Markk wrote:She is harmless, be easy on her Doc...
I do agree, I think she probably is a good person in her real life, overly sensitive and seeks attention (Nightlion?) 24/7 and drama, but I believe when she says she really did try to help some people who hadn't been treated fairly.
(P.S., I own a SawStop now, so take that.)
I got your PM, but I can only receive messages, for what ever reason i can send.
It's a awesome saw.
If I may, check this out....it takes a little time to dial in, but it is well worth it. Once dialed in you can make almost perfect cross cuts for face frames, or mitered corners ...etc, you can't get with a miter saw. It is a poor man's slide saw. I used it for some cabinet doors I made for my kitchen and the rails and stiles joined perfectly.
Doctor Steuss wrote:My favorite thing on this thread has been watching as Servant attacks non-Mormons for being Mormon.
hahahahaha
I think Servant just wants to fight for fighting's sake. Once a Mormon, always a Mormon and no one can fool her with their supposed atheistic or agnostic claims. This is Mormon Discussions.
"Religion is about providing human community in the guise of solving problems that don’t exist or failing to solve problems that do and seeking to reconcile these contradictions and conceal the failures in bogus explanations otherwise known as theology." - Kishkumen
Gadianton wrote: Not relevant to my point at all. You have difficulties following the lines of an argument, don't you?
By the way, Gadianton, I think that I did follow your underlying argument. My concern was that encapsulated within your 'argument' was a bunch of diatribe against Joseph Smith. I felt like my response acted as a counterbalance to that negative 'poking' at the prophet. Nothing more, nothing less. And I don't want to derail the thread from where others may want it to go...so I'll leave it at that.
To be fair, however, I think that it's important to know that Pres. Hinckley and members of the CofJCofLDS have a deep and abiding faith in the Savior of the World.
Pres. Hinckley: Realizing the importance of knowing the true nature of God, men had struggled to find a way to define Him. Learned clerics argued with one another. When Constantine became a Christian in the fourth century, he called together a great convocation of learned men with the hope that they could reach a conclusion of understanding concerning the true nature of Deity. All they reached was a compromise of various points of view. The result was the Nicene Creed of A.D. 325. This and subsequent creeds have become the declaration of doctrine concerning the nature of Deity for most of Christianity ever since.
I have read them all a number of times. I cannot understand them. I think others cannot understand them. I am sure that the Lord also knew that many would not understand them. And so in 1820, in that incomparable vision, the Father and the Son appeared to the boy Joseph. They spoke to him with words that were audible, and he spoke to Them. They could see. They could speak. They could hear. They were personal. They were of substance. They were not imaginary beings. They were beings tabernacled in flesh. And out of that experience has come our unique and true understanding of the nature of Deity.
No wonder that when Joseph in 1842 wrote the Articles of Faith he stated as number one, "We believe in God, the Eternal Father, and in His Son, Jesus Christ, and in the Holy Ghost" (Articles of Faith 1:1). http://www.moroni10.com/General_Confere ... _Talk.html
This quote was taken from President Hinckley's final conference address.
We can have differences in the way we worship and understand Jesus of Nazereth and still respect our brothers and sisters of other faiths. I suppose that's why I jumped in on this thread. I felt that Servant was being a bit unfair and harsh.
Regards, MG
Hey MG,
No, I disagree, we have a different Messiah. A different Jesus.
I is not true to say the Nience Creed formulates who Christian's believe Christ is..so much so that if you would like, I can start a thread on the Celestial forum, and show you the different Jesus', with me using only the Bible, and only using LDS sources.
When I was a young saint, we were proud to be "Mormons" and we welcomed a separation between the "Mormon" church and the Catholic church and the protestant church...today, as your post shows, there is a need for the COJCOLDS to not only be accepted, but also part of it.
Great topic, good conversation, and we certainly don't have to agree, but I would like to show you how the Biblical Christ, is not the Christ of LDS doctrine.
Thanks
Don't take life so seriously in that " sooner or later we are just old men in funny clothes" "Tom 'T-Bone' Wolk"
Doctor Steuss wrote:My favorite thing on this thread has been watching as Servant attacks non-Mormons for being Mormon.
As a hopeless hack golfer...95 on my best day without cheating...while the kid whiffed he has a killer swing for being that young...I only wish I could take my back swing back half as far as he does.
Don't take life so seriously in that " sooner or later we are just old men in funny clothes" "Tom 'T-Bone' Wolk"
No, I disagree, we have a different Messiah. A different Jesus.
I'm not disagreeing with you on this point. President Hinckley agrees with you also. I honestly don't think that Latter Day Saints may get as worked up about making a big deal about the 'different Jesus' as the evangelicals do. We make our case and move on. I suppose it comes back to the "let them worship who or what they may" concept taught by the founding prophet of the LDS church.
Even so, I think we can still be on the same page when it comes to serving in the world and shining the light of Christ to all we meet through service, mercy, and compassion.
mentalgymnast wrote: I'm not disagreeing with you on this point. President Hinckley agrees with you also. I honestly don't think that Latter Day Saints may get as worked up about making a big deal about the 'different Jesus's' as the evangelicals do. We make our case and move on. I suppose it comes back to the "let them worship who or what they may" concept taught by the founding prophet of the LDS church.
Even so, I think we can still be on the same page when it comes to serving in the world and shining the light of Christ to all we meet through service, mercy, and compassion.
Regards, MG
How do you make your case?
You made a blanket statement about the Creeds...would you care to show me how someone like me get's their concept of Christ from the NC?
My assertion is that you just repeated a LDS talking point about the creeds, and when pressed to discuss it, my guess is you have never really studied what Christians actually believe and why we believe it.
Again, right or wrong, if you want, I would love to share with not only what the Bible teaches about the nature of Christ, but also the evolution of the LDS Christ.
Don't take life so seriously in that " sooner or later we are just old men in funny clothes" "Tom 'T-Bone' Wolk"
There is no perfect source out there for Christ or early Christian history, whatever that is. Some sources are better than others for a variety of reasons, but every source has bias, and there are two ways, basically, that applies for any source when it comes to history, especially religious history.
First, is the author. Every historian is bringing a perspective, shaped by their life experiences and motivations, and that will impact how they view their topic and how they present it. in order to be a good historian, they need to be able to stand back and try to view things objectively. The key word there is try, as if you think they can truly succeed, I have a a slippery treasure for you if you're interested. I just need some money up front, and a black dog for *reasons*.
I'm sure there are other factors how historians use primary and secondary sources, and making decisions on which ones to use and which ones to skip over. All of this is, in the end, going to create bias.
Second, is you the reader. We can see today, in almost real time, how the same information is processed differently by different people. The bias a reader brings to the table will absolutely impact how they view the biased information being presnted. It's a messy affair.
So, when people start arguing over the nature of their Jesus, historical or metaphysical, there will never be absolute resolution and it's kind of unimportant to the meta narrative of God's existence our our existential purpose.
- Doc
In the face of madness, rationality has no power - Xiao Wang, US historiographer, 2287 AD.
Every record...falsified, every book rewritten...every statue...has been renamed or torn down, every date...altered...the process is continuing...minute by minute. History has stopped. Nothing exists except an endless present in which the Ideology is always right.
I am not talking about arguing, but about understanding. LDS just say, like MG did, that the Christian understanding is based on the creeds, which is just not true, especially in regards to evangelicals.
Like I told MG, "right or wrong" I can take him past the standard LDS talking point and show him what i and others believe and in context why we believe it.
Don't take life so seriously in that " sooner or later we are just old men in funny clothes" "Tom 'T-Bone' Wolk"
