Thankfulness Project, Day 13, Sunday Epiphanies

Thankfulness Project, Day 13

November 13, 2011, Sunday

I'm thankful for Little Caesar's Hot and Ready Pizza- it's cheap (costs 5 bucks) and you don't have to order ahead. It's a lifesaver on days where I feel too weak (today, after my sick weekend) or need a break. And my kids love it. Petty? Maybe. But sometimes, it's the little things that count.

*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*

Sunday Epiphanies

Now, to be clear- I DID NOT WRITE THIS.

This is a letter that was sent to Pastor Jeffress following his remarks about Presidential Candidate, Mitt Romney, who happens to share my religion.

My sharing this letter, for the record, has NOTHING to do with whether or not I support Mitt Romney IN his endeavors, however, I do applaud the eloquent way this man was able to describe the discrepancies in Pastor Jeffress' misinterpretation of our religion. It's highly admirable. Too many people already have these same misunderstandings, without the help of someone in a position of power to blow them even further out of proportion.

MY goal is not to convert, necessarily, but to stop prejudices in their tracks. I resent being told I am not a Christian, and if you don't believe the way I do, I honestly respect that. But I'll tell you what- in all my nearly 30 years of activity in the church, in all the different wards and stakes and meetings I've been to, in nearly a dozen different states and two countries, never once have I ever heard anyone get up and preach against another religion. We teach about OUR religion and about OUR beliefs, not about how horrible other people are or how cult like other religions are. Never have I heard an authority figure shout "BEWARE THOSE OTHER CHRISTIANS!" or tell us not to vote for a person because they are of a certain belief. It astounds me that other religions would find it appropriate to do so themselves. Why? Unless you are threatened by it, and even then, WHY try to diminish another religion that is in no way doing harm to anyone? It's one of those things that makes me lose respect, rather than gain it. Only a few will be "sheep" enough to fall for Jeffress' ignorant remarks. MORE will take the opportunity to research and discover what's REALLY going on here. I hope my readers are those people.

As always, I am extremely happy to welcome any questions you may have.

*~*~*~*~*~*~*

Dear Pastor Jeffress (of First Baptist Dallas),

I’m just one of the millions of people who saw and heard on TV news shows your statements that “Mormonism is a cult” and “not a part of orthodox Christianity”. As a faithful lifelong member of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints I felt a strong reaction to those statements, as you might imagine. My remarks here are only my personal thoughts, but I assure you they are heartfelt.

My reaction was twofold. First, I saw your remarks as an unfortunate “below-the-belt” swipe at Mitt Romney in the hopes of advancing your own favorite political candidate. While you certainly have the right to do that, I think many Americans join me in feeling that such a move was beneath a prominent religious leader such as yourself.

Second, as a devoted believer and follower of Jesus Christ I was saddened that you felt the need to speak out against my faith and beliefs. I’m sure there are those who think it was done with malice, but I’ll try to do the Christ-like thing and give you the benefit of the doubt. Perhaps you’ve just been misinformed about “Mormonism” as many others have been.

But it might surprise you to learn that I actually agree with part of what you said, although perhaps for different reasons than you might imagine.

You said that Mitt Romney is “not a Christian” (and by association myself and the other six million-plus Americans who are Latter-day Saints). But I believe you need to be more specific. There are many different kinds or “flavors” of Christians. I agree that the LDS people are not Baptist Christians or Evangelical Christians or Catholic Christians, etc. I will even agree that we’re not part of “orthodox” or “traditional” flavor of Christianity, if by that you mean the post-Nicene church that became the “universal” or “catholic” version of Christendom.

I believe my faith to be the original church of the Corinthians, the Ephesians, and yes, those who were first called Christians in Antioch, - that same church now restored in these latter days. So I call myself a “latter-day Christian", with theological roots that precede the “historical” or “orthodox” version that was the product of the various councils and creeds. That “orthodoxy” eventually became so corrupt and so apostate that the Reformers broke away from it in protest of its having “fallen away” from Biblical truths (2 Thess. 2) and “changed the ordinances” (Isa. 24:5) so that the “faith once delivered to the saints” (Jude 1:3) was no longer recognizable as the church that Jesus organized.

There were many enlightened Christian thinkers and theologians in history who, like Joseph Smith, believed that Christianity had become apostate and that a restoration of the New Testament church of Christ was necessary. John Wesley the founder of Methodism wrote:
It does not appear that these extraordinary gifts of the Holy Ghost were common in the Church for more than two or three centuries. We seldom hear of them after that fatal period when the Emperor Constantine called himself a Christian; . . . From this time they almost totally ceased; . . . The Christians had no more of the Spirit of Christ than the other Heathens . . . . This was the real cause why the extraordinary gifts of the Holy Ghost were no longer to be found in the Christian Church; because the Christians were turned Heathens again, and had only a dead form left.
The Works of John Wesley, vol. 7, pp.26-27

As I’m sure you well know, John Smythe the founder of the Baptists first left his position as a Church of England minister and joined the Separatists, but then dissolved his congregation to re-form it as the first General Baptist church among English expatriates in Amsterdam in 1609. He felt that the “historic” or “orthodox” Christianity of his time had wandered astray, especially with regard to the apostate doctrine of infant baptism. Those first Baptists were considered a “cult” by many Protestants in the “traditional” Christian denominations that persecuted them unmercifully.

Around 1640, Roger Williams of Providence, Rhode Island, founder of the first Baptist church in America refused to continue as pastor on the grounds that there was:

… no regularly‑constituted church on earth, nor any person authorized to administer any Church ordinance: nor could there be until new apostles are sent by the great Head of the Church, for whose coming, I am seeking.
(Picturesque America, or the Land We Live In, ed. William Cullen Bryant, New York: D. Appleton and Co., 1872, vol. 1, p. 502.)

If I understand your words correctly your definition of a Christian (and that of most Evangelicals) is a pretty narrow one, far different from the standard meaning found in most dictionaries. Personally I think anyone who accepts Jesus Christ as the Only Begotten Son of God and as his/her personal Savior who died for our sins and was bodily resurrected on the third day is a Christian. C.S. Lewis described such people as “mere” Christians.

But your narrow definition would exclude anyone who:
1. Does not believe in a closed canon of the 66 books of the Protestant Bible.
2. Does not accept the Nicene Creed as an accurate description of the nature of God the Father, His Son Jesus Christ, and the Holy Ghost.
3. Believes in living prophets and apostles as the “foundation” of Christ’s earthly church.
4. Believes in continuing revelation from God to man.

I could go on. I’m very familiar with the standard arguments against “Mormonism”.

But the Bible says that believers in Christ were first called Christians at Antioch (Acts 11:26). I would respectfully submit that those Christians:
1. Did not believe in a closed canon of scripture. (some of the New Testament had not yet been written.)
2. Did not accept the Nicene Creed as an accurate description of the nature of God the Father, His Son Jesus Christ, and the Holy Ghost. (it would not be written for 300 years)
3. Believed in living apostles and prophets as the “foundation” of Christ’s earthly church.
4. Believed in continuing revelation from God to man.

So if you’re going to say that Mitt and I are not Christians based on those reasons, you’ll have to say that the believers in Antioch were not Christians either according to your definition.

You said in your Hardball interview that “Mormonism” is a “cult” because:
1. “Mormonism came 1800 years after Jesus Christ”
2. “Mormonism has its own human leader, Joseph Smith”
3. “it has its own set of doctrines”
4. “it has its own religious book, The Book of Mormon, in addition to the Bible”

Your exact following words were: “and so by that definition it is a theological cult”. You made a weak distinction between a theological cult and a sociological one, but most people will not even notice that fine differentiation. It was obvious to any sophisticated viewer that your main goal was to keep repeating the word “cult”. It’s such an inflammatory buzz word that I’m sure your goal is to use it as often as you can to scare people away from “Mormonism” without seriously considering our theology and our beliefs. It’s a word used to end or avoid discussion, not to foster it. As a Latter-day Saint I welcome the opportunity to “stand ready to give a reason for the faith that is in me”, but those who sling around the word “cult” with respect to The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints seek to cut off debate rather than to encourage dialog. It’s as though they are afraid of an open and honest discussion.

But following your own definition of “cult” for a moment, I’d like to respectfully submit that:
1. Roman Catholicism came 300 years after Jesus Christ.
2. Roman Catholicism has its own human leader, the Pope (or Peter if you accept the Catholic claims that he was the first Pope)
3. Roman Catholicism has its own set of doctrines (Mariology, transubstantiation, priestly celibacy, veneration of “saints”, indulgences, etc.)
4. Roman Catholicism has its own religious books (9 deuterocanonical more than those found in the Protestant Bible – also used in Eastern Orthodox churches)

And even your own Baptist flavor of Christianity in some ways fits your definition of what makes a cult;
1. “Baptistism” came 1609 years after Jesus Christ
2. “Baptistism” had its own human leader John Smythe – a Church of England minister (see footnote below from the website of the Baptist History and Heritage Society)
3. “Baptistism” had its own unique doctrines, including the “believer’s baptism” of adults.
4. “Baptistism” was considered a cult by the “orthodox” or “traditional” or “historic” Christian denominations of the time. In fact Baptists suffered severe persecution from other Christians who believed in the “mainline” doctrine of infant baptism prevalent in that era. Thousands of Baptists were martyred for baptizing adults.

One of the dictionary definitions of a cult is that is a small isolated group that is out of the mainstream. That certainly does not apply to my church. The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is the fourth largest religion in America, and the second largest Christian church in Washington, Oregon, and California (after Catholicism). You mentioned that there are 15 million Southern Baptists. By 2012 at the present rate of growth there will be more Latter-day Saints than that.

Pastor Jeffress, in order to be consistent and truthful you would have to admit that the same definition you’ve used to brand “Mormonism” a cult applies at least in part to Roman Catholicism and “Baptistism” as well. Are you willing to say that on national television? I would hope so. I would hope that you’d want to be totally consistent and truthful.

Thank you for your time. I’m attaching a summary I wrote of what I believe happened to “the faith once delivered to the saints”. There was a great apostacy that fundamentally changed the New Testament church of Jesus Christ into something so different that those Christians at Antioch or Peter or Paul would not have recognized it in the Dark Ages that came upon the earth. (Amos 8:12) That apostacy required the “restitution of all things” prophesied in Acts 3:21 to occur before Christ’s return. That restitution or restoration of original Biblical Christianity was what was looked forward to by Roger Williams.

I testify to you that that restoration has come, and the original Christianity is back on the earth in its fullness as The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. If you would like to investigate these claims I’ll be happy to “bring forth my strong reasons” for “the faith that is in me.” I would welcome a thoughtful dialog.

Cordially yours,

Robert Starling
A Latter-day Christian

(footnote to above reference to John Smyth)
BHHS -- Baptist Beginnings http://www.baptisthistory.org/baptistbeginnings.htm

The first General Baptist church, led by John Smyth, was founded in Amsterdam, Holland, in 1608/09. Its members were English refugees who had fled England to escape religious persecution. John Smyth was a minister in the Church of England. As a student and later as a pastor and teacher. … By 1608/09, Smyth was convinced his Separatist church was not valid. Most of the members had only infant baptism, and the church was formed on the basis of a "covenant," rather than a confession of faith in Christ. Smyth therefore led the church to disband in 1608/09 and re-form on a new basis–a personal confession of faith in Christ, followed by believer’s baptism. Since none of the members had been baptized as believers, Smyth had to make a new beginning. He baptized himself and then baptized the others. His baptism was by sprinkling or pouring, but it was for believers only.

*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*

Like my blog? Please vote for me by clicking the button for Top Mommy Blogs! Thanks!

Sunday's Sonnet

" It is Finished"

"Why Weepest Thou?"


"Hope"

In honor of Easter, and the glorious resurrection of my Lord and Savior, Jesus Christ, who died for our sins, and was raised again to give us eternal life.

John Donne

Sonnet #72.

DEATH be not proud, though some have called thee
Mighty and dreadfull, for, thou art not so,
For, those, whom thou think'st, thou dost overthrow,
Die not, poore death, nor yet canst thou kill me.
From rest and sleepe, which but thy pictures bee, 5
Much pleasure, then from thee, much more must flow,
And soonest our best men with thee doe goe,
Rest of their bones, and soules deliverie.
Thou art slave to Fate, Chance, kings, and desperate men,
And dost with poyson, warre, and sicknesse dwell, 10
And poppie, or charmes can make us sleepe as well,
And better then thy stroake; why swell'st thou then;
One short sleepe past, wee wake eternally,
And death shall be no more; death, thou shalt die.

** All paintings by Liz Lemon Swindle

I hate it when I'm wrong

But obviously I'm human. So I'm wrong a lot. Especially lately.

Without going into detail about how my life has sucked lately, in every sense of the word- financially, emotionally, physically, etc- I have to admit that I have been completely blind.

I happen to be a very religious person, I'm LDS, and I don't believe in coincidences. I believe that God has everything in His control, and that our lives are like stories. He knows how it will end, He knows what choices we will make, and while he cannot interfere with our Free Agency, He has his hand in it all. It's a plot. Things are set up so far in advance so that the climax and denouement come together in sync and rhythm and meaning. And I, in no way, am implying that we are God's playthings.

(For a really excellent essay on this, please visit http://findingthemiddledistance.blogspot.com/2010/03/separating-from-suck.html I am pretty sure that this post is about me, as she was the first person that I called to unload my massive amounts of anger-at-God on. She always has the perfect thing to say, and always puts my life into perspective.)

I have never been very in control of my emotions. I have a hard time keeping my mouth shut, especially if I'm able to put it into written word (or type it, as it were.) and I know how I am supposed to behave, both socially and religiously.

You know how you always hear these great stories about men and women in the scriptures who obeyed God and didn't even complain when they were faced with trials and tribulation a thousand times worse than my own. The stories of Sarah, who waited 90 years to have a child, and Rachael, whose husband loved her best, and yet her sister was the one who gave him son after son after son. I have little right to feel sorry for myself. (Though, my bitterness is only in small part connected to my desire for a child. There are other things that just make the stress of it so much more intense.)

And yet, I have zero idea how to change the way I feel. I don't know how to not be jealous. I don't know how to feel peace, to calm my nerves. I can keep my mouth shut, and not complain about things. I'm sure I can do that. (It's very possible that my head might physically explode, but I'm sure i could do it.) I do not know, though, how to change the way I feel. How can I change my behavior, the way that I approach things, if I cannot change the way i feel? And I have wondered, sometimes out loud, lately, what exactly IS wrong with complaining? I feel crappy. Why can't i just throw it out there and say it like it is?

Today, I ranted on the phone to my husband, soooo infinitely more patient with me and my hopeless shortcomings than I am with his. And I really finally heard myself talking. I heard how i sounded. I heard how ungrateful I was being, and how I was overlooking every miracle, every tender mercy, and every answered prayer (and there has been no shortage in the last year and a half.) I was seeing all our problems and wondering why we weren't being blessed with the things we are promised because of our faith and obedience, so overwhelmed with what I WANTED that I didn't stop to notice that we WERE being blessed, more abundantly than we deserved, because we were always given what we needed to survive, and to thrive.

And I had to take a step back, and change my thoughts. I have to be calm, and I have to TRUST. Because everything will be okay in the end. If it's not okay, it's not the end.

So, I'm asking Him- "Help thou my unbelief."

So many things i have in my life. My beautiful, brilliant children. My home, my family. Every time we get some kind of financial windfall, something falls apart. And we spend the money on the broken thing instead of what I sometimes feel would be a much needed vacation, or to pay off debt. This is NOT supposed to be annoying, it is a tender mercy. It is protection. It's God's hand in my life, to make things fair. To set things up. To take care of me, and my children.

The part that still sucks, and will always suck, because I hate not knowing what is going on, is that I will never know what's coming. I will try to have faith and I will try to be fearless. But I don't know how my story ends. And that freaks me the heck out.

Touchy Topic Tuesday- God and constitutional rights?

First of all, I have to say that I am SO SORRY for not spreading around any comment love for the last few days! I have not been able to be online all that much, but I appreciate your comments, and will try UBER hard to do better in the future!

Also, if you don't mind, PLEASE vote for my blog by clicking on the TOP MOMMY BLOG button on my left sidebar. I'm currently #6. I would LOVE to be #1 this month!!!

*****************************************

Welcome to Touchy Topic Tuesday!

Today's Topic: God and the People's Constitutional Rights!

Let me start this out by saying that I am a member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints. As a rule, this means that I take my relationship with God and with Christ very seriously, though my SPECIFIC religion has nothing to do with this, it just has to do with ANY religion that believes in God and Christ. But be forewarned. The examples I may use will be pretty strictly LDS, because that is what I am and that is what I know and identify with.

I DO, wholeheartedly, believe in the separation of church and state, which, by definition is

*the idea that the government and religion should be separate, and not interfere in each other's affairs. In the United States, this idea is based on the First Amendment to the US Constitution, which states that the government cannot make any laws to establish a state religion or prohibit the free exercise of religion.

Essentially, this prohibits the government to demand that all the people in the United States follow a certain form of religion. (For the type of devastation this can actually cause, please study up on British history.)

The Separation of Church and State also prohibits religious leaders from stepping up and taking over the government. This is not to say that a religious leader should not be allowed to run for president. If he were willing and able to keep his religion from running the government, then all things would be well. However, I do see this as a conflict of interest, and I think it would be difficult.

That being said, I do not believe that a person should be required to put aside their beliefs and their religion and what they have been taught and feel is right, if it pertains to God, when they vote. Doing so is NOT part of the Separation Of Church and State, in fact, it goes directly against the first amendment, which reads:

**Amendment 1 - Freedom of Religion, Press, Expression. Ratified 12/15/1791. Note

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

There is absolutely nothing in the first amendment, which supports the Separation of Church and State, saying that a church cannot petition the government to change a law that dissatisfies them. There is nothing here saying that people who believe, because of anything, INCLUDING their religion, have to accept a law that is undesirable.

Furthermore, while it does not give religious leaders the right to run the government, it DOES give them the right to ASSEMBLE PEACEABLY- which, essentially means that they CAN rightfully request that their members vote a certain way.

In the whole history of my church, I do not ever recall our leaders asking us to vote in a certain way, only to pray about our decision and to actually VOTE and take responsibility in our glorious free country. UNTIL the onset of California's Proposition 8 in 2008, where they asked members of the church residing in California to vote yes for the bill stating:

***Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California

As a member of the LDS church, and one who did not vote on this because I am not, and never have been, a legal resident of California, I have been the subject of much personal ridicule about my religion, and my church leaders and their "unconstitutional act" and their disregard for the idea of "Separation of Church and State" because they donated a large sum of money to the campaign against gay marriage, when in fact, when a person understands in full the definition of both the First Amendment and the definition of the Separation of Church and State, the leaders of my church never overstepped their bounds.

And yet, I have not reached my point.

Everywhere one turns, one sees the influence of people- be they Atheists or Agnostics- who do not believe in God, claiming that the use of God's name in our schools, on our money, in our Pledge of Allegiance, in our newspapers and daily conversations are infringing on their constitutional rights NOT to believe in God.

I happen to belong to several chat boards, both for my blog and for my parenting, and birth boards. Daily I see one or more claim to this. Someone may mention a scripture passage, or ask for prayers for a sick child or family member. Nearly all of these types of posts are harmless, faith filled responses to a situation where no one is proselyting or suggesting someone join their religion lest they go to Hell. In fact, many of these comments are simple answers to a question such as, for example, a thread called "Pre-marital Sex: What do you think about it?" If one should mention that morally and religiously, they think it is wrong, they are immediately bombarded with posts requesting that they not force their religious beliefs onto that person because they don't believe in God, or that a person's view on a political topic is invalid because they are using God as their moral compass, instead of their compassion for human beings, or that it's invalid because they are not employing the idea of Separation of Church and State (which is a false claim, as mentioned above.) In every instance, these people claim that those people who are rightfully displaying and utilising their belief in God are robbing the unbelievers of their right to live without hindrance of accountability to a higher being.

My question is: Where are our rights? You have successfully eliminated God from our Schools and very much of society. The first Amendment, while I personally feel it it obvious that it also supports those who choose NO religion as well as those who DO choose one, gives us the RIGHT to put our prayers, and our scriptures out there! Stated securely in the constitution, it is said that they may NOT REVOKE THE FREEDOMS OF SPEECH OR PRESS! In essence, NO ONE may tell us that we are hindering anyone's rights because we choose to pray, and then write or talk about it. No one may tell us that we are hindering rights because we VOTE based on the moral ways we feel because of our knowledge gained through religion.

There is NO valid comment that a person can make in stating that a person's constitutional rights are being tramped on because a person with a belief in God has chosen to divulge their belief. The Separation of Church and state is not meant to remove God from every aspect of our lives and keep it hidden deep inside the walls of churches and out of our voting and our conversations, it is MEANT to protect the rights of those who chose to BE religious.

*Courtesy of www.historycentral.com

**Courtesy of www.usconstitution.net

***Courtesy of www.wikipedia.org

So what do you think? Do YOU feel that someone who talks about their God and religion is overstepping their bounds when talking to you? Why do you feel that your rights are more valid than theirs? Do you believe that a person should be allowed to freely express their belief in God? Let me know! And I know this is a HEAVY topic. We're moving up. Remember to PLAY NICE. Mean, personal attacks will be deleted. That's a warning. Keep it civil.