Fair Journal - May 2012

[Rob Bowman]

Vance,

I had written that Mr. Bukowski was " ignoring the entire body of Martin Luther's writings and construing one statement in the worst possible way." You commented:

Physician, heal thy self.

That is EXACTLY what you do as a standard method.

CFR.

[Vance]

Vance,

I had written that Mr. Bukowski was " ignoring the entire body of Martin Luther's writings and construing one statement in the worst possible way." You commented:

CFR.

Just read some of the anti-Mormon material written by you on your web site.

Edited June 20, 2012 by Vance

[Rob Bowman]

Vance,

You replied to my CFR as follows:

Just read some of the anti-Mormon material written by you on your web site.

Sorry, that is not a sufficient response to the CFR. You are required to provide specific references documenting your claim, not vague accusations against a whole website.

[Vance]

Sorry, that is not a sufficient response to the CFR. You are required to provide specific references documenting your claim, not vague accusations against a whole website.

Oh, please! We have had several threads discussing the deficiencies of your work on your web site.

BTW, I just went there to find a few, and conveniently the page I wanted to start with couldn't be found. I would provide the link but we both know that your stubborn refusal to remove material, you obtained through nefarious means, keeps us from linking to it here. To link to it would violate the board rules. And we all "know" how that upsets you.

But just for fun I went to another page, where you quoted this,

Verily, thus saith the Lord: It is wisdom in my servant David W. Patten, that he settle up all his business as soon as he possibly can, and make a disposition of his merchandise, that he may perform a mission unto me next spring, in company with others, even twelve including himself, to testify of my name and bear glad tidings unto the world. (Doctrine & Covenants 114:1)

which you construed in the worst possible way with,

This prophecy was made on April 17, 1838. David W. Patten died in October of 1838 and thus never went on a mission the following spring.

But we notice that there is no predictive language in that prophecy that requires David Patten to go on a mission in this world. There is specific warning language "that he settle up all his business as soon as he possibly can, and make a disposition of his merchandise". He would thus be ready for death, and while in the world of the dead he very well could have "perform(ed) a mission unto me next spring". Bowman is in no position to make declarations about the goings on in the world of the dead.

So, yeah, Bowman is guilty of construing one statement in the worst possible way.

Now, if you want more examples, I can simply show some of your other statements FOUND ON THE SAME PAGE.

Edited June 20, 2012 by Vance

[Rob Bowman]

Vance,

Your proposed interpretation of D&C 114:1 (Patten was to put his affairs in order because he was going to die and go on a mission in the spirit world the following spring) is a hoot. The lengths to which some people will go to rationalize an obvious error is truly amazing, and in this case quite humorous. My theory that you are the comic relief is looking better and better.

The point I made to Mr. Bukowski was that he took one statement from Martin Luther out of context and construed it to mean something that Luther repeatedly and explicitly contradicted throughout his writings. You claimed that this was "EXACTLY" what I do as my "standard method." When I challenged you to provide a specific example, you gave me a statement of Joseph Smith that another writer in an old article on our web site interpreted in a way that you claim is the worst way to interpret it. Even if we assume for the sake of argument that your interpretation of Joseph's statement is correct, this hardly constitutes a serious example of me doing "EXACTLY" what I pointed out that Mr. Bukowski did -- let alone that it is a "standard method" I use. For the article's interpretation of Joseph's statement does not contradict Joseph's consistent and explicit teaching throughout the rest of his writings. Thus, once again, you are totally missing the point.

Of course, your whole effort here is to distract from the legitimate criticism I made of Mr. Bukowski's claim concerning Martin Luther. Would it be possible, just once, for you to address the point at hand rather than engaging in misdirection or diversionary tactics?

[Vance]

BTW, I won't hold my breath waiting for you to provide any evidence or legitimate argument against my "proposed interpretation".

Also, your CFR has been addressed.

Edited June 20, 2012 by Vance

[mfbukowski]

Mr. Bukowski,

You are doing precisely what you would condemn if done to Ezra Taft Benson or any other LDS leader: you are ignoring the entire body of Martin Luther's writings and construing one statement in the worst possible way. Your claim that Luther was seriously advocating that people deliberately go around committing sin is historical nonsense, as any church historian could tell you. Luther's point is obvious: those who would be genuinely forgiven of the sins must be forthright and even bold in acknowledging their real sins, not feigning repentance by confessing peccadilloes or making vague, safe admissions. Luther definitely taught that Christians should do good works, not that they should intentionally commit sin.

For example, in the Smalcald Articles, an early confession that Martin Luther composed in 1537, we read the following: "And such faith, renewal, and forgiveness of sins is followed by good works.... We say, besides, that if good works do not follow, faith is false and not true."

Such statements could be multiplied from Luther's works. This has now been explained to you. If you persist in this misrepresentation, you will simply be bearing false witness.

Your self-righteousness, especially in light of what you do for a living, your website, the way you represent our beliefs, and all else, is positively monumental. It's been a long time since I had such a good laugh, thanks!

Edited June 20, 2012 by mfbukowski

[Vance]

If a cogent thought or argument could be made, one would think it would have surfaced after nearly 5,000 posts.

Yeah, I am still waiting for Bowman to produce one that doesn't involve a double standard.

The role of some posters is simply to throw stones - not to find a mark but, I assume, to show-off their brand of Christian love.

Yup, witness the "loving" anti-Mormon "Christians".

I wonder if, in general, LDS posters see Vance as a good representative of their Church?

I have had a few compliments and a few complaints.

Overall I still have more rep points than you and Bowman combined, not that that means much.

If he were a member of my church, I'd be asking him to kindly empty his pockets on the ground and not at people who come here with the intention of having dialogue.

Says the sycophant of the one who is a professional rock thrower.

To each their own, I suppose.

Indeed.

[Aliwe]

Please show me one place in the Bible where Jesus - no one else- encourages us to sin- even just a little bit, if indeed this is just "hyperbole" and not doctrine antithetical to the true doctrine preached by Christ.

Jesus underscored that he was not changing Judaism in any way. Rather, he attached great importance to every item in the Law, no matter how trivial. He said, Whosoever shall break the least one of these commandments, and shall teach others to do so, shall be called the least in the Kingdom of God. For unless your righteousness exceeds that of the scribes and Pharisees you shall not make present the kingship of God. He just didn't put much store in the human encrustations on the Law, such as the obsessive-compulsive hand-washing of the Pharisees. If anything, Jesus taught an even more strict version of Judaism by addressing the interior motives of the heart rather than purely outward actions done under the obligation of the Law. And mere lip service wasn't good enough. You see, there is the kind of righteousness based on the fear of being caught, and there is the righteousness which springs from the desire to please one's master.

[Vance]

You see, there is the kind of righteousness based on the fear of being caught, and there is the righteousness which springs from the desire to please one's master.

Does sinning please the Master?

[Minos]

Some of the more egregious spitting contests have been removed. Posters will follow if it doesn't stop.