AnthonyB

Not being a Mormon...What about this one??
You might be a Mormon, if you wonder what God's mother-in-laws name is!

Mordorbund,
 
There are three views on millennium held by traditional Christians
 
Premillennialism- the most common view amongst evangelicals, Jesus returns before the millennial reign.
7 year tribulation which Jesus returns either at the start, middle of end of, then the millennial reign (ie 1000 years), after that the final judgment.
 
Postmillennialism - very common in 19th century, where over a 1000 year period things get better and better (ie more Christians., more Christian like society) and then Jesus returns
 
 
Amillenialism -holds that the millennium is symbolic language and there is no literal 1000 year reign on earth. Jesus is reigning now in heaven and one day Jesus will return, there will be the final judgment and there will be a new heaven and new earth.
 
I believe the last one best accounts for the biblical evidence but it has a lot to do with how you read Revelation. ie In my opinion an Apocalypse has to be read as part of that genre and not a book of literal history of events but a book of symbolic retelling in various repeated examples of what the kingdom of God is like. It should be viewed something like a impressionist painting, don't obsess over the placement or meaning of individual dots but stand back and marvel at the whole pictures it creates of Jesus victory over evil

A reasonable concise discussion of amill
 
http://www.religionfacts.com/christianity/beliefs/amillennialism
 
The millennium is now, Jesus is already reigning, he just hasn't extended his rule fully to earth.
There will be a judgment at the 2nd coming, those outside of covenant with Jesus will be excluded from God's presence.
Those in covenant will be in the new heaven and new earth.
 
I also do not believe in a literal pit of fire, as a physical flame roasting people. I don't think God will inflict physical pain on people. He will just remove the grace of His constraint on peoples evil desires and actions. People will burn with unchecked desires and evil actions. They will get what they want but in doing so will create a godless hell. Evil will be unquenched and there will be no check on it from God.

It may be that in the New Testament era Greek philosophy had an out-sized influence on Christian writings.  Today I would suggest that therapy does.  So much religious teaching seems geared to comfort and re-assure.
 
Now those are both quips.  There is great value in philosophy and psychology.  However, they ought to serve our understanding of God, not guide it. 

Mordorbund,
 
There are three views on millennium held by traditional Christians
 
Premillennialism- the most common view amongst evangelicals, Jesus returns before the millennial reign.
7 year tribulation which Jesus returns either at the start, middle of end of, then the millennial reign (ie 1000 years), after that the final judgment.
 
Postmillennialism - very common in 19th century, where over a 1000 year period things get better and better (ie more Christians., more Christian like society) and then Jesus returns
 
 
Amillenialism -holds that the millennium is symbolic language and there is no literal 1000 year reign on earth. Jesus is reigning now in heaven and one day Jesus will return, there will be the final judgment and there will be a new heaven and new earth.
 
I believe the last one best accounts for the biblical evidence but it has a lot to do with how you read Revelation. ie In my opinion an Apocalypse has to be read as part of that genre and not a book of literal history of events but a book of symbolic retelling in various repeated examples of what the kingdom of God is like. It should be viewed something like a impressionist painting, don't obsess over the placement or meaning of individual dots but stand back and marvel at the whole pictures it creates of Jesus victory over evil

My parish has about 400 families. Weekly offerings go towards parish needs. Utilities, ministries, paying our pastors, church upkeep, etc. The diocese does a fund drive every year that supports things that are financed by the diocese, such as schools, seminarians and ministries.
There are requests for special offerings, such as visiting charitable ministries that serve around the world in various ways, to support disaster relief, churches in Jerusalem, the ministries of the Vatican, etc.
Churches not having tax exempt status I would think affect property more than anything. Even in our small backwater diocese, there is a fair amount of church property, not ony for churches, but schools, food kitchens, relief services, administrative buildings, etc. Some very large dioceses in the US would be hit very hard if they had to pay property tax.

JAG, the church I attend is on the small side (roughly 160 in attendance each Sunday).  There is a rainy day fund, and we do not often have to make desperate appeals for money.  However, monies go to our two paid ministers, and our secretary, to upkeep of the facility, to missionaries we support, to maintaining our food and clothing banks, etc.  How losing tax exempt status would effect us, or other church is an open question.  The direct hit (property taxes probably) would not be so great.  However, sadly, I'm wondering how many would reduce their giving once they realize they could not claim the gifts on their taxes.  It should not matter, and maybe it would not.  However, most religious organizations have those who are immature, or weak, in their faith.  So, again, it's an open question.  On the up side, government could no longer intimidate us about political involvement, so the end result might be liberating.

Donations to churches are not tax deductible in Australia. Only to registered charities which work on charitable work not religious activities.
Min 10% of money in a the church I currently attend goes to foreign missions.
Separate donation is given for special Christmas present, which generally goes to large project overseas.
Also do separate offering once a month for local support of people.
We did have a tax exempt for building  works that were used for education purposes (eg sunday schools) but this has been recently removed.

A reasonable concise discussion of amill
 
http://www.religionfacts.com/christianity/beliefs/amillennialism
 
The millennium is now, Jesus is already reigning, he just hasn't extended his rule fully to earth.
There will be a judgment at the 2nd coming, those outside of covenant with Jesus will be excluded from God's presence.
Those in covenant will be in the new heaven and new earth.
 
I also do not believe in a literal pit of fire, as a physical flame roasting people. I don't think God will inflict physical pain on people. He will just remove the grace of His constraint on peoples evil desires and actions. People will burn with unchecked desires and evil actions. They will get what they want but in doing so will create a godless hell. Evil will be unquenched and there will be no check on it from God.

FWIW I vaguely remember a high school Bible camp in which an LDS young lady had come (it was a denominational week-long youth event, so apparently she had permission to be there) and gone to the altar for salvation (conversion). She was joyful, emotional, but clear in her understanding that she was accepting Jesus into her heart--something she apparently did not feel she had done to that point. On the one hand, she was underage. On the other, her family let her come to the camp. As IrishColleen said, I'm sure that the youth pastor of the church that brought her would want to see her grow--meaning develop a strong Christian life and practice. I'm also sure he communicated with deference and respect for the girl's parents. I'm not sure what anyone here would say, other than to hope that the church staff, and the girl's friends, will be as sensitive and respectful of the LDS parents as possible. The parents may even tell the girl she can't go to that church or be that child's friend anymore. While that would probably not be wise, given most older teen's feeling of autonomy, I could see many Evangelical parents panicking, if the situation were reversed, and taking that kind of action. The worst possible outcome is that the young convert become so discouraged over how the adults on both sides react, that she decides none of it is true. So, walk carefully, prayerfully, humbly, respectfully, and keep loving the young lady, regardless of how this plays out.

IrishColleen,
 
My guess is that her parents would react rather like a Baptist parent would if their children became LDS, Bahai or JW (for example). I'm guessing nominal LDS parents would react differently then more faithful LDS parents. Also given the historic aminosity between LDS and traditional Christians, there may be a part of teenage differentiation as part of the response.
 
There can be conflict caused by choices between traditional Christians groups yet alone for choices outside your own sphere.

Mordorbund,
 
There are three views on millennium held by traditional Christians
 
Premillennialism- the most common view amongst evangelicals, Jesus returns before the millennial reign.
7 year tribulation which Jesus returns either at the start, middle of end of, then the millennial reign (ie 1000 years), after that the final judgment.
 
Postmillennialism - very common in 19th century, where over a 1000 year period things get better and better (ie more Christians., more Christian like society) and then Jesus returns
 
 
Amillenialism -holds that the millennium is symbolic language and there is no literal 1000 year reign on earth. Jesus is reigning now in heaven and one day Jesus will return, there will be the final judgment and there will be a new heaven and new earth.
 
I believe the last one best accounts for the biblical evidence but it has a lot to do with how you read Revelation. ie In my opinion an Apocalypse has to be read as part of that genre and not a book of literal history of events but a book of symbolic retelling in various repeated examples of what the kingdom of God is like. It should be viewed something like a impressionist painting, don't obsess over the placement or meaning of individual dots but stand back and marvel at the whole pictures it creates of Jesus victory over evil

As a non LDS poster, the reason I like this forum is that LDS so often come to scripture from such a different perspective.
I enjoy the comparisons and exchange of ideas.
 
As an example, I am now much more appreciative of Jesus suffering in the garden, then before talking to LDS. .

A reasonable concise discussion of amill
 
http://www.religionfacts.com/christianity/beliefs/amillennialism
 
The millennium is now, Jesus is already reigning, he just hasn't extended his rule fully to earth.
There will be a judgment at the 2nd coming, those outside of covenant with Jesus will be excluded from God's presence.
Those in covenant will be in the new heaven and new earth.
 
I also do not believe in a literal pit of fire, as a physical flame roasting people. I don't think God will inflict physical pain on people. He will just remove the grace of His constraint on peoples evil desires and actions. People will burn with unchecked desires and evil actions. They will get what they want but in doing so will create a godless hell. Evil will be unquenched and there will be no check on it from God.

Mordorbund,
 
There are three views on millennium held by traditional Christians
 
Premillennialism- the most common view amongst evangelicals, Jesus returns before the millennial reign.
7 year tribulation which Jesus returns either at the start, middle of end of, then the millennial reign (ie 1000 years), after that the final judgment.
 
Postmillennialism - very common in 19th century, where over a 1000 year period things get better and better (ie more Christians., more Christian like society) and then Jesus returns
 
 
Amillenialism -holds that the millennium is symbolic language and there is no literal 1000 year reign on earth. Jesus is reigning now in heaven and one day Jesus will return, there will be the final judgment and there will be a new heaven and new earth.
 
I believe the last one best accounts for the biblical evidence but it has a lot to do with how you read Revelation. ie In my opinion an Apocalypse has to be read as part of that genre and not a book of literal history of events but a book of symbolic retelling in various repeated examples of what the kingdom of God is like. It should be viewed something like a impressionist painting, don't obsess over the placement or meaning of individual dots but stand back and marvel at the whole pictures it creates of Jesus victory over evil