LDS: Why try to convert Catholics, what do we lack for salvation?

[Answersplease]

For example, no lawful and legal marriage is invalid. I never said any such thing, nor implied any such thing. Every Catholic marriage is valid, of course, as is every Jewish marriage or every marriage done by a licensed justice of the peace.

Answersplease;6328549:

Wait a minute now, Joseph Smith married women who were ALREADY married to earlier husbands.

Since no man can put asunder what God hath joined together, does that mean that Joseph Smith acknowledged his wives’ other husbands as his “brother husbands” just like the wives acknowledge the other wives as their “sister wives”.

“What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder.”

So how does this situation work out?

The TWO become One flesh, so in their case the MORE THAN TWO become ONE flesh.

ALSO, what happens when they go to your heaven, do they continue the whole multiple wives with multiple husbands group?

And Josph Smith wasn’t the only polygamist in the early Mormons.

Are you going to say that ALL of the early polygamist husbands only had sex with their first wives?

 

[ParkerD]

ParkerD, for a Catholic to marry outside the Sacrament of marriage is an invalid marriage. You did indeed say every Catholic (Sacramental) marriage from the Apostles to now is invalid.

RebeccaJ,
If what I wrote was misunderstood, then I have been misunderstood. If you think that my having written that the words “God hath joined together” mean exactly that, then I think that they do mean exactly that, and the words “let not man put asunder” mean exactly that. God is an eternal Being. The things God does are for eternity.

But I did not write that Catholic marriages are invalid in the eyes of God. Of course they are valid in the eyes of God.

 

[ParkerD]

So how does this situation work out?

The TWO become One flesh, so in their case the MORE THAN TWO become ONE flesh.

1. ALSO, what happens when they go to your heaven, do they continue the whole multiple wives with multiple husbands group?

And Joseph Smith wasn’t the only polygamist in the early Mormons.

Are you going to say that ALL of the early polygamist husbands only had sex with their first wives?

If I have understood correctly, Catholics believe all who go to heaven become one with God and Christ. They even talk about one spiritual body. (Maybe you can ask them.) The sealing back through the generations all the way to Abraham and Sarah and all the way to Adam and Eve will bring us into a unified family relationship with each other, so from that standpoint, the “oneness” will be massively larger than the sealings of Joseph Smith.

(By the way, I don’t view the words “one flesh” as exclusively having a sexual connotation, at all.)

1. No.
2. No.

 

[paul_c]

Parker,
By now you must be recognizing that your life as a mormon is living in a house of cards. You have identified the lost of celestial marriage as the key event of the Apostasy, and the reason that a Restoration was necessary under Joseph Smith, yet you have not one shred of evidence that Christ ever taugth Celestial marriage. In fact, there is an extremely strong case that he taught just the opposite.

let’s review:

When challenged by the Sadduccees on marriage in heaven, He told them that they didn’t understand scripture and that there are **no **marriages in heaven. This point is repeated in the Gospels of Matthew, Mark, and Luke, as I’ve already shown. Despite your efforts to explain this away, using sentence diagrams, Greek tanslations, etc., you still can not get around the very simple sentence: There are no Marriages in heaven. Nothing could be more straight forward.

In Matthew 19:11-12, Jesus goes further, saying:
11 He answered, "Not all can accept [this] word, but only those to whom that is granted.
12 Some are incapable of marriage because they were born so; some, because they were made so by others; some, because they have renounced marriage for the sake of the kingdom of heaven. Whoever can accept this ought to accept it

Now if Jesus recognizes that some renounce heaven for the sake of the kingdom of heaven, why don’t you. Further, you know that Jesus taught by both word and example. He was baptized for instance, even though he didn’t need to repent. If marriage was absolutely essential to salvation as you teach, why was he not married?

Further, St. Paul spent the entire chapter 7 of 1 Corinthians explaining marriage and his clear point is that while it is best to forsake marriage so you can devote your entire life to God, as he has, there is no sin in marriage and if you do marry, you need to be faithful. It is very, very clear from this Chapter that Paul is clearly contradicting the Joseph Smith concept of Celestial marriage. I notice that you never answered this. I know it is because you can’t.

It is very clear that Celestial Marriage is an innovation and not a restoration of any teaching of Chirst or the Apostles. In fact, it is a direct contradiction to both Jesus’s and Paul’s teachings and life examples. And there is not one reference in any real scripture about the sealing that Joseph Smith claimed was essential to salvation. You would think such an important requirement would have been mentioned, don’t you?

And finally, there is the question of the personal morality of Joseph Smith and his motivations for creating Celestial Marriage. It is very clear that Joseph Smith benefitted personally, as did Brigham Young from this doctrine. They married at least 33, and 47 women respectively. This included young daughters and the wives of their followers who they wooed with the promise of they and their families becoming Gods in the afterlife… And the statement that these marriages were never consummated sexually goes against the witness of many of these women and is not credible. The marriages to already married women is adultery and militates against the 6th commandment. How incredible it is that you can even consider that God would have voided one of the very commandments he wrote with his own finger on Mt. Sinai for the benefit of Joseph Smith.

If you are not totally blinded, you must be second guessing this whole apostasy point by now and recognizing that it is the Mormon’s not the Catholics who have apostasized.

 

[ParkerD]

Parker,
let’s review:

When challenged by the Sadduccees on marriage in heaven, He told them that they didn’t understand scripture and that there are **no **marriages in heaven. This point is repeated in the Gospels of Matthew, Mark, and Luke, as I’ve already shown. Despite your efforts to explain this away, using sentence diagrams, Greek tanslations, etc., you still can not get around the very simple sentence: There are no Marriages in heaven. Nothing could be more straight forward.

The problem is that you are evidently using a different translation. He did not say “there are no marriages in heaven.” He said (in His language of course) “in the resurrection they neither marry, nor are given in marriage, but are as the angels of God in heaven.” This is indeed a simple sentence, but not the sentence you cited. “They” are the hypothetical dead Sadducees brothers. Very simple.

Certainly, your belief is straightforward and comes from the meaning you have been taught.

In Matthew 19:11-12, Jesus goes further, saying:
11 He answered, "Not all can accept [this] word, but only those to whom that is granted.
12 Some are incapable of marriage because they were born so; some, because they were made so by others; some, because they have renounced marriage for the sake of the kingdom of heaven. Whoever can accept this ought to accept it

Again, you have used a different translation. I can’t help you there. Our minds will never meet using your translation.

Now if Jesus recognizes that some renounce heaven for the sake of the kingdom of heaven, why don’t you.

I assume you will want to edit the above sentence. The word renounce was not used by Jesus, anyway.

Further, you know that Jesus taught by both word and example. He was baptized for instance, even though he didn’t need to repent. If marriage was absolutely essential to salvation as you teach, why was he not married?

I had stated much earlier that it is very logical He would not marry since He knew He had a very short ministry and would be killed and would have had very tender feelings about not leaving a wife or children without a husband or father. Besides which, and just as importantly, He was already perfect and did not need marriage to become perfect through needing the kind of “help meet” situation that marriage brings to humankind. He was already completely whole and perfect in a completely unique way from any other person who ever lived.

Further, St. Paul spent the entire chapter 7 of 1 Corinthians explaining marriage and his clear point is that while it is best to forsake marriage so you can devote your entire life to God, as he has, there is no sin in marriage and if you do marry, you need to be faithful. It is very, very clear from this Chapter that Paul is clearly contradicting the Joseph Smith concept of Celestial marriage. I notice that you never answered this. I know it is because you can’t.

Paul said in 1 Corinthians 7 that he was stating his own opinion. I follow Christ, but learn from Paul’s writings and enjoy them but on this point, I differ with his opinion. I also think it is very clear that he had been married prior to writing that epistle, but was not then married.

It is very clear that Celestial Marriage is an innovation and not a restoration of any teaching of Chirst or the Apostles. In fact, it is a direct contradiction to both Jesus’s and Paul’s teachings and life examples. And there is not one reference in any real scripture about the sealing that Joseph Smith claimed was essential to salvation. You would think such an important requirement would have been mentioned, don’t you?

It was a commandment given to Adam and Eve. It had particular important purposes besides having children and multiplying. I will not be able to make you see that, but it is completely clear to me and to many other people (including non-LDS who write about covenant marriages and their importance).

And finally, there is the question of the personal morality of Joseph Smith and his motivations for creating Celestial Marriage. It is very clear that Joseph Smith benefitted personally, as did Brigham Young from this doctrine. They married at least 33, and 47 women respectively. This included young daughters and the wives of their followers who they wooed with the promise of they and their families becoming Gods in the afterlife… And the statement that these marriages were never consummated sexually goes against the witness of many of these women and is not credible. The marriages to already married women is adultery and militates against the 6th commandment. How incredible it is that you can even consider that God would have voided one of the very commandments he wrote with his own finger on Mt. Sinai for the benefit of Joseph Smith.

There is not one credible witness of a married woman who was sealed to Joseph Smith having been to bed with him–not one. This idea you have of “benefited personally” is a complete misunderstanding of any motivation for this whatsoever. I am a married man. There is no “personal benefit” to having another wife than one. There is the opposite–it would be very difficult to carry out such a teaching, and I am completely content that it has been removed as a practice.

If you are not totally blinded, you must be second guessing this whole apostasy point by now and recognizing that it is the Mormon’s not the Catholics who have apostasized.

No, actually. Your views on marriage have reinforced that the drifting was dramatic in the case of the doctrine of marriage. But again, I don’t call it “apostasy”.

Have a good day.

 

[AMDGtoo]

Joseph Smith had no sexual relationships with married women, nor did he ever have a child by any other woman than Emma. He entered into plural marriage (mostly platonic relationships) with extreme reluctance

Untrue. A mere looking through your Family genealogical website will show differently. Or if you are “brave” you might consider reading Todd Compton’s book In Sacred Loneliness. (Actually you don’t have to be too, too brave since the book is not by an “anti” and therefore you will be allowed to read it. I believe that Todd Compton is LDS.

I’ve heard the claim “but there weren’t children so therefore that proves that the extra-marital affairs were merely platonic”. Well, no. Often the mere stress of it all (polygamy was illegal) and the “hiding” kept many women from conceiving. Still there are some genealogical records of children being born to Joseph Smith’s polygamous marriages but I think some children are listed either under their mother’s maiden name or of their actual husband’s name–one really needs to look with an open mind.

 

[ParkerD]

Untrue. A mere looking through your Family genealogical website will show differently. Or if you are “brave” you might consider reading Todd Compton’s book In Sacred Loneliness. (Actually you don’t have to be too, too brave since the book is not by an “anti” and therefore you will be allowed to read it. I believe that Todd Compton is LDS.

I’ve heard the claim “but there weren’t children so therefore that proves that the extra-marital affairs were merely platonic”. Well, no. Often the mere stress of it all (polygamy was illegal) and the “hiding” kept many women from conceiving. Still there are some genealogical records of children being born to Joseph Smith’s polygamous marriages but I think some children are listed either under their mother’s maiden name or of their actual husband’s name–one really needs to look with an open mind.

I am supposing you have read that DNA studies have confirmed that every woman who said their child was the child of Joseph Smith, outside of Emma, has been proven to have been saying something untrue. Good old DNA studies to the rescue.

One doesn’t “need to look with an open mind” when the DNA studies are scientific evidence of something contrary to what you may have read or heard.

 

[AMDGtoo]

One doesn’t “need to look with an open mind” when the DNA studies are scientific evidence of something contrary to what you may have read or heard.

IOW, you refuse to read Todd Compton’s book (even though that since it’s not by an “anti”, you are allowed).

Even if (as you claim) there isn’t any evidence that there were children from Joseph Smith’s polygamous unions (even though your own records show otherwise.) And of course, physical children are not always the result of carnal knowledge. You have decided to remain in your ignorance.

 

[Anna_Scott]

**Dianaiad,

I’ve noticed, when the questions are difficult, you ignore them. Of course, I realize you have the right to ignore anything on the forums. We all do.

However, If you change your mind, here is the link to questions which you have ignored:**

Respectfully,
Anna

How much time did Brigham Young need to go over his speeches?

On April 9, 1852, BY declared that Adam is God (Journal of Discourses of the General Authorities of the LDS Church, Volume 1.)

On June 8, 1873, BY made the same declaration to the new Tabernacle, Salt Lake City (The Desert News, Discourse, By President Brigham Young, Delivered in the new Tabernacle, Salt Lake City, Sunday Afternoon, June 8th, 1873.)

Was 21 years long enough to go over what was published?

In 1870, Brigham Young declared his sermons to be as good as Scripture.
(Emphasis is mine):

Brigham Young’s exact quote (Emphasis is mine):

Ironically, Brigham Young’s statement regarding “Thus Saith the Lord,” and “Let me have the privilege of correcting a sermon, and it is as good Scripture as they deserve,” came from the Journal of Discourses.

Remember, you stated, “The Journal of Discourses is not, has never been, and will never be considered scripture, or doctrinally binding, by Mormons.” Does that mean the “Thus Saith the Lord” rule is not binding?

Why do you accept some of Brigham Young’s statements in the JD, and dismiss others?

(Emphasis is mine):

This has nothing to do with “trumping what you say you believe.” Quoting LDS Prophets and Apostles, from Mormon sources, does not make anyone an “anti.”

According to the LDS Church, all Christianity outside Mormonism is an “abomination,” and part of a “Great Apostasy.” I think the least you can do is answer questions about the writings of LDS leaders.

Anna

 

[RebeccaJ]

RebeccaJ,
If what I wrote was misunderstood, then I have been misunderstood. If you think that my having written that the words “God hath joined together” mean exactly that, then I think that they do mean exactly that, and the words “let not man put asunder” mean exactly that. God is an eternal Being. The things God does are for eternity.

But I did not write that Catholic marriages are invalid in the eyes of God. Of course they are valid in the eyes of God.

Well, you apparently are still stuck on the idea that marriage is destroyed without a “sealing”. Maybe some day you will understand Jesus Christ has sealed all that is His with His blood.

At any rate, towards your idea that marriage is put “asunder”, we see it this way. The Hebrews were commanded to sacrifice an unblemished lamb. Jesus fulfilled this “ordinance” (as LDS name it).

The covenant with the Jews was not “put asunder” by the coming of the Messiah, it was fulfilled. Marriage will not be “put asunder” by Christ’s return, but will be fulfilled. Thus, as Christ taught, we are neither married or given in marriage.

Further, Jesus never gave a teaching anywhere at anytime that marriage is a part of His judgment, and not being married is a condemnation. This is a foreign teaching introduced by Joseph Smith, for his own reasons, mainly that of wanting to have relationships outside of his marriage to Emma.

 

[Jay53]

If you’re saying that Christ never singled out specific groups of people such as the Pharisees and the Sadducees and the scribes and never discussed the consequences of their unbelief in specific ways, then I disagree and I would say that Luke 20:45-47 illustrates this fact–Christ’s message was a similar one about the scribes as about the Sadducees.

Just for clarification, are you saying that Luke 20:45-47 refers only to the Scribes, so that anyone who is not a Scribe, but acts as the Scribes did (loving recognition and prestige etc) will not be punished as the Scribes were? We are all free to act as they did and not expect a similar punishment?

And while all the people were listening, He said to the disciples,

“Beware of the scribes, who like to walk around in long robes, and love respectful greetings in the market places, and chief seats in the synagogues and places of honor at banquets, who devour widows’ houses, and for appearance’s sake offer long prayers. These will receive greater condemnation.”

 

[paul_c]

Quote:
Originally Posted by paul c
Parker,
let’s review:

lets review the entire sequence from the NAB translation of Luke 20: 27-38

27Some Sadducees, those who deny that there is a resurrection, came forward and put this question to him,
28 saying, “Teacher, Moses wrote for us, ‘If someone’s brother dies leaving a wife but no child, his brother must take the wife and raise up descendants for his brother.’
29 Now there were seven brothers; the first married a woman but died childless.
30 Then the second
31 and the third married her, and likewise all the seven died childless.
32 Finally the woman also died.
33 Now at the resurrection whose wife will that woman be? For all seven had been married to her.”
34 Jesus said to them, “The children of this age marry and remarry;
35 but those who are deemed worthy to attain to the coming age and to the resurrection of the dead neither marry nor are given in marriage.
36 They can no longer die, for they are like angels; and they are the children of God because they are the ones who will rise.
37 That the dead will rise even Moses made known in the passage about the bush, when he called ‘Lord’ the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob;
38 and he is not God of the dead, but of the living, for to him all are alive.”
Note, that the question was asked about a generic Jewish man, not necessarily a Sadduccee. Note further that those deemed worthy to attain to the coming age and to the resurrection of the dead neither marry or are given in marriage … because they are the ones who will rise. This is plain language and completely contradicts your point.

Quote:
Originally Posted by paul c In Matthew 19:11-12, Jesus goes further, saying:

Because you position is clearly contradicted by the correct translation (NAB). If you are using Joseph Smith’s translation, which has been altered to support his position, you are merely fooling yourself.

Quote:
Originally Posted by paul c Now if Jesus recognizes that some renounce heaven for the sake of the kingdom of heaven, why don’t you.

Yes, it should read: they have renounced marriage for the sake of the kingdom of heaven.
and this is a direct copy and paste from the NAB translation. While we both know that Jesus didn’t use the word renounce because he wasn’t speaking english, why do you think that the essence of what this translation says is wrong.

Quote:
Originally Posted by paul c Further, you know that Jesus taught by both word and example. He was baptized for instance, even though he didn’t need to repent. If marriage was absolutely essential to salvation as you teach, why was he not married?

That’s a cop out. If Marriage was an absolute necessity to get to heaven as you claim, Jesus would have said that directly (and he didn’t) and he would have demonstrated it by his actions (which he didn’t).

 

[paul_c]

Quote:
Originally Posted by paul c Further, St. Paul spent the entire chapter 7 of 1 Corinthians explaining marriage and his clear point is that while it is best to forsake marriage so you can devote your entire life to God, as he has, there is no sin in marriage and if you do marry, you need to be faithful. It is very, very clear from this Chapter that Paul is clearly contradicting the Joseph Smith concept of Celestial marriage. I notice that you never answered this. I know it is because you can’t.

Why do you think its very clear that he had been married prior to writing Corinithians 7? The only evidence we have is a direct statement that he was not married. There are no indications at all that he ever married. Not one. And why do you think Paul’s opinion is untrustworthy on the matter of marriage. He is saying the same thing Jesus did.

Quote:
Originally Posted by paul c It is very clear that Celestial Marriage is an innovation and not a restoration of any teaching of Chirst or the Apostles. In fact, it is a direct contradiction to both Jesus’s and Paul’s teachings and life examples. And there is not one reference in any real scripture about the sealing that Joseph Smith claimed was essential to salvation. You would think such an important requirement would have been mentioned, don’t you?

No one is saying that marriage is not important. I’ve been happily married for 22+ years myself. The point is that it is not and has never been a requirement to get to heaven. And marriage has always been " until death do us part". When your spouse dies, you are free to re-marry, right? There is no marriage in heaven.

As for Adam and Eve, they were never given a commandment that they and all their progeny would hav eto be married to “be exalted” in heaven. There is no textual or traditional support for such a commandment. Being told to be fruitful and multiply as the only two people on earth, is a whole lot different than being told that marriage is a requirement for heaven, thus damning all that haven’t “been sealed”.

Again, you must be feeling by now that Joseph Smith lied to you and all the others about Celestial marriage being a commandment by God that defines your ability to be exalted.

Quote:
Originally Posted by paul c And finally, there is the question of the personal morality of Joseph Smith and his motivations for creating Celestial Marriage. It is very clear that Joseph Smith benefitted personally, as did Brigham Young from this doctrine. They married at least 33, and 47 women respectively. This included young daughters and the wives of their followers who they wooed with the promise of they and their families becoming Gods in the afterlife… And the statement that these marriages were never consummated sexually goes against the witness of many of these women and is not credible. The marriages to already married women is adultery and militates against the 6th commandment. How incredible it is that you can even consider that God would have voided one of the very commandments he wrote with his own finger on Mt. Sinai for the benefit of Joseph Smith.

Oh come on, many of the plural wives admitted they had sex with Joseph Smith. its all over the internet and in books. And to say that he didn’t personally benefit by having a harem of women available for sex while being supported by their husbands and fathers is laughable. Its been removed as a practice because even the Mormons knoew it was wrong.

Quote:
Originally Posted by paul c If you are not totally blinded, you must be second guessing this whole apostasy point by now and recognizing that it is the Mormon’s not the Catholics who have apostasized.

Yes, the drifitng was extreme… Christian marriage is and has always been between one man and one woman, until death do them part. Look at what Joseph Smith added to it. Institutional polygamy and adultery justified by the innovation of celestial marriage. That is more than drifting , that is outright apostasy.

 

[rainman10]

That’s not what has been said here. There seems to be a lot of confusion about what is really Mormon doctrine among the Mormon’s posting here. Why is that?

It seems like Mormon doctrine is a moving target. I can’t seem to make any sense out of it. It is very difficult to determine when it might be someone’s opinion or when it is considered actual doctrine. Not trying to be difficult or insulting. Maybe I am just not too bright.

 

[dianaiad]

ParkerD, Jesus brought us the New Covenant, that all, Jew and Gentile, fall under. There is not one covenant for you another for everyone else. If you do not want to believe what He taught then perhaps it is time for you to rethink what discipleship really means. hint: It doesn’t mean explaining away His teachings to suit your purposes.

If you are basing this covenant on belief, there is only heaven and hell, there is no in-between. Sheep and goats. Those who follow Jesus, those who do not. The Sadducee’s risk was hell, not a different level of heaven. Choose to be a sheep ParkerD, not a goat.

WE aren’t the folks who came up with Lillith, Rebecca.

 

[RebeccaJ]

WE aren’t the folks who came up with Lillith, Rebecca.

Unless you are telling me Adam was married to a folkloric night demon, you’re going to have explain what you mean by this comment.

 

[ParkerD]

Just for clarification, are you saying that Luke 20:45-47 refers only to the Scribes, so that anyone who is not a Scribe, but acts as the Scribes did (loving recognition and prestige etc) will not be punished as the Scribes were? We are all free to act as they did and not expect a similar punishment?

Jay53,
I agree with your point that everyone who “acts as the Scribes did” can “expect a similar punishment.” This is an important point.

A similar point is clearly to be made about the Sadducees and their rejection of Christ and rejection of the resurrection–hence anyone who acts as they acted can “expect a similar punishment” or in other words, a similar status in their own resurrection.

 

[ParkerD]

IOW, you refuse to read Todd Compton’s book (even though that since it’s not by an “anti”, you are allowed).

Even if (as you claim) there isn’t any evidence that there were children from Joseph Smith’s polygamous unions (even though your own records show otherwise.) And of course, physical children are not always the result of carnal knowledge. You have decided to remain in your ignorance.

AMDGtoo,
Ironic though your post is here, I have no interest in a book with such a title. The title is a give-away that the book is for someone seeking justification or a heart throb, and my time is more valuable than to read it.

Our “records” can show sealing relationships without regard to blood line relationships, if that is where you’re coming from. There are sources online that discuss the DNA results conclusively, as best can be determined from data available, and particularly with respect to those who were supposedly the “definite” supposed offspring of Joseph Smith–not so.

But self-justification leads where it leads, as you alluded.

The whole issue of use of time is an issue that is at the forefront of my interest most of the time. One who has understood Christ’s teachings about thoughts and words and deeds will understand that–no idle words, no idles thoughts, no idle deeds, no idling away time with self-justification pursuits. Sincere seeking of gospel knowledge is completely different than the approach you have suggested in your post.

 

[ParkerD]

Well, you apparently are still stuck on the idea that marriage is destroyed without a “sealing”. Maybe some day you will understand Jesus Christ has sealed all that is His with His blood.

At any rate, towards your idea that marriage is put “asunder”, we see it this way. The Hebrews were commanded to sacrifice an unblemished lamb. Jesus fulfilled this “ordinance” (as LDS name it).

The covenant with the Jews was not “put asunder” by the coming of the Messiah, it was fulfilled. Marriage will not be “put asunder” by Christ’s return, but will be fulfilled. Thus, as Christ taught, we are neither married or given in marriage.

Further, Jesus never gave a teaching anywhere at anytime that marriage is a part of His judgment, and not being married is a condemnation. This is a foreign teaching introduced by Joseph Smith, for his own reasons, mainly that of wanting to have relationships outside of his marriage to Emma.

RebeccaJ,
Not only do we disagree, but you cannot show a scripture that says marriage will be “fulfilled” by Christ’s return. I agree wholeheartedly that you are neither married nor are given in marriage–and this is what you have chosen. This is how choice works.

The apostles certainly understood that covenant marriage is what Christ was talking about. That is why they responded the way they did after Christ had taught about divorce not being the way God intended marriage to be, and that “God hath joined together.”

But no way in the world is that going to penetrate into your mind.

Thanks for thinking I haven’t understood the scriptures and trying to change my thinking, but I have understood and the scriptures are distinctly clear about this subject.

 

[momor]

… no idling away time with self-justification pursuits.

Gotta love the irony in that statement!