Are you surprised in scripture when Jesus gets tough on others?

[Guest]

I'm talking 3rd book of Nephi where whole villages are sunk and destroyed at his death taking away all the wicked. Then if you read all Jesus says in revelations in Doctrine and Covenants he's either chastising Joseph Smith or someone else, or talking about repent or be destroyed for I come quickly. Is it comforting that Jesus is this divisive? And apparently pre mortal Jesus was Jehovah of the Old Testament and I won't even go into how many punishments were dished out. My point is everyone says Jesus is some universal love hippie, while I see Jesus separating the wheat from the tares, the righteous from the wicked. How do you see Jesus by His actions throughout all canonized scripture and not just New Testament.

Edited December 18, 2016 by Zarahemla

[zil]

Now go back and read about all the blessings and promises for the righteous.  When I read the scriptures, I see a generous God trying to teach his children to live in a way that will bring happiness to the largest possible number of those children.

D&C 95:1

Quote

1 Verily, thus saith the Lord unto you whom I love, and whom I love I also chasten that their sins may be forgiven, for with the chastisement I prepare a way for their deliverance in all things out of temptation, and I have loved you—

D&C 59:4

Quote

4 And they shall also be crowned with blessings from above, yea, and with commandments not a few, and with revelations in their time—they that are faithful and diligent before me.

Commandments are a blessing.  Why, because they teach us what we need to know in order to progress.  They are no different from learning the laws of math or physics - you start and the beginning and learn as you go, and the more you learn, the more you can do.  The root of the word "command" is the Latin for "commend" - as in, "to entrust".  The Lord entrusts us with knowledge of how to return to our Father.

Those who defy a law - any law, including, for example, gravity, reap the consequences of their disobedience.  Those who learn and master a law can use their knowledge to accomplish great things - they also reap the consequences of their obedience.

So no, I'm not surprised when the wicked reap the consequences of their defiance of law, nor am I surprised when the righteous reap the consequences of their obedience to law.  The only thing worse for the wicked than to allow them to reap the consequences of their disobedience would be to force them to live under a higher law which they had rejected.

[Guest]

Not at all.  He is the perfect mentor.

Mentors know when the pupil needs a soft touch and when he needs a firm hand.  As mortals, we are not perfect enough to always tell which is called for. But He is perfect and He knows when to do which.

Being soft on EVERYTHING does not make someone good.  Being hard on anyone does not automatically make someone evil.  The fact is that those the Lord loves, He chastens.

And if you're talking about the Old Testament, we're talking about entire nations knowingly turning away from God.  This then would perpetuate the evil through many more generations.  This wasn't a bunch of people who were simply weak and fell to temptation or were fooled or blinded by others.  They knowingly, consciously, voluntarily, turned from God.  That's a whole different set of rules.

[Guest]

5 minutes ago, MormonGator said:

No. Next question. 

My next question is who is the great whore of the earth babylon that is mentioned. Before Bruce R McKonkie said it was the Catholic church, but I don't believe that's true. I think it's all unrepentent apostates, atheists, islamic terrorists, and all wicked people on earth. I don't think it's just one specific group.

[Guest]

54 minutes ago, Zarahemla said:

My next question is who is the great . . .  babylon that is mentioned. Before Bruce R McKonkie said it was the Catholic church, but I don't believe that's true. I think it's all unrepentent apostates, atheists, islamic terrorists, and all wicked people on earth. I don't think it's just one specific group.

Did Bruce R. McConkie actually say that?  If he did, I imagine it was his own personal opinion (perhaps ripped out of context and made before he was an apostle?) and does not represent the opinion of the Church or any other members in any way.

I personally think the Catholic Church is really "proto-Mormonism" and, at least for the past 300 years or so, does a whole lot more right than wrong.  In fact, I personally think Pope Francis is a very righteous man who is being guided by the Spirit and who is slowly leading the Catholic Church back towards its Mormon roots (because, let's face it, the first century Christians, just like Christ and the original apostles, were all Mormons!  Mormonism equals first century Christianity.  If you need proof of this, just read the writings of the earliest Early Church Fathers - pure Mormonism!).  

That said, I am well aware of history, and I think Catholicism, Protestantism, and Islam have all three on occasion perpetuated atrocities hundreds of years ago that are most unbecoming of what these religions stand for.  The Inquisition, all of the sheer madness in Luther's Germany, and the expulsions of Jews from Saudi Arabia are some examples of this.  Perhaps all of these religions, while usually very worthy, have all had members dabbling in Babylon at some points in their history.

I agree that it is probably more than one group, and I can think of hundreds of groups that are way more deserving of that title than the Catholic Church - Al Qaeda, ISIS, secret combinations, Planned Parenthood . . . 

Edited December 18, 2016 by DoctorLemon

[MarginOfError]

McConkie did state that the Catholic Church was the great whore in his first edition of Mormon Doctrine (published when McConkie was a Seventy). That was one of nearly 1,000 corrections that President McKay considered releasing in an official statement. Ultimately, the corrections were made quietly as it was thought that an official public statement of so many corrections would result in no one taking McConkie seriously again (Prince, David O McKay and the rise of modern Mormonism).

Back to the subject at hand: I'm not surprised by any personality traits or behaviors of Jesus. I've observed that the qualities attributed to Jesus (and God in general) usually say more about the people describing Jesus than they do of Jesus himself. That is to say, we tend to atribute to Christ the attributes and behaviors we most want to see in ourselves. 

[james12]

9 hours ago, Zarahemla said:

I'm talking 3rd book of Nephi where whole villages are sunk and destroyed at his death taking away all the wicked. Then if you read all Jesus says in revelations in Doctrine and Covenants he's either chastising Joseph Smith or someone else, or talking about repent or be destroyed for I come quickly. Is it comforting that Jesus is this divisive? And apparently pre mortal Jesus was Jehovah of the Old Testament and I won't even go into how many punishments were dished out. My point is everyone says Jesus is some universal love hippie, while I see Jesus separating the wheat from the tares, the righteous from the wicked. How do you see Jesus by His actions throughout all canonized scripture and not just New Testament.

Joseph Smith said it this way:

Quote

• Our heavenly Father is more liberal in His views, and boundless in His mercies and blessings, than we are ready to believe or receive; and at the same time more terrible to the workers of iniquity, more awful in the executions of His punishments, and more ready to detect in every false way, than we are apt to suppose Him to be. (Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith', 257 (11 April 1842)

 

[Fether]

I'm no Old Testament buff, but I always did find it interesting that the consequences of certain sins were a lot more terrible back then than they are now.

A thought I had while reading through some of these posts: Throughout the scriptures, God has changed commandments (not the eternal laws, just the policy-oriented ones). i.e. Priesthood. First it was patriarchal and only found in one family, then only found in a certain tribe, then later only found among a race of men, and today, all men can have it. The Word of Wisdom (or a law of health) has changed too. The Jews practiced a law that is far different from ours today, as did the early saints. Plural marriage, FHE, sacrifice, consecration. The list goes on.

If policies can change, why can't consequences to the breaking of such policies change? Now natural/eternal law is law and consequences of breaking eternal laws can't be lessened beyond what the law demands, but God can enact consequences to increase the punishment over breaking certain laws (ie Breaking the Sabbath use to mean physical and spiritual death (Numbers 15:32,35), now it just mean spiritual death).

This may not really answer any questions, just thoughts I had

 

This however I feel applies more to the discussion. I believe the real question that we should ask is not about the Character of Christ, but rather about the nature of death.

While serving my mission, I found it rather frustrating when people would say "My sibling died at child birth, why would God allow that to happen!?". Now I may have been inconsiderate (which was an is a sin I'm still trying to beat), but that is beside the point. I got frustrated because these people who professed to be Christian couldn't see beyond their natural eyes (1 Cor 2:14)

Death is nothing more than just a transition from one state of existence to another. It is hardly a punishment, hardly something to really worry about. The only fear is that of the unknown, but that fear can be dissipated as our faith increases.

Death isn't that terrible of a thing, God destroying a city of wicked people isn't as terrible as we make it out to be. Fear of death is a deeply rooted, human culture, that has naturally built-in every one of us over the past 6,000ish years. We give lip service that eternal damnation is the greatest punishment, but we naturally see death as being the greatest punishment. The wicked will receive the punishment of eternal damnation whether they die now or in 20 years, and the final judgment comes at the same time for all of us. An early death will not send someone to Hell faster than living (I believe time works the same here as it does in the spirit world... am I wrong?)

 

If there is any false doctrine that I spoke, feel free to call me out

[Guest]

On 12/17/2016 at 9:18 PM, Zarahemla said:

My next question is who is the great whore of the earth babylon that is mentioned. Before Bruce R McKonkie said it was the Catholic church, but I don't believe that's true. I think it's all unrepentent apostates, atheists, islamic terrorists, and all wicked people on earth. I don't think it's just one specific group.

You are correct.  That is what he ended up saying in the second edition -- that it was not just one group.  It's all efforts in the entire world that work against the Lord.

On 12/17/2016 at 9:47 PM, DoctorLemon said:

Did Bruce R. McConkie actually say that?  If he did, I imagine it was his own personal opinion (perhaps ripped out of context and made before he was an apostle?) and does not represent the opinion of the Church or any other members in any way.

See MOE's post.

On 12/17/2016 at 11:10 PM, MarginOfError said:

McConkie did state that the Catholic Church was the great whore in his first edition of Mormon Doctrine (published when McConkie was a Seventy). That was one of nearly 1,000 corrections that President McKay considered releasing in an official statement. Ultimately, the corrections were made quietly as it was thought that an official public statement of so many corrections would result in no one taking McConkie seriously again (Prince, David O McKay and the rise of modern Mormonism).

Thanks, MOE.  I was going to post that.  But you said it perfectly.  

I want to add:  McConkie was always thought of as a hardline, very opinionated person.  But you don't get to be an apostle without a good level of humility.  You have to be able to admit when you're wrong no matter how much you know.  And let's face it, he knew quite a bit.  But he also go quite a bit wrong.  He was human after all.  But the great thing about him was that he was able to admit it so easily.

I've heard people say he only made the changes after much pressure from others.  The fact was it wasn't "pressure" at all.  McKay and others simply needed to present the points that were incorrect and why.  He saw the reasoning and his mistakes and voluntarily made the corrections.  That was it.

One of my ward mission leaders told me of this because he had a chance to sit down with McConkie to discuss that very thing.  It was another, "Yup, I was wrong" moment.

[NeuroTypical]

I am not surprised by Jesus' actions.  I do, however, enjoy surprising others by informing them about His actions.