Paul MT

I have not ignored your posts I have answered the ones that are on topic. I have not used any part of this thread to

Thanks for the def. of SOF So to clarify this for myself, the members of this board wish to be left alone to discuss issues amongst themselves regardless of the accuracy of the information being discussed. You are right our understandings about dialogue and other things are completely different. However, this is your board and the administrators and moderators are entirely within their rights to rule out this kind of debate if they so choose. So throughout this discussion I guess I have come to an understanding of the expectations a few people. We haven

I think I understand your point of view, are you saying that even to correct something that is wrong is teaching heretical doctrine. Is that correct? Yes, I noticed yours and others doctrinal points, but as they did not apply to the discussion, I did not respond. In light of your more recent comments it would have appeared to be an unacceptable attempt at teaching false doctrine. I am willing to discuss any doctrinal point, but not where is not welcome.

Again we are using semantics. Even in the main-line Christian reading of the scripture we are not to willfully engage in false hood. Differing Gospel beliefs aside, there are many falsehood taught on many Christian boards about what LDS believe and teach. In many cases I

I suppose it depends on what the definition of preaching is. When I listen to Christian radio the pastors are certainly not standing in front of their congregations and answering questions. With respect, I feel that you are playing with the word. I

Thanks Eric Do you believe that LDS contributors here have attempted to sabotage your beliefs? I

However, this is not the purpose of apologetics is it.

May I ask then, what is the purpose of this apologetics forum?

My intention was not to promote any particular site, but to compare our seemingly differing approaches to dialogue, however mentioning its name did just that. I apologize, it has been edited out. I think asking how Christian sites handle their discussions with others is fair comment. I do not participate on any other forum on this board believing that the apologetics forum is open to all comers no matter what their belief. If am wrong please correct me. I also have no problems with taking your advice, if my contributions are not welcome.

Is this the position of this ministry that after two or three admonitions all discussion is over on your part? For the most part LDS do not participate in these kinds of boards to preach our doctrines (We have our own sites that do that), but those of us who do participate endeavour mainly to directly answer questions, correct faulty teaching, and clarify what we think on particular issues. On the LDS board that I am familiar with we allow people to discuss their beliefs at length. Paul also wrote

Hi Tari My thoughts for this thread are more centred on differences in attitudes about dialogue. It has appeared to me that more than a few main line Christian boards force a resolution to a discussion when others of a different view can not be convinced of their position. My point is that on the LDS board that I am familiar with the opposite is the case. The only exception being if someone is blatantly antagonistic. In the majority of cases, threads do not criticize ones faith or belief (however, there are some exceptions which ended with the suspension of both the LDS and non Christian debater) or dissuade anyone from their own believe, but only answers questions or comments. The point again is that from what I know we do not shut down debate because we cannot convince our quests of our position. If we could keep our comments to this proposition I will be happy to respond. Paul

By all means, the administrators of a board can set any rules of use the desire. I have no problem with that. If it pleases a person to be misinformed about the beliefs of others that is up to that person as well. Form what I am aware of participation of LDS on this board has not been to promote but to correct erroneous statements about our beliefs. I don

Hi all It has been awhile since I participated on this board, but have been following some or the threads. I am not to sure what the policy of this board is in its attitude toward differences of belief or opinion. However, the members of this board will be most welcome on (name removed by OP) to discuss your beliefs, and if respectful in your differences, your threads will not be deleted or closed , neither will you be disallowed to use the features of the board, just because we can not convince you of our beliefs. You will always be welcome. Your friend Paul

I did not notice that this topic had been moved, I respect the aspect of exclusivity of discussion here, and have removed my comment. My apologies.

Just in for a moment, Yes. thank you, that is my main intention. I just did not want it to look like I was using this as an excuse to duck some direct questions.

Hi Speechless and Frisbinator, Wow that's a list. I'm afraid that your not going to get a satifactory anwser from me tonight either. I have to go back to making a living towmorrow, and can't devote the time just now to give responses to your many questions. However, I will be able to devote some time on the weekend. I'll give what you asked for some thought. Perhap I can take one question at a time. This is turning out to be very volumeus (is that a word). So I will get back to you on the Weekend

[quote name='Bro David

I believe that this poster is making reference to various statements made and published by Mormon "apostles" that Jesus and Lucifer are "spirit brothers," that they came from "Father God" as the Mormons refer to God the Father (Note that there is a difference in connotation there.): "The story of Lucifer is the most terrible example of such apostasy. ... He pitted his own plan and will against the purposes of God. He strove to gain the birthright of his Elder Brother, Jesus the Christ. When his proposition was rejected, he forsook all that he had gained, .... He was no longer Lucifer, bearer of truth, who walked in light, but Satan, teacher of untruth, who slunk in darkness. He became the enemy of God and of all who try to walk according to the Lord's commandments. One-third of the spirits present in that vast assembly supported Satan and became enemies of the truth that they had formerly cherished. With him these rebellious spirits lost their fellowship with the valiant sons of God. (Apostle John A. Widstoe, Evidences and Reconciliations, p. 209)" "The appointment of Jesus to be savior of the world was contested by one of the other sons of God. He was called Lucifer

I see this could become a full time job, but I like talking about the "Gospel". I've come to understand in the last few days that this might be taken to mean something else in some peoples mind, especilally referring to my beliefs. I don't really want to be drawn in to "picking over words" match in scripture to support each others side. I view the OT,NT, and BoM as being equal. I read the NT more than I do the BoM, especially the Gospels, and the eppisles of Peter, James, and John. How ever, that is not to say the BoM is not important to me. The message of the Gospel ( That Jesus is the Christ) is presented simplly and is repeated over and over through the experiences of the people writen about within it. Do you mean that every word that is writen in the Bible as it is presented now, is the same that came from the pen of the writer, and that everything that was ever writen by these authors are present, when you say infalliblity? if that is your meaning (I'm not sure, just guesing). In my heart I would have to say no. Not that there were not many "just people" trying to do this through the ages. I just think there was too much political manipulation going on in the years after Christ. I'm sorry, Im not the brightest penny on the block when it comes to explaning things. It's been fun thou.

This I belive this is the purpose for which we were created - eternal progression. I think this quote comes from a talk called the King Follett discourse. I have read it once, but don't have access to it at the moment. Is it scripture - no. Is it prophesy - no, but I do believe that it is imparted knowledge that was revealed to us - yes. Can I prove it - no, does belief (or no belief) in it affect or change my position, faith, or duty toward my Father in Heaven right now - no. Paul the apostlel said we see through dark glass, and don't see every thing there is to be known. Its good to know - why not. Is it necessay to know - I don't think so. I think it is a glimpse of what is to come. This is a very short explanation of you question. Maybe you can find the full document on another site.

[quote name='Bro David

Thank you for your invitation to explain my faith in Jesus Christ and my Father in Heaven. As I stated before my purpose in participating in this site was to gain knowledge, and not to create controversy, or be a source for harsh words. This serves no purpose, and I believe is harmful to ones spirit. I would be happy to respond to you, but to create such and atmosphere would be disrespectful.