Sorry had to teach a class.

Ron Scott wrote:

I'm lousy at parables. Please explain.

Here's my interpretation. I hope that I am not too far off the mark.

1) The filth represents sin, generally, through the individual
choices of the children involved.  The effects of the filth
represents the effects of sin.


2) The children represent ourselves.


3) To be cleansed represents repentance by way of the Gospel.


4) The first father represents an unrighteous plan to bring
people to repentance, namely:  The use of force, coercion, and

Almost. I was using him to represent the law of Moses. The people way back then were so close to death each and every day of their lives (lack of civilization...lack of good government) that it was imperative that they obey the gospel...right now. If they had been as lax in obeying the gospel as people are today, civilization itself might never have gotten off the ground. (My opinion.) Perhaps they needed an iron hand. (If you ever get the opportunity, read "Little House on the Prairie." Back then, the gospel was vital to your existence...literally.)

5) The second father represents a righteous plan to bring
people to repentance.  Applicable scriptures: D&C 121:44-46,
and Moses 4:1-2.  Charity and long-suffering would appear to
be key.

The second father represents the higher law that Christ brought. The civilization was formed. The laws existed and society was to some dependable extent obeying them.

6) The second son genuinely repents because he realizes he
needs to change, then takes action accordingly. The first son
only takes action so as to APPEAR outwardly to repent. Inwardly, that person doesn't yet see the need to change.

Because the second father shows love for his children, the boy is not afraid...and therefore can work on his salvation for no other reason than for his own sake. He was truly working out his own salvation.

7) Thus, the second son is on his way to salvation.  The first
son's spiritual status remains in question.

Right. Who know how the boy will change once the father is gone.

* * *

Still, having laws on the books doesn't mean that we seek to
compel people to do right, but rather, there is an overriding
interest to regulate certain things to allow society as a
whole to operate in a free and righteous manner. If there
were no laws, or if laws ratified or encouraged immoral
acts, I submit that it becomes significantly more difficult
for either father to teach his son about repentance.

All the best,

Still keeping all of that mind. The fathers were never the ones giving out the diseases. Consequence did that. Both fathers cared for the welfare of their children. One just cared for it in a way that was preferable to the other. The fathers used two very different methods to keep their children safe.

It's not a perfect analogy. In the first analogy, the father, if he loved the child, would have cleaned the room for him. Sorry, it was the best I could come up with.

The Rabinowitz Family --
Spring Hill, Tennessee

-- Jonathan Scott

///  ZION LIST CHARTER: Please read it at  ///
///      ///
This email was sent to: [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Or send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED]

For Topica's complete suite of email marketing solutions visit:

Reply via email to