MORMONISM: ETERNAL, FLESHLY MARRIAGE AND OTHER ERRORS AND MATTERS
Hello Thomas James,
As you know, I am not Pauline in that I don't agree with every last bit of his teaching; however, as that statement suggests, I agree with Paul on certain matters.
Paul wrote, "But and if thou marry, thou hast not sinned; and if a virgin marry, she hath not sinned. Nevertheless such shall have trouble in the flesh: but I spare you." (1 Corinthians 7:28 KJV)
I agree with that. Although, were I to have been there, I would have asked him to elaborate on "trouble" for instance and not with an eye to dissenting but to know more about his view on the subject. Then I would have continued a dialogue with him as far as it would bear worthy fruit.
I would have further qualified concerning many of Paul's statements about married couples and other matters. As to whether or not he would have agreed, I doubt he would instantly have done so and may never have or will. It's not for me to know that.
A married person does not necessarily have to care for the things of the world in how he or she may please his or her spouse in the worldly sense. Spouses can and should live the Golden Rule toward each other and others. They should focus upon the teachings of Jesus concerning all things. That can be done even while they are sexually active with each other, even in the act itself. Sex can be and should be spiritual between them. It does not have to be merely carnal knowledge or contain any aspects of sin. We are not a form of Gnosticism that holds all flesh as inherently evil and unclean. It becomes defiled by what comes out from it: the spirit that inhabits it. Jesus is flesh and spirit and not defiled.
As for having power over our own wills, as in 1Co 7:37, this is dangerous territory and must be qualified. We give over to God's will. We are not self-willed apart from God but God empowered. We do nothing without God. By bearing this in mind, we don't run such a risk of arrogance and secular-humanist error. We remain always joiners with God and never, never, never usurpers in any sense of the term "usurper" (rebellious to righteousness). We remain those who better understand and appreciate the huge importance in the oneness being a state of service only (accept that we receive the service of others given freely through them by God else there would be no giving between and among the believers). This can and does end up being infinite and dead hairsplitting for those who insist upon arguing for ego sake to defend the errors of those they have chosen to follow, John Calvin being a case in point for more than 450 years.
He split hairs he didn't understand. His error led him to being a theocratic dictator who burned people at the stake, although he claimed he was against it in his heart. He could have stopped it. Improperly, he excused usury (interest; not just high interest). He condemned the poor as predestined to spiritual failure — that their world condition was a sign of their non-elect state, which is a total falsehood, as Jesus was without much in the way of that type of material possession. As with Paul though, this does not mean that there is not partial-truth in Calvin's writings. His theology just veered off the narrow way with many following to this day: Reformed Protestants, who also include the followers of Zwingli. The Presbyterians and Baptists are Reformed — Presbyterians following elders where Baptists traditionally are congregationalists (self-governing). I hold with congregationalism but with the Church being one body wherever it is. This then is Universal, Unified Congregationalism if you will.
Christians do not make themselves little gods only. I add the words "little" and "only," as Jesus was a God and God for the following reason. He joined God's family and wholeness of being never exceeding but, again, always serving. The parts of God are unified, so gods and demigods is not the whole story and never has been in Jesus's book.
These distinctions are lost on many and especially the Muslims. They wrongly fear the familial relationship with the real Creator for fear of arrogance and being slapped down by the hard god of their own minds and hearts. Oh, I know they have soft spots. It should not be taken away but grown to subsume them under Christ, who taught us never to deviate as Mohammed deviated when he misunderstood and caved to the temptation of violence.
Leave it to the angels to do as instructed by God alone. This is for al Qaeda. This is for the Taliban. This is for the Mujahideen. This is for the Pashtuns. What is this Pashtunwali (code)? What is this Nang (honor)? What is this Badal (vengeance)? It is taking God into one's own hands. It is usurping. You fear to become sons and daughters of God, but you will violate God's law that says to leave vengeance to God. Yes, you do not do as our Father has rightly instructed. The Roman Empire took vengeance on Israel, but look where they are now. Islam takes vengeance, and look at its state or condition. Do you think it will be resurrected upon error?
If you are having trouble with the logic, understand that Mohammed said that Mohammed was not God. Therefore, he took vengeance in his own hands falsely imagining, at best, that he was doing the will of the God of Jesus Christ.
For the libertarian capitalists and other anti-collectivist, anti-communal, (anti-Christian Commons) libertarians, Jesus's teaching is the collective spirit, but it is not a hive mentality on the order of bees. There's no sting in it. It is entirely consensus-based. It is entirely voluntary. Souls are free to go off the narrow way and to be enslaved by evil that always degrades the wholeness — makes the fruit worse for others and self. It is fracturing. The farther and further from God, the worse it gets.
Now, all of that said as part of explaining how things go off and where I started concerning the Pauline, we should add that the author of Revelation wrote the following:
And they sung as it were a new song before the throne, and before the four beasts, and the elders: and no man could learn that song but the hundred and forty and four thousand, which were redeemed from the earth. These are they which were not defiled with women; for they are virgins. These are they which follow the Lamb whithersoever he goeth. These were redeemed from among men, being the firstfruits unto God and to the Lamb. (Revelation 14:3-4 KJV)
That is a direct response to Joseph Smith's spiritual progeny who cannot learn that song from where they are or will be if they follow Smith to where he is now and will remain unless spirits dead of the Holy Spirit can be taught and changed into real Christians (forgiven for blaspheming the Holy Spirit in any age to come). How many ages there are in eternity.
Jesus did hold up virginity. His parables more than suggest it. He did say the angels in Heaven don't marry and that we will be as they are. However, his parable says that virginity itself is not sufficient.
Afterward came also the other virgins, saying, Lord, Lord, open to us. But he answered and said, Verily I say unto you, I know you not. Matthew 25:11-12 KJV)
That is one of the parables where the parties involved more closely parallel the literal conceptualizations. It must be remembered that Jesus said Then shall the kingdom of heaven be likened unto ten virgins, which took their lamps, and went forth to meet the bridegroom. (Matthew 25:1 KJV)
He said, likened unto. It is like it. He drew an analogy. He taught via similes. Sometimes he taught without such devices, as when he told the disciples exactly that he was the son of God, was going to our father, and they were to follow according to plan.
The only way to understand the terms is to open up to them in softheartedness. Hardheartedness closes off Heaven. It's why so-called Christian members of the U.S. military don't exist in the highest. They will not be in the highest. As to where they will be unless they repent and go beyond John the Baptist's admonition to "Do violence to no man, neither accuse falsely; and be content with your wages," God alone knows. Real Christians are to follow John's advice but still come out of (leave) the military completely, just as we are to help one another to leave the capitalist world and the sexual world where there is any sin (that includes homosexuality even in mind).
Reading the parables is not what most people would consider a technical skill in the current parlance. It is more akin to art, although not dark but its opposite. It is something where feeling is essential. The technical is not useless however. The two are to go together and arrive at the unselfish end. If the end is perceived as selfish for the Christian, the reader as missed it. That's a fixed rule for the Real Christian in reading Jesus.
By the way, the oil for the lamps in the parable contains the rule. As with virginity, it is not sufficient unto itself if not understood and adhered to in light of the full message.
NEW EARTH AND NEW HEAVEN CONFLATED
So, we look toward "retirement" in Heaven with the Earth as a weigh station, both literal and figurative. The Earth though is transformed (or regenerated if you don't like the term transformed) right along with us. This then becomes the New Earth and New Heaven conflated as one anew. We are in it. We have it now in mind and heart in process — being perfected by God.
So, Thomas, what did you think of the post and this comment-reply? Do you hold that the Mormons are Christians? I doubt it.
TRANSLATE THE MAMMON
Are your Social Security checks going to go into the Commons even while we will never retire from service? Does God need that money and mammon? We will translate it on the altar to our sanctified cause that will end the wicked mammon in humanity.
How's your wife coming along? Is she beginning to see the light? I leave it to the Holy Spirit and you to decide how much you are given to reveal in this forum.
FUNDAMENTALISM VERSUS PENTECOSTALISM
Where are you concerning fundamentalism versus pentecostalism? What I mean is, do you hold with the movement of the Holy Spirit in your life? Pentecostals hold with that that movement still occurs.
SPEAKING IN TONGUES
I hold with that, although I do not hold with the "unintelligible language" interpretation of Acts 2:4. I do hold with charismatic gifts.
EMERGENT CHURCH MOVEMENT
What about the Emergent Church Movement, do you hold with it or parts thereof? I am rather a restorationist in a sense.
ECUMENISM AND SYNCRETISM
I appreciate the emphasis upon dialogue in the Emergent Movement, but it seems fixed on condoning homosexuality, which is inherent error, as it is harmful always and selfish apart from God regardless of any emotionalism in it.
It is for that and other reasons that I steer clear of embracing the worldly version of ecumenism and, even more, syncretism.
What are your views and are they fixed, or are you accepting Real Liberal Christianity as I've outlined it on this site and am developing?
Lastly, how did your job prospects turn out? Were you hired by the oil company? Did they insist upon working you two shifts a day, 7 days a week or whatever?
It's amazing how humans are caught by the greedy.
SON OF MAN
And take heed to yourselves, lest at any time your hearts be overcharged with surfeiting, and drunkenness, and cares of this life, and so that day come upon you unawares. For as a snare shall it come on all them that dwell on the face of the whole earth. Watch ye therefore, and pray always, that ye may be accounted worthy to escape all these things that shall come to pass, and to stand before the Son of man. (Luke 21:34-36 KJV)
The Son of man (the right one, for there are many and some are fallen: false christs)
SEPARATION: END TIMES
The angels shall come forth, and sever the wicked from among the just even as we do in nonviolence for we have not made them wicked without our own heartfelt and permanent repentance nor do we seek vengeance nor promote wrath between and among them. Reconcile these things you sons and daughters of the one and true God. This is not a televangelist, "End Times" vision. It has been happening since Jesus and will continue until Kingdom come and nothing but on Earth.
This is not in any way an enticement to sin, and all readers here really know it. If you, reader, whoever you are, despise me for writing it, so be it. I will press on without you.
The following should appear at the end of every post:
According to the IRS, "Know the law: Avoid political campaign intervention":
Tax-exempt section 501(c)(3) organizations like churches, universities, and hospitals must follow the law regarding political campaigns. Unfortunately, some don't know the law.
Under the Internal Revenue Code, all section 501(c)(3) organizations are prohibited from participating in any political campaign on behalf of (or in opposition to) any candidate for elective public office. The prohibition applies to campaigns at the federal, state and local level.
Violation of this prohibition may result in denial or revocation of tax-exempt status and the imposition of certain excise taxes. Section 501(c)(3) private foundations are subject to additional restrictions.
Political Campaign Intervention
Political campaign intervention includes any activities that favor or oppose one or more candidates for public office. The prohibition extends beyond candidate endorsements.
Contributions to political campaign funds, public statements of support or opposition (verbal or written) made by or on behalf of an organization, and the distribution of materials prepared by others that support or oppose any candidate for public office all violate the prohibition on political campaign intervention.
Factors in determining whether a communication results in political campaign intervention include the following:
- Whether the statement identifies one or more candidates for a given public office
- Whether the statement expresses approval or disapproval of one or more candidates' positions and/or actions
- Whether the statement is delivered close in time to the election
- Whether the statement makes reference to voting or an election
- Whether the issue addressed distinguishes candidates for a given office
Many religious organizations believe, as we do, that the above constitutes a violation of the First Amendment of the US Constitution.
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
That said, we make the following absolutely clear here:
- The Real Liberal Christian Church and Christian Commons Project not only do not endorse any candidate for any secular office, we say that Christianity forbids voting in such elections.
- Furthermore, when we discuss any public-office holder's position, policy, action or inaction, we definitely are not encouraging anyone to vote for that office holder's position.
- We are not trying to influence secular elections but rather want people to come out from that entire fallen system.
- When we analyze or discuss what is termed "public policy," we do it entirely from a theological standpoint with an eye to educating professing Christians and those to whom we are openly always proselytizing to convert to authentic Christianity.
- It is impossible for us to fully evangelize and proselytize without directly discussing the pros and cons of public policy and the positions of secular-office holders, hence the unconstitutionality of the IRS code on the matter.
- We are not rich and wouldn't be looking for a fight regardless. What we cannot do is compromise our faith (which seeks to harm nobody, quite the contrary).
- We render unto Caesar what is Caesar's. We render unto God what is God's.
- When Caesar says to us that unless we shut up about the unrighteousness of Caesar's policies and practices, we will lose the ability of people who donate to us to declare their donations as deductions on their federal and state income-tax returns, we say to Caesar that we cannot shut up while exercising our religion in a very reasonable way.
- We consider the IRS code on this matter as deliberate economic duress (a form of coercion) and a direct attempt by the federal government to censor dissenting, free political and religious speech.
- It's not freedom of religion if they tax it.
And when they were come to Capernaum, they that received tribute money came to Peter, and said, Doth not your master pay tribute? He saith, Yes. And when he was come into the house, Jesus prevented him, saying, What thinkest thou, Simon? of whom do the kings of the earth take custom or tribute? of their own children, or of strangers? Peter saith unto him, Of strangers. Jesus saith unto him, Then are the children free. (Matthew 17:24-26)