RE: [TruthTalk] Mormon Related #2
BLAINE SAYS I believe the Hebrew word that was interpreted to mean "sticks" is a word that generally relies upon the conttext for meaning. But it always has the meaning of something made of or related to wood. The Hebrew word ates is used 300 times. It is translated "stick" fourteen times, sometimes it is translated "planks," 100 times it means "wood" or "timber" and it is translated "tree" 163 times. But never is ates translated as "scroll." Ezek knew the difference between wood and a scroll a roll of the book, (megillah a roll)seeEZ 2:9 Is 34:4 uses the Hebrew word pronounced 'sepher'for "Scroll" The Hebrew words for scroll, roll, book, or writing, include Sepher, Dabar, Sephar, and Siphrah, megillah NOT ates WHY Ezek can not be reffering to BOM Told to write on wood not metal plates Told what to write "For Joseph, the stick of Ephraim and all the house of Israel, his companions." nothing more nothing less Ezek was told to write; not Nephi! BoM proves that Lehi was of ManassehNOT Ephraim Ezek. 37:16 "And Aminadi was a descendant of Nephi, who was the son of Lehi, who came out of the land of Jerusalem, who was a descendant of Manasseh, who was the son of Joseph who was sold into Egypt by the hands of his brethren" Alma 10:2-3. "[EMAIL PROTECTED]" [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I believe the Hebrew word that was interpreted to mean "sticks" is a word that generally relies upon the conttext for meaning. But it always has the meaning of something made of or related to wood. In this case, it seems clear it is referring to written materials on a stick, or scroll. This is pretty much conceded by most Christian and Jewish writers, I understand, altho they are not sure why it was even written or given such prominance as a prophecy. It does seem to be fulfilled in the coming together of the Book of Mormon, written by descendants of the prominant tribe of Israel known as Ephraim, and the Bible, written mostly by those with tribal connections to the Kingdom of Judah, or the Jews. I will look up the word, if you like--can't recall what it was at the moment.BlaineRB -- "Slade Henson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>wrote:I've heard teachings stating the two sticks represent the House of Judah andthe House of Ephraim coming together as one. I would gather it's all amatter of perspective...Kay-Original Message-From: [EMAIL PROTECTED][mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of[EMAIL PROTECTED]Sent: Friday, 14 January, 2005 09.23To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgSubject: Re: [TruthTalk] Mormon Related #2Pardon me for intervening--Perry makes some good points in general, butfails to give specifics. He says, "I consider the verses fromthe Bible that you quote in support of LDS doctrine to be prooftexts becauseout of context they contain some of the words in the LDS doctrine for whichyou are seeking Biblical support, but within their context, they do notsupport the doctrinal position that you claim they support."[EMAIL PROTECTED], Perry, some biblical passages used by Mormons do seem nebulousas to what they mean--but please consider the possibility that the meaningascribed to the passage by Mormons may actually be the true meaning, or atleast one of several true meanings. There are quite a few biblical passagesthat most Judeo/Christian writers agree defy interpretation. The passagesconcerning the sticks of Judah and Joseph are good examples. If these donot refer to what Mormons say they refer to, that is, the Book of Mormon andthe Bible, please tell us what they do refer to? I have never read of anyexplanation that held up under scrutiny, other than the Mormoninterpretation. 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 scripturethat seems to support it. This type of activity occurs in Mormonismbecause the LDS regard the Book of Mormon and the Doctrine and covenantsto be the prime documents in their belief, and then try to read them intoBible.DAVEH: I will agree to that, Perry. I'm glad to see you have finally cometo that conclusion. My beliefs are not solely dependent on Bibleinterpretation, 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 youhave a problem with this, Perry, as I'm only trying to frame my believeswith supporting passages with which most TTers are familiar. Call itprooftexting or whatever else you feel belittles my explanations...butis that a problem for you?My goal is not to belittle your explanations. I consider the verses fromthe Bible that you quote in support of LDS doctrine to be prooftexts becauseout of context they contain some of the words in the LDS doctrine for whichyou are seeking Biblical support, but within their context, they do notsupport the
Re: [TruthTalk] Mormon Related #2
There used to be a secret Mormom web site I could point you too that had all of the guys pictures, place of employment, type of career and names. They took it down after I confronted them about why they had that kind of info sort of like a dosier. AnywayI have Grey Hair and my beard is very short Was probably Rod somewhat Red beard I am the Big One at the bottom of this page this is a few years ago. http://www.streetpreaching.com/bealstvideo.htm Anyway Blaine, maybe we could meet next time. "[EMAIL PROTECTED]" [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Ha! Signs and all, I can see it happening . . . the last time I talked to any of those guys was during the Autumn Conference, 2003 (?). Someone pointed out Kevin as being that "big fellow." I caught a glimpse of him, red hair and all, as he was folding up his sign, but I was driving around the block in my car and there was too much pressure to keep moving in traffic to be able to get his attention. I did talk to Reuben Israel, though. He's a nice man, just misguided. Dean (Carroll, remember?) was also there, but he was leaving just as I came on the scene, and again I didn't get to speak to him. These guys are all very misguided souls, I sometimes feel the need to pray for them, as I do for all those on TT, including me and you, for protection against the powers of the enemy, mostly. Satan shows signs to those he wants to believe him, and unfortunately the street preachers are willing to carry them for him . . . (: BlaineRB-- Dave Hansen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>wrote:DAVEH: HThat's an interesting idea, Blaine. But..I suppose if we did it, the TT street preachers would only show up to protest the event. :-D[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:BlaineRB: Hey, Dave, I was over to Antelope Island (in the Great Salt Lake) the other day, and I got to thinking it would be a great place to hold a TT reunion! They have a nice park there, lots of Bison, deer, bobcats, etc. There is the old Brigham Young farm, with lots of antiques showing the early Mormon culture--I can see it now . . . (:) ShieldsFamily wrote: Izzy in red: JD, while some of us judge doctrine, your words seem to judge people on TT . I find no manner of rudeness written towards, DaveH, and Im sure he will attest that he feels quite among friends on TT. IzzyDAVEH: Though I suspect I do have many friends on TT, I failed to receive any invitations to Christmas dinner this year. :-) Dont feel bad, DaveH, neither did I. (In fact I had to make my own turkey, dressing, gravy, potatoes, etc for 15 folks! J)DAVEH: Yeah, but with a little forethought, there could have been one more (Mormon boy) feasting with you that day. After all, I bet 16 would fit much more evenly around your table than 15. Think about that the next time you through a party! 8-) -- ~~~Dave Hansen[EMAIL PROTECTED]http://www.langlitz.com~~~If you wish to receivethings I find interesting,I maintain six email lists...JOKESTER, OPINIONS, LDS,STUFF, MOTORCYCLE and CLIPS.--"Let your speech be always with grace, seasoned with salt, that you may know how you ought to answer every man." (Colossians 4:6) http://www.InnGlory.orgIf you do not want to receive posts from this list, send an email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and you will be unsubscribed. If you have a friend who wants to join, tell him to send an e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and he will be subscribed.--"Let your speech be always with grace, seasoned with salt, that you may know how you ought to answer every man." (Colossians 4:6) http://www.InnGlory.orgIf you do not want to receive posts from this list, send an email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and you will be unsubscribed. If you have a friend who wants to join, tell him to send an e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and he will be subscribed. Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Mail - Helps protect you from nasty viruses.
Re: [TruthTalk] Mormon Related #2
DAVEH: Hey Kevin...I don't remember seeing your picture on the TT site, so I was happy to see what you looked like on the site you linked to below. THANK YOU. I had visualized you as being quite different. Now...how about sending DavidM an updated picture for INNGLORY? (For some reason, I can't access the site right now to check to see if your picture is there, so forgive me IF you've already posted it.) Kevin Deegan wrote: There used to be a secret Mormom web site I could point you too that had all of the guys pictures, place of employment, type of career and names. They took it down after I confronted them about why they had that kind of info sort of like a dosier. Anyway I have Grey Hair and my beard is very short Was probably Rod somewhat Red beard I am the Big One at the bottom of this page this is a few years ago. http://www.streetpreaching.com/bealstvideo.htm Anyway Blaine, maybe we could meet next time. -- ~~~ Dave Hansen [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.langlitz.com ~~~ If you wish to receive things I find interesting, I maintain six email lists... JOKESTER, OPINIONS, LDS, STUFF, MOTORCYCLE and CLIPS. -- Let your speech be always with grace, seasoned with salt, that you may know how you ought to answer every man. (Colossians 4:6) http://www.InnGlory.org If you do not want to receive posts from this list, send an email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and you will be unsubscribed. If you have a friend who wants to join, tell him to send an e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and he will be subscribed.
RE: [TruthTalk] Mormon Related #2 *REPRIMAND*
I understand you have a hatred to Mormonism, but do yourself a favor and don't let that splash onto the Mormon themselves. -- slade -Original Message-From: Kevin DeeganSent: Sunday, 16 January, 2005 22.48Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Mormon Related #2 Cut the fables
Re: [TruthTalk] Mormon Related #2
Kevin Deegan wrote: Hello Dave Please explain.You left me out in the cold on this one. How are the Qoutes from the Prophets and General Authorities out of CONTEXT? I just don't see it maybe you could help me. Please provide exampleS DAVEH: Here is a quote... This Church is the only true and living church upon the face of the whole earth there is no salvation outside the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. (Bruce McConkie, Mormon Doctrine, Page 670) .and your conclusion Have we established that unless I join the LDS Church i can not be saved? ...It has been pointed out on TT that salvation in LDS theology is defined differently than the Protestant definition. The BC/MD quote above is taken from the section defining salvation. Did you read the entire section, Kevin? If not, you should as it would have explained 1. Unconditional or general salvation, that which comes by grace alone without obedience to the gospel law, consist in the mere fact of being resurrectedBut this salvation is not the salvation of righteousness, the salvation which all saints seek.3. Salvation in its true and full meaning is synonymous with exaltation or eternal life and consists in gaining an inheritance in the highest of the three heavens within the celestial kingdom.Many conditions must exist in order to make such salvation available to menThere is no salvation [DAVEH: in this sense] outside The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. ..I've left a lot out of this, as the section is rather long. But suffice it to say, the highest degree of the celestial kingdom is that wherein one becomes one with God. Do you want to become exalted like God, Kevin? If not, then you would not feel comfortable taking the steps to reach that level of salvation. You may instead be more comfortable residing in one of the lower kingdoms of heaven, which does not require an LDS related steps. I am not LDS I am Christian, You are not Christian DAVEH: I respectfully disagree. you are LDS. Can we still be friends? DAVEH: Sure! Though I'm not sure I'll end up on your Christmas dinner invite list :-) I think so. We just can not be Spiritual Brothers. That does not mean I dislike you. I have LDS friends, just no LDS Brothers. DAVEH: OK Kevin. I'll try not to intrude on your Brotherly space Dave Hansen [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: DAVEH: I'm not sure why I'm defending Kevin on this, Johnbut he was trying to denigrate Mormonism by taking LDS comments out of context. So the logic of what he said makes sense, even though it is hard for a non-Mormon to follow. What you said below about Christians Baptists really doesn't relate. [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: In a message dated 1/10/2005 11:51:25 PM Pacific Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: If all Mormons are Christians then all Christians are Mormons, right? Are all Christians Baptists? Maybe not your best illustration. Jd -- ~~~ Dave Hansen [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.langlitz.com ~~~ If you wish to receive things I find interesting, I maintain six email lists... JOKESTER, OPINIONS, LDS, STUFF, MOTORCYCLE and CLIPS.
Re: [TruthTalk] Mormon Related #2
Slade Henson wrote: Sorry, Dave, but we don't celebrate Christmas. The next Holy day coming up is Passoverwould you like to attend our family Seder? DAVEH: H.That is tempting, Kay. Would you like me to bring a Kosher ham? ;-) Kay DAVEH: Though I suspect I do have many friends on TT, I failed to receive any invitations to Christmas dinner this year. :-) -- ~~~ Dave Hansen [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.langlitz.com ~~~ If you wish to receive things I find interesting, I maintain six email lists... JOKESTER, OPINIONS, LDS, STUFF, MOTORCYCLE and CLIPS.
RE: [TruthTalk] Mormon Related #2
Well, don't you want ALL of the TT'ers to show up??? :-) Izzy -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Dave Hansen Sent: Saturday, January 15, 2005 12:22 AM To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Mormon Related #2 DAVEH: HThat's an interesting idea, Blaine. But..I suppose if we did it, the TT street preachers would only show up to protest the event. :-D [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: BlaineRB: Hey, Dave, I was over to Antelope Island (in the Great Salt Lake) the other day, and I got to thinking it would be a great place to hold a TT reunion! They have a nice park there, lots of Bison, deer, bobcats, etc. There is the old Brigham Young farm, with lots of antiques showing the early Mormon culture--I can see it now . . . (:) ShieldsFamily wrote: Izzy in red: JD, while some of us judge doctrine, your words seem to judge people on TT . I find no manner of rudeness written towards, DaveH, and I'm sure he will attest that he feels quite among friends on TT. Izzy DAVEH: Though I suspect I do have many friends on TT, I failed to receive any invitations to Christmas dinner this year. :-) Don't feel bad, DaveH, neither did I. (In fact I had to make my own turkey, dressing, gravy, potatoes, etc.for 15 folks! J) DAVEH: Yeah, but with a little forethought, there could have been one more (Mormon boy) feasting with you that day. After all, I bet 16 would fit much more evenly around your table than 15. Think about that the next time you through a party! 8-) -- ~~~ Dave Hansen [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.langlitz.com ~~~ If you wish to receive things I find interesting, I maintain six email lists... JOKESTER, OPINIONS, LDS, STUFF, MOTORCYCLE and CLIPS. -- Let your speech be always with grace, seasoned with salt, that you may know how you ought to answer every man. (Colossians 4:6) http://www.InnGlory.org If you do not want to receive posts from this list, send an email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and you will be unsubscribed. If you have a friend who wants to join, tell him to send an e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and he will be subscribed. -- Let your speech be always with grace, seasoned with salt, that you may know how you ought to answer every man. (Colossians 4:6) http://www.InnGlory.org If you do not want to receive posts from this list, send an email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and you will be unsubscribed. If you have a friend who wants to join, tell him to send an e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and he will be subscribed.
RE: [TruthTalk] Mormon Related #2
Ahturkey ham...GREAT! :) I'm not one for matzah ball soup, but I can make it. We usually have lamb, matzah ball soup, salmon, and other items...it's a feast for sure... Kay -Original Message-From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]On Behalf Of Dave HansenSent: Saturday, 15 January, 2005 03.58To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgSubject: Re: [TruthTalk] Mormon Related #2Slade Henson wrote: Sorry, Dave, but we don't celebrate Christmas. The next Holy day coming up is Passoverwould you like to attend our family Seder?DAVEH: H.That is tempting, Kay. Would you like me to bring a Kosher ham? ;-) Kay DAVEH: Though I suspect I do have many friends on TT, I failed to receive any invitations to Christmas dinner this year. :-) -- ~~~ Dave Hansen [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.langlitz.com ~~~ If you wish to receive things I find interesting, I maintain six email lists... JOKESTER, OPINIONS, LDS, STUFF, MOTORCYCLE and CLIPS.
Re: [TruthTalk] Mormon Related #2
ShieldsFamily wrote: Well, don't you want ALL of the TT'ers to show up??? :-) Izzy DAVEH: Sure I do, Izzy. But I prefer they join in the feast, rather than make me the sacrificial lamb! :-) DAVEH: HThat's an interesting idea, Blaine. But..I suppose if we did it, the TT street preachers would only show up to protest the event. :-D [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: BlaineRB: Hey, Dave, I was over to Antelope Island (in the Great Salt Lake) the other day, and I got to thinking it would be a great place to hold a TT reunion! -- ~~~ Dave Hansen [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.langlitz.com ~~~ If you wish to receive things I find interesting, I maintain six email lists... JOKESTER, OPINIONS, LDS, STUFF, MOTORCYCLE and CLIPS.
RE: [TruthTalk] Mormon Related #2
Hmmm, he spends a lot of time talking about writing per se, does he not? Why does he do that? So he can lead into telling us that the Lord will eventually bring these two kingdoms together? While this is true as far as it goes, the prophet's purpose in discussing the writings seems to be to tell us the means by which this coming together will be accomplished--by writings showing God to be God of all Israel, not just Judah (comprising mostly the tribes of Judah and Benjamin) or Israel(the ten tribes which broke away from the rule of the lineage of David, and ruled principally by Ephraimites). The Book of Mormon is basically written to all the House of Israel, as is the Bible, but the BoM was written by Ephraim, or those not being of the Kingdom of Judah, whereas the Bible has come to us principally from the Jews, or Judah, in more general terms, being those who accepted the rule of the Davidic lineage. BlaineRB Slade Henson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I disagree...it's a parabolic teaching. Continue reading. Ezekiel interprets it himselfv. 21...Thus says the Lord God: Behold, I will take the children of Israel from among the nations whither they have gone and will gather them together and bring them into their own land and I will make them one nation in the land upon the mountains of Israel and one King shall be King over them all and they shall be more two nations neither shall they be divided into two kingdoms anymore. So, he prophesies, then answers or interprets it. It has nothing to do with a book...it has to do with joining two PEOPLE'S Kay -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, 14 January, 2005 10.47 To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Subject: RE: [TruthTalk] Mormon Related #2 I believe the Hebrew word that was interpreted to mean sticks is a word that generally relies upon the conttext for meaning. But it always has the meaning of something made of or related to wood. In this case, it seems clear it is referring to written materials on a stick, or scroll. This is pretty much conceded by most Christian and Jewish writers, I understand, altho they are not sure why it was even written or given such prominance as a prophecy. It does seem to be fulfilled in the coming together of the Book of Mormon, written by descendants of the prominant tribe of Israel known as Ephraim, and the Bible, written mostly by those with tribal connections to the Kingdom of Judah, or the Jews. I will look up the word, if you like--can't recall what it was at the moment. BlaineRB -- Slade Henson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I've heard teachings stating the two sticks represent the House of Judah and the House of Ephraim coming together as one. I would gather it's all a matter of perspective... Kay -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, 14 January, 2005 09.23 To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Mormon Related #2 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
Re: [TruthTalk] Mormon Related #2
Ha! Signs and all, I can see it happening . . . the last time I talked to any of those guys was during the Autumn Conference, 2003 (?). Someone pointed out Kevin as being that big fellow. I caught a glimpse of him, red hair and all, as he was folding up his sign, but I was driving around the block in my car and there was too much pressure to keep moving in traffic to be able to get his attention. I did talk to Reuben Israel, though. He's a nice man, just misguided. Dean (Carroll, remember?) was also there, but he was leaving just as I came on the scene, and again I didn't get to speak to him. These guys are all very misguided souls, I sometimes feel the need to pray for them, as I do for all those on TT, including me and you, for protection against the powers of the enemy, mostly. Satan shows signs to those he wants to believe him, and unfortunately the street preachers are willing to carry them for him . . . (: BlaineRB -- Dave Hansen [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: DAVEH: HThat's an interesting idea, Blaine. But..I suppose if we did it, the TT street preachers would only show up to protest the event. :-D [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: BlaineRB: Hey, Dave, I was over to Antelope Island (in the Great Salt Lake) the other day, and I got to thinking it would be a great place to hold a TT reunion! They have a nice park there, lots of Bison, deer, bobcats, etc. There is the old Brigham Young farm, with lots of antiques showing the early Mormon culture--I can see it now . . . (:) ShieldsFamily wrote: Izzy in red: JD, while some of us judge doctrine, your words seem to judge people on TT . I find no manner of rudeness written towards, DaveH, and Im sure he will attest that he feels quite among friends on TT. Izzy DAVEH: Though I suspect I do have many friends on TT, I failed to receive any invitations to Christmas dinner this year. :-) Dont feel bad, DaveH, neither did I. (In fact I had to make my own turkey, dressing, gravy, potatoes, etc for 15 folks! J) DAVEH: Yeah, but with a little forethought, there could have been one more (Mormon boy) feasting with you that day. After all, I bet 16 would fit much more evenly around your table than 15. Think about that the next time you through a party! 8-) -- ~~~ Dave Hansen [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.langlitz.com ~~~ If you wish to receive things I find interesting, I maintain six email lists... JOKESTER, OPINIONS, LDS, STUFF, MOTORCYCLE and CLIPS. -- Let your speech be always with grace, seasoned with salt, that you may know how you ought to answer every man. (Colossians 4:6) http://www.InnGlory.org If you do not want to receive posts from this list, send an email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and you will be unsubscribed. If you have a friend who wants to join, tell him to send an e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and he will be subscribed. -- Let your speech be always with grace, seasoned with salt, that you may know how you ought to answer every man. (Colossians 4:6) http://www.InnGlory.org If you do not want to receive posts from this list, send an email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and you will be unsubscribed. If you have a friend who wants to join, tell him to send an e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and he will be subscribed.
Re: [TruthTalk] Mormon Related #2
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 phenomenon occurred...they came to believe it, and passed it on as truth. Now, coming in cold, and not having learned the prooftexts that have been refined over the years to support the Mormon doctrines, I read the verses in their context and absolutely cannot see any relationship between the Biblical context and the Mormon doctrine (except for some common words). It just is not there. So, I see them merely as hokey prooftexts for pagan doctrines. Mormons, on the other hand, have probably heard these prooftexts since they were little tykes, and maybe even were taught them in Sunday School, and I'll bet that most Mormons (and possibly yourself) have never tried to place the text it in it's Biblical context, then compare it back to the LDS doctrine they are trying to support. That would be almost impossible for a good Mormon to do so. Plus, there is a good reason not to do that. To do so might reveal that the scripture indeed has nothing to do with the doctrine. In fact, it might reveal that the doctrine is not supported anywhere in the Bible. And we can't have that. Nothing validates a false doctrine like a text from the Bible to support it...no matter how twisted the text has become in its interpretation. There are many other
Re: [TruthTalk] Mormon Related #2
BlaineRB: Hey, Dave, I was over to Antelope Island (in the Great Salt Lake) the other day, and I got to thinking it would be a great place to hold a TT reunion! They have a nice park there, lots of Bison, deer, bobcats, etc. There is the old Brigham Young farm, with lots of antiques showing the early Mormon culture--I can see it now . . . (:) ShieldsFamily wrote: Izzy in red: JD, while some of us judge doctrine, your words seem to judge people on TT . I find no manner of rudeness written towards, DaveH, and Im sure he will attest that he feels quite among friends on TT. Izzy DAVEH: Though I suspect I do have many friends on TT, I failed to receive any invitations to Christmas dinner this year. :-) Dont feel bad, DaveH, neither did I. (In fact I had to make my own turkey, dressing, gravy, potatoes, etc for 15 folks! J) DAVEH: Yeah, but with a little forethought, there could have been one more (Mormon boy) feasting with you that day. After all, I bet 16 would fit much more evenly around your table than 15. Think about that the next time you through a party! 8-) -- Let your speech be always with grace, seasoned with salt, that you may know how you ought to answer every man. (Colossians 4:6) http://www.InnGlory.org If you do not want to receive posts from this list, send an email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and you will be unsubscribed. If you have a friend who wants to join, tell him to send an e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and he will be subscribed.
RE: [TruthTalk] Mormon Related #2
I've heard teachings stating the two sticks represent the House of Judah and the House of Ephraim coming together as one. I would gather it's all a matter of perspective... Kay -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, 14 January, 2005 09.23 To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Mormon Related #2 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 phenomenon occurred...they came to believe it, and passed it on as truth. Now, coming in cold, and not having learned the prooftexts that have been refined over the years to support the Mormon doctrines, I read the verses in their context and absolutely cannot see any relationship between the Biblical context and the Mormon doctrine (except for some common words). It just is not there. So, I see them merely as hokey prooftexts for pagan doctrines. Mormons, on the other hand, have probably heard these prooftexts since they were little tykes, and maybe even were taught them in Sunday School, and I'll bet that most Mormons (and possibly yourself) have never tried to place the text it in it's Biblical context, then compare it back to the LDS doctrine they are trying to support. That would be almost impossible for a good Mormon to do so. Plus, there is a good reason not to do that. To do so might reveal
Re: [TruthTalk] Mormon Related #2
DAVEH: Thank you, Terry. I need all the help I can get! :-) Terry Clifton wrote: Dave H I pray for him, though probably not often enough. Terry -- ~~~ Dave Hansen [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.langlitz.com ~~~ If you wish to receive things I find interesting, I maintain six email lists... JOKESTER, OPINIONS, LDS, STUFF, MOTORCYCLE and CLIPS.
Re: [TruthTalk] Mormon Related #2
Kevin Deegan wrote: LDS are Henotheists DAVEH: Just remember that worship only one God. They have a monolatrous relationship with worship the "god of this world" DAVEH: Then it seems to me your above assertion LDS are Henotheists is misleading. It seems monolatrism is the belief in multiple gods, but the worship of only one, whereas henotheism may include the worship of several gods might be a better definition. This is how you can say we believe in One god while following the LDS tenet that there are millions of gods. DAVEH: ??? Where did you get that number, Kevin? BTW..I don't think I said we believe in One god, I think I said we we worship One god. http://www.wordiq.com/definition/Henotheism.html In religion and philosophy, henotheism is a term coined by Max Mller, meaning belief in, and possible worship of, multiple gods, one of which is supreme. It is also called inclusive monotheism or monarchial polytheism. According to Mller, it is "monotheism in principle and a polytheism in fact". Communities which have an exclusive relationship with one deity whilst not denying the existence of other deities are called Monolatrous. Like monolatrism, henotheism is a cross between monotheism and polytheism. It differs from monolatrism, however, in that monolatrism is the belief in multiple gods, but the worship of only one, whereas henotheism may include the worship of several gods. Thus, henotheism is more similar to polytheism than is monolatrism. On Sun, 9 Jan 2005 10:45:18 -0500 "Slade Henson" [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: So, you're saying...yes, you believe in multiple gods, but you only worship only ONE God? Or LDS believe in multiple gods and YOU personally only worship/believe in one? Do you think the Trinity doctrine is worshipping three Gods? Kay Slade Henson wrote: All I did was read the definition. As Christian is defined, lots of denominations would be included. Are you saying that Dave believes in multiple gods? Kay DAVEH: Yes.. but I believe we are only to worship one God. IMHO the Bible supports my belief, but a lot of folks have gotten sidetracked by the T-Doctrine. Woops...that was me, Dave, not Slade. I forgot to sign it. I would say LDS folks fall under the Christian category. Kay Kay, I find it amazing that you believe that a believer in multiple gods is a Christian. How do you figure? izzy -- ~~~ Dave Hansen [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.langlitz.com ~~~ If you wish to receive things I find interesting, I maintain six email lists... JOKESTER, OPINIONS, LDS, STUFF, MOTORCYCLE and CLIPS. __ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com -- ~~~ Dave Hansen [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.langlitz.com ~~~ If you wish to receive things I find interesting, I maintain six email lists... JOKESTER, OPINIONS, LDS, STUFF, MOTORCYCLE and CLIPS.
Re: [TruthTalk] Mormon Related #2
Kevin Deegan wrote: Have we established that unless I join the LDS Church i can not be saved? DAVEH: No, Kevin.you've just taken a lot of stuff out of context. -- ~~~ Dave Hansen [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.langlitz.com ~~~ If you wish to receive things I find interesting, I maintain six email lists... JOKESTER, OPINIONS, LDS, STUFF, MOTORCYCLE and CLIPS.
RE: [TruthTalk] Mormon Related #2
Blaine, my husband has a meeting in Skibird Utah in late Feb/early March. He bought me a ticket to go with him. I told him the last place I want to go at that time of year is NORTH. As I look at the snow on the ground here (it's twenty degrees right now), the last place I want to go is somewhere COLDER! (But it just might work in August???) Izzy -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, January 14, 2005 8:35 AM To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Mormon Related #2 BlaineRB: Hey, Dave, I was over to Antelope Island (in the Great Salt Lake) the other day, and I got to thinking it would be a great place to hold a TT reunion! They have a nice park there, lots of Bison, deer, bobcats, etc. There is the old Brigham Young farm, with lots of antiques showing the early Mormon culture--I can see it now . . . (:) ShieldsFamily wrote: Izzy in red: JD, while some of us judge doctrine, your words seem to judge people on TT . I find no manner of rudeness written towards, DaveH, and I'm sure he will attest that he feels quite among friends on TT. Izzy DAVEH: Though I suspect I do have many friends on TT, I failed to receive any invitations to Christmas dinner this year. :-) Don't feel bad, DaveH, neither did I. (In fact I had to make my own turkey, dressing, gravy, potatoes, etc.for 15 folks! J) DAVEH: Yeah, but with a little forethought, there could have been one more (Mormon boy) feasting with you that day. After all, I bet 16 would fit much more evenly around your table than 15. Think about that the next time you through a party! 8-) -- Let your speech be always with grace, seasoned with salt, that you may know how you ought to answer every man. (Colossians 4:6) http://www.InnGlory.org If you do not want to receive posts from this list, send an email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and you will be unsubscribed. If you have a friend who wants to join, tell him to send an e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and he will be subscribed. -- Let your speech be always with grace, seasoned with salt, that you may know how you ought to answer every man. (Colossians 4:6) http://www.InnGlory.org If you do not want to receive posts from this list, send an email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and you will be unsubscribed. If you have a friend who wants to join, tell him to send an e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and he will be subscribed.
RE: [TruthTalk] Mormon Related #2
I believe the Hebrew word that was interpreted to mean sticks is a word that generally relies upon the conttext for meaning. But it always has the meaning of something made of or related to wood. In this case, it seems clear it is referring to written materials on a stick, or scroll. This is pretty much conceded by most Christian and Jewish writers, I understand, altho they are not sure why it was even written or given such prominance as a prophecy. It does seem to be fulfilled in the coming together of the Book of Mormon, written by descendants of the prominant tribe of Israel known as Ephraim, and the Bible, written mostly by those with tribal connections to the Kingdom of Judah, or the Jews. I will look up the word, if you like--can't recall what it was at the moment. BlaineRB -- Slade Henson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I've heard teachings stating the two sticks represent the House of Judah and the House of Ephraim coming together as one. I would gather it's all a matter of perspective... Kay -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, 14 January, 2005 09.23 To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Mormon Related #2 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 phenomenon occurred...they came to believe it, and passed
RE: [TruthTalk] Mormon Related #2
I disagree...it's a parabolic teaching. Continue reading. Ezekiel interprets it himselfv. 21...Thus says the Lord God: Behold, I will take the children of Israel from among the nations whither they have gone and will gather them together and bring them into their own land and I will make them one nation in the land upon the mountains of Israel and one King shall be King over them all and they shall be more two nations neither shall they be divided into two kingdoms anymore. So, he prophesies, then answers or interprets it. It has nothing to do with a book...it has to do with joining two PEOPLE'S Kay -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, 14 January, 2005 10.47 To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Subject: RE: [TruthTalk] Mormon Related #2 I believe the Hebrew word that was interpreted to mean sticks is a word that generally relies upon the conttext for meaning. But it always has the meaning of something made of or related to wood. In this case, it seems clear it is referring to written materials on a stick, or scroll. This is pretty much conceded by most Christian and Jewish writers, I understand, altho they are not sure why it was even written or given such prominance as a prophecy. It does seem to be fulfilled in the coming together of the Book of Mormon, written by descendants of the prominant tribe of Israel known as Ephraim, and the Bible, written mostly by those with tribal connections to the Kingdom of Judah, or the Jews. I will look up the word, if you like--can't recall what it was at the moment. BlaineRB -- Slade Henson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I've heard teachings stating the two sticks represent the House of Judah and the House of Ephraim coming together as one. I would gather it's all a matter of perspective... Kay -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, 14 January, 2005 09.23 To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Mormon Related #2 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
Re: [TruthTalk] Mormon Related #2
In a message dated 1/14/2005 6:27:55 AM Pacific Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: [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? Somebody help me here -- the two sticks (Gen 15 -- right?) The Father and the Son or some such consideration Slade? JD
Re: [TruthTalk] Mormon Related #2
In a message dated 1/14/2005 6:38:27 AM Pacific Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: BlaineRB: Hey, Dave, I was over to Antelope Island (in the Great Salt Lake) the other day, and I got to thinking it would be a great place to hold a TT reunion! They have a nice park there, lots of Bison, deer, bobcats, etc. There is the old Brigham Young farm, with lots of antiques showing the early Mormon culture--I can see it now . . Great idea - I will bring the armour. Seriously - a great idea , meeting somewhere. JD
RE: [TruthTalk] Mormon Related #2
Ezekiel chapter 37, John. v.15-38 K. -Original Message-From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]On Behalf Of [EMAIL PROTECTED]Sent: Friday, 14 January, 2005 19.16To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgSubject: Re: [TruthTalk] Mormon Related #2In a message dated 1/14/2005 6:27:55 AM Pacific Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: [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? Somebody help me here -- the two sticks (Gen 15 -- right?) The Father and the Son or some such consideration Slade? JD
Re: [TruthTalk] Mormon Related #2
In a message dated 1/14/2005 6:50:59 AM Pacific Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: LDS are Henotheists Is Hugh Hefner a Mormonbeing a prolific heontheists, lao, all these years ? JD Shocked
Re: [TruthTalk] Mormon Related #2
ShieldsFamily wrote: Kay, in the past nine years this has been explained to DaveH ad nauseum. Its a ploy. Why dont YOU try to get through to him? Izzy DAVEH: She did, Izzy. All I asked for was a simple definition from several people. Kay was kind enough to respond first. It was not my intention to cause strife in TT. If I did soI am sorry about that. From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] On Behalf Of Slade Henson Sent: Tuesday, January 11, 2005 9:45 AM To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Subject: RE: [TruthTalk] Mormon Related #2 He didn't ask what a Christian is NOT, he asked what the definition for Christian IS. He didn't ask about Joseph Smith and his alleged activities or ideas are/were. Kay -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of ShieldsFamily Sent: Tuesday, 11 January, 2005 10.32 To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Subject: RE: [TruthTalk] Mormon Related #2 DaveH, You are simply straining at gnats to avoid the obvious. Heres what is Christian IS NOT: a believer in multiple-gods, or that Jesus is just another one of us gods, or that we can all evolve into another Jesus, or that everyone born on earth is born due to some gods in heaven having sexual relations, or that JS was a prophet, or that JS was not a liar and adulterer and statutory rapist, or any of the other bizarre ideas incubated by him are true, etc. But of course you know all of this, and are completely in your zone when strife breaks out among naive brethren over mormonisms false claims to Christianity. Izzy From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] On Behalf Of Dave Hansen Sent: Tuesday, January 11, 2005 1:06 AM To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Mormon Related #2 ShieldsFamily wrote: Several on this list claim they are speaking out of love, ala Yeshua. I say that they are decieved and lying when they do this. Why else would they attack Dave Hanson(or any one else)for his beliefs. I pity you petty little people. Jeff Jeff, I believe you are committing ad hominem attacks here. I am sure you cannot show us a single word of attack spoken against Dave Hanson; only against speaking of mormon theology as being truly Christian (which it isntand if you think so, perhaps you should listen more to Perry DAVEH: Sorry for intruding on this, Izzy. I've asked Perry (several times) for his definition of Christian, but he seems reluctant to mention anything except his disdain for my beliefs. I've got no problem with his dislike of my faith, but I do find it curious that he refrains from posting a definition of Christian, especially when he disqualifies me of being one. If I didn't know better, I'd say it's almost like a club that won't let you join IF you don't know the rulesand nobody will tell you the rules. BTW Izzyhow about you? May I implore you to weigh in on this as well? How do you define Christian? and talk less?) Therefore you are possibly guilty of your own accusations. Izzy -- ~~~ Dave Hansen [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.langlitz.com ~~~ If you wish to receive things I find interesting, I maintain six email lists... JOKESTER, OPINIONS, LDS, STUFF, MOTORCYCLE and CLIPS.
Re: [TruthTalk] Mormon Related #2
Slade Henson wrote: Hehehe... Reported or alleged to is very different than a definitive or a resoundingYES, he did/does have three wives. DAVEH: Hmm..I vaguely remember the newspaper saying that he had 3 wives. But I may be mistaken on thatif so, it was a real estate agent who reported it to me. Kay -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Dave Hansen Sent: Thursday, 13 January, 2005 09.55 To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Mormon Related #2 Slade Henson wrote: Oh, man...that answer was a disappointment. I thought for SURE you'd have a harem or something. Only ONE? DAVEH: I thought coming to TT would be a good place to find another, but now I'm not so sure :-\ I thought you guys were supposed to try to keep up with Solomon! Do you know any Mormons who have more than one wife? DAVEH: No.I've never heard of any around here, let alone known any. Until we moved recently, I had a neighbor who was reported to have 3 though. Kay -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Dave Hansen Sent: Thursday, 13 January, 2005 02.38 To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Mormon Related #2 Slade Henson wrote: How many wives do you have, Dave? DAVEH: Just one, Kay. I can't imagine Slade keeping up with more than one of me Kay -- ~~~ Dave Hansen [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.langlitz.com ~~~ If you wish to receive things I find interesting, I maintain six email lists... JOKESTER, OPINIONS, LDS, STUFF, MOTORCYCLE and CLIPS. -- ~~~ Dave Hansen [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.langlitz.com ~~~ If you wish to receive things I find interesting, I maintain six email lists... JOKESTER, OPINIONS, LDS, STUFF, MOTORCYCLE and CLIPS.
Re: [TruthTalk] Mormon Related #2
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: In a message dated 1/13/2005 7:23:08 AM Pacific Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Slade Henson wrote: How many wives do you have, Dave? DAVEH: Just one, Kay. But not because JSmith said so, right DaveH? Izzy I don't think Dave or his lovely ever met Smith. Was it a temple wedding? DAVEH: Yes. Just curious. Jd -- ~~~ Dave Hansen [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.langlitz.com ~~~ If you wish to receive things I find interesting, I maintain six email lists... JOKESTER, OPINIONS, LDS, STUFF, MOTORCYCLE and CLIPS.
Re: [TruthTalk] Mormon Related #2
DAVEH: HThat's an interesting idea, Blaine. But..I suppose if we did it, the TT street preachers would only show up to protest the event. :-D [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: BlaineRB: Hey, Dave, I was over to Antelope Island (in the Great Salt Lake) the other day, and I got to thinking it would be a great place to hold a TT reunion! They have a nice park there, lots of Bison, deer, bobcats, etc. There is the old Brigham Young farm, with lots of antiques showing the early Mormon culture--I can see it now . . . (:) ShieldsFamily wrote: Izzy in red: JD, while some of us judge doctrine, your words seem to judge people on TT . I find no manner of rudeness written towards, DaveH, and Im sure he will attest that he feels quite among friends on TT. Izzy DAVEH: Though I suspect I do have many friends on TT, I failed to receive any invitations to Christmas dinner this year. :-) Dont feel bad, DaveH, neither did I. (In fact I had to make my own turkey, dressing, gravy, potatoes, etcfor 15 folks! J) DAVEH: Yeah, but with a little forethought, there could have been one more (Mormon boy) feasting with you that day. After all, I bet 16 would fit much more evenly around your table than 15. Think about that the next time you through a party! 8-) -- ~~~ Dave Hansen [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.langlitz.com ~~~ If you wish to receive things I find interesting, I maintain six email lists... JOKESTER, OPINIONS, LDS, STUFF, MOTORCYCLE and CLIPS. -- Let your speech be always with grace, seasoned with salt, that you may know how you ought to answer every man. (Colossians 4:6) http://www.InnGlory.org If you do not want to receive posts from this list, send an email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and you will be unsubscribed. If you have a friend who wants to join, tell him to send an e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and he will be subscribed.
Re: [TruthTalk] Mormon Related #2
myth (in the availableOT lit, the 'gods' are obviously the Prophets therein..while the WoG isn'televatg these men, it isn't elevatg anyone--this has something to do with JCs rage against the machine by which the Prophets were systematically eliminatd) On Fri, 14 Jan 2005 22:07:07 -0800 Dave Hansen [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: David Miller wrote: "if he called them gods, UNTO WHOM THE WORD OF GOD CAME."||..the Word of God came unto [generic] men.
Re: [TruthTalk] Mormon Related #2
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: In a message dated 1/14/2005 6:38:27 AM Pacific Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: BlaineRB: Hey, Dave, I was over to Antelope Island (in the Great Salt Lake) the other day, and I got to thinking it would be a great place to hold a TT reunion! They have a nice park there, lots of Bison, deer, bobcats, etc. There is the old Brigham Young farm, with lots of antiques showing the early Mormon culture--I can see it now . . Great idea - I will bring the armour. Seriously - a great idea , meeting somewhere. DAVEH: HeyI vote for the Great NorthwestIf you all want to come to Oregon, I'll host it! :-) JD -- ~~~ Dave Hansen [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.langlitz.com ~~~ If you wish to receive things I find interesting, I maintain six email lists... JOKESTER, OPINIONS, LDS, STUFF, MOTORCYCLE and CLIPS.
RE: [TruthTalk] Mormon Related #2
Oh, man...that answer was a disappointment. I thought for SURE you'd have a harem or something. Only ONE? I thought you guys were supposed to try to keep up with Solomon! Do you know any Mormons who have more than one wife? Kay -Original Message-From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]On Behalf Of Dave HansenSent: Thursday, 13 January, 2005 02.38To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgSubject: Re: [TruthTalk] Mormon Related #2Slade Henson wrote: How many wives do you have, Dave?DAVEH: Just one, Kay. I can't imagine Slade keeping up with more than one of me Kay
Re: [TruthTalk] Mormon Related #2
Dave Hansen wrote: Perry mentioned that it was referring to judges who judge in behalf of God (I hope I've got that right, Perry). But if that were the case, I don't understand why Jesus would refer to theos (Jn 10:3435), suggesting a deity to be worshiped, to be used in his defense. The Greek word theos that Jesus uses is translating the Hebrew word Elohim from Psalm 82:6 (ye are gods). This Hebrew word is translated over 2500 times in the KJV as god or gods, but sometimes it also is translated as angels or judges. Consider the following Hebrew passages where the word Elohim is translated as judges or judge: Exodus 21:5-6 (5) And if the servant shall plainly say, I love my master, my wife, and my children; I will not go out free: (6) Then his master shall bring him unto the judges [Elohim]; he shall also bring him to the door, or unto the door post; and his master shall bore his ear through with an aul; and he shall serve him for ever. Exodus 22:7-9 (7) If a man shall deliver unto his neighbour money or stuff to keep, and it be stolen out of the man's house; if the thief be found, let him pay double. (8) If the thief be not found, then the master of the house shall be brought unto the judges [Elohim], to see whether he have put his hand unto his neighbour's goods. (9) For all manner of trespass, whether it be for ox, for ass, for sheep, for raiment, or for any manner of lost thing, which another challengeth to be his, the cause of both parties shall come before the judges [Elohim]; and whom the judges [Elohim] shall condemn, he shall pay double unto his neighbour. 1 Samuel 2:22-25 (22) Now Eli was very old, and heard all that his sons did unto all Israel; and how they lay with the women that assembled at the door of the tabernacle of the congregation. (23) And he said unto them, Why do ye such things? for I hear of your evil dealings by all this people. (24) Nay, my sons; for it is no good report that I hear: ye make the LORD'S people to transgress. (25) If one man sin against another, the judge [Elohim] shall judge him: but if a man sin against the LORD, who shall intreat for him? Notwithstanding they hearkened not unto the voice of their father, because the LORD would slay them. As you can see here, a Hebrew word for God, Elohim, is used in the context of men who are judges. This is the basis by which someone might say that Psalm 82:6 refers to men who are judges. It seems very logical to me that Jesus would be reading this passage in this way that Perry teaches, because Jesus said, if he called them gods, UNTO WHOM THE WORD OF GOD CAME. The Word of God did not come unto God (Elohim or Theos) in heaven. Rather, the Word of God came unto men. So if Scripture, which cannot be broken, applies this term God (Elohim or Theos) to men who are judges, why would they find him guilty of blasphemy for saying that he was the son of God? In other words, Jesus was not going beyond the bounds of Scripture by applying the term son of God to himself. I hope this helps. Peace be with you. David Miller. -- Let your speech be always with grace, seasoned with salt, that you may know how you ought to answer every man. (Colossians 4:6) http://www.InnGlory.org If you do not want to receive posts from this list, send an email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and you will be unsubscribed. If you have a friend who wants to join, tell him to send an e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and he will be subscribed.
Re: [TruthTalk] Mormon Related #2
Slade Henson wrote: Oh, man...that answer was a disappointment. I thought for SURE you'd have a harem or something. Only ONE? DAVEH: I thought coming to TT would be a good place to find another, but now I'm not so sure :-\ I thought you guys were supposed to try to keep up with Solomon! Do you know any Mormons who have more than one wife? DAVEH: No.I've never heard of any around here, let alone known any. Until we moved recently, I had a neighbor who was reported to have 3 though. Kay -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Dave Hansen Sent: Thursday, 13 January, 2005 02.38 To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Mormon Related #2 Slade Henson wrote: How many wives do you have, Dave? DAVEH: Just one, Kay. I can't imagine Slade keeping up with more than one of me Kay -- ~~~ Dave Hansen [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.langlitz.com ~~~ If you wish to receive things I find interesting, I maintain six email lists... JOKESTER, OPINIONS, LDS, STUFF, MOTORCYCLE and CLIPS.
RE: Re: [TruthTalk] Mormon Related #2
Hehehe... Reported or alleged to is very different than a definitive or a resoundingYES, he did/does have three wives. Kay -Original Message-From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]On Behalf Of Dave HansenSent: Thursday, 13 January, 2005 09.55To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgSubject: Re: [TruthTalk] Mormon Related #2Slade Henson wrote: Oh, man...that answer was a disappointment. I thought for SURE you'd have a harem or something. Only ONE?DAVEH: I thought coming to TT would be a good place to find another, but now I'm not so sure :-\ I thought you guys were supposed to try to keep up with Solomon! Do you know any Mormons who have more than one wife?DAVEH: No.I've never heard of any around here, let alone known any. Until we moved recently, I had a neighbor who was reported to have 3 though. Kay -Original Message-From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Dave HansenSent: Thursday, 13 January, 2005 02.38To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgSubject: Re: [TruthTalk] Mormon Related #2Slade Henson wrote: How many wives do you have, Dave?DAVEH: Just one, Kay. I can't imagine Slade keeping up with more than one of me Kay -- ~~~ Dave Hansen [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.langlitz.com ~~~ If you wish to receive things I find interesting, I maintain six email lists... JOKESTER, OPINIONS, LDS, STUFF, MOTORCYCLE and CLIPS.
RE: [TruthTalk] Mormon Related #2
But when I have trouble getting a definition from a Christian (present company excluded, of course!) of Christian, it kinda makes me wonder why the reticence? And that's just a simple question. DaveH, since you have defined a mormon, I will give my definition of a Christian. One who is truly in (the real) Christ. (Not a member of a church.) How do we know if we are truly in the real Chist? Off the top of my head I will say we are: 1) Filled with His Spirit 2) Walk in His Spirit (rather than in the flesh) 3) Walk in the paths of righteousness (not the ways of the world) 4) Walk in the fear of the Lord (not in the fear of Man) 5) Obey His Commandments / Believe His Word 6) # 2-5 are all components of #1 These are not rules; just indications Judge a tree by its fruit. Im sure we could all add to the list of indicators. Izzy
RE: [TruthTalk] Mormon Related #2
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Dave Hansen Sent: Thursday, January 13, 2005 1:38 AM To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Mormon Related #2 Slade Henson wrote: How many wives do you have, Dave? DAVEH: Just one, Kay. But not because JSmith said so, right DaveH? Izzy
Re: [TruthTalk] Mormon Related #2
Very interesting this talk of plural wives Any member of the "Utah" Mormons would be EX'ed if it was public knowledge or he publicly spoke of multiple wives in this life. Of course you can be sealed to more than one in the Temple. In the afterlife you can have a harem full. http://scriptures.lds.org/dc/132 In DC 132 verse 4(one of the standard works) God reveals "a new and an everlasting covenant" if you do not adhere to it you will be "damned" (no further progress) No one can reject it and enter into God's glory Verse 4 What is the covenant? (my comments in parens)Verse 18 "if a man marry a wife"... "for time and for all eternity"(Temple Marriage) "shall inherit thrones, kingdoms, (some other earth) principalities, and powers, dominions, all heights and depthsthen shall it be written in the Lambs Book of Life" their exaltation and glory in all things, as hath been sealed upon their heads, which glory shall be a fulness and a continuation of the SEEDS forever and ever. This is the narrow way verse 22This is eternal lives verse 24 All marriages performed not under the hands of a LDS priest and not in the Temple will be null void in the afterlife VERSE 7 15 You will be a UNmarried servant angel to serve these new gods http://scriptures.lds.org/dc/132/16c#16c YOU CAN BECOME A seed god "a continuation of the seeds forever and ever." Verse 19 "Then shall they be gods, because they have no end" (eternal seeds) Hey no problem wasn't Abraham given the seed promise? Verse 30 Look at his WORKS He recieved concubines verse 37 David had wives and concubines verse 39 Go and do thou likewise! verse 32 Men have the choice which wives to call forth in the afterlife also. Dave Hansen [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Slade Henson wrote: Oh, man...that answer was a disappointment. I thought for SURE you'd have a harem or something. Only ONE?DAVEH: I thought coming to TT would be a good place to find another, but now I'm not so sure :-\ I thought you guys were supposed to try to keep up with Solomon! Do you know any Mormons who have more than one wife?DAVEH: No.I've never heard of any around here, let alone known any. Until we moved recently, I had a neighbor who was reported to have 3 though. Kay -Original Message-From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Dave HansenSent: Thursday, 13 January, 2005 02.38To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgSubject: Re: [TruthTalk] Mormon Related #2Slade Henson wrote: How many wives do you have, Dave?DAVEH: Just one, Kay. I can't imagine Slade keeping up with more than one of me Kay -- ~~~ Dave Hansen [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.langlitz.com ~~~ If you wish to receive things I find interesting, I maintain six email lists... JOKESTER, OPINIONS, LDS, STUFF, MOTORCYCLE and CLIPS.__Do You Yahoo!?Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com
Re: [TruthTalk] Mormon Related #2
In a message dated 1/13/2005 7:23:08 AM Pacific Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Slade Henson wrote: How many wives do you have, Dave? DAVEH: Just one, Kay. But not because JSmith said so, right DaveH? Izzy I don't think Dave or his lovely ever met Smith. Was it a temple wedding? Just curious. Jd
Re: [TruthTalk] Mormon Related #2
In a message dated 1/13/2005 8:44:31 AM Pacific Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
One who is truly in (the real) Christ. (Not a member of a church.) How do we know if we are truly in the real Chist? Off the top of my head I will say we are:
1) Filled with His Spirit
2) Walk in His Spirit (rather than in the flesh)
3) Walk in the paths of righteousness (not the ways of the world)
4) Walk in the fear of the Lord (not in the fear of Man)
5) Obey His Commandments / Believe His Word
6) # 2-5 are all components of #1
It is interesting to me that your religion does not include grace, the incarnation event including the Cross, nothing about trusting in God when you fail, Romans 14:4 out, Romans 4:4 out , nothing about continuing confession ("if we keep on confessing I Jo 1:7). You have "filled with the Spirit" (sounds like you are on the right track ) and then you have
2. do the right things
3. fear
4. do the right thing again
5. All of the above
Spoken like a true legalist.
John
RE: [TruthTalk] Mormon Related #2
I don't know about Messi's being the only real Christians, but I know Utah is the only true state. I still maintain Ross Perot would have made a great Pres!! :) -- Slade Henson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: No, David, I didn't. You do realize, though, that Messi's are the only real Christians, right???!! :) K. -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of David Miller Sent: Tuesday, 11 January, 2005 14.19 To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Mormon Related #2 Kay wrote: Geez, we went from dangerous to evlBetter watch it, Johnny-Boy we just may eat Pentecostals for snacks! :) I hope you did not perceive me to be calling Messianics dangerous. My position is that the Messianic movement is of God, but there are some within it that are dangerous. There are many more dangerous individuals within Roman Catholicism, Church of Christ, Baptist, Presbyterian, Methodist, etc. I am not aware of any pure Christian sect. Peace be with you. David Miller. -- Let your speech be always with grace, seasoned with salt, that you may know how you ought to answer every man. (Colossians 4:6) http://www.InnGlory.org If you do not want to receive posts from this list, send an email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and you will be unsubscribed. If you have a friend who wants to join, tell him to send an e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and he will be subscribed. -- Let your speech be always with grace, seasoned with salt, that you may know how you ought to answer every man. (Colossians 4:6) http://www.InnGlory.org If you do not want to receive posts from this list, send an email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and you will be unsubscribed. If you have a friend who wants to join, tell him to send an e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and he will be subscribed. -- Let your speech be always with grace, seasoned with salt, that you may know how you ought to answer every man. (Colossians 4:6) http://www.InnGlory.org If you do not want to receive posts from this list, send an email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and you will be unsubscribed. If you have a friend who wants to join, tell him to send an e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and he will be subscribed.
RE: [TruthTalk] Mormon Related #2
Hehehe... Kay -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, 13 January, 2005 19.45 To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Subject: RE: [TruthTalk] Mormon Related #2 I don't know about Messi's being the only real Christians, but I know Utah is the only true state. I still maintain Ross Perot would have made a great Pres!! :) -- Slade Henson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: No, David, I didn't. You do realize, though, that Messi's are the only real Christians, right???!! :) K. -- Let your speech be always with grace, seasoned with salt, that you may know how you ought to answer every man. (Colossians 4:6) http://www.InnGlory.org If you do not want to receive posts from this list, send an email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and you will be unsubscribed. If you have a friend who wants to join, tell him to send an e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and he will be subscribed.
RE: [TruthTalk] Mormon Related #2
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, January 13, 2005 3:30 PM To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Mormon Related #2 In a message dated 1/13/2005 8:44:31 AM Pacific Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: One who is truly in (the real) Christ. (Not a member of a church.) How do we know if we are truly in the real Chist? Off the top of my head I will say we are: 1) Filled with His Spirit 2) Walk in His Spirit (rather than in the flesh) 3) Walk in the paths of righteousness (not the ways of the world) 4) Walk in the fear of the Lord (not in the fear of Man) 5) Obey His Commandments / Believe His Word 6) # 2-5 are all components of #1 It is interesting to me that your religion does not include grace, the incarnation event including the Cross, nothing about trusting in God when you fail, Romans 14:4 out, Romans 4:4 out , nothing about continuing confession (if we keep on confessing I Jo 1:7). You have filled with the Spirit (sounds like you are on the right track ) and then you have 2. do the right things 3. fear 4. do the right thing again 5. All of the above Spoken like a true legalist. John Note the REAL Christ (you knowthe one who died on the Cross due to Gods grace???) I also that I said these are not rules; just fruit in 1-6, and an incomplete list at that. I was hoping for more input; not criticisms. What bugs you about that; must you argue with every word I speak? Give me a break. Izzy
Re: [TruthTalk] Mormon Related #2
..nor does it inc aleGitimate 'hermaneutic' (thus far)..the correlation to your point, below, Pastor,seems like 'beauty in the eye...' On Thu, 13 Jan 2005 21:03:38 -0600 "ShieldsFamily" [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: ||1) Filled with His Spirit2) Walk in His Spirit (rather than in the flesh)3) Walk in the paths of righteousness (not the ways of the world)4) Walk in the fear of the Lord (not in the fear of Man)5) Obey His Commandments / Believe His Word6) # 2-5 are all components of #1 [presumably Pastor Smithson:] It is interesting to me that your religion does not include grace,
Re: [TruthTalk] Mormon Related #2
In a message dated 1/13/2005 7:36:21 PM Pacific Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: ..nor does it inc a leGitimate 'hermaneutic' (thus far)..the correlation to your point, below, Pastor, seems like 'beauty in the eye...' On Thu, 13 Jan 2005 21:03:38 -0600 "ShieldsFamily" [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: || 1) Filled with His Spirit 2) Walk in His Spirit (rather than in the flesh) 3) Walk in the paths of righteousness (not the ways of the world) 4) Walk in the fear of the Lord (not in the fear of Man) 5) Obey His Commandments / Believe His Word 6) # 2-5 are all components of #1 [presumably Pastor Smithson:] It is interesting to me that your religion does not include grace, Amen JD
Re: [TruthTalk] Mormon Related #2
In a message dated 1/13/2005 7:04:22 PM Pacific Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: must you argue with every word I speak? Give me a break. Izzy Back atcha on that -- in triplicate. Grace and unmerited love and patience are the first things I think of. Just an observation. J
Re: [TruthTalk] Mormon Related #2 Yellow brick rd
Just imagine if you were raised up in a all LDS culture. You have been told that the prophet speaks as God since as far back, asyou can remember. For instance, while you may have sung "Jesus Loves me" LDS chilgren learn songs such as "Follow the Prophet" Here is part of that song: Now we have a world wherepeople are confused.If you dont believe it,go and watch the news. Chorus Follow the prophet, follow the prophet,Follow the prophet; dont go astray.Follow the prophet; follow the prophet,Follow the prophet; he knows the way. We can get directionall along our way,If we heed the prophetsfollow what they say. Follow the prophet, follow the prophet,Follow the prophet; dont go astray.Follow the prophet; follow the prophet,Follow the prophet; he knows the way. The repetitive Chorus is drilled into a childs head. Many Mormons hang a placard in their homes "Follow the Prophet" There is a plethora of Posters and pictures, keychains, zipper pulls, cards, games, activity books, of the Prophet for sale. Everyone needs a "I Will Follow the Prophet" Frame Do you have your pastors picture prominately displayed in each sunday school room? How about your living room? I think it is spooky. http://deseretbook.com/store/product?product_id=100031160 http://deseretbook.com/store/product?product_id=100036856 http://deseretbook.com/store/product?product_id=100038928 http://deseretbook.com/store/product?product_id=100016872 http://deseretbook.com/store/product?product_id=100036858 Maybe you need a Greeting card to send to all your friends? http://deseretbook.com/store/product?product_id=100023059 In fact there are 5 pages of product available here: http://deseretbook.com/store/search?search=%22follow+the+prophet%22 In fact do you see anything about Jesus in these "primary songs"? http://deseretbook.com/store/product?product_id=11187 We Thank Thee, O God, for a Prophet General Conference The Sacred Grove Follow the Prophet The Sixth Article of Faith We Listen to a Prophet Stand for the Right Latter-day Prophets A Prophet Lives Today Keep the Commandments Can't help but think of that other classic: Follow Follow Follow the Yellow Brick Road Charles Perry Locke [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: From: Dave Hansen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>Perry wrote:Mormons, on the other hand, have probably heard these prooftexts since they were little tykes, and maybe even were taught them in Sunday School, and I'll bet that most Mormons (and possibly yourself) have never tried to place the text it in it's Biblical context, then compare it back to the LDS doctrine they are trying to support. That would be almost impossible for a good Mormon to do so. Plus, there is a good reason not to do that. To do so might reveal that the scripture indeed has nothing to do with the doctrine. In fact, it might reveal that the doctrine is not supported anywhere in the Bible. And we can't have that. Nothing validates a false doctrine like a text from the Bible to support it...no matter how twisted the text has become in its interpretation.__Do You Yahoo!?Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com
RE: [TruthTalk] Mormon Related #2
ShieldsFamily wrote: Izzy in red: JD, while some of us judge doctrine, your words seem to judge people on TT . I find no manner of rudeness written towards, DaveH, and Im sure he will attest that he feels quite among friends on TT. Izzy DAVEH: Though I suspect I do have many friends on TT, I failed to receive any invitations to Christmas dinner this year. :-) Dont feel bad, DaveH, neither did I. (In fact I had to make my own turkey, dressing, gravy, potatoes, etcfor 15 folks! J) DAVEH: Yeah, but with a little forethought, there could have been one more (Mormon boy) feasting with you that day. After all, I bet 16 would fit much more evenly around your table than 15. Think about that the next time you through a party! 8-) Dave, feel free to join us next year with all your wives. J Izzy
Re: [TruthTalk] Mormon Related #2 Yellow brick rd
DAVEH: FOLLOW THE PROPHETsounds like good advice to me, Kevin. If a prophet conveys the word (Dt 18:18 Amos 3:7) of the Lord to his people, should he not be followed as the Hebrews followed Moses? I'd say the problems start cropping up when the prophets aren't followed.just look at the history of the Lord's people since Adam. Seems to me that when the folks didn't follow the prophet (like Noah), they ended up in water over their heads. :-( So KevinLet me ask you..Would you advise any Christians to avoid following the words the Lord spoke to any of the prophets of the Bible? Kevin Deegan wrote: Just imagine if you were raised up in a all LDS culture. You have been told that the prophet speaks as God since as far back, asyou can remember. For instance, while you may have sung "Jesus Loves me" LDS chilgren learn songs such as "Follow the Prophet" Here is part of that song: Now we have a world where people are confused. If you dont believe it, go and watch the news. Chorus Follow the prophet, follow the prophet, Follow the prophet; dont go astray. Follow the prophet; follow the prophet, Follow the prophet; he knows the way. We can get direction all along our way, If we heed the prophets follow what they say. Follow the prophet, follow the prophet, Follow the prophet; dont go astray. Follow the prophet; follow the prophet, Follow the prophet; he knows the way. The repetitive Chorus is drilled into a childs head. Many Mormons hang a placard in their homes "Follow the Prophet" There is a plethora of Posters and pictures, keychains, zipper pulls, cards, games, activity books, of the Prophet for sale. Everyone needs a "I Will Follow the Prophet" Frame Do you have your pastors picture prominately displayed in each sunday school room? How about your living room? I think it is spooky. http://deseretbook.com/store/product?product_id=100031160 http://deseretbook.com/store/product?product_id=100036856 http://deseretbook.com/store/product?product_id=100038928 http://deseretbook.com/store/product?product_id=100016872 http://deseretbook.com/store/product?product_id=100036858 Maybe you need a Greeting card to send to all your friends? http://deseretbook.com/store/product?product_id=100023059 In fact there are 5 pages of product available here: http://deseretbook.com/store/search?search=%22follow+the+prophet%22 In fact do you see anything about Jesus in these "primary songs"? http://deseretbook.com/store/product?product_id=11187 We Thank Thee, O God, for a Prophet General Conference The Sacred Grove Follow the Prophet The Sixth Article of Faith We Listen to a Prophet Stand for the Right Latter-day Prophets A Prophet Lives Today Keep the Commandments Can't help but think of that other classic: Follow Follow Follow the Yellow Brick Road Charles Perry Locke [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: From: Dave Hansen Perry wrote: Mormons, on the other hand, have probably heard these prooftexts since they were little tykes, and maybe even were taught them in Sunday School, and I'll bet that most Mormons (and possibly yourself) have never tried to place the text it in it's Biblical context, then compare it back to the LDS doctrine they are trying to support. That would be almost impossible for a good Mormon to do so. Plus, there is a good reason not to do that. To do so might reveal that the scripture indeed has nothing to do with the doctrine. In fact, it might reveal that the doctrine is not supported anywhere in the Bible. And we can't have that. Nothing validates a false doctrine like a text from the Bible to support it...no matter how twisted the text has become in its interpretation. __ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com -- ~~~ Dave Hansen [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.langlitz.com ~~~ If you wish to receive things I find interesting, I maintain six email lists... JOKESTER, OPINIONS, LDS, STUFF, MOTORCYCLE and CLIPS.
Re: [TruthTalk] Mormon Related #2
Kevin Deegan wrote: Dave, Have we established that unless I join the LDS Church I can not be saved? DAVEH: Not in my opinion. I believe there are a lot of non-LDS folks who will be saved. (And many LDS folks who will not be saved.) Or am I taking these quotes out of context? DAVEH: Yes, Kevinmost definitely, you've taken them out of context. I do not: exclude by definition DAVEH: Yeahyou are right about that. Instead, what you seem to have mastered is defining by exclusion. exclude by creed ad nauseam DAVEH: Interestingly, I've found it rather hard to extract a definition from you, Kevin. You want to define things by what they are not, rather than what (defines them) what they are. Do you understand the difference? I'm getting to be old, and perhaps instruction has changed since I was in grade school in the 50'sbut one thing (of many I've forgotten) I distinctly remember is that defining things from a negative perspective were not actually definitions, and would earn the naysayer an F if a Kevinition were framed that way. I do have to say thoughyour method of avoiding the questions are certainly entertaining, Kevin! I've rarely seen anybody squirm away from sharing their beliefs as much as you apparently have mastered. Congratulations from a Mormon boy! :-) For more of this Nauseam read Stephen Robinson's book DAVEH: LOL...When?!?!?! I barely have time to read all the TT posts every day. This Forum certainly moves swiftly! =-O --- Dave Hansen [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Kevin Deegan wrote: DAVEH asks for a definition You ask for a definition. DAVEH: YesI'd like to hear a real definition of /Christian /from both you and Perry, since you both seem so adamant to exclude Mormons from being considered Christian. After reading through all you posted below, I fail to see where you define /Christian/. Why is that, Kevin? I ofttimes think what you avoid saying speaks more to the topic than what you do post. BTWYes, I do have a copy of Robinson's book (AMC), but have not read it yet. Are there any particular points he made that you wish me to read that would not take too long? -- ~~~ Dave Hansen [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.langlitz.com ~~~ If you wish to receive things I find interesting, I maintain six email lists... JOKESTER, OPINIONS, LDS, STUFF, MOTORCYCLE and CLIPS.
Re: [TruthTalk] Mormon Related #2
ShieldsFamily wrote: ShieldsFamily wrote: Izzy in red: JD, while some of us judge doctrine, your words seem to judge people on TT . I find no manner of rudeness written towards, DaveH, and Im sure he will attest that he feels quite among friends on TT. Izzy DAVEH: Though I suspect I do have many friends on TT, I failed to receive any invitations to Christmas dinner this year. :-) Dont feel bad, DaveH, neither did I. (In fact I had to make my own turkey, dressing, gravy, potatoes, etcfor 15 folks! J) DAVEH: Yeah, but with a little forethought, there could have been one more (Mormon boy) feasting with you that day. After all, I bet 16 would fit much more evenly around your table than 15. Think about that the next time you through a party! 8-) Dave, feel free to join us next year with all your wives. J Izzy DAVEH: Wouldn't that upset your table symmetry? ;-) -- ~~~ Dave Hansen [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.langlitz.com ~~~ If you wish to receive things I find interesting, I maintain six email lists... JOKESTER, OPINIONS, LDS, STUFF, MOTORCYCLE and CLIPS.
RE: [TruthTalk] Mormon Related #2
DAVEH: Yeah, but with a little forethought, there could have been one more (Mormon boy) feasting with you that day. After all, I bet 16 would fit much more evenly around your table than 15. Think about that the next time you through a party! 8-) Dave, feel free to join us next year with all your wives. J Izzy DAVEH: Wouldn't that upset your table symmetry? ;-) Not a problem, DaveH. We can even do an addition onto the diningroom. Izzy
RE: [TruthTalk] Mormon Related #2
How many wives do you have, Dave? I can't imagine Slade keeping up with more than one of me Kay -Original Message-From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]On Behalf Of ShieldsFamilySent: Wednesday, 12 January, 2005 10.32To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgSubject: RE: [TruthTalk] Mormon Related #2 DAVEH: Yeah, but with a little forethought, there could have been one more (Mormon boy) feasting with you that day. After all, I bet 16 would fit much more evenly around your table than 15. Think about that the next time you through a party! 8-) Dave, feel free to join us next year with all your wives. J Izzy DAVEH: Wouldn't that upset your table symmetry? ;-) Not a problem, DaveH. We can even do an addition onto the diningroom. Izzy
Re: [TruthTalk] Mormon Related #2
In a message dated 1/11/2005 1:56:40 PM Pacific Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: A matter of grave concern for the discerning. Izzy And you suppose this includes you ???
Re: [TruthTalk] Mormon Related #2
In a message dated 1/11/2005 1:56:40 PM Pacific Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: I do not glibbly accept Dave as a Christian -- it is based upon his answer to a question I asked about Christ. In word (script), he expressed my faith. JD A matter of grave concern for the discerning. Izzy The following is what was said by me and, Dave H. You, no doubt as a part of the "discerning," want to add requirements to this -- go ahead. But here is an inescapable criticism -- when you start adding to what DaveH has admitted to, there is no place to stop. Salvation suddenly ceases to be a gift and becomes a matter of dues paid based upon our obedience (Ro 4:4) . What are these other requirements? And, and when is it that your work is done and the Lord's begins, or takes over, or whatever it is that you believe. I will add this thought: where DavidH believes he is required to perform because of his understanding and faith in the traditions that are his, he MUST so perform. If he believes that I am NOT saved --- "lost" as it were --- for believing that I MUST follow what I see as Divine tradition, well, then, he would be wrong (according to me and my recent publication: The Gospel According to John smithson). The fact remains that the brother in Romans 14, who was required to follow his personal conviction WAS DOCTRINALLY WRONG. Folks like you, dear Linda, think the lessons of Romans 14 apply only to the question of meats and special days and -- thank god --- since those are of little modern day consequence, the passage really has nothing to say to those of us who differ on more importanct matters today. Read the question and the answer below and add the appropriate things to do. it is not because of his faith -- it is because of the faith of Christ Jesus Himself. There is salvation in none other. On that we all agree. Does Dave Hansen agree? DAVEH: Yes. John
RE: [TruthTalk] Mormon Related #2
Woops...I just noticed this post. I seem to miss posts on a regular basis.I'll go to this shade of purple: -Original Message-From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]On Behalf Of Dave HansenSent: Monday, 10 January, 2005 10.16To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgSubject: Re: [TruthTalk] Mormon Related #2Slade Henson wrote: Scripture is very clear there are other gods, I would agree, however, I would say they're false gods. DAVEH: If the gods spoken of in Ps 82 were false (and I would be curious to hear your thoughts about what Ps 82 is conveying when using that term), then what would be their logical pertinence to Jesus' use of them as a defense in the accusations against him that he was making himself God? I worded that rather awkwardly, Kaydoes my question make any sense to you? No, the question itself...you lost me. But, I have PS. 82 open and my translation (Complete Jewish Bible) says...Elohim[gods, judges].I think what you're referring to is the .you are gods part, right? First thing that comes to mind is that Benny HaHA Hinn says the same thing it seems you're saying. Am I totally off base and confused? That's where I thought you were going with this. Rachel stole her father's gods and brought them with her when she left with Jacob. There are other instances where we see the people cursed for their idolatry. Anything that takes your mind off of God I guess could be considered idolatry. Money, material possessions, etc. I think some dude was trying to help people understand God better and gave a midrash/parable of the three-in-One. I've heard the egg theory, toothe egg is ONE object, but contains the shell, the yolk and the white stuff. Three rolled into one. I think it was nice to give people more of an understanding, but I think it has gone overboard. You can't put God in a box. DAVEH: Do you think one can understand the nature of God? Should we try? I don't think one can understand the nature of God 100%.I don't think it's humanly possible. I think we can have some understanding (in some people's minds, only little, depending on their minds and what may or not be in them!) Yes, I think we should try knowing our minds are limited. I think that by trying this would include praying for wisdom and understanding. I think that the more we understand, the more we can respect (fear) God and be more grateful to Him for what He did...the price He chose to pay for jerks like us. Will we attain it 100%? I don't so think in this life and I don't know about in the one to come...eternity is a long time to sit at His feet and learn... I would hope we would eventually understand! Are the things others are saying you believe truly what you believe? Kay
Re: [TruthTalk] Mormon Related #2
In a message dated 1/12/2005 4:56:51 AM Pacific Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: How sad John, "Unto the pure all things are pure, but unto them that are defiled and unbelieving is nothing pure but even their mind and conscience is defiled. They profess that they know God; but in works they deny him, being abominable and disobedient, and unto every good work reprobate" (Titus 1:15,16) jt You just don't try to understand anything I say, do you. If David can speak of a whole group of individuals, I can speak of the individuals themselves. If whole denominations are unpure, so are those who make them up -- but maybe you criticize me for not being clear about the notion that we are made pure by Another. I don't know. I do know that the Titus passage has nothing to do with what I am talking about. John
Re: [TruthTalk] Mormon Related #2
In a message dated 1/12/2005 4:56:59 AM Pacific Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: DAVEH: I wish I could think of stuff like that, JD. Nice to see Izzy get a jab in the ribs now and then. I'm too timid to tickle the whiskers of that sleeping cat :-) [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: In a message dated 1/11/2005 9:25:29 AM Pacific Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: This IS a discussion group, not an agreement farm !! John Looks more like a funny farm to meIz That might change when you retire. JD A preemptive stoke of genius, on my part. Humbly Smithson
Re: [TruthTalk] Mormon Related #2
DAVEH: My current comments are in RED. Slade Henson wrote: Woops...I just noticed this post. I seem to miss posts on a regular basis.I'll go to this shade of purple: Slade Henson wrote: Scripture is very clear there are other gods, I would agree, however, I would say they're false gods. DAVEH: If the gods spoken of in Ps 82 were false (and I would be curious to hear your thoughts about what Ps 82 is conveying when using that term), then what would be their logical pertinence to Jesus' use of them as a defense in the accusations against him that he was making himself God? I worded that rather awkwardly, Kaydoes my question make any sense to you? No, the question itself...you lost me. But, I have PS. 82 open and my translation (Complete Jewish Bible) says...Elohim[gods, judges].I think what you're referring to is the .you are gods part, right? DAVEH: Yes, that is how I read it as well. Perry mentioned that it was referring to judges who judge in behalf of God (I hope I've got that right, Perry). But if that were the case, I don't understand why Jesus would refer to theos (Jn 10:3435), suggesting a deity to be worshiped, to be used in his defense. DavidM seemingly gave a pretty good logical explanation yesterday that I will ponder when I have more time. I'm just not sure labeling them as judges quite does justice to the meaning of Ps 82. Why would the author do that IF he could have used judges instead. Maybe I should be asking the questionwould judges have been a better term to useif not, why not? Had PS 82 used judges, I doubt Jesus would have referenced it in his defense. First thing that comes to mind is that Benny HaHA Hinn says the same thing it seems you're saying. DAVEH? Hmmthat's curious. I guess BH hasn't much credibility here in TT, but how does the Protestant world in general treat him for suggesting gods refers to plural deity in PS 82? Am I totally off base and confused? DAVEH: Not nearly as much as most TTers attribute to me! :-) That's where I thought you were going with this. Rachel stole her father's gods and brought them with her when she left with Jacob. There are other instances where we see the people cursed for their idolatry. Anything that takes your mind off of God I guess could be considered idolatry. Money, material possessions, etc. I think some dude was trying to help people understand God better and gave a midrash/parable of the three-in-One. I've heard the egg theory, toothe egg is ONE object, but contains the shell, the yolk and the white stuff. Three rolled into one. I think it was nice to give people more of an understanding, but I think it has gone overboard. You can't put God in a box. DAVEH: Do you think one can understand the nature of God? Should we try? I don't think one can understand the nature of God 100%.I don't think it's humanly possible. I think we can have some understanding (in some people's minds, only little, depending on their minds and what may or not be in them!) Yes, I think we should try knowing our minds are limited. I think that by trying this would include praying for wisdom and understanding. I think that the more we understand, the more we can respect (fear) God and be more grateful to Him for what He did...the price He chose to pay for jerks like us. Will we attain it 100%? I don't so think in this life and I don't know about in the one to come...eternity is a long time to sit at His feet and learn... I would hope we would eventually understand! DAVEH: Thank you for responding to my question, Kay. I appreciate knowing a little more about your relationship with him now. Are the things others are saying you believe truly what you believe? DAVEH: Some are. Many are taken out of context, and really don't mean much when framed that way. I suspect you and other TTers find a lot of what has been said about my beliefs to be troubling due to the contrasting background with which many of you have grown up, and also considering the manner in which a lot of what has been posted is presented. From my perspective, the negative comments about LDS theology is not a problem at all, as it answers many questions that I see Protestantism avoiding. I'm sure some would say that Protestantism has already answered those questionsand, maybe it has. But when I have trouble getting a definition from a Christian (present company excluded, of course!) of Christian, it kinda makes me wonder why the reticence? And that's just a simple question. I've tried to answer most of the questions posed to me, with the exception of those that are intended to be disruptive (to my sleep, time or family by making busy work for me to do), or to make light of my beliefs in an attempt to embarrass me, or sometimes I simply don't know the answer or have the time to
Re: [TruthTalk] Mormon Related #2
Slade Henson wrote: How many wives do you have, Dave? DAVEH: Just one, Kay. I can't imagine Slade keeping up with more than one of me Kay -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of ShieldsFamily Sent: Wednesday, 12 January, 2005 10.32 To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Subject: RE: [TruthTalk] Mormon Related #2 DAVEH: Yeah, but with a little forethought, there could have been one more (Mormon boy) feasting with you that day. After all, I bet 16 would fit much more evenly around your table than 15. Think about that the next time you through a party! 8-) Dave, feel free to join us next year with all your wives. J Izzy DAVEH: Wouldn't that upset your table symmetry? ;-) Not a problem, DaveH. We can even do an addition onto the diningroom. Izzy -- ~~~ Dave Hansen [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.langlitz.com ~~~ If you wish to receive things I find interesting, I maintain six email lists... JOKESTER, OPINIONS, LDS, STUFF, MOTORCYCLE and CLIPS.
Re: [TruthTalk] Mormon Related #2
ShieldsFamily wrote: DAVEH: Yeah, but with a little forethought, there could have been one more (Mormon boy) feasting with you that day. After all, I bet 16 would fit much more evenly around your table than 15. Think about that the next time you through DAVEH: Arrrgh..my grammar is attrocias! :-( a party! 8-) Dave, feel free to join us next year with all your wives. J Izzy DAVEH: Wouldn't that upset your table symmetry? ;-) Not a problem, DaveH. We can even do an addition onto the diningroom. Izzy -- ~~~ Dave Hansen [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.langlitz.com ~~~ If you wish to receive things I find interesting, I maintain six email lists... JOKESTER, OPINIONS, LDS, STUFF, MOTORCYCLE and CLIPS.
Re: [TruthTalk] Mormon Related #2
Charles Perry Locke wrote: From: Dave Hansen [EMAIL PROTECTED] Slade (actually, Kay) Henson wrote: So, you're saying...yes, you believe in multiple gods, DAVEH: Yesdoes not the Bible suggest likewise? Look at PS 82:6.. 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? There are many other such prooftexts, like baptism for the dead, the two sticks of ezekiel representing the Book of Mormon and the Bible, and "another flock" representing the hebrews that descended from those who migrated to America just after the tower of Babyl fell. All prooftexts. DAVEH: You say that as though it is a crime, Perry. I've got the feeling I could copy and paste the whole Bible to this post and you would consider it prooftexting. :-) That's OK though. If anybody asks me a question regarding my beliefs, I'll continue quoting Biblical passages I feel pertain to my beliefs. If you want to counter each with a prooftexting complaint, that's OK.I understand your need to undermine my comments. Though I would prefer you respond with a contrasting explanation of your perspective. I think that would benefit all of us more than simply crying...prooftextevery time I post a Bible passage and my understanding of it. After allyou really don't want me to quit responding to questions, do you??? :-\ ...Now, most Protestants will claim that the term god was not used correctly here---that it really means judges (vs 1). However, IF that were accurate, what logic would prevail for Jesus to use vs 6 as a defense *I have said, ye are gods; and all of you are children of the most High.* The term was used correctly here, but the meaning is "those who sit in judgement for God", not gods as in exalted men. DAVEH: Then why did Jesus use that as a defense from those who were claiming he was making himself as God, Perry? (Jn 10:33) Are you suggesting that acting as a judge was blasphemous? Would you explain what was meant by Ps 82:1 God standeth in the congregation of the mighty; he judgeth among the gods. .When I look it up in my (non-LDS) concordance, it says the root of gods is Elohim, which also applies to how it was used in verse 6. When I looked up gods as used by Jesus in Jn 10:34, it says the root is theos, an object of worship. Neither reflects implication of being a judge instead of a deity. Is my concordance dated or incorrect on this, Perry? What am I missing??? Now you've got me wondering, Perry. You quoted. those who sit in judgement for God ...as the intended meaning of gods in vss 1 6..is that correct? What root word(s) do you use to come to that conclusion? Is that something Protestantism concluded to explain an otherwise difficult passage that contradicts the T-Doctrine? The text goes to indicate that these men would still die like men...why would that be so if they were gods? It is because although they were doiong the work of God, were still mere men. Besides, why would they be called gods if they did not become gods (according to the Mormon view) until after they die, DAVEH: Could it be that they were foreordained to be such, much as was the Saviour? IOWhow could he be called the Redeemer before he died? Does that make sense, Perry? and not all do. *Jesus answered them, Is it not written in your law, I said, Ye are gods?* In many instances Jesus, when he was talking to knowledgable Jews, would merely mention a verse from what we call the Old Testament, and that would recall a whole teaching, or what we might call a chapter, to the hearers. DAVEH: When I do such, you call it prooftexting, Perry. Do you think the Lord's detractors thought the same way when he quoted a verse? There are other examples, like "My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?" (Mat 27:46) as a reference to Psalm 22. Such a reference would bring to mind the whole chapter, or teaching, thus revealing to those who were present and knowledgable the prophecy that was being fulfilled at that moment. This is equivalent to our saying "the
Re: [TruthTalk] Mormon Related #2
In a message dated 1/10/2005 7:16:12 PM Pacific Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: A mormon prooftext. Actually, some of the brethren at Corinth, perhaps, believed in more than one god but served only one - someone might try reading I Cor 8. John -- Founder and Happy host to the Theology known as Smithism. Thanks Pairy jt: Eating meat sacrificed to idols does not mean the believer deferred to that idol - what are you saying John? Paul is asking more mature believers to abstain from what they enjoy so as not to stumble baby believers. Corinth was a pagan city. I Cor 8:4-7 -- we were talking about "many gods" -- remember? I thought this passage kindof supported DH when he spoke of those who believe in other gods. The first church had it believers as well. JD
Re: [TruthTalk] Mormon Related #2
In a message dated 1/10/2005 7:55:21 PM Pacific Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
What a Judgemental Pious Gasbag!
Would you attack Satan for his beliefs?
How about Bin Laden?
So who made you the authority for truth? ("I say they are decieved and lying")
The little fat guy is smilen large "pious gasbag" This is a great phrase for clubbing folks to death.. Better than S.O.B. and the like.
Glad you're back. Truth salute and all that.
JD
Re: [TruthTalk] Mormon Related #2
In a message dated 1/10/2005 10:54:43 PM Pacific Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: DAVEH: A.Golly John, I'm not sure what to say...To remain in character, I suppose I should RESPECTFULLY DISAGREE.. :-D How do you spell "two shay ?" JD
Re: [TruthTalk] Mormon Related #2
In a message dated 1/10/2005 10:55:15 PM Pacific Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: That is God's job. Are you filling in? 1 Cor 4:5 Therefore judge nothing before the time, until the Lord come, who both will bring to light the hidden things of darkness, and will make manifest the counsels of the hearts 1 Sam 16:7 for man looketh on the outward appearance, but the LORD looketh on the heart. On Mon, 10 Jan 2005 09:51:43 EST [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: I have been forced to look to the heart of those writting and disregard the differences, tone down my objections, and leave the judgments to God. Works toward most of you-all -- should work for Hansen as well, in view of the "confession" he has admitted to. Might try reading my post in total. I said "I have been forced to look to the heart of those writting and disregard the differences .. and leave the judgments to God. Did I not speak clearly?
Re: [TruthTalk] Mormon Related #2
In a message dated 1/10/2005 11:51:25 PM Pacific Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: If all Mormons are Christians then all Christians are Mormons, right? Are all Christians Baptists? Maybe not your best illustration. Jd
Re: [TruthTalk] Mormon Related #2
Wrong Terry, I have had the pleasure of dealing with Mormans for many, many years. Also a few Jehovah's Witnesses! In fact my wifes sister in law has called me Satan incarnate! Now, I don't know Kevin, but his response just shows again why I do not care for street preachers of any denomination or religion! Jeff Life makes warriors of us all. To emerge the victors, we must arm ourselves with the most potent of weapons. That weapon is prayer. --Rebbe Nachman of Breslov - Original Message - From: Terry Clifton [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: Monday, January 10, 2005 22:20 Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Mormon Related #2 Kevin Deegan wrote: Jeff Powers suggests that we should not attack then goes right on to his attack on Street Preachers I find this Hypocritical at best. WITW? He can not see that he uses the tactic that he condemns? == Good to hear from you again Kevin. You might want to cut Jeff a little slack. He evidently has little idea of what Mormons believe. I think that if he bothers to learn he may rethink his position. On another subject. I know that some SP's were arrested recently for proclaiming the truth at a gathering of perverts. Can you fill us in? Do we know any of them? Are they out on bail? Do they have good legal counsel? Anything else you can tell us would be aappreciated. Thanks, Terry -- Let your speech be always with grace, seasoned with salt, that you may know how you ought to answer every man. (Colossians 4:6) http://www.InnGlory.org If you do not want to receive posts from this list, send an email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and you will be unsubscribed. If you have a friend who wants to join, tell him to send an e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and he will be subscribed. -- Let your speech be always with grace, seasoned with salt, that you may know how you ought to answer every man. (Colossians 4:6) http://www.InnGlory.org If you do not want to receive posts from this list, send an email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and you will be unsubscribed. If you have a friend who wants to join, tell him to send an e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and he will be subscribed.
Re: [TruthTalk] Mormon Related #2
OK OK What do you think? If I accept DAVEH as a Christian do you think he would accept me as a Mormon? [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: In a message dated 1/10/2005 11:51:25 PM Pacific Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: If all Mormons are Christians then all Christians are Mormons, right? Are all Christians Baptists? Maybe not your best illustration. Jd __Do You Yahoo!?Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com
Re: [TruthTalk] Mormon Related #2
I have been contemplating lately whether I need to broaden my own definition of "Christian" -- you know with the Trinity debate and all. I'm pretty sure of this much, DaveH: you're not alone :) Bill - Original Message - From: Dave Hansen To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: Tuesday, January 11, 2005 12:34 AM Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Mormon Related #2 ShieldsFamily wrote: Congrats to Key. I do not mind hearing what DaveH has to say. We have been told t\more than once that affliliation does not have a requirement as far as TruthTalk is concerned. David Miller, a few weeks ago, wrote words to the effect that DaveH was THE model participants. He (Hansen) remains on TT dispite all manner of rudeness, It is as if those who oppose his religious _expression_ of Christ do not care for him. A terrible thing. To object to Hansen's shared views is certainly within the scope of this list -- to present these objections in such a manner as to convey that we do not give a krap about him as a person is beyond the pale. Kay is has not surrendered to this temptation. All of us disagree with the others on very important issues. The gospel message, the Sonship of Christ, the assertion that works have something to do with GETTING us saved are all issues that I find not only unbiblical but contrary to the biblical message. False doctrine. Lies and comments of the Devil. Wow !! At least, that is where I am emotionally. In the end, I regard those with such beliefs as brethren. Dave H has no belief that is more serious to me than those mentioned above. I have been forced to look to the heart of those writting and disregard the differences, tone down my objections, and leave the judgments to God. Works toward most of you-all -- should work for Hansen as well, in view of the "confession" he has admitted to. So, while some are busy poppin off about which god I serve, they might look to themselves. Love and respect of the brethren is a text of partnership between God and man - but some on this list, no doubt, will figure out a way to avoid that part of the Message. JD JD, while some of us judge doctrine, your words seem to judge people on TT . I find no manner of rudeness written towards, DaveH, and Im sure he will attest that he feels quite among friends on TT. IzzyDAVEH: Though I suspect I do have many friends on TT, I failed to receive any invitations to Christmas dinner this year. :-) In years past however, there were times when the discussions centered on whether or not I would be welcome in the homes of some TTers. I suspect there were a few TTers who thought I might be hiding a tail and horns under my hat and cloak. Maybe they still reside on TTI don't know. But it matters not, Izzy. Most TT folks are relatively kind to me nowadays. Some probably still suspicion me to be a threat, and are acting in accordance, I supposebut that is their problem, not mine. FWIWI've always tried to be up front with my beliefs. When folks ask, I try to respond with a cogent answer, sometimes inflicting a dose of humor with my replies. At least Terry and perhaps a few others seemingly appreciate that. But I'm pretty sure nobody on TT gives any credence to my beliefs or skewed view of various passages in the Bible I've quoted over the years. I'm sure my LDS bias turns most folks offand, I understand that. But...I'm still curious as to how some of you folks view the passages I quoteThat's why I bring them up now and then. I just wish more of you would not be so reluctant to share your thoughts though. As you should know, I'm not out to stab anybody in the back if you misspeak or get it wrong even by Protestant standardsI'm just curious as to what you believe and why you believe it the way you do. Nor do I expect any of you to agree with me, but I do appreciate your respectful replies to my questions and posts. Even if you don't consider this Mormon boy to be a Christian, I thank you for allowing me to enjoy the fellowship of TT. In a message dated 1/10/2005 12:13:59 AM Pacific Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Slade Henson wrote: So, you're saying...yes, you believe in multiple gods, DAVEH: Yesdoes not the Bible suggest likewise? Look at PS 82:6..I have said, ye are gods; and all of you are children of the most HighNow, most Protestants will claim that the term god was not used correctly here---that it really means judges (vs 1). However, IF that were accurate, what logic would prevail for Jesus to use vs 6 as a defenseJesu
Re: [TruthTalk] Mormon Related #2
So then what is your purpose in looking "to" the heart? How is looking to the heart accomplished? The scripture does not say you can look to the heart as long as you judge not. It says men look on the outward God looks on the heart. [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: In a message dated 1/10/2005 10:55:15 PM Pacific Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: That is God's job. Are you filling in?1 Cor 4:5 Therefore judge nothing before the time, until the Lord come, who both will bring to light the hidden things of darkness, and will make manifest the counsels of the hearts1 Sam 16:7 for man looketh on the outward appearance, but the LORD looketh on the heart. On Mon, 10 Jan 2005 09:51:43 EST [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:I have been forced to look to the heart of those writting and disregard the differences, tone down my objections, and leave the judgments to God. Works toward most of you-all -- should work for Hansen as well, in view of the "confession" he has admitted to. Might try reading my post in total. I said "I have been forced to look to the heart of those writting and disregard the differences .. and leave the judgments to God. Did I not speak clearly? __Do You Yahoo!?Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com
RE: [TruthTalk] Mormon Related #2
Sorry, Dave, but we don't celebrate Christmas. The next Holy day coming up is Passoverwould you like to attend our family Seder? Kay -Original Message-From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]On Behalf Of Dave HansenSent: Tuesday, 11 January, 2005 02.34To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgSubject: Re: [TruthTalk] Mormon Related #2DAVEH: Though I suspect I do have many friends on TT, I failed to receive any invitations to Christmas dinner this year. :-) In years past however, there were times when the discussions centered on whether or not I would be welcome in the homes of some TTers. I suspect there were a few TTers who thought I might be hiding a tail and horns under my hat and cloak. Maybe they still reside on TTI don't know. But it matters not, Izzy. Most TT folks are relatively kind to me nowadays. Some probably still suspicion me to be a threat, and are acting in accordance, I supposebut that is their problem, not mine. FWIWI've always tried to be up front with my beliefs. When folks ask, I try to respond with a cogent answer, sometimes inflicting a dose of humor with my replies. At least Terry and perhaps a few others seemingly appreciate that. But I'm pretty sure nobody on TT gives any credence to my beliefs or skewed view of various passages in the Bible I've quoted over the years. I'm sure my LDS bias turns most folks offand, I understand that. But...I'm still curious as to how some of you folks view the passages I quoteThat's why I bring them up now and then. I just wish more of you would not be so reluctant to share your thoughts though. As you should know, I'm not out to stab anybody in the back if you misspeak or get it wrong even by Protestant standardsI'm just curious as to what you believe and why you believe it the way you do. Nor do I expect any of you to agree with me, but I do appreciate your respectful replies to my questions and posts. Even if you don't consider this Mormon boy to be a Christian, I thank you for allowing me to enjoy the fellowship of TT. In a message dated 1/10/2005 12:13:59 AM Pacific Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Slade Henson wrote: So, you're saying...yes, you believe in multiple gods, DAVEH: Yesdoes not the Bible suggest likewise? Look at PS 82:6..I have said, ye are gods; and all of you are children of the most HighNow, most Protestants will claim that the term god was not used correctly here---that it really means judges (vs 1). However, IF that were accurate, what logic would prevail for Jesus to use vs 6 as a defenseJesus answered them, Is it not written in your law, I said, Ye are gods?...against those who sought to incriminate him as making himself as God (Jn 10:33). So, yesI believe the Bible supports that there are multiple Gods, but because of the propensity of the Israelites to forget the God who brought them salvation, the emphasis was put on their worship of ONE GOD. but you only worship only ONE God? DAVEH: YesOur Heavenly Father. Or LDS believe in multiple gods and YOU personally only worship/believe in one? DAVEH: I/we accept there are many, but I/we worship only one. Do you think the Trinity doctrine is worshipping three Gods? DAVEH: Nonot necessarily. I think the T-Doctrine obfuscates the nature of God so that those who accept the T-Doctrine really don't understand what they do worship. For instance.I believe Jesus has a body of flesh and bones, which the Bible proclaims emphatically. Yet I can't tell you how many times I've found Protestants find it hard to accept that fact. I believe it is because they've become steeped in the T-Doctrine suggestion that God is everywhere, but nowhere and is only in spirit form. When you think of Jesus, Kay, do you think of him as a living being consisting of a spirit clothed with flesh and bone? Do you think that characterization compliments the T-Doctrine, or is it in conflict with it? Kay Slade Henson wrote: All I did was read the definition. As Christian is defined, lots of denominations would be included.Are you saying that Dave believes in multiple gods? DAVEH: Yes.. but I believe we are only to worship one God. IMHO the Bible supports my belief, but a lot of folks have gotten sidetracked by the T-Doctrine. KayWoops...that was me, Dave, not Slade. I forgot to sign it. I would say LDS folks fall under the Christian category. Kay Kay, I find it amazing that you believe that a believer in multiple gods is a Christian. How do you figure? izzy --
RE: [TruthTalk] Mormon Related #2
Why would you want to be accepted as a Mormon? Kay -Original Message-From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]On Behalf Of Kevin DeeganSent: Tuesday, 11 January, 2005 08.11To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgSubject: Re: [TruthTalk] Mormon Related #2 OK OK What do you think? If I accept DAVEH as a Christian do you think he would accept me as a Mormon?
RE: [TruthTalk] Mormon Related #2
What
is said to the crowd? How is it said? I've met a few street preachers. Am
currently assisting a street preachers attorney. I am also friends with another
attorney who has represented several street preachers.
Kay
-Original Message-From: Kevin
Deegan [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]Sent: Monday, January 10,
2005 10:54 PMTo: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgSubject: Re:
[TruthTalk] Mormon Related #2
What a Judgemental Pious Gasbag!
Would you attack Satan for his beliefs?
How about Bin Laden?
So who made you the authority for truth? ("I say they are decieved
and lying")
What would you know about Street Preachers?
It is open season on SP's but you pretend to not like "attacking"
seems HYPOCRITICAL
Have you ever opened your mouth in front of a crowd? Even in
Love?Get that beam out.
MT 7:5 Thou hypocrite, first cast out the beam
out of thine own eye; and then shalt thou see clearly to cast out the mote
out of thy brother's eye.
Re: [TruthTalk] Mormon Related #2
DAVEH: I'm not sure why I'm defending Kevin on this, Johnbut he was trying to denigrate Mormonism by taking LDS comments out of context. So the logic of what he said makes sense, even though it is hard for a non-Mormon to follow. What you said below about Christians Baptists really doesn't relate. [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: In a message dated 1/10/2005 11:51:25 PM Pacific Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: If all Mormons are Christians then all Christians are Mormons, right? Are all Christians Baptists? Maybe not your best illustration. Jd -- ~~~ Dave Hansen [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.langlitz.com ~~~ If you wish to receive things I find interesting, I maintain six email lists... JOKESTER, OPINIONS, LDS, STUFF, MOTORCYCLE and CLIPS.
RE: [TruthTalk] Mormon Related #2
OK! -Original Message-From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]Sent: Tuesday, January 11, 2005 4:08 AMTo: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgSubject: Re: [TruthTalk] Mormon Related #2In a message dated 1/10/2005 8:04:57 PM Pacific Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Um...could we maybe get off the Infinite Recrimination tack? she ventured timidly DebbieJust smile, Deb. It's how the other half lives. John
Re: [TruthTalk] Mormon Related #2
DAVEH: Like most words, there is more than one definition of Christian. Some (such as myself) are quite happy thinking of it as encompassing a lot of people who have a faith in Christ or attempt to follow his teachings. This is also typical of most dictionary definitions. On the other hand, some tend to want to take a very narrow view in an effort to exclude others from their club, so to speak. I am rather amused that most of those wishing to adopt a very strict definition are usually unwilling to share that definition. It makes me wonder why they would be reluctant to do so. It could be that they realize they are wrong, and that dictionarys don't exist that support their position. Another possibility is that Christianity is not as exclusionary as they proclaim. IOWAny time they try to define a person out of Christianity, it affects those who are commonly accepted as being Christian, so they don't want to ruffle any friendly feathers. I suppose another possibility is that they are simply unable to write a precise definition that doesn't seem ridiculous to anybody who thinks logically. Can you think of any other ideas, Bill? Bill Taylor wrote: I have been contemplating lately whether I need to broaden my own definition of "Christian" -- you know with the Trinity debate and all. I'm pretty sure of this much, DaveH: you're not alone :) Bill -- ~~~ Dave Hansen [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.langlitz.com ~~~ If you wish to receive things I find interesting, I maintain six email lists... JOKESTER, OPINIONS, LDS, STUFF, MOTORCYCLE and CLIPS.
Re: [TruthTalk] Mormon Related #2
Kevin Deegan wrote: DAVEH asks for a definition You ask for a definition. DAVEH: YesI'd like to hear a real definition of Christian from both you and Perry, since you both seem so adamant to exclude Mormons from being considered Christian. After reading through all you posted below, I fail to see where you define Christian. Why is that, Kevin? I ofttimes think what you avoid saying speaks more to the topic than what you do post. BTWYes, I do have a copy of Robinson's book (AMC), but have not read it yet. Are there any particular points he made that you wish me to read that would not take too long? James 2:19 Thou believest that there is one God; thou doest well: the devils also believe, and tremble. The devils believe in God. They are seen in the NT knowing Christ Acts 19:15 And the evil spirit answered and said, Jesus I know Something is obviously missing. The devils have a head knowledge and probably a good definition since they have even been with Jesus. According to LDS Daniel C. Peterson and Stephen D. Ricks the definition is "Christian: anyone or any group that believes in Jesus Christ as the Savior and Son of God." The legion that said "What have I to do with thee, Jesus, thou Son of the most high God?" they would qualify as Christians! Anyway Ricks peterson want the definition to be so inclusive and BROAD as to not bar anyone. Yet the Bible tells us MANY are on the BROADway to Destruction Few find the Narrow way to eternal life. MANY will be told "depart from me I never knew you." "Depart from me, ye curse d, into everlasting fire" Rather than get into the definition game (exclusion by definition etc.) Have you read Robinsons book "Are Mormons Christian"? http://www.mazeministry.com/mormonism/newsletters_articles/aremormonschristians.htm I thought we might see what some of the GENERAL AUTHORITIES say. They can give us authoratative information on Mormonism, we can only hold opinions. SAME OR DIFFERENT WHICH IS IT? "Should you ask why we differ from other Christians, as they are called, it is simply because they are not Christians as the New Testament defines Christianity." (Brigham Young, Mormonism's Second President,Journal of Discourses 10:230.) If all Mormons are Christians then all Christians are Mormons, right? LDS Apostle Bruce R. McConkie - "Mormonism is Christianity; Christianity is Mormonism; they are one and the same, and they are not to be distinguished from each other in the minutest detail ...Mormons are true Christians; their worship is the pure, unadulterated Christianity authored by Christ and accepted by Peter, James, and John and all the ancient saints." (Mormon Doctrine, pg. 513). THERE IS ONLY ONE TRUE CHURCH guess which one you are in: "And he [God] said unto me: Behold there are save two churches only; the one is the church of the Lamb of God, and the other is the church of the devil; wherefore, whoso belongeth not to the church of the Lamb of God belongeth to that great church, which is the mother of abominations; and she is the whore of all the earth." (1 Nephi 14:10, see also 13:6, 14:3, 9; Alma 5:39) WHICH ONE ARE YOU? IN CASE YOU ARE NOT SURE WHO THE CHURCH OF THE DEVIL IS: "What is the church of the devil in our day, and what is the seat of her power?It is all the systems, both Christian and non-Christian, that perverted the pure and perfect gospel.It is communism, it is Islam; it is Buddhism; it is modern Christianity in all its parts. It is Germany under Hitler, Russia under Stalin, and Italy under Mussolini" (Apostle Bruce R. McConkie Millennial Messiah, pp. 54-55). "This is not just another Church. This is not just one of a family of Christian churches. This is the Church and kingdom of God, the only true Church upon the face of the earth..." (Teachings of Ezra Taft Benson, p.164-165). "the only true and living church upon the face of the whole earth" (DC 1:30) Each of us has to face the mattereither the Church is true, or it is a fraud. There is no middle ground. It is the Church and kingdom of God, or it is nothing. (President Gordon B. Hinckley. Loyalty, April Conference, 2003. ) This Church is the only true and living church upon the face of the whole earth there is no salvation outside the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. (Bruce McConkie, Mormon Doctrine, Page 670) "I asked the Personages [God the Father and God the Son] who stood above me in the light, which of all the sects was right (for at this time it had never entered into my heart that all were wrong)--and which I should join. I was answered that I must join none of them, for they were all wrong; and the Personage who addressed me said that all their creeds were an abomination in his sight; that those professors were all corrupt;..." (Joseph Smith - History 1:18-19, "The Testimony of the Prophet Joseph Smith", p. 3) also a pamphlet in use by LDS missionaries "the only organization authorized by the Almighty to
RE: [TruthTalk] Mormon Related #2
DaveH, You are simply straining at gnats to avoid the obvious. Heres what is Christian IS NOT: a believer in multiple-gods, or that Jesus is just another one of us gods, or that we can all evolve into another Jesus, or that everyone born on earth is born due to some gods in heaven having sexual relations, or that JS was a prophet, or that JS was not a liar and adulterer and statutory rapist, or any of the other bizarre ideas incubated by him are true, etc. But of course you know all of this, and are completely in your zone when strife breaks out among naive brethren over mormonisms false claims to Christianity. Izzy From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Dave Hansen Sent: Tuesday, January 11, 2005 1:06 AM To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Mormon Related #2 ShieldsFamily wrote: Several on this list claim they are speaking out of love, ala Yeshua. I say that they are decieved and lying when they do this. Why else would they attack Dave Hanson(or any one else)for his beliefs. I pity you petty little people. Jeff Jeff, I believe you are committing ad hominem attacks here. I am sure you cannot show us a single word of attack spoken against Dave Hanson; only against speaking of mormon theology as being truly Christian (which it isntand if you think so, perhaps you should listen more to Perry DAVEH: Sorry for intruding on this, Izzy. I've asked Perry (several times) for his definition of Christian, but he seems reluctant to mention anything except his disdain for my beliefs. I've got no problem with his dislike of my faith, but I do find it curious that he refrains from posting a definition of Christian, especially when he disqualifies me of being one. If I didn't know better, I'd say it's almost like a club that won't let you join IF you don't know the rulesand nobody will tell you the rules. BTW Izzyhow about you? May I implore you to weigh in on this as well? How do you define Christian? and talk less?) Therefore you are possibly guilty of your own accusations. Izzy -- ~~~Dave Hansen[EMAIL PROTECTED]http://www.langlitz.com~~~If you wish to receivethings I find interesting,I maintain six email lists...JOKESTER, OPINIONS, LDS,STUFF, MOTORCYCLE and CLIPS.
RE: [TruthTalk] Mormon Related #2
Izzy in red: JD, while some of us judge doctrine, your words seem to judge people on TT . I find no manner of rudeness written towards, DaveH, and Im sure he will attest that he feels quite among friends on TT. Izzy DAVEH: Though I suspect I do have many friends on TT, I failed to receive any invitations to Christmas dinner this year. :-) Dont feel bad, DaveH, neither did I. (In fact I had to make my own turkey, dressing, gravy, potatoes, etcfor 15 folks! J) In years past however, there were times when the discussions centered on whether or not I would be welcome in the homes of some TTers. I suspect there were a few TTers who thought I might be hiding a tail and horns under my hat and cloak. Maybe they still reside on TTI don't know. But it matters not, Izzy. Most TT folks are relatively kind to me nowadays. Some probably still suspicion me to be a threat, and are acting in accordance, I supposebut that is their problem, not mine. Shall I pull out my tiny violin as you tug on our heartstrings? So show up on my doorstep and Ill bake you a cake. Then as you are enjoying that Ill tell you exactly why you need to get saved (as I have done in the past, as you know!) J FWIWI've always tried to be up front with my beliefs. When folks ask, I try to respond with a cogent answer, sometimes inflicting a dose of humor with my replies. At least Terry and perhaps a few others seemingly appreciate that. But I'm pretty sure nobody on TT gives any credence to my beliefs or skewed view of various passages in the Bible I've quoted over the years. I'm sure my LDS bias turns most folks offand, I understand that. But...I'm still curious as to how some of you folks view the passages I quoteThat's why I bring them up now and then. I just wish more of you would not be so reluctant to share your thoughts though. As you should know, I'm not out to stab anybody in the back if you misspeak or get it wrong even by Protestant standardsI'm just curious as to what you believe and why you believe it the way you do. DaveH, you were on TT ever since I joined up around nine years ago for this very reason, and you STILL dont know what we believe??? (On the other hand, neither do we apparently!) Nor do I expect any of you to agree with me, but I do appreciate your respectful replies to my questions and posts. Even if you don't consider this Mormon boy to be a Christian, I thank you for allowing me to enjoy the fellowship of TT. No problem, DaveH, as you are always pleasant (when you arent playing one of us against another.) Izzy In a message dated 1/10/2005 12:13:59 AM Pacific Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Slade Henson wrote: So, you're saying...yes, you believe in multiple gods, DAVEH: Yesdoes not the Bible suggest likewise? Look at PS 82:6.. I have said, ye are gods; and all of you are children of the most High. ...Now, most Protestants will claim that the term god was not used correctly here---that it really means judges (vs 1). However, IF that were accurate, what logic would prevail for Jesus to use vs 6 as a defense Jesus answered them, Is it not written in your law, I said, Ye are gods? ...against those who sought to incriminate him as making himself as God (Jn 10:33). So, yesI believe the Bible supports that there are multiple Gods, but because of the propensity of the Israelites to forget the God who brought them salvation, the emphasis was put on their worship of ONE GOD. but you only worship only ONE God? DAVEH: YesOur Heavenly Father. Or LDS believe in multiple gods and YOU personally only worship/believe in one? DAVEH: I/we accept there are many, but I/we worship only one. Do you think the Trinity doctrine is worshipping three Gods? DAVEH: Nonot necessarily. I think the T-Doctrine obfuscates the nature of God so that those who accept the T-Doctrine really don't understand what they do worship. For instance.I believe Jesus has a body of flesh and bones, which the Bible proclaims emphatically. Yet I can't tell you how many times I've found Protestants find it hard to accept that fact. I believe it is because they've become steeped in the T-Doctrine suggestion that God is everywhere, but nowhere and is only in spirit form. When you think of Jesus, Kay, do you think of him as a living being consisting of a spirit clothed with flesh and bone? Do you think that characterization compliments the T-Doctrine, or is it in conflict with it? Kay Slade Henson wrote: All I did was read the definition. As Christian is defined, lots of denominations would be included. Are you saying that Dave believes in multiple gods? DAVEH: Yes.. but I believe we are only to worship one God. IMHO the Bible supports my belief, but a lot of folks have gotten sidetracked by the T-Doctrine. Kay Woops...that was me, Dave, not Slade. I forgot to
Re: [TruthTalk] Mormon Related #2
Dave, Have we established that unless I join the LDS Church I can not be saved? Or am I taking these quotes out of context? I do not: exclude by definition exclude by creed ad nauseam For more of this Nauseam read Stephen Robinson's book --- Dave Hansen [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Kevin Deegan wrote: DAVEH asks for a definition You ask for a definition. DAVEH: YesI'd like to hear a real definition of /Christian /from both you and Perry, since you both seem so adamant to exclude Mormons from being considered Christian. After reading through all you posted below, I fail to see where you define /Christian/. Why is that, Kevin? I ofttimes think what you avoid saying speaks more to the topic than what you do post. BTWYes, I do have a copy of Robinson's book (AMC), but have not read it yet. Are there any particular points he made that you wish me to read that would not take too long? James 2:19 Thou believest that there is one God; thou doest well: the devils also believe, and tremble. The devils believe in God. They are seen in the NT knowing Christ Acts 19:15 And the evil spirit answered and said, Jesus I know Something is obviously missing. The devils have a head knowledge and probably a good definition since they have even been with Jesus. According to LDS Daniel C. Peterson and Stephen D. Ricks the definition is Christian: anyone or any group that believes in Jesus Christ as the Savior and Son of God. The legion that said What have I to do with thee, Jesus, thou Son of the most high God? they would qualify as Christians! Anyway Ricks peterson want the definition to be so inclusive and BROAD as to not bar anyone. Yet the Bible tells us MANY are on the BROADway to Destruction Few find the Narrow way to eternal life. MANY will be told depart from me I never knew you. Depart from me, ye curse d, into everlasting fire Rather than get into the definition game (exclusion by definition etc.) Have you read Robinsons book Are Mormons Christian? http://www.mazeministry.com/mormonism/newsletters_articles/aremormonschristians.htm I thought we might see what some of the GENERAL AUTHORITIES say. They can give us authoratative information on Mormonism, we can only hold opinions. SAME OR DIFFERENT WHICH IS IT? Should you ask why we differ from other Christians, as they are called, it is simply because they are not Christians as the New Testament defines Christianity. (Brigham Young, Mormonism's Second President,Journal of Discourses 10:230.) If all Mormons are Christians then all Christians are Mormons, right? LDS Apostle Bruce R. McConkie - Mormonism is Christianity; Christianity is Mormonism; they are one and the same, and they are not to be distinguished from each other in the minutest detail ...Mormons are true Christians; their worship is the pure, unadulterated Christianity authored by Christ and accepted by Peter, James, and John and all the ancient saints. (Mormon Doctrine, pg. 513). THERE IS ONLY ONE TRUE CHURCH guess which one you are in: And he [God] said unto me: Behold there are save two churches only; the one is the church of the Lamb of God, and the other is the church of the devil; wherefore, whoso belongeth not to the church of the Lamb of God belongeth to that great church, which is the mother of abominations; and she is the whore of all the earth. (1 Nephi 14:10, see also 13:6, 14:3, 9; Alma 5:39) WHICH ONE ARE YOU? IN CASE YOU ARE NOT SURE WHO THE CHURCH OF THE DEVIL IS: What is the church of the devil in our day, and what is the seat of her power?...It is all the systems, both Christian and non-Christian, that perverted the pure and perfect gospelIt is communism, it is Islam; it is Buddhism; it is modern Christianity in all its parts. It is Germany under Hitler, Russia under Stalin, and Italy under Mussolini (Apostle Bruce R. McConkie Millennial Messiah, pp. 54-55). This is not just another Church. This is not just one of a family of Christian churches. This is the Church and kingdom of God, the only true Church upon the face of the earth... (Teachings of Ezra Taft Benson, p.164-165). the only true and living church upon the face of the whole earth (DC 1:30) Each of us has to face the matter--either the Church is true, or it is a fraud. There is no middle ground. It is the Church and kingdom of God, or it is nothing. (President Gordon B. Hinckley. Loyalty, April Conference, 2003. ) This Church is the only true and living church upon the face of the whole earth there is no salvation outside the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. (Bruce McConkie, Mormon Doctrine, Page 670) I asked the Personages [God the Father and God the Son] who stood above me in the light, which of all
RE: [TruthTalk] Mormon Related #2
He didn't ask what a Christian is NOT, he asked what the definition for Christian IS. He didn't ask about Joseph Smith and his alleged activities or ideas are/were. Kay -Original Message-From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]On Behalf Of ShieldsFamilySent: Tuesday, 11 January, 2005 10.32To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgSubject: RE: [TruthTalk] Mormon Related #2 DaveH, You are simply straining at gnats to avoid the obvious. Heres what is Christian IS NOT: a believer in multiple-gods, or that Jesus is just another one of us gods, or that we can all evolve into another Jesus, or that everyone born on earth is born due to some gods in heaven having sexual relations, or that JS was a prophet, or that JS was not a liar and adulterer and statutory rapist, or any of the other bizarre ideas incubated by him are true, etc. But of course you know all of this, and are completely in your zone when strife breaks out among naive brethren over mormonisms false claims to Christianity. Izzy From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Dave HansenSent: Tuesday, January 11, 2005 1:06 AMTo: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgSubject: Re: [TruthTalk] Mormon Related #2 ShieldsFamily wrote: Several on this list claim they are speaking out of love, ala Yeshua. I say that they are decieved and lying when they do this. Why else would they attack Dave Hanson(or any one else)for his beliefs. I pity you petty little people. Jeff Jeff, I believe you are committing ad hominem attacks here. I am sure you cannot show us a single word of attack spoken against Dave Hanson; only against speaking of mormon theology as being truly Christian (which it isntand if you think so, perhaps you should listen more to Perry DAVEH: Sorry for intruding on this, Izzy. I've asked Perry (several times) for his definition of Christian, but he seems reluctant to mention anything except his disdain for my beliefs. I've got no problem with his dislike of my faith, but I do find it curious that he refrains from posting a definition of Christian, especially when he disqualifies me of being one. If I didn't know better, I'd say it's almost like a club that won't let you join IF you don't know the rulesand nobody will tell you the rules. BTW Izzyhow about you? May I implore you to weigh in on this as well? How do you define Christian? and talk less?) Therefore you are possibly guilty of your own accusations. Izzy -- ~~~Dave Hansen[EMAIL PROTECTED]http://www.langlitz.com~~~If you wish to receivethings I find interesting,I maintain six email lists...JOKESTER, OPINIONS, LDS,STUFF, MOTORCYCLE and CLIPS.
Re: [TruthTalk] Mormon Related #2
John signed off: John -- Founder and Happy host to the Theology known as Smithism. Thanks Pairy I think when Parry used the term Smithism, he was referring to the doctrines of Joseph Smith, not John Smithson. :-) Peace be with you. David Miller. -- Let your speech be always with grace, seasoned with salt, that you may know how you ought to answer every man. (Colossians 4:6) http://www.InnGlory.org If you do not want to receive posts from this list, send an email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and you will be unsubscribed. If you have a friend who wants to join, tell him to send an e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and he will be subscribed.
RE: [TruthTalk] Mormon Related #2
Matthew 10:41 41He who receives a prophet in the name of a prophet shall receive a prophet's reward; and he who receives a righteous man in the name of a righteous man shall receive a righteous man's reward. -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Jeff Powers Sent: Tuesday, January 11, 2005 4:42 AM To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Mormon Related #2 Wrong Terry, I have had the pleasure of dealing with Mormans for many, many years. Also a few Jehovah's Witnesses! In fact my wifes sister in law has called me Satan incarnate! Now, I don't know Kevin, but his response just shows again why I do not care for street preachers of any denomination or religion! Jeff Life makes warriors of us all. To emerge the victors, we must arm ourselves with the most potent of weapons. That weapon is prayer. --Rebbe Nachman of Breslov - Original Message - From: Terry Clifton [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: Monday, January 10, 2005 22:20 Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Mormon Related #2 Kevin Deegan wrote: Jeff Powers suggests that we should not attack then goes right on to his attack on Street Preachers I find this Hypocritical at best. WITW? He can not see that he uses the tactic that he condemns? == Good to hear from you again Kevin. You might want to cut Jeff a little slack. He evidently has little idea of what Mormons believe. I think that if he bothers to learn he may rethink his position. On another subject. I know that some SP's were arrested recently for proclaiming the truth at a gathering of perverts. Can you fill us in? Do we know any of them? Are they out on bail? Do they have good legal counsel? Anything else you can tell us would be aappreciated. Thanks, Terry -- Let your speech be always with grace, seasoned with salt, that you may know how you ought to answer every man. (Colossians 4:6) http://www.InnGlory.org If you do not want to receive posts from this list, send an email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and you will be unsubscribed. If you have a friend who wants to join, tell him to send an e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and he will be subscribed. -- Let your speech be always with grace, seasoned with salt, that you may know how you ought to answer every man. (Colossians 4:6) http://www.InnGlory.org If you do not want to receive posts from this list, send an email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and you will be unsubscribed. If you have a friend who wants to join, tell him to send an e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and he will be subscribed.
RE: [TruthTalk] Mormon Related #2
Kay, in the past nine years this has been explained to DaveH ad nauseum. Its a ploy. Why dont YOU try to get through to him? Izzy From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Slade Henson Sent: Tuesday, January 11, 2005 9:45 AM To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Subject: RE: [TruthTalk] Mormon Related #2 He didn't ask what a Christian is NOT, he asked what the definition for Christian IS. He didn't ask about Joseph Smith and his alleged activities or ideas are/were. Kay -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]On Behalf Of ShieldsFamily Sent: Tuesday, 11 January, 2005 10.32 To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Subject: RE: [TruthTalk] Mormon Related #2 DaveH, You are simply straining at gnats to avoid the obvious. Heres what is Christian IS NOT: a believer in multiple-gods, or that Jesus is just another one of us gods, or that we can all evolve into another Jesus, or that everyone born on earth is born due to some gods in heaven having sexual relations, or that JS was a prophet, or that JS was not a liar and adulterer and statutory rapist, or any of the other bizarre ideas incubated by him are true, etc. But of course you know all of this, and are completely in your zone when strife breaks out among naive brethren over mormonisms false claims to Christianity. Izzy From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Dave Hansen Sent: Tuesday, January 11, 2005 1:06 AM To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Mormon Related #2 ShieldsFamily wrote: Several on this list claim they are speaking out of love, ala Yeshua. I say that they are decieved and lying when they do this. Why else would they attack Dave Hanson(or any one else)for his beliefs. I pity you petty little people. Jeff Jeff, I believe you are committing ad hominem attacks here. I am sure you cannot show us a single word of attack spoken against Dave Hanson; only against speaking of mormon theology as being truly Christian (which it isntand if you think so, perhaps you should listen more to Perry DAVEH: Sorry for intruding on this, Izzy. I've asked Perry (several times) for his definition of Christian, but he seems reluctant to mention anything except his disdain for my beliefs. I've got no problem with his dislike of my faith, but I do find it curious that he refrains from posting a definition of Christian, especially when he disqualifies me of being one. If I didn't know better, I'd say it's almost like a club that won't let you join IF you don't know the rulesand nobody will tell you the rules. BTW Izzyhow about you? May I implore you to weigh in on this as well? How do you define Christian? and talk less?) Therefore you are possibly guilty of your own accusations. Izzy -- ~~~Dave Hansen[EMAIL PROTECTED]http://www.langlitz.com~~~If you wish to receivethings I find interesting,I maintain six email lists...JOKESTER, OPINIONS, LDS,STUFF, MOTORCYCLE and CLIPS.
RE: [TruthTalk] Mormon Related #2
He asked for people's definition of Christian. I gave one. He realizes everyone has different definitions for christian. He wants to know yours. K. -Original Message-From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]On Behalf Of ShieldsFamilySent: Tuesday, 11 January, 2005 11.03To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgSubject: RE: [TruthTalk] Mormon Related #2 Kay, in the past nine years this has been explained to DaveH ad nauseum. Its a ploy. Why dont YOU try to get through to him? Izzy From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Slade HensonSent: Tuesday, January 11, 2005 9:45 AMTo: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgSubject: RE: [TruthTalk] Mormon Related #2 He didn't ask what a Christian is NOT, he asked what the definition for Christian IS. He didn't ask about Joseph Smith and his alleged activities or ideas are/were. Kay -Original Message-From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]On Behalf Of ShieldsFamilySent: Tuesday, 11 January, 2005 10.32To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgSubject: RE: [TruthTalk] Mormon Related #2 DaveH, You are simply straining at gnats to avoid the obvious. Heres what is Christian IS NOT: a believer in multiple-gods, or that Jesus is just another one of us gods, or that we can all evolve into another Jesus, or that everyone born on earth is born due to some gods in heaven having sexual relations, or that JS was a prophet, or that JS was not a liar and adulterer and statutory rapist, or any of the other bizarre ideas incubated by him are true, etc. But of course you know all of this, and are completely in your zone when strife breaks out among naive brethren over mormonisms false claims to Christianity. Izzy From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Dave HansenSent: Tuesday, January 11, 2005 1:06 AMTo: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgSubject: Re: [TruthTalk] Mormon Related #2 ShieldsFamily wrote: Several on this list claim they are speaking out of love, ala Yeshua. I say that they are decieved and lying when they do this. Why else would they attack Dave Hanson(or any one else)for his beliefs. I pity you petty little people. Jeff Jeff, I believe you are committing ad hominem attacks here. I am sure you cannot show us a single word of attack spoken against Dave Hanson; only against speaking of mormon theology as being truly Christian (which it isntand if you think so, perhaps you should listen more to Perry DAVEH: Sorry for intruding on this, Izzy. I've asked Perry (several times) for his definition of Christian, but he seems reluctant to mention anything except his disdain for my beliefs. I've got no problem with his dislike of my faith, but I do find it curious that he refrains from posting a definition of Christian, especially when he disqualifies me of being one. If I didn't know better, I'd say it's almost like a club that won't let you join IF you don't know the rulesand nobody will tell you the rules. BTW Izzyhow about you? May I implore you to weigh in on this as well? How do you define Christian? and talk less?) Therefore you are possibly guilty of your own accusations. Izzy -- ~~~Dave Hansen[EMAIL PROTECTED]http://www.langlitz.com~~~If you wish to receivethings I find interesting,I maintain six email lists...JOKESTER, OPINIONS, LDS,STUFF, MOTORCYCLE and CLIPS.
RE: [TruthTalk] Mormon Related #2
Hes had it before. Izzy From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Slade Henson Sent: Tuesday, January 11, 2005 10:22 AM To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Subject: RE: [TruthTalk] Mormon Related #2 He asked for people's definition of Christian. I gave one. He realizes everyone has different definitions for christian. He wants to know yours. K. -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]On Behalf Of ShieldsFamily Sent: Tuesday, 11 January, 2005 11.03 To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Subject: RE: [TruthTalk] Mormon Related #2 Kay, in the past nine years this has been explained to DaveH ad nauseum. Its a ploy. Why dont YOU try to get through to him? Izzy From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Slade Henson Sent: Tuesday, January 11, 2005 9:45 AM To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Subject: RE: [TruthTalk] Mormon Related #2 He didn't ask what a Christian is NOT, he asked what the definition for Christian IS. He didn't ask about Joseph Smith and his alleged activities or ideas are/were. Kay -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]On Behalf Of ShieldsFamily Sent: Tuesday, 11 January, 2005 10.32 To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Subject: RE: [TruthTalk] Mormon Related #2 DaveH, You are simply straining at gnats to avoid the obvious. Heres what is Christian IS NOT: a believer in multiple-gods, or that Jesus is just another one of us gods, or that we can all evolve into another Jesus, or that everyone born on earth is born due to some gods in heaven having sexual relations, or that JS was a prophet, or that JS was not a liar and adulterer and statutory rapist, or any of the other bizarre ideas incubated by him are true, etc. But of course you know all of this, and are completely in your zone when strife breaks out among naive brethren over mormonisms false claims to Christianity. Izzy From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Dave Hansen Sent: Tuesday, January 11, 2005 1:06 AM To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Mormon Related #2 ShieldsFamily wrote: Several on this list claim they are speaking out of love, ala Yeshua. I say that they are decieved and lying when they do this. Why else would they attack Dave Hanson(or any one else)for his beliefs. I pity you petty little people. Jeff Jeff, I believe you are committing ad hominem attacks here. I am sure you cannot show us a single word of attack spoken against Dave Hanson; only against speaking of mormon theology as being truly Christian (which it isntand if you think so, perhaps you should listen more to Perry DAVEH: Sorry for intruding on this, Izzy. I've asked Perry (several times) for his definition of Christian, but he seems reluctant to mention anything except his disdain for my beliefs. I've got no problem with his dislike of my faith, but I do find it curious that he refrains from posting a definition of Christian, especially when he disqualifies me of being one. If I didn't know better, I'd say it's almost like a club that won't let you join IF you don't know the rulesand nobody will tell you the rules. BTW Izzyhow about you? May I implore you to weigh in on this as well? How do you define Christian? and talk less?) Therefore you are possibly guilty of your own accusations. Izzy -- ~~~Dave Hansen[EMAIL PROTECTED]http://www.langlitz.com~~~If you wish to receivethings I find interesting,I maintain six email lists...JOKESTER, OPINIONS, LDS,STUFF, MOTORCYCLE and CLIPS.
RE: [TruthTalk] Mormon Related #2
Maybe he's slow or forgot...he did say he was getting up there in age. Alzheimer's? I would think it would only take a few seconds to give it to him again. Kay -Original Message-From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]On Behalf Of ShieldsFamilySent: Tuesday, 11 January, 2005 12.58To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgSubject: RE: [TruthTalk] Mormon Related #2 Hes had it before. Izzy From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Slade HensonSent: Tuesday, January 11, 2005 10:22 AMTo: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgSubject: RE: [TruthTalk] Mormon Related #2 He asked for people's definition of Christian. I gave one. He realizes everyone has different definitions for christian. He wants to know yours. K. -Original Message-From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]On Behalf Of ShieldsFamilySent: Tuesday, 11 January, 2005 11.03To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgSubject: RE: [TruthTalk] Mormon Related #2 Kay, in the past nine years this has been explained to DaveH ad nauseum. Its a ploy. Why dont YOU try to get through to him? Izzy From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Slade HensonSent: Tuesday, January 11, 2005 9:45 AMTo: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgSubject: RE: [TruthTalk] Mormon Related #2 He didn't ask what a Christian is NOT, he asked what the definition for Christian IS. He didn't ask about Joseph Smith and his alleged activities or ideas are/were. Kay -Original Message-From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]On Behalf Of ShieldsFamilySent: Tuesday, 11 January, 2005 10.32To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgSubject: RE: [TruthTalk] Mormon Related #2 DaveH, You are simply straining at gnats to avoid the obvious. Heres what is Christian IS NOT: a believer in multiple-gods, or that Jesus is just another one of us gods, or that we can all evolve into another Jesus, or that everyone born on earth is born due to some gods in heaven having sexual relations, or that JS was a prophet, or that JS was not a liar and adulterer and statutory rapist, or any of the other bizarre ideas incubated by him are true, etc. But of course you know all of this, and are completely in your zone when strife breaks out among naive brethren over mormonisms false claims to Christianity. Izzy From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Dave HansenSent: Tuesday, January 11, 2005 1:06 AMTo: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgSubject: Re: [TruthTalk] Mormon Related #2 ShieldsFamily wrote: Several on this list claim they are speaking out of love, ala Yeshua. I say that they are decieved and lying when they do this. Why else would they attack Dave Hanson(or any one else)for his beliefs. I pity you petty little people. Jeff Jeff, I believe you are committing ad hominem attacks here. I am sure you cannot show us a single word of attack spoken against Dave Hanson; only against speaking of mormon theology as being truly Christian (which it isntand if you think so, perhaps you should listen more to Perry DAVEH: Sorry for intruding on this, Izzy. I've asked Perry (several times) for his definition of Christian, but he seems reluctant to mention anything except his disdain for my beliefs. I've got no problem with his dislike of my faith, but I do find it curious that he refrains from posting a definition of Christian, especially when he disqualifies me of being one. If I didn't know better, I'd say it's almost like a club that won't let you join IF you don't know the rulesand nobody will tell you the rules. BTW Izzyhow about you? May I implore you to weigh in on this as well? How do you define Christian? and talk less?) Therefore you are possibly guilty of your own accusations. Izzy -- ~~~Dave Hansen[EMAIL PROTECTED]http://www.langlitz.com~~~If you wish to receivethings I find interesting,I maintain six email lists...JOKESTER, OPINIONS, LDS,STUFF, MOTORCYCLE and CLIPS.
Re: [TruthTalk] Mormon Related #2
In a message dated 1/11/2005 5:13:28 AM Pacific Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: OK OK What do you think? If I accept DAVEH as a Christian do you think he would accept me as a Mormon? [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: In a message dated 1/10/2005 11:51:25 PM Pacific Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: If all Mormons are Christians then all Christians are Mormons, right? Are all Christians Baptists? Maybe not your best illustration. Jd Baptist don't accept me as a Baptist without a rite of membership. They don't accept you, either. But you, I and the Baptist are all Christians. Why isn't that so. I do not glibbly accept Dave as a Christian -- it is based upon his answer to a question I asked about Christ. In word (script), he expressed my faith. I accept Dave as a Christian based upon that agreement -- I also accept Presbyterians, Oneness Holiness types, disciples or followers of Benny HindEnd, RCC members (members - not the RCC) and the eviil Messianics (don't panic K-S-J I just like saying "evl") and I know so little about their faith ... but I certianly know enouugh to conclude without reservation that the Messianic Triad and I are very much brethren. Why not Handsome Hanson? Look, my mother-in-law is a Mormon. She went back to Colorado last year, Xmas time, and attended one of those 20,000 member Pentecostal churches in Colorado Springs. She attended a hugh Christian celebration -- a presentation of the trial, death and resurrection of my Christ. At the end, she prayed with others THE prayer. She will never convert to denominationalism, remaining a Mormon during her life time. She loves Bill Graham and that prayer means a lot to her. She IS a child of God in my opinion and a Mormon. If the Jews of the First Church could be Jews AND Christian --- why not others? Why not me? Something else. I think it much more condusive to influence and change if we discuss our differences as brethren -- family members rather than as enemies. JD
Re: [TruthTalk] Mormon Related #2
In a message dated 1/11/2005 5:19:54 AM Pacific Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: So then what is your purpose in looking "to" the heart? How is looking to the heart accomplished? The scripture does not say you can look to the heart as long as you judge not. It says men look on the outward God looks on the heart. What do you think of Paul Hill? A terrible terrible thing he did. On par with Paul's opppsition to the early church. If I spoke of looking to the heart of Paul Hill -- that would be an obvious process. I know full well that heart examination is subjective. That's why, at the end of the day, my opinion about one's heart only serves the relationship (at best) and has nothing to do with determined destiny God alone is equipped to do that. You write something about me and my "god" and what am I constrained to do? Move on without denying your brotherhood -- as hard as that is for one of my temperment. John John
Re: [TruthTalk] Mormon Related #2
In a message dated 1/11/2005 6:13:41 AM Pacific Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Why would you want to be accepted as a Mormon? Kay -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]On Behalf Of Kevin Deegan Sent: Tuesday, 11 January, 2005 08.11 To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Mormon Related #2 OK OK What do you think? If I accept DAVEH as a Christian do you think he would accept me as a Mormon? The fat man is smilen once again? (that would be me)
RE: [TruthTalk] Mormon Related #2
Benny HindEnd...too funny. I don't think the Jews of the first church called themselves Christians. I believe they called themselves...Derechimfollowers of the way. Geez, we went from dangerous to evlBetter watch it, Johnny-Boy we just may eat Pentecostals for snacks! :) Kay -Original Message-From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]On Behalf Of [EMAIL PROTECTED]Sent: Tuesday, 11 January, 2005 13.28To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgSubject: Re: [TruthTalk] Mormon Related #2In a message dated 1/11/2005 5:13:28 AM Pacific Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: OK OKWhat do you think?If I accept DAVEH as a Christian do you think he would accept me as a Mormon?[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: In a message dated 1/10/2005 11:51:25 PM Pacific Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: If all Mormons are Christians then all Christians are Mormons, right? Are all Christians Baptists? Maybe not your best illustration. Jd Baptist don't accept me as a Baptist without a rite of membership. They don't accept you, either. But you, I and the Baptist are all Christians. Why isn't that so. I do not glibbly accept Dave as a Christian -- it is based upon his answer to a question I asked about Christ. In word (script), he expressed my faith. I accept Dave as a Christian based upon that agreement -- I also accept Presbyterians, Oneness Holiness types, disciples or followers of Benny HindEnd, RCC members (members - not the RCC) and the eviil Messianics (don't panic K-S-J I just like saying "evl") and I know so little about their faith ... but I certianly know enouugh to conclude without reservation that the Messianic Triad and I are very much brethren. Why not Handsome Hanson? Look, my mother-in-law is a Mormon. She went back to Colorado last year, Xmas time, and attended one of those 20,000 member Pentecostal churches in Colorado Springs. She attended a hugh Christian celebration -- a presentation of the trial, death and resurrection of my Christ. At the end, she prayed with others THE prayer. She will never convert to denominationalism, remaining a Mormon during her life time. She loves Bill Graham and that prayer means a lot to her. She IS a child of God in my opinion and a Mormon. If the Jews of the First Church could be Jews AND Christian --- why not others? Why not me? Something else. I think it much more condusive to influence and change if we discuss our differences as brethren -- family members rather than as enemies. JD
RE: [TruthTalk] Mormon Related #2
I do not glibbly accept Dave as a Christian -- it is based upon his answer to a question I asked about Christ. In word (script), he expressed my faith. JD A matter of grave concern for the discerning. Izzy
Re: [TruthTalk] Mormon Related #2
In a message dated 1/11/2005 10:43:09 AM Pacific Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Geez, we went from dangerous to evlBetter watch it, Johnny-Boy we just may eat Pentecostals for snacks! :) AND, as Pentecostal so often do, we will be raised to fight another day. You do know I am kidding? Jd
RE: [TruthTalk] Mormon Related #2
Yes, I know. As am Iwe would not eat Pentecostals for snacksUNCLEAN! UNCLEAN! Sorry, but Pentecostals just aren't koshernot for food consumption anyhow! Kay -Original Message-From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]On Behalf Of [EMAIL PROTECTED]Sent: Tuesday, 11 January, 2005 14.07To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgSubject: Re: [TruthTalk] Mormon Related #2In a message dated 1/11/2005 10:43:09 AM Pacific Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Geez, we went from dangerous to evlBetter watch it, Johnny-Boy we just may eat Pentecostals for snacks! :)AND, as Pentecostal so often do, we will be raised to fight another day. You do know I am kidding? Jd
Re: [TruthTalk] Mormon Related #2
Kay wrote: Geez, we went from dangerous to evlBetter watch it, Johnny-Boy we just may eat Pentecostals for snacks! :) I hope you did not perceive me to be calling Messianics dangerous. My position is that the Messianic movement is of God, but there are some within it that are dangerous. There are many more dangerous individuals within Roman Catholicism, Church of Christ, Baptist, Presbyterian, Methodist, etc. I am not aware of any pure Christian sect. Peace be with you. David Miller. -- Let your speech be always with grace, seasoned with salt, that you may know how you ought to answer every man. (Colossians 4:6) http://www.InnGlory.org If you do not want to receive posts from this list, send an email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and you will be unsubscribed. If you have a friend who wants to join, tell him to send an e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and he will be subscribed.
RE: [TruthTalk] Mormon Related #2
No, David, I didn't. You do realize, though, that Messi's are the only real Christians, right???!! :) K. -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of David Miller Sent: Tuesday, 11 January, 2005 14.19 To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Mormon Related #2 Kay wrote: Geez, we went from dangerous to evlBetter watch it, Johnny-Boy we just may eat Pentecostals for snacks! :) I hope you did not perceive me to be calling Messianics dangerous. My position is that the Messianic movement is of God, but there are some within it that are dangerous. There are many more dangerous individuals within Roman Catholicism, Church of Christ, Baptist, Presbyterian, Methodist, etc. I am not aware of any pure Christian sect. Peace be with you. David Miller. -- Let your speech be always with grace, seasoned with salt, that you may know how you ought to answer every man. (Colossians 4:6) http://www.InnGlory.org If you do not want to receive posts from this list, send an email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and you will be unsubscribed. If you have a friend who wants to join, tell him to send an e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and he will be subscribed. -- Let your speech be always with grace, seasoned with salt, that you may know how you ought to answer every man. (Colossians 4:6) http://www.InnGlory.org If you do not want to receive posts from this list, send an email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and you will be unsubscribed. If you have a friend who wants to join, tell him to send an e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and he will be subscribed.
Re: [TruthTalk] Mormon Related #2
My mistake Jeff. I did not realize that you were a slow learner. Sorry. Terry Jeff Powers wrote: Wrong Terry, I have had the pleasure of dealing with Mormans for many, many years. Also a few Jehovah's Witnesses! In fact my wifes sister in law has called me Satan incarnate! Kevin Deegan wrote: Jeff Powers suggests that we should not attack then goes right on to his attack on Street Preachers I find this Hypocritical at best. WITW? He can not see that he uses the tactic that he condemns? == Good to hear from you again Kevin. You might want to cut Jeff a little slack. He evidently has little idea of what Mormons believe. I think that if he bothers to learn he may rethink his position. -- Let your speech be always with grace, seasoned with salt, that you may know how you ought to answer every man. (Colossians 4:6) http://www.InnGlory.org If you do not want to receive posts from this list, send an email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and you will be unsubscribed. If you have a friend who wants to join, tell him to send an e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and he will be subscribed.
Re: [TruthTalk] Mormon Related #2
David Miller wrote: I am not aware of any pure Christian sect. Peace be with you. David Miller. === I am planning on starting one as soon as I can find time. Keep those love offerings pouring in. We need a building fund ( and a yacht). Terry
RE: [TruthTalk] Mormon Related #2
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Terry Clifton Sent: Tuesday, January 11, 2005 2:12 PM To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Mormon Related #2 David Miller wrote: I am not aware of any pure Christian sect.Peace be with you.David Miller. === I am planning on starting one as soon as I can find time. Keep those love offerings pouring in. We need a building fund ( and a yacht). Terry FYI, Terry, Im it. J Izzy
Re: [TruthTalk] Mormon Related #2
Terry, I'll give ya that one, but remember paybacks are coming! Jeff Life makes warriors of us all. To emerge the victors, we must arm ourselves with the most potent of weapons. That weapon is prayer. --Rebbe Nachman of Breslov - Original Message - From: Terry Clifton [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: Tuesday, January 11, 2005 14:07 Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Mormon Related #2 My mistake Jeff. I did not realize that you were a slow learner. Sorry. Terry Jeff Powers wrote: Wrong Terry, I have had the pleasure of dealing with Mormans for many, many years. Also a few Jehovah's Witnesses! In fact my wifes sister in law has called me Satan incarnate! Kevin Deegan wrote: Jeff Powers suggests that we should not attack then goes right on to his attack on Street Preachers I find this Hypocritical at best. WITW? He can not see that he uses the tactic that he condemns? == Good to hear from you again Kevin. You might want to cut Jeff a little slack. He evidently has little idea of what Mormons believe. I think that if he bothers to learn he may rethink his position. -- Let your speech be always with grace, seasoned with salt, that you may know how you ought to answer every man. (Colossians 4:6) http://www.InnGlory.org If you do not want to receive posts from this list, send an email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and you will be unsubscribed. If you have a friend who wants to join, tell him to send an e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and he will be subscribed. -- Let your speech be always with grace, seasoned with salt, that you may know how you ought to answer every man. (Colossians 4:6) http://www.InnGlory.org If you do not want to receive posts from this list, send an email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and you will be unsubscribed. If you have a friend who wants to join, tell him to send an e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and he will be subscribed.
