Posted on 09/16/2002 7:32:26 AM PDT by drstevej
A Cordial Discussion of LDS History and Beliefs
White Mountain & P-Marlowe
Ground rules for Cordial Discussion:
[1] All comments posted by other than the two of you will be ignored and unresponded to by the two of you.
[2] You both will refrain from all name calling.
[3] Statements will be substantiated and sourced.
[4] Questions asked by the other will be answered in a straight forward manner. If you do not know the answer, you will state that you do not.
[5] No question will be ignored or avoided.
"Terribly decent of you to go to all that trouble, start a new thread, make an offer, and so forth, but you guys have seen me posting here on nearly a daily basis for over two years now. I am here for you. I am available for cordial discussion always.
I have also been talking about what you call "ground rules" for quite some time, which are applicable to any thread, any time. No special thread necessary."
+++++
This your ever evasive way of REFUSING this cordial discussion under these ground rules, isn't it? I wonder why? Let's look at the ground rules for clues...
[1] All comments posted by other than the two of you will be ignored and unresponded to by the two of you. -- One on one with P-Marlowe, that could cause you some angst since he has first extensive first hand knowledge of Mormonism.
[2] You both will refrain from all name calling. -- Your style is subtle digs, with real effort you could abide by this.
[3] Statements will be substantiated and sourced. -- You can do this, but it would eliminate your frequent insertion of opinion stated as fact. This has to bother you some.
[4] Questions asked by the other will be answered in a straight forward manner. If you do not know the answer, you will state that you do not. -- NOW HERE IS A PROBLEM for you White Mountain. Avoidance is essential to your hiding the flaws and falacies of Joseph Smith and Brigham Young.
[5] No question will be ignored or avoided. -- NOTE to Lurkers:
-a- Re-read the White Mountain quote above for an illustration of avoidance.;
-b- Watch this thread for an illustration of ignoring this challenge. White Mountain desperately doesn't want to post a clear refusal to appear on THIS thread posted on THIS thread. He hopes readers of this thread don't find his denial on another thread.
Your phrase, "I am here for you. I am available for cordial discussion always." really means: No way will I post on the thread you established and under those ground rules!
+++++
Connectthedots was right:
Any Mormon, at FreeRepublic or elsewhere, that would dare take up the challenge of debating P-Marlowe on the truth or falsity of Mormonism needs to keep the following in mind:
1. P-Marlowe is a former Mormon who is very knowledgeable on both the history and doctrines of the Mormon church.
2. He answers all questions asked; in detail, with supporting citations to the historical record. He also demands that his opponent do the same.
3. He is a lawyer, and based on his skills in logical think as demonstrated on these threads, probably a formidable foe in a courtroom at either trial or on appeal. I would guess that he drafts legal briefs that are far superior than those of his opponents.
4. He is likely extremely intelligent and may have what is called a random-analytical thinking style. It appears he is able to assimilate great quanties of information and readily distill the data, and then focus on the important stuff.
5. And finally, he has what debaters and lawyers prefer above all else. He has a great set of facts!
WHITE FLAG MOUNTAIN ???
Same old stuff. You guys have no credibility with me. You can talk all day about how wonderful you think lawyers are, yet for some reason you want a non-lawyer to represent our side.
Why is that?
Our position is such a solid one that surely a good lawyer could whip Marlowe with one hand tied behind his back and using only half his brain. But that is not the way to learn the truth about God.
Nevertheless, we are still posting together on the current thread, and I am available, as always, for cordial discussion. I refer you back to my post there.
I accept that challenge. Go find a lawyer at your church and sign him up on FR. Then let him defend your church doctrines and Church History and the truth of the claim that your prophets are true prophets of God.
You are more than willing to call the Calvinists on the carpet for their beliefs and to challenge their view of God. Why is it that no mormon is willing to defend their doctrine in a one one one discussion here on FR?
While many of your fellow LDS posters have claimed the position of Christ that you will stand silent when asked questions, I will take the position of Thomas. You make a claim that the LDS Church is the one true Church to the exclusion of all others. I say: Show me.
Bring on your lawyers. Let them tie one hand behind their back and let them use half a brain. That seems to be at least a half more than most of the LDS defenders are willing to use.
It SHOULD be in the Smoky Back Room for non-yanking reasons...........
But, if we do THAT, then the seekers and lurkers may not be able to find it................
So the Smokey Back room is not the place for this discussion. It is here, in the open where all can see it. That way when it gets yanked, it will not go unnoticed. Let the truth shine forth. Let the lurkers be convinced by the wieght of the evidence presented. If the LDS have the ammunition to defend their doctrines and their prophets, then let them bring on their big guns and fire away. I have been waiting patiently for about a week to see if they are willing to debate in the open and answer all questions honestly and without spin. Still no takers. What does that tell you about the evidence for the foundations of their faith?
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.