Charles Perry Locke wrote:
> > >DAVEH: I have repeatedly explained why I am on TT, Perry. Do you notDAVEH: Hmmmmm......Now I understand the problem, Perry. I'll explain as we go.....
> > >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 youDAVEH: You are assuming I ONLY want to know what you believe. I have repeatedly said that I want to know what you believe, and WHY you believe it. I'll explain more as I respond to your points.......
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.DAVEH: I have found that there is a disparity of Protestant beliefs. I have surmised that that explains why there are so many Protestant denominations. They seems to share a few basic tenets and then the details can vary a lot.
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 orDAVEH: That's where I have to respectfully disagree with you, Perry. When you tell me what you believe about a specific topic that is contrary to what I believe, by questioning your belief (contrasting it to mine at times), it allows you to explain your beliefs by giving specific Biblical evidences (quoting Scripture), or introducing extra Biblical material (viz., T-Doctrine) or explaining Protestant traditions (sprinkling babies for infant baptism, perhaps)....or you can simply say you don't know why you believe that way....but you do. If I don't question your answers, I would never know why you believe the way you do. Does that make sense, Perry?
believe about the topic itself!
But, when you ask what Protestants believe, and I correctly tell you whatDAVEH: Not if I'm trying to figure out why you believe such. If I read the same Bible and come up with a different interpretation, then it seems reasonable to question why you believe differently. And when I see two or more belief paradigms within the Protestant framework, it hardly seems unreasonable to think that my differing beliefs are all that problematic to you. If you do not believe in infant baptism (and I'm using this as a hypothetical example, as I don't know what you believe about infant baptism) and another Protestant (who does believe in infant baptism) questions you about it, can you not exchange your separate contrasting evidences and beliefs to support your positions in a respectful argument? Yet when I do the same, I am accused of having some nefarious agenda or being disingenuous. To me it seems like a double standard. I realize I'm the theological 'bad guy' (".....or a wily Fox" as Izzy would say) in TT, but I do try to be respectful in my discussions. Sometimes you may think I'm ignoring your questions, but I simply can't respond to everything. As it is, I have previously been criticized for posting to much here. So I tend to pick the ones that interest me the most.
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.DAVEH: <VBG> I guess I spoke too soon!
The reason is that you truly did notDAVEH: I respectfully disagree, Perry. If you had a good understanding of Mormonism, you'd understand why I'm here. It is
want to know what Protestants believe.
You already knew. Instead, you wantedDAVEH: I hope you understand from my above comments why I "argue" about what you believe. If not, let me know and I'll try to explain it again in a different way.
to argue about what Christians beleive.
The proper way to handle this disengenuous situation is rather than to askDAVEH: Perhaps my approach to learning about why you believe the way you do is inept. For that I apologize. But it is the way my mind thinks. I'll keep your advice in mind and try to use that approach now and then. Right off hand, I'm not sure your suggestion is much different than what I'm trying to do, but I'm certainly not as polite about it as I should be.
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 IDAVEH: You've lost me on this, Perry. How do you think this applies to me? Are you suggesting I'm not framing my questions properly?
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: This seems a bit crazy, Perry! Now I have to be careful of asking just "the right questions"? I guess I'm missing something.
>
>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
andDAVEH: It sounds like you are accusing me of having secret motives other than the ones I've stated. Just what do you think my motives are, Perry, if they are not as I've stated? And, FTR......I do enjoy the banter here. I think I've stated that before, but I just don't want you to think I do not enjoy my TT friendships......even when some of those TT friends are whacking me! Unfortunately, I don't think all the other TTers feel likewise.
revealing the right motives.
> > If youDAVEH: Hmmmmm.......Now I have to be politically correct on TT.....Thanx Perry! <VBG>
> > 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 consistentDAVEH: So I'll ask again......why do you think I'm here, Perry?
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 ifDAVEH: And therein lies the problem as I see it, Perry. You have drawn a (faulty, IMO) conclusion based on how I ask questions and respond to the answers. I've often thought of my approach as being likened to a nuclear physicist. They take a chunk of material and throw another chunk of matter at it at high speed and then see what comes of the collision. The resulting "sparks" that fly tell them a great deal about the make-up of the world around us. Similarly, I jump into a nest of Protestants and ask questions that are so contrastingly opposite of accepted theology, the related trajectories of the return replies, responses, beliefs and attitudes tell me a whole lot about the nature of respondents and their belief paradigm.
>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.
For example, when my cousin affectionately (IMO) used the term "Sweet Jesus" in reference to her son, and another cousin vehemently took offense......It causes me to ponder who is the true Christian. As I perceive my Savior, I don't think he would be any more offended by my cousin's comment than he would if somebody said "Dear Lord". But after reading some of the TT responses to my question about that, perhaps "Dear Lord" is offensive to a lot of Protestants too. It just seems to me that there are too may "Christians" who want to reserve God for themselves and condemn anybody who doesn't believe the way they do to hell. Well.....if that's the way they want to think, so be it. But I prefer to think God is the Lord of all, and what is in our heart is more important than the legalistic trappings that emanate from the lips of those who vainly worship God.
> > If you do, it is not to learn...it is to try to proveDAVEH: And......you are implying......?
> > 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,
Just what evil motives can I have here? Do you expect me to someday post a condemnation all TTers to hell if they don't join the LDS Church? I'm simply at a loss to figure out what it is you and some other TTers think I'm going to do here that is soooooo bad. Even IF my motives "are not pure" as you are suggesting......so what! Is it a TT crime to be impure, Perry?
it inhibits a mutually beneficialDAVEH: I plead guilty. I have difficulty seeing my faults.
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 youDAVEH: And as I have tried to point out above, I do that to find out why you believe as you do.
> > 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.DAVEH: I thought 'argument' was the nature of learning. Can one learn without questioning?
> > Keep in mind that I do not question whether or not they are revealedDAVEH: Agreed.
> > 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,DAVEH: And that is the problem, Perry. I keep trying to explain to you that vs 29 is NOT the reason we baptize for the dead. Where have I ever said we use that passage as the reason for baptizing for the dead. How can I be prooftexting that passage when I do not use that passage for that purpose??? Please quote me, or refrain from repeating that misconception in the future.
>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 pointDAVEH: I can't believe you keep on about something I never said.
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 templeDAVEH: Which I did do previous to your coming to TT when DavidM asked me about it. You have never asked, so I have not repeated the latter-day Scripture that addresses it.
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 onDAVEH: LOL......Do I have any credibility on TT? Have you forgotten that I am a Mormon! :-)
> > 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.
Furthermore, do I need credibility here? Think about it, Perry.
To have a doctrine, and only oneDAVEH: Again, please quote me when I have used vs 29 to prove LDS baptism for the dead.
unrelated verse to support it makes LDS doctrine look stupid.
But, if itDAVEH: If you know as much about Mormonism as you've led me to think, then you know we have sufficient reason to practice baptism for the dead.
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,DAVEH: This is getting silly. Go back and look at the instances I've mentioned vs 29 and why I've mentioned it. BTW.....just look back at all the times (in this previous thread) that I asked you to quote me using vs 29 to prove LDS baptism for the dead is OK. You have ignored each and every request to quote my saying such, and yet you continue to repeat the same diatribe.
even though I will choose not to believe that way.DAVEH: When have you EVER asked me to quote LDS Scripture? Right off hand, I don't recall that happening yet. (But I do have a short memory!)>
> > 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.
--
> > 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.
