prisonchaplain

I would contend that the LDS Church does have a canon of Scriptures, and that it is the Sacred Works. What Mormons do not have is a closed canon. See the attached for an excellent description of canon, including a portion on Latter Day Saint canon. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biblical_canon When you say that canonization is a "Pagan doctrine," I assume that what you really mean is that it is wrong to declare the canon closed. I'm not sure what church leaders closing the canon has to do with Paganism, however. As to why the church developed a canon, and closed it, see the following short timeline: http://www.columbia.edu/cu/augustine/a/canon.html What's most interesting is the development of the Marcion heresy. We know there were others, such as the Gnostic heresy. My hypothesis is that the canon developed, and was more or less closed, by the same process that the doctrine of the Trinity developed--in response to heresies that arrived. Note the parallels: 1. Bishop Arius teaches his local parish, which was steeped in polytheistic paganism, that God the Father is the one and only God, and that Jesus was his created Son--godlike, but not the one God. His reasoning is that the doctrine that God is one, yet that Jesus is fully God would confuse the people. As this, and other challenges to a very general understanding that God is one, yet in three persons continued to arise, the Church needed to formalize a doctrinal position on who God was. 2. Marcion offers some false teachings, as do others, and church leaders realize they need parameters. There needs to be guidelines for determining which writings are scripturally authoritative, and which are not. Eventually, the canons emerge. 3. Likewise, in my own movement, there was an intial relectance to have any "Statement of Faith," since most of the Pentecostal pioneers had been excommunicated, or simply kicked out, of their churches. There was a strong independent streak, and a desire to rely on the leading of the Holy Ghost, not the formulations of men. However, the Oneness heresy changed all that. In the early 19-teens a movement developed that said true Christians must be water baptised in Jesus name only, that the Trinity was a false doctrine, that Jesus was God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Spirit. That God was one person who simply manifested himself in three ways. Now those early pioneers realized that if they simply told people to believe what they wanted, as the Holy Ghost led them, well some would be led by false spirits into false teachings. So, to this day, if you examine the Assemblies of God Statement of Faith, the doctrines of God, Jesus, and the Trinity take up over 2/3rds of the statement, even though they are only three of the 16 doctrines. So, why the canonization? The same reason we have detailed creeds in church history, and modern statements of faith. As challenges and false teachings arise, greater definition of what is basic and true becomes necessary. So, did God ordain these processes, or did apostate (or the more modern, "misguided") church leaders develop them without the leading of the Holy Ghost? Except that the LDS Church does have a canon--one that is open. And, if your reasoning is correct--that there is no basis for a biblical canon--then the fact that the LDS version is open does not let the church off your heresy hook. On the other hand, you do make a reasonable case for an open canon--and even a canon that can be reviewed. I'm not sure I'm ready to say such a review is ready today, but I'm no longer able to dismiss the idea with consideration, either. Again, I'd suggest that the "LDS method of determining scripture," while perhaps different from the rest of Christianity (Please--to say "the world" implies unregenerate ungodliness), is also a form of canonization. Clearly, the LDS process is more fluid and pliable, in that it is open. And, the fact that LDS written canon is to be interpreted in the light of any modern interpretation offered by the current church prophet does indeed make it incredibly open. Nevertheless, we are not really discussing the difference between having a canon and not having one, but whether the canon can be closed or not.

I'm more than willing to adjust my nuance here. It was disconcerting to read that a living person could be linked to a potential murder case, and that it would take numerous weeks to clear it up--of course, by which time others had taken the erroneous information and passed it on. On the other hand, other old-technology sources, such as CBS News & Dan Rather, have muffed some facts, and taken many days to sorta recant. So, Snow hit a good balance. Use Wikepedia as a potential treasure trove of information, but keep in mind that the name does not guarantee every article, and that if you know about something, and Wikipedia's article says otherwise, you had probably better get more verification. I do have more respect for "popularizers" than many others do. USA Today may not be the NY Times or Wall Street Journal, but at least readers are keeping up with basic news summaries. Reader's Digest might not be the local university's community book club, but their offerings sure beat most of television. Tim LaHaye might not be the most imminent scholar of New Testament apocalypse (any more than Hal Lindsey was), but he has millions of readers learning about an interpretation of a book that many had never opened (Revelation). So, my hats off to such folk for helping people get their toes in the water.

Okay, okay. I did some searching around, and there is a good deal less certainty about this matter than I had thought--especially concerning whether the New Testament canon should even be closed (which may be encouraging for Mormons). To very briefly summarize my findings, the Protestant version of the canon was pretty much settled by the end of the fourth century, and undoubtedly by the sixth. The Syrian Church, which Traveler refers to, does have 81 books, rather than 66--and has for a long time. We also know the Catholic church chose to canonize the intertestamental books--ones that both Jews and Protestants consider of value, but not on the same level as the others. Bottom-line: The process of canonization, while valid and anointed of God, in my view--and in the view of most of Christianity--was a good deal muckier than we'd like to think. Nevertheless, what I expressed before, was pretty much repeated in the International Standard Bible Encyclopedia's article on canonization: The Christian can only believe that this history, set in motion by the earthly Lord, has been superintended by the risen Lord, who will not lead His Church into error. We believe that He has built His Church upon this Scripture, and that all future development must spring from the grateful obedience exercised by a Church that may hear its Lord speak in the OT and the NT canon. So, Traveler has put forth an interesting case for the largest biblical canon known--the Syrian set. It will be interesting to see if the LDS Church, or any other major denomination in Christianity takes this up. Apparently there are a few voices here and there calling for a reexamination of the biblical canon. My own guess is that this will not happen anytime soon, however.

Two thoughts: 1. Why would I seek a biblical pattern of prayer--one that allows my Spirit to directly commune with the Father, without human filter or hindrance? You don't know? Or is the "poorness in Spirit" that surrendering one's tongue to the Spirit requires, just a little to humbling? 2. To assign malicious motives to believers practicing a form of prayer that is repeatedly layed out in Scripture is just plain odd. And a question: Did you used to be a fundamentalist Baptist, and when President Hinckley said, "Bring all that is good with you," you thought he meant rabid anti-Pentecostalism?

I could be wrong here, but I seriously doubt that this is a case of equal bloodshed. Muslims are a huge majority in Indonesia, despite the demographics of this local area. Of course, when teenage girls are beheaded or some other atrocity committed, some will be so enraged as to seek revenge. Then the international media picks it up, including a secular American media that is decidedly NOT pro-Christian, and says "religious violence on both sides." This I pretty much agree. It is a tough issue for some Christian chaplains though. The feeling is, "I was enlisted as a Christian chaplain. If I am called upon to pray, I should be expected to pray according to the dictates of my faith--even in official ceremonies. The other side is: Jews cannot say "Amen" to a prayer in Jesus name, because the Talmud declares Him to be a false prophet. So, when such a prayer is offered, they are "left out." My guess is the military establishment will "win" this one.

I repeat my question. Is the LDS Church considering adding any of these texts to the canon of Scripture? If not, your suggestion is 'radical' not only to evangelicals, but to your own church. BUT we're not talking about individuals here. We're talking about the Church. Are you suggestion that your own LDS church is also not willing to see...that God is not 'forcing his word' on the LDS Church. Or, am I wrong--is it considering adding some of these texts you refer to? There are many manuscripts written around the time of Christ and the first generation of the Church which did not become part of the canon. The Gospel of Thomas (a Gnostic heresy) is one example. Just because something was written at the same time as the New Testament does not mean it was missed. God has always had a remnant. And, we are convinced that God's anointing was on the canonization as much as it was on the writings themselves. It often is equally important what gets left out as what gets put in. One time a team of Christian university students (American) were sent to Ireland for homestays. I'm not sure how long they stayed, but it must have been at least a few months. Some went to Northern Ireland, others to Protestant areas. After the stays were over, the students got into passionate arguments about the Catholic/Protestant divide there. They had been steeped in the histories, the complaints, the historic slights--and all came away convinced. Me thinks you became close with this particular sect, and gained great sympathy for their views. I'm equally certain you are being quite hasty to so quickly dismiss the sincerity of Non-Eastern Orthodox Christian leaders and scholars who have looked into these matters and reached different conclusions. This is the crux of the issue. You do not believe God ordained the canonization process of the Old or New Testament, whereas I and most of the Christian world (nearly 2 billion strong) do. I'll look into this a bit, and try to get you some intelligent information. However, I'm fairly certain the LDS Church also accepts the canonization process, as far as the compilation of the Bible goes.

#2. I'm an ordained minister with the Assemblies of God, which, with the possible exception of the Church of God in Christ, is the largest classic Pentecostal denomination in the U.S., with roughly 3 million members--about 35 million worldwide.

I know I'm speaking in tongues (not gibberish) when I'm 'praying in the Spirit,' in the same way you know the LDS Church is true--by the testimony, or leading of the Holy Ghost. When there is the public exercise of the gift of tongues, for the edification of the church, then yes, of course, the gift of interpretation is needed. When my spirit is praying in tongues then the prayers go to the Father directly. He needs no interpretation. But, so my faith is also built up, I also need to pray in English, so I know what I've asked of the Father, and can be encouraged when the answers come.

Here's what I've had: 1. Numerous postings from here, including many from returned missionaries, whom I assume are authorized to present the gospel. 2. Professor's Robinson's presentation in "How Wide the Divide?" 3. An hour-long presentation in the chatroom by DisRuptive1. Granted, I'm not sure how authorized he is, but it seemed to be an accurate explanation, offered in a down to earth manner. So, I suppose I have. On the other hand, I've not had a testimony as to the veracity of Joseph Smith's claims. My sense was, Prof. Robinson might even argue that anyone who has not had such a testimony, since s/he DID NOT RESIST the truth, but never really had a sense of it (head yes, but no wrestling in the heart), would still be eligible for conversion in the life to come.

The reference is to two dreams that the Pharoah had about the upcoming famine in Egypt. The point: When God really wants to emphasize a matter he repeats himself--or relays the point from two different approaches or stories. I'm not sure what you are getting at here, though. Are you suggesting that for each of the 39 Old Testament books there are 39 additional counterparts--additional books that might have the same level of inspiration as those we already have? The fact that Jesus, the disciples and Paul may have quoted some relevent material from a well-known extrabiblical writing does not mean that the book should therefore be canonized. This really is a new topic--though I see the connection. My argument would therefore be the same in both cases: To convince greater Christianity that writings should be added to the Scriptural canon, after a nearly 2000 year period of nothing being added, requires a substantial burden of proof. And, this is not a matter for individual laity to decide. It took Pentecostals about 40 years to convince evangelicals to even let them in the door, and another 60 for us to earn a place of respect in theological academia. Over time the larger Christian family saw at least the plausiblity of our "innovations." Rather than bemoan those who are "willfully blind," make the case...with patience and persistence.

Jason, Jason, Jason...tsk tsk tsk! I know that you are well aware that there are many highly educated Christians, evangelical, LDS, and otherwise. You also know that, for all the complaints about the dark ages, in many countries of the world, Christian missionaries actually brought modern higher education. As an example, many of the great universities in Korea were established by Presbyterian missionaries. All this to say, it just won't do for you to insinuate that Christians of any category are unreasoning. Faith is not ignorance. It is a willingness to look at some indicators, to believe that God desires to speak to me, and combine that with faith. Blind faith is indeed foolishness, but I doubt anyone could function if they relied soley on 100% verifiable information. Even scientific theories "evolve."

Evangelicals, and I believe most LDS, believe that the 66 books that comprise the Holy Bible are the Word of God. My understanding, thus far, is that Mormons allow more room for translation errors and faulty manuscripts than do evangelicals. Nevertheless, I've understood that moderate to conservative camps in both faiths agree on this issue. We have manuscripts now that date back to the 200s I believe. We compare those with the medieval texts used to translate the KJV--and the manuscripts are numerous--and find very few discrepancies. If my memory serves me correctly, those passages of Scripture that the scholars argue over make up far less than one percent of the text, and the areas of dispute never involve theologically significant issues (I'm speaking now of the text itself, not of doctrines). So, Traveler, for you to suggest that we really don't have a true Bible, but only a shadow of what God intended, implies some pretty radical departures from both Mormon and LDS orthodoxy concerning Scripture. Am I wrong, here? If I were to accept your assertions here--and they are not totally without merit--I would suggest that your dissatisfaction be aimed at religious leaders, not at the Bible. I've had this discussion with Snow before as well. My contention is that Christian churches (and no, I cannot include the LDS in this trend) have become increasingly cooperative in the past 40 years or so. Southern Baptist leaders speak at Assemblies of God conventions and vice versa. Pentecostals, who used to be parriah-status to evangelicals, now make up the largest bloc in the National Association of Evangelicals. The cross-denominational cooperation of groups like Promise Keepers, Billy Graham Crusades, pro-life politics, Christian bookstores (selling Catholic materials right next to TBN stuff), etc. Also, increasingly churches are renaming themselves, dropping the denominational affiliation from their names. Thus First Assembly, becomes Life Center, etc. Additionally, with increased technology and communication, we're looking more and more alike. Do a study on the "pentcostalization of worship services." You'll find we're singing the same songs, increasingly using the same worship styles--and we are learning from each other. We still disagree about some teachings, but we seem to be agreeing on more and more. Do you not believe that God would preserve enough of his Word to "feed" his followers? More often than not, so-called "lost books of the Bible" turn out to be extrabiblical texts, that might be historically useful, but which were not intended by God to be part of the sacred canon. Maybe this part should fit under BenRaines conspiracy theory thread? I'm frankly skeptical of claims that secret cabals of church leaders or theologians are keeping Scripture hidden from the unsuspecting masses. The problem with the National Enquirer is that once in awhile a story proves true. Since they don't have to wait for verification, they get the story out first. There are many "stories" about hidden or lost biblical texts. I'm convinced we have what God wants us to have. I have a greater confidence in God's ability to communicate, and less confidence in corrupt religious leaders ability to supress that communication than you do.

Okay, I'm a little confused. Was Clinton flashing gang symbols, making him a satanist, or was Tex Marr suckering 1000s of nutjobs out $20 each, making him a satanist? So, back to the issue of "Christian persecution." Of course, by global standards, we are not persecuted, harrassed, or hated. However, there is a sense that Christians have lost their unofficial status as the civic religion and ethical foundation. And yes, it's increasing okay to poke fun at Christians in ways that other groups are protected from. Two examples: 1. At a public university in Kansas, a student creates a statue of a Catholic cardinal, done in the shape of a male private part. The student more or less said that as a child he saw the bishops and cardinals this way. The statue was part of a permanent display of student art. Catholics complained, and the university went to court to defend the artistic and free speech rights of the student and the university. 2. A single Muslim patron of Burger King (overseas--Europe or England, I believe) complains that the icecream cone symbol on its wrapper looks too much like the Arabic name for God, and is offensive. Burger King immediately pulls the wrappers and issues an apology for any untintended offense it may have caused. The ingrate customer was later interviewed and said that Burger King's anti-Muslim attack cannot be washed away so easily, and that he feels that it is his personal jihad to oppose Burger King at every step! Why such a discrepancy? 1. A public university is a government agency, and academia does have a pro-liberal and anti-religious bias. It has no need to guard against offense, and occasionally revels in doing so. It's the politically correct way of earning gang-member status--by offending organized religion. 2. An international corporation (be it Target or Burger King) has a strong financial incentive for NOT OFFENDING its customers. Despite this years hullabaloo, most people are not offended by a generic "Happy Holidays." But a few sensitive and politically active Jews may be offended by Merry Christmas. So, there is no conspiracy here. Besides, if we really are the 85% majority we keep hearing we are, then quite confidence should be the order of the day.

A couple hours after posting this I thought, "Prend my think I was referring to her, since I attached it to her post. So, I'm sorry for the confusion. I was responding to the turn of the string as a whole, in response to my suggestions, not to your specific response. In fact, I sensed that you were indeed agreeing with me. I'm not certain the others necessarily disagreed--but it somehow spun off into a tangent against whiners, the emotionally high-maintenance types, and into a pro-American-Rugged-Individualism (which I don't find supported by Scripture, btw--at least not for the church family) stream. Bottom-line: I think we're on the same page here, Prend1!

The phrasing here is EXTREMELY imprecise. My guess is that what is meant is, repealing laws that are based on what our side perceives to be a faulty reading of the Constitution (read Judicial Activism). Let me translate this further into basic English: Repeal ROE V. WADE. That is what is really meant when most conservatives talk about 'unConstitutional rulings' 'Judicial Activism' 'Legislating from the bench' etc. What it mostly boils down to is overturning Roe v. Wade. Some may also want to bring back school prayer, but that ain't happening. Nativity Scenes in town squares, keeping in God we trust, keeping one nation under God, etc. However, IMHO, these are all very secondary to the Roe v. Wade decision for most conservatives.

Quite frankly, I'm shocked. I do not understand the responses I got to the suggesting that the church needs to rally around its own. Maybe I did not communicate clearly. I'll try once again with two scenarios: 1. Church member loses a job, gets sick, is have marital troubles, has children who are wayward, etc. S/he deeply desires prayer, a listening ear, perhaps even a helping hand, but is fearful that if the request is made, the spiritual family members will begin to ask: Is there sin in your life? Have YOU prayed about it? Have you been setting the right example? Are you giving it to God? Maybe your incompetent (said more politely and 'in love' of course). So, smiles and pretend happiness become the order of the day, and Prozac the order of the night. 2. Church member gets a new job, a promotion, is pregnant, just got a bonus, just won a prize, etc. However, s/he is fearful of giving testimony because it might hurt those who lost jobs, got poor work evaluations, can't get pregnant, just lost some money, or just failed in some venture. Besides, if they share the happiness, others might accuse them of pride (or 'spiritual pride'). 3. My recommended solution: Jesus said to mourn with those who mourn, and rejoice with those who rejoice. Usually, all wounded people are looking for is some prayer, a listening ear, and a word of encouragement. Rejoicing people are looking for affirmation, for a sense that the spiritual community feels its reputation is blessed when a member is blessed. I didn't think I was out to lunch on this. Is what I am saying so foreign, so revolutionary?

Like any faith dilemma, how stridently we attempt to uphold the truth of biblical information, and such discrepancies as the Goliath/Elhannan episode, depends on how strongly you believe the Bible is true in detail as well as spirit. 1. Fundamentalists will fall on a spear over every jot, tittle and comma to prove that the 1611 KJV Bible is true. 2. Evangelicals will accept scribal errors, but will also go to great pains to solve discrepancies such as the Goliath story. 3. Liberals/Progressives/Modernists etc. embrace the overall message of God's love, and will sometimes join forces with critics, because they are often embarrassed by their "backward bretheren." I'll camp with Red and Archer on this one. Somebody will be saying, "I told you so," in the life to come.

Sometimes the "letting go" is a journey, rather than an instantaneous decision...or perhaps it's both. A few years back, a loved one came to me asking for help. Crack cocaine had taken hold. I got an application to Teen Challenge--a faith-based in-house recovery program. When it came to the question, "How important is to to you that you enter this program," I expected him to check, "Important" Or "Would like to get in within a few weeks." My heart broke when I read the response, "LIFE OR DEATH." I called the director, who said, bring him in--we'll do the paperwork later. In a sense he let go. But the journey had only begun. Within a few weeks he was born again. A few weeks later he was baptized in the Holy Ghost. TWELVE MONTHS LATER he graduated. He's now a church member, regular attender, full tithe-payer who's been clean for over three years. He let go...and he's still letting go. Another close friend started out the same way. He entered Teen Challenge about three months after the first, detoxed, got saved, baptized in the Holy Ghost...but at three months he thought he was strong enough and smart enough to end the journey. He figured he done his letting go. Besides, his family needed him. Three years later, he's still struggling with the addiction. Yes, self-absorption is self-destructive, and can be idolatry. However, perhaps one reason our spiritual brothers and sisters fall prey to the cult of self is that there is not enough support from the church family. Those who are in healthy, supportative families are less likely to wrestle with personal dysfunction than those who feel they must always battle to get a little care.

I normally do not leave entire posts with my responses, but I wanted to make sure people knew what I was referring to with this summary. If I interpret this correctly, you are saying the following: 1. There are extrabiblical manuscripts (writings near the time of the New Testament writings that did not make the canon of Scripture) that more accurately reflect the church practices and beliefs of the church than our Bibles do. And, if so, you may also be suggesting that #2. The Bible as we have it now--meaning the 66 books that make up the Old and New Testament--is not what God intended for us to have as canon?

FYI about Wikipedia. Its articles are entirely written by volunteers, and the cyber-encyclopedia takes no responsibility for the accuracy or falsehoods it contains. It may often be incredibly insightful, but it should be treated with the same skepticism as any web-only information source. In one article--that remained posted for months--a journalist was falsely accused of having connections to a murder. http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?...MNG5TG3K681.DTL Actually, if it's Tim LaHaye's writing you want to savor, neither the Ararat book, nor any of the Left Behind books should be your choice. Tim LaHaye has fashioned himself as a prophecy expert (thus the "End Times Christian" perspective on the news). The books he actually wrote are all nonfiction. These latest fiction works were written by others, while he served as a biblical consultant. None of this is underhanded either--the names of both the writer and LaHaye are on the books. As for his nonfiction works--they are "popular eschatology." Not too impressive to scholars, but accessible and engaging for most TBN watchers/CBN watchers.

In this particular case, Mrs. A. is misunderstood. I had recommended that she use shorter quotes, and she offered the rather humorous reply of the shortest verse in the Bible. Harmless, and somewhat amusing fun--no sniping--not today.

If a prejudice means assuming something that might be broadly true (or perhaps even not--but simply a stereotype) is always true, then yes. However, the bottom-line is that most Christians believe that homosexual practice is a sin. Therefore, those who engage in the activity are sinners. So, if a homosexual is also a Christian, and he feels bad, because he is a sinner, we would describe him as being "under conviction," not unfairly maligned. BUT--what if the homosexual is NOT a Christian? Well, then Christian parents must be doubly saddened. However, their prayers ought primarily to be for their child's salvation. Why worry about a particular sin, when the greater issue is the eternal destiny of the soul? In either case, though, there is certain to be feelings of distance and non-acceptance. It's a sad state, but short of changed opinions and practices, what does the homosexual expect from his religious parents? "We love you, but we hate what you do," is not unreasonable from them. Sinners who do not repent, will indeed do so according to Christian theology. If I believe this, and you are close to me, I would be cruel not to warn you. Same response, according to Mormon theology. In a sense, I appreciate a nonreligious colleague of mine, for his integrity. He and his partner have no religious practice, so they do not marry. He explained to me that marriage is a sacred ceremony, so, since they are not religious, they do not want to be hypocritical. Over time their union will be recognized by the government as "common law" anyway. Likewise, civil unions--with all the legal benefits of marriage--ought to suffice. Homosexuals who demand legal marriage are craving a sacred blessing for a non-sacred union. If they cannot get this recognition, they would take it away from everyone (my prediction--government will eventually get out of all marriages, and only do civil unions). I absolutely agree with this statement. How ridiculous for the people of God to focus on the sins of sinners who are not even aware of the spiritual state. We cannot clean them up enough to please God. Far better to give them the gospel, then to try to get them to conform to a few of our moral standards. Okay, the gig's up. Time to confess. Sgallan is really an incognito evangelical. We were trying to entrap Mrs. A., the U.S. Marshalls would bring her to my chapel, where she might get saved. Don't think it's going to work, though.

I know that Mormons often wonder why most modern Christian churches do not have the offices of apostle and prophet within their churches. I stumbled upon a rather substantial discussion of this at my fellowship's official page. As Snow would say, "Happy reading." http://ag.org/top/beliefs/position_papers/...es_prophets.cfm

"It's our country and we're taking it back " Well...I used to feel that way. Of late, I've become much more nuanced about this. For the longer, published version, see the following: http://www.fedwaymirror.com 1. You'll have to go to the search area 2. Type in the word ELLIS 3. When the story links come up, click on: Dec 10 2005 Christians hope to influence society, not take it over Sorry the direct link wouldn't work...but it'll be worth the trouble--my wife says this is her favorite, of the six I did last year. :-) (Side note to Sgallan--following this link will expose me as a real person, too. LOL) A brief synopsis: The United States is no longer predominantly Christian in practice. Additionally, I would never support a Christian political party. Jesus commanded us to be "salt and light"--to preach the gospel, and to be an influence for good. So, yes, we lobby for political/social issues we believe God would speak to. However, our desire is not to command or force, but to persuade, and to draw the ungodly to God. Jesus said, "My kingdom is not of this world." If we follow him, then ours isn't either.

I can only speak with limited authority for the Pentecostal Assemblies of Canada (their version of our Assemblies of God). NO WAY, AIN'T HAPPENING--NOT EVEN A 1% CHANCE! However, I'm also quite certain that most, if not all, Christian denominations will oppose such arrangements.