prisonchaplain

Truly shameful...yes--especially given his brilliant and cogent defense of the gospel. To whom much is given much is required.

You're probably right. I'm aware that Ravi Zacharias, Evangelical apologist, spoke at the Tabernacle a few years back. When this happens it's pretty clear that a noteworthy non-LDS speaker has been invited. 😉

@Maytoday, having read several of your posts now, I suspect that you will enjoy your interactions here and learn much. You show a healthy, balanced, sincere approach that works well. Ask a few questions at a time and read the responses carefully. The posters here appreciate interacting with non-LDS like us. You will receive thoughtful answers. Welcome and blessings to you!

The doctrinal difficulties are not minor. It's not a matter of whether to drink alcohol or not. Who is God? How will we spend eternity? Who are we? I ran a post a few years back comparing my own church's Statement of Fundamental Truths (16) with the Latter-day Saint's Articles of Faith (13). There was not one point of agreement. It's fine. I'm still here--still welcome. We continue to have great conversations about important questions. To put this another way, I am welcomed to discuss beliefs here but would not likely be asked to be a speaker at a Sunday ward service. Likewise, while there have been "convicted conversations" in Evangelical churches (during which LDS and Evangelical speakers engage each other), it's unlikely that an LDS speaker would fill an Evangelical pulpit at a regular Sunday service. So, we respect each other's faith walk. We work at understanding each other's beliefs. But we know that there are some serious differences in how we understand God, the Church, the world, and even ourselves.

Greetings. The topic of this string can easily lead to difficulties. What is a Christian? Latter-day Saints have throughout their roughly 200-year history experienced opposition from Protestant Christians--especially Evangelicals. Infamously, Governor Boggs, of Missouri, ordered that they could be shot and killed without penalty, because he wanted to drive them out of his state (this happened in the 19th century). So, the seemingly innocent, "Are you really Christians?" comes across as aggressive. LDS will say they are Christians because they believe in Jesus Christ for salvation and because their fruits (godly lives) are positive. One of the common retorts are that the doctrines are different--especially concerning the Trinity and salvation by faith alone. In reality, the doctrines (teachings) are different. My own struggle, as a Pentecostal, is that Oneness Pentecostals (especially the United Pentecostal Church) deny the trinity. Nevertheless, while most Evangelicals consider them to be wrong, they would not deny their Christianity. Of course, some do. So, in trying to learn about Latter-day Saint beliefs it might be best to simply ask doctrinal questions without debating what a Christian is. This site is a good place to learn a lot. However, another great starting place might be to read The Articles of Faith: 13 Beliefs | Come unto Christ (churchofjesuschrist.org). Those 13 teachings are the foundation of Latter-day Saint belief--so much so that they are considered scripture.

I get that. Yet, skeptics ask it--a lot. Of course, some are not skeptics, they are opponents. I feel the same way about those who question God's justice because of the doctrine of hell. Nevertheless, thoughtful answers exist because even the most foolish of questions, if offered in sincerity, can be the means by which some search for God. If I am convinced that Jesus was racist, then I wouldn't ask the question. If I'm truly confused by the story and I do ask the question, might it not indicate that I want to believe. I want to be reassured that Jesus was not racist or ethnocentric--that he really was the loving, forgiving Savior that I hoped He was.

Jesus' response to the Canaanite woman is the stuff of some controversy. A simple Google search of, "Was Jesus racist towards the Canaanite woman?" brought loads of response. Thankfully, most defended Jesus' answer. Several points bear remembering: 1. Matthew was written to the Jews. The encounter Messiah had highlighted a theme that replays in the early church--Gentiles, non-Jews, often expressed greater faith than Jesus' fellow Jews. 2. When Jesus says that the food is for Jews, not for dogs, He is not speaking in the Asian sense (most cuss words include the word "dog"). Instead, he's referring to the family pet. The woman's response is that yes, the children get food from the table. However, these children share with the family pet--the dog--whether by accidentally or intentionally dropping food for the dogs to lap up. 3. Jesus is so impressed with the woman's faith that he grants her everything she asked for--total healing! The OP is correct. Jesus did not go after Gentiles to offend them. However, He often riled up his fellow Jews for their lack of faith. I would argue that in my setting Jesus would be far blunter with the chaplain than he would with the incarcerated sisters.

Here's the watch I need to gift you this Christmas:

We're currently doing a series on Bible Failures. @zil2 has kept my viewership in double digits. 🤗

I'll make everyone here feel young. I was passing through SLC back when this was LDSTalk and Hijolly met me and gave me a tour of the Conference Center. I don't think I'm too bad online, but hopefully I was better in person. 😉

We love you, @zil2! Never leave us!

IMHO Angel Studios is attempting to make faith affirming movies that are interesting enough that non-believers will watch. There are a couple of movies that come to mind (one Catholic, one Jewish) that were R-rated, yet definitely affirmed faith and had well-recognized production value. Movies about real life events can sometimes work well. Sound of Freedom (I haven't seen it) had potential, though it became politicized, then key players ran into controversy. These movies are few and far between, but they happen. Some faith-affirming movies flop miserable. All the Left Behind movies failed at the box office. I've seen them all. The Kirk Cameron ones (1990s) were okay for Evangelicals but had weak production value. The two re-dos tried and failed to reach the broader public. The blind was a sweet movie about the Duck Dynasty family but felt like something that would quickly go to streaming. All this to say, it can work, but this is tough work and there is a lot of competition. Nevertheless, it may be worthwhile.

Big picture thought: Do we lament lost Hollywood, circle the wagons, and spend our time watching B-grade religious movies. OR do we engage the culture by producing and consuming the high-quality stuff? Of course, the actual answer is some of both. The first impulse is most common among Fundamentalists while Evangelicals favor the latter approach. Yet, even in those camps you'll find a mix. There is a lot of dross in Hollywood. Sadly, a good amount of Christian production is of poor quality. Love those gems that are both well done and faith affirming.

I don't know Pastor Jeff, nor do I subscribe to his channel. However, I give him credit for being pretty upfront about what he's doing. Of course, he's trying to convert LDS to Trinitarianism--he's an Evangelical PASTOR! So, there's no cunning in his approach. At the same time, he's definitely not hostile, angry, aggressive, or even disrespectful. @CommanderSouthis exactly right. If the Restoration is true and Pastor Jeff is sincere, he might be the one to convert. Either way, at least he's not condescending. BTW, I agree with those here who said that it's predominantly the algorithm. 😉

Angel Studios is a movie producer, apparently owned by members of the church, but often putting out general Christian films. I watched The Shift this week and enjoyed. It seems to be a sci fi, dramatic retelling of Job. While it had a modest budget the story and acting were compelling. For those interested, do a bit of internet searching. It seems that there are ways of obtaining tickets for less than full price (mine was free). 😉

One of my guilty pleasures is YouTube. Lately I have noticed an increasing number of Evangelical/LDS interaction videos. There's a Pastor Jeff hosting a series. Another Evangelical is touring the state, visiting wards, even touring a temple (probably one open for public visiting prior to opening for members). There are some reaction videos too--one by the Sword of Joseph questioning Pastor Jeff's motives. I've only seen watched portions of a few of these but am wondering what is going on. Is it simply the algorithm targeting me as one who is interested in this material or has there been an increasing general interest? Thoughts?

I believe Doug Bandow is a well-known Evangelical Libertarian. Still, if it ends up being Trump/Biden and No Labels puts forth a candidate (I really like Manchin, for example) I'll probably support them. Otherwise, I have to discern just how afraid of Trump I am. I doubt he's pro-Israel and know he's not pro-Ukraine. Also, without the taming Christian support, I fear that he is a true narcist.

Media's bias against Trump is the biggest non-secret there is. Their own telling is that media built him up and he became a monster that they could not stop or tame.

Can't go there. My struggle with Libertarianism is that it's rooted in atheism (Ayn Rand was a militant one). Communists argue that the collective has godly wisdom, so God's not needed. Libertarianism (Objectivism actually) argues that the individual should be selfish in his/her pursuit of talents, and that if everyone would do so all would be well--so God is not needed.

A possible answer:

I feel the same way about Trump--and I'm moderately conservative. The majority of Americans agree with us. And yet, here we are. 🤷‍♀️

That dirt is neither little nor secret. There's plenty of Jew-hatred on both sides. Since I lean conservative that's the side breaking my heart.

To define this perspective more precisely--it is the America First-Isolationist faction. They argue that any foreign aid (military or social) must directly and immediately benefit U.S. interests. This faction is tepid about supporting Israel, mercenary about Taiwan, and opposed to helping Ukraine. Another "conservative" faction is the overt antisemites--including those who are white supremist and those who just despise Jewish people.

Many LDS are conservative. I tend to be, as well. So are Ben Shapiro and Candace Owens. Lately, Shapiro, who is an orthodox Jew, and Owens, a Christian, have been at serious odds. Owens works for the Daily Wire (Shapiro owns a part of the outlet). She's been vaguely critical of Israel's response to the Hamas attack. When Shapiro publicly labeled her response disgusting, she responded by quoting the New Testament--saying that God blesses peacemakers and that she could not serve both God and money. Shapiro responded that if she felt that taking money from the Daily Wire was coming between her and God then she was welcome to quit. She responded to that by saying that she was quoting the Bible, and that the Bible was not about Shapiro. Some even suggested that Shapiro was persecuting her for citing the New Testament. While I don't judge people's souls, I feel safe in guessing at their political intent. My sense is that Owen's quoting from the New Testament was an intentionally passive-aggressive slam at Shapiro. Further, her stated ignorance of any context Shapiro might have for context, as well as her surprise at learning Shapiro wasn't happy with her appear feigned. Owens is incredibly smart. I suspect that she is an America-first isolationist. It's her prerogative, but the fake confusion on her part doesn't engender any sympathy from me.

I've seen YouTube videos of that civil war and think Owens was the more guilty party. She seemed to react to the Israel/Hamas conflict as if there was moral equivalence. When Shapiro said that her reaction was disgusting (keep in mind that she is very familiar with Jewish conservatives, so she knows the perspective), she responded by quoting the New Testament (she knows Shapiro is Jewish). Her supporters argue that Shapiro was unprofessional because he didn't speak to her privately. Sorry, but given the gravity of the issue and my sense that she knew what she was doing, I blame her.