#Doctrine and Covenants Section 1 explained

[mindfulldsliving]

Exploring Prophets, Faith, and Obedience: A Latter-day Saint Take on Heber C. Kimball and Michelle Grim's Critique

In the rich teachings of Latter-day Saints, the messages from prophets hold profound significance. Heber C. Kimball, in the Journal of Discourses, emphasized the importance of following prophetic guidance as an expression of our faith and obedience. This perspective, however, faces scrutiny from voices like Michelle Grim, who offers a critical view of Kimball’s teachings. In a recent blog post…

[nerdygaymormon]

Doctrine & Covenants 132 : New and Everlasting Covenant

This Section was recorded in 1843, but the ideas about plural marriage first began forming for Joseph in 1831 while studying the Bible. He had questions about the Biblical practice of having more than one wife, which seemed like adultery to Joseph. He also had a question from Matthew 22 where Jesus taught that “in the resurrection they neither marry, nor are given in marriage, but are as the angels of God in heaven.”

The Book of Mormon forbids plural marriage unless the Lord commands it (Jacob 2:28-30). Both the 1835 & 1844 versions of the Doctrine and Covenants prohibited polygamy and declared monogamy is the only acceptable form of marriage (Section 101 in 1835, became section 109 in 1844 - neither of these sections appears in our current D&C).

Joseph began teaching select individuals about plural marriage in 1831 or 1832. Joseph obtained multiple wives in the years before Section 132 was written. Even after 1843, plural marriage was kept very hushed even from most church members. Most members didn’t suspect the top church leaders were involved in plural marriage because they publicly condemned polygamy, it was illegal, and against the published scriptures.

It seems Emma knew about some of the sealings of Joseph to other women and even consented to a few. She seems to have times where she accepted the idea and other times where she rejected it.

Joseph was very worried about how to introduce the concept of plural marriage to his brother Hyrum, and how to get Emma to accept it once and for all.

Hyrum was initially skeptical, but Joseph talked about how Hyrum can still be sealed & married to his wife who had died. That was very hopeful to Hyrum. He encouraged Joseph to get a revelation from the Lord and Hyrum would take it to Emma and try to convince her. Section 132 is the result of that request. It was not meant for the world or even the Church, it was specifically for Emma.

The idea of Section 132 is to explain plural marriage and make a persuasive case for it, although I think it can be debated whether it is persuasive or manipulative. When Emma read the revelation, it didn't go very well. Hyrum Smith used words like ‘resentment’ and ‘bitterness’ to describe Emma's reaction to the revelation, which frankly is understandable.

It wasn’t until 1852 when most of the Church was safely in Utah territory that the Church publicly announced that the Church practices polygamy. Section 132 wasn’t published until the 1876 edition of the Doctrine & Covenants, and the section was removed which said a man should only have one wife and a woman should only have one husband.

—————————————————————

In the modern church, we view Section 132 & the term ‘New & Everlasting Covenant’ to be about eternal marriage. And we think of eternal marriage as including polygamy and monogamy. 

When we teach Section 132, we focus on the sealing power and the blessings that come to a sealed, married couple. 

However, the early Church understood ‘new and everlasting covenant’ to mean plural marriage. They understood it as the requirement for exaltation.

—————————————————————

Section 132 is long (66 verses) and complicated. It touches on a variety of topics. This makes it difficult to teach a 40-minute Sunday School class or write a short blog post about it in a coherent way.

—————————————————————

Verse 1 – This goes back to the question Joseph had in 1831. The Lord says He justified Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, Moses, David and Solomon in having wives and concubines. 

This is interesting because the Bible records that Isaac was monogamous, he had Rebecca and no others. He is not like the others in the list. I wonder if that was an error to include him.

Verse 3 – Maybe you asked for more than you bargained for because everyone that I (the Lord) reveal this law to is required to obey it. And since you asked, I’m going to reveal it.

Verse 4-6 – Once the Lord reveals the new and everlasting covenant to you, if you don’t obey it then you’re damned.

Verse 7 – Here’s the conditions of the law—unless sealed by the power being given to Joseph, “all covenants, bonds, obligations, oaths, vows, performances, connections, associations, or expectation” are null and void after the resurrection, they end when people die.

This list goes way beyond marriages, in fact, marriage isn’t even listed, it gets included because it’s a type of agreement. It’s just one of many possible commitments that can be included in this list.

I don’t see any reason that a gay marriage cannot be sealed. Queer marriages fit into this list just as well as straight marriages do. 

Heck, the sealing power has been used to seal all sorts of relationships, such as unrelated men to be father & son, polygamous marriages, and sealing parents to adopted children. They once even sealed an African-American woman to be a servant to Joseph Smith for eternity. Exactly what can be sealed seems very broad. If we practice it in a very limited way, that’s our choice, not the Lord’s.

Also, this phrase, 'sealed by the holy spirit of promise,’ that doesn’t sound like the priesthood, although that’s how the Church interprets it. 

I have had an alternate theory in my head for years about what the actual sealing power is. A few years back it was said in General Conference (I wish I could remember who said it and in which year) that the sealing power is in effect only if both parties want it to be. That combined with how we allow women to be sealed to multiple husbands once she has died, and she’ll determine which sealing is in effect in heaven, got me thinking the real sealing power is love. Maybe it is, maybe it isn’t, but Section 132 has me questioning how we often teach that once something is sealed, that’s the end, it’s permanent.

Verse 13 – No matter what men do in the name of government or other power, if it’s not also sealed by the Lord’s power, it will not remain in effect after death nor in the resurrection.

Verse 15 & 16 – We’re given an example of the sealing power, the marriage of a man and a woman. If their relationship wasn’t sealed, then they aren’t joined after they’re dead. If their marriage isn’t in effect after the resurrection, then they become angels to serve those with higher eternal glory (presumably everyone whose marriages are sealed in heaven).

I want to point out, marriage is given as one example of a thing that can be sealed, but we usually talk of the sealing power as if marriages are the only thing that gets sealed.  

D&C Section 22 declares that baptism is the new and everlasting covenant. In addition to baptism and marriage, I believe we can say any gospel ordinance is sealed by Christ’s power, otherwise those won’t be in effect when we die. Who is it that “seals” these ordinances? Men with the priesthood. The sealing power seems to be much more widespread than we usually think of it.

Verse 17 - People who do not “abide my law,” aka get sealed together, “remain separately and singly, without exaltation.” They are to be forever separate and alone! It also says they will not be exalted or become gods, but will be angels who “minister for those who are worthy of a far more, and an exceeding, and an eternal weight of glory.” We will forever be serving those who qualified to be gods.

This begs the question “where does this leave queer people?”

Are we to be eternally punished because the form of acceptable marriage (man+woman) doesn’t work for us, even though there are other forms of marriage which do? That does not sound like the God of mercy, love and justice that we teach. Queer people have been put in an unfair, unequal predicament.

I think it important to point out that LDS belief is that a child who dies before the age of accountability (8-years old) does not need to have their ordinances performed at the temple. No baptism, no endowment, no marriage sealed, yet they’re saved in the Celestial Kingdom. In other words, there’s more than one path to the Celestial Kingdom and exaltation.

Joseph Smith had a vision of his younger brother Alvin in the Celestial Kingdom, and this surprised Joseph because his brother died before the restoration of the gospel. Alvin was saved because the desires of his heart was to do what God wanted. Even though Alvin didn’t receive any gospel ordinances performed by the sealing power of the priesthood, it doesn’t matter, he was saved, showing yet another path.

I think of the many gay individuals who entered mixed-orientation marriages. They wanted so badly to follow God’s law that they married someone they’re not compatible with romantically or sexually. Most of those marriages fail. I can’t help but think of the desires of their heart that led them to enter those marriages is enough to qualify them to be exalted. I think this is true even of queer people who don’t actually enter a mixed-orientation marriage. We wanted to obey but it was just impossible to.

Verse 18 – Big reminder, a marriage of a man and a woman breaks up at death if it hasn’t been anointed by someone that has been appointed with this sealing power.

Verse 19 – But if your marriage was sealed, you will come forth in the first resurrection and inherit “thrones, kingdoms, principalities, and powers, dominions, all heights and depths.” Well, the Lord also adds that in addition to having your marriage sealed, you can’t commit murder. If you kill an innocent person then the sealing is no good.

Verse 20 – Those whose marriage is sealed and they managed not to commit murder, they become gods. They will have “all power,” and angels are subject to them.

Verse 22 – Not many people are gonna make it to exaltation because very few people will receive Jesus in this world.

This makes me think about how so many people, including in our church, claim to be followers of Christ, but then are against immigrants and refugees, they want to become rich, they vote against expanding education and health care and anti-hunger initiatives, they want tougher laws that will fill up the prisons. This is not receiving Jesus and the things He taught.

Verse 23 & 24 – If we get to know Jesus while in this world, that is eternal life, and you should receive Jesus’ law (about sealing).

Verse 25 – Most people aren’t going to have eternal life because they don’t receive Jesus in this life, and of those who do, only some of them abide His law (of sealing).

It’s interesting because most of Christianity teaches that believers will be with Christ, therefore if me and my spouse are both believers, then we’ll be together with Christ. It’s a very Mormon thing to say your marriage and family are doomed to be ripped apart unless you believe & accept Jesus and have your marriage sealed by someone with Christ’s power. We send missionaries out to teach what we view as a very hopeful message, you can be together for eternity with your spouse. Except what we’re really saying is you only thought you were going to be together, but you got to get on board with us for this to happen.

Verse 26 – Even if you have your marriage sealed, if you commit any sin or transgression of the ‘new and everlasting covenant,’ or blasphemies, or commit murder, doesn’t matter that you were sealed, you’ll be delivered to Satan

This seems to be saying that although you need to have your marriage sealed in order to make it to eternal life with Christ, it puts you at risk of instead being given to Satan.

Verse 27 – Clarifies ‘blasphemies’ to mean blasphemy against the Holy Ghost and that is not forgivable. Blasphemy against the Holy Ghost is explained as you commit murder, or you assent to the death of Christ after receiving the new and everlasting covenant. In that case, you are damned.

Verse 28 – The Lord will now give to us the law of the Lord’s Holy Priesthood. (the following verses teach that the law is to do whatever Christ commands and don’t murder anyone)

Verses 29-37 - This says that the Jewish Patriarch Abraham is exalted. We’re told to be like Abraham and obey the laws of the Lord. Abraham was married to Sarah but also took the servant Hagar to be his wife. Abraham was commanded to kill his son Isaac and tried to murder him, even though the law says not to commit murder. Abraham had children with concubines. If we obey like Abraham did, then we will be exalted.

It sounds like Abraham is blessed for offering to murder his son and also blessed for not actually doing it because killing an innocent person is a sin.

Verses 38-39 - This is followed by a lesson about adultery by the King David. David only committed one sin, adultery with Bathsheba (and also having her husband killed) and as a result, lost his exaltation and all of his other marriages were dissolved at death. In fact, God gave his wives to another.

This is interesting because no one is given in marriage once the resurrection happens. So it appears that after they died but before they are resurrected, Christ stepped in to save all these women who were married to King David so that they don’t lose eternal life because of what he did.

Verse 40 – Christ commands Joseph to restore all things (which implies to restore the power of sealing, and also polygamy)

Verse 41-43 – Lots of talk about adultery, especially about is someone committing adultery if they enter the new and everlasting covenant with one person but they’re also married to another person.

Verse 44 – Joseph will be able to tell who is committing adultery and who isn’t, and he can take the women who aren’t committing adultery and give them to men who also aren’t committing adultery.

Joseph essentially can dissolve people’s sealed marriages if he determines one of the partners is committing adultery. I guess it’s meant to save the innocent person from winding up barred from eternal life and exaltation because of their spouse’s sins.

Verse 46 – Joseph is given the power to seal on earth and heaven

Verse 49 – Christ will honor the bindings that Joseph seals. Oh, and by the way, Christ also seals Joseph with exaltation, so guess that’s a done deal. When Christ is done giving this revelation, he’s going to prepare a throne for Joseph.

Verse 50 – Jesus has seen Joseph’s sacrifices and Joseph’s sins. All his sins are forgiven.

Verse 51-52 – Now Christ gives a commandment to Emma. Christ tested Joseph, just as he tested Abraham, by requiring Joseph get married to additional women. Now here’s the commandment, Emma should accept all those who were “given” unto Joseph. Oh, but by the way, if any of those women are unpure, they’ll be destroyed.

This very much says that Jesus gave Joseph all these women. It’s hard to get the exact number, but the Church estimates he had over 40 wives.

Verse 53 – Because Joseph was faithful in a few things, the Lord is making Joseph ruler over many things.

Verse 54 – Emma is commanded to abide and cleave to her husband Joseph and to no others. And if she strays from Joseph then she’ll be destroyed

I guess this is consistent with the earlier verse where there’s an innocent spouse and the spouse who commits adultery. Joseph just had all his sins forgiven and sealed to exaltation, so now Emma is the one who might mess things up by sinning.

Also, Joseph can have lots of wives, but Emma better only have Joseph, or else. What’s good for the goose is not good for the gander. The inequity between the genders is on full display. 

Verse 55 – It’s a little vague, but it seems this verse is saying if Emma won’t go along with polygamy, if she won’t approve and accept the additional wives, then Joseph is to still go ahead so that he has lots of wives and children.

This is totally unfair, it’s a catch-22. The first wife gets the opportunity to approve of any additional wife for her husband, except that if she refuses and can’t give a good reason, such as that woman is already married to some other man, then the man is to go ahead and get married anyway. This is not consent, this is coercion, or at best it’s a formality. He has to show he tried and then can move forward regardless of whether his first wife agreed.

Verse 56 – Emma is commanded to forgive Joseph, and if she does, then Christ will forgive her and her heart will rejoice.

Clearly Joseph has sinned, that’s being admitted

Verse 57 – Joseph isn’t to put his property out of his hand or else an enemy will destroy it.

I think this is saying to keep the plural marriages secret, that if people find out it will ruin everything

Verse 58 & 59 – The Law of the priesthood is that whoever is called by God and Christ and given the keys of the priesthood, and they don’t commit sin, whatever they do in Christ’s name will be law and will be Christ’s law.

I think this reinforces my comment for verses 15 & 16, the priesthood is the sealing power, and most men in The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints have been given this.

Verse 60 – Everyone should lay off of Joseph. He’s gonna be forced to do the sacrifice that the Lord requires to make up for his transgressions, and then everything is cool, Christ will “justify him”

Verse 61--63 – If a man marries a virgin, this means his first wife, and then he wants to marry another virgin, his first wife needs to agree. This next wife needs to be a virgin and not married to anyone else. If these conditions are met, it’s not adultery. Even if he marries 10 virgins, it’s still not adultery. But if any of those women “be with another man, she has committed adultery, and shall be destroyed.”

We know that Emma opposed Joseph getting multiple wives, and Joseph says he was commanded and threatened by an angel with a sword to get married to additional women, so he did it even without Emma’s blessing, which is the opposite of what Section 132 says is allowable. Some of the women he married were married to other men, they weren’t virgins. I think Joseph made a huge mess of things in regards to polygamy.

Verse 64-65 – If a man holds the keys of this sealing power and he teaches his wife about this law, she better believe and allow it or else she’ll be destroyed. If she will not approve of additional wives, then she’s the transgressor. Too bad, she’s not going to get in the way of Jesus blessing this man with the ability to multiply.

Verse 66 – The Lord will reveal more later about this law.

—————————————————————

Section 132 was supposed to answer some questions and relieve Emma and convince her to go along with plural marriage. Instead it creates more anxieties than it alleviates. It creates more questions than it answers. It causes problems.

This section is meant for Emma but it mostly gives Joseph a lot of blessings and tells Emma to get on board or else. It’s very tone deaf given what the purpose is.

----------------

In 1930, the Church published Latter-day Revelations: Selections from the Book of Doctrine and Covenants of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. This work was characterized as containing “Sections and parts of Sections from the Doctrine and Covenants, the sections comprising scriptures of general and enduring value…” 95 sections of the Doctrine and Covenants were completely omitted, along with parts of 21 others. The most noteworthy omission was the entirety of Section 132. Fundamentalist Mormons were outraged. A lot of lives had been affected and upended from living according to Section 132 and it contains a lot of ideas not found elsewhere. Church President Heber J. Grant ordered the work immediately “withdrawn” from sale and the remaining copies “shredded to avoid further conflict with the fundamentalists” 

Isn’t that interesting, the new and everlasting covenant as taught in Section 132, which we usually interpret as the ability to seal relationships together, was deemed not of “enduring value�� by apostles and omitted from that compilation. 

----------------

Many women have been and currently are irritated and uncomfortable by Section 132. I think that’s fair, it gives a lot of answers and benefits to men, but not so much to women. It’s one thing to say a widower is allowed to get married again, but it’s something different to say the three of you are going to be partners in the eternities so I hope you like who your husband chose. 

We can think up all sorts of scenarios not addressed in Section 132 and wonder what the answer is. For example, what if a person thinks their spouse, who has been missing, is dead, but they show up after 10 years only to find the other person has gotten married to someone else. Did the person who remarried commit adultery? Are they going to be damned? This section opens the doors for a myriad of unanswered questions.

----------------

One clarification we’ve received in the past 10~15 years is that a sealing is binding only if the people sealed want it to be in effect. Here’s one example of this being taught:

“We know covenants are binding and eternal ONLY BY MUTUAL CONSENT of the parties affected and when confirmed by a merciful heaven’s manifestation of the Holy Ghost, which the scriptures describe as the Holy Spirit of Promise.” Gerrit W. Gong, “Strengthen One Another in the Lord”, 4 May 2018

We won’t be forced to be married to someone in heaven if we don’t want to. Many people feel secure in their sealing but whose treatment of their spouse may cause them to walk away from the sealing when they get the opportunity in heaven. 

----------------

Furthermore, this section does nothing to elucidate on queer relationships. They’re not mentioned at all. Marriage between a man and a woman (or between a man and multiple women) is given as an example, but our church treats it like it is THE example. That example is anything but exhaustive, this sealing power applies to all sorts of agreements and relationships, which our church doesn’t seem to have explored. It doesn’t feel fair to say because queer relationships weren’t used as an example, our relationships can’t be sealed.

----------------

The final verse says we’re going to get more revealed about this sealing power. The Old Testament says we learn line upon line and precept upon precept. Since 1843 we have learned a lot about queer people and their relationships. When are we going to get the revelation that Christ never excluded us from the sealing power, that was done because of the limitation in the understanding of humans? 

[pamphletstoinspire]

Understanding Catholic Teaching On The Blessed Virgin Mary - Part 4

Written by: Tom Perna

Mary, The Perpetual Virgin

The Definition

The second dogma of the Blessed Virgin Mary defined by the Catholic Church is her perpetual virginity. Many of the early Church Fathers, which we will see shortly, without question, understood and taught this dogma to be truth since the early days of the Church. It was also affirmed by papal and council documents.

The dogma of the Perpetual Virginity of Mary professes that she was a virgin before the birth of Christ (ante partum), during the birth of Christ (in partu), and after the birth of Christ (post partum). This dogma was declared at the Lateran Synod in AD 649 by Pope Saint Martin I. As an article of the faith, the Holy Father professed, “The blessed ever-virginal and immaculate Mary conceived, without seed, by the Holy Spirit, and without the loss of integrity brought Him forth, and after His birth preserved her virginity inviolate.”

Virgin Before the Birth of Christ in Sacred Scripture

The first segment of the dogma, Mary as virgin before the birth of Christ, is clearly seen in the Sacred Scriptures in two places. The first is in the Old Testament, Isaiah 7:14, and the second place is in a number of verses in the first chapter of the Gospel of St. Luke.

Isaiah 7:14 states: “Therefore the Lord himself shall give you a sign. Behold a [“the” in some translations] virgin shall conceive, and bear a son, and his name shall be called Emmanuel.” In the Hebrew language, the word virgin (the Hebrew almah) can be translated into the word maiden (unmarried woman) as well, but the term maiden always has a virginal context to it. In the Septuagint (Greek translation of the Old Testament), the word parthenos can only mean virgin. In the end, the words almah, virgin, and maiden overlap one another in their meaning. The two important words in this Scripture verse are bearing and conceiving since they are the same words that St. Luke uses to explain Mary’s virginity in his Gospel.

Although this Scripture passage from Isaiah is fulfilled with the birth of Jesus Christ in chapter 1 of St. Matthew’s account, it is St. Luke’s account that clearly defines for us the virgin bearing and conceiving Emmanuel — “God with us” — with the exchange of the Annunciation between Mary and the angel Gabriel. Now let us examine the dialogue of Scripture verses in the New Testament that fulfill the prophecy of Isaiah: Luke 1:26–27, 31, and 35.

Luke 1:26–27 says, “In the sixth month the angel Gabriel was sent from God to a city of Galilee named Nazareth, to a virgin betrothed to a man whose name was Joseph, of the house of David; and the virgin’s name was Mary.” As the conversation continues between Mary and Gabriel, the virginity of Mary is confirmed again in Luke 1:31 as the angel says, “You will conceive in your womb and bear a Son.” Mary responds not with doubt but with perplexity since she does not fully understand how she will conceive: “How will this be since I know not man?” (Lk 1:34). To answer her, Gabriel then says, “The Holy Spirit will come upon you and the power of the Most High will overshadow you” (Lk 1:35).

Luke 1:35 means that Jesus’ conception within the womb of Mary (different than “to receive in her womb” or “to have in her womb” by way of a man giving himself to the woman) was a supernatural conception. This conception is the result of God’s work within Mary through the Holy Spirit. It is the same term used in Genesis 40:35 when Yahweh “overshadowed” the tabernacle and God’s presence was in Israel. Mary is the new tabernacle, the New Ark of the Covenant, for in her womb is the presence of God.

Virgin Before the Birth of Christ in Sacred Tradition

Now that we have seen the places in the Sacred Scriptures where the virginity of Mary before the birth of Christ is written, let us turn to Sacred Tradition. The first source of Tradition that mentions Mary’s virginity before the birth of Christ is the Apostles’ Creed. We also find extensive writings by nearly every early Church Father about Mary’s virginity. That’s how important this teaching was to the early Church.

The Apostles’ Creed professes that Jesus Christ was conceived by the Holy Spirit, and born of the Virgin Mary. Since it is one of the earliest creeds of the Church, we can understand that the Apostles of Jesus knew this to be true and even taught it orally to the early Christians.

The second source of Tradition that focuses on Mary’s virginity before the birth of Christ is the many writings of the early Church Fathers. Although we could quote nearly all of the Fathers, let us read the words of St. Hippolytus of Rome, St. John Chrysostom, and Pope St. Leo the Great. Focusing on the mystery of the Incarnation of Jesus Christ, St. Hippolytus of Rome (early third century) asks the Virgin Mary herself to shed light on it:

Tell me, O blessed Mary, whom did you conceive in your virginal womb? Yes, even from the firstborn of God, who came down from heaven into you and was formed, the firstborn of man, in your womb, so that the firstborn Word of God might appear united with the firstborn of man. (Eranistes, Dialogue 1)

Writing on the Old Testament Scripture verse from Isaiah 7:14, in his Commentary on Isaiah (late fourth to early fifth century), St. John Chrysostom says,

If she had not been a virgin, there would have been no sign, since a sign has to be something out of the ordinary and beyond the laws of nature, something new and unexpected, something that makes an impression on those who see it and hear of it. That is why it is called a sign, because it stands out . . . therefore, in the beginning of his speech, he did not say simply: Behold, a virgin, but: Behold, the Virgin. By adding the article, he indicates a unique virgin, distinct from all the others.

In number 22:2 of his Sermons, Pope St. Leo the Great (mid fifth century) speaks about how Christ’s nativity is unique when he says,

And by a new nativity [Christ] was begotten, conceived by a Virgin, born of a Virgin, without paternal desire, without injury to the mother’s chastity. . . . The origin is different but the nature like: not by intercourse with man but by the power of God was it brought about: for a Virgin conceived, a Virgin bare, and a Virgin she remained.

Paragraph 497 of the Catechism of the Catholic Church states,

The gospel accounts understand the virginal conception of Jesus as a divine work that surpasses all human understanding and possibility [cf. Mt 1:18–25; Lk 1:26–38]: “That which is conceived in her is of the Holy Spirit,” said the angel to Joseph about Mary his fiancée [Mt 1:20]. The Church sees there the fulfillment of the divine promise given through prophet Isaiah: “Behold, a virgin shall conceive and bear a son.” (Also see 496 and 498)

In the above Scripture reference to Matthew 1:20, the term translated as “fiancée” comes from the original Latin sponsam, meaning wife, bride, betrothed. Due to the inherent limitations of the English language, and translations in general, an explanation is in order regarding the use of the word “fiancée.” Sponsam is the past participle of sponso (to become betrothed/engaged to marry). In short, the modern English word “betrothed” does not carry the same definition that it did in the ancient Jewish vocabulary and culture. As Pope St. John Paul II explains in Redemptoris Custos 18: “According to Jewish custom, marriage took place in two stages: first, the legal, or true marriage was celebrated [i.e. “the betrothal”], and then, only after a certain period of time, the husband brought the wife into his own house. Thus, before he lived with Mary, Joseph was already her ‘husband.’ . . . Addressing Joseph through the words of the angel, God speaks to him as the husband of the Virgin of Nazareth. What took place in her through the power of the Holy Spirit also confirmed in a special way the marriage bond which already existed between Joseph and Mary. God’s messenger was clear in what he said to Joseph: ‘Do not fear to take Mary your wife into your home.’”

Virgin During the Birth of Christ in Sacred Scripture

The definition given to us by Pope St. Martin I during this part of the dogma specifically speaks about the event, the appointed time of history, where the Blessed Virgin Mary gave birth to Jesus Christ. At this point, when heaven and earth unite at the Nativity in Bethlehem, without removing Mary’s physical virginity, Jesus left the womb of Mary. Through the power of the Almighty God, Jesus Christ exited the womb of Mary without physically violating her seal of virginity (virginitas in partu).

As light passes through glass without damaging the glass, so too did our Lord Jesus Christ pass through the birth canal of his mother, the Virgin Mary, without violating her perfect body. This act by God reveals to the world that Mary’s virginity is the perfect sign of her interior and exterior virginity, a pure body and soul. The Church has taught this from its earliest centuries.

The second part of this dogma is in reference to Mary’s physical virginity during the birth of Christ. Before examining the references of Sacred Tradition as we did with the first part of this dogma, let us first examine the Sacred Scriptures yet again.

Like the first part of the dogma, the Scripture verse that specifically speaks about Mary’s virginity is from Isaiah 7:14. This prophecy by one of the major prophets in the Old Testament speaks of a virgin not only conceiving a child, but also bearing a son: “Behold a virgin shall conceive, and bear a son.” Isaiah 7:14 not only speaks of the conception by a virgin, but also speaks to the actual birth itself.

Virgin During the Birth of Christ in Sacred Tradition

Since the Catholic Church teaches that Mary’s virginity remained perfectly intact even during the birth of Christ, let us briefly look at some of the early Church Fathers who taught this doctrine from the early centuries. For this section we will read from St. Augustine of Hippo, St. Peter Chrysologus, and St. John Damascus.

In a letter, St. Augustine writes about the supreme power of God and our lack of knowledge on the virginal birth of Christ, stating:

That very greatness of His power, which feels no narrowness in narrow quarters, enriched the Virgin’s womb, not by an externally caused but by an intrinsic childbirth. . . . That same power brought forth the body of the infant from the inviolate virginal womb of the mother, as afterward the Body of the Man penetrated closed doors. . . . Let us grant that God can do something which we confess we cannot fathom. In such matters the whole explanation of the deed is in the power of the doer. (Letters [pre-AD 430], no. 317)

Speaking in a sermon about the difference between the virginal birth of Christ and the birth of children through other women, “the golden-worded”

Church Father, St. Peter Chrysologus states,

Where are they who think that the Virgin’s conception and giving birth to her child are to be likened to those of other women? For, this latter case is one of the earth, and the Virgin’s is one from heaven. The one is a case of divine power; the other of human weakness . . . the blood was still, and the flesh astonished; her members were put at rest, and her entire womb was quiescent during the visit of the Heavenly One. . . . The Virgin conceives, the Virgin brings forth her child, and she remains a virgin. (Sermons [pre-AD 450], no. 117)

In his book, Exposition of the Orthodox Faith (early to mid-eighth century), an Eastern Church Father, St. John Damascus, writes about Mary’s virginity being intact before and during the birth of Christ:

But just as He who was conceived kept her who conceived still virgin, in like manner also He who was born preserved her virginity intact, only passing through her and keeping her closed. . . . For it was not impossible for Him to have come by this gate, without injuring her seal in any way. The ever-virgin One thus remains even after the birth still virgin, having never at any time up till death consorted with a man. (Book 4, Chap. 14)

Over the course of the centuries, popes, ecumenical councils, and catechisms have continued to have the same continuity of teaching we see with the early Church Fathers on this part of the dogma. Bl. Pius XII writes about the miraculous birth of Jesus Christ in his encyclical Mystici Corporis Christi, stating: “within her virginal womb Christ our Lord already bore the exalted title of Head of the Church; in a marvelous birth she brought Him forth as the source of all supernatural life.”

In chapter 8 in the Dogmatic Constitution on the Church, Lumen Gentium, from the Second Vatican Council, the Council Fathers professed, “this union of the mother with the Son in the work of salvation is made manifest from the time of Christ’s virginal conception . . . then also at the birth of Our Lord, who did not diminish his mother’s integrity but sanctified it” (no. 57, emphasis added).

The Catechism of the Catholic Church in paragraph 499 professes, “The deepening of faith in the virginal motherhood led the Church to confess Mary’s real and perpetual virginity even in the act of giving birth to the Son of God made man [cf. DS 291; 294; 427; 442; 503; 571; 1880].”

Virgin After the Birth of Christ in Sacred Scripture

Now that we have examined the first two parts of this dogma, the virginity of Mary before and during the birth of Christ, let us turn to the final and third part, the virginity of Mary after the birth of Christ. This part of the dogma specifically speaks of the earthly life of the Blessed Virgin where she did not have any sexual relations with St. Joseph, even following the birth of Jesus Christ.

Let’s first examine this teaching in the Sacred Scriptures. One Scripture verse implicitly references that Mary was a virgin after the birth of Christ. In her amazement and awe she asks the angel Gabriel this question: “How will this be since I know not man?” (Lk 1:34).

We have a clear understanding that Mary is a virgin from the words of Gabriel in Luke 1:26–27, 31, and 34. Questioning the Angel, Mary uses the word “know” in reference to sexual relations. The Greek translation of “I do not know man” is referencing Mary’s virginal status rather than her marital status. Mary is a virgin now and desires to remain one in the future. She is also wondering how God will bless her with a son while still remaining a virgin. Mary’s betrothal to St. Joseph was a marriage that was legally bound by Jewish law; her only worry was that even in marriage she wanted to remain a virgin. And, as we’ll see below, two early Church Fathers believed that Mary took a lifelong vow of virginity when she was a young girl.

Virgin After the Birth of Christ in Sacred Tradition

Although this entire dogma was passionately defended by many of the early Church Fathers when non-believers denied this teaching, it was this part of the dogma that was defended the most. The reason why the Church Fathers fought so much for this part is because for all eternity, Mary’s virginity would protect the divinity of Our Lord Jesus Christ. She would safeguard the importance of the Incarnation, and it would define her as the perfect example of discipleship, selfless love, and immaculate model of the Church.

In Sacred Tradition, we read the robust words of St. Ephraem, St. Ambrose, St. Jerome, and many others who defended Mary’s virginity, but it was specifically St. Gregory of Nyssa and St. Augustine of Hippo who taught that Mary, as a young girl, took a lifelong vow of virginity and would remain faithful to keeping that vow with God.

St. Gregory of Nyssa (fourth century), the Cappadocian Father and first to claim that Mary took a vow of virginity, says,

What is Mary’s response? Listen to the voice of the pure Virgin. The angel brings the glad tidings of childbearing, but she is concerned with virginity and holds that her virginity should come before the angelic message. She does not refuse to believe the angel; neither does she move away from her convictions. She says: I have given up any contact with man . . .

For if Joseph had taken her to be his wife, for the purpose of having children, why would she have wondered at the announcement of maternity, since she herself would have accepted becoming a mother according to law of nature?

But just as it was necessary to guard the body consecrated to God as an untouched and holy offering, for this reason, she states, even if you are an angel come down from heaven and even if this phenomenon is beyond man’s abilities, yet it is impossible for me to know man. How shall I become a mother without [knowing] man? For though I consider Joseph to be my husband, still I do not know man. (On the Holy Generation of Christ, 5)

It wasn’t just the “eastern lung” of the Church who believed Mary took a vow of virginity, but we also read words from the western lung of the Church, in the Bishop of Hippo, St. Augustine. He thinks that if Mary was going to lead a normal life where she would give up her virginity to her husband in marriage, the amazing question she asks would have never entered her mind nor left her lips:

Because she had made a vow of virginity and her husband did not have to be the thief of her modesty instead of its guardian (and yet her husband was not its guardian, since it was God who guarded it; her husband was only the witness of her virginal chastity, so that her pregnancy would not be considered the result of adultery), when the angel brought her the news, she said: “How can this be, since I do not know man?” (Lk 1:34). Had she intended to know man, she would not have been amazed. Her amazement is a sign of the vow. (Sermons 225, 2)

Confirming the teaching of the Fifth Ecumenical Council that took place in Constantinople in 553, also known as the Second Council of Constantinople, and Lumen Gentium of the Second Vatican Council, the Catechism states,

The deepening of faith in the virginal motherhood led the Church to confess Mary’s real and perpetual virginity even in the act of giving birth to the Son of God made man [cf. DS 291; 294; 427; 442; 503; 571; 1880]. In fact, Christ’s birth “did not diminish his mother’s virginal integrity but sanctified it” [LG 57]. And so the liturgy of the Church celebrates Mary as Aeiparthenos, the “Ever-Virgin” [cf. LG 52]. (499; see also 500–507)

The dogma of the Perpetual Virginity of the Blessed Virgin Mary is supported in both Sacred Scripture and Sacred Tradition. Even the Protestant Reformers such as Martin Luther, John Calvin, John Wesley, and Ulrich Zwingli believed in Mary’s perpetual virginity. The individuals who denied it were the same heretics who taught that Jesus was not divine. The most famous are the followers of Arius, known as Arians, and the Ebionites who also claimed this false teaching, as do the rationalists of today.

The Three Most Common Objections to Mary as Perpetual Virgin

Objection #1: The Brethren of the Lord.

Since there is no word in the ancient Hebrew language for cousin, the term ah in Hebrew or adelphos in Greek are the terms used when a brother relationship cannot be established. These two terms can be translated into brother, cousin, near relative, and kinsmen. In the Scriptures, the word “brother” does not always mean two male siblings having the same parents. In Genesis 13:8, Abraham refers to Lot as his “brother,” but in regards to familial relationships Lot was his nephew. Similarly, we can say to each other, “we brothers and sisters in Christ,” although this does not imply that we are all blood related. When Jesus asks who are His mother and brothers [brethren] (Mt 12:46–50), He is speaking in a spiritual sense, not a literal sense.

Furthermore, if Mary had other sons after Jesus, it would have been the norm for them to have taken custody and care of her after Jesus was crucified on the Cross, not St. John the Apostle (Jn 19:26–27). Given the important role of family in the Hebrew culture, it’s highly unlikely that our Lord would have entrusted His mother to someone not blood related.

Objection #2: Matthew 1:25—“Knew her not until.”

In the original Greek, “until” is translated with the term heos, which implies that sexual relations between Joseph and Mary did not happen prior (before Jesus’ birth) or thereafter (after Jesus’ birth). This phrase is also translated as “to” or “till” to show a point of time, without it changing in the future. St. Matthew is making the point that Joseph did not have anything do with Mary’s pregnancy before the birth of Jesus. Simply because something is said not to have occurred before a specific point in time, does not necessarily mean that it occurred after that point in time. It is not intended to say anything about the future beyond that point. A couple Scripture examples should suffice: In 2 Samuel 6:23, are we to understand that Michal had children after she died? “And Michal the daughter of Saul had no child to [until] the day of her death.” Or in 1 Timothy 4:13, are we to understand that Timothy is to stop teaching after Paul arrives? “Till [until] I come, attend to the public reading of Scripture, to preaching, to teaching.”

Objection #3: Mary and Joseph are not truly married.

The objection that Mary and Joseph were not married is based on an erroneous idea of marriage and canon law. The essence of marriage is the lifetime vow of fidelity to Christ. According to canon law, consent (the vows) is what makes it a marriage. The gift of body is the expression of the vow, but not the essence of the vow. Mary and Joseph are truly married because they give themselves as total gift to one another, but not bodily. Over the centuries the Church has allowed for certain spiritual marriages; however, they are very rare. Even in the Sacred Scriptures we have examples of couples renouncing their marital relations at the request of God (Ex 19:5; 1 Sam 21:5; 1 Cor 7:5).

[thetruthseekerway]

Islam: A Total Way of Life

New Post has been published on http://www.truth-seeker.info/jewels-of-islam/islam-a-total-way-of-life/

Islam: A Total Way of Life

By Truth Seeker Staff

Just as He is the Lord of the physical universe, to the true Muslim believers, God is the Lawgiver for every area of human life.

In understanding the concept of government in Islam, one needs to first understand the nature of the religion. This article explains how the fundamental beliefs of Islam play a pivotal role in the system of governance.

The separation of ‘church and state.’

The West makes a natural mistake in their understanding of Islamic tradition, assuming that religion means the same for Muslims as it has meant for most other religious adherents ever since the industrial revolution, and for some societies, even before that; that is: a section of life reserved for certain matters, and separate from other sections of life. This is not the Islamic worldview. It has never been in the past, and modern attempts of making it so are seen as an aberration.

Islam: A Total Way of Life

Islam is a “total way of life.” It has provided guidance in every sphere of life, from individual cleanliness, rules of trade, to the structure and politics of the society. Islam can never be separated from social, political, or economic life since religion provides moral guidance for every action that a person takes. The primary act of faith is to strive to implement God’s will in both private and public life. Muslims see that they, themselves, as well as the world around them, must be in total submission to God and his Will. Moreover, they know that this concept of His rule must be established on earth in order to create a just society. Like Jews and Christians before them, Muslims have been called into a covenant relationship with God, making them a community of believers who must serve as an example to other nations by creating a moral social order. God tells the Muslim global nation:

“You are the best community raised for mankind, enjoining the right and forbidding the wrong…” (Aal `Imran 3:110)

Throughout history, being a Muslim has meant not only belonging to a religious community of fellow believers but also living under the Islamic Law. Islamic Law is believed to be an extension of God’s absolute sovereignty.

God is the Only Sovereign

God is the absolute sovereign in Islam and is, therefore, the only Lord of heaven and earth. Just as He is the Lord of the physical universe, to the true Muslim believers, God is the Lawgiver for every area of human life. Just as He is the Master of the physical world, God is the Ruler of the affairs of men in Islamic doctrine. Thus God is the supreme Lawgiver[1], the Absolute Judge, and the Legislator Who distinguishes right from wrong. Just like the physical world inevitably submits to its Lord by following the ‘natural’ laws of the universe, human beings must submit to the moral and religious teaching of their Lord, the One Who sets right apart from wrong for them. In other words, God alone has the authority to make laws, determine acts of worship, decide morals, and set standards of human interaction and behavior. This is because “His is the Creation and Command.” (Al-A`raf 7:54)

The Separation of Institutional Religion & the State

As we have mentioned, in Islam God is acknowledged as the sole sovereign of human affairs, so there has never been a distinction between religious and state authority. In Christendom, the distinction between the two authorities is said to be based upon records in the New Testament of Jesus, asking his followers to render unto Caesar what was his and unto God what was His. Therefore throughout Christian history until the present times, there have always been two authorities: ‘God and Caesar’, or ‘the church and state.’ Each had its own laws and jurisdictions, each its own structure and hierarchy. In the pre-westernized Islamic world, there were never two powers, and the question of separation never arose. The distinction so deeply rooted in Christendom between church and state has never existed in Islam.

The Vision of an Islamic State

The vision of an Islamic state and the purpose of its political authority is to implement the divine law. Thus, the ideal Islamic state is a community governed by the Law revealed by God. This does not entail that such a state is necessarily a theocracy under the direct rule of the learned men of religion, nor is it an autocracy that vests absolute power in the ruler. The function of the Islamic state is to provide security and order so that Muslims can carry out both their religious and worldly duties. The Caliph[2] is the guardian of faith and the community. His role is not so much checked by the ulama (religious scholars), but enhanced by them because they provide him religious and legal counsel. He also appoints judges who resolve disputes in accordance with Islamic Law. There is a certain level of flexibility in regards to the system of governance and its establishment in Islam, however, religion must be implemented fully into state and society.

  FOOTNOTES:

[1] God’s existence proven by the existence of a supreme Lawgiver is called the ‘ethical’ argument by Western theologians.

[2] The word Caliph is the English term for Khaleefah or successor, for the Caliph succeeds Prophet Muhammad as political leader of the Muslims and implementation of Divine Law in society.

———

Taken with slight editorial modifications from islamreligion.com.

[marymosley]

“No License, No Problem” – Is Qualcomm’s Ninth Circuit Antitrust Victory a Patent Exhaustion Defeat?

Guest post by University of Utah College of Law Professor Jorge L. Contreras. 

The Ninth Circuit’s recent decision in FTC v. Qualcomm (9th Cir., Aug. 11, 2020) is generally viewed as a resounding victory for Qualcomm.  In a strongly worded opinion, the Ninth Circuit reversed the entirety of the district court’s holding, which found that Qualcomm violated Sections 1 and 2 of the Sherman Act.  The Ninth Circuit exonerated Qualcomm with respect to each of its allegedly anticompetitive practices, concluding that these practices merely reflected the flexing of Qualcomm’s “economic muscle” with admirable “vigor, imagination, devotion, and ingenuity” (slip op. at 55).

Among Qualcomm’s challenged practices was its refusal to license rival chip makers under patents that are essential to one or more wireless telecommunications standards (standards-essential patents or SEPs).  While the District Court found that this refusal violated Qualcomm’s antitrust duty to deal under Aspen Skiing Co. v. Aspen Highlands Skiing Corp., 472 U.S. 585 (1985), the Ninth Circuit disagreed.  It reasoned that Qualcomm did not violate any duty to deal because it uniformly refused to grant patent licenses to chip makers and did not “single[] out any specific chip supplier for anticompetitive treatment” (slip op. at 35).

In praising Qualcomm’s egalitarian approach toward rival chip makers, the Ninth Circuit points out that instead of granting licenses to these rivals, Qualcomm merely “declines to enforce its patents” against them “even though they practice Qualcomm’s patents” (id). As such, the Ninth Circuit quips that Qualcomm’s “policy toward rival chipmakers could be characterized as ‘no license, no problem’” (id., emphasis added).  Yet, as I discuss below, this approach could actually be a very big problem, not only for Qualcomm, but for all patent licensors seeking to extract revenue from the most lucrative point in the supply chain.

The Patent Exhaustion Doctrine and Chip Sales

As the Supreme Court explained in Quanta Computer, Inc. v. LG Elecs., Inc., 553 U.S. 617, 625 (2008), “The longstanding  doctrine of patent exhaustion provides that the initial authorized sale of a patented item terminates all patent rights to that item.”  That is, once the patent holder or its authorized licensee sells a product covered by a patent, that patent can no longer be asserted against a downstream buyer or user of the product. The patent is “exhausted” with respect to that particular product.

In Quanta, LG licensed three patents to Intel.  Intel manufactured chips allegedly covered by the patents, then sold the chips to Quanta for incorporation into Quanta’s PCs. LG then attempted to assert the patents against Quanta.  The court held that so long as the Intel chips “substantially embodied the patent[s]”, they were exhausted upon Intel’s sale of the chips to Quanta (553 U.S. at 633).  LG had no right to assert the patents against Intel’s customer Quanta.

Level Discrimination and SEPs

To grossly oversimplify, the supply chain for standardized wireless telecommunications functionality can be divided into three relevant tiers: (1) standards developers, (2) chip manufacturers, and (3) end user device (e.g., smartphone) manufacturers.  Standards developers like Qualcomm cooperate within standards-development bodies to create telecommunications standards like 4G LTE. Chip manufacturers then implement these standards in chipsets, which they sell to device manufacturers for incorporation into smartphones and other consumer devices.

What happens, however, when a standards developer like Qualcomm holds patents (SEPs) that cover a standard like LTE?  In theory, both the chips embodying the standard and the smartphones incorporating those chips infringe its SEPs.  Thus the SEP holder could choose to license those SEPs at either Tier 2 (chip manufacturers) or Tier 3 (device manufacturers). How to choose?

If a SEP holder licenses a chip manufacturer, then its SEPs covering a particular chip will be exhausted as soon as the manufacturer sell that chip to a device manufacturer, just as LG’s patents were exhausted in Quanta.  This means that if the SEP holder licenses a Tier 2 chip manufacturer, it cannot separately license, or collect royalties from, Tier 3 smartphone manufacturers for the same SEPs.  Qualcomm was keenly aware of the risk of patent exhaustion, which is why it refused to grant “exhaustive” licenses to chip makers like Intel. 411 F.Supp.3d at 748, 761.

If SEP royalties were standardized on a per-unit basis (e.g. $0.50 per product embodying the standard), then it would not matter whether the SEP holder licensed its SEPs at Tier 2 or Tier 3.  In either case it would receive the same payment.  However, due to longstanding industry practice, that is not how SEP royalties are calculated. Instead, they are usually based on some percentage (say 2.5%) of the price of the product embodying the standard.  So for a 4G LTE wireless radio chipset priced at $30, the royalty would be $0.75.  But for a $600 iPhone incorporating that chipset, the royalty would be $15.  For this reason, SEP holders strongly prefer to license their SEPs to end device makers (Tier 3).  As explained by one Ericsson licensing executive, “we choose to license the patents as late in value chain as possible …. One big advantage with this strategy is also that it is likely that the royalty income will be higher since we calculate the royalty on a more expensive product.” Or, as more succinctly expressed by a Qualcomm attorney at trial, licensing SEPs to device makers is “humongously” more lucrative than licensing  them to chip makers. 411 F.Supp.3d at 754, 758, 796.  The practice by which a SEP holder licenses its SEPs at only one tier of the supply chain is sometimes called “level discrimination.” (Courts and commentators disagree whether level discrimination is permitted under the nondiscrimination prong of a FRAND commitment – see this article for a discussion).

Pseudo-Licensing Deals with Chip Makers

If a SEP holder licenses its SEPs at Tier 3, what happens to the Tier 2 chip manufacturer? Does the chip that embodies the standard infringe the SEPs?  Yes, probably. Patent exhaustion only works downstream, not upstream.  That is, a smartphone manufacturer can’t infringe a SEP if it purchases a chipset from a licensed chip maker.  But a chip manufacturer can infringe a SEP even if its customer (the smartphone maker) has a license to use it.  Without a license, the Tier 2 chip maker is exposed to infringement claims by the SEP holder.

So what’s a chip maker to do?  Should it manufacture and sell chipsets that embody a standard even though it knows that it is infringing a host of SEPs?  Wouldn’t this infringement be willful, subjecting the chip maker to a risk of treble damages (see Sec. 5.2.1(1) of this chapter for a discussion of willful infringement of SEPs)?  It seems like an untenable situation for a chip maker.

To address this situation, Qualcomm appears to have developed various strategies.  In the 1990s, it granted chip makers purportedly “non-exhaustive licenses” that permitted them to manufacture chipsets covered by Qualcomm’s SEPs (in exchange for a royalty), but which explicitly excluded any license rights for the purchasers of those chipsets (9th Cir., slip op. at 14 n.7).  In Quanta, the Supreme Court rejected such a “non-exhaustive” arrangement between LG and Intel, holding that LG’s patent rights were exhausted upon Intel’s sale of covered chips to Quanta.  After this, Qualcomm amended its practices and began to enter into “CDMA ASIC Agreements” with chip makers. Under these agreements, “Qualcomm promises not to assert its patents in exchange for the company promising not to sell its chips to unlicensed [smartphone manufacturers]” (9th Cir., slip op. at 14, emphasis added).  According to the Ninth Circuit, these agreements “allow Qualcomm’s competitors to practice Qualcomm’s SEPs royalty-free” (id.).  Or, as the court pithily observed, Qualcomm’s “policy toward rival chipmakers could be characterized as ‘no license, no problem’” (id. at 35).

The Ninth Circuit found that because Qualcomm applied its “no license, no problem” policy uniformly toward all rival chip makers, it did not violate the antitrust laws.  But did Qualcomm, instead, open the door to a finding that its patents are exhausted at the chip maker level?

Do SEP Makers Inadvertently Grant Exhaustive Licenses to Chip Makers?

As observed by the Ninth Circuit, Qualcomm “promises not to assert” its SEPs against chip makers.  Its CDMA ASIC Agreements allow chip makers “to practice Qualcomm’s SEPs royalty-free”.  Ericsson, which employs a similar form of level discrimination, has referred to the result as “indirect licensing” of chip manufacturers (see Ericsson v. D-Link, 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 110585, *80 (E.D. Tx. 2013)).

In assessing whether a patent has been licensed, courts have generally looked beyond the language used by the parties.  As the Supreme Court reasoned in De Forest Radio Telephone Co. v. United States, 273 U.S. 236, 241 (1927), “No formal granting of a license is necessary in order to give it effect. Any language used by the owner of the patent, or any conduct on his part exhibited to another from which that other may properly infer that the owner consents to his use of the patent in making or using it, or selling it, upon which the other acts, constitutes a license”.

A number of lower court cases have equated a license to a ‘covenant not to sue’.  As the Federal Circuit held in Ortho Pharmaceutical Corp. v. Genetics Institute, Inc., 52 F.3d 1026, 1031 (Fed. Cir. 1995), “A license may amount to no more than a covenant by the patentee not to sue the licensee for making, using or selling the patented invention.”

Given this precedent, SEP holders’ practice of tacitly permitting chip manufacturers to operate under their patents, whether by promising not to assert or “indirectly” licensing, looks suspiciously like licensing.  And, if SEP holders are granting chip manufacturers licenses to make and sell chips under their SEPs, then those SEPs should, by rights, be exhausted upon the sale of those chips to smartphone and other device manufacturers.  And this exhaustion should thereby prevent SEP holders from seeking to license and collect royalties from Tier 3 device manufacturers who incorporate those chips into their smartphones and other products.

This result should come as no surprise to anyone, least of all Qualcomm.  According to the District Court, a Qualcomm executive admitted to the IRS in 2012 that “if Qualcomm licensed a rival [chip manufacturer] … ‘[W]hen [the rival] sell[s] that chip to somebody who’s going to put the chip in a cell phone, okay, the licensee’s sale of that chip will exhaust our rights and then we won’t be able to collect a royalty on a cell phone that’s based on the price of the cellphone’” (411 F.Supp.3d at 796).  When Huawei apparently asserted that Qualcomm’s SEPs were exhausted after selling chips to Huawei, Qualcomm allegedly “threatened to cut off [Huawei’s] chip supply” (id. at 712).

These statements and actions indicate that Qualcomm was well-aware of the threat of patent exhaustion, and actually took measures to avoid the appearance of exhaustion (e.g., by converting its chip maker license agreements into CDMA ASIC Agreements).  Yet in trying to rebut the antitrust allegations made against it, and to overturn the District Court’s antitrust holdings, Qualcomm seems to have persuaded the Ninth Circuit that it effectively grants licenses to rival chip manufacturers. And, in doing so, Qualcomm may have armed its next smartphone licensee with a potent exhaustion defense to any claim of infringement.  Ultimately, “no license, no problem” may cause big problems for Qualcomm and other SEP holders that seek to license only at the most lucrative level of the supply chain.

“No License, No Problem” – Is Qualcomm’s Ninth Circuit Antitrust Victory a Patent Exhaustion Defeat? published first on https://immigrationlawyerto.tumblr.com/

[eldermillarmissionblog]

Mission Farewell Talk

Good evening, brothers and sisters. It’s good to be able to speak to you tonight. This is definitely not how I envisioned giving my mission farewell talk, but I’m grateful for the technology that allows us to have virtual meetings like this. As Bishop mentioned, I was originally assigned to the Chiclayo Peru mission, but, due to COVID, I have been temporarily reassigned to the Scottsdale Arizona mission and I start my online missionary training this Wednesday. Regardless of where I serve, I am excited to serve my Savior and His children over the next two years and share the things that I know to be true. To start out my talk, I would like to pose a question that I want you all to think about. When was the last time you heard something on the news, or read something on social media that you just had to share? Whether it was something about the weather, politics, the current worldwide pandemic, or just some weird scientific fact. As some examples, here are random factual comments made in my family recently:

Did you know that during his entire NBA career, Shaquille O’Neil only made 1 three-pointer?

Did you know that in the United States, one in eight people have been employed by McDonald’s?

Or, did you know that squirrels are able to survive falls from almost any height because they can spread out their bodies midair and affect the terminal velocity at which they are falling?

If any of you have said something remotely similar to this, I want to congratulate you. You have everything it takes to be a disciple of Jesus Christ. To explain, the word gospel literally means “good news.” So, all we are doing is sharing good news with people. However, instead of sharing odd facts about squirrels or Shaq’s inability to make jump shots, we can share the news that God has appeared to man in our day. We have a living prophet that leads and guides this church. And through Jesus Christ and His Atoning sacrifice, we can have the opportunity to return to our Father in Heaven, and be sealed to our families for time and all eternity. It is as simple as that. But, if you are anything like me, it sometimes doesn’t feel that simple, or easy. Honestly, it can be scary to talk to someone about the gospel. It can be difficult to even open your mouth. Sometimes you feel inadequate, have doubts, or feel like you will be unable to answer questions the person might have. Maybe you are afraid of rejection, afraid of making it awkward between you and a friend, or maybe you just don’t think you have the time, energy, or talents to share the gospel. Ultimately, it can be difficult at times to do as Doctrine and Covenants section 4 says, and “embark in the service of God.” However, the gospel of Jesus Christ is not an individual religion. It is a religion centered on families and we as members of Christ’s Restored Church are called to share our faith with the human family. So, as the basis of my talk today, I want to speak on how we can set aside any doubts, fears, or obstacles we may face so that we can fully “embark” in the service of God. I hope that my message will be helpful to anyone, whether you are a member missionary, currently serving in the field like Elder Laird and Elder Eldredge, or those like me who are preparing to serve.

First, I would like to share a scripture with you all. I mentioned it briefly, but I would like to share all of it with you. 

Doctrine and Covenants section 4 states:

1 Now behold, a marvelous work is about to come forth among the children of men.

2 Therefore, O ye that embark in the service of God, see that ye serve him with all your heart, might, mind and strength, that ye may stand blameless before God at the last day.

3 Therefore, if ye have desires to serve God ye are called to the work;

4 For behold the afield is white already to harvest; and lo, he that thrusteth in his sickle with his might, the same layeth up in store that he perisheth not, but bringeth salvation to his soul;

5 And faith, hope, charity and love, with an eye single to the glory of God, qualify him for the work.

6 Remember faith, virtue, knowledge, temperance, patience, brotherly kindness, godliness, charity, humility, diligence.

7 Ask, and ye shall receive; knock, and it shall be opened unto you. Amen.

There are three points I want to highlight from this passage that I think can help us all learn how to embark in the service of God.

The first one is desire.

As it says in verse 3, “Therefore, if ye have desires to serve God ye are called to the work.” Evidently, having a desire to serve God is one of the first things necessary to embark in the service of God. But how do we have this desire? Maybe like me, your desire to serve God is incredibly strong one day, and not really there the next. Perhaps we are all like Peter and the story of him walking on water. We might at first have such a desire to serve God and we are so focused on the Savior we feel like we could walk on water. But other days we might find ourselves struggling, sinking even, due to fear, doubt, or just a lack of motivation because it seems easier to go about our own business and not share the gospel. I think Elder Uchtdorf gave some wonderful insights in his talk from the October 2019 General Conference. He said: “…mortal life has a way of distracting us, doesn’t it? We tend to lose sight of our great quest, preferring comfort and ease over growth and progress. Still, there remains something undeniable, deep within our hearts, that hungers for a higher and nobler purpose. This hunger is one reason why people are drawn to the gospel and Church of Jesus Christ. The restored gospel is, in a sense, a renewal of the call to adventure we accepted so long ago. The Savior invites us, each day, to set aside our comforts and securities and join Him on the journey of discipleship.” He continues, “So how do you begin? It’s quite simple. First, you need to choose to incline your heart to God. Strive each day to find Him. Learn to love Him. And then let that love inspire you to learn, understand, and follow His teachings and learn to keep God’s commandments.” I really like what Elder Uchtdorf said. We have to find the Savior EACH day in our lives and learn to love Him. Then, when we have found Him, and when we have love for Him, we will want to extend that love to others. We can find God in the scriptures. We can find Him when we pray. And we can find Him when we serve. It may sound counterintuitive, but if you are lacking a desire to embark in the service of God — just SERVE! My mission prep teacher at BYU told me that if I am ever lacking a desire to read the Book of Mormon, read it until I have the desire. Synonymously, if you are lacking the desire to embark in missionary work — just embark. Serve. Pray for a desire. It will come.

The next point I want to talk about from Doctrine and Covenants 4, is the principle of asking God for help in our missionary efforts. 

I think this principle is especially important for us all during this worldwide pandemic. We have all had to adjust to doing things differently, including how we approach missionary work. In my experience during these past few months, it has been hard to find opportunities to share the gospel when I am largely just at home and not seeing very many people. However, when I have asked God for assistance in guiding my missionary efforts, I have come to gain a testimony of the truth found in section 4 that says: “Ask and ye shall receive, knock and it shall be opened unto you.” Although the promptings I receive and the experiences I am led to are much different than they were before COVID-19, my prayers are still answered. Such answers have come in the form of feeling inspired to just share a scripture on social media, send a complimentary text, give time to serve others, say a prayer for a friend in need, or just be a listening ear to someone going through a hard time. These may seem like insignificant actions, and sometimes don’t even have the appearance of missionary work, but as we read in Alma 37 verse 7: “And the Lord God doth work by means to bring about his great and eternal purposes; and by very small means the Lord doth confound the wise and bringeth about the salvation of many souls.” Brothers and sisters, missionary work has changed, and as such, we are in need of wisdom from God. We need to ask Him for guidance. People are being prepared to hear the message of the Restored Gospel at this very moment, and if we but ask, the Lord can use us to help bring those people the peace and hope they desire at this time. President M. Russell Ballard, the acting president of the Quorum of the Twelve apostles said in his October 2013 address, open quote: “Trust the Lord. He is the Good Shepherd. He knows His sheep, and His sheep know His voice; and today the voice of the Good Shepherd is your voice and my voice. And if we are not engaged, many who hear the message of the Restoration will be passed by. Simply stated, it’s a matter of faith and action on our part. The principles are pretty simple — pray, personally and in your family, for missionary opportunities. The Lord has said in the Doctrine and Covenants that many people have been kept from the truth only “because they know not where to find it”. You don’t have to be an outgoing person or an eloquent, persuasive teacher. If you have an abiding love and hope within you, the Lord has promised if you “lift up your voices unto this people [and] speak the thoughts that [He] shall put into your hearts;… you shall not be confounded before men; [And] it shall be given you… in the very moment, what ye shall say.” Close quote. Ask God to guide your efforts. Ask the missionaries for ideas. Just ask. You will receive answers.

The next principle is trust.

At least for me, this is perhaps one of the hardest parts of embarking in the service of God. Once we have the desire to serve Him, we ask for guidance, and we are led to missionary opportunities, we have to have trust (or I like to refer to it as faith) that we can do and share what the Lord needs us to. As it says in section four, remember faith, for faith (along with other qualities) qualify us for the work. But how can we have faith and trust sufficient to be an instrument in the Lord’s hands? There are a few things I can think of that can help us all trust a little more in God as we engage in missionary work. 

First, it is necessary that we recognize what embarking is. I once heard a quote that said something along the lines of: Courage is not the absence of fear, but doing something despite being afraid. Similarly, embarking in the service of God does not mean we are without doubts or hesitations, it is serving God even though we have hesitations. The very essence of trusting and having faith in God is being humble enough to accept that we can’t do this alone and we need His help to overcome the obstacles that stand in our way. 

Second, we need to realize that as we embark in the service of God, our fears, doubts, and insecurities can be turned into peace and trust in the Lord. Doctrine and Covenants section 59 verse 23 reads: “He who doth the works of righteousness shall receive his reward, even peace in this world, and eternal life in the world to come.” When we trust in God and do His work, we are rewarded with peace, not just in the future, but now as we serve.

Lastly, we need to recognize that the Lord will magnify our efforts. President Henry B. Eyring said in his October 2002 General Conference address: “The Lord will magnify what you say and what you do in the eyes of the people you serve. He will send the Holy Ghost to manifest to them that what you spoke was true. What you say and do will carry hope and give direction to people far beyond your natural abilities and your own understanding. That miracle has been a mark of the Lord’s Church in every dispensation.” If we put trust in the Lord and embark in the work of God, regardless of if we mess up or fall short, He will use your efforts to bless countless people.

Brothers and sisters, embarking in the service of God may be difficult at times, but the process is remarkably simple. If we have a desire to serve God, ask Him to guide us to missionary opportunities, and trust that He has the ability to magnify our efforts despite our shortcomings, we can all be powerful instruments in the hands of God. Whether you are deciding to serve a mission, have already served one, or are a member missionary, I invite you all to embark in the service of God each and everyday. When you lose sight of the Savior, your desire to serve begins to falter, and you begin to sink like Peter on the water, call out to the Savior, He will come. Keep striving. Keep repenting. As Elder Uchtdorf said: Walking the path of discipleship takes practice—each day, little by little, “grace for grace,” “line upon line.” Sometimes two steps forward and one step back. The important thing is that you don’t give up; keep trying to get it right. You will eventually become better, happier, and more authentic. Talking with others about your faith will become normal and natural. In fact, the gospel will be such an essential, precious part of your lives that it would feel unnatural not to talk about it with others. That may not happen immediately—it is a lifelong effort. But it will happen.”

Bear testimony.

[impertinentleft]

History and Background

The Sex Discrimination Act 1984 (the Act) was introduced on 21 March 1984 by the Hawke Labor Government. It makes up part of Australia’s sparse legal framework for protections from discrimination, including on the basis of sex, race, age and disability (and religion, if the current government gets its way). 

The Act gives effect to Australia’s obligations as contained in the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women (CEDAW) and seeks to

‘eliminate discrimination against persons on the ground of sex, sexual orientation, gender identity, intersex status, marital or relationship status, pregnancy or potential pregnancy or breastfeeding in the areas of work, accommodation, education, the provision of goods, facilities and services, the disposal of land, the activities of clubs and the administration of Commonwealth laws and programs’ (section 3 of the Act).

In 2013 the then Gillard Labor Government amended the Act to introduce the words ‘sexual orientation, gender identity, intersex status, marital or relationship status’, replacing the previous version which only referred to ‘marital status’. At the time, the Attorney-General, Mark Dreyfus MP, explained that the intention was to introduce three new grounds of discrimination that would be protected: sexual orientation, gender identity and intersex status. 

However, at the same time the amendments also extended the exemptions to these prohibitions, which Dreyfus called ‘legitimate’ differential treatment, in the aid of protecting the right to freedom of religion for parents and educational institutions established for religious purposes (as found under article 18(1) of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR)).

The result was that while protections existed for Australians on the basis of these attributes, extension was also granted to the existing exemptions for bodies established for religious purposes, including religious schools. Sections 35, 36 and 50 of the Sex Discrimination Amendment (Sexual Orientation, Gender Identity and Intersex Status) Act 2013 (the Amendment Act) allowed for single-sex educational institutions and educational institutions established for religious purposes (under subsection 21(3) and section 38 of the Act) to discriminate against students (or prospective students) on the basis of sexual orientation, gender identity, marital or relationship status or pregnancy.

On 29 November 2018 Senator Penny Wong introduced an amendment, titled Sex Discrimination Amendment (Removing Discrimination Against Students) Bill 2018 (the Bill), which sought to undo these exceptions for education institutions established for religious purposes. 

Clause 1 in Schedule 1 of the Bill limits the exception in section 21 of the Act, which makes it unlawful for bodies established for religious purposes (that are also educational authorities) to refuse, or fail to accept, a person’s application for admission as a student on the ground of the person’s sex, sexual orientation, gender identity, intersex status, marital or relationship status, pregnancy or potential pregnancy, or breastfeeding. Clause 2 of Schedule 1 of the Bill removes entirely subsection 38(3) of the Act, which would make it unlawful for an educational institution to discriminate against students because of those attributes regardless of the religious susceptibilities of adherents of the doctrines, tenets, beliefs or teachings of the particular religion or creed of the school. 

Current Controversy

As Senator Wong explained, the Coalition Government, the Labor Party, the Australian Greens and cross-bench parliamentarians agreed that the Act must be changed to prevent any school from discriminating against students (Paul Karp, The Guardian, 13 Oct 2018). Wong acknowledged that the Senate Legal and Constitutional Affairs References Committee looked into these provisions and received evidence from schools that they did not want the exemptions that allowed them to discriminate against LGTQI+ students (Legislative Exemptions that Allow Faith-based Educational Institutions to Discriminate against Students, Teachers and Staff, November 2018, pp 27-30). 

Despite this, the changes introduced were met with fierce criticism and outrage by religious fanatics and conservative commentators (here, here, here, here and here to name a few). No semblance of liberalism or pluralism was to be found; and no concern for the health and well-being of LGBTQI+ children was to be found. Despite evidence that LGBTQI+ kids are harmed by such discrimination (see Lynne Hillier et al, ‘Writing Themselves in 3: The Third National Study on the Sexual Health and Wellbeing of Same Sex Attracted and Gender Questioning Young People’, 2010). Despite the overwhelming public support for removing the exceptions; 74 per cent of ‘voters oppose laws to allow religious schools to select students and teachers based on their sexual orientation, gender identity or relationship status’.

I have seen dozens of emails - and received a few phone calls - from people virulently opposed to any changes to the Sex Discrimination Act. They mistakenly believe that the changes are an assault on the power of religious schools to teach their faith. They screech about the rights of parents to exercise their religious beliefs. They demand, in capital letters, to be given an explanation for this incursion. Nobody considers the rights of the children to access education safely. And the conservative media, with the Government and its flurry of amendments, perpetuate the misrepresentation that the amendments proposed by Wong would remove the right of schools to teach religion. As demonstrated above, Senator Wong’s amendments are targeted to one purpose: removing the right to discriminate against students on the basis of their LGBTQI+ status. 

But Labor Senator Kimberly Kitching, speaking on the Bill, thought it necessary to appease these people:

‘An essential part of religious freedom is the right of parents to send their children to religious schools. It must follow from that that religious schools, whether those schools are Christian, Jewish, Islamic or indeed anything else, have a right to educate their students in a way that encourages them to adhere to the faith and practices of the religious denomination which established them’.

Senator Kitching supports the Bill, obviously, but made no mention of the impact that such protections of the sensibilities of religious people (and institutions) has on the physical and mental health of the students and children who would be subject to discrimination. The children, after all, are the ones with the least amount of power to control their lot; with the weakest capacity to stand up for themselves; and are the least equipped to be resilient in the face of violence and discrimination. In short, they are the most in need of protection by the power of the law. 

On the other hand, Senator Janet Rice of the Australian Greens reminds us of the need for:

‘every child and teacher in Australia [to have] the comfort to know that they will be respected and loved and treated equally, simply because of who they are, not because of some outdated legislation that sends a message, not just to them but to all people, that somehow the way they are is wrong or different’

And importantly, that ‘harmful attitudes, made acceptable to some in the guise of religious ethos, effectively destroy LGBTQ lives’. 

Citing a study conducted by the Australian Research Centre in Sex, Health and Society at La Trobe University, the Human Rights Law Centre, in its submission to the Senate inquiry into these exemptions, stated that ‘same-sex attracted and gender questioning young Australians with a religious background were more likely than their non-religious peers to’:

report self-harm and suicidal ideation; 

feel negatively about their same-sex attraction; 

have experienced social exclusion; 

have been subjected to homophobic language from friends; and

report homophobic abuse and feeling unsafe at home (pp 8-9).

There is no doubt in my mind that these alterations to the Sex Discrimination Act, and many more, are absolutely necessary to protect and improve the well-being of LGTQBI+ kids and teachers. No right to believe something, even if it is a religious belief, should trump society’s obligation to the most vulnerable and to the health of its constituents. The right to freedom of conscience contains more than one part: it includes the right to act (or refrain from acting) in accordance with the conscience, as well as the right to hold a particular belief. But those parts are protected differently. When the right to religion collides with the rights of another, as rights so often do, what occurs should depend on the nature of the right. 

As a society, it is beholden on us to commit to protecting the right to health of one before the protection of religious susceptibilities of another. There is no doubt that the spiritual, inner life of everyone deserves to be protected, but the basic right to survival is paramount. Surely this is especially so in the case of children who, by their nature, have a reduced capacity to fend for themselves and whose trauma will irreparably alter the rest of their lives. Because of this, if the right of one person to act according to their religious beliefs is at risk of harming another person, that action must be prohibited. The right to health trumps the right to act according to a religious belief, but not the right to hold that belief (albeit, the belief is probably hideously outdated if acting on it risks harming people). 

Critique of Rights

While I believe in the absolute necessity of changing the Sex Discrimination Act to protect the well-being of students, it must be acknowledged that the law (even with Wong’s amendments) and all of Australia’s anti discrimination acts are wholly inadequate to deal with social inequality. 

Legal rights, such as human and civil rights like those found in international treaties like the ICCPR or CEDAW, are primarily liberal, bourgeois rights. They offer formal protection for individuals from Government action on the basis of certain statuses or attributes, and largely do not provide for positive actions to undo material power imbalances. As such, they are loathed by both the right and left of the political spectrum. 

From the socially conservative right because they seek to remove formal barriers for groups of people, such as women, people with disability, people of colour, to liberal, bourgeois institutions. For example, the Voting Rights Act of 1965 (US) which attempted enfranchise African Americans in state and local elections provided for access to voting to a previous marginalised group on the basis of race. For the economically progressive left human and civil rights are preoccupied with providing equality within existing liberal institutions and capitalist structures, and do not offer much in terms of empowering workers on the basis of class status. Returning to the Voting Rights Act, while removing legal barriers for African Americans to vote in state and local elections in the US, it is wholly inadequate to remove the structural inequities of the US economic and political system which remained - there were no reparations for the horrors of slavery, and no alterations to the electoral college system (an antidemocratic and racist institution which grants undue power to the less populace states).

The Sex Discrimination Act can be criticised in the same way. It merely provides for the legal right for individuals to sue the Government, a Government agency or body, or certain government funded institutions, for discrimination on the basis of certain attributes and statuses. This preserves the institutions of the judiciary, the courts and their conservative judges and legal professionals; ignores the material disadvantage of individuals most harmed by sex discrimination and their inability to enforce any legal right; and provides for no positive obligation on the Government to rectify existing imbalances that may exist as a result of decades of discrimination that had previously been permitted.

Going Forward

The conservative Morrison Government has announced that it will refer the question of discrimination against students to a review by the Australian Law Reform Commission, and instead will focus on creating a Religious Discrimination Act, akin to the Sex Discrimination Act and others, which will provide for standalone protections for freedom of religion. This is supposedly in response to recommendations within the Ruddock Review into Religious Freedom (handed to Government on 18 May 2018, and publicly released seven months later on 13 December 2018). It’s disgusting that these amendments were made in the first place - a mere five years ago by what’s meant to be the more progressive of the major Australian political parties. But the current Government is being even more duplicitous. In order to win voters who lent more socially progressive in one electorate, the Prime Minister promised action. After losing the by-election anyway, the PM has dropped the promise altogether. We can’t be surprised though that Morrison doesn’t see the urgency in protecting the well-being of children and the right to health - this is the same PM who prays and cries for people he put into detention and subjects to cruel punishment. Despite his sorely and fiercely protected Christian beliefs (which he will sell out at every opportunity he can), Morrison is the person with the most power to stop the suffering of both LGTBQI+ kids and the children of asylum seekers on Manus and Nauru, and yet he does nothing. Save your fucking prayers. I’ll defend your right to conscience (and those religious parents and schools) when you find it. 

[christineamccalla]

Education dilemma and other international predicaments, by McCalla, Christine Ann

From: McCalla, Christine Ann and all variations thereof

To: Interpol and all variations thereof

Date: Monday, January 22, 2018

Re: Education dilemma and other international predicaments

The European Union has asserted several facts that are questionable in regards to the constraints involved and created by the document CONSOLIDATED VERSION OF

THE TREATY ON EUROPEAN UNION in which the number of the nations involved and considered to be the European Union consists primarily of multiple monarchial presence particularly given one, omitted from said documentation is said to be present and active, McCalla, Christine Ann Joseph Nicole and all variations thereof, Barony. The multiple monarchial presence and other related parties consist of the documents preamble PREAMBLE

HIS MAJESTY THE KING OF THE BELGIANS, HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN OF DENMARK, THE PRESIDENT OF THE FEDERAL REPUBLIC OF GERMANY, THE PRESIDENT OF IRELAND, THE PRESIDENT OF THE HELLENIC REPUBLIC,

HIS MAJESTY THE KING OF SPAIN, THE PRESIDENT OF THE FRENCH REPUBLIC, THE PRESIDENT OF THE ITALIAN REPUBLIC, HIS ROYAL HIGHNESS THE GRAND DUKE OF LUXEMBOURG, HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN OF THE NETHERLANDS, THE PRESIDENT OF THE PORTUGUESE REPUBLIC, HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN OF THE UNITED KINGDOM OF GREAT BRITAIN AND NORTHERN IRELAND, ( 1 ), considered to be fraudulent monarchs judicially, judiciarily, and legislatively. Furthermore, the preamble discloses that ( 1 ) The Republic of Bulgaria, the Czech Republic, the Republic of Estonia, the Republic of Croatia, the Republic of Cyprus, the Republic of Latvia, the Republic of Lithuania, the Republic of Hungary, the Republic of Malta, the Republic of Austria, the Republic of Poland, Romania, the Republic of Slovenia, the Slovak Republic, the Republic of Finland and the Kingdom of Sweden have since become members of the European Union. It appears that multiple European nations including Switzerland, Iceland, Norway, Denmark, etc. are unaccounted for and as a result, thereby excluded from the documents developmental and socio-economic efforts which in my purview is a violation of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, United Nations Covenant on International Armed Conflict, International Covenant on Torture,  15 U.S Code Section 21 Ware Finance Corp Act, 15 U.S. Code § 8 - Trusts in restraint of import trade illegal; penalty, 15 U.S. Code § 2 - Monopolizing trade a felony; penalty, 20 U.S. Code § 1221–1 - National policy with respect to equal educational opportunity, 20 U.S. Code Chapter 15 - STUDIES AND RESEARCH ON PROBLEMS IN EDUCATION, 8 U.S. Code § 1442 - Alien enemies, 34 U.S. Code § 50101 - Application for assistance, De facto government doctrine, 49 USCS § 50105  § 50105.  Fraudulent use of Made in America label, TITLE 49. TRANSPORTATION SUBTITLE VII. AVIATION PROGRAMS PART E. MISCELLANEOUS CHAPTER 501. BUY-AMERICAN PREFERENCES, 49 USCS § 50102 § 50102. Restricting contract awards because of discrimination against United States goods or services, TITLE 6. DOMESTIC SECURITY CHAPTER 1. HOMELAND SECURITY ORGANIZATION INFORMATION ANALYSIS AND INFRASTRUCTURE PROTECTION INFORMATION AND ANALYSIS AND INFRASTRUCTURE PROTECTION; ACCESS TO INFORMATION 6 USCS § 124k. Interagency Threat Assessment and Coordination Group, TITLE 6. DOMESTIC SECURITY CHAPTER 1. HOMELAND SECURITY ORGANIZATION INFORMATION ANALYSIS AND INFRASTRUCTURE PROTECTION INFORMATION AND ANALYSIS AND INFRASTRUCTURE PROTECTION; ACCESS TO INFORMATION 6 USCS § 121 § 121. Information and Analysis and Infrastructure Protection, TITLE 6. DOMESTIC SECURITY CHAPTER 1. HOMELAND SECURITY ORGANIZATION 6 USCS § 104 § 104. National biodefense strategy, 8 U.S. Code § 1724 - Chimera - Personnel management authorities for positions involved in the development and implementation of the interoperable electronic data system (“Chimera system”), economic duress doctrine, 6 U.S. Code Chapter 5 - BORDER INFRASTRUCTURE AND TECHNOLOGY MODERNIZATION, 17 U.S. Code § 1201 - Circumvention of copyright protection systems, 50 U.S. Code § 98a - Congressional findings and declaration of purpose, TITLE 18. CRIMES AND CRIMINAL PROCEDURE PART I. CRIMES CHAPTER 10. BIOLOGICAL WEAPONS 18 USCS § 175 § 175. Prohibitions with respect to biological weapons, TITLE 15. COMMERCE AND TRADE CHAPTER 101. NANOTECHNOLOGY RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT 15 USCS § 7501 § 7501. National Nanotechnology Program, TITLE 15. COMMERCE AND TRADE CHAPTER 1. MONOPOLIES AND COMBINATIONS IN RESTRAINT OF TRADE 15 USCS § 6a § 6a. Conduct involving trade or commerce with foreign nations, TITLE 42. THE PUBLIC HEALTH AND WELFARE CHAPTER 21. CIVIL RIGHTS GENERALLY 42 USCS § 1981 § 1981. Equal rights under the law, TITLE 4. FLAG AND SEAL, SEAT OF GOVERNMENT, AND THE STATES CHAPTER 4. THE STATES 4 USCS § 101 § 101. Oath by members of legislatures and officers, 17 USCS § 1309  § 1309.  Infringement, 28 USCS § 1407  § 1407.  Multidistrict litigation, Rules for Judicial-Conduct and Judicial-Disability Proceedings, Article II. Initiation of Complaint, USCS Jud. Con. And Disab. Proc. 5, Act of state doctrine, TITLE 18. CRIMES AND CRIMINAL PROCEDURE PART I. CRIMES CHAPTER 118. WAR CRIMES 18 USCS § 2441 § 2441. War crimes, 8 USCS § 1778  § 1778.  Vulnerability and threat assessment, 8 USCS § 1751  § 1751.  Study of the feasibility of a North American National Security Program, TITLE 42. THE PUBLIC HEALTH AND WELFARE CHAPTER 119. HOMELESS ASSISTANCE HOUSING ASSISTANCE EMERGENCY SOLUTIONS GRANTS PROGRAM 42 USCS § 11372 § 11372. Grant assistance, 18 USCS § 201  § 201.  Bribery of public officials and witnesses, TITLE 42. THE PUBLIC HEALTH AND WELFARE CHAPTER 21. CIVIL RIGHTS PUBLIC ACCOMMODATIONS 42 USCS § 2000a-2 § 2000a-2. Prohibition against deprivation of, interference with, and punishment for exercising rights and rights and privileges secured by 42 USCS § 2000a or 2000a-1, Emoluments Clause, 50 U.S. Code Subchapter I - COORDINATION FOR NATIONAL SECURITY, 48 CFR 1352.235-71 - Protection of human subjects - exemption, 22 USCS § 504  § 504.  Transfer of hemisphere territory from one non-American power to another; recognition; consultation with American Republics, Article 3 of the Geneva Conventions, Geneva Conventions, Convention on the Service Abroad of Judicial and Extrajudicial Documents in Civil or Commercial Matters, TITLE 42. THE PUBLIC HEALTH AND WELFARE CHAPTER 57. ENVIRONMENTAL POLLUTION STUDY 42 USCS § 4391 § 4391. Congressional statement of findings,  18 USCS § 2101  § 2101.  Riots, 18 USCS § 521  § 521.  Criminal street gangs, 18 U.S. Code § 521 - Criminal street gangs, and TITLE 18. CRIMES AND CRIMINAL PROCEDURE PART I. CRIMES CHAPTER 75. PASSPORTS AND VISAS 18 USCS § 1545 § 1545. Safe conduct violation. Furthermore, it is alleged this exclusion is in a bid to create antitrust and anti-competitive advantages, as well as undue influences and undue pressures, as alleged by European individual, “it is the only way he can sell his things and have people by them”. Additionally, McCalla, Christine Ann and all variations thereof has also been obstructed, delayed, and set morbidly to demise as a result of the discriminatory practices of the European Union. The impact to her of said discriminatory practices now extend to the pattern of stalking, financing murders, slandery, slander, deprivation, delays, and denials of her human rights dignities, financing the fraudulent ejection of higher education efforts including the alleged waitlisting to her admission to Columbia Southern University, the alleged payments for her distraction and poor performance to deny her of her stipends from Columbia Southern University she expects to live on to avoid homelessness, the alleged promises to University of Maryland University College administrative staff to ascend them into higher positions as well as disregarding their legitimacy regard illegal immigrants and war crimes status, the enticement and submission to Northcentral University into the slander and infringement of McCalla, Christine Ann and all variations thereof papers including courses Scholarly Literature Review and Statistics I for which it is alleged Northcentral University has continued to sue McCalla in the European Justice System to have return to the university for more abuse and murder. Lonnie Stevans, teacher of Statistics I at Northcentral University has denied having McCalla in his class as well as any knowledge of her. It is alleged he has poor success rates with his scholars / students and allegedly Northcentral is attempting to have McCalla return to the university to recomplete the class. Based on Stevans prior refusal of introduction of McCalla, McCalla has submitted her litigation to Interpol and all variations thereof for copyrighting and has pursued numerous litigations regarding copyrights, copyright protections, and infringements. It is alleged Columbia Southern University has now joined and is now collaborating with Northcentral University in the planned ejection in which administrators have sued to McCalla ejected from Columbia Southern on the basis a class she has not taken but was given transfer credit for was graded by the administrator and given a grade of improperly completing a course by providing solutions not included in the guidelines and recommendations of the objectives and the course itself. Furthermore, McCalla has exceeded the number of scholarly, peer reviewed sources and included additional sources including non-scholarly, peer reviewed contents including videos explaining her designs and methodologies of her statistics I final paper / assignment students and solutions. At the time, designs and methodologies were appropriate and McCalla was ascended to further studies totalling 15 credit hours. It appears Northcental and Columbia Southern Universities have now joined forced and collaborated with European prostitutes, weapons dealers and traffickers, pimps, war criminals, and genocide designers in seeking fundings using the brand McCalla, Christine Ann and all variations thereof. It is the habit of Northcentral University to fraudulently eject their students, finance dilemmas including homelessness as is the case with my current shelter Franciscan Outreach and its administrators, pay for denizens to rent spaces to me, pay the community in general to ostracize me, and pay for people murder. Christina Boche, execution survivor, prostitute, pimp, and my former academic advisor, has the habit of walking throughout the European Union using my name as a source of reference to organized crime and mass debt often claiming, “I fucking know Christine McCalla and I can do whatever I what to her”. I have requested numerous writs of discoveries to support my claims of these criminalities. To prove the level of abuse, kindly insert the criminalities of my academic career including institution and personnel and crimes along with results including convictions and executions, while in the United States of America in her democracy and all variations thereof. I have attended Montgomery College in the state of Maryland, University of Maryland University College, also in the state of Maryland, Northcentral University in Arizona, and now about to begin Columbia Southern University effective January 24, 2017. I arrived in the United States of America in her democracy and all variations thereof on July 16, 1997 with an immigration status of permanent resident although Susan Smith Percoshius has attempted to deport me uncountable number of times. Furthermore, the European nations including European Union, European Council, and European Commission and all variants and variations thereof, and their criminal enterprises including organized crime, has recruited and retained the several internationally involving all continents to dispose of me, the Barony. My efforts in resistance have been prosecutions and litigations internationally and always through Interpol, requests for executions, attempts to correct the European laws and treaties that are fraudulent including their multiple monarchs. I have also made substantial efforts in international socio-economic developments funded by the UN, including the placements of wardships and receiverships by CURIA, UN/United Nation, and UNWatch. As long as the European denizenry is able to commit crimes including war crimes and genocide, McCalla, Christine Ann and all variations thereof will always be at a disadvantage including the pursuit by China, Syria, Egypt, and other nations to allegedly drive out of my shelter as was the case at the University of Maryland University College, Northcentral University, and now Columbia Southern University. There is also the duress by the denizenry of the United States of America in her democracy and all variations thereof to force me to assume fraudulent aliases although I have given writ by judicial amplifiers that my name cannot be changed in light of fraudulent governmental interference on an international basis. This is nothing new as was the case of an illegal Swedish immigrant to run for US presidency, illegal immigrants staffing Department of Education, Department of Defense being a mercenary fee for service business staff by felonious civilians including war criminals and illegal immigrants, Department of Health including its Centers for Diseases Control and Prevention, and Department of Health and Human Services including chancellory positions. The delegation by European denizenry in my demise as well as the promulgation of fraud, fraudulence, and discriminatory practices including to its own nation excluded from content and its need to embargo itself as well as create deceptive antitrust and anticompetition norms, mores, practices, and behaviors.

The actions of the European denizenry including its Council and Commission violates its CONSOLIDATED VERSION OF THE TREATY ON EUROPEAN UNION it authorizes all continents and the international community to professionally and personnally violate its scapegoat McCalla, Christine Ann and all variations thereof, to account for debt to acquire, service, or extinguish, to account for criminal actions, as a brand to criminality regardless of the substantial effort she has exerted to bring attention to charges, execution, and fines, the authorities given to criminalities to bring hardship to McCalla, Christine Ann and all variations and inclusive of war criminals to make McCalla suffer as their fraudulent monarchial presence must be acknowledged and she is a usurper.  wherein it claims,

DETERMINED to promote economic and social progress for their peoples, taking into account the principle of sustainable development and within the context of the accomplishment of the internal market and of reinforced cohesion and environmental protection, and to implement policies ensuring that advances in economic integration are accompanied by parallel progress in other fields,

RESOLVED to establish a citizenship common to nationals of their countries,

RESOLVED to implement a common foreign and security policy including the progressive framing of a common defence policy, which might lead to a common defence in accordance with the provisions of Article 42, thereby reinforcing the European identity and its independence in order to promote peace, security and progress in Europe and in the world,

RESOLVED to facilitate the free movement of persons, while ensuring the safety and security of their peoples, by establishing an area of freedom, security and justice, in accordance with the provisions of this Treaty and of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,

RESOLVED to continue the process of creating an ever closer union among the peoples of Europe, in which decisions are taken as closely as possible to the citizen in accordance with the principle of subsidiarity.

CONSOLIDATED VERSION OF THE TREATY ON EUROPEAN UNION as set forth by the European governance and denizenry is not being upheld as their actions including previous filings, litigations, and prosecutions, violate, its statutes,

Article 3 (ex Article 2 TEU) 1. The Union's aim is to promote peace, its values and the well-being of its peoples. VIOLATED McCALLA, CHRISTINE ANN AND ALL VARIATIONS THEREOF INHERENT HUMANITY AND INTERNATIONAL COVENANT ON CIVIL AND POLITICAL RIGHTS. 2. The Union shall offer its citizens an area of freedom, security and justice without internal frontiers, in which the free movement of persons is ensured in conjunction with appropriate measures with respect to external border controls, asylum, immigration and the prevention and combating of crime. VIOLATED McCALLA, CHRISTINE ANN AND ALL VARIATIONS THEREOF INHERENT HUMANITY AND INTERNATIONAL COVENANT ON CIVIL AND POLITICAL RIGHTS. 3. The Union shall establish an internal market. It shall work for the sustainable development of Europe based on balanced economic growth and price stability, a highly competitive social market economy, aiming at full employment and social progress, and a high level of protection and improvement of the quality of the environment, It shall promote scientific and tech­nological advance. It shall combat social exclusion and discrimination, and shall promote social justice and protection, equality between women and men, solidarity between generations and protection of the rights of the child. VIOLATED McCALLA, CHRISTINE ANN AND ALL VARIATIONS THEREOF INHERENT HUMANITY AND INTERNATIONAL COVENANT ON CIVIL AND POLITICAL RIGHTS. 5. In its relations with the wider world, the Union shall uphold and promote its values and

interests and contribute to the protection of its citizens. It shall contribute to peace, security, the

sustainable development of the Earth, solidarity and mutual respect among peoples, free and fair trade, eradication of poverty and the protection of human rights, in particular the rights of the child, as well as to the strict observance and the development of international law, including respect for the principles of the United Nations Charter. VIOLATED McCALLA, CHRISTINE ANN AND ALL VARIATIONS THEREOF INHERENT HUMANITY AND INTERNATIONAL COVENANT ON CIVIL AND POLITICAL RIGHTS. CONSPIRED TO MURDER, CREATE FORCED MENTAL INCAPACITATION, AND INCARCERATION OF McCALLA, CHRISTINE ANN AND ALL VARIATIONS THEREOF, CURIA, UN/UNITED NATION, AND UNWATCH’S PERSONNEL AND THEIR GOVERNANCE AS WELL AS DISSOLUTION OF THE AGENCIES CURIA, UN/UNITED NATION, AND UNWATCH.

6. The Union shall pursue its objectives by appropriate means commensurate

competences which are conferred upon it in the Treaties. VIOLATED McCALLA, CHRISTINE ANN AND ALL VARIATIONS THEREOF, CURIA, UN/UNITED NATION, AND UNWATCH’s INHERENT HUMANITY AND INTERNATIONAL COVENANT ON CIVIL AND POLITICAL RIGHTS, AS WELL AS OPTIMIZED INFRINGEMENTS TO CREATE FRAUDULENT GOVERNANCE AND GOVERNANCE STRUCTURES INCLUDING DIRECTORIATES, REGIONS, EDUCATION AND CREDENTIALS, AND CONTINENTS.

ALSO VIOLATED McCALLA, CHRISTINE ANN AND ALL VARIATIONS THEREOF, CURIA, UN/UNITED NATION, AND UNWATCH’s INHERENT HUMANITY AND INTERNATIONAL COVENANT ON CIVIL AND POLITICAL RIGHTS, AS WELL AS OPTIMIZED INFRINGEMENTS TO CREATE FRAUDULENT GOVERNANCE AND GOVERNANCE STRUCTURES INCLUDING DIRECTORIATES, REGIONS, EDUCATION AND CREDENTIALS, AND CONTINENTS REGARDING ARTICLE 4,

Article 4

1. In accordance with Article 5, competences not conferred upon the Union in the Treaties

remain with the Member States.

2. The Union shall respect the equality of Member States before the Treaties as well as their

national identities, inherent in their fundamental structures, political and constitutional, inclusive of regional and local self-government. It shall respect their essential State functions, including ensuring the territorial integrity of the State, maintaining law and order and safeguarding national security. In particular, national security remains the sole responsibility of each Member State.

3. Pursuant to the principle of sincere cooperation, the Union and the Member States shall, in full

mutual respect, assist each other in carrying out tasks which flow from the Treaties.

The Member States shall take any appropriate measure, general or particular, to ensure fulfilment of the obligations arising out of the Treaties or resulting from the acts of the institutions of the Union. The Member States shall facilitate the achievement of the Union's tasks and refrain from any measure which could jeopardise the attainment of the Union's objectives.

McCalla, Christine Ann and all variations thereof has had to prosecute her own crimes which resulted in an advantage to her as no one can undue influence and advantage over her.

THIS DOCUMENT IN QUESTION HAS PROVEN THAT MORE ETHICAL, TRANSPARENT, AND OPEN GOVERNANCE OF THE EUROPEAN NATIONS ARE REQUIRED GIVEN THAT THE PARLIAMENTS SUBORN PERJURY AND FRAUD AS DESCRIBED BY Article 7

(ex Article 7 TEU), WHEREIN THE ENTIRE ARTICLE HAS HELD THE EUROPEAN NATIONS ACCOUNTABLE FOR ITS FRAUDULENT ACTIONS.

Article 7

(ex Article 7 TEU)

1. On a reasoned proposal by one third of the Member States, by the European Parliament or by

the European Commission, the Council, acting by a majority of four fifths of its members after

obtaining the consent of the European Parliament, may determine that there is a clear risk of a

serious breach by a Member State of the values referred to in Article 2. Before making such a

determination, the Council shall hear the Member State in question and may address recommen­

dations to it, acting in accordance with the same procedure.

The Council shall regularly verify that the grounds on which such a determination was made

continue to apply.

2. The European Council, acting by unanimity on a proposal by one third of the Member States

or by the Commission and after obtaining the consent of the European Parliament, may determine the existence of a serious and persistent breach by a Member State of the values referred to in Article 2, after inviting the Member State in question to submit its observations.

3. Where a determination under paragraph 2 has been made, the Council, acting by a qualified

majority, may decide to suspend certain of the rights deriving from the application of the Treaties to the Member State in question, including the voting rights of the representative of the government of that Member State in the Council. In doing so, the Council shall take into account the possible consequences of such a suspension on the rights and obligations of natural and legal persons The obligations of the Member State in question under the Treaties shall in any case continue to be binding on that State.

4. The Council, acting by a qualified majority, may decide subsequently to vary or revoke

measures taken under paragraph 3 in response to changes in the situation which led to their

being imposed.

5. The voting arrangements applying to the European Parliament, the European Council and

the Council for the purposes of this Article are laid down in Article 354 of the Treaty on the

Functioning of the European Union.

The TREATY ESTABLISHING A CONSTITUTION FOR EUROPE violates and conflicts the CONSOLIDATED VERSION OF THE TREATY ON EUROPEAN UNION in its entirety, particularly through the exclusion of nations as member nations with PART II — THE CHARTER OF FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS OF THE UNION, PART III — THE POLICIES AND FUNCTIONING OF THE UNION, CHAPTER IV — AREA OF FREEDOM, SECURITY AND JUSTICE, CHAPTER IV — COOPERATION WITH THIRD COUNTRIES AND HUMANITARIAN AID, etc. These conflicts and violations including the ostracism, discriminations, and discriminatory practices, PART I,  OBJECTIVES OF THE UNION, TITLE I DEFINITION AND OBJECTIVES OF THE UNION,

Article I-1

Establishment of the Union

1. Reflecting the will of the citizens and States of Europe to build a common future, this

Constitution establishes the European Union, on which the Member States confer competences to attain objectives they have in common. The Union shall coordinate the policies by which the

Member States aim to achieve these objectives, and shall exercise on a Community basis the

competences they confer on it.

2. The Union shall be open to all European States which respect its values and are committed to

promoting them together

Article I-2

The Union's values

The Union is founded on the values of respect for human dignity, freedom, democracy, equality, the rule of law and respect for human rights, including the rights of persons belonging to minorities.

These values are common to the Member States in a society in which pluralism, non-discrimination, tolerance, justice, solidarity and equality between women and men prevail.

Article I-3

The Union's objectives

1. The Union's aim is to promote peace, its values and the well-being of its peoples.

2. The Union shall offer its citizens an area of freedom, security and justice without internal

frontiers, and an internal market where competition is free and undistorted.

3. The Union shall work for the sustainable development of Europe based on balanced economic growth and price stability, a highly competitive social market economy, aiming at full employment and social progress, and a high level of protection and improvement of the quality of the environment. It shall promote scientific and technological advance.

It shall combat social exclusion and discrimination, and shall promote social justice and protection, equality between women and men, solidarity between generations and protection of the rights of the child.

It shall promote economic, social and territorial cohesion, and solidarity among Member States.

It shall respect its rich cultural and linguistic diversity, and shall ensure that Europe's cultural heritage is safeguarded and enhanced.

4. In its relations with the wider world, the Union shall uphold and promote its values and

interests. It shall contribute to peace, security, the sustainable development of the Earth, solidarity and mutual respect among peoples, free and fair trade, eradication of poverty and the protection of human rights, in particular the rights of the child, as well as to the strict observance and the development of international law, including respect for the principles of the United Nations Charter.

5. The Union shall pursue its objectives by appropriate means commensurate with the competences which are conferred upon it in the Constitution.

Article I-4

Fundamental freedoms and non-discrimination

1. The free movement of persons, services, goods and capital, and freedom of establishment shall be guaranteed within and by the Union, in accordance with the Constitution.

2. Within the scope of the Constitution, and without prejudice to any of its specific provisions, any discrimination on grounds of nationality shall be prohibited.

Article I-5

Relations between the Union and the Member States

1. The union shall respect the equality of Member States before the constitution as well as their

national identities, inherent in their fundamental structures, political and constitutional, inclusive of regional and local self-government. it shall respect their essential State functions, including ensuring the territorial integrity of the State, maintaining law and order and safeguarding national security.

2. Pursuant to the principle of sincere cooperation, the Union and the Member States shall, in full

mutual respect, assist each other in carrying out tasks which flow from the Constitution.

The Member States shall take any appropriate measure, general or particular, to ensure fulfilment of the obligations arising out of the Constitution or resulting from the acts of the institutions of the Union.

The Member States shall facilitate the achievement of the Union's tasks and refrain from any measure which could jeopardise the attainment of the Union's objectives.

Article I-9

Fundamental rights

1. The Union shall recognise the rights, freedoms and principles set out in the Charter of

Fundamental Rights which constitutes Part II.

2. The Union shall accede to the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and

Fundamental Freedoms. Such accession shall not affect the Union's competences as defined in the Constitution.

3. Fundamental rights, as guaranteed by the European Convention for the Protection of

Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms and as they result from the constitutional traditions

common to the Member States, shall constitute general principles of the Union's law.

Article I-10

Citizenship of the Union

1. Every national of a Member State shall be a citizen of the Union. Citizenship of the Union shall

be additional to national citizenship and shall not replace it.

2. Citizens of the Union shall enjoy the rights and be subject to the duties provided for in the

Constitution. They shall have:

(a) the right to move and reside freely within the territory of the Member States;

(b) the right to vote and to stand as candidates in elections to the European Parliament and in

municipal elections in their Member State of residence, under the same conditions as nationals of that State;

(c) the right to enjoy, in the territory of a third country in which the Member State of which they are nationals is not represented, the protection of the diplomatic and consular authorities of any

Member State on the same conditions as the nationals of that State;

(d) the right to petition the European Parliament, to apply to the European Ombudsman, and to

address the institutions and advisory bodies of the Union in any of the Constitution's languages

and to obtain a reply in the same language.

These rights shall be exercised in accordance with the conditions and limits defined by the

Constitution and by the measures adopted thereunder.

TITLE III

UNION COMPETENCES

Article I-11

Fundamental principles

1. The limits of Union competences are governed by the principle of conferral. The use of Union

competences is governed by the principles of subsidiarity and proportionality.

2. Under the principle of conferral, the Union shall act within the limits of the competences

conferred upon it by the Member States in the Constitution to attain the objectives set out in the

Constitution. Competences not conferred upon the Union in the Constitution remain with the

Member States.

3. Under the principle of subsidiarity, in areas which do not fall within its exclusive competence,

the Union shall act only if and insofar as the objectives of the proposed action cannot be sufficiently achieved by the Member States, either at central level or at regional and local level, but can rather, by reason of the scale or effects of the proposed action, be better achieved at Union level. The institutions of the Union shall apply the principle of subsidiarity as laid down in the Protocol on the application of the principles of subsidiarity and proportionality. National Parliaments shall ensure compliance with that principle in accordance with the procedure set out in that Protocol.

4. Under the principle of proportionality, the content and form of Union action shall not exceed

what is necessary to achieve the objectives of the Constitution.

The institutions of the Union shall apply the principle of proportionality as laid down in the Protocol on the application of the principles of subsidiarity and proportionality.

Writ of dissolution to the European Union, European Commission, European Parliament, and the European Council with reformation in writ of discovery, full disclosure, and transparency, to ensure a future free from fraud, human rights violation, war crimes, lack of socio-economic and political developments, and to ensure ethics, integrity, uniformity, and compliance with the law on a international basis. Furthermore, the reformation shall include no violation of statutes and all variants and variations thereof including fraudulent monarchs and monarchial presence, but shall recognize the legitimate monarch as McCalla, Christine Ann and all variations thereof and McCalla, Christine Ann Joseph Nicole, Barony, and all variations thereof. As was the custom with my bloodline at the time of Imposter, “Queen Victoria”, the chair of the monarchy belongs to the Barony. Get out!, set eternally, transferable and attached, et al.

Writ of prevention of the ascension of fraud including by bloodlines to European Union, European Commission, European Parliament, and the European Council with reformation in writ of discovery, full disclosure, and transparency, to ensure a future free from fraud, human rights violation, war crimes, lack of socio-economic and political developments, and to ensure ethics, integrity, uniformity, and compliance with the law on a international basis. Furthermore, writ of prevention to the ascension of infringements and imposters including monarchial presence, directoriates, governance, and members of governance, set eternally, transferable and attached, et al

[johnchiarello]

Corinthians 8-10

Corinthians 8-10

 Blog- www.corpuschristioutreachministries.blogspot.com

Facebook- https://www.facebook.com/john.chiarello.5?ref=bookmarks

Youtube- https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCZ4GsqTEVWRm0HxQTLsifvg?view_as=subscriber

Other sites- https://ccoutreach87.com/links-to-my-sites-updated-10-2018/  

Cloud links- https://ccoutreach87.com/cloud-links-12-2018/

Youtube Playlist- https://ccoutreach87.com/youtube-playlist/

[Links to all my sites at the bottom of this post]

NOTE- Every so often some of my sites think I am Spam- or a Bot- I am not. My name is John Chiarello and I post original content [all videos and text are by me]. I do share my past posts from my other sites- but it is not spam- Thank you- John.

  1st CORINTHIANS 8- Once again Paul will deal with the issue of what’s clean or unclean, the Christians convictions. Corinth not only had low sexual standards, but also much idolatry. This led to a problem of whether or not believers should purchase the meat sold in the market that was used for idol worship. After the sacrifice was made, whatever good meat was left could be sold on the streets. Now, Paul says the believer knows there is only one true God, so with this knowledge you are not sinning because you know the meat really wasn’t used to worship other gods, because there are no other Gods! But he also says that every man does not have this knowledge. So just like he taught the Romans, he teaches the Corinthians that in all of your freedom, the highest standard is whether you are building others up or tearing them down. If you have a free conscience to eat the meat, then fine, it is no sin to you. But if this liberty is offending the minds of those who are weaker in the faith, then your freedom just became a stumbling block and worked against the main goal of building others up. So the real question isn’t ‘can I do this with a clean conscience’ but ‘does my practice offend or build others up’? Many years ago I had a friend who smoked cigars, he was a believer and simply saw nothing wrong with it. We had a mutual friend who found out about it and bought some cigars and gagged on them. His conscience was emboldened to ‘eat the meat’ and by doing it he sinned. Why was cigar smoking sin to the weaker brother? Because he really wasn’t doing it out of a pure heart with a clean motive. Though the cigar smoker felt he had the freedom to smoke [it wasn’t an every day thing] yet his freedom caused another to fall. So Paul consistently takes this position in his letters. Some day we will get to other verses like ‘the things the gentiles offer to idols are being offered to demons, so don’t partake with them at the same table’ this is dealing with a different thing, I’ll explain it at another time. Paul also says ‘knowledge puffs up, but charity builds up’. One of the side trails believers can easily fall into is thinking the Christian life is simply an exercise is learning things. That is knowledge for knowledge’s sake. While Paul was not advocating ignorance, he was dealing with carnal believers who walked in pride. He was showing them that those who think they stand should be careful lest they fall. Paul was calling them to a higher purpose than just learning scripture and applying it for personal satisfaction, he was calling them to live sacrificially, to take the wrong done to you [legally in court stuff]. To give up the freedom to ‘smoke cigars’ if you will, for the sake of others. Paul was teaching them that it was possible to be right and have the answers to back up your position, but if you are truly not dieing to self, you are simply getting ‘puffed up’.

 (966)1ST CORINTHIANS 9:1-14 Paul defends his apostleship and gives a strong defense for the New Testament doctrine of financially supporting Christian leaders. Now, I never want to be one of those types of teachers who skews or bypasses scriptures that seem to contradict previous teachings. It’s common for good men to do this, all leaders need to avoid doing it. Recently I added my comments to a debate that raged in the blogasphere. You had Frank Viola put out the book ‘Pagan Christianity’ [good book, I read and do recommend it] and another good theologian, Ben Witherington, gave a good critique [I also recommend Bens site, you can find both Frank and Ben’s sites on my blog roll]. Part of the debate hinged on the financial support of elders/ministers. I must admit I fell on Ben’s side in this argument, though I probably would agree with Frank around 90 % of the time on all the other stuff. Ben argued for the biblical mandate to support elders, frank seems to teach the support of apostles [itinerant workers] is okay, but does not leave room for the support of elders who live in the community. Now, you really need to read all I have written under the ‘what in the world is the church’ section of this blog to get my full view on all of this stuff, but this section of Corinthians makes this stuff pretty clear. Paul says ‘I have the right not to work and only live off of the offerings of the people’. So Paul defends this practice, but he also says ‘I choose not to use it’. He also uses two interesting examples from ‘the law’ [Old Testament] to defend the financial support of leaders. ‘The Ox who is treading out the corn shouldn’t be muzzled’ and ‘the priests who serve at the altar get to eat the meat from the sacrifices’. What is the most obvious example that he does not use? The tithe! I would say this is one of the best proofs for the tithe not being a normative practice of the early church. But Paul does use the other examples to say its right to financially support those who labor among you. But Paul has also given examples to elders [read my Acts 20 commentary] to show them that they are not in this for the money! Paul will actually defend the practice of working and not taking money from the believers. So we see a wide range of freedom in this area. I feel the biblical example is it is fine to financially support Christian leadership who are dedicating their lives to teaching and ministering the word. It is also fine to not use these ‘rights’ as a Christian leader. But nowhere are we taught a type of Levitical tithe system for the support of Christian leaders. Why? Paul’s main message was one of grace and coming out from the requirements of the law. To have used the tithe as an example to give financially would have been counterproductive to his whole message. Eventually believers would come to view ‘the church’ and ‘the priest/pastor’ as the single head of ‘the church building’ who would be supported like a Levite who served as a priest under the old covenant [bring all the tithes into the storehouse type concept]. This legalistic view of ‘the church’ is prevalent today in much of Christendom, both Catholics and Protestants seem to cling to this limited view of the church. The modern house church movement is giving the old view quite a run for its money! But let’s not throw out the baby with the bath water. Paul said its okay to financially support Christian leadership among you, just don’t see it as a tithe that is supporting some type of Christian New Testament Levitical priest!

 (969)1ST CORINTHIANS 9:15-27 I have a letter sitting here from some northern radio station. I guess these guys hear us some how? It’s a great offer to be on 140 stations for next to nothing [$140.00 a month]. I have had radio stations write us before. I choose to stay small so I can be consistent in not taking offerings. I am sure if I took offerings I could easily expand like this, but I think I need to set the example for others. This fits in with the following.

Now Paul will say ‘I would rather die than take money from you’ [and you guys think  I’m an over reactor!] and also ‘I don’t take money from you because I want to make the gospel free of charge’. Remember, this is in the same chapter where he says it’s okay to support leaders financially. But yet he also makes these strong statements. Does Paul contradict himself? Some have tried to harmonize these statements by either saying Paul wasn’t really teaching the financial support of elders, or by saying Paul only restricted taking money from the Corinthians. Both of these are not true [Read my Acts 20 study]. Paul was hard on whatever group he was addressing. If he is speaking directly to the local saints, he says ‘you should make sacrifice and support those who labor among you’ but to the elders/leaders he says ‘I worked with my own hands while among you [elders!] to give you an example not to expect the people to support you’ [Acts 20]. He appeals to both sides to lay down their rights and give themselves away freely! He also says he adapts to every type of situation, he ‘becomes all things to all men, that he might save them’. He also brings his body under discipline so that after preaching to others, he himself will not be ‘cast away’. In my Proverbs reading I just came across ‘he that has no rule over his own spirit is like a city that is broken down and without walls’. God wants you to succeed and accomplish things, the enemy wants to sidetrack you. Allow God to have the upper hand, let the fruit of ‘self control’ [one of the fruits of the Spirit] abide in you. Now remember, Paul says ‘they do it to obtain a corruptible crown’ [material, temporary stuff. Money included] but we do it [discipline ourselves] for an ‘incorruptible crown’. The scripture is filled with examples that contrast money [material rewards] with true spiritual riches. In these examples the scripture teaches us to expend our time and efforts in building a spiritual heritage as opposed to a financial one. Yet some will even use this scripture ‘running the race’ and apply it to stuff! Ahh, when we do stuff like this we are ‘reading/quoting scripture’ without truly knowing it. Jesus told the religious leaders ‘you search the scriptures because by doing this you think you have eternal life, but you will not come to me that you might have life’. It’s possible to spend your whole life searching scripture [for what you want] and still miss the chief cornerstone! [the main point]

 (970) CORINTHIANS ‘woe is unto me if I preach not the gospel’ ‘they which preach the gospel should live by the gospel’. Let me do a quick review before we jump into chapter 10. Over the years of re-learning the style and function of the New Testament church, it took time to read these scriptures without superimposing my preconceived ideas upon the text. For instance, you could easily read these verses and simply fit them into the ‘church building’ [as the church!] mindset. I know of, and have partaken of, the excitement that preachers experience when they ‘preach the gospel’. It’s a fulfilling thing. But the problem is much of the present day church follows a program where one main person becomes the attraction of the community. We live and hear and vicariously learn thru the growth experiences of a single individual. Now, we don’t realize that this is not the main intent of meeting together as a community. God originally intended for his people to share as a community of grace. There are specific warnings in the New Testament to avoid the Christian community’s penchant to identify around an individuals giftings [we actually just covered some of these in this study]. But when we simply read ‘they which preach the gospel should live of it’ we think this is justifying the present day context. It really simply meant that those in the community with the ability to read and teach should be taken care of while they are giving themselves for the benefit of others. The first century believer’s could not all read, the majority probably were illiterate. This created a need for those who were literate to actually read Paul’s letters out loud in the assembly. These sincere men were not modern day full time Pastors! This is why it’s important to read the scripture with historical context in mind. When I meet with the brothers, or travel to another town. I usually simply ask the guys ‘what’s the Lord been saying, do you have a word to share’? And sure enough, by the time our fellowship is over most everyone feels edified because they gave of themselves for others. One of my homeless friends is an excellent teacher. Believe me, he knows more scripture than many Pastors. He excels in this environment. There is really no need for one person [like myself!] to dominate the conversation, or to think that my calling entails me being the primary voice of the community. Sometimes when I find myself at some Christian function, I can tell that when people find out that you speak on the radio, that they kinda want you to preach. I always [yes always!] avoid it. Not because it would be wrong to teach, but the modern church has made such a profession out of it, that the average saint never really expresses himself on a regular basis. God never intended the church to be a place where people learn and grow and experience most of their Christian lives thru the experiences and gifts of one person. I just wanted to challenge you today with these few verses. When you just read them did you see them thru the old mindset? Don’t feel bad about it, just allow the Lord to ‘re-wire’ your brain as we continue to teach thru the New Testament. We find stuff like this all the way thru.

 (971) THE PLAYPIPE AND THE ‘RED LINE’- Well it’s been a while since I gave an example from the fire Dept. I was thinking of this the other day and still get a laugh out of them. On our rookie tests at the fire dept. the captains and chief would make up questions to test the guys. One question would ask ‘how many parts are there to a playpipe’ [a type of nozzle for the fire hose]. The answer would say something like ‘5’. One of the expected ‘parts’ was ‘the playpipe itself’. Well that’s like asking ‘how many parts to a car’ and the answer being ‘the wheels, motor, windshield, and the car itself’. The ‘car itself’ cant be a part of ‘the car’. What you could say is ‘the body/chassis’. So the poor rookies who would get the question wrong were actually right. The funny part was trying to explain this to the captain. In his mind he couldn’t see what he was trying to say was ‘the shaft’ [the actual pipe part of the nozzle]. The other funny thing was on one of the fire trucks we had what was called a ‘booster line’ [or red line]. Most of the modern trucks had red hose for this line. So it was common to call it ‘the red line’. The problem was one of the old trucks had a black hose for the ‘booster line’. So the question would ask ‘what color is the red line on unit 104’. So the poor rookie, who wasn’t really around long enough to memorize all the hose colors, what put ‘red’. You simply would think this was a gimme question, a trick question. It would be like asking ‘what color is the red truck’. The problem was the poor rookies would answer ‘red’ and to their dismay they would get it wrong. The ‘red line is black’! Once again, trying to explain this to the test makers was like trying to convert the Pope to Protestantism! The captain would insist ‘the red line is black’! Not realizing what they should have said was ‘what color is the booster line’.

 (972)1ST CORINTHIANS 10:1-4 it’s actually Christmas morning, 2008, as I write. Paul says ‘all of our forefathers were under the cloud, they were all baptized unto Moses in the cloud and sea’. Note- 2 baptisms ‘Cloud’ [Spirit] ‘Sea’ [water]. Let’s do a little thinking here. How can Paul refer to the Jewish fathers as the Corinthians forefathers? Is he expecting a large Jewish group to read this letter? [Like Romans- both Jews and Gentiles were in mind]. Is he addressing them like the author of Hebrews, who is speaking directly to a nation in transition? While it’s possible for a few Jewish believers to have read/heard the reading of this letter. Yet I think Paul is simply being consistent with his letters to the Galatians and Romans, where he taught that all who would believe were the ‘children of Abraham by faith’ Abraham is ‘the father of many nations’. Now, I like the way Paul ‘spiritualizes’ here. Moses was the prophet who typified Jesus. The people were baptized [joined] to him both thru the good times and the bad. There was quite a rough history between Moses and the rebels! Times where they wanted to change leadership. Times where God even said ‘I have had it with this bunch, let’s just wipe them out and start over’. They had history. Also Paul says ‘they all ate of the same spiritual meat and drank from the same spiritual rock. Christ’. Again, Paul seems to teach the symbolic, as opposed to literal, view of ‘eating/drinking Christ’. Israel did have some physical ordinances in the wilderness. The Passover and the bread from heaven [Manna] already happened. But Jesus himself [John 6] would say ‘Moses didn’t give you the real bread, I am the real bread!’. So Paul’s use of the ‘Rock’ is purely symbolic. The story relates to the time where God gave the children of Israel water from an actual rock in the wilderness. Moses spoke to/struck the rock and water came out. Paul sees this as a symbolic picture. He is saying ‘this foreshadowed Christ, the true rock who would be the ‘Rock of ages’ who would be struck on the Cross and water would flow from his side’. Once again, this leaves us some context to interpret the Lords supper in a symbolic way. Was Paul teaching the Corinthians to go out in the fields and actually drink real water from a rock? No. He was simply saying these physical symbols would be fulfilled at a future time, and that time was now! All who believe in Christ are partaking [spiritually] of the water of life, the Holy Spirit. Tomorrow we will get into the examples that were left to us from these stories. I just want to mention that the Apostle Paul freely uses the Old Testament [his only bible at the time!] and applies these stories to both Gentile believers and 1st century Israel. The writer of Hebrews [who I think was Paul] says ‘just like the forefathers missed out on the promise by unbelief- entering the promised land- so too there is a danger that you, 1st century Israel, might miss out on eternal life by not receiving the Messiah by faith’. In this context, Israel of the Old Testament represents Israel in the first century. But when addressing a gentile church [Corinth] it is also okay for Paul to say ‘just like Israel faced physical death by being disobedient, so you too have had premature physical deaths in your community by rebelling against God’. In this comparison Israel [Old Testament] is simply being used as an example of God judging his covenant people for their disobedience. I feel these distinctions are important, they help us to keep the New Testament in context.

 (973)1ST CORINTHIANS 10:5-13 Paul warns the Corinthians not to fall for the same temptations that Israel committed in the wilderness. ‘Don’t sin sexually, don’t complain about stuff [ouch!] don’t be idolaters [lovers of your cash flow!]’ basic sins that effect us all. He also says something interesting ‘you are now those upon whom the end of the world [age] has come’. Not the ‘end of existence’ but the time period where Gods fullness has come [Galatians 4]. I find this interesting. The first century Apostles saw the breaking in of the Kingdom of God, thru Christ, as the event and ‘moment’ that all human history hinged upon. There was a real sense of ‘this is the special kairos season that all men have been waiting for’. The New Testament teaches that even the angels were waiting to see this day. One of the errors of dispensationalism was the idea that the important, main event was still some future happening [the second coming]. While it is true that this event will happen, and it will be glorious. Yet there was a sense in scripture that said the time of Christ’s death, burial and resurrection was the act of reconciliation that turned the destiny of man. Paul in essence was saying to the Corinthians ‘you don’t understand the full import of all that the Father has called you to. You are part of the most important movement in human history, all humanity has been waiting for this season, the ‘ends of the ages’ have come to this point. Don’t blow it for heavens sake’! Got it? Let’s grasp the fact that we too are part of this ‘time period’ [the new covenant kingdom age] and realize that our forefathers are watching from the stands [Hebrews]. Let’s not blow it [I was going to say ‘like the Cowboys’ but this gets too many locals mad].

 (974)1ST CORINTHIANS 10: 5 ‘But with many of them God was not well pleased, for their bodies were scattered in the wilderness’. As I just sat down and was debating on how much to cover, I felt the Lord wanted me to stop with this one verse. Let’s review a little. Does this experience of being ‘scattered in the wilderness’ define past experiences for you? [Or present!] Historically the church has always had to deal with wilderness times. St. John of the Cross called this ‘the dark night of the soul’. After Mother Theresa’s death we found out that she struggled with doubt many times thru out her life. The historic church has been ‘scattered in the wilderness’ over truly insignificant stuff. I find it ridiculous that one of the main reasons the western [Catholic] and eastern [Orthodox] churches split in 1054 a.d. was over the silly distinction of whether the Holy Spirit proceeded from the Father [the historic creed] or the ‘father and the Son’. This is considered the official cause of the split, though there were many other factors as well. In a day or so we will cover a verse that says ‘God is the head of Christ’. I had a friend that used to point out the fact that many Baptists would refer to ‘God and Jesus and the Spirit’ he would think this was in error because they would leave out ‘the Father’. To be honest he was consistent with Trinitarian thinking [I am one by the way!] If the ‘sole’ definition of God in the New testament were ‘3 separate persons who equally posses the Divine attributes’. Then the phrase ‘God is the head of Jesus’ would not make sense. It would be like saying ‘God [Father, Jesus and Holy spirit] are all the head of Jesus’. What am I saying here? Basically the historic church came to certain ways of framing the argument that were limited in their application. Does the New testament teach the Trinity? Yes. Does the word ‘God’ primarily refer to ‘the father’ in its language? To be honest, it does. Though the reality of the Trinity is there, yet the normative language of ‘God’ is referring to ‘the Father’. So my Baptist buddy was right in seeing a contradiction when Baptists said ‘God, Jesus and the Spirit’. If they were true to all the historic language, then they should have said ‘the father’ not ‘God’. Because ‘God’ would be the all encompassing language of ‘3 distinct persons who all posses the divine attributes’. But in fact, my friend was wrong. Why? Because the language of scripture mostly means ‘God the Father’ when simply saying ‘God’. Now why go into all this? Because the historic church has been divided over the language used. Arian, the Catholic Bishop/Priest, said that Jesus is ‘not God’. That ‘God the Father is God’. He was rightfully condemned, and the Trinitarian language would prevail. The problem is some of the language of the creeds and councils that would follow were not totally accurate. Some of the Creeds would say ‘Jesus was eternally begotten [always begotten]’ this statement was for the purpose of refuting those who said ‘Jesus had a beginning’ [Arianism]. Now, did Jesus ‘have a beginning’? John’s gospel says Jesus was with the father from the beginning, and that ‘the Word was with God, and was God’. Jesus had no beginning! But, does this mean he was ‘eternally begotten’? No. He was begotten by Mary 2 thousand years ago. Begotten refers to the incarnation, not the preexisting Son who was with the father from all eternity. So the well intended phrase ‘eternally begotten’ was wrong. Why even discuss this? Because most of Christian Orthodoxy would still condemn certain aspects of the Syrian and Ethiopian churches over this. We at times are ‘scattered in the wilderness’ and our ‘bodies’ [denominations, divisions in Christendom] are a sad representation to the world. [NOTE- I want to restate what I have said in the past. I believe in the Trinity. But I also want you to see how other Christian perspectives have viewed these things in the past. There are large groups of ��historic churches’ [not Gnostics and stuff like that, the so called ‘lost Christianities’] who lean towards Arianism. Most of the invading barbarians who sacked the Western Roman empire were converted to this ‘brand’ of Christianity. So while I hold to the historic orthodox view, I wanted you to see that we too have been inconsistent at times].

 (977)1ST CORINTHIANS 10:15-17 ‘The cup that we bless, is it not the communion of the Blood of Christ? The bread which we break, is it not the communion of Christ’s Body? We are all one bread, we all partake equally of Christ’s Body and Blood. We exist as a community because of him’ [my paraphrase]. Here in my study I have various volumes on church history. I own catholic volumes, protestant ones, and even some from ‘the out of the institutional  church’ perspective. Over the years I have learned that most believers tell their story from their perspective. This is not a wrong thing, nor is it a purposeful act to distort history. It’s just natural to see ‘your world’ thru your lens of past experiences. Around the 17th century the Jesuit priests were some of the first Christians to write systematic church histories. Though you had many scholars who were informed on the subject, the Jesuits were the first to try and bring all the previous centuries together and present them in an orderly way that could be understood and read by the average student. There is some debate on how accurate some of these first ‘tellings’ of history were. For instance, some classic church histories [both catholic and protestant] show an early 2nd century development of belief in the Eucharist as being the literal Body and Blood of Jesus. Also most volumes focus on church figures such as Iraneus , Tertullian, Augustine [4th– 5th  centuries] and many other good men [I know I spelled these names wrong!]. There seems to have been a basic belief that this history is the only ‘history’ of the first few centuries. The problem with this approach is we now have archealogical evidence from the first few centuries that would support the idea that the early church might not have been as ‘institutional’ as previously thought. For instance, most histories say the development of the monarchial episcopacy [single bishop over ‘a church/region’] was early. But the evidence discovered shows that as late as the 2nd, possibly early 3rd centuries you had bishops who were simply elders/overseers in the early church. Burial places were uncovered that showed multiple ‘bishops’ all buried in one spot. The evidence seems to indicate that these were all men who served at the same time. Not one bishop dieing off while others took his place. This would mean that some practicing Christians never fully accepted the institutional idea of the single bishop. But you really couldn’t find this out from a wide reading of all the different church histories. Why? Were the Jesuits who put together the first cohesive history trying to deceive people? Of course not! They were seeing church history thru ‘their lens’. Now, what in the world does this have to do with the verse on communion? The word for communion here is a translation from the Greek word ‘koinonia’, which simply means ‘fellowship’. The church at Corinth practiced ‘communion’ as a love feast. The early believers had their ‘communion service’ as a type of buffet type fellowship where they all shared and came together in real friendship. Now in the next chapter we will deal with some of the problems that arose out of this practice, but the point today is I want you to see that when Paul says ‘we are all one bread who are partaking from one loaf’ he is simply saying ‘just like when we all get together and share in the communal meal, this is the same way we all spiritually live off of the Body and Blood of Christ. We are ‘one bread’ [people/communion] because we all derive our life from Jesus, the true bread that came down from heaven’ [John 6]. I simply want to give you the flavor of what Paul is saying. It’s easy to read these verse’s from the sacramental perspective. To see the focus being on the actual bread and wine of the meal. I think it’s better understood from the broader communal idea that I just espoused. Our entire New Testament is the most verifiable collection of first century documents ever to be found. Though we as believers take them as Gods word, they also show us the most accurate historical picture of what the early church believed and practiced. I think the reformers of the 16th century were right in stating that the final authority should be the word of God. They did not reject church tradition, but they said the final arbiter in controversial issues was Gods word. Even the great Catholic humanist, Erasmus, was known for his desire to ‘get back to the original sources’. He was helpful in urging the Catholic Church towards reform by going back to the Greek New Testament [most scholars were using the vulgate version, which was the Latin translation. The Latin did not do justice to the Greek!] Well today’s point is our New Testaments are accurate first century documents on early church belief and practice. I think Erasmus cry to ‘get back to the sources’ would do us all some good.

 (978)1ST CORINTHIANS 10: 18-33 Paul ‘re-uses’ a previous analogy of the priests partaking of the meat from the altar. Here he uses it to describe the reality of fellowship and being joined to that which you worship. Now he deals with the idea of the meat from the idol worship that was sold ‘in the shambles’ [market  place]. He already said this meat was fine. But here he says ‘the things the gentiles offer are being offered to demons, so I don’t want you joining in with this type of demonic worship’. It’s not a matter of the meat, or the idol! It’s a matter of being unequally ‘yoked together with unbelievers’. This is a theme that Paul discusses in this letter. It not only applies to marriage, but also to any type of intimate fellowship with an unbeliever. Here’s where a distinction should be made. Yesterday one of my homeless buddies stopped by. His name is Tim [carpenter Tim]. I mentioned him before. Tim’s a great friend who I have known for many years. He just stopped by to say hi, he told me he caught my radio show on Sunday and really enjoyed it. They get a kick out of being real friends with some so called ‘radio preacher’. I think it’s hard at times to connect the ‘radio guy’ with the simple brother who takes them out to eat and stuff. Tim is a believer who works regularly [thus the name carpenter Tim!] He does not take the free handouts and stuff that are offered to the local homeless population. But I have helped Tim as a friend and brother in the Lord for many years. I asked if he has heard anything about Bill ‘painter Bill’. I have known Bill just as long as Tim. These are the original homeless guys I met in the early 1990’s. Bill is in his 70’s, Tim is around my age [I am 46 years old as I write]. Bill was a bitter homeless person. Just too many years of going thru stuff. Over the years we had become real good friends. I think he sees me as one of his best friends. A few weeks back I heard he was on a respirator and they though he wasn’t going to make it. It sounded pretty bad. As of right now I don’t know if he’s alive or not. A few months back I was giving Bill a ride home. He had a temporary place to live at the time. He did ask if I had a few dollars to spare. I don’t remember if I did or not to be honest. But I told Bill I don’t make the same amount of money since I retired. Just to let him know that’s why we haven’t gone to eat recently. He also asked me if I wanted to get the free eye checkup from the mission. They had some locals donate their time and they would get the guys free glasses. I told him that’s all right, I don’t want to take stuff that’s meant for the homeless [I also don’t eat the free meals]. They get upset that I don’t use the system. So as we arrive at Bills trailer he asks if I could come in for a minute. I told him sure. He handed me the free glasses he recently got, he asks me to try them on. I did. He then offers them to me. I told him no thanks, though I appreciated the offer. Bill was willing to give me his glasses. When Paul the apostle deals with having fellowship with unbelievers, he is not telling us to have no contact with the lost world. He is showing the Corinthians that they were not to be partakers of evil things along with the world. We are here to reach out to the world, not to have fellowship with evil things, but to be like Jesus. He was accused of being ‘a friend of sinners’. Do you have any ‘sinner friends’?

 1Corinthians 8:1 Now as touching things offered unto idols, we know that we all have knowledge. Knowledge puffeth up, but charity edifieth.

1Corinthians 8:2 And if any man think that he knoweth any thing, he knoweth nothing yet as he ought to know.

1Corinthians 8:3 But if any man love God, the same is known of him.

1Corinthians 8:4 As concerning therefore the eating of those things that are offered in sacrifice unto idols, we know that an idol is nothing in the world, and that there is none other God but one.

1Corinthians 8:5 For though there be that are called gods, whether in heaven or in earth, (as there be gods many, and lords many,)

1Corinthians 8:6 But to us there is but one God, the Father, of whom are all things, and we in him; and one Lord Jesus Christ, by whom are all things, and we by him.

1Corinthians 8:7 Howbeit there is not in every man that knowledge: for some with conscience of the idol unto this hour eat it as a thing offered unto an idol; and their conscience being weak is defiled.

1Corinthians 8:8 But meat commendeth us not to God: for neither, if we eat, are we the better; neither, if we eat not, are we the worse.

1Corinthians 8:9 But take heed lest by any means this liberty of your's become a stumblingblock to them that are weak.

1Corinthians 8:10 For if any man see thee which hast knowledge sit at meat in the idol's temple, shall not the conscience of him which is weak be emboldened to eat those things which are offered to idols;

1Corinthians 8:11 And through thy knowledge shall the weak brother perish, for whom Christ died?

1Corinthians 8:12 But when ye sin so against the brethren, and wound their weak conscience, ye sin against Christ.

1Corinthians 8:13 Wherefore, if meat make my brother to offend, I will eat no flesh while the world standeth, lest I make my brother to offend.

 1Corinthians 9:1 Am I not an apostle? am I not free? have I not seen Jesus Christ our Lord? are not ye my work in the Lord?

1Corinthians 9:2 If I be not an apostle unto others, yet doubtless I am to you: for the seal of mine apostleship are ye in the Lord.

1Corinthians 9:3 Mine answer to them that do examine me is this,

1Corinthians 9:4 Have we not power to eat and to drink?

1Corinthians 9:5 Have we not power to lead about a sister, a wife, as well as other apostles, and as the brethren of the Lord, and Cephas?

1Corinthians 9:6 Or I only and Barnabas, have not we power to forbear working?

1Corinthians 9:7 Who goeth a warfare any time at his own charges? who planteth a vineyard, and eateth not of the fruit thereof? or who feedeth a flock, and eateth not of the milk of the flock?

1Corinthians 9:8 Say I these things as a man? or saith not the law the same also?

1Corinthians 9:9 For it is written in the law of Moses, Thou shalt not muzzle the mouth of the ox that treadeth out the corn. Doth God take care for oxen?

1Corinthians 9:10 Or saith he it altogether for our sakes? For our sakes, no doubt, this is written: that he that ploweth should plow in hope; and that he that thresheth in hope should be partaker of his hope.

1Corinthians 9:11 If we have sown unto you spiritual things, is it a great thing if we shall reap your carnal things?

1Corinthians 9:12 If others be partakers of this power over you, are not we rather? Nevertheless we have not used this power; but suffer all things, lest we should hinder the gospel of Christ.

1Corinthians 9:13 Do ye not know that they which minister about holy things live of the things of the temple? and they which wait at the altar are partakers with the altar?

1Corinthians 9:14 Even so hath the Lord ordained that they which preach the gospel should live of the gospel.

1Corinthians 9:15 But I have used none of these things: neither have I written these things, that it should be so done unto me: for it were better for me to die, than that any man should make my glorying void.

1Corinthians 9:16 For though I preach the gospel, I have nothing to glory of: for necessity is laid upon me; yea, woe is unto me, if I preach not the gospel!

1Corinthians 9:17 For if I do this thing willingly, I have a reward: but if against my will, a dispensation of the gospel is committed unto me.

1Corinthians 9:18 What is my reward then? Verily that, when I preach the gospel, I may make the gospel of Christ without charge, that I abuse not my power in the gospel.

1Corinthians 9:19 For though I be free from all men, yet have I made myself servant unto all, that I might gain the more.

1Corinthians 9:20 And unto the Jews I became as a Jew, that I might gain the Jews; to them that are under the law, as under the law, that I might gain them that are under the law;

1Corinthians 9:21 To them that are without law, as without law, (being not without law to God, but under the law to Christ,) that I might gain them that are without law.

1Corinthians 9:22 To the weak became I as weak, that I might gain the weak: I am made all things to all men, that I might by all means save some.

1Corinthians 9:23 And this I do for the gospel's sake, that I might be partaker thereof with you.

1Corinthians 9:24 Know ye not that they which run in a race run all, but one receiveth the prize? So run, that ye may obtain.

1Corinthians 9:25 And every man that striveth for the mastery is temperate in all things. Now they do it to obtain a corruptible crown; but we an incorruptible.

1Corinthians 9:26 I therefore so run, not as uncertainly; so fight I, not as one that beateth the air:

1Corinthians 9:27 But I keep under my body, and bring it into subjection: lest that by any means, when I have preached to others, I myself should be a castaway.

 1Corinthians 10:1 Moreover, brethren, I would not that ye should be ignorant, how that all our fathers were under the cloud, and all passed through the sea;

1Corinthians 10:2 And were all baptized unto Moses in the cloud and in the sea;

1Corinthians 10:3 And did all eat the same spiritual meat;

1Corinthians 10:4 And did all drink the same spiritual drink: for they drank of that spiritual Rock that followed them: and that Rock was Christ.

1Corinthians 10:5 But with many of them God was not well pleased: for they were overthrown in the wilderness.

1Corinthians 10:6 Now these things were our examples, to the intent we should not lust after evil things, as they also lusted.

1Corinthians 10:7 Neither be ye idolaters, as were some of them; as it is written, The people sat down to eat and drink, and rose up to play.

1Corinthians 10:8 Neither let us commit fornication, as some of them committed, and fell in one day three and twenty thousand.

1Corinthians 10:9 Neither let us tempt Christ, as some of them also tempted, and were destroyed of serpents.

1Corinthians 10:10 Neither murmur ye, as some of them also murmured, and were destroyed of the destroyer.

1Corinthians 10:11 Now all these things happened unto them for ensamples: and they are written for our admonition, upon whom the ends of the world are come.

1Corinthians 10:12 Wherefore let him that thinketh he standeth take heed lest he fall.

1Corinthians 10:13 There hath no temptation taken you but such as is common to man: but God is faithful, who will not suffer you to be tempted above that ye are able; but will with the temptation also make a way to escape, that ye may be able to bear it.

1Corinthians 10:14 Wherefore, my dearly beloved, flee from idolatry.

1Corinthians 10:15 I speak as to wise men; judge ye what I say.

1Corinthians 10:16 The cup of blessing which we bless, is it not the communion of the blood of Christ? The bread which we break, is it not the communion of the body of Christ?

1Corinthians 10:17 For we being many are one bread, and one body: for we are all partakers of that one bread.

1Corinthians 10:18 Behold Israel after the flesh: are not they which eat of the sacrifices partakers of the altar?

1Corinthians 10:19 What say I then? that the idol is any thing, or that which is offered in sacrifice to idols is any thing?

1Corinthians 10:20 But I say, that the things which the Gentiles sacrifice, they sacrifice to devils, and not to God: and I would not that ye should have fellowship with devils.

1Corinthians 10:21 Ye cannot drink the cup of the Lord, and the cup of devils: ye cannot be partakers of the Lord's table, and of the table of devils.

1Corinthians 10:22 Do we provoke the Lord to jealousy? are we stronger than he?

1Corinthians 10:23 All things are lawful for me, but all things are not expedient: all things are lawful for me, but all things edify not.

1Corinthians 10:24 Let no man seek his own, but every man another's wealth.

1Corinthians 10:25 Whatsoever is sold in the shambles, that eat, asking no question for conscience sake:

1Corinthians 10:26 For the earth is the Lord's, and the fulness thereof.

1Corinthians 10:27 If any of them that believe not bid you to a feast, and ye be disposed to go; whatsoever is set before you, eat, asking no question for conscience sake.

1Corinthians 10:28 But if any man say unto you, This is offered in sacrifice unto idols, eat not for his sake that shewed it, and for conscience sake: for the earth is the Lord's, and the fulness thereof:

1Corinthians 10:29 Conscience, I say, not thine own, but of the other: for why is my liberty judged of another man's conscience?

1Corinthians 10:30 For if I by grace be a partaker, why am I evil spoken of for that for which I give thanks?

1Corinthians 10:31 Whether therefore ye eat, or drink, or whatsoever ye do, do all to the glory of God.

1Corinthians 10:32 Give none offence, neither to the Jews, nor to the Gentiles, nor to the church of God:

1Corinthians 10:33 Even as I please all men in all things, not seeking mine own profit, but the profit of many, that they may be saved.

MY SITES

Active sites-

www.corpuschristioutreachministries.blogspot.com  [Main site]

https://www.facebook.com/john.chiarello.5?ref=bookmarks  

https://www.facebook.com/ccoutreach1/?ref=aymt_homepage_panel&eid=ARCo7sBBI_1fHMUwrHJbFUGf73C6FmpZxtgTcWET2gVwpdHCKmXSGxs6wyeA-qGCnbsr2ILaXqpd4ACt  [my page]

https://ccoutreach87.com/

https://plus.google.com/108013627259688810902/posts

http://johnchiarello.tumblr.com/

http://ccoutreach.over-blog.com/

https://ccoutreach87.jimdo.com/

http://ccoutreach87.webstarts.com/__blog.html?r=20171009095200

http://ccoutreach87-1.mozello.com/

https://ccoutreach87.site123.me/

http://ccoutreach87.wixsite.com/mysite

https://corpusoutreach.weebly.com/

http://ccoutreach87.strikingly.com/

https://medium.com/@johnchiarello

https://johnchiarello.webs.com/

https://vk.com/id533663718

  Link sharing sites-

https://twitter.com/ccoutreach87

https://www.pinterest.com/ccoutreach87/

https://www.reddit.com/user/ccoutreach87

https://mix.com/jchiarello

https://trello.com/b/swhF9Vr8/ccoutreach87com

 http://corpuschristioutreachministries.blogspot.com/p/one-link_18.html [Link to past teaching]

 Inactive- work in progress

http://ccoutreach87.webs.com/

https://sites.google.com/yahoo.com/ccoutreach87/home

http://johnchiarello.doodlekit.com/

http://corpus-christijohnchiarello.simplesite.com/

https://spark.adobe.com/page/6INKwX1tFT7WA/

 Video sites [Can download my videos free of charge]

https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCxWXKfaFDZrfNUzloSqg8Kg?view_as=subscriber beta

https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCYlLmUkKiB6VoWE9CB1UQew?view_as=subscriber ccoutreach87

https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCZ4GsqTEVWRm0HxQTLsifvg?view_as=subscriber classic

https://www.flickr.com/photos/ccoutreach87/

https://vimeo.com/user85764413

https://www.dailymotion.com/ccoutreach87/videos

https://bit.tube/ccoutreach87

https://www.bitchute.com/channel/jsS961GkXUSn/

https://d.tube/c/ccoutreach  

https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/1QJ3MSF6ZqJpYS9Vzeg9ni5dP-yMcj3A7?usp=sharing

https://1drv.ms/f/s!Aocp2PkNEAGMg0G_aInmCi8XUC-C

https://my.pcloud.com/publink/show?code=kZ1sXP7ZardKGRUxFByiFYi667jeup7MD1Sy

https://mega.nz/#F!7WQCSIJR!-4v9-zUQRq4MIQbBfI2n4A  

https://www.dropbox.com/sh/d43nhtrgysqg493/AAAlCszxZXJoRtk8UudtuR9ma?dl=0

https://ln.sync.com/dl/3e1f4c5e0/tcnm9p32-xiwe4nbu-zjbkitqj-4fvemf6m

https://1drv.ms/f/s!Aocp2PkNEAGMg0MwmUCJ1XM3q9ui  [Upload- unzipped- all teaching videos to 12-18 here]

https://www.facebook.com/john.chiarello.5/videos?lst=1779330793%3A1779330793%3A1546906912  [My Facebook videos]

https://www.instagram.com/john.chiarello/channel/

https://icedrive.net/dashboard/#/cloud

 I no longer upload videos to this site- but there are many links to download here as well-

https://ccoutreach87.com/

Cloud sites- https://ccoutreach87.com/cloud-links-12-2018/

 Note- Please do me a favor, those who read/like the posts- re-post them on other sites as well as the site you read them on-  Copy text- download video links- make complete copies of my books/studies and posts- everything is copyrighted by me- I give permission for all to copy and share as much as you like- I just ask that nothing be sold. We live in an online world- yet- there is only one internet- meaning if it ever goes down- the only access to the teachings are what others have copied or downloaded- so feel free to copy and download as much as you want- it’s all free-

 Note- I have many web sites- at times some question whether I’m a ‘bot’ because I do post a lot.

I am not a ‘bot’- I’m John- so please- if you are on the verge of deleting something- my contact email is ccoutreach87@gmail.com - contact me first- thank you- John

[mindfulldsliving]

CFM | Understanding the Spirit of Elijah: Doctrine and Covenants 2 and Joseph Smith's History 1:27-65

This week’s Come Follow study of the Doctrine and Covenants highlights the eternal connection “The Hearts of the Children Shall Turn to their Fathers.” Understanding these scriptures help us understand the fulfillment of Elijah’s return, restoration of priesthood keys, and the sealing power of in temples uniting families beyond mortality. Through the Angel Moroni, Joseph Smith received divine…

[jeremyevelandus]

This is the introduction video to Gospel Doctrine Helps. #gospeldoctrinehelps XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX I want to give special thanks to This Week in Mormons for releasing Lesson 01 - Introduction - LDS Church History/Doctrine and Covenants -. Here are some of my other favorite youtubers and their videos! Lesson 02—"Behold, I Am Jesus Christ, the Savior of the World" - Church History and D&C Introduction and Historic Overview The Collapse of Mormonism: Why Millions Are No Longer Mormons Mormon Doctrine and Covenants Mormon Doctrines part 1: Core Doctrines A Spiritual History of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, Volume 4 (1989) Wayne May — Book of Mormon Archaeology in North America The Adam God Doctrine explained correctly - LDS / Mormon Truth Church History/Doctrine and Covenants Lesson 3 - "I Had Seen a Vision" Church History/Doctrine and Covenants Lesson 4: “Remember the New Covenant, Even the Book of Mormon” Interpreter Scripture Roundtable 193: D&C and Church History Lesson 1, Introduction Endowed with Power - Doctrine and Covenants and Church History - Videos Lesson 1 - Mormon Church History Watchmen On Tower Doctrine and Covenants LDS Sunday School David J. Ridges, 2009 BYU Ed Week - The Doctrine and Covenants: A Treasure of Whats, Whys and Hows Church History/Doctrine and Covenants Lesson 7: “The First Principles and Ordinances of the Gospel” Pay Tithing - Mormonism Examined Doctrine & Covenants: Section 1 [audiobook] Mormon Message - The Doctrine and Covenants (D&C) Doctrine and Covenants/Church History Lesson 13: “This Generation Shall Have My Word through You” This Week in Mormons BYU Religious Education prffsrx 3 Mormons Autism Family Hard-to-Find Mormon Videos Mormon Evidence DonQuijote This Week in Mormons This Week in Mormons The Interpreter Foundation Nathan Ariotti mormon102 Paul BYUEducationWeek This Week in Mormons isthechurchtrue Glenn O'Brien Jenner Brown This Week in Mormons Take a look at This Week in Mormons stats and you'll understand why I am a fan. Video Url: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JEhBjO_ZWbc&list=PLIWBdaEDruGMA-WcDNOdnOM7H-Zco7kG3 Video Title: Lesson 01 - Introduction - LDS Church History/Doctrine and Covenants - Username: This Week in Mormons Subscribers: 1K Views: 2,523 views ------------------------- More at https://youtu.be/YmiVZtyonac from https://www.youtube.com/channel/UC3fvc-Ak3I0DDFudELbkO1g

[torreygazette]

Romans, Israel, and Infant Baptism

I've been sitting on thoughts about sacramentology and baptism since covering them in early September during our weekly bible study. More specifically, in what way Romans 2-4 educate us (or don't) on the continuity of God's administration of His covenants. This is mostly a concern for exegesis but it addresses poor exegesis that makes these chapters about baptism.

The story oft told is that Paul in Romans 2 through 4 demolishes the idea that circumcision corresponds to baptism (particularly of the infant sort). Or more specifically that neither circumcision or baptism has any covenantal role in the New Covenant like circumcision had in the Old Testament. This line of thinking is normally developed as a polemic against the practice of Infant Baptism retained during the Reformation. Though it should be sufficient to say that the grounds of infant baptism are not solely—perhaps even primarily—tied to continuity with circumcision, there are reasons to stop and take a critical look at these important chapters of Paul's epistle. 

Romans 2 & 3

In the second chapter of the epistle, Paul is expanding (in some sense) the verdict of judgment against sin that he has described in the opening chapter (Rom. 1:18-32). Paul has explained how God's righteousness was revealed in the gospel (Rom. 1:17) before articulating how God's wrath is revealed against the ungodly (Rom. 1:18). Further, those who judge the ungodly positively (Rom. 1:32) and those who judge the ungodly negatively (Rom. 2:1-11)—in different manners revealing hypocrisy—will be found guilty of transgressing the law. So, Paul concludes his discourse on God's wrath by declaring the future judgment of Christ as part of his "gospel" (Rom. 2:16). 

To be additionally clear, Paul articulates that this judgment pertains to the Jews and their faith in circumcision (Rom. 2:17-29). Paul critically states that circumcision—as a ritual of law—only benefits those who keep the law (Rom. 2:25) and thus does not preserve them from this judgment. Paul understands that this statement would spark questions and so the opening verses of the next chapter address those questions (Rom. 3:1-4). In the face of this disregard for external circumcision, Paul still confesses that physical circumcision—as a ritual of God's faithfulness (Rom. 3:3)—has benefits! Namely, Paul says that "the spoken words of God" (Rom. 3:2; HCSB) were given to the Jews in circumcision! Though circumcision of the heart alone justifies, outward circumcision is not rendered useless or meaningless. Instead, physical circumcision is rendered moot when viewed as a human response to God to merit His favor. From this section of Paul, we witness the Reformation emphasis that the sacraments are articulations of divine action (e.g. promises from God to man) and not human action (e.g man's demonstrated "commitment" to God through ritual).

Today as in Paul's day, this naturally leads to some confusion. Paul has just finished saying that God has spoken words of benefit to a people who have not escaped God's judgment. If these promises of God were spoken and if recipients of these promises don't believe, wouldn't that make God a liar? Paul answers in the negative—God's faithfulness is not tied to our faith whether in our practice or rejection of faith (Rom. 3:3-5; 2 Tim. 2:13). In fact, Paul argues our unfaithfulness to God's promises reveals God's righteousness. Who are we to conclude God is unjust?

In contrast to law-oriented (or legalistic) circumcision, Paul concludes that God's redeeming righteousness has been revealed in Jesus Christ to all men (Rom. 3:21-26). Boasting in the law or some ritualistic commitment to God is a wasted effort. God will save the circumcised and uncircumcised in the same manner, faith (Rom. 3:27-31).

Romans 4

All of this backdrop leads to Paul's primer on "justification by faith." Contra any Jewish boasting, works were of no use in justification even to Abraham and David (Rom. 4:1-8). These great recipients of God's covenants were justified on the basis of faith and not of works. At this point, the Jews of Paul's audience are meant to be convinced and assured that God has not forgotten His promise. But the question remains, who else is this blessed "justification by faith" for exactly? Is it only for the circumcised (Rom. 4:9)? Didn't Paul just finish saying that God was the God of Jew and Gentile (Rom. 3:29)?

Paul's answer is that the blessing belongs to both (Rom. 4:12, 16). However, this question is why Paul introduces the timeline of Abraham's justification. Abraham received the sign of righteousness by faith (circumcision) when he was without circumcision (Rom. 4:11). He received the promise of the covenant before receiving the sign of the promise. To Paul, this alone is proof that Abraham is the father of both the circumcised and uncircumcised (Rom. 4:12). This was written for our sake (Rom. 4:23-24) in order to demonstrate that God is, in fact, the God of the Gentiles (Rom. 1:16; 3:29-30; 4:16)!

So what does this particular section say sacramentally about circumcision and/or infant baptism? Well, relatively little actually. Paul's point in the passage is to show how Abraham was "the father of many nations" (Rom. 4:17) to descendants of the law and his faith (Rom. 4:16). This passage isn't denigrating to circumcision in regards to sacramental theology or covenantal continuity. Paul has already affirmed that circumcision is a benefit to the Jews, but it is not so exclusively a benefit as to exclude the Gentiles who are uncircumcised. One might persist that there is an important value in that Abraham received the sign after faith as a seal of what he already had by faith. Only to the extent that we allow the value to be what Paul says it is—to show Abraham is the father of the Gentiles.

In context, Paul doesn't provide any reason to assume circumcision meant less than a sign and "seal of righteousness" to Isaac. Abraham believed (the promise of) God and was justified (Gen. 15:6). But the promise (by faith) was guaranteed to all Abraham's descendants (Rom. 4:16). This logic of inclusion into the promises of circumcision is also reflected in Ephesians 2:11-19. Far from being texts that disprove continuity, these texts expand the continuity of the Old Testament covenants to the Gentiles.

Romans 9

Despite Paul's clarity about the expansion of this covenant, the opposition of many Jews remained a subject of controversy to the church. In fact, one can argue from the Scriptural witness that it is precisely Paul's expansion of the covenant aspects to the Gentiles that upset the Jews. Why are so many Jews rejecting the fulfilled promises of God that they claim to be waiting for? This is the question Paul answers in the ninth chapter of Romans by explaining God's historical behavior to the Jews and how it carries forward to their current time (and beyond).

This background is also why the chapter starts with a valuable, comprehensive look at God's work towards the Jews. Paul opens with a lament that his people are separate from the God who has given them so much. All of these things were promised to them simply because of God's favor to the Patriarchs. For they are—not were as some supersessionist would argue—the recipients of: 

the adoption as sons, and the glory and the covenants and the giving of the Law and the temple service and the promises (Rom. 9:4)

All of these promises and benefits belong to Israel. And so their opposition to the gospel leads Paul to speak dramatically of his own rejection for their elections. This truth is what prompts Paul to articulate God's electing power in the history of the Jews. This will help explain why the Jews oppose the gospel and what will come when they accept God's promises as found in Christ (Rom. 11:15). But contrary to any doctrine of predestination devoid of covenant influence, Paul does not articulate that God's election negates the promises and benefits offered to the Jews. Instead, Paul speaks of them as "natural" to the olive branch (Rom. 11:24) and with regards to election (!) "loved" by God according to the Patriarchs (Rom. 11:28). Even as the Jews opposed the gospel in favor of the Law, they could not invalidate the covenant of promises made with Abraham (Gal. 3:17-18).

It is clear from Paul's doctrine that God's spoken word (Rom. 3:1-2) and promises (Rom. 9:4) remain with the circumcised of Israel so that God may "justify the circumcised by faith" (Rom. 3:30). Even amidst the inclusion of the Gentiles, God's blessing and promises are extended to generations.

[eldermillardownunder-blog]

Homecoming Talk--transcribed

Riley Millar’s Missionary Homecoming Talk Evans Ranch Ward—San Antonio, Texas August 13, 2017

[Spoken in a thick Aussie accent]

G’day, brothers and sisters, my name’s Riley Millar, and like bishop said, I just finished serving two years in the Australia Sydney South Mission of this wonderful church—the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.

[Reverting back to his normal accent]

I’m sure that’s how all of you were hoping I would sound after living in Australia for two years, but unfortunately I didn’t soak it up that much. I’m sure I don’t sound as American as I still think all of you sound. It kind of freaked me out to hear people say, “How R you do-ING, man?” That’s hectic! But I am really grateful to be back, brothers and sisters, and I’m glad that it’s such a full house.  It kind of looks like a stake conference in Australia. We don’t have that many saints attend most of the congregations where I served, so it’s really a privilege to be surrounded by so many people that I love and I can just feel of your love coming right back at me. I really appreciate that. I am grateful that Bishop gave me an inspired topic—because it was an elaborate topic I, too, prayed about it, and the way I’m going to interpret it is by speaking about discipleship. I will share some of the things that I learned on my mission about discipleship, and just how my testimony was strengthened through my experiences.

So to start out, I wanted to tell you a little about the Australian people, then I want to tell you some about what life is like as a missionary. I think it is important for you to understand both of those things before you can empathize with me and realize why I learned these precious lessons.

So some background I guess: most Aussies aren’t overly enthusiastic about religion. It’s kind of a well-known stereotype that the majority of the country holds an atheist viewpoint. That’s definitely not everybody, but a lot of people don’t believe in God, or they don’t really want to take the time to try to find out if God is really there or not. Having said that, they are fantastic people, and I definitely grew to love them so much. I love the accent. I love just their friendliness—they really watch out for one another, and they’re hilarious. They really crack me up with their humor. They show their love in a lot of funny ways. They’ll roast you and rebuke you until they are blue in the face, but that’s just how they show you that they love you. So that’s a little bit about the Australian people.

Now I want to tell you what the daily life of a missionary is like. Earlier this year the First Presidency of this Church (the prophet and his counselors) and also the missionary department of the Church prayerfully revised the missionary daily schedule. They did it in a wonderful way so that missions around the world could adjust their schedules to meet their local circumstances. In Africa, for instance, if it gets dark earlier, when it gets dangerous to go out at night, the missionaries work really hard in the morning and can retire to their apartments by 6:00 in the evening. That’s when they do all their studies, eat their dinner and prepare for bed. But this is the daily schedule that I had for the last few months of my mission in Australia:

6:30 arise, and from 6:30 to 8:30 you exercise for thirty minutes, shower and eat breakfast, and then prepare for the day. So you get a full two hours from wake up until you have to do something. Starting at 8:30 you are expected to plan for thirty minutes and then from 9:00 until 10:00 you do personal study. That is when you and your companion usually study in the same room but you just study to yourselves. You study the standard works—the Book of Mormon, the Bible, the Pearl of Great Price, the Doctrine & Covenants, or any of the words of the modern day prophets. Then from 10:00 AM until 9:00 PM at night you proselyte and you get to fit in an additional 30 minutes of companionship study as you see fit. My companion and I usually did it while we were commuting in our car. We get thirty minutes for lunch at any time that you can fit it in, and sixty minutes for dinner. Other than that, from 10:00 AM until 9:00 PM you’re out working! It kind of depends on the local circumstances what you’re up to. That was my daily life since the schedule was revised.  

I think when you add that schedule to the perspective of the wonderful Australian people that I just talked to you about, I hope that you get a little viewpoint of what some of my mission was like. A lot of time we tried to approach the Australian people, and as soon as they saw our shirts and ties and then caught a glimpse of our black name badges they would think we were either cops or FBI or something, then when they saw the name, Jesus Christ, on our badges, the emotional walls would come up straight away. A lot of time they would veer across to the other side of the road if you were walking towards them. So being a missionary from 10:00 in the morning until 9:00 at night everyday for two years was a little bit rough at times. I don’t share that to complain or “to whinge” as the Australians say, but I just wanted to share that so that you could understand a little bit about where I’m coming from.

And now I want to move on to the main part of my talk where I’ll explain some of the things that I learned. First off, I was blessed to have a very optimistic mission president. His name is President Darrel K. Back. He was very enthusiastic and he always had a smile on his face. He was down to earth and he was understanding. I guess he wasn’t one to jump to conclusions. If you called him and had a situation he would listen to you. If you had something like an opportunity for a service project that would come up and kind of collide with the normal missionary standard or the missionary schedule, he would listen to you and he would usually allow you to go do it if he saw value in what you had proposed. And so I loved President Back. He had served his own mission in Melbourne, Australia so he knew what it was like to labor among the Aussie people. He knew that it could be a little discouraging at times. So early on in my mission he encouraged all the missionaries (he had about 180 of them at the start and that fluctuated up and down throughout the two years) but he encouraged us to memorize certain scriptures…certain optimistic scriptures. I remember early on there were two that I really liked. It was Doctrine & Covenants section 123 verse 17, and that one says,

Therefore, dearly beloved brethren, let us cheerfully do all things that lie in our power; and then may we stand still, with the utmost assurance, to see the salvation of God, and for his arm to be revealed.

I love that optimistic scripture about cheerfully doing all that we can and then just letting God do the rest, because we didn't always see the fruits of our efforts. Another one was 1 Nephi chapter 3 verse 7. I hope that a lot of you Primary kids have heard this before, and I know that you seminary students have probably memorized it already. This is Nephi’s response to his father, Lehi, when Nephi had obtained a mission call of sorts and he said,

…I will go and do the things which the Lord hath commanded, for I know that the Lord giveth no commandments unto the children of men, save he shall prepare a way for them that they may accomplish the thing which he commandeth them.

And so brothers and sisters, those two scriptures really boosted my faith and boosted my optimism. After the first few months in Australia I also reflected on lessons that had been taught to me throughout my life from my devoted parents, my grandparents, my friends, my seminary teachers (I had a lot of those and they were all inspired), my Sunday School teachers, and my youth leaders, even my sport coaches and others. From all these lessons that I was remembering I guess I kind of engaged in the mentality for myself that no matter how tough or how embarrassing or how super awkward or potentially discouraging each day could be, that I covenanted within myself that I would get up every day and give it my best. I promised myself that I would never come home at 8:56 pm, that I’d stay out until at least 9:00 PM doing the Lord’s work. We would always pray to go find somebody, and we would try to get out the door as close to 10:00 AM each morning. Something magical happened as I persevered day after day. It definitely wasn’t an automatic switch, but I can testify that my mission got a little bit brighter as soon as I adopted that perspective. The homesickness faded away and my companionship difficulties got a little bit better. Thankfully people started to notice that I was always happy, because I was doing what I knew was right and I was trying even though it was hard. So when that magical process continued day after day, one amazing thing happened. My faith was really tested still. I still made mistakes. It was still hard. But as I persevered through those hard, awkward, and scary trials, my belief turned into sure knowledge. That is something that I will be forever grateful for. I really feel and testify that my testimony was solidified through my Australian experience. I came to know with an absolute surety that Jesus Christ is the Savior of the world. And that Joseph Smith was His prophet of the Restoration who was called at a young age to restore the true Church back onto the earth after a long period of apostasy. I came to know those things so much that I didn’t mind sharing them with atheists. I didn't mind sharing them with the Aussie people. I didn’t mind if they slammed the door in my face, just saying “She’ll be right boys, have a g’day.” I didn't mind it…I just wanted to share. Anyway that didn’t mean that I was perfect. I wasn’t always a powerhouse just chasing people down in the street and trying to give them a Book of Mormon, but I tried hard each day.  

I also learned how to deal with situations and with people in a kinder and more patient way. I still had companionship difficulties—it was still hard to be with some other young lad 24/7 for months at a time when sometimes your personalities didn’t really click. But I think I developed some Christlike attributes. Now again, that wasn’t because I was a good boy or that I deserved it, but because I prayed for assistance as I went through those trials I felt really blessed for that.

I want to fast forward to my last day in the mission field. So it was me and twenty other missionaries that were all going home at the same time. About nineteen of those I had started with. There were twenty elders total and one sister missionary in that group that were all going home. Me and “the boys”, we had started all together back in the missionary training camp and we stuck it out—I don’t think we lost a single missionary from that initial “intake” that we called the group, so we were all slapping high fives. I remember when we were driving to the Sydney Opera House we passed the airport. We hadn’t seen planes that big in two years, so we all started screaming in the car, “Yeah, that’s us tomorrow!” After we got to tour the Opera House a bit and spend some time in downtown Sydney, we went back to the mission president’s home for a little devotional and a testimony meeting that night. One of the things that the Spirit really carved into my heart was something my mission president said. He taught us, and I quote, “A disciple of Jesus Christ is willing.” He said, “that is the difference between a disciple and just a believer. A disciple of Jesus Christ is willing.” And that was the end of his quote. That phrase has stuck in my head and so that was one thing that the Spirit popped back into the forefront of my mind as I read through Bishop Miller’s topic for today. So now I want to talk a little bit about discipleship.

After I read Bishop’s topic and had that thought come back into my mind, I turned to some other resources that Bishop gave me including a talk by Elder Robert D. Hales who is a current member of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles and he spoke in the recent April General Conference. He said, “A disciple of Jesus Christ is one who has been baptized and who is willing to take upon him or her the name of the Savior and follow Him. A disciple strives to become as He is by keeping His commandments in mortality much the same as an apprentice seeks to become like his or her master.” And so that willingness phrase really stood out to me, and made me reflect on my mission experience. Throughout that testimony meeting that night all those elders and that sister that were going home with me shared their testimonies and I felt that they had really committed to be willing to do the work each day as well. I know it wasn’t any easier for them. I know it wasn’t any easier for Hermana Patterson [the other missionary who spoke just before Riley], or for any missionary. [Riley pointed to the newest missionary sitting in our chapel who just came from the MTC four days earlier] Welcome to the field, elder! But I know that it was worth it, and I know that if we are just willing to do the work every single day, that is how we can learn to be disciples of Christ. I know that’s the way for each of you, brothers and sisters, to be member missionaries or just by being you. That’s how we can all learn to be disciples as well.

I want to start wrapping up a little bit by reading another verse that we’ve already heard today—it’s the sacrament prayer on the bread. I'm going to read a part of that again:

…that they may eat in remembrance of the body of thy Son, and witness unto thee, O God, the Eternal Father, that they are willing to take upon them the name of thy Son, and always remember him and keep his commandments which He hath given them, that they may always have his Spirit to be with them. Amen.

So that is the “willingness” phrase again. Brothers and sisters, I want to testify that I know the way to be a disciple of Jesus Christ is by adopting His characteristics, by being willing to go through trials, and living every day with His name on our chest even if it’s not on a black name badge, but just by our good Christian example. I know that’s the way to joy in this life, and that’s the way to save ourselves for the life to come. I can testify of that because the last two years I was privileged to work right along side the Savior every single day for seven hundred days. That experience has meant the world to me. I just want to exhort all of you to be willing. If you’re not a member of the Church, if you have not formally been baptized, I exhort you to please be willing to learn more. I am not challenging you to be baptized tomorrow—that’s not what I’m doing. I’m just saying be willing to learn a little bit more. If you have questions, I know that you already know me, but I would refer most of your questions to these wonderful elders because that’s their job and they have been called by the prophet to answer those questions. Even though they are no more perfect than I was on my mission. And for those of us who are members, I just exhort us to be willing together to share the gospel with others when it comes up. To be willing to have the name of Jesus Christ on our lips, and not be afraid of His name. Even to those who criticize us or rebuke us, Aussie style. I challenge us to stand firm in our beliefs, and I can promise you even in the name of Jesus Christ that your lives will be changed as you do that each and every day. I share that in the name of Jesus Christ. Amen.

[feastthewords]

1.       Read and ponder Parley P. Pratt’s account of when he first learned about celestial marriage from Joseph Smith. Write a sentence or two on your insights gained from Elder Pratt’s account. (2 Points)

a.       My favorite comment that Parley P. Pratt said was simply, “I had loved before, but I knew not why.” I love all that he says and how the understanding of eternal families and progression opened his mind to a new love that allowed him to love with the spirit and understanding.

2.       Write a sentence or two to explain why Doctrine and Covenants 132:1–33 are more relevant for us today than the remaining verses in the section. (Points 2)

a.       These verses are more relevant to us today because they are discussing the ordinances and commandments around monogamy whereas the rest of the verses pertain to polygamy. Monogamy is what is practiced today and we don’t currently have need to apply the other principles and ideas in this chapter.

3.       Write responses to the following: What is the meaning of the “new and everlasting covenant”? Explain in a few sentences why those who understand this law must abide by it to progress eternally. How can an individual who does not have the opportunity to marry in mortality claim the blessings of “the new and everlasting covenant”? (1 Point)

a.       The meaning of the new and everlasting covenants is in regards to eternal marriage and how being married under the direction of the priesthood in the temple and sealed by the Holy spirit of promise allows for your eternal progression when you keep the covenants made. In order to continually gain the blessings which are everlasting, you must follow the commandments and such. An individual who does not have the opportunity to marry in mortality can claim those blessings after this life before the resurrection.

4.       Write a paragraph that explains what the Holy Spirit of Promise has to do with marriage and every ordinance in the Church. In your paragraph, also explain what a married couple would need to do to have their marriage “sealed by the Holy Spirit of promise. (1 Point)

a.       The Holy Spirit of Promise is what seals marriages and makes them eternal. Additionally, it allows for the confirmation to individuals within all ordinances that the ordinance being performed is true and everlasting dependent upon the individual’s worthiness. To have a marriage sealed by the Holy Spirit of promise, a couple would need to be worthy and then be married and sealed in the temple under the direction of priesthood authority.

5.       Write answers for the following: What is the situation described in Doctrine and Covenants 132:15–17 that would lead to a marriage lasting only for mortality? Doctrine and Covenants 132:18 describes a marriage between a man and a woman that, although performed in the temple, “is not valid neither of force when they are out of the world.” Referring to what you learn from this verse, explain the conditions that can keep a temple marriage from being valid for eternity. How does your response to Step 3 of this assignment help you understand the meaning of Doctrine and Covenants 132:18? (1 Point)

a.       Entering into a marriage outside of the temple would result in a marriage lasting only for mortality.  Things that can keep a marriage from being valid for eternity include; the covenant not being under the God’s direction, not sealed by the Holy Spirit of promise and not valid when they are “out of the world, because they are not joined with” God or his word. This helps me understand verse 18 by allowing me to understand the difference between a marriage that is everlasting and what is needed to attain that versus one that is only valid on this earth.

6.       Write a paragraph that explains in your own words the eternal possibilities that await those who righteously enter into and live according to the “new and everlasting covenant” of eternal marriage. (1 Point)

a.       The possibilities that await those who do this include eternal progression and continuing to have children. Additionally, the highest degree of glory is open to those who are sealed in the temple which means these people can become Gods.

7.       Respond in writing to the following: Explain how an individual who is keeping his or her temple covenants would feel a greater desire to repent, rather than thinking that the sealing covenant excuses him or her from repentance. How can these verses provide encouragement to us when we make mistakes, even after having entered into sacred covenants? (1 Point)

a.       As you grow closer to the Lord, it makes you continually want to be closer. It’s easier to stay on top of something than fall behind and someone keeping their covenants is understanding of how the atonement can work in and bless their lives. These verses can provide encouragement by telling of some of the blessings we have the possibility of gaining. A reward makes the journey a bit easier to bear.

8.       Write answers to the following: How does Doctrine and Covenants 132:29 help us understand what “the works of Abraham” are? How are those who enter into the covenants of the gospel, a fulfillment of the promises God made to Abraham? What must we do to receive those same promises? (1 Point)

a.       The works of Abraham are simply following after his example in righteousness and keeping the commandments in order to receive the same blessings. Keeping the commandments, having faith and obedience and integrity like Abraham will allow us to receive those blessings.

"],"update_

[mindfulldsliving]

Dispensationalism and the Restoration: How the Book of Mormon Prepares Us for Christ’s Second Coming

Doctrine and Covenants Section 1 introduces the Restoration as a divine response to a world in spiritual disarray. It’s a bold declaration of God’s work to reestablish Christ’s eternal truths. The Book of Mormon stands at the center of this effort, fulfilling ancient prophecies and preparing hearts for Christ’s return. Through the Prophet Joseph Smith, the Lord restored gospel principles that had…

[mindfulldsliving]

Apostolic Authority and the Role of Prophets: A Scriptural Perspective on the Restored Gospel

The Restored Gospel is centered on God’s unwavering love and His desire to guide His children. From ancient times to today, prophets have been essential in delivering that divine guidance. Apostolic authority, deeply rooted in scripture, serves as a bridge connecting humanity to God’s will. This blog explores how prophetic teachings and sacred texts illuminate the restored truths we hold dear…