prisonchaplain

You may have heard of the Christian Yellow Pages, or Shepherd's Guide, or other business directories that inform consumers of businesses who's owners are members of the faithful. So, what do you think in general? Would you choose an LDS vendor over one you did not know about, assuming the prices were the same? Would you choose a Christian over a secular business? If so, how much more would you pay? To give you an example in forming your answer. Consider the following book: How Wide the Divide?: A Mormon & an Evangelical in Conversation (Paperback) by Craig L. Blomberg, Stephen E. Robinson If you were interested in this volume, given the following information, where would you buy it from: * Amazon.com (secular) = $10.20 * Deseretbook.com (LDS) = $15.00 * Christianbook.com (General Christian) = $11.99 Note that the publisher, Intervarsity Press, is an evangelical company. My own thoughts: 1. I tend to think I'd favor the Christian business, but usually purchase from whomever is cheapest and most convenient. 2. Generally speaking, if a business has to rely heavily on the religious identification of its owner, I would be skeptical of the quality/pricing it offers. 3. There are certainly occasions when I would frequent the business of a fellow believer whom I knew and trusted, even if it might mean paying more. Bottom-line: I bought the book from Amazon.com. Not only was it nearly $2 cheaper, but I got free shipping (purchases over $25).

I seem to remember hearing that LDS missionaries are taught to not argue or debate during the visitations (and I'm not even Mormon). Sure enough, I come here, and have many interesting and challenging exchanges, but never nasty or mean-spirited ones. Take heart Paul. I cannot imagine the difficulty of going to a board run by anti-evangelicals, and egged-on by former evangelicals who had "escaped" the abuse.

Congratulations! You've inspired a new poll. I've wondered lately how helpful Christian cultural products and events are to LDS adherents.

You do not believe God spoke to the prophet through the donkey? There is a segment of Christianity that finds the miracles of the Bible embarassing, rather than awesome. They tend to look at the stories in a very antisupernatural way. The miracle of feeding the 5000? Jesus used the generosity of the boy to convince the others to share their food. Ultimately there was plenty to spare. A miracle of sharing, such folk claim. The flood? Probably little more than a normal heavy monsoon season, that Moses grossly overspiritualized. The parting of the Red Sea? A regular, though admittedly spectacular phenomena, that Moses had timed correctly. Well, by way of disclosure, I'm more literal in my reading than all that. God is certainly great enough to do miracles, to speak through donkeys, to flood the entire planet if need be. He could have created the world in six literal 24-hour days 6000 years ago, or he could have developed it through a miraculous process called evolution. I suppose the difference is, you'll not allow biblical accounts to influence your understandings of science, whereas I will not allow current scientific understandings to trump simple and clear readings of Scripture. Again, my bottom-line is that perfect science and perfect Bible studies will perfectly harmonize. Until then, I can live with the occasional tension and uncertainty between them. I have no qualms with believing scientists who come to the conclusion that Noah's flood was probably local. However, if that scientist takes another step, and says, therefore there could not have been a global flood, or that the Bible is therefore wrong, or unreliable, then I suggest s/he goes too far. The Bible is not a science textbook, and some descriptions are meant to paint a picture, not annotate precise details. On the other hand, it is not fiction, not mere inspirational writing, and not folk tales. First, the link I provided dealt primarily with the meaning of the biblical flood account. Beyond that it provided some scientific generalizations that many would disagree with. The site supports a Young Earth Creationist perspective. Are there any reputable scientists who agree? I'd have to dig around. My understanding is that yes, there are a few...perhaps as many as 5%. However, 5% of what, I'm not certain (biologists, all scientists, all self-identified Christian scientists--I do not recall the context in which I heard this figure put out).

I'm no rabid fundamentalist arguing for a 6000 year old world. However, to so quickly dismiss the possiblity of a universal flood, when the Bible seems so clear that there was one...well...makes you theologically Liberal (oops I used the L word). Here's an article arguing that the biblical flood account must needs be read as being global in nature. http://www.gotquestions.org/global-flood.html * Some will attempt to make the science fit the Bible. * Others will make the Bible fit current scientific understanding. * While I'm convinced that science perfected would harmonize perfectly with biblical study perfected, in the mean time I can tolerate some uncertainty between the two.

I'm certain God was in the mix of this husband's spiritual reconciliation. But me thinks you err in requiring that God use logic, intelligence, or the high socio-economic demographics of your church to draw men unto himself. Rather, God seems to delight in using foolish things. Consider the following: Which have forsaken the right way, and are gone astray, following the way of Balaam...who...was rebuked for his inquity: the dumb donkey (note that the site will not allow the kjv word for donkey here) speaking with a man's voice forbad the madness of the prophet. 2 Peter 2:15-16 KJV. Here, God, not only drew the attention of some guy--but a prophet! And He did so using a donkey. And you thought Shrek was just a silly movie for kids More specifically, God chooses to use preaching to bring lost souls to him. For the preaching of the cross is to them that perish foolishness; but unto us which are saved it is the power of God. ... For after that in the wisdom of God the world by wisdom knew not God, it pleased God by the foolishness of preaching to save them that believe. 1 Corinthians 1:18, 21 So why badger the sister? Her husband is reconciled to God through such a foolish means as a rich evangelical minister's preaching (via the written word). Why not do as Scripture commands us? Rejoice with them that do rejoice, and weep with them that weep. Romans 12:15 KJV I'm trying discern what really caused you to react here. 1. Maybe you don't like positive mental attitudes? I vote for the half-full glass. 2. Maybe you don't think spiritual people should be rich? Yet, you seem pleased that your church has reached a level of material prosperity, and that the LDS as a group are above average in this department. 3. Maybe you don't like TV preachers? Ah...now here's a strong possiblity. Yet, I doubt you have it in for Billy Graham, or that you opposed the several public service announcements your church sponsored. What did this Olsteen actually say or do that causes you to be so suspicious? I don't think he's the begger weepy type, pleading for one more social security check dollar from the watchers. Also, he's upbeat, non deroggatory towards other religions, he doesn't harp on sin much. I rather thought that Olsteen would be the type of evangelical minister you could at least tolerate. 4. Maybe you don't like evangelicals? Have you given up on us? 5. You think Olsteen's a showman? Well...do you mean that he's good on TV, that he performs well...or are you insinuating that he's phony? My bottom-line: Olsteen may be a complete phony. He might be in this gig for the money, the nice home, the popularity. In his heart, he might consider his message to be tripe. He might even be a son of Perdition, for all we know. Nevertheless, God used a book the guy wrote (substitute donkey if it makes you feel better) to bring one of your spiritual brothers back to God. A family is in spiritual unity. I say REJOICE

I find it interesting that eight out of eleven voters chose answer that mean either aliens have not been hanging around earth, or any such manifestations may be demonic. Only three voters suggested that aliens are showing themselves. On the other hand, most of the actual posts seem to defend the notion of aliens. Any thoughts as to what is going on here?

I guess it's how you read the passage...a matter of interpretation... Gen 6:4 says....the daughters of men bore children who became mighty men....men of renown. PC..let me ask you this.... I don't remember seeing lineage sprouting from Able... however, I have read the linage of Seth and Cain. And I"m pretty sure you will agree that the linage of Seth overpowers the linage of Cain in the rightousness department.I'm afraid I do not agree. We know nothing about the righteousness of either Cain's or Seth's lineage, except that Cain's descendents became productive members of society. Enoch built a city (v. 17). Adah was a cattleman (v. 20). Jubal played instruments (v. 21). Tubal-Cain was a metalworker. There's little here to indicate that Cain's son become wicked, while Seth's became righteous. Furthermore, the context of Genesis 6 is that God was angry at mankind in general, that part of this anger is what was going on with the sons of God and the daughters of Men, and the resultant offspring, called giants or Nephilim. The contrasting man of righteousness is only Noah and his family--not the family line of Seth in general. There are no righteous ones in verses 1-5. God is angry here. In verse 6, Noah is declared the righteous one. Everyone else but his family is to be destroyed--sons of Cain and Abel both! The sons of God in Genesis 6 are destroyed by God. They do not respond to the message prophet Noah brings. Nor do the giants, or Nephilim. Only Noah and his family are saved. Again, no one in verses 1-5 is pleasing God. The context is clear--God is disappointed. In this context, it seems more plausible to me that these "sons of God" were demons--servants of the "god of this world," Satan. That Satan's depravity was so complete he even allowed his minions to come unto the daughters of men. This evil--what one poster called chaos--is part of what drove God to create the Flood. Well yeah, the linage of Cain was still out running amuck! The 5th verse says that " GOD saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth" ...not that the sons of Seth were wicked. Oh, and PC...that context of passage was in a different verse the one UNDER the one vs 4 which referred to the "mighty men which were of old, men of renown."Once again, there is nothing to indicate that the sons of Cain had become wickedness, nor is there any mention in Scripture that Seth's lineage was overall righteous. God was angry with all humanity, and only Noah's family survives the flood, by obeying God's prophetic word.

Did you know that some find Joel Osteen controversial? See the following "friendly fire" hit piece (my term for fundamentalists attacks on Christian ministries) http://cultlink.com/ar/osteen.htm As a brief summary for those who do not like to traffic negative websites, Osteen is accused of the following: 1. Living large. He has a $1.25 million home. News flash: If Houston's like my town of Seattle, that means he probably bought it for $4-500K less than 10 years ago, and that the place is basically upper middle class--not extravagant for the pastor of a 20,000+ membership church. 2. Preaching prosperity. Granted, dessert should not be the mainstay of one's diet. However, for new believers, and for old believers brought up on legalistic "God the Hammer" type teachings, hearing of God's good intentions for his people is certainly a breath of fresh air. 3. Preaching secular self-help techniques wrapped up in Christian jargon. Actually, we can call this "robbing the Egyptians." Just as the Israelites took gifts from their neighbors as they departed Israel, there is nothing wrong with Christians taking truths that secular studies have come across, and using them to bless God's people. Bottom-line: Praise God that he has blessed you with his truths, given from the one of his servants who happens to minister under a different flag.

Few here have much sympathy for creation-science, but here's the theory proponents espouse concerning dinosaours: http://www.icr.org/index.php?module=news&action=view&ID=51 Basically, the organization argues that dinosaurs existed pre-flood, and that science does not contradict such a notion.

For my humble opinion see the following link: http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detai...g=UTF8&v=glance

Note: I'm replacing Setheus' quotation from Genesis 6 with a larger one (verses 1-5) And it came to pass, when men began to multiply on the face of the earth, and daughters were born unto them, [2] That the sons of God saw the daughters of men that they were fair; and they took them wives of all which they chose. [3] And the Lord said, My spirit shall not always strive with man, for that he also is flesh: yet his days shall be an hundred and twenty years. [4] There were giants in the earth in those days; and also after that, when the sons of God came in unto the daughters of men, and they bare children to them, the same became mighty men which were of old, men of renown. [5] And God saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and that every imagination of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually. My impressions: 1. I doubt that the "sons of God" were the righteous sons of Seth, because the context of this passage is that God was angry, that men were wicked. 2. The giants of verse 4 might well have been either the sons of God, or the hybrid offspring. Also note that more modern translations replace "giant" with the word "Nephilim." It is not impossible to believe that these giants, these Nephilim, these sons of God, were fallen angels, or demons. 3. Verse 5 seems to indicate that something about the happenings in verse 2 (sons of God + daughters of men), and the giants-Nephilim and their offspring in verse 4 were no blessing either. Frankly, this sounds like a neat solution to an admittedly difficult and unclear passage. We can speculate all we want here, but the only sure answer for now is from 1 Corinthians 13, which says that now we see through a cloudy glass. All will not be clear until Jesus has returned in glory.

I beg to differ. Barring a government law that violates God's commandments, we should submit to secular regulations. Let everyone be subject to the governing authorities, for there is no authority except that which God has established. The authorities that exist have been established by God. Romans 13:1 (TNIV) You are back to reasons why God might allow polygamy. I've not argued against the notion that polygamy was probably part of God's "permissive will." However, God's best for us is found in Genesis 2. Ironically, Jesus invoked it again in the gospels, and seemed to call for a return to that higher standard. And, once again, whatever you believe about divorce and remarriage, or whether bishops were required to marry, 1 Timothy is very clear, that they are to have but ONE wife. I'm not suggesting that polygamy was the only reason. However, much as some evangelicals get heated over homosexual marriages, because they strike at the heart of the institution of marriage, I'm guessing many of those frontier folk (who did not grow up on a steady diet of tolerance, political correctness, or multiculturalism) responded out of shock and disgust, and committed some atrocities against what they believed was a threat to civilization itself. It's not that social disapproval of polygamy is dying down. It's that postmodernism has replaced the Judeo-Christian ethical system as the foundation for our cultural assumptions. "Whatever works for you!" Frankly, the gate-opener for polygamy is homosexual marriage. If such alternatives are legalized, why forbid a marriage arrangement that does have some religious tradition to it?

Awwww...Shucks. Well...uh...jeepers. Thanks. Awwww...Shucks. Well...uh...double jeepers. Double thanks too.

So, that's what's going on here. You think Fiannan is trying to lure me in with the hopes that one day the LDS Church will re-authorize polygamy? I can see it now. . Sorry, Lisajo. I know the fellow means well...but, when it comes to this temptation, I'll have to invoke a great response that originates in Georgia, "That dog don't hunt."

In a vacuum in which only the Bible is considered, you'd be correct. However, of course, today, in the United States, you're wrong on two counts. First, Caesar says it's a sin, and there is no compelling spiritual reason to go against the government on this. 2. Your church has banned the practice, so for the sake of unity and deference of authorities you believe God has put in place, polygamy would be a sin for you. You're going opposite directions here. On the one hand, you concede that God does not consider polygamy the norm (i.e., it wasn't his original plan in the Garden). Then, you turn around and say that polygamy is what the most devout (i.e. most God-pleasing) people did. Large families were considered a blessing in the biblical era. One did not have to be very devout to attempt to have one. Those who practiced polygamy were not trying to appease God. They had their own reasons for enlarging the family business. This is over the top! You admit that polygamy is not God's norm, then say that those who endorse monogamy (God's norm) are guilty of buying into paganism. I am not versed in the history of Mormon polygamy, but am I wrong in guessing that the practice of polygamy is one of the early distinctives that most enraged non-LDS? There is no excuse for the violent response, but let us not underplay just how revolutionary the family model was in mid-nineteenth century America. As for today, polygamist are either heretic Mormon offshoots, and/or they are social renegades. In either case, they have taken a secondary family living arrangement that was grounded in ancient culture, and turned it into a religious imperative. For what? Why? Ironically, tolerance is indeed what America will likely grant them...in about twenty years, IMHO.

Snow has also challenged me with this question--is their a doctrinal or religious knowledge test for salvation? Put another way, when I offer holy communion in my chapel services I always say something like, "We have open communion here. As long as you know that Jesus has forgiven your sins...as long as you know that you are a Christian, you are welcome to the table." Well...some Catholics have come (though their own religion discourages them from doing so). Hindus, who believe they are worshipping the god of America, have come. I'm sure many who have no organized faith system have come for the possible good luck. So...are they saved? For the LDS it's simple. Your theology certainly allows such folk a place of some blessing for their faithfulness with what they knew...along with the possible opportunity to respond more fully in the afterlife. Here's a passage of Scripture that may offer some light, The wrath of God is being revealed from heaven against all the godlessness and wickedness of human beings who suppress the truth by their wickedness, since what may be known about God is plain to them. For since the creation of the world God's invisible qualities--his eternal power and divine nature--have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that people are without excuse. Romans 1:18-20 (TNIV) All this to say, God is just and merciful. He will judge people based on how they responded to what they knew. Ironically, there will certainly be some who ascertained doctrine with great accuracy, and yet will be told by Jesus, "Depart from me I never knew you." Others will barely no more than John 3:16, yet will have acted out on that minimal knowledge with the true love of God. My own hope is to be Jesus, know Jesus, teach Jesus, counsel Jesus, and do Jesus in a manner that pleases Jesus. None of that will happen by my own strength or wisdom. As the prophet Zecharia informed us, It's not by might, nor by power, but by my Spirit says the Lord. So, I wish to 'flow and overflow' the Spirit of God, and thus glorify Jesus--through my body, mind and Spirit.

Perhaps the Orthodox Jewish answer to the age-old question of masturbation will give you a hint at an answer. Traditionally, evangelicals have held that the primary sin with the practice is that of lust. "How can you please yourself without lusting?" the reasoning goes. My rabbi friend says it is different for Jews. For them the sin is in "wasting the seed." The Mosaic law specifically prohibits wasting the seed. Thus, condoms would also be a violation. So, my sense is that the primary purpose of sex was procreation, though there was no prohibition against enjoyment.

She may be bloodied, but we still hear an occasional wimper, and see an occasional leg kick.

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