Kevin Deegan wrote:
Why should I waste my time on replying to your comments?You can not answer a simple yes no questionDoes the BOM have a FAMILIAR SPIRIT?YESNOYou instead wnat me to spend my time searching archives for an answer you probably never made.
DAVEH: OK Kevin......Taking the time to do this (refresh your memory) for you was low on my priority list, but thanx to the ice it seems like I'm not going anywhere today. While I could understand it IF you said you could not remember what I posted previously, but I don't understand why you think I should have to do your searching for you. Below is the pertinent part of the post I made to you on December 9, 2003.........==============
Does the Church teach that the Book of Mormon has a
Familiar Spirit?Check one:YESNODAVEH: LOL......."has a Familiar Spirit"??? The context in which you construe "has a Familiar Spirit" is not the same as Richards (and JFSjr) or even Isaiah implied. If you read all the passages of the OT that refer to "familiar spirit(s)", with one single exception you will notice they all pertain to people or persons who dabble in divining (querying) spirits in the spirit world, which the Lord condemns. That one exception is Is 29:1-4, where Isaiah foretells the future plight of the people of Jerusalem. He then (vs 4) uses imagery (which was familiar to those to whom he was preaching) to convey the message that their voices will be heard as that which comes murmuring out of the ground. It was not meant to infer that their voices (or rather their message) would be evil, but rather they would be like whispers sifting up from a place least expected.
Richards goes a step further to suggest that the spirit of that message would be familiar to those who are
discerning of the Lord's gospel......hence, he uses the phrase "Truly it has a familiar spirit, for it contains the words of the prophets of the God of Israel" to connote the familiar ring of truth that comes from the prophets of God quoted in the BofM, coming to us in effect as whispers from the ground due to the nature of how the BofM was preserved.Kevin.....if you had read all the passages in their context, you should be able to see this. If you choose instead
to simply pluck the words out of context, then you can make them sound as evil as your heart can imagine.
==============
Why can't you just answer? YES or NOI have previously, asked many questions, which have also been unanswered.You carefully select what topics you want to deal with.
DAVEH: I have to. Yesterday I posted 42 times. That is probably a record for TT, and will most likely draw complaints from those who find my comments boring. Kevin, it is impossible for me to respond to everybody's questions and comments, so yes.....I do have to be a little selective. The only reason I am responding (by quoting material I previously posted) to you on this is because I have lots of time today due to the ice here in Portland. Otherwise, satisfying your demand to post previously posted material only burdens all in TT and takes my time, which may be as valuable as your own.
You have called me "deceitful"
DAVEH: When did I use that term in regard to you, Kevin? Please quote me if you wish to make that accusation stick.
Blaine called me "prejudiced" and NEVER produced any reason.Time will tell, if you will try to now ignore your personal attack
DAVEH: ??? I guess I've missed something, Kevin. Do you think I attacked you??? If you tell me what you perceived as an attack, I will try to modify my future posts to you so as to be as polite as I can be. I've bent over backwards trying not to attack people on TT. IF anybody here feels I've threatened them, or bloodied their nose.....I sincerely apologize. (And note.....I do occasionally do some rib poking in jest, and try signify such with a smiley or such. If any TTers are overly sensitive to such playful exchanges, let me know and I'll withhold my humor when posting to you in the future.)
& do the same. Dave <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:DAVEH: My latest comment is in RED......Kevin Deegan wrote:
There you go again telling us Christians what we believe.
DAVEH: I find it difficult to have a serious discussion with you, Kevin. You asked me to "Go ahead fill us in", so I tried to explain how my narrow field of religious view gave me a perspective (right or wrong isn't pertinent to what I was trying to convey to you) of what Christians believed a couple hundred years ago. IF you understand what Mormons think about it, then you would understand why Hinckley said what he did.So instead of answering my below questions so we could have some continuity in this discussion, you made the (assumed) above snide remark without offering a single comment to the points I am trying to discuss below. Do you want to discuss any of this, Kevin? Or do you just want to disparage my beliefs and bloody my nose every chance you get? I'm not trying to offend you, Kevin.....I would just like to know how you want these exchanges to proceed.
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, you understood him differently. 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?"
--
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Dave Hansen
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.langlitz.com
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
If you wish to receive
things I find interesting,
I maintain Five email lists...
JOKESTER, OPINIONS, LDS,
STUFF and MOTORCYCLE.
