prisonchaplain
-
Posts
13955 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
92
Posts posted by prisonchaplain
-
-
'Ray' date='Jan 11 2006, 10:03 AM': To be saved by Jesus Christ you must have a true testimony of Jesus Christ and Repent of all you know that isn’t in agreement with His will. That testimony is often simple at first, but once you know that Jesus is the Christ, and you have a sincere desire to know Him better, He will continue to teach you more about Him and His will until you come to know everything there is to know that He has and will continue to reveal to you. Or in other words, you have to get close enough to personally know Jesus Christ, never stopping or damning yourself from knowing all that He has and will continue to reveal.
By your definition most of those who are sincere evangelical Christians--who made Jesus both Savior and Lord (getting saved and growing in salvation) would seem to qualify. An additionally theme I read into your answer is the process of developing a personal, growing relationship with Jesus. I say "amen," to that! I would be curious to hear from you and others here how you go about that, beyond the obvious--attending church functions, doing good works.
The true church of Jesus Christ on this Earth consists of prophets who receive the will of our Lord through revelation, apostles who are authorized by our Lord to teach other people the good news of Jesus Christ, and other people who have various gifts and callings with which they establish and build and regulate the church of Christ on this Earth.
Random thoughts on apostles and prophets:
1. Prophets: Many churches, especially African-American ones, do have those called prophets and apostles.
2. In a stricter sense, there was no prophet mentioned in the Holy Bible since about 400 BC--none that I know of in the New Testament. Old Testament prophets were usually commissioned to call the political leaders, and the people at large to repent and return to the way of God.
3. Apostles, as a word, is defined as follows: a sending, a mission," signifies an apostleship, Act 1:25; Rom 1:5; 1Cr 9:2; Gal 2:8. Note: Pseudapostoloi, "false apostles," occurs in 2Cr 11:13. This from Strong's. As a result of this understanding, a common modern usage of the word apostle is missionary--one sent to represent the gospel. With this understanding, the LDS Church has 60K+ apostles, and most evangelical churches also have numerous ones.
Concerning the gifts and callings: Amen to your comments. We do see the gifts and callings of the Spirit alive today: gifts of tongues, interpretation, prophecy, healing, etc. And yes, sometimes there are gifts that regulate--such as the gift of discernment--"Sorry, brother, but that particular word is not of God."
We believe all other churches to be either in a state of apostasy from the true church of Christ which was established by our Lord and His duly authorized servants in the meridian of time, or in a state of rebellion against the true church of Christ which has been restored and is now established on this Earth under the authority of our Lord and His duly authorized servants.
I'm wondering what this term apostasy means. As Professor Robinson explains it, my sense is that I'm pretty safe. If I never receive a testimony that the LDS theological package (new revelations, restoration, moder prophets, etc.) is true, and I continue along my current path, I will enjoy eternity in the TERRESTIAL kingdom, in the presence of Jesus Christ, though not the Father. I will indeed not marry, or give in marriage. I will end up as I currently expect to end up. On the other hand, if the LDS gospel is true, Ray may perform a baptism for the dead, on my behalf, and since I have a good and sincere heart, at that point I'll humbly accept it, and still get in the CELESTIAL kingdom.
On the other hand, if apostasy is more serious--as it's traditionally understood to be--then I am a heretic. Directly or indirectly, I lead people away from the LDS Church (come to my church...it's not lds). Ergo, I'm a corrupt preacher, teaching abominable creeds and doctrines. My "reward" may end up looking more like punishment.
Those who adapt the second stance (call them fundamentalist mormons if you want) end up putting the Church into an odd place. On the one hand it says to Christians, "Of course we are Christians. How could you accuse us of not being so?" On the other hand, (again, from the hardline viewpoint), the Church says, "Oh, and you others really are not Christians. You are excluded. You do not follow the truth. You rebel against God."
So, where are we at? Are we all God-seekers, all attempting to follow the Jesus Christ of the New Testament. Is it just that one side is wrong on some things, as Prof. Robinson says, and in need of "additional truth." Or is one side non-Christian, an enemy of the true gospel, and in need of total repentence and conversion?
Yes, I have spoken in tongues as the Holy Spirit has given me utterance. Have you ever seen a pillar of fire above your head?
A pillar of fire is not the initial physical evidence of being baptized in the Holy Ghost. That phenomenon only appears once in the Scriptural accounts of believers receiving the baptism in the Holy Ghost. The speaking in tongues sign appears specifically three out of the five episodes in Acts, and is specifically cited as a sign--we know they were baptized in the Holy Ghost because they spake in tongues as we did.
And btw, I believe it is not true to state that everybody who receives power and authority from the Holy Ghost receives the gift of being able to speak in tongues, and I also believe there is no good reason for everybody to receive that gift.
Yes, it is true. Many walk with the Holy Spirit, but those who have been baptized have spoken in tongues. You can get to heaven without doing so, but it is the physical sign. There is a good reason for this sign to be used. First, it is God's choice. Second, the most powerful muscle in our bodies is the tongue. We use it to praise God, and to destroy one another. James says if we can control our tongues we can be perfect. Ergo, it is a beautiful irony that God choses a sign that requires us to totally reliquish control of that muscle that can do so much good or ill.
As I said before, the best gift is to be able to receive revelations from our Lord through the power of the Holy Ghost, and with that gift you should then be able to speak about whatever the Holy Ghost has revealed to you in either your own tongue or the tongue of another people.
That may be a good gift, or even a "best gift." I have had a few occasions to offer a word of prophecy (revelation). It was a powerful time of blessing, no doubt. However, the greatness of the gift of prophecy, or of interpeting tongues, does not diminish God's use of tongues as a sign of the baptism in the Holy Ghost.
Prisonchaplain says: The key verse Jesus spoke, in terms of authority, was in Acts 1:8. He said we would receive power (authority) when the Holy Ghost comes on us to be his witnesses…
Ray responds: So far so good, but while Jesus indeed wanted His apostles to teach other people the truth and “pass on” their authority to other people, that does not mean that it would have been right for everyone on Earth to presume that our Lord and His authorized servants had authorized them to teach other people, even if our Lord and His authorized servants had actually taught them all the truth.
Are Mormons, regardless of their church office, not expected to bear witness to the restored gospel, whenever the opportunity arises? Are members not urged to at least bring references for the missionaries? Yes, it is appropriate for all Christians to embrace the work of making disciples--not of themselves, but of Christ.
Or in other words, it was still necessary for the apostles and those whom they did authorize to “pass on“ their authority to other people before those other people could claim to have any authority, and it would not have been proper for anyone, even anyone living back then, to simply presume to have received authority from our Lord and His authorized servants, even if they personally knew and were taught by our Lord and his duly authorized servants.
God does the calling, the church does the confirming.
Or in other words, the fact that the apostles were authorized to teach other people what our Lord had taught them didn't give the people who the apostles taught the authority to teach other people what they had been taught, in and of itself, unless or until the apostles actually gave those "students" the authority to become "teachers". And if those new teachers later made mistakes when teaching other people, the apostles would have had the authority or power to correct those other teachers, even revoking the "teaching" status of those other teachers, if necessary, because the apostles were given the authority to teach all people the truth.
Again, God does the calling, the church does the confirming. And, sometimes, the church does the correcting.
Prisonchaplain says: These commands of the Bible are for all disciples, not just the eleven. They are for me, and yes, for you, Ray--and for all who read these posts and would want to follow Jesus.
Ray responds: I disagree with the point you are trying to make. I believe you have not been given the authority to represent our Lord and bring people into His church, because I believe you have not been given any authority from our Lord or from any of His duly authorized servants.
Well...I was. In fact, I just got my renewed credentials card in the mail about three weeks ago. My calling came from the Lord, and his duly authorized servants confirmed that calling. Our highest church official layed hands on me, and confirmed me to the chaplaincy. It was a powerful, Holy Ghost anointed experience--one I'll never forget.
But if you choose to go on believing that our Lord has given you authority to help Him do His work, I hope you will at least try to come up with a better way to explain why you believe our Lord was giving you authority while He was authorizing other people to go and teach what He taught them.
Actually, you are one of the few that has called my calling into question. And, of course, this all really goes back to the question of just what it means for non-LDS Christianity to be apostate. Are we wrong, and in need of added truths? Or, are we teaching abominable doctrines and creeds, perhaps putting ourselves (at least those of us who are clergy and church leaders) in danger of hellfire?
Ray, you've shared here how embracing the LDS gospel cost you dearly, in your relationship with your family. Perhaps that has hardened your views on non-LDS believers--particularly those of us who are clergy, like some in your family? However, consider the reverse. If you ever decided to return to the "faith of our fathers," would it not also cause some to abandon you? Friends you've made since your conversion. Likewise, if one of your prodiges decided to discontinue, and start attending a Church of Christ--how would you respond? S/he would be an EX--an apostate--perhaps a Son of Perdition. Would you not be forced to abandon him?
-
There has to be a gigantic piece to this puzzle that I'm missing. Is Setheus playing a joke? Did something happen? Has he simply grown weary? I've only been here for about 3 months, and Seth's been a pervasive presence here, and I've heard so many positive reports about him. Suddenly, this most cryptic goodbye? And, a few equally cryptic responses?
Such mystery!
-
Originally posted by Jason@Jan 10 2006, 09:03 PM
Actually, that honor [reinstated polygamy] belongs to Martin Luther. He gave his blessing to Philip of Hesse in taking a plural wife in 1540.
Yeah, yeah...and Leif Erickson discovered the Americas before Christopher Columbus. So what? Leif didn't have the technology to repeat the trip. Mass migration did not occur. Likewise, this little tidbit about Martin Luther apparently didn't catch on.
We still celebrate Christopher Columbus Day, and Joseph Smith and Brigham Young still get notice for reintroducing polygamy to western society.
-
Originally posted by sgallan@Jan 10 2006, 07:47 PM
I dunno. I can see it working for the young. Even being a good idea. But I'll tell you what..... I have no plans on marrying again. Nor do I plan on being celibate. So for me it will probably be cohabitation. Once bitten twice shy I guess....
You enjoy being the exception to the rule, don't you? Any public campaign meant to reduce premarital sex and cohabitation would probably be directed towards upper middle school and high school students. People in the mid-twenties and older who choose to engage in these activities are usually old enough to have the means to cope with the aftermath, whereas teens who get pregnant out of wedlock quite often share their burden with society (both financially, and by raising children with signficant "extra baggage").
-
Originally posted by jiggypoo@Jan 6 2006, 12:23 PM
"Mat 19:4 And he answered and said unto them, Have ye not read, that he which made [them] at the beginning made them male and female, 5 And said, For this cause shall a man leave father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife: and they twain shall be one flesh? 6 Wherefore they are no more twain, but one flesh. What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder."
This is terribly mis-quoted in my opinion. It simply states the relationship that should exists between husband and wife. It doesnt imply restriction of number - as this union should be unique between the two individuals and NOT shared (such as a threesome) among the rest.
I have to disagree. I've stated elsewhere that polygamy was clearly something God tolerated, but it was not God's first or best choice for his creation. In this Matthew passage Jesus is actually quoting from Genesis 2. The model at that point was Adam and Eve. A simple reading is that a man and woman leave their parents and cling to each other--and become one flesh. This is God's ideal marriage union. 2 = 1. To say that Jesus did not restrict the arrangement to only two people is an argument from silence. Such contentions are generally weak. For example, are you really suggesting that because Jesus did not say, "And the two--and only two (no 3rd or 4th wives, etc.)..." well then, Jesus must have approved of polygamy!
Keep in mind too that by the New Testament era polygamy was rapidly dying out. It was not a pervasive issue that Jesus needed to address. We do not see examples of it being practiced in the New Testament church, nor throughout church history...until, of course, Joseph Smith and Brigham Young reinstated the arrangement.
-
Originally posted by Traveler@Jan 10 2006, 08:19 AM
Prison is not punishment - Those that are sent to prison are more likely to commit a crime and not likely to reform or change their ways. In fact there are even some that commit crimes just to get back to prison. Prison is an inconvenience for some but is not enough of punishment to make any real difference.
A few reminders may help here:
1. We're discussing the death penalty--something reserved for the most blatant premeditated murders. So, the alternative sentence is life imprisonment.
2. So...even if they do not change their ways--they're not getting out! Life. Their world is now behind the walls. Folks like me get to deal with them.
3. Some say that the death penalty means no possiblity of the murderer commiting another crime. Granted, he may murder in prison, but in reality, the likelyhood that a lifer is going to murder someone again is quite low.
4. Prison is punishment. Even staff members in many correctional systems are required to retire relatively early, due to the high stress of the job environment. We're only here 40 hours a week, vs. 168 for the inmates.
-
Originally posted by Aristotle@Jan 10 2006, 08:15 AM
In our Church, we need to strengthen the women's auxiliary so that the women can function as a sisterhood by being allowed to express their true thoughts and feelings (see Mormon Women/Prozac) without fear of being censured or medicated. And I'm not talking about a group gossip session!
I've read a few articles that suggest that Mormonism may share a malady common amongst more fundamentalist Christian groups--the need to give the appearance of perfection. I'm supposed to be happy, I'm supposed to be fulfilled, I'm supposed to be so mightily blessed as I work 40+ hours a week, shuttle the kids around, do the housecleaning, laundry, attend the religious meetings, do my personal religious activities (Scripture reading, prayer, etc.), and...
of course get my 8 hours of rest a day! Hello? What's wrong with this picture?The Bible says we are to rejoice with those who rejoice. I'm not afraid to testify that I got a raise at work, even though another dear saint might have lost his/her job. My spiritual family can rejoice with me. I'm not afraid to ask for prayer because I lost my job. My brothers and sisters will not judge me for losing my job, think me incompetent, or that God is punishing me. They will pray for me, and they will mourn with me, if necessary. A church, regardless of the flag that flies overhead, that is emotionally open will foster more spiritual growth and health, than one in which forced-happiness, forced blessedness, forced faith testimonies are the norm.
If men are not paying attention to their priesthood leaders when counsel is reiterated from the prophet for men to respect their wives, then they should start listening instead of dozing. Abuse of spouse and child means "amen to the priesthood".
I'm guessing that more often than not, the abusers are not at those meetings. They might still wear the religious name, but they are not engaged to the church. Sociologists are now saying that men who are active in religious life are far LESS likely to abuse than those who only claim the name.
When someone commits a transgression (or a crime), they shouldn't be shamed and ostracized. Rehabilitation is necessary, both in the home and in the church, before it enters into the prison system. If one goes to prison, there should be support groups, counseling, job training and spiritual guidance available for those prisoners who wish to change their lives around by preparing them to re-enter society. What's the old saying? An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure?
Actually, it would be healthy if we were capable of feeling a bit more shame. Ostracization won't help. But it's healthy to be ashamed of shameful activities. Redemption is so powerful. It's not cheap, but it can be total. That's why I know I'm going to heaven. I've lied, I've been lazy, I've been negligent, I've often done less than my best...but I'm forgiven, and I am moving on with Jesus towards the mark...towards my prize. I know I have it, so I do not hang my head in resignation. I walk in victory. If I fall or fail. I stop. I assess. I judge myself, so God won't have to. I repent. I receive the forgiveness that comes with sincerity. And, I move on with my Lord.
Prison can be a place of redemption, if the inmate wants it. Programs are not plentiful, but there are some. Most prisons have a lot of religious programming, because the instructors tend to be volunteers. Government likes free labor.
So, we'll do our part. But, Sister A. is right--prevention is cheaper and more effective...especially when it comes from the houses of God. -
Originally posted by sgallan@Jan 10 2006, 07:08 AM
1. As a culture, more strongly discourage premarital sex and cohabitation.
Genie is out of the bottle. How do you get it back in?
"I told you to get back in that bottle, you troublemaker!" Well...that might not work.
Seriously, people use to smoke like chimneys. The movie stars did it. It was cool. The genie was out of the bottle. In my life time it's changed from pervasive, to acceptable, to tolerable, to socially unpleasant, to where it is now almost considered a social disease. We've taxed cigarettes, in Tacoma, WA smokers must be at least 25 feet away from the entrance of any building open to public traffic.
If we got serious about the huge social costs of premarital sex and cohabitation, I can envision it becoming something weak people do. The transition might not be as extreme as what happened with smoking, but I'm hopeful we could greatly reduce current rates.
. That would be in excess of 95% in my region. In a general sense, there is a need for men to interact in healthy ways. Most men do not have close male friends. They do not have someone to "bounce things off of." It used to be men bowled in leagues, played cards, watched ballgames together, etc. I'm wondering if as we've become more isolated, we've become more skewed in our thinking. Sgallan, one of the reasons you're such a healthy parent may well be your heavy involvement with other wrestling parents. I'm not sure how society makes this happen, but I think a huge help in this problem would be for men to get together more. We can say things amongst ourselves that we cannot discuss with women.What about the 40-50% of the people who don't attend church?
Why does the mom always get the kids? I am a way better parent than my wife.
Well, of course she doesn't. Kudos to you for being a real man for your child. My brother in law had to do the same for his two children for several years because his first wife got hooked on drugs and bad behavior.
In my responses I was grappling with the most common problems in our society...and usually it's primarily the men. Sgallan, my brother in law, and men like you shine because you are, unfortunately, the exceptions that prove the rule.
-
I've argued in this post that the demographics of the death penalty are somewhat unnerving. See what you think, and feel free to comment:
<a href=\'http://www.prisonpolicy.org/prisonindex/deathpenalty.shtml\' target=\'_blank\'>http://www.prisonpolicy.org/prisonindex/deathpenalty.shtml</a>
-
Originally posted by Ray@Jan 9 2006, 04:59 PM
I answered “Yes”, with the following understanding. ...
But Ray, me thinks Prof. Robinson was speaking of Assemblies of God, Baptist, Presbyterian, Methodist, Evangelical Free, Salvation Army, Christian Missionary Alliance, Nazarene, Church of God, Church of Christ, Community of Christ, Seventh Day Adventist, etc.Do you think these kinds of evangelicals will be numerous in the Celestial Kingdom?
-
Originally posted by Traveler@Jan 9 2006, 10:21 PM
Someday perhaps, since you are in the front lines of this war you might post some insights on how we can put these kind of familes back together. Though I have some ideas - considering who you are and what you do - I would still like to hear this from you. :)
Things we can do to put families back together.
1. As a culture, more strongly discourage premarital sex and cohabitation. Premarital sex sometimes leads to premature marriages built out of necessity. While the guy ultimately "does the right thing" he resents it, and the foundation is week. Alternatively, the gal has the baby and is an instant single mom--aka broken family. Cohabitation leads to a higher risk of divorce after marriage. Sociologists agree on this. A pattern of "I can always leave if MY needs aren't being met" results, once again, in a poor foundation to the marriage. Sex ed. in schools should unapologetically stress abstinence. We parents should talk the talk here, and set the expectations.
2. Churches need to strengthen their men's groups and programming. Additionally, leaders may want to work at ways in which general church programming can be made more appealing to men. Often what happens is that since most attenders are women, the programming gradually becomes "feminine." When men do come, they feel awkward.
3. Parachurch organizations, like Promise Keepers, should be supported by church leaderships. Other forms of small group meetings for men to support each other, and be frank with each other, can be powerful.
4. When the worst happens, real men pay their child support, honor visitation promises and times, and try to bolster their children through the visits, not compete with or demean the mom.
These are just some random thoughts. Hopefully there's something fruitful here.
-
Originally posted by Traveler@Jan 9 2006, 06:21 PM
I suggest to you my friend that unless you can put families back together - you do little or nothing the solve the prison problems.
I second Traveler's motion
-
Originally posted by dontagreeljefe@Jan 9 2006, 05:43 PM
Could the reason more black people are executed is because more of them commit murder. Trying to pull race card. But do they see the race percentage of victims or how many are put to death in proportion to the crime.
I've made this same argument in the past. However, the Death Row numbers are way too skewed. The reality is a rich white guy who commits premeditated murder is signficantly less likely to garner the death penalty than a poor black man who does the same. If 10 white guys kill and 50 black guys kill, and only 2 white guys fry, but 48 black guys fry, something's wrong with the system.
The lord is no respector of persons and law shouldnt either. Regardless of skin color if someone commits pre meditated murder they should forfeit there right to live.
But it doesn't work that way. The Death Penalty is reserved for the most grievous crimes. And, the perpetrator's race is too signficant of a predictor to explain away.
Like I said, I'm ambivalent. However, if it is true that there is some subtle unfairness built into the system, such that one group of people is significantly more likely to fry, then I've got problems with the system.
-
Originally posted by Ray@Jan 9 2006, 02:50 PM
prisonchaplain, Jan 7 2006, 01:16 AM
The key verse Jesus spoke, in terms of authority, was in Acts 1:8. He said we would receive power (authority) when the Holy Ghost comes on us to be his witnesses…
Ray, now
There you go again, thinking that a record of someone saying something to someone else is a record of someone saying something to you.
In this case, the record shows that our Lord was telling His apostles that [they] would receive power or authority when the Holy Ghost came to [them]. And while someone else may also receive power or authority from the Holy Ghost by the Holy Ghost coming to them, it does not mean that you have received power or authority from the Holy Ghost by simply believing the Holy Ghost has come to you, or that the Holy Ghost only comes when He wants to give power or authority to someone else.
Perhaps the following citation will help. Emphasis in bold is mine.
And Jesus came and spake unto them saying, All power is given unto me in heaven and earth. Matthew 28:18
Any discussion about who has authority or power is mute. The authority belongs to Jesus.
Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost:
Ray, your big question right now would be, "Who is Jesus addressing?" My answer, "The disciples." Your point, "So, this command is for the disciples, not you." My rebuttal:
Teaching THEM to obey all things whatsoever I have commanded you...
The things which Jesus told the eleven disciples to do, he wanted those 11 to pass on to their disciples, who would pass them on to their disciples, etc. etc.
These commands of the Bible are for all disciples, not just the eleven. They are for me, and yes, for you, Ray--and for all who read these posts and would want to follow Jesus.
prisonchaplain, Jan 7 2006, 01:16 AM
…He wants us to win souls, not set up a hierarchy…
Ray, now
Who is this “us” you speak of, and where did you get those ideas?
See the reference above (Matthew 28:18-20)--also known as the Great Commission.
From the records we have in the scriptures, I can see that our Lord laid his hands upon certain people and then authorized [them] to go out and teach other people what He taught them and would continue to teach them, with those people occasionally giving other people that authority by laying their hands upon them.
Jesus wants all to be saved. He wants his message to go to the ends of the earth. Somehow the idea of Jesus and the disciples casually "occasionally" making other disciples, does not mesh with the whole idea of a GREAT COMMISSION.
You send out 60,000 missionaries a year. My group has about 1400 full-time, about 30K clergy, and we have empowered all 33 million of our adherents to take part in this great work of being discipled and of making disciples. There's no exclusivity or elitism in this great work.
I do not see how that means our Lord authorized or continues to authorize everybody to go teach whatever they believe, even if everybody teachs whatever they believe that sounds good.
Okay, we won't say Jesus told the disciples to do that. Instead, we'll say he told the disciples to go and make everyone who will respond into disciples, and then empower all who will respond to do likewise, and that they all would teach whatever JESUS commanded.
Ray, nowWhile you may indeed belong to a church or group of people who truly desire to serve God, I believe you have not received any authority from our Lord and His authorized servants to represent our Lord as one of His authorized servants.
Ray, you are a lot pickier than Jesus is. "Whosoever will, may come." "The workers are few...pray for laborers...the fields are ripe unto harvest." There's too much to do, and too few people to do the work, for me to embrace the gatekeeper role you seem to find for the church. Jesus wanted the gospel message and work to expand, not to be limited.
Once you understand and accept the fact that “my church” is actually the true church of Jesus Christ, and that His church includes people who have authority from our Lord to help Him in His work, you should be able to see that you can become “closer” to our heavenly Father with the help of our Lord and those whom our Lord has authorized to help Him in His work.
A key obstacle is that I'm not convinced there is one human organization that adaquately qualifies as being the true church of Jesus Christ, to the exclusion of others. If this concept of a gatekeeper church is taken too far, it could result in idolatry (requirement to revere the object (organization) rather than the one around whom it is organized (Jesus Christ). In other words, my focus for truth and exclusivity is not on THE CHURCH of Jesus Christ, but rather on THE JESUS CHRIST of the church.
-
Originally posted by Ray@Jan 9 2006, 02:50 PM
Instead of looking at it as “God limiting himself to using only members of the “LDS” church <in this day and age>”, try looking at it as “God is limiting himself to using everyone <in this day and age> who is willing to become a member of the “LDS” church,” with the understanding that anyone <in this day and age> can become a member of the “LDS” church, and with the understanding that <in this day and age> the “LDS” church is the true church of Jesus Christ on this Earth.
My comment here might be worthy of a whole new string, but here it is: There is not one true religious organizational structure that serves as a gatekeeper between Jesus and humanity. There is one true universal church--but it is made up of the followers of Jesus, not the followers of a human organization, regardless of how accurately it may reflect God's truths.
And yes, while it may be true that there are some members of the true church of Christ who are not true disciples of Jesus Christ, as I suspect that there some bad apples in every bunch, the people who are in the true church of Christ have a better opportunity to hear and accept the true gospel of Jesus Christ, rather than hearing a version which has been corrupted by the precepts of men, because the true church of Christ does have many members who are true disciples of Jesus Christ with the authority that Jesus Christ has given them.
Snow has often asked me this question, so I'll offer to you as well: what are the minimum true doctrines one must agree to before s/he is saved? In other words, if grace is not sufficient, if accepting the "true gospel" is required, how close do you have to get?
Again, salvation--and I know your church teaches this--is through Jesus Christ, not through something called "the true Christian church." The church offers community, education, support, a forum to love God's people, a means of uniting with other believers to work towards fulfilling the Great Commission.
We believe all other churches to be either in a state of apostasy from the true church of Christ which was established by our Lord and His duly authorized servants in the meridian of time, or in a state of rebellion against the true church of Christ which has been restored and is now established on this Earth under the authority of our Lord and His duly authorized servants.
While there certainly were/are apostates and heretics, and while the Church (first 1000 years or so), and the churches have had failures and disappointments, I am much more optimistic about my fellow believers from roughly 70AD - 1820-30AD than you are.
For instance, there are some people who teach the "word of God" from only the Holy Bible, simply not knowing that scriptures are also contained in books other than the Holy Bible, and thus not teaching with the added insights which can be gained from those other books. But there are other people who teach that the word of God is contained ONLY in the Holy Bible, or that the Book of Mormon is NOT a collection of inspired scripture, and those people will be held accountable for teaching false doctrine.
So, if I have not received a testimony from the Holy Ghost that the BOM, D&C and PoGP are modern revelations, and I am asked about them, and respond that to this point God has not revealed to me, nor to the Christian community at large the authority of these writings, where does that leave me? Am I merely wrong, as I understood Prof. Robinson to suggest? Or, will I be held accountable for teaching false doctrine? If the second is so, what do you believe that judgment will entail?
Ray, Jan 6 2006, 04:49 PM
Secondly, while we do believe that other people can receive gifts from the Holy Ghost, in the sense that the Holy Ghost can reveal His mind and presence to anyone whether or not they are members of the true church of Christ, we [LDS] do not believe that other people have “the gift” of the Holy Ghost, in that we do not believe that other people have been given the right to receive those gifts.
You've touched upon a distinctive of my own church. So, I'll share it. Ray, have you spoken in tongues, as the Spirit gives utterance? For, this is the initial physical evidence that one has truly been baptized in the Holy Ghost. Throughout the book of Acts, when the Holy Ghost is poured out, the sign of speaking in tongues is either specifically mentioned, or it is implied. In one case, when Gentiles are baptized in the Holy Ghost, Jewish believers if this is even possible. The apostles reply, we know they have received the Holy Ghost, for they spoke in tongues as we did. So, this questioning of who has and has not received the gift and baptism in the Holy Ghost can go multiple directions.
First of all, the number of people who accept certain doctrines doesn’t necessarily indicate that what they accept is true.
You are correct. However, the LDS Church often cites its growth as a sign of God's blessing, if nothing else. To see a ragtag group of "wrong side of the track" Christians who probably numbered in the low 1000s in the 19-teens have grown to be the largest non-Catholic Christian grouping...well could we not rightly say it may be a sign of God's blessing?
Secondly, I believe our Lord will judge us more by what we have done than by what we know.
Amen to that. Christian missionaries have brought literacy, schools and universities, hospitals, liberty from the caste system for India's untouchables, food, shelter, and a simple gospel of salvation by grace through Christ, throughout the world. Furthermore, Wycliff Bible translators believes it will have translated the entire Bible into every language in the world by 2038. I could go on, but you get the point. For all your disagreements with non-LDS Christian doctrines, the churches have done much that is good.
-
Originally posted by GRR8@Jan 5 2006, 09:03 PM
It would have been nice of the Lord,(if there really is one) to have protected everyone concerned, rather than your explanation Setheus. I used to be a member a long time ago. I was told the holy priesthood protects the lives of its members. It doesnt appear to me anyway, that this happens as explained to me. Why would two o innocent young elders need to be 'SANCTIFIED" by the loss of their lives at the hand of a killer? They werent hurting anyone and at the very least, trying to help people. Id call this a RANDOM act of violence, but things like this make me doubt even more, the truthfulness of the bible, the truthfulness of the church,and the existence of a loving higher power. This thing makes me sad. I remember the Mother and Father who were members who were killed by their own son, he shot them to death. It has made me doubt,,doubt, doubt every thing i was ever taught.
The truth is Jesus (John 14:6). The Bible explicates that truth. Jesus died for our sins, but he also said that what's necessary for the Master may be necessary for the servants--after all we are not greater than He. Sure enough, all but one of the disciples died in the service of Jesus. The one, John the Revelator, was exiled to a prison island.
We're not commanded to look for death, or seek martyrdom. However, those blessed to partake will receive special rewards. It is a gift from the Father. I remember one WWII vet, who was a POW. He was badly beaten by his captors, because the discovered he had a contraband New Testament. When he woke up from his beating, three days later, he asked, "Why Lord?" The response?
That I may know him, and the power of his resurrection, and the fellowship of his sufferings, being made conformable unto his death; Philippians 3:10 KJV
-
Originally posted by sgallan@Jan 9 2006, 07:37 AM
or are we better if we let 999 murders and rapers off scott free in our society to do what they do best?
I didn't say that. I said you don't put them to death unless you are 100% certain. Because if they are innocent that is what is known as murder.
Wise prison chaplains do not take strong positions on this topic (unless they're against). And, quite frankly, I'm ambivalent. However, from a Judeo-Christian perspective, the 100% accuracy standard was never realistic or achievable. Yet, the Mosaic Law called for execution. So, I'm not certain one can argue from a strictly religious standpoint against state-sponsored executions.
On the other hand, my own concern is that there seems to be pretty clear indications that the darker your skin color and the skimpier your bank account the more likely you are to be a victim of a mistaken decision. In contrast, wealthy light-colored folk who are as guilty as they get can often present a calm "professional" court demeanor, and can afford lawyers who know how to muddy the facts, so that they end up serving life or less.
-
Feel free to offer your defenses or explanations!
-
Originally posted by GRR8@Jan 8 2006, 07:04 PM
Chappy, if you do some research into the origins of the worlds religions, you will discover that they all are heresay accounts.
I guess I should just do some research. That's my problem! Here's the root of my ignorance. I haven't done any research.
My three years at an accredited graduate school amount to naught. Far better for me to find out which school gr88t has been doing his serious work at. Can I borrow your matchbook, so I can get that address? (Note for those too old to remember...matchbooks were a source of mail order diplomas in the good old days. Today you need to access enterprisemission.com for such institutions of higher learning).
BTW: YAWEH was the name of a MIDIANITE STORM GOD, and was taken by an Egyptian, Moses, or borrowed if you will, and re imaged by same. So basically, the God of the Torah was actually first the God of the Midianites. Here I have real time investigations at http://www.enterprisemission.com/message.htm that are documented, and unaltered, whereas all the books of all the religions of the world are second and third hand accounts, altered through thousands and thousands of years after said events.
Silly me. I might have considered consulting Hebrew or Aramaic scholars, or perhaps going to a public university website, and checking the Middle East studies department, or some other such wasteful technique. All I needed to do was see what Guru Hoagland says about it
I sure hope you're not into some reconstituted Hale Bopp cult.
You cannot tell me that whom you believe to be GOD, didnt come from the STARS can you. You cant tell me that the posted link I have (message) and all that it presents is invalid. You havent the slightest notion of how to refute any of what I have presented have you? Go for it. Do it. Refute it.
I don't know about refuting it, but I did find a use for it. If you go to the site and rapidly move the sidebar up and down it seems to be a great optical exercise. It's also a good way to show adolescents what happens when they abuse drugs or alcohol (you're vision gets blurry...you might end up producing really obscure websites)
In the meantime, ive got 17 years worth of articles all archived with IMAGES, DOCUMENTATIONS, and regular folks will see what this all means. :)
Science Fiction +
Adolescence +
Hype +
Misplaced Trust +
a burning desire to grasp for the infinite while not embracing the one true and living God =
enterprisemission.com
-
Originally posted by Setheus@Jan 8 2006, 06:28 PM
Now, FunkyFool416, THAT was the stupidest joke in the world...not Moroni's joke.
Yeah, but it was too long. Here's the stupidest brief joke in the world:
Why did the monkey fall out of the tree?
...He was...
DEAD!
-
Originally posted by funkyfool416@Jan 8 2006, 04:42 PM
That was a truely terrible joke. I don't know that it could really even be considered a joke because it was so terrible. Next time you have a joke comparable to that one...just keep it to yourself please because it is just wasting space on the boards. Thank you much.
This from the same woman who responded to my riddle, "What is funnier than a clown?" (correct answer = two clowns) with, "Your face!" -
Originally posted by GRR8@Jan 7 2006, 02:41 PM
Your Guess aye? You speak for Plait himself? I dont think so.
Sure I do. Plait lets me handle the frivolous malcontents. Also, I have more evidence for an Intelligent Designer or Designers than you do of "the One True Living God"
First, I'll grant you equivalent evidence. From the basis of pure science one could just as easily speculate that we were designed by superior aliens as easily as s/he could that it was a Creator God.
Second, I readily admit that my faith in the Creator is primarily a faith, though there is some evidence that points my way. Are you willing to admit that Hoagland and you profer speculations about aliens "seeding" our planet that could only be insisted on as a matter of faith?
who would that be Chappy? whats his name and where'd you talk to him to know he exists?
His name is I AM THAT I AM, but Moses was told just to say "I AM" had sent him. The Hebrew form of his name is most directly translated as YHWH, I believe. Our best guess is Yahweh, though Jehovah is the common English butcher of the name. I talk to him whereever I am. Surely you've heard of the omnipresence of God?
You guys are hypocrites. You debunk scientific data and images
We debunk science-fiction presented under the guise of serious work, and images that foster more speculation than conclusive evidence of anything.
yet propose that you have proof that CHRISTIANITY IS THE ONE TRUE RELIGION. What a laugh.
I never proposed that I have proof that Christianity is the one true religion. I said you should look to the creator, rather than creation. You should.
-
Originally posted by Josie@Jan 7 2006, 03:26 PM
PC,
I do value freedom of speech very much so in this country. I basically agree with you on what you said. I was referring to the fact that not long ago, the IRS went after the minister of a church because he suggested who his congregation should vote for in a public election. Yet they let someone like this walk away without a word.
As clarification, I do not believe churches should be restricted from engaging in this type of activity. I'm not suggesting I would lead a church in this way, but I do not want the government to have the power to prevent churches from "speaking the truth to power." Even in the Old Testament, one primary role of the prophets was to warn the king about "thus sayeth the Lord."
To me freedom of speech is one thing, but when a public figure like that calls for the assassination of the leader of a nation, he is playing with fire, and he does not know who is going to take him at his word and go do it.
This hurts me more than it does you (or Pres. Chavez). Robertson is a charismatic leader. People associate him with the likes of me. And what he suggested was beyond foolish. Furthermore, he did not properly distance himself, or recant his comments--even at one point suggesting he was misquoted (he wasn't). So, yes, shame on him. If he does not do some serious self-evaluation, his remarks might relegate him to notoriety, despite many of the positive things he has accomplished.
We can disagree with the policies of a nation, or what a leader has said without telling the people to go murder him, even if it is a figure of speech. I think responsibility comes with leadership.
I don't disagree. I'm just not certain this was the "yelling fire in a crowded movie theater" scenario. If it was, perhaps the best solution is to prosecute him on that basis, rather than further muzzling people of faith.
-
I surprised myself by only biting two bullets, and taking no hits. I figured an ordained pentecostal preacher had little hope of surviving such a game. I'd further mitigate my results by adjusting my definition of an atheist as being only potentially so based purely on faith, since the test attempts to point out that just as monetheists can arrive at their convictions based upon some evidence mixed with some faith, so atheists do likewise.
On the other hand, I'll either have to firm up my research on theistic evolution or take a hit next time.
Overall, a fun test--as promised.
of course get my 8 hours of rest a day! Hello? What's wrong with this picture?
But Ray, me thinks Prof. Robinson was speaking of Assemblies of God, Baptist, Presbyterian, Methodist, Evangelical Free, Salvation Army, Christian Missionary Alliance, Nazarene, Church of God, Church of Christ, Community of Christ, Seventh Day Adventist, etc.
What One Lds Distinctive Truth Is Most Essential?
in LDS Gospel Discussion
Posted
Revelation is essential for salvation? Well, yes...if what is meant is a revelation of one's sinfulness, one's need for salvation. Furthermore, a revelation that Jesus is the way of salvation. "Forgive a sinner like me, because Jesus shed his blood, and died for me." That revelation leads to the conversion moment.
Everything after that moment entails growing in salvation. Salvation is already complete in Christ, yet is is growing towards perfection, as we learn, commune with Jesus, and as we do what God asks of us.
Faith and repentence are prerequisites to what I described above as the moment of salvation. The Holy Ghost does indeed abide with all believers, so that is a given--if the faith and repentence are true. As for water baptism, I would argue that this sacrament is one of the first acts of obedience the saved person partakes in. Salvation is a result of repentence and faith. Baptism is a public testimony to the salvation. God's forgiveness and embrace comes as we say "Yes" to his gift--his Son. God does not suspend the gift until we go under the water. There is no spiritual power in the material of creation (water, for example). Salvation is in Christ.
The sons of Sceva did NOT have faith in Jesus. They attempted to use his name as some sort of magic incantation. They prayed, "In the name of Jesus...whom Paul preaches." They openly admitted they had no relationship with Christ. To put it more directly, even Satan "believes in Jesus." The authority comes with relationship, not with having picked the right Christian denomination to join.
You call it the True Church, the true Institution, and believe this is different from saying the True Organization. What's the difference. Well...yes, you'd have competition. The Jehovah's Witnesses claim they have 'Jehovah's Organization.' At it's worse--if these human entities become gatekeepers between humanity and Jesus--they can become idols.
When I read Prof. Robinson I wonder if perhaps the LDS Church merely considers itself a holder of "added truth," that is is willing to share with evangelicals, and any who "have ears to hear," then I think that perhaps some have overstated the divide between Mormonism and evangelicalism. However, when I read some comments about the One true Church, and I see the term APOSTATE used in a sense that could mean far more than merely "in error on some points," then I revert to my concern about mere humans trying to pose as spiritual gatekeepers.