Mudcat

Members
  • Posts

    36
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Mudcat's Achievements

  1. I don't think so. Though I have a problem with your question, in that either all phyisical evidence (life, the universe and everything) is proof of God or it isn't proof of God. I would imagine that your realization that creation is evidence of a Creator is a spiritual sort of evidence. I am an Evangelical TS11 and I understand from your posting that you are LDS. Likely we see quite a few things differently, but it seems to me that God has revealed his existence to you via the Holy Spirit, as this seems to be the way God speaks to us on such matters. In my terms I would call such an experience a "Calling" of the Holy Spirit. I don't imagine the Holy Spirit would provide you with such information if you had sinned beyond the bounds retrieval. I was raised an Evangelical and departed it for an agnostic/atheistic view for a time. Later I returned to a different sort of faith, but I count myself an Evangelical. In retrospect, I realize I never really knew God early on. I just knew what everyone thought I should know about God. It wasn't enough for me, so I left it behind me. I made crass jokes and so forth. Likely you have done the same. Regardless later in life God sort of smacked in the head with brick in a phenomenal way to me.... Likely I wouldn't get it otherwise. After such a thing, I realized I never knew who God is earlier on. I just knew that who people told me God was, didn't make enough sense to hold to. I wouldn't worry about having sinned against the Holy Spirit. If you had done so, He would not have called you to God. The thing I would concentrate on, is that based upon your background experience + your present testimony. You are a very special sort of person. Not everyone gets what you have in the way it's been given to you. Your experience alone gives you the leverage to reach those that need God. If I were you I would pray that God gives you direction on the path you need to take from here and that he gives you courage follow through as best you can. Regards, Mudcat
  2. My 2 cents on it would be that tomorrow you should offer her a compliment. It's amazing how hearing someone tell you something like.... "You know that is a great color for you.", "I was impressed with how you handled so and so", "I wished I was as good at this or that as you are" can impact the overall demeanor of a person for quite a bit. ..be honest, but look for the good. I think if you can get your mind off what you have to put up with and focus on how you can make this situation that this particular person that can't afford their meds has just a bit better. You will both be the better for it.
  3. As an Evangelical Christian, I can't speak for LDS on the issue. But in my own view, I am agreeable with what CS Lewis had to say on the issue and can say it no better.
  4. Hi SC, I am an Evangelical Christian and I must admit I have a difficult time digesting this statement. I am taking a bit of a guess here, but I think you seem to be implying that if God sinned he would cease to be God. I would agree in a theoretical sense, but in a realistic sense, I see no good reason to give grounds that God would sin... so I suppose I am a bit of loss here. What do you mean exactly when you say "God could cease to be God"? Regards, Mudcat
  5. I wanted to edit this post extensively after rereading it. I will put it up a bit later. Sorry.
  6. Yes, my apologies for the hyperbole. I have a propensity for the melodramatic. I think I missed my calling as writer for movie trailers. There are likely better terms. "Damned" could possibly be the most accurate, but the word has connotations outside its usage in this instance that lends itself to a general misunderstanding between LDS and non-LDS. Regardless, a general sense of being "stuck" somewhere, would be the sentiment. Regards, Mudcat
  7. Hi Dove, I appreciate your comments. As this thread was originally started by my re-exploration of the LDS Standard Works. I will give you a bit of an update. I did complete my reading and prayer. As of yet I haven't received a testimony from the Holy Spirit as to the veracity of any of it. Regardless, it was a net positive for me. It was much different than my first reading. The first time I read through it, I was sort of "pushed" into it by my wife's family. I wasn't very open minded about it then and read it with same intent that a prosecuting attorney reads the case brief of the defendant. Though I didn't walk away from the experience as a believing LDS, I did gain a fairly objective understanding of why LDS believe what they believe and was also able to examine LDS doctrines and teachings without so much predisposed bias, as was part and parcel of my upbringing as a Southern Baptist. I now, count LDS my brothers and sisters in Christ, which is good I think. Though I imagine, they would likely just count me a somewhat congenial fellow who is doomed to the X or Y kingdom, unless I see the error of my ways at some point. I'm thankful Paul said that bit about seeing through the glass darkly in the here and now. Seems to me that when we look upon Christ, we see the brightest. We understand how to act and treat each other when we do so. But when we look upon ourselves and our fellow believers in Christ and our fellow man, we see the dimness of this place. It makes me sad to the strife between fellow believers over jots and tittles. I am hoping for a day when we all get this figured out and quit telling other Christians that they don't belong. Respectfully, Mudcat
  8. Hi Vanhin, Thanks for your response. I suppose I was a bit surprised to get an email this AM from LDS.net about a thread I posted over a year and a half past. I suppose it is timely nonetheless. Recently, I have been pondering this notion again. I understand what you are saying here. I follow you here. You believe present or more current revelation takes precedence or guides past revelation in some respect. However, I am a bit confused about your statement in general. I have gone through a "few" missionary discussions, discussions with my wife(LDS) and her family(LDS) notwithstanding. The general consensus I have received, was to read and pray about the Book of Mormon rather than the First Vision and/or the revelations of modern prophets. I have always been under the assumption that if God chooses to give me a witness of the Book of Mormon, then it seems likely that this would then vindicate the claims of Joseph Smith and possibly modern prophets, as well. Have I gotten the cart before the horse, in my thinking? I would agree wholeheartedly that the Father, Son and the HG are completely one in purpose. I understand that LDS take issue with the notion of God being of one substance, but I don't understand why actually? As I have studied it, correct me if I am off, there are two types of matter in the LDS view. There is spiritual matter and physical matter. Neither can be created or destroyed and all things are made up of them that are physical and at the very least, all things are made up of spiritual matter. Leaving the physical aside for the moment, we could at least assume that the Father, Son and HG are all spiritual. Ergo they are all made of spiritual matter. IMO, it would stand to reason that the Godhead is made of the same "spiritual" substance in that respect. However, it is worth noting that anything "spiritual" is made of the same substance. Respectfully, Mudcat
  9. Hi Gerasim, I am assuming Moksha, is making a reference to a textual criticism in the Bible. The criticism itself has been discussed so much, that it was actually named. They call it the "Johannine comma" or "Comma Johannine". You could likely Google that term and find a great deal of interesting articles about it. What it amounts to, is that there is a section of wording in 1 John 5: 7-8, that certainly appears to be a later addition to the text. For there are three that bear record [in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one. 8 And there are three that bear witness in earth], the Spirit, and the water, and the blood: and these three agree in one. Bold mine, these words don't appear in any early manuscripts nor do they seem to be quoted at any point by the fathers of the early church. However, despite the likelihood of the Johannine comma being an addition to the text, this phrase did make it into the 1611 KJV. The issue is a bit of a sticky wicket, for those that believe the 1611 translation was/is inerrant. The verse is also popular amongst Trinitarians, like myself, because it seems to very clearly assert certain aspects it. Moksha likely meant to encapsulate the other part or your text, instead of the closing portion of verse 8. "the Spirit, and the water, and the blood ". If these words were actually excluded from early manuscripts, its news to me as well. Respectfully, Mudcat
  10. I think good pirates and mercenaries are on the approved list... Attorneys are an entirely different issue, though. I can't believe I just said that. I am Evangelical so I wouldn't pay to much attention to that comment.
  11. I got 66%but then again I got Orthodox Quaker at 92% I married an LDS but I like to eat oatmeal (Quaker brand). I guess the lesson being, you are what you eat.
  12. 1. Mainline to Conservative Christian/Protestant (100%) 2. Orthodox Quaker (92%) 3. Eastern Orthodox (84%) 4. Roman Catholic (84%) 5. Seventh Day Adventist (81%) 6. Mainline to Liberal Christian Protestants (74%) 7. Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints (Mormons) (66%) 8. Hinduism (62%) 9. Islam (59%) 10. Orthodox Judaism (59%) 11. Jainism (57%) 12. Jehovah's Witness (53%) 13. Liberal Quakers (51%) 14. Baha'i Faith (50%) 15. Mahayana Buddhism (45%) 16. Unitarian Universalism (45%) 17. Theravada Buddhism (44%) 18. Sikhism (42%) 19. Reform Judaism (33%) 20. Taoism (30%) 21. New Age (29%) 22. Neo-Pagan (28%) 23. Nontheist (28%) 24. Christian Science (Church of Christ, Scientist) (27%) 25. Secular Humanism (25%) 26. New Thought (23%) 27. Scientology (22%)
  13. Hi Larry, It's good to see you over hear as well. And admittedly it is a much less hectic environment here. I have made some posts there, as well regarding some thoughts generated from my read through. Everyone seems real polite and there isn't a 'critically edged' atmosphere here. That sort of thing has its place, but its nice to address a group without being to concerned you will be thread jacked or having people assume you are coming from a critical angle. I see your point, in that regard. However, I suppose we could say that the Nephite Kings actually disqualified the BoM lands of the get go. I suppose it could be dissected down to the point that no land could actually qualify for this fulfillment. I am operating under the assumption that it will be a land that has no Kings from the point in which the posited LDS Restoration occurs. From that singular standpoint, America seems a likely candidate. Admittedly, I don't know if the Mesoamerican are was under a Kings authority since 1830... That might be something I'll look into. You make another fine point, with "Manifest Destiny". Im going to give this some thought.Thanks as always for you insights. Respectfully, Mudcat
  14. Hi MG,I have been participating at Mormon Apologetics & Discussion Board for about a year now. Its sponsored (directly/indirectly) by FAIR. You will find them in a list of apologetic sites on their links page here.FAIR Web Links You might want to check out some of the others, but this one seems to have the most frequent visits by LDS Scholarship and the most ongoing discussion. The people there are very friendly, for the most part.... its and open forum so you do get the random screaming anti, or overzealous LDS in the mix.... But overall the Mods do a very good job of keeping things at a conversational level. I would bear in mind that there is ongoing apologetics and debate going on. If you like sticking up for what you believe and learning about what others think, its not a bad place at all. If you decide to check it out over there feel free to look up me. I'm Mudcat there as well. TGIF, Mudcat
  15. Ninjormon,Youdidn't by chancee produce the Ninjorman You Tube video? If so.... you made me laugh chocolate milk out my nose. Mudcat