Charles Perry Locke wrote:
DaveH wrote: "Just how do you want me to respond to
questions posed to me on TT?"
I want you to respond as you feel is appropriate.
DAVEH: I did, and for doing so you criticized me. You are a hard guy
to please, Perry!
I am just saying that if you are going to teach mormon
doctrine, that you admit that is what you are doing instead of hiding
it behind some pat phrase about NOT teaching it.
DAVEH: Why do you make inaccurate accusations, Perry? When did I say
I was NOT teaching it??? Go back and read my posts. I said my
purpose in coming to TT was not to teach Mormonism or convert people.
That was not my intention at all. If somebody asks what a Mormon (me)
what he believes, would you not expect for that Mormon (me) to explain
(teach) the questioner the answer to his question??? My reason for
being in TT remains as I have previously claimed. IF you want to know
what I believe, just ask. That I give you an honest answer in reply
(effectively teaching you what I believe) is not my primary reason for
being here though.
DaveH also said, " My interest in being here is based on
my curiosity why Protestants (and in the case, most TTers) would think
about things like this",
You have stated this before,
DAVEH: So why do you repeatedly ask a question for which I have
previously answered in a consistent fashion?
yet when a protestant tells you what he/show thinks, you
do not learn from ti.
Instead, you debate the issue, arguing the mormon point
of view.
DAVEH: I do admit to having a short memory. But that is not always
why I ask follow-up questions. The first part of why I am here is to
find out what Protestants believe, and the second part is to
find out
why they believe as they do. My LDS perspective is an integral
part of why I ask those questions (to compare to my background
belief). To not ask questions framed from my LDS perspective would not
fulfill the needs of my second reason for being on TT....to find out why
Protestants believe as they do.
That is NOT learning what protestants beleive, it is
baiting them so you can push the mormon perspective. Call it what it
is, Dave.
DaveH also wrote: "I did not join TT to preach Mormonism or convert
TTers to Mormonism.", and " I repeat....I did not come to TT to preach
LDS theology, nor to convert other TTers to Mormonism. "
My point exactly. Then why do you teach it?
DAVEH: Because some folks continue to ask what I believe. Just look
down at the questions Kevin asked me below.....I'm surprised would you
even ask why I would teach Kevin my beliefs. It's pretty simple
Perry......He asked, and I answered. Furthermore Perry, I would much
rather have somebody ask me what I believe than have them tell me what
I believe, which as you must know, has happened more than a few times
on TT. Interestingly though, even after being asked a question, and
honestly answering it....some TTers apparently refuse to believe what I
tell them.....such as you asking me why I am here.
I repeat, I think it is okay if you try to teach it, but
when you say you did not join to teach it, but end up teaching it
anyway, I just wonder about that.
DAVEH: Have you ever gotten hungry and went to the supermarket to buy
food, and then on the way to the checkout counter saw a magazine that
caught your eye and purchased it? Perry, if I asked you why you went
to the store, and you told me to get food....what would you think of me
if I accused you of lying, and that you really went there to buy a
book....
Please examine what your motives are and what you are
doing and OWN it.
DAVEH: I have Perry. Do you want me to lie as to why I came to TT?
(Gee, that road sure is familiar!)
DAVEH: Perhaps it is because you want to travel that same road even
after you have seen the scenery before. I'm not sure why you think I
would now make up a different reason for coming to TT than that I've
already given. Like I said before, IF you want to know what I
believe, just ask me. But to then criticize me for answering causes me
to wonder about your motives, Perry.
Now.....If you want to criticize me of something....go ahead....but
don't expect me to ignore your false accusations. If you want me to
change my reasons for coming to TT....do you really expect me to lie,
Perry?
Perry
From: Dave Hansen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Reply-To: [email protected]
To: [email protected]
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Dave uses Socratic Method of Teaching LDS
doctrine on TT
Date: Wed, 18 May 2005 17:32:37 -0700
DAVEH: Golly, Perry....When asked a question, I try (time allowing) to
answer it. Are you surprised that I would give an answer that is
congruent with my LDS rooted beliefs? I've not heard of the SM
method of teaching....But, is the way I answer the questions a problem
for you, Perry. It seems that when I give a brief answer by merely
quoting a single passage as evidence in support of my belief, you
criticize me for prooftexting. When I quote several passages of
support of my beliefs, now you criticize me for teaching LDS doctrine.
I'm perplexed, Perry.
BTW....Did you notice that I asked Kevin a number of questions as I
answered his questions, yet instead of directly answering them, he just
egged me on (if that is the proper way to frame it) with more questions
to draw out my own beliefs....for which you are finding fault. I
repeat....I did not come to TT to preach LDS theology, nor to convert
other TTers to Mormonism. My interest in being here is based on my
curiosity why Protestants (and in the case, most TTers) would think
about things like this. To me it is pretty obvious that God has the
form of a man, and that he can be seen by man. I derived my thinking
on this from my LDS background, and I feel the Bible sufficiently
supports my belief. Yet apparently some TTers like Kevin, Judy and
presumably you disagree...is that correct? Why? Is not the Bible
plain in revealing that men have seen God in the form of a man in Bible
times? Do you not see why I am so curious to learn why any Bible
believing Christian would not see it as I do? To me it is simply
illogical to think God is not in the form of a man. If you don't agree
with me, please tell me what you think God looks like Perry??? Do you
really think he does not exist in the form of a man?
Now Perry....If you think my thinking on this is strictly a Mormon
quirk, I suspect there are other TTers who would agree with what I said
above. At one time I remember DavidM suggesting the Bible teaches that
God has body parts. (Am I loosely quoting you right on that,
DavidM?) And logically....if God has body parts, what conclusions
would that lead to, Perry?
So Perry....what's the problem? If you feel that I am teaching
Mormonism, how bad can that be if the Bible teaches the same? And...I
stand by my original statement...I did not join TT to preach Mormonism
or convert TTers to Mormonism. I'm hear to find out what others
believe, and why they believe it. If you do not want to know what I
believe, don't ask me what I believe....and be sure to delete (without
reading) any of my responses to questions that are asked of me by
others.
Charles Perry Locke wrote:
Dave, you say you are not here to teach LDS
doctrine, but that is exactly what you are doing. You may not be aware
of the "Socratic Method" of teaching, but you are using it to teach LDS
doctrine. Now, as far as I am concerned, it is your right to try to
teach whatever you think is the truth using whatever method you feel
compelled to use (within the gudelines) on TT. But at least be honest
about it when you ar teaching LDS doctrine, rather than saying you do
not do it, then doing it anyway.
Perry
From: Dave Hansen
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: [Bulk] Re: [Bulk] Re: [TruthTalk] Dispersions
Date: Wed, 18 May 2005 07:17:32 -0700
Judy Taylor wrote:
On Wed, 18 May 2005 00:09:26 -0700
Dave Hansen <[EMAIL PROTECTED] <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>>
writes:
DAVEH: Sure....God does look like a man, Kevin. If Jesus was
the Son of man (Jn 3:13), then do you not think his Father in
Heaven was a Holy Man? No; God is a Spirit (John 4:24) -
Jesus took our likeness upon
Himself for a purpose. Psalm 91:4 speaks of God's feathers and
wings, do you suppose he looks like a bird/ a chicken
DAVEH: Do you believe you have a spirit as well, Judy? Does having a
spirit change the way one looks? If you do not believe God looks like
a man, then what do you think he looks like??? Do you believe Jesus is
in the express image of his Father in Heaven? (Heb 1:3)
And, if Jesus' physical body
was in the form of a man, do you not
think his pre-mortal spiritual body may have been in a similar
form? No; before he took a body upon Himself he was God
the Word who
appeared in His preincarnate state as
an angel, a cloud, fire, water from the rock. You can't figure out
God with a carnal mind Dave.
DAVEH: Do you believe it is important to understand the nature of God,
Judy?
To answer your last
question....yes, many things are created in a
form before they become the actual entity. If we were created
in the image of God (Gen 1:26), and we will be like him when he
appears (1Jn 3:2), then does it not follow that God looks like a
man?
No; the "image of God" speaks of nature and character.
DAVEH: Really?!?!?! So you would believe (don't let me put words in
your mouth) that we could have been born with 4 legs and a tail and
still been in the image of God?
You are trying to mix the
spiritual with the temporal.
The temporal is passing away - only the spiritual is eternal.
Transformed bodies are part of it but this does
not mean that Good looks like a man. He did not leave us any
representation of Jesus, noone knows what
he looks like other than he wasn't all that good looking.
DAVEH: You are losing me on that one, Judy. Do you not believe Jesus
currently has a resurrected physical body that resembles that of a man?
God knows our frame, we are such
idolaters that
we would do the same with him as Israel did with the bronze
serpent.
As for him being seen.....is there any question about it?
The passages that suggest one cannot see God are obviously
referring to those who are carnal, since there are Biblical
characters (such as Moses & Stephen) who did see God.
Furthermore, Gen 32:30 pretty much illustrates that holy men can
see God, and live. Was it not Jesus who said.......
Moses didn't see God, he only saw his hind parts as he passed
by
and even that caused his face to shine so
that he had to wear a veil before the ppl. Stephen had a vision
of Jesus standing at the RH of the Father but there is no
indication that he saw the face of God.
DAVEH: What difference does it make that Moses did not see God's
face. That wasn't the question.....Did Moses see God, and you
stipulated that he did......saw his hind parts . So what's to
debate.....Moses saw God and lived. God has a body (you've stipulated
Moses saw part of that body) which can be seen. Case closed, is it not?
He said that because the man he
wrestled with represented God. Do you really think that God Himself
left his throne in heaven and
came down to earth to wrestle with
Jacob? It was an angel.
DAVEH: Do you believe the hindparts Moses saw were God's hindparts, or
do you believe they were hindparts of an angel?
Probably another manifestation of
Jesus in His preincarnate state.
*Blessed are the pure in heart: for they shall see God.* (Mt 5:8)
...........Do you believe you can see God, Kevin? If not, perhaps
you are not pure enough in heart.
Takes more than presumptuous belief DaveH - It takes a pure
heart
(that is what God calls pure)
DAVEH: You are losing me on this, Judy. So you *do *believe those
with a pure heart the shall see God? If so, then why would you take
issue with my assertion that God has a body that can be seen?
Kevin Deegan wrote:
So what would he look like? a
man?
*Can he be seen?*
How can you be in the form of a man before you become a man?
*/Dave Hansen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>/* wrote:
DAVEH: No Kevin, I am not joking. I believe the Bible
teaches that Jesus was the God of the OT before his birth (Jn
1:1-14)....I assume you agree. >From Jn 4:24, you do
believe
God of the OT was a spirit....is that correct, Kevin? Yet
that spirit had the form of a body similar to ours, as is
evidenced by Gen 1:26-27 which explains that we were created
in his image. Furthermore, Paul suggests Jesus is the
express image of his Father. (Heb 1:3)
Moses even describes some of God's body parts in Ex
33:20-23, and whose similitude he beheld as mentioned in Num
12:18. Do you accept the literalness of these descriptions,
Kevin? If so, does what I said above make sense now?
Kevin Deegan wrote:
How could he be God in the
"form of a man" before he became
a man?
Your joking with me, that make NO sense.
*/Dave Hansen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>/* wrote:
DAVEH: God, in the form of a man consisting of a spirit
being. Are we in agreement on that, Kevin?
Kevin Deegan wrote:
What was he before he
"became a man"?
*Hos 11:9 I am God, and _not man_; the Holy One in
the midst of thee*
DAVEH: I agree, Kevin. Jesus was not a man before
he was born. But, I believe he was literally the
Son of Man. When did that happen?.....after his
birth. Not only was he the Son of Man, but he
himself _became a man_, and was subsequently
resurrected after his death when his spirit body
was united with a physical body of flesh and bones
to become an exalted man. With what part of this
do you disagree, Kevin?
Kevin Deegan wrote:
If I
incorrectly told you items about my wife
Hair color, likes dislikes, how we met, where we
married, where she was born (it was not Jerusalem : )
She would not be pleased. Her desire is that I
know her.
God wants you to know him, He is a
jealous God
He wants your love and affection.
If your description of Him is off, you are
worshipping a god of your own making
*Hos 11:9 I am God, and _not man_; the
Holy One in
the midst of thee*
--
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Dave Hansen
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.langlitz.com
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
If you wish to receive
things I find interesting,
I maintain six email lists...
JOKESTER, OPINIONS, LDS,
STUFF, MOTORCYCLE and CLIPS.
|
