From: Dave <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
DAVEH:� Note......I changed the subject line to more accurately reflect the nature of this discussion.
Charles Perry Locke wrote:
> >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,
DAVEH:�� Hmmmmmm.......you just want me to accept what you say at face value without any discussion or argument if I think your comment lacks credibility?
Well, yes, to an extent. There are two levels of understanding at play here. First, is what Protestants believe, and second is whether or not what they believe is true.
If you have asked me to tell you what Protestants believe. and I tell you what Protestants believe, then you have no argument. You asked, I answered. This is independent of what YOU feel or believe about the topic itself.
If you think that I have erred in telling you what Protestants believe, i. e., you believe that what I have told you does NOT represent what Protestants believe, then you can rebut that fact, arguing what you think Protestants believe. This STILL has nothing to do with what YOU feel or believe about the topic itself!
But, when you ask what Protestants believe, and I correctly tell you what Protestants believe, and your rebuttal is to tell me that what Protestants believe is wrong, and you try to argue that fact, then you are out of place. You are being disengenuous at best. The reason is that you truly did not want to know what Protestants believe. You already knew. Instead, you wanted to argue about what Christians beleive.
The proper way to handle this disengenuous situation is rather than to ask what Protestants believe, then rebut the response because you believe other than what Protestants believe, would be to just come out and say something like, "I do not agree with the way Protestants believe. Can you outline it again so that I can offer a rebuttal as to why I think it is wrong".
Dave, I have taught hundreds, if not thousands, of college students, and I have yet encountered one that fails to understand how to ask a question to get the answer they want. Perhaps they have not become wise enough yet to hide their true motives behind seemingly innocuous questions.
> it is false, and why protestants are wrong, and the LDS are right.
DAVEH:� Do you think I'm preaching on TT?� From my perspective, I thought it was OK to offer my contrasting opinions and beliefs when discussing topics.
It certainly is okay, and encouraged, when asking the right questions and revealing the right motives.
> If you > truly wanted to learn,
DAVEH:� I think I've learned a lot from TTers.
> 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.
DAVEH:�� I thought this forum was for interactive discussions.� If you are right, perhaps I'm wrong .
It is indeed for interactive discussions, but choosing not to rebut a factual statement (i.e., what Protestants believe), but instead to learn what Protestants believe is a proper response on TT, and would be consistent with your stated intent!.
> Hey, it is great that you have a strong faith,
> but at least examine your > motives and be honest about them.
DAVEH:�� Just what do you think my motives are, Perry?� Do you think I'm trying to convert TTers to Mormonism?�
NO, I have never thought that.
Not that I would not be happy if you joined the LDS Church, but I'm not here for that purpose.� Amongst my LDS friends I have a biased view of what Protestants believe and why they believe that way.� Here I can avoid those biases and see you for what you are.� Chatting with TTers in an open forum like this gives me a good feel for what kind of people make up Protestantism, even though it is a small sampling that is skewed in a radical sense.
��� When I ask a question and receive a response that is at odds with my personal beliefs, I usually offer a contrasting (LDS biased) viewpoint.� I try to do so in a respectful manner so as not influence the answer by introducing personal emotions.� It is the replies I get in return that teach me a lot about what and how others believe.� That alone teaches me more about Protestantism than you might imagine.
> You do not really want to know what > protestants believe.
DAVEH:� Believe what you want, Perry......I know why I am here.
Why you are here, and why you say you are here, appear to be two separate things based on the questions you ask, and the way you respond to them, as demonstrated in my openening statement.
> If you do, it is not to learn...it is to try to prove > them wrong.
DAVEH:� Is there a better way to learn?
If you are within the context of the questions you ask, it is a great way to learn. But when your motives are not pure, it inhibits a mutually beneficial change of ideas.
I admit, David, that you may not even be aware that you often invite factual answers to matter of fact questions, then attack the responses. It is just bad citizenship in any forum.
> I repeat, I have yet to see you indicate in any way that you > have learned what you say you want to learn,
DAVEH:� You've taught me a lot, Perry......though it may not be what you wanted me to learn.
> and have seen only rebuttals to > the way protestants believe.
DAVEH:� I give up, Perry......what is wrong with that?� Do you think I came to TT to agree with or to join Protestantism???
NO, but to ask what they beleive, then attack the answer is disengenuous, as I have stated. If you want to argue a point, say so up front.
> 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:� Try hard, Perry......you too can be respectfully polite if you wish.
> >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.
DAVEH:� I understand that, which is why I don't preach them to you and other TTers.
> Keep in mind that I do not question whether or not they are revealed > works...I question by whom they were revealed!
DAVEH:� A lot of the Lord's prophets were rejected, so I understand that too.
And, lot of false ones have been followed, too.
> 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.
DAVEH:� This is where you are losing me, Perry.� What have I tried to prove from "a single, weak, and stretched verse"?� You've mentioned before (in respect to prooftexting) that I've tried to prove baptism for the dead, but I have asked you to quote when I've done that and as of yet you have not quoted me doing such.� As I told you, we would still practice it even if it hadn't been mentioned in the Bible, since we have latter-day revelations that direct us to practice it.� Nor have I used 1Cor 15:29 to suggest that Protestants be baptizing for the dead.� So Perry......how have I prooftexted vs 29?
When you said that LDS baptize the dead because Paul casually mentions it in passing in v29, that is prooftexting.
The point is that given the audience, the author, the topic, and the point he is making, the Bible in no way teaches, supports, or makes doctrine the act of baptising the dead. To try to make it do so on its own is to take the verse from the context and make a false doctrine out of it. If that is the LDS style of exegesis, then why not include snake handling in your temple endowments...after all the Bible mentions snakes in the NT twice. There is twice the evidence for snake handling than there is for baptism of the dead.
However, if you have extra-biblical reasons to believe that it SHOULD be doctrine, then presenting that information, while perhaps not convincing us of that fact, will let us know why you feel that way...and this can be done in a non-preaching way.
> Now, from my perspective, which is based on the Bible, and not on > extra-biblical works, you definitely are prooftexting.
DAVEH:� Perhaps that's the problem.� You may consider prooftexting simply relevant to the Bible, whereas I consider it relevant to the words of God whether they be in the Bible or elsewhere.
> The Bible verses that > you quote to support LDS heresies
> are nothing more than verses you twist to > support your extra-biblical LDS doctrine.
DAVEH:�� Again........how have I used vs 29 to support LDS doctrine?� Please quote me.
> They are taken out of context, > twisted to mean something other than what they say, and then flaunted as > proof of the heresy.
DAVEH:� If you want to accuse me, then at least please quote me.
> 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.
DAVEH:�� And irritate you or other TTers....?!?!?!?!�� I do that enough without quoting latter-day Scripture.
But, it will add to your credibility. To have a doctrine, and only one unrelated verse to support it makes LDS doctrine look stupid. But, if it also says in the D&C, BoM to Baptize the dead, then I can see that you have a reason for your belief, and for using that text to support your belief, even though I will choose not to believe that way.
> 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.
DAVEH:� A few sentences ago you claimed to have read a couple LDS apologists comments on this matter.� Now you want me to quote the same material so you "will understand why you have to twist the Biblical texts so badly"?� If you did not understand Nibley, I doubt that you'll understand me, Perry.
I am not asking you to quote LDS commentators, I am asking you to quote works you considered to be inspired.
> 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.
DAVEH:�� Perry......Let me borrow a quote from a friend........
"........but at least examine your motives and be honest about them.
You do not really want to know what [Mormons] believe.
If you do, it is not to learn...it is to try to prove them wrong."
�
> 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.
_________________________________________________________________
Protect your PC - get McAfee.com VirusScan Online http://clinic.mcafee.com/clinic/ibuy/campaign.asp?cid=3963
---------- "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.
