Two Replies

Post 306

I feel it is important to address the two most recently submitted comments because each of them are significant concepts to the purpose of this lengthy work as well as timely to the present discussion, and most assuredly they also represent the thoughts and perspectives of more than a few other readers. It is often difficult for an author to make a stated concept understood without a two-way discussion for clarification; these comments come at a place that really needs such communication. Please accept them and my replies as a part of the “conversation” that makes the point more personally applicable. I have eliminated the comenter’s names from their comments as copied here, to reduce unnecessary embarrassment due to my seemingly harsh criticism in this official format; the last thing I want to do is drive away honest comments by seeming uncaring or rude. I am pleased to interject these comments into the flow of the Blog-thought because they are not intrusions; these really do fit remarkably well in the current context of how and where we are going in this long Blog-adventure to a specific destination not far ahead. Please hang on just a little longer; it should really start to come together in a bit.
* * *

Comment submitted November 18, 2013 on Post 219 “Ten Virgins” (http://when-did-reason-die.blogspot.com/2011/09/ten-virgins.html):

“I have been searching posts like this and my favorite perspective so far is: (http://www.lds.org/general-conference/2012/10/converted-unto-the-lord?lang=eng&query=ten+virgins)”

My reply:
Frankly it seems shamefully dishonest and subversive to advertise another religion’s interpretation of this topic while not even pretending to be interested in the faith of this Blog. This intrusive offering is not simply a varied interpretation among brethren of different denominations trying to reach greater truth, but a wholesale advertisement to take the reader somewhere away from Christianity itself because it seems like a better interpretation.
I want to be fair to the commenter: perhaps he really is just a searcher for the true meaning itself, outside of any religious constraint that seems to restrict interpretation. If this is the case then he isn’t actually an intentional subverter of Christianity but only an ignorant one, like “manslaughter” vs. “murder 2” (*1).
Please understand I am not angry at this man or lashing out at him “for such an attack”; I am only honestly addressing the nature of the facts because the nature of the facts is very important to comprehend toward giving an answer. I certainly don’t at all mind a view different than mine, and as my longstanding catchphrase of the Blog states:

“I don’t claim to know all the truth, But I refuse to believe the lie. This site is dedicated to viewing reality then using reason to come to a conclusion. Regardless if you are here to learn or share or educate me; Welcome my friend.”

So by the declared nature of this Blog, while no harm or ill intent is intended; this is a place for seriously evaluating honest thoughts… both mine and yours, if you offer them. In that light I take the commenter in good faith that he is not trying to subvert the Christian faith by drawing my readers to Mormonism; but actually sees no significant need of “choosing a faith” in the effort to understand God’s meaning that He wrote into scripture. This mindframe is both PROFOUNDLY significant on its own, and EXTREMELY applicable to our current topic. Therefore, before we simply explore the merits of his alternant interpretation-offering on a long-past Post, we must consider the source itself as it applies to our present Posts. The timing of Providence is impeccable!
* * *

The extra-biblical nature of Mormonism is a very real form of Strange Fire:

“And Nadab and Abihu, the sons of Aaron, took either of them his censor, and put fire therein, and put incense thereon, and offered strange fire before the LORD, which he commanded them not” Leviticus 10:1.

God is very specific about just what kind of fire and incense (worship) is to be offered to him by his people. In a way it’s a lot like the deep joy of recognition you feel at the smell of your wife’s signature perfume. What? She doesn’t have a signature perfume? That’s really too bad; I guess for you any smell will do, but not so for God; he wants to know the second you come into a room that is crowded with others; he’s that in love with you, and that in tune to you.
The “companion to the bible” works of Mormonism is of such a different nature from the scriptures that they really speak of two different gods (*2), but Mormonism has merged them anyway; just as Islam does with the Old Testament. If you will remember I was also pretty direct with an earlier commenter that tried to similarly marry the Christian interpretation of the scriptures with Islam’s Strange Fire perspective from the Qur-an. This must not be allowed at all costs… even at the cost of peace.

“And there went out fire from the LORD, and devoured them, and they died before the LORD. Then Moses said unto Aaron, This is it that the LORD spake, saying, I will be sanctified in them that come nigh me, and before all the people I will be glorified. And Aaron held his peace” Leviticus 10:2-3.

While Islam claims their Allah is the One True Creator, and ignorant Christians seeing the similarities interpret that to mean they mean Jehovah with a different name, so Mormons have a different god too but they use the same name as the Christians: Jesus Christ.

“Little Children, it is the last time: and as ye have heard that antichrist shall come, even now are there many antichrists; whereby we know that it is the last times. They went out from us, but they were not of us…” I John 2:18-19a.

“For there shall arise false Christs, and false prophets, and shall shew great signs and wonders; insomuch that, if it were possible, they shall deceive the very elect. Behold, I have told you before” Matthew 24:24.

Mormonism hasn’t even gotten to the level of great signs and wonders but many are already deceived. Suddenly we are no longer discussing the interpretation of a biblical parable but the identity of God himself. Until we figure out just which god/God we are serving the interpretation of a parable is completely insignificant and inapplicable. Mormon virgins are not waiting for the same groom as Christians and so not one of the ten virgins can be applied to them; foolish or not.
But here’s the first part of the complex clincher in the age of confusion: The laws of nature and nature’s God work universally like the law of gravity. So if a Mormon (or anyone) applies God’s laws he will receive the favorable promised results. If he knows where he learned that law and calls his god the God of those scriptures, does that actually make his god the One True God? I have already planned to answer that all-important question in the next few Posts. The timing of providence is impeccable!
Here is the second part of the complex clincher: God’s argument against Aaron’s sons was centered on the fact that they were God’s people. It’s not so much Mormonism that God is concerned about applying his laws strangely; it’s Christians following their lead! Therefore my harsh reply is not aimed at the Christless commenter of a disembodied dead faith, but at Christians who might read and accept it as reasonable. This is the Typology of Balaam’s persistent doctrine:

“But I have a few things against thee, because thou hast there them that hold the doctrine of Balaam, who taught Balac to cast a stumbling block before the children of Israel, to eat things sacrificed unto idols, and to commit fornication” Revelation 2:14.

Oddly we are not specifically told specifically what Balaam taught Balac (Balak) that resulted in this backsliding of Israel. But by strong inference and the example of Solomon’s wives (*3) we can conclusively reason that he taught Balak to send their pagan daughters into the Israeli camp and by accepted infiltration they derailed them by “extra-biblical” ideas mixed into their faith like beloved half-breed children from the forbidden union (*4).
* * *

Comment submitted November 19, 2013 on Post 303 “It’s A Woman’s World Now!” (http://when-did-reason-die.blogspot.com/2013/11/its-womans-world-now.html):

“Seeing that the husband is about to make a poor decision, it is more blessed for the wife to go along than to start a fight. There’s grace in it.”

My Reply:
This simple statement of conclusion is in fact a sign of what has greatly concerned me about posting these “chapters” online for anyone to stumble upon without the necessary foundation of all the previous Posts. But this comment from a regular reader? Obviously I have failed to walk through this complexity clearly enough.
Did I not warn you-- more than once-- not to come to an early conclusion? Have I not spent enormous amounts of time and detail to show that scripture usually implies a complex third undisclosed option that must be sought out in the Spirit of God? And this comment on this Post of all Posts; a Post about God’s gift of liberation to women! How did you focus on such a tiny concept in a much larger point and base a conclusion on that footing? If a woman had written such a comment, or if it were written in the form of a; “I don’t get it” question, I would have a very different reply. But for a man to conclude such a thing, in the God-designed age of grace to women feeling oppressed by men as a Typology of His grace to humanity feeling oppressed by God, is to pull a Peter and return to the long familiar law after having practiced in grace.
The Apostle Paul sharply rebuked the Apostle Peter for just such a hypocritically backward focus:

But when Peter was come to Antioch, I withstood him to the face, because he was to be blamed. For before that certain came from James, he did eat with the Gentiles: but when they were come, he withdrew and separated himself, fearing them which were of the circumcision. And the other Jews dissembled likewise with him; insomuch that Barnabas (the merciful and kind) also was carried away with their dissimulation. But when I saw that they walked not uprightly according to the truth of the gospel, I said unto Peter before them all, If thou, being a Jew, livest after the manner of Gentiles, and not as do the Jews, why compellest thou the Gentiles to live as do the Jews? We who are Jews by nature, and not sinners of the Gentiles, Knowing that a man is not justified by the works of the law, but by the faith of Jesus Christ, and not by the works of the law: for by the works of the law shall no flesh be justified”… Galatians 2:11-16.

In an age where men in general have proven to be leaders of poor choice by a mountain of examples, it would not be wise to be the one to declare that we should be unquestionably followed because of our gender. How much less wise in the pre-knowledge that this choice is probably not a good one either but follow me anyway “because I’m the man”?

…“But if, while we seek to be justified by Christ, we ourselves also are found to be sinners, is therefore Christ the minister of sin? God forbid” Galatians 2:17.

And while God is not a man and cannot be found to be a sinner, this is the age of liberty because of mankind’s emotional perception that he is. God is the one who gave humanity a new liberty in this age of questioning everything because of all the lies. Like a young girl going to college to find answers for herself; It’s too late now for her daddy to demand that she obey his laws, or even to tell her that she should; to do so would be the mad ravings of a tyrannical control-freak and drive her further away than she already is. So, having given her all that he can to prepare her for independence he lets her do her own thing now, and her own conduct by harsh experience will now show her what he could not in hopes of helping her avoid the suffering.
So it is with a wife who is troubled at the track record of her husband’s leadership skills (whether perceived or real). Don’t fight her; this is the age of liberty. Work with her within her own parameters that she will tolerate. Listen to her; she actually has some good ideas. Don’t be her servant but serve her; let her lead in this two-party dance for a while. Not to “teach her a lesson” but to honestly assist her honest education of desired leadership skills. Help her and care for her where you are allowed, it will make you both better people; she will better understand the obligations of your “lead” role in the dance, and you will better appreciate the difficulty of her “following” role in the same dance; after all, God himself became a man as an ensample.
But if she is done with you and your ways because she “can dance better on her own”; don’t help her in her own destruction; let her alone… But keep silent watch; She is still your wife, you made a vow… and if you’re very fortunate you might still be able to nullify some of her very destructive vows.

Is it more blessed for the wife to go along than to start a fight? It’s more blessed that her husband isn’t about to make a poor decision. When the blind follow the blind they both fall in the ditch (Luke 6:39), when you’re the only one blind in the dance she has a right and obligation to resist a mutual disaster; that’s what a Genesis 2:18 “help meet” does!

I wonder if Jephthah might have avoided sacrificing his beloved daughter if he had counseled with his wife before he made his irrevocable vow:

“Likewise, ye husbands, dwell with them according to knowledge, giving honour unto the wife, as the weaker vessel, and as being heirs together of the grace of life; that your prayers be not hindered” I Peter 3:7.
* * * * * * *

(*1) Murder Two:
“Second-degree murder is ordinarily defined as: 1) an intentional killing that is not premeditated or planned, nor committed in a reasonable “heat of passion”; or 2) a killing caused by dangerous conduct and the offenders obvious lack of concern for human life. Second-degree murder may best be viewed as the middle ground between first-degree murder and voluntary manslaughter.” - (http://criminal.findlaw.com/criminal-charges/second-degree-murder-overview.html).
Vs.
“Voluntary Manslaughter is commonly defined as an intentional killing in which the offender had no prior intent to kill…” - (http://criminal.findlaw.com/criminal-charges/voluntary-manslaughter-overview.html).

(*2) The Mormon Jehovah “Elohim” is declared to have a physical body (*2a) (contrary to John 4:24) and actually lives near the planet Kolob, in this universe (*2b), and physically breeds with his God-wife to create virtually every soul ever to live on earth (*2c). It is the encouraged desire of every Mormon man to one day be like him and populate their own creations as Gods (*2d) (contrary to Matthew 22:30). Despite the fact that the Bible never mentions any such deity wife to accomplish this laborious task, that is more sex than even a Muslim with his seventy wives! The obsession with sex is a keystone sign that these are not a faith of God, it violates the very principle of self-control and self-regulation that God designed into the system as the seasonally limited rut of brute beasts. It violates God’s own word:

“The sorrows of a travailing woman shall come upon him: he is an unwise son; for he should not stay long in the place of the breaking forth of children” Hosea 13:13.

The scriptures are so skilled at accurately wording things without making them vulgar. Where is the place that children break forth? A man is not to spend a lot of time dwelling on that place. But today, that’s all that is ever on a man’s mind. A religion that encourages such an already problematic mindframe is of the Devil and not of God.

(*2a) (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/God_in_Mormonism)

(*2b) (http://lds.about.com/library/bl/faq/blkolob.htm)

(*2c) “Latter-day Saints infer the existence of a Heavenly Mother through scripture and modern revelation. Because LDS theology rejects the doctrine of creation out of nothing (creatio ex nihilo) as a post-Biblical addition to Christian belief, and because they see God as embodied in human form while rejecting creedal Trinitarianism, having a female counterpart to Our Heavenly Father seems logical and almost inevitable. This is especially true given the LDS embrace of the doctrine of theosis, or human deification. Thus, the Heavenly Mother shares parenthood with the Father, and shares His attributes of perfection, holiness, and glory” “man, as a spirit, was begotten and born of heavenly parents, and reared to maturity in the eternal mansions of the Father [as an] offspring of celestial parentage...all men and women are in the similitude of the universal Father and Mother, and are literally the sons and daughters of Deity…” - (http://en.fairmormon.org/Mormonism_and_the_nature_of_God/Heavenly_Mother)

(*2d) “Eternal marriage and eternal families are not only part of God's plan, but are the focus of why we are here on this earth and where we will go when we die” - (http://lds.about.com/od/familylifeandmarriage/a/eternal_family.htm).
It seems that women are just unfortunate souls to be subjugated for all eternity by the more fortunate man souls. I wonder if there will be gender reassignment surgery in heaven?~

The list of Mormonic error is extensive. This is not a case of getting a few things wrong in an otherwise sound faith; but rather a perversion at a foundational level. It’s a new version of the same old Catholic abomination of the faith, that began in the era of the last diverse beast.
So tell me again; what part of the Mormon “Ten Virgins” study we are interested in?

(*3) “For it came to pass, when Solomon was old, that his wives turned away his heart after other gods: and his heart was not perfect with the LORD his God, as was the heart of David his father” I Kings 11:4.

Way back in the first section of Posts I proposed that Nebuchadnezzar represented Israel and his (grand)son Belshazzar represented America. Well, David represented God’s Old Testament people and his son Solomon represented the New Testament people in the same way; All cycles of the same concept repeating until we get it. People; WE are Solomon by Typology, and how he went so go we. We fall by the inclusion of our wives' pagan ways into our Christian faith… in Typology. Can you see it yet? Our (God’s) law is being overcome by her (humanity’s) emotionalism... because we love her more than God.

(*4) Strong evidence:
“And the elders of Moab and the elders of Midian departed with the reward of divination (payment for services) in their hand; and they came unto Balaam (the diviner), and spake unto him the words of Balak” Numbers 22:7.
“And Israel abode in Shittim, and the people began to commit whoredom with the daughters of Moab and they called the people unto the sacrifices of their gods: and the people did eat, and bowed down to their gods. And Israel joined himself unto Baalpeor: and the anger of the LORD was kindled against Israel… And, behold, one of the children of Israel came and brought unto his brethren a Midianitish woman in the sight of Moses, and in the sight of all the congregation of the children of Israel, who were weeping before the door of the tabernacle of the congregation (because of a plague).
And when Phinehas, the son of Eleazar, the son of Aaron the priest, saw it, he rose up from among the congregation, and took a javelin in his hand; and he went after the man of Israel into the tent, and thrust both of them through, the man of Israel and the woman through her belly. So the plague was stayed from the children of Israel” Numbers 25:1-9.

“Behold, these (Midianite women; v.9) caused the children of Israel, through the counsel of Balaam, to commit trespass against the LORD in the matter of Peor, and there was a plague among the congregation of the LORD” Numbers 31:16.

Now of course I am not suggesting half-breed children are forbidden by God in the age of grace, they are only a useful Typology as all things are. For a surprising and unexpected change-up I anticipate a future Post titled: “A Woman’s World, Leavened Bread, and Half-Breed Children”.
*