Shawn

The Traveler writes: Since I started this post maybe I could have the last word. I appreciate the expansive knowledge Traveler has regarding the history of the use of the name (or title) of God. Much of this, from what I can tell with my limited knowledge of Tetragrammation, seems right on. And I would agree that it was more than appropriate for ancient peoples to fear writing the name (or title) of God and to approach Him as if He was about to wipe them out. Because He did, on occasion, wipe people out for what appeared to have been innocent mistakes (appeared). The problem with Travelers insistence of carrying these traditions on (and which, by the way, is a direct reflection of the problem of religious people today who, not knowing God, continue to apply legalistic appelations to their relationship with Him) is that since the ascention of the Lord, His Children can come boldly to the Holy Throne. Archaic reverences have died and been replaced by joy in the Good News of the Gospel. Legalisms, and ordinances, have been nailed to the Cross. It was finished along time ago, Traveler. Perhaps Paul said it best: For we have not received the spirit of bondage again to fear; but ye have received the spirit of adoption, whereby we cry, Abba, Father. (Romans 8:15) Jesus brings freedom, not a yoke. People try and yoke others, either directly or indirectly, and even through good intentions. Don't buy into it, readers. His yoke is easy, His burden is light. In JESUS HOLY NAME, Shawn McCraney

Lindy, I'm sorry you've been in a foul mood all day. But I know the ways of God by reading His Word. I do not know all of them, but I know of some of them. And one of them is He hates religious pretense. Read about God in the flesh (Jesus). It's pretty obvious His distain of the religious leaders of His day.

SNOW WRITES QUOTE There are a few things you may want to consider regarding my beliefs (which you seem to so readily understand). First of all, being saved is one thing, spiritual rebirth is another, and the rewards a Christian receives after this life are an entirely different issue. Let me explain. The first phase of spiritual rebirth is the justification phase - the Jesus experience. It comes by faith, grace, and confession of Jesus. When a person accepts Jesus as his/her personal savior, he is justified before God by grace. The second phase of spiritual rebirth is sanctification. This is where the indwelling of God in justified people transforms them from being a creature to a child of God. This takes time. A lot of time. Here is where people learn to die to themselves. Here is where God moves and works in them through His word and spirit. The final phase is that of the resurrection. These three phases make up spiritual rebirth. Salvation is based on the first phase, rewards are based on the second phase. A new uncorrupted body model in the third. You continue to speak of the first phase, but reference the second. WHen a person truly accepts Jesus, has the Jesus experience, and experiences initial spiritual rebirth, it does not make them perfect in the flesh. THis is part of the second phase. And it comesfrom reading God's word, prayer, church, etc. I do not think Traveler is going to hel because he writes G_d. Traveler will go to hell if he doesn'taccept Jesus. But you say he has accepted Jesus and is saved. I say fine. Now Traveler need to appropriately apply the Word to his life. This is the tough part of spiritual regeneration. Because it means succumbing to God's will and not our own any longer. My point here is, traveler is imputing his own will and ignoring the Word. This is why there is danger in making up new little rules and practices regarding God. He tells you what to do in His Word. G_d is not in His word.

LINDY WRITES First point: Because it sets up a false idea of God expects of His creations. WHy add to what He expects? Aren't His ideas exactly the way things should be done? Travelers methodologies do not show respect, they show ideation. Respect for God comes when we love and follow HIS ways, not our own. If travelers methodologies were okay, then wouldn't it make sense for more extreme measures to really be okay? Do you see where it leads? I go back to my original statement: this was EXACTLY the trouble with the ruling religious leaders of Jesus time. And HE hated it. Second point: I sort-of understand your saying you respect peoples right to do what they want. I do not. I don't respect anyone who uses their religious rights to trample upon what God has said. As incorrect as this may sound, why would I ever respect someones choice to speak, act, or live opposite to God? Endure? Maybe. Accept, okay. But respect? Never.

Additionally, the whole theory that there "are more females in the celestial kingdom than males theory" fails in light of historical infant mortality rates. Seems male babies have died at an almost 3 to 1 ratio to females. Bad news for the theorists that the celestial realms are filled with qualified women.

SNOW WRITES This sentence makes no sense whatsoever. None. Now read it in parts: This part is true. I do believe salvation comes only by faith through the grace of God. If Traveler has the same belief that salvation is by grace through faith, I praise God! What happened here? What does this mean? You stated that I believe salvation is by grace. I agree. You stated that The Traveler has this faith. I say, fantastic. Then you conclude by saying this belief is good enough for God but NOT me! Snow, I somehow sense you truly want to be a good man, a righteous man, and a man of wisdom. This is good. But slow down and make your points clearly.I'm not saying this to demean you. But your not making sense.

SNOW ASKS: This type of errant religious attachment is similar to what the Jews did to the Law - jots and tiddles -to make themselves "more holy" than the next guy. They created their own form of super-religion which was not only displeasing to God, it is dangerous and unnessecary. I mean, some idiot may now think, "Well, G_d created everything too. So therefore I won't spell _nyth_ng c_mpl_t_ly _g__n! Out of respect for H_m." Get it? Man's ways will NEVER EVER please God to the point where they earn favor or brownie points. His ways are perfect and skipping a letter in the title we recognize Him by is ridiculous, religiously inclined, and far from the reality of true Christian living. Other names for such measures include religion, legalism. dogma, fanaticism, pietism, fundamentalism, or plain old, "I want toshow you how holy everyone else should be - and take God's word the extra mile." Get it, Snow?

Snow, you're killing me, man! The twists and turns some people make to try and rationalize errant religious practices are absolutely flabbergasting! I mean it. And I really don't want to pick on the Mormons here, but I think most defenders of the LDS Church are prolific in "the twist." "While secular laws catch up with the religious ideal?" Absolutely, categorically, fantastic.

THE TRAVELER WRITES: I think if poygamy was eternal, it would never cease being practiced. I would hope thateternal life does not mean there will be spells where life ceases to exist only to start up again. Eternal is eternal, and all the twisting won't redefine what eternal means. What about black NOT having the priesthood? Was that eternal? Or is them now having it the eternal part of the principle? I missed the point here completely. I'm sorry. Right. Sure. You get it because you are enlightened. I don't get it because I'm not. What a perfect system. What? How long have you waited to drop this piece of, of, vitally important insight on someone? Come on, Traveler. Be real. The Traveler

Yes, Jason, this was kind of my point. In writing the name of God that some call Jehovah, they removed the vowels, changed their clothes, bathed, and even changed their writing tools out of respect. But God is just a title. Thanks for the insights.

I've seen people post writing only G_D and not GOD. What up?

In my first post I asked: The responses varied, but I thought far too many people spent too much time explaining why this situation would never, ever happen. In Part II,I'd like to preface my question by providing a example of two announcements many Latter-day Saints thought they would never hear (but did). First, that the practice of plural marriage was to be discontinued and, 2) that black men would be given the priesthood. With these situations in mind, here is "Would You Care Part II. How would you respond/react if Gordon B Hinckley announced in the October General Conference that the Priesthood would be given to women? In Jesus Always, Shawn

I find it interesting that you are claiming that the people out there who attack the Church are "moronic, hate-filled bigots" and that you, in turn, use the perjorative terms "moronic, hate-filled, and bigoted" to describe them. Headline: Pot calls kettle black.

I don't think Tom Cruise or Scientology lay claim to being Christian - which is why they are not assailed when they congregate. Not that I think it's right, but the people attacking LDS are attacking it because LDS not only claim to be Christian they claim to be the only true Christian Church on earth. Scientology can readily be seen for what it is, and they make no attempts to hide their strange doctrines. The LDS Church cannot say the same, therefore they get heat. IJA, Shawn

Okay, I'll bite. Continuing with your poker analogy, which cards did I show? And why do you liken my responses here to exposing something I really want to keep secret? IJA, Shawn

Close to being right, I suppose. But I take exception to a few things you wrote. For example, I really don't think I am looking for people to agree with ME. I reject notions of doctrinal relativity and believe there exists a confirmed right and wrong when it comes to Jesus/God/Religion, etc. I think the Bible lays the main facts out nicely (but within context and as a whole volume of books). If you were to disagree with ME, I really don't mind at all. Especially if it is in regard to one of my opinions. But if you were to disagree with what the Bible says (in context and as a whole remember) then I would NOT attack you for differing with me, but would try and get you to express why you believe the way you believe. The way I see it (and this is my opinion) Latter-day Saints often claim the Jesus experience and being Christian, etc., but lack an understanding of the essence of the Good News. Now you could argue (as you have) that I don't understand what Latter-day Saints believe. My question to you is again, explain your Christianity to me to show me where I err. In this way I may be proven wrong or right? You see, I think it is easy to say that I don't understand Mormon theology or the Mormon experience. But I want you to teach me why I don't through your subjective experience. What have I missed in my years as a Latter-day Saint? Tell me why all the accusations against the Church (when it comes to Jesus) are wrong. I am seriously and honestly waiting to hear. Because to be rather frank, there are times when I do wonder if I missed some key lessons on Jesus over my years of being in the Church. I don't think I did, but I wonder sometimes. And it's also important to know that I fight as hard for LDS with my collegues in school as I do with LDS in places like this. Teach me what I've missed Snow. I'm open and willing to hear what you have to say.

I'm asking you to judge me by these words. I mean, this is a medium based on words alone. You can't know me, personally, or judge me by my actions (unless you're my neighbor Bob going by the name Snow!). So please, since we are exchanging in a word medium, judge me by what I write. And I promise what I write comes from my heart, and is evidenced in the actions of my life (that is, when I'm not being a total failure, which does happen on occasion). It sort of seems like you are either on the offensive with me, or you are being very defensive with me. Either way, I'm sorry I bring this kind of response out from you. I am trying to "hear" you explain what things mean to you. SInce you were reticent to share, I thought I'd answer my own question as a token of my willingness to open up. When I did, I was met with another remark like the one quoted above. In earlier posts, you make comments about Jesus, that you know Him, that you see Him for what He is. All I asked was for you to tell us what He is to you. Will you answer now? IJA, Shawn

I recommend with all my heart: The Glass Beads Game - Hermans Hesse Narcissus and Goldman - Hesse Atlas Shrugged - Ayn Rand Les Miserable' - Victor Hugo (unabridged, trans. by Norman Denny) Thus Spoke Zarathustra - Frederich Nietzsche Origins of Power - D. Michael Quinn Magic World View - Quinn Insider's View of Mormon Origins - Grant Palmer and last, and probably least, my own work out August 10th 05, Born-Again Mormon: Moving Toward Christian Authenticity. In Jesus Always, Shawn McCraney

I understand. In response I would love to descibe him as I know Him. Being born of a virgin, with God himself as the Father and Mary His mortal mother, Jesus was created not as other men and women by blood or lust of the flesh but immaculately. Without the stain of human sin upon Him at birth He came forth 100 percent God and 100 percent man – God’s perfect offering for sin. Whatever a man could feel and experience, Jesus could feel and experience. And whatever God is, Jesus was. With these attributes, He becomes both our empathetic mediator before our all-good and holy God, and also All God, able to carry the weight of the world successfully, righteously, and as a manifestation of God in the flesh. In His humanity, he faced trials, persecution, and mockery; as God He loved those who rejected Him and carried their evil ways upon His sinless frame. As man, He knew temptation, desire, hunger, and thirst; as God He resisted evil, rebuked the Devil, and overcame the demands of the flesh. As man He ate and drank with friends and disciples, wept at the tomb of Lazarus, and accepted invitations to sit with sinners; as God He turned water into wine, multiplied fishes and loaves, raised Lazarus from the dead, and forgave the sinners’ crimes. As man He was slapped, beaten, crowned with thorns, and rejected by His friends. He sweated in blood, was pierced through his hands and feet, was tortured as a reject, a criminal, a Sabbath-breaker, and a blasphemer. As God He endured the incomprehensible demands of justice, offered Himself in undefiled innocence, held Himself to the cross out of perfect and pure love for the sinner, and willingly accepted the full and furious wrath of our all just God for every single sin, sickness, wrong-doing, failure, and transgression that has ever occurred or ever will occur in or out of the heart of Man. Because God offered His Only Begotten Son as the supreme sacrifice for the world, and because the Son willingly gave Himself over to all the misery and suffering incurred from God’s perfectly just wrath, no offering could ever take His place; no other deed, sacrifice, payment, or attempt at worthiness will gain acceptance from Almighty God other than the righteous and complete payment of His Son. There is no act, deed, amount of money, service, work, diligence, ordinance, attendance, temple rite, testimony, or self-sacrificial offering of any kind that could ever take any part of restoring fallen humanity to the presence of God. I cannot emphasize this point too emphatically. Such faithless acts or attitudes aren’t needed, aren’t worthy, and would never meet the demands of perfect justice that God demands for sin and rebellion. Few human ideologies more readily mock God, religious or otherwise, than for human beings to think they could ever do anything to contribute to the suffering, sacrifice, payment or atonement for sin Jesus gave on the cross. I hope you will forever judge me on these words, Snow.

SNOW WROTE: Shawn, If Christ is not the center of you spiritual/religious experience, then that is your issue, but not extrapolate your experience to the the Church as a whole. I know who the creator and the Savior is, thank you very much. Would you mind describing Him as you know Him, Snow? Shawn

Snow wrote: It's a matter of semantics. You think Christ to be the cornerstone - one small part of the foundation, a stone joining two walls. We believe that Christ is the entire foundation of the Church. I've been accused of being attacking so I am going to try and phrase this without the least bit of malice. How does "believing Christ is the entire foundation of a Church" actually play out in the lives of those who attend the church in question (here, it's Mormon). You stated that we believe Christ is the entire foundation, but in my experience as a Latter-day Saint, Jesus Christ remains but a footnote to the religion. What I mean by this is prayers are said in His name, His name is in the title, there were pictures of Him around, and all the important holidays of His life are recognized in one degree or another, but how does Jesus Christ transform lives of individual members to the point where they live for Him because of having experienced spiritual rebirth?

Shawn wrote to Huma17 Don't we live by faith, huma17? For I would suggest that you really don't know anything at all. I don't mean this in an insult, but philosophically. Huma17 responded (in part) Lastly, belittling someone always shows that the one doing the belittling is really the one who lacks... Huma17 Please don't feel belittled. I am sorry if I offended. Really. My intent was to communicate that my saying "you really don't know anything at all" was philosophically based. Meaning, outside of a metaphysical interpretation of knowing, humankind has trouble proving it knows anything. I really hate personal attacks and I frankly apologize for writing in a way that sounded like one. I did not mean it as such. IJA, Shawn

Be true to your name and run.

First, I stand corrected on the Church purchasing the Salamander Letter. Apologies and thank you for the correction, Snow. Second, I really enjoyed the response from Huma17. It represents the quintessential elements of a faith-based dedication to a cause. What is truly interesting to me is some have this attitude and it is right on and of the Lord, while others possess it with the same fervor and wind up at the other end of a Waco or Jonestown. Understand, I'm not comparing the LDS Church practices to either, but I am making a comparison to the belief models people use to get through their religious day. Thanks again, Huma17.