Hans Mattsson’s Mormon world is turned up-side-down
Last week I shared some of my thoughts about the audio recording of a Swedish Fireside meeting where two Mormon Church historians, former seventy Marlin K. Jensen and Richard E. Turley Jr. were sent to Stockholm Sweden to answer the doctrinal and historical questions of a number of Swedish Mormon leaders, most notably, former seventy Hans Mattsson. I will continue at about the one hour and seven minute mark of the two and a half hour meeting. Like last week, the transcript is copied as is, including typos.
Jensen: I love that fact that you’re asking these questions. Thank you. Thank you for feeling that you can do this. I really feel our desire to give you all the answers we have . But when all the answers are given and all the questions are asked… There is a book. There is a book. And when you read the book, when you read Benjamin’s discourses in the book of Mosiah, when you read young Alma in Alma 36 talking about his sins and coming to believe in Christ. When you read Moroni saying that he’ll meet us at the bar of god there’s something there that I stake my life on based on a feeling. Sure I know all of this and yes there are some things that we can’t explain, in fact. But there is the book and there is the spirit of the Lord that we can anchor ourselves in so you might want to add that. I wanted to add that.
Turley: And there’s something historically very remarkable about this book. I write books. I’ve written several and I’m in the process of writing several more. And I have a lot of help and I have a lot of education and it still takes me maybe a hundred drafts sometimes to write a book. Joseph Smith sat down and in roughly 60-90 working days he dictates this book.
EM’s Take: What strikes me about his part of the conversation is that both Jensen and Turley commit the logical fallacy of “Begging the Question.” Instead of answering the questions about how the Book of Mormon was translated VS. revealed and why Smith had to use a hat, they present the Book of Mormon as proof for, you guessed it, the Book of Mormon. Jensen admittedly bases his life on a feeling. Turley quickly adds that there are some historical things about the Book of Mormon, but fails to offer any examples of historical proof.
Folks, this is dangerous. My wife and I once talked to a Mormon who taught history at one of the local universities here in San Antonio. We asked her if she taught her classes to investigate history the same way that her Church tells her to find truth. When she admitted that she didn’t, I expressed my concern over using a method for testing the truthfulness of the most important part of her life when she doesn’t trust that very same method for secular history. It simply doesn’t make any sense to pray about the historicity of an event and take that “answered prayer” as a reason for belief. If there are historical proofs for the Book of Mormon, then present them. Whether or not the Book of Mormonism is from God is another issue, but if the book cannot even be proven to be a work from antiquity, then it does not deserve our faith. An objective faith needs just that, an object. With the Bible we have literally thousands of manuscripts as evidence. Not so with the Book of Mormon. All we have there are golden plates that cannot be seen. We are just supposed to take the word of a man whose face was in a hat and who didn’t even use the supposed golden plates in the “translation” process.
I greatly respect the Swedish response to this.
Swedish Comment: That is amazing. But those are not the questions we want.
EM’s Take: Although the English is a bit broken here, it is still plain to see the frustration the Swedes are having. They want their questions answered, not questions that Jensen and Turley want to address. In light of this Swedish response, Turley’s next comment is humorous at best.
Turley: OK. We’ll move on. I think I answered one and two here pretty concisely. Joseph Smith and his wives. Polyandry.
Swedish Comment: You didn’t say why you present this view? Why does the church present this view? Why doesn’t the church present about the seer stone more efficiently?
EM’s Take: Turley wants to move on, but the Swedes are not satisfied with an answer that Turley deems “concise.” The fundamental question here is not if Smith really used a seer stone with his face in a hat. That is a given. What the Swedes want to know is, why isn’t the Mormon Church honest about this part of its history? Why the nice pictures of the golden plates sitting on a table in plain view when Smith didn’t use this method at all? Turley explains.
Turley: In the early days of the church, they talked about it often. In the second generation, they presented it the way they tell the story, or subsequent generations. Each generation retells the story according to their own circumstances.
Swedish Question: But we are led by revelation, the Church, so I mean, shouldn’t, then, the leaders correct so that not people every generation change the story?
EM’s Take: Excellent response to a bogus explanation. Each generation retells the story according to their own circumstances? Exactly what circumstances would require another generation of Mormons to tell the story of Smith’s “translation” process differently than it supposedly happened? What possibly purpose could there be for changing the details of the story? The only answer I can imagine is that the LDS Church knows that the story is nigh unbelievable to this generation.
Turley then succeeds in changing the subject to Joseph Smith and his polygamy/polyandry. For those who are unfamiliar with the term “polyandry” it is when one woman is married to more than one man. Not only did Joseph Smith marry many unmarried women, he also married other men’s wives.
Turley: Joseph Smith’s wives. Polyandry. This is a very complex subject. This is one we could spend a lot of time on. Let me just answer some basic questions. Did Joseph Smith practice plural marriage? Yes. Many church members don’t know it but the answer is yes. Did Joseph Smith practice polyandry? The answer is yes. Joseph Smith did practice polyandry. How many wives did Joseph Smith have? We’re in the process, as you know, of preparing the papers of Joseph Smith for publication. We hope to include in the papers of Joseph Smith a list of Joseph Smith’s wives based on the best available evidence. So we’ll answer that question in the future. Why did Joseph Smith marry specific people? Which gets to your question about why did he marry the wives of people were already married? That actually boils down to a marriage by marriage statement. And it’s fairly complex but it’s an excellent question. We just don’t have time tonight to answer it, but there are answers.
EM’s Take: As I was listening to this portion of the meeting, I laughed for two reasons. First, this is how Turley comes across to me. “We have flown halfway across the world to answer your questions. These are great questions and there are answers, but we don’t have time to deal with them.” The first question which came to my mind was, “Why do you not have the time to answer questions about Smith’s plural wives? Is it because there were too many of them?” My second question was, “Why not just pick one polyandrous marriage and address that case? What gave Smith the right to marry even just one married woman?” The bad news is that Turley never does answer those questions, but the good news is, he admits that Smith was married to many other women. Some of whom were already married to living men.
Turley’s answer in no way satisfies the Swedish Mormons. Some of them brought up the fact that Smith married girls as young as 14. Others could not understand how a prophet of God could go behind Emma’s back (Smith only legal wive) and marry other men’s wives. This part of the conversation is tense. It gets to the point where one Mormon starts to bear his testimony about how he knows the Church is true even in the face of these unresolved questions. Turley’s next question deals with the Book of Abraham.
Turley: Book of Abraham. Very quickly, let me just say a few things about it very simple. Number 1, again, it was received by revelation. Number 2, we don’t have all the papyrus. We have some fragments, but we don’t have all of them. Number 3, the so called — we’ve seen a lot of studies on the so-called alphabet and grammar book. There’s some excellent research coming out of BYU in the next year that you need to read. That’s all I have time to say about that.
Again, this concept of translation if you look at the 7th section of the Doctrine and Covenants, it’s a translation of a parchment sent up by the apostle john in the new testament. There’s no evidence it was anywhere around Joseph at the time that he translated it. OK, so again, translation is not character for character translation like you and I think about it, OK?
Swedish Question: The church they believe the paper—papyrus are the words of Abraham? Or do they think they are as they are translated now?
Turley: There are lots of theories on that. The church does believe that the book of Abraham is the word of God and if you read the book of Abraham, there are doctrines and principles you will understand that are important to you. That is the church’s position. Exactly how Joseph Smith did it? There are lots of scholarly debates going on about that. But there’s excellent work going on at BYU that should be out in the next year.
EM’s Take: The Book of Abraham was supposedly translated by Smith from an Egyptian papyrus he bought in 1835. Smith claimed that the book was actually written by the Old Testament saint, Abraham. At that time in history no one knew how to translate Egyptian so Smith felt free to make up whatever he wanted. Now that scholars can translate Egyptian, the papyrus that Smith used is recognized to be nothing more than common funerary documents and have nothing to do with Abraham at all. To learn more about this subject, watch the excellent award winning video produced by our good friends at the Institute For Religious Research.
Turley’s response is less than weak. Scholarly debates? Why should there be debates at all and why do they involved BYU scholars? I keep saying it, but who needs scholars if you have prophets, seers and revelators? If the Mormon Church does not have an answer, why not just ask God? If I was a Mormon and I heard this type of response, I would quickly lose faith in my prophets. Faith in the absence of evidence is one thing, but faith in spite of evidence is another issue. Turley promised to have more information “next year.” It is now three years after this fireside. Nothing.
Jensen said something interesting about LDS Church history in the context of Smith’s first vision account.
Jensen: What I want you to know is I think there is some hint of this, there’s some feeling that somehow the leaders of the church have manipulated the church history for some benefit. And I want you to know that is not true. Nor is it true today. There’s never been an attempt to suppress the history of the church or to tell the church’s history in some untrue way to put it into an untrue light to gain some advantage, to gain converts, to gain popularity or acceptance.
EM’s Take: Really? Then please answer this Mr. Jensen. Why do these Swedish Mormons feel deceived and why did they have to research sources outside of the LDS Church to get a more accurate telling of Mormon history? If there is no attempt on the part of the LDS Church to manipulate its own history, I would like to see what it would look like if they ever decided to cover up their history. How would it look any different?
One of the more sensitive topics was about why the Swedish Mormons felt bad after going through Mormon temples.
Swedish Question: Why do we have such a bad feeling when we come to the temple? If the Holy Ghost was there this would give a testimony, you feel good about it, you like to go there again, you feel uplifted. But this is just… (unintelligible) you feel sad, you wonder, what I’ve been deceived, you really have nightmares, at least for a week.
Turley: Again, short answer, the way people react to the temple experience depends on their culture. There are some people in some cultures who go to the temple and they react very positively and there are others who do not.
Swedish Response: Yeah, but if it’s the spirit, it should testify to you if you’re African or Indian, whatever.
EM’s Take: Yet again, another bogus response. I have talked with countless people who have been through the Mormon temple and it is very common to hear them describe dark, confusing and downright scary experiences. Granted, some people have good experiences in the temple, but most I have talked to have opposite feelings. Culture has nothing to do with it. I absolutely love the response by the Swedish Mormon. Culture shouldn’t matter if the Holy Spirit is there. Mormons are taught that the Holy Spirit gives you good feelings so if you feel bad in the temple, something is wrong. To think that the person asking this question is having nightmares about the temple is downright disturbing.
There were many other topics discussed (Adam-God doctrine, Mormon archeology, DNA issues, etc.) during this Fireside and I encourage you to listen to the audio (Part one, part two) as well as reading the transcript. I want to end with how the meeting concluded.
Jensen: I want to thank all of you for coming tonight and I want to thank you for spirit that has been here. Cooperative, friendly, kind spirit that you all brought back. I wondered how this would play out. We prayed that it would play out in a way that would be helpful to everyone here. I hope and pray the spirit been here. I want to thank Brother Turley for a lifetime of study and thought and for being in a position probably as well as anyone in our church to answer these questions tonight. Has he been able to give an answer that has satisfied every one of you on every question? I doubt it. Could we? Could anyone? Could the collective intelligence of Mormonism do that? I don’t know. I doubt it.
EM’s Take: At least we agree on something. Not only do I doubt that the “answers” they provided that evening would satisfy every one of them, I would be surprised if they satisfied any of them. The LDS Church could have saved all of them some time by just sending a letter stating they need to wait another year to get some answers and that they don’t have the time to answer their other questions. Jensen then concluded with a misapplication of the Bible.
Jensen: I want to say to you as the savior said to his disciples after he fed the 5000. And if you remember, they were very happy to have the bread and the water, but then Christ did what he always does with us and that is he tried to take them to a higher level, and most of them left, remember? They walked away when he began to talk about himself as being the bread of life and the living water. And remember his exchange? He turned to his disciples and said, will you leave me also? And what did Peter answer? That’s right. To whom should we go, Lord? For thou hast the words of eternal life. And that’s what I want to say in my final testimony tonight. Where will you go, those of you who have doubts?… President Eyering’s dad who was probably the finest scientist the church has ever produced said once that in science there are contradictions and there are unexplained questions and paradoxes. But he said those things have never caused me to apostatize from my science. And in like manner he said that there may be things about the church that I don’t completely understand. He had what he called shelf issues; issues that he would put on a shelf, that he would suspend judgment on. And sometimes that’s the way we have to handle the very few little things about this church.
EM’s Take: There are two things that bother me about this statement. I will address the second one first. Jensen tells a personal story about President Eyring having doubts and “putting them on a shelf.” In other words, don’t think about it. All cults practice the same “ostrich head in the sand” syndrome. If a problem is too great to handle, they are encouraged to ignore it.
The thing that bothers me most about this statement is that Jensen takes the words of Jesus, which He applies to Himself, and then applies it to Mormonism. A number of Jesus’ disciples left Him because of some hard things that Jesus said. He asks His disciples in John 6:66-69, “Do you want to leave me too?” Peter responds, “To Whom should we go? You have the words of eternal life.” Jensen correctly quotes Peter, but notice how Jensen then changes the focus from “to Whom” to “to where?” Jensen asks, “Where will you go, those of you who have doubts?”
Where will you go? What happened to “To Whom shall you go?” The answer to that question is JESUS! You go to Jesus! If you have doubts about the Mormon Church, you go to Jesus. Mormons cannot conceive of the idea that it is possible to be faithful to Jesus and not stay in the Mormon Church. Contrary to LDS claims, you do not need to join the Mormon Church to get to Jesus. You do that personally.
If by chance, any of the Swedish Mormons are reading this, or any other questioning Mormon for that matter. I want to tell you that First Timothy 2:5 says there is one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus. If I need to go to a Church to get to God, now I have two mediators and one of them is not a man, it is an organization. If we want to get to God, there is only one provision for that. Jesus alone. If you doubt the Mormon Church, come to Jesus. The LDS Church has always been an obstacle anyway.
Pingback: Some Mormons Search the Web and Find Doubt- Evidence Ministries’ Take- Part One | The Edge
Keith, your bottom line is, ” If I need to go to a Church to get to God, now I have two mediators and one of them is not a man, it is an organization. If we want to get to God, there is only one provision for that. Jesus alone. If you doubt the Mormon Church, come to Jesus. The LDS Church has always been an obstacle anyway.”
This is a cunningly deceptive statement.
Does Paul teach the saints that the church is their mediator? No, he said Jesus gave the saints the organization of the church for their perfection, “That we henceforth be no more children, tossed to and fro, and carried about with every wind of doctrine, by the sleight of men, and cunning craftiness, whereby they lie in wait to deceive; (Eph 4:14)
Jesus gave the LDS Church, as he gave the FDS Church, “…some, apostles; and some, prophets; and some, evangelists; and some, pastors and teachers; For the perfecting of the saints, for the work of the ministry, for the edifying of the body of Christ:” (Eph 4: 11,12)
And just as the leaders of the saints in the former church were of Judah, the leaders of the saints in the latter church are of Joseph, and their eye-witnesses of Christ are both on record. The Gentiles, on the other hand, have no record of their own. Therefore, they must rely on these two witnesses from the house of Israel, which God has provided,
The unbelieving Gentiles seek to divide these two witnesses, but they cannot be divided. Their testimony that Jesus of Nazareth is the Only Begotten Son of God, the promised Messiah, stands with one voice. They testify that the Lord is one God, as he performs his marvelous work, his strange work, and brings to pass his act, his strange act.
For those interested, I will address the issues of this post in more detail, on my own blog at voicesfromthedust.org.
Excal,
I’m not sure if you caught my point… and to be honest, I’m not sure I understand yours.
Obviously Paul does not teach that the Church is a mediator, but the LDS Church teaches this in practice today. What I mean by that is that they do not outright apply that term to themselves, but they are a mediator in practice. The temple itself is thought of as a mediator. According to Mormonism, we cannot live with God unless we go through the temple (or someone does it for us). If the temple is needed, then it is a mediator. In Mormonism everything points to the LDS Church. In Christianity, everything points to Jesus.
Let me ask you a question, then, Keith. When you die and get to heaven, along with the millions of others that are saved, do you think your personal relationship with Christ, will be all that is required?
Will Jesus have to do all the work of directing and teaching and answering questions, or do you think that Peter, James and John, along with Paul and others will be there to help get you through orientation and assign you to help in some part of the work of a heavenly ministry? And what will that ministry be?
Are members of your family saved? Will you have a special relationship with your wife and children there, and will all of you be organized in some way? If so, why? If not, why not?
I’m trying to picture in my mind how all the Christian denominations and non-denominations, who constitute the body of Christ, are going to settle all their differences. Will you and Shawn McCraney and Jason Wallace, and Ed Decker and Sandra Tanner and Ron Carlson and Walter Martin and Brannon Howse and Rick Warren and Tony Blair and John Piper and Billy Graham. and Oral Roberts and Benny Hinn and Joel Osteen and Kenneth Copland and John Hagee and Perry Stone, and a hundred others I could name, see eye to eye with Luther, Calvin, Wycliffe, Wesley, let alone Clement of Rome, Mathetes, Polycarp, Ignatius, Barnabas, Papias, Justin Martyr, Irenaeus, when you all meet in heaven?
Will you be a member of a congregation then, one congregation of many, who will meet to praise the Lord, partake of the Lord’s supper and prepare for the resurrection to come?
Will you be willing to partake of those emblems along side any of these other members of your congregation, whoever they might be? Will you respect the assignments given to you by others, who may be placed in authority over you, just because they are saved too? Will you respect the captains of 10, the captains of fifty and the captains of 100, so-to-speak, even though you don’t agree with them?
In short Keith, you and all of us have to decide to follow Jesus, but Jesus has to organize us, or else his house would be a house of confusion. That’s why he said, if we are not one, we are not his. The only way that we can become one on this earth, and see eye to eye, according to the Bible, is to be of one heart and one mind and eliminate poverty from among us, so there are not rich and poor, bond and free, but all equal partakers of the heavenly gift.
In other words, whether in heaven or on earth, Jesus must gather us as chicks beneath his wings, and bring again Zion.
See here.
The LDS Church claims to be gathering as required by the call of Jesus, in preparation for the wrath to come. Who has commanded you to flee from the wrath to come?
Excal,
I don’t see what any of this has to do with the topic at hand. However, I do find it interesting that you think you can tell Jesus what he needs to do.
Keith,
It’s relevant to the topic at hand, because you said “Paul does not teach that the Church is a mediator, but the LDS Church [does],” even though Paul teaches the necessity of the Church organization for the perfection of the saints.
I think we should remember that Jesus said he would have gathered the house of Israel, as a hen gathereth together her chicks beneath her wings, but they would not. He also said, “…wheresoever the carcass is, there will the eagles be gathered together.”
If he gathers them, it’s for a purpose. If the purpose is to endow them with power, and teach them the principles of washing, anointing and sealing, in relation to salvation and exaltation in the hereafter, it doesn’t follow that the Church is meant to be a mediator between them and God, but a necessary organization of his laws and his ordinances to teach us those things that God wants us to know.
You believe that you don’t need to be gathered in, organized, taught, endowed, washed, anointed or sealed by any authority sent from heaven above. My question regards the obvious challenge, which that position presents for the millions of inhabitants of heaven, whom you expect to meet when you die. They represent an endless array of conflicting organizations, beliefs, attitudes and convictions, which they held, while alive on earth.
How is that deplorable condition going to be rectified, without some guiding principles, proper authority and willing minds, ready to conform to the order of heaven? In other words, if you refuse to gather here on earth and cannot be agreed and unified in this life, according to the Holy Order of the Son of God, how is it possible that it can be accomplished in heaven?
Oh, I know: Jesus, period.
Excal,
You stated, “It’s relevant to the topic at hand, because you said “Paul does not teach that the Church is a mediator, but the LDS Church [does],” even though Paul teaches the necessity of the Church organization for the perfection of the saints.”
You have changed the topic. I am not talking about needing the Church for growth in the Christian life. I am talking about needing the Church before one can be forgiven. In Christianity, we are forgiven and then brought into the Church of God. Mormonism has it backwards as it teaches that one cannot be forgiven outside of the Mormon Church. That makes the Church a mediator necessary for forgiveness of sin.
That is nothing short of blasphemy. God did not send a Church. He sent His Son.
He sent his Son, who organized and sent his church out to teach and preach the gospel. He that believes is to be baptized to be saved; but he that does not believe and will not be baptized shall be damned.
Keith, I think “EM’s take ” on this meeting is well reasoned . Let’s hope those Mormons
who listened to all the alibi’s offered to them will come to see that there is a better way
for them by dismissing their prophets/apostles . God is doing a great work among so
many Mormons , opening their eyes to the truth about their leaders behavior in certain
important areas , hopefully this will cause them to turn exclusively to the apostles
Jesus did appoint to preach His true gospel which is available for them in the Bible.
In my humble opinion it seems there are underlying and/or other issues with the LDS Swedes. I was disappointed with some of the answers by Jensen and Turley.
@ Excal: Very good posts. I understand some of what you are saying.
Jesus has a lot more power than I gave Him credit for as a Mormon. The truth is, Jesus does not need my help to save me; Jesus does not need my help to save my ancestors; and though mediators are useful for the perfecting of Christ’s followers, they are not necessary for my salvation. It took time to eliminate those false notions. They are even in the LDS folklore: How many members insist on having their dead bodies buried rather than cremated? Jesus does not need my help to resurrect me. When I came to this realization, I could no longer sarcastically say, “Oh, I know: Jesus, period.” Now I can say it as a point of doctrine. Let’s remove one article of punctuation: Oh, I know Jesus, period.
Reply↓
Those who know Jesus don’t fight against Mount Zion. The reason that the only salvation remaining for the Gentiles is for them to repent and to be baptized and thus for them to be identified in the same covenant and to worship at the same altar as Israel, is because only the restored house of Israel constitutes true Christianity.
As Moses prophesied, all others are cut off from among the people, unless they repent, because they will not hear him in all things whatsoever he says unto them. His blood will not cleanse them, if they will not give heed to his words.
And now, the axe is laid at the root of the tree, and whatsoever tree that does not bring forth fruit, meet for repentance, shall be hewn down and cast into the fire, according to the words of the Holy One of Israel.
Excal,
You’ve got some interesting theology. Not Mormon and CERTAINLY not Christian. You are preaching the same message all cults preach. God only approves of their organization and to be accepted by God, we need to submit to their authority.
My only mediator is Jesus Christ. My sins are forgiven by faith in Jesus only and only Jesus. That is, Jesus and no one else and Jesus and nothing else.
Well spoken, John.
Sir, Thank you for posting this. Your responses (“EM’s take”) are articulate, to the point and restrained. My responses would have been peppered with lots of frustrated cursing. I read the transcripts and listened to the podcasts, and every time I did, I wanted to smash my PC at the idiocy of these two men posing as historians for God. The gall of their side-stepping, tap dancing and even outright ignoring of the Swedish members’ questions. The audacity of suggesting that, after lying through their teeth, these members submit their resignation if they’re not happy with the church. I guess my inner Exmormon is still alive somewhere, still angry at the LDS deception; plus the fact that I jumped through their hoops for so long and paid all that money and spent all that time in their crazy world.
That is how I know God is at work in me in this ministry. My response would be very similar to yours. The love of Christ for these people constrains my rage.
Excel. Jesus is king and ruler over his church now and in heaven. Read revelations chapter 7there the true church of this Jesus the Christ is described. He sits at the right hand of God which means he has complete authority There will be only one authority or king in heaven Jesus. I agree with Keith we don’t need a church to save us only to support and uplift and correct us. If a church conflicts with the doctrine of the bible I would run not walk away.
And that’s why so many non-LDS Christians do run. They run to and fro looking for a church that hopefully meets their needs, but at the same time claiming that Jesus is King of his church, if only they could find it!
It truly is pathetic, as becomes increasingly clear to honest investigators. LDS are continually asked if they really believe in perfection through Christ, and in exaltation, but non-LDS Christians are never asked anything other than if they are saved or not.
LDS believe they must enter in by the way and press forward, feasting on the words of Christ, which are his law, enduring to the end, and, if they do this, the promise of the Father is, they shall be saved. For them, the Lord’s great and last promise, to hold them guiltless before the Father, will be fulfilled according to his will, not theirs.
This is not so for you. You can name the day and hour when you decided that you were saved, so you go about as if the promise of Christ has been irrevocably fulfilled in your case.
Thus, you are happy and you rejoice among yourselves, while you laugh and poke fun at the Saints, who are laboring to keep sacred covenants and their fear of God is not taught by the vain and foolish precepts of men, but by the oracles of the God of Israel.
The difference between these two views of the gospel, is manifestly apparent in the those who fight against Mount Zion: They are like an hungry man who dreameth, and, behold, he eateth; but he awaketh, and his soul is empty: or as when a thirsty man dreameth, and, behold, he drinketh; but he awaketh, and, behold, he is faint, and his soul hath appetite: so shall the multitude of all the nations be, that fight against mount Zion.
Excal Words from the Lord Jesus himself. Mathew 5:43 “You have heard that it was said, ‘Love your neighbor[i] and hate your enemy.’ 44 But I tell you, love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you, 45 that you may be children of your Father in heaven. He causes his sun to rise on the evil and the good, and sends rain on the righteous and the unrighteous. 46 If you love those who love you, what reward will you get? Are not even the tax collectors doing that? 47 And if you greet only your own people, what are you doing more than others? Do not even pagans do that? 48 Be perfect, therefore, as your heavenly Father is perfect.
Jesus says in the present tense Be perfect. Not later right now. How can we imperfect beings be made perfect now. With our sinful nature our whatever evil inflicts our hearts, how can we be perfect right now. It is through the sacrifice of our LORD on the cross. He became sin the one who knew no sin. He did this for us in order to fulfill the law and the punishment due to us. HE alone paid in full the price for us. By his stripes we are healed. We that have put on Christ will suffer no condemnation. Is this a reason to live in sin. God forbid. It is a call to become who we are meant to be. Chosen, saved, chastised by God in order that we could be called the adopted sons of God. We were not born of a heavenly father. We were born in sin of earthly fathers and mothers. But for all who believe and are born again, they are called the sons of God.
Excal you can try to work your way or you can hope in the sacrifice provided by God. It is a choice.
I didn’t say that, Robert. I said that the only salvation remaining for the Gentiles is for them…to be identified in the same covenant and to worship at the same altar as Israel.
It’s like the situation Noah’s contemporaries faced. The only salvation remaining for them at that point was to get on the boat. As Paul said, all Israel shall be saved, and this means Gentiles have to come to Zion to be saved.
This is because the Lord is gathering the descendants of his ancient covenant people, to keep the promises he made to their fathers. The wicked, those who will not come unto Zion, must face destruction as certain as those who would not come in Noah’s day.
Israel is to be gathered and the Gentile who repents is numbered with them. Those who repent not are cut off from the people.
Excal: I would like you to do some research on what prophesies your leaders have made. Start at the beginning with Joseph and test if there prophesies are true or if they speak from visions of their own imagination. If God prophesied through your oracles then their prophesies must be correct. You and I both know God is not capable of lying.
I answered you, Robert, but it hasn’t been approved yet.
Excal, You talk about the only reason the gentiles have salvation is because of the restored house of Israel. Wow. Here is a geneology lesson for you Ruth was mother to Obed. Obed was grandfather to David. Jesus came from the lineage of David. Ruth was not an Israelite. She was a Moabite. She told Naomi “your God is my God”. When Boaz became kinsman redeemer and married Ruth how was this legal in the law? She was a Moabite, she should have been outcast or slain. She was not and she was welcomed into the Israelites because she converted. She left her Moabite gods and put her trust in the God of Israel. She was among God’s people and through her David was born and our LORD was born. When again was this restoration you speak of. A couple thousand years ago if you ask me.