Hey Blaine, sorry you missed me at conference. Wanna try again?
"[EMAIL PROTECTED]" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
"[EMAIL PROTECTED]" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Perry,
I read the article at the reference given--in fact, I read it several times. My considered judgement is that it is one man's opinion, which he has a right to, but by no means the final word. There were some facts that lent credibility to what the man wanted to say, plus some obvious (obvious to me, perhaps not to you) ommissions of relevant facts, plus some allusions that were not spelled out. All in all, I have to see what the man has to say as slanted, definitely slanted, and clearly not intended to be an objective and fair commentary. He just wanted to amke his case, is all.
First of all, Lehi and his group were not all of Manasseh, some were also of Ephraim. Secondly, even if they had all been of the tribe of Manasseh, they were clearly not affiliated with the Kingdom of Judah, or the Jews, other than being from Jerusalem. This just leaves them as being from the group who broke away from the rule of Davidic Kings, which was Israel (the ten tribes), a Kingdom dominated by the tribe of Ephraim. Thus, to say "Ephraim and his companions," is to refer to the ten tribes, usually referred to in the Bible as Israel, but I believe sometimes also referred to as "Ephraim."
One of the tenets of the Mormon Church is that eventually these ten tribes will come down from the North countries where they are presently located, and will receive a blessing from the hands of Ephraim, or the LDS Church. Motivating them will be what is written in the BoM, which is written to both Jew and Gentile (Gentile including those tribes of Israel not yet identified). Could say more, but don't want to go on and on, when most have probably already lost concentration (:. (My patriarchal blessing says I am from Ephraim, as are most members of the LDS faith--I believe this is true. One gg grandfather, however, was of Levi, according to revelation given the patriarch who blessed him.)
BlaineRB
-- "Charles Perry Locke" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>wrote:
Blaine,
Welcome back to TT... I've missed you interesting and challenging
defenses of the (Mormon) faith.
http://www.jewsforjudaism.org/web/Mormons/sticks.htm
The above web page describes the sticks of Judah and Joseph very well,
and very clearly demonstrates that they could not possibly be the Bible and
the Book of Mormon. If you sincerely are interested in the question, please
read the whole article. It is a short read and better describes the meaning
of the verses than I can.
After reading it, let me know if you understand why I consider the verses
as the LDS interpret to be a prooftext!
Perry
>From: "[EMAIL PROTECTED]" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>Reply-To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org
>To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org
>Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Mormon Related #2
>Date: Fri, 14 Jan 2005 14:22:58 GMT
>
>
>
> 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 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. :-)
>
>Well, actually, I do think that prooftexting scripture to support pagan
>doctrine is a crime. Sorry. Yes, I would consider your posting the whole
>Bible prooftexting if you tried to use it to support some non-biblical
>pagan
>doctrine.
>
> > 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.
>
>It's nice to be understood :-)
>
> >Though I would prefer you respond with a contrasting explanation of your
> >perspective.
>
>Well, I have tried that over and over. But, as you have said, you are not
>here on TT to learn the truth. Izzy can attest to that, and I am sure she
>will.
>
> >I think that would benefit all of us more than simply
> >crying.......prooftext........every time I post a Bible passage and my
> >understanding of it. After all....you really don't want me to quit
> >responding to questions, do you??? :-\
>
>Well, I don't cry "prooftext" every time you post a Bible passage, David.
>Be
>fair. I cry "prooftext" only when you try to use that scripture to support
>some unrelated LDS doctrine. And, I hope that doing so benefits some of the
>others on the list who may not have the time to unravel the twisted text.
>Do
>I want you to quit answering questions? No. But it would be neat if for
>just
>15 seconds you saw what we see.
>
> > Would you explain what was meant by Ps 82:1........
> >
> >*God standeth in the congregation of the mighty; he judgeth among the
> >gods.*
>
>I have already offered my explanation in a previous post.
>
> >
> >.........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???
>
> It is not, in any way, indicating that these judges are exalted or will
>become gods. That is what you are missing. Psalm 82, and it's reference in
>John, are so important to the LDS "men become gods" doctrine that you
>cannot
>possibly see it any other way. It is the prooftext upon which the doctrine
>that men can become gods hangs. To see it any other way would deny you your
>godhood. Your secret passwords would mean nothing. The secret handshake you
>learned to get into heaven would be meaningless. And the promise of your
>own
>planet to populate and myriad spirit wives to impregnate would be gone. And
>all of those people for whom you were baptised vicariously would still be
>lost. The whole house of cards would come tumbling down, and the only ones
>left would be you and Jesus. The real thing. Mano y mano.
>
> > 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?
>
>Did I put that in quotes? I was stating my understanding of the verse, not
>quoting a text.
>
> >Is that something Protestantism concluded to explain an otherwise
>difficult
> >passage that contradicts the T-Doctrine?
>
>Not that I know of.
>
> >DAVEH: Could it be that they were foreordained to be such, much as was
> >the Saviour? IOW....how could he be called the Redeemer /before /he
>died?
> >Does that make sense, Perry?
>
>Sure it does. He was the Redeemer from the beginning...it is just that the
>redeeming was not complete until he died.
>
> >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?
>
>No. I think he spoke with such authority that no one could legitimately
>question Him (Mt 7:29).
>
>Perry
>
>
>----------
>"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.
----------
"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.
Do you Yahoo!?
The all-new My Yahoo! – Get yours free!
