subject:"\[TruthTalk\] mormon angels. was\: Dave uses Socratic Method of Teaching LDS..."

How do you know, then, that what you now accept is not due for change sometime in the future? Answer: you don't. This is exactly why Paul wrote I Cor 8:1-3. 

1 Now as touching things offered unto idols, we know that we all have knowledge. Knowledge puffeth up, but charity edifieth.2 And if any man think that he knoweth any thing, he knoweth nothing yet as he ought to know.3 But if any man love God, the same is known of him.

The thoughtful believer never saw any such thing in this text, unless you try real hard to insert your private doctrine here. [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:



Yes and that thoughtful believer just might be you, Christine !! Have you ever changed your mind in regards to the meaning of a particular passage? Of course you have. How do you know, then, that 
what you now accept is not due for change sometime in the future? Answer: you don't. This is 
exactly why Paul wrote I Cor 8:1-3. To know God is to have a relationship with him. 

JD


-Original Message-From: Lance Muir [EMAIL PROTECTED]To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgSent: Wed, 25 May 2005 14:14:54 -0400Subject: Re: [Bulk] Re: [Bulk] Re: [TruthTalk] mormon angels. was: Dave uses Socratic Method of Teaching LDS doctrine on TT


Christine:Please! One need not disregard the Bible to believe anything. One
need only disregard your interpretation. What you find to be the plain
meaning of something is not necessarily what another thoughtful believe
might find. Agreed?


- Original Message - 
From: "Christine Miller" [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org
Sent: May 25, 2005 13:36
Subject: [Bulk] Re: [Bulk] Re: [TruthTalk] mormon angels. was: Dave uses
Socratic Method of Teaching LDS doctrine on TT


 http://www.towertotruth.net/Mormon/witnessing/terminology.htm

 What a wakeup call. I followed this link and found
 this:

 JESUS CHRIST:

 LDS--A created being, the first spirit child of Elohim
 and one of his wives, the spirit brother of Lucifer
 the devil.

 So Jesus and Satan are BROTHERS? I thought Jesus was
 my brother: Romans 8:29, "For whom he did foreknow, he
 also did predestinate to be conformed to the image of
 his Son, that he might be the firstborn among many
 brethren." Paul is clearly talking about our adoption
 by God the Father, who becomes our Father when we
 "receive" His son (John 1:12) when he says earlier in
 verse 19: "For as many as are led by the Spirit of
 God, they are the sons of God." Lucifer is not led by
 God's Spirit. He is engages in warfare against God's
 Spirit. And he certainly has not received Jesus.

 To believe these things, one must first disregard the
 Bible.

 Blessings,

 Christine

 --- Kevin Deegan [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

  There was a significant word game going on when I
  first arrived on this forum. LDS using words that
  seemed intended to cloak the true LDS understanding.
  I think the christians here have a far better
  understanding of mormonism now then in past years
 
  There are words that are familiar to christians that
  have a different meaning to LDS
  Word   Christian  LDS meaning
  Gentile NON Jew - NON LDS
  angel  created spirit being  - ressurected man
  Virgin birth
  Gospel
  Fall bad -good
  Jesus Christ
  Godhead Trinity - committee composed of gods
  including SATAN
  council in heaven - The meeting in the premortal
  life of the Godhead and spirits designated for this
  earth, in which the plan of salvation was presented.
 
 
 http://www.lightplanet.com/mormons/basic/premortal/Council_EOM.htm
  At a certain point in the council, the Father asked,
  "Whom shall I send [as the Redeemer]?" Jesus Christ,
  known then as the great I AM and as Jehovah,
  answered, "Here am I, send me," and agreed to follow
  the Father's plan (Moses 4:1-4; Abr. 3:27). As a
  counter-measure, Lucifer offered himself and an
  amendment to the Father's plan of saving mankind
  that would not respect their agency
 
 
 http://www.towertotruth.net/Mormon/witnessing/terminology.htm
 
 
  Charles Perry Locke [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
  David, Dave is smarter than you are giving him
  credit for being. He knows
  what he is doing. He is playing a word game. I have
  no problem with him
  pushing his mormon views into the discussions
  here...I just want him to
  acknowledge that is what he is doing. He is
  intentionally misinterpreting
  this as my not wanting him to espouse mormonism on
  the forum. That is NOT my
  goal. My goal is to get him to own his actions. To
  say he is NOT pushing
  mormonism, then push it anyway is disengenuous.
  Then, to turn it around as
  though I do not welcome his mormon views is a lie.
 
  Perry
 
  From: "David Miller"
  Reply-To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org
  To:
  Subject: Re: [Bulk] Re: [TruthTalk] mormon angels.
  was: Dave uses Socratic
  Method of Teaching LDS doctrine on TT
  Date: Wed, 25 May 2005 09:09:31 -0400
  
  DaveH wrote:
Apparently many TTers wa

Re: [Bulk] Re: [Bulk] Re: [TruthTalk] mormon angels. was: Dave uses Socratic Method of Teaching LDS doctrine on TT

Anyone who got it right the first time is just mistaken according to your personal excuse theory. It explains why you have drifted from one doctrine to another and.
Paul the Apostle got it right the first time because flesh  blood did not reveal it to him. he did not teach doctrines of men. 
How did he know, he had it right? The same way any true christian knows. He had the asurance of God through His word  His Spirit.
What Paul taught was it up for future revision? Was he blown around like you?
Are the doctrines of God due for a change as often as you change yours?

Mk 1:27 And they were all amazed, insomuch that they questioned among themselves, saying, What thing is this? what new doctrine is this?

YOU NEED SOME GOOD DOCTRINE
Pr 4:2 For I give you good doctrine, forsake ye not my law.
Mt 15;9 But in vain they do worship me, teaching for doctrines the commandments of men.
STOP TEACHING OTHER DOCTRINES
YOU BE THE MINISTER of QUESTIONS!

1 Ti 1:3 But in vain they do worship me, teaching for doctrines the commandments of men.
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:



Yes and that thoughtful believer just might be you, Christine !! Have you ever changed your mind in regards to the meaning of a particular passage? Of course you have. How do you know, then, that 
what you now accept is not due for change sometime in the future? Answer: you don't. This is exactly why Paul wrote I Cor 8:1-3. To know God is to have a relationship with him. 

JD


-Original Message-From: Lance Muir [EMAIL PROTECTED]To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgSent: Wed, 25 May 2005 14:14:54 -0400Subject: Re: [Bulk] Re: [Bulk] Re: [TruthTalk] mormon angels. was: Dave uses Socratic Method of Teaching LDS doctrine on TT


Christine:Please! One need not disregard the Bible to believe anything. One
need only disregard your interpretation. What you find to be the plain
meaning of something is not necessarily what another thoughtful believe
might find. Agreed?


- Original Message - 
From: "Christine Miller" [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org
Sent: May 25, 2005 13:36
Subject: [Bulk] Re: [Bulk] Re: [TruthTalk] mormon angels. was: Dave uses
Socratic Method of Teaching LDS doctrine on TT


 http://www.towertotruth.net/Mormon/witnessing/terminology.htm

 What a wakeup call. I followed this link and found
 this:

 JESUS CHRIST:

 LDS--A created being, the first spirit child of Elohim
 and one of his wives, the spirit brother of Lucifer
 the devil.

 So Jesus and Satan are BROTHERS? I thought Jesus was
 my brother: Romans 8:29, "For whom he did foreknow, he
 also did predestinate to be conformed to the image of
 his Son, that he might be the firstborn among many
 brethren." Paul is clearly talking about our adoption
 by God the Father, who becomes our Father when we
 "receive" His son (John 1:12) when he says earlier in
 verse 19: "For as many as are led by the Spirit of
 God, they are the sons of God." Lucifer is not led by
 God's Spirit. He is engages in warfare against God's
 Spirit. And he certainly has not received Jesus.

 To believe these things, one must first disregard the
 Bible.

 Blessings,

 Christine

 --- Kevin Deegan [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

  There was a significant word game going on when I
  first arrived on this forum. LDS using words that
  seemed intended to cloak the true LDS understanding.
  I think the christians here have a far better
  understanding of mormonism now then in past years
 
  There are words that are familiar to christians that
  have a different meaning to LDS
  Word   Christian  LDS meaning
  Gentile NON Jew - NON LDS
  angel  created spirit being  - ressurected man
  Virgin birth
  Gospel
  Fall bad -good
  Jesus Christ
  Godhead Trinity - committee composed of gods
  including SATAN
  council in heaven - The meeting in the premortal
  life of the Godhead and spirits designated for this
  earth, in which the plan of salvation was presented.
 
 
 http://www.lightplanet.com/mormons/basic/premortal/Council_EOM.htm
  At a certain point in the council, the Father asked,
  "Whom shall I send [as the Redeemer]?" Jesus Christ,
  known then as the great I AM and as Jehovah,
  answered, "Here am I, send me," and agreed to follow
  the Father's plan (Moses 4:1-4; Abr. 3:27). As a
  counter-measure, Lucifer offered himself and an
  amendment to the Father's plan of saving mankind
  that would not respect their agency
 
 
 http://www.towertotruth.net/Mormon/witnessing/terminology.htm
 
 
  Charles Perry Locke [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
  David, Dave is smarter than you are giving him
  credit for being. He knows
  what he is doing. He is playing a word game. I have
  no problem with him
  pushing his mormon views into the discussions
  here...I just want him to
  acknowledge that is what he is doing. He is
  intentionally misinterpreting
  this as my not wanting him to espouse mormonism on
  the forum. That is NOT my
  goal. My goal

Re: [TruthTalk] mormon angels. was: Dave uses Socratic Method of Teaching LDS...

ALL current prophets disown the doctrine.
What about past prophets?
The prophet will just sometimes lead astray then??
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:



Kevion wrote: Adam God is even in your standard works, hardly "a little vague"

Blaine:Really? Where? To my knowledge, it is not and never was in any standard work of the Church, eg, the Book of Mormon, the DC,theP of GP, definitely not in the Bible (also a Standard Work).What little bit there was to it in any other written form went the way of Brigham Young and a few others of his generation--it died a long time ago, or would have but for enemies of the Church who still use it to grind their axes on. ALL current prophets disown the doctrine. It was never accepted by the church membership as an official doctrine. Please note the name of the Church--The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints--no doctrine is official unless voted on and sustained by the general Church membership, and this just never happened, regardless of what a few
 promoters of the doctrine may have tried to do. So, Kevin, ol' bud, just give it up.You sound like the man who tries to prove Elvis is still alive, despite all the evidence that he died, is buried, and his body is rotting in a grave (and his soul is probably rotting in HELL!).


In a message dated 5/24/2005 11:16:32 PM Mountain Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:

Maybe Brigham was being a little vague in referring to him as a "God," 

"He is our Father and our God, and the only God with whom we have to do." 

The prophets called him God and a bunch of your offshoots say that the utah LDS are apostates for not following these prophets.
Adam God is even in your standard works, hardly "a little vague"
It was taught in general Conference
“never yet preached a sermon and sent out to the children of men that they may not call Scripture.” Young
It was doctrine not Theory
"Now, let all who may hear these doctrines, pause before they make light of them, or treat them with indifference, for they will prove their salvation or damnation." Young
It was taught for a number of years by a number of prophets

__Do You Yahoo!?Tired of spam?  Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com

Re: [TruthTalk] mormon angels. was: Dave uses Socratic Method of Teaching LDS...

ALL current prophets disown the doctrine.
What about past prophets?
The prophet will just sometimes lead astray then??
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:



Kevion wrote: Adam God is even in your standard works, hardly "a little vague"

Blaine:Really? Where? To my knowledge, it is not and never was in any standard work of the Church, eg, the Book of Mormon, the DC,theP of GP, definitely not in the Bible (also a Standard Work).What little bit there was to it in any other written form went the way of Brigham Young and a few others of his generation--it died a long time ago, or would have but for enemies of the Church who still use it to grind their axes on. ALL current prophets disown the doctrine. It was never accepted by the church membership as an official doctrine. Please note the name of the Church--The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints--no doctrine is official unless voted on and sustained by the general Church membership, and this just never happened, regardless of what a few
 promoters of the doctrine may have tried to do. So, Kevin, ol' bud, just give it up.You sound like the man who tries to prove Elvis is still alive, despite all the evidence that he died, is buried, and his body is rotting in a grave (and his soul is probably rotting in HELL!).


In a message dated 5/24/2005 11:16:32 PM Mountain Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:

Maybe Brigham was being a little vague in referring to him as a "God," 

"He is our Father and our God, and the only God with whom we have to do." 

The prophets called him God and a bunch of your offshoots say that the utah LDS are apostates for not following these prophets.
Adam God is even in your standard works, hardly "a little vague"
It was taught in general Conference
“never yet preached a sermon and sent out to the children of men that they may not call Scripture.” Young
It was doctrine not Theory
"Now, let all who may hear these doctrines, pause before they make light of them, or treat them with indifference, for they will prove their salvation or damnation." Young
It was taught for a number of years by a number of prophets

__Do You Yahoo!?Tired of spam?  Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com

Re: [TruthTalk] mormon angels. was: Dave uses Socratic Method of Teaching LDS...

Joseph Smith also declared, "I believe the Bible as it read when it came from the pen of the original writers. Ignorant translators, careless transcribers, or designing and corrupt priests have committed many errors" (Translation of Prophet Joseph Smith, p. 327).

Apostle Mark E. Peterson said, "Many insertions were made, some of them 'slanted' for selfish purposes, while at times deliberate falsifications and fabrications were perpetrated" (As Translated Correctly, p. 4).

Apostle Orson Pratt stated: "If it be admitted that the apostles and evangelists did write the books of the New Testament, that does not prove of itself that they were divinely inspired at the time they wrote Add all this imperfection to the uncertainty of the translation, and who, IN HIS RIGHT MIND could for one moment suppose the Bible in its present form to be a perfect guide? Who knows that even one verse of the Bible has escaped pollution, so as to convey the same sense now that it did in the original?" (Divine Authority of the Book of Mormon, pp. 45, 47)

LDS Apostle Orson Pratt further proclaimed, "The Bible has been robbed of its plainness; many sacred books having been lost, others rejected by the Romish Church, and what few we have left, were copied and re-copied so many times, that it is admitted that almost every verse has been corrupted and mutilated to that degree that scarcely any two of them read alike" (The Seer, p. 213)

BOM, II Nephi 29:6-10 (Pg.110), "Thou fool, that shall say: A Bible, we have got a Bible and we need no more Bible Wherefore because that ye have a Bible ye need not suppose that it contains all my words; neither need ye suppose that I have not caused more to be written."

Joseph Smith stated: "it was apparent that many important points touching the salvation of men, had been taken from the Bible, or lost before it was compiled" (Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, p.10)
When: "the book [Bible] proceeded forth from the mouth of a Jew...it contained the fullness of the gospel of the Lord, of whom the twelve apostles bear record" (1 Nephi 13:24), but afterwards "thou seest the formation of that great and abominable church...after the book hath gone forth through the hands of the great and abominable church, that there are many plain and precious things taken away from the book, which is the book of the Lamb of God. And after these plain and precious things were taken away it goeth forth unto all the nations of the Gentiles" (Book of Mormon, 1 Nephi 13:26,28). See also Doctrines of Salvation, vol.3, p.190-191. "many of the Gentiles shall say: A Bible! A Bible! We have got a Bible, and there cannot be any more Bible...Wherefore because that ye have a Bible ye need not suppose that it contains all my words; neither need ye suppose that I have not caused more to be written" (Book of Mormon, 2 Nephi 29:3,10).
When his "revelation" about Adam being God was disputed, Brigham Young stated: "You believe Adam was made of the dust of this earth. This I do not believe...I have publicly declared that I do not believe that portion of the Bible as the Christian world do. I never did, and I never want to. What is the reason I do not? Because I have come to understanding, and banished from my mind all the baby stories my mother taught me when I was a child" (Journal of Discourses, vol.2, p.6).
Orson Pratt's lack of confidence in the Bible is obvious: "...and who, in his right mind, could for one moment, suppose the Bible in its present form to be a perfect guide? No one can tell whether even one verse of either the Old or New Testament conveys the ideas of the original author" (Journal of Discourses, vol. 7, p. 28).
Apostle Bruce McConkie: "Ignorant translators, careless transcribers, or designing and corrupt priests have committed many errors, many plain and precious things were deleted, in consequence of which error and falsehood poured into the churches. One of the great heresies of modern Christendom is the unfounded assumption that the Bible contains all of the inspired teachings now extant among men" (Mormon Doctrine, pp. 82,83).
McConkie continues: The Bible of the Old World has come to us from the manuscripts of antiquity - manuscripts which passed through the hands of uninspired men who changed many parts to suit their own doctrinal ideas. Deletions were common, and, as it now stands, many plain and precious portions and many covenants of the Lord have been lost. As a consequence, those who rely upon it [the Bible] alone stumble and are confused... (The Ensign, December 1985, p 55).

Comparisons made by Mormon Leaders between the Bible and Book of Mormon---President Ezra Taft Benson stated: "Unlike the Bible, which passed through generations of copyists, translators, and corrupt religionists who tampered with the text, the Book of Mormon came from writer to reader in just one inspired step of translation" ("The Keystone of Our

Re: [Bulk] Re: [Bulk] Re: [TruthTalk] mormon angels. was: Dave uses Socratic Method of Teaching LDS doctrine on TT

American Heritage
SIMILAR:Related in appearance or nature; alike though not identical. Dave Hansen [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
DAVEH: Christine, how do you understand Job 1:6Now thee was a day when the sons of God came to present themselves before the Lord, and Satan came also among them.Do you believe the sons of God are similar in context as are the children of God?Christine Miller wrote: 
 The Bible is very clear on what it means to be a child
of God and a brother of Jesus. It requires
interpretation to communicate at all, but when
something is stated blankly (John 1:12), how much spin
can we add before we are misinterpreting? Perhaps I
could have said "misinterpret" instead of "disregard,"
but I do believe the Mormons are genuinely ignoring
the Bible's stance on this one. 

Blessings!
  -- 
~~~
Dave Hansen
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.langlitz.com
~~~
If you wish to receive
things I find interesting,
I maintain six email lists...
JOKESTER, OPINIONS, LDS,
STUFF, MOTORCYCLE and CLIPS.
		Discover Yahoo! 
Have fun online with music videos, cool games, IM & more. Check it out!

Re: [TruthTalk] mormon angels. was: Dave uses Socratic Method of Teaching LDS...

2005-05-30 Thread Charles Perry Locke

Is corrected edition of the Inspired Version an oxymormon?

From: Kevin Deegan [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Reply-To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org
To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] mormon angels. was: Dave uses Socratic Method of 
Teaching LDS...

Date: Mon, 30 May 2005 19:08:00 -0700 (PDT)

Joseph Smith also declared, I believe the Bible as it read when it came 
from the pen of the original writers. Ignorant translators, careless 
transcribers, or designing and corrupt priests have committed many errors 
(Translation of Prophet Joseph Smith, p. 327).

Apostle Mark E. Peterson said, Many insertions were made, some of them 
'slanted' for selfish purposes, while at times deliberate falsifications 
and fabrications were perpetrated (As Translated Correctly, p. 4).

Apostle Orson Pratt stated: If it be admitted that the apostles and 
evangelists did write the books of the New Testament, that does not prove 
of itself that they were divinely inspired at the time they wrote Add 
all this imperfection to the uncertainty of the translation, and who, IN 
HIS RIGHT MIND could for one moment suppose the Bible in its present form 
to be a perfect guide? Who knows that even one verse of the Bible has 
escaped pollution, so as to convey the same sense now that it did in the 
original? (Divine Authority of the Book of Mormon, pp. 45, 47)

LDS Apostle Orson Pratt further proclaimed, The Bible has been robbed of 
its plainness; many sacred books having been lost, others rejected by the 
Romish Church, and what few we have left, were copied and re-copied so many 
times, that it is admitted that almost every verse has been corrupted and 
mutilated to that degree that scarcely any two of them read alike (The 
Seer, p. 213)

BOM, II Nephi 29:6-10 (Pg.110), Thou fool, that shall say: A Bible, we 
have got a Bible and we need no more Bible Wherefore because that ye have 
a Bible ye need not suppose that it contains all my words; neither need ye 
suppose that I have not caused more to be written.

Joseph Smith stated: it was apparent that many important points touching 
the salvation of men, had been taken from the Bible, or lost before it was 
compiled (Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, p.10)

When: the book [Bible] proceeded forth from the mouth of a Jew...it 
contained the fullness of the gospel of the Lord, of whom the twelve 
apostles bear record (1 Nephi 13:24), but afterwards thou seest the 
formation of that great and abominable church...after the book hath gone 
forth through the hands of the great and abominable church, that there are 
many plain and precious things taken away from the book, which is the book 
of the Lamb of God. And after these plain and precious things were taken 
away it goeth forth unto all the nations of the Gentiles (Book of Mormon, 
1 Nephi 13:26,28). See also Doctrines of Salvation, vol.3, p.190-191.
many of the Gentiles shall say: A Bible! A Bible! We have got a Bible, and 
there cannot be any more Bible...Wherefore because that ye have a Bible ye 
need not suppose that it contains all my words; neither need ye suppose 
that I have not caused more to be written (Book of Mormon, 2 Nephi 
29:3,10).

When his revelation about Adam being God was disputed, Brigham Young 
stated: You believe Adam was made of the dust of this earth. This I do not 
believe...I have publicly declared that I do not believe that portion of 
the Bible as the Christian world do. I never did, and I never want to. What 
is the reason I do not? Because I have come to understanding, and banished 
from my mind all the baby stories my mother taught me when I was a child 
(Journal of Discourses, vol.2, p.6).
Orson Pratt's lack of confidence in the Bible is obvious: ...and who, in 
his right mind, could for one moment, suppose the Bible in its present form 
to be a perfect guide? No one can tell whether even one verse of either the 
Old or New Testament conveys the ideas of the original author (Journal of 
Discourses, vol. 7, p. 28).
Apostle Bruce McConkie: Ignorant translators, careless transcribers, or 
designing and corrupt priests have committed many errors, many plain and 
precious things were deleted, in consequence of which error and falsehood 
poured into the churches. One of the great heresies of modern Christendom 
is the unfounded assumption that the Bible contains all of the inspired 
teachings now extant among men (Mormon Doctrine, pp. 82,83).
McConkie continues: The Bible of the Old World has come to us from the 
manuscripts of antiquity - manuscripts which passed through the hands of 
uninspired men who changed many parts to suit their own doctrinal ideas. 
Deletions were common, and, as it now stands, many plain and precious 
portions and many covenants of the Lord have been lost. As a consequence, 
those who rely upon it [the Bible] alone stumble and are confused... (The 
Ensign, December 1985, p 55).

Comparisons made by Mormon Leaders between the Bible and Book of Mormon

Re: [Bulk] [TruthTalk] mormon angels. was: Dave uses Socratic Method of Teaching LDS doctrine on TT

2005-05-29 Thread Lance Muir




I do understand why you cite scripture. I've not 
questioned your heart on the matter. (others have and, I disagree with them on 
this). I suspect that there is not much 'space' between that which you believe 
and that which you do.

  - Original Message - 
  From: 
  Judy 
  Taylor 
  To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org 
  
  Cc: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org 
  
  Sent: May 28, 2005 17:54
  Subject: [Bulk] [TruthTalk] mormon 
  angels. was: Dave uses Socratic Method of Teaching LDS doctrine on TT
  
  I don't cite scripture to support some position or 
  other outside of it. My aim in life is to be a "doer" of God's 
  Word
  rather than a self deceived hearer only. IMO 
  you paint with one of the broadest brushes ever Lance. "Genuine" believer is 
  not the point. What they believe genuinely is the problem too many 
  times. Look at Israel who had the Law and the Prophets but did not 
  recognize the Word of God as He walked amongst them. jt
  
  
  From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
  [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Lance 
  MuirAny inclination, Judy, to tell us 
  that, in all cases, when you cite Scripture in support of some position or 
  other, that that citation is, in reality, the sole meaning of that/those 
  Scripture(s)? Do you at least acknowledge that diverse understandings exist, 
  by genuine believers (exclude me if need be) on TT? How 'bout 
  BSF?
  

From: Judy 
Taylor 

  
  
  
  It's only IYO Lance because your 
  own lack of understanding stands out like a sore thumb most of the 
  time
  
  
  and because all you will accept is 
  your own theology there will never be other than theological Babel in your 
  eyes.
  
  
  
  On Fri, 27 May 2005 05:23:40 -0400 "Lance Muir" 
  [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
  writes:
  

There are a variety of 
understandings forSatan in Job, the serpent in Genesis, the 
Nephilim in Genesis and on and on...Why it is that some balk at 
my little formula continues to puzzle me when, IMO, all TT participants 
demonstrate it's accuracy regularly. (Text + believer + Spirit + 
tradition (optional) = theological Babel)

  
  From: 
  Dave 
  Hansen 
  
  DAVEH: Thanx for 
  your reply, Christine. I hope somebody else will give me some 
  insight as to how non-LDS folks perceive this.Christine Miller 
  wrote: 
  

Hm. Actually, Dave, I do not 
know how to answer you. I remember God constantly referred to 
Ezekiel as "Son of Man," so there is a distinction made in the Old 
Testament, where "sons of God"seemed to meanangels (for 
instance, in Gen. 6 where the sons of God looked upon the daughters 
of man as fair).It seems the New Testament speaks of a 
spiritual adoption.However, I'm not sure I have offered a full 
explanation of my stance. 



Are there anyTTers 
whomightwish toofferwisdom here? How do the 
"sons of God" in the OT differ from the "sons of God" in the 
NT?



BlessingsDave Hansen [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
wrote:

  DAVEH: Christine, 
  how do you understand Job 1:6Now thee was a day when the sons of God came to present 
  themselves before the Lord, and Satan came also among 
  them.Do you believe the sons of God are similar in 
  context as are the children of 
  God?Christine Miller wrote: 
  The Bible is very clear on what it means to be a childof God and a brother of Jesus. It requiresinterpretation to communicate at all, but whensomething is stated blankly (John 1:12), how much spincan we add before we are misinterpreting? Perhaps Icould have said "misinterpret" instead of "disregard,"but I do believe the Mormons are genuinely ignoringthe Bible's stance on this one. Blessings! 
  -- ~~~Dave Hansen[EMAIL PROTECTED]http://www.langlitz.com~~~If you wish to receivethings I find interesting,I maintain six email lists...JOKESTER, OPINIONS, LDS,STUFF, MOTORCYCLE and CLIPS.

Re: [Bulk] Re: [TruthTalk] mormon angels. was: Dave uses Socratic Method of Teaching LDS doctrine on TT

2005-05-28 Thread Lance Muir

Let's assume that it doesn't originate with the 'E-man'. That's not the
issue at hand, David. Certainty, as you understand it, is is a reductionist
expression of the truth.. Said 'nother way: 'When you equate your
statement(s) of the truth  with the truth  you've already begun to move from
the truth. Bin there, done that, David. You are, as to your expression of
the truth, a rationalist. You are not such in the life you live. This then,
would also classify you a dualist.


- Original Message - 
From: David Miller [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org
Sent: May 27, 2005 23:15
Subject: [Bulk] Re: [TruthTalk] mormon angels. was: Dave uses Socratic
Method of Teaching LDS doctrine on TT


 Lance wrote:
  Do remember wont't you that if a thing is certain
  then, it is not true and, if it is true then it is not certain.
  It is from Einstein. truth/certainty thingy.

 Now you really are confused.  Would you be so kind as to provide a
reference
 for that?  Good Luck!

 Peace be with you.
 David Miller.


 --
 Let your speech be always with grace, seasoned with salt, that you may
know how you ought to answer every man.  (Colossians 4:6)
http://www.InnGlory.org

 If you do not want to receive posts from this list, send an email to
[EMAIL PROTECTED] and you will be unsubscribed.  If you have a
friend who wants to join, tell him to send an e-mail to
[EMAIL PROTECTED] and he will be subscribed.


--
Let your speech be always with grace, seasoned with salt, that you may know 
how you ought to answer every man.  (Colossians 4:6) http://www.InnGlory.org

If you do not want to receive posts from this list, send an email to [EMAIL 
PROTECTED] and you will be unsubscribed.  If you have a friend who wants to 
join, tell him to send an e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and he will be subscribed.

Re: [Bulk] Re: [Bulk] Re: [TruthTalk] mormon angels. was: Dave uses Socratic Method of Teaching LDS doctrine on TT

2005-05-28 Thread knpraise


Christine -- did you reply to this post or does Pops mirror you view?

JD-Original Message-From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgSent: Wed, 25 May 2005 17:46:16 -0400Subject: Re: [Bulk] Re: [Bulk] Re: [TruthTalk] mormon angels. was: Dave uses Socratic Method of Teaching LDS doctrine on TT





Yes and that thoughtful believer just might be you, Christine !! Have you ever changed your mind 
in regards to the meaning of a particular passage? Of course you have. How do you know, then, that 
what you now accept is not due for change sometime in the future? Answer: you don't. This is 
exactly why Paul wrote I Cor 8:1-3. To know God is to have a relationship with him. 

JD


-Original Message-From: Lance Muir [EMAIL PROTECTED]To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgSent: Wed, 25 May 2005 14:14:54 -0400Subject: Re: [Bulk] Re: [Bulk] Re: [TruthTalk] mormon angels. was: Dave uses Socratic Method of Teaching LDS doctrine on TT


Christine:Please! One need not disregard the Bible to believe anything. One
need only disregard your interpretation. What you find to be the plain
meaning of something is not necessarily what another thoughtful believe
might find. Agreed?


- Original Message - 
From: "Christine Miller" [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org
Sent: May 25, 2005 13:36
Subject: [Bulk] Re: [Bulk] Re: [TruthTalk] mormon angels. was: Dave uses
Socratic Method of Teaching LDS doctrine on TT


 http://www.towertotruth.net/Mormon/witnessing/terminology.htm

 What a wakeup call. I followed this link and found
 this:

 JESUS CHRIST:

 LDS--A created being, the first spirit child of Elohim
 and one of his wives, the spirit brother of Lucifer
 the devil.

 So Jesus and Satan are BROTHERS? I thought Jesus was
 my brother: Romans 8:29, "For whom he did foreknow, he
 also did predestinate to be conformed to the image of
 his Son, that he might be the firstborn among many
 brethren." Paul is clearly talking about our adoption
 by God the Father, who becomes our Father when we
 "receive" His son (John 1:12) when he says earlier in
 verse 19: "For as many as are led by the Spirit of
 God, they are the sons of God." Lucifer is not led by
 God's Spirit. He is engages in warfare against God's
 Spirit. And he certainly has not received Jesus.

 To believe these things, one must first disregard the
 Bible.

 Blessings,

 Christine

 --- Kevin Deegan [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

  There was a significant word game going on when I
  first arrived on this forum. LDS using words that
  seemed intended to cloak the true LDS understanding.
  I think the christians here have a far better
  understanding of mormonism now then in past years
 
  There are words that are familiar to christians that
  have a different meaning to LDS
  Word   Christian  LDS meaning
  Gentile NON Jew - NON LDS
  angel  created spirit being  - ressurected man
  Virgin birth
  Gospel
  Fall bad -good
  Jesus Christ
  Godhead Trinity - committee composed of gods
  including SATAN
  council in heaven - The meeting in the premortal
  life of the Godhead and spirits designated for this
  earth, in which the plan of salvation was presented.
 
 
 http://www.lightplanet.com/mormons/basic/premortal/Council_EOM.htm
  At a certain point in the council, the Father asked,
  "Whom shall I send [as the Redeemer]?" Jesus Christ,
  known then as the great I AM and as Jehovah,
  answered, "Here am I, send me," and agreed to follow
  the Father's plan (Moses 4:1-4; Abr. 3:27). As a
  counter-measure, Lucifer offered himself and an
  amendment to the Father's plan of saving mankind
  that would not respect their agency
 
 
 http://www.towertotruth.net/Mormon/witnessing/terminology.htm
 
 
  Charles Perry Locke [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
  David, Dave is smarter than you are giving him
  credit for being. He knows
  what he is doing. He is playing a word game. I have
  no problem with him
  pushing his mormon views into the discussions
  here...I just want him to
  acknowledge that is what he is doing. He is
  intentionally misinterpreting
  this as my not wanting him to espouse mormonism on
  the forum. That is NOT my
  goal. My goal is to get him to own his actions. To
  say he is NOT pushing
  mormonism, then push it anyway is disengenuous.
  Then, to turn it around as
  though I do not welcome his mormon views is a lie.
 
  Perry
 
  From: "David Miller"
  Reply-To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org
  To:
  Subject: Re: [Bulk] Re: [TruthTalk] mormon angels.
  was: Dave uses Socratic
  Method of Teaching LDS doctrine on TT
  Date: Wed, 25 May 2005 09:09:31 -0400
  
  DaveH wrote:
Apparently many TTers want me to teach LDS
  theology on
TT, yet some wish to criticize me for complying
  with their wishes.
Seems like a no win situation, eh Lance.
  
  Let me clarify yet again what TruthTalk is all
  about and Dave Hansen's
  situation in regards to this foru

Re: [Bulk] Re: [Bulk] Re: [Bulk] Re: [TruthTalk] mormon angels. was: Dave uses Socratic Method of Teaching LDS doctrine on TT

2005-05-28 Thread David Miller

John wrote:
 Zephaniah 3 is a passage written to Judah about
 600 years before the coming of the kingdom.
 It has nothing to do with refuting  the good Canadian
 Bishops formula.

Being written 600 years ago does not mean the passage is irrelevant.  The 
passage is a prophecy about the gift of the Holy Ghost and speaking in 
tongues, much like Isaiah 28:11,12 is.  It is about God undoing Babel, which 
is what Lance was talking about.  I was not trying to refute Lance.  I was 
hoping to illuminate his understanding, or if not him, the understanding of 
those who have ears to hear.

Peace be with you.
David Miller. 


--
Let your speech be always with grace, seasoned with salt, that you may know 
how you ought to answer every man.  (Colossians 4:6) http://www.InnGlory.org

If you do not want to receive posts from this list, send an email to [EMAIL 
PROTECTED] and you will be unsubscribed.  If you have a friend who wants to 
join, tell him to send an e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and he will be subscribed.

Re: [Bulk] Re: [Bulk] Re: [Bulk] Re: [Bulk] Re: [TruthTalk] mormon angels. was: Dave uses Socratic Method of Teaching LDS doctrine on TT

2005-05-28 Thread Lance Muir

DM speaks of 'those' who have ears to hear. Mayhap it depends somewhat on
those who, may I be so bold as to say, 'tongues which utter something worth
hearing' or, that which is, in and of itself, true. You presume to speak
'truth' Mr. Miller. Sometimes you do. Sometimes you do not.It's the 'do not'
content that people choose not to 'hear'. This has been demonstrated by:
Gary, Jonathan, Bill, John, Caroline and Debbie, on occasion.


- Original Message - 
From: David Miller [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org
Sent: May 28, 2005 10:56
Subject: [Bulk] Re: [Bulk] Re: [Bulk] Re: [Bulk] Re: [TruthTalk] mormon
angels. was: Dave uses Socratic Method of Teaching LDS doctrine on TT


 John wrote:
  Zephaniah 3 is a passage written to Judah about
  600 years before the coming of the kingdom.
  It has nothing to do with refuting  the good Canadian
  Bishops formula.

 Being written 600 years ago does not mean the passage is irrelevant.  The
 passage is a prophecy about the gift of the Holy Ghost and speaking in
 tongues, much like Isaiah 28:11,12 is.  It is about God undoing Babel,
which
 is what Lance was talking about.  I was not trying to refute Lance.  I was
 hoping to illuminate his understanding, or if not him, the understanding
of
 those who have ears to hear.

 Peace be with you.
 David Miller.


 --
 Let your speech be always with grace, seasoned with salt, that you may
know how you ought to answer every man.  (Colossians 4:6)
http://www.InnGlory.org

 If you do not want to receive posts from this list, send an email to
[EMAIL PROTECTED] and you will be unsubscribed.  If you have a
friend who wants to join, tell him to send an e-mail to
[EMAIL PROTECTED] and he will be subscribed.


--
Let your speech be always with grace, seasoned with salt, that you may know 
how you ought to answer every man.  (Colossians 4:6) http://www.InnGlory.org

If you do not want to receive posts from this list, send an email to [EMAIL 
PROTECTED] and you will be unsubscribed.  If you have a friend who wants to 
join, tell him to send an e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and he will be subscribed.

Re: [Bulk] Re: [Bulk] Re: [Bulk] Re: [Bulk] Re: [TruthTalk] mormon angels. was: Dave uses Socratic Method of Teaching LDS doctrine on TT

2005-05-28 Thread knpraise


Esoteric is your only defense for such claims, DM. The kingdom age is not an extention of the OT economyexcept in the sense of the egg and the chicken. Eggs are one thing -- youdeal with in ways that are very different from the next level of life - the chicken. The New Covenant is that different.Is 28 is not so much a "prophecy" as it is an illustration of the same kind of activity. Paul does, in deed, use Is 28:11ff to argue(essentially ) thisactivity is nothing new. I find no textual justification for your use of Zeph 3:6ff.What is your hermeneutice for such -- or is it only exoteric? 

JD-Original Message-From: Lance Muir [EMAIL PROTECTED]To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgSent: Sat, 28 May 2005 11:12:33 -0400Subject: Re: [Bulk] Re: [Bulk] Re: [Bulk] Re: [Bulk] Re: [TruthTalk] mormon angels. was: Dave uses Socratic Method of Teaching LDS doctrine on TT


DM speaks of 'those' who have ears to hear. Mayhap it depends somewhat on
those who, may I be so bold as to say, 'tongues which utter something worth
hearing' or, that which is, in and of itself, true. You presume to speak
'truth' Mr. Miller. Sometimes you do. Sometimes you do not.It's the 'do not'
content that people choose not to 'hear'. This has been demonstrated by:
Gary, Jonathan, Bill, John, Caroline and Debbie, on occasion.


- Original Message - 
From: "David Miller" [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org
Sent: May 28, 2005 10:56
Subject: [Bulk] Re: [Bulk] Re: [Bulk] Re: [Bulk] Re: [TruthTalk] mormon
angels. was: Dave uses Socratic Method of Teaching LDS doctrine on TT


 John wrote:
  Zephaniah 3 is a passage written to Judah about
  600 years before the coming of the kingdom.
  It has nothing to do with refuting  the good Canadian
  Bishops formula.

 Being written 600 years ago does not mean the passage is irrelevant.  The
 passage is a prophecy about the gift of the Holy Ghost and speaking in
 tongues, much like Isaiah 28:11,12 is.  It is about God undoing Babel,
which
 is what Lance was talking about.  I was not trying to refute Lance.  I was
 hoping to illuminate his understanding, or if not him, the understanding
of
 those who have ears to hear.

 Peace be with you.
 David Miller.


 --
 "Let your speech be always with grace, seasoned with salt, that you may
know how you ought to answer every man."  (Colossians 4:6)
http://www.InnGlory.org

 If you do not want to receive posts from this list, send an email to
[EMAIL PROTECTED] and you will be unsubscribed.  If you have a
friend who wants to join, tell him to send an e-mail to
[EMAIL PROTECTED] and he will be subscribed.


--
"Let your speech be always with grace, seasoned with salt, that you may know how 
you ought to answer every man."  (Colossians 4:6) http://www.InnGlory.org

If you do not want to receive posts from this list, send an email to 
[EMAIL PROTECTED] and you will be unsubscribed.  If you have a friend 
who wants to join, tell him to send an e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and 
he will be subscribed.

[TruthTalk] mormon angels. was: Dave uses Socratic Method of Teaching LDS doctrine on TT

2005-05-28 Thread Judy Taylor




I don't cite scripture to support some position or 
other outside of it. My aim in life is to be a "doer" of God's Word
rather than a self deceived hearer only. IMO you 
paint with one of the broadest brushes ever Lance. "Genuine" believer is not the 
point. What they believe genuinely is the problem too many times. 
Look at Israel who had the Law and the Prophets but did not recognize the Word 
of God as He walked amongst them. jt


From: 
[EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
On Behalf Of Lance 
MuirAny inclination, Judy, to tell us 
that, in all cases, when you cite Scripture in support of some position or 
other, that that citation is, in reality, the sole meaning of that/those 
Scripture(s)? Do you at least acknowledge that diverse understandings exist, by 
genuine believers (exclude me if need be) on TT? How 'bout 
BSF?

  
  From: Judy 
  Taylor 
  



It's only IYO Lance because your own 
lack of understanding stands out like a sore thumb most of the 
time

and because all you will accept is 
your own theology there will never be other than theological Babel in your 
eyes.



On Fri, 27 May 2005 05:23:40 -0400 "Lance Muir" 
[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
writes:

  
  There are a variety of 
  understandings forSatan in Job, the serpent in Genesis, the Nephilim 
  in Genesis and on and on...Why it is that some balk at my little 
  formula continues to puzzle me when, IMO, all TT participants demonstrate 
  it's accuracy regularly. (Text + believer + Spirit + tradition (optional) 
  = theological Babel)
  

From: Dave Hansen 


DAVEH: Thanx for your 
reply, Christine. I hope somebody else will give me some insight 
as to how non-LDS folks perceive this.Christine Miller wrote: 


  Hm. Actually, Dave, I do not know 
  how to answer you. I remember God constantly referred to Ezekiel as 
  "Son of Man," so there is a distinction made in the Old Testament, 
  where "sons of God"seemed to meanangels (for instance, in 
  Gen. 6 where the sons of God looked upon the daughters of man as 
  fair).It seems the New Testament speaks of a spiritual 
  adoption.However, I'm not sure I have offered a full explanation 
  of my stance. 
  
  
  
  Are there anyTTers 
  whomightwish toofferwisdom here? How do the 
  "sons of God" in the OT differ from the "sons of God" in the 
  NT?
  
  
  
  BlessingsDave Hansen [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
  wrote:
  
DAVEH: Christine, 
how do you understand Job 1:6Now thee was a day when the sons of God came to present 
themselves before the Lord, and Satan came also among 
them.Do you believe the sons of God are similar in 
context as are the children of 
God?Christine Miller wrote: 
The Bible is very clear on what it means to be a childof God and a brother of Jesus. It requiresinterpretation to communicate at all, but whensomething is stated blankly (John 1:12), how much spincan we add before we are misinterpreting? Perhaps Icould have said "misinterpret" instead of "disregard,"but I do believe the Mormons are genuinely ignoringthe Bible's stance on this one. Blessings! 
-- ~~~Dave Hansen[EMAIL PROTECTED]http://www.langlitz.com~~~If you wish to receivethings I find interesting,I maintain six email lists...JOKESTER, OPINIONS, LDS,STUFF, MOTORCYCLE and CLIPS.

Re: [Bulk] Re: [Bulk] Re: [TruthTalk] mormon angels. was: Dave uses Socratic Method of Teaching LDS doctrine on TT

2005-05-27 Thread Dave Hansen





DAVEH: Thanx for your reply, Christine. I hope somebody else will
give me some insight as to how non-LDS folks perceive this.

Christine Miller wrote:

  Hm. Actually, Dave, I do not know how to answer you. I remember
God constantly referred to Ezekiel as "Son of Man," so there is a
distinction made in the Old Testament, where "sons of God"seemed to
meanangels (for instance, in Gen. 6 where the sons of God looked upon
the daughters of man as fair).It seems the New Testament speaks of a
spiritual adoption.However, I'm not sure I have offered a full
explanation of my stance. 
  
  Are there anyTTers whomightwish toofferwisdom here? How do
the "sons of God" in the OT differ from the "sons of God" in the NT?
  
  Blessings
  
  Dave Hansen [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
  DAVEH:
Christine, how do you understand Job 1:6

Now thee was a day when the sons of God came to present
themselves before the Lord, and Satan came also among them.

Do you believe the sons of God are similar in context
as are the children of God?

Christine Miller wrote:

   The Bible is very clear on what it means to be a child
of God and a brother of Jesus. It requires
interpretation to communicate at all, but when
something is stated blankly (John 1:12), how much spin
can we add before we are misinterpreting? Perhaps I
could have said "misinterpret" instead of "disregard,"
but I do believe the Mormons are genuinely ignoring
the Bible's stance on this one. 

Blessings!
  

  


-- 
~~~
Dave Hansen
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.langlitz.com
~~~
If you wish to receive
things I find interesting,
I maintain six email lists...
JOKESTER, OPINIONS, LDS,
STUFF, MOTORCYCLE and CLIPS.

Re: [TruthTalk] mormon angels. was: Dave uses Socratic Method of Teaching LDS doctrine on TT

2005-05-27 Thread Dave Hansen





DAVEH: Word game, Perry?!?!?!  You must realize that you are
trying to force me into a dilemma. IF I were to answer as you
want me to, I would be lying. Though my memory may be weak, I surely
know my reasons for joining TT and continue to remain steadfast in my
explanation of why I came to TTto learn what Protestants believe,
and why they believe such. If I were to concede to your whining,
it would effectively make me a liar in an effort to placate you and
any other TTers who want to impose their beliefs on me. Why should I
lie simply to make you happy, Perry? I really find it rather
surprising that you would be comfortable encouraging another person to
transgress, when you supposedly believe doing so is a violation of
God's law. Why would you want to sin, Perryto make you feel better
at my eternal expense?

Charles Perry Locke wrote:
David, Dave is smarter than you are giving him credit for
being. He knows what he is doing. He is playing a word game. I have no
problem with him pushing his mormon views into the discussions here...I
just want him to acknowledge that is what he is doing. He is
intentionally misinterpreting this as my not wanting him to espouse
mormonism on the forum. That is NOT my goal. My goal is to get him to
own his actions. To say he is NOT pushing mormonism, then push it
anyway is disengenuous. Then, to turn it around as though I do not
welcome his mormon views is a lie.
  
  
Perry
  
  
  From: "David Miller"
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

Reply-To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org

To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org

Subject: Re: [Bulk] Re: [TruthTalk] mormon angels. was: Dave uses
Socratic Method of Teaching LDS doctrine on TT

Date: Wed, 25 May 2005 09:09:31 -0400


DaveH wrote:

 Apparently many TTers want me to teach LDS theology on

 TT, yet some wish to criticize me for complying with their wishes.

 Seems like a no win situation, eh Lance.


Let me clarify yet again what TruthTalk is all about and Dave Hansen's

situation in regards to this forum.


TruthTalk is meant to be a forum where people from different religions
and

different backgrounds can share their beliefs and teachings with the
rest of

us. We, in turn, can judge what they teach and examine it. We can
raise

objections or questions concerning what is being said. The goal is
learning

and getting a better undertanding of both what we believe and what
others

believe.


Dave Hansen is LDS Mormon and he has as much right here as anybody else
to

teach or post his views. In like manner, his teachings will be
examined and

questioned by others. This is the nature of the forum. I would not
say

that it is a "no win situation" just because a person's viewpoint is

criticized in this forum. If you share your views, expect some
examination

and perhaps criticism if someone thinks that the viewpoint deserves
such.


Now in regards to the question of why DaveH is here. I have read both
Dave

and Perry's exchange on this, and personally I find Dave's reasons for
being

here consistent. He has an interest in knowing what Protestants
believe and

why. He interacts with us, and in doing so, is questioned about his

beliefs. He responds to such questions in a way that he is
comfortable.

Often the exchange hits a dead end, and some TruthTalk members get

frustrated with that (me included), but I don't think that means that
his

reasons for being here are not being stated properly. Some have
interpreted

him to be implying that he wants to become a Protestant if he hears
good

answers for what Protestants believe, but I have never understood him
that

way. He is simply curious and has an academic interest in what
motivates us

and what makes us who we are. I'm sure Christians not affiliated with
a

major institution seems very strange to him. His life is centered
around an

institution of authority. That is the kind of structure he is use to
and is

comfortable with. Many of us reject such institutions. I think Dave
is

still trying to understand why and how this is. I suspect it would be

easier for him to understand us if we were all Roman Catholic.


Peace be with you.

David Miller.

  


-- 
~~~
Dave Hansen
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.langlitz.com
~~~
If you wish to receive
things I find interesting,
I maintain six email lists...
JOKESTER, OPINIONS, LDS,
STUFF, MOTORCYCLE and CLIPS.

Re: [TruthTalk] mormon angels. was: Dave uses Socratic Method of Teaching LDS doctrine on TT

2005-05-27 Thread Dave Hansen





All three of those say it is a false religion.

DAVEH: And you would give any consideration that what I say might be
true, Perry? Do you want me to dig out any of the exchanges you had
with DavidM about what you think of any truth that may be found in
Mormonism.?

 As I've previously pointed outwhat's the point of discussing
LDS theology with you, Perry? As you must know by now, I did not come
to TT to preach LDS theology, so why do you expect me discuss it with
you when clearly your intention is to...

expose and stimulate discussion on the non-biblical and heretical
aspects of mormon beliefs.

Like I said before Perry, what's in it for me other than a
bloody nose!


Charles Perry Locke wrote:
Dave, I don't mind if you choose not to answer, but no
need to whine about it. If you and I are through discussing things on
TT, then so be it. You said if I want to know what mormons believe,
then I sould ask a mormon. I did that, but he has no answer for me. Who
should I turn to for the truth about mormonism? The bible? Kevin? The
internet? All three of those say it is a false religion.
  
  
Perry
  
DAVEH: For what reason should I explain why/where you are wrong about
my beliefs, Perry. I don't mind explaining to those who really want to
know what I believe, but in your case it seems your intention is to
denigrate my beliefs.
  
  
 You've stated that your mission (so to speak) is to discredit
Mormonism.in effect meeting the definition of an anti-Mormon. So
for what reason would you want to query me about Mormonism, if it is
not to denigrate that in which I believe?


 Along with that, you continue to disbelieve my stated reason for
joining TT years ago. You can believe as you wish, Perrybut if you
effectively want to post that I am lying about my reasons for being
here, then I see no particular reason to hand you the knife with which
you intend to use to carve up my faith.


Charles Perry Locke wrote:


Actually, the problem I have is not with Dave stating mormon beliefs,
especially when asked. It is his teaching mormon doctrines, but denying
that he is doing so. I am for openest...but honesty, too.


Dave,
  
  
 If I am "somewhat close", can you tell me the part I am wrong about?
You always say if I want to know what mormons believe, ask a mormon...
  
  
Perry
  
  Charles Perry Locke wrote:


Dave,
  
  
 Christians consider angels and humans to be two distinct types of
created beings.
  



DAVEH: Yes, I understand that. Yet, it seems Paul is telling us that
it is difficult (if not impossible) to tell us (mortals) apart from
angels.


Correct me if I am wrong, but don't
mormons consider angels to be either pre-mortal or post-mortal humans?
For example, don't mormons consider Michael (the archangel) also to
have been a human at one point...was it Adam? Hasn't he also been
considered to be the mormon god the father? So, basically, one being
can be spirit, angel, human, or god at various times. Am I right on
this?
  



DAVEH: You are somewhat close.



Perry
  

  

  


-- 
~~~
Dave Hansen
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.langlitz.com
~~~
If you wish to receive
things I find interesting,
I maintain six email lists...
JOKESTER, OPINIONS, LDS,
STUFF, MOTORCYCLE and CLIPS.

Re: [Bulk] Re: [Bulk] Re: [Bulk] Re: [TruthTalk] mormon angels. was: Dave uses Socratic Method of Teaching LDS doctrine on TT




There are a variety of understandings 
forSatan in Job, the serpent in Genesis, the Nephilim in Genesis and on 
and on...Why it is that some balk at my little formula continues to 
puzzle me when, IMO, all TT participants demonstrate it's accuracy regularly. 
(Text + believer + Spirit + tradition (optional) = theological 
Babel)

  - Original Message - 
  From: 
  Dave Hansen 
  
  To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org 
  
  Sent: May 27, 2005 03:18
  Subject: [Bulk] Re: [Bulk] Re: [Bulk] Re: 
  [TruthTalk] mormon angels. was: Dave uses Socratic Method of Teaching LDS 
  doctrine on TT
  DAVEH: Thanx for your reply, Christine. I hope 
  somebody else will give me some insight as to how non-LDS folks perceive 
  this.Christine Miller wrote: 
  
Hm. Actually, Dave, I do not know how to answer you. I remember God 
constantly referred to Ezekiel as "Son of Man," so there is a distinction 
made in the Old Testament, where "sons of God"seemed to 
meanangels (for instance, in Gen. 6 where the sons of God looked upon 
the daughters of man as fair).It seems the New Testament speaks of a 
spiritual adoption.However, I'm not sure I have offered a full 
explanation of my stance. 

Are there anyTTers whomightwish 
toofferwisdom here? How do the "sons of God" in the OT differ 
from the "sons of God" in the NT?

BlessingsDave Hansen [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
wrote:
DAVEH: 
  Christine, how do you understand Job 1:6Now thee was a 
  day when the sons of God came to present themselves before the 
  Lord, and Satan came also among them.Do you believe 
  the sons of God are similar in context as are the children of 
  God?Christine Miller wrote: 
   The Bible is very clear on what it means to be a child
of God and a brother of Jesus. It requires
interpretation to communicate at all, but when
something is stated blankly (John 1:12), how much spin
can we add before we are misinterpreting? Perhaps I
could have said "misinterpret" instead of "disregard,"
but I do believe the Mormons are genuinely ignoring
the Bible's stance on this one. 

Blessings!
  -- 
~~~
Dave Hansen
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.langlitz.com
~~~
If you wish to receive
things I find interesting,
I maintain six email lists...
JOKESTER, OPINIONS, LDS,
STUFF, MOTORCYCLE and CLIPS.

Re: [Bulk] Re: [TruthTalk] mormon angels. was: Dave uses Socratic Method of Teaching LDS doctrine on TT




C'mon Perry! Why not just take a poll of all on TT? 
I, for one, vote with Dave Hansen on this.

  - Original Message - 
  From: 
  Dave Hansen 
  
  To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org 
  
  Sent: May 27, 2005 03:36
  Subject: [Bulk] Re: [TruthTalk] mormon 
  angels. was: Dave uses Socratic Method of Teaching LDS doctrine on TT
  DAVEH: Word game, Perry?!?!?!  You 
  must realize that you are trying to force me into a dilemma. IF I 
  were to answer as you want me to, I would be lying. Though my 
  memory may be weak, I surely know my reasons for joining TT and continue to 
  remain steadfast in my explanation of why I came to TTto learn what 
  Protestants believe, and why they believe such. If I were to 
  concede to your whining, it would effectively make me a liar in 
  an effort to placate you and any other TTers who want to impose their beliefs 
  on me. Why should I lie simply to make you happy, Perry? I really 
  find it rather surprising that you would be comfortable encouraging another 
  person to transgress, when you supposedly believe doing so is a violation of 
  God's law. Why would you want to sin, Perryto make you feel better 
  at my eternal expense?Charles Perry Locke wrote: 
  David, Dave is smarter than you are giving him credit for being. 
He knows what he is doing. He is playing a word game. I have no problem with 
him pushing his mormon views into the discussions here...I just want him to 
acknowledge that is what he is doing. He is intentionally misinterpreting 
this as my not wanting him to espouse mormonism on the forum. That is NOT my 
goal. My goal is to get him to own his actions. To say he is NOT pushing 
mormonism, then push it anyway is disengenuous. Then, to turn it around as 
though I do not welcome his mormon views is a lie. Perry 
From: "David Miller" [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
  Reply-To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org 
  To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org 
  Subject: Re: [Bulk] Re: [TruthTalk] mormon angels. was: Dave uses 
  Socratic Method of Teaching LDS doctrine on TT Date: Wed, 25 May 2005 
  09:09:31 -0400 DaveH wrote:  Apparently many TTers want me 
  to teach LDS theology on  TT, yet some wish to criticize me for 
  complying with their wishes.  Seems like a no win situation, eh 
  Lance. Let me clarify yet again what TruthTalk is all about and 
  Dave Hansen's situation in regards to this forum. TruthTalk is 
  meant to be a forum where people from different religions and 
  different backgrounds can share their beliefs and teachings with the 
  rest of us. We, in turn, can judge what they teach and examine 
  it. We can raise objections or questions concerning what is 
  being said. The goal is learning and getting a better 
  undertanding of both what we believe and what others believe. 
  Dave Hansen is LDS Mormon and he has as much right here as anybody 
  else to teach or post his views. In like manner, his teachings 
  will be examined and questioned by others. This is the nature of 
  the forum. I would not say that it is a "no win situation" just 
  because a person's viewpoint is criticized in this forum. If you 
  share your views, expect some examination and perhaps criticism if 
  someone thinks that the viewpoint deserves such. Now in regards to 
  the question of why DaveH is here. I have read both Dave and 
  Perry's exchange on this, and personally I find Dave's reasons for being 
  here consistent. He has an interest in knowing what Protestants 
  believe and why. He interacts with us, and in doing so, is 
  questioned about his beliefs. He responds to such questions in a 
  way that he is comfortable. Often the exchange hits a dead end, and 
  some TruthTalk members get frustrated with that (me included), but I 
  don't think that means that his reasons for being here are not being 
  stated properly. Some have interpreted him to be implying that 
  he wants to become a Protestant if he hears good answers for what 
  Protestants believe, but I have never understood him that way. 
  He is simply curious and has an academic interest in what motivates us 
  and what makes us who we are. I'm sure Christians not affiliated 
  with a major institution seems very strange to him. His life is 
  centered around an institution of authority. That is the kind of 
  structure he is use to and is comfortable with. Many of us 
  reject such institutions. I think Dave is still trying to 
  understand why and how this is. I suspect it would be easier for 
  him to understand us if we were all Roman Catholic. Peace be with 
  you. David Miller. -- 
~~~
Dave Hansen
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.langlitz.com
~~~
If you wish to receive
things I find interesting,
I maintain six email lists...
JOKESTER, OPINIONS, LD

[TruthTalk] mormon angels. was: Dave uses Socratic Method of Teaching LDS doctrine on TT

2005-05-27 Thread Judy Taylor




It's only IYO Lance because your own lack of 
understanding stands out like a sore thumb most of the time
and because all you will accept is your own theology 
there will never be other than theological Bable in your eyes.

On Fri, 27 May 2005 05:23:40 -0400 "Lance Muir" [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:

  There are a variety of understandings 
  forSatan in Job, the serpent in Genesis, the Nephilim in Genesis and on 
  and on...Why it is that some balk at my little formula continues to 
  puzzle me when, IMO, all TT participants demonstrate it's accuracy regularly. 
  (Text + believer + Spirit + tradition (optional) = theological 
  Babel)
  
From: Dave Hansen 
DAVEH: Thanx for your reply, 
Christine. I hope somebody else will give me some insight as to how 
non-LDS folks perceive this.Christine Miller wrote: 

  Hm. Actually, Dave, I do not know how to answer you. I remember God 
  constantly referred to Ezekiel as "Son of Man," so there is a distinction 
  made in the Old Testament, where "sons of God"seemed to 
  meanangels (for instance, in Gen. 6 where the sons of God looked 
  upon the daughters of man as fair).It seems the New Testament speaks 
  of a spiritual adoption.However, I'm not sure I have offered a full 
  explanation of my stance. 
  
  Are there anyTTers whomightwish 
  toofferwisdom here? How do the "sons of God" in the OT differ 
  from the "sons of God" in the NT?
  
  BlessingsDave Hansen [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
  wrote:
  DAVEH: 
Christine, how do you understand Job 1:6Now thee was 
a day when the sons of God came to present themselves before the 
Lord, and Satan came also among them.Do you believe 
the sons of God are similar in context as are the children of 
God?Christine Miller wrote: 
 The Bible is very clear on what it means to be a child
of God and a brother of Jesus. It requires
interpretation to communicate at all, but when
something is stated blankly (John 1:12), how much spin
can we add before we are misinterpreting? Perhaps I
could have said "misinterpret" instead of "disregard,"
but I do believe the Mormons are genuinely ignoring
the Bible's stance on this one. 

Blessings!
  -- 
~~~
Dave Hansen
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.langlitz.com
~~~
If you wish to receive
things I find interesting,
I maintain six email lists...
JOKESTER, OPINIONS, LDS,
STUFF, MOTORCYCLE and CLIPS.

Re: [Bulk] [TruthTalk] mormon angels. was: Dave uses Socratic Method of Teaching LDS doctrine on TT




Any inclination, Judy, to tell us that, in all 
cases, when you cite Scripture in support of some position or other, that that 
citation is, in reality, the sole meaning of that/those Scripture(s)? Do you at 
least acknowledge that diverse understandings exist, by genuine believers 
(exclude me if need be) on TT? How 'bout BSF?

  - Original Message - 
  From: 
  Judy 
  Taylor 
  To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org 
  
  Cc: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org 
  
  Sent: May 27, 2005 05:44
  Subject: [Bulk] [TruthTalk] mormon 
  angels. was: Dave uses Socratic Method of Teaching LDS doctrine on TT
  
  It's only IYO Lance because your own lack of 
  understanding stands out like a sore thumb most of the time
  and because all you will accept is your own theology 
  there will never be other than theological Bable in your eyes.
  
  On Fri, 27 May 2005 05:23:40 -0400 "Lance Muir" [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
writes:
  
There are a variety of understandings 
forSatan in Job, the serpent in Genesis, the Nephilim in Genesis and 
on and on...Why it is that some balk at my little formula continues 
to puzzle me when, IMO, all TT participants demonstrate it's accuracy 
regularly. (Text + believer + Spirit + tradition (optional) = theological 
Babel)

  From: Dave Hansen 
  DAVEH: Thanx for your reply, 
  Christine. I hope somebody else will give me some insight as to how 
  non-LDS folks perceive this.Christine Miller wrote: 
  
Hm. Actually, Dave, I do not know how to answer you. I remember God 
constantly referred to Ezekiel as "Son of Man," so there is a 
distinction made in the Old Testament, where "sons of God"seemed 
to meanangels (for instance, in Gen. 6 where the sons of God 
looked upon the daughters of man as fair).It seems the New 
Testament speaks of a spiritual adoption.However, I'm not sure I 
have offered a full explanation of my stance. 

Are there anyTTers whomightwish 
toofferwisdom here? How do the "sons of God" in the OT 
differ from the "sons of God" in the NT?

BlessingsDave Hansen [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
wrote:
DAVEH: 
  Christine, how do you understand Job 1:6Now thee 
  was a day when the sons of God came to present themselves 
  before the Lord, and Satan came also among them.Do 
  you believe the sons of God are similar in context as are the 
  children of God?Christine Miller wrote: 
   The Bible is very clear on what it means to be a child
of God and a brother of Jesus. It requires
interpretation to communicate at all, but when
something is stated blankly (John 1:12), how much spin
can we add before we are misinterpreting? Perhaps I
could have said "misinterpret" instead of "disregard,"
but I do believe the Mormons are genuinely ignoring
the Bible's stance on this one. 

Blessings!
  -- 
~~~
Dave Hansen
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.langlitz.com
~~~
If you wish to receive
things I find interesting,
I maintain six email lists...
JOKESTER, OPINIONS, LDS,
STUFF, MOTORCYCLE and CLIPS.

Re: [Bulk] Re: [Bulk] Re: [Bulk] Re: [TruthTalk] mormon angels. was: Dave uses Socratic Method of Teaching LDS doctrine on TT

2005-05-27 Thread Terry Clifton





Lance Muir wrote:

  
  
  
  
  There are a variety of
understandings forSatan in Job, the serpent in Genesis, the Nephilim
in Genesis and on and on...Why it is that some balk at my
little formula continues to puzzle me when, IMO, all TT participants
demonstrate it's accuracy regularly. (Text + believer + Spirit +
tradition (optional) = theological Babel)

===
Because your theory is in opposition to God's word.

RE: [Bulk] Re: [Bulk] Re: [TruthTalk] mormon angels. was: Dave uses Socratic Method of Teaching LDS doctrine on TT









If my husband werent the computer geek I
wouldnt even have one!



















 Don't you just hate this. You pay the
big bucks and then, well, you have so little control over the thing. 











John

RE: [Bulk] Re: [TruthTalk] mormon angels. was: Dave uses Socratic Method of Teaching LDS doctrine on TT









Perry, I think we should all agree that
Dave does push his mormon views on TT (just as we all push ours), but that he does
not concede that as his primary motivation for being here. Perhaps it is subconscious
in his case. I know I personally feel manipulated by the mormons whenever
I try to converse with them on a serious spiritual level, and that is why I
avoid them. But I dont think they even necessarily realize they are
doing it. Im happy to let others squabble with them for whatever reasons.
I have no fear of anyone who is truly in Christ being taken in by such satanic
fantasies. It is a religion for the gullible and those who do not hear the Holy
Spirit. Not worth fighting about IMO. Izzy 











From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of Lance Muir
Sent: Friday, May 27, 2005 3:25 AM
To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org
Subject: Re: [Bulk] Re:
[TruthTalk] mormon angels. was: Dave uses Socratic Method of Teaching LDS
doctrine on TT







C'mon Perry! Why not just take a poll of all on TT? I,
for one, vote with Dave Hansen on this.

Re: [Bulk] RE: [Bulk] Re: [TruthTalk] mormon angels. was: Dave uses Socratic Method of Teaching LDS doctrine on TT




Izzy says of Mormonism:'Not worth 'fighting' 
about.' I'm thinking she might wish to qualify that as the nature of God and the 
Gospel are indeed worth very serious engagement ('fighting' aside). 


  - Original Message - 
  From: 
  ShieldsFamily 
  To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org 
  
  Sent: May 27, 2005 08:21
  Subject: [Bulk] RE: [Bulk] Re: 
  [TruthTalk] mormon angels. was: Dave uses Socratic Method of Teaching LDS 
  doctrine on TT
  
  
  Perry, I think we 
  should all agree that Dave does push his mormon views on TT (just as we all 
  push ours), but that he does not concede that as his primary motivation for 
  being here. Perhaps it is subconscious in his case. I know I 
  personally feel manipulated by the mormons whenever I try to converse with 
  them on a serious spiritual level, and that is why I avoid them. But I dont 
  think they even necessarily realize they are doing it. Im happy to let 
  others squabble with them for whatever reasons. I have no fear of anyone 
  who is truly in Christ being taken in by such satanic fantasies. It is a 
  religion for the gullible and those who do not hear the Holy Spirit. Not worth 
  fighting about IMO. Izzy 
  
  
  
  
  
  From: 
  [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
  On Behalf Of Lance 
  MuirSent: Friday, May 27, 
  2005 3:25 AMTo: 
  TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgSubject: Re: [Bulk] Re: [TruthTalk] 
  mormon angels. was: Dave uses Socratic Method of Teaching LDS doctrine on 
  TT
  
  
  C'mon Perry! Why not just take a poll of all on TT? I, 
  for one, vote with Dave Hansen on 
  this.

Re: [Bulk] Re: [Bulk] Re: [Bulk] Re: [Bulk] Re: [TruthTalk] mormon angels. was: Dave uses Socratic Method of Teaching LDS doctrine on TT

Show me, please.

  - Original Message - 
  From: 
  Terry Clifton 
  To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org 

  Sent: May 27, 2005 07:53
  Subject: [Bulk] Re: [Bulk] Re: [Bulk] Re: 
  [Bulk] Re: [TruthTalk] mormon angels. was: Dave uses Socratic Method of 
  Teaching LDS doctrine on TT
  Lance Muir wrote: 

There are a variety of understandings 
forSatan in Job, the serpent in Genesis, the Nephilim in Genesis and 
on and on...Why it is that some balk at my little formula continues 
to puzzle me when, IMO, all TT participants demonstrate it's accuracy 
regularly. (Text + believer + Spirit + tradition (optional) = theological 
Babel)===Because 
  your theory is in opposition to God's word.

RE: [Bulk] [TruthTalk] mormon angels. was: Dave uses Socratic Method of Teaching LDS doctrine on TT









Diverse understandings of
scripture by genuine believers is obvious. But not diverse accurate
understanding. Just because genuine believers have differing understandings
does not make them all accurate. Iz











From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of Lance Muir
Sent: Friday, May 27, 2005 4:06 AM
To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org
Subject: Re: [Bulk] [TruthTalk]
mormon angels. was: Dave uses Socratic Method of Teaching LDS doctrine on TT







Any inclination, Judy, to tell us that, in all cases,
when you cite Scripture in support of some position or other, that that
citation is, in reality, the sole meaning of that/those Scripture(s)? Do you at
least acknowledge that diverse understandings exist, by genuine believers
(exclude me if need be) on TT? How 'bout BSF?







- Original Message - 





From: Judy Taylor






To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org






Cc: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org






Sent: May 27,
2005 05:44





Subject: [Bulk]
[TruthTalk] mormon angels. was: Dave uses Socratic Method of Teaching LDS
doctrine on TT











It's only IYO Lance because your own
lack of understanding stands out like a sore thumb most of the time





and because all you will accept is your
own theology there will never be other than theological Bable in your eyes.











On Fri, 27 May 2005 05:23:40 -0400 Lance
Muir [EMAIL PROTECTED]
writes:







There are a variety of understandings forSatan
in Job, the serpent in Genesis, the Nephilim in Genesis and on and
on...Why it is that some balk at my little formula continues to puzzle
me when, IMO, all TT participants demonstrate it's accuracy regularly. (Text +
believer + Spirit + tradition (optional) = theological Babel)







From: Dave Hansen 





DAVEH: Thanx for your reply, Christine. I
hope somebody else will give me some insight as to how non-LDS folks perceive
this.

Christine Miller wrote: 







Hm. Actually, Dave, I do not know how to answer you. I
remember God constantly referred to Ezekiel as Son of Man, so there
is a distinction made in the Old Testament, where sons of
Godseemed to meanangels (for instance, in Gen. 6 where the
sons of God looked upon the daughters of man as fair).It seems the New
Testament speaks of a spiritual adoption.However, I'm not sure I have
offered a full explanation of my stance. 











Are there anyTTers whomightwish
toofferwisdom here? How do the sons of God in the OT
differ from the sons of God in the NT?











Blessings

Dave Hansen [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:





DAVEH: Christine, how do you understand
Job 1:6

Now thee was a day when the sons of God came
to present themselves before the Lord, and Satan came also among them.

Do you believe the sons of God
are similar in context as are the children of
God?

Christine Miller wrote: 

The Bible is very clear on what it means to be a childof God and a brother of Jesus. It requiresinterpretation to communicate at all, but whensomething is stated blankly (John 1:12), how much spincan we add before we are misinterpreting? Perhaps Icould have said misinterpret instead of disregard,but I do believe the Mormons are genuinely ignoringthe Bible's stance on this one. Blessings! 







-- ~~~Dave Hansen[EMAIL PROTECTED]http://www.langlitz.com~~~If you wish to receivethings I find interesting,I maintain six email lists...JOKESTER, OPINIONS, LDS,STUFF, MOTORCYCLE and CLIPS.

RE: [Bulk] Re: [Bulk] Re: [TruthTalk] mormon angels. was: Dave uses Socratic Method of Teaching LDS doctrine on TT









(Ill leave you to decide whether I
meant computer or husband.)











From:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of ShieldsFamily
Sent: Friday, May 27, 2005 6:03 AM
To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org
Subject: RE: [Bulk] Re: [Bulk] Re:
[TruthTalk] mormon angels. was: Dave uses Socratic Method of Teaching LDS
doctrine on TT





If my husband werent the computer
geek I wouldnt even have one!



















 Don't you just hate this. You pay the big
bucks and then, well, you have so little control over the thing. 











John

RE: [Bulk] RE: [Bulk] Re: [TruthTalk] mormon angels. was: Dave uses Socratic Method of Teaching LDS doctrine on TT









Good point, Lance. However it is my
nature (calling?) to give my best attempts at explaining the gospel
until/unless I am convinced that the person is not really open to such and is,
in fact, only toying with me. Then I leave them to their own
devices. But I hang out, always hoping they will be receptive in the
future. You cant force Truth upon anyone. The more you try, the
more they resist. The Holy Spirit woos but doesnt fight. Izzy











From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of Lance Muir
Sent: Friday, May 27, 2005 6:29 AM
To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org
Subject: Re: [Bulk] RE: [Bulk] Re:
[TruthTalk] mormon angels. was: Dave uses Socratic Method of Teaching LDS
doctrine on TT







Izzy says of Mormonism:'Not worth 'fighting' about.'
I'm thinking she might wish to qualify that as the nature of God and the Gospel
are indeed worth very serious engagement ('fighting' aside).

Re: [Bulk] Re: [Bulk] Re: [Bulk] Re: [TruthTalk] mormon angels. was: Dave uses Socratic Method of Teaching LDS doctrine on TT

2005-05-27 Thread Christine Miller

Lance, are you offering an explanation to the passage or just a lamentation? Tell us what you think.

Lance wrote:
= theological Babel

Ooh like the tower? :-)

BlessingsLance Muir [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:




There are a variety of understandings forSatan in Job, the serpent in Genesis, the Nephilim in Genesis and on and on...Why it is that some balk at my little formula continues to puzzle me when, IMO, all TT participants demonstrate it's accuracy regularly. (Text + believer + Spirit + tradition (optional) = theological Babel)

- Original Message - 
From: Dave Hansen 
To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org 
Sent: May 27, 2005 03:18
Subject: [Bulk] Re: [Bulk] Re: [Bulk] Re: [TruthTalk] mormon angels. was: Dave uses Socratic Method of Teaching LDS doctrine on TT
DAVEH: Thanx for your reply, Christine. I hope somebody else will give me some insight as to how non-LDS folks perceive this.Christine Miller wrote: 

Hm. Actually, Dave, I do not know how to answer you. I remember God constantly referred to Ezekiel as "Son of Man," so there is a distinction made in the Old Testament, where "sons of God"seemed to meanangels (for instance, in Gen. 6 where the sons of God looked upon the daughters of man as fair).It seems the New Testament speaks of a spiritual adoption.However, I'm not sure I have offered a full explanation of my stance. 

Are there anyTTers whomightwish toofferwisdom here? How do the "sons of God" in the OT differ from the "sons of God" in the NT?

BlessingsDave Hansen [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
DAVEH: Christine, how do you understand Job 1:6Now thee was a day when the sons of God came to present themselves before the Lord, and Satan came also among them.Do you believe the sons of God are similar in context as are the children of God?Christine Miller wrote: 
 The Bible is very clear on what it means to be a child
of God and a brother of Jesus. It requires
interpretation to communicate at all, but when
something is stated blankly (John 1:12), how much spin
can we add before we are misinterpreting? Perhaps I
could have said "misinterpret" instead of "disregard,"
but I do believe the Mormons are genuinely ignoring
the Bible's stance on this one. 

Blessings!
  -- 
~~~
Dave Hansen
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.langlitz.com
~~~
If you wish to receive
things I find interesting,
I maintain six email lists...
JOKESTER, OPINIONS, LDS,
STUFF, MOTORCYCLE and CLIPS.__Do You Yahoo!?Tired of spam?  Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com

RE: [Bulk] RE: [Bulk] [TruthTalk] mormon angels. was: Dave uses Socratic Method of Teaching LDS doctrine on TT









Yes. You think everyone is right except
for the fundies. Iz











From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of Lance Muir
Sent: Friday, May 27, 2005 6:53 AM
To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org
Subject: Re: [Bulk] RE: [Bulk]
[TruthTalk] mormon angels. was: Dave uses Socratic Method of Teaching LDS
doctrine on TT







Did you understand me to be saying
otherwise? (now or ever)







- Original Message - 





From: ShieldsFamily






To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org 





Sent: May 27, 2005 08:33





Subject: [Bulk] RE: [Bulk] [TruthTalk] mormon angels. was: Dave uses
Socratic Method of Teaching LDS doctrine on TT









Diverse understandings of
scripture by genuine believers is obvious. But not diverse
accurate understanding. Just because genuine
believers have differing understandings does not make them all
accurate. Iz











From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of Lance Muir
Sent: Friday, May 27, 2005 4:06 AM
To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org
Subject: Re: [Bulk] [TruthTalk]
mormon angels. was: Dave uses Socratic Method of Teaching LDS doctrine on TT







Any inclination, Judy, to tell us that, in all cases,
when you cite Scripture in support of some position or other, that that
citation is, in reality, the sole meaning of that/those Scripture(s)? Do you at
least acknowledge that diverse understandings exist, by genuine believers
(exclude me if need be) on TT? How 'bout BSF?







- Original Message - 





From: Judy Taylor






To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org






Cc: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org






Sent: May 27,
2005 05:44





Subject: [Bulk]
[TruthTalk] mormon angels. was: Dave uses Socratic Method of Teaching LDS
doctrine on TT











It's only IYO Lance because your own
lack of understanding stands out like a sore thumb most of the time





and because all you will accept is your
own theology there will never be other than theological Bable in your eyes.











On Fri, 27 May 2005 05:23:40 -0400 Lance
Muir [EMAIL PROTECTED]
writes:







There are a variety of understandings forSatan
in Job, the serpent in Genesis, the Nephilim in Genesis and on and
on...Why it is that some balk at my little formula continues to puzzle
me when, IMO, all TT participants demonstrate it's accuracy regularly. (Text +
believer + Spirit + tradition (optional) = theological Babel)







From: Dave Hansen 





DAVEH: Thanx for your reply, Christine. I
hope somebody else will give me some insight as to how non-LDS folks perceive
this.

Christine Miller wrote: 







Hm. Actually, Dave, I do not know how to answer you. I
remember God constantly referred to Ezekiel as Son of Man, so there
is a distinction made in the Old Testament, where sons of
Godseemed to meanangels (for instance, in Gen. 6 where the
sons of God looked upon the daughters of man as fair).It seems the New
Testament speaks of a spiritual adoption.However, I'm not sure I have
offered a full explanation of my stance. 











Are there anyTTers whomightwish
toofferwisdom here? How do the sons of God in the OT
differ from the sons of God in the NT?











Blessings

Dave Hansen [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:





DAVEH: Christine, how do you understand
Job 1:6

Now thee was a day when the sons of God came
to present themselves before the Lord, and Satan came also among them.

Do you believe the sons of God
are similar in context as are the children of
God?

Christine Miller wrote: 

The Bible is very clear on what it means to be a childof God and a brother of Jesus. It requiresinterpretation to communicate at all, but whensomething is stated blankly (John 1:12), how much spincan we add before we are misinterpreting? Perhaps Icould have said misinterpret instead of disregard,but I do believe the Mormons are genuinely ignoringthe Bible's stance on this one. Blessings! 





-- ~~~Dave Hansen[EMAIL PROTECTED]http://www.langlitz.com~~~If you wish to receivethings I find interesting,I maintain six email lists...JOKESTER, OPINIONS, LDS,STUFF, MOTORCYCLE and CLIPS.

Re: [Bulk] Re: [Bulk] Re: [Bulk] Re: [Bulk] Re: [TruthTalk] mormon angels. was: Dave uses Socratic Method of Teaching LDS doctrine on TT




Just a lamentation, Christine. Your dad is, IMO, in 
the business of offering explanations for passages. I rarely engage in such, as 
all on TT know, due to the fact the nobody every changes their mind. 


  - Original Message - 
  From: 
  Christine 
  Miller 
  To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org 
  
  Sent: May 27, 2005 11:21
  Subject: [Bulk] Re: [Bulk] Re: [Bulk] Re: 
  [Bulk] Re: [TruthTalk] mormon angels. was: Dave uses Socratic Method of 
  Teaching LDS doctrine on TT
  
  Lance, are you offering an explanation to the passage or just a 
  lamentation? Tell us what you think.
  
  Lance wrote:
  = theological Babel
  
  Ooh like the tower? :-)
  
  BlessingsLance Muir [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
  wrote:
  



There are a variety of understandings 
forSatan in Job, the serpent in Genesis, the Nephilim in Genesis and 
on and on...Why it is that some balk at my little formula continues 
to puzzle me when, IMO, all TT participants demonstrate it's accuracy 
regularly. (Text + believer + Spirit + tradition (optional) = theological 
Babel)

  - Original Message - 
  From: 
  Dave Hansen 
  
  To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org 
  
  Sent: May 27, 2005 03:18
  Subject: [Bulk] Re: [Bulk] Re: [Bulk] 
  Re: [TruthTalk] mormon angels. was: Dave uses Socratic Method of Teaching 
  LDS doctrine on TT
  DAVEH: Thanx for your reply, Christine. I hope 
  somebody else will give me some insight as to how non-LDS folks perceive 
  this.Christine Miller wrote: 
  
Hm. Actually, Dave, I do not know how to answer you. I remember God 
constantly referred to Ezekiel as "Son of Man," so there is a 
distinction made in the Old Testament, where "sons of God"seemed 
to meanangels (for instance, in Gen. 6 where the sons of God 
looked upon the daughters of man as fair).It seems the New 
Testament speaks of a spiritual adoption.However, I'm not sure I 
have offered a full explanation of my stance. 

Are there anyTTers whomightwish 
toofferwisdom here? How do the "sons of God" in the OT 
differ from the "sons of God" in the NT?

BlessingsDave Hansen [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
wrote:
DAVEH: 
  Christine, how do you understand Job 1:6Now thee 
  was a day when the sons of God came to present themselves 
  before the Lord, and Satan came also among them.Do 
  you believe the sons of God are similar in context as are the 
  children of God?Christine Miller wrote: 
   The Bible is very clear on what it means to be a child
of God and a brother of Jesus. It requires
interpretation to communicate at all, but when
something is stated blankly (John 1:12), how much spin
can we add before we are misinterpreting? Perhaps I
could have said "misinterpret" instead of "disregard,"
but I do believe the Mormons are genuinely ignoring
the Bible's stance on this one. 

Blessings!
  -- 
~~~
Dave Hansen
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.langlitz.com
~~~
If you wish to receive
things I find interesting,
I maintain six email lists...
JOKESTER, OPINIONS, LDS,
STUFF, MOTORCYCLE and CLIPS.
  __Do You 
  Yahoo!?Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around 
  http://mail.yahoo.com

Re: [Bulk] Re: [Bulk] Re: [Bulk] Re: [TruthTalk] mormon angels. was: Dave uses Socratic Method of Teaching LDS doctrine on TT

2005-05-27 Thread David Miller

Lance wrote:
 There are a variety of understandings for Satan in Job, the
 serpent in Genesis, the Nephilim in Genesis and on and on ...
 Why it is that some balk at my little formula continues to puzzle
 me when, IMO, all TT participants demonstrate it's accuracy
 regularly. (Text + believer + Spirit + tradition (optional) =
 theological Babel)

I don't have any problem with you recognizing that TruthTalk demonstrates 
the existence of theological Babel.  What I have a problem with is your 
perspective that true believers will demonstrate theological Babel. 
TruthTalk is made up of more than just true believers, so you should not 
interpret what happens here as demonstrative of what happens among true 
believers.

For believers within the ekklesia, the formula goes more along the lines of:
(text + believer + Spirit + good tradition - bad tradition = sound doctrine)

Rather than theological Babel, true believers walk in the following truth:

Now I beseech you, brethren, by the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that ye 
all speak the same thing, and that there be no divisions among you; but that 
ye be perfectly joined together in the same mind and in the same judgment. 
(1 Corinthians 1:10)

This too can be observed on TruthTalk, but you have to separate the sheep 
from the goats.

Juxtapose the following passage with your theological Babel formula:

Zephaniah 3:9
(9) For then will I turn to the people a pure language, that they may all 
call upon the name of the LORD, to serve him with one consent.

Many of us rejoice in this good news of the kingdom, but you seem to want to 
rob us of this promise with your theological Babel philosophy.  If you look 
at what I have written here real hard, and you love the Word of God, you 
might be able to see what I am saying.  Otherwise, let him who is ignorant, 
be ignorant still.

Peace be with you.
David Miller. 


--
Let your speech be always with grace, seasoned with salt, that you may know 
how you ought to answer every man.  (Colossians 4:6) http://www.InnGlory.org

If you do not want to receive posts from this list, send an email to [EMAIL 
PROTECTED] and you will be unsubscribed.  If you have a friend who wants to 
join, tell him to send an e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and he will be subscribed.

Re: [Bulk] Re: [Bulk] Re: [Bulk] Re: [Bulk] Re: [TruthTalk] mormon angels. was: Dave uses Socratic Method of Teaching LDS doctrine on TT

What you have said is genuinely void of meaning. You've simply said what I
posted a year or two back 'My theology can beat up your theology')

- Original Message - 
From: David Miller [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org
Sent: May 27, 2005 14:31
Subject: [Bulk] Re: [Bulk] Re: [Bulk] Re: [Bulk] Re: [TruthTalk] mormon
angels. was: Dave uses Socratic Method of Teaching LDS doctrine on TT

 Lance wrote:
  There are a variety of understandings for Satan in Job, the
  serpent in Genesis, the Nephilim in Genesis and on and on ...
  Why it is that some balk at my little formula continues to puzzle
  me when, IMO, all TT participants demonstrate it's accuracy
  regularly. (Text + believer + Spirit + tradition (optional) =
  theological Babel)

 I don't have any problem with you recognizing that TruthTalk demonstrates
 the existence of theological Babel.  What I have a problem with is your
 perspective that true believers will demonstrate theological Babel.
 TruthTalk is made up of more than just true believers, so you should not
 interpret what happens here as demonstrative of what happens among true
 believers.

 For believers within the ekklesia, the formula goes more along the lines
of:
 (text + believer + Spirit + good tradition - bad tradition = sound
doctrine)

 Rather than theological Babel, true believers walk in the following truth:

 Now I beseech you, brethren, by the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that
ye
 all speak the same thing, and that there be no divisions among you; but
that
 ye be perfectly joined together in the same mind and in the same
judgment.
 (1 Corinthians 1:10)

 This too can be observed on TruthTalk, but you have to separate the sheep
 from the goats.

 Juxtapose the following passage with your theological Babel formula:

 Zephaniah 3:9
 (9) For then will I turn to the people a pure language, that they may all
 call upon the name of the LORD, to serve him with one consent.

 Many of us rejoice in this good news of the kingdom, but you seem to want
to
 rob us of this promise with your theological Babel philosophy.  If you
look
 at what I have written here real hard, and you love the Word of God, you
 might be able to see what I am saying.  Otherwise, let him who is
ignorant,
 be ignorant still.

 Peace be with you.
 David Miller.

 --
 Let your speech be always with grace, seasoned with salt, that you may
know how you ought to answer every man.  (Colossians 4:6)
http://www.InnGlory.org

 If you do not want to receive posts from this list, send an email to
[EMAIL PROTECTED] and you will be unsubscribed.  If you have a
friend who wants to join, tell him to send an e-mail to
[EMAIL PROTECTED] and he will be subscribed.

--
Let your speech be always with grace, seasoned with salt, that you may know 
how you ought to answer every man.  (Colossians 4:6) http://www.InnGlory.org

If you do not want to receive posts from this list, send an email to [EMAIL 
PROTECTED] and you will be unsubscribed.  If you have a friend who wants to 
join, tell him to send an e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and he will be subscribed.

RE: [Bulk] Re: [Bulk] Re: [Bulk] Re: [Bulk] Re: [TruthTalk] mormon angels. was: Dave uses Socratic Method of Teaching LDS doctrine on TT

Lance against displays his slick ability to miss the entire point.  Iz

-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Lance Muir
Sent: Friday, May 27, 2005 12:58 PM
To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org
Subject: Re: [Bulk] Re: [Bulk] Re: [Bulk] Re: [Bulk] Re: [TruthTalk] mormon
angels. was: Dave uses Socratic Method of Teaching LDS doctrine on TT

What you have said is genuinely void of meaning. You've simply said what I
posted a year or two back 'My theology can beat up your theology')

- Original Message - 
From: David Miller [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org
Sent: May 27, 2005 14:31
Subject: [Bulk] Re: [Bulk] Re: [Bulk] Re: [Bulk] Re: [TruthTalk] mormon
angels. was: Dave uses Socratic Method of Teaching LDS doctrine on TT

 Lance wrote:
  There are a variety of understandings for Satan in Job, the
  serpent in Genesis, the Nephilim in Genesis and on and on ...
  Why it is that some balk at my little formula continues to puzzle
  me when, IMO, all TT participants demonstrate it's accuracy
  regularly. (Text + believer + Spirit + tradition (optional) =
  theological Babel)

 I don't have any problem with you recognizing that TruthTalk demonstrates
 the existence of theological Babel.  What I have a problem with is your
 perspective that true believers will demonstrate theological Babel.
 TruthTalk is made up of more than just true believers, so you should not
 interpret what happens here as demonstrative of what happens among true
 believers.

 For believers within the ekklesia, the formula goes more along the lines
of:
 (text + believer + Spirit + good tradition - bad tradition = sound
doctrine)

 Rather than theological Babel, true believers walk in the following truth:

 Now I beseech you, brethren, by the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that
ye
 all speak the same thing, and that there be no divisions among you; but
that
 ye be perfectly joined together in the same mind and in the same
judgment.
 (1 Corinthians 1:10)

 This too can be observed on TruthTalk, but you have to separate the sheep
 from the goats.

 Juxtapose the following passage with your theological Babel formula:

 Zephaniah 3:9
 (9) For then will I turn to the people a pure language, that they may all
 call upon the name of the LORD, to serve him with one consent.

 Many of us rejoice in this good news of the kingdom, but you seem to want
to
 rob us of this promise with your theological Babel philosophy.  If you
look
 at what I have written here real hard, and you love the Word of God, you
 might be able to see what I am saying.  Otherwise, let him who is
ignorant,
 be ignorant still.

 Peace be with you.
 David Miller.

 --
 Let your speech be always with grace, seasoned with salt, that you may
know how you ought to answer every man.  (Colossians 4:6)
http://www.InnGlory.org

 If you do not want to receive posts from this list, send an email to
[EMAIL PROTECTED] and you will be unsubscribed.  If you have a
friend who wants to join, tell him to send an e-mail to
[EMAIL PROTECTED] and he will be subscribed.

--
Let your speech be always with grace, seasoned with salt, that you may know
how you ought to answer every man.  (Colossians 4:6)
http://www.InnGlory.org

If you do not want to receive posts from this list, send an email to
[EMAIL PROTECTED] and you will be unsubscribed.  If you have a
friend who wants to join, tell him to send an e-mail to
[EMAIL PROTECTED] and he will be subscribed.

--
Let your speech be always with grace, seasoned with salt, that you may know 
how you ought to answer every man.  (Colossians 4:6) http://www.InnGlory.org

If you do not want to receive posts from this list, send an email to [EMAIL 
PROTECTED] and you will be unsubscribed.  If you have a friend who wants to 
join, tell him to send an e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and he will be subscribed.

Re: [Bulk] RE: [Bulk] Re: [Bulk] Re: [Bulk] Re: [Bulk] Re: [TruthTalk] mormon angels. was: Dave uses Socratic Method of Teaching LDS doctrine on TT

I AM SPEAKING OF TRUE BELIEVERS REFLECTING THROLOGICAL BABEL DEAR
FRIENDS Shall I name such? David Miller, Christine Miller, Linda
Shields, Lance Muir, Gary, John, Bill, Jonathan, Caroline, Debbie, CPL,
Terry (well...maybe not Terry) and Gary... who did I miss? well.them
too. Disagree away should you wish. Every TRUE BELIEVER has exibited
confusion to a greater or lesser degree on numerouls occasions. Proof you
say! Where is the proof of such? Well, say I, just read the accumulated
posts of the last couple of years.

I am not saying that everything every true believer has said is not
representative of the true God or the true Gospel. I'm only saying that some
of it is false.

Do remember wont't you that if a thing is certain then, it is not true and,
if it is true then it is not certain.

 Original Message - 
From: ShieldsFamily [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org
Sent: May 27, 2005 16:57
Subject: [Bulk] RE: [Bulk] Re: [Bulk] Re: [Bulk] Re: [Bulk] Re: [TruthTalk]
mormon angels. was: Dave uses Socratic Method of Teaching LDS doctrine on TT


 Lance against displays his slick ability to miss the entire point.  Iz

 -Original Message-
 From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
 [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Lance Muir
 Sent: Friday, May 27, 2005 12:58 PM
 To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org
 Subject: Re: [Bulk] Re: [Bulk] Re: [Bulk] Re: [Bulk] Re: [TruthTalk]
mormon
 angels. was: Dave uses Socratic Method of Teaching LDS doctrine on TT

 What you have said is genuinely void of meaning. You've simply said what I
 posted a year or two back 'My theology can beat up your theology')


 - Original Message - 
 From: David Miller [EMAIL PROTECTED]
 To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org
 Sent: May 27, 2005 14:31
 Subject: [Bulk] Re: [Bulk] Re: [Bulk] Re: [Bulk] Re: [TruthTalk] mormon
 angels. was: Dave uses Socratic Method of Teaching LDS doctrine on TT


  Lance wrote:
   There are a variety of understandings for Satan in Job, the
   serpent in Genesis, the Nephilim in Genesis and on and on ...
   Why it is that some balk at my little formula continues to puzzle
   me when, IMO, all TT participants demonstrate it's accuracy
   regularly. (Text + believer + Spirit + tradition (optional) =
   theological Babel)
 
  I don't have any problem with you recognizing that TruthTalk
demonstrates
  the existence of theological Babel.  What I have a problem with is your
  perspective that true believers will demonstrate theological Babel.
  TruthTalk is made up of more than just true believers, so you should not
  interpret what happens here as demonstrative of what happens among true
  believers.
 
  For believers within the ekklesia, the formula goes more along the lines
 of:
  (text + believer + Spirit + good tradition - bad tradition = sound
 doctrine)
 
  Rather than theological Babel, true believers walk in the following
truth:
 
  Now I beseech you, brethren, by the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that
 ye
  all speak the same thing, and that there be no divisions among you; but
 that
  ye be perfectly joined together in the same mind and in the same
 judgment.
  (1 Corinthians 1:10)
 
  This too can be observed on TruthTalk, but you have to separate the
sheep
  from the goats.
 
  Juxtapose the following passage with your theological Babel formula:
 
  Zephaniah 3:9
  (9) For then will I turn to the people a pure language, that they may
all
  call upon the name of the LORD, to serve him with one consent.
 
  Many of us rejoice in this good news of the kingdom, but you seem to
want
 to
  rob us of this promise with your theological Babel philosophy.  If you
 look
  at what I have written here real hard, and you love the Word of God, you
  might be able to see what I am saying.  Otherwise, let him who is
 ignorant,
  be ignorant still.
 
  Peace be with you.
  David Miller.
 
 
  --
  Let your speech be always with grace, seasoned with salt, that you may
 know how you ought to answer every man.  (Colossians 4:6)
 http://www.InnGlory.org
 
  If you do not want to receive posts from this list, send an email to
 [EMAIL PROTECTED] and you will be unsubscribed.  If you have a
 friend who wants to join, tell him to send an e-mail to
 [EMAIL PROTECTED] and he will be subscribed.


 --
 Let your speech be always with grace, seasoned with salt, that you may
know
 how you ought to answer every man.  (Colossians 4:6)
 http://www.InnGlory.org

 If you do not want to receive posts from this list, send an email to
 [EMAIL PROTECTED] and you will be unsubscribed.  If you have a
 friend who wants to join, tell him to send an e-mail to
 [EMAIL PROTECTED] and he will be subscribed.



 --
 Let your speech be always with grace, seasoned with salt, that you may
know how you ought to answer every man.  (Colossians 4:6)
http://www.InnGlory.org

 If you do not want to receive posts from this list, send an email to
[EMAIL PROTECTED] and you will be unsubscribed.  If you have a
friend who

RE: [Bulk] RE: [Bulk] Re: [Bulk] Re: [Bulk] Re: [Bulk] Re: [TruthTalk] mormon angels. was: Dave uses Socratic Method of Teaching LDS doctrine on TT

What is Thrological?  I will agree that we have all been (and will be)
wrong, or at least only incompletely correct, about something theological at
some time or other.  But IF we are truly searching for Truth thru Christ He
WILL lead us into more and deeper truth--AS we show that we are receptive
and obedient to what He has already shown us.  As for your last statement: I
thoroughly disagree.  Are you not certain that Jesus is the Christ? Izzy

-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Lance Muir
Sent: Friday, May 27, 2005 3:18 PM
To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org
Subject: Re: [Bulk] RE: [Bulk] Re: [Bulk] Re: [Bulk] Re: [Bulk] Re:
[TruthTalk] mormon angels. was: Dave uses Socratic Method of Teaching LDS
doctrine on TT

I AM SPEAKING OF TRUE BELIEVERS REFLECTING THROLOGICAL BABEL DEAR
FRIENDS Shall I name such? David Miller, Christine Miller, Linda
Shields, Lance Muir, Gary, John, Bill, Jonathan, Caroline, Debbie, CPL,
Terry (well...maybe not Terry) and Gary... who did I miss? well.them
too. Disagree away should you wish. Every TRUE BELIEVER has exibited
confusion to a greater or lesser degree on numerouls occasions. Proof you
say! Where is the proof of such? Well, say I, just read the accumulated
posts of the last couple of years.

I am not saying that everything every true believer has said is not
representative of the true God or the true Gospel. I'm only saying that some
of it is false.

Do remember wont't you that if a thing is certain then, it is not true and,
if it is true then it is not certain.

 Original Message - 
From: ShieldsFamily [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org
Sent: May 27, 2005 16:57
Subject: [Bulk] RE: [Bulk] Re: [Bulk] Re: [Bulk] Re: [Bulk] Re: [TruthTalk]
mormon angels. was: Dave uses Socratic Method of Teaching LDS doctrine on TT


 Lance against displays his slick ability to miss the entire point.  Iz

 -Original Message-
 From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
 [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Lance Muir
 Sent: Friday, May 27, 2005 12:58 PM
 To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org
 Subject: Re: [Bulk] Re: [Bulk] Re: [Bulk] Re: [Bulk] Re: [TruthTalk]
mormon
 angels. was: Dave uses Socratic Method of Teaching LDS doctrine on TT

 What you have said is genuinely void of meaning. You've simply said what I
 posted a year or two back 'My theology can beat up your theology')


 - Original Message - 
 From: David Miller [EMAIL PROTECTED]
 To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org
 Sent: May 27, 2005 14:31
 Subject: [Bulk] Re: [Bulk] Re: [Bulk] Re: [Bulk] Re: [TruthTalk] mormon
 angels. was: Dave uses Socratic Method of Teaching LDS doctrine on TT


  Lance wrote:
   There are a variety of understandings for Satan in Job, the
   serpent in Genesis, the Nephilim in Genesis and on and on ...
   Why it is that some balk at my little formula continues to puzzle
   me when, IMO, all TT participants demonstrate it's accuracy
   regularly. (Text + believer + Spirit + tradition (optional) =
   theological Babel)
 
  I don't have any problem with you recognizing that TruthTalk
demonstrates
  the existence of theological Babel.  What I have a problem with is your
  perspective that true believers will demonstrate theological Babel.
  TruthTalk is made up of more than just true believers, so you should not
  interpret what happens here as demonstrative of what happens among true
  believers.
 
  For believers within the ekklesia, the formula goes more along the lines
 of:
  (text + believer + Spirit + good tradition - bad tradition = sound
 doctrine)
 
  Rather than theological Babel, true believers walk in the following
truth:
 
  Now I beseech you, brethren, by the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that
 ye
  all speak the same thing, and that there be no divisions among you; but
 that
  ye be perfectly joined together in the same mind and in the same
 judgment.
  (1 Corinthians 1:10)
 
  This too can be observed on TruthTalk, but you have to separate the
sheep
  from the goats.
 
  Juxtapose the following passage with your theological Babel formula:
 
  Zephaniah 3:9
  (9) For then will I turn to the people a pure language, that they may
all
  call upon the name of the LORD, to serve him with one consent.
 
  Many of us rejoice in this good news of the kingdom, but you seem to
want
 to
  rob us of this promise with your theological Babel philosophy.  If you
 look
  at what I have written here real hard, and you love the Word of God, you
  might be able to see what I am saying.  Otherwise, let him who is
 ignorant,
  be ignorant still.
 
  Peace be with you.
  David Miller.
 
 
  --
  Let your speech be always with grace, seasoned with salt, that you may
 know how you ought to answer every man.  (Colossians 4:6)
 http://www.InnGlory.org
 
  If you do not want to receive posts from this list, send an email to
 [EMAIL PROTECTED] and you will be unsubscribed.  If you have a
 friend who wants to join, tell him to send an e-mail

Re: [Bulk] RE: [Bulk] RE: [Bulk] Re: [Bulk] Re: [Bulk] Re: [Bulk] Re: [TruthTalk] mormon angels. was: Dave uses Socratic Method of Teaching LDS doctrine on TT

Don't strain yourself young lady. Just leave off reading the last remark.

- Original Message - 
From: ShieldsFamily [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org
Sent: May 27, 2005 17:47
Subject: [Bulk] RE: [Bulk] RE: [Bulk] Re: [Bulk] Re: [Bulk] Re: [Bulk] Re:
[TruthTalk] mormon angels. was: Dave uses Socratic Method of Teaching LDS
doctrine on TT

 What is Thrological?  I will agree that we have all been (and will be)
 wrong, or at least only incompletely correct, about something theological
at
 some time or other.  But IF we are truly searching for Truth thru Christ
He
 WILL lead us into more and deeper truth--AS we show that we are receptive
 and obedient to what He has already shown us.  As for your last statement:
I
 thoroughly disagree.  Are you not certain that Jesus is the Christ? Izzy

 -Original Message-
 From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
 [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Lance Muir
 Sent: Friday, May 27, 2005 3:18 PM
 To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org
 Subject: Re: [Bulk] RE: [Bulk] Re: [Bulk] Re: [Bulk] Re: [Bulk] Re:
 [TruthTalk] mormon angels. was: Dave uses Socratic Method of Teaching LDS
 doctrine on TT

 I AM SPEAKING OF TRUE BELIEVERS REFLECTING THROLOGICAL BABEL DEAR
 FRIENDS Shall I name such? David Miller, Christine Miller, Linda
 Shields, Lance Muir, Gary, John, Bill, Jonathan, Caroline, Debbie, CPL,
 Terry (well...maybe not Terry) and Gary... who did I miss?
well.them
 too. Disagree away should you wish. Every TRUE BELIEVER has exibited
 confusion to a greater or lesser degree on numerouls occasions. Proof you
 say! Where is the proof of such? Well, say I, just read the accumulated
 posts of the last couple of years.

 I am not saying that everything every true believer has said is not
 representative of the true God or the true Gospel. I'm only saying that
some
 of it is false.

 Do remember wont't you that if a thing is certain then, it is not true
and,
 if it is true then it is not certain.

  Original Message - 
 From: ShieldsFamily [EMAIL PROTECTED]
 To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org
 Sent: May 27, 2005 16:57
 Subject: [Bulk] RE: [Bulk] Re: [Bulk] Re: [Bulk] Re: [Bulk] Re:
[TruthTalk]
 mormon angels. was: Dave uses Socratic Method of Teaching LDS doctrine on
TT

  Lance against displays his slick ability to miss the entire point.  Iz

  -Original Message-
  From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
  [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Lance Muir
  Sent: Friday, May 27, 2005 12:58 PM
  To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org
  Subject: Re: [Bulk] Re: [Bulk] Re: [Bulk] Re: [Bulk] Re: [TruthTalk]
 mormon
  angels. was: Dave uses Socratic Method of Teaching LDS doctrine on TT

  What you have said is genuinely void of meaning. You've simply said what
I
  posted a year or two back 'My theology can beat up your theology')

  - Original Message - 
  From: David Miller [EMAIL PROTECTED]
  To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org
  Sent: May 27, 2005 14:31
  Subject: [Bulk] Re: [Bulk] Re: [Bulk] Re: [Bulk] Re: [TruthTalk] mormon
  angels. was: Dave uses Socratic Method of Teaching LDS doctrine on TT

   Lance wrote:
There are a variety of understandings for Satan in Job, the
serpent in Genesis, the Nephilim in Genesis and on and on ...
Why it is that some balk at my little formula continues to puzzle
me when, IMO, all TT participants demonstrate it's accuracy
regularly. (Text + believer + Spirit + tradition (optional) =
theological Babel)

   I don't have any problem with you recognizing that TruthTalk
 demonstrates
   the existence of theological Babel.  What I have a problem with is
your
   perspective that true believers will demonstrate theological Babel.
   TruthTalk is made up of more than just true believers, so you should
not
   interpret what happens here as demonstrative of what happens among
true
   believers.

   For believers within the ekklesia, the formula goes more along the
lines
  of:
   (text + believer + Spirit + good tradition - bad tradition = sound
  doctrine)

   Rather than theological Babel, true believers walk in the following
 truth:

   Now I beseech you, brethren, by the name of our Lord Jesus Christ,
that
  ye
   all speak the same thing, and that there be no divisions among you;
but
  that
   ye be perfectly joined together in the same mind and in the same
  judgment.
   (1 Corinthians 1:10)

   This too can be observed on TruthTalk, but you have to separate the
 sheep
   from the goats.

   Juxtapose the following passage with your theological Babel formula:

   Zephaniah 3:9
   (9) For then will I turn to the people a pure language, that they may
 all
   call upon the name of the LORD, to serve him with one consent.

   Many of us rejoice in this good news of the kingdom, but you seem to
 want
  to
   rob us of this promise with your theological Babel philosophy.  If you
  look
   at what I have written here real hard, and you love the Word of God,
you
   might be able to see what I

RE: [Bulk] RE: [Bulk] RE: [Bulk] Re: [Bulk] Re: [Bulk] Re: [Bulk] Re: [TruthTalk] mormon angels. was: Dave uses Socratic Method of Teaching LDS doctrine on TT

Strain yourself.  Try to answer the question. 

-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Lance Muir
Sent: Friday, May 27, 2005 3:57 PM
To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org
Subject: Re: [Bulk] RE: [Bulk] RE: [Bulk] Re: [Bulk] Re: [Bulk] Re: [Bulk]
Re: [TruthTalk] mormon angels. was: Dave uses Socratic Method of Teaching
LDS doctrine on TT

Don't strain yourself young lady. Just leave off reading the last remark.

- Original Message - 
From: ShieldsFamily [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org
Sent: May 27, 2005 17:47
Subject: [Bulk] RE: [Bulk] RE: [Bulk] Re: [Bulk] Re: [Bulk] Re: [Bulk] Re:
[TruthTalk] mormon angels. was: Dave uses Socratic Method of Teaching LDS
doctrine on TT

 What is Thrological?  I will agree that we have all been (and will be)
 wrong, or at least only incompletely correct, about something theological
at
 some time or other.  But IF we are truly searching for Truth thru Christ
He
 WILL lead us into more and deeper truth--AS we show that we are receptive
 and obedient to what He has already shown us.  As for your last statement:
I
 thoroughly disagree.  Are you not certain that Jesus is the Christ? Izzy

 -Original Message-
 From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
 [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Lance Muir
 Sent: Friday, May 27, 2005 3:18 PM
 To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org
 Subject: Re: [Bulk] RE: [Bulk] Re: [Bulk] Re: [Bulk] Re: [Bulk] Re:
 [TruthTalk] mormon angels. was: Dave uses Socratic Method of Teaching LDS
 doctrine on TT

 I AM SPEAKING OF TRUE BELIEVERS REFLECTING THROLOGICAL BABEL DEAR
 FRIENDS Shall I name such? David Miller, Christine Miller, Linda
 Shields, Lance Muir, Gary, John, Bill, Jonathan, Caroline, Debbie, CPL,
 Terry (well...maybe not Terry) and Gary... who did I miss?
well.them
 too. Disagree away should you wish. Every TRUE BELIEVER has exibited
 confusion to a greater or lesser degree on numerouls occasions. Proof you
 say! Where is the proof of such? Well, say I, just read the accumulated
 posts of the last couple of years.

 I am not saying that everything every true believer has said is not
 representative of the true God or the true Gospel. I'm only saying that
some
 of it is false.

 Do remember wont't you that if a thing is certain then, it is not true
and,
 if it is true then it is not certain.

  Original Message - 
 From: ShieldsFamily [EMAIL PROTECTED]
 To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org
 Sent: May 27, 2005 16:57
 Subject: [Bulk] RE: [Bulk] Re: [Bulk] Re: [Bulk] Re: [Bulk] Re:
[TruthTalk]
 mormon angels. was: Dave uses Socratic Method of Teaching LDS doctrine on
TT

  Lance against displays his slick ability to miss the entire point.  Iz

  -Original Message-
  From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
  [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Lance Muir
  Sent: Friday, May 27, 2005 12:58 PM
  To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org
  Subject: Re: [Bulk] Re: [Bulk] Re: [Bulk] Re: [Bulk] Re: [TruthTalk]
 mormon
  angels. was: Dave uses Socratic Method of Teaching LDS doctrine on TT

  What you have said is genuinely void of meaning. You've simply said what
I
  posted a year or two back 'My theology can beat up your theology')

  - Original Message - 
  From: David Miller [EMAIL PROTECTED]
  To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org
  Sent: May 27, 2005 14:31
  Subject: [Bulk] Re: [Bulk] Re: [Bulk] Re: [Bulk] Re: [TruthTalk] mormon
  angels. was: Dave uses Socratic Method of Teaching LDS doctrine on TT

   Lance wrote:
There are a variety of understandings for Satan in Job, the
serpent in Genesis, the Nephilim in Genesis and on and on ...
Why it is that some balk at my little formula continues to puzzle
me when, IMO, all TT participants demonstrate it's accuracy
regularly. (Text + believer + Spirit + tradition (optional) =
theological Babel)

   I don't have any problem with you recognizing that TruthTalk
 demonstrates
   the existence of theological Babel.  What I have a problem with is
your
   perspective that true believers will demonstrate theological Babel.
   TruthTalk is made up of more than just true believers, so you should
not
   interpret what happens here as demonstrative of what happens among
true
   believers.

   For believers within the ekklesia, the formula goes more along the
lines
  of:
   (text + believer + Spirit + good tradition - bad tradition = sound
  doctrine)

   Rather than theological Babel, true believers walk in the following
 truth:

   Now I beseech you, brethren, by the name of our Lord Jesus Christ,
that
  ye
   all speak the same thing, and that there be no divisions among you;
but
  that
   ye be perfectly joined together in the same mind and in the same
  judgment.
   (1 Corinthians 1:10)

   This too can be observed on TruthTalk, but you have to separate the
 sheep
   from the goats.

   Juxtapose the following passage with your theological Babel formula:

   Zephaniah 3:9
   (9) For then will I turn

Re: [Bulk] RE: [Bulk] Re: [Bulk] Re: [Bulk] Re: [Bulk] Re: [TruthTalk] mormon angels. was: Dave uses Socratic Method of Teaching LDS doctrine on TT

2005-05-27 Thread David Miller

Lance wrote:
 Every TRUE BELIEVER has exibited confusion
 to a greater or lesser degree on numerouls occasions.

I don't believe you, Lance.  :-)  Hmmm.  Does this mean that I am not a TRUE 
BELIEVER?

Lance wrote:
 Proof you say! Where is the proof of such? Well,
 say I, just read the accumulated posts of the last
 couple of years.

I guess you will have to define confusion, because I do not find confusion 
in the posts of people like Izzy, Terry, Judy, etc.  Me thinks the confusion 
is in YOUR mind when you read their posts.  :-)

Lance wrote:
 I'm only saying that some of it is false.

Sorry, but again, I don't believe you.  If you are going to say that it is 
POSSIBLE that some of what everyone posts is false, ok, I'll go along with 
that, but for you to know that some of it is false in what everyone says 
means that you would have to be certain of the truth concerning everything 
posted, or at least certain of the truth that everyone knowingly or 
unknowingly shares falsehood.  I know you testify that you are not certain, 
so it appears that you can only testify to your own contradictions and 
confusion.

Lance wrote:
 Do remember wont't you that if a thing is certain
 then, it is not true and, if it is true then it is not certain.

Where did you get this axiom?  Please tell.  I would like to read this 
author a little more thoroughly and in context.  I hope this is not from 
Torrance or Barth.

Peace be with you.
David Miller. 


--
Let your speech be always with grace, seasoned with salt, that you may know 
how you ought to answer every man.  (Colossians 4:6) http://www.InnGlory.org

If you do not want to receive posts from this list, send an email to [EMAIL 
PROTECTED] and you will be unsubscribed.  If you have a friend who wants to 
join, tell him to send an e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and he will be subscribed.

Re: [Bulk] Re: [Bulk] RE: [Bulk] Re: [Bulk] Re: [Bulk] Re: [Bulk] Re: [TruthTalk] mormon angels. was: Dave uses Socratic Method of Teaching LDS doctrine on TT

It is from Einstein. truth/certainty thingy.

- Original Message - 
From: David Miller [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org
Sent: May 27, 2005 19:11
Subject: [Bulk] Re: [Bulk] RE: [Bulk] Re: [Bulk] Re: [Bulk] Re: [Bulk] Re:
[TruthTalk] mormon angels. was: Dave uses Socratic Method of Teaching LDS
doctrine on TT

 Lance wrote:
  Every TRUE BELIEVER has exibited confusion
  to a greater or lesser degree on numerouls occasions.

 I don't believe you, Lance.  :-)  Hmmm.  Does this mean that I am not a
TRUE
 BELIEVER?

 Lance wrote:
  Proof you say! Where is the proof of such? Well,
  say I, just read the accumulated posts of the last
  couple of years.

 I guess you will have to define confusion, because I do not find confusion
 in the posts of people like Izzy, Terry, Judy, etc.  Me thinks the
confusion
 is in YOUR mind when you read their posts.  :-)

 Lance wrote:
  I'm only saying that some of it is false.

 Sorry, but again, I don't believe you.  If you are going to say that it is
 POSSIBLE that some of what everyone posts is false, ok, I'll go along with
 that, but for you to know that some of it is false in what everyone says
 means that you would have to be certain of the truth concerning everything
 posted, or at least certain of the truth that everyone knowingly or
 unknowingly shares falsehood.  I know you testify that you are not
certain,
 so it appears that you can only testify to your own contradictions and
 confusion.

 Lance wrote:
  Do remember wont't you that if a thing is certain
  then, it is not true and, if it is true then it is not certain.

 Where did you get this axiom?  Please tell.  I would like to read this
 author a little more thoroughly and in context.  I hope this is not from
 Torrance or Barth.

 Peace be with you.
 David Miller.

 --
 Let your speech be always with grace, seasoned with salt, that you may
know how you ought to answer every man.  (Colossians 4:6)
http://www.InnGlory.org

 If you do not want to receive posts from this list, send an email to
[EMAIL PROTECTED] and you will be unsubscribed.  If you have a
friend who wants to join, tell him to send an e-mail to
[EMAIL PROTECTED] and he will be subscribed.

--
Let your speech be always with grace, seasoned with salt, that you may know 
how you ought to answer every man.  (Colossians 4:6) http://www.InnGlory.org

If you do not want to receive posts from this list, send an email to [EMAIL 
PROTECTED] and you will be unsubscribed.  If you have a friend who wants to 
join, tell him to send an e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and he will be subscribed.

Re: [Bulk] Re: [Bulk] Re: [Bulk] Re: [TruthTalk] mormon angels. was: Dave uses Socratic Method of Teaching LDS doctrine on TT

2005-05-27 Thread knpraise



Zephaniah 3:9
(9) For then will I turn to the people a pure language, that they may all 
call upon the name of the LORD, to serve him with one consent.

Many of us rejoice in this good news of the kingdom, but you seem to want to 
rob us of this promise with your theological Babel philosophy.  If you look 
at what I have written here real hard, and you love the Word of God, you 
might be able to see what I am saying.  Otherwise, "let him who is ignorant, 
be ignorant still."

Peace be with you.
David Miller. 


Zephaniah 3 is a passage written to Judah about 600 years before the coming of the kingdom.  It has nothing to do with refuting  the good Canadian Bishops formula.

Re: [Bulk] Re: [Bulk] Re: [TruthTalk] mormon angels. was: Dave uses Socratic Method of Teaching LDS doctrine on TT





DAVEH: Christine, how do you understand Job 1:6

Now thee was a day when the sons of God came to present
themselves before the Lord, and Satan came also among them.

Do you believe the sons of God are similar in context
as are the children of God?

Christine Miller wrote:

   The Bible is very clear on what it means to be a child
of God and a brother of Jesus. It requires
interpretation to communicate at all, but when
something is stated blankly (John 1:12), how much spin
can we add before we are misinterpreting? Perhaps I
could have said "misinterpret" instead of "disregard,"
but I do believe the Mormons are genuinely ignoring
the Bible's stance on this one. 

Blessings!
  


-- 
~~~
Dave Hansen
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.langlitz.com
~~~
If you wish to receive
things I find interesting,
I maintain six email lists...
JOKESTER, OPINIONS, LDS,
STUFF, MOTORCYCLE and CLIPS.

Re: [Bulk] Re: [TruthTalk] mormon angels. was: Dave uses Socratic Method of Teaching LDS doctrine on TT







Charles Perry Locke wrote:
David, and Dave,
  
  
 Dave states that he is "not here [on TT] to learn the truth...he is
here to learn what protestants think, and why". While not part of his
"pat" statement about why he is on TT, he also said that he is not here
tio convert anyone to mormonism or to teach mormonism.
  
  
I believe that Dave is genuine about his stated reasons for being
here.
  
  
Most of the time, Dave answers questions about his faith when asked,
and that presents no problem at all.
  
  
 Sometimes Dave will ask someone what "protestants" believe. They will
answer him honestly and forthrightly. Dave will then begin to DEBATE
what they believe by interject unsolicited mormon doctrine, sometimes
socratically. Again, I have no problems with his doing this.
  
  
 However, when I say, "Dave, you have said that you are not here to
teach mormon doctrine", which is what he is doing when he introduces
mormon doctrine in rebuttal to a question he has asked to "learn what
protestants think", he denies it.
  
  
 Now, he may "say" that he is not here to teach mormon doctrine, and
that may indeed not by "why" he is here. But, when confronted with the
fact that he said he is not here to TEACH mormon doctrine but is, in
fact TEACHING mormon doctrine, I have a problem with that. To me it is
not being genuine. All Dave has to do is admit that at times he teaches
mormon doctrine on TT. It is the fact that he sometimes teaches mormon
doctrine, but denies that he does so, that I am complaining about.
  
  
 Furthermore, he has taken my comlpaint and TWISTED it to mean that I
object to his teaching mormon doctrine. That has never been my
argument. It is a lie for him to twist it that way. He can teach ALL
the mormon doctrine he wishes...I would just like for him to stop
denying it and admit that is what he is doing.
  
  
 Case in point. Blaine makes no qualms about proudly presenting his
mormon beliefs, and that has NEVER bothered me...because BLAINE NEVER
MADE THE STATEMENT THAT HE IS NOT TEACHING MORMON DOCTRINE on TT.
  

DAVEH: Nor have I made such a
statement, Perry. Now look who's twisting the truth

Perry
  
  


-- 
~~~
Dave Hansen
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.langlitz.com
~~~
If you wish to receive
things I find interesting,
I maintain six email lists...
JOKESTER, OPINIONS, LDS,
STUFF, MOTORCYCLE and CLIPS.

Re: [Bulk] Re: [TruthTalk] mormon angels. was: Dave uses Socratic Method of Teaching LDS doctrine on TT







David Miller wrote:

  Dave Hansen wrote:
  
  
To me it remains a no win situation when it is implied
that I am a liar for responding to questions about my beliefs.

  
  
From my perspective, if a member implies you are a liar for responding to 
questions about your belief, that member is mistaken.  You have made your 
case, and even if the person you have made your case with does not accept 
your arguments, don't presume that the rest of us don't.
  

DAVEH: YesI do assume most TTers agree with my critics
rather than me. But I do realize that there are points of discussion
that are in agreement with my beliefs and what some (though not all)
TTers may believe.

  
It seems to me that you don't want to answer Perry until he acknowledges 
that you are being honest about your motivations for being here.

DAVEH: What's in it for me, DavidMa bloody nose???  If somebody
is outspokenly opposed to my beliefs, and has made attacking my faith a
crusade of sortsthen why would you or anybody else expect me to
share more of those beliefs with him if it just agitates him to
criticize more?

 There is a big cultural difference between us, DavidM. Your
perspective of being a Christian is to stand bold as martyrs of old and
defiantly oppose those you perceive are fighting against your Faith.
Perhaps I'm a little too old and a bit too tired, but my LDS culture
has conditioned (yukI don't think that is the proper word...and,
I'm sure some of my critics will pick up on it and toss it back in my
face) me to be much more passive in confronting negativity (another
poorly used term in this regard). I would like to think that if
Jesus were to ask me to wrestle the devil to the death, I'd not shirk
from the duty. But until I am called to that job, I'm a bit too timid
and reluctant to jump into the fray. I'd rather leave such battles to
those who enjoy contests of egos. In contrast to street preachers, I
think Mormons are brought up to be relatively non confrontational. If
you don't want to listen to meI won't get out a bullhorn and Kevin
you to death.

I would 
encourge Perry to acknowledge this, but even if he disagrees with both you 
and me, wouldn't it be ok to go ahead and answer him and still stick by your 
position of honesty?
  

DAVEH: If Perry wants to think I'm dishonest, that's his problem of
mistaken discernment. As you know, I've got a rather thick skin and
I'm not going to lose much sleep over it. But why do you think I
should hand him the bullets to fire back at me? He's pretty well made
his anti-Mormon position clear, has he not? His intent is to denigrate
everything related to Mormonism. That is his privilege. I just don't
want to be his punching bag.

  
One question you might answer that could help resolve this with Perry is, do 
you ever have any thoughts of possibly converting any of us to Mormonism?
  

DAVEH: No. Quite the opposite. If I were wanting to convert people,
TT is the last place I'd make an attempt. 

 As you know, I've been a missionary for the Church in my younger
days. We were encouraged to avoid argumentative situationsbashing
as we called it back then. I assume LDS missionaries are taught much
the same today. I occasionally go out with the missionaries when I
have time, and as far as I can seethey have the same standards as
we had way back when. Like I saidour culture is vastly different
than what I see in TT. And...I realize TT is hardly a typical
Christian environment. Anywayback to the pointTT is just not
the venue where LDS folks would attempt to convert people. 

 As I see itTT is a bitterly combative atmosphere that is less
than conducive to truth, despite painting its face as such. Does the
Holy Spirit linger in an acrid environment? Not in my opinion. And if
the Holy Ghost is not present, is truth present?  Just a thought to
ponder

  
You ought to understand that evangelism is important to many evangelicals. 
  

DAVEH: Sure, I understand that well. Likewise, the LDS Church is
heavily involved in spreading the gospel. We just do it in vastly
different ways. AndI don't think you are going to find LDS
missionaries working TT. Maybe Blaine is the exception.are you
on a mission to TT, Blaine?  :-) 

  Most non-Mormons on this list probably hope to influence you away from 
Mormonism,

DAVEH: That is quite obvious. I find it interesting that when some of
them finally realize that I am hopeless (in their eyes), their
attitude towards me changes.

   so it is natural for them to assume that you hope to move some of 
us toward accepting Mormonism. 

DAVEH: People draw incorrect conclusions based on faulty logical all
the time. If they would recognize the cultural differences between
their way of religious thinking and that of Mormons, they might not get
so uptight when chatting with LDS folks. That also is why I am so
curious about the thinking of street preachers in SLC waving our
underwear.to me it seems like a

Re: [Bulk] Re: [TruthTalk] mormon angels. was: Dave uses Socratic Method of Teaching LDS doctrine on TT





DAVEH: DavidM wrote. 
Most non-Mormons on this list probably hope to influence you away from 
Mormonism, so it is natural for them to assume that you hope to move some of 
us toward accepting Mormonism.


Kevin Deegan wrote:

  evidently view my explanations as an effort to try to
convert TTers to Mormonism
  Like who?
  Can you post a quote showing this?
  I think your smoke screen has gotten away with you it is in your
eyes now.


-- 
~~~
Dave Hansen
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.langlitz.com
~~~
If you wish to receive
things I find interesting,
I maintain six email lists...
JOKESTER, OPINIONS, LDS,
STUFF, MOTORCYCLE and CLIPS.

Re: [Bulk] Re: [Bulk] Re: [TruthTalk] mormon angels. was: Dave uses Socratic Method of Teaching LDS doctrine on TT

2005-05-26 Thread David Miller

John wrote:
 Have you ever changed your mind in regards to the
 meaning of a particular passage?   Of course you have.
 How do you know, then, that what you now accept
 is not due for change sometime in the future?
 Answer: you don't.  This is exactly why Paul
 wrote I Cor 8:1-3.

This is an excellent passage in regards to the subject you are addressing, 
but I hope you do not interpret this passage to be saying that we cannot be 
certain about the truthfulness of any knowledge that we now have.  Faith is 
being certain about some knowledge for which we have no empirical proof 
(Heb. 11:1), so to surmise that all knowledge we have is subject to being 
discarded is to make the virtue of faith something that is unobtainable. 
Let's look at the passage you reference.

1 Corinthians 8:1-3
(1) Now as touching things offered unto idols, we know that we all have 
knowledge. Knowledge puffeth up, but charity edifieth.
(2) And if any man think that he knoweth any thing, he knoweth nothing yet 
as he ought to know.
(3) But if any man love God, the same is known of him.

This passage tempers us in regards to being puffed up with knowledge, and I 
think this is your primary point (which is a very good and important 
point!).  It explicitly states that if any man thinks he knows something, he 
knows nothing yet as he ought to know.  It then expresses greater importance 
on being known of God, which happens if we love God.

I do not see changing our mind about the meaning of a passage as being 
EXACTLY why Paul wrote this.  Rather, he is showing how our knowledge is 
continually growing.  For example, I believe Jesus is the Christ.  Will I 
ever find that I need to change my mind about this?  No.  But... my 
knowledge of Christ will increase and my understanding of what it means to 
believe upon Christ will increase.

The thrust of what Paul is saying here is that we ought not be puffed up 
about what knowledge we have, because, as all older men and women have 
experienced, our comprehension of what we think we know will grow.  He is 
working from that Platonic concept of absolutes versus the Aristolean 
concept of change, and pointing to being known of God as the absolute aspect 
which does not change.  Therefore, the implication to his Greek audience 
appreciative of the Platonic philosophy is that loving God and being known 
of God is greater than anything we think we know.

I hope you don't take my comments as refuting what you have said.  I am 
simply trying to refine how you have articulated it.  The focus should be on 
growth in knowledge not on the idea that everyone will someday discard the 
knowledge he now has as erroneous.

Peace be with you.
David Miller. 


--
Let your speech be always with grace, seasoned with salt, that you may know 
how you ought to answer every man.  (Colossians 4:6) http://www.InnGlory.org

If you do not want to receive posts from this list, send an email to [EMAIL 
PROTECTED] and you will be unsubscribed.  If you have a friend who wants to 
join, tell him to send an e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and he will be subscribed.

Re: [Bulk] Re: [Bulk] Re: [Bulk] Re: [TruthTalk] mormon angels. was: Dave uses Socratic Method of Teaching LDS doctrine on TT

2005-05-26 Thread Lance Muir

One way of thinking has to do with the refining of questions over time as
opposed to the distillation of answers.

- Original Message - 
From: David Miller [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org
Sent: May 26, 2005 08:39
Subject: [Bulk] Re: [Bulk] Re: [Bulk] Re: [TruthTalk] mormon angels. was:
Dave uses Socratic Method of Teaching LDS doctrine on TT

 John wrote:
  Have you ever changed your mind in regards to the
  meaning of a particular passage?   Of course you have.
  How do you know, then, that what you now accept
  is not due for change sometime in the future?
  Answer: you don't.  This is exactly why Paul
  wrote I Cor 8:1-3.

 This is an excellent passage in regards to the subject you are addressing,
 but I hope you do not interpret this passage to be saying that we cannot
be
 certain about the truthfulness of any knowledge that we now have.  Faith
is
 being certain about some knowledge for which we have no empirical proof
 (Heb. 11:1), so to surmise that all knowledge we have is subject to being
 discarded is to make the virtue of faith something that is unobtainable.
 Let's look at the passage you reference.

 1 Corinthians 8:1-3
 (1) Now as touching things offered unto idols, we know that we all have
 knowledge. Knowledge puffeth up, but charity edifieth.
 (2) And if any man think that he knoweth any thing, he knoweth nothing yet
 as he ought to know.
 (3) But if any man love God, the same is known of him.

 This passage tempers us in regards to being puffed up with knowledge, and
I
 think this is your primary point (which is a very good and important
 point!).  It explicitly states that if any man thinks he knows something,
he
 knows nothing yet as he ought to know.  It then expresses greater
importance
 on being known of God, which happens if we love God.

 I do not see changing our mind about the meaning of a passage as being
 EXACTLY why Paul wrote this.  Rather, he is showing how our knowledge is
 continually growing.  For example, I believe Jesus is the Christ.  Will I
 ever find that I need to change my mind about this?  No.  But... my
 knowledge of Christ will increase and my understanding of what it means to
 believe upon Christ will increase.

 The thrust of what Paul is saying here is that we ought not be puffed up
 about what knowledge we have, because, as all older men and women have
 experienced, our comprehension of what we think we know will grow.  He is
 working from that Platonic concept of absolutes versus the Aristolean
 concept of change, and pointing to being known of God as the absolute
aspect
 which does not change.  Therefore, the implication to his Greek audience
 appreciative of the Platonic philosophy is that loving God and being known
 of God is greater than anything we think we know.

 I hope you don't take my comments as refuting what you have said.  I am
 simply trying to refine how you have articulated it.  The focus should be
on
 growth in knowledge not on the idea that everyone will someday discard the
 knowledge he now has as erroneous.

 Peace be with you.
 David Miller.

 --
 Let your speech be always with grace, seasoned with salt, that you may
know how you ought to answer every man.  (Colossians 4:6)
http://www.InnGlory.org

 If you do not want to receive posts from this list, send an email to
[EMAIL PROTECTED] and you will be unsubscribed.  If you have a
friend who wants to join, tell him to send an e-mail to
[EMAIL PROTECTED] and he will be subscribed.

--
Let your speech be always with grace, seasoned with salt, that you may know 
how you ought to answer every man.  (Colossians 4:6) http://www.InnGlory.org

If you do not want to receive posts from this list, send an email to [EMAIL 
PROTECTED] and you will be unsubscribed.  If you have a friend who wants to 
join, tell him to send an e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and he will be subscribed.

Re: [Bulk] Re: [Bulk] Re: [TruthTalk] mormon angels. was: Dave uses Socratic Method of Teaching LDS doctrine on TT

-Original Message-From: David Miller [EMAIL PROTECTED]To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgSent: Thu, 26 May 2005 08:39:55 -0400Subject: Re: [Bulk] Re: [Bulk] Re: [TruthTalk] mormon angels. was: Dave uses Socratic Method of Teaching LDS doctrine on TT

John wrote:
Have you ever changed your mind in regards to the
meaning of a particular passage? Of course you have.
How do you know, then, that what you now accept
is not due for change sometime in the future?
Answer: you don't. This is exactly why Paul
wrote I Cor 8:1-3.

This is an excellent passage in regards to the subject you are addressing,
but I hope you do not interpret this passage to be saying that we cannot be
certain about the truthfulness of any knowledge that we now have. Faith is
being certain about some knowledge for which we have no empirical proof
(Heb. 11:1), so to surmise that all knowledge we have is subject to being
discarded is to make the virtue of faith something that is unobtainable.
Let's look at the passage you reference.I took the liberty of highlighting a sentence in the above - it is at the heart of what you are saying in this post and is an extremely important issue. And you make an excellent point.What I take from the above is this: certainty can be of a mathematical quality or it can be of a passionate assurance. Faith (passionate assurance or conviction as I see it) is both our evidence and our assurance. Amen to your observation, here.

1 Corinthians 8:1-3
(1) Now as touching things offered unto idols, we know that we all have
knowledge. Knowledge puffeth up, but charity edifieth.
(2) And if any man think that he knoweth any thing, he knoweth nothing yet
as he ought to know.
(3) But if any man love God, the same is known of him.

This passage tempers us in regards to being puffed up with knowledge, and I
think this is your primary point (which is a very good and important
point!). It explicitly states that if any man thinks he knows something, he
knows nothing yet as he ought to know. It then expresses greater importance
on being known of God, which happens if we love God. Amen again.

I do not see "changing our mind about the meaning of a passage" as being
EXACTLY why Paul wrote this. Rather, he is showing how our knowledge is
continually growing. For example, I believe Jesus is the Christ. Will I
ever find that I need to change my mind about this? No. But... my
knowledge of Christ will increase and my understanding of what it means to
believe upon Christ will increase.Here, I disagree. Paul IMO is contrasting an empirical knowing with the passion that opens the door to a relationship with God. I think you are saying that Paul, here, is presenting an evolving knowing -- going from the empirical to the passion of love (and faith.) Not entirely off base, I might add -- I just think he speaks of contrast rather than development.

The thrust of what Paul is saying here is that we ought not be puffed up
about what knowledge we have, because, as all older men and women have
experienced, our comprehension of what we think we know will grow. Yes - but this growth is manifested in the "change of mind" that I spoke of, is it not. Whether you or not, my view on Gal 3:26-27 has "evolved." I no longer believe that the primary issue in that passage is water baptism but an immersion into Christ, Himself. That evolution is the result of growth, no doubt - but it (this growth) is manifested in my change of mind about this passage.In later years, perhaps, I will come back to water baptism in this passage. Who knows. In a way, we are talking about the same thing He is
working from that Platonic concept of absolutes versus the Aristolean
concept of change, and pointing to being known of God as the absolute aspect
which does not change. Therefore, the implication to his Greek audience
appreciative of the Platonic philosophy is that loving God and being known
of God is greater than anything we think we know.In simpler terms, he is contrasting head knowledge with heart knowledge . agreed?

I hope you don't take my comments as refuting what you have said. I am
simply trying to refine how you have articulated it. The focus should be on
growth in knowledge not on the idea that everyone will someday discard the
knowledge he now has as erroneous. I would never say it this way. I believe that Paul is saying the focus should be on love and the ensuing relationship - not on head knowledge. Peace be with you.
David Miller.

--
"Let your speech be always with grace, seasoned with salt, that you may know how
you ought to answer every man." (Colossians 4:6) http://www.InnGlory.org

If you do not want to receive posts from this list, send an email to
[EMAIL PROTECTED] and you will be unsubscribed. If you have a friend
who wants to join, tell him to send an e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and
he will be subscribed.

Re: [Bulk] Re: [Bulk] Re: [TruthTalk] mormon angels. was: Dave uses Socratic Method of Teaching LDS doctrine on TT

2005-05-26 Thread Christine Miller

Hm. Actually, Dave, I do not know how to answer you. I remember God constantly referred to Ezekiel as "Son of Man," so there is a distinction made in the Old Testament, where "sons of God"seemed to meanangels (for instance, in Gen. 6 where the sons of God looked upon the daughters of man as fair).It seems the New Testament speaks of a spiritual adoption.However, I'm not sure I have offered a full explanation of my stance.

Are there anyTTers whomightwish toofferwisdom here? How do the "sons of God" in the OT differ from the "sons of God" in the NT?

BlessingsDave Hansen [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
DAVEH: Christine, how do you understand Job 1:6Now thee was a day when the sons of God came to present themselves before the Lord, and Satan came also among them.Do you believe the sons of God are similar in context as are the children of God?Christine Miller wrote:
The Bible is very clear on what it means to be a child
of God and a brother of Jesus. It requires
interpretation to communicate at all, but when
something is stated blankly (John 1:12), how much spin
can we add before we are misinterpreting? Perhaps I
could have said "misinterpret" instead of "disregard,"
but I do believe the Mormons are genuinely ignoring
the Bible's stance on this one.

Blessings!
--
~~~
Dave Hansen
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.langlitz.com
~~~
If you wish to receive
things I find interesting,
I maintain six email lists...
JOKESTER, OPINIONS, LDS,
STUFF, MOTORCYCLE and CLIPS.
Do You Yahoo!? Yahoo! Small Business - Try our new Resources site!

Re: [Bulk] Re: [Bulk] Re: [TruthTalk] mormon angels. was: Dave uses Socratic Method of Teaching LDS doctrine on TT








[EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: [TruthTalk] Fond Farewells- Salvation

Often, when you , Izzy, address me, there is a little curly something to the left side on the "incoming" mail line. Your's is the only one that has this marking. When it appears, and when I try to open your mail, it takes soemthimes 3 or 4 minutes to download and when I try to respond, it freezes up my machine. 

The Tojan Horse that ruined my machine several months ago -- recently fixed - came in on the back of one of your email. I am wondering if you have some sort of virus or something. This is serious.
And I am not trying to insult. 

When I see that little curly -- from now on I will delete. I am not trying to avoid you, but I can't afford to open those emails. 

Does anyone know what is going on in this case? I copied the line above but it did not capture the "curly." It is some kind of demon, I am sure. 

JD

RE: [Bulk] Re: [Bulk] Re: [Bulk] Re: [TruthTalk] mormon angels. was: Dave uses Socratic Method of Teaching LDS doctrine on TT

2005-05-26 Thread ShieldsFamily

Hopefully by Judgment Day you will be asking better questions? Izzy

-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Lance Muir
Sent: Thursday, May 26, 2005 6:50 AM
To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org
Subject: Re: [Bulk] Re: [Bulk] Re: [Bulk] Re: [TruthTalk] mormon angels.
was: Dave uses Socratic Method of Teaching LDS doctrine on TT

One way of thinking has to do with the refining of questions over time as
opposed to the distillation of answers.

- Original Message - 
From: David Miller [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org
Sent: May 26, 2005 08:39
Subject: [Bulk] Re: [Bulk] Re: [Bulk] Re: [TruthTalk] mormon angels. was:
Dave uses Socratic Method of Teaching LDS doctrine on TT

 John wrote:
  Have you ever changed your mind in regards to the
  meaning of a particular passage?   Of course you have.
  How do you know, then, that what you now accept
  is not due for change sometime in the future?
  Answer: you don't.  This is exactly why Paul
  wrote I Cor 8:1-3.

 This is an excellent passage in regards to the subject you are addressing,
 but I hope you do not interpret this passage to be saying that we cannot
be
 certain about the truthfulness of any knowledge that we now have.  Faith
is
 being certain about some knowledge for which we have no empirical proof
 (Heb. 11:1), so to surmise that all knowledge we have is subject to being
 discarded is to make the virtue of faith something that is unobtainable.
 Let's look at the passage you reference.

 1 Corinthians 8:1-3
 (1) Now as touching things offered unto idols, we know that we all have
 knowledge. Knowledge puffeth up, but charity edifieth.
 (2) And if any man think that he knoweth any thing, he knoweth nothing yet
 as he ought to know.
 (3) But if any man love God, the same is known of him.

 This passage tempers us in regards to being puffed up with knowledge, and
I
 think this is your primary point (which is a very good and important
 point!).  It explicitly states that if any man thinks he knows something,
he
 knows nothing yet as he ought to know.  It then expresses greater
importance
 on being known of God, which happens if we love God.

 I do not see changing our mind about the meaning of a passage as being
 EXACTLY why Paul wrote this.  Rather, he is showing how our knowledge is
 continually growing.  For example, I believe Jesus is the Christ.  Will I
 ever find that I need to change my mind about this?  No.  But... my
 knowledge of Christ will increase and my understanding of what it means to
 believe upon Christ will increase.

 The thrust of what Paul is saying here is that we ought not be puffed up
 about what knowledge we have, because, as all older men and women have
 experienced, our comprehension of what we think we know will grow.  He is
 working from that Platonic concept of absolutes versus the Aristolean
 concept of change, and pointing to being known of God as the absolute
aspect
 which does not change.  Therefore, the implication to his Greek audience
 appreciative of the Platonic philosophy is that loving God and being known
 of God is greater than anything we think we know.

 I hope you don't take my comments as refuting what you have said.  I am
 simply trying to refine how you have articulated it.  The focus should be
on
 growth in knowledge not on the idea that everyone will someday discard the
 knowledge he now has as erroneous.

 Peace be with you.
 David Miller.

 --
 Let your speech be always with grace, seasoned with salt, that you may
know how you ought to answer every man.  (Colossians 4:6)
http://www.InnGlory.org

 If you do not want to receive posts from this list, send an email to
[EMAIL PROTECTED] and you will be unsubscribed.  If you have a
friend who wants to join, tell him to send an e-mail to
[EMAIL PROTECTED] and he will be subscribed.

--
Let your speech be always with grace, seasoned with salt, that you may know
how you ought to answer every man.  (Colossians 4:6)
http://www.InnGlory.org

If you do not want to receive posts from this list, send an email to
[EMAIL PROTECTED] and you will be unsubscribed.  If you have a
friend who wants to join, tell him to send an e-mail to
[EMAIL PROTECTED] and he will be subscribed.

--
Let your speech be always with grace, seasoned with salt, that you may know 
how you ought to answer every man.  (Colossians 4:6) http://www.InnGlory.org

If you do not want to receive posts from this list, send an email to [EMAIL 
PROTECTED] and you will be unsubscribed.  If you have a friend who wants to 
join, tell him to send an e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and he will be subscribed.

RE: [Bulk] Re: [Bulk] Re: [TruthTalk] mormon angels. was: Dave uses Socratic Method of Teaching LDS doctrine on TT

2005-05-26 Thread ShieldsFamily









Sorry that you are having problems with
emails from me. It sound like there is a tilde (~) sign appearing in the email
somewhere that should not be there. I have asked my husband about this. We run several
threat filters including Norton Internet Security 2005 and the new Microsoft
AntiSpyware. These programs are continuously updated with new threat
definitions. In addition to scanning all incoming and outgoing emails, full system
scans are automatically performed on a weekly basis. So far, we cannot detect
any threats (such as Trojan horses) that might be transferred to you via email.
My husband also just ran a detect and repair reconfiguration of
our Microsoft Office 2003 installation in case this is causing some type of
non-standard characters to be included in my emails (such as smiley faces) that
your computer does not have a character set to resolve into a recognizable
character. This problem can occur when hypertext is used by the sender (e.g.,
to reply in colored font types) but the recipient computer does not have a
similar font installed causing the incoming message to appear garbled. This is why
some email lists stipulate that users communicate in plain text only.



Please let me know f the problem
continues. It would also be helpful to see an example of the way the message
appears on your end (e.g., printed in PDF format).





Incidentally, For a Trojan horse to
spread, you must, invite these programs onto your computers--for example, by
opening an email attachment or downloading and running a file from the Internet.
(see http://service1.symantec.com/SUPPORT/nav.nsf/docid/1999041209131106).
Unless you opened an attachment that I sent with an email to Truth Talk, you
could not have acquired a Trojan Horse from one of my emails.



Izzy









From:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Thursday, May 26, 2005 3:20
PM
To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org
Subject: Re: [Bulk] Re: [Bulk] Re:
[TruthTalk] mormon angels. was: Dave uses Socratic Method of Teaching LDS
doctrine on TT















 


 
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  [EMAIL PROTECTED]
  
  
  RE: [TruthTalk] Fond
  Farewells- Salvation
  
 












Often, when you , Izzy, address me, there is a little
curly something to the left side on the incoming mail line.
Your's is the only one that has this marking. When it
appears, and when I try to open your mail, it takes soemthimes 3 or 4
minutes to download and when I try to respond, it freezes up my
machine. 











The Tojan Horse that ruined my machine several months ago
-- recently fixed - came in on the back of one of your
email. I am wondering if you have some sort of virus or
something. This is serious.





And I am not trying to insult. 











When I see that little curly -- from now on I
will delete. I am not trying to avoid you, but I can't afford to open
those emails. 











Does anyone know what is going on in this case? I
copied the line above but it did not capture the curly. It is
some kind of demon, I am sure. 











JD

RE: [Bulk] Re: [Bulk] Re: [TruthTalk] mormon angels. was: Dave uses Socratic Method of Teaching LDS doctrine on TT

2005-05-26 Thread ShieldsFamily









PS JD, What do you mean by the incoming
mail line? Do you mean the From: line at the beginning of
the message below? What Terrys problem was is that whenever I typed a
smiley face in hypertext, his computer did not recognize that character set and
instead translated it into the letter J on his end. No one
else, apparently, had that problem except for Terry. (How old is your
computer program Terry?) Perhaps the update my husband did tonight will
help Terry with that problem. Here is a smiley face just for you Terry:
J Does it look like a J? If nothing else
helps I can just use plain text, but how very BORING! I hope that is not
necessary. I like to change fonts and colors, and make smiley faces! Izzy











From:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of ShieldsFamily
Sent: Thursday, May 26, 2005 7:41
PM
To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org
Subject: RE: [Bulk] Re: [Bulk] Re:
[TruthTalk] mormon angels. was: Dave uses Socratic Method of Teaching LDS
doctrine on TT





Sorry that you are having problems with
emails from me. It sound like there is a tilde (~) sign appearing in the email
somewhere that should not be there. I have asked my husband about this. We run
several threat filters including Norton Internet Security 2005 and the new
Microsoft AntiSpyware. These programs are continuously updated with new threat
definitions. In addition to scanning all incoming and outgoing emails, full
system scans are automatically performed on a weekly basis. So far, we cannot
detect any threats (such as Trojan horses) that might be transferred to you via
email. My husband also just ran a detect and repair
reconfiguration of our Microsoft Office 2003 installation in case this is
causing some type of non-standard characters to be included in my emails (such
as smiley faces) that your computer does not have a character set to resolve
into a recognizable character. This problem can occur when hypertext is used by
the sender (e.g., to reply in colored font types) but the recipient computer
does not have a similar font installed causing the incoming message to appear
garbled. This is why some email lists stipulate that users communicate in plain
text only.



Please let me know f the problem
continues. It would also be helpful to see an example of the way the message
appears on your end (e.g., printed in PDF format).





Incidentally, For a Trojan horse to
spread, you must, invite these programs onto your computers--for example, by
opening an email attachment or downloading and running a file from the
Internet. (see http://service1.symantec.com/SUPPORT/nav.nsf/docid/1999041209131106).
Unless you opened an attachment that I sent with an email to Truth Talk, you could
not have acquired a Trojan Horse from one of my emails.



Izzy









From:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Thursday, May 26, 2005 3:20
PM
To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org
Subject: Re: [Bulk] Re: [Bulk] Re:
[TruthTalk] mormon angels. was: Dave uses Socratic Method of Teaching LDS
doctrine on TT















 


 
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  [EMAIL PROTECTED]
  
  
  RE: [TruthTalk] Fond
  Farewells- Salvation
  
 












Often, when you , Izzy, address me, there is a little
curly something to the left side on the incoming mail line.
Your's is the only one that has this marking. When it
appears, and when I try to open your mail, it takes soemthimes 3 or 4
minutes to download and when I try to respond, it freezes up my
machine. 











The Tojan Horse that ruined my machine several months ago
-- recently fixed - came in on the back of one of your email.
I am wondering if you have some sort of virus or something. This is
serious.





And I am not trying to insult. 











When I see that little curly -- from now on I
will delete. I am not trying to avoid you, but I can't afford to open
those emails. 











Does anyone know what is going on in this case? I
copied the line above but it did not capture the curly. It is
some kind of demon, I am sure. 











JD

Re: [Bulk] Re: [Bulk] Re: [TruthTalk] mormon angels. was: Dave uses Socratic Method of Teaching LDS doctrine on TT

2005-05-26 Thread Terry Clifton





It came thru as a J, Iz, but don't worry about it. When I see a J, I
will form a mental picture of you smiling. That seems like a simple
solution to the problem.

Terry


ShieldsFamily wrote:

  
  


  
  
  
  PS JD, What
do you mean by the incoming
mail line? Do you mean the From: line at the beginning of
the message below? What Terrys problem was is that whenever I typed a
smiley face in hypertext, his computer did not recognize that character
set and
instead translated it into the letter J on his end. No one
else, apparently, had that problem except for Terry. (How old is your
computer program Terry?) Perhaps the update my husband did tonight
will
help Terry with that problem. Here is a smiley face just for you
Terry:
  J Does it look like a J? If
nothing else
helps I can just use plain text, but how very BORING! I hope that is
not
necessary. I like to change fonts and colors, and make smiley faces!
Izzy
  
  
  
  
  From:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] On Behalf Of ShieldsFamily
  Sent: Thursday, May
26, 2005 7:41
PM
  To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org
  Subject: RE: [Bulk]
Re: [Bulk] Re:
[TruthTalk] mormon angels. was: Dave uses Socratic Method of Teaching
LDS
doctrine on TT
  
  
  Sorry that
you are having problems with
emails from me. It sound like there is a tilde (~) sign appearing in
the email
somewhere that should not be there. I have asked my husband about this.
We run
several threat filters including Norton Internet Security 2005 and the
new
Microsoft AntiSpyware. These programs are continuously updated with new
threat
definitions. In addition to scanning all incoming and outgoing emails,
full
system scans are automatically performed on a weekly basis. So far, we
cannot
detect any threats (such as Trojan horses) that might be transferred to
you via
email. My husband also just ran a detect and repair
reconfiguration of our Microsoft Office 2003 installation in case this
is
causing some type of non-standard characters to be included in my
emails (such
as smiley faces) that your computer does not have a character set to
resolve
into a recognizable character. This problem can occur when hypertext is
used by
the sender (e.g., to reply in colored font types) but the recipient
computer
does not have a similar font installed causing the incoming message to
appear
garbled. This is why some email lists stipulate that users communicate
in plain
text only.
  
  Please let
me know f the problem
continues. It would also be helpful to see an example of the way the
message
appears on your end (e.g., printed in PDF format).
  
  
  Incidentally,
For a Trojan horse to
spread, you must, invite these programs onto your computers--for
example, by
opening an email attachment or downloading and running a file from the
Internet. (see http://service1.symantec.com/SUPPORT/nav.nsf/docid/1999041209131106).
Unless you opened an attachment that I sent with an email to Truth
Talk, you could
not have acquired a Trojan Horse from one of my emails.
  
  Izzy
  
  
  
  From:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] On Behalf Of [EMAIL PROTECTED]
  Sent: Thursday, May
26, 2005 3:20
PM
  To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org
  Subject: Re: [Bulk]
Re: [Bulk] Re:
[TruthTalk] mormon angels. was: Dave uses Socratic Method of Teaching
LDS
doctrine on TT
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
   
  

  







[EMAIL PROTECTED]


RE: [TruthTalk]
Fond Farewells- Salvation

  

  
  
  
  
  
  
  Often, when you , Izzy,
address me, there is a little
curly something to the left side on the "incoming" mail line.
Your's is the only one that has this marking. When it
appears, and when I try to open your mail, it takes soemthimes 3 or 4
minutes to download and when I try to respond, it freezes up my
machine. 
  
  
  
  
  
  The Tojan Horse that
ruined my machine several months ago
-- recently fixed - came in on the back of one of your email.
I am wondering if you have some sort of virus or something. This is
serious.
  
  
  And I am not trying to
insult. 
  
  
  
  
  
  When I see that little
curly -- from now on I
will delete. I am not trying to avoid you, but I can't afford to open
those emails. 
  
  
  
  
  
  Does anyone know what
is going on in this case? I
copied the line above but it did not capture the "curly." It is
some kind of demon, I am sure. 
  
  
  
  
  
  JD

Re: [Bulk] Re: [Bulk] Re: [TruthTalk] mormon angels. was: Dave uses Socratic Method of Teaching LDS doctrine on TT


Thanks for the respose, Izzy. The little curly, as I call it, is acutally an oblong circle leaning to the right a bit. When I sent my post regarding this, the copied address (yours) was an attempt to capture the curly. I highlighted the little guy along with your URL address -- but it did nottransfer. Got to be somethingunwanted. 

The Trojan horse thing, that caused my problems, shutting down both computers down after a couple of months, came into my machine the instint I opened one your emails. Itimmediately disabled Norton (which I was not updating as I should) and I could not stop the resulting the detoriation. 

Anyway - all seems healthy now -- just this little curly thing. Interestingly enough, in the past two weeks that I have been back online, Norton has captured 1248 incoming ads  -Original Message-From: ShieldsFamily [EMAIL PROTECTED]To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgSent: Thu, 26 May 2005 20:40:31 -0500Subject: RE: [Bulk] Re: [Bulk] Re: [TruthTalk] mormon angels. was: Dave uses Socratic Method of Teaching LDS doctrine on TT






Sorry that you are having problems with emails from me. It sound like there is a tilde (~) sign appearing in the email somewhere that should not be there. I have asked my husband about this. We run several threat filters including Norton Internet Security 2005 and the new Microsoft AntiSpyware. These programs are continuously updated with new threat definitions. In addition to scanning all incoming and outgoing emails, full system scans are automatically performed on a weekly basis. So far, we cannot detect any threats (such as Trojan horses) that might be transferred to you via email. My husband also just ran a detect and repair reconfiguration of our Microsoft Office 2003 installation in case this is causing some type of non-standard characters to be included in my emails (such as smiley faces) that your computer does not have a character set to resolve into a recognizable character.. This problem can occur 
when hypertext is used by the sender (e.g., to reply in colored font types) but the recipient computer does not have a similar font installed causing the incoming message to appear garbled. This is why some email lists stipulate that users communicate in plain text only.

Please let me know f the problem continues. It would also be helpful to see an example of the way the message appears on your end (e.g., printed in PDF format).


Incidentally, For a Trojan horse to spread, you must, invite these programs onto your computers--for example, by opening an email attachment or downloading and running a file from the Internet. (see http://service1.symantec.com/SUPPORT/nav.nsf/docid/1999041209131106). Unless you opened an attachment that I sent with an email to Truth Talk, you could not have acquired a Trojan Horse from one of my emails.

Izzy




From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of [EMAIL PROTECTED]Sent: Thursday, May 26, 2005 3:20 PMTo: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgSubject: Re: [Bulk] Re: [Bulk] Re: [TruthTalk] mormon angels. was: Dave uses Socratic Method of Teaching LDS doctrine on TT





 








[EMAIL PROTECTED]

RE: [TruthTalk] Fond Farewells- Salvation



Often, when you , Izzy, address me, there is a little curly something to the left side on the "incoming" mail line. Your's is the only one that has this marking. When it appears, and when I try to open your mail, it takes soemthimes 3 or 4 minutes to download and when I try to respond, it freezes up my machine. 



The Tojan Horse that ruined my machine several months ago -- recently fixed - came in on the back of one of your email. I am wondering if you have some sort of virus or something. This is serious.

And I am not trying to insult. 



When I see that little curly -- from now on I will delete. I am not trying to avoid you, but I can't afford to open those emails. 



Does anyone know what is going on in this case? I copied the line above but it did not capture the "curly." It is some kind of demon, I am sure. 



JD

Re: [Bulk] Re: [Bulk] Re: [TruthTalk] mormon angels. was: Dave uses Socratic Method of Teaching LDS doctrine on TT


No. You know, when you toto aol and open the mail? You have a list of mail waiting to be opened. That is what I highlighted. It does not look like a J at all. If you drewan oblong circle but did not connect the circle, starting the circle but not connecting it - instead going half way around again -- that is what it is and I can't copy it. It doesn't show up. Even now -- your email ,m this one took much longer to open than the others. Maybe that is my computer. I don't know. Don't you just hate this. You pay the big bucks and then, well, you have so little control over the thing. 

John-Original Message-From: ShieldsFamily [EMAIL PROTECTED]To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]innglory.orgSent: Thu, 26 May 2005 20:53:26 -0500Subject: RE: [Bulk] Re: [Bulk] Re: [TruthTalk] mormon angels. was: Dave uses Socratic Method of Teaching LDS doctrine on TT






PS JD, What do you mean by the incoming mail line? Do you mean the From: line at the beginning of the message below? What Terrys problem was is that whenever I typed a smiley face in hypertext, his computer did not recognize that character set and instead translated it into the letter J on his end. No one else, apparently, had that problem except for Terry. (How old is your computer program Terry?) Perhaps the update my husband did tonight will help Terry with that problem. Here is a smiley face just for you Terry: J Does it look like a J? If nothing else helps I can just use plain text, bu
t how very BORING! I hope that is not necessary. I like to change fonts and colors, and make smiley faces! Izzy





From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of ShieldsFamilySent: Thursday, May 26, 2005 7:41 PMTo: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgSubject: RE: [Bulk] Re: [Bulk] Re: [TruthTalk] mormon angels. was: Dave uses Socratic Method of Teaching LDS doctrine on TT

Sorry that you are having problems with emails from me. It sound like there is a tilde (~) sign appearing in the email somewhere that should not be there. I have asked my husband about this. We run several threat filters including Norton Internet Security 2005 and the new Microsoft AntiSpyware. These programs are continuously updated with new threat definitions. In addition to scanning all incoming and outgoing emails, full system scans are automatically performed on a weekly basis. So far, we cannot detect any threats (such as Trojan horses) that might be transferred to you via email. My husband also just ran a detect and repair reconfiguration of our Microsoft Office 2003 installation in case this is causing some type of non-standard characters to be included in my emails<
/SPAN> (such as smiley faces) that your computer does not have a character set to resolve into a recognizable character. This problem can occur when hypertext is used by the sender (e.g., to reply in colored font types) but the recipient computer does not have a similar font installed causing the incoming message to appear garbled. This is why some email lists stipulate that users communicate in plain text only.

Please let me know f the problem continues. It would also be helpful to see an example of the way the message appears on your end (e.g., printed in PDF format).


Incidentally, For a Trojan horse to spread, you must, invite these programs onto your computers--for example, by opening an email attachment or downloading and running a file from the Internet. (see http://service1.symantec.com/SUPPORT/nav.nsf/docid/1999041209131106). Unless you opened an attachment that I sent with an email to Truth Talk, you could not have acquired a Trojan Horse from one of my emails.

Izzy




From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of [EMAIL PROTECTED]Sent: Thursday, May 26, 2005 3:20 PMTo: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgSubject: Re: [Bulk] Re: [Bulk] Re: [TruthTalk] mormon angels. was: Dave uses Socratic Method of Teaching LDS doctrine on TT





 








[EMAIL PROTECTED]

RE: [TruthTalk] Fond Farewells- Salvation



Often, when you , Izzy, address me, there is a little curly something to the left side on the "incoming" mail line. Your's is the only one that has this marking. When it appears, and when I try to open your mail, it takes soemthimes 3 or 4 minutes to download and when I try to respond, it freezes up my machine. 



The Tojan Horse that ruined my machine several months ago -- recently fixed - came in on the back of one of your email. I am wondering if you have some sort of virus or something. This is serious.

And I am not trying to insult. 



When I see that little curly -- from now on I will delete. I am not trying to avoid you, but I can't afford to open those emails. 



Does anyone know what is going on in this case? I copied the line above but it did not capture the "curly." It is some kind of demon, I am sure. 



JD

Re: [Bulk] Re: [TruthTalk] mormon angels. was: Dave uses Socratic Method of Teaching LDS doctrine on TT





DAVEH: Apparently many TTers want me to teach LDS theology on
TT, yet some wish to criticize me for complying with their wishes.
Seems like a no win situation, eh Lance.

Lance Muir wrote:

  Apparently there exists a 'collective' anticipation of your answer.

  
  
Yes, I am interested as well. Is this beleif found in
the BoM?

Blessings,

Christine

--- Charles Perry Locke [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:



  Actually, the problem I have is not with Dave
stating mormon beliefs,
especially when asked. It is his teaching mormon
doctrines, but denying that
he is doing so. I am for openest...but honesty, too.
  

  

-- 
~~~
Dave Hansen
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.langlitz.com
~~~
If you wish to receive
things I find interesting,
I maintain six email lists...
JOKESTER, OPINIONS, LDS,
STUFF, MOTORCYCLE and CLIPS.

Re: [TruthTalk] mormon angels. was: Dave uses Socratic Method of Teaching LDS doctrine on TT

DAVEH:  For what reason should I explain why/where you are wrong about 
my beliefs, Perry.  I don't mind explaining to those who really want to 
know what I believe, but in your case it seems your intention is to 
denigrate my beliefs. 

   You've stated that your mission (so to speak) is to discredit 
Mormonism.in effect meeting the definition of an anti-Mormon.  So 
for what reason would you want to query me about Mormonism, if it is not 
to denigrate that in which I believe?


   Along with that, you continue to disbelieve my stated reason for 
joining TT years ago.  You can believe as you wish, Perrybut if you 
effectively want to post that I am lying about my reasons for being 
here, then I see no particular reason to hand you the knife with which 
you intend to use to carve up my faith.


Charles Perry Locke wrote:

Actually, the problem I have is not with Dave stating mormon beliefs, 
especially when asked. It is his teaching mormon doctrines, but denying 
that he is doing so. I am for openest...but honesty, too.



Dave,

  If I am somewhat close, can you tell me the part I am wrong about? 
You always say if I want to know what mormons believe, ask a mormon...


Perry


From: Dave Hansen [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Reply-To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org
To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] mormon angels. was: Dave uses Socratic 
Method of Teaching LDS doctrine on TT

Date: Tue, 24 May 2005 06:38:17 -0700



Charles Perry Locke wrote:


Dave,

  Christians consider angels and humans to be two distinct types of 
created beings.



DAVEH:  Yes, I understand that.  Yet, it seems Paul is telling us 
that it is difficult (if not impossible) to tell us (mortals) apart 
from angels.


Correct me if I am wrong, but don't mormons consider angels to be 
either pre-mortal or post-mortal humans? For example, don't mormons 
consider Michael (the archangel) also to have been a human at one 
point...was it Adam? Hasn't he also been considered to be the mormon 
god the father? So, basically, one being can be spirit, angel, 
human, or god at various times. Am I right on this?



DAVEH:  You are somewhat close.



Perry





--
~~~
Dave Hansen
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.langlitz.com
~~~
If you wish to receive
things I find interesting,
I maintain six email lists...
JOKESTER, OPINIONS, LDS,
STUFF, MOTORCYCLE and CLIPS.


--
Let your speech be always with grace, seasoned with salt, that you may know how you 
ought to answer every man.  (Colossians 4:6) http://www.InnGlory.org

If you do not want to receive posts from this list, send an email to [EMAIL 
PROTECTED] and you will be unsubscribed.  If you have a friend who wants to 
join, tell him to send an e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and he will be subscribed.

Re: [TruthTalk] mormon angels. was: Dave uses Socratic Method of Teaching LDS...





DAVEH: FWIW.I agree with what you explained below, Blaine. But
I've always thought LDS theology allows that Adam was a God in the
pre-mortal existence, inasmuch as he was one of the key players (as you
indicated below) who sat in on the planning sessions (so to speak) of
the plan of salvation, and then was a/the pivotal character in
implementing the gospel. Is that how you understand Adam's
role/status, Blaine? 

[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

  
  
  
  
  Blaine: I guess I just can't resist breaking into an
interesting conversation!! Perry you are wrong when you say Mormons
believe Adam was both God-the-Father and Michael in the
pre-existance. It is clear and consistent in all Mormon doctrinal
treatesies on this subject that 1) The man Adam was Michael the
archangel in the pre-existence, 2) that Michael was third in order of
authority in the pre-existence. Both the Father and the Son were above
Michael in authority. Michael was the executive of the will of the
Father and the Son, you might say.
  
  In a message dated 5/24/2005 8:01:49 AM Mountain Standard Time,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
  Dave,

 If I am "somewhat close", can you tell me the part I am wrong about?
You 
always say if I want to know what mormons believe, ask a mormon...

Perry

From: Dave Hansen [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Reply-To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org
To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] mormon angels. was: Dave uses Socratic
Method of 
Teaching LDS doctrine on TT
Date: Tue, 24 May 2005 06:38:17 -0700



Charles Perry Locke wrote:

Dave,

 Christians consider angels and humans to be two distinct
types of 
created beings.

DAVEH: Yes, I understand that. Yet, it seems Paul is telling us
that it 
is difficult (if not impossible) to tell us (mortals) apart from
angels.

Correct me if I am wrong, but don't mormons consider angels to
be either 
pre-mortal or post-mortal humans? For example, don't mormons
consider 
Michael (the archangel) also to have been a human at one
point...was it 
Adam? Hasn't he also been considered to be the mormon god the
father? So, 
basically, one being can be spirit, angel, human, or god at
various times. 
Am I right on this?

DAVEH: You are somewhat close.


Perry
  
  
  

-- 
~~~
Dave Hansen
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.langlitz.com
~~~
If you wish to receive
things I find interesting,
I maintain six email lists...
JOKESTER, OPINIONS, LDS,
STUFF, MOTORCYCLE and CLIPS.

Re: [TruthTalk] mormon angels. was: Dave uses Socratic Method of Teaching LDS...

Mountain Standard Time, 
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Dave, If I am 
  "somewhat close", can you tell me the part I am wrong about? You 
  always say if I want to know what mormons believe, ask a 
  mormon...PerryFrom: Dave Hansen 
  [EMAIL PROTECTED]Reply-To: 
  TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgTo: 
      TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgSubject: Re: [TruthTalk] mormon angels. 
  was: Dave uses Socratic Method of Teaching LDS doctrine on 
  TTDate: Tue, 24 May 2005 06:38:17 
  -0700Charles Perry Locke 
  wrote:Dave, 
  Christians consider angels and humans to be two distinct types of 
  created beings.DAVEH: Yes, I understand 
  that. Yet, it seems Paul is telling us that it is difficult 
  (if not impossible) to tell us (mortals) apart from 
  angels.Correct me if I am wrong, but don't mormons 
  consider angels to be either pre-mortal or post-mortal humans? 
  For example, don't mormons consider Michael (the archangel) 
  also to have been a human at one point...was it Adam? Hasn't 
  he also been considered to be the mormon god the father? So, 
  basically, one being can be spirit, angel, human, or god at 
  various times. Am I right on this?DAVEH: 
  You are somewhat 
close.Perry


  
  
  Do you Yahoo!?Yahoo! Mail - Find what you need with new enhanced search. 
  Learn 
  more.

Re: [TruthTalk] mormon angels. was: Dave uses Socratic Method of Teaching LDS...

Blaine scripture teaches nothing about any
pre-existence so it is all a figment of someone's imagination. The Bible says
the hidden things
belong to the Lord but what has been revealed is for
the Lord's people and their children... and what is revealed says there is just
ONE God. jt

On Wed, 25 May 2005 00:31:07 EDT [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:

elucidated? Everything said in your quotes supports the FACT that
Michael was 1) an archangel in the pre-existence, 2) that The Father and the
Son were above Michael in authority, and 3) Michael was the chief
executive officer, (CEO, if you will)under the authority
ofthe Father and the Son. Maybe Brigham was being a little
vague in referring to him as a "God," but he definitely was our father, and,
in a sense, our God, in that he was the first man, and the progenitor of all
of us. Its all a matter of interpretation.

In a message dated 5/24/2005 10:14:17 PM Mountain Standard Time,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:

Blaine says It is clear and consistent in all Mormon
doctrinal treatesies on this subject that 1) The man Adam

Tell Brigham, Taylor, Woodruff Cannon! You just can't trust them
prohets ya know.
Seems that many LDs for many years have been TROUBLED by who is who.
But don't you worry. just ignore the contradictions. repeat after
me
"I know the church is true, I know the Church is true."

Spring 1895 General ConferenceWilford Woodruff
Cease troubling yourselvesabout who God is;
who Adam is, who Christ is, who Jehovah is. For heaven's sake, let
these things alone. Why trouble yourselves about these things? God has
revealed himself andwhen the 121st section of the Doctrine and Covenants
is fulfilled, whether there be ONE God or many Gods they
will be revealed to the children of men, as well as all thrones and
dominions, principalities, and powers. Then why trouble
yourselves about these things? God is God. Christ is
Christ. The Holy Ghost is the Holy Ghost. That should be
enough for you and me to know. If we want to know anymore, wait
till we get where God is in person. I say this because we are
troubled every little while with inquiries from Elders anxious to
know who God is, who Christ is, and who Adam
is. I say to the Elders of Israel, stop this.
Humble yourselves before the Lord; seek for light, for truth, and for a
knowledge of the common things of the Kingdom of God. The Lord is the same
yesterday, today, and forever. He changes not. The Son of God is the same.
He is the Savior of the world. He is our advocate with the Father. We have
had letter after letter from Elders abroad wanting to know concerning these
things. Adam is the first man. He was placed in the Garden of Eden,
and is our great progenitor. God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy
Ghost, are the same yesterday, today, and forever. That should be sufficient
to know. (Millennial Star 57:355-356, April 7, 1895)
April of 1889, George Q. CannonGeneral Conference: There are TWO personages, the Father and the
Son. God is the being who walked in the Garden of Eden, and
who talkedwith the prophets. This revelation came to us
in certainty. (Millennial Star 51:278; April 7,
1889)
FATHER ADAMOUR GOD Brigham Young, in a
sermon in the tabernacle in Salt Lake City on April 9, 1852, said: "When our
Father Adam came into the garden
of Eden, he came into it with a celestial body, and brought
Eve, one of his wives, with him. He helped to make and organize this
world. He is Michael, the Archangel, the Ancient of Days, and about
whom holy men have written and spoken. He is our Father and our God, and the only
God with whom we have to do." Of "His son, Jesus Christ," Brigham
Young said: I tell you that God was the Father of Jesus Christ, just
as I am the Father of my son."
Some have grumbled because I believe our God so
near to us as Father Adam. (JD 5:331)

Re: [TruthTalk] mormon angels. was: Dave uses Socratic Method of Teaching LDS...




Planning sessions? Tell me you are kidding DaveH 
... Like God is a committee and needs input? Also my Bible says that the 
Holy Spirit is the executor of the will of the Father and the Word who became 
the Son. jt

On Wed, 25 May 2005 00:06:20 -0700 Dave Hansen [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:

  DAVEH: FWIW.I agree with what you explained below, 
  Blaine. But I've always thought LDS theology allows that Adam was a God 
  in the pre-mortal existence, inasmuch as he was one of the key players (as you 
  indicated below) who sat in on the planning sessions (so to speak) of the plan 
  of salvation, and then was a/the pivotal character in implementing the 
  gospel. Is that how you understand Adam's role/status, Blaine? 
  [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: 
  


Blaine: I guess I just can't resist breaking into an interesting 
conversation!! Perry you are wrong when you say Mormons believe 
Adam was both God-the-Father and Michael in the pre-existance. 
It is clear and consistent in all Mormon doctrinal 
treatesies on this subject that 1) The man Adam was Michael the 
archangel in the pre-existence, 2) that Michael was third in order of 
authority in the pre-existence. Both the Father and the Son were above 
Michael in authority. Michael was the executive of the will of the 
Father and the Son, you might say.

In a message dated 5/24/2005 8:01:49 AM Mountain Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Dave, If I am 
  "somewhat close", can you tell me the part I am wrong about? You 
  always say if I want to know what mormons believe, ask a 
  mormon...PerryFrom: Dave Hansen [EMAIL PROTECTED]Reply-To: 
  TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgTo: 
  TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgSubject: 
  Re: [TruthTalk] mormon angels. was: Dave uses Socratic Method of 
  Teaching LDS doctrine on TTDate: Tue, 24 May 2005 06:38:17 
  -0700Charles Perry Locke 
  wrote:Dave, 
  Christians consider angels and humans to be two distinct types of 
  created beings.DAVEH: Yes, I understand 
  that. Yet, it seems Paul is telling us that it is difficult 
  (if not impossible) to tell us (mortals) apart from 
  angels.Correct me if I am wrong, but don't mormons 
  consider angels to be either pre-mortal or post-mortal humans? 
  For example, don't mormons consider Michael (the archangel) 
  also to have been a human at one point...was it Adam? Hasn't 
  he also been considered to be the mormon god the father? So, 
  basically, one being can be spirit, angel, human, or god at 
  various times. Am I right on this?DAVEH: 
  You are somewhat 
close.Perry
-- 
~~~
Dave Hansen
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.langlitz.com
~~~
If you wish to receive
things I find interesting,
I maintain six email lists...
JOKESTER, OPINIONS, LDS,
STUFF, MOTORCYCLE and CLIPS.

Re: [Bulk] Re: [TruthTalk] mormon angels. was: Dave uses Socratic Method of Teaching LDS doctrine on TT




Do you interpret being asked to answer a few questions 
about your doctrine as "being asked to teach" DaveH?
I'd call that a bit of a leap ... jt

On Tue, 24 May 2005 23:17:01 -0700 Dave Hansen [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:

  DAVEH: Apparently many TTers want me to teach LDS theology 
  on TT, yet some wish to criticize me for complying with their wishes. 
  Seems like a no win situation, eh Lance.Lance Muir wrote: 
  Apparently there exists a 'collective' anticipation of your answer.

  
Yes, I am interested as well. Is this beleif found in
the BoM?

Blessings,

Christine

--- Charles Perry Locke [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:


  Actually, the problem I have is not with Dave
stating mormon beliefs,
especially when asked. It is his teaching mormon
doctrines, but denying that
he is doing so. I am for openest...but honesty, too.
  -- 
~~~
Dave Hansen
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.langlitz.com
~~~
If you wish to receive
things I find interesting,
I maintain six email lists...
JOKESTER, OPINIONS, LDS,
STUFF, MOTORCYCLE and CLIPS.

Re: [Bulk] Re: [TruthTalk] mormon angels. was: Dave uses Socratic Method of Teaching LDS...

They don't because their 'prophet' did
not.

- Original Message -
From:
Judy
Taylor
To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org

Cc: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org

Sent: May 25, 2005 05:03
Subject: [Bulk] Re: [TruthTalk] mormon
angels. was: Dave uses Socratic Method of Teaching LDS...

Why does the Mormon Church mess with the Bible at
all? May just as well toss it for it loses all credibility
in
the light of their prophetical voices and other
teachings. This stuff is occult. jt

On Tue, 24 May 2005 21:13:40 -0700 (PDT) Kevin Deegan [EMAIL PROTECTED]
writes:

Blaine says It is clear and consistent in all Mormon
doctrinal treatesies on this subject that 1) The man Adam

How much unbelief exists in the minds of the
Latter-day Saints in regard to one particular doctrine
which I revealed to them, and which God revealed to me -- namely that
Adam is our Father and God -- I do
not know, I do not inquire, I care nothing about it. Our Father
Adam helped to make this earth, it was created expressly for him, and after
it was made he and his companions came here. (Deseret Weekly News
22:308-309, June 18, 1873)
Michael (Adam) was a resurrected
being and he left Elohim and came to the earth with an
immortal body, and continued so till he partook of earthly food and
begat children whowere mortal (keep this to yourselves) and then they
died. (Wilford Woodruff Journal, January 27,
1860)SSHH In the 1870 meeting of
the School of the Prophets, Brigham counseled: "... the
brethren to meditate on the subject, pray about it and keep it to
yourselves." (Joseph F. Smith Journal,October 15,
1870)[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

Blaine: I guess I just can't resist breaking into an
interesting conversation!! Perry you are wrong when you say Mormons
bel

Re: [Bulk] Re: [TruthTalk] mormon angels. was: Dave uses Socratic Method of Teaching LDS...

Some, holding to a differing interpretation than your own, actually believe
that the scriptures do so teach. I do not count myself among that number.

- Original Message -
From:
Judy
Taylor
To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org

Cc: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org

Sent: May 25, 2005 05:07
Subject: [Bulk] Re: [TruthTalk] mormon
angels. was: Dave uses Socratic Method of Teaching LDS...

On Wed, 25 May 2005 00:31:07 EDT [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:

Blaine: Kevin, I appreciate your furnishing all this supportive
evidence. I knew I could count on you, Kevin, to give us the official
words quoted as they fell from the mouths of prophets. What I can't
understand is how you can derive any other meaning than the one I have
already
elucidated? Everything said in your quotes supports the FACT that
Michael was 1) an archangel in the pre-existence, 2) that The Father and the
Son were above Michael in authority, and 3) Michael was the chief
executive officer, (CEO, if you will)under the authority
ofthe Father and the Son. Maybe Brigham was being a little
vague in referring to him as a "God," but he definitely was our father, and,
in a sense, our God, in that he was the first man, and the progenitor of all
of us. Its all a matter of interpretation.

In a message dated 5/24/2005 10:14:17 PM Mountain Standard Time,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:

Blaine says It is clear and consistent in all Mormon
doctrinal treatesies on this subject that 1) The man Adam

Tell Brigham, Taylor, Woodruff Cannon! You just can't trust
them prohets ya know.
Seems that many LDs for many years have been TROUBLED by who is who.
But don't you worry. just ignore the contradictions. repeat after
me
"I know the church is true, I know the Church is true."

Spring 1895 General ConferenceWilford Woodruff
Cease troubling yourselvesabout who God is;
who Adam is, who Christ is, who Jehovah is. For heaven's sake, let
these things alone. Why trouble yourselves about these things? God has
revealed himself andwhen the 121st section of the Doctrine and
Covenants is fulfilled, whether there be ONE God or many
Gods they will be revealed to the children of men, as well as all
thrones and dominions, principalities, and powers. Then why
trouble yourselves about these things? God is God. Christ
is Christ. The Holy Ghost is the Holy Ghost. That should be
enough for you and me to know. If we want to know anymore,
wait till we get where God is in person. I say this because we are
troubled every little while with inquiries from Elders anxious to
know who God is, who Christ is, and who Adam
is. I say to the Elders of Israel, stop this.
Humble yourselves before the Lord; seek for light, for truth, and for a
knowledge of the common things of the Kingdom of God. The Lord is the same
yesterday, today, and forever. He changes not. The Son of God is the same.
He is the Savior of the world. He is our advocate with the Father. We have
had letter after letter from Elders abroad wanting to know concerning
these things. Adam is the first man. He was placed in the Garden of
Eden, and is our great progenitor. God the Father, God the Son, and God
the Holy Ghost, are the same yesterday, today, and forever. That should be
sufficient to know. (Millennial Star 57:355-356, April 7, 1895)
April of 1889, George Q. CannonGeneral Conference: There are TWO personages, the Father and the
Son. God is the being who walked in the Garden of Eden,
and who talkedwith the prophets. This revelation came
to us in certainty. (Millennial Star 51:278; April 7,
1889)
FATHER ADAMOUR GOD Brigham Young, in a
sermon in the tabernacle in Salt Lake City on April 9, 1852, said: "When
our Father Adam came into the
garden of Eden, he came into it with a celestial body,
and brought Eve, one of his wives, with him. He helped to make and
organize this world. He is Michael, the Archangel, the Ancient of
Days, and about whom holy men have written and spoken. He is our Father and our God, and
the only God with whom we have to do." Of "His son, Jesus
Christ," Brigham Young said: I tell you that God was the Father of
Jesus Christ, just as I am the Father of my son."
Some have grumbled because I believe our God s

Re: [TruthTalk] mormon angels. was: Dave uses Socratic Method of Teaching LDS...

Who is Adam?
LDS say he is the "ancient of days"
The std works says he is the one who sits on the throne.
Adam godDave Hansen [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
DAVEH: FWIW.I agree with what you explained below, Blaine. But I've always thought LDS theology allows that Adam was a God in the pre-mortal existence, inasmuch as he was one of the key players (as you indicated below) who sat in on the planning sessions (so to speak) of the plan of salvation, and then was a/the pivotal character in implementing the gospel. Is that how you understand Adam's role/status, Blaine? [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

Blaine: I guess I just can't resist breaking into an interesting conversation!! Perry you are wrong when you say Mormons believe Adam was both God-the-Father and Michael in the pre-existance. It is clear and consistent in all Mormon doctrinal treatesies on this subject that 1) The man Adam was Michael the archangel in the pre-existence, 2) that Michael was third in order of authority in the pre-existence. Both the Father and the Son were above Michael in authority. Michael was the executive of the will of the Father and the Son, you might say.

In a message dated 5/24/2005 8:01:49 AM Mountain Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Dave, If I am "somewhat close", can you tell me the part I am wrong about? You always say if I want to know what mormons believe, ask a mormon...PerryFrom: Dave Hansen [EMAIL PROTECTED]Reply-To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgTo: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgSubject: Re: [TruthTalk] mormon angels. was: Dave uses Socratic Method of Teaching LDS doctrine on TTDate: Tue, 24 May 2005 06:38:17 -0700Charles Perry Locke wrote:Dave,
Christians consider angels and humans to be two distinct types of created beings.DAVEH: Yes, I understand that. Yet, it seems Paul is telling us that it is difficult (if not impossible) to tell us (mortals) apart from angels.Correct me if I am wrong, but don't mormons consider angels to be either pre-mortal or post-mortal humans? For example, don't mormons consider Michael (the archangel) also to have been a human at one point...was it Adam? Hasn't he also been considered to be the mormon god the father? So, basically, one being can be spirit, angel, human, or god at various times. Am I right on this?DAVEH: You are somewhat close.Perry
--
~~~
Dave Hansen
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.langlitz.com
~~~
If you wish to receive
things I find interesting,
I maintain six email lists...
JOKESTER, OPINIONS, LDS,
STUFF, MOTORCYCLE and CLIPS.__Do You Yahoo!?Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com

Re: [TruthTalk] mormon angels. was: Dave uses Socratic Method of Teaching LDS...

ilford Woodruff Journal, January 27, 1860)SSHH In the 1870 meeting of the School of the Prophets, Brigham counseled: "... the brethren to meditate on the subject, pray about it and keep it to yourselves." (Joseph F. Smith Journal,October 15, 1870)[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

In a message dated 5/24/2005 8:01:49 AM Mountain Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Dave, If I am "somewhat close", can you tell me the part I am wrong about? You always say if I want to know what mormons believe, ask a mormon...PerryFrom: Dave Hansen [EMAIL PROTECTED]Reply-To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgTo: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgSubject: Re: [TruthTalk] mormon angels. was: Dave uses Socratic Method of Teaching LDS doctrine on TTDate: Tue, 24 May 2005 06:38:17 -0700Charles Perry Locke wrote:Dave, Christians consider angels and humans to be two distinct types of created beings.DAVEH: Yes, I understand that. Yet, it seems Paul is telling us that it is difficult (if not impossible) to tell us (mortals) apart from
angels.Correct me if I am wrong, but don't mormons consider angels to be either pre-mortal or post-mortal humans? For example, don't mormons consider Michael (the archangel) also to have been a human at one point...was it Adam? Hasn't he also been considered to be the mormon god the father? So, basically, one being can be spirit, angel, human, or god at various times. Am I right on this?DAVEH: You are somewhat close.Perry

Do you Yahoo!?Yahoo! Mail - Find what you need with new enhanced search. Learn more.

Do You Yahoo!? Yahoo! Small Business - Try our new Resources site!

Re: [TruthTalk] mormon angels. was: Dave uses Socratic Method of Teaching LDS...

Maybe Brigham was being a little vague in referring to him as a "God," but he definitely was our father, and, in a sense, our God, in that he was the first man, and the progenitor of all of us.
Blaine says Adam is "our God"
WOW

Judy Taylor [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

Blaine scripture teaches nothing about any pre-existence so it is all a figment of someone's imagination. The Bible says the hidden things
belong to the Lord but what has been revealed is for the Lord's people and their children... and what is revealed says there is just ONE God. jt

On Wed, 25 May 2005 00:31:07 EDT [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:

Blaine: Kevin, I appreciate your furnishing all this supportive evidence. I knew I could count on you, Kevin, to give us the official words quoted as they fell from the mouths of prophets. What I can't understand is how you can derive any other meaning than the one I have already
elucidated? Everything said in your quotes supports the FACT that Michael was 1) an archangel in the pre-existence, 2) that The Father and the Son were above Michael in authority, and 3) Michael was the chief executive officer, (CEO, if you will)under the authority ofthe Father and the Son. Maybe Brigham was being a little vague in referring to him as a "God," but he definitely was our father, and, in a sense, our God, in that he was the first man, and the progenitor of all of us. Its all a matter of interpretation.

In a message dated 5/24/2005 10:14:17 PM Mountain Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:

Blaine says It is clear and consistent in all Mormon doctrinal treatesies on this subject that 1) The man Adam

Tell Brigham, Taylor, Woodruff Cannon! You just can't trust them prohets ya know.
Seems that many LDs for many years have been TROUBLED by who is who. But don't you worry. just ignore the contradictions. repeat after me
"I know the church is true, I know the Church is true."

Spring 1895 General ConferenceWilford Woodruff Cease troubling yourselvesabout who God is; who Adam is, who Christ is, who Jehovah is. For heaven's sake, let these things alone. Why trouble yourselves about these things? God has revealed himself andwhen the 121st section of the Doctrine and Covenants is fulfilled, whether there be ONE God or many Gods they will be revealed to the children of men, as well as all thrones and dominions, principalities, and powers. Then why trouble yourselves about these things? God is God. Christ is Christ. The Holy Ghost is the Holy Ghost. That should be enough for you and me to know. If we want to know anymore, wait till we get where God is in person. I say this because we are troubled every little while with inquiries from Elders anxious to know who God is, who Christ is, and who Adam
is. I say to the Elders of Israel, stop this. Humble yourselves before the Lord; seek for light, for truth, and for a knowledge of the common things of the Kingdom of God. The Lord is the same yesterday, today, and forever. He changes not. The Son of God is the same. He is the Savior of the world. He is our advocate with the Father. We have had letter after letter from Elders abroad wanting to know concerning these things. Adam is the first man. He was placed in the Garden of Eden, and is our great progenitor. God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Ghost, are the same yesterday, today, and forever. That should be sufficient to know. (Millennial Star 57:355-356, April 7, 1895)
April of 1889, George Q. CannonGeneral Conference: There are TWO personages, the Father and the Son. God is the being who walked in the Garden of Eden, and who talkedwith the prophets. This revelation came to us in certainty. (Millennial Star 51:278; April 7, 1889)
FATHER ADAMOUR GOD Brigham Young, in a sermon in the tabernacle in Salt Lake City on April 9, 1852, said: "When our Father Adam came into the garden of Eden, he came into it with a celestial body, and brought Eve, one of his wives, with him. He helped to make and organize this world. He is Michael, the Archangel, the Ancient of Days, and about whom holy men have written and spoken. He is our Father and our God, and the only God with whom we have to do." Of "His son, Jesus Christ," Brigham Young said: I tell you that God was the Father of Jesus Christ, just as I am the Father of my son."
Some have grumbled because I believe our God so near to us as Father Adam. (JD 5:331)

Re: [TruthTalk] mormon angels. was: Dave uses Socratic Method of Teaching LDS...

And Satan was a committee member!
http://scriptures.lds.org/abr/4

2626And the Gods took counsel among themselves
Judy Taylor [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

Planning sessions? Tell me you are kidding DaveH ... Like God is a committee and needs input? Also my Bible says that the Holy Spirit is the executor of the will of the Father and the Word who became the Son. jt

On Wed, 25 May 2005 00:06:20 -0700 Dave Hansen [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:

DAVEH: FWIW.I agree with what you explained below, Blaine. But I've always thought LDS theology allows that Adam was a God in the pre-mortal existence, inasmuch as he was one of the key players (as you indicated below) who sat in on the planning sessions (so to speak) of the plan of salvation, and then was a/the pivotal character in implementing the gospel. Is that how you understand Adam's role/status, Blaine? [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

In a message dated 5/24/2005 8:01:49 AM Mountain Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Dave, If I am "somewhat close", can you tell me the part I am wrong about? You always say if I want to know what mormons believe, ask a mormon...PerryFrom: Dave Hansen [EMAIL PROTECTED]Reply-To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgTo: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgSubject: Re: [TruthTalk] mormon angels. was: Dave uses Socratic Method of Teaching LDS doctrine on TTDate: Tue, 24 May 2005 06:38:17 -0700Charles Perry Locke wrote:Dave, Christians consider angels and humans to be
two distinct types of created beings.DAVEH: Yes, I understand that. Yet, it seems Paul is telling us that it is difficult (if not impossible) to tell us (mortals) apart from angels.Correct me if I am wrong, but don't mormons consider angels to be either pre-mortal or post-mortal humans? For example, don't mormons consider Michael (the archangel) also to have been a human at one point...was it Adam? Hasn't he also been considered to be the mormon god the father? So, basically, one being can be spirit, angel, human, or god at various times. Am I right on this?DAVEH: You are somewhat close.Perry
--
~~~
Dave Hansen
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.langlitz.com
~~~
If you wish to receive
things I find interesting,
I maintain six email lists...
JOKESTER, OPINIONS, LDS,
STUFF, MOTORCYCLE and CLIPS.

Do You Yahoo!? Yahoo! Small Business - Try our new Resources site!

Re: [Bulk] Re: [TruthTalk] mormon angels. was: Dave uses Socratic Method of Teaching LDS...

"The President of the Church is the only man on earth authorized by God to go beyond or add to the scriptures" Teachings of theLiving ProphetsP18 published CJCLDS 1982
Lance Muir [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:




They don't because their 'prophet' did not.

- Original Message - 
From: Judy Taylor 
To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org 
Cc: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org 
Sent: May 25, 2005 05:03
Subject: [Bulk] Re: [TruthTalk] mormon angels. was: Dave uses Socratic Method of Teaching LDS...

Why does the Mormon Church mess with the Bible at all? May just as well toss it for it loses all credibility in
the light of their prophetical voices and other teachings. This stuff is occult. jt

On Tue, 24 May 2005 21:13:40 -0700 (PDT) Kevin Deegan [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:


Blaine says It is clear and consistent in all Mormon doctrinal treatesies on this subject that 1) The man Adam 

Tell Brigham, Taylor, Woodruff  Cannon! You just can't trust them prohets ya know.
Seems that many LDs for many years have been TROUBLED by who is who. But don't you worry. just ignore the contradictions. repeat after me
"I know the church is true, I know the Church is true."

Spring 1895 General ConferenceWilford Woodruff Cease troubling yourselvesabout who God is; who Adam is, who Christ is, who Jehovah is. For heaven's sake, let these things alone. Why trouble yourselves about these things? God has revealed himself andwhen the 121st section of the Doctrine and Covenants is fulfilled, whether there be ONE God or many Gods they will be revealed to the children of men, as well as all thrones and dominions, principalities, and powers. Then why trouble yourselves about these things? God is God. Christ is Christ. The Holy Ghost is the Holy Ghost. That should be enough for you and me to know. If we want to know anymore, wait till we get where God is in person. I say this because we are troubled every little while with inquiries from Elders anxious to know who God is, who Christ is, and who Adam
 is. I say to the Elders of Israel, stop this. Humble yourselves before the Lord; seek for light, for truth, and for a knowledge of the common things of the Kingdom of God. The Lord is the same yesterday, today, and forever. He changes not. The Son of God is the same. He is the Savior of the world. He is our advocate with the Father. We have had letter after letter from Elders abroad wanting to know concerning these things. Adam is the first man. He was placed in the Garden of Eden, and is our great progenitor. God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Ghost, are the same yesterday, today, and forever. That should be sufficient to know. (Millennial Star 57:355-356, April 7, 1895)
April of 1889, George Q. CannonGeneral Conference: There are TWO personages, the Father and the Son. God is the being who walked in the Garden of Eden, and who talkedwith the prophets. This revelation came to us in certainty. (Millennial Star 51:278; April 7, 1889)
FATHER ADAMOUR GOD Brigham Young, in a sermon in the tabernacle in Salt Lake City on April 9, 1852, said: "When our Father Adam came into the garden of Eden, he came into it with a celestial body, and brought Eve, one of his wives, with him. He helped to make and organize this world. He is Michael, the Archangel, the Ancient of Days, and about whom holy men have written and spoken. He is our Father and our God, and the only God with whom we have to do." Of "His son, Jesus Christ," Brigham Young said: I tell you that God was the Father of Jesus Christ, just as I am the Father of my son."
Some have grumbled because I believe our God so near to us as Father Adam. (JD 5:331)

How much unbelief exists in the minds of the Latter-day Saints in regard to one particular doctrine which I revealed to them, and which God revealed to me -- namely that Adam is our Father and God -- I do not know, I do not inquire, I care nothing about it. Our Father Adam helped to make this earth, it was created expressly for him, and after it was made he and his companions came here. (Deseret Weekly News 22:308-309, June 18, 1873)
Michael (Adam) was a resurrected being and he left Elohim and came to the earth with an immortal body, and continued so till he partook of earthly food and begat children whowere mortal (keep this to yourselves) and then they died. (Wilford Woodruff Journal, January 27, 1860)SSHH In the 1870 meeting of the School of the Prophets, Brigham counseled: "... the brethren to meditate on the subject, pray about it and keep it to yourselves." (Joseph F. Smith Journal,October 15, 1870)[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:



Blaine: I guess I just can't resist breaking into an interesting conversation!! Perry you are wrong when you say Mormons believe Adam was both God-the-Father and Michael in the pre-existance. It is clear and consistent in all Mormon doctrinal treatesies on this subject that 1) The man Adam was Michael the archangel in the pre-existence, 2) that Micha

Re: [Bulk] Re: [TruthTalk] mormon angels. was: Dave uses Socratic Method of Teaching LDS...

This is what I found to be the case many years ago.
I should like to hear from the resident Mormons on this, with
clarity.

- Original Message -
From:
Kevin
Deegan
To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org

Sent: May 25, 2005 07:47
Subject: [Bulk] Re: [TruthTalk] mormon
angels. was: Dave uses Socratic Method of Teaching LDS...

LDS today, do not teach Adam-God and call it a theory in spite of brigham
calling it a doctrine.
They refuse to acknowledge it was ever tasught. Many offshoots have left
the church over this doctrine, called fundamentalists because they believe
Adam-god is a fundamental of the mormon faith. So LDS have been warned of this
"theory" Who is adam?

Kimball teaches Brigham is a FALSE TEACHER: In 1976, LDS
prophet and president Spencer Kimball told attendees of a Priesthood session
of Conference, We warn you against the dissemination of doctrines which
are not according to the scriptures and which are alleged to have been taught
by some of the General authorities of past generations, such, for instance is
the Adam-God theory. We denounce that theory and hope that everyone will
be cautioned against this and other kinds of false doctrine.

Brigham teaches Kimball is Damned: Now, let all who
may hear these doctrines, pause before they make light of them, or treat them
with indifference, for they will prove their salvation or damnation." 1852
brigham young on Adam god JoD v1 p51Judy Taylor
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

Why does the Mormon Church mess with the Bible at
all? May just as well toss it for it loses all credibility
in
the light of their prophetical voices and other
teachings. This stuff is occult. jt

On Tue, 24 May 2005 21:13:40 -0700 (PDT) Kevin Deegan [EMAIL PROTECTED]
writes:

Blaine says It is clear and consistent in all Mormon
doctrinal treatesies on this subject that 1) The man Adam

Tell Brigham, Taylor, Woodruff Cannon! You just can't trust
them prohets ya know.
Seems that many LDs for many years have been TROUBLED by who is who.
But don't you worry. just ignore the contradictions. repeat after
me
"I know the church is true, I know the Church is true."

Spring 1895 General ConferenceWilford Woodruff
Cease troubling yourselvesabout who God is;
who Adam is, who Christ is, who Jehovah is. For heaven's sake, let
these things alone. Why trouble yourselves about these things? God has
revealed himself andwhen the 121st section of the Doctrine and
Covenants is fulfilled, whether there be ONE God or many
Gods they will be revealed to the children of men, as well as all
thrones and dominions, principalities, and powers. Then why
trouble yourselves about these things? God is God. Christ
is Christ. The Holy Ghost is the Holy Ghost. That should be
enough for you and me to know. If we want to know anymore,
wait till we get where God is in person. I say this because we are
troubled every little while with inquiries from Elders anxious to
know who God is, who Christ is, and who Adam
is. I say to the Elders of Israel, stop this.
Humble yourselves before the Lord; seek for light, for truth, and for a
knowledge of the common things of the Kingdom of God. The Lord is the same
yesterday, today, and forever. He changes not. The Son of God is the same.
He is the Savior of the world. He is our advocate with the Father. We have
had letter after letter from Elders abroad wanting to know concerning
these things. Adam is the first man. He was placed in the Garden of
Eden, and is our great progenitor. God the Father, God the Son, and God
the Holy Ghost, are the same yesterday, today, and forever. That should be
sufficient to know. (Millennial Star 57:355-356, April 7, 1895)
April of 1889, George Q. CannonGeneral Conference: There are TWO personages, the Father and the
Son. God is the being who walked in the Garden of Eden,
and who talkedwith the prophets. This revelation came
to us in certainty. (Millennial Star 51:278; April 7,
1889)
FATHER ADAMOUR GOD Brigham Young, in a
sermon in the tabernacle in Salt Lake City on April 9, 1852, said: "When
our Father Adam came into the
garden of Eden, he came into it with a celestial body,
and brought Eve, one of his wives, with him. He helped to make and
organize this world. He is Michael, the Archangel, the Ancient of
Days, and about whom holy men have written and spoken. He is our Father and our God, and
the only God with whom we have to do." Of "His son, Jesus
Christ," Brigham Young said: I tell you that God was the Father of
Je

Re: [Bulk] Re: [TruthTalk] mormon angels. was: Dave uses Socratic Method of Teaching LDS doctrine on TT

2005-05-25 Thread David Miller

DaveH wrote:
 Apparently many TTers want me to teach LDS theology on
 TT, yet some wish to criticize me for complying with their wishes.
 Seems like a no win situation, eh Lance.

Let me clarify yet again what TruthTalk is all about and Dave Hansen's 
situation in regards to this forum.

TruthTalk is meant to be a forum where people from different religions and 
different backgrounds can share their beliefs and teachings with the rest of 
us.  We, in turn, can judge what they teach and examine it.  We can raise 
objections or questions concerning what is being said.  The goal is learning 
and getting a better undertanding of both what we believe and what others 
believe.

Dave Hansen is LDS Mormon and he has as much right here as anybody else to 
teach or post his views.  In like manner, his teachings will be examined and 
questioned by others.  This is the nature of the forum.  I would not say 
that it is a no win situation just because a person's viewpoint is 
criticized in this forum.  If you share your views, expect some examination 
and perhaps criticism if someone thinks that the viewpoint deserves such.

Now in regards to the question of why DaveH is here.  I have read both Dave 
and Perry's exchange on this, and personally I find Dave's reasons for being 
here consistent.  He has an interest in knowing what Protestants believe and 
why.  He interacts with us, and in doing so, is questioned about his 
beliefs.  He responds to such questions in a way that he is comfortable. 
Often the exchange hits a dead end, and some TruthTalk members get 
frustrated with that (me included), but I don't think that means that his 
reasons for being here are not being stated properly.  Some have interpreted 
him to be implying that he wants to become a Protestant if he hears good 
answers for what Protestants believe, but I have never understood him that 
way.  He is simply curious and has an academic interest in what motivates us 
and what makes us who we are.  I'm sure Christians not affiliated with a 
major institution seems very strange to him.  His life is centered around an 
institution of authority.  That is the kind of structure he is use to and is 
comfortable with.  Many of us reject such institutions.  I think Dave is 
still trying to understand why and how this is.  I suspect it would be 
easier for him to understand us if we were all Roman Catholic.

Peace be with you.
David Miller. 


--
Let your speech be always with grace, seasoned with salt, that you may know 
how you ought to answer every man.  (Colossians 4:6) http://www.InnGlory.org

If you do not want to receive posts from this list, send an email to [EMAIL 
PROTECTED] and you will be unsubscribed.  If you have a friend who wants to 
join, tell him to send an e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and he will be subscribed.

Re: [Bulk] Re: [Bulk] Re: [TruthTalk] mormon angels. was: Dave uses Socratic Method of Teaching LDS doctrine on TT

An amen from me on this.

- Original Message - 
From: David Miller [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org
Sent: May 25, 2005 09:09
Subject: [Bulk] Re: [Bulk] Re: [TruthTalk] mormon angels. was: Dave uses
Socratic Method of Teaching LDS doctrine on TT

 DaveH wrote:
  Apparently many TTers want me to teach LDS theology on
  TT, yet some wish to criticize me for complying with their wishes.
  Seems like a no win situation, eh Lance.

 Let me clarify yet again what TruthTalk is all about and Dave Hansen's
 situation in regards to this forum.

 TruthTalk is meant to be a forum where people from different religions and
 different backgrounds can share their beliefs and teachings with the rest
of
 us.  We, in turn, can judge what they teach and examine it.  We can raise
 objections or questions concerning what is being said.  The goal is
learning
 and getting a better undertanding of both what we believe and what others
 believe.

 Dave Hansen is LDS Mormon and he has as much right here as anybody else to
 teach or post his views.  In like manner, his teachings will be examined
and
 questioned by others.  This is the nature of the forum.  I would not say
 that it is a no win situation just because a person's viewpoint is
 criticized in this forum.  If you share your views, expect some
examination
 and perhaps criticism if someone thinks that the viewpoint deserves such.

 Now in regards to the question of why DaveH is here.  I have read both
Dave
 and Perry's exchange on this, and personally I find Dave's reasons for
being
 here consistent.  He has an interest in knowing what Protestants believe
and
 why.  He interacts with us, and in doing so, is questioned about his
 beliefs.  He responds to such questions in a way that he is comfortable.
 Often the exchange hits a dead end, and some TruthTalk members get
 frustrated with that (me included), but I don't think that means that his
 reasons for being here are not being stated properly.  Some have
interpreted
 him to be implying that he wants to become a Protestant if he hears good
 answers for what Protestants believe, but I have never understood him that
 way.  He is simply curious and has an academic interest in what motivates
us
 and what makes us who we are.  I'm sure Christians not affiliated with a
 major institution seems very strange to him.  His life is centered around
an
 institution of authority.  That is the kind of structure he is use to and
is
 comfortable with.  Many of us reject such institutions.  I think Dave is
 still trying to understand why and how this is.  I suspect it would be
 easier for him to understand us if we were all Roman Catholic.

 Peace be with you.
 David Miller.

 --
 Let your speech be always with grace, seasoned with salt, that you may
know how you ought to answer every man.  (Colossians 4:6)
http://www.InnGlory.org

 If you do not want to receive posts from this list, send an email to
[EMAIL PROTECTED] and you will be unsubscribed.  If you have a
friend who wants to join, tell him to send an e-mail to
[EMAIL PROTECTED] and he will be subscribed.

--
Let your speech be always with grace, seasoned with salt, that you may know 
how you ought to answer every man.  (Colossians 4:6) http://www.InnGlory.org

If you do not want to receive posts from this list, send an email to [EMAIL 
PROTECTED] and you will be unsubscribed.  If you have a friend who wants to 
join, tell him to send an e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and he will be subscribed.

Re: [TruthTalk] mormon angels. was: Dave uses Socratic Method of Teaching LDS doctrine on TT

Dave, I don't mind if you choose not to answer, but no need to whine about 
it. If you and I are through discussing things on TT, then so be it. You 
said if I want to know what mormons believe, then I sould ask a mormon. I 
did that, but he has no answer for me. Who should I turn to for the truth 
about mormonism? The bible? Kevin?  The internet? All three of those say it 
is a false religion.


Perry


From: Dave Hansen [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Reply-To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org
To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] mormon angels. was: Dave uses Socratic Method of 
Teaching LDS doctrine on TT

Date: Tue, 24 May 2005 23:29:27 -0700

DAVEH:  For what reason should I explain why/where you are wrong about my 
beliefs, Perry.  I don't mind explaining to those who really want to know 
what I believe, but in your case it seems your intention is to denigrate my 
beliefs.


   You've stated that your mission (so to speak) is to discredit 
Mormonism.in effect meeting the definition of an anti-Mormon.  So for 
what reason would you want to query me about Mormonism, if it is not to 
denigrate that in which I believe?


   Along with that, you continue to disbelieve my stated reason for 
joining TT years ago.  You can believe as you wish, Perrybut if you 
effectively want to post that I am lying about my reasons for being here, 
then I see no particular reason to hand you the knife with which you intend 
to use to carve up my faith.


Charles Perry Locke wrote:

Actually, the problem I have is not with Dave stating mormon beliefs, 
especially when asked. It is his teaching mormon doctrines, but denying 
that he is doing so. I am for openest...but honesty, too.



Dave,

  If I am somewhat close, can you tell me the part I am wrong about? 
You always say if I want to know what mormons believe, ask a mormon...


Perry


From: Dave Hansen [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Reply-To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org
To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] mormon angels. was: Dave uses Socratic Method of 
Teaching LDS doctrine on TT

Date: Tue, 24 May 2005 06:38:17 -0700



Charles Perry Locke wrote:


Dave,

  Christians consider angels and humans to be two distinct types of 
created beings.



DAVEH:  Yes, I understand that.  Yet, it seems Paul is telling us that it 
is difficult (if not impossible) to tell us (mortals) apart from angels.


Correct me if I am wrong, but don't mormons consider angels to be either 
pre-mortal or post-mortal humans? For example, don't mormons consider 
Michael (the archangel) also to have been a human at one point...was it 
Adam? Hasn't he also been considered to be the mormon god the father? 
So, basically, one being can be spirit, angel, human, or god at various 
times. Am I right on this?



DAVEH:  You are somewhat close.



Perry





--
~~~
Dave Hansen
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.langlitz.com
~~~
If you wish to receive
things I find interesting,
I maintain six email lists...
JOKESTER, OPINIONS, LDS,
STUFF, MOTORCYCLE and CLIPS.


--
Let your speech be always with grace, seasoned with salt, that you may 
know how you ought to answer every man.  (Colossians 4:6) 
http://www.InnGlory.org


If you do not want to receive posts from this list, send an email to 
[EMAIL PROTECTED] and you will be unsubscribed.  If you have a 
friend who wants to join, tell him to send an e-mail to 
[EMAIL PROTECTED] and he will be subscribed.



--
Let your speech be always with grace, seasoned with salt, that you may know how you 
ought to answer every man.  (Colossians 4:6) http://www.InnGlory.org

If you do not want to receive posts from this list, send an email to [EMAIL 
PROTECTED] and you will be unsubscribed.  If you have a friend who wants to 
join, tell him to send an e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and he will be subscribed.

Re: [Bulk] Re: [TruthTalk] mormon angels. was: Dave uses Socratic Method of Teaching LDS doctrine on TT





DAVEH: Thanx for your clarification. To me it remains a no win
situation when it is implied that I am a liar for responding to
questions about my beliefs.

David Miller wrote:

   I would not say 
that it is a "no win situation" just because a person's viewpoint is 
criticized in this forum. 

Peace be with you.
David Miller. 

  

-- 
~~~
Dave Hansen
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.langlitz.com
~~~
If you wish to receive
things I find interesting,
I maintain six email lists...
JOKESTER, OPINIONS, LDS,
STUFF, MOTORCYCLE and CLIPS.

Re: [Bulk] Re: [TruthTalk] mormon angels. was: Dave uses Socratic Method of Teaching LDS doctrine on TT

David, Dave is smarter than you are giving him credit for being. He knows 
what he is doing. He is playing a word game. I have no problem with him 
pushing his mormon views into the discussions here...I just want him to 
acknowledge that is what he is doing. He is intentionally misinterpreting 
this as my not wanting him to espouse mormonism on the forum. That is NOT my 
goal. My goal is to get him to own his actions. To say he is NOT pushing 
mormonism, then push it anyway is disengenuous. Then, to turn it around as 
though I do not welcome his mormon views is a lie.


Perry


From: David Miller [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Reply-To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org
To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org
Subject: Re: [Bulk] Re: [TruthTalk] mormon angels. was: Dave uses Socratic 
Method of Teaching LDS doctrine on TT

Date: Wed, 25 May 2005 09:09:31 -0400

DaveH wrote:
 Apparently many TTers want me to teach LDS theology on
 TT, yet some wish to criticize me for complying with their wishes.
 Seems like a no win situation, eh Lance.

Let me clarify yet again what TruthTalk is all about and Dave Hansen's
situation in regards to this forum.

TruthTalk is meant to be a forum where people from different religions and
different backgrounds can share their beliefs and teachings with the rest 
of

us.  We, in turn, can judge what they teach and examine it.  We can raise
objections or questions concerning what is being said.  The goal is 
learning

and getting a better undertanding of both what we believe and what others
believe.

Dave Hansen is LDS Mormon and he has as much right here as anybody else to
teach or post his views.  In like manner, his teachings will be examined 
and

questioned by others.  This is the nature of the forum.  I would not say
that it is a no win situation just because a person's viewpoint is
criticized in this forum.  If you share your views, expect some examination
and perhaps criticism if someone thinks that the viewpoint deserves such.

Now in regards to the question of why DaveH is here.  I have read both Dave
and Perry's exchange on this, and personally I find Dave's reasons for 
being
here consistent.  He has an interest in knowing what Protestants believe 
and

why.  He interacts with us, and in doing so, is questioned about his
beliefs.  He responds to such questions in a way that he is comfortable.
Often the exchange hits a dead end, and some TruthTalk members get
frustrated with that (me included), but I don't think that means that his
reasons for being here are not being stated properly.  Some have 
interpreted

him to be implying that he wants to become a Protestant if he hears good
answers for what Protestants believe, but I have never understood him that
way.  He is simply curious and has an academic interest in what motivates 
us

and what makes us who we are.  I'm sure Christians not affiliated with a
major institution seems very strange to him.  His life is centered around 
an
institution of authority.  That is the kind of structure he is use to and 
is

comfortable with.  Many of us reject such institutions.  I think Dave is
still trying to understand why and how this is.  I suspect it would be
easier for him to understand us if we were all Roman Catholic.

Peace be with you.
David Miller.


--
Let your speech be always with grace, seasoned with salt, that you may 
know how you ought to answer every man.  (Colossians 4:6) 
http://www.InnGlory.org


If you do not want to receive posts from this list, send an email to 
[EMAIL PROTECTED] and you will be unsubscribed.  If you have a 
friend who wants to join, tell him to send an e-mail to 
[EMAIL PROTECTED] and he will be subscribed.



--
Let your speech be always with grace, seasoned with salt, that you may know how you 
ought to answer every man.  (Colossians 4:6) http://www.InnGlory.org

If you do not want to receive posts from this list, send an email to [EMAIL 
PROTECTED] and you will be unsubscribed.  If you have a friend who wants to 
join, tell him to send an e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and he will be subscribed.

Re: [TruthTalk] mormon angels. was: Dave uses Socratic Method of Teaching LDS doctrine on TT


Dave,

  I wanted to add that, although you are whining about answerig my 
question, and doing everything except answering it, it has served it's 
secondary purpose, and that is to expose and stimulate discussion on the 
non-biblical and heretical aspects of mormon beliefs. In the meantime, my 
question has also been answered to my satisfaction by Kevin.


Perry


From: Dave Hansen [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Reply-To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org
To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] mormon angels. was: Dave uses Socratic Method of 
Teaching LDS doctrine on TT

Date: Tue, 24 May 2005 23:29:27 -0700

DAVEH:  For what reason should I explain why/where you are wrong about my 
beliefs, Perry.  I don't mind explaining to those who really want to know 
what I believe, but in your case it seems your intention is to denigrate my 
beliefs.


   You've stated that your mission (so to speak) is to discredit 
Mormonism.in effect meeting the definition of an anti-Mormon.  So for 
what reason would you want to query me about Mormonism, if it is not to 
denigrate that in which I believe?


   Along with that, you continue to disbelieve my stated reason for 
joining TT years ago.  You can believe as you wish, Perrybut if you 
effectively want to post that I am lying about my reasons for being here, 
then I see no particular reason to hand you the knife with which you intend 
to use to carve up my faith.


Charles Perry Locke wrote:

Actually, the problem I have is not with Dave stating mormon beliefs, 
especially when asked. It is his teaching mormon doctrines, but denying 
that he is doing so. I am for openest...but honesty, too.



Dave,

  If I am somewhat close, can you tell me the part I am wrong about? 
You always say if I want to know what mormons believe, ask a mormon...


Perry


From: Dave Hansen [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Reply-To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org
To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] mormon angels. was: Dave uses Socratic Method of 
Teaching LDS doctrine on TT

Date: Tue, 24 May 2005 06:38:17 -0700



Charles Perry Locke wrote:


Dave,

  Christians consider angels and humans to be two distinct types of 
created beings.



DAVEH:  Yes, I understand that.  Yet, it seems Paul is telling us that it 
is difficult (if not impossible) to tell us (mortals) apart from angels.


Correct me if I am wrong, but don't mormons consider angels to be either 
pre-mortal or post-mortal humans? For example, don't mormons consider 
Michael (the archangel) also to have been a human at one point...was it 
Adam? Hasn't he also been considered to be the mormon god the father? 
So, basically, one being can be spirit, angel, human, or god at various 
times. Am I right on this?



DAVEH:  You are somewhat close.



Perry





--
~~~
Dave Hansen
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.langlitz.com
~~~
If you wish to receive
things I find interesting,
I maintain six email lists...
JOKESTER, OPINIONS, LDS,
STUFF, MOTORCYCLE and CLIPS.


--
Let your speech be always with grace, seasoned with salt, that you may 
know how you ought to answer every man.  (Colossians 4:6) 
http://www.InnGlory.org


If you do not want to receive posts from this list, send an email to 
[EMAIL PROTECTED] and you will be unsubscribed.  If you have a 
friend who wants to join, tell him to send an e-mail to 
[EMAIL PROTECTED] and he will be subscribed.



--
Let your speech be always with grace, seasoned with salt, that you may know how you 
ought to answer every man.  (Colossians 4:6) http://www.InnGlory.org

If you do not want to receive posts from this list, send an email to [EMAIL 
PROTECTED] and you will be unsubscribed.  If you have a friend who wants to 
join, tell him to send an e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and he will be subscribed.

Re: [TruthTalk] mormon angels. was: Dave uses Socratic Method of Teaching LDS...

, with him. He helped
 to make and organize this world. He is Michael, the
 Archangel, the Ancient of Days, and about whom holy
 men have written and spoken. He is our Father and
 our God, and the only God with whom we have to do.
 Of His son, Jesus Christ, Brigham Young said: I
 tell you that God was the Father of Jesus Christ,
 just as I am the Father of my son. 
 
 Some have grumbled because I believe our God so near
 to us as Father Adam. (JD 5:331)
 
 How much unbelief exists in the minds of the
 Latter-day Saints in regard to one particular
 doctrine which I revealed to them, and which God
 revealed to me -- namely that Adam is our Father and
 God -- I do not know, I do not inquire, I care
 nothing about it. Our Father Adam helped to make
 this earth, it was created expressly for him, and
 after it was made he and his companions came here.
 (Deseret Weekly News 22:308-309, June 18, 1873)
 
 Michael (Adam) was a resurrected being and he left
 Elohim and came to the earth with an immortal body,
 and continued so till he partook of earthly food and
 begat children who
 were mortal (keep this to yourselves) and then they
 died. (Wilford Woodruff Journal, January 27, 1860)
 SSHH   In the 1870 meeting of the School of the
 Prophets, Brigham counseled: ... the brethren to
 meditate on the subject, pray about it and keep it
 to yourselves. (Joseph F. Smith Journal,
 October 15, 1870)
 
 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
 Blaine:  I guess I just can't resist breaking into
 an interesting conversation!!  Perry you are wrong
 when you say Mormons believe  Adam was both
 God-the-Father and Michael in the pre-existance.  It
 is clear and consistent in all Mormon doctrinal
 treatesies on this subject that 1)  The man Adam was
 Michael the archangel in the pre-existence, 2) that 
 Michael was third in order of authority in the
 pre-existence.  Both the Father and the Son were
 above Michael in authority.  Michael was the
 executive of the will of the Father and the Son, you
 might say. 
  
 In a message dated 5/24/2005 8:01:49 AM Mountain
 Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
 Dave,
 
If I am somewhat close, can you tell me the
 part I am wrong about? You 
 always say if I want to know what mormons believe,
 ask a mormon...
 
 Perry
 
 From: Dave Hansen [EMAIL PROTECTED]
 Reply-To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org
 To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org
 Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] mormon angels. was: Dave
 uses Socratic Method of 
 Teaching LDS doctrine on TT
 Date: Tue, 24 May 2005 06:38:17 -0700
 
 
 
 Charles Perry Locke wrote:
 
 Dave,
 
Christians consider angels and humans to be two
 distinct types of 
 created beings.
 
 DAVEH:  Yes, I understand that.  Yet, it seems Paul
 is telling us that it 
 is difficult (if not impossible) to tell us
 (mortals) apart from angels.
 
 Correct me if I am wrong, but don't mormons
 consider angels to be either 
 pre-mortal or post-mortal humans? For example,
 don't mormons consider 
 Michael (the archangel) also to have been a human
 at one point...was it 
 Adam? Hasn't he also been considered to be the
 mormon god the father? So, 
 basically, one being can be spirit, angel, human,
 or god at various times. 
 Am I right on this?
 
 DAVEH:  You are somewhat close.
 
 
 Perry
 
  
 
 
   
 -
 Do you Yahoo!?
  Yahoo! Mail - Find what you need with new enhanced
 search. Learn more.




__ 
Do you Yahoo!? 
Yahoo! Small Business - Try our new Resources site
http://smallbusiness.yahoo.com/resources/
--
Let your speech be always with grace, seasoned with salt, that you may know 
how you ought to answer every man.  (Colossians 4:6) http://www.InnGlory.org

If you do not want to receive posts from this list, send an email to [EMAIL 
PROTECTED] and you will be unsubscribed.  If you have a friend who wants to 
join, tell him to send an e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and he will be subscribed.

Re: [Bulk] Re: [TruthTalk] mormon angels. was: Dave uses Socratic Method of Teaching LDS doctrine on TT





DAVEH: No Judy, I do not. But effectively that is what it is in a
sense. And it is certainly taken as such by some TTers, who evidently
view my explanations as an effort to try to convert TTers to
Mormonism. From my perspective, the problem is the accusation that I
am dishonest about my reasons for being in TT when I respond to those
questions. 

Judy Taylor wrote:

  
  
  Do you interpret being asked to answer a
few questions about your doctrine as "being asked to teach" DaveH?
  I'd call that a bit of a leap ... jt
  
  On Tue, 24 May 2005 23:17:01 -0700 Dave Hansen [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
  
DAVEH: Apparently many TTers want me to teach LDS
theology on TT, yet some wish to criticize me for complying with their
wishes. Seems like a no win situation, eh Lance.

Lance Muir wrote: 

  Apparently there exists a 'collective' anticipation of your answer.

  
  
Yes, I am interested as well. Is this beleif found in
the BoM?

Blessings,

Christine

--- Charles Perry Locke [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:



  Actually, the problem I have is not with Dave
stating mormon beliefs,
especially when asked. It is his teaching mormon
doctrines, but denying that
he is doing so. I am for openest...but honesty, too.
  

  

  


-- 
~~~
Dave Hansen
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.langlitz.com
~~~
If you wish to receive
things I find interesting,
I maintain six email lists...
JOKESTER, OPINIONS, LDS,
STUFF, MOTORCYCLE and CLIPS.

Re: [TruthTalk] mormon angels. was: Dave uses Socratic Method of Teaching LDS...





DAVEH: No JudyI am not kidding, though I may have chosen better
words (counsel) to describe it. 

 When God spoke as recorded in Genesis (1:26), he seemed to be
discussing the creation with others..

And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our
likeness:.

...I believe this was directly (and pretty much literally) a
reference as to what was said at that planning session, or counsel.
Job also referred to such a meeting (1:6)...

Now there was a day when the sons of God came to present themselves
before the Lord, and Satan came also among them.

...which also addresses Kevin's comment carrying negative
connotations.

And Satan was a committee member!

.Yes, I believe Satan was also present at that
counsel. His unruly behavior led to a war in heaven, and his
subsequent expulsion. Regarding your comment to Blaine, Judy...

Blaine scripture teaches nothing about any
pre-existence so it is all a figment of someone's imagination.

...I would respectfully disagree, as I believe there
is plenty of evidence recorded in the Bible of the pre-existence.

Judy Taylor wrote:

  
  
  Planning sessions? Tell me you are
kidding DaveH ... Like God is a committee and needs input? Also my
Bible says that the Holy Spirit is the executor of the will of the
Father and the Word who became the Son. jt
  
  On Wed, 25 May 2005 00:06:20 -0700 Dave Hansen [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
  
DAVEH: FWIW.I agree with what you explained below,
Blaine. But I've always thought LDS theology allows that Adam was a
God in the pre-mortal existence, inasmuch as he was one of the key
players (as you indicated below) who sat in on the planning sessions
(so to speak) of the plan of salvation, and then was a/the pivotal
character in implementing the gospel. Is that how you understand
Adam's role/status, Blaine? 

[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: 

  
  
  
  Blaine: I guess I just can't resist breaking into an
interesting conversation!! Perry you are wrong when you say Mormons
believe Adam was both God-the-Father and Michael in the
pre-existance. It is clear and consistent in
all Mormon doctrinal treatesies on this subject that 1) The man Adam
was Michael the archangel in the pre-existence, 2) that Michael was
third in order of authority in the pre-existence. Both the Father and
the Son were above Michael in authority. Michael was the executive of
the will of the Father and the Son, you might say.
  
  In a message dated 5/24/2005 8:01:49 AM Mountain Standard
Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
  Dave,

 If I am "somewhat close", can you tell me the part I am wrong about?
You 
always say if I want to know what mormons believe, ask a mormon...

Perry

From: Dave Hansen [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Reply-To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org
To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] mormon angels. was: Dave uses Socratic
Method of 
Teaching LDS doctrine on TT
Date: Tue, 24 May 2005 06:38:17 -0700



Charles Perry Locke wrote:

Dave,

 Christians consider angels and humans to be two distinct
types of 
created beings.

DAVEH: Yes, I understand that. Yet, it seems Paul is telling us
that it 
is difficult (if not impossible) to tell us (mortals) apart from
angels.

Correct me if I am wrong, but don't mormons consider angels to
be either 
pre-mortal or post-mortal humans? For example, don't mormons
consider 
Michael (the archangel) also to have been a human at one
point...was it 
Adam? Hasn't he also been considered to be the mormon god the
father? So, 
basically, one being can be spirit, angel, human, or god at
various times. 
Am I right on this?

DAVEH: You are somewhat close.


Perry
  
  
  
  


-- 
~~~
Dave Hansen
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.langlitz.com
~~~
If you wish to receive
things I find interesting,
I maintain six email lists...
JOKESTER, OPINIONS, LDS,
STUFF, MOTORCYCLE and CLIPS.

Re: [Bulk] Re: [TruthTalk] mormon angels. was: Dave uses Socratic Method of Teaching LDS...




The Genesis and Job comments are supported by some 
commentators.

  - Original Message - 
  From: 
  Dave Hansen 
  
  To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org 
  
  Sent: May 25, 2005 10:29
  Subject: [Bulk] Re: [TruthTalk] mormon 
  angels. was: Dave uses Socratic Method of Teaching LDS...
  DAVEH: No JudyI am not kidding, though I may have 
  chosen better words (counsel) to describe it. 
   When God spoke as recorded in Genesis (1:26), he 
  seemed to be discussing the creation with others..And God said, 
  Let us make man in our image, after our 
  likeness:I believe this was directly (and pretty 
  much literally) a reference as to what was said at that planning session, or 
  counsel. Job also referred to such a meeting 
  (1:6)...Now there was a day when the sons of God came to 
  present themselves before the Lord, and Satan came also among 
  themwhich also addresses Kevin's comment carrying 
  negative connotations.And Satan was a committee 
  member!.Yes, I believe Satan was also present at that 
  counsel. His unruly behavior led to a war in heaven, and his subsequent 
  expulsion. Regarding your comment to Blaine, Judy...Blaine 
  scripture teaches nothing about any pre-existence so it is all a figment of 
  someone's imaginationI would respectfully 
  disagree, as I believe there is plenty of evidence recorded in the Bible of 
  the pre-existence.Judy Taylor wrote: 
  

Planning sessions? Tell me you are kidding 
DaveH ... Like God is a committee and needs input? Also my Bible says 
that the Holy Spirit is the executor of the will of the Father and the Word 
who became the Son. jt

On Wed, 25 May 2005 00:06:20 -0700 Dave Hansen [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:

  DAVEH: FWIW.I agree with what you explained below, 
  Blaine. But I've always thought LDS theology allows that Adam was a 
  God in the pre-mortal existence, inasmuch as he was one of the key players 
  (as you indicated below) who sat in on the planning sessions (so to speak) 
  of the plan of salvation, and then was a/the pivotal character in 
  implementing the gospel. Is that how you understand Adam's 
  role/status, Blaine? [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: 
  


Blaine: I guess I just can't resist breaking into an 
interesting conversation!! Perry you are wrong when you say 
Mormons believe Adam was both God-the-Father and Michael in the 
pre-existance. It is clear and consistent in 
all Mormon doctrinal treatesies on this subject that 1) The man 
Adam was Michael the archangel in the pre-existence, 2) that 
Michael was third in order of authority in the pre-existence. Both 
the Father and the Son were above Michael in authority. Michael 
was the executive of the will of the Father and the Son, you might 
say.

In a message dated 5/24/2005 8:01:49 AM Mountain Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Dave, If I am 
  "somewhat close", can you tell me the part I am wrong about? You 
  always say if I want to know what mormons believe, ask a 
  mormon...PerryFrom: Dave Hansen [EMAIL PROTECTED]Reply-To: 
  TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgTo: 
  TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgSubject: 
  Re: [TruthTalk] mormon angels. was: Dave uses Socratic Method of 
  Teaching LDS doctrine on TTDate: Tue, 24 May 2005 
  06:38:17 -0700Charles Perry Locke 
  wrote:Dave, 
  Christians consider angels and humans to be two distinct types of 
  created beings.DAVEH: Yes, I 
  understand that. Yet, it seems Paul is telling us that it 
  is difficult (if not impossible) to tell us (mortals) apart 
  from angels.Correct me if I am wrong, but don't 
  mormons consider angels to be either pre-mortal or 
  post-mortal humans? For example, don't mormons consider 
  Michael (the archangel) also to have been a human at one 
  point...was it Adam? Hasn't he also been considered to be 
  the mormon god the father? So, basically, one being can be 
  spirit, angel, human, or god at various times. Am I right 
  on this?DAVEH: You are somewhat 
  close.Perry
-- 
~~~
Dave Hansen
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.langlitz.com
~~~
If you wish to receive
things I find interesting,
I maintain six email lists...
JOKESTER, OPINIONS, LDS,
STUFF, MOTORCYCLE and CLIPS.

Re: [Bulk] Re: [Bulk] Re: [TruthTalk] mormon angels. was: Dave uses Socratic Method of Teaching LDS doctrine on TT




I, for one, am pleased to hear fully and candidly 
from Mr. Hansen.

  - Original Message - 
  From: 
  Dave Hansen 
  
  To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org 
  
  Sent: May 25, 2005 10:05
  Subject: [Bulk] Re: [Bulk] Re: 
  [TruthTalk] mormon angels. was: Dave uses Socratic Method of Teaching LDS 
  doctrine on TT
  DAVEH: No Judy, I do not. But effectively that is 
  what it is in a sense. And it is certainly taken as such by some TTers, 
  who evidently view my explanations as an effort to try to convert TTers to 
  Mormonism. From my perspective, the problem is the accusation that I am 
  dishonest about my reasons for being in TT when I respond to those 
  questions. Judy Taylor wrote: 
  

Do you interpret being asked to answer a few 
questions about your doctrine as "being asked to teach" DaveH?
I'd call that a bit of a leap ... jt

On Tue, 24 May 2005 23:17:01 -0700 Dave Hansen [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:

  DAVEH: Apparently many TTers want me to teach LDS 
  theology on TT, yet some wish to criticize me for complying with their 
  wishes. Seems like a no win situation, eh Lance.Lance Muir 
  wrote: 
  Apparently there exists a 'collective' anticipation of your answer.

  
Yes, I am interested as well. Is this beleif found in
the BoM?

Blessings,

Christine

--- Charles Perry Locke [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:


  Actually, the problem I have is not with Dave
stating mormon beliefs,
especially when asked. It is his teaching mormon
doctrines, but denying that
he is doing so. I am for openest...but honesty, too.
  -- 
~~~
Dave Hansen
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.langlitz.com
~~~
If you wish to receive
things I find interesting,
I maintain six email lists...
JOKESTER, OPINIONS, LDS,
STUFF, MOTORCYCLE and CLIPS.

Re: [Bulk] Re: [TruthTalk] mormon angels. was: Dave uses Socratic Method of Teaching LDS doctrine on TT

2005-05-25 Thread David Miller

Dave Hansen wrote:
 To me it remains a no win situation when it is implied
 that I am a liar for responding to questions about my beliefs.

From my perspective, if a member implies you are a liar for responding to 
questions about your belief, that member is mistaken.  You have made your 
case, and even if the person you have made your case with does not accept 
your arguments, don't presume that the rest of us don't.

It seems to me that you don't want to answer Perry until he acknowledges 
that you are being honest about your motivations for being here.  I would 
encourge Perry to acknowledge this, but even if he disagrees with both you 
and me, wouldn't it be ok to go ahead and answer him and still stick by your 
position of honesty?

One question you might answer that could help resolve this with Perry is, do 
you ever have any thoughts of possibly converting any of us to Mormonism?

You ought to understand that evangelism is important to many evangelicals. 
Most non-Mormons on this list probably hope to influence you away from 
Mormonism, so it is natural for them to assume that you hope to move some of 
us toward accepting Mormonism.  Can you be honest about your feelings 
concerning this with us, or do you never think about your influence upon us 
in regards to Mormonism?  I personally suspect this might be a secondary 
reason you have for being here, and acknowledging such might help Perry 
relate to you better.  On the other hand, if moving us toward Mormonism 
really never enters your mind, that would be interesting for us to know.

Peace be with you.
David Miller. 


--
Let your speech be always with grace, seasoned with salt, that you may know 
how you ought to answer every man.  (Colossians 4:6) http://www.InnGlory.org

If you do not want to receive posts from this list, send an email to [EMAIL 
PROTECTED] and you will be unsubscribed.  If you have a friend who wants to 
join, tell him to send an e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and he will be subscribed.

Re: [Bulk] Re: [TruthTalk] mormon angels. was: Dave uses Socratic Method of Teaching LDS doctrine on TT

2005-05-25 Thread David Miller

Perry wrote:
 David, Dave is smarter than you are giving him
 credit for being. He knows what he is doing.
 He is playing a word game.

Well, maybe I have fallen into his trap, but it does seem to me that you 
have put him in an awkward position.  If he answers you, then you will 
likely use that against him as evidence of how he teaches Mormon doctrine. 
If he doesn't answer you, then you say he has no answers for his beliefs. 
How about just giving him the benefit of the doubt and letting him share his 
beliefs with us without accusing him of being here in order to share his 
beliefs with us.  Maybe he really is more interested in listening than 
speaking here.  I certainly see him that way.

Perry wrote:
 I have no problem with him pushing his mormon views
 into the discussions here...I just want him to acknowledge
 that is what he is doing.

I think he acknowledges that he is sharing his Mormon views, but that is not 
the primary reason he is on TruthTalk.  You don't seem to want to accept 
this idea for some reason.

Perry wrote:
 He is intentionally misinterpreting this as my not
 wanting him to espouse mormonism on the forum.
 That is NOT my goal. My goal is to get him to
 own his actions. To say he is NOT pushing
 mormonism, then push it anyway is disengenuous.

I think his position is that he shares Mormonism when asked, but he is not 
here to push Mormonism.  I don't have a problem with this being his true 
reason for being here.  Maybe I am naive about Mormonism, but I choose to 
accept him on what he is saying.  If you have some evidence that he is being 
deceitful about this, feel free to present it.  Do Mormons have a mandate to 
convert everyone at all costs or something?

Perry wrote:
 Then, to turn it around as though I do not welcome
 his mormon views is a lie.

I think your wording here is too strong.  It does seem to me that you do not 
welcome his Mormon views.  I think you feel he is welcome to share his views 
here, but you do not appreciate them nor welcome them when he does share 
them.  Rather than being a lie, I think you are failing to communicate your 
position with Dave.

Tell me if I am hearing you right.  You want Dave to say that he is here to 
teach Mormonism, and then you would welcome him teaching Mormonism in this 
forum.  However, if he does not admit that he is here to teach Mormonism, 
then he is not being honest with us.  Am I hearing you right?  Is there any 
room for you to budge on this perspective?

As best I can tell, Dave is here primarily to listen, but he is glad to 
engage us and discuss his Mormon beliefs with us.  I'm not sure why you have 
a problem with this perspective.  I don't know Dave's heart, so I could be 
wrong, but from what information I have, it does seem to me that this is the 
best understanding of reality.

I have noticed a difference between Dave and Blaine.  Blaine seems much more 
aggressive to teach Mormonism.  Have you noticed this?  In other words, if 
someone like Blaine took the position that Dave has regarding being here to 
learn what Protestants believe and why, I would have an easier time 
accepting your perspective. On the other hand, Dave does appear to be here 
for the reasons he has stated.

Peace be with you.
David Miller. 


--
Let your speech be always with grace, seasoned with salt, that you may know 
how you ought to answer every man.  (Colossians 4:6) http://www.InnGlory.org

If you do not want to receive posts from this list, send an email to [EMAIL 
PROTECTED] and you will be unsubscribed.  If you have a friend who wants to 
join, tell him to send an e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and he will be subscribed.

Re: [Bulk] Re: [TruthTalk] mormon angels. was: Dave uses Socratic Method of Teaching LDS doctrine on TT


David, and Dave,

  Dave states that he is not here [on TT] to learn the truth...he is here 
to learn what protestants think, and why.  While not part of his pat 
statement about why he is on TT, he also said that he is not here tio 
convert anyone to mormonism or to teach mormonism.


 I believe that Dave is genuine about his stated reasons for being here.

 Most of the time, Dave answers questions about his faith when asked, and 
that presents no problem at all.


  Sometimes Dave will ask someone what protestants believe. They will 
answer him honestly and forthrightly. Dave will then begin to DEBATE what 
they believe by interject unsolicited mormon doctrine, sometimes 
socratically. Again, I have no problems with his doing this.


  However, when I say, Dave, you have said that you are not here to teach 
mormon doctrine, which is what he is doing when he introduces mormon 
doctrine in rebuttal to a question he has asked to learn what protestants 
think, he denies it.


  Now, he may say that he is not here to teach mormon doctrine, and that 
may indeed not by why he is here. But, when confronted with the fact that 
he said he is not here to TEACH mormon doctrine but is, in fact TEACHING 
mormon doctrine, I have a problem with that. To me it is not being genuine. 
All Dave has to do is admit that at times he teaches mormon doctrine on TT. 
It is the fact that he sometimes teaches mormon doctrine, but denies that he 
does so, that I am complaining about.


  Furthermore, he has taken my comlpaint and TWISTED it to mean that I 
object to his teaching mormon doctrine. That has never been my argument. It 
is a lie for him to twist it that way. He can teach ALL the mormon doctrine 
he wishes...I would just like for him to stop denying it and admit that is 
what he is doing.


  Case in point. Blaine makes no qualms about proudly presenting his mormon 
beliefs, and that has NEVER bothered me...because BLAINE NEVER MADE THE 
STATEMENT THAT HE IS NOT TEACHING MORMON DOCTRINE on TT.


Perry


From: David Miller [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Reply-To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org
To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org
Subject: Re: [Bulk] Re: [TruthTalk] mormon angels. was: Dave uses Socratic 
Method of Teaching LDS doctrine on TT

Date: Wed, 25 May 2005 10:51:42 -0400

Dave Hansen wrote:
 To me it remains a no win situation when it is implied
 that I am a liar for responding to questions about my beliefs.

From my perspective, if a member implies you are a liar for responding to
questions about your belief, that member is mistaken.  You have made your
case, and even if the person you have made your case with does not accept
your arguments, don't presume that the rest of us don't.

It seems to me that you don't want to answer Perry until he acknowledges
that you are being honest about your motivations for being here.  I would
encourge Perry to acknowledge this, but even if he disagrees with both you
and me, wouldn't it be ok to go ahead and answer him and still stick by 
your

position of honesty?

One question you might answer that could help resolve this with Perry is, 
do

you ever have any thoughts of possibly converting any of us to Mormonism?

You ought to understand that evangelism is important to many evangelicals.
Most non-Mormons on this list probably hope to influence you away from
Mormonism, so it is natural for them to assume that you hope to move some 
of

us toward accepting Mormonism.  Can you be honest about your feelings
concerning this with us, or do you never think about your influence upon us
in regards to Mormonism?  I personally suspect this might be a secondary
reason you have for being here, and acknowledging such might help Perry
relate to you better.  On the other hand, if moving us toward Mormonism
really never enters your mind, that would be interesting for us to know.

Peace be with you.
David Miller.


--
Let your speech be always with grace, seasoned with salt, that you may 
know how you ought to answer every man.  (Colossians 4:6) 
http://www.InnGlory.org


If you do not want to receive posts from this list, send an email to 
[EMAIL PROTECTED] and you will be unsubscribed.  If you have a 
friend who wants to join, tell him to send an e-mail to 
[EMAIL PROTECTED] and he will be subscribed.



--
Let your speech be always with grace, seasoned with salt, that you may know how you 
ought to answer every man.  (Colossians 4:6) http://www.InnGlory.org

If you do not want to receive posts from this list, send an email to [EMAIL 
PROTECTED] and you will be unsubscribed.  If you have a friend who wants to 
join, tell him to send an e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and he will be subscribed.

Re: [Bulk] Re: [TruthTalk] mormon angels. was: Dave uses Socratic Method of Teaching LDS doctrine on TT

There was a significant word game going on whenI first arrived on this forum. LDS using words that seemed intended to cloak the true LDS understanding.
I think the christians here have a far better understanding of mormonism now then in past years

There are words that are familiar to christians that have a different meaning to LDS
Word Christian LDS meaning
Gentile NON Jew - NON LDS
angel created spirit being - ressurected man
Virgin birth
Gospel
Fall bad -good
Jesus ChristGodhead Trinity - committee composed of gods including SATAN
council in heaven - The meeting in the premortal life of the Godhead and spirits designated for this earth, in which the plan of salvation was presented.

http://www.lightplanet.com/mormons/basic/premortal/Council_EOM.htm
At a certain point in the council, the Father asked, "Whom shall I send [as the Redeemer]?" Jesus Christ, known then as the great I AM and as Jehovah, answered, "Here am I, send me," and agreed to follow the Father's plan (Moses 4:1-4; Abr. 3:27). As a counter-measure, Lucifer offered himself and an amendment to the Father's plan of saving mankind that would not respect their agency

http://www.towertotruth.net/Mormon/witnessing/terminology.htm

Charles Perry Locke [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
David, Dave is smarter than you are giving him credit for being. He knows what he is doing. He is playing a word game. I have no problem with him pushing his mormon views into the discussions here...I just want him to acknowledge that is what he is doing. He is intentionally misinterpreting this as my not wanting him to espouse mormonism on the forum. That is NOT my goal. My goal is to get him to own his actions. To say he is NOT pushing mormonism, then push it anyway is disengenuous. Then, to turn it around as though I do not welcome his mormon views is a lie.PerryFrom: "David Miller" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>Reply-To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgTo: <TRUTHTALK@MAIL.INNGLORY.ORG>Subject: Re: [Bulk] Re: [TruthTalk] mormon angels. was: Dave uses Socratic Method of Teaching LDS doctrine on TTDate: Wed, 25
May 2005 09:09:31 -0400DaveH wrote: Apparently many TTers want me to teach LDS theology on TT, yet some wish to criticize me for complying with their wishes. Seems like a no win situation, eh Lance.Let me clarify yet again what TruthTalk is all about and Dave Hansen'ssituation in regards to this forum.TruthTalk is meant to be a forum where people from different religions anddifferent backgrounds can share their beliefs and teachings with the rest ofus. We, in turn, can judge what they teach and examine it. We can raiseobjections or questions concerning what is being said. The goal is learningand getting a better undertanding of both what we believe and what othersbelieve.Dave Hansen is LDS Mormon and he has as much right here as anybody else toteach or post his views. In like manner, his teachings will be
examined andquestioned by others. This is the nature of the forum. I would not saythat it is a "no win situation" just because a person's viewpoint iscriticized in this forum. If you share your views, expect some examinationand perhaps criticism if someone thinks that the viewpoint deserves such.Now in regards to the question of why DaveH is here. I have read both Daveand Perry's exchange on this, and personally I find Dave's reasons for beinghere consistent. He has an interest in knowing what Protestants believe andwhy. He interacts with us, and in doing so, is questioned about hisbeliefs. He responds to such questions in a way that he is comfortable.Often the exchange hits a dead end, and some TruthTalk members getfrustrated with that (me included), but I don't think that means that hisreasons for being here are not being stated properly. Some have
interpretedhim to be implying that he wants to become a Protestant if he hears goodanswers for what Protestants believe, but I have never understood him thatway. He is simply curious and has an academic interest in what motivates usand what makes us who we are. I'm sure Christians not affiliated with amajor institution seems very strange to him. His life is centered around aninstitution of authority. That is the kind of structure he is use to and iscomfortable with. Many of us reject such institutions. I think Dave isstill trying to understand why and how this is. I suspect it would beeasier for him to understand us if we were all Roman Catholic.Peace be with you.David Miller.--"Let your speech be always with grace, seasoned with salt, that you may know how you ought to answer every man." (Colossians 4:6)
http://www.InnGlory.orgIf you do not want to receive posts from this list, send an email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and you will be unsubscribed. If you have a friend who wants to join, tell him to send an e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and he will be subscribed.--"Let your speech be always with grace, seasoned with salt, that you may know how you oug

Re: [TruthTalk] mormon angels. was: Dave uses Socratic Method of Teaching LDS...

nd who talked with the prophets. This revelation came to us in certainty. (Millennial Star 51:278; April 7, 1889) FATHER ADAM OUR GOD Brigham Young, in a sermon in the tabernacle in Salt Lake City on April 9, 1852, said: "When our Father Adam came into the garden of Eden, he came into it with a celestial body, and brought Eve, one of his wives, with him. He helped to make and organize this world. He is Michael, the Archangel, the Ancient of Days, and about whom holy men have written and spoken. He is our Father and our God, and the only God with whom we have to do." Of "His
son, Jesus Christ," Brigham Young said: I tell you that God was the Father of Jesus Christ, just as I am the Father of my son." Some have grumbled because I believe our God so near to us as Father Adam. (JD 5:331) How much unbelief exists in the minds of the Latter-day Saints in regard to one particular doctrine which I revealed to them, and which God revealed to me -- namely that Adam is our Father and God -- I do not know, I do not inquire, I care nothing about it. Our Father Adam helped to make this earth, it was created expressly for him, and after it was made he and his companions came here. (Deseret Weekly News 22:308-309, June 18, 1873) Michael (Adam) was a resurrected being and he left Elohim and came to the earth with an immortal body, and continued so till he partook of earthly food and begat children
who were mortal (keep this to yourselves) and then they died. (Wilford Woodruff Journal, January 27, 1860) SSHH In the 1870 meeting of the School of the Prophets, Brigham counseled: "... the brethren to meditate on the subject, pray about it and keep it to yourselves." (Joseph F. Smith Journal, October 15, 1870) [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Blaine: I guess I just can't resist breaking into an interesting conversation!! Perry you are wrong when you say Mormons believe Adam was both God-the-Father and Michael in the pre-existance. It is clear and consistent in all Mormon doctrinal treatesies on this subject that 1) The man Adam was Michael the archangel in the pre-existence, 2) that Michael was third in order of authority in the pre-existence. Both the Father and the Son were above Michael in authority. Michael was the
executive of the will of the Father and the Son, you might say. In a message dated 5/24/2005 8:01:49 AM Mountain Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Dave, If I am "somewhat close", can you tell me the part I am wrong about? You always say if I want to know what mormons believe, ask a mormon... Perry From: Dave Hansen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Reply-To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] mormon angels. was: Dave uses Socratic Method of Teaching LDS doctrine on TT Date: Tue, 24 May 2005 06:38:17 -0700Charles Perry Locke wrote: Dave, Christians consider angels and humans to be two distinct types of created
beings. DAVEH: Yes, I understand that. Yet, it seems Paul is telling us that it is difficult (if not impossible) to tell us (mortals) apart from angels. Correct me if I am wrong, but don't mormons consider angels to be either pre-mortal or post-mortal humans? For example, don't mormons consider Michael (the archangel) also to have been a human at one point...was it Adam? Hasn't he also been considered to be the mormon god the father? So, basically, one being can be spirit, angel, human, or god at various times. Am I right on this? DAVEH: You are somewhat close. Perry - Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Mail - Find what
you need with new enhanced search. Learn more.__ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Small Business - Try our new Resources sitehttp://smallbusiness.yahoo.com/resources/--"Let your speech be always with grace, seasoned with salt, that you may know how you ought to answer every man." (Colossians 4:6) http://www.InnGlory.orgIf you do not want to receive posts from this list, send an email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and you will be unsubscribed. If you have a friend who wants to join, tell him to send an e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and he will be subscribed.
Do You Yahoo!? Yahoo! Small Business - Try our new Resources site!

Re: [Bulk] Re: [TruthTalk] mormon angels. was: Dave uses Socratic Method of Teaching LDS doctrine on TT

http://www.towertotruth.net/Mormon/witnessing/terminology.htm

What a wakeup call. I followed this link and found
this:

JESUS CHRIST:

LDS--A created being, the first spirit child of Elohim
and one of his wives, the spirit brother of Lucifer
the devil.

So Jesus and Satan are BROTHERS? I thought Jesus was
my brother: Romans 8:29, For whom he did foreknow, he
also did predestinate to be conformed to the image of
his Son, that he might be the firstborn among many
brethren. Paul is clearly talking about our adoption
by God the Father, who becomes our Father when we
receive His son (John 1:12) when he says earlier in
verse 19: For as many as are led by the Spirit of
God, they are the sons of God. Lucifer is not led by
God's Spirit. He is engages in warfare against God's
Spirit. And he certainly has not received Jesus. 

To believe these things, one must first disregard the
Bible. 

Blessings,

Christine

--- Kevin Deegan [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

 There was a significant word game going on when I
 first arrived on this forum. LDS using words that
 seemed intended to cloak the true LDS understanding.
 I think the christians here have a far better
 understanding of mormonism now then in past years
  
 There are words that are familiar to christians that
 have a different meaning to LDS
 Word   Christian  LDS meaning
 Gentile NON Jew - NON LDS
 angel  created spirit being  - ressurected man
 Virgin birth
 Gospel
 Fall bad -good
 Jesus Christ
 Godhead Trinity - committee composed of gods
 including SATAN
 council in heaven - The meeting in the premortal
 life of the Godhead and spirits designated for this
 earth, in which the plan of salvation was presented.
  

http://www.lightplanet.com/mormons/basic/premortal/Council_EOM.htm
 At a certain point in the council, the Father asked,
 Whom shall I send [as the Redeemer]? Jesus Christ,
 known then as the great I AM and as Jehovah,
 answered, Here am I, send me, and agreed to follow
 the Father's plan (Moses 4:1-4; Abr. 3:27). As a
 counter-measure, Lucifer offered himself and an
 amendment to the Father's plan of saving mankind
 that would not respect their agency
  

http://www.towertotruth.net/Mormon/witnessing/terminology.htm
  
 
 Charles Perry Locke [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
 David, Dave is smarter than you are giving him
 credit for being. He knows 
 what he is doing. He is playing a word game. I have
 no problem with him 
 pushing his mormon views into the discussions
 here...I just want him to 
 acknowledge that is what he is doing. He is
 intentionally misinterpreting 
 this as my not wanting him to espouse mormonism on
 the forum. That is NOT my 
 goal. My goal is to get him to own his actions. To
 say he is NOT pushing 
 mormonism, then push it anyway is disengenuous.
 Then, to turn it around as 
 though I do not welcome his mormon views is a lie.
 
 Perry
 
 From: David Miller 
 Reply-To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org
 To: 
 Subject: Re: [Bulk] Re: [TruthTalk] mormon angels.
 was: Dave uses Socratic 
 Method of Teaching LDS doctrine on TT
 Date: Wed, 25 May 2005 09:09:31 -0400
 
 DaveH wrote:
   Apparently many TTers want me to teach LDS
 theology on
   TT, yet some wish to criticize me for complying
 with their wishes.
   Seems like a no win situation, eh Lance.
 
 Let me clarify yet again what TruthTalk is all
 about and Dave Hansen's
 situation in regards to this forum.
 
 TruthTalk is meant to be a forum where people from
 different religions and
 different backgrounds can share their beliefs and
 teachings with the rest 
 of
 us. We, in turn, can judge what they teach and
 examine it. We can raise
 objections or questions concerning what is being
 said. The goal is 
 learning
 and getting a better undertanding of both what we
 believe and what others
 believe.
 
 Dave Hansen is LDS Mormon and he has as much right
 here as anybody else to
 teach or post his views. In like manner, his
 teachings will be examined 
 and
 questioned by others. This is the nature of the
 forum. I would not say
 that it is a no win situation just because a
 person's viewpoint is
 criticized in this forum. If you share your views,
 expect some examination
 and perhaps criticism if someone thinks that the
 viewpoint deserves such.
 
 Now in regards to the question of why DaveH is
 here. I have read both Dave
 and Perry's exchange on this, and personally I find
 Dave's reasons for 
 being
 here consistent. He has an interest in knowing what
 Protestants believe 
 and
 why. He interacts with us, and in doing so, is
 questioned about his
 beliefs. He responds to such questions in a way
 that he is comfortable.
 Often the exchange hits a dead end, and some
 TruthTalk members get
 frustrated with that (me included), but I don't
 think that means that his
 reasons for being here are not being stated
 properly. Some have 
 interpreted
 him to be implying that he wants to become a
 Protestant if he hears good
 answers for what Protestants believe, but I have
 never understood him

Re: [Bulk] Re: [Bulk] Re: [TruthTalk] mormon angels. was: Dave uses Socratic Method of Teaching LDS doctrine on TT

Christine:Please! One need not disregard the Bible to believe anything. One
need only disregard your interpretation. What you find to be the plain
meaning of something is not necessarily what another thoughtful believe
might find. Agreed?

- Original Message - 
From: Christine Miller [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org
Sent: May 25, 2005 13:36
Subject: [Bulk] Re: [Bulk] Re: [TruthTalk] mormon angels. was: Dave uses
Socratic Method of Teaching LDS doctrine on TT

 http://www.towertotruth.net/Mormon/witnessing/terminology.htm

 What a wakeup call. I followed this link and found
 this:

 JESUS CHRIST:

 LDS--A created being, the first spirit child of Elohim
 and one of his wives, the spirit brother of Lucifer
 the devil.

 So Jesus and Satan are BROTHERS? I thought Jesus was
 my brother: Romans 8:29, For whom he did foreknow, he
 also did predestinate to be conformed to the image of
 his Son, that he might be the firstborn among many
 brethren. Paul is clearly talking about our adoption
 by God the Father, who becomes our Father when we
 receive His son (John 1:12) when he says earlier in
 verse 19: For as many as are led by the Spirit of
 God, they are the sons of God. Lucifer is not led by
 God's Spirit. He is engages in warfare against God's
 Spirit. And he certainly has not received Jesus.

 To believe these things, one must first disregard the
 Bible.

 Blessings,

 Christine

 --- Kevin Deegan [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

  There was a significant word game going on when I
  first arrived on this forum. LDS using words that
  seemed intended to cloak the true LDS understanding.
  I think the christians here have a far better
  understanding of mormonism now then in past years

  There are words that are familiar to christians that
  have a different meaning to LDS
  Word   Christian  LDS meaning
  Gentile NON Jew - NON LDS
  angel  created spirit being  - ressurected man
  Virgin birth
  Gospel
  Fall bad -good
  Jesus Christ
  Godhead Trinity - committee composed of gods
  including SATAN
  council in heaven - The meeting in the premortal
  life of the Godhead and spirits designated for this
  earth, in which the plan of salvation was presented.

 http://www.lightplanet.com/mormons/basic/premortal/Council_EOM.htm
  At a certain point in the council, the Father asked,
  Whom shall I send [as the Redeemer]? Jesus Christ,
  known then as the great I AM and as Jehovah,
  answered, Here am I, send me, and agreed to follow
  the Father's plan (Moses 4:1-4; Abr. 3:27). As a
  counter-measure, Lucifer offered himself and an
  amendment to the Father's plan of saving mankind
  that would not respect their agency

 http://www.towertotruth.net/Mormon/witnessing/terminology.htm

  Charles Perry Locke [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
  David, Dave is smarter than you are giving him
  credit for being. He knows
  what he is doing. He is playing a word game. I have
  no problem with him
  pushing his mormon views into the discussions
  here...I just want him to
  acknowledge that is what he is doing. He is
  intentionally misinterpreting
  this as my not wanting him to espouse mormonism on
  the forum. That is NOT my
  goal. My goal is to get him to own his actions. To
  say he is NOT pushing
  mormonism, then push it anyway is disengenuous.
  Then, to turn it around as
  though I do not welcome his mormon views is a lie.

  Perry

  From: David Miller
  Reply-To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org
  To:
  Subject: Re: [Bulk] Re: [TruthTalk] mormon angels.
  was: Dave uses Socratic
  Method of Teaching LDS doctrine on TT
  Date: Wed, 25 May 2005 09:09:31 -0400

  DaveH wrote:
Apparently many TTers want me to teach LDS
  theology on
TT, yet some wish to criticize me for complying
  with their wishes.
Seems like a no win situation, eh Lance.

  Let me clarify yet again what TruthTalk is all
  about and Dave Hansen's
  situation in regards to this forum.

  TruthTalk is meant to be a forum where people from
  different religions and
  different backgrounds can share their beliefs and
  teachings with the rest
  of
  us. We, in turn, can judge what they teach and
  examine it. We can raise
  objections or questions concerning what is being
  said. The goal is
  learning
  and getting a better undertanding of both what we
  believe and what others
  believe.

  Dave Hansen is LDS Mormon and he has as much right
  here as anybody else to
  teach or post his views. In like manner, his
  teachings will be examined
  and
  questioned by others. This is the nature of the
  forum. I would not say
  that it is a no win situation just because a
  person's viewpoint is
  criticized in this forum. If you share your views,
  expect some examination
  and perhaps criticism if someone thinks that the
  viewpoint deserves such.

  Now in regards to the question of why DaveH is
  here. I have read both Dave
  and Perry's exchange on this, and personally I find
  Dave's reasons for
  being

Re: [Bulk] Re: [TruthTalk] mormon angels. was: Dave uses Socratic Method of Teaching LDS doctrine on TT

evidently view my explanations as an effort to try to convert TTers to Mormonism
Like who?
Can you post a quote showing this?
I think your smoke screen has gotten away with you it is in your eyes now.
Dave Hansen [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
DAVEH: No Judy, I do not. But effectively that is what it is in a sense. And it is certainly taken as such by some TTers, who evidently view my explanations as an effort to try to convert TTers to Mormonism. From my perspective, the problem is the accusation that I am dishonest about my reasons for being in TT when I respond to those questions. Judy Taylor wrote: 


Do you interpret being asked to answer a few questions about your doctrine as "being asked to teach" DaveH?
I'd call that a bit of a leap ... jt

On Tue, 24 May 2005 23:17:01 -0700 Dave Hansen [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:

DAVEH: Apparently many TTers want me to teach LDS theology on TT, yet some wish to criticize me for complying with their wishes. Seems like a no win situation, eh Lance.Lance Muir wrote: 
Apparently there exists a 'collective' anticipation of your answer.

  
Yes, I am interested as well. Is this beleif found in
the BoM?

Blessings,

Christine

--- Charles Perry Locke [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:


Actually, the problem I have is not with Dave
stating mormon beliefs,
especially when asked. It is his teaching mormon
doctrines, but denying that
he is doing so. I am for openest...but honesty, too.
  -- 
~~~
Dave Hansen
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.langlitz.com
~~~
If you wish to receive
things I find interesting,
I maintain six email lists...
JOKESTER, OPINIONS, LDS,
STUFF, MOTORCYCLE and CLIPS.
		Do you Yahoo!? 
Yahoo! Mail - Find what you need with new enhanced search. Learn more.

Re: [TruthTalk] mormon angels. was: Dave uses Socratic Method of Teaching LDS...

that 1) The man Adam was Michael the archangel in the pre-existence, 2) that Michael was third in order of authority in the pre-existence. Both the Father and the Son were above Michael in authority. Michael was the executive of the will of the Father and the Son, you might say.

In a message dated 5/24/2005 8:01:49 AM Mountain Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Dave, If I am "somewhat close", can you tell me the part I am wrong about? You always say if I want to know what mormons believe, ask a mormon...PerryFrom: Dave Hansen [EMAIL PROTECTED]Reply-To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgTo: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgSubject: Re: [TruthTalk] mormon angels. was: Dave uses Socratic Method of Teaching LDS doctrine on TTDate: Tue, 24 May 2005 06:38:17 -0700Charles Perry Locke wrote:Dave, Christians consider angels and humans to be
 two distinct types of created beings.DAVEH: Yes, I understand that. Yet, it seems Paul is telling us that it is difficult (if not impossible) to tell us (mortals) apart from angels.Correct me if I am wrong, but don't mormons consider angels to be either pre-mortal or post-mortal humans? For example, don't mormons consider Michael (the archangel) also to have been a human at one point...was it Adam? Hasn't he also been considered to be the mormon god the father? So, basically, one being can be spirit, angel, human, or god at various times. Am I right on this?DAVEH: You are somewhat close.Perry
-- 
~~~
Dave Hansen
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.langlitz.com
~~~
If you wish to receive
things I find interesting,
I maintain six email lists...
JOKESTER, OPINIONS, LDS,
STUFF, MOTORCYCLE and CLIPS.
		Do you Yahoo!? 
Yahoo! Mail - Find what you need with new enhanced search. Learn more.

Re: [Bulk] Re: [Bulk] Re: [TruthTalk] mormon angels. was: Dave uses Socratic Method of Teaching LDS...

To name just one, Bart Ehrman

- Original Message -
From:
Kevin
Deegan
To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org

Sent: May 25, 2005 13:19
Subject: [Bulk] Re: [Bulk] Re:
[TruthTalk] mormon angels. was: Dave uses Socratic Method of Teaching
LDS...

Who?Lance Muir [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:

The Genesis and Job comments are supported by
some commentators.

- Original Message -
From:
Dave Hansen

To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org

Sent: May 25, 2005 10:29
Subject: [Bulk] Re: [TruthTalk]
mormon angels. was: Dave uses Socratic Method of Teaching LDS...
DAVEH: No JudyI am not kidding, though I may have
chosen better words (counsel) to describe it.
When God spoke as recorded in Genesis (1:26),
he seemed to be discussing the creation with others..And
God said, Let us make man in our image, after our
likeness:I believe this was directly (and
pretty much literally) a reference as to what was said at that planning
session, or counsel. Job also referred to such a meeting
(1:6)...Now there was a day when the sons of God came to
present themselves before the Lord, and Satan came also among
themwhich also addresses Kevin's comment carrying
negative connotations.And Satan was a committee
member!.Yes, I believe Satan was also present at
that counsel. His unruly behavior led to a war in heaven, and his
subsequent expulsion. Regarding your comment to Blaine,
Judy...Blaine scripture teaches nothing about any
pre-existence so it is all a figment of someone's
imaginationI would respectfully disagree, as
I believe there is plenty of evidence recorded in the Bible of the pre-existence.Judy Taylor wrote:

Planning sessions? Tell me you are
kidding DaveH ... Like God is a committee and needs input? Also my
Bible says that the Holy Spirit is the executor of the will of the
Father and the Word who became the Son. jt

On Wed, 25 May 2005 00:06:20 -0700 Dave Hansen [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:

DAVEH: FWIW.I agree with what you explained below,
Blaine. But I've always thought LDS theology allows that Adam
was a God in the pre-mortal existence, inasmuch as he was one of the
key players (as you indicated below) who sat in on the planning
sessions (so to speak) of the plan of salvation, and then was a/the
pivotal character in implementing the gospel. Is that how you
understand Adam's role/status, Blaine? [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

Blaine: I guess I just can't resist breaking into an
interesting conversation!! Perry you are wrong when you say
Mormons believe Adam was both God-the-Father and Michael in
the pre-existance. It is clear and
consistent in all Mormon doctrinal treatesies on this subject that
1) The man Adam was Michael the archangel in the
pre-existence, 2) that Michael was third in order of authority
in the pre-existence. Both the Father and the Son were above
Michael in authority. Michael was the executive of the will of
the Father and the Son, you might say.

In a message dated 5/24/2005 8:01:49 AM Mountain Standard Time,
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
writes:
Dave, If I am
"somewhat close", can you tell me the part I am wrong about? You
always say if I want to know what mormons believe, ask a
mormon...PerryFrom: Dave Hansen [EMAIL PROTECTED]Reply-To:
TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgTo:
TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgSubject:
Re: [TruthTalk] mormon angels. was: Dave uses Socratic Method of
Teaching LDS doctrine on TTDate: Tue, 24 May 2005
06:38:17 -0700Charles Perry Locke
wrote:Dave,
Christians consider angels and humans to be two distinct types of
created beings.DAVEH: Yes, I
understand that. Yet, it seems Paul is telling us that it
is difficult (if not impossible) to tell us (mortals)
apart from angels.Correct me if I am wrong,
but don't mormons consider angels to be either
pre-mortal or post-mortal humans? For example, don't
mormons consider Michael (the archangel) also to have
been a human at one point...was it Adam? Hasn't he
also been considered to be the mormon god the father? So,
basically, one being can be spirit, angel, human, or
god

Re: [Bulk] Re: [TruthTalk] mormon angels. was: Dave uses Socratic Method of Teaching LDS...

Who?Lance Muir [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

The Genesis and Job comments are supported by some commentators.

- Original Message - 
From: Dave Hansen 
To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org 
Sent: May 25, 2005 10:29
Subject: [Bulk] Re: [TruthTalk] mormon angels. was: Dave uses Socratic Method of Teaching LDS...
DAVEH: No JudyI am not kidding, though I may have chosen better words (counsel) to describe it.  When God spoke as recorded in Genesis (1:26), he seemed to be discussing the creation with others..And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness:I believe this was directly (and pretty much literally) a reference as to what was said at that planning session, or counsel. Job also referred to such a meeting (1:6)...Now there was a day when the sons of God came to present themselves before the Lord, and Satan came also among themwhich also addresses Kevin's comment carrying negative connotations.And Satan was a committee member!.Yes, I believe Satan was also present at that counsel. His unruly behavior led to a war in heaven, and his subsequent
 expulsion. Regarding your comment to Blaine, Judy...Blaine scripture teaches nothing about any pre-existence so it is all a figment of someone's imaginationI would respectfully disagree, as I believe there is plenty of evidence recorded in the Bible of the pre-existence.Judy Taylor wrote: 

Planning sessions? Tell me you are kidding DaveH ... Like God is a committee and needs input? Also my Bible says that the Holy Spirit is the executor of the will of the Father and the Word who became the Son. jt

On Wed, 25 May 2005 00:06:20 -0700 Dave Hansen [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:

DAVEH: FWIW.I agree with what you explained below, Blaine. But I've always thought LDS theology allows that Adam was a God in the pre-mortal existence, inasmuch as he was one of the key players (as you indicated below) who sat in on the planning sessions (so to speak) of the plan of salvation, and then was a/the pivotal character in implementing the gospel. Is that how you understand Adam's role/status, Blaine? [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: 

Blaine: I guess I just can't resist breaking into an interesting conversation!! Perry you are wrong when you say Mormons believe Adam was both God-the-Father and Michael in the pre-existance. It is clear and consistent in all Mormon doctrinal treatesies on this subject that 1) The man Adam was Michael the archangel in the pre-existence, 2) that Michael was third in order of authority in the pre-existence. Both the Father and the Son were above Michael in authority. Michael was the executive of the will of the Father and the Son, you might say.

In a message dated 5/24/2005 8:01:49 AM Mountain Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Dave, If I am "somewhat close", can you tell me the part I am wrong about? You always say if I want to know what mormons believe, ask a mormon...PerryFrom: Dave Hansen [EMAIL PROTECTED]Reply-To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgTo: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgSubject: Re: [TruthTalk] mormon angels. was: Dave uses Socratic Method of Teaching LDS doctrine on TTDate: Tue, 24 May 2005 06:38:17 -0700Charles Perry Locke wrote:Dave, Christians consider angels and humans to be
 two distinct types of created beings.DAVEH: Yes, I understand that. Yet, it seems Paul is telling us that it is difficult (if not impossible) to tell us (mortals) apart from angels.Correct me if I am wrong, but don't mormons consider angels to be either pre-mortal or post-mortal humans? For example, don't mormons consider Michael (the archangel) also to have been a human at one point...was it Adam? Hasn't he also been considered to be the mormon god the father? So, basically, one being can be spirit, angel, human, or god at various times. Am I right on this?DAVEH: You are somewhat close.Perry
-- 
~~~
Dave Hansen
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.langlitz.com
~~~
If you wish to receive
things I find interesting,
I maintain six email lists...
JOKESTER, OPINIONS, LDS,
STUFF, MOTORCYCLE and CLIPS.__Do You Yahoo!?Tired of spam?  Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com

Re: [Bulk] Re: [Bulk] Re: [TruthTalk] mormon angels. was: Dave uses Socratic Method of Teaching LDS...

Again, this Mormon doctrine echoes Jewish thought. The
Midrash Rabbah comments on Genesis 1:26 by not only
asserting that the us is a council, but by going so
far as to discribe the conversation that proceeded the
creation of man:

When the Holy One, Blessed be He, was about to create
Adam, the Attribute of Kindness said: Let him be
created, but the Attribute of Truth said, 'Let him
not be created.' God took Truth and cast it to the
ground. Said the ministering angels before the Holy
One, Why do you scorn Truth? While the ministering
angels were debating the issue, The Holy One created
Adam 
-- Genesis Rabbah 8:5

Interpreters use Daniel 8:12 to support the account of
God casting truth to the ground. Apparently, God's own
vote could not tip the balance, nor could He overrule
the both of them if He had wanted. It seems He had to
get rid of the one voting a No.  

But the Midrash offers a caveat to this: 

Rabbi Samuel bar Nahman in the name of Rabbi Jonathan
said, that at the time when Moses wrote the Torah;
writing a portion of it daily, when he came to this
Verse which says, And Elohim said let us make man in
our image after our likeness, Moses said, Master of
the Universe why do you give herewith an excuse to the
sectarians [those who would use this verse as evidence
of polytheism]. God answered Moses, You write and
whoever wants to err let him err.

Blessings!

--- Lance Muir [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

 To name just one, Bart Ehrman
   - Original Message - 
   From: Kevin Deegan 
   To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org 
   Sent: May 25, 2005 13:19
   Subject: [Bulk] Re: [Bulk] Re: [TruthTalk] mormon
 angels. was: Dave uses Socratic Method of Teaching
 LDS...
 
 
   Who?
 
   Lance Muir [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: 
 The Genesis and Job comments are supported by
 some commentators.
   - Original Message - 
   From: Dave Hansen 
   To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org 
   Sent: May 25, 2005 10:29
   Subject: [Bulk] Re: [TruthTalk] mormon angels.
 was: Dave uses Socratic Method of Teaching LDS...
 
 
   DAVEH:  No JudyI am not kidding, though I
 may have chosen better words (counsel) to describe
 it.  
 
   When God spoke as recorded in Genesis
 (1:26), he seemed to be discussing the creation with
 others..
 
   And God said, Let us make man in our image,
 after our likeness:.
 
   ...I believe this was directly (and pretty
 much literally) a reference as to what was said at
 that planning session, or counsel.  Job also
 referred to such a meeting (1:6)...
 
   Now there was a day when the sons of God came
 to present themselves before the Lord, and Satan
 came also among them.
 
   ...which also addresses Kevin's comment
 carrying negative connotations.
 
   And Satan was a committee member!
 
   .Yes, I believe Satan was also present
 at that counsel.  His unruly behavior led to a war
 in heaven, and his subsequent expulsion.  Regarding
 your comment to Blaine, Judy...
 
   Blaine scripture teaches nothing about any
 pre-existence so it is all a figment of someone's
 imagination.
 
   ...I would respectfully disagree, as I
 believe there is plenty of evidence recorded in the
 Bible of the pre-existence.
 
   Judy Taylor wrote: 
 Planning sessions?  Tell me you are kidding
 DaveH ... Like God is a committee and needs input? 
 Also my Bible says that the Holy Spirit is the
 executor of the will of the Father and the Word who
 became the Son.  jt
 
 On Wed, 25 May 2005 00:06:20 -0700 Dave
 Hansen [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
   DAVEH:  FWIW.I agree with what you
 explained below, Blaine.  But I've always thought
 LDS theology allows that Adam was a God in the
 pre-mortal existence, inasmuch as he was one of the
 key players (as you indicated below) who sat in on
 the planning sessions (so to speak) of the plan of
 salvation, and then was a/the pivotal character in
 implementing the gospel.  Is that how you understand
 Adam's role/status, Blaine?  
 
   [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: 
 Blaine:  I guess I just can't resist
 breaking into an interesting conversation!!  Perry
 you are wrong when you say Mormons believe  Adam was
 both God-the-Father and Michael in the
 pre-existance.  It is clear and consistent in all
 Mormon doctrinal treatesies on this subject that 1) 
 The man Adam was Michael the archangel in the
 pre-existence, 2) that  Michael was third in order
 of authority in the pre-existence.  Both the Father
 and the Son were above Michael in authority. 
 Michael was the executive of the will of the Father
 and the Son, you might say. 
 
 In a message dated 5/24/2005 8:01:49 AM
 Mountain Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
   Dave,
 
  If I am somewhat close, can you
 tell me the part I am wrong about? You 
   always say if I want to know what
 mormons believe, ask a mormon

Re: [Bulk] Re: [Bulk] Re: [TruthTalk] mormon angels. was: Dave uses Socratic Method of Teaching LDS doctrine on TT

Yes, I do see your point and I do agree. But the Bible
speaks to be understood, and it is written to inform
us. We must interpret, that's true, just as I must
interpret your post when I read it. 

The Bible is very clear on what it means to be a child
of God and a brother of Jesus. It requires
interpretation to communicate at all, but when
something is stated blankly (John 1:12), how much spin
can we add before we are misinterpreting? Perhaps I
could have said misinterpret instead of disregard,
but I do believe the Mormons are genuinely ignoring
the Bible's stance on this one. 

Blessings!

--- Lance Muir [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

 Christine:Please! One need not disregard the Bible
 to believe anything. One
 need only disregard your interpretation. What you
 find to be the plain
 meaning of something is not necessarily what another
 thoughtful believe
 might find. Agreed?
 
 
 - Original Message - 
 From: Christine Miller [EMAIL PROTECTED]
 To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org
 Sent: May 25, 2005 13:36
 Subject: [Bulk] Re: [Bulk] Re: [TruthTalk] mormon
 angels. was: Dave uses
 Socratic Method of Teaching LDS doctrine on TT
 
 
 

http://www.towertotruth.net/Mormon/witnessing/terminology.htm
 
  What a wakeup call. I followed this link and found
  this:
 
  JESUS CHRIST:
 
  LDS--A created being, the first spirit child of
 Elohim
  and one of his wives, the spirit brother of
 Lucifer
  the devil.
 
  So Jesus and Satan are BROTHERS? I thought Jesus
 was
  my brother: Romans 8:29, For whom he did
 foreknow, he
  also did predestinate to be conformed to the image
 of
  his Son, that he might be the firstborn among many
  brethren. Paul is clearly talking about our
 adoption
  by God the Father, who becomes our Father when we
  receive His son (John 1:12) when he says earlier
 in
  verse 19: For as many as are led by the Spirit of
  God, they are the sons of God. Lucifer is not led
 by
  God's Spirit. He is engages in warfare against
 God's
  Spirit. And he certainly has not received Jesus.
 
  To believe these things, one must first disregard
 the
  Bible.
 
  Blessings,
 
  Christine
 
  --- Kevin Deegan [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
 
   There was a significant word game going on when
 I
   first arrived on this forum. LDS using words
 that
   seemed intended to cloak the true LDS
 understanding.
   I think the christians here have a far better
   understanding of mormonism now then in past
 years
  
   There are words that are familiar to christians
 that
   have a different meaning to LDS
   Word   Christian  LDS meaning
   Gentile NON Jew - NON LDS
   angel  created spirit being  - ressurected man
   Virgin birth
   Gospel
   Fall bad -good
   Jesus Christ
   Godhead Trinity - committee composed of gods
   including SATAN
   council in heaven - The meeting in the premortal
   life of the Godhead and spirits designated for
 this
   earth, in which the plan of salvation was
 presented.
  
  
 

http://www.lightplanet.com/mormons/basic/premortal/Council_EOM.htm
   At a certain point in the council, the Father
 asked,
   Whom shall I send [as the Redeemer]? Jesus
 Christ,
   known then as the great I AM and as Jehovah,
   answered, Here am I, send me, and agreed to
 follow
   the Father's plan (Moses 4:1-4; Abr. 3:27). As a
   counter-measure, Lucifer offered himself and an
   amendment to the Father's plan of saving mankind
   that would not respect their agency
  
  
 

http://www.towertotruth.net/Mormon/witnessing/terminology.htm
  
  
   Charles Perry Locke [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
   David, Dave is smarter than you are giving him
   credit for being. He knows
   what he is doing. He is playing a word game. I
 have
   no problem with him
   pushing his mormon views into the discussions
   here...I just want him to
   acknowledge that is what he is doing. He is
   intentionally misinterpreting
   this as my not wanting him to espouse mormonism
 on
   the forum. That is NOT my
   goal. My goal is to get him to own his actions.
 To
   say he is NOT pushing
   mormonism, then push it anyway is disengenuous.
   Then, to turn it around as
   though I do not welcome his mormon views is a
 lie.
  
   Perry
  
   From: David Miller
   Reply-To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org
   To:
   Subject: Re: [Bulk] Re: [TruthTalk] mormon
 angels.
   was: Dave uses Socratic
   Method of Teaching LDS doctrine on TT
   Date: Wed, 25 May 2005 09:09:31 -0400
   
   DaveH wrote:
 Apparently many TTers want me to teach LDS
   theology on
 TT, yet some wish to criticize me for
 complying
   with their wishes.
 Seems like a no win situation, eh Lance.
   
   Let me clarify yet again what TruthTalk is all
   about and Dave Hansen's
   situation in regards to this forum.
   
   TruthTalk is meant to be a forum where people
 from
   different religions and
   different backgrounds can share their beliefs
 and
   teachings with the rest
   of
   us. We, in turn, can judge what they teach and
   examine it. We can raise

Re: [Bulk] Re: [Bulk] Re: [TruthTalk] mormon angels. was: Dave uses Socratic Method of Teaching LDS...

I meant a christian not a proto OrthLance Muir [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:


To name just one, Bart Ehrman

- Original Message - 
From: Kevin Deegan 
To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org 
Sent: May 25, 2005 13:19
Subject: [Bulk] Re: [Bulk] Re: [TruthTalk] mormon angels. was: Dave uses Socratic Method of Teaching LDS...

Who?Lance Muir [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: 




The Genesis and Job comments are supported by some commentators.

- Original Message - 
From: Dave Hansen 
To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org 
Sent: May 25, 2005 10:29
Subject: [Bulk] Re: [TruthTalk] mormon angels. was: Dave uses Socratic Method of Teaching LDS...
DAVEH: No JudyI am not kidding, though I may have chosen better words (counsel) to describe it.  When God spoke as recorded in Genesis (1:26), he seemed to be discussing the creation with others..And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness:I believe this was directly (and pretty much literally) a reference as to what was said at that planning session, or counsel. Job also referred to such a meeting (1:6)...Now there was a day when the sons of God came to present themselves before the Lord, and Satan came also among themwhich also addresses Kevin's comment carrying negative connotations.And Satan was a committee member!.Yes, I believe Satan was also present at that counsel. His unruly behavior led to a war in heaven, and his subsequent
 expulsion. Regarding your comment to Blaine, Judy...Blaine scripture teaches nothing about any pre-existence so it is all a figment of someone's imaginationI would respectfully disagree, as I believe there is plenty of evidence recorded in the Bible of the pre-existence.Judy Taylor wrote: 


Planning sessions? Tell me you are kidding DaveH ... Like God is a committee and needs input? Also my Bible says that the Holy Spirit is the executor of the will of the Father and the Word who became the Son. jt

On Wed, 25 May 2005 00:06:20 -0700 Dave Hansen [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:

DAVEH: FWIW.I agree with what you explained below, Blaine. But I've always thought LDS theology allows that Adam was a God in the pre-mortal existence, inasmuch as he was one of the key players (as you indicated below) who sat in on the planning sessions (so to speak) of the plan of salvation, and then was a/the pivotal character in implementing the gospel. Is that how you understand Adam's role/status, Blaine? [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: 



Blaine: I guess I just can't resist breaking into an interesting conversation!! Perry you are wrong when you say Mormons believe Adam was both God-the-Father and Michael in the pre-existance. It is clear and consistent in all Mormon doctrinal treatesies on this subject that 1) The man Adam was Michael the archangel in the pre-existence, 2) that Michael was third in order of authority in the pre-existence. Both the Father and the Son were above Michael in authority. Michael was the executive of the will of the Father and the Son, you might say.

In a message dated 5/24/2005 8:01:49 AM Mountain Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Dave, If I am "somewhat close", can you tell me the part I am wrong about? You always say if I want to know what mormons believe, ask a mormon...PerryFrom: Dave Hansen [EMAIL PROTECTED]Reply-To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgTo: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgSubject: Re: [TruthTalk] mormon angels. was: Dave uses Socratic Method of Teaching LDS doctrine on TTDate: Tue, 24 May 2005 06:38:17 -0700Charles Perry Locke wrote:Dave, Christians consider angels and humans to be
 two distinct types of created beings.DAVEH: Yes, I understand that. Yet, it seems Paul is telling us that it is difficult (if not impossible) to tell us (mortals) apart from angels.Correct me if I am wrong, but don't mormons consider angels to be either pre-mortal or post-mortal humans? For example, don't mormons consider Michael (the archangel) also to have been a human at one point...was it Adam? Hasn't he also been considered to be the mormon god the father? So, basically, one being can be spirit, angel, human, or god at various times. Am I right on this?DAVEH: You are somewhat close.Perry
-- 
~~~
Dave Hansen
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.langlitz.com
~~~
If you wish to receive
things I find interesting,
I maintain six email lists...
JOKESTER, OPINIONS, LDS,
STUFF, MOTORCYCLE and CLIPS.
__Do You Yahoo!?Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com 
		Do You Yahoo!? Yahoo! Small Business - Try our new Resources site!

Re: [Bulk] Re: [Bulk] Re: [Bulk] Re: [TruthTalk] mormon angels. was: Dave uses Socratic Method of Teaching LDS doctrine on TT

So do I.

- Original Message - 
From: Christine Miller [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org
Sent: May 25, 2005 14:42
Subject: [Bulk] Re: [Bulk] Re: [Bulk] Re: [TruthTalk] mormon angels. was:
Dave uses Socratic Method of Teaching LDS doctrine on TT

 Yes, I do see your point and I do agree. But the Bible
 speaks to be understood, and it is written to inform
 us. We must interpret, that's true, just as I must
 interpret your post when I read it.

 The Bible is very clear on what it means to be a child
 of God and a brother of Jesus. It requires
 interpretation to communicate at all, but when
 something is stated blankly (John 1:12), how much spin
 can we add before we are misinterpreting? Perhaps I
 could have said misinterpret instead of disregard,
 but I do believe the Mormons are genuinely ignoring
 the Bible's stance on this one.

 Blessings!

 --- Lance Muir [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

  Christine:Please! One need not disregard the Bible
  to believe anything. One
  need only disregard your interpretation. What you
  find to be the plain
  meaning of something is not necessarily what another
  thoughtful believe
  might find. Agreed?

  - Original Message - 
  From: Christine Miller [EMAIL PROTECTED]
  To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org
  Sent: May 25, 2005 13:36
  Subject: [Bulk] Re: [Bulk] Re: [TruthTalk] mormon
  angels. was: Dave uses
  Socratic Method of Teaching LDS doctrine on TT

 http://www.towertotruth.net/Mormon/witnessing/terminology.htm

   What a wakeup call. I followed this link and found
   this:

   JESUS CHRIST:

   LDS--A created being, the first spirit child of
  Elohim
   and one of his wives, the spirit brother of
  Lucifer
   the devil.

   So Jesus and Satan are BROTHERS? I thought Jesus
  was
   my brother: Romans 8:29, For whom he did
  foreknow, he
   also did predestinate to be conformed to the image
  of
   his Son, that he might be the firstborn among many
   brethren. Paul is clearly talking about our
  adoption
   by God the Father, who becomes our Father when we
   receive His son (John 1:12) when he says earlier
  in
   verse 19: For as many as are led by the Spirit of
   God, they are the sons of God. Lucifer is not led
  by
   God's Spirit. He is engages in warfare against
  God's
   Spirit. And he certainly has not received Jesus.

   To believe these things, one must first disregard
  the
   Bible.

   Blessings,

   Christine

   --- Kevin Deegan [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

There was a significant word game going on when
  I
first arrived on this forum. LDS using words
  that
seemed intended to cloak the true LDS
  understanding.
I think the christians here have a far better
understanding of mormonism now then in past
  years

There are words that are familiar to christians
  that
have a different meaning to LDS
Word   Christian  LDS meaning
Gentile NON Jew - NON LDS
angel  created spirit being  - ressurected man
Virgin birth
Gospel
Fall bad -good
Jesus Christ
Godhead Trinity - committee composed of gods
including SATAN
council in heaven - The meeting in the premortal
life of the Godhead and spirits designated for
  this
earth, in which the plan of salvation was
  presented.

 http://www.lightplanet.com/mormons/basic/premortal/Council_EOM.htm
At a certain point in the council, the Father
  asked,
Whom shall I send [as the Redeemer]? Jesus
  Christ,
known then as the great I AM and as Jehovah,
answered, Here am I, send me, and agreed to
  follow
the Father's plan (Moses 4:1-4; Abr. 3:27). As a
counter-measure, Lucifer offered himself and an
amendment to the Father's plan of saving mankind
that would not respect their agency

 http://www.towertotruth.net/Mormon/witnessing/terminology.htm

Charles Perry Locke [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
David, Dave is smarter than you are giving him
credit for being. He knows
what he is doing. He is playing a word game. I
  have
no problem with him
pushing his mormon views into the discussions
here...I just want him to
acknowledge that is what he is doing. He is
intentionally misinterpreting
this as my not wanting him to espouse mormonism
  on
the forum. That is NOT my
goal. My goal is to get him to own his actions.
  To
say he is NOT pushing
mormonism, then push it anyway is disengenuous.
Then, to turn it around as
though I do not welcome his mormon views is a
  lie.

Perry

From: David Miller
Reply-To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org
To:
Subject: Re: [Bulk] Re: [TruthTalk] mormon
  angels.
was: Dave uses Socratic
Method of Teaching LDS doctrine on TT
Date: Wed, 25 May 2005 09:09:31 -0400

DaveH wrote:
  Apparently many TTers want me to teach LDS
theology on
  TT, yet some wish to criticize me for
  complying

Re: [Bulk] Re: [Bulk] Re: [Bulk] Re: [TruthTalk] mormon angels. was: Dave uses Socratic Method of Teaching LDS...