Why did I ever read beyond the slaying of Laban?

[_Gordon]

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?

I guess you missed my reasoning also...

[Guest]

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.

I do it to distinguish between the Father and the Son...which I already stated.

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.

I also cited a LDS prophet who said not to use the Lord's name other than for specific times. Why you question the majority in understanding using His name in vain is beyond me, though...

Yes, the majority was wrong on the flat earth subject, but that's irrelevant.

[_Gordon]

[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?

Try to follow along, will you?

[_Gordon]

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?

The prior.

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 did grow up in the Church. However, I hadn't read the Church's explanation of a positive witness before I had one. I attributed it to a positive experience regarding the Gospel on my own.

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.

And I'm comparing this to love, as well.

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.

I'm not suggesting that everyone who is being honest is coming from one group. I'm suggesting that not everyone who claims they are being honest is. Yes, the body can produce experiences, but i'm trying to show that you can possibly know the difference based upon universal objective actions. The 'evidence' against Church claims can also be subjective...which you attribute to a witness.

[_PrickKicker]

Try to follow along, will you?

Oh yes wise master,
I'm sure you would love me to follow, whilst you lead.

[_Drifting]

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?

I guess you missed my reasoning also...

You and I both missed it.

[_Themis]

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?

The prior.

I can agree with that. I know some sensations I have had, I would be hard pressed to impossible to produce when I like. I don't think they are coming from other sources. I just understand the body and mind are extremely complex, and we don't know much about how they work. Do you think the body or maybe the subconsciousness mind could produce sensations you cannot produce consciously? If no, I would be interested in how you know this.

I did grow up in the Church. However, I hadn't read the Church's explanation of a positive witness before I had one. I attributed it to a positive experience regarding the Gospel on my own.

I assume then your parents took you to church fairly regular. If so, then I have a very hard time believing a young child would not have already been exposed to these very popular ideas, and ones taught regularly in church and by active families and friends. Funny how we can change our memories of the past to suit particular view points. I don't even trust my own to far these days. Mind you, childhood ones are probably the worst for this.

I'm not suggesting that everyone who is being honest is coming from one group. I'm suggesting that not everyone who claims they are being honest is.

That would irrelevant then to reliability, since if honest ones come from different groups, you still have conflicting interpretations from the same kinds of experiences.

Yes, the body can produce experiences, but I'm trying to show that you can possibly know the difference based upon universal objective actions.

Could you be more specific on how you tell the difference upon universal objective actions. I think an example involving the spiritual experience would help the most to understand what you mean.

The 'evidence' against Church claims can also be subjective...which you attribute to a witness.

Not all evidence has the same value, and some may be more subjective then others. What do you mean by witness in regards to evidence against church claims? If you mean by some praying and getting a sensation they interpret as evidence the church claims are not true then I would agree they are extremely subjective and would not trust them to come to conclusions the church is false, but then should we really be doing the opposite?

[_Gordon]

Oh yes wise master,
I'm sure you would love me to follow, whilst you lead.

Foolish sarcasm doesn't become anyone.

[_Gordon]

You and I both missed it.

How did I miss my own reasoning?

[_Gordon]

I can agree with that. I know some sensations I have had, I would be hard pressed to impossible to produce when I like. I don't think they are coming from other sources. I just understand the body and mind are extremely complex, and we don't know much about how they work. Do you think the body or maybe the subconsciousness mind could produce sensations you cannot produce consciously? If no, I would be interested in how you know this.

I do. However, I can attribute those sensations to reality...or at least to my personal experiences.

I assume then your parents took you to church fairly regular. If so, then I have a very hard time believing a young child would not have already been exposed to these very popular ideas, and ones taught regularly in church and by active families and friends. Funny how we can change our memories of the past to suit particular view points. I don't even trust my own to far these days. Mind you, childhood ones are probably the worst for this.

They did. In fact, my father was the bishop when I was eight. Yet, I don't recall foreknowledge of the type of witness I first had (whilst not seeking for it). I'm sure you will simply chalk it up to a change in my memory to suit the need, though...

That would irrelevant then to reliability, since if honest ones come from different groups, you still have conflicting interpretations from the same kinds of experiences.

As I stated, in my experience, the experiences aren't the same. Furthermore, I explained how easy it is to relate such experiences to a divine source, but to attribute it to differing things.

Could you be more specific on how you tell the difference upon universal objective actions. I think an example involving the spiritual experience would help the most to understand what you mean.

I will refer to Moses's own experience in Moses 1:12-22. He was able to tell the difference between the source of the experience.

While his statement that the spirit had not fully left him wouldn't be universally objective, his statement regarding the ability to look upon the figure might be, and the contrasting statements of God and the Devil most certainly would be.

Yes, the same can be said for the command not to kill, and Nephi's admonition to slay Laban, but the differing circumstances regarding Laban (if Nephi is telling the truth) versus an innocent individual are universally objective. The test of Abraham's faith to kill Isaac, was purely that...faith (I don't know how he did it).

Not all evidence has the same value, and some may be more subjective then others. What do you mean by witness in regards to evidence against church claims? If you mean by some praying and getting a sensation they interpret as evidence the church claims are not true then I would agree they are extremely subjective and would not trust them to come to conclusions the church is false, but then should we really be doing the opposite?

Some claim to have witnesses against the LDS Church, which critics don't seem to question (since it supports their stance), but question witnesses for it. However, I was suggesting that certain 'evidences' against truth claims are subjective (For instance why an individual thinks a command from God to slay Laban is abhorrent), yet you seem to have no problem rejecting a truth witness because it's subjective.