#mormonism research ministry | Explore Tumblr posts and blogs

chasinghalebopp · 4 months ago

Text

Native Ministries Meeting with Steve Huey

Steve Huey and Monte Church, both leaders in the Native Ministries division of the Washington Conference of Seventh-day Adventists recently paid me a visit for a little meeting. I had posted some things on my blog and they found it and were not too happy with me. As a result, some of the things I wrote were presented to me. I would like to reflect on that meeting here. During this meeting, I was told that according to Ellen White (who I do not accept as a prophet or holy figure of any kind), I was on the "road to damnation." Later on Steve Huey would reiterate this fact, as if he found enjoyment in it. I told him to stop contacting me, as I am tired of these all-important Adventist pastors telling me that I am lost or will not be able to enter into their little afterlife club. Steve Huey and Monte Church also seemed rather perturbed that I had written that I hope that my daughter never becomes a Seventh-day Adventist. The truth is, I hope and pray that my daughter never gets mixed up with that isolating and high-control church. It would be a nightmare for me to see her involved with it. Shortly after this meeting, I formally left the SDA church and will never go back. Having my name taken off the books was one of the most freeing things I ever did. Discovering that Ellen White was a liar was such a wake up call for me. My life was never the same. I could peel off years of abuse and religious control because I no longer saw her as an authority figure. Instead, she took her rightful place as an angry old woman who had been hit on the head with a rock and given too much power. I will say one thing that really opened my eyes was reading the book "Under the Banner of Heaven" and seeing how Adventism and Mormonism were basically cut from the same cloth. Ellen White is just another Joseph Smith. It's so interesting how so many prophets came about during that time, and how a few really took hold. The SDA church is what it is today because Ellen White took such a powerful hold upon it. It really is Mormonism 2.0. No, I have no respect for either Mormonism or the SDA church. They both are high-control religions that I would not wish on anyone. The other day I was in Port Angeles, WA, the home of pastor Jay Coon, who was another person who got me to question Adventism, and I saw a couple of Jehovah's Witnesses out there. I felt so bad for them. That's another high-control religion right there. And it's also cut from the same cloth as Adventism! Mary Baker Edy is another so-called Prophetess that did her dirty work and helped start a movement that is so wrapped in legalism and control. No thanks! Monte Church. Steve Huey. Jay Coon. Conrad Vine. These were people who tried to sway me back into Adventism. These men know that there is something truly wrong with their religion. Yet, they are all trapped by golden handcuffs. They can't leave, because to leave would to take a step back and be nothing. Conrad Vine, a walmart greeter. Steve Huey, cleanup on aisle 3. Monte Church, car wash attendant. Jay Coon, would you like fries with that? You see, outside of religion these folks don't have many prospects. They have what they do because they sold their souls for a lie. They must know that Adventism is a HUGE lie. They had their chance to research and to question. Yet, they continue to push that gravy train, hoping that whatever God lives beyond the shadows doesn't kick their lily white asses when the judgement comes. What you reap in this life you sow in the next. Lies about some wayward prophetess and controlling others isn't going to do anyone any favors. Get out gentlemen while you still have a chance!

#seventhdayadventist #religion #adventistfrontiermissions #sda #mormon #jehovah witness #mary baker eddy #ellen white #ellen g white #the great controversy

0 notes

lowkeynando · 2 years ago

Text

the Bible, but neglects or distorts the gospel". (3]

EMN aims to consolidate much of the scattered countercult movement and establish a ubiquitous mission strategy for movements they see as non-Christian or threatening to traditional Protestant Christianity. [4]

EMNR holds conferences about pertinent issues, publishes relevant materials, encourages networking between member groups, and makes recommendations of helpful agencies and materials that meet its standards. [4] The Institute for Religious Research (IRR) is an American Christian apologetics and counter-cult organization based in Cedar Springs, Michigan.

It declares itself to be a non-denominational, non-profit Christian foundation for the study of religious claims, [1] and was formerly known as Gospel Truths Ministries. [21 IRR is a member of Evangelical Ministries to New Religions and was headed by Luke P. Wilson [2] until his death in

2007.[1] IRR's current staff includes Robert M.

Bowman Jr. as executive director. [3]

Concurrent with the release of a film adaptation of Dan Brown's novel The Da Vinci Code, the Baptist Press noted IRR's Ronald V. Huggins and his apologetic analysis of the film. [4] Peggy Fletcher Stack, religion columnist for the Salt Lake Tribune discussed IRR and its documentary critique of the Book of Abraham, a document that devout Mormons believe is a divinely inspired sacred text but critics like the IRRs CLONES

1 note · View note

drunkexmormonsexplain-blog · 6 years ago

Text

So my dad posted an infuriating article on facebook...

Here's the link: https://www.thechurchnews.com/leaders-and-ministry/2019-01-22/what-to-do-with-your-questions-according-to-1-general-authority-whos-an-expert-on-anti-church-materials-48843

After reading this absolute garbage, I was so infuriated that in the height of pettiness I decided to write a 3 page rebuttal essay. Then I realized that as much as I want to stir shit with the Mormons, I don't actually want my dad to disown me. So I'm gonna post it here instead of on my dad's facebook. It's extremely rough and overwritten, but since I have no plans to revise it I'm just gonna let it into the wild. There are a few paragraphs where the wording is too poor to convince real diehards, but it should be convincing enough for my fellow exmos at least! LONG POST AHEAD

---

Valerie Johnson’s piece, “What to do with your questions”, covers LDS leader Elder Corbridge’s visit to a BYU campus and outlines his response to concerns many members of the church have about unsavory parts of its history and current practices. It’s an effective piece of LDS propaganda: a piece of media that obscures or inflates the truth in order to advance the beliefs of an organization. As we’ll see below, not only does the piece fail to address the valid concerns of many latter-day saints, but it also uses familiar techniques to undermine the importance of those concerns in the first place. The following outlines both the inaccuracies in Corbridge’s arguments and the subtle ways in which the article discourages LDS readers from thinking critically about the issues at hand.

Let’s start with the first question in the article. “The kingdom of God is the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, as described in the book of Daniel as standing forever. The question is, will you and I stand?” Corbridge/Johnson asks. While claims about the longevity of “God’s kingdom” are unprovable, it’s evident to any non-church-funded source that the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, at least, is dwindling. Church sources commonly claim that membership numbers are increasing, because they count all individuals who have been baptized but not ex-communicated. On the other hand, counting only active, financially-contributing members reveals that membership is declining sharply. Teens and adults who were raised in the church are leaving at a higher rate than ever. A large portion of the membership inflation reported by the church consists of individuals converted by missionaries as adults, who are counted as members until death although they often stop attending within a year.

From there, Johnson moves on to claim that attacks on the church are broad, including church doctrine that conflicts with “shifting attitudes of today”. This is a common phrase in LDS writing, used to encourage but not specifically state the idea that church doctrine, unlike the rest of the world’s social values, is permanent and unchanging. This is untrue, as many church teachings have changed with time, often shifting to become more in line with North American social norms. A famous and relatively recent example, alluded to in Johnson’s article, is the fact that black men were not allowed to receive the priesthood until 1978. Though there have been many apologetic explanations for this overdue change in doctrine, it’s hard to ignore the fact that its introduction coincided with a government warning that the church would only be able to keep its tax-free status if it got rid of its racist policies. With this and other examples, it’s clear that the church does have a historical precedent to alter teachings in order to keep up with society’s “shifting attitudes.” However, the way it’s phrased in the article contributes to the subconscious idea among many church members that society is at fault for becoming more progressive, not the church for its inability to keep up.

Changing church policy, a history of immoral doctrine, and dwindling membership statistics are only a few of the concerns plaguing modern Mormons. Corbridge and Johnson attempt to address this huge umbrella of issues with a simple response: “Answer the primary questions.” According to Corbridge, these fundamental questions about the church include: “Is there a God who is our Father? Is Jesus Christ the Son of God and the Savior of the World? Is the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints the kingdom of God on the earth? Was Joseph Smith a prophet?”

The first three questions refer to the existence God, which is unprovable, and the role of Jesus Christ, a distant historical figure whose true actions in life are hard to discern. In contrast, the last question refers to Joseph Smith, a man who lived in America in the 1800s, whose life is well documented and researched. Was he, as Corbridge asks, a prophet? Researching his life, the answer is clear: hopefully not.

There’s a well of damning evidence on Joseph Smith available with some quick research. He scammed people with his treasure-hunting business, was often jailed for his crimes, and even killed others during his escape attempts. Although the church tried to cover it up for years, he is most well known for his polygamy: by the time he died in 1844, he was married to at least 27 women. The youngest of these, Helen Mar Kimball, was 14 years old. Joseph Smith was 37, which makes him a pedophile on all counts – even in 1843, when they were married, the average marriage age for women was between 20 and 22. If such a man was chosen as a prophet of God, we should question what type of God would choose him, and what type of church would follow his teachings. The church itself has not addressed these concerns, sweeping them under the rug as “lies and deception”, despite multiple sources proving their accuracy. Predictably, Johnson and Corbridge do not mention anything else about Joseph Smith in the article.

Corbridge then moves on to what he calls the “secondary questions,” which Johnson broadly generalizes as “questions about Church history, polygamy, black people and women and the priesthood, how the Book of Mormon was translated, DNA and the Book of Mormon, gay marriage, different accounts of the First Vision and so on,” not going into specifics on any of these topics. Corbridge follows this up with the most bizarre claim in the entire article: “If you answer the primary questions, the secondary questions get answered too or they pale in significance and you can deal with things you understand and things you don’t understand, things you agree with and things you don’t agree with without jumping ship.”

There’s a lot to get into with this statement. Firstly, the article attempts to trivialize many valid concerns about the church. For example, “Gay marriage” is used as a buzzword to cover an array of questions about the church and the LGBT+ community such as why same-sex couples aren’t allowed to be married in the church, if it’s possible for LGB members to be happy even though they’re forced to be celibate, if trans and gender non-conforming individuals are allowed to present their true identity and be fully accepted into the congregation, why children of LGB parents aren’t allowed to be baptized into the church without cutting contact with their family, and so on. These topics are trivialized by presenting them so broadly and following them up with the statement that they “pale in importance” to the primary questions. This is not the case for the LGBT+ individuals in question, or other individuals whose happiness is directly affected by any of the issues mentioned.

Secondly, the idea that some of these secondary questions are also answered by the primary questions is a bold and frankly false statement. Knowing the “correct” answers to the primary questions does nothing to answer the far more nuanced subjects of the secondary questions. A devout Mormon who firmly believes in God and knows that Joseph Smith is a prophet can still easily have questions about why God wouldn’t allow women to hold the priesthood, or how the Book of Mormon can be a historically accurate account of pre-colonial America when DNA evidence proves otherwise. It’s clear that most of these questions fall into Corbridge’s “pale in importance” category, which minimizes the real struggles that even faithful members can experience in the church.

The last part of this statement is the most telling to Corbridge’s, and more broadly the church’s response to criticism and questioning members. He says that it’s important members deal with these controversial subjects, with “things you understand and things you don’t understand, things you agree with and things you don’t agree with, without jumping ship.” According to Corbridge, Mormons should stay active in the church if they believe in the “primary questions”, even if they have doubts about the “secondary questions.” Historically, many religious groups have been formed by those who share the same primary beliefs as another sect – belief in God and Jesus Christ, for example – but differ on how the church should be run or the details about God’s doctrine. There is even history within the Mormon faith of separate factions who have split off from the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints based on their different answers to the “secondary questions”, even though they share belief in God, Jesus Christ, and Joseph Smith with the mainstream branch of LDS faith. It doesn’t make sense for LDS members who disagree with or don’t understand controversial church doctrine to remain members, even if they believe in God, Jesus Christ, or Joseph Smith, as they can seek out other denominations that are more in line with their personal beliefs. Remaining in the church is not beneficial to their spiritual well-being or happiness. Non-believing or disillusioned members can create disharmony within the church, so it isn’t good for the health and harmony of a congregation for leaders like Corbridge to encourage those members to stay. What it is good for, though, is the church’s finances, since LDS members who want to access all the benefits of Mormonism must pay 10% of their income to the church. Therefore, it’s unsurprising that the purpose of this article is to suggest doubting members ignore their concerns and stay active, tithe-paying members.

Johnson’s section on the methods of learning is familiar to anyone experienced with religious anti-science rhetoric. Though it references the scientific method and “analytical learning” (research), those mentions are meaningless as Corbridge states “the divine method of learning ultimately trumps everything else by tapping into the powers of heaven.” This is echoed often in fundamentalist religious writing, and means that whenever scientific evidence, academic research, or social values clash with religious beliefs, believers are to ignore the facts and trust “God”, or the teachings of their church. It’s a way to shut down logical arguments from doubters or non-believers without having to think critically about church doctrine and has been discussed at length in other writing.

A somewhat amusing and unique addition to this article is the concept of “academic learning” as separate from scientific or analytical. The idea that simply reading a text can provide the reader with truth without the “analytical” step of fact-checking and resource gathering is false. After all, anyone can write a piece (such as Johnson’s) and fill it with lies. Without multiple opinions and validations, a text on its own has no truth value.

The final two sections of “What to do with your questions” move away from laughable pseudo-academic claims and give us insight into the far more insidious psychological methods the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints and other religious groups use to keep their members in order. The first section is entitled “The Presence or Absence of the Holy Ghost.” Generally, most LDS members and leaders assume the “presence of the Holy Ghost” to mean a happy, warm, and comfortable feeling. This type of feeling commonly occurs in familiar, safe settings such as churches and homes. Corbridge goes on to state that “the gloom I experienced as I listened to the dark choir of voices raised against the Prophet Joseph Smith and the Restoration of the Church of Jesus Christ… is the absence of the Spirit of God.” In other words, if members who read about controversial church history and practices feel bad or uncomfortable while doing so, it must mean these claims are false.

The truth is that anyone who learns about information that radically disrupts their current worldview will be uncomfortable. In the case of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, leaders have so effectively hidden parts of its history from its members and lied about doing so that the discovery of things like Joseph Smith’s history of polygamy and multiple accounts of the First Vision can be shocking and upsetting. Issues dealing with the happiness of LGBT+, women, and black members of the church make many members feel guilty and sad, as they feel empathy for those who have been wronged by the church’s present or past teachings. By equating the natural and understandable feelings of sadness, guilt, and discomfort with the absence of the spirit and therefore falsehood, Corbridge convinces questioning members that they should bury those feelings and ignore their questions. This is not an acceptable way to address controversial church topics, nor is it healthy to encourage members to suppress their emotions.

The final section of the article, “Elimination”, is the final nail in the coffin telling LDS members to keep their doubts private and unanswered. Corbridge reiterates that he and God can’t answer all the member’s doubts – obvious, since he and Johnson have done nothing to address any concerns in this article – and that those who truly answer the “primary questions” will not even need answers to their further questions. This effectively combines the church’s policy of repression and communal guilt: if you are bothered by unsavory aspects of the church’s doctrine, you probably don’t believe in God or Joseph Smith. LDS doctrine already encourages a heavy amount of personal guilt for members who don’t feel they are perfectly living up to the church’s expectations, but if they voice their concerns, they now face the shame of their peers. Nobody in a faith setting wants to be known as the unfaithful member, and Corbridge’s statement is clear: if you want to be respected by your religious peers, keep those questions in.

-North

#mod north #exmormon #exmo #antimormon

18 notes · View notes

lifeafterthewatchtower · 6 years ago

Text

Mormons vs. Jehovah’s Witnesses Part 01 // Priestly class and leadership

This post series is based on a fascinating discussion I had with @markruscianism on the topic of “Thought Crime” (see the original posts here and here). Turned out they were baptized Mormon and in one of their replies shared a lot of information on the LDS church and how it is structured and organized.

Since I didn't know too much about Mormonism, I thought I'll compare what they wrote to Jehovah's Witness doctrine and practices and share some insight on how the Watchtower Bible And Tract Society does things.

I don’t want to leave anything out but also don’t want to flood the dashes with post even longer than my usual texts, so I split it up into smaller parts. Here’s part one.

Markcruscianism wrote: "For reference, I was a baptized Mormon for a period in late teens/early twenties. I never agreed fully with all of their teachings, and always disliked the intellectual climate. The establishment of a “priestly class” (used here loosely) can cause a lot of problems. The LDS (Mormon) church tried to escape this with their structure of teachers and Bishops, but in the end, they just ended up moving the “priestly class” further up the hierarchy, even more inaccessible and unaccountable than a local Bishop would have been. (...) Mormons consider most of the men who give (...) talks to be Prophets"

My reply: I was never baptized Jehovah’s Witness. But I was born into this religion and was part of this organization during all my childhood and teenage years. I faded away in my early twenties. I was an unbaptized publisher and part of the (now discontinued) “Theocratic Ministry School”. I never really conformed with all JW teachings, but as a believer I hated myself for not doing so. Which eventually - after about 15 years after I left - made me re-evaluate my religious upbringing. I fully agree: Putting human beings in charge of spiritual matters can become problematic. Jehovah's Witnesses claim to not have any sort of human leadership (or priests for that matter). A claim that is - mildly speaking - questionable. Actually, it's a lie. At least when JWs use it as a way to set the Society apart from other religious organizations.

JWs are organized hierarchical. At the time of writing, the leading figures are/is the so called "Governing Body", which consists of eight members - all men. They make all the decisions concerning the organization. In 1943 the GB was announced as the "legal governing body" of anointed Jehovah's Witnesses, but its real function was somehow undefined, because until January 1976, it was the president of the Watchtower Bible And Tract Society who had complete control of doctrines, publications and activities. More on that to be found here. On a lower level there are branch-overseers, circuit-overseers, elders ("congregation overseers"), Ministerial Servants (assistants of the elders), publishers (baptized JWs), and unbaptized publishers. None of them have any influence on anything the Society decides. Overseers and elders are “the sheperds”.

The publishers are divided into two groups: regular publishers and pioneers. Pioneers are publishers, who are held in high esteem. They make a living on their own but somehow manage to do a lot more "field service" than the "usual JW". To my knowledge there are no written rules but regular publishers are expected to do around 10 hours of field service per month. Pioneers around a 100 hours per month. All the branch- and circuit-overseers are employees of the Watchtower Society and are full-time traveling Witnesses who visit congregations and give talks and ... well... do their overseer work. They are - sort of - “mega-elders”, directly in contact with the JW headquarters or branch-offices. Those JWs who work in the headquarter, or one of the branches, are called Bethelites because they work in the “Bethel” (the name of the headquarter). I don't know if they are required to be pioneers. But basically they are regular baptized JWs who "just" work for the Society. But because they work in the Bethel they are also held in high esteem. Some fascinating insight on Bethel work in Ray Franz' book "Crisis of conscience", in which he shares a lot of information based on his status of being a member of the Governing Body before he left. Also very interesting info in Barbara Anderson's book "Witness to deceit". Barbara Anderson used to work as a researcher for the writing department, and has lots of insight to share.

Until late 2012, the Governing Body described itself as the representative and "spokesman" for God's "faithful and discreet slave class", a class of 144.000 allegedly “anointed by God” Witnesses (who have “heavenly calling”), and who are - according to 1972, April 1st Watchtower magazine, "the modern-day “prophet”, the spirit-begotten, anointed ones who are the nucleus of Jehovah’s Witnesses today" and who - according to the 1986, May 15th WT - claim to be the "channel for new spiritual light". Interestingly enough, the Governing Body is the only group of people, who formulates policy and doctrines or approves material for publications and conventions but the majority of so called “anointed Witnesses” have no authority to contribute to the development or change of doctrines. They are not consulted, but even instructed to "stay modest" and not "wildly speculating about things that are still unclear" (1997, June 1st WT). Basically, anointed JWs who are not part of the Governing Body are just regular JWs, who don’t even have the status like a typical elder or Ministerial Servant. Just as every other JW, they have to accept whatever the WT tells them to do, say, and believe. Also interesting that there are indeed women among the anointed. But throughout JW history none of these so called anointed women was ever part of the Governing Body. How does an anointed JW know that they are indeed one of the "chosen ones"? They just know. That is the explanation. The Watchtower warned that not everyone who claims to be anointed is indeed anointed and admits that they do not know how many of the 144.000 anointed are still on earth. As mentioned, in 2012 the Watchtower changed its doctrine again, and declared the "Governing Body" to be the "faithful and discreet slave". So they do not claim to be the "spokesman" of a class that is said to be God's channel anymore, but to BE this channel. A huge but actually merely technical change because "the anointed" who were not part of the Governing Body never were involved in development or change of doctrine anyway, but nevertheless this change put much more spotlight on "the eight men". How to become part of the Governing Body? They appoint and invite people. Sometimes these were family members. Like Ray Franz who was Fred Franz’ nephew. So there are eight men who decide everything and claim they have direct connection to God, eight men who - by democratic vote - decide what will be done or not be done (Ray Franz, a former Governing Body member describes this quite interestingly in his book "Crisis of conscience"). Where's the difference to other religions that have priests and popes, and whatnot, who also claim to directly get God's instructions? Why are those religions with human leadership and JWs are not? Needless to say that none of the leading figures (from Ministerial Servant up to member of the Governing Body) has any sort of credentials, specific education or training, or any sort of scholarship other than that they know JW doctrine. So - if we want to put it this way - the better you can parrot JW teaching and the more time and effort you put into organizational work, the better your chances are to climb the JW hierarchical ladder. (Only if you’re a man of course). Being a JW is not about discussing the Bible (or “theology” for that matter), it’s not about growing and evolving. It’s about accepting what the leadership tells you and to parrot that. But more on that in future posts.

In the next part: Bible study and Supplemental material

#Mormonism #lds church #Jehovah's Witnesses #jehovah's witness #ex jw #comparison #markcruscianism #my writing

28 notes · View notes

mindfulldsliving · 5 months ago

Text

The Nature of God, Trinity Doctrine, and LDS Beliefs

Eric Johnson's claim that Latter-day Saint teachings lack evidence is easily refutable. Extensive scholarly research and ancient texts, combined with modern theological studies, offer a robust body of evidence supporting these teachings.

Members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints Are Christians: Here’s Why Members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints Are Christians: Here’s WhyBiblical Definition of a ChristianMatthew 16:24-26Romans 12:1-3God Was Never a SinnerThe Concept of ‘Mormon Jesus’Jesus and Satan as Brothers: Historical ContextSatan as a Son of God: Biblical References in Job 1 and 2Symbols…

View On WordPress

0 notes

nerdygaymormon · 5 years ago

Note

I think I might be polysexual. I am really confused and struggling, and I don’t feel comfortable “coming out” enough to find resources. I don’t intend to date anyone I can’t get sealed to, and I want to be obedient. How much can I embrace this part of me? Can I get a flag or wear the colors? Can I be active in or apart of the LGBT community? Is researching possible sexualities etc. putting too much power in my temptations? What, if anything, do I need to share with a bishop or mission pres.?

You’re doing just fine. It’s normal to have questions. Being queer makes church things complex for us that are simple for non-queer members.

________

You don’t have to come out if you don’t want to. There may come a time when you feel ready to come out and that also is good. it is your choice. The mormonandgay website says “Sharing those feelings with a trusted confidant can be liberating and healing.“ In other words, it’s okay with the Church if you come out and it may be a positive experience, but not required.

________

As a polysexual you have some flexibility in dating, and if you only choose to date people with whom you can be sealed, that’s a perfectly fine choice. You are not required to do more than you’re comfortable doing. When you get older, if you decide you would like to explore dating a wider range of people, that is your choice and you should feel no pressure to do that or to not do that.

________

As far as embracing this part of you, it’s up to you. The mormonandgay website says it’s fine to adopt a sexual orientation label to describe yourself (like polysexual). You can also get a flag and wear the colors.

You also can be active in the LGBT community and be a Church member in good standing. 39% of LGBT youth are active in a religion.

Perhaps your school has a GSA club you could participate in. There may be an LGBTQ resource center where you could volunteer.

You can go to a Pride celebration (you may be more comfortable going to a Pride parade in a smaller city as those tend to be less wild).

On meetup.com you can find all sorts of LGBTQ groups, many of which are simply an opportunity to socialize, such as to go to a movie or an art fest together, or go get brunch once a month.

If you don’t embrace this as a part of yourself, you’ll always be at war with yourself. Part of embracing this is recognizing it is not a choice you made. This isn’t a punishment. This doesn’t mean you’re defective or that there’s something wrong with you.

These feelings & attractions aren’t going away but are part of how you experience the world. This will affect the way you love, who you find attractive, how you socialize, and so on, it is interwoven into all the major aspects of your life. Learn to love yourself, be kind to yourself.

My orientation brought me nothing but trouble and sadness until I accepted that I’m gay and this is how God made me and I don’t have the power to change it. God must want me this way. Since then, being gay has gone from being a curse in my life to also being a source of blessings & happiness.

________

Researching sexualities and other aspects of queer identities is very possible. One safe way to do this is do an internet search for “polysexual resources” or “lgbtq resources”. Then choose to only click on links to safe spaces, such as a university, or lgbt-friendly spaces such as PFLAG, or a state LGBT center.

This link is to the Family Acceptance Project’s pamphlet for LDS families and it is excellent, although I’m not sure polysexual is specifically included, but the general principles still apply to you.

Listen Learn & Love is a website by Richard Ostler. He’s a former bishop who has made loving LGBT Mormons his ministry. He does a podcast (I’m on episode #151), has many resources available. It’s a safe space to learn about other people’s experiences & journeys. http://www.listenlearnandlove.org/papa-ostler-fb-posts

________

My biggest piece of advice is get some LGBTQIA+ friends, even better if they’re also LDS because they’ll get you in a way no one else does.

You can do a search on Tumblr for #queerstake and read posts and see if anyone looks like a person you might message. Twitter has an active core of queer members that centers on the Church schools in Provo & Rexburg. Look for my friend CalvinJBurke and see who reacts to his tweets, that’ll be a good starting place.

Affirmation is the oldest organization for LDS/post-LDS LGBTQ+ individuals. They have multiple Facebook pages for different situations. I’m in the Affirmation Prepare group which is for active LDS LGBT people. They also have a group for teens and a group for bi,pan,queer+ (this includes poly). Look through their list of groups and you may find several to check out. You can easily leave the groups if they don’t work for you.

________

As for putting power into your temptations, I would take that to mean things that make it easy to cross the line. I think that includes being alone for an extended period with someone who might accept your romantic advances. I don’t think being in public places, being with a group, looking at resources at reputable websites is going to cause a problem.

________

As for a bishop or mission president, you don’t have to tell them that you’re poly, or queer or anything like that. They will ask about your worthiness, this means your actions. If you aren’t having sex with anyone, then there’s nothing to confess.

When the time comes to apply for a mission, if you think living with and having a deep relationship with someone of the same gender will be too much for you, you can always request a service mission. There are many interesting opportunities opening up beyond a proselyting mission. How to bring that up to the stake president is up to you, but he’s the only one who needs to know your preference before he submits your mission application.

You have to decide if you trust your bishop or mission president enough to tell them. It can be hard to tell. When any LGBTQ topic comes up, how do they react, what do they say? Trust your gut, it’s usually a good guide to this sort of thing.

________

As I said at the beginning, church & faith becomes a lot more complex if you are queer.

If you hear things at church that don’t sit right with you, don’t ignore them. Think about how they fit with these questions:

Does that sound like me, do I resemble that remark? (especially if they’re talking about queer people)

Does this sound like the God that I know?

Does this fit with the two great commandments to love God, love ourselves and love each other?

If what’s being said fails those questions, you can dismiss it.

When you hear negative messages at church (or anywhere else), push back against them, even if it’s just in your thoughts. Come up with a positive sentence to replace each negative one.

You also can politely ask someone what their source is or where they heard that, it’s a way to ask people to not spout off their opinions as fact or gospel.

________

You got this!

It’s okay to mess up and be awkward and all those things, it’s part of learning and going forward. Don’t be harsh on yourself. Everybody does things that make them cringe when they think back on them, but hardly anyone else remembers those, they’re too busy remembering their own cringe moments.

There are some people who will think your orientation is a problem or a sin,They’re right, it’s THEIR problem.

Developing your talents, taking care of yourself, becoming the best version of you is a gift, both to yourself and to others. A healthy, happy, and whole you is good for you and has a lot more capacity to contribute to others.

Lots of love to you!

25 notes · View notes

a-wondrous-thing · 6 years ago

Note

Ayyye so what IS the relationship between Cristians and Mormons? I thought they were completely different religions? (I’m not religious at all so I’m clueless on the topic)

hey-o friend-o, thanks for asking (i’m really glad people actually care about this stuff)!

So, first thing, while “Mormons” is a commonly used term for members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, the full name of the church is preferred by members/the church, and I’ll go ahead and use the acronym LDS for the rest of this.

(disclaimer: not a professional on the topic. i’m not even a religious studies major)

sO here’s the hot non-tea or coffee beverage

as a general rule (get to that in a sec), Christians are people who believe in Christ and His teachings. Roman Catholic, Eastern Orthodox, and Protestant churches are considered Christian, as well as many other subsets, offshoots, and such. If they believe in Christ, they’re generally considered Christian. There are many types of religion in the world - Islam, Hinduism, Buddhism, Taoism, Sikhism, Judaism and Jainism (plus some others), as well as Christianity. Christianity is separate from Judaism and Islam (which are separate from each other as well), despite sharing certain ties to Biblical events.

Following this, the LDS church (which has...the name...Church of Jesus Christ right in the title...) is Christian.

But there’s this thing called gatekeeping that’s a bit of a ... fun topic.

Basically, certain churches make their own definition of what a Christian church consists of and say “Hey, you’re not Christian because we said X.”

Meanwhile....LDS members are here like...we believe in the Bible. And Christ. And His teachings... and yet other Christian churches gatekeep and say “nope. you don’t fit this specific criteria that we say you have to fit to be Christian”

And we (members) just kinda go...sure Jan. And keep living our Christian lives.

(I really don’t mean this to be contentious in any way, i’m just simplifying it down to what i see as the basic argument, and remember, not an expert)

There are lots of reasons other churches say the LDS church and its teachings aren’t Christian, here’s some:

we don’t accept the changes of post New Testament Christianity

we aren’t connected to a Roman Catholic/Eastern Orthodox/Protestant base

we have an expanded canon and believe in continuous revelation

First, we follow the teachings of like...the actual original Church that Christ established when He was serving his mortal ministry. But other churches follow the stuff that came about after He left His church in the hands of His apostles and people started to change the truths (doctrine) He and His apostles taught. So... yeah, that’s another whole topic, but basically the Greeks took Christianity and said this is how it is and that’s how you get most of modern Christianity.

The LDS church was established in 1830, and is independent of any other churches, (though there are a lot of similarities in belief, o course), and we believe that the Priesthood authority, (which was previously taken from the earth) was restored to Joseph Smith, a modern day prophet. We’re not an offshoot of any other church’s line of Priesthood Authority.

And with that last one... yeah! We believe that there is a prophet on the earth today (President Russel M. Nelson), and that he receives revelation from God for the church. We also believe that everyone can receive personal revelation from God. We have canon outside of the Bible - The Book of Mormon being one, as well as the Doctrine and Covenants, and Pearl of Great Price.

(If anyone wants to hear about the Book of Mormon or any other books, lemmie know cuz that’s also a really good topic and dear to my heart)

So, I guess form your own opinions, but I, as well as the church, affirm that The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is a Christian church, built on the teachings, ministry, life of, and belief in Jesus Christ.

I love the gospel, and love my Savior, Jesus Christ. I believe in the Book of Mormon, as well as the Bible (as far as it is translated correctly), and I can testify of its truthfulness.

Thank you for asking this question, if anyone has others about my beliefs/ the church’s beliefs, feel free to ask! I also love learning about religion of all kinds, feel free to share as well, if you feel so inclined!

Also, I researched this topic, so here’s the link to a less condensed, more accurately stated article from the actual church

Are Mormons Christian?

I’d also recommend visiting Mormon.org for other information on the church!

#answered #anon #lds #lds church #book of mormon #golllllly don't let me go on rants #but seriously i'm so passionate about stuff #i love talking about this stuff #and learning about it #religion #mormon #i'm probably inaccurate with somethin on this feel free to correct me #Anonymous

16 notes · View notes

wesleyhill · 7 years ago

Text

On being curious

Yesterday someone sent me a copy of a book on the Enneagram anonymously. I may be wrong, but I’m assuming someone saw my snarky remark on Twitter that the Enneagram is “astrology for intellectuals” and wanted to help me see things differently. In all honesty, I’ve never felt the urge to look into the Enneagram beyond the — admittedly cursory — glance I’ve already given it. A couple of good friends, including my brother, have described to me over the years how much they’ve benefitted from engaging with it, and I’ve taken an online test to find out which number I may belong to. I’ve read a handful of articles about it. I’ve asked my spiritual director — himself a trained psychologist and full-time therapist, as well as a priest, and someone whose intelligence and spiritual perceptiveness I’ve come to rely on above almost any other mentor in my life — if he would advise me to pursue learning more about the Enneagram, and he’s told me that he wouldn’t. But beyond that, I haven’t pursued it further, and, frankly, I still don’t feel much of an urge to do so. Is that a lamentable lack of curiosity or is it… something else?

It strikes me that I — that we all — make these sorts of choices all the time about what to pursue more deeply and what to leave unexplored. Because I write about being gay and a Christian, I regularly have people come up to me at speaking engagements or write me emails asking if I’ve given sexual orientation change efforts (SOCE) their fair due. “Have you ever been involved in counseling or ministries that would try to help you find freedom from your same-sex attraction?” these people ask me. And the honest answer is, “Not really. Not in any great depth.” I spent an intense week once with a charismatic counselor who promised me that if I followed the regimen he laid out, I could indeed be “healed” and become straight. Up to that point, I had read a good deal about SOCE, I’d pondered and prayed about whether my upbringing and family culture “fit” the paradigm being proposed as explanatory, I’d listened respectfully and with (I believe) an open mind to the testimonies of those who claimed to have found “healing” in SOCE, and, at the end of the day, I remained convinced that it wasn’t worth my time and energy to pursue. When I abandoned meeting with the counselor, telling him I wanted to pursue chastity but didn’t ever expect to become heterosexual, he said disappointedly, “Wes, that sounds like depression.” Maybe it was, or maybe it was just a rueful lack of curiosity on my part, but I still don’t think so.

And I’ve often operated similarly in many other areas of my life. I’ve listened to the stories of charismatic Christians who tell me that if I opened myself more fully to a certain understanding and reception of the miraculous gifts of the Spirit, I could be living a deeper, richer Christian life. Perhaps so, but I haven’t felt sufficiently persuaded of the plausibility of that claim to investigate more. And that’s the main point, isn’t it? — we have to feel convinced enough of the possible validity and desirability of a certain something, be it the Enneagram or gay conversion therapy or the potential truthfulness of an alternative religious tradition, to even want to give it a second glance. And when we aren’t so convinced, how do we decide whether that’s a culpable lack of curiosity on our parts or else just an inevitable judgment call we all have to make about how to use the limited amount of time we all have in our lives?

My friend Alan Jacobs has written a bit about this conundrum in an old blog post:

We all have to make choices like this all the time. Look, there are a pair of Mormons at my door — should I talk to them and find out what their religion is all about? Hey, the Jehovah’s Witnesses left some pamphlets — should I read them and find out whether there’s anything to their beliefs? Or how about this: should I investigate becoming a vegan? Or joining the Libertarian Party? Or making my next car a hybrid?

People get evangelistic about all of these things, and there’s something mysterious about why we respond as we do — why we pass over many of these options without a second thought, give brief consideration to others, and thoroughly explore just a few. There’s just not time in one life to investigate everything, and that means that we have to make some choices with very limited information. Which means that people are not being irrational just because they dismiss your favorite cause without thorough research. They’re doing what we all do.

I often find myself wishing that my non-Christian friends would — well, not even convert, necessarily, but at least show more openness to investigate the possibility of converting. Some of them do, of course, but many of them make a judgment call that, from what they’ve already seen, Christianity doesn’t warrant any more openness than they’ve already given it. I’m trying to live my life in such a way that they’ll be inclined toward more openness, but my little experience this week with the Enneagram (trivial, of course, by comparison with one of the world’s great religions) makes me realize that some of them just can’t work up the interest to do so. It makes me sad, but I get it.

18 notes · View notes

sinkingdeepinhisgrace · 4 years ago

Text

Are the teachings of Witness Lee and the Local Church biblical?

Please note - many have approached us and expressed disappointment that we tend to agree with CRI's assessment of the Local Church movement. There are many people, some of them formerly involved in the Local Church, who are absolutely convinced that the Local Church is a cult, or at least a non-biblical and non-evangelical movement. The more we research the Local Church, however, the more we run into widely divergent views of the movement. As a result, we have decided to leave our Local Church article as it currently is. However, due to the major concerns many people have about the Local Church, we strongly advise you to use the utmost caution and discernment before visiting or joining the Local Church movement. Here are some sites at which you could pursue further research into the Local Church / Witness Lee / Living Stream movement:

http://faithsaves.net/watchman-nee

http://assemblylife.com

http://www.open-letter.org

https://contrast2.wordpress.com

contendingforthefaith.org

http://www.apologeticsindex.org

Witness Lee was the protégé of his predecessor, Watchman Nee, a well-known missionary in China. The Local Church movement was founded in China by Nee and brought to America in 1962 by Witness Lee. Thus began a long and strange saga of charges, counter-charges, lawsuits, strife, and misunderstandings between the Local Church movement and the evangelical community that has left much wreckage in its wake, and has yet to be fully resolved. Foremost in the controversy is whether the LC is a legitimate movement within Christianity or a cult. Statements made by Lee over the years have caused his organization to be described as a cult by such counter-cult organizations as the Christian Research Institute—under both founder Walter Martin and current president Hank Hanegraaff—and the Spiritual Counterfeits Project. However, a 50-page series of articles in a 2009 edition of the CRI Journal has come out strongly in favor of Lee’s teachings and the Local Church movement.

The history of the conflict between Witness Lee and his Local Church movement—also known as the “Lord’s Recovery Movement,” along with their publishing arm, Living Stream Ministry (LSM)—and the counter-cult establishment is far too long for a detailed recounting here, but those who are interested in the full story can access it through the CRI website http://journal.equip.org/issues/we-were-wrong. Since the publication of CRI’s retraction of their former stand, churches and ministries, including GotQuestions.org, have had to rethink and reinvestigate their stand on Witness Lee and the Local Church.

For the purposes of this article, the major causes of controversy between the Local Church and the Christian community in the West will be addressed. The concerns raised by counter-cult organizations about Lee’s teachings center primarily on four areas: the nature of God, the nature of man, the legitimacy of evangelical churches and denominations, and the lawsuits brought against Evangelical churches, publishers and individuals by the Local Church. We will look at them one by one.

Regarding Lee’s views on the theological doctrines of God and man, the controversy centers around statements which are “red flags” to evangelicals, particularly those in the West. This is an important factor in this discussion because it appears much of the controversy could have been avoided if only Lee and his followers had made an effort to understand the Western Christian culture into which they were moving. Part of the training of Western missionaries sent to foreign countries is sensitivity to other cultures. Unfortunately, in bringing their doctrines to the West, no effort was made to “Westernize” them, and this was the source of much of the confusion, misunderstandings, and recriminations that resulted. For one thing, Lee’s method of teaching—to make radical statements and then balance them elsewhere in his teachings—proved to be antithetical to the Western idea of “say what you mean and mean what you say.” Lee’s doctrinal statements on the nature of God and the nature of man are perfect examples. In one of his messages, he states, “The traditional explanation of the Trinity is grossly inadequate and borders on tritheism” (Life Messages, p. 164). Naturally, this is enough to inflame Western evangelicals, who proudly affirm the doctrine of the Trinity as it has been passed down from the great theologians of our Western Christian heritage. To judge it to be “grossly inadequate” by Lee raised legitimate concerns about Lee himself. Closer scrutiny of Lee’s teachings elsewhere, however, brings to light that they actually agree with evangelical orthodoxy.

The same can be said of his teachings on the nature of man. Some of his most inflammatory statements are in regard to what appears, on the surface, to assert the deity of man. In an LSM publication, A Deeper Study of the Divine Dispensing (p. 54), Lee states, ”My burden is to show you clearly that God’s economy and plan is to make Himself man and to make us, His created beings, God.” On page 53 we read, “We are born of God; hence, in this sense, we are God.” In the same publication, Lee refers to the Triune God as now the ‘four-in-one’ God, with man as the fourth person. Nothing raises a red flag to evangelicals more quickly than any notion that man is God, because we are rightly taught that it is the original lie from the Garden of Eden (Genesis 3:5) and is the same lie propagated by cults and false religions such as Hinduism, New Age, and Mormonism throughout history. To the Western mind, at least, imparting the idea of any kind of godhood to those who struggle against the sin nature is disastrous. Western Christians, already steeped in the philosophy of freedom, autonomy, individuality, and the triumph of the human will—and the pride such thinking inevitably produces—need not be encouraged to see themselves as divine. But the CRI researchers found that a closer examination of context and terminology reveals that Lee’s views on the “deification” of man (another unfortunate choice of words and a red flag term) do not really mean that at all. The sentence after the “in this sense, we are God” quote reads, “Nevertheless, we must know that we do not share God’s Person and cannot be worshipped by others.” Herein lies the problem. Putting the two statements together, Lee is essentially saying we are God, but we are not God. It is no wonder that confusion is rampant.

Regarding the third area of controversy, this is what Witness Lee has said in his own publications about Christians and Christianity: “We do not care for Christianity, we do not care for Christendom, we do not care for the Roman Catholic Church, and we do not care for all the denominations, because in the Bible it says that the great Babylon is fallen. This is a declaration. Christianity is fallen, Christendom is fallen, Catholicism is fallen, and all the denominations are fallen. Hallelujah!” Once again, Lee’s unfortunate choice of words, possibly due to English not being his native language, has caused consternation among American evangelicals. To say that Christianity is fallen is seen as painting with a far-too-broad brush and accusing the entire body of Christ of being false and fallen creatures. But here again, we have to dig more deeply to find what Lee really meant by that statement. Context and terminology are once again at the center of a true understanding of Lee’s doctrine. After careful and diligent examination, the CRI researchers came to the conclusion that Lee’s pattern of the use of “certain hot button words associated in our minds with heresy or cultism” has led to misunderstanding of his meaning.

As one of the LSM leaders expressed it, “We are not out to proclaim that the denominations are Babylon.” However, Lee’s own statement, quoted above, that “we do not care for all the denominations, because in the Bible it says that the great Babylon is fallen,” seems a direct contradiction, whether intentional or not.

The fourth major area of controversy between evangelicals and the Local Church centers on the number of lawsuits brought by the Local Church and LSM leadership against individuals and ministries that were critical of them, despite the clear New Testament teaching against suing a Christian brother (1 Corinthians 6:1-8). This led to allegations of a “history of litigiousness” on the part of the Local Church and charges that they forced some of their opposing ministries into bankruptcy by the litigation expenses they were forced to incur. This is a complicated situation that has gone on for more than a decade and the details—who sued whom, when, and how often—are still in dispute among the parties. For a complete history of the litigants and legal decisions, the reader is once again referred to the CRI article.

Summing up the crux of the conflict, it would appear that both parties bear a share of the responsibility. Lee and the Local Church leadership do not share the Western heritage that has shaped the thought processes and approaches of the Westerners among whom they settled. English was not their first language, particularly of the early leaders, and both the cultural differences and language barrier led to much misunderstanding. At the same time, the Local Church’s distinctively Chinese approach to Christianity was so unfamiliar to Westerners that it smacked of cultism, whether or not any actually existed. The Local Church leadership was unaware of the impact the use of certain “hot button” words would have on cult-wary evangelicals in America, while Western Christians were unaware of the tremendous impact that labeling a group a cult had on the Chinese. The Local Church resisted any changes in their terminology and for the most part refused to provide contextual explanations for some of their doctrines, an unfortunate approach that led to even deeper rifts between the two sides. At the same time, the counter-cultists failed to be as thorough as they could have been in their research. Thus, both sides developed an “us vs. them” mentality which negatively influenced both their thoughts and actions.

What is the conclusion of the matter, and what are Christians to believe about Witness Lee and the Local Church movement? Elliot Miller, editor-in-chief of the Christian Research Journal, declares at the end of the 50-page treatment “We were wrong” and concludes that the Local Church is not an “aberrant Christian group” but a “solid orthodox group of believers.” Since Got Questions Ministries has a cordial and respectful relationship with CRI, we have no doubt their conclusions are based on extensive and diligent research and are therefore valid. It is left to the individual Christian to decide whether the thousands of man-hours, not to mention the expense of defending the various parties in court, the decades of charges, defenses, counter-charges and acrimony have not been, at best, a waste of time and at worst, a blot on the face of Christianity. How much more profitable it would have been if the hundreds of people and thousands of hours had been dedicated to knowing, loving, and obeying Jesus Christ. No doubt the counter-cult organizations thought they were providing a much-needed service to the Christian community. No doubt the Local Church and Living Streams Ministry felt they were justified in their quest to clear their names and set the record straight. But as alluded to above, much of the controversy could have been avoided in the first place by more careful attention by both sides to the details of cross-cultural communication. The old saying “the devil is in the details” finds its verification in this sad situation. The fear is that the devil may have profited from this controversy more than the body of Christ, and for that, all parties are culpable.

Source :gotquestions.org

#false gospel #watchman nee #Witness lee #Lord's recovery

0 notes

lowkeynando · 2 years ago

Text

the Bible, but neglects or distorts the gospel". (3]

2007.[1] IRR's current staff includes Robert M.

Bowman Jr. as executive director. [3]

1 note · View note

polixy · 6 years ago

Text

Evangelical approval of Trump remains high, but other religious groups are less supportive

Evangelical approval of Trump remains high, but other religious groups are less supportive;

More than two years into Donald Trump’s presidency, white evangelical Protestants in the United States continue to overwhelmingly support him, according to a new analysis of Pew Research Center survey data. Other religious groups, however, are more divided in their views of the president.

Roughly seven-in-ten white evangelical Protestants (69%) say they approve of the way Trump is handling his job as president, according to the Center’s latest polling in January 2019. This is somewhat lower than Trump’s approval rating in the earliest days of his tenure – when about eight-in-ten white evangelicals (78%) approved of his job performance – but is in line with most polls conducted by the Center since the inauguration.

White evangelicals’ support for the president has been consistently high, and many prominent evangelical leaders, such as Jerry Falwell Jr. – the president of Liberty University – have steadfastly stood with the president.

White mainline Protestants and white Catholics are less approving of Trump’s performance than are white evangelicals, but more approving than religiously unaffiliated Americans – that is, those who identify as atheist, agnostic or nothing in particular.

In most of the 11 surveys conducted by the Center since Trump’s inauguration, between 46% and 55% of white mainline Protestants have approved of the president, including 48% in the January 2019 survey. Around half of white Catholics have approved of Trump in these surveys, including 44% in January.

Religiously unaffiliated Americans consistently express among the lowest levels of approval of Trump’s performance, ranging from 17% to 27% across the polls the Center has conducted since the president assumed office. Most black protestants and nonwhite Catholics also have disapproved of the way the president handles his job.

While white evangelical Protestants generally give Trump high approval ratings, that does not mean they have no reservations about him. An August 2018 survey found that roughly half of white evangelicals do not think that Trump has set a high moral standard for the presidency since taking office. Some prominent evangelical leaders, such as Rick Warren, pastor of Saddleback Church, have expressed ambivalence about Trump and concern about some of his policies. Others, such as Beth Moore, founder of Living Proof Ministries, openly oppose the president.

Still, white evangelicals make up a staunchly and increasingly Republican group that generally backs Trump and his policies. In the January 2019 survey, for instance, nearly three-quarters of white evangelicals expressed support for substantially expanding the wall along the U.S. border with Mexico.

White evangelical Protestants who regularly attend church (that is, once a week or more) approve of Trump at rates matching or exceeding those of white evangelicals who attend church less often. Indeed, in the first few months of Trump’s presidency, white evangelicals who attended church at least weekly were significantly more likely than less-frequent churchgoers to approve of Trump’s performance (79% vs. 71%). In the most recent period analyzed – from July 2018 to January 2019 – 70% of white evangelicals who attend church at least once a week approve of Trump, as do 65% of those who attend religious services less often.

Among white Catholics, there have also been differences in presidential approval between those who attend Mass weekly and those who do not. In the early months of Trump’s presidency, weekly Mass-attending Catholics were 12 points more likely than less-regular attendees to approve of Trump’s performance. There was an 11-point gap between these groups in the first half of 2018. In the most recent period analyzed, 52% of white Catholics who attend Mass weekly approve of Trump, as do 45% of those who attend services less often.

Among white mainline Protestants, approval of the president is not meaningfully different between weekly attenders and those who attend less often.

Smaller religious groups such as Mormons and Muslims cannot be reliably analyzed from a single poll because of the limitations of sample size. But the views of members of smaller religious groups can be assessed by combining results from all 11 Pew Research Center polls conducted between February 2017 and January 2019. Looking at the period of Trump’s presidency overall, about half of Mormons (52%) approve of his job performance, while smaller shares of Jews (24%) and Muslims (18%) say the same.

Note: See underlying data for both charts here (PDF).

; Blog – Pew Research Center; http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2019/03/18/evangelical-approval-of-trump-remains-high-but-other-religious-groups-are-less-supportive/; ; March 18, 2019 at 10:14AM

0 notes

homedevises · 6 years ago

Text

Five Benefits Of Real Location Of Garden Of Eden That May Change Your Perspective | real location of garden of eden

Five Benefits Of Real Location Of Garden Of Eden That May Change Your Perspective | real location of garden of eden – real location of garden of eden | Delightful to be able to our blog, with this occasion I will show you regarding keyword. And after this, this is the primary image:

Genesis 2:8 BDC: Was the Garden of Eden a real historical … – real location of garden of eden | real location of garden of eden

Think about picture preceding? is usually that will incredible???. if you believe and so, I’l t show you many picture once again underneath:

So, if you desire to acquire all of these great graphics about (Five Benefits Of Real Location Of Garden Of Eden That May Change Your Perspective | real location of garden of eden), just click save button to store these photos to your computer. There’re all set for save, if you appreciate and wish to take it, just click save logo in the post, and it’ll be directly down loaded in your computer.} Lastly if you’d like to find unique and recent image related with (Five Benefits Of Real Location Of Garden Of Eden That May Change Your Perspective | real location of garden of eden), please follow us on google plus or book mark this site, we attempt our best to give you regular up grade with all new and fresh shots. We do hope you enjoy keeping here. For many up-dates and recent news about (Five Benefits Of Real Location Of Garden Of Eden That May Change Your Perspective | real location of garden of eden) images, please kindly follow us on tweets, path, Instagram and google plus, or you mark this page on bookmark area, We try to give you up grade regularly with all new and fresh pics, like your browsing, and find the right for you.

Here you are at our website, articleabove (Five Benefits Of Real Location Of Garden Of Eden That May Change Your Perspective | real location of garden of eden) published . At this time we are delighted to declare we have found an incrediblyinteresting topicto be reviewed, that is (Five Benefits Of Real Location Of Garden Of Eden That May Change Your Perspective | real location of garden of eden) Lots of people searching for details about(Five Benefits Of Real Location Of Garden Of Eden That May Change Your Perspective | real location of garden of eden) and of course one of these is you, is not it?

28 Jurassic Park Filming Locations You Can Visit | Islands – real location of garden of eden | real location of garden of eden

Out of Africa or Out of Eden: Does Science Contradict the Bible? – real location of garden of eden | real location of garden of eden

Shared Spookiness – real location of garden of eden | real location of garden of eden

25 Best images about Garden of Eden, Haiku, Maui on … – real location of garden of eden | real location of garden of eden

Location Of Garden Eden Today Garden Of Eden Real Location … – real location of garden of eden | real location of garden of eden

Recommended! Great hotel in great location. – Review of Garden of … – real location of garden of eden | real location of garden of eden

An American Garden of Eden? | Mormonism Research Ministry – real location of garden of eden | real location of garden of eden

BBC iWonder – What is the real story of the Garden of Eden? – real location of garden of eden | real location of garden of eden

robert heil | The real "Garden of Eden" – Croatia and … – real location of garden of eden | real location of garden of eden

Garden of Eden – Wikipedia – real location of garden of eden | real location of garden of eden

Has the Biblical Garden of Eden Been Discovered Here? | CBN News – real location of garden of eden | real location of garden of eden

Has the Garden of Eden been located at last? – real location of garden of eden | real location of garden of eden

Untold Garden of Eden – real location of garden of eden | real location of garden of eden

The REAL LOCATION of the GARDEN of EDEN! MUST SEE! – YouTube – real location of garden of eden | real location of garden of eden

Maps | Paradise Lust by Brook Wilensky-Lanford – real location of garden of eden | real location of garden of eden

The Shocking Revelation of Where Is The Garden Of Eden Located Today … – real location of garden of eden | real location of garden of eden

The Rivers of the Garden of Eden – real location of garden of eden | real location of garden of eden

Garden of Eden – New World Encyclopedia – real location of garden of eden | real location of garden of eden

The Garden of Eden – real location of garden of eden | real location of garden of eden

The original garden view | The Other I – real location of garden of eden | real location of garden of eden

Garden of Eden – real location of garden of eden | real location of garden of eden

Defend Jehovah's Witnesses: How Do We Know That the Garden … – real location of garden of eden | real location of garden of eden

Was the Garden of Eden a Real Place? | Ancient Origins … – real location of garden of eden | real location of garden of eden

The Real Location Garden of Eden and the Biblical origins of Mankind … – real location of garden of eden | real location of garden of eden

17 Best images about GARDEN OF EDEN IMAGES on Pinterest … – real location of garden of eden | real location of garden of eden

where is eden garden located now k–k.club 2018 – real location of garden of eden | real location of garden of eden

Ten Things To Avoid In Garden Of Eden Location Africa | garden of … – real location of garden of eden | real location of garden of eden

from WordPress https://gardeneden.club/five-benefits-of-real-location-of-garden-of-eden-that-may-change-your-perspective-real-location-of-garden-of-eden/

#garden of eden #real location of garden of eden #real place of garden of eden

0 notes