prisonchaplain

There is a Presbyterian minister I've heard who says that Christians should treat LGBT neighbors kindly. He does not endorse their behavior and has traditional views about marriage, but believes Christians are commanded to show love to everyone. In the 1970s he was considered a liberal. In the 1990s he was considered moderate. Today he is viewed as an extremist, right-wing, MAGA conservative. His views never changed.

I am beyond not qualified to discuss the details of this thread. Instead, consider what has happened to the larger Christian movement. It has formed into three branches. The modernists/liberals interpret the Bible in light of modern cultural mores. Some even argue that the reader's perspective is primary. Fundamentalists try to preserve and defend what was. They sometimes insist on the King James Version of the Bible, the singing of hymns, extensive holiness codes, and lock-step doctrinal adherence. From the second group I offer the following example: I went to see my aunt baptized in this type of church. The minister's sermon was aimed at criticizing my church's beliefs. After the service he came up, shook my hand, and told me directly that the sermon was aimed at me. Then there are those, and I probably fit in this camp, who take the scriptures as mostly historical, mostly literal, and absolutely inspired of God. We try to engage the culture rather than condemn it. Our hope is to focus on Jesus and the Good News and not get sidetracked by secondary stuff. Sadly, we often fail. I'm wondering as I read this thread if much of the LDS world is also split into modernists, traditionalists, and the messy middle?

@Stacy RiddleI disagree. LDS holiness codes--especially ones related to the WoW and Law of Chastity are areas where I have some holy envy. It's incredible and good to me that young LDS people obey the no dating until 16 rule. Further, the prophet says no coffee/tea so no coffee/tea it is. That's not "cultish" in my mind. That's consistent with church teaching--especially about distinctives like having modern-day prophets. I'm not LDS and I love my coffee, but my theological differences have nothing to do with the reality that LDS folk obey latter-day revelations. If the revelations are true, of course they should be obeyed.

The idea of following the prophets (or, in my case, church leadership) and of giving them the benefit of the doubt goes a long way with me. I don't see God punishing Protestants who don't allow female clergy, even though my church does. I doubt that churches that allow moderate drinking will be downgraded, though mine doesn't. I cringe at churches that discourage the moving of the Holy Spirit, claiming that the Bible is enough, but guess that what they are missing out on is more in this life than the one to come. So, I mostly agree that if there is certainty about a prophet's authority than that person should be followed and given every benefit of the doubt. The bar for disobeying a prophet would have to be quite high.

Concerning signs, wonders, miracles, and other manifestations of God prior to the return of Jesus, a phrase I've come upon recently is, "LORD, I'm not greedy--just needy." So, yes, @Traveler, I am eager for every witness the Almighty brings.

You're probably right about everything. I promise to consider your words once I'm done laughing at (not with) the adolescent environmentalist wacko that you inserted. This may be a case where said insert distracts from rather than underlines your point. 😉

I suppose that prophets may speak privately, and those words should not be weighed as inspired by God. Some words may be spoken to individuals or small groups, by prophets, and those utterances may only apply to them. However, when a prophet speaks publicly, or officially, is he not supposed to be infallible? Is it not the same as when the Pope speaks to Catholics ex cathedra (from the chair--authoritatively)?

Except that Martin Luther was right. Indulgences should not have been sold. There was apparent corruption. Further, there may be more qualified historians than me on this, but I am not so certain that nailing objections was a faith-destroying move. We don't know what was going on in Luther's mind, but it is a mostly accepted consensus that he truly was not seeking schism. He hoped the church would embrace reforms and become stronger. He hoped his friends would be strengthened because the church was strenghened. Indeed, I understand that there was something of a Catholic Reformation. Apologists argue it was coming and Luther should have been patient. Luther-supporters argue that the Protestant Reformation drove Catholic hierarchy to those reforms. We have the advantage of over 500 years of history, but I believe Luther's motives were relatively innocent. Whether he was so right that he was wrong (the benefits did not outweigh the cost of schism) is an open question to this day.

I can't speak to the Protestant Mormons. However, Martin Luther believed that the church would consider his proposed reforms. He did not predict a schism. Perhaps it wasn't so obvious--at least not at first.

My understanding is that Martin Luther did not initially want to start a schism. However, church leadership required that he recant his criticisms. It was not enough that he stop complaining--he had to publicly apologize for his criticisms and say he was wrong. That he could not do.

From my outsider lense, there seems to be a similarity between LDS theology and Catholic theology when it comes to authoritativeness. In Catholicism scripture interpretation rests in the authority of the Pope and church hierarchy. In LDS practice church members sustain the prophetic mantle of the President and a few other leaders who have authority as prophets. There really is not room for private or personal interpretations, except perhaps in the area of applying prophetic utterances. I'm I understanding correctly?

It's worse than you think. I was born in '64 and was part of the Baby Bust. However, so few of us were born that we got lumped in with the Boomers. 😞

Boomers were a large cohort and fairly entitled. I believe it's the first generation that reached 50% divorce. TIME Magazine did an article on this generation and one of the quotes was "Ronald Reagan stuck around longer than my dad."

There was no Gen-Y and my wife is Gen-X. We don't joke about Gen-X. Ever!

So to speak. Also a fashion officianodo.

My outsider understanding is that LDS believe Jesus Saves! They are happy that most people will earn some type of heavenly reward. However, knowing the Celestial Kingdom is available and having been taught how to reach it--and the closest fellowship with Heavenly Father--anything less would feel like a great loss. Perhaps even like hell. I'm a Pentecostal, so only believe there is one heavenly realm (though perhaps with levels of rewards within it). Even I would be most disappointed to learn in glory that I could have done better for my LORD, and that my reward is therefore less than it might have been.

I have serious doubts about leadership. They are generally foolish. I respect leadership, though Nope. Can't say I've ever been censored. 😉

I've read through this string. We appear to be doing scary scenes, and given my ministry assignments I thought this would be appropriate:

Generational humor: 1. Boomer's: Variations of "I hate my wife ..." 2. Millenials: Variations of "I hate my life ..." 3. Gen Z: Variations of "Butter knife ..." Explanations: 1. Boomers often struggled in their marriages and find jokes about them funny. 2. Millenials tend to wear their hearts on their sleeves and grieve about every malady facing the world. 3. Gen Z are rebelling against millenial angst (often from their teachers) by irreverently joking about everything and anything.

Since the sites are not named, and I don't frequent many social media sites (Christianpost.com, Realclearreligion.org, and Religiousnewsservice.com are may current go-tos), I won't defend bad behavior on the internet. However, when I arrived at my current place of ministry (a women's state prison), I was surprised to find that our main Sunday morning service was provided by volunteers from the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. Most of the attenders are not likely members of the church. Nevertheless, they gain benefit. The volunteers have found a way to minister with integrity while maintaining healthy attendance from a largely non-LDS group. They were pleased to discover that I had no intentions of changing the schedule (my services are on Monday and Thursday).

When we can't dazzle them with our brilliance, we're left to baffle them with our baloney. 😉

I would argue that everything that has to happen has happened--which is why we must be ready. Luke 12:40: Be ye therefore ready also: for the Son of man cometh at an hour when ye think not.

I'm choosing not to get into the weeds of a discussion about whether this is a pre/mid/post-tribulation rapture--especially on an LDS site. Instead, I'm broadly suggesting that Jesus will return at any time. It could happen 2033-43, but it could also happen tonight, tomorrow, this week, this month, this year. Imminent meaning soon and without warning. The broad warnings of Matthew 24 are already happening. Our role is to be ready--now. My own pastor offered great advice: Be ready for Jesus to return today, but plan to live a long healthy life. Ready but well prepared.

9 aAfter this manner therefore bpray ye: Our cFather which art in heaven, dHallowed be thy ename.

Forrest Gump on God's name: Hey Forest, what's God's name? It's Andy! Andy? How'd you come up with that? It's in the song: Andy walked with me / Andy Talked with me / Andy tells me I am His own... Hey Forest, what's God's name? It's Howard! Howard? How'd you come up with that? It's in the prayer: Our Father who art in heaven, Howard be thy name.