Re: [TruthTalk] Re:Dialogue with Mormons

[Dave]

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.