wenglund

In this coming weeks lesson (Jn 2-4), I have noticed something of a parallel between the temptations of Christ and first several miracles that Jesus performed during his mortal ministry. For example, while Satan tempted Jesus to use his powers as the Son of God to turn stones to bread, his Mother, Mary, insinuated that Jesus use his divine powers to provide wine for the wedding feast. Regarding this subtle request, Elder Talmages makes the following salient point that is also instructive in relation to the first temptation (see Jesus the Christ, Chapter 11, the Section on The Miracle at Cana in Galilee): "Nevertheless, His words to Mary at the marriage feast may have conveyed a gentle reminder of her position as the mother of a Being superior to herself; even as on that earlier occasion when she had found her Boy, Jesus, in the temple, He had brought home to her the fact that her jurisdiction over Him was not supreme. The manner in which she told Him of the insufficiency of wine probably suggested an intimation that He use His more than human power, and by such means supply the need. It was not her function to direct or even to suggest the exercise of the power inherent in Him as the Son of God; such had not been inherited from her. “What have I to do with thee?” He asked; and added: “Mine hour is not yet come.” Here we find no disclaimer of the ability to do what she apparently wanted Him to do, but the plain implication that He would act only when the time was right for the purpose, and that He, not she, must decide when that time had come. She understood His meaning, in part at least, and contented herself by instructing the servants to do whatsoever He directed. Here again is evidence of her position of responsibility and domestic authority at the social gathering." (bold mine) There are several points of interest. First, I don't think the connection of bread and wine are coincidental, but are symbolic in much the same way as the emblems of the sacrament. Second, what is at issue isn't whether Jesus had the power to turn stones to bread or water to wine, or even whether it was necessarily inappropriate for him to do so either in service of himself or others. Rather, it is the timing of such miracles or conditions under which the miracles may be rightly performed, or more to the point, whose place it is to make these determinations. It is Christ who is to decide, and this at the behest of His Father, and not Satan or Mary or any of us. Third, in spite of earthly hierarchies (mother superior to son, god of the earth superior to mankind), ultimately Christ is superior to all. And, fourth, when we prioritize the will of the Father in relation to desired "miracles" in our lives, and wait in faith patiently for His due time, obediently doing as He directs, we will receive the very best, the "good wine" instead of the worst, and the "bread of life." Indeed, Christ has given his all (his body and blood, memorialized by the sacramental bread and wine) to provide us the greatest gift and miracle of all. Thanks, -Wade Englund-

One way to look at it is, since we lack the capacity of God to look upon men's heart, God has made restitution (including restoring lost trust) a part of the repentance process, and not a part of forgiveness process. Also, forgiveness may rightly be viewed as a way of unburdening the victim rather than entirely absolving the perpetrator. Thanks, -WAde Englund-

In a recent General Conference talk,, Elder Renland mentioned a a scene from Mary Poppins, (see HERE) which I believe has some bearing, in principle, to what it is like for many of us who have attempted a reasonable exchange with you--not that you could possibly see it this way: The fictional character Mary Poppins is a typical English nanny—who happens to be magical.1 She blows in on the east wind to help the troubled Banks family of Number 17, Cherry Tree Lane, in Edwardian London. She is given charge of the children, Jane and Michael. In a firm but kind manner, she begins to teach them valuable lessons with an enchanting touch. Jane and Michael make considerable progress, but Mary decides that it is time for her to move on. In the stage production, Mary’s chimney sweep friend, Bert, tries to dissuade her from leaving. He argues, “But they’re good kids, Mary.” Mary replies, “Would I be bothering with them if they weren’t? But I can’t help them if they won’t let me, and there’s no one so hard to teach as the child who knows everything.” (bold mine) Thanks, -Wade Englund-

One final provocative (thought provoking) question for this thread: What is meant by "tempt the Lord God?" --not just in the context of Mt 4 and Lk 4, but other biblical and Book of Mormon passages as well (see HERE) I would guess that it means something different than "tempt mankind." In several of the passages cited above, the phrase "tempt the Lord God" was in relation to requests for a sign from God. In other passages it was said in relation people asking for things they craved. In at least one passage it was in relation to unequal treatment of fellow members. In yet another passage it was in relation to people complaining about, or contending with, or doubting or angering God. Interestingly enough, other English versions of the Bible translate the phase as "put God to the test" or "test God." For example, the KJV of Exodus 17:7 reads: "And he called the name of the place Massah, and Meribah, because of the chiding of the children of Israel, and because they tempted the LORD, saying, Is the LORD among us, or not?" Whereas, the NLT says: "Moses named the place Massah (which means "test") and Meribah (which means "arguing") because the people of Israel argued with Moses and tested the LORD by saying, "Is the LORD here with us or not?" (see HERE) Why is it problematic to put God to the test? Are we not told to "prove all things?" Most important of all, might we have "tempted God," unwittingly or otherwise? Thanks, -Wade Englund-

The astounding irony here is that Satan made the request for turning stones to bread to him who was and is the very Bread of Life. Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Profound crystallization of my somewhat unorganized and disjointed musings. You brought order out of chaos. Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Going even deeper, the purpose of the test isn't just to determine if we will choose good or evil, but it is also a means for increasing in faith and experience so that, ultimately, we may be able to better see /comprehend the Father in ways far advanced than during the pre-existence, where we had the Father always before our eyes. In other words, to fully know God necessitated that, for a time, He be hidden from us. Not knowing God or knowing of Him, is the beginning of the process of knowing Him better. It requires, as symbolized by Abraham, that we leave our home and parents and journey to a strange land. Thanks, -Wade Englund-

II am glad you mentioned competitiveness since it is not often considered in the context of Christ's temptations. In a way, I believe that Satan was tempting Christ to provide some physical show of power that came anywhere close to his own--not just in the way that Satan was able to transport Christ here and there, but also the vast kingdom of the world over which Satan ruled. It was the ultimate power struggle, on earth, so to speak. I figure that Satan knew Christ wouldn't take the bait, and would thus consider it as proof of Satan's superiority--not unlike when a bully get's in someone's face and ask what they are going to do about it, and considers himself the better when the people being bullied don't rise to the challenge. However, the beauty and splendor in Christ's responses to the temptations was that it spiritually demonstrated that Satan was powerless over him, and as such Christ's power and his works and dominions, before then and to follow, far exceeded that of Satan'--not unlike how greater courage may be evident in walking away from bullies picking fights. This, as always, is an object lesson for all of us. Gaining empowerment that far exceeds Satan comes from not succumbing to the temptations of Satan. Thanks, -Wade Englund-

One of the purposes behind Christ being tempted was so that he would be "made like his brethren" and "suffered being tempted" so that he could "succor those that are tempted." ( Heb. 2:17-18) For this to occur necessitated that Jesus resolve his hunger in the same way as his brethren.: His use of power, then, could not exceed that of his brethren. Nevertheless, your question can be expanded beyond eating and drinking to also include the use of "power" to heal the sick and afflicted--be it taking herbs and medicine to giving or receiving priesthood blessings. And, while it seems evident that, during his mortal ministry, Jesus used his "powers" for the benefit of others--including healing the sick, I don't see why it would be wrong for him to use those powers at times to heal himself (assuming he ever got sick) or to prevent himself from getting sick. After all, we are told to lovie thy neighbor (brethren) as thyself. As for where to draw the line? I think Jesus Christ made that abundantly clear. The line for him, and ought to be for all of us, is the "will of the Father." Thanks, -Wade Englund-

I see where you are coming from. I just view the phrase "led up of the Spirit"," to mean that the Spirit gives us the strength to face, and the assistance to overcome, the requisite temptations. Thanks, -Wade Englund-

These are the two points I was hoping would be brought out by my two provocative questions. At their core, each of the three temptations was an enticement to not only violate laws of appetite and so forth, but also the two great commandments upon which rest all the laws and the prophets . They were designed to defy the will of Him to whom we ought to be subjected,and those to whom he would have us serve. Thanks, -Wade Englund-

I had the other scriptures in mind when I posed the question, and just used the Matthew scriptures because that is what I am studying this week. But, I understand there was no way you would have known that. I see the difference, but I don't get the absurdity, particularly given that we, including Christ, have come to earth, in part, for the expressed purpose of being tempted./tested. To me, it seems quite rational that Jesus would be led into the wilderness, in part, for the purpose of being tempted, since it was requisite to, and apt preparation for, his mortar mission as the great exemplar. His experience in the wilderness was not only highly symbolic of the mortal phase of the Plan of Salvation as well as the exodus of Israel and other journeys into strange lands (Abraham, Lehi, Brigham Young, etc.), but through it he also literally set forth the way for mankind to rise above temptation. As Paul said: in Heb. 2: 17 Wherefore in all things it behoved him to be made like unto his brethren, that he might be a merciful and faithful high priest in things pertaining to God, to make reconciliation for the sins of the people. 18 For in that he himself hath suffered being tempted, he is able to succour them that are tempted. Thanks, -Wade Englund-

This is a good lead -n to my second provocative question: Christ has used his "creative powers" on several occasions to make bread. He provided manna to Israel, coincidentally while they were in the wilderness. He provided bread and fish for the 5000 and the 4000 (see HERE), also presumably and coincidentally in Judea. If it was appropriate on those occasions, then why would it have been inappropriate to do so then? Or, would it have been appropriate? P.S. Perhaps you could re-post your interesting comments in the Study Board for this weeks Come Follow Me lesson, so they can be discussed in greater detail. Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Perhaps. But does it also fix these: They which have continued with me in my temptations, Luke 22:28. he himself hath suffered being tempted, Heb. 2:18. was in all points tempted like as we are, Heb. 4:15. learned he obedience by the things which he suffered, Heb. 5:8. he shall suffer temptations, and pain of body, Mosiah 3:7. suffereth temptation, and yieldeth not, Mosiah 15:5. suffering pains … and temptations of every kind, Alma 7:11. He suffered temptations but gave no heed, D&C 20:22. Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Seem more than a little nit-picky to me. I mean, we aren't talking about a formal name or title, but a descriptor. If the Church finds it appropriate, I am not sure why you wouldn't. But, to each their own. Thanks, -Wade Englund-

While I hope that many of you will join me in drilling deep into the temptations of Christ on the Study Board for this weeks Come Follow Me lesson, I have a provocative question to prompt interest, which I wish to pose here: In Mt 4:1, we are told that the Lord, Jesus Christ, was led by the Spirit into the wilderness, "to be tempted of the devil." Yet, in Mt 4:7, we are told "thou shalt not tempt the Lord thy God." If the Lord isn't to be tempted, then why did the Spirit lead him to be tempted? Thanks, -Wade Englund-

That is my question as well. I mean, if a number of church leaders and church material have long been calling them the "Three Nephites," (see HERE) I don't see why we shouldn't as well. Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Correct. Here is what is written in 4 Nephi 1:36-37: 36 And it came to pass that in this year there arose a people who were called the Nephites, and they were true believers in Christ; and among them there were those who were called by the Lamanites—Jacobites, and Josephites, and Zoramites; 37 Therefore the true believers in Christ, and the true worshipers of Christ, (among whom were the three disciples of Jesus who should tarry) were called Nephites, and Jacobites, and Josephites, and Zoramites. Referring to them as the "Three Nephites" has become common within the church in the latter days This makes perfect sense as a means for distinguishing the three disciples who made up the First Presidency within the New Testament from the three disciples within the Book of Mormon. Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Instead of playing transparent word games, the practical and efficacious thing to do is admit you were wrong and express gratitude for the learning experience. Thanks, -Wade Englund-

I was addressing multiple things, but let's just consider the statement you made to me. You said, "I dont think its possible to not keep the end goal in mind and that in and of itself is the primary motivating factor." Yesterday I paid my tithes and offerings online. When I did so, the thought never crossed my mind that I may be avoiding the punishment of burning at the last day. Nor, for that matter, did it cross my mind that the widows of heaven might be opened and I may receive the reward of blessings being poured out upon me--and this even though I have been gratefully blessed by doing so in the past, for I would do so even were that not the case. In fact, I would do so even if bad things were to happen to me and others as a result thereof. And, if you understood my situation you may realize this was a distinct possibility. Furthermore, the end goal of achieving exaltation didn't occur to me in the least--partly because, for reasons of my own, I am not consciously working towards that goal. Rather, the only thing that occurred to me was that it was Fast Sunday and that is when I pay my tithes and offerings. The payment has become, and was a course of habit and a function of who and what I now am. Nothing more or less than that. So, while it may be impossible for YOU to not keep the end goal in mind when obeying God's commands, it is not only possible or plausible, but a reality in my case, and this with God's help. Thanks, -Wade Englund-

That is YOUR problem. Others of us believe that "...for with God all things are possible." (LK 1:37; Mk 10:27) Besides, you aren't grasping what I am saying. No problem. To each their own. Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Yes, it is a reward. However, as previously explained, the issue isn't whether something is a reward or not, but rather whether the reward is the primary motivator or even a motivator at all. Christ is obedient not so as to receive joy, but regardless of the joy. He is obedient not because achieving the goal of salvation of mankind is a reward, but irrespective of it being a reward. Christ is obedient because he has an obedient and loving character . Christ does what he does because that is who and what he is--he is God, he IS love, even as his Father. As members progresses in character, and become more like Christ, at some point they stop being motivated by reward and punishment (earthly or otherwise), and start doing things out of obedience or ultimately because it is a part of their obedient and charitable character. For these elevated members, they pay tithes and offerings,not to avoid burning at the last days or to have the windows of heaven opened and an outpouring of blessings, or even to achieve exaltation, but because to not pay their tithes and offerings would violate their charitable nature.. Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Elder oaks takes my assertion one or two steps further in his first General Conference address as an Apostle (see in particular about half way through the talk, the paragraph starting with, "People serve one another for different reasons."): Why Do We Serve?: He distinguishes between those who are motivated by earthly rewards as contrasted with heavenly rewards, the former being bad and the latter good, and goes on to suggest that the latter is inferior to other reasons for serving. Profound stuff! Thanks, -Wade Englund-

To me, it is mistaken to assume that the realization of rewards and punishments necessarily means that these consequences were the primary motivator, or a motivator at all, behind the actions resulting in the rewards or punishments. For example, members who have progressed far enough in their character development may be motivated, either by their obedient and/or charitable nature, to pay their tithes and offering regardless whether they are rewarded or not. The fact that their incomes may increase or they receive an unexpected check in the mail as a result of paying tithing, is, for them, beside the point. A scriptural example of this is Moses 5:4-12, particularly verse 6: "6 And after many days an angel of the Lord appeared unto Adam, saying: Why dost thou offer sacrifices unto the Lord? And Adam said unto him: I known not, save the Lord commanded me." Adam was motivated by nothing other than obedience even though he was blessed thereby with the Holy Ghost (see verse 9) Another example is Christ's baptism. He didn't do it to receive the reward of a cleansed soul, because he was already clean. Rather, he did it out of obedience and to fulfill all righteousness. (see Mt 3:43--JST and 2Ne 31:5-7) Thanks, -Wade Englund-

It may help to read my post above because it explains how Rob is correct up to a point, but also how he is self-blinded to higher layers of character development and motivation like what you mentioned--not that it will make a difference to the typically counterproductive nature of discussions with him. But, at least there is the possibility that you may gain something from what I suggest.. Thanks, -Wade Englund-