Maureen

Ray, my frustration with you is that you seem to be stating the opposite of what I say. I don't get the impression from you that you are truly trying to understand my posts.Aside from that, I disagree with the statement of yours that's quoted. To have faith in something requires knowledge of that something first. If you have no knowledge of a belief, a person, etc - how can you have faith in something you know nothing about? For example: I have faith that the doctrine of the Trinity is true because of the knowledge I have attained through scripture and essays I've read from scholars. I have faith that Season 4 of Star Trek: Enterprise will be worth my while due to articles and spoilers I've read concerning the stories and writers. I know that the city of Edmonton exists because I live here. I know that gravity exists because I've experienced it through out my life. I've never said through out this thread that I do not know anything. What I have said concerning faith in spiritual matters though is that, I have faith that the things I've learned about God and believe about God are true. And I don't know how I can clarify that any better. M.

Really. Like I stated before:Kirby ends it perfectly: When it comes to saying that we know, maybe we really ought to be saying that we hope or believe or have faith. Such words carry with them an element of humility... Since you're trying to make this as difficult as possible Ray I may have to get out the crayons. My knowledge of spiritual things is limited because I have a limited ability to understand all things spiritual. I do believe that faith must come from knowledge but I would be the first to admit that I don't know some things; but just because I have stated I don't have a complete knowledge of spiritual things you believe it is acceptable for you to be condescending to me. You occasionally can't quite figure out why other posters don't automatically agree and accept your version of knowledge. I believe it could possibly be your inability to communicate well enough because your reading comprehension is lacking. Therefore when you say you know something is true I am more apt to believe that you are mistaken. If you want to be taken seriously when you share your (as the LDS say) testimony of God you may want to try some humility (and practice that reading comprehension a little more). M.

How do you define negatively?For example, if I were to state that I believe that JS probably had a mental illness, specifically Narcissism, would you consider that a negative statement? Just so you know, I'm not try to push your buttons but it's helpful if you're more specific about what you think is negative. Thanks! M.

Ray, did you bother to read the Kirby article? Or are you just trying to be dense because you don't know what else to type? Re-read my posts and pray about them this time and maybe you'll see the light. M.

Are you sure it's the will of our Lord and not just the will of your church?M.

Ditto for you too Ray. :) M.

I've never said that. I'm understanding this thread to be about faith in regards to spiritual knowledge. I know many things, but I doubt you want me to list the things I know that don't really have anything to do with spiritual knowledge.M.

And like I said, I just dont think the best place to find out about our beliefs is froma 3rd party. Care to dance? Do-C-Do! Thanks for the insults <3 And by the way, what insults? M.

I think the point is that everyone has the choice. If someone chooses to abstaint from alcohol for whatever reason or if someone chooses to drink alcohol responsibly for whatever reason, that choice exists for them. Life is made up of choices. You choose to obey your WofW because your church asks you to. Is it really for health reasons or for an obedience test? The LDS church in the present doesn't really give their members a choice (free agency) regarding the WofW, it's more of an ultimatum. If you don't follow you can't go to the temple. Why not just keep the WofW as a recommend instead of an ultimatum, then it's a true choice for members to make and no one is judged unfairly.M.

Like I said, just because the LDS church does not approve of a book, does not mean it is not reliable or credible. Spencer, do you determine something is worth reading by asking your church for permission and approval to read it? Let's hope not. You're a big boy now Spencer, you should be able to think without having to get your church's okie-dokie.M.

A book does not have to have the LDS' church seal of appeal to be a reliable book. It won a few awards, it must have some integrity to it.Mormon Enigma - Emma Hale Smith Linda King Newell and Valeen Tippetts Avery Winner of the Evans Biography Award, the Mormon History Association Best Book Award, and the John Whitmer Association (RLDS) Best Book Award The Temperance movement was alive and well during JS's time. It's not like he invented it. M.

I believe that no-one knows for sure. There's nothing wrong admitting that we don't know. I believe that you think you know; because if you knew for sure where would that leave faith?M.

But Ray, when you say something is the truth you expect people to believe it. If you expect that from others, why can't you show the same courtesy? M.

Excuse me! You're telling me I'm not allowed to post what I post because you don't want to bother reading it, or try to deduce what it might mean? If you are capable of discerning truth then why ask the question of What are you trying to say, Maureen? Why ask if you already know?Seriously Ray, the term I AM is a reference to God. Jesus separates himself from Abraham by saying before Abraham even existed Jesus existed as God. You believe that Abraham and all mankind also existed before the beginning of their earthly existence. But the John scripture makes the distinction between Abraham's existence and Jesus' existence. Abraham at one point did not exist and Jesus is God (I AM) so he has always existed. Hence Abraham is not eternal in the sense that Jesus is eternal and therefore God. M. (Editing to change from Exodus to John)

Because when it comes to spiritual knowledge we see through a glass darkly; nothing is perfectly clear. So if a person can admit they do not know, but has hope or faith in a belief, then that person appears to at least be honest. For example Ray, do you know exactly what happens to you after you die? I do not know, but I believe that my faith in God will give me the chance to one day really know for sure.M.

Ray - I believe personally that you and I have different definitions of the word God (due to debates on other threads). So I'm not sure if these scriptures will mean to you what they mean to me: God said to Moses, “I AM that I AM.”47 And he said, “You must say this to the Israelites, ‘I AM has sent me to you.’” God also said to Moses, “You must say this to the Israelites, ‘The Lord—the God of your fathers, the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob—has sent me to you. This is my name forever, and this is my memorial from generation to generation.’ (Exodus 3:14-15) (47tn The verb form used here is hy\h=a# (‘ehyeh), the Qal imperfect, first person common singular, of the verb “to be,” hyh (haya). It forms an excellent paronomasia with the name. So when God used the verb to express his name, he used this form saying, “I AM.” When his people refer to him as Yahweh, which is the third person masculine singular form of the same verb, they say “he is.” Some commentators argue for a future tense translation, “I will be who I will be,” because the verb has an active quality about it, and the Israelites lived in the light of the promises for the future. They argue that “I AM” would be of little help to the Israelites in bondage. But a translation of “I will be” does not effectively do much more except restrict it to the future. The idea of the verb would certainly indicate that God is not bound by time, and while he is present (“I AM”) he will always be present, even in the future, and so “I AM” would embrace that as well (see also Ruth 2:13; Ps 50:21; Hos 1:9). The Greek translation used a participle to capture the idea; and several times in the Gospels Jesus used the powerful “I am” with this significance. The point is that Yahweh is sovereignly independent of all creation and that his presence guarantees the fulfillment of the covenant (cf. Isa 41:4; 42:6, 8; 43:10-11; 44:6; 45:5-7). Others argue for a causative Hiphil translation of “I will cause to be,” but nowhere in the Bible does this verb appear in Hiphil or Piel. A good summary of the views can be found in G. H. Park-Taylor, hwhy, Yahweh, the Divine Name in the Bible (Waterloo, Ontario, 1975). See among the many articles: B. Beitzel, “Exodus 3:14 and the Divine Name: A Case of Biblical Paronomasia,” TJ 1 (1980): 5-20; C. D. Isbell, “The Divine Name ehyeh as a Symbol of Presence in Israelite Tradition,” HAR 2 (1978): 101-18; J. G. Janzen, “What’s in a Name? Yahweh in Exodus 3 and the Wider Biblical Context,” Int 33 (1979): 227-39; J. R. Lundbom, “God’s Use of the Idem per Idem to Terminate Debate,” HTR 71 (1978): 193-201; A. R. Millard, “Yw and Yhw Names,” VT 30 (1980): 208-12; and R. Youngblood, “A New Occurrence of the Divine Name ‘I AM,’” JETS 15 (1972): 144-52.) Jesus said to them, “I tell you the solemn truth, before Abraham came into existence, I am!”160 Then they picked up stones to throw at him, but Jesus hid himself and went out from the temple area. (John 8:58-59) (160sn I am! is an explicit claim to deity. Although each occurrence of the phrase “I am” in the Fourth Gospel needs to be examined individually in context to see if an association with Exod 3:14 is present, it seems clear that this is the case here (as the response of the Jewish authorities in the following verse shows).) Verses and text notes are from the NET bible at bible.org. M.

Kirby ends it perfectly: When it comes to saying that we know, maybe we really ought to be saying that we hope or believe or have faith. Such words carry with them an element of humility... M.

So Maureen, Your advising a person risks decrease health by refusing to drink coffee? Do you really believe that? No Snow - I'm saying that coffee does have health benefits and pop does not; so if aikenfan chooses to drop the coffee I am hoping he/she does not replace a beneficial drink with pop, which is not. There are better choices out there which I listed. M.

Hi aikenfan - When you say hot drinks I will assume you mean tea and coffee. I am non-LDS so this advice comes from my perspective. Over the years it has been discovered that coffee and tea have health benefits. Coffee has benefits that can prevent diabetes and colon cancer. So in my opinion you should weigh the benefits of not drinking these beverages at all or drinking them in moderation. With giving up certain drinks people tend to replace them with something else - like pop. My LDS relatives consume vast quantities of pop - caffeinated and non. I believe pop is unhealthy, especially in large amounts - and most people drink too much pop. Pop is high in sugar and even diet pop with artificial sweeteners in large amounts is not healthy, you're at risk to develop diabetes, bone density problems, teeth problems, etc.So if you do decide to give up your tea and coffee please don't replace those beverages with pop, choose milk, juice or even water instead - much healthier. Good luck with your choice. M.

Greetings aikenfan, we'd love to help but you're going to have to write those curious things down. We're a very talented bunch of people, but our telepathic powers are the pits. :) M.

Okay huma, why don't you give us something to read then, that shows exactly what you mean. Give me some sort of quote by BY that proves your point.M.

In looking at BY's personality, he seems the kind of man that requires loyal obedience by his followers. He didn't get them this far (Utah) to have them all run away and leave him high and dry. So what better way than ultimatums and threats to keep the members towing the line. BY's style of leadership was dictator-ish to say the least. Blood Atonement fits the bill. M.

Thanks AEY for the reply. Another question - why did you choose a girl's name as your Username? M.

AEY - How do you define ultra liberal Protestants?I checked out the WCC website and it seems like a reasonable organization. Under this list: List of member churches, associate member churches and national council bodies I found a variety of different churches, including Catholic. What do you object to regarding the WCC? M.

The LDS church has definitely evolved in these almost 175 years, and it will keep evolving. I'm pretty sure in 50 years it will a very different church than it is now - in beliefs and culture.M. I agree Maureen..... Bat, I think its called progression Etymology: Middle English, from Latin progressus advance, from progredi to go forth, from pro- forward + gradi to go -- more at PRO-, GRADE 3 : gradual betterment; especially : the progressive development of mankind - in progress : going on : OCCURRING B) LaurelTree