Re: [TruthTalk] ad hominem rule
Charles Perry Locke wrote: Blaine, Yes. Either that, or you both are extremely naive. For example, DavidH said that he believes non-Mormons can go to heaven. I feel confident that he knows that Christians believe there is one place called heaven, and LDS believe there are three. He did not point this out...and since non-Mormons go to a different LDS heaven than Mormons, in this sense he was intentionally misleading TT'rs who may not know that LDS consider there to be three heavens. DAVEH: Perry..I can only hope that you failed to read all my posts when you made this comment. I specifically addressed this within the past month by pointing out that we do view heaven differently, and to put it in perspective of the heaven/hell scenario believed by most Christians, I explained that many non-LDS folks would not go to the lake of fire and brimstone as Christians perceive hell to be. Do you recall that post? If I wasn't so tired, I'd dig it up and post it again. But it is way past my bedtime, and this'll be my last post tonight. The effect is to appear to agree with Christians, while secretly having a hidden meaning that you are using. I do not think that either you or DaveH are naive enough to not know what is going on. When missionaries do this, I can find room to excuse them, because I believe they may be naive. But, when seasoned LDS apologists like yourselves who hang out with Christians do it, you are intentionally not telling the whole story. DAVEH: Something to consider..The Mormon boys in TT have several times been accused of trying to take over TT by posting too much stuff. Seems like we can't win either way..either we post too much, or we post too little! :-) Perry -- ~~~ 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. -- 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.
Re: [TruthTalk] ad hominem rule
If you did post that prior to your stament to Judy that non-beleivers can go to heaven, then I missed it, and in that case apologize for saying you did not explain it. From: Dave [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] ad hominem rule Date: Wed, 28 Jan 2004 00:53:26 -0800 Charles Perry Locke wrote: Blaine, Yes. Either that, or you both are extremely naive. For example, DavidH said that he believes non-Mormons can go to heaven. I feel confident that he knows that Christians believe there is one place called heaven, and LDS believe there are three. He did not point this out...and since non-Mormons go to a different LDS heaven than Mormons, in this sense he was intentionally misleading TT'rs who may not know that LDS consider there to be three heavens. DAVEH: Perry..I can only hope that you failed to read all my posts when you made this comment. I specifically addressed this within the past month by pointing out that we do view heaven differently, and to put it in perspective of the heaven/hell scenario believed by most Christians, I explained that many non-LDS folks would not go to the lake of fire and brimstone as Christians perceive hell to be. Do you recall that post? If I wasn't so tired, I'd dig it up and post it again. But it is way past my bedtime, and this'll be my last post tonight. The effect is to appear to agree with Christians, while secretly having a hidden meaning that you are using. I do not think that either you or DaveH are naive enough to not know what is going on. When missionaries do this, I can find room to excuse them, because I believe they may be naive. But, when seasoned LDS apologists like yourselves who hang out with Christians do it, you are intentionally not telling the whole story. DAVEH: Something to consider..The Mormon boys in TT have several times been accused of trying to take over TT by posting too much stuff. Seems like we can't win either way..either we post too much, or we post too little! :-) Perry -- ~~~ 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. -- 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. _ There are now three new levels of MSN Hotmail Extra Storage! Learn more. http://join.msn.com/?pgmarket=en-uspage=hotmail/es2ST=1 -- 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.
RE: [TruthTalk] ad hominem rule
Blaine, Yes. Either that, or you both are extremely naive. For example, DavidH said that he believes non-Mormons can go to heaven. I feel confident that he knows that Christians believe there is one place called heaven, and LDS believe there are three. He did not point this out...and since non-Mormons go to a different LDS heaven than Mormons, in this sense he was intentionally misleading TT'rs who may not know that LDS consider there to be three heavens. The effect is to appear to agree with Christians, while secretly having a hidden meaning that you are using. I do not think that either you or DaveH are naive enough to not know what is going on. When missionaries do this, I can find room to excuse them, because I believe they may be naive. But, when seasoned LDS apologists like yourselves who hang out with Christians do it, you are intentionally not telling the whole story. Perry From: Blaine Borrowman [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: TT [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: [TruthTalk] ad hominem rule Date: Tue, 27 Jan 2004 12:09:04 -0700 Perry wrote:I do not want Christians who do not know the LDS meanings to be mislead into thinking that the Mormons think or believe the same way Christians do. Call me protective, but I feel it is my duty, if I know that someone is being mislead by words, to correct that. You certainly aren't going to tell them that you mean something different. Blaine wrote: Are you saying either DaveH or I deliberately mislead? You seem to be implying this in some of your posts, and particularly this one. In fact, this post seems to be a thinly veiled attack on the character of Mormons in general, and since we are the only two Mormons on TT to read your posts, an attack on us personally? I sense you are getting tired of having to account for what you write, but one more answer is due here, it appears. Yes, I am putting you on the spot, in light of the ad hominem rule of TT. _ Check out the coupons and bargains on MSN Offers! http://shopping.msn.com/softcontent/softcontent.aspx?scmId=1418 -- 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.
RE: [TruthTalk] ad hominem rule
Blaine wrote to Perry: Are you saying either DaveH or I deliberately mislead? You seem to be implying this in some of your posts, and particularly this one. Blaine, if it is ok with you and Perry, I would like to extend a little latitude about the ad hominem rule to explore this idea a little. Personally, I have found Perry's definition alerts helpful. Perry has the opinion that both you and DaveH knowingly mislead us by using these definitions. I'm not sure that is true, but it does seem like he might have a valid point. For example, if non-Mormons going to heaven does not mean the same thing to Mormons as it does to non-Mormons because Mormons believe in three heavens with very few people going to hell, that needs to be explained for proper communication to occur. Likewise, if like God means becoming God instead of becoming more like God in moral character, then that also should be explained. So the question to you and DaveH is, do you knowingly use terms that you know mislead others, or are you so engrossed within Mormonism that you don't really think about how others on this list might be misunderstanding you? Peace be with you. David Miller, Beverly Hills, Florida. -- 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.
Re: [TruthTalk] ad hominem rule
Blaine: Hmm, I understand what you are saying Perry, and I sense your frustration. Maybe we have really been throwing you guys some curves, it sounds like. LOLBut, we do not deliberately mislead, and that is my point. We tell others whatever they really really want to know--but do not tell them what they want to hear, necessarily, as you seem to think we do. We do have a message, and if it is not digestible now, we hope it will be later when you guys get a little further along the path of eternal progression. We love you guys, so we may try to insure that what we send out does not overload the spiritual preparedmess that you bring to the situation. New truths are always hard to digest anyway, so we don't want to make them any harder than necessary. Eternal progression is essentially a process of moving from one horizon to a higher one, ad infinitum. If you try to push to the higher level before you are ready to fully appreciate what it has in store for you, you may just end up aborting the entire process. That is what we often see happening on TT, unfortunately, as some individuals push to try to understand the higher level without first fully understanding the principles upon which that level is built. We try very hard to build that foundation of understanding but receive a lot of resistence in the process. May I suggest again that if you exercise faith even to a small degree, called belief, as the grain of a mustard seed, the truth will then take root in you and will grow--but if you resist the truths we try to convey to you, you will naturally never get to the point of understanding you need to be at in order to receive the higher truths, which both Dave and I understand as far as they have been revealed to us at this time. That is not to say we ourselves know all and are all wise--we just have achieved most of the understanding that God has allowed for us to know for now, and he has assured us that is sufficient for his grace to operate. I personally believe knowledge and understanding are the keys to the Kingdom of God, and without it, noone can either function in that Kingdom or even fully appreciate it. But to gain the knowledge that is needed, one must constantly pray and exercise faith in the Lord Jesus Christ--and that faith will give us hope, and that hope will enlarge the soul without hypocrisy, unto the perfect day when we will know as we are known and see as we are seen. But the key is understanding, and that as you undoubtedly already know, is built level by level, or as the Lord would say, grace for grace. - Original Message - From: Charles Perry Locke [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, January 27, 2004 12:57 PM Subject: RE: [TruthTalk] ad hominem rule Blaine, Yes. Either that, or you both are extremely naive. For example, DavidH said that he believes non-Mormons can go to heaven. I feel confident that he knows that Christians believe there is one place called heaven, and LDS believe there are three. He did not point this out...and since non-Mormons go to a different LDS heaven than Mormons, in this sense he was intentionally misleading TT'rs who may not know that LDS consider there to be three heavens. The effect is to appear to agree with Christians, while secretly having a hidden meaning that you are using. I do not think that either you or DaveH are naive enough to not know what is going on. When missionaries do this, I can find room to excuse them, because I believe they may be naive. But, when seasoned LDS apologists like yourselves who hang out with Christians do it, you are intentionally not telling the whole story. Perry From: Blaine Borrowman [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: TT [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: [TruthTalk] ad hominem rule Date: Tue, 27 Jan 2004 12:09:04 -0700 Perry wrote:I do not want Christians who do not know the LDS meanings to be mislead into thinking that the Mormons think or believe the same way Christians do. Call me protective, but I feel it is my duty, if I know that someone is being mislead by words, to correct that. You certainly aren't going to tell them that you mean something different. Blaine wrote: Are you saying either DaveH or I deliberately mislead? You seem to be implying this in some of your posts, and particularly this one. In fact, this post seems to be a thinly veiled attack on the character of Mormons in general, and since we are the only two Mormons on TT to read your posts, an attack on us personally? I sense you are getting tired of having to account for what you write, but one more answer is due here, it appears. Yes, I am putting you on the spot, in light of the ad hominem rule of TT. _ Check out the coupons and bargains on MSN Offers! http://shopping.msn.com/softcontent/softcontent.aspx?scmId=1418 -- Let your speech
Re: [TruthTalk] ad hominem rule
Blaine, Thanks for the well-tempered explanation. You see, I do believe in and have faith in Christ, and I have prayed to be led to the truth, and I have read Mormon works seeking to see if any of it is true, and all I get out of it is that it is a false religion. I have found find lies, deceit, cultic activities, secret Masonic-like ceremonies, signs, grips, penalties, and tokerns, secret names, adultery, plaigerism, contradiction, occultic symbols, men who become gods who are from other planets, angels that become men, then angels, then men, then angels, and basically use the same symbols and methods that all cults routinely use. What am I to think? Am I to go against my gut, against what scripture says, and against common sense to try to accept as factual something that is so hideous and repulsive to me? I can understand that you were raised in the LDS belief system, and that you have accepted it all as pure truth, light, and beauty. I cannot, and as long as the scripture, the Spirit, and common sense continue to rail against what I have learned about the LDS, I will not accept it as being from God, but from men. I apologize that I do not have a higher opinioin of the LDS church. LDS are wonderful people who believe strongly and deeply in their church, and I have nothing personally against any of them, especially you and DaveH. Much of the doctrine of the LDS is hidden beneath layers of secrecy and slowly revealed to converts. You call this moving to a higher horizon, but is little more than an indoctrination into the cult. The secrecy is primarily to protect the convert from repulsion until they have effectively been programmed into the current level. LDS are not the only ones that operate this way. All cults do, and the Masoons do, and many other fraternal organizations. Why is it that the LDS church operates using the same principals that all cults use, but Christianity does not? Ask me anything about Christianity. Although I might be able to answer it, I can go to the scripture and find out. There is nothing hidden. Nothing we have to prepare you for to understand it. Nothing we cannot reveal to you, as it is all laid out plainly in scripture. Christ himself told all, and admitted that he hid nothing. No secret handshakes, no secret names, none of those functions that for centuries have identified cults. I sincerely pray that someday the Mormons realize that the veil has been rent, and that they may go directly to God, through Jesus Christ, and without all of the cultic trappings of the Mormon church. Perry From: Blaine Borrowman [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] ad hominem rule Date: Tue, 27 Jan 2004 13:58:21 -0700 Blaine: Hmm, I understand what you are saying Perry, and I sense your frustration. Maybe we have really been throwing you guys some curves, it sounds like. LOLBut, we do not deliberately mislead, and that is my point. We tell others whatever they really really want to know--but do not tell them what they want to hear, necessarily, as you seem to think we do. We do have a message, and if it is not digestible now, we hope it will be later when you guys get a little further along the path of eternal progression. We love you guys, so we may try to insure that what we send out does not overload the spiritual preparedmess that you bring to the situation. New truths are always hard to digest anyway, so we don't want to make them any harder than necessary. Eternal progression is essentially a process of moving from one horizon to a higher one, ad infinitum. If you try to push to the higher level before you are ready to fully appreciate what it has in store for you, you may just end up aborting the entire process. That is what we often see happening on TT, unfortunately, as some individuals push to try to understand the higher level without first fully understanding the principles upon which that level is built. We try very hard to build that foundation of understanding but receive a lot of resistence in the process. May I suggest again that if you exercise faith even to a small degree, called belief, as the grain of a mustard seed, the truth will then take root in you and will grow--but if you resist the truths we try to convey to you, you will naturally never get to the point of understanding you need to be at in order to receive the higher truths, which both Dave and I understand as far as they have been revealed to us at this time. That is not to say we ourselves know all and are all wise--we just have achieved most of the understanding that God has allowed for us to know for now, and he has assured us that is sufficient for his grace to operate. I personally believe knowledge and understanding are the keys to the Kingdom of God, and without it, noone can either function in that Kingdom or even fully appreciate it. But to gain the knowledge that is needed, one
RE: [TruthTalk] ad hominem rule
ROTFLOL! Ican see it now. If the LDS were deliberately using words with double meanings would they when questioned about it, turn around and say: "OK we fess up we are using SUBTERFUGE" For Blaine, attacking false doctrine is comparable to a "personal attack" In general, I have foundLDS to be fair industrious people. But when it comes to the LDS belief system,I have encountered obfuscation, half-truths and even deliberate mendacity. Any one who is opposed to Mormonism is an "Anti-Mormon" When I post quotes from LDS leaders I am "mean-spirited and dishonest" LDS vehemently stand for the right to define themselves their beliefs, but are quick to compartmentalize all others! Of course LDS theology makes "perfect sense" but Orthodox beliefs are vague, senseless, impossible to comprehend and ridiculous. Somehow no one has authority to speak delineate LDS beliefs. Even if we appeal to the highest LDS authorities, it is labeled "opinions" By labeling others as ill-informed LDS hope to eliminate the voices of those best positioned to expose their most heretical doctrines. Sounds like a persecution complex to me. "the endless subterfuges and prevarications which our present condition impose . . . threaten to make our rising generation a race of deceivers." Charles W. Penrose to LDS President John Taylor, 1887 Gospel Teachings About Lying by Elder Dallin H. OaksThis fireside address was given to faculty, students, and alumni of BYU on September 12, 1993."Some have suggested that it is morally permissible to lie to promote a good cause. For example, some Mormons have taught or implied that lying is okay if you are lying for the Lord." President James E. Faust, Second Counselor in the First Presidency of the LDS church There are different shades of truth-telling. When we tell little white lies we become progressively color blind. It is better to remain silent than to mislead. The degree to which each of us tells the whole truth and nothing but the truth depends on our conscience. "Subterfuge and cunning are often better allies than a fierce heart and a strong back." - Count Fenring from Dune 2000 by Frank Herbert Apostle Dallin H. Oaks:"My duty as a member of the Council of the Twelve is to protect what is most unique about the LDS church, namely the authority of priesthood, testimony regarding the restoration of the gospel, and the divine mission of the Savior. Everything may be sacrificed in order to maintain the integrity of those essential facts. 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." (Inside the Mind of Joseph Smith: Psychobiography and the Book of Mormon, Introduction p. xliii f28) LDS Apostle Boyd K. Packer gave an address to the Fifth Annual Church Educational System Religious Educators Symposium, in Provo, Utah at Brigham Young University. In his talk titled The Mantle is Far, Far Greater Than the Intellect, Packer opines that there are events in LDS history that should be repressed, because they are not faith-building:You seminary teachers and some of you institute and BYU men will be teaching the history of the Church this school year. This is an unparalleled opportunity in the lives of your students to increase their faith and testimony of the divinity of this work. Your objective should be that they will see the hand of the Lord in every hour and every moment of the Church from its beginning till now. Church history can be so interesting and so inspiring as to be a very powerful tool indeed for building faith. If not properly written or properly taught, it may be a faith destroyer.There is a temptation for the writer or the teacher of Church history to want to tell everything, whether it is worthy or faith promoting or not.Some things that are true are not very useful.That historian or scholar who delights in pointing out the weaknesses and frailties of present or past leaders destroys faith. A destroyer of faith particularly one within the Church, and more particularly one who is employed specifically to build faith places himself in great spiritual jeopardy. He is serving the wrong master, and unless he repents, he will not be among the faithful in the eternities.David Miller [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Blaine wrote to Perry: Are you saying either DaveH or I deliberately mislead? You seem to be implying this in some of your posts, and particularly this one.Blaine, if it is ok with you and Perry, I would like to extend a littlelatitude about the ad hominem rule to explore this idea a little.Personally, I have found Perry's "definition alerts" helpful. Perry has the opinion that both you and DaveH knowingly mislead us byusing these definitions. I'm not sure that is true, but it does seemlike he might have a valid point. For example, if non-Mormons going toheaven does not mean the same thing to Mormons as it does to
Re: [TruthTalk] ad hominem rule
"if it is not digestible now" "New truths are always hard to digest anyway" Translation you can only digest milk, later you will get the meat.Blaine Borrowman [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Blaine: Hmm, I understand what you are saying Perry, and I sense yourfrustration. Maybe we have really been throwing you guys some curves, itsounds like. LOL But, we do not deliberately mislead, and that is mypoint. We tell others whatever they really really want to know--but do nottell them what they want to hear, necessarily, as you seem to think we do.We do have a message, and if it is not digestible now, we hope it will belater when you guys get a little further along the path of eternalprogression. We love you guys, so we may try to insure that what we sendout does not overload the spiritual preparedmess that you bring to thesituation. New truths are always hard to digest anyway, so we don't want tomake them any harder than necessary. Eternal progression is essentially aprocess of moving from one horizon to a higher one, ad infinitum. If youtry to push to the higher level before you are ready to fully appreciatewhat it has in store for you, you may just end up aborting the entireprocess. That is what we often see happening on TT, unfortunately, as someindividuals push to try to understand the higher level without first fullyunderstanding the principles upon which that level is built. We try veryhard to build that foundation of understanding but receive a lot ofresistence in the process. May I suggest again that if you exercise faitheven to a small degree, called belief, as the grain of a mustard seed, thetruth will then take root in you and will grow--but if you resist the truthswe try to convey to you, you will naturally never get to the point ofunderstanding you need to be at in order to receive the higher truths, whichboth Dave and I understand as far as they have been revealed to us at thistime. That is not to say we ourselves know all and are all wise--we justhave achieved most of the understanding that God has allowed for us to knowfor now, and he has assured us that is sufficient for his grace to operate.I personally believe knowledge and understanding are the keys to the Kingdomof God, and without it, noone can either function in that Kingdom or evenfully appreciate it. But to gain the knowledge that is needed, one mustconstantly pray and exercise faith in the Lord Jesus Christ--and that faithwill give us hope, and that hope will enlarge the soul without hypocrisy,unto the perfect day when we will know as we are known and see as we areseen. But the key is understanding, and that as you undoubtedly alreadyknow, is built level by level, or as the Lord would say, grace for grace.- Original Message - From: "Charles Perry Locke" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>Sent: Tuesday, January 27, 2004 12:57 PMSubject: RE: [TruthTalk] ad hominem rule Blaine, Yes. Either that, or you both are extremely naive. For example, DavidH said that he believes non-Mormons can go to heaven. I feel confident thathe knows that Christians believe there is one place called heaven, and LDS believe there are three. He did not point this out...and since non-Mormons go to a different LDS heaven than Mormons, in this sense he was intentionally misleading TT'rs who may not know that LDS consider there to be three heavens. The effect is to appear to agree with Christians, while secretly having a hidden meaning that you are using. I do not think that either you or DaveH are naive enough to not know what is going on. When missionaries do this, I can find room to excuse them, because I believe they may be naive. But, when seasoned LDS apologists likeyourselves who hang out with Christians do it, you are intentionally "not telling the whole story". Perry From: "Blaine Borrowman" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: "TT" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subject: [TruthTalk] ad hominem rule Date: Tue, 27 Jan 2004 12:09:04 -0700 Perry wrote: I do not want Christians whodo not know the LDS meanings to be mislead into thinking that the Mormonsthink or believe the same way Christians do. Call me protective, butI feelit is my duty, if I know that someone is being mislead by words, to correctthat. You certainly aren't going to tell them that you meansomethingdifferent. Blaine wrote: Are you saying either DaveH or I deliberately mislead?You seem to be implying this in some of your posts, and particularly thisone. In fact, this post seems to be a thinly veiled attack on the character of Mormons in general, and since we are the only two Mormons on TT to read your posts, an attack on us personally? I sense you are getting tired of having to account for what you write, but one more answer is due here, it appears. Yes, I am putting you on the spot, in light of the ad hominem rule of TT.
Re: [TruthTalk] ad hominem rule
- Original Message - From: "David Miller" [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, January 27, 2004 1:31 PM Subject: RE: [TruthTalk] ad hominem rule Blaine wrote to Perry: Are you saying either DaveH or I deliberately mislead? You seem to be implying this in some of your posts, and particularly this one. Blaine, if it is ok with you and Perry, I would like to extend a little latitude about the ad hominem rule to explore this idea a little. Personally, I have found Perry's "definition alerts" helpful. Perry has the opinion that both you and DaveH knowingly mislead us by using these definitions. I'm not sure that is true, but it does seem like he might have a valid point. For example, if non-Mormons going to heaven does not mean the same thing to Mormons as it does to non-Mormons because Mormons believe in three heavens with very few people going to hell, that needs to be explained for proper communication to occur. Blaine: I appreciate your intervention in helping to clarify the problem--it does seem to be one of communicatiion. I have posted a post which covers my viewpoint on the problem, hopefully it will help. Likewise, if "like God" means becoming God instead of becoming more like God in moral character, then that also should be explained. I wrote a post on this before, some time ago. We only believe we will be like God--not God himself. If we believed we could become God,it would put us in the position of being usurpers, as was Satan.(Unfortunately, this has not been what Protestants have been led to believe--there seem to be organized efforts to lead people to believe otherwise--there is even a movie out there somewhere called the Godmakers, which I understand is an attempt to represent what we believe in a very negative light--drawing conclusions from statements made by authorities that are not fully justified.)We believe, in other words, we will ALWAYS be subordinate toGod and to His Son, and to the Holy Ghost (I think in my previous post, I even used that word--subordinate.) So the question to you and DaveH is, do you knowingly use terms that you know mislead others, or are you so engrossed within Mormonism that you don't really think about how others on this list might be misunderstanding you? Blaine:There might be a few words which have more than one meaning for us, such as Gentile, but on the whole most of our words mean about the same as with anyoneof any other religion. Basically, we use the term 'God" to refer to the Father, the Son and the Holy Ghost. They are one God to us, as their purposeis the same. But it needs to be clarified that we believe the Father and the Son have physical bodies,literally.The Holy Ghost is a personage of spirit. As I understand Protestant beliefs, God is a spirit--not a person with flesh and bones.So, there does seem to be a difference in belief. "God" can also refer to what we hope to become in our own right if we prove faithful, keeping in mind however, that we will remain throughout all eternity a subordinate of our present God as I have definedHim above. Ina little-used sense,"a god"could refer to someone in a position of spiritual power and influence, such as Moses--since he had a great deal of God's delegated authority and was the chief decision maker over the Children of Israel,so was like a god to them.I don't think we ever refer to Joseph Smith in that way, but I supppose he could be thought of as being a god in the same spiritual sense as Moses was.A big misunderstanding seems to come from the Godmakers presentation, which leads people to believe we intend to supplant God. I have no respect for this kind of thing, and I hope TT'rs will realize it is just another effort to discredit Mormonism and take advantage of ignorance, and fear of that which is unfamiliar. The subject of Hell is apparently another point of contention. Most Protestants seem to believe the fires of hell are literal, whereas we believe them to be more or less symbolicwhat Jesus Christ suffered when he bled at every pore in Gethsemane,and died on the cross. Thatwill happen tounrepentant sinnerswhenthey are finally brought before the bar of God for judgement. We believe Hell is an internal condition, not necessarily an external condition or place, although there may be a place reserved for those suffering the "flames" of Hell. Certainly the parable of the beggerbeing in the arms of Abraham and the rich mannot being able to get there because of a great gulf separating them would suggest there is an actual place, but we believe the burning is within. As might be noted, the rich man did ask for water to quench the burning within himself. Nothing was saidof any literal flames outside the body. The term "Heaven" is another point of contention. This may be where the accusations of using dou
Re: [TruthTalk] ad hominem rule MTSA
MTSA (Mormon Truth Shading Alert) You will not usurp god because he is only god of this world. You will be come a god of some other world You are trying to imply you will be god like but not a god (MTSA) You will be subordinate because he started progressing before you. Since you will eventually reach the point he is at right now, you will be equal to where he has progressed to at this moment. But by then he has progressed some more so you are subordinate (MTSA) Blaine Borrowman [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: - Original Message - From: "David Miller" [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, January 27, 2004 1:31 PM Subject: RE: [TruthTalk] ad hominem rule Blaine wrote to Perry: Are you saying either DaveH or I deliberately mislead? You seem to be implying this in some of your posts, and particularly this one. Blaine, if it is ok with you and Perry, I would like to extend a little latitude about the ad hominem rule to explore this idea a little. Personally, I have found Perry's "definition alerts" helpful. Perry has the opinion that both you and DaveH knowingly mislead us by using these definitions. I'm not sure that is true, but it does seem like he might have a valid point. For example, if non-Mormons going to heaven does not mean the same thing to Mormons as it does to non-Mormons because Mormons believe in three heavens with very few people going to hell, that needs to be explained for proper communication to occur. Blaine: I appreciate your intervention in helping to clarify the problem--it does seem to be one of communicatiion. I have posted a post which covers my viewpoint on the problem, hopefully it will help. Likewise, if "like God" means becoming God instead of becoming more like God in moral character, then that also should be explained. I wrote a post on this before, some time ago. We only believe we will be like God--not God himself. If we believed we could become God,it would put us in the position of being usurpers, as was Satan.(Unfortunately, this has not been what Protestants have been led to believe--there seem to be organized efforts to lead people to believe otherwise--there is even a movie out there somewhere called the Godmakers, which I understand is an attempt to represent what we believe in a very negative light--drawing conclusions from statements made by authorities that are not fully justified.)We believe, in other words, we will ALWAYS be subordinate toGod and to His Son, and to the Holy Ghost (I think in my previous post, I even used that word--subordinate.) So the question to you and DaveH is, do you knowingly use terms that you know mislead others, or are you so engrossed within Mormonism that you don't really think about how others on this list might be misunderstanding you? Blaine:There might be a few words which have more than one meaning for us, such as Gentile, but on the whole most of our words mean about the same as with anyoneof any other religion. Basically, we use the term 'God" to refer to the Father, the Son and the Holy Ghost. They are one God to us, as their purposeis the same. But it needs to be clarified that we believe the Father and the Son have physical bodies,literally.The Holy Ghost is a personage of spirit. As I understand Protestant beliefs, God is a spirit--not a person with flesh and bones.So, there does seem to be a difference in belief. "God" can also refer to what we hope to become in our own right if we prove faithful, keeping in mind however, that we will remain throughout all eternity a subordinate of our present God as I have definedHim above. Ina little-used sense,"a god"could refer to someone in a position of spiritual power and influence, such as Moses--since he had a great deal of God's delegated authority and was the chief decision maker over the Children of Israel,so was like a god to them.I don't think we ever refer to Joseph Smith in that way, but I supppose he could be thought of as being a god in the same spiritual sense as Moses was.A big misunderstanding seems to come from the Godmakers presentation, which leads people to believe we intend to supplant God. I have no respect for this kind of thing, and I hope TT'rs will realize it is just another effort to discredit Mormonism and take advantage of ignorance, and fear of that which is unfamiliar. The subject of Hell is apparently another point of contention. Most Protestants seem to believe the fires of hell are literal, whereas we believe them to be more or less symbolicwhat Jesus Christ suffered when he bled at every pore in Gethsemane,and died on the cross. Thatwill happen tounrepentant sinnerswhenthey are finally brought before the bar of God for judgement. We believe Hell is an internal condition, not necessarily an external condition or place, although there may be a place reserved for those suffering the "flames" of Hell. Certainly the parable of the beggerb
