B
BJRumph
Guest
Ok, NDM, lets get this done;
First, I have yet to call you a theif, as I cannot witness your physical actions to even make such an assertion. Deceptive, and even a Liar, I’ll give you.
Second, you are incorrect in believing that you have proven yourself to be contrary to my assertions. Even your emplored intents and level of participation are contradictory. You want to give us your non-scholarly knowledge, even to the stated point that anyone who relies upon even correctly sited documentation is un-intelligent, but now you refuse to answer the questions posed by many here on the basis of not having the documentation to give us a straight answer on even simple doctrinal questions easily answered by anyone who has even taken the preliminary Missionary Discussions.
As an ex-mormon, I am well aware of the double-blinded nature of mormon doctrinal discussions; what a mormon proclaims to a non-mormon potential “investigator” is often fundamentally at odds with the veiws discussed in Gospel Doctrine class, even when taken directly from the manuals (even I will make allowances for the often radically heretical directions such classes too often deviate into.) There is a systematized intellectual dishonesty fostered within the lds “religion”, and your activity here only reveals that it even infects the more intelectually gifted among them.
I wholly agree that we need to present the real doctrines as taught by both our religions before we can debate (however fruitlessly or virulenlty) the respective merits of either. However, to remind you, the doctrines of the lds church were not being presented accurately at the outset, as is exemplified by your grossly inaccurate assertion of a common “faith” in Christ. In this case, instead of presenting the mormon understanding/teaching regarding Christ, you hid it under the guise of a false ecumenism; veiling the vital doctrinal differences for the sake leading those unaware that there is no significant distinction between lds and Christian understandings, that our respective desires to serve “Christ” are more important than knowing who it is we claim to be trying to serve!
I understand that such is difficult to understand for yourself under the title of “deceptive”, as it is apparently ingrained into your apologetics efforts. But, the Truth is not relative, and so you are not fundamentally excused from your deviation from such a basic level of honesty.
WHile I also will agree that the common faith of the masses, in either church, is not the best source of defining that religion’s teachings, again, I must point out that no topics have yet been introduced in this thread that cannot be researched and accurately answered from common lds reference materials, such as the manifold manuals given to every member free of charge by the church for expressly that purpose. Therefore, while we can “debate” the validity of BY’s “blood atonement” doctrines within the context of the teachings of the current church, there truly is no room for such a debate upon such a basic notion of the doctrine regarding Deity itself.
For example, every mormon “knows” that The Father has his own, distinct, physical body; this is not “contraversial” within the lds religion, or a point of debate, but a clear teaching of their preisthood authority. This item of doctrine only becomes “contraversial” when it is stood next to Christian teaching that the Person of the Father has no physical form, and that when it is said that God has a body, it can only refer to the body of Christ. This then leads to another distinction; to a “Christian”, Jesus is fully, and in a manner distinct from our own selves, God; to a mormon he is not God, but a subordinate member of the “godhead”, and himself carried no subtantive distinction from ourselves other than his peculiar “mission” iand acheivement in our world. This distinctions of CHristology even carry over into Jesus’ parentage; for a Christian, it is Mary and the Holy Spirit; for mormons it is Mary and the Father, and the reasoning produced for this assertion leads to even more distinctions of matters directly relating to each religion’s “Faith”.
In any case, either you are attempting (and apparently succeeding in a few cases) to deceive us, or you are simply, and far more disasterously, merely deceiving yourself. I stand by what I have said, make no excuses for it, and can happily let the record of both our postings here stand to witness to it. Hopefully, one day you will come to find the truth of it. And, in anticipation of that day, I also hope, for your sake and theirs, that you do not succeed in fooling too many until that great and glorious day. But such hopes can only reside in the most blessed Holy Trinity, Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, One God, without Beginning or End.
First, I have yet to call you a theif, as I cannot witness your physical actions to even make such an assertion. Deceptive, and even a Liar, I’ll give you.
Second, you are incorrect in believing that you have proven yourself to be contrary to my assertions. Even your emplored intents and level of participation are contradictory. You want to give us your non-scholarly knowledge, even to the stated point that anyone who relies upon even correctly sited documentation is un-intelligent, but now you refuse to answer the questions posed by many here on the basis of not having the documentation to give us a straight answer on even simple doctrinal questions easily answered by anyone who has even taken the preliminary Missionary Discussions.
As an ex-mormon, I am well aware of the double-blinded nature of mormon doctrinal discussions; what a mormon proclaims to a non-mormon potential “investigator” is often fundamentally at odds with the veiws discussed in Gospel Doctrine class, even when taken directly from the manuals (even I will make allowances for the often radically heretical directions such classes too often deviate into.) There is a systematized intellectual dishonesty fostered within the lds “religion”, and your activity here only reveals that it even infects the more intelectually gifted among them.
I wholly agree that we need to present the real doctrines as taught by both our religions before we can debate (however fruitlessly or virulenlty) the respective merits of either. However, to remind you, the doctrines of the lds church were not being presented accurately at the outset, as is exemplified by your grossly inaccurate assertion of a common “faith” in Christ. In this case, instead of presenting the mormon understanding/teaching regarding Christ, you hid it under the guise of a false ecumenism; veiling the vital doctrinal differences for the sake leading those unaware that there is no significant distinction between lds and Christian understandings, that our respective desires to serve “Christ” are more important than knowing who it is we claim to be trying to serve!
I understand that such is difficult to understand for yourself under the title of “deceptive”, as it is apparently ingrained into your apologetics efforts. But, the Truth is not relative, and so you are not fundamentally excused from your deviation from such a basic level of honesty.
WHile I also will agree that the common faith of the masses, in either church, is not the best source of defining that religion’s teachings, again, I must point out that no topics have yet been introduced in this thread that cannot be researched and accurately answered from common lds reference materials, such as the manifold manuals given to every member free of charge by the church for expressly that purpose. Therefore, while we can “debate” the validity of BY’s “blood atonement” doctrines within the context of the teachings of the current church, there truly is no room for such a debate upon such a basic notion of the doctrine regarding Deity itself.
For example, every mormon “knows” that The Father has his own, distinct, physical body; this is not “contraversial” within the lds religion, or a point of debate, but a clear teaching of their preisthood authority. This item of doctrine only becomes “contraversial” when it is stood next to Christian teaching that the Person of the Father has no physical form, and that when it is said that God has a body, it can only refer to the body of Christ. This then leads to another distinction; to a “Christian”, Jesus is fully, and in a manner distinct from our own selves, God; to a mormon he is not God, but a subordinate member of the “godhead”, and himself carried no subtantive distinction from ourselves other than his peculiar “mission” iand acheivement in our world. This distinctions of CHristology even carry over into Jesus’ parentage; for a Christian, it is Mary and the Holy Spirit; for mormons it is Mary and the Father, and the reasoning produced for this assertion leads to even more distinctions of matters directly relating to each religion’s “Faith”.
In any case, either you are attempting (and apparently succeeding in a few cases) to deceive us, or you are simply, and far more disasterously, merely deceiving yourself. I stand by what I have said, make no excuses for it, and can happily let the record of both our postings here stand to witness to it. Hopefully, one day you will come to find the truth of it. And, in anticipation of that day, I also hope, for your sake and theirs, that you do not succeed in fooling too many until that great and glorious day. But such hopes can only reside in the most blessed Holy Trinity, Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, One God, without Beginning or End.