Re: [TruthTalk] Definition of Mormon Please
I have previously considered all of the points raised by you. On the whole, I concur. The 'package' is rarely tied up as neatly as rationalism wishes (rationalism wishes, now there's an interesting connection). This, once again, is the approach I perceive you, David, to hold. It, IMO, is untenable. - Original Message - From: David Miller [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: February 05, 2005 17:43 Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Definition of Mormon Please Lance wrote: 'Who do men say that I am Who do you say that He is This is that which distinguishes TRUE belief from FALSE belief. THIS IS THE GOSPEL! To be wrong here is to preach a FALSE GOSPEL! I think this point you make only holds true in so far as one can see that Jesus is the Messiah. Beyond that, I think you might be taking this too far. Does one truly have to articulate correctly the Godhead in order to be preaching the true gospel? I don't think so. In my opinion, the widespread influence of Walter Martin led many believers astray on this point. If you see it otherwise, I would be interested in hearing you elaborate upon this. It may be that I have not given this enough thought. I do not reject Mormonism because of their henotheistic view of the Godhead. I reject Mormonism because the basis of it is Joseph Smith's assertion that God was using him to establish the true church. As I have examined Joseph Smith carefully, historically and theologically, and especially in light of the book of Abraham, and some of his prophecies in the Doctrine and Covenants, I have concluded that he is a fraud. God does not use frauds to establish his church. I also look at the fruit of his work. It is not good fruit. There is some good fruit in Mormonism right now, but I think that is happening despite Joseph Smith. The church he founded continued to embrace Jesus Christ, and so that influence has continued to work within Mormonism and move it back toward mainstream Christianity. Mormonism is much closer to mainstream Christianity today than it was at the time of Brigham Young. You might also consider that not all Mormons embrace henotheism. The Community of Christ (Re-organized Church...) sect of Mormonism is a branch that accepts the Trinity. This branch was the one led by Joseph Smith's own son and wife. Do you accept this sect of Mormonism simply because their view of the Godhead is more accurate from your perspective? 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] Definition of Mormon Please
In a message dated 2/4/2005 11:46:46 PM Pacific Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: DAVEH: Yes, John. I understand that you see it that way. But why? Why do you think Jesus represents the Son of Mankind? I'm not sure that makes any sense to me. I view Jesus as being a divine being, a deity from before the world was created. Do you not believe likewise? Isn't that why he was called the Son of God? Do you think he became less than the Son of God, or less than divine when he was on the earth? It seems to me that for Protestants to consider him reduced to mankind status would be contrary to his divine authorship. In fact, that's the charge many have leveled against LDS theology, that we have reduced God to mankind status in effect. So it somewhat surprises me that you would suggest such, JD. I will take some time and try to give thoughtful answer. I will tell you that I believe that He has always been both the Son of Man and the Son of God and as such, He is both mankind's represenative, if you will, and God's. His was a ministry of reconcilation. I can't imagine "reconciliation" as having any importance whatsoever if did not or does not include the bringing together of man and God in His [Christ's} Continuing Existence. The study will be for my own good -- but I will be happy to share it with you. Have a good evening. And go Pats. JD
Re: [TruthTalk] Definition of Mormon Please
Hi DaveH, I am looking forward to John's presentation. In the meantime I will send a couple words to wet your appetite. The technical term for Jesus in the incarnation is the "hypostatic union." "Protestants" as well as RCs believe that Jesus was/is fully God and fully human, two natures in one person. Throughout his tenure on earth the divine nature worked in unison with the human nature toward a perfect union: "though he was Son, yet he learned obedience by the things which he suffered; and having been perfected, he became the author of eternal salvation to all who obey him" (Heb 5.8-9).When Jesus breathed his last on the cross, the two natures were fully reconciled within the one person of Christ; no longer was there any tension between God and "man": "Father, into your hands I commit my spirit"; "for God was in Christ reconciling the world to himself" (Luk 23.46; 2Cor 5.19). Take care, my friend. I am off to my son's regional wrestling tournament. Go Michael! Bill - Original Message - From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: Saturday, February 05, 2005 1:03 AM Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Definition of Mormon Please In a message dated 2/4/2005 11:46:46 PM Pacific Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: DAVEH: Yes, John. I understand that you see it that way. But why? Why do you think Jesus represents the Son of Mankind? I'm not sure that makes any sense to me. I view Jesus as being a divine being, a deity from before the world was created. Do you not believe likewise? Isn't that why he was called the Son of God? Do you think he became less than the Son of God, or less than divine when he was on the earth? It seems to me that for Protestants to consider him reduced to mankind status would be contrary to his divine authorship. In fact, that's the charge many have leveled against LDS theology, that we have reduced God to mankind status in effect. So it somewhat surprises me that you would suggest such, JD.I will take some time and try to give thoughtful answer. I will tell you that I believe that He has always been both the Son of Man and the Son of God and as such, He is both mankind's represenative, if you will, and God's. His was a ministry of reconcilation. I can't imagine "reconciliation" as having any importance whatsoever if did not or does not include the bringing together of man and God in His [Christ's} Continuing Existence. The study will be for my own good -- but I will be happy to share it with you. Have a good evening. And go Pats. JD
Re: [TruthTalk] Definition of Mormon Please
DAVE SAYS Heavenly Father is the Man part of the title for Jesus, who is the Son of Man. Jesus is the son of God Jesus is the son of man in the sense that he was Born of a woman and as fulfilled prophecy as "son of man" Dan 7 If Jesus wasrefering to be the son of man, in the sense that you use it, "in that Jesus' Father is a man" (QUOTE DAVE) That father in being a man must have had a father who was a man ... infinitum. Mormon theology does not work here since God has told us 1) I am not a man, I am God 2) I am not the son of man Num 23 God is not a man, that he should lie; neither the son of man, that he should repent: hath he said, and shall he not do it? Hos 11:9 I am God, and not man; the Holy One in the midst of thee Jesus is the Man who knew NO sin 2 Co 5:21 For he hath made him to be sin for us, who knew no sin; that we might be made the righteousness of God in him. The term "son of man" is always used of Flesh not God Ezek is addressed thus more than 90 times, in these verses he is told to speak against Israel in the majority of cases. Ez 28 Son of man, say unto the prince of Tyrus, Thus saith the Lord GOD; Because thine heart is lifted up, and thou hast said, I am a God, I sit in the seat of God, in the midst of the seas; yet thou art a man, and not God, though thou set thine heart as the heart of God: In Jesus prophetic office He came to speak against Israel, as in the example of Ezek. Dan 7:13 I saw in the night visions, and, behold, one like the Son of man came with the clouds of heaven, and came to the Ancient of days, and they brought him near before him. And there was given him dominion, and glory, and a kingdom, that all people, nations, and languages, should serve him: his dominion is an everlasting dominion, which shall not pass away, and his kingdom that which shall not be destroyed. This is a very interesting verse in the Church Published KJV BUT that is another subject. Who is that Ancient of Days? Dave Hansen [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Kevin Deegan wrote: DAVE: ??? I consider it important to consider what Son of man means. Try separating Son from man. Think of the man part as being a heavenly man, who is exalted rather than a lowly earth type man who is a sinner. Show me just ONE time in the Bible, where the Son of Man refers to the Father I will eat my Truth HornDAVEH: Where did you get that idea, Kevin? Son of Man refers to Jesus, and I stipulated such several days ago. What I am trying to point out to you is the root meaning of Son of Manin that Jesus' Father is a man who has been exalted and now resides in heaven. That's why he is called Heavenly Father, which is distinctly different than the Son of Man. Heavenly Father is the Man part of the title for Jesus, who is the Son of Man. Am I confusing you more, Kevin? Dave Hansen [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Kevin Deegan wrote: Dave Hansen [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Kevin Deegan wrote: Be glad to discuss this with you. To start let's look at John chapter 3 verse 13 And no man hath ascended up to heaven, but he that came down from heaven, even the Son of man which is in heaven. Do you agree: 1) Jesus was the one who said this DAVEH: Yes. KD says OK 2) Jesus is the "Son of Man" DAVEH: Yes again.KD says OK Do you believe Jesus is literally the Son of Man, Kevin? Was Jesus the son of a woman? Yes, I think you would believe so as well. Then do you believe Son of Man and son of woman are synonymous, Kevin? KD says WAH!DAVEH: Am I losing you on this one, Kevin? Let me put it another way. Jesus is the Son of [an exalted] Man [of Holiness] who remained in heaven when Jesus came to the earth. Does that help? Do you believe Jesus' Father in Heaven is a man? I suspect not. Then why do you think he was considered the Son of Man? Could his father be a man? KD says It is too deep for you if you can't even follow this, besides you cahnged the subjectDAVEH: To me it seems simpleJesus is the Son of Man. You apparently agree with that. You just think the Man part applies to his earthly heritage. I believe the Man refers to his Heavenly Father's heritage, as his Father in Heaven is a Holy Man who is exalted. Then the question is; Read the verse and tell me: Where was the "Son of Man"? DAVEH: I'd say the Son (Jesus) was on the earth, while the Man (his Father in Heaven) was in heaven. I think that is well illustrated in the baptism of Jesus (Mt 3:17) when.Kevin says your Mormon indoctrination is showing.DAVEH: Yes, I have always admitted my LDS bias. let's work on the original subject and I will be glad to revisit this and answer your questions. Read the verse again: And no man hath ascended up to heaven, but he that came down from heaven, even the Son of man which is in heaven. KD says Again WHERE is the son of man NOT who or what is the Son of manDAVE: ??? I consider it important to consider what Son of man means. Try separating Son from man. Think of the man part as being a heavenly man, who is exalted rather
Re: [TruthTalk] Definition of Mormon Please
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: To the Toughtful: I. Howard Marshall presents three considerations for the study of the biblical message. In the first place, the question is whether a given text has meaning in and of itself or whether meaning is somehow created afresh through the interaction of the reader and the text. A perfect example of this for me is the passage found in Gal 3:26,27. At one time it read Know ye not that as many of you as have been baptised [in water] into Christ, have put one Christ. And that presentation was true in symbol and helped me in a number of ways as I grew in Christ. Now, the passage actully says something very different. Now it gives me encouragement that if I immerse myself into [eis - Billy T] Christ, I put on Christ. The closer to the state of thoughful obsession of Christ, the deeper my immersion into Christ -- the result ? The putting on of Christ. My stay on this forum has presented to me the sinfullness of all -- including those who claim no sin -- and the gracious intervention of God in Christ. On a completely different but related level, there is my activity.God's activity is bound to everything we consider to be innately involved in the Father - son (read:me) relationship. My activity is all about learning to walk, then talking, then thinking, like my Father and then to teach others. Acts 2:38 once meant [to me] that after water baptism, I would receive the gift of the Holy Spirit Himself.And that served me well.Now, I believe that the word receive carries with it the meaning to receive again for the first time this wonderful gift. Emphasis on again. This image of God is more than shared community with my fellows. It includes, of course, the Spirit of God in someway. If we were not created in His image, we would be fetching papers and doing the deed on the neighbors lawn.The fact that we are in the image of God, includes so many things. We think, we live and learn as God has done; there is an intense goodness in many of his creation, an intense goodness that only needs a sense of connection. There are so many things that distinquish us from Phido or the fish in the tank or the dove perched high in the corner of the porch covering. There is everything else and then, there is us. And so, truth has a dynamic to it that transcends the mathmatical equation. The value of the Word is born afresh as we consider it to be The Living Word ...God working through the same words in one year of our life to cause a growth spurt, then, again in a later year -- those very same words -- are used by Him to bring us to a new level. And so we appreciate the written message as it is acted upon by Him. Awesome. JD Bishop === John, I got everything you said this time except, receive again, for the first time. Sounds almost like an oxymoron. Can you explain in detail so that I might understand? 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] Definition of Mormon Please
Jesus was not theman who became a god Jesus was the only true God who became a man LDS Theology has it exactly backwards 1 Tim 3:16 And without controversy great is the mystery of godliness: God was manifest in the flesh, justified in the Spirit, seen of angels, preached unto the Gentiles, believed on in the world, received up into glory. Jesus was all God and became all man he has a dual nature. Dave Hansen [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: DAVEH: Yes, John. I understand that you see it that way. But why? Why do you think Jesus represents the Son of Mankind? I'm not sure that makes any sense to me. I view Jesus as being a divine being, a deity from before the world was created. Do you not believe likewise? Isn't that why he was called the Son of God? Do you think he became less than the Son of God, or less than divine when he was on the earth? It seems to me that for Protestants to consider him reduced to mankind status would be contrary to his divine authorship. In fact, that's the charge many have leveled against LDS theology, that we have reduced God to mankind status in effect. So it somewhat surprises me that you would suggest such, JD.[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: In a message dated 2/4/2005 8:43:23 PM Pacific Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: DAVEH: Where did you get that idea, Kevin? Son of Man refers to Jesus, and I stipulated such several days ago. What I am trying to point out to you is the root meaning of Son of Manin that Jesus' Father is a man who has been exalted and now resides in heaven. That's why he is called Heavenly Father, which is distinctly different than the Son of Man. Heavenly Father is the Man part of the title for Jesus, who is the Son of Man. Actually, I believe that we have the Son of Mankind and the Son of God The incarnation brought these two worlds together - God in the flesh - reconciling man to Himself. does this makes any sense to you, Dave. 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. Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Mail - Easier than ever with enhanced search. Learn more.
Re: [TruthTalk] Definition of Mormon Please
DaveH asked for some verses on Jesus being Omnipresent Son of Man is IN Heaven as He speaksJohn 3:13 And no man hath ascended up to heaven, but he that came down from heaven, even the Son of man which is in heaven.He fills ALLEphesians 1:23 Which is his body, the fulness of him that filleth all in all.Plain as day Matthew 18:20 "For where two or three are gathered together in my name, there am I in the midst of them." Matthew 28:20 where Jesus says, "...lo, I am with you alway, even unto the end of the world. Amen." John 1:47 Jesus saw Nathanael coming to him, and saith of him, Behold an Israelite indeed, in whom is no guile!Nathanael saith unto him, Whence knowest thou me? Jesus answered and said unto him, Before that Philip called thee, when thou wast under the fig tree, I saw thee.How could he accomplish these things if he were not Omnipresent God? Father who is God not a man is OMNIPRESENT He fills ALLJer 23:24 Can any hide himself in secret places that I shall not see him? saith the LORD. Do not I fill heaven and earth? saith the LORD.IS 66:1 The heaven is my throne, and the earth is my footstoolPs 139 whither shall I flee from thy presence? If I ascend up into heaven, thou art there: if I make my bed in hell, behold, thou art there.Prov 15:3 The eyes of the LORD are in every place, beholding the evil and the good.How could he accomplish these things if he were a man? Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Mail - now with 250MB free storage. Learn more.
Re: [TruthTalk] Definition of Mormon Please
Lance wrote: 'Who do men say that I am Who do you say that He is This is that which distinguishes TRUE belief from FALSE belief. THIS IS THE GOSPEL! To be wrong here is to preach a FALSE GOSPEL! I think this point you make only holds true in so far as one can see that Jesus is the Messiah. Beyond that, I think you might be taking this too far. Does one truly have to articulate correctly the Godhead in order to be preaching the true gospel? I don't think so. In my opinion, the widespread influence of Walter Martin led many believers astray on this point. If you see it otherwise, I would be interested in hearing you elaborate upon this. It may be that I have not given this enough thought. I do not reject Mormonism because of their henotheistic view of the Godhead. I reject Mormonism because the basis of it is Joseph Smith's assertion that God was using him to establish the true church. As I have examined Joseph Smith carefully, historically and theologically, and especially in light of the book of Abraham, and some of his prophecies in the Doctrine and Covenants, I have concluded that he is a fraud. God does not use frauds to establish his church. I also look at the fruit of his work. It is not good fruit. There is some good fruit in Mormonism right now, but I think that is happening despite Joseph Smith. The church he founded continued to embrace Jesus Christ, and so that influence has continued to work within Mormonism and move it back toward mainstream Christianity. Mormonism is much closer to mainstream Christianity today than it was at the time of Brigham Young. You might also consider that not all Mormons embrace henotheism. The Community of Christ (Re-organized Church...) sect of Mormonism is a branch that accepts the Trinity. This branch was the one led by Joseph Smith's own son and wife. Do you accept this sect of Mormonism simply because their view of the Godhead is more accurate from your perspective? 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] Definition of Mormon Please
In a message dated 2/5/2005 4:16:22 PM Pacific Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: re: the way this is addressed...poetically..'tough' and 'thoughtful'..the words do have a certain perhaps harmonious ring in fusion...you must be a chess player, Bishop(?) G On Sat, 5 Feb 2005 02:26:08 EST [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: To the Toughtful: || JD Bishop Huh -- that dang old keyboard. It keeps mess'in up. I have not memory for what followed "To the Toughful" but now that you mention it, it does seem tp bespeak a poetic honesty befitting the going's on of TT, does it not? On second thought, maybe I did it on purpose. Yeah. I did. I'm going to show my wife what I did. I will get back to ya. Honey -- come in here for a minute. I call her "honey." My first previously happy ex was affectionately referred to as "Hun" also. And that WAS on purpose. e - haa ! J
Re: [TruthTalk] Definition of Mormon Please
no doubt she'll be proud of you On Sun, 6 Feb 2005 02:18:15 EST [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: In a message dated 2/5/2005 4:16:22 PM Pacific Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: re: the way this is addressed...poetically..'tough' and 'thoughtful'..the words do have a certain perhaps harmonious ring in fusion...you must be a chess player, Bishop(?) G On Sat, 5 Feb 2005 02:26:08 EST [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: To the Toughtful:||JD Bishop Huh -- that dang old keyboard. It keeps mess'in up. I have not memory for what followed "To the Toughful" but now that you mention it, it does seem tp bespeak a poetic honesty befitting the going's on of TT, does it not? On second thought, maybe I did it on purpose. Yeah. I did. I'm going to show my wife what I did. I will get back to ya. Honey -- come in here for a minute. I call her "honey." My first previously happy ex was affectionately referred to as "Hun" also. And that WAS on purpose. e - haa !J
Re: [TruthTalk] Definition of Mormon Please
In a message dated 2/5/2005 11:30:25 PM Pacific Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: no doubt she'll be proud of you I am certain of it. She talks about all the time. But God saved the best for the last. The gal I am sleeping with now, is the best. Jd
Re: [TruthTalk] Definition of Mormon Please
Kevin Deegan wrote: Dave Hansen [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Kevin Deegan wrote: Be glad to discuss this with you. To start let's look at John chapter 3 verse 13 And no man hath ascended up to heaven, but he that came down from heaven, even the Son of man which is in heaven. Do you agree: 1) Jesus was the one who said this DAVEH: Yes. KD says OK 2) Jesus is the "Son of Man" DAVEH: Yes again. KD says OK Do you believe Jesus is literally the Son of Man, Kevin? Was Jesus the son of a woman? Yes, I think you would believe so as well. Then do you believe Son of Man and son of woman are synonymous, Kevin? KD says WAH! DAVEH: Am I losing you on this one, Kevin? Let me put it another way. Jesus is the Son of [an exalted] Man [of Holiness] who remained in heaven when Jesus came to the earth. Does that help? Do you believe Jesus' Father in Heaven is a man? I suspect not. Then why do you think he was considered the Son of Man? Could his father be a man? KD says It is too deep for you if you can't even follow this, besides you cahnged the subject DAVEH: To me it seems simpleJesus is the Son of Man. You apparently agree with that. You just think the Man part applies to his earthly heritage. I believe the Man refers to his Heavenly Father's heritage, as his Father in Heaven is a Holy Man who is exalted. Then the question is; Read the verse and tell me: Where was the "Son of Man"? DAVEH: I'd say the Son (Jesus) was on the earth, while the Man (his Father in Heaven) was in heaven. I think that is well illustrated in the baptism of Jesus (Mt 3:17) when. Kevin says your Mormon indoctrination is showing. DAVEH: Yes, I have always admitted my LDS bias. let's work on the original subject and I will be glad to revisit this and answer your questions. Read the verse again: And no man hath ascended up to heaven, but he that came down from heaven, even the Son of man which is in heaven. KD says Again WHERE is the son of man NOT who or what is the Son of man DAVE: ??? I consider it important to consider what Son of man means. Try separating Son from man. Think of the man part as being a heavenly man, who is exalted rather than a lowly earth type man who is a sinner. Who came down from Heaven? Who will ascend? Who is IN Heaven? The SUBJECT of this English sentence is the "Son of Man" Jesus Christ DAVEH: Just consider what Son of Man implies. I believe it is suggesting that Jesus has a divine heritage that comes from a holy manhis Father in Heaven. Hint: the son of man came down to earth and stands speaking saying the son of man is in heaven. DAVEH: I am suggesting you ponder if he didn't really mean it to be understood as... And no man hath ascended up to heaven, but he that came down from heaven, even the Son of [that holy exalted] man which is [remaining] in heaven. Jesus Christ is EVERYWHERE Present DAVEH: I respectfully disagree, Kevin. IF he were EVERYWHERE Present, then why did he descend into hell after his death?.or, why did he ascend up to heaven after his death? If he were already there, would it have been necessary for him to either descend, or ascend? Are there any other passages that you feel validate your theory that God is omnipresent? And lo a voice from heaven, saying, This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased. clearly indicates Jesus' Heavenly Father was the one in heaven, while Jesus was on the earth. Do you disagree, Kevin? If sodo you think Jesus was using a ventriloquism to project the voice from heaven? BTWI am very interested to know if you believe Jesus is literally the Son of Man, Kevin. And...how do you contrast that to him being the Son of Woman? Do you believe Jesus' father is a man? Dave Hansen [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Kevin Deegan wrote: Jesus is Revealed in the Holy Bible as OMNIPRESENT John 3 the son of man who came down and yet is IN Heaven DAVEH: I guess you'll have to spell it out for me, Kevin. I see nothing in ch 3 that lends support to your theory. God the Father is Revealed the Holy Bible as OMNIPRESEN Does he not fill Heaven Earth? These are clear teachings of the Bible DAVEH: Give me some Bible references, and the let's discuss it. not some Church council or some Prophet. All I need is a 5th grade education so I can read the Old Black Book DAVEH: I'll ask you the same question I asked JohnHow much of what you believe about the omnipresence of God is based on the T-Doctrine? Dave Hansen [EMAIL
Re: [TruthTalk] Definition of Mormon Please
DAVE: ??? I consider it important to consider what Son of man means. Try separating Son from man. Think of the man part as being a heavenly man, who is exalted rather than a lowly earth type man who is a sinner. Show me just ONE time in the Bible, where the Son of Man refers to the Father I will eat my Truth HornDave Hansen [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Kevin Deegan wrote: Dave Hansen [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Kevin Deegan wrote: Be glad to discuss this with you. To start let's look at John chapter 3 verse 13 And no man hath ascended up to heaven, but he that came down from heaven, even the Son of man which is in heaven. Do you agree: 1) Jesus was the one who said this DAVEH: Yes. KD says OK 2) Jesus is the "Son of Man" DAVEH: Yes again.KD says OK Do you believe Jesus is literally the Son of Man, Kevin? Was Jesus the son of a woman? Yes, I think you would believe so as well. Then do you believe Son of Man and son of woman are synonymous, Kevin? KD says WAH!DAVEH: Am I losing you on this one, Kevin? Let me put it another way. Jesus is the Son of [an exalted] Man [of Holiness] who remained in heaven when Jesus came to the earth. Does that help? Do you believe Jesus' Father in Heaven is a man? I suspect not. Then why do you think he was considered the Son of Man? Could his father be a man? KD says It is too deep for you if you can't even follow this, besides you cahnged the subjectDAVEH: To me it seems simpleJesus is the Son of Man. You apparently agree with that. You just think the Man part applies to his earthly heritage. I believe the Man refers to his Heavenly Father's heritage, as his Father in Heaven is a Holy Man who is exalted. Then the question is; Read the verse and tell me: Where was the "Son of Man"? DAVEH: I'd say the Son (Jesus) was on the earth, while the Man (his Father in Heaven) was in heaven. I think that is well illustrated in the baptism of Jesus (Mt 3:17) when.Kevin says your Mormon indoctrination is showing.DAVEH: Yes, I have always admitted my LDS bias. let's work on the original subject and I will be glad to revisit this and answer your questions. Read the verse again: And no man hath ascended up to heaven, but he that came down from heaven, even the Son of man which is in heaven. KD says Again WHERE is the son of man NOT who or what is the Son of manDAVE: ??? I consider it important to consider what Son of man means. Try separating Son from man. Think of the man part as being a heavenly man, who is exalted rather than a lowly earth type man who is a sinner. Who came down from Heaven? Who will ascend? Who is IN Heaven? The SUBJECT of this English sentence is the "Son of Man" Jesus ChristDAVEH: Just consider what Son of Man implies. I believe it is suggesting that Jesus has a divine heritage that comes from a holy manhis Father in Heaven. Hint: the son of man came down to earth and stands speaking saying the son of man is in heaven.DAVEH: I am suggesting you ponder if he didn't really mean it to be understood as...And no man hath ascended up to heaven, but he that came down from heaven, even the Son of [that holy exalted] man which is [remaining] in heaven. Jesus Christ is EVERYWHERE PresentDAVEH: I respectfully disagree, Kevin. IF he were EVERYWHERE Present, then why did he descend into hell after his death?.or, why did he ascend up to heaven after his death? If he were already there, would it have been necessary for him to either descend, or ascend? Are there any other passages that you feel validate your theory that God is omnipresent? And lo a voice from heaven, saying, This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased.clearly indicates Jesus' Heavenly Father was the one in heaven, while Jesus was on the earth. Do you disagree, Kevin? If sodo you think Jesus was using a ventriloquism to project the voice from heaven? BTWI am very interested to know if you believe Jesus is literally the Son of Man, Kevin. And...how do you contrast that to him being the Son of Woman? Do you believe Jesus' father is a man? Dave Hansen [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Kevin Deegan wrote: Jesus is Revealed in the Holy Bible as OMNIPRESENT John 3 the son of man who came down and yet is IN HeavenDAVEH: I guess you'll have to spell it out for me, Kevin. I see nothing in ch 3 that lends support to your theory. God the Father is Revealed the Holy Bible as OMNIPRESEN Does he not fill Heaven Earth? These are clear teachings of the BibleDAVEH: Give me some Bible references, and the let's discuss it. not some Church council or some Prophet. All I need is a 5th grade education so I can read the Old Black BookDAVEH: I'll ask you the same question I asked JohnHow much of what you believe about the omnipresence of God is based on the T-Doctrine? Dave Hansen [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: In a message dated 1/21/2005 7:24:28 PM Pacific Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: DAVEH: ??? Why do you think Jesus is
Re: [TruthTalk] Definition of Mormon Please
Kevin Deegan wrote: DAVE: ??? I consider it important to consider what Son of man means. Try separating Son from man. Think of the man part as being a heavenly man, who is exalted rather than a lowly earth type man who is a sinner. Show me just ONE time in the Bible, where the Son of Man refers to the Father I will eat my Truth Horn DAVEH: Where did you get that idea, Kevin? Son of Man refers to Jesus, and I stipulated such several days ago. What I am trying to point out to you is the root meaning of Son of Manin that Jesus' Father is a man who has been exalted and now resides in heaven. That's why he is called Heavenly Father, which is distinctly different than the Son of Man. Heavenly Father is the Man part of the title for Jesus, who is the Son of Man. Am I confusing you more, Kevin? Dave Hansen [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Kevin Deegan wrote: Dave Hansen [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Kevin Deegan wrote: Be glad to discuss this with you. To start let's look at John chapter 3 verse 13 And no man hath ascended up to heaven, but he that came down from heaven, even the Son of man which is in heaven. Do you agree: 1) Jesus was the one who said this DAVEH: Yes. KD says OK 2) Jesus is the "Son of Man" DAVEH: Yes again. KD says OK Do you believe Jesus is literally the Son of Man, Kevin? Was Jesus the son of a woman? Yes, I think you would believe so as well. Then do you believe Son of Man and son of woman are synonymous, Kevin? KD says WAH! DAVEH: Am I losing you on this one, Kevin? Let me put it another way. Jesus is the Son of [an exalted] Man [of Holiness] who remained in heaven when Jesus came to the earth. Does that help? Do you believe Jesus' Father in Heaven is a man? I suspect not. Then why do you think he was considered the Son of Man? Could his father be a man? KD says It is too deep for you if you can't even follow this, besides you cahnged the subject DAVEH: To me it seems simpleJesus is the Son of Man. You apparently agree with that. You just think the Man part applies to his earthly heritage. I believe the Man refers to his Heavenly Father's heritage, as his Father in Heaven is a Holy Man who is exalted. Then the question is; Read the verse and tell me: Where was the "Son of Man"? DAVEH: I'd say the Son (Jesus) was on the earth, while the Man (his Father in Heaven) was in heaven. I think that is well illustrated in the baptism of Jesus (Mt 3:17) when. Kevin says your Mormon indoctrination is showing. DAVEH: Yes, I have always admitted my LDS bias. let's work on the original subject and I will be glad to revisit this and answer your questions. Read the verse again: And no man hath ascended up to heaven, but he that came down from heaven, even the Son of man which is in heaven. KD says Again WHERE is the son of man NOT who or what is the Son of man DAVE: ??? I consider it important to consider what Son of man means. Try separating Son from man. Think of the man part as being a heavenly man, who is exalted rather than a lowly earth type man who is a sinner. Who came down from Heaven? Who will ascend? Who is IN Heaven? The SUBJECT of this English sentence is the "Son of Man" Jesus Christ DAVEH: Just consider what Son of Man implies. I believe it is suggesting that Jesus has a divine heritage that comes from a holy manhis Father in Heaven. Hint: the son of man came down to earth and stands speaking saying the son of man is in heaven. DAVEH: I am suggesting you ponder if he didn't really mean it to be understood as... And no man hath ascended up to heaven, but he that came down from heaven, even the Son of [that holy exalted] man which is [remaining] in heaven. Jesus Christ is EVERYWHERE Present DAVEH: I respectfully disagree, Kevin. IF he were EVERYWHERE Present, then why did he descend into hell after his death?.or, why did he ascend up to heaven after his death? If he were already there, would it have been necessary for him to either descend, or ascend? Are there any other passages that you feel validate your theory that God is omnipresent? And lo a voice from heaven, saying, This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased. clearly indicates Jesus' Heavenly Father was the one in heaven, while Jesus was on the earth. Do you disagree, Kevin? If sodo you think
Re: [TruthTalk] Definition of Mormon Please
In a message dated 2/4/2005 8:43:23 PM Pacific Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: DAVEH: Where did you get that idea, Kevin? Son of Man refers to Jesus, and I stipulated such several days ago. What I am trying to point out to you is the root meaning of Son of Manin that Jesus' Father is a man who has been exalted and now resides in heaven. That's why he is called Heavenly Father, which is distinctly different than the Son of Man. Heavenly Father is the Man part of the title for Jesus, who is the Son of Man. Actually, I believe that we have the Son of Mankind and the Son of God The incarnation brought these two worlds together - God in the flesh - reconciling man to Himself. does this makes any sense to you, Dave. JD
Re: [TruthTalk] Definition of Mormon Please
To the Toughtful: I. Howard Marshall presents three considerations for the study of the biblical message. In the first place, the question is whether a given text has meaning in and of itself or whether meaning is "somehow created afresh through the interaction of the reader and the text." A perfect example of this for me is the passage found in Gal 3:26,27. At one time it read "Know ye not that as many of you as have been baptised [in water] into Christ, have put one Christ." And that presentation was true in symbol and helped me in a number of ways as I grew in Christ. Now, the passage actully says something very different. Now it gives me encouragement that if I immerse myself into [eis - Billy T] Christ, I put on Christ. The closer to the state of thoughful obsession of Christ, the deeper my immersion into Christ -- the result ? The putting on of Christ. My stay on this forum has presented to me the sinfullness of all -- including those who claim no sin -- and the gracious intervention of God in Christ. On a completely different but related level, there is my activity. God's activity is bound to everything we consider to be innately involved in the Father - son (read:me) relationship. "My activity" is all about learning to walk, then talking, then thinking, like my Father and then to teach others. Acts 2:38 once meant [to me] that after water baptism, I would receive the gift of the Holy Spirit Himself. And that served me well. Now, I believe that the word "receive" carries with it the meaning to "receive again for the first time" this wonderful gift. Emphasis on "again." This "image of God" is more than shared community with my fellows. It includes, of course, the Spirit of God in someway. If we were not created in His image, we would be fetching papers and doing the deed on the neighbors lawn. The fact that we are in the image of God, includes so many things. We think, we live and learn as God has done; there is an intense goodness in many of his creation, an intense goodness that only needs a sense of connection. There are so many things that distinquish us from Phido or the fish in the tank or the dove perched high in the corner of the porch covering. There is everything else and then, there is us. And so, "truth" has a dynamic to it that transcends the mathmatical equation. The value of the Word is born afresh as we consider it to be The Living Word ... God working through the same words in one year of our life to cause a growth spurt, then, again in a later year -- those very same words -- are used by Him to bring us to a new level. And so we appreciate the written message as it is acted upon by Him. Awesome. JD Bishop
Re: [TruthTalk] Definition of Mormon Please
DAVEH: Yes, John. I understand that you see it that way. But why? Why do you think Jesus represents the Son of Mankind? I'm not sure that makes any sense to me. I view Jesus as being a divine being, a deity from before the world was created. Do you not believe likewise? Isn't that why he was called the Son of God? Do you think he became less than the Son of God, or less than divine when he was on the earth? It seems to me that for Protestants to consider him reduced to mankind status would be contrary to his divine authorship. In fact, that's the charge many have leveled against LDS theology, that we have reduced God to mankind status in effect. So it somewhat surprises me that you would suggest such, JD. [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: In a message dated 2/4/2005 8:43:23 PM Pacific Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: DAVEH: Where did you get that idea, Kevin? Son of Man refers to Jesus, and I stipulated such several days ago. What I am trying to point out to you is the root meaning of Son of Manin that Jesus' Father is a man who has been exalted and now resides in heaven. That's why he is called Heavenly Father, which is distinctly different than the Son of Man. Heavenly Father is the Man part of the title for Jesus, who is the Son of Man. Actually, I believe that we have the Son of Mankind and the Son of God The incarnation brought these two worlds together - God in the flesh - reconciling man to Himself. does this makes any sense to you, Dave. 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] Definition of Mormon Please
Kevin Deegan wrote: Be glad to discuss this with you. To start let's look at John chapter 3 verse 13 And no man hath ascended up to heaven, but he that came down from heaven, even the Son of man which is in heaven. Do you agree: 1) Jesus was the one who said this DAVEH: Yes. 2) Jesus is the "Son of Man" DAVEH: Yes again. Do you believe Jesus is literally the Son of Man, Kevin? Was Jesus the son of a woman? Yes, I think you would believe so as well. Then do you believe Son of Man and son of woman are synonymous, Kevin? Do you believe Jesus' Father in Heaven is a man? I suspect not. Then why do you think he was considered the Son of Man? Could his father be a man? Then the question is; Read the verse and tell me: Where was the "Son of Man"? DAVEH: I'd say the Son (Jesus) was on the earth, while the Man (his Father in Heaven) was in heaven. I think that is well illustrated in the baptism of Jesus (Mt 3:17) when. And lo a voice from heaven, saying, This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased. clearly indicates Jesus' Heavenly Father was the one in heaven, while Jesus was on the earth. Do you disagree, Kevin? If sodo you think Jesus was using a ventriloquism to project the voice from heaven? BTWI am very interested to know if you believe Jesus is literally the Son of Man, Kevin. And...how do you contrast that to him being the Son of Woman? Do you believe Jesus' father is a man? Dave Hansen [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Kevin Deegan wrote: Jesus is Revealed in the Holy Bible as OMNIPRESENT John 3 the son of man who came down and yet is IN Heaven DAVEH: I guess you'll have to spell it out for me, Kevin. I see nothing in ch 3 that lends support to your theory. God the Father is Revealed the Holy Bible as OMNIPRESEN Does he not fill Heaven Earth? These are clear teachings of the Bible DAVEH: Give me some Bible references, and the let's discuss it. not some Church council or some Prophet. All I need is a 5th grade education so I can read the Old Black Book DAVEH: I'll ask you the same question I asked JohnHow much of what you believe about the omnipresence of God is based on the T-Doctrine? Dave Hansen [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: In a message dated 1/21/2005 7:24:28 PM Pacific Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: DAVEH: ??? Why do you think Jesus is omnipresent Well, because He is God. DAVEH: But why do you define God as omnipresent? Is it due to the T-Doctrine? 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. Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Search presents - Jib Jab's 'Second Term' -- ~~~ 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] Definition of Mormon Please
Dave Hansen [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Kevin Deegan wrote: Be glad to discuss this with you. To start let's look at John chapter 3 verse 13 And no man hath ascended up to heaven, but he that came down from heaven, even the Son of man which is in heaven. Do you agree: 1) Jesus was the one who said this DAVEH: Yes. KD says OK 2) Jesus is the "Son of Man" DAVEH: Yes again.KD says OK Do you believe Jesus is literally the Son of Man, Kevin? Was Jesus the son of a woman? Yes, I think you would believe so as well. Then do you believe Son of Man and son of woman are synonymous, Kevin? KD says WAH! Do you believe Jesus' Father in Heaven is a man? I suspect not. Then why do you think he was considered the Son of Man? Could his father be a man? KD says It is too deep for you if you can't even follow this, besides you cahnged the subject Then the question is; Read the verse and tell me: Where was the "Son of Man"? DAVEH: I'd say the Son (Jesus) was on the earth, while the Man (his Father in Heaven) was in heaven. I think that is well illustrated in the baptism of Jesus (Mt 3:17) when.Kevin says your Mormon indoctrination is showing. let's work on the original subject and I will be glad to revisit this and answer your questions. Read the verse again: And no man hath ascended up to heaven, but he that came down from heaven, even the Son of man which is in heaven. KD says Again WHERE is the son of man NOT who or what is the Son of man Who came down from Heaven? Who will ascend? Who is IN Heaven? The SUBJECT of this English sentence is the "Son of Man" Jesus Christ Hint: the son of man came down to earth and stands speaking saying the son of man is in heaven. Jesus Christ is EVERYWHERE Present And lo a voice from heaven, saying, This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased.clearly indicates Jesus' Heavenly Father was the one in heaven, while Jesus was on the earth. Do you disagree, Kevin? If sodo you think Jesus was using a ventriloquism to project the voice from heaven? BTWI am very interested to know if you believe Jesus is literally the Son of Man, Kevin. And...how do you contrast that to him being the Son of Woman? Do you believe Jesus' father is a man? Dave Hansen [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Kevin Deegan wrote: Jesus is Revealed in the Holy Bible as OMNIPRESENT John 3 the son of man who came down and yet is IN HeavenDAVEH: I guess you'll have to spell it out for me, Kevin. I see nothing in ch 3 that lends support to your theory. God the Father is Revealed the Holy Bible as OMNIPRESEN Does he not fill Heaven Earth? These are clear teachings of the BibleDAVEH: Give me some Bible references, and the let's discuss it. not some Church council or some Prophet. All I need is a 5th grade education so I can read the Old Black BookDAVEH: I'll ask you the same question I asked JohnHow much of what you believe about the omnipresence of God is based on the T-Doctrine? Dave Hansen [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: In a message dated 1/21/2005 7:24:28 PM Pacific Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: DAVEH: ??? Why do you think Jesus is omnipresentWell, because He is God. DAVEH: But why do you define God as omnipresent? Is it due to the T-Doctrine? 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. Do you Yahoo!?Yahoo! Search presents - Jib Jab's 'Second Term' -- ~~~ Dave Hansen [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.langlitz.com ~~~ If you wish to receive things I find interesting, I maintain six email lists... JOKESTER, OPINIONS, LDS, STUFF, MOTORCYCLE and CLIPS. Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Search presents - Jib Jab's 'Second Term'
Re: [TruthTalk] Definition of Mormon Please
Be glad to discuss this with you. To start let's look at John chapter 3 verse 13 And no man hath ascended up to heaven, but he that came down from heaven, even the Son of man which is in heaven. Do you agree: 1) Jesus was the one who said this 2) Jesus is the "Son of Man" Then the question is; Read the verse and tell me: Where was the "Son of Man"?Dave Hansen [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Kevin Deegan wrote: Jesus is Revealed in the Holy Bible as OMNIPRESENT John 3 the son of man who came down and yet is IN HeavenDAVEH: I guess you'll have to spell it out for me, Kevin. I see nothing in ch 3 that lends support to your theory. God the Father is Revealed the Holy Bible as OMNIPRESEN Does he not fill Heaven Earth? These are clear teachings of the BibleDAVEH: Give me some Bible references, and the let's discuss it. not some Church council or some Prophet. All I need is a 5th grade education so I can read the Old Black BookDAVEH: I'll ask you the same question I asked JohnHow much of what you believe about the omnipresence of God is based on the T-Doctrine? Dave Hansen [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: In a message dated 1/21/2005 7:24:28 PM Pacific Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: DAVEH: ??? Why do you think Jesus is omnipresentWell, because He is God. DAVEH: But why do you define God as omnipresent? Is it due to the T-Doctrine? 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. Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Search presents - Jib Jab's 'Second Term'
Re: [TruthTalk] Definition of Mormon Please
Kevin Deegan wrote: Jesus is Revealed in the Holy Bible as OMNIPRESENT John 3 the son of man who came down and yet is IN Heaven DAVEH: I guess you'll have to spell it out for me, Kevin. I see nothing in ch 3 that lends support to your theory. God the Father is Revealed the Holy Bible as OMNIPRESEN Does he not fill Heaven Earth? These are clear teachings of the Bible DAVEH: Give me some Bible references, and the let's discuss it. not some Church council or some Prophet. All I need is a 5th grade education so I can read the Old Black Book DAVEH: I'll ask you the same question I asked JohnHow much of what you believe about the omnipresence of God is based on the T-Doctrine? Dave Hansen [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: In a message dated 1/21/2005 7:24:28 PM Pacific Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: DAVEH: ??? Why do you think Jesus is omnipresent Well, because He is God. DAVEH: But why do you define God as omnipresent? Is it due to the T-Doctrine? 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] Definition of Mormon Please
God's Wordappeals to us a certain way as truth; e.g., "..I distinguish: the Word of God in a first, original address, in which God himself, God alone, is the One who speaks; in a second address in which there will be added to the Word a very definite caregory of human beings, the prophets and apostles; and, in a third address, in which the number of these His human bearers or proclaimers will be theoretically unlimited. But 'the Word of God abides forever.' It is no other; it becomes no other, in that it is now the first, now the second, now the third; and always, when it is one of the three, it is in some sense also the other two. The Word of God on which dogmatics reflects is..one in three, three in one : Revelation, Scripture, preaching; Word of God the Revelation, Word of God the Scripture, Word of God preaching, not to be confused and not to be separated. One Word of god, one authority, one truth.." in part, the author (not Dr. Seuss:) is saying thatGod's'revelation' is not a disjunct propheticcategory apart from 'Scripture' per se; it is part of a tri-unity in which the Word exists,or, oftrinity which some saythe author, above,alludes tothe filioque (an early creedaldoctrine discussedin other TTthreads).. who is the author? from the Evangelical fringe,Karl Barth, (IMO) unnecessarily 'expulsed' from the Bible Students Union rank and file ftr, no one here has been 'expulsed' like him; 'repulsed', maybe often,however, that comes with the territory of Truth Talk, an environment where 'truth' itself is questioned by design.. also, regardless ofanybodies' 'revulsion' at him, i suspect Barth would've enjoyd us, TT..anyway, when youfind the core value/s of 'truth'for us, post it(!) (..and suffer:) "Well, George Lewis told the Englishman, the Italian and the Jew'You can't open your mind, boysTo every conceivable point of view.'They got Charles Darwin trapped out there on Highway FiveJudge says to the High Sheriff,'I want him dead or aliveEither one, I don't care.'High Water everywhere..The Cuckoo is a pretty bird, she warbles as she fliesI'm preachin' the Word of GodI'm puttin' out your eyesI asked Fat Nancy for something to eat, she said, 'Take it off the shelf -As great as you are a man,You'll never be greater than yourself.'I told her I didn't really careHigh water everywhere.." Bob Dylan, Copyright 2001 Special Rider Music On Sat, 22 Jan 2005 22:39:11 -0600 "ShieldsFamily" [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: [about]..studying..Gods Word
Re: [TruthTalk] Definition of Mormon Please
*note On Sun, 23 Jan 2005 08:22:47 -0700 [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: God's Wordappeals to us a certain way as truth; e.g., "..I distinguish: the Word of God in a first, original address, in which God himself, God alone, is the One who speaks; in a second address in which there will be added to the Word a very definite caregory of human beings, the prophets and apostles; and, in a third address, in which the number of these His human bearers or proclaimers will be theoretically unlimited. But 'the Word of God abides forever.' It is no other; it becomes no other, in that it is now the first, now the second, now the third; and always, when it is one of the three, it is in some sense also the other two. The Word of God on which dogmatics reflects is..one in three, three in one : Revelation, Scripture, preaching; Word of God the Revelation, Word of God the Scripture, Word of God preaching, not to be confused and not to be separated. One Word of [*G]od, one authority, one truth.." in part, the author (not Dr. Seuss:) is saying thatGod's'revelation' is not a disjunct propheticcategory apart from 'Scripture' per se; it is part of a tri-unity in which the Word exists,or, oftrinity which some saythe author, above,alludes tothe filioque (an early creedaldoctrine discussedin other TTthreads).. who is the author? from the Evangelical fringe,Karl Barth, (IMO) unnecessarily 'expulsed' from the Bible Students Union rank and file ftr, no one here has been 'expulsed' like him; 'repulsed', maybe often,however, that comes with the territory of Truth Talk, an environment where 'truth' itself is questioned by design.. also, regardless ofanybodies' 'revulsion' at him, i suspect Barth would've enjoyd us, TT..anyway, when youfind the core value/s of 'truth'for us, post it(!) (..and suffer:) "Well, George Lewis told the Englishman, the Italian and the Jew'You can't open your mind, boysTo every conceivable point of view.'They got Charles Darwin trapped out there on Highway FiveJudge says to the High Sheriff,'I want him dead or aliveEither one, I don't care.'High Water everywhere..The Cuckoo is a pretty bird, she warbles as she fliesI'm preachin' the Word of GodI'm puttin' out your eyesI asked Fat Nancy for something to eat, she said, 'Take it off the shelf -As great as you are a man,You'll never be greater than yourself.'I told her I didn't really careHigh water everywhere.." Bob Dylan, Copyright 2001 Special Rider Music On Sat, 22 Jan 2005 22:39:11 -0600 "ShieldsFamily" [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: [about]..studying..Gods Word
Re: [TruthTalk] Definition of Mormon Please
Karl Barth is arguably the most significant theologian since Athanasius. He is so thoroughly Trinitarian in his approach as to have been variously 'embraced' by the Catholic, Orthodox and, Protestant Traditions. As I suspect you already know, his approach to 'Word of God' is similar to your own herein, G. Please correct me if I've misread you. - Original Message - From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: January 23, 2005 10:22 Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Definition of Mormon Please God's Wordappeals to us a certain way as truth; e.g., "..I distinguish: the Word of God in a first, original address, in which God himself, God alone, is the One who speaks; in a second address in which there will be added to the Word a very definite caregory of human beings, the prophets and apostles; and, in a third address, in which the number of these His human bearers or proclaimers will be theoretically unlimited. But 'the Word of God abides forever.' It is no other; it becomes no other, in that it is now the first, now the second, now the third; and always, when it is one of the three, it is in some sense also the other two. The Word of God on which dogmatics reflects is..one in three, three in one : Revelation, Scripture, preaching; Word of God the Revelation, Word of God the Scripture, Word of God preaching, not to be confused and not to be separated. One Word of god, one authority, one truth.." in part, the author (not Dr. Seuss:) is saying thatGod's'revelation' is not a disjunct propheticcategory apart from 'Scripture' per se; it is part of a tri-unity in which the Word exists,or, oftrinity which some saythe author, above,alludes tothe filioque (an early creedaldoctrine discussedin other TTthreads).. who is the author? from the Evangelical fringe,Karl Barth, (IMO) unnecessarily 'expulsed' from the Bible Students Union rank and file ftr, no one here has been 'expulsed' like him; 'repulsed', maybe often,however, that comes with the territory of Truth Talk, an environment where 'truth' itself is questioned by design.. also, regardless ofanybodies' 'revulsion' at him, i suspect Barth would've enjoyd us, TT..anyway, when youfind the core value/s of 'truth'for us, post it(!) (..and suffer:) "Well, George Lewis told the Englishman, the Italian and the Jew'You can't open your mind, boysTo every conceivable point of view.'They got Charles Darwin trapped out there on Highway FiveJudge says to the High Sheriff,'I want him dead or aliveEither one, I don't care.'High Water everywhere..The Cuckoo is a pretty bird, she warbles as she fliesI'm preachin' the Word of GodI'm puttin' out your eyesI asked Fat Nancy for something to eat, she said, 'Take it off the shelf -As great as you are a man,You'll never be greater than yourself.'I told her I didn't really careHigh water everywhere.." Bob Dylan, Copyright © 2001 Special Rider Music On Sat, 22 Jan 2005 22:39:11 -0600 "ShieldsFamily" [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: [about]..studying..God’s Word
Re: [TruthTalk] Definition of Mormon Please
G What do we have in common? Something of sorts, you asked a couple of days ago, After admiting that I did not know -- I would change that to this: a regard for the biblical message. Where some on this forum, a few, actually, see it differently, I, nonetheless, believe that this is what ties us together. Even Dave and Blaine have been good enough to make their arguments from this message in dispite of a broader view of "scripture." But, I suspect that this is not entirely unique. Those that use "orthodoxy" and related materials (i.e. the Church Fathers or N..T. Wright) can be seen as having the same reverence but for a different set of "scripture." And those who go to Finney, Dakes, and the like, also have as their chief concern on this forum, the biblical message. I believe that the Great God Almighty is fully equipped to bring about the same conclusion in each of us, dispite the obvious differences regarding this singular source or reference. JD
Re: [TruthTalk] Definition of Mormon Please
In a message dated 1/23/2005 7:37:22 AM Pacific Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: One Word of [*G]od, one authority, one truth.." A divine association on your part among words of a gifted posting. Jd
Re: [TruthTalk] Definition of Mormon Please
IT TIME FOR A LITTLE FOOTBALL GO NEW ENGLAND. SMITHSON - OUT
Re: [TruthTalk] Definition of Mormon Please
*food for thought On Fri, 21 Jan 2005 21:41:05 -0800 (PST) Kevin Deegan [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: All I need is a 5th grade education so I can *[start]read[ing] the Old Black Book
Re: [TruthTalk] Definition of Mormon Please
FOOD FOR THOUGHT 1 CO 1:26 For ye see your calling, brethren, how that not many wise men after the flesh, not many mighty, not many noble, are called: But God hath chosen the foolish things of the world to confound the wise; and God hath chosen the weak things of the world to confound the things which are mighty; MT 19:14 But Jesus said, Suffer little children, and forbid them not, to come unto me: for of such is the kingdom of heaven. 1 JN 2:18 Little children, it is the last time: and as ye have heard that antichrist shall come, even now are there many antichrists; whereby we know that it is the last time. 1 JN 2:28 And now, little children, abide in him; that, when he shall appear, we may have confidence, and not be ashamed before him at his coming. 1 JN 3:7 Little children, let no man deceive you: he that doeth righteousness is righteous, even as he is righteous. 1 JN 3:18 My little children, let us not love in word, neither in tongue; but in deed and in truth. 1 JN 4:4 Ye are of God, little children, and have overcome them: because greater is he that is in you, than he that is in the world. 1 JN 5:21 Little children, keep yourselves from idols. Amen.[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: *food for thought On Fri, 21 Jan 2005 21:41:05 -0800 (PST) Kevin Deegan [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: All I need is a 5th grade education so I can *[start]read[ing] the Old Black Book Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Search presents - Jib Jab's 'Second Term'
Re: [TruthTalk] Definition of Mormon Please
how old is the author? as an example to consider, apparently Dr. Suesspublishd 'The Cat in the Hat' in about 1954; he was approx 50 y/o then; the pattern ewith him may be similar to the Ap Jn, e.g., that Jn was about 50 y/o (below)and had become a renownd writr before writg 'childrns' lit:) On Sat, 22 Jan 2005 16:37:55 -0800 (PST) Kevin Deegan [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: [e.g.] My little children, let us ..
RE: [TruthTalk] Definition of Mormon Please
I am thinking of someone no longer with us today. Consider the question of which is justified in the eyes of the Lord. Is it the one who had such a privileged life that he was able to attend university and become a very learned theologian, well published and much honored, to such an elevation that he distained others less intellectual than himself, and could hardly keep himself from ridiculing their very ignorant beliefs. OR the woman who grew up in poor circumstances, who devoted her entire life to her husband and children and grandchildren, but who devoted herself at the same time to studying and pondering Gods Word on her own, to pray, to subject herself to whatever godly influences she could find to mentor her, and died with no one knowing her name, having rarely suffered anything but scorn. Her legacy was that her beliefs were much ridiculed by the Learned Men of the University of Theological Majesties. Which one of the two was actually more wise, more of a servants heart, more of a disciple, or more like the Master? Which one gave the Widows mite? Which one received a Well done my faithful servant?, the Learned One, or the foolish one? Which one pleased Him more? Iz From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Kevin Deegan Sent: Saturday, January 22, 2005 6:38 PM To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Definition of Mormon Please FOOD FOR THOUGHT 1 CO 1:26 For ye see your calling, brethren, how that not many wise men after the flesh, not many mighty, not many noble, are called: But God hath chosen the foolish things of the world to confound the wise; and God hath chosen the weak things of the world to confound the things which are mighty;
Re: [TruthTalk] Definition of Mormon Please
DAVEH: This is where I fail to understand the Protestant (forgive me if I'm lumping too many people together on this one, DavidM) perspective. IF Jesus and the Father are one, does it not seem a little contratidictive that Jesus has a physical body, and his Father does not? As two separate Gods, each having different characteristics might make sense, but most Christians want to tie them together in a oneness theory, that seems conflicting to me. Can Jesus and God be separate and distinctly different persons/Gods from a Protestant perspective? Just because they are ONE does not mean they have to have a body. The bible says that a married couple are ONE Flesh. Does this ONENESS ThEORY CONFUSE YOU also? Do you have all the equipment she has? Does it seem as U say "a little contratidictive" that she has a _ and you do not? Details in the Holy Bible.Dave Hansen [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: David Miller wrote: Dave Hansen wrote: Soas I'm understanding this, Protestantism teaches that Jesus' (who is God) spirit is now clothed in a body of flesh and bonesis that correct? ... Do you believe God has a physical body as well? Dave, most Protestant scholars would accept the view that Jesus Christ has a physical body.DAVEH: Would you say the same about the lay people? Would most agree? I believe this and would make a case with those who would try and argue that Jesus is only a ghost right now. The question of the Father's physical presence is another matter entirely. John Calvin took a very strong stand on this issue, and because of the influence of his writings on this subject, most Protestants probably favor the view that the Father does not have a physical body. In fact, many of them would consider anyone a heretic who would think that the Father has a body. DAVEH: This is where I fail to understand the Protestant (forgive me if I'm lumping too many people together on this one, DavidM) perspective. IF Jesus and the Father are one, does it not seem a little contratidictive that Jesus has a physical body, and his Father does not? As two separate Gods, each having different characteristics might make sense, but most Christians want to tie them together in a oneness theory, that seems conflicting to me. Can Jesus and God be separate and distinctly different persons/Gods from a Protestant perspective? This view, however, like the eternal sonship view discussed before, is not universal. Nor is it considered orthodoxy by all Protestants. Personally, based upon my study of Scripture, I think that the Father does have a physical body,DAVEH: I do find that interesting, as I thought I'd never hear it from a relatively mainstream (forgive me for that one, DavidM) Christian. Do you get a lot of negative feedback on your stance? but it is not an issue that I would fight anyone over. I do not feel the same way about those who perceive Jesus not to have a physical body. Those who would claim that Jesus does not have a physical body would be attacking the doctrine of the resurrection. DAVEH: Yeahthat's the way I see it, but it seems to be a common misconception in Protestantism, as far as I can see. BTW...Thank you for sharing your honest thoughts about this. 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. Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Search presents - Jib Jab's 'Second Term'
Re: [TruthTalk] Definition of Mormon Please
In a message dated 1/21/2005 9:53:02 AM Pacific Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: DAVEH: This is where I fail to understand the Protestant (forgive me if I'm lumping too many people together on this one, DavidM) perspective. IF Jesus and the Father are one, does it not seem a little contratidictive that Jesus has a physical body, and his Father does not? As two separate Gods, each having different characteristics might make sense, but most Christians want to tie them together in a oneness theory, that seems conflicting to me. Can Jesus and God be separate and distinctly different persons/Gods from a Protestant perspective? Just because they are ONE does not mean they have to have a body. The bible says that a married couple are ONE Flesh. Does this ONENESS ThEORY CONFUSE YOU also? Do you have all the equipment she has? Does it seem as U say "a little contratidictive" that she has a _ and you do not? Details in the Holy Bible. My vote is against a flesh and blood body for the Living Resurrected Christ. Just FTR. Philosophically impossible when we consider omipresense. JD
Re: [TruthTalk] Definition of Mormon Please
A 'philosophical impossibility' is NOT ( I repeat not) the deciding criterion on such matters. - Original Message - From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: January 21, 2005 14:01 Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Definition of Mormon Please In a message dated 1/21/2005 9:53:02 AM Pacific Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: DAVEH: This is where I fail to understand the Protestant (forgive me if I'm lumping too many people together on this one, DavidM) perspective. IF Jesus and the Father are one, does it not seem a little contratidictive that Jesus has a physical body, and his Father does not? As two separate Gods, each having different characteristics might make sense, but most Christians want to tie them together in a oneness theory, that seems conflicting to me. Can Jesus and God be separate and distinctly different persons/Gods from a Protestant perspective?Just because they are ONE does not mean they have to have a body. The bible says that a married couple are ONE Flesh.Does this ONENESS ThEORY CONFUSE YOU also?Do you have all the equipment she has?Does it seem as U say "a little contratidictive" that she has a _ and you do not?Details in the Holy Bible.My vote is against a flesh and blood body for the Living Resurrected Christ. Just FTR.Philosophically impossible when we consider omipresense.JD
Re: [TruthTalk] Definition of Mormon Please
Very True. God who created Physics is not under it's law. It is Physically impossible for a Man to walk on water.Lance Muir [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: A 'philosophical impossibility' is NOT ( I repeat not) the deciding criterion on such matters. - Original Message - From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: January 21, 2005 14:01 Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Definition of Mormon Please In a message dated 1/21/2005 9:53:02 AM Pacific Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: DAVEH: This is where I fail to understand the Protestant (forgive me if I'm lumping too many people together on this one, DavidM) perspective. IF Jesus and the Father are one, does it not seem a little contratidictive that Jesus has a physical body, and his Father does not? As two separate Gods, each having different characteristics might make sense, but most Christians want to tie them together in a oneness theory, that seems conflicting to me. Can Jesus and God be separate and distinctly different persons/Gods from a Protestant perspective?Just because they are ONE does not mean they have to have a body. The bible says that a married couple are ONE Flesh.Does this ONENESS ThEORY CONFUSE YOU also?Do you have all the equipment she has?Does it seem as U say "a little contratidictive" that she has a _ and you do not?Details in the Holy Bible.My vote is against a flesh and blood body for the Living Resurrected Christ. Just FTR.Philosophically impossible when we consider omipresense.JD __Do You Yahoo!?Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com
Re: [TruthTalk] Definition of Mormon Please
1 John 3;2 or John 3;2 ?[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: In a message dated 1/21/2005 11:31:10 AM Pacific Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: A 'philosophical impossibility' is NOT ( I repeat not) the deciding criterion on such matters.Too much dependence on my own sense of philosophical soundness? In other words, why? Would I John 3:2 have anything to do with the discussion. JD Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Mail - 250MB free storage. Do more. Manage less.
Re: [TruthTalk] Definition of Mormon Please
In a message dated 1/21/2005 12:26:42 PM Pacific Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: 1 John 3;2 or John 3;2 ? I Jo 3:2 -- We will be like Him .. We do not know what we will be like except that we will be like Him -- therefore, we do not know what He is like. I assume this passages is speaking of appearances. Jd
Re: [TruthTalk] Definition of Mormon Please
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: My vote is against a flesh and blood body for the Living Resurrected Christ. DAVEH: I agree with you on that, JD. Just FTR. Philosophically impossible when we consider omipresense. DAVEH: ??? Why do you think Jesus is omnipresent? 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] Definition of Mormon Please
In a message dated 1/21/2005 7:24:28 PM Pacific Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: DAVEH: ??? Why do you think Jesus is omnipresent Well, because He is God. JD
Re: [TruthTalk] Definition of Mormon Please
Again details in the Bible John 3:11-13 Verily, verily, I say unto thee, We speak that we do know, and testify that we have seen; and ye receive not our witness.If I have told you earthly things, and ye believe not, how shall ye believe, if I tell you of heavenly things?And no man hath ascended up to heaven, but he that came down from heaven, even the Son of man which is IN heaven. Dave Hansen [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: My vote is against a flesh and blood body for the Living Resurrected Christ.DAVEH: I agree with you on that, JD. Just FTR.Philosophically impossible when we consider omipresense.DAVEH: ??? Why do you think Jesus is omnipresent? 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.__Do You Yahoo!?Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com
Re: [TruthTalk] Definition of Mormon Please
In a message dated 1/21/2005 7:55:44 PM Pacific Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Again details in the Bible John 3:11-13 Verily, verily, I say unto thee, We speak that we do know, and testify that we have seen; and ye receive not our witness.If I have told you earthly things, and ye believe not, how shall ye believe, if I tell you of heavenly things?And no man hath ascended up to heaven, but he that came down from heaven, even the Son of man which is IN heaven. Is this addressed to the discussion on inspiration? JD
Re: [TruthTalk] Definition of Mormon Please
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: In a message dated 1/21/2005 7:24:28 PM Pacific Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: DAVEH: ??? Why do you think Jesus is omnipresent Well, because He is God. DAVEH: But why do you define God as omnipresent? Is it due to the T-Doctrine? 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] Definition of Mormon Please
Jesus is OmniPRESENT on Earth IN Heaven[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: In a message dated 1/21/2005 7:55:44 PM Pacific Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Again details in the BibleJohn 3:11-13 Verily, verily, I say unto thee, We speak that we do know, and testify that we have seen; and ye receive not our witness.If I have told you earthly things, and ye believe not, how shall ye believe, if I tell you of heavenly things?And no man hath ascended up to heaven, but he that came down from heaven, even the Son of man which is IN heaven.Is this addressed to the discussion on inspiration?JD __Do You Yahoo!?Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com
Re: [TruthTalk] Definition of Mormon Please
"The Son of God is still incarnate, though now incarnate as a risen and glorious man. Jesus, was gloriously raised from the dead as a complete and entire man--body and soul." T. Weinandy, 'Jesus Christ', Our Sunday Visitor, 2003 - Original Message - From: Dave Hansen To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: January 18, 2005 01:57 Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Definition of Mormon Please DAVEH: Kevin..It is difficult for me to follow all you've been posting today. Do you really want to have a discussion, or are you just posting a bunch of stuff for the fun of it? As I see it, you want to discuss LDS related things with me from the nature (in general) of your questions. You've got a few question marks and lots of statements, some of which blend into other stuff posted by Blaine, Slade, Perry and me, as far as I can see. In shortI have a lot of trouble keeping up with you. Furthermore, you seem to just ignore the questions already on the board. I asked you a few days ago about whether or not you think Jesus has a physical body of flesh and bone today, yet I haven't seen your answer on that yet. Since it pertains to some of what you posted below, it seems prudent that we get that question out of the way before we try to proceed to some of these others.don't you agree? As you probably know...I believe Jesus currently is a God and possesses a spirit body clothed with a physical body of flesh and bone. What do you believe about it, Kevin??? Once you answer that, then can you ask me just one or two questions with which we can stay on track? I think that will lead to a more meaningful discussionIF that is your intent. If instead, you wish to just berate my beliefsthen continuing with this wild assortment of accusations will not benefit either of us. The other day, you gave me your definition of Christian, and I thought that might be an indicator that we could have some meaningful exchanges in the future. I hope that is your goal toobut I'm not too sure. SoWhere do you want to go from here, Kevin? If intend to encourage me to lurk for awhilethe choice is yours+++DAVEH: Therein is the problem, Perry. You aren't misleading me.you are misleading others who believe your sources are accurate Who's misleading who? Please provide an example of inaccuracy or one bad source Please provide some accurate sources. Are the LDS Standard works accurate? LDS Teaching manuals at www.lds.org? By the way Joe said: There are three gods: theFather, the Son and the Holy Spirit. Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, p 370, 372 "I have always declared God to be a distinct personage, Jesus Christ a separate and distinct personage from God the Father, and the Holy Spirit was a distinct personage and a Spirit: and these three constitute three distinct personages and THREE GODS. Joseph Smith. Documentary History of the Church. 6:474, June 16, 1844 There are many gods, Mormon Doctrine, p. 163. There is a mother god, Articles of Faith, by James Talmage, p. 443 NO does not make me MEAN It is the LDS Prophets who claim to speak as the "mouth of God" Who say that DaveH is not a true Mormon. He must sustain them or else this is his fate as per the LDS leadership. It is they who define Mormonism.Dave defines daveISMKevin Deegan wrote: So you sustain the Prophet in all things?Dave Hansen [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Kevin Deegan wrote: He's already said he doesn't believe EVERYTHING his church may have as doctrine.DAVEH: ??? Are you referring to me, Kevin? When did I say I didn't believe EVERYTHING his church may have as doctrine? I do not recall saying that at all. You are the second TTer to say such, and I prefer that you do not perpetrate the myth. IF I said it, please quote where I did so. Otherwise.please do not attribute things I said that I didn't. FTR..At the moment, I can't think of anything LDS theology teaches that I do not believe. And, if there has been anything (LDS) in the past I've not accepted, I cannot remember what it was. SoIF I said suchjog my memory, Kevin. Otherwise, I would appreciate you not putting words in my mouth. Thank you. So he is Not a Christian and now we find out he is not Everything a Mormon ought to be. I guess that puts him in Limbo He is not Christian he is not Mormon He pratcies DaveISM!DAVEH: If this is the logic you prefer to use to win my allegiance to your way of thinking, Kevin, you
Re: [TruthTalk] Definition of Mormon Please
The good priest appears to be 'missing a part' Lance. No man is complete and entire without a spirit and we know Jesus had one - remember Luke 23:46? He didn't say "Father into your hands I commend my body/soul" did he?jt On Tue, 18 Jan 2005 05:26:00 -0500 "Lance Muir" [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: "The Son of God is still incarnate, though now incarnate as a risen and glorious man. Jesus, was gloriously raised from the dead as a complete and entire man--body and soul." T. Weinandy, 'Jesus Christ', Our Sunday Visitor, 2003 From: Dave Hansen DAVEH: Kevin..It is difficult for me to follow all you've been posting today. Do you really want to have a discussion, or are you just posting a bunch of stuff for the fun of it? As I see it, you want to discuss LDS related things with me from the nature (in general) of your questions. You've got a few question marks and lots of statements, some of which blend into other stuff posted by Blaine, Slade, Perry and me, as far as I can see. In shortI have a lot of trouble keeping up with you. Furthermore, you seem to just ignore the questions already on the board. I asked you a few days ago about whether or not you think Jesus has a physical body of flesh and bone today, yet I haven't seen your answer on that yet. Since it pertains to some of what you posted below, it seems prudent that we get that question out of the way before we try to proceed to some of these others.don't you agree? As you probably know...I believe Jesus currently is a God and possesses a spirit body clothed with a physical body of flesh and bone. What do you believe about it, Kevin??? Once you answer that, then can you ask me just one or two questions with which we can stay on track? I think that will lead to a more meaningful discussionIF that is your intent. If instead, you wish to just berate my beliefsthen continuing with this wild assortment of accusations will not benefit either of us. The other day, you gave me your definition of Christian, and I thought that might be an indicator that we could have some meaningful exchanges in the future. I hope that is your goal toobut I'm not too sure. SoWhere do you want to go from here, Kevin? If intend to encourage me to lurk for awhilethe choice is yours+++DAVEH: Therein is the problem, Perry. You aren't misleading me.you are misleading others who believe your sources are accurate Who's misleading who? Please provide an example of inaccuracy or one bad source Please provide some accurate sources. Are the LDS Standard works accurate? LDS Teaching manuals at www.lds.org? By the way Joe said: There are three gods: theFather, the Son and the Holy Spirit. Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, p 370, 372 "I have always declared God to be a distinct personage, Jesus Christ a separate and distinct personage from God the Father, and the Holy Spirit was a distinct personage and a Spirit: and these three constitute three distinct personages and THREE GODS. Joseph Smith. Documentary History of the Church. 6:474, June 16, 1844 There are many gods, Mormon Doctrine, p. 163. There is a mother god, Articles of Faith, by James Talmage, p. 443 NO does not make me MEAN It is the LDS Prophets who claim to speak as the "mouth of God" Who say that DaveH is not a true Mormon. He must sustain them or else this is his fate as per the LDS leadership. It is they who define Mormonism.Dave defines daveISMKevin Deegan wrote: So you sustain the Prophet in all things?Dave Hansen [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Kevin Deegan wrote: He's already said he doesn't believe EVERYTHING his church may have as doctrine.DAVEH: ??? Are you referring to me, Kevin? When did I say I didn't believe EVERYTHING his church may have as doctrine? I do not recall saying that at all. You are the second TTer to say such, and I prefer that you do not perpetrate the myth. IF I said it, please quote where I did so. Otherwise.please do not attribute things I said that I didn't. FTR..At the moment, I can't think of anything LDS theology teaches that I do not believe. And, if there has been anything (LDS) in the past I've not accepted, I cannot remember what it was. SoIF I said suchjog my memory, Kevin. Otherwise, I would appreciate you not putting words in my mouth. Thank you. So he is Not a Christian and now we find
RE: [TruthTalk] Definition of Mormon Please
The Besuras Hageulah According to Lukas (Luke) 23:46 And having cried out with a kol gadol (loud voice), Rebbe Melech HaMoschiach said, Abba, BYADCHA AFKID RUCHI (Into your hands I commit my ruach [spirit]). And this having said, Rebbe, Melech HaMoschiach breathed out his last. Kay -Original Message-From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]On Behalf Of Judy TaylorSent: Tuesday, 18 January, 2005 06.07To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgCc: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgSubject: Re: [TruthTalk] Definition of Mormon Please The good priest appears to be 'missing a part' Lance. No man is complete and entire without a spirit and we know Jesus had one - remember Luke 23:46? He didn't say "Father into your hands I commend my body/soul" did he?jt
Re: [TruthTalk] Definition of Mormon Please
Thanks Kay,
Got to go for a while - y'all behave while I'm gone
:) See ya later...
On Tue, 18 Jan 2005 07:44:59 -0500 "Slade Henson" [EMAIL PROTECTED]
writes:
The
Besuras Hageulah According to Lukas (Luke)
23:46
And
having cried out with a kol gadol (loud voice), Rebbe Melech HaMoschiach said,
Abba, BYADCHA AFKID RUCHI (Into your hands I commit my ruach [spirit]). And
this having said, Rebbe, Melech HaMoschiach breathed out his
last.
Kay
-Original Message-From:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]On Behalf Of Judy
TaylorSent: Tuesday, 18 January, 2005 06.07To:
TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgCc:
TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgSubject: Re: [TruthTalk] Definition of
Mormon Please
The good priest appears to be 'missing a part'
Lance. No man is complete and entire without a spirit and
we
know Jesus had one - remember Luke 23:46? He didn't
say "Father into your hands I commend my body/soul"
did he?jt
Re: [TruthTalk] Definition of Mormon Please
Slade Henson wrote: The Besuras Hageulah According to Lukas (Luke) 23:46 And having cried out with a kol gadol (loud voice), Rebbe Melech HaMoschiach said, Abba, BYADCHA AFKID RUCHI (Into your hands I commit my ruach [spirit]). And this having said, Rebbe, Melech HaMoschiach breathed out his last. Kay === On the cross, Jesus indeed gave up His spirit, and His body was left to be wrapped in aloes and buried. But later, when He ascended, He went in one peice. I don't dwell on stuff like this much, but seems to me that if we all get glorified bodies and we all get to eat at the feast, it would be a shame for Jesus not to have a stomach too. Terry
Re: [TruthTalk] Definition of Mormon Please
DAVEH: Soas I'm understanding this, Protestantism teaches that Jesus' (who is God) spirit is now clothed in a body of flesh and bonesis that correct? I will be interested to hear if Kevin agrees, as he seems to be very critical that I believe God consists of a physical being. ButI don't want to put words in his mouth, so what do you believe, Kevin? Do you believe God has a physical body as well? Lance also wrote: "The Son of God is still incarnate, though now incarnate as a risen and glorious man. Jesus, was gloriously raised from the dead as a complete and entire man--body and soul." T. Weinandy, 'Jesus Christ', Our Sunday Visitor, 2003 Terry Clifton wrote: Slade Henson wrote: The Besuras Hageulah According to Lukas (Luke) 23:46 And having cried out with a kol gadol (loud voice), Rebbe Melech HaMoschiach said, Abba, BYADCHA AFKID RUCHI (Into your hands I commit my ruach [spirit]). And this having said, Rebbe, Melech HaMoschiach breathed out his last. Kay === On the cross, Jesus indeed gave up His spirit, and His body was left to be wrapped in aloes and buried. But later, when He ascended, He went in one peice. I don't dwell on stuff like this much, but seems to me that if we all get glorified bodies and we all get to eat at the feast, it would be a shame for Jesus not to have a stomach too. 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] Definition of Mormon Please
Dave Hansen wrote: Soas I'm understanding this, Protestantism teaches that Jesus' (who is God) spirit is now clothed in a body of flesh and bonesis that correct? ... Do you believe God has a physical body as well? Dave, most Protestant scholars would accept the view that Jesus Christ has a physical body. I believe this and would make a case with those who would try and argue that Jesus is only a ghost right now. The question of the Father's physical presence is another matter entirely. John Calvin took a very strong stand on this issue, and because of the influence of his writings on this subject, most Protestants probably favor the view that the Father does not have a physical body. In fact, many of them would consider anyone a heretic who would think that the Father has a body. This view, however, like the eternal sonship view discussed before, is not universal. Nor is it considered orthodoxy by all Protestants. Personally, based upon my study of Scripture, I think that the Father does have a physical body, but it is not an issue that I would fight anyone over. I do not feel the same way about those who perceive Jesus not to have a physical body. Those who would claim that Jesus does not have a physical body would be attacking the doctrine of the resurrection. 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] Definition of Mormon Please
In a message dated 1/18/2005 7:11:52 AM Pacific Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: DAVEH: Soas I'm understanding this, Protestantism teaches that Jesus' (who is God) spirit is now clothed in a body of flesh and bonesis that correct? I will be interested to hear if Kevin agrees, as he seems to be very critical that I believe God consists of a physical being. ButI don't want to put words in his mouth, so what do you believe, Kevin? Do you believe God has a physical body as well? Lance also wrote: "The Son of God is still incarnate, though now incarnate as a risen and glorious man. Jesus, was gloriously raised from the dead as a complete and entire man--body and soul." T. Weinandy, 'Jesus Christ', Our Sunday Visitor, 2003 Terry Clifton wrote: Slade Henson wrote: The Besuras Hageulah According to Lukas (Luke) 23:46 And having cried out with a kol gadol (loud voice), Rebbe Melech HaMoschiach said, Abba, BYADCHA AFKID RUCHI (Into your hands I commit my ruach [spirit]). And this having said, Rebbe, Melech HaMoschiach breathed out his last. Kay === On the cross, Jesus indeed gave up His spirit, and His body was left to be wrapped in aloes and buried. But later, when He ascended, He went in one peice. I don't dwell on stuff like this much, but seems to me that if we all get glorified bodies and we all get to eat at the feast, it would be a shame for Jesus not to have a stomach too. Terry Does this have anything to do with the above: " Beloved, now we are children of God and it has not yet appeared as to what we shall be. We know that, when He appears, we hall be like Him, because we shall see Him just as he is [whatever that is- my add-on]." I Jo 3:2 Jd
Re: [TruthTalk] Definition of Mormon Please
Dave Hansen wrote: Soas I'm understanding this, Protestantism teaches that Jesus' (who is God) spirit is now clothed in a body of flesh and bonesis thatcorrect? ... Do you believe God has a physicalbody as well? JESUS: Luke 24:39 Behold my hands and my feet, that it is I myself: handle me, and see; for a spirit hath not flesh and bones, as ye see me have. FATHER: God is a Spirit see also Rev 4:5, 5:6__Do You Yahoo!?Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com
Re: [TruthTalk] Definition of Mormon Please
He did Terry, he ate fish with the disciples after the cross but before he was resurrected. I don't doubt that the resurrected body is a reality and the soul is what needs saving. However the spirit is an important part of man because God is a spirit and we communicate with him in that dimension. There is another character who is also in that dimension who has a lot to say also. On Tue, 18 Jan 2005 08:32:50 -0500 Terry Clifton [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Slade Henson wrote: The Besuras Hageulah According to Lukas (Luke) 23:46 And having cried out with a kol gadol (loud voice), Rebbe Melech HaMoschiach said, Abba, BYADCHA AFKID RUCHI (Into your hands I commit my ruach [spirit]). And this having said, Rebbe, Melech HaMoschiach breathed out his last. Kay===On the cross, Jesus indeed gave up His spirit, and His body was left to be wrapped in aloes and buried. But later, when He ascended, He went in one peice. I don't dwell on stuff like this much, but seems to me that if we all get glorified bodies and we all get to eat at the feast, it would be a shame for Jesus not to have a stomach too.Terry
Re: [TruthTalk] Definition of Mormon Please
"Many men say there is one God; the Father, the Son and the Holy Ghost are only one God! I say that is a strange god any how -- three in one, and one in three! It is a curious organizations...All are to be crammed into one god, according to sectarianism. It would make the biggest God in all the world. He would be a wonderfully big God -- he would be a giant or a monster." Joseph Smith, Jr., HISTORY OF THE CHURCH 6:476:76 "I have always declared God to be a distinct personage, Jesus Christ a separate and distinct personage form God the Father, and that the Holy Ghost was a distinct personage and a spirit; and these three constitute three distinct personages and three Gods. If this is in accordance with the New Testament, lo and behold! We have three Gods anyhow, and they are plural: and who can contradict it?" Joseph Smith, Jr., HISTORY OF THE CHURCH 6:474 Dave, Is Joe saying I do not care if this agrees with the New Testament?Charles Perry Locke [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Blaine,PERRY: Okay, the LDS interpret the Godhead as 3 separate gods...sorry to mislead you!In conversations with LDS in the past I understood from their response that the LDS holy spirit was the spirit of the LDS god, and not a separate god itself. That is what I originally stated. DaveH corrected me in saying that the LDS holy spirit is not the spirit of LDS god, but a separate LDS god in and of itself. In the line above, I acknowledged that, and corrected my understanding. DaveH had said that I was being misleading. I was apologizing to those whom he thinks I misled, not to him. Now, what is it you see wrong with that?Now, to clear up the obfuscation created by this smokescreen, my original point is yet more clearly made by this description of the LDS godhead. It is NOT the same Godhead of the Bible. The names are the same, but the characters are different. The godhead of the Bible does not consist of a god from Kolob that was once a man, a god that was once a man made by the physical union of the god from Kolob and the human Mary, and a separate spirit that is also a god. Not the same at all.Regarding the section about women and resurrection, the reference I gave to prophet Snow speaks for itself. Here it is in brief: "No woman will get into the celestial kingdom, except her husband receives her, if she is worthy to have a husband."As to why I typically do not look to Mormons for answers to Mormon questions is that they 1) typically regurgitate the accepted standard LDS answers, which err in the same way Joseph Smith erred, and 2) use the same words that Christians use, but use the hidden LDS meanings. Most commonly they do not reveal the differences. They may not even be aware of the differences. The best source of the truth about Mormons is from 1) the works of the LDS, and 2) former LDS members who have been lead by the Holy Spirit of the Bible from the pagan LDS system into truth, and who then can see the pagan and occultic nature of the system, and typically speak/write quite openly and truthfully about it.PerryFun Facts: Joseph Smith, the great LDS prophet, stated that there were men living on the moon! Where did he get this? Here is an article that tells about the most likely source: http://home.comcast.net/~cpl2602/moonhoax.htm. Seems to me that a prophet would know better.""Nearly all the great discoveries of men in the last half century have, in one way or another... contributed to prove Joseph Smith to be a prophet. As far back as 1837, I know that he said the moon was inhabited by men and women the same as this earth, and that they lived to a greater age than we do, that they live generally to near the age of 1000 years. He described the men as averaging near six feet in height, and dressing quite uniformly in something near the Quaker style" (O. B. Huntington, Young Women's Journal, Vol. 3, p. 264, 1892).Not to be outdone, prophet Brigham Young stated that there were people living on the Sun!"Who can tell us of the inhabitants of this little planet that shines of an evening, called the moon?... So it is with regard to the inhabitants of the sun. Do you think it is inhabited? I rather think it is. Do you think there is any life there? No question of it" (B. Young, Journal of Discourses, Vol. 13, p. 271)."Are these the men you want telling you what god says?--"Let your speech be always with grace, seasoned with salt, that you may know how you ought to answer every man." (Colossians 4:6) http://www.InnGlory.orgIf you do not want to receive posts from this list, send an email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and you will be unsubscribed. If you have a friend who wants to join, tell him to send an e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and he will be subscribed. Do you Yahoo!? The all-new My Yahoo! – Get yours free!
Re: [TruthTalk] Definition of Mormon Please
myth[this comment indicates intrinsic divergence, also, constitutes more evidence thatTTcultists detest interactg with (e.g.)*Protestant theologians* per se in this case to correctly assess the divergnce--therefore the myth; interestgly,TTcultsts balk,hesitate toadmit it when they do refer to a *PT*..apparently some*PT* do generate conflictg cult agendas..] On Tue, 18 Jan 2005 07:11:15 -0800 Dave Hansen [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: || DAVEH: ..Protestantism teaches that Jesus' (who is God) spirit is now clothed in a body of flesh and bones
Re: [TruthTalk] Definition of Mormon Please
Judy wrote He did Terry, he ate fish with the disciples after the cross but before he was resurrected. Hi Judy: I must be misunderstanding something here.Did you mean tosay, after the cross but before he ascended? To whatevent does the "resurrection" of Jesus refer? Bill - Original Message - From: Judy Taylor To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Cc: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: Tuesday, January 18, 2005 1:54 PM Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Definition of Mormon Please He did Terry, he ate fish with the disciples after the cross but before he was resurrected. I don't doubt that the resurrected body is a reality and the soul is what needs saving. However the spirit is an important part of man because God is a spirit and we communicate with him in that dimension. There is another character who is also in that dimension who has a lot to say also. On Tue, 18 Jan 2005 08:32:50 -0500 Terry Clifton [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Slade Henson wrote: The Besuras Hageulah According to Lukas (Luke) 23:46 And having cried out with a kol gadol (loud voice), Rebbe Melech HaMoschiach said, Abba, BYADCHA AFKID RUCHI (Into your hands I commit my ruach [spirit]). And this having said, Rebbe, Melech HaMoschiach breathed out his last. Kay===On the cross, Jesus indeed gave up His spirit, and His body was left to be wrapped in aloes and buried. But later, when He ascended, He went in one peice. I don't dwell on stuff like this much, but seems to me that if we all get glorified bodies and we all get to eat at the feast, it would be a shame for Jesus not to have a stomach too.Terry
RE: [TruthTalk] Definition of Mormon Please *REPRIMAND*
*REPRIMAND* Your comments below can only be called MEAN. -- slade -Original Message-From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]On Behalf Of Kevin DeeganSent: Sunday, 16 January, 2005 22.28To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgSubject: Re: [TruthTalk] Definition of Mormon Please He's already said he doesn't believe EVERYTHING his church may have as doctrine. So he is Not a Christian and now we find out he is not Everything a Mormon ought to be. I guess that puts him in Limbo He is not Christian he is not Mormon He pratcies DaveISM!
RE: [TruthTalk] Definition of Mormon Please *REPRIMAND*
NO does not make me MEAN It is the LDS Prophets who claim to speak as the "mouth of God" Who say that DaveH is not a true Mormon. He must sustain them or else this is his fate as per the LDS leadership. It is they who define Mormonism. Dave defines daveISMSlade Henson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: *REPRIMAND* Your comments below can only be called MEAN. -- slade -Original Message-From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]On Behalf Of Kevin DeeganSent: Sunday, 16 January, 2005 22.28To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgSubject: Re: [TruthTalk] Definition of Mormon Please He's already said he doesn't believe EVERYTHING his church may have as doctrine. So he is Not a Christian and now we find out he is not Everything a Mormon ought to be. I guess that puts him in Limbo He is not Christian he is not Mormon He pratcies DaveISM! Do you Yahoo!? All your favorites on one personal page – Try My Yahoo!
Re: [TruthTalk] Definition of Mormon Please
BLAINERB: Pardon the interuption--the following excerpt from an apology from Richard Mouw, a prominant evangelical minister, on January 14 in the Salt Lake Tabernacle spells out the problem we have on TT continually--which is, that there are several people trying to TELL Mormons what they believe, rather than asking. The crux of Richard Mouw's apology is as follows: Richard Mouw: Let me state it clearly. We evangelicals have sinned against you (LDS). We have told you what you believe without making a sincere effort first of all to ask you what you believe. We have even on occasion demonized you, weaving conspiracy theories about what the LDS community is 'really' trying to accomplish in the world. DAVE'S CONVERSATION WITH PERRY BELOW IS A CLASSIC! PERRY: Okay, the LDS interpret the Godhead as 3 separate gods...sorry to mislead you! DAVEH: Therein is the problem, Perry. You aren't misleading me.you are misleading others who believe your sources are accurate DAVEH: ??? Where did you get that, Perry! And, if you are a woman, you do not get to be resurrected unless a Mormon male to whom you have been sealed in the temple calls you forth from the grave. Here: Do the women, when they pray, remember their husbands?... Do you uphold your husband before God as your lord? 'What!--my husband to be my lord?' I ask, Can you get into the celestial kingdom without him? Have any of you been there? You will remember that you never got into the celestial kingdom [during the temple ceremony] without the aid of your husband. If you did, it was because your husband was away, and some one had to act proxy for him. No woman will get into the celestial kingdom, except her husband receives her, if she is worthy to have a husband; and if not, somebody will receive her as a servant. (LDS Apostle Erastus Snow preached the following on Sunday, Oct. 4, 1857, Journal of Discourses, vol.5, p.291) From the above, No woman will get into the celestial kingdom, except her husband receives her, if she is worthy to have a husband. Otherwise she may be relegated to someone's servant. Be nice to your husbands, Mormon women, or they may not receive you and you will spend eternity as a slave! DaveH, if this is wrong, correct your Apostle Erastus Snow. DAVEH: Apostle Snow doesn't need correcting, Perry.but you do. Being resurrected and being resurrected to the celestial kingdom are two totally different concepts. LDS theology defines the (general) resurrection as being the point at which the spirit is reunited with the physical body. The resurrected body is one that becomes inseparable and incorruptible in immortality. LDS theology teaches that all women (and men) will be resurrected. Contrast that to what Apostle Snow is referring to when speaking about exaltation. He is using resurrect in the dictionary sense of raising up. Essentially he is saying that it takes a united couple to rise (resurrect) to the highest level of the celestial kingdom, which is where one can become like God. LDS theology teaches that not all women (nor men) will be resurrected to the celestial kingdom. Does that clear up your misunderstanding of how the LDS perceive resurrection? DAVEH: Some is blatantly false (such as women not being able to be resurrected), while others are skewed to make it sound bad. Tell me, then, how a woman gets resurrected to the celestial kingdom. DAVEH: As I understand it, neither the man nor the women need be sealed to rise to the celestial kingdom, but they do need to be sealed to rise to the highest level of the celestial kingdom. Or, do they get resurrected to some lower kingdom if they were unmarried, or their husband does not receive them, or if she is not worthy to have a husband. DAVEH: The answer to those questions is no. AndWhy do you call them secret, when they are available on the web? You have repeatedly tried to paint Mormonism with a negative brush of knowledge you've learned from ex-Mormons and anti-LDS websites. If it is true, and it is on a website, then why should I not repeat it here? If it is not secret, then no big deal, right? DAVEH: To us/me, it is sacred. If you wish to make light of the things I consider sacred, then posting them on TT will denigrate my beliefs. Where else am I to learn it? In their pagan rites LDS are bound by penalties ( http://www.lds-mormon.com/veilworker/penalty.shtml), just like in Freemasonry, not to discuss the pagan rites and rituals that take place in the LDS temple. Only those who have been through those rites (endowments, ordnanances), but have come to the truth, speak openly about it. 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
Re: [TruthTalk] Definition of Mormon Please
NO we do not learn these things from ANTI websites What evidence do you provide, in the face of the FACT thatPerryposts a OFFICIAL LDS work as the source? If you do not provide evidence I will have to conclude that You bear False Witness against Perry. It's easy to gleanthese thingsfrom OFFICIAL LDS sources http://library.lds.org/nxt/gateway.dll?f=templates$fn=default.htm Check for yourself stop spouting the "ANTI" Party line By the way do you know what the best ANTI source is? That Revered Old Black Book; God's Holy Bible! Does Richard Mouw speak for any of you Evangelicals out there? Is he the Evangelical Pope? Shame on Richard Mouw. Even the Evangelicals have called on him to repent. http://www.faithdefenders.com/files/desk/sellout.html The sellout has begun http://www.religionnewsblog.com/9561-Is_Dr._Richard_Mouw_Bearing_False_Witness_.html Is Mouw Bearing False Witness? QUOTE: Dr. Mouw’s comments were irresponsible, shameful and hypocritical. He bore false witness against many fruitful ministries that want nothing more than to present a clear and accurate case when it comes to the teachings of Mormonism and the presentation of the gospel and the Christ of Scripture. Given how he has defined “bearing false witness,” we are unclear how Dr. Mouw can think his broad brush accusations were any less a sin than the stereotypes he claims have been foisted on Mormons. Dr. Richard Mouw owes an apology to the many missionaries and ministries he has undermined. http://www.aomin.org/Mouw1.html Fuller President Apologizes to Mormons in Error http://www.mrm.org/multimedia/text/richard-mouw.html Are "we evangelicals" guilty of bearing false witness when it comes to explaining Mormon doctrine? By Bill McKeever "[EMAIL PROTECTED]" [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: BLAINERB: Pardon the interuption--the following excerpt from an apology from Richard Mouw, a prominant evangelical minister, on January 14 in the Salt Lake Tabernacle spells out the problem we have on TT continually--which is, that there are several people trying to TELL Mormons what they believe, rather than asking. The crux of Richard Mouw's apology is as follows:Richard Mouw: "Let me state it clearly. We evangelicals have sinned against you (LDS). We have told you what you believe without making a sincere effort first of all to ask you what you believe. We have even on occasion demonized you, weaving conspiracy theories about what the LDS community is 'really' trying to accomplish in the world." DAVE'S CONVERSATION WITH PERRY BELOW IS A CLASSIC!PERRY: Okay, the LDS interpret the Godhead as 3 separate gods...sorry to mislead you! DAVEH: Therein is the problem, Perry. You aren't misleading me.you are misleading others who believe your sources are accurateDAVEH: ??? Where did you get that, Perry! And, if you are a woman, you do not get to be resurrected unless a Mormon male to whom you have been sealed in the temple calls you forth from the grave. Here: "Do the women, when they pray, remember their husbands?... Do you uphold your husband before God as your lord? 'What!--my husband to be my lord?' I ask, Can you get into the celestial kingdom without him? Have any of you been there? You will remember that you never got into the celestial kingdom [during the temple ceremony] without the aid of your husband. If you did, it was because your husband was away, and some one had to act proxy for him. No woman will get into the celestial kingdom, except her husband receives her, if she is worthy to have a husband; and if not, somebody will receive her as a servant." (LDS Apostle Erastus Snow preached the following on Sunday, Oct. 4, 1857, Journal of Discourses, vol.5, p.291) From the above, "No woman will get into the celestial kingdom, except her husband receives her, if she is worthy to have a husband". Otherwise she may be relegated to someone's servant. Be nice to your husbands, Mormon women, or they may not "receive" you and you will spend eternity as a slave! DaveH, if this is wrong, correct your Apostle Erastus Snow. DAVEH: Apostle Snow doesn't need correcting, Perry.but you do. Being resurrected and being resurrected to the celestial kingdom are two totally different concepts. LDS theology defines the (general) resurrection as being the point at which the spirit is reunited with the physical body. The resurrected body is one that becomes inseparable and incorruptible in immortality. LDS theology teaches that all women (and men) will be resurrected.Contrast that to what Apostle Snow is referring to when speaking about exaltation. He is using resurrect in the dictionary sense of raising up. Essentially he is saying that it takes a united couple to rise (resurrect) to the highest level of the celestial kingdom, which is where one can become like God. LDS theology teaches that not all women (nor men) will be resurrected to the celestial kingdom.Does that clear up your misunderstanding of how the LDS perceive resurrection? DAVEH: Some is blatantly false
Re: [TruthTalk] Definition of Mormon Please
So you sustain the Prophet in all things?Dave Hansen [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Kevin Deegan wrote: He's already said he doesn't believe EVERYTHING his church may have as doctrine.DAVEH: ??? Are you referring to me, Kevin? When did I say I didn't believe EVERYTHING his church may have as doctrine? I do not recall saying that at all. You are the second TTer to say such, and I prefer that you do not perpetrate the myth. IF I said it, please quote where I did so. Otherwise.please do not attribute things I said that I didn't. FTR..At the moment, I can't think of anything LDS theology teaches that I do not believe. And, if there has been anything (LDS) in the past I've not accepted, I cannot remember what it was. SoIF I said suchjog my memory, Kevin. Otherwise, I would appreciate you not putting words in my mouth. Thank you. So he is Not a Christian and now we find out he is not Everything a Mormon ought to be. I guess that puts him in Limbo He is not Christian he is not Mormon He pratcies DaveISM!DAVEH: If this is the logic you prefer to use to win my allegiance to your way of thinking, Kevin, you may be overestimating my IQ. As I see it, my claim to Christianity is my faith in Jesus. While you may persuasively argue to the contrary, I hope you will forgive me for blindly trusting Him. Dave Hansen [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Slade Henson wrote:I think what matters here is what Dave believes. He's already said hedoesn't believe EVERYTHING his church may have as doctrine.DAVEH: ??? Though I may have said it, I don't recall doing so. Does Dave thinkhe's from some other planet? Why does he think this? Where does it comefrom? Does he think J. Smith was a prophet? Why or why not? Do we think hewas a prophet? Why or why not? Why is everyone else answering for Dave aboutMormonism?DAVEH: Good question, Kay. I think it is the nature of some people to teach rather than listen.even when what they teach is wrong. Are these people Mormons? Or quoting what someone else may havesaid about Mormons? Someone who may be wrong or have confused something. Whynot ask Dave himself? DAVEH: In many cases, it wouldn't matter. They wouldn't believe me anyway.BTW..I'm still not up to par, but I can't stay in bed any longer as my back is aching.so, I'll try to catch up on some of these posts.Kay-- ~~~ Dave Hansen [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.langlitz.com ~~~ If you wish to receive things I find interesting, I maintain six email lists... JOKESTER, OPINIONS, LDS, STUFF, MOTORCYCLE and CLIPS. Do you Yahoo!? The all-new My Yahoo! – What will yours do?
Re: [TruthTalk] Definition of Mormon Please
DAVEH: Therein is the problem, Perry. You aren't misleading me.you are misleading others who believe your sources are accurate Who's misleading who? Please provide an example of inaccuracy or one bad source Please provide some accurate sources. Are the LDS Standard works accurate? LDS Teaching manuals at www.lds.org? By the way Joe said: There are three gods: theFather, the Son and the Holy Spirit. Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, p 370, 372 "I have always declared God to be a distinct personage, Jesus Christ a separate and distinct personage from God the Father, and the Holy Spirit was a distinct personage and a Spirit: and these three constitute three distinct personages and THREE GODS. Joseph Smith. Documentary History of the Church. 6:474, June 16, 1844 There are many gods, Mormon Doctrine, p. 163. There is a mother god, Articles of Faith, by James Talmage, p. 443 Kevin Deegan [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: NO we do not learn these things from ANTI websites What evidence do you provide, in the face of the FACT thatPerryposts a OFFICIAL LDS work as the source? If you do not provide evidence I will have to conclude that You bear False Witness against Perry. It's easy to gleanthese thingsfrom OFFICIAL LDS sources http://library.lds.org/nxt/gateway.dll?f=templates$fn=default.htm Check for yourself stop spouting the "ANTI" Party line By the way do you know what the best ANTI source is? That Revered Old Black Book; God's Holy Bible! Does Richard Mouw speak for any of you Evangelicals out there? Is he the Evangelical Pope? Shame on Richard Mouw. Even the Evangelicals have called on him to repent. http://www.faithdefenders.com/files/desk/sellout.html The sellout has begun http://www.religionnewsblog.com/9561-Is_Dr._Richard_Mouw_Bearing_False_Witness_.html Is Mouw Bearing False Witness? QUOTE: Dr. Mouw’s comments were irresponsible, shameful and hypocritical. He bore false witness against many fruitful ministries that want nothing more than to present a clear and accurate case when it comes to the teachings of Mormonism and the presentation of the gospel and the Christ of Scripture. Given how he has defined “bearing false witness,” we are unclear how Dr. Mouw can think his broad brush accusations were any less a sin than the stereotypes he claims have been foisted on Mormons. Dr. Richard Mouw owes an apology to the many missionaries and ministries he has undermined. http://www.aomin.org/Mouw1.html Fuller President Apologizes to Mormons in Error http://www.mrm.org/multimedia/text/richard-mouw.html Are "we evangelicals" guilty of bearing false witness when it comes to explaining Mormon doctrine? By Bill McKeever "[EMAIL PROTECTED]" [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: BLAINERB: Pardon the interuption--the following excerpt from an apology from Richard Mouw, a prominant evangelical minister, on January 14 in the Salt Lake Tabernacle spells out the problem we have on TT continually--which is, that there are several people trying to TELL Mormons what they believe, rather than asking. The crux of Richard Mouw's apology is as follows:Richard Mouw: "Let me state it clearly. We evangelicals have sinned against you (LDS). We have told you what you believe without making a sincere effort first of all to ask you what you believe. We have even on occasion demonized you, weaving conspiracy theories about what the LDS community is 'really' trying to accomplish in the world." DAVE'S CONVERSATION WITH PERRY BELOW IS A CLASSIC!PERRY: Okay, the LDS interpret the Godhead as 3 separate gods...sorry to mislead you! DAVEH: Therein is the problem, Perry. You aren't misleading me.you are misleading others who believe your sources are accurateDAVEH: ??? Where did you get that, Perry! And, if you are a woman, you do not get to be resurrected unless a Mormon male to whom you have been sealed in the temple calls you forth from the grave. Here: "Do the women, when they pray, remember their husbands?... Do you uphold your husband before God as your lord? 'What!--my husband to be my lord?' I ask, Can you get into the celestial kingdom without him? Have any of you been there? You will remember that you never got into the celestial kingdom [during the temple ceremony] without the aid of your husband. If you did, it was because your husband was away, and some one had to act proxy for him. No woman will get into the celestial kingdom, except her husband receives her, if she is worthy to have a husband; and if not, somebody will receive her as a servant." (LDS Apostle Erastus Snow preached the following on Sunday, Oct. 4, 1857, Journal of Discourses, vol.5, p.291) From the above, "No woman will get into the celestial kingdom, except her husband receives her, if she is worthy to have a husband". Otherwise she may be relegated to someone's servant. Be nice to your husbands, Mormon women, or they may not "receive" you and you will spend eternity as a slave! DaveH, if this is wrong, correct your Apostle Erastus Snow. DAVEH: Apostle Snow
Re: [TruthTalk] Definition of Mormon Please *REPRIMAND*
Kevin, please do not reply to posts with the word *REPRIMAND* in the subject line. If you want to defend yourself, you can write to Slade and me off the list. David Miller TruthTalk Moderator -- 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] Definition of Mormon Please
Blaine, PERRY: Okay, the LDS interpret the Godhead as 3 separate gods...sorry to mislead you! In conversations with LDS in the past I understood from their response that the LDS holy spirit was the spirit of the LDS god, and not a separate god itself. That is what I originally stated. DaveH corrected me in saying that the LDS holy spirit is not the spirit of LDS god, but a separate LDS god in and of itself. In the line above, I acknowledged that, and corrected my understanding. DaveH had said that I was being misleading. I was apologizing to those whom he thinks I misled, not to him. Now, what is it you see wrong with that? Now, to clear up the obfuscation created by this smokescreen, my original point is yet more clearly made by this description of the LDS godhead. It is NOT the same Godhead of the Bible. The names are the same, but the characters are different. The godhead of the Bible does not consist of a god from Kolob that was once a man, a god that was once a man made by the physical union of the god from Kolob and the human Mary, and a separate spirit that is also a god. Not the same at all. Regarding the section about women and resurrection, the reference I gave to prophet Snow speaks for itself. Here it is in brief: No woman will get into the celestial kingdom, except her husband receives her, if she is worthy to have a husband. As to why I typically do not look to Mormons for answers to Mormon questions is that they 1) typically regurgitate the accepted standard LDS answers, which err in the same way Joseph Smith erred, and 2) use the same words that Christians use, but use the hidden LDS meanings. Most commonly they do not reveal the differences. They may not even be aware of the differences. The best source of the truth about Mormons is from 1) the works of the LDS, and 2) former LDS members who have been lead by the Holy Spirit of the Bible from the pagan LDS system into truth, and who then can see the pagan and occultic nature of the system, and typically speak/write quite openly and truthfully about it. Perry Fun Facts: Joseph Smith, the great LDS prophet, stated that there were men living on the moon! Where did he get this? Here is an article that tells about the most likely source: http://home.comcast.net/~cpl2602/moonhoax.htm. Seems to me that a prophet would know better. Nearly all the great discoveries of men in the last half century have, in one way or another... contributed to prove Joseph Smith to be a prophet. As far back as 1837, I know that he said the moon was inhabited by men and women the same as this earth, and that they lived to a greater age than we do, that they live generally to near the age of 1000 years. He described the men as averaging near six feet in height, and dressing quite uniformly in something near the Quaker style (O. B. Huntington, Young Women's Journal, Vol. 3, p. 264, 1892). Not to be outdone, prophet Brigham Young stated that there were people living on the Sun! Who can tell us of the inhabitants of this little planet that shines of an evening, called the moon?... So it is with regard to the inhabitants of the sun. Do you think it is inhabited? I rather think it is. Do you think there is any life there? No question of it (B. Young, Journal of Discourses, Vol. 13, p. 271). Are these the men you want telling you what god says? -- 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] Definition of Mormon Please
DAVEH: Kevin..It is difficult for me to follow all you've been posting today. Do you really want to have a discussion, or are you just posting a bunch of stuff for the fun of it? As I see it, you want to discuss LDS related things with me from the nature (in general) of your questions. You've got a few question marks and lots of statements, some of which blend into other stuff posted by Blaine, Slade, Perry and me, as far as I can see. In shortI have a lot of trouble keeping up with you. Furthermore, you seem to just ignore the questions already on the board. I asked you a few days ago about whether or not you think Jesus has a physical body of flesh and bone today, yet I haven't seen your answer on that yet. Since it pertains to some of what you posted below, it seems prudent that we get that question out of the way before we try to proceed to some of these others.don't you agree? As you probably know...I believe Jesus currently is a God and possesses a spirit body clothed with a physical body of flesh and bone. What do you believe about it, Kevin??? Once you answer that, then can you ask me just one or two questions with which we can stay on track? I think that will lead to a more meaningful discussionIF that is your intent. If instead, you wish to just berate my beliefsthen continuing with this wild assortment of accusations will not benefit either of us. The other day, you gave me your definition of Christian, and I thought that might be an indicator that we could have some meaningful exchanges in the future. I hope that is your goal toobut I'm not too sure. SoWhere do you want to go from here, Kevin? If intend to encourage me to lurk for awhilethe choice is yours +++ DAVEH: Therein is the problem, Perry. You aren't misleading me.you are misleading others who believe your sources are accurate Who's misleading who? Please provide an example of inaccuracy or one bad source Please provide some accurate sources. Are the LDS Standard works accurate? LDS Teaching manuals at www.lds.org? By the way Joe said: There are three gods: theFather, the Son and the Holy Spirit. Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, p 370, 372 "I have always declared God to be a distinct personage, Jesus Christ a separate and distinct personage from God the Father, and the Holy Spirit was a distinct personage and a Spirit: and these three constitute three distinct personages and THREE GODS. Joseph Smith. Documentary History of the Church. 6:474, June 16, 1844 There are many gods, Mormon Doctrine, p. 163. There is a mother god, Articles of Faith, by James Talmage, p. 443 NO does not make me MEAN It is the LDS Prophets who claim to speak as the "mouth of God" Who say that DaveH is not a true Mormon. He must sustain them or else this is his fate as per the LDS leadership. It is they who define Mormonism. Dave defines daveISM Kevin Deegan wrote: So you sustain the Prophet in all things? Dave Hansen [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Kevin Deegan wrote: He's already said he doesn't believe EVERYTHING his church may have as doctrine. DAVEH: ??? Are you referring to me, Kevin? When did I say I didn't believe EVERYTHING his church may have as doctrine? I do not recall saying that at all. You are the second TTer to say such, and I prefer that you do not perpetrate the myth. IF I said it, please quote where I did so. Otherwise.please do not attribute things I said that I didn't. FTR..At the moment, I can't think of anything LDS theology teaches that I do not believe. And, if there has been anything (LDS) in the past I've not accepted, I cannot remember what it was. SoIF I said suchjog my memory, Kevin. Otherwise, I would appreciate you not putting words in my mouth. Thank you. So he is Not a Christian and now we find out he is not Everything a Mormon ought to be. I guess that puts him in Limbo He is not Christian he is not Mormon He pratcies DaveISM! DAVEH: If this is the logic you prefer to use to win my allegiance to your way of thinking, Kevin, you may be overestimating my IQ. As I see it, my claim to Christianity is my faith in Jesus. While you may persuasively argue to the contrary, I hope you will forgive me for blindly trusting Him. Dave Hansen [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Slade Henson wrote: I think what matters here is what Dave believes. He's already said he doesn't believe EVERYTHING his church may have as doctrine. DAVEH: ??? Though I may have said it, I don't recall doing so. Does Dave think he's from some other planet? Why does he think this? Where does it come from? Does he think J. Smith was a prophet? Why or why not? Do we think he was a prophet? Why or why not? Why is everyone else
Re: [TruthTalk] Definition of Mormon Please
DaveH wrote: Does that clear up your misunderstanding of how the LDS perceive resurrection? No, but it clears of my understanding of how LDS misperceive the resurrection. None of it is Biblical...all from the musings of a man, Joseph Smith. The only thing Biblical about Joseph Smith is that he met the fate of a false prophet. DAVEH: To us/me, it is sacred. If you wish to make light of the things I consider sacred, then posting them on TT will denigrate my beliefs. I am sorry you perceive this as denigrating your beliefs...I view it as exposing a false religious system to those who otherwise might be misled into believing it is of God. 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] Definition of Mormon Please
He's already said he doesn't believe EVERYTHING his church may have as doctrine. So he is Not a Christian and now we find out he is not Everything a Mormon ought to be. I guess that puts him in Limbo He is not Christian he is not Mormon He pratcies DaveISM!Dave Hansen [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Slade Henson wrote:I think what matters here is what Dave believes. He's already said hedoesn't believe EVERYTHING his church may have as doctrine.DAVEH: ??? Though I may have said it, I don't recall doing so. Does Dave thinkhe's from some other planet? Why does he think this? Where does it comefrom? Does he think J. Smith was a prophet? Why or why not? Do we think hewas a prophet? Why or why not? Why is everyone else answering for Dave aboutMormonism?DAVEH: Good question, Kay. I think it is the nature of some people to teach rather than listen.even when what they teach is wrong. Are these people Mormons? Or quoting what someone else may havesaid about Mormons? Someone who may be wrong or have confused something. Whynot ask Dave himself? DAVEH: In many cases, it wouldn't matter. They wouldn't believe me anyway.BTW..I'm still not up to par, but I can't stay in bed any longer as my back is aching.so, I'll try to catch up on some of these posts.Kay -- ~~~Dave Hansen[EMAIL PROTECTED]http://www.langlitz.com~~~If you wish to receivethings I find interesting,I maintain six email lists...JOKESTER, OPINIONS, LDS,STUFF, MOTORCYCLE and CLIPS.--"Let your speech be always with grace, seasoned with salt, that you may know how you ought to answer every man." (Colossians 4:6) http://www.InnGlory.orgIf you do not want to receive posts from this list, send an email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and you will be unsubscribed. If you have a friend who wants to join, tell him to send an e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and he will be subscribed.__Do You Yahoo!?Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com
Re: [TruthTalk] Definition of Mormon Please
Kevin Deegan wrote: He's already said he doesn't believe EVERYTHING his church may have as doctrine. DAVEH: ??? Are you referring to me, Kevin? When did I say I didn't believe EVERYTHING his church may have as doctrine? I do not recall saying that at all. You are the second TTer to say such, and I prefer that you do not perpetrate the myth. IF I said it, please quote where I did so. Otherwise.please do not attribute things I said that I didn't. FTR..At the moment, I can't think of anything LDS theology teaches that I do not believe. And, if there has been anything (LDS) in the past I've not accepted, I cannot remember what it was. SoIF I said suchjog my memory, Kevin. Otherwise, I would appreciate you not putting words in my mouth. Thank you. So he is Not a Christian and now we find out he is not Everything a Mormon ought to be. I guess that puts him in Limbo He is not Christian he is not Mormon He pratcies DaveISM! DAVEH: If this is the logic you prefer to use to win my allegiance to your way of thinking, Kevin, you may be overestimating my IQ. As I see it, my claim to Christianity is my faith in Jesus. While you may persuasively argue to the contrary, I hope you will forgive me for blindly trusting Him. Dave Hansen [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Slade Henson wrote: I think what matters here is what Dave believes. He's already said he doesn't believe EVERYTHING his church may have as doctrine. DAVEH: ??? Though I may have said it, I don't recall doing so. Does Dave think he's from some other planet? Why does he think this? Where does it come from? Does he think J. Smith was a prophet? Why or why not? Do we think he was a prophet? Why or why not? Why is everyone else answering for Dave about Mormonism? DAVEH: Good question, Kay. I think it is the nature of some people to teach rather than listen.even when what they teach is wrong. Are these people Mormons? Or quoting what someone else may have said about Mormons? Someone who may be wrong or have confused something. Why not ask Dave himself? DAVEH: In many cases, it wouldn't matter. They wouldn't believe me anyway. BTW..I'm still not up to par, but I can't stay in bed any longer as my back is aching.so, I'll try to catch up on some of these posts. Kay -- ~~~ 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] Definition of Mormon Please
Charles Perry Locke wrote: Kay, Kay (to DaveH): Why not? Aren't you Mormon? Who better to ask than a Mormon. I would think you would know what you believe or don't believe, etc. way better than I would. Kay, there is a dynamic at play when Mormons speak, of which you might not be aware, and that is that Mormons have redifined many of the words Christians popularly use. DAVEH: Have I not always tried to make that distinction? That is why I have asked for other TTers definitions, and also given my own. It seems that some TTers have been a bit critical for that. The net effect is, you can talk to a Mormon for many hours and, unless you understand the argot, you think you are in agreement with them. One example was pointed out recently, and that is the use of the word Godhead. When most Christians use it (at least those who hold to the Trinity) they mean one God, three persons, of course. But when LDS use it, they mean 2 gods and a spirit. DAVEH: That is a bit misleading, Perry. We also consider the HS to be a God, though one without a physical body. They can talk a long time about the godhead before we realize we are talking about two separate concepts. Did you know that to a Mormon they do not consider themselves Gentiles? So when they say gentile, they are not referring to themselves or to Jews...only non-Jews non-Mormon. For example, I am a gentile, but DaveH is not (and, he is not a Jew, either). Many words are this way, and unless you make an effort to understand the words that are redefined before you converse with them, you will never really know what they believe. DAVEH: I've tried to point out the differences in our definitions so that it would be easy for TTers to understand. But when doing so, I think some see it as evangelizing on my part, or perhaps they believe I am trying to introduce confusion into the discussionI don't know. Otherwise you have to ask for the definition of key words as you go. If you are interested in having a real conversation with a Mormon, here is a link to get you going: http://www.carm.org/lds/definitions.htm. Then, add to the fact that much of the Mormon religion takes place inside the temple, which is strictly secret (they say sacred, not secret, can't tell you what goes on inside). However, when the inner ceremonies are revealed, they practically align with the rites of Freemasonry, usiong tokens, signs, grips, and penalties. By the way, they also claim that the temple ceremonies are a restoration of the original Jewish temple ceremonies. Do you think that is so? So one can only effctively converse with a Mormon when one knows the language differences, then, they are only told the palatable non-secret parts. That is why the LDS missionaries are at times effective...unaware people think they are Christians, taking the words they use to be the same as standard Christian denotation. Then, you don't get to know the juicy secrets until you are baptized into the church, and jump through several other hoops, then a Bishop (see the lexicon in the link above for the LDS meaning of Bishop) determines that you are worthy to enter the Temple, then you get to participate in the pagan rites, learning secret handshakes, passwords, signs, and grips (handshakes). You will need to know these to get into heaven. And, if you are a woman, you do not get to be resurrected unless a Mormon male to whom you have been sealed in the temple calls you forth from the grave. DAVEH: ??? Where did you get that, Perry! Blaine, DavidH, please correct anything that I have stated that is incorrect. I have gotten this stuff primarily from reading the works of ex-Mormons that have become Christians, so they could be a little off, or perhaps I have erred in my understanding. DAVEH: Guess I should have read further I appreciate you recognizing that. But, if you declare that I have stated something that is not correct, please supply the correct details. DAVEH: Some is blatantly false (such as women not being able to be resurrected), while others are skewed to make it sound bad. Why can't you recognize some things are sacred to us, and do not appreciate other's attempts at denigrating them? AndWhy do you call them secret, when they are available on the web? You have repeatedly tried to paint Mormonism with a negative brush of knowledge you've learned from ex-Mormons and anti-LDS websites. As I've said before, if you want to know what I believe, ask me. If you want to smear Mormonism.nothing I tell you will make any difference in what you believe or post. 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
Re: [TruthTalk] Definition of Mormon Please
DaveH, But when LDS use it, they mean 2 gods and a spirit. DAVEH: That is a bit misleading, Perry. We also consider the HS to be a God, though one without a physical body. Okay, the LDS interpret the Godhead as 3 separate gods...sorry to mislead you! And, if you are a woman, you do not get to be resurrected unless a Mormon male to whom you have been sealed in the temple calls you forth from the grave. DAVEH: ??? Where did you get that, Perry! Here: Do the women, when they pray, remember their husbands?... Do you uphold your husband before God as your lord? 'What!--my husband to be my lord?' I ask, Can you get into the celestial kingdom without him? Have any of you been there? You will remember that you never got into the celestial kingdom [during the temple ceremony] without the aid of your husband. If you did, it was because your husband was away, and some one had to act proxy for him. No woman will get into the celestial kingdom, except her husband receives her, if she is worthy to have a husband; and if not, somebody will receive her as a servant. (LDS Apostle Erastus Snow preached the following on Sunday, Oct. 4, 1857, Journal of Discourses, vol.5, p.291) From the above, No woman will get into the celestial kingdom, except her husband receives her, if she is worthy to have a husband. Otherwise she may be relegated to someone's servant. Be nice to your husbands, Mormon women, or they may not receive you and you will spend eternity as a slave! DaveH, if this is wrong, correct your Apostle Erastus Snow. DAVEH: Some is blatantly false (such as women not being able to be resurrected), while others are skewed to make it sound bad. Tell me, then, how a woman gets resurrected to the celestial kingdom. Or, do they get resurrected to some lower kingdom if they were unmarried, or their husband does not receive them, or if she is not worthy to have a husband. AndWhy do you call them secret, when they are available on the web? You have repeatedly tried to paint Mormonism with a negative brush of knowledge you've learned from ex-Mormons and anti-LDS websites. If it is true, and it is on a website, then why should I not repeat it here? If it is not secret, then no big deal, right? Where else am I to learn it? In their pagan rites LDS are bound by penalties (http://www.lds-mormon.com/veilworker/penalty.shtml), just like in Freemasonry, not to discuss the pagan rites and rituals that take place in the LDS temple. Only those who have been through those rites (endowments, ordnanances), but have come to the truth, speak openly about it. 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] Definition of Mormon Please
Charles Perry Locke wrote:
Okay, the LDS interpret the Godhead as 3 separate gods...sorry to
mislead you!
DAVEH: Therein is the problem, Perry. You aren't misleading
me.you are misleading others who believe your sources are accurate.
DAVEH: ??? Where did you get that, Perry!
And, if you are a woman, you do not get to be resurrected unless a
Mormon male to whom you have been sealed in the temple calls you forth
from the grave.
Here:
"Do the women, when they pray, remember their husbands?... Do you
uphold your husband before God as your lord? 'What!--my husband to be
my lord?' I ask, Can you get into the celestial kingdom without him?
Have any of you been there? You will remember that you never got into
the celestial kingdom [during the temple ceremony] without the aid of
your husband. If you did, it was because your husband was away, and
some one had to act proxy for him. No woman will get into the celestial
kingdom, except her husband receives her, if she is worthy to have a
husband; and if not, somebody will receive her as a servant." (LDS
Apostle Erastus Snow preached the following on Sunday, Oct. 4, 1857,
Journal of Discourses, vol.5, p.291)
From the above, "No woman will get into the
celestial kingdom, except her
husband receives her, if she is worthy to have a husband". Otherwise
she may be relegated to someone's servant. Be nice to your husbands,
Mormon women, or they may not "receive" you and you will spend eternity
as a slave!
DaveH, if this is wrong, correct your Apostle Erastus Snow.
DAVEH: Apostle Snow doesn't need correcting, Perry.but you do.
Being resurrected and being resurrected to the celestial kingdom are
two totally different concepts. LDS theology defines the (general)
resurrection as being the point at which the spirit is reunited with
the physical body. The resurrected body is one that becomes
inseparable and incorruptible in immortality. LDS theology teaches
that all women (and men) will be resurrected.
Contrast that to what Apostle Snow is referring to when speaking
about exaltation. He is using resurrect in the dictionary sense of
raising up. Essentially he is saying that it takes a united couple to
rise (resurrect) to the highest level of the celestial kingdom, which
is where one can become like God. LDS theology teaches that not all
women (nor men) will be resurrected to the celestial kingdom.
Does that clear up your misunderstanding of how the LDS perceive resurrection?
DAVEH: Some is blatantly false (such as
women not being able to be resurrected), while others are skewed to
make it sound bad.
Tell me, then, how a woman gets resurrected to the celestial kingdom.
DAVEH: As I understand it, neither the man nor the women need be
sealed to rise to the celestial kingdom, but they do need to be sealed
to rise to the highest level of the celestial kingdom.
Or, do they get resurrected to some lower kingdom if they
were unmarried, or their husband does not "receive" them, or if she is
"not worthy to have a husband".
DAVEH: The answer to those questions is no.
AndWhy do you call them secret, when they are
available on the web? You have repeatedly tried to paint Mormonism
with a negative brush of knowledge you've learned from ex-Mormons and
anti-LDS websites.
If it is true, and it is on a website, then why should I not repeat it
here? If it is not secret, then no big deal, right?
DAVEH: To us/me, it is sacred. If you wish to make light of the
things I consider sacred, then posting them on TT will denigrate my
beliefs.
Where else am I to learn it? In their pagan rites LDS are bound by
penalties (http://www.lds-mormon.com/veilworker/penalty.shtml), just
like in Freemasonry, not to discuss the pagan rites and rituals that
take place in the LDS temple. Only those who have been through those
rites ("endowments", "ordnanances"), but have come to the truth, speak
openly about it.
Perry
--
~~~
Dave Hansen
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.langlitz.com
~~~
If you wish to receive
things I find interesting,
I maintain six email lists...
JOKESTER, OPINIONS, LDS,
STUFF, MOTORCYCLE and CLIPS.
RE: [TruthTalk] Definition of Mormon Please
-Original Message-From: [EMAIL PROTECTED][mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Dave HansenSent: Friday, 14 January, 2005 09.13To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgSubject: Re: [TruthTalk] Definition of Mormon PleaseSlade Henson wrote:I think what matters here is what Dave believes. He's already said hedoesn't believe EVERYTHING his church may have as doctrine.DAVEH: ??? Though I may have said it, I don't recall doing so. My interpretation of something you wrote could have wrong, as well. Does Dave thinkhe's from some other planet? Why does he think this? Where does it comefrom? Does he think J. Smith was a prophet? Why or why not? Do we think hewas a prophet? Why or why not? Why is everyone else answering for Dave aboutMormonism?DAVEH: Good question, Kay. I think it is the nature of some people toteach rather than listen.even when what they teach is wrong. Very likely answer, Dave. I want to know from you...not that it really matters...but do you think you're from another planet? Personally, I think there may be some on TT who are from other planets, cuz they certainly...well, I'll shut up! :) Are these people Mormons? Or quoting what someone else may havesaid about Mormons? Someone who may be wrong or have confused something. Whynot ask Dave himself?DAVEH: In many cases, it wouldn't matter. They wouldn't believe meanyway. Why not? Aren't you Mormon? Who better to ask than a Mormon. I would think you would know what you believe or don't believe, etc. way better than I would. BTW..I'm still not up to par, but I can't stay in bed anylonger as my back is aching.so, I'll try to catch up on some ofthese posts..Hope your flu leaves you soon... Kay
Re: [TruthTalk] Definition of Mormon Please
In a message dated 1/14/2005 6:15:17 AM Pacific Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: BTW..I'm still not up to par, but I can't stay in bed any longer as my back is aching.so, I'll try to catch up on some of these posts. I can lay hands on this monitor, if you like -- who knows. Those in my tradition do it all the time. I'll have to tell you about me and my refrigerator sometime (as Lance falls into a coma). JD
Re: [TruthTalk] Definition of Mormon Please
In a message dated 1/14/2005 1:23:25 PM Pacific Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: I think there may be some on TT who are from other planets, cuz they certainly...well, I'll shut up! :) tsk Tsk
RE: Re: [TruthTalk] Definition of Mormon Please
Oh, come now, Mr. Shrink Dude...haven't you ever heard of "Men are from Mars, Women are from Venus"?? Hehehe.I know, I knoweil K. -Original Message-From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]On Behalf Of [EMAIL PROTECTED]Sent: Friday, 14 January, 2005 20.15To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgSubject: Re: [TruthTalk] Definition of Mormon PleaseIn a message dated 1/14/2005 1:23:25 PM Pacific Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: I think there may be some on TT who are from other planets, cuz they certainly...well, I'll shut up! :)tsk Tsk
Re: [TruthTalk] Definition of Mormon Please
In a message dated 1/14/2005 6:51:09 PM Pacific Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Oh, come now, Mr. Shrink Dude...haven't you ever heard of "Men are from Mars, Women are from Venus"?? I married one of them, once. John
Re: [TruthTalk] Definition of Mormon Please
Slade Henson wrote: -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Dave Hansen Sent: Friday, 14 January, 2005 09.13 To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Definition of Mormon Please Slade Henson wrote: I think what matters here is what Dave believes. He's already said he doesn't believe EVERYTHING his church may have as doctrine. DAVEH: ??? Though I may have said it, I don't recall doing so. My interpretation of something you wrote could have wrong, as well. DAVEH: I believe you are wrong on this one, Kay. It just doesn't sound like something I'd say. Nor can I think of any LDS doctrine that I disagree with at the moment. Does Dave think he's from some other planet? Why does he think this? Where does it come from? Does he think J. Smith was a prophet? Why or why not? Do we think he was a prophet? Why or why not? Why is everyone else answering for Dave about Mormonism? DAVEH: Good question, Kay. I think it is the nature of some people to teach rather than listen.even when what they teach is wrong. Very likely answer, Dave. I want to know from you...not that it really matters...but do you think you're from another planet? DAVEH: No. I do believe I (and as are all of us) existed in the pre-mortal existence though.prior to coming into mortality. Personally, I think there may be some on TT who are from other planets, cuz they certainly...well, I'll shut up! :) DAVEH: :-D Are these people Mormons? Or quoting what someone else may have said about Mormons? Someone who may be wrong or have confused something. Why not ask Dave himself? DAVEH: In many cases, it wouldn't matter. They wouldn't believe me anyway. Why not? Aren't you Mormon? Who better to ask than a Mormon. I would think you would know what you believe or don't believe, etc. way better than I would. DAVEH: Yeah.that's what I originally thought when I joined TT. My limited perception of Protestantism was based mostly on what I'd heard from LDS biased sources. And to me it seemed rather suspect, because much of what I heard seemed strange by my LDS standards. However, I found that Protestants aren't as unified in their doctrinal beliefs as I had suspected. Seems like many of them have a lot of divisiveness in their beliefs. What really surprised me though was the assumptions that TTers made about my beliefs without asking. They'd just make a wild statement based on material they'd heard elsewhere that was often taken out of context. When I would correct them on it, I was essentially accused of lying about it and sometimes they would continue to spew the same stuff out again. That was amazing to meit was as if they didn't want to hear it from a Mormon's perspective. Getting the information from a negative source was much more entertaining for them, I guess. BTW..I'm still not up to par, but I can't stay in bed any longer as my back is aching.so, I'll try to catch up on some of these posts. .Hope your flu leaves you soon... DAVEH: Thanx. Today it was much better. I've delayed leaving town for a day, so I'm able to get to some of my emails as well. I anticipate being pretty much back to normal in a day or so. Right now my stomach is a bit knotted, but I've lost nearly 10 lbs in the past 2 days! Kay -- ~~~ 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] Definition of Mormon Please
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: In a message dated 1/14/2005 6:15:17 AM Pacific Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: BTW..I'm still not up to par, but I can't stay in bed any longer as my back is aching.so, I'll try to catch up on some of these posts. I can lay hands on this monitor, if you like -- who knows. DAVEH: Ahh...Thanx, JD. No wonder I feel much better today! :-) Those in my tradition do it all the time. I'll have to tell you about me and my refrigerator sometime (as Lance falls into a coma). 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] Definition of Mormon Please
Kay, Kay (to DaveH): Why not? Aren't you Mormon? Who better to ask than a Mormon. I would think you would know what you believe or don't believe, etc. way better than I would. Kay, there is a dynamic at play when Mormons speak, of which you might not be aware, and that is that Mormons have redifined many of the words Christians popularly use. The net effect is, you can talk to a Mormon for many hours and, unless you understand the argot, you think you are in agreement with them. One example was pointed out recently, and that is the use of the word Godhead. When most Christians use it (at least those who hold to the Trinity) they mean one God, three persons, of course. But when LDS use it, they mean 2 gods and a spirit. They can talk a long time about the godhead before we realize we are talking about two separate concepts. Did you know that to a Mormon they do not consider themselves Gentiles? So when they say gentile, they are not referring to themselves or to Jews...only non-Jews non-Mormon. For example, I am a gentile, but DaveH is not (and, he is not a Jew, either). Many words are this way, and unless you make an effort to understand the words that are redefined before you converse with them, you will never really know what they believe. Otherwise you have to ask for the definition of key words as you go. If you are interested in having a real conversation with a Mormon, here is a link to get you going: http://www.carm.org/lds/definitions.htm. Then, add to the fact that much of the Mormon religion takes place inside the temple, which is strictly secret (they say sacred, not secret, can't tell you what goes on inside). However, when the inner ceremonies are revealed, they practically align with the rites of Freemasonry, usiong tokens, signs, grips, and penalties. By the way, they also claim that the temple ceremonies are a restoration of the original Jewish temple ceremonies. Do you think that is so? So one can only effctively converse with a Mormon when one knows the language differences, then, they are only told the palatable non-secret parts. That is why the LDS missionaries are at times effective...unaware people think they are Christians, taking the words they use to be the same as standard Christian denotation. Then, you don't get to know the juicy secrets until you are baptized into the church, and jump through several other hoops, then a Bishop (see the lexicon in the link above for the LDS meaning of Bishop) determines that you are worthy to enter the Temple, then you get to participate in the pagan rites, learning secret handshakes, passwords, signs, and grips (handshakes). You will need to know these to get into heaven. And, if you are a woman, you do not get to be resurrected unless a Mormon male to whom you have been sealed in the temple calls you forth from the grave. Blaine, DavidH, please correct anything that I have stated that is incorrect. I have gotten this stuff primarily from reading the works of ex-Mormons that have become Christians, so they could be a little off, or perhaps I have erred in my understanding. But, if you declare that I have stated something that is not correct, please supply the correct details. 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] Definition of Mormon Please
ShieldsFamily wrote: My previously happy ex-wife's mother, tried to cast an evil spirit out of me. She stop her debate with me, at the breakfast table with bibles opening and hearts churnning, squinted her eys. look streaight trough me and said "Some out of him, come out of him." True story. When she first started, I shut up -- the Smithmeister was silient for the space of one half hour -- and then, nothing. I finally said, "Mary, nothing is happening !" She replied " You won't let him come out !!" and I regretably said " Well, I guess I am a little tougher than your God" Not good -- me son-in-law and all. John Could you give her another go at it, JD? Izzy DAVEH: Hmmm.I see you made a couple more slight typos, Iz. I suspect you meant to say... Could you give her another goat--iz--JD? Izzy -- ~~~ 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] Definition of Mormon Please
DAVEH: LOL..I agree with Kevin (hallelujah) on this one, Izzy.you've got a great sense of humor! :-D BTWI'm short on time tonight, and see that I've generated far more response than I can possibly respond to before I hit the hay. I hope I'm not infuriating some TTers, as some of this stuff is getting a bit out of hand. I didn't mean it to be that way. ShieldsFamily wrote: I don't really care that they allegedly exclude me from their church. Obviously, Dave himself doesn't exclude fellowship with the people here even though they are not part of the Mormon church. Kay And spiders dont mind fellowshipping with flies, either. J Izzy -- ~~~ 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] Definition of Mormon Please
In a message dated 1/12/2005 6:27:15 AM Pacific Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: My previously happy ex-wife's mother, tried to cast an evil spirit out of me. She stop her debate with me, at the breakfast table with bibles opening and hearts churnning, squinted her eys. look streaight trough me and said "Some out of him, come out of him." True story. When she first started, I shut up -- the Smithmeister was silient for the space of one half hour -- and then, nothing. I finally said, "Mary, nothing is happening !" She replied " You won't let him come out !!" and I regretably said " Well, I guess I am a little tougher than your God" Not good -- me son-in-law and all. John Could you give her another go at it, JD? Izzy As much as I don't want to -- I have to admit that there's a big smile com'in on. :-)
Re: [TruthTalk] Definition of Mormon Please
In a message dated 1/12/2005 7:18:46 AM Pacific Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Could you give her another goat--iz--JD? Izzy And, here, I had assumed the worse. :-)))
RE: [TruthTalk] Definition of Mormon Please
1) This Church is the only true and living church upon the face of the whole earth there is NO SALVATION outside the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. (Bruce McConkie, Mormon Doctrine, Page 670) 2) We cannot accept that any other church can lead its members to SALVATION. (The Masters Church, Course A, Mormon Sunday school text.) Kay where does that leave you? How about this one DaveH? Give us a definition of Mormon I know the official term is LDS, you have no problem with the use of Mormon, do you? --- ShieldsFamily [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Kay, in the past nine years this has been explained to DaveH ad nauseum. It's a ploy. Why don't YOU try to get through to him? Izzy _ From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Slade Henson Sent: Tuesday, January 11, 2005 9:45 AM To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Subject: RE: [TruthTalk] Mormon Related #2 He didn't ask what a Christian is NOT, he asked what the definition for Christian IS. He didn't ask about Joseph Smith and his alleged activities or ideas are/were. Kay -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of ShieldsFamily Sent: Tuesday, 11 January, 2005 10.32 To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Subject: RE: [TruthTalk] Mormon Related #2 DaveH, You are simply straining at gnats to avoid the obvious. Here's what is Christian IS NOT: a believer in multiple-gods, or that Jesus is just another one of us gods, or that we can all evolve into another Jesus, or that everyone born on earth is born due to some gods in heaven having sexual relations, or that JS was a prophet, or that JS was not a liar and adulterer and statutory rapist, or any of the other bizarre ideas incubated by him are true, etc.. But of course you know all of this, and are completely in your zone when strife breaks out among naive brethren over mormonism's false claims to Christianity. Izzy _ From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Dave Hansen Sent: Tuesday, January 11, 2005 1:06 AM To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Mormon Related #2 ShieldsFamily wrote: Several on this list claim they are speaking out of love, ala Yeshua. I say that they are decieved and lying when they do this. Why else would they attack Dave Hanson(or any one else) for his beliefs. I pity you petty little people. Jeff Jeff, I believe you are committing ad hominem attacks here. I am sure you cannot show us a single word of attack spoken against Dave Hanson; only against speaking of mormon theology as being truly Christian (which it isn't-and if you think so, perhaps you should listen more to Perry DAVEH: Sorry for intruding on this, Izzy. I've asked Perry (several times) for his definition of Christian, but he seems reluctant to mention anything except his disdain for my beliefs. I've got no problem with his dislike of my faith, but I do find it curious that he refrains from posting a definition of Christian, especially when he disqualifies me of being one. If I didn't know better, I'd say it's almost like a club that won't let you join IF you don't know the rulesand nobody will tell you the rules. BTW Izzyhow about you? May I implore you to weigh in on this as well? How do you define Christian? and talk less?) Therefore you are possibly guilty of your own accusations. Izzy -- ~~~ Dave Hansen [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.langlitz.com ~~~ If you wish to receive things I find interesting, I maintain six email lists... JOKESTER, OPINIONS, LDS, STUFF, MOTORCYCLE and CLIPS. __ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com -- 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] Definition of Mormon Please
Isn't that the same thing Catholics say? You go to hell unless you're Catholic? And JW's? Aren't they like the 144,000 and if you aren't one of them, you go to hell? There is no church who can lead its members to salvation. Salvation is grace through faith. Kay -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of Kevin Deegan Sent: Tuesday, 11 January, 2005 11.47 To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Subject: RE: [TruthTalk] Definition of Mormon Please 1) This Church is the only true and living church upon the face of the whole earth there is NO SALVATION outside the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. (Bruce McConkie, Mormon Doctrine, Page 670) 2) We cannot accept that any other church can lead its members to SALVATION. (The Masters Church, Course A, Mormon Sunday school text.) Kay where does that leave you? How about this one DaveH? Give us a definition of Mormon I know the official term is LDS, you have no problem with the use of Mormon, do you? --- ShieldsFamily [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Kay, in the past nine years this has been explained to DaveH ad nauseum. It's a ploy. Why don't YOU try to get through to him? Izzy _ From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Slade Henson Sent: Tuesday, January 11, 2005 9:45 AM To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Subject: RE: [TruthTalk] Mormon Related #2 He didn't ask what a Christian is NOT, he asked what the definition for Christian IS. He didn't ask about Joseph Smith and his alleged activities or ideas are/were. Kay -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of ShieldsFamily Sent: Tuesday, 11 January, 2005 10.32 To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Subject: RE: [TruthTalk] Mormon Related #2 DaveH, You are simply straining at gnats to avoid the obvious. Here's what is Christian IS NOT: a believer in multiple-gods, or that Jesus is just another one of us gods, or that we can all evolve into another Jesus, or that everyone born on earth is born due to some gods in heaven having sexual relations, or that JS was a prophet, or that JS was not a liar and adulterer and statutory rapist, or any of the other bizarre ideas incubated by him are true, etc.. But of course you know all of this, and are completely in your zone when strife breaks out among naive brethren over mormonism's false claims to Christianity. Izzy _ From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Dave Hansen Sent: Tuesday, January 11, 2005 1:06 AM To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Mormon Related #2 ShieldsFamily wrote: Several on this list claim they are speaking out of love, ala Yeshua. I say that they are decieved and lying when they do this. Why else would they attack Dave Hanson(or any one else) for his beliefs. I pity you petty little people. Jeff Jeff, I believe you are committing ad hominem attacks here. I am sure you cannot show us a single word of attack spoken against Dave Hanson; only against speaking of mormon theology as being truly Christian (which it isn't-and if you think so, perhaps you should listen more to Perry DAVEH: Sorry for intruding on this, Izzy. I've asked Perry (several times) for his definition of Christian, but he seems reluctant to mention anything except his disdain for my beliefs. I've got no problem with his dislike of my faith, but I do find it curious that he refrains from posting a definition of Christian, especially when he disqualifies me of being one. If I didn't know better, I'd say it's almost like a club that won't let you join IF you don't know the rulesand nobody will tell you the rules. BTW Izzyhow about you? May I implore you to weigh in on this as well? How do you define Christian? and talk less?) Therefore you are possibly guilty of your own accusations. Izzy -- ~~~ Dave Hansen [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.langlitz.com ~~~ If you wish to receive things I find interesting, I maintain six email lists... JOKESTER, OPINIONS, LDS, STUFF, MOTORCYCLE and CLIPS. __ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com -- 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
RE: [TruthTalk] Definition of Mormon Please
Yes, same line. Birds of a feather flock together. What do you think of we are the ONE TRUE CHURCH And since you are outside that church where does it put you? Church Authorities say you are either Mormon or you are without salvation. It would seem you are either a Mormon or YOU are without salvation, along with us other NON Mormons. --- Slade Henson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Isn't that the same thing Catholics say? You go to hell unless you're Catholic? And JW's? Aren't they like the 144,000 and if you aren't one of them, you go to hell? There is no church who can lead its members to salvation. Salvation is grace through faith. Kay -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of Kevin Deegan Sent: Tuesday, 11 January, 2005 11.47 To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Subject: RE: [TruthTalk] Definition of Mormon Please 1) This Church is the only true and living church upon the face of the whole earth there is NO SALVATION outside the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. (Bruce McConkie, Mormon Doctrine, Page 670) 2) We cannot accept that any other church can lead its members to SALVATION. (The Masters Church, Course A, Mormon Sunday school text.) Kay where does that leave you? How about this one DaveH? Give us a definition of Mormon I know the official term is LDS, you have no problem with the use of Mormon, do you? --- ShieldsFamily [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Kay, in the past nine years this has been explained to DaveH ad nauseum. It's a ploy. Why don't YOU try to get through to him? Izzy _ From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Slade Henson Sent: Tuesday, January 11, 2005 9:45 AM To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Subject: RE: [TruthTalk] Mormon Related #2 He didn't ask what a Christian is NOT, he asked what the definition for Christian IS. He didn't ask about Joseph Smith and his alleged activities or ideas are/were. Kay -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of ShieldsFamily Sent: Tuesday, 11 January, 2005 10.32 To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Subject: RE: [TruthTalk] Mormon Related #2 DaveH, You are simply straining at gnats to avoid the obvious. Here's what is Christian IS NOT: a believer in multiple-gods, or that Jesus is just another one of us gods, or that we can all evolve into another Jesus, or that everyone born on earth is born due to some gods in heaven having sexual relations, or that JS was a prophet, or that JS was not a liar and adulterer and statutory rapist, or any of the other bizarre ideas incubated by him are true, etc.. But of course you know all of this, and are completely in your zone when strife breaks out among naive brethren over mormonism's false claims to Christianity. Izzy _ From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Dave Hansen Sent: Tuesday, January 11, 2005 1:06 AM To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Mormon Related #2 ShieldsFamily wrote: Several on this list claim they are speaking out of love, ala Yeshua. I say that they are decieved and lying when they do this. Why else would they attack Dave Hanson(or any one else) for his beliefs. I pity you petty little people. Jeff Jeff, I believe you are committing ad hominem attacks here. I am sure you cannot show us a single word of attack spoken against Dave Hanson; only against speaking of mormon theology as being truly Christian (which it isn't-and if you think so, perhaps you should listen more to Perry DAVEH: Sorry for intruding on this, Izzy. I've asked Perry (several times) for his definition of Christian, but he seems reluctant to mention anything except his disdain for my beliefs. I've got no problem with his dislike of my faith, but I do find it curious that he refrains from posting a definition of Christian, especially when he disqualifies me of being one. If I didn't know better, I'd say it's almost like a club that won't let you join IF you don't know the rulesand nobody will tell you the rules. BTW Izzyhow about you? May I implore you to weigh in on this as well? How do you define Christian? and talk less?) Therefore you are possibly guilty of your own accusations. Izzy -- ~~~ Dave Hansen [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.langlitz.com ~~~ If you wish to receive things I find interesting, I maintain six email lists... JOKESTER, OPINIONS, LDS, STUFF, MOTORCYCLE and CLIPS. __ Do You Yahoo!? === message truncated === __ Do you Yahoo!? The all-new My Yahoo
RE: [TruthTalk] Definition of Mormon Please
I think they can think what they want. Doesn't necessarily mean they're right. Kay -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of Kevin Deegan Sent: Tuesday, 11 January, 2005 12.14 To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Subject: RE: [TruthTalk] Definition of Mormon Please Yes, same line. Birds of a feather flock together. What do you think of we are the ONE TRUE CHURCH And since you are outside that church where does it put you? Church Authorities say you are either Mormon or you are without salvation. It would seem you are either a Mormon or YOU are without salvation, along with us other NON Mormons. --- Slade Henson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Isn't that the same thing Catholics say? You go to hell unless you're Catholic? And JW's? Aren't they like the 144,000 and if you aren't one of them, you go to hell? There is no church who can lead its members to salvation. Salvation is grace through faith. Kay -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of Kevin Deegan Sent: Tuesday, 11 January, 2005 11.47 To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Subject: RE: [TruthTalk] Definition of Mormon Please 1) This Church is the only true and living church upon the face of the whole earth there is NO SALVATION outside the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. (Bruce McConkie, Mormon Doctrine, Page 670) 2) We cannot accept that any other church can lead its members to SALVATION. (The Masters Church, Course A, Mormon Sunday school text.) Kay where does that leave you? How about this one DaveH? Give us a definition of Mormon I know the official term is LDS, you have no problem with the use of Mormon, do you? --- ShieldsFamily [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Kay, in the past nine years this has been explained to DaveH ad nauseum. It's a ploy. Why don't YOU try to get through to him? Izzy _ From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Slade Henson Sent: Tuesday, January 11, 2005 9:45 AM To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Subject: RE: [TruthTalk] Mormon Related #2 He didn't ask what a Christian is NOT, he asked what the definition for Christian IS. He didn't ask about Joseph Smith and his alleged activities or ideas are/were. Kay -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of ShieldsFamily Sent: Tuesday, 11 January, 2005 10.32 To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Subject: RE: [TruthTalk] Mormon Related #2 DaveH, You are simply straining at gnats to avoid the obvious. Here's what is Christian IS NOT: a believer in multiple-gods, or that Jesus is just another one of us gods, or that we can all evolve into another Jesus, or that everyone born on earth is born due to some gods in heaven having sexual relations, or that JS was a prophet, or that JS was not a liar and adulterer and statutory rapist, or any of the other bizarre ideas incubated by him are true, etc.. But of course you know all of this, and are completely in your zone when strife breaks out among naive brethren over mormonism's false claims to Christianity. Izzy _ From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Dave Hansen Sent: Tuesday, January 11, 2005 1:06 AM To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Mormon Related #2 ShieldsFamily wrote: Several on this list claim they are speaking out of love, ala Yeshua. I say that they are decieved and lying when they do this. Why else would they attack Dave Hanson(or any one else) for his beliefs. I pity you petty little people. Jeff Jeff, I believe you are committing ad hominem attacks here. I am sure you cannot show us a single word of attack spoken against Dave Hanson; only against speaking of mormon theology as being truly Christian (which it isn't-and if you think so, perhaps you should listen more to Perry DAVEH: Sorry for intruding on this, Izzy. I've asked Perry (several times) for his definition of Christian, but he seems reluctant to mention anything except his disdain for my beliefs. I've got no problem with his dislike of my faith, but I do find it curious that he refrains from posting a definition of Christian, especially when he disqualifies me of being one. If I didn't know better, I'd say it's almost like a club that won't let you join IF you don't know the rulesand nobody will tell you the rules. BTW Izzyhow about you? May I implore you to weigh in on this as well? How do you define Christian? and talk less?) Therefore you are possibly guilty of your own accusations. Izzy -- ~~~ Dave Hansen [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.langlitz.com ~~~ If you wish to receive things I find
RE: [TruthTalk] Definition of Mormon Please
OK Is not what is good for the goose good for the gander? They exclude you from the ONE TRUE Church Why can't we exclude them from Christianity If they believe they are so right in the ONE TRUE Church Why are they so insistent on becoming part of APOSTATE CHRISTIANITY? --- Slade Henson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I think they can think what they want. Doesn't necessarily mean they're right. Kay -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of Kevin Deegan Sent: Tuesday, 11 January, 2005 12.14 To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Subject: RE: [TruthTalk] Definition of Mormon Please Yes, same line. Birds of a feather flock together. What do you think of we are the ONE TRUE CHURCH And since you are outside that church where does it put you? Church Authorities say you are either Mormon or you are without salvation. It would seem you are either a Mormon or YOU are without salvation, along with us other NON Mormons. --- Slade Henson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Isn't that the same thing Catholics say? You go to hell unless you're Catholic? And JW's? Aren't they like the 144,000 and if you aren't one of them, you go to hell? There is no church who can lead its members to salvation. Salvation is grace through faith. Kay -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of Kevin Deegan Sent: Tuesday, 11 January, 2005 11.47 To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Subject: RE: [TruthTalk] Definition of Mormon Please 1) This Church is the only true and living church upon the face of the whole earth there is NO SALVATION outside the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. (Bruce McConkie, Mormon Doctrine, Page 670) 2) We cannot accept that any other church can lead its members to SALVATION. (The Masters Church, Course A, Mormon Sunday school text.) Kay where does that leave you? How about this one DaveH? Give us a definition of Mormon I know the official term is LDS, you have no problem with the use of Mormon, do you? --- ShieldsFamily [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Kay, in the past nine years this has been explained to DaveH ad nauseum. It's a ploy. Why don't YOU try to get through to him? Izzy _ From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Slade Henson Sent: Tuesday, January 11, 2005 9:45 AM To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Subject: RE: [TruthTalk] Mormon Related #2 He didn't ask what a Christian is NOT, he asked what the definition for Christian IS. He didn't ask about Joseph Smith and his alleged activities or ideas are/were. Kay -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of ShieldsFamily Sent: Tuesday, 11 January, 2005 10.32 To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Subject: RE: [TruthTalk] Mormon Related #2 DaveH, You are simply straining at gnats to avoid the obvious. Here's what is Christian IS NOT: a believer in multiple-gods, or that Jesus is just another one of us gods, or that we can all evolve into another Jesus, or that everyone born on earth is born due to some gods in heaven having sexual relations, or that JS was a prophet, or that JS was not a liar and adulterer and statutory rapist, or any of the other bizarre ideas incubated by him are true, etc.. But of course you know all of this, and are completely in your zone when strife breaks out among naive brethren over mormonism's false claims to Christianity. Izzy _ From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Dave Hansen Sent: Tuesday, January 11, 2005 1:06 AM To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Mormon Related #2 ShieldsFamily wrote: Several on this list claim they are speaking out of love, ala Yeshua. I say that they are decieved and lying when they do this. Why else would they attack Dave Hanson(or any one else) for his beliefs. I pity you petty little people. Jeff Jeff, I believe you are committing ad hominem attacks here. I am sure you cannot show us a single word of attack spoken against Dave Hanson; only against speaking of mormon theology as being truly Christian (which it isn't-and if you think so, perhaps you should listen more to Perry DAVEH: Sorry for intruding on this, Izzy. I've asked Perry (several times) for his definition of Christian, but he seems reluctant to mention anything except his disdain for my beliefs. I've got no === message truncated === __ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com
RE: [TruthTalk] Definition of Mormon Please
I don't really care that they allegedly exclude me from their church. Obviously, Dave himself doesn't exclude fellowship with the people here even though they are not part of the Mormon church. Christianity encompasses a whole lot more than just one sect. Baptists, Lutherans, Catholics, Mormons, Jehovah's Witnesses, Mennonites, Amish, 7th Day, Pentecostals, Nazarenes, etc. would fall under the Christianity category. Some of those would also fall under the born again Christian category. Some would claim they do, but really don't. Most of them would claim...if you're not one of US, you're one of THEM and we're going to heaven, you're notmentality. Kay -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of Kevin Deegan Sent: Tuesday, 11 January, 2005 12.32 To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Subject: RE: [TruthTalk] Definition of Mormon Please OK Is not what is good for the goose good for the gander? They exclude you from the ONE TRUE Church Why can't we exclude them from Christianity If they believe they are so right in the ONE TRUE Church Why are they so insistent on becoming part of APOSTATE CHRISTIANITY? --- Slade Henson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I think they can think what they want. Doesn't necessarily mean they're right. Kay -- 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] Definition of Mormon Please
I don't really care that they allegedly exclude me from their church. Obviously, Dave himself doesn't exclude fellowship with the people here even though they are not part of the Mormon church. Kay And spiders dont mind fellowshipping with flies, either. J Izzy
RE: [TruthTalk] Definition of Mormon Please
We cannot accept that any other church can lead its members to SALVATION. (The Masters Church, Course A, Mormon Sunday school text.) We are not talking fellowship, we are talking NO SALVATION OUTSIDE THE LDS CHURCH That is Pretty EXCLUSIVE Groups that claim to be O.T.C. (ONE TRUE CHURCH) JW's Mormons Roman Catholic (Refernces on request) Kay contends: Most of them would claim...if you're not one of US, you're one of THEM and we're going to heaven, you're notmentality. Please provide One Quote from a sect or Church Authority claiming to be the O.T.C. Baptist? Methodist? Prebyterian? --- Slade Henson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I don't really care that they allegedly exclude me from their church. Obviously, Dave himself doesn't exclude fellowship with the people here even though they are not part of the Mormon church. Christianity encompasses a whole lot more than just one sect. Baptists, Lutherans, Catholics, Mormons, Jehovah's Witnesses, Mennonites, Amish, 7th Day, Pentecostals, Nazarenes, etc. would fall under the Christianity category. Some of those would also fall under the born again Christian category. Some would claim they do, but really don't. Most of them would claim...if you're not one of US, you're one of THEM and we're going to heaven, you're notmentality. Kay -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of Kevin Deegan Sent: Tuesday, 11 January, 2005 12.32 To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Subject: RE: [TruthTalk] Definition of Mormon Please OK Is not what is good for the goose good for the gander? They exclude you from the ONE TRUE Church Why can't we exclude them from Christianity If they believe they are so right in the ONE TRUE Church Why are they so insistent on becoming part of APOSTATE CHRISTIANITY? --- Slade Henson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I think they can think what they want. Doesn't necessarily mean they're right. Kay -- 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. __ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Mail - 250MB free storage. Do more. Manage less. http://info.mail.yahoo.com/mail_250 -- 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] Definition of Mormon Please
LOL : ) Good one, IZZY --- ShieldsFamily [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I don't really care that they allegedly exclude me from their church. Obviously, Dave himself doesn't exclude fellowship with the people here even though they are not part of the Mormon church. Kay And spiders don't mind fellowshipping with flies, either. :-) Izzy __ Do you Yahoo!? Meet the all-new My Yahoo! - Try it today! http://my.yahoo.com -- 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] Definition of Mormon Please
Street Preachers. :) Most of them make like this. I heard a cultish type make the claim many times. I also heard one of his followers claim someone was going to the Lake of Fire and he was going to be the one to push the other man into it. From the Catholic encyclopedia: Moreover, the Christianity of which we speak is that which we find realized in the Catholic Church alone; I've heard Baptists claim if you aren't Baptist, you aren't saved. I've heard Baptists say if you aren't one certain kind of Baptist, you aren't saved. Those 7th Day Baptists aren't saved...they aren't even Baptists! I think what matters here is what Dave believes. He's already said he doesn't believe EVERYTHING his church may have as doctrine. Does Dave think he's from some other planet? Why does he think this? Where does it come from? Does he think J. Smith was a prophet? Why or why not? Do we think he was a prophet? Why or why not? Why is everyone else answering for Dave about Mormonism? Are these people Mormons? Or quoting what someone else may have said about Mormons? Someone who may be wrong or have confused something. Why not ask Dave himself? I say this because hundreds of times I'm toldthe Jews this or the Jews that...the Jews say this, think that, do thiswhen it isn't even TRUE! Kay -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of Kevin Deegan Sent: Tuesday, 11 January, 2005 13.10 To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Subject: RE: [TruthTalk] Definition of Mormon Please We cannot accept that any other church can lead its members to SALVATION. (The Masters Church, Course A, Mormon Sunday school text.) We are not talking fellowship, we are talking NO SALVATION OUTSIDE THE LDS CHURCH That is Pretty EXCLUSIVE Groups that claim to be O.T.C. (ONE TRUE CHURCH) JW's Mormons Roman Catholic (Refernces on request) Kay contends: Most of them would claim...if you're not one of US, you're one of THEM and we're going to heaven, you're notmentality. Please provide One Quote from a sect or Church Authority claiming to be the O.T.C. Baptist? Methodist? Prebyterian? --- Slade Henson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I don't really care that they allegedly exclude me from their church. Obviously, Dave himself doesn't exclude fellowship with the people here even though they are not part of the Mormon church. Christianity encompasses a whole lot more than just one sect. Baptists, Lutherans, Catholics, Mormons, Jehovah's Witnesses, Mennonites, Amish, 7th Day, Pentecostals, Nazarenes, etc. would fall under the Christianity category. Some of those would also fall under the born again Christian category. Some would claim they do, but really don't. Most of them would claim...if you're not one of US, you're one of THEM and we're going to heaven, you're notmentality. Kay -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of Kevin Deegan Sent: Tuesday, 11 January, 2005 12.32 To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Subject: RE: [TruthTalk] Definition of Mormon Please OK Is not what is good for the goose good for the gander? They exclude you from the ONE TRUE Church Why can't we exclude them from Christianity If they believe they are so right in the ONE TRUE Church Why are they so insistent on becoming part of APOSTATE CHRISTIANITY? --- Slade Henson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I think they can think what they want. Doesn't necessarily mean they're right. Kay -- 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. __ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Mail - 250MB free storage. Do more. Manage less. http://info.mail.yahoo.com/mail_250 -- 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] Definition of Mormon Please
Please DaveH Hear my plea, I desparately need a definition of Mormonism How else can we compare definitions? __ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Mail - You care about security. So do we. http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail -- 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] Definition of Mormon Please
Ah but Kay my wifes sister in law answered my question about the 144,000. When I asked her if she was one of the 144,000 she replied No and then I asked her why she bothered then. Thats when she called me Satan! The beauty of it all is that she has never spoken to me since! But I still talk to my brother in law! In fact we get along great! Jeff - Original Message - From: Slade Henson [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: Tuesday, January 11, 2005 12:00 Subject: RE: [TruthTalk] Definition of Mormon Please Isn't that the same thing Catholics say? You go to hell unless you're Catholic? And JW's? Aren't they like the 144,000 and if you aren't one of them, you go to hell? There is no church who can lead its members to salvation. Salvation is grace through faith. Kay -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of Kevin Deegan Sent: Tuesday, 11 January, 2005 11.47 To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Subject: RE: [TruthTalk] Definition of Mormon Please 1) This Church is the only true and living church upon the face of the whole earth there is NO SALVATION outside the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. (Bruce McConkie, Mormon Doctrine, Page 670) 2) We cannot accept that any other church can lead its members to SALVATION. (The Masters Church, Course A, Mormon Sunday school text.) Kay where does that leave you? How about this one DaveH? Give us a definition of Mormon I know the official term is LDS, you have no problem with the use of Mormon, do you? --- ShieldsFamily [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Kay, in the past nine years this has been explained to DaveH ad nauseum. It's a ploy. Why don't YOU try to get through to him? Izzy _ From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Slade Henson Sent: Tuesday, January 11, 2005 9:45 AM To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Subject: RE: [TruthTalk] Mormon Related #2 He didn't ask what a Christian is NOT, he asked what the definition for Christian IS. He didn't ask about Joseph Smith and his alleged activities or ideas are/were. Kay -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of ShieldsFamily Sent: Tuesday, 11 January, 2005 10.32 To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Subject: RE: [TruthTalk] Mormon Related #2 DaveH, You are simply straining at gnats to avoid the obvious. Here's what is Christian IS NOT: a believer in multiple-gods, or that Jesus is just another one of us gods, or that we can all evolve into another Jesus, or that everyone born on earth is born due to some gods in heaven having sexual relations, or that JS was a prophet, or that JS was not a liar and adulterer and statutory rapist, or any of the other bizarre ideas incubated by him are true, etc.. But of course you know all of this, and are completely in your zone when strife breaks out among naive brethren over mormonism's false claims to Christianity. Izzy _ From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Dave Hansen Sent: Tuesday, January 11, 2005 1:06 AM To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Mormon Related #2 ShieldsFamily wrote: Several on this list claim they are speaking out of love, ala Yeshua. I say that they are decieved and lying when they do this. Why else would they attack Dave Hanson(or any one else) for his beliefs. I pity you petty little people. Jeff Jeff, I believe you are committing ad hominem attacks here. I am sure you cannot show us a single word of attack spoken against Dave Hanson; only against speaking of mormon theology as being truly Christian (which it isn't-and if you think so, perhaps you should listen more to Perry DAVEH: Sorry for intruding on this, Izzy. I've asked Perry (several times) for his definition of Christian, but he seems reluctant to mention anything except his disdain for my beliefs. I've got no problem with his dislike of my faith, but I do find it curious that he refrains from posting a definition of Christian, especially when he disqualifies me of being one. If I didn't know better, I'd say it's almost like a club that won't let you join IF you don't know the rulesand nobody will tell you the rules. BTW Izzyhow about you? May I implore you to weigh in on this as well? How do you define Christian? and talk less?) Therefore you are possibly guilty of your own accusations. Izzy -- ~~~ Dave Hansen [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.langlitz.com ~~~ If you wish to receive things I find interesting, I maintain six email lists... JOKESTER, OPINIONS, LDS, STUFF, MOTORCYCLE and CLIPS. __ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com -- 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
Re: [TruthTalk] Definition of Mormon Please
In a message dated 1/11/2005 9:04:27 AM Pacific Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Isn't that the same thing Catholics say? You go to hell unless you're Catholic? And JW's? Aren't they like the 144,000 and if you aren't one of them, you go to hell? There is no church who can lead its members to salvation. Salvation is grace through faith. Amen, sister Kay. More than that, IMO, is the belief that salvation is not a group thing at all. The group (church) exists for other reasons, important reasons -- but salvation is not one of them. JD
Re: [TruthTalk] Definition of Mormon Please
In a message dated 1/11/2005 4:57:09 PM Pacific Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Ah but Kay my wifes sister in law answered my question about the 144,000. When I asked her if she was one of the 144,000 she replied "No" and then I asked her why she bothered then. Thats when she called me Satan! The beauty of it all is that she has never spoken to me since! But I still talk to my brother in law! In fact we get along great! Jeff My previously happy ex-wife's mother, tried to cast an evil spirit out of me. She stop her debate with me, at the breakfast table with bibles opening and hearts churnning, squinted her eys. look streaight trough me and said "Some out of him, come out of him." True story. When she first started, I shut up -- the Smithmeister was silient for the space of one half hour -- and then, nothing. I finally said, "Mary, nothing is happening !" She replied " You won't let him come out !!" and I regretably said " Well, I guess I am a little tougher than your God" Not good -- me son-in-law and all. John
RE: [TruthTalk] Definition of Mormon Please
My previously happy ex-wife's mother, tried to cast an evil spirit out of me. She stop her debate with me, at the breakfast table with bibles opening and hearts churnning, squinted her eys. look streaight trough me and said Some out of him, come out of him. True story. When she first started, I shut up -- the Smithmeister was silient for the space of one half hour -- and then, nothing. I finally said, Mary, nothing is happening ! She replied You won't let him come out !! and I regretably said Well, I guess I am a little tougher than your God Not good -- me son-in-law and all. John Could you give her another go at it, JD? Izzy
