Michael Ash - Shaken Faith Syndrome

[_SteelHead]

Ok Frank....
How do you get this:

Deuteronomy 24:16

The fathers shall not be put to death for the children, neither shall the children be put to death for the fathers: every man shall be put to death for his own sin.

& this

Ezekiel 18:20

The soul that sinneth, it shall die. The son shall not bear the iniquity of the father, neither shall the father bear the iniquity of the son: the righteousness of the righteous shall be upon him, and the wickedness of the wicked shall be upon him.

To not contradict this:

2 Samuel 12:9-23

9 Wherefore hast thou despised the commandment of the LORD, to do evil in his sight? thou hast killed Uriah the Hittite with the sword, and hast taken his wife to be thy wife, and hast slain him with the sword of the children of Ammon.

10 Now therefore the sword shall never depart from thine house; because thou hast despised me, and hast taken the wife of Uriah the Hittite to be thy wife.

11 Thus saith the LORD, Behold, I will raise up evil against thee out of thine own house, and I will take thy wives before thine eyes, and give them unto thy neighbour, and he shall lie with thy wives in the sight of this sun.

12 For thou didst it secretly: but I will do this thing before all Israel, and before the sun.

13 And David said unto Nathan, I have sinned against the LORD. And Nathan said unto David, The LORD also hath put away thy sin; thou shalt not die.

14 Howbeit, because by this deed thou hast given great occasion to the enemies of the LORD to blaspheme, the child also that is born unto thee shall surely die.

15 And Nathan departed unto his house. And the LORD struck the child that Uriah's wife bare unto David, and it was very sick.

16 David therefore besought God for the child; and David fasted, and went in, and lay all night upon the earth.

17 And the elders of his house arose, and went to him, to raise him up from the earth: but he would not, neither did he eat bread with them.

18 And it came to pass on the seventh day, that the child died. And the servants of David feared to tell him that the child was dead: for they said, Behold, while the child was yet alive, we spake unto him, and he would not hearken unto our voice: how will he then vex himself, if we tell him that the child is dead?

19 But when David saw that his servants whispered, David perceived that the child was dead: therefore David said unto his servants, Is the child dead? And they said, He is dead.

20 Then David arose from the earth, and washed, and anointed himself, and changed his apparel, and came into the house of the LORD, and worshipped: then he came to his own house; and when he required, they set bread before him, and he did eat.

21 Then said his servants unto him, What thing is this that thou hast done? thou didst fast and weep for the child, while it was alive; but when the child was dead, thou didst rise and eat bread.

22 And he said, While the child was yet alive, I fasted and wept: for I said, Who can tell whether GOD will be gracious to me, that the child may live?

23 But now he is dead, wherefore should I fast? can I bring him back again? I shall go to him, but he shall not return to me.

Are you familiar with Occam's Razor?

Is the solution: "the scriptures are just a bunch of self contradictory mythology" not simpler and more elegant than the olympic level mental gymnastics required to arrive at some sort of reconciliation for the plethora (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b6E682C7Jj4) of contradictions?

Exo 33:20

And he said, Thou canst not see my face: for there shall no man see me, and live.

Genesis 32:30

And Jacob called the name of the place Peniel: for I have seen God face to face, and my life is preserved.

[_jo1952]

To All:

Is Corpse the only one who misunderstood my comment?

Love,

jo

Edited for clarification: Is Corpse the only guy who misunderstood my comment?

Yes, I’m a little slow like that, but then I don’t think anybody else really understands what the heck you’re talking about, either.

Hi Corpsegrinder,

Gosh, you received my first handshake of friendliness when I spoke about your name. All I can offer at this time is that you are so focused on contention and desire to set up a line of questioning motivated by your agenda, that you cannot see that my above comments were a continuation to keep a friendly atmosphere going between us. Therefore, I will spell out what I think many of the female posters did understand about my comment.

To remind you, the above was in response to a single line you had shared: "Less is more". AS A WOMAN, trying to still be lighthearted, even in the knowledge that your comments were not, I was basically pointing out that "less is not more" (to many woman), hence my purposely added edit by adding "guys" to my comment. In other words, "more" is much better as far as many woman are concerned. I guess my comment of double entendre play on words which was taking into account your request that I not use so many words was also lost even though I came "straight" to the point (do I need to have Just Me draw you a picture?). Or are you too angry being anti to be able to see a joke when one is being shared?

As someone who has achieved “this type of continual communication with the Holy Ghost,” how do you determine the point at which your personal opinions end and “communication” with the Holy Ghost begins? I ask because you seem to feel no compunction against injecting a great deal of personal opinion into your posts without clearly identifying it as such.

I apologize inasmuch as you didn't understand my play on words.

I will also repeat the question that have so pointedly avoided answering: Does Robert Millet’s “bait-and-switch” tactic for deflecting questions away from embarrassing aspects of Church history ultimately undermine the Church’s credibility?

I have not avoided answering your question. You just have ignored what I said because my words do not allow you to continue to use your "Anti-Mormon for Dummy's" as outlined therein. You have no prepared comeback.

I will explain this very clearly, the video presented is NOT an example of "bait and switch". However, due to your own tactics and training, you will see it as such, even though it is not.

In my previous post, I have already explained why it is necessary to create a foundation upon to build someone's understanding of the Gospel. It is a principle used in learning any new topic. A person who wants to become a brain surgeon, for instance, does not start his learning in the operating room.

Additionally, I simply will not be drawn into an antagonistic argument with you. It is not Jesus' way; so I try not to step beyond the example He set and taught, if I can help it.

Love,

jo

[_Corpsegrinder]

Jo1952 wrote:

To remind you, the above was in response to a single line you had shared: "Less is more". AS A WOMAN, trying to still be lighthearted, even in the knowledge that your comments were not, I was basically pointing out that "less is not more" (to many woman), hence my purposely added edit by adding "guys" to my comment. In other words, "more" is much better as far as many woman are concerned. I guess my comment of double entendre play on words which was taking into account your request that I not use so many words was also lost even though I came "straight" to the point (do I need to have Just Me draw you a picture?). Or are you too angry being anti to be able to see a joke when one is being shared?

Wow. Just wow.

I have not avoided answering your question. You just have ignored what I said because my words do not allow you to continue to use your "Anti-Mormon for Dummy's" as outlined therein. You have no prepared comeback.

Sorry, but I’m not an Anti-Mormon. On the contrary, I happen to be:

*A former LDS seminary student
*A former LDS institute student
*A returned missionary
*A former BYU student
*The husband of a wife whom I married in the (Denver) temple
*The father of two teenage sons who are also members of the Church
*Currently active in the Church.

Thus, my bona fides as a Mormon are at least an impressive as yours. So perhaps you’ll reconsider throwing around this “Anti-Mormon” epithet as it does very little to enhance your overall credibility.

I will explain this very clearly, the video presented is NOT an example of "bait and switch". However, due to your own tactics and training, you will see it as such, even though it is not.

Interesting…exactly what “tactics and training” are you referring to?

In my previous post, I have already explained why it is necessary to create a foundation upon to build someone's understanding of the Gospel.

As a former student I am somewhat familiar with the concept of progressive learning; that you persist in conflating Bob Millet’s talk with progressive learning demonstrates that you, on the other hand, are not.

A person who wants to become a brain surgeon, for instance, does not start his learning in the operating room.

Sigh…a person who wants to become a brain surgeon does indeed start his learning in the operating room--as an observer. But according Brother Millet’s paradigm, a person interested in learning about brain surgery would initially be told that brain surgery did not exist.

As I said in an earlier post, offering an impromptu lecture on eternal marriage in answer to an investigator’s question about Joseph Smith’s tryst with Fanny Alger is not progressive learning.

It’s damage control.

[_Corpsegrinder]

...you are so focused on contention and desire to set up a line of questioning motivated by your agenda...

Right, my agenda. Could you, maybe, remind me what my agenda is, in case I forgot?

[_harmony]

As I said in an earlier post, offering an impromptu lecture on eternal marriage in answer to an investigator’s question about Joseph Smith’s tryst with Fanny Alger is not progressive learning.

It’s damage control.

Indeed. Fanny was simply the first in a long line of extramartial affairs. Sex 132 should be stricken from the canon.

[_jo1952]

...you are so focused on contention and desire to set up a line of questioning motivated by your agenda...

Right, my agenda. Could you, maybe, remind me what my agenda is, in case I forgot?

It appears your agenda is to create corpses which you can then grind up.

So far, you and I do not seem to be reading each other very well....sigh. OTOH, if we had the benefit of speaking in person, we would become good friends.

by the way, a brain surgeon's education does not begin in the surgery room. It takes years of prior medical schooling to get them to the point of specializing in any type of surgery.

Love,

jo

[_Themis]

Could you explain how one discerns or recognizes the holy Ghost is communicating with them?

Hi Themis,

I'm not ignoring your question. I'm pondering my response to you.

Love,

jo

Bump

[_jo1952]

Bump

Oh my gosh, Themis. I am so sorry. Back on page 2 on Wed Dec 7 at 11:10am I responded to a post from Drifting about this. As I was generating my response I had it in my head that I needed to also address the post to your attention. My thoughts and my actions never got together, though. So I apologize.

If you will read that response to Drifting, you will find my thoughts there. If you should still have any questions, please ask.

Love,

jo

[_Themis]

Thank you Drifting,

It is so difficult to explain. I think Elder Packer's is as good as any. At least, it is a good place to start. For someone who has not yet learned to recognize the Holy Ghost's influence, it is extremely difficult to understand what everybody is describing. I believe that for a person to become more sure of whether they are experiencing the Holy Ghost or not, they must pray sincerely about this issue to their Heavenly Father. They should seek and pray specifically to be able to know Truth; being humble and contrite in their hearts and leaving their minds open so that they can receive an answer and a witness from the Holy Ghost. In order for them to be able to recognize the Holy Spirit, their own spirit needs to be awakened which originally begins with their hope and desire to believe in Jesus (exercising faith in Jesus). Once they become aware of the Holy Ghost's influence, their spirit will know it; as He is spiritually discerned. Until their spirit knows it, they will not recognize that it is the Holy Ghost who has been influencing them. They will come up with other ideas and reasons to explain what they think has been happening; and those ideas and reasons will be related to and be sourced from their attachment to the physical world.

The awakening of our spirits to Truth, which brings spiritual awareness, is what Jesus is talking about when He says we must experience re-birth....being born of the Spirit.

I would also like to point out that when a person receives the Holy Ghost by the laying of hands, that this is the mechanical performance of the ordinance. What got that person to this point to begin with is that they have already exercised their faith in Jesus at which time the process of their re-birth begins to take place because, if they were sincere in the exercising of their faith, then the Holy Ghost has already witnessed to them. If they have not yet understood what has taken place, then having the ordinance of receiving the Holy Ghost is not going to change them. It is the awakening of their spirit to the influence of the Holy Ghost which progresses them on their spiritual journey.

Love,

jo

Unfortunately this does not answer my question. Perhaps you could expand on this statement you made. Another words how does one become aware of the HG?

Once they become aware of the Holy Ghost's influence, their spirit will know it;

[Guest]

-