prisonchaplain

That might be someone's theology. It's probably the teachings of Calvinism, with its predestination. However, it is not mine, nor those who espouse "free will." Satan, Adam and Eve did not have to sin. They did not have to rebel. They chose to do so, and God the Father was ready for a course of events to follow. If sin is truly inevitable, then free will is a false teaching. Yes you are. And, I look forward to seeing you in chapel when that happens. Seriously, though. That scenario is the standard given for the limitations of free speech. You cannot yell fire in a crowded theater because the threat your speech poses to public safety far outweighs the potential benefit of granting you liberty in this area. God did not create such an inevitable set of circumstances. Adam and Eve are in the Garden. They have all that they need. They have meaningful work. They have regular communion with God. Satan tempts them with independence and rebellion, and they bite--literally. They didn't have to.

We should expect the people of God to behave better, but if you expect political commentators or politicians to demonstrate such gospel love, well, ya...kind Pollyanna.

Snow says: Your statement that God created everything good is, of course, logically false. If God didn't create it, it doesn't exist - that or God is not the creator of everything. Beside, don't you believe in some idea of original sin - that man is born with sin on his head - an enemy to God Sorry to jump in--especially since I have not read the entire string. But, here I go with both feet (hopefully they do not end up inserted in mouth) The simple answer is that God created Satan with the capability of rebelling. He created Adam & Eve with the same ability. They chose to do so. Does that make God the creator of their decisions? Does the heavenly Father's foreknowledge of their decisions make him culpable? I don't know about you, but I'm not about to blame God for nuthin'

Okay. Tell us how you really feel. You decry the yahoos who go to SLC with anti-Mormon sloganeering, accusing them of hate speech, and then come out with this? Fortunately, your church doesn't broadcast this tone. I'm plowing through a book called Mormonism and Evangelicalism: How Wide the Divide? I highly recommend it, if for nothing else, than a lesson in how intelligent people can express heartfelt convictions and disagreements with each other, and leave the conversation as friends. As to the accusations: 1. Christians are pale watered down (compared with the LDS, I suppose). Well, since the LDS came afterwards, I don't see how Christians are watered down. I would argue, instead, that our theologies are different. How different is the topic of many of these strings. 2. Christians are pagan. Well, if you buy into the Jehovah's Witnesses arguments about flag-saluting, so-called, observance of Christmas/Easter (which LDS do), etc. then join that obscure tact. If you have serious theological issues, they might be appropriate for a doctrinal string. 3. Christians are idol-worshiping. Do you refer to Catholic statues, Orthodox icons, or the cross? The first two are not really my area of expertise, though Catholics will be quick to tell you they do not worship the saints or their statues. For them, the statues are akin to pictures of Jesus you may have in your home. As for crosses, no Christians worships the cross symbol. The cross reminds us of Jesus' sacrifice for our sins. It is not the image of a person or a creature. It is the somber image of the instrument of Jesus' death--and a reminder that we, as sinners, were responsible--that we were the true instruments of his death. So Republicans, and western Christians (come on, if you are middle class, you easily make the top-10% in terms of world income levels) cannot truly speak for God? Or do you have a limit? If you make less than $50K per year are you okay? $60K? Does it matter whether you live in Mississippi or NYC (cost of living differences)? Besides, this last argument applies equally to Mormons, Christians, and people of many faiths. This is more of an anti-Western argument, than anything else. But, while we're wallowing in our middle class guilt about the poor of the world, they are working like crazy to become like us.

All three answers could be defended, depending on how one interpreted the question, and how one understood an overall Good, Nuetral, and Bad rating. I've seen good commentary here, and thank all the posters for their thoughtful expressions. Communism, with its religion of atheism (or radical humanism) has killed more people than those who used the name of Jesus for their own power games. Or communist people. Christianity never killed anyone either, but Christians have. I dare say your version of communism seems to be little more than sharing. Communist ideology on a governmental level, as espoused by Marx-Lenin, included the "dictatorship of the proletariat." Of course the dictatorships never vanished as the need for them dissolved, because Lord Action was right: Absolute power does corrupt absolutely.

Canada is Nirvana for many American "Blue Staters." Indeed, there was some commentary during America's last presidential election, that some of our liberal Democrats were considering moving to Canada if Bush won. In fact, I believe there was a short-lived spike in inquiries about immigration, following the election. For conservative "Red Staters," then, Canada is something akin to France-nice. The French are proud of the fervent secularism, bedrock anti-Americanism, and their relatively socialistic economic system. Canada leans the same direction, but is tamer and more polite about it. Personally, I've only seen Vancouver BC and Niagra Falls, but was always impressed with the natural beauty, and the general politeness that seems to pervade the society. On the other hand, my politics lean a different direction.

I assume you are referring to the holocaust. If so, I strongly object to this accusation! First, the # of Jews killed was six million, I believe--horrific, for sure. Secondly, the Nazi system was based on a combination of nationalism, racism, and ancient German pagan rites. Hitler was anti-Christian. Yes, a good number of those who did the actual killing were Christians. But, to say that Christianity produced or encouraged the holocaust is outrageous. I would argue that religion in most of these cases was a tool of wicked men, not the source of the wickedness. The official religion of Communism is atheism. Atheism is a faith system, because one cannot scientifically prove the absence of God. Furthermore, it carried out a systematic and violent campaign against people of "other faiths." So, it should count as a religious aggressor, and would win first prize, easily.

Since I do not believe Mormons nor Pentecostals are strict sabbatarians, I would not see an issue with enjoying some family entertainment on Christmas Day. However, if a service is offered in your house of worship, I would think that "the reason for the season" would take precedence over, say a movie--even the Chronicles of Narnia, or Passion of the Christ.

Okay...fair enough. Maybe you don't find arrogant people irritating. I would argue that you do have faith. Whether you call yourself an atheist, agnostic, or Deist--none of these theological belief systems can be verified. They are positions of faith. Perhaps what annoys people is that you do not believe as they do. If so, just tell them that they should, "Let go and let God."

It's common for those who are a persecuted minority to beieve they are attacked because of special truths they hold: 1. Jehovah's Witnesses are told that the doors slamming in their faces are Satan's attack on the true gospel. 2. Pentecostals in the early 20th century believed that the historic churches were spiritually dead. They were tarred, feathered, mocked and villified because they preached, "the FULL gospel." 3. The early Mormons surely believed they were hounded because Satan was opposing the restoration of the gospel and true Christian church. 4. Today, many athiests, agnostics, and secularists believe they are unfairly concemned as "ungodly" or "godless" because of their superior rationality, and their refusal to rely on the crutch of religion. But, the so-called "arrogance" you find irritating also spurs persecuted believers in China, parts of India, Indonesia, the Middle East etc. to endure incarceration, beatings, rejection from family, and sometimes death. So, one man's arrogance is another man's faith, I suppose.

I'm just curious, Mr. Gallan. What do you suppose is meant by that phrase you pasted here, in its original context? After you enlighten me as to how you took it, I can comment on attitudes, tones and arrogance.

Two comments: 1. Communism, with its religion of atheism (or radical humanism) has killed more people than those who used the name of Jesus for their own power games. If you add Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot and Kim Il Sung/Kim Jong Il, you probably exceed 100 million. Adolf Hitler's racial nationalism killed another twelve million. Yes, people have done horrific things in the name of Jesus, but if death-count is your standard, then we're not #1. 2. The Tacoma News-Tribune is a secular publication in a city that is perhaps 30% Christian (compared with roughly 85% nationwide). I hardly think this was a fluff piece, meant to appease an audience.

Try again. I just clicked the link from your post, and it worked. There are two tabs. One says: GOOGLE SEARCH. The other says I'M FEELING LUCKY. If you type the word Failure in the search engine, and click the second tab (I'm feeling lucky) you will be brought to a certain webpage...one that may or may not leave you "feeling lucky."

The LDS early embrace of polygamy, racial teachings, etc. were so controversial, that the Church continues to bear the burden of past mistrust from nonbelievers. Snow comments: The way you phrased that I am not sure exactly what point you are trying to make. We in the Church do not hold folks responsible for the actions of their ancestors though doing so is a typical "Christian" doctrine so maybe that explains for of their thinking about polygamy. LDS history on race is not much different from mainstream Christianity. The way you phrase it, it was and I dispute that. If you are interested in learning the truth of the matter, we could talk about it in more depth. The gist of this response, if it were chosen, would be to indicate that the modern-day LDS movement continues to suffer from a lack of trust on the part of nonmembers. This suspicion stems from the controversies of the 19th century, because those issues, while perhaps addressed by church to its members, have never been laid to rest amongst the general population. An example of this is that, fair or not, there is a perception amongst non-LDS that the Church taught that God favored whites, and that blacks suffered a curse. It's true that many Christians of the 19th century taught similar theories. However, it's an example of the mistrust that lingers from old controversies. Non-LDS Christians believe Joseph Smith is a false prophet, and that our teachings are wrong. They think LDS souls are in danger, and they sometimes use extreme, immature, and "unChristian" methods to communicate their beliefs. I don't like this answer but I don't know what you mean by extreme, immature and "unChristian." The is nothing like that in our missionary program. Maybe you should explain yourself. Actually, when I suggest that "THEY use extreme...etc," I'm referring to Mormon critics, not Mormon missionaries. Obviously these "critics" don't think that Joseph Smith was a prophet but that doesn't explain their ugly behavior. That makes it seem like it is us that causes them to be ugly or dishonest, or violent or worse. I'm not sure why you say this. The so-called Christian assassins who went after abortion doctors thought these doctors were murdering unborn babies. We still blame the assassins, and prosecuted them for murder. Likewise, if a so-called Christian "missionary to Mormons" uses extreme, immature or 'unChristian' methods, we still blame the individual, not his/her target. Christianity has a long and storied tradition of violence and hate mongering. Catholics used to murder and oppress those that disagreed with them. Then Protestants warred with Catholics with much violence and bloodshed, Puritans came to America to escape religious persecution. Mormonism is just a recent example of the immaturity, violence and immorality found within Christianity. Mormonism is growing quickly enough and powerfully enough that much of the antagonism will have to stop, though growing power might engender other motivations for attacks. I see anti-Mormonism as a more general type of unChristian behavior regularly practiced by so-called Christians People are immature in their faith. They need an "other" to build themselves up at the "other" expense. In the old days they used to burn em at the stake. Now they just publish books and picket worship services. Bigot and ugly ones at that. Well, then, IMHO, you might check the final answer, and posit the suggestion that these critic's souls are in danger, because they are not loving their brothers. 1 John 4:7-8. The final answer was not meant to imply any blame on the part of the targets of unseemly religious acts.

Tao Saint asks: And are those the true Windding characters that correspond to those letters, or is it a practical joke by a guy at Microsoft? So all those beautiful random coincidences go up in vapors. Except...except, they probably do prove that the AntiChrist will probably be either a computer geek, or a new computer system. For another example of how these sneaky people work, try the following: 1. Go to http://www.google.com 2. Type in the word: FAILURE 3. Click "I'm feeling lucky."

Traveler says: There are some Christian movement that refuse to adopt the pagan traditions of Christmas but we think of them as crack-pots, extremist, cults and outside the mainstream of Christianity. You mean like when I wondered aloud if it was wrong to "lie" about Santa Claus to my children? My point is not to put everybody straight or to indicate that Christmas must be changed or any such thing. My point is to demonstrate that in 2000 years that the Orthodox and Traditional Christians have strayed, both in spirit and in historical and scriptural facts concerning the sacred events and traditions of the birth of Jesus the Christ. The traditions of the Christmas season demonstrates the paganization of Orthodox and Traditional Christianity even to the point that just about every Christian alive to day - wonders if it has not all gone too far. With the example of Christmas how could anyone trust the Orthodox and Traditional Christians to keep and preserve any sacred tradition, doctrine, ordinance or interpretation of scripture? I would reverse your claim: Current Christmas practice does not represent a paganization of the truths of the first advent, but rather a Christianization of a former pagan holiday--Winter Soltice I believe. Almost overnight, Christianity went from being a persecuted sect, to the official church of the Empire. Leaders were charged with teaching an influx of mostly illiterate and pagan "believers" the truths of the church. So, they took what the people knew and "baptized" the practices with Christian meanings. Most of the "changes and additions" Traveler speaks of are innocuous. Who cares whether Mary rode a donkey, whether there really were animals in the manger area or not (yeah...we think it was a cave, not a barn). Perhaps these complaints are similar to non-LDS throwing a fit over the word "Adieu" in the BOM?

I'm sure you are right about Jewish "thought and practice"--at least for the Orthodox. The source I was referring was an Orthodox rabbi, and the "one boy one girl" definition, only fulfilled the REQUIREMENT of the law. The result would be more than replacement, because while the average birthrate may be 50/50, many families do not have both a boy and girl by their second child. In my family, if we were under the Mosaic Law, we would have had to try for a fourth child, with no guarantees. There was a rabbi in this area who had a big party, because his eighth child was his first son! There has been a revival of support for stay-at-home moms and larger families within conservative Christianity. Birth control remains a personal decision, but whenever we see a large family in our churches we tend to smile and compliment them. We joke that whenever a family has a new child they are "promoting church growth the old-fashioned way." We say it with admiration, though.

You may want to reference the following article: http://www.thenewstribune.com/news/religio...p-4883937c.html Feel free to post your reasons.

I do not imagine that the Muslim prophet, Muhammed, was trying to take such a challenge. Yet, he did make many similar claims--that what he received was to be counted a Scripture, etc. I know that many Muslim apologists claim that the Qur'an is very scientific. Do LDS believe that Muhammed was a false prophet, or is it possible that both writings are Scripture?

There is an Old Testament blessing that says "May you're quiver be full." I found out that a quiver was used to hold arrows, and traditionally had five slots. So, I guess that family had three full blessings, and was working towards the fourth. I checked on the Mosaic law concerning fulfilling God's command to be fruitful and multiply. He claims that the Jews understand this to mean you're supposed to have one of each--a son and a daughter. I've got three girls...but then again, I'm not Jewish. Big families are usually a blessing. Hey, even marriages are. However, I had a single friend in his forties who said, "Better to be single and alone, than to be married and wish you were alone." Another story--my seminary roommate married for the first time at age 43. His bride was also 43, never married. They won't have natural children, but I believe they are united as God intended them to be.

Many of you have shared that Mormons have a history of being persecuted, sometimes violently. Your current feelings towards evangelicals in particular--especially "anti-Mormons," seems to stem from an even more difficult history. So, big question is why? Why do people bother? Why don't non-LDS Christians just do their own evangelizing, and leave the Church alone? Why isn't there more cooperation on political issues, etc.? You often ask non-LDS folk these questions. It might be useful to know what you think are the reasons. Why does Mormonism get so much spiritual animosity?

To summarize the first 70% or so of Winnie's post: She explained that Canadians citizens have stronger control over their government, and perhaps this is why they allow the government to exercise greater authority through "hate speech" laws, etc. She gave a poignant example from her own experience of being able to go to a national politician and tell her story, and then recommend solutions. The politician brought it before the national body. My response to all that is that in many ways Canada's national government almost runs like an American state government: smaller, more manageable, more able to handle personal issues, and less like to get bureaucratic and unwildy. It all sounds wonderful, but I doubt that it can be duplicated for the U.S. Canada is more tolerant of others and to stop the miss treatment of others yes legislation was passed. Canada is more multi Cultural. Canada embraces diverse culture is that live and immigrate to Canada. The best way to explain it is the US is called the melting pot Canada is multi cultural. Here I beg to differ. Keep in mind that the U.S. has more than 10 times the population of Canada. We have more troubles because we have more people, often in greater densities. Our cities are extremely multi-cultural. Seattle schools have children that speak over 100 different languages. I believe my suburban district still counts in the thirties. Also, the "melting pot" model was pretty much discarded in the 1950s. The reality today is what's called the "salad bowl." Many cultures that work side by side, but often remain distinct. Canada is a more tolerant society. you don’t want to ever mistake that as weakness. I would suggest that Canada is a more polite society. If America were truly intolerant our immigration policies would be a lot tighter, our borders (especially southern) would be patrolled by military personnel, and we might have an official language. You perceive intolerance because America is more open, more "tell it like it is," more apt to err on the side of individualism rather than social tranquility.

Ray says: As I said in post 34, I agree, as long as you understand that the validity (or veracity) of Joseph Smith's revelations is not contingent upon whether or not anyone else believes Joseph Smith. And btw, I am saying anyone “else” because Joseph Smith believed what he taught, as evidenced by his testimony and his willingness to die for his beliefs. I believe what you're getting at here is something you and I actually agree about. There is an absolute truth, that is true simply because it is. For example, the existence of God is not dependent upon our belief in him. Likewise, Jesus said that he was the Truth--nobody gets to the Father but through him. That the religious authorities of his day did not accept him does not change who he is or what he offers. So, yes, I understand that when we speak of ultimate spiritual truths, they are either true or false. Period. And btw, if you live by the words of God ONLY in the Bible, then you will not be living by [WHAT I KNOW TO BE] the words of God that were revealed to Joseph Smith and many other prophets that have come after him, nor will you be living by ANY personal revelation from God to "You". Two issues here. 1. You're right that neither I, nor any other non-LDS Christian will be living by Joseph Smith's words unless we embrace them as true. 2. As for modern day revelation, Pentecostals do teach that God speaks direct words to individuals or churches. However, such "revelations" are always submitted to the authority of Scripture. Additionally, as the Apostle Paul directed, we do "test the spirits." My understanding from some other strings here is that when a Mormon prophet speaks, his words have the power to inform our understanding of Scripture, rather than vice versa.

Our key difference is political here. I've been told that Canadians, for the most part, trust government, and debate about how government should operate officiently. Americans distrust government, and consider it a necessary evil. So, here's the problem of "hate speech." Canadians say, "This is offensive. Let's set up some laws, and use our courts and corrections systems to mold people into more polite citizens." Americans say, "I don't want government deciding what's hateful and what's disagreement. Next thing you know, they'll find a reason to come after me! Nothing doing!" We hear about the pastor in Sweden who's being prosecuted for hate speech, because he preached against homosexual behavior (based on Romans 1). Canadians might think, "Wow...that preacher must have really went off the deep end!" Americans think, "The homosexual lobby in Sweden has the government going after it's preachers? The government must have gone off the deep end." Our public square of ideas is rowdier and more chaotic...but we prefer it to the government-refined politeness of other western countries, where law enforcement can control public discourse.

It will probably be easier for me to explain what I was getting at, with bullets: 1. The doctrines of Eternal Marriage and that Father God has a body are pretty much the exclusive teachings of the LDS Church. 2. Occasionally a scholar may make observations supportative of such teachings, but no other Christian denomination is teaching these two doctrines. 3. Therefore, regardless of the how persuasive FAIR's theological defenses of these two teachings may or may not be, in the end they would seem to rise or fall on the validy to Joseph Smith's revelations. 4. One might even argue that the theological defenses surrounding Eternal Marriage and the Corporeal Existence of the Father were created in response to Joseph Smith's revelations. 5. If #4 is true, then the two doctrines were not the result of an independent, Holy Ghost directed study of God's word, but of a desire to theologically support the revelations of Joseph Smith. So, bottom-line: Eternal Marriage and Father God having a body are teachings that rise or fall on the validity Joseph Smith's prophetic status and the veracity of his revelations.