Re: [TruthTalk] Which Jesus?

[Kevin Deegan]

The post below was simply an answer to your questions .

I fully understand the significance of the 1st vision to Modern day LDS. 

You say it is out of context, I said I understand the context which was the Sacred grove. I have been to that grove. Please show us HOW IT IS OUT OF CONTEXT instead of just baseless accusations. All my comments pertain to the 1st vision NOT the visitation of Moroni! (Who was called Nephi in a good number of accounts)

The Aaronic priesthood, the MPH all have a multitude of problems. We can discuss these. BUT we were discussing the 1st vision.

 

DAVEH you understood him differently.

 IF you understood the context of Hinckley's comments, then you would have been trying to deceive TTers by suggesting something different.

 

The "something different" I "DEFTLY" refered to was the same thing we were talking about. The first vision, 2 personages, the various accounts and the various AGES of Joe 14, 15, 18 (which is it - again I ask)  of this supposed revelation. How is this off track?

This is not something different. There is a multitude of problems with the 1st vision I simply reffered to a couple. That is changing the subject?

 

Now you attack my character, my person.

 "trying to deceive TTers"

You have NOT established that I attempted to decieve TT'ers. Come on Dave that is a leap.

Now That you have accused me of being a deciever.

SHOW Cause or FACE the WRATH of the keeper of TT

This is a personal attack, it is a unwarranted attack.

Dave <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

 

Kevin Deegan wrote:

Things that are Different are NOT the same.LDS Jesus revealed in the Dispensation of the Fulness of Times to a young boy of 14, 15 or 18 take your pick which account is right?I won't bore you with the facts, since you are not intertested in the HISTORICAL documents. I understand the context very well
DAVEH:  Then why would you not understand Hinckley's comments?
and am very well aquatinted with the different accounts of the first Vision, which show it as a tall tale. I am also aware of other historical documents, sworn affadavits news paper accounts that show the 1st vision was a fabrication.The real context is not a revelation of the two personages but an Angel as at least 3 Prophets & a number of Apostles have stated. Please also show me in JSH p 59 This acct of 2 personages.Do you have Messenger & Advocate?The 1834 acct does not jive with JSH. The books have been cooked.I bear you my testimony Joe was a deciever.
DAVEH:  Whether or not that is the case, you have deftly changed the course of the discussion, Kevin.  We were chatting about Hinckley's comments about why the Church's perception of JS's vision of God is different than the accepted contemporary views.  IF you understood the context of Hinckley's comments, then you would have been trying to deceive TTers by suggesting something different..

Dave <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

  Kevin Deegan wrote:

Go ahead fill us in
DAVEH:  From my understanding of Protestantism (biased by my LDS perspective), few Christians in the early 1800s believed God the Father and Jesus, his only begotten Son, were physically separate entities.  Nor did anybody blieve (as you apparently do, Kevin) that the Lord would reveal himself face to face with a modern day prophet as he did in Biblical times.  Nor did the Christian community believe that Jesus has a physical body of flesh and bone, assuming that he merely is a spirit alone.

So.....in one simple revelation from the Lord, a 14 year old boy learned that much that was commonly thought to be known about God was incorrect.  The God he personally knew from that experience was 'different' from the God the preachers of his time were teaching.   They said one thing, JS experienced another.

Let me ask you, Kevin......

1.  Do you believe Jesus currently has a physical body of flesh and bone?

2.  Do you believe Jesus and his Father are two separate entities?

3.  Do you believe the Lord can (or will) speak to prophets in this current time?  (I believe you have answered this with a resounding 'no' already.....so there is at least one thing we find different in our (yours and mine) belief about God.

......This is an example of what JS learned that I feel President Hinckley was trying to convey in his below quote.  Almost any LDS person reading his words would have instantly understood the context of Hinckley's comments.  Apparently,   I can only assume that is because you did not understand the context of what he was saying.   Does that make sense to you, Kevin?

Dave <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

Kevin Deegan wrote:

DavidM you speak of the Jesus of the Mormons, that it is the Jesus of the Bible.Do you believe in the Traditional Christ revealed in the Bible or the Christ of President Hinkley who was revealed through LDS revelation in the fullness of times to Joe?Seems it is The current President prophet seer & revelator of the LDS that has drawn a line of division here! In bearing testimony of Jesus Christ, President Hinckley spoke of those outside the Church who say Latter-day Saints 'do not believe in the traditional Christ.' 'No, I don't. The traditional Christ of whom they speak is not the Christ of whom I speak. For the Christ of whom I speak has been revealed in this the Dispensation of the Fulness of Times. He together with His Father, appeared to the boy Joseph Smith in the year 1820, and when Joseph left the grove that day, he knew more of the nature of God than all the learned ministers of the gospel of the ages.' - Church News (6/20/98, p.7)

DAVEH:  Kevin......I'll ask you the same question I asked Dean in a parallel post......

"Did it occur to you that you may not have understood the context of what Hincley meant when he said this?"

---

Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Hotjobs: Enter the "Signing Bonus" Sweepstakes