Talk:3 Ne 12:1-15:1

Verses 12:1-5: Baptism by fire

I think that it is important that when given the gift of the holy ghost it is also called baptism by fire. I think that there is important symbolism in fire. If you think of the many functions of fire. Fire is often used as a source of light. When dark it can lighten up paths and make it easier to find your way. That is also a function of the gift of the holy ghost. It lightens up your pathway in life. Darkness is all around us and Satan tries to help us to stray off the path of righteousness, but with the gift of the holy ghost it can help us to stay on the correct path. Fire is used as a source of heat and can be used to help cook meals, keep us safe from the cold, without heat we wouldn't survive. The holy ghost is often described as a warm feeling all over. It gives us the spiritual nourishment we need. Wihtout this spiritual nourishment our spiritual selves wouldn't survive. Fire is used to steralize things that are dirty. If someone were to totally need to steralize something they would need the extreme heat that fire gives to kill germs. The gift of the Holy ghost is what makes it so our past sins are forgiven and we pronounced clean. It steralizes our spiritual self. I often wondered before why does he compare recieving the gift of the Holy Ghost to baptism of fire but after I thought about these comparisons and a few others I realised how much symbolism is involved in the wording of baptism of fire. --Bhardle 00:35, 31 Oct 2005 (UTC)

Verses 12:6-10: Hunger and thirst after righteousness

I think it is rare but there are some people that are just naturally good people that really do hunger and thirst after righteousness. Those are the people that are just so in tune with the spirit that when they hear something good and right they change their lives accordingly and live that right principle. --Bhardle 00:32, 31 Oct 2005 (UTC)

Verse 12:20

Then Guide to the Scriptures on the Church's website suggests kingdom of heaven refers to the Celestial kingdom (or the Church):

"The purpose of the Church is to prepare its members to live forever in the celestial kingdom or kingdom of heaven. However, the scriptures sometimes call the Church the kingdom of heaven, meaning that the Church is the kingdom of heaven on earth."

The Bible Dictionary also makes this implicit:

"Generally speaking, the kingdom of God on the earth is the Church. It is a preparation for the greater kingdom - the celestial or kingdom of heaven."

Somewhere I heard that there are varying degrees of the Celestial kingdom, and that you need to be baptized to get into the Celestial kingdom but married in the temple to achieve the highest degree (and that the term exaltation refers to the highest degree; I'd be really curious to find where/if any of this is taught in the scriptures, or even where/if it's been taught by Church leaders.) If this is true, and if the commandments mentioned here in verse 20 refer to (or at least include) 3 Ne 11:33 where Christ talks about baptism, it would seem sensible to interpret "kingdom of heaven" as the Celestial kingdom (the lowest degree, not necessarily the highest degree I would argue...).

--RobertC 11:09, 19 Dec 2005 (UTC)

Verses 12:41-45: Pray for your enemies

I think that is a true test of paience and charity to love and accept someone whom you know reviles you and is your enemy. It is so hard to pray sincerely for those that hate you. When someone can honestly do that and show sincere love for those that hate them and hurt them, whoever can do that shows extreme maturity in life and maturity in the gospel. It requires an extreme amount of selflessness to look beyond your feelings and worry about your enemies feelings. --Bhardle 00:53, 31 Oct 2005 (UTC)

Verse 12:48: Perfection

I think the exegesis recently posted by Chickenpig is interesting and probably doctrinally sound, though I'm not sure all of what is posted is warranted by the passage. I'd vote to move part of this to a userpage, but I think there's plenty there worth keeping--I don't have time to edit this carefully right now so I'm only doing some minor rewording and such.... --RobertC 14:57, 3 Nov 2005 (UTC)

I'd like to spend some time on this. Here's a first step but it isn't ready to make its way into the commentary yet.

In my view we often today talk about "perfect" as referring to some quality that uniquely applies to Jesus' life. In this way it means something like having never sinned. There may be cases where the scriptures use perfect in this way, but if so, I think that is rare.

The scriptures use the word perfect in different ways. I don't think I have a very good understanding always of what it meant by "perfect" in different places in the scriptures. Still let me cite some examples against the idea that the scriptures consistently use the word the way we do when we mean by it something like "never having sinned."

In Luke 13:32 the word perfect is used to mean some quality that Jesus did not posses before his resurrection. Other scriptures use the word perfect to describe people that were not sinnless. Here's a list of that: Gen 6:9, Lev 22:21, 1 Kgs 11:4, 1 Kgs 15:3, 1 Kgs 15:14, 2 Kgs 20:3, 1 Chr 12:38, 1 Chr 29:9, 2 Chr 15:17, Job 1:1, Job 2:3, Matt 19:21, 1 Cor 2:6, James 3:2, D&C 107:43. Interestingly the Book of Mormon doesn't use the word perfect to describe anyone. It uses the word perfect with some regularity but always in a restricted sense like "perfect knowledge" or "perfect faith."

Hopefully others will have additional comments on this word. My understanding of how this word is used and what it means in the scriptures is very incomplete.

--Matthew Faulconer 06:44, 7 Nov 2005 (UTC)

I disagree with the sentence "Obviously, no one that has lived on this earth besides the Savior has been perfect." I noted the scriptures above that I believe are counter-examples in the scriptures. Since this statement is inconsistent with the way the word perfect is used in the scriptures, and since the statement is pivotal to the whole argument, I believe that the whole of Chickenpig's comment should be moved to this discussion page. Of course, it is entirely possible that the scriptures use the word in different ways and that Chickenpig's intepretation here is correct. But if that is so, that needs to be explained, rather than taken for granted. In sum, I'm moving the comments to here, but have nothing against someone else revising them and moving them back to the commentary page. --Matthew Faulconer 13:44, 11 Nov 2005 (UTC)

Here is Chickenpig's comment that the above comments apply to:

Verse 48 - As mortals living and developing on this earth, how can the Savior expect us to be perfect even as He and his Father in heaven is? Obviously, no one that has lived on this earth besides the Savior has been perfect. We then need to ask ourselves what exactly the Savior means by this statement. What needs to be considered first and foremost is our ability to achieve perfection on this earth. As spirits, we all have great worth unto God, but our differences in our mortal realms on this earth create different levels of ability to achieve perfection. It seems the Savior expects us to achieve perfection according to our sphere of ability. If we are blessed with a great understanding of the gospel and live in a time and place where we can truly develop and grow in the gospel, our sphere of perfection may be bigger than someone who is in darkness and lives in a time and place that is not very condusive to the gospel. We must achieve our own perfection according to our abilities. Someone who is only expected to get to the 25% mark in 'perfection' and achieves this will be brought up by the Savior to the 100% mark in the end. However, someone who is expected to achieve 40% while only attaining 35% did not fulfill their part and the Savior can not perfect them. Through prayer and diligent studying of the scriptures, we can all receive guidance to know what level the Lord expects of us. We must always strive to work to the highest degree possible that the Lord has bestowed upon us.

--

I agree that perfect, as used in the scriptures, does not typically mean "without sin". Links to Hebrew and Greek definitions of words translated as perfect are here and here. I usually think "complete or whole" when I read perfect in the scriptures. Interestingly, LDS scripture help topics suggest perfect may mean without sin, and in this sense only be applicable to use in reference to Christ:

• "Perfect can also mean without sin or evil. Only Christ was totally perfect" (from the entry on perfect in Guide to the Scriptures).

• "Jesus Christ, as the Only Begotten Son of God and the only sinless person to live on this earth, was the only one capable of making an atonement for mankind" (from Bible Dictionary entry on Atonement).

But the scriptures Matthew cites, esp. in reference to Job and Noah seem to counter the notion that being perfect can only mean being without sin like Christ.

--RobertC 14:38, 12 Nov 2005 (UTC)

Nice comments Robert, Thanks. If what was meant by perfect was whole then maybe whole does imply without sin--not without sin like it is impossible that you would ever sin again--but just as not having any sins--like when Alma talks about being spiritually born of God. In my mind someone who is spiritually born of God, who has experienced a might change of heart, who feels to sing the song of redeeming love, is whole. They have been forgiven for their sins or they wouldn't feel that way. Of course, that doesn't mean they will always be whole. See Alma 5:26. But anyway in that sense people can be whole or perfect in this life. I was thinking this after thinking through the reference to Matt 19:21. --Matthew Faulconer 18:51, 12 Nov 2005 (UTC)

I forgot, I used to use the following verse in Sunday school lessons on my mission to address this very point about how at least Paul seemed to understand Christ's command to be perfect:

Brethren, I count not myself to have apprehended: but this one thing I do, forgetting those things which are behind, and reaching forth unto those things which are before.... Let us therefore, as many as be perfect, be thus minded... (Philip 3:13 & 15)

In Russian, the word "apprehended" is "attained" (as in "attained perfection"), which is the same in Greek--I'll add some lexical notes to the Philippians verses....

--RobertC 11:45, 15 Nov 2005 (UTC)

Again, thanks for the posts. I enjoyed the question on Philip 3:13 & 15. Also, I found the lexical notes interesting. Unfortunately, I think I didn't fully understand what picture you get when you put it all together.

Not sure if that is just because I am a bit dense this morning (highly likely) or if that is because even with the lexical notes there is still a gap in how it all fits together. If you have some time and you think you do understand how it fits all together I would love to see the exegesis.

--Matthew Faulconer 15:23, 15 Nov 2005 (UTC)

Verses 13:1-5

Travis wrote in the exegesis section:

Verse 14 really is profound, if we are judging it is a sin, therefore we are not worthy of entering into the kingdom of God. However, if we forgive our fellow man God will forgive us. It works on two levels. If we forgive we are not judging therefore we are eliminating 1 sin, and replacing it with mercy and christlike attribute.

Travis, thanks for your post. --Matthew Faulconer 06:44, 24 Oct 2005 (CEST)

Travis & All, I think behind Travis's post is an interesting question about the relationship between judging and forgiveness. Is it really true that "if we forgive we are not judging therefore we are eliminating 1 sin"? This implies that one cannot both judge and forgive. Certainly one can make a righteous judgement and then forgive. So suppose we restrict the claim to unrighteous judgement. Can one make an unrighteous judgement and then forgive? Maybe forgiveness presupposes either no judgement or a righteous one. I'm not sure. In any case, I don't see this point as part of explaining what the text says--i.e. it isn't exegesis. I think the issue is best discussed here on the discussion page. --Matthew Faulconer 06:44, 24 Oct 2005 (CEST)

Verses 13:6-10

I just removed Travis's exegesis on vain repetition. The reason I removed the exegesis is because it starts by making an analogy and then says the analogy doesn't apply--at least that is how I read the comment. Anyone, Feel free to explain it to me and put it back in. --Matthew Faulconer 04:10, 24 Oct 2005 (UTC)

Verse 13:19: Riches

In verse 19 we are taught to beware of guarding up treasures for ourselves, but modern day teachings tell us to be as prosperous as possible? Which teaching is more correct for our day?--Rbs43

Verses 13:21-25

Note: I removed the reference to Rev 3:15-16 where the Lord criticizes those who are neither hot nor cold. I think there are plenty of other scriptures more closely related to serving two masters than this one. I added a couple. --Matthew Faulconer 12:34, 25 Oct 2005 (UTC)

Verses 13:26-30

In Book of Mormon times and in early church history missionaries were sent out and were told not to worry about their livelihood. Why have things changed in our day?--Rbs43

Verses 14:16-20

I revised the exegesis and I'd like to revise it more (and maybe the question too.) I think maybe the different interpretations shouldn't be explained as though they are competing. In reality the fruits of a prophet probably includes both whether they act Christ-like and what type of revelations they give. right?

Also, I'd like to see some reference to D&C 67:6-9 built in, but I wasn't able to figure out how best to put it in. This seems like a good example of God instructing the people to know Joseph Smith as a prophet by his revelations--that the revelations were of a character unlike something anyone else they knew of could produce.

I think as the Deuteronomy scriptures show, there isn't a single one test we can perform to know the truth of a prophet. We have to use the Holy Ghost, we have to look at their fruits--both whether they are Christ-like and what types of things they give as revelation from God.

I am reading Bushman's biography of Joseph Smith that just came out. It is interesting that some of the early ex-members who caused the church the most problems left because they didn't think that Joseph acted like a prophet. One example, Ezra Booth said "Joseph lacked 'sobriety, prudence and stability,' frequently showing 'a spirit of lightness and levity, a temper easily irritated, and an habitual proneness to jesting and joking'" (page 170). As I see it Booth is saying that he didn't think Joseph Smith did show the fruits of the spirit as described in Gal 5:22. And also there are examples in the scriptures where true prophets didn't implement the fruits of the spirit described in Gal 5:22 perfectly.

--Matthew Faulconer 06:58, 6 Nov 2005 (UTC)