Heart hurt...

[brlenox]

You know how I love defining things. So to add to your definition of ad hominem I will supplement this nuance which I consider germane to the discussion:

It should be noted that simply calling someone a name or otherwise making an ad hominem attack is not in itself a logical fallacy. It is only a fallacy to claim that an argument is wrong because of a negative attribute of someone making the argument. (i.e. “John is a jerk.” is not a fallacy. “John is wrong because he is a jerk.” is a logical fallacy.) (http://www.theskepticsguide.org/resourc ... -fallacies)

Ad hominem is as you describe it however, the state of being ad hominem is distinctly different than being a fallacy. It can be perfect truth.

You are right, it can be perfect truth.

As a suggestion, perhaps you can start a thread, if you wish and if it isn't against the forum rules, which will be dedicated to accusing me, judging me, and making any personal attacks against my character that you wish. Be bold and direct. If you think I'm a liar, then establish that I'm a liar. If you think I'm a jerk, then establish that I'm a jerk. You'll probably get at least a few labels to stick. :)) Or, just call me names and say whatever you want, even if you don't establish it. Get it all out, make all the personal attacks that you want but then let it stay there in that thread. That way we can have other threads and discussions that are dedicated solely to judging and/or attacking ideas that have been brought forth based on the merits of the ideas themselves and this way avoid any fallacious reasoning and any unethical debate tactics.

The idea is to get to a point where time and energy is not wasted on things that don't matter to what is being presented or discussed and to increase the likelihood of having sincere discussions and where even if people don't agree with each other, there can at least be understanding and perhaps even some edification. Hey, and maybe you just need a scapegoat or someone to release your frustrations on. I'm not trying to impress anyone, I have no following, I'm not trying to make money, I have no agenda, and I'm happy with who I am, so it doesn't bother me except when it prevents sincere discussions and ideas from being expressed and discussed or when it is used to irrelevantly invalidate the substance of one's post.

-Finrock

This is positively astounding - Here you invite me to "establish that I'm a liar" meaning that I should try to establish that you are a liar and then in the very interim before you can even know what I am composing in the post which I submit just minutes before yours is the quote by Joseph Smith where I do just that. Too freaky to be just a coincidence...don't ya think?

[Finrock]

You know how I love defining things. So to add to your definition of ad hominem I will supplement this nuance which I consider germane to the discussion:

It should be noted that simply calling someone a name or otherwise making an ad hominem attack is not in itself a logical fallacy. It is only a fallacy to claim that an argument is wrong because of a negative attribute of someone making the argument. (i.e. “John is a jerk.” is not a fallacy. “John is wrong because he is a jerk.” is a logical fallacy.) (http://www.theskepticsguide.org/resourc ... -fallacies)

Ad hominem is as you describe it however, the state of being ad hominem is distinctly different than being a fallacy. It can be perfect truth.

You are right, it can be perfect truth.

As a suggestion, perhaps you can start a thread, if you wish and if it isn't against the forum rules, which will be dedicated to accusing me, judging me, and making any personal attacks against my character that you wish. Be bold and direct. If you think I'm a liar, then establish that I'm a liar. If you think I'm a jerk, then establish that I'm a jerk. You'll probably get at least a few labels to stick. :)) Or, just call me names and say whatever you want, even if you don't establish it. Get it all out, make all the personal attacks that you want but then let it stay there in that thread. That way we can have other threads and discussions that are dedicated solely to judging and/or attacking ideas that have been brought forth based on the merits of the ideas themselves and this way avoid any fallacious reasoning and any unethical debate tactics.

The idea is to get to a point where time and energy is not wasted on things that don't matter to what is being presented or discussed and to increase the likelihood of having sincere discussions and where even if people don't agree with each other, there can at least be understanding and perhaps even some edification. Hey, and maybe you just need a scapegoat or someone to release your frustrations on. I'm not trying to impress anyone, I have no following, I'm not trying to make money, I have no agenda, and I'm happy with who I am, so it doesn't bother me except when it prevents sincere discussions and ideas from being expressed and discussed or when it is used to irrelevantly invalidate the substance of one's post.

-Finrock

This is positively astounding - Here you invite me to "establish that I'm a liar" meaning that I should try to establish that you are a liar and then in the very interim before you can even know what I am composing in the post which I submit just minutes before yours is the quote by Joseph Smith where I do just that. Too freaky to be just a coincidence...don't ya think?

Great minds think alike? :))

Well, luckily I wasn't ordained by an angel or a heavenly messenger. On a number of fronts you simply don't have enough data to establish that I'm a liar based on the words of mine that you quoted and the quote attributed to Joseph Smith. Not to mention that I don't think it says what you think it says.

However, start a thread and accuse and establish away, I won't interfere.

In time all things will be revealed and will be made known. In the meantime ideas expressed will be either true or false independent of who a person is or other irrelevant personal criteria.

-Finrock

[brlenox]

This is positively astounding - Here you invite me to "establish that I'm a liar" meaning that I should try to establish that you are a liar and then in the very interim before you can even know what I am composing in the post which I submit just minutes before yours is the quote by Joseph Smith where I do just that. Too freaky to be just a coincidence...don't ya think?

Great minds think alike? :))

Well, luckily I wasn't ordained by an angel or a heavenly messenger. On a number of fronts you simply don't have enough data to establish that I'm a liar based on the words of mine that you quoted and the quote attributed to Joseph Smith. Not to mention that I don't think it says what you think it says.

However, start a thread and accuse and establish away, I won't interfere.

In time all things will be revealed and will be made known. In the meantime ideas expressed will be either true or false independent of who a person is or other irrelevant personal criteria.

-Finrock

Well that is absolutely fabulous to find out. On the liar part there are other examples concerning Alvin that were starkly evident except to you., Multiple PM's from others validated that they could see it but questioned whether you ever would.

Still great to see you are not claiming at least angelic ordination. Again it is hard to trust that you mean what you say because so often you will not acknowledge something you said. When I read this:

" By God, I've been ordained a High Priest and have the High Priesthood. The Church doesn't know this and doesn't acknowledge it, but, I don't care about that. I happily serve as an Elder in the Church and have no desires to be recognized by the Church and I don't care if the Church disapproves, approves, whatever, because I know God approves.

Your cavalier approach to how little you cared abut the church's opinions, because God ordained you and approved sort of had that beyond the veil feel to it. Well I'll take you at your word but I sure don't know what else you might mean.

[Finrock]

The real tragedy here is that I could agree with the words you are using but because I have seen, as have all on LDSFF, what you mean when you state the spirit taught you something, then I realize the words you are using are based upon the intents of your heart and understanding. So if I were to get trapped by the fact that many of your words are sensible and I might even use some of them myself to describe similar things in a different conversation with someone else, if I was to be agreeable to them I would be wrong because the words only draw meaning from the intent of your heart. And you and I do not in anyway understand these things the same. The intent of your heart when you speak of the spirit as supreme is as a validation for denying the words of the prophets and the scriptures and the intent of my heart is that the spirit is the supreme source to confirm the scriptures and the words of the Apostles and prophets. That distinction will forever put you and I on opposing sides of this discussion though we might use the same words. Isn't that a fascinating concept.

It is fascinating, but not a new concept. Your response is akin to an anti-Mormon denying a Mormon's testimony of Jesus because they've already prejudged the Mormon and they presume to know that the Mormon isn't talking about the same Jesus. And so it appears that you are only interested in having your biases confirmed and validated and your conclusions agreed with, regardless of how faulty your premises and how shaky the foundation of your conclusions.

1. Words don't draw their meaning from the intent of my heart or the intent of anyone's heart.

2. Presuming to judge the intent of a person's heart as opposed to judging their ideas based on the merit of the ideas themselves is fallacious reasoning and intellectually dishonest.

3. The intent of my heart is to demonstrate that we must be baptized by fire and the Holy Ghost and to invite all people to obtain and then to maintain the Holy Ghost, to take the Holy Spirit as their guide, and to put their whole trust in to that same Spirit which is the source of all scripture, which manifests the scriptures, which makes a person a prophet, which reveals all truth to us, and which ultimately leads a person to Jesus Christ.

2 Do ye not remember that I said unto you that after ye had received the Holy Ghost ye could speak with the tongue of angels? And now, how could ye speak with the tongue of angels save it were by the Holy Ghost?

3 Angels speak by the power of the Holy Ghost; wherefore, they speak the words of Christ. Wherefore, I said unto you, feast upon the words of Christ; for behold, the words of Christ will tell you all things what ye should do.

4 Wherefore, now after I have spoken these words, if ye cannot understand them it will be because ye ask not, neither do ye knock; wherefore, ye are not brought into the light, but must perish in the dark.

5 For behold, again I say unto you that if ye will enter in by the way, and receive the Holy Ghost, it will show unto you all things what ye should do.

-Finrock

[brlenox]

The real tragedy here is that I could agree with the words you are using but because I have seen, as have all on LDSFF, what you mean when you state the spirit taught you something, then I realize the words you are using are based upon the intents of your heart and understanding. So if I were to get trapped by the fact that many of your words are sensible and I might even use some of them myself to describe similar things in a different conversation with someone else, if I was to be agreeable to them I would be wrong because the words only draw meaning from the intent of your heart. And you and I do not in anyway understand these things the same. The intent of your heart when you speak of the spirit as supreme is as a validation for denying the words of the prophets and the scriptures and the intent of my heart is that the spirit is the supreme source to confirm the scriptures and the words of the Apostles and prophets. That distinction will forever put you and I on opposing sides of this discussion though we might use the same words. Isn't that a fascinating concept.

It is fascinating, but not a new concept. Your response is akin to an anti-Mormon denying a Mormon's testimony of Jesus because they've already prejudged the Mormon and they presume to know that the Mormon isn't talking about the same Jesus. And so it appears that you are only interested in having your biases confirmed and validated and your conclusions agreed with, regardless of how faulty your premises and how shaky the foundation of your conclusions.

1. Words don't draw their meaning from the intent of my heart or the intent of anyone's heart.

2. Presuming to judge the intent of a person's heart as opposed to judging their ideas based on the merit of the ideas themselves is fallacious reasoning and intellectually dishonest.

3. The intent of my heart is to demonstrate that we must be baptized by fire and the Holy Ghost and to invite all people to obtain and then to maintain the Holy Ghost, to take the Holy Spirit as their guide, and to put their whole trust in to that same Spirit which is the source of all scripture, which manifests the scriptures, which makes a person a prophet, which reveals all truth to us, and which ultimately leads a person to Jesus Christ.

2 Do ye not remember that I said unto you that after ye had received the Holy Ghost ye could speak with the tongue of angels? And now, how could ye speak with the tongue of angels save it were by the Holy Ghost?

3 Angels speak by the power of the Holy Ghost; wherefore, they speak the words of Christ. Wherefore, I said unto you, feast upon the words of Christ; for behold, the words of Christ will tell you all things what ye should do.

4 Wherefore, now after I have spoken these words, if ye cannot understand them it will be because ye ask not, neither do ye knock; wherefore, ye are not brought into the light, but must perish in the dark.

5 For behold, again I say unto you that if ye will enter in by the way, and receive the Holy Ghost, it will show unto you all things what ye should do.

-Finrock

Finny, If you were really interested you would do some research first and try to understand the scriptures more accurately. Look up intents of the heart. Over and over my point is made. It is remarkably humorous that your point #2 above is the exact opposite of Alma 12:7. Yet even more humorous is that The spirit is required to grasp the thoughts and intents of someone's heart and based on your stand about the spirit that should have made the entire principle more apparent to you. I have a sense based on our previous interactions of who you are. If that changes, heck I'll be your best bud. However until then your track record is not one that inspires me. Perhaps we'll chat again but for now I can see that this is not going anywhere of value.

[Finrock]

The real tragedy here is that I could agree with the words you are using but because I have seen, as have all on LDSFF, what you mean when you state the spirit taught you something, then I realize the words you are using are based upon the intents of your heart and understanding. So if I were to get trapped by the fact that many of your words are sensible and I might even use some of them myself to describe similar things in a different conversation with someone else, if I was to be agreeable to them I would be wrong because the words only draw meaning from the intent of your heart. And you and I do not in anyway understand these things the same. The intent of your heart when you speak of the spirit as supreme is as a validation for denying the words of the prophets and the scriptures and the intent of my heart is that the spirit is the supreme source to confirm the scriptures and the words of the Apostles and prophets. That distinction will forever put you and I on opposing sides of this discussion though we might use the same words. Isn't that a fascinating concept.

It is fascinating, but not a new concept. Your response is akin to an anti-Mormon denying a Mormon's testimony of Jesus because they've already prejudged the Mormon and they presume to know that the Mormon isn't talking about the same Jesus. And so it appears that you are only interested in having your biases confirmed and validated and your conclusions agreed with, regardless of how faulty your premises and how shaky the foundation of your conclusions.

1. Words don't draw their meaning from the intent of my heart or the intent of anyone's heart.

2. Presuming to judge the intent of a person's heart as opposed to judging their ideas based on the merit of the ideas themselves is fallacious reasoning and intellectually dishonest.

3. The intent of my heart is to demonstrate that we must be baptized by fire and the Holy Ghost and to invite all people to obtain and then to maintain the Holy Ghost, to take the Holy Spirit as their guide, and to put their whole trust in to that same Spirit which is the source of all scripture, which manifests the scriptures, which makes a person a prophet, which reveals all truth to us, and which ultimately leads a person to Jesus Christ.

2 Do ye not remember that I said unto you that after ye had received the Holy Ghost ye could speak with the tongue of angels? And now, how could ye speak with the tongue of angels save it were by the Holy Ghost?

3 Angels speak by the power of the Holy Ghost; wherefore, they speak the words of Christ. Wherefore, I said unto you, feast upon the words of Christ; for behold, the words of Christ will tell you all things what ye should do.

4 Wherefore, now after I have spoken these words, if ye cannot understand them it will be because ye ask not, neither do ye knock; wherefore, ye are not brought into the light, but must perish in the dark.

5 For behold, again I say unto you that if ye will enter in by the way, and receive the Holy Ghost, it will show unto you all things what ye should do.

-Finrock

Finny, If you were really interested you would do some research first and try to understand the scriptures more accurately. Look up intents of the heart. Over and over my point is made. It is remarkably humorous that your point #2 above is the exact opposite of Alma 12:7. Yet even more humorous is that The spirit is required to grasp the thoughts and intents of someone's heart and based on your stand about the spirit that should have made the entire principle more apparent to you. I have a sense based on our previous interactions of who you are. If that changes, heck I'll be your best bud. However until then your track record is not one that inspires me. Perhaps we'll chat again but for now I can see that this is not going anywhere of value.

I used to think that I could read people's hearts and I used this as a means to manipulate and control others and to prop myself up. Then I learned that we don't generally receive revelation about other people's hearts, especially outside of our stewardship. I then recognized that the personal revelation that I thought I was receiving about others, especially about those who don't fall in to my stewardship at all, was actually revelation about my own heart and my own intent. It was humbling and in fact very painful to come to this realization. But, thank God that I did come to this realization. Something for you to consider...

In this case, I've taken the guess work out of you needing to judge the intent of my heart as I've plainly stated it in my post.

-Finrock

[Jonesy]

We can add some perspective (not that I claim to these gifts, nor use them):

3 ​Now Zeezrom, seeing that thou hast been taken in thy lying and craftiness, for thou hast not lied unto men only but thou hast lied unto God; for behold, he knows all thy ​​​thoughts​, and thou seest that thy ​​​thoughts​ are made known unto us by his Spirit;(Alma 12)

16 And it came to pass that Ammon, being filled with the Spirit of God, therefore he perceived the thoughts of the king. And he said unto him: Is it because thou hast heard that I defended thy servants and thy flocks, and slew seven of their brethren with the sling and with the sword, and smote off the arms of others, in order to defend thy flocks and thy servants; behold, is it this that causeth thy marvelings?(Alma 18)

[brlenox]

We can add some perspective (not that I claim to these gifts, nor use them):

3 ​Now Zeezrom, seeing that thou hast been taken in thy lying and craftiness, for thou hast not lied unto men only but thou hast lied unto God; for behold, he knows all thy ​​​thoughts​, and thou seest that thy ​​​thoughts​ are made known unto us by his Spirit;(Alma 12)

16 And it came to pass that Ammon, being filled with the Spirit of God, therefore he perceived the thoughts of the king. And he said unto him: Is it because thou hast heard that I defended thy servants and thy flocks, and slew seven of their brethren with the sling and with the sword, and smote off the arms of others, in order to defend thy flocks and thy servants; behold, is it this that causeth thy marvelings?(Alma 18)

Yes the Alma 12 verse I was going to toss out but decided not to take the time. The second one is good as well. I am glad you tossed it into the mix.

[brlenox]

The real tragedy here is that I could agree with the words you are using but because I have seen, as have all on LDSFF, what you mean when you state the spirit taught you something, then I realize the words you are using are based upon the intents of your heart and understanding. So if I were to get trapped by the fact that many of your words are sensible and I might even use some of them myself to describe similar things in a different conversation with someone else, if I was to be agreeable to them I would be wrong because the words only draw meaning from the intent of your heart. And you and I do not in anyway understand these things the same. The intent of your heart when you speak of the spirit as supreme is as a validation for denying the words of the prophets and the scriptures and the intent of my heart is that the spirit is the supreme source to confirm the scriptures and the words of the Apostles and prophets. That distinction will forever put you and I on opposing sides of this discussion though we might use the same words. Isn't that a fascinating concept.

It is fascinating, but not a new concept. Your response is akin to an anti-Mormon denying a Mormon's testimony of Jesus because they've already prejudged the Mormon and they presume to know that the Mormon isn't talking about the same Jesus. And so it appears that you are only interested in having your biases confirmed and validated and your conclusions agreed with, regardless of how faulty your premises and how shaky the foundation of your conclusions.

1. Words don't draw their meaning from the intent of my heart or the intent of anyone's heart.

2. Presuming to judge the intent of a person's heart as opposed to judging their ideas based on the merit of the ideas themselves is fallacious reasoning and intellectually dishonest.

3. The intent of my heart is to demonstrate that we must be baptized by fire and the Holy Ghost and to invite all people to obtain and then to maintain the Holy Ghost, to take the Holy Spirit as their guide, and to put their whole trust in to that same Spirit which is the source of all scripture, which manifests the scriptures, which makes a person a prophet, which reveals all truth to us, and which ultimately leads a person to Jesus Christ.

2 Do ye not remember that I said unto you that after ye had received the Holy Ghost ye could speak with the tongue of angels? And now, how could ye speak with the tongue of angels save it were by the Holy Ghost?

3 Angels speak by the power of the Holy Ghost; wherefore, they speak the words of Christ. Wherefore, I said unto you, feast upon the words of Christ; for behold, the words of Christ will tell you all things what ye should do.

4 Wherefore, now after I have spoken these words, if ye cannot understand them it will be because ye ask not, neither do ye knock; wherefore, ye are not brought into the light, but must perish in the dark.

5 For behold, again I say unto you that if ye will enter in by the way, and receive the Holy Ghost, it will show unto you all things what ye should do.

-Finrock
[/quote]

Finny, If you were really interested you would do some research first and try to understand the scriptures more accurately. Look up intents of the heart. Over and over my point is made. It is remarkably humorous that your point #2 above is the exact opposite of Alma 12:7. Yet even more humorous is that The spirit is required to grasp the thoughts and intents of someone's heart and based on your stand about the spirit that should have made the entire principle more apparent to you. I have a sense based on our previous interactions of who you are. If that changes, heck I'll be your best bud. However until then your track record is not one that inspires me. Perhaps we'll chat again but for now I can see that this is not going anywhere of value.

I used to think that I could read people's hearts and I used this as a means to manipulate and control others and to prop myself up. Then I learned that we don't generally receive revelation about other people's hearts, especially outside of our stewardship. I then recognized that the personal revelation that I thought I was receiving about others, especially about those who don't fall in to my stewardship at all, was actually revelation about my own heart and my own intent. It was humbling and in fact very painful to come to this realization. But, thank God that I did come to this realization. Something for you to consider...

In this case, I've taken the guess work out of you needing to judge the intent of my heart as I've plainly stated it in my post.

-Finrock

Finrock, since you have written what you have written above, I politely ask that you perform one more act of self-introspection. You are still doing what you claim you are freed from doing. The whole reason you run through the very common response from you of criticizing peoples intellectual dishonesty, and you run through the list of definitions about how people should interact and conform to a standard that you are defining is because you are trying to control others and prop yourself up.

[brlenox]

The real tragedy here is that I could agree with the words you are using but because I have seen, as have all on LDSFF, what you mean when you state the spirit taught you something, then I realize the words you are using are based upon the intents of your heart and understanding. So if I were to get trapped by the fact that many of your words are sensible and I might even use some of them myself to describe similar things in a different conversation with someone else, if I was to be agreeable to them I would be wrong because the words only draw meaning from the intent of your heart. And you and I do not in anyway understand these things the same. The intent of your heart when you speak of the spirit as supreme is as a validation for denying the words of the prophets and the scriptures and the intent of my heart is that the spirit is the supreme source to confirm the scriptures and the words of the Apostles and prophets. That distinction will forever put you and I on opposing sides of this discussion though we might use the same words. Isn't that a fascinating concept.

It is fascinating, but not a new concept. Your response is akin to an anti-Mormon denying a Mormon's testimony of Jesus because they've already prejudged the Mormon and they presume to know that the Mormon isn't talking about the same Jesus. And so it appears that you are only interested in having your biases confirmed and validated and your conclusions agreed with, regardless of how faulty your premises and how shaky the foundation of your conclusions.

1. Words don't draw their meaning from the intent of my heart or the intent of anyone's heart.

2. Presuming to judge the intent of a person's heart as opposed to judging their ideas based on the merit of the ideas themselves is fallacious reasoning and intellectually dishonest.

3. The intent of my heart is to demonstrate that we must be baptized by fire and the Holy Ghost and to invite all people to obtain and then to maintain the Holy Ghost, to take the Holy Spirit as their guide, and to put their whole trust in to that same Spirit which is the source of all scripture, which manifests the scriptures, which makes a person a prophet, which reveals all truth to us, and which ultimately leads a person to Jesus Christ.

2 Do ye not remember that I said unto you that after ye had received the Holy Ghost ye could speak with the tongue of angels? And now, how could ye speak with the tongue of angels save it were by the Holy Ghost?

3 Angels speak by the power of the Holy Ghost; wherefore, they speak the words of Christ. Wherefore, I said unto you, feast upon the words of Christ; for behold, the words of Christ will tell you all things what ye should do.

4 Wherefore, now after I have spoken these words, if ye cannot understand them it will be because ye ask not, neither do ye knock; wherefore, ye are not brought into the light, but must perish in the dark.

5 For behold, again I say unto you that if ye will enter in by the way, and receive the Holy Ghost, it will show unto you all things what ye should do.

-Finrock

Your point number 2 above also fails the scriptural test. Please consider the following from Acts:

Acts 16:16-18

16 ¶ And it came to pass, as we went to prayer, a certain damsel possessed with a spirit of divination met us, which brought her masters much gain by soothsaying:

17 The same followed Paul and us, and cried, saying, These men are the servants of the most high God, which shew unto us the way of salvation.

18 And this did she many days. But Paul, being grieved, turned and said to the spirit, I command thee in the name of Jesus Christ to come out of her. And he came out the same hour.

What this lady is saying is perfectly in line with correct principles. They were servants of God and did show the way of salvation. But they were the words of a devil which Paul Recognized and cast out.

[Finrock]

The real tragedy here is that I could agree with the words you are using but because I have seen, as have all on LDSFF, what you mean when you state the spirit taught you something, then I realize the words you are using are based upon the intents of your heart and understanding. So if I were to get trapped by the fact that many of your words are sensible and I might even use some of them myself to describe similar things in a different conversation with someone else, if I was to be agreeable to them I would be wrong because the words only draw meaning from the intent of your heart. And you and I do not in anyway understand these things the same. The intent of your heart when you speak of the spirit as supreme is as a validation for denying the words of the prophets and the scriptures and the intent of my heart is that the spirit is the supreme source to confirm the scriptures and the words of the Apostles and prophets. That distinction will forever put you and I on opposing sides of this discussion though we might use the same words. Isn't that a fascinating concept.

It is fascinating, but not a new concept. Your response is akin to an anti-Mormon denying a Mormon's testimony of Jesus because they've already prejudged the Mormon and they presume to know that the Mormon isn't talking about the same Jesus. And so it appears that you are only interested in having your biases confirmed and validated and your conclusions agreed with, regardless of how faulty your premises and how shaky the foundation of your conclusions.

1. Words don't draw their meaning from the intent of my heart or the intent of anyone's heart.

2. Presuming to judge the intent of a person's heart as opposed to judging their ideas based on the merit of the ideas themselves is fallacious reasoning and intellectually dishonest.

3. The intent of my heart is to demonstrate that we must be baptized by fire and the Holy Ghost and to invite all people to obtain and then to maintain the Holy Ghost, to take the Holy Spirit as their guide, and to put their whole trust in to that same Spirit which is the source of all scripture, which manifests the scriptures, which makes a person a prophet, which reveals all truth to us, and which ultimately leads a person to Jesus Christ.

2 Do ye not remember that I said unto you that after ye had received the Holy Ghost ye could speak with the tongue of angels? And now, how could ye speak with the tongue of angels save it were by the Holy Ghost?

3 Angels speak by the power of the Holy Ghost; wherefore, they speak the words of Christ. Wherefore, I said unto you, feast upon the words of Christ; for behold, the words of Christ will tell you all things what ye should do.

4 Wherefore, now after I have spoken these words, if ye cannot understand them it will be because ye ask not, neither do ye knock; wherefore, ye are not brought into the light, but must perish in the dark.

5 For behold, again I say unto you that if ye will enter in by the way, and receive the Holy Ghost, it will show unto you all things what ye should do.

-Finrock

Finny, If you were really interested you would do some research first and try to understand the scriptures more accurately. Look up intents of the heart. Over and over my point is made. It is remarkably humorous that your point #2 above is the exact opposite of Alma 12:7. Yet even more humorous is that The spirit is required to grasp the thoughts and intents of someone's heart and based on your stand about the spirit that should have made the entire principle more apparent to you. I have a sense based on our previous interactions of who you are. If that changes, heck I'll be your best bud. However until then your track record is not one that inspires me. Perhaps we'll chat again but for now I can see that this is not going anywhere of value.

I used to think that I could read people's hearts and I used this as a means to manipulate and control others and to prop myself up. Then I learned that we don't generally receive revelation about other people's hearts, especially outside of our stewardship. I then recognized that the personal revelation that I thought I was receiving about others, especially about those who don't fall in to my stewardship at all, was actually revelation about my own heart and my own intent. It was humbling and in fact very painful to come to this realization. But, thank God that I did come to this realization. Something for you to consider...

In this case, I've taken the guess work out of you needing to judge the intent of my heart as I've plainly stated it in my post.

-Finrock

Finrock, since you have written what you have written above, I politely ask that you perform one more act of self-introspection. You are still doing what you claim you are freed from doing. The whole reason you run through the very common response from you of criticizing peoples intellectual dishonesty, and you run through the list of definitions about how people should interact and conform to a standard that you are defining is because you are trying to control others and prop yourself up.

I have room for more than just one more act of self-introspection. I suspect that there will be many more instances where I do a searching and fearless written moral inventory of myself. However, supporting the ideas of rational discourse and desiring that people are treated fairly is one aspect that doesn't need to be reconsidered. As disciples of Christ we ought to adhere to the principles of rational discourse and we ought to treat others fairly, and that is what it all comes down to.

Speaking in general, there are certain universal principles which dictate good and bad thinking. We are to "reason together" and to practice principles of rational discourse. It is one thing to just accuse someone of being intellectually dishonest when you disagree with them (which would be unethical and manipulative), but it is another thing to demonstrate a violation of rational discourse based on the ideas that have been expressed and based on the content of a person's posts. Of course nobody always says and acts in the right way, but we can identify what constitutes good thinking and what constitutes bad thinking. For example, in the course of a discussion to attack a person's character as a means to invalidate their message is an act of intellectual dishonesty. This type of interaction is very common unfortunately. Now, this doesn't always mean that what a person is saying is wrong, it just means that their point or their position is not well supported. To always conclude that a person is wrong because they are arguing from a fallacious position is called the fallacy's fallacy. Sometimes what people are saying is true even if they don't know how to express it and support it well. However, ad hominem are almost always used as a means to manipulate and to control because the position that one is espousing can't be supported if they were to adhere to the principles of good thinking or principles of rational discourse.

Ad hominem communication is also used as a way to distract and to obfuscate the message of those you consider your opponent. There are times when people are not interested in a sincere discussion and their intent is not to have a discussion at all but instead their intent is to prevent ideas from being expressed. To attack another person's character is a very effective rhetorical device to prevent the expression of ideas.

So, if someone on the playground is being a bully or is acting in an abusive manner, it does not make the one who points out the bullying and the abusive behavior, themselves, a bully or an abuser. I reiterate again that of course to just simply assert such a thing would be wrong, controlling, and manipulative, but if such is demonstrated based on what has been written or shared, then this does not constitute something that is wrong, controlling, or manipulative. Said another way, if someone is being an bully, and you point out that they are being a bully based on their words, the bully is not then justified in turning around and acting the victim because someone pointed out their abusive behavior. Abusers are known to do this, but it should be seen for what it is. How we treat others, especially our enemies, says a lot about who we are.

Now, pointing out fallacious reasoning is limited in its effectiveness and can also contribute to contention when meekness and humility would prevent contention. As I said, people who are interested in sincere discourse will likely respond and adapt, but those who are not interested in a sincere discourse, will ignore and continue on their way.

In the end, no doubt that I have room to improve upon in how I interact with others, what I say, how I say it, and so forth. I'm encompassed about by my weaknesses and they get me in to trouble on a regular basis. I've said it before and I'll say it again, if there is one thing that is for certain it is the fact that I am a hypocrite, despite my best efforts not to be one, so my trust is in Jesus Christ. Your polite invitation is sincerely accepted.

-Finrock

[Finrock]

The real tragedy here is that I could agree with the words you are using but because I have seen, as have all on LDSFF, what you mean when you state the spirit taught you something, then I realize the words you are using are based upon the intents of your heart and understanding. So if I were to get trapped by the fact that many of your words are sensible and I might even use some of them myself to describe similar things in a different conversation with someone else, if I was to be agreeable to them I would be wrong because the words only draw meaning from the intent of your heart. And you and I do not in anyway understand these things the same. The intent of your heart when you speak of the spirit as supreme is as a validation for denying the words of the prophets and the scriptures and the intent of my heart is that the spirit is the supreme source to confirm the scriptures and the words of the Apostles and prophets. That distinction will forever put you and I on opposing sides of this discussion though we might use the same words. Isn't that a fascinating concept.

It is fascinating, but not a new concept. Your response is akin to an anti-Mormon denying a Mormon's testimony of Jesus because they've already prejudged the Mormon and they presume to know that the Mormon isn't talking about the same Jesus. And so it appears that you are only interested in having your biases confirmed and validated and your conclusions agreed with, regardless of how faulty your premises and how shaky the foundation of your conclusions.

1. Words don't draw their meaning from the intent of my heart or the intent of anyone's heart.

2. Presuming to judge the intent of a person's heart as opposed to judging their ideas based on the merit of the ideas themselves is fallacious reasoning and intellectually dishonest.

3. The intent of my heart is to demonstrate that we must be baptized by fire and the Holy Ghost and to invite all people to obtain and then to maintain the Holy Ghost, to take the Holy Spirit as their guide, and to put their whole trust in to that same Spirit which is the source of all scripture, which manifests the scriptures, which makes a person a prophet, which reveals all truth to us, and which ultimately leads a person to Jesus Christ.

2 Do ye not remember that I said unto you that after ye had received the Holy Ghost ye could speak with the tongue of angels? And now, how could ye speak with the tongue of angels save it were by the Holy Ghost?

3 Angels speak by the power of the Holy Ghost; wherefore, they speak the words of Christ. Wherefore, I said unto you, feast upon the words of Christ; for behold, the words of Christ will tell you all things what ye should do.

4 Wherefore, now after I have spoken these words, if ye cannot understand them it will be because ye ask not, neither do ye knock; wherefore, ye are not brought into the light, but must perish in the dark.

5 For behold, again I say unto you that if ye will enter in by the way, and receive the Holy Ghost, it will show unto you all things what ye should do.

-Finrock

Your point number 2 above also fails the scriptural test. Please consider the following from Acts:

Acts 16:16-18

16 ¶ And it came to pass, as we went to prayer, a certain damsel possessed with a spirit of divination met us, which brought her masters much gain by soothsaying:

17 The same followed Paul and us, and cried, saying, These men are the servants of the most high God, which shew unto us the way of salvation.

18 And this did she many days. But Paul, being grieved, turned and said to the spirit, I command thee in the name of Jesus Christ to come out of her. And he came out the same hour.

What this lady is saying is perfectly in line with correct principles. They were servants of God and did show the way of salvation. But they were the words of a devil which Paul Recognized and cast out.

This is the same reasoning used by the anti-Mormon to invalidate the words of Mormon missionaries. Its fine by me if you want to use that reasoning, just be sure that you support such reasoning consistently. Meaning, be sure that you support the anti-Mormon when they use it against Mormons, otherwise you are being hypocritical. Which is fine by me too, just saying.

-Finrock

EDIT: When I say "fine by me" I mean that judgment is not used for condemnation but it is used for identification. In other words, I'm not here to condemn you, I'm just identifying the fact.

[brlenox]

Your point number 2 above also fails the scriptural test. Please consider the following from Acts:

Acts 16:16-18

16 ¶ And it came to pass, as we went to prayer, a certain damsel possessed with a spirit of divination met us, which brought her masters much gain by soothsaying:

17 The same followed Paul and us, and cried, saying, These men are the servants of the most high God, which shew unto us the way of salvation.

18 And this did she many days. But Paul, being grieved, turned and said to the spirit, I command thee in the name of Jesus Christ to come out of her. And he came out the same hour.

What this lady is saying is perfectly in line with correct principles. They were servants of God and did show the way of salvation. But they were the words of a devil which Paul Recognized and cast out.

This is the same reasoning used by the anti-Mormon to invalidate the words of Mormon missionaries. Its fine by me if you want to use that reasoning, just be sure that you support such reasoning consistently. Meaning, be sure that you support the anti-Mormon when they use it against Mormons, otherwise you are being hypocritical. Which is fine by me too, just saying.

-Finrock

EDIT: When I say "fine by me" I mean that judgment is not used for condemnation but it is used for identification. In other words, I'm not here to condemn you, I'm just identifying the fact.

Logical fallacy #6

6. BIFURCATION: (either-or, black or white, all or nothing fallacy) assumes that two categories are mutually exclusive and exhaustive, that is, something is either a member of one or the other, but not both or some third category.

[AI2.0]

Brlenox shared this quote: "My dear brethren, this is an answer to the great challenge of our time. The word of God, as found in the scriptures, in the words of living prophets, and in personal revelation, has the power to fortify the Saints and arm them with the Spirit so they can resist evil, hold fast to the good, and find joy in this life."(The Power of the Word, Ezra Taft Benson, 1986.President of the Church)

Thank you for sharing this excellent and concise inspired teaching from a Prophet of God, I'm going to remember this. Pres. Benson is pointing out three things, which combined are valuable to us as members of the church;

1. The word of God, as found in the scriptures

2. The words of living prophets

3. Personal Revelation


It's clear we need all three together.

If a person is willing to use all three together, it arms them with the spirit to 'resist evil, hold fast to the good and find joy in this life' However, I suspect that if a person ignores one of these, they could find themselves lacking in the spirit which allows them to enjoy these things and be protected from deception. But what if they rely on only one or two?

I think we can see examples of the danger of not using all three. Some on the forum only accept what is in the scriptures and their own personal revelation, discounting or ignoring the words of living prophets which, IMO, is why they are 'off the mark', reject basic gospel teachings and often find themselves out of harmony with church doctrines.

[brlenox]

Brlenox shared this quote: "My dear brethren, this is an answer to the great challenge of our time. The word of God, as found in the scriptures, in the words of living prophets, and in personal revelation, has the power to fortify the Saints and arm them with the Spirit so they can resist evil, hold fast to the good, and find joy in this life."(The Power of the Word, Ezra Taft Benson, 1986.President of the Church)

Thank you for sharing this excellent and concise inspired teaching from a Prophet of God, I'm going to remember this. Pres. Benson is pointing out three things, which combined are valuable to us as members of the church;

1. The word of God, as found in the scriptures

2. The words of living prophets

3. Personal Revelation


It's clear we need all three together.

If a person is willing to use all three together, it arms them with the spirit to 'resist evil, hold fast to the good and find joy in this life' However, I suspect that if a person ignores one of these, they could find themselves lacking in the spirit which allows them to enjoy these things and be protected from deception. But what if they rely on only one or two?

I think we can see examples of the danger of not using all three. Some on the forum only accept what is in the scriptures and their own personal revelation, discounting or ignoring the words of living prophets which, IMO, is why they are 'off the mark', reject basic gospel teachings and often find themselves out of harmony with church doctrines.

And isn't it amazing that anyone claiming to be a member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints would dispute so clear and concise a message. I shake my head in amazement.

[Mark]

Brlenox shared this quote: "My dear brethren, this is an answer to the great challenge of our time. The word of God, as found in the scriptures, in the words of living prophets, and in personal revelation, has the power to fortify the Saints and arm them with the Spirit so they can resist evil, hold fast to the good, and find joy in this life."(The Power of the Word, Ezra Taft Benson, 1986.President of the Church)

Thank you for sharing this excellent and concise inspired teaching from a Prophet of God, I'm going to remember this. Pres. Benson is pointing out three things, which combined are valuable to us as members of the church;

1. The word of God, as found in the scriptures

2. The words of living prophets

3. Personal Revelation


It's clear we need all three together.

If a person is willing to use all three together, it arms them with the spirit to 'resist evil, hold fast to the good and find joy in this life' However, I suspect that if a person ignores one of these, they could find themselves lacking in the spirit which allows them to enjoy these things and be protected from deception. But what if they rely on only one or two?

I think we can see examples of the danger of not using all three. Some on the forum only accept what is in the scriptures and their own personal revelation, discounting or ignoring the words of living prophets which, IMO, is why they are 'off the mark', reject basic gospel teachings and often find themselves out of harmony with church doctrines.

And isn't it amazing that anyone claiming to be a member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints would dispute so clear and concise a message. I shake my head in amazement.

Having dealt with people who are willing to do some of the craziest things based on their belief that their own brand of personal revelation drove them to do things completely contrary to both scripture and the living Prophets counsel it doesnt surprise me in the least. It didnt even cross their minds that revelation can come from false sources. Their own pride wouldnt let them consider that. Living Prophets and scriptural admonition be damned. @-)