prisonchaplain

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.

You are so deep in thought! I just have to have my Wal-mart would God not want me to go there? LOL Thanks for your nice posts ← Do not read any leanings into my post. I'll share my thoughts once this string takes off, and my vote is buried in the statistics. My hope is that this particular topic will prove fun and stress relieving. Hey, at a website where most posts are religious, deeply personal, and intensely felt, even politics feels like "just chatting!"

The Rev. Jerry Falwell once preached a sermon entitled "Why Christians should not be involved in politics." He later repented of his message, and founded the Moral Majority. Religious conservatives avoided politics throughout the civil rights era of the sixtiesand early seventies. The 1972 Roe v. Wade decision was seen as a wake up call, that lead to the formation of the "religious right." Yet, the religious left has never died. There have been renewed calls for Christians to protect the environment, to support worldwide AIDS relief through the One Campaign, to oppose Walmart for it's anti-union and low wages/benefits for workers. What would God have his people do?

I voted for none of the above. Understanding that the term "Anti-Mormon" is meant to be negative, in the universe of this website, I would contend that the term should be reserved for those who consistently ridicule, condemn, condescend and stereotype Mormonism and its people. They are hostile, and the come to deliver a message, not to engage. My definition is intentionally narrow. To use LDS afterlife terminology, anti-Mormons are those destined for the outer darkness.

While Youth Earth Creation is just one type of belief in the larger context of creation theorys, it's fair to say that most people understand Intelligent Design to amount to little more than repackaged creationism, and little more than a ploy to oppose the theory of evolution and naturalistic explanations to life. ← Actually, that is what opponents of Intelligent Design argue in their vehement propaganda. Science vs. religion. Don't let the evangelicals turn our schools back over to the dark ages! I'm surprised you've bought into a view that is perpetrated by anti-religious bigots so quickly.

Martin Luther never intended to form a new church and resisted doing so. He may not have INITIALLY intended to form a new church. He may have resisted doing so. However, at some point he decided not to comply. So, he ultimately did intend and succeed in forming a new church. Had he believed that, under all circumstances, Christianity must remain a one-denomination faith--that organizational unity bested any qualms about doctrine, corrupt practices, or the other concerns he laid out in his 95 theses, then that 2nd denomination never would have been formed. 500 million pentecostals is a gross-exaggeration - it's one of those "lying-for-the-Lord type of things. I am familiar with the sources for such a claim but the number just doesn't stack up. I believe the source is Barna. I see no need to defend his methods or conclusion, but it is a rather judgmental speculation for you to suggest his organization is lying. Disagree with their methods or conclusions...but beware of claiming to know the hearts of men. I am not even sure that Barna himself is Pentecostal. Additionally, it is an important distinction to note that I said Pentecostal/Charismatic. Keep in mind that many Charismatics are also mainstream Protestant, and some are even Catholics. There are only about 5 to 6 hundred million Protestant is the world, let alone pentecostals. I've been led to believe that number is closer to one billion. Again, many Charismatics are also Protestant, and some are even Catholic (another billion person pool there). There's lots of sources. Check them out, here's one. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protestantism..._of_Protestants I'm not interested in debating who's sources are more accurate. The overall point would be the same if the number were 100 million. Doctrines have changed drastically - say from 8th century Germany to 21st century New York, but what I think is more important is from the 1st century till today - that change is even more dramatic. Essential doctrines have remained incredibly consistent. Who is God? Holy Trinity. The canon of Scripture remained consistent for over 1000 years. Around 1500 the Catholic church canonized some intertestamental books that Protestants have never recognized. Other than that, the Scriptures have remained the same. Of course, there have been different takes on the exactly how the end times will play out, when to water baptize, etc. However, it is remarkable just how much unity and cooperation there is amongst Christian denomination. Our bookstores now sell both Protestant and Catholic materials. Groups like Promise Keepers enjoy cooperation from a wide spectrum of churches. There is great cooperation on social issues such as abortion. ← Bottom-line: Yes, your disagreements may have some merit. However, my essential points remain true.

Yes, but I've been led to believe that most LDS could look at a foreign word, and notice that right afterwards, the definition follows "or out of nothing."

There is plenty of Scripture that tells us to think on things that are good, lovely, etc. To "take captive our imaginations." In ancient computer lingo, GIGO--Garbage In Garbage Out. Our local contemporary Christian music station bills itself as "family friendly radio...where you don't have to worry about inappropriate lyrics or advertising." My guess is that even many nonChristian parents tune in so they are not embarrassed by what they kids may here. When my children are old enough to make their own choices they will. However, so long as I have a say, I hope to steer them towards music that is godly and wholesome.

On the gospel discussion board, a post about Intelligent Design diverted into a discussion about what a cult is. While the diversion topic is interesting, I found the original topic equally fascinating, and wanted to introduce it as a poll. Did God create the world? If so, did he use evolution? Is it possible for the creation story of Genesis to be literal, and yet ultimately mesh with science?

Looks like your post took over the "evolution vs. I.D debate." The word "cult" can simply mean group. Context determines whether the term is pejorative or not. Examples: 1. Evangelical Christians usually use "cult" to mean heterodox--not confirming to historic Christian teachings. As a simple example, those who believe the canon of Scripture was closed with the book of Revelation, would obviously consider the LDS faith to be outside the parameters of accepted doctrine, and therefore a cult. 2. Sociologists use the term "cult" to indicate a group that has excessive control over an individual. Such a label can be very subjective, with a government branch in France even highlighting mainstream Pentecostal groups as guilty of "mind control" techniques. In either of these two cases, it is beyond surprising that a public school textbook or other assigned reading would label any legal religious organization as a cult. If, by cult, it simply met "group," then the term is too vague to be meaningful. I once had an English teacher hope to get a rise out of us Christians by speaking of the "creation myth." Fortunately, we knew that in literature myth means non-historic story. She was very disappointed that none of us reacted.

THe problem is Chaplin that it's not a holiday that needs to be redeemed. All the evil and dark attributed to it came from christians trying to convert people away from the pagan faith. The true meaning of the original holiday was as a new year celebration and honoring the dead. It's non Christian because it was never christian to begin with. It's like telling people that they need to find a reason to redeem ramadan or hanukkah. Why does it have to be anything but what it was meant to be? ← The whole reason for this string is that Halloween is a widely-celebrated holiday in this part of the world. Yet, 99%+ of the participants are not Pagan. They do not celebrate the original meanings. So, believers have to look at the current understandings and say, "Can I, in good conscience, partake in this?" I've posted the most common answers previously. Why is Halloween more of a conversation topic than Ramadan or Hanukkah? Those holidays are strictly religious, and have not been secularized, popularized, or generalized. We don't 'redeem' the holidays of other religions, because there is no popular interaction with them. Halloween is different. The original meanings are lost on most Americans. Also, for Christians, paganism is not the pathway to God. So, it makes sense that we would do nothing to revive interest or encourage involvement.

I would just point out that if Christians took that attitude throughout history, there never would have been a renegade Martin Luther, a Protestant Reformation, a Salvation Army to minister to street people because the historic churches wouldn't do it. There never would have been a Pentecostal revival, that now claims 500 million adherents. And...the never would have been a Joseph Smith. If denominational, organization, doctrinal unity were meant to be absolute and enforced by men then so many of the blessings of the last several centuries would have been squelched. Key doctrines have not changed. Key sacraments have not changed. There is a wonderful unity in the church universal. But, strife, and other man-made difficulties were prophesied to remain in the church until Christ's return. I'm not being fatalistic. That's why I'm here. We can do better. But, a one-denomination Christian world would not necessarily be more powerful than what we have now.

What happened to my string? Somebody hijacked it! Here's my take on the Halloween thing. The origins are Pagan, and the current understanding of the holiday, in most metropolitan and many surburban communities remains nonChristian. Witches, vampires, ghosts, etc. Unlike the pagan holiday that Christmas co-opted, Halloween seems impossible for Christians to baptize or redeem. So, some choose to "oppose it." They do not celebrate, the use the time to educate their members on the dangers (for Christians) of occultism and other ungodly spiritualities. Others choose to offer alternatives, such as Harvest Festivals--which give thanks to God for the bounty to come. Still others enjoy the party, without concern, since the holiday is really just a big romp that more or less makes light of ancient superstition. My household combines 2 & 3. We go to alternative celebrations, and we pass out candies--usually with some type of gospel message included. As an aside: Xmas doesn't take Christ out of Christmas. The X is the Greek letter representative of Christ. As a second aside: Schools that allow Halloween parties should allow Christmas pageants, tree decorations etc. as well. As a third aside: The state should be neutral in regards to religion, not antagonistic. State funds sometimes go to faith-based charities. There are religious messages on our money, their are government employed chaplains (like me), and sometimes considerable expense is given to assure that everyone is treated equitably. When there is controversy, free religious expression should outweigh the concern that someone may be offended.

Really? I see some pretty passionate discussions here...even between LDS members. Additionally, I would be surprised if there wasn't a certain amount of rhetoric between the main sect (LDS), and the smaller groups (RLDS, etc.) With one man-made organization, and rigid doctrinal control, a good deal of strife can be avoided. However, I wonder if too much control doesn't quench some of the Spirit also? I would suggest that 90% of Christians agree on 90% of what we teach. Most Christians see another denominational church and say, "God bless my brothers and sisters there." The Assemblies of God has Southern Baptist speakers at our ministers' meetings, and they have ours. Most of us can share the sacraments of holy communion with each other, and we generally recognize one another's baptisms. We work together, love each other, and look forward to spending eternity together. We see no need to convert one another. My sense is that God is pleased...that lock-step conformity and unity are not high on his list of plans for his church--what we call the "church universal."

For those who wish to know what all the fuss is about, I'm pasting several websites that address this issue from varying perspectives. The first is the most standard evangelical anti-halloween posting. There are a few here from secular or non-Christian sites, such as a newspaper, and religioustolerance.org and beliefnet.org. Happy surfing! http://www.christiananswers.net/q-eden/halloween.html http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcontent/dw...ts.706da06.html http://www.cbn.com/spirituallife/OnlineDis...ween_Watt05.asp http://www.religioustolerance.org/hallo_he.htm http://www.religionlink.org/tip_021007b.php http://www.beliefnet.org/story/177/story_17773_2.html

Halloween used to be a fun time of trick-or-treating, and most Christian people and congregations did not think twice about enjoying the fun. These days many Christians have chosen to forgo all recognition of the day, or to participate in alternative celebrations that do not include the evil spirituality associated with the holiday. What say you?

I think that the logic of a hierarchical institution led by God’s chosen prophet is self-evident so I won’t dwell on it. Ironically, this whole discussion, at least in the Protestant world, would be labeled "theology of church government." What is self-evident to you has kept full-time theologians busy for many lifetimes. I also think that the alternate view of authority - flowing from the body of believers, or from the scriptures, leads to... well, exactly what it has led to... thousands and thousands of denominations and sects It is only natural that as the church grew, different congregations would develop differently. This is true, even within denominations. Look at the seven churches in Revelation 2-3 for examples! The existence of multiple groups under the umbrella of Christianity is not troubling for most Protestants. Denominations are simply groups of churches that cooperate to advance the gospel more effectively. Cooperation between denominations has been increasing dramatically in the last few decades. In many ways, worship styles are even becoming more and more alike, because of communications technology. , conflict, disagreement If you have three people on earth, and both genders, this is inevitable. , unstable doctrine Unavoidable. See Revelations 2-3--especially the repeated references to the Nicolaitans. The Apostle Paul also dealt with a kind of precursor to the Gnostic heresy. , warfare and bloodshed, charlatans, politics and power, and confusion. See Jesus' parable on the wheat and tares. All of these difficulties were predicted. Man-made institutions cannot squelch these problems. I accept that where I see disarray, others may see a remarkable degree of unity - like a half full/half empty glass, but I think that on the whole, across the whole spectrum, from the beginning to now, disunity and confusion are more salient than the unity - and that’s not how I see God as operating. If you come to this discussion from a church tradition that has hierarchical government and theological dissemination, it would be natural for you to see chaos. On the other hand, Protestants who have been raised in a "priesthood of all believers" type setting, where the spiritual leader (aka pastor) is seen as God's servant, to train and equip the people, have a much greater tolerance for diversity. Our maxim: In essentials unity, in nonessentials liberty, in all things charity. The whole doctrine of apostolic succession (Catholic), or apostolic authority (LDS) strikes me as plausible, but not essential. Who said somebody had to pass the authority along? My own denomination takes this notion a step further. We believe that when a believer is baptized in the Holy Spirit s/he receives power (authority). Since we argue that the gift is available for all believers, the authority the apostles had is also for all believers. Authority, might be understood as permission, commission or right. But, it can also mean power. WARNING--OFF TOPIC COMMENT. I want to thank the LDS members here for making us guests feel welcome. I'm learning how lay-Mormons think about their faith. I never realized the parallels between Catholic and LDS teachings on authority--ironic since LDS do not really have professional full-time 'career' clergy. ←

It wasn't me...I swear! Well, actually I don't swear...but... you know what I mean. Nobody wants to come to an LDS site and say, "I'm anti-LDS." However, if one does not commit to the LDS church, what is he? "Seperated bretheren" like the Pope described Protestants? All these ramblings to say that this particular poll is a touchy one for non-LDS to answer.

It is the guilty spiritual conscience that opposes religious expression, but tolerates immorality. Such people are not upset by foreign religious practices, because such displays do not highlight their prodigal waywardness.