Cordial Discussion (P-Marlowe and pseudogratix) COMMENTS BY OBSERVERS.

[drstevej]

This thread is for COMMENTS on the "Cordial Discussion between P-Marlowe and Pseudogratix."

Please do not clutter the original discussion thread.

[RnMomof7]

FYI

[Wrigley]

bump

[drstevej]

A good begining for you two.

[drstevej]

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/religion/810388/posts?page=11#11

Your link http://www.fairlds.org/apol/ai152.html.
does not work.

[pseudogratix]

http://www.fairlds.org/apol/ai152.html (without the period)

[drstevej]

See previous post for link fix. Thanks pseudogratix (can I use pg for short? I'm a lazy typer).

[pseudogratix]

***can I use pg for short?***

Nope. Pseudo is fine though.

[drstevej]

I started to use pseudo but thought that might not be an acceptable abbreviation. Thanks, pseudo it is.

[Ex-Wretch]

Re: your post #13 to PM

"It is all kind of moot if you ask me. Whether there are points of disagreement between us regarding trivia related to Christ, the truth about Christ doesn't change. We don't determine the truth that is. I think Christ knows our hearts and knows if we sincerely believe in him (in our own feeble way as it may be) or not. If we must have perfect doctrinal knowledge of Christ to believe in him, then we are all doomed."

If one is free to believe what thay want to believe based upon their own desire for non-accountability of said belief ... then wouldn't we all choose to "sin our brains out" while resting in the assurance that we "believe" that God would never hurt/punish us for not obeying His commands?

[pseudogratix]

All I am saying is that in order to believe and follow Christ, one doesn’t have to have perfect doctrinal knowledge. I believe that Christ will lead the true believer to the error of his ways and thinking (if it is something that affects that person's salvation...if it is just trivia, Christ will probably not bother) as that believer seeks to follow Christ in sincerity and humility. But, by no means do I need to have perfect doctrinal knowledge to believe in Christ. If this were the case, no one could ever believe Christ and thus no one could be saved.

[drstevej]

The discussion has been good on the main thread. I think it is helpful to lurkers. Thanks & keep it up.

[pseudogratix]

I don't know about that. P-Marlowe seems only interested in asking questions that he/she already knows the answer to (or at least thinks he/she does). Seems to me that if he/she was sincerely in trying to understand the LDS position in regard to his/her questions, he/she would read some of Stephen Robinson's books (Are Mormons Christians?, Believing Christ, Following Christ), and read the articles at sites like FAIR LDS, especially those at http://www.fairlds.org/apol/ai036.html (God, the Father) and http://www.fairlds.org/apol/ai037.html (Jesus Christ).

At this point in the discussion all I sense is a desire on P-Marlowe to trap me in something.

[wai-ming]

P-Marlowe seems only interested in asking questions that he/she already knows the answer to (or at least thinks he/she does).

What did you expect from a lawyer?

[P-Marlowe]

At this point in the discussion all I sense is a desire on P-Marlowe to trap me in something.

If you have the "Truth" on your side, how can I possibly "trap" you?

Just seek the "truth" and then tell the "truth" and you've got nothing to worry about. The only way either of us could be "trapped" is if we don't tell the truth. Then, and only then, would it be possible to be trapped.

Joh 4:23-24: But the hour cometh, and now is, when the true worshippers shall worship the Father in spirit and in truth: for the Father seeketh such to worship him.
God is a Spirit: and they that worship him must worship him in spirit and in truth.

[drstevej]

I'll flag P-Marlowe to your comments and see what he says. Perhaps he is asking questions that he knows LDS might answer differently than he would. Or questions that he believes LDS answer to inquirers in ways that are inconsistent their founders' stated views.

No reason you can not do the same in your questions for him.

This is an opportunity for you to correct any misunderstandings and to explain to readers what LDS believe and why. This forum hopefully makes it easier for lurkers to follow since the discussion is one on one.

Blessings,
Steve

[P-Marlowe]

What did you expect from a lawyer?

I'm just an unemployed rock musician. :-)

I only play lawyer to keep food on the table while I wait to get discovered.

[drstevej]

Can't wait for the release of, "I Got those Calminian Fence-Sittin' Blues!"

[pseudogratix]

***If you have the "Truth" on your side, how can I possibly "trap" you?***

Having the truth and wielding it properly are two different things. Obviously, I am too lazy to take the time to research most of my responses.

Anyhow, I never said you would successfully trap me, that is beside the point. I said that it appears to be your intent.

[wai-ming]

Since neither of us are theologians I think we will need to follow the parallel thread to get any corrections to our own ideas on these subjects from those who have forgotten more on these subjects than we know. I am certain that my own understanding on some of these subjects is limited and I may have to add corrections after being admonished on the parrallel thread from those who have forgotten more than I know about these things.

Two points, P-Marlowe! Admitting that you don't know everything is a great way to frame the discussion. You have a built-in disclaimer. But seeking "corrections" from the rest of us? What's that all about?

Great quote for the "we heard it the first time and still don't know what you're getting at" file:

"And I may have to add corrections after being admonished on the parrallel thread from those who have forgotten more than I know about these things."

Is it better to have forgotten what you know, or know what you have forgotten? I don't know. I forgot.