prisonchaplain

The Bible is strong on marriage. However, marriage is not commanded, and celibacy was something Paul encouraged for those who wanted to totally dedicate themselves to gospel work. I'm not Catholic, so I have no need to defend the REQUIREMENT of celibacy for their priests. My reading of Scriptures finds liberty in this area. If one marries, do it right. Men, love your wives sacrificially. Wives, give men the respect they need and usually deserve. Parents, discipline, but do not suffocate or demean your children. Children, obey your parents. If you remain single, do use the 'free time' this gives you for the Lord's work. I see the reasoning, but disagree. Most men are prone to having "wandering eyes." Yet, we tell them to "repress their sexual desires." Men are to devote themselves to their wives only. Likewise, if a believer finds him/herself tempted by same-sex attraction, we encouage him/her to "repress sexuality," seek deliverence from the temptation, and find resolution in a heterosexual relationship, or in celibacy.

If I've learned nothing else here, it has been about this very issue. It's been several years since I've perused "anti-LDS" literature, but the impression I get is that they frequently quote from 19th-century LDS homilies and something called the Journal of Discourses. It's much more informative to engage people with what they actually believe, versus what I think they might believe. Otherwise, I could carry the conversation on all by myself. While I do not disagree with the importance of good works and holiness, sound doctrine is not to be totally ignored. Prof. Robinson (BYU, Religious Studies) has this to say about evangelicals/LDS and doctrine: In view of the real theological differences that exist between us, I would not think it appropropriate to grant full fellowship to one another or to cease prosyletizing on either side. But it is time to recognize each other's common devotion to the Christ of the New Testament--whichever of us may be the real Apollos in need of more perfect instruction. Perhaps because of my role as a prison chaplain, I am quite "lenient" in such assessments. There are several New Testament passages that speak of strong Christians valuing and helping the 'weaker vessels.' When our brothers/sisters falter, we try to salvage them, rather than discarding them. Even in the extreme case of 1 Corinthians 5--where the so-called brother was having an affair with his stepmother, the Apostle Paul orders that the offender be put out of the church--turned over to Satan--BUT, WITH THE HOPE THAT HE WOULD COME TO HIS SENSES AND REPENT. Indeed, in 2 Corinthians there is reference to one who has repented, and Paul orders the church to quite rehashing the old offense--fully forgive and restore the brother. Many scholars believe there are strong grounds to suggest that Paul is referring to the offender from 1 Corinthians 5. Granted, this interpretation is speculative. However, the gospel truth is that Jesus came to seek and save that which was lost. All this to say, pursue holy, godly, good-work-producing living with all you've got. However, take care to lift up the weaker believers. The world will point plenty of fingers, we'd best not be guilty of 'friendly fire' against our own.

I always assumed Catholics had this rule because the Apostle Paul had said he wished other leaders were like him (single). However, the Catholic leadership has been very open about saying celibate priesthood is simply a tradition--one they wish to continue. You say this with such certainty. Are you sure? Was Timothy married? Can you give us some sources? I'm quite certain Paul was not married, though I'm aware there is a minority opinion that he had to have been, since he was of the Pharisaic tradition. An offshoot that did away with kosher food laws, greatly liberalized Sabbath regulations, apparently changed the common day of corporate worship, and in many other ways discarded certain Jewish practicers. Paul ranted fervently against those who tried to "Judaize" the Church. John repeated spoke of "so-called Jews," and came up with the phrase "synagogue of Satan." All this to say that Jewish traditions concerning rabbis did not necessarily carry over to the early followers of the Way. Without solid demographic evidence that Catholic clergy molest children at significantly higher rates than other groups, I'm tempted to consider this particular accusation as an unsavory exploitation of the current liberal media's anti-religious feeding frenzy. My church got its hit in the late 1980s with the televangelist scandals. Today it's the Catholics. Don't think they won't turn their guns on you, in due time. If there is any area of commonality between LDS and evangelicals (and rigorous practiononers of other faiths) it ought to be in our united demand that people of faith not be broadbrushed like this. I'm guessing that the practical purpose of requiring that priests be celibate was so they could fully devote themselves to priestly work, because they would not have the distractions of family life. This was the benefit Paul saw, and the Catholic Church probably thought of this far more seriously than they worried that married men might have sex. I'm not anything close to Catholic, but your speculations here border on offensive. I've met Catholic priests, and they seem to me to be dedicated servants, who truly have forsaken family life so they could fully dedicate themselves to service to God and his church. You've gone from arguing that polygamy was acceptable, to suggesting that it was "the more religious" family arrangement? Based on what? An appeal to aggrarian nostalgia (that's how they did it in the countryside--where the simple, pure folk live!). Polygamy may have been a compromise that God accepted, and may yet accept, in certain circumstances. It was never the more religious choice, the more righteous choice. And, it certainly was not God's original design. The man and woman were to leave their parents, cling to one another, and the TWO were to become ONE flesh.

My theory on the existence of aliens (based on no Scripture whatsoever): 1. The nearest star is over four light years away. 2. Any beings that have the ability to get to here from wherever they might come from are so technologically advanced, that we have no hope of defending ourselves against them. We are toast! They can force their will on us. 3. So, if aliens decide to manifest themselves to us, they are probably demonic in origin, and are here to deceive--not enlighten.

"ReligionX practioners are such idiots." "Now, I'm sure what you mean by that is that it is sad they do not understand the greater truths we offer." "Yeah, I mean how stupid can they be? And did you hear that during their so-called sacraments, they believe ______. How ridiculous is that???" ----- Now, if you also disagree with ReligionX, and the speaker is from your faith group, you might think him/her a bit zealous and immature, and non-subtle, but you would probably defend his/her heart. They mean well, they just don't express it nicely. If you practice ReligionX you'll likely consider the speaker to be a hateful, arrogant, bigotted, individual...perhaps even a "son of perdition." If you're right, then by both our religions, they'll likely wind up in great spiritual pain. If I'm right, they'll likely grow out of it some day.

I thought you cared? I really did

I've excerpted about three paragraphs of Traveler explaining the immature and mean-natured behavior of many evangelicals on the internet, and around the world. First, I truly am sorry. I can guess at why this happens, but regardless, it's not right. Not here...not anywhere. Jesus was tender with sinners, and very direct with the self-righteous religious leaders. It does seem that we get it wrong in our churches. Teachers and leaders tread very lightly with those in their congregations, but lament the sins of the world 'out there.' As a simple example, Christians need to hear a lot more teaching about gluttony than they do homosexuality. So, why are evangelicals prone to harsh tones and argumentativeness? Very likely they were raised on a spiritual diet of "right doctrine," the importance of winning souls, the shortness of time remaining before Christ's return, the urgency of getting the truth out, and the dire need to defend against false teachings, false Christs, false religions, etc. Couple that with the belief that those who do not embrace the gospel of Jesus will spend eternity in hell, and you have a recipe, that in the hands of an immature but zealous believer, could spell shrill, pushy, insistent, and yes arrogant presentations of the gospel. The good news ends up not sounding very good. Perhaps Star Trek best duplicated this approach to evangelism: The most important thing I'll say with this post: The answer to Mormon-Evangelical dialogue is conversation such as that offered by the two professors in the book A Mormon Evangelical Conversation: How Wide the Divide?. I'm into the last third of it, and have found it informative and pleasant. The two contributors are fervant in their stances, yet demonstrate the respect and love that the gospel calls for, and that both faith traditions value. I've said repeatedly that I'm hear to both learn and share. Snow and Ray have both given me some interesting exchanges, as have Jason and Sgallan. Ironically, DisRuptive1 probably gave me the most in-depth conversation one night, when he explained to me his understanding of the Plan of Salvation. A few here have also said they enjoy my contribution. In the end, you'll do like everyone, and evaluate my potential according to my fruit. I had to go all the way back to post #11 to find out the context in which I said that! I believe I was responding to the notion that we should seek light and avoid darkness. I was just rephrasing that idea. Of course, on the Day of Judgment, it won't be us, but Jesus who separates the goat from the sheep.

Okay, Sgallan. I did this. And I found a dad with nearly 10,000 posts at the wrestling site! I thought you were prolific here. Now I feel truly . I thought I was something of a writer. I thought I enjoyed posting stuff. 10K posts! You're the man, and I salute you in humble admiration.

I'll give you an anecdotal and ironic example--considering how popular TV evangelists are at this site. Bishop T.D. Jakes came upon the notion that many women are estranged from God the Father, because of the difficult relationships they've had with their own fathers (and subsequently with their husbands). So, he hit upon a series of teachings entitled "Woman Thou Art Loosed." Women were so hungry to hear about a God who would not abuse, abandon, or fail to understand them, that they responded in droves. The teachings became a book, a movie, a music CD, etc. If you are looking for a scientific study of some type, I'm not preparing a graduate thesis on this topic. It just seems intuitively right to me that those who's only experience with "father" has been remote or none, would view a Father God as remote or none. Nothing I'm hypothesizing is meant to suggest that atheists/agnostics/deists cannot be or are not wonderful parents. Most wonderful parents, regardless of faith, probably produce children who grow up believing similarly. However, even if the faith of the children diverges, chances are their religious practice will be healthier for the positive upbringing. This is a whole different topic. What do we need, spiritually? I know what I know, and you know what you know. If there is truth, one of us is wrong, and if there isn't an absolute truth, it probably doesn't matter one way or the other.

I'm wondering about this gifted, kinetic superchild. My middle girl "just wants" ice cream, cookies, cake, donuts, and candy. Then again, she's only . . . 3

Let me repeat my thesis: Fathers who either disappear after conception (or soon after), or who are aloof, stoic, selfish, oafish, etc. may create fertile ground for their offspring to think that God, if He exists, is much like they are. I am not insinuating that agnostic/atheist fathers are this way at all, nor am I saying there are not people who cling to belief in Jesus, who are not in many ways messed up. Sgallon, your story is a sad one. I have nothing but admiration for the difficulties you have faced, and how you have put child first, and poured your energies into her, and into other volunteer work. As for my "little fallacy"--perhaps you are misunderstanding my point. Your child will likely be well-rounded, regardless of her religion, because of your healthy, resilient approach to life. Even if she becomes a fundamentalist, she'll probably see her God much like she sees you, and feel reassurance rather than fear.

This is actually a different topic--but an interesting one. First, I would be careful about assigning religion as a CAUSE of criminal behavior, as much as I would blaming racial background. Education, family dynamics, 'falling in with the wrong crowd,' etc. are probably stronger factors. As for the # of deadbeat dads, my guess is that most of them, regardless of what religion they might claim, and "backslidden," "away from God," "jack," or whatever term you want to use for someone that may have been raised in a faith, of learned some tenets, but is not an active practioner. For example, there is a common misperception that conservative Christian men commit child or spousal abuse at a higher rate than the national average. Ironically, a Catholic sociologist decided to research a little more in depth. What he found was: 1. Those conservative Christian men who WERE NOT REGULAR CHURCH ATTENDERS did commit a higher than average rate of abuse. BUT 2. Those conservative Christian men who REGULARLY ATTEND CHURCH committed a lower than average rate of abuse. I'm not suggesting that Deists/Agnostics are deadbeat dads, but rather that deadbeat dads, regardless of religion, may inadvertently create fertile ground for beliefs that God is distant and unknowable.

WOW. We sometimes joke about this, because in the Catholic Church, of course, the priests cannot be married. We'd say, "In the Protestant Church you almost have to be married, or they won't consider you. Maybe the pastoral search committees took the 1st Timothy to mean you HAVE to be married? " Now you're telling me you really think that. Somehow, Paul's emphasis on the bishop having only ONE wife leads me to believe otherwise. In reality, we do not even interpret 1st Timothy to refer to polygamy, since the practice was already dying out by his time. Instead, the most common interpretation is that a bishop cannot remarry if he has a living spouse. For example, if my wife were to leave me due to no fault of my own, I would not be allowed to remarry, so long as she was living, if I wanted to continue to serve in the ministry. A half truth is still a whole lie. Sarah and Abraham were married, and Abraham told the foreigners she was his sister, so that they would be kind to him. Furthermore, he allowed foreign kings to take his wife as their own, by leading them to believe she was available. I only pointed out that kings and prophets were not sinless, to say that the fact that some of them practiced polygamy is hardly proof that the marriage arrangement is God's first choice for us.

Fiannan,Dec 26 2005, 03:05 PM: God would probably recognize that (as I have stated before) demographic realities would be the determining factor as to polygamy taking place. After a war you would need it more than in times of peace -- or perhaps when a nation is highly secular (women being more drawn to religion than men) it would also benefit to have polygamy. If polygamy was clearly God's best will for humanity, I could see this argument. Without that presupposition, whether God would still endorse it in specific circumstances becomes speculation. I cannot for a second believe that polygamy was allowed because of the hardness of men's hearts since that means prophets (the ones who should know what is right more than anyone else) were guilty of sinning by taking more than one wife. No, not necessarily. We all agree that Moses was a prophet of God. He permitted divorce, because of the hardness of men's hearts. The provisions and processes he established were primarily meant to protect women. God allowed it, though no one would argue it was God's best will. Furthermore, no one that I know of argues that prophets were/are sinless. Abraham lied about his wife Sarah. Moses struck the rock the water was to come out of, in a manner displeasing to God. BTW, whether something be God's best will or merely something he permits, if God specifically allows it, then it's not sin. And the Mosaic laws would actually force men into polygamist unions if: 1) Your brother died before getting his wife pregnant. 2) You messed around, got caught, and then you were commanded to take the woman you cheated with as an additional wife. And, in these circumstances, the Jews who obeyed these laws did not sin. I've not said that polygamy was prohibited. Simply, that it was not God's original and best plan for us. The Bible states that God blessed David with several wives. Yet, if we look at the historical realities of most of the Jewish leaders who engaged in polygamy, it brought them troubles, more than blessings. I'm wondering if people considered him blessed, and so used that terminology--rather than God specifically saying, "David, I'm blessing you with all these wives." Again, there is no doubt that polygamy existed in the Old Testament, that God permitted it, and then God used the system for his purposes. None of these realities assures us that polygamy is God's best plan for humanity, or that God would favor it versus faithful monogamy--the system He original established in the Garden (prior to the Fall, btw). So silence of condemnation, coupled with instances of showing it in a totally positive light, would (if the issue were taken up using the US court system of investigation and judgement) lead to an easy verdict -- polygamy is indeed part of God's plan. Polygamy might be deemed an acceptable practice in human history, which God oversees. However, that same court would not conclude that it was God's perfect design for human families, or that it was God's preference for how godly families should be organized. Perhaps the Apostle Paul admonition to candidates for bishop represent God's New Testament desire for Christians seeking the Father's best: A bishop then must be blameless, the husband of one wife... 1 Timothy 3:2

The first part of John 3:16 says This is a denial of the assertions of the Deists and the Agnostics. Deists say that God may exist, but that he left us to our own wisdom, and does not involve himself in the affairs of humanity. Why would people believe this today? Frankly, it's what many "earthly fathers" have done. They donated their product, and then left mother and child to their own devices. This sad state of affairs is becoming so normal, that many , perhaps subconsciously, figure that if there is a God, he probably did the same. Agnostics says that God may exist, but that he is unknowable. Those children who had dads in their home, often found them stoic, self-absorbed, and generally "unfathomable." So, once again, subconsciously, some may find it easy to believe that any "Heavenly Father" would be likewise unknowable. The gospel answer is that our God is knowable, because he loves us. 1Jo 4:8: Whoever does not love does not know God, because God is love. 1 John 4:16: And so we know and rely on the love God has for us. God is love. Whoever lives in love lives in God, and God in him. We do not need to create anti-Deist/Agnostic sites, or commission missionaries to reach out to these "apostates." We simply need to raise up godly dads who are engaged in the lives of their children, and who care enough to make themselves understood.

It turns out you were right. During service #4 (a female group), I asked them who they considered to be a Christian leader with utmost integrity, humility, and authority. I was looking for someone like Billy Graham. The point we were getting at was that whoever they chose, like Isaiah of old, if s/he were to come into God's presence, would fall down and ask for mercy--not stand proudly and list all the reasons God was lucky to have him/her on the team. One of them says, "You." I responded, "Well...that's sweet. Now, let's get serious." Sure enough someone said Graham--a few other leaders were mentioned as well. But, that was sure an "Aw shucks!" moment.

How can a resist a cute little story here? One of the exciting theological questions Middle Ages theologians tackled was, "How many angels can dance on the head of a pin?" One day a fundamentalist Christians (note to the uninitiated--the fundamentalists are so conservative and opinionated that they make evangelicals look like universalists) happened upon the correct answer: None. No good angel would be caught dancin' . (another note to the uniniated: fundamentalists generally askew dancing, because they fear it could stir up lust, and lead to you-know-what). What's the point of my cute little story. Setheus has once again added a little light to my understanding of LDS teachings. I did not realize that Mormons believe that our premortal existence was as angels. I thought it was just spirits. Needless to say, evangelicals do not believe humans have a preexistent state. We literally believe life begins at conception. Professor Robinson makes some strong arguments about where this presupposition leads to. Suffice to say, whether we are created BY God or OF God is a significant "divide." The idea of a religion-wide apostasy is something most evangelicals would say only happens during the Tribulation--when the anti-Christ and his prophet institute a false one-world religion, basically opposed to Jesus. False teachings and heresies have been a consistent part of history--but again the universal apostasy you suggest, is another "divide." My only comment at this point is that I'm always cautious about saying someone's theological perspective makes God unjust. I disagree with Calvinism, for saying that God predestines some to eternal damnation. However, I won't say Calvinism is impossible, because, by definitition, God is NOT unjust. So, we either pre-existed or we didn't. God is just, regardless.

I've seen this type of "letter" before. Of course, someone (not Jesus) created it. However, the sentiments are biblical--and the truth of it has nothing to do with bulls ( ) Jesus said the following--and the original audience were Christian believers in the churches in Asia Minor, approximately 70 AD. Behold, I stand at the door, and knock: if any man hear my voice, and open the door, I will come in to him, and will sup with him, and he with me.--Revelation 3:20 KJV Jesus does indeed invite his people to personal communion--to heartfelt conversation.

Fiannan's defense of polygamy, mostly on cultural grounds, and somewhat from arguments of silence (it's not explicitly prohibited), is a persuasive grounds to suggest what might be allowable--especially in secular law. However, Christians have argued against polygamy, at least within the church, more on the grounds of what God's best will for us is. The seminal Scripture reference here comes from Mark 10: 6But from the beginning of the creation God made them male and female. 7For this cause shall a man leave his father and mother, and cleave to his wife; 8And they twain shall be one flesh: so then they are no more twain, but one flesh. 9What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder. KJV The notion of the man and woman becoming one-flesh--that this is God's ideal--that this is the created order, would suggest that polygamy was something that became permitted "because of the hardness of men's hearts"--much like divorce. Consider also the original created order, in Genesis 2:24: Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife: and they shall be one flesh.. Once again, polygamy, while perhaps acceptable, is not the original created order. It would take a miracle indeed for a man and multiple wives to cleave together and become one flesh. Then there is Jesus' opposition to lust, in Matthew 5:28: But I say unto you, That whosoever looketh on a woman to lust after her hath committed adultery with her already in his heart. The jealousy women would naturally feel, is not sin, but righteous indignation. Polygamy may or may not be something God will permit in future generations. However, this cursory look at Jesus words, and the original creation, inform me that God's best will for his followers is faithful monogamy.

What do you tell those in jail on Christmas Day? I kept it real...kept it simple, and told them: For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life. John 3:16 KJV Merry Christmas EVERYONE

I believe Traveler is observing a practice common amongst the most Orthodox of Jews--that of not writing either the name or title of G-d, lest it be inadvertently used or quoted in vain. I've seen this quite often amongst Hassidic Jewish writings, for example.

I hate it when the quote functions won't work (usually on my ancient home computer), and I have to guess who I'm responding to, because I've deleted the code-characters! You see. Some of you thought I never get angry. I do--but I usually refer my wrath for objects and technology, rather than personalities. Anywho (literally)....thanks for setting me straight...uh...Maureen, was it?

True that. I've already postulated that most academics are predisposed to anti-religious interpretations. We hear this popularized all the time, as follows: We can't allow the religious right (the Catholic Church, the Creationists--choose your spiritual whipping boy) to take over, or we'll end up back in the Dark Ages. I was also observing that LDS readers in particular, might find a Catholic defense deficient, because of the theological presupposition that the RCC was indeed apostate during the time in question.

Snow says: I agree with Ray. You can't stress enough the contributions that Joseph Smith made to the restoration but continuing revelation (and authority) is what drives the Church forward. It only makes sense. Yes, Snow is certainly right that in order for anyone to consider Joseph Smith a prophet, s/he must first accept that possiblity that God continues to offer revelation on a level that informs Scripture (rather than Scripture providing the check for it, as evangelicals teach). BTW, the evangelical professor in How Wide the Divide does seem to make room for the possiblity (though not the reality) of latter day revelation on a par with current Scripture.

Taoist Saint says: I commend you for your efforts. There are a number of items that come to my attention: 1. Are you doing this as an exercise in your personal understanding? Or do you have something else in mind? Frankly, I was thinking outloud. I've learned much from this site--not just the dogma, but some of the flow-of-thinking amongst LDS. Additionally, it's become clear to me that much of LDS teachings can be defended, IF we assume that Joseph Smith truly was a prophet. I was throwing these thoughts out for feedback. 2. Are you searching with the idea that you might change your thinking and philosophy? (find a truth you might be missing) At this point I'd say I hope to "enhance" my thinking. However, how thin is the line between major enhancement and change? 3. Do you intend to find a weakness and therefore alter LDS thinking and philosophy? Or use that weakness to seek converts? Not specifically. However, all conversations change seriously engaged participants. Perhaps others will gain some "enhancement" from what I have to offer, as well. I shouldn't be the only blessed by these cyber-interactions. 4. Are you looking for allies to help in support of causes you feel are most important in this day, age and time. I do not have anything in mind at this time, other than the hope that, if nothing else, my posts leave people feeling better, rather than worse, about evangelicals and evangelicalism. Now, may I make an attempt at your question? Sure, go ahead. LDS are taught that this is a time that light is being restored. What may surprise you is that LDS also believe we are yet in a beginning stage of the restoration of light – more to come. The more advanced stages will occur as the time draws near when Jesus will return in power and glory (light) and completion will not happen until the Christ (in all his majesty of light) is among us. I'd be interested to see how some other LDS posters view this. If I'm reading you right, latter day prophecies are meant to help the LDS prepare the world for Jesus' return. Does this mean that society will become increasingly ready for the Savior's coming? In other words, is the world supposed to become increasingly more godly? Or, does this simply mean that the gospel will become more fully understood as the time approaches? FYI: Evangelicals generally believe that the world will gradually degenerate until Christ's return. There seem to be parallels here between the late-19th century theological divide between modernists (post-millenialists) and fundamentalists (pre-millenialists). However, I may be reading way too much into what Tao is saying. Now your question seems to me to be a question of identifying what is light and what is darkness. Again I would refer you to Genesis and G-d’s witness that light is good. G-d seems to be about separating good from evil. I think it wise to associate with all good and light one can find and disassociate with all evil and dark that may be thrust upon us. The question for LDS and evangelicals (and all mankind for that matter) is a question of what is good and light and what is evil and dark. -- In particular how can we shine a light that glorifies G-d? One thing I am sure of is that it cannot be done if one is associated with or doing dark and evil things. Separating the goat from the sheep, perhaps?