[A Mormon Whitehouse]

I don't care how conservative the South is, they won't vote for a Mormon. The Southern Baptists would abstain from voting or even vote for a liberal rather than put a Mormon in office. The preachers would cry from the pulpit and the members would obey.

Okay, I have some historical perspective, in that I was a member of the Moral Majority in my high school years, and have followed the New Right, Christian Right, Conservative Coalition, Social Conservatives, etc. ever since. While some fundamentalists might abstain, I believe Falwell (who's background was Bible Baptist--more conservative than the SBC) made overtures to Mormon conservatives. These groups oppose abortion, gambling, pornography, sex ed that's primarily contraceptive-ed, and they oppose the efforts of the secular fundamentalists to expunge all references to God or faith in the public square. If a Mormon conservative supported these stances, the vast majority of Christian conservatives would back him/her.

<div class='quotemain'>

I don't care how conservative the South is, they won't vote for a Mormon. The Southern Baptists would abstain from voting or even vote for a liberal rather than put a Mormon in office. The preachers would cry from the pulpit and the members would obey.

I agree. The churches here have a week devoted every year or so to bashing other faiths. It so happens this is the week some are doing it locally. Last night was the one on the LDS Church, so there are some good stories floating around today about our crazy beliefs (it's always on the Ed Decker level, it seems).

No way would the SBC vote for a Latter-day Saint.

You confuse evangelical apologetics with conservative Christian politics. Two different animals entirely. For an example of a non-Christian who sees this, go to http://www.towardstradition.org Rabbi Lappin (non-Messianic) says that conservative Christian Americans are the best friends Jews and Israel have. Michael Medved is another Jewish thinker, commentator, who's been known to speak at Christian churches.

I may not have a testimony, but I tell you with the best pundit's cap I have that the Religious Right would support a socially conservative LDS candidate.

[Measuring Modern Revelation]

I posted this in the Polygamy thread, but Ray is right. It probably belongs here...so, "here" it is:

prisonchaplain,

It appears as though I didn't make my point plain enough for you to understand.

Or, perhaps you missed part of mine, which I'll explain below...because I believe I did answer your question...just not to your agreement.

I’m simply asking you to tell me how you would measure modern revelation from God against the Scriptures we already had when those modern revelations were given?

And btw, I think your most relevant reply so far was when you said:

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE

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.

But when I gave you this example to work with:

For instance, how would you use the Bible to either confirm or deny the thought that God authorized Joseph Smith to establish His church in these latter days?

You only said:

Quite frankly, had Joseph Smith gotten up in the middle of a meeting and said, "Thus saith 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.

Which seems to indicate that you don't even accept your own idea about how you should start with the presumption of validity, unless the word (or revelation) given specifically contradicted the Bible.

Here's what you missed in your restatement of my words: Non-LDS Christians in general do not accept that the Gates of Hell succeeded in prevailing against the Church for 1700 years. We do not believe in the general apostasy of Christianity as a historic event. So, since The Holy Spirit gave some to be teachers, some to be bishops (overseers), we accept doctrinal formation in the Church. In my own movement, any prophetic utterances that contradicted the Sixteen Fundamentals of the Assemblies of God (a statement similar to the What We Believe section at lds.org) would be seen as probably contradicting the Bible.

In other words, unlike the LDS, new prophecies do not supercede what we have already received.

So, in other words, please show me an example of how you would measure modern revelation against the Bible, with your own idea suggesting that you should start with the presumption of validity, unless the word (or revelation) given specifically contradicted the Bible.

And btw, your example will probably be more effective if you use something which we [LDS] consider to be modern revelation, showing us how you would measure that revelation against the Bible.

What you really want is an example of a prophecy found lacking. In the 19-teens a prophecy went out, suggesting that Christians must be baptised in the name of Jesus only (Acts 2:38). Very quickly it became clear that the outcome was a denial of the Holy Trinity, in favor of monarchial modalism (Jesus = Father, Son and Holy Spirit, and acts out these different "modes"). Since the prophecy contradicted core church teachings, it was denounced. The result, a terribly wrenching split in Pentecostalism. Today, Oneness Pentecostalism (those who embraced the heresy) represents a very small % of the movement, much like the Mormon off-shoot schismatics.

And for perhaps what might be an easier example, how would you use the Bible to measure, either to confirm or deny, the thought that our heavenly Father and our Lord both personally appeared to Joseph Smith in a grove of trees, now referred to as the sacred grove, in answer to his prayer asking God which church he should join, with our Lord telling him that he should join none of them, citing some specific reasons why he shouldn't join with them, and then later telling him that he (Joseph) would be an instrument in His hands to restore His church to the Earth.

Since JS started with a denunciation of all existing Christian churches, it was a pretty quick call, I'm sure. JS started with a line in the sand, more or less saying, stay with the corrupt, incomplete Christian churches, or come join the restoration. Many have intimated here that there was intemperance on both sides of the line throughout the 19th century (no need to argue who was worse--irrelevent to this conversation). So, there was no attempt to win the hearts of churches, to build consensus for the new revelations. The appeal was for individuals to abandon their communities of faith in favor of a new community with pretty radical new understandings.

I believe you’re on the right track, Dr. T., but let’s see how your “measurement” holds up.

I asked for someone to tell me how they would measure modern revelation from God against the Scriptures we already had when those modern revelations were given?

You seem to be suggesting that the scripture in Matthew 16:18, which reads:

That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.

…can be measured to deny the thought that God could have authorized Joseph Smith to establish His church in these latter days.

Or in other words, you seem to be using Matthew 16:18 to suggest that when our Lord told Peter that once He (our Lord) established His church, His church would never need to be re-established or restored again, because according to your understanding of what our Lord was saying in Matthew 16:18, the “it” that “hell shall never prevail against” should be understood as a reference to the church of Christ.

Am I understanding you correctly so far?

If so, while I can understand how you might be inclined to use Matthew 16:18 to confirm that thought, I can also suggest the idea that there is another meaning to what our Lord was saying in Matthew 16:18.

Or in other words, I could use Matthew 16:18 to suggest the idea that while our Lord did build His church upon a rock, which hell shall never prevail against, the “it” that hell shall never prevail against doesn’t refer to the church of Christ.

Or in other words, I could suggest that the “it” which “hell shall never prevail against” refers to the rock of revelation, which Peter received by testimony from our Father in heaven, which assured him (Peter) that Jesus was the Christ, the son of the living God, and that the church would be built upon that rock, of revelation, which hell shall never prevail against.

Or in other words, while you might use Matthew 16:18 to suggest that our Lord could never have authorized Joseph Smith to re-establish or restore His church upon the Earth, based on a certain interpretation of what our Lord meant in Matthew 16:18, I can also use Matthew 16:18 to suggest that there is no contradiction between the thought that our Lord established His church through Peter, and then later through Joseph Smith, based upon the idea that the “it” refers to revelation, which hell shall never prevail against.

Or in other words, your “measurement” has been tried and tested, and it does not prove the idea you were suggesting, because I have another interpretation which makes just as much sense as your interpretation, if not more.

And btw, since we have now come up with 2 different interpretations, I suggest that you now ask God for more revelation to assure you and help you know which interpretation is the truth, because I have already done that, and I have received His answer too. :)

I hate leaving long quotes, but in this case will do so, because my comments rest on almost everything already exchanged.

Ray, how would a non-LDS Christian, who, at the time of JS' revelation had only the interpretation that Dr. T outlined, possibly conclude that JS was right? There's been debate over whether Jesus meant Peter himself, or the confession of faith, when He said "Upon this rock I will build MY CHURCH." However, there's been no debate about what the Gates of Hell would not prevail against--it's always been that the Church would be victorious.

It's not enough for someone to come along and say, the whole church is wrong--the whole history, all the teachings, all the prayers, all the traditions--everything is wrong. Martin Luther was far more reticent.

Then again, I guess it is enough for the 12 million members, and those who have gone before. But, within the paradigm of those non-LDS churches that leave room for modern revelation, JS' prophecies would carry such a tremendous burden of proof, that they would not likely gain traction. Which, I suppose, is why he did not try to work from within--or, from your point of view, why the Holy Spirit directed him to start fresh.

[Polygamy Is Part Of Mormon Heritage]

prisonchaplain,

It appears as though I didn't make my point plain enough for you to understand.

Or, perhaps you missed part of mine, which I'll explain below...because I believe I did answer your question...just not to your agreement.

I’m simply asking you to tell me how you would measure modern revelation from God against the Scriptures we already had when those modern revelations were given?

And btw, I think your most relevant reply so far was when you said:

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE

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.

But when I gave you this example to work with:

For instance, how would you use the Bible to either confirm or deny the thought that God authorized Joseph Smith to establish His church in these latter days?

You only said:

Quite frankly, had Joseph Smith gotten up in the middle of a meeting and said, "Thus saith 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.

Which seems to indicate that you don't even accept your own idea about how you should start with the presumption of validity, unless the word (or revelation) given specifically contradicted the Bible.

Here's what you missed in your restatement of my words: Non-LDS Christians in general do not accept that the Gates of Hell succeeded in prevailing against the Church for 1700 years. We do not believe in the general apostasy of Christianity as a historic event. So, since The Holy Spirit gave some to be teachers, some to be bishops (overseers), we accept doctrinal formation in the Church. In my own movement, any prophetic utterances that contradicted the Sixteen Fundamentals of the Assemblies of God (a statement similar to the What We Believe section at lds.org) would be seen as probably contradicting the Bible.

In other words, unlike the LDS, new prophecies do not supercede what we have already received.

So, in other words, please show me an example of how you would measure modern revelation against the Bible, with your own idea suggesting that you should start with the presumption of validity, unless the word (or revelation) given specifically contradicted the Bible.

And btw, your example will probably be more effective if you use something which we [LDS] consider to be modern revelation, showing us how you would measure that revelation against the Bible.

What you really want is an example of a prophecy found lacking. In the 19-teens a prophecy went out, suggesting that Christians must be baptised in the name of Jesus only (Acts 2:38). Very quickly it became clear that the outcome was a denial of the Holy Trinity, in favor of monarchial modalism (Jesus = Father, Son and Holy Spirit, and acts out these different "modes"). Since the prophecy contradicted core church teachings, it was denounced. The result, a terribly wrenching split in Pentecostalism. Today, Oneness Pentecostalism (those who embraced the heresy) represents a very small % of the movement, much like the Mormon off-shoot schismatics.

And for perhaps what might be an easier example, how would you use the Bible to measure, either to confirm or deny, the thought that our heavenly Father and our Lord both personally appeared to Joseph Smith in a grove of trees, now referred to as the sacred grove, in answer to his prayer asking God which church he should join, with our Lord telling him that he should join none of them, citing some specific reasons why he shouldn't join with them, and then later telling him that he (Joseph) would be an instrument in His hands to restore His church to the Earth.

Since JS started with a denunciation of all existing Christian churches, it was a pretty quick call, I'm sure. JS started with a line in the sand, more or less saying, stay with the corrupt, incomplete Christian churches, or come join the restoration. Many have intimated here that there was intemperance on both sides of the line throughout the 19th century (no need to argue who was worse--irrelevent to this conversation). So, there was no attempt to win the hearts of churches, to build consensus for the new revelations. The appeal was for individuals to abandon their communities of faith in favor of a new community with pretty radical new understandings.

[The Da Vinci Code]

It was a fun book given all the suspense, cryptology, and putting puzzles together. It was a page turner. Inaccurate, but fun to read.

Dr. T

The Roman Catholic Church agrees with you about the inaccuracy of the book--or at least Catholic Answers (an apologetics group, along the lines of FAIR) does. For their take on the book see: http://www.catholic.com/library/cracking_da_vinci_code.asp

[Polygamy Is Part Of Mormon Heritage]

if God himself revealed it, wouldn't be exactly on par with the scriptures?

It's easy to see why you would think so. When you think of prophecy you think of the Sacred Works, and of the pronouncements of Mormon prophets from JS forward. All of these tend to apply generally to all believers in all settings.

When pentecostals/charismatics think of prophecy, we think of the prophecies, or tongues and interpretations we hear in church services. These 'words from the Lord,' tend to be specific messages that God has for the local audience at that given time. A typical example, "God is pleased with your worship and your love for him...draw even closer, for He desires deeper communion with you." The message to that particular church will likely lead to a time where some will go to the front altar to pray, others might kneel at their seats, etc. Meanwhile, at a church 10 miles away, God's word may have been, "God is disgusted with your empty worship, while your works are lacking. Repent and return to your first love." Here, the result might be an immediate call to repentence, where people again might go to the altar or kneel at their seats and cry out to God. None of this will necessarily be recorded for widespread distribution--and six months later the messages might be reversed for these two churches.

[Personal Conversion/salvation Experience]

Hello all,

This is my first question for the group. I’d like to find out about your conversion/salvation experience. For the record, my bias is that all people, no matter who they are always have: thoughts (always thinking), feelings/emotions, and actions/behaviors (always doing something). These things are all part of what makes us, us. We can’t avoid them. Therefore, I’m interested to see, if we can break down into percentages, how much each factor played a role in your own conversion/salvation experience.

I waited to put my experience in this string, because I had thought you were looking for LDS-specific stories. However, you added the open-ended "non-LDS" to your latest inquiry, so here I go!

Can each of you tell me, from your own personal experience, how much of your conversion/salvation experience was based on logic? Rationally analyzing scripture which, in your mind, led to no other option?

I was a 10-year old responding to the Sunday School teacher's invitation to ask Jesus into our hearts, so he'd forgive our sins. Kids know they are sinners. Parents, teachers, siblings, and friends tell them so all the time. The stories of Jesus rang true to me, and my third week in, I raised my hand and prayed the prayer. So, it was mostly logic, but a child's logic. BTW, my parents were not church-goers. I was a "bus ministry kid."

Emotion/guilt/shame/happy feelings/obligation, etc?

I don't remember being terribly emotional, though I was happy with my decision. I knew I was a sinner, and so guilt was there--but not an emotionally gripping guilt.

On behavior? To fit in? (“It was cool to become a believer-all my friends were!, etc.”)

No, the youth programs in my church were weak, and I had no Christian friends at school. Actually hung out with some Jehovah's Witnesses--and never did become one of them.

Did it happen at a conference? After listening to a dynamic speaker? Did it fall in line with your upbringing (parental modeling)? Other?

Sunday School, not very dynamic, not in line with my parents at all.

Was it 10% emotion, 80% logic, etc.

Maybe 10-15% emotion, 85% logic.

I’m also interested in the circumstances at the time of conversion that played a role in this for you? Where you fed up with the church you were formally attending? Etc. How old were you?

I was 10, and did not attend any church. I was a pretty satisfied kid, though I would later discover my family had some serious problems. At the time, I was happy-go-lucky, and self-satisfied. The Church and the invitation to accept Christ just seemed logical and right. I never turned back. Later I would encounter other religions--especially JWs in my teens--but never questioned Jesus as the Truth and the Way.

[About Christ's Salvation]

Serg,

This sounds like a lot of speculation on McConkie's part. There are Mormons who privately believe that God the Father had a Father, and so on and so forth. Also that there is a "Christ" for every world in the universe. There are even some who speculate that you must suffer as a "Christ" on some world before you can be a "Father" in your own right.

That latter statement I've only heard among Fundamentalists, but it's a theory none-the-less.

As long as we're speculating, could it be that "Christ's salvation" is the salvation that HE earns for US? In other words, the reason Christ "needed saving" is because He bore our sins--not because He sinned in any way.

[Quick Philosophical Question]

What is your take on hell/separation from God? If you believe, for example, that you reside with God in the Celestial Kingdom, but not in the other two levels of heaven, or if you believe in hell as eternal separation from God, how do you reconcile the idea of God's omnipresence (being in all places at all time)? What I'm asking is, "If one of God's traits in omnipresence, is it possible to be separated from Him ever?"

THanks,

Dr. T

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."

[Polygamy Is Part Of Mormon Heritage]

Hey Chap, what's the deal with these oneness folks? Why do the guys all seem normal enough, but the women seem so strange? They always (not once in a while) wear skirts or dresses, and most wear a head scarf. I not saying there's anything wrong with that mind you, but is it a religious requirement?

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!

[Polygamy Is Part Of Mormon Heritage]

<div class='quotemain'>

Pentecostals/Charismatics allow for modern revelation, but say they must be measured against the Scripture we already have.

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.

For instance, I’ve heard some people say: “where the Bible is silent, we are silent… “

…so does that mean that if God gives specific revelation about something and those specifics aren’t already in the Bible, we shouldn’t accept them as the words of God?

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.

For instance, how would you use the Bible to either confirm or deny the thought that God authorized Joseph Smith to establish His church in these latter days?

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.

Or in other words, how would you use the Bible to either confirm or deny the thought that our Lord authorized Joseph Smith to authorize other people to proclaim His gospel, establish an organization of believers, build chapels and other buildings for education, including temples, and publish the teachings they receive from our Lord in magazines and newspapers and books and manuals, which authorized members of His kingdom should use to teach His doctrine and administer all of the ordinances God wants His children to accept whenever they choose to accept the salvation He offers them through the instrumentality of His church upon the Earth?

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.

Or, if you don’t want to tackle that one, how would you use the Bible to either confirm or deny the thought that our Lord revealed His gospel to ancient inhabitants of America, including His prophets who revealed His will to other people, including a person named Moroni who was resurrected after his death by our Lord, who then appeared to Joseph Smith and authorized him to get the records he had hid in the Earth, telling him that he was to translate those records with the help of God into what we now know as the Book of Mormon?

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.

Or, if you don't want to tackle either one of those issues, I’m simply asking you to tell me how you would measure modern revelation from God against the Scriptures we already had when those modern revelations were given?

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.

[Polygamy Is Part Of Mormon Heritage]

I don't see that polygamy is a problem. LDS, former LDS, branched off from LDS, Hindu, Tribal or whatever, why is it such a big deal to people? People should be free to do pretty much whatever they want, whatever they feel is right -- up to the point where it infringes on others' rights. Can anyone tell me how a group of people practicing polygamy hurts the community?

The US laws against polygamy were not enacted because polygamy was offensive, but rather to "go after" LDS. In that sense, such laws totally fly in the face of personal freedoms and freedom of religion (which the US is so proud of).

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?

[For Jehova's Witnesses]

I always thought it was interesting that JW would come to my door. Why would they want to convert anyone and lower their chances of they themselves being one of the 144,000 who go to heaven? I remember them coming around when I was around 15 or so and telling me that it was okay to drink wine. All in all they seemed pretty friendly and weren't pushy.

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.

[For Jehova's Witnesses]

ummmmm Im a Christian and have been all my life and am Not Jehovah Witness and never have been one! im new here so nice to meet you all here and i hope that im welcome??

well i have had the waitness knock on my door many times in diffrent places where i have lived i used to have waitness both sides as neighbours and always knock on my door every week.

i wanted to know more about the JW so i got a book from the Liburary today Called Opening The Door to Jehovah Witnesses

i was soooo Shocked!!!! when reading the things the JW belive in...

i will list some can you tell me if its true???

Ok

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.

[Spanking]

[i wholeheartedly disagree with this. I think condemnation is a good thing for people who enjoy hurting children. And sure, Christ is a good thing to have in our homes, but unfortunately, many people defend hitting children with the Bible and their religion. WWJD? IMO, he would not spank!

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.

[Polygamy Is Part Of Mormon Heritage]

Prisonchaplain says: 2. It is this kind of messiness that makes us skeptical of open canon, and of modern prophecy not being subordinate to Scripture.

That kind of thinking gets me every time I hear it. God used to talk to us, but he stopped.The whole of his talking to us starts with an author - we know not who in we know not when - and ends with an author - we know not who in we know not when. God himself is silent on what constitutes his word but we trust that we know exactly what it is comprised of.

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.

[Polygamy Is Part Of Mormon Heritage]

As Ray answered quite well on the other thread,

First of all, God did authorize the practice polygamy at one time in the Church and then later revoked His authorization.

Second, there is merit to all of the actions of God, despite what you think or believe.

And lastly, neither Joseph Smith nor any other prophet in the Church is responsible for the people who left and started another sect or division.

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.

[Bible Under Fire]

I don't know about Traveler, but as I read your description of post-millenialism, I shook my head and thought "now who could believe that after reading the scriptures?" And as I read your description of premillenialism, I agreed with the first bit, but not the last. I think LDS believe something else entirely, though I don't know what you'd call it. We believe that we are to do all we can to teach and to cry repentance and to bring souls unto Christ. There is a limited time allotted for this, but we don't know how long. The general state of the world is becoming more and more evil and specifically, the gulf between the righteous and the wicked is widening - in the last days there will be no fence-sitters, no grey area. The Church (as an organization, not the body of people) is laying the foundation for Christ's millenial reign (such that when He comes, the political, administrative machine is in place). There are many specific prophecies yet to be fulfilled before Christ comes in glory, but many have already been fulfilled. When Christ returns, the wicked who are alive at that time will be burned as stubble in a field. We consider this the confirmation of the Earth - the baptism by fire. (the Earth having already been baptized by imersion at the time of the flood) The millenium will be a time of intense work, as the righteous dead are ressurected and the righteous living at the time of Christ's return are changed in an instant from living to immortal (many LDS refer to this as being "twinkled" ). During the millenium, Temple work will be performed for all who have ever lived upon the Earth. At the end of the millenium, Satan will be loosed again for a time. After that, anyone else who still needs to be ressurected will be, and then comes the final judgement.

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!

[Polygamist Compound Reported In South Dakota]

<div class='quotemain'>

Janet Reno ?

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.

[Can We Be Sure We Are 'saved'?]

WELL IF YOU ARE SAYING THAT IM WRONG!!!!!!!!!!!!! THEN YOU ARE SAYING THAT THE SCRIPTURES ARE WRONG!!!!!! LOL its Doctrine !!! u need to read it Properly !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! u are not listening to what is being said u can read it in the Doctrine & Covenants student manual for yourself!! we get a chance!!!! thats why the famliy history is soooo important that why we need to do the Baptisms and endow and sealings on the earth

for the people to that have PASSED ON!!!! AND THAT WAHT IT SAYS IN D&C

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.

[China.]

The food doesn't sound very good the me. Do they have rice. seaweed wraps, fish and soy sauce? I would stick to those things if they do.

I don't remember you saying why you were going. Is it a pleasure trip?

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!

[Bible Under Fire]

I can agree in part with these thoughts - thought I do not believe in subordinate truth but I think we agree on more points than we disagree so I see no purpose in beating a dead horse. I also think we agree more about apostasy that meets the eye. I believe that the apostasy is still so strong among Christians (including LDS) that we lack the spiritual strength (keys of authority) to govern ourselves as a Christian nation. - Though I do believe that you and I could live neighbor to neighbor. I believe the LDS welfair program comes as close to what we LDS call the Zion society (power to govern ourselves based on G-d's law and authority). But this is a whole other topic.

The Traveler

PS. I also believe it is up to individuals and families to establish covenants with G-d regardless of scripture or organized religion. I believe individuals (not religions) are spiritually borne of G-d.

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?

[Marriage In Heaven Disproved]

Hi PC,

I visited a church today that I really enjoyed and felt comfortable at. You have no idea how many I have visited and just didn't feel right about. This was an Episcopal church, and I think it may be my new home! It appealed to my Catholic background, but without the negatives that I associate with Catholicism.

They are having a Faith and Science class tonight that sounds like it will have some interesting discussion. Hopefully I will be able to make that.

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.

[Marriage In Heaven Disproved]

I'd say in this case because it's an example of misinterpreting a Bible passage in attempt to attack the beliefs of another church, or at least "prove" that it is false.

Galatians is not talking about a different church, let alone the LDS Church, but about circumcision.

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.

[Bible Under Fire]

We seem to be at an impasse concerning our separate understanding of convening councils and their method of selection of scriptures that comprise what is now the Christian Bible canon and how that relates to what is important scripture. May I summarize our views according to my prejudice as follows?:

Your view => Man shall not live by bread alone but by every decision brought about and edited by a convening council.

My view => Man shall not live by bread alone but by EVERY WORD that proceeds from the mouth of G-d. (note the emphasis and importance of the phrase “every word and the source”)

This is not really intended to sound rude but I do not know how else to express it.

I didn't take it as rude. Perhaps, crudely clever.

It appears to me that you lack the means to determine what are in totality the words that proceed forth from the mouth of G-d and therefore you require a convening council to define that for you. On the other hand I demand the right to do it for myself and within the context of the faith I espouse I find no support from traditional Christianity to my point of view.

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.

[And The Oscar Goes To....]

Can’t you stay on topic, good heaves???

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