From: tensmekl@infonode.ingr.com (Kermit Tensmeyer)
Subject: Re: Summary, Trinity vs LDS View fo the Godhead
Organization: Intergraph Corporation, Huntsville, AL.
Date: Thu, 17 Dec 1992 15:23:44 GMT

In article <53Ss02eA2f9i01@JUTS.ccc.amdahl.com> agr00@JUTS.ccc.amdahl.com (Anthony G Rose) writes:
>In article <1992Dec16.141343.4423@infonode.ingr.com> tensmekl@infonode.ingr.com (Kermit Tensmeyer) writes:
>>>
Tony Do you really have anything to sy relevant?  I mean, this whole letter is
Tony juts a character assination.  Can we discuss issues?  Like why you and
Tony Brigham Young worship different Gods?  Who was right?
>>
>>
>> Just two points:  1) This is what Tony calls "character assination"
>>
>>		   2) This is what Tony thinks of as "relavent issues"
>>
>> Based on the amount of Email that I recieved this morning, I say that
>> you have exhausted the amount of relavent issues that people seem to
>> be able to tolerate. Only two LDS responded, the rest (18) were EV'rs
>> Only one of them seemed to have any tolerance for you and your
>> venamous spew (hi Robert)
>>
>>
>> Do you have _anything_ of relevence to discuss?  I thought not...
>


>About the above.  Again, I am trying to discuss an issue with you.  I
>asked you why you worship a different God than Brigham Young did?  I
>asked you who was wrong.  I asked you was Brigham Young wrong when he
>taught that Adam was our Father and our God, or is the church wrong
>today?

	These may be of subjects of interest to you, and you have 
	"discussed" them ad nasume with others who have done a better
	job of patiently explaing and dealing with the subject than I
	would with you.

	The basic point is this, you have begun discussion with many
	people, and because of your "methods" of discussion have 
	alienated everyone with whom you have had any discorse.

	Since you and I can not seem to communicate evenly on the
	net, and since I don't want to add flame bait to bandwith
	I have sugessted that any real substative discsussion take
	place in E-mail.  

	I've sent you e-mail, and the only response I've gotten
	comes from your correspondents who cc me on their response.


>
>These are relevant issues Kermit.  The God you worship is very relevant
>to our discussion and to this newsgroup.  However, you again have avoided
>the issues and attack my character with out-right lies.

   Haveing attacked your chararcter, except to show by your actions and
   posts how you have appeared to me and others. I tend to prefer not
   to attack you in public.

   I've watched others "debate" you often, to only be accuesed of
   "character assination" (sic).  Has everyone who has talked with
   you been accused of attacking your lack of character?
>
>Kermit, I am really tired of this trash and mudslinging.  I am sure that
>everyone else is too.  We are here to discuss the doctrines of the LDS
>church.  However, you continue to throw undeserving mud in my face.  You
>know that your accusations are lies Kermit.  You accused me of
>plagerizing to detail, but you could not post my words and tell everyone
>just were I supposedly copied it from.  


 that's just it, We've been through this before. Your quotes from LDS
 material, have left out significant portions and used commentary
 from EV'ers books on Mormons. When you use the same fallicies and
 assumptions as in "Wittnessing to Mormons" or "Are the Mormon Scriptures
 Reliable?" [available from Zondervans and other "fine" christian bookstores]
 the examples of pure vs. white from the Book of Mormon have come from
 these "fine" books. Much of your commentary on the Book of Mormon, can
 be found in these books concept for concept, word for word, misquote
 for misquote.

 The section of "Will J. Smith have seen the Face of God" comes from
 a Lighthouse Ministry pamphlet that quouted extenstivly "Teachings of
 the Prophet Joseph Smith". The sections that would have supported the
 LDS postions were also left out of the brief as well. The missing words
 were also not in the pamphlet.

 You may not have copied in from that particular text, but that you
 would make the same errors in coping the text, and the same commentary
 does suggest something more than a coincedence, no ?


>                           I just checked my archives and it was you that
>accused Mark Fuller of being a JW.


  Yep, and I've apoligized to Mark several times (more than 5 times)
  what you like? I've never seen you apoligize to anyone for anything?
  what's _your_ point?
>
>Kermit, I don't know about your personal mail from others.  But I do know
>that everything else you are lying about, so I have good reason to
>believe that you are lying there too.  For one, I really doubt if any
>EV Christians are writing you and complaining about me.  Because I get
>letters every week letting me know I am being prayed for as I deal with
>your mud.  

	I believe that your are in the payers of a good many people. 
	I would say that most are _not_ complaining about you, but
	apoligizing for you. And in email, we have had some
	significant discussions, three people have suggested that
	discussion in E-mail with you seem to be more productive
	than anything that you have been able to do on net.

	Other have said, that your personality should not be judged
	by your on-net performance, since the rest of their posts
	in email, seem trustworthy, I've guessed that this might also
	be.

>           And if they were truly EV Christians, they would write me in
>they had a problem.  But again, I don't know for sure about your
>personal mail.  But I do know one thing.  This is not the only place
>where your accusations, lies, anger and attitude is unappreciated.
>
>Kermit, I asked you to stop your lying about me and my character and
>you just don't know where stop.  You tell me "I need to find Christ"


 [stuff deleted]

>to share with everyone, some letters that Kermit's "Brethern" have sent
>to each other about how they like his behavior. Kermit
>doesn't know that I have this stuff, so he is as surprised as you are
>right now to see that I do.  Remember as you read, these are Mormons
>talking to Mormons, about Kermit and his attitude.  Enjoy Reading.....
>
>
>
>  >Date: 01 Dec 1992 22:13:18 -0700
>  >Subject: RE: BofM & Hutchinson
>  >
>  >I was disappointed in Kermit Tensmeyer's emotional diatribe on
>  >Tony Hutchinson, myself, and others who wish to pursue honestly
>  >topics dealing with the historicity of the Book of Mormon.  I
>  >believe there is nothing uplifting nor to be gained by maligning
>  >the character of another (with whom one disagrees) in this way.
>  >The increasing ferocity of Tensmeyer's personal vindictiveness in
>  >his public postings on Mormon-L is most unfortunate.

	names here are Brent Wilson and John Pottenger

  Tony Hutchinson is a nice person, he's kind to dogs, little old ladies
  and to other Christians including Mormons. He does however represent
  a very public postions on doctrine and issues in the LDS Church.

  The question was asked how someone who took a particular psotions
  might feel about other related topics. As of yet in any forum, I haven't
  had any disagreement or any accusiation that I have misrepsented 
  Tony's beliefs or postions of the subject discussed.

  The original poster asked how someone who felt this way, might
  respond to a Nibley comment on "Joseph Smith". I think I quoted
  Tony properly and suggested that the comment was more properly
  discribe Tony himself and this is an "emotional diatribe"?


>  ...
>
>Subject: RE: BofM & Hutchinson
>
	[ Above RePost was printed twice and second copy deleted ]
>
	[ List of Hutchinson, article deleted ]

  One of the reasons that I choose to discuss Tony rather than any
  of the other set of people, that met the discussion criteria, is
  that Tony _is_ well known and speaks well of himself

  [ He also seems to worshop at the alter of his own Ego, sound familar?]


>
	Now for an entirly different subject

	From Peter Nykios:
>
>Kermit Tensmeyer sent me a somewhat nasty letter on the same subject
>before seeing the above follow-up.  The contrast between his letter
>and yours is quite striking, and reminds me of the differences I have
>seen on talk.abortion between pro-choicers and pro-lifers, on the whole.

	Peter was refering to someone in his discussion as Kermit
	possible with the last name "Rose". Reality is that there
	was a Kermit Rose communicating with him in email.

	When he quoted "Tony Rose's" material as being from Kermit, I sent
	him a rather nice mail message explaining both the error and
	the proable cause of the error.

	When he posted a response to the message that "kermit" had sent
	him, that did'nt represent my position at all, I sent him another
	nice message. The third time, I was not nearly as patient
	as I proably could have been, So the fourth time I sent an apology.
>
>Kermit, everyone can see that you are bluff and lying.  When are you
>going to stop your lying? Make a deal with you, you stop the lying and
>I won't post anymore letters like this.   


I'm not bluffing and I'm not decieving you or anyone else

Is it all clear yet?


-- 
         Kermit Tensmeyer                         | Intergraph Corporation
   klt@kt8127.b23a.ingr.com                       | Deep in Dixie
Xref: sparky talk.religion.misc:23953 alt.atheism:23802 alt.slack:3501