Sealing?

[Guest bizabra]

Originally posted by Faerie@Sep 22 2004, 12:32 PM

I don't think any one knows how "non familial" relationships will work...just something I chalk up to "i'll know when I get there and no sense worrying about it now"...lol

This reply is so convenient to trot out, useful for all sorts of things! No matter how silly or contrived a piece of doctrine might be, just "don't worry about it now, it will all work out, we'll know when we die/get there/pass, etc. It will all make sense then. We'll feel different when we're dead, won't want the same things we did when here, blah blah blah. . . . . ."

Sure!

[Guest bizabra]

Originally posted by Dravin@Sep 22 2004, 07:42 PM

They will not associate as parents, they will associate as fellow children of God, as you say, otherwise there is no point to it.

What, exactly, do you mean by "associate"? Please be as specific as you can.

Thanks.

[Guest bizabra]

Ray says:

"parents and their children would not be in the type of relationship or of the mindset wherein they would assist each other and benefit from each other as members of a family unit should. The persons might still be involved with each other in some way, or still have something to do with each other, but those persons would not be a family unit in the same way that our heavenly Father wants them to be, with parents counseling their children and children learning from their parents in the “eternal process” of eternal life."

Biz:

I'm haveing trouble envisioning exactly what you are saying here. If they can still hang out together, still have some sort of physical contact, and they are all still in full possesion of their FREE AGENCIES, AND they all live forever, why would former earthly family members who are not "sealed" to each other NOT be able to counsel and learn from each other? Eh?

This doctrine makes no sense, bleahh!

[Faerie]

Biz: i don't have to understand every little piece of LDS doctrine to know that it is right for me :) i understand a great deal, and that which i don't, meh..i don't worry about it...you may think that's "convienent", to me it's not a big enough issue to make a big deal out of...

[Guest bat]

Originally posted by Faerie@Oct 2 2004, 09:42 PM

Biz: i don't have to understand every little piece of LDS doctrine to know that it is right for me :) i understand a great deal, and that which i don't, meh..i don't worry about it...you may think that's "convienent", to me it's not a big enough issue to make a big deal out of...

I find it humorous that you have a problem with your husband looking at pictures of other women, but you have no objection to him having additional wives (according to LDS doctrine) when he gets to the CK. You'll just be "one of the wives".

[Faerie]

Originally posted by bat+Oct 3 2004, 01:55 AM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (bat @ Oct 3 2004, 01:55 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin--Faerie@Oct 2 2004, 09:42 PM

Biz: i don't have to understand every little piece of LDS doctrine to know that it is right for me :) i understand a great deal, and that which i don't, meh..i don't worry about it...you may think that's "convienent", to me it's not a big enough issue to make a big deal out of...

I find it humorous that you have a problem with your husband looking at pictures of other women, but you have no objection to him having additional wives (according to LDS doctrine) when he gets to the CK. You'll just be "one of the wives".

you are assuming that he will automatically be having numerous wives in the afterlife, like the muslim jihadists who get 70 virgins?..he and i have discussed this issue and he knows i am not comfortable with him remarrying if something were to happen to me, unless i left him with several small children...however i know and understand that even if he WERE to remarry, i'll still be the head wife, just as Emma Smith was and always will be the head wife...:) how polygamy in the afterlife works i don't know, and i really don't care as i know i will ALWAYS be #1 with my husband :)

[Guest bat]

Originally posted by Faerie+Oct 3 2004, 05:04 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Faerie @ Oct 3 2004, 05:04 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>

Originally posted by -bat@Oct 3 2004, 01:55 AM

<!--QuoteBegin--Faerie@Oct 2 2004, 09:42 PM

Biz: i don't have to understand every little piece of LDS doctrine to know that it is right for me :) i understand a great deal, and that which i don't, meh..i don't worry about it...you may think that's "convienent", to me it's not a big enough issue to make a big deal out of...

I find it humorous that you have a problem with your husband looking at pictures of other women, but you have no objection to him having additional wives (according to LDS doctrine) when he gets to the CK. You'll just be "one of the wives".

you are assuming that he will automatically be having numerous wives in the afterlife, like the muslim jihadists who get 70 virgins?..he and i have discussed this issue and he knows i am not comfortable with him remarrying if something were to happen to me, unless i left him with several small children...however i know and understand that even if he WERE to remarry, i'll still be the head wife, just as Emma Smith was and always will be the head wife...:) how polygamy in the afterlife works i don't know, and i really don't care as i know i will ALWAYS be #1 with my husband :)

Can you quote to me the LDS Doctrine that uses the term "head wife" or something similar? I think you are making that up.

[Guest bizabra]

Originally posted by Faerie+Oct 3 2004, 05:04 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Faerie @ Oct 3 2004, 05:04 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>

Originally posted by -bat@Oct 3 2004, 01:55 AM

<!--QuoteBegin--Faerie@Oct 2 2004, 09:42 PM

Biz: i don't have to understand every little piece of LDS doctrine to know that it is right for me :) i understand a great deal, and that which i don't, meh..i don't worry about it...you may think that's "convienent", to me it's not a big enough issue to make a big deal out of...

I find it humorous that you have a problem with your husband looking at pictures of other women, but you have no objection to him having additional wives (according to LDS doctrine) when he gets to the CK. You'll just be "one of the wives".

you are assuming that he will automatically be having numerous wives in the afterlife, like the muslim jihadists who get 70 virgins?..he and i have discussed this issue and he knows i am not comfortable with him remarrying if something were to happen to me, unless i left him with several small children...however i know and understand that even if he WERE to remarry, i'll still be the head wife, just as Emma Smith was and always will be the head wife...:) how polygamy in the afterlife works i don't know, and i really don't care as i know i will ALWAYS be #1 with my husband :)

Too bad for all those "sweet spirits" who didn't snag a hubby here on Earth. I guess when they are assigned to faithful priesthood holders in the afterlife, to become additional wives to those same good faithful men, that they will all have to be "second class" wives, not QUITE as good as the FIRST WIFE, the one that married the priesthood holder in REAL LIFE.

Oh well, they should gotten a man when they were HERE in the first place! They'll just be happy to have one, and it will be fine with the first wife, being that she is the SPECIAL WIFE, THE FIRST ONE, THE #1!

What's it feel like to be a second or third or 10th wife, do you suppose? Especially when the FIRST wife makes sure you all know who is top dog! heh heh. . . . .

[Guest curvette]

Originally posted by Faerie@Oct 3 2004, 05:04 PM

he and i have discussed this issue and he knows i am not comfortable with him remarrying if something were to happen to me, unless i left him with several small children...

I've never understood this selfish attitude that some people have. My doctor's wife died and she tried to secure the promise from him that he would never remarry. It was agonizing for him because he knew that he was not the type of man who could live alone. He didn't promise, and he remarried within a year and a half. Human beings need to be loved. They need to be touched, and in our church there is only one acceptable way to have the intimacy adults need--marriage. There are many different kinds of love, and it doesn't take away from the love a person has for their spouse if they decide they need companionship later in their lives. Why should someone live the rest of their lives without a companion?

[Maureen]

Originally posted by curvette@Oct 4 2004, 08:21 AM

Why should someone live the rest of their lives without a companion?

There are people out there too though that are perfectly happy living without a companion after their spouse passes on. I think it would depend on the surviving spouse (age and circumstances of widow/er). My mom was quite happy to be on her own after my dad passed away, she was only 56 at the time; but she felt more comfortable not having to worry about another spouse.

M.

[Guest curvette]

Originally posted by Maureen+Oct 4 2004, 10:00 AM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Maureen @ Oct 4 2004, 10:00 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin--curvette@Oct 4 2004, 08:21 AM

Why should someone live the rest of their lives without a companion?

There are people out there too though that are perfectly happy living without a companion after their spouse passes on. I think it would depend on the surviving spouse (age and circumstances of widow/er). My mom was quite happy to be on her own after my dad passed away, she was only 56 at the time; but she felt more comfortable not having to worry about another spouse.

M.

I agree that many people would make that choice (especially women.) My mom is also one of the women who prefer to remain single. (she divorced, not widowed.) I think that's fine. It's the attitude of wishing the spouse remain single for the rest of his/her life that I don't understand. I would want my husband to be happy and to feel free to remarry IF he wanted to. To me it seems selfish to deny him that. I imagine most people (if they love their spouse) feel that they never would even want to remarry when their beloved dies. Time does pass though, and often men really miss that companionship. Maybe this is sexist, but it seems like men don't do as well single as women do. (that's just been my observation anyway... )

[Ray]

Originally posted by bizabra@ Oct 2 2004, 10:08 AM

Ray says:

"parents and their children would not be in the type of relationship or of the mindset wherein they would assist each other and benefit from each other as members of a family unit should. The persons might still be involved with each other in some way, or still have something to do with each other, but those persons would not be a family unit in the same way that our heavenly Father desires them to be, with parents counseling their children and children learning from their parents in the “eternal process” of eternal life."

Biz:

I'm having trouble envisioning exactly what you are saying here. If they can still hang out together, still have some sort of physical contact, and they are all still in full possession of their FREE AGENCIES, AND they all live forever, why would former earthly family members who are not "sealed" to each other NOT be able to counsel and learn from each other? Eh?

This doctrine makes no sense, bleahh!

I can see how the doctrine makes sense, I believe you would be able to see how it makes sense if would ask God to help you understand it, and I recommend that you wait until then before you decide whether or not you should accept it or reject it.

Perhaps you would be able to understand the doctrine if you more carefully considered the example I gave you of my own relationship with my immediate parents. Because we are not sealed, we are limited in our ability to learn and grow together as a family unit. That is the bottom line. The reason we are not sealed is because my parents do not see the need to comply with the ordinance that would seal us together as a family unit, and because they do not see the need to comply with it they are not willing to comply with it. And because they are not willing to abide by one of the laws of our Lord, choosing instead to ignore it or dismiss it, they will not benefit from the blessings they could and would have received had they been faithful.

This is an example of an eternal principle.

Suppose my parents also could not see the need to comply with the ordinance of baptism.

Both of my parents profess to be Christians, although they are not members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, and both of them accept the teaching that they need to be baptized, but suppose for a moment that they didn’t. Suppose they believed that all they need to do before they can be heirs in the kingdom of heaven is to verbally acknowledge that Jesus is the Christ and live their lives as good as they can. Suppose that someone tried to teach them that our Lord expects them to be baptized but they simply didn’t accept that teaching. Or as is their case, suppose that they accepted the teaching that they needed to be baptized but they believed that anyone could perform that ordinance for them.

Now what do you suppose happened when I came along and tried to share with them, as lovingly as I could, how I understand the doctrine of baptism and the doctrine of the need for authority? Well, to put it simply, they didn’t accept what I tried to share with them. So here I am with my beliefs and there they are with their beliefs, and we are not as close as we would be if we were all in agreement. Do you now see how the lack of unity divides us? Do you now see how any disagreement, particularly regarding matters of eternal consequence, can keep us apart? Do you now see how people are prevented from growing together as a family unit when some of those persons will accept our Lord’s teachings and some will not?

All that I can do now is hope and pray that they will someday be able to understand the true doctrine of our Lord while seeing how important it is to accept it. If they don’t we will always be divided.

And btw, it feels strange to realize that I know more than my parents do about things that are so important for our eternal progression. Because they have more life experience than I do I believe they should and I would rather they did have more knowledge about such things so that they would be better examples for me. Aside from having the knowledge that we would be able to enjoy all of the blessings of our Lord together forever, with their assistance and examples to better aid me, that would be the greatest benefit of having righteous parents.

And I will say this again: I do still get together with my parents to socialize with them and I try to enjoy their company as much as I can, so I am only speaking about the degree to which we are "close" with each other.

[Maureen]

Originally posted by curvette@Oct 4 2004, 11:34 AM

I agree that many people would make that choice (especially women.) My mom is also one of the women who prefer to remain single. (she divorced, not widowed.) I think that's fine. It's the attitude of wishing the spouse remain single for the rest of his/her life that I don't understand. I would want my husband to be happy and to feel free to remarry IF he wanted to. To me it seems selfish to deny him that. I imagine most people (if they love their spouse) feel that they never would even want to remarry when their beloved dies. Time does pass though, and often men really miss that companionship. Maybe this is sexist, but it seems like men don't do as well single as women do. (that's just been my observation anyway... )

That could be true regarding how well men adjust to being singe compared to women. My FIL re-married less than 2 years after my MIL passed away. He had a hard time understanding how my Mom had no interest in re-marrying.

M.

[Cal]

Originally posted by curvette@Sep 22 2004, 09:49 AM

I've kind of wondered what it means too. Really, it seems that the only "sealing" relationship that can be in force is that of the spouse. If children marry and are sealed to their spouse they wouldn't be actually living with their parents in the hereafter, they'd be with their own companion. "The two shall be one flesh, etc..." It seems that if eveyone in the world is sealed to someone that it shouldn't matter if we are sealed to our children or not because we'd all be together as a human race. The whole doctrine doesn't really make any sense if it's veiwed in eternal terms. It does give comfort though to those who lose children because it's an assurance that they will be reunited with their child in heaven.

I like that comment, Curvy. The problem I have with the doctrine is that many mormons believe that only they will be reunited with their children and that unless you join the mormon church you won't. I have never found any scriptural basis for this, yet it is promoted strongly.

[Cal]

Originally posted by Faerie@Sep 22 2004, 12:32 PM

I don't think any one knows how "non familial" relationships will work...just something I chalk up to "i'll know when I get there and no sense worrying about it now"...lol

If so, then why do mormons keep preaching that they DO know about ANY of this? If you don't have the full story, then why pretend you have any of it? If someone tell me he has a great story, and then claims ignorance of critical details , why should I pay any attention to him.

[Cal]

Originally posted by Dravin@Sep 22 2004, 07:42 PM

They will not associate as parents, they will associate as fellow children of God, as you say, otherwise there is no point to it.

What kind of drivel is that? Are you saying that they won't know who their early parents were? If they do, how are they NOT going to relate as such?

[Cal]

And I will say this again:  I do still get together with my parents to socialize with them and I try to enjoy their company as much as I can, so I am only speaking about the degree to which we are "close" with each other.

The only reason you can't communicate with your parents is because of choices you have made. You CHOSE not to be able to communicate with them by believing they are somehow different and out of touch with what you believe. That is YOUR choice, not GOD's. God doesn't care what religion you belong to, he doesn't care what you believe, he cares about how you love, how you care and the kindness you render to others (At least that is how MY God thinks). Your God seems to be a divider and one that drives people apart. Mine doesn't do that.

My God cares about how we feel about eachother, not what we BELIEVE about eachother. You believe that your parents are somehow in the dark. That drives you away from them. My God won't want you to think that way. What we believe is irrelevant. It is how we love and relate to eachother in acceptance and harmony. Don't let your beliefs color your view of who your parents are.

[Faerie]

MY God makes better chocolate chip cookies than YOUR God

[Ray]

Just thought I’d check back real quick to see if anyone responded to my thoughts with a question of what I was trying to say, and although what I found is not a question, it does show that someone still does not understand what I meant.

Originally posted by Cal@ Oct 4 2004, 05:49 PM

The only reason you can't communicate with your parents is because of choices you have made. You CHOSE not to be able to communicate with them by believing they are somehow different and out of touch with what you believe. That is YOUR choice, not GOD's. God doesn't care what religion you belong to, he doesn't care what you believe, he cares about how you love, how you care and the kindness you render to others (At least that is how MY God thinks). Your God seems to be a divider and one that drives people apart. Mine doesn't do that.

My God cares about how we feel about eachother, not what we BELIEVE about eachother. You believe that your parents are somehow in the dark. That drives you away from them. My God won't want you to think that way. What we believe is irrelevant. It is how we love and relate to eachother in acceptance and harmony. Don't let your beliefs color your view of who your parents are.

1) You are wrong if you think that I can’t communicate with my parents. I can communicate with my parents, just not about certain things, and especially not about certain things that are specifically related to my personal understanding of religion. When I have tried in the past to communicate with them about my personal understanding of religion they felt uncomfortable. To the point of not wanting to be around me at all as long as I continued to try to share my understanding of religion with them. To the point that my Dad actually said that he would no longer claim me as one of his sons if I continued to try to share my personal understanding of religion with him. So now I feel that it is best to not try to discuss those certain things with them. Instead we talk only about things that they do feel comfortable talking about, and we are only as close as we can be under those circumstances.

2) You still do not seem to understand how these differences separate us as a family unit, even after I have gone on at length to describe the situation I have with my family. As I have tried to say before, I do love them and I want to be closer to them, and I am trying to do my best to keep these differences from coming between us, but the bottom line is that we are limited because of the different paths that each of us have chosen to follow. Can you imagine any other subject we could enjoy talking about more than the gospel of Jesus Christ? Can’t you imagine how much closer we would be if we were all in agreement with each other about this? But I will not compromise my convictions, and they will not compromise theirs, so we are faced with a degree of separation between us.

3) If your God is Jesus, as is mine, then you might possibly recall what He said about how His message would divide parents from children, and that those who would not be willing to sacrifice that relationship would not be worthy of Him. In my family we all basically agree with that teaching, but we each have a different understanding about how and why these differences divide us. My parents would be tickled to death if I decided to leave the “Mormon” church and go back to the church that they both accept as the true church of Christ - the church I was in before I accepted the message from a missionary who shared it with me, a message which was later confirmed as truth by a witness from the Holy Ghost - but I will never do that because I know that I am better off now than I ever have been and that my improved status in life comes from accepting and embracing more of the true doctrine of Jesus Christ. Hopefully someday they will be able to see how much my life has improved and then ask me how I can possibly accept these teachings, which will then give me more of an opportunity to share the knowledge that I have with them, but until then, we are all better off if I never TALK about religion again.

[Cal]

Originally posted by Faerie@Oct 4 2004, 06:27 PM

MY God makes better chocolate chip cookies than YOUR God

Well then, send them on over, and make sure they have walnuts!

[Cal]

Originally posted by Ray+Oct 5 2004, 10:17 AM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Ray @ Oct 5 2004, 10:17 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> Just thought I’d check back real quick to see if anyone responded to my thoughts with a question of what I was trying to say, and although what I found is not a question, it does show that someone still does not understand what I meant.

<!--QuoteBegin--Cal

@ Oct 4 2004, 05:49 PM

The only reason you can't communicate with your parents is because of choices you have made. You CHOSE not to be able to communicate with them by believing they are somehow different and out of touch with what you believe. That is YOUR choice, not GOD's. God doesn't care what religion you belong to, he doesn't care what you believe, he cares about how you love, how you care and the kindness you render to others (At least that is how MY God thinks). Your God seems to be a divider and one that drives people apart. Mine doesn't do that.

My God cares about how we feel about eachother, not what we BELIEVE about eachother. You believe that your parents are somehow in the dark. That drives you away from them. My God won't want you to think that way. What we believe is irrelevant. It is how we love and relate to eachother in acceptance and harmony. Don't let your beliefs color your view of who your parents are.

and especially not about certain things that are specifically related to my personal understanding of religion. When I have tried in the past to communicate with them about my personal understanding of religion they felt uncomfortable. To the point of not wanting to be around me at all as long as I continued to try to share my understanding of religion with them. To the point that my Dad actually said that he would no longer claim me as one of his sons if I continued to try to share my personal understanding of religion with him. So now I feel that it is best to not try to discuss those certain things with them. Instead we talk only about things that they do feel comfortable talking about, and we are only as close as we can be under those circumstances.

2) You still do not seem to understand how these differences separate us as a family unit, even after I have gone on at length to describe the situation I have with my family. As I have tried to say before, I do love them and I want to be closer to them, and I am trying to do my best to keep these differences from coming between us, but the bottom line is that we are limited because of the different paths that each of us have chosen to follow. Can you imagine any other subject we could enjoy talking about more than the gospel of Jesus Christ? Can’t you imagine how much closer we would be if we were all in agreement with each other about this? But I will not compromise my convictions, and they will not compromise theirs, so we are faced with a degree of separation between us.

3and that those who would not be willing to sacrifice that relationship would not be worthy of Him. In my family we all basically agree with that teaching, but we each have a different understanding about how and why these differences divide us. My parents would be tickled to death if I decided to leave the “Mormon” church and go back to the church that they both accept as the true church of Christ - the church I was in before I accepted the message from a missionary who shared it with me, a message which was later confirmed as truth by a witness from the Holy Ghost - but I will never do that because I know that I am better off now than I ever have been and that my improved status in life comes from accepting and embracing more of the true doctrine of Jesus Christ. Hopefully someday they will be able to see how much my life has improved and then ask me how I can possibly accept these teachings, which will then give me more of an opportunity to share the knowledge that I have with them, but until then, we are all better off if I never TALK about religion again.

1) You are wrong if you think that I can’t communicate with my parents.  I can communicate with my parents, just not about certain things,

That's my point, your religious assumptions are keeping you apart.

)

If your God is Jesus, as is mine, then you might possibly recall what He said about how His message would divide parents from children,

Right on point, my God is NOT that Jesus. My God would never have said that. My God doesn't make people chose HIM over their loved ones. You see, there is no need to ever be in that position and his word for me has never made me think there was. I find YOUR God to be something of a saddist and cosmic terrorist.

[Guest curvette]

Originally posted by Cal+Oct 5 2004, 05:26 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Cal @ Oct 5 2004, 05:26 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin--Faerie@Oct 4 2004, 06:27 PM

MY God makes better chocolate chip cookies than YOUR God 

Well then, send them on over, and make sure they have walnuts!

I love walnuts in chocolate chip cookies. I can't eat them though, they give me cankers. It's a divine punishment, I'm sure of it!

[Jenda]

Originally posted by Cal@Oct 5 2004, 05:32 PM

If your God is Jesus, as is mine, then you might possibly recall what He said about how His message would divide parents from children,

Right on point, my God is NOT that Jesus. My God would never have said that. My God doesn't make people chose HIM over their loved ones. You see, there is no need to ever be in that position and his word for me has never made me think there was. I find YOUR God to be something of a saddist and cosmic terrorist.

Then there are evidently parts of the Bible that you dismiss.

[Faerie]

Originally posted by curvette+Oct 5 2004, 09:25 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (curvette @ Oct 5 2004, 09:25 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>

Originally posted by -Cal@Oct 5 2004, 05:26 PM

<!--QuoteBegin--Faerie@Oct 4 2004, 06:27 PM

MY God makes better chocolate chip cookies than YOUR God 

Well then, send them on over, and make sure they have walnuts!

I love walnuts in chocolate chip cookies. I can't eat them though, they give me cankers. It's a divine punishment, I'm sure of it!

only time i like nuts with my chocolate is in a snicker's bar :)

and glad to see you still have your sense of humor cal :)

[Ray]

Ray:

‘1) You are wrong if you think that I can’t communicate with my parents.  I can communicate with my parents, just not about certain things,

Cal:

That's my point, your religious assumptions are keeping you apart.

I used the word “convictions” and you used the word “assumptions”. Go figure.

Aside from the fact that they are not “assumptions”, at least not on my part, you are basically correct. Our religious “convictions” are keeping me apart from my parents. What you may fail to see, however, is that this is a result of their “convictions” as well as mine, because neither one of us is willing to change our convictions.

Ray:

If your God is Jesus, as is mine, then you might possibly recall what He said about how His message would divide parents from children…

Cal:

Right on point, my God is NOT that Jesus. My God would never have said that. My God doesn't make people chose HIM over their loved ones. You see, there is no need to ever be in that position and his word for me has never made me think there was. I find YOUR God to be something of a saddist and cosmic terrorist.

Are you suggesting that “your” Jesus did not say this?

Whosoever therefore shall confess me before men, him will I confess also before my Father which is in heaven.  But whosoever shall deny me before men, him will I also deny before my Father which is in heaven.  Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword.  For I am come to set a man at variance against his father, and the daughter against her mother, and the daughter in law against her mother in law.  And a man’s foes shall be they of his own household.  He that loveth father or mother more than me is not worthy of me: and he that loveth son or daughter more than me is not worthy of me.Matthew 10:32-37

Who is “your” Jesus if not the Jesus of the Bible?

And btw, the chocolate chip / macadamia nut cookies my wife makes are better than any chocolate chip cookies any of you have EVER tasted! But hey, maybe I’m a little prejudiced.