prisonchaplain

Traveler, based upon your definitions of revelation vs. inspiration, your posts and reactions to my posts make perfect sense. I've learned what you would call an "expanded" definition of prophecy and revelation. Many Baptists even consider the preaching or proclammation of the Word (i.e. sermons) to be acts of prophecy.

You buy, I'll fly.

It's like a drug, AK. I can't help it! Every single point and subpoint must be spelled out, nailed down, clarified, and that stupid horse must be beaten to a pulp!!! B) Ok, I'm cool now. Feel better. Address the moutaintops, don't lose the forest for the trees. Thanks for snapping me out of it, AK. You're a life saver.

I was reading Traveler's post about his dad, and then saw Ray's showing admiration. I started thinking about my own childhood and the interplay of humanity, parenting and faith. My home was "unchurched" until I turned 10. Then, my brother and I accepted an invitation to join our neighborhood friend at church. Free candbars were involved! My older brother said he didn't want to go anymore, but Dad and Mom decided that since they'd grown up in church, it would be good for us to get some religious learning too. We had to keep going until we were 15. Of course, parents only came for Christmas and Easter programs, or if one of us was in a skit, etc. Come my brother's 15th, he was out! There is much I could complain about, in hindsight, about how I was raised. Suffice to say, my folks were human, and had their weaknesses. But, what I remember is how my dad would take me--just me--to breakfast every Saturday morning. For about two hours we would talk about whatever I wanted to. Dad would ask me questions, play "devil's advocate"--really get me to think through my opinions. This practice lasted about 3 years. I share this anecdote to say that my dad loved me, and showed it to me in his own, unique, and powerful way. He showed me that I was important, and that thinking clearly and thoroughly was vitally important. I credit him for that. Flash forward 25 years. No one else in my family is a believer. There has been dysfunction, personal failures, and the normal share of difficulties. But, we love each other, and there are no fueds, and we're all comfortable around each other. Yes, it's sad that no one is "saved." But, I do thank God for a family that God has used to form me into what I am today. Flash forward to today (some 30 years later). My brother, through a faith-based drug rehabilitation program, is now an active, tithe-paying Christian, who works more than full-time, and loves to tithe. My mother became a Christian two years ago, joined my church, and now helps by being a "grandma" for our girls program (most students are from families that do not come to the church). She's so happy for her son, and for the peace and purpose she's found with God. Dad? Well, I'll say this. He recently told me he prays twice a day, and he asked me to send him a large print KJV Bible (since that is what he grew up with). He still has his battles, but he loves us, we love him, and I believe he's reaching towards the heavenly Father. This to say: Parents are a gift from God. Even those fathers/mothers who did some harm, have something of God in them. Our patient love, prayers, and gratitude for the good--these things can lead to redemption "for you and your household." Honor your mother and father... amen?

So that all readers are clear on who has the right to use the name of Jesus: Ray says that for most spiritual acts, the LDS Church gives authority for members to use the name of Jesus. Tommy says: We get authority from Jesus, by calling on his name--for salvation, for healing, for victory. Those interested in this teaching can do a google search on "Priesthood of all believers." You don't have to agree, but you'll better understand where many of your Christian neighbors are coming from. Do you tend to laugh at the wrong time when watching movies, too? I answered your question, Ray. Then you tell me you already knew the question, and want the punchline??? The punchline is that you asked the question RAY--so give us the punchline, please? Not all modern revelation is from God. Also, some that is from God, may be meant as a specific word to a specific people, and not a general word to the church at large. Yeah, Ray, you figured it out!!! BINGO! (oops, we don't gamble). So, if a new word comes, claiming to be a revelation from God, we pray and discern if it is indeed in harmony with all other revelations from God! You got it! A+ 100% Bravo and kudos to Ray. Oh well. SIGH. It was good while it lasted. We now have, what Laura Ingram refers to as a classic "but monkey." So, since it's not "in harmony," it's either wrong, or faces a heavy burden of proof. This is why non-LDS aren't so quick to just agree with your many assertions about Joseph Smith. We need convincing. If he is true, the Holy Spirit will do the bulk of the work. Keep it simple, Ray. Canon means the writings are "in." Not canon means they're not in. Maybe they'll get in, but not yet. So, I start with what is already approved. Memo to Ray: Calling believers in Christ "Christians" (i.e. so-called Christians) is mightily close to saying "pretend Christians." Do you mean to imply that non-LDS are pretend Christians, Ray? Beyond that Ray, you've explained why you embrace Smith's teachings, but not why non-LDS should. You think it's bad that I advocate there being more than one acceptable Christian denomination, yet you want to endorse every Christian deciding for him/herself what Scripture is??? Every once and awhile the majority is actually right.

With all due respect--and much is due to you as one who is truly traveled and always learning--your reaction seems to be based on an ignorance of how revelation from God takes place in Pentecostal/Charismatic Churches, or perhaps a total rejection of it. "Tongues and Interpretation" or "Prophecies" take place in 1000s of these churches every week. The revelations given are deemed to be from God. For the most part, they are specific words to the specific congregation for that specific moment in time. There might be a call to repentence, to deeper worship, to sacrifice, to ask and receive, to prepare for hardship, etc. Each given word, though from God, usually is NOT meant as a general word to all Christians in all places for all millenia. You might disagree, but hopefully you now understand why I would say that not all of God's revelations are meant to become Scripture.

No, I'm suggesting that if someone claims that the Holy Spirit has encouraged them in their faith, and you declare that said encouragement is demonic, you are in danger of blaspheming the Holy Spirit. Even though you think you are right, it would be wiser and spiritually safer to address the facts presented, rather than presuming to know the spiritual source of them. Have you noticed that I have not once responded to these many claims of yours? Whether I believe you or not, I would not presume to offer spiritual discernment, via the internet, concerning the spiritual source of any enlightenments or truths you may have picked up. It covers everything and nothing. Just stick to the facts and scriptural/revelatory truths under discussion, and you'd be a lot safer, as well as more informative. Rather than belaboring the "we can't both be right" point, just prove or at least explain why you say that you are. "Because God told me so" doesn't cut it, because we weren't privy to the conversation. So, you'll have to pray for us, and do as the Bible says: be ready to give an answer for the faith ... BTW, imho, you last question here is unproductive. Lot's of people have died wrong. Or, we could have an intelligent, respectful conversation about spiritual issues and experiences--one that is respect-ful, and sans the inquiries about who's demonized. You can't continue to receive ALL truth if you've already received it. So, the boldfaced part gives me hope that I might yet help you some--since you've been so generous with your help. Too late, Ray. You had demons all over Shantress, and wait dozens of posts to say you never said she was demonized? Shantress70 has already come to accept you as you are, Ray. She can live with it. So, let's just move beyond the demon talk, eh? Let me step in with answers--people shouldn't have to defend themselves always--sometimes it helps to call on witnesses. 1. Yes, Jesus would call self-righteous religious teachers to task for their errors. He had many choice words for the Pharisees--calling them white-washed sepuchres (tombs) at one point, a generation of vipers at another. AND, when these so-called teachers questioned the source of Jesus' authority, he declared that they were very close to blaspheming the Holy Spirit. 2. It was a relevent icon demonstrating that "said poster" (might be you ) was trafficking in demon-tales. 3. Nobody used the words "bad guy," like "said poster" never used the word "demonized." But, those who go around pretending to operate with absolute spiritual discernment, and declaring those they disagree with to be inspired by demons, imho are demonstrating "bad guy" traits. See? I'm not condemning the sinner--just the sin. Ray, please don't go into law--whatever you do! You've just joined yourself to a "second witness" who's on most of the moderators' "watch out for this one" list. Stand on your own testimony, Ray. I find myself trying to help you reach clarity more and more. Don't grasp at every straw that comes your way. Simplify. It's so much safer.

Fortunately, all believers are authorized to use the name of Jesus--or are you really telling me that I must not close my prayers "in Jesus name, amen," since I've not learned your truths??? Ray, if you find yourself in this dilemma I highly recommend that you find out what it is. And, if you don't know how to do that, I'll be glad to give you some strategies. You've never heard of settling for acceptable, rather than doing God's best? Thanks. Any new truth claims should first be evaluated according to what we already know is true. Because they are clearly God's word. Today's prophecies: 1. Must be tested. 2. Are usually specific to time and location. I see your struggling with this Ray, and I'm glad your asking questions so I can help you. The reason the New Testament is = to the Old Testament is that it too is clearly the word of God. We're settled and agreed on that. However, modern revelations are not universally accepted by my Christian brothers and sisters, and must be subjected to those revelations that are already established. BTW, tell me if I'm wrong here--but aren't the original tablets for the BoM dated to before the New Testament? If so, even by your reasoning, should they not be interpreted in light of the New Testament? Except that most modern revelation is not Scripture. They might be true and from God, but they are not meant to be written, bound, and added to current canon. Now, if the Triad becomes universally accepted by Christians as modern Scripture, by Ray's reasoning, the BoM would be interpreted in light of the later revelations in the NT, but I suppose the D&C and parts of the PoGP might enlighten the rest.

I'm a lot more easy-going than Shantress70. I'd just settle for us respecting each other as persons. Folk may think my opinions are ridiculous, unworthy of discussion, the product of unregistered pharmaceuticals, or whatever. But, when we degenerate to assessing the # of demons possessing one another--via the internet mind you!!!--it's just way over the top (or under the belt) posting, imho.

Jason, have you ever read The Onion. I think you've been punked. Why are anti-Mormons allowed to come here posing as real LDS, and pose very poor paradies of the worst stereotypes about you?

B) Okay, I'll break this down: RAY: Shantress is demonized! Shantress: If you think I'm demonized, Ray, maybe that devil is in your head, not mine. Ray: Well, if you say that then we're both equally offensive. All I can say is, Memo to Ray: Some people are wrong, others are mistaken, and a few are actually demonized. I hope you're not actually suggesting that the 99.4% of Christians who are not LDS are all demonized, while your 0.6% are spiritually clean??? I'm not the one claiming that all those who disagree with me are demonized Do I have a problem with you saying Shantress is demonized and that I am contentious, because I suggested that we judge religious movements by both practical and doctrinal fruits? No, no problem. You're just wrong, that's all. B) I know this, Ray. I have a personal testimony from the Holy Spirit about this. And, my spiritual discernment is trustworthy enough, that I'm convinced the confirmation is from the Holy Ghost, not Satan. And before you answer with what you think you know, be careful. That's spiritually thin ice to be skating on.

The Bible colleges are training our future ministers, and so are stricter. Also, they used to be a lot stricter than they are. I got married during spring break (not a short-term relationship, however), and my history prof. informed that if I had done that when he was in school, I would have been expelled (he smiled when he said it). I'm quite certain none of the social morals issues are in the 16 fundamentals. When I was in seminary (mid-1990s) we were required not to consume alcohol, but no questions were raised about movie attendance or dancing. Also, these days churches on the coasts (you know--us liberals) see themselves almost as spiritual hospitals. We'll take in the smokers, and trust that God will help 'em get delivered over time. Bottom-line: We've loosened up a lot, but still would correctly be seen as socially conservative. Well, apparently, neither the RCC or the LDS have rules against membership in the Democrat party, or against members who are politicianss voting in ways that church leaders might publicly disagree with.

Matt 7:21-22: 21 Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father which is in heaven. 22 Many will say to me in that day, Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in thy name? and in thy name have cast out devils? and in thy name done many wonderful works?KJV It's not enough to use the name of Jesus, or to prophecy, or even to cast out devils. Good works will not suffice, either. What is necessary is that we do the will of the Father. Everything else is smoke and mirrors. And Traveler's right--there is smoke and there are mirrors in every Christian fellowship.

Ray, are you saying that Shantress has been deceived by Satan??? An ancient chaplaincy proverb goes: Beware those who self-describe the assistance they offer as quote-unquote help. Ray, you've all but accused Shantress of being demonized, and then imply that I'm being contentious to invoke a scriptural admonition???

Perhaps Koresh was a poor choice. How about the Prophet Muhammed? He claimed to see personages in a cave, he developed "a religion of peace." His disciples brought advances in education and society, and the religious movement has not faltered--it has grown tremendously. How about Moon Sun Myung? The Unification Church doesn't get much press these days, but it continues to survive and prosper in pockets of the world. Like the LDS Church, this movement has invested in some industries, it has international cultural exchanges, and also has contributed to political thought. Both of these movements have some "good fruit." We might point the finger at a few rebels who use their name, but they've done some good things. So, how would we judge them? Yes, by their fruit--but not only their secular fruit. What theologies have they produced? How have they enhanced our understanding of God and Jesus? Do their teachings comply with known Scriptures? I don't for a moment want to discount some of the very positive contributions the Church of Jesus Christ Latter Day Saints has produced, both in terms of gifted members and direct physical giftings to the greater world--especially in the United States. However, many religious movements have done so. So the mantra, "judge them by their fruits" needs to be taken very broadly--to include doctrine.

Hey, nobody's perfect. We all slip now and then. (me or you ) I can understand you view when it comes to social mores. BTW the A/G does not have official membership restrictions on dancing and drinking, though the social practice probably 90%+ against. However, when it comes to political parties, or single-issues, I'd hate to think that if I disagreed with my church's leadership on one particular issue, that I would have to either vote against my conscience or reasoning OR turn in membership and credentials. Should a church have that much control over its members, the IRS might indeed do some investigating. Again, I agree when it comes to private moral practice, but would not rejoice in the day when my movement required complete loyalty to a political platform for "member in good standing" status.

WOW–Ray and I just produced a six-page post. I’m going to try to trim it down significantly, so we can address the major issues. I UNDERSTAND RAY TO SAY: We need to accept all God’s words and all God’s prophets. I take that to mean I should embrace Joseph Smith’s revelations and join the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints. This is Ray’s bottom-line ascertion–it’s what he’s been hinting at in all these posts. It is that knowledge he still wants me to learn from him. Am I at long last comprehending you, Ray? I UNDERSTAND RAY TO SAY: If I would just get my knowledge directly from God, I would have His truth–the truth. I take that to mean I should quit relying on sermons, studies, commentaries, Bible helps, etc. from unrestored sources, and turn to the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints, and its official organs, since it has the prophetic word of God in these latter days. Again, how’s my reading comprehension doing? I UNDERSTAND RAY TO SAY: Other Christians may have some truth, but other people have more/all the truth. I take that to mean that if I want full and restored truth, I need to get your information from the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints. Am I reading you loud and clear, yet? I UNDERSTAND RAY TO SAY: LDS do not have “the office of prophet” they have a presiding prophet–that all LDS should be prophets, speaking God’s true words. I get the point, but believe most LDS would consider the President of the Church to be a living prophet, and would have no difficulty seeing that role as fulfilling an “office of prophet.” Beyond that, I agree that all Christians can speak prophetic, that some have received a gift of prophecy. Where I differ, of course, is that I have experienced such prophecies in Pentecostal and Charismatic circles–and testify that they were absolutely of God. You might affirm they have “some good” etc., but in reality, if they spoke God’s words, then they gave me God’s direction for me, and thus fulfilled His perfect will. I UNDERSTAND RAYTO SAY: There is as much truth from God amongst laypeople–yay, more truth–from those who truly hear from God, then there is from learned men who merely speak their own opinions. Ray, I think what you’re getting at is that non-LDS don’t know God’s full truths, and so are not reliable sources of knowledge about God, no matter how educated they are. Have I read you correctly? I UNDERSTAND RAY TO SAY: There’s more ways to hear from God than just reading the Bible. What you seem to mean is that I should look to the other Mormon Scriptures, listen to God’s true prophets via his restored Church. Is this your meaning? I UNDERSTAND RAY TO SAY: Formal religious studies, even from official Church institutions, is of limited value. Far better to learn directly from God. Most LDS seem proud of the high level of education within in the movement, and to be especially proud of BYU, FARMS, and the rigorous seminary training that young people go through. Ray, you almost sound like a Charismatic-Mormon. I get your bottom-line, but do not understand you seeming anti-intellectualism. Yes, hear from God–but yes, study his word too! I UNDERSTAND RAY TO SAY: I seem to not a true seeker, because I offer counter points rather than asking sincere questions to his absolute truth statements. Ray, perhaps if you understand that I am attempting to carry on a conversation with you, on equal footing, rather than sit at your feet and soak in your greatly superior knowledge, you would either ‘work with me’ or give up on me–not sure which. I UNDERSTAND RAY TO SAY: He follows God, not Joseph Smith. However, he listens/reads Smith, because God speaks through him. Ray, you KNOW this, and I don’t. If I say during these conversations that Smith’s revelations are God’s words, spoken through Smith, then I’m no better than those evangelicals that occasionally come here listing their religion as LDS, and then who later spring anti-Mormonisms on the forum. You ought to take my nuetral responses as sincerity, rather than continuing to insist that I don’t get it, because I won’t affirm that which has not been revealed to me. THIS ONE IS A DIRECT QUOTE FROM RAY: College is a counterfeit of a temple, which is the best place to gain the best knowledge from God. I will leave it to others to comment on the notion that Brigham Young University is a counterfeit temple. WOW!

Honeybear, be careful what you wish for. Do you really want LDS voting in lock-step bloc fashion--or any church or group for that matter? There are Christians of sincere faith and motivation on both sides of the aisle. And, I say this as one who tends to be on the opposite side of Harry's aisle. I just think fair is fair, and we need to get back to the principle of "loyal opposition." In other words, we can vigorously disagree politically, and still count each other loyal Americans and faithful believers.

'Ray Says . . . 2. Perhaps you have learned some true knowledge from God, but you still have a whole lot to learn, and until you learn to accept ALL His words, either from Him or ALL of His prophets, you will not know all you still need to learn. The same could be said for all of us. We all have much to learn, and we need to accept all that God says to us. You believe you're ahead in this spiritual journey, because you've embraced Joseph Smith's teachings. If so, you know--to whom much is given, much is required. At this point in my life, I've not received the same indications from my God. On the other hand, under his anointing I am making my way through Joseph Smith's writings. After I read and digest, I'll seek God's direction as to what I should take from them, and what of my learnings I should share at this forum. I’ll give you the benefit of the doubt by believing that you actually did not mean to misquote me, when I said they are infallible on some things, or by the knowledge they receive from revelation from God, instead of simply what others have told them. Or in other words, not only is God infallible, but those who God teaches are too, in all of those things they do learn from God as God teaches them (and us) of His truths. If I'm not understanding you, Ray, I'm not alone. If all you are saying is that whenever God reveals a truth, the speaker of that truth is, at that moment, infallible, then your point applies to everyone--we're all prophets when we speak what God has revealed to us. However, to use the term "prophet" in such a way, seems to delude it of meaning--particular for LDS, since you believe in the office of prophet. But some people who study to gain knowledge of God do not learn who God truly is¡| because instead of learning directly from God they learn only from people who think they know God, so in fact they have not learned the truth. But that's between them and God. All we listeners can do is discern what is actually said, to see if it is of God or not. And yes, as strange as it seems to sound to you, we should all be learning by instantaneous revelation from God, every day as we pray to seek knowledge, instead of only from others who truly do know Him, or from those who only think that they do. Knowledge on fire, Ray. We need both--anointing to understand, and discipline to study. And, yes, I'm not simply referring to formalized classroom study. When you underline in your Scriptures, journal what God has revealed to you, when you use a concordance, a map, etc.--all these indicate study--which can surely be anointed of God as well. It seems you didn’t understand me as I tried to reveal my thoughts in my words, because I was using the word ¡°theologian¡± to refer to someone with a college diploma who has simply learned what others have taught him and did not learn true knowledge from God. What a negative, odd definition of theologian! A theologian is a student of God, plain and simple. Would it be so strange to think that I was, by receiving my knowledge from God? All members of His Church are or should be true prophets, and receive all their knowledge from God. And I know we’ve discussed this in several other threads, though now you don’t seem to remember. Ray, we should all receive anointing and discernment from the Holy Spirit, no doubt. But, your own church has the office of prophet. I would think you would be hesitant to so generalize the mean of prophecy, that all believers qualify. In a way, I like it though--very pentecostal of you. Joel 2:28-29 does say that in the last days God will pour out his spirit on all flesh, and young men will see visions, old men dream dreams, and both male and female servants would prophecy. Careful now...you'll get me to preachin'! Or in other words, a college degree in theology is not needed or necessary to gain some true knowledge from God, and the sooner we start to get Faith from Him, without relying upon what we were taught by other people who taught and continue to teach us, unless they are also God¡¯s prophets, the sooner we'll start to learn what is true by receiving our assurance from God. Ray, are you against formal studies? Do you think that the LDS Church's investment in FARMS, in BYU's religion department, etc. are a foolish trusting in the knowledge of men? I'm sure you don't. So, why the continued negativity about classroom study of God. Surely you know that God has given some to be teachers? But the only way I knew and know that is true is by receiving that knowledge from God. Ray, it can happen in the classroom! You can receive knowledge from God in the classroom, as godly teachers impart both their learnings, and methods/tools for individual study. Please tell me you're not anti-intellectual, Ray. A KEY POINT IN THIS DISCUSSION: Then why does it seem you believe revelation from God is only contained in the Bible, as you were taught that from your teachers in college? If anyone can gain true knowledge from God, then those people are also true prophets¡| to the degree they obtain their true knowledge from God¡| and not simply by reading and believing other people who said they were prophets even if their words are contained in the Bible. AND MY KEY RESPONSE: SIGH! Finally. This is why you keep talking this strange talk--accusing me of relying on the wisdom of men, not God, of coasting on my classroom studies, rather than seeking God, etc.--all these accusations absent any statements from me to lead you there. All this comes from the fact that I have not embraced Joseph Smith's revelations as being from God??? Ray, again, you're just wrong about this. Many people are sincere in their searches for God. I disagree with many religious scholars, but do not question their sincerity. I disagree with you, Ray. But, I believe you are a sincere God-seeker--not someone just chasing the 'wisdom of men.' Can't you give me the same benefit of the doubt? You misunderstood me again there, Tommy, though you may think you do know what I meant, but I know my thoughts even better than you and I know you did not see what I meant¡| and instead of simply asking me to clear up my point, you made another assumption with accusations. And to clear up this point for your benefit, I’ll try using some other good words, but to know what I mean you should try to understand that my words are imperfect reflections. Anyone who understands the ways of this world knows a college diploma helps to get a ¡°good job¡±. But God does not care about that piece of paper, and we don¡¯t need it to gain knowledge from God. Better now? It is better. I sincerely hope, and want to believe that you did not mean to insinuate that my studies were of a "worldy" nature, and were engaged in so that I could get a good job in the world. Ray, I know you gave up a Christian college education to follow the revelations of Joseph Smith. So, maybe there's this sensitive area that causes you to wax anti-college. I don't know. But there is no dichotamy between receiving knowledge from God and learning of God in a formal setting, taught by anointed instructors. You don't need a college education, be it at an Assemblies of God seminary, or at BYU--but praise God if he gives us the opportunity to partake. God can anoint classroom and group study as much as he can individual study. Or in other words, ¡°lay people¡± can learn as much if not more from God than people who go to college to learn, because learning from others instead of learning from God may not give them true knowledge from God¡| so only by learning directly from God can we know when we and others know the truth. Neither of us gamble, but there's an appropriate saying here. "The favorite doesn't always win, but it's still the best bet." College study does not always a wise Christian make, but if the opportunity is there, such dedication is still a sound spiritual route.

I will too be in the present of my Daddy in heaven--because I say, do, and believe what He teaches me through Jesus. WOW. Any other LDS want to comment on this. Are the theology/religion professors at BYU prophets of God, and thus infallible? While I never said that, I might. Think about it. Theos = God, ology is the common suffix for study of, or knowledge. So, theology = knowledge of God. So, a theologian is a student of God. If you're not learning about God, then how can you know God? Instantaneous revelation? I'll compromise, though. You don't have to be a theologian to come to know God, but you have to become one to grow in that knowledge. Ray, are you a prophet? But, apparently it's a good route, since you've stated that BYU theology professors are prophets of God. B) Ray, you're just wrong. You seeing things. I've not said or implied any such thing. Furthermore, my training was not "worldly." You do realize this crack sounds rather smart aleck, don't you? Seriously, you've been taught, and you've bragged that the LDS do not speak poorly about other religions or people. Then you accuse me, falsely, of flaunting my education, and of using my training simply to get a good job (as opposed to following the will of God, come what may). I'm disappointed, Ray. I thought you'd come to know me a little better than this.

I'm not asking you to defend why you have secrets--just speculating that having them leads to suspicion from outsiders. No, Ray, that's not what I said. I'm no plagiarist! I wouldn't want to steal your testimony, and put my name on it. Seriously, Ray--I said that religious opponents disagree with your theology--how could you twist that into a good LDS vs. bad non-LDS scenario??? My point was that LDS leaders have called the non-LDS Christian world apostate. Some groups have called the LDS heretics. There has been ugliness on both sides of the theological wall. So, while modern LDS practice is to "take the high road," and not speak poorly of other faiths, me thinks no faith group can claim to be "without sin" in the area of speaking disparingly and ignorantly about other faith groups. No, this one goes to far. I need clarification. Ray--do you really believe that no one who has used the LDS banner, has ever spoken maliciously about non-LDS Christians? Do you doubt that some who call themselves LDS might have, even in private conversations, spoke words of condemnation and ignorance concerning other faiths--of a type that might have left Satan cheering? Jesus said, "He who is without sin can cast the first stone." Do you really think that the LDS movement is qualified to start tossing? You do seem to come awfully close to implying this in the first portion of this post. If this is clarification, I can breathe a sigh of relief! . . . Said the federal marshalls as they hauled me off to

1. The secular folk are concerned that, no matter how lush and healthy your tree, the roots may intrude upon their territory, and that the branches may hang over and fall into their yard. 2. The religious opponents believe that "fruit" is BOTH what you do and what you SAY. They do not agree with what you say, and deem it bad fruit. You're not planning to start a Mormon Militia, are you???

Why does this remind me of when I was a kid, and my dad would say, "You have a good point...it's on top of your head " Again, it's subtle...but when there is a tight-knit group within a community, and there are aspects of that community which remain hidden...well, fallen humanity can get paranoid. Once again--and Snow may have refined this for me--it's probably more the secular or non-spiritually-engaged folk who are discomforted by tightly-committed religious groups. I think for religious people, the opposition is more related to beliefs and practices, perceived orthodox vs. heresy. The Work and the Glory seemed to focus on the non-LDS fears of this bloc of people and how they might vote, how they might 'take over' etc., vs. purely theological opposition. So which is worse, a heretic or an apostate? Or perhaps Satan inspires the worst Evangelicals and the worst LDS to poison our relationships (I'm speaking more about civility than pure religious truth, here). One of the LDS posters at hannity.com did point out a few things that LDS settlers may have done that were "not helpful." Nevertheless, it's surely true that the LDS, with a theology that says many non-members will have opportunities in the afterlife, are inclined to present the gospel as "all carrot, no stick," whereas evangelicals, in particular, present both--seeing hell as the only home for the unredeemed. I just pray that when you do finally leave us, you'll be going to a better place.

Does this mean you're staying?

I believe what you are getting at is that church worship and teachings have changed over time, and how can this be so, if the Church is true? The key to understanding common Christian belief is that outside of the LDS Church, most Protestants believe that the Church went through some dark, difficult, corrupt times--but never became so 'apostate' that the light blew out. We believe there has always been a remnant who loved God. Additionally, we're not ready to simply discard all the teachings of church history, because we stumbled upon a neglected truth (i.e. the gifts of the Holy Spirit). I'm still working my way through 2 Nephi, so don't have sufficient knowledge of your Scriptures to say that there is a conflict in the texts, or what those conflicts might be. I have found a few passages in 1 Nephi that helped me to better understand some of your distinctive teachings. Why not? If I'm reading you right, we evangelicals be the Pharisees, and you LDS be the radical new sect called The Way? I'll admit that Joseph Smith's teachings did to traditional Christianity what Jesus did to Judaism. Nevertheless, I think those parallels are far too shallow. LDS and Evangelicals would both want to live sound life and believe/teach sound doctrines. Neither would be satisfied with chosing one over the other. Furthermore, Paul and most of the apostles were martyred for what they taught, not for their good works. Likewise Jesus, for that matter.