Re: [TruthTalk] Re:Dialogue with Mormons
DAVEH: Our Heavenly Father (the father of our spirits) is our main guy, John. Jesus is his only begotten Son and is also our Elder Brother has made sacrifice in our behalf which makes our return to heaven to be possible. By virtue of his grace are we saved (from both physical and spiritual death), but it is up to us to make that journey back to heaven. So He is not THE top keonie. DAVEH: Jesus directed us to give such reverence to his (and our) Father in Heaven. We are save from spiritual and physical death. The former has meaning to me. The klater, physical death, does not. What do you mean? DAVEH: Let me explain how I perceive both, John. Otherwise we may assume you and I believe similarly about spiritual death, when in fact we may not. SPIRITUAL DEATH: Our separation from God. The further we are from the Lord, and the love of Jesusthe deader we become. In essence, this is hell. To be forever separated from God, and to not enjoy the love of Christ is to be at the deepest depths of hell, IMO. PHYSICAL DEATH: Separation of the body and spirit. At death (in mortality), out spirit leaves our body and then awaits the resurrection upon which our spirit will then be clothed with a physical body. J -- ~~~ Dave Hansen [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.langlitz.com ~~~ If you wish to receive things I find interesting, I maintain Five email lists... JOKESTER, OPINIONS, LDS, STUFF and MOTORCYCLE.
Re: [TruthTalk] Re:Dialogue with Mormons
In a message dated 4/1/2004 11:46:29 PM Pacific Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: We are literally brothers and sisters of God, and have the manifest destiny (and encouragement) to become like Him. So the God we serve is not the main guy? John
Re: [TruthTalk] Re:Dialogue with Mormons
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: In a message dated 4/1/2004 11:46:29 PM Pacific Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: We are literally brothers and sisters of God, and have the manifest destiny (and encouragement) to become like Him. So the God we serve is not the main guy? DAVEH: Our Heavenly Father (the father of our spirits) is our main guy, John. Jesus is his only begotten Son and is also our Elder Brother has made sacrifice in our behalf which makes our return to heaven to be possible. By virtue of his grace are we saved (from both physical and spiritual death), but it is up to us to make that journey back to heaven. John -- ~~~ Dave Hansen [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.langlitz.com ~~~ If you wish to receive things I find interesting, I maintain Five email lists... JOKESTER, OPINIONS, LDS, STUFF and MOTORCYCLE.
Re: [TruthTalk] Re:Dialogue with Mormons
In a message dated 4/2/2004 6:14:00 AM Pacific Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: DAVEH: Our Heavenly Father (the father of our spirits) is our main guy, John. Jesus is his only begotten Son and is also our Elder Brother has made sacrifice in our behalf which makes our return to heaven to be possible. By virtue of his grace are we saved (from both physical and spiritual death), but it is up to us to make that journey back to heaven. So He is not THE top keonie. We are save from spiritual and physical death. The former has meaning to me. The klater, physical death, does not. What do you mean? J
Re: [TruthTalk] Re:Dialogue with Mormons
I apologize in advance for what might be perceived as an intrusion but: J John-same guy? Knpraise seems to manifest two personalities if the same person (MPD) Help me straighten this out at least for my reading of the M posts. Lance - Original Message - From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: April 02, 2004 10:43 Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Re:Dialogue with Mormons In a message dated 4/2/2004 6:14:00 AM Pacific Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: DAVEH: Our Heavenly Father (the father of our spirits) is our main guy, John. Jesus is his only begotten Son and is also our Elder Brother has made sacrifice in our behalf which makes our return to heaven to be possible. By virtue of his grace are we saved (from both physical and spiritual death), but it is up to us to make that journey back to heaven. So He is not THE top keonie. We are save from spiritual and physical death. The former has meaning to me. The klater, physical death, does not. What do you mean? J
Re: [TruthTalk] Re:Dialogue with Mormons
In a message dated 4/2/2004 8:12:56 AM Pacific Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: I apologize in advance for what might be perceived as an intrusion but: J John-same guy? Knpraise seems to manifest two personalities if the same person (MPD) Help me straighten this out at least for my reading of the M posts. Lance - Original Message - How so JD
Re: [TruthTalk] Re:Dialogue with Mormons
In a message dated 3/31/2004 10:46:09 PM Pacific Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: If we have a common parent, I think I'd consider that qualifies as a brotherhood of sorts. I agree but would add "spiritual" --- "spiritiual parent(s)" John
Re: [TruthTalk] Re:Dialogue with Mormons
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: In a message dated 3/31/2004 10:46:09 PM Pacific Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: If we have a common parent, I think I'd consider that qualifies as a brotherhood of sorts. I agree but would add "spiritual" --- "spiritiual parent(s)" DAVEH: I would not be opposed to that, but fear that by doing so it deemphasizes the literal nature of the parenthood of our Heavenly Father. John -- ~~~ Dave Hansen [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.langlitz.com ~~~ If you wish to receive things I find interesting, I maintain Five email lists... JOKESTER, OPINIONS, LDS, STUFF and MOTORCYCLE.
Re: [TruthTalk] Re:Dialogue with Mormons
In a message dated 4/1/2004 7:09:07 AM Pacific Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: I agree but would add "spiritual" --- "spiritiual parent(s)" DAVEH: I would not be opposed to that, but fear that by doing so it deemphasizes the literal nature of the parenthood of our Heavenly Father. W would think it to be enhanced. John
Re: [TruthTalk] Re:Dialogue with Mormons
Blaine: I concur with Dave's eloquent message--and as he says, I consider all to be my brothers and sisters--let judgement be made byHim whose right it is to judge. "DC 82:23 "leave judgement alone with Me, for it is mine and I will repay." - Original Message - From: Dave To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, March 31, 2004 10:10 PM Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Re:Dialogue with Mormons [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: In a message dated 3/31/2004 8:10:14 AM Pacific Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: I don't want to speak for Blaine, but I see nothing in Mormonism that prevents either of us to fellowship with non-LDS Christians. Perhaps I don't understand fellowship quite the same way you do though. Good post. And thanks for not taking offense. I am afraid I did speak for Blaine. Probably a mistake. Fellowship. I do think that fellowship is bigger than denominational boundaries but limited by a true sense of mutuality and purpose. A lexical view of koinonia reveals a number of nuances, to wit (old guys say that a lot, "to wit"): fellowship, association, community, communion, joint participation, intercourse. Note the progression. It was part of the routine of the first church (Acts 2:42). My experience with the Mormon church has been one that is the witness to a degree of exclusion which goes beyond sectarian or denominational bias. It seems to me that this exclusiveness is the surrounding halo of a world religion. If that is the case, we have no fellowship or brotherhood. I don't like saying that. I have only my instincts about this issue. If Blaine and I are brothers (or Dave and I), to what eventuality can we point as the defining factor which presents us with the same Parent? Or is there more to brotherhood than divine genetics? DAVEH: Perhaps you (representing Protestants in general) do not understand the LDS concept of brotherhood. From what I see in TT, brothers in Christ are those who share a common salvational perspective. IOW.If one perceives he is saved by Jesus, he is bonded to others who profess similarly to the exclusion of those who do not perceive themselves to be saved.such as those non Christians or LDS folks like myself. OTOH.From the LDS perspective, we all are brothers in that we were spirit children (pre-mortal earth life) of heavenly parents, and despite out differences of beliefs we still maintain that pre-mortal heritage of being literal children of God. That even applies to those who stray from the paths of righteousness or belief. Just as Jesus was out spirit brother in the pre-mortal existence, so was Lucifer. However, though we share a common root of existence with reprehensible beings devoted to fighting against the Lord and the plan of salvation, we recognize how they came to be and what effect they have on their own progression, and that of ourselves. Somewhere between the extremes of Jesus and Lucifer, we have a whole spectrum of spirit creations who conform to the Lord's will in some measure. While some (such as the despots of the world) fall toward the lower end of the scale, others (perhaps some of the noble prophets of the Bible like David or Moses) may be at the upper end of the same scale. Somewhere in between, lay most of the rest of us. Though one may be closer to God (in terms of trodding on the path back to heaven) than another, we always have hope the Prodigal Son will return. Did the PS gain his fellowship with his blood relatives ONLY AFTER his repentance? Or did he always share a brotherhood with his family, even when slopping the hogs? I feel it is the same with us..Even when a (spirit) brother has departed from the ways of the Lord, and may even kick against the prickswe still share a common root in that both he and I (and you, John) were spirit creations of God. And, I simply don't feel comfortable condemning as bad something God created. There will come a time when judgment will pass on all of us, and I'll be happy to let the Lord do the judging of my fellow brothers. Until then, I'll just assume we are all brothers and try to treat my brethren (whether LDS or not) as part of my eternal family. Now don't misunderstand.IF the Lord gives one of my brothers the boot (as he did Lucifer) out of heaven, I will not only feel badly for that spirit creation that failed to measure up, but I will consider him a lost cause. For those who remained in heaven and became mortal, I will simply consider lost sheep who need a shepherd and may hopefully someday return to the fold. So John..Though I may believe many of the doctrines you may have adopted are in error, I don't see why that should keep us from some form of fellowsh
Re: [TruthTalk] Re:Dialogue with Mormons
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: In a message dated 4/1/2004 7:09:07 AM Pacific Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: I agree but would add "spiritual" --- "spiritiual parent(s)" DAVEH: I would not be opposed to that, but fear that by doing so it deemphasizes the literal nature of the parenthood of our Heavenly Father. W would think it to be enhanced. DAVEH: Not in my opinion. To me, it is saying that there are no roots of God within man until he is touched by the Holy Spirit, and then after accepting the influence of the Holy Ghost, one can become a brother with others who are similarly motivated. IOWThere is no brotherhood until we think/feel alike. I prefer to believe we are in mortality because we were spirits created by God and chose (in the pre-mortal existence) to side with God instead of Lucifer. Not only can we think of ourselves as having taken early first steps on the road to immortality and eternal life, but we are actually embryos of God himself. We are literally brothers and sisters of God, and have the manifest destiny (and encouragement) to become like Him. Anything less than understanding the roots and heritage of our heavenly potential may only give us a little less encouraging enthusiasm of becoming perfect like him. And to think..as brothers, we all have that potential.if not prodigally now, perhaps later. John -- ~~~ Dave Hansen [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.langlitz.com ~~~ If you wish to receive things I find interesting, I maintain Five email lists... JOKESTER, OPINIONS, LDS, STUFF and MOTORCYCLE.
Re: [TruthTalk] Re:Dialogue with Mormons
In a message dated 3/30/2004 10:36:33 PM Pacific Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: DAVEH: Yet you accept the T-Doctrine, which to me seems to have been handed down to and through the RCC folks to the Reformers.which indicates your beliefs are rooted Protestantism. I am content to read and watch this thread but allow me to chime in, briefly. Because I get some of my thinking from orthodox Protestant theology does not make me a Protestant anymore than gleaning truth from Bonhoffer makes me a German or learning from Peck makes me a psychologist. You believe in those two or three categories (Protestant, RCC, restorationist) because your church believes that. Unity in Mormonism is imposed. I see you and Blaine as thinking individuals but not free thinking. Your church does not allow that (of course the church cannot stop you from thinking, but you are not allowed to reach certain conclusions.) Blaine would never be allowed to fellowship me as a true brother in Christ dispite his claim that we are such. That is part of the reason why your missionaries are not allowed to remain in homes where there is disagreement with their views. What unity you see in this list is due to agreement after free spirited debate and the working of the spirit. I get frustrated with some of the disagreement on this, but I am not ashamed of it. Disagreement and spirited debate occurs when people are free. John Smithson
Re: [TruthTalk] Re:Dialogue with Mormons
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: In a message dated 3/30/2004 10:36:33 PM Pacific Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: DAVEH: Yet you accept the T-Doctrine, which to me seems to have been handed down to and through the RCC folks to the Reformers.which indicates your beliefs are rooted Protestantism. I am content to read and watch this thread but allow me to chime in, briefly. Because I get some of my thinking from orthodox Protestant theology does not make me a Protestant anymore than gleaning truth from Bonhoffer makes me a German or learning from Peck makes me a psychologist. You believe in those two or three categories (Protestant, RCC, restorationist) because your church believes that. DAVEH: Yes...as I've said numerous times before, my beliefs are LDS biased. Unity in Mormonism is imposed. I see you and Blaine as thinking individuals but not free thinking. Your church does not allow that DAVEH: I'm not sure I quite agree. On points of doctrine, disagreement can be a problem. But on something like this (classifying beliefs), I don't think the Church cares one way or another. It has never made any official statements about such a thing of which I am aware. But, a lot of LDS folks have come to those conclusions based (somewhat as that which causes me to come to think the same way) based on how we perceive religions and religious thought evolving over time. (of course the church cannot stop you from thinking, but you are not allowed to reach certain conclusions.) Blaine would never be allowed to fellowship me as a true brother in Christ dispite his claim that we are such. DAVEH: I don't want to speak for Blaine, but I see nothing in Mormonism that prevents either of us to fellowship with non-LDS Christians. Perhaps I don't understand fellowship quite the same way you do though. That is part of the reason why your missionaries are not allowed to remain in homes where there is disagreement with their views. DAVEH: I can't speak for other missions, but mine never had such restrictions. Nor can I imagine any missions having such rules. I would think IF their would be a rule addressing when to stay/leave, it would be based around whether the missionaries are helping or hindering the person's eternal progression. But.I'm just speculating now...I have not inquired about such things, and it has been 35 years since I was in that position. What unity you see in this list is due to agreement after free spirited debate and the working of the spirit. I get frustrated with some of the disagreement on this, but I am not ashamed of it. Disagreement and spirited debate occurs when people are free. DAVEH: Or confused. What you see as a positive John, I see as detrimental to unity. Rather than see unity in TT, I see folks get mad and leave when they can't get others to change to their way of thinking. I haven't checked in awhile, but I'd be curious to know if TT is growing. When I joined 4 years ago, I think we had a little less than 50 members. Wonder where we are now..DavidM??? To me, the same pattern exists in Protestantism..it tends to be disjointed to the point where the growth is limited by the disagreements and image it presents. When somebody disagrees with a denomination's doctrines about homosexuals..they leave that denomination and seek one that is more accepting. When those in that organization disagree..it considers splitting as the viable option, instead of holding fast to doctrinal truths. Is that unity? Not as I see it.. John Smithson -- ~~~ Dave Hansen [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.langlitz.com ~~~ If you wish to receive things I find interesting, I maintain Five email lists... JOKESTER, OPINIONS, LDS, STUFF and MOTORCYCLE.
Re: [TruthTalk] Re:Dialogue with Mormons
In a message dated 3/31/2004 8:10:14 AM Pacific Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: I don't want to speak for Blaine, but I see nothing in Mormonism that prevents either of us to fellowship with non-LDS Christians. Perhaps I don't understand fellowship quite the same way you do though. Good post. And thanks for not taking offense. I am afraid I did speak for Blaine. Probably a mistake. Fellowship. I do think that fellowship is bigger than denominational boundaries but limited by a true sense of mutuality and purpose. A lexical view of koinonia reveals a number of nuances, to wit (old guys say that a lot, "to wit"): fellowship, association, community, communion, joint participation, intercourse. Note the progression. It was part of the routine of the first church (Acts 2:42). My experience with the Mormon church has been one that is the witness to a degree of exclusion which goes beyond sectarian or denominational bias. It seems to me that this exclusiveness is the surrounding halo of a world religion. If that is the case, we have no fellowship or brotherhood. I don't like saying that. I have only my instincts about this issue. If Blaine and I are brothers (or Dave and I), to what eventuality can we point as the defining factor which presents us with the same Parent? Or is there more to brotherhood than divine genetics? John
Re: [TruthTalk] Re:Dialogue with Mormons
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: In a message dated 3/31/2004 8:10:14 AM Pacific Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: I don't want to speak for Blaine, but I see nothing in Mormonism that prevents either of us to fellowship with non-LDS Christians. Perhaps I don't understand fellowship quite the same way you do though. Good post. And thanks for not taking offense. I am afraid I did speak for Blaine. Probably a mistake. Fellowship. I do think that fellowship is bigger than denominational boundaries but limited by a true sense of mutuality and purpose. A lexical view of koinonia reveals a number of nuances, to wit (old guys say that a lot, "to wit"): fellowship, association, community, communion, joint participation, intercourse. Note the progression. It was part of the routine of the first church (Acts 2:42). My experience with the Mormon church has been one that is the witness to a degree of exclusion which goes beyond sectarian or denominational bias. It seems to me that this exclusiveness is the surrounding halo of a world religion. If that is the case, we have no fellowship or brotherhood. I don't like saying that. I have only my instincts about this issue. If Blaine and I are brothers (or Dave and I), to what eventuality can we point as the defining factor which presents us with the same Parent? Or is there more to brotherhood than divine genetics? DAVEH: Perhaps you (representing Protestants in general) do not understand the LDS concept of brotherhood. From what I see in TT, brothers in Christ are those who share a common salvational perspective. IOW.If one perceives he is saved by Jesus, he is bonded to others who profess similarly to the exclusion of those who do not perceive themselves to be saved.such as those non Christians or LDS folks like myself. OTOH.From the LDS perspective, we all are brothers in that we were spirit children (pre-mortal earth life) of heavenly parents, and despite out differences of beliefs we still maintain that pre-mortal heritage of being literal children of God. That even applies to those who stray from the paths of righteousness or belief. Just as Jesus was out spirit brother in the pre-mortal existence, so was Lucifer. However, though we share a common root of existence with reprehensible beings devoted to fighting against the Lord and the plan of salvation, we recognize how they came to be and what effect they have on their own progression, and that of ourselves. Somewhere between the extremes of Jesus and Lucifer, we have a whole spectrum of spirit creations who conform to the Lord's will in some measure. While some (such as the despots of the world) fall toward the lower end of the scale, others (perhaps some of the noble prophets of the Bible like David or Moses) may be at the upper end of the same scale. Somewhere in between, lay most of the rest of us. Though one may be closer to God (in terms of trodding on the path back to heaven) than another, we always have hope the Prodigal Son will return. Did the PS gain his fellowship with his blood relatives ONLY AFTER his repentance? Or did he always share a brotherhood with his family, even when slopping the hogs? I feel it is the same with us..Even when a (spirit) brother has departed from the ways of the Lord, and may even kick against the prickswe still share a common root in that both he and I (and you, John) were spirit creations of God. And, I simply don't feel comfortable condemning as bad something God created. There will come a time when judgment will pass on all of us, and I'll be happy to let the Lord do the judging of my fellow brothers. Until then, I'll just assume we are all brothers and try to treat my brethren (whether LDS or not) as part of my eternal family. Now don't misunderstand.IF the Lord gives one of my brothers the boot (as he did Lucifer) out of heaven, I will not only feel badly for that spirit creation that failed to measure up, but I will consider him a lost cause. For those who remained in heaven and became mortal, I will simply consider lost sheep who need a shepherd and may hopefully someday return to the fold. So John..Though I may believe many of the doctrines you may have adopted are in error, I don't see why that should keep us from some form of fellowship. However, I think many TTers believe that which I believe is so evil that it is not acceptable to them in the Lord's eyes to associate with me in any form.unless I exhibit some possible chance of reform. I assume that is why so few TTers would consider me to be their brother, yet both Blaine (I think I can speak for him on this) and I consider all TTers to be our brothers in the Lord. John -- ~~~ Dave Hansen [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.langlitz.com ~~~ If you wish to receive things I find interesting, I maintain Five email lists... JOKESTER, OPINIONS, LDS, STUFF and MOTORCYCLE.
Re: [TruthTalk] Re:Dialogue with Mormons
DavidH, but is it not true that the "brothership" you believe that you have with TT'rs is that you believe that we all had the same father, as spirit children, while we could have had different spirit mothers? Does that not make us "half" brothers and sisters in most instances? Disregarding the spirit children idea for a moment, do you consider me, or any other TTr besides Blaine, as a brother in Christ? Perry From: Dave [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Re:Dialogue with Mormons Date: Wed, 31 Mar 2004 21:10:16 -0800 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: In a message dated 3/31/2004 8:10:14 AM Pacific Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: I don't want to speak for Blaine, but I see nothing in Mormonism that prevents either of us to fellowship with non-LDS Christians. Perhaps I don't understand /fellowship /quite the same way you do though. Good post.And thanks for not taking offense. I am afraid I did speak for Blaine. Probably a mistake. Fellowship.I do think that fellowship is bigger than denominational boundaries but limitedby a true sense of mutuality and purpose.A lexical view of /koinonia/ reveals a number of nuances, to wit(old guys say that a lot, "to wit"):fellowship, association, community, communion, joint participation, intercourse.Note the progression. It was part of the routine of the first church (Acts 2:42). My experience with the Mormon church has been one that is the witness to a degree of exclusion which goes beyond sectarian or denominational bias.It seems to me that this exclusiveness is the surrounding halo of aworld religion. If that is the case, we have no fellowship or brotherhood. I don't like saying that.I have only my instincts about this issue. If Blaine and I are brothers (or Dave and I), to what eventuality can we point as the defining factor which presents us with the same Parent? Or is there more to brotherhood than divine genetics? DAVEH:Perhaps you (representing Protestants in general) do not understand the LDS concept of brotherhood.From what I see in TT, brothers in Christ are those who share a common salvational perspective.IOW.If one perceives he is saved by Jesus, he is bonded to others who profess similarly to the exclusion of those who do not perceive themselves to be saved.such as those non Christians or LDS folks like myself. OTOH.From the LDS perspective, we all are brothers in that we were spirit children (pre-mortal earth life) of heavenly parents, and despite out differences of beliefs we still maintain that pre-mortal heritage of being literal children of God.That even applies to those who stray from the paths of righteousness or belief.Just as Jesus was out spirit brother in the pre-mortal existence, so was Lucifer.However, though we share a common root of existence with reprehensible beings devoted to fighting against the Lord and the plan of salvation, we recognize how they came to be and what effect they have on their own progression, and that of ourselves.Somewhere between the extremes of Jesus and Lucifer, we have a whole spectrum of spirit creations who conform to the Lord's will in some measure.While some (such as the despots of the world) fall toward the lower end of the scale, others (perhaps some of the noble prophets of the Bible like David or Moses) may be at the upper end of the same scale.Somewhere in between, lay most of the rest of us.Though one may be closer to God (in terms of trodding on the path back to heaven) than another, we always have hope the Prodigal Son will return.Did the PS gain his fellowship with his blood relatives ONLY AFTER his repentance?Or did he always share a brotherhood with his family, even when slopping the hogs?I feel it is the same with us..Even when a (spirit) brother has departed from the ways of the Lord, and may even kick against the prickswe still share a common root in that both he and I (and you, John) were spirit creations of God. And, I simply don't feel comfortable condemning as bad something God created.There will come a time when judgment will pass on all of us, and I'll be happy to let the Lord do the judging of my fellow brothers.Until then, I'll just assume we are all brothers and try to treat my brethren (whether LDS or not) as part ofmy eternal family. Now don't misunderstand.IF the Lord gives one of my brothers the boot (as he did Lucifer) out of heaven, I will not only feel badly for that spirit creation that failed to measure up, but I will consider him a lost cause. For those who remained in heaven and became mortal, I will simply consider lost sheep who need a shepherd and may hopefully someday return to the fold. So John..Though I may believe many of the doctrines you may have adopted are in error, I don't see why that should keep us from some form of fellowship.However, I think ma
Re: [TruthTalk] Re:Dialogue with Mormons
Charles Perry Locke wrote: DavidH, but is it not true that the brothership you believe that you have with TT'rs is that you believe that we all had the same father, as spirit children, while we could have had different spirit mothers? Does that not make us half brothers and sisters in most instances? DAVEH: Are you half a Christian brother if you belong to one denomination (say the Methodist) and the other Christian is of another..say a Lutheran? If we have a common parent, I think I'd consider that qualifies as a brotherhood of sorts. Disregarding the spirit children idea for a moment, do you consider me, or any other TTr besides Blaine, as a brother in Christ? DAVEH: Yes Perry.even though we may strongly disagree about doctrines and beliefs, our focus is on Jesus. Perry -- ~~~ Dave Hansen [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.langlitz.com ~~~ If you wish to receive things I find interesting, I maintain Five email lists... JOKESTER, OPINIONS, LDS, STUFF and MOTORCYCLE. -- 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] Re:Dialogue with Mormons
Lance Muir wrote: Attention all Mormon contributors: You may reframe this query in better suited words if you wish: Do you (M) believe all others (nonM) to be capable of engaging you(M) in any genuine dialogue? DAVEH: Yes. But my experience in TT has shown me that for every one who is willing to do so, there are many, many more who do not want to do so. If you believe that we (nonM) are in the "dark" how can anything we say be taken seriously by yourselves? DAVEH: Even though you (nonM) or me (M) may be wrong on any given belief, I don't think that necessarily means a meaningful/serious discussion cannot be had about such even IF one or both parties are in error. For instance, I believe baptism is a very important aspect of salvation, and feel that those of you (nonM) who do not share this belief are in error. However, I do want to know why you believe as you do because as I see it.the Bible is pretty firm about teaching the necessity of baptism and its relationship to salvation. It is my opinion that those who do not see the necessity of baptism (being needed for salvation) have simply inherited this belief based on Protestant doctrines that were derived due to a repugnance to RCC dogma. Had it not been for the RCC insistence on baptism for salvation, I believe Protestants would not have been so reluctant to understand the Bible's comments about baptism the way they do. It is such doctrinal leanings that persuade me to think that most TTers are really Protestants despite their denial. Though they may not think they are protesting anything, it is the adoption of a belief system that is based on Protesters that draws me to think they qualify as Protestants. Does that make sense, Lance? I think what I've said above pretty much explains my interest in TT. As you may know, I am not here to learn/find truth, but rather my interest here is in learning about what Protestants believe and why they believe it because some of those beliefs are in such contrast to my own. Yet we share the same Bible. I realize that I benefit from extra Biblical knowledge, but I try to make allowance for that and try to focus on what the Bible says and infers. Another example.I've often times mentioned baptism for the dead as Paul referred to in 1 Cor 15:29. I have not this to convince any TTers that baptism for the dead is doctrinally correct because it is in the Bible. Rather I find the fact that there were Primitive Christians practicing such to be strong evidence that some Christians actually believed that baptism was necessary for salvation. Yet this seems to be conveniently overlooked/ignored by many Protestants today. Instead they insist that BFTD is reprehensible and not doctrinally correct simply because it is mentioned in the Bible. For some reason, they seem to not be able to see the bigger picture. To me this is fascinating. IF, IN FACT YOU'RE WRONG HOW THEN CAN THIS BE SHOWN TO YOU? DAVEH: Why do you feel so compelled to show me that I am wrong, Lance? Can we not have a meaningful discussion about what is said in the Bible, why it was said, and what implications are resultant EVEN IF they do not agree with our personal beliefs? Do you have to proof me wrong to make the discussion meaningful??? I once had an 18 month conversation on this very point which lead inexhorably to the only possible conclusion... DAVEH: That you are/were right..Is that your conclusion? Doesn't everybody think that way, most of the time? Is there anybody wandering around TT thinking to themselves that their beliefs are all screwed up and wrong and that they will find somebody in TT that will set them straight? No?.I suspect it is the other way around. Everybody here wants to convince the other guy that his beliefs are all wrong and that they should change to conform to their correct understanding. >From what I see, that's a pretty rare event here. Personally, I think my approach is the best. I'm not here to change. I'm here to learn. To me, genuine dialogue is a two way street. And, I tire quickly of those who think TT should only be a one way street. So Lance, if you don't think we can have a meaningful discussion UNLESS you can change me, then save your typing fingers for the guy who comes to TT wanting to change to believe as you do. On the other hand, IF you want to learn what I believe and why..or..IF you want to share with me your beliefs and why you believe such.I truly believe we can have a meaningful exchange. -- ~~~ Dave Hansen [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.langlitz.com ~~~ If you wish to receive things I find interesting, I maintain Five email lists... JOKESTER, OPINIONS, LDS, STUFF and MOTORCYCLE.
Re: [TruthTalk] Re:Dialogue with Mormons
Great post! Yes, I believe it to be possible. If I didn't I'd use my fingers to type only to myself. Wait a sec, maybe that's what some of us are actually doing. Ya think? Lance - Original Message - From: Dave To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: March 30, 2004 03:42 Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Re:Dialogue with Mormons Lance Muir wrote: Attention all Mormon contributors: You may reframe this query in better suited words if you wish: Do you (M) believe all others (nonM) to be capable of engaging you(M) in any genuine dialogue?DAVEH: Yes. But my experience in TT has shown me that for every one who is willing to do so, there are many, many more who do not want to do so. If you believe that we (nonM) are in the "dark" how can anything we say be taken seriously by yourselves?DAVEH: Even though you (nonM) or me (M) may be wrong on any given belief, I don't think that necessarily means a meaningful/serious discussion cannot be had about such even IF one or both parties are in error. For instance, I believe baptism is a very important aspect of salvation, and feel that those of you (nonM) who do not share this belief are in error. However, I do want to know why you believe as you do because as I see it.the Bible is pretty firm about teaching the necessity of baptism and its relationship to salvation. It is my opinion that those who do not see the necessity of baptism (being needed for salvation) have simply inherited this belief based on Protestant doctrines that were derived due to a repugnance to RCC dogma. Had it not been for the RCC insistence on baptism for salvation, I believe Protestants would not have been so reluctant to understand the Bible's comments about baptism the way they do. It is such doctrinal leanings that persuade me to think that most TTers are really Protestants despite their denial. Though they may not think they are protesting anything, it is the adoption of a belief system that is based on Protesters that draws me to think they qualify as Protestants. Does that make sense, Lance? I think what I've said above pretty much explains my interest in TT. As you may know, I am not here to learn/find truth, but rather my interest here is in learning about what Protestants believe and why they believe it because some of those beliefs are in such contrast to my own. Yet we share the same Bible. I realize that I benefit from extra Biblical knowledge, but I try to make allowance for that and try to focus on what the Bible says and infers. Another example.I've often times mentioned baptism for the dead as Paul referred to in 1 Cor 15:29. I have not this to convince any TTers that baptism for the dead is doctrinally correct because it is in the Bible. Rather I find the fact that there were Primitive Christians practicing such to be strong evidence that some Christians actually believed that baptism was necessary for salvation. Yet this seems to be conveniently overlooked/ignored by many Protestants today. Instead they insist that BFTD is reprehensible and not doctrinally correct simply because it is mentioned in the Bible. For some reason, they seem to not be able to see the bigger picture. To me this is fascinating. IF, IN FACT YOU'RE WRONG HOW THEN CAN THIS BE SHOWN TO YOU?DAVEH: Why do you feel so compelled to show me that I am wrong, Lance? Can we not have a meaningful discussion about what is said in the Bible, why it was said, and what implications are resultant EVEN IF they do not agree with our personal beliefs? Do you have to proof me wrong to make the discussion meaningful??? I once had an 18 month conversation on this very point which lead inexhorably to the only possible conclusion...DAVEH: That you are/were right..Is that your conclusion? Doesn't everybody think that way, most of the time? Is there anybody wandering around TT thinking to themselves that their beliefs are all screwed up and wrong and that they will find somebody in TT that will set them straight? No?.I suspect it is the other way around. Everybody here wants to convince the other guy that his beliefs are all wrong and that they should change to conform to their correct understanding. From what I see, that's a pretty rare event here. Personally, I think my approach is the best. I'm not here to change. I'm here to learn. To me, genuine dialogue is a two way street. And, I tire quickly of those who think TT should only be a one way street. So Lance, if you don't think we can have a meaningful discussion UNLESS you can change me, then save your typing fingers for the guy who comes to TT wanting to change to believe as you do. On the other hand, IF you want to learn what I believe and why..or..IF you want to share with
Re: [TruthTalk] Re:Dialogue with Mormons
In a message dated 3/30/2004 12:44:18 AM Pacific Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Personally, I think my approach is the best. I'm not here to change. I'm here to learn. To learn is to change. So there is hope for us all. I will interject a few thoughts about water baptism in the near future but not right now. I will say this: I came from the Churches of Christ and the Stone/Campbell Movement. A great number of Mormon doctrine is influenced by Restoration Theology so we would have a rather thorough and mutual understanding regarding water baptism. Also, Dave, you responded to something I wrote back on 3/11 just a couple of days ago. I will get to that soon. John Smithson
Re: [TruthTalk] Re:Dialogue with Mormons
Lance Muir wrote: Great post! Yes, I believe it to be possible. If I didn't I'd use my fingers to type only to myself. Wait a sec, maybe that's what some of us are actually doing. Ya think? DAVEH: Most everybody (nonM)I've chatted with on TT has felt the need to save me from Mormonism. I have repeatedly said that I did not come to TT to change, and many seem to have disbelieved my intentions and apparently take offense that I am so stubbornly unwilling to change the way I perceive and understand the Bible. Yet I, looking from the other side of the fence, see those same TTers being equally stubborn in their inherited Bible beliefs. There are some deeply rooted Protestant ideas that simply cannot be compromised for some reason, which I find curious. (Again.that is why I tend to categorize most TTers as being Protestants despite some protesting of such.) After being in TT for well over 4 years now, I have seen enough petty squabbles amongst TTers who go to great lengths to explain their understanding of things found in the Bible, yet I think few change their views. So, why be hypocritical about it.why not just say I'm not here to change and then enjoy TT for what it is. Yet it seems I am one of the few who thinks this way. Everybody else apparently supposes they are going to be able to persuade the others to think like them...and, when it doesn't happen that way.everybody gets their noses bent out of shape. At least that's the way I see it, Lance. Lance - Original Message - From: Dave To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: March 30, 2004 03:42 Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Re:Dialogue with Mormons Lance Muir wrote: Attention all Mormon contributors: You may reframe this query in better suited words if you wish: Do you (M) believe all others (nonM) to be capable of engaging you(M) in any genuine dialogue? DAVEH: Yes. But my experience in TT has shown me that for every one who is willing to do so, there are many, many more who do not want to do so. If you believe that we (nonM) are in the "dark" how can anything we say be taken seriously by yourselves? DAVEH: Even though you (nonM) or me (M) may be wrong on any given belief, I don't think that necessarily means a meaningful/serious discussion cannot be had about such even IF one or both parties are in error. For instance, I believe baptism is a very important aspect of salvation, and feel that those of you (nonM) who do not share this belief are in error. However, I do want to know why you believe as you do because as I see it.the Bible is pretty firm about teaching the necessity of baptism and its relationship to salvation. It is my opinion that those who do not see the necessity of baptism (being needed for salvation) have simply inherited this belief based on Protestant doctrines that were derived due to a repugnance to RCC dogma. Had it not been for the RCC insistence on baptism for salvation, I believe Protestants would not have been so reluctant to understand the Bible's comments about baptism the way they do. It is such doctrinal leanings that persuade me to think that most TTers are really Protestants despite their denial. Though they may not think they are protesting anything, it is the adoption of a belief system that is based on Protesters that draws me to think they qualify as Protestants. Does that make sense, Lance? I think what I've said above pretty much explains my interest in TT. As you may know, I am not here to learn/find truth, but rather my interest here is in learning about what Protestants believe and why they believe it because some of those beliefs are in such contrast to my own. Yet we share the same Bible. I realize that I benefit from extra Biblical knowledge, but I try to make allowance for that and try to focus on what the Bible says and infers. Another example.I've often times mentioned baptism for the dead as Paul referred to in 1 Cor 15:29. I have not this to convince any TTers that baptism for the dead is doctrinally correct because it is in the Bible. Rather I find the fact that there were Primitive Christians practicing such to be strong evidence that some Christians actually believed that baptism was necessary for salvation. Yet this seems to be conveniently overlooked/ignored by many Protestants today. Instead they insist that BFTD is reprehensible and not doctrinally correct simply because it is mentioned in the Bible. For some reason, they seem to not be able to see the bigger picture. To me this is fascinating. IF, IN FACT YOU'RE WRONG HOW THEN CAN THIS BE SHOWN TO YOU? DAVEH: Why do you feel so compelled to show me that I am wrong, Lance? Can we not have a meaningful discussion about what is said in the Bible, why it was said, and what implications are resultant EVEN IF they do not agree with our personal beliefs? D
Re: [TruthTalk] Re:Dialogue with Mormons
Dave, my brother, be at peace. I've no such grandiose agenda. Read my posts today ala JL.. However, it ought never to be the case that we denigrate another's convictions, or commitment to them.Some things are what we believe them to be and some are not. Lance From: Dave To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: March 30, 2004 09:45 Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Re:Dialogue with Mormons Lance Muir wrote: Great post! Yes, I believe it to be possible. If I didn't I'd use my fingers to type only to myself. Wait a sec, maybe that's what some of us are actually doing. Ya think?DAVEH: Most everybody (nonM)I've chatted with on TT has felt the need to save me from Mormonism. I have repeatedly said that I did not come to TT to change, and many seem to have disbelieved my intentions and apparently take offense that I am so stubbornly unwilling to change the way I perceive and understand the Bible. Yet I, looking from the other side of the fence, see those same TTers being equally stubborn in their inherited Bible beliefs. There are some deeply rooted Protestant ideas that simply cannot be compromised for some reason, which I find curious. (Again.that is why I tend to categorize most TTers as being Protestants despite some protesting of such.) After being in TT for well over 4 years now, I have seen enough petty squabbles amongst TTers who go to great lengths to explain their understanding of things found in the Bible, yet I think few change their views. So, why be hypocritical about it.why not just say I'm not here to change and then enjoy TT for what it is. Yet it seems I am one of the few who thinks this way. Everybody else apparently supposes they are going to be able to persuade the others to think like them...and, when it doesn't happen that way.everybody gets their noses bent out of shape. At least that's the way I see it, Lance. Lance - Original Message - From: Dave To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: March 30, 2004 03:42 Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Re:Dialogue with Mormons Lance Muir wrote: Attention all Mormon contributors: You may reframe this query in better suited words if you wish: Do you (M) believe all others (nonM) to be capable of engaging you(M) in any genuine dialogue?DAVEH: Yes. But my experience in TT has shown me that for every one who is willing to do so, there are many, many more who do not want to do so. If you believe that we (nonM) are in the "dark" how can anything we say be taken seriously by yourselves?DAVEH: Even though you (nonM) or me (M) may be wrong on any given belief, I don't think that necessarily means a meaningful/serious discussion cannot be had about such even IF one or both parties are in error. For instance, I believe baptism is a very important aspect of salvation, and feel that those of you (nonM) who do not share this belief are in error. However, I do want to know why you believe as you do because as I see it.the Bible is pretty firm about teaching the necessity of baptism and its relationship to salvation. It is my opinion that those who do not see the necessity of baptism (being needed for salvation) have simply inherited this belief based on Protestant doctrines that were derived due to a repugnance to RCC dogma. Had it not been for the RCC insistence on baptism for salvation, I believe Protestants would not have been so reluctant to understand the Bible's comments about baptism the way they do. It is such doctrinal leanings that persuade me to think that most TTers are really Protestants despite their denial. Though they may not think they are protesting anything, it is the adoption of a belief system that is based on Protesters that draws me to think they qualify as Protestants. Does that make sense, Lance? I think what I've said above pretty much explains my interest in TT. As you may know, I am not here to learn/find truth, but rather my interest here is in learning about what Protestants believe and why they believe it because some of those beliefs are in such contrast to my own. Yet we share the same Bible. I realize that I benefit from extra Biblical knowledge, but I try to make allowance for that and try to focus on what the Bible says and infers. Another example.I've often times mentioned baptism for the dead as Paul referred to in 1 Cor 15:29. I have not this to convince any TTers that baptism for the dead is doctrinally correct because it is in the Bible. Rather I find the fact that there were Primitive Christians
Re: [TruthTalk] Re:Dialogue with Mormons
DaveH, See my comments below. DAVEH: Most everybody (nonM)I've chatted with on TT has felt the need to save me from Mormonism. I have repeatedly said that I did not come to TT to change, and many seem to have disbelieved my intentions and apparently take offense that I am so stubbornly unwilling to change the way I perceive and understand the Bible. Yet I, looking from the other side of the fence, see those same TTers being equally stubborn in their inherited Bible beliefs. There are some deeply rooted Protestant ideas that simply cannot be compromised for some reason, which I find curious. (Again.that is why I tend to categorize most TTers as being Protestants despite some protesting of such.) After being in TT for well over 4 years now, I have seen enough petty squabbles amongst TTers who go to great lengths to explain their understanding of things found in the Bible, yet I think few change their views. So, why be hypocritical about it.why not just say I'm not here to change and then enjoy TT for what it is. Yet it seems I am one of the few who thinks this way. Everybody else apparently supposes they are going to be able to persuade the others to think like them...and, when it doesn't happen that way.everybody gets their noses bent out of shape. DavidH, Pardon me for interjecting into your conversation with Lance, but you must consider that to the average TT'r you are on the other side of the FAR fence. Almost ALL on TT consider you well outside of orthodoxy, and many probably believe you are in a cult. So, while we Christians might disagree among the TT family about doctrinal differences, I believe we all respect one another as brothers in Christ. Hank Hanegraaf calls these differences in-house debates; i.e., debates that are interesting from a theological standpoint, but are not outside of the pale of orthodoxy. It is natural for Christians to want to convert non-christians...I think even you will agree with that, having been a missionary yourself at one time (I am assuming this is true...let me know if I have assumed in error.) You use the term protestant to refer to anyone that is a Christian, but not Roman Catholic. I guess that is like using the word Kleenex to refer to tissues, or Coke to refer to cola soft drinks. However, in many cases it is inaccurate. While there are some groups that still refer to themselves as Protestant, i.e., they trace the lineage of the denomination to which they belong back to the reformation, many today do not. The Baptists, for example, claim to have descended from the Ana-baptists, who never where a part of the RCC, so never needed to protest it or come out of it. I sometimes use the word protestant to refer to myself when indicating that I am non-RCC, but in general I do not view myself as a protestant, per se. I do not belong to any tradition or denomination that claims to trace itself to the reformation. (Not that I think that is a necessarily bad thing, by the way). But I consider true believers to be members of the body of Christ, that is, those who follow Christ REGARDLESS of the tradition from which they come, be it protestant, or whatever. That they may fellowship with a group that has a particular name or tradition does not change that thaey are a member of the body of Christ. The key is that the individual is a believer in Christ, and that the Bible is their source of authority. If you would like to use a more accurate term for those you call Protestants, you could use the term believer, or just Christian, or even followers of the way (not The Way Internatioanal). But, to use the term protestant lumps everyone that is non-RCC into the same classification, which, in many cases on TT, is not accurate. A question to TT'rs (who bothered to read this far) ... what term or name do you use to refer to yourself, or the group to which you consider yourself a member, relative to your beliefs, be it organized or not? For myself, I am a member of the body of Christ. My doctrine may not not perfect, my theology may be flawed, and my walk may be imperfect, but it is in Him, and none other, that I place my faith for my salvation, the Holy Spirit for my guidance, and God, as revealed through His word, as my source of authority. Have you ever wondered if I consider Mormons to be members of the body of Christ? If they reject the teachings of the LDS church about the false Mormon god and jesus, and embrace the God and Jesus of the Bible, then I believe they are. But, as long as they continue to place their faith in the wrong god and wrong jesus, they are not. Perry _ FREE pop-up blocking with the new MSN Toolbar get it now! http://toolbar.msn.com/go/onm00200415ave/direct/01/ -- Let your speech be always with grace, seasoned with salt, that you may know how you ought to answer every man.
Re: [TruthTalk] Re:Dialogue with Mormons
Charles Perry Locke wrote: A question to TT'rs (who bothered to read this far) ... what term or name do you use to refer to yourself, or the group to which you consider yourself a member, relative to your beliefs, be it organized or not? For myself, I am a member of the body of Christ. My doctrine may not not perfect, my theology may be flawed, and my walk may be imperfect, but it is in Him, and none other, that I place my faith for my salvation, the Holy Spirit for my guidance, and God, as revealed through His word, as my source of authority. Have you ever wondered if I consider Mormons to be members of the body of Christ? If they reject the teachings of the LDS church about the false Mormon god and jesus, and embrace the God and Jesus of the Bible, then I believe they are. But, as long as they continue to place their faith in the wrong god and wrong jesus, they are not. Perry Member of the body is kinda generic, but acceptable. I see myself more as a hangnail on the body, but use the term Christian when describing myself. It sounds better. The stuff you wrote above, by the way, is right on target from my viewpoint. Terry _ FREE pop-up blocking with the new MSN Toolbar get it now! http://toolbar.msn.com/go/onm00200415ave/direct/01/ -- 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] Re:Dialogue with Mormons
No problem amening that. Lance - Original Message - From: Terry Clifton [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: March 30, 2004 12:01 Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Re:Dialogue with Mormons Charles Perry Locke wrote: A question to TT'rs (who bothered to read this far) ... what term or name do you use to refer to yourself, or the group to which you consider yourself a member, relative to your beliefs, be it organized or not? For myself, I am a member of the body of Christ. My doctrine may not not perfect, my theology may be flawed, and my walk may be imperfect, but it is in Him, and none other, that I place my faith for my salvation, the Holy Spirit for my guidance, and God, as revealed through His word, as my source of authority. Have you ever wondered if I consider Mormons to be members of the body of Christ? If they reject the teachings of the LDS church about the false Mormon god and jesus, and embrace the God and Jesus of the Bible, then I believe they are. But, as long as they continue to place their faith in the wrong god and wrong jesus, they are not. Perry Member of the body is kinda generic, but acceptable. I see myself more as a hangnail on the body, but use the term Christian when describing myself. It sounds better. The stuff you wrote above, by the way, is right on target from my viewpoint. Terry _ FREE pop-up blocking with the new MSN Toolbar get it now! http://toolbar.msn.com/go/onm00200415ave/direct/01/ -- 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] Re:Dialogue with Mormons
I am an Onto-relational/Incarnational Trinitarian from the same body of Christ as you, Perry. Glad to know you, too! I too believe and know that my doctrine may not perfect, my theology may be flawed, and my walk may be imperfect, and it is in Him, and none other, that I place my faith for my salvation, the Holy Spirit for my guidance, and God, as revealed through His word, as my source of authority. i guess that makes us brothers. yea, Yea, YEA! bill taylor - Original Message - From: Terry Clifton [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, March 30, 2004 10:01 AM Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Re:Dialogue with Mormons Charles Perry Locke wrote: A question to TT'rs (who bothered to read this far) ... what term or name do you use to refer to yourself, or the group to which you consider yourself a member, relative to your beliefs, be it organized or not? For myself, I am a member of the body of Christ. My doctrine may not not perfect, my theology may be flawed, and my walk may be imperfect, but it is in Him, and none other, that I place my faith for my salvation, the Holy Spirit for my guidance, and God, as revealed through His word, as my source of authority. Have you ever wondered if I consider Mormons to be members of the body of Christ? If they reject the teachings of the LDS church about the false Mormon god and jesus, and embrace the God and Jesus of the Bible, then I believe they are. But, as long as they continue to place their faith in the wrong god and wrong jesus, they are not. Perry Member of the body is kinda generic, but acceptable. I see myself more as a hangnail on the body, but use the term Christian when describing myself. It sounds better. The stuff you wrote above, by the way, is right on target from my viewpoint. Terry _ FREE pop-up blocking with the new MSN Toolbar get it now! http://toolbar.msn.com/go/onm00200415ave/direct/01/ -- 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] Re:Dialogue with Mormons
Charles Perry Locke wrote: DaveH, See my comments below. DAVEH: Most everybody (nonM)I've chatted with on TT has felt the need to save me from Mormonism. I have repeatedly said that I did not come to TT to change, and many seem to have disbelieved my intentions and apparently take offense that I am so stubbornly unwilling to change the way I perceive and understand the Bible. Yet I, looking from the other side of the fence, see those same TTers being equally stubborn in their inherited Bible beliefs. There are some deeply rooted Protestant ideas that simply cannot be compromised for some reason, which I find curious. (Again.that is why I tend to categorize most TTers as being Protestants despite some protesting of such.) After being in TT for well over 4 years now, I have seen enough petty squabbles amongst TTers who go to great lengths to explain their understanding of things found in the Bible, yet I think few change their views. So, why be hypocritical about it.why not just say I'm not here to change and then enjoy TT for what it is. Yet it seems I am one of the few who thinks this way. Everybody else apparently supposes they are going to be able to persuade the others to think like them...and, when it doesn't happen that way.everybody gets their noses bent out of shape. DavidH, Pardon me for interjecting into your conversation with Lance, but you must consider that to the average TT'r you are on the other side of the FAR fence. Almost ALL on TT consider you well outside of orthodoxy, and many probably believe you are in a cult. DAVEH: Sure.I well understand that. I suspect Jesus found himself in a similar position in his day. Being outside the norm is not necessarily bad, IMO. Though it certainly carries a burden of sorts. However, on the other hand it gives a fresher/different perspective that may not be fully appreciated by those imbued with orthodoxy. So, while we Christians might disagree among the TT family about doctrinal differences, I believe we all respect one another as brothers in Christ. Hank Hanegraaf calls these differences "in-house debates"; i.e., debates that are interesting from a theological standpoint, but are not outside of "the pale of orthodoxy". It is natural for Christians to want to convert non-christians... DAVEH: I understand that. However, as I understand it, the primary purpose of TT is not to make that a requirement. In the past, some have murmured that those who don't conform to Christian orthodox thought should be excluded from TT. When I have stated that I am not in TT seeking to change to an orthodox perspective, some folks seem to take offense and get a bit riled up. I'm not sure why that happens, but do find it a curiosity. From my LDS perspective, I don't ever recall seeing that in Mormonism. So.even though we actively pursue converts as well, our attitudes are vastly different in how we accept failure in our goals. Hmmm..I'm not sure I phrased that correctly Perry, but I think you understand what I'm saying. I think even you will agree with that, having been a missionary yourself at one time (I am assuming this is true...let me know if I have assumed in error.) DAVEH: That is correct. You use the term "protestant" to refer to anyone that is a Christian, but not Roman Catholic. DAVEH: Not exactly. There is a third category (Restoration) which I feel is an important factor. And.I suppose there may be a 4th category of extreme fringe elements, but I haven't thought much about them at this point. But I think you are basically correct in assessing my understanding of how most TTers relate to Protestantism. I guess that is like using the word "Kleenex" to refer to tissues, or "Coke" to refer to cola soft drinks. However, in many cases it is inaccurate. DAVEH: Perhaps, but we use such terms (scotch tape is another) all the time because it pragmatically works, even though legally it may be incorrect or misleading. While there are some groups that still refer to themselves as "Protestant", i.e., they trace the lineage of the denomination to which they "belong" back to the reformation, many today do not. The Baptists, for example, claim to have descended from the Ana-baptists, who never where a part of the RCC, so never needed to protest it or "come out of it". I sometimes use the word "protestant" to refer to myself when indicating that I am non-RCC, but in general I do not view myself as a "protestant", per se. DAVEH: That is why I think most TTers are Protestants, even though they deny protesting anything. As I see it, the RCC folks claim a priesthood authority based on Peter being the rock upon which all else (RCC) is built. Without that God given authority, any other religious paradigm is toast (from the RCC perspective). What most TTers are protesting (from my perspective) is that priesthood authority which the RCC say needs to be handed down through under the auspices of
Re: [TruthTalk] Re:Dialogue with Mormons
Lance Muir wrote: Dave, my brother, be at peace. I've no such grandiose agenda. DAVEH: WOW! You must be a different breed of TTer, Lance!!! Read my posts today ala JL.. DAVEH: Yikes.I've deleted most of them already, and could go back to the trash folder to read them..but, I simply don't have the time. IF in the future you want me to be certain to read a specific post you make in reply to somebody else, cc it to me separately so I will know to pay particular attention to it. Andif you want to send me one of today's posts you think is applicable to meplease send it again (off TT is OK too.) However, it ought never to be the case that we denigrate another's convictions, or commitment to them. DAVEH: I agree. Though I suspect there are more than a few TTers who would disagree. Some things are what we believe them to be and some are not. DAVEH: I'm glad to hear you say that, Lance. I think it is much truer than even you (and I) think. Lance From: Dave To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: March 30, 2004 09:45 Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Re:Dialogue with Mormons Lance Muir wrote: Great post! Yes, I believe it to be possible. If I didn't I'd use my fingers to type only to myself. Wait a sec, maybe that's what some of us are actually doing. Ya think? DAVEH: Most everybody (nonM)I've chatted with on TT has felt the need to save me from Mormonism. I have repeatedly said that I did not come to TT to change, and many seem to have disbelieved my intentions and apparently take offense that I am so stubbornly unwilling to change the way I perceive and understand the Bible. Yet I, looking from the other side of the fence, see those same TTers being equally stubborn in their inherited Bible beliefs. There are some deeply rooted Protestant ideas that simply cannot be compromised for some reason, which I find curious. (Again.that is why I tend to categorize most TTers as being Protestants despite some protesting of such.) After being in TT for well over 4 years now, I have seen enough petty squabbles amongst TTers who go to great lengths to explain their understanding of things found in the Bible, yet I think few change their views. So, why be hypocritical about it.why not just say I'm not here to change and then enjoy TT for what it is. Yet it seems I am one of the few who thinks this way. Everybody else apparently supposes they are going to be able to persuade the others to think like them...and, when it doesn't happen that way.everybody gets their noses bent out of shape. At least that's the way I see it, Lance. Lance - Original Message - From: Dave To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: March 30, 2004 03:42 Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Re:Dialogue with Mormons Lance Muir wrote: Attention all Mormon contributors: You may reframe this query in better suited words if you wish: Do you (M) believe all others (nonM) to be capable of engaging you(M) in any genuine dialogue? DAVEH: Yes. But my experience in TT has shown me that for every one who is willing to do so, there are many, many more who do not want to do so. If you believe that we (nonM) are in the "dark" how can anything we say be taken seriously by yourselves? DAVEH: Even though you (nonM) or me (M) may be wrong on any given belief, I don't think that necessarily means a meaningful/serious discussion cannot be had about such even IF one or both parties are in error. For instance, I believe baptism is a very important aspect of salvation, and feel that those of you (nonM) who do not share this belief are in error. However, I do want to know why you believe as you do because as I see it.the Bible is pretty firm about teaching the necessity of baptism and its relationship to salvation. It is my opinion that those who do not see the necessity of baptism (being needed for salvation) have simply inherited this belief based on Protestant doctrines that were derived due to a repugnance to RCC dogma. Had it not been for the RCC insistence on baptism for salvation, I believe Protestants would not have been so reluctant to understand the Bible's comments about baptism the way they do. It is such doctrinal leanings that persuade me to think that most TTers are really Protestants despite their denial. Though they may not think they are protesting anything, it is the adoption of a belief system that is based on Protesters that draws me to think they qualify as Protestants. Does that make sense, Lance? I think what I've said above pretty much explains my interest in TT. As you may know, I am not here to learn/find truth, but rather my interest here is in learning about what Protestants believe and why th
