prisonchaplain

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?

Snow says: A historian's job is to present an accurate or as unbiased portrait of the past as is possible. They have an obligation to include the right things and possibly exclude the wrong things so as to present as true a version as can be. You argue that Wood's role of as a historian precludes him from speculating but despite arguing that he is a historian, you attribute to him no responsibility to present a full or complete or accurate or balanced account of the past. Two comments. First, your expectations of historians in general is accurate. If I were preparing a Masters or Doctoral thesis, I would certainly need to offer some material that is positive, negative and nuetral, preferably from primary sources. I would then synthesize the findings, and offer my take on the most valid conclusions. However, all this assumes I am writing an academic work for an academic audience, from an aggressively objective stance. So, my second comment is that Woods is doing no such thing. He is playing a second role historians sometimes take on--that of popularizer. He digests the historical materials, and offers them already prepared for us. Furthermore, as the title suggests, he makes no pretensions about being objective. He believes historians up to now have not been, and he is offering a corrective: a polemic work that intentionally puts the best Catholic foot forward. He may be a historian by training but this is not the best kind of history. This is pure apologetics. Yes it is. However, Woods is upfront about it. A 200-ish page book is not a comprehensive history. This is an over polemic. Again, he's presenting what amounts to a rebuttal of the anti-religious, anti-Catholic fare that has generally been available on the subject to date. Let me rephase my criticism: Woods covers all the best that he can attribute to the Catholic Church but completely ignores the ways in which the Church repressed or hindered progress that might otherwise have been made if not for the Church's ubiquitous influence. It seems natural that so much that flowed out of the middle ages would be stamped with the Church's influence since there is little that the Church did not control or sway or influence. And, some of the best and brightest were absorded into the clergy and monastic life. In a way that might have been helpful because where else could they get a paid gig studing the stars but on the other hand, it was quite a drain on the gene pool. Still - none of my criticism is to down play the contributions I have now learned about. I guess this all goes back to whether Christianity, and specifically the Catholic Church, have been an overall positive, nuetral, or negative. And theologically, this may come down to whether you believe Christianity has been apostate sense the early post-apostolic age or not.

While I have not plowed through these pages yet, a quick perusal of Amazon.com's reviews, as well as a look at Woods' previous works, gave me enough of a picture to comment on Snow's painfully objective review. 1. Woods is not trying to be balanced himself. He is providing a balance to generally anti-religious, certainly anti-Catholic historical myth that the Church was all about ignorance, and oppression of intellectuals, Jews, Muslims, and Bible translators. The author did not need to rehash the negative history. His goal was to correct the skewed picture that most previous histories of this era have offered. 2. A discussion about how things might have gone had the Catholic church not been there would have resulted in something we call historic fiction. Woods is a historian. He's writing about what happened, and should not be expected to engage is speculation, for the sake of appearing objective or balanced. 3. While Mormons, evangelicals, and even religious Jews and Muslims, may have serious theological disagreements, we would all benefit from cooperation to counter the anti-religious bias in academia. This is why I supported an LDS schoolboard candidate in my community, why I support Towards Tradition (a Jewish-Christian group advocating conservative mores to the social marketplace), and why I even reluctant to join those who want to label all things Catholic as apostate, idolatrous, or useless. In fairness, my response here is not a review, but a review of reviews. At 200+ pages, this book sounds like an approachable, I may look into reading. As we say in corrections, "Thanks for the intel., Snow!"

I'm still slowlly plodding my way through How Wide the Divide? A Mormon Evangelical Conversation. I'm about a third of the way through, and thus far, can highly recommend it as an intelligent, yet approachable discourse between LDS and evangelical theology. Thus far, what I have found is that Mormon teaching challenges some beliefs that evangelicals take for granted. In other words, we evangelicals ASSUME things, before we even start talking with others. Some examples: 1. Before God made the world, it was just him and the angels. 2. Humans begin their existance at conception. 3. On the day of judgment those whom God is pleased with will go to eternal reward. The rest will be damned to hell. 4. Many will be damned to hell. These are just a few of the beliefs that we've been raised up to assume "go without saying." There are others, of course. LDS believers likely have their set of assumptions too--especially those raised in the church. You see the four listed above and think, "What? Why would they believe that?" So, here's my question: What one LDS truth, if any, holds the rest together, and justifies belief that the COJCLDS is the restoration of the Christian church and gospel? IMHO (as a non-LDS) it seems to be the veracity of Joseph Smith's claims. If he really received the visions, and really translated the writings, then the rest of the distinctive teachings can be defended. If Smith was a deceiver, or he was deluded, then all the distinctives become obscure (not impossible) interpretations. BTW, the same could be said about Jesus. If he really is the Son of God, sent from the Father, then his teachings and gospel hold true. If not, we'd all better find us some rabbis!

This was a mistake on someone's part, that's for sure. China is still a communist government, with an official anti-religious stance. The government sees religion as a danger to public order, and as a "counter-revolutionary" force. It tolerates an official church, called the Three-Self Peoples Movement. The TSPM represents all Protestant Christians, and is not allowed to preach about Jesus' rising from the dead, about such things as the "blood of Jesus," about the second coming, etc. Furthermore, the congregations have a team of four ministers, one of whom must be a member of the communist party (i.e., not a believer). Sermons are censored. And, the bottom-line reality is that 90% of Christians do not attend the TSPM, but risk themselves and family members by attending underground house churches. Additionally, there is a strong anti-missionary mentality in China--which is not totally undeserved. Missionaries came to China with western war ships, and with the opium traders. Thus, they were seen as representing foreign interests, rather than God. So...this was not an "oops" mistake. This is the type of colossal error that many in China's government salivate for. I am quite certain that this episode was reported in the Chinese media with some glee. No Christian (LDS or not), indeed no American, can take joy or snicker at this story. Few Chinese will distinguish between LDS and Christians in general, and most will believe our government probably had its fingers in this episode.

Except...except that westernized countries are now facing a depopulation crisis. We're not going to have enough young workers to support retirees, nor to keep our industries running. Europe and Japan are even worse off than the U.S.--only because of our healthy immigration rates. The cure to overpopulation is wealth. Countries that experience increasing standards of living also experience decreasing birthrates. As getting "daily bread" becomes certain, parents no longer have many children as a form of insurance for old age. As infant mortality rates lower, people feel less need to just keep having babies so a few will survive.

Lutherans are part of mainstream "historic" Christianity, which tends to be more 'liberal' on social and religious hotbutton issues. The Republican party has factions, and the old-school group (think Barry Goldwater, Gerald Ford, George HW Bush) tend to tolerate the "religious right," at best. Many religious conservatives refer to these as "country club Republicans." I believe it was this type of judge who tried to sentence Jim Bakker to 45 years in prison for what was essentially a white collar crime. All this to say that Republicans and Christians are no more monolithic in opinion than Mormons or agnostics are.