Prodigal Son

First, let's get this one out of the way.

Prodigal:

• extravagant: recklessly wasteful; "prodigal in their expenditures"
• a recklessly extravagant consumer
  wordnet.princeton.edu/perl/webwn
• A prodigal person, a spendthrift; wastefully extravagant; someone yielding profusely, lavish; profuse, lavishly abundant
  en.wiktionary.org/wiki/prodigal
• recklessly extravagant: characterized by wasteful expenditure: lavish: yielding abundantly: luxuriant: profuse
  www.terran-associates.com/nz-business-defs.php

(courtesy google definitions)

Something I had never realized, or thought of before, is that that the father says to the older, indignant responsible son "all that I have is thine." (Luke 15:31)

The young reckless son no longer had any claim to his inheritance. Once the prodigal cashed out, 100% of the increase went directly to the other son. Even after the prodigal son returned.

Maybe sin is more costly than we think. Maybe as we turn away from God, we loose countless blessings that are reserved only for the faithful. Previously Jesus had explained how the Angels of God will rejoice over the sinner that repents, but this parable might give the context for the celebration. In the parable they rejoice when the son "repents" but all of the increase is given to the faithful son, and the son who fell away has to start over--alone.

My Doctrine

Jesus answered them, and said, My doctrine is not mine, but
his that sent me. ... He that speaketh of himself seeketh his own
glory: but he that seeketh his glory that sent him, the same is true, and no unrighteousness is in him

I started this blog a little tongue in cheek, and I really don't mean to be light about the scriptures, my faith (or anyone else's).

Let me start by giving the background as I understand it. The Jews canon was based on the Law and the Prophets. Moses gave the Law and form there, Joshua to Malachi were the words of the prophets. But, if I remember correctly there was a lot of commentary made on the Old Testament, that made up much of the rigid traditions etc, and I assume deliminated the different sects like the Sadducees and Pharisees, formed the basis for the Sanhedrin etc.

That would have been the unofficial divisive and often incorrect part of the then Jewish religion and lifestyle. And would have been the goal of any aspiring Rabbi. When Jesus decried those that advocated their own gospel, I don't think, I hope that my blog would not be part of that group.

A major part of essentially all organized religion, and specifically that established throughout the scriptures emphasize collaborative learning of the gospel. Sunday school, seminaries and institutes, the School of the Prophets, conferences, council meetings etc. Blogging might be a little unorthodox, but I think it is a valid means to share, not my doctrine, but to share my thoughts, my feelings, and my questions on His doctrine.

In trying to decide where the separation line would be, I first tended to think that anything that claimed to be definitive would be at fault. But I believe that many inspired scholars and leaders might have definitive interpretations of the scriptures. So maybe the line is that of stewardship. Someone claiming the final word for a little flock that they are not implicitly called and ordained to lead, might be at risk of proclaiming their own gospel, rather than that of 'Him who sent them'.

My definitely indefinite writings are more for my own benefit than anything else. I put them in a public venue in the hopes that someone might stumble upon them and find something interesting, helpful, amusing, or at least thought provoking. But I do give all the honor, and the credit, to God, the Spirit, and the inspired writers of the things I read. I'm just here for the ride ;)

Only Begotten

Isn't it interesting that Adam isn't considered a begotten son of God?

These stones

Luke 3"God is able of these stones to raise up children unto Abraham"

We talked recently about Jesus walking on the water. Peter did the same and Jesus said that he had little faith. That scripture has haunted me. Honestly I think I am afraid of my potential. If that is a little faith, what could we do if we have... moderate faith, what if we have a lot of faith?

The implications I think are a little frightening.

What this specifically has me thinking about though is control of the elements. One of Jesus' first miracles was to physically, chemically change water to wine. He was able to walk on water, he could have changed stone into bread, God is able to make Jews out of rocks, Moses brought water from stone, parted the Red Sea, changed the Nile's water to blood. Elijah stopped the heavens, and stayed the sun. Faith can move mountains. Literally.

Why? How? Joseph Smith speaking at King Follett's funeral asked those present to pray that the wind would die down so that everyone could hear. "For the effectual prayers of the righteous avail much. There is strength here"

We know that in the "last days" that there will be much physical, elemental destruction. Floods, earthquakes, famines, fires, pestilences. All of these seem to have controlled directly by prophets at some time. Will they all come down upon us because of the general lack of faith. Noah's flood for that matter, came at a time when there was only a handful of people good enough to save.

That brings to mind another question I have had rolling around in my head. As a missionary I memorized Doctrine and Covenants Section 2.

1 Behold, I will reveal unto you the Priesthood, by the hand of Elijah the prophet, before the coming of the great and dreadful day of the Lord.
2 And he shall plant in the hearts of the children the promises made to the fathers, and the hearts of the children shall turn to their fathers.
3 If it were not so, the whole earth would be utterly wasted at his coming.

We recited that, and I found myself wondering... "Why" Why would the earth be wasted at his coming if our hearts were not turned to our fathers? Someone suggested that by wasted it meant the earth would not have served its purpose, but the Portuguese translation says destruido--destroyed.

I don't know the answer, but now I wonder, what if the earth would tend naturally towards destruction, what if the only thing holding it together is the faith of the righteous. The spirit of Elijah is powerful, and the Priesthood restored by him more so. Maybe if all that was lacking, on the great and terrible day, there wouldn't be enough faith to keep the earth in tact.

Do we have an obligation to learn to control the elements? Many modern prophets have encouraged us to pray for rain. Lorenzo Snow famously spoke of the correlation between tithes and rain in St. George Utah. Should we be able to "Call down" mild summers? Are natural disasters a sign of a collective lack of faith?

Why was Christ typified by a serpent?

I read a reference about the brazen serpent that moses lifted up. It seemed at first a little odd that the Serpent would be a symbol of Jesus, because it was also a symbol of Satan.

Here are some of my thoughts:

The original serpent was Lucifer, who caused--who brought about the fall.

I think, although I'm not sure, that Brass is symbolic of things telestial… things earthly. Specifically in the temples etc. of the old testament.

So Christ takes on the physical form that Lucifer took when he brought about the fall, made of earthly material. He identified himself with (as) the sinners, and was raised up. All who look to him can be saved. Lucifer's (serpent's) curse was that he would forever go on his belly in the dust. The type of Christ was a flying serpent, able to raise itself out of the dust.

In his life the Savior took the physical appearance of the sinners. He subjected himself to the fall, and wrapped himself in an earthly flesh. He was able to raise himself from the dust, was raised up among sinners as a symbol that can lead us back to salvation.

Temptations

In Jesus' weakest state he was the most tempted.

I have always imagined, and I know it has been depicted that satan physically appeared and conversed with Jesus. But maybe it was just internal. The kind of thoughts that we often have, but Jesus knew, and defined them as temptations from Satan, where we often consider them our own thoughts.

Maybe Jesus saw a stone that looked like a loaf of bread, and knew he could change it to bread and for a moment it was a temptation to him, "I have finished my fast, I could just make that stone some bread."

Maybe after seeing all kingdoms in an instant, he was a little overwhelmed at the prospect of atoning for each person in all the kingdoms, "Do I really have to suffer for all of them?" and for a moment he feared, or at least considered not fulfilling his mission. And in that way would have worshipped Satan, because he did his will instead of God's will. Loving satan more than god.

Perhaps from the top of the temple, he wanted some assurance, some proof that he was being supported, maybe he thought for a moment of asking for a sign. "If I am really meant for all of this, if I really do have control over the angels, they would catch me if I fell"

I doubt that I will ever have Lucifer standing in front of me with a wry smile, telling me to wield unrighteous power, do something selfish, or to expect more of God than I should. But that doesn't mean that he doesn't tempt me. I want to try characterizing any unchristlike thought I have as if it was an external suggestion, and see how that changes my perspective.

How would we recieve Abinadi

Written on mobile phone:

Abinadi's message to the people was compiled to about 12 or 13 verses. The people who heard the message cited 4 verses worth to Noah. It was the most controversial, the most outrageous, and entirely out of context.

Isn't that exactly what "we" have done with Barack Obama's Pastor? What was done with Wikileaks, with the FLDS church?

If nothing else, we live in a time when our society is intolerant enough that Abinadi could come, and we would run to Uncle Sam, or to the general public, to tell all the bad things that Abinadi said.

Abinadi could be accused of being unamerican, or even terroistic. He even could conceivably be condemned for it.