prisonchaplain

Not essential to salvation, Ray--to our "entry into the Celestial Kingdom," the title of this string. I say it because, as I said elsewhere, most Christians expect to see most other Christians in heaven. Most Calvinists expect to see most Arminians in heaven. Most in the Assemblies of God expect to see most Baptists in heaven. And yes, I expect to see one of my faithful Church of Christ volunteers in heaven--even if he's not willing to play his guitars in church on Sundays. Well, of course we never stop growing in truth. We want to get what we can right. When Jesus said that, he was, in context, referring to our loving our enemies. 1 Cor. 13 reminds that right now we see through the glass that is cloudy or dark, but when we see Jesus we shall be like him for we shall see him as he is. Now, Ray, I know you're not answering--but do you really think there are BYU theologians who can speak with 100% spiritual truth and perfection, with no hint of opinion or error?

My concern is that Brown's book will give some who might over time open their hearts to the gospel an excuse not to. "Hey, the churches are corrupt, they hide things, who's to know who Jesus really was?" Enough "seeds of doubt" to perhaps drown out a potential convert? Ben hints at this in his response, but to traditional Christians, the idea that Jesus, whom the Bible says created us, to have physical relations with his creation seems unthinkable. There are Christian fellowships, including my own, that insist Jesus did so (without the marriage). There were women with leadership roles, such as Lydia. Jesus spoke with women in places where most Jewish men would not. It's been argued that just looking at the Holy Bible, we can find Jesus offering women a kind of empowerment that would be considered "feminist" by the standards of his era.

My argument that the tight LDS community may be a blessing to the members, but an underlying concern for nonmembers is a subtle one. No, it certainly won't make anyone's top-10, nor even top-100 complaints list. In fact, not members would like profess to admire this aspect of your faith practice. However, I still contend that this group loyalty does cause some consternation for outsiders--perhaps more so from the not-particularly-religious folk.

To recap, Statement One intimated that LDS would be in a dire situation if evangelicals are correct. Do I agree? Yes. How dire is an open question. However, to fall in with a movement that separates itself from the rest of the Christian world, and follows what turn out to be false revelations, would be a dangerous spiritual course. The more a movement strays from God's truths, and the more it separates itself from the rest of God's people, accusing them of apostasy, etc., the more danger its members would be in (again, if evangelicals are right). As an opposite example, I don't think the Four Square Church would be in much danger at all, as it's main difference with my movement is that it will, in some circumstances, ordain men who have divorced and remarried. Also, please please note, that I did not insist that the "dire situation" would, of necessity, be hellfire. I leave that to God. I just know that we all want to get our faith walk right, and make sure we not only live righteously, but leader others towards righteousness as well. Probably the key doctrines that raise immediate concern would relate to who God is and what his nature is, and what the ultimate way of salvation is. I would agree with Prof. Blomberg that while the Bible does not definitively declare itself a closed canon, church history lends us to such a belief. It's not impossible that more Scripture may be found, but after 2000 years, it doesn't seem likely.

My one complaint about the Work and Glory movies as I neared the end of #2 was that there was no compelling reason as to why the Antis hated Mormons so much. Then, it hit me. Yes, it did. It was right there, and I'd missed it. Furthermore, I think the movie got it right--perhaps without realizing it. So, what is the root cause of such much Anti-Mormonism at the church's beginning--and perhaps continuing up to today? The greatest strength (outside of any discussion about truth and gospel) of the COJCLDS may also be the factor that causes so much wariness from non-members--the strength of the LDS community or fellowship. Neighbor helping neighbor sounds great in theory, but when a subgroup helps its own with such discipline, outsider's wonder what's really going on. In the movie, Mormons quickly became a majority in Jackson County--thus scaring the old timers, and the political establishment. Today, some cultures have this kind of bond. Koreans will walk up to total strangers who look Korean and ask, "Are you Korean? Really? Where are you from..." Most Americans can't imagine doing that. However, I'll bet that if you're Mormon, and you saw someone carrying a BoM you might feel free to walk up and offer greetings. When you mix a close-knit community that can do things en masse with religion, outsiders often feel nervous. Rumors get spread. Recent history with Jim Jones, David Koresh, and Hale Bopp offer worst case scenarios. Then I remember hearing that if the Church president were to call Mormons to head to a certain location, members would be there within 72 hours with emergency supplies. Such discipline represents good community and probably love for one another, if you're on the inside. Many outsiders would be curious, amazed, and perhaps troubled as well. So, there's my theory. You greatest blessing may also be the factor that causes outsiders to misunderstand, misconstrue, and be somewhat apprehensive. Am I on to something here? Any sociologists or historical buffs want to take a crack at my theory? Should I try for a doctorate with this, or go back to the drawing board???

I'm just going to speak from the Pentecostal tradition on this one. We believe that since Scripture is inspired by the Holy Spirit, we need the Holy Spirit to help us understand it. When you say "revelation" I take that to mean a new word, or a specific word that God gives to a people. We do not "need" that kind of revelation to understand what God has already spoken and had written. On the other hand, revelation does offer us God's specific word to our group today. BTW, same goes for sermons/homilies/Scripture lessons--we need the Holy Spirit to discern what God is saying to us from the lesson. Yes. Most often, the revelation is local and immediate. A particular congregation might hear, "Thus says the Lord, repent, for your sins are many, and your time is short." The leader might then make a specific call to the people to come forward and repent before God. One time, I saw 17 people (out of 200) go forward and convert after such a word--before the Bible lesson was even given. Another congregation might hear, "God knows your suffering and burdens. Ask and you will receive. I have relief, strength and peace for those who will simply ask." After such a word, the call to prayer might be a faith-stirring time, where people might break through and see answers they've been seeking for some time. Of course, conversions, healings, peace and strength-endowed believers--these things build the kingdom of God. The gifts of the Spirit, as dilineated in the 12th and 14th chapters of Corinthians, came with checks and balances. In the letters of John, there is also a test given for prophecy. All was to be compared with the Apostles' teachings, and with Scripture. Since we (non-LDS) have not experienced any revelations that have risen to the level of enduring written Scripture, we'd naturally want to weigh any claimed words from God against those words we are already certain of. I've been led to believe that LDS, who have experienced revelations that have become Scripture canon, find it much easier to see new revelations in the same vein, and then to suggest that God's latest word must, of necessity, clarify what's come before. BTW, I'd argue that this particular aspect of our beliefs is not something "we're close to agreeing on." It's the factor that keeps Pentecostals/Charismatics in fellowship with the rest of the Christian world--and one that makes it more difficult for LDS to do so.

You're not the comedian who sent an issue of The Onion to our chapel library, are you?

Many an interesting lesson comes out of my quote from King Solomon. Some try to downplay "fear"--saying it means respect. My own take is that I so love God, that I'd be afraid to somehow disappoint Him--not a dysfunctional, "Dad's gonna whoop me good," kinda a fear, but rather the "I love him so much, I want to do everything possible to live a life of gratitude for his goodness to me. It's no small matter. Opposition to hell is the root cause of Charles Taze Russell starting the Jehovah's Witnesses. My own take on the justice and necessity of hell is that those who reject God's love have made an eternal decision--one they must live with for the duration. On the other hand, no sin can be countenanced in the Kingdom of God, because even the tiniest amount festers and grows--and over the course of eternity would lead to a recreation of the mess we find ourselves in now.

Nah...let me get one more good whack in! Seriously: Here's how I see the faith vs. works question... 1. You need 'faith' to accept the 'free gift' of salvation, through forgiveness of sins, paid for the by the blood of Jesus Christ. 2. Accepting the gift of eternal life, means accepting God's new life. There is repentence (turning away from sin. There is an embracing of God's ways--including the Two Great Commandments--to love God and neighbor (Matthew 22:37-40). 3. Enduring to the end. Calvinists argue that this is automatic for the Elect. Arminians says we must "struggle daily to work out our salvation with fear and trembling." Most LDS seem to side with us Arminians. In a sense, it matters not. Those so-called Calvinists who do not "endure to the end," would be deemed as never having truly converted. So, ultimately, all Christians do believe in doing so--we just describe the how and why differently. 4. The misunderstanding between LDS and most others is that LDS tend to conflate conversion (step #1) with #2 and #3, and speak right away about works--causing non-LDS to say, "You can't earn salvation." Bottom-line--you can't earn it, but if you get it, there will be fruit. Hopefully, with this summary, we can stuff and frame the horse for display, rather than beating it to death. B)

can be true in light of the fact that each church (or group of people who gather for religious instruction and worship) has different beliefs and doctrine concerning God and Jesus Christ about what we (all people) should believe and what we (all people) should do to be pleasing to God as His children? I've got to respond, because it's the kind of quote I might have said--and something I've been driving at for some time. The question "Which church is the right one?" is a question that has no answer--other than the holy catholic (read: universal) church of Jesus Christ. In other words, there is a remnant of true believers in MOST Christian churches. Ray asks, "How can this be so, since they teach different doctrines?" From my initial readings into the primary texts, and from viewing some LDS movies (hey--you can at least catch the flavor of the culture)--this is the very issue that young Joseph Smith found so distressing. The answer: The simple gospel can be understood by little children, but none of our theologians--including the ones at BYU--will ever have a total grasp on God's word--written or revealed in these latter days. So, those churches that anchor themselves in the simple gospel, will vary in their teachings far less than you imagine--and over issues that, while serious, are not essential.

Yeah, I think we're all wonderful cyberfriends. Just a note on the "God's mouth has not been shut," comment. I agree. Most Christians agree. Here's where we differ: 1. Non-Pentecosta/Charismatich Christians would likely argue that God's "mouth" remains open via the proclammation of his Word. 2. Pentecostals/Charismatics would go further, saying, sure, God still speaks fresh revelation today, via tongues and interpretation, prophetic utterances, dreams, visions, etc. 3. Where we'd differ is that both of these groups would argue that any word from the Lord given today be subjected to the written word of God--and interpreted in that light. In other words, Scripture trumps modern revelation.

Personally, I enjoy fiction--especially Christian fiction. I view such reading as an author's attempt to understand, flesh out, and apply gospel teachings. It's not dogma, or official anything--but, at the same time, it puts into words what the best of Christian lessons put into lecture format. A healthy spiritual exercise for author and reader, imho.

I studied New Testament Greek in seminary for two years, through which God taught me great humility. The first year we learned all the rules. The second year we learned many of the exceptions to the rules. I very much doubt that the word for God's "foreknowledge," necessarily, or always, in any context, indicate intimate marital-like 'knowing.' As a simple example: 1. I love icecream! 2. I really like you, honey. Which one do I care more of. Now, the dictionary will clearly indicate that "love" is of a greater degree than "like." Yet, I care more for my honey than I do icecream. Likewise, God's foreknowledge of us in one case, and Adam's 'knowledge' of Eve in another, would not necessarily indicate the same type of relationship, even if the Hebrew word were the same. It is interesting that you found a couple of sects that teach preexistence, but I hope you are not trying to create the impression that such doctrine is widespread, or largely accepted in the Christian world. It's not. I would be truly amazed if the # of Christians who believe in the preexistence of human spirits would even register (i.e. would be greater than 0.5% of the 2 billion adherents in the world).

Let me see if I understand the distinction between LDS and traditional Christian teaching, related to FIRST CAUSE: 1. In LDS theology there is no First Cause, because all the Gods, including Elohim, and indeed all of us, have an essence that is eternal. In other words, that are lots of beings that have always been--that had no cause or beginning. 2. In most traditional Christian theologies, God is the First Cause. Only He has always been. Everything else was created, and had a beginning. BTW, I'd prefer tiramasu, but will take coconut, if there's some left over.

I could be wrong, but I do not believe the "by who's authority?" question is a natural one. It is one that comes out of LDS teachings. Even Catholics, who's system is very hierarchical wouldn't think to ask the question. Instead, they'd likely go to their priest and say, prisonchaplain said "X"--is that right? The Bible is the word of God. For most Protestants, that's authority enough. Now, in practice, the teachings of one's home church do serve as guidelines for most believers. Yes you did, perhaps understandably. If I remember right, you said that evangelicals do not react well to the idea of church authority being so central, and I responded by saying it's because we're afraid such systems would bring us back to the corruption of Medieval Catholicism. To clarify, I was not specifically saying that your Church is in that state of being. I have no idea, quite frankly, having never set foot in one. I was simply expressing the general fears us Christians raised up in churches that are not heavily centralized have about such systems. I'm not sure Jesus organized much more than the 12 disciples and the 70 missionaries. The rest came later, as the church developed. I would argue that organization comes with growth, and that Jesus was simply encouraging an orderly system for preaching and ministering the gospel. Jesus was as much about the disciples not becoming proud leaders as he was about installing them with authority. And I just don't see Jesus fixated on the organization aspect. Yes, he trained a group of disciples--chose three as his closest confidantes. Yes, at one point 70 were sent out to heal, preach, and free the demonized. But beyond that, leadership power doesn't seem high on his agenda, imho. When things simply have to be too perfect, then people will pretend. This isn't an LDS thing, it's a problem in most churches--probably most religions. People's lives are imperfect, but they put on the gospel or kingdom smile, and speak uplifting, faith-affirming words about the glory of living in the fullness of Christ. Inside, they may be fearful, in desperate need of prayer or encouragement, a listening ear, or perhaps a few $--but they dare not speak up, for fear of being seeing as "backsliding," "lacking faith," "walking in defeat," etc.

I just find it ironic that more than a dozen posts in this string about getting into the Celestial Kingdom have focused on Ray's leaving.

Romans 1 does seem to indicate that humanity is without excuse, that all have a revelation of God, through creation and the like sufficient for them to respond according to what they know. Yet, we dare not read too much into this notion. As believers, we're commissioned to deliver the message--to go to the uttermost parts of the world with the Good News of Christ. So, complacency in missions--whether to coworkers, or to the Tunisians, is not an option. We must "Finish the Work." (John 4:34) You assume the Bible is much more complicated than it is. The salvation message is something that seven-year olds understand. The Beatitudes, the Great Commission, the Two Great Commandments, the Love Chapter, the incredible commandments of Christ found in Matthew 5-7, etc.--these are things most people can comprehend on a single reading. Is there more? Of course! Are there depths to biblical truths that confound theologians with a lifetime of study on their belts? Absolutely! And yet, the heart is quite clear--so that men are without excuse. It does drive us crazy, because we see where it goes. Back to the corruption of Rome, back to men trying to mediate between me and God, back to believers becoming complacent, and allowing the church leaders to driver their relationships with God. It's not about finding the right church, or the right leaders. It's about Jesus. Yes, that makes the community a bit messier. A single organization, with disciplined compliant 'soldiers' looks spiffier. In fact, it's why, despite the trends, I do prefer denominations over independent or nondenominational works. Nevertheless, the kingdom of God is full of Greeks, Hebrews, men, women, old, young, highly educated, and simple. Make it too neat, and I wonder if you miss some reality. We're offering eternal life through Jesus Christ our LORD--in essence "Get Out of Jail Free" cards. We'll leave the punishment stuff to the Father.

Two answers: To Christians--yes, it sure does look like the only hope of salvation is respond to the Good News of Jesus and be converted. Thus, we read in Romans 10:14-17: 14 How, then, can they call on the one they have not believed in? And how can they believe in the one of whom they have not heard? And how can they hear without someone preaching to them? 15 And how can they preach unless they are sent? As it is written, "How beautiful are the feet of those who bring good news!" 16 But not all the Israelites accepted the good news. For Isaiah says, "Lord, who has believed our message?" 17 Consequently, faith comes from hearing the message, and the message is heard through the word of Christ.NIV This is why we are so fervent in missions, so eager to "win souls." To nonbelievers, or to those who have loved ones who passed on, there is another equally valid answer: God knows. He is just and good. On the day of judgment, when we see who is redeemed and who is condemned, there will be no objections raised, no second-guessing. All will declare that God is just and merciful. If I discover that my spiritual efforts were largely fruitless and misdirected, and that after all my savior had done for me, I squandered the talents He had for me...well it's not a scene I want to be a part of--nor do any of us, I'm sure!

I used the term "evangelical" because it's what I am, and it's the group represented in the book I cited. Yet, a careful reading of my posts would show two things: 1. I left the results of said "straying" open. I'm not mapping at the line between "fringe-but-acceptable Christianity" and "Apostasy-heresy." What I am suggesting is that I don't want to get anywhere near such a line. 2. Every faith has its orthodox, including evangelicals, Catholics, Buddhists, Muslims. Even atheists distinguish between those who are "soft" (there's no god we know of) vs. "hard" (there absolutely is no god). Surely your church has a process for dealing with those accused of teaching heresy? 3. Yes, any who have not embraced God's mercy, offered via the atoning shed-blood of Christ, is barred from heaven. Jesus made the claim in John 14:6 (I'm the Way...to the Father...No man comes but through me). Well, no, my position does not. My position is that God wants to be worshiped in spirit and in truth, that he does reveal himself, that his Spirit directs us, and that if we try to worship him according to our own opinions and desires, our sacrifice will be rejected. I'll have to address the rest of the post later. Be blessed.

Without arguing the merits of the differing belief systems, there are significant differences about the nature of God, his Son Jesus Christ, humanity, sin, salvation, Scripture, etc. When someone is initially converted to faith, and truly reconciled to God, the Holy Spirit resides with them. They will begin to grow in truth and sound doctrine. So, if evangelicals are right in their teachings, and the LDS have strayed into so many crucial areas of wrong teaching, the Holy Spirit warns them. If they do not heed the warnings, but continue to resist the promptings of the Holy Spirit. At some point would they not become apostates--heretics? Will those who has spent the majority of their 'Christian' lives out of fellowship with most of God's people (declaring them unrestored), those who misapprehended the nature of God, His creation, His salvation, His communication, His plan of salvation--those who so frequently missed the spiritual signals, be told on the Day of Judgment, "Well done, good and faithful servant--enter into my Kingdom," or "Depart from me...I never knew you?" It's an open question, but, Pascal would argue, a potentially risky wager. Even assuming that such folk might yet enter the heavenly kingdom, what kind of reward awaits those who were so far from most of God's people and God's truths?

In the book, How Wide the Divide: A Mormon and an Evangelical in Conversation, Prof. Blomberg (the evangelical) poses a revision of Pascal's Wager to his Mormon counterpart. It goes something like this: 1. If evangelicalism is correct, and Joseph Smith was either deceptive or deluded, Mormons face potentially dire circumstances on the day of judgement. 2. If the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints is correct, and evangelicals are part of an unrestored, perhaps even 'apostate' faith practice, then on the Day of Judgment, they are likely to enter the Terrestial Kingdom, and enjoy the presence of Jesus Christ. This heavenly realm will be very much like what most evangelicals describe heaven to be anyway. Conclusion: If evangelicals are right, Mormons stand to lose so much, but if evangelicals are wrong, they'll pretty much get what they expect anyway. So, why not just take the safe spiritual route, and be evangelical? Professor Robison (the Mormon) responds by saying: Those bound for the Terrestial Kingdom would think like that, and be satisfied with their end. On the other hand, those who hunger for the highest kingdom in God's realm would never be satisfied with anything less than the Celestial Kingdom. THOUGHTS?

By way of clarification, is health the official reason given by Joseph Smith for the Word of Wisdom? The reason I ask is that many people assume the same about Jewish kosher laws. However, my sources tell me that the simple reason Orthodox Jews keep kosher is obedience. "God said so." Many rabbis are skeptical of attempts to offer secular rationale for keeping religious commandments. On the other hand, if Joseph Smith said, "God wants you to keep your temples in good working order, so here's how to do it--sayeth the Lord: WoW--then God would have done something unusual, and offered a secular rationale for his command.

I don't know how closely a low-carb, Atkins-like diet goes with the WoW, but it is most biblical. Neh 8:10: 10 Then he said unto them, Go your way, eat the fat, and drink the sweet, and send portions unto them for whom nothing is prepared: for this day is holy unto our Lord: neither be ye sorry; for the joy of the LORD is your strength.KJV Furthermore, Jesus declared that all food is clean for believers: Mark 7:18-20 18 And he saith unto them, Are ye so without understanding also? Do ye not perceive, that whatsoever thing from without entereth into the man, it cannot defile him; 19 Because it entereth not into his heart, but into the belly, and goeth out into the draught, purging all meats? 20 And he said, That which cometh out of the man, that defileth the man. KJV I'm being a bit facetious here. Vegetarianism can be very healthy. However, beyond obeying spiritual authorities, the New Testament seems to only ask us to care for our bodies, which are the temple of the Holy Spirit.

The "nutwings" remark was meant for those who choose to go over board with evangelical jam it down the throat kind of friends? I have many relatives who fall in to that category. The remark was broad–“those Christian nutwings.” I looked and looked, but you did not limit it to a few outrageous folks. If that’s what you meant, then I’d agree–there are a few in the evangelical camp who are “nutwings.” God will either be merciful with them, or they are deluded. But, Winnie, if you’re honest, you’ll admit you seem to have a chip on your shoulder when it comes to us evangelical folks. I was also raised by a learned man (step-father) who was Jewish. To the Jewish community there is a under grounded giggle that as Christian we do not see what is in front of our faces. Its like having our faces right up to a mirror so close we can not see the rest of the possibilities. First, I’m wondering if your learned Jewish step-father was Torah-observant? Was he Orthodox? I’ve worked quite a bit with an Orthodox rabbi, and also with Lubavitchers. 85% of American Jews on secular–which is why I ask. The Catholic Church disallowed Priest to marry at a turning point of history of history, you can look it up. It was not until that point that the Church of Rome decided that men and women needed to be separate in order to serve God. I don’t disagree with you. It happened during the Middle Ages, and to this day the practice is based on tradition, not Scripture. “Jesus was not officially a rabbi” OK who said? are you so sure he was not? No, I’m not sure. The New Testament shows people addressing him as such. Perhaps he was officially recognized. Yet, he never declares himself one–preferring to highlight his role as the Son of God, the Son of Man, the “I AM,” and one who can do what only God can do–forgive sins. So, in reality, it’s speculation as to whether he was a certified rabbi, or simply a self-taught teacher who knew more than all the educated rabbis. You keep saying “hardly universal” and “Pure speculation” again are you sure and who said this wisdom? http://www.christian-thinktank.com/singlejesus.html The above is but one example. To paraphrase its conclusions: Yes, there was a general command for Jews to be fruitful and multiply, and that both rabbis and all Jewish men were under this general obligation. Yet, there were acceptable reasons to delay marriage, there were numerous Jewish prophets who did not marry. At the time of Jesus, the Essenes were a celibate sect. So, the way I see the bottom-line is that most Jewish men and most Jewish rabbis married, but some did not. There is no indication in the gospels that Jesus married, and based upon his mission (to atone for the sins of humanity), it is likely that he would choose not to marry and bring to widowhood someone that He loved. Furthermore, again, since he was and is God the Son, there is something quite strange about the notion of God having intercourse with his creation. Christ to be our mediator he came to earth received a body was tempted and suffered a human life. He came to understand our lives as well. Yes his focus was to die for our sins but how can you die for sins you have not fully understood in a physical manner. Jesus did not sin, so He would not understand any sins in a physical manner. He was tempted, but sinned not. He would not have to be married to understand the temptations of lust, unrighteous anger, etc. Your remark “tested by the wiles of women” is a typical man answer since the time of Adam, lets blame the sins of the world on women, she bit the apple giving birth to original sin. Witch is a load of hogwash by the way. Did you catch the icon with the tongue sticking out. It was a humorous remark, Winnie. Of course, we’re all responsible for our own sins. Why would God make “IT” a sin then tell them to be fruitful and multiple? The whole sin and sex thing is a man made sin. Chastity is a God given law and there for in a marriage is not a sin. Huh? I never said that sex within marriage is sin. In fact, it’s been described as a high form of worship for two, whom God has brought together, to join as one, bring joy to one another, and thus glorify the Almighty. The book was well researched, it’s a shame that you find fault that a husband and wife team some how lessons that research in your mind. Brown’s repeated response to inquiries about the books research is, “I’m not a detail person. My wife did the background work. Look, this is entertainment, not theology.” Tom Hanks utters that last part as well. I’m not against collaborative efforts. However, an author should have some grasp of the research his researcher is doing for him, no? And again, if the author is not claiming that serious research went into this book, why are you so adamant about it? Your right on the money when you stated "It's entertainment, not theology!" Then why insist that this is a scholarly, well-researched novel? Why so adamant that Jesus must have been married, when your own church insists that such speculations from the early LDS prophets and leaders do not qualify as Scripture, and do not represent the church’s doctrine? That was my point. The author took all the lore since Jesus death and all the “search for the “holy grail” tales and made an amazing fictional novel. This thread was not meant to debate theology it was to discus a novel. It was entertaining and lead the reader along a more intellectual ride were Indiana Jones did not. I suppose it depends on who’s ox is getting goared. So if you have not read the book or even seen the movie why did you post? If it was to debate theology, you need to start a different topic. This was meant for entertainment. Well, you made several allegations that I had responses to, from reviews and analyses, both secular and Christian. In addition, you original post did not come across as an invitation to a fun discussion of reviews, but rather made rather pointed accusations about “the Christian nutwings.” I took that as an invitation to defend, at least in general, the non-LDS Christian response to the Da Vinci Code phenomena. Also, I’ve tried to remain calm and treat this as a discussion–not a debate. Nobody will be allowed or denied entry into the kingdoms of heaven based upon their beliefs about Jesus’ marital status. However, I’m a bit surprised that there seems to be so little understanding as to why Catholics in particular, and most traditional Christians as well, would have some strong disagreements with Brown’s ideas.