Jesus Christ - a Deeper Evaluation

I would first state that people's opinions of Deity is based on personal perception rather than a universal religious opinion. Therefore what I'm to present here is my personal opinion only, and not the opinion of all Latter-Day Saints.

Generally I find evaluations of Jesus Christ as being somewhat airy-fair, with the suggestion of him being some half man - half God type of thing. I therefore felt it necessary to mention some of the more ignored facts about what he actually was/is.

Jesus Christ is Jehovah of the Old Testament. He is the only begotten of the Father (Heavenly Father) in the flesh (meaning fallen flesh). He is the Lord God of Israel. He isn’t the Father himself, but he is the Father in the sense that he reflects the feelings, actions and thoughts of the Father (John 14:8-12). Therefore in the flesh he is the Son, but by the feelings of his heart, and subjecting his will to the Father, he becomes a reflection of the Father in actions. Thus he can be said to be the Father and the Son (Mosiah 15:2).

The Father is always greater than the Son (John 14:28). But by Jesus living the perfect life he lived and the things he has done, he has an equality of STATUS with the Father.

As with all living beings Jesus Christ is made of three parts (not to be confused with the false trinity concept) - intelligence, spirit body and physical body. He is an eternal intelligence; as all intelligences are eternal (including ours). He was eventually born as a spirit: The first born spirit child to our Heavenly Father (Col 1:15). Thus he received a spirit body at that time. We were all born after him. So he is our elder brother as spirit children of our Heavenly Father (Matt 6:9 - note "OUR father").

Jesus (from his personal growth point of view) came to earth to get a physical body. He had to go through the same process we all do, of learning and growing as a physical individual (Luke 2:52). He had to gain the experience of raising a family and learning to be a good husband and father (I'll go into this further down). He had to die and be resurrected to obtain exaltation. He learnt to make the right choices by watching the problems sin caused in others, rather than having to experience any himself (as we do because we aren’t as intelligent as he is. Abr 3:19). i.e. we often have to make mistakes to learn particular things, yet some things we learn by seeing the problems those things give to others. This requires us to also listen to the Holy Spirit often. Because He learnt everything by others mistakes and listening to the Spirit, rather than having to make any mistakes himself, He didn’t sin.

Jesus Christ’s special mission consisted of 2 essential parts. Firstly he atoned for the sins, of those who truly repent, in the garden of Gethsemane and on the cross. Secondly as he is the firstborn as a spirit, so he also was the firstborn from the dead (1 Cor 15:20 & 23). He made the resurrection of all occur by his death and resurrection.

Luke 1:35 presents, in regard the birth of Christ, that the Holy Ghost came upon Mary to assist her, and the Father came, and by the action performed Jesus was the son of God (which is virtually an instantaneous action, done strictly in great love). Science claims that a person whose sweat was as great drops of blood (as Jesus' blood was - Luke 22:44) would die long before reaching such a stage. Having a glorified resurrected father made it possible for Jesus to perform the atonement without his body dying in the process.

As a side mission he also set up his church at that time, by teaching the fulness of the gospel and giving authority.

Before we came here he had the special position of being in charge of the creation of the earth. Heavenly Father was the instigator. Jesus Christ was the foreman. And we (those able and interested in helping) were the learners. However it is Jesus Christ that is governing this area. He therefore can be considered our God in that sense. To get to the Father you MUST go through the Son. All communication with the Father is channelled through the Son. So he is our mediator in several ways.

As you would probably be aware, the name “Jesus” is the English version of a Greek word (as the NT was written in Greek). His real name was most likely “Yeshua”, as he was a Jew. Several titles are given to Jesus. Firstly we have “Messiah”, which is the OT equivalent of “Christ” as used in the NT, B of M, D&C and P of GP. That is referring to the fact that he was the chosen one that was anointed (as the word means) in the pre-existence for the special work that he performed.

He also has titles such as “Saviour” and “Redeemer” that relate to the fact that he saves those repentant from hell by his atonement, and that he redeems us all from physical death by his resurrection.

As Jesus Christ is the key within the whole plan Heavenly Father laid before us, we talk of “the gospel of Jesus Christ”. The good news includes the fact that we can have forgiveness of sins and resurrection (this body will be repaired and we will live forever in it) because of Jesus Christ.

When we pray, we pray to Heavenly Father through Christ, as he stated (John 16:23). We don’t pray to the Lord (Jesus Christ) through Jesus Christ. Therefore any thinking LDS, if quoting the Lord’s prayer, should conclude it with, “in the name of Jesus Christ, Amen.”

Having taken upon himself the sins of mankind in the garden and suffered to relieve us of the pain for our sins; his body being a mess after such a feat; and having completed his task, he went to fulfil the final act of dying an ignominious death. Thus, in a sense, he took our sins and nailed them to the cross. He died because he had saved us from our sins. Paul made great point of this particular part of the act, probably because it was the only part that people could understand the pain involved in. However his greatest pain, by far, was in the garden where he bled from every pore. He required an angel to help him (Luke 22:43), and did it in stages, not all at once (Matt 26:38-44). The shear agony of that act is far beyond our comprehension. He not only suffered for EVERY sin individually, that every person on earth who truly repents has done, but (it is suggested) also for all repentant on many other planets.

His premature death also served to quicken the time for resurrection of those awaiting it that rose at that time (Matt 27:52-53). Thus Christ was eager to die then for that purpose also.

Jesus Christ, as the High Priest and a leader (Heb 5:10, Heb 6:20), definitely was married or he would have been rejected (the law of Moses makes NO exceptions) (Lev 21:10+13). Also he needed a wife for eternal marriage, as is required to be a God.

Immediately after death, while still a spirit, Jesus Christ organised the teaching of the gospel to the dead (1 Pet 3:18-20). He spent 3 days and 3 nights in the heart of the earth (Matt 12:40). It would seem that he was crucified on Wednesday and placed in the tomb. He spent Wed night, Thur night and Fri night in the tomb. Making the 3 days Thur, Fri and Saturday. He rose during Saturday night (remembering that their day went from morning to morning, not the middle of the night to the middle of the night, as ours does. When the women came early in the morning of the Sunday he was already resurrected. There is confusion about the reference of him being needed to be put in the tomb quickly for the coming sabbath. However this wasn’t the weekly sabbath as has been supposed, but one of the other sabbaths of the law of Moses observed at that time of year.

After resurrection he went to the Americas and taught the gospel there. He also went to many other places.

He directs the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints to the degree members are prepared to hear. He has given it his full authority to perform those functions required.

He will return again for what is termed his “second coming”. He will also have what could be termed a “third coming” at the end when everything will be finalised. He and Adam will present the whole thing, completed, back to Heavenly Father at the end.

What was the Original Sin (transgression)? - Answered by Oaks.

I'm not one to deviate too far from the Standard Works of the Church (the Scriptures) in establishing doctrine. I therefore don't hold to just taking things GAs say as gospel. However I did find two interesting statements in Brother Oaks (an apostle) talk in the Sunday afternoon session. Both are supported in the Scriptures anyway. The one I wish to discuss here is his statement about what the original sin (transgression) actually was.

Some Anti-Mormon literature quotes Satan claiming that Adam and Eve could become as Gods.

"For God knows that in the day you eat of it, then your eyes shall be opened, and you shall be as Gods, knowing good from evil." Gen 3:5

It then proposes that Joseph Smith taught this, so must be following Satan. However in the same chapter (verse 22) it says,

"And the LORD God said, See, the man is become as one of us to know good and evil: and now, least he put forward his hand, and take also of the tree of life, and eat, and live for ever:"

So God has supported the concept that Adam and Eve had become as them in that they knew good from evil. I had always viewed that as the end of the subject.

However Brother Oaks presents the following,

"Some people think the fall of man had something to do with sex, but that is a mistake. . . . What Satan put into the heads of our remote ancestors was the idea that they could ‘be like gods’—could set up on their own as if they had created themselves—be their own masters—invent some sort of happiness for themselves outside God, apart from God." Unselfish Service

I have many times searched to understand what the original sin was. I felt strange that God had not seen that the answer was there somewhere. Yet here Brother Oaks has declared his opinion that it is.

When I heard this it just made such sense. For starters the answer IS under our nose. Secondly we have a transgression only, not a sin (transgression of the law). Yet a feeling that would lower their righteousness enough to begin the fall.

Television - The Drug of a Nation or a Useful Tool?

Having been a TV technician for some years I had to listen to the droll conversations on some of the daytime soaps. It was required to test TVs after repair or to re-create problems where failure was intermitent. Such things as "Daze of our Wives," "General Despicable" and "the Bald and the Beautiful" were suffered with great despair (these channels were picked up easily). When I did repairs at home I put on test patterns with decent music (oh, what relief).

A person could ask why these women watch such rubbish? I did find (in the defence of some) that there was a bit of a social requirement. To be able to join in conversation with other older women an old woman could feel forced to begin watching this stuff.

Yet even the rest of the things that are on TV seem a bit of an insult to my intelligence. Even watching so called "documentaries" I feel I am being mindwashed with loads of unestablished "facts."

Also watching nature studies I'm plagued with hypothetical concepts such as things being millions or even tens of thousands of years old. They begin by saying "scientists believe." But after saying that once or twice they then proceed by talking as if these beliefs are facts. They then build "fact" upon "fact."

As I don't really have great interest in watching someone else play games (sport) I am left with nothing to watch but the news (????). Yet for those able to enjoy watching sport it at least has some purpose.

The news is always negative. They say one positive story toward the end of the news, and then all smile, as if to say, "there, we give positive news too." Consequently I rarely watch the news either. People tell me anything that is important.

It seems a strange set of events that here I am as an ex-TV technician, and I rarely watch television. I borrow some movies from the video library. But that is a difficult choice. I can spend an hour looking through a video library and walk out with nothing. Just as well there are computer games.

Death - How should we Respond and Deal with it - What is the State of the Dead?

First I should mention that I have been dead twice; and remember it well. Secondly I have seen the dead in their everyday existence, as I see spirits from time to time. I bring this up to point out that things I'm saying are more than me just speculating.

A point I would like to raise at the beginning is that those left behind should try and consider the feelings of the person who has passed on. This person is still present. They haven't actually gone anywhere (I have discussed this point before, and it can be read on my "Obscure Doctrines" site - the link is at the top of the page). Their spirit is watching and listening.

Now consider how you would feel if you had passed on and everyone is absolutely miserable? What is more, they are ignoring your presence altogether. They are not listening to you trying to comfort them that you are OK.

So for those who have had someone pass on, just keep that thought in mind too.

As LDS we can tend to be philosophical about death, and just accept it as part of the eternal plan. While this understanding is a huge advantage, it still is difficult when we are faced with the passing of a loved one, or are called upon to comfort those who have.

Some left behind attempt to find some justice in the death. They see death as some ultimate penalty (after all it is given as such in scripture and in some justice systems). Therefore they search to understand what the deceased did wrong, in disbelief that they were that bad. They may tend to blame God for some injustice, in having allowed this person to die. Yet all LDS should be aware that it is just an inevitable step in God's plan, that happens to all at some point. Heavenly Father knows the best time for this to occur in each individual's life. He has taken this into account for each individual he places in any situation (before birth).

We are all different, and therefore require different lessons in life. Heavenly Father seeks to provide the lessons that each person needs for that individual to achieve their highest potential. And some of that experience will be provided in the spirit world, in the vast majority of cases.

We came here to earth to get a physical body. Obviously upon death we will miss that extra thing we have got used to having and went to all this trouble to get.

"For the dead had looked upon the long absence of their spirits from their bodies as a bondage." D&C 138:50

Fortunately Jesus Christ came and made resurrection available to all. And that is what I look forward to; along with going home (to Heavenly Father) upon being resurrected.

The dead have the same situation we have in that they are here: Their lives are normal. Spirit Prison, Hell and Paradise are all mental states, not areas. And missionary work there is by members as much as missionaries (or should be - as here).

When I was working as a night-patrolman for a security firm I was assigned a place we referred to as "the Wool Sheds" (as part of my area). We had to enter the sheds and walk through them and check various areas. Those who had done this place made mention of the fact of it being haunted: They could feel the presence of something other than themselves. One adamantly denied the existence of a God but said, "you know you are not alone in the Wool Sheds."

I could feel them also. One night I looked and saw many spirits standing around talking. These were those who had worked at the sheds during the over a century it had been there for. Their clothes demonstrated their eras. Some on one side saw me coming and eagerly came over to try and scare me. The rest over that side just took vague notice of this situation and went on with their various conversations or just watched me.

My experience only contributes to the enormous amount of sittings of the dead that so many others have also experienced. The only reason I mention it is that it was obvious from the experience that these people were neither in fire (and, obviously, the ones coming to scare me didn't have good intent) and that there were no prison walls or bars: People interact freely, as here.

General Authorities have pointed out that the generation now living will be there for Christ's second coming. I would add my testimony to that which I have also received through the Spirit. Therefore we live in a fortunate time in that the resurrection of the righteous will soon be upon us. Even those righteous dying now will have little time to spend without their bodies. All the Celestials and Terrestial dead will be resurrected. I certainly look forward to this.

It will be a great thing to see our friends and relatives who are now in the spirit state.

All's Well in Zion VS Dissension and Murmuring - the Right(?) to Question

The devil is prophesied to use several tricks in the latter days, in order to keep mankind from gaining eternal life. Among these tricks one is particularly centred at church members.

"And others will he pacify, and lull them away into carnal security, that they will say: All is well in Zion; yea, Zion prospereth, all is well--and thus the devil cheateth their souls, and leadeth them away carefully down to hell." 2 Nephi 28:21

Naturally no one uses this exact term. But many times I find members saying that all is well in the church (Zion). Any question or challenge to the way things are running is frowned upon by some. Words such as "dissension" and "murmuring" are used to suggest the person having a desire for improvement is off with the devil.

Now we all know that dissension isn't good. And just winging isn't good either. Neither of these things are likely to create a better situation. But is all critique negative? If so Jesus Christ would stand accused of being negative and of the devil. As would Isaiah, Abinadi, and the list is almost endless.

Modern day prophets have often spoken of the positive things that are happening in the church. But the prophets also speak of the improvements we need to make as individuals. This isn't an "all's well" preaching. Yet mentioning the problems doesn't make them guilty of dissension or murmuring against us, either.

D&C 121:34-40 warns us that leaders in the church will make errors, and that all won't be well. So is God guilty of murmuring against church leaders? Sensible examination is important. And questioning of decisions that a person can't accept isn't dissension away from God either. I have questioned God and his decisions; and he took no offence. Neither did he propose that I had no right to question. Neither did he propose that I was off with the devil for questioning.

Abraham questioned God's decision and posed that surely he would do the right thing in regard destroying Sodom and Gomorrah (Gen 18:23-25). Is this dissension? Murmuring? The Lord didn't take offence at it. In fact he fully answered all his questions.

So is all well in the church? Obviously not. God gave the word of wisdom directed at the "weak and weakest of Saints". Has he added to it since because of advancement of the Saints? No. In fact he had to turn part of it into a commandment - a backward step. Then there is tithing. Another Law of Moses concept we still are called upon to practice - though let me state that great blessings come from obeying the Law of Moses.

Then we have bishops etc leaving their families to take the chief seats in the synagogues, also contrary to Christ's statement against this (Matt 23:6). Obviously if a person is speaking or conducting the meeting it is logical to be there. I can also see that for general (or stake) conferences, to get the idea of church structure, every six months.

The Book of Mormon presents that God inspired (Protestant(?)) reformers to question. And where would we be without it?

So is saying, "hey, what's going on?" murmuring and dissension?

I believe that sensible questioning is our responsibility. If we start leaving the church because of it, then we are off line. But I believe in the right to question.

Psychiatry/Psychology a Science or another false Religion? - ADD/ADHD or just NDS

In the 1940's if a child started belting into other children he was smacked severely. This curbed his behaviour. Order was maintained in class rooms with straps or sticks where considered necessary. Children went to school with a large degree of safety (which was particularly relevant to boys). This continued through the 50's and 60's. However in the 70's Dr. Spock (a Psychiatrist) wrote a book "informing"(?) everyone that smacking is actually harmful to raising children: That it teaches violence.

Interestingly the people who accepted this idea were people who had (of course) been smacked themselves, and yet felt such pacifism (though often it was just laziness) that the idea appealed to them. Yes, this was the 70's: The decade where all these smacked children protested against war and many were more prepared to go to goal than war. In the late 60's and 70's so many strived to promote peace, with people using the two fingers in a peace symbol. It was a time when people were saying that criminals shouldn't be executed, and that serious effort should be put into reforming them. The time when people began to talk of saving trees and animals. So Dr. Spock's book was welcomed with open arms.

So where were all these violent people produced by this smacking? There were violent people; as there always is. Yet strong ideas of pacifism came forward.

Today, we live in a generation where a large proportion are unsmacked children. Have we seen a decrease in violence; as Dr. Spock promised? If a child belts another child today he is sent to a psychiatrist who declares he has ADHD (or some such thing) and drugs are prescribed to sedate his behaviour. Isn't it great that we have learnt how to solve violent children problems without smacking? We don't need to give them a smack, we can just give them smack (ie. drugs)!

I came across a person in goal for bank robbery in counselling. He had been "analysed" as having ADHD and given drugs when young. He got used to the drugs and increased his dosage. It became so bad that he eventually took to bank robbing to support his habit.

The question that arises is just how accurate is this whole child syndrome concept? Was his problem really ADHD or was it just NDS (No Discipline Syndrome)? Would a smack (or even some other form of discipline) have saved him from becoming a drug using bank robber? I believe the answer is, "Yes."

This is not to claim that all people who rob banks have never been smacked, of course. But I believe that in many instances these syndromes are utter nonsense. When young (and since) I watched children behave exactly the same, who got smacks and ceased such behaviour. How did these kids get by without drugs and being "diagnosed". They managed to control themselves without any psychiatrists.

I'm not against the concept of having good psychiatry or psychology. But, as with medical practice, if an method doesn't produce the proposed cure it is time to discard it.

Requirements to Commit the Unpardonable Sin

The Scriptures lay out some fairly stiff requirements for us to qualify as a person able to commit the unpardonable sin. It isn't just a case of having been baptised. In fact this isn't even given as a requirement. But, obviously, spiritual rebirth would be a requirement.

And if a person commits the unpardonable sin, what is their situation?

In regard the fornication that Alma's son, Corianton, committed, Alma said_

"Know you not, my son, that these things are an abomination in the sight of the Lord; yes, most abominable above all sins save it be the shedding of innocent blood or denying the Holy Ghost? For see, if you deny the Holy Ghost when it once has had place in you, and you know that you deny it, see, this is a sin which is unpardonable; yes, and whosoever murders against the light and knowledge of God, it is not easy for him to obtain forgiveness; yes, I say to you, my son, that it is not easy for him to obtain a forgiveness." Alma 39:5-6

This sets forth the idea that upon committing the unpardonable sin forgiveness has to be worked for, and is difficult. So why is it unpardonable if forgiveness can be obtained even if by difficulty?

"Wherefore I say to you, All manner of sin and blasphemy shall be forgiven to men: but the blasphemy against the Holy Ghost shall not be forgiven to men." Matt 12:31

This is setting forth that this blasphemy can't be forgiven at all. Why this apparent contradiction of statement? This is further brought up by Luke.

"And whosoever shall speak a word against the Son of man, it shall be forgiven him: but to him that blasphemes against the Holy Ghost it shall not be forgiven." Luke 12:10

The D&C also supports the idea that the sin can't be forgiven at all.

"The blasphemy against the Holy Ghost, which shall not be forgiven in the world nor out of the world, is in that you commit murder wherein you shed innocent blood, and assent to my death, after you have received my new and everlasting covenant, says the Lord God.." D&C 132:27

Paul appears to answer this apparent contradiction.

"For it is impossible for those who were once enlightened, and have tasted of the heavenly gift, and were made partakers of the Holy Ghost, And have tasted the good word of God, and the powers of the world to come, If they shall fall away, to renew them again to repentance; seeing they crucify to themselves the Son of God afresh, and put him to an open shame." Heb 6:4-6

In other words they can't have Christ suffer on behalf of their sins again. The Scriptures above are pointing out that while forgiveness can be worked at, Christ's atonement can't help. You have to do it yourself. This is mentioned in the D&C.

"For see, I, God, have suffered these things for all, that they might not suffer if they would repent; But if they would not repent they must suffer even as I." D&C 19:16-17

The big emphasis on being able to commit the unpardonable sin is the knowledge of the person. Note the following statement (about himself) by Paul _

"Who was before a blasphemer, and a persecutor, and injurious: but I obtained mercy, because I did it ignorantly in unbelief." 1 Tim 1:13

Also note _

"For if after they have escaped the pollutions of the world through the knowledge of the Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ, they are again entangled therein, and overcome, the latter end is worse with them than the beginning. For it had been better for them not to have known the way of righteousness, than, after they have known it, to turn from the holy commandment delivered to them." 2 Pet 2:20-21

For those who make no effort to redeem themselves in any way from the situation of having committed the unpardonable sin we should note the following _

"Thus says the Lord concerning all those who know my power, and have been made partakers of it, and allowed themselves through the power of the devil to be overcome, and to deny the truth and defy my power-- They are they who are the sons of perdition, of whom I say that it had been better for them never to have been born; For they are vessels of wrath, doomed to suffer the wrath of God, with the devil and his angels in eternity; Concerning whom I have said there is no forgiveness in this world nor in the world to come-- Having denied the Holy Spirit after having received it, and having denied the Only Begotten Son of the Father, having crucified him to themselves and put him to an open shame. These are they who shall go away into the lake of fire and brimstone, with the devil and his angels-- And the only ones on whom the second death shall have any power; Yes, surely, the only ones who shall not be redeemed in the due time of the Lord, after the sufferings of his wrath. D&C 76:31-38

So, in summary, we see that there is quite a lot to actually committing the unpardonable sin. It isn't just a case of joining the church and then murdering someone. A great spiritual change is first required.

And this only makes sense. To rise high enough to gain eternal life we must gain a high level of knowledge and spirituality. To go low enough to go with the devil we must have an equal understanding and spirituality, to fall from. Or, as the saying goes, "the higher they are the harder they fall." Yet life is always better at the top (in spiritual things, anyway).

Did the Prophet Caiaphas have authority from God?

Catholicism has presented to us that the Jews had no authority, and that it was Rome that appointed the High Priest. This concept has continued on into Protestantism and then even into the church. Interestingly our Bishops have authority given to them, by the state, to perform marriages. Without this authority they couldn't do so.

Rome, naturally, had to approve all political positions before they could be filled. And the position of the Presiding (Chief) High Priest for Israel was included. Yet was this merely approval or, as some propose, that Rome actually chose who would fill the position?

At the time of Moses, God set forth that from Aaron on, Aaron's descendants had automatic entitlement to the office, provided they were the oldest son of the oldest son etc, back to Aaron. In other words Aaron's oldest living son became the next President of the priesthood. His oldest living son became the next one, etc. So by this instruction from God, Caiaphas was the oldest son, and a descendant of Aaron.

Yet if Catholicism is correct then the Jews had somehow lost the line of authority or that Rome had appointed those with no authority instead. They claim the Jews to have had no authority. But does the New Testament support this or teach the opposite? And, if the latter, did Caiaphas continue to have authority after Christ?

In regard to the father of John the Baptist Luke says _

"There was in the days of Herod, the king of Judea, a certain priest named Zacharias, of the course of Abia: and his wife was of the daughters of Aaron, and her name was Elizabeth." Luke 1:5

This is speaking of the priestly course of Abia (Abijah) as mentioned in the Old Testament (1 Chron 24:10, Neh 12:4). It demonstrates that Zacharias had authority and was of Aaron directly.

Furthermore when Zacharias went into the temple and was visited by the angel Gabriel, Gabriel said nothing about him not having authority to be there.

So having established that priesthood authority did exist among the Jews, the question then becomes, was Caiaphas himself a true President of the Priesthood?

"And one of them, named Caiaphas, being the high priest that same year, said to them, You know nothing at all. Nor consider that it is expedient for us, that one man should die for the people, and that the whole nation not perish. AND THIS HE SPOKE NOT OF HIMSELF: BUT BEING HIGH PRIEST THAT YEAR, HE PROHESIED that Jesus should die for that nation. And not for that nation only..." John 11:49-52

This is clearly stating that Caiaphas was an authorised prophet of God, and that he had received revelation that was true.

So how did Jesus respond to Caiaphas's authority?

while Jesus knocked many of the ideas of the church leaders, he, nevertheless, supported the point that they sat in Moses seat of authority and should be obeyed.

"Then spoke Jesus to the multitude, and to his disciples, Saying, The scribes and pharisees sit in Moses' seat: All therefore whatever they bid you observe, that observe and do; but do not you after their works: for they say, and don't do it themselves." Matt 23:1-3

When Jesus was judged of the Jewish council, Mathew records that Jesus spoke nothing all night. That is until Caiaphas commanded him to answer his question. THEN Jesus answered.

"And the high priest arose, and said to him, Do you answer nothing? what is it which these witness against you? But Jesus held his peace. And the high priest answered and said to him, I adjure you by the living God, that you tell me whether you be the Christ, the Son of God. Jesus said to him, You have said..." Matt 26:62-64

So Caiaphas still had authority at this point.

Then did he lose authority after this, because he crucified Christ (as some others propose)?

"And you shall gird them with girdles, Aaron and his sons, and put the bonnets on them: and the priest's office shall be theirs for a perpetual statute: and you shall consecrate Aaron and his sons." Exo 29:9

God declared that this was a perpetual (never ending) situation. In other words nothing the High Priest does can effect his right to that office, provided he fulfilled the requirements laid down of washing and leaving alone dead bodies etc, for a period before performing his duties.

Some may question how it could be that there were 2 prophets upon the earth at the same time - Caiaphas and Peter (for example). Yet there are many prophets upon the earth right now. Also there was some form of president of the priesthood in the Americas at this time. And it would seem possible that there were others in other islands of the seas. Caiaphas had a right to automatic revelation for the Israelite church God had set up through Moses, and Peter had that right in the church of Jesus Christ.

"I tried to live that/the Commandment/s and it Didn't work," some say - Why Not?

I have had people tell me that they tried living as God said and it didn't work. Considering that God is promising us joy and peace as we do as he says, surely as we do right we will gain a happiness inside.

Alma chapter 32 has Alma likening faith to a grain of seed that is planted and grown. The first time I read this I viewed it as being a bit long winded (unnecessarily long). It seemed somewhat repetitious. But re-reading has made me view it differently. I have found that each step he has outlined is important in learning the truth of what God has presented.

While this is from the Book of Mormon, and I realise not all readers believe in this volume as being from God, I would urge all to continue reading, as these steps he outlines work regardless of what religious beliefs you may have - its a non-denominational claim. I'll put it into understandable language for those not used to old English.

Verses 26-29 "Now, as I said concerning faith--that it was not a perfect knowledge--even so it is with my words. You cannot know of their surety at first, to perfection, any more than faith is a perfect knowledge. But note, if you will awake and arouse your faculties, even to an experiment upon my words, and exercise a particle of faith, yes, even if you can no more than desire to believe, let this desire work in you, even until you believe in a manner that you can give place for a portion of my words.

Now, we will compare the word to a seed. Now, if you give place, that a seed may be planted in your heart, consider, if it be a true seed, or a good seed, if you do not cast it out by your unbelief, that you will resist the Spirit of the Lord, note, it will begin to swell within your breasts; and when you feel these swelling motions, you will begin to say within yourselves--It must be a good seed, or that the word is good, for it begins to enlarge my soul; yes, it begins to enlighten my understanding, yes, it begins to be delicious to me. Now consider, would not this increase your faith? I say to you, Yes; nevertheless it has not grown up to a perfect knowledge."

The problem that can arise here is that people will start to feel they have reached the end of the investigation. But Alma presents that this isn't all there is to it. And so when it eventually fails (as they haven't completed all the steps Alma mentions) they end up saying it didn't work. But let's go on with what Alma states.

Verses 30-33 "But note, as the seed swells, and sprouts, and begins to grow, then you would have to say that the seed is good; for look it swells, and sprouts, and begins to grow. And now consider, will not this strengthen your faith? Yes, it will strengthen your faith: for you will say I know that this is a good seed; for look it sprouts and begins to grow. And now, consider, are you sure that this is a good seed? I say to you, Yes; for every seed brings forth to its own likeness. Therefore, if a seed grows it is good, but if it doesn't grow, see it is not good, therefore it is cast away. And now, note, because you have tried the experiment, and planted the seed, and it swells and sprouts, and begins to grow, you must needs know that the seed is good."

So there is a need to continue having this growing of the seed (concept) and examining the your feelings.

Verses 34-36 "And now, consider, is your knowledge perfect? Yes, your knowledge is perfect in that thing, and your faith is dormant; and this because you know, for you know that the word has swelled your souls, and you also know that it has sprouted up, that your understanding does begin to be enlightened, and your mind does begin to expand. O then, is not this real? I say to you, Yes, because it is light; and whatsoever is light, is good, because it is discernible, therefore you must know that it is good; and now consider, after you have tasted this light is your knowledge perfect? Note I say to you, No; neither must you lay aside your faith, for you have only exercised your faith to plant the seed that you might try the experiment to know if the seed was good."

So here he has presented that even though you now know it to be true the learning still isn't over: You are still in the learning stage. Again, if a person quits here they will eventually say that it didn't work.

Verses 37-39 "And see, as the tree begins to grow, you will say: Let us nourish it with great care, that it may get root, that it may grow up, and bring forth fruit to us. And now note, if you nourish it with much care it will get root, and grow up, and bring forth fruit. But if you neglect the tree, and take no thought for its nourishment, note it will not get any root; and when the heat of the sun comes and scorches it, because it has no root it withers away, and you pluck it up and cast it out. Now, this is not because the seed was not good, neither is it because the fruit of it would not be desirable; but it is because your ground is barren, and you will not nourish the tree, therefore you cannot have the fruit of it."

So we must actually wait to see the full end of our efforts and the fruit that comes from following God. Only then will our testimony of that thing have full strength.

verses 40-41 "And thus, if you will not nourish the word, looking forward with an eye of faith to the fruit thereof, you can never pluck of the fruit of the tree of life. But if you will nourish the word, yes, nourish the tree as it begins to grow, by your faith with great diligence, and with patience, looking forward to the fruit of it, it shall take root; and behold it shall be a tree springing up to everlasting life."

I have seen people come alive upon reading the Book of Mormon, only to see them fade back and become worse than when they started, by rejecting it due to an assumed inability to live some commandment. The truth requires effort to find AND come to know it is true. I wish you all well in your pursuit of truth.

Our Responsibility VS Listening to Prophets

Last Sunday in priesthood class we were reading chapter 22 of the lesson manual. There were several quotes of Joseph Smith's relative to our responsibility in regard learning (quotes I give in this post are all cited in that lesson manual). Yet, sadly, I found so much of the class ready to just hand their learning over to another person/s. For example the last statement of the lesson material quotes the following-

"God hath not revealed anything to Joseph, but what He will make known unto the Twelve, and even the least Saint may know all things as fast as he is able to bear them.." Joseph Smith (History of the Church 3:380, 1839 discourse reported by Willard Richards).

This was interpreted to mean that we should just listen to prophets and apostles. Yet the statement to me teaches exactly the opposite. Joseph Smith is trying to inform members generally and the Twelve that they can have personal revelation, rather than thinking that they have to wait for prophets to tell them.

If we are to believe that all our new knowledge must come from prophets then we are in a sad state indeed. The last new (ie. never having been revealed to the church generally, of, at least, recent times) thing a prophet said was by Spencer W. Kimball in regard the priesthood in 1978. Over thirty years ago!

Are we to believe that this is what Joseph Smith meant in his quote above? Is this the least Saint coming to "know all things as fast as he can bear them"?

I had someone leave a comment, on this site, saying, in accusational form, that I had a preoccupation with theology. I had to, obviously, be complemented by this attempted slur. Yet this also further increased my concern in regard the laziness that so many in the church demonstrate toward their own salvation. Here we are, a people saying we want to be Gods and Godesses, and this person is suggesting that my interest in theology (the study of the things of God) is a bad thing. That almost sends shivers down my spine, considering that I think I know (online) who the person was (a church member).

The doctrinal responsibility of the prophet for the church is to give that which can be accepted by the weak and weakest of Saints (D&C 89:3). Must we remain no further raised in doctrine than that?

If we want eternal life we must begin to think like that which we plan to be. We must be getting more knowledge of what God is doing and why. We must come to think as God thinks. Christ prayed that his believers would be one with him and the Father (John 17:21-23). This oneness can only be acheived when we do that which the Father would do. How can we do such without knowing the thoughts and feelings of the Father? No man can teach us this, no matter how eloquent his speaking ability. Only the Father can help us understand how he feels. And the Holy Ghost is the only continued instructor.

I certainly don't advocate that we shouldn't listen to prophets, of course. But it must be remembered that our gaining of eternal life can only be acheived by us taking on the responsibility for our own learning beyond the basics. There are no Gods with only a basic knowledge.

Joseph Smith made it plain that if the members wait to just learn it from prophets they will only receive backward doctrine _

"The Israelites prayed that God would speak to Moses and not to them; in consequence of which he cursed them with a carnal law." Joseph Smith (History of the Church, 5:555, Aug. 27 1843)

To learn the greater laws we must accept responsibility for our own learning.

"Joseph Smith taught that every man and woman should seek the Lord for wisdom, that they might get knowledge from Him who is the fountain of knowledge.." George A. Smith (Deseret News: Semiweekly; Nov 29 1870)

"The things of God are of deep import; and time, and experience, and careful and ponderous and solemn thoughts can only find them out. Thy mind, O man: if thou wilt lead a soul unto salvation, must stretch as high as the utmost heavens, and search into and contemplate the darkest abyss, and the broad expanse of eternity- thou must commune with God." Joseph Smith (History of the Church 3:295-296, Mar 20 1839)

Should we believe our own soul will gain salvation without following this instruction?

"..A man is saved no faster than he gets knowledge..." Joseph Smith (History of the Church, 4:588, Apr 10 1842)

So will I have to wait yet another 30 years before I get more knowledge from the prophet to help me in my salvation? Christ may well be here by then, for his second coming, and it could be a bit late.

Joseph Smith has plainly taught that it is up to us to do something serious about learning the things of God, beyond that which any man can teach us.

My advice, beyond taking Joseph Smith's words seriously, is to remember to keep your feet on the ground while your head is in the clouds, or you may find yourself carried away by strange winds. In other words use your heart and the Spirit as well as your head. And seek knowledge for righteous reasons, rather than the vanity of having others consider you wise.

Protestant / Catholic Preface to the Bible

In my many discussions with Protestants (and having been raised one) I have come to understand their official declaration relative to the Bible and its interpretation. The following represents it as it has been explained/taught to me (some don't share point 3 and/or point 19). This is the preface that the Protestants seem to feel belongs at the front of the Bible, but somehow was forgotten. (Most of these things are also agreed to by Catholicism).

"Preface
While these 66 books are totally correct and don't require revelation to interpret, we must make the following clarifications. And while you can't add to or subtract from Scripture we do have to make the following additions to compensate for misunderstandings that do arise.

1. All the talk of God having body parts is not to be taken literally.
2. All talk of people seeing God and God claiming to have been seen is referring to an angel or cloud only.
3. All talk of Christ being separate from Heavenly Father isn't to be taken literally either.
4. Most talk of "Gods" in the Hebrew script has been altered to the word "God" in English for your convenience.
5. In spite of the enormous size of this collection of books God really doesn't want, nor expect, us to understand him at all, as he's not understandable.
6. It must be understood that all attempts God makes to explain himself are purely for his entertainment only.
7. Any comments God makes about having emotions are just to make some meaningless attempt to appease us, and we should know he doesn't mean it.
8. All talk of God being in one place in any way are just God's confusing way of speaking.
9. All statements referring to Heavenly Father as the father of spirits, change to say that he whipped up our spirits out of thin air.
10. Where it speaks of God creating things in the beginning, change that to "magically whipped up from nothing."
11. All reference to and quotes in the Bible from books no longer present are from books that have been removed for your safety.
12. Though Moses says not to add to his books (the first 5 books of the Old Testament)(Deut 4:2) all the other 61 books, that finally made it into the volume we have today, are fully authorised, but no more than 61 extra are allowed.
13. All talk of Jesus being resurrected with, eating with, being seen having and coming back for his 2nd coming with a body are to be ignored, as he doesn't have one, but just whips it up for appearance sake.
14. All talk of us being in "the image and likeness of God" are to be altered to say "we have some vague similarity to God."
15. Every place where it says that Jesus cried, was surprised or grew in knowledge or any other such statement demonstrating lack of previous knowledge or demonstrating emotion, must be ignored, as he doesn't have emotions and was omniscient (knew everything already).
16. All statements of prophets after Christ in the New Testament books must be disregarded, as no prophets existed after Christ.
17. All mention of priesthood and authority from God being necessary after Christ must be forgotten.
18. All doctrinal discussion Christ made is purely for entertainment only, and isn't really important.
19. God now accepts homosexuality, lesbianism, women ministers and all other modern trends, in spite of his ways being unchangeable.
20. In spite of 4 thousand years of him doing so being recorded in the Bible, and God stating that his ways don't change, God changed his ways some time not long after Christ's death, and is not going to appear to anyone or speak to anyone again.
21. Though God is omniscient (all knowing) he wasn't aware that Adam and Eve would eat the fruit in the garden of Eden or that he would have to flood the world at the time of Noah, when he made the world.

Any other additions to, subtractions from, alterations of words from or explanations of the Bible must be done by majority consent of Protestantism or the Pope (for Catholics), to be classified as 'authorised'."

Neither I nor God endorse this preface.

Pedophilia (Paedophilia) - Why does it Happen? Part 2 (Final)

For those who haven't read Part 1 I'd strongly suggest doing so before reading this.

The Problem of Close Relatives
Owing to the pressure within society, as outlined in my last post, and desiring to be accepted as a woman, girl can tend to try out her sex appeal to see how she rates. She will tend to try this out on the male she feels safest with. This will often be a father or stepfather, uncle or close family friend _ or all, if not receiving a response. This can lead to serious problems if the male involved feels dissatisfied in his relationship, regards that the young person seems to know her own mind (and therefore he accepts her as a woman) and lust has a place in his life. The latter is the basis of what can happen from there. Yes, his wife will obviously have some problems too, but his lust problem is what will cause his actions.

False Allegations
A serious problem in our society today is the incredible ease with which an innocent person can be gaoled for rape, or sexual acts relative to children. Lots of noise is occurring about people (centred at men) not being found out. While all should be appalled if this be the case, this has created a mass hysteria about sex crime allegations. While someone accused of murder needs to be proven guilty, a man accused of sex crimes (particularly those involving children) must prove his innocence _ an incredibly difficult thing to do.

Twisted interpretations of phone conversations and innuendo become "evidence" in courtrooms that juries (also people in the same society) accept. Those convicted (particularly where bad "evidence" isn't exposed) feel that the government funded defence lawyers they were given were either amazingly inept or supporting the states case to convict, in spite of being there to defend _ some making the other side look good (I have witnessed one such case myself).

It is a blight on our society that a cheesed-off ex-wife can send an innocent man to gaol for 15 years, at public expense, and (just to add insult to injury) be compensated with tens of thousands of dollars or more.

Some argue (relative to child claims) that, "children don't lie, particularly about these things." Having had 7 children myself I can assure you that children can be convinced of anything very easily. My oldest son went through a time at one stage (for about 6 months, after a particular trauma), when about 6-years-old where he would lie about anything and be quite convinced it was true. It was so bad that he would lie saying that something plainly in his hand wasn't there. Children certainly DO lie. And in divorce situations Mommy can convince the children eventually that Daddy is a bad person. What's worse is that children can easily be made to believe that something occurred which didn't. They only need to be told often enough, particularly if tired _ they start to visualise it in their head and it becomes real. This is particularly easy when it is loosely based on an actual (harmless) event.

I remember sitting down with my children (the oldest was about 12 years old at the time) and in about 10 minutes I convinced them that we definitely NEEDED a yacht, and that all our problems would be solved if we had one. The purpose of this was to demonstrate that we can convince ourselves that we need anything, but we should be sensible and realise that we don't need it at all. But the point is that it only took 10 minutes to convince them of such a ridiculous claim.
We are on the one hand saying that they are children, and therefore not capable of making an informed decision about sex. Yet on the other hand saying that they are all-knowing when giving testimony against the proposed offender. This is a contradiction.

No one would sensibly propose that allegations aren't looked into. But it must be treated as any other allegation; where good evidence must be presented to convict. Those lawyers there to defend must do so with genuine earnestness. If a case doesn't have such evidence it's time to accept that most probably it's because the person actually didn't do it, and the proposed crime didn't occur at all. If you think that the law is that bad that all those accused who aren't convicted are guilty, then by the same logic you would have to conclude that all convicted are innocent. By focusing your thoughts on only one side (ie. he did it and got away with it) thinking becomes twisted and true justice lost.

Who's Responsable?
While some civilisations and peoples get married at younger ages, people in our society are thinking in child mode through early teens, and not given serious, adult responsibility. The whole society presents this, even at school. Thus people in early teens act according to what they are told they are _ on their way to being adults, but it's a long way off yet. They don't think like an adult. Even at 18 the idea of marriage is a fantasy. They aren't prepared for the reality, or seriousness of marriage and life's' problems (generally speaking): Many haven't even learnt to cook meals for a family, or use a washing machine. As mentioned before, however, they are bombarded with sex, and the concept that they have to fit in with this "ALL IMPORTANT" thing. So in spite of not being of legal marriageable age, the temptation is to see what this thing is all about, and what's true and what isn't. Questions arise in the young mind and doubts, as to how well they will fit in with this.

A young person may then demonstrate sexual interest to an adult. Things then transpire, leaving the youth very confused in the end of it all, and sometimes the older person equally so. It sometimes happens that the youth takes to it like a duck to water. The youth may also conduct sexual relationships with other youth _ no better (in fact it could be argued that two youths are then being sexually abused rather than just one).

So how much is the youth/victim responsible in sex related cases? The only person who truly knows the full extent of the physical and emotional agreement and desire for the act to have occurred is the victim. The only person who knows just how much the person made an informed decision is also the victim.

This raises the obvious question as to whom, but God, KNOWS everything? The usual thinking of people is that 100% of the blame must be shared between the two involved and to place it all on the older person.

However the first flaw (of many) in this is that it is doubtful that either the perpetrator or the victim are really that well informed, or the crime wouldn't have taken place. So can we accept the concept of a partly ignorant, totally evil perpetrator? Common sense and fairness say that you can’t - That is the very point being made about children.

Also society itself must take part of the blame for accepting sex as so important, and for allowing and promoting sexual misconduct. Wasn't the perpetrator brought up in the society? I often hear people talk about how dishonest politicians are, but if people in society were all honest so would the politicians be, as they come from the society. Sex offenders are being created by the society.

On the other side of the point, we must remember that we are free to make our own decisions, and only we are responsible for what we do. That may seem a contradiction, but it isn't. A crime (such as a bank robbery) may be committed by several people, but each person is 100% responsible individually for their actions relative to their understanding. Crimes aren't one thing where we must delegate 100% of the blame to the contributors in some distribution. To explain that better if we had 3 people rob a bank we can't say that each is 33.3% responsible. Yet because 3 are involved, each isn't 100% to blame (morally) for all that may go on. And then there are motives and ignorance to consider. Equally a person committing a sex crime is only 100% responsible for his/her actions relative to his/her understanding.

The victim is in exactly the same position, and to deny them a right to correct their lives (if they were actively involved in it's occurrence to any degree) is a crime in itself. A concerned victim should prayerfully examine the situation, and with God's (for He knows the heart and judges correctly) help sort out what happened and why. This can be a difficult and drawn out process that requires LOTS of prayer and listening to the Holy Spirit. It also requires LOTS of honest self-examination. But without this process the doubts, anger and uncertainty just go on.

Those involved with the victim such as family, friends, some counsellors etc are referred to as "secondary victims". These will have good intensions, but often give bad advice in ignorance. The first thing they are eager to do is remove any thought of examining personal involvement, by assuring the person they had nothing to do with it. This can actually serve to create a victim feeling that may not have otherwise existed, or deepen the feeling.

The leader of a victims of crime organisation once told me that the greatest hurdle to victims getting over their problem is secondary victims.

For example a 14-year-old girl who has had a sexual relationship with an older guy may only feel confused by the experience. By the time the well meaning mother, siblings, counsellors, teachers, friends and particularly police have finished, she could feel she was greatly abused and is depressed. They have created a victim. What is worse is that they keep her there by constant reminders.

I have actually seen a woman of 20 become almost suicidal by such "help." Two years before, when the problem came out, she was just prepared to move on, and quite content. Her teacher noted that she had been "happy and generally pleasant." But after about 6 months of family, counsellors etc "helping" her, he noted that she had changed her mood and was now "unhappy."

So those really wanting to help these people must first learn positive moving forward, not negative looking backward. Even though some initial looking back can help to some degree, the session should end with positive thoughts in regard to it (eg. "it is good that steps can be taken to ensure it doesn't happen again" - I'll explain this soon). Other than initial unwinding, the main purpose for looking backward should only be for self-evaluation by the victim.

If a victim feels that they were partly to blame (no matter how small) it requires a repentance process. Again, listening to the Holy Spirit to assist in this and lots of prayer, Scripture reading and service to others (eg. visiting the sick) all help in creating a new person that you can feel proud of. Asking Heavenly Father to forgive you is also important in this process. Doing these things will also help you see it all in a much clearer light, as God is closer to you and the Holy Ghost inspires with truth.

Giving Power Back to Victims
Don't become a problem to a victim moving on if you are a secondary victim. It is so easy to go into gripe sessions about the perpetrator. That is the LAST thing the victim needs: Dwelling on the crime is just re-living it.

A total victim (someone who has had no input to the crime) and those who had little input, feels violated. They feel self-doubt and fear of it happening again. What they need most is to feel that they can control whether it happens to them again. Therefore it is important to give them reasons why it happened that they can do something about. Saying it was all the other person's fault and they had no input, leaves them helpless to stop it happening again - this is the worst thing to do (whether you, personally, want to believe it to be true or not isn't the point).

To empower the victim requires an examination of the things God has said in this regard. In Gen 3:16-19 God outlines the relationship between sin and consequences. Also God told Israel (including the Nephites) that if they did what he said they would have protection by their living. He told them that if they did wrong things, that enemies would come upon them, famine would occur etc. We all put out feelings, whether we notice it or not. We also receive the feelings of the society around us. I used to notice that when I went to a local beach resort that I could feel the relaxed atmosphere while still miles/kilometres away. On the way back it became the opposite on returning to the city.

So we can change people's reactions to us by changing ourselves inside. You may feel that the victim was a nice person. Just being a relatively nice person won't save them from the bad consequences of the evil within the society. You have to become exceptional. This should be the challenge given to the victim.

This, then, gives them hope and something to do in regard to it. They NEED this.

Paedophiles
For those concerned that they have a problem in this area I would suggest making a list of High Risk Situations that you'd be best to avoid, if possible. If you can't avoid them (and even if you can), also create a list of responses that you will do if you start to consider doing something that's not right.

Some things to avoid include drugs, alcohol, being tired, brooding, getting angry, making quick decisions, blocking yourself off from people or hurting people.

Some things to look at doing include thinking about your thinking, fasting and praying for God's help (but remember the actions come from you), talking to someone about your problems (a bishop / minister would be strongly advisable), express your feelings and work out a plan for your life etc. I know you feel embarrassed about going to someone to talk about it, but it is vital that you do. You must end the secrecy problem.

A person who has had trouble in regard to sex with children would need to make some out-of-bounds areas and some things to avoid. The following are some ideas: -

Don't be in the presence of children alone: Have another adult with you (preferably one who is aware of the problem).
Don't use cameras (including video cameras).
Avoid living near or going to parks, schools, play areas or any other place where children gather.
When at church, avoid the areas where the children will be (as best as possible).
Try to avoid friendships with people who have children: This would need to include possible marriage partners (if you are unmarried).

This list may present things that are impractical; particularly if you are married and have children or a school teacher etc. It is a guide only, and to give you an idea as to the sorts of things to have. You need to look at the areas that you feel pose a risk for you. But this is in no way a substitute for the real answer: And that is to change yourself inside.

The best idea is to have a mental block against it. You need to visualise yourself not doing it _ remember that your mind and your hands are yours. Keep that focus _ DON'T LET GO OF IT.

Consider the justifications you've used before and after the wrong. Think about these justifications and pray to God about them, and listen to the spirit. Create a good set of answers to these justifications to prove them wrong _ which with Gods' help, and trust in Him you will be able to do.

It is important to go through what you have done and what you should have done instead. The best idea is to write down what you did in blue or black pen, and then writing what you should have done in another colour (perhaps red). Then keep the list with you.

If you are desirous to make change this is a wonderful thing. I would recommend an entire change of your perspective of the whole situation. This will completely resolve your problem and improve your life in marvellous ways. I'd suggest studying the following links Lust Problems and Masturbation Problems

Pedophilia (Paedophilia) - Why does it Happen? Part 1

I have recently had some conversations with people on another site, where the question of pedophilia was raised. Being reminded of the enormous ignorance that exists in the community regarding it, I have finally come to post on this subject; which I have planned on writing on for some time. This post ISN'T about recrimination.

Having had years of experience in dealing with people on BOTH sides of this problem in counselling (including in jails) and come into real life situations etc, I feel it necessary to clear up misunderstandings that aren't helping resolve the situation. I have read many one-sided articles on the subject of victims, but this will look more at that which isn't normally discussed. I will pull no punches and give the unsweetened facts, which will shock some people (particularly Utah members - that's a warning, not an insult - you live in more of a haven than I think you often realise). It isn't my desire to offend, but to inform. I would advise all to read this post as it is VERY important.

In using the word "pedophilia" I am referring to a sexual act done with a person not legally of age for such to occur, by a person over a particular age (whether the younger had expressed agreement or not). For example in some states a person 18 or over can't have sex with a person under 16.

While the vast majority of pedophiles (particularly those offending in the up to 8-years-old bracket) have homosexual tendencies, I'm mainly sticking to the concept of where an older male was involved with a younger female, as we don't agree with homosexuality anyway, so it doesn't require further special investigation. Also, while I'm trying to generalise, I'm not raising the situations where an older female is involved with a younger male, because people don't want to hear about that: It is an EXTREMELY sexist issue, where men generally get at least ten times the penalty of a woman, on the few occasions that women actually get charged at all.

Social Pedophilic Conditioning
Sexual abuse is on a serious increase within society. Why? Certainly increased amounts of pornographic material and greater ease of obtaining it don't help at all. But there is far more to it than that. People accept to be mindwashed that lust is a good, healthy, safe and normal thing. Advertisements jump up in front of us on television, showing us partly dressed people with (what's regarded as) perfect bodies.

What do children think when they see this? They will eventually wonder how their body rates in this concept that presents itself as being so important. Many girls will start to wonder whether their figure is trim enough and worry about their breast size. Boys will start to wonder about their muscle size and how their penis rates, in a world so absorbed in appearance and performance. Both are informed by friends, periodicals, television and even articles in the newspapers, that experience at sex is important. Even some "experts" claim that masturbation is essential to balanced living.

So in looking at this subject it must be constantly kept in mind that there is a lot of sexual pressure within our society. This is equally placed upon children growing up. What makes it even more dangerous for them is that they often think they know more about it than their parents _ particularly once getting into puberty age and beyond. However, in many cases the truth is that they are a bit like a young person getting into a car and feeling that they wouldn't die, and driving as if they can't. Such a person can be killed; and there's the point of what their reckless driving could do to others also. These young people are in a similar danger in regard sex and the results to themselves and others involved with them.

This leads us to the point that it is really a double-sided, not single-sided, problem. In saying this I'm not proposing that there are no true victims, by any means. But the problem itself can have both perpetrator and victim involved at times (regardless of debates on who knows what). Therefore both sides must be examined if we are to resolve the issue (which should be our objective, as best we can).

While we have a code of living that requires marriage before sex, we are all aware that the world doesn't share this value. So we don't have the problems involved. Yet in this subject the first hurdle we face in considering pedophilia is that there is no consistency of opinion on what age a person must be for sex to be legal with them. Some states go as high as 18. Canada says 14 and Holland says 12. Amazingly (and you may be horrified to learn that) Pygmies get married at the age of 8 today. Unfortunately there is no evidence to prove anything to resolve the problem. All are convinced that the "common sense" they have been brought up with is the right "common sense" in regard this subject of age.

Therefore in order to make this useful for ALL (and I write this for those who may be in the problem as well as those who aren't and those who could end up being so or involved with those who are) I would like to segregate somewhere. I would like to propose that there are 3 sections to this. Firstly there are those under the age of accountability (8) that are offended against.

The Scriptures set forth that people under 8 are totally offended against and CAN'T have any moral input whatsoever (D&C 68:27). Thus those offending against such have only one interest, and that has been their own.

However I was quite shocked when my children informed me that there were students of 8 having sex at their school. This wasn't typical for 8-year-olds at their school, fortunately. But it has to be accepted in the examination of the problem and its SOLUTION. To ignore this won't help in having an ability to understand and resolve the problems.

So the second segregation I would like to propose are those between 8 and 11 (I choose 11 as it isn't a debated argument, as females don't begin to physically and emotionally alter again until around 12). And thirdly there are those 12 to whatever (????).

So at the age of accountability mistakes can, and on rare occasions do, happen. The older the person becomes the less rare that becomes. Now I'm not going to add leaven to what God has said by creating my own extended doctrine beyond what he has laid down: Eight is the age of accountability. Yet we can all realise that while our spirits can recognise the difference between good and evil at this point, knowledge of what is going on in regard sex is basically pathetic from 8-11 in the majority of cases (particularly in Western societies). So we have to consider not only that going on inside a person but that in their heads (or lack thereof).

Some may be concerned at this consideration of people's input to the problem at this age. Yet how could anyone think that with such constant bombardment from the press that all not vigilant wouldn't be affected? Of course children are affected. Considering it otherwise is suggesting that children are wiser than their parents, and I would therefore ask to see their evidence for such an opinion. I think we all know that that's not true. And so it someone turns their back on this problem they are only supporting it's continuance, and males are leaving themselves wide open to sin. The main thing men need to do is just be aware of the problem and to ignore any such advances made by any under-aged female. I would, naturally, also advise any woman to be aware of any advances by an under-aged male, equally. This problem is so prevalent that I can’t emphasise it enough. This is not pleasing discussion; but needs to be addressed. The facts are plain whether we like them or not. Those hiding from it become no earthly use to anyone in the problem. In fact they give bad advice. So if you are offended or having trouble believing it, PLEASE read on, as you need to read this more than those who aren't.

Real Life
Due to those things mentioned above and a female's desire to be appreciated some girls will show up their skirts etc to get a response from a man. They will give a solid stare that can give men the definite conclusion that she knows what she's doing (I have had girls give me this stare and watched them do it with others). She may even think she does.

The man then sees female parts that fit with his sexual fantasies (where such exist), and his thinking is perverted by lust. Don't consider yourself to be above or beyond sins' grasp. No person is, except he that has made himself free from these things (lust). And only by maintaining himself there will he continue to be confident in being free from these things. Play with fire and you will eventually be burned through and through. Sin always burns, its just sometimes we don't see it, or associate the problem with the action.

Much and all as it may seem amazing there have been those offending against someone only between 8 and 11 (on some few occasions) that have been confused to some degree by actions or statements expressed by the young person: Lust isn't the promoter of great intelligence.

Those involved in some sexual activity with someone of 12 or over OFTEN feel they have had an accepted loving relationship with the other person, whom they genuinely believed to have been old enough - this becomes a problem area in that nothing can really be proven conclusively about age and knowledge.

These things can happen so easily. Most people (dealing with someone 8 and above) to whom they happen don't set out for them to occur: They don't set out to have a relationship with someone under age deliberately.

The girl puts in a lot of effort to convince the guy that she's mature enough to make the decision and is sure of what she is doing. Virtually everyone likes to feel that someone is THAT taken by them (whether it is spiritually, physically or intellectually). The guy likes the attention and wants to accept her as if she were an adult, particularly if she is showing body parts. Lust takes over and does the rest. - I should further explain that this process of being convincing can take place over quite some time and a lot of effort and consistency by the female.

This appearance of knowing is fake. Those who fall into this trap eventually discover that the girl really didn't feel all that affection toward him, as she drops out of it fairly soon, in the vast majority of cases.

Socially Promoted Ignorance
A problem also associated with all this is that parents can tend to feel that their children know more about things than they do, so don't bother teaching them. Some parents tend to feel that their children know more about computers, drugs and sex. The reality is that if people of any age KNOW about drugs they won't use them. Some young people may be more aware of what's available; that's all. In regard to computers you'll find that most youth only have a very basic working knowledge of one or few programs. And while that may be more than some parents, in real terms that's not worth mentioning as if it's major knowledge of computers. Youth may know what sex is etc., but they haven't been given much responsibility for things in life, and it reflects into this area also (particularly under 12 and in societies that promote such ignorance). Also they have a greater percentage of disinformation relative to correct information than do their parents (though I do wonder sometimes). They haven't had as much time to see beyond the limelight of what's presented. They don't know unless taught the truth. They are partly afraid of what they don't understand, and this can lead to them putting on a front (even to themselves) that they do. If they can convince peers that they know what they're talking about, they feel that maybe this will help convince themselves that they do. This leads to more disinformation.

Part 2 will cover such things as empowering victims, assistance for paedophiles and false allegations.

Understanding Politics - Right Wing, Left Wing and all that stuff

Many people will be keen to say how opposed to Communism or Nazism etc they are, yet are unable to actually explain these ideas in detail. Many just have insufficient understanding of what each party in politics is really about anyway. Hopefully this will help in unravelling the mystery.

The biggest problem in recognising right wing policy from left wing policy is that parties aren't usually extreme. If the people like a particular policy the party will often adopt it even if it is opposite to their ideals. So we end up with left wing parties presenting some right wing policies and some right wing parties presenting some left wing policies. But they will attempt to introduce the ideas they want eventually.

The left wing extreme is Communism. But on the left we also find Socialism. Nazism was National Socialism (for example). There are many democratic Socialist countries in the world these days.

Right wing is Capitalism and Imperialism (kings etc). Many of these are democratic (the people get to have a fair vote) also.

Most countries are a collection of both of these ideas. In fact Socialism tries to present itself as a middle option between right and left.

Communism means (as the name suggests) a communal sharing of all products and services. Thus there are no rich and poor (in theory). All things are public. So it is about having public transport, public medical, public dental, public schools, public university, controlled shopping by vouchers, government selected employment, public housing, pensions, unemployment benefits equal to wages, etc. All people are equal and therefore are given equal rights.

This equality may sound great in theory. However in practice is where the problems arise.

It isn't a voluntary equality, is the first problem. Thus it has to be enforced by a government that then becomes powerful by its ability to control all things in people's lives.

Secondly it puts certain people in charge of these individual goods and services for their distribution. Thus if you are in such a position you can play favourites (corruption). Then you end up with the same system of rich and poor, but just given a different name.

The next problem is that the state becomes the family. The concept of equality of people is taken to the extreme that parents lose the right to discipline their children. State ideas are indoctrinated into the children, who must all attend state run schools.

Individual thought and ideas are suppressed for the good of the community(?). Religion is controlled by the state or disposed of.

One final problem that bears mentioning is that new technology is rare, as there is no monetary incentive for anyone to create anything.

Socialism is in the same direction as Communism. The difference is that the state only runs or controls large businesses. Socialism is more subtle as a state can control a business without even needing to remove its owner. It can be done by raising business taxes and putting many monetary demands and restrictions on them. This makes the profits communal.

The problems in Socialism are about the same as Communism. Yet less power is given to the government as it isn't so all-encompassing. Most Socialists are really Communists who either know they are and pretend they aren't or don't even realise that they are.

Capitalism, in its fulness, allows a total monetary freedom to businesses and is completely opposite to Communism. There is NO restriction whatsoever (the US isn't entirely Capitalist). The government provides no social services at all. So there are no public schools, transport etc. All things are obtained according to the money you have. There are no public roads. All roads are built by businesses who have a purpose for building the road there or local communities according to their financial ability.

The down sides of Capitalism are people dying of starvation, poorer overall education, class distinction, slavery, homelessness, etc.

The upsides are freedom of religion, freedom of the family, more acceptance of individual opinion (theoretically), choice of occupation, choice of where to live, Choice of schools, etc.

Imperialism in its fullness has a king that has supreme power. He has knights who own areas of land and have complete autonomy within the rules of the king for knights. Each knight works out his rules for the people in his area. Mostly they appear to have run a Capitalist type system.

Overall - Fortunately it doesn't happen that there is a country that is entirely one of these systems in most cases. The ability to vote for any party makes it that parties wanting to get in have to make a good balance. However I must point out that each party WILL attempt to implant its ideas and policies in the minds of the people. Their policies will also reflect their ideas IN APPLICATION. This has to be remembered whenever voting.