faith4

Members
  • Posts

    165
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    3

Everything posted by faith4

  1. From what I understand, Saturday is the original Sabbath. After all, if you look at your calendar, Saturday is the 7th day while Sunday is the 1st day of the week. Christians began to celebrate the Sabbath and worship on Sundays b/c that was the day of Jesus' resurrection.
  2. I'm not looking to debate you, I already apologized for my misunderstanding, how your posts came across to me, as a non-LDS forum member. And I certaintly don't expect you to stop replying to this thread, or to suddenly change your opinion on the matter. But I too have a POV from the "other side of the aisle", which, clashes a bit w/your opinion on this matter. MrShorty brings up a very good question, and in the end, we really don't know what other people experience throughout their life and how it shapes their faith. For myself, considering anyone deceived or confused, is to judge them when we truly can't see in their hearts and minds, only God can do that. I always give the benefit of the doubt, and just pray for all those whom I love and care for, that God will continue to draw them, and me, to Himself, and that we are all humble enough to follow whichever path He guides us on. I always imagine all of humanity like a giant blanket, being lovingly weaved by the Hand of God, each thread a human life. We have to trust that God knows what the final picture is meant to look like and not resist where he places the needle as he weaves our lives in and around one another, even if we don't understand why He's placed us where He does, it's for a purpose. *Shrug* Maybe not a very good example, but it helps me to continually love everyone He places in my path, including you I can't wait to see the final picture in all it's glory!
  3. Lol!! Of course not :) I meant, why did you bring it up again, lol :) I am always interested in reading your posts, for the most part I find your posts very balanced, informative and amusing, just not so much this time
  4. :) Then why did you continue? I haven't made up anything more than you have made up by your "reasoning" with another poster. All quotes I gave are direclty from you in this very thread (Posts #12, 14 & 20). As with any forum, or online discussion, I cannot see you and you cannot see me, all we can do is read what's in front of us and take it as it is. As a non-LDS member, I was honestly letting you know how you came across. Now, apparently, you seem to be the one offended and "having at it", and if that is so, then I will apologize for any misunderstanding on my part :) My joy is in knowing that God is, and always will be, our witness. Now, I truly hope you have a wonderful and blessed day!!
  5. I heartily agree w/you. I have so many wonderful friends, of all different faiths, and I am always amazed at their stories, and how God has moved, and continues to move, in their lives. I have so many awesome LDS friends and neighbors, I love them dearly, and part of what I love about them, is the ability to have reasonable theological discussions from which we all can grow from. I firmly that God places us in situations through which we can grow and learn, and it is through the humility of recognizing the dignity of Christ in everyone, that we are more open to His love. For the LDS, if a family member converts to a Lutheran church, perhaps that person needed to meet someone in that church, and go through a different thought process in order to finally understand a LDS concept that they didn't before, which could lead them back to the LDS faith. A cousin of mine converted to the LDS church and is on his mission right now in Chile. He has so much zeal and love for God right now, I'm happy for him! He didn't have that love before, his parents enver went to church or taught him faith, but now he does have faith, and I don't doubt his sincerity. He needs this moment, this zeal for God,and the specific organization your church offers him, to grow towards God. Rather than judge others or consider them deceived or confused b/c they belong to a different faith, I always remember that God brings good out of everything, and to keep my own eyes focused on the Prize, which is Jesus Himself. God bless!
  6. Sorry man, I also stand by what I said, b/c that is exactly how it came across to me as a non-LDS browser. Perhaps you didn't mean for it to come across as arrogant as it did, but it did. "The fact that people become "converts" to all sorts of things based on their feelings does not invalidate the witness of someone who has truly received communication from God. The cynicism of this approach is not useful. It's also not useful to teach those filled with pride and their own sense of wisdom that they must be humble and submissive. It does no good to explain to those who have never seen and felt the sun that their false claims of sunlight are blatantly obvious to those who have come out of the darkness if they refuse to experiment upon your path to the light themselves." "Those on the other side of the aisle, as you put it, may be blinded, confused, unknowledgeable, or unfamiliar. That does not make them bad, but it doesn't prove that someone who has had a true witness of the Spirit is also confused." "I believe that anyone who would so contend ("I have a spiritual witness that the Book of Mormon is false" or the like) is, at some level, deceiving themselves." The "warm fuzzies" are not what I referred to as arrogant, I couldn't agree more with you more on that point, I'm referring to you judging the previous poster, implying that they have never received "pure knowledge" from the Spirit, and inserting your own garbage into what the previous poster wrote, about not converting based on emotion, you quoted her and replied, "And reason doesn't? You mean to tell me that every "reasonable" thought you've ever had you still retain? So what you considered reasonable when you were 2 years old is still your view? So what we once thought was reasonable concerning science has never changed? You are incapable or unwilling to every update or alter your reason? Sounds like a sure path to growth". This is unnecessary and not at all what the poster was trying to say. If I have shown any arrogance, then God will judge me, but I will never deny you, nor any other Christian a truly authentic witness when it comes to the Holy Spirit and Truth, even if it leads them to a Church that I don't understand. That is why I'm here, on this forum, to better understand my brothers and sisters in Christ, to learn directly from those who are authentically living their faith, rather than go to anti-mormon sites. God bless!
  7. I usually enjoy reading your posts TFP, however, your arrogance in this post, is a bit over the top. Who are you to assume that this poster has never had any spiritual experiences, or witnesses, that has led him/her to where they are now? Simply b/c this person is not LDS, you assume they couldn't have possibly felt the Spirit?? *Facepalm* Lack of humility indeed!! The OP is a very valid question, and as someone who ardently prayed and fasted about the veracity of the BOM and received a very definite negative witness, your ignorant replies that those on the "other side" are somehow deceiving themselves is insulting. Have I felt the Holy Spirit? Can I tell the difference between mere emotions and a truly answered prayer? YES, YES and YES. I have felt God Himself physically present before me, Love so great there are zero words in the human language to adequately describe Him and just how beautiful He is (I had no visual, but trust me, I didn't need one, I probably would've passed out!!!). He didn't speak audible words to me, but He spoke gently to my heart, my very soul, just how much He loved ME. This beautiful grace, so completely unexpected, is more than I could have ever hoped to receive, but I know now that that is what I was made for, to receive this Love and to love Him in return w/everything that I am, and that is what I strive for each and every day. This is only one of many, many experiences, which can only be ascribed to God, which have guided me into the faith I am now, and I couldn't be anymore in love with Love! A joy so great, I feel as though I could burst at times, and a peace in my soul that surpasses anything I've known or felt before. Freedom so sweet, I know that there truly is nothing in this world to fear. And I believe that you, as a mormon, can feel this too, I refuse to box this in as only a thing Catholics can know and experience. So do I believe other people of other faiths can also receive spiritual experiences by the Holy Spirit? Yes I do! I believe God loves ALL of us so much that He is always calling to us, calling us to Himself, no matter what religion we ascribe to. We are all on our own path home to God, and none of our paths are identical with anyone else's path. Your cross to carry is not my cross. And to those who truly love God and wish to know Him and listen to Him, they will receive witnesses from the Holy Spirit that God does exist and He loves us. God will take each of us where we are and guide us to Himself in a way best suited to each individual. Gods ways are mysterious, but I have faith that He will always bring the good about in every situation b/c He loves us so much. I have been in the daylight too Sir, and I know I have, regardless of whether or not you believe it to be possible. God bless!
  8. I make my own laundry detergant, foaming hand soap (very easy), and most household cleaners. I've made and used dishwasher detergant, but it doesn't work as well as I would like so I don't make it anymore. As far as personal items, I like to make mint chocolate whipped body butter (also very easy), I've never tried homemade toothpaste or deoderant, though I've thought about it. I prefer to use straight honey as a face wash and a few dabs of coconut oil as a facial moisturizer before bed. If I have a problem spot on my face, I use aloe vera gel and tea tree oil mixed together, and that works pretty well. My husband and I love to garden, so we're constantly growing something, even during the hot summer months (I live in AZ). Right now we have canteloupe, watermelon, zucchini, tomatoes, basil, pie pumpkins and cucumbers (for pickles). We also have several fruit trees, including 2 peach (different varities which fruit at different times so we have peaches throughout the summer months), a plum, 2 cherry, 3 pomegranate, a lemon, an orange (mandarin), a guava, an avocado, and 2 apple trees. Most of them are still young since we moved here 3 years ago but they are producing which is exciting! I like to bake goodies (muffins, granola bars, breads, rolls, desserts etc.) from scratch and my husband is an excellent cook, most everything he makes is also from scratch. Since I can't bring myself to pay loads of money for a fancy cake, I make my own fondant and decorate the cakes myself. My husband is a super DIY-er when it comes to repairs around the house. He's an engineer and a bit of a perfectionist so he'll do most everything himself. He even built our chicken coop :) I'm not a very crafty person, but I've made a few table cloths for the holidays, Christmas wreaths out of pinecones as gifts, painted a picture for the boys bathroom to match the shower curtain, and made dryer balls. I
  9. We're driving to Montana in early July to visit family and enjoy cooler weather :) It'll be a long trip for us (coming from AZ) and we'll be stopping in SLC to stay the night.
  10. Neighbors of mine go there every year to help with the pageant, they're there right now
  11. Thank you! They all look really good, and I love how different they all are :) And thank you for the links, I'll be able to come back to this site and use these recipes :)
  12. I love food. Really love good food :) My husband and I both love to try new foods and recipes, he prefers to cook and I prefer to bake, and we both love to grow fruits, veggies & herbs in our garden. I thought it would be fun to read what some of your favorite dishes are, and if you are able, to post the recipes so other readers (and myself) can make it. Is there something in particular that you are known for making that is awesome? Thanks! :)
  13. The bolded statement is not true, if that were the case, no man today would have any apostolic authority. As Peter was singled out among the 12 to "feed the lambs", so there is always one who takes the chair of Peter and guards the deposit of faith, making sure the good news is continually preached to every tongue, nation and people. And just as Peter was a sinful man, with a temper and who denied Jesus, so all men who follow in his place, they are simply men, still here on earth facing temptations just like everyone else. Not one of them was perfect while here on earth, not one of them completely sinless. Yet not one of them tried to justify his sinful behavior by changing doctrine. The Roman Church recognizes the authority of the Eastern Churches, and the Eastern recognizes the authority of the Roman.
  14. Before I begin, I just want to say thank you for being such a gentleman, and allowing me to have some time to answer you to the best of my abilites with the limitation of time. :) Your argument is a quite a stretch and is mostly speculation. I've never said or implied that God intended for all of humanity to be celibate, that a husband and wife should not have children, that somehow our gender has little to do w/replenishing the earth. Have you never come across the joke that a family w/several children is either Catholic or LDS? I'm pretty sure I can say that Catholics have never forgotten their duty to procreate. Jesus' mention of the first covenant of creation is indeed about marriage, and that divorce was never something God intended for. Once a man and woman are joined together in a covenant, no one should try to separate them. This is clear, I never said anything about divorce, nor is this topic about divorce. The Pharisees are indeed testing Him, they wish for Him to say something which they can use against Him, especially if they can get Him to disagree w/the Mosaic Law. This is their main objective, not to try to point Jesus out as a hypocrite. If Jesus wasn't married (as He most assuredly was not), everyone who followed Him would've already known this, the Pharisees wouldn't need to point this out or gang up on Him, and their silence about his celibacy is not sufficient "proof" that He was married. Yes, celibacy was unusual for a man, but it was not unheard of. John the Baptist was celibate and he had many, many followers. Even the Pharisees sent priests and levites to question him to see if he was the Messiah. They didn't seem to care that he was a wild man who lived in the desert and was celibate. Back to Jesus. Jesus' answer eludes them though, He tells them that divorce is unnatural, but allowed b/c of the hardness of their hearts. Those who divorce unlawfully and remarry commit adultery, to which His disciples then comment to Him that it would be better to not marry. Jesus does not reply in the negative to this comment though, He actually says that this is something that is granted to some people to accept. He then goes into the verse I keep quoting. In verse 10, no questions are asked Jesus, rather, they make a comment that it would be better to not marry. There is no mention of whether or not intimacy is "in the cards". Marriage implies intimacy. And again, Jesus replies that this is something that is granted to some. Not all, some. Again, I am not saying that everyone must abandon the command to be fruitful and multiply, this is not a sudden u-turn on this command, Jesus is not teaching us to ignore this command. Jesus then continues to give examples for why men don't marry, His last example includes those who have renounced marriage for the sake of the kingdom of heaven. He then repeats Himself, that whoever can accept this (to whom this "gift" is granted), should accept it. Nowhere does He say this means to temporarily renounce intimacy, this is His response to His disciples comment that it is better not to marry. This is the subject He expounds on, not, "it is better to not have intimacy for a while". As for St. Paul, I don't care if people speculate if he was widowed or not. Widowed men can become priests. Tradition teaches us that he was not married, but regardless, he makes himself clear on his position on marriage and celibacy in his letters. Those who wish to ignore it, are free to do so. But of course, celibacy is not a dogma. Have I said that yet? This is not a central part of our faith, nor does it impact the deposit of faith or the Good News. Speaking of being one in the flesh through the marital covenant, I would like to here your interpretation of Eph 5:21-32, especially verses 31 & 32, "For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh. This is a great mystery, but I speak in reference to Christ and the church." God Bless :)
  15. This is it right here, this is the imaginary stone you keep stumbling over. The teaching of priestly celibacy is not a dogma, it is not a central and irreformable part of our faith, it is a disciplinary rule which the Latin Rite teaches. It does not change the deposit of faith handed on to the Apostles and to the Church. Jesus did not deliberately change the historical norm of marriage. Jesus did not demand celibacy of anyone, so no address is conspicuously missing as you charge. Jesus does however mention that this way of life is acceptable, to those who are called to it, it is a "gift" that is only granted to some, not all. See Mt 19:1-12 on His discourse with the Pharisees on marriage and divorce. Also see Mt 19:27-30. St. Paul expounds on this idea in 1 Cor. 7. In verse 6 Paul says about celibacy, "This I say by way of concession, howerver, not as a command" , and again in verse 35, "I am telling you this for your own benefit, not to impose a restraint upon you, but for the sake of propriety and adherence to the Lord without distraction". The "burden of proof" is all around you, not only in the Scriptures, but also in the teachings of the early Church fathers, and Doctors of the Church, these past 2000 years. It is found in, not only Scriptures and our tradition, but also of the Orthodox and Eastern Churches traditions as well. Put yourself in the shoes of a 1st century Jewish man, who believes in what the Apostles of Jesus are teaching. Most of these early converts were Jewish, and were most likely married. Paul provides guidelines in 1 Tim. for men who are acceptable to ordain as Bishops and deacons, having one wife and being able to manage his household and children in a submissive and respectful way (4-5). In this teaching Paul does not declare that these men must have a wife and children, but that if they do have one and wish to receive ordination, they must show self-control in their personal life. Obviously, Paul does not teach that a married man is mandatory to be a Bishop since he himself is unmarried, and very content to be so. The book, The Apostolic Origins of Priestly Celibacy, by Christian Cochini demonstrates how celibacy grew from the time of the Apostles and became a teaching for the Latin Rite. As for the repetitive charge of "forbidding people to marry", the Church does not forbid anyone. No one is required to take a vow of celibacy, those who do take it, do so voluntarily. They, themselves by their own choice, renounce marriage (Mt 19:12), no one forbids it to them. If a Catholic does not wish to take such a vow, they are free to marry, the Church does not stop anyone from taking a husband and wife. The Eastern Rite allows for Priests to be married (there are guidelines of course) but all their Bishops are celibate (Bishops are chosen among the priests who are celibate). And the command of God to be fruitful and multiply is a general precept for the human race, for we were made in the image and likeness of God, as God is our Creator, we are given the gift of procreation. It is not a disputed command of God, nor has that ever been taught. Catholics are taught to venerate marriage as a holy sacrament, it is a vocation in itself. In fact, it is precisely this holiness which makes celibacy beautiful, for only what is good and holy in itself can be offered up to God as a sacrifice. As fasting presupposes the goodness of food, celibacy presupposes the goodness of marriage. As a wife and mother, I serve God wholly by humbly and lovingly submitting to all that which entails of me as a wife and mother. I recognize my husband as the authority of the household, and support and love him at all times. I teach, correct and discipline my children, feed and clothe them, love and care for them. I also care for the household by managing bills and taking care of our garden and pets. A priest manages his "household", his parish, and by caring for his "spiritual" children. And as for your last example, which is entirely unrelated though you try to compare the two, celibacy is not dogma...I will say it again...it is not dogma.
  16. I will skip the fourth point for now. Marriage was the norm and standard in the OT, I never tried to argue otherwise. I have provided examles that it was not unheard of, but celibacy was not common. At the time of Jesus, I'm sure most of his Apostles were married, we know that Peter was, for his MIL is mentioned in Scripture. Rabbi was simply a title given to someone who was a scholar of the Law and since He spoke as one having authority, He was considered a Rabbi. I'm not sure how odd it would've been to call a celibate man rabbi, I did not live in that time period. But from what I know, John the Baptist had a large following, and the fact that he was a man who lived in the wild and was celibate, didn't seem to bother anyone. In fact it drew more people to him because they believed he was the Messiah, even Herod was curious who this man was. So, I don't believe the Pharisees pointing out his celibacy would've had any impact on Jesus' followers.
  17. Okay, you know who Melchizedek was, a king and priest whom Abraham receives a blessing from. When the law was established, only the Levites could serve as priests. Through King David, God promised to establish the kingdom in his line forever, through the house of Judah. Therefore, a Levite could not be a king, nor could one from the house of Judah, be a priest, the two were separate. Jesus, born of the house of Judah, is the rightful king. As the only begotten Son of God, firstborn male, He is also a priest (patriarchal priesthood). Jesus is the King and Priest spoken of in Ps 110. "Yours is princely power from the day of your birth. In holy splendor before the daystar, like dew I begot you. The Lord has sworn and will not waver: "You are a priest forever in the manner of Melchizedek."". The Israelites practiced the Aaronic priesthood, and as stated in Hebrews, it is inferior to the Melchizedek priesthood, "If, then, perfection came through the levitical priesthood, on the basis of which the people received the law, what need would there still have been for another priest to arise according to the order of Melchizedek, and not reckoned according to the order of Aaron? When there is a change of priesthood, there is necessarily a change of law as well. Now he of whom these things are said belonged to a different tribe, of which no member ever officiated at the altar. It is clear that our Lord arose from Judah...It is even more obvious if another priest is raised up after the likeness of Melchizedek, who has become so, not by a law expressed in a commandment concerning physical descent but by the power of life that cannot be destroyed...a former commandment is annulled because of its weakness and uselessness, for the law brought nothing to perfection; on the other hand, a better hope is introduced, through which we draw near to God...Those priests were many because they were prevented by death from remaining in office, but he, because he remains forever, has a priesthood that does not pass away." Hence, the Temple is no longer necessary since Christ is a more perfect High Priest who stands before God for forever. Melchizedek signifies one who is both a priest and a king, Ps 110 is a promise that God will raise up one who will be both. The Melchizedek priesthood was not practiced by the Israelites since their priests were not kings, and this sort of priesthood is superior to the Aaronic priesthood. Jesus fulfills this priesthood, and as such, is a high priest who is superior to all who had come before, and can now offer continual intercession on our behalf in the true tabernacle of heaven. "But when Christ came as high priest of the good things that have come to be, passing through the greater and more perfect tabernacle not made by hands, that is, not belonging to this creation, he entered once for all into the sanctuary, not with blood of goats and calves but with his own blood, thus obtaining eternal redemption...For this reason he is mediator of a new covenant". There was no phsyical ordination of Jesus (he was not a Levite, according to the Mosaic Law he could technically not be a priest according to their custom). Paul knows that Christ is both King and High Priest b/c it is revealed to him, as well as to the other Apostles. Nothing is lost at all, all of this information was revealed to Jesus' followers beginning on Pentecost when the Holy Spirit came down and has always remained as part of the landscape of Christian knowledge.
  18. Sorry, I really did try. It never looks long until I hit the post button.
  19. Yes, the tradition was still integral b/c the priesthood was passed on through natural generation. Priests who served in the Temple came from the Levites. When Jesus instituted the New Covenant, the Temple was no longer necessary as a place to offer animal sacrifices to God because Jesus Himself became the final sacrifice, by offering Himself as the sacrificial Lamb.
  20. Okay, I'm goint to try and keep this short and simple, and take each point one by one, so it may take me a few days to get through all of them since my boys will be out of school early today (last day) and I can't take the time I would like to study and check references. Please be patient with me! And I want to say thank you, I don't think you realized just how much you made my day yesterday with your previous post (as strange as that must sound!). This type of dicsussion is so much more reasonable. :) On this first point, you are partly right, and partly wrong. In the old covenant, priests were born into their position through natural generation. Levites were set apart as priests for God, and therefore married in order to produce more priests, since the priesthood continued through their male offspring. Marriage was definitely integral to the holy priesthood in the OT. Aaron was set aside as the High Priest (an office that would be passed on through the oldest son in Aaron's line), his sons and their descendants were priests, and all other Levites who did not descend from Aaron served as assistants to the priests. Since Aaron had 24 grandchildren, the Aaronite priesthood was divided into 24 corresponding divisions (1 Chr 24:1-9), and these divisions took turns ministering at the Temple with a weekly rotating cycle. While serving in the Temple, sexual abstinence was required of all OT priests while they served in the Temple, as well as abstaining from alcohol, since any ceremonial impurity would render the priest unable to function in the Temple. Some OT prophets were celibate, such as Elijah, Elisha and Jeremiah, though this was uncommon. Furthermore, in the OT there were those who took a vow of consecration to the Lord, the Nazirite vow. "This is the law for the Nazirite who takes a vow. His offering to the Lord shall be according to his vow as a Nazirite, apart from what else he can afford. In accordance with the vow that he takes, so shall he do according to the law for his separation as a Nazirite." (Num. 6:21). In Hebrew, nazirite means "consecrated" or "set apart". Samson, Samuel and John the Baptist are three examples of Nazirites, though the only one of these who included celibacy (not required) was John the Baptist. This outward state of piety which was distinct from the priesthood, carried over into early Christianity. Both St. Paul and St. James were Nazirites, and over time, monasticism grew from the Nazirite vow. Christians seeking to live a "consecrated" life to the Lord, took up the examples of John the Baptist and St. Paul, centering on a life of poverty and celibacy. The Essenes as well, a third "political" party at the time of Jesus (among the Pharisees and Sadducess) had members who practiced celibacy (though I believe this was also not required to be a member). Josephus, the Jewish historian, provides insight into this group in his book "The Jewish Wars". (Book II, ch.8) So although celibacy was uncommon, it was nonetheless not completely absent from those who lived during the time of the old covenant. Again, in the Catholic Church, the practice of celibate priests and nuns comes from tradition (those who were celibate during the transition from old to new covenant were Paul, Timothy, John, Luke, Barnabas, Titus and Mark as well as all the earliest known bishops ordained by the Apostles...to name a few), but this tradition is not dogma. There are rites (such as the Eastern) which allows for priests to be married, the Latin Rite does not. A change in this teaching does not change the deposit of faith. If you have questions or comments on this post, can you hold them until I'm finished with your other points? You don't have to obviously (this could take me a while), but it would be easier for me to focus on the rest of your points, than get stuck on this one. Also, I may just address your questions/comments you have anyway through the rest of the posts. God bless :)
  21. Wonderful Traveler! :) You bring up very good points, and I would like to have the time to address each one, but I will not have that time today (I have a church committee meeting to prepare for this afternoon...and I foolishly let my boys invite friends over for a pool party this afternoon in celebration of school ending, I have cookies to make since I will soon be overrun by a small army of little boys!!! ). I already write too much and this has potential to be a very very long reply! Each of these points you bring up have already been answered, discussed and taught throughout the 2000 year history of the Church, by some of the Doctors of the Church. None of these points btw, point to celibacy as a contradition as you may suppose it does, and I am very familiar with the Jewish historian Josephus. To physically make a man a eunech, he was castrated, rendering him physically unable to have relations w/a woman. The word can also be used to describe a man who is celibate, no physical impediment, but b/c he wished to abstain from procreation. Depends on which Bible translation you use, sometimes the word used is celibate, not eunech. God bless, I hope you have a wonderful day! :)
  22. Thank you for your concern, Traveler, but I do not believe in my heart that other things are more pleasing to God, we are each called for a specific purpose, and God wishes us to be like children, trusting in His Divine and Holy Will. Just as each body part has a specific purpose, so do we, each called to fulfill a purpose. I'm sure this is something you also believe. But, how can I be like a child for Him if I can't trust in His written word, His Divine guidance? (Going back to the OP). But I know that I can. I trust Him with my whole heart, for He has revealed Himself to me in many ways since I was a child, most of the time unexpected, only to be seen in hindsight. Other times, it was very obvious!!! Everything He has done for me has helped me become who I am today, and I know that I can trust in Him, in everything. Do not worry for my soul, for that would be judging, but please pray for me and I will pray for you :)