Resurrection of the body


Guest Ian Hall
 Share

Recommended Posts

10 hours ago, Anddenex said:

You can edit, I didn't change your words, I merely pointed out an intriguing irony which didn't change or twist anything you said. 

“The problem as I see it is that many of the “Mormons” here have a very shallow understanding of the gospel of Jesus Christ and therefore argue about it because they don’t know the truth.”

““Mormons" here have a very shallow understanding...because they don't know the truth.”

You don’t see a difference in meaning in these two sentences?

Sure, someone could go back and read how I originally wrote it but that doesn’t change the fact that you changef the meaning of my sentence for your own purposes. 

10 hours ago, Anddenex said:

And yet, BJ64, you have argued a minute point page after page, so what does this say regarding your knowledge?

If this is the case, and I’m not sure that it is, the reason is that it can take page after page to teach gospel principles to some individuals. A deeper understanding of gospel doctrine by everyone here would avoid such long drawn out explanations. 

 

10 hours ago, Anddenex said:

I have seen you quote parts of people's response, so are you then twisting words and changing their sense of order and meaning when you do such, or just the people you want to point out? 

Point out an example of when I have quoted someone in such a way that it changed the meaning of what they said. 

11 hours ago, Anddenex said:

Your ease of offense is also quite predictable. What I see is someone who talks about offenders and is an offender themselves. True, we don't create a "polite forum" by simply ignoring those who are impolite, which is why I pointed your irony out.

I would not call it an ease of offense but rather a quickness of defense. In a fight you don’t wait for the second punch before you punch back. That is not because you were offended by the first punch but because you’re defending yourself. 

There are bullies here and some of us are willing to fight bullies rather than ignore them and walk away.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, BJ64 said:

“The problem as I see it is that many of the “Mormons” here have a very shallow understanding of the gospel of Jesus Christ and therefore argue about it because they don’t know the truth.”

““Mormons" here have a very shallow understanding...because they don't know the truth.”

You don’t see a difference in meaning in these two sentences?

Sure, someone could go back and read how I originally wrote it but that doesn’t change the fact that you changef the meaning of my sentence for your own purposes. 

Let's actually take the time to view what I actually said, and how you are actually taking what I said and misapplying it for your own purpose here (some more irony). I began the response with quoting your words like this (notice it is the full quote):

Quote

Mormonism isn’t schizophrenic, members of this forum are. The problem as I see it is that many of the “Mormons” here have a very shallow understanding of the gospel of Jesus Christ and therefore argue about it because they don’t know the truth. 

I then responded with, "It is intriguing, irony to say the least, when an individual desires a more polite forum while condescending its members with the following "Mormons" here have a very shallow understanding...because they don't know the truth."

With grammar the "ellipses" is still keeping the quote true, and seeing the original quote is right above the quote I used ellipses with so I didn't have to state it twice. No, nothing was changed not even the meaning. There is no difference between the two sentences, only your perceived interpretation which specifies more about you than it does me.

My purpose was to show "irony" and it was shown correctly when a person talks about being polite to others and then gives this quote. As you have a problem with grammar -- ellipses -- and think an ellipses somehow changed your sentence I will quote your impolite sentence again:

Quote

Mormonism isn’t schizophrenic, members of this forum are. The problem as I see it is that many of the “Mormons” here have a very shallow understanding of the gospel of Jesus Christ and therefore argue about it because they don’t know the truth. 

Nothing changed as to my purpose. You still condescended "many of the 'Mormon'" here on this forum. No one had to go back and read anything, the original quote was above the "ellipses" quote.

3 minutes ago, BJ64 said:

If this is the case, and I’m not sure that it is, the reason is that it can take page after page to teach gospel principles to some individuals. A deeper understanding of gospel doctrine by everyone here would avoid such long drawn out explanations. 

Go back to the Mormon and Gay OP and our dialogue for what it means to be "celibate." You not only debated page after page with me, but you debated others also. So, if a person decides to go page after page on a minute point (that isn't you), they don't know the gospel of Jesus Christ? But, if you go page after page arguing a minute point you are seeking to teach the gospel as they need a deeper understanding of the principles?

Again, the assumption and condescending attitude that people don't have a deeper understanding of the gospel (on this forum) is intriguing, even more intriguing that you don't include yourself in this sentiment.

Are you able to read your own words and what your own words are implying, if not, this is what I am reading you are saying (I would say I am not alone in my interpretation).

"There are far too many members on this forum who don't have a deep understanding of the gospel, this is why they enter into page upon page debates. If they had the knowledge I do, because the only time I enter into a longer page by page debate is because I have a deeper understanding of the gospel and I am trying to help teach the gospel principles at a much deeper level than anyone else (except for a few members who think like I do)."

I would say, the majority of people who enter into a longer debate feel the same way you do, they are trying to highlight something they feel is misunderstood.

3 minutes ago, BJ64 said:

 

Point out an example of when I have quoted someone in such a way that it changed the meaning of what they said. 

@Just_A_Guy just pointed one out between you and him.

3 minutes ago, BJ64 said:

I would not call it an ease of offense but rather a quickness of defense. In a fight you don’t wait for the second punch before you punch back. That is not because you were offended by the first punch but because you’re defending yourself. 

There are bullies here and some of us are willing to fight bullies rather than ignore them and walk away.

What is the difference between you and another person who is also, as you say, "quickness of defense"? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, Just_A_Guy said:

Spencer W. Kimball, please call your office.

I don’t see anywhere in the link you provided that I quoted you incorrectly. All I see is where you argued with me over the fact that in the church when we refer to the prophet we mean the president of the church not the entire quorum of the twelve. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, Anddenex said:

Go back to the Mormon and Gay OP and our dialogue for what it means to be "celibate." You not only debated page after page with me, but you debated others also. So, if a person decides to go page after page on a minute point (that isn't you), they don't know the gospel of Jesus Christ? But, if you go page after page arguing a minute point you are seeking to teach the gospel as they need a deeper understanding of the principles?

That debate went on and on because some of you had a hard time understanding the definition of the word celibate which means to not marry or have sex and that no one in the church is commanded to be celibate.

It took a long time to teach that principle.

Edited by BJ64
Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, BJ64 said:

I don’t see anywhere in the link you provided that I quoted you incorrectly. 

Oh, well as long as you’re only bastardizing quotes from dead prophets (as opposed to living members of MormonHub.com), all is forgiven. 

Edited by Just_A_Guy
Link to comment
Share on other sites

22 minutes ago, Anddenex said:

What is the difference between you and another person who is also, as you say, "quickness of defense"? 

Did I say anything anywhere about anybody being easily offended?

Edited by BJ64
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, BJ64 said:

Did I say anything anywhere about anybody being easily offended?

Quote

There are bullies here and some of us are willing to fight bullies rather than ignore them and walk away.

What is the difference between you and another person who is also, as you say, "quickness of defense"?  Let me clarify the question, Are they bullies, or are they also quick to defense when other people make a first punch?

That first punch can be anything perceived by the individual as offensive, and thus they are quick to defense, which you may be applying the word "bully" to.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Anddenex said:

 

Are you able to read your own words and what your own words are implying, if not, this is what I am reading you are saying (I would say I am not alone in my interpretation).

“There are far too many members on this forum who don't have a deep understanding of the gospel, this is why they enter into page upon page debates. If they had the knowledge I do, because the only time I enter into a longer page by page debate is because I have a deeper understanding of the gospel and I am trying to help teach the gospel principles at a much deeper level than anyone else (except for a few members who think like I do)."

I guess you could rewrite it that way but in doing so I think you’d be giving me too much credit. 

Edited by BJ64
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Anddenex said:

What is the difference between you and another person who is also, as you say, "quickness of defense"?  Let me clarify the question, Are they bullies, or are they also quick to defense when other people make a first punch?

 That first punch can be anything perceived by the individual as offensive, and thus they are quick to defense, which you may be applying the word "bully" to.

As I see at the bully is the one who throws the first punch not the one who defends himself.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Experience has taught me that communications between me and other people have a greater tendency to break down when I focus on them instead of myself as the primary cause of the breakdown. This can be a regrettable loss to all parties.

And, communications tend to go well the more I practice the Golden Rule, particularly in terms of being forgiving within a medium sorely lacking in body language.

Self-awareness and reflection is as important, if not more so, than giving feedback.

For what it is worth.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 8/30/2018 at 3:58 PM, Guest said:

@Vort  Can you point me to any thing that would give you the appearance that I have some firm (and wrong) preconceptions about LDS doctrine?  There is a Mormon sourced definition of the doctrine.  Explain to be how I got the impression that came here soliciting information but then immediately reject out of hand information that doesn't go along with your ideas?  What are you assuming my ideas to be?  I belong to several forums and this is the very first forum where from the very first question asked I am noticing a tendency to go on the defensive and question a poster's motives.  The very first time and three persons a questioning my motives.

 

 

Doctrine and Covenants section 76 will answer your question. Cheers.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 8/30/2018 at 4:12 PM, Guest said:

I was looking for some answers to my questions from a Mormon rather than from a non-Mormon.  I am guessing you are non-Mormon from your response or perhaps a new Mormon given that you are unaware of the doctrine of Eternal Progression.  My question was directed towards Mormons and those who a knowledgeable of these and other doctrines. 

An explanation of eternal progression can be found here:  http://eom.byu.edu/index.php/Eternal_Progression

I found the missionaries unhelpful and not knowledgeable in general, perhaps their young age and general immaturity contribute to this. 

We believe the body will be restored but to a perfect form. Yes we believe in eternal progression. We believe the Father has a physical body, and we were created in His image. We believe God to be good and not going to throw most into a lake of fire. We believe the fire reference is not literal. The scriptures give many conflicting descriptions of hell from a dump to a lake of fire, bottomless pit, outer darkness. These are simply figures of speech to identify misery  in many different ways. Through the years I have heard that we will be in our peak, but somehow equal in a perfect form. We are one of few who believe in a literal physically separate Father and Son. The dotrine of oneness was forced by Constantine when he decided there could only be one God. He wasn't a believer. This was his effort to stop controversy. The actual scriptures make it clear they are separate. As in saying a husband and wife should be one like the Father and Son are one.

Edited by john4truth
Errors
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • pam unfeatured this topic

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
 Share