How do you know, then, that what you now accept is not due for change sometime in the future? Answer: you don't. This is exactly why Paul wrote I Cor 8:1-3.
1 Now as touching things offered unto idols, we know that we all have knowledge. Knowledge puffeth up, but charity edifieth.2 And if any
Anyone who got it right the first time is just mistaken according to your personal excuse theory. It explains why you have drifted from one doctrine to another and.
Paul the Apostle got it right the first time because flesh blood did not reveal it to him. he did not teach doctrines of men.
American Heritage
SIMILAR:Related in appearance or nature; alike though not identical. Dave Hansen [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
DAVEH: Christine, how do you understand Job 1:6Now thee was a day when the sons of God came to present themselves before the Lord, and Satan came also among
Let's assume that it doesn't originate with the 'E-man'. That's not the
issue at hand, David. Certainty, as you understand it, is is a reductionist
expression of the truth.. Said 'nother way: 'When you equate your
statement(s) of the truth with the truth you've already begun to move from
the
Christine -- did you reply to this post or does Pops mirror you view?
JD-Original Message-From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgSent: Wed, 25 May 2005 17:46:16 -0400Subject: Re: [Bulk] Re: [Bulk] Re: [TruthTalk] mormon angels. was: Dave uses Socratic Method of Teaching
John wrote:
Zephaniah 3 is a passage written to Judah about
600 years before the coming of the kingdom.
It has nothing to do with refuting the good Canadian
Bishops formula.
Being written 600 years ago does not mean the passage is irrelevant. The
passage is a prophecy about the gift of the
DM speaks of 'those' who have ears to hear. Mayhap it depends somewhat on
those who, may I be so bold as to say, 'tongues which utter something worth
hearing' or, that which is, in and of itself, true. You presume to speak
'truth' Mr. Miller. Sometimes you do. Sometimes you do not.It's the 'do
Esoteric is your only defense for such claims, DM. The kingdom age is not an extention of the OT economyexcept in the sense of the egg and the chicken. Eggs are one thing -- youdeal with in ways that are very different from the next level of life - the chicken. The New Covenant is that
DAVEH: Thanx for your reply, Christine. I hope somebody else will
give me some insight as to how non-LDS folks perceive this.
Christine Miller wrote:
Hm. Actually, Dave, I do not know how to answer you. I remember
God constantly referred to Ezekiel as "Son of Man," so there is a
DAVEH: Word game, Perry?!?!?! You must realize that you are
trying to force me into a dilemma. IF I were to answer as you
want me to, I would be lying. Though my memory may be weak, I surely
know my reasons for joining TT and continue to remain steadfast in my
explanation of why I came to
All three of those say it is a false religion.
DAVEH: And you would give any consideration that what I say might be
true, Perry? Do you want me to dig out any of the exchanges you had
with DavidM about what you think of any truth that may be found in
Mormonism.?
As I've previously
There are a variety of understandings
forSatan in Job, the serpent in Genesis, the Nephilim in Genesis and on
and on...Why it is that some balk at my little formula continues to
puzzle me when, IMO, all TT participants demonstrate it's accuracy regularly.
(Text + believer + Spirit +
C'mon Perry! Why not just take a poll of all on TT?
I, for one, vote with Dave Hansen on this.
- Original Message -
From:
Dave Hansen
To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org
Sent: May 27, 2005 03:36
Subject: [Bulk] Re: [TruthTalk] mormon
angels. was: Dave uses
Lance Muir wrote:
There are a variety of
understandings forSatan in Job, the serpent in Genesis, the Nephilim
in Genesis and on and on...Why it is that some balk at my
little formula continues to puzzle me when, IMO, all TT participants
demonstrate it's accuracy
If my husband werent the computer geek I
wouldnt even have one!
Don't you just hate this. You pay the
big bucks and then, well, you have so little control over the thing.
John
Perry, I think we should all agree that
Dave does push his mormon views on TT (just as we all push ours), but that he does
not concede that as his primary motivation for being here. Perhaps it is subconscious
in his case. I know I personally feel manipulated by the mormons whenever
I try
Izzy says of Mormonism:'Not worth 'fighting'
about.' I'm thinking she might wish to qualify that as the nature of God and the
Gospel are indeed worth very serious engagement ('fighting' aside).
- Original Message -
From:
ShieldsFamily
To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org
Show me, please.
- Original Message -
From:
Terry Clifton
To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org
Sent: May 27, 2005 07:53
Subject: [Bulk] Re: [Bulk] Re: [Bulk] Re:
[Bulk] Re: [TruthTalk] mormon angels. was: Dave uses Socratic Method of
Teaching LDS doctrine on TT
(Ill leave you to decide whether I
meant computer or husband.)
From:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of ShieldsFamily
Sent: Friday, May 27, 2005 6:03 AM
To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org
Subject: RE: [Bulk] Re: [Bulk] Re:
[TruthTalk] mormon angels. was: Dave
Good point, Lance. However it is my
nature (calling?) to give my best attempts at explaining the gospel
until/unless I am convinced that the person is not really open to such and is,
in fact, only toying with me. Then I leave them to their own
devices. But I hang out, always hoping they
Lance, are you offering an explanation to the passage or just a lamentation? Tell us what you think.
Lance wrote:
= theological Babel
Ooh like the tower? :-)
BlessingsLance Muir [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
There are a variety of understandings forSatan in Job, the serpent in Genesis, the
Just a lamentation, Christine. Your dad is, IMO, in
the business of offering explanations for passages. I rarely engage in such, as
all on TT know, due to the fact the nobody every changes their mind.
- Original Message -
From:
Christine
Miller
To:
Lance wrote:
There are a variety of understandings for Satan in Job, the
serpent in Genesis, the Nephilim in Genesis and on and on ...
Why it is that some balk at my little formula continues to puzzle
me when, IMO, all TT participants demonstrate it's accuracy
regularly. (Text + believer +
What you have said is genuinely void of meaning. You've simply said what I
posted a year or two back 'My theology can beat up your theology')
- Original Message -
From: David Miller [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org
Sent: May 27, 2005 14:31
Subject: [Bulk] Re: [Bulk] Re:
Lance against displays his slick ability to miss the entire point. Iz
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Lance Muir
Sent: Friday, May 27, 2005 12:58 PM
To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org
Subject: Re: [Bulk] Re: [Bulk] Re: [Bulk] Re: [Bulk] Re:
I AM SPEAKING OF TRUE BELIEVERS REFLECTING THROLOGICAL BABEL DEAR
FRIENDS Shall I name such? David Miller, Christine Miller, Linda
Shields, Lance Muir, Gary, John, Bill, Jonathan, Caroline, Debbie, CPL,
Terry (well...maybe not Terry) and Gary... who did I miss? well.them
too. Disagree
What is Thrological? I will agree that we have all been (and will be)
wrong, or at least only incompletely correct, about something theological at
some time or other. But IF we are truly searching for Truth thru Christ He
WILL lead us into more and deeper truth--AS we show that we are receptive
Don't strain yourself young lady. Just leave off reading the last remark.
- Original Message -
From: ShieldsFamily [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org
Sent: May 27, 2005 17:47
Subject: [Bulk] RE: [Bulk] RE: [Bulk] Re: [Bulk] Re: [Bulk] Re: [Bulk] Re:
[TruthTalk] mormon
Strain yourself. Try to answer the question.
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Lance Muir
Sent: Friday, May 27, 2005 3:57 PM
To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org
Subject: Re: [Bulk] RE: [Bulk] RE: [Bulk] Re: [Bulk] Re: [Bulk] Re: [Bulk]
Re:
Lance wrote:
Every TRUE BELIEVER has exibited confusion
to a greater or lesser degree on numerouls occasions.
I don't believe you, Lance. :-) Hmmm. Does this mean that I am not a TRUE
BELIEVER?
Lance wrote:
Proof you say! Where is the proof of such? Well,
say I, just read the accumulated
It is from Einstein. truth/certainty thingy.
- Original Message -
From: David Miller [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org
Sent: May 27, 2005 19:11
Subject: [Bulk] Re: [Bulk] RE: [Bulk] Re: [Bulk] Re: [Bulk] Re: [Bulk] Re:
[TruthTalk] mormon angels. was: Dave uses Socratic
Zephaniah 3:9
(9) For then will I turn to the people a pure language, that they may all
call upon the name of the LORD, to serve him with one consent.
Many of us rejoice in this good news of the kingdom, but you seem to want to
rob us of this promise with your theological Babel philosophy.
DAVEH: Christine, how do you understand Job 1:6
Now thee was a day when the sons of God came to present
themselves before the Lord, and Satan came also among them.
Do you believe the sons of God are similar in context
as are the children of God?
Christine Miller wrote:
Charles Perry Locke wrote:
David, and Dave,
Dave states that he is "not here [on TT] to learn the truth...he is
here to learn what protestants think, and why". While not part of his
"pat" statement about why he is on TT, he also said that he is not here
tio convert anyone to mormonism
David Miller wrote:
Dave Hansen wrote:
To me it remains a no win situation when it is implied
that I am a liar for responding to questions about my beliefs.
From my perspective, if a member implies you are a liar for responding to
questions about your belief, that
DAVEH: DavidM wrote.
Most non-Mormons on this list probably hope to influence you away from
Mormonism, so it is natural for them to assume that you hope to move some of
us toward accepting Mormonism.
Kevin Deegan wrote:
evidently view my explanations as an effort to try to
John wrote:
Have you ever changed your mind in regards to the
meaning of a particular passage? Of course you have.
How do you know, then, that what you now accept
is not due for change sometime in the future?
Answer: you don't. This is exactly why Paul
wrote I Cor 8:1-3.
This is an
One way of thinking has to do with the refining of questions over time as
opposed to the distillation of answers.
- Original Message -
From: David Miller [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org
Sent: May 26, 2005 08:39
Subject: [Bulk] Re: [Bulk] Re: [Bulk] Re: [TruthTalk]
-Original Message-From: David Miller [EMAIL PROTECTED]To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgSent: Thu, 26 May 2005 08:39:55 -0400Subject: Re: [Bulk] Re: [Bulk] Re: [TruthTalk] mormon angels. was: Dave uses Socratic Method of Teaching LDS doctrine on TT
John wrote:
Have you ever changed your
Hm. Actually, Dave, I do not know how to answer you. I remember God constantly referred to Ezekiel as "Son of Man," so there is a distinction made in the Old Testament, where "sons of God"seemed to meanangels (for instance, in Gen. 6 where the sons of God looked upon the daughters of man as
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: [TruthTalk] Fond Farewells- Salvation
Often, when you , Izzy, address me, there is a little curly something to the left side on the "incoming" mail line. Your's is the only one that has this marking. When it appears, and when I try to open your mail, it takes
Hopefully by Judgment Day you will be asking better questions? Izzy
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Lance Muir
Sent: Thursday, May 26, 2005 6:50 AM
To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org
Subject: Re: [Bulk] Re: [Bulk] Re: [Bulk] Re: [TruthTalk]
Sorry that you are having problems with
emails from me. It sound like there is a tilde (~) sign appearing in the email
somewhere that should not be there. I have asked my husband about this. We run several
threat filters including Norton Internet Security 2005 and the new Microsoft
PS JD, What do you mean by the incoming
mail line? Do you mean the From: line at the beginning of
the message below? What Terrys problem was is that whenever I typed a
smiley face in hypertext, his computer did not recognize that character set and
instead translated it into the letter J on
It came thru as a J, Iz, but don't worry about it. When I see a J, I
will form a mental picture of you smiling. That seems like a simple
solution to the problem.
Terry
ShieldsFamily wrote:
PS JD, What
do you mean by
Thanks for the respose, Izzy. The little curly, as I call it, is acutally an oblong circle leaning to the right a bit. When I sent my post regarding this, the copied address (yours) was an attempt to capture the curly. I highlighted the little guy along with your URL address -- but it did
No. You know, when you toto aol and open the mail? You have a list of mail waiting to be opened. That is what I highlighted. It does not look like a J at all. If you drewan oblong circle but did not connect the circle, starting the circle but not connecting it - instead going half way around
DAVEH: Apparently many TTers want me to teach LDS theology on
TT, yet some wish to criticize me for complying with their wishes.
Seems like a no win situation, eh Lance.
Lance Muir wrote:
Apparently there exists a 'collective' anticipation of your answer.
Yes, I am interested as
DAVEH: For what reason should I explain why/where you are wrong about
my beliefs, Perry. I don't mind explaining to those who really want to
know what I believe, but in your case it seems your intention is to
denigrate my beliefs.
You've stated that your mission (so to speak) is to
Do you interpret being asked to answer a few questions
about your doctrine as "being asked to teach" DaveH?
I'd call that a bit of a leap ... jt
On Tue, 24 May 2005 23:17:01 -0700 Dave Hansen [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
DAVEH: Apparently many TTers want me to teach LDS theology
on TT, yet
DaveH wrote:
Apparently many TTers want me to teach LDS theology on
TT, yet some wish to criticize me for complying with their wishes.
Seems like a no win situation, eh Lance.
Let me clarify yet again what TruthTalk is all about and Dave Hansen's
situation in regards to this forum.
TruthTalk
An amen from me on this.
- Original Message -
From: David Miller [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org
Sent: May 25, 2005 09:09
Subject: [Bulk] Re: [Bulk] Re: [TruthTalk] mormon angels. was: Dave uses
Socratic Method of Teaching LDS doctrine on TT
DaveH wrote:
Dave, I don't mind if you choose not to answer, but no need to whine about
it. If you and I are through discussing things on TT, then so be it. You
said if I want to know what mormons believe, then I sould ask a mormon. I
did that, but he has no answer for me. Who should I turn to for the truth
DAVEH: Thanx for your clarification. To me it remains a no win
situation when it is implied that I am a liar for responding to
questions about my beliefs.
David Miller wrote:
I would not say
that it is a "no win situation" just because a person's viewpoint is
criticized in this forum.
David, Dave is smarter than you are giving him credit for being. He knows
what he is doing. He is playing a word game. I have no problem with him
pushing his mormon views into the discussions here...I just want him to
acknowledge that is what he is doing. He is intentionally misinterpreting
Dave,
I wanted to add that, although you are whining about answerig my
question, and doing everything except answering it, it has served it's
secondary purpose, and that is to expose and stimulate discussion on the
non-biblical and heretical aspects of mormon beliefs. In the meantime, my
DAVEH: No Judy, I do not. But effectively that is what it is in a
sense. And it is certainly taken as such by some TTers, who evidently
view my explanations as an effort to try to convert TTers to
Mormonism. From my perspective, the problem is the accusation that I
am dishonest about my
I, for one, am pleased to hear fully and candidly
from Mr. Hansen.
- Original Message -
From:
Dave Hansen
To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org
Sent: May 25, 2005 10:05
Subject: [Bulk] Re: [Bulk] Re:
[TruthTalk] mormon angels. was: Dave uses Socratic Method of
Dave Hansen wrote:
To me it remains a no win situation when it is implied
that I am a liar for responding to questions about my beliefs.
From my perspective, if a member implies you are a liar for responding to
questions about your belief, that member is mistaken. You have made your
case,
Perry wrote:
David, Dave is smarter than you are giving him
credit for being. He knows what he is doing.
He is playing a word game.
Well, maybe I have fallen into his trap, but it does seem to me that you
have put him in an awkward position. If he answers you, then you will
likely use that
David, and Dave,
Dave states that he is not here [on TT] to learn the truth...he is here
to learn what protestants think, and why. While not part of his pat
statement about why he is on TT, he also said that he is not here tio
convert anyone to mormonism or to teach mormonism.
I believe
There was a significant word game going on whenI first arrived on this forum. LDS using words that seemed intended to cloak the true LDS understanding.
I think the christians here have a far better understanding of mormonism now then in past years
There are words that are familiar to christians
http://www.towertotruth.net/Mormon/witnessing/terminology.htm
What a wakeup call. I followed this link and found
this:
JESUS CHRIST:
LDS--A created being, the first spirit child of Elohim
and one of his wives, the spirit brother of Lucifer
the devil.
So Jesus and Satan are BROTHERS? I thought
Christine:Please! One need not disregard the Bible to believe anything. One
need only disregard your interpretation. What you find to be the plain
meaning of something is not necessarily what another thoughtful believe
might find. Agreed?
- Original Message -
From: Christine Miller
evidently view my explanations as an effort to try to convert TTers to Mormonism
Like who?
Can you post a quote showing this?
I think your smoke screen has gotten away with you it is in your eyes now.
Dave Hansen [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
DAVEH: No Judy, I do not. But effectively that is what it is
Yes, I do see your point and I do agree. But the Bible
speaks to be understood, and it is written to inform
us. We must interpret, that's true, just as I must
interpret your post when I read it.
The Bible is very clear on what it means to be a child
of God and a brother of Jesus. It requires
So do I.
- Original Message -
From: Christine Miller [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org
Sent: May 25, 2005 14:42
Subject: [Bulk] Re: [Bulk] Re: [Bulk] Re: [TruthTalk] mormon angels. was:
Dave uses Socratic Method of Teaching LDS doctrine on TT
Yes, I do see your point
That is what i have been trying to tell them for years!
By the way yes it is shocking isn't it.Christine Miller [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
http://www.towertotruth.net/Mormon/witnessing/terminology.htmWhat a wakeup call. I followed this link and foundthis:JESUS CHRIST:LDS--A created being, the first
What you find to be the plain meaning of something is not necessarily what another thoughtful believe might find.
It is a lie that you teach.
You may not have a clue what is true, but rest assured through the promise revelation of Jesus Christ, we can know the TRUTH.
I know the TRUTH when I see
According to Lance's Narnia Theory of Interpretation and Post Modern Biblical Relativism, we can never really know what Lanceis trying to communicate!Christine Miller [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Yes, I do see your point and I do agree. But the Biblespeaks to be understood, and it is written to
Ask a Mormon.
- Original Message -
From:
Kevin
Deegan
To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org
Sent: May 25, 2005 15:28
Subject: [Bulk] Re: [Bulk] Re: [Bulk] Re:
[TruthTalk] mormon angels. was: Dave uses Socratic Method of Teaching LDS
doctrine on TT
What you
That's apparent.
- Original Message -
From:
Kevin
Deegan
To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org
Sent: May 25, 2005 15:32
Subject: [Bulk] Re: [Bulk] Re: [Bulk] Re:
[TruthTalk] mormon angels. was: Dave uses Socratic Method of Teaching LDS
doctrine on TT
Do you think it is possible to know the truth from the
Word, Lance? And if so, don't we have a responsibility
to that truth?
Blessings!
--- Lance Muir [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
That's apparent.
- Original Message -
From: Kevin Deegan
To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org
Yes yes.
Don't YOU think it is possible that some who KNOW the Truth (Jesus)
articulate the truth (scripture) incorrectly? What's the deal with that?
- Original Message -
From: Christine Miller [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org
Sent: May 25, 2005 16:08
Subject: [Bulk]
Yes and that thoughtful believer just might be you, Christine !! Have you ever changed your mind
in regards to the meaning of a particular passage? Of course you have. How do you know, then, that
what you now accept is not due for change sometime in the future? Answer: you don't. This is
You are living proof, Lance. :-) Izzy
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Lance Muir
Sent: Wednesday, May 25, 2005 2:15 PM
To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org
Subject: Re: [Bulk] Re: [Bulk] Re: [Bulk] Re: [Bulk] Re: [TruthTalk] mormon
angels. was:
Could you not expand on 'somewhat close'?
- Original Message -
From: Dave Hansen [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org
Sent: May 24, 2005 09:38
Subject: [Bulk] Re: [TruthTalk] mormon angels. was: Dave uses Socratic
Method of Teaching LDS doctrine on TT
Charles Perry
DAVEH: That would be an affront to Perry. Elaborating would be the
equivalent of teaching LDS theology on TT, an activity Perry abhors.
Lance Muir wrote:
Could you not expand on 'somewhat close'?
Charles Perry Locke wrote:
Dave,
Christians consider angels and humans to be two
Dave,
If I am somewhat close, can you tell me the part I am wrong about? You
always say if I want to know what mormons believe, ask a mormon...
Perry
From: Dave Hansen [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Reply-To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org
To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] mormon
Write me privately then. I'd actually like to know beyond 'close'. If I
convert I'll keep it a secret.
- Original Message -
From: Dave Hansen [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org
Sent: May 24, 2005 09:55
Subject: [Bulk] Re: [Bulk] Re: [TruthTalk] mormon angels. was: Dave
Yes, I am interested as well. Is this beleif found in
the BoM?
Blessings,
Christine
--- Charles Perry Locke [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Actually, the problem I have is not with Dave
stating mormon beliefs,
especially when asked. It is his teaching mormon
doctrines, but denying that
he is
Apparently there exists a 'collective' anticipation of your answer.
- Original Message -
From: Christine Miller [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org
Sent: May 24, 2005 10:52
Subject: [Bulk] Re: [TruthTalk] mormon angels. was: Dave uses Socratic
Method of Teaching LDS
Actually, the problem I have is not with Dave stating mormon beliefs,
especially when asked. It is his teaching mormon doctrines, but denying that
he is doing so. I am for openest...but honesty, too.
From: Lance Muir [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Reply-To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org
To:
83 matches
Mail list logo
