Death and God's Will

[KCilwick]

I’m a first-time poster, so please bear with me.
I’m hoping someone can help me understand what I heard at an LDS funeral last week and have heard before from LDS people grappling to understand tragedy. It was the funeral of the Utah State University van driver who was killed with eight of his students in a rollover. Two speakers, one of whom brought a letter of condolence from the First Presidency, said that Heavenly Father had a plan for these men. One speaker said God needed these men (most of the nine who died were returned LDS missionaries) to help prepare for the second coming.

The implication of those statements is that the accident had to happen and nine had to die to fulfill God’s plan. Isn’t the logical extension, then, to say that the circumstances of the accident were part of God’s plan – that the driver had to be doing 95-100 mph and that men were not wearing seat belts (these facts according to highway patrol)? What does that say about free agency?

Perhaps I’m wrong, but it seems that the failure to believe in original sin leaves the LDS with a vacuum to explain horrible tragedies like this. They end up easing their grief by saying it’s God’s will that these things happen because he needs those who died for work on the other side.

It seems a Catholic would say that the sinful nature we inherited means we suffer death, even tragic death. God’s will is all about bringing good from the bad, but he didn’t will the deaths in the first place. I’m sure someone can articulate it better. Please do.

 

[paul_barlow]

KCilwick:

I’m a first-time poster, so please bear with me.
I’m hoping someone can help me understand what I heard at an LDS funeral last week and have heard before from LDS people grappling to understand tragedy. It was the funeral of the Utah State University van driver who was killed with eight of his students in a rollover. Two speakers, one of whom brought a letter of condolence from the First Presidency, said that Heavenly Father had a plan for these men. One speaker said God needed these men (most of the nine who died were returned LDS missionaries) to help prepare for the second coming.

The implication of those statements is that the accident had to happen and nine had to die to fulfill God’s plan. Isn’t the logical extension, then, to say that the circumstances of the accident were part of God’s plan – that the driver had to be doing 95-100 mph and that men were not wearing seat belts (these facts according to highway patrol)? What does that say about free agency?

Perhaps I’m wrong, but it seems that the failure to believe in original sin leaves the LDS with a vacuum to explain horrible tragedies like this. They end up easing their grief by saying it’s God’s will that these things happen because he needs those who died for work on the other side.

It seems a Catholic would say that the sinful nature we inherited means we suffer death, even tragic death. God’s will is all about bringing good from the bad, but he didn’t will the deaths in the first place. I’m sure someone can articulate it better. Please do.

i feel sorry for you trying to make a point out of such a dreadful event. what would you have liked our phrophet to say sorry your kids died by chances and tough thats life. what the heck does original sin have to do with an accident. before you condem our teachings maybe you should learn about them. we know were we came from we know why we are here we know were we are going. can you say the same.

 

[KCilwick]

Paul,
Don’t know how you took my request for understanding to be a condemnation of LDS beliefs. I was truly hoping someone who understands the LDS faith, such as you, could explain the beliefs that are behind such statements as were made at the funeral. My point about original sin was contained, I believe, in my last paragraph. As for your last question, yes, I do.
God Bless us all.

 

[amgid]

KCilwick:

I’m hoping someone can help me understand what I heard at an LDS funeral last week and have heard before from LDS people grappling to understand tragedy. It was the funeral of the Utah State University van driver who was killed with eight of his students in a rollover. Two speakers, one of whom brought a letter of condolence from the First Presidency, said that Heavenly Father had a plan for these men. One speaker said God needed these men (most of the nine who died were returned LDS missionaries) to help prepare for the second coming.

It is not possible to comment on an anecdotal experience such as this without having accurate information as to exactly what was said and by whom. How do I know that you are accurately remembering and reporting what was said? How do I know that you have got the context right? If you are really interested to have the answer to that question, I suggest that you write your question in a letter and address it to the person who spoke it; he will then be able to advise you on it better than anybody else can. What makes you think that we are responsible for everything that everyone has ever said?

amgid

 

[flameburns623]

KCilwick:

. . . .The implication of those statements is that the accident had to happen and nine had to die to fulfill God’s plan. Isn’t the logical extension, then, to say that the circumstances of the accident were part of God’s plan ? What does that say about free agency?

. . . . Perhaps I’m wrong, but it seems that the failure to believe in original sin leaves the LDS with a vacuum to explain horrible tragedies like this. They end up easing their grief by saying it’s God’s will that these things happen because he needs those who died for work on the other side . . . .

I have to agree with amgd that it is very very difficult to comment second-hand on someone’s “spin” or personal understanding of talks given by members of a very different religious tradition than his own.

I am also not certain I follow your line of reasoning very well. LDS do agree that the Fall brought sin and death into the world, though I agree that they reject the idea of ‘original sin’ as normally understood by orthodox Christianity.

What LDS DO believe in–and I suspect I am going to muddle this to some extent–is that in the pre-existence, each soul convenanted with Heavenly Father, and with certain of their sprit-brothers and sisters, that they would use this life to achieve certain specific things. Mormons teach that all humans are given a panoramic view of how their life is going to unfold. LDS do not believe that anyone was made privy to all of the details of their mortal existence–and in any case, once we are born, a ‘veil’ clouds our ability even to recollect that which we foresaw in the ante-mortal Heavens. But enough of a glimpse of futurity is given to each soul that–in LDS theology–some preliminary planning for how to spend mortality can be done. Mormons therefore take at least some comfort in the belief that death never overtakes any soul fully unawares–that on some subconscious level each person has some awareness that the end of their allotted time approaches. They know theefore that they should capitalize upon their remaining span if they are to fulfill the covenants they made in premortal existence.

Of course, some will still act negligently–just as some people who know themselves dying still refuse to prepare for that end. Some will persist in making choices contrary to the covenants they made–just as some who recognise that alcohol or drugs are destroying them, who have promised themselves and others countless times to foreswear these substances, nonetheless persist in indulging their addiction to the very end. Others will act appropriately to fulfil their premortal covenants in the time remaining to them.

But keep in mind-- most souls will ALSO have an opportunity in paradise and/or Spirit Prison to rectify many missed opportunities and shortfalls in mortality. And, even in the Celestial, Telestial, and Terrestrial Kingdoms, souls will continue to progress to whatever degree their allotted little piece of Heaven permits them to do. Some in fact suspect that Heavenly Father’s long-range plan will include some way to bring the occupants of the lower Heavens into the Celestial Kingdom. I have even heard one former bishop speculate openly in a priesthood lesson that perhaps long into the eternities, even Lucifer and the residents of “Outer Darkness” will have opportunities to be admitted to the Celestial Kingdom. (This former bishop, btw, was promptly contradicted by ANOTHER former bishop, who argued vehemently for the fixity of the several Heavenly Kingdoms and most particularly for those in Outer Darkness).

In any case: this notion of a premortal existence; of a post-mortal transitional existence; and for that matter the whole idea of ‘eternal progression’; all make both this life and the afterlife very different from the rather static view of heaven and hell of orthodox Christianity. Hence–for LDS, free agency and ‘destiny’ work hand-in-glove in a way very different from the mainstream Christian understanding of these issues.

Does any of this clarify the issue for you? (ACTIVE LDS–please don’t lambaste me if I have encapsulated your teachings incorrectly in this respect. I am acting entirely from memory and from what may in fact be an imperfect understanding of how premortal covenants work. Please correct any errors I have introduced into this discussion).

 

[majick275]

This is certainly an interesting post. I find the thought of a “continued” role for Satan to be unique to LDS. The Temple Ceremony teaches that Satan is doing that which has been done on other worlds. One might wonder then if he is “just doing his job” as in LDS doctrine he is a SON of God.

The consequences of one’s actions in the pre-existence have long been a part of LDS teachings and Apostles have claimed that this explains why poeple are born into varying states of opportunity and privilege. I don’t agree with that at all but that is because i reject the pre-existence doctrine as taught by LDS.

I just can’t believe that God would put the divine plan of salvation to a vote.

 

[KCilwick]

amgid:

It is not possible to comment on an anecdotal experience such as this without having accurate information as to exactly what was said and by whom. How do I know that you are accurately remembering and reporting what was said? How do I know that you have got the context right? If you are really interested to have the answer to that question, I suggest that you write your question in a letter and address it to the person who spoke it; he will then be able to advise you on it better than anybody else can. What makes you think that we are responsible for everything that everyone has ever said?

amgid

Obviously, I fumbled the manner in which I asked the question. You’re right. You can’t know whether I heard and conveyed it right. But just so you know… it never crossed my mind that folks on this forum should be responsible for everything everyone has ever said.

 

[KCilwick]

flameburns623:

I have to agree with amgd that it is very very difficult to comment second-hand on someone’s “spin” or personal understanding of talks given by members of a very different religious tradition than his own.

I am also not certain I follow your line of reasoning very well. LDS do agree that the Fall brought sin and death into the world, though I agree that they reject the idea of ‘original sin’ as normally understood by orthodox Christianity.

What LDS DO believe in–and I suspect I am going to muddle this to some extent–is that in the pre-existence, each soul convenanted with Heavenly Father, and with certain of their sprit-brothers and sisters, that they would use this life to achieve certain specific things. Mormons teach that all humans are given a panoramic view of how their life is going to unfold. LDS do not believe that anyone was made privy to all of the details of their mortal existence–and in any case, once we are born, a ‘veil’ clouds our ability even to recollect that which we foresaw in the ante-mortal Heavens. But enough of a glimpse of futurity is given to each soul that–in LDS theology–some preliminary planning for how to spend mortality can be done. Mormons therefore take at least some comfort in the belief that death never overtakes any soul fully unawares–that on some subconscious level each person has some awareness that the end of their allotted time approaches. They know theefore that they should capitalize upon their remaining span if they are to fulfill the covenants they made in premortal existence.

Of course, some will still act negligently–just as some people who know themselves dying still refuse to prepare for that end. Some will persist in making choices contrary to the covenants they made–just as some who recognise that alcohol or drugs are destroying them, who have promised themselves and others countless times to foreswear these substances, nonetheless persist in indulging their addiction to the very end. Others will act appropriately to fulfil their premortal covenants in the time remaining to them.

But keep in mind-- most souls will ALSO have an opportunity in paradise and/or Spirit Prison to rectify many missed opportunities and shortfalls in mortality. And, even in the Celestial, Telestial, and Terrestrial Kingdoms, souls will continue to progress to whatever degree their allotted little piece of Heaven permits them to do. Some in fact suspect that Heavenly Father’s long-range plan will include some way to bring the occupants of the lower Heavens into the Celestial Kingdom. I have even heard one former bishop speculate openly in a priesthood lesson that perhaps long into the eternities, even Lucifer and the residents of “Outer Darkness” will have opportunities to be admitted to the Celestial Kingdom. (This former bishop, btw, was promptly contradicted by ANOTHER former bishop, who argued vehemently for the fixity of the several Heavenly Kingdoms and most particularly for those in Outer Darkness).

In any case: this notion of a premortal existence; of a post-mortal transitional existence; and for that matter the whole idea of ‘eternal progression’; all make both this life and the afterlife very different from the rather static view of heaven and hell of orthodox Christianity. Hence–for LDS, free agency and ‘destiny’ work hand-in-glove in a way very different from the mainstream Christian understanding of these issues.

Does any of this clarify the issue for you? (ACTIVE LDS–please don’t lambaste me if I have encapsulated your teachings incorrectly in this respect. I am acting entirely from memory and from what may in fact be an imperfect understanding of how premortal covenants work. Please correct any errors I have introduced into this discussion).

Flameburns: Thanks. That helps a lot. I didn’t know that the LDS believe that the fall brought sin and death into the world. I’ve often heard from LDS family and friends that so-and-so had an inkling he/she would soon die. Now I understand better how that fits into the church’s teaching.
I am still trying to get my mind around free agency. If it’s true that pre-mortal covenants can be broken, then I see no conflict. If not, how free is free? (Of course, Christianity’s free will coexisting with an omniscent God is a similarly hard to get my mind around.) Thanks for not being put off by my poor handling of the query.

 

[amgid]

flameburns623:

What LDS DO believe in–and I suspect I am going to muddle this to some extent–is that in the pre-existence, each soul convenanted with Heavenly Father, and with certain of their sprit-brothers and sisters, that they would use this life to achieve certain specific things.

Very little is known about the preexistence. Such views have been informally expressed by some LDS, but there is no scriptural basis for it.

Mormons teach that all humans are given a panoramic view of how their life is going to unfold.

I am not familiar with such a doctrine.

LDS do not believe that anyone was made privy to all of the details of their mortal existence–

That is more correct. The truth is that we simply don’t know much about the preexistence.

And in any case, once we are born, a ‘veil’ clouds our ability even to recollect that which we foresaw in the ante-mortal Heavens.

That is correct.

But enough of a glimpse of futurity is given to each soul that–in LDS theology–some preliminary planning for how to spend mortality can be done.

Not sure what you mean by that. I am not familiar with such a belief.

Mormons therefore take at least some comfort in the belief that death never overtakes any soul fully unawares–that on some subconscious level each person has some awareness that the end of their allotted time approaches.

Again, I fail to recognize this as a doctrine of the LDS Church. Having a “premonition” of death is something that has happened to, or has been expressed by, people of many different faiths (even by unbelievers), and it is nothing peculiar to LDS. There are even examples of it in the Bible. For example, King Hezekiah, who was ill at the time, was told by Isaiah at first to put his house in order because he would die! Then, after he had prayed and repented, the Lord told him through Isaiah that He had added fifteen more years to his life. (See 2 Kings 20:1-6.) But it is not a doctrine of the LDS Church thateveryone gets such a premonition before they die.

They know theefore that they should capitalize upon their remaining span if they are to fulfill the covenants they made in premortal existence.

Again, such information is not revealed about the preexistence.

Of course, some will still act negligently–just as some people who know themselves dying still refuse to prepare for that end. Some will persist in making choices contrary to the covenants they made–just as some who recognise that alcohol or drugs are destroying them, who have promised themselves and others countless times to foreswear these substances, nonetheless persist in indulging their addiction to the very end. Others will act appropriately to fulfil their premortal covenants in the time remaining to them.

See above.

But keep in mind-- most souls will ALSO have an opportunity in paradise and/or Spirit Prison to rectify many missed opportunities and shortfalls in mortality.

This is correct up to a point; the rest is way off!

In any case: this notion of a premortal existence; of a post-mortal transitional existence; and for that matter the whole idea of ‘eternal progression’; all make both this life and the afterlife very different from the rather static view of heaven and hell of orthodox Christianity. Hence–for LDS, free agency and ‘destiny’ work hand-in-glove in a way very different from the mainstream Christian understanding of these issues.

I suppose you could say that belief in the preexistence, followed by mortality, and then a post mortal existence, has some bearing on how “free will” is understood by LDS; but I am not at all sure what that is.

Does any of this clarify the issue for you? (ACTIVE LDS–please don’t lambaste me if I have encapsulated your teachings incorrectly in this respect.

I hope I haven’t lambasted you!

amgid

 

[amgid]

KCilwick:

I am still trying to get my mind around free agency.

What is there about the principle of free agency that puzzles you? If you can be more specific and clear about your query, it will be easier to find an answer to it.

If it’s true that pre-mortal covenants can be broken, then I see no conflict.

Very little is known about the preexistence. I am not sure what you mean by “pre-mortal” covenants.

If not, how free is free?

Again, your question is still unclear.

(Of course, Christianity’s free will coexisting with an omniscent God is a similarly hard to get my mind around.)

The omniscience of God is also part of LDS doctrine; but I don’t see a conflict there with free will. You need to be more clear and analytical with you question.

amgid

 

[flameburns623]

amgid:

Very little is known about the preexistence. Such views have been informally expressed by some LDS, but there is no scriptural basis for it.

I am not familiar with such a doctrine.

That is more correct. The truth is that we simply don’t know much about the preexistence.

That is correct.

Not sure what you mean by that. I am not familiar with such a belief.

Again, I fail to recognize this as a doctrine of the LDS Church. Having a “premonition” of death is something that has happened to, or has been expressed by, people of many different faiths (even by unbelievers), and it is nothing peculiar to LDS. There are even examples of it in the Bible. For example, King Hezekiah, who was ill at the time, was told by Isaiah at first to put his house in order because he would die! Then, after he had prayed and repented, the Lord told him through Isaiah that He had added fifteen more years to his life. (See 2 Kings 20:1-6.) But it is not a doctrine of the LDS Church thateveryone gets such a premonition before they die.

Again, such information is not revealed about the preexistence.

See above.

This is correct up to a point; the rest is way off!

I suppose you could say that belief in the preexistence, followed by mortality, and then a post mortal existence, has some bearing on how “free will” is understood by LDS; but I am not at all sure what that is.

I hope I haven’t lambasted you!

amgid

amgd:

I probably overstated the case a tad but I DID recollect after reading your post that a great deal has been speculated upon in pop LDS culture. For example, the Osmond Family’s “The Plan” (originally released in 1974, recently re-released as a CD) had several songs about premortal existence. Or how aboutthis from the LDS “Saturdays Warriors”, which is or was some sort of LDS Youth Movment. (At one time I had both “The Plan” on an LP, and the cassette soundtrack to the late 70’s version of “Saturday’s Warriors”:

Who are these children coming down, coming down.
Like gentle rain though darken skies.
With glory trailing from their feet as they go.
And endless promise in their eyes!
Who are these young ones growing tall, growing tall.
Like silver trees against the storm.
Who will not bend with the wind or the change,
But stand to fight the world alone!
These are the few, the warriors
Saved for Saturday, to come
The last day of the world
These are they, on Saturday.
These are the strong, the warriors
Rising in the might to win
The battle raging in
The hearts of men, on Saturday.
Strangers from a realm of light
Who have forgotten all.
The memory of their former life.
The purpose of their call.
And so they must learn why they’re here
And who they really are.
They must learn why they’re here
And who they are!
These are the few, the warriors
Saved for Saturday, to come
The last day of the world
These are they, on Saturday.

Obviously, song lyrics do not constitute official Church doctrine. I don’t want to defend any actual mistakes I made in my prior post in this thread. But perhaps I didn’t mis-characterize pop-LDS cultural understandings of the Pre-Mortal Existence too badly.

 

[paul_barlow]

flameburns623:

amgd:

I probably overstated the case a tad but I DID recollect after reading your post that a great deal has been speculated upon in pop LDS culture. For example, the Osmond Family’s “The Plan” (originally released in 1974, recently re-released as a CD) had several songs about premortal existence. Or how aboutthis from the LDS “Saturdays Warriors”, which is or was some sort of LDS Youth Movment. (At one time I had both “The Plan” on an LP, and the cassette soundtrack to the late 70’s version of “Saturday’s Warriors”:

Who are these children coming down, coming down.
Like gentle rain though darken skies.
With glory trailing from their feet as they go.
And endless promise in their eyes!
Who are these young ones growing tall, growing tall.
Like silver trees against the storm.
Who will not bend with the wind or the change,
But stand to fight the world alone!
These are the few, the warriors
Saved for Saturday, to come
The last day of the world
These are they, on Saturday.
These are the strong, the warriors
Rising in the might to win
The battle raging in
The hearts of men, on Saturday.
Strangers from a realm of light
Who have forgotten all.
The memory of their former life.
The purpose of their call.
And so they must learn why they’re here
And who they really are.
They must learn why they’re here
And who they are!
These are the few, the warriors
Saved for Saturday, to come
The last day of the world
These are they, on Saturday.

Obviously, song lyrics do not constitute official Church doctrine. I don’t want to defend any actual mistakes I made in my prior post in this thread. But perhaps I didn’t mis-characterize pop-LDS cultural understandings of the Pre-Mortal Existence too badly.

no not the osmonds why do you all think we all like them. i can’t stand them listern to sister gradys night her music is much more up lifting. and i do not belive in crazy horses or paper roses.

 

[majick275]

Now that Gladys Night can sing!!! I saw here in Vegas and she is TALENTED!

 

[paul_barlow]

majick275:

Now that Gladys Night can sing!!! I saw here in Vegas and she is TALENTED!

i listerned to her at the chorley chapel. very powerful lady with a great message

 

[Robert_in_SD]

KCilwick:

I’m a first-time poster, so please bear with me.
I’m hoping someone can help me understand what I heard at an LDS funeral last week and have heard before from LDS people grappling to understand tragedy. It was the funeral of the Utah State University van driver who was killed with eight of his students in a rollover. Two speakers, one of whom brought a letter of condolence from the First Presidency, said that Heavenly Father had a plan for these men. One speaker said God needed these men (most of the nine who died were returned LDS missionaries) to help prepare for the second coming.

The implication of those statements is that the accident had to happen and nine had to die to fulfill God’s plan. Isn’t the logical extension, then, to say that the circumstances of the accident were part of God’s plan – that the driver had to be doing 95-100 mph and that men were not wearing seat belts (these facts according to highway patrol)? What does that say about free agency?

Perhaps I’m wrong, but it seems that the failure to believe in original sin leaves the LDS with a vacuum to explain horrible tragedies like this. They end up easing their grief by saying it’s God’s will that these things happen because he needs those who died for work on the other side.

It seems a Catholic would say that the sinful nature we inherited means we suffer death, even tragic death. God’s will is all about bringing good from the bad, but he didn’t will the deaths in the first place. I’m sure someone can articulate it better. Please do.

I thought you did a fine job of articulating your concerns. I do see a fundamental flaw in the LDS Church that arises from the refusal to acknowledge original sin and its impacts.

 

[paul_barlow]

Robert in SD:

I thought you did a fine job of articulating your concerns. I do see a fundamental flaw in the LDS Church that arises from the refusal to acknowledge original sin and its impacts.

i find your understanding of the attonement flawed christ came to take away the impacts of sin. he died that we may live and in the garden he willingly sorry about the spelling. took the worlds sins onto himself. i know your church does not teach this but to me a humble person it makes more sense that the saviour of the world would remove both stumbling blocks not just one.

 

[catholic-rcia]

I ask the Catholics on this forum, why would the LDS Church make the Garden the place of our atonement rather than the Passion as a whole, His death on the Cross?
Why would this be misleading and wrong?

Christ’s suffering and death on the cross cannot be minimized based on unbiblical presuppositions. The manner of Jesus’ death had everything to do with the atonement. This is made very clear when Paul wrote, “Blotting out the handwriting of ordinances that was against us, which was contrary to us, and took it out of the way, nailing it to his cross” (Colossians 2:14) luke 9:23-25; Col 2:14; Eph 2:16, Col 1:21-23; Mark 10:21. The New Testament writers consistently stress the importance of the cross (not the garden) when it comes to the atonement.
Jesus didn’t take this severe beating just to make my resurrection possible. Nor did He endure such suffering merely to enable me to earn my “exaltation” by following various decrees or rituals. His suffering paid a full penalty for all of my sins – every one of them. To say I need to add in any way to what Jesus did is to declare that His suffering was not enough. What more could my sin-stained works add to what Christ did for me? Nothing. Absolutely nothing. When He said it is finished, it was absolutely complete. Bill McKeever

---

Reading** I: Isaiah 50:4-7 **
The Lord GOD has given me a well-trained tongue, that I might know how to speak to the weary a word that will rouse them. Morning after morning he opens my ear that I may hear; and I have not rebelled, have not turned back. I gave my back to those who beat me, my cheeks to those who plucked my beard; my face I did not shield from buffets and spitting. The Lord GOD is my help, therefore I am not disgraced; I have set my face like flint, knowing that I shall not be put to shame.

**Reading II : Philippians 2:6-11 ****
**Christ Jesus, though he was in the form of God, did not regard equality with God something to be grasped. Rather, he emptied himself, taking the form of a slave, coming in human likeness; and found human in appearance, he humbled himself, becoming obedient to the point of death, even death on a cross. Because of this, God greatly exalted him and bestowed on him the name which is above every name, that at the name of Jesus every knee should bend, of those in heaven and on earth and under the earth, and every tongue confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father.

 

[paul_barlow]

catholic-rcia:

I ask the Catholics on this forum, why would the LDS Church make the Garden the place of our atonement rather than the Passion as a whole, His death on the Cross?
i respect your views but on this point you are wrong. he did both he saved us from death and he saved us from sin. Christ he being so loving would not have left us with original sin as a going away present he removed it. you need to re read the gospels and maybe pray a little and ask him yourself who is right.

 

[Tmaque]

paul barlow:

catholic-rcia:

you need to re read the gospels and maybe pray a little and ask him yourself who is right.

I have read the Gospels and prayed a lot. He told me the Catholic Church was right.

 

[flameburns623]

paul barlow:

No! Not the Osmonds! Why do you all think we all like them? I can’t stand them! And I do not belive in crazy horses or paper roses. Listen to Sister Gladys Night instead! Her music is much more uplifting.

Paul:

I didn’t say anything to make anyone think that ‘all Mormons like the Osmonds’. I sort’ve could take them or leave them.

Please note however that your post was much more effective when I edited it in my quote for capitalization, punctuation, spelling, run-on sentences, and general coherency. “Stream-of-thought” writing is a good method of journaling, if you are undergoing certain types of counseling. On a web forum it is easier for your readers to understand you if you conform to ordinary conventions of writing style.