[Where's The Love]

The key to a fruitful discussion between folks of different persuasions, be they religious, political, or specific issues, is the concept of "loyal opposition." In politics, it can be summarized: Party members disagree, sometimes heatedly, with those on the other side of the aisle. However, they also assume their opponents are loyal Americans. Those LDS apologists (or even members with a thought or two) who engage me in dialogue here generally assume that I am at least reading their thoughts with interest and openness. Likewise, I presume that those who read my thoughts do so primarily to engage, not attack.

I've had very little contention here. Heated back & forth on occasion. One or two misunderstandings. But none of the personal flaming that I've skimmed on several strings the last few days.

So, I gotta ask...

Where's the ?

[An Understanding Of Apostates]

Hogwash. I know the Book of Mormon is true because I have read it and received a testimony about it from God. Yet you try to tell me that God has not told me what He has told me, while suggesting that I should listen to other people... which simply shows that you have no faith in God.

It suddenly dawns on me that Christians "give testimony" that Jesus has saved us, has changed our lives, has given us peace, hope, and a greater capacity to love. How do we know? Most converts who are 14+ would say that they heard sermons, did some Bible reading, made an investigatory prayer (Lord, if you're there...), and at some point 'encountered the reality of God and Jesus in their hearts.'

The testimony that God has spoken to our hearts always relates to God, Jesus, and perhaps that my sins are forgiven.

It's interesting that the LDS 'testimony' is that the Book of Mormon is true, that the Church is true, and that the current living President is a prophet. The 'witness of the Spirit' relates to the holy books, to the insitution, and to the human leader.

By the way, in many cases, they do make sense, especially when arguing against the Christian anti-Mormons who say the LDS Church is in conflict with the Bible. I personally don't think the LDS Church is in conflict with the Bible, because the Bible can be interpreted in many ways to support almost any position.

Of course, Unorthodox is right about FAIR and FARM being most useful when comparing/contrasting Mormon theology with mainstream Christian theology. That's what it does. It does not put many researchers to the tast of combating 'secular challenges,' because secularists generally don't challenge theological views.

As to the Bible and its interpretation, no one can deny that there are numerous interpretations over many doctrinal matters. However, some interpretations have more merit than others. So, the "anything can be proven with the Bible" argument is a bit overstated. Furthermore, while there is certainly diverse views on many issues, the vast majority of Christianity agrees on an awful lot. There is enough agreement that we can usually cross denominational lines and call one another brother or sister.

It puzzles me as to why non-LDS would try to convince LDS of their [non-LDS] concept about the Church.

We want you to come over to our church, and bring your tithe with you ]

I am now going to make it my personal mission to encourage people to believe in the things they already believe in, no matter what religion they are, as long as they are not hurting anyone or themselves, as per Article of Faith # 11.

B) That's so mellow, man. I want some of whatever it is you got.

I have heard many of these folks say the words of how much better they have it..... but I haven't always seen the actions match the words. And I could point you to a board chock full of athiest/agnostics who berate their evangelical upbringing. Like anything else..... most tend to find a view which matches their own beliefs and preconceptions. We are all guilty of this.

And Democrats who become Republicans (or vice versa), Rush Limbaugh dittoheads who convert to Air America, and that old-fashioned all time favorited, Brand-X uses who switch to Tide or Jiff or Crest, etc. Yes, conversion usually entails a renunciation of "the old life."

[An Understanding Of Apostates]

I think that’s the thing I really have trouble understanding about apostates. They think they have found some information which compels them to leave the Church, while other people learn the same things and get stronger… which is why I try to recommend that people read more information from our Lord’s prophets and apostles, who certainly understand all the problems.

The problem with Mormons reading material criticial of their church is that it puts them into a no-win situation.

1. At some point the reading may prove persuasive. THEN WHAT? Leave the church? Leave the friends, the social network, rip assunder the family?

2. So, does one keep reading, hoping to find the weaknesses? Perhaps some who enjoy theological writings will choose this route.

3. Many choose to ignore the early feelings of uncomfortableness. Perhaps read an LDS-response piece (such as those criticizing the accreditation of Walter Martin's degree), and then to say, "Oh well...it must all be nonsense and deception!"

Ultimately it comes back to a string I started months ago: why the intensity and abundance of anti-Mormon material? Either, the LDS Church is true, and the 'attackers' are unrepentent, or mainstream Christianity is true, and the writings are largely a response to the Apostasy claims of Smith against all other Christian churches, and a call for Mormons to return home to Orthodoxy.

Now, I've seen ex-Jehovah's Witnesses and ex-Seventh Day Advents and ex-Catholics who were just as bitter, just as violent towards their former faiths as I have among the ex-mormons. I think it's a tendency among the once faithful to feel cheated by their former faith. It's not unique to Mormonism by any means.

Jason's absolutely right here. I've heard testimonies from former Jehovah's Witnesses, former Satanists, former communists, former atheists, former Baptists (who came into Pentecost), and yes, former Mormons. Sometimes they are quite hard on their former beliefs, but those who come to embrace evangelical Christianity usually testify that what they now have is so much better and truer than what they had before. The whole notion of "convert" implies that this reaction would be the norm.

You still don't seem to be allowing for the fact that many of us remain in the Church because we know for ourselves it is true... despite what other people have or have had to say about it. And until YOU know who to listen to, you will never know who to believe.

We know that we know that we know that what we believe and practice, what we have sensed in our Spirits, what we have been taught, what we have been raised in, what others have died for, is true. I know I'm right, you know you're right--absolutely, 100%, no doubts. And yet, at least one of us is at least partially wrong. And, if Jason or Unorthodox are even partially right, we'd both be wrong. So, rather than telling anyone i know that I'm right, because God has witnessed the truth to my spirit, I simply tell them what I know, and how it has played out in my life. I'll have to let the Holy Ghost do that inward convincing work.

[An Understanding Of Apostates]

If you’ll go back and read the comments in your first quote, from point #4, you should be able to see that President Cannon was basically saying that we should not look for faults in people, because if that is our focus we will find them, because none of us are perfect and all of us have some faults. Instead, we should look at others, even our priesthood leaders, as fallible people who are prone to making some mistakes, while trying to love and support them.

No religious leader likes to be criticized. It's especially difficult in the church setting, because leaders are too often put on a pedestal. Then, if they make a mistake, well "They weren't hearing from God. Maybe something's wrong with him spiritually. Could he be a false prophet?" When there is an important issue and differences of opinion, a religious organization can become a pressure-cooker environment.

However, I would contend that such issues are even more difficult for Mormons. If the LDS is the only true church, the only holder of the restored gospel, and if the President and the leaders under him are modern-day prophets, well then to criticize the work might seem to criticize God. Rather than bringing up one's alternative view, best to pray that God reveal it directly to the leaders.

The problem in such an environment is that people still have contrary views, but they cannot easily express them. Alternative views get burried, and the temptation to pretend can become pervasive.

[What Cometh Before The Second Coming?]

http://www.whyprophets.com/prophets/rapture.htm

I don't like the in-your-face way it's written, but it does show clearly the differences between LDS and Protestant views of the Second Coming with scriptures quoted (including referencing various versions of the scriptures)

Oh well...it sounded fundamentalist Baptist in tone to me.

The most controversial point of the article, from a Protestant viewpoint is that the 1260 day period mentioned in Revelation should be interpreted as years, and then applied to an Age of Apostasy. I'm fairly certain that this reading is unique to Mormonism. It only makes sense if one presupposes the authenticity of Joseph Smith's revelations.

1. While Revelation 1-3 primarily refers to John's present time, and 4-5 are in the heavenly realm, for the most part, chapters 6 and on deal primarily with future events leading to the end times. Most of those descriptions seem to happen in relatively short periods of time. To wrest the 1260 period, and interpret it as years--and suggest that it ended in 1830--and that we are still here waiting some 176 years later, would be quite a stretch if one only relies on the Holy Bible.

[What Cometh Before The Second Coming?]

PC,

As you know, we accept the King James version only as our scripture, and we do take that scripture literally. We believe that between the time he saw Mary alone in that scripture and when he was later allowing people to touch him, he had ascended to his Father and then returned.

I understand the LDS use of the KJV, and tend to use it here for that reason. On the other hand, the KJV is written in 400-year old English, and there are times when Greek and Hebrew scholars may enlighten us as to the meanings of certain phrases that read unclearly, at first glance. My use of the NIV, and of a scholar's commentary, was not to contradict the KJV, but to explain it. When Jesus said not to touch him, the Old English wording in today's English would be "stop clinging to me." And again, in the Matthew passage the other woman grabs hold of Jesus' feet to worship him, and he receives it. So clearly "do not touch" would not mean "don't lay a finger on me because my body is not yet prepared."

Remember, they just went back to doing whatever they had done before when he was killed. They did not know what to do with him gone, because their understanding was so weak, and they went back to their fishing boats, or whatever they had done before. If Christ had not returned and taught them all his work would have been lost and for naught. Christ had to help them understand what all his teaching had led up to and their duties.

It's true that they were traumatized. But again, in the minds of the disciples, Jesus had risen from the dead, not returned from heaven.

[Iran : A 17 Year Old Girl Is Sentenced To Death By Hanging.]

First, Jesus did not claim to be a king over Rome, stating that His kingdom was “not of this world” (then). And even Rome recognized there were “kings” in other kingdoms, knowing those laws had no authority over them (Romans). Second. As you just stated, even our Lord submitted to the laws of other nations, even recognizing their authority to kill him… because He knew who gave them their authority. And if you don’t believe those governments did have the authority to kill our Lord, you must believe He actually killed Himself.

Jesus submitted to death on the cross as an atonement for our sins, not because he expected us to obey every government order, regardless of our how ungodly.

Third. The example and teachings of our Lord teach us that we should obey the laws of other kingdoms when we find ourselves living among them, and when our governments enact and establish our laws, we should humbly and simply obey them... unless we improve them or God overrules their authority.

If a government order is ungodly we are required to "obey God, not men." I agree that this should be a rare occurence, but one obvious case is when the 'authorities' order that the gospel not be preached. Paul and Silas were in prison for preaching the gospel. Authorities ordered them to cease and desist, and they said they could not.

Likewise, during a Holocaust, I would argue that Christians were duty-bound to hide Jews. Martin Luther King's civil disobedience was a powerful Christian model for speaking the truth to power. And, as I've stated in previous topics, Old Testament prophets often got into trouble with kings specifically for calling them to look to God's laws rather than their own.

Would Mormon missionaries [in that event] discontinue their efforts?

They should if they desired to be true to our Lord… unless we improve that law or our Lord overrules its authority.

90% of the Christians in China belong to the unregistered churches, because in the government-approved ones preachers are censored, they are not permitted to preach the resurrection, the miracles, etc. Romans 13, of course, is more than welcome.

Or in other words, nobody should go around breaking a law just because they think "God" doesn't want them to obey "that" one, because God has made it clear that He wants us to obey all of our laws even when those in government will kill us.

I agree with the general principle of obeying authorities, but disagree that God intended that to be 100% carte blanche for evil governments. Believers have historically suffered martyrdom for disobeying governments by preaching the gospel. Additionally, the whole idea of "just war" is that a government can be so evil it must be conquered. What if local citizens agree and form a resistance? Are they disobeying Romans 13, even while their Christian bretheren in the "enemy nation" are fighting for the same cause?

[What Cometh Before The Second Coming?]

PC,

Here is the answer to your concerns:

John 20:17 Jesus saith unto her, Touch me not; for I am not yet ascended to my Father: but go to my brethren, and say unto them, I ascend unto my Father, and your Father; and to my God, and your God.

Hope that helps you understand why we believe as we do. If you continue reading, you will see it is after that that he appeared to the Apostles and allowed them to touch him.

Comments (mostly from Wycliff's Commentary--but he agrees with me):

1. The Greek rendoring of "touch me not" might better read "Stop clinging to me." Indeed, the New International Version reads, (John 20:17) Jesus said, "Do not hold on to me, for I have not yet returned to the Father. Go instead to my brothers and tell them, 'I am returning to my Father and your Father, to my God and your God.'" (NIV)

See also: John 20:17 in The Message translation:

Jesus said, "Don't cling to me, for I have not yet ascended to the Father. Go to my brothers and tell them, 'I ascend to my Father and your Father, my God and your God.' "

2. Wycliff notes that Jesus did not rebuke the other woman for holding his feet (Matthew 28:9).

Conclusion: Jesus is gently informing Mary that the old relationship with him has changed. He is now glorified. She must not cling to the "man" Jesus, but now to King Jesus, the Messiah.

I only explain this because I had never before heard such an interpretation of Jesus' statement to the women--reading into it the whole idea that he was not yet in a form to be touched, that he had to go to heaven and see his Dad first.

Interest ideas. Thanks for sharing.

[What Cometh Before The Second Coming?]

PC,

The LDS believe that Christ will return both to America and to Jerusalem. When he comes for the "last" time, if you want to call it that, or the "second coming" he will come in full glory and the righteous from the earth as well as in heaven will be with him. He will establish his Church with two headquarters, one in America, and one in Jerusalem.

The Second Coming will be after much calamity has befallen the earth and its people and the wicked have been basically wiped from the face of the earth. This is in the future and there is yet much to happen before this Second Coming. I am not saying it will be 1,000's of more years, but simply that as bad as things are in the world right now, they are going to get much worse and when the wicked have been destroyed, then Christ will return and reign in glory for 1,000 years upson the earth and at this time the work for the dead and the living will be done.

This 1,000 years will be a wonderful wonderful time for all the earth's people. There will be no murder or terrible wickedness like that has always existed on the earth. Man will live to the age of 100 with no illness and be changed without tasting death as we know it. It will be a wonderful time, that I am sure we cannot imagine now.

Also, you were talking about Christ's several appearances after his death. You are right, we do know that when he first appeared to Mary and some of the others, he had not been to his father yet. He told them not to touch him, because he had not yet been to his Father. But when he was with the apostles and Thomas came in and did not believe it was him, he told him to touch him and see. So at that point he had been to his Father. He could not allow himself to be touched in his state until he had seen his Father. So he had to have been to his Father before he saw Thomas.

But the Second Coming that we all look forward to will be his coming to dwell upon the earth in glory. That will be the time that all have looked for from the beginning of time.

Thank you, Josie. I'll still read Aristotle's thread, and Ray's lds.org references--especially the latter since it would be 'official'--but you pretty much gave me the summary as was looking for!

My only question mark on your analysis is that I've not heard is that Jesus told Mary and others not to touch him because he had not been to the Father. In fact, I found the following account:

And as they went to tell his disciples, behold, Jesus met them, saying, All hail. And they came and held him by the feet, and worshipped him. Then Jesus said unto them, [Be not afraid: go tell my bretheren that they go into Galilee, and there shall they see me. Matthew 28:9-10

I've never heard before that Jesus went to the Father in heaven after the resurrection, then came back for a few days, then left again. I'm not sure this matters much, but the Matthew reference seems to indicate that the women did indeed touch him--and worship him.

PC,

This is in the future and there is yet much to happen before this Second Coming. I am not saying it will be 1,000's of more years, but simply that as bad as things are in the world right now, they are going to get much worse and when the wicked have been destroyed, then Christ will return and reign in glory for 1,000 years upson the earth and at this time the work for the dead and the living will be done.

I've highlighted the part of this statement that concerns me. We teach believers that NOTHING more has to happen before the time of the Great Tribulation and the anti-Christ. Jesus said He will come "like a thief in the night." He will come "in the twinkling of an eye." He will come when people do not expect him.

Quite frankly, I told my parishioners in 1999 that I did not expect the rapture of the church, or the great tribulation to begin that year, or the next. The End Times were hyped during those two years. I told them to wait a few years, and watch people turn away from concern about the End Times. Sure enough, we have crazy things happening in the Middle East, and Russia seeming to assend once again. China is clearly becoming a serious world power--one with an overt policy of atheism. Yet, we hear much less discussion about the End Times. This is the kind of time when Jesus could initiate the end times scenario that has been planned out from the beginning.

[Iran : A 17 Year Old Girl Is Sentenced To Death By Hanging.]

I think I’ll ask for some clarification from mzb before jumping down on him for what he was saying.

For instance, if a country has a law against a woman killing a man, even if a man is trying to rape a woman, then it would be “just” for those who uphold that law to punish a woman for killing a man, even if a man is trying to rape a woman.

I remain in utter shock! It is never just to execute a woman for defending herself against a rapist. Ray, are you serious, here? It's country's that have laws like this that lead me to declare, despite the seeming arrogance of it, that some cultures are better than others, some legal systems are superior to others, and yes, some religious systems produce better followers than others.

The victims of state sanctioned rape have far more right to REVOLUTION than our anti-tax ancestors did, in my not so humble at all opinion. Ray, were the Abolitionists wrong in your view, too? Those who hid Jews from the Nazis? Those priests who produced phony conversion paperwork for Jews, to help them avoid the Holocaust? Romans 13 is true as a default, but even Jesus was executed by the Roman state--for violating their laws against claiming there was any king but Caesar (even if his kingdom was spiritual).

Now, if someone doesn’t like that law, or if someone doesn’t think that law is “good”, then they should appeal to higher authorities to try to get that law changed, rather than simply violate the law and then complain that they don’t like the punishment that goes along with violating it.

If we're talking about reducing/raising the speed limit, changing the tax structure, opposing a war, etc., I'll agree with you. But, state sanctioned rape? What if government passes laws against public conversion efforts? Will Mormon missionaries discontinue their efforts?

[What Cometh Before The Second Coming?]

Yes, I meant that I don’t consider it to be His “second” coming because I know He came several times to others after His resurrection, including the time He appeared to Mary, and then to His first 12 apostles, several times, and then to some of his disciples on the road to Emmaus, and then to Paul on the road to Damascus, and then to the righteous Nephites, several times, and then to Joseph Smith, several times… which makes it evident that His next return will not be His “second” coming… unless perhaps it is a reference to the second time He will come to live and reside on this Earth, and not merely to a second “coming”.

Ray, you really don't know why non-LDS people speak of Christ's second coming? Here it is:

1. All the times that Jesus appeared to his followers after the resurrection are still considered part of his first advent. He had not yet returned to the Father. Nobody talked of him having left and returned. Rather, three days after his death ON THE EARTH, he rose--came back to life. He was STILL here--he had not yet left.

2. Whereas Orthodox Jews are still awaiting the first coming of the Messiah, we believe that He already came once, and will return--just as He promised.

3. Those outside of the LDS-faith tradition have never embraced the stories of Jesus time in America--so they would not have counted that appearance. Even if the stories are true, Jesus time in American would not seem to fall within the Messianic prophecies of the Old or New Testament--it was not the appearing they were looking towards--the one they were to be ready for.

BTW--I know, I still have a good deal of homework--Aristotle's America thread, and your link to the lds.org site. But, I hope this explains the mysterious use of "second coming" by non-LDS Christians.

[Iran : A 17 Year Old Girl Is Sentenced To Death By Hanging.]

The way that I see it if it was against the law what she done and is found guilty than I would rather hang than sit in a cell for the rest of my life, but than if it was self defence then I think she had the right to fight to the death, but it all depends on the laws of the land. B)

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

[The World's Smallest Political Quiz]

The quiz is too short and extremely non-specific. I assume it's a tool that some would use to pigeonhole others in order to marginalize them. As for its validity, I doubt it has any.

Well, since I introduced this link, I'll defend the test. Yes, it is short, and so the categories are admittedly broad. I scored "conservative" on this one, "moderate conservative" on a longer version I took. The purpose of the test is to show people that they are probably more LIBERTARIAN than they think. The producers of this are open about their goal, and the site makes its affiliation clear. Nevertheless, Conservatives, Centrists, and Liberals come out as they are.

It's not meant to pigeon-hole anyone. I kept hearing Jason make his classical-liberal arguments, and complaining that Democrats were not "true liberals." I recognized his argument as being "Classic liberal" (i.e., Libertarian), and remembered this test.

I hope these disclosures clarify the agenda of the producers, and my purpose in introducing it. Hey, it was kinda fun. Who'd a thunk Aristotle would come out Centrist????

[The World's Smallest Political Quiz]

To find out what your true political label should be, take the following quiz:

http://www.theadvocates.org/quiz.html

Feel free to let us know how you did, and what you thought of the quiz.

I came out Conservative: limited government in economics, but more government in social policies.

My only "edit" was to add my personal scores:

Your PERSONAL issues Score is 20%.

Your ECONOMIC issues Score is 60%.

[Iran : A 17 Year Old Girl Is Sentenced To Death By Hanging.]

Intersting point. What to label someone who cannot identify with either modern movement?

For example, Im not in favor of bigger government, but I am a social liberal in that I'd like to see homosexuals given equal rights, medical and insurance benefits, etc.

Looks like we'll have to come up with a new label...

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

[Foreign Exchange Student]

So let me get this straight...you want your children to experience different cultures...but you don't want them exposed to a different religious culture?

Jason, just because people want to experience new cultures/adventures, etc. (or because their parents think it would be good for them to do so) doesn't mean they should give up the good things they've already experienced. Especially concerning ultimate truth. Keep in mind, the LDS sends out 60K missionaries a year to experience new cultures--and to change the religious culture wherever they go.

BTW, Most Christian groups, and many Muslims, and even some Buddhists do the same. Evangelicals do it because Jesus told us to. I think some of the other religions with less of a religious mandate, figure it's good marketing. B)

[Foreign Exchange Student]

Since my kids were very young, I have wanted to give them the fantastic experience of living and studying abroad.

This issue hinges on the age of your child(ren). I went on two exchanges during my college years. The first to Hong Kong, where I stayed in an apartment with two other American exchange students. The second, was to South Korea, where I had a homestay. In neither case was I with those of "like precious faith." However, I was in my early twenties, and found the experience invaluable. In fact, the second exchange led to a six-year mission stay!

If you students are high school age (which is what I gathered), then of course, more caution is necessary. However, by 16 or so, you've probably done your work "raising the child in the way s/he should go." Let 'em lose, let them know you love them, and that you'll nag them for eternity if they mess up!

[Is There A God?]

The question was whether or not God has a body in form like that of Man, so if you state that the Son did and does while the Father never did or will, you would then be stating that there is that distinction between “them”.

We're all agreed that there are three persons in the Trinity, so we should all be comfortable speaking of the Father and Son as "them." The question is whether they are one essence or three.

And btw, when God created Man in the beginning of the creations of this Earth, God created Man in the image or form of an “us”, so along with telling us that God was an “us” in the beginning, God also told us the image or form of that “us”.

So, if non-LDS theology is correct, that Father, Son and Holy Spirit were all noncorporeal prior to the incarnation, than that image would, of necessity, not refer to physical characteristics. Of course, if your theology is correct, it well could.

BTW: My guess is that if one relegates his/her studies to the Holy Bible, s/he could never teach with certainty one way or the other about God's physical nature. However, Jews and Christians have always found more reason to discern that God is incorporeal. So, the veracity of the Mormon view here seems to hinge largely on the validity of Joseph Smith's revelations.

[What Cometh Before The Second Coming?]

In a string discussing religion and politics, Mrs. A pointed out to me that Mormons believe that Jesus will return to set up his kingdom. I believe she said it would take place in America.

By way of information, Christian churches of the last two centuries have foreseen to possible scenarios leading up to Christ's return:

1. Postmillenialism (mainstream Protestantism, and perhaps Catholicism--not sure on the RCC): It is the responsiblity of the church to build the kingdom of God on earth. Through education, enlightened politics, increasingly successful moral and ethical influence, the world would become so glorious that Christ would return in triumph, with congratulations to his Church for a job well done.

2. Premillenialism (Fundamentalist, evangelical, and other 'conservative' groups): The world will continue to degenerate "as it was in the days of Noah." The Church is to be salt and light, but understand that ultimately, Jesus will return, in judgement. The main duty of believers is not to build God's kingdom on earth, but to redeem as many souls as possible, so they might be spared the judgement, and enjoy eternal reward in the "new heaven and new earth."

Now Mormons have a reputation for being conservative, yet Mrs. A's post leads me to believe that the first scenario fits better into LDS eschatology. Can somebody enlighten me here? Also, I thought Jesus would return to Jerusalem. Will he come to America again, too...or instead?

[Iran : A 17 Year Old Girl Is Sentenced To Death By Hanging.]

Hi, prisonchaplain...

LDS believe in the Second Coming. America was established as a Christian nation by our Founding Fathers, in preparation for the Lord's return.

- Mrs. A

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

[Iran : A 17 Year Old Girl Is Sentenced To Death By Hanging.]

But the church will not be corrupted by human power-lust so worry not my dear fellow. Lord Ashton was right as far as he went, but I dare say we would all be wise enough to see beyond the power to the character of the man holding the power and before.

First, to address your claim--While I agree that "the Church"--meaning the bride of Christ, will come through the trials and temptations of this era "without spot or wrinkle," I'd suggest two 'adjustments' to your assessment.

1. The Church is the remnant--those true believers who named the name of Jesus, and who endured to the end. It is not a human organization--not "the faithful and wise servant" of the Watchtower Bible & Tract Society, and not the one who maintains apostles, priests and prophets. Again, Jesus' kingdom is not of this world. His followers follow him. Some church organizations may be better at facilitating our journey in Christ, but to claim that one human organization is uncorruptable borders on idolatry.

2. The reason the remnant comes through perfect is because they have been "washed in the blood of the Lamb," not because they chose the best Christian denomination--or the most "restored" group.

Now, aren't we supposed to be discussing the interplay of religion and American politics, not the corruptablity or incorruptiblity of church denominations?

Also, it is when man gains true power that he is not corruptable, rather only those who have an illusion of power who become corrupt. You see, true power comes from God as a man is proven worthy of the challenge. The illusionary power, on the contrarywise, comes from man to man to man and is very corrupting as society is in constant competition. There was a theme written on how one only actually obtains authority over others through characteristics of charity and powers the same. It is true only about true power and authority.

I'm trying to figure out what the above has to do with whether or not America is a Christian nation.

[Iran : A 17 Year Old Girl Is Sentenced To Death By Hanging.]

Tell that to the Hindus, Buddhists, Muslims, and everyone else that reside here.

It was never meant to be a Christian nation, as the founders knew the danger of allowing religion to govern.

Thank goodness. B)

Christianity corrupted by human quest for power could produce Iran-like conditions (aka The Crusades and the Inquisition). BTW, I don't think that was a Catholic problem. I dare say, a Mormon government--again corrupted by human power-lust--could be just as extreme.

Lord Acton was right. Power corrupts! Christianity is the foundation of this country's ethos, and the dominant cultural force. However, America is not a legal or political theocracy, and Christian would be wise to continue to be salt and light, and remember that Jesus said, "My kingdom is not of this world."

[Are You A Liberal?]

Chap, public funding for public schools. You cannot divert public funding from public schools without reducing the quality of public schooling.

Sure you can. You send the kids going to crummy public schools to better private ones, and close down the crummy schools. However, you win on this one. The courts are nixing private vouchers--too much of that nasty religious stuff being taught in those better private schools.

I'd still like to see a comparison chart with other First world countries. Last time I checked, we were well below average on the tax scale.

Apples and oranges. Most western countries are socialist. We are not (relatively speaking). 50% is a lot to give up--especially if we see have to provide for our own healthcare, etc.

What? The Palestinians were there all along. It was the Jews who began buying up land and moved in. The surrounding Arab countries wouldn't be so mad if the West didn't give wholesale support to Israel all the time.

Most of the Arab world wants Israel to be whiped off the map. It's kinda hard for the Jews to negotiate with people who do not believe they have a right to exist, and who will train young mothers that if they walk into the middle of an Israeli shopping mall and blow themselves up, they'll go to paradise.

Palestine was never a nation. These nomads could have been assimilated into Jordan, and other surrounding nations. However, they'd rather corral them into the midst of Israel, and blame the "Zionist Entity" for all the Palestinian woes. These poor saps are pawns.

No. It's lack of adequate income that creats poverty. If women were given equal pay for equal work, we'd significantly reduce the problem.

Well, literally, you are correct. However, women don't get = pay because they tend to have babies, and get off the track completely, or settle into a mommy track.

Of course there are no absolutes. That's a myth perpetuated by the various religious cults of the world, and in this country, it's biggest proponent are Christians.

I know. I know. Mao's Cultural Revolution, which probably killed in excess of 50 million, destroyed most religions at gunpoint, and probably ruined many ancient artifacts, or the personality cult of North Korea, or the Khmer Rouge period in Cambodia, or the 30 million killed in Stalin's Soviet Union--these cultures are all just as morally righteous as the communities Mother Theresa created in India, or Mahatma Ghandi for that matter. It's simply absurd, that because of some doctrine of tolerance, you are not willing to say some cultural system clearly work better than others.

[Are You A Liberal?]

Jason' date='Jan 28 2006, 01:53 PM

Prisonchaplain offers his views in ALL CAPS:

1. Standards for admissions to universities, fire departments, etc. should be lowered for people of color. no

NO. I THINK IT'S OUTRAGEOUS THAT ASIAN-AMERICANS ACTUALLY HAVE TO SCORE HIGHER THAN WHITES TO GET INTO PUBLIC UNIVERSITIES IN CALIFORNIA, BECAUSE THEY ARE "OVER REPRESENTED."

2. Bilingual education for children of immigrants, rather than immersion in English, is good for them and for America. Only if we don't want to fall behind.

I'M NOT OPPOSED TO TRANSITION PROGRAMS, ESL, ETC. AND, I ABSOLUTELY BELIEVE MOST LEGAL AND GOVERNMENT DOCUMENTS SHOULD BE TRANSLATED INTO THE LANGUAGES OF ANY IMMIGRANT LANGUAGE GROUP THAT REACHES A CERTAIN THRESHOLD.

QUITE FRANKLY, "ENGLISH-ONLY" IS OFTEN USED BY ANTI-IMMIGRATION GROUPS AND BLATANT RACISTS TO DISCOURAGE NON-WHITE MIGRATION TO OUR COUNTRY.

3. Murderers should never be put to death. yes

I'M TORN BETWEEN THE APPARENT INEQUITY OF OUR CAPITAL PUNISHMENT RATES, AND THE RESPECT FOR LIFE THAT THE DEATH PENALTY DEMONSTRATES. "YOU COMMIT THE ULTIMATE THEFT OF LIFE FROM ANOTHER HUMAN, AND THE ONLY PUNISHMENT THAT RECOGNIZES WHAT WAS TAKEN IS THE DEATH PENALTY." SO, UNDECIDED.

4. During the Cold War, America should have adopted a nuclear arms freeze. undecided

ABSOLUTELY NOT!

5. Colleges should not allow ROTC programs.no

ONLY IF THEY WISH TO FORGO ALL GOVERNMENT FUNDING, INCLUDING THOSE FROM STUDENTS WHO RECEIVE GOVERNMENT-BACKED LOANS AND GRANTS.

6. It was wrong to wage war against Saddam Hussein in the Gulf War. Depends. If our excuse for invasion was to help the people of Iraq, we had better make a serious military effort in Africa, otherwise we're hypocrits.

I DO NOT TOTALLY AGREE WITH PART B. WARS ARE WAGED, IN PART, BECAUSE OF OUR OWN NATIONAL INTERESTS. HOWEVER, IN HIND-SIGHT WE'D PROBABLY BE BETTER OFF NOT HAVING GONE INTO IRAQ. HOWEVER, HINDSIGHT IS RATHER IRRELEVANT.

7. Poor parents should not be allowed to have vouchers to send their children to private schools. True. This is the most ridiculous attempt to divert tax dollars for private purposes i've ever heard of.

FALSE. THE PURPOSE OF PUBLIC FUNDING FOR EDUCATION IS TO EDUCATE CHILDREN, NOT TO MAKE PUBLIC SCHOOLS, REGARDLESS OF THEIR FAILURE RATES, HAVE LOTS OF MONEY.

8. It is good that trial lawyers and teachers unions are the two biggest contributors to the Democratic Party. As if Republicans were'nt corrupt. Hahahahahahahahahahahaha

MY REAL PROBLEM WITH THE TEACHER'S UNION IS THAT MEMBERS ARE FORCED TO CONTRIBUTE TO PRO-ABORTION POLITICS, SINCE MOST PUBLIC SCHOOL SYSTEMS RUN "CLOSED SHOPS." UNION MEMBERSHIP IS MANDATORY. OTHERWISE, DEMOCRATS, LIKE REPUBLICANS, ARE MORE THAN WILLING TO TAKE $ FROM WHOMEVER WILL GIVE THEM.

9. Marriage should be redefined from male-female to any two people. The government should have nothing to do with marriage in the first place.

THIS IS WHY CHRISTIANS, MUSLIMS, AND JEWS OPPOSE SO-CALLED GAY RIGHTS. HOMOSEXUAL PRACTICE IS A BEHAVIOR, NOT A RACE, NOT A GENDER. MOST MAJOR RELIGIONS STRONGLY CONDEMN THE BEHAVIOR. TODAY, IT'S SPECIAL RIGHTS, TOMORROW IT'S OFFICIAL GOVERNMENT SANCTION OF A LIVING RELATIONSHIP MOST CONSIDER IMMORAL, DOWN THE ROAD CHURCHES MAY INDEED BE CHALLENGED TO GIVE UP THEIR MORAL TEACHINGS OR LOSE TAX EXEMPT STATUS.

10. A married couple should not have more of a right to adopt a child than two men or two women. Again, the government should stay out of it altogether.

AGAIN, NO SPECIAL RIGHTS SHOULD BE GIVEN TO THOSE WHO CHOOSE TO ENGAGE IN BEHAVIOR THAT MOST CITIZENS, AND INDEED MOST RELIGIOUS SYSTEMS, CONDEMN AS IMMORAL.

11. The Boy Scouts should not be allowed to use parks or any other public places and should be prohibited from using churches and synagogues for their meetings. Don't care.

THE CASE THAT PROVES MY POINTS THAT HOMOSEXUAL GROUPS, AS THEY CONTINUE TO GAIN SPECIAL RIGHTS AND POLITICAL POWER, WILL EVENTUALLY TURN THEIR GUNS AGAINST RELIGIOUS GROUPS. IN THEIR EYES, IT WILL BE PAY-BACK TIME.

12. The present high tax rates are good. They're high? Compared to which Nation-State?

THEY'RE NOT HIGH? 28% FEDERAL INCOME TAX. 9% STATE SALES TAX. CAR FEES, LICENSE FEES, PROPERTY TAXES, TAXES ON TELEPHONE, CABLE TV, ETC. ETC. I WOULD BE SURPRISED IF MUCH LESS THAN HALF OUR INCOME ENDS UP GOING TO TAXES.

13. Speech codes on college campuses are good and American values are bad. Moronic question.

SPEECH CODES ARE A VERY REAL ISSUE. CENSORSHIP OF MANY CONSERVATIVE IDEAS IS BECOMING MORE WIDE-SPREAD, IN THE NAME OF "NOT OFFENDING." FURTHERMORE, AT FLORIDA INTERNATIONAL UNIVERSITY MY KOREAN WIFE WAS ASKED WHY SHE HAD BOTHERED TO TAKE TWO SEMESTERS OF AMERICAN HISTORY. THEY FINALLY ACCEPTED THE FACT THAT SHE HAD TAKEN A "MULTICULTURAL COURSE," BECAUSE SHE STUDIED KOREAN HISTORY IN HER COLLEGE BEFORE SHE CAME HERE.

14. The Israelis and Palestinians are morally equivalent. Probably.

NOT! PALESTINIANS ARE PAWNS OF THE SURROUNDING NATIONS, WHO REFUSED TO ABSORB THESE NOMADS, AND LEFT THEM OUT IN NO-MANS LAND, TO CREATE A CRISIS FOR WHICH THEY COULD THEN BLAME ISRAEL.

15. The United Nations is a moral force for good in the world, and therefore America should be subservient to it and such international institutions as a world court. The UN is a good force in the world. However, that does not mean that the United States should forfeit it's autonomy. That said, if we wish to lead the world for good, we should submit any persons accused of an International crime to the Hague.

I PRETTY MUCH AGREE WITH JASON HERE.

16. It is good that colleges have dropped hundreds of men's sports teams in order to meet gender-based quotas. Of course it's good.

SURE! SPORTS IS THE EPIDOMY OF CRAZY PEOPLE, ANYWAY. SERIOUSLY, LET THE FREE-MARKET DECIDE THIS ONE.

17. No abortions can be labeled immoral. All abortion is bad. Immoral is a judgement call nobody has a right to make.

OH, ME THINKS WE DO HAVE A RIGHT TO MAKE THAT CALL, AS A SOCIETY. IF LIFE IS DEFINED AS BEGINNING AT CONCEPTION, THEN ABORTION IS MURDER. WE'RE NOT THERE YET, BUT THIS IS AN ISSUE SOCIETY CAN DECIDE.

18. Restaurants should be prohibited by law from allowing customers to choose between a smoking and a non-smoking section. Don't care.

WE JUST PASSED THIS BAN IN WA STATE. I VOTED AGAINST IT, BUT THE ECONOMIC EFFECTS APPEAR TO BE MINIMAL.

19. High schools should make condoms available to students and teach them how to use them. Definitely. Or we can go on pretending that Teenagers really don't have sex...

WE KNOW TEENAGERS WILL HAVE SEX. HOWEVER, THE GOAL IS NOT TO PREVENT PREGNANCIES, BUT TO BETTER GUIDE OUR TEENAGERS NOT TO HAVE THE SEX. THERE ARE PLENTY OF NONRELIGIOUS REASONS FOR THIS--AND SOCIETY DOES BEAR THE EXPENSE OF THOSE WHO GO THIS ROUTE. SEE http://www.4parents.gov

20. Racial profiling for terrorists is wrong -- a white American grandmother should as likely be searched as a Saudi young male. Certainly. Anyone remember Anton LeVey?

LET THE INTELLIGENCE AGENTS DO THEIR JOB. THEY KNOW BETTER THAN WE WHO SHOULD BE SEARCHED, AND SOCIAL-ENGINEERING SHOULD NOT PLAY A ROLE IN THEIR DECISION-MAKING.

21. Racism and poverty -- not a lack of fathers and a crisis of values -- are the primary causes of violent crime in the inner city. I'll give poverty the primary cause of violent crime. The rest is non-sensical.

LACK OF FATHERS USUALLY CREATES PROVERTY. ADDITIONALLY, DRUG USE AND DELIQUENCY ARE MORE ATTRIBUTED TO FAMILY CIRCUMSTANCES THAN POVERTY, IF I'M NOT MISTAKEN.

22. It is wrong and unconstitutional for students to be told, "God bless you" at their graduation. It's irrelevant.

POLITICAL CORRECTNESS RUN AMOK, IS NOT IRRELEVENT. IT'S ABSURD THAT 85% OF AMERICANS ARE TOLD THAT THEIR INNOCUOUS GREETINGS OR PARTINGS ARE OFFENSIVE.

23. No culture is morally superior to any other. True.

RIDICULOUS. UNLESS WE ASSUME THERE ARE NO ABSOLUTES. DO YOU REALLY SEE NO SUPERIORITY OF GREEK EDUCATION AND CULTURE OVER THE AUSTERITY OF SPARTACUS, FOR AN ANCIENT EXAMPLE?

[Is There A God?]

It is only that if a dog has puppies, they do not grow up to be anything less than their parentage. The scriptures do teach we are the offspring of God. How could we be anything less than our parentage. Yes some will get hit by the drunk truck, imorality truck, or apathy truck, or rationalizing truck and not make it to Godhood, but they do have the potential.

Except that God did not "have us." God made us. We are his creation. So, just as my image might be in that lousy attempt at a drawing of an egg I did back in college (the teacher gave me a mercy C-grade), so God's image is in us, his highest creation. And yes, in glory we shall become "godlike." But, we will always be God's creation, He will always receive our worship, and I doubt that we shall ever receive worship from others. After all, we believe our God is the one true and living God over ALL creation.

Or in other words, once you know Jesus Christ does have a body, while also knowing that Jesus Christ is indeed God, there should be nothing stopping you from knowing that God does indeed have a body.

One of the doctrines that is a "divide" is this issue of whether God is three persons in one essence, or three persons in three essences. Mormons make a much more definite partition between the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, than does the rest of Christianity. Argued too rigidly, the three-essences position becomes tritheism. As FYI, most of Christianity believes that God never had a body until the incarnation of Jesus. Furthermore, we would see the "image of God" verses, of necessity, speaking of character, moral drive, etc., not a body, since we do not believe he has one. Likewise, Mormons see "image" and read "body" because they do believe he has one. The verses can be read both ways, but for the first 3300 years of Judeo-Christian practice, very few ever read of the Father as being corporeal.

BTW (PC) G-d is the only one I know that has ultimate power – I do not believe ultimate power ultimately corrupts. Selfishness ultimately corrupts.The Traveler

Lord Acton was speaking in the context of human politics. In the spiritual realm, you may be right. However, the reason I will never support a specifically Christian political party is that the Church had its crack and raw political power, and muffed up a few centuries quite badly.