quote:

---

Texas velvet maestro -I am too busy working on myself than to worry about anyone who I think "is less worthy".

---

Your obsessiveness on this board tells a completely different story.

Derrida -That being the case in "your" opinion, I hope you are not offended when I give much more attention to the Lord's annointed that I do yours.

You don't know the Lord's opinion and your arrogance thinking you do is quite unbecoming.

I don't claim to know his opinion as well, but everybody claiming to know it, in all churches, is quite nauseating and distracting from true purposes.

We have only inklings of his opinion, and those who opine otherwise are most often false prophets.

Derrida -You obviously don't know how to read or comprehend very well. I never claimed to know the "Lord's opinion". But I do know how to read what his apostles have said on this subject. Suggest that you do the same.

Theirs is also mostly their opinion. That is the realization that you haven't come to grips with.

God is not feeding any human being information on a daily basis but expects humans to make the most of it themselves. He's no respecter of persons and he allows us to wander and to make our mistakes.

Listen to them if you will, but sometimes I'm convinced they know little more than we. Remember Packer's talk this past GC? It should let in you on a few subjects. These men are not gods, but they are just good men. You seem to suffer from GA worship believing they are special, whereas they are just men. Peter, James and John were just men. Their opinions may be insightful, but even canon has the potential for error.



[This message has been edited by Derrida (edited 1/9/2008 10:01p).]

quote:

---

he was no longer a joint-heir with his faithful brother

---

Whoa! Whoa there, horsey!

Let's talk about that older brother, because Jesus puts quite a focus on him.

First, when he comes near the house and hears music and dancing, what does he do? Does he go inside to join the celebration or at least find out what is going on?

No. He sends in a servant. When he finds out that this party is for his brother, he becomes quite angry.

His father comes out to plead with him. What is his response to his father's advice? He refuses it. He shows disrespect for what he has done for his father. He says, he has been "slaving" for "years." In other words, he was behaving "righteously" not out of love but only in hopes of eventual reward. He is almost contemptuous of his dad.

Then he takes his anger up a notch for his brother. In fact, he cannot even call him "brother." He says, "this son of yours." He has disowned his brother. He assumes his brother has been with prostitutes (which sort of makes you wonder).

He seems to draw his own worth from comparing himself with his brother. That is why he is so angry when his brother is rewarded with the same inheritance he had - but without the years of so-called slavery.

It is interesting that the "prodigal" was willing to be a "slave" and thought he deserved such a position while the "good" son was outwardly loyal in the home but felt like a slave.

If you think the older brother was faithful, you have not understood the riches of this parable.

quote:

---

nor did he assume the position he once held

---

You have made this statement without support. More importantly, this statement really seems to contradict the parable.

Jesus intended to mention both the robe and the ring. There is a reason.

He wanted us to know the depth and breadth of God's love and forgiveness!!

Grace.

Derrida -You are woefully uninformed for you have no real understanding of the true role of apostles and prophets. The scriptures are not for "private interpretation". History clearly shows that when the apostles were killed, the doctrines of the church became perverted, lost, and misunderstood, not to mention new ones invented. All that being said, their understanding of the scriptures dwarf yours. You are a mental pygmy compared to them and you better learn and understand this! They are so much more than "good men". The Church is full of men of this description.

But, live by the light of your own uninspired understanding for that is what happened after the apostles were gone.

[This message has been edited by Genesisag (edited 1/9/2008 10:56p).]

G. Ag, you are arrogant and naive. Just because I don't share your naive orthodox view doesn't mean I don't understand. It just means I don't agree with you.

its obvious that this is a case of genesis straining to fit and lock the teachings and grace of Jesus Christ inside LDS theology. it isn't a pretty thing to behold.

its also obvious to me that genesis is a true reflection of LDS, which is in fact a closed, authoritarian system run from the top down by men. there is no such thing as orthodox LDS.

derrida, you see the flaws. where do you think they come from? genesis is a favored son of LDS with connections straight to the top, and look at him. you need to stop wasting time with these people and excommunicate yourself. this mormonism stuff is just holding you back.



[This message has been edited by Texas velvet maestro (edited 1/10/2008 12:12a).]

Derrida -No my ignorant one, It's not my agreement you don't agree with; it is the apostles interpretation of these and probably other scriptures. Your are on one slippery slope. By your thought process, what anyone thinks about a scripture is valid (particularly if you agree with it) and no one's opinion is better than anyone else's.

I can now really understand why you claim to be LDS but are so afraid someone will find out who you are and what ward you might attend, Also, why you think you are so hated and that people will "stab you in the back" by what they say or think about you. A sad persecution complex.

Texas Velvet Maestro -there is absolutely no straining at all to show how in LDS theology where grace figures in. Some of you think it is a "get out of jail free" card and it is not. When ever you "learn" and truly understand the difference between "salvation" (immortality) and exaltation (eternal life) it will make perfect sense to you.

Sid -he is no longer a joint-heir with his brother because his father has told him that everything (he, the father) has belongs to him (the brother who remained faithful). The Prodigal Son blew what he had at the time, and all the rest, including the increase, was lost to the Prodigal Son!

The Telestial Kingdom is wonderful compared to this mortal probation, but it does not begin to compare to the Celestial Kingdom! Just depends on what you are willing to settle for.

You still have not addressed the robe and the ring. The father said noting exclusionary in relation to the prodigal. The father's actions demonstrate full and complete restoration.

G. Ag you have no idea what I believe or with whom I work. Given your age, I'll cut you some slack. And I understand your mentality, I understand the ultr orthodox, authoritarian wing you represent.

However, Mormonism is thankfully a bigger tent than some narrow minded group of polygamists holed up in Colorado City. If you understood the beauty of scripture, you would understand its origins, its multi-layeredness. But your perspective has had value for you. What is bothersome is how you are so arrogantly confident that your perspective is correct, when I'm comfortable enough to see flaws.

The concept that the prodigal son will be punished and will not be a joint heir with Christ is ludicrous. The parable is purposefully ambiguous. Some of the biblical grace provisions such as the end of John 7 and beginning of John 8 may be apocryphal (woman taken in adultery), but nobody really disputes the Prodigal Son parable. You are badly in need of grace and may wish to read Stephen Robinson who is re-introducing the concept to LDS. Now by recommending him to you, I'm endorsing all his views, but given your authoritarian bent, you need to lighten up, because with such judgment as you judge you will be judged. As for my clan, we'll need as much grace as is available. One might suggest you consider the same.

Derrida -I am amused by your insights and their ignorance of gospel principles. As I think back about your very defensive comments when asked about your temple attendance, I would enjoy hearing what your present Church calling is. Your inflated pride that gives you the audacity to even begin to think that your gospel insights are in the same ball park at a member of the Quorum of the 12 or First Presidency says everything about you that needs to be said.

I suggest that you read James E. Talmage's "Jesus the Christ". I guess you see yourself somewhat as a prodigal son and want to make sure you are still going to be able to "have it all".

As you should know, in this parable the Father is God. It would help you to understand that the faithful son, being yet mortal and not knowing all the designs and purposes of God, should feel impulsive jealousy at the seeming inequity of the honor heaped on the prodigal. This is not difficult to understand. But then comes the explanation in effect: "Thy brother has returned to serve me in such capacity as he is able. Be glad that he is no longer wholly lost. But as for thee: Thou art my heir. Thou hast been faithful over a few things and I will make thee ruler over many. Thou hast overcome and shall "sit with me in my throne, even as I also overcame, and am set down with my Father in his throne" (Rev. 3:21).

Elder McConkie on this subject also observes that we may suppose that the elder son, accustomed as he was to obeying the will of his father, then went into the feast, welcomed his wayward brother in a compassionate manner, and rejoiced along with the father because the spiritually dead was born again, because he who was lost to the kingdom had been reclaimed.

But we need not suppose that the two sons were thereafter equal in power, honor or dominion. The inheritance of one was already wasted. As President Joseph Fielding Smith has written, "There is rejoicing in heaven over every sinner who repents; but those who are faithful and transgress not any of the commandments, shall inherit all that the Father hath, while those who might be sons, but through their 'riotous living' waste their inheritance, may come back through repentance to salvation to be servants, not to inherit exaltation as sons". (Joseph Fielding Smith, The Way to Perfection, pp. 21-22)

Now as to the immediate application of the parable, we may suppose that the Pharisees and scribes saw themselves as the elder son, laboriously attending to the affairs of the kingdom and refusing to fellowship a repentant publican or a returned sinner. Actually, of course, the murmuring religionist were far from that course of good works entitling them to the high status of sons in the Father's eternal household.

Do you still not see the sin of the "faithful" son?

Do you believe that you are "slaving" for God when you are faithful to your wife and honest in your dealings with others?

[This message has been edited by El Sid (edited 1/10/2008 9:49a).]

Remember as well that Jesus joined this parable with the parable of the lost sheep and the parable of the lost coin.

In both, when the "lost item" was found, there was celebration and joy. The found sheep was not then segregated from the rest of the flock. The found coin was not then devalued.

Similarly, as is clear from Jesus' very words, the lost son was fully restored. The import of the robe and ring would not have been lost on Jesus' audience - as apparently it is lost on you.

Here is how this "trilogy" of parables begins:

quote:

---

Now the tax collectors and "sinners" were all gathering around to hear him. But the Pharisees and the teachers of the law muttered, "This man welcomes sinners and eats with them."

---

Your mutterings sound oddly familiar!

Sid -Almost forgot. I hope you understand that we are not justified in extolling the virtue of repentance on the part of the prodigal above the faithful, plodding service of his brother, who remained at home, true to the duties required of him. The devoted son was the heir; the father did not disparage his worth, nor deny his deserts.

For the prodigal, the rough garb of his poverty was discarded for the best robe; a ring was placed on his finger as a mark of reinstatement; shoes told of restored son ship, not of employment of a hired servant.

Of the two brothers, the elder was the more faithful, whatever his minor defects may have been. The particular point emphasized in the Lord's lesson had to do with his uncharitable and selfish weaknesses. For the Pharisees, the prodigal was the father's son, not "their brother". They cared not who or how many were lost, so long as they were undisturbed in heirship and possession by the return of the penitent prodigals. But this parable was not just for them alone; it is a living perennial yielding the fruit of wholesome doctrine and soul-sustaining nourishment for all time.

As I alluded to earlier, would you desire exaltation in the terrestrial or celestial kingdom?. They are both incredible rewards but the Celestial, is still by far, much greater. You would still be a "son" in either one, but you would have wasted so much of your inheritance that could have been yours.

PS -Of course I see the sin of the older son and I have covered it.

[This message has been edited by Genesisag (edited 1/10/2008 10:04a).]

G. Ag your judgment is so arrogant that it is beyond belief.

Why am I not surprised you quote BRM and JFS, the two most ultra orthodox speakers in the past century.

Here is a question which you will fail to answer given your extreme vanity and arrogance. What makes you believe I am naive as to the orthodox construction of LDS religious principles?

Since you will not answer the question, I'll tell you what your answer is. Because I believe and interpret matters differently it must be that I don't understand. You are under the mistaken impression that there is only one interpretation and that you have found it. If a person does not recognize it, then that person is naive, apostate and ignorant. Now I suppose in person you are helpful, but in terms of intellectual discussion, you are not helpful, you are but a beam.

There are intellectual aspects, thoughtful aspects to Mormonism, but I bet you're unfamiliar with them. Dialog Magazine, initiated by Elder Oaks, Sunstone Magazine and even the Mormon History Association. There are the unabashed apologists, in FARMS and FAIR. However, what I'm trying to drive through your thick, arrogant head, is faithful members do disagree. If you truly understood the workings of high councils, you'd know that even those men vigorously disagree. No one way is the correct way to believe.

If you're stuck on the fundamentalists such as BRM and JFS, then I won't be able to help you. Talmage is a good start for you, but he was a geologist and didn't know everything but he at least dissuaded some of the silly anti-evolution tendencies of the fundamentalists such as JFS and even BRM. You should also read some of BH Roberts of the Seventy, or Henry Eyring, Senior. Another view doesn't make it all false. Free your mind.

What makes you believe I don't know those things you quote? It is the same pablum mindlessly thrown at us, week after week, year after year. How could any member not know that stuff?

El Sid, I believe G. Ag is missing some of the discussions which allude to the fact that the elder son could also represent the Pharisees, who deemed themselves to be doing the right thing. And the Pharisees took offense at that.

The strange thing is, G. Ag, is self-interpreting this parable to the extreme. His doctrine is his own and not the beliefs of any orthodoxy. He is off the deep end.

Extrapolating the parable to speculate as to the place of two repentant sinners is absurd and tears to shreds the original purpose of the parable. He has not even read some of the more cogent exposes of the parable within his own religion, let alone some of the more scholarly works from non-denominational scholars. His interpretation is his own. And from the speakers he cites, we can divine he is part of the extreme right wing with narrow views. Any citation to BRM is usually an ultra-fundamentalist. He is not somebody I would ever quote or cite.

can we talk about this "get-out-of-jail-free-card?" BS

there is no GOOJF card. there are earthly consequences for sin, and in sincere repentance there is anguish over past sin and time wasted.

this ranking and filing in the afterlife is a mormon invention, and mormons like genesis are terrified of the idea that somebody with less seniority and less works is somehow going to get equal pay.

the prodigal's son presented himself humbled and broken to his father. there was no smarmy whipping out of a GOOJF card and a big "gotcha dad, where's my party"

again, mormons look at god as an entity who could be duped or caught up in a technicality wherein he is forced to grant forgiveness to somebody who doesn't deserve it or who isn't sincere.








[This message has been edited by Texas velvet maestro (edited 1/10/2008 10:16a).]

Maestro, now you're examining the metaphysics of Mormon theology just as simplistically as Genesis.

I agree that Genesis has it all wrong, but so do many of my co-religionists.

The parable creates no hierarchy and it can be interpreted to make many comments. Genesis must think very highly of himself and does not understand repentance and the sufferings of sin are great. There is learning in the hereafter as God can make us geniuses just because we repented. What that learning curve looks like is obviously unknown to us. And biblical exhortations on the hereafter are minimal at best because we're not doing too well here as it is.

quote:

---

The Parable of the Workers in the Vineyard
Matthew 20:1-16

1"For the kingdom of heaven is like a landowner who went out early in the morning to hire men to work in his vineyard. 2He agreed to pay them a denarius for the day and sent them into his vineyard.

3"About the third hour he went out and saw others standing in the marketplace doing nothing. 4He told them, 'You also go and work in my vineyard, and I will pay you whatever is right.' 5So they went.

"He went out again about the sixth hour and the ninth hour and did the same thing. 6About the eleventh hour he went out and found still others standing around. He asked them, 'Why have you been standing here all day long doing nothing?'

7" 'Because no one has hired us,' they answered.
"He said to them, 'You also go and work in my vineyard.'

8"When evening came, the owner of the vineyard said to his foreman, 'Call the workers and pay them their wages, beginning with the last ones hired and going on to the first.'

9"The workers who were hired about the eleventh hour came and each received a denarius. 10So when those came who were hired first, they expected to receive more. But each one of them also received a denarius. 11When they received it, they began to grumble against the landowner. 12'These men who were hired last worked only one hour,' they said, 'and you have made them equal to us who have borne the burden of the work and the heat of the day.'

13"But he answered one of them, 'Friend, I am not being unfair to you. Didn't you agree to work for a denarius? 14Take your pay and go. I want to give the man who was hired last the same as I gave you. 15Don't I have the right to do what I want with my own money? Or are you envious because I am generous?'

16"So the last will be first, and the first will be last."

---

Consider this teaching of Jesus in light of the two sons.

Jesus describes the Kingdom as a place where men are rewarded despite differences in their works - and this from the generosity of the King.

Texas velvet maestro -You still don't get it. He was forgiven but he forfeited his original position. He has been welcomed back but not in the same status.

Read again what the father told the faithful son:
31" 'My son,' the father said, 'you are always with me, and everything I have is yours.

If "everything the father has" belongs to the faithful son, what is left over for the prodigal son?

Sid: You are correct, because in comparison to the giver, all are deficient.

It won't be a, "hey Sid, this is Genesis, I did a heck of a lot better than you, so nananana."

Derrida -You claim an authority you do not have nor can you even begin to prove you have. You put yourself at odds with apostles and prophets, so as a supposed" Latter-day Saint, you have not the least minimum standing to offer any opinion in that capacity. I do not offer "my opinion" but their insights which is part of their apostolic calling. You walk by your own "light" which I liken to a 60 watt light bulb compared to theirs; but even that is really way to generous!

derrida, genesis lusts after authority. you lust after learning and enlightenment. both are about self-glorification.

Christ's full love and salvation is available to idiots and unwashed sinners who come to Him with the faith of a child. The grace of God is beyond anything Joseph Smith and LDS can come up with.
It is infinite and makes mormonism and all the hoops y'all jump through irrelevant.

Derrida - "It won't be a, "hey Sid, this is Genesis, I did a heck of a lot better than you, so nananana."

That has never been my position. Only a fool would take that position. Our job is to help find and reclaim the lost. Not to exalt in their condition versus ours.

You pick and choose your selected cuts and pastes, because if I were of the mind, I'd cut and paste articles showing conflicting viewpoints to the ones posted by you. This is where you are error.

I claim NO authority other than the authority of reason, and of examination. I am not at odds, and as Joseph F. Smith stated during the Reed Smoot hearings more than a century ago:

"I should like to say to the honorable gentlemen that the members of the Mormon Church are among the freest and most independent people of all the Christian denominations. They are not all united on every principle. Every man is entitled to his own opinion and his own views and his own conceptions of right and wrong so long as they do not come in conflict with the standard principles of the church. If a man assumes to deny God and to become an infidel we withdraw fellowship from him. If a man commits adultery we withdraw fellowship from him. If men steal or lie or bear false witness against their neighbors or violate the cardinal principles of the Gospel, we withdraw our fellowship. The church withdraws its fellowship from that man and he ceases to be a member of the church. But so long as a man or a woman is honest and virtuous and believes in God and has a little faith in the church organization, so long we nurture and aid that person to continue faithfully as a member of the church, though he may not believe all that is revealed."

You are only familiar with one side of the argument, but I choose to look at all forty-seven sides and counting.

It is you who sets yourself at odds with the leaders, picking and choosing only those comments which feel comfortable to you.

[This message has been edited by Derrida (edited 1/10/2008 10:35a).]

Texas velvet maestro -As for authority, any 12 year old deacon in the Church, has more "authority" and whose works are recognized by heaven than you can ever accomplish in this life in your present state.

You wallow in your ignorance and non authority and deceive yourself that you are "saved" but you really know not "from what' or "to what".

It's nice of you maestro to make a psycho-analysis based on a few internet posts. Keep your day job, as you won't be hired any time soon.

Maestro it appears you are ignorant of the breadth of LDS teachings, but so be it.

And "lusting" after learning and enlightenment is "self-glorification". I would that all men and women seek diligently after enlightenment when they are able and have the means. That Christ may forgive the ignorant does not remove the duty and obligation of those that can to do their best. Grace is no excuse for slothfulness. I have no idea how the calculus of the eternities accounts for it all, but the natural order of things suggests we are accountable for our actions.

If on the desert, a man is untrained and unfit to run the desert, his lack of training comes to haunt him.

Derrida -I understand now why you don't have a temple recommend. You can not answer the question truthfully concerning sustaining the Prophet and apostles. You are no different that men of other ages who tried to use their own reasoning to figure out the scriptures and their applicablity. You have no, nor are you entiled to, any revelations concerning these matters and try to declare them to others. That is way beyond your "pay grade".

ibmagg, what do you think of the workers in the vineyard - in relation to the "faithful" and "prodigal" sons?

derrida, but if that same man in the desert has unconditional faith in Christ it will trump all the training and preparation. someday you might find yourself in a situation you never prepared for. you're pretty good on the message boards though.

Genesis you are an arrogant p... I have never dignified your inane question as to my recommend status.

I imagine I have attended and understand it better than you can hope to. Have you memorized the entire endowment ceremony, virtually all 90 minutes. Come back to me when you can speak it verbatim. And when you can identify which parts, including its architecture, resemble aspect of Egyptian ceremonies, and which aspects resemble Masonic rites, then we'll talk.

It's people like you who give Christianity a bad name. If more of them existed, I'd be a Buddhist. You can drive people away from Christ than any other person you ...

I seek no authority to declare an interpretation. But you arrogant [i wish profane things were allowed], you do. You hide behind your uneducated understanding of sacred things believing they protect you in your arrogance and ignorance. They don't.