prisonchaplain

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.

IS PUBLIC RELIGIOUS EXPRESSION RUDE? Is it rude to say, “Merry Christmas,” because the recipient of your intended blessing may be Jewish or a Jehovah’s Witness? Can we foist upon the public (roughly seven percent of whom do not believe there is a god) religious displays like the Ten Commandments? Just what are the proper limits of civic religion in a country that is, by broad definition, 80 percent Christian, yet which has codified in its highest law that government must not establish religion? There are examples of extreme solutions on both the religious and secular sides of the spectrum of this conundrum. One recent columnist recalled the days when, as a Jewish youngster in public school, he had to sing “Onward Christian Soldiers,” with his classmates. Then, of course, there’s the school principle in a nearby district that canceled the student production of “A Christmas Carol,” to prevent any potential religious themes from causing offense. Perhaps an anecdote from my high school days in Seattle, circa 1980, will demonstrate how far we have slid. Ours was an honors English class, and we had just finished reading about a character that knew what was right, but had bowed to public opinion. Our teacher asked us to write a short essay comparing the incident with Pilate’s washing of his hands. Afterwards, one student raised her hand and complained since she was an atheist it was unfair to demand that she have knowledge of a religious story in order to answer a test question. The teacher responded that anyone who hoped to obtain even a rudimentary understanding of English literature must become familiar with biblical stories, as well as Greek and Roman mythology. In the last twenty-five years have we become some fearful of our own heritage that we embrace ignorance as a solution? Ironically, during my six-years as a university campus missionary in South Korea, I had many non-Christian students attending my English Bible studies. When I asked them why they came, they responded that the Bible was one of the greatest pieces of literature in the English language, and they knew it was an important part of becoming fluent. Back to my original questions. Is it rude to say, “Merry Christmas?” Private retailers can order their clerks however they please. However, common sense should rule in our general social interactions. If I wish a Jew, “Merry Christmas,” she will probably say, “Thanks, but I am Jewish.” In which case, I will respond, “Oh, well Happy Hanukah,” or simply, “Then, God bless you.” If he is a Jehovah’s Witness he will probably delight in telling me so, and inquiring as to whether I want to know why he does not celebrate Christmas. By the way, the other 98 out of a hundred people will probably say, “Thank you. Merry Christmas to you too.” As for the 10 Commandments, it appears the courts are nixing the public display of them. I am not too concerned. We see the Decalogue’s influence in many of our laws anyway. Similarly, there is no need for school-arranged prayer, so long as religious clubs continue to have the same access to facilities and scheduling as other groups. My ultimate concern in this whole discussion of religion in the public square is that the solutions embraced by France, Malaysia, and others might take root here. These countries discourage public displays of religion, and in some cases have criminalizes efforts to proselytize. Yes, I know that most people dislike having strangers coming to their door offering religious presentations. I know that the “We’re right and you’re wrong,” message that seems to be communicated can be offensive. There is even a phrase in the Bible about “the offense of the cross.” Yet, we are a nation built upon the free practice of religion. For a significant number of Christians, and some other faith groups, recruiting new believers is central to their spirituality. How will America balance free religious practice with the government’s interest in protecting minority groups and promoting civic harmony? While the matter will continue to be fine-tuned, I much prefer the spiritual free market to religious protectionism. //s// Tommy Ellis

appeals? we don't have that one on the tithing slip... do we? ← Sure...it falls under "other."

My answer is based upon my common understanding of what is taught in evangelical churches. The original concept was to give our "first fruits" (in contrast to left overs) to God. Cain and Abel gave sacrifices, Abram gave 10% of what he had to the priest he met while traveling. So, in general we tithe on the gross, not the net. However, for business owners, the obligation, personally, would be to tithe on one's income, or salary. I suppose, the business entity could designate 10% of profits for a tithe as well. Additionally, the first 10% of one's income is given to the church's general fund. Special offerings for missions, appeals, etc. should be given in addition to the tithe, not in place of it.

Heh, LDS believe in the need of being "born-again" too, prisonchaplain. :) Or in other words, "Born-again Christians" don't have exclusive rights on becoming "born again", since we can all become "born again" through Jesus Christ. And btw, you will find this idea espoused throughout all of our scriptures. ← You make a valid point. I did not realize part of the LDS plan of salvation included a "moment of decision." I suppose the notion of reading the Book of Mormon, praying to God as to whether it is true or not, and, then feeling the "burning in the bosom," would be a prelude to the moment of conversion. Much as Evangelicals speak of sinners feeling the conviction of the Holy Spirit, combined with the sense that God really loves them, and all of this spiritual drawing leading to the "decision to follow Christ." Ironically, my grandmother is Lutheran, and gets angry when people ask her if she's born again. Frankly, I believe she is. However, the term has come to mean something different for her...perhaps what you said--that Christians should not be considered sinners. Now that I understand that your response was an explanation of LDS teaching on the born again experience, you seem to have brought out a few differences. Once again, correct me if I have misunderstood. 1. LDS salvation comes with confession, water baptism, receiving the Holy Ghost, and successful godly living that progresses to perfection. It's all wrapped up together. If so, is there a point of assurance, when you can say, "I'm saved...I'm successfully born again...my future in the Celestial heaven is assured?" 2. Instead of born again, I will use the term evangelical. Evangelical salvation happens at the point of belief, repentance and confession of sins. Water baptism is a testimony to the salvation that has already happened. The gift of the Holy Ghost is an issue of discussion, but for Pentecostals like myself, it is indeed a gift--not a requirement of salvation. It is "a second work of grace," that brings an added spiritual power and fullness--especially useful for witnessing. Sanctification (becoming holy unto perfection) is generally understood as progressive. The Holiness branch of our faith believes it is another work of grace, given by the Holy Ghost, that empowers the believer to live righteously. 3. Evangelicals believe we can say, "I'm saved, I'm heaven bound" from the moment of salvation--after belief, repentance and confession. The learning to obey Christ's teachings, the seeking after gifts from the Holy Spirit, even water baptism are the fruit of our salvation--not prerequisites. I hope I have clarified that my born again salvation explanation was an evangelical one. Furthermore, I am hoping for follow up to further refine my understanding of the LDS salvation experience.

Welcome to the board, pc (don't mind if I call you that, do you? :) ). Not at all--so long as nobody accuses me of being politically correct! Your description, as you said, in a concise way was pretty accurate, except for the "rule over our own worlds part." Many LDS might believe that, or speculate on that, but it's not a teaching found in our official canon of scripture. Point taken. Much is made of this fact in non-LDS literature about Mormons. I suppose that's why the notion gets so much attention. Since you're new, I know others besides myself would be interested in knowing a little about you. Would you mind telling us what denomination you belong to, if any? I take it you ARE a prison chaplain and so familiar with most faiths in a general sense, but which do you practice personally? Lutheran? Evangelical? Baptist? Thanks, look forward to hearing from you, and again, welcome. ← So, I should remove my veil. Sure. I am a federal prison chaplain in Seattle, WA. As such, I am expected to have a working knowledge of the faiths I work with, and be a master of my own. My ordination and chaplaincy endorsement is with the Assemblies of God, which has been described as Pentecostal, Evangelical, and Missionary. I spent six years doing university mission work in South Korea, and co-pastored a Vietnamese church in Springfield, MO for three years. I've been with the Bureau of Prisons for nearly eight years, and at my current location (which happens to be my home town ) for nearly four years. We generally have about a half dozen Mormon inmates, and one LDS volunteer that ministers to them. We may be getting a second volunteer, and I figured it was time for me to enhance my knowledge. So, here I am. B)

I was a bit surprised to find that Ray commented on the Born Again Christian side of my description, rather than the LDS side. Fair enough, though. Most of Ray's comments did not necessarily disagree with my post. I was dealing with the initial moment of salvation. Those who espouse the term "born again" believe that salvation is an experience that happens at a moment in time, and then is lived out afterward. Ray's responses seemed to address what happens after salvation. Yes, born again Christians become "new creatures," and take on "the life of Christ." We are to obey Jesus' commands if we love him. Different Christian denominations disagree over whether water baptism is a requirement of salvation, but most Born Again Christians believe that the sacrament is a testimony to Jesus' forgiveness, and of our intention to "follow Jesus...no turning back!" Other than that, he corrected my statement that Jesus is the one and only Son of God, by quoting from the King James Version "only begotten." Okay...I used the New International Version verbage instead. Not sure what his point was there. Overall, I do not disagree with Ray's comments, nor do I think he actually disagreed with mine. The difference, again, is that I focused on the moment of salvation, and he focused on the life of salvation. Also, as I stated in the post, I was intentionally concise and simplistic. Not a bad post about Christian maturity and progressive sanctification, though, Ray.

Poor Red He was mostly respectful in his post, but ultimately presented the "Plan of Salvation" as born-again Christians understand it. He also asked a most provocative question--does LDS soteriology drive adherents to a type of murder? Even people of understanding and good will might lose the respectful tone and story that Red shared, and be blind-sided by the antagonistic question. Recently, one of the chat members gave me a one-hour session on the LDS plan of salvation. Granted, he was not an official leader, or missionary. However, his explanation seemed down-to-earth and intelligent. From that discussion, I conclude the following differences: 1. Born-again Christians believe that we are all sinners, separated from God (Romans 3:23). That God loved the world and so sent his one and only son, Jesus, so that whoever believes will not perish, but live forever (John 3:16). And finally, that reconcilation with God comes through confession of sins (1 John 1:9). Salvation, then, is being saved from sins and the resultant punishment--the Lake of Fire (Revelation 20:15). It is also be saved to an eternal existance with God's direct presence in the new heaven and earth. Here there will be only blessing, no more hardship (Revelation 21:1-4). 2. LDS salvation involves realizing the truth of our existence, our prexistant spiritual state, and walking in the truths revealed by the Holy Bible and the standard works. Salvation at its best means eternal life in the Celestial heaven, with the potential to eventually rule our own worlds. However, salvation is not so much from hell--or the outer darkness--but from ignorance. Those who do not receive LDS salvation in this life, or through baptism for the dead, are not necessarily damned--but are assigned eternal life in somewhat less attractive heavens (terrestial and telestial). My question: Did I get it Is my summary, however simplistic, basically accurate?