We are all God's children.
私（わたし）たちは 皆（みな）、 神（かみ）さまの 子供（こども）たち です。
Every human being is a child of Heavenly Father.
人間（にんげん） 一人（ひとり）ひとりは 皆、 天のお父様（てんのおとうさま）の 子供の 一人 です。
We all have a big brother.
私たち皆には お兄（にい）さまが います。
This is Jesus Christ.
これは イエス・キリスト です。
He is God's First Son.
イエス・キリストは 神さまの 長男（ちょうなん） です。
His name has a special meaning.
その お名前（なまえ）は 特別（とくべつ）な 意味（いみ）が ございます。
"Jesus" means "God is help".
「イエス」とは 「神は 助(たす)け である」と いう 意味 です。
"Christ" means "chosen".
「キリスト」とは、「選(えら)ばれた」と いう 意味 です。
Jesus Christ is our Savior.
イエス・キリストは 私たちの 救い主（すくいぬし） です。
We chose Him before we came to this world.
私たちは この世界に 来る前に イエス様を 選びました。
If we had not chosen truth, we could not have been born here.
たとえ、 私たちが 真理（しんり）を 選(えら)ばなかった とすると、 この世界（せかい）に 性（せい）を 受(う)けることは できなかったのです。
Jesus lived a perfect life to be our example.
私たちの 手本（てほん）と なるように イエスさまが 完全（かんぜん）な 人生（じんせい）を 送(おく)りました。
He suffered and died for us.
私たちのために 苦(くる)しんで 死(し)なれました。
Then He was resurrected for us.
その後、 私たちのために 復活（ふっかつ）されました。
Because He was resurrected, we will also be resurrected.
イエスさまが 復活されましたので 私たちも 復活されます。
Death is not the end.
死は 終(お)わりでは ありません。
Sin is also not the end.
罪（つみ）も 終わりでは ないのです。
We can change for the better.
私たちは 良(よ)い 方法（ほうほう）に 変(か)わる ことが できます。
Heavenly Father teaches us the better way.
天のお父様は もっと 良い方法を 教（おし）えて くださいます。
We feel it in our heart.
心（こころ）に 感(かん)じます。
It is our conscience.
良き心（よきこころ）の 良心（りょうしん）です。
This is the influence of the Holy Spirit of God.
これは 神様の 神聖（しんせい）な 御霊（みたま）の 影響（えいきょう） です。
If we believe in Jesus, we believe in our Father in Heaven.
もし私たちは イエスさまを 信(しん)じる ならば、 天のお父様をも 信じることでしょう。
And we can be taught by the Holy Spirit.
そして その御霊によって 教えを いただける でしょう。
Father in Heaven, Jesus Christ the Son, and the Holy Ghost are the Godhead.
この 三人のお方、 天のお父様と、 御子（おんこ） イエス・キリストと、 神の御霊と、 これは 神会（しんかい）というものを なすのです。
They are perfectly united in purpose and mind.
その目的（もくてき）と 心は 完全（かんぜん）に 一致（いっち）しておられます。
As Christians, we worship God the Father in the Name of Jesus Christ, and receive our witness through the Holy Ghost.
キリスト教徒（きょうと）として、 父（ちち）なる神を イエス・キリストの御名（みな）によって 拝(おが)め、その証（あかし）を 御霊（みたま）によって 受(う)けるのです。
Monday, August 22, 2016
Sunday, August 7, 2016
God is -- 神はおられる
Posting some Gospel principles in Japanese and English:
イエス様（いえすさま）の 福音（ふくいん）の 原則（げんそく）の 一部（いちぶ）を 日本語（にほんご）と 英語（えいご）にして 投稿（とうこう） いたします。
There is a God.
神様（かみさま）が おられます。
He exists.
存在（そんざい）して おられます。
He created our spirits.
私達（わたしたち）の 魂（たましい）を 創造（そうぞう）なさいました。
He is our Heavenly Father.
その神様が 私達の 天（てん）の お父様（おとうさま）で ございます。
We are His spirit children.
私達は その霊（れい）の 子供（こども）たちに なります。
He loves us.
私達を 愛（あい）して おられます。
He wants us to be happy.
私達の 幸(しあわ)せを 願(ねが)って おられます。
つまり、私達が 幸せに なって 欲(ほ)しいと 望(のぞ)んで いらしゃいます。
Our Heavenly Father has a body of flesh and bone.
私達の天のお父様は骨肉（こつにく）の体（からだ）を持(も)っておられます。
His body is perfected and glorified.
その御体（みからだ）が完全（かんぜん）になって、栄光（えいこう）に満(み)ちておられます。
He knows our hearts.
私達の 心（こころ）を ご存知（ぞんじ）です。ご理解（りかい）してくださいます。
He knows our suffering and sorrow.
私達の 苦(くる)しみと 悲(かな)しみを ご存知 です。
He weeps with us.
私達と 一緒（いっしょ）に 泣(な)かれます。
He rejoices with us.
私達と 一緒（いっしょ）に お喜(よろこ)びに なって くださいます。
He especially rejoices with us when we do what is right.
特（とく）に、 私達が 正(ただ)しいことを 行(おこな)うとき、 一緒に 喜んで くださいます。
イエス様（いえすさま）の 福音（ふくいん）の 原則（げんそく）の 一部（いちぶ）を 日本語（にほんご）と 英語（えいご）にして 投稿（とうこう） いたします。
There is a God.
神様（かみさま）が おられます。
He exists.
存在（そんざい）して おられます。
He created our spirits.
私達（わたしたち）の 魂（たましい）を 創造（そうぞう）なさいました。
He is our Heavenly Father.
その神様が 私達の 天（てん）の お父様（おとうさま）で ございます。
We are His spirit children.
私達は その霊（れい）の 子供（こども）たちに なります。
He loves us.
私達を 愛（あい）して おられます。
He wants us to be happy.
私達の 幸(しあわ)せを 願(ねが)って おられます。
つまり、私達が 幸せに なって 欲(ほ)しいと 望(のぞ)んで いらしゃいます。
Our Heavenly Father has a body of flesh and bone.
私達の天のお父様は骨肉（こつにく）の体（からだ）を持(も)っておられます。
His body is perfected and glorified.
その御体（みからだ）が完全（かんぜん）になって、栄光（えいこう）に満(み)ちておられます。
He knows our hearts.
私達の 心（こころ）を ご存知（ぞんじ）です。ご理解（りかい）してくださいます。
He knows our suffering and sorrow.
私達の 苦(くる)しみと 悲(かな)しみを ご存知 です。
He weeps with us.
私達と 一緒（いっしょ）に 泣(な)かれます。
He rejoices with us.
私達と 一緒（いっしょ）に お喜(よろこ)びに なって くださいます。
He especially rejoices with us when we do what is right.
特（とく）に、 私達が 正(ただ)しいことを 行(おこな)うとき、 一緒に 喜んで くださいます。
Sunday, July 31, 2016
Sort of Uniquely Mormon -- Lectures on Faith
I've been re-reading the work called Lectures on Faith (https://archive.org/details/LecturesOnFaith), because I think I want to use it in the novel I'm currently writing:
It occurs to me that the contents of the Lectures is very much available elsewhere in scripture and in the Church's current teaching materials.
Much of the work is simply listing other scriptures, with commentary tying the lists together and pointing out what seems to me to be obvious.
Well, it seems obvious to me now, after a lifetime of study. :-/
There are a few points where the wording reflects the multiple authorship.
The explanation of the Godhead as three independent "personages" as we call them now, is introduced with the word "personage" used in a different sense, I think, from the sense we now use in the Church. In that sense, the text describes the Godhead as consisting of two personages. And, yet, later on in the same lecture, it says, "... these three, the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost" (Quoting from memory, look it up for yourself.)
The same lecture also seems to make a difference between the Father and the Son in its description of the Son as a personage of tabernacle. But the Son is the express image of the Father, and scripture given later describes both as beings of flesh and bone (see D&C 130: 22).
So some cry, "Confusion!"
The Lecture in which this apparent confusion is found never says the Father is without a body. It only emphasizes that the Son is a being of tabernacle. And then it says that the Son is essentially just like the Father. Where is the argument?
This same lecture talks about the "mind of God" and calls it the Holy Spirit. I think this is a specific use of the term "spirit", and should not be confused with the third member of the Godhead, even though the third member of the Godhead is essentially the spiritual embodiment of the mind of God.
I do believe the understanding of the Godhead did evolve, especially among those who helped Joseph Smith prepare and teach these lectures. That Joseph Smith did not micro-manage these lectures seems to me more an indication of what he understood to be the management style of God than a fault in his own comprehension of things.
If your purpose is to find fault with a work, that is easy. Even the Bible is easy to find fault with. If that is what you want to do.
Finding fault does not lead to faith. (This seems very ironic, here.)
If you have a scales, and find fault with it, you will likely refuse to use it.
If you prefer, you can see the problems with a particular scales and still use it to weigh things to a certain degree of accuracy.
If, say, you have a scales that gives eccentric readings in the range from 50 Kg. to 60 Kg., you can still use it below 50 and above 60, and with some clever usage (using extra, known weights, say) you can even weigh things between 50 and 60 Kg.
Why bother if you have another scales that gives more consistent readings?
Consistency is not always a virtue.
(Yes, I am saying that there are a lot of intellectual devices applied to evaluating religion that simply do not evaluate religion well, even though they seem to sometimes produce consistent results. Your mileage will vary, eventually.)
I've attempted to talk about faith here:
If you don't have faith in the scientific method, you generally will not be able to obtain meaningful results with it.
If you don't have some degree of faith in your school, you will find it much harder to get good grades there, and, more importantly, much harder to get the sort of education the school advertises, or attempts to present.
If you don't have faith in the company you work for, you are far more likely to call in sick, to ignore the established procedures, to fail to do the required work, and so forth.
If you refuse to have faith in your country, why would you pay taxes? Why would you bother defending your country? Especially, why would you bother trying to find candidates worth voting for?
Faith is constructive.
Refusing to exercise faith is destructive.
(In which case, sure, if you can't exercise faith in something, maybe you should move on to something you are willing to exercise faith in. I'm not saying, here's the door, goodbye. I'm saying, please do something that helps you instead of something that doesn't.)
Faith is a belief that motivates. That is the first message of the Lectures on Faith.
http://joel-rees-economics.blogspot.com/2016/06/econ101-novel-toc.htmland I don't want to get my references too much confused.
It occurs to me that the contents of the Lectures is very much available elsewhere in scripture and in the Church's current teaching materials.
Much of the work is simply listing other scriptures, with commentary tying the lists together and pointing out what seems to me to be obvious.
Well, it seems obvious to me now, after a lifetime of study. :-/
There are a few points where the wording reflects the multiple authorship.
The explanation of the Godhead as three independent "personages" as we call them now, is introduced with the word "personage" used in a different sense, I think, from the sense we now use in the Church. In that sense, the text describes the Godhead as consisting of two personages. And, yet, later on in the same lecture, it says, "... these three, the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost" (Quoting from memory, look it up for yourself.)
The same lecture also seems to make a difference between the Father and the Son in its description of the Son as a personage of tabernacle. But the Son is the express image of the Father, and scripture given later describes both as beings of flesh and bone (see D&C 130: 22).
So some cry, "Confusion!"
The Lecture in which this apparent confusion is found never says the Father is without a body. It only emphasizes that the Son is a being of tabernacle. And then it says that the Son is essentially just like the Father. Where is the argument?
This same lecture talks about the "mind of God" and calls it the Holy Spirit. I think this is a specific use of the term "spirit", and should not be confused with the third member of the Godhead, even though the third member of the Godhead is essentially the spiritual embodiment of the mind of God.
I do believe the understanding of the Godhead did evolve, especially among those who helped Joseph Smith prepare and teach these lectures. That Joseph Smith did not micro-manage these lectures seems to me more an indication of what he understood to be the management style of God than a fault in his own comprehension of things.
If your purpose is to find fault with a work, that is easy. Even the Bible is easy to find fault with. If that is what you want to do.
Finding fault does not lead to faith. (This seems very ironic, here.)
If you have a scales, and find fault with it, you will likely refuse to use it.
If you prefer, you can see the problems with a particular scales and still use it to weigh things to a certain degree of accuracy.
If, say, you have a scales that gives eccentric readings in the range from 50 Kg. to 60 Kg., you can still use it below 50 and above 60, and with some clever usage (using extra, known weights, say) you can even weigh things between 50 and 60 Kg.
Why bother if you have another scales that gives more consistent readings?
Consistency is not always a virtue.
(Yes, I am saying that there are a lot of intellectual devices applied to evaluating religion that simply do not evaluate religion well, even though they seem to sometimes produce consistent results. Your mileage will vary, eventually.)
I've attempted to talk about faith here:
http://guerillamormonism.blogspot.com/2015/07/ch-01-foundation-faith-in-jesus-christ.htmlBut maybe I ended up talking around it, instead.
Faith is belief that motivates.
If you don't have faith in the scientific method, you generally will not be able to obtain meaningful results with it.
If you don't have some degree of faith in your school, you will find it much harder to get good grades there, and, more importantly, much harder to get the sort of education the school advertises, or attempts to present.
If you don't have faith in the company you work for, you are far more likely to call in sick, to ignore the established procedures, to fail to do the required work, and so forth.
If you refuse to have faith in your country, why would you pay taxes? Why would you bother defending your country? Especially, why would you bother trying to find candidates worth voting for?
Faith is constructive.
Refusing to exercise faith is destructive.
(In which case, sure, if you can't exercise faith in something, maybe you should move on to something you are willing to exercise faith in. I'm not saying, here's the door, goodbye. I'm saying, please do something that helps you instead of something that doesn't.)
Faith is a belief that motivates. That is the first message of the Lectures on Faith.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)