very much suffering in his mind or he was mostly unconscious. Everyone around him didn't see a 'devil fly out of him'. That was his confused or post-ictal perception of what happened. As a nurse I have seen this scene 100 times over. I have even seen Elders come in at the end of the seizure and calm the patient down and stop the agitation after the seizure itself ends. I am not saying it wasn't a devil "possession" I am just leaving an open mind about what "possession" means with a possible definition being the corrupted and therefore 'evil' body that we all have overpowering the spirit via ailment. And the power of healing revealing itself in the same way people describe exorcism. I would pose the question, if he was truly possessed by a devil to the point of not controlling his body, how would he maintain memory of the event as if he was still himself, talking in the first person? If he was possessed then why did he say he saw a "devil fly out of him"? He wasn't "him" at that point if he was "possessed" unless the possession was actually his own body suppressing his spirit, then it would still be 'him'. Either he was 'possessed' and then he wasn't himself or the devil spirit was only trying to possess him and never really did or the 'devil spirit' an ailment of his own body that Joseph removed. Of those options, it wouldn't make it any less of a miracle if it was an ailment, like a seizure. The human mind tries to interpret what is experienced based on what is familiar. I would think that Joseph and Newel and the adults in the room had very little experience with seizures but had some experience with stories of 'devil possession'.

The man could have had a mental disorder that the people were calling a "demon", how would they know the difference? How would anyone know the difference in some cases. People with split personalities or paranoid schizophrenia or anger personality disorders can suddenly change into a "different" person. Jesus can make the body whole and thus, "remove the demon". At one point the people thought a woman was dead but Jesus said, no she is sleeping. What difference would it make if it was a condition of the body versus an actual evil spirit taking control of the body?

Oh my, took me a while .... but I got it.

I am curious what you think would make a person not "Noble and Great" in the previous life. Would keeping one's first estate not make them "Noble and Great"?

I am not sure about what lessons could be learned regarding faith and morality before the fall. They didn't know about the differences between good and evil, so not much to learn about morality. And they walked and talked with God so there wasn't much faith required while in the garden.

That is based on the string theory. It is a theory, we do not "know" that it is possible to occupy the same space. We are limited by how small we can see these forces. I think the bottom line reason to think about it that way is to realize that an evil spirit can't take over one's body without some form of invitation or "leaving the keys in the car and the engine running" kind of thing. The body can overpower the spirit. And that is what I was proposing in the last few posts. And that is how certain diseases have their effect over the spirit as well. But, I don't think a spirit can directly affect our spirits, only influence them when accepted and listening to it. Like I am not going to hear the chatter on a telephone line unless I put it to my ear. Likewise, the Holy Ghost cannot have an affect unless we keep the connection going.

Thanks for your great responses. I find this interesting. Stroke causes damage within 2 to 3 minutes of lack of blood flow. I was more referring to "brain death" which there are certain criteria that I am too far out from my nursing days to remember all of them but it includes lack of brain waves by EEG and no response to hypercapnia. I recall in one case where Jesus "brought back to life" a woman that He described as not dead, but that she was sleeping. Possibly people thought they were dead because they were in a coma. How would they know the difference? Which brings me to another thought, the "spirits" of the devil may be referring to problems with the car itself, going back to the metaphor of driving a car, the driver being the spirit. Brigham Young was big on discussing our dual beings, both spirit and body and said (I believe on several occasions) that the devil has no power over our spirit only our body. He can only have influence over our spirit through the carnal, the physical body. The spirit of the devil cannot really "wrestle" with our spirits directly. The only thing he can "wrestle" with is the body itself. This is probably why there is so much cross-over between the description of healing and removing "evil spirits". I think there are times where description of removing "evil spirits" is actually a description of Jesus making the body whole. Then that person's spirit is left without having to "wrestle" the "evil" of this carnal state. I don't think the spirit of the devil can wrestle with our spirit only by invitation. But I do think the spirit of the devil can challenge our spirit via influences over the body as with what happened to Job and exactly how the devil challenged Jesus, through carnal desires.

I think, by being here now, we all had to actively choose to be here. We had to want to be here. This life is not the default choice. I think it has to be that way so this life truly becomes a test of faith. If we had to develop an understanding of the plan while here then this life would also become a test of intelligence and understanding which I don't think it is. This test of faith requires that we had a previous understanding and kept our first estate. There may have been other ideas presented but I think it boiled down to two at the time of the great war in heaven. Different than this life, though, we had all knowledge and could not be deceived.

Can you tell me where it says that the Holy Ghost can enter us literally? I know it can be with us always, didn't know he could "enter" us. I have heard some of those stories about near death. I am not sure about actual death, such as brain dead. Most of the stories I have heard about spirits leaving and coming back are in people that are nearly dead. The interesting thing about that is that most people on this forum, when we have had similar discussions, believe that the body cannot exist alive without an attached spirit. Those stories are suggesting the spirit can leave the body, while the body stays alive without a spirit for a period of time and then come back to it. Like you say, we can't really know but I would have a hard time understanding how the spirit actually left the body and then came back to it. If we believe that then I think we have to accept the idea that a living body can stay alive without a spirit. Do you believe it can? Or can it stay alive with another spirit controlling it, which is what is suggested by "possession". It would be a convenient belief as it would support the idea that there could be "bodies" on the earth without spirits before Adam and Eve arrived. And Adam and Eve, being first "man" are the first with spirits attached. I think a belief in true "possession" would have to accept a belief that a body can stay alive without its spirit attached to it.

Your previous quote you said the scriptures are quite clear on the subject and proceeded to say that a fool thinks that he can break away from the flaxen cords of those influences to the point that they can't. Thus, being controlled by those evil influences. Now, you seem to be saying that that person would not be held accountable for their actions as if it parallels someone being sick. You are quite sure of some examples you give there. There are several diseases in which a person has split personalities and can suddenly change the way they act, even common diseases such as rapid cycling manic depression. Schizophrenics can rapidly switch from seemingly normal acting to paranoid or angry and threatening. But I would suggest that a new spirit didn't suddenly jump in the drivers seat of their body but that their body shut off the influence from their spirit. I think, likewise, there are people who ignore spiritual influences over time slowly extinguishing the light of their soul to the point that the primitive body takes over all control. They simply act under carnal influences and when that happens Satan has greater influence and control over their actions, but still the person's spirit hasn't jumped out of the drivers seat. They have just given up control. And they will be held responsible for giving up control of their bodies. The point I am trying to get at is, how do you know that "possession" means that another spirit kicked the person's spirit out of the 'drivers seat' of their body, which is what is commonly understood by "possession"? How do you distinguish that from someone who simply ignores spiritual influences and lets the body itself take control? ... not necessarily another spirit taking control. Maybe "exorcism" really means giving back the control of the body to the spirit and not necessarily kicking out any squatter spirits.

Most LDS believe, according to the Joseph Smith translation, that the spirit took him to the high mountain, not Satan. Satan is not given that power. The reason to make that distinction though is that I think some think that "possession" means that an evil spirit has taken over control of that body which is different than talking about a process in which a person, by choice, allows the influences of evil spirits change their own spirits desire. When said that way, the person is not someone other than themselves. I think most people when they hear about "possession" they consider that person as not being themselves. That is different than one slowly changing over time allowing evil influences to change how they act. How a person feels about this would be revealed by asking if one thinks the person will be held responsible for their actions while "possessed". If one thinks that it is possible for an evil spirit to hijack the body and do what he pleases then she would say that the person possessed by the evil spirit is not held responsible for those actions. If one thinks that the "possession" is by slow invitation then the person still would be responsible for those actions as it is a result of their choice to invite that spirit.