Doctrine we agree on

[prisonchaplain]

I take great comfort in knowing that my marriage will last forever, and not until death do us part. I treat my hubby and our marriage differently knowing it will last beyond this life.

Eternal marriage may give you added motivation to make your marriage work well, but lifelong marriage does offer the same motivation. I'd suggest that We are much closer to each other on this matter than either of us are to society, with its "no fault divorce."

I struggle with this one, and I fully admit that it is an area in which I am still formulating my thoughts. One of the core principles of Christ's Gospel is agency. We must be free to choose good from evil. Given that, is it wise to pass laws which mandate moral choice? And if we do open that door, where does it stop? Eventually, someone will try and pass a law that will either stop me from doing something I view as moral, or to force me to do something that I view as immoral.

I oppose Blue Laws (businesses close on Sunday by law), and criminalizing homosexual behavior. But, I support traditional marriage and censorship of blatant pornography.

Murder is and should be against the law. How about abortion? Should we overturn Row v. Wade? What about adultery? Should it be illegal? How about fornication? Petting? Where is the line?

IMHO, abortion should be illegal. Society can come to a consensus that life begins at conception, and so unborn babies should be protected. Adultery should be a cause for unfavorable divorce rulings (i.e. the victim gets more generous support and greater rights to child custody). Petting should be a matter for families to decide. Common sense and past practice. It does not have to be all or nothing, or our roads would all be autobahns (no speed limits). Even Libertarians support traffic control.

On the flip side of the coin, what about banning prayer in school? What about forcing the Boy Scouts to allow gays as Scout Masters?

This may be heresy, but Clinton had a good compromise with the Equal Access doctrine. If you have a chess club, you have to allow a Bible or a Book of Mormon club. The Boy Scouts are a private association, and should not be forced to hire leaders who live contrary to the association's values.

As soon as we start passing laws to stop things we find immoral, the door is open, and eventually there will be a law to do the opposite.

Janice

This is an example of the Slippery Slope Fallacy. The argument is that if you control anything you eventually control everything. It just ain't so. Every law is a statement of morality. It's immoral to drive more than 20MPH in a school zone because doing so is dangerous. But, do you believe that if we control speed limits, then soon the government will mandate baptisms for the dead? Absurd.

In general, though, I do agree that when it comes to laws that are mostly motivated by spiritual rationale, it does become harder and harder to support imposing them on a pluralistic society.

[Janice]

Thank you prisonchaplain. You have given me much to think about. I am glad you are here and participating. Having these kinds of dialogs with people of other faiths is so wonderfully enlightening. I would say more, but we are having the Elders over with an investigator, and I need to clean!!

Janice

[Traveler]

My branch of Christianity (Arminian) agrees. It is possible to fall from grace. Those that espouse "Eternal Security," "Presdestination," or "the perserverance of the saints," disagree.

I was most interested in your opinion - and if you are interested in discussing details.

The Traveler

[Traveler]

...... What about adultery? Should it be illegal?

......

Janice

I vote for adultery being illegal. I do not believe a thief does the damage to children and the economy of a family that adultery does. I do not understand why anyone would consider trusting someone willing to justify adultry for politics, for business, for religion or anything else. There are few things more destructive in any setting than someone that binds themselves by law, by honor and by love and then deliberately and willfully completely violates that trust.

The Traveler

Edited February 10, 2009 by Traveler

[prisonchaplain]

I was most interested in your opinion - and if you are interested in discussing details.

The Traveler

It is certainly possible to fall from grace. However, it's not easy. In another thread, there was debate about whether Peter was a Son of Perdition, because of his thrice denial of Jesus. The argument against is that Peter was not yet truly converted, because he had not received the gift of the Holy Ghost, by the laying on of hands. I'd argue that Peter and Judas were both converted, and that both sinned horribly. Yet, while the sin placed them in a dangerous state, it was the response to sin that determined the outcome. Peter, who's responsibility was greater since he was one of the three, repented. He humbled himself, faced Jesus, obeyed his command to feed the sheep, and submitted to a life that Jesus had prophesied would end in crucifixion. Judas, though deeply saddened by his sin, did not humble himself. Instead, in a final act of rebellion, he killed himself. God is the ultimate judge, but Jesus intimated that it would have been better for Judas to have never been born.

So, we agree that it is possible to fall from grace. We can sin, we can fail to repent, and we can renounce our salvation. But, the Good News is that God will chase after us. It's not the error that ultimately condemns, but the rebellion and pride that accompany it, and direct us away from repenting and reconciling.

[FunkyTown]

As (Almost) always, I agree with PC!

[Traveler]

It is certainly possible to fall from grace. However, it's not easy. In another thread, there was debate about whether Peter was a Son of Perdition, because of his thrice denial of Jesus. The argument against is that Peter was not yet truly converted, because he had not received the gift of the Holy Ghost, by the laying on of hands. I'd argue that Peter and Judas were both converted, and that both sinned horribly. Yet, while the sin placed them in a dangerous state, it was the response to sin that determined the outcome. Peter, who's responsibility was greater since he was one of the three, repented. He humbled himself, faced Jesus, obeyed his command to feed the sheep, and submitted to a life that Jesus had prophesied would end in crucifixion. Judas, though deeply saddened by his sin, did not humble himself. Instead, in a final act of rebellion, he killed himself. God is the ultimate judge, but Jesus intimated that it would have been better for Judas to have never been born.

So, we agree that it is possible to fall from grace. We can sin, we can fail to repent, and we can renounce our salvation. But, the Good News is that God will chase after us. It's not the error that ultimately condemns, but the rebellion and pride that accompany it, and direct us away from repenting and reconciling.

I brought up this point because I believe it is the greatest challenge of life. It has been my experience that every one that lives have a spiritual epiphany that draws them towards divine and g-dly pursuits. Sort of the parable of the sewer – the seed is available to all.

I am very interested in those that make the journey of salvation a lifelong pursuit. I love characters like Joseph, Daniel, Samuel, Nephi and others that complete every challenge.

I am also impressed in the “Paul” characters that have an experience and their life is forever changed and altered as they become relentless followers of a higher ideal.

The LDS view is that conversion is a beginning and not the end. Dating, marriage, family, service in our communities, helping those that need help, being an example and letting G-d’s light shine through us is our destiny and lot in life. In other words, being Christ like is not about us. It is not a me thing or my salvation or my reward.

Being a Christian is the giving of one’s self as a sacrifice for others; Jesus Christ as the ultimate example. Everything else is a failure to appreciate his compassion and grace or as you said "falling from grace" or in other words "failing his grace".

The Traveler

[Justice]

Originally Posted by prisonchaplain

3. Marriages should last through this lifetime (vs. forever).

Could you give more explanation on what you mean by this one?

Bump.

[prisonchaplain]

Originally Posted by prisonchaplain

3. Marriages should last through this lifetime (vs. forever).

Bump.

My point was simply that both of our faith traditions believe that healthy marriages, strong marriages, long-lasting marriages are not only socially healthy, but spiritually ordained. God hates divorce, and when he permits it, somebody's hard heart was the reason.

In contrast, much of Hollywood believes that adultery is no big deal, and a good portion of society is convinced that marriage is only useful if it makes one happy, and can be discarded as easily as a vehicle or house that no longer pleases.

[Justice]

Ahhh

It sounded like you were implying eternal marriage.

[prisonchaplain]

Justice, my intent (clumsily put together) was to show that though our doctrine on marriage is different (lifelong vs. eternity), we agree on what marriage should look like, and how important it is, in this life.

By the way, Traveler, if I'm reading your last post correctly, we agree.

Edited February 11, 2009 by prisonchaplain

[Janice]

In another thread, there was debate about whether Peter was a Son of Perdition, because of his thrice denial of Jesus.

I would have liked to've been in on this discussion.

I have heard it debated that when Christ said to Peter, "this night, before the cock crow, thou shalt deny me thrice" he was issuing not a prophesy, but a commandment. Christ knew that if Peter did not deny Him that his life would be in danger, and He needed Peter around to "feed his sheep". If this is the case, Peter did not sin at all, but was obedient despite how much it pained him. He later wept bitterly not because of the guilt of a sinner, but because of the overall weight of the events.

Interesting idea, anyways.

At any rate, if it was an act of sin rather then obedience, Peter's sin was no where close to being that of Judas's.

... one must assume that 'denied' is used in the narrow sense of renouncing, and not in the more general sense of 'setting aside' the Book of Mormon in practice, though passively knowing it true. For instance, it is popularly said that Peter 'denied' Christ, one of Johnson's examples. In reality Peter did not deny Christ's divinity, for that was not in question—but he vehemently declined to be linked with Jesus at the high priest's house. Peter's 'denial' by disassociating himself from Christ is parallel to Oliver's disassociation from the Book of Mormon by not actively promoting it for a time. Comments on the Book of Mormon Witnesses: A Response to Jerald and Sandra Tanner - Matthew Roper - Journal of Book of Mormon Studies - Volume 2 - Issue 2

Janice