date:20050627


Let's not get too broad with our brush strokes, there skipper.   You have brought a good deal to the table of ideas  --   much appreciated.  
 
JD  -Original Message-From: Dave Hansen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgSent: Mon, 27 Jun 2005 22:51:58 -0700Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] ** Moderator commant **


DAVEH:   I suspect most TTers view me as a loser, rather than winner.[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: 

yeh, it's interesting..like somebody called jt 'a most gracious lady' or somethin' similar to that the other day--that's cool, but give it some thought--e.g., diplomats are respectable ppl, obviously, but isn't their job to argue with other diplomats?  who's the greatest diplomat(?); whoever wins the most arguments (graciously:) (aren't you living victoriously, DaveH?:)
 
On Mon, 27 Jun 2005 21:17:12 -0700 Dave Hansen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:

DAVEH:   ..   Perhaps it is not what you say, but rather how you say it.      :-) ..Some folks appear to take TT pretty seriously. ||-- 
~~~
Dave Hansen
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.langlitz.com
~~~
If you wish to receive
things I find interesting,
I maintain six email lists...
JOKESTER, OPINIONS, LDS,
STUFF, MOTORCYCLE and CLIPS.

Re: [TruthTalk] Moderator commant





DAVEH:   I suspect most TTers view me as a loser, rather than winner.

[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

  
  
  yeh,
it's interesting..like somebody called jt 'a most gracious lady' or
somethin' similar to that the other day--that's cool, but give it some
thought--e.g., diplomats are respectable ppl, obviously, but isn't
their job to argue with other diplomats?  who's the greatest
diplomat(?); whoever wins the most arguments (graciously:) (aren't you
living victoriously, DaveH?:)
   
  On Mon, 27 Jun 2005 21:17:12 -0700 Dave Hansen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
  
DAVEH:   ..   Perhaps it is not what you say, but rather how
you say it.      :-) ..Some
folks appear to take TT pretty seriously. ||
  


-- 
~~~
Dave Hansen
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.langlitz.com
~~~
If you wish to receive
things I find interesting,
I maintain six email lists...
JOKESTER, OPINIONS, LDS,
STUFF, MOTORCYCLE and CLIPS.

Re: [TruthTalk] Moderator commant

Did I miss something, here???  What test??  It is up to the moderator.   Whether we think grown men and women should be "moderated" or not,  there is the principle of authority and God's support of same.    If Rome was to receive "honor,"  certainly our moderator should receive no less.  To refuse his admonition is to put one's self square into the camp of the rebellious.   Is there a biblical alternative to this understanding??? 

JD  -Original Message-From: David Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgSent: Mon, 27 Jun 2005 22:57:37 -0400Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] ** Moderator commant **

Kevin wrote:
> I meant the foolishness of the AD Hom rule since
> there is no human way to frame it by use of an
> objective test.

Even if this were true, it would not disqualify the idea of having an ad 
hominem rule.  Subjective tests are just fine.

We attempt to frame the rule objectively in the following way:  write on the 
subject being discussed and do not attack the other poster's character.

We enforce the rule in a subjective way:  The moderator determines when 
someone is crossing the line and causing the discussion to detour because of 
personal attacks.

What is foolish about this?

Peace be with you.
David Miller 

--
"Let your speech be always with grace, seasoned with salt, that you may know how 
you ought to answer every man."  (Colossians 4:6) http://www.InnGlory.org

If you do not want to receive posts from this list, send an email to 
[EMAIL PROTECTED] and you will be unsubscribed.  If you have a friend 
who wants to join, tell him to send an e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and 
he will be subscribed.

Re: [TruthTalk] CAN WE ELIMINATE WOMEN FROM THIS FORUM?

I was kind of ...kiddin'

Jd  -Original Message-From: David Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgCc: Jennifer Delaney <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; [EMAIL PROTECTED]Sent: Mon, 27 Jun 2005 23:08:36 -0400Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] CAN WE ELIMINATE WOMEN FROM THIS FORUM?

John wrote:
>> Specifically,  where did he go wrong?  

Jim Elsman wrote:
> I HAVE PROPHESIED THAT TT WILL NOT EXIST 
> IN ONE YEAR IF YOU DO NOT. 
[get rid of the women on the list]

Peace be with you.
David Miller.

--
"Let your speech be always with grace, seasoned with salt, that you may know how 
you ought to answer every man."  (Colossians 4:6) http://www.InnGlory.org

If you do not want to receive posts from this list, send an email to 
[EMAIL PROTECTED] and you will be unsubscribed.  If you have a friend 
who wants to join, tell him to send an e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and 
he will be subscribed.

Re: [TruthTalk] Moderator commant

And Samson's repentance is recorded where 

JD  -Original Message-From: David Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgSent: Mon, 27 Jun 2005 22:48:27 -0400Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] ** Moderator commant **

Bill Taylor wrote:
> According to your criterion, Izzy, what difference should
> it make: "I believe the fact that he was an adulterer totally
> discredits his credentials as a prophet of god"?

I think the unspoken assumption here is that unlike King David, Joseph Smith 
never repented of his adultery, but rather gave prophecies which justified 
it and pronounced curses upon his original wife Emma if she did not accept 
his other women.  Jesus taught us to spot false prophets by their fruit.  We 
don't gather grapes from thistles, and so we expect godly character from 
true prophets and ungodly character from false prophets.

Note that Balaam was a false prophet not because he failed to speak for 
Yahweh, nor because he spoke falsely in his name, but because he had a 
covetous heart.

Peace be with you.
David Miller. 

--
"Let your speech be always with grace, seasoned with salt, that you may know how 
you ought to answer every man."  (Colossians 4:6) http://www.InnGlory.org

If you do not want to receive posts from this list, send an email to 
[EMAIL PROTECTED] and you will be unsubscribed.  If you have a friend 
who wants to join, tell him to send an e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and 
he will be subscribed.

Re: [TruthTalk] Moderator commant




(but what the 
HS will do with you is another issue:)
 
 
On Mon, 27 Jun 2005 22:21:15 -0600 [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:

  myth (but 
  Matt indicates that JC'll forgive you for this blasphemous 
  post:)
   
  On Mon, 27 Jun 2005 18:56:52 -0700 "Charles Perry Locke" 
  <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 
  writes:> Without [Matt ]12:31b, 12:31a is untrue.

Re: [TruthTalk] Moderator commant




yeh, it's 
interesting..like somebody called jt 'a most gracious lady' or somethin' similar 
to that the other day--that's cool, but give it some thought--e.g., diplomats 
are respectable ppl, obviously, but isn't their job to argue with other 
diplomats?  who's the greatest diplomat(?); whoever wins the most arguments 
(graciously:) (aren't you living victoriously, DaveH?:)
 
On Mon, 27 Jun 2005 21:17:12 -0700 Dave Hansen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:

  DAVEH:   ..   Perhaps it is not what you say, 
  but rather how you say it.      :-) ..Some folks appear to take 
  TT pretty seriously. ||

Re: [TruthTalk] Truthtalk Polls

To join the TruthTalk_Polls Yahoo group, go to this link:

http://groups.yahoo.com/subscribe/TruthTalk_Polls

Enter your email address and you will be sent instructions on how to join 
the group.

Perry

From: "Charles Perry Locke" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Reply-To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org
To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Truthtalk Polls
Date: Mon, 27 Jun 2005 21:07:29 -0700

Great feedback.Let me check it out. I was trying to avoid allowing public 
membership.

From: "David Miller" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Reply-To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org
To: 
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Truthtalk Polls
Date: Mon, 27 Jun 2005 23:04:11 -0400

Perry wrote:
> As an experiment I opened a private Yahoo group
> called "TruthTalk_Polls".

I searched for the group using TruthTalk_Polls and TruthTalk.  I could not
find it.  Maybe making it private makes it not come up in searches?  Maybe
you need to provide a link or invitation for us to check it out.

Peace be with you.
David Miller.

--
"Let your speech be always with grace, seasoned with salt, that you may 
know how you ought to answer every man."  (Colossians 4:6) 
http://www.InnGlory.org

If you do not want to receive posts from this list, send an email to 
[EMAIL PROTECTED] and you will be unsubscribed.  If you have a 
friend who wants to join, tell him to send an e-mail to 
[EMAIL PROTECTED] and he will be subscribed.

--
"Let your speech be always with grace, seasoned with salt, that you may 
know how you ought to answer every man."  (Colossians 4:6) 
http://www.InnGlory.org

If you do not want to receive posts from this list, send an email to 
[EMAIL PROTECTED] and you will be unsubscribed.  If you have a 
friend who wants to join, tell him to send an e-mail to 
[EMAIL PROTECTED] and he will be subscribed.

--
"Let your speech be always with grace, seasoned with salt, that you may know how you 
ought to answer every man."  (Colossians 4:6) http://www.InnGlory.org

If you do not want to receive posts from this list, send an email to [EMAIL 
PROTECTED] and you will be unsubscribed.  If you have a friend who wants to 
join, tell him to send an e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and he will be subscribed.

Re: [TruthTalk] Belief

David Miller wrote:

DaveH wrote:

I believe there is a sense of direction that
TTers really don't have. I really don't see
a unity of faith in TT.

Which is not surprising because not everyone on TT is in the same faith.
Again, I simply caution you against finding value in the homogeniety of
ideas and opinions.

DAVEH: Value??? I don't think I used that term before, but it
certainly may apply. What I did say is I feel comfortable.

Our God is a God of diversity. He values unity, no
doubt, but he values unity among diversity not unity among homogeneity. We
see this in creation, with the diversity of species that exist, and we see
this in the fact that he created man male and female rather than unisex.

DAVEH: I am sure we have a different perspective on why he did
that.but I don't think you want to get me started teaching Mormon
doctrines here! :-)

We
see this in his prohibition of homosexuality, which is a form of unity
through homogeneity, perverting the unity in heterogeneity that he has
ordained.

DaveH wrote:

... as I see it the (presumed theological) intellect of TTers
is the main obstacle to their conformity. I believe that most
intelligent people in Jesus' day were less receptive to his unifying
message than those who had less knowledge than they had faith.
That's not to say that smart folks won't end up in heaven, but
perhaps it will be as difficult for them as it is for rich folks to find
their way there.

Very well said! We certainly agree upon this statement.

DAVEH: The bigger question is how closely do we resemble that
statement. And I do not try to point my finger at you or any other
TTerI am as guilty as anyoneexcept those TTers who are smarter
than me! :-D

Peace be with you.
David Miller.

--
"Let your speech be always with grace, seasoned with salt, that you may know how you ought to answer every man." (Colossians 4:6) http://www.InnGlory.org

If you do not want to receive posts from this list, send an email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and you will be unsubscribed. If you have a friend who wants to join, tell him to send an e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and he will be subscribed.

--
~~~
Dave Hansen
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.langlitz.com
~~~
If you wish to receive
things I find interesting,
I maintain six email lists...
JOKESTER, OPINIONS, LDS,
STUFF, MOTORCYCLE and CLIPS.

Re: [TruthTalk] Moderator commant




myth (but 
Matt indicates that JC'll forgive you for this blasphemous 
post:)
 
On Mon, 27 Jun 2005 18:56:52 -0700 "Charles Perry Locke" 
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 
writes:> Without [Matt ]12:31b, 12:31a is 
untrue.

Re: [TruthTalk] Moderator commant

DAVEH:   I do hope you are not suggesting I am overly sensitive, Perry.  
Like I said, I was not offended at your comment.  But it does tend to 
reveal your anti-Mormon attitude, does it not?


Charles Perry Locke wrote:

Good question, Terry! Sionce Dave has referred to himself as "this old 
mormon boy" on more than one occasion, I would guess my calling him 
"sly" was the offensive term! That is unless, like in so many groups 
today, they can call themselves names, but if an outsiderr does it 
they are offended!


Perry



Charles Perry Locke wrote:


TT members,

  I have been contacted by email privately and informed that my 
referring to DaveH as a "sly ol' mormon boy" was an ad hominem 
reference. After some discussion back and forth, and some research,  
I am convinced that it is so and that I need to apologize to Dave.

=



Just so others do not make the same error, which word was offensive?  
Was it sly, or old, or Mormon, or boy?

Terry





--
~~~
Dave Hansen
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.langlitz.com
~~~
If you wish to receive
things I find interesting,
I maintain six email lists...
JOKESTER, OPINIONS, LDS,
STUFF, MOTORCYCLE and CLIPS.

--
"Let your speech be always with grace, seasoned with salt, that you may know how you 
ought to answer every man."  (Colossians 4:6) http://www.InnGlory.org

If you do not want to receive posts from this list, send an email to [EMAIL 
PROTECTED] and you will be unsubscribed.  If you have a friend who wants to 
join, tell him to send an e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and he will be subscribed.

Re: [TruthTalk] Moderator commant





DAVEH:   Ain't it amazing what a little humor can do to alleviate the
tension.  One simply smilie can change a negative comment into a
positive commenttruly amazing, eh G!    Perhaps it is not what you
say, but rather how you say it.      
:-) 

    BTW.Do you suppose that is what TT lacks...humor?   Some
folks appear to take TT pretty seriously.  I suppose one could say they
take there religion seriously, but the question then becomes is TT
truly a religious forum that should be taken seriously?   Why is it
that some of the most vitriolic posts sometimes evoke a smile?  

[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

  
  
  this
rings true, DaveH--most of this arrogant ad hominem rhetoric
is non-sense, you sly 'ol Mormon:)
   
   
  On Mon, 27 Jun 2005 07:31:10 -0700 Dave
Hansen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
writes:
>the apology..really is not necessary


-- 
~~~
Dave Hansen
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.langlitz.com
~~~
If you wish to receive
things I find interesting,
I maintain six email lists...
JOKESTER, OPINIONS, LDS,
STUFF, MOTORCYCLE and CLIPS.

Re: [TruthTalk] Truthtalk Polls

Great feedback.Let me check it out. I was trying to avoid allowing public 
membership.

From: "David Miller" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Reply-To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org
To: 
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Truthtalk Polls
Date: Mon, 27 Jun 2005 23:04:11 -0400

Perry wrote:
> As an experiment I opened a private Yahoo group
> called "TruthTalk_Polls".

I searched for the group using TruthTalk_Polls and TruthTalk.  I could not
find it.  Maybe making it private makes it not come up in searches?  Maybe
you need to provide a link or invitation for us to check it out.

Peace be with you.
David Miller.

--
"Let your speech be always with grace, seasoned with salt, that you may 
know how you ought to answer every man."  (Colossians 4:6) 
http://www.InnGlory.org

If you do not want to receive posts from this list, send an email to 
[EMAIL PROTECTED] and you will be unsubscribed.  If you have a 
friend who wants to join, tell him to send an e-mail to 
[EMAIL PROTECTED] and he will be subscribed.

--
"Let your speech be always with grace, seasoned with salt, that you may know how you 
ought to answer every man."  (Colossians 4:6) http://www.InnGlory.org

If you do not want to receive posts from this list, send an email to [EMAIL 
PROTECTED] and you will be unsubscribed.  If you have a friend who wants to 
join, tell him to send an e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and he will be subscribed.

RE: Fw: [TruthTalk] CAN WE ELIMINATE WOMEN FROM THIS FORUM?

I was moderating when Elsman was on, and I think it is better to let 
sleeping dogs (and false prophets) lie (so to speak).

From: "David Miller" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Reply-To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org
To: "TruthTalk" 
CC: "Jennifer Delaney" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Fw: [TruthTalk] CAN WE ELIMINATE WOMEN FROM THIS FORUM?
Date: Mon, 27 Jun 2005 22:35:58 -0400

Here's an old email from more than a year ago.  Remember Lawyer Jim Elsman?
Do you think we should ask him for any admission of error in this prophecy
of his?

Peace be with you.
David Miller.

-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Saturday, May 01, 2004 1:13 PM
To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] CAN WE ELIMINATE WOMEN FROM THIS FORUM?

GENTS,
  THIS FORUM WILL ALWAYS BE IN CHAOS , AS LONG AS WE TOLERATE
WOMEN BLABBING ON IT.
  THEY ARE TO KEEP SILENT IN SUCH MATTERS OF THE CHURCH;  THEY
ARE THE WEAKER VESSEL;  THEY DON'T HAVE MINDS FOR THEOLOGY AND A
HERMENEUTIC.  PROOF:  THERE HAS NOT BEEN ONE GREAT WOMAN THEOLOGIAN IN
HISTORY, UNLESS THE WOMEN DREDGE UP SOME PRETENDER.   THAT IS PHENOMENAL!!!
NOT ONE!!!
 HARVARD THEOLOGICAL SCHOOL, WHERE I MATRICULATED, IS NOW
FULL OF THIS SAME CRAP-WOMEN WHO THINK THEY KNOW SOMETHING-- "GOD 
IS

A SHE".   "MARIOLOGY".  "RUTH WAS THE GREATEST OF THE O.T."
 WHEN ARE WE GOING TO RISE UP AND THROW THE BONDSWOMEN 
OUT?

  I DO SO MOTION THIS FORUM HEREBY, I.E. MEN ONLY!!!   YOU
WILL NOT AGREE TO IT, BUT I HAVE PROPHESIED THAT TT WILL NOT EXIST IN ONE
YEAR IF YOU DO NOT.

ELSMANSTEIN THE LAWYER

--
"Let your speech be always with grace, seasoned with salt, that you may 
know how you ought to answer every man."  (Colossians 4:6) 
http://www.InnGlory.org

If you do not want to receive posts from this list, send an email to 
[EMAIL PROTECTED] and you will be unsubscribed.  If you have a 
friend who wants to join, tell him to send an e-mail to 
[EMAIL PROTECTED] and he will be subscribed.

--
"Let your speech be always with grace, seasoned with salt, that you may know how you 
ought to answer every man."  (Colossians 4:6) http://www.InnGlory.org

If you do not want to receive posts from this list, send an email to [EMAIL 
PROTECTED] and you will be unsubscribed.  If you have a friend who wants to 
join, tell him to send an e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and he will be subscribed.

Re: [TruthTalk] Moderator commant

David writes  > We apparently understand her language differently.  She is
saying that his adultery alone is enough to tip the scale and discredit him
as being a true prophet.  She speaks about his unrepentant sin. . . .

BT  >  Yes, later, after having been called on her statement.

DM  > I believe that holiness, the way we walk, is a great determiner of
what doctrines we embrace.  Do you?

BT  >  Yeah, probably. Hey Izzy, if I have misinterpreted your intentions or
misrepresented you in any way, please forgive me. I recognize that you may
have been misunderstood.

bill


--
"Let your speech be always with grace, seasoned with salt, that you may know 
how you ought to answer every man."  (Colossians 4:6) http://www.InnGlory.org

If you do not want to receive posts from this list, send an email to [EMAIL 
PROTECTED] and you will be unsubscribed.  If you have a friend who wants to 
join, tell him to send an e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and he will be subscribed.

Re: [TruthTalk] Moderator commant

Bill Taylor wrote:
> Nice try, David, but Izzy uses the word "totally" in
> her comments, yet does not make provision for
> repentance.

I said it was an unspoken assumption in what she wrote.  Why be so obtuse? 
The word "totally" doesn't change my point one bit.

The person who repents of his sin is no longer stereotyped by that sin.  He 
is forgiven.  The thief who repents is no longer a thief.  The adulterer who 
repents is no longer an adulterer.  The one who denies Christ and repents is 
no longer one who denies Christ.  The blasphemer who repents and no longer 
blasphemes is no longer a blasphemer.  You get the point.

Bill Taylor wrote:
> You are saying that "adultery" is NOT "totally" what
> discredits Joseph Smith's credentials

We apparently understand her language differently.  She is saying that his 
adultery alone is enough to tip the scale and discredit him as being a true 
prophet.  She speaks about his unrepentant sin.  That does not mean that he 
might not have spoken some things that were true, but she does not expect to 
see him in the new kingdom.

I believe that holiness, the way we walk, is a great determiner of what 
doctrines we embrace.  Do you?

Peace be with you.
David Miller. 

--
"Let your speech be always with grace, seasoned with salt, that you may know 
how you ought to answer every man."  (Colossians 4:6) http://www.InnGlory.org

If you do not want to receive posts from this list, send an email to [EMAIL 
PROTECTED] and you will be unsubscribed.  If you have a friend who wants to 
join, tell him to send an e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and he will be subscribed.

Re: [TruthTalk] CAN WE ELIMINATE WOMEN FROM THIS FORUM?

John wrote:
>> Specifically,  where did he go wrong?  

Jim Elsman wrote:
> I HAVE PROPHESIED THAT TT WILL NOT EXIST 
> IN ONE YEAR IF YOU DO NOT. 
[get rid of the women on the list]

Peace be with you.
David Miller.

--
"Let your speech be always with grace, seasoned with salt, that you may know 
how you ought to answer every man."  (Colossians 4:6) http://www.InnGlory.org

If you do not want to receive posts from this list, send an email to [EMAIL 
PROTECTED] and you will be unsubscribed.  If you have a friend who wants to 
join, tell him to send an e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and he will be subscribed.

Re: [TruthTalk] Moderator commant

Nice try, David, but Izzy uses the word "totally" in her comments, yet does
not make provision for repentance. That is what I keyed upon. If hers be the
correct criterion then King David would be disqualified as well. You are
saying that "adultery" is NOT "totally" what discredits Joseph Smith's
credentials; his lack of repentance plays a role in his disqualification as
well. That, my friend, is another premise altogether.

Bill


- Original Message -
From: "David Miller" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: 
Sent: Monday, June 27, 2005 8:48 PM
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] ** Moderator commant **


> Bill Taylor wrote:
> > According to your criterion, Izzy, what difference should
> > it make: "I believe the fact that he was an adulterer totally
> > discredits his credentials as a prophet of god"?
>
> I think the unspoken assumption here is that unlike King David, Joseph
Smith
> never repented of his adultery, but rather gave prophecies which justified
> it and pronounced curses upon his original wife Emma if she did not accept
> his other women.  Jesus taught us to spot false prophets by their fruit.
We
> don't gather grapes from thistles, and so we expect godly character from
> true prophets and ungodly character from false prophets.
>
> Note that Balaam was a false prophet not because he failed to speak for
> Yahweh, nor because he spoke falsely in his name, but because he had a
> covetous heart.
>
> Peace be with you.
> David Miller.
>
>
> --
> "Let your speech be always with grace, seasoned with salt, that you may
know how you ought to answer every man."  (Colossians 4:6)
http://www.InnGlory.org
>
> If you do not want to receive posts from this list, send an email to
[EMAIL PROTECTED] and you will be unsubscribed.  If you have a
friend who wants to join, tell him to send an e-mail to
[EMAIL PROTECTED] and he will be subscribed.
>
>


--
"Let your speech be always with grace, seasoned with salt, that you may know 
how you ought to answer every man."  (Colossians 4:6) http://www.InnGlory.org

If you do not want to receive posts from this list, send an email to [EMAIL 
PROTECTED] and you will be unsubscribed.  If you have a friend who wants to 
join, tell him to send an e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and he will be subscribed.

Re: [TruthTalk] Truthtalk Polls

Perry wrote:
> As an experiment I opened a private Yahoo group
> called "TruthTalk_Polls".

I searched for the group using TruthTalk_Polls and TruthTalk.  I could not 
find it.  Maybe making it private makes it not come up in searches?  Maybe 
you need to provide a link or invitation for us to check it out.

Peace be with you.
David Miller. 

--
"Let your speech be always with grace, seasoned with salt, that you may know 
how you ought to answer every man."  (Colossians 4:6) http://www.InnGlory.org

If you do not want to receive posts from this list, send an email to [EMAIL 
PROTECTED] and you will be unsubscribed.  If you have a friend who wants to 
join, tell him to send an e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and he will be subscribed.

Re: [TruthTalk] Moderator commant

Kevin wrote:
> I meant the foolishness of the AD Hom rule since
> there is no human way to frame it by use of an
> objective test.

Even if this were true, it would not disqualify the idea of having an ad 
hominem rule.  Subjective tests are just fine.

We attempt to frame the rule objectively in the following way:  write on the 
subject being discussed and do not attack the other poster's character.

We enforce the rule in a subjective way:  The moderator determines when 
someone is crossing the line and causing the discussion to detour because of 
personal attacks.

What is foolish about this?

Peace be with you.
David Miller 

--
"Let your speech be always with grace, seasoned with salt, that you may know 
how you ought to answer every man."  (Colossians 4:6) http://www.InnGlory.org

If you do not want to receive posts from this list, send an email to [EMAIL 
PROTECTED] and you will be unsubscribed.  If you have a friend who wants to 
join, tell him to send an e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and he will be subscribed.

Re: [TruthTalk] Moderator commant

Bill Taylor wrote:
> According to your criterion, Izzy, what difference should
> it make: "I believe the fact that he was an adulterer totally
> discredits his credentials as a prophet of god"?

I think the unspoken assumption here is that unlike King David, Joseph Smith 
never repented of his adultery, but rather gave prophecies which justified 
it and pronounced curses upon his original wife Emma if she did not accept 
his other women.  Jesus taught us to spot false prophets by their fruit.  We 
don't gather grapes from thistles, and so we expect godly character from 
true prophets and ungodly character from false prophets.

Note that Balaam was a false prophet not because he failed to speak for 
Yahweh, nor because he spoke falsely in his name, but because he had a 
covetous heart.

Peace be with you.
David Miller. 

--
"Let your speech be always with grace, seasoned with salt, that you may know 
how you ought to answer every man."  (Colossians 4:6) http://www.InnGlory.org

If you do not want to receive posts from this list, send an email to [EMAIL 
PROTECTED] and you will be unsubscribed.  If you have a friend who wants to 
join, tell him to send an e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and he will be subscribed.

Re: [TruthTalk] CAN WE ELIMINATE WOMEN FROM THIS FORUM?


Specifically,  where did he go wrong?  
 
JD  -Original Message-From: David Miller [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: TruthTalk Cc: Jennifer Delaney ; [EMAIL PROTECTED]Sent: Mon, 27 Jun 2005 22:35:58 -0400Subject: Fw: [TruthTalk] CAN WE ELIMINATE WOMEN FROM THIS FORUM?


Here's an old email from more than a year ago.  Remember Lawyer Jim Elsman? 
Do you think we should ask him for any admission of error in this prophecy 
of his?

Peace be with you.
David Miller.

-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] On Behalf Of [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Saturday, May 01, 2004 1:13 PM
To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] CAN WE ELIMINATE WOMEN FROM THIS FORUM?


GENTS,
  THIS FORUM WILL ALWAYS BE IN CHAOS , AS LONG AS WE TOLERATE
WOMEN BLABBING ON IT.
  THEY ARE TO KEEP SILENT IN SUCH MATTERS OF THE CHURCH;  THEY
ARE THE WEAKER VESSEL;  THEY DON'T HAVE MINDS FOR THEOLOGY AND A
HERMENEUTIC.  PROOF:  THERE HAS NOT BEEN ONE GREAT WOMAN THEOLOGIAN IN
HISTORY, UNLESS THE WOMEN DREDGE UP SOME PRETENDER.   THAT IS PHENOMENAL!!!
NOT ONE!!!
 HARVARD THEOLOGICAL SCHOOL, WHERE I MATRICULATED, IS NOW
FULL OF THIS SAME CRAP-WOMEN WHO THINK THEY KNOW SOMETHING-- "GOD IS
A SHE".   "MARIOLOGY".  "RUTH WAS THE GREATEST OF THE O.T."
 WHEN ARE WE GOING TO RISE UP AND THROW THE BONDSWOMEN OUT?
  I DO SO MOTION THIS FORUM HEREBY, I.E. MEN ONLY!!!   YOU
WILL NOT AGREE TO IT, BUT I HAVE PROPHESIED THAT TT WILL NOT EXIST IN ONE
YEAR IF YOU DO NOT.

ELSMANSTEIN THE LAWYER



--
"Let your speech be always with grace, seasoned with salt, that you may know how 
you ought to answer every man."  (Colossians 4:6) http://www.InnGlory.org

If you do not want to receive posts from this list, send an email to 
[EMAIL PROTECTED] and you will be unsubscribed.  If you have a friend 
who wants to join, tell him to send an e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and 
he will be subscribed.

Re: [TruthTalk] Moderator commant


Whew  !!!   There for a second, I thought you missed the point.  
 
I am saving this one, by the way...  in the words of MY mentor,  brother Farley,  AWESOME  !!!  
 
JD  -Original Message-From: Terry Clifton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgSent: Mon, 27 Jun 2005 21:09:49 -0500Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] ** Moderator commant **


[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: 



Samson  -  well he was a judge.   Come on guys  --  what are arguing about  -  that there is  good reason to make fun of and humiliate others with whom you disagree  --   is that the point?   
 
JD  ==You are absolutely right,Rev.  We have to find a way to be cruel without it being considered ad hom. :)

Fw: [TruthTalk] CAN WE ELIMINATE WOMEN FROM THIS FORUM?

Here's an old email from more than a year ago.  Remember Lawyer Jim Elsman? 
Do you think we should ask him for any admission of error in this prophecy 
of his?

Peace be with you.
David Miller.

-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Saturday, May 01, 2004 1:13 PM
To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] CAN WE ELIMINATE WOMEN FROM THIS FORUM?


GENTS,
  THIS FORUM WILL ALWAYS BE IN CHAOS , AS LONG AS WE TOLERATE
WOMEN BLABBING ON IT.
  THEY ARE TO KEEP SILENT IN SUCH MATTERS OF THE CHURCH;  THEY
ARE THE WEAKER VESSEL;  THEY DON'T HAVE MINDS FOR THEOLOGY AND A
HERMENEUTIC.  PROOF:  THERE HAS NOT BEEN ONE GREAT WOMAN THEOLOGIAN IN
HISTORY, UNLESS THE WOMEN DREDGE UP SOME PRETENDER.   THAT IS PHENOMENAL!!!
NOT ONE!!!
 HARVARD THEOLOGICAL SCHOOL, WHERE I MATRICULATED, IS NOW
FULL OF THIS SAME CRAP-WOMEN WHO THINK THEY KNOW SOMETHING-- "GOD IS
A SHE".   "MARIOLOGY".  "RUTH WAS THE GREATEST OF THE O.T."
 WHEN ARE WE GOING TO RISE UP AND THROW THE BONDSWOMEN OUT?
  I DO SO MOTION THIS FORUM HEREBY, I.E. MEN ONLY!!!   YOU
WILL NOT AGREE TO IT, BUT I HAVE PROPHESIED THAT TT WILL NOT EXIST IN ONE
YEAR IF YOU DO NOT.

ELSMANSTEIN THE LAWYER



--
"Let your speech be always with grace, seasoned with salt, that you may know 
how you ought to answer every man."  (Colossians 4:6) http://www.InnGlory.org

If you do not want to receive posts from this list, send an email to [EMAIL 
PROTECTED] and you will be unsubscribed.  If you have a friend who wants to 
join, tell him to send an e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and he will be subscribed.

Re: [TruthTalk] Belief

Debbie wrote:
> David, I am quite sincerely pleasantly surprised by the
> below. It is quite different from the approach I remember
> you taking some time ago (I'm talking months), where you
> seemed to be saying that God wants us all to think the
> same thing. Am I misremembering?

You might be misinterpreting me somewhere, because I still stand by my 
position that believers in Christ are to have the same mind and be in one 
accord.  My past comments have always reflected that this is through being 
complimentary to each other rather than unity through strict uniformity.  It 
means that Paul can say we are justified by grace through faith without 
works and James can say we are justified by works and not by faith alone, 
and yet there is unity and agreement and the same mind between them.  We see 
James agreeing with Paul in Acts 15, and we see Paul agreeing with James in 
Acts 21.  It has much to do with attitude and the ability to see from 
someone else's point of view.

It is somewhat interesting on this eternal sonship discussion, because I 
truly think that Bill Taylor and I are not too far apart on this.  Same 
thing with John.  Yet, John says we are miles apart just when I think the 
gap is closing.  This seems to be a consistent problem.  I often see the gap 
in understanding to be closing when others see it widening even further.  I 
continue to take the following admonition of Paul to heart:

1 Corinthians 1:10
(10) Now I beseech you, brethren, by the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that 
ye all speak the same thing, and that there be no divisions among you; but 
that ye be perfectly joined together in the same mind and in the same 
judgment.

Peace be with you.
David Miller. 

--
"Let your speech be always with grace, seasoned with salt, that you may know 
how you ought to answer every man."  (Colossians 4:6) http://www.InnGlory.org

If you do not want to receive posts from this list, send an email to [EMAIL 
PROTECTED] and you will be unsubscribed.  If you have a friend who wants to 
join, tell him to send an e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and he will be subscribed.

[TruthTalk] Truthtalk Polls


TT members,

  As an experiment I opened a private Yahoo group called "TruthTalk_Polls". 
I thought it would be interesting to hold truthtalk polls occasionally. With 
so few posting, it may prove to be useless, but we can give it a try. A 
yahoo group also has chat and other capabilities. I have disabled most of 
them, but if you think we should open up one fo the areas, we'll give it a 
try. Come o think of it, I am going to be sure the chat room is enabled. 
Check in there from time to time to se who is hanging out.


  As a test I have entered a sample poll. If you have a Yahoo login (they 
are free), why not head over, join the grooup, and give it a try.


  If you do not have a login, you can create one on the spot. I think this 
will provide a great opportunity for us to learn more about the group as a 
whole. Polling is totally anonymous. The pollis set up to close 
automatically in 7 days, at which time each member of the group will be 
emailed the results.


  Let me know if you have any problems...this is the first Yahoo group I 
have started.


Perry


--
"Let your speech be always with grace, seasoned with salt, that you may know how you 
ought to answer every man."  (Colossians 4:6) http://www.InnGlory.org

If you do not want to receive posts from this list, send an email to [EMAIL 
PROTECTED] and you will be unsubscribed.  If you have a friend who wants to 
join, tell him to send an e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and he will be subscribed.

Re: [TruthTalk] Moderator commant





[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

  
  
  Samson  -  well he was a judge.   Come on guys  --  what are
arguing about  -  that there is  good reason to make fun of and
humiliate others with whom you disagree  --   is that the point?   
   
  JD 
 ==
  
  

You are absolutely right,Rev.  We have to find a way to be cruel
without it being considered ad hom. :)

Re: [TruthTalk] Moderator commant

So what, you say? Because I think it is misleading to tell only half the 
story. Mat 12:31a makes a wide sweeping statement that is conditioned by 
12:31b. Without 12:31b, 12:31a is untrue. They go together. Together they 
form a truth that cannot be formulated by either part alone.

From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Reply-To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org
To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] ** Moderator commant **
Date: Mon, 27 Jun 2005 19:06:57 -0600

yep, but so what? the former condition is radically true or the latter
condition means nothing

On Mon, 27 Jun 2005 18:06:54 -0700 "Charles Perry Locke"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> "... but the blasphemy against the Holy Ghost shall not be forgiven
> unto  men. " - JC, the rest of Matt 12:31.
||

--
"Let your speech be always with grace, seasoned with salt, that you may know how you 
ought to answer every man."  (Colossians 4:6) http://www.InnGlory.org

If you do not want to receive posts from this list, send an email to [EMAIL 
PROTECTED] and you will be unsubscribed.  If you have a friend who wants to 
join, tell him to send an e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and he will be subscribed.

Re: [TruthTalk] Moderator commant


Did you happen to reproduce,  Kevin.   If you did and when they came up with some ridiculous, childish, immature,  nonsensical, boorish,  humiliating and/or sarcastic comment directed to the Mom or one of the siblings  --  what did you do..throw up your hands and make the same argument you have made in this post?    If a six year old kid is expected to act "grown up,"  why not all of us here on TT?
 
JD  -Original Message-From: Kevin Deegan To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgSent: Mon, 27 Jun 2005 16:04:13 -0700 (PDT)Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] ** Moderator commant **



Don't read in what was not there. I meant the foolishness of the AD Hom rule since there is no human way to frame it by use of an objective test. 

A perfect illustration of foolishness.
Could some one out line the "objective test" used to identify an "infraction"
Sorry I was not clear. Might have to do with 8 hours sleep in 3 days.
 
The next comment was an add on since I found it kind of shocking if you were implying any authority, moral or otherwise. I thot U might be installing yourself as the new Pope of TT.
 
AD Hom suggestion:
Maybe we should all ask before posting
"Mother may I"?Bill Taylor  wrote:

No authority here, Kevin. I figure if any are righteous enough to pass the scrutiny of this test, it's the least he or she could do to tell me the answer. By the way, please explain to me the "foolishness" of my words, or are yours just a marble short of another lazy ad hom?
 
Bill

- Original Message - 
From: Kevin Deegan 
To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org 
Sent: Monday, June 27, 2005 3:20 PM
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] ** Moderator commant **

A perfect illustration of foolishness.
 
Could some one out line the "objective test" used to identify an "infraction"
 
And unless you are claiming to be our spiritual Authority over us, why "any Christian who feels justified in using ad homs against another needs to explain to me" ?Bill Taylor  wrote:



The Moderator writes  >  Bill, I don't really think one has to be omniscient to imagine a biblical character that matches the characteristics you listed, . . .
 
And Judy writes  >  You didn't mention names but one does not have to be a rocket scientist to figure out who is implied here. . . .
 
My point in using this character as my example was to demonstrate that whether it be Calvin or a king, none of us can withstand the scrutiny of God's microscope apart from the cleansing blood of Christ -- not even if that king be David. If our own moral perfection is the criterion by which we speak, then none of us could utter a word. 
 
Yes, we believe by faith that David's words are inspired. Is that why we abstain from blasting him? What about those who don't yet have our view of inspiration? Are they justified in dismissing his words on the basis of his actions? I hope they do not.
 
And how about the Apostle Paul: Are they justified in dismissing his words on the basis of his actions? Or ought they rather determine the truthfulness of his claims by an examination of his words? 
 
You tell me: Is there a single human author in Scripture whose words can withstand the scrutiny of an ad hom attack? If anyone ought to know that personal transgressions do not determine the truthfulness of statements pertaining to God in Christ, it is the Christian. And any Christian who feels justified in using ad homs against another needs to explain to me why God chose to use sinful men to record the truest words ever spoken. Ad homs are a fallacy because none of us can withstand their attack. The truth is, it is on the basis of who Christ is and Christ alone that we speak (and that means any of us: be it Calvin, King David, Paul, you, me, Judy, or the vielest offender). If statements are true, they are true because Christ is the Truth. Apart from him there is not enough truth among us all to utt
er a single word. Hence if it is true, it is Christ's truth, sinners that we are. And if it is true it will stand upon the substance of who he is, regardless of who speaks the words. And so Christians who feel justified in resorting to ad homs in dismissing arguments, should shut their mouths and repent -- because if they have once sinned, there is no getting the plank out of those eyes.
 
Bill 
 
- Original Message - 
From: "Charles Perry Locke" 
To: 
Sent: Monday, June 27, 2005 11:55 AM
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] ** Moderator commant **
> Bill, I don't really think one has to be omniscient to imagine a biblical > character that matches the characteristics you listed, although I did see a > three musketeer movie once in which King Louis did exactly the same thing. > To which were you referring? :-)> > Just use good taste. I have called Joseph Smith a lot of things through the > years, and have used those ad hominem arguments to discount his prophetic > position. That is not good debate styl

Re: [TruthTalk] Moderator commant


Samson  -  well he was a judge.   Come on guys  --  what are arguing about  -  that there is  good reason to make fun of and humiliate others with whom you disagree  --   is that the point?   
 
JD  -Original Message-From: Kevin Deegan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgSent: Mon, 27 Jun 2005 16:09:04 -0700 (PDT)Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] ** Moderator commant **



The King repented. David was not a prophet. Do you have an example of a prophet that was in sexual sin?
Joe continued in his sexual sin for years and lied about it from 1838 till 1844 when he shot two men before he was killed.Bill Taylor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Izzy wrote > Perry, how does that relate to JSmith and the mormons? Ibelieve the fact that he was an adulterer totally discredits his credentialsas a prophet of god.How then were King David's credentials any better? Ought he be disqualifiedby the same criterion?Bill- Original Message -From: "ShieldsFamily" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>To: Sent: Monday, June 27, 2005 4:42 PMSubject: RE: [TruthTalk] ** Moderator commant **> I believe the fact> that he was an adulterer totally discredits his credentials as a prophetof> god. Izzy>> -Original Message-> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Charles PerryLocke> Sent: Monday, June 27, 2005 9:03 AM> To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org> Subject: Re: [Tr
uthTalk] ** Moderator commant **>> Bill,>> In TT we are trying to prevent discussions from becoming emotional in> nature because of demeaning and hurtful statements, so it applies directly> to the persons with whom we are immeditaly engaging in debate.>> However, from a debating point of view if one chooses to bring in> arguments made by another, say Calvin, those arguments, too, should haveto> stand on the facts of Calvin's argument, not on personal attacks onCalvin.>> Perry>> >From: "Bill Taylor" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>> >Reply-To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org> >To: > >Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] ** Moderator commant **> >Date: Mon, 27 Jun 2005 08:29:28 -0600> >> >Hi Perry, I am impressed by your sincerity and humility. Thanks for the> >great example to the rest of us.> >> >I have a question for you. You write t
hat "Specifically, 'ad hominem> >argumentum', [which is what is mentioned on the TT discussions guidelines> >page] refers to trying to gain an edge in an argument by attacking the> >person rather than the topic, again, regardless whether it is true or> >false.' Does this apply only to the one with whom one is arguing, or does> >it> >apply as well to attacks against the person of persons whom one might> >reference in constructing ones arguments. For example, a dismissal ofJohn> >Calvin's views on election via an attack against him as a person, i.e.,his> >dealings with Servatis; or a dismissal of the content and substance ofthe> >Nicene Creed because it was formulated by supposedly corrupt Roman> >Catholics -- are these ad hominem arguments acceptable forms of> >argumentation on TruthTalk?> >> >Bill> >- Original Message -> >From: "Charles Perry Locke" > >To: > >Sent: Monday, June 27, 2005 8:03 AM> >Subject: [TruthTalk] ** Moderator commant **> >> >> > > TT members,> > >> > > I have been contacted by email privately and informed that my> >referring> > > to DaveH as a "sly ol' mormon boy" was an ad hominem reference. After> >some> > > discussion back and forth, and some research, I am convinced that itis> >so> > > and that I need to apologize to Dave.> > >> > > I previously thought that if one merely stated a belief aboutsomeone> > > that was true, that it was not an ad hominem statement, but upon doinga> > > little researh I discovered that it does not matter whether it is true> >or> > > not...an ad hominem reference is a comment "to the man", so saying> >anything> > > abo
ut anyone personally, whether true or not, positive or negative, is> >an> >ad> > > hominem reference. If I were to say, "John, I really think you are a> >smart> > > guy", that is an ad hominem reference, too, because it is directed at> > > someone personally.> > >> > > However, on TT I think it is a little more specific in that TT> >wishes> >to> > > avoid the NEGATIVE ad hominem reference, that is, one that thereceiver> >of> > > the comment would find insulting. Dave indicated in a post that he> >thought> > > "sly ol' mormon boy" was an ad hominem reference.> > >> > > So, with this in mind, Dave, I apologize to you for making an> >ad-hominem> > > reference.> > >> > > The above is a very general interpretation of "ad hominem".> >Specifically,> > > "ad hominem ar
gumentum", [which is what is mentioned on the TT> >discussions> > > guidelines page] refers to trying to gain an edge in an argument by> > > attacking the person rather than the topic, again, regardless whetherit> >is> > > true or false.> > >> > > Even though I am acting as moderator, I, too, am prone to making> > > inappropriate remarks at times, and I welcome private email fromanyone> >that> > > would like to poi

Re: [TruthTalk] Moderator commant


So your theory  is really an anti-Mormon provision.    We all need to be careful not to manufacture "doctrine" that provides us with the permission to caustic in our argumentation  -  in Debbie's posts  we find "a quarrel ruins a a good argument" or words to that effort.   
 
Jd  -Original Message-From: ShieldsFamily <[EMAIL PROTECTED]com>To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgSent: Mon, 27 Jun 2005 17:57:48 -0500Subject: RE: [TruthTalk] ** Moderator commant **


Let's see--did King David also write the BoM (the sci-fi novel which has
deceived millions?) Or perhaps he did that and repented of it as well?
(Unlike JSmith who never repented of either.) Izzy

-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] On Behalf Of Bill Taylor
Sent: Monday, June 27, 2005 4:55 PM
To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] ** Moderator commant **

Izzy wrote  >  Perry, how does that relate to JSmith and the mormons? I
believe the fact that he was an adulterer totally discredits his credentials
as a prophet of god.



How then were King David's credentials any better? Ought he be disqualified
by the same criterion?

Bill

- Original Message -
From: "ShieldsFamily" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: 
Sent: Monday, June 27, 2005 4:42 PM
Subject: RE: [TruthTalk] ** Moderator commant **


>  I believe the fact
> that he was an adulterer totally discredits his credentials as a prophet
of
> god. Izzy
>
> -Original Message-
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] On Behalf Of Charles Perry
Locke
> Sent: Monday, June 27, 2005 9:03 AM
> To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org
> Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] ** Moderator commant **
>
> Bill,
>
>   In TT we are trying to prevent discussions from becoming emotional in
> nature because of demeaning and hurtful statements, so it applies directly
> to the persons with whom we are immeditaly engaging in debate.
>
>However, from a debating point of view if one chooses to bring in
> arguments made by another, say Calvin, those arguments, too, should have
to
> stand on the facts of Calvin's argument, not on personal attacks on
Calvin.
>
> Perry
>
> >From: "Bill Taylor" 
> >Reply-To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org
> >To: 
> >Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] ** Moderator commant **
> >Date: Mon, 27 Jun 2005 08:29:28 -0600
> >
> >Hi Perry, I am impressed by your sincerity and humility. Thanks for the
> >great example to the rest of us.
> >
> >I have a question for you. You write that "Specifically, 'ad hominem
> >argumentum', [which is what is mentioned on the TT discussions guidelines
> >page]  refers to trying to gain an edge in an argument by attacking the
> >person rather than the topic, again, regardless whether it is true or
> >false.' Does this apply only to the one with whom one is arguing, or does
> >it
> >apply as well to attacks against the person of persons whom one might
> >reference in constructing ones arguments. For example, a dismissal of
John
> >Calvin's views on election via an attack against him as a person, i.e.,
his
> >dealings with Servatis; or a dismissal of the content and substance of
the
> >Nicene Creed because it was formulated by supposedly corrupt Roman
> >Catholics -- are these ad hominem arguments acceptable forms of
> >argumentation on TruthTalk?
> >
> >Bill
> >- Original Message -
> >From: "Charles Perry Locke" 
> >To: 
> >Sent: Monday, June 27, 2005 8:03 AM
> >Subject: [TruthTalk] ** Moderator commant **
> >
> >
> > > TT members,
> > >
> > >I have been contacted by email privately and informed that my
> >referring
> > > to DaveH as a "sly ol' mormon boy" was an ad hominem reference. After
> >some
> > > discussion back and forth, and some research,  I am convinced that it
is
> >so
> > > and that I need to apologize to Dave.
> > >
> > >I previously thought that if one merely stated a belief about
someone
> > > that was true, that it was not an ad hominem statement, but upon doing
a
> > > little researh I discovered that it does not matter whether it is true
> >or
> > > not...an ad hominem reference is a comment "to the man", so saying
> >anything
> > > about anyone personally, whether true or not, positive or negative, is
> >an
> >ad
> > > hominem reference. If I were to say, "John, I really think you are a
> >smart
> > > guy", that is an ad hominem reference, too, because it is directed at
> > > someone personally.
> > >
> > > However, on TT I think it is a little more specific in that TT
> >wishes
> >to
> > > avoid the NEGATIVE ad hominem reference, that is, one that the
receiver
> >of
> > > the comment would find insulting. Dave indicated in a post that he
> >thought
> > > "sly ol' mormon boy" was an ad hominem reference.
> > >
> > >So, with this in mind, Dave, I apologize to you for making an
> >ad-hominem
> > > reference.
> > >
> > >The above is a very general i

Re: [TruthTalk] A apologetic for the eternal sonship of Chr JD

Amen!!
  -Original Message-From: Debbie Sawczak <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgSent: Mon, 27 Jun 2005 17:15:35 -0400Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] A apologetic for the eternal sonship of Chr JD

"...we can disagree without quarrelling, remembering Chesterton's observation that the problem with a quarrel is that it spoils an argument. And, as in all such disagreements, we do well to keep in mind the rule of Richard Baxter (famously reiterated by John XXIII), 'In necessary things, unity; in doubtful things, liberty; in all things, charity." To which one need only add this necessary thing: all our puzzling, disputing, and speculating must finally give way to the most pure act of faith, which is doxology. So it was with St. Paul [...] at the end of Romans 11, and so it must be with us. At the end of all our trying to understand, we join in declaring:

'For God has consigned all to disobedience, that He may have mercy upon all. O the depth of the riches and wisdom and knowledge of God! How unsearchable are his judgments and how inscrutable his ways! "For who has known the mind of the Lord, or who has been his counsellor?" "Or who has given a gift to him that he might be repaid?" For from him and through him and to him are all things. To him be glory forever. Amen.'"  --Tim Perry

Debbie

- Original Message - 
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org 
Sent: Monday, June 27, 2005 11:05 AM
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] A apologetic for the eternal sonship of Chr JD

Thank you for your response.  Obviously, we are miles apart on this and the distance seems to be increasing.  I believe, however, that God can work through either understanding    That is not to say that there is more than one truth on a subject.   Rather,  it is to declare our God as sovereign in essence, power and influence.   I guess this comes down to what Debbie has been discussing with DAveH.   Is God bigger than our perceptions of Him and His doctrine?   

JD -Original Message-From: David Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgSent: Mon, 27 Jun 2005 09:40:26 -0400Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] A apologetic for the eternal sonship of Chr JD

John wrote:
> I have been working on this since 6:00 am
> and it is nearly 3:00 !!   Yikes .

LOL.  Studying is fun, isn't it!

Nice piece, John.  I don't think I disagreed with much of anything in it.  I 
just think it argued more for the Divinity of Christ rather than the idea of 
eternal sonship.

Both you and Bill seem to hammer two ideas in discussing this topic:

1)  Jesus is the eternal God

2) Jesus has a relationship in the Godhead best understood by us as a Father 
/ Son relationship.

I do not disagree with either of these concepts.  Rather, I affirm them both 
as being true.  My primary concern with this subject has to do with how we 
interpret Scripture.  What does the Scripture mean when it says, "this day I 
have begotten you."  The Holy Ghost has a specific message here.  In the 
earlier discussion, I was not too sure about it, but as the discussion 
progressed, I think Judy made her case very well.  Adam Clark also makes 
some good points about it.  The Biblical passage is referring to his 
incarnation when he became son of man, son of David, son of God.

Peace be with you.
David Miller. 

--
"Let your speech be always with grace, seasoned with salt, that you may know how 
you ought to answer every man."  (Colossians 4:6) http://www.InnGlory.org

If you do not want to receive posts from this list, send an email to 
[EMAIL PROTECTED] and you will be unsubscribed.  If you have a friend 
who wants to join, tell him to send an e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and 
he will be subscribed.

Re: [TruthTalk] Moderator commant


Don't need to  --   I gots a mirror  !!!
 
JD  -Original Message-From: Kevin Deegan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgSent: Mon, 27 Jun 2005 11:51:12 -0700 (PDT)Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] ** Moderator commant **



Let's take a vote![EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: 



I leave the house with another smile on my rather handsome face.  
 
Jd  -Original Message-From: Terry Clifton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgSent: Mon, 27 Jun 2005 10:08:32 -0500Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] ** Moderator commant **


Charles Perry Locke wrote:  > TT members, > > I have been contacted by email privately and informed that my > referring to DaveH as a "sly ol' mormon boy" was an ad hominem > reference. After some discussion back and forth, and some research, I > am convinced that it is so and that I need to apologize to Dave. > =  Just so others do not make the same error, which word was offensive? Was it sly, or old, or Mormon, or boy? Terry  -- "Let your speech be always with grace, seasoned with salt, that you may know how you ought to answer every man." (Colossians 4:6) http://www.InnGlory.org  If you do not want to receive posts from this list, send an email to Le [EMAIL PROTECTED] and you will be unsubscribed. If you have a friend who wants to join, tell him to send an e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and he will be subscribed. 
__Do You Yahoo!?Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com

Re: [TruthTalk] Moderator commant





yep, but so what? 
the former condition is radically true or the latter condition means 
nothing
 
On Mon, 27 Jun 2005 18:06:54 -0700 "Charles Perry Locke" 
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 
writes:> > "... but the blasphemy against the Holy Ghost shall not 
be forgiven > unto  men. " - JC, the rest of Matt 
12:31.||

Re: [TruthTalk] Moderator commant


Dang  !!!   The man from the high plains does know how to cut to the chase  !!!
But , don't you have some biblical example that might work just as well  ---or did (will) some of us miss the point?
 
JD
 
  -Original Message-From: Bill Taylor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgSent: Mon, 27 Jun 2005 10:04:12 -0600Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] ** Moderator commant **





The Moderator responds  >  . . .those arguments, too, should have to stand on the facts of Calvin's argument, not on personal attacks on Calvin.
 
You don't say! Hmm. If you were ever to enforce this one, it would render some of us speechless. Just think how it would affect the traffic here on TruthTalk if participants were required to actually research, contemplate, and address the substance of theological statements, instead of dismissing them out-of-hand simply because the theologian seduced and slept with another man's wife and then, to cover his crime, had him sent to the front lines to be murdered -- I think you should go for it. 
 
Bill
- Original Message - 
From: "Charles Perry Locke" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: 
Sent: Monday, June 27, 2005 9:03 AM
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] ** Moderator commant **
> Bill,> >   In TT we are trying to prevent discussions from becoming emotional in > nature because of demeaning and hurtful statements, so it applies directly > to the persons with whom we are immeditaly engaging in debate.> >    However, from a debating point of view if one chooses to bring in > arguments made by another, say Calvin, those arguments, too, should have to > stand on the facts of Calvin's argument, not on personal attacks on Calvin.> > Perry> > >From: "Bill Taylor" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>> >Reply-To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org> >To: > >Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] ** Moderator commant **> >Date: Mon, 27 Jun 2005 08:29:28 -0600> >> >Hi Perry, I am impressed by your sincerity and humility. Thanks for the> >great example to the rest of us.> >> >I have a question for you. You write that "Specifically, 'ad hominem> >argumentum', [which is what is mentioned on the TT discussions guidelines> >page]  refers to trying to gain an edge in an argument by attacking the> >person rather than the topic, again, regardless whether it is true or> >false.' Does this apply only to the one with whom one is arguing, or does > >it> >apply as well to attacks against the person of persons whom one might> >reference in constructing ones arguments. For example, a dismissal of John> >Cal
vin's views on election via an attack against him as a person, i.e., his> >dealings with Servatis; or a dismissal of the content and substance of the> >Nicene Creed because it was formulated by supposedly corrupt Roman> >Catholics -- are these ad hominem arguments acceptable forms of> >argumentation on TruthTalk?> >> >Bill> >- Original Message -> >From: "Charles Perry Locke" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>> >To: > >Sent: Monday, June 27, 2005 8:03 AM> >Subject: [TruthTalk] ** Moderator commant **> >> >> > > TT members,> > >> > >    I have been contacted 
by email privately and informed that my > >referring> > > to DaveH as a "sly ol' mormon boy" was an ad hominem reference. After > >some> > > discussion back and forth, and some research,  I am convinced that it is> >so> > > and that I need to apologize to Dave.> > >> > >    I previously thought that if one merely stated a belief about someone> > > that was true, that it was not an ad hominem statement, but upon doing a> > > little researh I discovered that it does not matter whether it is true > >or> > > not...an ad hominem reference is a comment "to the man", so saying> >anything> > > about anyone personally, whether true or not, positive or negative, is > >an> >ad> > > hominem reference. If I were to say, "John, I really think you are a > >smart> > > guy", that is an ad hominem reference, to
o, because it is directed at> > > someone personally.> > >> > > However, on TT I think it is a little more specific in that TT > >wishes> >to> > > avoid the NEGATIVE ad hominem reference, that is, one that the receiver > >of> > > the comment would find insulting. Dave indicated in a post that he > >thought> > > "sly ol' mormon boy" was an ad hominem reference.> > >> > >    So, with this in mind, Dave, I apologize to you for making an> >ad-hominem> > > reference.> > >> > >    The above is a very general interpretation of "ad hominem".> >Specifically,> > > "ad hominem argumentum", [which is what is mentioned on the TT > >discussions> > > guidelines page]  refers to trying to gain an edge in an argument by> > > attacking the pers
on rather than the topic, again, regardless whether it> >is> > > true or false.> > >> > >    Even though I am acting as moderator, I, too, am prone to making> > > inappropriate remarks at times, and I welcome private email from anyone> >that> > > would like to point out such comments. If we have only on

Re: [TruthTalk] Moderator commant

"... but the blasphemy against the Holy Ghost shall not be forgiven unto 
men. " - JC, the rest of Matt 12:31.

From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Reply-To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org
To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] ** Moderator commant **
Date: Mon, 27 Jun 2005 18:48:28 -0600

".. I tell you, every sin and blasphemy will be forgiven men.."
-JC, Matt 12

On Mon, 27 Jun 2005 18:36:43 -0600 [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
this rings true, DaveH--most of this arrogant ad hominem rhetoric is
non-sense, you sly 'ol Mormon:)

On Mon, 27 Jun 2005 07:31:10 -0700 Dave Hansen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
writes:
>the apology..really is not necessary

--
"Let your speech be always with grace, seasoned with salt, that you may know how you 
ought to answer every man."  (Colossians 4:6) http://www.InnGlory.org

If you do not want to receive posts from this list, send an email to [EMAIL 
PROTECTED] and you will be unsubscribed.  If you have a friend who wants to 
join, tell him to send an e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and he will be subscribed.

Re: [TruthTalk] Moderator commant




".. I tell 
you, every sin and blasphemy will be forgiven men.."
    
    -JC, Matt 
12    

 
On Mon, 27 Jun 2005 18:36:43 -0600 [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:

  
  this rings true, 
  DaveH--most of this arrogant ad hominem rhetoric is non-sense, you 
  sly 'ol Mormon:)
   
   
  On Mon, 27 Jun 2005 07:31:10 -0700 Dave Hansen 
  <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 
  writes:>the apology..really is not necessary

Re: [TruthTalk] Moderator commant





Bill Taylor wrote:

  
  
  
  
  I concur with you completely (not on
the tough choice but the rest of it :) However, even this does not
stand as justification for the use of ad hominem argumentum.
   
  Bill


This is true.

Re: [TruthTalk] Moderator commant





this rings true, 
DaveH--most of this arrogant ad hominem rhetoric is non-sense, you sly 
'ol Mormon:)
 
 
On Mon, 27 Jun 2005 07:31:10 -0700 Dave Hansen 
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 
writes:>the apology..really is not necessary

Re: [TruthTalk] Moderator commant


Charles Perry Locke wrote:


Izzy,

  This will sound strange coming from me, but I am afraid that, 
although JS was an adulterer, to use that fact to disqualify him from 
the status as prophet would committing an "ad hominem argumentum" 
fallacy. David was an adulterer, and he was still a man after God's 
own heart, wasn't he?


===
I assume you already know this, Bill, but God is angry with the sinner 
every day.  David was not a man after God's heart because he was an 
adulterer but because he repented.

Terry



 



--
"Let your speech be always with grace, seasoned with salt, that you may know how you 
ought to answer every man."  (Colossians 4:6) http://www.InnGlory.org

If you do not want to receive posts from this list, send an email to [EMAIL 
PROTECTED] and you will be unsubscribed.  If you have a friend who wants to 
join, tell him to send an e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and he will be subscribed.

Re: [TruthTalk] Moderator commant




I concur with you completely (not on the tough 
choice but the rest of it :) However, even this does not stand as justification 
for the use of ad hominem argumentum.
 
Bill

  - Original Message - 
  From: 
  Terry Clifton 
  To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org 
  
  Sent: Monday, June 27, 2005 6:21 PM
  Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] ** Moderator 
  commant **
  Evidently I did. Words can be true even if a person is not a 
  Christian or whether those words  matter to someone else.  They can 
  even be true when spoken by an adulterer or a murderer, but once you have 
  placed yourself in that category, do not expect people to heed your words as 
  they would have had you kept yourself pure.Example:  Would you be 
  more likely to believe Lance, or Ted Kennedy?  Tough choice, I know, but 
  give me an answer. :)
  
I agree with you, Terry: it is excellent 
advice. Did you miss my point altogether?
 
Bill

  - 
  Original Message - 
  From: 
  Terry Clifton 
  To: 
  TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org 
  
  Sent: 
  Monday, June 27, 2005 5:21 PM
  Subject: 
  Re: [TruthTalk] ** Moderator commant **
  Bill Taylor wrote: 
  

Terry wrote  >  David and 
Calvin had things in common.  Both were believers, both were 
murderers, both took advantage of their friends.  My imperfections 
do not keep this from being true.  They were sinners, just as we 
are, and as such, are not fit for us to look to as roll models.  We 
might best keep our  eyes on the real King.  There are no 
great Christians, but there is a Great God.
 
 
I heard of a student who wrote a very long 
and detailed essay in which he argued that there is no such thing as 
truth, hence nothing matters. Upon reading the paper his professor gave 
him an F. This offended the student, who confronted the professor, 
demanding to know why he had received a failing grade. To which the 
professor responded, "What difference does it make?"
 
Your statement puts me in mind of this, 
Terry. I am puzzled by what appears to be your conclusion. Does 
there have to be "great" Christians for the words they speak to be true? 
I think not. We speak on the authority of Christ's greatness. If 
not, then on what basis ought I agree or disagree with -- or even 
give a darn about -- what you have to say about best keeping 
"our eyes on the real King"? 
 
Bill===I 
  gave you excellent advice to keep your eyes on Christ.   Do what you 
  want with 
it.Terry

Re: [TruthTalk] Belief





DAVEH:  I do not recall seeing it either, Lance.

Lance Muir wrote:

  
  
  I sent a general message to all
Mormons, participants and 'lurkers' alike, wherein I asked a number of
questions. It was an attempt on my part to address the issue of
diversity within your tradition. I excluded those you'd deem either
fringe or fundamentalist groups. I don't recall anyone responding. If
there exists no variance of understanding on important matters, it
would kind of scare me. 
  
  


-- 
~~~
Dave Hansen
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.langlitz.com
~~~
If you wish to receive
things I find interesting,
I maintain six email lists...
JOKESTER, OPINIONS, LDS,
STUFF, MOTORCYCLE and CLIPS.

RE: [TruthTalk] Moderator commant


Izzy,

  This will sound strange coming from me, but I am afraid that, although JS 
was an adulterer, to use that fact to disqualify him from the status as 
prophet would committing an "ad hominem argumentum" fallacy. David was an 
adulterer, and he was still a man after God's own heart, wasn't he?


  However, JS's false prophecies DO disqualify him as a prophet since that 
is the biblical test, and deals with the facts of the argument rather than 
his sexual exploits with young women and other men's wives.


Perry


From: "ShieldsFamily" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Reply-To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org
To: 
Subject: RE: [TruthTalk] ** Moderator commant **
Date: Mon, 27 Jun 2005 17:42:34 -0500

Perry, how does that relate to JSmith and the mormons? I believe the fact
that he was an adulterer totally discredits his credentials as a prophet of
god. Izzy

-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Charles Perry Locke
Sent: Monday, June 27, 2005 9:03 AM
To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] ** Moderator commant **

Bill,

  In TT we are trying to prevent discussions from becoming emotional in
nature because of demeaning and hurtful statements, so it applies directly
to the persons with whom we are immeditaly engaging in debate.

   However, from a debating point of view if one chooses to bring in
arguments made by another, say Calvin, those arguments, too, should have to
stand on the facts of Calvin's argument, not on personal attacks on Calvin.

Perry

>From: "Bill Taylor" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>Reply-To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org
>To: 
>Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] ** Moderator commant **
>Date: Mon, 27 Jun 2005 08:29:28 -0600
>
>Hi Perry, I am impressed by your sincerity and humility. Thanks for the
>great example to the rest of us.
>
>I have a question for you. You write that "Specifically, 'ad hominem
>argumentum', [which is what is mentioned on the TT discussions guidelines
>page]  refers to trying to gain an edge in an argument by attacking the
>person rather than the topic, again, regardless whether it is true or
>false.' Does this apply only to the one with whom one is arguing, or does
>it
>apply as well to attacks against the person of persons whom one might
>reference in constructing ones arguments. For example, a dismissal of 
John
>Calvin's views on election via an attack against him as a person, i.e., 
his
>dealings with Servatis; or a dismissal of the content and substance of 
the

>Nicene Creed because it was formulated by supposedly corrupt Roman
>Catholics -- are these ad hominem arguments acceptable forms of
>argumentation on TruthTalk?
>
>Bill
>- Original Message -
>From: "Charles Perry Locke" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>To: 
>Sent: Monday, June 27, 2005 8:03 AM
>Subject: [TruthTalk] ** Moderator commant **
>
>
> > TT members,
> >
> >I have been contacted by email privately and informed that my
>referring
> > to DaveH as a "sly ol' mormon boy" was an ad hominem reference. After
>some
> > discussion back and forth, and some research,  I am convinced that it 
is

>so
> > and that I need to apologize to Dave.
> >
> >I previously thought that if one merely stated a belief about 
someone
> > that was true, that it was not an ad hominem statement, but upon doing 
a

> > little researh I discovered that it does not matter whether it is true
>or
> > not...an ad hominem reference is a comment "to the man", so saying
>anything
> > about anyone personally, whether true or not, positive or negative, is
>an
>ad
> > hominem reference. If I were to say, "John, I really think you are a
>smart
> > guy", that is an ad hominem reference, too, because it is directed at
> > someone personally.
> >
> > However, on TT I think it is a little more specific in that TT
>wishes
>to
> > avoid the NEGATIVE ad hominem reference, that is, one that the 
receiver

>of
> > the comment would find insulting. Dave indicated in a post that he
>thought
> > "sly ol' mormon boy" was an ad hominem reference.
> >
> >So, with this in mind, Dave, I apologize to you for making an
>ad-hominem
> > reference.
> >
> >The above is a very general interpretation of "ad hominem".
>Specifically,
> > "ad hominem argumentum", [which is what is mentioned on the TT
>discussions
> > guidelines page]  refers to trying to gain an edge in an argument by
> > attacking the person rather than the topic, again, regardless whether 
it

>is
> > true or false.
> >
> >Even though I am acting as moderator, I, too, am prone to making
> > inappropriate remarks at times, and I welcome private email from 
anyone

>that
> > would like to point out such comments. If we have only one watcher, 
who
> > watches the watcher? While I moderate the group, the group moderates 
me.

> >
> > Perry the Moderator
> >
> >
> > --
> > "Let your speech be always with grace, seasoned with salt, that you 
may

>know how you ought to answer every man."  (Colossians 4:6)
>http://www.InnGlory.org
> >

Re: [TruthTalk] Moderator commant




Why are you asking me, Kevin? It is Izzy's prophet 
criterion which is in question. I think one's character is mighty important; and 
this I'm sure for many of the same reasons you do. I am talking about dismissing 
a man's arguments by attacking his person, whether it be an attack against his 
"character" or his social status, or just the way he looks. 
 
Do you consider an ad hom attack against Calvin, 
e.g., concerning his dealings with Servetus, to be legitimate grounds for 
dismissing his views on Election or the Sovereignty of God or the Sacraments? I 
don't. I think if you want to disagree with Calvin (or another's reference to 
Calvin) on these issues, you should do so on the basis of what he wrote 
about them. That's what I'm saying.
 
Bill 

  - Original Message - 
  From: 
  Kevin 
  Deegan 
  To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org 
  
  Sent: Monday, June 27, 2005 5:16 PM
  Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] ** Moderator 
  commant **
  
  So the "CARACTOR" of a man does not matter?
  Did David "contract a spirit of Whoredom" as one of the "prophets" 
  own witnesses described the Smith's  ways?
  Bill Taylor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 
  wrote:
  



Let's see--did King David also write the BoM 
(the sci-fi novel which has deceived millions?) Or perhaps he did that 
and repented of it as well? (Unlike JSmith who never repented of 
either.) Izzy
 
 
According to your criterion, Izzy, what 
difference should it make: "I believe the fact that he was an adulterer 
totally discredits his credentials as a prophet of god"?
 
Bill
 
 
- Original Message - 
From: "ShieldsFamily" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: 
Sent: Monday, June 27, 2005 4:57 
PM
Subject: RE: [TruthTalk] ** Moderator commant 
**
> Let's see--did King David also write the BoM (the sci-fi novel 
which has> deceived millions?) Or perhaps he did that and repented of 
it as well?> (Unlike JSmith who never repented of either.) 
Izzy> > -Original Message-> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Bill 
Taylor> Sent: Monday, June 27, 2005 4:55 PM> To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org> Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] ** Moderator commant **> 
> Izzy wrote  >  Perry, how does that relate to JSmith 
and the mormons? I> believe the fact that he was an adulterer totally 
discredits his credentials> as a prophet of god.> > 
> > How then were King David's credentials any better? Ought 
he be disqualified> by the same criterion?> > 
Bill> > - Original Message -> From: 
"ShieldsFamily" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>> To: > Sent: Monday, June 27, 2005 4:42 PM> Subject: RE: 
[TruthTalk] ** Moderator commant **> > > >  I 
believe the fact> > that he was an adulterer totally discredits 
his credentials as a prophet> of> > god. Izzy> 
>> > -Original Message-> > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]> > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of 
Charles Perry> Locke> > Sent: Monday, June 27, 2005 9:03 
AM> > To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org> > Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] ** Moderator commant **> 
>> > Bill,> >> >   In TT we are 
trying to prevent discussions from becoming emotional in> > nature 
because of demeaning and hurtful statements, so it applies directly> 
> to the persons with whom we are immeditaly engaging in debate.> 
>> >    However, from a debating point of view 
if one chooses to bring in> > arguments made by another, say 
Calvin, those arguments, too, should have> to> > stand on 
the facts of Calvin's argument, not on personal attacks on> 
Calvin.> >> > Perry> >> > >From: 
"Bill Taylor" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>> > >Reply-To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org> > >To: > > >Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] ** Moderator commant 
**> > >Date: Mon, 27 Jun 2005 08:29:28 -0600> > 
>> > >Hi Perry, I am impressed by your sincerity and 
humility. Thanks for the> > >great example to the rest of 
us.> > >> > >I have a question for you. You write 
that "Specifically, 'ad hominem> > >argumentum', [which is what 
is mentioned on the TT discussions guidelines> > >page]  
refers to trying to gain an edge in an argument by attacking the> 
> >person rather than the topic, again, regardless whether it is true 
or> > >false.' Does this apply only to the one with whom one is 
arguing, or does> > >it> > >apply as well to 
attacks against the person of persons whom one might> > 
>reference in constructing ones arguments. For example, a dismissal 
of> John> > >Calvin's views on election via an attack 
against him as a person, i.e.,> his> > >dealings with 
Servatis; or a dismissal of the content and substance of> the> 
> >Nicene Creed because it was formulated by supposedly corrupt 
Roman> > >Catholics -- are these ad hominem arguments 
acceptable f

Re: [TruthTalk] Moderator commant





Evidently I did. Words can be true even if a person is not a Christian
or whether those words  matter to someone else.  They can even be true
when spoken by an adulterer or a murderer, but once you have placed
yourself in that category, do not expect people to heed your words as
they would have had you kept yourself pure.
Example:  Would you be more likely to believe Lance, or Ted Kennedy? 
Tough choice, I know, but give me an answer. :)

  I agree with you, Terry: it is
excellent advice. Did you miss my point altogether?
   
  Bill
  
-
Original Message - 
From:
Terry Clifton 
To:
TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org

Sent:
Monday, June 27, 2005 5:21 PM
Subject:
Re: [TruthTalk] ** Moderator commant **


Bill Taylor wrote:

  
  Terry wrote  >  David and
Calvin had things in common.  Both were believers, both were murderers,
both took advantage of their friends.  My imperfections do not keep
this from being true.  They were sinners, just as we are, and as such,
are not fit for us to look to as roll models.  We might best keep our 
eyes on the real King.  There are no great Christians, but there is a
Great God.
  
   
   
  I heard of a student who wrote a
very long and detailed essay in which he argued that there is no such
thing as truth, hence nothing matters. Upon reading the paper his
professor gave him an F. This offended the student, who confronted the
professor, demanding to know why he had received a failing grade. To
which the professor responded, "What difference does it make?"
   
  Your statement puts me in mind
of this, Terry. I am puzzled by what appears to be your conclusion.
Does there have to be "great" Christians for the words they speak to be
true? I think not. We speak on the authority of Christ's greatness. If
not, then on what basis ought I agree or disagree with -- or even give
a darn about -- what you have to say about best keeping "our eyes on
the real King"? 
   
  Bill

===
I gave you excellent advice to keep your eyes on Christ.   Do what you
want with it.
Terry

Re: [TruthTalk] Moderator commant

2005-06-27 Thread Debbie Sawczak

OK, Kevin, easy objective test: A
person has said something you disagree with. If, in arguing
against the person's ideas, you comment not on the ideas themselves but
on the person, in an attempt to undermine the person's
credibility, your "argument" is ad hominem. The comment doesn't
even have to be false or vicious; what we're talking about is not necessarily a
moral infraction, but a logical one (although it certainly can be both). EVEN
the example below is ad hominem.
Example:
Joe: The bread and wine in the Lord's Supper are
more than just symbols; they really are the Lord's body and blood.
Moe: You only say that because you're Roman
Catholic.
Debbie

- Original Message -
From:
Kevin
Deegan
To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org

Sent: Monday, June 27, 2005 7:04 PM
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] ** Moderator
commant **

Don't read in what was not there. I meant the foolishness of the AD Hom
rule since there is no human way to frame it by use of an objective test.

A perfect illustration of foolishness.
Could some one out line the "objective test" used to identify an
"infraction"
Sorry I was not clear. Might have to do with 8 hours sleep in 3
days.
The next comment was an add on since I found it kind of shocking if you
were implying any authority, moral or otherwise. I thot U might be installing
yourself as the new Pope of TT.
AD Hom suggestion:
Maybe we should all ask before posting
"Mother may I"?Bill Taylor
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

No authority here, Kevin. I figure if any are
righteous enough to pass the scrutiny of this test, it's the least he or she
could do to tell me the answer. By the way, please explain to me the
"foolishness" of my words, or are yours just a marble short of
another lazy ad hom?
Bill

- Original Message -
From:
Kevin Deegan
To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org

Sent: Monday, June 27, 2005 3:20
PM
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] ** Moderator
commant **

A perfect illustration of foolishness.
Could some one out line the "objective test" used to identify an
"infraction"
And unless you are claiming to be our spiritual Authority over
us, why "any Christian who feels justified in using ad homs
against another needs to explain to me" ?Bill
Taylor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:

The Moderator writes > Bill,
I don't really think one has to be omniscient to imagine a
biblical character that matches the characteristics you listed, . .
.
And Judy writes > You didn't mention names but one does not have to be a
rocket scientist to figure out who is implied here. . .
.
My point in using this character as my
example was to demonstrate that whether it be Calvin or a king, none of
us can withstand the scrutiny of God's microscope apart from the
cleansing blood of Christ -- not even if that king be David. If our own
moral perfection is the criterion by which we speak, then none of us
could utter a word.
Yes, we believe by
faith that David's words are inspired. Is that why we
abstain from blasting him? What about those who don't yet have our view
of inspiration? Are they justified in dismissing his words on the
basis of his actions? I hope they do not.
And how about the Apostle Paul: Are they
justified in dismissing his words on the basis of his actions? Or ought
they rather determine the truthfulness of his claims by an examination
of his words?
You tell me: Is there a single human
author in Scripture whose words can withstand the scrutiny of an ad
hom attack? If anyone ought to know that personal transgressions do not
determine the truthfulness of statements pertaining to God in Christ, it
is the Christian. And any Christian who feels justified in
using ad homs against another needs to explain to me why God chose to
use sinful men to record the truest words ever spoken. Ad homs are a
fallacy because none of us can withstand their attack. The truth is, it is on the basis of who Christ is
and Christ alone that we speak (and that means any of us: be it Calvin,
King David, Paul, you, me, Judy, or the vielest offender). If statements
are true, they are true because Christ is the Truth. Apart from him
there is not enough truth among us all to utter a single
word. Hence if it is true, it is Christ's truth, sinners that we
are. And if it is true it will stand upon the substance of who he
is, regardless of who speaks the words. And so Christians

Re: [TruthTalk] Moderator commant




I agree with you, Terry: it is excellent advice. 
Did you miss my point altogether?
 
Bill

  - Original Message - 
  From: 
  Terry Clifton 
  To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org 
  
  Sent: Monday, June 27, 2005 5:21 PM
  Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] ** Moderator 
  commant **
  Bill Taylor wrote: 
  

Terry wrote  >  David and Calvin 
had things in common.  Both were believers, both were murderers, both 
took advantage of their friends.  My imperfections do not keep this 
from being true.  They were sinners, just as we are, and as such, are 
not fit for us to look to as roll models.  We might best keep our  
eyes on the real King.  There are no great Christians, but there is a 
Great God.
 
 
I heard of a student who wrote a very long and 
detailed essay in which he argued that there is no such thing as truth, 
hence nothing matters. Upon reading the paper his professor gave him an F. 
This offended the student, who confronted the professor, demanding to know 
why he had received a failing grade. To which the professor responded, "What 
difference does it make?"
 
Your statement puts me in mind of this, 
Terry. I am puzzled by what appears to be your conclusion. Does there 
have to be "great" Christians for the words they speak to be true? I think 
not. We speak on the authority of Christ's greatness. If not, then on 
what basis ought I agree or disagree with -- or even give a darn about 
-- what you have to say about best keeping "our eyes on the real 
King"? 
 
Bill===I 
  gave you excellent advice to keep your eyes on Christ.   Do what you want 
  with it.Terry

Re: [TruthTalk] Moderator commant





Bill Taylor wrote:

  
  
  
  Terry wrote  >  David and Calvin
had things in common.  Both were believers, both were murderers, both
took advantage of their friends.  My imperfections do not keep this
from being true.  They were sinners, just as we are, and as such, are
not fit for us to look to as roll models.  We might best keep our  eyes
on the real King.  There are no great Christians, but there is a Great
God.
  
   
   
  I heard of a student who wrote a
very long and detailed essay in which he argued that there is no such
thing as truth, hence nothing matters. Upon reading the paper his
professor gave him an F. This offended the student, who confronted the
professor, demanding to know why he had received a failing grade. To
which the professor responded, "What difference does it make?"
   
  Your statement puts me in mind of
this, Terry. I am puzzled by what appears to be your conclusion. Does
there have to be "great" Christians for the words they speak to be
true? I think not. We speak on the authority of Christ's greatness. If
not, then on what basis ought I agree or disagree with -- or even give
a darn about -- what you have to say about best keeping "our eyes on
the real King"? 
   
  Bill

===
I gave you excellent advice to keep your eyes on Christ.   Do what you
want with it.
Terry

Re: [TruthTalk] Moderator commant

So the "CARACTOR" of a man does not matter?
Did David "contract a spirit of Whoredom" as one of the "prophets" own witnesses described the Smith's  ways?
Bill Taylor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:




Let's see--did King David also write the BoM (the sci-fi novel which has deceived millions?) Or perhaps he did that and repented of it as well? (Unlike JSmith who never repented of either.) Izzy
 
 
According to your criterion, Izzy, what difference should it make: "I believe the fact that he was an adulterer totally discredits his credentials as a prophet of god"?
 
Bill
 
 
- Original Message - 
From: "ShieldsFamily" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: 
Sent: Monday, June 27, 2005 4:57 PM
Subject: RE: [TruthTalk] ** Moderator commant **
> Let's see--did King David also write the BoM (the sci-fi novel which has> deceived millions?) Or perhaps he did that and repented of it as well?> (Unlike JSmith who never repented of either.) Izzy> > -Original Message-> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Bill Taylor> Sent: Monday, June 27, 2005 4:55 PM> To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org> Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] ** Moderator commant **> > Izzy wrote  >  Perry, how does that relate to JSmith and the mormons? I> believe the fact that he was an adulterer totally
 discredits his credentials> as a prophet of god.> > > > How then were King David's credentials any better? Ought he be disqualified> by the same criterion?> > Bill> > - Original Message -> From: "ShieldsFamily" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>> To: > Sent: Monday, June 27, 2005 4:42 PM> Subject: RE: [TruthTalk] ** Moderator commant **> > > >  I believe the fact> > that he was an adulterer totally discredits his credentials as a prophet> of> > god. Izzy> >> > -Original Message-> > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]> > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Charles Perry> Locke> > Sent: Monday, June 27, 2005 9:03 AM> > To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org> > Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] ** Moderator commant **> >> > Bill,> >> >   In TT we are trying to prevent discussions from becoming emotional in> > nature because of demeaning and hurtful statements, so it applies directly> > to the persons with whom we are immeditaly engaging in debate.> >> >    However, from a debating point of view if one chooses to bring in> > arguments made by another, say Calvin, those arguments, too,
 should have> to> > stand on the facts of Calvin's argument, not on personal attacks on> Calvin.> >> > Perry> >> > >From: "Bill Taylor" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>> > >Reply-To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org> > >To: > > >Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] ** Moderator commant **> > >Date: Mon, 27 Jun 2005 08:29:28 -0600> > >> > >Hi Perry, I am impressed by your sincerity and humility. Thanks for the> > >great example to the rest of us.> > >> > >I have a question
 for you. You write that "Specifically, 'ad hominem> > >argumentum', [which is what is mentioned on the TT discussions guidelines> > >page]  refers to trying to gain an edge in an argument by attacking the> > >person rather than the topic, again, regardless whether it is true or> > >false.' Does this apply only to the one with whom one is arguing, or does> > >it> > >apply as well to attacks against the person of persons whom one might> > >reference in constructing ones arguments. For example, a dismissal of> John> > >Calvin's views on election via an attack against him as a person, i.e.,> his> > >dealings with Servatis; or a dismissal of the content and substance of> the> > >Nicene Creed because it was formulated by supposedly corrupt Roman> > >Catholics -- are these ad hominem arguments acceptable forms of>
 > >argumentation on TruthTalk?> > >> > >Bill> > >- Original Message -> > >From: "Charles Perry Locke" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>> > >To: > > >Sent: Monday, June 27, 2005 8:03 AM> > >Subject: [TruthTalk] ** Moderator commant **> > >> > >> > > > TT members,> > > >> > > >    I have been contacted by email privately and informed that my> > >referring> > > > to DaveH as a "sly ol' mormon boy" was an ad hominem reference. After> > >some> > > > discussion back and forth, and some research,  I
 am convinced that it> is> > >so> > > > and that I need to apologize to Dave.> > > >> > > >    I previously thought that if one merely stated a belief about> someone> > > > that was true, that it was not an ad hominem statement, but upon doing> a> > > > little researh I discovered that it does not matter whether it is true> > >or> > > > not...an ad hominem reference is a comment "to the man", so saying> > >anything> > > > about anyone personally, whether true or not, positive or negative, is> > >an> > >ad> > > > hominem reference. If I were to say, "John, I really think you are a> > >smart> > > > guy", that is an ad hominem reference, too, because it is directed at> > > > someone personally.> > >
 >> > > > However, on TT I think it is a little

Re: [TruthTalk] Moderator commant

Why not start a whole new board solely devoted to the question of AD HOM?Bill Taylor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Hi Perry, I am impressed by your sincerity and humility. Thanks for thegreat example to the rest of us.I have a question for you. You write that "Specifically, 'ad hominemargumentum', [which is what is mentioned on the TT discussions guidelinespage] refers to trying to gain an edge in an argument by attacking theperson rather than the topic, again, regardless whether it is true orfalse.' Does this apply only to the one with whom one is arguing, or does itapply as well to attacks against the person of persons whom one mightreference in constructing ones arguments. For example, a dismissal of JohnCalvin's views on election via an attack against him as a person, i.e., hisdealings with Servatis; or a dismissal of the content and substance of theNicene Creed because it was formulated by supposedly corrupt RomanCatholics -- are these ad
 hominem arguments acceptable forms ofargumentation on TruthTalk?Bill- Original Message -From: "Charles Perry Locke" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>To: Sent: Monday, June 27, 2005 8:03 AMSubject: [TruthTalk] ** Moderator commant **> TT members,>> I have been contacted by email privately and informed that my referring> to DaveH as a "sly ol' mormon boy" was an ad hominem reference. After some> discussion back and forth, and some research, I am convinced that it isso> and that I need to apologize to Dave.>> I previously thought that if one merely stated a belief about someone> that was true, that it was not an ad hominem statement, but upon doing a> little researh I discovered that it does not matter whether it is true or> not...an ad hominem reference is a comment "to the man", so sayinganything> about anyone personally, whether
 true or not, positive or negative, is anad> hominem reference. If I were to say, "John, I really think you are a smart> guy", that is an ad hominem reference, too, because it is directed at> someone personally.>> However, on TT I think it is a little more specific in that TT wishesto> avoid the NEGATIVE ad hominem reference, that is, one that the receiver of> the comment would find insulting. Dave indicated in a post that he thought> "sly ol' mormon boy" was an ad hominem reference.>> So, with this in mind, Dave, I apologize to you for making anad-hominem> reference.>> The above is a very general interpretation of "ad hominem".Specifically,> "ad hominem argumentum", [which is what is mentioned on the TT discussions> guidelines page] refers to trying to gain an edge in an argument by> attacking the person rather than the topic, again, regardless whether
 itis> true or false.>> Even though I am acting as moderator, I, too, am prone to making> inappropriate remarks at times, and I welcome private email from anyonethat> would like to point out such comments. If we have only one watcher, who> watches the watcher? While I moderate the group, the group moderates me.>> Perry the Moderator>>> --> "Let your speech be always with grace, seasoned with salt, that you mayknow how you ought to answer every man." (Colossians 4:6)http://www.InnGlory.org>> If you do not want to receive posts from this list, send an email to[EMAIL PROTECTED] and you will be unsubscribed. If you have afriend who wants to join, tell him to send an e-mail to[EMAIL PROTECTED] and he will be subscribed.>--"Let your speech be always with grace, seasoned with salt, that you may know how you
 ought to answer every man." (Colossians 4:6) http://www.InnGlory.orgIf you do not want to receive posts from this list, send an email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and you will be unsubscribed. If you have a friend who wants to join, tell him to send an e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and he will be subscribed.
		Yahoo! Sports 
Rekindle the Rivalries. Sign up for Fantasy Football

Re: [TruthTalk] Moderator commant

Don't read in what was not there. I meant the foolishness of the AD Hom rule since there is no human way to frame it by use of an objective test. 

A perfect illustration of foolishness.
Could some one out line the "objective test" used to identify an "infraction"
Sorry I was not clear. Might have to do with 8 hours sleep in 3 days.

The next comment was an add on since I found it kind of shocking if you were implying any authority, moral or otherwise. I thot U might be installing yourself as the new Pope of TT.

AD Hom suggestion:
Maybe we should all ask before posting
"Mother may I"?Bill Taylor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

No authority here, Kevin. I figure if any are righteous enough to pass the scrutiny of this test, it's the least he or she could do to tell me the answer. By the way, please explain to me the "foolishness" of my words, or are yours just a marble short of another lazy ad hom?

Bill

- Original Message - 
From: Kevin Deegan 
To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org 
Sent: Monday, June 27, 2005 3:20 PM
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] ** Moderator commant **

A perfect illustration of foolishness.

Could some one out line the "objective test" used to identify an "infraction"

And unless you are claiming to be our spiritual Authority over us, why "any Christian who feels justified in using ad homs against another needs to explain to me" ?Bill Taylor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

The Moderator writes  >  Bill, I don't really think one has to be omniscient to imagine a biblical character that matches the characteristics you listed, . . .

And Judy writes  >  You didn't mention names but one does not have to be a rocket scientist to figure out who is implied here. . . .

My point in using this character as my example was to demonstrate that whether it be Calvin or a king, none of us can withstand the scrutiny of God's microscope apart from the cleansing blood of Christ -- not even if that king be David. If our own moral perfection is the criterion by which we speak, then none of us could utter a word. 

Yes, we believe by faith that David's words are inspired. Is that why we abstain from blasting him? What about those who don't yet have our view of inspiration? Are they justified in dismissing his words on the basis of his actions? I hope they do not.

And how about the Apostle Paul: Are they justified in dismissing his words on the basis of his actions? Or ought they rather determine the truthfulness of his claims by an examination of his words? 

You tell me: Is there a single human author in Scripture whose words can withstand the scrutiny of an ad hom attack? If anyone ought to know that personal transgressions do not determine the truthfulness of statements pertaining to God in Christ, it is the Christian. And any Christian who feels justified in using ad homs against another needs to explain to me why God chose to use sinful men to record the truest words ever spoken. Ad homs are a fallacy because none of us can withstand their attack. The truth is, it is on the basis of who Christ is and Christ alone that we speak (and that means any of us: be it Calvin, King David, Paul, you, me, Judy, or the vielest offender). If statements are true, they are true because Christ is the Truth. Apart from him there is not enough truth among us all to utter a single word. Hence if it is true, it is Christ's truth, sinners that we are. And
 if it is true it will stand upon the substance of who he is, regardless of who speaks the words. And so Christians who feel justified in resorting to ad homs in dismissing arguments, should shut their mouths and repent -- because if they have once sinned, there is no getting the plank out of those eyes.

Bill 

- Original Message - 
From: "Charles Perry Locke" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: 
Sent: Monday, June 27, 2005 11:55 AM
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] ** Moderator commant **
> Bill, I don't really think one has to be omniscient to imagine a biblical > character that matches the characteristics you listed, although I did see a > three musketeer movie once in which King Louis did exactly the same thing. > To which were you referring? :-)> > Just use good taste. I have called Joseph Smith a lot of things through the > years, and have used those ad hominem arguments to discount his prophetic > position. That is not good debate style because even if he was a > money-digging stone-peeping plaigerizing, philandering huckster, those > things should have no bearing on arguments about the mormon church.> > Perry> > > >From: "Bill Taylor" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>>
 >Reply-To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org> >To: > >Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] ** Moderator commant **> >Date: Mon, 27 Jun 2005 11:16:23 -0600> >> >I don't recall mentioning any names, Judy. Hey Perry: what about those of > >us who are not omniscient, should we avoid the ad homs against the > >theologians, prophets, and kings of another's argumentation?> >> >Bill> >

Re: [TruthTalk] Moderator commant




Let's see--did King David also write the BoM (the 
sci-fi novel which has deceived millions?) Or perhaps he did that and 
repented of it as well? (Unlike JSmith who never repented of either.) 
Izzy
 
 
According to your criterion, Izzy, what difference 
should it make: "I believe the fact that he was an adulterer totally 
discredits his credentials as a prophet of god"?
 
Bill
 
 
- Original Message - 
From: "ShieldsFamily" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: 
Sent: Monday, June 27, 2005 4:57 PM
Subject: RE: [TruthTalk] ** Moderator commant 
**
> Let's see--did King David also write the BoM (the sci-fi novel which 
has> deceived millions?) Or perhaps he did that and repented of it as 
well?> (Unlike JSmith who never repented of either.) Izzy> 
> -Original Message-> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Bill 
Taylor> Sent: Monday, June 27, 2005 4:55 PM> To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org> 
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] ** Moderator commant **> > Izzy 
wrote  >  Perry, how does that relate to JSmith and the mormons? 
I> believe the fact that he was an adulterer totally discredits his 
credentials> as a prophet of god.> > > > How 
then were King David's credentials any better? Ought he be disqualified> 
by the same criterion?> > Bill> > - Original 
Message -> From: "ShieldsFamily" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>> To: 
> Sent: Monday, June 27, 2005 4:42 PM> Subject: RE: 
[TruthTalk] ** Moderator commant **> > > >  I 
believe the fact> > that he was an adulterer totally discredits his 
credentials as a prophet> of> > god. Izzy> >> 
> -Original Message-> > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]> > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Charles 
Perry> Locke> > Sent: Monday, June 27, 2005 9:03 AM> 
> To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org> 
> Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] ** Moderator commant **> >> > 
Bill,> >> >   In TT we are trying to prevent 
discussions from becoming emotional in> > nature because of demeaning 
and hurtful statements, so it applies directly> > to the persons with 
whom we are immeditaly engaging in debate.> >> 
>    However, from a debating point of view if one chooses to 
bring in> > arguments made by another, say Calvin, those arguments, 
too, should have> to> > stand on the facts of Calvin's 
argument, not on personal attacks on> Calvin.> >> > 
Perry> >> > >From: "Bill Taylor" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>> > 
>Reply-To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org> > >To: > > >Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] ** Moderator commant 
**> > >Date: Mon, 27 Jun 2005 08:29:28 -0600> > 
>> > >Hi Perry, I am impressed by your sincerity and humility. 
Thanks for the> > >great example to the rest of us.> > 
>> > >I have a question for you. You write that "Specifically, 
'ad hominem> > >argumentum', [which is what is mentioned on the TT 
discussions guidelines> > >page]  refers to trying to gain an 
edge in an argument by attacking the> > >person rather than the 
topic, again, regardless whether it is true or> > >false.' Does 
this apply only to the one with whom one is arguing, or does> > 
>it> > >apply as well to attacks against the person of persons 
whom one might> > >reference in constructing ones arguments. For 
example, a dismissal of> John> > >Calvin's views on election 
via an attack against him as a person, i.e.,> his> > 
>dealings with Servatis; or a dismissal of the content and substance 
of> the> > >Nicene Creed because it was formulated by 
supposedly corrupt Roman> > >Catholics -- are these ad hominem 
arguments acceptable forms of> > >argumentation on 
TruthTalk?> > >> > >Bill> > >- 
Original Message -> > >From: "Charles Perry Locke" 
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>> > 
>To: > > >Sent: Monday, June 27, 2005 8:03 AM> > 
>Subject: [TruthTalk] ** Moderator commant **> > >> > 
>> > > > TT members,> > > >> > > 
>    I have been contacted by email privately and informed 
that my> > >referring> > > > to DaveH as a "sly ol' 
mormon boy" was an ad hominem reference. After> > >some> 
> > > discussion back and forth, and some research,  I am 
convinced that it> is> > >so> > > > and that 
I need to apologize to Dave.> > > >> > > 
>    I previously thought that if one merely stated a belief 
about> someone> > > > that was true, that it was not an 
ad hominem statement, but upon doing> a> > > > little 
researh I discovered that it does not matter whether it is true> > 
>or> > > > not...an ad hominem reference is a comment "to the 
man", so saying> > >anything> > > > about anyone 
personally, whether true or not, positive or negative, is> > 
>an> > >ad> > > > hominem reference. If I were 
to say, "John, I really think you are a> > >smart> > > 
> guy", that is an ad hominem reference, too, because it is directed 
at> > > > someone personally.> > > >> 
> > > However, on TT I think it is a little 
more specific in that TT> > >wishes> > >to> 
> > > avoid the NEGATIVE ad hominem reference, that is, one that 
the> receive

Re: [TruthTalk] Moderator commant

The King repented. David was not a prophet. Do you have an example of a prophet that was in sexual sin?
Joe continued in his sexual sin for years and lied about it from 1838 till 1844 when he shot two men before he was killed.Bill Taylor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Izzy wrote > Perry, how does that relate to JSmith and the mormons? Ibelieve the fact that he was an adulterer totally discredits his credentialsas a prophet of god.How then were King David's credentials any better? Ought he be disqualifiedby the same criterion?Bill- Original Message -From: "ShieldsFamily" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>To: Sent: Monday, June 27, 2005 4:42 PMSubject: RE: [TruthTalk] ** Moderator commant **> I believe the fact> that he was an adulterer totally discredits his credentials as a prophetof> god. Izzy>> -Original Message-> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Charles PerryLocke> Sent: Monday, June 27, 2005 9:03 AM> To:
 TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org> Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] ** Moderator commant **>> Bill,>> In TT we are trying to prevent discussions from becoming emotional in> nature because of demeaning and hurtful statements, so it applies directly> to the persons with whom we are immeditaly engaging in debate.>> However, from a debating point of view if one chooses to bring in> arguments made by another, say Calvin, those arguments, too, should haveto> stand on the facts of Calvin's argument, not on personal attacks onCalvin.>> Perry>> >From: "Bill Taylor" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>> >Reply-To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org> >To: > >Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] ** Moderator commant **> >Date: Mon, 27 Jun 2005 08:29:28 -0600> >> >Hi Perry, I am impressed by your sincerity and humility. Thanks for
 the> >great example to the rest of us.> >> >I have a question for you. You write that "Specifically, 'ad hominem> >argumentum', [which is what is mentioned on the TT discussions guidelines> >page] refers to trying to gain an edge in an argument by attacking the> >person rather than the topic, again, regardless whether it is true or> >false.' Does this apply only to the one with whom one is arguing, or does> >it> >apply as well to attacks against the person of persons whom one might> >reference in constructing ones arguments. For example, a dismissal ofJohn> >Calvin's views on election via an attack against him as a person, i.e.,his> >dealings with Servatis; or a dismissal of the content and substance ofthe> >Nicene Creed because it was formulated by supposedly corrupt Roman> >Catholics -- are these ad hominem arguments acceptable
 forms of> >argumentation on TruthTalk?> >> >Bill> >- Original Message -> >From: "Charles Perry Locke" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>> >To: > >Sent: Monday, June 27, 2005 8:03 AM> >Subject: [TruthTalk] ** Moderator commant **> >> >> > > TT members,> > >> > > I have been contacted by email privately and informed that my> >referring> > > to DaveH as a "sly ol' mormon boy" was an ad hominem reference. After> >some> > > discussion back and forth, and some research, I am convinced that itis> >so> > > and that I need to apologize to Dave.> > >> > > I previously thought that if one merely stated a belief aboutsomeone> > > that was true, that it was not an ad hominem statement, but upon doinga> >
 > little researh I discovered that it does not matter whether it is true> >or> > > not...an ad hominem reference is a comment "to the man", so saying> >anything> > > about anyone personally, whether true or not, positive or negative, is> >an> >ad> > > hominem reference. If I were to say, "John, I really think you are a> >smart> > > guy", that is an ad hominem reference, too, because it is directed at> > > someone personally.> > >> > > However, on TT I think it is a little more specific in that TT> >wishes> >to> > > avoid the NEGATIVE ad hominem reference, that is, one that thereceiver> >of> > > the comment would find insulting. Dave indicated in a post that he> >thought> > > "sly ol' mormon boy" was an ad hominem reference.> > >> > >
 So, with this in mind, Dave, I apologize to you for making an> >ad-hominem> > > reference.> > >> > > The above is a very general interpretation of "ad hominem".> >Specifically,> > > "ad hominem argumentum", [which is what is mentioned on the TT> >discussions> > > guidelines page] refers to trying to gain an edge in an argument by> > > attacking the person rather than the topic, again, regardless whetherit> >is> > > true or false.> > >> > > Even though I am acting as moderator, I, too, am prone to making> > > inappropriate remarks at times, and I welcome private email fromanyone> >that> > > would like to point out such comments. If we have only one watcher,who> > > watches the watcher? While I moderate the group, the group moderatesme.> > >> >
 > Perry the Moderator> > >> > >> > > --> > > "Let your speech be always with grace, seasoned with salt, that youmay> >know how you ought to answer every man." (Colossians 4:6)> >http://www.InnGlory.org> > >> > > If you do

Re: [TruthTalk] Moderator commant




Terry wrote  >  David and Calvin had 
things in common.  Both were believers, both were murderers, both took 
advantage of their friends.  My imperfections do not keep this from being 
true.  They were sinners, just as we are, and as such, are not fit for us 
to look to as roll models.  We might best keep our  eyes on the real 
King.  There are no great Christians, but there is a Great 
God.
 
 
I heard of a student who wrote a very long and 
detailed essay in which he argued that there is no such thing as truth, hence 
nothing matters. Upon reading the paper his professor gave him an F. This 
offended the student, who confronted the professor, demanding to know why he had 
received a failing grade. To which the professor responded, "What difference 
does it make?"
 
Your statement puts me in mind of this, 
Terry. I am puzzled by what appears to be your conclusion. Does there have 
to be "great" Christians for the words they speak to be true? I think not. We 
speak on the authority of Christ's greatness. If not, then on what basis 
ought I agree or disagree with -- or even give a darn about -- what 
you have to say about best keeping "our eyes on the real 
King"? 
 
Bill

  - Original Message - 
  From: 
  Terry Clifton 
  To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org 
  
  Sent: Monday, June 27, 2005 4:25 PM
  Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] ** Moderator 
  commant **
  Bill Taylor wrote: 
  



The Moderator writes  >  Bill, I 
don't really think one has to be omniscient to imagine a 
biblical character that matches the characteristics you listed, . . 
.
 
And Judy writes  >  You didn't mention names but one does not have to be a rocket 
scientist to figure out who is implied here. . . .
 
My point in using this character as my example 
was to demonstrate that whether it be Calvin or a king, none of us can 
withstand the scrutiny of God's microscope apart from the cleansing blood of 
Christ -- not even if that king be David. If our own moral perfection is the 
criterion by which we speak, then none of us could utter a 
word. 
 
Yes, we believe by 
faith that David's words are inspired. Is that why we abstain 
from blasting him? What about those who don't yet have our view of 
inspiration? Are they justified in dismissing his words on the basis of 
his actions? I hope they do 
  not.=
  
 David and Calvin 
  had things in common.  Both were believers, both were murderers, both 
  took advantage of their friends.  My imperfections do not keep this from 
  being true.  They were sinners, just as we are, and as such, are not fit 
  for us to look to as roll models.  We might best keep our  eyes on 
  the real King.  There are no great Christians, but there is a Great 
  God.Terry

RE: [TruthTalk] Moderator commant

Let's see--did King David also write the BoM (the sci-fi novel which has
deceived millions?) Or perhaps he did that and repented of it as well?
(Unlike JSmith who never repented of either.) Izzy

-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Bill Taylor
Sent: Monday, June 27, 2005 4:55 PM
To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] ** Moderator commant **

Izzy wrote  >  Perry, how does that relate to JSmith and the mormons? I
believe the fact that he was an adulterer totally discredits his credentials
as a prophet of god.



How then were King David's credentials any better? Ought he be disqualified
by the same criterion?

Bill

- Original Message -
From: "ShieldsFamily" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: 
Sent: Monday, June 27, 2005 4:42 PM
Subject: RE: [TruthTalk] ** Moderator commant **


>  I believe the fact
> that he was an adulterer totally discredits his credentials as a prophet
of
> god. Izzy
>
> -Original Message-
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Charles Perry
Locke
> Sent: Monday, June 27, 2005 9:03 AM
> To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org
> Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] ** Moderator commant **
>
> Bill,
>
>   In TT we are trying to prevent discussions from becoming emotional in
> nature because of demeaning and hurtful statements, so it applies directly
> to the persons with whom we are immeditaly engaging in debate.
>
>However, from a debating point of view if one chooses to bring in
> arguments made by another, say Calvin, those arguments, too, should have
to
> stand on the facts of Calvin's argument, not on personal attacks on
Calvin.
>
> Perry
>
> >From: "Bill Taylor" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> >Reply-To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org
> >To: 
> >Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] ** Moderator commant **
> >Date: Mon, 27 Jun 2005 08:29:28 -0600
> >
> >Hi Perry, I am impressed by your sincerity and humility. Thanks for the
> >great example to the rest of us.
> >
> >I have a question for you. You write that "Specifically, 'ad hominem
> >argumentum', [which is what is mentioned on the TT discussions guidelines
> >page]  refers to trying to gain an edge in an argument by attacking the
> >person rather than the topic, again, regardless whether it is true or
> >false.' Does this apply only to the one with whom one is arguing, or does
> >it
> >apply as well to attacks against the person of persons whom one might
> >reference in constructing ones arguments. For example, a dismissal of
John
> >Calvin's views on election via an attack against him as a person, i.e.,
his
> >dealings with Servatis; or a dismissal of the content and substance of
the
> >Nicene Creed because it was formulated by supposedly corrupt Roman
> >Catholics -- are these ad hominem arguments acceptable forms of
> >argumentation on TruthTalk?
> >
> >Bill
> >- Original Message -
> >From: "Charles Perry Locke" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> >To: 
> >Sent: Monday, June 27, 2005 8:03 AM
> >Subject: [TruthTalk] ** Moderator commant **
> >
> >
> > > TT members,
> > >
> > >I have been contacted by email privately and informed that my
> >referring
> > > to DaveH as a "sly ol' mormon boy" was an ad hominem reference. After
> >some
> > > discussion back and forth, and some research,  I am convinced that it
is
> >so
> > > and that I need to apologize to Dave.
> > >
> > >I previously thought that if one merely stated a belief about
someone
> > > that was true, that it was not an ad hominem statement, but upon doing
a
> > > little researh I discovered that it does not matter whether it is true
> >or
> > > not...an ad hominem reference is a comment "to the man", so saying
> >anything
> > > about anyone personally, whether true or not, positive or negative, is
> >an
> >ad
> > > hominem reference. If I were to say, "John, I really think you are a
> >smart
> > > guy", that is an ad hominem reference, too, because it is directed at
> > > someone personally.
> > >
> > > However, on TT I think it is a little more specific in that TT
> >wishes
> >to
> > > avoid the NEGATIVE ad hominem reference, that is, one that the
receiver
> >of
> > > the comment would find insulting. Dave indicated in a post that he
> >thought
> > > "sly ol' mormon boy" was an ad hominem reference.
> > >
> > >So, with this in mind, Dave, I apologize to you for making an
> >ad-hominem
> > > reference.
> > >
> > >The above is a very general interpretation of "ad hominem".
> >Specifically,
> > > "ad hominem argumentum", [which is what is mentioned on the TT
> >discussions
> > > guidelines page]  refers to trying to gain an edge in an argument by
> > > attacking the person rather than the topic, again, regardless whether
it
> >is
> > > true or false.
> > >
> > >Even though I am acting as moderator, I, too, am prone to making
> > > inappropriate remarks at times, and I welcome private email from
anyone
> >that
> > > would like to point out such comments. If we have only one watcher,
who
> > >

RE: [TruthTalk] Moderator commant









ROFL! 

 









From:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Kevin Deegan
Sent: Monday, June 27, 2005 3:21
PM
To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] **
Moderator commant **



 



A perfect illustration of foolishness.

Re: [TruthTalk] Moderator commant

Izzy wrote  >  Perry, how does that relate to JSmith and the mormons? I
believe the fact that he was an adulterer totally discredits his credentials
as a prophet of god.



How then were King David's credentials any better? Ought he be disqualified
by the same criterion?

Bill

- Original Message -
From: "ShieldsFamily" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: 
Sent: Monday, June 27, 2005 4:42 PM
Subject: RE: [TruthTalk] ** Moderator commant **


>  I believe the fact
> that he was an adulterer totally discredits his credentials as a prophet
of
> god. Izzy
>
> -Original Message-
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Charles Perry
Locke
> Sent: Monday, June 27, 2005 9:03 AM
> To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org
> Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] ** Moderator commant **
>
> Bill,
>
>   In TT we are trying to prevent discussions from becoming emotional in
> nature because of demeaning and hurtful statements, so it applies directly
> to the persons with whom we are immeditaly engaging in debate.
>
>However, from a debating point of view if one chooses to bring in
> arguments made by another, say Calvin, those arguments, too, should have
to
> stand on the facts of Calvin's argument, not on personal attacks on
Calvin.
>
> Perry
>
> >From: "Bill Taylor" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> >Reply-To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org
> >To: 
> >Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] ** Moderator commant **
> >Date: Mon, 27 Jun 2005 08:29:28 -0600
> >
> >Hi Perry, I am impressed by your sincerity and humility. Thanks for the
> >great example to the rest of us.
> >
> >I have a question for you. You write that "Specifically, 'ad hominem
> >argumentum', [which is what is mentioned on the TT discussions guidelines
> >page]  refers to trying to gain an edge in an argument by attacking the
> >person rather than the topic, again, regardless whether it is true or
> >false.' Does this apply only to the one with whom one is arguing, or does
> >it
> >apply as well to attacks against the person of persons whom one might
> >reference in constructing ones arguments. For example, a dismissal of
John
> >Calvin's views on election via an attack against him as a person, i.e.,
his
> >dealings with Servatis; or a dismissal of the content and substance of
the
> >Nicene Creed because it was formulated by supposedly corrupt Roman
> >Catholics -- are these ad hominem arguments acceptable forms of
> >argumentation on TruthTalk?
> >
> >Bill
> >- Original Message -
> >From: "Charles Perry Locke" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> >To: 
> >Sent: Monday, June 27, 2005 8:03 AM
> >Subject: [TruthTalk] ** Moderator commant **
> >
> >
> > > TT members,
> > >
> > >I have been contacted by email privately and informed that my
> >referring
> > > to DaveH as a "sly ol' mormon boy" was an ad hominem reference. After
> >some
> > > discussion back and forth, and some research,  I am convinced that it
is
> >so
> > > and that I need to apologize to Dave.
> > >
> > >I previously thought that if one merely stated a belief about
someone
> > > that was true, that it was not an ad hominem statement, but upon doing
a
> > > little researh I discovered that it does not matter whether it is true
> >or
> > > not...an ad hominem reference is a comment "to the man", so saying
> >anything
> > > about anyone personally, whether true or not, positive or negative, is
> >an
> >ad
> > > hominem reference. If I were to say, "John, I really think you are a
> >smart
> > > guy", that is an ad hominem reference, too, because it is directed at
> > > someone personally.
> > >
> > > However, on TT I think it is a little more specific in that TT
> >wishes
> >to
> > > avoid the NEGATIVE ad hominem reference, that is, one that the
receiver
> >of
> > > the comment would find insulting. Dave indicated in a post that he
> >thought
> > > "sly ol' mormon boy" was an ad hominem reference.
> > >
> > >So, with this in mind, Dave, I apologize to you for making an
> >ad-hominem
> > > reference.
> > >
> > >The above is a very general interpretation of "ad hominem".
> >Specifically,
> > > "ad hominem argumentum", [which is what is mentioned on the TT
> >discussions
> > > guidelines page]  refers to trying to gain an edge in an argument by
> > > attacking the person rather than the topic, again, regardless whether
it
> >is
> > > true or false.
> > >
> > >Even though I am acting as moderator, I, too, am prone to making
> > > inappropriate remarks at times, and I welcome private email from
anyone
> >that
> > > would like to point out such comments. If we have only one watcher,
who
> > > watches the watcher? While I moderate the group, the group moderates
me.
> > >
> > > Perry the Moderator
> > >
> > >
> > > --
> > > "Let your speech be always with grace, seasoned with salt, that you
may
> >know how you ought to answer every man."  (Colossians 4:6)
> >http://www.InnGlory.org
> > >
> > > If you do not want to receive posts from this list, send an email to
> >[EMAIL PROTECTED] and you will

RE: [TruthTalk] Belief









Don’t do it, Lance—he’s
definitely “fringey”!!! Izzy

 









From:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Monday, June 27, 2005 9:15
AM
To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Belief



 







Perhaps I did not receive this?  Repost, please.

JD 



 
-Original Message-
From: Lance Muir <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org
Sent: Mon, 27 Jun 2005 10:29:32 -0400
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Belief





I sent a general message to all Mormons, participants and
'lurkers' alike, wherein I asked a number of questions. It was an attempt on my
part to address the issue of diversity within your tradition. I excluded those
you'd deem either fringe or fundamentalist groups. I don't recall anyone
responding. If there exists no variance of understanding on important matters,
it would kind of scare me. 







- Original Message - 





From: Dave Hansen 





To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org 





Sent: June 27, 2005
10:19





Subject: Re: [TruthTalk]
Belief





 





[EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote: 







DAveH 
---   no need to answer the post sent minutes ago.   I have
my answer herein.  





To my way of thinking  --  when
"unity" becomes more important than personal passion (faith), such
passages as Romans 14:4 are contradicted.   The notion that truth is
a corporate conclusion is completely foreign to me  --  as I
understand the biblical message.  Differences of understanding
need not be divisive. 







DAVEH:   Agreed.  So outside the Mormons
here, why do you think there is such divisive set of opinions and discussions
on TT?









JD  



 
-Original Message-
From: Dave Hansen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org
Sent: Mon, 27 Jun
2005 00:49:43 -0700
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Belief





DAVEH:  
Yes Bishop, I'm referring to conformity of beliefs for the most part. 
Though I think the unity of faith (harmonious attitudes, as you put it) play an
important role as well.  

    From our perspective, most LDS folks truly believe our Prophet is the spokesman
for the Lord in our time.  So, we believe if the Lord wants us to know or
do something different, he will speak through his servant to us as a
whole.  IF there is any question that becomes a divisive factor, we look
to the Prophet 's counsel to give us the direction we need to go as a
group.  It's pretty rare for doctrinal disputations to reach beyond private
discussion.  If somebo dy wants to make a public spectacle out of an
issue, it i s pretty much grounds for excommunication.

    So.intellectually strong individuals who cannot conform
their beliefs within the framework of official LDS theology do not fit in very
well.  And if their intellectual stubbornness exceeds their level of faith
in their Church Leaders, it is akin to fitting a round peg in a square
hole.  Those who do harbor their own pet theological theories who want to
remain faithful avoid publicizing their intellectual disagreements.  Once
they attempt to publicly politicize
their dispute with the Church, they no longer fit in with the rest of the folks
who tend not to want to have disharmony exist in the ranks. 

    Which brings us back to the harmonious attitudes.  Mormonism tends to be very
cultural in nature.  Th at w hich disrupts is out of harmony with not only
God, but the Family and the congregation.  We believe success comes by
working together.  We don't look to one pastor to hold a Ward
(congregation) together, but it is the combined effort of every person in the
Ward to assist the Ward Shepherd (Bishop) in keeping it humming (usually to the
tune of PUT YOUR SHOULDER TO THE WHEEL) along.  Our strongest Wards are
those where the most folks pitch in to do the most work, which leads to strong
fellowship.  Those that are weakest are those where the members expect
others to do the work.

    As I perceive TT,
there is little sense of purpose or guidance.  Nor does there seem to be
much appreciation for oneness of belief.  I imagine everybody in TT believes they know the truth, but yet I
don't think they really appreciate that all the variations of trut h they have
here all stems from a single source (as they perceive it)the
Bible.   Numerous times folks have told me I am wrong and that it is
very simple to learn the truth by rejecting anything LDS
and just read the Bible.  Quite often they suggest the truth of the Bible
is so obvious.  Yet if it were so easy to discern the truth from the
Bible, why are there so many disagreements as to what the Bible tells us? 
And then look at why different churches start up.  Seems like Protestants is a good term to describe
many Christians.they tend to want to protest that which somebody else
teaches them.  If they don't like doctrines of one church, it is
relatively easy to start another. 

 While the LDS
 Church has experienced
similar factions in it's wake, I se e it a bit differently.  In our case,
most who don

RE: [TruthTalk] Moderator commant

You're sounding like a sly ol' Moderator there, Perry.  :-) Izzy

-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Charles Perry Locke
Sent: Monday, June 27, 2005 11:56 AM
To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] ** Moderator commant **

Bill, I don't really think one has to be omniscient to imagine a biblical 
character that matches the characteristics you listed, although I did see a 
three musketeer movie once in which King Louis did exactly the same thing. 
To which were you referring? :-)

Just use good taste. I have called Joseph Smith a lot of things through the 
years, and have used those ad hominem arguments to discount his prophetic 
position. That is not good debate style because even if he was a 
money-digging stone-peeping plaigerizing, philandering huckster, those 
things should have no bearing on arguments about the mormon church.

Perry


>From: "Bill Taylor" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>Reply-To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org
>To: 
>Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] ** Moderator commant **
>Date: Mon, 27 Jun 2005 11:16:23 -0600
>
>I don't recall mentioning any names, Judy. Hey Perry: what about those of 
>us who are not omniscient, should we avoid the ad homs against the 
>theologians, prophets, and kings of another's argumentation?
>
>Bill
>   - Original Message -
>   From: Judy Taylor
>   To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org
>   Cc: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org
>   Sent: Monday, June 27, 2005 10:17 AM
>   Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] ** Moderator commant **
>
>
>   The problem here is huge since the person described below is not a 
>theologian. Rather he is a prophet/king
>   chosen by God whose recorded words are inspired by the Spirit of God.  
>Big difference.   jt
>
>   On Mon, 27 Jun 2005 10:04:12 -0600 "Bill Taylor" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 
>writes:
> The Moderator responds  >  . . .those arguments, too, should have to 
>stand on the facts of Calvin's argument, not on personal attacks on Calvin.
>
> You don't say! Hmm. If you were ever to enforce this one, it would

>render some of us speechless. Just think how it would affect the traffic 
>here on TruthTalk if participants were required to actually research, 
>contemplate, and address the substance of theological statements, instead 
>of dismissing them out-of-hand simply because the theologian seduced and 
>slept with another man's wife and then, to cover his crime, had him sent to

>the front lines to be murdered -- I think you should go for it.
>
> Bill
>
> - Original Message -
> From: "Charles Perry Locke" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To: 
> Sent: Monday, June 27, 2005 9:03 AM
> Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] ** Moderator commant **
>
>
> > Bill,
> >
> >   In TT we are trying to prevent discussions from becoming emotional

>in
> > nature because of demeaning and hurtful statements, so it applies 
>directly
> > to the persons with whom we are immeditaly engaging in debate.
> >
> >However, from a debating point of view if one chooses to bring in
> > arguments made by another, say Calvin, those arguments, too, should 
>have to
> > stand on the facts of Calvin's argument, not on personal attacks on 
>Calvin.
> >
> > Perry
> >
> > >From: "Bill Taylor" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > >Reply-To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org
> > >To: 
> > >Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] ** Moderator commant **
> > >Date: Mon, 27 Jun 2005 08:29:28 -0600
> > >
> > >Hi Perry, I am impressed by your sincerity and humility. Thanks for

>the
> > >great example to the rest of us.
> > >
> > >I have a question for you. You write that "Specifically, 'ad 
>hominem
> > >argumentum', [which is what is mentioned on the TT discussions 
>guidelines
> > >page]  refers to trying to gain an edge in an argument by attacking

>the
> > >person rather than the topic, again, regardless whether it is true 
>or
> > >false.' Does this apply only to the one with whom one is arguing, 
>or does
> > >it
> > >apply as well to attacks against the person of persons whom one 
>might
> > >reference in constructing ones arguments. For example, a dismissal 
>of John
> > >Calvin's views on election via an attack against him as a person, 
>i.e., his
> > >dealings with Servatis; or a dismissal of the content and substance

>of the
> > >Nicene Creed because it was formulated by supposedly corrupt Roman
> > >Catholics -- are these ad hominem arguments acceptable forms of
> > >argumentation on TruthTalk?
> > >
> > >Bill
> > >- Original Message -
> > >From: "Charles Perry Locke" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > >To: 
> > >Sent: Monday, June 27, 2005 8:03 AM
> > >Subject: [TruthTalk] ** Moderator commant **
> > >
> > >
> > > > TT members,
> > > >
> > > >I have been contacted by email privately and informed that my
> > >referring
> > > > to DaveH as a "sl

RE: [TruthTalk] Moderator commant









And perhaps you will reciprocate
appropriately? Izzy

 









From:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Lance Muir
Sent: Monday, June 27, 2005 10:20
AM
To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] **
Moderator commant **



 



Wow! I may once again begin to employ argumentation,
contextually appropriate, utilizing sources other than the Bible without fear of encountering epithets in the place of an argument. We shall see,
Perry. We shall see. 







- Original Message - 





From: Bill Taylor 





To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org






Sent: June 27, 2005
12:04





Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] **
Moderator commant **





 





The Moderator responds  >  . . .those
arguments, too, should have to stand on the facts of Calvin's argument, not on
personal attacks on Calvin.





 





You don't say! Hmm. If you were ever to enforce this
one, it would render some of us speechless. Just think how it would affect
the traffic here on TruthTalk if participants were required to actually
research, contemplate, and address the substance of theological
statements, instead of dismissing them out-of-hand simply because
the theologian seduced and slept with another man's wife and then, to
cover his crime, had him sent to the front lines to be murdered -- I think
you should go for it. 





 





Bill





- Original Message - 



From: "Charles Perry Locke" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>





To: 





Sent: Monday, June 27, 2005 9:03 AM





Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] ** Moderator commant **







 



> Bill,
> 
>   In TT we are trying to prevent discussions from becoming emotional
in 
> nature because of demeaning and hurtful statements, so it applies directly

> to the persons with whom we are immeditaly engaging in debate.
> 
>    However, from a debating point of view if one chooses to
bring in 
> arguments made by another, say Calvin, those arguments, too, should have
to 
> stand on the facts of Calvin's argument, not on personal attacks on
Calvin.
> 
> Perry
> 
> >From: "Bill Taylor" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> >Reply-To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org
>
>To: 
> >Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] ** Moderator commant **
> >Date: Mon, 27 Jun 2005 08:29:28 -0600
> >
> >Hi Perry, I am impressed by your sincerity and humility. Thanks for
the
> >great example to the rest of us.
> >
> >I have a question for you. You write that "Specifically, 'ad
hominem
> >argumentum', [which is what is mentioned on the TT discussions
guidelines
> >page]  refers to trying to gain an edge in an argument by
attacking the
> >person rather than the topic, again, regardless whether it is true or
> >false.' Does this apply only to the one with whom one is arguing, or
does 
> >it
> >apply as well to attacks against the person of persons whom one might
> >reference in constructing ones arguments. For example, a dismissal of
John
> >Calvin's views on election via an attack against him as a person,
i.e., his
> >dealings with Servatis; or a dismissal of the content and substance of
the
> >Nicene Creed because it was formulated by supposedly corrupt Roman
> >Catholics -- are these ad hominem arguments acceptable forms of
> >argumentation on TruthTalk?
> >
> >Bill
> >- Original Message -
> >From: "Charles Perry Locke" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> >To: 
> >Sent: Monday, June 27, 2005 8:03 AM
> >Subject: [TruthTalk] ** Moderator commant **
> >
> >
> > > TT members,
> > >
> > >    I have been contacted by email privately and
informed that my 
> >referring
> > > to DaveH as a "sly ol' mormon boy" was an ad hominem
reference. After 
> >some
> > > discussion back and forth, and some research,  I am
convinced that it is
> >so
> > > and that I need to apologize to Dave.
> > >
> > >    I previously thought that if one merely stated
a belief about someone
> > > that was true, that it was not an ad hominem statement, but upon
doing a
> > > little researh I discovered that it does not matter whether it
is true 
> >or
> > > not...an ad hominem reference is a comment "to the
man", so saying
> >anything
> > > about anyone personally, whether true or not, positive or
negative, is 
> >an
> >ad
> > > hominem reference. If I were to say, "John, I really think
you are a 
> >smart
> > > guy", that is an ad hominem reference, too, because it is
directed at
> > > someone personally.
> > >
> > > However, on TT I think it is a little
more specific in that TT 
> >wishes
> >to
> > > avoid the NEGATIVE ad hominem reference, that is, one that the
receiver 
> >of
> > > the comment would find insulting. Dave indicated in a post that
he 
> >thought
> > > "sly ol' mormon boy" was an ad hominem reference.
> > >
> > >    So, with this in mind, Dave, I apologize to
you for making an
> >ad-hominem
> > > reference.
> > >
> > >    The above is a very general interpretation of
"ad hominem".
> >Specifically,
> > > "ad hominem argumentum", [which is what is menti

RE: [TruthTalk] Moderator commant

Perry, how does that relate to JSmith and the mormons? I believe the fact
that he was an adulterer totally discredits his credentials as a prophet of
god. Izzy

-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Charles Perry Locke
Sent: Monday, June 27, 2005 9:03 AM
To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] ** Moderator commant **

Bill,

  In TT we are trying to prevent discussions from becoming emotional in 
nature because of demeaning and hurtful statements, so it applies directly 
to the persons with whom we are immeditaly engaging in debate.

   However, from a debating point of view if one chooses to bring in 
arguments made by another, say Calvin, those arguments, too, should have to 
stand on the facts of Calvin's argument, not on personal attacks on Calvin.

Perry

>From: "Bill Taylor" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>Reply-To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org
>To: 
>Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] ** Moderator commant **
>Date: Mon, 27 Jun 2005 08:29:28 -0600
>
>Hi Perry, I am impressed by your sincerity and humility. Thanks for the
>great example to the rest of us.
>
>I have a question for you. You write that "Specifically, 'ad hominem
>argumentum', [which is what is mentioned on the TT discussions guidelines
>page]  refers to trying to gain an edge in an argument by attacking the
>person rather than the topic, again, regardless whether it is true or
>false.' Does this apply only to the one with whom one is arguing, or does 
>it
>apply as well to attacks against the person of persons whom one might
>reference in constructing ones arguments. For example, a dismissal of John
>Calvin's views on election via an attack against him as a person, i.e., his
>dealings with Servatis; or a dismissal of the content and substance of the
>Nicene Creed because it was formulated by supposedly corrupt Roman
>Catholics -- are these ad hominem arguments acceptable forms of
>argumentation on TruthTalk?
>
>Bill
>- Original Message -
>From: "Charles Perry Locke" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>To: 
>Sent: Monday, June 27, 2005 8:03 AM
>Subject: [TruthTalk] ** Moderator commant **
>
>
> > TT members,
> >
> >I have been contacted by email privately and informed that my 
>referring
> > to DaveH as a "sly ol' mormon boy" was an ad hominem reference. After 
>some
> > discussion back and forth, and some research,  I am convinced that it is
>so
> > and that I need to apologize to Dave.
> >
> >I previously thought that if one merely stated a belief about someone
> > that was true, that it was not an ad hominem statement, but upon doing a
> > little researh I discovered that it does not matter whether it is true 
>or
> > not...an ad hominem reference is a comment "to the man", so saying
>anything
> > about anyone personally, whether true or not, positive or negative, is 
>an
>ad
> > hominem reference. If I were to say, "John, I really think you are a 
>smart
> > guy", that is an ad hominem reference, too, because it is directed at
> > someone personally.
> >
> > However, on TT I think it is a little more specific in that TT 
>wishes
>to
> > avoid the NEGATIVE ad hominem reference, that is, one that the receiver 
>of
> > the comment would find insulting. Dave indicated in a post that he 
>thought
> > "sly ol' mormon boy" was an ad hominem reference.
> >
> >So, with this in mind, Dave, I apologize to you for making an
>ad-hominem
> > reference.
> >
> >The above is a very general interpretation of "ad hominem".
>Specifically,
> > "ad hominem argumentum", [which is what is mentioned on the TT 
>discussions
> > guidelines page]  refers to trying to gain an edge in an argument by
> > attacking the person rather than the topic, again, regardless whether it
>is
> > true or false.
> >
> >Even though I am acting as moderator, I, too, am prone to making
> > inappropriate remarks at times, and I welcome private email from anyone
>that
> > would like to point out such comments. If we have only one watcher, who
> > watches the watcher? While I moderate the group, the group moderates me.
> >
> > Perry the Moderator
> >
> >
> > --
> > "Let your speech be always with grace, seasoned with salt, that you may
>know how you ought to answer every man."  (Colossians 4:6)
>http://www.InnGlory.org
> >
> > If you do not want to receive posts from this list, send an email to
>[EMAIL PROTECTED] and you will be unsubscribed.  If you have a
>friend who wants to join, tell him to send an e-mail to
>[EMAIL PROTECTED] and he will be subscribed.
> >
>
>
>--
>"Let your speech be always with grace, seasoned with salt, that you may 
>know how you ought to answer every man."  (Colossians 4:6) 
>http://www.InnGlory.org
>
>If you do not want to receive posts from this list, send an email to 
>[EMAIL PROTECTED] and you will be unsubscribed.  If you have a 
>friend who wants to join, tell him to send an e-mail to 
>[EMAIL PROTECTED] and he will be subscribed.


--
"Let your speech be always wi

RE: [TruthTalk] Moderator commant

I thought perhaps it was the "old" part, Terry, because when someone gets
old they don't want to be reminded. (I know!) Izzy

-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Terry Clifton
Sent: Monday, June 27, 2005 9:09 AM
To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] ** Moderator commant **

Charles Perry Locke wrote:

> TT members,
>
>   I have been contacted by email privately and informed that my 
> referring to DaveH as a "sly ol' mormon boy" was an ad hominem 
> reference. After some discussion back and forth, and some research,  I 
> am convinced that it is so and that I need to apologize to Dave.
> =

Just so others do not make the same error, which word was offensive?  
Was it sly, or old, or Mormon, or boy?
Terry

--
"Let your speech be always with grace, seasoned with salt, that you may know
how you ought to answer every man."  (Colossians 4:6)
http://www.InnGlory.org

If you do not want to receive posts from this list, send an email to
[EMAIL PROTECTED] and you will be unsubscribed.  If you have a
friend who wants to join, tell him to send an e-mail to
[EMAIL PROTECTED] and he will be subscribed.

--
"Let your speech be always with grace, seasoned with salt, that you may know 
how you ought to answer every man."  (Colossians 4:6) http://www.InnGlory.org

If you do not want to receive posts from this list, send an email to [EMAIL 
PROTECTED] and you will be unsubscribed.  If you have a friend who wants to 
join, tell him to send an e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and he will be subscribed.

Re: [TruthTalk] Moderator commant

No authority here, Kevin. I figure if any are 
righteous enough to pass the scrutiny of this test, it's the least he or she 
could do to tell me the answer. By the way, please explain to me the 
"foolishness" of my words, or are yours just a marble short of 
another lazy ad hom?

Bill

  - Original Message - 
  From: 
  Kevin 
  Deegan 
  To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org 

  Sent: Monday, June 27, 2005 3:20 PM
  Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] ** Moderator 
  commant **

  A perfect illustration of foolishness.

  Could some one out line the "objective test" used to identify an 
  "infraction"

  And unless you are claiming to be our spiritual Authority over us, 
  why "any Christian who feels justified in using ad homs against 
  another needs to explain to me" ?Bill Taylor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 
  wrote:

The Moderator writes  >  Bill, I 
don't really think one has to be omniscient to imagine a 
biblical character that matches the characteristics you listed, . . 
.

And Judy writes  >  You didn't mention names but one does not have to be a rocket 
scientist to figure out who is implied here. . . .

My point in using this character as my example 
was to demonstrate that whether it be Calvin or a king, none of us can 
withstand the scrutiny of God's microscope apart from the cleansing blood of 
Christ -- not even if that king be David. If our own moral perfection is the 
criterion by which we speak, then none of us could utter a 
word. 

Yes, we believe by 
faith that David's words are inspired. Is that why we abstain 
from blasting him? What about those who don't yet have our view of 
inspiration? Are they justified in dismissing his words on the basis of 
his actions? I hope they do not.

And how about the Apostle Paul: Are they 
justified in dismissing his words on the basis of his actions? Or ought they 
rather determine the truthfulness of his claims by an examination of his 
words? 

You tell me: Is there a single human 
author in Scripture whose words can withstand the scrutiny of an ad hom 
attack? If anyone ought to know that personal transgressions do not 
determine the truthfulness of statements pertaining to God in Christ, it is 
the Christian. And any Christian who feels justified in using ad 
homs against another needs to explain to me why God chose to use sinful men 
to record the truest words ever spoken. Ad homs are a fallacy because none 
of us can withstand their attack. The truth 
is, it is on the basis of who Christ is and Christ alone that we speak 
(and that means any of us: be it Calvin, King David, Paul, you, me, Judy, or 
the vielest offender). If statements are true, they are true because Christ 
is the Truth. Apart from him there is not enough truth among us all 
to utter a single word. Hence if it is true, it is Christ's truth, 
sinners that we are. And if it is true it will stand upon the substance 
of who he is, regardless of who speaks the words. And so Christians who feel 
justified in resorting to ad homs in dismissing arguments, should shut 
their mouths and repent -- because if they have once sinned, there is 
no getting the plank out of those eyes.

Bill 

- Original Message - 
From: "Charles Perry Locke" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: 
Sent: Monday, June 27, 2005 11:55 
AM
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] ** Moderator commant 
**
> Bill, I don't really think one has to be omniscient to imagine a 
biblical > character that matches the characteristics you listed, 
although I did see a > three musketeer movie once in which King Louis 
did exactly the same thing. > To which were you referring? 
:-)> > Just use good taste. I have called Joseph Smith a lot 
of things through the > years, and have used those ad hominem 
arguments to discount his prophetic > position. That is not good 
debate style because even if he was a > money-digging stone-peeping 
plaigerizing, philandering huckster, those > things should have no 
bearing on arguments about the mormon church.> > Perry> 
> > >From: "Bill Taylor" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>> 
>Reply-To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org> >To: > >Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] ** Moderator commant 
**> >Date: Mon, 27 Jun 2005 11:16:23 -0600> >> 
>I don't recall mentioning any names, Judy. Hey Perry: what about those 
of > >us who are not omniscient, should we avoid the ad homs 
against the > >theologians, prophets, and kings of another's 
argumentation?> >> >Bill> >   - 
Original Message -> >   From: Judy Taylor> 
>   To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org> >   Cc: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org> >   Sent: Monday, June 27, 2005 10:17 AM> 
>   Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] ** Moderator commant **

Re: [TruthTalk] Moderator commant





Bill Taylor wrote:

  
  
  
  The Moderator writes  >  Bill, I
don't really think one has to be omniscient to imagine a
biblical character that matches the characteristics you listed, . . .
   
  And Judy writes  >  You didn't mention names but one does not have to be a
rocket scientist to figure out who is implied here. . . .
   
  My point in using this character as
my example was to demonstrate that whether it be Calvin or a king, none
of us can withstand the scrutiny of God's microscope apart from the
cleansing blood of Christ -- not even if that king be David. If our own
moral perfection is the criterion by which we speak, then none of us
could utter a word. 
   
  Yes, we believe by faith
that David's words are inspired. Is that why we abstain from blasting
him? What about those who don't yet have our view of inspiration? Are
they justified in dismissing his words on the basis of his actions? I
hope they do not.

=

   

David and Calvin had things in
common.  Both were believers, both were murderers, both took advantage
of their friends.  My imperfections do not keep this from being true. 
They were sinners, just as we are, and as such, are not fit for us to
look to as roll models.  We might best keep our  eyes on the real
King.  There are no great Christians, but there is a Great God.
Terry

Re: [TruthTalk] Moderator commant

A perfect illustration of foolishness.

Could some one out line the "objective test" used to identify an "infraction"

And unless you are claiming to be our spiritual Authority over us, why "any Christian who feels justified in using ad homs against another needs to explain to me" ?Bill Taylor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

The Moderator writes  >  Bill, I don't really think one has to be omniscient to imagine a biblical character that matches the characteristics you listed, . . .

And Judy writes  >  You didn't mention names but one does not have to be a rocket scientist to figure out who is implied here. . . .

My point in using this character as my example was to demonstrate that whether it be Calvin or a king, none of us can withstand the scrutiny of God's microscope apart from the cleansing blood of Christ -- not even if that king be David. If our own moral perfection is the criterion by which we speak, then none of us could utter a word. 

Yes, we believe by faith that David's words are inspired. Is that why we abstain from blasting him? What about those who don't yet have our view of inspiration? Are they justified in dismissing his words on the basis of his actions? I hope they do not.

And how about the Apostle Paul: Are they justified in dismissing his words on the basis of his actions? Or ought they rather determine the truthfulness of his claims by an examination of his words? 

You tell me: Is there a single human author in Scripture whose words can withstand the scrutiny of an ad hom attack? If anyone ought to know that personal transgressions do not determine the truthfulness of statements pertaining to God in Christ, it is the Christian. And any Christian who feels justified in using ad homs against another needs to explain to me why God chose to use sinful men to record the truest words ever spoken. Ad homs are a fallacy because none of us can withstand their attack. The truth is, it is on the basis of who Christ is and Christ alone that we speak (and that means any of us: be it Calvin, King David, Paul, you, me, Judy, or the vielest offender). If statements are true, they are true because Christ is the Truth. Apart from him there is not enough truth among us all to utter a single word. Hence if it is true, it is Christ's truth, sinners that we are. And
 if it is true it will stand upon the substance of who he is, regardless of who speaks the words. And so Christians who feel justified in resorting to ad homs in dismissing arguments, should shut their mouths and repent -- because if they have once sinned, there is no getting the plank out of those eyes.

Bill 

- Original Message - 
From: "Charles Perry Locke" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: 
Sent: Monday, June 27, 2005 11:55 AM
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] ** Moderator commant **
> Bill, I don't really think one has to be omniscient to imagine a biblical > character that matches the characteristics you listed, although I did see a > three musketeer movie once in which King Louis did exactly the same thing. > To which were you referring? :-)> > Just use good taste. I have called Joseph Smith a lot of things through the > years, and have used those ad hominem arguments to discount his prophetic > position. That is not good debate style because even if he was a > money-digging stone-peeping plaigerizing, philandering huckster, those > things should have no bearing on arguments about the mormon church.> > Perry> > > >From: "Bill Taylor" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>>
 >Reply-To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org> >To: > >Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] ** Moderator commant **> >Date: Mon, 27 Jun 2005 11:16:23 -0600> >> >I don't recall mentioning any names, Judy. Hey Perry: what about those of > >us who are not omniscient, should we avoid the ad homs against the > >theologians, prophets, and kings of another's argumentation?> >> >Bill> >   - Original Message -> >   From: Judy Taylor> >   To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org>
 >   Cc: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org> >   Sent: Monday, June 27, 2005 10:17 AM> >   Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] ** Moderator commant **> >> >> >   The problem here is huge since the person described below is not a > >theologian. Rather he is a prophet/king> >   chosen by God whose recorded words are inspired by the Spirit of God.  > >Big difference.   jt> >> >   On Mon, 27 Jun 2005 10:04:12 -0600 "Bill Taylor" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > >writes:> > The Moderator responds  >  . . .those arguments, too, should have to > >stand on the
 facts of Calvin's argument, not on personal attacks on Calvin.> >> > You don't say! Hmm. If you were ever to enforce this one, it would > >render some of us speechless. Just think how it would affect the traffic > >here on TruthTalk if participants were required to actually research, > >contemplate, and address the substance of theological statements, instead > >of dismissing them out-of-hand simply because the theologian seduced and > >slept with

Re: [TruthTalk] A apologetic for the eternal sonship of Chr JD

2005-06-27 Thread Debbie Sawczak

"...we can disagree without quarrelling, 
remembering Chesterton's observation that the problem with a quarrel is that it 
spoils an argument. And, as in all such disagreements, we do well to keep in 
mind the rule of Richard Baxter (famously reiterated by John XXIII), 'In 
necessary things, unity; in doubtful things, liberty; in all things, charity." 
To which one need only add this necessary thing: all our puzzling, disputing, 
and speculating must finally give way to the most pure act of faith, which is 
doxology. So it was with St. Paul [...] at the end of Romans 11, and so it must 
be with us. At the end of all our trying to understand, we join in 
declaring:

'For God has consigned all to disobedience, that He 
may have mercy upon all. O the depth of the riches and wisdom and knowledge of 
God! How unsearchable are his judgments and how inscrutable his ways! "For who 
has known the mind of the Lord, or who has been his counsellor?" "Or who has 
given a gift to him that he might be repaid?" For from him and through him and 
to him are all things. To him be glory forever. Amen.'"  --Tim 
Perry

Debbie

  - Original Message - 
  From: 
  [EMAIL PROTECTED] 

  To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org 

  Sent: Monday, June 27, 2005 11:05 
AM
  Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] A apologetic for 
  the eternal sonship of Chr JD

  Thank you for your response.  Obviously, we are miles apart on 
  this and the distance seems to be increasing.  I believe, however, that 
  God can work through either understanding    That is not to say 
  that there is more than one truth on a subject.   Rather,  it 
  is to declare our God as sovereign in essence, power and 
  influence.   I guess this comes down to what Debbie has been 
  discussing with DAveH.   Is God bigger than our perceptions of Him 
  and His doctrine?   

  JD -Original Message-From: David Miller 
  <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgSent: Mon, 27 
  Jun 2005 09:40:26 -0400Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] A apologetic for the 
  eternal sonship of Chr JD

  John wrote:
> I have been working on this since 6:00 am
> and it is nearly 3:00 !!   Yikes .

LOL.  Studying is fun, isn't it!

Nice piece, John.  I don't think I disagreed with much of anything in it.  I 
just think it argued more for the Divinity of Christ rather than the idea of 
eternal sonship.

Both you and Bill seem to hammer two ideas in discussing this topic:

1)  Jesus is the eternal God

2) Jesus has a relationship in the Godhead best understood by us as a Father 
/ Son relationship.

I do not disagree with either of these concepts.  Rather, I affirm them both 
as being true.  My primary concern with this subject has to do with how we 
interpret Scripture.  What does the Scripture mean when it says, "this day I 
have begotten you."  The Holy Ghost has a specific message here.  In the 
earlier discussion, I was not too sure about it, but as the discussion 
progressed, I think Judy made her case very well.  Adam Clark also makes 
some good points about it.  The Biblical passage is referring to his 
incarnation when he became son of man, son of David, son of God.

Peace be with you.
David Miller. 

--
"Let your speech be always with grace, seasoned with salt, that you may know how 
you ought to answer every man."  (Colossians 4:6) http://www.InnGlory.org

If you do not want to receive posts from this list, send an email to 
[EMAIL PROTECTED] and you will be unsubscribed.  If you have a friend 
who wants to join, tell him to send an e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and 
he will be subscribed.

Re: [TruthTalk] Moderator commant

The Moderator writes  >  Bill, I don't 
really think one has to be omniscient to imagine a biblical character that 
matches the characteristics you listed, . . .

And Judy writes  >  You didn't mention names but one does not have to be a rocket 
scientist to figure out who is implied here. . . .

My point in using this character as my example was 
to demonstrate that whether it be Calvin or a king, none of us can withstand the 
scrutiny of God's microscope apart from the cleansing blood of Christ -- not 
even if that king be David. If our own moral perfection is the criterion by 
which we speak, then none of us could utter a word. 

Yes, we believe by faith 
that David's words are inspired. Is that why we abstain from blasting him? What 
about those who don't yet have our view of inspiration? Are they justified in 
dismissing his words on the basis of his actions? I hope they do 
not.

And how about the Apostle Paul: Are they justified 
in dismissing his words on the basis of his actions? Or ought they rather 
determine the truthfulness of his claims by an examination of his 
words? 

You tell me: Is there a single human author 
in Scripture whose words can withstand the scrutiny of an ad hom attack? If 
anyone ought to know that personal transgressions do not determine the 
truthfulness of statements pertaining to God in Christ, it is the 
Christian. And any Christian who feels justified in using ad homs 
against another needs to explain to me why God chose to use sinful men to record 
the truest words ever spoken. Ad homs are a fallacy because none of us can 
withstand their attack. The truth is, it is on 
the basis of who Christ is and Christ alone that we speak (and that means 
any of us: be it Calvin, King David, Paul, you, me, Judy, or the vielest 
offender). If statements are true, they are true because Christ is the Truth. 
Apart from him there is not enough truth among us all to utter a single 
word. Hence if it is true, it is Christ's truth, sinners that we 
are. And if it is true it will stand upon the substance of who he is, 
regardless of who speaks the words. And so Christians who feel justified 
in resorting to ad homs in dismissing arguments, should shut their mouths 
and repent -- because if they have once sinned, there is no getting 
the plank out of those eyes.

Bill 

- Original Message - 
From: "Charles Perry Locke" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: 
Sent: Monday, June 27, 2005 11:55 AM
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] ** Moderator commant 
**
> Bill, I don't really think one has to be omniscient to imagine a 
biblical > character that matches the characteristics you listed, 
although I did see a > three musketeer movie once in which King Louis did 
exactly the same thing. > To which were you referring? :-)> 
> Just use good taste. I have called Joseph Smith a lot of things through 
the > years, and have used those ad hominem arguments to discount his 
prophetic > position. That is not good debate style because even if he 
was a > money-digging stone-peeping plaigerizing, philandering huckster, 
those > things should have no bearing on arguments about the mormon 
church.> > Perry> > > >From: "Bill Taylor" 
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>> 
>Reply-To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org> >To: > >Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] ** Moderator commant **> 
>Date: Mon, 27 Jun 2005 11:16:23 -0600> >> >I don't 
recall mentioning any names, Judy. Hey Perry: what about those of > 
>us who are not omniscient, should we avoid the ad homs against the > 
>theologians, prophets, and kings of another's argumentation?> 
>> >Bill> >   - Original Message 
-> >   From: Judy Taylor> >   To: 
TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org> 
>   Cc: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org> >   Sent: Monday, June 27, 2005 10:17 AM> 
>   Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] ** Moderator commant **> 
>> >> >   The problem here is huge since the 
person described below is not a > >theologian. Rather he is a 
prophet/king> >   chosen by God whose recorded words are 
inspired by the Spirit of God.  > >Big difference.   
jt> >> >   On Mon, 27 Jun 2005 10:04:12 -0600 
"Bill Taylor" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > 
>writes:> > The Moderator responds  
>  . . .those arguments, too, should have to > >stand on the 
facts of Calvin's argument, not on personal attacks on Calvin.> 
>> > You don't say! Hmm. If you were 
ever to enforce this one, it would > >render some of us speechless. 
Just think how it would affect the traffic > >here on TruthTalk if 
participants were required to actually research, > >contemplate, and 
address the substance of theological statements, instead > >of 
dismissing them out-of-hand simply because the theologian seduced and > 
>slept with another man's wife and then, to cover his crime, had him sent to 
> >the front lines to be murdered -- I think you should go for 
it.> >> > Bill> >> 
> - Original Message -> 
> From: "Charles Perry Locke" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>> 
> To:

Re: [TruthTalk] Belief

2005-06-27 Thread Debbie Sawczak

David, I am quite sincerely pleasantly surprised by the below. It is quite 
different from the approach I remember you taking some time ago (I'm talking 
months), where you seemed to be saying that God wants us all to think the 
same thing. Am I misremembering? Did I misinterpret you back then? Or have 
you changed your mind? Or am I misinterpreting you now?


Debbie


- Original Message - 
From: "David Miller" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>

To: 
Sent: Monday, June 27, 2005 10:03 AM
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Belief



DaveH wrote:

I believe there is a sense of direction that
TTers really don't have.  I really don't see
a unity of faith in TT.


Which is not surprising because not everyone on TT is in the same faith.
Again, I simply caution you against finding value in the homogeniety of
ideas and opinions.  Our God is a God of diversity.  He values unity, no
doubt, but he values unity among diversity not unity among homogeneity. 
We

see this in creation, with the diversity of species that exist, and we see
this in the fact that he created man male and female rather than unisex. 
We

see this in his prohibition of homosexuality, which is a form of unity
through homogeneity, perverting the unity in heterogeneity that he has
ordained.

DaveH wrote:

... as I see it the (presumed theological) intellect of TTers
is the main obstacle to their conformity.   I believe that most
intelligent people in Jesus' day were less receptive to his unifying
message than those who had less knowledge than they had faith.
That's not to say that smart folks won't end up in heaven, but
perhaps it will be as difficult for them as it is for rich folks to find
their way there.


Very well said!  We certainly agree upon this statement.

Peace be with you.
David Miller.


--
"Let your speech be always with grace, seasoned with salt, that you may 
know how you ought to answer every man."  (Colossians 4:6) 
http://www.InnGlory.org


If you do not want to receive posts from this list, send an email to 
[EMAIL PROTECTED] and you will be unsubscribed.  If you have a 
friend who wants to join, tell him to send an e-mail to 
[EMAIL PROTECTED] and he will be subscribed.






--
"Let your speech be always with grace, seasoned with salt, that you may know how you 
ought to answer every man."  (Colossians 4:6) http://www.InnGlory.org

If you do not want to receive posts from this list, send an email to [EMAIL 
PROTECTED] and you will be unsubscribed.  If you have a friend who wants to 
join, tell him to send an e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and he will be subscribed.

Re: [TruthTalk] Belief







  
  
-Original Message-
From: Lance Muir <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org
Sent: Mon, 27 Jun 2005 10:29:32 -0400
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Belief
  
  
  
  I sent a general message to all
Mormons, participants and 'lurkers' alike, wherein I asked a number of
questions. It was an attempt on my part to address the issue of
diversity within your tradition. I excluded those you'd deem either
fringe or fundamentalist groups. I don't recall anyone responding. If
there exists no variance of understanding on important matters, it
would kind of scare me. 
  
  
  

===
If fundamentalists were excluded from your research, your findings
would have no value.  It's a truth thing.  You would not understand. :)
Terry

Re: [TruthTalk] Moderator commant

Let's take a vote![EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:



I leave the house with another smile on my rather handsome face.  
 
Jd  -Original Message-From: Terry Clifton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgSent: Mon, 27 Jun 2005 10:08:32 -0500Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] ** Moderator commant **


Charles Perry Locke wrote:  > TT members, > > I have been contacted by email privately and informed that my > referring to DaveH as a "sly ol' mormon boy" was an ad hominem > reference. After some discussion back and forth, and some research, I > am convinced that it is so and that I need to apologize to Dave. > =  Just so others do not make the same error, which word was offensive? Was it sly, or old, or Mormon, or boy? Terry  -- "Let your speech be always with grace, seasoned with salt, that you may know how you ought to answer every man." (Colossians 4:6) http://www.InnGlory.org  If you do not want to receive posts from this list, send an email to
 Le [EMAIL PROTECTED] and you will be unsubscribed. If you have a friend who wants to join, tell him to send an e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and he will be subscribed. __Do You Yahoo!?Tired of spam?  Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com

Re: [TruthTalk] Moderator commant

Bill, I don't really think one has to be omniscient to imagine a biblical 
character that matches the characteristics you listed, although I did see a 
three musketeer movie once in which King Louis did exactly the same thing. 
To which were you referring? :-)

Just use good taste. I have called Joseph Smith a lot of things through the 
years, and have used those ad hominem arguments to discount his prophetic 
position. That is not good debate style because even if he was a 
money-digging stone-peeping plaigerizing, philandering huckster, those 
things should have no bearing on arguments about the mormon church.

Perry

From: "Bill Taylor" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Reply-To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org
To: 
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] ** Moderator commant **
Date: Mon, 27 Jun 2005 11:16:23 -0600

I don't recall mentioning any names, Judy. Hey Perry: what about those of 
us who are not omniscient, should we avoid the ad homs against the 
theologians, prophets, and kings of another's argumentation?

Bill
  - Original Message -
  From: Judy Taylor
  To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org
  Cc: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org
  Sent: Monday, June 27, 2005 10:17 AM
  Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] ** Moderator commant **

  The problem here is huge since the person described below is not a 
theologian. Rather he is a prophet/king
  chosen by God whose recorded words are inspired by the Spirit of God.  
Big difference.   jt

  On Mon, 27 Jun 2005 10:04:12 -0600 "Bill Taylor" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 
writes:
The Moderator responds  >  . . .those arguments, too, should have to 
stand on the facts of Calvin's argument, not on personal attacks on Calvin.

You don't say! Hmm. If you were ever to enforce this one, it would 
render some of us speechless. Just think how it would affect the traffic 
here on TruthTalk if participants were required to actually research, 
contemplate, and address the substance of theological statements, instead 
of dismissing them out-of-hand simply because the theologian seduced and 
slept with another man's wife and then, to cover his crime, had him sent to 
the front lines to be murdered -- I think you should go for it.

Bill

- Original Message -
From: "Charles Perry Locke" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: 
Sent: Monday, June 27, 2005 9:03 AM
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] ** Moderator commant **

> Bill,
>
>   In TT we are trying to prevent discussions from becoming emotional 
in
> nature because of demeaning and hurtful statements, so it applies 
directly

> to the persons with whom we are immeditaly engaging in debate.
>
>However, from a debating point of view if one chooses to bring in
> arguments made by another, say Calvin, those arguments, too, should 
have to
> stand on the facts of Calvin's argument, not on personal attacks on 
Calvin.

>
> Perry
>
> >From: "Bill Taylor" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> >Reply-To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org
> >To: 
> >Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] ** Moderator commant **
> >Date: Mon, 27 Jun 2005 08:29:28 -0600
> >
> >Hi Perry, I am impressed by your sincerity and humility. Thanks for 
the

> >great example to the rest of us.
> >
> >I have a question for you. You write that "Specifically, 'ad 
hominem
> >argumentum', [which is what is mentioned on the TT discussions 
guidelines
> >page]  refers to trying to gain an edge in an argument by attacking 
the
> >person rather than the topic, again, regardless whether it is true 
or
> >false.' Does this apply only to the one with whom one is arguing, 
or does

> >it
> >apply as well to attacks against the person of persons whom one 
might
> >reference in constructing ones arguments. For example, a dismissal 
of John
> >Calvin's views on election via an attack against him as a person, 
i.e., his
> >dealings with Servatis; or a dismissal of the content and substance 
of the

> >Nicene Creed because it was formulated by supposedly corrupt Roman
> >Catholics -- are these ad hominem arguments acceptable forms of
> >argumentation on TruthTalk?
> >
> >Bill
> >- Original Message -
> >From: "Charles Perry Locke" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> >To: 
> >Sent: Monday, June 27, 2005 8:03 AM
> >Subject: [TruthTalk] ** Moderator commant **
> >
> >
> > > TT members,
> > >
> > >I have been contacted by email privately and informed that my
> >referring
> > > to DaveH as a "sly ol' mormon boy" was an ad hominem reference. 
After

> >some
> > > discussion back and forth, and some research,  I am convinced 
that it is

> >so
> > > and that I need to apologize to Dave.
> > >
> > >I previously thought that if one merely stated a belief about 
someone
> > > that was true, that it was not an ad hominem statement, but upon 
doing a
> > > little researh I discovered that it does not matter whethe

Re: [TruthTalk] Moderator commant

2005-06-27 Thread Judy Taylor




You didn't mention names but one does not have to be a 
rocket scientist to figure out who is implied here
Can you say in good conscience that you had no thought 
at all of David King of Israel when you wrote this Bill? jt
 
On Mon, 27 Jun 2005 11:16:23 -0600 "Bill Taylor" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:

  I don't recall mentioning any names, Judy. Hey 
  Perry: what about those of us who are not omniscient, should we avoid the ad 
  homs against the theologians, prophets, and kings of another's 
  argumentation?  Bill
  
From: Judy Taylor 
 
The problem here is huge since the person 
described below is not a theologian. Rather he is a 
prophet/king
chosen by God whose recorded words are 
inspired by the Spirit of God.  Big difference.   
jt
 
On Mon, 27 Jun 2005 10:04:12 -0600 "Bill Taylor" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:

  The Moderator responds  >  . . 
  .those arguments, too, should have to stand on the facts of Calvin's 
  argument, not on personal attacks on Calvin.
   
  You don't say! Hmm. If you were ever to 
  enforce this one, it would render some of us speechless. Just think 
  how it would affect the traffic here on TruthTalk if participants were 
  required to actually research, contemplate, and address the substance 
  of theological statements, instead of dismissing them out-of-hand 
  simply because the theologian seduced and slept with another 
  man's wife and then, to cover his crime, had him sent to the front lines 
  to be murdered -- I think you should go for 
  it. 
   
  Bill
  - Original Message - 
  From: "Charles Perry Locke" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
  
  > Bill,> >   In TT we are trying to prevent 
  discussions from becoming emotional in > nature because of 
  demeaning and hurtful statements, so it applies directly > to the 
  persons with whom we are immeditaly engaging in debate.> > 
     However, from a debating point of view if one chooses to 
  bring in > arguments made by another, say Calvin, those arguments, 
  too, should have to > stand on the facts of Calvin's argument, not 
  on personal attacks on Calvin.> > Perry> > 
  >From: "Bill Taylor" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>> 
  >Reply-To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org> >To: > >Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] ** Moderator commant 
  **> >Date: Mon, 27 Jun 2005 08:29:28 -0600> >> 
  >Hi Perry, I am impressed by your sincerity and humility. Thanks for 
  the> >great example to the rest of us.> >> 
  >I have a question for you. You write that "Specifically, 'ad 
  hominem> >argumentum', [which is what is mentioned on the TT 
  discussions guidelines> >page]  refers to trying to gain an 
  edge in an argument by attacking the> >person rather than the 
  topic, again, regardless whether it is true or> >false.' Does 
  this apply only to the one with whom one is arguing, or does > 
  >it> >apply as well to attacks against the person of persons 
  whom one might> >reference in constructing ones arguments. For 
  example, a dismissal of John> >Calvin's views on election via an 
  attack against him as a person, i.e., his> >dealings with 
  Servatis; or a dismissal of the content and substance of the> 
  >Nicene Creed because it was formulated by supposedly corrupt 
  Roman> >Catholics -- are these ad hominem arguments acceptable 
  forms of> >argumentation on TruthTalk?> >> 
  >Bill> >- Original Message -> >From: 
  "Charles Perry Locke" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>> 
  >To: > >Sent: Monday, June 27, 2005 8:03 AM> 
  >Subject: [TruthTalk] ** Moderator commant **> >> 
  >> > > TT members,> > >> > 
  >    I have been contacted by email privately and 
  informed that my > >referring> > > to DaveH as a 
  "sly ol' mormon boy" was an ad hominem reference. After > 
  >some> > > discussion back and forth, and some 
  research,  I am convinced that it is> >so> > > 
  and that I need to apologize to Dave.> > >> > 
  >    I previously thought that if one merely stated a 
  belief about someone> > > that was true, that it was not an 
  ad hominem statement, but upon doing a> > > little researh I 
  discovered that it does not matter whether it is true > 
  >or> > > not...an ad hominem reference is a comment "to 
  the man", so saying> >anything> > > about anyone 
  personally, whether true or not, positive or negative, is > 
  >an> >ad> > > hominem reference. If I were to 
  say, "John, I really think you are a > >smart> > > 
  guy", that is an ad hominem reference, too, because it is directed 
  at> > > someone personally.> > >> > 
  > However, on TT I think it is a little more 
  specific in that TT > >wishes> >to> > > 
  avoid the NEGATIVE ad hominem reference, that is,

Re: [TruthTalk] Moderator commant




I don't recall mentioning any names, Judy. Hey 
Perry: what about those of us who are not omniscient, should we avoid the ad 
homs against the theologians, prophets, and kings of another's 
argumentation?
 
Bill

  - Original Message - 
  From: 
  Judy 
  Taylor 
  To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org 
  
  Cc: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org 
  
  Sent: Monday, June 27, 2005 10:17 
AM
  Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] ** Moderator 
  commant **
  
  The problem here is huge since the person 
  described below is not a theologian. Rather he is a 
  prophet/king
  chosen by God whose recorded words are inspired 
  by the Spirit of God.  Big difference.   jt
   
  On Mon, 27 Jun 2005 10:04:12 -0600 "Bill Taylor" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
  
The Moderator responds  >  . . 
.those arguments, too, should have to stand on the facts of Calvin's 
argument, not on personal attacks on Calvin.
 
You don't say! Hmm. If you were ever to 
enforce this one, it would render some of us speechless. Just think how 
it would affect the traffic here on TruthTalk if participants were required 
to actually research, contemplate, and address the substance of 
theological statements, instead of dismissing them out-of-hand 
simply because the theologian seduced and slept with another man's 
wife and then, to cover his crime, had him sent to the front lines to be 
murdered -- I think you should go for it. 
 
Bill
- Original Message - 
From: "Charles Perry Locke" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: 
Sent: Monday, June 27, 2005 9:03 
AM
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] ** Moderator commant 
**
> Bill,> >   In TT we are trying to prevent 
discussions from becoming emotional in > nature because of demeaning 
and hurtful statements, so it applies directly > to the persons with 
whom we are immeditaly engaging in debate.> >    
However, from a debating point of view if one chooses to bring in > 
arguments made by another, say Calvin, those arguments, too, should have to 
> stand on the facts of Calvin's argument, not on personal attacks on 
Calvin.> > Perry> > >From: "Bill Taylor" 
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>> 
>Reply-To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org> >To: > >Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] ** Moderator commant 
**> >Date: Mon, 27 Jun 2005 08:29:28 -0600> >> 
>Hi Perry, I am impressed by your sincerity and humility. Thanks for 
the> >great example to the rest of us.> >> >I 
have a question for you. You write that "Specifically, 'ad hominem> 
>argumentum', [which is what is mentioned on the TT discussions 
guidelines> >page]  refers to trying to gain an edge in an 
argument by attacking the> >person rather than the topic, again, 
regardless whether it is true or> >false.' Does this apply only to 
the one with whom one is arguing, or does > >it> >apply 
as well to attacks against the person of persons whom one might> 
>reference in constructing ones arguments. For example, a dismissal of 
John> >Calvin's views on election via an attack against him as a 
person, i.e., his> >dealings with Servatis; or a dismissal of the 
content and substance of the> >Nicene Creed because it was 
formulated by supposedly corrupt Roman> >Catholics -- are these ad 
hominem arguments acceptable forms of> >argumentation on 
TruthTalk?> >> >Bill> >- Original Message 
-> >From: "Charles Perry Locke" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>> 
>To: > >Sent: Monday, June 27, 2005 8:03 AM> 
>Subject: [TruthTalk] ** Moderator commant **> >> 
>> > > TT members,> > >> > 
>    I have been contacted by email privately and informed 
that my > >referring> > > to DaveH as a "sly ol' 
mormon boy" was an ad hominem reference. After > >some> 
> > discussion back and forth, and some research,  I am convinced 
that it is> >so> > > and that I need to apologize to 
Dave.> > >> > >    I previously 
thought that if one merely stated a belief about someone> > > 
that was true, that it was not an ad hominem statement, but upon doing 
a> > > little researh I discovered that it does not matter 
whether it is true > >or> > > not...an ad hominem 
reference is a comment "to the man", so saying> >anything> 
> > about anyone personally, whether true or not, positive or 
negative, is > >an> >ad> > > hominem 
reference. If I were to say, "John, I really think you are a > 
>smart> > > guy", that is an ad hominem reference, too, 
because it is directed at> > > someone personally.> > 
>> > > However, on TT I think it is 
a little more specific in that TT > >wishes> >to> 
> > avoid the NEGATIVE ad hominem reference, that is, one that the 
receiver > >of> > > the comment would find insulting. 
Dave indicated in a post that he > >thought> > > "sly 
ol' mormon boy" w

Re: [TruthTalk] Moderator commant

2005-06-27 Thread Lance Muir




A non-moderator asks of Jt:what of Calvin, 
Torrance, Wright, Polanyi,  Nicea etc.?

  - Original Message - 
  From: 
  Judy 
  Taylor 
  To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org 
  
  Cc: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org 
  
  Sent: June 27, 2005 12:17
  Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] ** Moderator 
  commant **
  
  The problem here is huge since the person 
  described below is not a theologian. Rather he is a 
  prophet/king
  chosen by God whose recorded words are inspired 
  by the Spirit of God.  Big difference.   jt
   
  On Mon, 27 Jun 2005 10:04:12 -0600 "Bill Taylor" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
  
The Moderator responds  >  . . 
.those arguments, too, should have to stand on the facts of Calvin's 
argument, not on personal attacks on Calvin.
 
You don't say! Hmm. If you were ever to 
enforce this one, it would render some of us speechless. Just think how 
it would affect the traffic here on TruthTalk if participants were required 
to actually research, contemplate, and address the substance of 
theological statements, instead of dismissing them out-of-hand 
simply because the theologian seduced and slept with another man's 
wife and then, to cover his crime, had him sent to the front lines to be 
murdered -- I think you should go for it. 
 
Bill
- Original Message - 
From: "Charles Perry Locke" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: 
Sent: Monday, June 27, 2005 9:03 
AM
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] ** Moderator commant 
**
> Bill,> >   In TT we are trying to prevent 
discussions from becoming emotional in > nature because of demeaning 
and hurtful statements, so it applies directly > to the persons with 
whom we are immeditaly engaging in debate.> >    
However, from a debating point of view if one chooses to bring in > 
arguments made by another, say Calvin, those arguments, too, should have to 
> stand on the facts of Calvin's argument, not on personal attacks on 
Calvin.> > Perry> > >From: "Bill Taylor" 
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>> 
>Reply-To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org> >To: > >Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] ** Moderator commant 
**> >Date: Mon, 27 Jun 2005 08:29:28 -0600> >> 
>Hi Perry, I am impressed by your sincerity and humility. Thanks for 
the> >great example to the rest of us.> >> >I 
have a question for you. You write that "Specifically, 'ad hominem> 
>argumentum', [which is what is mentioned on the TT discussions 
guidelines> >page]  refers to trying to gain an edge in an 
argument by attacking the> >person rather than the topic, again, 
regardless whether it is true or> >false.' Does this apply only to 
the one with whom one is arguing, or does > >it> >apply 
as well to attacks against the person of persons whom one might> 
>reference in constructing ones arguments. For example, a dismissal of 
John> >Calvin's views on election via an attack against him as a 
person, i.e., his> >dealings with Servatis; or a dismissal of the 
content and substance of the> >Nicene Creed because it was 
formulated by supposedly corrupt Roman> >Catholics -- are these ad 
hominem arguments acceptable forms of> >argumentation on 
TruthTalk?> >> >Bill> >- Original Message 
-> >From: "Charles Perry Locke" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>> 
>To: > >Sent: Monday, June 27, 2005 8:03 AM> 
>Subject: [TruthTalk] ** Moderator commant **> >> 
>> > > TT members,> > >> > 
>    I have been contacted by email privately and informed 
that my > >referring> > > to DaveH as a "sly ol' 
mormon boy" was an ad hominem reference. After > >some> 
> > discussion back and forth, and some research,  I am convinced 
that it is> >so> > > and that I need to apologize to 
Dave.> > >> > >    I previously 
thought that if one merely stated a belief about someone> > > 
that was true, that it was not an ad hominem statement, but upon doing 
a> > > little researh I discovered that it does not matter 
whether it is true > >or> > > not...an ad hominem 
reference is a comment "to the man", so saying> >anything> 
> > about anyone personally, whether true or not, positive or 
negative, is > >an> >ad> > > hominem 
reference. If I were to say, "John, I really think you are a > 
>smart> > > guy", that is an ad hominem reference, too, 
because it is directed at> > > someone personally.> > 
>> > > However, on TT I think it is 
a little more specific in that TT > >wishes> >to> 
> > avoid the NEGATIVE ad hominem reference, that is, one that the 
receiver > >of> > > the comment would find insulting. 
Dave indicated in a post that he > >thought> > > "sly 
ol' mormon boy" was an ad hominem reference.> > >> > 
>    So, with this in mind, Dave, I apologize to you for 
making an> >ad-hominem> > > reference

Re: [TruthTalk] Moderator commant

2005-06-27 Thread Lance Muir




Wow! I may once again begin to employ 
argumentation, contextually appropriate, utilizing sources other than the Bible 
without fear of encountering epithets in the place of an argument. We shall see, 
Perry. We shall see. 

  - Original Message - 
  From: 
  Bill Taylor 
  
  To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org 
  
  Sent: June 27, 2005 12:04
  Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] ** Moderator 
  commant **
  
  The Moderator responds  >  . . 
  .those arguments, too, should have to stand on the facts of Calvin's argument, 
  not on personal attacks on Calvin.
   
  You don't say! Hmm. If you were ever to 
  enforce this one, it would render some of us speechless. Just think how 
  it would affect the traffic here on TruthTalk if participants were required to 
  actually research, contemplate, and address the substance of theological 
  statements, instead of dismissing them out-of-hand simply because 
  the theologian seduced and slept with another man's wife and then, to 
  cover his crime, had him sent to the front lines to be murdered -- I 
  think you should go for it. 
   
  Bill
  - Original Message - 
  From: "Charles Perry Locke" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
  To: 
  Sent: Monday, June 27, 2005 9:03 AM
  Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] ** Moderator commant 
  **
  > Bill,> >   In TT we are trying to prevent 
  discussions from becoming emotional in > nature because of demeaning 
  and hurtful statements, so it applies directly > to the persons with 
  whom we are immeditaly engaging in debate.> >    
  However, from a debating point of view if one chooses to bring in > 
  arguments made by another, say Calvin, those arguments, too, should have to 
  > stand on the facts of Calvin's argument, not on personal attacks on 
  Calvin.> > Perry> > >From: "Bill Taylor" 
  <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>> 
  >Reply-To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org> >To: > >Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] ** Moderator commant 
  **> >Date: Mon, 27 Jun 2005 08:29:28 -0600> >> 
  >Hi Perry, I am impressed by your sincerity and humility. Thanks for 
  the> >great example to the rest of us.> >> >I 
  have a question for you. You write that "Specifically, 'ad hominem> 
  >argumentum', [which is what is mentioned on the TT discussions 
  guidelines> >page]  refers to trying to gain an edge in an 
  argument by attacking the> >person rather than the topic, again, 
  regardless whether it is true or> >false.' Does this apply only to 
  the one with whom one is arguing, or does > >it> >apply as 
  well to attacks against the person of persons whom one might> 
  >reference in constructing ones arguments. For example, a dismissal of 
  John> >Calvin's views on election via an attack against him as a 
  person, i.e., his> >dealings with Servatis; or a dismissal of the 
  content and substance of the> >Nicene Creed because it was 
  formulated by supposedly corrupt Roman> >Catholics -- are these ad 
  hominem arguments acceptable forms of> >argumentation on 
  TruthTalk?> >> >Bill> >- Original Message 
  -> >From: "Charles Perry Locke" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>> 
  >To: > >Sent: Monday, June 27, 2005 8:03 AM> 
  >Subject: [TruthTalk] ** Moderator commant **> >> 
  >> > > TT members,> > >> > 
  >    I have been contacted by email privately and informed 
  that my > >referring> > > to DaveH as a "sly ol' mormon 
  boy" was an ad hominem reference. After > >some> > > 
  discussion back and forth, and some research,  I am convinced that it 
  is> >so> > > and that I need to apologize to 
  Dave.> > >> > >    I previously 
  thought that if one merely stated a belief about someone> > > 
  that was true, that it was not an ad hominem statement, but upon doing 
  a> > > little researh I discovered that it does not matter 
  whether it is true > >or> > > not...an ad hominem 
  reference is a comment "to the man", so saying> >anything> 
  > > about anyone personally, whether true or not, positive or negative, 
  is > >an> >ad> > > hominem reference. If I 
  were to say, "John, I really think you are a > >smart> > 
  > guy", that is an ad hominem reference, too, because it is directed 
  at> > > someone personally.> > >> > 
  > However, on TT I think it is a little more 
  specific in that TT > >wishes> >to> > > avoid 
  the NEGATIVE ad hominem reference, that is, one that the receiver > 
  >of> > > the comment would find insulting. Dave indicated in a 
  post that he > >thought> > > "sly ol' mormon boy" was 
  an ad hominem reference.> > >> > >    
  So, with this in mind, Dave, I apologize to you for making an> 
  >ad-hominem> > > reference.> > >> > 
  >    The above is a very general interpretation of "ad 
  hominem".> >Specifically,> > > "ad hominem argumentum", 
  [which is what is mentioned on the TT > >discussions> > 
  > guidelines page]  refers to trying to gain an edge in an argument 
  by> > > attacking the person rather than the topic, again, 
  regardless whether it> >i

Re: [TruthTalk] Moderator commant

2005-06-27 Thread Judy Taylor




The problem here is huge since the person 
described below is not a theologian. Rather he is a 
prophet/king
chosen by God whose recorded words are inspired by 
the Spirit of God.  Big difference.   jt
 
On Mon, 27 Jun 2005 10:04:12 -0600 "Bill Taylor" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:

  The Moderator responds  >  . . 
  .those arguments, too, should have to stand on the facts of Calvin's argument, 
  not on personal attacks on Calvin.
   
  You don't say! Hmm. If you were ever to 
  enforce this one, it would render some of us speechless. Just think how 
  it would affect the traffic here on TruthTalk if participants were required to 
  actually research, contemplate, and address the substance of theological 
  statements, instead of dismissing them out-of-hand simply because 
  the theologian seduced and slept with another man's wife and then, to 
  cover his crime, had him sent to the front lines to be murdered -- I 
  think you should go for it. 
   
  Bill
  - Original Message - 
  From: "Charles Perry Locke" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
  To: 
  Sent: Monday, June 27, 2005 9:03 AM
  Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] ** Moderator commant 
  **
  > Bill,> >   In TT we are trying to prevent 
  discussions from becoming emotional in > nature because of demeaning 
  and hurtful statements, so it applies directly > to the persons with 
  whom we are immeditaly engaging in debate.> >    
  However, from a debating point of view if one chooses to bring in > 
  arguments made by another, say Calvin, those arguments, too, should have to 
  > stand on the facts of Calvin's argument, not on personal attacks on 
  Calvin.> > Perry> > >From: "Bill Taylor" 
  <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>> 
  >Reply-To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org> >To: > >Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] ** Moderator commant 
  **> >Date: Mon, 27 Jun 2005 08:29:28 -0600> >> 
  >Hi Perry, I am impressed by your sincerity and humility. Thanks for 
  the> >great example to the rest of us.> >> >I 
  have a question for you. You write that "Specifically, 'ad hominem> 
  >argumentum', [which is what is mentioned on the TT discussions 
  guidelines> >page]  refers to trying to gain an edge in an 
  argument by attacking the> >person rather than the topic, again, 
  regardless whether it is true or> >false.' Does this apply only to 
  the one with whom one is arguing, or does > >it> >apply as 
  well to attacks against the person of persons whom one might> 
  >reference in constructing ones arguments. For example, a dismissal of 
  John> >Calvin's views on election via an attack against him as a 
  person, i.e., his> >dealings with Servatis; or a dismissal of the 
  content and substance of the> >Nicene Creed because it was 
  formulated by supposedly corrupt Roman> >Catholics -- are these ad 
  hominem arguments acceptable forms of> >argumentation on 
  TruthTalk?> >> >Bill> >- Original Message 
  -> >From: "Charles Perry Locke" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>> 
  >To: > >Sent: Monday, June 27, 2005 8:03 AM> 
  >Subject: [TruthTalk] ** Moderator commant **> >> 
  >> > > TT members,> > >> > 
  >    I have been contacted by email privately and informed 
  that my > >referring> > > to DaveH as a "sly ol' mormon 
  boy" was an ad hominem reference. After > >some> > > 
  discussion back and forth, and some research,  I am convinced that it 
  is> >so> > > and that I need to apologize to 
  Dave.> > >> > >    I previously 
  thought that if one merely stated a belief about someone> > > 
  that was true, that it was not an ad hominem statement, but upon doing 
  a> > > little researh I discovered that it does not matter 
  whether it is true > >or> > > not...an ad hominem 
  reference is a comment "to the man", so saying> >anything> 
  > > about anyone personally, whether true or not, positive or negative, 
  is > >an> >ad> > > hominem reference. If I 
  were to say, "John, I really think you are a > >smart> > 
  > guy", that is an ad hominem reference, too, because it is directed 
  at> > > someone personally.> > >> > 
  > However, on TT I think it is a little more 
  specific in that TT > >wishes> >to> > > avoid 
  the NEGATIVE ad hominem reference, that is, one that the receiver > 
  >of> > > the comment would find insulting. Dave indicated in a 
  post that he > >thought> > > "sly ol' mormon boy" was 
  an ad hominem reference.> > >> > >    
  So, with this in mind, Dave, I apologize to you for making an> 
  >ad-hominem> > > reference.> > >> > 
  >    The above is a very general interpretation of "ad 
  hominem".> >Specifically,> > > "ad hominem argumentum", 
  [which is what is mentioned on the TT > >discussions> > 
  > guidelines page]  refers to trying to gain an edge in an argument 
  by> > > attacking the person rather than the topic, again, 
  regardless whether it> >is> > > true or false.> 
  > >> > >    Even though I am acting as 
  moderator, I, too, am prone to making> > > inappropriate

Re: [TruthTalk] Moderator commant




The Moderator responds  >  . . .those 
arguments, too, should have to stand on the facts of Calvin's argument, not on 
personal attacks on Calvin.
 
You don't say! Hmm. If you were ever to enforce 
this one, it would render some of us speechless. Just think how it would 
affect the traffic here on TruthTalk if participants were required to actually 
research, contemplate, and address the substance of theological statements, 
instead of dismissing them out-of-hand simply because the theologian 
seduced and slept with another man's wife and then, to cover his crime, had him 
sent to the front lines to be murdered -- I think you should go for 
it. 
 
Bill
- Original Message - 
From: "Charles Perry Locke" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: 
Sent: Monday, June 27, 2005 9:03 AM
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] ** Moderator commant 
**
> Bill,> >   In TT we are trying to prevent 
discussions from becoming emotional in > nature because of demeaning and 
hurtful statements, so it applies directly > to the persons with whom we 
are immeditaly engaging in debate.> >    However, from a 
debating point of view if one chooses to bring in > arguments made by 
another, say Calvin, those arguments, too, should have to > stand on the 
facts of Calvin's argument, not on personal attacks on Calvin.> > 
Perry> > >From: "Bill Taylor" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>> 
>Reply-To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org> >To: > >Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] ** Moderator commant **> 
>Date: Mon, 27 Jun 2005 08:29:28 -0600> >> >Hi Perry, I 
am impressed by your sincerity and humility. Thanks for the> >great 
example to the rest of us.> >> >I have a question for you. 
You write that "Specifically, 'ad hominem> >argumentum', [which is 
what is mentioned on the TT discussions guidelines> >page]  
refers to trying to gain an edge in an argument by attacking the> 
>person rather than the topic, again, regardless whether it is true 
or> >false.' Does this apply only to the one with whom one is arguing, 
or does > >it> >apply as well to attacks against the person 
of persons whom one might> >reference in constructing ones arguments. 
For example, a dismissal of John> >Calvin's views on election via an 
attack against him as a person, i.e., his> >dealings with Servatis; or 
a dismissal of the content and substance of the> >Nicene Creed because 
it was formulated by supposedly corrupt Roman> >Catholics -- are these 
ad hominem arguments acceptable forms of> >argumentation on 
TruthTalk?> >> >Bill> >- Original Message 
-> >From: "Charles Perry Locke" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>> 
>To: > >Sent: Monday, June 27, 2005 8:03 AM> >Subject: 
[TruthTalk] ** Moderator commant **> >> >> > > 
TT members,> > >> > >    I have been 
contacted by email privately and informed that my > >referring> 
> > to DaveH as a "sly ol' mormon boy" was an ad hominem reference. After 
> >some> > > discussion back and forth, and some 
research,  I am convinced that it is> >so> > > and 
that I need to apologize to Dave.> > >> > 
>    I previously thought that if one merely stated a belief 
about someone> > > that was true, that it was not an ad hominem 
statement, but upon doing a> > > little researh I discovered that 
it does not matter whether it is true > >or> > > not...an 
ad hominem reference is a comment "to the man", so saying> 
>anything> > > about anyone personally, whether true or not, 
positive or negative, is > >an> >ad> > > 
hominem reference. If I were to say, "John, I really think you are a > 
>smart> > > guy", that is an ad hominem reference, too, because 
it is directed at> > > someone personally.> > 
>> > > However, on TT I think it is a 
little more specific in that TT > >wishes> >to> > 
> avoid the NEGATIVE ad hominem reference, that is, one that the receiver 
> >of> > > the comment would find insulting. Dave 
indicated in a post that he > >thought> > > "sly ol' 
mormon boy" was an ad hominem reference.> > >> > 
>    So, with this in mind, Dave, I apologize to you for 
making an> >ad-hominem> > > reference.> > 
>> > >    The above is a very general 
interpretation of "ad hominem".> >Specifically,> > > "ad 
hominem argumentum", [which is what is mentioned on the TT > 
>discussions> > > guidelines page]  refers to trying to 
gain an edge in an argument by> > > attacking the person rather 
than the topic, again, regardless whether it> >is> > > 
true or false.> > >> > >    Even though 
I am acting as moderator, I, too, am prone to making> > > 
inappropriate remarks at times, and I welcome private email from anyone> 
>that> > > would like to point out such comments. If we have 
only one watcher, who> > > watches the watcher? While I moderate 
the group, the group moderates me.> > >> > > Perry the 
Moderator> > >> > >> > > 
--> > > "Let your speech be always with grace, seasoned 
with salt, that you may> >know how you ought to answer every 
man."  (Colossians 4:6)> >http://www.InnGlory.org> >

Re: [TruthTalk] Moderator commant


I leave the house with another smile on my rather handsome face.  
 
Jd  -Original Message-From: Terry Clifton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgSent: Mon, 27 Jun 2005 10:08:32 -0500Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] ** Moderator commant **


Charles Perry Locke wrote:  > TT members, > > I have been contacted by email privately and informed that my > referring to DaveH as a "sly ol' mormon boy" was an ad hominem > reference. After some discussion back and forth, and some research, I > am convinced that it is so and that I need to apologize to Dave. > =  Just so others do not make the same error, which word was offensive? Was it sly, or old, or Mormon, or boy? Terry  -- "Let your speech be always with grace, seasoned with salt, that you may know how you ought to answer every man." (Colossians 4:6) http://www.InnGlory.org  If you do not want to receive posts from this list, send an email to Le
[EMAIL PROTECTED] and you will be unsubscribed. If you have a friend who wants to join, tell him to send an e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and he will be subscribed.

Re: [TruthTalk] Belief


My personal devotions , currently, are centered around a thing that is called "kingdom theology."   I am looking at this subject form a biblical perspective (of course) and in contrast to an "ecclesiastical theology." If we believe that God established an institution - The Right Church - then corporate compliance is critical and  corporate imposition is necessary.   "Purity" under such a consideration is finally served by some effort of exclusion.   With kingdom theology,  the rule of Christ in the life of the individual is the order of the day and the "church" is a collection of persons under that profound and increasing Influence.  Little or nothing is institutionalized.  Divisiveness  under such a consideration occurs when the dynamic influence of the rule of God is left out of the action of debate.   
 
In the good ol' days, when yours truly was a chief cause of such a negative spirit,  the actions taken by me were little different than those of an unbeliever (an atheist, if you will).  Can you imagine ???   Me , a believer ACTING LIKE one who is by choice in the camp of the Enemy? !!    That startling reality in my life is the same as that of King David when he said "Against Thee and Thee only have I sinned!!"   David is saying that if his relationship with God had been one of meaningful economy,  his failures (if any) would have not included the devastation seen in his lustful sin and all that which went into its cover-up.  
 
 
JD -Original Message-From: Dave Hansen To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgSent: Mon, 27 Jun 2005 07:19:02 -0700Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Belief


knpraise@aol.com wrote: 



DAveH  ---   no need to answer the post sent minutes ago.   I have my answer herein.  
To my way of thinking  --  when "unity" becomes more important than personal passion (faith), such passages as Romans 14:4 are contradicted.   The notion that truth is a corporate conclusion is completely foreign to me  --  as I understand the biblical message.  Differences of understanding need not be divisive. DAVEH:   Agreed.  So outside the Mormons here, why do you think there is such divisive set of opinions and discussions on TT?



JD   -Original Message-From: Dave Hansen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgSent: Mon, 27 Jun 2005 00:49:43 -0700Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Belief


DAVEH:   Yes Bishop, I'm referring to conformity of beliefs for the most part.  Though I think the unity of faith (harmonious attitudes, as you put it) play an important role as well.      From our perspective, most LDS folks truly believe our Prophet is the spokesman for the Lord in our time.  So, we believe if the Lord wants us to know or do something different, he will speak through his servant to us as a whole.  IF there is any question that becomes a divisive factor, we look to the Prophet 's counsel to give us the direction we need to go as a group.  It's pretty rare for doctrinal disputations to reach beyond private discussion.&
nbsp; If somebo dy wants to make a public spectacle out of an issue, it i s pretty much grounds for excommunication.    So.intellectually strong individuals who cannot conform their beliefs within the framework of official LDS theology do not fit in very well.  And if their intellectual stubbornness exceeds their level of faith in their Church Leaders, it is akin to fitting a round peg in a square hole.  Those who do harbor their own pet theological theories who want to remain faithful avoid publicizing their intellectual disagreements.  Once they attempt to publicly politicize their dispute with the Church, they no longer fit in with the rest of the folks who tend not to 
want to have disharmony exist in the ranks.     Which brings us back to the harmonious attitudes.  Mormonism tends to be very cultural in nature.  Th at which disrupts is out of harmony with not only God, but the Family and the congregation.  We believe success comes by working together.  We don't look to one pastor to hold a Ward (congregation) together, but it is the combined effort of every person in the Ward to assist the Ward Shepherd (Bishop) in keeping it humming (usually to the tune of PUT YOUR SHOULDER TO THE WHEEL) along.  Our strongest Wards are those where the most folks pitch in to do the most work, which leads to strong fellowship.  Those that are weakest are those where the members expect others to do the work.    As I perceive TT, there is little sense of purpose or guida
nce.  Nor does there seem to be much appreciation for oneness of belief.  I imagine everybody in TT believes they know the truth, but yet I don't think they really appreciate that all the variations of truth they have here all stems from a single source (as they perceive it)the Bible.   Numerous times folks have told me I am wrong and that it is very simple to learn the truth by rejecting anything LDS and just read the Bible.  Quite often they suggest the truth of the Bible is so obvious.  Yet if it w

Re: [TruthTalk] Belief

Perhaps I did not receive this?  Repost, please. JD  -Original Message-From: Lance Muir <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgSent: Mon, 27 Jun 2005 10:29:32 -0400Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Belief

I sent a general message to all Mormons, participants and 'lurkers' alike, wherein I asked a number of questions. It was an attempt on my part to address the issue of diversity within your tradition. I excluded those you'd deem either fringe or fundamentalist groups. I don't recall anyone responding. If there exists no variance of understanding on important matters, it would kind of scare me. 

- Original Message - 
From: Dave Hansen 
To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org 
Sent: June 27, 2005 10:19
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Belief
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: 

DAveH  ---   no need to answer the post sent minutes ago.   I have my answer herein.  
To my way of thinking  --  when "unity" becomes more important than personal passion (faith), such passages as Romans 14:4 are contradicted.   The notion that truth is a corporate conclusion is completely foreign to me  --  as I understand the biblical message.  Differences of understanding need not be divisive. DAVEH:   Agreed.  So outside the Mormons here, why do you think there is such divisive set of opinions and discussions on TT?

JD   -Original Message-From: Dave Hansen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgSent: Mon, 27 Jun 2005 00:49:43 -0700Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Belief

DAVEH:   Yes Bishop, I'm referring to conformity of beliefs for the most part.  Though I think the unity of faith (harmonious attitudes, as you put it) play an important role as well.      From our perspective, most LDS folks truly believe our Prophet is the spokesman for the Lord in our time.  So, we believe if the Lord wants us to know or do something different, he will speak through his servant to us as a whole.  IF there is any question that becomes a divisive factor, we look to the Prophet 's counsel to give us the direction we need to go as a group.  It's pretty rare for doctrinal disputations to reach beyond private discussion.  If somebo dy wants to make a public spectacle out of an issue, it 
i s pretty much grounds for excommunication.    So.intellectually strong individuals who cannot conform their beliefs within the framework of official LDS theology do not fit in very well.  And if their intellectual stubbornness exceeds their level of faith in their Church Leaders, it is akin to fitting a round peg in a square hole.  Those who do harbor their own pet theological theories who want to remain faithful avoid publicizing their intellectual disagreements.  Once they attempt to publicly politicize their dispute with the Church, they no longer fit in with the rest of the folks who tend not to want to have disharmony exist in the ranks.     Which brings us back to the harmonious attitudes.  Mormonism tends to be very cultural in nature.  Th at w
hich disrupts is out of harmony with not only God, but the Family and the congregation.  We believe success comes by working together.  We don't look to one pastor to hold a Ward (congregation) together, but it is the combined effort of every person in the Ward to assist the Ward Shepherd (Bishop) in keeping it humming (usually to the tune of PUT YOUR SHOULDER TO THE WHEEL) along.  Our strongest Wards are those where the most folks pitch in to do the most work, which leads to strong fellowship.  Those that are weakest are those where the members expect others to do the work.    As I perceive TT, there is little sense of purpose or guidance.  Nor does there seem to be much appreciation for oneness of belief.  I imagine everybody in TT believes they know the truth, but yet I don't think they really appreciate that all the variations of trut
h they have here all stems from a single source (as they perceive it)the Bible.   Numerous times folks have told me I am wrong and that it is very simple to learn the truth by rejecting anything LDS and just read the Bible.  Quite often they suggest the truth of the Bible is so obvious.  Yet if it were so easy to discern the truth from the Bible, why are there so many disagreements as to what the Bible tells us?  And then look at why different churches start up.  Seems like Protestants is a good term to describe many Christians.they tend to want to protest that which somebody else teaches them.  If they don't like doctrines of one church, it is relatively easy to start another.  While the LDS Church has experienced similar factions in it's wake, I se e it a bit differently.  In our case, most who don't fi
t into the paradigm are excommunicated for not towing the line, so to speak.  Then they go out and form their own church to emulate the LDS Church, using the root teachings.  Contrast that to the Protestant churches, that seem to break off by protesting what the mother church doctrinally dictates.  Is that not the process by which Luther left the RCC..

Re: [TruthTalk] Moderator commant

Good question, Terry! Sionce Dave has referred to himself as "this old 
mormon boy" on more than one occasion, I would guess my calling him "sly" 
was the offensive term! That is unless, like in so many groups today, they 
can call themselves names, but if an outsiderr does it they are offended!


Perry


From: Terry Clifton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Reply-To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org
To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] ** Moderator commant **
Date: Mon, 27 Jun 2005 10:08:32 -0500

Charles Perry Locke wrote:


TT members,

  I have been contacted by email privately and informed that my referring 
to DaveH as a "sly ol' mormon boy" was an ad hominem reference. After some 
discussion back and forth, and some research,  I am convinced that it is 
so and that I need to apologize to Dave.

=


Just so others do not make the same error, which word was offensive?  Was 
it sly, or old, or Mormon, or boy?

Terry

--
"Let your speech be always with grace, seasoned with salt, that you may 
know how you ought to answer every man."  (Colossians 4:6) 
http://www.InnGlory.org


If you do not want to receive posts from this list, send an email to 
[EMAIL PROTECTED] and you will be unsubscribed.  If you have a 
friend who wants to join, tell him to send an e-mail to 
[EMAIL PROTECTED] and he will be subscribed.



--
"Let your speech be always with grace, seasoned with salt, that you may know how you 
ought to answer every man."  (Colossians 4:6) http://www.InnGlory.org

If you do not want to receive posts from this list, send an email to [EMAIL 
PROTECTED] and you will be unsubscribed.  If you have a friend who wants to 
join, tell him to send an e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and he will be subscribed.

Re: [TruthTalk] A apologetic for the eternal sonship of Chr JD

Thank you for your response. Obviously, we are miles apart on this and the distance seems to be increasing. I believe, however, that God can work through either understanding That is not to say that there is more than one truth on a subject. Rather, it is to declare our God as sovereign in essence, power and influence. I guess this comes down to what Debbie has been discussing with DAveH. Is God bigger than our perceptions of Him and His doctrine?
JD -Original Message-From: David Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgSent: Mon, 27 Jun 2005 09:40:26 -0400Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] A apologetic for the eternal sonship of Chr JD

John wrote:
> I have been working on this since 6:00 am
> and it is nearly 3:00 !! Yikes .

LOL. Studying is fun, isn't it!

Nice piece, John. I don't think I disagreed with much of anything in it. I
just think it argued more for the Divinity of Christ rather than the idea of
eternal sonship.

Both you and Bill seem to hammer two ideas in discussing this topic:

1) Jesus is the eternal God

2) Jesus has a relationship in the Godhead best understood by us as a Father
/ Son relationship.

I do not disagree with either of these concepts. Rather, I affirm them both
as being true. My primary concern with this subject has to do with how we
interpret Scripture. What does the Scripture mean when it says, "this day I
have begotten you." The Holy Ghost has a specific message here. In the
earlier discussion, I was not too sure about it, but as the discussion
progressed, I think Judy made her case very well. Adam Clark also makes
some good points about it. The Biblical passage is referring to his
incarnation when he became son of man, son of David, son of God.

Peace be with you.
David Miller.

--
"Let your speech be always with grace, seasoned with salt, that you may know how
you ought to answer every man." (Colossians 4:6) http://www.InnGlory.org

If you do not want to receive posts from this list, send an email to
[EMAIL PROTECTED] and you will be unsubscribed. If you have a friend
who wants to join, tell him to send an e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and
he will be subscribed.

Re: [TruthTalk] Moderator commant


I saw Perry thing with a slight smile on his face  -  but the comments are appreciated.  
 
JD  -Original Message-From: Charles Perry Locke <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>To: truthtalk@mail.innglory.orgSent: Mon, 27 Jun 2005 07:03:14 -0700Subject: [TruthTalk] ** Moderator commant **


TT members,    I have been contacted by email privately and informed that my referring to DaveH as a "sly ol' mormon boy" was an ad hominem reference. After some discussion back and forth, and some research, I am convinced that it is so and that I need to apologize to Dave.    I previously thought that if one merely stated a belief about someone that was true, that it was not an ad hominem statement, but upon doing a little researh I discovered that it does not matter whether it is true or not...an ad hominem reference is a comment "to the man", so saying anything about anyone personally, whether true or not, positive or negative, is an ad hominem reference. If I were to say, "John, I really think you are a smart guy", that is an ad hominem reference, too, because it is directed at someone personally.    However, on TT I think it is a little more specific in that TT wishes to avoid th
e NEGATIVE ad hominem reference, that is, one that the receiver of the comment would find insulting. Dave indicated in a post that he thought "sly ol' mormon boy" was an ad hominem reference.    So, with this in mind, Dave, I apologize to you for making an ad-hominem reference.    The above is a very general interpretation of "ad hominem". Specifically, "ad hominem argumentum", [which is what is mentioned on the TT discussions guidelines page] refers to trying to gain an edge in an argument by attacking the person rather than the topic, again, regardless whether it is true or false.    Even though I am acting as moderator, I, too, am prone to making inappropriate remarks at times, and I welcome private email from anyone that would like to point out such comments. If we have only one watcher, who watches the watcher? While I moderate the group, the group moderates me.  Perry the Moderator  -- "Let your speech be 
always with grace, seasoned with salt, that you may know how you ought to answer every man." (Colossians 4:6) http://www.InnGlory.org  If you do not want to receive posts from this list, send an email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and you will be unsubscribed. If you have a friend who wants to join, tell him to send an e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and he will be subscribed.

Re: [TruthTalk] Moderator commant


Charles Perry Locke wrote:


TT members,

  I have been contacted by email privately and informed that my 
referring to DaveH as a "sly ol' mormon boy" was an ad hominem 
reference. After some discussion back and forth, and some research,  I 
am convinced that it is so and that I need to apologize to Dave.

=


Just so others do not make the same error, which word was offensive?  
Was it sly, or old, or Mormon, or boy?

Terry

--
"Let your speech be always with grace, seasoned with salt, that you may know how you 
ought to answer every man."  (Colossians 4:6) http://www.InnGlory.org

If you do not want to receive posts from this list, send an email to [EMAIL 
PROTECTED] and you will be unsubscribed.  If you have a friend who wants to 
join, tell him to send an e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and he will be subscribed.

Re: [TruthTalk] Moderator commant


Bill,

 In TT we are trying to prevent discussions from becoming emotional in 
nature because of demeaning and hurtful statements, so it applies directly 
to the persons with whom we are immeditaly engaging in debate.


  However, from a debating point of view if one chooses to bring in 
arguments made by another, say Calvin, those arguments, too, should have to 
stand on the facts of Calvin's argument, not on personal attacks on Calvin.


Perry


From: "Bill Taylor" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Reply-To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org
To: 
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] ** Moderator commant **
Date: Mon, 27 Jun 2005 08:29:28 -0600

Hi Perry, I am impressed by your sincerity and humility. Thanks for the
great example to the rest of us.

I have a question for you. You write that "Specifically, 'ad hominem
argumentum', [which is what is mentioned on the TT discussions guidelines
page]  refers to trying to gain an edge in an argument by attacking the
person rather than the topic, again, regardless whether it is true or
false.' Does this apply only to the one with whom one is arguing, or does 
it

apply as well to attacks against the person of persons whom one might
reference in constructing ones arguments. For example, a dismissal of John
Calvin's views on election via an attack against him as a person, i.e., his
dealings with Servatis; or a dismissal of the content and substance of the
Nicene Creed because it was formulated by supposedly corrupt Roman
Catholics -- are these ad hominem arguments acceptable forms of
argumentation on TruthTalk?

Bill
- Original Message -
From: "Charles Perry Locke" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: 
Sent: Monday, June 27, 2005 8:03 AM
Subject: [TruthTalk] ** Moderator commant **


> TT members,
>
>I have been contacted by email privately and informed that my 
referring
> to DaveH as a "sly ol' mormon boy" was an ad hominem reference. After 
some

> discussion back and forth, and some research,  I am convinced that it is
so
> and that I need to apologize to Dave.
>
>I previously thought that if one merely stated a belief about someone
> that was true, that it was not an ad hominem statement, but upon doing a
> little researh I discovered that it does not matter whether it is true 
or

> not...an ad hominem reference is a comment "to the man", so saying
anything
> about anyone personally, whether true or not, positive or negative, is 
an

ad
> hominem reference. If I were to say, "John, I really think you are a 
smart

> guy", that is an ad hominem reference, too, because it is directed at
> someone personally.
>
> However, on TT I think it is a little more specific in that TT 
wishes

to
> avoid the NEGATIVE ad hominem reference, that is, one that the receiver 
of
> the comment would find insulting. Dave indicated in a post that he 
thought

> "sly ol' mormon boy" was an ad hominem reference.
>
>So, with this in mind, Dave, I apologize to you for making an
ad-hominem
> reference.
>
>The above is a very general interpretation of "ad hominem".
Specifically,
> "ad hominem argumentum", [which is what is mentioned on the TT 
discussions

> guidelines page]  refers to trying to gain an edge in an argument by
> attacking the person rather than the topic, again, regardless whether it
is
> true or false.
>
>Even though I am acting as moderator, I, too, am prone to making
> inappropriate remarks at times, and I welcome private email from anyone
that
> would like to point out such comments. If we have only one watcher, who
> watches the watcher? While I moderate the group, the group moderates me.
>
> Perry the Moderator
>
>
> --
> "Let your speech be always with grace, seasoned with salt, that you may
know how you ought to answer every man."  (Colossians 4:6)
http://www.InnGlory.org
>
> If you do not want to receive posts from this list, send an email to
[EMAIL PROTECTED] and you will be unsubscribed.  If you have a
friend who wants to join, tell him to send an e-mail to
[EMAIL PROTECTED] and he will be subscribed.
>


--
"Let your speech be always with grace, seasoned with salt, that you may 
know how you ought to answer every man."  (Colossians 4:6) 
http://www.InnGlory.org


If you do not want to receive posts from this list, send an email to 
[EMAIL PROTECTED] and you will be unsubscribed.  If you have a 
friend who wants to join, tell him to send an e-mail to 
[EMAIL PROTECTED] and he will be subscribed.



--
"Let your speech be always with grace, seasoned with salt, that you may know how you 
ought to answer every man."  (Colossians 4:6) http://www.InnGlory.org

If you do not want to receive posts from this list, send an email to [EMAIL 
PROTECTED] and you will be unsubscribed.  If you have a friend who wants to 
join, tell him to send an e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and he will be subscribed.

Re: [TruthTalk] A apologetic for the eternal sonship of Chr JD

2005-06-27 Thread Judy Taylor




Thanks for this JD, I do appreciate the effort and the 
fact that I don't have to wait anymore :)  I think you would expect me to 
comment though - right?  See below ..

  












NOTES ON ETERNAL SONSHIP    
begun 6/24/05
 Factors  that play into this 
discussion:
 Begotten  (monogenhs  --   monogenes)   
 Used five 
times :  John 1:14, 18;  3:16, 18;   Heb 11:17;  I Jo4:9
 
A second Gk word  prototodos  --   (Heb. 1:6;  Rev 1:5 and translated "begotten" 
and "firstborn" respectively)  
--  will not be 
considered in this study.. Suffice it to say that the two Greek 
words are not the same and do not refer to the same "begetting.".  
 
It should be noted that nowhere 
in JOHN is there reference to the virgin birth.   This accounting  of Christ's coming into the world is not considered by John in his 
apoplogetic   It is  John's assignment in this writing 
 to present the startling 
message that the God of creation came to draw men unto Himself.   It is not simply that Christ 
is the unique representative of the Good News.   Rather,  it is that He is the Good News.  For the Apostle, this message only works because 
Christ is God Himself and John presents this claim in no uncertain 
terms within this thoughtful and ancient presentation.  It is not that 
Jesus is born into Sonship  or 
John would have more to say about the virgin birth,  rather the point of emphasis is that 
He becomes 
flesh.  
For those who 
would consider "Christianity,"  their decision has nothing to do with 
the question  of 
Representative allegiance.    
--  choosing between one 
represent ative of "God" or another.   Rather, the choice that is demanded with a reading of 
 JOHN is the choice between 
accepting Christ Himself as the Great God Almighty  into 
your life or not.  It is as 
profoundly simple as that.  

 
jt: So 
what is/was He on this earth JD? - "An eternal son" OR "the Great God 
Almighty?"  There is something extremely double minded about your logic 
above.
 
With all this  in mind,  we see the beginnings  of this theme with the very first 
passage of the book.  In 1:1-5,  Jesus 
is presented as word, life and light  
-   in a way 
uniquely different for any other consideration or claim.  It is out of this "uniqueness" 
that John presents the Christ he loves and serves.   "Uniqueness" as applied to Christ is one of the themes 
of this book of JOHN.  
 
jt: Sure he does ie: In the 
beginning was the Word and the Word was with God and the Word WAS 
God (John 1:1)
And later: "The words that I 
speak to you they are spirit and they are life" (John 
6:63)
"The words I speak to you 
I speak not of myself but the Father that dwelleth in 
me He doeth the works (John 14:10)
The Father dwelt in Him just 
like Jesus dwells in us today - which is by way of the Holy Spirit which 
incidentally He was given without measure.
 
Because of this fact (assuming you agree),  we see  the Apostle establishing the 
uniqueness of Christ with the very beginnings of his 
letter.  His introduction or 
perface reads from verse 1 through 
verse 18.   It builds from 
one extraordinary fact ,  the Word, to another, Life and Light, to the final and 
most  extraordinary 
consideration  of all -  His 
uniqueness as the Son of 
God and the eternal nature of that 
teaching.   

 
jt: 
God's Word is spirit and it is life - God's Word is also eternal ie "All 
flesh is grass, and all the goodliness thereof is as the flower of the 
field; the grass withereth, the flower fadeth because the spirit of the Lord 
bloweth upon it; surely the people is grass. The grass withereth, the flower 
fadeth; but the Word of our God shall stand for ever" 
(Isaiah 40:6-8)
 
Being the "Word" is one thing, as is being "God," 
being "Life,"   being "Light."   How this can 
be? is another matter altogether.   And John 
establishes an  explanation to this question in the teaching of 
the eternal Sonship of 
Christ  (v 14-18).   The word "unique" referred to above, is 
this word monogenes. Thayer 
(the lexicon) tells us the word means "single of its kind, only" and as it 
applies to Jesus as Son of God,  
one who has "no brethren."   
 
jt: I 
don't think John establishes this teaching at all JD because Jesus does 
have "brethren" - by adoption we are his brethren, that is, if we are 
allowing His sanctification process in our lives: "For both he that 
sanctifieth and they who are sanctified are all of one; for which cause he 
is not ashamed to call them brethren" (Hebrews 2:11).

Re: [TruthTalk] Moderator commant

DAVEH:   I suspect I should not reply publicly to this, however since I 
am the focal point of the discussion, I hope you will forgive me for 
making a brief comment.   First, the apology the apology is appreciated, 
it really is not necessary, as I would much prefer you be honest to my 
face in how you feel about me rather than harbor such feelings without 
expressing them.  Your original comment did not offend me, as from my 
perspective it merely confirms that you truly are an anti-Mormoneven 
by the standards of your own definition.  Now if I deserve a reprimand 
for saying that, lay it on me Perry.


Charles Perry Locke wrote:


TT members,

  I have been contacted by email privately and informed that my 
referring to DaveH as a "sly ol' mormon boy" was an ad hominem 
reference. After some discussion back and forth, and some research,  I 
am convinced that it is so and that I need to apologize to Dave.


  I previously thought that if one merely stated a belief about 
someone that was true, that it was not an ad hominem statement, but 
upon doing a little researh I discovered that it does not matter 
whether it is true or not...an ad hominem reference is a comment "to 
the man", so saying anything about anyone personally, whether true or 
not, positive or negative, is an ad hominem reference. If I were to 
say, "John, I really think you are a smart guy", that is an ad hominem 
reference, too, because it is directed at someone personally.


   However, on TT I think it is a little more specific in that TT 
wishes to avoid the NEGATIVE ad hominem reference, that is, one that 
the receiver of the comment would find insulting. Dave indicated in a 
post that he thought "sly ol' mormon boy" was an ad hominem reference.


  So, with this in mind, Dave, I apologize to you for making an 
ad-hominem reference.


  The above is a very general interpretation of "ad hominem". 
Specifically, "ad hominem argumentum", [which is what is mentioned on 
the TT discussions guidelines page]  refers to trying to gain an edge 
in an argument by attacking the person rather than the topic, again, 
regardless whether it is true or false.


  Even though I am acting as moderator, I, too, am prone to making 
inappropriate remarks at times, and I welcome private email from 
anyone that would like to point out such comments. If we have only one 
watcher, who watches the watcher? While I moderate the group, the 
group moderates me.


Perry the Moderator


--
"Let your speech be always with grace, seasoned with salt, that you 
may know how you ought to answer every man."  (Colossians 4:6) 
http://www.InnGlory.org


If you do not want to receive posts from this list, send an email to 
[EMAIL PROTECTED] and you will be unsubscribed.  If you have 
a friend who wants to join, tell him to send an e-mail to 
[EMAIL PROTECTED] and he will be subscribed.





--
~~~
Dave Hansen
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.langlitz.com
~~~
If you wish to receive
things I find interesting,
I maintain six email lists...
JOKESTER, OPINIONS, LDS,
STUFF, MOTORCYCLE and CLIPS.

--
"Let your speech be always with grace, seasoned with salt, that you may know how you 
ought to answer every man."  (Colossians 4:6) http://www.InnGlory.org

If you do not want to receive posts from this list, send an email to [EMAIL 
PROTECTED] and you will be unsubscribed.  If you have a friend who wants to 
join, tell him to send an e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and he will be subscribed.

Re: [TruthTalk] Belief

2005-06-27 Thread Lance Muir




I sent a general message to all Mormons, 
participants and 'lurkers' alike, wherein I asked a number of questions. It was 
an attempt on my part to address the issue of diversity within your tradition. I 
excluded those you'd deem either fringe or fundamentalist groups. I don't recall 
anyone responding. If there exists no variance of understanding on important 
matters, it would kind of scare me. 

  - Original Message - 
  From: 
  Dave Hansen 
  
  To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org 
  
  Sent: June 27, 2005 10:19
  Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Belief
  [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: 
  


DAveH  ---   no need to answer the post 
sent minutes ago.   I have my answer herein.  
To my way of thinking  --  when "unity" becomes more 
important than personal passion (faith), such passages as Romans 14:4 are 
contradicted.   The notion that truth is a corporate conclusion is 
completely foreign to me  --  as I understand the biblical 
message.  Differences of understanding need not be divisive. 
  DAVEH:   Agreed.  So outside 
  the Mormons here, why do you think there is such divisive set of opinions and 
  discussions on TT?
  


JD   -Original 
Message-From: Dave Hansen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgSent: 
Mon, 27 Jun 2005 00:49:43 -0700Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] 
Belief


DAVEH:   Yes Bishop, I'm referring to 
conformity of beliefs for the most part.  Though I think the unity of 
faith (harmonious attitudes, as you put it) play an important role as 
well.      From our perspective, most LDS folks 
truly believe our Prophet is the spokesman for the Lord in our time.  
So, we believe if the Lord wants us to know or do something different, he 
will speak through his servant to us as a whole.  IF there is any 
question that becomes a divisive factor, we look to the Prophet 's counsel 
to give us the direction we need to go as a group.  It's pretty rare 
for doctrinal disputations to reach beyond private discussion.  
If somebo dy wants to make a public spectacle out of an issue, it i s pretty 
much grounds for excommunication.    
So.intellectually strong individuals who cannot conform their beliefs 
within the framework of official LDS theology do not fit in very 
well.  And if their intellectual stubbornness exceeds their level of 
faith in their Church Leaders, it is akin to fitting a round peg in a square 
hole.  Those who do harbor their own pet theological theories who want 
to remain faithful avoid publicizing their intellectual disagreements.  
Once they attempt to publicly politicize their dispute with the 
Church, they no longer fit in with the rest of the folks who tend not to 
want to have disharmony exist in the ranks.     Which 
brings us back to the harmonious attitudes.  Mormonism tends to be very 
cultural in nature.  Th at which disrupts is out of harmony with not 
only God, but the Family and the congregation.  We believe success 
comes by working together.  We don't look to one pastor to hold a Ward 
(congregation) together, but it is the combined effort of every person in 
the Ward to assist the Ward Shepherd (Bishop) in keeping it humming (usually 
to the tune of PUT YOUR SHOULDER TO THE WHEEL) along.  Our strongest 
Wards are those where the most folks pitch in to do the most work, which 
leads to strong fellowship.  Those that are weakest are those where the 
members expect others to do the work.    As I 
perceive TT, there is little sense of purpose or guidance.  
Nor does there seem to be much appreciation for oneness of belief.  I 
imagine everybody in TT believes they know the truth, but yet I don't think 
they really appreciate that all the variations of truth they have here all 
stems from a single source (as they perceive it)the Bible.   
Numerous times folks have told me I am wrong and that it is very simple to 
learn the truth by rejecting anything LDS and just read the Bible.  
Quite often they suggest the truth of the Bible is so obvious.  Yet if 
it were so easy to discern the truth from the Bible, why are there so many 
disagreements as to what the Bible tells us?  And then look at why 
different churches start up.  Seems like Protestants is a good 
term to describe many Christians.they tend to want to protest that which 
somebody else teaches them.  If they don't like doctrines of one 
church, it is relatively easy to start another. 
 While the LDS Church has experienced 
similar factions in it's wake, I se e it a bit differently.  In our 
case, most who don't fit into the paradigm are excommunicated for not towing 
the line, so to speak.  Then they go out and form their own church to 
emulate the LDS Church, using the root teachings.  Contrast 
that to the Protestant ch

Re: [TruthTalk] Moderator commant

Hi Perry, I am impressed by your sincerity and humility. Thanks for the
great example to the rest of us.

I have a question for you. You write that "Specifically, 'ad hominem
argumentum', [which is what is mentioned on the TT discussions guidelines
page]  refers to trying to gain an edge in an argument by attacking the
person rather than the topic, again, regardless whether it is true or
false.' Does this apply only to the one with whom one is arguing, or does it
apply as well to attacks against the person of persons whom one might
reference in constructing ones arguments. For example, a dismissal of John
Calvin's views on election via an attack against him as a person, i.e., his
dealings with Servatis; or a dismissal of the content and substance of the
Nicene Creed because it was formulated by supposedly corrupt Roman
Catholics -- are these ad hominem arguments acceptable forms of
argumentation on TruthTalk?

Bill
- Original Message -
From: "Charles Perry Locke" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: 
Sent: Monday, June 27, 2005 8:03 AM
Subject: [TruthTalk] ** Moderator commant **


> TT members,
>
>I have been contacted by email privately and informed that my referring
> to DaveH as a "sly ol' mormon boy" was an ad hominem reference. After some
> discussion back and forth, and some research,  I am convinced that it is
so
> and that I need to apologize to Dave.
>
>I previously thought that if one merely stated a belief about someone
> that was true, that it was not an ad hominem statement, but upon doing a
> little researh I discovered that it does not matter whether it is true or
> not...an ad hominem reference is a comment "to the man", so saying
anything
> about anyone personally, whether true or not, positive or negative, is an
ad
> hominem reference. If I were to say, "John, I really think you are a smart
> guy", that is an ad hominem reference, too, because it is directed at
> someone personally.
>
> However, on TT I think it is a little more specific in that TT wishes
to
> avoid the NEGATIVE ad hominem reference, that is, one that the receiver of
> the comment would find insulting. Dave indicated in a post that he thought
> "sly ol' mormon boy" was an ad hominem reference.
>
>So, with this in mind, Dave, I apologize to you for making an
ad-hominem
> reference.
>
>The above is a very general interpretation of "ad hominem".
Specifically,
> "ad hominem argumentum", [which is what is mentioned on the TT discussions
> guidelines page]  refers to trying to gain an edge in an argument by
> attacking the person rather than the topic, again, regardless whether it
is
> true or false.
>
>Even though I am acting as moderator, I, too, am prone to making
> inappropriate remarks at times, and I welcome private email from anyone
that
> would like to point out such comments. If we have only one watcher, who
> watches the watcher? While I moderate the group, the group moderates me.
>
> Perry the Moderator
>
>
> --
> "Let your speech be always with grace, seasoned with salt, that you may
know how you ought to answer every man."  (Colossians 4:6)
http://www.InnGlory.org
>
> If you do not want to receive posts from this list, send an email to
[EMAIL PROTECTED] and you will be unsubscribed.  If you have a
friend who wants to join, tell him to send an e-mail to
[EMAIL PROTECTED] and he will be subscribed.
>


--
"Let your speech be always with grace, seasoned with salt, that you may know 
how you ought to answer every man."  (Colossians 4:6) http://www.InnGlory.org

If you do not want to receive posts from this list, send an email to [EMAIL 
PROTECTED] and you will be unsubscribed.  If you have a friend who wants to 
join, tell him to send an e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and he will be subscribed.

Re: [TruthTalk] Belief







[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

  
  
  DAveH 
---   no need to answer the post sent minutes ago.   I have my answer
herein.  
  To my way of thinking  --  when "unity" becomes more important
than personal passion (faith), such passages as Romans 14:4 are
contradicted.   The notion that truth is a corporate conclusion is
completely foreign to me  --  as I understand the biblical
message.  Differences of understanding need not be divisive. 
  
  
  

DAVEH:   Agreed.  So outside the Mormons here, why do you think there
is such divisive set of opinions and discussions on TT?

  
  
  JD 
  
 
-Original Message-
From: Dave Hansen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org
Sent: Mon, 27 Jun 2005 00:49:43 -0700
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Belief
  
  
  DAVEH:  
Yes Bishop, I'm referring to conformity of beliefs for the most part. 
Though I think the unity of faith (harmonious attitudes, as you put it)
play an important role as well.  
  
    From our perspective, most LDS folks truly believe our
Prophet is the spokesman for the Lord in our time.  So, we believe if
the Lord wants us to know or do something different, he will speak
through his servant to us as a whole.  IF there is any question that
becomes a divisive factor, we look to the Prophet 's counsel to give us
the direction we need to go as a group.  It's pretty rare for doctrinal
  disputations
to reach beyond private discussion.  If somebo dy wants to make a
public spectacle out of an issue, it i
s pretty much grounds for excommunication.
  
    So.intellectually strong individuals who cannot conform their
beliefs within the framework of official LDS theology do not fit in very
well.  And if their intellectual stubbornness exceeds their level of
faith in their Church Leaders, it is akin to fitting a round peg in a
square hole.  Those who do harbor their own pet theological theories
who want to remain faithful avoid publicizing their intellectual
disagreements.  Once they attempt to publicly politicize their
dispute with the Church, they no longer fit in with the rest of the
folks who tend not to want to have disharmony exist in the ranks. 
  
    Which brings us back to the harmonious attitudes.  Mormonism
tends to be very cultural in nature.  Th
at which disrupts is out of harmony with not only God, but the Family
and the congregation.  We believe success comes by working together. 
We don't look to one pastor to hold a Ward (congregation) together, but
it is the combined effort of every person in the Ward to assist the
Ward Shepherd (Bishop) in keeping it humming (usually to the tune of
PUT YOUR SHOULDER TO THE WHEEL) along.  Our strongest Wards are those
where the most folks pitch in to do the most work, which leads to
strong fellowship.  Those that are weakest are those where the members
expect others to do the work.
  
    As I perceive TT, there is little sense of
purpose or guidance.  Nor does there seem to be much appreciation for
oneness of belief.  I imagine everybody in TT believes they
know the truth, but yet I don't think they really appreciate that all
the variations of truth they have here all stems from a single source
(as they perceive it)the Bible.   Numerous times folks have told me
I am wrong and that it is very simple to learn the truth by rejecting
anything LDS
and just read the Bible.  Quite often they suggest the truth of the
Bible is so obvious.  Yet if it were so easy to discern the truth from
the Bible, why are there so many disagreements as to what the Bible
tells us?  And then look at why different churches start up.  Seems
like Protestants is a good term to describe many
Christians.they tend to want to protest that which somebody else
teaches them.  If they don't like doctrines of one church, it is
relatively easy to start another. 
  
 While the LDS Church has experienced similar factions in
it's wake, I se e it a bit differently.  In our case, most who don't
fit into the paradigm are excommunicated for not towing the line, so to
speak.  Then they go out and form their own church to emulate the LDS
Church, using the root teachings.  Contrast that to the Protestant
churches, that seem to break off by protesting what the mother church
doctrinally dictates.  Is that not the process by which Luther left the
  RCC.  
And on down the line.  Baptists believed one way, Methodists another. 
Now we see it in the Episcopalian Church, as some want to think gays
are OK in the ministry, while others don't.   Instead of
excommunicating the errant believers, I suspect they will simply divide
the Church into two separate entities, each having a distinctly
different doctrine about gay folks.
    YikesI yak on too much.   I hope that makes some sense, John. 
Sorry to blather on and on...
  
  [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote: 
  


 
 



DAVEH:   I think
you are taking my example out of context, DavidM.  I was
trying to point out that right or wrong, I believe most knowledgeabl

Re: [TruthTalk] Belief







[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

  
  
   
  DaveH  -   much of what
you present below demonstrates the degree of separation existing
between Mormon liberties and Christian liberties.    Expressed
attitudes on TT have been
disgraceful (against grace) and enough has been said about that
circumstance.  If you stood up in your assembly and shouted out, "Jesus
Christ is both eternal and uncreated" or in some way pressed this teaching,  what would be the
outcome?  I have heard my wife's
family members express fear of ex-communication  because of something
they have said.   
  
  
  

DAVEH:  It depends on where it is said and how it is said.  If one
unknowing states errant doctrine, nobody has any fear of
excommunication.  If one promotes errant doctrine (from the LDS
perspective) with intent to embarrass the Church, then one may be
called to the carpet for doing so.

  
  
   
   
  The single most disturbing
characteristic of fundamentalism
is its pungent desire to bind the opinions/interpretations of a few
onto the many      and most accept this calamity without much
concern.
  
  

DAVEH:    Yet I see the same scenario in effect in Protestantism with
the adoption of doctrines such as the Trinity Doctrine.

  
  
   
  JD 
   
   
 
-Original Message-
From: Dave Hansen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org
Sent: Sun, 26 Jun 2005 23:57:08
-0700
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Belief
  
  
  
  
David Miller wrote:
  
DAVEH:
  

  I think you are taking my example out of context,
DavidM.  I was trying to point out that right or
wrong, I believe most knowledgeable LDS folks
tend to be a little more homogeneous in their beliefs
than do TTers.


So, I can find cults that are even more homogeneous than Mormons.  Are you 
sure you don't have any inkling that Mormons might be more right because of 
this homogeneity?
  
  
  DAVEH:   While I may think LDS theology is right, that is not the
point of what I was trying to convey.  Right or wrong, within
homogeneous communities I believe there is a sense of direction that TTers really don't have.  I really
don't see a unity of faith in TT. 
(FWIWThe only unity I see
here is in opposition to Mormonism.it
is the old we don't necessarily agree on what is true, but we do
agree that Mormonism is false
line of thinking!)   I hope I don't offend anybody with what I am next
going to say, but as I see it the (presumed theological) intellect of TTers is the main obstacle to their
conformity.   I believe that most intelligent people in Jesus' day were
less rec
eptive to his unifying message than those who had less knowledge than
they had faith.   That's not to say that smart folks won't end up in
heaven, but perhaps it will be as difficult for them as it is for rich
folks to find their way there.
  
DaveH wrote:
  

  ...From my perspective, it seems like you (non-LDS) are
ignoring/misinterpreting Biblical evidence that pretty significantly
illustrates that Jesus is was not only the firstborn (created) in a
literal sense, but that he was also anointed to be God and creator
of our physical realmsomething that is unique amongst all our
Heavenly Father's creation.


The concept of being anointed to be God is very foreign to most of us.  Any 
Scriptural justification for this, either Biblical or non-Biblical?

  
  
  DAVEH:   Why would it be
foreign to most TTers?  From
your posts, it appears you have a grasp of its importance.  Are you
suggesting most TTers don't
understand the meaning of Messiah?   Hm.now
that I think about it from your perspective, I guess you wouldn't
accept that Jesus was anointed to be God, as I do.  Right off hand, I
can't think of any scriptural justification from the Bible, but I think
there is some from LDS
scripture.   I'd have to think about it and do some page turning.  Let
me know if you want me to dig up something.
  
DaveH wrote:
  

  But as sons of God, we had the same roots
of our Elder Brother.


Same request:  please supply Scriptural justification, either Biblical or 
non-Biblical.  I understand how he is my elder brother because of the 
incarnation, but not in how we had the same roots prior to any mortal 
existence.  I see our roots as very different.

  
  
  DAVEH:   I understand that.  As
you know, my view of his brotherhood predates the incarnation.  I think
the fundamental difference here is that I believe we were spiritually
created in the pre-mortal existence.  Rather than turn this into a big LDS related theology discussion, let
me confine it to the Bible and mention a few passages that I believe is
related to our paradigm..
  
1)   Num 16:22   God is God of
the spirits of all flesh  (an oblique reference that our spirits
existed before they took on mortal bodies of flesh)
  
2)   Heb 12:9   Confirmation
that God is the father of our spirits
  
3)   Acts 17:28-29  Further confirmation that we are the offspring of
God
  
4)

Re: [TruthTalk] Belief

DaveH wrote:
> I believe there is a sense of direction that
> TTers really don't have.  I really don't see
> a unity of faith in TT.

Which is not surprising because not everyone on TT is in the same faith. 
Again, I simply caution you against finding value in the homogeniety of 
ideas and opinions.  Our God is a God of diversity.  He values unity, no 
doubt, but he values unity among diversity not unity among homogeneity.  We 
see this in creation, with the diversity of species that exist, and we see 
this in the fact that he created man male and female rather than unisex.  We 
see this in his prohibition of homosexuality, which is a form of unity 
through homogeneity, perverting the unity in heterogeneity that he has 
ordained.

DaveH wrote:
> ... as I see it the (presumed theological) intellect of TTers
> is the main obstacle to their conformity.   I believe that most
> intelligent people in Jesus' day were less receptive to his unifying
> message than those who had less knowledge than they had faith.
> That's not to say that smart folks won't end up in heaven, but
> perhaps it will be as difficult for them as it is for rich folks to find
> their way there.

Very well said!  We certainly agree upon this statement.

Peace be with you.
David Miller. 

--
"Let your speech be always with grace, seasoned with salt, that you may know 
how you ought to answer every man."  (Colossians 4:6) http://www.InnGlory.org

If you do not want to receive posts from this list, send an email to [EMAIL 
PROTECTED] and you will be unsubscribed.  If you have a friend who wants to 
join, tell him to send an e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and he will be subscribed.

[TruthTalk] Moderator commant


TT members,

  I have been contacted by email privately and informed that my referring 
to DaveH as a "sly ol' mormon boy" was an ad hominem reference. After some 
discussion back and forth, and some research,  I am convinced that it is so 
and that I need to apologize to Dave.


  I previously thought that if one merely stated a belief about someone 
that was true, that it was not an ad hominem statement, but upon doing a 
little researh I discovered that it does not matter whether it is true or 
not...an ad hominem reference is a comment "to the man", so saying anything 
about anyone personally, whether true or not, positive or negative, is an ad 
hominem reference. If I were to say, "John, I really think you are a smart 
guy", that is an ad hominem reference, too, because it is directed at 
someone personally.


   However, on TT I think it is a little more specific in that TT wishes to 
avoid the NEGATIVE ad hominem reference, that is, one that the receiver of 
the comment would find insulting. Dave indicated in a post that he thought 
"sly ol' mormon boy" was an ad hominem reference.


  So, with this in mind, Dave, I apologize to you for making an ad-hominem 
reference.


  The above is a very general interpretation of "ad hominem". Specifically, 
"ad hominem argumentum", [which is what is mentioned on the TT discussions 
guidelines page]  refers to trying to gain an edge in an argument by 
attacking the person rather than the topic, again, regardless whether it is 
true or false.


  Even though I am acting as moderator, I, too, am prone to making 
inappropriate remarks at times, and I welcome private email from anyone that 
would like to point out such comments. If we have only one watcher, who 
watches the watcher? While I moderate the group, the group moderates me.


Perry the Moderator


--
"Let your speech be always with grace, seasoned with salt, that you may know how you 
ought to answer every man."  (Colossians 4:6) http://www.InnGlory.org

If you do not want to receive posts from this list, send an email to [EMAIL 
PROTECTED] and you will be unsubscribed.  If you have a friend who wants to 
join, tell him to send an e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and he will be subscribed.

Re: [TruthTalk] Belief

Perry wrote:
> And if the mormon jesus, like Sasquatch, is a
> fictitious being, he can't save them any more
> than the sasquatch can operate.

I think the point was that the guy really was a surgeon, but in the mind of 
the patient, he appeared very different.  In this analogy, the 
misperceptions of the patient does not affect the ability of the surgeon to 
operate successfully.

Debbie brings up a point worthy of consideration.  Our understanding of 
Christ develops as our relationship with him develops.  The apostles he 
called did not immediately know him well, but as their relationship with him 
developed, so did their understanding of exactly who he was.  They all 
doubted aspects of who he was right up to the resurrection.  None of their 
short comings in understanding hindered Christ from operating in their 
lives.  Eventually their understanding and thinking about him came in line 
together.  I think we all go through a similar process of intellectual 
growth and development.

Peace be with you.
David Miller. 

--
"Let your speech be always with grace, seasoned with salt, that you may know 
how you ought to answer every man."  (Colossians 4:6) http://www.InnGlory.org

If you do not want to receive posts from this list, send an email to [EMAIL 
PROTECTED] and you will be unsubscribed.  If you have a friend who wants to 
join, tell him to send an e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and he will be subscribed.

Re: [TruthTalk] Belief


Debbie Sawczak wrote:

Ah, of course not, but the surgeon still can, and the real Jesus still 
can. Again: that's the point.


But let's not get hung up on the little analogy, it deals only with 
the question of belief. There is no doubt that the real Jesus is who 
he is and can act regardless of what any of us thinks. That's not 
where the problem lies, at least not for me. It's the rest that makes 
me hesitate: if we are in him and he in us, can we continue to be so 
mistaken? As Lance and you point out, we are all mistaken to some 
degree. Although I imagine some here would disagree with that.


Debbie
===


The Bible says that we will know the truth.  The Bible also says God's 
ways are higher than our ways, and since we cannot understand all His 
ways, we do not have all truth.  I do not see this as a contradiction.  
He has given and continues to give enough truth so that we may know Him 
and live a life that pleases Him.  We know what He wants and we know 
what He hates and that knowledge is growing as we study and discuss the 
Word.  Some day, if we are true to what we know, we will know as God 
knows.  In the meantime, love your neighbor. :)

Terry

--
"Let your speech be always with grace, seasoned with salt, that you may know how you 
ought to answer every man."  (Colossians 4:6) http://www.InnGlory.org

If you do not want to receive posts from this list, send an email to [EMAIL 
PROTECTED] and you will be unsubscribed.  If you have a friend who wants to 
join, tell him to send an e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and he will be subscribed.

Re: [TruthTalk] A apologetic for the eternal sonship of Chr JD

John wrote:
> I have been working on this since 6:00 am
> and it is nearly 3:00 !!   Yikes .

LOL.  Studying is fun, isn't it!

Nice piece, John.  I don't think I disagreed with much of anything in it.  I 
just think it argued more for the Divinity of Christ rather than the idea of 
eternal sonship.

Both you and Bill seem to hammer two ideas in discussing this topic:

1)  Jesus is the eternal God

2) Jesus has a relationship in the Godhead best understood by us as a Father 
/ Son relationship.

I do not disagree with either of these concepts.  Rather, I affirm them both 
as being true.  My primary concern with this subject has to do with how we 
interpret Scripture.  What does the Scripture mean when it says, "this day I 
have begotten you."  The Holy Ghost has a specific message here.  In the 
earlier discussion, I was not too sure about it, but as the discussion 
progressed, I think Judy made her case very well.  Adam Clark also makes 
some good points about it.  The Biblical passage is referring to his 
incarnation when he became son of man, son of David, son of God.

Peace be with you.
David Miller. 

--
"Let your speech be always with grace, seasoned with salt, that you may know 
how you ought to answer every man."  (Colossians 4:6) http://www.InnGlory.org

If you do not want to receive posts from this list, send an email to [EMAIL 
PROTECTED] and you will be unsubscribed.  If you have a friend who wants to 
join, tell him to send an e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and he will be subscribed.

Re: [TruthTalk] Belief


DAveH  ---   no need to answer the post sent minutes ago.   I have my answer herein.  
To my way of thinking  --  when "unity" becomes more important than personal passion (faith), such passages as Romans 14:4 are contradicted.   The notion that truth is a corporate conclusion is completely foreign to me  --  as I understand the biblical message.  Differences of understanding need not be divisive. 
JD   -Original Message-From: Dave Hansen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgSent: Mon, 27 Jun 2005 00:49:43 -0700Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Belief


DAVEH:   Yes Bishop, I'm referring to conformity of beliefs for the most part.  Though I think the unity of faith (harmonious attitudes, as you put it) play an important role as well.      From our perspective, most LDS folks truly believe our Prophet is the spokesman for the Lord in our time.  So, we believe if the Lord wants us to know or do something different, he will speak through his servant to us as a whole.  IF there is any question that becomes a divisive factor, we look to the Prophet 's counsel to give us the direction we need to go as a group.  It's pretty rare for doctrinal disputations to reach beyond private discussion.  If somebody wants to make a public spectacle out of an issue, it i
s pretty much grounds for excommunication.    So.intellectually strong individuals who cannot conform their beliefs within the framework of official LDS theology do not fit in very well.  And if their intellectual stubbornness exceeds their level of faith in their Church Leaders, it is akin to fitting a round peg in a square hole.  Those who do harbor their own pet theological theories who want to remain faithful avoid publicizing their intellectual disagreements.  Once they attempt to publicly politicize their dispute with the Church, they no longer fit in with the rest of the folks who tend not to want to have disharmony exist in the ranks.     Which brings us back to the harmonious attitudes.  Mormonism tends to be very cultural in nature.  Th
at which disrupts is out of harmony with not only God, but the Family and the congregation.  We believe success comes by working together.  We don't look to one pastor to hold a Ward (congregation) together, but it is the combined effort of every person in the Ward to assist the Ward Shepherd (Bishop) in keeping it humming (usually to the tune of PUT YOUR SHOULDER TO THE WHEEL) along.  Our strongest Wards are those where the most folks pitch in to do the most work, which leads to strong fellowship.  Those that are weakest are those where the members expect others to do the work.    As I perceive TT, there is little sense of purpose or guidance.  Nor does there seem to be much appreciation for oneness of belief.  I imagine everybody in TT believes they know the truth, but yet I don't think they really appreciate that all the variations of 
truth they have here all stems from a single source (as they perceive it)the Bible.   Numerous times folks have told me I am wrong and that it is very simple to learn the truth by rejecting anything LDS and just read the Bible.  Quite often they suggest the truth of the Bible is so obvious.  Yet if it were so easy to discern the truth from the Bible, why are there so many disagreements as to what the Bible tells us?  And then look at why different churches start up.  Seems like Protestants is a good term to describe many Christians.they tend to want to protest that which somebody else teaches them.  If they don't like doctrines of one church, it is relatively easy to start another.  While the LDS Church has experienced similar factions in it's wake, I see it a bit differently.  In our case, most who don't
 fit into the paradigm are excommunicated for not towing the line, so to speak.  Then they go out and form their own church to emulate the LDS Church, using the root teachings.  Contrast that to the Protestant churches, that seem to break off by protesting what the mother church doctrinally dictates.  Is that not the process by which Luther left the RCC.   And on down the line.  Baptists believed one way, Methodists another.  Now we see it in the Episcopalian Church, as some want to think gays are OK in the ministry, while others don't.   Instead of excommunicating the errant believers, I suspect they will simply divide the Church into two separate entities, each having a distinctly different doctrine about gay folks.    YikesI yak on too much.   I hope that makes some sense, John.  Sorry to blather on and on...[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: 



  


DAVEH:   I think you are taking my example out of context, DavidM.  I was trying to point out that right or wrong, I believe most knowledgeable LDS folks tend to be a little more homogeneous in their beliefs than do TTers.    
 
Hi Dave.   I would agree with this observation.   Allowing for the truth of this observation,   why do you suppose this is the case?   I assume you are speaking  more to  "doctrina

Re: [TruthTalk] Belief


 
DaveH  -   much of what you present below demonstrates the degree of separation existing between Mormon liberties and Christian liberties.    Expressed attitudes on TT have been disgraceful (against grace) and enough has been said about that circumstance.  If you stood up in your assembly and shouted out, "Jesus Christ is both eternal and uncreated" or in some way pressed this teaching,  what would be the outcome?  I have heard my wife's family members express fear of ex-communication  because of something they have said.    
 
The single most disturbing characteristic of fundamentalism is its pungent desire to bind the opinions/interpretations of a few onto the many      and most accept this calamity without much concern.
 
JD 
 
  -Original Message-From: Dave Hansen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgSent: Sun, 26 Jun 2005 23:57:08 -0700Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Belief


David Miller wrote: 
DAVEH:
  
I think you are taking my example out of context,
DavidM.  I was trying to point out that right or
wrong, I believe most knowledgeable LDS folks
tend to be a little more homogeneous in their beliefs
than do TTers.
So, I can find cults that are even more homogeneous than Mormons.  Are you 
sure you don't have any inkling that Mormons might be more right because of 
this homogeneity?
  DAVEH:   While I may think LDS theology is right, that is not the point of what I was trying to convey.  Right or wrong, within homogeneous communities I believe there is a sense of direction that TTers really don't have.  I really don't see a unity of faith in TT.  (FWIWThe only unity I see here is in opposition to Mormonism.it is the old we don't necessarily agree on what is true, but we do agree that Mormonism is false line of thinking!)   I hope I don't offend anybody with what I am next going to say, but as I see it the (presumed theological) intellect of TTers is the main obstacle to their conformity.   I believe that most intelligent people in Jesus' day were less rec
eptive to his unifying message than those who had less knowledge than they had faith.   That's not to say that smart folks won't end up in heaven, but perhaps it will be as difficult for them as it is for rich folks to find their way there.
DaveH wrote:
  
...From my perspective, it seems like you (non-LDS) are
ignoring/misinterpreting Biblical evidence that pretty significantly
illustrates that Jesus is was not only the firstborn (created) in a
literal sense, but that he was also anointed to be God and creator
of our physical realmsomething that is unique amongst all our
Heavenly Father's creation.
The concept of being anointed to be God is very foreign to most of us.  Any 
Scriptural justification for this, either Biblical or non-Biblical?

  DAVEH:   Why would it be foreign to most TTers?  From your posts, it appears you have a grasp of its importance.  Are you suggesting most TTers don't understand the meaning of Messiah?   Hm.now that I think about it from your perspective, I guess you wouldn't accept that Jesus was anointed to be God, as I do.  Right off hand, I can't think of any scriptural justification from the Bible, but I think there is some from LDS scripture.   I'd have to think about it and do some page turning.  Let me know if you want me to dig up something.
DaveH wrote:
  
But as sons of God, we had the same roots
of our Elder Brother.
Same request:  please supply Scriptural justification, either Biblical or 
non-Biblical.  I understand how he is my elder brother because of the 
incarnation, but not in how we had the same roots prior to any mortal 
existence.  I see our roots as very different.

  DAVEH:   I understand that.  As you know, my view of his brotherhood predates the incarnation.  I think the fundamental difference here is that I believe we were spiritually created in the pre-mortal existence.  Rather than turn this into a big LDS related theology discussion, let me confine it to the Bible and mention a few passages that I believe is related to our paradigm..1)   Num 16:22   God is God of the spirits of all flesh  (an oblique reference that our spirits existed before they took on mortal bodies of flesh)2)   Heb 12:9   Confirmation that God is the father of our spirits3)   Acts 17:28-29  Further confirmation that we are the offspring of God4)   Eph 1:4-5 & Tit 1:2  Paul tells us the Lo
rd made promises to us before the world began  (would it not be reasonable to think we were there when those promises were made?)5)   Job 1:6   Son's of God and Satan meet with the Lord  (a council meeting with the Lord of the above mentioned spirits and Satan)6)   Gen 6:2  Son's of God marry daughters of men  (the spirit children take on mortal lives)7)   Ecc 12:7  Spirits return to God  (indicates the beginning of our return journey home)8)   Jn 3:13   Nobody goes heaven except those who come from heaven, as did Jesus9)    Jn 9:1-3   The Lord's disciples understood that tt would have

Re: [TruthTalk] Belief


It seems to me that Debbie taking the concept of a sovereign God to its reasonable end.  If we take into consideration the immediate context ,  does not Col 1:22 establish the point made in this post  -  that IN CHRIST, even the purpose of reconciliation is established?   JD  -Original Message-From: Debbie Sawczak To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgSent: Mon, 27 Jun 2005 00:58:15 -0400Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Belief


Ah, of course not, but the surgeon still can, and the real Jesus still can. Again: that's the point.  But let's not get hung up on the little analogy, it deals only with the question of belief. There is no doubt that the real Jesus is who he is and can act regardless of what any of us thinks. That's not where the problem lies, at least not for me. It's the rest that makes me hesitate: if we are in him and he in us, can we continue to be so mistaken? As Lance and you point out, we are all mistaken to some degree. Although I imagine some here would disagree with that.  Debbie  - Original Message - From: "Charles Perry Locke"  To:  Sent: Sunday, June 26, 2005 11:53 PM Subject: Re
: [TruthTalk] Belief  > And if the mormon jesus, like Sasquatch, is a fictitious being, he can't > save them any more than the sasquatch can operate. > >>From: "Debbie Sawczak" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >>Reply-To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org >>To:  >>Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Belief >>Date: Sun, 26 Jun 2005 23:39:43 -0400 >> >>This is true! But that's just the point: the Sasquatch doesn't walk in, >>because he doesn't exist. >> >>Debbie >> >>- Original Message - From: "Char
les Perry Locke" >> >>To:  >>Sent: Sunday, June 26, 2005 11:18 PM >>Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Belief >> >> >>>Debbie, suppose that you are blind and laid on the operating table, and a >>>Sasquatch walked in and you thought it was the surgeon, and you trusted >>>the Sasquatch. You would die on the table. >>> From: "Debbie Sawczak" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Reply-To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org To: 
 Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Belief Date: Sun, 26 Jun 2005 22:12:51 -0400  Assuming we have a correct understanding of Jesus and the Mormons don't, then if on that basis alone we are saved and they aren't, it is our understanding which has saved us. Like Bill (in a recent post), I can't hold with that.  But the question was different, it was whether the actual object of my faith/belief (putting myself in the place of a Mormon) can still be the real Jesus even if I have so much wrong information about him. It doesn't seem impossible, given analogies one could invent: if I am blind and think the surgeon is a Sasquatch, but I still lie down on the operating table with full confidence, am I trus
ting the surgeon? The quesiont cannot be just about what's in our heads and what's out there. With Jesus it is a matter of taking active steps, and him doing stuff to us. But is it best characterized as a one-shot deal, or a relationship that develops? And if the latter, then maybe the proper question is, Can this relationship, this interaction be going on and I the Mormon continue to have such wrong ideas about him? I find that harder to say Yes to, but I do not know. If what we others believe about Jesus is true, it seems to me that a genuine relationship with the real Person could not evoke less than worship. That is the stumbling block for me with Mormonism: worship. Can you worship without knowing it? (It was only an analogy, but maybe the Christian life is after all a single >>
;>>lng surgery, at the end of which I can see, and realize the surgeon is not a Sasquatch. In due course, everyone will worship...)  Lance, it may ultimately be the same question as Why aren't believers' lives changed more, if they have the Holy Spirit within them? Why don't we all agree about Scripture if we have the Holy Spirit within us? (I can predict some people's answer to this.)  Debbie   - Original Message - From: "Charles Perry Locke"  To:  >>>&
gt;Sent: Sunday, June 26, 2005 4:12 PM Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Belief    > Lance,  >  > I agree that "Every christian believer believes 'through' an errant  > framework". But how errant is too errant? Is there a line that can be  > drawn? In the end either we are saved or we are not. Was our  > framework  > "too" errant? Was our image of Jesus too far from the real Jesus? If we  > are "too" errant for salvation, but did not know it, are we saved? > These  > are mighty questions.  >  > To be totally honest, I cannot say with complete certainty that mormons  > are not save

Re: [TruthTalk] Belief