prisonchaplain

Proverbs 11:25: The liberal soul shall be made fat: and he that watereth shall be watered also himself.

I served as a chaplain 23 years with the federal system. We had LDS volunteers. After a two-year stint with a private Christian school, I returned to prison chaplaincy, this time with the state. To my surprise, the host of the Sunday morning service was the Church of Jesus Christ Latter-day Saints. The service seemed well attended. The afternoon had an Evangelical Bible study, and the evening service was hosted by a progressive church. So, what's a Pentecostal chaplain to do? I started having my service on Mondays. The LDS volunteers asked me how I was feeling, and I told them to relax, that I was here to facilitate and support, not to change the schedule. Here we are, two years later, with the same schedule.

I am Pentecostal, but not LDS. There are some aspects of LDS faith practice that track with Pentecostal or Charismatic expression. One example is seeking a burning in the bosom to verify certain truths. While some Anti-Mormons mock this practice, there is something appealing about submitting to God's Spirit--seeking his holy yes. Likewise, what I've been told is sometimes referred to as Adamic language or tongues, does have similarities to unknown languages. Discernment is always essential, but it is spiritually wise to reject anti-supernaturalism and to embrace a spiritual humility that says, "God, what do you have for me?"

Jesus said it would have been better for Judas if he had not been born. The Holy Spirit gave him insight into Judas' future, and it wasn't good.

I'm not LDS or Jewish, though I've worked with both. In the west, when the economy is bad, conspiracy theories about Jews become popular. In Asia, the same happens to Chinese Christians. Both groups, ironically like LDS, tend to have higher social and economic success. My wife is Korean, and there is a popular book in her country on how Jewish people educate their children. So many of the tropes against Jews in the west, and Chinese Christians in the east, come down to class envy. They succeed so something must be afoot--especially if I'm not succeeding. Hate is addictive. Trends and correlation do not make causation. I suspect that the reason Jewish people generally, and Chinese Christians generally do well in the world is because they follow sound, pro-social practices. Alas, it's easier to blame the successful than to look honestly at my own failures.

God is not reckless. His love appears so to us. To use a different example, we are sometimes told that if we really forgive someone, we must forget their offense. I disagree. God can cast our sin as far as the east is from the west because he can always read us, always know when we are double-minded. We can't read others. So, I may forgive someone who cheated me in business, yet never do business with him/her again. So, God may appear to be naive to some, but in reality, He is Almighty.

I'll put my thumb on the scale and admit I love and approve of the song. Despite the dictionary, I understand that most perceive RECKLESS as unfavorable. I guess the writer used that common perception to surprise and reel us in. What--God's love is reckless? Ah, but yes, in a sense, it is.

I've been watching clips of Bill Maher chastising liberals for being nonsensical and extreme on some issues. He's still far more of a Democrat than a Republican. Another friend of mine, who happens to be a Buddhist monk, sympathized with center-right voters, because he knew we had serious moral issues with our candidate, but it would be near-impossible for us to stomach Harris. He self-identifies as center-left and so found it easier to endure a Harris vote. Now that Trump has won, I wonder if Democrats will moderate and regain some momentum. If they don't, the shift will only increase.

This seems like as good of a string as any to gather thoughts on a mild controversy in the Evangelical world, over the song, The Reckless Love of God. Granted, it's not a hymn, it's a contemporary worship song. The controversy is over the word "Reckless." Some argue that since God is perfect, and could never be reckless, the song contains false teaching and should not be sung. Others argue that God's love is reckless, from our human perspective, and the song properly captures our being awe-struck by God's love. Thoughts?

Sounds like you're in the Bible belt. I'm out here in the anti-Bible belt (I still remember (circa 1980s) the head of one of the major political parties trying to explain our reality to a state representative of the now-defunct Moral Majority). His counsel: Yes, please knock on doors for our candidates. But, keep the religious stuff on the down-low--you're in the anti-Bible belt, after all.

Many of us Evangelicals underrate ordinances like baptism, and even Communion (the Lord's Supper, Eucharist). Ironically, as a Pentecostal, I often anoint with oil when I pray for people. The oil is symbolic of the presence of the Holy Ghost. It's a physical substance that communicates a spiritual reality. God intervenes--He heals, he brings about miracles. Water baptism is a huge marker in a believer's life. The taking of the bread and the cup are also powerful. Yes, they are simple, symbolic acts. They are powerful, because the God we serve is powerful. Scripture says that the spiritual realm is more real than the physical. Perhaps it is the symbolic that helps us catch just a glimpse of that truth?

A few observations: 1. "Once saved always saved" is taught as God's blessing--what He redeems will not be lost. The doctrine is in error, imho. It is sometimes abused by those who want to claim salvation and faith in Jesus, while living for themselves (or the devil). They say, "Well, I'm backslidden." 2. Deathbed conversions are another matter. It is indeed God who saves. His work is a grace we cannot earn, so yes, it can happen at the end of life. It is a matter of faith, not works. Then again, if one has opposed God his/her whole life, thinking that in the final moments they can be saved, God is no fool. Often, they oppose God long enough that their hearts are hardened, and they don't humble themselves at the end. Also, it's not enough to believe there is a God, or even to have correct beliefs. If the confession is insincere, we are warned that Jesus will tell many at the judgement, even those who claim to have done great works in Jesus' name, depart from me--I never knew you. 3. Chick tracts are banned from most Christian stores. They are too anti just about everyone. His booklets were very popular through the late 1970s (maybe early 1980s), and then became unwelcomed by most.

I was posting the official LDS statement on the Trinity. My apologies for not making that clear. There seemed to be a question of what was different, so I thought posting the LDS view would be helpful.

It comes down to whether the Godhead is one in purpose or in substance. This is why, for example, Trinitarians bristle at the teaching that the Father has a physical body. Jews and Muslims argue that the Christian trinity is really tri-theism. We reject that. To say that God is one in purpose but is three personages seems to give some credence to Jewish and Islamic criticisms.

Here's the link: https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/welcome/common-questions?lang=eng Once there, look under Christian Beliefs, "Do you believe the trinity?"

This is from the official website: Do you believe in the Trinity? The Holy Trinity is the term many Christian religions use to describe God the Father, Jesus Christ, and the Holy Ghost. We believe in the existence of all three, but we believe They are separate and distinct beings who are one in purpose. Their purpose is to help us achieve true joy—in this life and after we die.

I appreciate @zil2's approach. One Christian music group has a song with a great line, "What about the change? What about the difference?" Have we been changed by grace, indeed. Beyond the Trinity, another difference is salvation. Traditional Christians, like myself, believe that Jesus saves us for a single heaven. Yes, salvation is by grace, but it requires faith. Those who do not believe in Jesus, do not repent to Him of their sins, will not enter any heavenly kingdom. There is no terrestrial or telestial kingdoms for them--only hell. As for the Trinity, the main distinction comes down to what unifies God. Latter-day Saints believe in the Father, in the Son, in the Holy Ghost. However, are they united in purpose or in substance? Some Latter-day Saints even argue that they are trinitarian, but that the three being united by purpose is enough. It's a distinction that may seem small, but it's why non-LDS bristle at talk of the Father having a corporeal body.

As the non-LDS person on the board, I can affirm that "once saved always saved," is a belief of a small segment of Christians, known as Calvinists (following the doctrines of John Calvin). Most Christians do not believe the doctrine. On the other hand, the Trinity is a belief that is widely accepted by most, including Catholics, mainstream Protestants, the National Association of Evangelicals, most Baptists, and even most Pentecostals (though there is a sub-branch, called Oneness Pentecostals, who do not).

Part of the difficulty is that your finances are separate. If you are married, you are one. Perhaps, by combining your finances and making them a single-family budget, you can have more influence. There are many debt counseling programs available. Choose one that is "conservative." Debt is bondage. Savings is freedom. Your wife's not in debt. Your family is. It may be that by combining your finances she'll come to believe that you trust her. Maybe she'll trust you too. Then, you can work on becoming debt free together.

Moses was making the same mistake Carter did--putting in 16-hour days because he focused too much on minutia. Reagan supposedly put in 8-9 hours a day, and most believe he was more effective. It's not that handling the economy and defense is too much for one person, it's that sometimes the one person fails to delegate. POTUS vision casts and assigns. Those who try to manage quickly become overwhelmed.

I read through the statements @mirkwood linked. From an outsider's perspective, wow! You bear a great responsibility to protect our founding documents and institutions. At the same time, it is proper and good to recognize the meaning of American exceptionalism. It is not absolute nor is it a birthright. Instead, it is a duty, requires training, and it calls for thoughtful commitment. Color me impressed. Concerning who should be the Commander in Chief, it must be a civilian, and the President is the right choice. Yes, the military and law enforcement are our protectors. However, democracy works because the "sheepdogs" serve the flock, rather than lording it over us. Power corrupts. We do well to equip our protectors properly, but to elect our leaders to watch over us--and them.

I'm an old soul. These days I'm actually an old person too, so there's that. I taught 7th grade history last year and have always appreciated the Separation of Powers. I even support the Electoral College. With that said, my understanding is that the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints teaches that the U.S. Constitution is uniquely inspired. I'm not knowledgeable about this area of instruction so would appreciate any insights.

Biden v. Trump. After all the handwringing (and I've done my share), that will be the choice. For the first time in my several decades of voting, I have no blame for any choice: 1. Biden--some are Democrats and will vote for the Democrat regardless. Others like Harris and expect her to replace Biden. Still others find Trump so loathsome that any candidate is preferable. In my town a Democrat candidate died one week before the election. He still won, because the Democrats figured anyone the party would choose to replace him would be better than a Republican. 2. Trump--some are Republicans and will vote for the Republican regardless. Others are Trump loyalists. Still others just find Biden (and the Democrats) so loathsome that any candidate is preferable. 3. None--vote down ballot, but not for President. A pox on both candidates. Shame on the parties for nominating them. I get all three perspectives. I have mine, but wow, what an awful slate this year.

I put "trinity" in the search engine and limited the search to this forum. There were 34 pages of posts. Some of the interesting ones date prior to 2010. So, I was attempting humor when I posted that we hadn't even discussed one in essence vs. one in purpose. We may not have examined it in this string, but we considered the issue at length. IMHO the distinction may appear to some as straining at gnats, but the difference between the two is what keeps LDS from embracing the Trinity doctrine and what keeps most non-LDS from calling you brothers and sisters.

And we never even got into a discussion of "united in purpose" vs. one in essence. 😉