RIGHT.
If you can not show what or how it is out of context then maybe you really do have a crystal ball!
I am afraid you will have to show cause, for your claims. We are not all Mormons here that take things as they are spoon fed ya know.
Dave Hansen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Dave Hansen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
DAVEH: I'm not the quoter, Kevin. As such, the onus is on you to show the relevance of what you quoted is in context with what you are concluding. For example, you quoted some LDS leaders in an effort to prove that everybody who criticizes the Church is an anti-Mormon. How can I prove they didn't say such....in effect prove a negative? I can't. To me it is obvious you took their statements out of context, and the onus is upon you to prove that their comments are relevant to your conclusion. IF they said that EVERYBODY who criticizes the Church is an anti-Mormon, then quote such a statement and I will apologize for being wrong. IF you canNOT quote such, then it would appear you are promulgating a lie.
Kevin Deegan wrote:You have NEVER shown anything taken out of context in spite of numerous requests to show when & where this has occured.
Lance Muir wrote:DAVEH: Do you really believe that, Lance? If so, then why would he continue to wrongly believe (and assert) simple things like the definition an anti-Mormon? Why would he suggest Mormons do not believe in Jesus? Sorry Lance....but I think you've been duped by his twisting of the facts.To Kevin:When you're right....To Blaine, DaveH and fellow lurkers:Kevin both knows and, understands as much or more about the content of your faith than you do.
DAVEH: Taking material out of context is not misrepresenting LDS teachings?Attitude aside, he neither does nor has, misrepresented the 'content' of the LDS teaching.
DAVEH: No, I do not acknowledge that to be the case. I know what I as a Mormon believes. And I have a pretty fair understanding of what LDS theology teaches, as well as what represents official LDS doctrines. Kevin would like you to think that what is speculated about by LDS people (and LDS folks do a lot of speculating....viz, whether or not Jesus was married) is the same as official doctrine. That simply is not the case.Now, other than coming back with some miniscule 'point of order', would you not acknowledge this to be the case?
Take one of our recent discussions for example. Kevin claimed that every person who criticizes the LDS Church is an anti-Mormon. I gave 4 case examples that refute that. What did Kevin do....did he say "excuse me, I made a mistake"? No...he continued to quote LDS leaders saying various things about the truth, not connecting a single one to his comment that EVERYBODY who criticizes the Church is an anti-Mormon. Now he quoted quite a volume of material, and if you were looking from it from an outsider's perspective, you might (incorrectly) conclude that Kevin must have backed up his claim because of all the people he quoted. Yet none of that is pertinent to his claim. He just has a way of flooding you with so much material that few would really take the time to examine the true pertinence of what he quotes. I think it is a technique we used to call, "if you can't convince 'em with the truth, dazzle 'em with BS" or some such ditty.
DAVEH: That is why I am on TT, to try to get a better understanding of Protestantism and what makes it tick. Probably the best illustration of fogging the issue (as Kevin likes to do) I've seen in Protestantism is the widespread acceptance of the Trinity Doctrine.FTR, might either of you, or the lurkers, attempt an accurate description of 'protestantism' that exhibits this level of apprehension and clarity?
DAVEH: Perhaps. Hmmmm.....now that I think about it, the next time I want to know what you (Lance) believes, maybe I should ask Kevin. Get the point, Lance.....It just might be the case that you know not whereof you speak on that matter. Possible?
----- Original Message -----From: Kevin DeeganSent: June 21, 2005 06:34Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] ContentionThats it?The way you been squeling I thought it might be a biggie,Seems you have missed the post about "creator"1) In short Did Jesus create everything that was made? (every planet, every atom HB 11:3)Through faith we understand that the worlds were framed by the word of God, so that things which are seen were not made of things which do appear.2) Did he create out of nothing or just Organized what already existed?3) Did others have a part or did he create it all by himself?4) Did Jesus create Satan or are they brothers?From a Mormon:Mormons believe that Jesus, Satan, and all mankind were present with Heavenly Father before the world was created.If you can clarify here, you can establish your claims go ahead.As I said before if I am ANTI Mormon then you are ANTI Christian!There are plenty of others that see this too.The word "anti-Mormon" is what's called a "thought-terminating cliché," or in other words, an Orwellian "newspeak" term. The purposeful use of a word like this is a subtle brainwashing (or "conditioning," if "brainwashing" is too strong of an _expression_) technique. By arbitrarily branding all so-called "opponents" with a word specifically designed to create a mental aversion, the leadership of an organization cues their membership to subconsciously censor themselves every time they use the word. This is a common tactic employed by authoritarian organizations which seek to reduce the flow of information to their followers.Games Mormon People Play The Strategies and Diversions of Latter-day Saint ApologistsMaybe a better definition is A name usually attributed to Bible Christians who try to evangelize Mormons. Oftentimes Mormons accuse such people of being motivated by hatred and bigotry."Why do the Elders of the Church hold their peace, instead of contradicting the various falsehoods, which are published concerning them and their principles? The answer is, it would require a standing army of writers and printers in constant employ; for no sooner are our enemies detected in one falsehood, than a thousand more are put in circulation by them: and there are many who love a lie so much more than the truth, that we are quite willing they should enjoy their strong delusion." (Parley P. Pratt, Mormonism Unveiled, 1838)Is this site then calling all those listed in the links that follow Lovers of Lies?Seems the real problem with John Ankerberg is maybe he really does not have all those degress another Lover of LIES!This Mormon site calls the Tanners ANTI not because of any UNTRUTH but because the facts they present portrays the Church in an unfavorable light. During the Hoffman escapade it was the Tanners that got it right from the start!http://www.lightplanet.com/mormons/response/general/Publications_EOM.htm During the 1950s, 1960s, and early 1970s, the Church had a generally favorable public image as reflected in the news media. That image became more negative in the later 1970s and the early 1980s. Church opposition to the equal rights amendment and the excommunication of Sonia Johnson for apostasy, the Church's position with respect to priesthood and blacks (changed in 1978), a First Presidency statement opposing the MX missile, the John Singer episode including the bombing of an LDS meetinghouse, tensions between some historians and Church leaders, the forged "Salamander" letter, and the other Mark Hofmann forgeries and murders have provided grist for negative press and television commentary. The political leverage of the Church and its financial holdings have also been subjects of articles with a strong nega tive orientation.Apostle Oaks " When we say anything bad about the leaders of the Church, whether true or false, we tend to impair their influence and their usefulness and are thus working against the Lord and his cause. In Conference Report, Apr. 1947, p. 24." Address to Church Educational System teachers, Aug. 16, 1985.
So if you speak Truth and it is against the leaders of the church, it is "working against the Lord"?
Apostle Oaks "Thus, if Mormon Enigma reveals information that is detrimental to the reputation of Joseph Smith, then it is necessary to try to limit its influence and that of its authors."
In what ways do you think Apostle oaks would LIMIT the influence of the Author?
Dave Hansen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:DAVEH: Here are two recent ones.......
Then why is everyone witha criticism of the church an "ANTI"
.............and the other is when you implied that I believe Jesus is
not the Creator
.........Both the above comments are in error, and I've asked you to acknowledge such. For some strange reason, you seem to be reluctant to admit your error. That makes me wonder why you would want to continue promulgating these lies. Wouldn't it just be easier to admit that you were wrong? Or....do you sincerely believe you are right in both assertions? If so, then I am somewhat amazed that you would stare truth in the face and deny it.
Kevin Deegan wrote:
spreading false information is sullying their reputation more than it
is promoting their message..
I have asked for examples of misleading before, you failed to provide them. Your false allegations continue.
Go ahead list all these falsehoods. Or stop lying.
Dave Hansen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Kevin Deegan wrote:DAVEH: I'm happy to hear that, Kevin. I'd like to think you aren't spoiling for a fight.Yes I have missionaries stop to talk or say hello all over the US.They say "hey remember me" stuff like that.Some I see every GC, every pag.There is no misapprehension of where I stand they understand it clearly, that it does not mean we are enemies!
DAVEH: I don't view you as an enemy of mine, Kevin, despite your attempt to foster falsehoods about what I believe.Am I become your enemy because I tell you the Truth?
-- ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ 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.
Yahoo! Sports
Rekindle the Rivalries. Sign up for Fantasy Football
