prisonchaplain

Thank you, Josie. I'll still read Aristotle's thread, and Ray's lds.org references--especially the latter since it would be 'official'--but you pretty much gave me the summary as was looking for! My only question mark on your analysis is that I've not heard is that Jesus told Mary and others not to touch him because he had not been to the Father. In fact, I found the following account: And as they went to tell his disciples, behold, Jesus met them, saying, All hail. And they came and held him by the feet, and worshipped him. Then Jesus said unto them, [Be not afraid: go tell my bretheren that they go into Galilee, and there shall they see me. Matthew 28:9-10 I've never heard before that Jesus went to the Father in heaven after the resurrection, then came back for a few days, then left again. I'm not sure this matters much, but the Matthew reference seems to indicate that the women did indeed touch him--and worship him. I've highlighted the part of this statement that concerns me. We teach believers that NOTHING more has to happen before the time of the Great Tribulation and the anti-Christ. Jesus said He will come "like a thief in the night." He will come "in the twinkling of an eye." He will come when people do not expect him. Quite frankly, I told my parishioners in 1999 that I did not expect the rapture of the church, or the great tribulation to begin that year, or the next. The End Times were hyped during those two years. I told them to wait a few years, and watch people turn away from concern about the End Times. Sure enough, we have crazy things happening in the Middle East, and Russia seeming to assend once again. China is clearly becoming a serious world power--one with an overt policy of atheism. Yet, we hear much less discussion about the End Times. This is the kind of time when Jesus could initiate the end times scenario that has been planned out from the beginning.

I remain in utter shock! It is never just to execute a woman for defending herself against a rapist. Ray, are you serious, here? It's country's that have laws like this that lead me to declare, despite the seeming arrogance of it, that some cultures are better than others, some legal systems are superior to others, and yes, some religious systems produce better followers than others. The victims of state sanctioned rape have far more right to REVOLUTION than our anti-tax ancestors did, in my not so humble at all opinion. Ray, were the Abolitionists wrong in your view, too? Those who hid Jews from the Nazis? Those priests who produced phony conversion paperwork for Jews, to help them avoid the Holocaust? Romans 13 is true as a default, but even Jesus was executed by the Roman state--for violating their laws against claiming there was any king but Caesar (even if his kingdom was spiritual). If we're talking about reducing/raising the speed limit, changing the tax structure, opposing a war, etc., I'll agree with you. But, state sanctioned rape? What if government passes laws against public conversion efforts? Will Mormon missionaries discontinue their efforts?

Ray, you really don't know why non-LDS people speak of Christ's second coming? Here it is: 1. All the times that Jesus appeared to his followers after the resurrection are still considered part of his first advent. He had not yet returned to the Father. Nobody talked of him having left and returned. Rather, three days after his death ON THE EARTH, he rose--came back to life. He was STILL here--he had not yet left. 2. Whereas Orthodox Jews are still awaiting the first coming of the Messiah, we believe that He already came once, and will return--just as He promised. 3. Those outside of the LDS-faith tradition have never embraced the stories of Jesus time in America--so they would not have counted that appearance. Even if the stories are true, Jesus time in American would not seem to fall within the Messianic prophecies of the Old or New Testament--it was not the appearing they were looking towards--the one they were to be ready for. BTW--I know, I still have a good deal of homework--Aristotle's America thread, and your link to the lds.org site. But, I hope this explains the mysterious use of "second coming" by non-LDS Christians.

No, it does NOT depend on the laws of the land The laws of God are higher than the laws of humanity, and if an evil government sanctions a rape party, and criminalizes a woman defending herself, then she still has the right to defend herself. Even the "Law of the Jungle" recognizes that much. WOW. If we're willing to countenance the legal raping of our young women, because a future government may say it's okay, then perhaps it's time to get into our new clothes:

Well, since I introduced this link, I'll defend the test. Yes, it is short, and so the categories are admittedly broad. I scored "conservative" on this one, "moderate conservative" on a longer version I took. The purpose of the test is to show people that they are probably more LIBERTARIAN than they think. The producers of this are open about their goal, and the site makes its affiliation clear. Nevertheless, Conservatives, Centrists, and Liberals come out as they are. It's not meant to pigeon-hole anyone. I kept hearing Jason make his classical-liberal arguments, and complaining that Democrats were not "true liberals." I recognized his argument as being "Classic liberal" (i.e., Libertarian), and remembered this test. I hope these disclosures clarify the agenda of the producers, and my purpose in introducing it. Hey, it was kinda fun. Who'd a thunk Aristotle would come out Centrist????

To find out what your true political label should be, take the following quiz: http://www.theadvocates.org/quiz.html Feel free to let us know how you did, and what you thought of the quiz. I came out Conservative: limited government in economics, but more government in social policies. My only "edit" was to add my personal scores: Your PERSONAL issues Score is 20%. Your ECONOMIC issues Score is 60%.

You just might be a Libertarian. Many "classic liberals" find themselves in that camp. As a whole, the Libertarian tracks atheist/agnoistic/deist/etc. Doug Bandow was an evangelical, but he seemed the exception that proved the rule. Let me know if I've pegged you right, here. Also, I'll try to dig up the Libertarian political label test...it proved interesting. I pegged as a "moderate conservative."

Jason, just because people want to experience new cultures/adventures, etc. (or because their parents think it would be good for them to do so) doesn't mean they should give up the good things they've already experienced. Especially concerning ultimate truth. Keep in mind, the LDS sends out 60K missionaries a year to experience new cultures--and to change the religious culture wherever they go. BTW, Most Christian groups, and many Muslims, and even some Buddhists do the same. Evangelicals do it because Jesus told us to. I think some of the other religions with less of a religious mandate, figure it's good marketing. B)

This issue hinges on the age of your child(ren). I went on two exchanges during my college years. The first to Hong Kong, where I stayed in an apartment with two other American exchange students. The second, was to South Korea, where I had a homestay. In neither case was I with those of "like precious faith." However, I was in my early twenties, and found the experience invaluable. In fact, the second exchange led to a six-year mission stay! If you students are high school age (which is what I gathered), then of course, more caution is necessary. However, by 16 or so, you've probably done your work "raising the child in the way s/he should go." Let 'em lose, let them know you love them, and that you'll nag them for eternity if they mess up!

We're all agreed that there are three persons in the Trinity, so we should all be comfortable speaking of the Father and Son as "them." The question is whether they are one essence or three. So, if non-LDS theology is correct, that Father, Son and Holy Spirit were all noncorporeal prior to the incarnation, than that image would, of necessity, not refer to physical characteristics. Of course, if your theology is correct, it well could. BTW: My guess is that if one relegates his/her studies to the Holy Bible, s/he could never teach with certainty one way or the other about God's physical nature. However, Jews and Christians have always found more reason to discern that God is incorporeal. So, the veracity of the Mormon view here seems to hinge largely on the validity of Joseph Smith's revelations.

In a string discussing religion and politics, Mrs. A pointed out to me that Mormons believe that Jesus will return to set up his kingdom. I believe she said it would take place in America. By way of information, Christian churches of the last two centuries have foreseen to possible scenarios leading up to Christ's return: 1. Postmillenialism (mainstream Protestantism, and perhaps Catholicism--not sure on the RCC): It is the responsiblity of the church to build the kingdom of God on earth. Through education, enlightened politics, increasingly successful moral and ethical influence, the world would become so glorious that Christ would return in triumph, with congratulations to his Church for a job well done. 2. Premillenialism (Fundamentalist, evangelical, and other 'conservative' groups): The world will continue to degenerate "as it was in the days of Noah." The Church is to be salt and light, but understand that ultimately, Jesus will return, in judgement. The main duty of believers is not to build God's kingdom on earth, but to redeem as many souls as possible, so they might be spared the judgement, and enjoy eternal reward in the "new heaven and new earth." Now Mormons have a reputation for being conservative, yet Mrs. A's post leads me to believe that the first scenario fits better into LDS eschatology. Can somebody enlighten me here? Also, I thought Jesus would return to Jerusalem. Will he come to America again, too...or instead?

This may be worthy of a whole new thread...so I'll start one entitled: What cometh before the second coming?

First, to address your claim--While I agree that "the Church"--meaning the bride of Christ, will come through the trials and temptations of this era "without spot or wrinkle," I'd suggest two 'adjustments' to your assessment. 1. The Church is the remnant--those true believers who named the name of Jesus, and who endured to the end. It is not a human organization--not "the faithful and wise servant" of the Watchtower Bible & Tract Society, and not the one who maintains apostles, priests and prophets. Again, Jesus' kingdom is not of this world. His followers follow him. Some church organizations may be better at facilitating our journey in Christ, but to claim that one human organization is uncorruptable borders on idolatry. 2. The reason the remnant comes through perfect is because they have been "washed in the blood of the Lamb," not because they chose the best Christian denomination--or the most "restored" group. Now, aren't we supposed to be discussing the interplay of religion and American politics, not the corruptablity or incorruptiblity of church denominations? I'm trying to figure out what the above has to do with whether or not America is a Christian nation.

Christianity corrupted by human quest for power could produce Iran-like conditions (aka The Crusades and the Inquisition). BTW, I don't think that was a Catholic problem. I dare say, a Mormon government--again corrupted by human power-lust--could be just as extreme. Lord Acton was right. Power corrupts! Christianity is the foundation of this country's ethos, and the dominant cultural force. However, America is not a legal or political theocracy, and Christian would be wise to continue to be salt and light, and remember that Jesus said, "My kingdom is not of this world."

Sure you can. You send the kids going to crummy public schools to better private ones, and close down the crummy schools. However, you win on this one. The courts are nixing private vouchers--too much of that nasty religious stuff being taught in those better private schools. Apples and oranges. Most western countries are socialist. We are not (relatively speaking). 50% is a lot to give up--especially if we see have to provide for our own healthcare, etc. Most of the Arab world wants Israel to be whiped off the map. It's kinda hard for the Jews to negotiate with people who do not believe they have a right to exist, and who will train young mothers that if they walk into the middle of an Israeli shopping mall and blow themselves up, they'll go to paradise. Palestine was never a nation. These nomads could have been assimilated into Jordan, and other surrounding nations. However, they'd rather corral them into the midst of Israel, and blame the "Zionist Entity" for all the Palestinian woes. These poor saps are pawns. Well, literally, you are correct. However, women don't get = pay because they tend to have babies, and get off the track completely, or settle into a mommy track. I know. I know. Mao's Cultural Revolution, which probably killed in excess of 50 million, destroyed most religions at gunpoint, and probably ruined many ancient artifacts, or the personality cult of North Korea, or the Khmer Rouge period in Cambodia, or the 30 million killed in Stalin's Soviet Union--these cultures are all just as morally righteous as the communities Mother Theresa created in India, or Mahatma Ghandi for that matter. It's simply absurd, that because of some doctrine of tolerance, you are not willing to say some cultural system clearly work better than others.

Jason' date='Jan 28 2006, 01:53 PM Prisonchaplain offers his views in ALL CAPS: 1. Standards for admissions to universities, fire departments, etc. should be lowered for people of color. no NO. I THINK IT'S OUTRAGEOUS THAT ASIAN-AMERICANS ACTUALLY HAVE TO SCORE HIGHER THAN WHITES TO GET INTO PUBLIC UNIVERSITIES IN CALIFORNIA, BECAUSE THEY ARE "OVER REPRESENTED." 2. Bilingual education for children of immigrants, rather than immersion in English, is good for them and for America. Only if we don't want to fall behind. I'M NOT OPPOSED TO TRANSITION PROGRAMS, ESL, ETC. AND, I ABSOLUTELY BELIEVE MOST LEGAL AND GOVERNMENT DOCUMENTS SHOULD BE TRANSLATED INTO THE LANGUAGES OF ANY IMMIGRANT LANGUAGE GROUP THAT REACHES A CERTAIN THRESHOLD. QUITE FRANKLY, "ENGLISH-ONLY" IS OFTEN USED BY ANTI-IMMIGRATION GROUPS AND BLATANT RACISTS TO DISCOURAGE NON-WHITE MIGRATION TO OUR COUNTRY. 3. Murderers should never be put to death. yes I'M TORN BETWEEN THE APPARENT INEQUITY OF OUR CAPITAL PUNISHMENT RATES, AND THE RESPECT FOR LIFE THAT THE DEATH PENALTY DEMONSTRATES. "YOU COMMIT THE ULTIMATE THEFT OF LIFE FROM ANOTHER HUMAN, AND THE ONLY PUNISHMENT THAT RECOGNIZES WHAT WAS TAKEN IS THE DEATH PENALTY." SO, UNDECIDED. 4. During the Cold War, America should have adopted a nuclear arms freeze. undecided ABSOLUTELY NOT! 5. Colleges should not allow ROTC programs.no ONLY IF THEY WISH TO FORGO ALL GOVERNMENT FUNDING, INCLUDING THOSE FROM STUDENTS WHO RECEIVE GOVERNMENT-BACKED LOANS AND GRANTS. 6. It was wrong to wage war against Saddam Hussein in the Gulf War. Depends. If our excuse for invasion was to help the people of Iraq, we had better make a serious military effort in Africa, otherwise we're hypocrits. I DO NOT TOTALLY AGREE WITH PART B. WARS ARE WAGED, IN PART, BECAUSE OF OUR OWN NATIONAL INTERESTS. HOWEVER, IN HIND-SIGHT WE'D PROBABLY BE BETTER OFF NOT HAVING GONE INTO IRAQ. HOWEVER, HINDSIGHT IS RATHER IRRELEVANT. 7. Poor parents should not be allowed to have vouchers to send their children to private schools. True. This is the most ridiculous attempt to divert tax dollars for private purposes i've ever heard of. FALSE. THE PURPOSE OF PUBLIC FUNDING FOR EDUCATION IS TO EDUCATE CHILDREN, NOT TO MAKE PUBLIC SCHOOLS, REGARDLESS OF THEIR FAILURE RATES, HAVE LOTS OF MONEY. 8. It is good that trial lawyers and teachers unions are the two biggest contributors to the Democratic Party. As if Republicans were'nt corrupt. Hahahahahahahahahahahaha MY REAL PROBLEM WITH THE TEACHER'S UNION IS THAT MEMBERS ARE FORCED TO CONTRIBUTE TO PRO-ABORTION POLITICS, SINCE MOST PUBLIC SCHOOL SYSTEMS RUN "CLOSED SHOPS." UNION MEMBERSHIP IS MANDATORY. OTHERWISE, DEMOCRATS, LIKE REPUBLICANS, ARE MORE THAN WILLING TO TAKE $ FROM WHOMEVER WILL GIVE THEM. 9. Marriage should be redefined from male-female to any two people. The government should have nothing to do with marriage in the first place. THIS IS WHY CHRISTIANS, MUSLIMS, AND JEWS OPPOSE SO-CALLED GAY RIGHTS. HOMOSEXUAL PRACTICE IS A BEHAVIOR, NOT A RACE, NOT A GENDER. MOST MAJOR RELIGIONS STRONGLY CONDEMN THE BEHAVIOR. TODAY, IT'S SPECIAL RIGHTS, TOMORROW IT'S OFFICIAL GOVERNMENT SANCTION OF A LIVING RELATIONSHIP MOST CONSIDER IMMORAL, DOWN THE ROAD CHURCHES MAY INDEED BE CHALLENGED TO GIVE UP THEIR MORAL TEACHINGS OR LOSE TAX EXEMPT STATUS. 10. A married couple should not have more of a right to adopt a child than two men or two women. Again, the government should stay out of it altogether. AGAIN, NO SPECIAL RIGHTS SHOULD BE GIVEN TO THOSE WHO CHOOSE TO ENGAGE IN BEHAVIOR THAT MOST CITIZENS, AND INDEED MOST RELIGIOUS SYSTEMS, CONDEMN AS IMMORAL. 11. The Boy Scouts should not be allowed to use parks or any other public places and should be prohibited from using churches and synagogues for their meetings. Don't care. THE CASE THAT PROVES MY POINTS THAT HOMOSEXUAL GROUPS, AS THEY CONTINUE TO GAIN SPECIAL RIGHTS AND POLITICAL POWER, WILL EVENTUALLY TURN THEIR GUNS AGAINST RELIGIOUS GROUPS. IN THEIR EYES, IT WILL BE PAY-BACK TIME. 12. The present high tax rates are good. They're high? Compared to which Nation-State? THEY'RE NOT HIGH? 28% FEDERAL INCOME TAX. 9% STATE SALES TAX. CAR FEES, LICENSE FEES, PROPERTY TAXES, TAXES ON TELEPHONE, CABLE TV, ETC. ETC. I WOULD BE SURPRISED IF MUCH LESS THAN HALF OUR INCOME ENDS UP GOING TO TAXES. 13. Speech codes on college campuses are good and American values are bad. Moronic question. SPEECH CODES ARE A VERY REAL ISSUE. CENSORSHIP OF MANY CONSERVATIVE IDEAS IS BECOMING MORE WIDE-SPREAD, IN THE NAME OF "NOT OFFENDING." FURTHERMORE, AT FLORIDA INTERNATIONAL UNIVERSITY MY KOREAN WIFE WAS ASKED WHY SHE HAD BOTHERED TO TAKE TWO SEMESTERS OF AMERICAN HISTORY. THEY FINALLY ACCEPTED THE FACT THAT SHE HAD TAKEN A "MULTICULTURAL COURSE," BECAUSE SHE STUDIED KOREAN HISTORY IN HER COLLEGE BEFORE SHE CAME HERE. 14. The Israelis and Palestinians are morally equivalent. Probably. NOT! PALESTINIANS ARE PAWNS OF THE SURROUNDING NATIONS, WHO REFUSED TO ABSORB THESE NOMADS, AND LEFT THEM OUT IN NO-MANS LAND, TO CREATE A CRISIS FOR WHICH THEY COULD THEN BLAME ISRAEL. 15. The United Nations is a moral force for good in the world, and therefore America should be subservient to it and such international institutions as a world court. The UN is a good force in the world. However, that does not mean that the United States should forfeit it's autonomy. That said, if we wish to lead the world for good, we should submit any persons accused of an International crime to the Hague. I PRETTY MUCH AGREE WITH JASON HERE. 16. It is good that colleges have dropped hundreds of men's sports teams in order to meet gender-based quotas. Of course it's good. SURE! SPORTS IS THE EPIDOMY OF CRAZY PEOPLE, ANYWAY. SERIOUSLY, LET THE FREE-MARKET DECIDE THIS ONE. 17. No abortions can be labeled immoral. All abortion is bad. Immoral is a judgement call nobody has a right to make. OH, ME THINKS WE DO HAVE A RIGHT TO MAKE THAT CALL, AS A SOCIETY. IF LIFE IS DEFINED AS BEGINNING AT CONCEPTION, THEN ABORTION IS MURDER. WE'RE NOT THERE YET, BUT THIS IS AN ISSUE SOCIETY CAN DECIDE. 18. Restaurants should be prohibited by law from allowing customers to choose between a smoking and a non-smoking section. Don't care. WE JUST PASSED THIS BAN IN WA STATE. I VOTED AGAINST IT, BUT THE ECONOMIC EFFECTS APPEAR TO BE MINIMAL. 19. High schools should make condoms available to students and teach them how to use them. Definitely. Or we can go on pretending that Teenagers really don't have sex... WE KNOW TEENAGERS WILL HAVE SEX. HOWEVER, THE GOAL IS NOT TO PREVENT PREGNANCIES, BUT TO BETTER GUIDE OUR TEENAGERS NOT TO HAVE THE SEX. THERE ARE PLENTY OF NONRELIGIOUS REASONS FOR THIS--AND SOCIETY DOES BEAR THE EXPENSE OF THOSE WHO GO THIS ROUTE. SEE http://www.4parents.gov 20. Racial profiling for terrorists is wrong -- a white American grandmother should as likely be searched as a Saudi young male. Certainly. Anyone remember Anton LeVey? LET THE INTELLIGENCE AGENTS DO THEIR JOB. THEY KNOW BETTER THAN WE WHO SHOULD BE SEARCHED, AND SOCIAL-ENGINEERING SHOULD NOT PLAY A ROLE IN THEIR DECISION-MAKING. 21. Racism and poverty -- not a lack of fathers and a crisis of values -- are the primary causes of violent crime in the inner city. I'll give poverty the primary cause of violent crime. The rest is non-sensical. LACK OF FATHERS USUALLY CREATES PROVERTY. ADDITIONALLY, DRUG USE AND DELIQUENCY ARE MORE ATTRIBUTED TO FAMILY CIRCUMSTANCES THAN POVERTY, IF I'M NOT MISTAKEN. 22. It is wrong and unconstitutional for students to be told, "God bless you" at their graduation. It's irrelevant. POLITICAL CORRECTNESS RUN AMOK, IS NOT IRRELEVENT. IT'S ABSURD THAT 85% OF AMERICANS ARE TOLD THAT THEIR INNOCUOUS GREETINGS OR PARTINGS ARE OFFENSIVE. 23. No culture is morally superior to any other. True. RIDICULOUS. UNLESS WE ASSUME THERE ARE NO ABSOLUTES. DO YOU REALLY SEE NO SUPERIORITY OF GREEK EDUCATION AND CULTURE OVER THE AUSTERITY OF SPARTACUS, FOR AN ANCIENT EXAMPLE?

Except that God did not "have us." God made us. We are his creation. So, just as my image might be in that lousy attempt at a drawing of an egg I did back in college (the teacher gave me a mercy C-grade), so God's image is in us, his highest creation. And yes, in glory we shall become "godlike." But, we will always be God's creation, He will always receive our worship, and I doubt that we shall ever receive worship from others. After all, we believe our God is the one true and living God over ALL creation. One of the doctrines that is a "divide" is this issue of whether God is three persons in one essence, or three persons in three essences. Mormons make a much more definite partition between the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, than does the rest of Christianity. Argued too rigidly, the three-essences position becomes tritheism. As FYI, most of Christianity believes that God never had a body until the incarnation of Jesus. Furthermore, we would see the "image of God" verses, of necessity, speaking of character, moral drive, etc., not a body, since we do not believe he has one. Likewise, Mormons see "image" and read "body" because they do believe he has one. The verses can be read both ways, but for the first 3300 years of Judeo-Christian practice, very few ever read of the Father as being corporeal. Lord Acton was speaking in the context of human politics. In the spiritual realm, you may be right. However, the reason I will never support a specifically Christian political party is that the Church had its crack and raw political power, and muffed up a few centuries quite badly.

Perhaps the reason it has become so difficult to share the gospel is that the Lord's name or title is used so flippantly. Quite frankly, I'm less offended by a nonbeliever who utters the F-word than I am one who calls down a curse from God as a matter of emphasis, rather than true prayer. This brings up a matter that might deserve another string, but I'll throw out the idea here. The Old Testament concept of prophet was such that few would be brave enough to apply. He was the one who spoke for God, usually to political leadership, and then to the people. His words carried the authority of "Thus saieth the Lord," and usually offered words of warning, judgement-to-come, and a last call for a wicked generation to turn from their ungodly ways. Quite often these men were reluctant messengers. Consider Jonah. Also, who was it that said he tried not to speak, but the words burned within him? All this to say, that in an age in which God is love, and judgment is...well "judgmental," it would be no wonder if prophets in the near future end up jailed for their "intolerant utterances."

That's okay, Aristotle. They probably would not sell them to Pentecostals either, since our tongues-speech is of the devil, in their not-so-humble opinion. As Bill Clinton once said, "I feel your pain."

Let's start with the "Man is as God once was" quote. I believe it was from two early Mormon leaders. My understanding is that the quote is found nowhere in the Standard Works. Nevertheless, Prof. Robinson suggests that it is so pervasive in Mormon thinking, that it could be treated as such. The conclusion of "How Wide the Divide" on this matter was: Mormons believe both that God and humanity are eternal. Therefore, to suggest that God was once a man, does not deny his eternal nature. As information, Evangelicals, and most of Christianity, believe that God the Father, has always been spirit, and that his Son was spirit, before the incarnation (the enfleshment). We are also more than than a little discomforted about the notion of a God who changes his nature--who seems to evolve. Genesis 1:27: So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them. The fact that God created both Adam and Eve in his image, would suggest that the physical aspect of this image was not the focus. And indeed, is God then white? Middle-Eastern in appearance (like the Jews)? Why do we not all look like God (we're very different). So, how literal of an interpretation are we to have here? Exodus 33:11: And the Lord spake unto Moses face to face, as a man speaketh unto his friend. And he turned again into the camp: but his servant Joshua, the son of Nun, a young man, departed not out of the tabernacle. The whole notion of speaking to God directly is fear-inspiring in the Old Testament. Normally, the High Priest would go into the Holy of Holies once a year, on behalf of the people. If he was found unclean, he would be struck dead. So, that Moses spoke to God directly "face to face" does not necessarily imply that Moses looked literally into a physical face of God. Rather, that Moses spoke directly to him--like I would to you. John 14:9: Jesus saith unto him, Have I been so long time with you, and yet hast thou not known me, Philip? he that hath seen me hath seen the Father; and how sayest thou then, Shew us the Father? If you know Jesus, you know the Father. There is nothing here to imply that the Father has a body. 2 Cor. 4:4: In whom the god of this world hath blinded the minds of them which believe not, lest the light of the glorious gospel of Christ, who is the image of God, should shine unto them. Jesus is the image of his Father to us--the representation of Him. This does not imply that the Father has a body. Hebrews 1:3: Who being the brightness of his glory, and the express image of his person, and upholding all things by the word of his power, when he had by himself purged our sins, sat down on the right hand of the Majesty on high; Again, Jesus is the image or the representation of his Father. In all these verses, if you PRESUPPOSE that the Father has a physical body, you can see it in the verses. If you assume that "God is spirit, and those who worship Him must worship Him in spirit and in truth," well then, no such inference is necessary.

I knew you considered him the living prophet, so assumed it was a church office he held. However, it sounds like the LDS has the same reticence about using the "prophet" as a title as we Pentecostals do. You recognize the gift--give it a much more elevated weight than we do, but also decline to make the gift a title. BTW, I surely meant no offense or disrespect, and will refrain from using the title Prophet for LDS leaders in the future. So, the LDS is closer to the concept of "priesthood of all believers" than I thought. Perhaps "prophethood of all believers" would be more accurate, though?

The "passion" word struck me as odd. Christians of all stripes believe God can be angered, that He is love, that He can be saddened, pleased, etc. Do you mean something different?

At the age of about 16 I wrote a high school editorial OPPOSING the IRS' threat to withdraw tax-exempt status from Bob Jones University. The government said that BJU's rule against interracial dating was in opposition to policy, and so the IRS could pull the tax-exemption. Now, I found the BJU policy repulsive. If you doubt that, consider that about fifteen years later I married a Korean national. Nevertheless, the idea that the government could distinguish religion as good or bad (tax exempt or not) was even more repulsive to me. Few other voices came to BJU's defense. Next it was Grove City College. This Presbyterian school prided itself on its independence, refusing to take government grants, etc. The IRS demanded documentation that the school does not discriminate on the basis of sex. The school responded that since it does not accept government monies, and is a private, religious institution, it was not obligated to provide such documentation. The government responded, that since its students used government-back loans and grants, the school did indeed take "government money." So, Grove City had to choose between remaining independent, but only being accessible to the rich and upper middle class, or give up its independence. I've not yet heard serious proposals to remove tax-exempt status from churches, based on social policy. However, the recent moves to deny churches the right to voice political positions concerns me. Additionally, there have been numerous letters to the editor and columns that suggest pulling the tax exemption. We continue to fight the good fight, and to look forward to the ever-closer return of our Savior and Master, Jesus, the Christ. Hallelujah!

Sorry, but I beg to differ with you here. The LDS' 12 million is nothing for politicians to ignore, but the Southern Baptist Convention's 17 million, the Assemblies of God's 3 million, and indeed the National Association of Evangelical's nearly six million...and I could go on, make up a much larger chunck of American Christianity than you suppose. The LDS is hardly alone on this issue. On the other hand, Aristotle, you seem to be one of the ones most willing at this site to align yourself with organizations like the ACLJ, which is predominantly evangelical. Kudos to you.

The Onion mocked news when mocking news wasn't cool. On a serious note--this in from USA Today/Harris Poll/Gallup 62% of Americans say stores shouldn't change greetings from Merry Christmas to Happy Holidays or Seasons Greetings. 3% of Americans say they're bothered when stores specifically refer to the Christian holiday.