Psycho-Babble Faith Thread 430398

Shown: posts 9 to 33 of 38. Go back in thread:

 

Re: Lou's reply to MKB-dif MKB

Posted by Lou Pilder on December 17, 2004, at 11:25:17

In reply to Re: Lou's reply to MKB-~nedJsus? Lou Pilder, posted by MKB on December 16, 2004, at 20:43:09

MKB,
You wrote,[...I'm not going to answer your question...].
Could you answer a different question? If you could, then I could have the opportunity to have a better understanding of your posts in this thread and be better able to respond.
Lou

 

Re: Lou's reply to MKB-dif Lou Pilder

Posted by MKB on December 17, 2004, at 11:51:20

In reply to Re: Lou's reply to MKB-dif MKB, posted by Lou Pilder on December 17, 2004, at 11:25:17

You need to get over this feeling that you always have to "respond."

 

Re: Faith of My Fathers

Posted by rayww on December 17, 2004, at 14:12:20

In reply to Re: Faith of My Fathers rayww, posted by MKB on December 17, 2004, at 5:56:25

> I'm glad you appreciated my post. Your post does not offend me. However, I do not consider the Book of Mormon to be scripture. I just wanted to clarify that.


<I'm not asking for further clarification :) I would love to compare scripture from lots of religions as it relates to the topics we discuss here, but no one shares. btw, the book of mormon is family history. It's 1000+ years about fathers who recorded their beliefs and values to pass down to their children. If you received a revelation from God that gave you direction for your family, would you write it down? "Words of God" is scripture. Family history is the background that brings the scripture home. Mortality centers around family. The faith of your fathers should be "like" scripture to you personally. My grandfather's wisdom is like scripture to me. There is official canonized scripture, and personal scripture. I believe the book of mormon in every sense of the word is scripture. The Bible, though it does contain words of God, does not suppose to contain all His words, or suppose that He has never spoken words to anyone else, or that He is not capable of speaking to anyone else. God speaks to me, and you, and everyone, maybe not in words all the time, but in direction. If I feel that God is leading me a certain direction, I had better consider that scripture, and record it, post it on my mirror to face every day that I dare look into the mirror, and then head that direction. It is far too easy to close the book, place it on a shelf and rarely crack it open. How can one receive direction from a closed book, or a closed mind? God speaks to everyone. How can one know if their scripture is true? Because it all lines up, and would not contradict itself. If it is totally out of line with the Bible, it probably didn't come from God.

Do you consider the faith of your fathers to be an example and a guide for your life? I think it's great, and I think you should claim it as a form of personal scripture, especially if it provides a light that draws you toward the Bible, and increases your understanding of faith in God.
Thanks for the ramble. I tend to get a little carried away.

 

Re: Book of Mormon

Posted by MKB on December 17, 2004, at 15:40:26

In reply to Re: Faith of My Fathers, posted by rayww on December 17, 2004, at 14:12:20

> > Because it all lines up, and would not contradict itself. If it is totally out of line with the Bible, it probably didn't come from God.

Joseph Smith, who dug up the golden plates containing the Book of Mormon, only allowed a few "witnesses" to see the alleged golden plates before they were "taken into heaven." All of these witnesses were later denounced by Smith or expelled from the church as apostates. So there is no reliable witness of the plates.

The Book of Mormon was supposedly buried in A.D. 428, but it contains about 25,000 words verbatim from the A.D. 1611 King James Version of the Bible. In the Book of Mormon, the words of Jesus and some of the apostles are placed in the mouths of persons who supposedly lived centures before Christ. The plates were supposedly translated from "reformed Egyptian hieroglyphics." There is no such thing as "reformed Egyptian hieroglyphics" and it was *not* the language spoken by the early inhabitants of the Americas.

The Book of Mormon is full of historical and factual errors. The book claims the American Indians are of Semitic descent, when they are actually of Mongoloid extraction. Everything known about pre-Columbian archeology of the Americas contradicts Mormon claims.

Though Joseph Smith claimed his translation was divinely given, there have been over 2000 corrections made to the text since 1830. Smith even has incorrectly translated verses of the King James version plagiarized in the Book of Mormon.

Mormons try to make the Bible fit their theology rather than the other way around. For example, Mormons teach that God was not always God and that people have the potential to become gods themselves. Mormonism teaches that Christ is the brother of Satan, that Christ was a polygamist and had children, that Christ's death only removes the penalty of past sins, that people living today can be baptized for ancestors. These doctrines are contrary to the teachings of the Old and New Testaments.

While Mormons may consider themselves Christians, other Christians do not. Mormon doctrine is very different from traditional Christian doctrine based on the Old and New Testaments. Anytime you add a new book as scripture, you are creating a different religion. According to traditional Christian belief, the canon of scripture is closed. While I can learn from the faith of my fathers, what they said is not the same as scripture.

 

Re: MKB and Ray

Posted by Mark H. on December 17, 2004, at 23:26:34

In reply to Re: Book of Mormon, posted by MKB on December 17, 2004, at 15:40:26

Dear MKB and Ray,

I rarely weigh in on the Faith board, because I'm simply not in your league when it comes to discussing religion, especially scripture. I admire you both for the strength, clarity and sincerity of your beliefs.

Even though I don't accept the doctrinal basis for the Mormon faith, I have invariably found my Mormon neighbors and friends to be among the most solid, dependable, Christ-centered, family-oriented, supportive and community-minded people I know. One of the 20th Century philosophers wrote, "Don't tell me about your saving God, show me some saved people!" I've always thought that the Mormons succeeded in answering that rhetorical demand as well as anyone ever has.

Ray, you are a wonderful example of the embodiment of everything positive I've experienced about Mormons in my 55 years. I just want to acknowledge and thank you for that.

And MKB, I was moved by your writing about the faith of your fathers, and I understand why, to be true to your beliefs, you must distinguish between the scripture selected by your Christian forebears and that adopted by other Christians, such as the Mormons.

You are both such good people -- both such good Christians, in my opinion -- despite your necessarily differing views. Each of you is fulfilling the faith of your fathers.

With kind regards,

Mark H.

 

Re: Book of Mormon MKB

Posted by rayww on December 18, 2004, at 2:00:25

In reply to Re: Book of Mormon, posted by MKB on December 17, 2004, at 15:40:26

Gee, what a strange religion. Are you sure I belong to that?

 

Re: MKB and Ray Mark H.

Posted by rayww on December 18, 2004, at 2:21:34

In reply to Re: MKB and Ray, posted by Mark H. on December 17, 2004, at 23:26:34

cool. Thank you for looking for the good. People shouldn't believe everything they read on the Internet.

 

Re: Book of Mormon

Posted by rayww on December 18, 2004, at 10:53:30

In reply to Re: Book of Mormon MKB, posted by rayww on December 18, 2004, at 2:00:25

(note to uncle Bob: I think you should allow me to post this, and also allow MKB to post what he/she did)
(and to Lou, please don't read this because I don't want to hurt your feelings or make you feel put down)

MKB, thanks for trying to help me see the light, as you are taught you should do, but what you have shared are things that can only be understood by reading the Book of Mormon. There are two sides to everything. There are two ways of reading into everything also. Those who write against the church obviously choose the mocking side of it. You could mock me and say "you're fat and your hair stinks". Even though it might be true, I wouldn't see myself that way.

God never does anything without witnesses. Even in our personal life, if we receive a specific direction from him it will be accompanied by two or three other witnesses to verify it. Watch and you will see. I think it was great that there were three witnesses who saw the angel, and 8 who saw and touched the plates.
http://scriptures.lds.org/bm/thrwtnss
http://scriptures.lds.org/bm/eghtwtns
http://scriptures.lds.org/bm/jsphsmth
Even though two of the three left the church, they never denied their testimony of what they saw. Have you read that part of the story? I also think it was wonderful that the witnesses were planned, and called, and that they recorded their testimony as part of the Book of Mormon. The reason there is so much Jesus before Jesus is because Jesus existed before Jesus and the Book of Mormon makes that very clear. All the prophets looked forward to the coming of Jesus. Jesus was who appeared to Moses. All the dealings of this earth between God and man were Jesus, under the direction of His and our Father in Heaven. Jesus is the God of this earth, and the Book of Mormon verifies it. I know Jesus Christ lives, and has always existed as God. So, if you choose to continue to believe in the mocking side of things, there is nothing I can say to change your mind. Why would I even attempt to go through and answer each one of the questions? There are two good books to read on the subject, one is "How Wide the Divide?: A Mormon & an Evangelical in Conversation"
And, please re-read what Richard Mouw had to say as quoted from Beliefnet.

Response to criticism of Richard Mouw...

From Richard Mouw:

FYI:
This is what I am now sending out to the 10 or so folks who have written in anger to me. I have also gotten some positive messages.

To all who are disturbed by my comments at the Tabernacle:

I am pasting below the text of my actual comments at the Tabernacle event.

The critical concerns raised are threefold, and I will offer at least an attempt at clarification regarding each: Some of this will be a repeat of specific things I have already written to some of you.
First, some folks have asked who the "we" is that I apologized on behalf of when I said that that "we" evangelicals have sinned against Mormons by bearing false witness against them. I certainly did not mean to imply that every evangelical has sinned in this regard. Suppose I were to address an African-American gathering and say that we whites have sinned against you blacks. Who would deny that this is a correct assessment? But who would think that I was speaking about and on behalf of all white people?

There is no question in my mind that there has been a discernible pattern of sinning against LDS folks in this regard. I could show, for example, how Walter Martin oversimplified Mormon teachings in his much-read books. But here is an obvious example of more recent vintage: when Dave Hunt writes a whole book whose main thesis is that Mormonism is Satanic in its inspiration and practice, I think this is bearing false witness. On a more technical point, I have received emails in the past few days where evangelicals have said that Mormonism teaches that God was once a human being like us, and we can become gods just like God now is. Mormon leaders have specifically stated that such a teaching, while stated by past leaders, is something they don't understand and has no functioning place in present-day Mormon doctrine. Bob Millet has made the same point to many of us, and Stephen Robinson insisted, in the book he co-authored with Craig Blomberg, that this is not an official Mormon teaching, even though it can be found in non-canonical Mormon writings. The Ostlings, in their book on Mormonism, reported that Mormon leaders insist that the idea that God is omnipotent, omniscience-and much unlike what we are or could ever be-is more accurate than the simple notion that we are all becoming gods like God the Father is. A number of LDS writers have been formulating the "becoming God" theme in terms that are common in Eastern Orthodoxy: that "we shall be like Him" in the sense of I John, but that we will never be Him.

Another point: I have been told by many evangelicals that Mormons believe that the atoning work of Jesus Christ was accomplished in Golgotha and not at Calvary. Bob Millet has demonstrated from Mormon writings that this is not true-if the Cross had not occurred, he says, we could not be saved.

Here, for example, is how the LDS writer Glenn Pearson described the requirements for salvation in a popular Mormon book of the 1960s:"There has to be down payment of a broken heart and a contrite spirit. Who has a broken heart and contrite spirit? One who is stripped of pride and selfishness. One who has come down in the depths of humility and prostrated himself before the Lord in mighty prayer and supplication. He has realized the awful guilt of his sins and has pled for the blood of Christ to be made a covering to shield him from the face of a just God. Such a one has made the down payment."


In none of this am I saying that Mormons are "orthodox Christians." But I do believe that there are elements in Mormon thought that if emphasized, while de-emphasizing other element, could constitute a message within Mormonism of salvation by grace alone through the blood of Jesus Christ. I will work to promote that cause. Most of you will disagree with that approach. But at the very least admit that we have not always been fair in our wholesale condemnation of Mormonism as simply a false religion.


Second, some folks are upset about what they took as a call from me for evangelicals to join in the celebrations of the bicentennial of Joseph Smith's birth. I can see how people heard me say that we evangelicals should join in "celebrating" Joseph Smith's birthday, but that is not what I intended to say. Instead I said that I hoped that many evangelicals would participate in those events that would allow us all to "pay special attention to Joseph's life and teachings" during this year.

I was thinking and speaking too much as an academic on this one, and I know that doing so created unnecessary confusion. For example, I am going to take part in a special conference at the Library of Conference, where I will respond to an LDS scholar's views on the contribution of Joseph's theology. Those are the kinds of events where there can be critical give and take, and I see this bicentennial year as a time when we evangelicals can try to sort out the good from the bad in Joseph's thought. There are some of his writings, for example, that sound quite orthodox, and others--such as the King Follett Discourse--that have views that are far removed from anything in the Christian tradition.

But ordinary evangelicals do not have opportunities to engage in those kinds of serious theological panels--thus I was talking too much as an elitist! At the same time, I would think this would be a wonderful opportunity to put on some events in Utah, perhaps in cooperation with local LDS folks, where people talk together about some basic themes in Joseph's thought. In our quiet dialogues, for example, we--evangelicals and LDS together--find many of his earliest statements to come close to a traditional Reformation (and Epistle to the Romans!) emphasis on salvation by grace alone, the unique substitutionary work of Christ on the Cross (and not just in Golgotha) and so on. The statements from D&C that I quoted, for example, sound straight out of an evangelical sermon. My own view is that instead of arguing primarily about the things we find offensive in Mormonism, it would be good to spend some time reflecting together about what we mean when we both say that Jesus alone saves,. and that he paid the debt for our sin on Calvary.

For the record: I do not believe Joseph Smith was a true prophet of God; I do not accept the Book of Mormon as a legitimate revelation; I do not believe that temple baptism saves; I do not believe that all people will be saved. And it is precisely because of this that when my good friend Bob Millet says that his only plea when he gets to heaven is "the mercy and merit of Jesus Christ," I want to respond by saying with enthusiasm, "Let's keep talking!"

I hope this helps a little. I am deeply sorry for causing distress in the evangelical community. I make no apology for wanting to foster gentle and reverent dialogue with Mormon friends. But I want people to be upset with me only about things I really meant to say--and I failed on this occasion, on one important point, to make my case clearly enough. Blessings!


< And I might add my own person thanks to Richard Mouw, and Ravi for having the courage to come forward and admit they have misrepresented Mormons in their literature. I have great respect and admiration for these two gentlemen. And, I hope you understand why I felt it necessary to respond in this manner. I believe that bearing false witness against someone is a serious sin when it is intentional, and when someone's mistake leads others to follow in the false path, it just gets worse. Lovingly,
rayww

 

Re: Book of Mormon rayww

Posted by MKB on December 18, 2004, at 11:11:51

In reply to Re: Book of Mormon, posted by rayww on December 18, 2004, at 10:53:30

If it is true that Mormon theology is changing, then I welcome that information.

 

Re: Book of Mormon MKB

Posted by rayww on December 18, 2004, at 12:33:14

In reply to Re: Book of Mormon rayww, posted by MKB on December 18, 2004, at 11:11:51

> If it is true that Mormon theology is changing, then I welcome that information.

It is not true that Mormon theology is changing. Is there any other information you might welcome? I only replied as I did to attempt to dispel the myths that mock us. I'm sorry if I was brash, but perhaps you were too:)

There are not changes in theology, but there are continuing changes in the way we operate, and there are new things appearinng on the web site. There is the proclamation on the family, and the testimony of the living Christ, which are pretty much canonized. New audio, video and palm resources to download for free are changing the way we study and do things. Our theology is in sync with the ancient, because it is the continuation of the ancient, coupled with the new and everlasting covenant.

 

Re: Book of Mormon rayww

Posted by MKB on December 18, 2004, at 13:17:22

In reply to Re: Book of Mormon MKB, posted by rayww on December 18, 2004, at 12:33:14

People can be very sincere and yet be sincerely wrong. One of us is sincerely wrong.

What you say sounds like empty words to me. You do not need the Mormon Church or the Book of Mormon to be a follower of Jesus Christ. All you need is to read the words that Jesus said about himself. These are written in the New Testament. I reject the idea that God gives new revelations to groups or individuals. The scarlet thread of redemption began when God slew animals to provide a covering for Adam and Eve after they sinned. The scarlet thread of redemption ended when God slew his Son to provide a covering for us for our sin. When we receive Christ, we are redeemed (bought back). Nothing beyond that is needed. He gave His all. What more could we ask?

 

Re: Book of Mormon MKB

Posted by rayww on December 18, 2004, at 13:51:34

In reply to Re: Book of Mormon rayww, posted by MKB on December 18, 2004, at 13:17:22

I am satisfied, edified, inspired and fulfilled with empty words and still have room to embrace all of yours. May we please agree to disagree? From past experience I have learned it will do no good for either of us to try to dispel, dissuade, distort or disport this subject.

What more could we ask? God sometimes has a way of surprising us without our asking. We can either wait and see, or stay on the band wagon.
It may not be necessary as you say, but if it's working and I and my family feel safe, what's wrong with it?
Next:

 

Re: Book of Mormon rayww

Posted by Gabbix2 on December 18, 2004, at 20:21:28

In reply to Re: Book of Mormon MKB, posted by rayww on December 18, 2004, at 13:51:34

Such aplomb! : )

 

Re: Book of Mormon rayww

Posted by MKB on December 18, 2004, at 21:18:53

In reply to Re: Book of Mormon MKB, posted by rayww on December 18, 2004, at 13:51:34

I have no ill will at all, Ray. But I just want you think about this:

Maybe you have children. Maybe you have written letters to them or will write letters to them someday. Wouldn't that be a wonderful way to show your love to them?

Now what if someone else pretends to be you and writes letters to your children. As long as your children feel safe, what could be wrong with that?

 

Re: Lou's reply to MKB-dif MKB

Posted by Gabbix2 on December 18, 2004, at 22:44:35

In reply to Re: Lou's reply to MKB-dif Lou Pilder, posted by MKB on December 17, 2004, at 11:51:20

> You need to get over this feeling that you always have to "respond."

We *all* have our struggles here, no exceptions.

 

((((((((((rayww))))))))))

Posted by TofuEmmy on December 19, 2004, at 9:35:32

In reply to Re: Book of Mormon rayww, posted by MKB on December 18, 2004, at 21:18:53

For your strength, conviction, and patience.

Emmy

 

Re: Book of Mormon MKB

Posted by Dinah on December 19, 2004, at 9:48:22

In reply to Re: Book of Mormon rayww, posted by MKB on December 18, 2004, at 13:17:22

That is your belief (and yes, I realize it's your truth as well). Ray's belief, and her truth, are just as real to her as yours are to you.

The rules of this site are that everyone's beliefs and faith are to be given equal respect.

So you can believe or "know" anything you like about Ray's faith. And Ray can believe or "know" anything she likes about yours.

But the most one can *say* here is that the belief in your church is different. You aren't allowed to say here that one is wrong and the other right.

I think that if you reflect on it, you'll see that it as just as good a rule on the faith board as it is on the politics board.

 

Re: Faith of My Fathers rayww

Posted by Dinah on December 19, 2004, at 9:56:54

In reply to Re: Faith of My Fathers MKB, posted by rayww on December 16, 2004, at 23:12:56

Ray, the faith of my fathers (and perhaps more importantly my mothers) on my mother's side is LDS. While I'm no longer Mormon myself, I am very attached to rich sense of history I get when I think of my grandparents and great grandparents, etc. The history on this side of my family is so accessible through history and through the geneology work I have access to. I am in awe of my ancestors who crossed the plain with handcarts in search of the religious freedom and tolerance they couldn't find further east. The amount of work they did to irrigate the area to grow crops is staggering to me. Another branch of the family used their coal mining knowledge from England to help run some of the first coal mines in Coalville. (OK, when I drive by Coalville, my thoughts on that aren't *entirely* proud. Such beatiful country in Utah, and so much of it laid waste.) The faith showed by my aunts and uncles and the way their faith permeates their life remains an inspiration to me.

The LDS faith is so very rich in history and inspiration.

 

Re: Faith of My Fathers Dinah

Posted by rayww on December 19, 2004, at 10:42:33

In reply to Re: Faith of My Fathers rayww, posted by Dinah on December 19, 2004, at 9:56:54

Thanks Dinah, I keep thinking we're related. At the very least our ancestors must have known each other. My Great Great Grandfather moved 5 times. I mean create one new town from nothing, and then start all over either in the middle of the desert, or the prairie, hundreds of miles away. Is Colesville the same place as Coalville? If it is, we were there together. How many settlements can you count? Nauvoo, Far West, Salt Lake, Colesville, Mexico/Arizona/LasVegas/StGeorge/Cardston/Leavitt. Something like 500, and most, if not all are thriving communities or huge cities today. We are still pioneers.

I admire the way you are able to cling to your roots, while at the same time be so accepting and believing of all that is good in other faiths and people.

 

Re: ((((((((((rayww)))))))))) thanks (nm)

Posted by rayww on December 19, 2004, at 11:41:14

In reply to ((((((((((rayww)))))))))), posted by TofuEmmy on December 19, 2004, at 9:35:32

 

Re: Faith of My Fathers rayww

Posted by Dinah on December 19, 2004, at 13:20:42

In reply to Re: Faith of My Fathers Dinah, posted by rayww on December 19, 2004, at 10:42:33

Coalville is a separate community.

http://www.onlineutah.com/coalvillehistory.shtml

I figure with the number of descendents my Mormon ancestors had, I'm relatively anonymous still. :)

I wouldn't be at all surprised if we weren't related in some way. A few of my mother's ancestors were not only influential and prolific, but they seem to be related by marriage to many other Mormon families.

I don't recall offhand the exact towns, but I have a few books written about the more influential families. And by my understanding, a book was recently published about my Great-Grandfather. I'm waiting for my copy. The books are so intimate. Not only do they give geneology information, and the dates and town information, but there are letters and personal reminiscinses. I am so glad my mother is interested in all that, and so I have access to it.

By sheer chance, I also have some information about my catholic father's grandfather and his children. My father's aunt wrote a biography that is mainly about her romance with my father's uncle, and she was best friends with my father's aunt. Since my father never was all that forthcoming about his family, it really means a lot to me to have that glimpse.

I'm not sure why the connections to the past mean so very much to me, but they do. Every once in a while I really start researching geneology, and trying to find out who these people really were. I attempted to look up records in the small town in mid-England that my grandfather's parents came from. But it's a lot of work and I usually peter out of energy quickly.

The acceptance comes very easily to me, so I hate to take credit for it. Maybe it comes from being raised both Catholic and Mormon, and having so many friends of other religions. I became fascinated with the origin and development of religions. How they differ and where they agree. I'd love to find out even more. Plus, I suppose, since none of them exactly reflect my own faith, I don't have an enormously strong connection to any particular religion. My husband always says I'll have to start my own. :)

 

Re: blocked for 3 weeks MKB

Posted by Dr. Bob on December 19, 2004, at 19:17:13

In reply to Re: Book of Mormon, posted by MKB on December 17, 2004, at 15:40:26

> Mormons try to make the Bible fit their theology rather than the other way around.

Please respect the views of others and be sensitive to their feelings. The last time you were blocked it was for 1 week, so this time it's for 3.

If you or others have questions about this or about posting policies in general, or are interested in alternative ways of expressing yourself, please see the FAQ:

http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/faq.html#civil

Follow-ups regarding these issues should be redirected to Psycho-Babble Administration. They, as well as replies to the above post, should of course themselves be civil.

Thanks,

Bob

 

Lou's response to Mark H's post-rqstfrclari Mark H.

Posted by Lou Pilder on December 20, 2004, at 18:27:26

In reply to Re: MKB and Ray, posted by Mark H. on December 17, 2004, at 23:26:34

Mark H,
You wrote,[... you are a wonderful example of the embodiment of everything positive I've experianced about Mormons...].
Could you clarify if you are basing this on what all the poster has posted here, or partially? If you could clarify that, then I could have the opportunity to further respond to your post for if you are basing this on all that the poster has posted, then ther is IMO the potential for me and perhaps others to think that you endorse all of what the poster has posted and I am requesting that you clarify that.
Lou

 

Re: please rephrase that rayww

Posted by Dr. Bob on December 21, 2004, at 3:27:51

In reply to Re: Book of Mormon, posted by rayww on December 18, 2004, at 10:53:30

> Jesus is the God of this earth

Keeping in mind that the idea here is not to put down the beliefs of others, could you please rephrase that as a belief? Thanks,

Bob

 

Re: Lou's response to Mark H's post-rqstfrclari Lou Pilder

Posted by Mark H. on December 21, 2004, at 20:00:26

In reply to Lou's response to Mark H's post-rqstfrclari Mark H., posted by Lou Pilder on December 20, 2004, at 18:27:26

> Mark H,
> You wrote,[... you are a wonderful example of the embodiment of everything positive I've experienced about Mormons...].
> Could you clarify if you are basing this on what all the poster has posted here, or partially?

Dear Lou,

Partially. I've not read everything that Ray has posted. Also, since I'm not a Christian, I don't embrace all Christian beliefs.

I realize you have difficulty sometimes with Ray's citations of scripture, but if you can see past your differences, I think you both share many common and worthwhile values, including tolerance, forgiveness, and a deeply felt love of God.

A couple of decades ago, a Mormon friend of mine suggested that I "look for the good and praise it." I try to remember to do that as often as I can. It was great advice.

With kind regards,

Mark H.


Go forward in thread:


Show another thread

URL of post in thread:


Psycho-Babble Faith | Extras | FAQ


[dr. bob] Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD, bob@dr-bob.org

Script revised: February 4, 2008
URL: http://www.dr-bob.org/cgi-bin/pb/mget.pl
Copyright 2006-17 Robert Hsiung.
Owned and operated by Dr. Bob LLC and not the University of Chicago.