prisonchaplain
-
Posts
13940 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
92
Posts posted by prisonchaplain
-
-
I was responding to the text she quoted--the Original Post. @zil2 is correct.
- zil2 and Carborendum
-
1
-
1
-
Witch hunts are always destructive. Buzz words can be just as damaging. For example, when I taught 7th graders history last year we touched on the poor treatment of enslaved Africans. We also covered the forced treaties Native Americans had to sign--which were then broken by U.S. and state governments. Was I guilty of teaching CRT. Of course not, but THAT is how witch hunts sometimes go. Being aware of actual injustice is labeled as woke. Citing a legitimate case of racial bias or injustice is labeled CRT. Citing anything left of Glen Beck makes one a bleeding heart Democrat (or Communist). :::Sigh::: Cancel culture is terrible--unless we're doing it--in the name of our faith, of course.
-
1 hour ago, LDSGator said:
The part I’m not sure you are getting @prisonchaplain is twofold. One, I want Christianity to grow. Two, I’m not advocating a change in teaching. ... I feel like this house is on fire and instead of calling the fire department Mom and Dad are sitting on the couch arguing about which cousins they are going invite to Thanksgiving.
Thank you. Contention is worse than worthless. However, young people do want authenticity. Sometimes the arguments are about preserving what is true. The difficulty is discerning what is central and what is dross. I believe Jesus struggled leaders who had the same difficulties.
-
I still remember when the Reagan administration (which I still love) claimed that ketchup was a vegetable. At the time I fancied myself a strong conservative and tried to defend providing minimal school lunches. As I've aged I've moderated. Sadly, for some kids their best meals are the ones schools provide. They should be filling and yummy. I suspect that a strong school lunch program would do more to prevent crime and violence than a boatload of gun restrictions. Oh...and I suspect Jesus would favor generous school lunches. 😉
- LDSGator, JohnsonJones and MrShorty
-
3
-
19 hours ago, LDSGator said:
That’s a big fear of mine. Generally speaking I think religion is a good thing and people should at least try to keep a marginal/nominal faith. My fear is that arguments like this are 1) pointless and 2) might keep people from joining or exploring the faith.
Also, with the rise of “nones” I fear we’ve passed the point of no return.
I live in the anti-Bible belt (Pacific Northwest) --an area where 67% have no religious preference. It's been like this at least since my childhood (1960s-80s). Nationwide 70% still claim to be Christian. Of course, that's not true--but it's a lot higher than what we feel.
There's is much to frustrate us. However, when the Spirit of God moves it's amazing how many respond. I believe Christianity's best days are yet to come. I'm expecting revival prior to Christ's return. If I'm wrong, come Lord Jesus, come. The harvest really is ripe. I suspect we are much like the prophet's servant. He could only see the approaching enemies. He could not see that angels surrounded and protected him. Likewise, the prophet who told God he was the only faithful one left. God said, no there were still thousands of faithful. We can't give up. We can't give in. We must dig in.
- MrShorty, askandanswer, Backroads and 2 others
-
5
-
Churches sometimes have problems--aspects that outsiders criticize and aspects that older teenagers and young adults find more difficult to accept than past generations did. Examples:
1. Politics are too conservative: Both of our churches lean right. The last U.S. president was particularly difficult for some to stomach. My short answer is that how members vote, despite their insistence to the contrary, is more a mark of their politics than it is a religious distinctive. The #1 reason many in my fellowship vote conservative is that they are prolife. Members will sometimes say, "I don't know how a true Christian could vote for a proabortion politician." They can say that, but there is no political litmus test in church.
2. Church doesn't do enough for the environment. My church might be especially guilty on this because we believe Jesus will return at any time. So, some members disregard environmentalism. Nevertheless, "creation care," is something Christians of many stripes embrace. We may not be the most earth friendly, but taking care of what God made is scriptural.
3. Sexual holiness codes are hypocritical and especially hurtful to LGBT. First, they are not hypocritical. Adultery, fornication, and porn viewing are all sinful. We don't talk as much about this because very few Christians are advocating porn viewing, fornication or adultery. They know it is sinful even if it happens a lot. We love LGBT folks, just as we love those who fornicate, commit adultery, or view porn. Nevertheless, if there is sin the call is to repentance--not affirmation.
4. History: The two biggest TV evangelist scandals of the 1980s were of Assemblies of God ministers--Jimmy Swaggart and Jim Bakker. What most don't know is that both men were defrocked. We don't speak ill of them. What they do is now between them and God. As a result, some believe that they faced no accountability. They did. Rather than submit to our restoration process they gave up their ministers' credentials.
5. Overemphasis on doctrinal distinctives. Usually this has to do with our belief that speaking in tongues is the initial, physical evidence that one has been baptized in the Holy Spirit. This is our teaching, and the belief can be explained biblically. However, we're quick to add that when people convert to Christianity they immediately walk with the Holy Spirit, and many will enter the kingdom who have not and will not speak in tongues.
The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints faces many of these broad issues. Some can be answered fairly quickly. Nevertheless, there seems to be lingering struggles. What we grapple with is different, but there are some similarities. Call this a commiseration string.
- Jamie123, LDSGator, Carborendum and 3 others
-
6
-
59 minutes ago, LDSGator said:
No disagreement there, but it doesn’t address what I said. ...
In the meantime, your average SBC pastor and Catholic priest are doing their best to keep what parishioners they have to keep coning to church. LDS bishops and SP’s are probably doing the same thing. They don’t care about “Protestant Mormons”. They just want LDS to show up in church. The labels are meaningless if the pews are empty.
My suggestion was that sometimes it's not our age that makes us liberal/moderate/conservative so much as the age of the person who labels us. I've problably gone from conservative/fundamentalists to moderate/conservative over the decades. However, the younger a person is the more likely they are to pigeon-hole me as a rabid, right-wing extremist.
Most religious leaders care more about people than politics or ideological purity. However, even trying to keep people in the pews can be a futile effort. We had those who insisted on masking and those who opposed masks during COVID. Our approach was to obey the law but to treat people like adults. Some of the mask-insisters left and more of the mask opponents left. Some said we didn't care about the health of our community and others said that we compromised with the Antichrist.
All we can do is keep focused on the Good News and trust the Holy Spirit to do the convicting and bringing in.
- Vort, MrShorty, askandanswer and 1 other
-
4
-
30 minutes ago, LDSGator said:
Do you think it has anything to do with age? Yes, I know it’s a generalization but it’s not always wrong. When I was active I noticed that (again, generally speaking) older people were more traditional, Gen X (my age) were more “nuanced” and young people either didn’t show up or were hanging on by a thread.
There is a Presbyterian minister I've heard who says that Christians should treat LGBT neighbors kindly. He does not endorse their behavior and has traditional views about marriage, but believes Christians are commanded to show love to everyone.
In the 1970s he was considered a liberal.
In the 1990s he was considered moderate.
Today he is viewed as an extremist, right-wing, MAGA conservative.
His views never changed.
-
I am beyond not qualified to discuss the details of this thread. Instead, consider what has happened to the larger Christian movement. It has formed into three branches.
The modernists/liberals interpret the Bible in light of modern cultural mores. Some even argue that the reader's perspective is primary.
Fundamentalists try to preserve and defend what was. They sometimes insist on the King James Version of the Bible, the singing of hymns, extensive holiness codes, and lock-step doctrinal adherence. From the second group I offer the following example: I went to see my aunt baptized in this type of church. The minister's sermon was aimed at criticizing my church's beliefs. After the service he came up, shook my hand, and told me directly that the sermon was aimed at me.
Then there are those, and I probably fit in this camp, who take the scriptures as mostly historical, mostly literal, and absolutely inspired of God. We try to engage the culture rather than condemn it. Our hope is to focus on Jesus and the Good News and not get sidetracked by secondary stuff. Sadly, we often fail.
I'm wondering as I read this thread if much of the LDS world is also split into modernists, traditionalists, and the messy middle?
- JohnsonJones and MrShorty
-
2
-
@Stacy RiddleI disagree. LDS holiness codes--especially ones related to the WoW and Law of Chastity are areas where I have some holy envy. It's incredible and good to me that young LDS people obey the no dating until 16 rule. Further, the prophet says no coffee/tea so no coffee/tea it is. That's not "cultish" in my mind. That's consistent with church teaching--especially about distinctives like having modern-day prophets. I'm not LDS and I love my coffee, but my theological differences have nothing to do with the reality that LDS folk obey latter-day revelations. If the revelations are true, of course they should be obeyed.
- Just_A_Guy, Carborendum and zil2
-
3
-
The idea of following the prophets (or, in my case, church leadership) and of giving them the benefit of the doubt goes a long way with me. I don't see God punishing Protestants who don't allow female clergy, even though my church does. I doubt that churches that allow moderate drinking will be downgraded, though mine doesn't. I cringe at churches that discourage the moving of the Holy Spirit, claiming that the Bible is enough, but guess that what they are missing out on is more in this life than the one to come. So, I mostly agree that if there is certainty about a prophet's authority than that person should be followed and given every benefit of the doubt. The bar for disobeying a prophet would have to be quite high.
-
-
1 hour ago, Vort said:
To me, that seems an awful lot like saying, "You must be tolerant and respectful of my opinions, even when I proclaim that Church doctrine was uninspired and wicked. But I owe you no such courtesy."
You're probably right about everything. I promise to consider your words once I'm done laughing at (not with) the adolescent environmentalist wacko that you inserted. This may be a case where said insert distracts from rather than underlines your point. 😉
- Carborendum, zil2 and Vort
-
2
-
1
-
I suppose that prophets may speak privately, and those words should not be weighed as inspired by God. Some words may be spoken to individuals or small groups, by prophets, and those utterances may only apply to them. However, when a prophet speaks publicly, or officially, is he not supposed to be infallible? Is it not the same as when the Pope speaks to Catholics ex cathedra (from the chair--authoritatively)?
-
4 hours ago, estradling75 said:
You don't have to be able to predict a schism years down the road to be able to ask the question "Does this action I'm about to take strengthen my friends or empower my enemies?" That is usually a much clearer answer. We protect our friends and attack our enemies
And since our Judgement is suppose to be based on the Fruit people bring forth... When I see someone 'Nail' something to the door, I can get a pretty good feel for what/who they consider friends and who/what they consider enemies.
Except that Martin Luther was right. Indulgences should not have been sold. There was apparent corruption. Further, there may be more qualified historians than me on this, but I am not so certain that nailing objections was a faith-destroying move. We don't know what was going on in Luther's mind, but it is a mostly accepted consensus that he truly was not seeking schism. He hoped the church would embrace reforms and become stronger. He hoped his friends would be strengthened because the church was strenghened. Indeed, I understand that there was something of a Catholic Reformation. Apologists argue it was coming and Luther should have been patient. Luther-supporters argue that the Protestant Reformation drove Catholic hierarchy to those reforms.
We have the advantage of over 500 years of history, but I believe Luther's motives were relatively innocent. Whether he was so right that he was wrong (the benefits did not outweigh the cost of schism) is an open question to this day.
-
7 hours ago, estradling75 said:
Martin Luther may not have wanted a schism.. but actions have consequences. ... When we nail our complaints to the door (Or Post to social media) we do need to take responsibly for some very predictable reactions
I can't speak to the Protestant Mormons. However, Martin Luther believed that the church would consider his proposed reforms. He did not predict a schism. Perhaps it wasn't so obvious--at least not at first.
-
My understanding is that Martin Luther did not initially want to start a schism. However, church leadership required that he recant his criticisms. It was not enough that he stop complaining--he had to publicly apologize for his criticisms and say he was wrong. That he could not do.
-
From my outsider lense, there seems to be a similarity between LDS theology and Catholic theology when it comes to authoritativeness. In Catholicism scripture interpretation rests in the authority of the Pope and church hierarchy. In LDS practice church members sustain the prophetic mantle of the President and a few other leaders who have authority as prophets. There really is not room for private or personal interpretations, except perhaps in the area of applying prophetic utterances. I'm I understanding correctly?
-
1 hour ago, Vort said:
*When I first heard the "baby boomers" label, it was strictly applied to those born between 1946 and 1962, an 18-year period. Since I managed to avoid birth until just baaaarely after 1962, I was happy to be safe from the ridiculous "boomer" label. Until they relabeled things, that is.
It's worse than you think. I was born in '64 and was part of the Baby Bust. However, so few of us were born that we got lumped in with the Boomers. 😞
-
2 hours ago, Backroads said:
I often hear this and wonder, why did they struggle so much in their marriages?
Boomers were a large cohort and fairly entitled. I believe it's the first generation that reached 50% divorce. TIME Magazine did an article on this generation and one of the quotes was "Ronald Reagan stuck around longer than my dad."
-
7 hours ago, Jamie123 said:
What about Generations X and Y?
(According to the strict definition I'm a Boomer - but only just.)
There was no Gen-Y and my wife is Gen-X. We don't joke about Gen-X. Ever!
- Traveler and Still_Small_Voice
-
1
-
1
-
-
My outsider understanding is that LDS believe Jesus Saves! They are happy that most people will earn some type of heavenly reward. However, knowing the Celestial Kingdom is available and having been taught how to reach it--and the closest fellowship with Heavenly Father--anything less would feel like a great loss. Perhaps even like hell.
I'm a Pentecostal, so only believe there is one heavenly realm (though perhaps with levels of rewards within it). Even I would be most disappointed to learn in glory that I could have done better for my LORD, and that my reward is therefore less than it might have been.
-
I have serious doubts about leadership. They are generally foolish.I respect leadership,thoughNope. Can't say I've ever been censored. 😉
- NeuroTypical and mordorbund
-
1
-
1
Problems with church
in LDS Gospel Discussion
Posted
Still...the context of the story is that the 12 baskets of leftovers was a miracle not a commentary on the over-simplicity of the meal. 😉