prisonchaplain

Senior Moderator
  • Posts

    13986
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    98

Everything posted by prisonchaplain

  1. Note to all lurkers--this post has gotten quite unwieldy and long, so in this particular post I am going to greatly summarize and condense Ray's comments. You may wish to refer to previous posts if you have not done so. Ray, feel free to correct where my summaries have left out important details. I'm glad you're enjoying this as much as we are. :) Ray asks how I came to know the truths I know (truths that in my view seem to contradict some Mormon doctrines). The short answer is that I learned through teachers, the affirmation and direction of the Holy Spirit, and through my own study of the Holy Bible. Like most Christian converts, belief in the Holy Bible was pretty much a given, once I'd accepted Christ. The Word truly proved sharper than a two-edged sword. As I got older, I had opportunity to "test" my beliefs on the mission field, and later in graduate seminary--where we were trained to "rightly divide the word," rather than simply memorize what our professors had presented. BTW, Ray, I seem to recall that you are an adult convert to Mormonism, from a Christian movement (Church of Christ, I believe). It might be useful for you to share how you came to the place of questioning the fullness of your general Christian faith. Ray mentions that it is useful to seek truth wherever it may be found (even non-Christian religions). Well, of course. As a chaplain, I encounter such opportunities daily, and have learned much. It's one thing to pray "Lord, increase my knowledge through today's encounters," and praying, "Lord, am I wrong...is this new revelation right?" Ray reiterates that it is wise to openly look for truth whereever it may be found. My simple response is that I probably would not hang out here if I didn't see some wisdom to be gained. prisonchaplain: Reason + Revelation + Faith = Testimony From Ray's analysis, I figured I'd better offer some details to explain what I mean by the equation. "Reason" is often called "General Revelation," by theologians. It refers to the wonders of nature, the study of religious writings, the analysis of religious arguments and apologetics, the use of 'common sense,' and all other means by which God declares in Romans 1 that "men are without excuse." Revelation, specifically refers to spiritual or divine revelation. The assurance of the Holy Spirit. That still small voice. The sense of conviction that leads to repentence. That which causes Mormons to recite, "I know that the Church is true, that JS is a prophet..." Faith is that point of saying, I've observed, I've heard from God, there are still questions, but I believe and receive!" Ray, whether your choose to continue this dialogue, join a different string, or never communicate with me again is up to you. I just pray that the time has been fruitful for you. God bless you and lead you. Ray, you've made my point. The focus was always on the words--the message. The messengers were rejected because of the message that brought. Ray says that when non-LDS Christians reject the words of JS etc. we are rejecting the prophets of God. Ultimately, the bottom-line question comes down to this: were the messages of the LDS prophets from Joseph Smith on God's words or not? Ray asks how people come to know they are sinners needing to repent, and ask God to forgive their wrongs, because of Christ's sacrifice at Calvary. Of course, the answer is that the hear the word of God, sense from the Holy Spirit that it is true, probably have had some previous opportunities to rationally grapple with the gospel message, and then they respond in faith. Yes, I believe--I receive God's mercy. So, asks, Ray, what's to keep anyone from going further, and receiving additional truths that may be out there (i.e. from the LDS)? IF it is true, that God will indeed grow the seed of faith, until the LDS surpasses general Christianity, much as Christians surpassed Judaism. IF the revelations were not true, all bets are off.
  2. Well, you've made my point. We might experience friendship and dialogue, but not spiritual fellowship. I think Snow stated this dilemma well: We (LDS) want you Christians to accept us as being Christian too, while we (again LDS) do not believe that you (non-LDS Christians) have authority to carry out Christian ordinances, nor to fully represent Jesus to the world. Ray, how could I invite to my pulpit a speaker who does not even believe I have authority to speak from it myself? I'm saying that to the non-LDS Christian the manner in which Mormons honor Joseph Smith is greater than what we have seen in the Bible or in church history. Of course, if what Joseph Smith said is true, I suppose you'd have to be right, since none of us have yet recognized him at all. Question two is easy--yes, Christians should embrace every word of God. Question one strikes me as odd. Jews and non-LDS Christians generally do not speak of "accepting prophets." We accept Jesus, we obey the Word of God. And, I guess that's my simple point. I'm not saying you are wrong, evil, or heretical in your honor of prophets--just pointing out that many non-Mormons will look twice at it. It is unusual to us. The bottom-line problem was not the personalities, but the messages. Prophets would preach repentence, warn of coming judgement, call the people away from the worship of idols and false gods. These messages were often rejected, and punishment came. The focus was on the words of God, not the messengers who brought them. If Joseph Smith was a true prophet, then it would be appropriate to honor him. I'm just explaining why non-LDS Christians are somewhat surprised at the level of honor you give him. I would not say it is morally wrong, but rather that it is outside of the usual Judeo-Christian practice, with the possible exception of Catholic veneration of Mary and the Saints. Your second question poses an odd circumstane. Generally speaking, those who come to faith in Christ are not given, as you have previously pointed out, a doctrinal test. They embrace the reality of their sinful state, cry out to Jesus for forgiveness, and embrace the love and life God offers them. If in the course of their studies they came to disbelieve major portions of the New Tesament would they still be a Christian? My guess is that they might well walk away from the faith all together in such a circumstance. However, stated in a vacuum, the faith that saves is faith in Christ, not in biblical writers.
  3. Ray, are you saying that I do have authority to offer communion, conduct baptisms, teach lessons in your church? Come now. Even by the standards of "progressive Mormons" like Prof. Robinson, we cannot share these ordinances with one another, and we will likely continue to try to convert one another (we meaning the movements). Except that the early Christians never rejected Judaism--the leaders drove them out of the synagogues--again a full generation after the resurrection. If God told Joseph Smith to reject the established churches of the day, he did right. However, from the outsider's viewpoint, the move was unprecedent in biblical or church history. Even Luther was more or less forced out. And yet, God has you talking to me, Professor Robinson engaging Prof. Blomberg, and many other such dialogues. There is no doubt that most Christians of the 1820s era were not ready to abandon their churches for Joseph Smith's truly radical teachings. However, it rankles non-Mormon Christians to be compared with the Jews of Jesus day, who, you'll remember, declared "His blood be upon us."
  4. I'm saying I am here to share and learn. However, before I would pray for a testimony about a whole system of beliefs that run on many levels contrary to truths I've already received, I would need to be convinced that the new system is at least probably true. Every time you see a Hindu, a Muslim, a Buddhist, etc., you don't whisper a prayer, "God, am I wrong...are they right?" You'd be spiritually paralyzed if you did so. Now, Ray, I could, righ now, today--and, in fact probably have--prayed something like, "Lord, I don't think this stuff is right, it goes against much that I have learned, much that I have seen you reveal to me, but if there's anything to it, let me know." But, that's not the prayer I think most Mormons have in mind, when they urge "investigators" to pray if the BoM is true, etc. Reason + Revelation + Faith = Testimony
  5. Sounds logical, but doesn't work. Recall the Southern Baptist boycott of Disney? The conservative Christian boycott of the Last Temptation of Christ? Does anyone think that those obscure Danish political cartoons of the Prophet Muhammed got LESS circulation because of the protests? Dominoes is in the business of making money. Sponsors generally do not truly "sponsor" the shows they advertise on, unless they know they will lose money on the show--but advertise anyway as a public service. The story suggested they would ban X-rated stuff (not even R)--so the Simpson's advertising is hardly hypocritical. BTW, I heard about the university when I served in Miami. The idea of a religious town should not be strange to Mormons--nor Christians. We still have dry counties, and there are still public schools where prayers are offered, Bible as Literature is taught, and where--as Jason will tell you--the non-sectarian Masons have prayers said in Jeezus' name. To those who fear, the Taliban are not coming. Will get through this. Stay cool. And, please, send the ACLU some place else.
  6. The original point I made was that Joseph Smith started out by rejecting the established Christian churches, and establishing a new religion--one to which he called lovers of God to join--leaving the others behind. In contrast, the Old Testament prophets and Jesus called religious leaders on the carpet for their corruption and distortions, and he endorsed John the Baptist's 'baptism of repentence.' He never called anyone to leave the established Jewish faith. The schism happened a generation after Jesus' death. It is more than a nuanced difference to say that Jesus did not come to destroy or compete with Judaism, but to fulfill and complete its mission, so the faith might be brought to all nations--that all nations might be blessed by Israel, as they prophets had promised would happen. Okay, this is a plausible partial explanation. However, my own denomination, and the Pentecostal movement are even newer than Mormonism. Our first General Council was in 1914. The fathers of this movement are Parham and Seymour. Parham, in particular, formulated the doctrine of tongues as initial evidence of Holy Spirit baptism. Yet, ask 100 Pentecostals who the forumulator of the doctrine is, and less that 10% will know. Parham was also a flawed teacher, very much a product of the racial attitudes of his day. Seymour, a handicapped, self-educated African-American might be better known--especially in the Church of God in Christ. Yet, again, the vast majority of Pentecostals don't know about him. (I majored in Pentecostal church history). These guys are only about 3-4 generations back, yet are little known outside our theological schools. All that explanation to suggest that there is something theologically and culturally unique about the way Mormons honor Joseph Smith. The same reason you criticize Ray or Traveler, or especially the ARIs--we disagree. I'm hardly more judgmental than Jesus. Judgment does begin in the house of God. And, as I intimated in another response to this, family can often tell us truths that others are too polite to mention. The reason anti-cultists tread so heavily upon the histories of both Mormons and Jehovah's Witnesses is that both groups (Mormons to a much lesser extent) lay claim to exclusive hold on true Christianity in this age. Jehovah's Witnesses teach that all who do not convert to their faith will be annhilated at the Day of Judgment. Most Christians understand Mormons to teach that non-Mormons cannot enter the Celestial Kingdom (Yes, I know this is an issue that is nuanced, and that some LDS believe that non-LDS have potential to enter it). Bottom-line: The self-proclaimed sole holders of gospel truth will be held to a much igher standard than other churches.
  7. I forgot to drop the dime on myself, here. By practice and belief, I'm with Mom. I think my manner and personality sometimes lean moderate though.
  8. DOH! Ah well...I'll do it in the next few days. B) You're kinda like the guy that also says, "Be careful!" after you bump your head. LDSTALK ETTIQUETTE PATROL TO LISAJO: It's the PC's birthday...laugh at his silly, gender-insensitive comments, and tell him he's loved. PC to Lisajo: Yeah...so there!
  9. An interesting notion. Of course, the Apostle Paul is part of the canon of Scripture. Christian clergy study the Pauline epistles, or the writings of Paul, etc. However, we do not pray for a testimony that Paul was a true prophet of God. In fact, he never claimed to be a prophet, and I do not believe most churches speak of him in that sense. Perhaps a more apt comparison would be with the Bible itself. There are similarities in the way Mormons speak of Joseph Smith, and the way evangelicals and fundementalists speak of the Bible. The B-I-B-L-E, yes that's the book for me, I stand alone on the Word of God, the B-I-B-L-E--Bible! We speak of God illuminating Scripture to our hearts, of sensing God as we read and meditate on it. Okay, let's cut to the chase. Tell me if I've understood your core bottom-line: RAY TO PRISONCHAPLAIN: Pray to God and ask Him if Joseph Smith is a prophet of God or not! The Father will tell you in no uncertain terms, if you ask with sincerity and openness. IF I'm correct here (and even if I'm not, the following explanation will truly help you understand reticent evangelicals), then here is why that prayer is not so easy to pray. In other words: Why would evangelicals hesitate to simply pray and ask God if the latter day prophecies of Joseph Smith are true or not? Ray, you actually already answered this question. I wouldn't put in such a "spinach and pig latin" example, but the point is the same. Here's a better example: If a Christian woman wants to marry a non-Christian man, is it okay for her to pray for God's will? After all, she can always witness to him, and win him to Christ after marriage? No, it's not okay to pray such a prayer. Scripture tells us that Christians are not to enter into marriage with non-Christians, and thus become "unequally yoked." To pray such a disobedient prayer, is to invite the lustful flesh to provide a positive answer. Likewise, before the evangelical can pray as to whether the BoM, the PoGP, the D&C, President Hinckley, and the CoJCLDS are all true or not, s/he must become convinced a positive answer would not conflict with the truths already gained. If there is a sense that the Triad may conflict with the Bible, that the Mormon distinctives might conflict with General Christian doctrine that I already know is true, and that I know my church is in solid relationship with God, and yet the LDS says it is lacking--I must be brought to the place of probability before I dare utter the prayer. In the same way, Ray, I doubt you would with openeness and sincerity pray to God whether a Pentecostal distinctive that is nowhere in the LDS theology, is true or not. If Mormonism is true, it would be nonsense to ask about a teaching so "outside the ballpark." So, before, pressing for the prayer, you must get your listener to the place of saying, "This might all be true...Lord is it?" For general Christians who are not suffering spiritual angst, that's a tall order.
  10. What, you've never had squabbles in your family?
  11. Thanks to all of you for thinking of me. The saying is really true--everybody complains about the cost of living, but nobody opts for he alternative. Since we're roughly 16 hours ahead here, only SF actually posted in time. You're all too sweet--unlike the wonderful fruit & cream cake we had. btw--memo to Lisajo Men gain dignity with age--women just get older. Stay blssed y'all!
  12. Spanking should remain legal, and can be effective, when used rarely. In 95% of discipline situations, spanking is unnecessary, and can be counter-productive. The "spare the rod spoil the child" proverb speaks more to parents taking the time and energy to control their children, than it does specifically to wacking the child. On the other hand, on those rare occasions when rebellion is obvious, testing is evident, and reason has failed to produce repentence or change, then the spanking can be effective. It must be done in love, not anger, in righteous discipline, not frustration. The wise child will figure out that s/he truly has hurt the parent more than the parent has hurt him/her.
  13. I was inspired by the What Kind of Mormon Are You? string and decided to do a generic one that most here can answer, regardless of denomination. The only rule is, if you don't think you're a Christian, you might want to lurk. 1. Liberal: The Bible is inspired, much like Shakespear is. Jesus was a godly man who offered truly noble and benign teachings. Morality and beliefs are highly personal, and mostly conscience-based. Fundamentalists make you less comfortable than non-Christians. 2. Moderates: Everything in moderation. The Bible is true, but some of the details may not be exactly right. Drinking, smoking, TV, music, moderation, church attendance, gambling, giving--everything should be done based on one's circumstances, abilities, personal convictions, and of course--IN MODERATION. Christians do best when they do good and blend in. We ought to embrace culture, and perhaps make it a little better. Non-Christians can be great friends, but it would be nice if they joined the fold. Conservatives can be self-righteous and uptight, but they're okay, so long as they don't get pushy. God definitely is nonpolitical. 3. Conservative: The Bible (QUAD) is absolutely true in meaning and details. We should faithfully obey the mores of our churches, which usually means not drinking, smoking, gambling, dressing provocatively, that gender roles are pretty strongly defined, and that faith is the most important thing in life. Additionally, conscience effort should be made to win over nonbelievers to the Truth, and also to draw the liberals and moderates to true Christian practice. 4. Fundamentalists: Basically conservative, but more so. Also, intentionally maintain separation from non-believers, and from those so-called believers who "compromise" with "the world." Ecumenism, interfaith dialogue, etc. are anathema. "Come out from among them and be ye separate!" Sometimes, these are perjoratively called, "Fighting fundies," because they are often so vigilente to defend truth, that they'll try to destroy their bretheren who may somewhat disagree. 5. Cultural Christians: They enjoy the conservative morals, clean, easy friendships. The ready made community of support. And the common cause. They're not so interested in doctrine, or mission, as they are in the church, the relationships.
  14. Why we buy bottled water: 1. Yeah, it's the taste. Our tap water tastes nasty. I actually wished it didn't, because we have little ones who would benefit from the flouridation. 2. It's about health. Having cheap bottled water, readily available hot/cold out of a dispenser makes it easy to drink. Most people need to drink more water. I sure did. 3. Filters are a great idea for do-it-your-selfers, but folk like me--convenience counts too!
  15. While this may seem logical, as a Pentecostal, I cannot tell you the number of times I have met sincere Christians, whom I deeply respected, who had a reticent response to the Pentecostal baptism. They just don't think it's necessary, or really that important. They are not against it--just not that interested. Will they go to heaven? I absolutely believe so. My contention is not that I am better than they are, but that they could be better than they are, if they would embrace the Pentecostal power of the Holy Spirit. Ray, just as you would encourage me to greater truth by exploring and embracing the latter day revelations of Joseph Smith, I'd encourage you to enter into the fullness of the Spirit. Or that you "know" more than God has actually told you. I don't know how you define fellowship, Ray. We can't have communion, baptism, teach lessons, or spend eternity together (I assume you're aiming for the Celestial Kingdom). We may both call ourselves Christians, but I'm not seeing much fellowship here. Dialogue, friendly conversation, good wishes for each other, but not spiritual kinship. That is the $64,000 question, isn't it? We Pentecostals have convinced much of the Christian world to at least consider our claims about spiritual gifts, Holy Spirit baptism, faith healing, and a corporate worship that expects the presence of God. The approach of Joseph Smith's disciples was to set up a separate religion, and to declare "general Christians" not to be a part of the true Church. So, you either win over the rest of Christianity to full conversion, or you remain friendly but isolated. But the bottom-line is that you see 'general Christians' as being in need of conversion. You befriend us, do not shy away from us, because you hope to see us come to the full truth. Again, to draw the distinction, my best friend is a non-Pentecostal Southern Baptist preacher. I'm convinced he'd have greater ministry and peace, and power if he'd embrace the baptism in the Holy Spirit, and seek other gifts as well. Nevertheless, I'd invite him to my pulpit, I'm sure he'd invite me to his--we'd share one another's communions, and we look forward to seeing each other in heaven. We differ on some beliefs, but we have fellowship. We are brothers in Christ. Well, sure. The Jews expelled the followers of the Way. Nevertheless, the New Testament tells us that we are grafted into the seed of Abraham. We are fulfilling many Old Testament prophecies about how the righteousness God had covenanted with the Jews would eventually be offered to the whole world. And yet, God still seeks to save his people, the Jews. The gospel was to go first to the Jews... The "why" is not important to the already convinced/converted--but it is a question many 'general Christians' have. One of the most successful arguments the anti-Mormons use, when addressing general Chrstian audiences, is to recite Joseph Smith's "They're all wrong, all corrupt," line. The New Testament tells us to always have an answer for them that ask... Mormon honor of Joseph Smith is far beyond what we grant the Apostle Paul. When I become a Christian I do not say, "Jesus has forgiven my sins because of his sacrifice on Calvary, and I believe that Paul was a prophet of God." Faith in the revelations of Joseph Smith is all but a requirement of true Christianity, according to you.
  16. To help you understand how non-Mormons perceive such statemements, simply change the bold-faced verbage to something like receive the baptism in the Holy Spirit with the physical evidence of speaking in tongues, as the Spirit gives utterance. It's the way some Pentecostals talk. If you just knew God deeper, hungered for Him more, had your eyes open, your heart ready for the FULL truth. We're not proud, we just know some things, have experienced some things, that you non-Pentecostals haven't. The difference is, rather than teaching that we had restored the true church, or the true gospel, we spoke of fullness, of a second blessing. We were initially treated badly by the broader church, but we persisted in love, humbled ourselves in the 1940s, joining the National Association of Evangelicals, when many still despised us. Gradually, we've become the second largest segment of Christianity, behind the Catholic Church. (I speak of "schools of thought" not denominations). Indeed, there is some talk of the pentecostalization of many evangelical and conservative churches. They have not taken all our teachings, but they have embraced our worship style, our openness to the presence of God, and they have come to respect our faith.
  17. Ray, I thought I understood what you meant, and restated it in my own words. I then went on to explain some of the conclusions I drew. If I was off-base in my understanding, the nature of posting is for you to post a REPLY: Sorry, PC, but you didn't get it. Here's what I meant... If I'm really unclear, I'll surely ask, but like most posters, if I'm fairly certain I got the gist of our post, I'll "run with it." Feel free to correct me where I mistated your meanings. Que Dios le bendiga, hermano.
  18. In a sense, yes, Jesus did come to reform, or bring completion to the Jewish religion. He claimed to fulfill the prophecy of Isaiah. His followers continued to worship in the Temple and in synagogues, even after the resurrection. Then there is the passage about us non-Jewish believers being grafted into the seed of Abraham. In a sense, Christianity was not a new religion, but rather the result of a synagogue split, in which the new outperformed the old. The expulsion of followers of The Way came about generation after the resurrection, if I'm not mistaken. Granted, Mormons do not worship Joseph Smith, or any of the prophets. On the other hand, the level of respect, fascination, deference given to this "symbol of God's restoration" is quite extraordinary to Protestants. It is akin, from this outsider's view, to the adoration (not worship) Catholics offer their saints, or perhaps even Mary, and very much like Muslims offer Mohammed. So, no, I'm not accusing the LDS of idolatry. I am suggesting that the level of respect given to your prophet, Joseph Smith, is unusual by Old Testament, New Testament, and Protestant traditions. I believe I understand why Mormons honor Joseph Smith as they do. My reaction--which may help many here understand "outsider Christian responses"--is that of concern. To Protestants, highly honoring any human raises red flags. We do not see Old or New Testament prophets treated this way. We criticize Catholics for over-emphasizing Mary and the Saints. We criticize Muslims for over-reacting to cartoon caricatures of Mohammed--a mere human prophet, after all. Bottom-line: Give honor to whom honor is due, but understand when those uncommitted raise eyebrows and wonder.
  19. In response--this is one teaching in which evangelicals and Mormons are probably a lot closer than we think. The difference is in focus. When evangelicals speak of salvation, we're referring to the moment of conversion. We come to Jesus "Just as we are, without one plea, but that thy blood was shed for me." It's all grace, and no works. Mormons, when speaking of salvation, are actually referring to sanctification, and to our need to "endure to the end." Any salvation experience that is true will result in good works. Jesus said that if we really loved him we would obey his commands. The fruit of the Spirit (Galations 5) includes many difficult attributes, like long-suffering. The characteristics of love in 1 Corinthians 13 include many laborious attributes. So, all Christians agree that faith, resulting in works, guarded to the day of Christ's return, or until our own home-going, results in a blessed day as we meet our Master. Amen?
  20. They did so to find out who should replace Judas. They did so to determine what regulations Greek Christians would be under (Acts 15 for that one). The idea that church leaders would get together to discuss concerns is well established in both Scripture and human history. You seriously do not believe it is important, or that God had no interest, is Christians being able to quickly know whether a spiritual writing was to be considered Holy Scripture or not? You do not accept the canon that the LDS Church has? The Quad is not your base point for religious writings? Traveler, you are better than this! You know full well that what I said was that whatever Jesus quoted--that quotation becomes Scripture. However, we cannot conclude that the entire book the passage came out of should likewise become Scripture. To repeat my example, most people know the "Power corrupts" quotation, but few know that Lord Acton said it, nor are they familiar with all his writings. Likewise, everytime you quote an individual, you are not, necessarily, endorsing everything that person ever said or published. You've abandoned the normal practices of dialogue, and switched to a debating style. Jesus did not address canon, because people took canon for granted. It was well established. And, again, Jesus repeating a common saying or passage, is no indication that he endorsed everything the author of the passage wrote. You have a preponderance of evidence that 2 billion Christians are wrong? That your church is wrong? OK, Traveler--of course Jesus wrote in the sand. It's possible he wrote other things too. However, he did not write anything he intended to be included in the Bible. There is nothing in the gospels, or other New Testament writings that even hints at Jesus having wrote down his thoughts for the church. Why do you keep chasing after new things? Far better to master the old things that have stood for 2000+ years. I'm not sure how to respond. Your tone has turned rather tense of late. I hope the journeying does you good. B)
  21. To summarize: 1. Snow's approach to Mormonism and 'General Christianity' is somewhat akin to that of most Pentecostals towards non-Pentecostals: We wish you would avail yourselves of the added power and blessings we've received, but we bless you in what you have and are accomplishing, as well. One caveat--you probably agree with Blomberg/Robinson that we're not ready to share pulpits, communions, or baptisms. 2. Ray's approach is more akin to that of many fundamentalists towards Catholics: "Come out from among them and be ye separate." I'm overstating the case a bit, but whereas Snow seems to believe he's got something really neat to show his Christian acquaintances, Ray gives the impression of trying to win souls. If you're even half right then there is no need for you to qualify your statement with "outside the military."
  22. I look forward to hearing your main point, since I thought I had restated it correctly. Please consider my statements an invitation for you to clarify. Okay, so, I at this point God has not shown me or led me in the direction of believing that Joseph Smith was a prophet of God. So, where does my current understanding lead me? In other words, does this mean I don't know God or doesn't it? To repeat my comparison, Pentecostals believe that the baptism in the Holy Spirit is a second blessing, subsequent to salvation. We also believe that this experience is accompanied by tongues-speech. So, does this mean that non-Pentecostal believers don't 'have the Spirit?' No. We use terms like fullness and empowerment. Yes, we wish everyone 'got it.' But, we do not break fellowship with our non-Pentecostal bretheren. I don't disagree with you. However, as a growing Christian, willing to know more, but pleased with what God has and is doing through me, the issue of the veracity of Joseph Smith has not been high on my spiritual list. Such is the case for most Christians. Many of those who have queried God claim to have received a negative answer. Of course, 12 million Mormons claim the opposite. So, my question: Is there precedent for making the veracity of a mere messenger (no disrespect intended) a matter over which fellowship might be broken? In other words, has the messenger in this case become more important than the message, and Him who the message is about? Even Jesus did not reject the synagogue or the temple. He reacted against corrupt religious leaders, but never sought to establish a new sect, or religion. Yet, Joseph Smith starts out this way. "They're all wrong, all corrupt." Why wouldn't God hope to redeem the hundreds of millions of Christians in the established churches of his day, rather than brushing them all aside, to start anew. Note also, that Martin Luther was a most reluctant schismatic. He wanted reform, not spiritual revolution. Ironically, many theologians believe Luther's reformation actually saved the Catholic church, by forcing into to reform itself. Me thinks this pleased God. If faith in Joseph Smith is a prerequisite to knowledge of God, then Joseph Smith de facto becomes on par with Jesus (the one way to the Father, John 14:6). And I would suggest that the prophets never ascribed such honor to themselves, never demanded that worshippers of God affirm their office as prophets. Likewise, while Paul defended his ministry, he was quick to point his listeners to Jesus, not himself.
  23. We were using bottled spring water, but it got pricey ($6.50 per 5-gallon bottle). So, we switched to a company that uses top-grade commercial filters, and now pay $1.80 per 5-gallon bottle. We stick them on a water cooler/heater. Very convenient, and only costs us about $5.40 per month (vs. roughly $20 before). Perhaps another option, is to get a nice water filtration system, minus the distilling. Cheap, but probably still a lot tastier and cleaner.
  24. I hope the clips from what I said answer your question. We don't outlaw them. We ostracize them (we being the churches, not the govt), and we laugh at them.
  25. I'm in another post, discussing this issue with Ray. My question, why the near-idolatry of Joseph Smith. In Judaism, Moses is obviously the most important prophet, as the writer of the Torah. Nevertheless, Jews do not speak much about the Prophet Moses, but rather about the Law of God, and how to obey them. Likewise, Paul castigated the Corinthians in the first chapter, for bragging about who had baptized them--to the point of making factions. The one religion in which the prophet is so highly esteemed is Islam. And, if I'm not mistaken, some here accused them of idolatry. So, even if Joseph Smith was absolutely right in what he said, saw, and did, would God not have been more pleased if the corrections and truths he brought had been successfully communicated to the Christian community, rather than a new denomination being created, and allegiance to church and messenger being demanded (I know that the church is true, and that Joseph Smith is a prophet of God--however it is worded). Just a thought.