prisonchaplain

I'll deal with Bro. Nibley later. First, for Ray! The year is 1993. After nearly seven years of service as a missionary in South Korea, the Holy Spirit clearly leads me to enroll at the Assemblies of God Theological Seminary. Within six weeks of enrollment, I'm sitting with six other new students, facing the President. Del Tarr, who had served many years as a missionary in West Africa, recounts to us the story of Jesus washing the feet of his twelve disciples. He then tells us that if we are to make God's best use of the advanced theological degrees we are pursuing, if we are to lead God's church in God's way, if we are to be counted worthy Shepherds, then we'd better learn the servant-leadership Jesus modeled. Bottom line? GRAB A TOWEL! And, he handed each of us a brand new towel. He then encouraged us not to wait until we graduated, wait until we'd dawned our 'penguine outfits' before we began ministry. Get out and do it now! Learn while you study! I am pro-education, and it does sadden me when some laypeople despise the noble labor of study. But, quite frankly, a powerful testimony is often more convincing than the most carefully prepared lesson. Furthermore, a single moment of Holy Ghost-anointed insight can bring more life than month's of uninspired book work. My school hit a great balance with its slogan: KNOWLEDGE ON FIRE! I hope this tale helps you understand my heart better, Ray.

It is said that the two greatest surprises on Judgment Day are who gets into heaven and who doesn't. I trust you will be unmiffed even if it turns out the Celestial Kingdom (exaltation) is the only heavenly realm, and you're stuck for all eternity with us. If Joseph Smith was a prophet of God, then, as things stand now, you'll be in the Celestial Kingdom, and I'll be in the Terrestial one. If he was not a prophet, but you're still in heaven, then, I don't know--maybe I'll have extra stars in my crown? Maybe I will have accomplished more because the faith I taught was not hampered by misunderstanding? I am certain of this: lovers of God want the fullest and most accurate understanding of him possible. We want to know whom we love. And, my guess is that all believers in God would say, "Amen!" to that.

The vast majority of your good deeds are covered under Mom/Pop's Day. Your volunteer work for the prison would be covered under Volunteer Appreciation Day. You can even get a federal government certificate to go with that one! But, what does a self-described godless heathen expect from a distinctly Christian holiday, other than to piggyback on some of the good eats, the parties, the presents, and some of the general goodwill and cheer that coat-tails with the holiday.

Snows says: Man! It's hard to get a clear answer from you. You are less explicit than even the Bible. Hey...I'm neither a prophet, nor will my writings ever be canonized. So when you correctly acknowledge the giver of the gift - are you required to affirm certain things about Him - for example homoousis, cosubstantiality, indivisibility and ungeneration? Or are you required to disaffirm certain thing about the giver, like not believe that He was the brother of Satan? In other words, how wrong can you be about who God and Jesus are, and still be saved? At what point do one's beliefs about God become so wrong, that we could say, "You're not approaching the giver of the gift." I'm going to punt at this point, and defer my answer until I've completed the "How Wide the Divide Book." Concerning the gift: If God says it is offered to whoever believes in his Son, and that no one else can have it. But, you turn around and say: Almost everyone can have the gift. However, God has an even better gift for those who will join our church, submit to our rituals, and obey our spiritual regimen. If evangelicals are right about this, then at bare minimum, God would rightly be miffed. Snow asks: What about if you lived in the jungle hundreds of years ago and had only heard tidbits about the giver of the gift and didn't know enough to believe and understand correct doctrine or not but accepted him as your Savior anyway? Some evangelicals will tell you that they were lost. They did not know Jesus, and Jesus is the only way. Others have suggested that they will be judged by how they responded to what little they knew. Romans 1 speaks to creation itself being a testimony of God. When we are encouraging our people to support missions we tell them that we are safer to assume that those who do not hear may be without hope, and so we had better get the word to them! However, my bottom-line answer is that I'm not sure. I know that God is good. God is just. On the Day of Judgment, when we see who is redeemed and who is doomed, there will be no second-guessing, and no hesitation. All will declare that God was good and merciful and just.

Snow says: Well now it looks like we are getting somewhere. So, after accepting Christ and becoming "saved," we are then required to obey the commandments, at least in some measure, in order to maintain our salvation. Right? The short answer is: right. The longer answer is: Jesus says that if you love him you will keep his commands. He says we must love one another for love is of God and anyone that does not love does not know God (i.e. is not saved). Several of the seven churches in Asia minor are warned that if they do not return to their first love, do not reject the false teachings of the Nicolaitan, do not abandon spiritual pride and lukewarmness, etc. that "their candles would be removed." Jesus parable of the seed and the sower, suggests that some seed (gospel) would result in immediate conversion, but the convert would, after a seemingly rapid spurt of growth, whither and die. Other seed would seem to grow, but then would be choked by the concerns of this world. I'll even cite a line from a popular contemporary Christian song: What about the change...what about the difference? (this query, after the new converts speaks of getting the fish symbols and Jesus bumperstickers). So, the longer answer is also yes--Jesus is coming back for a glorious bride, not a blemished one. Forgiveness is available to the believer. However, we are indeed called to life in the Spirit.

Snow says: Okay, I got that. When one comes unto Christ, they have to really mean it Still people have "come unto Christ" and then wind up somehow raping and murdering, or maybe buying the services of prostitutes (and getting caught and aplogizing and crying about it on TV only to do it again) or if you extend it out to sinning in general, then everybody who comes unto Christ winds up sinning again. Which brings me back to the original question - can one who is saved committ rape or murder. As I see it, there are three answers: 1. Yes, once saved, always saved and no amount of raping and murdering can change that? While in some ways, this is the least palatable answer, it is the closest to being accurate. I do not subscribe to "once saved always saved." However, it is difficult to lose one's salvation. The Bible tells that God chases after us, that there is no where we can hide from him. However, if the "saved" one continually rejects or ignores the conviction of the Holy Spirit, s/he will come to the place of having once been "saved" but now being "lost." 2. No, you cannot rape and murder, after being saved, and still stay saved - obeying God is a condition of staying saved. There is no perfection this side of glory. Rapists and murders have been gloriously restored to faith. The balance is that Scripture does warn us about guarding our salvation, enduring to the end. So, those who believe God can be played are only deluding themselves. 3. No, the raping and murdering indicate that the person wasn't really ever saved to begin with - so no matter how sincere they seemed or how their life changed, sin after the fact indicates that it was a false "saved." There certainly are cases where the crimes proves the darkness and insincerity of the heart. Yet, I would not want to be the one that makes this condemnation. The answers will come on the Day of Judgment when Jesus will say to some, "Depart from me, I never knew you." Sorry I can't package this up neatly for you, Snow. When it comes to matters of the heart, of sincerity of faith, of whether a struggling "believer" is going to endure to the end or not, we often will not know until the day when we see Jesus.

PC, I think that Christmas time helps those that don't always do charitable or Christlike things to be reminded to do them. ... I try to be Christlike in my daily dealings with my fellowman but can even increase my own Christlike ways and use it as a time to reflect on what I have done during the year to live a Christ centered life. A very balanced and excellent analysis. You were able to see that when I suggest that Christmas is a great time for presenting the Good News I do not mean that we should not do so throughout the year. I'm suggesting a special emphasis, not a new endeavor. To the majority of the world there is no Christmas. When you factor in the number of asian countries that do not believe in Christ add to that the Muslim countries and other non-believers and it is a minority of the world that believes in Christ and in Christmas. The rest it is a holiday of cheer and end of a year. Not sure how much cheer there is in places where they wonder if they will get a scoop of rice or mush to eat on Christmas. Roughly two-thirds of the world is non-Christian. Yet, even in most non-Christian countries, there is a Christian witness. In China, for example, estimates range from 40 to well over 100 million believers. I suppose this is the good news/bad news. There is still much to be done, no doubt! For me the greater celebration is Easter and the celebration of the resurrection of Jesus Christ. While his being born was a great start it was his resurrection that will bring us from the grave. One year a Catholic friend made us a nativity scene. On the manger he put a cross. I first I thought, "How morbid!" This is the beautiful birth scene of Jesus. Why put his instrument of execution here. Then I realized that Jesus was indeed a marked man, even from birth. So, for Christians, the resurrection is absolutely the fulfillment of the Promise. On the other hand, purely from the standpoint of winning souls--Christmas does bring us greater crowds.

Ray, we got a lot of visitors at Christmas time to our churches. So, we are careful to present the Plan of Salvation in a way that newcomers will understand. I would be surprised to learn that you did not take advantage of spiritual opportunities that God lays before you, as well. Ray, you throw out these accusatory statements with such ease. I have not brought up the idea that LDS are declaring another gospel. In response to querries directed towards me about the doctrine of salvation, I have suggested that this is a possiblity. As for your lengthy Scripture quote, I'm not sure what your bottom-line point is. If I'm not mistaken, we both believe that Christians should be doing good works. However, my impression is that YOU (and perhaps the LDS?) believe that these labors are a prerequisite of salvation, whereas I (and most evangelicals) suggest that they are the fruit or product of salvation.

Christmas celebrates the advent (or coming) of Jesus. If he came because God loves the world, and so that we might not perish but have everlasting life, then I contend that the primary purpose of the holiday ought to be to offer the many souls that wander into our houses of worship the Plan of Salvation. The family gatherings, the general increase in kindness and charitable giving, the way people tend to appreciate each other more--these are pleasant added blessings. However, this year I am purposing to follow Jesus' admonition to "Seek first the kingdom of God." May your Christmas be Kingdom-filled and rich in blessings! B)

Ray, you won't thank me for saying I find your posts heartfelt and intriguing, because I'm a clergyperson? Look, I'm no elitist. I come from a movement that has struggled with just the opposite...anti-intellectualism. So, I suppose my comments about having respect for those whom God has gifted with education, a call to teach, and the talents to comment intelligently on matters of theology came across a bit strident to you. I meant the compliment to you both seriously and simply, and meant no condescension whatsoever.

Snow says: Okay then - The prerequisites for salvation are: 1. Faith 2. Repentance 3. Correct understanding of certain doctrine ... but not forgiving others. What about rape and murder? Does one have to refrain from rape and murder in order to be saved? Perhaps understanding #2 might help a bit. It's not, "God forgive my sins, so I can keep on living my life the way I want to, and keep on asking forgiveness as I keep on sinning." When we repent, with the help of God we do indeed turn from our wicked ways. I'm not sorry I got caught. I am sorry that I have offended a holy, righteous God with my immoral acts. HOWEVER, I realize I cannot possibly clean myself up, before presenting myself to God. So I come "just as I am." God forgives me because of Jesus' acceptable payment for my sins, and as a RESULT, by the power of God, that now lives within me, my life is no longer mine. I have given it to God. THE RESULT WILL BE THAT I FORGIVE, THAT I FORSAKING RAPING, MURDERING, LYING, THIEVING, ETC. Snow asks: My other question would relate to the salvific prerequisite of believing correct doctrine about Christ - is it an affirmative requirement - in that you have to believe certain things about Christ or a negative requirement - in that you are prohibited from believing certain things? You continue to frame the very fancy and difficult sounding "correct doctrine" as a work. What happens with salvation is really an acceptance of God's gift. It only makes sense that we acknowledge correctly both the gift and the giver!

O I C. The requirement to forgive is one issued to believers. We are not expected to clean ourselves up before we are forgiven (saved). We believe and confess our sins. However, an OUTCOME of salvation is that we forgive others. So rather than "faith and works" we would say "faith THEN works."

Jesus commands those who are saved to forgive. You've been forgiven, you must also forgive. It is not a prerequisite of salvation. When Jesus is teaching on forgiveness, he is speaking to his followers. When he tells the parable of the fellow who's huge debt was forgiven, and who then proceeds to have somebody who owes him a pittance thrown into debtor's prison--the expectation to forgive FOLLOWS the reception of forgiveness. In other words, Jesus' expectation that we forgive is not prequisite of salvation, but an expected outcome of the experience.

I suspect that the day will come when the United States sanctions homosexual marriages. As with five other nations thus far (South Africa being the latest), our courts will force this social revolution upon us. My question is, if homosexual marriage is an innate right, then what about polygamous marriages. Quite frankly, there is more social precedent for them than there is for the same-sex type. One of the world's largest religions sanctions it (Islam). And, as many at this site would be painfully aware, America has its own fundamentalist off-shoot religions that embrace it. What possible justification can there be to outlaw a marriage system that dates back thousands of years, while forcing society to accept a marriages that defy 6000 years of social order? Where will this lead? In Canada, two male remates have already married, openly admitting that neither is gay. There purpose? To cash in on the social programs available to married couples (soon to be units, me guesses). So, next will be communal arrangements. Eventually, the whole thing will implode. I expect that government will get out of the marriage business all together, and simply become a mediator of social contracts. Here's an ironic twist. An acquaintance of mine is living with his partner. He told me one day that he doesn't marry because he's not religious. He sees marriage as "holy matrimony"--a religious ceremony for religious people. Frankly, I respect his insight. He respects the sacrament of marriage, and realizes it should be left to those who embrace it's full meaning--commitment to family and spiritual union. Am I on to something, or shall "this too pass?"

If you were an evangelical, would you want to tread this ground? Traveler has obviously had some less than fruitful conversations. Despite his skepticism, hopefully, I can contribute something of worth. Here's a short-version answer to what I believe is your query: evangelicals, and indeed most Christians, Jews and Muslims, believe that God is one. Consider the the schema: Hear, O Israel: The Lord our God is one Lord. (Dueteronomy 6:4). The notion that humans can become gods (model God) is foreign to our theological understanding, and generates a good deal of alarm. Evangelicals believe that salvation is through faith in Jesus Christ, and confession of sins. (John 3:16, 1 John 1:9). Yes, Jesus died for the forgiveness of all sins. However, we believe that each of us most embrace the gift. God does not force his salvation upon us. Those who do not embrace the gift--whose names do not appear in the Lamb's Book of Life, we not be saved. So, the LDS teaching of a general salvation is too permissive to evangelicals, in that faith in Jesus is not required. On the other hand, exaltation, seems too restrictive to us. The sacramental requirements, all exclusively in the LDS context, strike us setting up false barriers between God and his people, by requiring an organizational gatekeeper. Jesus died for everyone's sins. However, each person is free to embrace or reject the gift of forgiveness. God will not force his mercy on us. The narrow gate of Jesus is narrow because there is only one way (Jesus: John 14:6), but wide enough that whosoever will may come. I've never heard an evangelical say that we are not required to forgive the sins of others. Where are you hearing this? Of course we must forgive. Jesus said if we cannot forgive others he cannot forgive us.

This story is about 10-years old now, but expresses to me the proper response people of faith can have towards AIDS. A youth leader in a church left his faith embraced immorality to the point of contracting HIV. I'm not sure if it was IV drug use or sexual promiscuity that doomed him. However, in 1996 the disease was still an absolute death sentence. The young man repented, and returned to his church. The leadership not only restored him to fellowship, they placed him back in his position as a youth leader! What a powerful story of God's mercy, of people of faith "loving the sinner, while hating the sin." There were no demands to ignore the sin, or affirm any lifestyles. Just a prodigal son that needed and received the love of his spiritual family. As another example of a faith-filled response to the AIDS crisis, is the publishing of Edward Elephant Says--a comic book which teaches children in Africa, the Philippines, and other high-outbreak areas--how to avoid getting AIDS, and how to care for adults (especially family members) who get it. The comic books is tasteful, serious, medically accurate, and yet includes the story of a hope only God can give.

What is Christmas really all about? Did God ordain the holiday? Does He get much out of it. Or, is it mostly for our benefit?

I'm plowing through "How Wide the Divide" right now, and realize we are discussing some of the same issues the book raises. I may have more to say about the issue of Scripture canonization and interpretation once I finish the book. In fact, I'll probably start a new post, with the book review as #1. Despite the glaring differences in style and approach to worship services, and some substantial disagreements regarding some doctrines, there is also an incredible amount of concurence amongst these groups. This issue of differences and similarities within the Christian family, especially in regards to the doctrine of God and of salvation, is also covered in "How Wide the Divide," and I hope to add some fresh insights with my book review of it. In the mean time, Merry Christmas!

Ben, I've read bits and pieces of your story, but would like the "full meal deal." Even if you grew up in the church, how do you perceive it helps you? Is there are particular blessing or gift that God has given you?

Jason, why don't you just tell us your story? How did you come to your current place of faith/philosophy? How has AMWAY made a change in your life (rofl)? Seriously, we all know that there are some compelling reasons not to affiliate with organized religions. So, how has your journey away from them helped you?

Jason quotes me saying Another friend ended up deep into the Jehovah's Witnesses Jason says: Tell me Chap, what right do you have to insult the Jehovah's Witnesses? Jason, I'm not sure what's got you turned upside down and looking backwards on this response. I was pointing out that many of those around me ended up in vastly different paths. In fact a fuller quote would have shown that I contrasted this fellow who ended up in JWs with his brother who ended up in jail. Jason says: Especially considering that it's your church whose membership is best know for talking jibberish and rolling on the floor like the mentally insane? Do you pass out helmet's before services? Have you padded the walls and pews? I'm not sure if you're under deep conviction here, and that's what's causing your allergic irrational spasm to my simple story, or maybe you're just feeling awnry today. Maybe I should bring out the snakes and find out if you've got any Holy Ghost in ya or not?

In postmodern society you can argue with someone until you're blue in the face. You figure you've nailed them intellectually, logically, scientifically, and rationally. After several hours of conversation (or dozens of back and forth posts), your spiritual sparing partner throws up his/her hands and says that great conversation-ender (or grave-sign for a string of posts), "Oh well...whatever works FOR YOU." You've worked so hard to prove that you are right, and the ultimate retort is, "Perhaps you are right...for you anyway." I never consider such encounters a waste. Both the Old and New Testaments declare that anyone who sincerely searches for God will find him. The Scripture also declares that it is powerful, and will not be unfruitful. Nevertheless, my encouragement to believers with a burning desire to share their faith is to be able to tell their story. How did they become believers, and what difference has God made in their lives. So, here's my challenge to everyone here, regardless of denominational affiliation. What has brought you to your current state of faith, and what difference has God (or disbelief in God, or disbelief in God's active personal involvement in his creation) made in your life? My own story is that at the age of 10 people from the local Assemblies of God church came out to our neighborhood with candy and balloons. They passed them out and said if we came to Sunday School we would hear fun stories and get more candy and balloons. So, my friend, who was older and bigger than me, dragged me to Sunday School so he would win a free candybar. He got his chocolate, and I received the gospel. The teacher explained to us that God loved us so much that he sent his one and only Son, Jesus, to die for our sins. If we would believe in him, and confess our sins, he would forgive our sins, and help us to be good boys and girls, and to some day go to heaven. So, in November 1974 I prayed, and became born again. What difference has God made in my life? He got me through my adolescent years without drugs, alcohol, premature sexual relationships, depression. This despite growing up in a nonChristian non-churched home. My senior year five of my classmates died. Three from alcohol related traffic accidents, two from suicides. One person very close to me growing up committed suicide in his mid-twenties. Another friend was on his third marriage by mid-twenties. Another friend ended up deep into the Jehovah's Witnesses, and his brother ended up in and out of jail, disappearing from his family for months at a time. My story then, the one I share with the prison inmates, is that God called me to minister to them this simple message--that they can return to their homes and their neighborhoods, and not reenter the life that got them locked up. Hey, if God can protect a 10-year old kid, he can sure protect an adult convert. That's my initial testimony. Let's hear yours.

Ray says: But, hey, if you only want to pay attention and respect those people who you think know the truth, instead of listening to those of us who are telling you that you should only pay attention to God and what He can reveal to you through the power of the Holy Ghost, that’s up to you. Frankly I liked the first 90% of your post so much. You really seemed to have heard me. Then, you brush aside all nuance, and insinuate that I would totally disregard what laypeople have to say. Ray, I'm a Pentecostal. Our movement actually started AFTER the LDS did. Our founders were mostly of low education, low status, and little or no income. Our churches we on the wrong side of the tracks. Tar and feathering were common welcomings for our early pioneers. Many of our pastors and missionaries were jailed for practing medicine without a license (praying for the sick). That said, of course I believe that God can--and often does--speak through humble but willing servants. I strongly believe in the lead and direction of the Holy Ghost. If we really say that the Bible is inspired by the Holy Spirit, then we had better be letting the Spirit's voice direct us as we study it And, as an aside, I don't know you, your age, or your background, but I have indeed found your postings some of the most intriguing and heartfelt.

Snow says: Personally, I wouldn’t agree to that. When I said the Bible was clear, I was trying to define the sola scripture position but I think the Bible is far from clear in the ways you just described. In many cases it is morally confusing. For years the Bible was used by “good christians” to justify slavery. The Bible recommends beating children with a stick. The Bible promotes genocide of those of other religions. The Bible authorizes legal rape, the punishment of grandchildren of a sinner. It seems to allow for the murder of someone who practiced birth control, etc. One of my arguments is that confusion comes most often when people try to force the Bible to directly answer questions it does not directly answer. Slavery is a perfect example. It was prevelent during biblical times. God's commandments about fair treatment of those who serve us is clear. Beyond that, people on both sides of the debate try to enlist the Bible as ammunition for their causes. For reasons that God knows, He did not offer a clearcut "Thou shalt not own slaves. Thou shalt oppose slavery wherever it is found." So, the Bible "was not clear" because proud men tried to use it for their own purposes. As for disciplining children, the Bible clearly calls for it. Corporal punishment, done properly, was far more effective than our current system, where children learn early to say, "You can't hit more or I'll call the police." Again, anyone who would use the Bible to say it's okay to beat a child or abuse him/her is not seeking God's will, but ammunition to buttress their own agenda. I could go on, but I think the point is clear. Additionally, be careful of conflating some of the compromises that God allowed--i.e. divorce regulations, with God's perfect will. Snow says: I don’t think it is a false dichotomy at all. You are free to interpret the Bible how you will but if you take something outside of the Bible and use it as a mandate to decide what the Bible means, you are no longer adhering to strict sola scriptura. Requiring one particular interpretation of the scriptures, puts that “creed” on par with the scriptures an that blows the whole principle. Let me restate your dichotamy. Either, we allow 6 billion interpretations of the Bible, and consider them all equally valid, or we adhere to one interpretation, issued by God's ordained authority...at this point in your argument, either the Roman Catholic Church, or the Church of Jesus Christ Latter Day Saints. My contention is that there are not 6 billion valid interpretations of Scripture, nor two billion (the # of those claiming Christian affiliation), but rather that most Christian denominations have, over history, concurred on certain key teachings, and that the differences over key theological questions are remarkably few. Snow says: I didn’t actually do that [argue for choosing between Scripture Only or Scripture + Tradition]. Personally I have no great respect for tradition... that is if by tradition we are obligated to accept the creeds and councils of 1600 years ago. Actually, for Mormons, if I'm not mistaken, the tradition of the Roman Catholic Church is discarded as having been corrupted. Instead, the traditions, history, and pronouncements of LDS prophets becomes the tradition that is held co-equal with Scripture. I believe you said as much in a different response to someone else--that you would not need to wait for canonization if Mormon prophets or leaders concurred on a matter. Snow says: You like Mormons to the fratricidal Cain, I say that is absurd and you retort something about victimization... No, you drew the conclusion. What I said was that if God has indeed revealed himself to humanity, and anyone rejects that revelation in favor of his/her own tradition or understanding, then that rejection is similar to Cain's error. Cain's initial error was not killing his brother, but offering a sacrifice to God that was not according to God's dictates. I went to say that the warning against wrongly worshiping God is not directed at Mormons. It goes out to anyone who would forsake a true revelation of God in favor of their own tradition or upbringing. Indeed, though the consequences of not doing following God as revealed are far less severe in your theology, Mormons offer the same alarm to the world--you need to join us, we have the true revelation of God, through our prophet Joseph Smith, and those who followed him. Snow says: That is precisely the difference between mainstream Christianity and the Church of Jesus Christ. You can’t/won’t say that you are right. Actually, "We" are right. However, "we" is not the General Council of the Assemblies of God. We Christians are right in declaring Jesus Christ as the one Way, the one Truth, the one Life. We know who he is. We worship him, commune with him, are guided by him, live and die by him. Some of us are martyred for his glory. Others are jailed. Others lose jobs, family, friends, and suffer humiliation. We look forward to gathering together at the Marriage Supper of the Lamb, for a great reunion. I look forward to dining with men of my brothers and sisters--yes from various denominations--but all followers of the Way.

Even at ldstalk.com I give some posters more attention than others, and I'm not even LDS! Context is so important! Thank you Ray for highlighting my point. We were discussing the Scripture-Only vs. Scripture + Tradition debate. I was arguing that Scripture is our ultimate source of teaching, but that lessons offered by respected scholars and teachers obviously would carry more import than those offered by some unknown individual. Then came the quote above--the point being that even at this site, where theology is discussed primarily in a framework that is outside of my own faith tradition, I recognize that some here have garned more knowledge and understanding than others. Ray...I was speaking positively, not negatively. That LDS laypeople can draw and hold the interest of a Protestant clergyperson should be seen as a compliment.