Top Tweets for #Methodists

“The ironies in Liberty Jail are many. Though deprived of his constitutional rights, Joseph Smith therein praised the glorious U.S. Constitution. Then, after the misery of Missouri, Joseph declared with inspired anticipation, ‘I am willing to be sacrificed maintaining the laws & Constitution of the United States, if need be, for the general good of mankind.’” —Neal A. Maxwell

I had an interaction with a critic of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints the other day that has fundamentally changed my views on the Church and the Restored Gospel of Jesus Christ. After some back and forth about one of a dozen recycled anti-Mormon tropes he asked me a question; what evidence did I need to see to prove that Joseph Smith was false prophet and that the Church was founded on a lie? I had to pause and think about my answer. I don’t want to tie my testimony of the Restored Gospel to an event, person, or policy. That seems like an easy way to have my convictions undermined. But I also don’t want to come off as a zealot acting on blind faith, either. After thinking for a while I answered; I would need to have a significant spiritual experience equal to or greater than the experience I had when I first read The Book of Mormon, or the first time I went to the Temple, or when I got married, or when I first held my kids. I’d need an experience so significant that it would outweigh my previous experiences. The conversation ended there. My testimony of the Restored Gospel comes from God, as revealed through the Holy Ghost. God is the objective source of all truth. I may not have all the answers. Some of my beliefs may not make logical sense. But God has made it very clear to me that objective, eternal truth is found in the Restored Gospel and The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.

Because you muddled the interpretation of those verses. Here are the verses in question: The same day came to him the Sadducees, which say that there is no resurrection, and asked him, Saying, Master, Moses said, If a man die, having no children, his brother shall marry his wife, and raise up seed unto his brother. Now there were with us seven brethren: and the first, when he had married a wife, deceased, and, having no issue, left his wife unto his brother: Likewise the second also, and the third, unto the seventh. And last of all the woman died also. Therefore in the resurrection whose wife shall she be of the seven? for they all had her. Jesus answered and said unto them, Ye do err, not knowing the scriptures, nor the power of God. For in the resurrection they neither marry, nor are given in marriage, but are as the angels of God in heaven. But as touching the resurrection of the dead, have ye not read that which was spoken unto you by God, saying, I am the God of Abraham, and the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob? God is not the God of the dead, but of the living. Matthew 22:23-32 KJV So in context, the Sadducees were asking about the resurrection, which they did not believe in. They presented a rather absurd story of a widow who married a man, but he died, and proceeded to marry his brother, who also died, a pattern that continued until she had married 7 brothers. At which point you’d think she’d be investigated for being a black widow and insurance fraud, but no, she died too. So who is she married to in the resurrection which we do not believe in, was the question asked of Christ. People like you take Christ’s response to be a general treatise on marriage in the afterlife, instead of the simple response to an absurd question. Christ dismissed the absurdity, then explained that God is the God of the living, not the dead. But you ignore that to focus on the dismissal response. They neither marry nor are given in marriage, but are like the angels. Apply that answer to the question he was asked. Who would the woman be married to? She would neither marry in Heaven, nor be given in marriage, you conclude no marriage at all, but the truth is she won’t marry or be given in marriage, because she’s already married, to the first guy. She won’t be given to anyone else nor will she marry anyone else because she doesn’t need to marry anyone else. She’s like the angels, already married. You would denigrate the home, marriage and family based on a few verses taken out of context. Below is God’s way.

Oh yeah sure. Everything Peter Would Not Recognize In An Orthodox Church: Visual Environment Walls covered floor to ceiling with painted human faces Candles burning in front of images People bowing before images People kissing painted faces Prostrations before icons Elaborate gold everywhere A giant ornate building dedicated to worship The iconostasis itself - an entire wall of images The Clergy: Men in elaborate expensive vestments Distinct priestly class separated from congregation Bishops with crowns/mitres Elaborate ceremony around the clergy themselves Men who cannot marry after ordination Bishops who must be celibate monks The Liturgy: Extremely elaborate fixed ritual Hours long standing ceremonies Incense in highly ritualized way Bells Chanting in developed musical traditions The Theology: Nicene Creed precise formulations Greek philosophical categories - hypostasis, ousia, theotokos Seven sacraments as developed doctrine Theosis as articulated concept Mary veneration and theology Saints intercession as formal doctrine Purgatory adjacent concepts in some traditions The Institution: Patriarchs with enormous authority Political establishment connections Property and wealth Formal canon law Seminary trained clergy Creeds requiring precise assent

“We need not become paralyzed with fear of Satan's power. He can have no power over us unless we permit it. He is really a coward, and if we stand firm, he will retreat.” —James E. Faust “Readers are advised to remember the devil is a liar.” ―C.S. Lewis A liar and a coward. He has no allegiance but to himself, no interests but his own, and no motivation but your misery and destruction. Be aware, only to get him behind you, but pay him none of the attention he craves. Speak and live to honor to the Lord.

The most powerful protection against childhood depression is having a mother who values religion. When a mother and her child both said religion was personally important to them, the child was 80 percent less likely to develop major depression. Five times lower risk. That comes from a 10-year longitudinal study at Columbia led by psychologist Lisa Miller. It's the largest protective effect against depression she has found anywhere in the resilience literature. A decade later, Miller's team put adults from the same cohort in MRI machines. People who rated religion or spirituality as personally important had thicker cortices in the exact brain regions that thin in people at high familial risk for depression. The protection has a physical signature. The variable wasn't belief alone. It was shared, internalized importance. Mom and child both meant it. The strongest known buffer against depression in kids is a parent and child who share a faith that actually means something to both of them.