Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
SilentDawning wrote:
Roy — and everyone else — what do you believe about the Bible — is it the Word of God, given by inspiration?
The Bible, from my research is an enigma. There are no original autograph or autogram Biblical manuscripts. There is one possible exception of a letter claimed to be written by Jesus that has been carbon dated and DNA tested for possible validity. But this manuscript comes from what are called the Nestorian Christians that are not associated with “Western” Christianity. The ancient texts available to us are catalogued into family versions. Because of the discovery of the Dead Sea Scriptures the veracity of any family versions has changed drastically. The one scripture with the least variations is the Book of Isaiah that is mostly ancient Hebrew symbolic poetry.
The most quoted ancient texts in the New Testament (Book of Enoch) is not included in any modern version of the Bible. There are no divine revelations indicating what should be included in any Bible version currently available. The more the Bible has become available the more divisions have resulted in the religions that rely on the Bible. There are many obvious mistakes in the Bible that cause a lot of confusion. One such example comes from the Book of Genesis concerning days 3 and 4 of the creation – that are obviously backwards. The flora of earth is dependent on the sun and could not have existed before the sun was created. This error has been corrected in LDS temple instruction.
It is impossible to ascertain if Biblical manuscripts were accurate in their original format because we have none. LDS doctrine is that the Bible is accurate as far as it is translated correctly. The problem is we have no Bible in our modern era that is translated correctly. Bibles are called versions, as per example of the King James Version because there are no direct translations of any manuscripts with the possible exception of the Book of Isaiah of which I have in my personal library.
The first English Bible (Tyndale) created such controversy that Tyndale was burned at the stake for heresy. There were a number of terms that had no translation so Tyndale made up such words. Two such examples are “Atonement” and “Passover”. Though these words are common to English Christians today they were used as proof worthy of Tyndale’s execution.
Hardly ever has reference to Biblical scripture ever settled religious arguments and this goes back to the days of Jesus debating doctrine with the Scribes and Pharisees of his day. I do not believe any religion to be validated with the Bible. Despite all this I believe that there is a need and place for the Bible – just not on its own merits. I believe that any inspiration that is in the Bible can only be obtained by someone themself inspired. I have come to realize how inspiration comes to me but I also realize that I am almost unique in the method I usually am given. For me it is very clear and logical thoughts that are reinforced by multiple clear and logical witness. I find no reason to debate the validity of my method because I believe most other use an alternate method which can be valed for them.
I keep notes on my thoughts as I study scripture. I have found that my understanding evolves over time, kind of like the Isaiah model of line upon line upon line and precept upon precept upon precept. The Bible has been a great help for me understanding divine things but not much help in winning any arguments.
Roy wrote:
Those are some fascinating tidbits watcher.On the question of if the BoM is a translation of an ancient record or if it might be a more modern work – I think that there is enough “evidence” to be able to build a case either way.
Honestly, for me, this becomes a space where there is some room for choice and faith. I can work to build a testimony in the direction that I want to maintain.
I do not believe that there is any objective proof that would satisfy a court of law and it would seem that God must be fine with that.
Very good point. I do not think that in a court of law that one could conclusively prove neutrinos, black holes or even electrons exist. I believe the problem is that we are not dealing with reality as much as we are perceptions of reality. When it comes to religious things it seems to me that religious faith is much like theoretical physics – we assume such is valid if what we conclude as possible shows up in ever increasing experimentations. Along the line that if a black hole exists then if certain expected (or not expected) evidence is found that seems to support the theists then the logical conclusion is that they exists. Even if we discovered a city in the Americas with the name Zarahemla and artifacts carbon dated to Book of Mormon times could be argued as insufficient in a court of law.
I have a son that is on the cutting edge of virtual reality and artificial intelligence. He makes a very good point that our universe (physical reality) could be much better explained as a form of virtual reality – especially dealing with the problems of the Big Bang theory and the religious creation model. In short, “proving” anything is likely impossible beyond our perceptions of such things. For such reasons – I find myself much more curious about the methods of discovery than I am what it is that someone thinks they have discovered. I am not presenting proof but rather reason I find the Book of Mormon to be historically and literally accurate. I expect those that think the Book of Mormon is not historically and literally accurate ought to provide (though not 100% necessary) something other than suspicious opinions.
As a side note – most of the arguments I have encountered in opposition to the Book of Mormon are based in unfound evidence (or from missing expectations of evidence) than from evidence that has been discovered. This would seem to making disproof of the Book of Mormon somewhat more difficult than proving it. Sort of like proving that you have never made a secret trip to the moon. But if your DNA was discovered on the moon then there must be some reasonable explanation of how it got there without you making the trip. Even if Joseph was a genius of his generation – that cannot explain how come there are many Egyptian literary forms showing up that were unknown 200 years ago.
SilentDawning wrote:
What do you think of the literary quality of the Book of Mormon? I started reading it again recently, and at first was impressed that someone with Joseph Smith’s education could write something of such quality. But then I remembered reading the JS History which is actually quite well written, meaning somewhere along the line he learned to write decent English. So, he would have been capable given his native language ability to write the Book of Mormon rather than translate it, as he claimed.It also occurred to me that many writers have written very long novels requiring great imagination, such as John Milton who wrote Paradise Lost, which can be construed as as religious text. So it’s reasonable to assume that if JS was a genius with the English language he could have conceived the whole panorama of events in the Book of Mormon.
What do you think of the overall literary/writing quality of the Book of Mormon?
It is my personal opinion, based on my own research, that the Book of Mormon is stunningly accurate both historically and literally. I admit that I am not an expert in ancient literature but I have studied from expert publications to draw my own conclusions. The Book of Mormon tells us that it’s writing is heavily dependent on ancient Egyptian literary styles that are associated within the 600 B.C. timeframe. I will give a few from among many examples that were unknown in modern America at the time of Joseph Smith:
First is an excellent (best I have found outside of Egypt) example of a 600 BC. Egyptian opening literary colophon that was not even known since ancient times 75 years ago. The opening verses in 1Nephi where Nephi gives his name, the nobility of this parents and their merits (with special attention to the learning of his father) and then that the themed message of his “book” is divinely appointed by G-d. Nephi’s, “I make it with mine own hand” parallels the Egyptian “written with my own fingers” which is typical of Egyptian colophons written during the same time period.
For those that would argue that this is just a coincidence – I would challenge the example of a similar coincidence in all of the history of human ligature. I can provide many additional literary parallels specific to Egyptian literary terms consistent with the time period in the Book of Mormon.
The second excellent literary connection that I will give is associated with the Egyptian G-ds Khepri, Atum and Re. In Egyptian literature this connection is represented symbolically with a scrab or dung beetle. It is symbolism of new life (new way to perceive things) or resurrection. A direct translation given in English would be “it came to pass.” In essence it would be proper to say – “And it came to pass that Joe rose from the grave”. The term “It came to pass” was not a common phrase in the society of Joseph Smith. Mark Twain (Samuel Clemens) criticized the Book of Mormon for the often use of that phrase and said that if it was removed that the Book of Mormon would be but a pamphlet.
Another interesting historically accurate reference come from when I gave a Book of Mormon to a devout Islamic friend in the Middle East that in return gave me a Qur’an (English translation). He read the Book of Mormon and was convinced that it is a divine translation of a society connected to Middle Eastern civilizations that he is very educated and familiar with. Two things that especially impressed him was the white fruit of the Tree of Life. He told me that he has never seen such an accurate description of a sacred Arabic date palm tree anywhere else in Western civilization.
The second was that G-d commanded Nephi to kill Laban by cutting off his head. What is interesting to me about this is; that this event troubles almost everybody in our western Christian culture. There seems to be no logical reason for Joseph to include this in the Book of Mormon if it is fantasy. And yet much in the Book of Mormon strongly speaks to Muslims (a large section of the world’s religions) as a significant part of the Gentile nations of the earth.
I would make one other comment. In my youth I received a binary malevolent and divine manifestation (somewhat similar to young Joseph) associated directly with the Book of Mormon. I was given to understand that the Book of Mormon contains light and truth given by G-d. But I was not given understanding of what light and truth was provided. I had to discover that for myself by my own efforts. The best description concerning this light and truth from G-d, I believe, is provided in Moroni chapter 10 that this light and truth comes by way of many different spiritual gifts. Testifying that not all receive this light and truth in the same manner nor by the same way. My experience of necessity is different that that of others but all that receive this light and truth receive it through the same source. Therefor I cannot speak for anyone else and what they have or have come to expect as a mortal being learning of divine things.
As someone trained and having work as an engineer and scientist – I make efforts to be open to all available empirical evidence. I also feel that opinions (including my own) of necessity must be challenged and am open to discovery of whatever has brought someone to their opinions – more than I am interested in opinions alone.
Old-Timer wrote:
Except for Jehovah and Lucifer? Just saying.I think there are relatively few examples in history where the younger brother receives “the birthright” – so they always need to justify it. The easiest justification is that the oldest brother didn’t deserve it. The problem with that argument is when it is the youngest brother, which makes it necessary to claim some kind of unique, divine gift to skip all of the other brothers – like being visionary. For example, by all measures, Sam was an obedient, righteous son – so to skip him Nephi had to be extraordinary.
The core “problem” with this “pattern” is that the youngest child often is the spoiled child due to the father being “retired” and having more time to spend with them – or being an unexpected “blessing” in old age (often seen as a gift from God). That dynamic alone creates issues beyond a simple divine standing. It also adds a layer of understandable interpersonal tension, frustration, and even anger from older brother(s) who feel, rightly, that they are being slighted, ignored, and “robbed” of their birthright – which in that time was a HUGE thing in practical, economic terms. (It was, essentially, nearly all or nothing.)
I am not an expert in ancient text but from my studies “firstborn” does not of necessity mean strictly the oldest – it means the most noble or best. A parallel in our modern society would be first class travel. First class travel is the essence of the best that is offered and certainly, seldom if ever, not the “oldest”. An example of this use of firstborn in ancient Biblical literary works is when the first born of Egypt were killed during the initial Passover. What this meant was that the ruling bureaucratic cast of the Egyptian society under the supreme Suzerain was killed which meant, among other things, that the ruling family had no heir.
I do not give this as doctrine but rather as a matter of speculation and a topic to be pondered. Jehovah and Lucifer may not be the exception you are suggesting. Lucifer had the title of “son of the morning” or morning star which is in essence the heir and first born. This does explain the rebellion in the pre-existence heaven. We know from scripture that Lucifer was also anointed (meaning a Messiah or Christ) but never given that distinction in translations – only anointed? I personally do not see Jehovah diminished in any way, I am satisfied that of all G-d’s children, he was and is the most noble even if he was not the oldest.
It is interesting that in most ancient societies that the oldest son was not only given the distinction of being in charge of “all the father had” was also responsible for overseeing and taking care of his siblings. Of course, most often greed rather that responsibility was the defining result. It is interesting to me that Lucifer was not willing to be responsible for the agency of his spiritual siblings and that Jehovah was.
As a side note I have experienced the spoiling of younger and last-born children. Both among my siblings and children. I refer to such distinctions as Old Testament children verses New Testament children of a family.
SilentDawning wrote:
This is a spin-off from another thread where we were talking about the Book of Mormon. Old Timer indicated he felt Nephi was the annoying little brother who was self-righteous, favored, and a thorn in the side of his older brothers. The older brothers weren’t visionaries and therefore, maybe couldn’t be expected to share in the visions of Nephi or their father, Lehi. Feel free to correct what I said here if this doesn’t accurately reflect what you meant/said OT. That is how I understood it though.I was talking to my TBM, ex-Bishop Mormon friend about this interpretation. He seemed to think this interpretation was a justification for Laman and Lemuel’s treatment of Nephi. My friend actually censured Laman and Lemuel saying a) they weren’t righteous people b) they tried to kill Nephi — not appropriate even given Nephi’s annoying behavior c) they tied him up and smote him with a rod d) they even saw an Angel telling them to change their ways, and they still didn’t listen to Nephi and e) after they untied Nephi God stopped the storms when they traversed the ocean. My friend implied that these latter two facts indicated Nephi was acting as he should have from God’s perspective. He also had little sympathy for Laman and Lemuel.
Just wondering what your thoughts are on this counterpoint OT, or anyone else who wants to participate.
What is interesting to me is that in all scripture references when two brothers contend for the patriarchal birthright to the priesthood that in all cases (with no exceptions) that the birthright has gone to the younger brother. That the Book of Mormon is consistent with scripture is not conclusive proof by itself but it is like a brick of evidence in a wall of proof that Book of Mormon (as well as other scripture) is not fiction but rather a stylized pattern (type and shadow) concerning various divine revelation of things.
My thoughts are that the email system is worthless or next to worthless. Calling ward members is also difficult (bears little fruit) because few in our society answer their phones. This is in part because older generations do not build their contacts from the ward directory in tools – the newer generations are better at being tech savvy but have jobs and families to work around. A possible solution is to construct a very large phone messaging group and request a yes or no response so it can be known who received the message. The problem is that creating the phone messing group takes a lot of time and needs to be done before there is a need. Tools do not provide group messaging.
Another approach I have used is to have a general service and emergency (or short notice) service sign up. The quorum members sign up for hours they are willing to provide and the quorum leadership will insure they have the opportunity to complete their goal. An interesting side note here is that I have had better response to this from less-active members. This is also labor intensive but by keeping track of who has completed their hours and who has not provided or behind on services can allow some leverage – though I dislike shaming. I have found two things about service. Initially few are excited to be bothered to provide service but most are grateful to provide service when completed but this comes with two caveats. First if lots (more than expected) show up for the service and second – it gets accomplished quicker than expected.
Another possibility is to have a quorum discussion (lesson) about service – similar to this thread. This may help to tailor something more suitable to a particular ward dynamics.
I believe providing service is an acquired taste and is part of spiritual discipline. The youth should also be encouraged to participate as part of their spiritual training. I have a daughter that is very much into various feminists movements – I have suggested to her that she make herself available for quorum service projects (especially moving) in preparation for her receiving the priesthood.
SilentDawning wrote:
Watcher wrote:
SilentDawning wrote:Then if there is so much we don’t know, even in spiritual things, how can we give credence to a church that claims to have all truth?
Pearl of Great Price – Articles of Faith – article of faith #9
Quote:We believe all that God has arevealed, all that He does now reveal, and
we believe that He will yet reveal many great and important things pertaining to the Kingdom of God. Where is the claim that “The Church” has all truth? I have never heard such a claim – ever?????
Good point. I guess that’s something that’s crept into my belief system without justification.
Do you think the Church gives us ENOUGH truth given the requirements it makes on us?
I believe the best answer I have to your question is that it is not so important what we are given in terms of what is true as it is that we seek to discover and gain the truth by whatever means we have or can employ.
DarkJedi wrote:
Watcher wrote:
You make an excellent point and I agree that many things that are taught “at church” are neither true nor revealed doctrine of the restored church.
As you say there are many things I chalk up to “taught by the church” (I somewhat frequently use the phrase “church teaching” here) which are not actually doctrine. The unfortunate thing is that many members believe and perpetrate such things as doctrine. Many true believers believe everything the prophet says is doctrine (and I have heard it taught that the Ensign, now Liahona, is scripture). My own belief is that most of what the modern prophets have said is their own opinion and/or their own understanding and not automatically doctrine. I believe there is very little doctrine and the Gospel (Good News) of Jesus Christ is much, much simpler than church teachings make it out to be.
FWIW, I believe evolution to be the most plausible explanation for how God created life. I believe God is the Creator, and I mostly believe that because I don’t believe the creation could have happened randomly. I believe God did it, but I don’t know how God did – the Big Bang and evolution are both plausible to me.
I have thought about your post. I would like to respond with my opinion. In general, I do not think doctrine or what a person believes or thinks is all that important except in how such thinking effects behaviors and how others are treated. In essence, how many angles can dance on the head of a pin is irrelevant unless it becomes an excuse to ridicule or demeane others. I believe that even the “doctrine” of baptism is somewhat not important except it inspires a believer to ridicule or demeane those that are not baptized. I think I should explain baptism a little better because baptism is given as an ordinance and a covenant to assist an individual in their odyssey in life not as a means or excuse to ridicule or demeane others.
I believe you are correct in wanting to move away from the ideas of doctrine. There is very little indication in scripture, beyond how doctrine us utilized, that suggests doctrine as a critical issue. I have come to this conclusion because of agency and my belief that agency is the singular issue that divided the advanced and intelligent society of heaven – the singular issue that divides the “righteous” and what and who they are from the “wicked” and what and who they are. And yet in so thinking I tend to ridicule and demeane those that I think spoil agency. In part I try to cover such thinking with logic and thinking that I do not comprehend an individual that would spoil their own agency – I really do not believe that anyone would do such a thing – and so I think that I will never encounter such a being. There is “doctrine” that such beings do exist and it seems obvious that because evil is a possible that someone would knowingly embrace it. I just do not find any logic to it – thus when someone does evil the only logical conclusion I can understand is that they did not know what they are doing and if they did they would choose differently.
As a side note. I believe that evolution is a principle of life. I do not believe evolution is impossible without intelligent intervention. I believe I understand how the notion was created that evolution disproves there is a G-d but I believe that evolution proves both the possibility and probability there is a G-d. That in essence, what many believe is G-d is disproved by evolution. As for the Big Bang theory – I have believed from my own investigations that much is missing from the Big Bang theory but I have never encountered or thought of a better possibility. I am “evolving” towards the possibility; that there is a society of innumerable G-ds constantly involved in various kinds, types and levels of creations and that our Father in Heaven is but one, that is directly involved with us and our evolution of which this mortal experience is but a very small though important part.
DarkJedi wrote:
Watcher wrote:
Where is the claim that “The Church” has all truth? I have never heard such a claim – ever?????
That might claim be a bit hyperbolic, but I think there are people who believe it to be the case. And I have heard it said many times explicitly and implicitly that the church has more truth than any other. I don’t buy the latter, and I believe there are lots of truths out there the church fails to embrace (especially scientific truths).
You make an excellent point and I agree that many things that are taught “at church” are neither true nor revealed doctrine of the restored church. As an amateur student of ancient scripture texts, I am convinced that there are a great deal of errors and misdirection that get passed down as doctrine from our modern versions of ancient scripture. I am also acutely aware of my own misunderstandings and poor opinions as both a scientist and a latter-day saint – it is likely that many of my current opinions are incorrect. I personally go through a great deal of efforts to validate truths and take care to separate speculations from what is verified.
As a scientist I have learned, sometimes by sad or embarrassing experience, that critical peer review of my work is the surest method to eliminate many of my errors. I have also discovered that on several occasions even the most critical and abusive criticism has turned out to be helpful and beneficial. It does seem to me that those that are concerned about religion and study religious things are overly attached to “doctrine” when (at least it seems so to me) that personal connections are or should be, the primary religious concern.
For example, as a student of science, I became convinced that evolution is the best explanation of the variety of life we encounter on earth. Oddly many of my “church” acquaintances questioned how I could think of myself as LDS and believe in evolution. Perhaps, even more of an oddity – my wife is among such critics – and yet she loves me anyway???? She has asked that I not bother her about science though we have two of sons that have followed me into scientific disciplines. She is my religious anchor.
As I understand, there can be many opinions but beyond opinions what comprises truth and the truths that are taught by the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints are well documented in the “Standard Works” of the church. There are additional explanations in various published materials distributed under the authority of the First Presidency and Quorum of the 12 Apostles. I am willing to define such as “taught by the church”. I understand that any member, including general authorities, have their separate opinion and that such opinions are not truth taught by the church. Though I respect opinions – I do not think individual opinions are appropriate fodder for sacrament meeting talks or fast and testimony meetings but it does happen – I try to be forgiving.
I speculate that many criticisms concerning what the church teaches is someone’s personal opinion about things and not what the church teaches. I would be most unhappy if I was held accountable for whatever others have claimed that I thought or believed – even if they did so with a quote from me. I also take umbrage whenever someone speaks of another’s opinion without their permission. We see this a lot in political commentaries.
I am quite sure if someone were to claim that they have never heard a member of the church promote a falsehood it would only be because they have no or near no experience conversing with or knowing members of the church. I just do not think that anyone or any organization should be held accountable for anything that they personally have not carefully considered and intended. And yet I often fail at my own standards and so I hope someone questions my intent and asks for clairfication.
SilentDawning wrote:Then if there is so much we don’t know, even in spiritual things, how can we give credence to a church that claims to have all truth?
Pearl of Great Price – Articles of Faith – article of faith #9
Quote:We believe all that God has arevealed, all that He does now reveal, and
we believe that He will yet reveal many great and important things pertaining to the Kingdom of God. Where is the claim that “The Church” has all truth? I have never heard such a claim – ever?????
Roy wrote:
I watched a movie on WW2 where a catholic nun school teacher gave an analogy.She said that if we drop a pencil and pick it up then we might be momentarily distracted to other events going on around us.
If time moves differently for God than for regular people then maybe God is temporarily distracted by some other pressing matter.
That distraction could continue for years, decades, centuries even – but God will eventually return to set right what went wrong while he was called away.
I understand that this analogy has some holes and I do not know if the analogy was historically accurate to the time period or invented for the sake of the movie.
I both like and dislike the dropped pencil analogy. Jesus said that in this world there will be tribulations but to be of good cheer because he has overcome the world. I think that everything is alright – we just need to not see things as disconnected moments but as a beautifully woven tapestry.
We are told in scripture that G-d created man in his own image and likeness. I sometimes think that we apply this backwards and attempt to create G-d in our own image and likeness. I think if we do this we will end up with a flawed G-d or concept of G-d strictly because we are flawed and existing in a flawed circumstance. It is interesting to me that most find fault in a G-d that does something different than what they would think they would do or think they ought to do. And then in the next breath condemn others in asking the question – “Do you think you are G-d?” when such others attempt to achieve their wants and desires.
On some very rare occasions I have felt direct connections to G-d and at such times I am completely overwhelmed and left feeling most insignificant in comparison.
I think we should believe that we are created in the image of G-d and as such that we can be much more than what we think we are. I am concerned that when we create G-d in our image that we will end up thinking that he is much less than he is.
I am grateful for the opportunity to, in some small way, try to explain my understanding of the priesthood and what it intel’s. As a scientist I rely a great deal on empirical evidence and logic. The problem is that we do no know much about anything. 95% of what we think we know about our universe cannot be explained with our current science (or religion) and so we are left with terms like “Dark Matter” and “Dark Energy”. It is my impression that we have a similar understanding of spiritual things. The vast majority of that which is spirit lacks means of current empirical metrics. In an effort to create some semblance to establish empirical metrics of spirit or intelligence (societies) in our universe a Russian, Nikolai Kardashev, put forth what is called the Kardashev scale of intelligent societies. For more information I suggest a simple Google search using “Kardashev scale”. In short Kardashev suggested that we categorize civilizations by their intelligent use of resources observed to exist in our universe. Or in other words – the ability to control and utilize energy – realizing that matter and energy are essentially the same thing.
I would now like to reference a statement made by the fiction novelist, Arthur c. Clarke. He said in essence that any civilization with sufficiently advanced technology would appear to be magic. My understanding of the priesthood is in essence the means by which an intelligent society orderly governs and maintains the universe (their environment) – both seen and unseen. I realize that this definition is rather vague, but I believe it is because the reality of such things is far beyond what our current civilization is capable.
I have often thought that it would be fun to go back in time and get one of our ancestors from 200 years ago and just show them around. Perhaps take them on a commercial jet. I wonder what they would think. It is also interesting to me that few of our own society have much of a clue of how a wing creates lift or understand wind shear.
One of the titles of the priesthood is “order”. Because I am somewhat OCD this is appalling to me. That the priesthood is connected to order and creating order. We are also given understanding that there is spirit or intelligence in all things. I understand (believe) that the priesthood is a means by which all things have order.
One of the things we learn about the order of complex systems (Chaos Theory) is that is does not work to attempt to create an unbalanced complex order. This is the great complaint of environmentalists – that our concepts of civilization are not in balance with “nature” and so by building up our social comforts we destabilize our environment.
I believe the priesthood is real and a most important power we must learn to utilize as eternal beings manipulating the order of things. Obviously, we have tendencies to see things as a class I or lower-class civilization. We want to utilize the priesthood for the convenience of our current understanding. And so we tend to think of power as similar to some super human “Marvel” character that can just snap their finger and make something so. Obviously, the priesthood does not work like that. The priesthood is much more than just initiating what we want or what we think in the moment.
Many years ago I read the Gulag Archipelago by Aleksandr Solahenitsyn. There are scholars that believe the atrocities committed by Stalin were at least 5 time greater in suffering and the loss of human life than what occurred because of Hitler. A friend of mine from my military experience was captured by the Vietcong and suffered greatly but was able to escape. But his suffering lasted beyond his return to peace and safety. Suffering seems to take upon a different meaning when it is close and known. I am hardly an expert in suffering – somehow, I have avoided what has befallen even upon my family and friends. I will give my opinion which is the only logical conclusion I have found. I do not want to appear callous or not caring. In scripture we are presented with what is called the Garden of Eden epoch. In this epoch we are told through symbolism concerning the fruit of the tree of knowledge of good and evil. We are told that through mortal experiences we will learn the good from the evil. That with this knowledge we will become like the G-ds – knowing good from evil.
I believe that at the evil end of our mortal experience we will gain understanding through suffering even up to the final conclusion of death. It appears to me that some are more burdened in suffering and death than others. I believe that the greatest suffering of such burdens was laid upon Christ. I do not intend to separate the suffering of Jesus from his divine Father except to echo that Christ did not allow anyone to endure more than what he suffered and endured. This then is at the other or good end of the symbolism concerning the fruit of the tree of knowledge of good and evil. That we will also experience good that comes from our G-d that suffers more than any and all of us – not for himself or his individual glory but so that all will transcend suffering and death to be resurrected so that needless suffering of those that believe in Christ is finished. When I speak of belief in Christ, I am not talking about just in our mortal experience but what began long ago before we were born and that will be remembered forever after when we die.
That suffering which buries us and other in sorrows and tears is overcome by Christ as sure as the sun rises after the storm that we may rejoice in the light. I believe that those that experience greater sorrows and tears will rejoice the more with Christ when it is made known that the sorrows and tears are overcome and ended.
