Where Is The Serious Mormon Theology?

[elguanteloko]

I think I agree. Everything I've learned of Philosophy seemed to discount revelation as non-rational, thus excluding God as a part of wisdom. Not a good idea.

HJ

Discounting revelation as non-rational means nothing and you don't know this because you don't understand what philosophy or theology is. Rocks are non-rational but we accept them. Beauty is a non-rational reaction and that doesn't mean we won't accept the "data" of beauty. To even speak one needs to assume a plethora of facts that are non-rational for the moment in which they aren't questioned. What you are saying is as absurd as saying that because I don't know the COMPLETE molecular structure of each part of a given boat I, therefore, can't use the concept of a boat. We have to assume some things and theology rationally explores the consequences and workings of a given faith WHILE ACCEPTING THE DOGMAS OF THAT FAITH FOR THE MOMENT BEING. Again, you can't escape philosophy and you can say you aren't doing philosophy or theology but all you can do is bad or better philosophy, bad or better theology. Example: what you are doing is theology/philosophy. The difference between you and a philosopher/theologian is that they hold your simple "Not a good idea" to a much higher standard of inquiry. Clearly, those that take your attitude tend to be those that can't do philosophy or theology.

[Deborah]

I've never found the "Mormon culture" to be all that in synch with LDS doctrine myself

I wonder how this plays in other countries where the "Mormon culture" we have here wouldn't have such influence? I get frustrated too at some of the traditions we've fallen into which seem counter to the simple basic faith of the ancient church. I think we have a long way to go before the Law of Consecration becomes part of our lives rather than an assignment from the RS President. Though I think our fast moving, mobile society contributes to a sort of isolationism so that we aren't as connected to our neighbors as we used to be.

When we talk about theology or philosophy I think there are very few in the church who would even be interested in this. We will always have that one person in the ward who has read and is a deep thinker and can answer any question. But the majority of members barely get through their scriptures and are so busy with kids, callings and worldly concerns they barely have time to think more than fleetingly about the more profound points of the gospel.

[elguanteloko]

It may be that we cannot choose to believe; but we must carry some responsibility for failing to believe in revealed truth, otherwise we could not be condemned for not believing.

Well, the point is that one isn't justified in condemning someone else for not believing the unbelievable. Let's say that IN FACT you are an alien from outer space. You refuse to provide me with credible evidence... are you justified in saying I'm guilty of not believing the truth when no compelling evidence is presented?

I believe the ability to believe in divine or revealed truth is partially a gift from God. If it wasn’t, we would have no way of discriminating between true revelatory claims and false ones; and no one could be condemned for believing in a false religion, nor deserve special credit for believing in a true one. We would simply have no way of knowing which is which.

You clearly believe that but I have no reason to believe what you believe. Sorry. You can try and present some to me, if you want.

However, I said it is partially a gift from God because it does not force us to believe; but our agency is preserved in the process by allowing us the option of choosing to believe. So there is an element of choice involved in belief as well. The gift consists of a certain spiritual light that one receives, that bears witness to one’s spirit of its truth. The rest is up to the individual. If he is a genuine seeker after truth, he will than take that initial light further, until that initial spark of light he received is turned into a bright testimony and a conviction; otherwise he will quench it, and it will not go any further. That is where the condemnation begins. The Lord has expressed it in these words:

D&C 93

:

31 Behold, here is the agency of man, and here is the condemnation of man; because that which was from the beginning is plainly manifest unto them, and they

receive not the light

.

32 And every man whose spirit

receiveth not the light

is under condemnation.

That D&C verse does NOT support your view. All it says is that when something is plainly manifest unto "them" they receive not the light. Whose fault is it that it is not plainly manifest unto me that God exists and, consequently, that I do not "receive [i assume it means "accept" instead of "receive"] the light"?

Revealed truth, authoritatively presented and declared, will always be accompanied by an element of that light, which breeds conviction. It is the failure to heed that light that causes one to disbelieve, and brings one under condemnation.

So, the verse says that I first find something as being "plainly manifest" and then I must accept it... and then what I accepted "breeds conviction" (what you said)? I thought I was convinced of what was plainly manifest in the first place. If I wasn't, then it wasn't plainly manifest.

You say that at some point you stopped believing in the Church, and even in God. I presume that before it you did believe.

Correct.

Then something happened that caused you to stop believing.

I'll tell you what it was. I started to think more about the claims of the Church and the scriptures and I found them first morally mislead, then intellectually unconvincing. Actually, there wasn't a time when I prayed more, studied the scriptures more, and was involved with the Church more than right when my belief started to go down.

I have no way of knowing what that could be; but experience teaches us that that is nearly always caused by a transgression of some kind—even if it means nothing more than neglecting your prayers, scripture studies, and church attendance.

This can't explain much since members of the Church (and all humans) are constantly falling from perfection and many of them don't go from that to leaving the Church.

Now I think that is a rather presumptuous comment to make for someone who admittedly no longer believes in the Church, and apparently, not even in God any more. You are trying to tell the Mormons what is good for them!

lol How is that presumptuous? Next time you go to an unbeliever doctor and she tells you what medicines you need, tell her that she is being presumptuous for tell you, a believer of THE TRUTH, what is best for you. Next time you go to a financial adviser of some sort who isn't a member of the Church tell him he is presumptuous to tell you what is financially better for you. Next time you bring an illogical claim to a nonbeliever logic PhD tell him he is being presumptuous for telling you that your claim makes no sense and that you should probably change it.

I don’t think that as an unbeliever you are in a position to make such a judgement at all.

...........why not?

If you are seriously interested in knowing whether the Church is true to not, I suggest you try to take advice from the Church, rather than give advice to the Church; and if you are not seriously interested in finding out the truth about the Church, then you would be better off taking your theological advice somewhere else, because I don’t think the Church will be interested.

How dare you, a non-nonbeliever, say what is best for nonbelievers? How presumptuous of you! (sarcasm to show you how absurd your position is)

[ERayR]

you don't understand what philosophy or theology is.

It is very simple theology is the study of God's revelations. Philosophy is men approaching theology with an over rated sense of self importance.

[elguanteloko]

It is very simple theology is the study of God's revelations.

Nope. Exegesis is not theology, for example, but it would be under this definition. God's revelations are NOT theology but the rational study of God's revelations is. Plus, this doesn't say what method is used and the real definition specifies that it is the rational study of... Good try but no. You can look it up in the dictionary, you know?

Philosophy is men approaching theology with an over rated sense of self importance.

A small part of Philosophy is men and women rationally approaching theology without assuming the dogmas of faith... not that you would know that, of course.

[Nathair/|\]

Since we seem to be talking about philosophy, I wanted to share this. It's one of the core elements in Revival Druid philosophy.

Llyma weddi'r orsedd o Lyfr arall

Dyro Dduw dy Nawdd;

Ag yn nawdd, nerth;

Ag yn nerth, Deall;

Ag yn Neall, Gwybod;

Ac yngwybod, gwybod y cyfiawn;

Ag yngwybod yn cyfiawn, ei garu;

Ag o garu, caru pob hanfod;

Ag ymhob Hanfod, caru Duw.

Duw a phob Daioni.^[5]The Gorsedd Prayer, from another Book

Grant, O God, Thy protection;

And in protection, strength;

And in strength, understanding;

And in understanding, knowledge;

And in knowledge, the knowledge of justice;

And in the knowledge of justice, the love of it;

And in that love, the love of all existences;

And in the love of all existences, the love of God.

God and all goodness.^[6]

[edit]

[ERayR]

A small part of Philosophy is men and women rationally approaching theology without assuming the dogmas of faith... not that you would know that, of course.

That would be great if it wasn't that most people especially you measure rationality by how well it agrees with their own biases. I wonder about the sanity of everybody but you and me and lately I have really been worried about you.

[elguanteloko]

So personal experience is factual?

I think you misunderstood what theology was. Theology accepts the dogmas of faith first and then rationally studies them and the conclusions that follow from them. In Catholic theology, one accepts the catholic dogmas of faith and reasons with them and takes those "revelations" or "spiritual data" to their logical conclusions. If there is conflict then you change your interpretation of the "facts" or revelations but you don't conclude that the revelation is not from God or anything like that. Mormon theology would take as facts the revelatory statements given in what is taken as scripture and then proceeds to rationally study them but you don't conclude that the revelation is false though (since it came from God) though you can say that you interpreted the revelation wrongly.

If theology requires reason, and reason requires logic, and logic requires "true" postulates and "true" facts... Then you're ok with subjective perceptions as being "true" facts? Really?

I don't get what you are trying to say here, sorry.

But... That's confusing, don't you think? It feels like you are talking from both sides of your mouth. It's factual, but absurd and not convincing... Hmmm...

Philosophers do NOT take the dogmas of faith as facts and then study them. Theologians do. Philosophy =/= Theology. For me, most of the dogmas of faith from mormons or from other religions are not true and, therefore, I don't do theology. I could do theology if for the moment being I took dogmas of faith as facts and then started from those facts using reason to analyze their consequences.

If one is not using reason but instead is using experience to make a statement of belief, then by your own definition, it is not theology. Show me, please, where this is not correct.

Mormons read the revelation (scriptures) that say that God is a loving God and that God is love. When they start trying to understand those statements and their implications they are doing theology. What they conclude after it (how that love works, how we get to know what the love of God is in experience, that we can experience his love as love instead of just a manifestation of nature which was created by God, etc) is to also do theology. Once you start to try to understand these revelations then you are doing theology. As St. Augustine said: "What we understand we owe to reason; what we believe to authority."

[elguanteloko]

That would be great if it wasn't that most people especially you measure rationality by how well it agrees with their own biases. I wonder about the sanity of everybody but you and me and lately I have really been worried about you.

Believe it or not, I accept very little. Pretty much anything is open for questioning for me. The best I can do, I think, is to go with the best possible explanation but even when I accept an explanation it isn't written in stone from then on. My question is, why do you start from the assumption that I'm a stubborn self-righteous jerk? Why don't you compare the best that I have to offer with the best you have to offer and stop the aggressiveness here?

[ERayR]

Believe it or not, I accept very little. Pretty much anything is open for questioning for me. The best I can do, I think, is to go with the best possible explanation but even when I accept an explanation it isn't written in stone from then on. My question is, why do you start from the assumption that I'm a stubborn self-righteous jerk?

Believe it or not I too go for the best possible explanation. You and I just don't agree to much on what is the best possible explanation.

The tone of your posts.

[elguanteloko]

Believe it or not I too go for the best possible explanation. You and I just don't agree to much on what is the best possible explanation.

The tone of your posts.

What "possible explanation" do you precisely think we don't agree on?

[RoseMadder]

Your 2+2=5 is certainly falsifiable. However statements like ... "God exists." , "God doesn't exist.", "Christ arose.", "Joseph Smith was a Prophet of God." are unfalsifiable. Those things are mathematically quantifiable. There are no pat rules to address them. We can't prove any of those statements in the same sense we could make a geometric proof of something.

Mudcat, is it possible to prove statements such as "God exists." in any sense?

I'm no philosopher, but it seems to me that what is unfalsifiable is also unprovable. It makes sense that what cannot be falsified cannot be confirmed.

[3DOP]

Is ethics, philosophy of science, of mathematics, of mind, of art, etc, incompatible with revelation? This must be a joke. Again, "Philosophy" is an umbrella term for a bunch of topics and ways of approaching them. Revelation is "data" that is accepted in theology, NOT a conclusion a philosopher gets to. Philosophy does NOT deny revelation but conducts inquiry without taking the data of revelation although it could, in principle, arrive at some of what revelation says. For example, reason (philosophy) may get you to the conclusion that there must be a Prime Mover who is outside of space and time, a conclusion many religions already accept as revelation.

Hi elguanteloko.

This sounds like very familiar language. Vatican I defines the apostolic requirement that Catholics believe that one can arrive at the truth that there is a Creator God from the correct use of reason, independently of supernatural revelation. In my opinion, this is the greatest distrinction that separates my faith from that of many thoughtful Mormons that I have communicated with over the years. They often insist that if they discover that the LDS faith is false, they would become agnostic or atheist. And indeed this tends to happen. This lethal error (in my opinion) tends to inform my opinion regarding possible explanations for how Joseph Smith composed the Latter-day revelations and founded the Restored Church.

As a Catholic, I could never say that if I should become disillusioned about the Catholic Church, disillusionment from God would follow. Nor am I tempted to believe it. I am a theist first, naturally, without the aid of faith, without revelation. This provides a predilection to wonder if this God, who has made things that are good and beautiful, and that declare a big hint of Himself, might possibly have more to say that goes beyond my reasoning powers. I think supernatural Christianity answers nature. I cannot believe that a Creator God who reveals himself supernaturally, would place us in a natural universe that tells a different story, that contradicts that message. To suggest that reason and faith are in conflict is unthinkable for a Catholic, and that is the biggest reason why if I understand Mormonism correctly, I could never be LDS, that is to say, a Christian who could be agnostic or atheist upon finding his particular church was untrue.

3DOP

[elguanteloko]

Mudcat, is it possible to prove statements such as "God exists." in any sense?

In principle, you could. You could think that the universe has an uncaused cause and that that cause must be personal and timeless, etc, etc, etc.

I'm no philosopher, but it seems to me that what is unfalsifiable is also unprovable.

Are you talking about science here? Science, first of all, does NOT prove anything as true... anything except that some thing, somewhere may be wrong in a set of theories through experimentation. That's it. If you are not talking about science then this doesn't generally apply to other areas.

It makes sense that what cannot be falsified cannot be confirmed.

In science, what can be falsified is also NEVER confirmed no matter how many positive results you get.

[elguanteloko]

Hi elguanteloko.

This sounds like very familiar language. Vatican I defines the apostolic requirement that Catholics believe that one can arrive at the truth that there is a Creator God from the correct use of reason, independently of supernatural revelation. In my opinion, this is the greatest distrinction that separates my faith from that of many thoughtful Mormons that I have communicated with over the years.

Great point, 3DOP! I agree with you and I think this most unfortunate distinction will drive many more mormons out of their religion. Man, just look at the anti-intellectual wave of remarks many LDS are posting here! Seriously, what a sad sight. Don't tell anyone but I've been thinking of becoming a Catholic. You should post here more often.

They often insist that if they discover that the LDS faith is false, they would become agnostic or atheist. And indeed this tends to happen. This lethal error (in my opinion) tends to inform my opinion regarding possible explanations for how Joseph Smith composed the Latter-day revelations and founded the Restored Church.

That's something I like from Catholicism, "if science or reason conflicts with theology then we are doing either bad science or bad theology." (I don't remember who said that but I thought it was just great!)

As a Catholic, I could never say that if I should become disillusioned about the Catholic Church, disillusionment from God would follow. Nor am I tempted to believe it. I am a theist first, naturally, without the aid of faith, without revelation. This provides a predilection to wonder if this God, who has made things that are good and beautiful, and that declare a big hint of Himself, might possibly have more to say that goes beyond my reasoning powers. I think supernatural Christianity answers nature. I cannot believe that a Creator God who reveals himself supernaturally, would place us in a natural universe that tells a different story, that contradicts that message. To suggest that reason and faith are in conflict is unthinkable for a Catholic, and that is the biggest reason why if I understand Mormonism correctly, I could never be LDS, that is to say, a Christian who could be agnostic or atheist upon finding his particular church was untrue.

Very nice!

Nice to "meet" you here, brother.

[RoseMadder]

In principle, you could. You could think that the universe has an uncaused cause and that that cause must be personal and timeless, etc, etc, etc.

Are you talking about science here? Science, first of all, does NOT prove anything as true... anything except that some things somewhere may be wrong through experimentation. That's it. If you are not talking about science then this doesn't generally apply to other areas.

In science, what can be falsified is also NEVER confirmed no matter how many positive results you get.

Thank you, elguanteloko. Yes, I do recall that science disproves and refines rather than proves.

Again, I'm no philosopher, but I do like to learn.

It seems as if one could presuppose the universe has an uncaused cause and proceed from there, but proving that the universe has an uncaused cause? That's the leap my philosophically undereducated mind can't make, even though I do believe the universe has an uncaused cause. I just can't put my finger on a logical progression to that conclusion, if that makes any sense. I understand believing what I believe because I cannot do otherwise, and I understand others doing the same, however.

I also tend to want to balance equations, generally, though I realize that may be very simplistic. If in science what can be falsified can never be fully confirmed, then it seems that assertions of an unfalsifiable nature would be equally, if not more so, impossible to confirm.

Thanks for the interesting discussion!

[elguanteloko]

Thank you, elguanteloko. Yes, I do recall that science disproves and refines rather than proves.

Again, I'm no philosopher, but I do like to learn.

It seems as if one could presuppose the universe has an uncaused cause and proceed from there, but proving that the universe has an uncaused cause? That's the leap my philosophically undereducated mind can't make, even though I do believe the universe has an uncaused cause. I just can't put my finger on a logical progression to that conclusion, if that makes any sense. I understand believing what I believe because I cannot do otherwise, and I understand others doing the same, however.

I also tend to want to balance equations, generally, though I realize that may be very simplistic. If in science what can be falsified can never be fully confirmed, then it seems that assertions of an unfalsifiable nature would be equally, if not more so, impossible to confirm.

The thing is, most things we take to be the case are not "proved" at all and they don't need to be. Proofs are for logic and mathematics, not for most of philosophy, theology, and everyday stuff.

Thanks for the interesting discussion!

Thank you for stopping by!

[elguanteloko]

Repeat, sorry.

[ERayR]

Mudcat, is it possible to prove statements such as "God exists." in any sense?

I'm no philosopher, but it seems to me that what is unfalsifiable is also unprovable. It makes sense that what cannot be falsified cannot be confirmed.

I'm not Mudcat but it seems to me it depends on what you require as proof. When I look at what God has done in my life I see proof that he is. On the other hand you may well chalk it all up to coincidence.

[zerinus]

It may be that we cannot choose to believe; but we must carry some responsibility for failing to believe in revealed truth, otherwise we could not be condemned for not believing.

Well, the point is that one isn't justified in condemning someone else for not believing the unbelievable. Let's say that IN FACT you are an alien from outer space. You refuse to provide me with credible evidence... are you justified in saying I'm guilty of not believing the truth when no compelling evidence is presented?

It seems you had misunderstood what I said. What I meant was, that we could not be condemned by God for not believing, if we did not carry some personal responsibility for that belief (or unbelief). The scriptures are full of examples of people being condemned by God for failing to believe. Whether you actually believe in God at the present time or not is beside the point. From my point of view as a believer, you come under condemnation for failing to believe in revealed truth, whether in your opinion the evidence is adequate to convince you or not. It has been adequate to convince me, so I guess I can sympathize with God, even if you don’t!

You clearly believe that but I have no reason to believe what you believe. Sorry. You can try and present some to me, if you want.

Again you are failing to see things from my point of view. You appear to be under the false impression that I have an obligation to prove to you what I believe, or to convince you of its truth. I don’t. I don't think that anybody does.

D&C 93

:

31 Behold, here is the agency of man, and here is the condemnation of man; because that which was from the beginning is plainly manifest unto them, and they

receive not the light

.

32 And every man whose spirit

receiveth not the light

is under condemnation.

That D&C verse does NOT support your view. All it says is that when something is plainly manifest unto "them" they receive not the light. Whose fault is it that it is not plainly manifest unto me that God exists and, consequently, that I do not "receive [i assume it means "accept" instead of "receive"] the light"?

That is not what the scripture says at all. It says the truth is plainly made manifest to them, and they receive not the truth (for which they are condemned). It does not say when the truth is made manifest unto them, but that it already is. You do not appear to be paying much attention to what the scripture is saying, nor to me. It does not augur well for a constructive dialogue.

So, the verse says that I first find something as being "plainly manifest" and then I must accept it... and then what I accepted "breeds conviction" (what you said)? I thought I was convinced of what was plainly manifest in the first place. If I wasn't, then it wasn't plainly manifest.

Well, that is not what the scripture is saying. Go back and read it again. See above.

How dare you, a non-nonbeliever, say what is best for nonbelievers? How presumptuous of you! (sarcasm to show you how absurd your position is)

You are welcome to give all the atheistic advice you want to the Church; but I can assure you that you will be wasting your time, because the Church will not be interested in it. I don’t know how else I can explain it better, but the Church doesn’t need your atheistic advice. It obtains its advice by revelation directly from the Lord. It has no use for anybody’s atheistic advice, and will not be interested in yours. The Church will be happy to give you its advice if you sincerely want one; but will not be interested in your atheistic advice.

[3DOP]

Great point, 3DOP! I agree with you and I think this most unfortunate distinction will drive many more mormons out of their religion. Man, just look at the anti-intellectual wave of remarks many LDS are posting here! Seriously, what a sad sight. Don't tell anyone but I've been thinking of becoming a Catholic. You should post here more often.

That's something I like from Catholicism, "if science or reason conflicts with theology then we are doing either bad science or bad theology." (I don't remember who said that but I thought it was just great!)

Very nice!

Nice to "meet" you here, brother.

I won't tell. Heh.

For what it may be worth to you, I love the Catholic synthesis of philosophy as "handmaid of theology". Always the helper, not the leader. An often forgotten benefit of philosophy comes for Catholics in the realm of moral theology. Taking the order of nature as expounded by reason, the Church explains human psychology in the order of grace in such a way as to help us understand ourselves and why we succeed and we fail (virtue and vice). I know of no other Christian body that systematically explains what we are, a spirit joined to a physical body, my soul being the principle of life in a material being. It helps me understand myself to realize that our wills have been weakened and our intellects obscured by the fall of Adam and the war that rages inside of us to determine whether we will be enslaved to our passions or whether we will rise with Christ.

It is not strictly necessary to have a knowledge of these things. Many saintly people just do good. But it really helps me to know why I behave as I do with the knowledge of what it takes to win one's freedom back through good habits of behavior and the gifts of the Holy Spirit. Anyway, this might not be appealing to you, but either way, carry on! God bless you and guide you on your journey.

3DOP

[Mudcat]

Mudcat, is it possible to prove statements such as "God exists." in any sense?

Hi Rose M,

Been awhile, I hope things are good your way. I owe Bukowski a response on a previous question, hopefully he won't mind me bumping you ahead for a minute.

To answer, no I don't think it's possible "prove" that God exists. Nor the inverse... to prove that "there is no God." However, I do think there is evidence for the existence of God, but evidence is not proof in and of itself. There are good arguments for the existence of God, like the Kalam Cosmological argument, there are teleological arguments related to the Universe's fine tuning that point to a designer and so forth.

The best evidence I have is experiential evidence of the existence of God. However, this evidence that I consider as objective.. is a testimony of Christ, if you will. I have met God in a spiritual sense and having met Him, it would at this point be absurd to deny His existence. However, it is only subjective when offered to others, they were not there, etc. and it holds no reason in and of itself to have any meaning to someone else.

I'm no philosopher, but it seems to me that what is unfalsifiable is also unprovable. It makes sense that what cannot be falsified cannot be confirmed.

I'm no philosopher either, but I agree. But this concept doesn't have any real force in existence claims or nonexistence claims about God.

It's a sword that cuts both ways in that respect.

I think at best, we can look at the evidence and try and follow it where it leads. But the best evidence for God isn't found in an argument.

IMO, the best evidence for God is when we try to seek him ourselves with an open heart and mind.

Respectfully,

Mudcat

[RoseMadder]

Hi Rose M,

Been awhile, I hope things are good your way. I owe Bukowski a response on a previous question, hopefully he won't mind me bumping you ahead for a minute.

To answer, no I don't think it's possible "prove" that God exists. Nor the inverse... to prove that "there is no God." However, I do think there is evidence for the existence of God, but evidence is not proof in and of itself. There are good arguments for the existence of God, like the Kalam Cosmological argument, there are teleological arguments related to the Universe's fine tuning that point to a designer and so forth.

The best evidence I have is experiential evidence of the existence of God. However, this evidence that I consider as objective.. is a testimony of Christ, if you will. I have met God in a spiritual sense and having met Him, it would at this point be absurd to deny His existence. However, it is only subjective when offered to others, they were not there, etc. and it holds no reason in and of itself to have any meaning to someone else.

I'm no philosopher either, but I agree. But this concept doesn't have any real force in existence claims or nonexistence claims about God.

It's a sword that cuts both ways in that respect.

I think at best, we can look at the evidence and try and follow it where it leads. But the best evidence for God isn't found in an argument.

IMO, the best evidence for God is when we try to seek him ourselves with an open heart and mind.

Respectfully,

Mudcat

Thank you for your generous reply, ever-so-likable Mudcat.

[mfbukowski]

The best evidence I have is experiential evidence of the existence of God. However, this evidence that I consider as objective.. is a testimony of Christ, if you will. I have met God in a spiritual sense and having met Him, it would at this point be absurd to deny His existence. However, it is only subjective when offered to others, they were not there, etc. and it holds no reason in and of itself to have any meaning to someone else.

That's great to hear, because I tried on numerous occasions to get Bowman to comment on that and he just plain would not.

I think when I have a little time, I would like to start a thread with you maybe discussing the similarities between an Evangelical altar call and Moroni's Promise- there are common elements: an invitation, an initial expression of faith perhaps at first with no belief, and then a spiritual confirmation that one's course is "right".

Bowman wouldn't touch that with a ten foot pole; related of course is the question of how you know the Bible is indeed scripture and the Word of God, and not just a bunch of legends written down by the ancients, compiled and/or corrupted by a bunch of Catholic monks.

Very interested in how at least some EV's see that!

[mfbukowski]

Thank you for your generous reply, ever-so-likable Mudcat.

Eh, I don't know- he's OK sometimes!