Re: [TruthTalk] The two sticks; was: Mormon Related #2
Hey Blaine, sorry you missed me at conference. Wanna try again?"[EMAIL PROTECTED]" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Perry,I read the article at the reference given--in fact, I read it several times. My considered judgement is that it is one man's opinion, which he has a right to, but by no means the final word. There were some facts that lent credibility to what the man wanted to say, plus some obvious (obvious to me, perhaps not to you) ommissions of relevant facts, plus some allusions that were not spelled out. All in all, I have to see what the man has to say as slanted, definitely slanted, and clearly not intended to be an objective and fair commentary. He just wanted to amke his case, is all. First of all, Lehi and his group were not all of Manasseh, some were also of Ephraim. Secondly, even if they had all been of the tribe of Manasseh, they were clearly not affiliated with the Kingdom of Judah, or the Jews, other than being from Jerusalem. This just leaves them as being from the group who broke away from the rule of Davidic Kings, which was Israel (the ten tribes), a Kingdom dominated by the tribe of Ephraim. Thus, to say "Ephraim and his companions," is to refer to the ten tribes, usually referred to in the Bible as Israel, but I believe sometimes also referred to as "Ephraim." One of the tenets of the Mormon Church is that eventually these ten tribes will come down from the North countries where they are presently located, and will receive a blessing from the hands of Ephraim, or the LDS Church. Motivating them will be what is written in the BoM, which is written to both Jew and Gentile (Gentile including those tribes of Israel not yet identified). Could say more, but don't want to go on and on, when most have probably already lost concentration (:. (My patriarchal blessing says I am from Ephraim, as are most members of the LDS faith--I believe this is true. One gg grandfather, however, was of Levi, according to revelation given the patriarch who blessed him.)BlaineRB-- "Charles Perry Locke" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>wrote:Blaine,Welcome back to TT... I've missed you interesting and challenging defenses of the (Mormon) faith.http://www.jewsforjudaism.org/web/Mormons/sticks.htmThe above web page describes the sticks of Judah and Joseph very well, and very clearly demonstrates that they could not possibly be the Bible and the Book of Mormon. If you sincerely are interested in the question, please read the whole article. It is a short read and better describes the meaning of the verses than I can.After reading it, let me know if you understand why I consider the verses as the LDS interpret to be a prooftext!Perry>From: "[EMAIL PROTECTED]" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>>Reply-To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org>To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org>Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Mormon Related #2>Date: Fri, 14 Jan 2005 14:22:58 GMT Pardon me for intervening--Perry makes some good points in general, >but fails to give specifics. He says, "I consider the verses from>the Bible that you quote in support of LDS doctrine to be prooftexts >because>out of context they contain some of the words in the LDS doctrine for which>you are seeking Biblical support, but within their context, they do not>support the doctrinal position that you claim they support.">> [EMAIL PROTECTED], Perry, some biblical passages used by Mormons do seem nebulous >as to what they mean--but please consider the possibility that the meaning >ascribed to the passage by Mormons may actually be the true meaning, or at >least one of several true meanings. There are quite a few biblical >passages that most Judeo/Christian writers agree defy interpretation. The >passages concerning the sticks of Judah and Joseph are good examples. If >these do not refer to what Mormons say they refer to, that is, the Book of >Mormon and the Bible, please tell us what they do refer to? I have never >read of any explanation that held up under scrutiny, other than the Mormon >interpretation. Yet you do suggest you know. If so, I am a quick learner, >so please, tell me/us, OK?>>BlaineRB>> -- "Charles Perry Locke" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>wrote:> >from: Dave Hansen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>>> >>Perry wrote:>> >>A mormon prooftext. Claim that men become gods, then find some scripture> >>that seems to support it. This type of activity occurs in Mormonism> >>because the LDS regard the Book of Mormon and the Doctrine and covenants> >>to be the prime documents in their belief, and then try to read them >into> >>Bible.> >> >DAVEH: I will agree to that, Perry. I'm glad to see you have finally >come> >to that conclusion. My beliefs are not solely dependent on Bible> >interpretation, as is so common for many folks. Yet when people (like >Kay)> >ask me why I believe as I do, I try not to bury them with LDS Scriptures,> >but rather offer my support from Biblical evidences. I'm not sure why >you> >have a problem with this, Perry, as I'm only trying to frame my believes> >with supporting passages with which most TTers are
Re: [TruthTalk] The two sticks; was: Mormon Related #2
Perry, I read the article at the reference given--in fact, I read it several times. My considered judgement is that it is one man's opinion, which he has a right to, but by no means the final word. There were some facts that lent credibility to what the man wanted to say, plus some obvious (obvious to me, perhaps not to you) ommissions of relevant facts, plus some allusions that were not spelled out. All in all, I have to see what the man has to say as slanted, definitely slanted, and clearly not intended to be an objective and fair commentary. He just wanted to amke his case, is all. First of all, Lehi and his group were not all of Manasseh, some were also of Ephraim. Secondly, even if they had all been of the tribe of Manasseh, they were clearly not affiliated with the Kingdom of Judah, or the Jews, other than being from Jerusalem. This just leaves them as being from the group who broke away from the rule of Davidic Kings, which was Israel (the ten tribes), a Kingdom dominated by the tribe of Ephraim. Thus, to say "Ephraim and his companions," is to refer to the ten tribes, usually referred to in the Bible as Israel, but I believe sometimes also referred to as "Ephraim." One of the tenets of the Mormon Church is that eventually these ten tribes will come down from the North countries where they are presently located, and will receive a blessing from the hands of Ephraim, or the LDS Church. Motivating them will be what is written in the BoM, which is written to both Jew and Gentile (Gentile including those tribes of Israel not yet identified). Could say more, but don't want to go on and on, when most have probably already lost concentration (:. (My patriarchal blessing says I am from Ephraim, as are most members of the LDS faith--I believe this is true. One gg grandfather, however, was of Levi, according to revelation given the patriarch who blessed him.) BlaineRB -- "Charles Perry Locke" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Blaine, Welcome back to TT... I've missed you interesting and challenging defenses of the (Mormon) faith. http://www.jewsforjudaism.org/web/Mormons/sticks.htm The above web page describes the sticks of Judah and Joseph very well, and very clearly demonstrates that they could not possibly be the Bible and the Book of Mormon. If you sincerely are interested in the question, please read the whole article. It is a short read and better describes the meaning of the verses than I can. After reading it, let me know if you understand why I consider the verses as the LDS interpret to be a prooftext! Perry >From: "[EMAIL PROTECTED]" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >Reply-To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org >To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org >Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Mormon Related #2 >Date: Fri, 14 Jan 2005 14:22:58 GMT > > > > Pardon me for intervening--Perry makes some good points in general, >but fails to give specifics. He says, "I consider the verses from >the Bible that you quote in support of LDS doctrine to be prooftexts >because >out of context they contain some of the words in the LDS doctrine for which >you are seeking Biblical support, but within their context, they do not >support the doctrinal position that you claim they support." > > [EMAIL PROTECTED], Perry, some biblical passages used by Mormons do seem > nebulous >as to what they mean--but please consider the possibility that the meaning >ascribed to the passage by Mormons may actually be the true meaning, or at >least one of several true meanings. There are quite a few biblical >passages that most Judeo/Christian writers agree defy interpretation. The >passages concerning the sticks of Judah and Joseph are good examples. If >these do not refer to what Mormons say they refer to, that is, the Book of >Mormon and the Bible, please tell us what they do refer to? I have never >read of any explanation that held up under scrutiny, other than the Mormon >interpretation. Yet you do suggest you know. If so, I am a quick learner, >so please, tell me/us, OK? > >BlaineRB > > -- "Charles Perry Locke" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >from: Dave Hansen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > >>Perry wrote: > > >>A mormon prooftext. Claim that men become gods, then find some scripture > >>that seems to support it. This type of activity occurs in Mormonism > >>because the LDS regard the Book of Mormon and the Doctrine and covenants > >>to be the prime documents in their belief, and then try to read them >into > >>Bible. > > > >DAVEH: I will agree to that, Perry. I'm glad to see you have finally >come > >to that conclusion. My beliefs are not solely dependent on Bible > >interpretation, as is so common for many folks. Yet when people (like >Kay) > >ask me why I believe as I do, I try not to bury them with LDS Scriptures, > >but rather offer my support from Biblical evidences. I'm not sure why >you > >have a problem with this, Perry, as I'm only trying to frame my believes > >with supp
RE: [TruthTalk] The two sticks; was: Mormon Related #2
On second thought...no he won't. They aren't kosherbut you get the point...! K. -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of Slade Henson Sent: Friday, 14 January, 2005 18.28 To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Subject: RE: [TruthTalk] The two sticks; was: Mormon Related #2 Tovia Singer will eat them for lunch! Kay -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of ShieldsFamily Sent: Friday, 14 January, 2005 17.21 To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Subject: RE: [TruthTalk] The two sticks; was: Mormon Related #2 We've been known to make better men cry. :-) Izzy (But not me, of course!!!) -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Slade Henson Sent: Friday, January 14, 2005 4:06 PM To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Subject: RE: [TruthTalk] The two sticks; was: Mormon Related #2 Slade says CAUTION! You have entered anti-missionary territory...BEWARE! BEWARE! :) --sladeby way of Kay -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of Charles Perry Locke Sent: Friday, 14 January, 2005 10.47 To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Subject: [TruthTalk] The two sticks; was: Mormon Related #2 Blaine, Welcome back to TT... I've missed you interesting and challenging defenses of the (Mormon) faith. http://www.jewsforjudaism.org/web/Mormons/sticks.htm The above web page describes the sticks of Judah and Joseph very well, and very clearly demonstrates that they could not possibly be the Bible and the Book of Mormon. If you sincerely are interested in the question, please read the whole article. It is a short read and better describes the meaning of the verses than I can. After reading it, let me know if you understand why I consider the verses as the LDS interpret to be a prooftext! Perry >From: "[EMAIL PROTECTED]" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >Reply-To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org >To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org >Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Mormon Related #2 >Date: Fri, 14 Jan 2005 14:22:58 GMT > > > > Pardon me for intervening--Perry makes some good points in general, >but fails to give specifics. He says, "I consider the verses from >the Bible that you quote in support of LDS doctrine to be prooftexts >because >out of context they contain some of the words in the LDS doctrine for which >you are seeking Biblical support, but within their context, they do not >support the doctrinal position that you claim they support." > > [EMAIL PROTECTED], Perry, some biblical passages used by Mormons do seem > nebulous >as to what they mean--but please consider the possibility that the meaning >ascribed to the passage by Mormons may actually be the true meaning, or at >least one of several true meanings. There are quite a few biblical >passages that most Judeo/Christian writers agree defy interpretation. The >passages concerning the sticks of Judah and Joseph are good examples. If >these do not refer to what Mormons say they refer to, that is, the Book of >Mormon and the Bible, please tell us what they do refer to? I have never >read of any explanation that held up under scrutiny, other than the Mormon >interpretation. Yet you do suggest you know. If so, I am a quick learner, >so please, tell me/us, OK? > >BlaineRB > > -- "Charles Perry Locke" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >from: Dave Hansen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > >>Perry wrote: > > >>A mormon prooftext. Claim that men become gods, then find some scripture > >>that seems to support it. This type of activity occurs in Mormonism > >>because the LDS regard the Book of Mormon and the Doctrine and covenants > >>to be the prime documents in their belief, and then try to read them >into > >>Bible. > > > >DAVEH: I will agree to that, Perry. I'm glad to see you have finally >come > >to that conclusion. My beliefs are not solely dependent on Bible > >interpretation, as is so common for many folks. Yet when people (like >Kay) > >ask me why I believe as I do, I try not to bury them with LDS Scriptures, > >but rather offer my support from Biblical evidences. I'm not sure why >you > >have a problem with this, Perry, as I'm only trying to frame my believes > >with supporting passages with which most TTers are familiar. Call it > >prooftexting or whatever else you feel belittles my >explanations...but > >is that a problem for you? > >My goal is not to belittle your explanations. I consider the verses >from >the Bible that you quote in support of LDS doctrine to be prooftexts >because >out of context they contain some of the words in the LDS doctrine for wh
RE: [TruthTalk] The two sticks; was: Mormon Related #2
Tovia Singer will eat them for lunch! Kay -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of ShieldsFamily Sent: Friday, 14 January, 2005 17.21 To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Subject: RE: [TruthTalk] The two sticks; was: Mormon Related #2 We've been known to make better men cry. :-) Izzy (But not me, of course!!!) -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Slade Henson Sent: Friday, January 14, 2005 4:06 PM To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Subject: RE: [TruthTalk] The two sticks; was: Mormon Related #2 Slade says CAUTION! You have entered anti-missionary territory...BEWARE! BEWARE! :) --sladeby way of Kay -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of Charles Perry Locke Sent: Friday, 14 January, 2005 10.47 To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Subject: [TruthTalk] The two sticks; was: Mormon Related #2 Blaine, Welcome back to TT... I've missed you interesting and challenging defenses of the (Mormon) faith. http://www.jewsforjudaism.org/web/Mormons/sticks.htm The above web page describes the sticks of Judah and Joseph very well, and very clearly demonstrates that they could not possibly be the Bible and the Book of Mormon. If you sincerely are interested in the question, please read the whole article. It is a short read and better describes the meaning of the verses than I can. After reading it, let me know if you understand why I consider the verses as the LDS interpret to be a prooftext! Perry >From: "[EMAIL PROTECTED]" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >Reply-To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org >To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org >Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Mormon Related #2 >Date: Fri, 14 Jan 2005 14:22:58 GMT > > > > Pardon me for intervening--Perry makes some good points in general, >but fails to give specifics. He says, "I consider the verses from >the Bible that you quote in support of LDS doctrine to be prooftexts >because >out of context they contain some of the words in the LDS doctrine for which >you are seeking Biblical support, but within their context, they do not >support the doctrinal position that you claim they support." > > [EMAIL PROTECTED], Perry, some biblical passages used by Mormons do seem > nebulous >as to what they mean--but please consider the possibility that the meaning >ascribed to the passage by Mormons may actually be the true meaning, or at >least one of several true meanings. There are quite a few biblical >passages that most Judeo/Christian writers agree defy interpretation. The >passages concerning the sticks of Judah and Joseph are good examples. If >these do not refer to what Mormons say they refer to, that is, the Book of >Mormon and the Bible, please tell us what they do refer to? I have never >read of any explanation that held up under scrutiny, other than the Mormon >interpretation. Yet you do suggest you know. If so, I am a quick learner, >so please, tell me/us, OK? > >BlaineRB > > -- "Charles Perry Locke" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >from: Dave Hansen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > >>Perry wrote: > > >>A mormon prooftext. Claim that men become gods, then find some scripture > >>that seems to support it. This type of activity occurs in Mormonism > >>because the LDS regard the Book of Mormon and the Doctrine and covenants > >>to be the prime documents in their belief, and then try to read them >into > >>Bible. > > > >DAVEH: I will agree to that, Perry. I'm glad to see you have finally >come > >to that conclusion. My beliefs are not solely dependent on Bible > >interpretation, as is so common for many folks. Yet when people (like >Kay) > >ask me why I believe as I do, I try not to bury them with LDS Scriptures, > >but rather offer my support from Biblical evidences. I'm not sure why >you > >have a problem with this, Perry, as I'm only trying to frame my believes > >with supporting passages with which most TTers are familiar. Call it > >prooftexting or whatever else you feel belittles my >explanations...but > >is that a problem for you? > >My goal is not to belittle your explanations. I consider the verses >from >the Bible that you quote in support of LDS doctrine to be prooftexts >because >out of context they contain some of the words in the LDS doctrine for which >you are seeking Biblical support, but within their context, they do not >support the doctrinal position that you claim they support. Thus, when you >use such scripture to try to support a Mormon doctrine, it certainly >appears >to me as thought you are trying to create doctrine where none exists. And I >point th
RE: [TruthTalk] The two sticks; was: Mormon Related #2
We've been known to make better men cry. :-) Izzy (But not me, of course!!!) -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Slade Henson Sent: Friday, January 14, 2005 4:06 PM To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Subject: RE: [TruthTalk] The two sticks; was: Mormon Related #2 Slade says CAUTION! You have entered anti-missionary territory...BEWARE! BEWARE! :) --sladeby way of Kay -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of Charles Perry Locke Sent: Friday, 14 January, 2005 10.47 To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Subject: [TruthTalk] The two sticks; was: Mormon Related #2 Blaine, Welcome back to TT... I've missed you interesting and challenging defenses of the (Mormon) faith. http://www.jewsforjudaism.org/web/Mormons/sticks.htm The above web page describes the sticks of Judah and Joseph very well, and very clearly demonstrates that they could not possibly be the Bible and the Book of Mormon. If you sincerely are interested in the question, please read the whole article. It is a short read and better describes the meaning of the verses than I can. After reading it, let me know if you understand why I consider the verses as the LDS interpret to be a prooftext! Perry >From: "[EMAIL PROTECTED]" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >Reply-To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org >To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org >Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Mormon Related #2 >Date: Fri, 14 Jan 2005 14:22:58 GMT > > > > Pardon me for intervening--Perry makes some good points in general, >but fails to give specifics. He says, "I consider the verses from >the Bible that you quote in support of LDS doctrine to be prooftexts >because >out of context they contain some of the words in the LDS doctrine for which >you are seeking Biblical support, but within their context, they do not >support the doctrinal position that you claim they support." > > [EMAIL PROTECTED], Perry, some biblical passages used by Mormons do seem > nebulous >as to what they mean--but please consider the possibility that the meaning >ascribed to the passage by Mormons may actually be the true meaning, or at >least one of several true meanings. There are quite a few biblical >passages that most Judeo/Christian writers agree defy interpretation. The >passages concerning the sticks of Judah and Joseph are good examples. If >these do not refer to what Mormons say they refer to, that is, the Book of >Mormon and the Bible, please tell us what they do refer to? I have never >read of any explanation that held up under scrutiny, other than the Mormon >interpretation. Yet you do suggest you know. If so, I am a quick learner, >so please, tell me/us, OK? > >BlaineRB > > -- "Charles Perry Locke" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >from: Dave Hansen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > >>Perry wrote: > > >>A mormon prooftext. Claim that men become gods, then find some scripture > >>that seems to support it. This type of activity occurs in Mormonism > >>because the LDS regard the Book of Mormon and the Doctrine and covenants > >>to be the prime documents in their belief, and then try to read them >into > >>Bible. > > > >DAVEH: I will agree to that, Perry. I'm glad to see you have finally >come > >to that conclusion. My beliefs are not solely dependent on Bible > >interpretation, as is so common for many folks. Yet when people (like >Kay) > >ask me why I believe as I do, I try not to bury them with LDS Scriptures, > >but rather offer my support from Biblical evidences. I'm not sure why >you > >have a problem with this, Perry, as I'm only trying to frame my believes > >with supporting passages with which most TTers are familiar. Call it > >prooftexting or whatever else you feel belittles my >explanations...but > >is that a problem for you? > >My goal is not to belittle your explanations. I consider the verses >from >the Bible that you quote in support of LDS doctrine to be prooftexts >because >out of context they contain some of the words in the LDS doctrine for which >you are seeking Biblical support, but within their context, they do not >support the doctrinal position that you claim they support. Thus, when you >use such scripture to try to support a Mormon doctrine, it certainly >appears >to me as thought you are trying to create doctrine where none exists. And I >point that out when I see it. > >Now, I believe that there is an interesting phenomenon that has >occurred >over time that produced the prooftexts that you use in support of LDS >doctrine. (In fact, I'll bet most of the scripture you use to try to >support >
RE: [TruthTalk] The two sticks; was: Mormon Related #2
Slade says CAUTION! You have entered anti-missionary territory...BEWARE! BEWARE! :) --sladeby way of Kay -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of Charles Perry Locke Sent: Friday, 14 January, 2005 10.47 To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Subject: [TruthTalk] The two sticks; was: Mormon Related #2 Blaine, Welcome back to TT... I've missed you interesting and challenging defenses of the (Mormon) faith. http://www.jewsforjudaism.org/web/Mormons/sticks.htm The above web page describes the sticks of Judah and Joseph very well, and very clearly demonstrates that they could not possibly be the Bible and the Book of Mormon. If you sincerely are interested in the question, please read the whole article. It is a short read and better describes the meaning of the verses than I can. After reading it, let me know if you understand why I consider the verses as the LDS interpret to be a prooftext! Perry >From: "[EMAIL PROTECTED]" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >Reply-To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org >To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org >Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Mormon Related #2 >Date: Fri, 14 Jan 2005 14:22:58 GMT > > > > Pardon me for intervening--Perry makes some good points in general, >but fails to give specifics. He says, "I consider the verses from >the Bible that you quote in support of LDS doctrine to be prooftexts >because >out of context they contain some of the words in the LDS doctrine for which >you are seeking Biblical support, but within their context, they do not >support the doctrinal position that you claim they support." > > [EMAIL PROTECTED], Perry, some biblical passages used by Mormons do seem > nebulous >as to what they mean--but please consider the possibility that the meaning >ascribed to the passage by Mormons may actually be the true meaning, or at >least one of several true meanings. There are quite a few biblical >passages that most Judeo/Christian writers agree defy interpretation. The >passages concerning the sticks of Judah and Joseph are good examples. If >these do not refer to what Mormons say they refer to, that is, the Book of >Mormon and the Bible, please tell us what they do refer to? I have never >read of any explanation that held up under scrutiny, other than the Mormon >interpretation. Yet you do suggest you know. If so, I am a quick learner, >so please, tell me/us, OK? > >BlaineRB > > -- "Charles Perry Locke" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >from: Dave Hansen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > >>Perry wrote: > > >>A mormon prooftext. Claim that men become gods, then find some scripture > >>that seems to support it. This type of activity occurs in Mormonism > >>because the LDS regard the Book of Mormon and the Doctrine and covenants > >>to be the prime documents in their belief, and then try to read them >into > >>Bible. > > > >DAVEH: I will agree to that, Perry. I'm glad to see you have finally >come > >to that conclusion. My beliefs are not solely dependent on Bible > >interpretation, as is so common for many folks. Yet when people (like >Kay) > >ask me why I believe as I do, I try not to bury them with LDS Scriptures, > >but rather offer my support from Biblical evidences. I'm not sure why >you > >have a problem with this, Perry, as I'm only trying to frame my believes > >with supporting passages with which most TTers are familiar. Call it > >prooftexting or whatever else you feel belittles my >explanations...but > >is that a problem for you? > >My goal is not to belittle your explanations. I consider the verses >from >the Bible that you quote in support of LDS doctrine to be prooftexts >because >out of context they contain some of the words in the LDS doctrine for which >you are seeking Biblical support, but within their context, they do not >support the doctrinal position that you claim they support. Thus, when you >use such scripture to try to support a Mormon doctrine, it certainly >appears >to me as thought you are trying to create doctrine where none exists. And I >point that out when I see it. > >Now, I believe that there is an interesting phenomenon that has >occurred >over time that produced the prooftexts that you use in support of LDS >doctrine. (In fact, I'll bet most of the scripture you use to try to >support >LDS doctrine are "standard" LDS references, because I have heard other >Mormons respond with exactly the same verses when asked for scriptural >support of the same doctrines.) > >The phenomenon goes like this... Joseph Smith came up with a >"revelation". Good Mormons wanted to know that it was indeed from God so, >being good Bereans, they searched the scriptures for support of the >revelation, and latched onto the verses that contain words that relate to >the doctrine. Not seeing a relationship at first, they wrestled with the >text and, over time, refined the meanings of the words and twisted it out >of >context until they felt they could support the doctrine. Then the >phenome
