Mopologetic "Bridge Building"

[_Markk]

I'll go on engaging in interfaith dialogues of various kinds, while you proceed to declare such dialogue impossible for me based upon your understanding of things that you haven't read.

That's a division of labor that I can live with.

Hi Dan,

Do you believe there is work that needs be done in LDS members accepting that the restoration and Joseph Smith vision is offensive and a perceived attack on mainstream Christianity.

There is nobody keeping you form giving a commentary on your paper, I will apologize if I have taken your conclusion out of any extreme context. I have stated over and over that my post was base solely on your conclusion, if your conclusion is not relevant to your paper why did you post it? Isn't that a fair assumption?

Take care

Mark
John 1:12

[_Daniel Peterson]

Do you believe there is work that needs be done in LDS members accepting that the restoration and Joseph Smith vision is offensive and a perceived attack on mainstream Christianity.

There's work that needs to be done among LDS and non-LDS. That's why interfaith dialogue is important and not always easy.

There is nobody keeping you form giving a commentary on your paper,

I wrote my paper. It's forty-three printed pages long. I don't need to comment on it. It says what it says.

if your conclusion is not relevant to your paper why did you post it?

I've never said that my conclusion was irrelevant to my paper. Why on earth would I write a conclusion that was irrelevant to the paper it concluded?

I've said that, in order to comment intelligently upon the conclusion of my paper, one would have to understand what the conclusion means, which is best done by reading the paper that the conclusion concludes.

No read, no likely make meaningful comment. Simple.

[_Doctor Scratch]

Do you believe there is work that needs be done in LDS members accepting that the restoration and Joseph Smith vision is offensive and a perceived attack on mainstream Christianity.

There's work that needs to be done among LDS.

I'm very curious to know what this is. I've never seen an apologist say what this "work" would entail. Based on the evidence at hand, it would seem that the "work" involves smear campaigns, character assassination, and decades-long crusades to blacken the reputation of Church critics.

[_Daniel Peterson]

I'm very curious to know what this is. I've never seen an apologist say what this "work" would entail. Based on the evidence at hand, it would seem that the "work" involves smear campaigns, character assassination, and decades-long crusades to blacken the reputation of Church critics.

Imagine away, Scratchy. We're all eeeevil.

[_Doctor Scratch]

I'm very curious to know what this is. I've never seen an apologist say what this "work" would entail. Based on the evidence at hand, it would seem that the "work" involves smear campaigns, character assassination, and decades-long crusades to blacken the reputation of Church critics.

Imagine away, Scratchy. We're all eeeevil.

Well, I assume that you have something in mind. But, since you're unwilling to say what this "work" involves, I guess, once again, that that leaves us little choice but to assume that it means the same kind of "work" exemplified by your FROB editorials, and your SHIELDS writings. Thanks for clarifying, Professor P.

[_Markk]

Do you believe there is work that needs be done in LDS members accepting that the restoration and Joseph Smith vision is offensive and a perceived attack on mainstream Christianity.

There's work that needs to be done among LDS and non-LDS. That's why interfaith dialogue is important and not always easy.

There is nobody keeping you form giving a commentary on your paper,

I wrote my paper. It's forty-three printed pages long. I don't need to comment on it. It says what it says.

if your conclusion is not relevant to your paper why did you post it?

I've never said that my conclusion was irrelevant to my paper. Why on earth would I write a conclusion that was irrelevant to the paper it concluded?

I've said that, in order to comment intelligently upon the conclusion of my paper, one would have to understand what the conclusion means, which is best done by reading the paper that the conclusion concludes.

No read, no likely make meaningful comment. Simple.

Hi Dan,

Bridge Building requires communication, not a "I said it, I wrote it, it has to be true then" approach. Tell me a little about your paper, it really shouldn't be that hard.

When I explain to someone what the foundation of the LDS church is based on, in context with the Vision and the great Apostasy, and that the LDS church views themselves as the only true Church, there are generally two responses, one, a "what ever " reply, not fully grasping what is taught, or two, they are disgusted and go into defense mode?

As a bridge builder what would you say to these people?

Take care

Mark
John 1:12

[_Daniel Peterson]

Bridge Building requires communication, not a "I said it, I wrote it, it has to be true then" approach.

I'm not particularly interested in trying to build a bridge with you, Markk. I've tried communicating with you. I've found it exasperating and pointless.

Tell me a little about your paper, it really shouldn't be that hard.

It's forty-three pages long, it's entitled "Mormonism and the Trinity," it's published in Element, it's available (though some say that they've had difficulty getting it) by joining the Society for Mormon Philosophy and Theology or by contacting either Professor Brian Birch or Professor Benjamin Huff, and you're welcome to read it.

As a bridge builder what would you say to these people?

Many things, if they're interested.

[_Gadianton Plumber]

He won't say much, you need to order it. Pay the dough, in the know.

[_Markk]

Bridge Building requires communication, not a "I said it, I wrote it, it has to be true then" approach.

I'm not particularly interested in trying to build a bridge with you, Markk. I've tried communicating with you. I've found it exasperating and pointless.

Tell me a little about your paper, it really shouldn't be that hard.

It's forty-three pages long, it's entitled "Mormonism and the Trinity," it's published in Element, it's available (though some say that they've had difficulty getting it) by joining the Society for Mormon Philosophy and Theology or by contacting either Professor Brian Birch or Professor Benjamin Huff, and you're welcome to read it.

As a bridge builder what would you say to these people?

Many things, if they're interested.

Hi Dan,

O'well

Take care

Mark