Fw: Thoughts on [Charity]

Is that a general truth about Mormonism (by which you can "correct"
me), or is it simply your personal opinion, of which others are
free to disagree?

That was not a "yes/no" question, it was an "either/or".

It was false dilemma,

I think most reasonable people can accurately understand the intent
of my question, which was basically whether the answer is
"objective" (and hence can and should be supported by authoritative
statements by Scripture or GA's), or simply "subjective" (in which
people, LDS or not, are free to disagree)

The response you gave seems at the very least to be non-conducive
to productive discussion (IMO). If you believed it to be answered
by both "yes" and "no", or a false dilemma, you could have simply
said so originally, and explained why. As it was, your answer was
sufficiently cryptic (and perceived as avoidance) as to be less than
useful.

Let's deconstruct it a bit: Others are always free to disagree (this is
evident based on our free conversation here, as well as so many others),

And I thought it obvious that the intent of my question was
"others are free to disagree WITHIN THE PALE OF MORMONISM".
(Not "shouting", just emphasis.)

Don't forget the newsgroup subject, after all...

Or, we could suppose that the root question was "Is that a general truth
about Mormonism or simply personal opinion" and even then, in my case, the
answer would simply be "yes", which is also nonsense, but since the
question
begs the premise that my opinions cannot be Mormon doctrines, it too is
nonsense.

Again, I had hoped that most readers would have correctly understood
my question as whether the assertion is "absolute" (ie. general truth),
or "relative" (opinion *only*). Obviously, if something is an absolute
truth, you will hold it as your "opinion" as well. That is obviously
not what I was asking or implying.

(And I have no idea what you mean by "mu".)

It means "neither yes nor no." From
http://www.angelfire.com/electronic/bodhidharma/mu.html,

I have to question the usefulness of using (what for all intents and
purposes is a foreign language) in responding to non-Buddhists
in a non-Buddhist forum.

Of course not. It means that I'm sufficiently educated in LDS doctrine and
practice to know when someone doesn't really know what he's talking about.

Again, the above gives the appearance of an LDS who seems to
define Mormonism based on his own personal understanding (just
as John and Joseph have done).

And again I have to ask the same questions:

1) How is anyone to know that *you* accurately represent Mormonism?

2) What happens when you disagree with another LDS who likewise
"sufficiently educated in LDS doctrine and practice to know..."?

It seems self-serving to simply proclaim that anyone who disagrees
with you on LDS beliefs doesn't understand Mormonism (even if
it is their own belief), and making such claims without GA support
is hardly conducive to productive discussion, IMO.

And that leads to another question that has lately been crossing
my mind. Would I have received the same responses of "you
don't understand Mormonism!" if I was LDS, or would I have
gotten instead acknowledgement and acceptance, and the lesser
responses of "I don't agree with you", or "I think you are wrong
on that point", but the caveat that such disagreement was a "liberty"
according to our "free agency", rather than more dogmatic. I have
no doubt that we would have seen just that difference in response,
which (if true) suggests that the responses I've been getting are
based on *who* I am (ie. non-LDS), rather than what I have said
or asserted. If I weren't a Christian (and therefore honest), I would
perhaps try posting under a different account to test my hypothesis,
but alas, my Christian honesty precludes me from doing that.

We're talking about people on earth, still alive.

Very well: In the set of all people on earth, still alive, some don't
require ordinances.

Care to move the goalposts again?

And again, another point where I have to wonder if I have received
the "charity" due to be given by those who hold the name of Christ.

I didn't "move" any "goalposts", for my question was *always*
concerning the requirements of those who are living on earth
who are LDS. While I may have been in error for not explicitly
defining that with precision (I really didn't think I needed to, to
be completely frank; I thought we understood what we were
talking about), it doesn't seem appropriate (or charitable, IMO)
to accuse me of "moving goalposts". If you felt some ambiguity
in the object of my comments, you could simply have asked for
clarification. Or if further discussion suggested a difference
between what you were talking about and what I was talking
about, you could have simply said, "Oh, I didn't realize you
were just talking about *them*".

Indeed, if I were so inclined, I imagine I could just as easily
(or more easily) comment about *you* "moving the goalposts"
more towards a position which furthers your own goals in this
discussion, and trying to make me look more "clueless". But
without you putting that idea in my head, it would never occur
to me to do so.

I therefore acknowledge that you do not appreciate the things I write.

Insofar as you have given me the impression that your posts
simply cause unnecessary confusion and contention, I have to
admit that I do not appreciate your replies, no. Perhaps that
wasn't your intention, however.

Another thought crosses my mind...
I have to wonder whether you would be responding to me in
the same way if we were (for instance) face to face, say at a
restaurant, in a discussion over a lemonade (LDS drink those,
right?)

I would honestly like to know your answer to that, but I
guess I won't be hearing it anytime soon. Still, I think it's
something useful to think about.

Rob, who is done

Jeff Shirton jshirton at cogeco dot ca
<><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><>
"[T]he gospel is not that man can become god,
but that God became a man." -- James White
Challenge me (Theophilus) for a game of chess at Chessworld.net!

.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Retirement lol
    ... mine,and pointed out how and why we disagree. ... contrast to some of the other responses I get from other posters, ... I do disagree with Bush in his stupid ...
    (soc.senior.issues)
  • Re: Thoughts on [Charity]
    ... people, LDS or not, are free to disagree) ... off that than directly off Buddhism. ... Jeff actually ever bears fruit (that is, in ten years I've never seen him ... Thus, my responses are not designed to be a dialogue, but more an invitation ...
    (soc.religion.mormon)
  • Re: odd question - "cooking" the guitar?
    ... >>> Search his history of responses to me, and all will be made clear. ... >>> guy likes to argue with me, and I don't want to waste my time anymore. ... >>any evidence to support what you're saying. ... > So agree to disagree and be done with it. ...
    (alt.guitar)
  • Re: when Jesus became God?
    ... rather he'll have some faithful LdS on hand to show us to ... Whether Mormons disagree with each other on a vast number of things is ... not Scott, which is interesting, since he seems to be saying that those ...
    (soc.religion.mormon)