Yes, I do see the point. But did he make this statement ? Did he make this statement as a prophet of God? Is this a statement of faith for the Mormon religion? The prophets of old were not inspired in their daily comings and goings. I am sure they spoke and id things that were not in line with truth or even practicalities.
Jd
-----Original Message-----
From: Charles Perry Locke <cpl2602@hotmail.com>
To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org
Sent: Sat, 22 Oct 2005 06:45:57 -0700
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Re:The HEART of the matter
John, the point is not whether Dave believes in 7-foot quakers on the moon or not...it is whether JS can be trusted to lead a church after making such a ludicrous statement. After all, he IS supposed to be a prophet!
>From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>Reply-To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org
>To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org
>Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Re:The HEART of the matter
>Date: Sat, 22 Oct 2005 09:15:28 -0400
>
>Yes, I did read that post. My point remains : 7 ft Quakers is a part >of this discussion because >....................................? I would >say that whatever the >reason, DH is not a co-believer in the Quaker >theory. How can anyone believe in 7 Quakers? For the same reason one >might >believe that King James was the first Evangelical or that the KJV is > >inspired AS A TRANSLATION or that the Law is still in full effect as an > >attachment to our salvation or ....................................well , > >you get the point, no?
>
>I think Dave has been pretty clear on this point, regarding his personal >belief. I do think it to be a significant point, however, if JS actually >made such a statement. Where and when was this statement made. Do we >have a reliable reference for the quote?
>
>My reasoning for NOT being a Mormon, is centered in the belief that under >the New Covenant "system" of grace, the whole idea of "starting over and >this time, getting it right" as applied to the church is not something that >God would have don e. It is unnecessary. From a doctrinal point of view, >the church FROM ITS BEGINNINGS was in error. Legalism and works salvation >were everywhere within the church and formed the basis for future error. >The early didache includes correction after correction. Romans and >Hebrews, and Revelations were written with a view [in part] for dealing >with some of these early problems. The fact that the First Church >continued in Judaism and ADDED the concept of the Christ while still >pressing for burnt offerings (ala Acts 21) could not have been more >revealing of the depth of the misunderstanding within the rank and file. >THE CHURCH NEVER HAD IT RIGHT.
>
>The battle has always been between grace (chariti Christos) and works. >And, at the center of this debate is (IMO) a failure to understand the >importa nce and accomplishment of the Incarnate One , His life, His Cross, >and His indwelling. Peripheral issues aside, this is the center of the >controversy. JS did not have a clue as to the doctrine of grace. There >is no practical difference between Mormons, JW's and Missionary Baptist or >Church of Christers when it comes to their positioning on works. They all >misunderstand "grace" and the Cross.
>
>DH is included in the biblical teaching of reconciliation as taught in Col >1:19ff. I am a proud pentecostal because of its inclusion of the whole >man in this business of becoming like Him. Holiness is not taught as a >path to God but as a revelation of a deeper walk. Christ is the center of >all attention and His grace is the binder that maintains the unity of the >fellowship of the saints. To insist upon doctrinal correctness (and , >thus, "unity") is to press the impossible. We have proven that here on TT >in spades and to a person!!! The condemnation for his departure (DH"s) >has been removed. There is therefore no condemnation for those who are in >Christ Jesus" (Ro 8:1). Being found to be "in Christ" has little to do >with a denominational consideration. The Living Christ is not about >sectarianism !!!! He is about life and living that Life. It is about >obsessing about Christ (Gal 3:26,27) and nothing else. To the degree that >we can acoomplish this immersion , we have put Him on. It is one of those >imposs
>ible possibilities !! Works salvationists believe , in practical terms, >that it is all about doing the right thing instead of being the right >thing. We get caught up in the peripheral and never get to the Center. >And so the debate goes on and on and on.
>
>Jd
>
>
>
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: Charles Perry Locke <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org
>Sent: Fri, 21 Oct 2005 22:58:31 -0700
>Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Re:The HEART of the matter
>
>
>John, the 7' Quaker idea comes from Joseph Smith's having stated that there >were people living on the moon,which he went on to describ e. Pretty >interesting statement coming from a "prophet". I posted an article earlier >about where he most likely got this idea. Did you read it?
>
>Additionally, Brigham Young (not to be outdone by the prophet, I guess) >suggested that there were people living on the sun as well! Another >non-prophet statement, in my opinion.
>
>Perry
>
> >From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> >
> >The answers DH has given in this post should end the matters under > >discussion. I would agree, that after whatever happened to Mary to bring > >the fetus that would be God/man into existencem the development and birth > >of that infant was quite natural.
> >
> >If DH believes more than what he said, well, he didn't say it in this >post. > What as been written, is clear enough.
> >
> >After the birth of Christ, Mary was still a virgin. Surely we all > >believe this !!
> >
> >Church leaders often speak from their personal convictions.
> >
> >7 ft Quakers is a part of this discussion because > >....................................? I would say that whatever the > >reason, DH is not a co-believer in the Quaker theory.
> >
> >How can anyone believe in 7 Quakers? For the same reason one might > >believe that King James was the first Evangelical or that the KJV is > >inspired AS A TRANSLATION or that the Law is still in full effect as an > >attachment to our salvation or ....................................well , > >you get the point, no?
> >
> >In debate , one does not need to disprove something that has not been > >evidenced. And, certainly, not to one's "satisfaction." One of the > >greatest rock n roll bands of all time sings "can't get no satisfaction." > > And that seems to be the path taken in the Dean-o ,,.......... DH > >discussion.
> >
> >JD
>
>----------
>"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.
>From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>Reply-To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org
>To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org
>Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Re:The HEART of the matter
>Date: Sat, 22 Oct 2005 09:15:28 -0400
>
>Yes, I did read that post. My point remains : 7 ft Quakers is a part >of this discussion because >....................................? I would >say that whatever the >reason, DH is not a co-believer in the Quaker >theory. How can anyone believe in 7 Quakers? For the same reason one >might >believe that King James was the first Evangelical or that the KJV is > >inspired AS A TRANSLATION or that the Law is still in full effect as an > >attachment to our salvation or ....................................well , > >you get the point, no?
>
>I think Dave has been pretty clear on this point, regarding his personal >belief. I do think it to be a significant point, however, if JS actually >made such a statement. Where and when was this statement made. Do we >have a reliable reference for the quote?
>
>My reasoning for NOT being a Mormon, is centered in the belief that under >the New Covenant "system" of grace, the whole idea of "starting over and >this time, getting it right" as applied to the church is not something that >God would have don e. It is unnecessary. From a doctrinal point of view, >the church FROM ITS BEGINNINGS was in error. Legalism and works salvation >were everywhere within the church and formed the basis for future error. >The early didache includes correction after correction. Romans and >Hebrews, and Revelations were written with a view [in part] for dealing >with some of these early problems. The fact that the First Church >continued in Judaism and ADDED the concept of the Christ while still >pressing for burnt offerings (ala Acts 21) could not have been more >revealing of the depth of the misunderstanding within the rank and file. >THE CHURCH NEVER HAD IT RIGHT.
>
>The battle has always been between grace (chariti Christos) and works. >And, at the center of this debate is (IMO) a failure to understand the >importa nce and accomplishment of the Incarnate One , His life, His Cross, >and His indwelling. Peripheral issues aside, this is the center of the >controversy. JS did not have a clue as to the doctrine of grace. There >is no practical difference between Mormons, JW's and Missionary Baptist or >Church of Christers when it comes to their positioning on works. They all >misunderstand "grace" and the Cross.
>
>DH is included in the biblical teaching of reconciliation as taught in Col >1:19ff. I am a proud pentecostal because of its inclusion of the whole >man in this business of becoming like Him. Holiness is not taught as a >path to God but as a revelation of a deeper walk. Christ is the center of >all attention and His grace is the binder that maintains the unity of the >fellowship of the saints. To insist upon doctrinal correctness (and , >thus, "unity") is to press the impossible. We have proven that here on TT >in spades and to a person!!! The condemnation for his departure (DH"s) >has been removed. There is therefore no condemnation for those who are in >Christ Jesus" (Ro 8:1). Being found to be "in Christ" has little to do >with a denominational consideration. The Living Christ is not about >sectarianism !!!! He is about life and living that Life. It is about >obsessing about Christ (Gal 3:26,27) and nothing else. To the degree that >we can acoomplish this immersion , we have put Him on. It is one of those >imposs
>ible possibilities !! Works salvationists believe , in practical terms, >that it is all about doing the right thing instead of being the right >thing. We get caught up in the peripheral and never get to the Center. >And so the debate goes on and on and on.
>
>Jd
>
>
>
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: Charles Perry Locke <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org
>Sent: Fri, 21 Oct 2005 22:58:31 -0700
>Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Re:The HEART of the matter
>
>
>John, the 7' Quaker idea comes from Joseph Smith's having stated that there >were people living on the moon,which he went on to describ e. Pretty >interesting statement coming from a "prophet". I posted an article earlier >about where he most likely got this idea. Did you read it?
>
>Additionally, Brigham Young (not to be outdone by the prophet, I guess) >suggested that there were people living on the sun as well! Another >non-prophet statement, in my opinion.
>
>Perry
>
> >From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> >
> >The answers DH has given in this post should end the matters under > >discussion. I would agree, that after whatever happened to Mary to bring > >the fetus that would be God/man into existencem the development and birth > >of that infant was quite natural.
> >
> >If DH believes more than what he said, well, he didn't say it in this >post. > What as been written, is clear enough.
> >
> >After the birth of Christ, Mary was still a virgin. Surely we all > >believe this !!
> >
> >Church leaders often speak from their personal convictions.
> >
> >7 ft Quakers is a part of this discussion because > >....................................? I would say that whatever the > >reason, DH is not a co-believer in the Quaker theory.
> >
> >How can anyone believe in 7 Quakers? For the same reason one might > >believe that King James was the first Evangelical or that the KJV is > >inspired AS A TRANSLATION or that the Law is still in full effect as an > >attachment to our salvation or ....................................well , > >you get the point, no?
> >
> >In debate , one does not need to disprove something that has not been > >evidenced. And, certainly, not to one's "satisfaction." One of the > >greatest rock n roll bands of all time sings "can't get no satisfaction." > > And that seems to be the path taken in the Dean-o ,,.......... DH > >discussion.
> >
> >JD
>
>----------
>"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.
