Power of FOIA every meeting of public officials or state actors that posted or a special is all good to ask for info.

January 20, 2014 § Leave a comment

Lawpulse

Aldermen’s texts, tweets during council meetings are ‘public records’

By

Adam W. Lasker

Put your phone down as soon as the meeting starts, a lawyer for local officials counsels his clients in the wake of City of Champaign v. Lisa Madigan.

In a decision that bolsters the strength and lengthens the reach of Illinois’ sunshine laws, an appellate court ruled that messages sent by aldermen on their personal electronic devices during a council meeting are “public records” and are subject to disclosure if they pertain to public business.

In City of Champaign v. Lisa Madigan, 2013 IL App (4th) 120662, a unanimous panel of the fourth district appellate court held that a municipality is required to disclose electronic communications between aldermen during a city council meeting if those texts, tweets, or e-mails were about city business, even if the communications were created on, sent by, or stored in the aldermen’s private phones or computers.

“To hold otherwise would allow members of a public body, convened as a public body, to subvert the Open Meetings Act and [Freedom of Information Act (FOIA)] requirements simply by communicating about city business during a city council meeting on a personal electronic device,” Justice M. Carol Pope wrote for the appellate panel.

Public business on private devices

The case began when a reporter from The News-Gazette attended a public meeting of the Champaign City Council and noticed some aldermen using their personal cell phones and other electronic devices to send messages during the meeting. Curious about the contents of those messages, the reporter submitted a FOIA request to the city, seeking copies of: “All electronic communications, including cellphone text messages, sent and received by members of the city council and the mayor during the city council meetings…. Please note that this request applies both to city-issued and personal cellphones, city-issued or personal email addresses, and Twitter accounts.”

The city conceded that “there were electronic communications [that] would be responsive to [the reporter’s] request if they were required to be produced,” but the FOIA officer refused to produce any such documents, claiming instead that they did not meet FOIA’s definition of “public records” and that the individual members of the city council did not meet the definition of a “public body.”

The appellate court, however, disagreed. The court noted that section 2(c) of FOIA defines “public record” as documents “pertaining to the transaction of public business, regardless of physical form or characteristics, having been prepared by or for, or having been or being used by, received by, in the possession of, or under the control of any public body.”

The court further held that “public business” is an element of a public record, and public business can be easily summed up as “business or community interests as opposed to private affairs.”

Since the city had acknowledged that at least some of the requested records pertained to public business, and since the reporter conceded he was not seeking disclosure of any private affairs, the court was left with the issue of whether the individual aldermen constituted a “public body,” and whether the records created and stored on their personal devices were “in the possession of, or under the control of any public body.”

After analyzing prior appellate decisions, the fourth district held that an individual alderman is not a “public body” while acting alone, but is an integral component of a public body while acting in unison in the midst of a meeting of the entire board or council.

“Under this interpretation, a message from a constituent ‘pertaining to the transaction of public business’ received at home by an individual city council member on his personal electronic device would not be subject to FOIA,” the court explained. “However, that communication would be subject to FOIA if it was forwarded to enough members of the city council to constitute a quorum for that specific body, regardless of whether a personal electronic device, as opposed to a publicly issued electronic device, was used.”

Similarly, if the communications were created in the midst of a council meeting, or a meeting of any other public body, such communications would be subject to FOIA because the individual members were, at that time, acting together as the public body. When the individual members are acting as a public body, the court held that all records stored on their personal electronic devices are, as a matter of law, in the possession and control of the public body and must be disclosed if the records pertain to public business.

“For the reasons stated, communications ‘pertaining to public business’ and sent to and from individual city council member’s personal electronic devices during the time city council meetings (and study sessions) were convened should be turned over to the City’s FOIA officer for review of what information, if any, should be…provided to [the FOIA requester].”

A duty to store personal texts, emails?

This holding appears to place a duty on elected officials to provide copies to the head of the public body (or its FOIA officer) of all documents stored on their personal computers and phones that are related to public business and that were either created during a meeting of the public body, or that were distributed to at least a quorum of its members.

However, Bollingbrook-based local-government attorney John M. O’Driscoll, a partner with Tressler LLP, said the Champaign decision raises more questions than it answers, and all governmental bodies throughout the state should take a close look at their local practices and ordinances to make sure they are complying with the sunshine laws without also putting themselves at risk of having to disclose communications they intended to remain private.

“Everybody understands and appreciates the need for transparency in government, but trying to implement that in a fair and reasonable way is a difficult thing to do, especially with advancements in technology,” O’Driscoll said. “With my [village] trustees, I tell them to put their phone down and don’t touch it as soon as the meeting starts – it’s not worth the aggravation. But that can be a problem sometimes, because people are addicted to these devices.”

O’Driscoll said responding to FOIA requests that involve electronic communications has become “no easy task,” and the Champaign decision is only one step towards providing FOIA officers with the information they need to properly perform their duties. There will be future court decisions, O’Driscoll said, dealing with specific scenarios on a case-by-case basis.

“For example, consider a message that was sent before the meeting started but had an attachment that slowed the delivery until after the meeting started. How would that be treated?” he said.

The Champaign court didn’t have all the answers, but it did provide some advice for elected officials that echoes what O’Driscoll has been telling his governmental clients.

“We would encourage local municipalities to consider promulgating their own rules prohibiting city council members from using their personal electronic devices during city council meetings,” the court said.

Adam W. Lasker <alasker@ancelglink.com> is a lawyer in the Chicago office of Ancel, Glink, Diamond, Bush, DiCanni & Krafthefer.


December 2013 Lawpulse

The appearance this is going on in many state actors involved with the title IV monies in the BILLIONS in Julie Hamos REin of Tearer

January 15, 2014 § Leave a comment

Court orders administration to release documents showing a cover up by Governor Pat Quinn

A regular citizen beats Asst Attorney General Emma Steimel
in IL 5th Judicial Circuit Courtroom.

Forces open 18 internal Quinn administration emails

Paris, Illinois Courthouse

Yesterday, I was in the courtroom when a citizen activist represented himself and wrested key documents from a government intent on hiding public information.  It was beautiful…

RIPPING APART ILLINOIS’S MEDICAID SCANDAL

Yesterday, Kirk Allen, the co-founder of Edgar County Watchdogs, won his Freedom of Information Act lawsuit against Director Julie Hamos and Illinois HealthCare and Family Services.  At issue, were 18 Quinn administration emails that show the collusion of Governor Quinn’s General Counsel, Illinois HeathCare & Family Services executives and the top procurement officer, Matt Brown to prevent a sitting state representative from accessing public communications.

The appearance to level the playing field to see children without the financial tormentor other parent

January 1, 2014 § Leave a comment

Short Description:  DISSOL: CUSTODY-1ST REFUSAL

House Sponsors
Rep. Josh Harms – Jil Tracy – Chad Hays – Naomi D. Jakobsson – Michael J. ZalewskiLinda Chapa LaViaJohn M. CabelloMonique D. DavisJim SaciaRaymond PoeLou LangAnn WilliamsElgie R. Sims, Jr.Dennis M. Reboletti and André M. Thapedi

Senate Sponsors
(Sen. Ira I. Silverstein – Steven M. LandekJohn M. SullivanJohn G. MulroeJason A. Barickman,Kirk W. DillardMichael E. HastingsDaniel BissLinda HolmesMelinda BushMichael NolandMartin A. SandovalToi W. HutchinsonPamela J. AlthoffChapin Rose and Napoleon Harris, III)

Last Action

Date Chamber  Action
  8/16/2013 House Public Act . . . . . . . . . 98-0462

Statutes Amended In Order of Appearance

750 ILCS 5/602.3 new

Synopsis As Introduced
Amends the Illinois Marriage and Dissolution of Marriage Act. Provides that if the court finds that it is in the best interest of the child and awards joint custody or visitation rights, the court shall find that both parties have the right of first refusal to care for the minor children if the absence of either party is necessary during the party’s normal parenting time. Provides that the use of baby-sitters, family members, or subsequent spouses is secondary to the right of first refusal. Provides that “right of first refusal” means that in the event that either parent intends to leave the minor children for a period of 4 hours or longer, that parent shall first offer the other parent an opportunity for additional time with the children before making other arrangements for the temporary care of the children. Contains provisions concerning the setting of parameters regarding distance, transportation, and time constraints which may make the offering of additional parenting time impractical and therefore not required. Provides that the parent leaving the children with the other parent or with a temporary child care provider shall notify the other parent of the duration of the parenting time or temporary care of the children by other persons. Contains procedural requirements regarding the offering and acceptance of additional parenting time. Provides that the parent exercising additional parenting time shall provide the necessary transportation unless the parties agree otherwise. Provides that the new provisions are enforceable under the Section of the Act concerning visitation abuse. Provides that the right of first refusal shall be terminated upon the termination of custody or visitation rights.

House Floor Amendment No. 1
Replaces everything after the enacting clause. Amends the Illinois Marriage and Dissolution of Marriage Act. Provides that if the court awards joint custody or visitation rights, the court may consider, consistent with the best interest of the child, whether to award to one or both of the parties the right of first refusal to provide child care for the minor child or children during the other parent’s normal parenting time, unless the need for child care is attributable to an emergency. Provides that “right of first refusal” means that if a party intends to leave the minor child or children with a substitute child-care provider for a significant period of time, that party must first offer the other party an opportunity to personally care for the minor child or children. Provides that the parties may agree to a right of first refusal, but if they do not and the court determines that a right of first refusal is in the best interest of the child, the court shall consider an make provisions in its order for specified considerations relating to the right of first refusal. Provides that the new provisions are enforceable under the Section of the Act concerning visitation abuse. Provides that the right of first refusal are terminated upon the termination of custody or visitation rights.

Actions

Date Chamber  Action
  2/26/2013 House Filed with the Clerk by Rep. Josh Harms
  2/26/2013 House First Reading
  2/26/2013 House Referred to Rules Committee
  3/7/2013 House Assigned to Judiciary
  3/8/2013 House Added Chief Co-Sponsor Rep. Jil Tracy
  3/8/2013 House Added Chief Co-Sponsor Rep. Chad Hays
  3/8/2013 House Added Chief Co-Sponsor Rep. Naomi D. Jakobsson
  3/8/2013 House Added Chief Co-Sponsor Rep. Michael J. Zalewski
  3/8/2013 House Added Co-Sponsor Rep. Linda Chapa LaVia
  3/8/2013 House Added Co-Sponsor Rep. Ron Sandack
  3/13/2013 House Added Co-Sponsor Rep. John M. Cabello
  3/13/2013 House Added Co-Sponsor Rep. Monique D. Davis
  3/15/2013 House Added Co-Sponsor Rep. Jim Sacia
  3/15/2013 House Added Co-Sponsor Rep. Raymond Poe
  3/19/2013 House Added Co-Sponsor Rep. Lou Lang
  3/19/2013 House Removed Co-Sponsor Rep. Ron Sandack
  3/20/2013 House Added Co-Sponsor Rep. Ann Williams
  3/20/2013 House Added Co-Sponsor Rep. Elgie R. Sims, Jr.
  3/20/2013 House Added Co-Sponsor Rep. Dennis M. Reboletti
  3/20/2013 House Added Co-Sponsor Rep. André M. Thapedi
  3/20/2013 House Do Pass / Short Debate Judiciary; 016-000-000
  3/20/2013 House Placed on Calendar 2nd Reading – Short Debate
  3/21/2013 House House Floor Amendment No. 1 Filed with Clerk by Rep. Josh Harms
  3/21/2013 House House Floor Amendment No. 1 Referred to Rules Committee
  3/28/2013 House House Floor Amendment No. 1 Rules Refers to Judiciary
  4/10/2013 House House Floor Amendment No. 1 Recommends Be Adopted Judiciary; 011-000-000
  4/10/2013 House Second Reading – Short Debate
  4/10/2013 House House Floor Amendment No. 1 Adopted
  4/10/2013 House Placed on Calendar Order of 3rd Reading – Short Debate
  4/12/2013 House Third Reading – Short Debate – Passed 104-000-000
  4/12/2013 Senate Arrive in Senate
  4/12/2013 Senate Placed on Calendar Order of First Reading April 16, 2013
  4/12/2013 Senate Chief Senate Sponsor Sen. Ira I. Silverstein
  4/16/2013 Senate First Reading
  4/16/2013 Senate Referred to Assignments
  4/23/2013 Senate Assigned to Judiciary
  4/26/2013 Senate Added as Alternate Co-Sponsor Sen. John M. Sullivan
  4/30/2013 Senate Added as Alternate Co-Sponsor Sen. John G. Mulroe
  4/30/2013 Senate Added as Alternate Co-Sponsor Sen. Jason A. Barickman
  5/1/2013 Senate Do Pass Judiciary; 010-000-000
  5/1/2013 Senate Placed on Calendar Order of 2nd Reading May 2, 2013
  5/2/2013 Senate Added as Alternate Co-Sponsor Sen. Kirk W. Dillard
  5/2/2013 Senate Added as Alternate Co-Sponsor Sen. Michael E. Hastings
  5/3/2013 Senate Added as Alternate Co-Sponsor Sen. Daniel Biss
  5/7/2013 Senate Added as Alternate Chief Co-Sponsor Sen. Steven M. Landek
  5/8/2013 Senate Second Reading
  5/8/2013 Senate Placed on Calendar Order of 3rd Reading May 9, 2013
  5/9/2013 Senate Added as Alternate Co-Sponsor Sen. Linda Holmes
  5/9/2013 Senate Added as Alternate Co-Sponsor Sen. Melinda Bush
  5/9/2013 Senate Added as Alternate Co-Sponsor Sen. Michael Noland
  5/9/2013 Senate Added as Alternate Co-Sponsor Sen. Martin A. Sandoval
  5/20/2013 Senate Added as Alternate Co-Sponsor Sen. Toi W. Hutchinson
  5/20/2013 Senate Added as Alternate Co-Sponsor Sen. Pamela J. Althoff
  5/20/2013 Senate Added as Alternate Co-Sponsor Sen. Chapin Rose
  5/22/2013 Senate Added as Alternate Co-Sponsor Sen. Napoleon Harris, III
  5/22/2013 Senate Third Reading – Passed; 057-000-000
  5/22/2013 House Passed Both Houses
  6/19/2013 House Sent to the Governor
  8/16/2013 House Governor Approved
  8/16/2013 House Effective Date January 1, 2014
  8/16/2013 House Public Act . . . . . . . . . 98-0462

How To Deal With A Bad Judge Revealing Many Ways For Dealing With Bad Judges

December 19, 2013 § Leave a comment

How to deal with bad judges
How To Deal With A Bad Judge

Revealing Many Ways For Dealing With Bad Judges

This page is informational. We are NOT lawyers and nothing on this page should be construed as legal advice!

“I can state with certainty that if you go against the status quo in Rhode Island and point out wrongdoing of the judiciary they will ruin your legal practice and make it impossible for you to win a case.”
–Quoted by a well known lawyer who was discussing the Rhode Island Judiciary

You should consider a Judge bad only if they show a pattern of behaving or ruling in a manner that is:

  • preventing or hindering you from receiving full, fair, impartial hearings or the full, fair, impartial administration of justice or
  • you have seen evidence which would lead a reasonable person to believe they could be prevented or hindered from receiving full, fair, impartial hearings or the full, fair, impartial administration of justice.

The criteria used in deciding if a judge is bad is NOT how they handle a high profile case or people of influence, but how they handle the poor, prosecutorial misconduct and the unrepresented.  Regardless of how bad a Judge is, they will undoubtedly make SOME correct decisions.  We consider a Judge bad if they do not FAITHFULLY and CONSISTENTLY adhere to their oath of office and aggressively pursue justice for ALL.   Anything less is unacceptable and is the definition of a bad judge.  Also see the Judicial Accountability Initiative Law and the article on dismissals of Government cases.

Bad Judges exist.  We all know they do.  [See Judges as Criminals?]  Very few practicing lawyers are willing or able to expose Bad Judges publicly, for they are at great risk when they must later appear again before the exposed Bad Judge.  Exposure of rotten judicial apples offends and embarrasses the entire judiciary.  When a lawyer, in diligent pursuit of his client’s interests, dares stand up to Bad Judges, the “system” locks arms, and seeks to punish or suppress the iconoclastic lawyer.  The system’s resistance to admitting the existence of a bad judge can be astounding.  Yet someone must stand up to challenge this cancer within the Judiciary.  Bad Judges need to be weeded out.  It is to the fair, competent judges that the following is dedicated.

Before you go before a Judge, try to learn the Judge’s record!

  • Check Caught! to see if complaints or comments are on file.  [Rhode Island]
  • Courtroom Monitoring
  • Case Research [try researching decisions by topic and judge]
  • Investigation [Newspaper Databases, Law Library etc.]
  • Ask local practitioners
  • Ask national court reform advocacy groups
  • For new Judges with no track record, listen to other cases in their courtrooms before losing your right to disqualify

To Change A Judge Before The Trial:

  • READ CASE LAW REGARDING JUDICIAL BEHAVIOR DURING TRIALS
  • PEREMPTORY DISQUALIFICATION
  • DISQUALIFICATION FOR CAUSE (RECUSAL)
    Note: In Rhode Island it is customary for a judge to recuse himself if there is a complaint pending with the state’s Commission on Judicial Tenure and Discipline.  Check your area and jurisdiction.  There are 2 factors to consider.  First, once a Judge starts to stink it usually always gets worse.   Second, the grass might NOT be greener on the other side.

    Now, according to Congress, U.S. Supreme Court case law and Rhode Island’s canons of judicial ethics, a judge must bow out of hearing any case in which his or her impartiality might reasonably be questioned.  The Rhode Island Canons of Judicial Conduct say that judges must avoid all impropriety and appearance of impropriety.
    “The test for appearance of impropriety is whether the conduct would create in reasonable minds a perception that the judge’s ability to carry out judicial responsibilities with integrity, impartiality and competence is impaired.”
    Use this wording when moving for recusal.  Also, requests for recusal MUST be in the form of a motion.

  • REMOVAL TO ANOTHER JURISDICTION
  • CHANGE OF VENUE
  • MOTIONS TO DISMISS BEFORE MERITS ARE HEARD
    • Res Judicata
    • No Jurisdiction
    • Sham, Frivolous, Meritless pleadings
  • DELAY IF JUDGE IS ABOUT TO BE ROTATED OFF OF CASE
  • START LISTING THE ABUSES ON CAUGHT! [Rhode Island]
  • FORMAL COMPLAINTS

If It Is Impossible To Change A Judge Before Trial:

Dealing With A Judge After A Bad Ruling

Serve Society By Taking Action To Get A Bad Judge Off The Bench.
Identify And Publicly Expose Biased, Prejudiced And Corrupt Judges!

Related References

Graphic Line
Graphic Line

They never follow the statue they go over the right of the protected to enrich their coffers.

December 14, 2013 § Leave a comment

    (705 ILCS 405/2-17) (from Ch. 37, par. 802-17) 
    Sec. 2-17. Guardian ad litem. 
    (1) Immediately upon the filing of a petition alleging that the minor is a person described in Sections 2-3 or 2-4 of this Article, the court shall appoint a guardian ad litem for the minor if: 
        (a) such petition alleges that the minor is an abused
    
or neglected child; or
        (b) such petition alleges that charges alleging the
    
commission of any of the sex offenses defined in Article 11 or in Sections 11-1.20, 11-1.30, 11-1.40, 11-1.50, 11-1.60, 12-13, 12-14, 12-14.1, 12-15 or 12-16 of the Criminal Code of 1961 or the Criminal Code of 2012, have been filed against a defendant in any court and that such minor is the alleged victim of the acts of defendant in the commission of such offense.
    Unless the guardian ad litem appointed pursuant to this paragraph (1) is an attorney at law he shall be represented in the performance of his duties by counsel. The guardian ad litem shall represent the best interests of the minor and shall present recommendations to the court consistent with that duty. 
    (2) Before proceeding with the hearing, the court shall appoint a guardian ad litem for the minor if 
        (a) no parent, guardian, custodian or relative of the
    
minor appears at the first or any subsequent hearing of the case;
        (b) the petition prays for the appointment of a
    
guardian with power to consent to adoption; or
        (c) the petition for which the minor is before the
    
court resulted from a report made pursuant to the Abused and Neglected Child Reporting Act.
    (3) The court may appoint a guardian ad litem for the minor whenever it finds that there may be a conflict of interest between the minor and his parents or other custodian or that it is otherwise in the minor's best interest to do so.
    (4) Unless the guardian ad litem is an attorney, he shall be represented by counsel. 
    (5) The reasonable fees of a guardian ad litem appointed under this Section shall be fixed by the court and charged to the parents of the minor, to the extent they are able to pay. If the parents are unable to pay those fees, they shall be paid from the general fund of the county. 
    (6) A guardian ad litem appointed under this Section, shall receive copies of any and all classified reports of child abuse and neglect made under the Abused and Neglected Child Reporting Act in which the minor who is the subject of a report under the Abused and Neglected Child Reporting Act, is also the minor for whom the guardian ad litem is appointed under this Section. 
    (7) The appointed guardian ad litem shall remain the child's guardian ad litem throughout the entire juvenile trial court proceedings, including permanency hearings and termination of parental rights proceedings, unless there is a substitution entered by order of the court. 
    (8) The guardian ad litem or an agent of the guardian ad litem shall have a minimum of one in-person contact with the minor and one contact with one of the current foster parents or caregivers prior to the adjudicatory hearing, and at least one additional in-person contact with the child and one contact with one of the current foster parents or caregivers after the adjudicatory hearing but prior to the first permanency hearing and one additional in-person contact with the child and one contact with one of the current foster parents or caregivers each subsequent year. For good cause shown, the judge may excuse face-to-face interviews required in this subsection. 
    (9) In counties with a population of 100,000 or more but less than 3,000,000, each guardian ad litem must successfully complete a training program approved by the Department of Children and Family Services. The Department of Children and Family Services shall provide training materials and documents to guardians ad litem who are not mandated to attend the training program. The Department of Children and Family Services shall develop and distribute to all guardians ad litem a bibliography containing information including but not limited to the juvenile court process, termination of parental rights, child development, medical aspects of child abuse, and the child's need for safety and permanence. 
(Source: P.A. 96-1551, eff. 7-1-11; 97-1150, eff. 1-25-13.)

Judicial wall of shame

December 14, 2013 § Leave a comment

Too often as Election Day approaches, the road to the courthouse detours through a gauntlet of political mudslinging. Here are some of the significant low points in the 2011-12 race to the bottom in judicial election advertising:

OHIO: The Ohio Republican Party, which backed an incumbent justice facing former appeals-court judge Bill O’Neill, seized on a 2000 decision O’Neill wrote reversing a rape conviction. Variations on the allegation ran in several ads, including “When Crime Occurs,” over six days ending Oct. 29, 2012.

“When crime occurs victims deserve justice. But as a judge, Bill O’Neill expressed sympathy for rapists.”

victims%20deserve%20justice%20sbvictims%20deserve%20justice%20sb 

Copyright 2012 Kantar Media/CMAG

MICHIGAN: A Washington, D.C.-based group, the Judicial Crisis Network, ran an ad featuring the mother of a Michigan soldier killed in Afghanistan that referred to Bridget McCormack’s involvement as volunteer co-counsel for a Guantanamo Bay detainee. The detainee was transferred for prosecution in Tajikistan, where he is serving a 17-year term. The ad aired 416 times over eight days through Election Day.

“My son is a hero and fought to protect us. Bridget McCormack volunteered to free a terrorist. How could you?”

freed%20sb 

Copyright 2012 Kantar Media/CMAG

MICHIGAN: The Michigan Democratic Party ran an ad attacking the three Republican-backed Supreme Court candidates for their alleged ties with special interests. Focusing in on candidate Colleen O’Brien, a former insurance lawyer, the ad asserted that “she worked to deny benefits to a cancer patient.” The ad aired 553 times.

“O’Brien helped deny benefits to cancer patient.”

insurance%20court%20sbinsurance%20court%20sbinsurance%20court%20sb 

Copyright 2012 Kantar Media/CMAG

KENTUCKY: In a rematch between Supreme Court Justice Will T. Scott and Janet Stumbo, whom he unseated in 2004, the Scott campaign evoked the infamous race-baiting Willie Horton ad from the 1988 presidential election. While flashing images of black murderers and pregnant white women, the ad referred to murder convictions that Stumbo voted to reverse while on the Supreme Court. The ad aired 71 times, ending one week before the election.

“Lee Parrish and Roger Wheeler were sentenced to death for ruthlessly murdering pregnant women. But former justice Janet Stumbo voted to reverse both convictions.”

STSUPCT_KY_SCOTT_SENTENCED_TO_DEATH 

Copyright 2012 Kantar Media/CMAG

WISCONSIN: The Greater Wisconsin Committee targeted Justice David Prosser with what one columnist called “the mother of all attack ads.”1 It accused him of protecting a priest accused of molestation in 1979, when Prosser was a prosecutor. A victim in the case, among others, labeled the ad “offensive and inaccurate” and called for it to be removed.2 It aired 1,089 times over 13 days through the 2011 election.

“Tell David Prosser judges should protect our children, not sex offenders.”

STSUPCT_WI_GWIC_REFUSES_TO_PROSECUTE 

Copyright 2012 Kantar Media/CMAG


Hall of Shame Notes

  1. Patrick Marley, Supreme Court Tensions Boil Over, Milwaukee Journal Sentinel, Mar. 19, 2011,http://www.jsonline.com/….   [return]
  2. Patrick McIlheran, The Cure For Dirty Politics Is Truth About What Prosser Did, Milwaukee Journal Sentinel, Mar. 25, 2011, http://www.jsonline.com/….   [return]

PARSING THE ELEMENTS OF THE KINGDOM

December 14, 2013 § Leave a comment

THE KINGDOM PART V
PARSING THE ELEMENTS OF THE KINGDOM

By Danny Shreffler

THE KINGDOM PART V

THE KINGDOM PART V
PARSING THE ELEMENTS OF THE KINGDOM

By Danny Shreffler

THE PEOPLE WHICH SAT IN DARKNESS

In Matthew 4:16 there is a passage beginning with the phrase “The people which sat in darkness…” Throughout the scriptures darkness is a metaphorical term signifying ignorance or lack of understanding. In contrast, light and the term ‘walking in light’ are terms for a state of understanding. It is a place where we may dwell if we are willing to examine scripture, meditate upon its meanings and advance to a greater or more perfect state of understanding.

Often mankind wonders just exactly how Yahuwah used to speak to His prophets. We all know He sometime spoke to them in dreams. In the case of Adam, we suppose that He spoke directly as a man would speak to a man. Primarily, we believe, He taught them through inspiration. This inspiration was often gleaned from the study of the physical world in which they dwelled.

Doctrine, as it is called, is a term Bible students use as a term for a principal, generally accepted by those with which they agree, to be absolute truth. Any true doctrine expressed by the New Scriptures (those between the little blank page in the middle of your Bible and ending at the maps) can be set forth as truth only if it can be found as a principal taught in the Old Scriptures (those preceding the little blank page.) Just as we are taught that any condemned person must have his guilt established by two or more witnesses, any doctrine must be supported by both the witness of the Old Scriptures and the New. In fact, most doctrines have their very roots in the book of Genesis, the book of beginnings. So it is with the doctrine of the kingdom of heaven.

Mankind, just as the day, began in darkness. As with the day, light entered a little at a time. In the beginning, there was a taste of what would through time grow into a greater understanding. The first suggestion of a kingdom, as with any doctrine, was small and seemingly insignificant at first. Then as time progressed, God ever patient and longsuffering, with mankind, would reveal a bit more of His truth. It would seem as we get ever closer to what we believe to be the end of time as we know it, we would clearly understand the scriptures and exactly what God has sought to teach us throughout time. Still many things remain hidden to us until they are fully revealed and shine directly into our face. Then and only then the ‘aha’ moment arrives and says ‘this is that of which the prophets spoke!’

The first vestiges of the kingdom are expressed in the very first chapter of the Bible. While they are not openly called the elements of, or the principal of, a kingdom, the elements are there.

THE KING

The very first verse in the Holy Scriptures supposes the existence of a being most of creation calls God. The word God is not a name. It is a descriptive term which designates the subject of that term to be the superior being of all creation regardless of who you understand that being to be. The Hebrew word, translated God in the King James Version of the Bible is Elohiym.

page1image28104

Elohiym is a plural word indicating more than one member of a group or family later recognized singularly as Yahuwah or in some cases shortened to Yah. (See the article Hallelu-who? by this author) The account given by the KJV of the Scriptures testifies of creation in a sequence of events that has later been substantiated by science to be accurate and necessary in its order for life to have survived.

Yet throughout the scriptures we find neither commandment, nor instruction by the prophets, mandating referring to Yahuwah as
king. Certainly there is no preoccupation by either
the God of creation, or his prophets with calling

Yahuwah king. In fact, it is interesting to note the
closest thing to Him actually being referred to as
king, is the account given in the book of I Samuel,
chapter eight. In the account recorded there Israel
chooses to reject the reign of Yahuwah over their nation. Still by right of both design and creation, the very architect of creation itself entitles the artist to the right of king. The scriptures constantly reinforce this truth by showing the sovereignty, might and authority of Yahuwah. To say otherwise would be to imply that He is a usurper riding rough shod over the realm and authority of another.

THE REALM

In the Genesis account of creation, having understood the right of the king, we find the initial concept of the other elements of the kingdom. On the third day earth, being the dominion or realm, was created. On the sixth day of creation, the subjects were created, both male and female. (Gen 1:26) Regardless of whether or not this man was one in the same as the man addressed in the second chapter of Genesis, we find a couple of things worthy of note when we look at the scriptures.

THE SUBJECTS

Firstly, the man ‘created’ on day six of creation was in the image of the Elohiym that created him. Image means image. It means this man resembled the God (Elohiym) that created him. Literally, it means this man was an idol or representation of God. This man looked like, or had the attributes, of those things God wishes us to understand Him to be. Now we know God is a spirit, (John 4:24) and in the literal sense spirits have no hands, ears, facial features, etc. They are ethereal beings without physical substance as we know it. Yet this King, who created the subjects on the sixth day, wished the image to express attributes the creator enjoyed. This creator not actually having an ear made of flesh, created an ear on the ‘idol’ to give expression and knowledge to the ‘created’ that the said creator had the ability to hear man’s cries. He put within the face of man, an eye to show that the King he served had the ability to see! Consider the following:

“The hearing ear, and the seeing eye, Yahuwah hath made even both of them.” – Prov 20:12 “He that planted the ear shall he not hear? he that formed the eye shall he not see?” Ps 94:9 “I have heard of thee by the hearing of the ear: but now mine eye seeth thee.” Job 42:5

Certainly we miss the point if we believe God created an ear on man to show that He has a physical ear. That’s earthly! It is the heavenly counterpart He wishes us to see and understand! It

page2image29024 page2image29616 page2image30040 page2image30800

“And Yahuwah said unto Samuel, Hearken unto the voice of the people in all that they say unto thee: for they have not rejected thee, but they have rejected me, that I should not reign over them.” – I Sam 8:7

page2image33856

is about His abilities and not His looks. Again this is but another illustration of how all creation testifies and speaks to the essence and being of the Almighty.

THE LAW

Secondly, considering the ‘man’ (subject) God created, we find the creation of ‘law’. While this first expression of law is not codified like the ‘book of the law’ given later in Leviticus and Deuteronomy, it certainly is the first example of law and instruction issued from the king of the realm to the subject of the realm. It is also a clear allocation of authority and definition of man’s role in the parameters of God’s kingdom. It is man’s authority over the kingdom with the express approval of the king creator of the same.

At this point in time, the law of the kingdom was simple. It was direct and consisted of a few direct commands from God to man.

“And God blessed them, and God said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it: and have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over every living thing that moveth upon the earth.

And God said, Behold, I have given you every herb bearing seed, which is upon the face of all the earth, and every tree, in the which is the fruit of a tree yielding seed; to you it shall

be for meat.

And to every beast of the earth, and to every fowl of the air, and to everything that creepeth upon the earth, wherein there is life, I have given every green herb for meat: and it was so.” – Gen 1:28-30

Finally, we find the man of Genesis 1 given a realm or dominion of his own. This realm encompassed the entire world and the creation living within it.

So at this early point in time, we already see the work of the Almighty. Slowly and simply the suggestion of things yet to come are expressed in the creation week. His creation of the realm and subjects are made manifest as well as the simplified expression of His laws and what He wishes His kingdom to be. The goal is peace, joy, tranquility and life in abundance. The laws, simple and forthright; multiply, replenish and subdue. Restrictions are non-existent, until later found to be necessary. The subjects of the benevolent monarchy are blessed and given everything possibly needed for their joy and survival. So we find from the very first week of creation, all elements necessary for the existence of a kingdom.

THE KINGDOM BEGINNINGS

The beginning of man’s sojourn upon earth is similar to kindergarten in which we enroll our children. The lessons are simple. The commands are few and forthright. The basics are taught and it is mankind’s responsibility to contemplate the things God has given. It is his duty to understand the basics and obey the laws. In the beginning, man as a child, is given the leeway and authority to govern and take dominion over creation as he sees fit. From that day the

page3image26960

interaction between Yahuwah and his surrogate, mankind, begins to play out in a great theme destined to fulfill the dreams of all creation throughout the ages. It is the Shangri La of Hilton; it is the Valhalla of Norse mythology; and the Kingdom of heaven to the aware Israelite Christian.

The Bible story we will now begin to explore will show the tragedy of failure and hope of the future. It will reveal the interaction of mankind and the Almighty. It will show how Yahuwah attempts to give man the essence of wisdom he needs to succeed in his dominion. As the education of mankind progresses, the laws are expanded upon. The secrets of success are revealed to him. Inherent in man’s nature, just as with our own children, he often rebels and fails. At times they are punished and corrected and at others led, blessed are rewarded. Later Yahuwah, through the scriptures, expands upon the ideals and principals of the kingdom. Like a light that moves down a path, we find the scriptures continually giving us more and more clues to what we should expect in the ultimate restoration of all things, the blessing of His servants and the wedding gift to His Son and his Son’s bride.

Questions or comments may be addressed to d.shreffler@att.net

© – Permission to reprint this article is hereby granted, provided it is reprinted in its entirety, with full credit given, and no changes are made to its content.

By Danny Shreffler

THE PEOPLE WHICH SAT IN DARKNESS

In Matthew 4:16 there is a passage beginning with the phrase “The people which sat in darkness…” Throughout the scriptures darkness is a metaphorical term signifying ignorance or lack of understanding. In contrast, light and the term ‘walking in light’ are terms for a state of understanding. It is a place where we may dwell if we are willing to examine scripture, meditate upon its meanings and advance to a greater or more perfect state of understanding.

Often mankind wonders just exactly how Yahuwah used to speak to His prophets. We all know He sometime spoke to them in dreams. In the case of Adam, we suppose that He spoke directly as a man would speak to a man. Primarily, we believe, He taught them through inspiration. This inspiration was often gleaned from the study of the physical world in which they dwelled.

Doctrine, as it is called, is a term Bible students use as a term for a principal, generally accepted by those with which they agree, to be absolute truth. Any true doctrine expressed by the New Scriptures (those between the little blank page in the middle of your Bible and ending at the maps) can be set forth as truth only if it can be found as a principal taught in the Old Scriptures (those preceding the little blank page.) Just as we are taught that any condemned person must have his guilt established by two or more witnesses, any doctrine must be supported by both the witness of the Old Scriptures and the New. In fact, most doctrines have their very roots in the book of Genesis, the book of beginnings. So it is with the doctrine of the kingdom of heaven.

Mankind, just as the day, began in darkness. As with the day, light entered a little at a time. In the beginning, there was a taste of what would through time grow into a greater understanding. The first suggestion of a kingdom, as with any doctrine, was small and seemingly insignificant at first. Then as time progressed, God ever patient and longsuffering, with mankind, would reveal a bit more of His truth. It would seem as we get ever closer to what we believe to be the end of time as we know it, we would clearly understand the scriptures and exactly what God has sought to teach us throughout time. Still many things remain hidden to us until they are fully revealed and shine directly into our face. Then and only then the ‘aha’ moment arrives and says ‘this is that of which the prophets spoke!’

The first vestiges of the kingdom are expressed in the very first chapter of the Bible. While they are not openly called the elements of, or the principal of, a kingdom, the elements are there.

THE KING

The very first verse in the Holy Scriptures supposes the existence of a being most of creation calls God. The word God is not a name. It is a descriptive term which designates the subject of that term to be the superior being of all creation regardless of who you understand that being to be. The Hebrew word, translated God in the King James Version of the Bible is Elohiym.

page1image28104

Elohiym is a plural word indicating more than one member of a group or family later recognized singularly as Yahuwah or in some cases shortened to Yah. (See the article Hallelu-who? by this author) The account given by the KJV of the Scriptures testifies of creation in a sequence of events that has later been substantiated by science to be accurate and necessary in its order for life to have survived.

Yet throughout the scriptures we find neither commandment, nor instruction by the prophets, mandating referring to Yahuwah as
king. Certainly there is no preoccupation by either
the God of creation, or his prophets with calling

Yahuwah king. In fact, it is interesting to note the
closest thing to Him actually being referred to as
king, is the account given in the book of I Samuel,
chapter eight. In the account recorded there Israel
chooses to reject the reign of Yahuwah over their nation. Still by right of both design and creation, the very architect of creation itself entitles the artist to the right of king. The scriptures constantly reinforce this truth by showing the sovereignty, might and authority of Yahuwah. To say otherwise would be to imply that He is a usurper riding rough shod over the realm and authority of another.

THE REALM

In the Genesis account of creation, having understood the right of the king, we find the initial concept of the other elements of the kingdom. On the third day earth, being the dominion or realm, was created. On the sixth day of creation, the subjects were created, both male and female. (Gen 1:26) Regardless of whether or not this man was one in the same as the man addressed in the second chapter of Genesis, we find a couple of things worthy of note when we look at the scriptures.

THE SUBJECTS

Firstly, the man ‘created’ on day six of creation was in the image of the Elohiym that created him. Image means image. It means this man resembled the God (Elohiym) that created him. Literally, it means this man was an idol or representation of God. This man looked like, or had the attributes, of those things God wishes us to understand Him to be. Now we know God is a spirit, (John 4:24) and in the literal sense spirits have no hands, ears, facial features, etc. They are ethereal beings without physical substance as we know it. Yet this King, who created the subjects on the sixth day, wished the image to express attributes the creator enjoyed. This creator not actually having an ear made of flesh, created an ear on the ‘idol’ to give expression and knowledge to the ‘created’ that the said creator had the ability to hear man’s cries. He put within the face of man, an eye to show that the King he served had the ability to see! Consider the following:

“The hearing ear, and the seeing eye, Yahuwah hath made even both of them.” – Prov 20:12 “He that planted the ear shall he not hear? he that formed the eye shall he not see?” Ps 94:9 “I have heard of thee by the hearing of the ear: but now mine eye seeth thee.” Job 42:5

Certainly we miss the point if we believe God created an ear on man to show that He has a physical ear. That’s earthly! It is the heavenly counterpart He wishes us to see and understand! It

page2image29024 page2image29616 page2image30040 page2image30800

“And Yahuwah said unto Samuel, Hearken unto the voice of the people in all that they say unto thee: for they have not rejected thee, but they have rejected me, that I should not reign over them.” – I Sam 8:7

page2image33856

is about His abilities and not His looks. Again this is but another illustration of how all creation testifies and speaks to the essence and being of the Almighty.

THE LAW

Secondly, considering the ‘man’ (subject) God created, we find the creation of ‘law’. While this first expression of law is not codified like the ‘book of the law’ given later in Leviticus and Deuteronomy, it certainly is the first example of law and instruction issued from the king of the realm to the subject of the realm. It is also a clear allocation of authority and definition of man’s role in the parameters of God’s kingdom. It is man’s authority over the kingdom with the express approval of the king creator of the same.

At this point in time, the law of the kingdom was simple. It was direct and consisted of a few direct commands from God to man.

“And God blessed them, and God said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it: and have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over every living thing that moveth upon the earth.

And God said, Behold, I have given you every herb bearing seed, which is upon the face of all the earth, and every tree, in the which is the fruit of a tree yielding seed; to you it shall

be for meat.

And to every beast of the earth, and to every fowl of the air, and to everything that creepeth upon the earth, wherein there is life, I have given every green herb for meat: and it was so.” – Gen 1:28-30

Finally, we find the man of Genesis 1 given a realm or dominion of his own. This realm encompassed the entire world and the creation living within it.

So at this early point in time, we already see the work of the Almighty. Slowly and simply the suggestion of things yet to come are expressed in the creation week. His creation of the realm and subjects are made manifest as well as the simplified expression of His laws and what He wishes His kingdom to be. The goal is peace, joy, tranquility and life in abundance. The laws, simple and forthright; multiply, replenish and subdue. Restrictions are non-existent, until later found to be necessary. The subjects of the benevolent monarchy are blessed and given everything possibly needed for their joy and survival. So we find from the very first week of creation, all elements necessary for the existence of a kingdom.

THE KINGDOM BEGINNINGS

The beginning of man’s sojourn upon earth is similar to kindergarten in which we enroll our children. The lessons are simple. The commands are few and forthright. The basics are taught and it is mankind’s responsibility to contemplate the things God has given. It is his duty to understand the basics and obey the laws. In the beginning, man as a child, is given the leeway and authority to govern and take dominion over creation as he sees fit. From that day the

page3image26960

interaction between Yahuwah and his surrogate, mankind, begins to play out in a great theme destined to fulfill the dreams of all creation throughout the ages. It is the Shangri La of Hilton; it is the Valhalla of Norse mythology; and the Kingdom of heaven to the aware Israelite Christian.

The Bible story we will now begin to explore will show the tragedy of failure and hope of the future. It will reveal the interaction of mankind and the Almighty. It will show how Yahuwah attempts to give man the essence of wisdom he needs to succeed in his dominion. As the education of mankind progresses, the laws are expanded upon. The secrets of success are revealed to him. Inherent in man’s nature, just as with our own children, he often rebels and fails. At times they are punished and corrected and at others led, blessed are rewarded. Later Yahuwah, through the scriptures, expands upon the ideals and principals of the kingdom. Like a light that moves down a path, we find the scriptures continually giving us more and more clues to what we should expect in the ultimate restoration of all things, the blessing of His servants and the wedding gift to His Son and his Son’s bride.

Questions or comments may be addressed to d.shreffler@att.net

© – Permission to reprint this article is hereby granted, provided it is reprinted in its entirety, with full credit given, and no changes are made to its content.

In Matthew 4:16 there is a passage beginning with the phrase “The people which sat in darkness…” Throughout the scriptures darkness is a metaphorical term signifying ignorance or lack of understanding. In contrast, light and the term ‘walking in light’ are terms for a state of understanding. It is a place where we may dwell if we are willing to examine scripture, meditate upon its meanings and advance to a greater or more perfect state of understanding.

Often mankind wonders just exactly how Yahuwah used to speak to His prophets. We all know He sometime spoke to them in dreams. In the case of Adam, we suppose that He spoke directly as a man would speak to a man. Primarily, we believe, He taught them through inspiration. This inspiration was often gleaned from the study of the physical world in which they dwelled.

Doctrine, as it is called, is a term Bible students use as a term for a principal, generally accepted by those with which they agree, to be absolute truth. Any true doctrine expressed by the New Scriptures (those between the little blank page in the middle of your Bible and ending at the maps) can be set forth as truth only if it can be found as a principal taught in the Old Scriptures (those preceding the little blank page.) Just as we are taught that any condemned person must have his guilt established by two or more witnesses, any doctrine must be supported by both the witness of the Old Scriptures and the New. In fact, most doctrines have their very roots in the book of Genesis, the book of beginnings. So it is with the doctrine of the kingdom of heaven.

Mankind, just as the day, began in darkness. As with the day, light entered a little at a time. In the beginning, there was a taste of what would through time grow into a greater understanding. The first suggestion of a kingdom, as with any doctrine, was small and seemingly insignificant at first. Then as time progressed, God ever patient and longsuffering, with mankind, would reveal a bit more of His truth. It would seem as we get ever closer to what we believe to be the end of time as we know it, we would clearly understand the scriptures and exactly what God has sought to teach us throughout time. Still many things remain hidden to us until they are fully revealed and shine directly into our face. Then and only then the ‘aha’ moment arrives and says ‘this is that of which the prophets spoke!’

The first vestiges of the kingdom are expressed in the very first chapter of the Bible. While they are not openly called the elements of, or the principal of, a kingdom, the elements are there.

THE KING

The very first verse in the Holy Scriptures supposes the existence of a being most of creation calls God. The word God is not a name. It is a descriptive term which designates the subject of that term to be the superior being of all creation regardless of who you understand that being to be. The Hebrew word, translated God in the King James Version of the Bible is Elohiym.

page1image28104

Elohiym is a plural word indicating more than one member of a group or family later recognized singularly as Yahuwah or in some cases shortened to Yah. (See the article Hallelu-who? by this author) The account given by the KJV of the Scriptures testifies of creation in a sequence of events that has later been substantiated by science to be accurate and necessary in its order for life to have survived.

Yet throughout the scriptures we find neither commandment, nor instruction by the prophets, mandating referring to Yahuwah as
king. Certainly there is no preoccupation by either
the God of creation, or his prophets with calling

Yahuwah king. In fact, it is interesting to note the
closest thing to Him actually being referred to as
king, is the account given in the book of I Samuel,
chapter eight. In the account recorded there Israel
chooses to reject the reign of Yahuwah over their nation. Still by right of both design and creation, the very architect of creation itself entitles the artist to the right of king. The scriptures constantly reinforce this truth by showing the sovereignty, might and authority of Yahuwah. To say otherwise would be to imply that He is a usurper riding rough shod over the realm and authority of another.

THE REALM

In the Genesis account of creation, having understood the right of the king, we find the initial concept of the other elements of the kingdom. On the third day earth, being the dominion or realm, was created. On the sixth day of creation, the subjects were created, both male and female. (Gen 1:26) Regardless of whether or not this man was one in the same as the man addressed in the second chapter of Genesis, we find a couple of things worthy of note when we look at the scriptures.

THE SUBJECTS

Firstly, the man ‘created’ on day six of creation was in the image of the Elohiym that created him. Image means image. It means this man resembled the God (Elohiym) that created him. Literally, it means this man was an idol or representation of God. This man looked like, or had the attributes, of those things God wishes us to understand Him to be. Now we know God is a spirit, (John 4:24) and in the literal sense spirits have no hands, ears, facial features, etc. They are ethereal beings without physical substance as we know it. Yet this King, who created the subjects on the sixth day, wished the image to express attributes the creator enjoyed. This creator not actually having an ear made of flesh, created an ear on the ‘idol’ to give expression and knowledge to the ‘created’ that the said creator had the ability to hear man’s cries. He put within the face of man, an eye to show that the King he served had the ability to see! Consider the following:

“The hearing ear, and the seeing eye, Yahuwah hath made even both of them.” – Prov 20:12 “He that planted the ear shall he not hear? he that formed the eye shall he not see?” Ps 94:9 “I have heard of thee by the hearing of the ear: but now mine eye seeth thee.” Job 42:5

Certainly we miss the point if we believe God created an ear on man to show that He has a physical ear. That’s earthly! It is the heavenly counterpart He wishes us to see and understand! It

page2image29024 page2image29616 page2image30040 page2image30800

“And Yahuwah said unto Samuel, Hearken unto the voice of the people in all that they say unto thee: for they have not rejected thee, but they have rejected me, that I should not reign over them.” – I Sam 8:7

page2image33856

is about His abilities and not His looks. Again this is but another illustration of how all creation testifies and speaks to the essence and being of the Almighty.

THE LAW

Secondly, considering the ‘man’ (subject) God created, we find the creation of ‘law’. While this first expression of law is not codified like the ‘book of the law’ given later in Leviticus and Deuteronomy, it certainly is the first example of law and instruction issued from the king of the realm to the subject of the realm. It is also a clear allocation of authority and definition of man’s role in the parameters of God’s kingdom. It is man’s authority over the kingdom with the express approval of the king creator of the same.

At this point in time, the law of the kingdom was simple. It was direct and consisted of a few direct commands from God to man.

“And God blessed them, and God said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it: and have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over every living thing that moveth upon the earth.

And God said, Behold, I have given you every herb bearing seed, which is upon the face of all the earth, and every tree, in the which is the fruit of a tree yielding seed; to you it shall

be for meat.

And to every beast of the earth, and to every fowl of the air, and to everything that creepeth upon the earth, wherein there is life, I have given every green herb for meat: and it was so.” – Gen 1:28-30

Finally, we find the man of Genesis 1 given a realm or dominion of his own. This realm encompassed the entire world and the creation living within it.

So at this early point in time, we already see the work of the Almighty. Slowly and simply the suggestion of things yet to come are expressed in the creation week. His creation of the realm and subjects are made manifest as well as the simplified expression of His laws and what He wishes His kingdom to be. The goal is peace, joy, tranquility and life in abundance. The laws, simple and forthright; multiply, replenish and subdue. Restrictions are non-existent, until later found to be necessary. The subjects of the benevolent monarchy are blessed and given everything possibly needed for their joy and survival. So we find from the very first week of creation, all elements necessary for the existence of a kingdom.

THE KINGDOM BEGINNINGS

The beginning of man’s sojourn upon earth is similar to kindergarten in which we enroll our children. The lessons are simple. The commands are few and forthright. The basics are taught and it is mankind’s responsibility to contemplate the things God has given. It is his duty to understand the basics and obey the laws. In the beginning, man as a child, is given the leeway and authority to govern and take dominion over creation as he sees fit. From that day the

page3image26960

interaction between Yahuwah and his surrogate, mankind, begins to play out in a great theme destined to fulfill the dreams of all creation throughout the ages. It is the Shangri La of Hilton; it is the Valhalla of Norse mythology; and the Kingdom of heaven to the aware Israelite Christian.

The Bible story we will now begin to explore will show the tragedy of failure and hope of the future. It will reveal the interaction of mankind and the Almighty. It will show how Yahuwah attempts to give man the essence of wisdom he needs to succeed in his dominion. As the education of mankind progresses, the laws are expanded upon. The secrets of success are revealed to him. Inherent in man’s nature, just as with our own children, he often rebels and fails. At times they are punished and corrected and at others led, blessed are rewarded. Later Yahuwah, through the scriptures, expands upon the ideals and principals of the kingdom. Like a light that moves down a path, we find the scriptures continually giving us more and more clues to what we should expect in the ultimate restoration of all things, the blessing of His servants and the wedding gift to His Son and his Son’s bride.

Questions or comments may be addressed to d.shreffler@att.net

© – Permission to reprint this article is hereby granted, provided it is reprinted in its entirety, with full credit given, and no changes are made to its content.

Where Am I?

You are currently browsing entries tagged with bad faith efforts at Will County Pro-se.