from:"Blainerb473"




BLAINE: I was hoping someone would pick up on the issue of 
traditional bigotry being overcome as individuals interacted with one another 
over a long period of time. The book was supposedly true, not sure whether 
the Hollywood movie version took it into the area of fiction or no.I don't 
recall the movie as well as the book. It contained one part where 
the press was invited into the school to do a news writeup, and instead of 
writing about the good things being done in the school, they wrote about what 
they thought the public with "itching ears" would want to hear, which was 
alot of stereotypedlies. Reminded me of how Kevin and company 
operates, . . . h. :-)

Re: [TruthTalk] Street Preaching





BLAINE: I think, Judy, your equating street preachers with OT 
prophets is going a bit far, huh? OT prophets most often got their 
messages across through working through the political establishment--kings, 
false priests, etc. While they did go about the streets, I cannot concieve 
of them yelling, screaming, using truth horns, as it were, carrying signs, 
etc. What they did do was always effective, mainly because they had the 
power of the spirit with them . . . These street preachers 
mostly just annoy people, make a spectacle of themselves. There must 
be a better way for them to communicate their messages, which in some instances 
might actually do some lost souls some good if they could be approached less 
obtrusively, and with a show of dignity--a virtue that seems lost on them.


In a message dated 5/14/2005 12:58:44 AM Mountain Standard Time, 
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:

  think the same could be said for every one of the OT 
  Prophets, that is, the ones through whom we received the
  scriptures. They were all street preachers and 
  the reaction of Israel before the dispersion was the equivalent 
of
  this Baptist fellow. Psych case huh? 
  jt
  
  On Fri, 13 May 2005 22:59:37 -0500 "Caroline Wong" [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
writes:
  
This was posted on the discussion board of 
baptistboard.com by dh1948. 

While visiting in Mobile recently, my wife and I were 
downtown walking past the Bienville Square. Walking around in the square was 
a street preacher. He was screaming...and I mean screaming...to the top of 
his lungs as he sauntered around preaching. His message was one of hell fire 
and brimstone...turn or burn. He sounded so angry.I had no problem 
with his message, but his method caused me to ask my wife, "Do you think 
this is really glorifying to God?" I question the method of standing on a 
street corner or in a public square and screaming out a gospel sermon. 
I thought, "If I was a lost person, how would I react to this man 
and his message?" After all, I am the one he would be targeting, so just how 
would I react? I have to say...with disgust. I would consider him to be a 
psych case...a cultist of a sort. Before the castigation starts, I 
am not questioning the man's motive nor his message...just his method. 
What do you think?

Re: [TruthTalk] To Sir With Love





In a message dated 5/14/2005 5:24:13 PM Mountain Standard Time, 
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:

BLAINE: What Kevin posts from Mormon sources is often true, it is the 
conclusions he draws fromhis poststhat amazes me.Kevin 
never fails to interpret for you followers out there who can't seem to think for 
yourselves. At least he seems to assume you can't, since he ALWAYS tells 
you how you should view what he posts. Take, for example, his posts 
regards Joseph Smith's first vision. As Kevin has more than amply shown, 
the devil showed up as soon as Joseph offered his prayer, which, by the way, was 
offered as a result of being guided by the scripture, the word of God, 
encouraging him to pray and ask God for wisdom. Kevin uses this part of 
the story, however, as evidence that "the devil's footprints are all over" 
Joseph's first vision--he ignores and/or plays down the rest of the story, which 
makes it clear that as soon as God and His Son came onto the scene, the power of 
the Devil was extinguished. Kevin's approach is one intended to 
deceive. If you want to call him a liar, you may do so,  I 
wouldjust say he attempts to deceive, and it sure seems many of you 
fall for it. 

  Are you saying that the things Kevin posts from 
  Mormon sources are lies Blaine?
  
  On Sat, 14 May 2005 19:09:55 EDT [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
  
BLAINE: I was hoping someone would pick up on the issue of 
traditional bigotry being overcome as individuals interacted with one 
another over a long period of time. The book was supposedly true, not 
sure whether the Hollywood movie version took it into the area of fiction or 
no.I don't recall the movie as well as the book. It 
contained one part where the press was invited into the school to do a news 
writeup, and instead of writing about the good things being done in the 
school, they wrote about what they thought the public with "itching ears" 
would want to hear, which was alot of stereotypedlies. 
Reminded me of how Kevin and company operates, . . . h. 
:-)

Re: [Bulk] [TruthTalk] Street Preaching





In a message dated 5/14/2005 5:29:46 PM Mountain Standard Time, 
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
David 
  wrote: I grew up in the Methodist tradition too, and I never saw 
  someone  preaching outside until I was well into my 
  twenties. This is sad, because Jesus did it, the apostles did 
  it, it is in the Bible, and it is found in the tradition of the 
  Methodists, Salvation Army, Puritans, and even in the history of 
  evangelists like Billy Graham.Caroline:It's not the preaching 
  outside that I object to. It's the yelling at people and insulting them 
  that I object to. This is not dialogue or apologetics; it's bullying. I 
  can't imagine Jesus screaming "whore" and "harlot" at Samaritan women. 
  Something is very wrong here and as a Christian, I protest. I do not agree 
  with Mormon beliefs but I have enormous respect for all those who endured 
  the persecution with grace and dignity. As a Christian, I would like to 
  apologize to all the Mormons here who were screamed at and insulted. Not 
  all Christians are like that and not all Street Preachers are like that. I 
  hope you'll give us another chance to explain our beliefs. 


BLAINE: Hear! Hear!, Caroline, you have my ear. David's 
rationale above is a classic example of the "reason" given by most street 
preachers to do what they do. Like you, I can hardly conceive of street 
preacher tactics ever being employed by Jesus, his apostles, OT prophets, 
Billy Graham, etc. You forgot to mention waving Mormon undies. Can I 
see Jesus or any of his apostles resorting to this tactic? I can't. 
Thank you for the apology, too bad you do not speak for the ones who actually 
offend.

Re: [TruthTalk] To Sir With Love





In a message dated 5/14/2005 5:59:57 PM Mountain Standard Time, 
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:

  Another totally gratuitous panning, along with 
  the entire RC church, the Toronto blessing, and Athanasius.
  
  There's this lady who has a stencil of a flower, 
  which she cut out herself and uses to paint borders on all her walls. Anytime 
  she seesanother picture, she lays the stencil over it, and if it doesn't 
  match exactly,that's how she knowsthe drawing is not a flower. 
  Sometimes she positions the stencil upside down or sideways and doesn't even 
  notice. She does this with real flowers too, and the petalsalways get 
  crushed under the stencil.
  
  Debbie

Blaine: I am not familiar with your point of view, Debbie; 
maybe that is the reason I don't get your point. The story of the woman 
with the stencils is to illustrate . . . ? Sorry I am so 
thick-headed today, maybe I did not get enough sleep last night--or maybe too 
much!

Re: [Bulk] RE: [Bulk] [TruthTalk] baptism





BLAINE: Questions for Kevin and Perry: I distinctly recall 
underwear being waved at General Conference in Salt Lake City, I recall a Mormon 
man reacting and attacking the wavers; were either of you involved in 
this?OR Did you condone it?



In a message dated 5/14/2005 6:17:13 PM Mountain Standard Time, 
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:

  I agree with Lance and am glad you conduct 
  yourselves as a Christian. How do you deal with the violent and angry 
  sinners?
  
  Love,
  
  Caroline
  
- Original Message - 
From: 
Lance Muir 
To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org 

Sent: Saturday, May 14, 2005 3:12 
PM
Subject: Re: [Bulk] RE: [Bulk] 
[TruthTalk] baptism

Thanks Kevin.

  - Original Message - 
  From: 
  Kevin Deegan 
  To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org 
  
  Sent: May 14, 2005 15:42
  Subject: [Bulk] RE: [Bulk] 
  [TruthTalk] baptism
  
  I do not chase people down the street, I just preach  do one on 
  one discuss  teach, answer questions, and or pray with people. If 
  they care not, that is between them  God I have discharged my 
  responsibility. I try to conduct myself as a Christian. Try being lied 
  about  slandered, put on TV for "calling people whores", having 
  Christians repeat third hand stories they heard, Christians backpeddaling 
  as fast as they can away from you, Dealing with the Authorities, Dealing 
  with the angry sometimes violent sinners
  
  I preach all kinds of events and surely do not preach "Hellfire  
  damnation" at the family events
  I have never been arrested in over 20 years of preaching on a regular 
  basis. I have led a good number of lost to the Lord. I just love telling 
  people about my savior, can't shut my mouth, look what He did for 
  me!ShieldsFamily [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
  wrote:
  








What Kevin says 
is not offensive to me in the least. I think when he preaches 
against sin it is only offensive to sinners. The same word of 
God either hardens or softens hearts. When I hear someone preach 
against sin like Kevin does it causes me to want to examine my own life 
to be sure Im not also in need of repentance for some sin. I 
doubt that Kevin curses at anyone, or molests anyone. Maybe he can 
verify that for us. If you hate the ACLU I can agree with that! If 
Skin Heads, Nazis, etc. are cursing at me thats a whole different 
matterthey are of satan, and so is cursing and molesting. 
Izzy





From: 
[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Caroline 
WongSent: Friday, May 
13, 2005 9:32 PMTo: 
TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgSubject: Re: [Bulk] [TruthTalk] 
baptism


Someone I don't know, trust, 
believe or even like shouting at me stuff that is offensive to my ears 
is disturbing my right to peace and quiet and my right to be 
unmolested and intimidated when I enter my place of 
worship.

What if it wasn't a Street 
Preacher on the video but Skin Heads, NeoNazisor Satanists cursing 
you while you're trying to get into a meeting? Is there any law in 
America that you could use to 
stop them or are they totally protected by the ACLU 
too?



Love,



Caroline

  
  - Original Message 
  - 
  
  From: 
  ShieldsFamily 
  
  
  To: 
  TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org 
  
  
  Sent: 
  Friday, May 13, 2005 4:25 PM
  
  Subject: 
  RE: [Bulk] [TruthTalk] baptism
  
  
  
  Caroline, 
  do you believe that public preaching encroaches on your freedom? 
  Izzy
  
  Caroline 
  Wong [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
  wrote: 
  
  We took a leaf from your founding fathers: 
  Your freedom ends when it encroaches mine.

Re: [TruthTalk] To Sir With Love





BLAINE: OH, I understand! LOL


n a message dated 5/14/2005 6:26:58 PM Mountain Standard Time, 
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:

  Blaine, I wrote that silly post in exasperation and weariness at Judy's 
  remarks on To Sir With Love.To me she seems relentless about 
  needing to criticize anything that doesn't fit her paradigm exactly.
  
  Debbie
  
  
- Original Message - 
From: 
[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org 

Sent: Saturday, May 14, 2005 8:07 
PM
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] To Sir With 
Love


In a message dated 5/14/2005 5:59:57 PM Mountain Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:

  Another totally gratuitous panning, along 
  with the entire RC church, the Toronto blessing, and 
  Athanasius.
  
  There's this lady who has a stencil of a 
  flower, which she cut out herself and uses to paint borders on all her 
  walls. Anytime she seesanother picture, she lays the stencil over 
  it, and if it doesn't match exactly,that's how she knowsthe 
  drawing is not a flower. Sometimes she positions the stencil upside down 
  or sideways and doesn't even notice. She does this with real flowers too, 
  and the petalsalways get crushed under the stencil.
  
  Debbie

Blaine: I am not familiar with your point of view, Debbie; 
maybe that is the reason I don't get your point. The story of the 
woman with the stencils is to illustrate . . . ? 
Sorry I am so thick-headed today, maybe I did not get enough sleep last 
night--or maybe too much!

Re: [TruthTalk] To Sir With Love

BLAINE: Judy, I hate to tell you this, but you just proved
Debbie right.LOL You need to be less rigid in your approach.
It is not a sin to be wrong, and it is not a sin to make a mistake on your
uptake of something, includingWHY THE MOON IS ALWAYS AT FULL PHASE DURING
PASSOVER--remember? LOL I wish I could meet you, I bet
you are actually human.

In a message dated 5/14/2005 7:10:29 PM Mountain Standard Time,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:

Paradigms have nothing to do with anything Debbie -
I'm talking about truth vs fantasy and there doesn't appear to be a
difference
between the two for some on TT (looks
likeyou are in that number along with your stencil lady). To Sir
with Love was a novel -
made into a movie with Sidney Poitier. Mormonism is another.If this is where you
choose to livethen- go for
it...but don't expect
to receive anything from the Lord - I prefer the
real.judyt

On Sat, 14 May 2005 20:26:12 -0400 "Debbie Sawczak" [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:

Blaine, I wrote that silly post in exasperation and weariness at Judy's
remarks on To Sir With Love.To me she seems relentless about
needing to criticize anything that doesn't fit her paradigm exactly.

Debbie

From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]

In a message dated 5/14/2005 5:59:57 PM Mountain Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:

Another totally gratuitous panning, along
with the entire RC church, the Toronto blessing, and
Athanasius.

There's this lady who has a stencil of a
flower, which she cut out herself and uses to paint borders on all her
walls. Anytime she seesanother picture, she lays the stencil over
it, and if it doesn't match exactly,that's how she knowsthe
drawing is not a flower. Sometimes she positions the stencil upside down
or sideways and doesn't even notice. She does this with real flowers
too, and the petalsalways get crushed under the
stencil.

Debbie

Blaine: I am not familiar with your point of view,
Debbie; maybe that is the reason I don't get your point. The
story of the woman with the stencils is to illustrate . .
. ? Sorry I am so thick-headed today, maybe I did not get
enough sleep last night--or maybe too much!

Re: [TruthTalk] Fw: Rikk Watts on Genesis 1





BLAINE: Judy, I agree with what you are saying, I think I do at 
least. But what do you mean, "leads to 
destruction?"Destruction of what? I thought you believed 
all are eventually redeemed who believe.There appears to be 
something missing in the logic . . .


In a message dated 5/14/2005 7:26:56 PM Mountain Standard Time, 
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Until they learn to hate the sin as much as God hates it - and 
  then want to be free more than anything else, they 
  will continue in thisbondage that leads to destruction both for them and 
  their victims. judyt

Re: [TruthTalk] Fw: Rikk Watts on Genesis 1





Blaine: I sent the last post off before I read your latest post and 
answer to the question asked by KNPraise. Are you aware the BoM addresses 
this question much the same as you are addressing it? 
Congrats, Judy, shall I call the 
Elders?:) I have a lesson to 
prepare for a group of teenagers tomorrow., see ya later. 


In a message dated 5/14/2005 7:59:08 PM Mountain Standard Time, 
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:

  Who says we are "saved in spite of" our sin? 
  The idea is to let them go; sanctification is part of
  the salvation scenario.One can not be an acting 
  pedophile and ATST comformed to the image of Christ. 
  jt

Re: [Bulk] [TruthTalk] Street Preaching





Blaine: But if God called you to the work, the message would of 
necessity be new scripture, because God authored it, and, according to you, He 
said it. That is all scripture is--a message direct from God to man, and 
then written down. See the problem with your reasoning? If you guys 
didn't write it down, then I have reason to doubt you received it in the first 
place. 

In a message dated 5/14/2005 10:00:45 PM Mountain Standard Time, 
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:

  

Blaine: Sorry, Kevin, but I 
still don't see it. Granted, the prophets of the OT were called upon 
by the Lord to do some strange things, strange probably even in those 
times. The difference as I see it is that they did what they did at 
the command of the Lord. You guys claim there is no new revelation, so 
how can you possibly be claiming that the Lord directed you to do any of 
those things. You boys stand in your own light, which is on dim--very 
very dim. 
  :-)=God 
  still speaks to men, Blaine. He calls them to do His work. There 
  is no new scripture.See the difference?

Re: [Bulk] [TruthTalk] Street Preaching

2005-05-17 Thread Blainerb473

BLAINE: Pardon me for intervening--I have to say, Kevin's
characterization of John the Baptist as not being Christiansounds
typically Kevin Deegan, for sure--similar tohis stance that Mormons are
not Christians. I am strongly reminded of a passage in the Book of Mormon
where Alma, the great High Priest goes among the Zoramites and finds them all
meeting at the hill Rameumpton on a certain day of the week to offer up a
prayer, which (condensed) goes,
"Holy God, we believe that thou hast separated us from our
brethren,. . . We believe that thou hast elected us to be thy holy
children . . . and thou hast elected us that we shall be saved, whilst all
around us are elected to be cast by thy wrath down to hell, for the which
holiness, oh God, we thank thee, . . . etc"(Alma
31:13-21 Alma calls them to repentance for such arrogance, but they reject
him, drive him out among the poor, whom they have also rejected. Alma then
preaches to the poor, many of whom receive his message.

In a message dated 5/17/2005 12:27:24 AM Mountain Standard Time,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
DAVEH: I'm not sure I am understanding your position on
this, Kevin. Why do you suggest JtB was not a Christian?Kevin
Deegan wrote:

We are Christians, John was not, he was the friend of the
bridegroom a OT saint a Jew in a different kingdom.He that hath the bride is the bridegroom: but the friend of
the bridegroom, which standeth and heareth him, rejoiceth greatly because of
the bridegroom's voice: this my joy therefore is
fulfilled.

Re: [TruthTalk] Fond Farewells

2005-05-17 Thread Blainerb473






Blaine: I suspect that Carolyn was just being her usual sweet self, 
not wanting to get into it with some on TT, bowing out with her usual 
grace. Strange that those who leave are almost always tose who are 
careful of others' feelings, full iof charity, doing unto others as they would 
have done unto themselves. The "heat" from you, Ruben, is bearable, 
just that there are better things in life than arguing with . . 
.

In a message dated 5/17/2005 9:13:16 PM Mountain Standard Time, 
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Well 
  folks, it's been mostly fun but I've gotta go. I'm spending too much time 
  here and it's not good since I have to clean up my condo, put it on 
  themarket and move in a few short weeks. Things are just too busy. So I'll 
  bid you all a fond farewell.Well since Caroline is off, I say toss 
  the Mormons back on the HOT SEAT! Anyone for Bar-b-que Mormon, white meat 
  only of course?

Re: [Bulk] [TruthTalk] Street Preaching





BLAINE:OH! Kevin. Where in your Bible does it define 
the difference between a saint and a Christian? As usual, you make 
up your religion as you go along.OK everyone, NEW RULE! 
Kevin's ruling is that although John the Baptist is not Christian, he is still a 
saint.Shall I write that down somewhere so's I don't 
forget? 

In a message dated 5/17/2005 9:57:34 PM Mountain Standard Time, 
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:

  John the Baptist as not being Christiansounds typically 
  Kevin Deegan, for sure--similar tohis stance that Mormons are not 
  Christians. 
  
  Not similar in the least!
  John the Baptist is a Saint, LDS are in name 
  ONLY![EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
  


BLAINE: Pardon me for intervening--I have to say, Kevin's 
characterization of John the Baptist as not being Christiansounds 
typically Kevin Deegan, for sure--similar tohis stance that Mormons 
are not Christians. I am strongly reminded of a passage in the Book of 
Mormon where Alma, the great High Priest goes among the Zoramites and finds 
them all meeting at the hill Rameumpton on a certain day of the week to 
offer up a prayer, which (condensed) goes,
 "Holy God, we believe that thou hast separated us from 
our brethren,. . . We believe that thou hast elected us to be thy holy 
children . . . and thou hast elected us that we shall be saved, whilst 
all around us are elected to be cast by thy wrath down to hell, for the 
which holiness, oh God, we thank thee, . . . 
etc"(Alma 31:13-21 Alma calls them to repentance 
for such arrogance, but they reject him, drive him out among the poor, whom 
they have also rejected. Alma then preaches to the poor, many of whom 
receive his message.

Re: [TruthTalk] Fond Farewells





In a message dated 5/17/2005 9:59:09 PM Mountain Standard Time, 
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:

  Too bad you don't work for a 
  living -- it would go a long way to keeping you 
  off the street.

BLAINE: Ha! That's a good play on words, JD!! I like, I 
llike!.

Re: [Bulk] [TruthTalk] Street Preaching

In a message dated 5/17/2005 10:23:04 PM Mountain Standard Time,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:

How can you be a christian 1000 years before Christ was born? Such as we
are told in the Book of Mormon.
BLAINE: BoM prophets were more
faithful than the Jews, so knew far more of Jesus Christ. Simple answer,
huh? Maybe too simple for your rather complicated belief/disbelief
system.

By the way where exactly isthe hill
Rameumpton?

Blaine: In BoM country, where else? :)

Why did the BoM "prophets preach repentance and they are OK but SP's do
the same and they are wicked?

BLAINE: Because the BoM prophets were called and commanded of
God, "as was Aaron." (See Hebrews
5:4)

Could it be that present day Mormons are as hard hearted as the
lamanites.
BLAINE: What you mistake for hard-heartedness is
really the gift of discernment, which tells them whether a teaching is of God or
otherwise. They know that anyone preaching against the BoM is not of
God.

Could explain why LDS try to "drive us out"

Blaine: See above.

[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

BLAINE: Pardon me for intervening--I have to say, Kevin's
characterization of John the Baptist as not being Christiansounds
typically Kevin Deegan, for sure--similar tohis stance that Mormons
are not Christians. I am strongly reminded of a passage in the Book of
Mormon where Alma, the great High Priest goes among the Zoramites and finds
them all meeting at the hill Rameumpton on a certain day of the week to
offer up a prayer, which (condensed) goes,
"Holy God, we believe that thou hast separated us from
our brethren,. . . We believe that thou hast elected us to be thy holy
children . . . and thou hast elected us that we shall be saved, whilst
all around us are elected to be cast by thy wrath down to hell, for the
which holiness, oh God, we thank thee, . . .
etc"(Alma 31:13-21 Alma calls them to repentance
for such arrogance, but they reject him, drive him out among the poor, whom
they have also rejected. Alma then preaches to the poor, many of whom
receive his message.

In a message dated 5/17/2005 12:27:24 AM Mountain Standard Time,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
DAVEH: I'm not sure I am understanding your
position on this, Kevin. Why do you suggest JtB was not a
Christian?Kevin Deegan wrote:

We are Christians, John was not, he was the friend of the
bridegroom a OT saint a Jew in a different kingdom.He that hath the bride is the bridegroom: but the friend
of the bridegroom, which standeth and heareth him, rejoiceth greatly
because of the bridegroom's voice: this my joy therefore is
fulfilled.

Yahoo! MailStay connected, organized, and protected. Take the
tour

Re: [TruthTalk] Fond Farewells





In a message dated 5/18/2005 12:31:11 AM Mountain Standard Time, 
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
DAVEH: Ruben, the news the past few days got me thinking 
  about how some SPers preach. Do you guys attend any Muslim events (I 
  don't even know if there are any in the USA)? If notthen I am 
  wondering if the opportunity were to avail itself, would you denigrate the 
  Muslim religion in a way similar that you do with LDS folks? 
  With the 15 people who died due to the riots ignited by the NEWSWEEK 
  article about flushing the Koran.if given the chance, would you 
  attempt to get their (Muslims) attention by desecrating that which they 
  consider holy?Ruben Israel wrote: Well since Caroline is 
  off, I say toss the Mormons back on the HOT  SEAT! Anyone for 
  Bar-b-que Mormon, white meat only of course?

BLAINE: Good question, Dave. Ruben, I am 
interested in your answer.

Re: [TruthTalk] Musliums Mormons





In a message dated 5/19/2005 11:54:54 AM Mountain Standard Time, 
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I can 
  give you one example concerning Muslims. If I were to teach that 
  Mohammed is a false prophet, Muslims get VERY upset. Most of the time, I 
  am not that blunt with them because I know they can't handle 
  it.

BLAINE: What I hear you saying is that you say and do whatever the 
traffic will bear. That's a compliment to Mormons, being the safe, 
easy-to-get-along-with,true Christians that we 
are.

Re: [TruthTalk] Dave uses Socratic Method of Teaching LDS doctrine on TT





In a message dated 5/23/2005 11:15:18 PM Mountain Standard Time, 
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
DAVEH:  Perhaps.Heb 13:1ShieldsFamily 
  wrote:Has anyone on TT actually seen an angel? 
Izzy

BLAINE: I have been very very busy lately, so have not even been 
reading most of the posts. Sorry if I have not answered some of your 
queries.
In answer to your question, Izzy, I have to say NO! I have never seen 
an angel. 
BUT--about a year or so after my wife and I were married civally, we 
began taking a church-sponsored class to help us prepare for being sealed 
together in the Salt Lake Temple. On the evening that we finished the 
class, the teacher provided punch and cookies, and as we were sitting around 
drinking the punch and eating the cookies, in the teacher's basement, I suddenly 
became aware that a woman was standing directly in front of me. I could 
only sense her presence, so don't ask me how I knew it was a woman--I just 
knewthat it was a her, not a him. She stood there for a moment, and 
it came through to me that she was one of my immediate ancestors, a woman born 
in Norway, who had been active in converting her husband and family to 
Mormonism, and that she was there to show her approval of what we were in 
process of doing. I said nothing, just sat there taking it all in. 
Later that same night, my wife asked me, "Could you feel that there was an angel 
present in the room at the teacher's house tonight?" I said 
"YES!" She was one of my relatives!"I was amazed 
she had experienced the same thing, yet neither of us had spokenof it at 
the time. 
That is the closest I have ever come to seeing an angel, 
Izzy.

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





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

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

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





 You got me on that one, Christine--no it is definitely not in the 
Book of Mormon. I'd have to read around and research where it is 
written. Will give you some references.

Blaine

In a message dated 5/24/2005 9:10:20 PM Mountain Standard Time, 
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:

  Blaine wrote:
  It is clear and consistent in all Mormon doctrinal treatesies 
  So this idea is found in the Book of Mormon? I am curious why Mormons 
  believe this.
  
  
  Blessings,
  
  Christine

Re: [TruthTalk] Dave uses Socratic Method of Teaching LDS doctrine on TT




In a message dated 5/24/2005 9:35:56 PM Mountain Standard Time, 
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Blaine, 
  I drank some punch like that one itme ;-)

 Very funny.

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

Blaine: Kevin, I appreciate your furnishing all this supportive
evidence. I knew I could count on you, Kevin, to give us the official
words quoted as they fell from the mouths of prophets. What I can't
understand is how you can derive any other meaning than the one I have already

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

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

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

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

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

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

Blaine: I guess I just can't resist breaking into an

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





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

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


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

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

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






Blaine: Hi Judy. OOps! Your almost total 
unfamiliarity with the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is showing, 
big time!! The Bible is not only used by the church, but is a mainstay 
Standard Work. Much time and many dollars were spent to cross-reference 
the Bible with other Standard Works, eg, the BoM, the DC and the P of 
GP. It was a monumental work of the Church, and stands uniquely above all 
other efforts, including Kevinsmeager efforts!! Before 
condemning, you might try at least browsing through to see what I am talking 
about. It istruly a"magnum opus" (great work).

In a message dated 5/25/2005 3:06:08 AM Mountain Standard Time, 
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:

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

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






Blaine: As Lance points out, there are differing opinions regards the 
doctrine of a Pre-existence in the Bible. Reason stares, however, if 
we deny the strong probability that we existed before this probationary 
period. 1/3 of the hosts of Heaven followed Satan,the other 
2/3sooner or laterdid . . . what? What happened to them? 
Are they still up there, floating around in the ethereal 
mists? I think they took (and many will yet take) 
tabernacles of flesh, as did the Son of God, whom we look toas 
atype in ALL 
things. As he said, "Before Abraham 
was, I AM."


In a message dated 5/25/2005 5:12:04 AM Mountain Standard Time, 
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:

  Some, holding to a differing interpretation than your own, actually 
  believe that the scriptures do so teach. I do not count myself among that 
  number.
  
- Original Message - 
From: 
Judy Taylor 
To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org 

Cc: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org 

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

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

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





In a message dated 5/25/2005 6:03:14 AM Mountain Standard Time, 
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:

  "The President of the Church is the only man on earth 
  authorized by God to go beyond or add to the 
  scriptures" Teachings of theLiving ProphetsP18 
  published CJCLDS 1982
  

Blaine: Even the President/prophet must havea sustaining vote 
for new doctrines he espouses to be accepted--As I said,the sustaining of 
the Adam-Goddoctrine as official never happened. In several 
other cases,a sustaining vote did happen, as for instance, the doctrine 
that little children who die before reaching the age of accountability inherit 
the Kingdom of God. This doctrine now appears in the DC, for the 
simple reason it was voted upon and sustained. MANY so-called 
"doctrines of the LDS Church" do not have this 
status.Anotherof these is the doctrine that men may 
become Gods and populate other worlds. Although it is widely believed, it 
is not in any standard work, nor has it been sustained as an official 
doctrine by the general membership. As I 
said, Kevin, Elvis died--trying to prove he is still alive is a lost cause, and 
only makes sense if youhave some psycho/emotional investment in believing 
he lives on. :)

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






Blaine: Adam was the first man. He was the father of our race 
as we know it. We do not know how he came to exist in the flesh, other 
than he was, as the Bible states, created from the dust of the 
earth. In the spirit pre-existence, he was Michael, the Archangel, leader 
of all the hosts of Heaven who chose to follow the Father and the Son when there 
was war in heaven. Heheld great authority and responsibility. 
But he was never worshipped, or at least should not have been. See 
below:

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

In a message dated 5/25/2005 6:18:43 AM Mountain Standard Time, 
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:

  This is what I found to be the case many years 
  ago. I should like to hear from the resident Mormons on this, with 
  clarity.
  
- Original Message - 
From: 
Kevin Deegan 
To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org 

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

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

Re: [TruthTalk] Dave uses Socratic Method of Teaching LDS doctrine on TT





Blaine: I first got onto astrology in, I believe 1969, when a 
co-teacher I worked with taught me a lot of different things, mostly related to 
teaching, but one side benefit was astrology. He was a descendant of Mark 
Twain (Samuel Clemens), famous author, and was just about as colorful as 
Twain. His sun-sign was Leo. He was very warm and friendly, as Leos 
often are.I thought him to be a little pushy sometimes, wanting 
everything to run his way or no way, also often seen in Leos. Of course, 
he consideredhimself just a natural leader of men, as many Leos also see 
themselves (Napoleon was a Leo, btw). Anyway, I began a more intense 
investigation of the subject, expecting actually to find no consistencies. 
What I actually found, however, was a huge surprise. The truth is, 
there are many regularities in how people relate to one another in 
astrology. (A striking example is the relationship between Bill Clinton 
and his girlfriend, Monica--both had their suns inLeo and moons in 
Taurus--and then there were Adolf Hitler and Sadam Hussein, both with sun 
in Taurus and moon in Capricorn) Before I get too far into it, however, I 
have to say I do not in any way believe stars CAUSE behavior. They may 
predict it to a certain extent, but even there, one must always take into 
account the simple principle of choice--people may choose what they do or 
say.On the other hand, I also believe the MASTER PLAN of God 
is, if we were able to read it, written indelibly in the stars. There are 
many who think they can read it, many more who pretend to be able to do so, and 
a few who reach a small degree of competancy in doing so. It is, I 
believe, a subject worthy of serious investigation, but one must keep in mind 
that there is no Bible for astrology, or in other words, no absolute foundation 
to go to for settling individual differences of opinion as to what this or that 
may mean. There is a lot of tradition, and there seems to be some 
agreement on how to set up a horoscope, and read it, but as I said, and I need 
to emphasize, nothing ABSOLUTE. Yet, once you get into it, you definitely 
begin to notice regularities. In school situations, two of the fire signs, 
Leo and Aries, are commonly more difficult kids to handle. They are 
enthusiastic about almost everything they do. Of the two, Aries is 
definitely more headstrong and independant, often assuming they are never wrong 
(the Martha Stuart syndrome). But if a kid challenges the teacher for 
domination of the classroom, it is usually a Leo. Cancer kids are usually 
well-socialized, as is Pisces, and these two usually relate to one another 
well. The third water sign, Scorpio, is often a bundle of anger, but 
still he knows what he needs to do--just doesn't always want to do it. 
Scorpios also seem to favor Cancer-born partners. Cancers and Scorpios often 
seem to end upmarrying. Quite a few Scorpios seem to me to 
lean toward being socio-pathic--stealing, lying, etc. The earth signs, 
Virgo, Capricorn, and Taurus, are the most likely to be well-socialized, 
especially Virgos. But there is always an exception to the rule. 
Billy-the-Kid was a Virgo. One has to remember that the sun-sign is only 
part of the picture. There is also the moon sign, the Mars sign, the 
Jupiter sign, etc., along with the angles these planets form to one another and 
to the sun and moon. The best horoscope is one based upon the exact time 
and location of one's birth. I once read thatSigmund Freud 
would not take a patient unless he had this information. 
I am now running off at the keyboard, so will hope that what I have said 
answers your questions--and DaveH is right--none of this has to do with 
Mormonism, except as a Mormon, I believe we all make choices, and although 
the ones we make may be strongly influenced by our heredity and upbringing, 
itwas all written in the stars long before we were born. God knows 
all, past andpresent, including the choices each of us will make in 
the future. 




In a message dated 5/26/2005 12:32:44 AM Mountain Standard Time, 
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
David Miller wrote: 
  Blaine wrote:
  
... it came through to me that she was one of my
immediate ancestors, a woman born in Norway,
who had been active in converting her husband and
family to Mormonism, and that she was there to show
her approval of what we were in process of doing.

Blaine, I appreciate you sharing experiences like this.  While I might have 
a different understanding of what events like these are all about, it gives 
me insight into a side of Mormonism that I might not otherwise have.

Question for Dave Hansen:
Dave, I have noticed over the years that Blaine has many mystical 
experiences like this one that he has shared, and that he is actively 
engaged in astrology.  I have never seen you share of such experiences.  I 
am curious about how you perceive Blaine's reports like this one.  Do you 
readily accept them as stated and interpreted?DAVEH:

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





I like, Ilike!! LOL
Blaine


In a message dated 5/26/2005 1:54:50 AM Mountain Standard Time, 
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
In 
  contrast to street preachers, I think Mormons are brought up to be relatively 
  non confrontational. If you don't want to listen to meI 
  won't get out a bullhorn and Kevin you to 
death.

Re: [Bulk] Re: [Bulk] Re: [TruthTalk] mormon angels. was: Dave uses Socratic ...






In a message dated 5/26/2005 2:27:22 AM Mountain Standard Time, 
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:

  What can you tell me of the 1978 (?) 'revelation' concerning the 
  increased status of blacks in your church?


BLAINE: The revelation to extend Priesthood to worthy Black males 
appears in the Doctrine and Covenants as Official Declaration --2. It was 
received as a revelation by then President Spencer W. Kimball, and later 
sustained unanimously by the Quorum of the Twelve and eventually by all Church 
General Authorities. It was presented in General Conference by 
President Nathan Tanner on September 30, 1978. At the bottom of the 
revelation as it is written in the DC, it reads:

"Recognizing Spencer W. Kimball as the prophet, 
Seer and Revelator, and President of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day 
Saints, it is proposed that we as a constituent assembly accept this revelation 
as the word and will of the Lord. All in favor please signify by raising 
your right hand. Any opposed by the same sign.

The vote to sustain the foregoing motion was unanimous 
in the affirmative."

I repeat--NO revelation is accepted as official doctrine without this vote 
by the general constituency of the Church. That has never happened with 
the Adam-God Theory/Doctrine, contrary to the efforts of many anti-Mormons to 
rationalize it as a "doctrine of the Mormon Church." Noone believes it 
that I know of, and I doubtmany ever did. If Brigham proposed it as 
a doctrine to the General Authorities of his time, apparently they did not 
accept it. One thing is for certain, it was never even proposed as an 
official doctrine to the general membership for a sustaining vote.


- Original Message - 

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

Sent: May 25, 2005 22:49
Subject: [Bulk] Re: [Bulk] Re: 
[TruthTalk] mormon angels. was: Dave uses Socratic Method of T...


In a message dated 5/25/2005 6:03:14 AM Mountain Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
writes:

  "The President of the Church is the only man on earth 
  authorized by God to go beyond or add to the 
  scriptures" Teachings of theLiving ProphetsP18 
  published CJCLDS 1982
  

Blaine: Even the President/prophet must havea sustaining 
vote for new doctrines he espouses to be accepted--As I said,the 
sustaining of the Adam-Goddoctrine as official never 
happened. In several other cases,a sustaining vote did 
happen, as for instance, the doctrine that little children who die before 
reaching the age of accountability inherit the Kingdom of God. This 
doctrine now appears in the DC, for the simple reason it was voted upon 
and sustained. MANY so-called "doctrines of the LDS Church" do 
not have this status.Anotherof these is the doctrine 
that men may become Gods and populate other worlds. Although it is 
widely believed, it is not in any standard work, nor has it been sustained 
as an official doctrine by the general membership. 
As I said, Kevin, Elvis died--trying to prove he is 
still alive is a lost cause, and only makes sense if youhave some 
psycho/emotional investment in believing he lives on. 
:)

Re: [TruthTalk] Ramblings




Good ones, thanks!
Blaine

Re: [TruthTalk] Dave uses Socratic Method of Teaching LDS doctrine on TT





In a message dated 5/26/2005 8:19:42 AM Mountain Standard Time, 
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
 BTWI must warn you to exercise extreme caution 
  when wearing our leathers near ladies other than your wife, as they are often 
  strongly attracted to the animal magnetism of leather covered cads such as I 
  envision you to be after ordering a custom set of our leathers. Who 
  knows what havoc your persona will generate with all those young writhe bodies 
  ooohing and aaahing over your leather clad physique! In short 
  Terry, a set of our leathers is going to make you simply 
irresistible!

BLaine: I am convinced!! Would you mind sending me another 
leather belt, size 40. Make this one a 1 3/4 inch wide one, OK? 
Sorry, but that's as close asmy budget allowstowarda full body 
suit. But amen to the above, I don't doubt it would work. My 
problem is, what would I do with all those beautiful women at my age? They 
are now saying Viagra can make you blind. LOL

Re: [Bulk] Re: [Bulk] Re: [TruthTalk] mormon angels. was: Dave uses Socratic ...




In a message dated 5/27/2005 6:49:45 PM Mountain Standard Time, 
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Blaine, 
  it seems that 99 44/100 % of the DC was "revealed" to JS. Did he have 
  a "general constituency" that voted on whether or not what he said was 
  was revealed to him was truly revelation from god? How about his visions. 
  Was there a vote on those, too? Do you think Isaiah or Daniel or Exekiel 
  had people that voted on their prophecies to see if they were really from 
  God?Perry

Blaine: Good question, Perry, I would have to research that 
one, but offhand, I would say with confidence that JS and Oliver Cowdery's 

revelations were eventually voted upon and sustained by the general 
membership. (Don't forget the second elder of the Church, Oliver 
Cowdery, who was with JS as a second witness during most of the restorative 
revelations received.)

I would have to comb the History of the Church for an answer. 
Might even be a good question for a General Authority. 

Regards the second part of your question, (Isaiah, Daniel, 
Ezekial, etc), I think I remember certain bodies of Jews organized for 
just such a purpose, as to accept or reject writings as being scriptural versus 
not scriptural. No doubt these bodies were present when King James of 
England and Scotland gathered his scholars together for deciding what should be 
included or excluded in/from the KJV. The Dewey Bible has scriptures the 
King James Bible does not have, for example. The law of common consent is 
really an extension of these rights and privileges to the common folk. 
Anything wrong with that? I see this as a major effort to include the 
opinions of the many as opposed to just a few scholars, wise men, etc. I 
am sure God knew this was a procedure used in many Protestant Chutrches of JS's 
time, so as I see it, the timing was right to implement it into the newly 
organized church.

Re: [Bulk] Re: [Bulk] Re: [TruthTalk] Fond Farewells- Salvation




In a message dated 5/27/2005 7:55:41 PM Mountain Standard Time, 
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
What 
  was your message to Deegan when he called me a liar? Liar is ok -- 
  nuts is off limits? 

Blaine: I think Kevin has arrived at the "can-do-no-wrong" stage of 
membership in TT. :)

Re: [TruthTalk] [Fwd: daily devotional (Fri. 5-27-2005)Liveprayer.com]