3DOP

Hi theplains. I would find it helpful for an elaboration of how these two statements illustrate agreement or disagreement with any of the propositions made by the conference speaker or of those who have participated in this discussion. I can be wonderfully dense. I regularly fail to understand a joke. But I don't perceive that this is a joke at all. I fear I should understand something that should be obvious to me. Perhaps I am exposing my common stupidity. But I must admit that I cannot see your point. My apologies... 3DOP

Hey again everybody...a question. Just so I understand, the LDS at this conference are quoted as saying that "many Christians", besides teaching that God must be intangible, also reject "a personal God"? And this is evidence of the LDS view of a Great Apostasy? If there are or were many Christians, as is claimed, who hold to these concepts, are there perhaps some who don't and didn't? Who counts among this many? What if there were many other Christians, if even only a minority in ancient times, who always believed in a personal God who lived in the flesh, and now numbers more than a billion baptized? If that were the case, could that count as evidence AGAINST the LDS view of a Great Apostasy as is said to be put forth at this conference? I mean at least as far as intangibility and personhood are concerned. Would not such a case, if it could be found, undermine the argument put forth at this conference as evidence for the LDS view of a "Great Apostasy"? That is not to say that it would disprove a Great Apostasy. But it seems like it should disqualify the "evidence" put forth at the conference in question. 3DOP

I am not well informed about Philo. Thanks, the idea of a multi personal Godhead seems to have even preceded the Apostles!

I am sure the idea originated with the Apostolic teaching that implied a certain equality between the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. This appeared to be in conflict with the teaching of the Old Testament that there was one God. What was the resolution? It took some time, longer than the LDS faith has even been around yet. Eventually, it came to be recognized that there has to be a sense in which God is both One and Three. Even today there are non-creedal Christians who emphasize one or the other. The Oneness or the Threeness. We can maintain both. It might help further to see how some LDS, and apparently these conference speakers you reference, misunderstand the creedal Christian teaching to which I hold as a Catholic. From your opening post above: In contrast, many Christians reject the idea of a tangible, personal God and a Godhead of three separate beings. They believe that God is a spirit and that the Godhead is only one God. In our view, these concepts are evidence of the falling away we call the Great Apostasy. 1) I don't know of any creedal Christian today who would reject that Jesus is now tangible, that He has a human body, and always will. Still, he once was God without a body. If I understand correctly, the Holy Ghost (or Spirit, I do not quite understand the LDS distinction between the two English words which are thought to be synonymous among creedal Christians) is currently God, according to LDS, without a body. It seems like LDS could agree that God can have a body, but that body is not necessary for that person to be God. 2) We don't believe that God is a Person? I am wondering if this is an exact quote. Evangelical Protestants always talk about the need for a personal relationship with God. The creedal definition which tries to resolve the problem of a "Three God Monotheism", if you will, is precisely to affirm the Three as distinct and different Persons. The creedal God is definitely not impersonal. 3) As Persons God is Three, but in essence, or being, God is one and the same. There is no difference in the Godhead when the Father begets His Son. His Son has the same being, nature, or essence as the Father. It is no different than what we observe in earthly biology. Every offspring of a biological animal has all of the necessary attributes of its parents, whether it be a "kangaroo being" or a "human being". And so, creedal Christians believe that the Son, and the Holy Spirit, possess all of the supernatural attributes of God, while having other attributes that are unique to their Persons. 4) #3 could imply the answer to your question above about God not being married, or having a body. Could we be still made in His image? Was the Son made in God's image before He took flesh in Mary's womb? Yes, according to the answer of the creedal Christian, and the LDS (I think). This can be hard for material beings like ourselves to grasp, but to be made in his image is to be a person, (like The Three), with a spiritual, immaterial nature like Their own. Humans have free will, and a rational capacity that is not characterized by anything material. Is free will liquid, solid, or gaseous? Of course not. But free will is a reality that we all know we have. It is an immaterial reality. This and all attributes of God's immaterial reality are possessed by the creatures made "in God's image" with the blessed potential to be elevated to partake of the very being of God, us silly humans! What a wonder and a privilege! What a stupendous thought! Thank God for the gift of faith, without which so sublime a thought, is verily unbelievable. May the all-powerful and blessed God, Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, be praised forever. I got a little carried away there. Heh. Thank you so much Go Celtics for being God's instrument of grace to draw me to think of these things today. And may God bless you always. Rory

Hi GoCeltics. LDS talk about not being a religion of orthodoxy. Instead it is a religion of orthopraxy. If only LDS allowed a little slack to the early church. You guys have Latter-day revelation to ultimately show how the early church was allegedly apostate. I do not deny that you can argue a plausible case for an LDS Godhead from the Scriptures of the early church. But it seems to me like it isn't very clear for about a millennium and a half later with the coming of Latter-day revelation. Even now you guys get to have differing beliefs about this subject. It does not seem at all just to me for the orthopraxic LDS, to go all orthodox against good people who didn't even have the full picture of God's revelation, but offered their lives for Christ and practised the same moral virtues as Temple approved Mormons! What is wrong with early church orthopraxy that couldn't be corrected with Latter-day revelation? LDS like those you describe in this conference condemn their brothers as apostates because of theological mistakes due to ignorance that is in no way their own fault. Thanks for your consideration. 3DOP

Hi Rev! So my point in bringing up the Cross at the beginning of this thread was to speak of the necessity of images, either made out of matter to be meditated on in the mind, or to be meditated upon without physical aids of any kind. The Catholic Church says definitively that we cannot as Catholics know that any particular individual is in Hell. Recently (1917), there was a "private revelation" given while about 70,000 people observed some inexplicable meteorological phenomena. Part of the message of "Our Lady of Fatima" (where what many Catholics believe to have been miraculous), was that Mary told the children who reportedly saw her (while the approximately 69,997 others present could only observe the "miracle of the sun") to exhort faithful Catholics to add this prayer to each decade of Mary's Rosary: O my Jesus, forgive us our sins, LEAD ALL SOULS TO HEAVEN, especially those most in need of Thy mercy. Disclaimer: I do not remember at which apparition Our Lady gave us what has come to be called, "The Fatima Prayer". Anyway, I think both of our communities agree that God draws or leads everyone to Himself. There might be few or many who hate God so much as to refuse His overtures. Poor souls who prefer separation from God instead of union. We should pray for all and hope for all, especially those "most in need of God's mercy".

Pyreaux. Good explanations. I do not think a Catholic needs to refute them.

Hi Pyreaux. Very interesting. The translations of the Hebrew that I read distinguish God from gods in different places. The "gods" receive a reverence that is fitting for their representation of God. It seems fitting to make an obeisance before the "gods of God". It should be separated in degree from the veneration given to the God of gods. St. Peter instructs the flock of Christ in 1 Peter 2:17 (from memory): "Honor all men. Fear God. Love the Brotherhood. Honor the Emperor". When Christ became incarnate, my Church teahces that in a certain sense He united Himself with every man. We see Christ in everyone, and thus we are instructed to hold all in some kind of reverence. Likewise with the Emperor, according to his office. We are to love our equals, the brotherhood. But we fear God alone. I could comment further, but it would distract us from the thread topic. I think Pyreaux, I can assume that a bodily resurrected Christ escapes the distasteful and unromantic belief that existed prior to Christianity?

One paragraph at a time. Hi, The Nehor. This is for you. I want to include others. But you others will figure it out if you like by reading the preceding posts. Yes. Good point. But as one tries to find a replacement, journey is a necessary exercise. It might providentially take all of our years? Are you familiar with Oscar Wilde? His story of wit and talent and unhappiness with nothingness until his very last moments fills my eyes with tears just thinking about God's goodness. Good Oscar Wilde, ora pro nobis. You might not find the biography by Joseph Pearce as edifying as I did. But may we all find rest and peace, if for just a final moment, even in this life. Antiquity can be wrong, yes, I must grant the point. Judaism as who knows it doesn't really go back that far? Clearly, it was religion on the move. The author of the letter to the Hebrews, however we date it, argues for some essentials which extend back to before Moses (Melchisedec), through a later time when mistakenly read as perennially applicable, fundamentalist Christians and Muslims might think they learn that they should wipe out their enemies. Later Judaism believed in an "afterlife" that was very bleak at best. The Deutoro-canonicals which Catholics accept can act as a helpful bridge to understand the Pharisee/Sadducee tension. The dead can benefit from prayers? A far cry from the desolate "Pit" of the dead Psalmist. Anyway, this is why, more than ever, I can only believe in a religion that occasionally makes mistakes, or put better, hasn't realized the implications of its own teachings. See Philemon on slavery; it was getting better, but not perfect. I can't dismiss Mormonism because of polygamy or the priesthood ban, while I have Catholic saints who urge and enforce that the state should outlaw non-Catholic beliefs. Given a lot of change, I still see essential unity of religion from the fall of Adam (not necessarily literal history), from Noah to Abraham, from Moses to David, and from Jesus to the LDS President or Pope Leo. Next paragraph/sentence. If God is good, He couldn't expect us to believe in truth that isn't revealed while we live. That is what I meant, The Nehor, regarding what God expects. I wasn't presuming His existence or goodness. But if He neither exists, nor is good, I am morally free to ignore unreasonable expectations. And a good God will punish no one for a religion that isn't around while they are alive. Nor would He "expect" anyone to believe in a religion that is in some places, but which is not known by an individual soul who hasn't heard. Heaven will be populated by good souls who did their best in the dark, and who never knew of Moses or Jesus and had at least a hunch and acted upon the idea that God is good. I can't believe in a bad God. But if some do, at least they shouldn't shouldn't fear or obey such a monster. Let us if we don't know, do good, happy to hope that perhaps paradoxically God is good in this world of His, that is full of pain and trial. God is love. Maybe some can get credit for believing in love? I dunno though. Take courage, The Nehor. Its 3:30 AM Central Time in the US where I live. I should be closing brown eyes instead of getting wired on a screen. Retirement is great, but one still likes to be awake with one's loved ones and neighbors. I liked your post a lot. I appreciate your candor. May you receive the light for which you yearn, and may I as well. The journey, as Mr. Wilde teaches us, is not nothing. It is Something. God bless, 3DOP

Hello, The Nehor. I was thinking I should hear from you in another place. I now see you have been keeping busy. No worries. No obligation. There is no question that the presence of God in our lives is rather subtle to say the least. In my tradition, the greatest saints experienced long periods where they were feeling dry and desolate. There is a story in John 4 (I know, its too late, heh.) where Jesus meets a woman at a well and they get to talking. One of the things Jesus brings up, is that His Father seeks those who worship Him "in spirit and in truth". What does that mean? Catholics teach that God is actually an immaterial reality. Jesus says to her that God is a spirit. Maybe that has something to do with it? But you don't have to believe as Catholics do about God being without a body. Either way, God is in any tangible, material sense, hidden from us. Seldom does anyone in any tradition have continual visions of God with their eyes or hearing His voice with their ears. It is difficult for material beings to worship or feel communion with anyone that is for whatever reason, beyond our sense experience. I agree with you, The Nehor, about feelings. But I would say that if we need to make sure not to trust our sublime feelings of connection with God, neither should we trust our low feelings of separation from God. Today is one of those days. I forced my way through my morning prayer routine, asking God to help me to pray. Sometimes that "works", in that I get elevated feelings, but not always and not today. I got a text message a little while after that asking if anybody could take a holy hour at noon. At our parish, we have a schedule so that someone keeps our Lord company in the Blessed Sacrament chapel 24/7 where even though we believe Jesus is really present, He still looks like bread! God is still hiding. So I am retired, and I volunteered, although I didn't want to then and still don't when it is less than an hour away. I don't know if I will feel better afterwards or not. I hope so. I love elevated feelings. However, I knew from experience I should do it. I have a little sense of gladness that I obeyed my conscience. I would be feeling even more troubled if I had not volunteered. What I think I am learning is that God is more concerned with what we do than how we feel. Maybe it is meritorious to ignore our down times as well as our high times? I think our God would love to let us have sublime feelings all the time. What can happen though, is that we might start thinking that we are hot stuff for God. Humility can be diminished. Down feelings? Spiritual poverty can be a tool to help me be more resolute in doing the big and little things that I don't want to do. I hate it when I feel miserable. For me, disorder, and not keeping my schedule, almost invariably brings me down. Sometimes just returning to my schedule brings me out of the dumps. I suppose I should try that, huh? Whatever our individual inclinations, we need to recognize our feelings in a peaceful and serene manner, remembering that our downs are as temporary as our ups and vice versa. I am thinking that to maintain our faiths, it can help to recognize that the feelings we don't want and feelings we do want are permitted by God for our good. If feelings can be ignored are they therefore unimportant? That is impossible for us up and down creatures. We should try to understand the effect they should and should not have on us for good or bad. But if we have trust that God loves us, in times of seeming desolation or exaltation, we should view them as instruments of grace from God, allowed for the supreme purpose of helping us learn best what it means to worship God in spirit and in truth. Like seemingly everything else with God it is not immediately apparent what that means or how to do it. Does the problem of God's apparent, and I believe, very real hiddenness mean He doesn't care if we fail or not? That can't be it. Look at what He does for us if we believe He came and died for us. Or look at what He does for us placing us in a world that is so full of things great and small that we humans perceive as beautiful. I think God has a truly patient concern that for the most part we grow and develop step by little step. If it were for our good, I believe God would appear to us openly. For reasons my poor intellect can't clearly grasp, I believe God's hiddeness is for our good, even if doesn't always please us. I am happy to believe He loves all of us and isn't finished with any of us. Yes. I believe in love. And what a wonder, I think almost anyone can figure out what that means. St. Augustine had a saying. "Love and do what you will." That almost sounds like John Lennon. Love is all we need? If we have love we should guard it as our treasure and try to make every conscious act, out of love for God or neighbor. I am just offering all this as suggestions. The whole rambling post is for what its worth only. I hope it is a help to anyone. Hey, that ain't a bad motive! Hehe. Feelings are on the way back up! My apologies for that embarrassing stream of consciousness. It seems like it could help without trying to impress anybody. You shouldn't be impressed. I am anything but impressive and I can prove it by warning you that if anyone is impressed, I will be on the way to believing you. Yeah. That is what I am really and truly like. I am as ridiculous as they come. But I am sure glad to believe in love. Regards to all, 3DOP

Hey The Nehor. I know some of what you don't believe. But what would you have us replace our faith with? What positive religious beliefs should we have if any? We can't replace something with nothing. Your quotes from above will be in bold below. There is a survivorship bias here. Yes. I have assumed that if a truth claim is made at one time and is not maintained historically, that I have a reasonable excuse to not explore an extinct belief. If a claim to truth disappears or only returns from time to time, it is not something worth entertaining as God's truth. Whenever we allow a date for the Catholic Church beginning, one has to admit that it has survived uninterruptedly for many centuries in a recognizable, visible form. Does anyone believe in something that doesn't survive? Survival is important, no? If it goes away in history, is it not safe to ignore it? While it was based to a degree on the church fathers there were lots of Christianities around that made similar claims. If survival is not a factor, on what basis would you recommend any of the other "lots of Christianities around that made similar claims"? Surely God doesn't expect His people to have to sift through a lot of ancient records to become even moderately familiar with them. What if I somehow came to believe that one of them was God's lost religion? Then what? Would we be obliged to try to find others? It does not seem fitting or plausible. I am not ashamed to be biased in favor of a surviving religion. I am a sola survivalist! The proto-orthodox movement won out so it is easy to see it as a continuous tradition yet plenty of other versions of Christianity could have won out. I don't believe there are many who hold that God's truth could lose. I am not trying to prove the Catholic Church is true. But a teaching that isn't around is impotent. Even if it were "true", how could God expect people to believe in it. Then add the differences that have slowly slipped in over time while others have slipped out. The Church Fathers would be confused or bewildered by quite a bit of what there is in Catholicism. I can grant that to a point. I suggest many of the Fathers would not be too surprised at a transformation in some of the ceremonies that have changed as doctrinal developments arrive over the centuries. It is hard to match mature adults with their baby pictures. After getting over some initial surprise from the Church at 2,000 years old, they would need to single out the Catholic Church by her unchanging visible ecclesiology and Her Sacramental life. After that they would need to examine and begin to appreciate what has changed ceremonially and advanced by development of doctrine. Ultimately they would need to identify with the Catholic Church by what has been retained as well as by what the Church has grown into. Going back to the baby church, she is well past the time of baby clothes. An older church must dress Herself accordingly. They couldn't be scandalized because she has left some customs behind and adopted new ones. If they remained bewildered, they shouldn't have believed in a stagnant, never changing church. Catholics do not believe that there is public revelation after the Apostles, true. A lot of Christians think that means that like Adam, the Church arrived fully grown. The best thing they think they can do is imitate the past the best they can. No. That is impractical for a living, surviving Church that grows with the ages and like Jesus, was born as an infant. Probably even more by Protestantism (and Mormonism) that claim to be a restoration in some sense of what the Church Fathers believed. Maybe. There have always been and will be non-Catholic movements within what I would call broadly, Christianity. Reformation or Restoration, we can see today elements of grace in communities that are separated from us, but not completely detached from the Catholic Church. I don't see how the Fathers could be very surprised at the same thing in our era as the "plenty of other Christians that could have won out" in their own eras. Thanks for your consideration, Rory

Heheheh,. Hilarious. But it is easier to go to the moon though hodd, than to eat a bag of pine cones. I think America was ready to attack the moon and doubted that the commies would be beating us in the pinecone challenge! Thankfully, we seem to have guessed right. I wonder if those stupid bastards even thought of how pinecone eating could have saved Soviet communism. Or they might have just chickened out. THINK: Cuban Missile Crisis?

Okay, this thread made me see a connection to a thread I started over in General Discussions about the Resurrection of Christ. I invite Social Hall to also critique my sudden burst of enthusiasm. Here or there if you like. Over there, I wrote: "Some of you might have seen the thread over at the Social Hall about the new space launch, and the question that some have regarding whether we actually went to the Moon? There is a parallel with disbelieving we went to the moon and disbelieving that Christ rose from the dead! I just thought of this. Both require a conspiracy theory. Both involve large numbers of conspirators who aren't necessarily your spy/sleuth types who are practiced at the art of deception. And they never reveal the trick they played on the gullible. Another thing that all conspiracy theories require is a motive. What do the conspirators have to gain? I just realized that without opening a Bible that my beliefs are supported by the same reasoning for believing Christ's Resurrection as I do for believing in the Apollo Moon Landing. To be sure, I also want to believe both are true. In the case of Christ, it becomes a matter of faith that God gave me the disposition (grace), to want the Resurrection to be true. With regards to the moon, its not faith. It is just an observance of human behavior and inability to see why the US government and technical collaborators from many different disciplines, would risk cooperating to make a hoax that not one would ever reveal. And I believe Pres. Kennedy's reasons for why we were going. And this among others, "Not because it is easy...". Heh."

Some of you might have seen the thread over at the Social Hall about the new space launch, and the question that some have regarding whether we actually went to the Moon? There is a parallel with disbelieving we went to the moon and disbelieving that Christ rose from the dead! I just thought of this. Both require a conspiracy theory. Both involve large numbers of conspirators who aren't necessarily your spy/sleuth types who are practiced at the art of deception. And they never reveal the trick they played on the gullible. Another thing that all conspiracy theories require is a motive. What do the conspirators have to gain? I just realized that without opening a Bible that my beliefs are supported by the same reasoning for believing Christ's Resurrection as I do for believing in the Apollo Moon Landing. To be sure, I also want to believe both are true. In the case of Christ, it becomes a matter of faith that God gave me the disposition (grace), to want the Resurrection to be true. With regards to the moon, its not faith. It is just an observance of human behavior and inability to see why the US government and technical collaborators from many different disciplines, would risk cooperating to make a hoax that not one would ever reveal. And I believe Pres. Kennedy's reason for why we were going. "Not because it is easy...". Heh.

I admire Heschmeyer. I was at a conference where he spoke this year. But I didn't look at the video. Its probably a personal thing. I was into eschatology years ago. I have embraced more than one truly innovative and appealing interpretation of Daniel and Revelation and they are contradictory. What does that imply? That clever, appealing, and innovative interpretations of all Scripture can be false. It is easy to embrace one teaching, because, it is so clever, and admirable in its presentation, and keep admiring. But it helps us see our folly if we seriously review other biblical interpretations that are also brilliant, innovative, etc. How does one decide? That was my quandary as a young and naive Baptist minister who started looking in to what other churches taught. I had mocked the supposed silly beliefs of other Christians before I decided to let them explain their own views. I learned that none of them were crazy! I learned that successful error is never internally incoherent or intellectually dissatisfying to its adherents. I have stated many times that "Scripture alone never resolves doctrinal controversy". Maybe it should go on my gravestone! Heh. I think it is impossible to identify the one, true Church, with apostolic authority from Scripture. The Church Christ founded needs to be plausible from Scripture, of course. But I can easily eliminate all but two or maybe three of the thousands of different Christian churches that disagree with each other without opening the Bible. It is much easier to identify the meaning of Scripture through the Church than to identify the true Church through Scripture. For what it is worth, in my opinion... 3DOP

Oh sheesh. Disregard the above. "That was the laudanum speaking". Thankfully, I am at 12% charge. Time to shut up as I earlier intended.

Yes. We landed on the moon. In that deecade. Not because it was easy, but because it was hodd. I miss the Kennedys. I have very close people to me who are conspiracy whacked. No moon, chemtrails, Bilderbergers, Q, Alex Jones, no holocaust, Pizzagate, Second Vatican Council, Twin Towers, the Devil...oooh...wait...oooh. I believe in the "Burmple". That was our family's euphemism for the devil that the kids made up. Count me in, another conspiracy kook.

My back has been killing me, not literally, figuratively, and forgive me, I have availed myself of some liquid joy and pain relief that is permissible in my religion. I hope I have not been too effusively lovey dovey or amenable when I should have been antagonistic after only two drinks. I know how you guys hate, Hate, HATE a drink. Anyway, I should refrain from anymore writing until tomorrow. I will see you on the other side. May it be with the sober inebriation of a much better spirit/Spirit than my cheap Bacardi rum. Thanks for your patience. R

Pyreaux, hi again. We need baptism before resurrection? Okay. I was just speaking of Matins this morning where it speaks of buried in death, but coming out of the water illuminated and resurrected. Appointed to us once to die, after this the Judgment. Hebrews something. 2:3? Between death and judgment, you all have the possibility of baptism. We need baptism, which is resurrection while we live, (even if we don't appreciate it.

Yeah Calm, sorry, have you always capitalized? I know you will forgive me for such a detail. Anyway, Mfb has had his effect on me. I fear it hasn't gone the other way. He can be so dogmatic philosophically. A transcendent God won't hear my prayers. "Whatever", say I. Maybe speculatively true before the Gospel of Jesus, is how I think, when we who are created out of nothing hear something that makes us believe that this "wholly other creator"...loves us "nothings" like He loves the Uncreated Persons of His family! And He wants to elevate our own created nature to be like His own...divine and uncreated and make us part of the family. The Godhead! I don't know why people hate such a story or myth. Who would not at least WANT it to be true? Anyway, I like it. A lot. I don't think Mark or a lot of LDS, or even atheists hate it, properly understood. But I wish I could, or somebody else, Bp. Barron and all the saints help us, could make Catholic theology less obtuse and absurd to Mark while respecting and incorporating his epistemology. MYSTERY. I know Mfb would want to be part of this conversation. I miss you Mark. Anyway, If you can see this Mark, God bless you my often Nemesis. You have frustrated me more than you know over the years. My fault, not yours. But you have made me think and adjust. For that and for your sometimes hard to detect good will, you are my friend and I am yours. May we praise God together...soon.

I can't figure out how to quote you properly The Nehor. Let me simply thank you for your reply. I know little about biblical criticism. The Catholic Church recognizes the need for what She calls the historico-critical method. Do you have any book recommendations to explain your own journey? Have you had formal training? Was there a time when you were more mainstream? If so, was the transition painful? All of my many "conversions" have been accompanied by painful and distressing human disagreement with friends and family. But peace follows when I think I have moved in the right direction. Thanks for your candor. Edited to PS: I respect any reticence to be fully candid. Just ignore and you will lose no respect from me.

Hi Smac. Thanks for replying. I agree with your view of Jesus' bodily Resurrection. Fictional heroes can be instructive, but I have never heard of anyone with a lifelong zeal to tell the world about them. I am not in a position to know how important historicity is to the Book of Mormon. I had been thinking that some LDS parties who have participated here were toying with it as pious fiction. In another post, I explained that I don't see LDS young people being motivated to give two years of their lives to missionary efforts to help people to see the Book of Mormon as inspired fiction. But again, I could be wrong. I have tentatively admitted elsewhere, I don't think I need New Testament evidence that Christ is risen. That the Galilean fishermen and other Apostles gave their lives to convincingly preaching a Resurrection which they never witnessed seems less credible than that they did witness it. What could give them such permanent fervour as they had to have to reach others with a "resurrected Jesus story" when they had to presume his death? Maybe I am naive, but I think my faith in the Resurrection event is a gift to my heart from God, what you all might call a testimony. I am thankful that I want it to be true. At the same time it seems reasonable to my intellect. The visible Resurrection of Christ to His disciples becomes the most plausible explanation I can think of for why Christianity took root and spread through the Roman Empire and over time, to the world beyond. I can give some answer to those who would wonder at my faith because the gift of faith is also reasonable.

Indeed. I tend to agree. I thank you for pointing out a potential mistake in procedure. The first believers didn't have any New Testament to help them make the assent of faith to the Resurrection that was preached to them. I can live with the idea that we need not, 2,000 years later, quote ANY New Testament text, but especially those that LDS like yourself, would presumably accept, as pious fiction, but reject as historically accurate "evidence" of a Resurrection. I had not reckoned with the idea that Latter-day Saints would readily dismiss references to St. Paul's conversion as described in Acts, as a factor in Christian faith claims. But as admitted, I can give ground in that area, and tend to agree with your assessment. I still must also admit to being a little taken aback, by your position. In twenty-five years of interaction with LDS on the internet, I cannot recall the Latter-day-Saint who expressed doubt about the historicity of the book of Acts or the Gospel of John. This is a little off topic, since we both see that it is not necessarily pertinent to the question of the Resurrection, but should I know that this position against the historicity of the book of Acts and John's Gospel reflects that of some Apostles or other LDS church leaders? Do you see it as a growing development in the LDS mainstream? I had been thinking that most LDS were more "Catholic", if you will, in their view of New Testament Scripture than you seem to represent. Maybe I have not been paying close attention? As I tried to say above, I assumed that Latter-day Saints had more latitude for doubt of literal historical value in the Scripture than I do as a Catholic. I was thinking about Noah's Ark or some of Samson's reported exploits which even I can legitimately take as pious, but inspired fiction. True myths as someone else has suggested. But I wouldn't have guessed that many Latter-day Saints have misgivings about the historicity of Acts and John's Gospel because "the Book of Acts and the Gospel of John came very late so their historicity is questionable at best. Acts is probably more a collection of legends rather than an eye witness account." I truly don't mind being corrected in my naivete, even after 25 years of internet familiarity. Thanks, The Nehor for your consideration, and correction of any misunderstanding I may have been entertaining about LDS beliefs. Rory