One God, what does this mean?

[Moksha]

the Spirit, the water, and the blood

Apparently these do not appear in any Greek manuscripts till the 16th Century.

[Gerasim]

Can you explain these, please ?! Thank you

[Mudcat]

Can you explain these, please ?! Thank you

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

[Maureen]

Apparently these do not appear in any Greek manuscripts till the 16th Century.

I believe Mudcat is correct. Moksha, you probably mean the actual Johannine comma which Mudcat has shown in his post. Bible.org has some very interesting information regarding this well known Comma.

For there are three that testify, 20 the Spirit and the water and the blood, and these three are in agreement. (1John 5:7-8)

20 tc Before τὸ πνεῦμα καὶ τὸὕδωρ καὶ τὸ αἷμα (to pneuma kai to {udwr kai to |aima), the Textus Receptus (TR) reads ἐν τῷ οὐρανῷ, ὁ πατήρ, ὁ λόγος, καὶ τὸἅγιον πνεῦμα, καὶ οὗτοι οἱ τρεῖς ἕν εἰσι. 5:8 καὶ τρεῖς εἰσιν οἱ μαρτυροῦντες ἐν τῇ γῇ (“in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Spirit, and these three are one. 5:8 And there are three that testify on earth”). This reading, the infamous Comma Johanneum, has been known in the English-speaking world through the King James translation. However, the evidence – both external and internal – is decidedly against its authenticity. For a detailed discussion, see TCGNT 647-49. Our discussion will briefly address the external evidence. This longer reading is found only in nine late mss, four of which have the words in a marginal note. Most of these mss (221 2318 [18th century] {2473 [dated 1634]} and [with minor variations] 61 88 429 629 636 918) originate from the 16th century; the earliest ms, codex 221 (10th century) includes the reading in a marginal note, added sometime after the original composition. The oldest ms with the Comma in its text is from the 14th century (629), but the wording here departs from all the other mss in several places. The next oldest mss on behalf of the Comma, 88 (12th century) 429 (14th) 636 (15th), also have the reading only as a marginal note (v.l.). The remaining mss are from the 16th to 18th centuries. Thus, there is no sure evidence of this reading in any Greek ms until the 14th century (629), and that ms deviates from all others in its wording; the wording that matches what is found in the TR was apparently composed after Erasmus’ Greek NT was published in 1516. Indeed, the Comma appears in no Greek witness of any kind (either ms, patristic, or Greek translation of some other version) until a.d. 1215 (in a Greek translation of the Acts of the Lateran Council, a work originally written in Latin). This is all the more significant since many a Greek Father would have loved such a reading, for it so succinctly affirms the doctrine of the Trinity. The reading seems to have arisen in a 4th century Latin homily in which the text was allegorized to refer to members of the Trinity. From there, it made its way into copies of the Latin Vulgate, the text used by the Roman Catholic Church. The Trinitarian formula (known as the Comma Johanneum) made its way into the third edition of Erasmus’ Greek NT (1522) because of pressure from the Catholic Church. After his first edition appeared, there arose such a furor over the absence of the Comma that Erasmus needed to defend himself. He argued that he did not put in the Comma because he found no Greek mss that included it. Once one was produced (codex 61, written in ca. 1520), Erasmus apparently felt obliged to include the reading. He became aware of this ms sometime between May of 1520 and September of 1521. In his annotations to his third edition he does not protest the rendering now in his text, as though it were made to order; but he does defend himself from the charge of indolence, noting that he had taken care to find whatever mss he could for the production of his text. In the final analysis, Erasmus probably altered the text because of politico-theologico-economic concerns: He did not want his reputation ruined, nor his Novum Instrumentum to go unsold. Modern advocates of the TR and KJV generally argue for the inclusion of the Comma Johanneum on the basis of heretical motivation by scribes who did not include it. But these same scribes elsewhere include thoroughly orthodox readings – even in places where the TR/Byzantine mss lack them. Further, these advocates argue theologically from the position of divine preservation: Since this verse is in the TR, it must be original. (Of course, this approach is circular, presupposing as it does that the TR = the original text.) In reality, the issue is history, not heresy: How can one argue that the Comma Johanneum goes back to the original text yet does not appear until the 14th century in any Greek mss (and that form is significantly different from what is printed in the TR; the wording of the TR is not found in any Greek mss until the 16th century)? Such a stance does not do justice to the gospel: Faith must be rooted in history. Significantly, the German translation of Luther was based on Erasmus’ second edition (1519) and lacked the Comma. But the KJV translators, basing their work principally on Theodore Beza’s 10th edition of the Greek NT (1598), a work which itself was fundamentally based on Erasmus’ third and later editions (and Stephanus’ editions), popularized the Comma for the English-speaking world. Thus, the Comma Johanneum has been a battleground for English-speaking Christians more than for others.

NETBible: 1 John 5

M.

[Vanhin]

Mudcat,

When the U.S. Army advertises an "Army of One", or when Maximus in the Gladiator tells his comrades to "Be as one!", or when the Bible teaches that a man and a woman, when married, "shall be one flesh", people don't generally have any trouble understanding what kind of "oneness" or unity is being spoken of.

The Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost are One God in that same very real and practical way. They are one in purpose and love for mankind. The doctrine of the members of the Godhead is the exact same, and there is no variance. So they are "One God".

The main reason latter-day saints do not struggle with this issue is because we don't start from trying to interpret the meaning of scriptures to come to the conclusion we have. We start with the First Vision of Joseph Smith, and the revelations of modern prophets who have conversed with God the Father and Jesus Christ. Revelation is the rock upon which this doctrine is built.

Since we know from the experience of modern prophets that the spirits of mankind are the offspring of God the Father, and that the Father, Son, and the Holy Ghost are individual persons, then we conclude that the oneness of members of the Godhead spoken of in the scriptures is of purpose, not of substance in the Trinitarian sense.

Regards,

Vanhin

[Just_A_Guy]

I'm not sure Mudcat is still around to continue this discussion . . .

[mordorbund]

1. John 5:1-13

5 Who is he that overcometh the world, but he that believeth that Jesus is the Son of God?

6 This is he that came by water and blood, even Jesus Christ; not by water only, but by water and blood. And it is the Spirit that beareth witness, because the Spirit is truth.

7 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.

9 If we receive the witness of men, the witness of God is greater: for this is the witness of God which he hath testified of his Son.

I'm treating your 2 Nephi quote as a non sequitur because (johannine comma aside) I think the Godhead reference is just a passing one and not the main subject. My reading of this is that there are 3 testimonies that Jesus is the Son of God:

• The Water - by which he showed submission to his Father (and his Father validated by saying Jesus was his beloved Son)
• The Blood - by which he completed his mission and his submission. This (combined with the resurrection for LDS) is the sign of his divine Sonhood
• The Spirit - by which all may gain the same witness the apostles had, even in modern times when there are no longer eye witnesses

All three testify that Jesus is the Son of God. Similarly, by these three witnesses we are born again (with the Water being the water of our own baptism in similitude of Christ's). The earlier verses even drop the term born of God to point to this.

[Dove]

Hello, Mudcat;

Just wanted to say thanks for how respectful and kind you are in your posts and questioning. It's refreshing to read how well you convey this.

I've been reading through the posts, and about anything I could contribute has already been covered. Specifically the post that quoted part of the great intercessory prayer given by the Saviour that is recorded in John. It seems to me that all three in the Godhead wanted all of us to become "one" with them in the eternities. As I've read the great intercessory prayer in the New Testament, and the condensed version in the Book of Mormon, it has made a lot of sense to me that they are three seperate beings who are "one" in purpose and intent. But, this is what I deducted from it, given my LDS background.

Best of wishes in your search for knowledge. My thoughts and prayers are with you. :)

[Moksha]

• The Water - by which he showed submission to his Father (and his Father validated by saying Jesus was his beloved Son)
• The Blood - by which he completed his mission and his submission. This (combined with the resurrection for LDS) is the sign of his divine Sonhood
• The Spirit - by which all may gain the same witness the apostles had, even in modern times when there are no longer eye witnesses

There can be so many meanings of this. One involving the sacramental-like symbolism of the water (Baptism), the blood (Eucharist) and the Spirit (Confirmation) is interesting.

[Just_A_Guy]

Rejectors of the Johannine Comma, rejoice! The water-spirit-blood motif resufaces in latter-day scripture.

[Hemidakota]

Talk about resurrecting ancient thread.

[Boris_natasha]

In my LDS congregation, we are taught that the statement in the BofM about Heavenly Father, Jesus Christ and the Holy Ghost being one God means that they work together with one purpose and as one mind. Their actions are not seperate or independent of one another.

[mordorbund]

Gerasim, you reawakened this thread with your question. Have you gotten a satisfactory response?

[Mudcat]

Mudcat,

When the U.S. Army advertises an "Army of One", or when Maximus in the Gladiator tells his comrades to "Be as one!", or when the Bible teaches that a man and a woman, when married, "shall be one flesh", people don't generally have any trouble understanding what kind of "oneness" or unity is being spoken of.

The Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost are One God in that same very real and practical way. They are one in purpose and love for mankind. The doctrine of the members of the Godhead is the exact same, and there is no variance. So they are "One God".

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.

The main reason latter-day saints do not struggle with this issue is because we don't start from trying to interpret the meaning of scriptures to come to the conclusion we have. We start with the First Vision of Joseph Smith, and the revelations of modern prophets who have conversed with God the Father and Jesus Christ. Revelation is the rock upon which this doctrine is built.

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?

Since we know from the experience of modern prophets that the spirits of mankind are the offspring of God the Father, and that the Father, Son, and the Holy Ghost are individual persons, then we conclude that the oneness of members of the Godhead spoken of in the scriptures is of purpose, not of substance in the Trinitarian sense.

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

[Mudcat]

Hello, Mudcat;

Just wanted to say thanks for how respectful and kind you are in your posts and questioning. It's refreshing to read how well you convey this.

I've been reading through the posts, and about anything I could contribute has already been covered. Specifically the post that quoted part of the great intercessory prayer given by the Saviour that is recorded in John. It seems to me that all three in the Godhead wanted all of us to become "one" with them in the eternities. As I've read the great intercessory prayer in the New Testament, and the condensed version in the Book of Mormon, it has made a lot of sense to me that they are three seperate beings who are "one" in purpose and intent. But, this is what I deducted from it, given my LDS background.

Best of wishes in your search for knowledge. My thoughts and prayers are with you. :)

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

[Maureen]

...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 doubt that LDS would use the word doomed when speaking of the other two kingdoms. :)

M.

[Gerasim]

Rejectors of the Johannine Comma, rejoice! The water-spirit-blood motif resufaces in latter-day scripture.

Very good answer and I just want to add these verses from the gospel of John 3:1-21 !

1 THERE was a man of the Pharisees, named Nicodemus, a ruler of the Jews:

2 The same came to Jesus by night, and said unto him, Rabbi, we know that thou art a teacher come from God: for no man can do these miracles that thou doest, except God be with him.

3 Jesus answered and said unto him, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God.

4 Nicodemus saith unto him, How can a man be born when he is old? can he enter the second time into his mother's womb, and be born?

5 Jesus answered, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God.

6 That which is born of the flesh is flesh; and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit.

7 Marvel not that I said unto thee, Ye must be born again.

8 The wind bloweth where it listeth, and thou hearest the sound thereof, but canst not tell whence it cometh, and whither it goeth: so is every one that is born of the Spirit.

9 Nicodemus answered and said unto him, How can these things be?

10 Jesus answered and said unto him, Art thou a master of Israel, and knowest not these things?

11 Verily, verily, I say unto thee, We speak that we do know, and testify that we have seen; and ye receive not our witness.

12 If I have told you earthly things, and ye believe not, how shall ye believe, if I tell you of heavenly things?

13 And no man hath ascended up to heaven, but he that came down from heaven, even the Son of man which is in heaven.

14 ¶ And as Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, even so must the Son of man be lifted up:

15 That whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have eternal life.

16 ¶ For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.

17 For God sent not his Son into the world to condemn the world; but that the world through him might be saved.

18 ¶ He that believeth on him is not condemned: but he that believeth not is condemned already, because he hath not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God.

19 And this is the condemnation, that light is come into the world, and men loved darkness rather than light, because their deeds were evil.

20 For every one that doeth evil hateth the light, neither cometh to the light, lest his deeds should be reproved.

21 But he that doeth truth cometh to the light, that his deeds may be made manifest, that they are wrought in God.

[Mudcat]

I doubt that LDS would use the word doomed when speaking of the other two kingdoms. :)

M.

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

[Guest]

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.

Therein, lies the rub. But, I believe this is part and parcel of human nature. Put 10 kindergartners in one playground and you will soon find that they form themselves into little groupies excluding someone or other because of whatever reason they imagine.

It is our spiritual duty to rise above it.

Mudcat, I like the way this thread developed and I have to say the flavor of it was completely driven by the way you presented yourself starting from the first post. I have been to so many threads that end up badly and you can almost tell it was headed that way from the very beginning.

So, I submit, that most of us do want to get along if we sense that the other is as willing. Hurray.

[Vanhin]

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.

Sorry, I don't look at the dates of these threads always before I post. My apologies.

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.

I believe the scriptures are true on this matter. Interpretation is often flawed. We have arrived at the correct understanding of what "One God" means because of the teachings of modern prophets. I should also note, that our scriptures presently include these clear teachings.

I would also argue that since our scriptures teach that God the Son prayed to and worshiped the Father, then that means that God the Father is ultimately the "One True God". The purpose and doctrine of the Son and the Holy Ghost, is one with the Father's purpose and doctrine. So, when God the Holy Ghost inspires or reveals something to us, it is the inspiration and revelation of the Father.

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?

Well, you can pray to know the truth of anything. The advantage you have with praying about the Book of Mormon, is that you have something to hold in your hands, to read and to ponder over, before you pray. But the end result is the same, and you are right, that if the Book of Mormon is true then you also know that Joseph Smith was a prophet. But you can also specifically pray to know that his experience in the sacred grove actually happened. You can know the truth of all things by the power of the Holy Ghost.

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.

I have no quarrels with that understanding. To latter-day saints, then, we are all of one "spiritual" substance at our core - meaning that we are made up of the same spiritual matter, as you put it.

The bottom line is that the members of the Godhead are three individual persons who are in harmony with the will of the senior member, God the Father. That is their oneness.

Regards,

Vanhin

[Gerasim]

2 Nephi 31:21

21 And now, behold, my beloved brethren, this is the way; and there is none other way nor name given under heaven whereby man can be saved in the kingdom of God. And now, behold, this is the doctrine of Christ, and the only and true doctrine of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost, which is one God, without end. Amen.

Alma 11:44

44 Now, this restoration shall come to all, both old and young, both bond and free, both male and female, both the wicked and the righteous; and even there shall not so much as a hair of their heads be lost; but every thing shall be restored to its perfect frame, as it is now, or in the body, and shall be brought and be arraigned before the bar of Christ the Son, and God the Father, and the Holy Spirit, which is one Eternal God, to be judged according to their works, whether they be good or whether they be evil.

Mormon 7:7

7 And he hath brought to pass the redemption of the world, whereby he that is found guiltless before him at the judgment day hath it given unto him to dwell in the presence of God in his kingdom, to sing ceaseless praises with the choirs above, unto the Father, and unto the Son, and unto the Holy Ghost, which are one God, in a state of happiness which hath no end.

[Maureen]

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

Hey Mudcat, I see doomed and damned as very similar but I think you've nailed it with the word stuck. :)

M.

[Dove]

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

Hello, Mudcat;

I'm so glad that you count LDS as your brothers and sisters in Christ. It cheers me to think that you have taken the time to study our beliefs and then came to this conclusion....

I don't see you as "doomed" to a lower kingdom because you have not received a witness through the Holy Ghost that our doctrine is true. I'm happy you chose to study our beliefs not only once, but twice, and the second time with a more open mind about all of it. A foundational doctrine of our teachings is man's gift of agency; the freedom to choose. Ideally ours' is not a church of coercion or making one to feel shame for not choosing to follow what we believe....(D&C 121:34-45). Also, that one is not held accountable for what they don't know to be true. It sounds to me that you have seriously studied the standard works and have yet to receive a witness that they are true. So, not knowing this, how can you be held accountable for/to it? I also believe that, since you are sincerely seeking and being open to/for the truth, that you will be lead as to what God's will is for you and where he wants you to be. It is not for anyone else to tell you what or where that is.

Just to let you know, my husband isn't LDS either, he is a "mainstream"? Christian. He goes to church with me to support me there; but, he believes the traditional? teachings of non-denominational christian churches. He has a very strong testimony of Jesus Christ being our Savior and Redeemer. He doesn't strongly believe in organized religion, though.

I, myself, have my struggles with the doctrine of Christ.....not how he taught us to treat others; but, with the doctrine of the atonement itself. I know God lives, and knows/loves me personally. I also know that the promptings of the Holy Spirit have occurred a great deal in my life; but I can only state at this time that I choose to believe in Christ as the Savior and Redeemer, rather than that I know. I am a devout believer in the LDS religion; however, there are many of its doctrines that I choose to believe in on faith, rather than on knowledge, as I've received many witnesses concerning other things. Some I've just stated, that God lives, loves me, and that the Holy Spirit has communicated with me often. Other things as well.

Yes, the strife has been on of my greatest hindrances in fully accepting Christianity (LDS included in with that) in general. I don't get how the two greatest commandments of all deal with loving God and our neighbor, yet I see so much hatred expressed by those who claim to be christian....

Thanks for responding~

Dove

[Mudcat]

I wanted to edit this post extensively after rereading it. I will put it up a bit later.

Sorry.

Edited July 9, 2010 by Mudcat