askandanswer

Thank you Laniston, the material you have provided here is helpful in providing a background and description to the events referred to in Matthew 15 and John 4 but I think that's all it does - it doesn't seem to provide any good answers as to why. It is still unclear to me why Jesus did something (taught a woman not of the House of Israel in John 4) when He said in Matthew 15 that He is sent only unto the lost sheep of Israel. It seems unlikely that He went outside His mission statement but this is what seems to be suggested by His actions. I note the comment that the Samaritans are descendents of the Jews but they were also descendents of non-Jewish races as well, and certainly the Samaritans were not considered by the Jews to be Jewish.

Bini, you only told us the thing that's currently bothering you about your former high school friend, you didn't tell us any of the positive things that arise from this friendship. Kind of hard to make a sound decision when only one side of the story is given. When considering whether to unfriend or unfollow, have you given equal consideration to both sides?

Why did Christ teach in Matthew 15: 22 – 24 that He was only sent to the lost sheep of Israel but in John 4: 7 – 30 He taught a woman of Samaria?

But whatsoever thing persuadeth men to do evil, and believe not in Christ, and deny him, and serve not God, then ye may know with a perfect knowledge it is of the devil; for after this manner doth the devil work, for he persuadeth no man to do good, no, not one; neither do his angels; neither do they who subject themselves unto him. It seems to me that sometimes people condense the idea expressed in these verses to something like if its good, its from God, and if its bad its from the devil and that’s how we can tell if something is good or bad. My understanding of verses 12, 16 and 17 is that Moroni is saying that we can know that something is of God if that something persuades us to do good and believe in Christ. Put another way, Moroni is saying that if something is good, and persuades us to believe in Christ, we may thereby know that that something, whatever it is, is of God. Many people seem to accept that this scripture provides us with a way of telling whether or not something is good, or whether it is of God. I’ve always had trouble with seeing how this scripture provides us with a way of telling whether or not something is good or bad. I’ll try to illustrate why with the scenarios below. An atheist is meeting with LDS, Baptist and Buddhist missionaries. On the basis of what he hears and studies from the three sets of missionaries, he decides to become a Buddhist. Is this a good thing? Living a Buddhist life helps him to be a better person and surely that is good. But it does not lead him to believe in or serve God or Christ, so that might be bad. Then he goes back to the LDS and Baptist missionaries and he decides to become a Baptist. So now he believes in God, but in choosing the Baptists, he has chosen against the true God, and has chosen a false, Trinitarian concept of God. Maybe its good that he has now chosen to believe in a form of god, but maybe its bad because in choosing the Baptists he has turned away from a true understanding of God. How do we evaluate the scenario where someone does a small bad thing for the greater good, for example, an intelligence agent who corrupts a government employee of an enemy country in order to gain information that will lead to the lives of hundreds of soldiers being saved? If I render aid to a car crash victim and stop the bleeding, but in doing so move his body in the wrong way and thereby break his neck, is that good or bad? When a person practicing a modern day form of priestcraft persuades people to believe in Christ that he might have glory of men because of the number of souls he has brought unto Christ, or because he covets the increase in his personal wealth resulting from the offerings of his followers, has he done a good thing in persuading people to believe in Christ? If I am the doctor in prison who performs a lethal injection thereby killing a man, but making the rest of society safer by removing a mad mass murderer, is that good or bad? And if the injection is done by a vigilante, without the sanction of the State, does the same act then become bad? Because if so, it is the laws of the State that determines whether the act is good or bad, and the goodness or badness of the act is in no way dependent on Moroni 7:12. If a rich man gives a dollar to a beggar but retain the $99 that might for him be just be loose change, has he done good by giving, or bad by withholding? To what extent do motives need to be taken into account when determining the goodness or badness of an act? And if we do decide to take motives into account, how often do people act with more than one motive, or with only one motive at one moment, but over time, continuing in the same act, with a different motive at a later moment? How then would we judge the goodness or badness of their act? Moroni 7:6-9 does not seem to be helpful in answering this question because it seems to be based on the assumption that people, when performing an act, only ever act with the same motivation and doesn’t seem to take into account the common scenario of mixed motivations. And if there is any truth in the idea that one of Satan’s tools is to mix 95% good with 5% bad, does that 95% of good then become bad if it helps in furthering the Devil’s work? And if doing something good leads us to a sense of complacency, ie, all is well in Zion, and we are no longer motivated to do something better because we are already doing something good, does that good thing, by de-incentivising us to do better, become less good, or not good? The above types of scenarios lead me to some uncertainty about how helpful Moroni’s counsel in verses 16 and 17 might be when trying to decide whether something is good or bad. His counsel to rely on the Spirit of Christ is certainly good counsel for those who always have the Spirit to be with them and who always seeks its guidance, and always follow that guidance, but I believe that for most of us, that is something we are still working on. So how can we reliably tell good from bad and how helpful is Moroni 7: 5 – 17 when trying to answer this question? It seems to me that life is more complex with far more shades of ever-shifting grey than the approach suggested by Moroni.

The message of Moroni 7: 5-17 is very similar to the message in Matthew 7:17, so I have similar questions about Moroni 7 to the question I raised at the start of this thread. My response to the above comment takes the form of a new question, about verses 16-17 in a new thread with the heading How can we tell good from evil.

I was hoping to keep it as a surprise until the stake and wood are fully prepared :)

Last night while looking around for some material that I thought might inform my planned input to one of the current discussions on this site Google directed me to another LDS themed discussion forum. I read a few of the posts and was shocked to read how critical the posters were of other posters. After enjoying the friendly, good natured discussion on this site, it really was quite a surprise for me to see how unpleasant the posters were to each other on this other site. This experience renewed my appreciation for the thoughtful, well informed, friendly tone of discussion that prevails on this site. It made me feel grateful for people like Anatess, Vort, Pale Rider, Prison Chaplin, Mordurbund, Seminarysnoozer, Just a guy, the folk prophet, eowen, polarvortex, Jimmigerman, estradling and many many others. New as she is, I also enjoy and appreciate Claire’s well thought out and well written comments. And of course, I’m grateful to Pam for all that she does in moderating and maintaining this site, and the organisation she works for.

I'm not saying that I agree of disagree with your point here, but I do think your point is slightly weakened by the fact that there are no insurmountable barriers to procreation in female+female same sex marriages,

Claire, this comes from the official church website https://www.lds.org/topics/plural-marriage-in-the-church-of-jesus-christ-of-latter-day-saints?lang=eng

I'm still having trouble sorting out why Christ based His parable on a false premise - that a good tree cannot bring forth bad fruit and a bad tree cannot bring forth good fruit. Both facts are clearly false and its not unreasonable to believe that Christ and the olive growers knew this. It might be only a parable but surely it would have had more weight and impact if the listeners knew it to be based on some truth? I'm hoping that the answer to this question might, as Vort has suggested, have have something to do with poor translations rather than unusual teaching techniques. I'm also a bit doubtful about the idea that a looking at the natural consequences of following a "prophets" teachings will give a reliable indicator as to whether that prophet is good or bad. We are all familiar with the televangelists whose wonderful sermons inspire many people to do many good works, but whose personal life is full of fraud and immorality. That sounds like a case of a bad tree producing good fruit.

If I hadn't been so tired when I wrote this post, it probably would have been more concise. Its longer than it should be but I think it still makes the point I want it to. In 2013, the last time our federal parliament gave some serious thought to same sex marriage, the church asked us to communicate our thoughts and feelings on the topic to our local Member of Parliament. I did so, and one of the lines I used in my letter was similar to the line Vort took in the news conference posting – that if we allowed same sex marriage because not to do so was unfair, unequal and discriminatory against gay couples who wanted to get married – then there was no longer any logical argument for banning daddies who wanted to marry their daughters or women who wanted to marry their dogs. A few weeks later, Senator Cory Bernardi, a government Senator and ferocious right wing hard core Christian, started making public statements along exactly the same lines. He was very strongly condemned from all sides, even his own, and after a week or two he stopped making such statement. Last year, the government wanted to remove a few words from Section 18C of the Racial Discrimination Act which would have had the effect of reducing the number of grounds on which a person could be sued for discrimination. These two events have led me to think a bit about discrimination and exactly what it is, or might be. It seems to me that the essence of discrimination is when a group that possesses a particular characteristic or attribute, is treated differently by other groups because they possess that particular characteristic or attribute. In the recent case, the attribute in question was being gay and the difference treatment was differential access to housing and jobs. If that sort of behaviour is indeed discrimination, which of the following is, and is not, discriminatory: Limited access to housing because of gender preference Limited access to housing because of a person's height Limited access to housing because of ethnic origins Limited access to housing because of inability to pay the rent Limited access to housing because of the poor condition of the house Limited access to jobs because of colour Limited access to jobs because of inadequate training or not having the correct qualifications Limited access to heaven because of sin Limited access to disabled parking spaces because of not having a disability Marriage only between a man and a woman Marriage between same sex couples Marriage between people and animals Limited access to baptism and temples because of sin Does God discriminate against those who are not worthy to enter the celestial kingdom by not allowing them entry? I certainly hope He does, otherwise there is no point in striving to meet the entry requirements. Is there a temple recommend question that discourages us from associating with certain groups or people who propagate certain beliefs? Is not the whole temple recommend interview process a means of discriminating between those who can and those who cannot enter the temple? I think that all of us, every week, need to be making decisions that involve a degree of discriminatory practice – eg, do I praise my son (different treatment) for a job well done (a characteristic)? Do I avoid my neighbour (different treatment) because he swears and is drunk (a characteristic) all the time? Do I refuse to employ the American gardener (different treatment) because he charges more than double what the Mexican gardener charges ( a characteristic) Do I make a different decision about someone or something or should my decision be influenced by (a difference) an attribute that that person has that is good or bad (a characteristic). If we answer yes to that question, we are practicing a form of discrimination. I hope we are making these kinds of decisions every day. My point is that discrimination is a necessary, unavoidable, important, and everyday, although usually unrecognised part of life. There is good discrimination and bad discrimination. The line between the two is often blurred and quite mobile. To simply reject something on the grounds that it is discriminatory may be failing to recognise the true nature of discrimination. The trouble seems to arise when people can’t agree on what is acceptable basis for discrimination.

My concern on the worship aspect is that, if there are "higher ups" in the supposed God heirarchy, then it seems like we should worship the "higher" God and not the "lesser." It makes more sense, at least in my mind, to aford worship to the one who set the cosmos in motion vice one who is simply another cog in the machine. If, rather, there are simply innumerable generations of Gods stretching back for eternity, it also seems as though we should honor them in the same way that one honor their grandparents and great-grandparents, with failure to do so being dishonorable at best and blasphemous at worst. 1 Corinthians 8: 5-6 5 For though there be that are called gods, whether in heaven or in earth, (as there be gods many, and lords many,) 6 But to us there is but one God, the Father, of whom are all things, and we in him; and one Lord Jesus Christ, by whom are allthings, and we by him.

Claire, re your question that we can become gods: From the Doctrine and Covenants, section 132 verse 37 37 Abraham received concubines, and they bore him children; and it was accounted unto him for righteousness, because they were given unto him, and he abode in my law; as Isaac also andJacob did none other things than that which they were commanded; and because they did none other things than that which they were commanded, they have entered into theirexaltation, according to the promises, and sit upon thrones, and are not angels but are gods. It seems that not only can we become gods, but some of us already have. This scripture tells us that it is possible, and also gives a fairly broad picture of the timeframe - in the examples of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, it took from at least the time of their death until the time this revelation was given. (didn't mean to include the yellow highlighting in my commentary) As to how its done, as others have said, the detail is lacking on that question.

How is it possible to eat too much chocolate? I've tried to do that many times, and have failed each time. :)

Eowyn, from what I read of you here, I think the above statement is a bit of an understatement. :)

So what did Christ mean when he said a good tree (person) cannot bring forth evil fruit, not a corrupt tree bring forth good fruit? This seems to deny the possibility of change, as if Christ is saying if you are good, you will always be good and if you are bad you will always be bad. I've known many good trees who have done bad things and bad people who have done good things. Very few people are wholly good or wholly bad all of the time.

My experience is that both kinds of meetings are useful, and more so when held regularly, and in a planned and structured manner. However, its also my experience that both meetings could nearly always be shorter and better managed than they usually end up being, with no loss of quality.

I think I might have asked this question before in this forum under a previous name but I can’t remember the answer, so I’ll try again. Given the importance of the olive tree at the time of Christ, the amount of time He spent in olive groves, and the understanding of agriculture and nature frequently expressed in His parables and teachings, it’s reasonable to assume that Christ knew a bit about olive trees and how they grow. In Jacob chatper 5, Jacob gives a parable about how the branches of an olive tree are mixed and matched with other olive trees, and that the results are quite mixed, with some bearing good fruit and others bearing bad fruit, and some bearing both at once. In Allegory of the Olive Tree: The Olive, the Bible, and Jacob 5 by John W. Welch, Stephen D. Ricks its quite clear that this is something that can and does happen with olive trees. If Christ knew this, why did He then teach that a good tree cannot bring forth bad fruit, neither can a bad tree produce good fruit. This is exactly what happened in Jacob’s parable, which is based on real life. The parable, accurately reflecting real life, indicates that a good tree can bring forth bad fruit and a bad tree can bring forth bad fruit but Christ clearly taught that they cannot. How can these two teachings be reconciled?

I believe that God can also move through space whilst not moving through time - so if that is true, its interesting to see that God and light have yet another property in common.

Quite likely God does have a perfect knowledge of how it will all play out. And one possibility is that the knowledge He has is knowing what the various heavenly councils will decide. But the process of coming to that decision is good for those involved in making it, and God wants what is good for His children, so He lets them counsel together and make decisions, knowing what that decision will be. Or perhaps not even that. Maybe He just knows that whatever they decide will be consistent with, and help to support, His plan, and that is all that He needs to know. God may be content to focus on outcomes rather than methods. What we see in the temple is a set of instructions given, and doesn't really resemble a council meeting. My guess is that the council meeting took place after the instruction was given, and the subject was how best to implement the instruction. It would seem strange to me that, mortality being a time and place for learning, and the church being the best place to learn about the things of God, and councils forming such an important part of the church, that if, after this life, God suddenly said no more counsels, you're not needed anymore, we don't do any of that up here. I like to think that in some ways, what we see in the church is some sort of reflection, or is at least partially based on, how things were in the previous life and how they will be in the next life. God is a God of order and His course is one eternal round. I think that His emphasis on the role and importance of counsels in this life is partly because they were so important in the previous life and will be so important in the next life. It would be strange if we were all to be so thoroughly schooled in the ways of counselling here, in this life, and then for all of that knowledge and experience to be unused in the next life. God involving us in working out the details through counsels does not lessen God's knowledge. It shows His ongoing love and concern for His children in that He is providing them with this learning opportunity. My experience with stake and ward councils is similar. The bishop or Stake President generally knows that they want, they have a picture of what they would like to happen. They discuss it with their councillors and in ward and stake council meetings. They seek input and receive ideas and suggestions. They make and announce a decision. They then, quite often, hand over responsibility to someone else for carrying forward/implementing the decision. That person might then form a committee, or counsel with others on how best to implement the decision. Eventually they do something, and report back to the bishop or Stake President on what they have done. I don't think this is too different from how counsels worked in the pre-existence or how they are working now in the post mortal existence.

I've just become aware that the current edition of BYU Studies, (volume 53, number 4) has an article entitled Physical light and the light of Christ. The promotional material for the article is as follows: Light is puzzling. For the last century, surprises have repeatedly upended older understandings of light. What is more, these surprises have, among scientists and nonscientists alike, triggered a great deal of philosophical and theological commentary. Physical light resonates metaphysical overtones, some of which may be considered theological or spiritual. Light travels at its characteristic speed only in a vacuum; when moving through air, its speed is reduced. Material bodies can slow, block, and even extinguish light, giving light a seemingly subordinate role in our material world. But special relativity's portrayal of light breaks the frame of mechanistic thought and thereby allows us to reconsider that in some ways physical light in indistinguishable from spiritual light, or the light of Christ. (I added the bolding) I haven't read the article yet as I did not renew my subscription a few years ago but I note that an online copy can be purchased for $1 from https://byustudies.byu.edu/showTitle.aspx?title=9465

Most of my experience with counsels has been as an observing and recording clerk for many years at the ward and stake levels rather than as a major participant. I haven't really thought of how earthly and heavenly counsels might be different, but when I think about it now, I'm not sure if they would be very different - I suspect that both types of counsels would involve groups of people drawing on their wisdom and experience, trying to work out to best achieve a desired outcome within the broader framework of the Plan of Salvation.

Remarks indicating that those who have died have simply gone elsewhere to continue their work are sometimes made at the funerals of significant church leaders, and I have included one such quote in the following sources https://www.lds.org/ensign/1994/01/the-man-adam?lang=eng Of this council, a meeting that will be a preliminary appearance of the Savior (prior to his coming in glory), the Prophet Joseph Smith said: “Daniel in his seventh chapter speaks of the Ancient of Days; he means the oldest man, our Father Adam, Michael, he will call his children together and hold a council with them to prepare them for the coming of the Son of Man. ____________________________________- In the dream of Joseph F Smith, as quoted in part by President Hinckley in the April 2007 General Conference (https://www.lds.org/general-conference/2007/04/i-am-clean?lang=eng) and as recorded in full in the addenda of Gospel Doctrine: Selections from the Sermons and Writings of Joseph F. Smith it sounds very much as if President Joseph F Smith was present at either a postmortal counsel meeting or the outcome of a postmortal counsel meeting. ______________________________________ Chapter three of Faith Precedes the Miracle, in which President Kimball quotes from a statement made by President Woodruff in the October 1900 General Conference in which President Woodruff talks of his many interviews with Joseph Smith, Brigham Young, Heber Kimball, and many others who were dead, and of the counsel they gave him. _____________________________________ President Benson speaking at the funeral of President Kimball https://www.lds.org/ensign/1985/12/spencer-w-kimball-a-star-of-the-first-magnitude?lang=eng President Kimball now takes his place alongside other Apostles and prophets of this and other dispensations who have passed on to the other side of the veil. He will work even more actively there for the building of the kingdom of God on earth. As President Joseph F. Smith said: “Those faithful men … are carefully guarding the interests of the kingdom of God in which they labored and for which they strove during their mortal lives. I believe they are as deeply interested in our welfare today, if not with greater capacity, with far more interest, behind the veil, than they were in the flesh.” (Gospel Doctrine, Salt Lake City: Deseret Book Co., 1939, p. 430.) President Woodruff, also quoted by President Benson “I have felt of late as if our brethren on the other side of the vail had held a council, and that they had said to this one, and that one, ‘Cease thy work on earth, come hence, we need help,’ and they have called this man and that man. It has appeared so to me in seeing the many men who have been called from our midst lately.” (Journal of Discourses, 22:334.)

I'm wondering how you came to miss the frequent media and political commentary and condemnation of the killing of civilians in Gaza, the civilian deaths in the Iraq wars and the collateral damage in Afghanistan? There has been such commentary, and it has been made openly and publicly and repeatedly. Are you unaware of it? Its true that the public reaction to those events, which has been spread over many years, might not seem to be as great as the public reaction, spread over less than one week, to the French killings, but if you add up all the public and political reaction to the killings in Gaza, Iraq and Afghanistan that has taken place over the last many years, I suspect it would exceed the reaction to what has happened in France. One simple example: there hasn't been a single march in response to the middle east events you refer to that attracted the same number of marchers that were marching in France over the weekend, but if you added up all the marchers there have been in response to the middle east over the past few years, I'm sure the number would be greater. I'm not sure if its correct to assume, on the basis of differing media and public reactions to events in France and the middle-east, that the west values western lives differently from the lives of muslims, and even if such an assumption is correct, then I'm not sure if that is a problem. If my good neighbour, who I have known and liked for many years were to suddenly die, or be killed, I would be greatly saddened and I would react in ways that showed my sadness. If your neighbour dies, who I have never met or known or care about, that would be a sad event, but not for me, and I would be unlikely to react in any way. I think its entirely consistent with normal human behaviour that the western media places a greater emphasis on events that occur in the west and that are likely to have some sort of impact on western people than they do on events that do not occur in the west and are not likely to have much of an impact on western people. I suspect that the non-western media behaves in exactly the same way.