prisonchaplain
-
Posts
13955 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
92
Posts posted by prisonchaplain
-
-
<div class='quotemain'>
See if clearing your browser cache works.
I'll get my brother-in-law to help me with this, since his IE toolbar etc. are all in Korean.
We cleared the cache, but not success. Also, I've tried two different computers. Maybe something's buggy in the chat system itself?
-
The Bible truly is a great book, prisonchaplain. I only have a problem with people who think that because the Bible is such a great book, we really don't need any other book, or any other revelations from God.
And btw, if you truly know how wonderful the Bible is, by personal revelation from God, you should also have no problem seeing the marvelous work and wonder in the Book of Mormon, the Doctrine & Covenants, and many other great and wonderful books written by many other prophets of God.
I hope you enjoyed the post, and I'm glad you see no "competition" between the Bible and the Triad. If they are all true, they should mesh perfectly.
Sorry, PC. I just meant that the Bible is way too much to condense into a half hour. I think you did a pretty good job of trying, though.
Theologians spend their whole lives delving the mysteries of the Bible, and barely scratch the service. Yet, the Good News is so simple a child can understand. You baptize at 8, correct?
Likewise, I've spent 2.5 years teaching an adult Sunday School class the Book of Revelation. We're just starting chapter 13! Yet, I have taught the "Bible in a Lesson" several times. It helps sometimes to take a very wide-angle snap shot--to get the lay of the land, so to speak. Of course, huge details, and huge themes are missed. Nevertheless, sometimes it helps to see the forest from the trees.
God is love. Jesus Saves. John 3:16--three examples of attempts to put the whole Bible into one phrase. Incomplete? Perhaps. But, again, useful.
How about Jesus' summary of the 613 laws of Moses? Love God. Love your neighbor.
Anybody up to giving us the BoM in one lesson?
-
Like crying for no reason, the example of your own daughter you gave? Is this the overt rebellion you are talking about? That doesn't seem like an extreme behavior.
If you recall the full example, she had done so on three occasions within an hour, and had been given warnings. Also, at 3.5 years old, the tap after the third warning did the trick. Her behavior was extreme that day...she normally will start such whining or crying, be warned, and stop. Also, I can count the # of times she's been spanked on one hand--and never much more of a tap (again, 3.5 years old). Come on, Shantress, give the parents of 3 under-fivers the benefit of the doubt. B) Come to think of it, that may be my real point in all my posts in this string.
-
...doesn't mean that parents are somehow vindicated in thinking that spanking is therefore OK. Actually, IMHO, they are both bad parenting. Spanking is just one of many poor parenting behaviors.
I found quite a few interesting and diverse viewpoints at beliefnet.com. This site is explores many spiritualities, and so counts as fairly objective. In the poll on spanking I found myself in the largest camp--47% believing spanking is best used as a last resort. The article I chose to highlight (those interested should explore the several articles--including some that argue against using it) is an explanation from a self-proclaimed liberal parent as to why she uses spanking as a rare option.
-
is there any documentation to back this up? As I understand it, the GSA units are very much run at a local level and it is decided locally what kind of a program to run and support. Are there any official GSA quotes or anything like that that says that the organization as a whole supports lesbian/feminist ideals?
Just do a google of girl scouts lesbian and you'll hit a plethora of articles, most of them by Catholic or Christian groups opposing the Girl Scout surrender to political correctness. Below is the one secular source I found--a conservative, but well-respected publication--National Review.
http://www.nationalreview.com/23oct00/lopez102300.shtml
[
-
I've never seen any research, nor have I even seen anecdotal evidence that spanking is superior to OTHERS forms of discipline. And given the down side, I still stand by my statement. The fact that the Bible calls for physical violence, only says to me that the Biblical people were uncivilized and naive to human psychology. And no, 100% wrong is not too strong. No human being has the moral right to intentionally inflict physical pain on another. PERIOD. That we try to justify it with ancient religious texts just says we can't think for ourselves on the subject.
You equate ALL spanking with physical abuse, violation, etc. Absurd. It is also a very strange (and, imho, dangerous) reading of Scripture to say, "Well, I don't like what the Scripture says here, so it must be something God allowed for barbarians." Again, I grant that the underlying call of "spare the rod spoil the child" is for parental discipline. It does not have to take the form of spanking. However, to declare all parents who spank barbarians (do I read child abusers?) is too much.Since when do criminal who break the law get SPANKED.
You've never been to Singapore? You don't recall the American teenager who nearly got caned for keying a bunch of cars?
It is actually AGAINST THE LAW to physical abuse even prisoners? So why should it be ok to do it to our own kids?!!!!!!!!!!
Of course, you are right. "They're here as punishment, not for punishment." My quick answer, is it is never okay to physically abuse children. On the other hand, spanking is not abuse. In fact, some school districts still have corporal punishment.
Since when did getting hit foster trust?
Bounderies foster security and trust. Spanking is one tool that parents use to enforce bounderies. You may not like it, and so, should not use it. But, in a nation in which most children suffer from willful neglect, I pray that your notion that all physical discipline, is, by definition, abuse, does not become widespread law.
All it fosters is resentment. I got hit as a kid, and all it did was make me resent the person who did it. I said to myself, "how dare you violate my right to my own body. What gives you the right to inflict your physical self on me?" When you can answer that question maybe I can agree with something you are saying. Again, do unto others.... The fact that some people say "Well, my dad hit me, and it didn't do me any harm" begs the question. Children are human beings with the right to their physical and emotional space and privacy. Spanking and hitting VIOLATES that. Ask yourself this, as an adult, would you let anyone hit or spank you? What makes you think that kids like it or can handle it any better. Spanking only satisfies the "needs" of an out-of-control, angry parent. It does the kid NO good, PERIOD, end of story, and nothing you have said yet convinces me otherwise.
Maybe you experienced abusive physical discipline, and so project your experiences on every act of spanking. However, the reason so many say, "I was spanked and it didn't hurt me," is because most kids that receive thoughtful spankings are well aware that they probably deserved more, and over the years, have become thankful for parents that bothered to discipline.
[Sorry, but THAT part of the Bible is the kind of thing Brigham Young was probably talking about when he said that the Bible has the Word of God, the Word of Man and the Word of the Devil. The physical punishment and condoning of slavery are definitely the Word of the Devil, IMHO.
The Bible is the Word of God, period. Yes, there are stories of men who failed, men who deceived, and of Satan's work. But no anointed reading of Scriptures would declare Solomon's proverb for parents to "spare the rod spoil the child" as Satan's words.
The simple fact that you conceed that it should only be used "rarely" implies that you recognize that there IS something wrong with hitting. If you can get things across without hitting, why use it at all? And if you can't, maybe you need to rethink your parenting skills. As you've seen from this thread, there are many here who find that they do just fine without it. That should tell you something.
Math lesson time. Sometimes "less is more." Nothing is always nothing.
My advice to rarely spank means that spanking is a strong measure that should be reserved for overt rebellion, and even then, not as a first resort. Spanking is not wrong, but, imho, is more effective as a near-last resort--kinda like wars between nations.
-
See if clearing your browser cache works.
To empty you browser's cache using Microsoft Internet Explorer:
1. Click on Tools from your browser's main menu.
2. Select Internet Options
3. Under the General tab, click Delete Files... in the Temporary Internet files section.
4. Important: Shutdown all open instances of your web browser.
I'll get my brother-in-law to help me with this, since his IE toolbar etc. are all in Korean.
-
We understand the scripture to talk about those who are not married, that once in heaven, will not then marry and will instead be angels. We believe that marriage is one of the ordinance that needs to be performed in the here and now - in mortality.Marriage In Heaven Disproved, By Jesus
Besides which, the story (see also Matthew 22) refers to 8 specfic people, probably worldly Sadducees who rejected Christ. It doesn't need apply to all people.
In fact it was this very set of verses that motivated Joseph Smith to inquire of the Lord concerning marriage. It meshes perfectly with our understanding of the gospel in general and eternal marriage in particular.
Interesting. I also read the reference from the later poster. It may help us to reread the query that was posed to Jesus in Matthew 22:
24Saying, Master, Moses said, If a man die, having no children, his brother shall marry his wife, and raise up seed unto his brother. 25Now there were with us seven brethren: and the first, when he had married a wife, deceased, and, having no issue, left his wife unto his brother: 26Likewise the second also, and the third, unto the seventh. 27And last of all the woman died also. 28Therefore in the resurrection whose wife shall she be of the seven? for they all had her.
It seems to me that the LDS answer: They won't even get in heaven--or at least not into a kingdom that has marriage, is a neat solution. The further explanation, only marriages on earth that are properly sealed will be forever, answers the question for modern-day LDS members. But, what of the audience of Jesus' day? Would they not have wanted to know what would happen if a godly woman had seven husbands, who were all brothers, once they reached heaven? Yes, Jesus got to the heart of the trick question--you're not even right with God, that you think you'll have wives in a resurrection you don't even believe in!
However, IF Mormon theology were not an issue here, it would be something of an unusual reading to see two groups being discussed. It's much easier to see Jesus responding: In heaven we'll be like angels (note that they'll not actually be angels, but only like angels)--IN THAT we'll neither give nor be given in marriage. And, since the question presupposes marriage on earth, it would be a strange reading to say--Jesus only referred to the lack of marrying itself in heaven, not the continuation of existing marriages--since the original question was about existing marriages.
BTW, is the correct answer (assuming that she and her spouses were indeed godly) that she'll be a wife to all the husbands for eternity?
-
False - I accept that God has done a great many things that seem strange to me. It seems strange to me that God forbade Adam and Eve to partake of the fruit, it seems strange to me God allowed his Son to be killed. It seems strange to me that God choose JS to restore his gospel.
I really like this particular answer. It is so healthy to read Scripture and think like this. "That's odd. Why would God do that? Did it really happen that way, literally, or is there an even deeper point here?" All such thinking leads to very healthy, useful study and devotional reading.
My own immediate reactions: God wanted to forbid Adam and Eve to do something. The fact that it was eating a certain fruit is, perhaps, ironic, in a garden full of fruit. The key is that the fruit represented a choice: disobey God and learn what good and evil are (by learning the contrast). Additionally, that the Serpent told them that if they eat the fruit they'll be like God, suggests to me that the disobedience was not out of mere curiosity, but out of a desire to, in essence, divorce God, and be on their own.
The crucifixion is something I understand theologically and perhaps even intellectually. However, on a gut-level, it will always strike me as strange. Ditto the requirement for Abraham to sacrifice Isaac.
The last one puts me in the odd position of saying, "Why?" Why wouldn't God choose someone like Joseph Smith? Perhaps he follows the line of Noah and Abram? Non-LDS Christians question veracity of the message of JS, and only examine his life in search of fodder for their skepticism. So, I'm curious as to what it is about the choice of the LDS prophet and founder that you find curious.
How long have you thought that mass murder was an appropriate response to name calling?
Mass execution--yes. There are many examples of God bringing destruction upon his rebellious creation. Youth mocking the prophet of God would fit right into the pattern. The act would be more akin to you deleting a post (hey, it's your creation), than to you killing Red for questioning your wisdom.
Snow finds it ridiculous that God would literally speak through a barnyard animal.
I think it's hilarious that God would humiliate a prophet--one who was supposed to speak for God--by using a donkey to speak to him! You don't think God has the keenest sense of irony in the universe?
-
Cliff Notes?
Trying to discern if mom is being complimentary or not. I guess all I can say is that the middle initial in my name ( C. ) doesn't stand for "Cliff." -
I would question if you really believe in the faith only/born-again concept, seems to me your not sure, but your approach is honest and fair.
I suppose it comes down to "faith alone in what?" Is it enough to get the name right? I have faith in Jesus, so I'm saved right? If so, Mormons, Muslims, hey even some Hindus I've encountered--who believe that while in America they ought to worship the American god, Jesus--would all be good.
So, no, it's not enough to get the name right. With Islam, it's pretty clear. They don't pretend to be Christians, nor do they pray that Allah forgive their sins BECAUSE of Christ's atoning death on the cross (they believe one of the disciples was crucified in his stead, and that the New Testament represents a corruption of what Jesus' taught, written by misguided followers). They do not come to the Father through Jesus. So, I'd feel pretty safe counseling the Muslim who asked to embrace the gospel message, knowing that if it is given in any detail at all, s/he will realize that it is incompatible with his current practice. Acceptance of the gospel would de facto mean rejection of some basic Muslim beliefs.
Mormonism is more of a quandry for open-minded evangelicals, for exactly the reason Barna highlighted--nearly half of Mormons could embrace the gospel message in good conscience, without contradicting any of their theological understandings.
The good news is that you need not worry about my level of comfort with YOUR salvation experience. Rather, you will continue to serve God with your faith, your intellect, your heart, and your deeds. Both Old and New Testament Scriptures (and, I imagine, passages from the other Sacred Works) all promise that if we do so with sincerity, we will find God.
-
and If I do as you requested does this mean you are going back to the LDS Faith....and if not whats the point in having this discussion???.....what are we gonna get from it?????
You might help some of the 20-30% of us at ldstalk who are not Mormon to understand why you teach that "families are forever." Remember, your audience is much larger than the guy who starts the string.
-
[i have a bit of a different, if not biased, view... in that for 150 years, it was, by government order, legal (though not practically feasible) to murder Mormons on sight for no other reason than that they were Mormon.
I say that Missourians appear not to have lost their hate-mongering bigotry.
I was pretty active in the Religious Right for about 15 years, having joined the Moral Majority as a high schooler, and actively campaigning for Reagan, with Young Americans for Freedom (we were too ideologically pure to be Young Republicans
). What was on our radar screen was opposing abortion, restricting gambling and pornography, restoring school prayer, allowing creation science, and opposing the Equal Rights Amendment. Mormons were nowhere on the radar screen, except that I heard overtures had been made encouraging you to join us. Today, most of the issues are the same. You may not agree with them, but there was always something of a seige mentality, a victim-status. We are the majority, yet we are being marginalized by activist judges and the liberal media elite.As interesting, and difficult as Mormon history might be, it is an obscurity to most Americans, and even those who would discriminate, generally would go after Minorities, homosexuals, Jews and Catholics, before you even appeared on the radar screen.
-
What error does it give you PC?
Bad Magic Number Host notinit -- and I'm not trying to speak in tongues.
I'm pretty sure notinit = not initiated.
-
Thank you for the information. I did check the link on primaries. It's one of those "keep it on the back burner things, since our oldest is five, and is currently satisfied with Missionettes, Ballet, and play dates. As FYI, the Assemblies of God, much like the Southern Baptists, has a church scouting program for boys, called Royal Rangers. It's lighter on camping, but heavier on spirituality--including a distinct Pentecostal flavor. Missionettes is the same for the girls. It's not that the church opposed scouting, just that it wanted faith and religious teaching to infuse as much of our young people's lives as possible. The church we go to is in a difficult part of town, where many children don't know what stable family life is. So, the majority of our children's program students are not church members--even in the program for teenagers. They come as much to be around clean, sober, caring adults, as to learn what we might have to teach them. It's all for the kingdom, so praise God!
-
Roughly 40 authors from vastly different backgrounds, in three different languages, write 66 books in the course of 1500 years. What kind of theological mess should be expected to come out of that??? And yet, instead we find an incredible flow. Below is a single lesson, usuing the panorama of the Holy Bible (KJV).
1. God creates the world, and humans, thus demonstrating his ultimate power and goodness. Genesis 1:1, 27, 31
1In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth. ... 27So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them. ... 31And God saw every thing that he had made, and, behold, it was very good. And the evening and the morning were the sixth day.
2. As with any good story, once the beautiful setting is displayed, a problem arises. God's creation choses rebellion over obedience, and sickness and death enter the world. Genesis 3:3-6, 16-17, 19
3But of the fruit of the tree which is in the midst of the garden, God hath said, Ye shall not eat of it, neither shall ye touch it, lest ye die. 4And the serpent said unto the woman, Ye shall not surely die: 5For God doth know that in the day ye eat thereof, then your eyes shall be opened, and ye shall be as gods, knowing good and evil. 6And when the woman saw that the tree was good for food, and that it was pleasant to the eyes, and a tree to be desired to make one wise, she took of the fruit thereof, and did eat, and gave also unto her husband with her; and he did eat. ... 16Unto the woman he said, I will greatly multiply thy sorrow and thy conception; in sorrow thou shalt bring forth children; and thy desire shall be to thy husband, and he shall rule over thee. 17And unto Adam he said, Because thou hast hearkened unto the voice of thy wife, and hast eaten of the tree, of which I commanded thee, saying, Thou shalt not eat of it: cursed is the ground for thy sake; in sorrow shalt thou eat of it all the days of thy life; ... 19In the sweat of thy face shalt thou eat bread, till thou return unto the ground; for out of it wast thou taken: for dust thou art, and unto dust shalt thou return.
3. Sin accelerates, and God finally repents of ever making the world. Yet, there is one righteous man to be found. Through Noah, humanity is saved. Genesis 6:5-8, 13-14, 22; 7:23
5And God saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and that every imagination of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually. 6And it repented the LORD that he had made man on the earth, and it grieved him at his heart. 7And the LORD said, I will destroy man whom I have created from the face of the earth; both man, and beast, and the creeping thing, and the fowls of the air; for it repenteth me that I have made them. 8But Noah found grace in the eyes of the LORD. ... 13And God said unto Noah, The end of all flesh is come before me; for the earth is filled with violence through them; and, behold, I will destroy them with the earth. 14Make thee an ark of gopher wood; rooms shalt thou make in the ark, and shalt pitch it within and without with pitch. ... 22Thus did Noah; according to all that God commanded him, so did he. CHAPTER 7 ... 23And every living substance was destroyed which was upon the face of the ground, both man, and cattle, and the creeping things, and the fowl of the heaven; and they were destroyed from the earth: and Noah only remained alive, and they that were with him in the ark.
4. Eventually God expands his favor from one man to what would become a nation. Through the history of Israel, we learn the fruits of obeying God, disobeying God, and of repenting when convicted of our sin against God.
a. We learn the fruit of obeying God from Abram's encounter. Genesis 12:1-2, 4
1Now the LORD had said unto Abram, Get thee out of thy country, and from thy kindred, and from thy father's house, unto a land that I will shew thee: 2And I will make of thee a great nation, and I will bless thee, and make thy name great; and thou shalt be a blessing: ... 4So Abram departed, as the LORD had spoken unto him; and Lot went with him: and Abram was seventy and five years old when he departed out of Haran.
b. We learn the fruit of disobeying God from Israel's example. Judges 2:10-15
10And also all that generation were gathered unto their fathers: and there arose another generation after them, which knew not the LORD, nor yet the works which he had done for Israel. 11And the children of Israel did evil in the sight of the LORD, and served Baalim: 12And they forsook the LORD God of their fathers, which brought them out of the land of Egypt, and followed other gods, of the gods of the people that were round about them, and bowed themselves unto them, and provoked the LORD to anger. 13And they forsook the LORD, and served Baal and Ashtaroth. 14And the anger of the LORD was hot against Israel, and he delivered them into the hands of spoilers that spoiled them, and he sold them into the hands of their enemies round about, so that they could not any longer stand before their enemies. 15Whithersoever they went out, the hand of the LORD was against them for evil, as the LORD had said, and as the LORD had sworn unto them: and they were greatly distressed.
c. We learn the fruit of repentence towards God, again from Isreal. 2 Chronicles 30:6-9, 26-31:1
6So the posts went with the letters from the king and his princes throughout all Israel and Judah, and according to the commandment of the king, saying, Ye children of Israel, turn again unto the LORD God of Abraham, Isaac, and Israel, and he will return to the remnant of you, that are escaped out of the hand of the kings of Assyria. 7And be not ye like your fathers, and like your brethren, which trespassed against the LORD God of their fathers, who therefore gave them up to desolation, as ye see. 8Now be ye not stiffnecked, as your fathers were, but yield yourselves unto the LORD, and enter into his sanctuary, which he hath sanctified for ever: and serve the LORD your God, that the fierceness of his wrath may turn away from you. 9For if ye turn again unto the LORD, your brethren and your children shall find compassion before them that lead them captive, so that they shall come again into this land: for the LORD your God is gracious and merciful, and will not turn away his face from you, if ye return unto him. ... 26So there was great joy in Jerusalem: for since the time of Solomon the son of David king of Israel there was not the like in Jerusalem. 27Then the priests the Levites arose and blessed the people: and their voice was heard, and their prayer came up to his holy dwelling place, even unto heaven. CHAPTER 31 ... 1Now when all this was finished, all Israel that were present went out to the cities of Judah, and brake the images in pieces, and cut down the groves, and threw down the high places and the altars out of all Judah and Benjamin, in Ephraim also and Manasseh, until they had utterly destroyed them all. Then all the children of Israel returned, every man to his possession, into their own cities.
5. As wonderful as the hope of repentence is, the cycle of obedience, disobedience, punishment, repentence, and back to obedience repeats itself far too often in Old Testament history. Additionally, Abram was promised that through him, all the nations of the earth would be blessed. Thus, the Savior comes. John 1:29
29The next day John seeth Jesus coming unto him, and saith, Behold the Lamb of God, which taketh away the sin of the world.
6. The various letters of the apostles to the churches and their leaders teach many practical truths. Three stand out as overachring: God's offer of forgiveness, the call to holiness, and the mission of spreading faith in Jesus.
a. God's offer of forgiveness. 1 John 1:8-9
8If we say that we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us. 9If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just to forgive us our sins, and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness.
b. The call of Christians to holiness. Glations 5:22-23
22But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, longsuffering, gentleness, goodness, faith, 23Meekness, temperance: against such there is no law.
c. The mission of spreading faith in Jesus. Acts 1:8; 2:41
8But ye shall receive power, after that the Holy Ghost is come upon you: and ye shall be witnesses unto me both in Jerusalem, and in all Judaea, and in Samaria, and unto the uttermost part of the earth. CHAPTER 2 ... 41Then they that gladly received his word were baptized: and the same day there were added unto them about three thousand souls.
7. The conclusion of the matter; Satan and those who rebel against God suffer. God's people receive rewards.
a. Eternal judgement. Revelation 20:13-15
13And the sea gave up the dead which were in it; and death and hell delivered up the dead which were in them: and they were judged every man according to their works. 14And death and hell were cast into the lake of fire. This is the second death. 15And whosoever was not found written in the book of life was cast into the lake of fire.
b. Eternal joy with God. Revelation 21:3-4
3And I heard a great voice out of heaven saying, Behold, the tabernacle of God is with men, and he will dwell with them, and they shall be his people, and God himself shall be with them, and be their God. 4And God shall wipe away all tears from their eyes; and there shall be no more death, neither sorrow, nor crying, neither shall there be any more pain: for the former things are passed away.
May God forgive us of our sins and empower us to live His way!
-
PC, what is your definition of "born again", "saved", "going to heaven" ?
MrsS, welcome to this string. At this point in a rather lengthy discussion, we're dealing with the dilemma that Mormons, on the one hand, insist that they are Christians--and would have other Christians recognize them as such--and, on the other hand, do not recognize the authority of non-LDS Christians to represent Christ in a true and complete manner. SNOW raises the question: If evangelicals believe that salvation is by faith, not works, and by the grace of God, then why do they question Mormon salvation? So, to your questions (answers being from an evangelical, not LDS, perspective):
Born Again = ACCEPT Jesus as Lord and Savior, BELIEVE Jesus saves us because of his death, burial, and resurrection, CONFESS our sins, and ask God to forgive us because of Jesus. As the earlier post you responded to stated, 43% of Mormons who responded to a Barna questioneer, indicated they had done all of this.
"Saved" is another term for born again. Although, it can also have the understanding of "enduring to the end." Mormons tend to emphasize the life of salvation, which causes misunderstanding amongst evangelicals, who perceive such talk as works-salvation.
"Going to heaven" = Succesfully enduring to the end, and hearing the words from Jesus, "Well done, good and faithful servant, enter into my kingdom."
It is my understanding that everyone ends up in Heaven. Or am I mistaking Heaven with resurrection? Everyone who has been born of mortal body will be resurrected, irregardless of whether they have accepted God, Jesus Christ or not. I have always thought that Heaven and the Spirit World were one and the same. The telestial, terrestial and celestial kingdoms are different ~ these places are where the righteous will live after the second coming of Christ.
To quote the stereotypical country preacher, "It's heaven or hell, sister!" Evangelicals, and indeed nearly all of non-LDS Christianity understand the "many mansions" of John's gospel to refer to the housing that's available. There's more than enough room for "whosever will." We do not understand them as referring to different heavenly kingdoms.
The way to heaven, and to the Father, then, is only through Jesus. John 14:6
What Snow asks is, do evangelicals believe that Mormons who pass the "born again test" get into heaven, or is there a doctrinal test? And, if there is a doctrinal test, is salvation really by faith and grace?
Thus said: I am a Christian. I believe in Christ, I honor Christ, I worship Christ; Jesus Christ.
Thus said: I am a member of: The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.
Please understand that the following is no comparison--but simply to make a point. There is a religious organizaton called The Church of Jesus Christ Christian. We would consider it a heresy, as it is part of Christian Identity (so-called Christian White Supremacists). So, name alone does not impress.
Furthermore, as I pointed out to Snow, Muslims believe in Jesus. They highly honor him. They believe he was born of a virgin. They pray to the same God of Abraham we do. They live spiritually disciplined lives. And, my understanding is that most Mormons would guess that faithful Muslims will indeed end up in the Terrestial Kingdom.
BUT, for evangelicals, with one heaven and one hell, the solution is not so simple. These same folk who are devout, and who worship the Father, deny that Jesus is the Son of God, or that God has a son at all. Furthermore, they declare that anyone who believes that Jesus is the Son of God, or is God, is an infidel--an unbeliever. So, though they honor Jesus, have they found the one way, truth, and life, that Jesus declared himself to be? Evangelicals would say, NO.
Mormons present another dilemma. Yes, Jesus is divine, but so is Lucifer (though he went astray). So are we all, in that we are immortal backwards and forwards. Also, to a lesser extent than Muslims, Mormons also view evangelicals as deficient, as part of UNRESTORED Christianity.
So, MrsS, we all have our testimonies, and those things which we know. We also continue to dialogue with open hearts and minds, to hear and learn whatever God may have for us. Those who sincerely seek God will be open to whatever he might reveal that is new, different, or simply of greater light. B)
-
I don't think it a different matter at all. We can go to some "Christian" message boards and verify this - Rapture Ready, Christian Forums, a Baptist site I visited
I knew it!
Snow's been slumming - This is how the discusion always goes: What must I do to be saved? --Repent, accept Christ, have faith. That's it? --Yes that's it. You're sure? ---Absolutely sure. Good, cuz I am LDS and I already did that - so I'm good to go, right? ...and here's where it gets all squirrelly... The stupid ones says something like: ---Oh, well in that case you must 1. reject Joseph Smith, 2. accept non-scriptural creeds of the trinity, and 3, reject the necessity of obeying God. The clever ones, or the ones that have observed the clever ones say something like...---Well you're not saved because you believe in the wrong Jesus.
Which of course completely insane because we all know there is only one Jesus in question. Here even the clever ones get stuck when you correctly point out it is not a different Jesus, it is just that we believe that Jesus has different attributes then what they believe. At about this time, the dishonest ones start to show themselves by making all sorts of absurd allegations, changing their story, equivacating, obfuscating, but in short, it always comes down to a doctrinal test. It is a matter of faith PLUS correct understanding of doctrine that is required.
If we changed that key punchline of yours, let's see how it would play out. "Good, because I am MUSLIM and I already did that - so I'm good to go right?
Well, you must reject MUHAMMED, accept the "non-Scriptural creeds of the Trinity, and 3. reject the necessity of obeying God.
OR: Well, you're not saved because you believe in the wrong Jesus.
But we do believe in the same Jesus in the Bible, we just believe Jesus has different attributes.
So the dilemma of how evangelicals are to perceive Christian sects with very divergent beliefs is akin to our struggle with an obviously different religion--but one that also has Abrahamic origins, is monotheistic, and accepts much of what we teach about Jesus. Anyone figuring that Muslims will soon be embraced as spiritual family by the National Association of Evangelicals?
Nah...probably not.So, once again, what is required for salvation? 43% of Mormons passed Barna's fairly detailed "doctrinal" test of salvation itself. You're real question is, are Mormons "born again," "saved" "going to heaven" according to evangelicals? We are sometimes asked the same about Catholics.
My obfuscation is: I hope so. I'm not comfortable saying I think so, and cannot say I know so. Without judging the right/wrong nature of them, the Mormon plan of salvation, understanding of the attributes of God & Jesus, approach to Scripture and prophecy, and, of course, the reservation of the Celestial Kingdom primarily for LDS, all run so contrary to evangelical understanding.
Perhaps Ray is right. As we live life, dialogue with one another, do our own study, and seek the direction of our God, the Holy Spirit will illumine our paths. At some point we will know that we know that we are either proceeding properly, or are in need of change. Either the "born again Mormon" or the "god-hearted evangelical" will be convicted in their spirits, and begin to move the other direction.
On the other hand, the spiritually self-righteous, the modern day Pharisee will not change, and will not ever "know" they are wrong, because they were never really right. Jesus never knew them.
-
Mom,
You are so on it !! I won't support them either. Disney has the same program s and I won't support them either.............
Yes, thanks for the heads up! The GSA just lost three up and coming youngsters. I guess our Missionettes will have to suffice for our girls. Though it probably means DAD is going to have to get into camping a bit.
-
WHERE IS EVERYONE IN CHAT?
I started experiencing an incompatiblity problem with the Java chat system. I tried downloading updated Java, but no improvement. I tried a different computer, same result. Is there a site related problem with the chat system?
-
yipee....wheres the cake??????
Here's two--Ray deserves and probably needs a "double blessing" after all the effort he's put into answer my posts, alone.
-
In a nutshell, I’ve always had questions concerning the gospel, while believing there is a LOT to learn, and I think my whole life has prepared me to hear more, about the love I will never earn.
Thank you for sharing your testimony, Ray. An important truth we can all learn from your story is that spiritual questions should be encouraged and grappled with, not suppressed and discouraged as "not faith-promoting."
-
<div class='quotemain'>
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.
I reject that assertion out of my experience with internet Christians, typically evangelical.
When asked what a Mormon would have to do to to become a "true Christian" the answer goes something like this: stop believing that Joseph Smith was a prophet, accept that salvation is by faith alone, and accept the creeds and councils view of the Trinity... in other words, a doctrinal test.
We are comparing two vastly different situations here. You must be aware of how "the altar call" is given at most evangelical churches. After the pastor's sermon, which probably included some discussion about all of us being sinners, all needing to repent, and that faith in Jesus can bring forgiveness we need. Then the charge is given: If you want to be a Christian today. If you want God to forgive your sins, because of Christ's death, burial, and resurrection...Come forward, let's pray the sinner's prayer together! Following the prayer, those who come are congratulated on their new life in Christ.
What you have done is quite different. You've laid out your Mormon beliefs, including the Restoration of the gospel. Then you've asked, "What must I do to be a Christian in your eyes?" Well, if I were asked that, and my sense is that you wanted to be sure, absolutely sure...and I wanted to be fully confident of my answer, I'd probably say: The safest route would be to reexamine your current beliefs. If you would have full fellowship with us, they are not compatible with ours. You'd have to choose between us and Joseph Smith, cause either he's right or we are.
Bottom-line: If there is a "doctrinal test," I suppose it would initially be to accept the message of the Good News. New converts may have no concept of the Holy Trinity. However, as they come into the community of faith, and hear of it, hear of our teachings about heaven, hell, the Bible, etc. they will generally either accept the teachings or leave the church. Should they leave, we can only hope they find a fellowship that might more clearly explicate the truths of God precept upon precept.
So, is there a doctrinal test to salvation or not? Well, the gospel means rejecting the old life and embracing the new. It means chosing to follow God. If that is to happen in the evangelical community of faith, it will likely mean that EX-____ (be they Mormon, Jehovah's Witness, or some other religion all together) not only embrace new teachings, but abandon some old ones that run contrary.
-
Not sure what approach you are saying was without precedent - Christ's or JS's. ANSWER: JOSEPH SMITH'S If you are saying J. Smith's was without precedent, I would ask how could you possibly know that. You may think that scriptures silent on the matter but one cannot say that it didn't previously happen. Certainly Abraham didn't reform anything - did he? He started fresh.
Well, in a sense, every convert does as Joseph Smith did. We might assume that Abram embraced the polytheism of his community, and that God revealed himself. Likewise, Paul going to Damascus. However, IF you are comparing what Joseph Smith did to what these did, then the Christianity of 1820s would be akin to polytheism or to the most anti-Jesus wing of 1st century Judaism. I've not perceived that you were in the camp.
One might consider the scriptures that indicate that preachers are to be without purse of script but I understand the rationale for a paid ministry. I don't agree but I understand the rationale.
I'll dig into this deeper for another string, at some point--but I believe there is a passage that speaks of the workman being worthy of his pay--and that the context is that the churches are to provide for those who lead/instruct them.
But you would be declaring a single human organization as the only holders of full gospel truth if broader Christianity weren't fractured into all the many sects and denomiations. If it were a uniform, controlled, unified body then you would have to take the opposite position.
Fractions had already started during Christ's ministry, with the two brothers having their mother go to Jesus and request that they be put in leadership. Peter and Paul had their disagreements. In Acts 15 a council had to work out a disagreement over what was to be expected of non-Jewish believers. In 2nd corinthians Paul spends a good deal of time defending his ministry against other critics (who were paid, btw). He berates the factions that developed around who baptized who. In Revelation 2-3 Jesus' words to the seven churches in Asia-Minor almost sound like they could have been written to different denominations, so diverse were the "report cards."
All that to say that I don't think a uniform organization was ever in program. You might get a different argument from a Catholic, however.
Trying to discern if mom is being complimentary or not. 
Snow's been slumming 
Chat
in General Discussion
Posted
Not sure what firefox is. Both computers use IE. Also, I had no problems when I first got here. That's why I assumed it was a site problem.