Why did I ever read beyond the slaying of Laban?

[_Gordon]

God (Exu), told me there is no such thing as the hg.

Cookie for you, too?

[_Themis]

Like I said earlier, if we can't agree on the premise of being able to discern whether our own experiences are real or not, then further discussion on this matter is rather pointless.

I am not suggesting the experience is not real. Even a hallucination is real, and at least happened within the person/person's head. Since you provided the church's main method involving a burning of the bosom. I am not suggesting the burning in the bosom is not happening, but questioning how we know it is coming from some divine being and not just being created by the body. The church's reasoning is circular here and of no help, so I ask how do we know?

Furthermore, I gave one interpretation of a witness, but there are others, and it boils down to a sure knowledge...even though you seem to think such is impossible.

When we are talking about interpretation, we are talking about the one the church gave us. Other groups or individual may give you other interpretations they think you should have. How again is this a sure knowledge. You seem to using sure not as a state of information accuracy, but as a feeling towards your interpretation.

I'm talking about another's love, people not in my life...how do you prove that?

Oh I thought it was about proving love, which really would be the only thing relevant to the issue here. Proving someones love you don't know would first involve finding out they do exist, and looking to see if any evidence of love exists like say letter or journals and such expressing love for something or someone. Not sure how that would be relevant here.

You talk about evidence, but you don't seem to accept the evidence of a spiritual witness, which is manifest by the actions regarding it.

You are wrong again. I have never doubted spiritual experiences happen. They do for me. What I am questioning is how we know with any reliability or accuracy the meanings we may interpret from them, especially objective truth claims like we see from many of the worlds religions.

And you can't prove another's personal feelings absolutely (one way or another)...only your own.

Who said we could prove anything absolutely? Even science, which has proved proof of many things, never suggests it is absolute.

[_Gordon]

Like I said earlier, if we can't agree on the premise of being able to discern whether our own experiences are real or not, then further discussion on this matter is rather pointless.

I am not suggesting the experience is not real. Even a hallucination is real, and at least happened within the person/person's head. Since you provided the church's main method involving a burning of the bosom. I am not suggesting the burning in the bosom is not happening, but questioning how we know it is coming from some divine being and not just being created by the body. The church's reasoning is circular here and of no help, so I ask how do we know?

Furthermore, I gave one interpretation of a witness, but there are others, and it boils down to a sure knowledge...even though you seem to think such is impossible.

When we are talking about interpretation, we are talking about the one the church gave us. Other groups or individual may give you other interpretations they think you should have. How again is this a sure knowledge. You seem to using sure not as a state of information accuracy, but as a feeling towards your interpretation.

I'm talking about another's love, people not in my life...how do you prove that?

Oh I thought it was about proving love, which really would be the only thing relevant to the issue here. Proving someones love you don't know would first involve finding out they do exist, and looking to see if any evidence of love exists like say letter or journals and such expressing love for something or someone. Not sure how that would be relevant here.

You talk about evidence, but you don't seem to accept the evidence of a spiritual witness, which is manifest by the actions regarding it.

You are wrong again. I have never doubted spiritual experiences happen. They do for me. What I am questioning is how we know with any reliability or accuracy the meanings we may interpret from them, especially objective truth claims like we see from many of the worlds religions.

And you can't prove another's personal feelings absolutely (one way or another)...only your own.

Who said we could prove anything absolutely? Even science, which has proved proof of many things, never suggests it is absolute.

I'll get back to you...I gotta go.

[_Chap]

Not bother, puzzle. Please explain yourself.

As I have stated, I know that some (but by now means all) religious Jews adopt this practice, and I know the reasons for it, but I have never seen it in writings by Mormons or any other kind of Christian before. Mormons in particular seem to refer frequently to various personal names that they believe refer to their deity, and in that they are following the practice of past Mormon prophets. Were they at fault?

Or are your reasons for doing this secret?

While LDS have been admonished to not use the name of the Lord often:

"The commandment says, 'Thou shalt not take the name of the Lord thy God in vain.' (Ex. 20:7.) Except in prayers and proper sermons, we must not use the name of the Lord." (God Will Not Be Mocked, Spencer W. Kimball, Oct. 1974)

I use G-d in reference to the Father, and God in reference to the Son.

But, God isn't either of their actual name.

You're correct...neither is Christ the name of Jesus. However, it still applies, in principle.

The puzzlement deepens. I have no idea what the last phrase means at all - "it still applies, in principle"? If "God" is not a name, why is it prohibited? Since Jesus IS a name, why don't you write it "J-s-s"? And finally, why has no LDS source that I have seen in print or online adopted this bizarre "G-d" usage that you claim to be the result of prophetic command?

Your position seems to amount to the claim that all members of the CoJCoLDS are out of step except you. Isn't that "ark steadying"?

[_krose]

While LDS have been admonished to not use the name of the Lord often:

It's obvious Kimball didn't have a clue what he was talking about in that speech. What is "the Lord's" name? Is it Jesus? Yeshua? Elohim? Something unknown?

But, God isn't either of their actual name.

You're correct...neither is Christ the name of Jesus. However, it still applies, in principle.

This is just nonsensical. There is absolutely no reason the "principle" of not overusing a name should ever apply to a description or job title.

[_Hades]

So, men of G-d aren't infallible, but we can trust them to be right when God tells them to kill someone.

Well, you can find out for yourself if anything is from the Lord, rather than blindly following. Furthermore, LDS leaders can speak/do of themselves (where infallibility comes in), or of the Lord.

If I have to find out for myself, what do I need holy men for?

[_SteelHead]

Ether 8

19 For the Lord worketh not in secret combinations, neither doth he will that man should shed blood, but in all things hath forbidden it, from the beginning of man.

Book of Mormon, contradict itself much?

[_just me]

Ether 8

19 For the Lord worketh not in secret combinations, neither doth he will that man should shed blood, but in all things hath forbidden it, from the beginning of man.

Book of Mormon, contradict itself much?

Yes. Yes it does.

[_Drifting]

Ether 8

19 For the Lord worketh not in secret combinations, neither doth he will that man should shed blood, but in all things hath forbidden it, from the beginning of man.

Book of Mormon, contradict itself much?

The Church (Temple etc) is not a 'secret' combination...
...it's a 'sacred' combination.

See the difference?

[_sock puppet]

Ether 8

19 For the Lord worketh not in secret combinations, neither doth he will that man should shed blood, but in all things hath forbidden it, from the beginning of man.

Book of Mormon, contradict itself much?

that's why it has to be revered as sacred. it does not hold up under critical analysis.

something is easier to have 'spiritual' significance if it is mysterious due to contradictions than if it were logical, linear and internally consistent. if it had those three attributes, there would be no need for interpreters such as at GC and COB. and thus no leverage over TBMs to give up ten percent.