prisonchaplain

It's an interesting question you raise--and not one specific to Mormons, so I'll jump in. There is a common model used by evangelicals when presenting the gospel. It shows a person, a chasm, and God on the other side. The chasm is sin--that which separates us from God. Then the cross is shown as that which bridges the chasm, and allows us to reconcile with God. In John 14:6 Jesus says He is the one Way to the Father. So, even now, billions are "separated from God." In hell, it will surely be likewise. So, to say God is omnipresent, and yet much of his creation is separated from him presents a paradox. I think Ray touched on an understanding: God is cognizant of all creation, separated or not. Furthermore, quite often God is with us, but we do not sense him at all. Even believers experience "the dark night of the soul." I'm not sure we have a logical problem here, so much as a difficulty putting into words the metaphysical realities of our God, "who's ways are not our ways."

The skirts/dresses are typical of churches that emphasize modesty in dress (usually, primarily directed at the women). Used to be, makeup was prohibited too. The headcovering is specifically mentioned in the Bible, though most churches interpret the reference to be culturally influenced, and so, while recognizing the general call to modesty, would not specifically require headcovering, as such does NOT represent modesty today. I remember hearing a gospel radio show in which the Pentecostal preacher was asked about women and makeup. The year was 1972. The minister's response: Now, I know I'm going to get letters and calls on this, but I've studied the Scriptures, and I've prayed on it and reached my conclusion. SOME OLD BARNS NEED A COAT OF PAINT. (Laughter). The speaker would later become famous, venturing into TV ministry. Did you guess? It was Jimmy Swaggart!

How do you do that exactly, prisonchaplain? I’ve heard several people tell me what they think in the past, but just in case you think differently than any of those people, I’d really appreciate it if you would tell me exactly how you actually go about doing that. Let me start by saying that the vast majority of prophetic words I've heard have been specific to the group assembled, and very local in application. For example, "God is pleased with your worship--continue to seek my face." Or, "God is asking us to search our hearts, to repent of our wicked ways, to give up our pet desires, and trust him for all." After such a word, the pastor, or leader conducting the meeting, will usually call for a time of prayer--urging people to heed the word that's been given. That sounds like an awfully narrow rubric. My guess is that most would start from the opposite point--if the word given does not specifically contradict the Bible, we start with the presumption of validity. Quite frankly, had Joseph Smith gotten up in the middle of a meeting and said, "Thus saieth the Lord, all Christian denominations are wrong, their pastors and professors are corrupt...there's been a general apostasy such that the Church has not truly existed for 1700 years..." Chances are pretty strong that it would have been declared, quite instantaneously "not of God." Which, is pretty much what happened, even though Smith's revelation was pre-modern Pentecostalism. Yes. And, had JS been Pentecostal, he likely would have caused a split, such as happened when a brother declared that, in accordance with Acts 2:38, we must all be rebaptized in the name of Jesus Only, and that God is not a Holy Trinity, but that Jesus is the Father, Jesus is the Son, Jesus is the Holy Spirit (the fancy theological term for this 4th century heresy is monarchial modalism). Out of that prophetic word (which we deem false) grew Oneness Pentecostalism. Angels on Assignment, Heaven is So Real, etc.--all books written by Christians who said they had visions. Usually, the individual first "vets" the vision through his/her local church. If there is a sense that the visions/dreams are authentic, word begins to spread, and the message reaches a broader audience of Christians. My guess is that in the case of JS, he would not have gained the approval of his local church, and would have chosen to venture out on his own, spreading the word--pretty much as he did. As much as we believe in modern revelation, we also believe in the revelations already given--most especially the Bible. Additionally, the gifts of the Holy Spirit include our teachers, leaders etc. So, if a modern revelation ran contrary to what we have already received, it would receive extreme scrutiny and skeptcism. However, if it truly was of God, the Bible tells us that the Gates of Hell shall not prevail against my church. It would stand.

I have not studied the history of persecution of Mormons, but have always guessed the opposite--that it was shock and outrage at the practice of polygamy that led to the "going after" of the LDS. Do you have some sources I could look into to, because your argument here probably ties together all three or four strings on polygamy right now. Bottom-line question: Did polygamy lead to persecution of Mormons, or was polygamy the weapon anti-Mormons chose to use to go after them?

The little flock will be made up of 144000 JWs who will rule in heaven. The Great Flock will be the millions of faithful Jehovah's Witnesses who will live on paradise earth. You were no threat to the elite little flock.

I grew up around Jehovah's Witnesses and have attended a few Kingdom Hall meetings, and even a convention. Yet, I'm certainly not the final expert--and am in fact, a hostile witness. But, here's my take: 1)that JW belive that they will live forever on the earth and if you fall away from the Jw then god will kill you?? TRUE. All non-JWs will be annihilated at the Day of Judgment. 2)JW cant have friends outside of JW? Acquaintences, yes, but not friends. "What has light to do with darkness. 3) DONT BELIVE THAT CHRIST IS A SON OF GOD?TRUE. Jesus was a human man, a great teacher, and prior to his birth, was likely the Angel Michael. 4) are banned to vote? and cant support the government full stop? TRUE. All governments are of the god of this world, Satan. 5) that Jw belive that every Religion is of Satan!! and esp belive that christians are!!!!TRUE. Christianity is often referred as Christendom, and cast in a negative light. 6)when the 2nd coming comes that every one that is Not a JW will be killed?TRUE. Go to the website and it will tell you that not only JWs, but also those who believed prior to the establishment of the Watchtower Society, and also those yet living who may come to the true faith. Bottom-line: Today you must be or become JW. 7 JW belive that birthday,Christmas,Easter,mothers day. fathers day, are BANNED and are a PAGAN CELEBRATION TRUE. Ironically, their historical information is largely true, but their conclusions have only gained traction with Halloween celebrations--many Christians no longer celebrate it. 8)JW are not allowed tp partake of the bread and wine ie the Sacrament ?I'm sketchy on this, but understand that only the JWs who are part of the 144,000 are allowed to actually partake, and that at most meetings none are. 9)JW not allowed to see RELATIVES if not a JW?This one is probably FALSE, UNLESS the relative was a Jehovah's Witness and became apostate (left the faith). 10)JW dont belive that all christians are part of the new covenant.Only a Elect group of 144,000 are belived to go to heaven these are said to include the apostles but not FAITHFUL MEN OF OLD ?I'm not sure on this one. Only the 144,000 go to heaven. All other JWs will live on a paradicical earth. 11)BANNED FROM GOING INTO ANY OTHER CHURCH AS THAY BELIVE ITS OF THE DEVIL?TRUE 12) JW will be Disfellowshiped if they break the rules? Depends on the rule and severity of the breaking, but potentially true. 13)JW not allowed to christen their children? have blood transfusions? not allowed to do higher education and the pursuit of a career are frowned upon????? All pretty true. 14) JW women are not allowed to hold a position of any kind in thier congregation? banned from saying Grace at the dinner table?? unless there is a JW MAN THERE!!Don't know. 15) JW door to door ministry is compulsory??? Let's just say the ole spirituality will be seen as slipping, and the member will be considered as becoming inactive, should the door to door work reduce or stop.

I don't know if we need MORE LAWS, or simply more enforcement of the laws we already have. However, people who hurt their children (bruises, blatant neglect, or consistent berating) need the kind of prayers and support that I can offer them--behind bars. At the same time, of course God spanks. He "spanked" Israel by allowing them to be occupied by foreign governments, by 40 years in the desert, by plagues that came upon the people. And, Mormons, Evangelicals, Fundamentalists, Baptists, etc. all agree that God inspired Solomon when he wrote about sparing the rod (neglect of discipline) being equivalent to hatred of the child. Bottom-line: Rare or no spanking is certainly within the parameters of Scriptures, and of modern practice. Those who chose not to spank, and who invest time and energy into alternate means, probably do well--in that they are so involved, the child will learn parameters. Those who find the rare spank effective, deserve no presumed condemnation.

Fortunately, only the fundamentalists, who argue that there is no modern revelation whatsoever, need answer this contention. Pentecostals/Charismatics allow for modern revelation, but say they must be measured against the Scripture we already have.

Exactly. Here's my "outside looking in" take. Outshine and Ray: The Church and prophets were always right. It's perfectly acceptable for a policy like polygamy to change, if the living prophet says that God's authorization has been revoked. Dakota: We can say it's okay all we want. We need to own up to the messiness of how things played out. Two thoughts: 1. Most Christians will at least raise an eyebrow at the notion that the move from polygamny to monogamy was purely the design of God. My guess is that even many non-religious people are convinced that there was so political pressure that went into the reversal of policy. So, just be aware that your non-LDS neighbors will not easily just accept that God's will changed with the times. 2. It is this kind of messiness that makes us skeptical of open canon, and of modern prophecy not being subordinate to Scripture.

Thanks Mom. Your post really helps. I've heard that the LDS is a pre-millenial movement, and yet I've only read hear about the Church laying the groundwork for Christ's kingdom--which sound postmillenial to my ears. From your post, I surmize that your church is premillenial, but that the leadership is taking a proactive role in getting things ready, administratively. Interesting. Again, Thanks!

You know; Waco, Texas, 1993. Branch Davidians, death, destruction, what some call a massacre... When the Waco fiasco went down, I was well-versed in the criticisms of the government action. Authorities refused to listen to religious experts, probably wanted to send a message to patriotic gun-owning Americans, etc. Frankly, I was sympathetic to those sentiments, and pretty much bought into the sense that the government was turning against people of faith. Now, some 13 years later, having seen how government works from the inside, and frankly, having grown up, and having become a parent, my view has changed. Religious compound or not, Romans 13 reminds us that governments are ordained by God. When Uncle Sam comes knocking, we open our doors and say, "May we help you?" Additionally, there were reports of child molestation and abuse, of weapons being stockpiled. And, sure enough, it seems likely that the explosions were caused by explosive material that Branch Davidian leaders had planted around the compound. It might be interesting to see the After Action Report, and what recommended changes were implimented. But, in essence, the Davidians were a domestic terrorist group, that may well have been holding some 'members' hostage. Criticism might be directed and tactical decisions and processes, but to call the operation a "massacre" is outrageous, and inflammatory.

I think this was my string at one time. Oh well, you can have it. The original post was a lesson outline...but we'll call it public domain. Memo to Nicole from one outside the LDS Church that doesn't quite 'know the language' yet: Maybe you're right--I'm in no position to analyze--but sometimes you can be so right that you're wrong. Just a thought.

Funny you should mention those. My wife and I were preparing to board a 10PM express train, Seoul - Taejon. It used to take 2.5 hours, but now takes 45 minutes. Anyway, we hadn't had dinner, so stopped at Familly Mart (like 7-11) and picked up some seaweed wraps--one with Tuna, another with spiced meat, and the final one with Lindy's favorite (kimchee). Also had shrimp chips (no better for you than regular potato chips), a potato and ham salad sandwich, and Light Cola (diet by any other name is still so sacharrine). Junk food buffet in Asia! Hurray!

Just some short responses--new strings may be justified on some of this. 1. Subordinate truth is also a Mormon belief. If I've been taught properly here and in How Wide the Divide, the LDS Church teaches that ALL written Scriptures are 'subordinate' to the statements and interpretations of God's living prophets. Under this rubric, the BoM, D&C and PoGP have at least an unofficial superiority to the Bible, not so much because of the "as far as it is translated properly" line that so rankles non-LDS Christians, but because it is older revelation. 2. As far as setting up Zion and how prepared God's people are, there is indeed a wide variety of views on this topic, even within evangelicalism (not to mention Catholic, mainline Protestant, etc.). However, the broadest categories are thus: a. Post Millenialism: Christians are to prepare the world for Christ's return through advancing science, culture, ethics, and of course, the Gospel to the point where Christ sees that it is gloriously ready for his triumphant return. b. Premillenialism: Christians are to do what they can for a lost and dying world. Winning souls is primary. A time of great trouble is coming when Christians will be persecuted and killed globally, when an Antichrist will rule, and when a great spiritual apostasy is yet to come, when the world will embrace a global religion that does not worship the one true and living God. From your post, Traveler, I take that it most LDS embrace a more or less post-millenial view. 3. I am guessing that your individualistic approach to canon and covenants etc. is, while perhaps acceptable, not the mainstream undertanding within Mormonism?

Two things I know about the Episcopal Church--there is a wide variety of acceptable "streams" with it--from so-called liberal to more traditional. Also, in the Seattle area, it was an Episcopal church that first embraced the Charismatic Renewal, back in the 1950s I believe. So, if you want an intelligent, spiritual communion, that occasionally "rocks" you may indeed have found your home.

Of course, that is the specific context of the problem in the Galatian church. However, we believe the truths of the Bible are for God's people today, as well. So the principle of not accepting another gospel is not restricted to circumcision. At what point do different teachings become "another gospel?" Well now, that's the issue to address when critics bring up this verse.

I didn't take it as rude. Perhaps, crudely clever. Well, you're not really merely relying on the Word of God in it's original then. Rather than trust the leaders of the Church on this matter of canon, you seem to believe it is required of EVERY Christian to determine for him/herself what is canon, and what is not. The traditional Mormon/non-Mormon impasse here is simply over whether or not the post-apostolic church had authority or not. JS said it became apostate (or lost the full truth, as LDS progressives prefer), whereas even non-Catholic evangelicals believe that the human church was never perfect, but yet remains authoritative. To summarize Traveler's last paragraph, there were two key questions: 1. How can non-LDS say the canon is closed? 2. How can non-LDS say the canon contains all truth? #1. Once again, non-LDS Christians do NOT believe the gospel was lost, and therefore in need of restoring. Therefore, while we Protestants may have parted organizationally with the Catholic church, over doctrinal and practical disagreements, we do not deny the authority of the Church, particularly from 100 - 1500 AD. So, we may examine the work of the various councils, but our default position is to concur that God directed them. #2. This is a mistatement--it is a Mormon perception of the general Christian answer to a distinctly Mormon question. We non-LDS simply do not go around asking, "Does the Bible contain all the truth there is?" Rather, there are two general positions on the question of whether revelation from God still happens. A. Fundamentalists say absolutely not. The Bible contains all that we need, and any claims of prophecies, or 'God spoke to me," call into question the sufficiency of the Bible. B. Pentecostals/Charismatics: Yes, revelation happens today through the gifts of prophecy, and of tongues and interpretation. HOWEVER, such 'words from the Lord,' are subordinate to the Bible. So, of course, there is truth that is extrabiblical. All truth comes from God. However, since we do not believe the church became apostate, nor that the gospel was lost, we look at church history and see no new written revelations post 100AD, we have all that God wanted for us in terms of written Scripture.

Uh...the Oscar goes to the Bible and the Messengers and Prophets of God! How's that, Winnie?

Cal, do you realize that when you condemn the biblical writers as brutal, and strongly insinuate that they were not inspired of God, but only claimed to be to justify battery, etc. you're not going to win too many converts to your cause from sites that are predominantly trafficed by people with rigorous faith practice? When you call Scripture ridiculous, your efforts here to win opinions also declines rapidly. Hey, I'm trying to help you here. Great job of mistating my case, pretending I expressed no nuance of opinion, and making yourself look like the moderate, understanding poster. I specifically mentioned slavery as evidence that not all historical practices are justified. My contention is that when roughly 27% of people agree with you, and you overturn thousands of years of parenting practice, and withdraw from parents ANY discretion in the use of spanking, you are indeed the radical, and the burden of proof is upon you to prove you case to the strong majority of parents. Another misquote to paint me as the extremist. What I said was that the state rightly involves itself in strong cases of abuse that are well-evidence, and which reasonable people agree upon. Glad to see you're willing to use the democratic process, at least. :)

BTW, I loved the "catch the child doing good" thing. For example, my middle daughter still struggles with occasionally backsliding in potty training department. She's 3.5. It's gotten to the point where whenever she asks to go potty, or she wakes up dry, we praise her. She say, "See, I made proud, right???" It's this thing about respect for parents that has irked me a bit with this string. Allusions to spanking being an easy way out, or worse, child abuse, with no consideration or trust that the parents may know the child well, and have found it the best answer in a specific situation. No questions about do you praise enough, etc. Just the assumption: You were lazy, angry, and you had the power, so you hit your child to vent. Yes, this happens. But, to assume and therefore condemn all parents who spank, no matter how seldom, and without knowing them or the children, betrays a general lack of trust/respect for parents in general. Of course, all of this is "IMHO."

What does the BOM have to do with circumcision, which is the subject of Galatians chapter 1? http://www.lightplanet.com/mormons/respons...rent_gospel.htm Why does this issue keep coming up between LDS and other Christians, but not between say Pentecostals and Baptists? The answer lies in a clip from Outshines citation: A typical response to this accusation is that Latter-day Saints do not teach a different Gospel than was preached by the ancient apostles--it is the various [non-LDS] Christian sects who do. Stated another way, non-LDS perceive Mormons to says, "We're good enough to be called Christians, just like you, but you are not good enough to be part of restored Christianity, like we are." Then, "Why do you keep picking on us, attacking our church, etc.?" Perhaps the "us vs. them" mentality is both a legitimate theological discussion (so let's quit stressing about the fact that we disagree, and get to the why), and there is a cycle of mistrust/miscommunication etc. that both sides tend to feed. I've enjoyed ldstalk because, despite the occasional tit for tat between individual posters, there seems to be a true hunger for intelligent spiritual conversation here of a type that is often difficult in "real life."

Just as FYI for how things can get read, Shantress, when I first read Ray's joke I saw the same thing you did in the "children enjoying spanking joke." It's just that, I guess like most here who have gotten to know Ray's online persona, we figured he couldn't possibly mean it the way it first read. Sometimes you just have to give people the benefit of the doubt--which is indeed tough when you've been burned. Bottom-line: Group H ...shaking of hands!

My wording was imprecise. You, of course, are right, that Catholics, in essence, pray through not to the saints.

Yes, it's still wrong. #1. Because she may approve because s/he may "approve" because of fear of losing the louse. Sometimes love is blind. #2. More importantly, and I know we'll disagree here, adultery is not only a sin against the spouse, it's a sin against God. If we accept the Bible's accounts, then we see that God speaks through prophets, leaders, and teachers. These messengers of God deliver written works (i.e. the Bible), and "dogmatic thelogical statements," that help us know what to do and not to do.

Rather than give you technical, theological verbage, I'll just say that those of us who call ourselves evangelical believe that the Bible is correct, and that accusations of contradiction quite often highlight paradoxes, and in some cases a lack of knowledge on our part. We believe that most translations are accurate, and that the areas of disagreement are so few and so doctrinally insignificant, that yes, we can read and study them with confidence. Is the Bible complete in every way? Well, that's frankly a "Mormon" question. Most Christians believe that the Bible is all that God has for us in written form. There are differences of opinion about modern revelation, with fundamentalists saying that there is no further revelation needed after the Bible and Pentecostals/Charismatics saying that modern revelation continues today, but that all such occurances must be subordinate to the Holy Bible. Finally, of course there is some room for interpretation, which is why there are different denominations. However, there is incredible agreement on major doctrines, and to be very rough with my estimate here, I'd suggest that 90% of Christians agree with 90% of what other Christians teach. In other words, for all the diffeent denominations, our disagreements really aren't so many. Most of us consider each other to be brothers/sisters in Christ. Okay, you caught me doing my scan-reading. Mea culpa. Okay, that makes sense. Thanks for the answer. Quite frankly, I can see where several LDS teachngs would have general appeal on a gut-level. You left when I came. Had you heard of Shalom House? They ran an inexpensive school for the children of military couples (Casey was for unaccompanied tours only, I believe). I used to visit the Shalom House, and attended a few services as Stone Chapel.