subject:"Re\: \[TruthTalk\] Belief"

David Miller wrote:

DaveH wrote:

I believe there is a sense of direction that
TTers really don't have. I really don't see
a unity of faith in TT.

Which is not surprising because not everyone on TT is in the same faith.
Again, I simply caution you against finding value in the homogeniety of
ideas and opinions.

DAVEH: Value??? I don't think I used that term before, but it
certainly may apply. What I did say is I feel comfortable.

Our God is a God of diversity. He values unity, no
doubt, but he values unity among diversity not unity among homogeneity. We
see this in creation, with the diversity of species that exist, and we see
this in the fact that he created man male and female rather than unisex.

DAVEH: I am sure we have a different perspective on why he did
that.but I don't think you want to get me started teaching Mormon
doctrines here! :-)

We
see this in his prohibition of homosexuality, which is a form of unity
through homogeneity, perverting the unity in heterogeneity that he has
ordained.

DaveH wrote:

... as I see it the (presumed theological) intellect of TTers
is the main obstacle to their conformity. I believe that most
intelligent people in Jesus' day were less receptive to his unifying
message than those who had less knowledge than they had faith.
That's not to say that smart folks won't end up in heaven, but
perhaps it will be as difficult for them as it is for rich folks to find
their way there.

Very well said! We certainly agree upon this statement.

DAVEH: The bigger question is how closely do we resemble that
statement. And I do not try to point my finger at you or any other
TTerI am as guilty as anyoneexcept those TTers who are smarter
than me! :-D

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.

--
~~~
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] Belief

2005-06-27 Thread David Miller

Debbie wrote:
> David, I am quite sincerely pleasantly surprised by the
> below. It is quite different from the approach I remember
> you taking some time ago (I'm talking months), where you
> seemed to be saying that God wants us all to think the
> same thing. Am I misremembering?

You might be misinterpreting me somewhere, because I still stand by my 
position that believers in Christ are to have the same mind and be in one 
accord.  My past comments have always reflected that this is through being 
complimentary to each other rather than unity through strict uniformity.  It 
means that Paul can say we are justified by grace through faith without 
works and James can say we are justified by works and not by faith alone, 
and yet there is unity and agreement and the same mind between them.  We see 
James agreeing with Paul in Acts 15, and we see Paul agreeing with James in 
Acts 21.  It has much to do with attitude and the ability to see from 
someone else's point of view.

It is somewhat interesting on this eternal sonship discussion, because I 
truly think that Bill Taylor and I are not too far apart on this.  Same 
thing with John.  Yet, John says we are miles apart just when I think the 
gap is closing.  This seems to be a consistent problem.  I often see the gap 
in understanding to be closing when others see it widening even further.  I 
continue to take the following admonition of Paul to heart:

1 Corinthians 1:10
(10) 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.

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: [TruthTalk] Belief





DAVEH:  I do not recall seeing it either, Lance.

Lance Muir wrote:

  
  
  I sent a general message to all
Mormons, participants and 'lurkers' alike, wherein I asked a number of
questions. It was an attempt on my part to address the issue of
diversity within your tradition. I excluded those you'd deem either
fringe or fundamentalist groups. I don't recall anyone responding. If
there exists no variance of understanding on important matters, it
would kind of scare me. 
  
  


-- 
~~~
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] Belief

2005-06-27 Thread ShieldsFamily









Don’t do it, Lance—he’s
definitely “fringey”!!! Izzy

 









From:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Monday, June 27, 2005 9:15
AM
To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Belief



 







Perhaps I did not receive this?  Repost, please.

JD 



 
-Original Message-
From: Lance Muir <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org
Sent: Mon, 27 Jun 2005 10:29:32 -0400
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Belief





I sent a general message to all Mormons, participants and
'lurkers' alike, wherein I asked a number of questions. It was an attempt on my
part to address the issue of diversity within your tradition. I excluded those
you'd deem either fringe or fundamentalist groups. I don't recall anyone
responding. If there exists no variance of understanding on important matters,
it would kind of scare me. 







- Original Message - 





From: Dave Hansen 





To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org 





Sent: June 27, 2005
10:19





Subject: Re: [TruthTalk]
Belief





 





[EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote: 







DAveH 
---   no need to answer the post sent minutes ago.   I have
my answer herein.  





To my way of thinking  --  when
"unity" becomes more important than personal passion (faith), such
passages as Romans 14:4 are contradicted.   The notion that truth is
a corporate conclusion is completely foreign to me  --  as I
understand the biblical message.  Differences of understanding
need not be divisive. 







DAVEH:   Agreed.  So outside the Mormons
here, why do you think there is such divisive set of opinions and discussions
on TT?









JD  



 
-Original Message-
From: Dave Hansen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org
Sent: Mon, 27 Jun
2005 00:49:43 -0700
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Belief





DAVEH:  
Yes Bishop, I'm referring to conformity of beliefs for the most part. 
Though I think the unity of faith (harmonious attitudes, as you put it) play an
important role as well.  

    From our perspective, most LDS folks truly believe our Prophet is the spokesman
for the Lord in our time.  So, we believe if the Lord wants us to know or
do something different, he will speak through his servant to us as a
whole.  IF there is any question that becomes a divisive factor, we look
to the Prophet 's counsel to give us the direction we need to go as a
group.  It's pretty rare for doctrinal disputations to reach beyond private
discussion.  If somebo dy wants to make a public spectacle out of an
issue, it i s pretty much grounds for excommunication.

    So.intellectually strong individuals who cannot conform
their beliefs within the framework of official LDS theology do not fit in very
well.  And if their intellectual stubbornness exceeds their level of faith
in their Church Leaders, it is akin to fitting a round peg in a square
hole.  Those who do harbor their own pet theological theories who want to
remain faithful avoid publicizing their intellectual disagreements.  Once
they attempt to publicly politicize
their dispute with the Church, they no longer fit in with the rest of the folks
who tend not to want to have disharmony exist in the ranks. 

    Which brings us back to the harmonious attitudes.  Mormonism tends to be very
cultural in nature.  Th at w hich disrupts is out of harmony with not only
God, but the Family and the congregation.  We believe success comes by
working together.  We don't look to one pastor to hold a Ward
(congregation) together, but it is the combined effort of every person in the
Ward to assist the Ward Shepherd (Bishop) in keeping it humming (usually to the
tune of PUT YOUR SHOULDER TO THE WHEEL) along.  Our strongest Wards are
those where the most folks pitch in to do the most work, which leads to strong
fellowship.  Those that are weakest are those where the members expect
others to do the work.

    As I perceive TT,
there is little sense of purpose or guidance.  Nor does there seem to be
much appreciation for oneness of belief.  I imagine everybody in TT believes they know the truth, but yet I
don't think they really appreciate that all the variations of trut h they have
here all stems from a single source (as they perceive it)the
Bible.   Numerous times folks have told me I am wrong and that it is
very simple to learn the truth by rejecting anything LDS
and just read the Bible.  Quite often they suggest the truth of the Bible
is so obvious.  Yet if it were so easy to discern the truth from the
Bible, why are there so many disagreements as to what the Bible tells us? 
And then look at why different churches start up.  Seems like Protestants is a good term to describe
many Christians.they tend to want to protest that which somebody else
teaches them.  If they don't like doctrines of one church, it is
relatively easy to start another. 

 While the LDS
 Church has experienced
similar fa

Re: [TruthTalk] Belief

2005-06-27 Thread Debbie Sawczak

David, I am quite sincerely pleasantly surprised by the below. It is quite 
different from the approach I remember you taking some time ago (I'm talking 
months), where you seemed to be saying that God wants us all to think the 
same thing. Am I misremembering? Did I misinterpret you back then? Or have 
you changed your mind? Or am I misinterpreting you now?


Debbie


- Original Message - 
From: "David Miller" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>

To: 
Sent: Monday, June 27, 2005 10:03 AM
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Belief



DaveH wrote:

I believe there is a sense of direction that
TTers really don't have.  I really don't see
a unity of faith in TT.


Which is not surprising because not everyone on TT is in the same faith.
Again, I simply caution you against finding value in the homogeniety of
ideas and opinions.  Our God is a God of diversity.  He values unity, no
doubt, but he values unity among diversity not unity among homogeneity. 
We

see this in creation, with the diversity of species that exist, and we see
this in the fact that he created man male and female rather than unisex. 
We

see this in his prohibition of homosexuality, which is a form of unity
through homogeneity, perverting the unity in heterogeneity that he has
ordained.

DaveH wrote:

... as I see it the (presumed theological) intellect of TTers
is the main obstacle to their conformity.   I believe that most
intelligent people in Jesus' day were less receptive to his unifying
message than those who had less knowledge than they had faith.
That's not to say that smart folks won't end up in heaven, but
perhaps it will be as difficult for them as it is for rich folks to find
their way there.


Very well said!  We certainly agree upon this statement.

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] Belief

2005-06-27 Thread Terry Clifton







  
  
-Original Message-
From: Lance Muir <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org
Sent: Mon, 27 Jun 2005 10:29:32 -0400
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Belief
  
  
  
  I sent a general message to all
Mormons, participants and 'lurkers' alike, wherein I asked a number of
questions. It was an attempt on my part to address the issue of
diversity within your tradition. I excluded those you'd deem either
fringe or fundamentalist groups. I don't recall anyone responding. If
there exists no variance of understanding on important matters, it
would kind of scare me. 
  
  
  

===
If fundamentalists were excluded from your research, your findings
would have no value.  It's a truth thing.  You would not understand. :)
Terry

Re: [TruthTalk] Belief


My personal devotions , currently, are centered around a thing that is called "kingdom theology."   I am looking at this subject form a biblical perspective (of course) and in contrast to an "ecclesiastical theology." If we believe that God established an institution - The Right Church - then corporate compliance is critical and  corporate imposition is necessary.   "Purity" under such a consideration is finally served by some effort of exclusion.   With kingdom theology,  the rule of Christ in the life of the individual is the order of the day and the "church" is a collection of persons under that profound and increasing Influence.  Little or nothing is institutionalized.  Divisiveness  under such a consideration occurs when the dynamic influence of the rule of God is left out of the action of debate.   
 
In the good ol' days, when yours truly was a chief cause of such a negative spirit,  the actions taken by me were little different than those of an unbeliever (an atheist, if you will).  Can you imagine ???   Me , a believer ACTING LIKE one who is by choice in the camp of the Enemy? !!    That startling reality in my life is the same as that of King David when he said "Against Thee and Thee only have I sinned!!"   David is saying that if his relationship with God had been one of meaningful economy,  his failures (if any) would have not included the devastation seen in his lustful sin and all that which went into its cover-up.  
 
 
JD -Original Message-From: Dave Hansen <dave@langlitz.com>To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgSent: Mon, 27 Jun 2005 07:19:02 -0700Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Belief


knpraise@aol.com wrote: 



DAveH  ---   no need to answer the post sent minutes ago.   I have my answer herein.  
To my way of thinking  --  when "unity" becomes more important than personal passion (faith), such passages as Romans 14:4 are contradicted.   The notion that truth is a corporate conclusion is completely foreign to me  --  as I understand the biblical message.  Differences of understanding need not be divisive. DAVEH:   Agreed.  So outside the Mormons here, why do you think there is such divisive set of opinions and discussions on TT?



JD   -Original Message-From: Dave Hansen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgSent: Mon, 27 Jun 2005 00:49:43 -0700Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Belief


DAVEH:   Yes Bishop, I'm referring to conformity of beliefs for the most part.  Though I think the unity of faith (harmonious attitudes, as you put it) play an important role as well.      From our perspective, most LDS folks truly believe our Prophet is the spokesman for the Lord in our time.  So, we believe if the Lord wants us to know or do something different, he will speak through his servant to us as a whole.  IF there is any question that becomes a divisive factor, we look to the Prophet 's counsel to give us the direction we need to go as a group.  It's pretty rare for doctrinal disputations to reach beyond private discussion.&
nbsp; If somebo dy wants to make a public spectacle out of an issue, it i s pretty much grounds for excommunication.    So.intellectually strong individuals who cannot conform their beliefs within the framework of official LDS theology do not fit in very well.  And if their intellectual stubbornness exceeds their level of faith in their Church Leaders, it is akin to fitting a round peg in a square hole.  Those who do harbor their own pet theological theories who want to remain faithful avoid publicizing their intellectual disagreements.  Once they attempt to publicly politicize their dispute with the Church, they no longer fit in with the rest of the folks who tend not to 
want to have disharmony exist in the ranks.     Which brings us back to the harmonious attitudes.  Mormonism tends to be very cultural in nature.  Th at which disrupts is out of harmony with not only God, but the Family and the congregation.  We believe success comes by working together.  We don't look to one pastor to hold a Ward (congregation) together, but it is the combined effort of every person in the Ward to assist the Ward Shepherd (Bishop) in keeping it humming (usually to the tune of PUT YOUR SHOULDER TO THE WHEEL) along.  Our strongest Wards are those where the most folks pitch in to do the most work, which leads to strong fellowship.  Those that are weakest are those where the members expect others to do the work.    As I perceive TT, there is little sense of purpose or guida
nce.  Nor does there seem to be much appreciation for oneness of belief.  I imagine everybody in TT believes they know the truth, but yet I don't think they really appreciate that all the variations of truth they have here all stems from a single source (as they perceive it)the Bible.   Numerous times folks have told me I am wrong and that it is very simple to learn the truth by rejecting anythi

Re: [TruthTalk] Belief

Perhaps I did not receive this?  Repost, please. JD  -Original Message-From: Lance Muir <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgSent: Mon, 27 Jun 2005 10:29:32 -0400Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Belief

I sent a general message to all Mormons, participants and 'lurkers' alike, wherein I asked a number of questions. It was an attempt on my part to address the issue of diversity within your tradition. I excluded those you'd deem either fringe or fundamentalist groups. I don't recall anyone responding. If there exists no variance of understanding on important matters, it would kind of scare me. 

- Original Message - 
From: Dave Hansen 
To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org 
Sent: June 27, 2005 10:19
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Belief
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: 

DAveH  ---   no need to answer the post sent minutes ago.   I have my answer herein.  
To my way of thinking  --  when "unity" becomes more important than personal passion (faith), such passages as Romans 14:4 are contradicted.   The notion that truth is a corporate conclusion is completely foreign to me  --  as I understand the biblical message.  Differences of understanding need not be divisive. DAVEH:   Agreed.  So outside the Mormons here, why do you think there is such divisive set of opinions and discussions on TT?

JD   -Original Message-From: Dave Hansen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgSent: Mon, 27 Jun 2005 00:49:43 -0700Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Belief

DAVEH:   Yes Bishop, I'm referring to conformity of beliefs for the most part.  Though I think the unity of faith (harmonious attitudes, as you put it) play an important role as well.      From our perspective, most LDS folks truly believe our Prophet is the spokesman for the Lord in our time.  So, we believe if the Lord wants us to know or do something different, he will speak through his servant to us as a whole.  IF there is any question that becomes a divisive factor, we look to the Prophet 's counsel to give us the direction we need to go as a group.  It's pretty rare for doctrinal disputations to reach beyond private discussion.  If somebo dy wants to make a public spectacle out of an issue, it 
i s pretty much grounds for excommunication.    So.intellectually strong individuals who cannot conform their beliefs within the framework of official LDS theology do not fit in very well.  And if their intellectual stubbornness exceeds their level of faith in their Church Leaders, it is akin to fitting a round peg in a square hole.  Those who do harbor their own pet theological theories who want to remain faithful avoid publicizing their intellectual disagreements.  Once they attempt to publicly politicize their dispute with the Church, they no longer fit in with the rest of the folks who tend not to want to have disharmony exist in the ranks.     Which brings us back to the harmonious attitudes.  Mormonism tends to be very cultural in nature.  Th at w
hich disrupts is out of harmony with not only God, but the Family and the congregation.  We believe success comes by working together.  We don't look to one pastor to hold a Ward (congregation) together, but it is the combined effort of every person in the Ward to assist the Ward Shepherd (Bishop) in keeping it humming (usually to the tune of PUT YOUR SHOULDER TO THE WHEEL) along.  Our strongest Wards are those where the most folks pitch in to do the most work, which leads to strong fellowship.  Those that are weakest are those where the members expect others to do the work.    As I perceive TT, there is little sense of purpose or guidance.  Nor does there seem to be much appreciation for oneness of belief.  I imagine everybody in TT believes they know the truth, but yet I don't think they really appreciate that all the variations of trut
h they have here all stems from a single source (as they perceive it)the Bible.   Numerous times folks have told me I am wrong and that it is very simple to learn the truth by rejecting anything LDS and just read the Bible.  Quite often they suggest the truth of the Bible is so obvious.  Yet if it were so easy to discern the truth from the Bible, why are there so many disagreements as to what the Bible tells us?  And then look at why different churches start up.  Seems like Protestants is a good term to describe many Christians.they tend to want to protest that which somebody else teaches them.  If they don't like doctrines of one church, it is relatively easy to start another.  While the LDS Church has experienced similar factions in it's wake, I se e it a bit differently.  In our case, most who don't fi
t into the paradigm are excommunicated for not towing the line, so to speak.  Then they go out and form their own church to emulate the LDS Church, using the root teachings.  Contrast that to the Protestant churches, that seem to break off by protesting what the mother

Re: [TruthTalk] Belief

2005-06-27 Thread Lance Muir




I sent a general message to all Mormons, 
participants and 'lurkers' alike, wherein I asked a number of questions. It was 
an attempt on my part to address the issue of diversity within your tradition. I 
excluded those you'd deem either fringe or fundamentalist groups. I don't recall 
anyone responding. If there exists no variance of understanding on important 
matters, it would kind of scare me. 

  - Original Message - 
  From: 
  Dave Hansen 
  
  To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org 
  
  Sent: June 27, 2005 10:19
  Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Belief
  [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: 
  


DAveH  ---   no need to answer the post 
sent minutes ago.   I have my answer herein.  
To my way of thinking  --  when "unity" becomes more 
important than personal passion (faith), such passages as Romans 14:4 are 
contradicted.   The notion that truth is a corporate conclusion is 
completely foreign to me  --  as I understand the biblical 
message.  Differences of understanding need not be divisive. 
  DAVEH:   Agreed.  So outside 
  the Mormons here, why do you think there is such divisive set of opinions and 
  discussions on TT?
  


JD   -Original 
Message-From: Dave Hansen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgSent: 
Mon, 27 Jun 2005 00:49:43 -0700Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] 
Belief


DAVEH:   Yes Bishop, I'm referring to 
conformity of beliefs for the most part.  Though I think the unity of 
faith (harmonious attitudes, as you put it) play an important role as 
well.      From our perspective, most LDS folks 
truly believe our Prophet is the spokesman for the Lord in our time.  
So, we believe if the Lord wants us to know or do something different, he 
will speak through his servant to us as a whole.  IF there is any 
question that becomes a divisive factor, we look to the Prophet 's counsel 
to give us the direction we need to go as a group.  It's pretty rare 
for doctrinal disputations to reach beyond private discussion.  
If somebo dy wants to make a public spectacle out of an issue, it i s pretty 
much grounds for excommunication.    
So.intellectually strong individuals who cannot conform their beliefs 
within the framework of official LDS theology do not fit in very 
well.  And if their intellectual stubbornness exceeds their level of 
faith in their Church Leaders, it is akin to fitting a round peg in a square 
hole.  Those who do harbor their own pet theological theories who want 
to remain faithful avoid publicizing their intellectual disagreements.  
Once they attempt to publicly politicize their dispute with the 
Church, they no longer fit in with the rest of the folks who tend not to 
want to have disharmony exist in the ranks.     Which 
brings us back to the harmonious attitudes.  Mormonism tends to be very 
cultural in nature.  Th at which disrupts is out of harmony with not 
only God, but the Family and the congregation.  We believe success 
comes by working together.  We don't look to one pastor to hold a Ward 
(congregation) together, but it is the combined effort of every person in 
the Ward to assist the Ward Shepherd (Bishop) in keeping it humming (usually 
to the tune of PUT YOUR SHOULDER TO THE WHEEL) along.  Our strongest 
Wards are those where the most folks pitch in to do the most work, which 
leads to strong fellowship.  Those that are weakest are those where the 
members expect others to do the work.    As I 
perceive TT, there is little sense of purpose or guidance.  
Nor does there seem to be much appreciation for oneness of belief.  I 
imagine everybody in TT believes they know the truth, but yet I don't think 
they really appreciate that all the variations of truth they have here all 
stems from a single source (as they perceive it)the Bible.   
Numerous times folks have told me I am wrong and that it is very simple to 
learn the truth by rejecting anything LDS and just read the Bible.  
Quite often they suggest the truth of the Bible is so obvious.  Yet if 
it were so easy to discern the truth from the Bible, why are there so many 
disagreements as to what the Bible tells us?  And then look at why 
different churches start up.  Seems like Protestants is a good 
term to describe many Christians.they tend to want to protest that which 
somebody else teaches them.  If they don't like doctrines of one 
church, it is relatively easy to start another. 
 While the LDS Church has experienced 
similar factions in it's wake, I se e it a bit differently.  In our 
case, most who don't fit into the paradigm are excommunicated for not towing 
the line, so to speak.  Then they go out and form their own church to 
emulate the

Re: [TruthTalk] Belief







[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

  
  
  DAveH 
---   no need to answer the post sent minutes ago.   I have my answer
herein.  
  To my way of thinking  --  when "unity" becomes more important
than personal passion (faith), such passages as Romans 14:4 are
contradicted.   The notion that truth is a corporate conclusion is
completely foreign to me  --  as I understand the biblical
message.  Differences of understanding need not be divisive. 
  
  
  

DAVEH:   Agreed.  So outside the Mormons here, why do you think there
is such divisive set of opinions and discussions on TT?

  
  
  JD 
  
 
-Original Message-
From: Dave Hansen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org
Sent: Mon, 27 Jun 2005 00:49:43 -0700
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Belief
  
  
  DAVEH:  
Yes Bishop, I'm referring to conformity of beliefs for the most part. 
Though I think the unity of faith (harmonious attitudes, as you put it)
play an important role as well.  
  
    From our perspective, most LDS folks truly believe our
Prophet is the spokesman for the Lord in our time.  So, we believe if
the Lord wants us to know or do something different, he will speak
through his servant to us as a whole.  IF there is any question that
becomes a divisive factor, we look to the Prophet 's counsel to give us
the direction we need to go as a group.  It's pretty rare for doctrinal
  disputations
to reach beyond private discussion.  If somebo dy wants to make a
public spectacle out of an issue, it i
s pretty much grounds for excommunication.
  
    So.intellectually strong individuals who cannot conform their
beliefs within the framework of official LDS theology do not fit in very
well.  And if their intellectual stubbornness exceeds their level of
faith in their Church Leaders, it is akin to fitting a round peg in a
square hole.  Those who do harbor their own pet theological theories
who want to remain faithful avoid publicizing their intellectual
disagreements.  Once they attempt to publicly politicize their
dispute with the Church, they no longer fit in with the rest of the
folks who tend not to want to have disharmony exist in the ranks. 
  
    Which brings us back to the harmonious attitudes.  Mormonism
tends to be very cultural in nature.  Th
at which disrupts is out of harmony with not only God, but the Family
and the congregation.  We believe success comes by working together. 
We don't look to one pastor to hold a Ward (congregation) together, but
it is the combined effort of every person in the Ward to assist the
Ward Shepherd (Bishop) in keeping it humming (usually to the tune of
PUT YOUR SHOULDER TO THE WHEEL) along.  Our strongest Wards are those
where the most folks pitch in to do the most work, which leads to
strong fellowship.  Those that are weakest are those where the members
expect others to do the work.
  
    As I perceive TT, there is little sense of
purpose or guidance.  Nor does there seem to be much appreciation for
oneness of belief.  I imagine everybody in TT believes they
know the truth, but yet I don't think they really appreciate that all
the variations of truth they have here all stems from a single source
(as they perceive it)the Bible.   Numerous times folks have told me
I am wrong and that it is very simple to learn the truth by rejecting
anything LDS
and just read the Bible.  Quite often they suggest the truth of the
Bible is so obvious.  Yet if it were so easy to discern the truth from
the Bible, why are there so many disagreements as to what the Bible
tells us?  And then look at why different churches start up.  Seems
like Protestants is a good term to describe many
Christians.they tend to want to protest that which somebody else
teaches them.  If they don't like doctrines of one church, it is
relatively easy to start another. 
  
 While the LDS Church has experienced similar factions in
it's wake, I se e it a bit differently.  In our case, most who don't
fit into the paradigm are excommunicated for not towing the line, so to
speak.  Then they go out and form their own church to emulate the LDS
Church, using the root teachings.  Contrast that to the Protestant
churches, that seem to break off by protesting what the mother church
doctrinally dictates.  Is that not the process by which Luther left the
  RCC.  
And on down the line.  Baptists believed one way, Methodists another. 
Now we see it in the Episcopalian Church, as some want to think gays
are OK in the ministry, while others don't.   Instead of
excommunicating the errant believers, I suspect they will simply divide
the Church into two separate entities, each having a distinctly
different doctrine about gay folks.
    YikesI yak on too much.   I hope that makes some sense, John. 
Sorry to blather on and on...
  
  [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote: 
  


 
 



DAVEH:   I think
you are taking my example out of context, DavidM.

Re: [TruthTalk] Belief







[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

  
  
   
  DaveH  -   much of what
you present below demonstrates the degree of separation existing
between Mormon liberties and Christian liberties.    Expressed
attitudes on TT have been
disgraceful (against grace) and enough has been said about that
circumstance.  If you stood up in your assembly and shouted out, "Jesus
Christ is both eternal and uncreated" or in some way pressed this teaching,  what would be the
outcome?  I have heard my wife's
family members express fear of ex-communication  because of something
they have said.   
  
  
  

DAVEH:  It depends on where it is said and how it is said.  If one
unknowing states errant doctrine, nobody has any fear of
excommunication.  If one promotes errant doctrine (from the LDS
perspective) with intent to embarrass the Church, then one may be
called to the carpet for doing so.

  
  
   
   
  The single most disturbing
characteristic of fundamentalism
is its pungent desire to bind the opinions/interpretations of a few
onto the many      and most accept this calamity without much
concern.
  
  

DAVEH:    Yet I see the same scenario in effect in Protestantism with
the adoption of doctrines such as the Trinity Doctrine.

  
  
   
  JD 
   
   
 
-Original Message-
From: Dave Hansen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org
Sent: Sun, 26 Jun 2005 23:57:08
-0700
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Belief
  
  
  
  
David Miller wrote:
  
DAVEH:
  

  I think you are taking my example out of context,
DavidM.  I was trying to point out that right or
wrong, I believe most knowledgeable LDS folks
tend to be a little more homogeneous in their beliefs
than do TTers.


So, I can find cults that are even more homogeneous than Mormons.  Are you 
sure you don't have any inkling that Mormons might be more right because of 
this homogeneity?
  
  
  DAVEH:   While I may think LDS theology is right, that is not the
point of what I was trying to convey.  Right or wrong, within
homogeneous communities I believe there is a sense of direction that TTers really don't have.  I really
don't see a unity of faith in TT. 
(FWIWThe only unity I see
here is in opposition to Mormonism.it
is the old we don't necessarily agree on what is true, but we do
agree that Mormonism is false
line of thinking!)   I hope I don't offend anybody with what I am next
going to say, but as I see it the (presumed theological) intellect of TTers is the main obstacle to their
conformity.   I believe that most intelligent people in Jesus' day were
less rec
eptive to his unifying message than those who had less knowledge than
they had faith.   That's not to say that smart folks won't end up in
heaven, but perhaps it will be as difficult for them as it is for rich
folks to find their way there.
  
DaveH wrote:
  

  ...From my perspective, it seems like you (non-LDS) are
ignoring/misinterpreting Biblical evidence that pretty significantly
illustrates that Jesus is was not only the firstborn (created) in a
literal sense, but that he was also anointed to be God and creator
of our physical realmsomething that is unique amongst all our
Heavenly Father's creation.


The concept of being anointed to be God is very foreign to most of us.  Any 
Scriptural justification for this, either Biblical or non-Biblical?

  
  
  DAVEH:   Why would it be
foreign to most TTers?  From
your posts, it appears you have a grasp of its importance.  Are you
suggesting most TTers don't
understand the meaning of Messiah?   Hm.now
that I think about it from your perspective, I guess you wouldn't
accept that Jesus was anointed to be God, as I do.  Right off hand, I
can't think of any scriptural justification from the Bible, but I think
there is some from LDS
scripture.   I'd have to think about it and do some page turning.  Let
me know if you want me to dig up something.
  
DaveH wrote:
  

  But as sons of God, we had the same roots
of our Elder Brother.


Same request:  please supply Scriptural justification, either Biblical or 
non-Biblical.  I understand how he is my elder brother because of the 
incarnation, but not in how we had the same roots prior to any mortal 
existence.  I see our roots as very different.

  
  
  DAVEH:   I understand that.  As
you know, my view of his brotherhood predates the incarnation.  I think
the fundamental difference here is that I believe we were spiritually
created in the pre-mortal existence.  Rather than turn this into a big LDS related theology discussion, let
me confine it to the Bible and mention a few passages that I believe is
related to our paradigm..
  
1)   Num 16:22   God is God of
the spirits of all flesh  (an oblique reference that our spirits
existed before they took on mortal bodies of flesh)
  
2)   Heb 12:9   Confirmation
that God is the father of our spi

Re: [TruthTalk] Belief

2005-06-27 Thread David Miller

DaveH wrote:
> I believe there is a sense of direction that
> TTers really don't have.  I really don't see
> a unity of faith in TT.

Which is not surprising because not everyone on TT is in the same faith. 
Again, I simply caution you against finding value in the homogeniety of 
ideas and opinions.  Our God is a God of diversity.  He values unity, no 
doubt, but he values unity among diversity not unity among homogeneity.  We 
see this in creation, with the diversity of species that exist, and we see 
this in the fact that he created man male and female rather than unisex.  We 
see this in his prohibition of homosexuality, which is a form of unity 
through homogeneity, perverting the unity in heterogeneity that he has 
ordained.

DaveH wrote:
> ... as I see it the (presumed theological) intellect of TTers
> is the main obstacle to their conformity.   I believe that most
> intelligent people in Jesus' day were less receptive to his unifying
> message than those who had less knowledge than they had faith.
> That's not to say that smart folks won't end up in heaven, but
> perhaps it will be as difficult for them as it is for rich folks to find
> their way there.

Very well said!  We certainly agree upon this statement.

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: [TruthTalk] Belief

2005-06-27 Thread David Miller

Perry wrote:
> And if the mormon jesus, like Sasquatch, is a
> fictitious being, he can't save them any more
> than the sasquatch can operate.

I think the point was that the guy really was a surgeon, but in the mind of 
the patient, he appeared very different.  In this analogy, the 
misperceptions of the patient does not affect the ability of the surgeon to 
operate successfully.

Debbie brings up a point worthy of consideration.  Our understanding of 
Christ develops as our relationship with him develops.  The apostles he 
called did not immediately know him well, but as their relationship with him 
developed, so did their understanding of exactly who he was.  They all 
doubted aspects of who he was right up to the resurrection.  None of their 
short comings in understanding hindered Christ from operating in their 
lives.  Eventually their understanding and thinking about him came in line 
together.  I think we all go through a similar process of intellectual 
growth and development.

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: [TruthTalk] Belief

2005-06-27 Thread Terry Clifton


Debbie Sawczak wrote:

Ah, of course not, but the surgeon still can, and the real Jesus still 
can. Again: that's the point.


But let's not get hung up on the little analogy, it deals only with 
the question of belief. There is no doubt that the real Jesus is who 
he is and can act regardless of what any of us thinks. That's not 
where the problem lies, at least not for me. It's the rest that makes 
me hesitate: if we are in him and he in us, can we continue to be so 
mistaken? As Lance and you point out, we are all mistaken to some 
degree. Although I imagine some here would disagree with that.


Debbie
===


The Bible says that we will know the truth.  The Bible also says God's 
ways are higher than our ways, and since we cannot understand all His 
ways, we do not have all truth.  I do not see this as a contradiction.  
He has given and continues to give enough truth so that we may know Him 
and live a life that pleases Him.  We know what He wants and we know 
what He hates and that knowledge is growing as we study and discuss the 
Word.  Some day, if we are true to what we know, we will know as God 
knows.  In the meantime, love your neighbor. :)

Terry

--
"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] Belief


DAveH  ---   no need to answer the post sent minutes ago.   I have my answer herein.  
To my way of thinking  --  when "unity" becomes more important than personal passion (faith), such passages as Romans 14:4 are contradicted.   The notion that truth is a corporate conclusion is completely foreign to me  --  as I understand the biblical message.  Differences of understanding need not be divisive. 
JD   -Original Message-From: Dave Hansen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgSent: Mon, 27 Jun 2005 00:49:43 -0700Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Belief


DAVEH:   Yes Bishop, I'm referring to conformity of beliefs for the most part.  Though I think the unity of faith (harmonious attitudes, as you put it) play an important role as well.      From our perspective, most LDS folks truly believe our Prophet is the spokesman for the Lord in our time.  So, we believe if the Lord wants us to know or do something different, he will speak through his servant to us as a whole.  IF there is any question that becomes a divisive factor, we look to the Prophet 's counsel to give us the direction we need to go as a group.  It's pretty rare for doctrinal disputations to reach beyond private discussion.  If somebody wants to make a public spectacle out of an issue, it i
s pretty much grounds for excommunication.    So.intellectually strong individuals who cannot conform their beliefs within the framework of official LDS theology do not fit in very well.  And if their intellectual stubbornness exceeds their level of faith in their Church Leaders, it is akin to fitting a round peg in a square hole.  Those who do harbor their own pet theological theories who want to remain faithful avoid publicizing their intellectual disagreements.  Once they attempt to publicly politicize their dispute with the Church, they no longer fit in with the rest of the folks who tend not to want to have disharmony exist in the ranks.     Which brings us back to the harmonious attitudes.  Mormonism tends to be very cultural in nature.  Th
at which disrupts is out of harmony with not only God, but the Family and the congregation.  We believe success comes by working together.  We don't look to one pastor to hold a Ward (congregation) together, but it is the combined effort of every person in the Ward to assist the Ward Shepherd (Bishop) in keeping it humming (usually to the tune of PUT YOUR SHOULDER TO THE WHEEL) along.  Our strongest Wards are those where the most folks pitch in to do the most work, which leads to strong fellowship.  Those that are weakest are those where the members expect others to do the work.    As I perceive TT, there is little sense of purpose or guidance.  Nor does there seem to be much appreciation for oneness of belief.  I imagine everybody in TT believes they know the truth, but yet I don't think they really appreciate that all the variations of 
truth they have here all stems from a single source (as they perceive it)the Bible.   Numerous times folks have told me I am wrong and that it is very simple to learn the truth by rejecting anything LDS and just read the Bible.  Quite often they suggest the truth of the Bible is so obvious.  Yet if it were so easy to discern the truth from the Bible, why are there so many disagreements as to what the Bible tells us?  And then look at why different churches start up.  Seems like Protestants is a good term to describe many Christians.they tend to want to protest that which somebody else teaches them.  If they don't like doctrines of one church, it is relatively easy to start another.  While the LDS Church has experienced similar factions in it's wake, I see it a bit differently.  In our case, most who don't
 fit into the paradigm are excommunicated for not towing the line, so to speak.  Then they go out and form their own church to emulate the LDS Church, using the root teachings.  Contrast that to the Protestant churches, that seem to break off by protesting what the mother church doctrinally dictates.  Is that not the process by which Luther left the RCC.   And on down the line.  Baptists believed one way, Methodists another.  Now we see it in the Episcopalian Church, as some want to think gays are OK in the ministry, while others don't.   Instead of excommunicating the errant believers, I suspect they will simply divide the Church into two separate entities, each having a distinctly different doctrine about gay folks.    YikesI yak on too much.   I hope that makes some sense, John.  Sorry to blather on and on...[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: 



  


DAVEH:   I think you are taking my example out of context, DavidM.  I was trying to point out that right or wrong, I believe most knowledgeable LDS folks tend to be a little more homogeneous in their beliefs than do TTers.    
 
Hi Dave.   I would agree with this observation.   Allowing for the truth of this observation,   why do you s

Re: [TruthTalk] Belief


 
DaveH  -   much of what you present below demonstrates the degree of separation existing between Mormon liberties and Christian liberties.    Expressed attitudes on TT have been disgraceful (against grace) and enough has been said about that circumstance.  If you stood up in your assembly and shouted out, "Jesus Christ is both eternal and uncreated" or in some way pressed this teaching,  what would be the outcome?  I have heard my wife's family members express fear of ex-communication  because of something they have said.    
 
The single most disturbing characteristic of fundamentalism is its pungent desire to bind the opinions/interpretations of a few onto the many      and most accept this calamity without much concern.
 
JD 
 
  -Original Message-From: Dave Hansen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgSent: Sun, 26 Jun 2005 23:57:08 -0700Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Belief


David Miller wrote: 
DAVEH:
  
I think you are taking my example out of context,
DavidM.  I was trying to point out that right or
wrong, I believe most knowledgeable LDS folks
tend to be a little more homogeneous in their beliefs
than do TTers.
So, I can find cults that are even more homogeneous than Mormons.  Are you 
sure you don't have any inkling that Mormons might be more right because of 
this homogeneity?
  DAVEH:   While I may think LDS theology is right, that is not the point of what I was trying to convey.  Right or wrong, within homogeneous communities I believe there is a sense of direction that TTers really don't have.  I really don't see a unity of faith in TT.  (FWIWThe only unity I see here is in opposition to Mormonism.it is the old we don't necessarily agree on what is true, but we do agree that Mormonism is false line of thinking!)   I hope I don't offend anybody with what I am next going to say, but as I see it the (presumed theological) intellect of TTers is the main obstacle to their conformity.   I believe that most intelligent people in Jesus' day were less rec
eptive to his unifying message than those who had less knowledge than they had faith.   That's not to say that smart folks won't end up in heaven, but perhaps it will be as difficult for them as it is for rich folks to find their way there.
DaveH wrote:
  
...From my perspective, it seems like you (non-LDS) are
ignoring/misinterpreting Biblical evidence that pretty significantly
illustrates that Jesus is was not only the firstborn (created) in a
literal sense, but that he was also anointed to be God and creator
of our physical realmsomething that is unique amongst all our
Heavenly Father's creation.
The concept of being anointed to be God is very foreign to most of us.  Any 
Scriptural justification for this, either Biblical or non-Biblical?

  DAVEH:   Why would it be foreign to most TTers?  From your posts, it appears you have a grasp of its importance.  Are you suggesting most TTers don't understand the meaning of Messiah?   Hm.now that I think about it from your perspective, I guess you wouldn't accept that Jesus was anointed to be God, as I do.  Right off hand, I can't think of any scriptural justification from the Bible, but I think there is some from LDS scripture.   I'd have to think about it and do some page turning.  Let me know if you want me to dig up something.
DaveH wrote:
  
But as sons of God, we had the same roots
of our Elder Brother.
Same request:  please supply Scriptural justification, either Biblical or 
non-Biblical.  I understand how he is my elder brother because of the 
incarnation, but not in how we had the same roots prior to any mortal 
existence.  I see our roots as very different.

  DAVEH:   I understand that.  As you know, my view of his brotherhood predates the incarnation.  I think the fundamental difference here is that I believe we were spiritually created in the pre-mortal existence.  Rather than turn this into a big LDS related theology discussion, let me confine it to the Bible and mention a few passages that I believe is related to our paradigm..1)   Num 16:22   God is God of the spirits of all flesh  (an oblique reference that our spirits existed before they took on mortal bodies of flesh)2)   Heb 12:9   Confirmation that God is the father of our spirits3)   Acts 17:28-29  Further confirmation that we are the offspring of God4)   Eph 1:4-5 & Tit 1:2  Paul tells us the Lo
rd made promises to us before the world began  (would it not be reasonable to think we were there when those promises were made?)5)   Job 1:6   Son's of God and Satan meet with the Lord  (a council meeting with the Lord of the above mentioned spirits and Satan)6)   Gen 6:2  Son's of God marry daughters of men  (the spirit children take on mortal lives)7)   Ecc 12:7  Spirits return to God  (indicates the beginning of our return journey home)8)   Jn 3:13   Nobody goes heaven except th

Re: [TruthTalk] Belief


It seems to me that Debbie taking the concept of a sovereign God to its reasonable end.  If we take into consideration the immediate context ,  does not Col 1:22 establish the point made in this post  -  that IN CHRIST, even the purpose of reconciliation is established?   JD  -Original Message-From: Debbie Sawczak <debbie@kest.com>To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgSent: Mon, 27 Jun 2005 00:58:15 -0400Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Belief


Ah, of course not, but the surgeon still can, and the real Jesus still can. Again: that's the point.  But let's not get hung up on the little analogy, it deals only with the question of belief. There is no doubt that the real Jesus is who he is and can act regardless of what any of us thinks. That's not where the problem lies, at least not for me. It's the rest that makes me hesitate: if we are in him and he in us, can we continue to be so mistaken? As Lance and you point out, we are all mistaken to some degree. Although I imagine some here would disagree with that.  Debbie  - Original Message - From: "Charles Perry Locke" <cpl2602@hotmail.com> To: <TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org> Sent: Sunday, June 26, 2005 11:53 PM Subject: Re
: [TruthTalk] Belief  > And if the mormon jesus, like Sasquatch, is a fictitious being, he can't > save them any more than the sasquatch can operate. > >>From: "Debbie Sawczak" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >>Reply-To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org >>To: <TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org> >>Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Belief >>Date: Sun, 26 Jun 2005 23:39:43 -0400 >> >>This is true! But that's just the point: the Sasquatch doesn't walk in, >>because he doesn't exist. >> >>Debbie >> >>----- Original Message - From: "Char
les Perry Locke" >><cpl2602@hotmail.com> >>To: <TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org> >>Sent: Sunday, June 26, 2005 11:18 PM >>Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Belief >> >> >>>Debbie, suppose that you are blind and laid on the operating table, and a >>>Sasquatch walked in and you thought it was the surgeon, and you trusted >>>the Sasquatch. You would die on the table. >>> >>>>From: "Debbie Sawczak" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >>>>Reply-To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org >>>>To: <TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org>
 >>>>Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Belief >>>>Date: Sun, 26 Jun 2005 22:12:51 -0400 >>>> >>>>Assuming we have a correct understanding of Jesus and the Mormons don't, >>>>then if on that basis alone we are saved and they aren't, it is our >>>>understanding which has saved us. Like Bill (in a recent post), I can't >>>>hold with that. >>>> >>>>But the question was different, it was whether the actual object of my >>>>faith/belief (putting myself in the place of a Mormon) can still be the >>>>real Jesus even if I have so much wrong information about him. It >>>>doesn't seem impossible, given analogies one could invent: if I am blind >>>>and think the surgeon is a Sasquatch, but I still lie down on the >>>>operating table with full confidence, am I trus
ting the surgeon? The >>>>quesiont cannot be just about what's in our heads and what's out there. >>>>With Jesus it is a matter of taking active steps, and him doing stuff to >>>>us. But is it best characterized as a one-shot deal, or a relationship >>>>that develops? And if the latter, then maybe the proper question is, Can >>>>this relationship, this interaction be going on and I the Mormon >>>>continue to have such wrong ideas about him? I find that harder to say >>>>Yes to, but I do not know. If what we others believe about Jesus is >>>>true, it seems to me that a genuine relationship with the real Person >>>>could not evoke less than worship. That is the stumbling block for me >>>>with Mormonism: worship. Can you worship without knowing it? (It was >>>>only an analogy, but maybe the Christian life is after all a single >>
;>>lng surgery, at the end of which I can see, and realize the surgeon >>>>is not a Sasquatch. In due course, everyone will worship...) >>>> >>>>Lance, it may ultimately be the same question as Why aren't believers' >>>>lives changed more, if they have the Holy Spirit within them? Why don't >>>>we all agree about Scripture if we have the Holy Spirit within us? (I >>>>can predict some people's answer to this.) >>>> >>>>Debbie >

Re: [TruthTalk] Belief





DAVEH:   LOLnice shot to the ribs, Lance!   :-D 

Lance Muir wrote:

  
  
  
  It is always possible that you have
a belief in the real Jesus while your articulation (teaching/doctrine)
of Him is sort of..well.from another planet.
  

DAVEH:   BTWI just noticed I forgot to quote
DavidM in my original postsorry

  


DAVEH:   I think you are taking my example out of context, DavidM.  I
was trying to point out that right or wrong, I believe most
knowledgeable LDS folks tend to be a little more homogeneous in their
beliefs than do TTers.

    As for your comment

Such an assumption can only 
be made by ignoring or reinterpreting Biblical evidence which would indicate 
Jesus to be unique and more than just a man.


..From my perspective, it seems like you (non-LDS) are
ignoring/misinterpreting Biblical evidence that pretty significantly
illustrates that Jesus is was not only the firstborn (created) in a
literal sense, but that he was also anointed to be God and creator of
our physical realmsomething that is unique amongst all our Heavenly
Father's creation.  Yes, Jesus was more than just a man (I would say
spirit) like ushe was anointed to be our Messiah.  But as sons of
God, we had the same roots of our Elder Brother.

    For non-LDS Christians to be concerned about our simplistic
theology is understandable considering the stark contrast between our
beliefs.  However, to be vehemently critical of our somewhat odd
beliefs strikes me as curious when you folks seem to struggle with the
sonship question, which is seemingly so simple from our theological
perspective.   What is so hard about literally believing Jesus is
literally the firstborn of our Heavenly Father?

David Miller wrote:

  DaveH wrote:
  
  
Your sonship discussion is another example that
brings this to mind to me.it is so simple to explain
in LDS theology ...

  
  
Considering Jesus to be a created being like any other man might be a simple 
explanation, but that does not mean it is true.  Such an assumption can only 
be made by ignoring or reinterpreting Biblical evidence which would indicate 
Jesus to be unique and more than just a man.

Do you really not understand the legitimate concern many have about the 
simplicity of Mormon theology concerning the nature of Jesus Christ and the 
Godhead?

Peace be with you.
David Miller.

Re: [TruthTalk] Belief





DAVEH:   Yes Bishop, I'm referring to conformity of beliefs for the
most part.  Though I think the unity of faith (harmonious attitudes, as
you put it) play an important role as well.  

    From our perspective, most LDS folks truly believe our Prophet is
the spokesman for the Lord in our time.  So, we believe if the Lord
wants us to know or do something different, he will speak through his
servant to us as a whole.  IF there is any question that becomes a
divisive factor, we look to the Prophet 's counsel to give us the
direction we need to go as a group.  It's pretty rare for doctrinal
disputations to reach beyond private discussion.  If somebody wants to
make a public spectacle out of an issue, it is pretty much grounds for
excommunication.

    So.intellectually strong individuals who cannot conform their
beliefs within the framework of official LDS theology do not fit in
very well.  And if their intellectual stubbornness exceeds their level
of faith in their Church Leaders, it is akin to fitting a round peg in
a square hole.  Those who do harbor their own pet theological theories
who want to remain faithful avoid publicizing their intellectual
disagreements.  Once they attempt to publicly politicize their dispute
with the Church, they no longer fit in with the rest of the folks who
tend not to want to have disharmony exist in the ranks. 

    Which brings us back to the harmonious attitudes.  Mormonism tends
to be very cultural in nature.  That which disrupts is out of harmony
with not only God, but the Family and the congregation.  We believe
success comes by working together.  We don't look to one pastor to hold
a Ward (congregation) together, but it is the combined effort of every
person in the Ward to assist the Ward Shepherd (Bishop) in keeping it
humming (usually to the tune of PUT YOUR SHOULDER TO THE WHEEL) along. 
Our strongest Wards are those where the most folks pitch in to do the
most work, which leads to strong fellowship.  Those that are weakest
are those where the members expect others to do the work.

    As I perceive TT, there is little sense of purpose or guidance. 
Nor does there seem to be much appreciation for oneness of belief.  I
imagine everybody in TT believes they know the truth, but yet I don't
think they really appreciate that all the variations of truth they have
here all stems from a single source (as they perceive it)the
Bible.   Numerous times folks have told me I am wrong and that it is
very simple to learn the truth by rejecting anything LDS and just read
the Bible.  Quite often they suggest the truth of the Bible is so
obvious.  Yet if it were so easy to discern the truth from the Bible,
why are there so many disagreements as to what the Bible tells us?  And
then look at why different churches start up.  Seems like Protestants
is a good term to describe many Christians.they tend to want to
protest that which somebody else teaches them.  If they don't like
doctrines of one church, it is relatively easy to start another. 

 While the LDS Church has experienced similar factions in it's
wake, I see it a bit differently.  In our case, most who don't fit into
the paradigm are excommunicated for not towing the line, so to speak. 
Then they go out and form their own church to emulate the LDS Church,
using the root teachings.  Contrast that to the Protestant churches,
that seem to break off by protesting what the mother church doctrinally
dictates.  Is that not the process by which Luther left the RCC.   And
on down the line.  Baptists believed one way, Methodists another.  Now
we see it in the Episcopalian Church, as some want to think gays are OK
in the ministry, while others don't.   Instead of excommunicating the
errant believers, I suspect they will simply divide the Church into two
separate entities, each having a distinctly different doctrine about
gay folks.

    YikesI yak on too much.   I hope that makes some sense, John. 
Sorry to blather on and on...

[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

  
  
   
 
  
  
  DAVEH:  
I think you are taking my example out of context, DavidM.  I was trying
to point out that right or wrong, I believe most knowledgeable LDS
folks tend to be a little more homogeneous in their beliefs than do
TTers.
  
    
   
  Hi Dave.   I would agree with this observation.   Allowing for
the truth of this observation,   why do you suppose this is the case?  
I assume you are speaking  more to  "doctrinal sameness" than to
harmonious attitudes.
   
   
  JD
  
  


-- 
~~~
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] Belief





DAVEH:   I hope you don't mind me commenting on your explanation to
Lance, Perry..

    One major difference LDS folks see between anti-Mormons and
Christians who simply disagree with out theology, is that most
anti-Mormons want to attack our beliefs using by publicly denigrating,
mocking and belittling the things we find sacred.  For the most part,
those who disagree with us but do not try to make a public spectacle of
our beliefs are not considered to be anti-Mormon.  

    So...when anti-Mormons say that they do what they do because
they really do care for us, do they not realize that the way they
approach is tends to drive a bigger wedge between us than simply
doctrinal differences?  For instance, what Mormon who believes in the
sanctity of his garments would want to listen to somebody waving them
around on the street?  

    So as I see itif the reason you remain in TT is to convince
Mormons that they believe errantly, you sure have a curious way going
about it.

    Has this ever occurred to you, Perry?

Charles Perry Locke wrote:
. However, from what I read in the Bible, I believe that
they are on the "too errant" side. That is why I spend the time I
do on TT doing what I do. If I did not care I would be silent. If I
thought that they were "in the fold", I would say to them "Welcome,
brothers and sisters."
  


-- 
~~~
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] Belief

2005-06-26 Thread Dave Hansen







David Miller wrote:

  DAVEH:
  
  
I think you are taking my example out of context,
DavidM.  I was trying to point out that right or
wrong, I believe most knowledgeable LDS folks
tend to be a little more homogeneous in their beliefs
than do TTers.

  
  
So, I can find cults that are even more homogeneous than Mormons.  Are you 
sure you don't have any inkling that Mormons might be more right because of 
this homogeneity?
  

DAVEH:   While I may think LDS theology is right, that is not the point
of what I was trying to convey.  Right or wrong, within homogeneous
communities I believe there is a sense of direction that TTers really
don't have.  I really don't see a unity of faith in TT.  (FWIWThe
only unity I see here is in opposition to Mormonism.it is the old we
don't necessarily agree on what is true, but we do agree that Mormonism
is false line of thinking!)   I hope I don't offend anybody with
what I am next going to say, but as I see it the (presumed theological)
intellect of TTers is the main obstacle to their conformity.   I
believe that most intelligent people in Jesus' day were less receptive
to his unifying message than those who had less knowledge than they had
faith.   That's not to say that smart folks won't end up in heaven, but
perhaps it will be as difficult for them as it is for rich folks to
find their way there.

  
DaveH wrote:
  
  
...From my perspective, it seems like you (non-LDS) are
ignoring/misinterpreting Biblical evidence that pretty significantly
illustrates that Jesus is was not only the firstborn (created) in a
literal sense, but that he was also anointed to be God and creator
of our physical realmsomething that is unique amongst all our
Heavenly Father's creation.

  
  
The concept of being anointed to be God is very foreign to most of us.  Any 
Scriptural justification for this, either Biblical or non-Biblical?

  

DAVEH:   Why would it be foreign to most TTers?  From your posts, it
appears you have a grasp of its importance.  Are you suggesting most
TTers don't understand the meaning of Messiah?   Hm.now that I
think about it from your perspective, I guess you wouldn't accept that
Jesus was anointed to be God, as I do.  Right off hand, I can't think
of any scriptural justification from the Bible, but I think there is
some from LDS scripture.   I'd have to think about it and do some page
turning.  Let me know if you want me to dig up something.

  DaveH wrote:
  
  
But as sons of God, we had the same roots
of our Elder Brother.

  
  
Same request:  please supply Scriptural justification, either Biblical or 
non-Biblical.  I understand how he is my elder brother because of the 
incarnation, but not in how we had the same roots prior to any mortal 
existence.  I see our roots as very different.

  

DAVEH:   I understand that.  As you know, my view of his brotherhood
predates the incarnation.  I think the fundamental difference here is
that I believe we were spiritually created in the pre-mortal
existence.  Rather than turn this into a big LDS related theology
discussion, let me confine it to the Bible and mention a few passages
that I believe is related to our paradigm..

1)   Num 16:22   God is God of the spirits of all flesh  (an oblique
reference that our spirits existed before they took on mortal bodies of
flesh)

2)   Heb 12:9   Confirmation that God is the father of our spirits

3)   Acts 17:28-29  Further confirmation that we are the offspring of
God

4)   Eph 1:4-5 & Tit 1:2  Paul tells us the Lord made promises to
us before the world began  (would it not be reasonable to think we were
there when those promises were made?)

5)   Job 1:6   Son's of God and Satan meet with the Lord  (a council
meeting with the Lord of the above mentioned spirits and Satan)

6)   Gen 6:2  Son's of God marry daughters of men  (the spirit children
take on mortal lives)

7)   Ecc 12:7  Spirits return to God  (indicates the beginning of our
return journey home)

8)   Jn 3:13   Nobody goes heaven except those who come from heaven, as
did Jesus

9)    Jn 9:1-3   The Lord's disciples understood that tt would have
been hard for the guy to sin before he was born had he not pre-mortally
existed

...Now I realize that you have different ways of understanding the
above passages.   In conjunction with latter-day scripture, I find them
a very compelling argument to support my beliefs.



  DaveH wrote:
  
  
... to be vehemently critical of our somewhat odd beliefs strikes me
as curious when you folks seem to struggle with the sonship question,
which is seemingly so simple from our theological perspective.

  
  
It is very simple from my theological perspective too.  Problem is that not 
everyone sees it as simply as I do.  :-)

  

DAVEH:   Which is exactly the observation I've been making.

  DaveH wrote:
  
  
What is so hard about literally believing Jesus is literally
the firstborn of our Heavenly Father?

  
  
B

Re: [TruthTalk] Belief

Ah, of course not, but the surgeon still can, and the real Jesus still can. 
Again: that's the point.


But let's not get hung up on the little analogy, it deals only with the 
question of belief. There is no doubt that the real Jesus is who he is and 
can act regardless of what any of us thinks. That's not where the problem 
lies, at least not for me. It's the rest that makes me hesitate: if we are 
in him and he in us, can we continue to be so mistaken? As Lance and you 
point out, we are all mistaken to some degree. Although I imagine some here 
would disagree with that.


Debbie


- Original Message - 
From: "Charles Perry Locke" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>

To: 
Sent: Sunday, June 26, 2005 11:53 PM
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Belief


And if the mormon jesus, like Sasquatch, is a fictitious being, he can't 
save them any more than the sasquatch can operate.



From: "Debbie Sawczak" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Reply-To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org
To: 
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Belief
Date: Sun, 26 Jun 2005 23:39:43 -0400

This is true! But that's just the point: the Sasquatch doesn't walk in, 
because he doesn't exist.


Debbie

- Original Message - From: "Charles Perry Locke" 
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>

To: 
Sent: Sunday, June 26, 2005 11:18 PM
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Belief


Debbie, suppose that you are blind and laid on the operating table, and a 
Sasquatch walked in and you thought it was the surgeon, and you trusted 
the Sasquatch. You would die on the table.



From: "Debbie Sawczak" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Reply-To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org
To: 
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Belief
Date: Sun, 26 Jun 2005 22:12:51 -0400

Assuming we have a correct understanding of Jesus and the Mormons don't, 
then if on that basis alone we are saved and they aren't, it is our 
understanding which has saved us. Like Bill (in a recent post), I can't 
hold with that.


But the question was different, it was whether the actual object of my 
faith/belief (putting myself in the place of a Mormon) can still be the 
real Jesus even if I have so much wrong information about him. It 
doesn't seem impossible, given analogies one could invent: if I am blind 
and think the surgeon is a Sasquatch, but I still lie down on the 
operating table with full confidence, am I trusting the surgeon? The 
quesiont cannot be just about what's in our heads and what's out there. 
With Jesus it is a matter of taking active steps, and him doing stuff to 
us. But is it best characterized as a one-shot deal, or a relationship 
that develops? And if the latter, then maybe the proper question is, Can 
this relationship, this interaction be going on and I the Mormon 
continue to have such wrong ideas about him? I find that harder to say 
Yes to, but I do not know. If what we others believe about Jesus is 
true, it seems to me that a genuine relationship with the real Person 
could not evoke less than worship. That is the stumbling block for me 
with Mormonism: worship. Can you worship without knowing it? (It was 
only an analogy, but maybe the Christian life is after all a single 
lng surgery, at the end of which I can see, and realize the surgeon 
is not a Sasquatch. In due course, everyone will worship...)


Lance, it may ultimately be the same question as Why aren't believers' 
lives changed more, if they have the Holy Spirit within them? Why don't 
we all agree about Scripture if we have the Holy Spirit within us? (I 
can predict some people's answer to this.)


Debbie


- Original Message -
From: "Charles Perry Locke" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: 
Sent: Sunday, June 26, 2005 4:12 PM
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Belief


> Lance,
>
>   I agree that "Every christian believer believes 'through' an errant
> framework". But how errant is too errant? Is there a line that can be
> drawn? In the end either we are saved or we are not. Was our 
> framework

> "too" errant? Was our image of Jesus too far from the real Jesus? If
we
> are "too" errant for salvation, but did not know it, are we saved? >
These
> are mighty questions.
>
>   To be totally honest, I cannot say with complete certainty that
mormons
> are not saved. Maybe their degree of errancy in their image of God 
> and
> Christ falls within the "saved" camp. However, from what I read in 
> the
> Bible, I believe that they are on the "too errant" side. That is why 
> I

> spend the time I do on TT doing what I do. If I did not care I would
be
> silent. If I thought that they were "in the fold", I would say to 
> them

> "Welcome, brothers and sisters."
>
> Perry
>
>>From: "Lance Muir" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>>Reply-To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org
>

Re: [TruthTalk] Belief

2005-06-26 Thread knpraise


the athiest says "what if no one shows up??!!"
 
The cook says  "what if the surgeon gets hungry and leaves in the middle of the opertion."
 
The financial adviser says "Don't do it now  --  wait until you can really get your money's worth."
 
My ex wife says " Tell them you are a Republican !!"
 
the herbal dynamo says "Send ME your money and I will get you well."  
 
And George said  "Good night Gracie."
 
JD  -Original Message-From: Debbie Sawczak <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgSent: Sun, 26 Jun 2005 23:39:43 -0400Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Belief


This is true! But that's just the point: the Sasquatch doesn't walk in, because he doesn't exist.  Debbie  - Original Message - From: "Charles Perry Locke" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org> Sent: Sunday, June 26, 2005 11:18 PM Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Belief  > Debbie, suppose that you are blind and laid on the operating table, and a > Sasquatch walked in and you thought it was the surgeon, and you trusted > the Sasquatch. You would die on the table. > >>From: "Debbie Sawczak" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >>Reply-To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org >>To: <TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org> >>Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Belief >>Date: Sun, 26 Jun 2005 22:12:51 -0400 >> >>Assuming we have a correct understanding of Jesus and the Mormons don't, >>then if on that basis alone we are saved and they aren't, it is our >>understanding which has saved us. Like Bill (in a recent post), I can't >>hold with that. >> >>But the question was different, it was whether the actual object of my >>faith/belief (putting myself in the place of a Mormon) can still be the >>real Jesus even if I have so much wrong information about him. It doesn't >>seem impossible, given analogies one could invent: if I am blind and think >>the surgeon is a Sasquatch, but I still lie down on the operating table >>with full confidence, am I trusting the surgeon? The quesiont cannot be >>just about what's in our heads and what's out there. With Jesus it is a >>matter of 
taking active steps, and him doing stuff to us. But is it best >>characterized as a one-shot deal, or a relationship that develops? And if >>the latter, then maybe the proper question is, Can this relationship, this >>interaction be going on and I the Mormon continue to have such wrong ideas >>about him? I find that harder to say Yes to, but I do not know. If what we >>others believe about Jesus is true, it seems to me that a genuine >>relationship with the real Person could not evoke less than worship. That >>is the stumbling block for me with Mormonism: worship. Can you worship >>without knowing it? (It was only an analogy, but maybe the Christian life >>is after all a single lng surgery, at the end of which I can see, and >>realize the surgeon is not a Sasquatch. In due course, everyone will >>worship...) >> >>Lance, it may ultimately be the same question as Why aren't believers' >>lives changed more, if they have the Holy S
pirit within them? Why don't we >>all agree about Scripture if we have the Holy Spirit within us? (I can >>predict some people's answer to this.) >> >>Debbie >> >> >>- Original Message - >>From: "Charles Perry Locke" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >>To: <TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org> >>Sent: Sunday, June 26, 2005 4:12 PM >>Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Belief >> >> >> > Lance, >> > >> > I agree that "Every christian believer believes 'through' an errant >> > framework". But how errant is too errant? Is there a line that can be >> > drawn? In the end either we are saved or we are not. Was our framework >> > "too" errant? Was our image of Jesus too far from
 the real Jesus? If we >> > are "too" errant for salvation, but did not know it, are we saved? >> > These >> > are mighty questions. >> > >> > To be totally honest, I cannot say with complete certainty that >>mormons >> > are not saved. Maybe their degree of errancy in their image of God and >> > Christ falls within the "saved" camp. However, from what I read in the >> > Bible, I believe that they are on the "too errant" side. That is why I >> > spend the time I do on TT doing what I do. If I did not care I would be >> > silent. If I thought that they were "in the fold", I would say to them >> > "Welcome, brot

Re: [TruthTalk] Belief

2005-06-26 Thread Charles Perry Locke

And if the mormon jesus, like Sasquatch, is a fictitious being, he can't 
save them any more than the sasquatch can operate.

From: "Debbie Sawczak" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Reply-To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org
To: 
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Belief
Date: Sun, 26 Jun 2005 23:39:43 -0400

This is true! But that's just the point: the Sasquatch doesn't walk in, 
because he doesn't exist.

Debbie

- Original Message - From: "Charles Perry Locke" 
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>

To: 
Sent: Sunday, June 26, 2005 11:18 PM
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Belief

Debbie, suppose that you are blind and laid on the operating table, and a 
Sasquatch walked in and you thought it was the surgeon, and you trusted 
the Sasquatch. You would die on the table.

From: "Debbie Sawczak" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Reply-To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org
To: 
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Belief
Date: Sun, 26 Jun 2005 22:12:51 -0400

Assuming we have a correct understanding of Jesus and the Mormons don't, 
then if on that basis alone we are saved and they aren't, it is our 
understanding which has saved us. Like Bill (in a recent post), I can't 
hold with that.

But the question was different, it was whether the actual object of my 
faith/belief (putting myself in the place of a Mormon) can still be the 
real Jesus even if I have so much wrong information about him. It doesn't 
seem impossible, given analogies one could invent: if I am blind and 
think the surgeon is a Sasquatch, but I still lie down on the operating 
table with full confidence, am I trusting the surgeon? The quesiont 
cannot be just about what's in our heads and what's out there. With Jesus 
it is a matter of taking active steps, and him doing stuff to us. But is 
it best characterized as a one-shot deal, or a relationship that 
develops? And if the latter, then maybe the proper question is, Can this 
relationship, this interaction be going on and I the Mormon continue to 
have such wrong ideas about him? I find that harder to say Yes to, but I 
do not know. If what we others believe about Jesus is true, it seems to 
me that a genuine relationship with the real Person could not evoke less 
than worship. That is the stumbling block for me with Mormonism: worship. 
Can you worship without knowing it? (It was only an analogy, but maybe 
the Christian life is after all a single lng surgery, at the end of 
which I can see, and realize the surgeon is not a Sasquatch. In due 
course, everyone will worship...)

Lance, it may ultimately be the same question as Why aren't believers' 
lives changed more, if they have the Holy Spirit within them? Why don't 
we all agree about Scripture if we have the Holy Spirit within us? (I can 
predict some people's answer to this.)

Debbie

- Original Message -----
From: "Charles Perry Locke" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: 
Sent: Sunday, June 26, 2005 4:12 PM
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Belief

> Lance,
>
>   I agree that "Every christian believer believes 'through' an errant
> framework". But how errant is too errant? Is there a line that can be
> drawn? In the end either we are saved or we are not. Was our framework
> "too" errant? Was our image of Jesus too far from the real Jesus? If 
we
> are "too" errant for salvation, but did not know it, are we saved? > 
These

> are mighty questions.
>
>   To be totally honest, I cannot say with complete certainty that
mormons
> are not saved. Maybe their degree of errancy in their image of God and
> Christ falls within the "saved" camp. However, from what I read in the
> Bible, I believe that they are on the "too errant" side. That is why I
> spend the time I do on TT doing what I do. If I did not care I would 
be

> silent. If I thought that they were "in the fold", I would say to them
> "Welcome, brothers and sisters."
>
> Perry
>
>>From: "Lance Muir" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>>Reply-To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org
>>To: 
>>Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Belief
>>Date: Sun, 26 Jun 2005 15:28:13 -0400
>>
>>Interesting! (there's that word again) Every christian believer 
>>believes
>>'through' an errant framework. One may believe in a geocentric 
universe

or
>>a flat earth and, live out a fairly normal life. May one believe
'through'
>>a Mormon Jesus (assuming this to be a totally aberrant Jesus) into 
>>Jesus

>>as He is? I don't know. What think YE Perry?
>>   - Original Message -
>>   From: Bill Taylor
>>   To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org
>>   Sent: June 26, 2005 15:06
>>   Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Belief
>>
>>
>>   Hi Dave,
>>
>>   We would probably have to

Re: [TruthTalk] Belief

This is true! But that's just the point: the Sasquatch doesn't walk in, 
because he doesn't exist.

Debbie

- Original Message - 
From: "Charles Perry Locke" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>

To: 
Sent: Sunday, June 26, 2005 11:18 PM
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Belief

Debbie, suppose that you are blind and laid on the operating table, and a 
Sasquatch walked in and you thought it was the surgeon, and you trusted 
the Sasquatch. You would die on the table.

From: "Debbie Sawczak" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Reply-To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org
To: 
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Belief
Date: Sun, 26 Jun 2005 22:12:51 -0400

Assuming we have a correct understanding of Jesus and the Mormons don't, 
then if on that basis alone we are saved and they aren't, it is our 
understanding which has saved us. Like Bill (in a recent post), I can't 
hold with that.

But the question was different, it was whether the actual object of my 
faith/belief (putting myself in the place of a Mormon) can still be the 
real Jesus even if I have so much wrong information about him. It doesn't 
seem impossible, given analogies one could invent: if I am blind and think 
the surgeon is a Sasquatch, but I still lie down on the operating table 
with full confidence, am I trusting the surgeon? The quesiont cannot be 
just about what's in our heads and what's out there. With Jesus it is a 
matter of taking active steps, and him doing stuff to us. But is it best 
characterized as a one-shot deal, or a relationship that develops? And if 
the latter, then maybe the proper question is, Can this relationship, this 
interaction be going on and I the Mormon continue to have such wrong ideas 
about him? I find that harder to say Yes to, but I do not know. If what we 
others believe about Jesus is true, it seems to me that a genuine 
relationship with the real Person could not evoke less than worship. That 
is the stumbling block for me with Mormonism: worship. Can you worship 
without knowing it? (It was only an analogy, but maybe the Christian life 
is after all a single lng surgery, at the end of which I can see, and 
realize the surgeon is not a Sasquatch. In due course, everyone will 
worship...)

Lance, it may ultimately be the same question as Why aren't believers' 
lives changed more, if they have the Holy Spirit within them? Why don't we 
all agree about Scripture if we have the Holy Spirit within us? (I can 
predict some people's answer to this.)

Debbie

- Original Message -
From: "Charles Perry Locke" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: 
Sent: Sunday, June 26, 2005 4:12 PM
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Belief

> Lance,
>
>   I agree that "Every christian believer believes 'through' an errant
> framework". But how errant is too errant? Is there a line that can be
> drawn? In the end either we are saved or we are not. Was our framework
> "too" errant? Was our image of Jesus too far from the real Jesus? If we
> are "too" errant for salvation, but did not know it, are we saved? 
> These

> are mighty questions.
>
>   To be totally honest, I cannot say with complete certainty that
mormons
> are not saved. Maybe their degree of errancy in their image of God and
> Christ falls within the "saved" camp. However, from what I read in the
> Bible, I believe that they are on the "too errant" side. That is why I
> spend the time I do on TT doing what I do. If I did not care I would be
> silent. If I thought that they were "in the fold", I would say to them
> "Welcome, brothers and sisters."
>
> Perry
>
>>From: "Lance Muir" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>>Reply-To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org
>>To: 
>>Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Belief
>>Date: Sun, 26 Jun 2005 15:28:13 -0400
>>
>>Interesting! (there's that word again) Every christian believer 
>>believes

>>'through' an errant framework. One may believe in a geocentric universe
or
>>a flat earth and, live out a fairly normal life. May one believe
'through'
>>a Mormon Jesus (assuming this to be a totally aberrant Jesus) into 
>>Jesus

>>as He is? I don't know. What think YE Perry?
>>   - Original Message -
>>   From: Bill Taylor
>>   To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org
>>   Sent: June 26, 2005 15:06
>>   Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Belief
>>
>>
>>   Hi Dave,
>>
>>   We would probably have to go into some further detail as to what 
>> this
>> word "salvation" means to us before my answer can suffice -- or 
>> perhaps

>> even be understood (and that is up to you) -- but the short answer is
>> this: "yes, the only requirement for entrance to heaven&quo

Re: [TruthTalk] Belief


LOL!!

- Original Message - 
From: "Bill Taylor" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>

To: 
Sent: Sunday, June 26, 2005 11:34 PM
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Belief



A.   See, Debbie, what did I tell you? Americans are from the Bigfoot
only crowd :)

Bill
- Original Message -
From: "Charles Perry Locke" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: 
Sent: Sunday, June 26, 2005 9:18 PM
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Belief



Debbie, suppose that you are blind and laid on the operating table, and a
Sasquatch walked in and you thought it was the surgeon, and you trusted

the

Sasquatch. You would die on the table.

>From: "Debbie Sawczak" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>Reply-To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org
>To: 
>Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Belief
>Date: Sun, 26 Jun 2005 22:12:51 -0400
>
>Assuming we have a correct understanding of Jesus and the Mormons don't,
>then if on that basis alone we are saved and they aren't, it is our
>understanding which has saved us. Like Bill (in a recent post), I can't
>hold with that.
>
>But the question was different, it was whether the actual object of my
>faith/belief (putting myself in the place of a Mormon) can still be the
>real Jesus even if I have so much wrong information about him. It 
>doesn't

>seem impossible, given analogies one could invent: if I am blind and

think

>the surgeon is a Sasquatch, but I still lie down on the operating table
>with full confidence, am I trusting the surgeon? The quesiont cannot be
>just about what's in our heads and what's out there. With Jesus it is a
>matter of taking active steps, and him doing stuff to us. But is it best
>characterized as a one-shot deal, or a relationship that develops? And 
>if

>the latter, then maybe the proper question is, Can this relationship,

this

>interaction be going on and I the Mormon continue to have such wrong

ideas

>about him? I find that harder to say Yes to, but I do not know. If what

we

>others believe about Jesus is true, it seems to me that a genuine
>relationship with the real Person could not evoke less than worship. 
>That

>is the stumbling block for me with Mormonism: worship. Can you worship
>without knowing it? (It was only an analogy, but maybe the Christian 
>life
>is after all a single lng surgery, at the end of which I can see, 
>and

>realize the surgeon is not a Sasquatch. In due course, everyone will
>worship...)
>
>Lance, it may ultimately be the same question as Why aren't believers'
>lives changed more, if they have the Holy Spirit within them? Why don't

we

>all agree about Scripture if we have the Holy Spirit within us? (I can
>predict some people's answer to this.)
>
>Debbie
>
>
>- Original Message -
>From: "Charles Perry Locke" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>To: 
>Sent: Sunday, June 26, 2005 4:12 PM
>Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Belief
>
>
> > Lance,
> >
> >   I agree that "Every christian believer believes 'through' an errant
> > framework". But how errant is too errant? Is there a line that can be
> > drawn? In the end either we are saved or we are not. Was our 
> > framework

> > "too" errant? Was our image of Jesus too far from the real Jesus? If

we

> > are "too" errant for salvation, but did not know it, are we saved?

These

> > are mighty questions.
> >
> >   To be totally honest, I cannot say with complete certainty that
>mormons
> > are not saved. Maybe their degree of errancy in their image of God 
> > and
> > Christ falls within the "saved" camp. However, from what I read in 
> > the
> > Bible, I believe that they are on the "too errant" side. That is why 
> > I

> > spend the time I do on TT doing what I do. If I did not care I would

be
> > silent. If I thought that they were "in the fold", I would say to 
> > them

> > "Welcome, brothers and sisters."
> >
> > Perry
> >
> >>From: "Lance Muir" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> >>Reply-To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org
> >>To: 
> >>Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Belief
> >>Date: Sun, 26 Jun 2005 15:28:13 -0400
> >>
> >>Interesting! (there's that word again) Every christian believer

believes

> >>'through' an errant framework. One may believe in a geocentric

universe

>or
> >>a flat earth and, live out a fairly normal life. May one believe
>'through'
> >>a Mormon Jesus (assuming this to be a totally aberrant Jesus) into

Jesus

> >>as He is? I don't know. What think YE Perry?
> >>   - Original Message -
> &g

Re: [TruthTalk] Belief




Not the truth in my head, though; the truth who is 
Jesus.
 
Debbie

  - Original Message - 
  From: 
  Terry Clifton 
  To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org 
  
  Sent: Sunday, June 26, 2005 11:09 
PM
  Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Belief
  Debbie Sawczak wrote: 
  


Assuming we have a correct understanding of Jesus 
and the Mormons don't, then if on that basis alone we are saved and they 
aren't, it is our understanding which has saved us. Like Bill (in a recent 
post), I can't hold with that.But the question was different, 
it was whether the actual object of my faith/belief (putting myself in 
the place of a Mormon) can still be the real Jesus even if I have so much 
wrong information about him. It doesn't seem impossible, given analogies one 
could invent:==Search 
  the scriptures, for they tell of Jesus.  ( and the truth shall make you 
  free)

Re: [TruthTalk] Belief

2005-06-26 Thread Bill Taylor

A.   See, Debbie, what did I tell you? Americans are from the Bigfoot
only crowd :)

Bill
- Original Message -
From: "Charles Perry Locke" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: 
Sent: Sunday, June 26, 2005 9:18 PM
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Belief


> Debbie, suppose that you are blind and laid on the operating table, and a
> Sasquatch walked in and you thought it was the surgeon, and you trusted
the
> Sasquatch. You would die on the table.
>
> >From: "Debbie Sawczak" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> >Reply-To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org
> >To: 
> >Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Belief
> >Date: Sun, 26 Jun 2005 22:12:51 -0400
> >
> >Assuming we have a correct understanding of Jesus and the Mormons don't,
> >then if on that basis alone we are saved and they aren't, it is our
> >understanding which has saved us. Like Bill (in a recent post), I can't
> >hold with that.
> >
> >But the question was different, it was whether the actual object of my
> >faith/belief (putting myself in the place of a Mormon) can still be the
> >real Jesus even if I have so much wrong information about him. It doesn't
> >seem impossible, given analogies one could invent: if I am blind and
think
> >the surgeon is a Sasquatch, but I still lie down on the operating table
> >with full confidence, am I trusting the surgeon? The quesiont cannot be
> >just about what's in our heads and what's out there. With Jesus it is a
> >matter of taking active steps, and him doing stuff to us. But is it best
> >characterized as a one-shot deal, or a relationship that develops? And if
> >the latter, then maybe the proper question is, Can this relationship,
this
> >interaction be going on and I the Mormon continue to have such wrong
ideas
> >about him? I find that harder to say Yes to, but I do not know. If what
we
> >others believe about Jesus is true, it seems to me that a genuine
> >relationship with the real Person could not evoke less than worship. That
> >is the stumbling block for me with Mormonism: worship. Can you worship
> >without knowing it? (It was only an analogy, but maybe the Christian life
> >is after all a single lng surgery, at the end of which I can see, and
> >realize the surgeon is not a Sasquatch. In due course, everyone will
> >worship...)
> >
> >Lance, it may ultimately be the same question as Why aren't believers'
> >lives changed more, if they have the Holy Spirit within them? Why don't
we
> >all agree about Scripture if we have the Holy Spirit within us? (I can
> >predict some people's answer to this.)
> >
> >Debbie
> >
> >
> >- Original Message -
> >From: "Charles Perry Locke" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> >To: 
> >Sent: Sunday, June 26, 2005 4:12 PM
> >Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Belief
> >
> >
> > > Lance,
> > >
> > >   I agree that "Every christian believer believes 'through' an errant
> > > framework". But how errant is too errant? Is there a line that can be
> > > drawn? In the end either we are saved or we are not. Was our framework
> > > "too" errant? Was our image of Jesus too far from the real Jesus? If
we
> > > are "too" errant for salvation, but did not know it, are we saved?
These
> > > are mighty questions.
> > >
> > >   To be totally honest, I cannot say with complete certainty that
> >mormons
> > > are not saved. Maybe their degree of errancy in their image of God and
> > > Christ falls within the "saved" camp. However, from what I read in the
> > > Bible, I believe that they are on the "too errant" side. That is why I
> > > spend the time I do on TT doing what I do. If I did not care I would
be
> > > silent. If I thought that they were "in the fold", I would say to them
> > > "Welcome, brothers and sisters."
> > >
> > > Perry
> > >
> > >>From: "Lance Muir" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > >>Reply-To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org
> > >>To: 
> > >>Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Belief
> > >>Date: Sun, 26 Jun 2005 15:28:13 -0400
> > >>
> > >>Interesting! (there's that word again) Every christian believer
believes
> > >>'through' an errant framework. One may believe in a geocentric
universe
> >or
> > >>a flat earth and, live out a fairly normal life. May one believe
> >'through'
> > >>a Mormon Jesus (assuming this to be a totally aberrant Jesus)

Re: [TruthTalk] Belief

2005-06-26 Thread Charles Perry Locke

Debbie, suppose that you are blind and laid on the operating table, and a 
Sasquatch walked in and you thought it was the surgeon, and you trusted the 
Sasquatch. You would die on the table.

From: "Debbie Sawczak" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Reply-To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org
To: 
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Belief
Date: Sun, 26 Jun 2005 22:12:51 -0400

Assuming we have a correct understanding of Jesus and the Mormons don't, 
then if on that basis alone we are saved and they aren't, it is our 
understanding which has saved us. Like Bill (in a recent post), I can't 
hold with that.

But the question was different, it was whether the actual object of my 
faith/belief (putting myself in the place of a Mormon) can still be the 
real Jesus even if I have so much wrong information about him. It doesn't 
seem impossible, given analogies one could invent: if I am blind and think 
the surgeon is a Sasquatch, but I still lie down on the operating table 
with full confidence, am I trusting the surgeon? The quesiont cannot be 
just about what's in our heads and what's out there. With Jesus it is a 
matter of taking active steps, and him doing stuff to us. But is it best 
characterized as a one-shot deal, or a relationship that develops? And if 
the latter, then maybe the proper question is, Can this relationship, this 
interaction be going on and I the Mormon continue to have such wrong ideas 
about him? I find that harder to say Yes to, but I do not know. If what we 
others believe about Jesus is true, it seems to me that a genuine 
relationship with the real Person could not evoke less than worship. That 
is the stumbling block for me with Mormonism: worship. Can you worship 
without knowing it? (It was only an analogy, but maybe the Christian life 
is after all a single lng surgery, at the end of which I can see, and 
realize the surgeon is not a Sasquatch. In due course, everyone will 
worship...)

Lance, it may ultimately be the same question as Why aren't believers' 
lives changed more, if they have the Holy Spirit within them? Why don't we 
all agree about Scripture if we have the Holy Spirit within us? (I can 
predict some people's answer to this.)

Debbie

- Original Message -
From: "Charles Perry Locke" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: 
Sent: Sunday, June 26, 2005 4:12 PM
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Belief

> Lance,
>
>   I agree that "Every christian believer believes 'through' an errant
> framework". But how errant is too errant? Is there a line that can be
> drawn? In the end either we are saved or we are not. Was our framework
> "too" errant? Was our image of Jesus too far from the real Jesus? If we
> are "too" errant for salvation, but did not know it, are we saved? These
> are mighty questions.
>
>   To be totally honest, I cannot say with complete certainty that 
mormons

> are not saved. Maybe their degree of errancy in their image of God and
> Christ falls within the "saved" camp. However, from what I read in the
> Bible, I believe that they are on the "too errant" side. That is why I
> spend the time I do on TT doing what I do. If I did not care I would be
> silent. If I thought that they were "in the fold", I would say to them
> "Welcome, brothers and sisters."
>
> Perry
>
>>From: "Lance Muir" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>>Reply-To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org
>>To: 
>>Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Belief
>>Date: Sun, 26 Jun 2005 15:28:13 -0400
>>
>>Interesting! (there's that word again) Every christian believer believes
>>'through' an errant framework. One may believe in a geocentric universe 
or
>>a flat earth and, live out a fairly normal life. May one believe 
'through'

>>a Mormon Jesus (assuming this to be a totally aberrant Jesus) into Jesus
>>as He is? I don't know. What think YE Perry?
>>   - Original Message -
>>   From: Bill Taylor
>>   To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org
>>   Sent: June 26, 2005 15:06
>>   Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Belief
>>
>>
>>   Hi Dave,
>>
>>   We would probably have to go into some further detail as to what this
>> word "salvation" means to us before my answer can suffice -- or perhaps
>> even be understood (and that is up to you) -- but the short answer is
>> this: "yes, the only requirement for entrance to heaven" is salvation 
--

>> with one caveat: in Jesus Christ.
>>
>>   I believe that at the point in which death entered the world, 
salvation
>> was necessary in order to receive eternal life. Anyone who is mortal 
and
>> has died or will die on this earth must necessarily be resurrected 
(which

>> is the piv

Re: [TruthTalk] Belief

2005-06-26 Thread Terry Clifton





Debbie Sawczak wrote:

  
  
  
  Assuming we have a correct understanding
of Jesus and the Mormons don't, then if on that basis alone we are
saved and they aren't, it is our understanding which has saved us. Like
Bill (in a recent post), I can't hold with that.
  
But the question was different, it was whether the actual object of my
faith/belief (putting myself in the place of a Mormon) can still be the
real Jesus even if I have so much wrong information about him. It
doesn't seem impossible, given analogies one could invent:
==
Search the scriptures, for they tell of Jesus.  ( and the truth shall
make you free)

Re: [TruthTalk] Belief

2005-06-26 Thread Bill Taylor




Sasquatch? You must be a 
Canadian! What 4th c. doctorologian thought that up? As if it really 
matters: he's dead now anyway. Here in the real America we do not put our 
trust in the doctorology of men -- for we who are not blind can see 
that the true surgeon is Bigfoot.
 
Bill

  - Original Message - 
  From: 
  Debbie Sawczak 
  
  To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org 
  
  Sent: Sunday, June 26, 2005 8:12 PM
  Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Belief
  Assuming we have a correct 
  understanding of Jesus and the Mormons don't, then if on that basis alone we 
  are saved and they aren't, it is our understanding which has saved us. Like 
  Bill (in a recent post), I can't hold with that.But the question 
  was different, it was whether the actual object of my faith/belief 
  (putting myself in the place of a Mormon) can still be the real Jesus even if 
  I have so much wrong information about him. It doesn't seem impossible, given 
  analogies one could invent: if I am blind and think the surgeon is a 
  Sasquatch, but I still lie down on the operating table with full confidence, 
  am I trusting the surgeon? The quesiont cannot be just about what's in our 
  heads and what's out there. With Jesus it is a matter of taking active steps, 
  and him doing stuff to us. But is it best characterized as a one-shot 
  deal, or a relationship that develops? And if the latter, then maybe the 
  proper question is, Can this relationship, this interaction be going on 
  and I the Mormon continue to have such wrong ideas about him? I 
  find that harder to say Yes to, but I do not know. If what we others believe 
  about Jesus is true, it seems to me that a genuine relationship with the real 
  Person could not evoke less than worship. That is the stumbling block for 
  me with Mormonism: worship. Can you worship without knowing it? (It 
  was only an analogy, but maybe the Christian life is after all 
  a single lng surgery, at the end of which I can see, and realize the 
  surgeon is not a Sasquatch. In due course, everyone will 
  worship...)Lance, it may ultimately be the same question as 
  Why aren't believers' lives changed more, if they have the Holy Spirit within 
  them? Why don't we all agree about Scripture if we have the Holy Spirit within 
  us? (I can predict some people's answer to 
  this.)Debbie- Original Message - From: 
  "Charles Perry Locke" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>To: <TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org>Sent: Sunday, June 26, 2005 4:12 PMSubject: Re: [TruthTalk] 
  Belief> Lance,>>   I agree that "Every 
  christian believer believes 'through' an errant > framework". But how 
  errant is too errant? Is there a line that can be > drawn? In the end 
  either we are saved or we are not. Was our framework > "too" errant? 
  Was our image of Jesus too far from the real Jesus? If we > are "too" 
  errant for salvation, but did not know it, are we saved? These > are 
  mighty questions.>>   To be totally honest, I cannot 
  say with complete certainty that mormons > are not saved. Maybe their 
  degree of errancy in their image of God and > Christ falls within the 
  "saved" camp. However, from what I read in the > Bible, I believe that 
  they are on the "too errant" side. That is why I > spend the time I do 
  on TT doing what I do. If I did not care I would be > silent. If I 
  thought that they were "in the fold", I would say to them > "Welcome, 
  brothers and sisters.">> Perry>>>From: "Lance 
  Muir" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>>>Reply-To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org>>To: <TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org>>>Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Belief>>Date: Sun, 
  26 Jun 2005 15:28:13 -0400>>>>Interesting! (there's that 
  word again) Every christian believer believes >>'through' an errant 
  framework. One may believe in a geocentric universe or >>a flat 
  earth and, live out a fairly normal life. May one believe 'through' 
  >>a Mormon Jesus (assuming this to be a totally aberrant Jesus) into 
  Jesus >>as He is? I don't know. What think YE 
  Perry?>>   - Original Message 
  ->>   From: Bill Taylor>>   To: 
  TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org>>   Sent: June 26, 2005 15:06>>   
  Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] 
  Belief>>>>>>   Hi 
  Dave,>>>>   We would probably have to go into 
  some further detail as to what this >> word "salvation" means to us 
  before my answer can suffice -- or perhaps >> even be understood 
  (and that is up to you) -- but the short answer is >> this: "yes, 
  the only requirement for entrance to heaven" is salvation --  
  >> with one caveat: in Jesus 
  Christ.>&

Re: [TruthTalk] Belief



Assuming we have a correct 
understanding of Jesus and the Mormons don't, then if on that basis alone we are 
saved and they aren't, it is our understanding which has saved us. Like Bill (in 
a recent post), I can't hold with that.But the question was 
different, it was whether the actual object of my faith/belief (putting 
myself in the place of a Mormon) can still be the real Jesus even if I have so 
much wrong information about him. It doesn't seem impossible, given analogies 
one could invent: if I am blind and think the surgeon is a Sasquatch, but I 
still lie down on the operating table with full confidence, am I trusting the 
surgeon? The quesiont cannot be just about what's in our heads and what's out 
there. With Jesus it is a matter of taking active steps, and him doing stuff to 
us. But is it best characterized as a one-shot deal, or a relationship that 
develops? And if the latter, then maybe the proper question is, Can this 
relationship, this interaction be going on and I the 
Mormon continue to have such wrong ideas about him? I find that harder 
to say Yes to, but I do not know. If what we others believe about Jesus is true, 
it seems to me that a genuine relationship with the real Person could not evoke 
less than worship. That is the stumbling block for me with Mormonism: 
worship. Can you worship without knowing it? (It was only an analogy, but 
maybe the Christian life is after all a single lng surgery, at the 
end of which I can see, and realize the surgeon is not a Sasquatch. In due 
course, everyone will worship...)Lance, it may ultimately 
be the same question as Why aren't believers' lives changed more, if they 
have the Holy Spirit within them? Why don't we all agree about Scripture if we 
have the Holy Spirit within us? (I can predict some people's answer to 
this.)Debbie- Original Message - From: "Charles 
Perry Locke" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>To: 
<TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org>Sent: Sunday, June 26, 2005 4:12 PMSubject: Re: [TruthTalk] 
Belief> Lance,>>   I agree that "Every 
christian believer believes 'through' an errant > framework". But how 
errant is too errant? Is there a line that can be > drawn? In the end 
either we are saved or we are not. Was our framework > "too" errant? Was 
our image of Jesus too far from the real Jesus? If we > are "too" errant 
for salvation, but did not know it, are we saved? These > are mighty 
questions.>>   To be totally honest, I cannot say with 
complete certainty that mormons > are not saved. Maybe their degree of 
errancy in their image of God and > Christ falls within the "saved" camp. 
However, from what I read in the > Bible, I believe that they are on the 
"too errant" side. That is why I > spend the time I do on TT doing what I 
do. If I did not care I would be > silent. If I thought that they were 
"in the fold", I would say to them > "Welcome, brothers and 
sisters.">> Perry>>>From: "Lance Muir" 
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>>>Reply-To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org>>To: <TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org>>>Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Belief>>Date: Sun, 26 
Jun 2005 15:28:13 -0400>>>>Interesting! (there's that word 
again) Every christian believer believes >>'through' an errant 
framework. One may believe in a geocentric universe or >>a flat earth 
and, live out a fairly normal life. May one believe 'through' >>a 
Mormon Jesus (assuming this to be a totally aberrant Jesus) into Jesus 
>>as He is? I don't know. What think YE Perry?>>   
- Original Message ->>   From: Bill 
Taylor>>   To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org>>   Sent: June 26, 2005 15:06>>   
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Belief>>>>>>   
Hi Dave,>>>>   We would probably have to go into 
some further detail as to what this >> word "salvation" means to us 
before my answer can suffice -- or perhaps >> even be understood (and 
that is up to you) -- but the short answer is >> this: "yes, the only 
requirement for entrance to heaven" is salvation --  >> with one 
caveat: in Jesus Christ.>>>>   I believe that at 
the point in which death entered the world, salvation >> was necessary 
in order to receive eternal life. Anyone who is mortal and >> has died 
or will die on this earth must necessarily be resurrected (which >> is 
the pivotal aspect in my view of "salvation"; i.e., death being >> 
swallowed up in victory) in order to live forever. In this view, then, 
>> salvation is that which stands between death and an eternal life in 
>> "heaven.">>>>   
Bill>> - Original

Re: [TruthTalk] Belief



Assuming we have a correct 
understanding of Jesus and the Mormons don't, then if on that basis alone we are 
saved and they aren't, it is our understanding which has saved us. Like Bill (in 
a recent post), I can't hold with that.But the question was 
different, it was whether the actual object of my faith/belief (putting 
myself in the place of a Mormon) can still be the real Jesus even if I have so 
much wrong information about him. It doesn't seem impossible, given analogies 
one could invent: if I am blind and think the surgeon is a Sasquatch, but I 
still lie down on the operating table with full confidence, am I trusting the 
surgeon? The quesiont cannot be just about what's in our heads and what's out 
there. With Jesus it is a matter of taking active steps, and him doing stuff to 
us. But is it best characterized as a one-shot deal, or a relationship that 
develops? And if the latter, then maybe the proper question is, Can this 
relationship, this interaction be going on and I the 
Mormon continue to have such wrong ideas about him? I find that harder 
to say Yes to, but I do not know. If what we others believe about Jesus is true, 
it seems to me that a genuine relationship with the real Person could not evoke 
less than worship. That is the stumbling block for me with Mormonism: 
worship. Can you worship without knowing it? (It was only an analogy, but 
maybe the Christian life is after all a single lng surgery, at the 
end of which I can see, and realize the surgeon is not a Sasquatch. In due 
course, everyone will worship...)Lance, it may ultimately 
be the same question as Why aren't believers' lives changed more, if they 
have the Holy Spirit within them? Why don't we all agree about Scripture if we 
have the Holy Spirit within us? (I can predict some people's answer to 
this.)Debbie- Original Message - From: "Charles 
Perry Locke" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>To: 
<TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org>Sent: Sunday, June 26, 2005 4:12 PMSubject: Re: [TruthTalk] 
Belief> Lance,>>   I agree that "Every 
christian believer believes 'through' an errant > framework". But how 
errant is too errant? Is there a line that can be > drawn? In the end 
either we are saved or we are not. Was our framework > "too" errant? Was 
our image of Jesus too far from the real Jesus? If we > are "too" errant 
for salvation, but did not know it, are we saved? These > are mighty 
questions.>>   To be totally honest, I cannot say with 
complete certainty that mormons > are not saved. Maybe their degree of 
errancy in their image of God and > Christ falls within the "saved" camp. 
However, from what I read in the > Bible, I believe that they are on the 
"too errant" side. That is why I > spend the time I do on TT doing what I 
do. If I did not care I would be > silent. If I thought that they were 
"in the fold", I would say to them > "Welcome, brothers and 
sisters.">> Perry>>>From: "Lance Muir" 
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>>>Reply-To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org>>To: <TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org>>>Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Belief>>Date: Sun, 26 
Jun 2005 15:28:13 -0400>>>>Interesting! (there's that word 
again) Every christian believer believes >>'through' an errant 
framework. One may believe in a geocentric universe or >>a flat earth 
and, live out a fairly normal life. May one believe 'through' >>a 
Mormon Jesus (assuming this to be a totally aberrant Jesus) into Jesus 
>>as He is? I don't know. What think YE Perry?>>   
- Original Message ->>   From: Bill 
Taylor>>   To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org>>   Sent: June 26, 2005 15:06>>   
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Belief>>>>>>   
Hi Dave,>>>>   We would probably have to go into 
some further detail as to what this >> word "salvation" means to us 
before my answer can suffice -- or perhaps >> even be understood (and 
that is up to you) -- but the short answer is >> this: "yes, the only 
requirement for entrance to heaven" is salvation --  >> with one 
caveat: in Jesus Christ.>>>>   I believe that at 
the point in which death entered the world, salvation >> was necessary 
in order to receive eternal life. Anyone who is mortal and >> has died 
or will die on this earth must necessarily be resurrected (which >> is 
the pivotal aspect in my view of "salvation"; i.e., death being >> 
swallowed up in victory) in order to live forever. In this view, then, 
>> salvation is that which stands between death and an eternal life in 
>> "heaven.">>>>   
Bill>> - Original

Re: [TruthTalk] Belief



Assuming we have a correct 
understanding of Jesus and the Mormons don't, then if on that basis alone we are 
saved and they aren't, it is our understanding which has saved us. Like Bill (in 
a recent post), I can't hold with that.But the question was 
different, it was whether the actual object of my faith/belief (putting 
myself in the place of a Mormon) can still be the real Jesus even if I have so 
much wrong information about him. It doesn't seem impossible, given analogies 
one could invent: if I am blind and think the surgeon is a Sasquatch, but I 
still lie down on the operating table with full confidence, am I trusting the 
surgeon? The quesiont cannot be just about what's in our heads and what's out 
there. With Jesus it is a matter of taking active steps, and him doing stuff to 
us. But is it best characterized as a one-shot deal, or a relationship that 
develops? And if the latter, then maybe the proper question is, Can this 
relationship, this interaction be going on and I the 
Mormon continue to have such wrong ideas about him? I find that harder 
to say Yes to, but I do not know. If what we others believe about Jesus is true, 
it seems to me that a genuine relationship with the real Person could not evoke 
less than worship. That is the stumbling block for me with Mormonism: 
worship. Can you worship without knowing it? (It was only an analogy, but 
maybe the Christian life is after all a single lng surgery, at the 
end of which I can see, and realize the surgeon is not a Sasquatch. In due 
course, everyone will worship...)Lance, it may ultimately 
be the same question as Why aren't believers' lives changed more, if they 
have the Holy Spirit within them? Why don't we all agree about Scripture if we 
have the Holy Spirit within us? (I can predict some people's answer to 
this.)Debbie- Original Message - From: "Charles 
Perry Locke" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>To: 
<TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org>Sent: Sunday, June 26, 2005 4:12 PMSubject: Re: [TruthTalk] 
Belief> Lance,>>   I agree that "Every 
christian believer believes 'through' an errant > framework". But how 
errant is too errant? Is there a line that can be > drawn? In the end 
either we are saved or we are not. Was our framework > "too" errant? Was 
our image of Jesus too far from the real Jesus? If we > are "too" errant 
for salvation, but did not know it, are we saved? These > are mighty 
questions.>>   To be totally honest, I cannot say with 
complete certainty that mormons > are not saved. Maybe their degree of 
errancy in their image of God and > Christ falls within the "saved" camp. 
However, from what I read in the > Bible, I believe that they are on the 
"too errant" side. That is why I > spend the time I do on TT doing what I 
do. If I did not care I would be > silent. If I thought that they were 
"in the fold", I would say to them > "Welcome, brothers and 
sisters.">> Perry>>>From: "Lance Muir" 
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>>>Reply-To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org>>To: <TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org>>>Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Belief>>Date: Sun, 26 
Jun 2005 15:28:13 -0400>>>>Interesting! (there's that word 
again) Every christian believer believes >>'through' an errant 
framework. One may believe in a geocentric universe or >>a flat earth 
and, live out a fairly normal life. May one believe 'through' >>a 
Mormon Jesus (assuming this to be a totally aberrant Jesus) into Jesus 
>>as He is? I don't know. What think YE Perry?>>   
- Original Message ->>   From: Bill 
Taylor>>   To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org>>   Sent: June 26, 2005 15:06>>   
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Belief>>>>>>   
Hi Dave,>>>>   We would probably have to go into 
some further detail as to what this >> word "salvation" means to us 
before my answer can suffice -- or perhaps >> even be understood (and 
that is up to you) -- but the short answer is >> this: "yes, the only 
requirement for entrance to heaven" is salvation --  >> with one 
caveat: in Jesus Christ.>>>>   I believe that at 
the point in which death entered the world, salvation >> was necessary 
in order to receive eternal life. Anyone who is mortal and >> has died 
or will die on this earth must necessarily be resurrected (which >> is 
the pivotal aspect in my view of "salvation"; i.e., death being >> 
swallowed up in victory) in order to live forever. In this view, then, 
>> salvation is that which stands between death and an eternal life in 
>> "heaven.">>>>   
Bill>> - Original

Re: [TruthTalk] Belief

2005-06-26 Thread knpraise


 I appreciate Perry's forthrightness in this post.    
 
JD -Original Message-From: Charles Perry Locke <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgSent: Sun, 26 Jun 2005 13:12:21 -0700Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Belief


Lance,    I agree that "Every christian believer believes 'through' an errant framework". But how errant is too errant? Is there a line that can be drawn? In the end either we are saved or we are not. Was our framework "too" errant? Was our image of Jesus too far from the real Jesus? If we are "too" errant for salvation, but did not know it, are we saved? These are mighty questions.    To be totally honest, I cannot say with complete certainty that mormons are not saved. Maybe their degree of errancy in their image of God and Christ falls within the "saved" camp. However, from what I read in the Bible, I believe that they are on the "too errant" side. That is why I spend the time I do on TT doing what I do. If I did not care I would be silent. If I thought that they were "in the fold", I would say to them "Welcome, brothers and sisters."  Perry  <
/HTML>

Re: [TruthTalk] Belief

2005-06-26 Thread knpraise


  


DAVEH:   I think you are taking my example out of context, DavidM.  I was trying to point out that right or wrong, I believe most knowledgeable LDS folks tend to be a little more homogeneous in their beliefs than do TTers.    
 
Hi Dave.   I would agree with this observation.   Allowing for the truth of this observation,   why do you suppose this is the case?   I assume you are speaking  more to  "doctrinal sameness" than to harmonious attitudes.
 
 
JD

Re: [TruthTalk] Belief

2005-06-26 Thread David Miller

DAVEH:
> I think you are taking my example out of context,
> DavidM.  I was trying to point out that right or
> wrong, I believe most knowledgeable LDS folks
> tend to be a little more homogeneous in their beliefs
> than do TTers.

So, I can find cults that are even more homogeneous than Mormons.  Are you 
sure you don't have any inkling that Mormons might be more right because of 
this homogeneity?

DaveH wrote:
> ...From my perspective, it seems like you (non-LDS) are
> ignoring/misinterpreting Biblical evidence that pretty significantly
> illustrates that Jesus is was not only the firstborn (created) in a
> literal sense, but that he was also anointed to be God and creator
> of our physical realmsomething that is unique amongst all our
> Heavenly Father's creation.

The concept of being anointed to be God is very foreign to most of us.  Any 
Scriptural justification for this, either Biblical or non-Biblical?

DaveH wrote:
> But as sons of God, we had the same roots
> of our Elder Brother.

Same request:  please supply Scriptural justification, either Biblical or 
non-Biblical.  I understand how he is my elder brother because of the 
incarnation, but not in how we had the same roots prior to any mortal 
existence.  I see our roots as very different.

DaveH wrote:
> ... to be vehemently critical of our somewhat odd beliefs strikes me
> as curious when you folks seem to struggle with the sonship question,
> which is seemingly so simple from our theological perspective.

It is very simple from my theological perspective too.  Problem is that not 
everyone sees it as simply as I do.  :-)

DaveH wrote:
> What is so hard about literally believing Jesus is literally
> the firstborn of our Heavenly Father?

Because I don't see where Scripture refers to him as the firstborn of our 
Heavenly Father.  Firstborn refers to his humanity, his relationship with 
man, and his being placed far above all other men.

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: [TruthTalk] Belief

2005-06-26 Thread Charles Perry Locke


Lance,

  I agree that "Every christian believer believes 'through' an errant 
framework". But how errant is too errant? Is there a line that can be drawn? 
In the end either we are saved or we are not. Was our framework "too" 
errant? Was our image of Jesus too far from the real Jesus? If we are "too" 
errant for salvation, but did not know it, are we saved? These are mighty 
questions.


  To be totally honest, I cannot say with complete certainty that mormons 
are not saved. Maybe their degree of errancy in their image of God and 
Christ falls within the "saved" camp. However, from what I read in the 
Bible, I believe that they are on the "too errant" side. That is why I spend 
the time I do on TT doing what I do. If I did not care I would be silent. If 
I thought that they were "in the fold", I would say to them "Welcome, 
brothers and sisters."


Perry


From: "Lance Muir" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Reply-To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org
To: 
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Belief
Date: Sun, 26 Jun 2005 15:28:13 -0400

Interesting! (there's that word again) Every christian believer believes 
'through' an errant framework. One may believe in a geocentric universe or 
a flat earth and, live out a fairly normal life. May one believe 'through' 
a Mormon Jesus (assuming this to be a totally aberrant Jesus) into Jesus as 
He is? I don't know. What think YE Perry?

  - Original Message -
  From: Bill Taylor
  To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org
  Sent: June 26, 2005 15:06
  Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Belief


  Hi Dave,

  We would probably have to go into some further detail as to what this 
word "salvation" means to us before my answer can suffice -- or perhaps 
even be understood (and that is up to you) -- but the short answer is this: 
"yes, the only requirement for entrance to heaven" is salvation -- with one 
caveat: in Jesus Christ.


  I believe that at the point in which death entered the world, salvation 
was necessary in order to receive eternal life. Anyone who is mortal and 
has died or will die on this earth must necessarily be resurrected (which 
is the pivotal aspect in my view of "salvation"; i.e., death being 
swallowed up in victory) in order to live forever. In this view, then, 
salvation is that which stands between death and an eternal life in 
"heaven."


  Bill
    - Original Message -
From: Dave Hansen
To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org
Sent: Saturday, June 25, 2005 1:03 AM
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Belief


DAVEH:   Do you believe salvation is the only requirement for entrance 
to heaven, Bill?   (BTWI would be most interested to hear the thoughts 
of other TTers on this as well.)


Bill Taylor wrote:



A very wise friend of mine is keen on opining that there will be 
many Christians who hold grossly heretical beliefs, who upon their passing 
will nevertheless find themselves securely in heaven. I agree with him: if 
entrance into heaven is predicated upon right and only right thinking, then 
I suppose heaven will be a mighty lonely place.


Bill





--
~~~
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] Belief

2005-06-26 Thread Lance Muir




Interesting! (there's that word again) Every 
christian believer believes 'through' an errant framework. One may believe 
in a geocentric universe or a flat earth and, live out a fairly normal life. May 
one believe 'through' a Mormon Jesus (assuming this to be a totally aberrant 
Jesus) into Jesus as He is? I don't know. What think YE Perry?

  - Original Message - 
  From: 
  Bill Taylor 
  
  To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org 
  
  Sent: June 26, 2005 15:06
  Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Belief
  
  Hi Dave, 
   
  We would probably have to go into some further 
  detail as to what this word "salvation" means to us before my answer can 
  suffice -- or perhaps even be understood (and that is up to 
  you) -- but the short answer is this: "yes, the only 
  requirement for entrance to heaven" is salvation -- with one caveat: in 
  Jesus Christ.
   
  I believe that at the point in which death 
  entered the world, salvation was necessary in order to receive eternal life. 
  Anyone who is mortal and has died or will die on this earth must necessarily 
  be resurrected (which is the pivotal aspect in my view of "salvation"; 
  i.e., death being swallowed up in victory) in order to live forever. In this 
  view, then, salvation is that which stands between death and an eternal life 
  in "heaven."
   
  Bill
  
- Original Message - 
From: 
Dave Hansen 

To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org 

Sent: Saturday, June 25, 2005 1:03 
AM
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Belief
DAVEH:   Do you believe salvation is the only 
requirement for entrance to heaven, Bill?   (BTWI would be 
most interested to hear the thoughts of other TTers on this as 
well.)Bill Taylor wrote: 

  
  


 
A very wise friend of mine is keen on 
opining that there will be many Christians who hold grossly heretical beliefs, who upon 
their passing will nevertheless find themselves securely in heaven. I 
agree with him: if entrance into heaven is predicated upon right and 
only right thinking, then I suppose heaven will be a mighty lonely 
place.
 
Bill 
-- 
~~~
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] Belief

2005-06-26 Thread Bill Taylor




Hi Dave, 
 
We would probably have to go into some further 
detail as to what this word "salvation" means to us before my answer can suffice 
-- or perhaps even be understood (and that is up to you) -- but the 
short answer is this: "yes, the only requirement for entrance to heaven" is 
salvation -- with one caveat: in Jesus Christ.
 
I believe that at the point in which death entered 
the world, salvation was necessary in order to receive eternal life. Anyone who 
is mortal and has died or will die on this earth must necessarily be resurrected 
(which is the pivotal aspect in my view of "salvation"; i.e., death being 
swallowed up in victory) in order to live forever. In this view, then, salvation 
is that which stands between death and an eternal life in "heaven."
 
Bill

  - Original Message - 
  From: 
  Dave Hansen 
  
  To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org 
  
  Sent: Saturday, June 25, 2005 1:03 
  AM
  Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Belief
  DAVEH:   Do you believe salvation is the only 
  requirement for entrance to heaven, Bill?   (BTWI would be most 
  interested to hear the thoughts of other TTers on this as well.)Bill 
  Taylor wrote: 
  


  
  
   
  A very wise friend of mine is keen on 
  opining that there will be many Christians who hold grossly heretical beliefs, who upon 
  their passing will nevertheless find themselves securely in heaven. I 
  agree with him: if entrance into heaven is predicated upon right and only 
  right thinking, then I suppose heaven will be a mighty lonely 
  place.
   
  Bill 
  -- 
~~~
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] Belief

2005-06-26 Thread Lance Muir




A Dave, but you do make an 'interesting' 
point. Isn't that word (interesting) a terric catch all word?
 
I have every confidence that all of the 
participants on TT, Mormons aside, possess an understanding of who Jesus is 
commensurate with that of Christian Believers throughout the 
centuries.
 
It is always possible that you have a belief in the 
real Jesus while your articulation (teaching/doctrine) of Him is sort 
of..well.from another planet.

  - Original Message - 
  From: 
  Dave Hansen 
  
  To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org 
  
  Sent: June 26, 2005 11:17
  Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Belief
  DAVEH:   I think you are taking my example out of 
  context, DavidM.  I was trying to point out that right or wrong, I 
  believe most knowledgeable LDS folks tend to be a little more homogeneous in 
  their beliefs than do TTers.    As for your 
  comment]..From my perspective, it seems like you 
  (non-LDS) are ignoring/misinterpreting Biblical evidence that pretty 
  significantly illustrates that Jesus is was not only the firstborn (created) 
  in a literal sense, but that he was also anointed to be God and creator of our 
  physical realmsomething that is unique amongst all our Heavenly Father's 
  creation.  Yes, Jesus was more than just a man (I would say spirit) like 
  ushe was anointed to be our Messiah.  But as sons of God, we had the 
  same roots of our Elder Brother.    For non-LDS 
  Christians to be concerned about our simplistic theology is understandable 
  considering the stark contrast between our beliefs.  However, to be 
  vehemently critical of our somewhat odd beliefs strikes me as curious when you 
  folks seem to struggle with the sonship question, which is seemingly so simple 
  from our theological perspective.   What is so hard about literally 
  believing Jesus is literally the firstborn of our Heavenly 
  Father?David Miller wrote: 
  DaveH wrote:
  
Your sonship discussion is another example that
brings this to mind to me.it is so simple to explain
in LDS theology ...

Considering Jesus to be a created being like any other man might be a simple 
explanation, but that does not mean it is true.  Such an assumption can only 
be made by ignoring or reinterpreting Biblical evidence which would indicate 
Jesus to be unique and more than just a man.

Do you really not understand the legitimate concern many have about the 
simplicity of Mormon theology concerning the nature of Jesus Christ and the 
Godhead?

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] Belief

2005-06-26 Thread Dave Hansen





DAVEH:   I think you are taking my example out of context, DavidM.  I
was trying to point out that right or wrong, I believe most
knowledgeable LDS folks tend to be a little more homogeneous in their
beliefs than do TTers.

    As for your comment]



..From my perspective, it seems like you (non-LDS) are
ignoring/misinterpreting Biblical evidence that pretty significantly
illustrates that Jesus is was not only the firstborn (created) in a
literal sense, but that he was also anointed to be God and creator of
our physical realmsomething that is unique amongst all our Heavenly
Father's creation.  Yes, Jesus was more than just a man (I would say
spirit) like ushe was anointed to be our Messiah.  But as sons of
God, we had the same roots of our Elder Brother.

    For non-LDS Christians to be concerned about our simplistic
theology is understandable considering the stark contrast between our
beliefs.  However, to be vehemently critical of our somewhat odd
beliefs strikes me as curious when you folks seem to struggle with the
sonship question, which is seemingly so simple from our theological
perspective.   What is so hard about literally believing Jesus is
literally the firstborn of our Heavenly Father?

David Miller wrote:

  DaveH wrote:
  
  
Your sonship discussion is another example that
brings this to mind to me.it is so simple to explain
in LDS theology ...

  
  
Considering Jesus to be a created being like any other man might be a simple 
explanation, but that does not mean it is true.  Such an assumption can only 
be made by ignoring or reinterpreting Biblical evidence which would indicate 
Jesus to be unique and more than just a man.

Do you really not understand the legitimate concern many have about the 
simplicity of Mormon theology concerning the nature of Jesus Christ and the 
Godhead?

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] Belief

2005-06-26 Thread David Miller

DaveH wrote:
> Your sonship discussion is another example that
> brings this to mind to me.it is so simple to explain
> in LDS theology ...

Considering Jesus to be a created being like any other man might be a simple 
explanation, but that does not mean it is true.  Such an assumption can only 
be made by ignoring or reinterpreting Biblical evidence which would indicate 
Jesus to be unique and more than just a man.

Do you really not understand the legitimate concern many have about the 
simplicity of Mormon theology concerning the nature of Jesus Christ and the 
Godhead?

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: [TruthTalk] Belief

2005-06-25 Thread Blainerb473




In a message dated 6/25/2005 1:51:29 P.M. Mountain Standard Time, 
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Lancey,The context has changed from our previous discussions, 
  lance. previously Dave has alwayss discussed from the viewpoint of his 
  mormon views...but now we are 
  discussing strictly in the context of the Bible. Combine that with the 
  fact that often the words Christians traditionally use mean different 
  things when mormons use them, 
  and we have a problem.
 
There you go again perry, forgetting to capitalize Mormon, a proper 
noun--even my spell-checker notices it.  :>)   Is this an 
ad-homin attack?
Blainerb

Re: [TruthTalk] Belief





DAVEH:  Were they active members, Johnor just members of record? 
Please  note my qualifier below...

most knowledgeable Mormons

.I still believe that they would have very similar thoughts and
understandings about why God has done what he has done.  My quoted
examples suggests that many knowledgeable Christians (specifically
TTers) that I am familiar with are sharply divided on things that
Mormons pretty much find simple to comprehend.  Your sonship discussion
is another example that brings this to mind to me.it is so simple
to explain in LDS theology, yet some pretty big (TT) guns have spent
much more time arguing over it than Perry and I have been arguing
whether or not he is an anti-Mormon.  It's just an observation,
Bishopdon't take it personally.

[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

  
  
  DaveH  --  I just have to
chime in here.   My wife converted from mormonism
and her Mom and the whole family,for years,  have  been  in that
faith.   They do not have a clue as to what that church believes, much
less the nature of God...not a one of them.   I suspect your
church is no different from protestant churches in this regard.   
   
  JD 
 
-Original Message-
From: Dave Hansen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org
Sent: Sat, 25 Jun 2005 14:56:20
-0700
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Belief
  
  
  DAVEH:   Don't you find it just a
little bit curious that in a parallel post that arrived with
yours
  
  Do you think we even
  agree as to what the Word of God
consists of Debbie?  jt
  
  
Do you really think the problem is simply rooted in the vast
differences between my beliefs and Perry's?  I believe most
knowledgeable Mormons have a
pretty good perception of the nature of God.  I don't think I can say
the same about most TTers.
  
Lance Muir wrote:
  
Har de har har (Ralph Kramden for you youngsters). You two illustrate just
why there are so many factions on TT.

'god' you don't, even by now, have an understanding of one another's meaning
of THAT word?

Yikes!!!

Re: [TruthTalk] Belief

2005-06-25 Thread knpraise


DaveH  --  I just have to chime in here.   My wife converted from mormonism and her Mom and the whole family,for years,  have  been  in that faith.   They do not have a clue as to what that church believes, much less the nature of God...not a one of them.   I suspect your church is no different from protestant churches in this regard.   

 
JD  -Original Message-From: Dave Hansen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgSent: Sat, 25 Jun 2005 14:56:20 -0700Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Belief


DAVEH:   Don't you find it just a little bit curious that in a parallel post that arrived with yoursDo you think we even 
agree as to what the Word of God consists of Debbie?  jtDo you really think the problem is simply rooted in the vast differences between my beliefs and Perry's?  I believe most knowledgeable Mormons have a pretty good perception of the nature of God.  I don't think I can say the same about most TTers.Lance Muir wrote: 
Har de har har (Ralph Kramden for you youngsters). You two illustrate just
why there are so many factions on TT.

'god' you don't, even by now, have an understanding of one another's meaning
of THAT word?

Yikes!!!


- Original Message - 
From: "Charles Perry Locke" <cpl2602@hotmail.com>
To: 
Sent: June 25, 2005 15:51
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Belief


  
Lancey,

The context has changed from our previous discussions, lance. previously
Dave has alwayss discussed from the viewpoint of his mormon views...but
now
  
we are discussing strictly in the context of the Bible. Combine that with
the fact that often the words Christians traditionally use mean different
things when mormons use them, and we have a problem.

For example the word 'god'. Dave asked me if I could find any verses in
the
  
Bible that indicate that God does not have a body of flesh and bones. To
me
  
that means 'the Father' automatically. I used "the Trinity" when talking
about all three together. I gave him several referencesl. Then he comes
back
  
with  the fact that jesus jad a body after resurrection and he thought
Christians believed that.

WAIT A MINUTE! When Dave says 'god' he can be talking about the father, or
jesus, or the holy spirit, since all three are separate gods to him! I am
just tying to find out in which context he is using the term 'god' so we
can
  
continue. This kind of word play goes on continually when mormons
re-define
  
the words, and when discussing rekigion with mormons, one must CONTINUALLY
be on the alert for redefined words.

Good night, Lancey.

    
From: "Lance Muir" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Reply-To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org
To: 
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Belief
Date: Sat, 25 Jun 2005 14:25:15 -0400

Say goodnight, Gracie!! Is this a comedy routine? Given that you two have
been discussing the content of Mormon theology since Joseph Smith was
alive,
it amazes me that you know so little concerning one another's actual
beliefs.


- Original Message -
From: "Charles Perry Locke" <cpl2602@hotmail.com>
To: 
Sent: June 25, 2005 14:11
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Belief


  
   We are mixing apples and oranges, Dave.

   Jesus does have a resurrected body, but the God Father is Spirit...
that
  
is, He ain't got no body.

   Didn't you tell me in a previous post that we woud discuss these
things
  
based on the Bible? And, didn't you ask if I thought God (the Father)
had
a
  
body of flesh and bones, and ask for Biblical evidence that he did
not?
  

I
  
posted several verses that indicate that He does not.

   Now for the difference in our viewpoints. You imagine that god (the
father) has a body since he was once a man, right? however, there is
no
  


biblical verses to support that position...in fact, there are verses,
as
  

I
  
pointed out, that indicate the complete opposite.

   When I say 'God' I usually mean "the Father", but sometimes mean
the
  


triune God. I will try to distinguish which I mean, if it is not
evident
  


from the context.

   Now, when you say 'God', are you referring to the Father, Jesus,
the
  

Holy
  
Spirit, any of the three, or all three?

Perry


From: Dave Hansen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>

DAVEH:  DavidM's beliefs are reflected in his understanding of the
  word
  

of
  

God as revealed in the Bible.  My beliefs are based in LDS theology,
  which
  

recognizes a much broader spectrum of the revealed word of God.
  SoI
  

see his presumptions as being based on a narrower database than mine.

   As for God having a body of flesh and bone (since the
  resurrection),
is
  

there any Christian who can reasonably think he does

Re: [TruthTalk] Belief





DAVEH:   Don't you find it just a little bit curious that in a parallel
post that arrived with yours

Do you think we even
agree as to what the Word of God consists
of Debbie?  jt


Do you really think the problem is simply rooted in the vast
differences between my beliefs and Perry's?  I believe most
knowledgeable Mormons have a pretty good perception of the nature of
God.  I don't think I can say the same about most TTers.

Lance Muir wrote:

  Har de har har (Ralph Kramden for you youngsters). You two illustrate just
why there are so many factions on TT.

'god' you don't, even by now, have an understanding of one another's meaning
of THAT word?

Yikes!!!


- Original Message - 
From: "Charles Perry Locke" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: 
Sent: June 25, 2005 15:51
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Belief


  
  
Lancey,

The context has changed from our previous discussions, lance. previously
Dave has alwayss discussed from the viewpoint of his mormon views...but

  
  now
  
  
we are discussing strictly in the context of the Bible. Combine that with
the fact that often the words Christians traditionally use mean different
things when mormons use them, and we have a problem.

For example the word 'god'. Dave asked me if I could find any verses in

  
  the
  
  
Bible that indicate that God does not have a body of flesh and bones. To

  
  me
  
  
that means 'the Father' automatically. I used "the Trinity" when talking
about all three together. I gave him several referencesl. Then he comes

  
  back
  
  
with  the fact that jesus jad a body after resurrection and he thought
Christians believed that.

WAIT A MINUTE! When Dave says 'god' he can be talking about the father, or
jesus, or the holy spirit, since all three are separate gods to him! I am
just tying to find out in which context he is using the term 'god' so we

  
  can
  
  
continue. This kind of word play goes on continually when mormons

  
  re-define
  
  
the words, and when discussing rekigion with mormons, one must CONTINUALLY
be on the alert for redefined words.

Good night, Lancey.


    
  From: "Lance Muir" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Reply-To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org
To: 
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Belief
Date: Sat, 25 Jun 2005 14:25:15 -0400

Say goodnight, Gracie!! Is this a comedy routine? Given that you two have
been discussing the content of Mormon theology since Joseph Smith was
alive,
it amazes me that you know so little concerning one another's actual
beliefs.


- Original Message -
From: "Charles Perry Locke" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: 
Sent: June 25, 2005 14:11
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Belief


  
  
   We are mixing apples and oranges, Dave.

   Jesus does have a resurrected body, but the God Father is Spirit...

  
  that
  
  
is, He ain't got no body.

   Didn't you tell me in a previous post that we woud discuss these

  
  things
  
  
based on the Bible? And, didn't you ask if I thought God (the Father)

  
  had
a
  
  
body of flesh and bones, and ask for Biblical evidence that he did

  

  
  not?
  
  

  I
  
  
posted several verses that indicate that He does not.

   Now for the difference in our viewpoints. You imagine that god (the
father) has a body since he was once a man, right? however, there is

  

  
  no
  
  

  
biblical verses to support that position...in fact, there are verses,

  

  
  as
  
  

  I
  
  
pointed out, that indicate the complete opposite.

   When I say 'God' I usually mean "the Father", but sometimes mean

  

  
  the
  
  

  
triune God. I will try to distinguish which I mean, if it is not

  

  
  evident
  
  

  
from the context.

   Now, when you say 'God', are you referring to the Father, Jesus,

  

  
  the
  
  

  Holy
  
  
Spirit, any of the three, or all three?

Perry



  From: Dave Hansen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>

DAVEH:  DavidM's beliefs are reflected in his understanding of the
  

  

  
  word
  
  

  of
  
  

  God as revealed in the Bible.  My beliefs are based in LDS theology,
  

  
  which
  
  

  recognizes a much broader spectrum of the revealed word of God.
  

  
  SoI
  
  

  see his presumptions as being based on a narrower database than mine.

   As for God having a body o

Re: [TruthTalk] Belief

2005-06-25 Thread Lance Muir

Har de har har (Ralph Kramden for you youngsters). You two illustrate just
why there are so many factions on TT.

'god' you don't, even by now, have an understanding of one another's meaning
of THAT word?

Yikes!!!


- Original Message - 
From: "Charles Perry Locke" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: 
Sent: June 25, 2005 15:51
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Belief


> Lancey,
>
> The context has changed from our previous discussions, lance. previously
> Dave has alwayss discussed from the viewpoint of his mormon views...but
now
> we are discussing strictly in the context of the Bible. Combine that with
> the fact that often the words Christians traditionally use mean different
> things when mormons use them, and we have a problem.
>
> For example the word 'god'. Dave asked me if I could find any verses in
the
> Bible that indicate that God does not have a body of flesh and bones. To
me
> that means 'the Father' automatically. I used "the Trinity" when talking
> about all three together. I gave him several referencesl. Then he comes
back
> with  the fact that jesus jad a body after resurrection and he thought
> Christians believed that.
>
> WAIT A MINUTE! When Dave says 'god' he can be talking about the father, or
> jesus, or the holy spirit, since all three are separate gods to him! I am
> just tying to find out in which context he is using the term 'god' so we
can
> continue. This kind of word play goes on continually when mormons
re-define
> the words, and when discussing rekigion with mormons, one must CONTINUALLY
> be on the alert for redefined words.
>
> Good night, Lancey.
>
> >From: "Lance Muir" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> >Reply-To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org
> >To: 
> >Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Belief
> >Date: Sat, 25 Jun 2005 14:25:15 -0400
> >
> >Say goodnight, Gracie!! Is this a comedy routine? Given that you two have
> >been discussing the content of Mormon theology since Joseph Smith was
> >alive,
> >it amazes me that you know so little concerning one another's actual
> >beliefs.
> >
> >
> >- Original Message -
> >From: "Charles Perry Locke" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> >To: 
> >Sent: June 25, 2005 14:11
> >Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Belief
> >
> >
> > >We are mixing apples and oranges, Dave.
> > >
> > >Jesus does have a resurrected body, but the God Father is Spirit...
> >that
> > > is, He ain't got no body.
> > >
> > >Didn't you tell me in a previous post that we woud discuss these
> >things
> > > based on the Bible? And, didn't you ask if I thought God (the Father)
> >had
> >a
> > > body of flesh and bones, and ask for Biblical evidence that he did
not?
> >I
> > > posted several verses that indicate that He does not.
> > >
> > >Now for the difference in our viewpoints. You imagine that god (the
> > > father) has a body since he was once a man, right? however, there is
no
> > > biblical verses to support that position...in fact, there are verses,
as
> >I
> > > pointed out, that indicate the complete opposite.
> > >
> > >When I say 'God' I usually mean "the Father", but sometimes mean
the
> > > triune God. I will try to distinguish which I mean, if it is not
evident
> > > from the context.
> > >
> > >Now, when you say 'God', are you referring to the Father, Jesus,
the
> >Holy
> > > Spirit, any of the three, or all three?
> > >
> > > Perry
> > >
> > > >From: Dave Hansen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > > >
> > > >DAVEH:  DavidM's beliefs are reflected in his understanding of the
word
> >of
> > > >God as revealed in the Bible.  My beliefs are based in LDS theology,
> >which
> > > >recognizes a much broader spectrum of the revealed word of God.
> >SoI
> > > >see his presumptions as being based on a narrower database than mine.
> > > >
> > > >As for God having a body of flesh and bone (since the
> >resurrection),
> >is
> > > >there any Christian who can reasonably think he does not have one
> > > >considering what Jesus said about his resurrected body of flesh and
> >bone?
> > > >Is not the basis of Christian belief that Jesus was and remains a
> > > >resurrected being, consisting of a body of flesh and bone?   And if
> >Jesus
> > > >is God, why would a Christian today n

Re: [TruthTalk] Belief

Not really, Dave. I am tired of trying to reason with you. I am done for a 
while.

From: Dave Hansen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Reply-To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org
To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Belief
Date: Sat, 25 Jun 2005 13:23:50 -0700

DAVEH:   My memory is failing me on this Perry.  Did you give me those 
references in the past week or two?  Or are you talking about many months 
ago?  Would you mind posting them again, please?  Maybe it will jog my 
memory.

Charles Perry Locke wrote:

For example the word 'god'. Dave asked me if I could find any verses in 
the Bible that indicate that God does not have a body of flesh and bones. 
To me that means 'the Father' automatically. I used "the Trinity" when 
talking about all three together. I gave him several referencesl.

--
~~~
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] Belief

DAVEH:   My memory is failing me on this Perry.  Did you give me those 
references in the past week or two?  Or are you talking about many 
months ago?  Would you mind posting them again, please?  Maybe it will 
jog my memory.


Charles Perry Locke wrote:

For example the word 'god'. Dave asked me if I could find any verses 
in the Bible that indicate that God does not have a body of flesh and 
bones. To me that means 'the Father' automatically. I used "the 
Trinity" when talking about all three together. I gave him several 
referencesl.





--
~~~
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] Belief


Lancey,

The context has changed from our previous discussions, lance. previously 
Dave has alwayss discussed from the viewpoint of his mormon views...but now 
we are discussing strictly in the context of the Bible. Combine that with 
the fact that often the words Christians traditionally use mean different 
things when mormons use them, and we have a problem.


For example the word 'god'. Dave asked me if I could find any verses in the 
Bible that indicate that God does not have a body of flesh and bones. To me 
that means 'the Father' automatically. I used "the Trinity" when talking 
about all three together. I gave him several referencesl. Then he comes back 
with  the fact that jesus jad a body after resurrection and he thought 
Christians believed that.


WAIT A MINUTE! When Dave says 'god' he can be talking about the father, or 
jesus, or the holy spirit, since all three are separate gods to him! I am 
just tying to find out in which context he is using the term 'god' so we can 
continue. This kind of word play goes on continually when mormons re-define 
the words, and when discussing rekigion with mormons, one must CONTINUALLY 
be on the alert for redefined words.


Good night, Lancey.


From: "Lance Muir" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Reply-To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org
To: 
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Belief
Date: Sat, 25 Jun 2005 14:25:15 -0400

Say goodnight, Gracie!! Is this a comedy routine? Given that you two have
been discussing the content of Mormon theology since Joseph Smith was 
alive,

it amazes me that you know so little concerning one another's actual
beliefs.


- Original Message -
From: "Charles Perry Locke" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: 
Sent: June 25, 2005 14:11
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Belief


>We are mixing apples and oranges, Dave.
>
>Jesus does have a resurrected body, but the God Father is Spirit...
that
> is, He ain't got no body.
>
>Didn't you tell me in a previous post that we woud discuss these 
things
> based on the Bible? And, didn't you ask if I thought God (the Father) 
had

a
> body of flesh and bones, and ask for Biblical evidence that he did not? 
I

> posted several verses that indicate that He does not.
>
>Now for the difference in our viewpoints. You imagine that god (the
> father) has a body since he was once a man, right? however, there is no
> biblical verses to support that position...in fact, there are verses, as 
I

> pointed out, that indicate the complete opposite.
>
>When I say 'God' I usually mean "the Father", but sometimes mean the
> triune God. I will try to distinguish which I mean, if it is not evident
> from the context.
>
>Now, when you say 'God', are you referring to the Father, Jesus, the
Holy
> Spirit, any of the three, or all three?
>
> Perry
>
> >From: Dave Hansen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> >
> >DAVEH:  DavidM's beliefs are reflected in his understanding of the word
of
> >God as revealed in the Bible.  My beliefs are based in LDS theology,
which
> >recognizes a much broader spectrum of the revealed word of God.  
SoI

> >see his presumptions as being based on a narrower database than mine.
> >
> >As for God having a body of flesh and bone (since the 
resurrection),

is
> >there any Christian who can reasonably think he does not have one
> >considering what Jesus said about his resurrected body of flesh and 
bone?

> >Is not the basis of Christian belief that Jesus was and remains a
> >resurrected being, consisting of a body of flesh and bone?   And if 
Jesus
> >is God, why would a Christian today not think God now has a body of 
flesh
> >and bone, even though he was correctly identified as having a spirit 
body

> >in the OT?
> >
> >This puzzles me, Perry.  I see that the Bible teaches the above, 
and

> >logically I assume Christians would agree with what I explained above.
Yet
> >I suspect there are very few Christians who would agree with what I 
wrote

> >above.   Which way do you come down on this?
> >
>
>
> --
> "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 ema

Re: [TruthTalk] Belief

2005-06-25 Thread Lance Muir

Say goodnight, Gracie!! Is this a comedy routine? Given that you two have
been discussing the content of Mormon theology since Joseph Smith was alive,
it amazes me that you know so little concerning one another's actual
beliefs.


- Original Message - 
From: "Charles Perry Locke" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: 
Sent: June 25, 2005 14:11
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Belief


>We are mixing apples and oranges, Dave.
>
>Jesus does have a resurrected body, but the God Father is Spirit...
that
> is, He ain't got no body.
>
>Didn't you tell me in a previous post that we woud discuss these things
> based on the Bible? And, didn't you ask if I thought God (the Father) had
a
> body of flesh and bones, and ask for Biblical evidence that he did not? I
> posted several verses that indicate that He does not.
>
>Now for the difference in our viewpoints. You imagine that god (the
> father) has a body since he was once a man, right? however, there is no
> biblical verses to support that position...in fact, there are verses, as I
> pointed out, that indicate the complete opposite.
>
>When I say 'God' I usually mean "the Father", but sometimes mean the
> triune God. I will try to distinguish which I mean, if it is not evident
> from the context.
>
>Now, when you say 'God', are you referring to the Father, Jesus, the
Holy
> Spirit, any of the three, or all three?
>
> Perry
>
> >From: Dave Hansen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> >
> >DAVEH:  DavidM's beliefs are reflected in his understanding of the word
of
> >God as revealed in the Bible.  My beliefs are based in LDS theology,
which
> >recognizes a much broader spectrum of the revealed word of God.  SoI
> >see his presumptions as being based on a narrower database than mine.
> >
> >As for God having a body of flesh and bone (since the resurrection),
is
> >there any Christian who can reasonably think he does not have one
> >considering what Jesus said about his resurrected body of flesh and bone?
> >Is not the basis of Christian belief that Jesus was and remains a
> >resurrected being, consisting of a body of flesh and bone?   And if Jesus
> >is God, why would a Christian today not think God now has a body of flesh
> >and bone, even though he was correctly identified as having a spirit body
> >in the OT?
> >
> >This puzzles me, Perry.  I see that the Bible teaches the above, and
> >logically I assume Christians would agree with what I explained above.
Yet
> >I suspect there are very few Christians who would agree with what I wrote
> >above.   Which way do you come down on this?
> >
>
>
> --
> "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] Belief


  We are mixing apples and oranges, Dave.

  Jesus does have a resurrected body, but the God Father is Spirit... that 
is, He ain't got no body.


  Didn't you tell me in a previous post that we woud discuss these things 
based on the Bible? And, didn't you ask if I thought God (the Father) had a 
body of flesh and bones, and ask for Biblical evidence that he did not? I 
posted several verses that indicate that He does not.


  Now for the difference in our viewpoints. You imagine that god (the 
father) has a body since he was once a man, right? however, there is no 
biblical verses to support that position...in fact, there are verses, as I 
pointed out, that indicate the complete opposite.


  When I say 'God' I usually mean "the Father", but sometimes mean the 
triune God. I will try to distinguish which I mean, if it is not evident 
from the context.


  Now, when you say 'God', are you referring to the Father, Jesus, the Holy 
Spirit, any of the three, or all three?


Perry


From: Dave Hansen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>

DAVEH:  DavidM's beliefs are reflected in his understanding of the word of 
God as revealed in the Bible.  My beliefs are based in LDS theology, which 
recognizes a much broader spectrum of the revealed word of God.  SoI 
see his presumptions as being based on a narrower database than mine.


   As for God having a body of flesh and bone (since the resurrection), is 
there any Christian who can reasonably think he does not have one 
considering what Jesus said about his resurrected body of flesh and bone?  
Is not the basis of Christian belief that Jesus was and remains a 
resurrected being, consisting of a body of flesh and bone?   And if Jesus 
is God, why would a Christian today not think God now has a body of flesh 
and bone, even though he was correctly identified as having a spirit body 
in the OT?


   This puzzles me, Perry.  I see that the Bible teaches the above, and 
logically I assume Christians would agree with what I explained above.  Yet 
I suspect there are very few Christians who would agree with what I wrote 
above.   Which way do you come down on this?





--
"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] Belief

DAVEH:  DavidM's beliefs are reflected in his understanding of the word 
of God as revealed in the Bible.  My beliefs are based in LDS theology, 
which recognizes a much broader spectrum of the revealed word of God.  
SoI see his presumptions as being based on a narrower database than 
mine.


   As for God having a body of flesh and bone (since the resurrection), 
is there any Christian who can reasonably think he does not have one 
considering what Jesus said about his resurrected body of flesh and 
bone?  Is not the basis of Christian belief that Jesus was and remains a 
resurrected being, consisting of a body of flesh and bone?   And if 
Jesus is God, why would a Christian today not think God now has a body 
of flesh and bone, even though he was correctly identified as having a 
spirit body in the OT?


   This puzzles me, Perry.  I see that the Bible teaches the above, and 
logically I assume Christians would agree with what I explained above.  
Yet I suspect there are very few Christians who would agree with what I 
wrote above.   Which way do you come down on this?




Charles Perry Locke wrote:


Dave,

DAVEH:  That's an interesting perspective, DavidM.  Since there is 
not a lot of detail explained about his life prior to his baptism, I 
wonder if you aren't presupposing his ability to do miracles simply 
because none are recorded.



Dave, is the above statement logically the same as saying: "Since 
there is [no] detail explained about [God having a body of flesh and 
bones] , I wonder if you aren't presupposing his [body of flesh and 
bones] simply because [it is not] recorded." ?


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] Belief

DAVEH: DangI wish you hadn't truncated the previous postnow
I've got to dig it out to respond.
:-)

The Mormon church tries to maintain 12 apostles, which I see as
contrary to the New Testament.

DAVEH: The Church maintains a quorum of 12. However, there are at least 3 other apostles beyond that quorum of 12. IOWThe total number of apostles is not fixed at 12.

It fails to recognize the distinctive nature
of the twelve apostles in Scripture and their eternal governmental position,

DAVEH: The original apostles do hold special consideration in LDS theology. At the same time (well, after Jesus' resurrection) 12 special disciples were chosen in the America's similar to the 12 apostles in the Holy Land. However, the second set of disciples were never referred to as apostles as were the original apostles. Also...we consider Peter, James and John of the original apostles to special significance in the eternal realm. Much of that is covered in the Temple ceremony, and I don't wish to elaborate for reasons I think you understand.

I also think that the definition of apostle can vary to describe several paradigms.

and it fails to recognize the continuation of apostles beyond 12 as
exemplified by men like Paul, Barnabas, Silas, etc.

DAVEH: We do recognize the additional apostles of the Bible. I
believe they were replacements for the apostles who were killed. The
problem became one of replacing them as fast as they were being
eliminated, with travel and communication being a bit slower than what
we are used to today.

David Miller wrote:

DaveH wrote:
> Your above three assumptions are incorrect.
I would appreciate some clarification. Your church's
establishment of 12 apostles always seems to have bothered me as being
something that preys upon the unlearned. If I have misunderstood it,
please instruct me about it. Thanks.
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] Belief


Dave,

DAVEH:  That's an interesting perspective, DavidM.  Since there is not a 
lot of detail explained about his life prior to his baptism, I wonder if 
you aren't presupposing his ability to do miracles simply because none are 
recorded.


Dave, is the above statement logically the same as saying: "Since there is 
[no] detail explained about [God having a body of flesh and bones] , I 
wonder if you aren't presupposing his [body of flesh and bones] simply 
because [it is not] recorded." ?


Perry


--
"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] Belief





DAVEH:  That's an interesting perspective, DavidM.  Since there is not
a lot of detail explained about his life prior to his baptism, I wonder
if you aren't presupposing his ability to do miracles simply because
none are recorded.  

    Do you believe not Jesus was anointed to be the Messiah prior to
his coming to the earth?  If so, was that anointing not in effect prior
to his baptism?

David Miller wrote:

  DaveH wrote:
  
  
As I understand what you are saying, you do not believe
Jesus was God during his brief time on earth?  That
doesn't seem right to me, but if that is how most Christians
believe, I'd appreciate you confirming it.

  
  
No, Dave, you are misunderstanding me.  I believe he was God during his 
brief time on earth, but he had set aside some of the glory he had as God in 
order to become flesh and blood like you and me.  I do not believe that the 
miracles he performed were done as God per se, but as the Scriptures say, as 
a man anointed by the Holy Ghost.  We read of no miracles being done by him 
prior to his being baptized and the Holy Ghost descending upon him.

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] Belief

Dave,

  Here is the Google definition you sent.

  "Anti-Mormonism is an overt opposition to Mormonism, often specifically 
to Mormonism's largest and most prominent sect, The Church of Jesus Christ 
of Latter-day Saints ("LDS Church"; see also Mormon). Anti-Mormon activities 
range from reasoned arguments (often references to Archeology or the Bible) 
to scathing expos s and public protests"

  Read the first sentence. This is what I have been saying all along. 
"Anti-Mormonism is an overt opposition to Mormonism".

  "Anti-mormon" is a misnomer when applied to me. Now, if I was against, or 
hated, or wished ill upon MORMONS, then I would consider myself anti-mormon, 
but I am not, and I do not have to accept that label if it does not appliy 
to me.

  Example: Do you agree with the homosexual lifestyle? That it is wholesome 
and acceptable? If not, you may be a HOMOPHOBE! Do you fear homosexuality? 
Probably not, even though you may not agree with the lifestyle. A Phobia ia 
an irrational fear of something, in this case homosexuals. You see, it is a 
misnomer. It's purpose is to cast those that disagree with that lifestyle 
into a castigated group. I do not agree with the homosexual lifestyle, but I 
am not a homophobe any more than I am an anti-mormon. I am anti-mormonism, 
not anti-mormon.

  Do you understand the difference? Do you use the word "homophobe" to 
label those who do not agree with the homosexual lifestyle? Are you a 
homophobe? Don't accept labels that mis-represent your beliefs, David.

  You can continue to call me anti-mormon if you wish, but you are labeling 
me incorrectly when you do so. If you do so, I will know it is intentionally 
to antagonize me with a lebel that does not apply. But, if you want to say I 
am anti-mormonism, then you will be accurate. What is it to you to put 3 
letters at the end to make it "ism"? Is is the difference between trying to 
antagonize the sutuation v. being accurate. You choose.

  And yes, you did tell me that mormons coined the term "anti-mormon" for 
those that are against mormonism. That is no different than the homosexuals 
coining the term "homophobe" to describe those that disagree with their 
lifestyle. It's purpose is not to be accurate...it is to inflame (so to 
speak).

Perry

From: Dave Hansen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Reply-To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org
To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Belief
Date: Sat, 25 Jun 2005 01:32:34 -0700

Charles Perry Locke wrote:

Dave,

And who defined "anti-mormon" to mean "anti-mormonsim"? You said the  
mormons did.

DAVEH:  I did???  Are you sure about that, Perry?  I don't recall saying 
such, but it is pretty synonymous, IMO.   Have you ever googled *DEFINE 
ANTI-MORMON*?

<http://www.google.com/search?q=define%3AAnti-Mormon&btnG=Search&hl=en&lr=&biw=>

That is no different than any other word they have redefined for their own 
purposes.

DAVEH:  From the google definition, it appears you are the one trying to 
redefine it, Perry. Why does it bother you that as an anti-Mormonism, you 
also meet the definition of anti-Mormon???

Perry

From: Dave Hansen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Reply-To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org
To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Belief
Date: Fri, 24 Jun 2005 17:43:35 -0700

*
This is the problem with the dual meanings that mormons assign to 
words...they don't mean what they used to mean. So, we can talk all day 
with them about soiritual matters and we think that they are in agreement 
with us, when really the words mean something different to them. Like the 
Queen of Hearts said, "When I use a word it means exactly what I want it 
to mean!" *

DAVEH:   I have chatted with DavidM enough to know what he believes (or 
should I say doesn't believe) about the pre-mortal existence of our 
spirits, just as he explained to you in a parallel post today Perry.   
But I do find it amusing that you continue to criticize Mormons for 
having dual meanings when you do the same thing with the term 
*anti-Mormon.*

Charles Perry Locke wrote:

> DAVEH wrote:
> May I presume you believe free agency existed in the pre-mortal 
existence?

DavidM responded: Yes.

Perry cautioned:

David, be careful here. When a mormon says "pre-mortal existence" I 
believe they mean a little more than you may know. To the mormon I 
believe that to say "pre-mortal existence" refers to the existence of 
jesus, satan, you, me, and all other humans in a pre-mortal spiritual 
state as spiritual siblings, whereas, I believe that you may think of 
the premortal state as being prior to the time Adam was created.

Essentially, you just agreed with the sly ol' mormon boy that prior to 
your being born into a body (pre-mortal state), you believe you had fr

Re: [TruthTalk] Belief

2005-06-25 Thread David Miller

DaveH wrote:
> As I understand what you are saying, you do not believe
> Jesus was God during his brief time on earth?  That
> doesn't seem right to me, but if that is how most Christians
> believe, I'd appreciate you confirming it.

No, Dave, you are misunderstanding me.  I believe he was God during his 
brief time on earth, but he had set aside some of the glory he had as God in 
order to become flesh and blood like you and me.  I do not believe that the 
miracles he performed were done as God per se, but as the Scriptures say, as 
a man anointed by the Holy Ghost.  We read of no miracles being done by him 
prior to his being baptized and the Holy Ghost descending upon him.

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: [TruthTalk] Belief

2005-06-25 Thread David Miller




DaveH wrote:
> Your above three assumptions are incorrect.
 
I would appreciate some clarification.  Your church's establishment of 
12 apostles always seems to have bothered me as being something that preys upon 
the unlearned.  If I have misunderstood it, please instruct me about 
it.  Thanks.
 
Peace be with you.David Miller.

Re: [TruthTalk] Belief

2005-06-25 Thread Lance Muir

Now David! 'Moderate' yourself! I believe you to know that he does not mean
the RCC but, the CC (church catholic). He is speaking of the 'substance of
the faith'. Further, like it or not David, you, along with most of TT, are a
participant in the CC.

Ditto! We now find you espousing this little 'house church' thingy of yours.
Pursue it with gusto, David! However the CC sees this HC thingy as a subset
within the CC. Agreed?

Ditto! The 'handbook', as you call it, is Scripture. Might I assume that you
esteem The Constitution of your US more highly than those documents coming
out of Nicea or Chalcedon? (I've not failed to note your political 'bent'.)



- Original Message - 
From: "David Miller" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: 
Sent: June 25, 2005 07:45
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Belief


> Bill wrote:
> > The word "heresy" is typically used to a demarcate a
> > variance away from the formally established beliefs
> > or teachings of the Church.
>
> The Church?  What is that?  Do you mean the Roman Catholic Church?
>
> Bill wrote:
> > It is possible, I believe, for one to be a heretic in the eyes
> > of the Church and not so in God's eyes; however, I also
> > believe it is Christ who has preserved the Church throughout
> > the centuries over against attack from the tyrants.
>
> Again, by "Church" do you mean the Roman Catholic Church?
>
> I have trouble seeing where Christ preserved any "Church."  The Scriptures
> speak of churches that he preserves or takes away.  In Revelation, we see
an
> image of Christ in relationship to seven churches.  This relationship is
> tenuous and Christ threatens to remove one church while he commends and
> encourages another church.
>
> Bill wrote:
> > To stand in opposition to the official teachings of
> > Orthodoxy, therefore, should not be done or taken
> > lightly.
>
> Where can I find the official teachings of Orthodoxy?  Is there a list or
> handbook somewhere?  I'm trying to understand what you have in mind when
you
> speak of "Church" and "Orthodoxy."  This sounds like what the Roman Empire
> created in Roman Catholicism and what Protestant Denominations attempt to
> perpetuate separately from Roman Catholicism, not what Jesus created.
>
> Bill wrote:
> > if entrance into heaven is predicated upon right and only
> > right thinking, then I suppose heaven will be a mighty lonely
> > place.
>
> I agree with you here, but right thinking leads to right relationships and
> loving rightly whereas wrong thinking leads to wrong relationships and not
> being perfect in love.  I would say that not all forms of thinking impact
> love as much as others, and hence, this leads to your correct statement
> above.
>
> Let's consider the Trinity.  Must one believe in the Trinity to be saved?
I
> would say no.  What about you?  I have known non-Trinitarians who I
believe
> have the spirit of God, walk in love, abide in the teachings of Christ,
and
> are, therefore, saved.  What do you think?  Is this kind of depature from
> "orthodoxy" acceptable in your eyes?
>
> 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] Belief

2005-06-25 Thread David Miller

Bill wrote:
> The word "heresy" is typically used to a demarcate a
> variance away from the formally established beliefs
> or teachings of the Church.

The Church?  What is that?  Do you mean the Roman Catholic Church?

Bill wrote:
> It is possible, I believe, for one to be a heretic in the eyes
> of the Church and not so in God's eyes; however, I also
> believe it is Christ who has preserved the Church throughout
> the centuries over against attack from the tyrants.

Again, by "Church" do you mean the Roman Catholic Church?

I have trouble seeing where Christ preserved any "Church."  The Scriptures 
speak of churches that he preserves or takes away.  In Revelation, we see an 
image of Christ in relationship to seven churches.  This relationship is 
tenuous and Christ threatens to remove one church while he commends and 
encourages another church.

Bill wrote:
> To stand in opposition to the official teachings of
> Orthodoxy, therefore, should not be done or taken
> lightly.

Where can I find the official teachings of Orthodoxy?  Is there a list or 
handbook somewhere?  I'm trying to understand what you have in mind when you 
speak of "Church" and "Orthodoxy."  This sounds like what the Roman Empire 
created in Roman Catholicism and what Protestant Denominations attempt to 
perpetuate separately from Roman Catholicism, not what Jesus created.

Bill wrote:
> if entrance into heaven is predicated upon right and only
> right thinking, then I suppose heaven will be a mighty lonely
> place.

I agree with you here, but right thinking leads to right relationships and 
loving rightly whereas wrong thinking leads to wrong relationships and not 
being perfect in love.  I would say that not all forms of thinking impact 
love as much as others, and hence, this leads to your correct statement 
above.

Let's consider the Trinity.  Must one believe in the Trinity to be saved?  I 
would say no.  What about you?  I have known non-Trinitarians who I believe 
have the spirit of God, walk in love, abide in the teachings of Christ, and 
are, therefore, saved.  What do you think?  Is this kind of depature from 
"orthodoxy" acceptable in your eyes?

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: [TruthTalk] Belief

Charles Perry Locke wrote:
Dave,

And who defined "anti-mormon" to mean "anti-mormonsim"? You said the 
mormons did.
DAVEH:  I did???  Are you sure about that, Perry?  I don't recall
saying such, but it is pretty synonymous, IMO.   Have you ever googled DEFINE
ANTI-MORMON?

 That is no different than any other word they have
redefined for their own purposes. 

DAVEH:  From the google definition, it appears you are the one trying
to redefine it, Perry. Why does it bother you that as an
anti-Mormonism, you also meet the definition of anti-Mormon???

Perry

  From: Dave Hansen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>

Reply-To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org

To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org

Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Belief

Date: Fri, 24 Jun 2005 17:43:35 -0700

*

This is the problem with the dual meanings that mormons assign to
words...they don't mean what they used to mean. So, we can talk all day
with them about soiritual matters and we think that they are in
agreement with us, when really the words mean something different to
them. Like the Queen of Hearts said, "When I use a word it means
exactly what I want it to mean!" *

DAVEH:   I have chatted with DavidM enough to know what he believes (or
should I say doesn't believe) about the pre-mortal existence of our
spirits, just as he explained to you in a parallel post today Perry.  
But I do find it amusing that you continue to criticize Mormons for
having dual meanings when you do the same thing with the term
*anti-Mormon.*

Charles Perry Locke wrote:

  > DAVEH wrote:

> May I presume you believe free agency existed in the pre-mortal
existence?

DavidM responded: Yes.

Perry cautioned:

David, be careful here. When a mormon says "pre-mortal existence" I
believe they mean a little more than you may know. To the mormon I
believe that to say "pre-mortal existence" refers to the existence of
jesus, satan, you, me, and all other humans in a pre-mortal spiritual
state as spiritual siblings, whereas, I believe that you may think of
the premortal state as being prior to the time Adam was created.

Essentially, you just agreed with the sly ol' mormon boy that prior to
your being born into a body (pre-mortal state), you believe you had
free agency, along with satan, jesus, and all of your myriad spiritual
siblings. Is that what you believe?

*

This is the problem with the dual meanings that mormons assign to
words...they don't mean what they used to mean. So, we can talk all day
with them about soiritual matters and we think that they are in
agreement with us, when really the words mean something different to
them. Like the Queen of Hearts said, "When I use a word it means
exactly what I want it to mean!" *

Perry

Re: [TruthTalk] Belief

Dave,

And who defined "anti-mormon" to mean "anti-mormonsim"? You said the  
mormons did. That is no different than any other word they have redefined 
for their own purposes.

Perry

From: Dave Hansen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Reply-To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org
To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Belief
Date: Fri, 24 Jun 2005 17:43:35 -0700

*
This is the problem with the dual meanings that mormons assign to 
words...they don't mean what they used to mean. So, we can talk all day 
with them about soiritual matters and we think that they are in agreement 
with us, when really the words mean something different to them. Like the 
Queen of Hearts said, "When I use a word it means exactly what I want it to 
mean!" *

DAVEH:   I have chatted with DavidM enough to know what he believes (or 
should I say doesn't believe) about the pre-mortal existence of our 
spirits, just as he explained to you in a parallel post today Perry.   But 
I do find it amusing that you continue to criticize Mormons for having dual 
meanings when you do the same thing with the term *anti-Mormon.*

Charles Perry Locke wrote:

> DAVEH wrote:
> May I presume you believe free agency existed in the pre-mortal 
existence?

DavidM responded: Yes.

Perry cautioned:

David, be careful here. When a mormon says "pre-mortal existence" I 
believe they mean a little more than you may know. To the mormon I believe 
that to say "pre-mortal existence" refers to the existence of jesus, 
satan, you, me, and all other humans in a pre-mortal spiritual state as 
spiritual siblings, whereas, I believe that you may think of the premortal 
state as being prior to the time Adam was created.

Essentially, you just agreed with the sly ol' mormon boy that prior to 
your being born into a body (pre-mortal state), you believe you had free 
agency, along with satan, jesus, and all of your myriad spiritual 
siblings. Is that what you believe?

*
This is the problem with the dual meanings that mormons assign to 
words...they don't mean what they used to mean. So, we can talk all day 
with them about soiritual matters and we think that they are in agreement 
with us, when really the words mean something different to them. Like the 
Queen of Hearts said, "When I use a word it means exactly what I want it 
to mean!" *

Perry

--
"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.

--
~~~
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] Belief

DAVEH: I think I fail to understand how you define God,
DavidM. As I understand what you are saying, you do not believe Jesus
was God during his brief time on earth? That doesn't seem right to me,
but if that is how most Christians believe, I'd appreciate you
confirming it.

David Miller wrote:

DAVEH:

May I presume you believe free agency existed
in the pre-mortal existence?

Yes.

DaveH wrote:

Hmm.That almost sounds like you are denying
Jesus had the power to heal the blind, raise the dead and
do a multitude of other miracles on his own. Are you
suggesting that as a mortal, Jesus did not have the power
to do such without the assistance of angels???

The power for miracles which he had came to him as a man anointed by God,
not as God. His apostles and the seventy that he anointed also performed
miracles in the same way. They were doing them not as God, but as men
anointed by God. Jesus performed miracles as a man anointed with the Holy
Ghost, and he promised that those who believed in him would do the same
miracles and greater miracles.

Acts 10:38
(38) How God anointed Jesus of Nazareth with the Holy Ghost and with power:
who went about doing good, and healing all that were oppressed of the devil;
for God was with him.

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

--
~~~
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] Belief






 The Mormon church tries to maintain 12 apostles, which I see as 
contrary to the New Testament.  It fails to recognize the distinctive nature 
of the twelve apostles in Scripture and their eternal governmental position, 
and it fails to recognize the continuation of apostles beyond 12 as 
exemplified by men like Paul, Barnabas, Silas, etc.

DAVEH:   Thank you for your rather detailed explanation.   BTWYour
above three assumptions are incorrect.

David Miller wrote:

  DaveH wrote:
  
  
IF Matthias' name is engraven on the foundation of apostles,
then why would not Paul and Barnabas' names be there as well?

  
  
The twelve have a special governmental role that other apostles do not. 
Other than Judas being replaced by Matthias, the twelve were never 
"replaced" as they died off.  Consider the following passages in regards to 
this idea:

Matthew 19:28
(28) And Jesus said unto them, Verily I say unto you, That ye which have 
followed me, in the regeneration when the Son of man shall sit in the throne 
of his glory, ye also shall sit upon twelve thrones, judging the twelve 
tribes of Israel.

Luke 22:28-30
(28) Ye are they which have continued with me in my temptations.
(29) And I appoint unto you a kingdom, as my Father hath appointed unto me;
(30) That ye may eat and drink at my table in my kingdom, and sit on thrones 
judging the twelve tribes of Israel.

Revelation 21:14
(14) And the wall of the city had twelve foundations, and in them the names 
of the twelve apostles of the Lamb.

If you look carefully at the following passage from 1 Cor. 15, you will see 
how "The Twelve" are spoken about separately from other apostles, including 
James the Lord's brother (who wrote the book of James we have in our Bible) 
and the apostle Paul.

1 Corinthians 15:3-9
(3) For I delivered unto you first of all that which I also received, how 
that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures;
(4) And that he was buried, and that he rose again the third day according 
to the scriptures:
(5) And that he was seen of Cephas, then of the twelve:
(6) After that, he was seen of above five hundred brethren at once; of whom 
the greater part remain unto this present, but some are fallen asleep.
(7) After that, he was seen of James; then of all the apostles.
(8) And last of all he was seen of me also, as of one born out of due time.
(9) For I am the least of the apostles, that am not meet to be called an 
apostle, because I persecuted the church of God.

There are as many as 24 apostles listed in the New Testament if certain 
assumptions are made and we include Jesus himself.  There were probably many 
more than that in that Jesus commended the Ephesian church for testing false 
apostles.  The Mormon church tries to maintain 12 apostles, which I see as 
contrary to the New Testament.  It fails to recognize the distinctive nature 
of the twelve apostles in Scripture and their eternal governmental position, 
and it fails to recognize the continuation of apostles beyond 12 as 
exemplified by men like Paul, Barnabas, Silas, etc.

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] Belief





DAVEH:   Do you believe salvation is the only requirement for entrance
to heaven, Bill?   (BTWI would be most interested to hear the
thoughts of other TTers on this as well.)

Bill Taylor wrote:

  
  
  


 
A very wise friend of mine is keen on
opining that there will be many Christians
who hold grossly heretical beliefs, who upon their passing will
nevertheless find themselves securely in heaven. I agree with him: if
entrance into heaven is predicated upon right and only right thinking,
then I suppose heaven will be a mighty lonely place.

 
Bill





  


-- 
~~~
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] Belief

2005-06-24 Thread Bill Taylor

Sure, John: BT in read
below.

- Original Message -

From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org

Sent: Thursday, June
23, 2005 4:11 PM
Subject: Re:
[TruthTalk] Belief

Bill T: Would you mind offering an opinion. Dave makes
some very good points, below.
JD

if we share in some misconceptions about
Christ, and I think we do, what effect does this have on a
soverign being full of grace and patience and love?
DAVEH: As I see it, out perceptions, actions and thoughts
have no effect with Jesus' grace and sovereignity. They merely affect
the distance we situate ourselves from him. If he is the center of
truth, the less we have, the further we will find ourselves from him.
I can agree with this -- for the most part. The
"distance" that DaveH mentions, IMO, is only a perceived distance, and
not an actual one: Colossians 1 states that we (cf. "all things") are
in Christ. The "gap" between God and humanity is therefore but a construct of
our fallen minds.
Judy denies that Jesus is the eternal Son of God. Why
should I not consider her to be a heretic?
DAVEH: Perhaps because you may have enough of your own
heretical leanings to worry about before you should worry about others'
perceived misconceptions.
The word "heresy" is typically used to a
demarcate a variance away from the formally established beliefs or
teachings of the Church. It is possible, I believe, for one to be a
heretic in the eyes of the Church and not so in God's eyes; however, I also
believe it is Christ who has preserved the Church throughout the centuries
over against attack from the tyrants. To stand in opposition to the official
teachings of Orthodoxy, therefore, should not be done or taken lightly. In
other words, some serious study is in order on our parts to understand the
why's of these doctrines, before we ought even begin to consider jettisoning
them.
A very wise friend of mine is keen on
opining that there will be many Christians who hold grossly heretical beliefs, who upon their
passing will nevertheless find themselves securely in heaven. I agree with
him: if entrance into heaven is predicated upon right and only right thinking,
then I suppose heaven will be a mighty lonely place.
Bill

Re: [TruthTalk] Belief

DaveH wrote:
> IF Matthias' name is engraven on the foundation of apostles,
> then why would not Paul and Barnabas' names be there as well?

The twelve have a special governmental role that other apostles do not. 
Other than Judas being replaced by Matthias, the twelve were never 
"replaced" as they died off.  Consider the following passages in regards to 
this idea:

Matthew 19:28
(28) And Jesus said unto them, Verily I say unto you, That ye which have 
followed me, in the regeneration when the Son of man shall sit in the throne 
of his glory, ye also shall sit upon twelve thrones, judging the twelve 
tribes of Israel.

Luke 22:28-30
(28) Ye are they which have continued with me in my temptations.
(29) And I appoint unto you a kingdom, as my Father hath appointed unto me;
(30) That ye may eat and drink at my table in my kingdom, and sit on thrones 
judging the twelve tribes of Israel.

Revelation 21:14
(14) And the wall of the city had twelve foundations, and in them the names 
of the twelve apostles of the Lamb.

If you look carefully at the following passage from 1 Cor. 15, you will see 
how "The Twelve" are spoken about separately from other apostles, including 
James the Lord's brother (who wrote the book of James we have in our Bible) 
and the apostle Paul.

1 Corinthians 15:3-9
(3) For I delivered unto you first of all that which I also received, how 
that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures;
(4) And that he was buried, and that he rose again the third day according 
to the scriptures:
(5) And that he was seen of Cephas, then of the twelve:
(6) After that, he was seen of above five hundred brethren at once; of whom 
the greater part remain unto this present, but some are fallen asleep.
(7) After that, he was seen of James; then of all the apostles.
(8) And last of all he was seen of me also, as of one born out of due time.
(9) For I am the least of the apostles, that am not meet to be called an 
apostle, because I persecuted the church of God.

There are as many as 24 apostles listed in the New Testament if certain 
assumptions are made and we include Jesus himself.  There were probably many 
more than that in that Jesus commended the Ephesian church for testing false 
apostles.  The Mormon church tries to maintain 12 apostles, which I see as 
contrary to the New Testament.  It fails to recognize the distinctive nature 
of the twelve apostles in Scripture and their eternal governmental position, 
and it fails to recognize the continuation of apostles beyond 12 as 
exemplified by men like Paul, Barnabas, Silas, etc.

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: [TruthTalk] Belief

  -Original Message-From: Dave Hansen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgSent: Fri, 24 Jun 2005 17:24:05 -0700Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Belief

DAVEH:   I should probably wait for the Bishop to explain himself on this, but IF Matthias' name is engraven on the foundation of apostles, then why would not Paul and Barnabas' names be there as well?    I explain myself with Rev. 21:14.   
 BTW...I'm not doubting your explanation, DavidM.  I'm just trying to figure out why John wants to limit the apostles to just 12.  To me it seems that there was no restriction to just the original 12.err13.   As some died, were they not replaced?   I believe something like 16 men are named as being "apostles"...in the biblical message.  None of the "extras" replaced anyone, that I am aware of.   When they died, they were not replaced  --  that I know of.  Judas is of no consequence to me in this regard.   His replacement proves nothing to me  --  except that the initial grouping  --  the Twelve Apostles  - had consideration in the mind of God.   I am not emotionally vested in this --  I am only making the biblical point as I see it  --  the 12 were considered in a distnct and unique way.&
nbsp;   David Miller wrote: 

DAVEH:  
> Then who is the 12th apostle whose name you say 
> is engraven in the foundation?  

Matthias, of course (Acts 1).

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] Belief


  -Original Message-From: Dave Hansen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgSent: Fri, 24 Jun 2005 13:40:24 -0700Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Belief


[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: 



DAVEH:   Thanx for your explanation, John.  Do you believe we have prophets in the church today as well?    
 
Certainly but they are not in the church for the purpose of giving new revelation  ("scripture" if you will).  They have enough to do, I suppose, as they function in consequence of such passages as Eph 4:11-16.   I do know that the prophets that speak in our church (my wife and I) speak to the purposes implicit with a  "ministry of reconciliation."  
 
DAVEH:   Please clarify.are you and your wife the prophets to whom you are referring?
Each of us have been used to share "a word" but -- outside of that -  we do not considerourselves prophets at all.   In a word  -- my answer is "no."  
 









 
As important as Paul is, he is not one of the 12.   The Chruch of Jesus Christ was founded on the work and mission of the original 12 and their names appear on the 12 foundation stones in The City from Heaven for that very reason.   I do not confuse Paul and Barnabas with the 12.  That they share in this foundational ministry is undeniable, however.   This foundational ministry has been accomplished !!  The church, in all it's imperfectons, is 2000 years old.   The extended ministry is not one of a foundational nature but one of reconciliation  -  to which we have all been called (II Cor 5:18).  
 
DAVEH:   ???   Are you suggesting Judas was more important as an apostle than Paul?  Is Judas' name engraved on the foundation, and there is no room for subsequent others?
 
No  -  Judas lost himself to the cause of Christ.   His ministry was assigned a replacement (Acts 1).   He did not received the Great Commission given to the others.   He is of no consequence when it comes to the foundational work of the 12. 
DAVEH:  Then who is the 12th apostle whose name you say is engraven in the foundation?  Ordid you just misspeak when you said 12, and meant 11 instead?
 
 Acts 1  -- the closing verses, will give you that answer   --   Matthias I believe.      






Judas did not live long  enough  to receive the Commission of the Twelve nor the victory that rose up from his own betrayal.of course. 
 
DAVEH:   Sowould his name be engraved with the other eleven?  I do not think so.  

-- 
~~~
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] Belief

This is the problem with the dual meanings that mormons assign to
words...they don't mean what they used to mean. So, we can talk all day
with them about soiritual matters and we think that they are in
agreement with us, when really the words mean something different to
them. Like the Queen of Hearts said, "When I use a word it means
exactly what I want it to mean!"

DAVEH:   I have chatted with DavidM enough to know what he believes (or
should I say doesn't believe) about the pre-mortal existence of our
spirits, just as he explained to you in a parallel post today Perry.  
But I do find it amusing that you continue to criticize Mormons for
having dual meanings when you do the same thing with the term anti-Mormon.

Charles Perry Locke wrote:

  > DAVEH wrote:

> May I presume you believe free agency existed in the pre-mortal
existence?

DavidM responded: Yes.

Perry cautioned:

David, be careful here. When a mormon says "pre-mortal existence" I
believe they mean a little more than you may know. To the mormon I
believe that to say "pre-mortal existence" refers to the existence of
jesus, satan, you, me, and all other humans in a pre-mortal spiritual
state as spiritual siblings, whereas, I believe that you may think of
the premortal state as being prior to the time Adam was created.

Essentially, you just agreed with the sly ol' mormon boy that prior to
your being born into a body (pre-mortal state), you believe you had
free agency, along with satan, jesus, and all of your myriad spiritual
siblings. Is that what you believe?

This is the problem with the dual meanings that mormons assign to
words...they don't mean what they used to mean. So, we can talk all day
with them about soiritual matters and we think that they are in
agreement with us, when really the words mean something different to
them. Like the Queen of Hearts said, "When I use a word it means
exactly what I want it to mean!"

Perry

--

"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.

-- 
~~~
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] Belief

2005-06-24 Thread Charles Perry Locke

Acts 1 will describe why and how they picked Matthias.

From: Dave Hansen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Reply-To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org
To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Belief
Date: Fri, 24 Jun 2005 17:24:05 -0700

DAVEH:   I should probably wait for the Bishop to explain himself on this, 
but IF Matthias' name is engraven on the foundation of apostles, then why 
would not Paul and Barnabas' names be there as well?

   BTW...I'm not doubting your explanation, DavidM.  I'm just trying to 
figure out why John wants to limit the apostles to just 12.  To me it seems 
that there was no restriction to just the original 12.err13.   
As some died, were they not replaced?

David Miller wrote:

DAVEH: > Then who is the 12th apostle whose name you say
> is engraven in the foundation?  Matthias, of course (Acts 1).
 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.

--
"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] Belief

DAVEH:   I should probably wait for the Bishop to explain himself on
this, but IF Matthias' name is engraven on the foundation of apostles,
then why would not Paul and Barnabas' names be there as well?   

    BTW...I'm not doubting your explanation, DavidM.  I'm just trying
to figure out why John wants to limit the apostles to just 12.  To me
it seems that there was no restriction to just the original
12.err13.   As some died, were they not replaced?

David Miller wrote:

  DAVEH:  
  > Then who is the 12th apostle whose name you say 
  > is engraven in the foundation?  

  Matthias, of course (Acts 1).

  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] Belief

Perry wrote:
> Essentially, you just agreed with the sly ol'
> mormon boy that prior to your being born into
> a body (pre-mortal state), you believe you had
> free agency, along with satan, jesus, and all of
> your myriad spiritual siblings. Is that what you
> believe?

No, but I think Dave understands that I do not believe that I existed prior 
to my mortal existence.  I only agreed that free agency existed among the 
angels, Lucifer, Jesus, etc.

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: [TruthTalk] Belief




DAVEH:  
> Then who is the 12th apostle whose name you say 
> is engraven in the foundation?  
 
Matthias, of course (Acts 1).
 
Peace be with you.David Miller.

Re: [TruthTalk] Belief

2005-06-24 Thread Charles Perry Locke

> DAVEH wrote:
> May I presume you believe free agency existed in the pre-mortal 
existence?

DavidM responded: Yes.

Perry cautioned:

David, be careful here. When a mormon says "pre-mortal existence" I believe 
they mean a little more than you may know. To the mormon I believe that to 
say "pre-mortal existence" refers to the existence of jesus, satan, you, me, 
and all other humans in a pre-mortal spiritual state as spiritual siblings, 
whereas, I believe that you may think of the premortal state as being prior 
to the time Adam was created.

Essentially, you just agreed with the sly ol' mormon boy that prior to your 
being born into a body (pre-mortal state), you believe you had free agency, 
along with satan, jesus, and all of your myriad spiritual siblings. Is that 
what you believe?

This is the problem with the dual meanings that mormons assign to 
words...they don't mean what they used to mean. So, we can talk all day with 
them about soiritual matters and we think that they are in agreement with 
us, when really the words mean something different to them. Like the Queen 
of Hearts said, "When I use a word it means exactly what I want it to mean!"

Perry

--
"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] Belief

DAVEH:
> May I presume you believe free agency existed
> in the pre-mortal existence?

Yes.

DaveH wrote:
> Hmm.That almost sounds like you are denying
> Jesus had the power to heal the blind, raise the dead and
> do a multitude of other miracles on his own.  Are you
> suggesting that as a mortal, Jesus did not have the power
> to do such without the assistance of angels???

The power for miracles which he had came to him as a man anointed by God, 
not as God.  His apostles and the seventy that he anointed also performed 
miracles in the same way.  They were doing them not as God, but as men 
anointed by God.  Jesus performed miracles as a man anointed with the Holy 
Ghost, and he promised that those who believed in him would do the same 
miracles and greater miracles.

Acts 10:38
(38) How God anointed Jesus of Nazareth with the Holy Ghost and with power: 
who went about doing good, and healing all that were oppressed of the devil; 
for God was with him.

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: [TruthTalk] Belief

DaveH wrote:
> It seems to me that just because Lucifer took a
> road of opposition and sought to usurp the power
> of God, you are presuming that anybody who
> desires to follow the commandments (effectively
> to become like God) is also trying to usurp his
> power and glory.  (And I am sure you don't think
> that way.)

You are right.  I don't think this way.

What I was trying to do is draw a distinction between becoming like God (one 
with God) and becoming God.

Imagine a king that you want to be like.  You admire him and believe him to 
be the best ever.  You pattern your life to be like him and support him in 
every way.  Imagine someone else who wants to be him.  The one who wants to 
be him would be hoping to replace him, to take his throne.  On the other 
hand, the one who simply wants to be like him would never want to replace 
him.

I support the viewpoint that God wants us to become like him and has made a 
way for us to do that.  I do not support the idea that we are to become God.

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: [TruthTalk] Belief







[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

  
  
  DAVEH:   Thanx for your explanation, John.  Do
you believe we have prophets in the church today as well?    
   
  Certainly but they are not in the church for the purpose
of giving new revelation  ("scripture" if you will).  They have enough
to do, I suppose, as they function in consequence of such passages as Eph 4:11-16.   I do know that the
prophets that speak in our church (my wife and I) speak to the purposes
  implicit with a  "ministry of
reconciliation."  
  
  
  

DAVEH:   Please clarify.are you and your wife the prophets to whom
you are referring?

  
  
  



  
  
   
  As important as Paul is, he is not one of the 12.   The Chruch of Jesus Christ was founded on
the work and mission of the original 12 and their names appear on the
12 foundation stones in The City from Heaven for that very reason.   I
do not confuse Paul and Barnabas with the 12.  That they share in this foundational ministry is undeniable,
however.   This foundational
ministry has been accomplished !!  The church, in all it's imperfectons, is 2000 years old.   The
extended ministry is not one of a foundational
nature but one of reconciliation 
-  to which we have all been called (II Cor
5:18).  
  
  
  

 
DAVEH:   ???   Are you
suggesting Judas was more important as an apostle than Paul?  Is Judas'
name engraved on the foundation, and there is no room for subsequent
others?
 
No  -  Judas lost himself to the cause of Christ.  
His ministry was assigned a
replacement (Acts 1).   He did not received the Great Commission given to the others.   He
is of no consequence when it
comes to the foundational work
of the 12. 



  
  
  

DAVEH:  Then who is the 12th apostle whose name you say is engraven in
the foundation?  Ordid you just misspeak when you said 12, and
meant 11 instead?

  
  
  


 
 
 
Judas did not live long  enough  to receive the
Commission of the Twelve nor the victory that rose up from his own
betrayal.of course. 
 



  
  DAVEH:   Sowould his
name be engraved with the other eleven?  I do not think so.  
  

  


-- 
~~~
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] Belief

2005-06-24 Thread Kevin Deegan

DAVEH:   Do you believe God could reveal his will to prophets in post Bible times?  Or do you believe God no longer needs prophets to reveal his willeffectively meaning the heavens are closed?
If you had a boss who wrote his instructions down, just to make sure they were followed word by word, would you assume that the "office was closed" ?
When men start doing what God has already revealed maybe he will send us more instructions, right now He is looking for those that obey what was already given.
 

But this thing commanded I them, saying, Obey my voice, and I will be your God, and ye shall be my people: and walk ye in all the ways that I have commanded you, that it may be well unto you.

But if ye will not obey the voice of the LORD, but rebel against the commandment of the LORD, then shall the hand of the LORD be against you, as it was against your fathers.
Run ye to and fro through the streets of Jerusalem, and see now, and know, and seek in the broad places thereof, if ye can find a man, if there be any that executeth judgment, that seeketh the truth; and I will pardon it.Which yet my soul seeketh, but I find not: one man among a thousand have I foundDave Hansen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: 



 



   I do not believe in revelation that is something other than personal.
DAVEH:  May I assume that means you believe the heavens were sealed sometime in the early first few centuries?  Is there Biblical support that you would offer to support your position on this?
 
This assumption has meaning to you -  I am afraid your question is not understood by me.DAVEH:   Do you believe God could reveal his will to prophets in post Bible times?  Or do you believe God no longer needs prophets to reveal his willeffectively meaning the heavens are closed?



  Just as I beleive that had Christ come in this modern time  -  His mission would have failed  -  so i believe the biblical message was completed by or near the end of the first century.  The Bible has a wide ranging acceptance that would not be afforded to any other "scripture" offered at another time.    



  I do not believe in the continued appointment of apostles,
DAVEH:   Yet isn't that what happened in the early yearswitness Paul & Barnabas?
 
As important as Paul is, he is not one of the 12.   The Chruch of Jesus Christ was founded on the work and mission of the original 12 and their names appear on the 12 foundation stones in The City from Heaven for that very reason.   I do not confuse Paul and Barnabas with the 12. DAVEH:   ???   Are you suggesting Judas was more important as an apostle than Paul?  Is Judas' name engraved on the foundation, and there is no room for subsequent others?






  if we are using that word in the same vein as the "12."  So  -  there is much that remains, not the lest of which is the ancient message.   I have yet to see any accepted doctrine effected by textual problems.   I am sure we disagree on much of what I have said above  ---    Why are you concerned by such an "omission?" 
DAVEH:    I've been criticized for my belief in the Bible as far as it is translated correctly.  Yet it seems there is a vast difference between some translations.  Why some folks would be bothered by my comment seems strange when one looks at some of the differences between the various translations.
 
Again, you have a received teaching that is differenct from mine.   I see not a single imprtant variation in translation that proport to be language translations as opposed to thought translations.  
    Just a few days ago, somebody who didn't know me other than I am LDS suggested I read the last few paragraphs of the Bible, trying to get me to realize that one should not add to or subtract from the Word of God.  (In fact, I think Izzy has made similar remarks in the past here on TT.)    I do not understand the thinking of many people  --  Linda Shields,  Kevin,  Judy and DM are only a few of the many who remain a mystery to me.   The prohibition against adding to the "words of this book"  have to do with the Revelation only,  IMO.   At the same time,  I believe the biblical message to bear the mark of inspiration and providential protection and supply.   It contains God's message,   His spoken word, for us today.  More than that -- it is a part of the vehicle God uses to cause spiritual growth and maturity  --  victory over pe rsonal
 and destructive error.   I need nothing else, in terms of revelation, than this ancient message and its confirmation in the lives of those with whom I fellowship.   DAVEH:   Thanx for your explanation.



 

I wonder if folks who think like that are bothered when some versions remove entire passages.  People like that are obviously bothered by just about anything one might offer in terms of shared instruction and doctrinal benefit.   But God can save us all  -- even a midget in the faith.  DAVEH:  I'm not sure all TTers would agree    :-) 






 
JD __

Re: [TruthTalk] Belief

2005-06-24 Thread Terry Clifton





Dave Hansen wrote:

  
DAVEH:   Thanx for your perspective on this, Terry.   Does that make
you a KJV Only adherent?
  

`==Sometimes
I sometimes refer to another version to see how the different wording
might help explain something I find difficult to comprehend in the KJV,
much as I would use a commentary to seek another brother's
understanding.  The KJV is still the Bible whereby I judge the value of
what I see in other versions.  Another version does not have to have
the thees and thous.  That is not the kind of thing that bothers me. 
It is the use or omission of words found in the KJV that I find
troubling.
Terry

Re: [TruthTalk] Belief


  -Original Message-From: Dave Hansen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgSent: Fri, 24 Jun 2005 07:52:41 -0700Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Belief


[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: 



 
DAVEH:   Do you believe God could reveal his will to prophets in post Bible times?  Or do you believe God no longer needs prophets to reveal his willeffectively meaning the heavens are closed?
 
Again, I would not reference my belief in terms of "heaven closed"   God can do anything He wants  --  just as He has in the past.   Prophecy is one of the spiritual gifts Paul mentions in I Corinthians and is a desirable gift.   Perhaps we have a difference in definition on this one.  A prophet who functions as a spokesman for God to a nation of God's people  ?  no ,  I do not believe that to be the case.   There is no nation.  The prophet in the church, today, functions for a very different reason.   Eph 4:11-16  gives us several categories of leaders within the assembly of the the Saints  (whether latter day or otherwise) AND the purpose/mission of each.   In scripture  (and this is what an Okie pastor thinks  --  s
omeone else can polish up the theology of it all). The "apostle" was not a ranking of ficial in the church  --  rather he was one to whom God gave the ministry we see in the "Great Commission."   Their work was evangelistic in concept and foundational in nature.   All of the Christian church was founded upon the work of these righteous ancients.   Why do you suppose we hear next to nothing about this group of men?   Well,  I believe it is because they were busy.   They were the ones who could resist poisonings, raise the dead, work the miracles, testify first hand to the  incarnation and   blessed resurrection. Tradition tells us that each - to a man - died for this foundational work.   We have prophets in the church today . but their ministry reflects the purposes set forth in this Ephesian passage. 
; Ditto for the evangelists, pastors and teachers.   
DAVEH:   Thanx for your explanation, John.  Do you believe we have prophets in the church today as well?    
 
Certainly but they are not in the church for the purpose of giving new revelation  ("scripture" if you will).  They have enough to do, I suppose, as they function in consequence of such passages as Eph 4:11-16.   I do know that the prophets that speak in our church (my wife and I) speak to the purposes implicit with a  "ministry of reconciliation."  






 
As important as Paul is, he is not one of the 12.   The Chruch of Jesus Christ was founded on the work and mission of the original 12 and their names appear on the 12 foundation stones in The City from Heaven for that very reason.   I do not confuse Paul and Barnabas with the 12.  That they share in this foundational ministry is undeniable, however.   This foundational ministry has been accomplished !!  The church, in all it's imperfectons, is 2000 years old.   The extended ministry is not one of a foundational nature but one of reconciliation  -  to which we have all been called (II Cor 5:18).  
 
DAVEH:   ???   Are you suggesting Judas was more important as an apostle than Paul?  Is Judas' name engraved on the foundation, and there is no room for subsequent others?
 
No  -  Judas lost himself to the cause of Christ.   His ministry was assigned a replacement (Acts 1).   He did not received the Great Commission given to the others.   He is of no consequence when it comes to the foundational work of the 12.  
 
 
Judas did not live long  enough  to receive the Commission of the Twelve nor the victory that rose up from his own betrayal.of course. 
 
DAVEH:   Sowould his name be engraved with the other eleven?  I do not think so.  
-- 
~~~
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] Belief

David Miller wrote:

DaveH wrote:

...I do understand your reluctance to accept my understanding
of the passage, DavidM. With what you know about LDS
theology, does it not fit in? May I ask how you perceive
its message?

I think the message concerns Jesus fulfilling that which the Father revealed
to him as his plan and work. He was constantly cooperating with the Father
and his direction as given to him by the Holy Spirit. I do not think it
means in any way that the Father had already done these things in a previous
existence.

DAVEH: Your explanation almost gives me the impression you view them
as two Gods. Don't get me wrong...I understand you still consider
them one God.

DaveH wrote:

Since Lucifer and his followers were ejected from
Heaven, temptation does not exist there.

On the contrary, Lucifer and one-third of the angels fell into sin. They
were tempted in heaven. Temptation is not geographical, but as James says,
it comes because of the heart. A man is tempted when he is drawn away of
his own lust and enticed.

DAVEH: Then.May I presume you believe free agency existed in the
pre-mortal existence?

As a man, Jesus had this lust within his flesh and could be tempted.
However, prior to becoming a man, he existed as the Logos and could not be
tempted either. As man, Jesus conquered temptation, but as God in his prior
existence, he was removed from temptation and could not be tempted.

DAVEH:K Thanx for your explanation of how you perceive this.

DaveH wrote:

And, were our Father to encounter temptation at
some point ...

Impossible from my perspective. There is no shadow of darkness within him
anywhere. He can never be tempted.

DaveH wrote:

... (perhaps if he were to visit one of his prophets on
earth as an example),

Not sure what you mean by this.

DAVEH: Is the lack of God's ability to be tempted strictly due to his
location (no temptations exist in heaven now that Lucifer is gone), or
is it due to God's nature.IOW, IF the Lord were to confront a
temptation in person, it would have absolutely no effect on him due to
his nature. I hope that makes sense.

DAVEH:K

??? Are you suggesting he was not God at that point?

He was God in terms of identity, but he was not in the form of God in terms
of the glory associated with God. As Phil. 2 expounds for us, he did not
consider being in the form of God something to be held onto, but he emptied
himself and took on the form of a servant. He was made lower than the
angels, a man. This is the only way in which he could experience suffering
and temptation and illustrate for us that his nature is able to conquer all
of this.

DAVEH:

HmmThat is foreign to my way of thinking.
As I see it, Jesus was God of the OT, and becoming
mortal did not change that at all.

As God of the OT, he never hungered, never slept, never got tired, never was
tempted, never experienced death. But being made a man, he now experienced
hunger, he slept, he cried, he got tired, he was tempted, and he experienced
death. A lot changed with him becoming mortal.

DaveH wrote:

To me, that Jesus was lesser than his Father, or even
the angels does not abdicate his power. Had he wanted
to crush Satan beneath his toes, he had the power to do it.
Even the devil pointed out to him, he still had the power
and did not have to suffer.

His power was not inherent, but it was in his authority to call upon his
heavenly Father to send forth legions of angels.

DAVEH: Hmm.That almost sounds like you are denying Jesus had
the power to heal the blind, raise the dead and do a multitude of other
miracles on his own. Are you suggesting that as a mortal, Jesus did
not have the power to do such without the assistance of angels???

His power came through his
anointing, which is why he is called Christ or Messiah, which means Anointed
One. Jesus was a man anointed with the Holy Ghost. This is how he lived
and ministered among us. He did not live as God but as a man anointed by
the Holy Ghost.

DAVEH: I find that interesting, though a bit surprising from my
perspective. Thanx for explaining it as you understand it.

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

--
~~~
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,

Re: [TruthTalk] Belief







David Miller wrote:

  DaveH wrote:
  
  

  
Why it is easy for many Christian to accept that
God was a man, but hard to accept that man can
become like and one with God is what puzzles me.

  

  
  
David Miller wrote:
  
  

  I don't have a problem with the idea of man becoming
like and one with God.  I do have a problem with the
idea of man becoming God.  Do you understand
the difference?
  

  
  
DAVEH:
  
  
I do know know how you perceive the difference,
but would be most interested to hear your perspective.

  
  
To become one with God is to abide in the attitude Jesus had:

John 5:19
"The Son can do nothing of himself, but what he seeth the Father do: for 
what things soever he doeth, these also doeth the Son likewise."

However, to become God would suggest an attitude that Lucifer took, which 
was:  "who needs God" or "hath God said"?  To become God would imply an 
independence from God whereas to become one with God implies an eternal 
dependence upon him.
  

DAVEH:  I'm not following your logic on that one, DavidM.  Jesus
becoming God (if that is the proper way to describe itI'm pondering
the way you described Jesus in a parallel post being less than angels
at one point) in the fullest sense does not suggest he was trying to be
independent from his Father.  Scripture suggests exactly the opposite. 
Jesus reverenced his Father in Heaven.   So I don't see why you think
our progression towards becoming as God would suggest that we become
anything but one with him.  That is the difference between those who
follow Jesus and those who don't.  If we truly do as the Lord wants us
to do, we become like him, and one with him, eschewing everything
pertaining to those who follow Satan.  Our (goal of becoming) oneness
with God has absolutely nothing to to with becoming independent from
Godit is quite the opposite, as I understand the message of the
Bible.

    It seems to me that just because Lucifer took a road of opposition
and sought to usurp the power of God, you are presuming that anybody
who desires to follow the commandments (effectively to become like God)
is also trying to usurp his power and glory.  (And I am sure you don't
think that way.)   I think Jn 17 suggests otherwisebecoming one
with God implies sharing his glory as we become like him.  As I see it,
your assumption that to become (like) God is only applicable to those
opposed to God (as was Lucifer) is bad logic.  IOW...Concluding that
becoming God is only something that one who wants to be
independent of God (as was Lucifer's goal) doesn't make sense to me. 
Do you have any Biblical evidence to suggest such, or is this just a
supposition presumed by most Christians?

  
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] Belief





DAVEH:   Thanx for your perspective on this, Terry.   Does that make
you a KJV Only adherent?

Terry Clifton wrote:

  
  
Dave Hansen wrote:
  



[EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:DAVEH:    I've been criticized for my belief in the Bible as far
as it
is translated correctly.  Yet it seems there is a vast difference
between some translations.  Why some folks would be bothered by my
comment seems strange when one looks at some of the differences between
the various translations.

    Just a few days ago, somebody who didn't know me other than I am
LDS suggested I read the last few paragraphs of the Bible, trying to
get me to realize that one should not add to or subtract from the Word
of God.  (In fact, I think Izzy has made similar remarks in the past
here on TT.)  I wonder if folks who think like that are bothered when
some versions remove entire passages.  
  

  

  
  
   
   
  When whole passages are
omitted from a translation, it cannot help but bother.  It creates a
problem similar in nature to your believing that the Bible is truth as
far as it is translated correctly.
  
  
  

  
If the different versions have missing or added parts, which parts do
you believe?  If it is only true as far as it is translated correctly,
who decides what was correct and what wasn't?  Even those who
understand Greek and Hebrew differ on how to apply meanings to the
words.
Those things bother me, but they are beyond my control.  There is
nothing I can do about it.  It is in God's hands, but even He has
allowed Satan to be the prince of this world.  Since Satan will always
oppose God, one of his priorities must be to stop us from being in one
accord and start to question one another, to stop God's children from
agreeing and to have them start doubting.  If this is true, and Satan
is continually interjecting or removing portions of the Holy word, then
it stands to reason to me that the newer versions would be the ones he
has been most sucessful in changing for the simple reason that he has
had an extra four huindred years to scheme.  Therefore, my solution,
the one I am least uncomfortable with, is to take the oldest of the
versions we commonly use and consider it the most truthful.  I have to
assume that there are no errors or I might start to pick and choose
what I want to believe.  If I believe all of the KJV and am in error,
then I trust in God to realize that I have done my best with what I had
to work with.
  

  
   
Terry
  

  

  


-- 
~~~
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] Belief







[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

  
  
   
  
  DAVEH:   Do you believe God could reveal his will to prophets in
post Bible times?  Or do you believe God no longer needs prophets to
reveal his willeffectively meaning the heavens are closed?
   
  Again, I would not reference my belief in terms of
"heaven closed"   God can do anything He wants  --  just as He has in
the past.   Prophecy is one of the spiritual gifts Paul mentions in I
Corninthians and is a desireable gift.   Perhaps we have a difference
in definition on this one.  A prophet who functions as a spokesman for
God to a nation of God's people  ?  no ,  I do not believe that to
be the case.   There is no nation.  The prophet in the church, today,
functions for a very different reason.   Eph 4:11-16  gives us several
categories of leaders within the assembly of the the Saints  (whether
latter day or otherwise) AND the purpose/mission of each.   In
scrpture  (and this is what an Okie pastor thinks  --  someone else can
polish up the theology of it all). The "apostle" was not a ranking
of ficial in the church  --  rather he was one to whom God gave the
ministry we see in the "Great Commission."   Their work was
evangelistic in concept and foundational in nature.   All of the
Christian church was founded upon the work of these righteous
ancients.   Why do you suppose we hear next to nothing about this group
of men?   Well,  I believe it is because they were busy.   They were
the ones who could resist poisonings, raise the dead, work the
miracles, testify first hand to the  incarnation and   blessed
resurrection. Tradition tells us that each - to a man - died for this
foundational work.   We have prophets in the church today . but
their ministry reflects the purposes set forth in this Ephesian
passage.  Ditto for the evangelists, pastors and teachers.   
  
  
  

DAVEH:   Thanx for your explanation, John.  Do you believe we have
prophets in the church today as well?


  
  
  


 
As important as Paul is, he is not one of the 12.   The Chruch
of Jesus Christ was founded on the work and mission of the original 12
and their names appear on the 12 foundation stones in The City from
Heaven for that very reason.   I do not confuse Paul and Barnabas with
the 12.  That they share in this foundational ministry is
undeniable, however.   This foundational ministry has been accomplished
!!  The church, in all it's imperfectons, is 2000 years old.   The
extended ministry is not one of a foundational nature but one of
reconcliation  -  to which we have all been called (II Cor 5:18).  



  
   
  DAVEH:   ???   Are you suggesting Judas was more important as an
apostle than Paul?  Is Judas' name engraved on the foundation, and
there is no room for subsequent others?
   
  Judas did not live long to receive the Commission of the
Twelve nor the victory that rose up from his own
betrayal.of course.  
  
  
  

DAVEH:   Sowould his name be engraved with the other eleven?

-- 
~~~
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] Belief

DaveH wrote:
> ...I do understand your reluctance to accept my understanding
> of the passage, DavidM.  With what you know about LDS
> theology, does it not fit in?   May I ask how you perceive
> its message?

I think the message concerns Jesus fulfilling that which the Father revealed 
to him as his plan and work.  He was constantly cooperating with the Father 
and his direction as given to him by the Holy Spirit.  I do not think it 
means in any way that the Father had already done these things in a previous 
existence.

DaveH wrote:
> Since Lucifer and his followers were ejected from
> Heaven, temptation does not exist there.

On the contrary, Lucifer and one-third of the angels fell into sin.  They 
were tempted in heaven.  Temptation is not geographical, but as James says, 
it comes because of the heart.  A man is tempted when he is drawn away of 
his own lust and enticed.

As a man, Jesus had this lust within his flesh and could be tempted. 
However, prior to becoming a man, he existed as the Logos and could not be 
tempted either.  As man, Jesus conquered temptation, but as God in his prior 
existence, he was removed from temptation and could not be tempted.

DaveH wrote:
> And, were our Father to encounter temptation at
> some point ...

Impossible from my perspective.  There is no shadow of darkness within him 
anywhere.  He can never be tempted.

DaveH wrote:
> ... (perhaps if he were to visit one of his prophets on
> earth as an example), 

Not sure what you mean by this.

DAVEH:K
> ???   Are you suggesting he was not God at that point?

He was God in terms of identity, but he was not in the form of God in terms 
of the glory associated with God.  As Phil. 2 expounds for us, he did not 
consider being in the form of God something to be held onto, but he emptied 
himself and took on the form of a servant.  He was made lower than the 
angels, a man.  This is the only way in which he could experience suffering 
and temptation and illustrate for us that his nature is able to conquer all 
of this.

DAVEH:
> HmmThat is foreign to my way of thinking.
> As I see it, Jesus was God of the OT, and becoming
> mortal did not change that at all.

As God of the OT, he never hungered, never slept, never got tired, never was 
tempted, never experienced death.  But being made a man, he now experienced 
hunger, he slept, he cried, he got tired, he was tempted, and he experienced 
death.  A lot changed with him becoming mortal.

DaveH wrote:
> To me, that Jesus was lesser than his Father, or even
> the angels does not abdicate his power.  Had he wanted
> to crush Satan beneath his toes, he had the power to do it.
> Even the devil pointed out to him, he still had the power
> and did not have to suffer.

His power was not inherent, but it was in his authority to call upon his 
heavenly Father to send forth legions of angels.  His power came through his 
anointing, which is why he is called Christ or Messiah, which means Anointed 
One.  Jesus was a man anointed with the Holy Ghost.  This is how he lived 
and ministered among us.  He did not live as God but as a man anointed by 
the Holy Ghost.

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: [TruthTalk] Belief

DaveH wrote:
>>> Why it is easy for many Christian to accept that
>>> God was a man, but hard to accept that man can
>>> become like and one with God is what puzzles me.

David Miller wrote:
>> I don't have a problem with the idea of man becoming
>> like and one with God.  I do have a problem with the
>> idea of man becoming God.  Do you understand
>> the difference?

DAVEH:
> I do know know how you perceive the difference,
> but would be most interested to hear your perspective.

To become one with God is to abide in the attitude Jesus had:

John 5:19
"The Son can do nothing of himself, but what he seeth the Father do: for 
what things soever he doeth, these also doeth the Son likewise."

However, to become God would suggest an attitude that Lucifer took, which 
was:  "who needs God" or "hath God said"?  To become God would imply an 
independence from God whereas to become one with God implies an eternal 
dependence upon him.

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: [TruthTalk] Belief


  -Original Message-From: Dave Hansen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgSent: Fri, 24 Jun 2005 00:04:15 -0700Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Belief


[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: 



 



   I do not believe in revelation that is something other than personal.
DAVEH:  May I assume that means you believe the heavens were sealed sometime in the early first few centuries?  Is there Biblical support that you would offer to support your position on this?
 
This assumption has meaning to you -  I am afraid your question is not understood by me.
DAVEH:   Do you believe God could reveal his will to prophets in post Bible times?  Or do you believe God no longer needs prophets to reveal his willeffectively meaning the heavens are closed?
 
Again, I would not reference my belief in terms of "heaven closed"   God can do anything He wants  --  just as He has in the past.   Prophecy is one of the spiritual gifts Paul mentions in I Corninthians and is a desireable gift.   Perhaps we have a difference in definition on this one.  A prophet who functions as a spokesman for God to a nation of God's people  ?  no ,  I do not believe that to be the case.   There is no nation.  The prophet in the church, today, functions for a very different reason.   Eph 4:11-16  gives us several categories of leaders within the assembly of the the Saints  (whether latter day or otherwise) AND the purpose/mission of each.   In scrpture  (and this is what an Okie pastor thinks  --  someone else can polish up the theology of it all). The "apostle" was not a ranking official in the church  --  rather he was one to 
whom God gave the ministry we see in the "Great Commission."   Their work was evangelistic in concept and foundational in nature.   All of the Christian church was founded upon the work of these righteous ancients.   Why do you suppose we hear next to nothing about this group of men?   Well,  I believe it is because they were busy.   They were the ones who could resist poisonings, raise the dead, work the miracles, testify first hand to the  incarnation and   blessed resurrection. Tradition tells us that each - to a man - died for this foundational work.   We have prophets in the church today . but their ministry reflects the purposes set forth in this Ephesian passage.  Ditto for the evangelists, pastors and teachers.   



  Just as I beleive that had Christ come in this modern time  -  His mission would have failed  -  so i believe the biblical message was completed by or near the end of the first century.  The Bible has a wide ranging acceptance that would not be afforded to any other "scripture" offered at another time.    



  I do not believe in the continued appointment of apostles,
DAVEH:   Yet isn't that what happened in the early yearswitness Paul & Barnabas?
 
As important as Paul is, he is not one of the 12.   The Chruch of Jesus Christ was founded on the work and mission of the original 12 and their names appear on the 12 foundation stones in The City from Heaven for that very reason.   I do not confuse Paul and Barnabas with the 12.  That they share in this foundational ministry is undeniable, however.   This foundational ministry has been accomplished !!  The church, in all it's imperfectons, is 2000 years old.   The extended ministry is not one of a foundational nature but one of reconcliation  -  to which we have all been called (II Cor 5:18).  
 
DAVEH:   ???   Are you suggesting Judas was more important as an apostle than Paul?  Is Judas' name engraved on the foundation, and there is no room for subsequent others?
 
Judas did not live long to receive the Commission of the Twelve nor the victory that rose up from his own betrayal.of course.  






  if we are using that word in the same vein as the "12."  So  -  there is much that remains, not the lest of which is the ancient message.   I have yet to see any accepted doctrine effected by textual problems.   I am sure we disagree on much of what I have said above  ---    Why are you concerned by such an "omission?" 
DAVEH:    I've been criticized for my belief in the Bible as far as it is translated correctly.  Yet it seems there is a vast difference between some translations.  Why some folks would be bothered by my comment seems strange when one looks at some of the differences between the various translations.
 
Again, you have a received teaching that is differenct from mine.   I see not a single important variation in translation that purport to be language translations as opposed to thought translations.  You have church tradition that teaches the use of the phrase "as far as it is tranlated correctly."  I do not.  
    Just a few days ago, somebody who didn't know me other than I am LDS suggested I read the last few paragraphs of the Bible, trying to get me to realize that one should

Re: [TruthTalk] Belief

2005-06-24 Thread Terry Clifton





Dave Hansen wrote:

  
  
  
  [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:DAVEH:    I've been criticized for my belief in the Bible as far
as it
is translated correctly.  Yet it seems there is a vast difference
between some translations.  Why some folks would be bothered by my
comment seems strange when one looks at some of the differences between
the various translations.
  
    Just a few days ago, somebody who didn't know me other than I am
LDS suggested I read the last few paragraphs of the Bible, trying to
get me to realize that one should not add to or subtract from the Word
of God.  (In fact, I think Izzy has made similar remarks in the past
here on TT.)  I wonder if folks who think like that are bothered when
some versions remove entire passages.  



  


 
 
When whole passages are
omitted from a translation, it cannot help but bother.  It creates a
problem similar in nature to your believing that the Bible is truth as
far as it is translated correctly.



  

If the different versions have missing or added parts, which parts do
you believe?  If it is only true as far as it is translated correctly,
who decides what was correct and what wasn't?  Even those who
understand Greek and Hebrew differ on how to apply meanings to the
words.
Those things bother me, but they are beyond my control.  There is
nothing I can do about it.  It is in God's hands, but even He has
allowed Satan to be the prince of this world.  Since Satan will always
oppose God, one of his priorities must be to stop us from being in one
accord and start to question one another, to stop God's children from
agreeing and to have them start doubting.  If this is true, and Satan
is continually interjecting or removing portions of the Holy word, then
it stands to reason to me that the newer versions would be the ones he
has been most sucessful in changing for the simple reason that he has
had an extra four huindred years to scheme.  Therefore, my solution,
the one I am least uncomfortable with, is to take the oldest of the
versions we commonly use and consider it the most truthful.  I have to
assume that there are no errors or I might start to pick and choose
what I want to believe.  If I believe all of the KJV and am in error,
then I trust in God to realize that I have done my best with what I had
to work with.

  

 
Terry



  
  
  -- 
~~~
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] Belief