prisonchaplain

I enjoyed The Circle. I read the book and saw the movie. I liked the movie--including the ending--better. However, I readily admit that the book's ending is more realistic and likely. Yeah...likely, but not as likeable. I guess I'm too optimistic for my own good. :::sigh:::

Perhaps both/and...even traditional Christians admit that the Fall clearly resulted in free will, and we all love the promise of Genesis 3:15--that Jesus would crush Satan's head. This first messianic promise comes as a result of the Fall--it is part of God's "punishment." On the other hand, they did lose Eden, and far too many of the progeny of Adam & Eve have chosen badly. We may differ as to whether the Fall was pre-arranged in a before-creation agreement or not, but that the Fall brought both punishments and silver linings is truth.

I have no discernment about the dream. However, of course I believe that in the last days God will give dreams and visions. That said, if a dream brings a sense of dread and fear, it may not be from God. She would need to discern that--perhaps with your help.

Well...err...:::cough:::...that would be one of those doctrinal distinctives. Standard Pentecostal teaching remains that once the soul dies it's heaven or hell. So, those who would be pleasantly surprised by the LDS teaching on the state of the dead are not a vanguard of greater unity--they are possible converts.

We've been back in-person for a few months now, with perhaps 35% attending. Yes, it's tough not to be able to hug or even shake hands. It's a chore to wear the mask throughout the service. It seems like a shadow of pre-Covid times. And yet, I know we're doing right. We are obeying Caesar as best we can. Many of our members do not believe this is that serious. Pastor takes a fair amount of criticism for enforcing compliance. Yet, there are other members who wish we were even stricter. My take is that I can be in church so I need to be. And...faith tells me there is more blessing in church than just the information I learn. There is something about being in God's place with God's people doing what God has given us to do. No judgment. No condemnation. However, my encouragement to all people of faith is that if you can be with God's people than that's the place to be.

I've heard of Alpha, and just visited to see who is endorsing it. When you have Rick Warren, Joyce Meyer, and dignitaries from mainline churches (including Catholic) approving, that's a good sign. As I understand it, one goal is to sift out what is basic or essential to Christianity. While that's a worthy endeavor, the goal of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is to promote missing truths. The church's prophets have some distinct insights not shared by the rest of us. So, while both goals are worthy--striving to sift out non-essentials vs. helping God-worshippers to capture missing truths--I wonder if those two impulses can work simultaneously. My guess is that most LDS (I would be this way if I were a member) would want very much to proclaim, "This is great, but I know some really great truths that everyone here would be so blessed to receive . . . "

I know I may be blowing up the direction of this string, but, based on the title, two thoughts come to mind. 1. Yes, we can unite for particular causes. I've mentioned before that Rev. Jerry Falwell (Sr.) embraced LDS participation in his Moral Majority. It is easy to imagine Pentecostals, LDS, and perhaps even other faith communities finding common cause for religious liberty and social-moral efforts. 2. In terms of actual religious unity, I suspect that we can learn to be more civil, more respectful, more open to each other. We can stop with name-calling, and we can each ask the worst of our faith communities to cease with inappropriate opposition tactics and inflammatory attacks (and yes, Evangelicals--including Pentecostals--bare the greater guilt, probably by far). However, our doctrines remain very distinct, so I am not sure how much spiritual unity--other than mutual kindness and goodness--we can expect.

I'm thinking more along the lines of "LDS culture" or "LDS event" vs. Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints culture/event. Then again, I could just say, "Oh, you know...it's a Thirdhour.org thing." I'm sure most will get my meaning.

As a noun, I understand the desire for the full name, rather than the common slang form--especially since the latter is so often used by opponents. However, when it comes to the adjective, will I still be respectful if I use "LDS?"

In a fascinating Wall Street Journal article, the author said that the mistake of 2016 was that the GOP bothered trying to justify their actions. Obama's choice was not nominated because he did not have the votes. Now, Trump does. It really is pure politics, and always has been. Now the Democrats are threatening to pack SCOTUS, to make Washington DC and Puerto Rico states, etc. They will anyway. For them the Constitution is a living, breathing document--meant to be bent to their will. Personally, I remember when the SCOTUS nominations became nasty. Robert Bork was "borked" by the Democrats for his ideology. It was the first time. We've never recovered. There is no high ground left to take.

In Joseph Smith's era the above was true--very much so. However, your church's first prophet brought something to light--praying to receive a Holy Spirit witness--a burning in the bosom. LDS speak of being impressed by the Spirit. Indeed, the Bible says the Holy Spirit will convict us. We think of conviction as relating to sin, but He also gives us conviction--a strong sense of what is true. Of course, for Pentecostals/Charismatics the Holy Spirit brings spiritual power. On an intuitive level, many view the Heavenly Father as that traditional, strong, somewhat distant authority figure, who always seemed right. The Son, Jesus, is our brother, our example, even, on some level, our friend. The Holy Spirit though is an internal, intimate sense of God's presence. He is a Comforter, a guide, and most certainly, an assurance.

Fair enough. I suspect that there is less caution and purity messaging in our college/career groups vs. our jr/sr high ones. So, perhaps more discretion is allowed. Still, modesty and opposition to fornication are counter-culture values we share.

You are blessed and highly favored.

I looked as hard as I could in the OP, based on the headline, for the phrase, "with the initial physical evidence of speaking in tongues," and then realized, alas, that I was sorely mistaken.

I don't represent the GOP, so I get to be more blunt. The secular fundamentalists hate America's undercurrent of Judeo-Christian morality with a passion. They desire to force our private colleges to house gay partners. They would use the force of law to compel us to provide professional services (cakes and flowers, etc.) for sacrilegious marriage sacraments. They would declare unfit for public office any who take their faith serious enough to be, for example, pro-life. The dogma lives loudly in us indeed. So...call us hypocrites all you want, we're putting as many of our judges in as we can, while we can. Your election term may be coming, but pardon us for defensively prepping.

I grew up in a non-Christian home, but attended a church with a conservative approach to these matters. Given today's non-marrying culture, I wonder if these "touch/kiss lightly" standards apply as stringently to those in their mid-20s as they do to the teens they were meant for? In broader culture many are not marrying until they are near-30. Some of these are converting. They are more mature, but we can all be carried away by lust. So...do the dating rules change as the youngsters become less young?

I'm torn, but thinking that any semblance of decency, respect and cooperation between opposing sides is gone . Many religious leaders are expecting persecution, either following November's election, or a few years later. At least having one more judge in place will delay some of the trials/tribulations to come. :::sigh:::

When it comes to prophecies and revelation, the example of the Apostle Paul resonates. Through spiritual giftings Paul is told that if he continues towards Rome he'll end up in chains and experience much suffering. As a result of these utterances the brothers and sisters urge him not to go. Paul first endorses the prophetic words. They are from God. Nevertheless, he believes he's also received his commission to indeed go to Rome. So, the prophecies were true, but how to respond remained the question. At this point, the congregation resorts to practicality and caution. Paul has already received his revelation, and chooses to follow through with what the Lord has given him, though with greater spiritual preparation for the hardships to come. Likewise, end times prophesies point to both spiritual awakening and trials/tribulations. We do well to prepare both for the harvesting of souls and for troubles. Then again, if prayers, supplications, and devotion can spare a generation from judgment I'm all-in.

You are wildly correct.

Anyone want to hazard a guess as to where this comes from? "We disrupt the Western-prescribed nuclear family structure requirement by supporting each other as extended families and “villages” that collectively care for one another, especially our children, to the degree that mothers, parents, and children are comfortable."

"Religious Liberty" is a cover for racist and homophobic policies. Membership in pro-life groups, such as the Knights of Columbus, are cause for rejection from government jobs. Old writings that favor religious institutions over individuals expressing pro-LGBT opinions are also disqualifiers, demands that religious institutions of higher learning provide LGBT housing on campus, prosecution against religious entities that refuse to offer same-sex wedding accommodation, etc. All of these trial balloons have already been floated. Should the election this year turn in a certain direction just how bad might it become for people of faith--especially those of us with traditional sexual mores?

I appreciate the drive to convert our understanding of God into enhanced righteousness (actionable change). I do. Yet, and maybe it's the liberal arts leaning in me, there has to be a spiritual benefit to seeking a greater understanding of God, whether I can translate it into deeds or not. In other words, just knowing God a little bit more is an act of holiness in and of itself. :::Sigh::: then again, I'm the guy who believes that the Agricultural Science graduate gets a little bit more out of farming than the high school drop out who does it the way dad did--even if the resultant profits are the same.

Several years ago we had an inmate who was LDS. At the time, we had no LDS volunteers, so he came to Protestant Chapel. On his last Sunday he asked me if he could bare his testimony. I agreed, and he testified that he believed Joseph Smith was a prophet, and that Jesus is the Savior. He want on to say he sensed the Holy Spirit in me and that the brothers would do well to listen my teaching and keep following the Lord. I'm sure he believed I did not have spiritual authority and that I was missing some important doctrine. Therefore, I took his words as high praise. Perhaps that is how many LDS take C.S. Lewis--a critic of the church who, nevertheless, said/wrote many pro-LDS things.

This is a utilitarian perspective. To oversimplify, "May the best behaved/achieved win!" And, of course, badly behaved LDS and Trinitarians are likely to find themselves in the same trouble on Judgement Day. Still, is the WoW, for example, really more important than the doctrine of who God is? Here's how that looks, btw: LDS: We don't drink, smoke, gamble or chew. AG: Neither do we. LDS: Oh yeah? Well, we don't drink coffee or tea either! AG: Okay...but we don't dance! (okay...circa 1970s, but work with me) It is important to do right and good, and to love our neighbor. Still...who God is has to be the ultimate question. Even if we do not believe we can fully comprehend the answer, we must keep seeking to know Him more, right?

We agree, and our traditions agree, that Jesus was/is/always will be equal with the Father. We would both contend with Jehovah's Witnesses that when Jesus said, "My Father is greater than I," He referred to the role of Father vs. Son, not their existential natures. What is not as clear to traditionalists, and myself, is that Jesus saying He was one with God was what triggered the Pharisees. Clearly, to my understanding, his claim to have been before Abraham was what, combined with his oneness statement, drove them to murderous rage. The part that leads to accusations against the church is not Jesus' parity with the Father, but the notion that we will achieve that.