A Thoughtful Quote

[Serg]

If you do not accuse each other, God will not accuse you. If you have no accuser you will enter heaven, and if you will follow the revelations and instructions which God gives you through me, I will take you into heaven as my back load. If you will not accuse me, I will not accuse you. If you will throw a cloak of charity over my sins, I will over yours—for charity covereth a multitude of sins.

History of the Church, 4:445.

I stand amazed at the wisdom of these words. They may not be encircled by the "Enlightment", or be derived from kant, but they feel so right indeed.

If these words were a painting, I would hang it in my very living room. Of course, these words have implications(spiritual ones) but also theological ones. The concept of agreement between creatures as guarantee in front of God's judgement and ineficacy of the Devil's accusing role, is a thing most radical and diferent from any christian church. We ought to study it, I for one, dont get to comprehend even the half of it. How would so splendid system work? The comfort these words bring, overpower sometimes my need to understand them fully...

Regards,

[Dr T]

Hello Serg,

With all due respect, I humbly have to say that I have a major difficulty from my initial reading of that statement.

If you do not accuse each other, God will not accuse you. If you have no accuser you will enter heaven, and if you will follow the revelations and instructions which God gives you through me, I will take you into heaven as my back load. If you will not accuse me, I will not accuse you. If you will throw a cloak of charity over my sins, I will over yours—for charity covereth a multitude of sins.

History of the Church, 4:445.

I'm sure many of you know what it means but I don't and therefore might be reading it differently than it was intended. Here is why I have a problem with it. The very first line says "If you do not accuse each other, God will not accuse you." What does that mean? If we all agree that sinfulness is no longer sinful (like lust for example) and do not accuse anyone that it is wrong, then God wont see it as wrong? That is nonsense.

Secondly, "If you have no accuser you will enter heaven, and if you will follow the revelations and instructions which God gives you through me, I will take you into heaven as my back load." If you have no accuser? Isn't God the one that accuses people when they are not godly? That statement is saying, in a sense, "If there is no god to accuse you, you will be in heaven." Again, self defeating.

Thirdly, "If you will not accuse me, I will not accuse you." Lets both look the other way type of deal? Silly.

Lastly, "If you will throw a cloak of charity over my sins, I will over yours—for charity covereth a multitude of sins." Charity covers sin? God's charity or human charity? What is being spoken of here?

I know, that I don't know what is meant there (at all) but at first blush, I see it as anything but "splendid."

Dr. T

[Serg]

Hello Serg,

With all due respect, I humbly have to say that I have a major difficulty from my initial reading of that statement.

If you do not accuse each other, God will not accuse you. If you have no accuser you will enter heaven, and if you will follow the revelations and instructions which God gives you through me, I will take you into heaven as my back load. If you will not accuse me, I will not accuse you. If you will throw a cloak of charity over my sins, I will over yours—for charity covereth a multitude of sins.

History of the Church, 4:445.

I'm sure many of you know what it means but I don't and therefore might be reading it differently than it was intended. Here is why I have a problem with it. The very first line says "If you do not accuse each other, God will not accuse you." What does that mean? If we all agree that sinfulness is no longer sinful (like lust for example) and do not accuse anyone that it is wrong, then God wont see it as wrong? That is nonsense.

Secondly, "If you have no accuser you will enter heaven, and if you will follow the revelations and instructions which God gives you through me, I will take you into heaven as my back load." If you have no accuser? Isn't God the one that accuses people when they are not godly? That statement is saying, in a sense, "If there is no god to accuse you, you will be in heaven." Again, self defeating.

Thirdly, "If you will not accuse me, I will not accuse you." Lets both look the other way type of deal? Silly.

Lastly, "If you will throw a cloak of charity over my sins, I will over yours—for charity covereth a multitude of sins." Charity covers sin? God's charity or human charity? What is being spoken of here?

I know, that I don't know what is meant there (at all) but at first blush, I see it as anything but "splendid."

Dr. T

Curiously, no member has come "to the rescue" of their prophet's wisdom. Well, its my deal anyways(I posted it )

This quote was given by Joseph concerning a member of the Church, an elder, that had just given a sermon, ënjoining sactity...the sectarian style", hence, focusing how God cleansed him from sin, and not sufficient the Lord's grace , he has come to establish his own "holiness" or good works. This the prophet rebuked, why?

Near that date, the prophet had confessed being drunk, and did it out of example for teh elders of teh church to confess, and if they would not confess, at leat not give shouts of self-righteousness in public. Members seemed to be "enchanted"by this sermon and began to see wrongfully or too judgemental; th Prophet's misconducts(of course, ignoring their own). The Prophet then with his quasi-biblical language, began to throw light on what "oght" to be the interaction between members(specially towards their leaders).

He begins saying "If you do not accuse each other, God will not accuse you." This he means, in the grace-restorational way. It goes to assert, that if you are condesendent with the traspasses of your brethren(that with all possibilities have been forgiven to them by grace) you may be sure that God will show even a higher condesendence to yours. To illustrate the point he also once said "Ever keep in exercise the principle of mercy, and be ready to forgive our brother on the first intimations of repentance, and asking forgiveness; and should we even forgive our brother, or even our enemy, before he repent or ask forgiveness, our heavenly Father would be equally as merciful unto us." History of the Church, 3:383. Obviously it is true. God will not exact from us less than even He is compromised to do. If we, frail creatures can forgive with such grace, and just ignore our brother's trespass, how much then will the Father of Justice do? This does not mean that if we all agree in that lust is no longer a sin God will overlook it, but a higher and less rudamentary interpretation. Although it is a universal truth that "agreement"is the climax of charity and that it brings forth so much power, that even God Himself is an display of its fruits(for the Godhead is instituted by THREE that AGREE), this goes to another place. You will not be forgiven because your fellow brother(sinner also) overlooked YOUR sin, but because as he did so YOU now out of the same tolerance(i.e.love) do so with his. It is a test for you, not an outward commendation. Of course, this presupposes that the one doing it(or those participating) do it sincerely, repenting from every wrong they do. Cases can be cited of Jesus'words that show equal(if not higher) logical discrepancies. The promise to those who suffer "for His sake" shall be blessed in heaven. Well, a lot of people can now, under a persecution of christians, say, under death penalty, Ï believe in christ and I will not deny it" , without really believing, but suffering of a deep depression caused by the death of tru christians relatived(put to death before), relatives who he misses, but never agreed in matters of "faith". Will this person(that fulfilled the requirement of dying by sustaing Jesus'divinty enjoy th ereward of "the prophets before ye"? No.

Then he goes and asserts "If you have no accuser you will enter heaven", this is true. If no one(this, including GOD-because he does not accuse a sinning christian, for grace although requiring justice, allows imperfections to not stand in the way of judgement) accuses us, even not the devil, who IS the accuser per excelentia then, how would we not enter heaven? If teh LAW lets us in, which accuser will stand in the way?

"if you will follow the revelations and instructions which God gives you through me, I will take you into heaven as my back load." It is an image of speech, teaching a truth, that if they follow the annointed's message of charity among them, they will enter to heaven , its logic.

If you will not accuse me, I will not accuse you. Same principle, but now applied to the context, to the isue of his frailty as prophet and the tolerance we ALL have to show to each other for NO leader(contrary to what one hears of members nowadays) is perfect.

If you will throw a cloak of charity over my sins, I will over yours—for charity covereth a multitude of sins. That sums it all, and it is everything of splendid, unless , a superior teaching concerning it can be given, and even then, it will be overshodowed not overturned.

[Dr T]

Hi Serg,

So are you saying that Joseph was getting drunk and people were talking about it and he basically said, "my drunkenness is not to be condemned. It is really just something to show you all that you are sinful too."? Please! I understand what you are saying about the "God forgives, we are also to forgive others" idea. John 3:16 type of thing is understood. Does this mean that you don't call people on things?

Thanks,

Dr. T

[Fiannan]

Serg, good information. Thanks.

[Serg]

Hi Serg,

So are you saying that Joseph was getting drunk and people were talking about it and he basically said, "my drunkenness is not to be condemned. It is really just something to show you all that you are sinful too."? Please! I understand what you are saying about the "God forgives, we are also to forgive others" idea. John 3:16 type of thing is understood. Does this mean that you don't call people on things?

Thanks,

Dr. T

No Dr.

He was a young man, in his 30s(inspite of being a true or false prophet), who was leading thousands of people, OUT of their homes, under persecution AND under the HOPE of a better and godly destiny. He was falliable, as ALL prophets are, and humans, he started to fail in personal things (not more often) but in more " public" ways(visible for the members). What happens? They begin to preocupate! "Are we leaving our home and dying in the wilderness of the west because of a fallen human being who gets drunk and is not(or at least pretends for our sake) to be perfect!??" That begins to spread, dear Dr.

What dos a prophet do(wether false or true) he also precupates. And that increases if a fellow brother is preaching that self-righteousness is NEDEED and POSIBLE in order to get to heaven. Well, then Smith(the leading man) was NOT under such requisits gonna get there.

Smith, out of all men in our history(the Church's) is the best example of need of grace in order to succeed. He just wanted them to know, that it was not his ultimate(thouhg actual-practrical) goal to fail, not to them or to God, but that "please"! just see that "this message is still vital for you to follow inspite of my frailty before God"!!, he was worried, he was humble, he recorded in our cannonical scriptures more than 8 times on which the Lord rebuked him under penalty of damnation , for his sins. What prophet does that? Well, either a true one, or a very clever one. Fact is, Smith was NEVER SO clever in most things. Hence, he was sincere.

The concept still was true, so he preached it to them, the "dont accuse me" this is, don call me a drunken, when I have repented and am trying hard to lead you, nor even less judge the Lord through his failling servants. That puts you to think, If Israel was to judge Jehova's work through the acts of Aaron, what would they have done? He was consecarted "priest forever" before God, but even he commited(or let it happen) idolatry. And also through the more eminent prophets recorded, Isaiah, Ezequiel, Noah!

The teaching that Smith imparted in this quote, is of very deep meaning, now you see, it is not only coherent, but expected, indeed, from a prophet somewhat "connected" with a "trascendant" realm.

Regards Dr,

[Dr T]

Thank you for your thoughts on this Serg. I'm sure this type of issue will come up for me again as I read and learn.

Dr. T

[Ray]

If you do not accuse each other, God will not accuse you. If you have no accuser you will enter heaven, and if you will follow the revelations and instructions which God gives you through me, I will take you into heaven as my back load. If you will not accuse me, I will not accuse you. If you will throw a cloak of charity over my sins, I will over yours—for charity covereth a multitude of sins.

The key word here is "accuse"... and Satan is known as THE accuser.

The meaning of the word accuse is to blame another person.

Do you like it when someone blames another person???

This does NOT mean we shouldn't accept responsibility for our actions, or that we shouldn't love another person by trying to help them learn to do better than they did or know how to do, but we should not be among those who "accuse"... some people just don't know any better.

[Serg]

If you do not accuse each other, God will not accuse you. If you have no accuser you will enter heaven, and if you will follow the revelations and instructions which God gives you through me, I will take you into heaven as my back load. If you will not accuse me, I will not accuse you. If you will throw a cloak of charity over my sins, I will over yours—for charity covereth a multitude of sins.

The key word here is "accuse"... and Satan is known as THE accuser.

The meaning of the word accuse is to blame another person.

Do you like it when someone blames another person???

This does NOT mean we shouldn't accept responsibility for our actions, or that we shouldn't love another person by trying to help them learn to do better than they did or know how to do, but we should not be among those who "accuse"... some people just don't know any better.

Yup

[Fiannan]

One should consider the principles contained in this quote. Often members set such high standards for themselves that it is impossible to maintain them (much like the Hebrews of old). These folk are often quick to judge others harshly for not maintaining as good of appearances as they do -- or at least try to do. However, perhaps these good rule keepers are under much harsher judgement than people who at least admit their weaknesses, strive to improve them, and at the same time (while not condoning sin) are caring and open to people despite what behaviors they may be engaging in.