Michael Ash - Shaken Faith Syndrome

[_Corpsegrinder]

This behavior encapsulates just about everything that's wrong with Mormon apologetics.

Well said, now tell me how to support the church correctly?

Forthrightly, without irony or subterfuge.

[_Themis]

I am confused because of the hypocrisy.

What hypocrisy are you referring to?

I think it has value to many as a weapon to attack others beliefs. If you wish to be a tool for others I can't stop you.

That's not what I meant when I said it had worth, and I think you knew that and are being dishonest here in order to attack me. :)

Your "better off" says everything I wanted to know.

I am sure it does, but the point was just to explain why others may bring up why they think certain beliefs are incorrect, and that is becuase they may think that a person would be better off discarding an incorrect belief. I think you think the same way but disagree with some as to what is correct or incorrect, and I notice you are trying to convince others that they are wrong. Nothing wrong with that just as nothing wrong with saying why one thinks some of your beliefs are wrong.

I am incorrect in my opinion? Somehow you reached into my head and saw that I misrepresented my own opinion. You are a truly remarkable human specimen. I think that your brain should be frozen so future generations can uncover your greatness.

LOL I see another personal attack. Now I am not sure why you are not comprehending what I am saying, but I never said you misrepresented your own opinion. In fact I only said that I thought you were wrong about the alternative being a chance to worship at the alter of Man, but that I could see why you think that from your POV.

No I do not think I will back it up. It is perfectly clear to me that you have everything figured out. So tell me now that man has everything figured out why do we still do research?

Where did I ever say man had it all figured out? I am sorry but you have very poor reading comprehension. I only asked you to show this set of men who set the rules for science. I don't think you really know what you are talking about and wanted to you back it up. I also just added that there are plenty of sets of men making up rules for many religious groups including LDS. Joseph was amazing, especially when he would beak many of those rules :)

Interesting that you refuse to back up what you assert, but then ask me to back up something I never even claimed.

Wow you still amaze me at your smartness. You sure told me off. So the people around you all think the same therefore it is perfectly OK to extend that to the rest of the world. And I thought that violated logic.

I have doubts that you understand logic. It is ok for anyone to extend what they believe to the rest of the world. The LDS church has been doing it for almost 200 years. I did it for the church as well.

But now that you cleared that up maybe you could help me out with some pesky numbers?

http://www.adherents.com/Religions_By_Adherents.html

According to this site the nonbelievers are 16% of the world's population.

Again show where I said non-religious outnumbered religious, and by the way adherents have a wide variety of beliefs most of which conflict with basic Christian beliefs. I only said that the success was in changing many incorrect beliefs like a global flood and young earth. This success is also brought to you by many religious people. Now non-religious having been growing, and look to continue, as many religious groups will continue to change and evolve in their beliefs.

Now I always thought that when the population doubled then the 84% would be the greater number. But now that you have cleared that all up for me I just need a little help in how that 16% overtakes the 84%. Help me out oh wise one.

You do need help. You attribute a lot of things I have never said or even believe. You need to sit back and think a little more first.

[_Franktalk]

You do need help. You attribute a lot of things I have never said or even believe. You need to sit back and think a little more first.

You said:

"How many less people believe in a young earth and global flood compared to 50 years ago?"

In looking at the raw numbers the number of religious people on the earth is getting bigger all of the time. Even if the number shrinks it has to go below 50% for the religious to be overtaken by the nonreligious. I think most people on the world would not know what you are talking about if you started to talk about a young earth or an old earth. Your little world is not the world. I am pretty sure you will not understand what I just wrote. I am not sure you understand what you wrote.

[_Themis]

You said:

"How many less people believe in a young earth and global flood compared to 50 years ago?"

In looking at the raw numbers the number of religious people on the earth is getting bigger all of the time. Even if the number shrinks it has to go below 50% for the religious to be overtaken by the nonreligious. I think most people on the world would not know what you are talking about if you started to talk about a young earth or an old earth. Your little world is not the world. I am pretty sure you will not understand what I just wrote. I am not sure you understand what you wrote.

Sorry Frank, but most of what you write tends to be incoherent rambling. I don't think I am the only one to notice. Now can you tell me how many religious adherents(in this case Christian adherents) believe in a young earth or Global flood. Even many and maybe most LDS members today don't believe in them, so yes science certainly has had success in changing beliefs. Don't forget that many scientists are themselves religious. This really is the point that I was making is that secular part of society(which does include religious people) is having a lot of success in changing beliefs over time. Young earth and global flood was just an obvious example to that, and yes most of the world is not Christian and would not have those particular false beliefs, but I would think we can find some examples for those areas as well. .

[_Franktalk]

Sorry Frank, but most of what you write tends to be incoherent rambling. I don't think I am the only one to notice. Now can you tell me how many religious adherents(in this case Christian adherents) believe in a young earth or Global flood. Even many and maybe most LDS members today don't believe in them, so yes science certainly has had success in changing beliefs. Don't forget that many scientists are themselves religious. This really is the point that I was making is that secular part of society(which does include religious people) is having a lot of success in changing beliefs over time. Young earth and global flood was just an obvious example to that, and yes most of the world is not Christian and would not have those particular false beliefs, but I would think we can find some examples for those areas as well. .

Thank you for verifying that you are a tool for a third party. I am happy to admit that I am a tool for a third party. I have given myself to Christ and will do His will. It seems you have given yourself to some men and will do their will. Hope that works out for you.

[_Franktalk]

Forthrightly, without irony or subterfuge.

So someone asks you if Joseph Smith is a liar what do you say?

So someone asks about the evidence of the Nephites, what do you say?

So some asks if the leader of the LDS church is a prophet, what do you say?

So someone asks if the LDS church is the restored church what do you say?

[_Corpsegrinder]

So someone asks you if Joseph Smith is a liar what do you say?

I would say yes. The historical record shows that he lied on numerous occasions to protect both his personal interests and those of the Church, his public pronouncements regarding his secret practice of polygamy being a prime example.

So someone asks about the evidence of the Nephites, what do you say?

Of the Nephrites in particular? Or of the Book of Mormon in general?

And when you say “evidence” do you mean archeological evidence or spiritual evidence?

In regards to archeological evidence, I would say that I know of no powerful and compelling evidence that supports the Book of Mormon.

In regards to spiritual evidence, I would say that in my opinion terms like “spiritual” and “evidence” are mutually conflicting.

So some asks if the leader of the LDS church is a prophet, what do you say?

I would say yes, because that’s the title of the calling of the man who leads the LDS Church.

If, on the other hand, you were to ask if I believe the head of the LDS talks directly to God, I would say no, I don’t believe he does. (I would also point out that several general authorities, among them J. Reuben Clark, would agree with me on this matter.)

So someone asks if the LDS church is the restored church what do you say?

Do you mean “restoration” as in a clone-like restoration of the organization that Jesus instituted in ancient Jerusalem?

The archeological and scholarly evidence that I’m aware of would suggest no, it’s not. As far as spiritual evidence is concerned, I would repeat my opinion that terms like “spiritual” and “evidence” are mutually conflicting.

[_Themis]

Thank you for verifying that you are a tool for a third party. I am happy to admit that I am a tool for a third party. I have given myself to Christ and will do His will. It seems you have given yourself to some men and will do their will. Hope that works out for you.

I have asked you to back this up more then once, but I also understand you cannot because it is not true. I am only interested in what is true, and if it means saying why I think something is incorrect I have no problem doing so. I at least will try to back up what I say. To bad you have failed to so on a number of issues in this thread.

[_jo1952]

Lets be honest now. This was your dodge

Again lets be honest. The question was about describing how one would know the HG was communicating to them, or another words to describe to expereince(not necessarily yours). This you failed to do. You may have talked about what you thought one had to do to get the expereince, but avioded answering the question which was about the expereince itself. It was only a recent post that barely gave a little description of one expereince.

It was a logical inference based on your posts that one would know, and since I don't know, then I must not have had the expereince.

Never indicated that they didn't.

Again, never indicated that they didn't.

You have yet to show this. I said the church taught using many words to describe the expereince of what they thought the HG was, and some of those words come from LDS cannon. I would hope as a believing member you would already know this, but possibly not, since you have avioded answering my question.

I am just having problems getting you or frank to answer a simple question. It has nothing to do with my relationship with any God. Don't worry I am not upset, and I don't think I have said anything nasty to you or others.

You are self deluding yourself if you think you have not been influenced by others on how to interpret things like your reading of the Bible. Most of it you probably are not even aware of. Others would be because they recognize that most if not all of our ideas are influenced by others. This does not mean we can't evaluate those ideas.

I was sincerely interested to see if you or others could give new information, although with my extensive knowledge of the church, and being a believing active member for so long, I did not have any expectations that you could, and of course you didn't. It's not your fault though. :)

This backs up my earlier inference.

And yet there is so much disagreement about what the HG is saying, even within the LDS religion. Not very reliable.

but it is an important point about knowing something, or thinking you do based on an internal expereince.

Hi Themis,

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 until it is shared. So far, you have not shared your personal experiencing. Rather, you set up situations in order to "test" my experiences as if you have some ability to determine if I have failed or passed my life's experiences even though I am the one who has gone through them.

Yours is not the agenda of sharing or edifying. Yours is a worldly agenda to try to fight and bring contention into a discussion. I simply will not go there. You are a child of God; you are a spirit child of the Most High. This is how I see you - your actions to try to fight cannot effect me because I do not see your actions beyond what they are. I DO, however, see your spirit. It is your spirit that I love; I cannot deride or fight with you. I love you.

Since I have already presented my experiences and beliefs, though you have not presented yours and only want to disagree with mine, I consider this discussion at a stand still.

May God's peace and comfort uplift your spirit, Themis. Truth is all around us. You are obviously free to choose to think what you will about me, or what you would label as my tactics. I have no hidden agenda. Your choices will not change my love for you. Please know that I have great joy in my love for you. If you were reachable in person, I would do the mushy, female thing, and throw my arms around you and hug and kiss your neck while tears of joy fall. My cup runneth over.

Much love,

jo

[_jo1952]

I realize you think you know, but it misses the point of Joseph's story about eh Book of Mormon copyright. Even after much claimed experience with the HG doing supposedly miraculous things, he still had to come up with why he couldn't get an accurate revelation from God. Saying you know is not likely to be accurate if one who should have more expereince then you cannot know, and couldn't tell the difference. Maybe it was Satan that told him to marry other women behind Emma back, and to marry other men's wives. At least it would be better then him mistaking it coming from himself. :)

I have not insisted that I am correct, although you have. So are you going to conclude you are wrong based on your fruit of insisting you are correct and others wrong.

Now could you elaborate on what the fruit of reliability is? I don't mean the fruit of insisting one is right since that would not be a fruit of reliability you are referring to, and you don't think it would be from God.

Is this the fruit of reliability. If it is then it is not evidence for LDS truth claims, since it is independent of religion. by the way I am not fighting against you, only disagreeing with some of your positions. Not necessarily the same thing.

Hi Themis,

It is my belief that not everyone understands the working of the Holy Ghost beyond some very basic concepts. I also think that this is just fine. However, until they understand at a different level, they will think that there is conflict where none really exists. It is just that, inasmuch as each of us is at our own point in our journey, we will understand things differently - thou, as we add to our knowledge, the basics aren't what change. We merely add to what we already know and recognize that this is exactly how it is supposed to be.

Also, I would offer that just because someone has "found religion", this does not necessarily equate into "knowing" Father or Jesus. As Jesus taught, He will say to many that He never knew them. Now, I do not believe that this is the condemnation that many people fear it to be. Rather, it is a comment on "where" someone is in their journey. Our progression is eternal and is not static.

Love,

jo