Heart hurt...

[brlenox]

Brlenox,

Part One (Part Two to follow):

Your continued attempts to invalidate my words which disagree with your ideas by attacking my character and going after me personally demonstrates the very principle being addressed in the last few posts by Backblast and myself. You should know that accusing me, calling me names (fink, for instance), disparaging my intelligence, and every other such tactic only reveals what is in your heart and in your mind, and it speaks to me none at all. I see you as a brother and I carefully consider your posts even when I think you are wrong. And, understand that I am not offended by your continued attacks against me because I believe I understand where you are at and where you are coming from. At any time I'm ready to move on and to have a sincere discussion with you. But, I point these ad hominems out with the hopes that you will stop wasting so much energy and time on something so fruitless when there are so many other ways to use that energy so as to promote what is good and right. I invite you to drop all ad hominems of every sort from your communications from here on out and to approach discussions in sincerity and with mutual respect and to deal with the content and substance of what has been said. Judge the words based on the merits of the words alone. Treat your brothers and sister fairly. Consider that you probably don't know the heart and the intent of those with whom you speak. Consider that all people make mistakes, yourself included. Believe the best of those whom you are addressing. The spirit of contention does not need to exist and we don't have to agree with one another in order to understand one another. This post will be my last time addressing these things. From here on out I'm going to allow you to say whatever you want about me, make any accusation against me that you wish, call me any name that you want, imply that I'm inferior, not intelligent enough to understand your posts, and/or make whatever personal jab or attack against me that you desire and I'm going to simply focus on whatever portion of your posts have substance. I might still call you out in the defense of others, but, I don't care what you think about me personally, etc. :p

-Finrock

And I invite you to reread several of your own long diatribes addressed to virtually any person that ever calls into question your methods wherein you harp on integrity and intellectual honesty and take your own words to heart and begin to operate with such. Your character is the issue of why I seldom engage you and that sentence was only to provide you with understanding of why I do not often respond to your posts. I did not magnify that one observation to the point of ad hominem but left it as a singular observation while I discussed the substance of my observation.

For clarification's sake, an ad hominem is simply attacking the character or the person themselves as opposed to the ideas or the content/substance. That is all it takes to make a comment or argument an ad hominem. The severity level of the ad hominem is of no consequence. There are many ways to employ ad hominem arguments. The particular type of ad hominem employed in your posts is specifically, poisoning the well. This is where you cast doubt as to the character of the person you are disagreeing with in an effort to invalidate or to ridicule the ideas that are going to be or which are being expressed.

Let it be known that I understand how you feel about me and I am very much aware of your accusations. Let it also be know that how you feel about me personally is irrelevant to the ideas I'm expressing and I don't care. Neither do I care why you do or do not engage with me. If you do engage with someone in a discussion/debate (whether that's me or anyone), the only ethical and moral thing to do is to judge the ideas being expressed based on the merits of the ideas themselves.

-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.

[Finrock]

Brlenox,

I noticed in your post that you didn't address any of my points, made several proofs by assertion, and resorted to personal comments about me, etc.. My personal successes or mistakes in employing a principle are irrelevant to the principle in question so I'm going to ignore the example your provided because it is of no consequence to the discussion at hand.

On the occasion he made the statement that I used he had an intent in mind. He was not trying to undermine other comments that he had made previously but for the purpose and intent of his message at that moment he was speaking to the value of the Three means upon which we as children of our Father in Heaven can avoid deception and being misled. That is a common concern I have on LDSFF. I write about it virtually every time I engage those who claim "Holy Ghost, Holy Ghost, Holy Ghost, in one form or another.

I recognize that you have asserted that Ezra Taft Benson was speaking to only a narrow and limited application of the idea that the Spirit matters most, but, this point has hardly been established. You asserting it again doesn't make it so.

My posts specifically addressed how the Spirit matters most as it pertains to scripture and the prophets (two of the three pillars you identified) and my post also demonstrated the idea that the Spirit matters most deals with more than just missionary work and with church callings and that the principles encompasses the gospel of Jesus Christ and life in general. I'll reiterate my position below as it was not address in your response.

I agree that President Benson was not trying to undermine the comment that you posted. My position doesn't assert that, doesn't imply that, or doesn't deduce to that conclusion.

In the big scheme of things I have no problem with yours or Ezra Taft Benson's original quote which you used as a means of undermining my message. However, it is a sad reality that many have used that mentality as a means of undermining the words of the prophets and even to exercise private interpretations of scripture - all because they are guided by the "Holy Ghost" when it obviously is not the source of their instruction.

So, you agree with me after all?

Although it is quite noble of you to be concerned with others, what other people do and how they might use or misuse ideas and principle does not invalidate a principle or an idea.

My message is the same as what Ezra Taft Benson was clearly speaking to and is the message you most need to understand to stop making such easily addressed errors in understanding.

This part seems to contradict the fact that you agree that the Spirit matters most.

Here is the principle again:

I wholeheartedly agree that the Lord has provided us means by which we can learn truth. I agree that this includes the scriptures, the words of the prophets, and we have the Holy Ghost (or personal revelation). However, President Benson, wisely and correctly pointed out that out of all three of these the Spirit matters most. The Spirit does not just matter most in missionary work or when callings are extended. The Spirit matters most in all things as pertaining to the gospel. In my post I provided the scriptures and the doctrine which establishes this principle. I reiterate them below:

1. Scriptures are those words spoken by the Holy Ghost
2. Scriptures are only understood correctly by the power of the Holy Ghost
3. Prophets are only speaking and acting as prophets when they are speaking by the power of the Holy Ghost
4. We can judge when prophets are speaking as prophets by the power of the Holy Ghost

Said another way: Although we do have the scriptures, if we don't have the Holy Ghost we won't understand them. I agree, we do have prophets, but unless the prophets are speaking by the power of the Holy Ghost, they are not speaking as prophets and we need to have the Holy Ghost with us in order to discern when they are speaking by the power of the Holy Ghost. It is true that scriptures are not left to private interpretation and the way we avoid private interpretation is to seek and to obtain the Holy Spirit because the scriptures mean exactly what the Spirit says it means. Finally, as Elder McConkie stated, "it takes a prophet to understand a prophet, and every faithful member of the Church should have 'the testimony of Jesus' which 'is the spirit of prophecy.'"

Here are further situations where it is intuitively clear that the Spirit matters most: The Spirit matters most when we are teaching the gospel. The Spirit matters most in our home teaching. The Spirit matters most when a father presides over his family. The Spirit matters most when it comes to doing our callings. The Spirit matters most when a bishop is watching over his flock. The Spirit matters most when you need direction and guidance in your life (persona revelation). The Spirit matters most when it comes to being sealed as husband and wife or being sealed to eternal life. The Spirit matters most when it comes to the sacrament. The Spirit matters most when it comes to temple ordinances. The Spirit matters most when it comes to any ordinance.

Given that scripture is only understood by the power of the Holy Ghost, and that prophets are only prophets when they speak by the power of the Holy Ghost, and that we can know when a prophet is speaking as a prophet through the power of the Holy Ghost, then it is most critical that we seek, obtain, and maintain the Holy Ghost in our lives. All of the other avenues of truth available to us depend upon and rely upon the Holy Ghost. Not to mention that the Holy Ghost matters most in all aspects of the gospel of Jesus Christ and pretty much any situation in life.

-Finrock

[brlenox]

Brlenox,

Part One (Part Two to follow):

Your continued attempts to invalidate my words which disagree with your ideas by attacking my character and going after me personally demonstrates the very principle being addressed in the last few posts by Backblast and myself. You should know that accusing me, calling me names (fink, for instance), disparaging my intelligence, and every other such tactic only reveals what is in your heart and in your mind, and it speaks to me none at all. I see you as a brother and I carefully consider your posts even when I think you are wrong. And, understand that I am not offended by your continued attacks against me because I believe I understand where you are at and where you are coming from. At any time I'm ready to move on and to have a sincere discussion with you. But, I point these ad hominems out with the hopes that you will stop wasting so much energy and time on something so fruitless when there are so many other ways to use that energy so as to promote what is good and right. I invite you to drop all ad hominems of every sort from your communications from here on out and to approach discussions in sincerity and with mutual respect and to deal with the content and substance of what has been said. Judge the words based on the merits of the words alone. Treat your brothers and sister fairly. Consider that you probably don't know the heart and the intent of those with whom you speak. Consider that all people make mistakes, yourself included. Believe the best of those whom you are addressing. The spirit of contention does not need to exist and we don't have to agree with one another in order to understand one another. This post will be my last time addressing these things. From here on out I'm going to allow you to say whatever you want about me, make any accusation against me that you wish, call me any name that you want, imply that I'm inferior, not intelligent enough to understand your posts, and/or make whatever personal jab or attack against me that you desire and I'm going to simply focus on whatever portion of your posts have substance. I might still call you out in the defense of others, but, I don't care what you think about me personally, etc. :p

-Finrock

And I invite you to reread several of your own long diatribes addressed to virtually any person that ever calls into question your methods wherein you harp on integrity and intellectual honesty and take your own words to heart and begin to operate with such. Your character is the issue of why I seldom engage you and that sentence was only to provide you with understanding of why I do not often respond to your posts. I did not magnify that one observation to the point of ad hominem but left it as a singular observation while I discussed the substance of my observation.

For clarification's sake, an ad hominem is simply attacking the character or the person themselves as opposed to the ideas or the content/substance. That is all it takes to make a comment or argument an ad hominem. The severity level of the ad hominem is of no consequence. There are many ways to employ ad hominem arguments. The particular type of ad hominem employed in your posts is specifically, poisoning the well. This is where you cast doubt as to the character of the person you are disagreeing with in an effort to invalidate or to ridicule the ideas that are going to be or which are being expressed.

Let it be known that I understand how you feel about me and I am very much aware of your accusations. Let it also be know that how you feel about me personally is irrelevant to the ideas I'm expressing and I don't care. Neither do I care why you do or do not engage with me. If you do engage with someone in a discussion/debate (whether that's me or anyone), the only ethical and moral thing to do is to judge the ideas being expressed based on the merits of the ideas themselves.

-Finrock

To respond to the other observations you make above...I do not think you do understand how I feel about you. I suspect that you might see my aggressive tone as indicative of dislike or other unfavorable perceptions of ill will. Not in the least. However, I am not fond of the adversary and to the degree that I perceive his teaching or doctrines I tend to respond a bit strongly to such. In your case while there are several things you teach that might be indicative of one waylaid in the straight and narrow none is more revealing than this comment here:

At Church, I have been ordained an Elder and am a second councilor in the EQ presidency. 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.

Finrock

The origins of this kind of experience flies in the face of this quote by joseph Smith:

An angel, said Joseph, may administer the word of the Lord unto men, and bring intelligence to them from heaven upon various subjects; but no true angel from God will ever come to ordain any man, because they have once been sent to establish the priesthood by ordaining me thereunto; and the priesthood being once established on earth, with power to ordain others, no heavenly messenger will ever come to interfere with that power by ordaining any more…You may therefore know, from this time forward, that if any man comes to you professing to be ordained by an angel, he is either a liar or has been imposed upon in consequence of transgression by an angel of the devil, for this priesthood shall never be taken away from this church.(Orson Hyde, "Although Dead, Yet He Speaketh: Joseph Smith’s testimony concerning men being ordained by angels, delivered in the school of the prophets, in Kirtland, Ohio, in the Winter of 1832–3," Millennial Star 8 no. 9 (20 November 1846), 138–139

This is a serious indictment against your claims above but I accept fully what Joseph has stated here and I have observed behaviors which confirm that this quote is applicable.

Sometimes it is a difficult thing to have to address things directly and boldly. Sometimes even I can sense the directness of my approach as stark and unloving but you should realize it is not directed against you personally but he who destructions have led far too many from the church, often citing the kinds of things that you espouse. Also, I'm not accusing you per se' but am allowing your words to accuse you in light of what the prophet of the last dispensation has provided as a means of evaluation.

You got to admit, that if someone has a priority of following the prophet and taking counsel from the same they are going to probably have some measure of challenge with those that do not when it is so egregiously apparent.

[Finrock]

Brlenox,

Part One (Part Two to follow):

Your continued attempts to invalidate my words which disagree with your ideas by attacking my character and going after me personally demonstrates the very principle being addressed in the last few posts by Backblast and myself. You should know that accusing me, calling me names (fink, for instance), disparaging my intelligence, and every other such tactic only reveals what is in your heart and in your mind, and it speaks to me none at all. I see you as a brother and I carefully consider your posts even when I think you are wrong. And, understand that I am not offended by your continued attacks against me because I believe I understand where you are at and where you are coming from. At any time I'm ready to move on and to have a sincere discussion with you. But, I point these ad hominems out with the hopes that you will stop wasting so much energy and time on something so fruitless when there are so many other ways to use that energy so as to promote what is good and right. I invite you to drop all ad hominems of every sort from your communications from here on out and to approach discussions in sincerity and with mutual respect and to deal with the content and substance of what has been said. Judge the words based on the merits of the words alone. Treat your brothers and sister fairly. Consider that you probably don't know the heart and the intent of those with whom you speak. Consider that all people make mistakes, yourself included. Believe the best of those whom you are addressing. The spirit of contention does not need to exist and we don't have to agree with one another in order to understand one another. This post will be my last time addressing these things. From here on out I'm going to allow you to say whatever you want about me, make any accusation against me that you wish, call me any name that you want, imply that I'm inferior, not intelligent enough to understand your posts, and/or make whatever personal jab or attack against me that you desire and I'm going to simply focus on whatever portion of your posts have substance. I might still call you out in the defense of others, but, I don't care what you think about me personally, etc. :p

-Finrock

And I invite you to reread several of your own long diatribes addressed to virtually any person that ever calls into question your methods wherein you harp on integrity and intellectual honesty and take your own words to heart and begin to operate with such. Your character is the issue of why I seldom engage you and that sentence was only to provide you with understanding of why I do not often respond to your posts. I did not magnify that one observation to the point of ad hominem but left it as a singular observation while I discussed the substance of my observation.

For clarification's sake, an ad hominem is simply attacking the character or the person themselves as opposed to the ideas or the content/substance. That is all it takes to make a comment or argument an ad hominem. The severity level of the ad hominem is of no consequence. There are many ways to employ ad hominem arguments. The particular type of ad hominem employed in your posts is specifically, poisoning the well. This is where you cast doubt as to the character of the person you are disagreeing with in an effort to invalidate or to ridicule the ideas that are going to be or which are being expressed.

Let it be known that I understand how you feel about me and I am very much aware of your accusations. Let it also be know that how you feel about me personally is irrelevant to the ideas I'm expressing and I don't care. Neither do I care why you do or do not engage with me. If you do engage with someone in a discussion/debate (whether that's me or anyone), the only ethical and moral thing to do is to judge the ideas being expressed based on the merits of the ideas themselves.

-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

[brlenox]

Brlenox,

I noticed in your post that you didn't address any of my points, made several proofs by assertion, and resorted to personal comments about me, etc.. My personal successes or mistakes in employing a principle are irrelevant to the principle in question so I'm going to ignore the example your provided because it is of no consequence to the discussion at hand.

On the occasion he made the statement that I used he had an intent in mind. He was not trying to undermine other comments that he had made previously but for the purpose and intent of his message at that moment he was speaking to the value of the Three means upon which we as children of our Father in Heaven can avoid deception and being misled. That is a common concern I have on LDSFF. I write about it virtually every time I engage those who claim "Holy Ghost, Holy Ghost, Holy Ghost, in one form or another.

I recognize that you have asserted that Ezra Taft Benson was speaking to only a narrow and limited application of the idea that the Spirit matters most, but, this point has hardly been established. You asserting it again doesn't make it so.

My posts specifically addressed how the Spirit matters most as it pertains to scripture and the prophets (two of the three pillars you identified) and my post also demonstrated the idea that the Spirit matters most deals with more than just missionary work and with church callings and that the principles encompasses the gospel of Jesus Christ and life in general. I'll reiterate my position below as it was not address in your response.

I agree that President Benson was not trying to undermine the comment that you posted. My position doesn't assert that, doesn't imply that, or doesn't deduce to that conclusion.

In the big scheme of things I have no problem with yours or Ezra Taft Benson's original quote which you used as a means of undermining my message. However, it is a sad reality that many have used that mentality as a means of undermining the words of the prophets and even to exercise private interpretations of scripture - all because they are guided by the "Holy Ghost" when it obviously is not the source of their instruction.

So, you agree with me after all?

Although it is quite noble of you to be concerned with others, what other people do and how they might use or misuse ideas and principle does not invalidate a principle or an idea.

My message is the same as what Ezra Taft Benson was clearly speaking to and is the message you most need to understand to stop making such easily addressed errors in understanding.

This part seems to contradict the fact that you agree that the Spirit matters most.

Here is the principle again:

I wholeheartedly agree that the Lord has provided us means by which we can learn truth. I agree that this includes the scriptures, the words of the prophets, and we have the Holy Ghost (or personal revelation). However, President Benson, wisely and correctly pointed out that out of all three of these the Spirit matters most. The Spirit does not just matter most in missionary work or when callings are extended. The Spirit matters most in all things as pertaining to the gospel. In my post I provided the scriptures and the doctrine which establishes this principle. I reiterate them below:

1. Scriptures are those words spoken by the Holy Ghost
2. Scriptures are only understood correctly by the power of the Holy Ghost
3. Prophets are only speaking and acting as prophets when they are speaking by the power of the Holy Ghost
4. We can judge when prophets are speaking as prophets by the power of the Holy Ghost

Said another way: Although we do have the scriptures, if we don't have the Holy Ghost we won't understand them. I agree, we do have prophets, but unless the prophets are speaking by the power of the Holy Ghost, they are not speaking as prophets and we need to have the Holy Ghost with us in order to discern when they are speaking by the power of the Holy Ghost. It is true that scriptures are not left to private interpretation and the way we avoid private interpretation is to seek and to obtain the Holy Spirit because the scriptures mean exactly what the Spirit says it means. Finally, as Elder McConkie stated, "it takes a prophet to understand a prophet, and every faithful member of the Church should have 'the testimony of Jesus' which 'is the spirit of prophecy.'"

Here are further situations where it is intuitively clear that the Spirit matters most: The Spirit matters most when we are teaching the gospel. The Spirit matters most in our home teaching. The Spirit matters most when a father presides over his family. The Spirit matters most when it comes to doing our callings. The Spirit matters most when a bishop is watching over his flock. The Spirit matters most when you need direction and guidance in your life (persona revelation). The Spirit matters most when it comes to being sealed as husband and wife or being sealed to eternal life. The Spirit matters most when it comes to the sacrament. The Spirit matters most when it comes to temple ordinances. The Spirit matters most when it comes to any ordinance.

Given that scripture is only understood by the power of the Holy Ghost, and that prophets are only prophets when they speak by the power of the Holy Ghost, and that we can know when a prophet is speaking as a prophet through the power of the Holy Ghost, then it is most critical that we seek, obtain, and maintain the Holy Ghost in our lives. All of the other avenues of truth available to us depend upon and rely upon the Holy Ghost. Not to mention that the Holy Ghost matters most in all aspects of the gospel of Jesus Christ and pretty much any situation in life.

-Finrock

Well, there is a bit of a conundrum in all of your rational above. I really do try to read very carefully for understanding because so often when we read something we subconsciously overlay our expectations of meaning and I am mortified when ever I find myself having done that. So I am very careful and I think we need to revisit the Ezra Taft Benson quote one more time:

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)

There is potential here that one might observe that President Benson is drawing a carefully defined relationship between scriptures, words of prophets and the Holy Ghost. It is somewhat of the same relationship we have with faith and knowledge as described in Alma 32. You exercise a little faith and you grow in knowledge. Now with that little bit of knowledge you can now exercise stronger faith, which if you do will lead you to greater knowledge which builds over and over. Each one dependent on the other.

The phrase "and arm them" seems to describe a relationship with scriptures and prophetic utterance where each one contributes to magnification of the other. So for you to be armed with the spirit, it is apparent that Ezra Taft Benson, prophet of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints, while speaking by the spirit and thus acting in his full capacity as a prophet of the Lord Jesus Christ is describing a symbiotic relationship between the manifestation of the spirit and having a sound knowledge of the scriptures and words of the prophets. Kind of a conundrum ... don't ya think?

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.

[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. @-)