Rob Bowman Posted October 5, 2011 Author Posted October 5, 2011 Steve,You wrote:Usually? It should be always. You should be linking readers to the proper sources with every claim you make.I just knew someone would find fault with what I said because I said "usually." Hey, maybe I'm a prophet! Actually, my articles on LDS doctrine will always cite primary sources, but depending on what sort of article it is, I might not provide a link to a specific web page. But I can assure you that I provide proper documentation from primary sources. Take a look at my Gospel Principles Scripture Study Guide, where you will find numerous examples.
Rob Bowman Posted October 5, 2011 Author Posted October 5, 2011 Mark,There's no pleasing some people.One can be critical or discerning without being suspicious. Wouldn't you agree?While we're on this subject, when Mormons denounce the orthodox doctrine of the Trinity, the evangelical doctrine of justification by faith, and similar doctrines as evidence of the Great Apostasy, the supposed corruption of Christianity by philosophy, etc., do they ever include such disclaimers as you are saying I should use?I am certain better wordling could be employed. But I interpret the reistance to a statement inviting suspicion, i.e. critical analysis, to be somewhat arrogant.
shalamabobbi Posted October 5, 2011 Posted October 5, 2011 By your reasoning, there's no reason why the Holy Ghost could not be in two or more places at the same time.No, that would be your reasoning. Are two light particles that are entangled and travel in opposite directions in different places or the same place? If you do not understand the physics of the real world in front of your face I don't have a great deal of confidence that you have anything to contribute to our understanding of a realm unobservable to us while in mortality, unless you are laying claim to a great deal more modern revelation than is attributed to the LDS religion..Incidentally, if you're right about spirit beings "standing in the air" and not being subject to gravity, then there's really no point in God sitting on a literal throne (i.e., a chair) in heaven.One existence can be in the likeness of the other without them being the same reality. 1
Mark Beesley Posted October 7, 2011 Posted October 7, 2011 There's no pleasing some people.Sure, just agree with everything I say. One can be critical or discerning without being suspicious. Wouldn't you agree?Absolutely, but as I recall, you introduced the word suspicious into the discussion.. I tried to mitigate that by using the term critical analysis. <sigh> There's just no pleasing some people. While we're on this subject, when Mormons denounce the orthodox doctrine of the Trinity, the evangelical doctrine of justification by faith, and similar doctrines as evidence of the Great Apostasy, the supposed corruption of Christianity by philosophy, etc., do they ever include such disclaimers as you are saying I should use?Well, since such denouncement is based on revelation from God (and not their personal opinions), I guess if you want a disclaimer you'll need to talk with Him about it. Anyway, have a great day. If you ever get the chance to go to Alaska, grab it. I just returned from a two week cruisetour and was simply awestruck at the grandueur of His handiwork in that magnificient land. Yeah, I had fun!
KevinG Posted October 7, 2011 Posted October 7, 2011 Funny. I just went to your page on the Gospel Principles study guide page 40 and found four links to Luke Wilsons articles and none to the actual study guide. Of course there is the Mentoring by former Mormons page. No equal time given to the http://mormon.org/chat/ function to talk to a current Mormon.Of course I'm probably just "denouncing" your web site. These are my opinions and do not necessarily reflect the official policy of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.
KevinG Posted October 7, 2011 Posted October 7, 2011 http://www.mormondialogue.org/topic/55385-did-joseph-smith-restore-theosis-part-four-esoteric-jewish-theology/page__view__findpost__p__1209052507Volgadon's not getting any love.
Nathair/|\ Posted October 7, 2011 Posted October 7, 2011 http://www.mormondia...__p__1209052507Volgadon's not getting any love.Oh, Volgadon's my hero, I just didn't have anything useful to contribute there.
volgadon Posted October 8, 2011 Posted October 8, 2011 Oh, Volgadon's my hero, I just didn't have anything useful to contribute there.I have many leather-bound books...
Calm Posted October 8, 2011 Posted October 8, 2011 (edited) Funny. I just went to your page on the Gospel Principles study guide page 40.......Of course I'm probably just "denouncing" your web site. These are my opinions and do not necessarily reflect the official policy of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.You know what is really funny? All the accusations about Mormons lying on the page about voting for Romney.From what I've seen so far on irr, it's pretty standard to assume if a LDS doesn't explain his beliefs the way the writer thinks he should, the LDS is being deceptive. Edited October 8, 2011 by calmoriah
volgadon Posted October 8, 2011 Posted October 8, 2011 You know what is really funny? All the accusations about Mormons lying on the page about voting for Romney.From what I've seen so far on irr, it's pretty standard to assume if a LDS doesn't explain his beliefs the way the writer thinks he should, the LDS is being deceptive.Which is a very sad and jaded outlook.
mfbukowski Posted October 8, 2011 Posted October 8, 2011 I also must say that I have completely lost respect for those LDS posters here who have said, in effect, that they would prefer IRR's website to continue having such supposed distortions on it because they make it easier to dismiss what we say. More than one Mormon here has complained that informing me of inaccuracies on our website or discussing any LDS issues with me on this forum is more or less helping the devil of anti-Mormonism.Woe is me! One of the major detractors of my faith has lost the respect he never had for me! Whatever shall become of me?At least you may find consolation in the fact that the feeling is mutual.
mfbukowski Posted October 8, 2011 Posted October 8, 2011 Lehi,By your reasoning, then, it should be possible for the Holy Ghost to be non-material. It should also be possible for the Holy Ghost to be in two or more places at the same time.This is just silly.His influence can be felt in more that one place at the same "time"- whatever that means. At least that sentence can be regarded as true for all practical purposes. Time IS space, so there can be no way of knowing when two clocks at two different spatial locations are in synch- at least not perfectly.It's just a silly rabbit hole to go down. We could never in principle know if it is true scientifically anyway.
mfbukowski Posted October 8, 2011 Posted October 8, 2011 Lehi,Then I guess it is not so that "all things are possible with God," in your understanding, because he cannot be in two places at once.This is just childish.What was that one about lifting a rock? Na na ne na na
mfbukowski Posted October 8, 2011 Posted October 8, 2011 I think this bears repeating: In my worldview, there is a wide gulf between saying "the LDS church teaches..." and saying "a few LDS members have said on rare occasion..."Thanks, -Wade Englund-Wish I had a couple of more points to give you on this one.
mfbukowski Posted October 8, 2011 Posted October 8, 2011 http://www.mormondia...__p__1209052507Volgadon's not getting any love.Standard operating procedure.
volgadon Posted October 8, 2011 Posted October 8, 2011 (edited) Standard operating procedure.I sincerely hope that when Rob gets back he can explain why using an unsourced late medieval text is acceptable when trying to dispute the significance of a passage no later than the Babylonian Talmud. Edited October 9, 2011 by volgadon
Vance Posted October 9, 2011 Posted October 9, 2011 I wouldn't ask readers to be suspicious by using the wording you suggest ("it may not accurately reflect..."),Of course you wouldn't. You want them to swallow the falsehoods and misrepresentations in your stuff hook, line and sinker. . . . but I wouldn't have a problem with some sort of statement directing readers to official LDS sources for firsthand, authoritative articulation of LDS doctrine.AFTER you have "poisoned the well" sufficiently, naturally you wouldn't have a problem with it. In fact, in my articles, I usually do direct readers to primary LDS sources, including links in my online articles.See above.
mfbukowski Posted October 9, 2011 Posted October 9, 2011 I sincerely hope that when Rob gets back he can explain why using an unsourced late medieval text is acceptable when trying to dispute the significance of a passage no later than the Babylonian Talmud.Did you look at the link Daddy posted? He IS back, he's just avoiding you- more precisely it appears he never left.
Vance Posted October 9, 2011 Posted October 9, 2011 While we're on this subject, when Mormons denounce the orthodox doctrine of the Trinity, the evangelical doctrine of justification by faith, and similar doctrines as evidence of the Great Apostasy, the supposed corruption of Christianity by philosophy, etc., do they ever include such disclaimers as you are saying I should use?You mean like the disclaimer found in the front of Mormon Doctrine?
Vance Posted October 9, 2011 Posted October 9, 2011 Did you look at the link Daddy posted? He IS back, he's just avoiding you- more precisely it appears he never left.He always leaves the threads that get too difficult for him.Unless things have changed, he is currently working on another line of attack that he will post when he thinks it is ready.
Skylla Posted October 9, 2011 Posted October 9, 2011 If you feel Rob Bowman is violating board guidelines, report it. Otherwise, stop commenting on his behavior please.Skylla
mfbukowski Posted October 9, 2011 Posted October 9, 2011 If you feel Rob Bowman is violating board guidelines, report it. Otherwise, stop commenting on his behavior please.SkyllaGood idea."Refusing to provide appropriate references to support your statements"
Rob Bowman Posted October 13, 2011 Author Posted October 13, 2011 volgadon,My time is very limited, but I want to reply to the following:I sincerely hope that when Rob gets back he can explain why using an unsourced late medieval text is acceptable when trying to dispute the significance of a passage no later than the Babylonian Talmud.I don't understand the question. Who is using "an unsourced late medieval text...when trying to dispute the significance of a passage no later than the Babylonian Talmud"? If I am the person you mean, where did I do that?
volgadon Posted October 14, 2011 Posted October 14, 2011 volgadon,My time is very limited, but I want to reply to the following:I don't understand the question. Who is using "an unsourced late medieval text...when trying to dispute the significance of a passage no later than the Babylonian Talmud"? If I am the person you mean, where did I do that?I appreciate you taking the time to respond.You did. You mentioned a bit of Jewish lore (which it appears you found in Ginsberg) "according to which Eden had 310 worlds; the saying you cited may be a colorful way of saying that each righteous person (with his wife) will have his own Eden..." This lore comes from a 13th c. work produced in the same circle which produced the Zohar.
Recommended Posts