prisonchaplain

Two quick thoughts--one goes each way (oh nuetral objective me!): 1. Anyone who leaves a religion that condemns homosexual activity, and it turns out that they have embraced the practice, would, on the face of it, have an ax to grind. 2. The terrible thing about molestation charges is that the stink never totally leaves. If the charges are true, and we dismiss them out of hand, we're wrong. On the other hand, if they are lies, and we harbor misgivings against the accused, we're wrong. The only "fair" thing to do is ignore the charges, and base our evaluations of the accuser and accused on matters we can know.

I know I will get kicked for this but, here goes... You say it's amazing. I say it's insane. Why does the LDS church (who supposedly 'watches out' for its females by not letting them be in a local meetinghouse without a man) think it's OK to send females to a country where rape is so commonplace? During the early part of my service in Korea I served as an elementary school teacher for the children of missionaries (there were even a couple of LDS children at the school). There was a break and enter incident in which one of the female teachers was raped. Ironically, she ended up staying, and her roommate ending up leaving. Note that the school was located in an old-style "mission compound." Such setups are a relic, and are generally looked down upon by missiologists today, because they sequester the missionaries in their little westernized communities, hidden away from the locals. The one upside is that they are supposedly safer. Personally, I admire the missionaries for staying, but would not have blamed them if they did not. Missionaries and ordinary Christians face persecution, imprisonment, and in some cases, violence and death simply for identifying as Christians, in some parts of the world. Jesus says that if we try to save our lives, we'll lose them. However, if we lose our lives, for His sake, we will save them.

I'm so glad you feel that way, John. Now...you wanna answer your door???

MBASS AND CAPTTUX, and anyone else interested: If it's an intelligent look at Mormonism from an insider and outsider point of view (and perhaps a better understanding of evangelic Christianity as well) that your looking for, I highly recommend the following: How Wide the Divide? A Mormon & an Evangelical in Conversation, by Craig L. Blomberg and Stephen E. Robinson. Blomberg is a professor at Denver Seminary (an Evangelical graduate school), and Robinson is a religion professor at Brigham Young University. The book is just under 200 pages, but includes over 30 pages of citations. Both authors are direct, but respectful and conciliatory. They make no attempt at ecumenism or compromise of doctrines, but their effort is to faciliatate understanding, not to convert. I believe my review of this work is till in the book review section. If not, it's on Amazon.com.

Hi. I'm from the government. DON'T WORRY. I'm here to help.

AK, you are an excellent instructor. Thanks. BTW, a question comes to mind. If we are all eternal intelligences, does that mean that God did NOT create our intelligence?

My understanding is that the LDS believe that the Holy Trinity, Father, Son and Holy Spirit, are one God--with one mind, purpose, etc., but that they are essentially (or ontologically) three persons. Traditional Christians contend that such is not possible--three essential persons = 3 gods. LDS respond, no, we believe in three essential persons who are one God. You may not make sense of it, but that's what we believe. If I'm not mistaken, they also believe that Jesus, the Son, is subordinate to the Father, in that Father created Him (though Jesus, like us, is eternal).

God wants to communicate with us. He wants to hear our hearts, our pains, our fears, our desires. So, when we pray, we tell him what we think and feel we want and need. He's our dad--so He'll decipher it wisely. Sometimes He'll say "No." Sometimes, "Yes." Sometimes, "Wait." Sometimes He'll give us what we want, even if it's not the best--the same as we sometimes allow our children (especially older ones) to do things that we think are not the best (yet, are not too dangerous). So, no need to filter our prayers, to get them accurate, or theologically acceptable. God reads our hearts. Some examples of aggressive praying: Abraham (Soddom & Gomorrah), Job, Jacob--even Jesus in the Garden. Bottom-line: Just keep it real. Here's a lesson I'm using this coming Sunday, related to how we pray: PRAY PASSIONATELY & PERSISTENTLY Introduction: How many want God to grant you mercy in your cases? How many want God to supply your families’ financial, emotional and spiritual needs while you are separated? How many have a loved one who is sick, and you want God to heal? How many desperately want something from God? Proposition: God wants us to pray. Interrogative: How does God want us to pray? Transitional: God wants us to pray passionately and persistently. I. God is not angered by passionate persistent prayer–even when we are wrong. Genesis 18:20-33 A. Abraham prays passionately. 1. He questions God’s justice, saying: Surely you won’t destroy the righteous with the unrighteous! 2. How often it is that one person falls into sin and so many that are close to and love him end up suffering. B. Abraham prays persistently. 1. What if there are 50 righteous people? 2. 45? 40? 30? 20? 10?! C. God honors his request. D. It’s to no avail. 1. 10 righteous people are not found. 2. Sodom and Gomorroh are destroyed. E. Nevertheless, God accepted Abraham’s prayers. F. God wants us to pray passionately and persistently. 1. We need not fear when we speak with God. 2. He is our Dad, after all. TRANSITION: ANOTHER PASSIONATE AND PERSISTENT MAN OF PRAYER WAS JACOB. II. God honors persistent passionate prayer with blessing. Genesis 32:22-31 A. Jacob wrestled with a man all night. 1. Why? He wanted a blessing. He knew the man could give it. 2. The man gives him his blessing, and he realizes he has wrestled with God. B. How often have we desperately needed something from God, and so we wrestle with him for it? 1. My appointment to the FDC. 2. Your need today? D. Jacob is humbled. 1. Although he was determined to win, he had not realized who he was wrestling with. 2. Many, who do not know God, wrestle spiritually, only to realize their battle has been with God. E. Victory can be costly. 1. Jacob’s hip is damaged. 2. Wrestling implies being willing to endure hardship to gain the prize. F. How amazing that God allows us to win our battles with him. 1. He gets his blessing. His name becomes that of a great nation. 2. God answers our prayers, usually beyond our expectations. TRANSITION: JESUS ALSO ENDORSES PRAYER THAT IS PASSIONATE AND PERSISTENT. III. God responds to passionate persistent prayer the same way any loving father would. Luke 11:5-13 A. Sometimes he says yes “to get us to quite bothering him.” 1. God won’t give us something he truly disagrees with. 2. This is something of the, “Oh . . . all right,” response. 3. God’s not playing games. i. Sometimes he holds back to see if we will treasure what we are asking for and be good stewards of it. ii. Our house. We did not think we could qualify to buy it, but we wanted a place to use for God’s glory. iii. The Christian couple who wanted a luxury yacht, and then went sailing (instead of to church) on Sundays. B. God always gives us good gifts–never harmful ones. 1. The yacht was not bad, it was nuetral. i. The couple could have used it for hosting Christians–thus glorifying God. ii. They chose instead to use it for selfish personal pleasure. 2. Note that Jesus’ example is the baptism in the Holy Spirit. i. While some Christians have created controversy over this gift, Jesus says it is a good gift. ii. Jesus also says it is an important one to ask for. CONCLUSIONS 1. God wants us to pray passionately. 2. God wants us to pray persistently. 3. God wants to give us good gifts–including the baptism in the Holy Spirit.

me too...my daughter just turned 3 on sunday....i dread 13 My daughters are 5, 4, and 2. I'm considering starting a non-Catholic nunnery? Any interest out there?

I thought John was a Southern Baptist?

Doc, can I borrow some of that extra time you seem to have on your hands???

I'm not really that familiar with Myspace, but this discussion reminds me of a truism: Do not flippantly or ignorantly criticize a major social phenomenon! Case in point: I made reference to The Da Vinci Code in chapel one day. My point was that Jesus did not marry or father children. Three of the ladies responded with a rather passionate defense of the book. They were so used to criticism from people who hadn't read it, but had been told it was ungodly, that they REACTED. What I said was not wrong, but, realizing the book was a hot topic, I probably should have either left it alone, or been prepared for a discussion. Parents need to know their kids well. If they choose to prohibit myspace usage, or strongly curtail it, they should do so after intelligent conversation that is two-way. For middle-schoolers and up, consensus would be much preferable to ultimatums--though parents have the right to make final decisions, of course.

FYI, Chick's Anti-Catholic tracts are so rabid we don't allow them in our institution. Moses was Catholic??? Sorry, couldn't help it. There's a good deal of discussion as to whether the early church (1st century) could be labeled Catholic in the institutional sense. Little doubt that they established the biblical canon, though--one that LDS recognize, as far as it goes.

I have no interest in which one of you is the more right or wrong in your particular comments on this string towards one another. It is sad to see to well-meaning people take discussions about God and his truths personally, and get so offended. But, I'm hardly qualified to be a mediator here. So, to be clear, I was only suggesting that Apostleknight's advice to you about how to communicate with non-LDS posters was sound. Further, I don't think any non-LDS poster that I have seen has been offended by AK's posts. So, he offers his advice with a goodly amount of gravitas. Most of the other stuff might be more appropriate in PMs, imho. The wonderful thing about advice is that you can take it or leave it. I've found that if I just state things and someone is uncertain, then I can respond with "I don't have proof, but I believe this is so." Or, "I know because...(God told me), I read it at ag.org, or whatever.

RAY, I wasn't trying to get into the middle of your discussion with AK about LDS beliefs (guess who the least qualified of us three would be in that discussion?). Rather, I was addressing his advice to you in relating to non-LDS posters. Here's my take: 1. Most non-LDS who would bother to come to an LDStalk forum have at least some knowledge of LDS teachings, and some curiosity about the faith. 2. We know that LDS believe they have the truest understanding of God and his plan for humanity. 3. We know that LDS believe they have more of God's truths than other Christians. SO, AK's point to you seemed to be that there is no need to continually remind non-LDS of those points. To encourage a Christian to pray about LDS distinctives once or twice might be acceptable, but to keep doing so with each post might come across as condescending to many. Furthermore, as a general rule of thumb in any forum about any topic, the fact that you post with your name is indication that you think you are true and right. No need to keep saying so. As my English teacher used to tell us, "NO need to say 'I think' in writing or speech. In writing, you name is on the paper, so 'I think' is redundant. Likewise, with speech--the words are coming out of your mouth already." Ray, I've gotten to know you, so I'm able to read past some of these mannerisms. But, I also thought AK's words to you were useful advice. Why you felt "stabbed in the heart" is beyond me.

Hee hee hee...Sgallan...THE HAMMER! That's what I'm talkin' about!!

Again, Mohammed's disciples did--compiling the Qur'an. L. Ron Hubbard wrote Dianetics, which has become a Scripture of sorts for Scientologists. Rev. Moon, Sunmyung wrote a set of Scriptures (the name of it escapes me now). I'm sure there are countless others. So, yes, it's possible to write a set of writings and declare them Scriptures. So, what will make or break Joseph Smith's work, is its veracity. Is it true? You address this in the next quote... I'm guessing that what you mean when you say the BoM is proven by scholars, is that there are facts in the writing that have since come to be proven true. Some of those facts, it is intimated, could not have been known by Joseph Smith, without inspiration from the Holy Spirit. The response, of course, is that other books are purported to be Scriptures, and make similar claims. So, what's the ultimate answer. Gaining a testimony! Something most Christians would call "Faith + an assurance from the Holy Spirit." But I will go back to Isaiah. I will quote BOM and Bible. I'm aware that there is water baptism in the Jewish religion. Are you suggesting that Isaiah wrote that phrase down, and it got lost, or simply that Nephi's added element brings out a truth that Isaiah missed? How would you demonstrate that the mention of baptism SHOULD HAVE BEEN in Isaiah? Again, thanks.

Back to the key question: I understand the post, but agree with Jason that the Roman Catholic Church institutional will not likely be coming out with any official statements that diminish the import or veracity of Scripture. At the same time, like the LDS, biblical interpretation requires authority in the Roman Catholic Church, so ultimately, what gets taught depends on church tradition, consensus, and, in certain cases, on what the Pope may be so compelled about that he declares a statement to be ex cathedral (sp?), that is inerrant. Some mainstream churches already treat the Bible as being unevenly inspired, and that said inspiration ranges from inerrant to Shakespear-like. You'll not see such statements coming out of evangelical or fundamentalist churches anytime soon.

After reading the last half-dozen or so posts here, and then looking at the topic title, I've got to ask--so just who is in danger of beheading???

Based on the length of your post, I think I'm safe in saying I'm glad you enjoyed this, and found it fruitful to work on. I think the key point is that Joseph Smith would have had to be a lot more educated and resourceful than his resume would lend us to believe, in order to come up with an accurate description of life during the times he wrote about. By way of disclosure, I've made my way through 1st & 2nd Nephi (and seen the Book of Mormon movie ), so understand what you are getting at. James Michener might agree with you or not. We need a gifted writer to tell us how hard or easy such writing would be. This is an interesting argument. How much attention/traction has this gotten outside of the LDS theological community? I'd be especially interested by the appraisals of Hebrew scholars on this matter. I only mentioned the changes because the OP seemed to say there were none, and I'd read that there were numerous changes.

Try your public library--that's where I borrowed mine. Fiannan, to give you a clue as to my politics, I was president of my college's Young Americans for Freedom (YAF). Look it up if you don't know, and you'll see how close I'm likely to be to Mr. Moore. All the more reason why I was struck by the simple notion that violence is high in America because we're running on fear. I think Moore accidentally stumbled upon that one.

AK: Even in the midst of personal exhaustion you come up with some intelligent and discerning posts. Thank you. Dr. T: You've forced me to break out my theological dictionary--a good thing. Ray: IMHO AK is not being rude, he's being direct. You may disagree with him, but understand, he's not trying to be smart aleck, or to engage you in a battle of wits. He's trying to offer you some advice on how to intelligently and, yes, spiritually engage non-LDS. Since AK is almost universally respected by everyone on this board--particularly us non-Mormons, you might consider his counsel, rather than reacting to it.

Despite his rhetoric, he is American too.

It's been suggested that the supernatural manifestations of Jesus' ministry are of the same nature Christians might do today--through prayer, fasting, faith. Jesus once said we would do all that he had done and even more. So, he did not turn on his God-powers from time to time, but rather relied on the power and gifts of the Holy Spirit.

Let me play Kierkegaard's advocate (not ready to call him a devil). If faith and reason could be absolutely harmonized, then the "faith" would not be faith, it would be supporting evidence.