Christ's Role in My Life

It's funny at first to think that someone I've never seen could be the central focus of my life. I mean, seriously, I centre my life around Jesus Christ, His atonement for me, and His example.It seems ridiculous looking in with no shared understanding of the effects Christ can have in a life.

I take comfort knowing I have felt His atoning influence in my life. I am grateful to have often felt the ease of the burden of guilt and shame for my actions. We often think of atonement in the terms of sin, but it covers much more than that. I have felt effects of the atonement for sadness, sickness, depression, and hatred. Truthfully, I have felt it in so many different situations I'll bet it covers everything. At least that's what the scriptures teach, and I'm pretty inclined to believe them.

Even when I'm not in the middle of some trauma, I kneel down and seek the love of the Lord. It comes. He gives it that freely.

When I ponder what Christ endured and overcame I am astounded at the amount of love He has for me. (I do not limit that love to just me, but this is about His influence on me.) His atonement wasn't a finite, calculable experience. It involved infinite suffering and strength to perform. To kneel alone in a garden and take--individually--the sins of each person upon Himself shows more love than I can imagine. In some small way, I have suffered pain for others, usually emotional, but never the full extent of what they feel. never physical, spiritual, mental, emotional, and any other way you might think.

I know it's an act of love that I could not perform. But because He was perfect, He could. Only He could. Only He can help us perfect ourselves. It's something I know. And that knowledge supports me in my times of trial.

Art of Atonement

I visited the Museum of Art yesterday with my New Testament class. The museum has a collection of religious and Christ-centred art. My favourite painting was Triplus Number 3 by Ron Richmond.

It is of three vessels sitting on crossed cloths. Each vessel is full of a different medium. The near vessel holds water. The far one looks to hold nothing, but actually holds Spirit. and the centre vessel holds Blood.

The symbolism cannot be ignored: three vessels sitting on crossed red and white cloths certainly have reference to our Saviour. It is also interesting to realise the only things in full focus are the vessels. The edges of the painting are hazy , drawing our attention to the middle.

I was touched how the vessel of blood takes the centre spot in the line of vessels. It is because blood, the blood of Christ, His atoning blood, is what sactifies us. We know by the water that we keep God's commandments (baptism as Christ was), by Spirit we are justified (brought back to even level prior to sin), and by Blood we are sanctified (made Holy and able to enter God's presence).

Christ, though absent in form is the centre of this painting, through the use of symbols.

Promises of Scripture

As I was reading my scriptures this morning, a passage struck me. In The Book of Mormon, a passage from the Book of Ether struck me. This interlude by Moroni was particularly interesting considering current world events.

Speaking of the American continents, he says,

9 And now, we can behold the decrees of God concerning this land, that it is a land of promise; and whatsoever nation shall possess it shall serve God, or they shall be swept off when the fulness of his wrath shall come upon them. And the fulness of his wrath cometh upon them when they are ripened in iniquity.

  10 For behold, this is a land which is choice above all other lands; wherefore he that doth possess it shall serve God or shall be swept off; for it is the everlasting decree of God. And it is not until the fulness of iniquity among the children of the land, that they are swept off.

  11 And this cometh unto you, O ye Gentiles, that ye may know the decrees of God—that ye may repent, and not continue in your iniquities until the fulness come, that ye may not bring down the fulness of the wrath of God upon you as the inhabitants of the land have hitherto done.

  12 Behold, this is a choice land, and whatsoever nation shall possess it shall be free from bondage, and from captivity, and from all other nations under heaven, if they will but serve the God of the land, who is Jesus Christ, who hath been manifested by the things which we have written. 

We live in a land of promise. A land wherein if we keep the commandments of God, we will prosper. It is one of the Book of Mormon's main messages. But the inverse promise also exists--and is often recorded as an example for us: if we will not follow God, we will be cut off. There will be punishments for our iniquitous actions. Moroni does not give this warning lightly.

It is evidence to me of the truthfulness of the Book of Mormon: its truths speak to us. They are applicable to our day. More importantly, though, as I read it, the Spirit of the Lord tells me through my thoughts and my feelings that the book is of God.

What is a Right

This was written by the father of a good friend:

Homosexual Marriage is Not a Right

 

Despite the financial crisis this nation now faces, the most important issue is the moral issue facing our state of California. The passage of Proposition 8 is essential for the well being of our children for generations to come. The traditional family structure is absolutely imperative for the continuance of our republic. Sadly, opponents to Proposition 8 have masterminded great deceptions to convince the voters of California against it. One of the greatest deceptions has been fostered by our own state political leaders including Debra Bowen (Secretary of State) and Jerry Brown (Attorney General). The official voter information guide published by the Secretary of State of California contains erroneous and incorrect information about Proposition 8. The proposition is falsely titled as: “Eliminates Right of Same-Sex Couples to Marry.” Homosexual marriage is not a right.

 

This falsehood about a homosexual marriage right is rooted in a misunderstanding of the origin of rights. Rights come from a divine source, not from government. This is very clear in our national birth certificate, The Declaration of Independence. The Declaration of Independence contains the fundamental doctrines of government upon which the U.S. Constitution was designed. The Declaration states that everyone is endowed by their Creator with unalienable rights including life, liberty and pursuit of happiness. These rights must come from a higher source than human governments; otherwise they would not be unalienable. The text of the Constitution does not even contain the word right; this is because rights were already defined in its source document: The Declaration of Independence. Thus, in reality, what we call Constitutional rights are really the inalienable rights from the Creator defined in the Declaration. The duty of any government is to protect these pre-existing rights, not to invent or manipulate them. In summary, since rights come from the Creator, an alleged right must be traced back to the Creator before it can qualify as a right.

 

The Declaration of Independence also contains a formula for determining rights. It states that all law and authority come from the Laws of Nature and the Laws of Nature’s God. The laws of nature are all of the laws of the universe discoverable by man; the laws of Nature’s God all of the revealed laws in Holy Scripture. Thus, it is very clear that in order to qualify as a right, it must be demonstrated within the Laws of Nature or Laws of Nature’s God. Homosexual marriage DOES NOT qualify as either a law of nature or a law of Nature’s God; therefore it is not a right.  Furthermore, since the Declaration is the blueprint for the Constitution; homosexual marriage is also contrary to the spirit of both the Federal and State Constitutions. Jerry Brown and Debra Bowen, supposedly law professionals, are ignorant of the most elementary principles in our organic founding documents: the origin of rights. Both should be recalled for this gross deception perpetrated upon the voters of California.

 

Joseph Andrews

The Center for Teaching the Constitution

www.teachconstitution.org 

Jesus and Marriage

So I ought to blog a little in the midst of my mass of posted videos. I thought it rather appropriate to ponder on Jesus' teachings on marriage. For some reason He might have a little authority on the topic...

Perhaps why I use this example is because I have heard from more than one proponent of gay marriage that "Jesus would favour it. He told us to love everyone." I had never imagined people were so shallow.

In the Sermon on the Mount, Jesus teaches us to love everyone. True. I will even agree with my friends who say Jesus was a radical of His day. Again, true. But what was His motivation for radical thought? Where did His teachings come from? Unlike the radicals of today whose teachings are founded in ever-changing philosophical ideas, Christ's teachings came straight from God, the Maker of the Universe.

Jesus taught people to live with a greater devotion to God. He taught them to love the scriptures and the word of God. Do the radicals of today teach this? Or do they put themselves in place to interpret scriptures? (And doing so ignore all scriptures that teach doctrine contrary to theirs.)

Also in the Sermon n the Mount, Jesus teaches a higher law of chastity than the Jews lived at the time: He taught that whoever looked at a woman to lust after her was as guilty as the adulterer or the fornicator! So he taught lust and acting immorally was wrong.

Where does that fit in with homosexual marriage? It basically shoots every case for it out of the water. While I do not deny people feel they are born gay, they have control over their desires. Christ does not limit who is commanded to be chaste. It is applicable for everyone. Period. End.

And while homosexuals are to be treated with love and mercy, their sinful choice to engage in immoral acts cannot be allowed to infect our society. We've already had enough of that as people have chosen not to accept the consequences of their actions by using abortion and divorce as increasingly popular ways to shrug consequences off. Why would we allow the degradation of society to continue?

Music

I've thought a lot about music and it's qualities/effects on us. Most of my thinking, of course, is based on my own reactions to it. And I think my thoughts would reflect a lot of professional research that I'm not familiar with, but I'll share some things anyway.

Music has the ability to affect our thoughts and feelings. A few examples:

A good friend of mine liked emo and heavy rock music. He listened to it often, and, over time, his thought pattern changed to be more subdued, less sure of himself, darker, at times suicidal. Now all of it can't be attributed to the music, but it had a lot to do with it.

Another friend always listened to rap music to 'pump up' before volleyball games. I wasn't a fan of rap, but I go the same 'pump up' effect from classical movie soundtracks with fast bass-heavy rhythms.

Other thoughts: music can pull our minds from clean, pure thoughts. THink of how songs with romantic overtones lead us to think of love, explicit songs bring those words to our minds more often, songs glorifying sex make us think more about it, etc.

How long does it take you to memorize a song's lyrics? Three or four times? And how long do you remember them? Years? Decades?

What would you do if you had to listen to the music you currently listened to forever? Would you change what you listened to? Would you choose to put good things in you head or forever be drowned in mediocre or worse musical themes?

It's something to think about.

The conclusion is, watch it. What you listen to affects you for a long time. Choose wisely.

On Politics

I think somewhere in time we lost the idea of why politics exists. Or at least what politics ought to be.

I often observe during election time, especially among those my own age, the common thought: 'we need change. We need someone with "fresh" ideas, someone who will change what we don't like. I will vote for him.'

But is this always right? Why do we think a particular candidate will do what he says? Why do we think he will be able to do what he says? This is especially true for presidential candidates. The executor of the United States has a great deal of information at his fingertips, information the candidates will not have until they are sworn into office.

The American people do not know why certain actions are being taken. And I'm not convinced we always should. The presence of media in various conflicts proves the reduced effectiveness of the military when the enemy can tune into CNN and see what is being planned. (This is obvious.)

But regardless of their ignorance, Americans are highly opinionated and many plan to vote for the candidate who will do what their personal preference is, whether or not the fate of the world is affected by one move or another.

I guess the point is to remember that, once inaugurated, a candidate will have significantly less motivation and power to fulfill his promises, regardless of which 'side' he comes from.

So, choose wisely, and make sure to find out the projected consequences for all of humanity before making a choice when voting.