prisonchaplain

Please explain the difference. If I have something that in every way there is or can be like a car - we should call it a boat? Or a NOT car? The Traveler A dog can be loving, kind, gentle, obedient, etc.--just like his/her Master, and yet not be human. We shall be like Christ, for we shall see Him as He is. It does not necessarily mean that we shall join Him as the only begotten Sons of God.

Ray, are you so certain I don't seek God's faith about all spiritual discussions I engage in? The "Rev" or "Chaplain" that goes before my name means nothing to God--except perhaps that I will be judged by a more stringent example. Every time I hear a teaching, a sermon, a homily, a "word from the LORD," or, yes, engage in interfaith discussions, I'm seeking God's truths, his voice, his direction, his Way. So, certainly keep sharing, by be assured that I've heeded the admonition to hear from God all along. I'm frankly disappointed to see you make this assessment. Ray, even if all you say is true, you're going to have to trust God to work with me on it. Ray, I think you're making some assumptions about my spiritual journey that are not based on a sound discerning of spirits. If you change that one little word INSTEAD to IN ADDITION, or perhaps even, FIRST AND FOREMOST, then I'd say you are offering classic and sound wisdom. Are you saying that the Celestial Kingdom is out of the question for those who do not embrace the restored gospel in their earthly lifetimes?

Ray, Snow, and I believe MrsS have both confirmed my belief that you do not realize what I am asking you, and how you are responding. They both are quick to say that all decisions that come out of LDS Headquarters are not necessarily perfect, without error, or, in hindsight, could not have been done in a different and more effective manner. Called missionaries do come home early. Occasional wise investments may not pan out perfectly. There may be the occasional typo in Ensign. To admit such is not a retreat from your general argument about authority, etc. Quite frankly, if you really do believe EVERY SINGLE DECISION, NO MATTER HOW MINOR, OBSCURE, OR INCONSEQUENTIAL comes directly from the Christ, then I'd guess yours is the kind of faith that is outside the LDS mainstream. Do I understand you to mean: Since the LDS is authorized by God as His restored Church, and our leaders are his authorized prophets and representatives, then however we do missions IS Christ's way. However any other group does it, no matter how apparently successful, is a less godly approach. If so, quite frankly, there's not much left to discuss, eh? Correct, I think I see it. Psst! You might want to whisper this to Bro. Ray. Such a stance might ultimately make the authority claims of the LDS church at least plausible, and certainly leaves more room for discussion. Quite frankly, if I saw that Muslims were gaining a great number of converts, I'd at least want to know what practical approaches they are using. B)

I've shared with you Jesus' recounting of what happened with the rich man and Lazarus, and the citation from Hebrew about it being appointed to men once to die, and then the judgment. So, can you give me something more than a strong statement of disagreement. Some Scripture verses perhaps? If I'm reading this right, it agrees with my contention: Get ready to meet your Maker now, for tomorrow is not guaranteed. Even if you're right, that's some thin ice to be skating on. What if the work is not done on our behalf? What if our hardness of heart passes on to that time between death and the final judgement? Far better to reconcile with God in the here and now.

If maturity means putting away childish things, would old age be when you start taking them out again?

That's not quite the right nuance, because, once again, it engenders a competitive, "who's best?" line of posts. I'm really more interested in why some missions efforts result in great growth overseas, while others see moderate growth, and still others not so much. My general notion is that the more quickly a mission effort can be made indigenous (i.e., turned over to national church workers) the more likely it is to succeed and grow. SNOW correctly pointed out the downside to rapidly turning over missions work to local members--the chance of diverse teaching and methods will lead to a lack of cohesion and unity. This is news to me...thanks MrsS. My guess is that most of the denominational missions groups do not do so, but smaller independent works do so. It would be cruel not too. Why deny people the opportunity to hear the gospel, because a government is hostile, or because a dominant culture is not receptive? This gospel is worth contending for, and, yes, dying for. In particular, countries in what is called the 10-40 Window are heavily non or anti-Christian, and have little gospel witness. Praise God for the brave missionaries who risk their lives to bring truth to these most difficult areas. Such wholistic mission efforts are very christ-like. Jesus not only preached/teached, he healed, and he delivered folk from demons. While Romans 13 is certainly an appropriate reference here (be subject to authorities), the New Testament is also full of missionary efforts that ran counter to what the local authorities wanted. God's law trumps the laws of men, but when in doubt, usually it is possible to live for Christ and to do so in a lawful manner. I say they are right in this stance. Don't agree with their teachings--but admire their willingness to risk life and freedom for proclaiming what they perceive to be Jehovah's message.

Yep, Ray said it, and I was as surprised as you, because I doubt that your leaders have made such claims. Keep in mind that we were discussing missions strategies (not doctrine). Ray said: Or in other words, we believe our leadership decisions come directly from our Lord Jesus Christ, as He reveals His will to the President (or presiding officer) of His church here on this Earth, (who is President in accordance with our Lord’s revelations), who then reveals those revelations from our Lord concerning the Church and the world to other prophets and leaders of the Church (who are also authorized by our Lord in accordance with our Lord’s revelations), who then confirm those revelations with our Lord… if they have any doubts concerning what the President declares to be true… and then delegate some responsibilities to some other members of the Church. I asked for clarification, and Ray stood by his words, and then noted that the leaders of my faith tradition do not make such claims. I heartily agreed. You have no argument from me. Again, we were discussion missions strategy, not doctrine. Ray said that my church leaders think strategically, while the LDS leaders receive their instructions DIRECTLY from Christ. I sought clarification, and he said I had read him correctly. I'm just trying to clarify what was said--I found it hard to believe the Church insisted that it's administrative decisions were infallible, but that was the message I seemed to be getting. Ray, I'm not sure if you're revising the claim that the Church's administrative, tactical, and otherwise practical decisions are all inspired, coming directly from Christ. That was the understanding I was seeking clarification on. The original topic of this string was missions strategy. You now seem to be addressing the issues of canon and modern-day prophetic offices, which may be a worthy topic, but might come across more clearly in a new post topic.

Yes I am, and Yes I do, although I didn’t compare it with any claims of the Pope. Or in other words, Yes, the President and other prophets and apostles of our Lord’s church on Earth do(es) seek inspiration and revelation from our Lord daily, to help them live their lives and make the best decisions they can possibly make in all their areas of responsiblity… just as anybody else on Earth now does or if not should start to do. Ray, maybe what you are saying is accurate. You're more qualified than me, obviously, to comment. However, I still find it hard to digest that church authorities would claim absolute inspiration from God (100% correctness) in even their most mundane day to day tasks. Even the Pope would probably say, from time to time, "I should have done that differently." I welcome other LDS to confirm or clarify whether it is true that all decisions that come from the church authorities, regardless of topic, or level of importance, is correct and inspired of God, and thus unquestioned. Sure I addessed your statement. I said that the bretheren (and sisters) in Springfield, MO would readily admit that not every decision they make is the result of perfectly discerning the will of God. Our magazine may contain occasional typos. A picture may have the wrong caption under it. A missionary candidate convinced the authorities s/he was called to go, and came home six months later, depressed, and unable to continue. If i read you right, no LDS missionary has ever come home early, or failed--after all, they were called, and the church is without error. I'm not trying to be sarcastic. I'm just finding it hard to believe that even one who truly would be a modern day prophet of God, would claim to be without any error in every decision, no matter how minor. Further, I'm seeking confirmation that this claim really is the one the LDS church makes.

I'll not reject anyone that God reveals to me is his prophet.

Shantress70, I am so sorry you feel that way. In John 14:6 Jesus Christ is telling us that He is in leadership over all of us mortals, and He is the "middle man". I gotta stand up for Shantress70 on this one. First, her point was that she didn't need church leaders trying to micromanage her relationship with God. I didn't catch any hint of her suggesting that Jesus did not fit into her relationship with the Heavenly Father. But, even on the "technical" matter, she's right: Jesus is not a mer middle-man, He is God the Son. So, she's correct to say that she doesn't need a middleman between her and God.

This response was exactly what I was looking for. Very insightful indeed. Yes, LDS folk are well-known for their extremely strong community. Perhaps glacier-paced change is the price to pay for such global cohesion.

I was going to wait until I was mature to get married, but at 31, decided I'd better just go ahead. I could always wait until I grew up to have children. At 35 I realized THAT wasn't going to happen, so we went ahead and started having them. Now, six years later, I know how to recognize that a 'child' is mature. It's when they have their own children to raise, and are forced to live as an example before them.

For clarification, Ray (and all who might know), are you saying that EVERY day to day administrative decision that comes out of LDS HQ is inspired of God, similar to when the Catholic Pope claims to speak ex cathedra (infallibly)??? You've made yourself abundantly clear in matters of doctrine and who truly and bestly (made the word up) represents God, but you even claim that all accounting, logistical, secretarial decisions are absolutely "of God?" Yes, my leaders pray, have an anointing, seek God's direction. But, as you intimate, all would admit to being fallible, to sometimes misreading God's intent, or to just plain fouling it up. Despite what you say, I'd be truly surprised if the LDS leadership would not express the same humility.

Why? We're back to the original point of this post. As C.S. Lewis said, it's not a question of whether the doctrine is detestable to you, but whether it is true--whether this is what God said. If God does say that after the Judgement, it's done. The results are final, then we must decide to believe God on this, or not. Heb 9:27: And as it is appointed unto men once to die, but after this the judgment: KJV Also, Jesus' recounting of what happened with the Rich Man and Lazarus. The Rich Man dies and goes to a place of torment. He begs Lazarus for a drop of cold water, and is told, no--those in paradise cannot crossover, nor can those in torment do so. No hope is given to the Rich Man. His lot is forever established. The time to embrace God's love is now. We delude people when we downplay the reality of hell.

Perhaps if I rephrased, and simply asked how churches, in general could do missions better? I could restate my statistic roughly as follows: Us vs. Elsewhere Southern Baptist = 17:3 COJCLDS = 48:52 (or roughly 1:1) AOG = 3:32 Again, I just found the stats curious. Not suggesting anybody is doing this venture wrong--just wondering what to make of it. But, don't you need a critical mass of adherents before indigenous bishops are possible? AK, I'm not sure why you read my post that way? It's sort of like, "Hey, you look good today." And getting the response, "What do you mean TODAY?" The quote you picked up was part of an explanation as to how the Assemblies of God was originally founded--to help get Pentecostal missions organized and avoid redundancy. I suppose I could have given greater detail: that in the early 1900s and teens pentecostal missionaries operated independently, and often did duplicate on another's work. There was little cohesion, with each going where he felt called to go, with little plan or direction. I meant no disrespect to SBC or LDS mission efforts. That's the AK I've come to know and appreciate! Again, not looking to compare and compete, but to figure out how missions in general might be improved. But could the LORD not anoint "strategic thinking?" As a simple example, in one area it might be good to establish a hospital, in another a soup kitchen, in another a farm for prostitutes who've converted and need work skills. Again, I'm just thinking out loud here. To give you some of my own experience, my missionary experience was not through A/G missions. I worked with an indigenous Korean Bible study ministry--one that used English as an attraction for university students. My "missionary covering" was an evangelical "tentmaker" agency, that specialized in placing skilled Christian workers in countries that usually did not allow missionaries. The agency worked with my home church, and so I did have my denomination's blessing. Since the agency I worked with specialized in nontraditional missions, it often had a "cutting edge," approach--and very much favored indigenous works, vs. Americanized or Westernized approaches. Sorry if my original post seemed overly self-congratulatory. My purpose was to getting us talking about missions approaches in general, not to set up a "who's got the best program" contest.

My argument is that the card expires at death. In particular, once the Judgement is executed, those souls will have no further opportunity to repent. My sense is that you believe a condemned, unrepentent sinner may choose to repent at any time, even long the goat have been separated from the sheep. Do I understand you correctly?

Looks like we'll be playing harps after all Today's Sunday School lesson included the following: Rev 15:2: And I saw what looked like a sea of glass mixed with fire and, standing beside the sea, those who had been victorious over the beast and his image and over the number of his name. They held harps given them by God NIV Perhaps we need to add harp playing to our church programming?

AMEN! The fault here is in my wording. Yes, preachers often speak of hell as a place of eternal punishment. Perhaps it would be more accurate to do as the Bible does, and speak of the punishment of hell as that which goes on forever and ever, "where the worm dieth not." So, my revised question would be "Do you believe there is such a thing as a "Get out of Hell" card? You seem to imply that you do--that hell is a place people can willfully depart from. Yes?

The WA Monthly article struck me as fairly detailed about evangelicals being troubled more by doctrinal issues vs. the general public. I've never read their stuff before, but my scan read of this one proved at least informative. As an update to the general topic, the issue of Mitt Romney possibly running for Prez came up in my Sunday School class today. Yes, there was definite concern about his theology. However, when I mentioned that I would prefer him over some socially liberal, pro-ACLU, anti-religion in public type, they all seemed to agree. It's easy to nitpick when there's no one to compare him to, but if Democrats put out a Hillary Clinton, or someone with an anti-religious right agenda, evangelicals would flock to Romney in droves, IMHO. If GOP party leaders have "the talk" (Hey, Mitt, buddy, pal, loyal party soldier that you are--it's a bit too soon for us to be putting somebody out there with your affiliations. The time will come--but '08 doesn't look to be the year. Maybe there's a good post for such a devout, faithful support like yourself in the new administration). Legally, he sure can run, and with any party he wants. But, if you want the support of a majority party (GOP or Democrats), you must at least look like you can actually win. If not, you get "the talk."

Why do churches have missions and missionaries? Of course, to “win the lost,” or gain converts. But, beyond the obvious, why do we approach the work the way we do? To give you a spectrum of missions results for discussion, consider the following (estimates are rough–the LDS one was based upon an apparently “pro” website: http://www.cumorah.com/distribution/index.html Southern Baptists number approximately 20 million, about 17 million of whom reside in the United States. The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints number about 11 million, a little less than half of whom reside in the United States. However, another 34% reside in the Americas and 13% reside in the Island nations. The Assemblies of God has about 35 million members, three million of which reside in the U.S. It’s largest membership is in Brazil, and it’s largest church is in South Korea. Why this difference? Why are Southern Baptists so heavily concentrated in the U.S., despite their large missionary force? Likewise, Mormons, with roughly 60,000 missionaries worldwide? Furthermore, why has the A/G done so well overseas? I cannot speak much to the Baptists or the LDS, but I do know the approach of AGWM (Assemblies of God World Missions). The program goes this way: 1. In unevangelized nations, send in evangelists to spread the Good News through radio broadcasts, large meetings, or whatever means is effective in the area. 2. Once a group of converts exists, send in church planters to help them organize. Once some churches are established, pull out the evangelists. 3. Set up Bible colleges, with trained professors. Often pastors will be appointed and mentored by the church planters, as they are studying. Once a number of them have graduated and placed in successful churches, pull out the church-planting missionaries. 4. Send promising national pastors to seminary training at regional seminaries, such as Asia Pacific Theological Seminary, in the Philippines. As a sufficient number of scholars are raised up, the missionaries can move out and go to other areas. Bottom-line: The church work is turned over to national believers as soon as possible, thus the work becomes indigenous, locally relevent, and eventually, they start sending missionaries. As an example, the Assemblies of God has less than a half dozen missionaries in South Korea, because the church there is mature. In fact, Korea now sends a fair number of missionaries to the United States! Why do we do missions the way we do? My church was founded, primarily to organize Pentecostal missions in a way that was logical, not redundant, and of course, such that God would be pleased. Some have suggested that the LDS reliance primarily on short-term missionaries (two-year service) is due to two factors: #1. They primarily do evangelism, which does not require highly trained church leaders and teachers. #2. The training and experience the missionaries gain cements their commitment to the LDS teachings and Church, thus providing a large cadre of loyal adult leaders. Such an approach is understandable. My church also has short-term programs for teenagers (Ambassadors in Mission) and construction mission trips (where a group of men will go and build a church), both of which result in highly-committed, missions minded members. I simply posted this to spur discussion about missions in general. Any thoughts are welcome. Hey, we all know that post topics are really just jumping points anyway!

I'll preface this link by saying that I think the vast majority of socially conservative Republican evangelicals could get on board with Romney. However, this reporter's explanation of the qualms evangelicals might have is worth discussion. So, here it is: http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/features/....sullivan1.html

I'm thinking I share this state of being with roughly six billion people, all of us, coincidentally, being located on the third planet from the sun. B) It is possible for you to be definitive on certain matters in which I (or you) claim to have assurances from God. One of the gifts of the Holy Spirit is called "the discerning of spirits." Sometimes the Spirit reveals that what another is saying definitely is or is not "of God." Case in point, I was in Korea for the '88 Olympics. Two fellows came up to me at Dunkin Donuts, and asked to speak with me. They proceeded to show me the gospel (People on one side, God on another, a chasm between us--the chasm = sin, but the cross, representing Christ's atonement, bridges the chasm). I responded, "I believe all this. I'm a born again Christian." One responds, "THEN WHAT ARE YOU DOING FOR GOD!!!" Instead of feeling challenged or motivated, I sensed a spirit of devourment. Something was wrong with these guys, and I excused myself. Later I found out they had started a little cult, were primarily working the American military community, and that their "ministry" had resulted in family being split up. They required members to move into their home, and to turn their paychecks over to the work. Scary scary stuff. But, like I said, I didn't know that when they approached me. I only "knew" that the Spirit was warning me to get away from them. So, yes, Ray...by all means--rely on the Holy Spirit, and seek discernment when questions arise, or claims to prophetic or special messages are proffered. I'm quite frankly more eager to seek assurance when I hear a "Word from God," that seems questionable or uncertain. My "assurance" on the Bible does come from the Holy Spirit, from my spiritual experiences in wife, and yes, also through (not only or primarily) sound teaching offered by gifted instructors, anointed by the Holy Spirit. So, Ray, are you telling me that you believe the godhead is three gods in one God? The key differences between our understandings of God are the how distinct vs. how united they are, and this whole issue of immortality (be it of intelligence or personhood). Yes, we can find ways to string words together in ways that we would both find satisfying and somewhat unifying. But, there are signficant differences here that, while somewhat nuanced, are nevertheless deeply important. Let me reward it more to my liking: Oh, and one more thing. While learning is INTERESTING, and sharing our KNOWLEDGE is STIMULATING, it's not really the point of this LEARNING PROCESS, because what will really matter is not how much we know, but what we did with the knowledge we had. I would, however, argue that there is no battle between knowing and doing. God would have us do more of both.

I'm with Ben. It's always nice to have someone of your own faith group in office, but nothing shines like intelligence, competence, and confidence. In my own case, James Watt was our first big placer. Nobody says much about THAT or HIM these days. Ashcroft was our next big hitter. You either loved him, or hated him. Goerge Will gives Romney a nice review: http://www.pittsburghlive.com/x/pittsburghtrib/s_283684.html This seems like a guy I could end up voting for, so long as he doesn't try to bunch coffee in with other products that get wacked with heavy "sin taxes."

This is probably an important and relevent point. Could you elaborate and let us in on what surrounds this thought? Perhaps some examples? I'm not making the connection to the conversation about hell, so perhaps you can fill in the gap in my thinking here. You clearly have something in mind here. Please, once again, elaborate? For example, does the WoW fit in here (particular for non-LDS believers in Christ)? It is certainly true that many who knew how to talk the talk, but never to walk the walk, will be found out on the day of judgement, when Christ tells them, "Depart from me, I never knew you." I find it ironic that in this post you are warning that it is easier to reject Christ than we think, when previously you seemed to resist the notion of a painful hell that is a place of punishment. The talk of sin as addiction is so real to me, as a prison chaplain. I see it so often. We even have a volunteer group that comes in, offering a "Christians in Recovery" program. http://www.skybreeze.com/srf/index.htm Traveler, do you reject the teaching that hell is a place of eternal punishment?

I've finally found a succinct translation for what you keep saying here, Ray The call and response goes like this: I can feel the love and power of God, tonight! Can I get a witness??? Amen! Preach it. Speak the truth! Oh yes, glory! That love of God is seeping outta us now, amen? Yes! I've got a witness! Keep tellin' it! Or, to make it even shorter: "I have a witness."