| This thread has been locked, it will not receive new replies. |
|
Locked on 07/13/2010 2:29:14 PM PDT by Religion Moderator, reason:
Poster’s request |
Posted on 07/06/2010 6:54:33 AM PDT by Brian Kopp DPM
How do you think I read it?
By no means do I think Paul was a Milquetoast. I just don’t think his repertoire was limited to confrontation and harsh language. And I DO think he labored to make his message acceptable — or at least to avoid having his presentation getting in the way of his message.
This exchange started with my suggesting that evangelism done in a way to drive people off was of questionable value.
You replied that it didn’t matter because God was not going to let an inept evangelist interfere with his plan to save someone.
So I brought up Paul’s claiming to tailor his manner of presentation as much as he could without, one assumes, compromising the Gospel.
In other words, it SEEMS that Paul took care to think about how his presentation contributed or interfered with his message being heard.
I was not arguing that he was always mild. I WAS arguing that he thought about how his manner would affect his hearers and tried to accommodate himself to them, becoming all things to all people in order that some might be saved.
That attitude seems (a) VERY Biblical and (b) neglected by those who seem to me to revel in being confrontative and offensive, while (c) claiming to center everything on the Bible.
I LIKE that idea :-)
Perhaps you need to read more widely. According to my dictionary, the word prevaricate had appeared in English by 1631, two hundred years before the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints was organized.
The word was not invented to apply to Mormons, nor has it been applied exclusively to Mormons, your limited acquaintance with it notwithstanding.
(Your use of Google is puzzling. Is it supposed to prove something?)
I find this comment by Reganaut quite interesting being that it comes from someone who just yesterday inferred in a post that church leaders taught & recognized the “White Horse Prophesy” as church doctrine.
As you & I know, that was debunked long ago by Joseph F. Smith & many others since. Are there members that have perhaps perpetuated the myth? I don’t know. Is it church doctrine? I KNOW that answer.....NO! One of many examples of misleading, misdirecting, & misrepresenting.
I guess what I find most interesting w/ these folks is their insatiable desire to rip the church on a daily basis. They claim to be “Christians” yet spend virtually all their time ripping the church instead of “witnessing” what they believe. Their threads are for the express purpose of tearing down rather than building up based on what they believe.
I think that is what was the genesis of this thread was all about, intemperate & indiscreet zeal. Some of these folks refer to defending their beliefs. I applaud that, but I’m not sure where the defending part comes in when threads are started to sheerly carpet bomb those w/ differing views w/o provocation here.
They might have an argument if the LDS were daily posting threads thrashing Christianity, but of course that’s not the case. As a convert myself, the intemperate & indiscreet zeal on the part of many was what drove me to continue searching. Thank goodness! I know for a fact that it has done likewise for some here as well.
It’s the intemperate & indiscreet zeal on the part of a very vocal minority that provides so much fodder for the libs & MSM. They portray Christians as a bunch of loons. Based on the loons they show, it’s no wonder they get as much traction as they do at times.
What I find fascinating is that the same zealous “Christians” that complain about how they’re treated by the MSM, often use the very same tactics vs. LDS. Interesting but not amusing.
I, like you, have studied, pondered, & prayed w/ great fervor & sincerity. I thank the Lord for the answers received on a daily basis.
One should always do what God says to do.
Do you continue to support that church?
Unless God directs otherwise.
Just out of curiosity, could you provide the names of those 6 LDS that claimed they weren’t & then turned out they were, as well as the posts indicating such?
p.s. Dental would be nice. LOL
I can’t imagine why Reaganaut would leave out that very important info, can you? And they claim it never happens! LOL
Accepted...Thank you! Thank you, Jesus!
[Oh, and I added a Scriptural ref to it: It is because of HIM [GOD] that you are in Christ Jesus, who has become FOR US...OUR righteousness, holiness and redemption. (1 Cor. 1:30)]
That’s his profile page. Alex Murphy’s account is active.
If "Prevaricate/prevarication" was a rare character trait of Mormons, I don't think we'd see a common Google association, now would we?
(People can make the same Google search for themselves, review the articles that pop up, and see for themselves)
Excellent. I thank Jesus for loaning it to me for a time.
I fear Alex has been sucked into some kind of vision vortex. We’ll be searching floors, cookie sheets, salamis, and fences, looking for Alex.
Thanks
I did not say that. I said that one should do what God says to do. I do not presume to know what He might direct in every situation.
Moreover, I can disagree with church leaders on a particular issue without concluding that they are false prophets.
Or against whatever other group they don't like much.
ROTFL! You leave Michael Voris' bathroom fixtures out of this!
But if the issue is doctrinal, part of a revelation from got to said prophet and you disagree, then what. I mean we are not talking about you agreeing over what color the wall appear in a meeting hall should be, but the big questions, the prophetic ones. Otherwise you are saying you have never disagreed with your leadership over such issues.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.