Covenants, Commandments and personal standards

[Traveler]

 

In the thread (Something I noticed about the 4 conference sessions) I was impressed by a side conversation between @MormonGatorand@The Folk Prophet (that included others).  The conversation touched on a personal struggle of my own and I thought to ask The Folk Prophet specific questions – however, having thought about my question I thought to open the process and thought to the forum as a whole. 

 

I find your (The Folk Prophet or anyone else inclined to respond) thinking intriguing and would like to dig a little deeper into your thought processes.  For you (not a dictionary version but yours), what is compassion and how do you identify someone (including and especially yourself) as compassionate.  Also, what, in your thinking, is the most important element that you use to determine when your actions are right and wrong?  -- Perhaps your top 10 (give or take) elements?   One last question – do you or do you not expect that others should be held to the same standards that you hold for yourself – or do you allow for any “benefits of a doubt” for others?

 

The Traveler

[CV75]

4 minutes ago, Traveler said:

 

In the thread (Something I noticed about the 4 conference sessions) I was impressed by a side conversation between @MormonGatorand@The Folk Prophet (that included others).  The conversation touched on a personal struggle of my own and I thought to ask The Folk Prophet specific questions – however, having thought about my question I thought to open the process and thought to the forum as a whole. 

 

I find your (The Folk Prophet or anyone else inclined to respond) thinking intriguing and would like to dig a little deeper into your thought processes.  For you (not a dictionary version but yours), what is compassion and how do you identify someone (including and especially yourself) as compassionate.  Also, what, in your thinking, is the most important element that you use to determine when your actions are right and wrong?  -- Perhaps your top 10 (give or take) elements?   One last question – do you or do you not expect that others should be held to the same standards that you hold for yourself – or do you allow for any “benefits of a doubt” for others?

 

The Traveler

For me, compassion is charity expressed from a position of power to succor or serve. I suppose that is why charity is called the pure love of Christ. He is the most powerful imaginable and everything He condescends to do is to succor and serve us.

If I can rejoice in Christ with positive feelings when doing them or reflecting upon them, then I consider my actions to be right. If I can feel the Spirit or follow through when I have felt Him, or something good to do enters my mind, then I take my my actions to be right.

I do not hold others to my standards, and attribute this to D&C 59:4, where the faithful and obedient shall "be crowned with blessings from above, yea, and with commandments not a few, and with revelations in their time."  I cannot hold others to those standards that have come to me individually. If I have a calling, then I can rightly hold others to the standards I am obliged to uphold by virtue of the assignment or keys given to me by those in authority, but those are the Lord's general standards for the proper establishment of His kingdom.

[The Folk Prophet]

@Traveler Re compassion: What I think may not be of much value. This topic is one that holds a bit of confusion for me. The messages we have been given by our leaders on the matter, imo, are confusing and strike me, in ways, as contradictory. And that leaves me floundering a bit as to my views, which fit well with some messages given by our leaders but do not with others. And that makes me uncomfortable enough to feel like I need to step back from my strong opinions and wait for clarification.

As to standards that I hold for myself vs others...the standard should be the same for all, right? Christ is the standard.

[person0]

Quote

"And when he had made a scourge of small cords, he drove them all out of the temple, and the sheep, and the oxen; and poured out the changers’ money, and overthrew the tables;" (John 2:15)

I believe that this was an act of compassion by Christ.  All those who were driven out were given a new opportunity to evaluate their actions in ways they had not previously done sufficient to repentance.  Giving them this experience as an opportunity to repent so as to be worthy to one day enter God's kingdom was likely the greatest act of love and compassion Jesus could fulfill for them at that time.

If we all read the scriptures with this mindset, I wonder how it would affect our interpretation of compassion?

[Guest MormonGator]

3 minutes ago, person0 said:

I believe that this was an act of compassion by Christ.  All those who were driven out were given a new opportunity to evaluate their actions in ways they had not previously done sufficient to repentance.  Giving them this experience as an opportunity to repent so as to be worthy to one day enter God's kingdom was likely the greatest act of love and compassion Jesus could fulfill for them at that time.

If we all read the scriptures with this mindset, I wonder how it would affect our interpretation of compassion?

Let's also remember that Christ showed compassion in a different way when he forgave the woman caught in adultery-that was compassion as well. So compassion comes in all forms. 

Too many people (no, not you as in @person0) might justify their lack of compassion by saying it's just them being tough or sticking to the rules. Not so. 

[The Folk Prophet]

7 minutes ago, MormonGator said:

Let's also remember that Christ showed compassion in a different way when he forgave the woman caught in adultery-that was compassion as well. 

He did not forgive her. Just to clarify.

[Guest MormonGator]

4 minutes ago, The Folk Prophet said:

He did not forgive her. Just to clarify.

He also didn't stone her to death. Just to clarify. 

[Guest LiterateParakeet]

14 minutes ago, person0 said:

I believe that this was an act of compassion by Christ.  All those who were driven out were given a new opportunity to evaluate their actions in ways they had not previously done sufficient to repentance.  Giving them this experience as an opportunity to repent so as to be worthy to one day enter God's kingdom was likely the greatest act of love and compassion Jesus could fulfill for them at that time.

If we all read the scriptures with this mindset, I wonder how it would affect our interpretation of compassion?

An interesting idea, but I would call it correction more than compassion.  I mean sure, correction can come from a place of love, as in a parent correcting a child, but I don't think correction and compassion are the same thing.  Some Biblical scholars say that Christ cleansed the temple because He was angry that the poor were being taken advantage of.  So I see this act as compassion for the poor, and correction for the offenders. 

[The Folk Prophet]

Just now, MormonGator said:

He also didn't stone her to death. Just to clarify. 

Yeah...that didn't...need...clarifying....no one said or thinks He stoned her to death.

[Guest LiterateParakeet]

1 minute ago, MormonGator said:

He also didn't stone her to death. Just to clarify. 

I was thinking the same thing.  It is an interesting point since Christ was the God of the Old Testament as well.

[Guest MormonGator]

6 minutes ago, The Folk Prophet said:

Yeah...that didn't...need...clarifying....no one said or thinks He stoned her to death.

Good. Than we're all crystal clear. 

[person0]

38 minutes ago, MormonGator said:

Let's also remember that Christ showed compassion in a different way when he forgave the woman caught in adultery-that was compassion as well. So compassion comes in all forms. 

Too many people (no, not you as in @person0) might justify their lack of compassion by saying it's just them being tough or sticking to the rules. Not so. 

I agree with you.  I was coming from the perspective of the Lords compassion toward us rather than our compassion toward others.  The woman caught in adultery is a well used example of the Lord's compassion, however, so is the example I provided.

The Lord allowed those who followed him to knowingly suffer and often be martyred on his behalf, this was still a sign of his love, which other's may not normally note because of the nature of the incident.  When Stephen was stoned, he suffered greatly but in the compassion of the Lord he saw God and Jesus as a witness to him that he had followed the truth through to the end.

The love and compassion of God is present in both our greatest joy as well as our greatest sorrow.  Our responsibility is somewhat different than the Lord's because we are imperfect judges.  Most of the time I feel we are encouraged to consider Mosiah 2 in that regard.

Edited April 4, 2017 by person0

[zil]

13 minutes ago, LiterateParakeet said:

An interesting idea, but I would call it correction more than compassion.. 

https://www.lds.org/scriptures/dc-testament/dc/95.1-2,10?lang=eng#p1

[Guest MormonGator]

10 minutes ago, person0 said:

I agree with you.  I was coming from the perspective of the Lords compassion toward us rather than our compassion toward others.  The woman caught in adultery is a well used example of the Lord's compassion, however, so is the example I provided.

The Lord allowed those who followed him to knowingly suffer and often be martyred on his behalf, this was still a sign of his love, which other's may not normally note because of the nature of the incident.  When Stephen was stoned, he suffered greatly but in the compassion of the Lord he saw God and Jesus as a witness to him that he had followed the truth through to the end.

The love and compassion of God is present in both our greatest joy as well as our greatest sorrow.  Our responsibility is somewhat different than the Lord's because we are imperfect judges.  Most of the time I feel we are encouraged to consider Mosiah 2 in that regard.

Edit:  @LiterateParakeet I believe it could be both, and is.

You make some great points. Totally agree. 

[The Folk Prophet]

13 minutes ago, person0 said:

The love and compassion of God is present in both our greatest joy as well as our greatest sorrow.

And that doesn't mean God just shows us compassion when we have sorrow, but literally that our sorrows ARE compassion from God. We sorrow here BECAUSE he had compassion enough to send us into trial and pain for our good.

Edited April 4, 2017 by The Folk Prophet

[omegaseamaster75]

2 hours ago, The Folk Prophet said:

And that doesn't mean God just shows us compassion when we have sorrow, but literally that our sorrows ARE compassion from God. We sorrow here BECAUSE he had compassion enough to send us into trial and pain for our good.

This might be off topic but I like to think that God did not send us here to suffer. We choose trial and earthly struggles because we knew/know what the end goal was/is.

2 Nephi 2:25 

25 Adam fell that men might be; and men are, that they might have joy.

God wants to to enjoy our mortal experience, not suffer but rejoice in his son's sacrifice for us.  

 

On compassion Matt22: 36-39

36 Master, which is the great commandment in the law?

37 Jesus said unto him, Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind.

38 This is the first and great commandment.

39 And the second is like unto it, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself.

Love for all of God's children, the sinner and the saint. We have a tendency to be intolerant.  I speak from personal experience on this.

 

[person0]

1 minute ago, omegaseamaster75 said:

 ". . . I like to think that God did not send us here to suffer. We choose trial and earthly struggles because we knew/know what the end goal was/is."

I think most of us agree with you on that.

I would like to refer everyone to a wonderful speech by Spencer W. Kimball that pertains to this discussion.  Here are some quotes and links:

Quote

"Some become bitter when oft repeated prayers seem unanswered. Some lose faith and turn sour when solemn administrators by holy men seem to be ignored and no restoration seems to come from repeated prayer circles. But if all the sick were healed, if all the righteous were protected. and the wicked destroyed, the whole program of the Father would be annulled and the basic principles of the Gospel, free agency, would be ended."

"I fear that had I been in Carthage jail on June 27, 1844. I might have deflected the bullets which pierced the body of the Prophet and the Patriarch. I might have saved them from the sufferings and agony. And stopped the martyrs death and reward. I am glad I did not have that decision.

With such uncontrolled power, I surely would have felt to protect Christ from the insults, the thorny crown, the indignities in the court, physical injuries. Perhaps I would have struck down his persecutors with shafts of lightening. When He hung on the cross I would have rescued Him and would have administered to His wounds and healed them, giving Him cooling water instead of vinegar. I might have saved Him from death and lost to the world and atoning sacrifice and frustrated the whole program. . ."

Tragedy or Destiny?, Spencer W. Kimball, BYU Speeches (Dec. 6, 1955)

Text Version

God did not send us here to suffer.  However we knew, and he knew that upon coming here we would suffer, and yet we fought for the opportunity to do so.  Each of us waited on the other side of the veil for our opportunity. Given that it is 2017, we waited 6000+ years from the time of Adam.  In my opinion, we probably had the opportunity to know what was going on down here, we could see sickness, affliction, pain, suffering, death, disease, evil, etc, and we still chose to come.

Consider the following:

Quote

"The Book of Mormon gives us the certain assurance of His power to comfort. And faith in that power will give us patience as we pray and work and wait for help. He could have known how to succor us simply by revelation, but He chose to learn by His own personal experience."

Adversity, President Henry B. Eyring, (April 2009 General Conference)

“Now the Spirit knoweth all things; nevertheless the Son of God suffereth. . ." (Alma 7:13)

Whatever principle of intelligence we attain unto in this life, it will rise with us in the resurrection. (D&C 130:18)

I would argue that the sorrows we experience here are a portion of the intelligence we must gain to be prepared for our eternal destiny.  That which we do not learn here we may be expected to learn by the spirit on our path to becoming like our Savior and our Heavenly Father.  In the context of all these sources I feel comfortable concluding that while we are that we might have joy, the path to joy and our eternal destiny includes sorrow, at times great sorrows.  Yet God in his infinite wisdom and love, allows us to experience these sorrows. It is compassionate, because to remove that opportunity from us, in the course of our eternal destiny, would be uncompassionate.

[Traveler]

 

Getting back to my purpose of this particular thread.  Perhaps I should have included “Doctrines” and personal understanding of doctrines to the list in the Title.  Anciently we have very interesting exchanges between Jesus and the “Scribes and Pharisees”.  I will ask a question here – not "Who were the Scribes and Pharisees?" but who in our modern society do they symbolically represent?  I will give my opinion – hopefully others will add their opinions and I (if no one else) will learn something.

It seems to me that the covenants, commandments and doctrines that G-d reveals to us are for the most part, vague.   But in contrast most of us (me included) like to think that the covenants, commandments and doctrines of G-d are specific.  Perhaps an example would be good here.  Let’s take the covenant and commandment of the doctrine “Keep the Sabbath day holy”.  We all know that G-d is serious and interested in mankind and so has given us the doctrine, commandment and covenant that those that believe in G-d are to keep the Sabbath holy. 

There is no one on this planet that loves and deals with G-d that does not know they need to keep the Sabbath holy.  But when we say, “Keep the Sabbath day Holy” that is very a vague notion.  What do we do, as a saint of G-d to keep the Sabbath holy?  What amazes me is that whenever we discuss keeping the Sabbath holy – there will be more disagreement than agreement.  Or at least so it would seem.  Why is this?

As we go about our determined holy activities that we have previously determined for our personal Sabbath – there are two things that begin to happen.  Both of these two things occur because we encounter things we have not determined yet to be holy.  One thing is something that challenges us at a very personal level and we must answer for ourselves – can I do this in a holy manner and keep the Sabbath holy.  This means we must have and create personal standards and personal doctrines to maintain specifics of our personal discipline of holiness for the Sabbath day.  The second thing is that we encounter others that have come to very different conclusions than we have.

Most of us utilize the scriptures, modern revelation and in many specific cases, even sincere fasting and prayer and through such process arrive at specifics for keeping the Sabbath holy.  This is all good – and least to some degree.  But because of pride (and this I know because this is how pride works on me) we assume we are right, not just for ourselves but everybody else – despite that we do not have stewardship in the priesthood to so preside over those we wish to covert to our personal standards and interpertations.

This now brings me full cycle to what I think the Scribes and Pharisees of the New Testament represent in our modern society.  This is the temptation of pride within us to “force” (to some degree) our personal standards and interpations on our associates (keith and kin) even though we do not have such priesthood stewardship.

 

The Traveler

[The Folk Prophet]

23 hours ago, omegaseamaster75 said:

...God did not send ... We choose ....

Can't both be true?

[The Folk Prophet]

39 minutes ago, Traveler said:

This now brings me full cycle to what I think the Scribes and Pharisees of the New Testament represent in our modern society.  This is the temptation of pride within us to “force” (to some degree) our personal standards and interpations on our associates (keith and kin) even though we do not have such priesthood stewardship.

As much as I see your point and can partially agree with some of it (it does walk the line of relative morality pretty closely), I don't think this has anything to do with the condemnation of Pharisees by Jesus. It's not like it's too hard to find out what Jesus didn't like about them. He wasn't exactly quiet on the matter. And he didn't say, "Oh ye Sadducees and Pharisees. Hypocrites! Ye keep the commandments but your truth is not everyone's truth. Ye den of vipers!"

[Traveler]

5 minutes ago, The Folk Prophet said:

As much as I see your point and can partially agree with some of it (it does walk the line of relative morality pretty closely), I don't think this has anything to do with the condemnation of Pharisees by Jesus. It's not like it's too hard to find out what Jesus didn't like about them. He wasn't exactly quiet on the matter. And he didn't say, "Oh ye Sadducees and Pharisees. Hypocrites! Ye keep the commandments but your truth is not everyone's truth. Ye den of vipers!"

One could say that the doctrine Jesus taught, that we call “The ox in the mire”, walks the line of relative morality.  The same could be said of the doctrine that man is not to be commanded in all things – but, in essence, figure out some things on their own – anxiously be involved in good causes (good causes to be defined by the user).  The reason this is important is because these are the points we as an individual must account for (our choices before G-d).

But I am very concerned when someone assumes they have the right (dominion) to say what a person can or cannot understand concerning what a particular or specific scripture may be “spiritually” revealing to someone other than ourselves – unless G-d has so commanded, according to a stewardship that he (G-d) has ordained and called them.  But I do believe it is honest and true for any individual to speak according to their understanding – and for others to explorer how they came to such understanding.

But in this matter I would point you to my post in the thread “Pride” and the quote from President Benson.

". . . Another face of pride is contention. Arguments, fights, un-righteous dominion, generation gaps, divorces, spouse abuse, riots and disturbances all fall into this category of pride. . .  (ensign, May 1989 pp 4-6)"

Bolding and underlining my addition for emphsis.

 

Thanks for your interest and input.

 

The Traveler

[The Folk Prophet]

3 minutes ago, Traveler said:

One could say that the doctrine Jesus taught, that we call “The ox in the mire”, walks the line of relative morality. 

One could say that. But they would be full of something the ox did while in the mire.

3 minutes ago, Traveler said:

The same could be said of the doctrine that man is not to be commanded in all things – but, in essence, figure out some things on their own – anxiously be involved in good causes (good causes to be defined by the user). 

A principle that in no way suggests that anything we figure out is therefore acceptable and correct. And no -- "good" is not defined by the individual.

5 minutes ago, Traveler said:

But I am very concerned when someone assumes they have the right (dominion) to say what a person can or cannot understand concerning what a particular or specific scripture may be “spiritually” revealing to someone other than ourselves – unless G-d has so commanded, according to a stewardship that he (G-d) has ordained and called them.  But I do believe it is honest and true for any individual to speak according to their understanding – and for others to explorer how they came to such understanding.

But in this matter I would point you to my post in the thread “Pride” and the quote from President Benson.

". . . Another face of pride is contention. Arguments, fights, un-righteous dominion, generation gaps, divorces, spouse abuse, riots and disturbances all fall into this category of pride. . .  (ensign, May 1989 pp 4-6)"

Bolding and underlining my addition for emphsis.

There is a difference between how we interact with and treat others and how we view others and understand reality. If I see a member walking down the street smoking I don't take it upon myself to run out and tell them they shouldn't be doing that. That doesn't mean I'm unable to make the judgment that they shouldn't be doing so, or that making said judgment is inaccurate, evil, wrong, or otherwise problematic in any regard. Yes, I must allow for where they are in their journey, leave condemnation to God, maintain my kindness to them, etc., etc. But I can still understand the ideal.

I know there are some grays. And maybe, ultimately, we apply them equivalently. But some things are pretty black and white, even in regards to Sabbath keeping. It's not just anything goes as long as it's considered holy by the individual. Individuals do not exclusively define holiness for themselves. Although I do allow that there can be some gray there.

[Anddenex]

2 hours ago, The Folk Prophet said:

Can't both be true?

The Lord said, I do the work of him that "sent" me.

[The Folk Prophet]

Just now, Anddenex said:

The Lord said, I do the work of him that "sent" me.

Um....

Huh? Expound?

[Anddenex]

1 minute ago, The Folk Prophet said:

Um....

Huh? Expound?

On 4/4/2017 at 2:38 PM, omegaseamaster75 said:

...God did not send ... We choose ....

2 hours ago, The Folk Prophet said:

Can't both be true?

I responded, "The Lord said, I do the work of him that "sent" me." We know Christ chose to come to do the work of the Father. Christ is quoted at different times to say, I do the work of him who "sent" me, and in our Pearl of Great Price, "Here am I, send me." And the first was chosen. Appears to me "both" are true.