|
IFF one's beliefs concerning the 'nature of things'
informs one's life then, it is virtually impossible for those beliefs not to be
present in all that one says and does.
Whether we differ as to which end of the boiled egg
should be at the top (Gulliver's Travels) or that the earth is flat or not, such
belief(s) will find themselves into all of our human interactions. Is this not
so?
----- Original Message -----
Sent: May 29, 2005 01:43
Subject: [Bulk] [TruthTalk] Perry vs
DaveH
DAVEH: Note to all TTers.....Please
do not read my reply if you are tired of this discussion/disagreement between
Perry and me. I will change the subject line to make it easy for you to
delete any further discussions between us without reading them.
Perry posted this to me off-line,
and yes....I could reply off-line, but choose
instead to publicly post it for those who may have been following the
discussion. I'm doing so because accusations have been made and remain
unresolved to this point, in my opinion. I would like to think
that what I am posting below will clarify much of what has been posted, and
perhaps lead to a meaningful conclusion. If you can bear to read one
more post related to the Perry vs DaveH debate, read
on.....
Charles Perry Locke wrote:
Dave, I guess TT is getting tired of hearing our disagreements.
I know that in the past I have read posts from you suggesting
that you think I would prefer mormons not post on TT, It would be nearly
impossible to find them in the archives, and I do not save old
posts. DAVEH: Trying to look for
something that doesn't exist is pretty difficult, Perry. When you say
you do not save old posts, aren't they in your TRASH folder? I would
look them up for you if I could, but am currently out of town and have some of
them back on my home computer. Furthermore, I had my son build me a new
one back in October, so if whatever was said prior to that time is pertinent,
it can't easily be accessed. Even so, if I were to find nothing (which
would be expected IF I didn't say it as you have so accused), you probably
would not be inclined to believe me.
I've not
tried the archives, so I don't know how easy it would be to search through all
the old posts. When I get some time (ha!), I may give that a
try.
However, I am not making that up. My memory is not that
bad. DAVEH: I do admit to having a bad
memory....so, I could be wrong.
So, the best I can do is to keep an eye out and point it out to
you if it happens again. Of course, my having brought it to your attention,
you are not likely to say so overtly.
You deny ever stating
such. That's fine if you do not recall saying it. DAVEH: You are right, I
do not remember saying that I believed you did not want me to post LDS
material on TT. In fact, I remember you saying several times
that you did not mind me posting or even teaching LDS stuff, but rather you
opposed me claiming I was not in TT to teach Mormonism. I
fully understood what you said, and had no thoughts that you were trying to
restrict me from posting anything on TT. That is why I think you've got
this wrong, Perry.
However, I vaguely
remember saying to DavidM at one time something to the
effect......
If Perry doesn't want me to
post.....
.......or perhaps.....
Maybe Perry
doesn't want me to post....
.........which would have been in
the form of a question to ponder. That would have been more likely what
you remember seeing and misinterpreting as.......
Perry
does not want me to post....
......which may have brought us to
this point of disagreement.
This is sort of like you saying you do not "teach" on TT. I am
sure you have an explanation or reason or rationale that will redefine your
terms to exclude yourself from ever having indicated that I would prefer
that mormons not post to TT. That seems to be an overall mormon
tactic...redifine the words to mean something other than what they
traditionally mean. DAVEH: Look up the
dictionary definition for teach, Perry. There are a few more
definitions for the term than simply the one you want to use. If you
want to think I am changing the term to a definition that is not
acceptable....I respectfully disagree. While answering questions about
my beliefs may be informing people....yes, you might say it is teaching them
what I believe.....I don't view it as teaching Mormonism on
TT.
I perceived your comment about me teaching
Mormonism on TT as being the reason I am here....to try to indoctrinate
TTers into thinking and believing like Mormons, . And I repeat....that
is not why I came to TT, nor is it the reason I remain on TT.
Lists of such changed definitions abound on the internet. It is
a very accomplished and nebulous tactic, hard to argue against, but I have
seen it becoming more and more popular, especially since Clinton attempted
to redefine "is" and "inappropriate sexual relationship".
DAVEH: You (or perhaps Kevin,
I can't remember for sure) has made that association several times.
Why....to attempt to discredit what I say? Numerous times I
have explained that I (LDS folks) do define things differently. And
numerous times I've offered my definitions, and asked in return for other
TTer's definitions just so we can have a more meaningful discussion that
doesn't get misunderstood. In this short exchange, didn't I ask
you to define what you mean by teaching Mormonism on TT? (My memory is
so bad, I do remember thinking about asking you to define it, but I don't
recall if I ever posted the thought.)
One
thing I've noticed about TT....Some TTers are reluctant to firmly define their
thoughts or terms. I suppose that is a form of protection. If one
doesn't explicitly define what they think and believe, then it is harder for
the opposition (so to speak) to attack it. I suppose you could say I now
use a similar tactic with you and Kevin regarding my believes about many LDS
things. Why should I share them with someone intent on denigrating me or
my faith. It is easier just to be vague rather than stick one's neck out
to have it promptly lopped off.
The problem
with defensive vagueness is that it does not foster an interesting discussion,
or an exchange of ideas. Rather it tends to make the aggressor
want to attack more and the defender withdraw to a safe haven of vagueness or
even lurking. It seems the less you feed an attacking dog, the
more vicious it gets....eh! As I see it, many threads in TT degenerate
into such, which to me is disappointing. I think this is why there are
fewer people posting, and more folks leaving TT.
I
doubt there is anybody here that is going to significantly change their
beliefs or way of living due to what anybody else on TT posts. Perhaps
I'm wrong, but most folks here are pretty strongly set in their ways and I
don't see anybody being swayed one way or the other from the path they
currently walk. Instead, it seems many simply leave TT when the
nonsense, rhetoric and bashing reaches an intolerable
level.
When I first came to TT, I imagined it would
be a place where I could easily find out how Protestants think about their
religious beliefs. Surprisingly, I found it was anything but easy to ask
a simple question and receive a simple answer. I suppose other TTers may
have felt the same way when they asked me questions, as many LDS answers seem
to entail a lot of explanation of details to answer so that there would be
little confusion over the definitions of the terms we use.
So....I wonder if you perceive my detailed
explanations as teaching Mormonism as opposed to my attempt at simply
answering a difficult question that requires a lot of background information
related to LDS doctrines and beliefs? I bet that's a big element in this
matter.....
As a side anecdote, I was traveling home from work on
the Amtrak Metrolink one afternoon. The lady behind me, in a voice that was
loud enough that is was difficult to ignore, was teaching someone she was
talking with on her cell phone how to lie by changing the meaning of words,
so when you (figurative "you", not literal) say the word, the person you are
talking to will think you mean one thing, but you redefine the word to mean
something else to you, so you always have a fallback if you are caught. It
was sickening to hear her weave her lies about the words and how she was
saying to redefine them.
DAVEH: I
agree, Perry. I think such tactics are used a lot in the business world
to sell stuff much in the way I've been trying to sell Terry a set of
leathers. As a parody to amuse TTers, I thought it would be fun.
As a principle put into practice, I abhor it. However, I strongly
disagree if you think I use that tactic in my religious discussions on
TT. I'm quite aware of the differences of our definitions of
terms, and feel that I've gone out of my way to clarify what I mean when those
differences might lead to confusion. Yet some TTers still want to accuse
me of being deceptive when discussing things using terms that are similar, yet
defined differently.
I suggest we agree to disagree, as I did regarding
our first point of contention.
DAVEH: I'm quite amenable to having amicable discussions
that end in disagreement. I don't feel compelled to win these
debates. I hesitate to even think of these discussions as debates,
though that is probably the proper definitions, as they tend to be rather
combative in nature. I would much rather view them as exchanges of our
perceptions and beliefs about Jesus, religion or whatever. I don't see
much of that though.
What I am less than
enthusiastic about is your claim that I've been deceptively trying to teach
Mormonism on TT. I've understood that you mean that I'm doing such
in an effort to indoctrinate TTers. If that is your thinking, Perry....I
continue to strongly and respectfully disagree.
Perry
From: Dave <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Reply-To: [email protected]
To: [email protected]
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] mormon angels. was: Dave uses Socratic Method
of Teac
Date: Sat, 28 May 2005 10:40:36 -0700
Charles
Perry Locke wrote:
Dave,
The LIE I accused you
of was making me out to be against mormons posting on TT,
DAVEH: ??? Huh?
What are you talking about, Perry?
when I have NEVER been against that. I felt that
you intentionally twisted it around, and made it appear as though I
objected to your posting mormon doctrine
DAVEH:
Where did you get that notion, Perry? Either my memory is much worse
than I expected, or you are making this stuff up. And....I think the
latter is more likely in this case.
when I DO NOT AND NEVER HAVE.
DAVEH: Nor have I ever said that /I think you
objected to me teaching Mormonism/, or anything remotely
similar. What have you been smokin', Perry??? :-)
If you are seriously accusing me of such....dig out
the quote that supports your supposition. Until then, please quit
whining and misconstruing what I've posted. For a guy who has
accused me of being deceitful, and twisting what you've said....you seem
to be creating a mistruth in the way you've twisted this matter,
Perry. Go back and read my posts that you consider at fault and see
if you didn't misinterpret what I posted. If I am wrong...then post
it for everybody to see....and I'll apologize. If you don't find any
incriminating evidence, then do you think you might owe me an
apology? Or......should we just accept your silence as an
admission of wrongly accusing me of posting something I didn't say?
I only objected to your teaching (from my
perspective) and then denying it.
The only thing left to
do is for you to acknowledge that you understand that I never objected
to your posting motmon doctrine
DAVEH:
??? Why should I have to acknowledge such, when I've *never*
posted anything that inferred that /you objected to me posting Mormon
doctrine/!
or else to provide evidence to the contrary, and
that the only thing I ever objected to (from my perspective) was your
denial of your teaching mormon doctrine.
DAVEH: And for that, you called me
deceitful, did you not?
Perry
From: "Charles Perry Locke" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Reply-To: [email protected]
To: [email protected]
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] mormon angels. was: Dave uses Socratic
Method of Teac
Date: Fri, 27 May 2005 07:31:30 -0700
Dave,
I respect your position, and I beleive that we may have
settled our first point of contention.
While you may
not consider some of your responses to be teaching mormonism, I most
whole-heartedly believe that some of it is.
When you
answer questions that are asked, and even when you give mormon
references to support it, I do not think of that as "teaching" per se.
However, when you ask a Christian what he/she believes, and he/she
tells you, and THEN you counter and rebut it with mormon doctrine and
references, which you have done in the past, then you ARE teaching
mormon doctrine, no marter how subtlekly you do it.
So,
I can live with that fact that you DO NOT consider that teaching,
which allows you to say that you are NOT teaching mormon doctrine, but
I will adhere to my belief that you ARE teaching mormon doctrine when
you do that.
I will set out to resolve our second point of
contention in my next post.
Perry
From: Dave Hansen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Reply-To: [email protected]
To: [email protected]
Subject: Re: [Bulk] Re: [TruthTalk] mormon angels. was: Dave
uses Socratic Method of Teac
Date: Fri, 27 May 2005 07:07:02
-0700
DAVEH: If you want to define teaching as
responding to questions about my beliefs, then you might have a
point, Perry. I view it a bit differently though. To be
a teacher, one needs students. For the most part, I don't view
TTers as being students wanting to learn. Witness Debbie's
comments today....
From my LDS perspective,
Teachers are to teach the gospel by using the Word of
God. As you know, for the most part....I have refrained
from posting latter-day passages on TT, excepting in specific cases
when asked to do so or it was appropriate for the discussion.
As a courtesy to TTers, I've tried to focus my discussions within
the confines of the Bible.....which in effect composes less than
half of what I believe to be Canon of Scripture. Can I
teach Mormonism while ignoring much of what God has said? Not
in my opinion. If I wanted to teach Mormonism, you'd be seeing
a lot of references to our Standard Works instead of just Biblical
quotes.
Charles Perry Locke wrote:
Dave, do you sometimes teach mormon
doctrine on TT?
From: Dave Hansen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Pery wrote: Are you on TT to teach mormon doctrine?
DAVEH: No, Perry....as I've explained before, that
was not what motivated me to join TT, nor is it the reason I
remain.
--
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
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.
|
