----- Original Message -----
From: "Charles Perry Locke" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Friday, January 16, 2004 8:26 PM
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] suffering
ego
> Nlaine,
>
> Since you come from an adulterous church, I can understand your being
> upset at my identifying the adulteries of Biblical men.
>
> Since you come from an adulterous church, I can understand your being
> upset at my identifying the adulteries of Biblical men.
**Blaine: You presume yourself to be the
expert in these matters, "identifying" Godly men as adulterers.
Considering you probably know as much as most people do on the subject of
ancient laws and customs, and God's law, which is usually very little, I can't
accept your conclusion. So far, other than to voice your opinion, I have
seen no evidence you are right. The same with your accusation that the LDS
Church is an adulterous church--nothing but your accusation and the
accusations of a few other self-justifying people constitute any evidence
that is true. Most of what I have had thrown up to me along this line has ccome
from apostates or enemies of the LDS Church, neither of whose testimony has any
credibility with me. You are not even an insider--so why should any intelligent
thinking person believe your--or their-- accusations? On the other
hand, there are volumes written by insiders debunking your/their claims, plus
the testimony of millions who are in the know, and would consider your claims
rediculous--as do I. I do not even consider your claims to be
worth my time or attention, beyond this disavowel. I just have to consider
the source, and I have my answer.
If you were to admit
> that those men were adulterers, you would be also admiting the adulteries of
> JS and the many mormon men who have committed similar adulteries, and you
> are afraid to take that stance. I am not.
> that those men were adulterers, you would be also admiting the adulteries of
> JS and the many mormon men who have committed similar adulteries, and you
> are afraid to take that stance. I am not.
Blaine: On the other hand, it is also
reasonable to assume that if you admitted these honorable men of the Bible
were not guilty of adultry, you would then have to admit the possibility
that Joseph Smith acted in good faith with both God and men when he
took plural wives. This you will not do, which has led you to condemn the
two Patriarchs of the Bible--Abraham and Jacob, as well as the great man of God
and prophet Moses. Be careful what or whom you condemn--once you
start down that road, you enter into a vicious, self destructive cycle of
condemnation, followed by self-justification, followed by more condemnation, ad
infinitum. I have a BS degree in the Social Sciences, plus a BS and M Ed
in Education, plus years of experience dealing with children and adults, and
this strikes me as being a true psychological principle. I have seen
it many times. You would do well to reconsider many of the hard-line,
condemnative positions you take, for your own good. I am trying to be both
honest and charitable with you.
>
> Adulterous polygamy has NEVER been taught in the bible as a doctrine, nor
> has it ever been commanded by God.
> Adulterous polygamy has NEVER been taught in the bible as a doctrine, nor
> has it ever been commanded by God.
Blaine: I agree adulterous polygamy has never been taught by the
Bible-- And I can conceive of situations where polygamy might have been
adulterous, especially if it had not been commanded of God, nor lawful according
to man's laws. The present position of the LDS Church is that
polygamy is adulterous if entered into since the Manifesto of Wilford
Woodruff. I have been married to my present wife for a long
time, and am sealed to her in the temple. I was also sealed to another
woman, but later divorced. The civil divorce did not cancel the sealing,
so if I wanted to rationalize it, I might justify myself in going to llive with
her (she would probably be willing, if I know her! LOL). If I
did, however, since polygamy is now outlawed by both the Church and the law of
the land, I would be committing adultry if I did, would I not? God
commanded polygamy to be started, for good reasons-- but later rescinded it for
good reasons. God gives, and He takes away. That is His privilege as
God. Who are we to question or tell Him otherwise. Nevertheless, I
see a lot of guys try to do just that.
Also, what about the prophecy in Isaiah wherein in
the last days, seven women will join themselves to one man? Do you
consider this a prediction of adulterous relationships?
While we are not told how this sin was
> dealt with, we can only assume that some point these men atoned and were
> forgiven. or, maybe not. I am sure that if God deems it necessary He can
> even use sinners in His plan.
> dealt with, we can only assume that some point these men atoned and were
> forgiven. or, maybe not. I am sure that if God deems it necessary He can
> even use sinners in His plan.
Blaine: I agree that God may use sinners to
accomplish his work, but do not agree it applies to the righteous men of the
Bible. The main reason they were chosen men of God was that they set a
good axample for others to follow. They were in direct communion with Him.
>
> Your last paragraph made no sense to me.
>
> Your last paragraph made no sense to me.
> Perry
Blaine: As I read it, I am not sure it was all that well
worded. What I meant was that you guys seem to disavow all other
scriptures besides the Bible--"We need no MORE Bible!" And you disavow
gifts of the spirit, such as new revelation and therefore new scripture.
This seems to be putting handcuffs on God ant prescribing what he can and cannot
do. As God, he can do anything that pleases Him--would you agree
with that?
> >From: "Blaine Borrowman" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> >Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] suffering ego
> >Date: Fri, 16 Jan 2004 18:51:42 -0700
> >
> >Nlaine: Better to be thought a fool than to open up your mouth and remove
> >all doubt, Perry. Your true colors are out in the open, for sure--uh huh!
> >Abraham was an adulterer, so was Jacob, and so was Moses--this is an
> >apostate view for sure.
>
> > " Those professors of religion are all corrupt. They draw near unto me
> >with their lips, but their hearts are far from me. They teach for doctrine
> >the commandments of men, having a form of Godliness, but deny the power
> >thereof." (God to Joseph Smith)
>
> > No more gifts of the spirit, no more miracles, no more Bible--God is not
> >dead, but he sure is gagged and hogtied according to you and Kevin!!
>
> _________________________________________________________________
> Learn how to choose, serve, and enjoy wine at Wine @ MSN.
> http://wine.msn.com/
>
> ----------
> "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.
>
