RE: [TruthTalk] Natural birth or baptism?

[ShieldsFamily]

Perry, Congratulations; you have finally figured out what I figured out LONG ago! You are quicker than most! Izzy   -----Original Message----- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Charles Perry Locke Sent: Wednesday, May 28, 2003 9:15 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Natural birth or baptism?   >From: Dave <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>   >DAVEH:  I have repeatedly explained why I am on TT, Perry.  Do you not >remember?  I am here to learn what Protestants believe and why they believe >that way.  Do you have a problem with that?   Well, yes I do. And the problem I have is that the first time I communicated with you on TT, I took your bait and discovered that you were not at all interested in learning what protestants believe as you state. When someone describes to you what a protestant believes, usually at your request to do so, you never respond as though you have learned anything at all about what protestants believe, but only respond with a rebuttal, and why you believe it is false, and why protestants are wrong, and the LDS are right. If you truly wanted to learn, I would expect to hear something from you like "Oh,so that's why Protestants believe that way" instead of something like, "Now, here is why that is wrong...". I have never heard anything like the former, only like the latter.   Hey, it is great that you have a strong faith, but at least examine your motives and be honest about them. You do not really want to know what protestants believe. If you do, it is not to learn...it is to try to prove them wrong. I repeat, I have yet to see you indicate in any way that you have learned what you say you want to learn, and have seen only rebuttals to the way protestants believe. Maybe you can't (or don't want) to see it, but I'll bet (figuratively) that others on this forum can see it as well. (Most are just more polite than I am about it!)   >DAVEH:  LOL.......Well Perry, you may think they are "prooftexts", but from >my perspective you are lacking perspective.  For example, you seem to think >we practice baptism for the dead because we have prooftexted 1Cor 15:29.  >Nothing can be further from the truth.  In reality, we practice it because >of latter-day revelation.  It is your lack of perspective that gives you >the perception that we prooftext such passages.  The same applies to many >other doctrines.  We believe the Lord has revealed much more of his Gospel, >which makes it easier to understand that which was previously revealed.  I >realize you don't accept that, but it explains why we view things a bit >differently and why (from your limited perspective) you think we sometimes >prooftext.   Yes, David, I lack the perspective of the extra-biblical works that the LDS use. And, that is because I do not accept them as works revealed by God.  Keep in mind that I do not question whether or not they are revealed works...I question by whom they were revealed!   Consider that if you are basing your opinions on extra-biblical texts, and trying to prove them with a single, weak, and stretched verse from the Bible, it will appear, from a purely Biblical perspective, that you are prooftexting.   Now, from my perspective, which is based on the Bible, and not on extra-biblical works, you definitely are prooftexting. The Bible verses that you quote to support LDS heresies are nothing more than verses you twist to support your extra-biblical LDS doctrine. They are taken out of context, twisted to mean something other than what they say, and then flaunted as proof of the heresy. I have read some of LDS's apologists on these topics (Noel Reynolds, Hugh Nibley), and I am amazed at the extent these supposedly wise and learned men will go to make a biblical text fit the LDS mold.   Now, if you want credibility, quote your LDS extra-biblical works to make your point. Although I will not accept them as proof of anything at all, but at least I will understand why you have to twist the Biblical texts so badly. For that I would respect you much more than for trying to get the Bible alone to support LDS fairytales. It just doesn't, and you can't make it. Hugh Nibley and Noel Reynolds can't, either. In fact, JS couldn't either. That is why he had to come up with some extra-biblical heretical works.   Perry   _________________________________________________________________ The new MSN 8: smart spam protection and 2 months FREE*  http://join.msn.com/?page=features/junkmail   ---------- "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.