prisonchaplain

Ah, that keen but misplaced sense of the ironic shows up, yet again. The Timothy passage specifically says it applies to all Scripture--and especially so the Old Testament, since that was the Scripture of the time (the New Testament writings were still a work in progress at the writing of this letter). To say that all Scripture is inspired and useful is not to say that all Scripture applies carte blanche to all situations, however we wish to apply it. So, Amos saying God warns his people before He punishes them, using his prophets, does not, OF NECESSITY, mean that President Hinckley is the one Prophet for all Christians, and that any previous Scripture must be interpreted in light of his words. Just to note...thus far, I'm in agreement. It is not uncommon that Old Testament prophecies that see a fulfillment a few generations or even centuries later, foretell yet another and perhaps greater future fulfillment. It is not unusual for New Testament writers to refer to the prophets, or the "law and the prophets" in reference to the Scripture of their day--the Old Testament. I do not believe there is anyone in the New Testament who is referred to as a prophet--though John was "the revelator." Two comments about "prophets" here. 1. To prophecy is to proclaim, so there is a sense in which every pastor is a prophet. 2. Those with the gift of prophecy are prophets, in this sense. And yet, like the New Testament church, which never seemed to have turned those who exercised the gift of prophecy into "Prophet So & So," likewise, today we tend to say, "Bro. Smith has the gift of prophecy." Or, "Bro. Jones offered an insightful prophecy the other day." Then again, some of our African-American Pentecostal churches do bestow the title of prophet upon those who operate in the gift.

I'll concede the point, IF, you'll concede that the "Law and the Prophets" is both ALREADY FULFILLED by Christ, and that it is BEING FULFILLED as we obey Christ's 'higher laws' (i.e. Matthew 22:37-40, 1 Corinthians 13). Bargaining and compromise can be enlightening and refining.

Although you answered "NO," we actually agree. But rather than simply responding negatively, are you not ultimately saying, "By obeying the higher laws of Christ, we fulfill the law and the prophets."

Oh, but there is a surprise--a big one! In one simple post, you have answered the question many of us having been hashing out here: How Wide the Divide--between Mormonism and Evangelical Christianity? The answer? 4%

Hah...I never even was a Mormon and I scored higher than you! 1. Orthodox Quaker (100%) 2. Mainline to Conservative Christian/Protestant (98%) 3. Eastern Orthodox (94%) 4. Roman Catholic (94%) 5. Seventh Day Adventist (88%) 6. Mainline to Liberal Christian Protestants (75%) 7. Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints (Mormons) (64%) 8. Islam (61%) 9. Orthodox Judaism (61%) 10. Sikhism (52%) 11. Liberal Quakers (50%) 12. Bahá'í Faith (50%) 13. Hinduism (49%) 14. Jehovah's Witness (49%) 15. Reform Judaism (46%) 16. Unitarian Universalism (39%) 17. Christian Science (Church of Christ, Scientist) (33%) 18. Jainism (30%) 19. Mahayana Buddhism (28%) 20. Scientology (28%) 21. Theravada Buddhism (27%) 22. Neo-Pagan (22%) 23. New Thought (22%) 24. New Age (20%) 25. Nontheist (18%) 26. Secular Humanism (17%) 27. Taoism (15%) Gonna have to check out those Quakers.

What may be missing is the principle of "Loyal Opposition." I don't agree with you, but I know you are trying to bring about what is good. In politics, it's when Republicans and Democrats disagree, but consider one another to be patriotic. In religion, it's when we consider each other to be "God seekers." Without this concept, my political opponent becomes "the enemy within" or a traitor. My religious opponent becomes a tool of Satan, whom I must rebuke.

It's so easy to get so righteously enraged about this kind of stuff. BUT, the child could be mistaken. We had a case several years back, where a teenage daughter went to the pastor's wife for counseling. The parents brought her. The wife had a degree in counseling, but was not a licensed therapist. To make a long story short, through "regression therapy," the daughter recalled that her father had molested her, even using knives. After two years, the minister losing his ordination, the family being horribly split up, the father's lawyer ordered that the daughter be medically examined. Yeah...she was still a virgin. There was no medical evidence that any of the memories were true...and indeed they could not have been. I don't believe the girl was lying. I don't believe the counselor intended to plant false memories. BUT, the daughter was terribly wrong. The minister got his ordination back, plus a $1,000,000 settlement. The family slowly healed. BUT, WOW! I for one, try never to rush to judgment-even when it seems so certain.

Some important understandings about Amos. 1. He was a prophet of God for Israel. 2. His audience is national Israel. 3. The overarching theme of Amos is righteousness and divine retribution for sin. God is warning Israel that they have a deal, and that they've broken it. Punishment is coming, and God is explaining it to his prophets. These prophets, including Amos, will be compelled to proclaim what God is going to do. No one will have an excuse, "I didn't know...why weren't we warned?" It's all laid out. You sin, you suffer. To wrest Amos 3:7 from this context, and insist that the whole of Christianity is wrong because it does not have the office of prophet is an incredible and unnecessary stretch. Can God still speak through prophets? Of course. Does God still communicate through gifts of prophecy? Absolutely. Does Amos 3:7 mean that there must be ONE living appointed church leader for all of Christians, who's words are so inspired, that written Scripture must be interpreted in the light of his/her truths? I'm not seeing that teaching in Amos. Hard as I look, that is an incredible stretch--at least based on this passage. Except that God did command that the words be written and compiled. As evidence I present this testimony: For as much as many have taken in hand to set forth in order a declaration of those things which are most surely believed among us, Even as they delivered them unto us, which from the beginning were eyewitnesses, and ministers of the word; It seemed good to me also, having had perfect understanding of all things from the very first, to write unto thee in order, most excellent Theophilus. That you mightest know the certainty of those tings, wherein thou hast been instructed. Luke 1:1-4 So Luke wrote his gospel so that there would be a perfect understanding of what was believed and what was to be taught. And perhaps the most famous passage concerning the value of Scripture: All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: That the man of God may be perfect, troughly furnished unto all good works. 2 Timothy 3:16-17 Your sense of irony is keen, but remember that we both believe in continuing revelation. The difference is that most of Christianity has no testimony about the Standard Works, other than of the Bible. Additionally, most of Christianity has a de facto closed canon, though, admittedly, there is no Scripture that conclusively says it must be so. On the other hand, Mormon canon is not only open, but it is to be interpreted in light of the living prophet's words. How wide is the divide? More than a little, but perhaps less than many have thought.

To summarize this whole church dilemma: When we start believing we have to compete with the golf course, we start downplaying sin, up-playing fellowship, downplaying holiness, up-playing prosperity, down-playing sin and conviction and right and wrong, and up-playing the "fun" that is Christianity...well, the golf course will always have easier fellowship, it will give you the sense of wealth, and it will be more fun. So, maybe it's time to forgo competing with the golf course, and start conducting our church worship, teachings, and practice the way Jesus originally intended. Did I capture the spirit of your disappointment?

Probably not. On the other hand, perhaps similar to the Worldwide Church of God (formerly led by Herbert W. Armstrong) they seem to be moving towards a more mainstream Christianity. I'm guessing that is why I included them. Well, I suppose it could appear that way. But they are bypassing mainstream Christianity and heading straight for liberal protestantism. IMO, a step away from Christianity. I've only seen cursory bits about this group--the name change, giving up certain distinctives. It sounds like you are more in the know on them than I. So, give us a few highlights, if you don't mind.

Probably not. On the other hand, perhaps similar to the Worldwide Church of God (formerly led by Herbert W. Armstrong) they seem to be moving towards a more mainstream Christianity. I'm guessing that is why I included them.

The key to a good test is getting the questions right. So, what is the basic test of life, and what are the right questions? 1. Is there a God? If the answer is no, or that God is unknowable, or that there are many gods, then I lose a great deal of interest in religion. A. If there is no God, even if religion is healthy, I'd rather live shorter with truth. The Apostle Paul makes this point when he says that if the resurrection of Jesus is not true then Christians are the greatest of fools. B. If God is unknowable, then why try? I might as well live my life doing what is right in my own eyes. That's probably what a "created the system and left" kind of god would want. B. If there are many gods, then they are not all powerful, and there are probably easier ways of attaining what I want, or avoiding what I don't want, rather than trying to figure out what I have to do for which god. Conclusion: So, the first, and most basic question is: Is there a God? 2. Is God all-powerful? If God is not at least largely in control of his creation, than his character does not matter. 3. Is God good? If Sgallan is right, that God, if he exists, is evil, then I would want to avoid him--not worship him. I'm not offering a lot of apologetics, or "spin" here--just my understanding of what the Big Questions are. Both the Old Testament and New Testament promise that whoever seeks God will find him. However, before the seeking, one must confirm in his/her heart that there is such a God, and if so, He's strong enough, and that He's good to the core.

What I gave you are answers I've come to. The key to a good test is getting the questions right. You've raised an issue that is so interesting to me that I'm starting a new string: Is there a God, and if so, what is He like?

Let me break this Scripture reference down into bits: 1. I am G-d. The one true and living God is speaking here. 2. Declaring the end from the begininning. So, God, tells us the beginning to the end. He explains it to us. 3. and from ancient times the things that are not yet done. Yes, God does give us prophecy. He tells us things to come. 4. saying My counsel shall stand, and I will do my pleasure. What God advises is and will remain. Also, God does what He wants. From the above, I cannot find a promise that God will reveal to us EVERY DETAIL of his plans, or even of that which He has already done. If we say that this passage requires that Scripture (mind you, Scripture is not the topic of this passage at all--and certainly not canon) contain material from the beginning, well Genesis covers that. From the end, John's Revelation of Christ covers that. I'm not arguing here that the canon must be closed, but merely that this passage from Isaiah does not require it, because God does not promise to grant us EVERY DETAIL of his doings. I would refer the reader to the story of Job. Job demands of God to know WHY troubles have come his way. God's response is basically that He is God and Job is man, and man cannot advise God. Job humbles himself, declaring that God is indeed God. Consider also 1 Corinthians 13, which tells us that we now see through a dark glass, and not until that which is perfect comes (referring to the second coming of Jesus), will we see as God sees. Amos does not address Scripture canon either. It neither predicts nor denies the possiblity that a later council of church leaders might discern which books belong and which books do not belong in the canon. Keep in mind--no matter how you parse the verbage, the LDS Church does have a canon. Open or closed, there are writings that the church does not regard as Scripture (i.e., the Syrian additions). You seem to be reading way too much into this passage. This is not an all-encompassing promise that God will always reveal every detail of his work to prophets. Rather, God is saying that to Israel that He warns them when punishment is coming--and that He compels his prophets to issue the warnings. The people are without excuse when judgment comes--they've been warned. This is akin to dad saying, "I told you that if you didn't clean your room you'd be grounded, so why are you crying now that you are grounded?" Again, you've taken a local reminder of God to his people that the troubles they are suffering were declared by God already, and that they are without excuse and without cause to ask, "Why?" at this point. Amos is not addressing canonization one way or the other. God certainly does not offer us every detail of his plans. Adam and Eve got kicked out of the Garden for looking for more than God had revealed. You accuse the LDS Church with the same hammer you would use on the rest of Christianity with this claim. The LDS Church rejects certain books--does not include them in its "Standard Works." IMHO your opinion of church history and canonization is colored by your doctrine of Restored gospel. You have every incentive to be untrusting of the Early post-apostolic church. Suffice to say that your interpretation here flies in the face of the rest of Christianity, and I dare say, even many LDS religious history scholars probably would not offer such a overarching and frankly dismissive condemnation. A canon, in the context of religion, is an established Scripture. Whether a religion's leadership is willing to add to or revise a canon is another issue. Thus the adjectives "open and closed." Frankly, you are writing your own definition of canon, so that you can deny that your church has one, and condemn the rest of Christianity for its "heretical canon." It is much harder to condemn a canon, if the difference is one of degree vs. core nature. Pardon my confusion here, but you have said that the Bible is God's Words. Your only argument is that there is more available. Then you say that non-LDS Christians (the other 99.4%) cannot claim and demonstrate the Bible by prophesy. What do you mean? Do you believe the Bible or not? Do we have to prove it to you? There is no question but that Jesus shared things with his leadership that He did not explain to the crowds--many of whom were not even believers. However, if you extend this principle to say that God always intends to reserve for his most faithful followers enticing secrets, hidden knowledge, etc., you come in danger of the Gnostic heresy. For the most part, the Bible is an open book, easily understood. Yes, it is also one that scholars can never fully fathom! However, the primary focus of the gospel is not mystery, hidden knowledge, or enticing secrets. It is Christ, and him crucified, for the salvation of his creation. And again I respond, if God truly considers canon a heresy, than the .06% of Christendom that is the LDS Church has as much to answer for as the 99.4% that are not. Either canon is God's will or it isn't. You have not demonstrated why an open canon is superior. Rather, you have argued against canon itself--something your church has.

THE 10 COMMANDMENTS HOW SHOULD CHRISTIANS OBSERVE THEM? All of the great religions that proclaim belief in one God submit to the 10 Commandments. Yet, how do we, as Christians, understand and obey these so-called Jewish commandments? Please read Exodus 20:1-17 For the Christian, the 10 Commandments are more stringent, yet more achievable, than Jewish practice demanded. How is the Christian understanding of the 10 Commandments more stringent, and why can we more easily achieve them? We shall first consider the stringency of Christian obedience to the Commandments. The first commandment reads: YOU SHALL HAVE NO OTHER GODS BEFORE ME. The ancient Jews understood this to mean they must worship the God of Israel, and no other. Likewise, modern Judaism’s mission is to protect the spiritual life and practice of Jewish people. There is no mandate to reconcile non-Jews to the one true living God. Jesus also says to worship no other gods. But he goes further, calling his followers to a rigorous mission of proclaiming the Good News to all peoples. Jesus says in John 14:6 that He is the only way to reconciliation with God the Father. Additionally, in the Great Commission he tells us to make and train his disciples. The second commandment reads: YOU SHALL NOT MAKE FOR YOURSELF AN IDOL. Ancient Israel focused on the literal making of idols, because false idolatrous religion was so common then. Today one could be certain to find prohibitions in Judaism against religious statues and the like. Jesus took this one step further. He said that we must not let family become an idol. You had better be willing to hate–or abandon–your parents and siblings rather than compromise your love for God. Jesus also said we must not let our possessions become an idol. We cannot serve God and money. The third commandment reads: YOU SHALL NOT MISUSE THE NAME OF THE LORD YOUR GOD. Ancient Israel hesitated to use the name of God at all. This is why you so often see the terms “GOD” and “LORD” in the Bible, rather than YAHWEH. Today, the more conservative Jews even hesitate to use the title God. In their writings they write G-d instead. Jesus teaches that we can use the name of God–in power. He still insists that the name be revered however. Jesus says that in his name you shall heal the sick, cast out devils, and do works greater than he has done. Many shall say to Jesus, “Did we not do great works in your name?” And He will respond saying, “Depart from me, I never knew you.” Recall that the seven sons of Sceba used the name of Jesus to deliver a man from demons. Yet, they did not know Jesus. The demons left the man–but attacked those who would disrespect Jesus name by using it in ignorance. REMEMBER THE SABBATH DAY BY KEEPING IT HOLY. Ancient Jews had numerous rules about what could and could not be done on the Sabbath. Modern Jews have those same rules and volumes of commentary on how they can be applied with today’s technology. As an example, in the heavily Jewish neighborhoods in South Miami Beach the elevators in condominiums automatically stop on each floor during the Sabbath. This way, no Jew is “creating work,” by pressing buttons or causing power surges in the elevators’ mechanisms. Jesus said that the Sabbath was made for man, not man for the Sabbath. Therefore, it is okay to heal on the Sabbath. It is okay to work at getting food, so as not to go hungry, on the Sabbath. Finally, it is okay to have special days or to treat every day the same, so long as the glory and honor go to God. HONOR YOUR FATHER AND MOTHER. Ancient Israel had specific laws about how you were to honor your parents. So long as your treatment towards them complied with the laws, you were okay. Modern Jews continue to pay general homage to the need to honor parents, and comply with religious guidelines on how to do so. Jesus said we have to honor our parents with our hearts and spirits, as well as our mere compliance. Corban meant you could give money to the Church (Temple) that should have gone to your parents. Jesus says you must not use the Church as an excuse not to care for your parents. Jesus also says that parents must not drive their children to anger through harsh treatment. YOU SHALL NOT MURDER. Ancient and modern Jewish practice would take this literally. You should not kill people. Jesus said that to angrily denounce someone is a murderous act. He said we are to love our enemies. YOU SHALL NOT COMMIT ADULTERY. Ancient and modern Jews would take this literally–you must not have sex with somebody other than your spouse. Jesus said that to even lust after another woman is adultery. YOU SHALL NOT STEAL. Ancient and modern Jews would take this to mean that we must not take what is not ours. Jesus said that we must obey our bosses–even when they are unreasonable. Otherwise, we “steal” what belongs to them. YOU SHALL NOT GIVE FALSE TESTIMONY AGAINST YOUR NEIGHBOR. Ancient and modern Jews said that it is wrong to lie with the purpose of hurting a neighbor. But, they tolerated promises that were sometimes less than fully honest. Jesus said, “Let your yes be yes, and your no no.” YOU SHALL NOT COVET. Ancient and modern Jews say it is wrong to try to get what belongs to your neighbor. Jesus said we should not worry about money or “the cares of this world.” Paul said we are to be content whether we are wealthy or poor. Transition: Compliance with these Commandments seems all but impossible. How can we obey them? The power source that allows Christians to obey the 10 Commandments is the Holy Spirit. Not by might nor by power but by my Spirit says the Lord. (Zecharia 4:6). Jesus also promised that we shall receive power when the Holy Spirit comes upon us. (Acts 1:8) Jesus says we are to be perfect even as he is perfect. (Matthew 5:48). We do this by love. We are to love God and our neighbor. We accomplish this by power from the Holy Spirit. Galations 5:22-23 list several characteristics–or fruits–of the Holy Spirit. The first of these is love. Some commentators have even suggested that love is the fruit, and all the other characteristics are aspects of love. We conclude by noting that Jesus did do away with some of the superficial, man-made customs surrounding the 10 Commandments. However, he strongly endorsed the spirit of the Commandments–even raising the standards his disciples were to obey. Nevertheless, it is possible to live in obedience to the Commandments–If the Spirit of God empowers you! Do you love God? Jesus says that if you do you will obey his commands (John 14:23).

I start with two basic assumptions about God: That He's all-powerful, and that He's good. I interpret the Bible stories, the commands, etc. from this core anchor. You haven't reached that place of faith, yet. You question God's character, and thus wonder if He even is. Ultimately, though, like most here, you seem the type that will grab hold of what is true. Until then, we all just keep shining our little lights. B)

Okay... ...my bad my bad Oh...I can't stop ...let's see, John Birch Society--isn't that a subforum of GR88T's http://www.enterprisemission.com?

This is very sweet. I'm am touched. But...where'd did this come from? That rumor is about 3 weeks old!

I don't mind Ben creating a political ghetto for John Birchers (where did this idea come from anyway?), but would hate to see a religious ghetto here. B)

I suppose what we are really getting at here, is related to "Pascal's Wager." I have not looked this up, but am offering my rough memory of it. The original proposal was: 1. If Christianity is right, and you refuse to embrace it, you will die and spend an eternity in the flames of hell. 2. If Christianity is false, and you embrace it, you still live a life of morality, have enjoyed some healthy social relationships, and perhaps lost some time you might have spent doing other things. 3. So, Pascal argued, the logical betting person should embrace Christianity, because s/he has much more to lose than could possibly be gained by rejecting it. Blomberg's revision went something like this: 1. If, as a Christian, I embrace Mormonism, and I'm right, I spend eternity with God the Father, and Jesus, the Son. I get to live in the Celestial Kingdom. 2. However, if I am wrong, and Mormonism is deemed unacceptable in God's eyes, I lose my place in eternal heaven, and will instead be doomed to hellfire. 3. If Mormonism is correct, and I reject it, I will still be assigned to the Terrestial kingdom, which is very much like the heaven I believe in anyway. Plus, I may yet have an opportunity to convert in the life to come. 4. So, Blomberg's revised Pascal conclusion goes, far better to stay with evangelicalism, since I have much more to lose than gain. BTW, Robinson's response was that a Terrestial Kingdom type person would indeed go that route, whereas a Celestial Kingdom would rather risk all for the sake of ultimate truth and renewed eternal fellowship with the Heavenly Father. Bottom-line: I don't like Pascal's wager. Truth is truth, and I am certain God would have us wrestle until we found it, rather than settling for something close.

They are God's way of getting back at you for leaving a bunch of one-liner cryptic post response questions that are often unclear. :-)

Hmmm...Syble is trying to take Snow to school about attack posts. She threatens to clip and paste his "inane posts." How about we look at Syble's gentle attempts at instructions--all clipped from one single string (from these you may get the impression she has a slight amount of skepticism about my Pentecostal beliefs, and would hope I'd be open to some subtle teachings) : I've bold-printed some of the more 'precious' quotes. 1. If praying and you speak in tongues, then there is an interpretor; the Holy Spirit. If there is no understanding of what you are saying, it is of the devil. 2. There is no righteous purpose in speaking tongues when no one understands what is being said. All things which cometh of God are good. Someonee speaking gibberish (which unintellible speech is) is not good and cometh not of God, but cometh of the devil. 3. If you are just saying a bunch of gibberish that not even you know what you are saying, then you are being over taken by the devil. That is just a fact. Do you find facts harsh? Sorry. 4. If you are praying in the Spirit and still don't know what you are saying~ you are possessed by the devils spirit. The Holy Ghost is a Spirit of enlightenment, not befuddlement of meaningless gibberish. 5. You are misled if you find it righteous to be speaking gibberish that the Spirit won't even allow you to understand what you are saying. 6. I guarantee you, that if you don't even know or are not given to know what you are saying through the Spirit, you are being led by the devil. 6. If you don't UNDERSTAND or are not given a INTERPRETQTION, you have nothing. Nothing is what you get from the Devil. 7. If you insist that people blubbering gibberish in a spiritual frendzy is the Holy Ghost, then why are we taught in many scriptures that the Holy Ghost gives the diversity of gifts that ALL might be edified. Everything the Father gives us in the way of gifts are to serve others. 8. You need a reference on this one too? I thought you were a chaplain? It is the basic principles of everything Christ taught -- those who lose their life for my name sake etc. Why would you think that this thing would be used for strictly selfish reasons on such a regular basis and not be from the devil? 9. What you are experiencing is deceit from the lower quadrant. It is not of the Lord because it is not truth, light, intelligence, which is His love and giving of Himself which is love. (1 John 2 ; 1 John 4:7-8) These you should already know. 10. what you are experiencing is keeping you satisfied on a very low level of spiritual obtainment. That would be the work of the devil. 11. I am praying for you out of the Love of Christ that you will not be over taken in your pride of dead works. 12. I think a little understanding of what dead works are would be in order as well. 13. I see nothing coming from unintelligle yammer that gives no messages, no teachings, no truths. What more are these experiences than the glory the Pharasees heaped upon themselves for fasting, and praying in public. 14. Dead works are a facade of the righteous gifts and I abhore them. The Holy Ghost only gives good gifts. A pretension of a gift in an incompleted form does not edify. If you choose this form, so be it. It is for you to choose. 15. Why you wouldn't want a purer form of praying to the Father than having this intervention happen is a mystery to me. (I stand by my first conclusions, if not even more strongly, after reading your continued defense and discription.) It seems to me as a form of seeking for a sign and only a wicked and adultrous generation seeks for such. 16. I see no humility in your posts, so I would assume you haven't the humility required for such a thing as the gift of tongues and you are being grossly deceived.

You confuse the spiritual confidence I have in the Holy Ghost, and the gifts He bestows, with personal arrogance on my part. Perhaps a story will illustrate the 'poorness in Spirit' I speak of. I'm not sure the year, but it is the late 19-teens, or early 1920s. In this era most Christians considered Pentecostals to be very odd cultists (anyone familiar with the feeling?). An Presbyterian minister, pastoring a wealthy downtown congregation, senses a dryness in his spirit, and decides to go "incognito" to the Pentecostal revival meeting, happening--of course--on the other side of the tracks. He prays, "Lord, if there is anything for me here, I want it. But, do not embarrass me. Do not make me fall down, or babble foolishly." Every night he goes, senses a powerful presence of God, but receives nothing. After three weeks, he can no longer stand it. He's so hungry and thirsty for righteousness--for the power and presence of the Holy Ghost in his life. His prayer changes. "Lord, anything! Do anything you want. I'm so hungry for you!" Down he goes, 'babble' he does. But he leaves the place with such joy, such peace, such spiritual confidence. The following Sunday, he explains to his congregation what has happened to him, how happy he is, and how wonderful it would be if the church could enter into this fullness of the Spirit. Like so many other Christians of that era, who came into the Pentecostal fullness, they congregation promptly dismissed this pastor, and likely changed the locks. He ended up starting a store front congregation somewhere, and never looked back. You might say this pastor lacked humility for putting his family and his church through such a changed. I would suggest he discovered what it truly means to be "poor in Spirit." I have nothing and I am nothing, save God work through me.

I've waited awhile to see how this thread goes, but thought I'd offer my thoughts, as one who has largely been out of the loop. 1. Role-playing at a denominational website is underhanded, at minimum. Very early on here, I realized I needed to be open about the fact that I was non-LDS, that I was a clergyperson, that I'm married, and that I'm a middle-aged male. Why? I did not want to be accused later on of being a stealth anti-Mormon missionary, or of feigning ignorance to grant unearned trust. I did not want anyone to think I was available for relationships, or that I was preying on the young. In other words, avoiding the appearance of deceit was important for me. Straightfoward honesty has allowed me incredible liberty, and a lot of beneficial interactions. 2. One or two-sentence flirtations might be innocent fun, but anything beyond that is SIN, IMHO. (Of course singles aren't prohibited from looking for love online). 3. Some posters here really enjoy oneupmanship, win-lose debate style argumentation, and "Who's the smarter one" contests. On the other hand, I have found that conversational posts garner conversational responses, whereas confrontational posts begat...well you get it. Just my ...

Neo-Nazi alert! Thank you. Will take necessary precautions. Now ~ are you a Jew? In a sense, aren't all Christians Jews? Are we not all "grafted into the seed of Abraham?"