Sign in to follow this  
Carborendum

Freedom, Family, and The Gospel

Recommended Posts

I was in a dicussion the other day about the concept of "freedom" and what it means to us, why it is important, how we get it, and how we preserve it.  As I do in any sort of semantic discussion, I looked up the definition and etymology.  Interesting find.

The etymology of the word comes from "love" or "beloved".  A little research showed me that it was not romantic love or brotherly love.  It was familial love.  In other words, if you have family, you have freedom.  The actual history has a lot of interesting points.  But I'd like to focus on this aspect of freedom = family.

Gospel points:

  • Liberty and Eternal Life or captivity and death.
  • Eternal Life requires sealing as a family.
  • The gospel is very family focused.
  • "Anti-family" is "Anti-Christ".
Quote

Any doctrine or principle our youth hear from the world that is antifamily is also anti-Christ. It’s that clear. If our youth cease to believe in the righteous traditions of their fathers as did the people described in Mosiah 26, if our youth don’t understand their part in the plan, they could be led away.

 -- "Teaching the Doctrine of the Family", Ensign, May 2011)

Edited by Carborendum

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That’s a very interesting perspective. I’m reminded of books like Orwell’s 1984 and Huxley’s A Brave New World where there just are no families. In A Brave New World babies are manufactured. Everyone belongs to everyone. Isn’t that a big goal of socialist/communist ideals? The state is your father/mother or your big brother who watches out for you.

Or just the idea that’s been floating around for years now that you should “create your own family.” I have a sister who has in many ways rejected the family she grew up in and considers her friends to be more her family than her actual family.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, Carborendum said:

The etymology of the word comes from "love" or "beloved".  A little research showed me that it was not romantic love or brotherly love.  It was familial love.  In other words, if you have family, you have freedom.  The actual history has a lot of interesting points.  But I'd like to focus on this aspect of freedom = family

What message do you think Christ was trying to convey in Mark 3?

And his mother and his brothers came, and standing outside they sent to him and called him. And a
crowd was sitting around him, and they said to him, “Your mother and your brothers are outside, seeking
you.” And he answered them, “Who are my mother and my brothers?” And looking about at those who
sat around him, he said, “Here are my mother and my brothers! For whoever does the will of God, he is
my brother and sister and mother.”

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 9/5/2020 at 6:09 AM, Carborendum said:

I was in a dicussion the other day about the concept of "freedom" and what it means to us, why it is important, how we get it, and how we preserve it.  As I do in any sort of semantic discussion, I looked up the definition and etymology.  Interesting find.

The etymology of the word comes from "love" or "beloved".  A little research showed me that it was not romantic love or brotherly love.  It was familial love.  In other words, if you have family, you have freedom.  The actual history has a lot of interesting points.  But I'd like to focus on this aspect of freedom = family.

Gospel points:

  • Liberty and Eternal Life or captivity and death.
  • Eternal Life requires sealing as a family.
  • The gospel is very family focused.
  • "Anti-family" is "Anti-Christ".

If our metrics are between birth and death it is hard (impossible) to honestly mitigate that there is freedom, liberty, justice and agency.  It is obvious that there is a great difference in possible choices between someone born of a college educated middle class family in the USA as opposed to a indigenous family deep in the Amazon rain forest with no connections to the "outside" world.   One cannot choose any option that is not available to them.  Few religious paradigms deal with this discrepancy other that to say G-d will fix it.  Which is a horrible paradigm for any religion that purports to teach of G-d and his marvelous works to humanity.  I find your post spot on and central to understanding G-d, his creations, the plan of Salvation, heaven verses hell and good verses evil - in short the grand essence of everything.

Expanding Gospel Points:

  . There is no justice in mortality without a pre-existence.  

  . There is no justice if there is not a G-d with the knowledge and power to right all wrongs.  This is the essence of a "Redeemer".   Not just to free us from our sins but also the transgressions against us.

  . Eternal Life requires not only family sealing but the covenant of marriage between a man and a woman.  A religion that does not prepare all men and all women for the covenant of marriage is "Anti-Christ".  I would add or include "Anti G-d".

 

@Jonah asks a good question.  As members of the Church of Jesus Christ we understand that a covenant with G-d is necessary.  The ancient meaning of "Righteous" is not someone of noble deeds but someone that has a covenant with G-d.  The reference in Mark 3 is a reference to righteousness and covenant (that includes marriage).   The title "The Children of G-d" denotes covenant.  We are to understand that we become family - the very family of G-d through covenant.  Therefore, the Saints that covenant with G-d are our family - which is the family of Christ and the family of G-d the Father.  The greatest example of eternal life, heaven or the nature of G-d is made known and possible through an eternal family covenant.

The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is the only religious organization I have encountered that claims the authority and ordinance of eternal family covenant.

 

The Traveler

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Traveler said:

Expanding Gospel Points:

  . There is no justice in mortality without a pre-existence.  

  . There is no justice if there is not a G-d with the knowledge and power to right all wrongs.  This is the essence of a "Redeemer".   Not just to free us from our sins but also the transgressions against us.

  . Eternal Life requires not only family sealing but the covenant of marriage between a man and a woman.  A religion that does not prepare all men and all women for the covenant of marriage is "Anti-Christ".  I would add or include "Anti G-d".

 

The pre-existence is one of the things that made so much sense to me when I thought about how justice could be available to all who live and lived and will live on Earth.  Prior to me learning about the gospel, this was one thing that bothered me.  With our existence simply being this mortal existence, how could anything be just with the different conditions were were in, especially if it was reliant upon us being baptized here on this earth (as per my understanding of my youth, rather than after I converted to the Church).

Learning about the pre-existence answers so many questions.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On ‎9‎/‎5‎/‎2020 at 7:43 AM, Connie said:

That’s a very interesting perspective. I’m reminded of books like Orwell’s 1984 and Huxley’s A Brave New World where there just are no families. In A Brave New World babies are manufactured. Everyone belongs to everyone. Isn’t that a big goal of socialist/communist ideals? The state is your father/mother or your big brother who watches out for you.

Anyone want to hazard a guess as to where this comes from? "We disrupt the Western-prescribed nuclear family structure requirement by supporting each other as extended families and “villages” that collectively care for one another, especially our children, to the degree that mothers, parents, and children are comfortable."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
45 minutes ago, prisonchaplain said:

Anyone want to hazard a guess as to where this comes from? "We disrupt the Western-prescribed nuclear family structure requirement by supporting each other as extended families and “villages” that collectively care for one another, especially our children, to the degree that mothers, parents, and children are comfortable."

Wild guess: BLM

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 9/5/2020 at 2:25 PM, Jonah said:

What message do you think Christ was trying to convey in Mark 3?

And his mother and his brothers came, and standing outside they sent to him and called him. And a
crowd was sitting around him, and they said to him, “Your mother and your brothers are outside, seeking
you.” And he answered them, “Who are my mother and my brothers?” And looking about at those who
sat around him, he said, “Here are my mother and my brothers! For whoever does the will of God, he is
my brother and sister and mother.”

The answer to that question would depend on one's interpretation of the following passage from Romans 8:

Quote

16 The Spirit itself beareth witness with our spirit, that we are the children of God:
17 And if children, then heirs; heirs of God, and joint-heirs with Christ; if so be that we suffer with him, that we may be also glorified together.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 9/9/2020 at 6:14 PM, Carborendum said:

The answer to that question would depend on one's interpretation of the following passage from Romans 8:

Why are only exalted beings (the joint-heirs) considered the children of God?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22 hours ago, Jonah said:

Why are only exalted beings (the joint-heirs) considered the children of God?

Please provide some context. Where do you think it says "only" they are? My response would vary depending on that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 9/11/2020 at 10:26 AM, Jonah said:

Why are only exalted beings (the joint-heirs) considered the children of God?

All his children are considered his children, not just those who are exalted.

There are those on earth who have chosen him as their Deity and thus have chosen to be his children.  After this life, all those who end up in the Kingdom of Heaven will be his children, not just those who are exalted (At least in my understanding).

In many homes children have different expectations and responsibilities according to their ability and reliability and what they choose to be or do.  The same are with his children and thus there are many various places and houses readied for his children.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, Carborendum said:

No one here said that.  You came up with that all by your lonesome.

It depends on the context. From a literal perspective it is true that we are all children of God. But figuratively when a person is born again spiritually they become the sons and daughters of God in a way that others aren't. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 9/13/2020 at 9:32 AM, laronius said:

It depends on the context. From a literal perspective it is true that we are all children of God. But figuratively when a person is born again spiritually they become the sons and daughters of God in a way that others aren't. 

@Carborendum

It was from something mentioned earlier.

And if children, then heirs; heirs of God, and joint-heirs with Christ.

I found these teachings on the church's website that says that if one is a child of God, then that
means they are joint-heirs; which it defines as exalted beings. 

https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/manual/teachings-joseph-smith/chapter-18?lang=eng
https://emp.byui.edu/DormanS/Rel 212/New Testament Student Manual.pdf
https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/manual/new-testament-student-manual/romans/chapter-36-romans-4-8?lang=eng
https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/manual/teachings-joseph-smith/chapter-3?lang=eng
https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/manual/new-testament-study-guide-for-home-study-seminary-students/introduction-to-romans/unit-21-day-1-romans-8-11?lang=eng
 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22 hours ago, Jonah said:

And if children, then heirs; heirs of God, and joint-heirs with Christ.

Notice the part that you left out.

Quote

16 The Spirit itself beareth witness with our spirit, that we are the children of God:
17 And if children, then heirs; heirs of God, and joint-heirs with Christ; if so be that we suffer with him, that we may be also glorified together.

 --Romans 8

Context matters.  Something to think about.

We're all children.  But we are only heirs if we suffer with him.  All the links to the Church website which you provided attest to that.

Edited by Carborendum

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 9/16/2020 at 7:34 AM, Carborendum said:

Notice the part that you left out.

Context matters.  Something to think about.

We're all children.  But we are only heirs if we suffer with him.  All the links to the Church website which you provided attest to that.

I view it differently.  I see that the 'if children' part is tied together with the 'if we suffer with him' part by
the 'joint heir' part.  I don't see any child (who is considered a child by the if condition) who does not
suffer with Christ.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I am reminded of the story of Jacob and Esau. Esau was the heir but apparently considered his birthright of little value and sold it to Jacob who obviously valued it. Christ is also heir to all that the Father hath and while he is not looking to sell it he is allowing all of us to be joint heirs with him. This offer is extended to all of us as God's children. The only question is how much do we value it? Because in a sense it's already ours, we just have to do what it takes to keep it and not sell it for whatever the world offers.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 9/18/2020 at 4:18 PM, Jonah said:

I view it differently. 

You see it one way, I see it another.  That's why I said earlier it depends on how you would interpret it. I won't argue about private interpretations being right or wrong.  They're just private interpretations.

But for the sake of discussion, let's take your interpretation and apply it to the ongoing discussion.

  • I posted the OP about how freedom, eternal life, and family were related.
  • You asked about how Mark's passage would inform such a premise.
  • I stated that it would depend on how you interpret the passage in Romans.
  • You gave your interpretation of how the Bible says that family and inheritance are mixed.

Therefore, how does your interpretation inform you as to how freedom, family, and eternal life are all interconnected?

Your interpretation is that all who inherit eternal life are children of God.  All others (according to your interpretation) are NOT children of God.  So, what does that say about eternal life and family?  It sounds like you agree with me.  

I'm pleased to see you on this side of the table.

Edited by Carborendum

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 9/21/2020 at 11:27 AM, Carborendum said:

Your interpretation is that all who inherit eternal life are children of God.  All others (according to your interpretation) are NOT children of God.  So, what does that say about eternal life and family?  It sounds like you agree with me

I don't believe with the church teaching about eternal life being living life as a God. In
regards to family and marriage, I found this article - which I tend to agree with.

https://www.gotquestions.org/marriage-heaven.html

Question: "Will there be marriage in heaven?"

Answer: The Bible tells us, “At the resurrection people will neither marry nor be given 
in marriage; they will be like the angels in heaven” (Matthew 22:30). This was Jesus’ 
answer in response to a question concerning a woman who had been married multiple times 
in her life —whom would she be married to in heaven (Matthew 22:23-28)? Evidently, 
there will be no such thing as marriage in heaven. This does not mean that a husband 
and wife will no longer know each other in heaven. This also does not mean that a 
husband and wife could not still have a close relationship in heaven. What it does seem 
to indicate, though, is that a husband and wife will no longer be married in heaven.

Most likely, there will be no marriage in heaven simply because there will be no need 
for it. When God established marriage, He did so to fill certain needs. First, He saw 
that Adam was in need of a companion. “The LORD God said, ‘It is not good for the man 
to be alone. I will make a helper suitable for him’” (Genesis 2:18). Eve was the 
solution to the problem of Adam’s loneliness, as well as his need for a “helper,” 
someone to come alongside him as his companion and go through life by his side. In 
heaven, however, there will be no loneliness, nor will there be any need for helpers. 
We will be surrounded by multitudes of believers and angels (Revelation 7:9), and all 
our needs will be met, including the need for companionship.

Second, God created marriage as a means of procreation and the filling of the earth 
with human beings. Heaven, however, will not be populated by procreation. Those who 
go to heaven will get there by faith in the Lord Jesus Christ; they will not be created 
there by means of reproduction. Therefore, there is no purpose for marriage in heaven 
since there is no procreation or loneliness.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 minutes ago, Jonah said:

I don't believe with the church teaching about eternal life being living life as a God. In
regards to family and marriage, I found this article - which I tend to agree with.

https://www.gotquestions.org/marriage-heaven.htm

 

Needless to say we disagree on this subject :)

While I completely respect Creedal Christian's right to believe as they do in this regard, I do passionately disagree on all fronts (that it's what scripture teaches, logical, fulfilling, etc).

Edited by Jane_Doe

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
57 minutes ago, Jonah said:

I don't believe with the church teaching about eternal life being living life as a God.

Where is that in this thread? I never said it.  Adding in ideas and topic instead of discussing what is at hand seems like a threadjack.

Back to topic.  Based on your interpretation that YOU provided, how does that inform your position on the topic I posited in the OP?  What is your thought on the OP?

Edited by Carborendum

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Jonah said:

I don't believe with the church teaching about eternal life being living life as a God.

Perhaps you could explain clearly the difference between being one with G-d and living life as a G-d.  I would point out that in the Gospel of John this exact point was made by Jesus and the Jews intended to kill him over this point of his teachings.

 

The Traveler

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Jane_Doe said:

Needless to say we disagree on this subject :)

While I completely respect Creedal Christian's right to believe as they do in this regard, I do passionately disagree on all fronts (that it's what scripture teaches, logical, fulfilling, etc).

From reading the copied post it seems they simply lack the idea that we are Literal Children of Heavenly Parents.  This understanding would change the whole flow of their logic and conclusions.  After all what is found to be logical ultimately depends on what one accepts as fundamental truths

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this