prisonchaplain

SNOW, just for a moment, I'll talk to you rather than around you. I seriously thought the clip of the youngster chugging some liquid was you! Somebody in the chat room explained that it was Napolean Dynamite In one sentence you have laid out a HUGE different in our theologies. At this point I'll simply say, this difference clarifies for me why it is so much easier for LDS-adherents to be comfortable with most aspects of the evolutionary model than for evangelicals (who believe that the one true God has existed unchanged for all eternity, and that he created the world, with humanity first coming into existence with the creation of Adam & Eve).

Perhaps we've been having two different conversations. I will quickly concede that God made man using pre-existent material. If I suggested that God made humanity "out of nothing," then I mispoke. My whole point up to now has simply been that the ultimate origin of the universe, of creation at large, could have been an intelligent designer.

I was hoping somebody would bring this matter up. Quite frankly, I guessed that a much higher percentage would vote for the top pick, because of your beliefs about marriage being sealed in the temple. By way of disclosure, I stole my wife from the Presbyterians. Ironically, her background better prepared her for Pentecostalism in the U.S., than it would have for American Presbyterianism. Also, although I would be satisfied for my daughters to marry a believer from another denomination, my advice to them would be to find a church they could both grow and be happy in. Hopping back and forth from one church to another is a recipe for spiritual confusion, IMHO.

Exactly. ← OR NOT! Frankly, I almost respect the integrity of a rock star who really believes that satanic elements are spiritually superior, versus one who likes to tweek parents and win children as fans by enticing them with a spirit of rebellion. But, don't take my word for it. The Apostle Paul has more authority than I do. Philippians 4:8: Summing it all up, friends, I'd say you'll do best by filling your minds and meditating on things true, noble, reputable, authentic, compelling, gracious--the best, not the worst; the beautiful, not the ugly; things to praise, not things to curse. (The Message) Or for you King James Version diehards: Finally, brethren, whatsoever things are true, whatsoever things are honest, whatsoever things are just, whatsoever things are pure, whatsoever things are lovely, whatsoever things are of good report; if there be any virtue, and if there be any praise, think on these things. In my humble opinion most pop, rock, hard rock, country western music does not qualify. It's not a question of what I'm allowed to listen to. I'm a child of the King. That makes me a spiritual prince. Some things are beneath royalty, and it's time we think, listen to, participate and speak of things worthy of our spiritual station. I say this not in arrogance, but as a matter of encouragement...we can do so much better!

Once again, the comes off! I voted for #2. Perhaps the question does not work as well for LDS members, since, one poster pointed out, there are no close religious cousins in the movement. By way of explanation, from my youth I was taught by my church the importance of not being "unequally yoked." Why date someone the Bible says you cannot marry? So, we do not date non-Christians. When a couple marry, they become "one flesh." The Apostle Paul also asks the rhetorical question, "What has light to do with darkness?" As a clergy person, my leadership allows me to officiate the marriage of two unbelievers, or of two believers. However, should I knowingly bless the marriage of a believer to an unbeliever, my ordination credentials would be revoked. So, for my own children--all girls five and under--I plan to train them in these truths. They should only date fellow believers in Christ. They most certainly should only marry fellow believers--and only one's who's faith walk they respect. Of course, should my daughters go prodigal, and at legal age inform me of their intentions to do otherwise, I will not disown them or refuse love and support. However, neither will I bless or encourage what they do. Such situations tear at the heart of parents. They also help us to understand how we so often tear at the heart of our heavenly Father.

Choose the answer that stretches your tolerance--the one you have to grit your teeth for, but would ultimately agree to. Forgive the fact that I have done no research on the LDS view on intermarriage. So your answers will be truly informative to me. Also, as always, I will give you my views once this string takes off a bit.

Let me see if I do. I surmize that if this were an evangelical or Pentecostal site, I you and I would have opposite roles. I might have just posted to you what you said to me. Only God knows a person's heart, and what s/he has that is true, that is false, and what is missing, and whether the person is willing to open up to a fuller truth. I'm I understanding, correctly? If so, I can certainly appreciate the heart from which you speak. :)

As I said before, Intelligent Design is not Young Earth Creationism. I.D. only concerns itself with gaps in traditional evolutionary teaching that an intelligent designer might fill. I'm not defending Young Earth Creationism, here. And, frankly, I'm not even attempting to defend Intelligent Design--other than to say it has not been given a fair hearing. When you mention historic efforts, I am guessing that you are once again refering to Young Earth Creationism. The theory's proponents were too few to gain the "critical mass" necessary to garner a signficant hearing. Those "certain religious groups" jumped the gun by trying to force public school curriculum changes that were pretty dramatic, despite have very little backing. It remains to be seen whether I.D. will suffer the same fate. The simple question here is, but where did the material come from? Perhaps you are suggesting that material has always been? At some point, in this speculation about if or when material began does indeed become faith. Evangelicals, and indeed most branches of historic Christianity have consistently argued that only God is eternal. My sketchy understanding of LDS theology is that it teaches that God was once a man. I'm truly speculating now, but I take that to mean that this evolving God is not himself eternal, but has an eternal lineage (correct me if I'm wrong here, please!). This difference in understanding about the nature of God is helpful in explaining why Mormons may be more open to the idea of God creating the world with stuff that already existed. I'll illustrate this point with an evangelical joke. One day a scientist decided to pray to God. "Lord, if you're even out there, thanks for all you've done. You can go now. Since we've mapped DNA, and figured out the structure of life, we can create our own life forms now. So, we don't need you anymore." Suddenly, the scientist is in a bare room, with only a pile of dirt in the center. God responds, "Really? You can create life. Okay, let me see how you do it." So, the scientist heads over to the pile of dirt. God stops him and says, "No, no! Make your own dirt."

Who me? No. I try to be straightforward, up front, and all that. Maybe it's old age, but I've come to realize that everybody doesn't have to agree with me, and I don't have to agree with everybody. Perhaps most important, people will listen to me if I listen to them. I may sound like I'm plagiarizing from the "Everything I Ever Needed to Know I Learned in Kindgarten" book, but this approach really does work for me. Bye the bye, in spite of this string about anti-Mormons, and another about Infiltrators, I have never felt unwelcomed or under suspicion here. There seems to be a healthy amount of liberty here for folk to express themselves, without towing a party line. Bottom line: Kudos Applause and Affection for an intelligent, challenging, yet friendly website like ldstalk.com

Yes, basically, I am. One person's humor is another person's mockery. You will have to discern whether the conversation or time you give someone is fruitful or not. However, you may miss out on potential blessing by quickly dismissing someone's insensitive humor as anti-Mormonism. Most people think they are right. Would you not be pleased if you were able to draw an agnostic, a non-LDS Christian, or any uncommitted seeker into the LDS fold? If someone is calmly trying to pull you away from your faith, you might try pulling him/her calmly towards your faith. If by infiltrator, you mean someone who pretends to be LDS, but is not, you have a point. However, if you are going to label all who may disagree with you, or may question you, or who may currently bare a different religious tag than yours, you might find yourself inexplicably humming "It's a small world after all." Let me see if I'm hearing correctly. Don't be so worried about Be more worried about

I understand what the figures represent and that makes my point all the more compelling. The "body of Christ" (so to speak) is not a collection of written documents but rather the collective beliefs, attitudes and behaviors of the adherents. By your reasoning, I should discern true LDS theology by comparing on the posters at this site who put LDS as part of the identification. Yet several here have told me please don't do this! Where you see unity I see fracture and disagreement. Take a doctrine as fundmental as salvation, consider Evangelical beliefs vs Catholic beliefs vs Strict Calvinistic beliefs. Salvation for Evangelicals and Calvinists is through faith in Jesus Christ and confession of sins. I believe that Catholics would possibly add that one must be water baptised. I know that there are different explanations as to how much of the salvation experience is dependent on God's will vs. our will, and what role other church sacraments have in the Christian life. But the bottom-line differences aren't as great as you suppose. Once again, this is why we have Catholics sometimes participating in Billy Graham crusades, Promise Keepers, etc. It's also why the Catholic church taps our theologians for discussions about what is going on with the Charismatic renewal--in the Catholic church! "Hey you guys--tell us what our people are doing!" Great stuff! What unity there is now, and I think it large compared to your small, is a relatively recent development. I'll grant you that Christian maturity, and seeing passed nonessentials differences for the sake of the kingdom, is a blessing that has come fairly recently. Don't you reckon that God is pleased? ←

Or in other words, while I can see how you may actually have authority to officate in your church, because the members of your church do have the power to authorize people to act as leaders in their behalf, I have neither seen nor heard any evidence from you or anyone else to suggest or explain how you (or your church) received your authority from God or our Lord Jesus Christ. This issue of authority--which may well resonate more powerfully with Catholics--comes down whether we believe that God ordained the apostles to be office-holders, who would be succeeded by others throughout church history. In this particular post, you answer this with a rather passionate yes. I suppose Catholics would do likewise, believing for example, that the Pope is the spiritual descendent of Peter. Most Protestants do not see apostolic succession as God's plan. LDS theologians look at the failures of Catholic church history and see the prophesied apostasy. Protestants simply see the failure of men. Ironically, one understanding of the word "apostle" is missionary. They were the ones to go out to other lands and spread the gospel, planting churches, building God's kingdom. They did not hold positions of grand administrative power, but rather, were privileged to walk with Jesus, and to be on the front-lines of evangelism after the ascension. So where do we think we get God's approval to do gospel work? We see it in Jesus commands to spread his teachings. These commands were given to the apostles, yes. But, also to the 72. And, ultimately, all believers were to spread the Word. Bottom line variance here: LDS theologians look for the authority to do gospel work, whereas Protestants--especially evangelicals--would consider a sin for any believer NOT to do gospel work. And btw, nobody can receive authority by simply reading about how other people received their authority either, so quoting from the Bible which shows that Jesus Christ gave His authority to His apostles doesn't mean that He or they gave their authority to you. If Jesus ONLY gave his authority to the apostles, you'd be right. However, Jesus gives authority to all his followers. He sends out the 72. He obviously blesses the efforts of the woman at the well (brand new to the faith mind you) to go and tell her village. He sends a man delivered from demons back to his city to spread the word. We see Jesus bestowing priesthood responsibilities to all believers. ←

Once again, I come out of hiding. This time, I'm forced to respond to my own post, because the one NO vote only offered a reference to another website. So, here's my rebuttal against the NO: #1 IMHO is that it is strongly anti-union. In the Seattle-Tacoma area the newspapers seem to carry 2-3 anti-Walmart letters to the editor per week. The consistancy of themes suggests to me that it is union money and thinking that is at the root of the opposition. One letter writer even said people shouldn't purchase at Walmart because doing so would be to support the Red Chinese communist regime. Those elitist liberal intellectual types were probably thinking, "How do we convince Red State America to stop frequenting these stores? We'll rehash the Red Scare. Those idiots will fall for it." NEWS FLASH: Ideological communism fell with the Berlin Wall. Yes socialism and dictatorships still prevail, but there is no international "workers of the world unit to overthrow bougeasie capitalism" conspiracy left to fight. Low wages and benefits for employees. Most of the workers are part-time, and most are doing entry-level work. So, yes, the wages are relatively low. However, they are not lower than many other entry-level positions, and they are often well above legal minimums. Too many part-time positions--meaning again, low wages and few benefits Most people working part time are supplementing family income, gaining pocket money while studying, or they are new to the job market, and need an entry-level position. Vendors are forced to sell at extremely low prices As the famous Oingo Boingo pop music group sang in the 80s: There ain't nothing wrong with capitalism, there ain't nothing wrong with free enterprise--What's wrong with you you middle-class socialist brat! You ain't worked a day in your life!!" Hey, it's called business. You want to provide products for Walmart to sell, you've got to provide a lot, and you've got to provide it cheap. If you don't like it, approach Nordstrom's (or insert your typical high-end department store name). More and more, it seems Walmart is purchasing from China, which has a poor human rights record. As does Dollar Tree, the 99-cent stores, Kmart, the membership clubs, most internet sites, and even many high-end stores. If you want to boycott China move to a rich neighborhood, where the stores can afford to sell you fancy-sounding French stuff at five times the price, and often half the level of reliability. Got freedom fries? ←

Sorry, I can't resist... I think that you would be surprised to find that although WM does offer jobs to unskilled laborers, this is not the cas for a majority of employees. Also, the low-priced products are priced low at the cost of the companies who sell them to wallyworld, and the underpaid/underbenifited employees. And although elitism may be a factor from some, I would contend that it is by far the minority of people. Elitists are fair-weather shoppers. I would say that the majority of people that I have talked to and seen who are vehemently against wm, are part of the middle class, who could definitely use the lower prices, but find that as a principal, they think that it is important to support those in the community around them. Not to say that people who shop at wm don't support their community on purpose, but that they aren't as informed as those who understand the danger of wm and, to a lesser degree but still a factor, other big box stores. I recently read a report put out by The NY Times comparing Walmart and Costco, that pointed out that although costco's prices are higher than walmarts, their profits are about half. Where do you think the difference is? ← Rather than respond here, buried in the midst of a string that is waning, I've started a new poll. Should Christians patronize Walmart? So, here's the blatant promotional plug (hey, I'm an evangelical...I can't help it!): Visit my new poll, and let's see if the Walmart controversy will stir things up. BTW: This is a hot issue...it's made Christianity Today, and I've seen it in several newspapers as well.

Arguments in favor of Walmart: Low prices Family friendly policies. The store often pulls, or places in discreet locations, items that are of questionable values. Hire many unskilled workers who might not otherwise find employment. Arguments against Walmart: #1 IMHO is that it is strongly anti-union. Low wages and benefits for employees. Too many part-time positions--meaning again, low wages and few benefits Vendors are forced to sell at extremely low prices More and more, it seems Walmart is purchasing from China, which has a poor human rights record

____________________Your all seeing eye is clouding your vision. ← The introduction of the movie Footloose was likely an accidental move...but a helpful one. A thoughtful viewing of that production will show: A. That the parents and religious leaders were not narrow-minded and uncompromising. They cared about the children and were trying to do right by them. B. The children who wanted to dance were able to think through and justify there requests. They used a Bible quote to show that dance could be celebration. It could be joy. The result was that the dance took place, and parents and children learned to respect each other all the more. What a far cry from much secular music and dance today! I'll not condemn all genres, or even any one genre in particular. However, the music that plays in my house will be lovely, good and noble, not degenerate. Call me a if you want, but as for me and my house, our music will serve the Lord.

... but for some reason, I think you are saying what you are saying while not considering us to be among those other Christians. ← Actually the topic of LDS status in the broader Christian world was not part of the thread. Oh well, since you brought it up. Barna says that 34% of LDS adherents who answered theological questions for his survey, did so in a manner that most evangelicals define as "born again." I find that interesting. There are some LDS doctrines that track differently than what is often called "historic Christianity's" answers. Many of these different answers hit "core doctrines." The plan of salvation, the nature of God the Father, of God the Son, and of God, the Holy Spirit. The eternal progression of God. The pre-existence of each human. The role of Satan, of sin, and of course, the ultimate destiny of each of us. What I've learned here is that in many ways evangelical Christian culture and LDS culture are similar. We practice a rigorous faith that effects our finances, our behavior, and our beliefs. We love our houses of worship, and the communities we worship with. We love to share and explain what we believe with others. We also have liberal, open-minded, ecumenical types, and the more fundamentalist ones. Ironically, when it comes to music, movies etc., many here actually seem more liberal than the norm for my faith group. All this to say, I'm doubtful that LDS theology could ever coalesce with my Pentecostal understandings, nor with most statements of faith in evangelical groups. However, there sure is plenty for us to talk about. And those conversations can certainly be friendly, informative and respectful. :)

I actually dabbled with Libertarianism during a season of my life. Ayn Rand's Atlas Shrugged proved intriguing. However, I ultimately saw that Objectivism, like Communism, is built upon the flawed assumption that humanity is basically good. Representative democracy, with its separation of powers, and sometimes 'coerced charity,' is also flawed. However, it best takes into account the fallen, sinful condition of the world.

The question is not propaganda. Are the proponents of Intelligent Design also the proponents of Young Earth Creationism? NO. Intelligent Design is not Young Earth Creationism. Frankly, I am not an expert on this. The Discovery Institute, in Seattle, WA is the main think tank behind this system. My understanding is that the I.D. curriculum primarily argues that there are gaps in the theory of Evolution--particularly if random selection is insisted upon as the only possible explanation for how things do evolve. These gaps, it is suggested, can be explained if an intelligent designer is behind it all. Of course, classic evolutionists immediately see GOD as that designer and cry out that this is theology, not science. However, the theory of Intelligent Design basically argues that Evolution by random selection has too many difficulties, and that a designer solves them. The curriculum does not identify who the designer is, what his/her/its nature is, or dwell upon the age of the earth or the universe, to my knowledge. For example - Do you believe the age of the earth is closer to 3 billion years old or 10,000 years old? Was the creation static - meaning that all creatures are today as G-d created them or has there be vast evolutionary changes in species? Once again, the curriculum does not focus on these issues, to my knowledge. It concentrates on the gaps in Evolution by random selection, and posits an intelligent designer, as a plausible solution. Are the organizations pushing Intelligent Design the same organizations that insist on young Earth Creationism? There may be some cross-over, but the short answer is NO. Some of the staunchest creation-science advocates have argued that Intelligent Design is a sell-out, that it gives up too much, that it does not drive home the truth that the Bible is scientifically sound. There have been passionate debates between creationists and I.D. proponents. There has been a strong movement in recent scientific thought toward G-d as a force of evolution and initialization of the universe but no one in this scientific consideration is a believer in a young earth based on scientific evidence that I am aware of. Even Young Earth Creationists admit that only about 5% of scientists support their theories. Of course, in science, popularity does not mean correctness. IMHO God created the world. Unlike LDS teaching, I do believe he created it out of nothing. It would not burst my theological bubble if He used the evolutionary process to make it happen. My concern with this threat is: A. Intelligent Design has been intentionally misrepresented in a "nip it in the bud" campaign, sponsored mainly by public school science teachers. B. Part of the nastiness in tone of opponents of I.D. is indirectly aimed towards conservative people of faith. This is part of the Red/Blue divide. In the process, I.D. is not getting a fair hearing. Ultimately, the theory may prove unworthy of integration into school curricula. However, to date, a reasoned analysis and debate has not taken place. One important consideration of ideas is someone's point of view - So I as straight forward as I can - if you are a proponent of Intelligent Design are you also a proponent of young earth creationism? Straightforward answer: I'm not a scientist. I believe God created the world. Young Earth Creationism is attractive, because it most closely tracks with a literal reading of Genesis. However, I'm not a proponent. Frankly, I like I.D. because it tries to do a few, more reasonable things, and do them convincingly. Rather than sell students and teachers on an unpopular and weakly supported theory that parallels the Book of Genesis, I.D. says: Maybe, just maybe something intelligent is behind all this. Such an idea would sure explain a lot of the difficulties Evolution by random selection leaves us. Simple, plausible, intelligent, reasonable notions.

Allow me to fog up your clarity. You've quoted Barna's figures correctly, but misinterpreted what they represent. Barna's message to church leaders is that many of those who flock to our churches do not understand basic Christian teachings. Those % you quote are what lay people answered, in response to a questionnaire--NOT what the church leaders or denominations actually teach! You and others correctly warned me not to base my understanding of LDS doctrine and theology upon the opinions of lay members here--but to go to the lds.org website, or invite a missionary who's been called to represent the church. Likewise, if you wish to investigate the doctrines of various Christian denominations, you ought to look to their statements of faith, not to the opinions of those who might warm a seat on a Sunday morning. http://www.ag.org, for example will give you the set of doctrine's my denomination holds to. I'll give you a funny example to show my point. Seventh graders in Assemblies of God Sunday School take a 3-month course entitled "Foundations of Faith." In the class they learn the basic 16 fundamental doctrines we hold to. For fun I gave the final exam, a multiple choice questionnaire, to my friend, who happened to be a Jehovah's Witness. If I remember right he got 18 out of 20 "right." Trust me on this: there is no imminent merger coming between the Assemblies of God and the Watchtower Bible and Tract Society! SNOW: No doubt, you can find differences between Christian denominations, in what we teach, and how we go about worshiping God. However, there is also incredible cooperation, unity on core teachings, and love, trust and tolerance in most areas we disagree about. My best friend in the ministry, for example, happens to be a Southern Baptist minister.

:) Okay...balance the official theology with practical, unofficial comments I gain here. Good advice. And I personally want to thank you for coming to someone that is a member of the church to learn about our beliefs. If I want to learn to do accounting, I am not going to go to a construction worker to teach me, nor am I going to go to someone that I know has just been fired for embezzling from his firm. When you go to someone that has left the church in anger, or someone that is not even a member that is drawing their own conclusions, you are going to get a tainted picture. If I wanted to learn to type I would not go to someone that has never done it before themselves to learn. ← People who go to EX-anything for advice are looking for ammunition, not data or authoritative information.

It's time to let the cat out of the bag! I believe that God would have ME vote Republican. Lock-step? No. Are there exceptions? Yes. We have a state representative who is intelligent, works hard, and shows great respect for people of faith. I generally vote for him, even though he's Democrat. However, especially for national elections, I nearly always vote Republican. Why? Because Orthodox Jewish Rabbi, Daniel Lapin is right when he says American will rise or fall depending on whether it continues to embrace (or returns to embracing) its Judeo-Christain foundational mores. I want to keep the 10 Commandments posted in public places. Schools should be nuetral, not antagonistic towards religion. Abortion should be illegal in most cases. Intelligent Design should at least get a hearing in something other than a media kangaroo court. Abstinence should be the anchor of any sex education curriculum. Faith-based charities should not be immediately suspect, when it comes to public funding. School vouchers and other charter options would open private, religiously grounded education to more students. In all of these issues, there is one party that clearly agrees with me. Additionally, with the unfortunate extreme polarization into Red and Blue, the Democrats have increasingly taken a hostile stance against religion--especially evangelical Christianity. One party seeks to attract preachers, while the other appeals to Hollywood. I prefer the former. People of faith vote for Democrats, and they have compelling reasons. But, the question is, What would God have me do? The issues that attract me draw me to the other side of the aisle. One more point. I do believe that it is wise to find the party that most often rallies for my issues, and to support that party. There is power in working together. The people that are most likely to vote independent are moderates. Even there, the contrast between the GOP and the Democrats is so stark these days, it should not be to hard to commit, at least generally, to the moderate wing of one or the other. So, there's my bombshell for the day. P.S. Walmart is a social blessing, IMHO. It offers jobs to unskilled laborers, who are often taking their first job. It also offers low-priced products to people who greatly need to get a lot with a little. Ultimately, those who are so harsh in their criticism of Walmart, are often guilty of elitism. They would never shop there because...hey, they have enough money, so they don't have to.

But to say that we condemn anti-mormons to outer darkness is not quite true. First of all, we do not have the right to condemn anyone. That is God's call, not ours. And "outer darkness" as you put it is reserved for a very few. So much for my trying to make a clever analogy. I did not mean to imply that Mormons condemn anti-Mormons. My suggestion was that the term should be narrowly applied to the truly hostile, much as the outer darkness, in LDS theology, is reserved for a select few who are truly wicked. I think that is one thing that sets Latter-day Saints apart from other faiths. We believe that all born to this earth will be ressurected and received a glorified body and will receive some form of glory after this life, except a very few that will be in this "outer darkness" or "hell". Which I think is a further indication of God's love for his children. ← You're absolutely right. This aspect of your theology is attractive to many. It is a marked distinction from most of Christianity, which proclaims "It is appointed on to man once to die, and then the judgment." Ultimately, it's heaven or hell, depending on one's response to the simple Good News of Jesus. On the other hand, Universalism is, in some ways, even more attractive. It says even Hitler goes to heaven. Why? "Can anyone out sin the love of God?" Of course, attractiveness has nothing to do with truth. What does God really say? I can appreciate nice-sounding doctrines. However, I will only "die to self" for those truths that I am convinced are absolutely from God. Some of those teachings may not be so attractive.