Michael Ash - Shaken Faith Syndrome

[_jo1952]

I have already shown that there is not any including your posts above. I do know that the church does teach about it, but not sure why you won't use what they teach, or are just not familiar with it.

Hi Themis!

It appears we are going around in circles.

What would you want to know?

Actually, I would like to know if you believe in God? Do you believe in Christ? I don't care about what religious institution you hang your hat on. Just, do you believe?

Ask away, but I know why you think and believe the way you do, from personal experience, so I know in the end you will view everything worldly that does not concern your religious beliefs. I expect some other religious people would view your own religious beliefs as of the world.

This is because we have free agency. Let's just start with the questions I just asked.

It's just a discussion, and most discussion usually don't end up in total agreement. I don't worry if people want to think and believe differently. I am not arrogant enough to think I have got everything right.

The church teaches the HG responsibility is to testify of truth. It does not teach one who receives a witness will know it is a witness from the HG. The church has a number of articles on how hard it is to discern the HG and what it wants. Are you unaware of this?

The Church gives guidance and assistance on how to follow Christ. Each of us is individually responsible for what choices we want to make. The Church, through the use of scripture and helpful articles, and continually teaching us to seek the guidance of the Holy Ghost, has provided the roadmap to discerning the Holy Ghost. God is not going to force the Holy Ghost down our throats. If we are sincere and work at it, we can learn to discern Him. I don't think there are any two individuals who have taken the precisely exact same steps; we are each unique. Our experiencing the Holy Ghost will be unique to each of us because we are all different. We are all teachable, though; so we can all learn.

Which means that truth is still in the proposition. I do think your statement that the HG cannot manifest to someone who does not believe in Christ to be very problematic, and is not supported by LDS teachings.

You missed the distinction I made. The Holy Ghost is the revealer of ALL Truth. However, the portion of Truth that Jesus is the Christ cannot be confirmed to anyone who has not exercised the desire to believe in, or taken the leap of faith to believe in Christ. There is a difference.

Is it reasonable for a Hindu person to start believing in Christ because a couple of pimple faced Elders say it is so? If yes, then it would be reasonable to believe anything anyone says to you.

Why did you resort to an ad hom description? In fact, your ad hom isn't even applicable to many, many Elders. If you are going to be rude, which has a tendency to lessen your credibility and your sincerity in my eyes, I will stop participating in discussions with you.

It would only be reasonable for a Hindu person to start believing in Christ if they have the desire to do so, and then consciously made the choice to believe. The Light of Christ is inside of everyone. Ghandi very much liked Christ---I have no doubt that this was due to the Light of Christ inside of him; but he also recognized that Christians weren't living Christ-like. So he chose not to follow Christ. I believe that Ghandi was able to do more good as a non-Christian than he ever could have accomplished as a Christian. I believe he will be Exalted.

Not really, but you would need to study what they believe a little more. It also does not deal with the atheist or agnostic person.

There is more than one book being kept in Heaven. Good works are being recorded on behalf of everyone.

Not exalted though. They would still have to accept the gospel, but without evidence or a witness from the HG it is not fair or reasonable for them to believe LDS claims in this life or the next.

The Gospel is being taught to the dead. Jesus organized the teaching of His Gospel during the time He was with the dead before His Resurrection. There was no LDS Church back then. Thus, it was only known as the Gospel of Christ at that time. The only thing that is different now is that the Church is the current vehicle for having necessary ordinances performed. I think it will dissolve once the work has been finished for this Earth. Anyone who accepts Christ in this life or after their physical death before they are resurrected has the same potential as any of mankind to become Exalted.

Love,

jo

[_jo1952]

I am not so inclined to share my religious journey on this forum at this time, but it boils down to this...

I investigated the LDS first, because that is how I was raised. When that didn't work, I investigated all of the others. Nothing spoke to me. I again tried with the church, but, by the time I was 15, I knew, with certainty, that it was all BS and that the only truth to be found would be in the common thread between all religions.

This common thread would be the only logical explanation because, if God was at all fair, then divinity should be accessible to everyone whether they had seen a Bible in their lifetime or not. If God was not fair, then he was not worth worshiping.

Hi Emily!

I think there is wisdom in much of what you said. Though I do not agree with everything, you have hit on something which I believe Christendom, in general, misses.

For God to possess the attributes they claim He has, then divinity WOULD be accessible to everyone just as you have stated. It just so happens that I believe God IS and always HAS made Himself accessible to all of mankind. Therefore, I do not believe that the LDS Church is the only path He has created for us.

In the end, I think religion is largely misguided by people afraid of change, but has some useful applications. Unfortunately, visceral, meaningful religious experiences are unavailable to anyone in any mainstream religion because they have sanitized everything in religion worth experiencing.

Today, my stance is that of an atheist. That does not make me immune to having spiritual feelings from time to time, but awe and wonder come easy enough under a cloudless night full of stars.

If you sincerely believe in Christianity, then I would encourage you to read works of any of the female Christian mystics and then try to figure out why they are wrong and everyone else is right. Clearly, (of the ones whose works survived) they all lead a more spiritual life than most Christians today. I imagine it was easier back then, in an environment without an easy material explanation for nearly everything that goes on.

I find you to be a delightful paradox, Emily.

Love,

jo

[_Themis]

Hi Themis!

It appears we are going around in circles.

Not really. Just waiting to see if you can answer one simple question. :)

Actually, I would like to know if you believe in God? Do you believe in Christ? I don't care about what religious institution you hang your hat on. Just, do you believe?

I used to be very active in the LDS church, and very much a believer. I would describe myself as agnostic now. Unfortunately Christianity does not fair much better then the LDS when it come to truth claims actually being true.

The Church gives guidance and assistance on how to follow Christ. Each of us is individually responsible for what choices we want to make. The Church, through the use of scripture and helpful articles, and continually teaching us to seek the guidance of the Holy Ghost, has provided the roadmap to discerning the Holy Ghost. God is not going to force the Holy Ghost down our throats. If we are sincere and work at it, we can learn to discern Him. I don't think there are any two individuals who have taken the precisely exact same steps; we are each unique. Our experiencing the Holy Ghost will be unique to each of us because we are all different. We are all teachable, though; so we can all learn.

You say the Church has a road map but yet cannot produce what that road map is. You keep saying one can learn to discern the HG but never say how.

Maybe we should try an example. If you were in the discussion with the missionaries teaching someone who believed in Jesus and appeared sincere about the LDS church and the Book of Mormon. Now the missionaries have asked this person to read the Book of Mormon and then pray and ask if it is true. The missionaries tell this person that if they do this with a sincere heart and real intent the HG will manifest the truth of the Book of Mormon to them by the power of the HG. Now after the missionaries go to there next appointment this investigator asks you how they will know the HG is manifesting the truth of the Book of Mormon to them. What would you tell them?

You missed the distinction I made. The Holy Ghost is the revealer of ALL Truth. However, the portion of Truth that Jesus is the Christ cannot be confirmed to anyone who has not exercised the desire to believe in, or taken the leap of faith to believe in Christ. There is a difference.

I know this is what you believe, but can you show that this is what the church teaches. If one is willing to pray and ask if Jesus is the Christ why should they first have to believe that he does exists and is the savior.

Why did you resort to an ad hom description? In fact, your ad hom isn't even applicable to many, many Elders. If you are going to be rude, which has a tendency to lessen your credibility and your sincerity in my eyes, I will stop participating in discussions with you.

You may want to read this http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem

In no way did I use a ad hom, and in no way was I rude. I am not sure how you could have got that from what I said. My point is that if one is arguing that it is reasonable to require one believe in Jesus first before the HG will manifest this as true, then by the same logic it is also reasonable to believe anything first before getting any kind of evidence. Another words it would be just as reasonable for you to believe the claims of Scientology before getting any evidence physical or spiritual. This is why I am asking you to show that the church teaches this. This of course is a side question not related to the main question.

It would only be reasonable for a Hindu person to start believing in Christ if they have the desire to do so, and then consciously made the choice to believe.

Not sure what desire has to do with it. Would it be reasonable to believe in Big Foot if one has the desire to do so? If yes would this not mean it is reasonable to believe what ever if you have the desire to do so? This of course has nothing to do with a person desiring the truth, since desire for the truth is not the same as desire to believe something you have no evidence for physical or spiritual.

[_Drifting]

Here is Packers attempt to explain the tell tale signs of a prompting from the Holy Ghost ( Conference in 2010)

The voice of the Spirit is described in the scriptures as being neither loud nor harsh, not a voice of thunder, neither a voice of great tumultuous noise, but rather as still and small, of perfect mildness, as if it had been a whisper, and it can pierce even the very soul and cause the heart to burn.

The Spirit does not get our attention by shouting. It never shakes us with a heavy hand. The Spirit whispers. It caresses so gently, indeed, that if we are preoccupied, we can’t feel it at all.

Occasionally, the Spirit will press just firmly enough or often enough for us to pay attention; but from my experience, most of the time, if we do not heed the gentle feeling, if we do not listen with those feelings, the Spirit will withdraw and wait until we come seeking and listening, in our manner and our expression.

I have learned that the very impressive and miraculous spiritual experiences come very infrequently. Something is amiss if they come too intensely and too frequently. The question then arises, from whence come these experiences? Remember that there is a counterfeit.

If Packer is correct, then the Holy Ghost has told me that the Church isn't true. I read the Book of Mormon, I reached a conclusion that it and therefore the Church was not true, I prayed about that conclusion and felt exactly the still small comforting voice of confirmation from within.

So the Church isn't true.

I suspect that, had I reached the conclusion that the Church was true, the Holy Ghost would have confirmed that also. Which kind of makes the Holy Ghost irrelevant because the still small voice is just being a 'yes man'.

If you suggest that my confirmation, that the Church isn't true, was from Satan because the Church is true and that's what I should have been told - then how can you tell the difference between Holy Ghost prompting and that of Satan?

Please don't say that if it confirms what the Church says then its from God and if it confirms against what the Church says it's from Satan because that makes the Holy Ghost completely redundant.

[_jo1952]

I used to be very active in the LDS church, and very much a believer. I would describe myself as agnostic now. Unfortunately Christianity does not fair much better then the LDS when it come to truth claims actually being true.

No church or institution or person or physical evidence reveals truth. For you to continue to expect any of these things to bring you truth will be an exercise in futility.

You say the Church has a road map but yet cannot produce what that road map is. You keep saying one can learn to discern the HG but never say how.

I believe you just don't like the answers - is this because you have never been sure if the Holy Ghost has witnessed or guided you?

Maybe we should try an example. If you were in the discussion with the missionaries teaching someone who believed in Jesus and appeared sincere about the LDS church and the Book of Mormon. Now the missionaries have asked this person to read the Book of Mormon and then pray and ask if it is true. The missionaries tell this person that if they do this with a sincere heart and real intent the HG will manifest the truth of the Book of Mormon to them by the power of the HG. Now after the missionaries go to there next appointment this investigator asks you how they will know the HG is manifesting the truth of the Book of Mormon to them. What would you tell them?

I would tell them everything I've already told you. The rest is up to them.

I know this is what you believe, but can you show that this is what the church teaches. If one is willing to pray and ask if Jesus is the Christ why should they first have to believe that he does exists and is the savior.

It is an exercise in reasoning and in studying scripture. Jesus teaches that it is the Holy Ghost who will reveal all Truth to us. Scripture also teaches us it is the Holy Ghost who is the witness on the earth. What does He do? He witnesses who Father and who Jesus are. Now, put this together with what Jesus taught, and you can deduce that the HG does not only witness to us about Father and Jesus, He additionally reveals ALL Truth. Jesus is not the only part of Truth which the HG will witness to. Jesus is not ALL Truth; He is part of all Truth. In order to receive a witness of Jesus or Father, a person needs to first desire to believe in Jesus- to believe the message they have been given. Some people don't care and will dismiss the message. But others are drawn to the message and will desire to believe in Him and will exercise faith. That is when the HG will witness to an individual that particular Truth. But there are unnumbered truths known by the Holy Ghost - not just the truth about Jesus. According the direction the HG receives from Father, He will reveal whatever Truth Father deems you are ready to receive. You do not have to believe in Jesus in order to receive Truth from Father through the Holy Ghost.

If you want to make scripture a stumbling block, Father will respect your choice and scripture will remain locked from your understanding. It's up to you, Themis. God is not going to give you solid evidence. This journey is taken in faith until Christ returns. If you have a problem with this set-up, then get on your knees and complain to your Heavenly Father. He isn't going to strike you down; He will be pleased to be hearing from you as He is waiting for any opportunity you give Him to communicate with you.

In no way did I use a ad hom, and in no way was I rude. I am not sure how you could have got that from what I said. My point is that if one is arguing that it is reasonable to require one believe in Jesus first before the HG will manifest this as true, then by the same logic it is also reasonable to believe anything first before getting any kind of evidence. Another words it would be just as reasonable for you to believe the claims of Scientology before getting any evidence physical or spiritual. This is why I am asking you to show that the church teaches this. This of course is a side question not related to the main question.

Don't be playing the game of splitting hairs with me. You called the missionaries pimply faced elders. If you do not consider that rude or disparaging, then this conversation is over, because you will have lost all credibility of being sincerely involved in this discussion.

It would only be reasonable for a Hindu person to start believing in Christ if they have the desire to do so, and then consciously made the choice to believe.

Did you not learn anything while you were a member of the Church? What has made you so angry that you cannot conduct a reasonable conversation about religion in general?

God has loved you eternally. Just because you think you have legitimate reasons for abandoning belief or interest or trust in Him, does not change His perfect love for you.

You need to rid yourself of your anger and find some peace so that your spirit will not be struggling so much while still being held within your physical body.

Love,

jo

[_Themis]

No church or institution or person or physical evidence reveals truth. For you to continue to expect any of these things to bring you truth will be an exercise in futility.

It makes you wonder why our physical senses have discovered so many truths, yet here we are discussing it over computers. I suspect you do not understand what the word truth means. Truth simple means a proposition that is accurate or not false. I like chocolate is a truth for me, not necessarily everyone. The Moon travels around the earth is another truth. Now I never said any institutions reveals truth, only that they do make truth claims. Scientology makes a truth claim that thetons exist and what they are and do is is either true or false. The LDS church teaches that a global flood occurred ~4000 years ago is true. The evidence clearly does not support this claim as being true, which is why many members have adjusted their belies regarding it. It is how we as humans can evaluate truth claims, and it has far better reliability then the spiritual in this regard. While I think the spiritual is important, if it conflicts with the physical evidnece we should be willing to reevaluate those interpretations. If the physical evdience is to much against a certain spiritual interpretation then we wisely should change our beliefs to fit the facts. I seriously doubt any God would want someone to do otherwise.

I believe you just don't like the answers - is this because you have never been sure if the Holy Ghost has witnessed or guided you?

being sure does not mean you are correct. people feel certain all the time about things they are very wrong about. Now thanks for making my point. If as you say I am unsure if the HG has witnessed to me, then you really haven't yet said how I am to know that the HG really was witnessing to me, This is the area you still have avioded.

I would tell them everything I've already told you. The rest is up to them.

Perhaps you could refresh my memory and simply say what you would tell them. Is it that hard or do you not really want to answer this.

It is an exercise in reasoning and in studying scripture. Jesus teaches that it is the Holy Ghost who will reveal all Truth to us. Scripture also teaches us it is the Holy Ghost who is the witness on the earth. What does He do? He witnesses who Father and who Jesus are. Now, put this together with what Jesus taught, and you can deduce that the HG does not only witness to us about Father and Jesus, He additionally reveals ALL Truth. Jesus is not the only part of Truth which the HG will witness to. Jesus is not ALL Truth; He is part of all Truth. In order to receive a witness of Jesus or Father, a person needs to first desire to believe in Jesus- to believe the message they have been given. Some people don't care and will dismiss the message. But others are drawn to the message and will desire to believe in Him and will exercise faith. That is when the HG will witness to an individual that particular Truth. But there are unnumbered truths known by the Holy Ghost - not just the truth about Jesus. According the direction the HG receives from Father, He will reveal whatever Truth Father deems you are ready to receive. You do not have to believe in Jesus in order to receive Truth from Father through the Holy Ghost.

Please answer the question. I am asking you to show that the church teaches one must first believe in Jesus in order for the HG to witness that Jesus is the Christ. Why would someone who has no desire to believe in Jesus unless he really is the Savior be excluded from getting a witness from the HG. Feel free to use scripture or other LDS material.

Don't be playing the game of splitting hairs with me. You called the missionaries pimply faced elders. If you do not consider that rude or disparaging, then this conversation is over, because you will have lost all credibility of being sincerely involved in this discussion.

I was one of those pimply faced elders. I was not meant to be rude or disparaging, just a fact for many 19-20 years old males. I think I can keep a little humor in a discussion, especially when I am included in my description. Now I realize you did not know I had been on a mission, so no hard feelings. I know many jokes we members make about ourselves. I remember some funny ones told to us by people of other faiths on my mission. I wasn't the only missionary who found them funny, so maybe you should not get to serious.

Did you not learn anything while you were a member of the Church? What has made you so angry that you cannot conduct a reasonable conversation about religion in general?

I'm am really baffled here. Do you have such a poor ability to read others that you get some kind of anger here where none exist. I may not believe some LDS truth claims, but I don't hate the church, it's members or leaders. I don't even hate Joseph Smith. I try, and do understand why he did some bad things, but I don't hate him for it. I even still attend church and other LDS activities on occasion. I will be at church this Sunday. I wont be back till next week so I may not be able to respond till them. Have a good Christmas.

Now I am going to repeat this since I think you have avioded it.

"Not sure what desire has to do with it. Would it be reasonable to believe in Big Foot if one has the desire to do so? If yes would this not mean it is reasonable to believe what ever if you have the desire to do so? This of course has nothing to do with a person desiring the truth, since desire for the truth is not the same as desire to believe something you have no evidence for physical or spiritual."

[_Corpsegrinder]

I believe you are projecting your own intent and confusing it with mine. Please see my response to Themis which explains why I am here.

I can only assume you’re referring to this post here: ”My purpose here on this website is to share my personal experiencing of God through the Holy Ghost, to share my interpretations of what I think is being taught. It is my hope that others will do the same about their own experiencing and interpretations. This is how we learn from each other. Our experiences are our own; thus they are not arguable or debatable beyond supporting them with applicable scripture, since another person has no idea what the other has experienced…”

…except for when the Holy Ghost tells someone the Book of Mormon is not true.

According to you, people who claim the Holy Ghost said “no” are lying--your term, not mine. Or if they’re not lying about their answer, they:

* asked the wrong question,
*asked a question that was too broad,
*asked a question that was not specific,
*asked a multiple-choice question,
*asked a question that was not well thought out,
*received no answer, but interpreted it as a “no” answer,
*was too scared to ask, and therefore didn’t,
*didn’t ask because they felt an evil presence,
*didn’t ask because they already knew the Book of Mormon wasn’t true, and
*they simply lied about having asked the Holy Ghost (again, your word, not mine).

Sorry jo, but these are not the sentiments of someone who simply wants to “share”.

It may be my phrase; however, YOU are using it a manner it was never meant to be used. In fact, what I actually believe is, that as a result of someone achieving this level of "continual communication", that such an individual may very well be translated - much like Enoch was. But I am not personally aware of anyone that has reached such a level. I do, though, apply what I believe to see what my beliefs may actually look like.

That’s simply not true, jo.

Please go back and re-read your original post. Or better yet, allow me to cut-&-paste it here…

Hi Stormy Waters,

My take is that Level B is from the perspective of the anti-Mormon. Therein is where the "evil, false and chaotic" is born. This does not equate into the "evil, false, and chaotic" to be accurate or true.

Since it is the Holy Ghost who is the witness of Truth on the earth (and this is NOT an original LDS belief, but is rather first taught in the New Testament), the Church appropriately teaches investigators and members HOW to be able to discern the Holy Ghost and learn how to eliminate the other noise we are all bombarded with while we are in the physical world. I have known no other religion which works as diligently as the LDS Church does on teaching how to recognize and to communicate with God through the power of the Holy Ghost.

Once an individual achieves this type of continual communication with the Holy Ghost (regardless of whether they are LDS or of any other religious persuasion), then nothing that man offers through their own interpretation of scripture or man's personal failings will have the same effect or ability to cause a person to lose their faith in God.

With this knowledge, why would any church think it was necessary to interfere with an individual's milk-stage of understanding God by feeding them negative information created by man (whether or not what man is saying is true or not)? It seems reasonable to me to expect any church to offer positive reinforcement which would then free the individual from needing to deal with information that may or may not stunt their blossoming relationship with God.

Indeed, it has been my personal experience that once I was able to establish a strong personal relationship with Father, that it doesn't matter if the Church or its leaders are perfect. In fact, I recognize very keenly that man is imperfect and he does not, nor is he capable of, administering the Church perfectly. Man is fallible; God is not.

Best regards,

jo

In other words, faithful Mormons who have been taught “how to be able to discern the Holy Ghost and learn how to eliminate the other noise we are all bombarded with all the while we are in the physical world” are in “continual communication with the Holy Ghost.”

Your words, jo.

I would like to ask you a question. Do you think that your "agitating" from within the Church is any less dangerous than what you claim these other groups have done?

That’s a fair question. Since you phrased it as a yes or no question, I’ll answer “No”.

My “agitating” in no way equates to the misery inflicted upon members of the Church as a result of the practice of polygamy. Mormon polygamy is evil, pure and simple.

But Mormon polygamy is simply one such example of the damage that can be done by those who claim “continual communication with the Holy Ghost”. Additional examples are provided by men like Jim Jones, Vernon Howell, and Hung Syou-Chywan.

Here you are assuming that your interpretation of Joseph's alledged actions are correct. Even aside from the fact that I disagree with your interpretation, since when has ANY Prophet of God not still been fallible? In other words, if these allegations are true, doe this mean that Joseph Smith was NOT a Prophet of God? I do not believe that ANY Prophet (save Jesus), was perfect. Yet these realities do not concern me, like they concern you. I am more interested in the messages God has given them to reveal to us; the Holy Ghost confirms Truth to my spirit, because Truth can ONLY be spiritually discerned.

It’s not simply “my” interpretation; it’s also Emma’s Smith’s interpretation, and Oliver Cowdery’s interpretation, and Sidney Rigdon’s interpretation…etc., etc. (I could go on, but I think you get the point.) Tell me, what is your interpretation?

And if Joseph Smith can still be a prophet in spite of his moral failings, then why not admit that his sexual dalliances are exactly that: sexual dalliances?

"Scolding" infers judgment; judgment is the Lord's.

Right. I answered your question; please do me the courtesy of answering mine.

[_jo1952]

"Corpsegrinder"

Think of me how ever you will - nothing I say is going to change your mind, or change the spin will you make out of what I say. Perhaps you will not misinterpret the following:

Know this, that in trying to destroy other people's faith in God - regardless of where they hang their hat denominationally, or world religion wise, or just personally between them and God, you are not working for God, but against Him. I believe you are a wolf in sheep's clothing, and you are happy to be serving satan. You cannot serve two masters at the same time. It appears to me your feet stay planted more in Satan's camp then they do temporarily as a cover when you attend Church. As I see it, this is where you are in your journey. I believe Satan has been very successful in having infiltrators join all churches to destroy them from within.

Be honest now, between the two of us, who do you see working for Christ? I do not see that your spirit is being reached, as your physical mind remains very attached to the world.

Please have a safe and wonderful Christmas with your loved ones.

Love,

jo

[_Corpsegrinder]

So...exactly how would you interpret Joseph Smith's actions in regards to Fanny Alger?

[_jo1952]

It makes you wonder why our physical senses have discovered so many truths, yet here we are discussing it over computers. I suspect you do not understand what the word truth means. Truth simple means a proposition that is accurate or not false. I like chocolate is a truth for me, not necessarily everyone. The Moon travels around the earth is another truth. Now I never said any institutions reveals truth, only that they do make truth claims. Scientology makes a truth claim that thetons exist and what they are and do is is either true or false. The LDS church teaches that a global flood occurred ~4000 years ago is true. The evidence clearly does not support this claim as being true, which is why many members have adjusted their belies regarding it. It is how we as humans can evaluate truth claims, and it has far better reliability then the spiritual in this regard. While I think the spiritual is important, if it conflicts with the physical evidnece we should be willing to reevaluate those interpretations. If the physical evdience is to much against a certain spiritual interpretation then we wisely should change our beliefs to fit the facts. I seriously doubt any God would want someone to do otherwise.

I do not refer to truth as the winner of the most hands vote. The "truth" we think we see with our physical senses can deceive us. Watch how science creates theories, which over time, become "truth" until the day someone makes a discovery which shows the theory had a glitch in it. At that point "truth" changes according to the new physical discovery. What has just happened is what was once a theory, left the realm of theory, became truth, was discovered incorrect, and was relagated back to theory which has now been adjusted and modified to account for the new data.

by the way, the LDS are not the only ones to teach a world wide flood. So do not present this as some type of Themis truth presented to support your agenda. If I can see through that, certainly other readers can see through it as well. You and I will have better discussions if you stick with presenting your theories AS theories and NOT as truth. I noticed you remained silent when I was able to show you that your claim about the Book of Mormon had been buried while Jesus lived was not logical. Why not recognize that your claim was made in error? You would gain a great deal of trust and respect from me. I KNOW I don't have everything figured out. And I readily claim that I am blind to whatever I do not know yet. This is not a character weakness; it is the position of a student who is continuing to learn because I have not closed my mind to any possibilities.

You will show me peer-reviewed articles which support the concluson that there was no world wide flood. I will provide scientific studies performed by legitimate scientists who could not get their studies peer-reviewed. Why? Because money speaks louder than truth. So, the the non peer-reviewed articles which DO support a world wide flood are laughed at. Is it necessary to point out that the peer-review is not all it is cracked up to be?

Are you one of the believers who would rather worship at the alter of science and feel justified in re-writing scripture when something you think supports a conflicting world-view of scripture rears its man-inspired head? Why would you think that God would want you to do this? As I see it, man has been able to turn scripture into a stumbling block. They are willing to torture scripture until they can make it say what man wants it to say. They claim to do this because they have found physical evidence which supports them. Doesn't this put you into unenviable position of placing your faith in physical evidence rather than keeping your faith founded in the spiritual realm from which the Holy Ghost confirms and witnesses spiritual truth to you?

being sure does not mean you are correct. people feel certain all the time about things they are very wrong about. Now thanks for making my point. If as you say I am unsure if the HG has witnessed to me, then you really haven't yet said how I am to know that the HG really was witnessing to me, This is the area you still have avioded.

Themis, I am not taking your spiritual journey for you. YOU are. I cannot take it for you. You must walk it personally with God.

What would you like to hear me say???

As ludwigm likes to tell us, do your own homework. I doubt that repeating and repeating what I have already said is going to make much difference.

By encouraging us to study scripture and first asking for the assistance of the Holy Ghost, the Church IS teaching us the answer to this question. The message is woven throughout the New Testament. I am not going to give you a discourse on the entire New Testament. If you are sincerely seeking, then YOU will put the time in and personally seek.

Even without the Church encouraging you to do this, the same thing can be accomplished by any sincere seeker of Truth. This is because the Holy Ghost works with anyone sincerely seeking Truth without requiring membership in any particular religious institution.

1 John 5:7-10

7 For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one.

8 And there are three that bear witness in earth, the Spirit, and the water, and the blood: and these three agree in one.

9 If we receive the witness of men, the witness of God is greater: for this is the witness of God which he hath testified of his Son.

10 He that believeth on the Son of God hath the witness in himself: he that believeth not God hath made him a liar; because he believeth not the record that God gave of his Son.

I was one of those pimply faced elders. I was not meant to be rude or disparaging, just a fact for many 19-20 years old males. I think I can keep a little humor in a discussion, especially when I am included in my description. Now I realize you did not know I had been on a mission, so no hard feelings. I know many jokes we members make about ourselves. I remember some funny ones told to us by people of other faiths on my mission. I wasn't the only missionary who found them funny, so maybe you should not get to serious.

I sincerely wish you had given this explanation at the time you made your original remark. I apologize for not understanding. Please forgive me. I was standing up for all of the pimply faced kids who wished dearly not to have that problem through no fault or choice of there own.

I'm am really baffled here. Do you have such a poor ability to read others that you get some kind of anger here where none exist. I may not believe some LDS truth claims, but I don't hate the church, it's members or leaders. I don't even hate Joseph Smith. I try, and do understand why he did some bad things, but I don't hate him for it. I even still attend church and other LDS activities on occasion. I will be at church this Sunday. I wont be back till next week so I may not be able to respond till them. Have a good Christmas.

Apparently you think I do. Maybe we just don't know each other well enough yet. I'm glad you don't hate the Church. But you must admit that those who already are suffering from shakey faith can be very much influenced by such negative remarks. You have the advantage of having had many more years of activity in the Church than some. Your remarks can be devastating to someone on shakey ground, and this should be taken into considerating lest you, even unintentially, cause a person to falter. For then, whose side are you working on? Even due to Peter's great love for Jesus, he faltered and was rebuked by Jesus only moments after have received the spiritual witness from Father that Jesus was the Christ.

Now I am going to repeat this since I think you have avioded it.

"Not sure what desire has to do with it. Would it be reasonable to believe in Big Foot if one has the desire to do so? If yes would this not mean it is reasonable to believe what ever if you have the desire to do so? This of course has nothing to do with a person desiring the truth, since desire for the truth is not the same as desire to believe something you have no evidence for physical or spiritual."

Sigh...I have not avoided anything. When a person first hears the Gospel message, the Light of Christ - if it has not been dulled too much by personal choices or experiences up to that point, will draw them to either the spoken or the written Gospel. The desire I speak about is the one wherein the person hearing the messages WANTS to believe the message about Christ. So their desire is to believe it, then leads to practically the same thing; a conscious exercising of faith in that desire and/or belief in Christ. For most people, what happens is that they feel good, or they feel comfort, or peace. Some feel greater emotions. Each is different. It will most likely not be until later that they will come to learn that the positive reaction they felt when they exercised their faith, was their first experiencing of a witness of Christ by the Holy Ghost.

This then, needs to be built upon by further experiences. They will not necessarily involve witnessing of Christ. Thus we constantly seek sincerely for the guidance of the Holy Ghost is everything we do; especially in studying scripture. Until we are experiencing the Holy Ghost, we will not be able to learn to discern Him. It is like learning anything else - baby steps first....then line upon line; then precept upon precept.,etc.

How can I deny that you have every received a witness? I am not you. I have not lived your life, or experienced your experiences. Again; this process is personally between you and god.

Merry Christmas to you and your loved ones, Themis.

Much love,

jo