Jump to content

Is The Spirit In 1 Kings 22:19-23 Embodied Or Incorporeal?


Recommended Posts

Mr. Bukowski,

You wrote:

CFR that I have ever on IRR's website misrepresented or distorted something that I was told here. Again, you can give the title of the article without linking to it, thus staying within board rules.

The entire site misrepresents and distorts Mormon doctrine. I would have to reproduce the entire site.

Link to comment

Ares,

You wrote:

I understand that. But are forum members permitted to harangue me repeatedly with criticisms of my organization's website when I don't even bring it up? Are they permitted to harass me with endless personal attacks on my intentions, motivations, honesty, and so forth, and to complain over and over about my being on this forum? So far, it seems the answer is yes.

In my opinion, others have been banned for doing much less than you have. You are lucky to still be here. Ask anyone in the trailer park.

Link to comment

Rob

It would be much easier if you pick an article you think does NOT distort doctrine and let me show you how it does

Go ahead. Pick.

Link to comment

The entire site misrepresents and distorts Mormon doctrine. I would have to reproduce the entire site.

Excuse me.

You should have no problem giving us a couple of examples. It is a reasonable request, and it is expected that you either to respond (this is called a CFR which is an obligation on this forum) or to retract your statement. This obligation is not something you can duck and avoid with a clever remark.

Let's see what you got.

Edited by cdowis
Link to comment

Excuse me.

You should have no problem giving us a couple of examples. It is a reasonable request, and it is expected that you either to respond (this is called a CFR which is an obligation on this forum) or to retract your statement. This obligation is not something you can duck and avoid with a clever remark.

Let's see what you got.

Several instances of this have already been discussed on this board. I am surprised that you were unaware of them.

Link to comment

Several instances of this have already been discussed on this board. I am surprised that you were unaware of them.

Rob Bowman has recently made a request for CFR, and dismissing it with an expression of shock, surprise, horror, dismay is not a response.

Since you have expressed such an active interest in taking on that burden, let's see what you got. You might even start a new thread with all of those examples, so we can discuss them in detail.

Edited by cdowis
Link to comment

Rob Bowman has recently made a request for CFR, and dismissing it with an expression of shock, surprise, horror, dismay is not a response.

Since you have expressed such an active interest in taking on that burden, let's see what you got. You might even start a new thread with all of those examples, so we can discuss them in detail.

Here is one.

Link to comment

Vance,

You wrote:

I have already thoroughly refuted this alleged misrepresentation in a post to the same thread. In the ensuing discussion, in which you disputed my understanding of a statement in the 1997 edition of Gospel Principles, you refused to respond to a direct question.

Furthermore, my CFR to Mr. Bukowski was for him to produce an example of something on IRR's website in which I misrepresented or distorted something I was told here on this forum. Your false example of a misrepresentation on IRR's website is irrelevant to that CFR.

Link to comment

Vance,

This is what we find in Chapter 47:

1.

They will live eternally in the presence of Heavenly Father and Jesus Christ (see D&C 76:62).

2.

They will become gods (see D&C 132:20–23).

3.

They will be united eternally with their righteous family members and will be able to have eternal increase.

4.

They will receive a fulness of joy.

5.

They will have everything that our Heavenly Father and Jesus Christ have—all power, glory, dominion, and knowledge (see D&C 132:19–20). President Joseph Fielding Smith wrote: “The Father has promised through the Son that all that he has shall be given to those who are obedient to His commandments. They shall increase in knowledge, wisdom, and power, going from grace to grace, until the fulness of the perfect day shall burst upon them” (Doctrines of Salvation, comp. Bruce R. McConkie, 3 vols. [1954–56], 2:36;).

emphasis mine

Now, is he distorting our doctrine, or simply making a interpretation... a reasonable interpretation based on the text. Even if it is not explicitly taught.

(PS Did you get so hung up by the incorrect page number that you did not even bother to look it up?)

NEXT example, please. You say there are lots of them, so let's see what you got. Please open a new thread with all of these examples.

Edited by cdowis
Link to comment

Vance,

You wrote:

I have already thoroughly refuted this alleged misrepresentation in a post to the same thread. In the ensuing discussion, in which you disputed my understanding of a statement in the 1997 edition of Gospel Principles, you refused to respond to a direct question.

The question was and is irrelevant.

And in the same thread I thoroughly refuted your "refutation".

To declare that "the Mormon Church (actively) TEACHES" something that Bowman MUST PRESUME is blatant dishonesty.

BTW I was addressing Charles' comment. But if you want to continue to derail your thread (I presume, because you are losing the argument), then have at it.

Link to comment

Vance,

Chapter 47:

Now, is he distorting our doctrine, or simply making a reasonable interpretation, but not specifically taught. Is it not a reasonable interpretation?

(PS Did you get so hung up by the incorrect page number that you did even not bother to look it up?)

NEXT example, please. You say there are lots of them, so let's see what you got. Please open a new thread with all of these examples.

He is distorting what the Church teaches, YES!!!!

To declare that "the Mormon Church (actively) teaches something that must be presumed, "but not specifically taught" is blatant dishonesty.

Link to comment

Rob

It would be much easier if you pick an article you think does NOT distort doctrine and let me show you how it does

Go ahead. Pick.

That is not how a CFR works. The burden is on YOU to prove your assertion.

Get to work, and do it. Let's see what you got. You do the picking.

Link to comment

Vance,

You wrote:

BTW I was addressing Charles' comment. But if you want to continue to derail your thread (I presume, because you are losing the argument), then have at it.

Too funny. Mr. Bukowski posts in this thread to make false allegations about IRR's website and to complain about me being allowed to participate in this forum, none of which has anything to do with the issue of this thread, and you claim that I am derailing my own thread.

Link to comment

He is distorting what the Church teaches, YES!!!!

To declare that "the Mormon Church (actively) teaches something that must be presumed, "but not specifically taught" is blatant dishonesty.

Is this the best you can do? That you disagree with his interpretation of the text?

I am a member for many years, have studied the gospel extensively. While I disagree with him, I do not see him DISTORTING our teaching, but merely giving his own, reasonable interpretation.

Now let's see more examples.

Link to comment

Is this the best you can do? That you disagree with his interpretation of the text?

I am a member for many years, have studied the gospel extensively. While I disagree with him, I do not see him DISTORTING our teaching, but merely giving his own, reasonable interpretation.

Now let's see more examples.

So, saying that we teach something that we don't teach is not a distortion?

He SPECIFICALLY said that the Church TEACHES something that it DOES NOT TEACH. If that isn't a misrepresentation, I don't know what is.

Link to comment

Excuse me.

You should have no problem giving us a couple of examples. It is a reasonable request, and it is expected that you either to respond (this is called a CFR which is an obligation on this forum) or to retract your statement. This obligation is not something you can duck and avoid with a clever remark.

Let's see what you got.

Forget about it.

The stench is too bad - if you think he is right about doctrine, sing his praises all you like

Throw me off the board - ban me, you think I care? it would be worth it to not spend 5 minutes there.

YOU go study his site. I think it is obvious in every article. I have a life to lead.

Edited by mfbukowski
Link to comment

the Mormon Church teaches that Father, Son, and Holy Ghost are three separate Gods (Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, p. 370; Mormon Doctrine, pp. 576-577), and that the Son and Holy Ghost are the literal offspring of Heavenly Father and a celestial wife (Joseph Fielding McConkie, Encyclopedia of Mormonism, vol. 2, p. 649).

Please point me to an official location where the Church teaches this one.

Link to comment

Vance,

You wrote:

Too funny. Mr. Bukowski posts in this thread to make false allegations about IRR's website and to complain about me being allowed to participate in this forum, none of which has anything to do with the issue of this thread, and you claim that I am derailing my own thread.

What does it matter if I derail your avoidance of the issues?

I will stay away from this thread for its duration. And I am not voluntarily going anywhere. I refuse to find what is obvious on your.......... website.

Link to comment

Is this the best you can do? That you disagree with his interpretation of the text?

I am a member for many years, have studied the gospel extensively. While I disagree with him, I do not see him DISTORTING our teaching, but merely giving his own, reasonable interpretation.

Now let's see more examples.

Keep in mind this poster does have a constituency that he reports too, and he has to give them some red meat. His org is dedicated to show differences with EV thought in a rather dim light, while showing his own beliefs in a more favorable light. IMHO. BTW speaking of Rob if any confusion.

Edited by Bill “Papa” Lee
Link to comment

What does it matter if I derail your avoidance of the issues?

I will stay away from this thread for its duration. And I am not voluntarily going anywhere. I refuse to find what is obvious on your.......... website.

I have already spent enough time there today to more than last both our life times. The phrase "wretched hive of scum and villainy" just popped into my mind for some reason.

Both of you are banned from the thread.

Edited by Minos
Link to comment

Vance,

You wrote:

Please point me to an official location where the Church teaches this one.

I'm not sure that there is one that makes this explicit. However, it seems to be a generally accepted view. According to Joseph Fielding McConkie, "The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints teaches that the Holy Ghost is a spirit man, a spirit son of God the Father" (Encyclopedia of Mormonism, 2:649). John Tvedtnes agrees: "The Holy Ghost is a spirit son of the Father who confirms truth." According to Elden Watson, "'The Holy Ghost' is a male personage. He is a spirit personage, meaning that he does not possess a physical body similar to the resurrected bodies of the Father and the Son, yet he does possess a spirit body. He is a spirit son of our Father in Heaven, and hence is our brother, a younger brother of Jesus Christ, and he is the third member of the Godhead. Victor Ludlow writes, "The Holy Ghost likewise is a spirit son of the Father and a God with eternal power, though his role is different from that of either the Father or the Son" (Principles and Practices of the Restored Gospel, 57).

Now, if you wish to maintain that this is not the teaching of the LDS Church, that's your business. However, you cannot fairly claim that our saying so is a misrepresentation or distortion unless you are willing to say the same thing about Joseph Fielding McConkie's statement, for example. I refuse to be held hostage to a higher standard of accuracy in stating LDS doctrine than the Encyclopedia of Mormonism!

Edited to add: I posted this before seeing that Vance was banned from this thread.

Edited by Rob Bowman
Link to comment

Ares,

You wrote:

I understand that. But are forum members permitted to harangue me repeatedly with criticisms of my organization's website when I don't even bring it up? Are they permitted to harass me with endless personal attacks on my intentions, motivations, honesty, and so forth, and to complain over and over about my being on this forum? So far, it seems the answer is yes.

You may want to notify your organization, that they are spreading false information about the "non-existant" 1820 Revival. Joseph Smith exsorted at.

http://www.mormondia...entry1209037308

Edited by Zakuska
Link to comment

Zakuska and Pa Pa,

We would have much more productive discussions if we could all keep in mind the difference between having a different interpretation of the facts and deliberately misrepresenting the facts. It is possible to come to the conclusion that someone is knowingly misrepresenting the facts, but the threshold of evidence for this claim is higher than simply having reasons for disagreeing with someone's position.

Link to comment
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...