prisonchaplain

No problem. Quite often the person we're about to talk to gets our left over feelings from our last similar conversation. How so? As an outsider, I thought I learned a lot from the book. Blomberg (the evangelical) might not have pleased all evangelicals, but he represented mainstream thinking quite well. What were some of the key difficulties you had with Robinson?

If so, I feel vindicated. If I speak out in tongues in the congregation, and there is an interpretation, then you have said the message is "needed" or edifying. And, the Scripture verses you cited concur. But, what if I speak in tongues during private prayer? Is that edifying? What if there is no interpretator? For he that speaketh in an unknown tongue speaketh not unto men, but unto God ... He that speaketh in an unknown tongue edifieth himself. 1 Corinthians 14:2a, 4a. To summarize how it works in churches that embrace these gifts as being "for today": 1. If a member speaks out in an unknown tongue, the congregation becomes quiet. Afterwards, an interpretation in the venacular of the congregation (i.e., English for most of us) will be spoken. The message is considered to be from God, and to be a specific word for the local congregation. The word given is interpreted in light of Scripture, and may be deemed "not of God," or "of the flesh," of a contradiction is apparent. 2. A member may simply speak out in the venacular of the congregation. This is considered a prophetic word, and is received the same as an interpretation of tongues. 3. If the church is worshiping, or if an individual is involved in personal prayer, s/he may sometimes "pray in the Spirit," meaning to pray in tongues. We believe this is direct communication between our spirits and God. No interpretation is necessary, which is why we should both pray in the Spirit and with understanding. God certainly can grant the recipient of the gift of tongues a human language. However, only in the Acts 2:4 account was this the norm. In the other four incidences, the speech did not appear to be human. Nevertheless, God certainly also grants his servants various gifts--including language apprehension. I met an American pastor in Hong Kong, who had mastered Cantonese (a Chinese dialect) within one year, and without formal training. He then went on to learn Mandarin so well that he was teaching local Hong Kong people to speak in Mandarin. I do not think that a gifting to learn a foreign language quickly is quite the same as the gift of tongues in Acts and Corinthians. Nevertheless, it is an extremely practical blessing, that I am certain missionaries are grateful for!

For about two years, ever since legalized same-sex marriages became a real possiblity in the U.S., I've predicted that polygamy would be next. The marriage arrangement has historic precedent, and there are some religious traditions that condone it. Sure 'nuf: http://www.helenair.com/articles/2006/01/1...08011306_02.txt Potential problems: 1. Immigration. If "paper marriages" (entered into for the sole purpose of obtaining a green card) will become even more prolific. 2. Abuse. Just as two male roommates entered into a marriage in Canada, solely for the economic benefits (taxes and social welfare programs), so I can picture some groups setting up communal relationships that are other than about something other than simply setting up a large family. 3. Destruction of civil marriage. Eventually the convulated relationships will become so absurd, that government will get out of the marriage business all together, and simply arbitrate civil unions. An interesting verse from the prophet Isaiah: And in that day seven women shall take hold of one man, saying, We will eat our own bread, and wear our own apparel: only let us be called by they name, to take away our reproach. Isaiah 4:1 KJV

No, not from a linguistic-anthropological standpoint. Like many matters relating to communications from or through the Holy Spirit, faith is a huge component. This probably fits under the same category as the reception of "testimonies," or confirmations from the Holy Spirit. When people say, "I sensed God directing me to do such and such." Was it really God? How do you prove it? Well, I just know. I might have gone to some mature believers and sought their input. I might have consulted Scriptures. But, ultimately, by faith I knew that what I had sensed was from God. Did I really speak strange sounds because the Holy Spirit took control of my tongue, or did a combination of desire, excitement, and perhaps comaradarie lead me to begin speaking unintelligibly, on my own? I'm convinced it was from God, but there is no way to rationally verify it for you. So many people come up with so many notions that seem logical. Certain people repeat the idea with authority or charisma. Next thing you know, people are hearing that such and such is true. It hits the internet, is sensational, and you have a new urban legend. Of course, some might label the above as trafficing in rumors. Perhaps. However, like many public stories and rumors, this stuff gets conflated. Church sex scandal...clergy scandal...you know how emotional those pentecostals are...i'll bet they mess around a lot...come to think of it I think I read something on the internet about that... I was just pointing out that many of the "church sex scandal" headlines you see are likely to involve volunteers, not clergy, and that many even involve children molesting children. Abuse and failure happen, no doubt. But I seriously doubt that one's theology concerning tongues has any correlation to the rates in various fellowships.

I did a quick google search, and it turns out the main culprits in "church sexual misconduct" cases are not Pentecostal/Charismatic clergy (nor Catholic priest, btw), but church volunteers. Also, children are often the perpetrators. See: http://csmonitor.com/2002/0405/p01s01-ussc.html The good news is that religious organizations are grappling with the problem, and the rates seem to be falling.

Yeah, but that's not the point. The purpose of tongues was not designed by God to convert nonpentecostal religionists, Christian or otherwise. I've become aware that many believe that the tongues spoken in the New Testament was alway human foreign languages, and there are some strong indicators that it just wasn't so. That's an interesting little bomb to toss out. I'm not sure where it comes from, and I'm fairly certain there is no documentation to verify the hypothesis. Nobody counterfeits $3 bills, 'cause the real thing doesn't exist. Might it just be that Satan has inspired counterfeits of something God has chosen to use "to confound the wise?"

No, of course you didn't. You used the phrase "so-called Christians." When asked to clarify, you said you meant it, and explained some encounters you had with people that most here would have defined as anti-Mormons. Most Christians, evangelical or not, would find the phrase "so-called Christian" even more abrasive than anti-Mormon. Yes, evangelicals do believe that the canon is basically closed, and that if modern day prophets should arise, their words would be judged according to Scripture, rather than Scripture being enlightened by the revelations. As for the word "cult," evangelicals use it to describe religious systems that use Christian nomenclature, but who have a theology that is quite outside the mainstream. From the perspective of the evangelical, that would not be a good thing. However, I believe a Mormon would respond, "Amen--because we've RESTORED the truth." These ideas need not hinder conversation, nor be discussed with animosity. We're all God-seekers, and we most of us here seek to serve the Jesus Christ of the Bible. As a shameless plug, you might want to stop by the Bookreview section of this site, to see my post concerning the book, "How Wide the Divide?" It's co-authored by to professors of religion, Robinson (BYU, Ancient Scriptures) and Blomberg (Denver Seminary). They have set forth an excellent model of how Mormon/Evangelical conversations should take place, and come to some interesting conclusions. Peace and love!

Ray and I had an interesting dialogue going about LDS essentials, and the testimony that the Holy Ghost gives came up, as well as talk about Holy Ghost anointing. Inevitably (that is if you have such a discussion with a Pentecostal minister, it's inevitable) the issue of tongues came up. I thought it might prove interesting to some, so I offer my take as a new string. Also, check the link for a charismatic Catholic's take on the issue. Pentecostals contend that the gift of speaking in tongues need not be a human language. In fact, in the context of 1 Corinthians 12-14, it probably was not. Otherwise, why have the gift of interpretation? If the primary purpose of the gift of tongues is to communicate a gospel message in a foreign tongue, as some suggest, then the receiver would not need an interpreter. Tongues-speech itself was not understood by the church. Paul also said that speaking in tongues edifies the individual, but it's the interpretation that edifies the church. Thus, the context was that the tongues-speech was an unknown language. For a more in depth explanation—one offered by a charismatic Catholic, if I’m not mistaken, see the following link: http://ic.net/~erasmus/RAZ34.HTM

Okay, I'll rephrase. Let's see if I can capture the nuance better. Non-LDS Christians may be Christians, they may worship Jesus, but they have no authority to be missionaries, apostles, prophets, bishops, or to represent Jesus Christ to a lost and dying world. Only those duly authorized in the one true restored Christian Church (LDS) have authority from Jesus Christ. Have I understood you? So, are you trying to help those like me move from the Terrestial to the Celestial kingdom? Perhaps from glory to GLORY? If so, perhaps you are closer to Robinson's view than I have intimated. I'll just explain the Pentecostal position, and leave to you as FYI. We believe that the gift of speaking in tongues need not be a human language. In fact, in the context of 1 Corinthians 12-14, it probably was not. Otherwise, why the need for a gift of interpretation? If the primary purpose of the gift of tongues was to communicate a gospel message in a foreign tongue, then the receiver would not need an interpreter. It's pretty clear that the tongues-speech was not understood by the church. Paul also said that tongues edifies the individual, but it's the interpetation that edifies the church. Thus, the context was that the tongues-speech was an unknown language. Ray, you've worked hard on this string, and I appreciate your comments, your insights, and the exchange. God bless you...until next time!

1. In this case, I believe he was forgiven each time. My sense is that it was an addiction of some type. He really wanted to quit. He was torn up with each failure. But, he did not give up on God, and God did not give up on him. 2. The case in which forgiveness was not extended by the church involved blatant disobedience. In 1 Corinthians 5 there was a man having an affair with his stepmother. The Church thought he demonstrated God's grace and mercy. Paul said, NO! He was unrepentent. He was not attempting to break away from the immoral relationship. Pauls said they were to put him OUT of the church--turn him over to Satan. Then, perhaps he would come to his senses, and yet be forgiven. In 2 Corinthians there is a passage where Paul tells the church that the repentent brother has been punished enough. Forgive him, and stop rehashing it! While we cannot be certain, many scholars believe this is the same one. If so, what a tremendous story of God's mercy and forgiveness--AFTER true repentence. 3. If someone has molested someone, or cheated, forgiveness does not mean complete trust or restoration. In the case of molestation, "forgetting the sin" does not mean placing a stumbling block (temptation) before the weak brother/sister. Also, when marriage vows are breaking, the "one flesh" relationship has been ripped apart, and an interloper has been thrown into the equation. The result is so tramautic, that though Jesus says, "God hates divorce," this is the one case (other than abandonment) where divorce is permitted. Again "forgetting the sin" does not always mean status quo ante (returning to how it was before).

EXTREME EDIT ALERT! I'M GOING TO ATTEMPT TO BRING OUR ENCYCLOPEDIC DIALOGUE BACK DOWN TO BOOK LENGTH WITH THIS RESPONSE. So, bottom-line: If they ain't Mormon they ain't prophets, apostles, missionaries, or overseers (bishops)? So, here's a question: Why do Mormons get consternated when Christians, who believe (rightly or not) that Joseph Smith was a false prophet--and that the whole set of Mormon distinctives is at least wrong--question whether or not the LDS Church is Christian? If I read you right, Ray, Mormons believe they not only are Christian, but ultimately, that all other churches are not. Here's how it sounds: 1. Hey, you can't say we're not Christians. Us too--we belong! 2. By the way, you are not Christians. You don't belong. I believe that Professors Robinson and Blomberg have overcome this disconnect in their discussion, "How Wide the Divide?" Part of that overcoming includes an ability for both sides to see the other as, perhaps wrong, but sincerely seeking after God and the same Jesus Christ of the New Testament. I did as you suggested. I saw two uses of the word prophet(s). It often refers to the Old Testament prophets. It can also refer to prophets in the church. My thought, since none is ever specifically mentioned--and certainly no New Testament prophet took leadership of the church, is that the New Testament prophet was one who exercised the gift of prophecy. As such, they were prophets--but not in the Old Testament sense of one great man of God standing up to the king and to the people at large and calling for repentence and righteousness. Rather, these prophets exercised their gifts to build up the local congregation. So, in some Pentecostal churches those who prophesy are called prophets, in most anglo Pentecostal churches were use the more cautious phrase, "S/he has the gift of prophecy." BTW, none of what I am saying is meant to argue against the possibility that Joseph Smith was a prophet. Perhaps the safe approach would be to say the judging is in God's hands, and that all those who seek God should seek for the fullest understanding possible. prisonchaplain, Jan 12 2006, 07:15 PM So, where are we at? Are we all God-seekers, all attempting to follow the Jesus Christ of the New Testament. Is it just that one side is wrong on some things, as Prof. Robinson says, and in need of "additional truth." Or is one side non-Christian, an enemy of the true gospel, and in need of total repentence and conversion? There is an issue you have to grapple with, though, Ray. It's one I've been working out as well--both here--and through the "How Wide the Divide?" book. How do I approach an Latter Day Saint? How do you approach a non-LDS individual who claims to be Christian? Are we spiritual brothers? Am I "a weaker brother." Am I, like Apollos, "In need of more truth." Or, as an educated believer who claims to commune with the Holy Spirit, am I intentionally rebellious, and perhaps even apostate--perhaps even a Son of Perdition? How optimistically will you approach me, and I you? Quite frankly, even ten years ago, I was probably an anti-Mormon, at least in my attitude. But ten years of ministry in which I engage with Muslims, Buddhists, Jehovah's Witnesses, Adventists, Catholics, and varying degrees of "no preference," have given me pause. I've decided to listen more and speak less (quite snickering Laureltree!). As it stands today, I'm still convinced of the basics of evangelicalism, and the 16 fundamental truths of my own movement (yes, it's more or less a creed). I do not have a testimony concerning Joseph Smith. But I stay, I listen, I share what I know, and I am optimistic that since nearly all who come this way are on some level seeking God. So, this is time well spent. I know you don't. I do. This is a distinctive teaching of Pentecostal churches. It won't get you in or keep you out of heaven. But, again, I'd point out that in the five incidences of people receiving the baptism in the Holy Ghost, tongues is specified in three of them, implied in one, and simply not pointed out in the fifth. It is the most consistent outward element that's repeated. Additionally, in one particular incident, where there was skepticism, the apostles point to tongues as proof that Gentiles had indeed been baptized in the Holy Ghost. Only in Acts 2 do the tongues seem to be intelligible. None of the other incidences were like that. Also, in none of the five incidences were the apostles in a cross-lingual setting. The gift of tongues was never used as a way of speeding up the missionary task of learning a new language. Also, I know you do not believe Pentecostals speak under the anointing of the Holy Ghost, but you should know that most Pentecostals, especially if they don't know you, would take offense at having something we consider sacred, reduced to nonsense language. Ironically, if we are right about what we do, you commit the same error the crowd did--thinking us drunk (babble, jibberish). Amen.

Okay Administrator Laureltree (note the extreme respect and the deep bow I offered as I make my inquiry), it's time to let us know if you realize how long these last few posts really were. Can you summarize what Ray and I are talking about in 50 words or less?

I'm in shock I really thought I had done this. I started from page six and went backwards to the #1, and I'm not here. I'd like to think old-age has something to do with this lapse, but as my cousin pointed out, "No...you're too young for that excuse. It's just a lack of concentration." So, first--since this is a religious discussion site, primarily, I am and ordained minister with the Assemblies of God, which is a Pentecostal/evangelical Christian fellowship. I am a convert, in that I began going to church at the age of 10, after some workers from the local church came around our neighborhood with candy and balloons, and invited us to come so Sunday School--where we would get more candy and balloons. Within about three weeks, in November 1974, in response to the teachers explaining that Jesus died for our sins, and if we would ask, God would forgive us and help us to live godly lives, I raised my hand, prayed the 'sinners' prayer,' and became born again. Although my brother went to, he never embraced the gospel. I did. Three years later, at a summer Bible camp, I was baptized in the Holy Spirit, and yes, I spoke in tongues (still do). One testimony that sticks with me to this day, is that I got through my teenage years without drugs, alcohol, sex, or even "back masked" Satanic rock & roll. After high school I went to Whitworth College (Spokane, WA), majored in history/political studies and elementary education. During my senior year I went on exchange to South Korea, and fell in love with the place and the people. So, after graduation I took a position as a 5/6th grade teacher at an American-based Christian school. As I was settling in, a Korean campus missionary asked me to start teaching English Bible studies in my home. I did. I started with six students, and within three weeks was up to twenty. Three years later, we had about 150 students a week attending meetings on five campuses, and I had three other native English speakers working with me. God gave me a revelation! He said, "Look around you. See what is happening. You are no longer a volunteer. I'm calling you as a missionary!" Soon afterward, I contacted an evangelical tentmakers mission (they provide organization, support, and supervision for missionaries who use secular jobs as their entry into ministries). Three years later I received another revelation. I was to apply for seminary (graduate theological study). Mind you, this was nowhere on my radar screen. I was considering a degree in Teaching English as a Second/Foreign Language, but not theological studies! About this time my Korean roommate introduced me to his sister, so I could help her prepare for a job interview--teaching English. Well, ah...you know...uh--yeah, it happened. We started dating, and then the time came for me to come back to America. Half way through my studies at seminary, the call came, "Go home for Spring Break--my parents are coming to meet your parents." We were married in the church I grew up in! About this time, I receive a third revelation from the Lord. Check into prison chaplaincy. What?! Where'd that come from? I'm used to working with Asian university students. Why would I do that? Just check into it, the Lord says. Sometimes the Lord is also "Innocent as a lamb, wise as a serpent." Fast forward about ten years, we know have three lovely girls, 5, 3, and 1. I've been a chaplain for 8 years, and love the work. We're blessed that my wife is able to stay home with the girls. Also, in the last two years my mother and brother both came to faith in Jesus. Patience and God's faithfulness--a wonderful combination. So, why am I here? It all started with a school board race in Federal Way, WA about six months ago. Our region of the country is extremely non-religious. Less than 5% attend any type of organized religious meetings on a regular basis. Yet, two of our school board members were Mormon. When a board member suddenly resigned, a third Mormon was appointed. Then, three months later, when he had to run in an election, the opponents all accused the board of appointing him because of his church affiliation. As an evangelical in a non-religious city, that got my dander up! I thought, "This time it's the Mormons, next time it'll be us evangelicals." So, I wrote a letter to the editor, supporting the Mormon on the basis that, as a man of faith, he'll be far more sympathetic to any religious conflicts my children might encounter than would an opponent who would use religion as a disqualifier (She claimed a third Mormon would mean a "lack of diversity--a narrowness of view." Well, I'm a tangental thinker. So, this got me to thinking that, as a chaplain, I probably should know more about Mormonism than what some anti-cult writers had written about twenty years ago. So, I did a simple google search, and the rest is history. I've learned much in my three months here, and look forward to "many happy returns." God bless you all. By the way, as a shameless plug: If you want to see a conversation by a Mormon and an evangelical professor done intelligently, check out my bookreview of "How Wide the Divide," in the book review section (I should have just posted in the the general section--me thinks the book review subsection is something of a ghetto ). Blessings to you all--and thanks for the warm welcome, and the liberty that reigns here.

Now, I know you're fairly new in these parts (imagine a truly hideous phony southern, small-town sherriff-like accent), but we had a different string here on what defines an "anti-Mormon." It was a very small minority indeed that argued that all non-LDS are anti-Mormons. So, I'm curious. Do you? Do you believe that all evangelicals are anti-Mormons? Or, perhaps you're simply painting with a broad brush?

I'll tell you one thing I like about Pat. He did NOT name his school after himself. Furthermore, he changed the name, so it did would not be directly associated with the 700 Club or the network. So, some day, should I have a few years available for fulltime study and about $30K to spare (very reasonable by today's tuition standards), I can earn a legitimate PH.D., and not have to worry about Robertson's or CBN's reputation at the time (Pitty the students that went to the Jimmy Swaggart Bible College back in the 1980s). Poor Pat. He says a lot of smart stuff. Then, every once in awhile he comes up with some real foolishness. He needs to empower his handlers and his public relations people to muzzle him from time to time.

Perhaps I"m biased. I vote for Professor Robinson's optimism. "So-called Christian?" OUCH

I knew a fellow who, as a Christian, committed the same sin every day for 15 years. And, every night he repented, in sincerity--asking God to grant him the strength to overcome his addiction. After 15 years God set him free. Today, he's a leader in his church--a man with a powerful testimony of God's incredible patience and mercy. The man loves God deeply, because he knows that God has deeply forgiven him. Forgiveness and trust are two different matters. For a most painful example, if a spouse cheats, the innocent one must eventually forgive. However, s/he also may seek a divorce. Trust is broken. Reconciliation is beautiful, but not always possible in such cases. I'd say she needs to repent. Can she be forgiven? Of course. Remember that 70X7 line Jesus came up with?

Revelation is essential for salvation? Well, yes...if what is meant is a revelation of one's sinfulness, one's need for salvation. Furthermore, a revelation that Jesus is the way of salvation. "Forgive a sinner like me, because Jesus shed his blood, and died for me." That revelation leads to the conversion moment. Everything after that moment entails growing in salvation. Salvation is already complete in Christ, yet is is growing towards perfection, as we learn, commune with Jesus, and as we do what God asks of us. Faith and repentence are prerequisites to what I described above as the moment of salvation. The Holy Ghost does indeed abide with all believers, so that is a given--if the faith and repentence are true. As for water baptism, I would argue that this sacrament is one of the first acts of obedience the saved person partakes in. Salvation is a result of repentence and faith. Baptism is a public testimony to the salvation. God's forgiveness and embrace comes as we say "Yes" to his gift--his Son. God does not suspend the gift until we go under the water. There is no spiritual power in the material of creation (water, for example). Salvation is in Christ. The sons of Sceva did NOT have faith in Jesus. They attempted to use his name as some sort of magic incantation. They prayed, "In the name of Jesus...whom Paul preaches." They openly admitted they had no relationship with Christ. To put it more directly, even Satan "believes in Jesus." The authority comes with relationship, not with having picked the right Christian denomination to join. You call it the True Church, the true Institution, and believe this is different from saying the True Organization. What's the difference. Well...yes, you'd have competition. The Jehovah's Witnesses claim they have 'Jehovah's Organization.' At it's worse--if these human entities become gatekeepers between humanity and Jesus--they can become idols. When I read Prof. Robinson I wonder if perhaps the LDS Church merely considers itself a holder of "added truth," that is is willing to share with evangelicals, and any who "have ears to hear," then I think that perhaps some have overstated the divide between Mormonism and evangelicalism. However, when I read some comments about the One true Church, and I see the term APOSTATE used in a sense that could mean far more than merely "in error on some points," then I revert to my concern about mere humans trying to pose as spiritual gatekeepers.

'Ray' date='Jan 11 2006, 10:03 AM': To be saved by Jesus Christ you must have a true testimony of Jesus Christ and Repent of all you know that isn’t in agreement with His will. That testimony is often simple at first, but once you know that Jesus is the Christ, and you have a sincere desire to know Him better, He will continue to teach you more about Him and His will until you come to know everything there is to know that He has and will continue to reveal to you. Or in other words, you have to get close enough to personally know Jesus Christ, never stopping or damning yourself from knowing all that He has and will continue to reveal. By your definition most of those who are sincere evangelical Christians--who made Jesus both Savior and Lord (getting saved and growing in salvation) would seem to qualify. An additionally theme I read into your answer is the process of developing a personal, growing relationship with Jesus. I say "amen," to that! I would be curious to hear from you and others here how you go about that, beyond the obvious--attending church functions, doing good works. The true church of Jesus Christ on this Earth consists of prophets who receive the will of our Lord through revelation, apostles who are authorized by our Lord to teach other people the good news of Jesus Christ, and other people who have various gifts and callings with which they establish and build and regulate the church of Christ on this Earth. Random thoughts on apostles and prophets: 1. Prophets: Many churches, especially African-American ones, do have those called prophets and apostles. 2. In a stricter sense, there was no prophet mentioned in the Holy Bible since about 400 BC--none that I know of in the New Testament. Old Testament prophets were usually commissioned to call the political leaders, and the people at large to repent and return to the way of God. 3. Apostles, as a word, is defined as follows: a sending, a mission," signifies an apostleship, Act 1:25; Rom 1:5; 1Cr 9:2; Gal 2:8. Note: Pseudapostoloi, "false apostles," occurs in 2Cr 11:13. This from Strong's. As a result of this understanding, a common modern usage of the word apostle is missionary--one sent to represent the gospel. With this understanding, the LDS Church has 60K+ apostles, and most evangelical churches also have numerous ones. Concerning the gifts and callings: Amen to your comments. We do see the gifts and callings of the Spirit alive today: gifts of tongues, interpretation, prophecy, healing, etc. And yes, sometimes there are gifts that regulate--such as the gift of discernment--"Sorry, brother, but that particular word is not of God." We believe all other churches to be either in a state of apostasy from the true church of Christ which was established by our Lord and His duly authorized servants in the meridian of time, or in a state of rebellion against the true church of Christ which has been restored and is now established on this Earth under the authority of our Lord and His duly authorized servants. I'm wondering what this term apostasy means. As Professor Robinson explains it, my sense is that I'm pretty safe. If I never receive a testimony that the LDS theological package (new revelations, restoration, moder prophets, etc.) is true, and I continue along my current path, I will enjoy eternity in the TERRESTIAL kingdom, in the presence of Jesus Christ, though not the Father. I will indeed not marry, or give in marriage. I will end up as I currently expect to end up. On the other hand, if the LDS gospel is true, Ray may perform a baptism for the dead, on my behalf, and since I have a good and sincere heart, at that point I'll humbly accept it, and still get in the CELESTIAL kingdom. On the other hand, if apostasy is more serious--as it's traditionally understood to be--then I am a heretic. Directly or indirectly, I lead people away from the LDS Church (come to my church...it's not lds). Ergo, I'm a corrupt preacher, teaching abominable creeds and doctrines. My "reward" may end up looking more like punishment. Those who adapt the second stance (call them fundamentalist mormons if you want) end up putting the Church into an odd place. On the one hand it says to Christians, "Of course we are Christians. How could you accuse us of not being so?" On the other hand, (again, from the hardline viewpoint), the Church says, "Oh, and you others really are not Christians. You are excluded. You do not follow the truth. You rebel against God." So, where are we at? Are we all God-seekers, all attempting to follow the Jesus Christ of the New Testament. Is it just that one side is wrong on some things, as Prof. Robinson says, and in need of "additional truth." Or is one side non-Christian, an enemy of the true gospel, and in need of total repentence and conversion? Yes, I have spoken in tongues as the Holy Spirit has given me utterance. Have you ever seen a pillar of fire above your head? A pillar of fire is not the initial physical evidence of being baptized in the Holy Ghost. That phenomenon only appears once in the Scriptural accounts of believers receiving the baptism in the Holy Ghost. The speaking in tongues sign appears specifically three out of the five episodes in Acts, and is specifically cited as a sign--we know they were baptized in the Holy Ghost because they spake in tongues as we did. And btw, I believe it is not true to state that everybody who receives power and authority from the Holy Ghost receives the gift of being able to speak in tongues, and I also believe there is no good reason for everybody to receive that gift. Yes, it is true. Many walk with the Holy Spirit, but those who have been baptized have spoken in tongues. You can get to heaven without doing so, but it is the physical sign. There is a good reason for this sign to be used. First, it is God's choice. Second, the most powerful muscle in our bodies is the tongue. We use it to praise God, and to destroy one another. James says if we can control our tongues we can be perfect. Ergo, it is a beautiful irony that God choses a sign that requires us to totally reliquish control of that muscle that can do so much good or ill. As I said before, the best gift is to be able to receive revelations from our Lord through the power of the Holy Ghost, and with that gift you should then be able to speak about whatever the Holy Ghost has revealed to you in either your own tongue or the tongue of another people. That may be a good gift, or even a "best gift." I have had a few occasions to offer a word of prophecy (revelation). It was a powerful time of blessing, no doubt. However, the greatness of the gift of prophecy, or of interpeting tongues, does not diminish God's use of tongues as a sign of the baptism in the Holy Ghost. Prisonchaplain says: The key verse Jesus spoke, in terms of authority, was in Acts 1:8. He said we would receive power (authority) when the Holy Ghost comes on us to be his witnesses… Ray responds: So far so good, but while Jesus indeed wanted His apostles to teach other people the truth and “pass on” their authority to other people, that does not mean that it would have been right for everyone on Earth to presume that our Lord and His authorized servants had authorized them to teach other people, even if our Lord and His authorized servants had actually taught them all the truth. Are Mormons, regardless of their church office, not expected to bear witness to the restored gospel, whenever the opportunity arises? Are members not urged to at least bring references for the missionaries? Yes, it is appropriate for all Christians to embrace the work of making disciples--not of themselves, but of Christ. Or in other words, it was still necessary for the apostles and those whom they did authorize to “pass on“ their authority to other people before those other people could claim to have any authority, and it would not have been proper for anyone, even anyone living back then, to simply presume to have received authority from our Lord and His authorized servants, even if they personally knew and were taught by our Lord and his duly authorized servants. God does the calling, the church does the confirming. Or in other words, the fact that the apostles were authorized to teach other people what our Lord had taught them didn't give the people who the apostles taught the authority to teach other people what they had been taught, in and of itself, unless or until the apostles actually gave those "students" the authority to become "teachers". And if those new teachers later made mistakes when teaching other people, the apostles would have had the authority or power to correct those other teachers, even revoking the "teaching" status of those other teachers, if necessary, because the apostles were given the authority to teach all people the truth. Again, God does the calling, the church does the confirming. And, sometimes, the church does the correcting. Prisonchaplain says: These commands of the Bible are for all disciples, not just the eleven. They are for me, and yes, for you, Ray--and for all who read these posts and would want to follow Jesus. Ray responds: I disagree with the point you are trying to make. I believe you have not been given the authority to represent our Lord and bring people into His church, because I believe you have not been given any authority from our Lord or from any of His duly authorized servants. Well...I was. In fact, I just got my renewed credentials card in the mail about three weeks ago. My calling came from the Lord, and his duly authorized servants confirmed that calling. Our highest church official layed hands on me, and confirmed me to the chaplaincy. It was a powerful, Holy Ghost anointed experience--one I'll never forget. But if you choose to go on believing that our Lord has given you authority to help Him do His work, I hope you will at least try to come up with a better way to explain why you believe our Lord was giving you authority while He was authorizing other people to go and teach what He taught them. Actually, you are one of the few that has called my calling into question. And, of course, this all really goes back to the question of just what it means for non-LDS Christianity to be apostate. Are we wrong, and in need of added truths? Or, are we teaching abominable doctrines and creeds, perhaps putting ourselves (at least those of us who are clergy and church leaders) in danger of hellfire? Ray, you've shared here how embracing the LDS gospel cost you dearly, in your relationship with your family. Perhaps that has hardened your views on non-LDS believers--particularly those of us who are clergy, like some in your family? However, consider the reverse. If you ever decided to return to the "faith of our fathers," would it not also cause some to abandon you? Friends you've made since your conversion. Likewise, if one of your prodiges decided to discontinue, and start attending a Church of Christ--how would you respond? S/he would be an EX--an apostate--perhaps a Son of Perdition. Would you not be forced to abandon him?

Well, honesty is the best policy after all, right? ← There has to be a gigantic piece to this puzzle that I'm missing. Is Setheus playing a joke? Did something happen? Has he simply grown weary? I've only been here for about 3 months, and Seth's been a pervasive presence here, and I've heard so many positive reports about him. Suddenly, this most cryptic goodbye? And, a few equally cryptic responses? Such mystery!

Yeah, yeah...and Leif Erickson discovered the Americas before Christopher Columbus. So what? Leif didn't have the technology to repeat the trip. Mass migration did not occur. Likewise, this little tidbit about Martin Luther apparently didn't catch on. We still celebrate Christopher Columbus Day, and Joseph Smith and Brigham Young still get notice for reintroducing polygamy to western society.

You enjoy being the exception to the rule, don't you? Any public campaign meant to reduce premarital sex and cohabitation would probably be directed towards upper middle school and high school students. People in the mid-twenties and older who choose to engage in these activities are usually old enough to have the means to cope with the aftermath, whereas teens who get pregnant out of wedlock quite often share their burden with society (both financially, and by raising children with signficant "extra baggage").

I have to disagree. I've stated elsewhere that polygamy was clearly something God tolerated, but it was not God's first or best choice for his creation. In this Matthew passage Jesus is actually quoting from Genesis 2. The model at that point was Adam and Eve. A simple reading is that a man and woman leave their parents and cling to each other--and become one flesh. This is God's ideal marriage union. 2 = 1. To say that Jesus did not restrict the arrangement to only two people is an argument from silence. Such contentions are generally weak. For example, are you really suggesting that because Jesus did not say, "And the two--and only two (no 3rd or 4th wives, etc.)..." well then, Jesus must have approved of polygamy! Keep in mind too that by the New Testament era polygamy was rapidly dying out. It was not a pervasive issue that Jesus needed to address. We do not see examples of it being practiced in the New Testament church, nor throughout church history...until, of course, Joseph Smith and Brigham Young reinstated the arrangement.

A few reminders may help here: 1. We're discussing the death penalty--something reserved for the most blatant premeditated murders. So, the alternative sentence is life imprisonment. 2. So...even if they do not change their ways--they're not getting out! Life. Their world is now behind the walls. Folks like me get to deal with them. 3. Some say that the death penalty means no possiblity of the murderer commiting another crime. Granted, he may murder in prison, but in reality, the likelyhood that a lifer is going to murder someone again is quite low. 4. Prison is punishment. Even staff members in many correctional systems are required to retire relatively early, due to the high stress of the job environment. We're only here 40 hours a week, vs. 168 for the inmates.

I've read a few articles that suggest that Mormonism may share a malady common amongst more fundamentalist Christian groups--the need to give the appearance of perfection. I'm supposed to be happy, I'm supposed to be fulfilled, I'm supposed to be so mightily blessed as I work 40+ hours a week, shuttle the kids around, do the housecleaning, laundry, attend the religious meetings, do my personal religious activities (Scripture reading, prayer, etc.), and... of course get my 8 hours of rest a day! Hello? What's wrong with this picture? The Bible says we are to rejoice with those who rejoice. I'm not afraid to testify that I got a raise at work, even though another dear saint might have lost his/her job. My spiritual family can rejoice with me. I'm not afraid to ask for prayer because I lost my job. My brothers and sisters will not judge me for losing my job, think me incompetent, or that God is punishing me. They will pray for me, and they will mourn with me, if necessary. A church, regardless of the flag that flies overhead, that is emotionally open will foster more spiritual growth and health, than one in which forced-happiness, forced blessedness, forced faith testimonies are the norm. I'm guessing that more often than not, the abusers are not at those meetings. They might still wear the religious name, but they are not engaged to the church. Sociologists are now saying that men who are active in religious life are far LESS likely to abuse than those who only claim the name. Actually, it would be healthy if we were capable of feeling a bit more shame. Ostracization won't help. But it's healthy to be ashamed of shameful activities. Redemption is so powerful. It's not cheap, but it can be total. That's why I know I'm going to heaven. I've lied, I've been lazy, I've been negligent, I've often done less than my best...but I'm forgiven, and I am moving on with Jesus towards the mark...towards my prize. I know I have it, so I do not hang my head in resignation. I walk in victory. If I fall or fail. I stop. I assess. I judge myself, so God won't have to. I repent. I receive the forgiveness that comes with sincerity. And, I move on with my Lord. Prison can be a place of redemption, if the inmate wants it. Programs are not plentiful, but there are some. Most prisons have a lot of religious programming, because the instructors tend to be volunteers. Government likes free labor. So, we'll do our part. But, Sister A. is right--prevention is cheaper and more effective...especially when it comes from the houses of God.