Q&A with Bro. Kristoffer...

[KristofferUmfrey]

These are the last days, the gathering period. I find it very hard to believe that God would wish to further divide his kingdom on earth. Did Christ not say, "if ye are not one, ye are not mine."? Weren't many of the talks during this past conference about unity and becoming one in Christ? (if you don't care about conference, disregard that last sentence).

And yes, thank you, i do know that i can have my own opinion. If that's the only response you can come up with, i might as well answer it now. I agree, we should stick to doctrinal differences instead of stating the obvious.

Would you really like me to answer you about gathering or are you just taking shots at me?

You have a problem with "You are welcome to your opinion". What would you like me to say? I do that to show I have no animosity, and I follow it with my own opinion. So I am not exactly sure what you want.

If everything I say is going to cause you anxiety, you can always find other topics to explore instead of this one. Obviously, something here lit a fire under you, because in my time here I haven't seen you post before. Not saying you haven't, just that during my stay so far this is the first time I've seen you actively involved in a topic.

[Old Tex]

You make it seem as though I'm the one who brought it up and am emphasizing it, which couldn't be further from the truth. You had to go and find it and bring it up for it to be talked about.

Sorry, I was only asking a question about something you wrote on your web site, that is, "Heavenly Mother = Holy Ghost". You stated that you had been excommunicated and I wondered if your statement had anything to do with it. That seemed to me to be a question about a difference in doctrine, but I will refrain from any more questions if you prefer.

Old Tex

[Connie]

Would you really like me to answer you about gathering or are you just taking shots at me?

You have a problem with "You are welcome to your opinion". What would you like me to say? I do that to show I have no animosity, and I follow it with my own opinion. So I am not exactly sure what you want.

If everything I say is going to cause you anxiety, you can always find other topics to explore instead of this one. Obviously, something here lit a fire under you, because in my time here I haven't seen you post before. Not saying you haven't, just that during my stay so far this is the first time I've seen you actively involved in a topic.

Yes, i see you are rather new here and are probably not used to my occasional abruptness. It looks like you popped on right about the time i was going through my long and arduous move to another town, during which time i only occasionally visited the site.

But, by all means, answer about the gathering. I wouldn't have posted it if i didn't want you to respond. But, yes, i would you rather give a real response than that particular phrase i don't like. I see that phrase as a skirting of the issues.

You say you are interested in discussion, then let's discuss. If all you want is opinion, then you can state yours and i can state mine and we can skip along to other things. But please don't skirt the issue by stating what i already know. Let's discuss our opinions instead of stating that we have them, which is obvious.

So, yes, please tell me why you think God would want more scattering when we are supposed to be in the time of gathering.

[KristofferUmfrey]

Sorry, I was only asking a question about something you wrote on your web site, that is, "Heavenly Mother = Holy Ghost". You stated that you had been excommunicated and I wondered if your statement had anything to do with it. That seemed to me to be a question about a difference in doctrine, but I will refrain from any more questions if you prefer.

Old Tex

wow, did you really take my post that way? I just thought it was odd that it seemed as though you were saying I was emphasizing it or that I brought it up. It's only mentioned once on the web page in the "Basic Beliefs" link, it's not like I've made it a central tenant of my teaching.

Sorry if you thought I was offended, you can ask questions if you'd like. I wouldn't have made the topic if I didn't welcome discussion.

:)

[KristofferUmfrey]

Yes, i see you are rather new here and are probably not used to my occasional abruptness. It looks like you popped on right about the time i was going through my long and arduous move to another town, during which time i only occasionally visited the site.

But, by all means, answer about the gathering. I wouldn't have posted it if i didn't want you to respond. But, yes, i would you rather give a real response than that particular phrase i don't like. I see that phrase as a skirting of the issues.

You say you are interested in discussion, then let's discuss. If all you want is opinion, then you can state yours and i can state mine and we can skip along to other things. But please don't skirt the issue by stating what i already know. Let's discuss our opinions instead of stating that we have them, which is obvious.

So, yes, please tell me why you think God would want more scattering when we are supposed to be in the time of gathering.

I can be rather abrupt myself which caused me a 2 week hiatus earlier, so I am trying to be more friendly. But if you prefer I could answer your posts in default style and we can accomplish nothing but being mean to each other?

I still am confused at what you want... Isn't a discussion an exchange of opinions and ideas? Like I said earlier I wasn't just saying "Thank you for your opinion." without a follow-up commentary of my own. I think you may be slightly blinded by your perception of me being an 'apostate'.

I would be glad to answer your question on gathering...

I absolutely agree that this dispensation is a time of gathering, as gathering is important in all dispensations. I believe, as Joseph Smith taught, that believers should be gathered to Zion (North America and Canada) as soon as they are able and we that are already here should assist them.

I disagree with the current teaching of the LDS church that members should stay in their own lands.

If you would like me to clarify what I believe, feel free to ask more directed questions.

[BenRaines]

I think that the migrating of all saints to North America has harmed the work in other parts of the world. There are many areas of the world where the church has been established almost as long as it has been established in the US and yet they struggle. One of the reasons they struggle is they have only a generation or two of saints who live there due to the migration of saints to US and mostly to Utah.

For the church to grow and establish stakes of Zion throughout the world the saints need to stay in country and build Zion "where the pure in heart dwell".

My opinion.

Ben Raines

[rameumptom]

Kris,

You gave your website on another thread, which was moved here. That means your beliefs that are listed on your website are okay for discussion here. Otherwise, you would not have shared your site in the first place.

I've yet to see you defend or discuss any issues we've asked. Even on the Holy Ghost = Mother in Heaven, you've only quoted the Book of Mormon but have not explained your belief. It has just been short opinionated responses. But no scriptural or evidence given.

Stating that things are opinion, does not make for a discussion. It is likely that many wanting to know your thought process and how you came up with such beliefs are feeling frustrated because your answers have mostly been non-answers. For example, You promise a couple times to discuss it, and then give us a scripture instead.

If you wish to have a discussion on your religion, you must be able to discuss why you believe certain things. Otherwise, your entire belief system is based solely upon your opinions and mean nothing to us.

I disagree with the Community of Christ (RLDS), Catholics, Protestants and evangelicals on many issues. But at least many of them are willing to actually discuss with me their views, regardless of whether we end up agreeing or not. I'd really like to have a discussion on the questions I've asked. If you don't wish to discuss the temple portion, that's fine. But I still asked several questions about a week ago, and I've yet to see any answers whatsoever.

Even your belief that you continue holding the priesthood does not quite jibe for me. You stated that you were "properly excommunicated", the reasons I do not care to know. But that suggests you recognized the priesthood authority and their right to take away your priesthood authority. Suddenly, it is your opinion that God can give it back without going through that same priesthood authority that gave it to you in the first place? Can you explain that to us with some reasoning/logic, so that we can begin to understand your priesthood authority claims?

[rameumptom]

Here's another question for you, Kris:

At what point and time did Joseph Smith fall from grace? Was it when he gave up the Urim and Thummim, so that he was no longer (in your view) a Seer? Or was it some pronouncement or belief that he instated (polygamy? God as a physical being? etc.?)?

Where/when is it that God removed the calling of apostle from Joseph and the Twelve, so as to make it a priesthood of ordained believers?

I see a pattern in the scriptures, where God had Prophets (capital "P") and God had prophets. The ordination to Apostle confirms greater authority than to someone ordained an elder, correct? If so, then why do you believe that someone ordained as an elder, as yourself, has as great or greater authority than today's apostles?

Finally, up to what point in the Doctrine and Covenants do you agree with the doctrines? Where is the line that Joseph became wrong in his revelations? Do you only believe, say, up to 1831? Or do you reject everything that followed his returning the U&T in approx 1830?

You seem to accept the Lectures on Faith, which were first placed in the 1835 D&C (it was the doctrinal portion at the time, but never approved by the membership as scripture). Does that mean you accept all the revelations of Joseph Smith up through that period?

I'm asking because it will help us understand where/when you believe Joseph went astray and that the gospel went into a stasis mode.

[KristofferUmfrey]

Kris,

You gave your website on another thread, which was moved here. That means your beliefs that are listed on your website are okay for discussion here. Otherwise, you would not have shared your site in the first place.

I've yet to see you defend or discuss any issues we've asked. Even on the Holy Ghost = Mother in Heaven, you've only quoted the Book of Mormon but have not explained your belief. It has just been short opinionated responses. But no scriptural or evidence given.

Stating that things are opinion, does not make for a discussion. It is likely that many wanting to know your thought process and how you came up with such beliefs are feeling frustrated because your answers have mostly been non-answers. For example, You promise a couple times to discuss it, and then give us a scripture instead.

If you wish to have a discussion on your religion, you must be able to discuss why you believe certain things. Otherwise, your entire belief system is based solely upon your opinions and mean nothing to us.

I disagree with the Community of Christ (RLDS), Catholics, Protestants and evangelicals on many issues. But at least many of them are willing to actually discuss with me their views, regardless of whether we end up agreeing or not. I'd really like to have a discussion on the questions I've asked. If you don't wish to discuss the temple portion, that's fine. But I still asked several questions about a week ago, and I've yet to see any answers whatsoever.

Even your belief that you continue holding the priesthood does not quite jibe for me. You stated that you were "properly excommunicated", the reasons I do not care to know. But that suggests you recognized the priesthood authority and their right to take away your priesthood authority. Suddenly, it is your opinion that God can give it back without going through that same priesthood authority that gave it to you in the first place? Can you explain that to us with some reasoning/logic, so that we can begin to understand your priesthood authority claims?

I honestly don't understand the aggression of the posts here. I have been trying to be polite, I had hoped I would receive it in return. I'm sorry I have not answered your questions in the time frame you see as best, but I don't have ready made apologetic pieces on the web I can cut and past. As for me posting my opinions, you have done just the same.

Nephi's vision...

You will notice in the first few verses he speaks of the Holy Ghost...

When the actual vision starts you will notice that he speaks of "the Spirit of the Lord" appearing to him, not the Holy Ghost. I believe that the "Spirit of the Lord" is just that, the Spirit of the Lord Jesus Christ, not the Holy Ghost. You will notice that the Spirit of the Lord leaves just before Nephi sees in the vision of Mary and Jesus Christ and his guide through the vision at that point becomes an angel.

*Nephi changes from speaking of the Holy Ghost to speaking of the Spirit of the Lord.

*the Spirit of the Lord leaves just as he is about to witness the Savior in the vision and an angel becomes his guide.

If it was the Holy Ghost that appeared to him, why would he not just continue on using the same verbage to describe his visitor that he had just used in the previous verses?

Why does the Spirit of the Lord disappear at the point he is about to witness the Lord in vision? why does an angel become his guide at that point?

[Connie]

Kris,

You gave your website on another thread, which was moved here. That means your beliefs that are listed on your website are okay for discussion here. Otherwise, you would not have shared your site in the first place.

I've yet to see you defend or discuss any issues we've asked. Even on the Holy Ghost = Mother in Heaven, you've only quoted the Book of Mormon but have not explained your belief. It has just been short opinionated responses. But no scriptural or evidence given.

Stating that things are opinion, does not make for a discussion. It is likely that many wanting to know your thought process and how you came up with such beliefs are feeling frustrated because your answers have mostly been non-answers. For example, You promise a couple times to discuss it, and then give us a scripture instead.

If you wish to have a discussion on your religion, you must be able to discuss why you believe certain things. Otherwise, your entire belief system is based solely upon your opinions and mean nothing to us.

I disagree with the Community of Christ (RLDS), Catholics, Protestants and evangelicals on many issues. But at least many of them are willing to actually discuss with me their views, regardless of whether we end up agreeing or not. I'd really like to have a discussion on the questions I've asked. If you don't wish to discuss the temple portion, that's fine. But I still asked several questions about a week ago, and I've yet to see any answers whatsoever.

Even your belief that you continue holding the priesthood does not quite jibe for me. You stated that you were "properly excommunicated", the reasons I do not care to know. But that suggests you recognized the priesthood authority and their right to take away your priesthood authority. Suddenly, it is your opinion that God can give it back without going through that same priesthood authority that gave it to you in the first place? Can you explain that to us with some reasoning/logic, so that we can begin to understand your priesthood authority claims?

Thank you, rameumptom, this is exactly my frustration. And it looks like we will continue to not get any straight answers. Oh, well.

Kris, mate, i think you're reading aggression in these posts. I do not see any aggression here on anyone's part--just frustration. We are clearly not communicating with each other very well for some reason.

[KristofferUmfrey]

Thank you, rameumptom, this is exactly my frustration. And it looks like we will continue to not get any straight answers. Oh, well.

Kris, mate, i think you're reading aggression in these posts. I do not see any aggression here on anyone's part--just frustration. We are clearly not communicating with each other very well for some reason.

Ok, now I'm starting to get angry... Just because you don't like my answers doesn't mean I'm not answering. Show me the same respect I'm trying to show you.

[KristofferUmfrey]

Oh, and how about this Rameumpton...

Try asking me one question at a time instead of 15 in one post interlaced with insults. Could you do that for me?

Thanks in Advance.

[KristofferUmfrey]

Thank you, rameumptom, this is exactly my frustration. And it looks like we will continue to not get any straight answers. Oh, well.

Kris, mate, i think you're reading aggression in these posts. I do not see any aggression here on anyone's part--just frustration. We are clearly not communicating with each other very well for some reason.

BTW, the times that I said "You are welcome to your opinion" are when I was answering Rameumpton's opinions of me personally, not any specific question concerning doctrine. Read the posts without your anti-apostate glasses on.

[KristofferUmfrey]

Questions asked to me thus far, just from Rameumpton...

So, what is your standing in this church you are establishing?

Are you a prophet, THE prophet, or just a caretaker (as Sidney Rigdon offered to become)?

And why would God select you to establish another Restorationist Church, wherein you accept the baptism and priesthood authority from the others, when they should be sufficient if they do hold that priesthood authority?

In fact, if they do hold the priesthood authority, seems to me that their revelations and prophecies would be as valid as your own. Doesn't that make you redundant?

Finally, you do realize that most of the Lectures of Faith were written by Sidney Rigdon, and not Joseph Smith?

Why is it that you accept the Bible, Book of Mormon, Lectures on Faith and obviously the Articles of Faith (or some of them), but seem to give a pass on the D&C/Book of Commandments?

Joseph taught that God also is an embodied Spirit. After all, what is more perfect, the Father as only a Spirit, or the Son who is an embodied Spirit?

What are your views on the King Follett Discourse and Sermon in the Grove?

What are your views on the temple and its work?

Do you believe in baptism for the dead?

Endowments?

Sealings of families for eternity?

I am beginning to understand. You are suggesting that Joseph was correct in the beginning, but strayed later?

So, you would suggest that Joseph Smith ended up a fallen prophet, or at least wrong in his later years?

Willard Richards' hands were on a lot of the early writings, because God had called him to be one of Joseph's scribe. And his is just one of several versions of the King Follet Discourse, all of which agree in most particulars. How do you account for that?

So, you've been excommunicated due to worthiness issues, and instead of repenting, you decided to start your own church?

How do you claim priesthood authority, when those holding priesthood keys excommunicated you, stripping you of your authority?

How do we know you aren't following a deceiving spirit, as Joseph Smith established the priesthood quorums and their responsibilities to baptize, ordain, and excommunicate?

And how do you know that the First Presidency and Twelve don't have Urim and Thummim now?

D&C 130 states that U&T can be a small white stone given to the elect. How do you know there aren't 15 of them right now on earth, or 1 that is accessible by all of them?

Suddenly, it is your opinion that God can give it back without going through that same priesthood authority that gave it to you in the first place?

Can you explain that to us with some reasoning/logic, so that we can begin to understand your priesthood authority claims?

At what point and time did Joseph Smith fall from grace?

Was it when he gave up the Urim and Thummim, so that he was no longer (in your view) a Seer?

Or was it some pronouncement or belief that he instated (polygamy? God as a physical being? etc.?)?

Where/when is it that God removed the calling of apostle from Joseph and the Twelve, so as to make it a priesthood of ordained believers?

I see a pattern in the scriptures, where God had Prophets (capital "P") and God had prophets. The ordination to Apostle confirms greater authority than to someone ordained an elder, correct?

If so, then why do you believe that someone ordained as an elder, as yourself, has as great or greater authority than today's apostles?

Finally, up to what point in the Doctrine and Covenants do you agree with the doctrines?

Where is the line that Joseph became wrong in his revelations?

Do you only believe, say, up to 1831?

Or do you reject everything that followed his returning the U&T in approx 1830?

You seem to accept the Lectures on Faith, which were first placed in the 1835 D&C (it was the doctrinal portion at the time, but never approved by the membership as scripture). Does that mean you accept all the revelations of Joseph Smith up through that period?

I count 33 questions and sub-question... So I hope you'll excuse me if my responses get delayed...

Edited December 15, 2008 by KristofferUmfrey

[KristofferUmfrey]

Kris,

You gave your website on another thread, which was moved here. That means your beliefs that are listed on your website are okay for discussion here. Otherwise, you would not have shared your site in the first place.

I've yet to see you defend or discuss any issues we've asked. Even on the Holy Ghost = Mother in Heaven, you've only quoted the Book of Mormon but have not explained your belief. It has just been short opinionated responses. But no scriptural or evidence given.

Stating that things are opinion, does not make for a discussion. It is likely that many wanting to know your thought process and how you came up with such beliefs are feeling frustrated because your answers have mostly been non-answers. For example, You promise a couple times to discuss it, and then give us a scripture instead.

If you wish to have a discussion on your religion, you must be able to discuss why you believe certain things. Otherwise, your entire belief system is based solely upon your opinions and mean nothing to us.

I disagree with the Community of Christ (RLDS), Catholics, Protestants and evangelicals on many issues. But at least many of them are willing to actually discuss with me their views, regardless of whether we end up agreeing or not. I'd really like to have a discussion on the questions I've asked. If you don't wish to discuss the temple portion, that's fine. But I still asked several questions about a week ago, and I've yet to see any answers whatsoever.

Even your belief that you continue holding the priesthood does not quite jibe for me. You stated that you were "properly excommunicated", the reasons I do not care to know. But that suggests you recognized the priesthood authority and their right to take away your priesthood authority. Suddenly, it is your opinion that God can give it back without going through that same priesthood authority that gave it to you in the first place? Can you explain that to us with some reasoning/logic, so that we can begin to understand your priesthood authority claims?

Let's do a reality check in this post also... You brought up the subject in a post way out in left field from the topic it was in....

"Old 12-11-2008, 07:20 AM

rameumptom's Avatar

rameumptom rameumptom is offline

Senior Member

Join Date: Jan 2008

Location: United States -

Posts: 2,386

Thanks: 370

Thanked 1,095 Times in 615 Posts

Laughs: 28

Got Laughs 35 Times in 25 Posts

Default

Quote:

Originally Posted by KristofferUmfrey View Post

Home | Bust The Black List!

You realize that there already is a Church of Christ, don't you? It was formed by Alexander Campbell and a few others over a century ago, and is one of the predominant religions in the South.

They do not believe in the Book of Mormon, nor do they believe in the gifts of the Spirit, believing all was done away with when the apostles died.

Speaking of, Prison Chaplain and the other Christians out there: how do you feel about Christian churches/faiths that deny the gifts of the Spirit? Are they held as in good stead, or as Christians that are off the mark? "

The topic was about possibly boycotting No on 8 businesses and doing business with the Yes on 8 businesses being targeted by anti-8 folks. Your post came out of nowhere. But I was friendly and answered, so you could at least be polite enough to treat me with respect since YOU are the one who broached the subject.

At least Old Tex brought up the Holy Ghost question in a topic someone made about the subject and hasn't peppered me with questions and then got mad at me for not answering one right away. You've asked me 33 questions and sub-questions, I think you could practice some patience in waiting for replies.

Edited December 15, 2008 by KristofferUmfrey

[Old Tex]

Thank you, rameumptom, this is exactly my frustration. And it looks like we will continue to not get any straight answers. Oh, well.

Commerific,

I think I have asked all the questions that I care to anyway. This fellow is deceiving no one but himself. He knows that he has no Priesthood. Anyone who is excommunicated receives a letter after such action informing them that Temple blessings, ordinations, and baptism are no longer of any effect. As a ward clerk for many years, I prepared and mailed these letters under the direction of the Bishop, so I know what he was informed of.

Old Tex

[Guest ceeboo]

I wish somebody would ask me a question :(:(

[Connie]

BTW, the times that I said "You are welcome to your opinion" are when I was answering Rameumpton's opinions of me personally, not any specific question concerning doctrine.

I disagree. Take this for example:

ram asks: "How do we know you aren't following a deceiving spirit, as Joseph Smith established the priesthood quorums and their responsibilities to baptize, ordain, and excommunicate?" [it is LDS doctrine about the priesthood being able to excommunicate and hence take away priesthood authority]

your response: "And you are welcome to your point of view." [you do mention feeling the spirit stronger, but again how do we know what spirit it is]

One more:

ram says: "I can tell you, the day will come when the Lord will restore Zion. And those leading it will be at the head of the LDS Church, as prophets and apostles. No other restorationist church has the direction, organization, or inspiration to make it happen." [again, it is LDS doctrine that those at the head of our church will restore Zion]

your response: "Again, you are welcome to your opinion." [you do say, "The Lord doesn't need an earthly organization to make anything happen, He could raise up an army tomorrow to build New Jerusalem..." but then why did he make an "earthly" organization through Joseph Smith (which you apparently believe)?]

I think you need to make yourself a little more clear. For example, how do the verses you quote from Nephi mean that the Holy Spirit = Heavenly Mother (which was the original question) because i really can't see that meaning in there. Please explain.

Read the posts without your anti-apostate glasses on.

Please refrain from calling me anti-apostate. My sister is an apostate, and i love her dearly. You have already done this twice, please don't do it again.

[rameumptom]

Kris,

I am not trying to be aggressive. I'm just awaiting actual answers to my questions. Others see it, I'm intrigued to know why you haven't realized that you've primarily given several non-answers.

For example, when I last asked about your view of Heavenly Mother = Holy Ghost, you wrote:

When the actual vision starts you will notice that he speaks of "the Spirit of the Lord" appearing to him, not the Holy Ghost. I believe that the "Spirit of the Lord" is just that, the Spirit of the Lord Jesus Christ, not the Holy Ghost. You will notice that the Spirit of the Lord leaves just before Nephi sees in the vision of Mary and Jesus Christ and his guide through the vision at that point becomes an angel.

*Nephi changes from speaking of the Holy Ghost to speaking of the Spirit of the Lord.

*the Spirit of the Lord leaves just as he is about to witness the Savior in the vision and an angel becomes his guide.

If it was the Holy Ghost that appeared to him, why would he not just continue on using the same verbage to describe his visitor that he had just used in the previous verses?

Why does the Spirit of the Lord disappear at the point he is about to witness the Lord in vision? why does an angel become his guide at that point?

This does not answer my question. I agree that the Holy Ghost is swapped out by an angel at the point of the tree. But Nephi is referencing the Holy Ghost as he calls it the Spirit of the Lord. Your response says nothing about the Holy Ghost appearing to him as a man. I understand that it is your opinion that the Spirit of the Lord and the Holy Ghost are not the same being. How about some evidence of your belief? In the Bible and Book of Mormon, Holy Ghost and Holy Spirit are used rather interchangeably.

Ancient belief is that God's wife, Heavenly Mother, is represented by the Tree of Life, not the Holy Ghost. And it is the Tree of Life representation and its fruit, which is immediately expressed as Virgin and Baby Jesus as that tree and fruit. The Holy Ghost's mission and purpose is to testify of the Father and Son, and this is exactly what he was doing in this instance: testifying of the birth of Christ through a woman (Mary, in this instance representative of Heavenly Mother and the spiritual birth of Christ)

[chriscb]

I wish somebody would ask me a question :(:(

I would but your avatar is too distracting.

[Old Tex]

I wish somebody would ask me a question :(:(

Do you expect to have a nice Christmas, ceeboo? I hope so.

[Old Tex]

I would but your avatar is too distracting.

Maybe he/she will get a new face for Christmas.

[KristofferUmfrey]

Commerific,

I think I have asked all the questions that I care to anyway. This fellow is deceiving no one but himself. He knows that he has no Priesthood. Anyone who is excommunicated receives a letter after such action informing them that Temple blessings, ordinations, and baptism are no longer of any effect. As a ward clerk for many years, I prepared and mailed these letters under the direction of the Bishop, so I know what he was informed of.

Old Tex

I have spoken to NONE OF YOU in such a manner. This is truly offensive, I try to be cordial and THIS is the way I am treated???

I'm the bad guy because I can't rapid fire answers as quick as Rameumpton spits them out.

[KristofferUmfrey]

I"m THROUGH with this topic. I refuse to be treated as rubbish.

Rameumpton is an appropriate name for you, sir.

[chriscb]

KristofferUmfrey, I am intrigued by your beliefs. I hope you won't be discouraged from sharing with the rest of us what it is you believe. How would you interpret Luke 9:49-50 ?