Forcing G-d’s Hand – a transgression of the law

[Traveler]

 

One of the interesting outcomes of my recent trip – included a discussion about individuals that want to bring about G-d’s prophetic and desired outcomes by our own means.  The discussion was initially about the “Red Heifer” sacrifice but for the internet (this forum) I will use the example of Judas Iscariot.  The concept with the Judas example is centered in the possibility that Judas wanted to bring about the prophetic confrontation between good and evil but the slant of the discussion is that Judas intended to bring about G-d purposes (good) but on his (Judas’) terms.  We may not ever know Judas’ motives in this life but many think some things may be okay if the motives or desires of our hearts are for good. 

The comment made by Jesus was that it would have been better that Judas was never born.  However, this mistake or regret is not what I intend to highlight – just the notion that Judas’ efforts were counterproductive and a transgression of the law – even though what he did would force the law and the prophesy to come about – meaning the prophetic purposes of G-d - which included a betrayal.   I am using the notion of transgression of the law for a specific reason – something I learned from my pre-mentioned discussion.  The point here is that there was a serious flaw with Judas and his interpretations of scripture.  Another scripture example may be the individual that intended to steady (keep the Ark of the Covenant from tipping over) the Ark of the Covenant.

The principle is not to bring about the purposes of G-d or even what we think to be "righ" but to trust, believe and have faith in G-d.  That he will accomplish his purposes – his way and on his terms – which are true and correct principles (for example - the oath and covenant of the priesthood).   It is not enough to be right.  It is necessary that we, through our actions, act such that we have faith in G-d and those he has called (as flawed as they are) and not ourselves.

 

The Traveler

 

[CV75]

39 minutes ago, Traveler said:

The comment made by Jesus was that it would have been better that Judas was never born.

I think from 3 Nephi 28:34-35, it means it would be better that he not have been born at that time and place where he could hear and yet not hearken to the words of Jesus and “them whom he hath chosen,” and even far worse, betray Him. And I’m also thinking from Jesus’ perspective, it might refer to it being better to not yet being born spiritually by receiving Him than to receiving Him, being born spiritually and then not hearken to Him, or even reject Him.

In such cases, Isaiah 50:11 comes to mind. These are they “who kindle a fire, that compass [them]selves about with sparks: walk in the light of [their] fire, and in the sparks that [they] have kindled. This shall [they] have of mine hand; [they] shall lie down in sorrow.” This is how the counterproductiveness and transgression comes about.

[Rob Osborn]

2 hours ago, Traveler said:

 

One of the interesting outcomes of my recent trip – included a discussion about individuals that want to bring about G-d’s prophetic and desired outcomes by our own means.  The discussion was initially about the “Red Heifer” sacrifice but for the internet (this forum) I will use the example of Judas Iscariot.  The concept with the Judas example is centered in the possibility that Judas wanted to bring about the prophetic confrontation between good and evil but the slant of the discussion is that Judas intended to bring about G-d purposes (good) but on his (Judas’) terms.  We may not ever know Judas’ motives in this life but many think some things may be okay if the motives or desires of our hearts are for good. 

The comment made by Jesus was that it would have been better that Judas was never born.  However, this mistake or regret is not what I intend to highlight – just the notion that Judas’ efforts were counterproductive and a transgression of the law – even though what he did would force the law and the prophesy to come about – meaning the prophetic purposes of G-d - which included a betrayal.   I am using the notion of transgression of the law for a specific reason – something I learned from my pre-mentioned discussion.  The point here is that there was a serious flaw with Judas and his interpretations of scripture.  Another scripture example may be the individual that intended to steady (keep the Ark of the Covenant from tipping over) the Ark of the Covenant.

The principle is not to bring about the purposes of G-d or even what we think to be "righ" but to trust, believe and have faith in G-d.  That he will accomplish his purposes – his way and on his terms – which are true and correct principles (for example - the oath and covenant of the priesthood).   It is not enough to be right.  It is necessary that we, through our actions, act such that we have faith in G-d and those he has called (as flawed as they are) and not ourselves.

 

The Traveler

 

Judas had no thought about doing good. His intentions were pure evil, his counsel was in the dark, he is a true son of perdition.

[Traveler]

10 hours ago, Rob Osborn said:

Judas had no thought about doing good. His intentions were pure evil, his counsel was in the dark, he is a true son of perdition.

How do you think Judas, without a single thought about doing good, got through the pre-existence to be foreordained to the Melchizedek priesthood – having exceeding faith and good works (Alma Chapter 13)?  I could be wrong with this example but I do believe his failure was pride in himself and over thinking his perception of things (including his undersanding of scripture) rather than trusting in G-d – obviously it was not money.

 

The Traveler

[mordorbund]

15 hours ago, Traveler said:

 

One of the interesting outcomes of my recent trip – included a discussion about individuals that want to bring about G-d’s prophetic and desired outcomes by our own means.  The discussion was initially about the “Red Heifer” sacrifice but for the internet (this forum) I will use the example of Judas Iscariot.  The concept with the Judas example is centered in the possibility that Judas wanted to bring about the prophetic confrontation between good and evil but the slant of the discussion is that Judas intended to bring about G-d purposes (good) but on his (Judas’) terms.  We may not ever know Judas’ motives in this life but many think some things may be okay if the motives or desires of our hearts are for good. 

The comment made by Jesus was that it would have been better that Judas was never born.  However, this mistake or regret is not what I intend to highlight – just the notion that Judas’ efforts were counterproductive and a transgression of the law – even though what he did would force the law and the prophesy to come about – meaning the prophetic purposes of G-d - which included a betrayal.   I am using the notion of transgression of the law for a specific reason – something I learned from my pre-mentioned discussion.  The point here is that there was a serious flaw with Judas and his interpretations of scripture.  Another scripture example may be the individual that intended to steady (keep the Ark of the Covenant from tipping over) the Ark of the Covenant.

The principle is not to bring about the purposes of G-d or even what we think to be "righ" but to trust, believe and have faith in G-d.  That he will accomplish his purposes – his way and on his terms – which are true and correct principles (for example - the oath and covenant of the priesthood).   It is not enough to be right.  It is necessary that we, through our actions, act such that we have faith in G-d and those he has called (as flawed as they are) and not ourselves.

 

The Traveler

 

So...... you're saying I should NOT have named my son Gog.

[JohnsonJones]

16 hours ago, Traveler said:

How do you think Judas, without a single thought about doing good, got through the pre-existence to be foreordained to the Melchizedek priesthood – having exceeding faith and good works (Alma Chapter 13)?  I could be wrong with this example but I do believe his failure was pride in himself and over thinking his perception of things (including his undersanding of scripture) rather than trusting in G-d – obviously it was not money.

 

The Traveler

Son of Perditions need to see the light and declare it is not shining while standing in it's full brightness.

Some think they are unredeemable, NOT because they cannot be forgiven, but because they REFUSE to be forgiven.  They choose to fight against the Lamb, and do so with full knowledge of what they do and who they are fighting against.  They know both sides and KNOWINGLY choose the side that fights against the Lord.

Hence why being called one is such a heavy and drastic term with a very heavy meaning.

They take their precedence from Cain, who, knowing what lineage would come from Abel, chose to kill Abel in order to try to destroy the Plan of Salvation before it ever had a chance to come to fruition.  That by slaying Abel, and that entire lineage, that he could prevent the birth of the Messiah and hence win the war for his evil and dark master.

It was knowingly done.

This is the precedence and shows the great evil that they choose.

Yes, they got through the pre-existence, but, when without their foreknowledge and being left to their naked souls of their true being, show their true selves and true desires in this life.  Hence, they get to keep their first estate or their body after the resurrection, but will be cast out into outer darkness.

Dark topic and not a fun one to discuss.

 

In regards to transgression in regards to the Plan of Salvation, I'd say the choices in the garden of Eden would probably be a better illustration of such a paradox or idea.

[zil]

7 hours ago, JohnsonJones said:

They take their precedence from Cain, who, knowing what lineage would come from Abel, chose to kill Abel in order to try to destroy the Plan of Salvation before it ever had a chance to come to fruition.  That by slaying Abel, and that entire lineage, that he could prevent the birth of the Messiah and hence win the war for his evil and dark master.

Source?

[Traveler]

On ‎5‎/‎12‎/‎2017 at 9:07 AM, mordorbund said:

So...... you're saying I should NOT have named my son Gog.

Certainly not if you live in Magog.

 

The Traveler

[JohnsonJones]

9 hours ago, zil said:

Source?

It is the common interpretation in regards to WHY Abel was the appointed seed, and why there was then a new appointed one, Seth.

The pearl of price goes into even more detail of Cain's knowing and marked rebellion after chasetisement and him making a deliberate and purposeful choice.

Ironically, interpreted in the Bible, many read that Adam and Eve at first felt that the lineage would go through Cain, but through his choices it was obvious Cain was not possible for that lineage.  It then indicates that Abel was the chosen one, which is why it is particularly focused on Seth as his replacement (and why these three are of special notation in the Bible among all the sons of Adam, it's not just chance).  It is thus through Seth that the lineage of the Lord came.

If one wants a TRULY LONG explanation of the words and their meanings in Genesis 4, and why the story is commonly interpreted as happening as such (and as I said, though non-LDS do not subscribe to it, the Pearl of Great Price makes it more explicit of Cain's open rebellion, and indicates that what we already know about the Lineage and plan of Salvation, Cain knew even better, as well as personally walking and talking with the Lord), I suppose I could go into it.  There are some NON-LDS places on the internet that explain it I suppose, but if one wishes, I could do that if I have the time.

Edited May 13, 2017 by JohnsonJones

[zil]

1 minute ago, JohnsonJones said:

It is the common interpretation in regards to WHY Abel was the appointed seed, and why there was then a new appointed one, Seth.

The pearl of price goes into even more detail of Cain's knowing and marked rebellion after chasetisement and him making a deliberate and purposeful choice.

Ironically, interpreted in the Bible, many read that Adam and Eve at first felt that the lineage would go through Cain, but through his choices it was obvious Cain was not possible for that lineage.  It then indicates that Abel was the chosen one, which is why it is particularly focused on Seth as his replacement (and why these three are of special notation in the Bible among all the sons of Adam, it's not just chance).  It is thus through Seth that the lineage of the Lord came.

That wasn't an answer, and I think you know that.  You're explaining what someone believes, you're not giving me a source where I can go read that myself.

[JohnsonJones]

1 minute ago, zil said:

That wasn't an answer, and I think you know that.  You're explaining what someone believes, you're not giving me a source where I can go read that myself.

Okay...Genesis 4.  Pearl of Great Price 5.

If you know Hebrew and the translations of the names and why they are such (though they also give a pretty clear explanation in the chapter itself) it brings it as a much clearer explanation.

If you want me to go over them in depth, I can when I have the time (it is possible it may be rather long).  There are several non-lds sites at least that explain it on the internet, don't know if I have an LDS one off the top of my head though.

[JohnsonJones]

To extrapolate more, it is CLEAR in Genesis 4 that Seth was the REPLACEMENT for Abel.  It is through that lineage or line that the Savior of the world would come, as was noted by Eve in her statement of getting that replacement.  Also, Cain knew FAR more than most of us about the Plan of Salvation and who and what.  In LDS doctrine he even walked and talked with the Lord PRIOR to his choice to murder Abel and was given a clear choice (PoGP 5).

I found one LDS reference to Seth being Abel's replacement and why it is mentioned in Priesthood lineage here... this idea here

I have a question

Quote

Why is the priesthood lineage traced through Abel in D&C 84:16 rather than through Seth, as recorded in D&C 107:42?

Richard O. Cowan, professor of Church history and doctrine, Brigham Young University; chairman, Church Gospel Doctrine writing committee; and high councilor, Provo Utah East Stake. To understand why one section in the Doctrine and Covenants traces the lineage through Abel and another through Seth, we must consider the point the Lord emphasizes in each revelation. Section 84, verses 6–14, gives the genealogy of Moses’ priesthood from Jethro to Melchizedek, indicating that each individual received this authority “under the hand of” another who possessed it. [D&C 84:6–14] Verses 15–16 [D&C 84:15–16], however, do not mention each individual in the early portion of this priesthood line, but simply testify that the priesthood was passed down “through the lineage of their fathers” (D&C 84:15) from dispensation to dispensation.

This lineage extends to Abel, who “received the priesthood by the commandments of God, by the hand of his father Adam.” (D&C 84:16.) So rather than specify who ordained whom in an unbroken chain of priesthood ordinations, these last verses simply mention certain benchmark individuals and recognize the position of Abel, who had received the birthright from his father. The line of authority given in section 107 serves a different purpose. [D&C 107] Here the Lord states that the Twelve Apostles were to ordain patriarchs (“evangelical ministers”) throughout the Church and that anciently “the order of this priesthood was confirmed to be handed down from father to son … in the following manner:

“From Adam to Seth, who was ordained by Adam … and received the promise of God by his father, that his posterity should be the chosen of the Lord, and that they should be preserved unto the end of the earth.” (D&C 107:39–42.)

Seth was a worthy recipient of the birthright because he “was a perfect man.” (D&C 107:43.) Verses 42–52 [D&C 107:42–52] emphasize that the patriarchal priesthood was passed down from father to son. Because Abel had been killed and Seth had been chosen to take his place, Seth was the person who actually laid his hands on his fifth great-grandson, Lamech, in ordaining him to the priesthood. (D&C 107:51.) This may explain why Seth, rather than Abel, is named in this priesthood lineage.

Priesthood lineage among the ancient Israelites was closely related to the concept of birthright, the right of firstborn sons to preside and to inherit additional allotments of land. (See “Birthright,” Bible Dictionary, p. 625.) When a firstborn son did not qualify to receive the birthright, it was given to another. For instance, Jacob and Joseph, rather than Esau and Reuben, were so honored. (See Gen. 25:24–34; Gen. 27; Gen. 49:22, 26; 1 Chr. 5:1–2.)

The book of Moses gives information about Adam’s family that is not found in Genesis. Before Cain and Abel were born, Adam and Eve had other sons and daughters, who in turn had children of their own. (See Moses 5:2–3.) Although Adam and Eve taught their children the gospel, their children “loved Satan more than God” and became “carnal, sensual, and devilish.” (Moses 5:12–13.) Cain followed this same unworthy pattern. (Moses 5:16, 18.) On the other hand, Abel “hearkened unto the voice of the Lord” (Moses 5:17) and, as a result, would have inherited the birthright had he not been killed (see Moses 5:32).

When another son, Seth, was born, Adam rejoiced because “God hath appointed me another seed, instead of Abel, whom Cain slew.” (Moses 6:2; emphasis added.) Moses then records that Adam (1) prophesied that the “Priesthood, which was in the beginning, shall be in the end of the world also” and (2) kept a genealogy. (Moses 6:7–8.) Thus we see that the concepts of family genealogy and priesthood lineage were interrelated. (Compare Gen. 5:3–29 with D&C 107:41–52.) Sections 84 and 107 provide valuable insights into the origin and powers of the priesthood. [D&C 84; D&C 107] These revelations emphasize that the Melchizedek Priesthood “hold (s) the keys of all the spiritual blessings of the church” from the time of Adam. (D&C 107:18–19; see also D&C 84:19–22.) This authority continued until Moses’ day, when it was withdrawn from the people because of their wickedness, and a lesser order of priesthood continued for the purpose of handling temporal affairs and administering the “preparatory gospel,” first given to Aaron and his sons. (See D&C 84:23–27.) Both orders of priesthood were present in the New Testament Church (see Heb. 7:11) and have been restored in our day (see D&C 13; JS—H 1:72; History of the Church, 1:40–42 n.).

We should be grateful for the blessings made possible through the priesthood in our lives and families, and, like Adam, keep a book of remembrance in which we record the lineage of our priesthood and instances of its use.

Though What and how you interpret it is up to you.

Edited May 13, 2017 by JohnsonJones

[Bill (Papa) Lee]

On May 11, 2017 at 7:15 PM, Traveler said:

The principle is not to bring about the purposes of G-d or even what we think to be "righ" but to trust, believe and have faith in G-d.  That he will accomplish his purposes – his way and on his terms – which are true and correct principles (for example - the oath and covenant of the priesthood).   It is not enough to be right.  It is necessary that we, through our actions, act such that we have faith in G-d and those he has called (as flawed as they are) and not ourselves.

 

The Traveler

 

The examples you used probably are just part of the narrative. I am sure plenty of warnings were given as to "who could, and could not", touch the Ark. As far as Judas, we have more of the picture. I am sure Judas wanted believe that he was doing it for Christ's own sake. But Jesus knew what Judas was going to do, and called a betrayal while at the "Last Supper" and then again when Judas betrayed Jesus with as kiss, as he said, "betrayest thou me with a kiss"? (hope I quoted it correctly) These two examples of both men showed a complete lack of faith, both assuming that God needed their help. 

It is important to note, that even Satan used that same lie, or excuse for enticing Adam and Eve to transgress. But, when he attempted to excuse his actions to the Father, he was cursed even more than before. His Father knew his heart, God always knows all our hearts.

[estradling75]

I have what might be a better example.  Abraham's wife Sarah.  They are told that Abraham's seed would be countless.  The scriptures record Sarah doubting that and getting rebuked,  One can and should presume she repented.  Because then the scriptures record her offering her handmaid to Abraham to make this happen, resulting in Ishmael.

The scripture then record that it was not through Ishmael the son of the handmaid but through Issac the son of Sarah that the Lord fulfilled his promises.

Now we can't know what was in Sarah heart.  But just from hindsight it look like Sarah might have tried to do what @Traveler is describing here.  She ultimately failed to "force God's hand" (as one should expect) but Ishmael existence was a pretty big complication that Abraham, Sarah and Issac had to deal with that they might not have had to otherwise.