Connect with us

Culture and Religion

The LDS Church split from Boy Scouts of America years ago

Published

on

On Tuesday, the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (also known as the LDS Church or the Mormon Church) announced that it will officially part ways with its scouting affiliates at the end of next year, replacing all scouting programs with an all-new youth initiative. This comes after years of speculation and growing controversy over the integrity of the Boy Scouts of America organization.

As a lifelong Mormon and an Eagle Scout of ten years (one of five Eagles in my family), I’m thrilled by this decision.

That said, since there has been no shortage of editorials arguing one way or another concerning recent BSA policy amendments, I feel no need to rehash those here. Instead, I’d like to focus on the autonomy of the LDS Church and the advantage of customizing its youth programs to align more neatly with its own developmental goals.

In fact, the LDS Church has been tailoring BSA policies to fit Church standards for many years. One might even say that the Church split from the Boy Scouts of America years ago.

When BSA announced the possible inclusion of girls last fall, the LDS Church insisted that it would not allow girls into its scout troops (the LDS Church already offers multiple youth programs exclusively designed for young women and girls).

When BSA decided that gay leaders would be fully accepted and permitted to chaperone campouts with young Boy Scouts, the LDS Church responded that it would continue its practice of requiring moral worthiness in determining service assignments and that no accommodations would be made in compliance with this new policy.

I’ve heard many parents express concern over the political indoctrination of the Boy Scouts with dubious global warming fear mongering. However, I received my Environmental Science merit badge just two years after Al Gore’s An Inconvenient Truth won the Oscar for Best Documentary, and there was no inkling of climate alarmism whatsoever in my tutelage.

Instead, I was taught valuable skills and spiritual lessons by the same youth leaders who taught me in Sunday School. Our campouts included prayers, hymns, and gospel discussions, in addition to the more typical and adventurous hiking, snorkeling, cycling, first aid, spearfishing, playacting, cooking, auto repairs, and, of course, knot tying. Every life skill had a life lesson applied to it. Every exercise fostered growth, both physical and spiritual.

This sounds like a totally separate unit from the Boy Scouts of even ten years ago, and that’s precisely the point. How much longer would the BSA-LDS partnership have lasted anyway with as many policy rejections and customized teaching methods as the LDS Church presented? If not for the official secession, the two groups would’ve become foreign entities de facto in probably the same amount of time. This move simply provides closure.

There’s nothing wrong with secular groups designed to build the best in our youth — I learned plenty of vital lessons playing high school football, for instance. But for a church, any youth program it sponsors is most logically and thoroughly maximized if the church remains in total control of its curriculum. Churches have the benefit of foundational constancy that BSA, an organization prone to any wind of political correctness, does not.

For this reason, the LDS Church — and other religious youth groups — will continue to prosper, independent of private affiliates. The only ones who stand to suffer are the Boy Scouts of America, who are about to lose almost 20% of their current membership and one of their biggest national sponsors. And if I know anything about the Left, it’s that no amount of concessions is good enough for them — if you falter once you’ve started down that road, they will not hesitate to eat one of their own.

So good luck, Boy Scouts. I hope you’re prepared for what comes next.


Richie Angel is a Co-Editor in Chief of The New Guards. Follow him and The New Guards on Twitter, and check out The New Guards on Facebook.

Facebook Comments
Advertisement
2 Comments

2 Comments

  1. John Pack Lambert

    May 14, 2018 at 12:52 am

    I have to wonder how much the writer knows of non-LDS scouting. I went to a boy scout camp where they prayed before meals but told us not to close in the name of Jesus Christ, evidently because we had to bow to Jewish Christophobia.

    Boy Scouts not only requires all members to affirm belief in God but emphasizes that one cannot fully develop without recognizing a higher power. This is true of many non-religious organizations including AA and many simular ones. However it is why the FFRF and fellow Athiest travelers are attacking boy scouts. Evidently private organizations no longer have a right to their own standards.

    Most boy scout troops are sponsored by a Church. I don’t know enough to gage the level of religious expression involed. Plus the Southern Baptists, Assemblies og God and Seventh Day Adventists have all already left BSA and formed their own scout like organizations. None of these Churches were ever as involved as the LDS in scouting so their departures were less noticed. Southern Baptists at l east are also organized such that some congregations may have rem ained despite the departure. There is also Trail Life USA run by Evangelical Christians. Evangelical Christianity is a poorly defined term for thousands of Churches, many of which are fully independent congregations, so the move away from scouting there is even more complex.

    I tried for years after the 2015 or maybe even 2013 changes ro use google news track troops leaving scouting. What I have l earned is that even though many troops number over 50 boys and Mormon troops are far smaller than normal troops, the ending of most troops does not make even local headlines.

    My general indication is that most non-LDS troops will camp on Sundays, even when sponsored by a Church.

    The holding all leaders to Church moeal standpoints was something that the BSA said each chartering organization could do. I doubt Catholic parishes will allow openly practicing homosexual leaders, while on the other hand an LDS bishop calling a scout master who has told him he deals with sane-gender attraction, but either has never acted on it or has fully repented of past sins that involved breaking the law of chastity with makes would not violate any rule I know of. If the sins had involved sex with minors after the man was an adult than he would be excluded, but a categorical exclusion of all with sane gender attraction no.

    One problem with discussions of homosexuality is too often peiple talk arounx each other. LGBT activists often do not really seem to accept the B exists, acting as if they really are L and G in denial. There is some percentage of the population for example who are people with their primary attraction to thd same sex who are married to the opposite sex in a loving functional relationship.

    Mormon, Catholic and some other Churches have policies clearly focused on actions. Mormon leaders do not exclude based solely on identity. True, I am pretty sure a man who dates other men, even if he does not break the kaw of chastity would be given a scout calling, but if he dated women as an unmarried m an and did the same acts it would be acceptable. So the rules on allowed beh avior are not the same, and I think we should be bold in saying this. If a married scout 11-year old scout leader had a,lunch with the married to someone else first counselor in the primary presidency and they kissed on the lups as they left the restaurant I think a bishop on kearning such would release them and more deeply probe their marital fidelity. If both were unmarried the bishop might suggest they make sure dating and church callings be a bit seperated, or maybe encourage them to step up their relationship even more. The law of chastity requires some things that nean that rules of action are not always uniform.

  2. John Pack Lambert

    May 14, 2018 at 1:26 am

    As I think even mord on this I begin to think LDS/non-LDS scouting may be a false diachotomy.

    BSA runs a program that openly admits and works with lots of sponsors who run things there own way.

    About 8 years ago I read about a Mormon family in the southern US who for unclear reasons decided to enroll his boys in the local Evangelical Christian (I want to say nega-Church) troop instead of the local ward one. The Dad was an eagle and volunteered as an assistant scoutmaster. In thd process he had to write on his belief in Christ as Savior. I believe he was also a returned missionary and from what I gathered an active member of his ward and wrote a very eloquent answer to this question. The Church leaders realized he was a Mormon though and so turned him down as a scout. Not all Church sponsored troops would do the same though.

    There are many unique issues that seperate LDS troops from a large portion of non-LDS troops. I can only vouch that these are sepwrating features from many but not neccesarily all.

    1. Mormon troops the dues are paid by the Church, for every baptized boy, even those who last came to Church when they were baptized and now are 17. My understanding is that in non-LDS troops the damilues pay these dues. They are $33 to the national organization. Or at least going above troop level. They were $24 until very recently. There may be some troops/sponsoring orgs that offer scholarships to needy families, but I have no idea how this works. The Church has paid dues for boys since 1991, although some of these fees were included in ward budgets at one point.

    2. The LDS Church covers almost all scout costs through the ward budget. Most non-DS troops the troop foots the bill. This means that triops in more affluent areas in gen eral go to Jamborees etc more. This is a circa 1990 outgrowth in the move to centrally allotted budgets by th e Church. I remember in the early 1990s the scout leaders from the affluent ward in my stake being disgruntled at their boys not going to the national Hamboree. In my ward we never had such a hope so thived on the new budget. This may nean the roots of the LDS/BSA break were sown in the Zion moving centralized budget that made the Church more equal.

    3. The Church had major restrictions on fundraising, BSA had none. How much this reflects that Fred Karger is just the last in a long line of people who seek to catch the Church in not abiding by every law and make it pay huge taces, and how much this is driven by not being of this world I cant say. Almost everyone associates Girl Scouts with selling cookies. Boy Scouts are in some minds almost as connected with selling popcorn. The Church allows one annual fundraiser for scouting but it cannot involve the sale of commercial products. So popcorn sales are out. Even at that when I was in the ward where the bishopsand wife was the district scout commissioner I found their spaghetti dinner scouting fundraiser highly offensive. The only deserts were auctioned off an d us poor peons who work for schools or lived in the third of the ward south of eight mile got none.

    4. 11-year old scouts. In most other organizations all scouts starting at 11 are in one troop. Also the Church limits 11-year-old scouts to 3 campouts a year, which means the Church constantky pushes for a revision of 1st class requirements. They always win an exception, but it is a perpetual fight.

    5. The Churches methods of transitioning all out of scouting to varsity on their 14th birthday as far as I can tell was not the nornal BSA way. Most BSA troops had some boys who stayed through 17, some who went to Varsity or Explorers, and most boys just quit scouting totally after age 14 or so.

    6. Mormon refusal to allow scouts before age 8. Although how common Tiger cubs actually were I ca nt say.

    7. No camping for cubs.

    8. No activities on Monday night.

    9. No candles in church buildings. This unlikethe some other policies was fully driven by the Church being self insured. I cant say if other charter org anizations had this policy.

    10. The Mormon methods of calling and rotating callings is different thaf how most other organizations got scout leaders. In most other xases they volunteered, and often served for decades. On the other hand this in some cases means when a scout master does step down th e troop folds.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Culture and Religion

Top 5 ‘assault weapon’ technologies that existed BEFORE the Constitution was written

Published

on

By

Top 5 assault weapon technologies that existed BEFORE the Constitution was written

Just a sample of some of the repeating firepower that existed long before the 2nd amendment.

Leftist lore has it that the only guns in existence at the time of the writing of the 2nd amendment were muskets that took 5 minutes to reload. This being exemplified by the New York Times in using an image of a musket contrasted with an assault rifle in an article on their usual obsession with gun confiscation. Or from a commercial from a liberty grabber group depicting the long, drawn out reloading of a musket. As is usually the case with leftist lore, this is a complete fabrication.

The fact is that multishot or repeating firearms existed long before the affirmation of the common sense human right of self-preservation in the US Constitution. We’ve already highlighted some of these technologies that predate the Constitution. However, for the sake of completeness, we shall fill out the list with the other fine examples.

Since there is no set definition of the term ‘assault weapon’ or ‘weapons of war’ or what ever farcical term the liberty grabber left has come up with to demonize ordinary firearms, we bestowed this term to these technology as some of the first ‘Assault Weapons’.

Repeating rifles of the early 1600s, predating the Constitution by 160 years

The Encyclopedia Britannica has a very informative article on this subject with this excerpt detailing the most important point:

The first effective breech-loading and repeating flintlock firearms were developed in the early 1600s. One early magazine repeater has been attributed to Michele Lorenzoni, a Florentine gunmaker. In the same period, the faster and safer Kalthoff system—designed by a family of German gunmakers—introduced a ball magazine located under the barrel and a powder magazine in the butt. By the 18th century the Cookson repeating rifle was in use in North America, having separate tubular magazines in the stock for balls and powder and a lever-activated breech mechanism that selected and loaded a ball and a charge, also priming the flash pan and setting the gun on half cock.

[Our Emphasis]

Please note that these multishot or repeating firearms existed almost 2 centuries before the writing of the Constitution, eviscerating the ‘Muskets only’ lie of the national socialist Left. For those who are numerically as well a factually challenged, this was also 370 years before the 21st Century.

The Lorenzoni repeating flintlock: Portable firepower that predated the Constitution by over 100 years

Our first video from the venerable website Forgotten weapons is of two London-Made Lorenzonis Repeating Flintlocks. This was a repeating flintlock developed in the early 1600’s that was able to fire multiple shots 160 years before the writing of the Constitution.

Early development of revolving cylinder firearms, predating the Constitution by over 109 years

Next on the Pre-constitutional timeline, we have One of the Earliest Six-shot Revolvers from the collection of the Royal Armory that we profiled in a previous article. The Curator of Firearms, Jonathan Ferguson notes that this wasn’t one of the earliest revolvers along with pointing out how the technology has ‘evolved’ over time.

This also brings up an important point, that arms and other weapons of self-defense were vitally important, a matter of life or death. Every living being is in a battle for survival, in the case of human society, these technologies determined its survivability. Thus it is a constant competition with these technologies constantly changing and evolving over time. Something that would have been known by the learned men that wrote the founding documents.

The Puckle or Defense Gun from 1718, was predating the Constitution by over 70 years

We have previously detailed the Puckle or Defense Gun invented in 1718 and demonstrated early ‘automatic weapon’ fire in 1721:

The Puckle Gun, or Defense Gun as it was also known, was invented and patented in 1718 by the London lawyer James Puckle.

This was an early ‘automatic weapon’ was capable of firing 63 shots in 7 minutes in 1721.

For those following along this missed the mark of being a 21st Century weapon by almost 300 years.

The multishot Girardoni Air Gun that predated the Constitution by 9 years.

This is another multishot weapon of war that existed before the Constitution.

Jover and Belton Flintlock Repeating Musket – 1786, this also predates the Constitution

Our last video of multishot or repeating firearms that predated the Constitution is the Jover and Belton Flintlock Repeating Musket from 1786. We’re trying to keep this as short as possible, thus we have left off other examples such as the Ribauldequin, Duckfoot or Nock gun.

Very much like the previous example, the Belton Flintlock Repeating Musket was known to the founding fathers because he corresponded with Congress on this weapon in 1777 [Again, before the drafting of the Constitution]. For those keeping score at home, 1786 is still is not of the 21st Century.

Leftist lies on this subject depends on a number of improbable fallacies and assumptions. The founding fathers would have known the history of technological developments and they would have expected those developments to continue. Thus rendering the fallacy that they could not have foreseen that weapons technologies wouldn’t of continued on to the point of absurdity.

The Takeaway

Unfortunately for the Liberty Grabber Left, firearms tend to be valuable historical artifacts, these videos show that multishot or repeating firearms existed well before the Constitution. Thus we have eviscerated the ‘musket myth’. It should also be evident that the violence problem hasn’t been caused by the ‘easy’ availability of guns or repeating firearms.

As is the case with most Leftist lies and prevarication’s, they depend on a lack knowledge of the subject to succeed. This is why is extremely important that everyone of the Pro-Liberty Right be apprised of these facts in engaging those of the Left who have little care for logic, science or truth. The fact that multishot or repeating firearms existed centuries ago should make it clear that the Left is lying about the subject of self-defense from beginning to end.

Facebook Comments
Continue Reading

Culture and Religion

Naeem Fazal: Is Allah the same as Yahweh?

Published

on

Naeem Fazal Is Allah the same as Yahweh

One of the biggest reasons for the rise of the various movements attempting to unite the various religions of the world is the desire to end conflict. This isn’t just on the battlefield. Many want to prevent any one religion from spreading its doctrines as superior, opting instead for the push to say all religions are just variations on the same theme. This is, of course, very far from the truth.

The push to claim Allah, the god of Islam, is the same as Yahweh, the God of Jews and Christians, has been making its rounds across churches and public discourse for a while. It’s heretical and can be clearly debunked with a basic reading of scripture as well as readings of Quran. At the heart of the matter is the relationship with Jesus Christ.

Christians believe Jesus is the Son of God. Muslims believe Jesus was a prophet and the right-hand-man who will return to chastise all non-Muslims into believing in Islam or falling to the sword. There’s no connection between the two beliefs that can reconcile these fundamental differences.

Former Muslim Naeem Fazal visited with the folks at The One Minute Apologist to clear things up about Allah and Yahweh. His book, Ex-Muslim, is a great read for those who want to explore a wonderful transformation to the faith.

Boost This Post

Get this story in front of tens of thousands of patriots who need to see it. For every $30 you donate here, this story will be broadcast to an addition 7000 Americans or more. If you’d prefer to use PayPal, please email me at jdrucker@reagan.com and let me know which post you want boosted after you donate through PayPal.

Will you help revive the American Conservative Movement?

 


NOQ Report Needs Your Help

Facebook Comments
Continue Reading

Culture and Religion

7 life lessons we can learn from Daniel’s example

Published

on

7 life lessons we can learn from Daniels example

The Book of Daniel is one of the most profound and even entertaining books of the Bible. Within its amazing pages are some incredible lessons that we can apply to our lives today.

Chapter 2 in particular is often hurried through for a couple of reasons. First, it’s considered by most Bible scholars to be prophecy that’s already been fulfilled, so those who look to Daniel for its prophetic reasons may skip it as a history lesson. Second, the story focuses on Nebuchadnezzar‘s dream, but there are little nuances that highlight the character of Daniel in ways that are truly amazing.

Let’s take a look at 7 important lessons from the book. There are many others, of course, but these seven are all great places to start as we apply them to our lives today.

1. Be Reasonable with Your Faith

In the first chapter, Daniel and his companions are supposed to eat of the king’s meat and drink the wine of the kingdom. This had two purposes – to keep these special children who would become the wise men of the land as healthy as possible and to indoctrinate them into the customs of their new masters. Daniel purposed in his heart that he would not defile himself in this manner, knowing that doing so would go against the Torah.

Rather than fight, refuse, or hold a hunger strike, he asked to eat pulse and drink water. His request was denied because the master of the eunuchs did not want them to get weak and feeble in fear of what the king would do to him. Daniel took one more shot, this time with Melzar who was their caretaker.

Daniel 1:11-13 (KJV)

11 Then said Daniel to Melzar, whom the prince of the eunuchs had set over Daniel, Hananiah, Mishael, and Azariah,

12 Prove thy servants, I beseech thee, ten days; and let them give us pulse to eat, and water to drink.

13 Then let our countenances be looked upon before thee, and the countenance of the children that eat of the portion of the king’s meat: and as thou seest, deal with thy servants.

God allowed this to happen. Daniel and his companions were “fairer and fatter in flesh” than those who were eating the king’s meat.

There is no compromise for our faith. Had Melzar not allowed Daniel and his companions to eat the food that God required of them, then it’s very likely that Daniel would have handled the matter more firmly, even risking his own life to remain true to his faith. He would probably have become militant, but he first tried to be reasonable and it worked.

As Christians in such a perverse age, we are often called to take a stand against injustices that go against our faith. Many of us (myself included) often start off militant rather than giving the Holy Spirit a chance to move on our behalf. There are times when we must stand firm, but that should not always be the first option. Daniel accomplished his goal without offending anyone or hurting his own objectives.

2. Pray with Friends

Daniel prayed by himself all the time. However, when faced with death by decree of the king in Chapter 2, Daniel requested time to answer the king’s challenge. The first thing he did with his time was to go to his three companions so they could pray together for help.

There are times to pray alone, but when the need is great, it’s important to pray with others. The verses themselves, listed below, reveal two more important lessons; so many things we can learn are right there in a couple of short verses in Chapter 2.

3. Pray for Ends, not the Means

The prayer of the Jewish boys was done with more wisdom than most Christians and Jews have today. It’s a shame that we don’t get to read the actual prayer, but its short description within two verses in Chapter 2 tell us what we need to know about them:

Daniel 2:17-18 (KJV)

17 Then Daniel went to his house, and made the thing known to Hananiah, Mishael, and Azariah, his companions:

18 That they would desire mercies of the God of heaven concerning this secret; that Daniel and his fellows should not perish with the rest of the wise men of Babylon.

Most people, given the impossible challenge of knowing what a king dreamed and interpreting it for him in order to save their lives, would pray to know the dream and the interpretation so they would not perish. It seems straight forward, right? However, Daniel and his companions did not pray for this because this would be a presumptuous prayer. Instead, they prayed for mercies concerning this secret so they would not perish like the other wise men of the land.

Do you see the subtle difference? As it turned out, God gave Daniel the dream and its interpretation, but God could have easily answered the prayer any way He chose. His “mercies concerning the secret” could have been to change the king’s heart, to open a way for the Daniel and his companions to escape, to send a fireball down to devour the king… you get the point. They prayed with the goal in mind, that they would not be killed like the others. They left the methodology to God.

4. Be Humble, Thankful, and Full of Praise to the Father

It’s amazing that there are so many lessons in a few verses in Chapter 2. Another lesson was taught immediately after they prayed to God to not let them die. The lesson is one that we all need to hear more: Praise God as the wonderful Father that He is.

Daniel 2:19-23 (KJV)

19 Then was the secret revealed unto Daniel in a night vision. Then Daniel blessed the God of heaven.

20 Daniel answered and said, Blessed be the name of God for ever and ever: for wisdom and might are his:

21 And he changeth the times and the seasons: he removeth kings, and setteth up kings: he giveth wisdom unto the wise, and knowledge to them that know understanding:

22 He revealeth the deep and secret things: he knoweth what is in the darkness, and the light dwelleth with him.

23 I thank thee, and praise thee, O thou God of my fathers, who hast given me wisdom and might, and hast made known unto me now what we desired of thee: for thou hast now made known unto us the king’s matter.

Obviously, Daniel was extremely happy that he was not going to die thanks to the blessing he received from his Father and was quick to return that blessing in the best way he had available to him at that moment: praise. Then, once he was presenting to the king what the Lord had shown him, he gave us another important lesson…

5. Take No Credit for the Lord’s Works

Daniel could have very easily told the king that he was given a vision by God because he was special. He could have told the king that he was the smartest man in the world and the king would have believed him once he revealed the dream. He could have said that he was holy and blessed and that’s why God gave him the vision. He could have taken credit in any way that he chose. Instead, he chose to take no credit at all.

Daniel 2:21-28 (KJV)

27 Daniel answered in the presence of the king, and said, The secret which the king hath demanded cannot the wise men, the astrologers, the magicians, the soothsayers, shew unto the king;

28 But there is a God in heaven that revealeth secrets, and maketh known to the king Nebuchadnezzar what shall be in the latter days. Thy dream, and the visions of thy head upon thy bed, are these;

Human ego is a hard thing to put down. When good things happen to us, when we’re able to accomplish things that others cannot, or when we build things that are great, we often take credit. Sure, we might thank God for the blessing, the talent, the knowledge, the luck, the opportunity, or anything else, but we often do not realize or acknowledge that all things happen by the Grace of God. King Nebuchadnezzar learned this lesson the hard way in Chapter 4.

6. Have Courage to Tell the Hard Truths

In three different instances, courage was required to deliver a harsh message to a king. First, the three companions spoke boldly in the face of death.

Daniel 3:16-18 (KJV)

16 Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego, answered and said to the king, O Nebuchadnezzar, we are not careful to answer thee in this matter.

17 If it be so, our God whom we serve is able to deliver us from the burning fiery furnace, and he will deliver us out of thine hand, O king.

18 But if not, be it known unto thee, O king, that we will not serve thy gods, nor worship the golden image which thou hast set up.

They knew that what they were saying was going to get them thrown into a fiery furnace, but they said it anyway. This is an important lesson, one that every believer must prepare themselves for if they are ever faced with death over their faith.

As a mini-lesson, notice that they did not declare that God would save them. They would not presume to declare what God was going to do. They simply declared that God was able to deliver them from the furnace and that he would certainly deliver them from the king’s hand. Either way – had they been saved by a Son of God or had they burned – they would have been delivered from the king’s hand.

In Chapter 4, the king had a dream that he told to his wise men. In Chapter 2, they could not deliver an interpretation because they did not know the dream. This time, the king told them the dream, and as it says in verse 7, “they did not make known unto me the interpretation thereof.”

The meaning of the dream itself was actually pretty obvious, but the wise men did not make it known to him. Notice that it did not say that they could not make it known. Chances are, they knew exactly what it meant but because it spoke of bad tidings for the king, they didn’t want to be the ones delivering the bad news. They were afraid.

Daniel was afraid as well.

Daniel 4:19

19 Then Daniel, whose name was Belteshazzar, was astonied for one hour, and his thoughts troubled him. The king spake, and said, Belteshazzar, let not the dream, or the interpretation thereof, trouble thee. Belteshazzar answered and said, My lord, the dream be to them that hate thee, and the interpretation thereof to thine enemies.

He overcame his fear and revealed a terrible fate for the king. It wasn’t easy. he hesitated for a long time, perhaps building up the courage. After all, it isn’t easy to tell someone that they’re going to be eating grass and living with animals because of their evil doings.

More ill tidings were put to Daniel to deliver to a king in Chapter 5. This time, Daniel didn’t hesitate at all. In fact, he used the opportunity to deliver the message of the king’s death that night to chastise him for defiling the ornaments of God’s people.

7. Ask Forgiveness for Your People

This is arguably the most controversial of the lessons taught through the Book of Daniel. In Chapter 9:3-19, Daniel asks for forgiveness for his people. He does not make excuses. He acknowledges their shortcomings, their sins, and their betrayals. He does not ask for anything that they deserve but rather forgiveness for the Lord’s sake as they are His children and Jerusalem is His city.

I won’t put in the whole prayer, but please take the time to read it. Instead, I’ll focus on the final verse of the prayer:

Daniel 9:19 (KJV)

19 O Lord, hear; O Lord, forgive; O Lord, hearken and do; defer not, for thine own sake, O my God: for thy city and thy people are called by thy name.

As Moses once did, here Daniel asks the Lord to forgive His people for His sake, not theirs.

We are viewed as individuals, of course, but we are also viewed as nations. It is important that we do pray for a turning away from sin. We are in a time when just about every country is faced with challenges with faith. In America, we contend with a turning away from our foundation of belief. Abortion, gay marriage, and the silencing of Biblical doctrines for the sake of diversity and tolerance are just some of our country’s sins.

In other places such as parts of Asia, Africa, and the Middle East, being a Christian can bring persecution and even death. There are challenges that the enemy has placed before all of is in one form or another. It is too much for anyone to fight alone. We must pray for our Lord to forgive us and help us fight the good fight.

The entire book is wonderful on so many levels. Yes, there are incredible lessons for everyone to hear, but there are also prophecies and messages that God wanted us to know. If you’ve never done a thorough reading of Daniel, now is the time to do it.

Facebook Comments
Continue Reading

Facebook

Trending