Why did I ever read beyond the slaying of Laban?

[_Gordon]

Yes, but it leaves the door open for people to make the experiences fit a predetermine outcome that they themselves have generated.

Anything's possible.

[_Chap]

I'll repeat to you what I mentioned to Chap: you should be quite knowledgable of how taking the Lord's name in vain is viewed...unless you've been living under a rock on Mars.

Are we really debating a personal choice of mine, though...?

On the last sentence: so far as the question of whether one may or may not in general write terms referring to the LDS deity and his associates in full as part of ordinary discourse (as opposed to whether one should use them as mere interjections or curse words), the answer would appear to be 'yes'.

LDS literature, including texts written or approved by prophets, has many examples of such terms written out in full without a single hyphen. I don't think any LDS prophet has ever felt it necessary to write 'G-d' or to urge others to do so. When you write 'G-d' instead of 'God' you appear to be on your own so far as LDS practice is concerned.

You still haven't gone over the post where I explained why I do this, have you?

Two points:

1. There seems to be a close correlation between certain kinds of claim about special and incorrigible personal experiences made on this board, and the tendency to ascribe all disagreement or criticism to the critic not having read what the poster in question has already written. I suppose this must be some kind of coping mechanism designed to keep insecurity at bay.

2. The decision to write "G-d" instead of "God" does indeed appear to be a completely idiosyncratic decision by Gordon in the context of LDS practice. No other LDS figure whose writings I have read adopts this practice. In other words, it is "a personal choice of [his]."

[_Gordon]

1. There seems to be a close correlation between certain kinds of claim about special and incorrigible personal experiences made on this board, and the tendency to ascribe all disagreement or criticism to the critic not having read what the poster in question has already written. I suppose this must be some kind of coping mechanism designed to keep insecurity at bay.

You didn't even address my explanation....

Nor are you even attempting to clarify.

2. The decision to write "G-d" instead of "God" does indeed appear to be a completely idiosyncratic decision by Gordon in the context of LDS practice. No other LDS figure whose writings I have read adopts this practice. In other words, it is "a personal choice of [his]."

I explained why.

[_Chap]

2. The decision to write "G-d" instead of "God" does indeed appear to be a completely idiosyncratic decision by Gordon in the context of LDS practice. No other LDS figure whose writings I have read adopts this practice. In other words, it is "a personal choice of [his]."

I explained why.

You did not explain why you are the only LDS writer who has decided to make a practice of writing "G-d" instead of "God".

Since that seems to be the case, this appears to be an idiosyncratic decision on your part, a decision not taken by any other LDS, many of whom no doubt agree with the proposition that it is improper to use terms referring to the LDS deity in a disrespectful way.

[_Drifting]

You did not explain why you are the only LDS writer who has decided to make a practice of writing "G-d" instead of "God".

Since that seems to be the case, this appears to be an idiosyncratic decision on your part, a decision not taken by any other LDS, many of whom no doubt agree with the proposition that it is improper to use terms referring to the LDS deity in a disrespectful way.

Perhaps the 'blank' represents the fact the Mormonism teaches we can all be Gods and so we fill in the blank?

P_rh_ps v_w_ls _r_ _f th_ D_v_l?

[_krose]

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?

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.

I'll repeat to you what I mentioned to Chap: you should be quite knowledgable of how taking the Lord's name in vain is viewed...unless you've been living under a rock on Mars.

Are we really debating a personal choice of mine, though...?

Okay, that's fine. If you just say it's what you want to do stylistically, I will say no more about your writing choice. But I will argue if you try to say you are doing it to follow any commandment anywhere.

However, your claim that widespread misunderstanding makes a belief valid is truly bizarre. Just because most people think the "name in vain" line refers to "god damn" does not make it so, any more than the widespread belief that the Earth was the center of the universe made that misconception true.

[_PrickKicker]

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?

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.

I'll repeat to you what I mentioned to Chap: you should be quite knowledgable of how taking the Lord's name in vain is viewed...unless you've been living under a rock on Mars.

Are we really debating a personal choice of mine, though...?

He is just doing what has been done in other worlds... Its the in thing, My names not really PrickKicker.
God and his servants love, replacing real names for code names, Jehovah being replaced with Lord. Eloheim with God, Michael with Adam, Gabrielle with Noah, Clark Kent with Superman.

Hell, Jesus is a made up name.

D&C78 intro.

...It was not always desirable that the identity of the individuals whom the Lord addressed in the revelations should be known by the world; hence, in the publication of this and some subsequent revelations the brethren were referred to by other than their own names. When the necessity had passed for keeping the names of the individuals unknown, their real names were thereafter given in brackets. Since there exists no vital need today to continue the code names, the real names only are now used herein as given in the original manuscripts.

What is the real name of the Melchisdek priesthood? The Holy Priesthood after the order of the son of God? why was it changed?

[_Drifting]

In answer to your question, it was originally called Freemasonry!

[_Themis]

Because I can't create that feeling on my own no matter how much I want it.

Are you saying you don't think you can consciously produce such a feeling, or that you don't think the body is capable of producing such a feeling. If the ladder, I would like to know how one can know what the body is not capable of?

I had my first such experience before I even knew what the Church's interpretation of it was, and I had already known, for myself, from where the source came.

There is a difference between the experience and the interpretation. What interpretation did you come away with for this experience? When I said church I assumed you may have grown up in the church, but certainly we can get other interpretations from other world views we learn. Many of which can be similar to the LDS church.

I am talking about proving love. You use letters and journals for evidence of love, but seem to reject the same regarding a witness coming from a divine source. You use actions as proof for love, but seem to dismiss actions regarding spiritual experiences as claimed. What if what one thinks they are in love, but really isn't? People mistake lust for love quite often. Can you really prove it?

The problem here is that it is not reliable. Love is easy. Here we have different interpretations of what the spiritual is, and what it's source is.

You don't doubt something happened, you just question it's source, and suggest there's no way of really knowing. Your objective truth claims relies on the premise that all are being honest. Some things, though, just require faith...and good ole common sense.

I am not sure everyone who is being honest is going to come from one group. For me once I realize that maybe my body can produce the experiences I didn't stop believing. That happened after seeing the evidence against the church's truth claims. The two together were needed.

[Guest]

You did not explain why you are the only LDS writer who has decided to make a practice of writing "G-d" instead of "God".

Since that seems to be the case, this appears to be an idiosyncratic decision on your part, a decision not taken by any other LDS, many of whom no doubt agree with the proposition that it is improper to use terms referring to the LDS deity in a disrespectful way.

I'm sorry that I have to treat your response as I would a child who doesn't understand, but you have forced me to do so.

I explained that I distinguish between G-d, the Father, and God the Son...which you apparently have ignored.

You have continued on your course of LDS leaders/members not writing diety in such a manner as your apparent reasoning to challenge me, but I'm not quite sure why...?