� David Miller wrote:
> �I have been accused by > some via private email of aiding and abetting you by giving you > ammunition to use against other Protestants.� I guess they think you are > some kind of secret intelligence agent for Mormons.� LOL. DAVEH:� ROTFLOL�� From my LDS perspective, that is funnier than you might imagine.� The more we talk about this situation, the funnier it gets to me (from my LDS perspective).� Maybe that is a contributing factor to my comfort level here.....I do enjoy the humor of it, even though others don't.� (That's not to say I don't find some of the comments disheartening.) > DaveH wrote: > > When you do it, you are being sensitive. > > When a Mormon does it.....he is 'harping'. > > No... I don't think you see this correctly.� Your statement becomes > harping because it is a one-liner that you always fall back on.� Kind of > like the way you fall back on, "the Bible is the Word of God as far as > it is translated correctly."� When people fall back on the same phrase, > and especially when that phrase does not truly seem to portray reality, > then I think it is appropriate to use the term "harping" to talk about > it. > > DAVEH: > > Then, were you shocked to hear me state (several times) > > that I am not in TT to learn truth? > > No, I'm not shocked at that because whether you ever say that or not, I > have learned that about you.� However, when you tell a Protestant that > you are here to learn what Protestant's believe, they hear that as > saying that you are here to learn truth.� Why?� Because they believe > that Protestants have the truth, so if you want to learn what they > believe, then you want to learn truth. DAVEH:� And that's why I've felt compelled to 'harp' by repeating myself so I would not be misunderstood.� Too often people make assumptions based on what they want reality to be, rather than basing their conclusions on what reality is. > �If I repeat myself numerous times, > > I'm 'harping'.� If I don't explain my intentions, > > then will I be accused of being sneaky and hiding > > something? > > I think this idea that you need to repeat yourself is what has led to > "harping" rather than communication.� I would say that you should try to > express yourself using different words if your message isn't being > communicated. DAVEH:� OK.....I'll try that. > �For example, suppose you said something like, "I'm not > here to spread my Mormon beliefs, nor am I here to learn truth.� I > believe I have the truth.� However, I enjoy hearing Protestants try and > explain their beliefs, like their ludicrous idea of the Trinity.� That's > why I'm here.� To listen to Protestants babble."� Now, I realize that my > wording is not polite enough for someone of your refinement, DAVEH:�� LOL......I'm a jeans and t-shirt guy.� It seems a shame to take the polish off this one area of my life, but I'll see what I can do to please you! > but if you > edited this to have wording that was polite enough for you, but still > communicated the same idea, then that would be more likely to > effectively communicate why you are here, rather than just saying, "I'm > here to learn what Protestants believe." > > DaveH wrote: > > We try not to see an adversarial relationship between men > > and differing theologies.� We view all men as being spiritual > > brothers who have differing paths in their journey of eternal > > progression.� For someone to force another to walk a specific > > path detracts from the free agency aspect of the plan of salvation. > > So I don't think it is of benefit to twist somebody's arm to make > > them believe like we do.� IMO, it is better to let them come to > > that conclusion on their own. > > I see some spin in what you are saying here. DAVEH:� Sure......I've oversimplified it a little, and in the process I'm not accurately representing it. > �It seems to me that you > have a kind of "universal salvation" belief. DAVEH:� In a sense, yes.� As you know I'm not convinced of the heaven/hell dichotomy that Protestants want to throw in my face.� And at the focal point of the issue is my skewed (from a Protestant's perspective) definition of salvation.� But we've already been there, eh! > �This creates a very > different kind of concern for others.� From my perspective, most people > are going to suffer eternal damnation unless they become persuaded to > repent of their sins and find the salvation from sin that comes through > Jesus Christ. DAVEH:� This might surprise you, DavidM......but I wholeheartedly agree.� However, again our definitions for 'damnation' are significantly different.� I think we've covered that in the past too. > �You have the luxury of not caring too much about someone > who goes the wrong way, because even if they get it wrong in this life, > they can get it right in the next life.� For example, if they aren't > baptized now, they can get baptized later by proxy.� For me, its kind of > like the building is on fire and they don't know it.� Unless I yell at > them about the fire, they will perish in the burning building. DAVEH:� Good analogy.� The problem I see with Protestantism is that they begin shouting way before a fire breaks out, so it seems to me the shouting can often times do more harm than good. > Peace be with you. > David Miller, Beverly Hills, Florida. > � -- ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ 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.
