Dave, you wrote so much that I almost hate offering you such a short answer,
but that really is all that is necessary here.
What you fail to understand is that your post that escalated the problems
was a joke hinged upon two TruthTalk members who were not married to each
other, but had their own spouses, and you intimated that one of them had
sexual knowledge of the other one. This broke the ad hominem rule because
you implied sin on the part of two members of the list. Your comment was
provoked by another TruthTalk member asking you a personal question, and she
also crossed that line. The difference is that she apologized and dropped
the subject whereas you refused to drop it, even bringing private
conversation to the list. Then when I talked to you about it, BEFORE you
were removed from the list, you told me that you were wrong and deserved to
be removed from the list. Now you are trying to make out like there is some
kind of double standard. I'm sorry, but I don't see it, at least in regards
to the reasons for removing you from the list.
Speech against Mormonism or Protestant Christianity or Roman Catholicism is
allowed. What is not allowed is speech which attacks individual members in
a personal and emotional way. If people attacked you personally, then we
would have some problem. If they are attacking your beliefs or religious
practices, that is fine.
Now in regards to free speech, I do not think it should be illegal for the
KKK to march down the streets of a Black community. If the Black community
attacks them for doing this, they are in the wrong. The Blacks who attacked
should be rounded up and prosecuted if this were to happen. Otherwise, we
send the message that the unlawful and unruly have the right to prevent free
speech.
That being said, I do think there can be restrictions upon free speech in
residential neighborhoods in regards to volume and certain kinds of
provocative behavior. I also think there are ethical considerations that
those who engage in free speech should consider. I personally do not go
into residential neighborhoods to preach a loud message because I think that
begins to infringe upon the privacy rights of individuals. This is not at
all the same as preaching on a plaza in a downtown area where community
buildings are located. As long as the message being proclaimed outside
these buildings does not hinder the business or activities being conducted
inside the buildings, we should recognize the right for people to express
dissent or opinion. This is a traditional public forum.
Lastly, let me reiterate again, that TruthTalk is not a church. If it were,
then those who refused to repent of sin would be removed from the list. We
also would not ask questions of those who disagreed with Bible doctrine. We
would engage more in reproving, rebuking, and exhorting with patient
teaching in sound doctrine.
David Miller.
----- Original Message -----
From: Dave Hansen
To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org
Sent: Friday, February 03, 2006 3:00 AM
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] the FWs about free speech thingy
You apparently think that we think we have free speech here. We don't.
DAVEH: Good. We can agree on that then. I was under the impression that
you meant for free speech to be a part of TT, yet much of what I see on TT
says it is not. That you have one rule (ad-hom) would indicate that bounds
have been set to allow free speech outside those bounds. Yet that also is
not the case, as the moderator has the power to create his/her own rules of
what speech can freely be discussed here. In reality, there is little
speech allowed in TT that does not meet the parameters set by the Christians
who are in control of TT.....the list owner (you) and the moderator of the
moment. I have no problem with that, as long as everybody understands that
free speech and TT are not always compatible.
I know....this is old ground. I just want to let you know that I
understand this aspect of TT.
What I've been trying to point out though is what I see as a double
standard in the Christian world of street preaching, if not TT. I know that
is probably getting to be a tired subject, but let me briefly explain after
posting your last comment....
You seem to have trouble understanding the difference between traditional
public forums where free speech may be conducted, and private religious
meetings or moderated e-mail lists where free speech is not conducted.
DAVEH: You previously stated.....
The church of Jesus Christ should be most open to dialogue
.......and below you stated.........
If you don't believe in the
public forum and the free exchange of ideas and freedom to express dissent,
then you do not believe in freedom of speech.
.........in an attempt to make me feel that the LDS Church is wrong for not
allowing dissent to be openly expressed. Then a few days ago, you
elaborated.........
The church of Jesus Christ should be most open to dialogue, not only
allowing it outside their buildings, but inviting those outside to come in
and talk with them. If I had homosexuals or others gathering outside and
protesting, I would invite them in and give them a platform. I'd say,
"let's hear what you have to say." Then I would discuss it with them. I
would ask if anybody else there wanted to address what was said. The truth
has no fear of being challenged. Only people who embrace falsehood are
afraid of the truth.
..........To me it seems you firmly believe that when it comes to you (and
SPers in general) imposing your ideas and beliefs on others who may not want
to hear your message, the free speech rights are touted as being sovereign,
and anybody wanting to shield themselves from what you might say are simply
hiding from the truth. To repeat your comment.....The truth has no fear of
being challenged.........., you are a big proponent of truth when it serves
you. Yet when the shoe is on the other foot, there is a concerted effort by
some TTers to hide the truth from the public forum. It is very easy for a
moderator to take a discussion off-forum when the discussion takes an
unexpected turn. And the stated reason for doing such is often that it is
offensive to some TTers. Yet, SPers feel free to offend others whenever
they perceive it to work in their favor. Wow....when you consider some of
the things said on TT against Mormonism that would even offend non-Mormons,
it amazes me that virtually nothing is said to moderate such frank and
offensive posting. That's quite a contrast to the feigned offenses that are
generated in the minds of some who are looking for an excuse to use a heavy
hand of moderation when the opportunity avails itself to set Mormonism back
a pace or two....which just happens to be their stated agenda.
Perhaps I'm wrong on this following perception, but I see many TTers as
not being affiliated with a mainline religious denomination, yet they find
some kind of bond in TT that allows them to group together in a show of
strength for their common goals.....something (a theological social
affiliation) that might be lacking in their lives. In effect, isn't TT a
loose form of a Church with few rules and a common desire of each
participant to convert the other members of TT to believe as they do? All
this is done with a few common roots, such as the Bible, authority of the
believer, faith in Christ....etc. At the same time, there seems to be an
open invitation for others to come unto Jesus by joining this group of
religious rebels who eschew conventional Christianity in the belief that
their independent beliefs, faith and theological theories are superior to
those of the denominations who've dumbed down their doctrines for the
edifying of the masses. So....the enticement is to believe like me (name
any TTer) and you too can be saved by Jesus and at the same time elevate
one's theological prowess above the doctrinally blinded lip worshipers of
conventional Christianity that proclaims truth but knows not what that truth
is or why it is important.....or, something to that effect.
So, when a Mormon comes along, he is presumed to be ripe for the
plucking (converting), and is welcomed into the TT Church with the hope of
being rescued from a presumed cult. When that same LDS lad does not quite
agree with traditional Christian concepts, and refuses to see the
light....it creates a bit of a stir amongst some of the true believers. Why
let what is perceived as a false teacher remain in this relatively
homogeneous group, I'm sure some think if not openly express at times. If
the misfit doesn't seem willing to change (and this can apply to LDS folks
gathering for a Conference), they are assaulted with epitaphs that would
cause many to reel in horror, and run for shelter elsewhere. Whether that
is done by posting outrageous lies regarding what Mormons believe, or waving
their sacred underwear in their faces in an obvious attempt to agitate and
offend....it matters not. The attempt is to disturb, even if the intended
victim wants to enjoy the freedom to practice their religion as they wish,
and at the same time enjoy a religiously offense free life.
What excuse is given by the SPers? It is their right to free speech, of
course! It is their right to offend. And, though they will not admit
it....it is their right to lie and deceive as they loudly practice their
proclaimed right of free speech. Now IF one of the LDS persons witnessing
such explains that what the SPers are doing is offensive, not only to the
intended victim, but also to uninvolved bystanders, it mattereth not. Free
speech is the key word, and the excuse the SPers hide behind....regardless
of its unintended consequences. To answer such concerns, some will suggest
The truth has no fear of being challenged., and The church of Jesus Christ
should be most open to dialogue, so why not invite them in and give them a
platform, and then in a deceptive spirit of good will, "let's hear what you
have to say.". And then in an attempt to make them feel ashamed for
belonging to a religion that attempts to protect it's followers from the
grievous wolves of the world, they mock Only people who embrace falsehood
are afraid of the truth.
So....how does that differ from a Mormon who is invited into the Church
of TT, with the warning/promise that the discussions might get heated at
times, but as long as one does not commit the single crime of ad-homming
another TTer, one can openly express the free exchange of ideas and freedom
to express dissent with others who may have diametrically opposed ideas.
Hey, that sounds like a good idea.....in theory. Everybody will be on an
equal footing regardless of their background or beliefs, or even what they
might say. They speak freely as long as they don't attack the person. Yet
when put into practice, the TruthTalk is a little less than real TruthTalk.
It is moderated by one who can make new rules as needed, limit discussions
that tend to step on personal toes, and let other comments run rampant that
are not offensive to certain people, while others can be offended at the
whim and will of any/all other TTers who are in the protective sympathy of
the moderator. All of a sudden, that free exchange of ideas and freedom to
express dissent is a one way street.....and we all know which way the arrow
is pointing, eh! What's the message??? Let the SPers take over your
(LDS) pulpit and ram their own form of preaching (underwear waving) down
your throat under the banner of The truth has no fear of being challenged.
But, don't reciprocate the same freedom by allowing one of them to come to
our church (TT) and preach things we don't want to hear to us. To us it is
offensive to be shown that we (the Church of TT) practice hypocritical
Christianity. Toss in a few ad-homs and refer to the outsider as a pagan,
then point out evidence of their cultic derived symbols, while at the same
time minimizing the cultic symbolism of their own brand of Christianity. In
effect, if you yell loud enough, long enough and refuse to address the fact
that one's own Christian background may be contaminated by the same things
that one is so loudly critical of others' beliefs....well, it doesn't play
well in the Church of TruthTalk....which is perhaps what might better be
thought a misnomer.
What can be done when something unexpected takes root on TT. The
favorite tactic seems to be to take the discussion off-forum, with the
threat of getting the boot if the irritating party does not comply. What a
great way to suppress the free exchange of ideas.......just take them out of
the public eye. If I were an LDS authority in SLC, I emulate this TT
practice of trying to entice the SPers with similar tactics. I'd just
invite them to the Church office building a few hours before Conference time
under the guise of letting them express their concerns and complaints about
Mormonism. Then engage them in a debate, or even just let them rant on and
on in a private room, injecting a few comments to keep them animated. Then
6 or 8 hours later, declare a truce and break for dinner with the invitation
to come back 6 months later at Conference time to continue the debate.
Hmmmmmm....I wonder if the SPers would be happy with such an arrangement,
and willingly allow themselves to be hogtied in such an ingenious way?
Despite what some might think, I doubt they would be so stupid. I know I
wouldn't want to engage in private discussions that effectively limit my
ability to express dissent, or agree to limit my ability to engage in an
exchange of ideas as a condition of being on TT, despite some thinking I
might accept such a gagging request that others need not heed. As I see it,
anybody who would expect Mormons to let and encourage anti-Mormons do what
they would limit Mormons to do in their own venue is simply practicing a
double standard, which I view as a form of Christian hypocrisy. I know I
expressed that in an awkward manner, but I hope you can see the point I'm
trying to make....you expect freedom of speech in the LDS realm, but you
don't want Mormons to have the same freedoms in your realm.
From my perspective, as long as you hold to that expectation, then as an
outsider being invited into TT, I would expect to be afforded the same right
as you would expect Mormons to give you. I don't want to be taken to a
private room to express dissent. If some TTers think its fair to attempt
offend me, then why criticize me returning the favor? For the most part, I
don't think I've taken a poke at anybody who hasn't bloodied my nose first.
Perhaps you are the exception to that in a sense, DavidM. At least you are
not restricting me from expressing my dissent in these recent posts, as some
would prefer. You are a stand up guy, and I respect you for that even
though I sincerely believe you do not understand the level of hypocrisy you
have exhibited in this matter. That's not to say I'm an angel, but I don't
harbor any illusions of being perfect. As you know....I've got a long way
to go in that department! I sincerely appreciate you allowing this
discussion to continue in the public venue. Not everybody would be so
tolerant of one who has a different perspective and attitude to match.
Public sidewalks, parks, and plazas, on the other hand, are areas where free
speech can be conducted. There are no moderators in that kind of forum.
DAVEH: Nonsense, DavidM. Of course there are moderators (and moderation)
where virtually all street preaching is practiced. If you find SPers out
in the middle of the Bonneville salt flats with nobody within 10 miles
sight, you might have a point. But that is not the real world, where SPing
is commonly practiced. SPers are attracted to people like flies to dung.
The closer to the "in the face" action they can get, the better they seem to
like it. And that with a self righteous attitude can be a catalyst that not
only incites, but inflames and can lead to violence, as some TT SPers have
claimed. That's why buffers are created, and specific locations allotted to
the SPers for their work. There could be police, or city rules that govern
noise, crowd control, riot control, etc. As I pointed out in my previous
comments, the Nazis or KKK do not have the right to practice their free
speech in a neighborhood where it might lead to a violent confrontation. I
now there are other examples that can be given that relate to noise,
inappropriate activities around schools, etc. So why SPers think they
should not be limited in the way they practice their form of evangelism
rather surprises me. What is their intention....to preach the gospel of
Christ, or to drive people from Jesus? Sometimes it is hard to figure how
their minds work. The fact is that free speech does not come without
limits, and the SPers are sometimes limited to where they preach and whether
or not they can use amplified devices is evidence of such moderation. Such
is not without good reason, as it seems the SPers want to push to limit as
far as they can until they get a reaction....even if it is negative. I
suspect they even delight in such violent negativity, as it may reinforce
their skewed thinking that they are being persecuted for their beliefs as
were Christians of earlier generations.
Again DavidM....I thank you for allowing me this forum to publicly
express my perspective and dissent. Though I may have offended you with
some of what I said, I mean you no harm. I just hope you can see through my
eyes how I perceive you at times. May God bless you and your family!!!
David Miller wrote:
Dave, I don't know if I will find the time to answer all your points, but
let me answer one biggy you asked right now. Does free speech exist on
TruthTalk. The answer is no. The very existence of our no ad hominem rule
makes that clear. Furthermore, the existence of a moderator makes that
clear. Therefore, a lot of your treatise below finds fault with TruthTalk
based upon a false premise. You apparently think that we think we have free
speech here. We don't.
Public sidewalks, parks, and plazas, on the other hand, are areas where free
speech can be conducted. There are no moderators in that kind of forum.
You seem to have trouble understanding the difference between traditional
public forums where free speech may be conducted, and private religious
meetings or moderated e-mail lists where free speech is not conducted.
David Miller
----- Original Message -----
From: Dave Hansen
To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org
Sent: Thursday, February 02, 2006 4:45 AM
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] the FWs about free speech thingy
The nature of Satan is to tell God's
messengers, "Shut Up!"
DAVEH: Or........to "keep waving the underwear".
What we understand is that the sword of God is God's Word. To wield the
sword, we must speak it. Therefore, if we shut up, the kingdom of God
cannot be advanced.
DAVEH: Rather than wield that sword to slay the foe, I believe God's Word
can sometimes be more effective if the Spirit whispers in the foe's heart.
There actually might be some interpretation of FCC standards that could
apply,
DAVEH: On the internet??? I did not know the FCC had any jurisdiction
here. I hadn't thought about it though. What have you heard to make you
think they could have some impact on the net/email? (Do anti-spamming
legislation come under the auspices of the FCC?)
You were not booted for sexually explicit speech.
DAVEH: How interesting that both you and Perry assumed my comments were
about my specific situation. That is not at all my thoughts at the time I
posted this, but rather I was trying to give you hypothetical examples of
what I think might get one booted from TT. Of course I was not booted for
that (sexually explicit speech) specific reason.....I said nothing that was
sexually explicit, so how could I bet booted for such? But, if somebody
kept posting sexually explicit stuff and/or foul/obscene language on TT,
would it really be tolerated??? I can't imagine that one would not be
booted if he refused to change the nature of his posts. Do you disagree?
It was not my intent to discuss the specifics of why I was
booted....since that was a banned topic, but since you brought it up it now
seems appropriate to discuss it. Just the fact that you posted the above,
would lead someone to believe that I had been posting sexually explicit
speech.....and that simply was not the case. Was it not you that wanted me
to agree not to post anything sexually related as a condition of being
allowed to return to TT??? Why would you even suggest that as a condition
of returning IF I was not booted for sexually explicit speech in the first
place!!! If you remember, I declined you qualified offer, as it would have
placed me in a position of existing on TT under a different set of rules
than other TTers.....effectively, a double standard.....which is exactly
what I was trying to point out exists on TT at the time I was booted. Not
only is that double standard nurtured by the moderator, but you attempted to
use it to discipline me as a condition of being admitted back into TT.
Such an action in my humble opinion is the ultimate example of the
double standard practiced by street preachers who demand their measure of
free speech, while arrogantly disregarding others' rights to peaceful quiet
undisturbed solitude as they worship. Street preachers feel righteous in
proclaiming their right to impinge on others' ears, sometimes showing little
or no respect for those they verbally and visually assault. Yet some of
them are horrified when somebody with an opposing viewpoint or beliefs
incongruent to their own, invades their perceived holy space. Some would
even go so far as to exclude Mormons from TT for not showing a willingness
to conform. To your credit DavidM, you have always stood up for diverse
opinions to exist here. However, that does not mean that you don't exhibit
some of those same weaknesses as other SPers when it comes to proclaiming
your rights, and denying others' the same free speech rights. Otherwise,
you wouldn't have offered me conditional permission to return to TT. Nor
would you want to restrict whatever is said beyond the ad-hom rule, such as
posting obscene language, posting sexually topics or disobeying a
moderator's request to take a discussion off-line.
If you are going to ask everybody to live by a single rule, and allow
new rules to be made on the fly to control free speech posted on TT that
some perceive as offensive, critical or contrary to one's Christian
beliefs....then you really don't have free speech in my opinion. What you
have is hypocritical Christians who practice a double standard.
You were booted for not
cooperating with the moderator who was trying to steer the discussion away
from the vulgar and profane.
DAVEH: I thought free speech would protect me when doing such. Guess I was
wrong, eh! Why would the moderator want to control such a discussion
anyway? Did he not know that street preachers are big proponents of free
speech when it is to their advantage? I wonder how long it would be before
the moderator or other TTers would want to oust me IF I were to make a
concerted effort to evangelize other TTers..... :-\
Here's the big question: Is there free speech on TT or not?
IMO....the answer is no.
Here's my corollary question: Is there a double standard practiced by
street preachers? IMO....the answer is yes.
Here's my whimsical question: Will this thread be banned by the
moderator? IMO.....he doesn't have the guts.
You brought his private converation to the
list,
DAVEH: So stipulated.
contrary to guidelines that the moderator made clear.
DAVEH: Yes. Free speech takes a back seat to the moderator's arbitrary
rules. I understand that double standard. It was my intention to bring it
to public light. Either free speech exists in TT, or it doesn't. I say it
doesn't. Do you agree, DavidM? If the moderator can curtail my free speech
at his whim, and the list owner can attempt to qualify my reentry, it does
seem that free speech ain't so free in TT. And, if all that happened to me
that precipitated my being booted is not allowed to be publicly
aired/discussed on TT is banned.....then, so much for free speech on TT.
Fortunately, both you and Perry have brought this banned topic back into the
public arena by specifically relating my hypothetical examples directly to
my real life situation........
Perry wrote:
Dave, sounds like you'er still a little sore for getting booted off of TT
for continuing a banned topic.
.........I just can't figure out why you two would want to specifically
refer to a banned topic, when I had not done so, and especially when it is a
banned topic! But I do thank you for opening up this banned topic and
giving me the opportunity to point out why I think a double standard is
being harbored by hypocritical Christians who demand their rights to free
speech when preaching to others, but don't reciprocate those same rights
when others disagree or wish to say something those same hypocritical
Christians don't want to hear.
You have even told me many times that you deserved to be booted from the
list for doing
that.
DAVEH: No dispute about that.....I've said such. I might also add that I
apologized for such action prior to being given the boot.
Now you are trying to make out like you suffered for righteousness'
sake over free speech.
DAVEH: LOL You really fail to understand the nature of the
hypocritical double standard, don't you DavidM. Until now, I have been
unable to publicly explain my perspective. Since you have now opened that
door, let me try to explain it again in simpler terms.
When I posted something humorous and innocuous (when I responded to Dean
if he thinks CPL knew about Izzy's sexual situation), Perry let his mind
twist it into something HE considered offensive. Not long thereafter, Perry
posted something many LDS folks would find offensive (if Judy were lucky,
she could be one of JS's wives....I think it was Judy). I tried to point
out that it is hypocritical for one to take offense at something a Mormon
says that was merely humorous, and then post something a Mormon might find
offensive and then claim it doesn't matter because he--Perry-- did not find
it offensive. Interestingly, YOU agreed with Perry. Just because you
concluded it was not offensive, then Mormons presumably should not take
offense either. Since neither one of you thought it was offensive, then
there would be no reason for any Mormon to find it offensive. IMO, that is
simply Christian arrogance, and hypocritical to post whatever you want
without regard to whether it is offensive to others, without allowing them
the right to post likewise.
And that attitude is prevalent in SLC when SPers wave Mormon underwear
in the faces of those who journey to their places of worship. They consider
it their constitutional right of free speech to abuse the rights of those
who want to practice their religion without such offensive displays. Yet I
suspect they would be the first ones to support a constitutional clause
prohibiting the display homosexual couples doing whatever in parades, foul
language being posted on TT or wherever it is now legal.....the list of
things Christians find offensive is pretty long, and most Christians would
want to severely curtail such IF it were possible. And...you know what....I
would want that also. I don't want to see some scum bag coming onto TT and
posting a bunch of offensive stuff just to irritate the Christians here.
Nor do I want perversions displayed in the public arena of San Francisco,
New Orleans or any other city. But....IF street preachers want to offend
folks in SLC with their antics, then it seems to me that it is pretty
hypocritical of them to not let offenders of Christianity to proclaim their
perversions publicly.
If the Street Preachers were using the "F" word in their speech to your
church, I would agree with you that this would be wrong.
DAVEH: To LDS folks, proclaimed Christians waving their holy garments in
their faces is even more offensive. We can understand why pagans would use
foul language. But most Mormons don't understand why Christians go out of
their way to offend in such an egregious manner. Now I personally don't
let such antics bother me, as do some LDS, but what I consider to be a worse
consequence of such displays is how Christianity might be perceived as a
whole by non-Christians who view Christians treating other Christians that
way.
If it was righteous, the cause
could have been made without offering money, arguing that it would be for
the public good.
DAVEH: Providing a buffer to me seems immanently for the public good. If
the street preachers were to disturb the right of LDS folks to worship in
the way the constitution guarantees, then it seems a buffer would be a
common sense approach. If a street preacher were to do something so
offensive (but legal) to incite a violent response, then would it not be a
good idea to provide some means of buffering the disparate parties? For
instance, it is legally OK to the KKK or the American Nazis to have a parade
or demonstration in any American city, but it would be crazy to allow them
to do such in the middle of a black neighborhood. Are their rights to free
speech curtailed a bit....maybe. But they still have the right to free
speech. They just don't have the right to incite violence by asserting
their free speech rights anywhere they please. Buffers are commonly allowed
to prevent such problems.
I think you are misunderstanding the issue. I do not object to the LDS
sending out their own debaters to speak on the public sidewalks where the
preachers speak. That is perfectly fine.
DAVEH: I sincerely think you are misunderstanding the issue, DavidM.
Don't you realize, that just because that is the way you practice your
religion, does not mean that others have to practice their religion in the
same way!
What I object to is how they
attempt to manipulate people with money to make sure that only their view is
shared and others who disagree are silenced.
DAVEH: ??? Huh!!! Is that illegal? IF it is not illegal to confront an
offensive situation with money, then why is it a problem for you? You admit
that the LDS Church can exercise free speech. Now you don't want them to be
allowed to exercise the freedom to spend their money as they deem fit in
order to practice their religion? Do you not understand that your
perspective on this is really a double standard, DavidM? You encourage
Mormons to get down into the gutter and face to face confront and contend
with street preachers who wave underwear in an effort to agitate and offend,
but yet you object to Mormons dealing with such offenders with money rather
than open confrontation?!?!?! Don't be silly.
If you don't believe in the
public forum and the free exchange of ideas and freedom to express dissent,
then you do not believe in freedom of speech.
DAVEH: Spoken by the well intentioned Christian who wanted to limit my
ability to freely exchange ideas and express dissent in the public forum TT.
:-(
I do not agree with the idea of people
shouting obscenities at Mormons from street corners.
DAVEH: Just how do you think LDS folks view the waving of their holy
underwear? Believe me when I tell you that they would much prefer to hear
obscenities. Mocking that which they hold dear in their religious beliefs
is much more offensive than foul language of ignorant people.
The historical tradition of the synagogue has established these principles
of liberty. This is what enabled Jesus to be able to stand up in the
synagogue and the Temple and teach. This is what enabled the early church
to meet daily in the Temple. The Bible is filled with such tradition.
DAVEH: You speak of Jewish tradition/practice here. That example you cite
is evidence against your position on this, DavidM. Does the same apply to
the Christian Church? When Paul spoke about the grievous wolves entering
and not sparing the flock, do you suppose he thought it OK for the elders to
invite those grievous wolves into preach to the flock? Do you suppose when
Jeremiah prophesied......
[12:10] Many pastors have destroyed my vineyard, they have trodden my
portion under foot, they have made my pleasant portion a desolate
wilderness.
.........he might have foreseen the disastrous effects the historical
tradition of the synagogue's practices of allowing these subversive tactics
under the guise of establishing principles of liberty? If the temple at the
time is any example worth considering....it seems like those who perverted
the ways of the Lord gained a big foothold when they were allowed to do so.
Why you think this is beneficial, I'm not sure. The Bible shows it to be a
disaster, and warns against letting those deceivers.......
[Titus 1:10] For there are many unruly and vain talkers and deceivers,
specially they of the circumcision:
[11] Whose mouths must be stopped, who subvert whole houses, teaching things
which they ought not, for filthy lucre's sake.
.......from subverting by teaching that which they shouldn't. Do you
suppose he was envisioning some waving underwear? Paul even saw this taking
place in his time........
[Gal 1:6] I marvel that ye are so soon removed from him that called you into
the grace of Christ unto another gospel:
[7] Which is not another; but there be some that trouble you, and would
pervert the gospel of Christ.
........and it seems unlikely to me that he would have invited those wanting
to pervert the gospel in to feed on his flock. I suspect that the Jewish
rabbis who invited those with contrary thoughts and theologies into their
realm to share their corrupted ideas is precisely why they the temple was
destroyed by the Lord.
James White does not understand free speech.
DAVEH: Does everybody who disagrees with your methods of street preaching
come under that same condemnation, DavidM? I don't know about JW, but I
believe free speech is a two way street. Just because you have the right
to say something, does not necessarily mean that you have the right to force
me to listen. It's somewhat analogous to the cliché by folks who find
smoking to be obnoxious.....your right to smoke ends where my nose begins.
Perhaps JW understands that the way to get someone to listen is to avoid
offending. Perhaps JW understands that just because one is free to make a
fool of ones self, does not mean that it is wise to do so. Perhaps JW
understands that the (free speech) right to offend another may close a door
of communication that was previously open. Perhaps JW's understanding of
free speech is a little more respectful and pragmatic than your average
street preacher who goes out of his way to offend by pushing his free speech
rights to the limit.
He hates street preachers
DAVEH: And he's on your side of the fence! Interestingly, I doubt that
many LDS folks feel the same way. I suspect that most feel sorry for the
souls of SPers who endeavor to offend, and wish and pray the best for them.
At least I believe most LDS folks would prefer to turn the other cheek and
avoid any confrontation with those who's mission seems to be to offend and
agitate.
I tried with another street preacher to get him to help teach the street
preachers the proper arguments against Mormonism.
DAVEH: Let me see if I understand this situation. You tried to get him
to assist you in train other SPers how to preach to Mormons, and those SPers
are the ones who I've heard fanatically stand out in the street braving the
weather and whatnot, attempting to offend LDS folks into converting to their
way of thinking. JW eschews such practices, and is invited to the pulpit of
the Tabernacle to speak to an LDS audience. Why should he ally himself with
you or other SPers, considering his relative success in accomplishing his
goals! Hmmmmm....One would think anybody with an ounce of common sense
would learn by example.
I really don't know much about JW, but it seems he may have similar
preaching methods of Mormons. Rather than to attempt to.......
I understand the spiritual warfare we are in.
............do battle with those (who may already have Christian roots) we
wish to convert, we try to rely more on the Holy Spirit fighting our
battling. It seems some SPers on the other hand want to club you with the
Bible, and then pierce your soul with the sword of the word of the Lord,
effectively overwhelming the opponent into submission. FWIW....Maybe that
is a bit too simplistic, but that's kind of the way I view it.
I really am not sure of why you take so much offense on waving underwear.
DAVEH: I don't, DavidM! And I'm surprised you don't understand that. Do
you really think I would remain in TT if I was easily offended? The point
is, many, many.....and I repeat MANY LDS folks ARE offended by such antics,
especially when they are in the process of going to their place of worship.
To me, such offending practices is a sad commentary on those who practice
them, and besmirches Christianity as a whole. To non-Christians having such
a broad brush of religious fanaticism painting an ugly picture serves Jesus
poorly, IMHO.
I realize that I represent the Lord,
DAVEH: I wonder if those waving the underwear think likewise. I can
assure you, the LDS folks who see it feel exactly the opposite.
they are not rejecting me, but they are rejecting the Lord.
DAVEH: When LDS folks are proceeding to listen to those they believe DO
represent the Lord, they do not see those waving their holy underwear as
being any kind of a representative the Lord in any sense at all.
Again....they feel exactly the opposite.
Why are you offended if someone waves some underwear around and questions
your
beliefs about underwear?
DAVEH: How short your memory, DavidM. The whole debacle precipitated by
my reply to Izzy's question about whether or not I wear underwear during
sexual activity is what led our moderator to ban the thread, which lead to
other spin-off threads that were also banned. For you to suggest
that.......
James White does not understand free speech.
.........only reinforces my perception that you, DavidM, are the one who
does not understand free speech. You claim that it is I who is offended by
such stuff, yet it is some TTers who let their imagination run wild and it
was they who feigned offense for me simply answering their questions in a
way that they could not turn me into an object of ridicule. As long as TT
threads sharpen the axes of those wanting to grind them against Mormonism,
it is considered free speech. When those threads take an unexpected turn
that might offend somebody with an overactive imagination, the thread is
banned and no further public discussion is allowed. No....I don't think
most folks really want answers....what they apparently seek is a target.
Can't you understand how your beliefs might seem a
little strange to them? Why not just explain it?
DAVEH: I just did. Despite that you may not think my explanation is
relevant to your question.......I do.
David Miller wrote:
David Miller wrote:
free speech has limitations.
We recognize that.
DAVEH:
Really! Who determines those limitations?
... those things are determined by law.
Yes, and the foundation of law is God, not whatever men decide the law
should be.
DaveH wrote:
On the other hand, it seems that some SPers
have little regard for what others want to hear,
and hence feel within the law to preach however
they want, disregarding others' ears and what they
want or not want to be heard.
I can't speak for all Street Preachers, but I can say that I am conscious of
what others want to hear. The problem is that sometimes God sends me to
deliver a message that others don't want to hear. People yell at me all the
time, "go home, get out of here, you are not welcome here, we don't want to
hear what you have to say, etc. etc." The nature of Satan is to tell God's
messengers, "Shut Up!"
What we understand is that the sword of God is God's Word. To wield the
sword, we must speak it. Therefore, if we shut up, the kingdom of God
cannot be advanced.
DaveH wrote:
... when the shoe is on the other foot, it seems like
the SPers want to forget the free speech protections,
and only consider what THEY want to hear.
For instance, is it illegal for an obscenity to be posted
on TT? So far, nobody has made that claim.
There actually might be some interpretation of FCC standards that could
apply, but we hope that people just have enough maturity and decency to
understand that we do not welcome obscene speech.
There seems to be no rule beyond the ad-hom rule that
applies....other than what the moderator makes up at
his whim. Sexual content would seem likewise applicable
to the free speech edict, but not when a moderator wants
to make his own rules, or a SP complains that he is offended.
At that time.......the free speech must stop, or one gets booted
from TT.
You were not booted for sexually explicit speech. You were booted for not
cooperating with the moderator who was trying to steer the discussion away
from the vulgar and profane. You brought his private converation to the
list, contrary to guidelines that the moderator made clear. You have even
told me many times that you deserved to be booted from the list for doing
that. Now you are trying to make out like you suffered for righteousness'
sake over free speech.
DaveH wrote:
But....when others don't want to hear the SPers preaching, and
do something lawful to prevent such happening (such as buying
a street to provide a buffer), then the SPers cry foul and claim
their freedom of speech is being impinged. Seems to me that if
you want the right to bombastically assault others' ears, then one
shouldn't complain when others do likewise.
If the Street Preachers were using the "F" word in their speech to your
church, I would agree with you that this would be wrong. If they are
preaching that Joseph Smith was a false prophet and that your church is
idolatrous and causing people not to believe in Jesus Christ, that is a
different matter.
In regards to buying the street... this is like a legal loophole which
preyed on the love of money within men. If it was righteous, the cause
could have been made without offering money, arguing that it would be for
the public good. What is foul is that the argument would not stand on its
own merits. Your church resorted to the love of money to sweeten the pie.
This is not much different than bribery. Here, we give you these millions
of dollars, and you let us do what we want.
DaveH wrote:
However, when one respects the rights of others to hear
what they want (or not want to hear something particular),
then one might expect to receive the same treatment....
whether legalities are observed or not. I don't see that
many SPers feel that way, though.
I think you are misunderstanding the issue. I do not object to the LDS
sending out their own debaters to speak on the public sidewalks where the
preachers speak. That is perfectly fine. What I object to is how they
attempt to manipulate people with money to make sure that only their view is
shared and others who disagree are silenced. If you don't believe in the
public forum and the free exchange of ideas and freedom to express dissent,
then you do not believe in freedom of speech.
David Miller wrote:
They want to regulate what is done outsides
their buildings as well as inside.
DAVEH:
That's the way I see it, and don't have any problem
with it being that way. Kinda like you not wanting
obscenities on TT, eh DavidM!
No, it is nothing like that. I do not agree with the idea of people
shouting obscenities at Mormons from street corners. People should have a
recourse to grievances against those in authority. They should be free to
express dissent. This is a form of checks and balances that prevents the
corruption of those in authority.
David Miller wrote:
The church of Jesus Christ should be most open to dialogue
DAVEH:
Who says??? Why do you conclude that, DavidM?
Do you have Biblical support for that theory?
The historical tradition of the synagogue has established these principles
of liberty. This is what enabled Jesus to be able to stand up in the
synagogue and the Temple and teach. This is what enabled the early church
to meet daily in the Temple. The Bible is filled with such tradition. The
prophets that were jailed and killed had that done to them based upon the
idea that the authority had the right to determine whose speech should be
allowed to be heard.
DAVEH:
I'm not privy to what happened behind the scenes with
JW, but I suspect one determining factor is the respect
he gives, and receives like in return. IOW....I don't think
JW waved underwear in the faces of those he expects
to listen to him.
I grant you that. I'm sure there is an element of truth here, but there is
more to the reasons than this.
DaveH wrote:
My guess is that JW understands the real nature of free
speech, based on his experience speaking to an LDS
audience from within the Tabernacle, while some SPers
prefer to demonstrate their right to free speech by waving
underwear on the sidewalk.
James White does not understand free speech. He hates street preachers. I
tried with another street preacher to get him to help teach the street
preachers the proper arguments against Mormonism. He would have had a forum
to share his view of the proper way to conduct free speech at the same time.
He refused the invitation.
I really am not sure of why you take so much offense on waving underwear. I
preached on campus Monday and had a very nice crowd within an hour, steadily
holding over 100 students in size and constantly getting bigger. A man
began passing out badges to people with my picture on it, and it had a red X
over my image in the style of a no-smoking sign. Was I offended? No. I
laughed and asked if I could have one too. I realize that I represent the
Lord, and they are not rejecting me, but they are rejecting the Lord. So I
don't take it personal. I understand the spiritual warfare we are in. Why
are you offended if someone waves some underwear around and questions your
beliefs about underwear? Can't you understand how your beliefs might seem a
little strange to them? Why not just explain it?
David Miller.
----------
"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.
