prisonchaplain

To be born again is to have sins forgiven and salvation granted by God. My grandmother did that. She wasn't opposed to sola fide (salvation by faith). Her church taught it. It was more that Evangelicals and Fundamentalists appeared to have monopolized the term. She was neither, nor did she have to be. She was right with God. I suspect that many Christians struggle with the term "born again," not because of what Jesus meant by it, but because of how they've come to misunderstand it.

The topic of godhood is fascinating. Even from an Evangelical/Pentecostal perspective, the belief that we shall live for eternity, that we shall rule and reign with Christ, that we are becoming holy (progressive sanctification for theology buffs) all leads me to believe that we have undersold and undertaught the spiritual growth we are supposed to embrace. My guess is that those Evangelicals (and Fundamentalists) who come here to debate may desire to emphasize differences, but I fear we lose something in doing so. Ironically, in daily life LDS present as unpretentious and loathe to encourage any type of spiritual pride.

This may be first election in my lifetime in which I won't blame anyone--including those who don't vote.

This post may mean more than my actual vote, but yes, we feel each other's pain. I still remember 2000 when I was in FL and was so tempted to name my newborn child CHAD. He ended up being a she, and we're thankful. ;-)

I've decided how I will decide who to vote for in November. Most here know that, like many (perhaps a majority), I don't prefer Trump or Biden. The conflict with Israel has made this one decision more straightforward. I toyed with voting for Biden because Trump seemed isolationist to me. However, if Biden betrays Israel and moves to the pro-Hamas wing of his party, that's it. I'll be on the Trump Train.

A couple of responses. @Traveler, you think deeply and well. We may not agree about the canon, but I always appreciate your insights--especially in this string. We have remarkably similar views, despite our differences concerning the canon of scripture. @LDSGator, I get your perspective and have some sympathy for the Gazan residents. However, Israel is literally fighting an existential battle. If they stop now, they will not be perceived as winners. The Jews faced genocide once. Now they've discovered that many in the USA--even in NYC--especially our young--might allow such again. I'm not so sure I can tell them how to fight back. I pray for the day when we truly recognize Jews have a right to exist and they have a right to keep their homeland.

Yes, I'm aware. Interestingly, the Orthodox rabbi I worked with said that Evangelicals were the best friends Jews have in America. We are pro-Israel, pray for the peace of Jerusalem, and even though we 'witness' to Jews, when they put a hand up and say, "Not interested in your Jesus," we tend to stop. On the other hand, the Lubavitch rabbi said he despised Evangelicals and that we were guilty of attempted spiritual rape (for trying to convert Jews to Christianity). Messianic Jews respond and accuse non-Messianic Judaism of actually being rabbinic Judaism. They argue that the rabbis don't have the spiritual authority to say who is or is not the Messiah. Those who realize just how deep this controversy goes find themselves at a loss. On the one hand, Jesus commands Christians to witness "first to Jerusalem," and on the other, opposition to Jesus is what unites nearly all Jews (including secular ones). This probably explains, at least partially, why we see Israel as important in the last days, why we identify with Jews (seeing ourselves grafted into the promises), and yet also see a distinction.

The closest you'll find in the Christian community are Messianic Jews and groups like Jews for Jesus. I worked with an Orthodox rabbi and a Lubavitch (ultra-orthodox) one when I was a chaplain in Miami. It is fascinating. As FYI, I'll sometimes tell people that I am the Gentile moderator at ThirdHour.org forums. 😉

To dial down on this a bit, do you see yourself as part of the OT covenant? I ask because most of us who believe God is still working with his people--the Jews--see ourselves, perhaps as grafted into Israel--but more as loosely included. In other words, God has some special dealings with Israel. Many Jews will also convert to a saving knowledge of Yeshua (Jesus). However, we see ourselves as directly under Jesus' protection. So, we ID with the Jews but see ourselves as distinct.

The old false myth is not much of an issue in the LDS community, but for the broader Christian movement it has a name: Replacement Theology. It's the belief that Israel failed in its covenants with God, so he replaced Israel with the church. My guess is that the historic churches are more susceptible to embracing it. Supposedly Martin Luther was quite antisemitic.

We thought about fostering, but never felt a joint calling to that difficult but important work. For those considering it though, pray hard. In most states the need is great.

Most Evangelical Christians have a special love for Israel. Many of us believe that God has special plans for the nation (and the Jews) in the last days. Many also believe that a large number of Jews will convert to Christianity. Of course, 2/3rds of the Bible is made up of the Hebrew scriptures. So, while the government of Israel may receive criticism, we are mostly pro-Israel, pray for Jerusalem's peace, and I suspect most in my camp are siding with Israel in the current conflict. Of course, the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints has its own end times teachings and likely has a somewhat different understanding of the role of Israel and the Jews. Despite starting with "Of course," I'm not sure what those differences are. So, please share.

For at least the last five years I've been concerned about the opposite problem--depopulation. Western Europe, Japan and S. Korea, the native-born population of the United States--these are all shrinking. A society needs 2.1 children per female to maintain population. S. Korea is at 0.72. Japan has been combatting the problem for a generation and is at 1.46. Singapore's government subsidizes matchmaking for educated females. The reality is that as countries reach middle income for the majority of its populations the birthrate drops. Now even secular media is starting to notice the trend. Articles are appearing stating that the lack of children is becoming a problem. Regardless, there are not enough good and godly children. Our moral duty is to have more, not fewer, children.

Certainly, the doctrine that we should be perfect is a corrective to the Prosperity Gospel--the idea that God wants us healthy, wealthy, and wise, today--now. It reminds us that our purpose is to grow in godliness--not to wallow in the squalor (no matter how fancy) of this world. Traditionalists may argue that LDS take the teaching too far, but there is no doubt that we traditionalists have not taken the instruction far enough.

@Traveler is clear and looks towards logical conclusions. I appreciate the frankness. It's much more useful than the inclination of many (perhaps even me sometimes) to minimize differences. My sense is that if the doctrine of glorification is true then it's a teaching that should be meditated on deeply. I'm not there because I'm not a member and don't have that testimony. However, the belief that we can become as God is, is either a powerful truth or a deal breaker. Perhaps there should be a prayer much like the, "Is the church true" one, asking, "Can I really become as God is?"

I nominate Ronald Wilson Reagan to the 2024 GOP Presidential Candidacy. He's dead? Oh. I still nominate him. 😉

@Traveler: Our good friend @prisonchaplain can, if he wishes, speak to other concepts that define Jesus differently. Answer: OK. The traditional Christian teaching about Jesus is that He is God the Son, co-eternal, co-equal with the Father (and the Spirit). There is a perception that the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints teaches that Jesus is completely separate from the Father (and so is perhaps in some sense less). Further, the teaching that some men may become gods is perceived as detracting from God's eternal role over us.

This approach, often referred to as the 'soft sell,' is not about convincing or converting. It's about representing our Savior. True conversion is not in our hands. It is the Holy Spirit that convicts of sin and reveals the path to salvation. This is why some may ridicule the call to pray for a 'burning in the bosom,' but I refuse to do so. The witness of the Holy Spirit is the only true catalyst for conversion.

Let's try a different set of numbered points: 1. You passed. You were tempted but you stayed true to your marriage, your vows, your faith. Not only did you not break the Law of Chastity, but you were tested and passed. 2. We men should value the women in our lives more. If we don't treasure our treasures, there are always others who will. 3. It speaks well of you that your husband trusts you take such long journeys without him. His discernment appears to be spot on. 4. Don't allow your desire for more attention to turn to bitterness. Again, we men should do better. Perhaps your husband should. 5. Nevertheless, don't underestimate what you have. 16 years? Three children? Blessings all! You did it together. Love/respect him openly. You'll be reassured.

Self-assurance. Self-confidence. Experienced. "I remember when this happened ..." --these are all examples of "righteous pride." Ambition is considered positive in American culture--especially in the business world. Perhaps pride, as condemned in scripture, is similar to many sins--hard to define, but we know it when we encounter it. I was once condemned for having two cars. Never mind that one was over 10-years old, and the other was a very basic Toyota Corolla. To the person condemning me, it was arrogance and consumerism to the extreme (he was from a poor country). The idea of saying pleased rather than proud of is a healthy reminder. However, we do best to focus on our own walk, and pray, like David did 3,000 years ago: Search my heart, O God, and see if there be any unclean way in me.

National Review is good for conservative commentary and insights. What I like about the WSJ is that it's news section is rated as moderate, while its editorial section is moderately conservative. It hasn't joined the Trump Train, but still leans into a pro-America, pro-free enterprise perspective. It's faith friendly, though not specifically religious. I just searched and found out that The Weekly Standard still exists (editor = Bill Krystol). It's conservative, but I'm sure Trump would label it Globalist. I always remember one colleague saying that I cheated when it came to news because I read (rather than listen/watch). 😉

I generally go to the Wall Street Journal, but sometimes read the Federalist, New York Post, and Real Clear Politics. What better source(s) do you have in mind?

If we were looking at a repeat of Trump's first four years, this would be easy. A super majority SCOTUS. Excellent. The problem is that we have our judges and Trump presents as an isolationist. Further, he's driven away some of his most redeeming supporters (Pence and Barr--remember that BOP was under the DOJ during Barr's tenure--he was a solid leader). I support Ukraine, Israel, and Taiwan--I'm not sure Trump will. Biden's weak--but at least he's on board. Harris? All bets are off with her. BUT Trump is an isolationist and a protectionist. He also seems to feed the worst elements--both his supporters and his enemies. Those 80% of us in between just watch in horror.

It's bad enough voting for the least of two evils, this year it's the least scary. 🤷‍♀️

I hated voting for Trump in 2016 and 2020. For reasons outlined by @JohnsonJonesI might not be able to do it this time. If I vote for Biden it'll be my first Democrat vote for President since I began voting (previous millenium). God is good. This election is tough.