Something that Markk wrote on here, over 2 years ago...

[Bonnie]

Ah, ,you notice

I'd rather YOU engage in addressing the verses I bring up, which CONTRADICT Mormon theology.
You know, the verses you keep RUNNING AWAY from, when you hide behind what you think are your one or two "safe" verses?



I'm not Mormon, so "[my] theology" is off-topic for this forum.
And unlike you, I actually respect and follow the rules.

So stop dodging the issues by trying to take control of all discussion and trying to steer discussion AWAY from Mormonism.

Ah, you noticed! Here we have a perfect example of nos. 1and 2 in my post no. 4 on here, on Mormon "apologetic tactics." This example also proves what Markk wrote, that I posted. I don't think I have ever seen a more perfect example! Gentle readers, and lurkers, take notice.

I am not answering this poster about anything unless he actually posts about what I wrote in the OP.

 

[dberrie2020]

That is all it is--YOUR opinion. But opinions are not facts. I am not the only one who has noticed that you have attempted to drastically change the subject in my OP, probably to keep from having to discuss what it has in it.

This was in your OP--as Markk's remarks?

My point is that LDS theology is "shallow"...it is based on bits and pieces of truth mixed with JS home made theology that has absolutely no roots in reality making it impossible to dig deep. It is like digging deep in to a fiction novel, at some point it dead ends with the mind of the author.

Bonnie--I addressed that with scriptures.

Complaints. Fussing. Objections.

But, crickets, as to my Biblical retorts--as usual.

Bonnie--the Bible isn't friendly to faith alone theology.

 

[Bonnie]

So--why haven't you answered to the OP questions?


The way I read Markk's post, is in this theme, from the OP:



So--I'm attempting to engage the Biblical theology, as to the salvational doctrines testified to by Christ and His apostles, in an attempt to show what is found in the Biblical NT, as far as salvational doctrines go--are also found in the LDS church. That runs counter to Markk's claims.

So--here we go:

John 5:28-29--King James Version
28 Marvel not at this: for the hour is coming, in the which all that are in the graves shall hear his voice,
29 And shall come forth; they that have done good, unto the resurrection of life; and they that have done evil, unto the resurrection of damnation.

Matthew 19:16-19---King James Version
16 And, behold, one came and said unto him, Good Master, what good thing shall I do, that I may have eternal life?
17 And he said unto him, Why callest thou me good? there is none good but one, that is, God: but if thou wilt enter into life, keep the commandments.
18 He saith unto him, Which? Jesus said, Thou shalt do no murder, Thou shalt not commit adultery, Thou shalt not steal, Thou shalt not bear false witness,
19 Honour thy father and thy mother: and, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself.

That's what one finds in the LDS church.

How do you fit that into your theology?

What do you find in the Biblical NT text--which is not found in the LDS church--as far as salvational doctrines go?

Yes, it is a tactic--tactic no. 1 in my list on post no. 4, on here. You have provided a BEAUT of an example of it! Thank you so much for proving what I wrote! Gentle readers and any lurkers out there, take note. Another, even BETTER example of it, is in the thread I started about the contradictions in Mormon scriptures over the years.

if you wish to discuss our Christian theology, we can do so on the Theology board, or perhaps the Apologetics board. I will not discuss them here. This board is for discussing all things LDS. I did so, in the OP.

Now, when are you going to deal with my OP and what the link shows--the contradictions in Mormon theology over the decades? And stop running away?

 

[dberrie2020]

Yes, it is a tactic--tactic no. 1 in my list on post no. 4, on here. You have provided a BEAUT of an example of it! Thank you so much for proving what I wrote! Gentle readers and any lurkers out there, take note.

Could you explain why answering to an entry in your OP--is a tactic?

This was in the OP?

My point is that LDS theology is "shallow"...it is based on bits and pieces of truth mixed with JS home made theology that has absolutely no roots in reality making it impossible to dig deep. It is like digging deep in to a fiction novel, at some point it dead ends with the mind of the author.

I answered that entry with Biblical explanations and posts--supporting LDS theology as Biblical theology--not "home made theology".

Crickets--as usual. Complaining. Grumblings.

It didn't go the way you wished. But it was a Biblical answer. That usually ends the conversation.

So--let's discuss LDS theology as Biblical theology:

John 5:28-29--King James Version
28 Marvel not at this: for the hour is coming, in the which all that are in the graves shall hear his voice,
29 And shall come forth; they that have done good, unto the resurrection of life; and they that have done evil, unto the resurrection of damnation.

Matthew 19:16-19---King James Version
16 And, behold, one came and said unto him, Good Master, what good thing shall I do, that I may have eternal life?
17 And he said unto him, Why callest thou me good? there is none good but one, that is, God: but if thou wilt enter into life, keep the commandments.
18 He saith unto him, Which? Jesus said, Thou shalt do no murder, Thou shalt not commit adultery, Thou shalt not steal, Thou shalt not bear false witness,
19 Honour thy father and thy mother: and, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself.

That's what one finds in the LDS church.

How do you fit that into your theology?

 

[Magdalena]

You claimed you are only here to argue because it amuses you. For your own entertainment. We’re not here for your amusement. Goodbye.

 

[dberrie2020]

You claimed you are only here to argue because it amuses you. For your own entertainment. We’re not here for your amusement. Goodbye.

I stated I'm here to have fun and enjoy the moment. Maybe we all need to relax and have some fun with all this--it would probably lower blood pressure readings.

Mag--if the critics here thought they could gain an advantage--they wouldn't let that get in their way, to be sure.

So--care to address the above scriptures?

 

[Bonnie]

I have found this on other sites too. Derailment is a typical Mormon strategy. It is common in any theology brand that is shallow.

True. One point--some of us would be happy to discuss the other poster's comments and bible verses on the Theology or Apologetics board, but not here. I mean, this board is for discussing all things Mormon/LDS.

I stated I'm here to have fun and enjoy the moment. Maybe we all need to relax and have some fun with all this--it would probably lower blood pressure readings.

Mag--if the critics here thought they could gain an advantage--they wouldn't let that get in their way, to be sure.

So--care to address the above scriptures?

Have fun? What "fun"? Watching us trying to get you to deal with our points? Answer our questions? Watching our reactions when you do neither, but just repeat yourself? And watching our reactions when you blatantly change the subject away from the OP? As you did here? And on that thread I started about the contradictions in Mormon Scriptures? People who do that usually do so because they do not want to deal with the subjects in the OPs. So, they deflect, obfuscate, refuse to answer questions, deal with the other debaters' points, etc.

My BP is just fine--anywhere between 85/60 to 120/70.

 

[Bonnie]

Could you explain why answering to an entry in your OP--is a tactic?

This was in the OP?



I answered that entry with Biblical explanations and posts--supporting LDS theology as Biblical theology--not "home made theology".

Crickets--as usual. Complaining. Grumblings.

It didn't go the way you wished. But it was a Biblical answer. That usually ends the conversation.

So--let's discuss LDS theology as Biblical theology:

John 5:28-29--King James Version
28 Marvel not at this: for the hour is coming, in the which all that are in the graves shall hear his voice,
29 And shall come forth; they that have done good, unto the resurrection of life; and they that have done evil, unto the resurrection of damnation.

Matthew 19:16-19---King James Version
16 And, behold, one came and said unto him, Good Master, what good thing shall I do, that I may have eternal life?
17 And he said unto him, Why callest thou me good? there is none good but one, that is, God: but if thou wilt enter into life, keep the commandments.
18 He saith unto him, Which? Jesus said, Thou shalt do no murder, Thou shalt not commit adultery, Thou shalt not steal, Thou shalt not bear false witness,
19 Honour thy father and thy mother: and, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself.

That's what one finds in the LDS church.

How do you fit that into your theology?

Reread my tactic no. 1 on that list I put on another thread. Your "answer" to my OP had zero to do with the OP. Just as this post has zero to do with it. It was just a diversionary tactic. And you actually proved what Markk wrote. Thank you for that.

 

[dberrie2020]

Reread my tactic no. 1 on that list I put on another thread.

How does rereading tactic no.1 somehow preclude the fact I answered a specific point in your OP--which WAS included in the OP, IE--

My point is that LDS theology is "shallow"...it is based on bits and pieces of truth mixed with JS home made theology that has absolutely no roots in reality making it impossible to dig deep. It is like digging deep in to a fiction novel, at some point it dead ends with the mind of the author.

Again--I didn't answer the way you wished--and that led to unrest. Dissatisfaction. Grumblings.

Care to address the scriptures and points of my retort?

Your "answer" to my OP had zero to do with the OP.

I beg to differ--unless you can show where this was not part of your OP:

My point is that LDS theology is "shallow"...it is based on bits and pieces of truth mixed with JS home made theology that has absolutely no roots in reality making it impossible to dig deep. It is like digging deep in to a fiction novel, at some point it dead ends with the mind of the author.

Bonnie--please return to the OP--and my retort--and you will find I directly answered to the above quote--which was in your OP.

It just didn't go as you wished--and that resulted in the uproar and accusations.

Care to address the posted scriptures--and why they fit LDS theology--and defy the theology pawned here?

 

[Bonnie]

How does rereading tactic no.1 somehow preclude the fact I answered a specific point in your OP--which WAS included in the OP, IE--



Again--I didn't answer the way you wished--and that led to unrest. Dissatisfaction. Grumblings.

Care to address the scriptures and points of my retort?

I beg to differ--unless you can show where this was not part of your OP:



Bonnie--please return to the OP--and my retort--and you will find I directly answered to the above quote--which was in your OP.

It just didn't go as you wished--and that resulted in the uproar and accusations.

Care to address the posted scriptures--and why they fit LDS theology--and defy the theology pawned here?

You didn't answer me at all, but dragged in off topic stuff that had nothing to do with the OP. Thus, demonstrating Mormon debate tactic no. 1 in my list. I will only deal with you IF you stick to the OP.

This was my opening in the OP:

on why it is so hard to get Mormons on here to engage with us Christians about their beliefs and history, and why they must deflect, obfuscate, ignore, and then repeat the same talking points, over and over again. He wrote this over 2 years ago on here, about 2 boards ago, lol!

And incidentally, most of us on here HAVE dealt with your bible verses, answered you ad infinitum, over the past 3 boards. But you ignored our posts, our points, and the answers we gave to your questions, that proved that your conclusions were wrong. I, Theo, Magdalena, John, and a few others have answered you, over and over again, but you ignore our answers and just repeat the same questions over and over again, as if we had never answered you!

So, why should we go to all the trouble to respond to you, when you will not take us seriously, and are only on here to have a little fun? When you won't deal with our points, and hardly ever give straight forward answers to our questions? Like the one I asked about Luke 7:50? And Eph. 2:8-9?

 

[dberrie2020]

You didn't answer me at all, but dragged in off topic stuff that had nothing to do with the OP.

You haven't shown that, as of yet. You only have made the accusation.

Please confirm or deny this was a quote in your OP:

My point is that LDS theology is "shallow"...it is based on bits and pieces of truth mixed with JS home made theology that has absolutely no roots in reality making it impossible to dig deep. It is like digging deep in to a fiction novel, at some point it dead ends with the mind of the author.

That's the point I addressed--and it is found in your OP.

Bonnie--again--the OP was not taken in the direction which was desired--and the results were not achieved. Dissatisfaction and accusations flew.

Care to address my points--and the posted scriptures?

 

[Bonnie]

So--why haven't you answered to the OP questions?


The way I read Markk's post, is in this theme, from the OP:



So--I'm attempting to engage the Biblical theology, as to the salvational doctrines testified to by Christ and His apostles, in an attempt to show what is found in the Biblical NT, as far as salvational doctrines go--are also found in the LDS church. That runs counter to Markk's claims.

So--here we go:

John 5:28-29--King James Version
28 Marvel not at this: for the hour is coming, in the which all that are in the graves shall hear his voice,
29 And shall come forth; they that have done good, unto the resurrection of life; and they that have done evil, unto the resurrection of damnation.

Matthew 19:16-19---King James Version
16 And, behold, one came and said unto him, Good Master, what good thing shall I do, that I may have eternal life?
17 And he said unto him, Why callest thou me good? there is none good but one, that is, God: but if thou wilt enter into life, keep the commandments.
18 He saith unto him, Which? Jesus said, Thou shalt do no murder, Thou shalt not commit adultery, Thou shalt not steal, Thou shalt not bear false witness,
19 Honour thy father and thy mother: and, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself.

That's what one finds in the LDS church.

How do you fit that into your theology?

What do you find in the Biblical NT text--which is not found in the LDS church--as far as salvational doctrines go?

Bonnie--let's engage that--it's seems to be what Markk claims--the LDS are unwilling to do so. I'm more than anxious to engage you--or anyone else--on a Biblical level.

Care to engage that point? It's not a tactic Bonnie--it's the Biblical testimony of Christ and His apostles. What do you find as "deflect, obfuscate, ignore" about that approach?

on why it is so hard to get Mormons on here to engage with us Christians about their beliefs and history, and why they must deflect, obfuscate, ignore, and then repeat the same talking points, over and over again. He wrote this over 2 years ago on here, about 2 boards ago, lol!

What I find is a deflection whenever I attempt to discuss Biblical salvational theology.

So--let's engage that--and see who deflects, as far as Biblical salvational theology goes.

Let's engage at the point of Christ's testimony:

John 5:28-29--King James Version
28 Marvel not at this: for the hour is coming, in the which all that are in the graves shall hear his voice,
29 And shall come forth; they that have done good, unto the resurrection of life; and they that have done evil, unto the resurrection of damnation.

Your response has zero to do with my OP, about Mormon beliefs and history, but is about the interpretation of the Bible verses you quoted. Which, incidentally, I have addressed many times on here and can prove it, from stuff I have archived. My OP was NOT about salvational theology, but shallow Mormon apologetics, and your church's beliefs and history.

Instead, you gave a jim-dandy example of my Mormon tactics nos. 1 and 2--deflect and change the subject, to keep from dealing with the OP. Thanks for demonstrating that, yet again.

Good-bye.

 

[dberrie2020]

Your response has zero to do with my OP, about Mormon beliefs and history,

Sorry, Bonnie--but this is part of your OP:

My point is that LDS theology is "shallow"...it is based on bits and pieces of truth mixed with JS home made theology that has absolutely no roots in reality making it impossible to dig deep. It is like digging deep in to a fiction novel, at some point it dead ends with the mind of the author.

That you didn't like where your OP went is understandable. It just didn't produce the mileage which was hoped for, IMO.

Care to address my posted scriptures--and how they fit LDS theology--and defy the theology pawned here?

 

[Bonnie]

Sorry, Bonnie--but this is part of your OP:



That you didn't like where your OP went is understandable. It just didn't produce the mileage which was hoped for, IMO.

Care to address my posted scriptures--and how they fit LDS theology--and defy the theology pawned here?

That is all it is, dberrie--your "opinion."

My OP that you quoted has nothing to do with your response. DO note that the part you quoted here has to do with JS's
"home made theology"--"it is based on bits and pieces of truth mixed with JS home made theology"


--that would be MORMON theology, not orthodox Christian theology. Again, you are attempting to divert and change the subject of my OP to Christian theology, away from MORMON theology. I don't blame you, really, for trying to do that. I wouldn't want to be a Mormon and discuss that, either. Not with all of its contradictions and abysmally low Christology.

Biblical salvific theology is not the subject of this board--Mormon theology and history ARE. IF you wish to discuss BIBLICAL salvific theology I will be happy to do so with you on the theology or apologetics board. NOT here.

 

[dberrie2020]

That is all it is, dberrie--your "opinion."

First, since you didn't distinguish what your retort was targeted to-- what I addressed was found in your OP--and that's not just an opinion.

If you are saying the posted scriptures fitting LDS theology--and defying faith alone theology, is just my opinion--then please answer to my scriptural quotes, IE---

So--let's engage that--and see who deflects, as far as Biblical salvational theology goes.

Let's engage at the point of Christ's testimony:

John 5:28-29--King James Version
28 Marvel not at this: for the hour is coming, in the which all that are in the graves shall hear his voice,
29 And shall come forth; they that have done good, unto the resurrection of life; and they that have done evil, unto the resurrection of damnation.

Matthew 19:16-19---King James Version
16 And, behold, one came and said unto him, Good Master, what good thing shall I do, that I may have eternal life?
17 And he said unto him, Why callest thou me good? there is none good but one, that is, God: but if thou wilt enter into life, keep the commandments.
18 He saith unto him, Which? Jesus said, Thou shalt do no murder, Thou shalt not commit adultery, Thou shalt not steal, Thou shalt not bear false witness,
19 Honour thy father and thy mother: and, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself.

Let's start there--

Bonnie--how do you fit that into your theology?

The LDS adopt those very testimonies as their theology.

Bonnie--care to engage that--and explain to us how that is just an opinion?

 

[Bonnie]

First, since you didn't distinguish what your retort was targeted to-- what I addressed was found in your OP--and that's not just an opinion.

If you are saying the posted scriptures fitting LDS theology--and defying faith alone theology, is just my opinion--then please answer to my scriptural quotes, IE---



Bonnie--care to engage that--and explain to us how that is just an opinion?

Just as I thought...not dealing with the OP, about the shallowness of what Smith taught, a mixture of bits and pieces of truth with his home-made theology--which is MORMON THEOLOGY. Which is the subject of this forum. Your response was off topic, and an example of nos. 1 and 2 on my list of Mormon apologetic tactics.

Post no. 2:

What I find is a deflection whenever I attempt to discuss Biblical salvational theology.

So--let's engage that--and see who deflects, as far as Biblical salvational theology goes.

What I wrote, that you quoted, from Markk:

"it is based on bits and pieces of truth mixed with JS home made theology"

Not the same. I Do understand what you are getting at, but the discussion of Christian theology is off topic for this board.

PLUS, most of us Christians on here, including me, HAVE dealt with your Bible verses, points, etc., over and over again, ad infinitum, on here, over the past 4 boards, over the past 8 years I have been on here. We did not run away. We dealt with your points and answers. We were usually ignored. Something you conveniently forget.

BUT--IF you wish to discuss Christian salvific theology, I will be happy to do so with you. I am not falling for your diversionary tactics here. If you persist here, and will not engage with me on what Smith taught, then I will no longer respond to you on this thread.

 

[dberrie2020]

Just as I thought...not dealing with the OP,

Well, folks--will the circle be unbroken? Those who accuse the LDS of diversion seem to fit the bill themselves.

 

[dberrie2020]

IF you wish to discuss Christian salvific theology, I will be happy to do so with you.

So--what is it about my posted scriptures you don't feel is "Christian salvific theology"?

John 5:28-29--King James Version
28 Marvel not at this: for the hour is coming, in the which all that are in the graves shall hear his voice,
29 And shall come forth; they that have done good, unto the resurrection of life; and they that have done evil, unto the resurrection of damnation.

Matthew 19:16-19---King James Version
16 And, behold, one came and said unto him, Good Master, what good thing shall I do, that I may have eternal life?
17 And he said unto him, Why callest thou me good? there is none good but one, that is, God: but if thou wilt enter into life, keep the commandments.
18 He saith unto him, Which? Jesus said, Thou shalt do no murder, Thou shalt not commit adultery, Thou shalt not steal, Thou shalt not bear false witness,
19 Honour thy father and thy mother: and, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself.

That's what one will find being taught in the LDS church--but it defies the theology pawned here.

How do you fit that Christian theology into your theology?

 

[Bonnie]

So--what is it about my posted scriptures you don't feel is "Christian salvific theology"?

John 5:28-29--King James Version
28 Marvel not at this: for the hour is coming, in the which all that are in the graves shall hear his voice,
29 And shall come forth; they that have done good, unto the resurrection of life; and they that have done evil, unto the resurrection of damnation.

Matthew 19:16-19---King James Version
16 And, behold, one came and said unto him, Good Master, what good thing shall I do, that I may have eternal life?
17 And he said unto him, Why callest thou me good? there is none good but one, that is, God: but if thou wilt enter into life, keep the commandments.
18 He saith unto him, Which? Jesus said, Thou shalt do no murder, Thou shalt not commit adultery, Thou shalt not steal, Thou shalt not bear false witness,
19 Honour thy father and thy mother: and, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself.

That's what one will find being taught in the LDS church--but it defies the theology pawned here.

How do you fit that Christian theology into your theology?

It is off topic for the OP, especially since you started a thread on salvific doctrines on this board, so I will not reply to any of this on here. Good-bye.

 

[Bonnie]

Well, folks--will the circle be unbroken? Those who accuse the LDS of diversion seem to fit the bill themselves.

Physician, heal thyself....