Posted on 01/31/2009 9:48:29 AM PST by Zakeet
Edited on 01/31/2009 11:43:32 AM PST by Admin Moderator. [history]
See post #470 and others before it. I was trying to get a clarification. Yet, again you dance and weave.
++++++++++++++++==
Since you claim to be one of the Realchristians, you should be willing to learn why you are passing on teachings that are not true about this Church.
You do want to teach the truth, don”t you?
++++++++++++
No
I am telling you that you are not taking the time to learn all that is taught by us on these subjects.
Since you say you are a Realchristian, you do want to have truthful conclusions to teach when you teach in your roll as a self proclaimed Realchristian.
Like I said yesterday, perhaps you should spearhead an effort to fix all of that, get the hundreds and thousands of pages corrected. It would save a lot of time in the long run.
++++++
As a self proclaimed Realchristian, you should continue to study. You do want to know the compleat truth, don't you.
I think I understand now.
So I am to take the very clear information from an LDS publication, one that shows no exceptions and has no footnotes that indicates that there is more to what is written, and run it by you for further clarification and correction.
That is much better. At least we now have am methodology from which to work. I am honored that an authority such as yourself is willing to do this.
And the “real Christian” bit, cute, but I said real Christ, you know the one who doesn't teach deception, as for me I am but a humble servant.
You see receiving info of this nature really should not be a contest, a puzzle. 1+1=2 has an exact answer that once learned is done. The same comes from the reading. A concept is presented, with no further notes saying there is more to it, it is absolute. So trying to then back track or change the definition to cover a challenge is obfuscation and intellectually dishonest.
For example, the LDS site clearly says that Church leaders are prophets and seers, and makes no notation that there are exceptions to this 'rule", this concept. So in trying to redefine such, in saying, "yeah that is what it says, but really there is more to it despite it not saying so" well like I said, it is either true or it's not, so someone is wrong.
+++++++++
The information is out there and easy to get.
It is as easy to get as the AntiMormon stuff.
It will do you more good to find it your self.
A good place to start would be all the LDS sites the hard-core-anti’s say are bad for you to study.
There are even good indexes on some of the bigger sites.
This Church is so open with it teachings, you will have very little trouble finding what you want to know.
OK, whats up with temple ceremonies? Describe them, perhaps a script or youtube link.
as for me I am but a humble servant.
+++++
as you self proclaimed.
+++++++++++++=
I see a declaration that you have already spent enough energy to insure you are not just repeating the lies given you by the anti’s.
If you are happy with yourself, I can do nothing.
Problem is I have read their “teachings”, and despite seeing no indications of any problems or issues with the facts, find they are still wrong according to their practitioners.
“Teacher, the textbook says the answer to 2+2 is 4”
“Yes, it does”
“So 2+2=4 then”
“No, it doesn't, it equals 4”
“But that is the same thing the textbook says”
“Yes but the textbook is wrong, it says it equals 5”
“No it doesn't, it says it equals 4”
“Yes but that is not correct”
“But you said it equals 4”
“Yes, and I am right”
“But so is the textbook, 5 doesn't show up anywhere”
“No, you are not reading it right, you have more to learn, 5 is there, but obviously you refuse to see it”
“So there is more than one answer to 2+2?”
“Yes, like 2+2 can equal 3+1”
“But 3+1 equals 4”
“Yes, but that is different than 2+2=4, it is not the same 4”
“Huh”
“Sorry, class dismissed, I have a hearing at the school board....”
"If I am back, tomorrow we will study how 3+3 equals 6 unless it doesn't..."
As I am called...
You may now s again try to teach your understanding about faith.
And unlike yesterday, do not ask me questions about mine. Teach me your understanding, I already know mine.
You see here is the problem, you assume my research has focused on Anti sites. Actually the exact opposite is true. I have all most exclusively concentrated on Mormon owned sites and Mormon publications. I am a first hand account original source kind of guy.
I do appreciate your honest assessment of the information provided by the LDS to the world though. If you are having issues with the facts I present, if they are truly faulty, you really need to get with your folks back at HQ.
Indeed I don't see why you would waste another minute here. Seems there is much work to be done and they could definitely use your help and knowledge...
Sounds more and more like you are happy with what you are teaching.
When you want to be able to teach the truth about our teachings, you will be willing to take the time and effort to learn it.
You, as a self proclaimed humble Realchristian might want to be discontented with teaching things that are not true.
I am a first hand account original source kind of guy.
+++++++
And you have shown here that you skip over facts that do not fit with your prejudged conclusions.
+++++++
No problem with the facts,
Just a problem with how folks like you misrepresent them.
People like you need to be shown to be what you are.
Indeed I don’t see why you would waste another minute here.
+++++++++
If just one person challanges what you say, my time is not waisted.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.