Re: [TruthTalk] Adams FALL UPWARD
DAVEH: My latest post is in GRAY.. michael douglas wrote: Michael D: Dave H, incidentally, Blaine made his comments relative to posts that you, he and I were releasing to TT. He offered a summary of the LDS position relative to my questions, and your and his previous answers, as I recall. As you would have realized, I included the date of the post the quotes were taken from, but did not include everything for brevity. DAVEH: OhKayy Michael. Forgive me, but this thread has been very difficult for me to follow. Furthermore, I have not been following it very closely until I saw my name mentioned when you asked me a specific question that seemed as though had been previously answered by Blaine. Then I thought you said some of the discussion took place off-Forum, so that left me feeling like I had missed a part of what you were questioning. Anyway..perhaps I should bow out as I don't quite understand what you feel Blaine said is contradictory. The only thing I saw that seemed questionable to me was Blaine's comment something to the effect that he wasn't sure he was an angel in the pre-mortal existence.I don't know why he said that, and so commented in a post a day or so ago. -- ~~~ 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.
Re: [TruthTalk] [TruthTalk Digest]
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: - Forwarded Message - From: Dave [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Furthermore..LDS theology teaches they could not have had children prior to the fall anyway.) [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Why do they teach this? Laura DAVEH: It is revealed in the BofM... "And now, behold, if Adam had not transgressed he would not have fallen, but he would have remained in the garden of Eden. And all things which were created must have remained in the same state in which they were after they were created; and they must have remained forever, and had no end. And they would have had no children; wherefore they would have remained in a state of innocence, having no joy, for they knew no misery; doing no good, for they knew no sin. But behold, all things have been done in the wisdom of him who knoweth all things. Adam fell that men might be; and men are, that they might have joy." 2Ne 2:22-25 Judy: The above makes not one bit of sense DaveH. How incredulous to try to get people to believe that the creator of all joy is joyless DAVEH: ??? How did you come to that conclusion, Judy? I assume you agree that the Lord knows the difference between good and evil..that is in a sense what defines joy. Adam and Eve were simply created without this knowledge. (I assume you agree with that too?) and that he made A&E this way; that one has to wallow in the mire to have fun, and that men can't be men unless they are in satan's image ... because this is the outcome of the fall, the two trees in the garden represent opposing types of wisdom. DAVEH: Here's the problem I see you (Protestants) have with this, Judy As I pointed out previously, God placed the tree of knowledge of good and evil in the garden for a reason. And IMHO, he not only knew Adam would partake of the FF, but he intended him to do so. Judy, I assume you believe Jesus was foreordained to be our Savior and Redeemer before the foundation of the world? (1Pt 1:10). If that is so, then God had to place the FF in the presense of A&E in order that they could partake of it, as it was part of God's plan. The only way His plan could have been foiled would have been IF Adam had not partaken of the FF. That would have thwarted Jesus' foreordained calling as our Savior. Does that make sense? DaveH: ...Does that answer your question, Laura? Now let me ask you a couple...IF Adam had not transgressed, he would have been immortal. I assume you agree with that? Then, do you believe immortal men and women can have children? Now let me take it a step further..suppose Eve had partaken of the FF and had fallen, but Adam had not transgressed and remained immortal. Do you think Adam (being in a higher state of immortality) could have had children with Eve (in a lower state of mortality)? Judy: Why strain the brain trying to figure all this out in our fallen state DaveH? DAVEH: To me, this is a very important part of theology. Had it not happened as it did, the Lord's plan of salvation would/could not have developed, and we would have been trapped in an unexalted state. Are we God? DAVEH: I was sorely tempted to jokingly sayNot yet! But seriously..I think it is important to strain the brain on this, Judy. Without the fall of Adam, the whole plan of salvation would have been thwarted. To me.it is a very important theological concept. I don't know about Laura maybe she knows more than me but I don't see any point in trying to speculate on what might have been. ATST I know that to be holy is a whole lot better for both men and women than the alternate. Sin leads to sickness, sorrow, sadness and death - all good gifts come from above from the Father of Lights in whom there is no degree of shadow or turning... that's reality. DAVEH: Reality is that without the sickness, sorrow, sadness and death, there is no concept of joy. Judy -- ~~~ 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.
Re: [TruthTalk] deceived
Just for the record, according to LDS: There was a long period from the death of the last Apostle till Joe found god's word buried in a hill where there was NO REMNANT. The whole premise of the "RESTORATION" is that there was TOTAL APOSTACY and god allowed his church to be lost from the earth. "As you investigate the Church of Jesus Christ, you will find it is not a religion claiming succession from those who shared Christ's earthly ministry; nor is it a Protestant religion. It is a divine restoration of Christ's earthly kingdom, organized, as was his primitive church, with 'apostles, prophets, pastors, teachers, evangelists, etc.' (A of F 1:6.)" -- Spencer W. Kimball, "The Stone Cut without Hands" "Ensign," May 1976, 7Dave <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Kevin Deegan wrote: Judy says: The above was true in Isaiah's day, it was true when Jesus spoke these words to the Jews (Matt 13:14-16) and it is true today but God has alwayshad a people, there has always been a remnant who loved God and loveHis Truth. Do you LDS believe this?God has always had TRUE Believers, throughout all time?How come you guys are silent, on this? DAVEH: I'm silent on a lot of stuff, Kevin..because, I barely have enough time to read my mail let alone to respond to it as I am with this. There are numerous posts I'd like to respond to much more than this one..so.I'm sorry to disappoint you. -- ~~~ 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. Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Finance: Get your refund fast by filing online
Re: [TruthTalk] deceived
Mormonism has about as many factions and denominations as Protestantism relative to its size. Of the one hundred or so other factions, most are very small in deed, the largest numbering no more than a few thousand. This compares with the LDS (about 9 million) and RLDS (about 250,000) which are the largest groups. These factions have come into existence basically on three grounds: (1) In the Smith period (1823-1844) it evolved considerably in doctrine and practice -- there is a faction or group representing almost every stage of development; (2) Perceived 'Apostacy' - many LDS believe that the Mormon Church has departed from the 'purity' of Smith's original teachings (Fundamentalists) and have become notorious for their brand of polygamy, assassinations ('Avenging Angels') and other practices; and (3) Incomplete Restoration - some believed that Smith only completed some of his "Restoration" work and wish to bring it to completion. One group that has done that has concluded
(correctly) that Joseph Smith was basically an occultist and not a 'Christian' in the biblical sense at all, and may be called "New Age Mormons". It has rejected most of the Bible, looks at the Book of Mormon and Doctrine & Covenants as a "children's introduction" to its occultism, and makes no attempt to call itself "Christian". Had Smith not been assassinated it is my belief that he would have taken his creation -- the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints -- into pure occultism, having alrready introduced occultism into the LDS Church in the form of borrowed masonic rituals and Swedenborgian doctrines. http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Ithaca/9861/wolves.htmlBlaine Borrowman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
- Original Message -
From: Kevin Deegan
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Thursday, February 05, 2004 9:32 PM
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] deceived
So if you buy into the "400 different gospels" idea, The next step is the "One True Church" idea.
Is this what you are leading to Blaine?
Blaine: Now, you are trying to lead the witness, Kevin. I was actually trying to steer clear of going into Mormonism as the best alternative to the "400" club, but it seems like even when I try, I am always brought up on a short halter and rope, leaving me little room to move in a different direction. But of course I would be less than honest if I did not admit that would be my first choice of directions to lead into.
By the way how many "different gospels" do the followers of Joe Smith have?
LDS, RLDS, and hundreds of others. Make any difference whether it is 300 or 400?
Blaine: Since Judy is only counting major sects of the Protestant Religion ("Over the 2,000+ years since Calvary the adversary has produced more than 400 different Protestant gospels and this
is not including the quasi-Christian cults and the RCC."), you have to give Mormonism the same latitude. Doing this, I would guess there might be three or four breakoffs from the LDS Church still in existence--These would include a couple of major polygamous groups, the RLDS (now called the Community of Christ), and maybe the Sons of Levi, a group whose tenants include dressing and acting very conservatively, similar to the Amish. I also know of one Mesiannic group that has taken up the BoM but rejects the LDS Church as such. I may not be aware of others you know about, however, so if you know of others by name, perhaps you could steer me onto learning more about them.
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
From: "Blaine Borrowman" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Blaine: But Judy, if what presents itself as the "clear teaching of God's word"
is really so clear, how come your stats--400 different Protestant gospels--
suggest otherwise?
Judy:
The fact that there are so many different gospels does not reflect poorly
on the Word itself, the problem now is with the people, same as it has
always been. God said "My people perish for lack of knowledge" and He
does not bless ignorance.
Blaine:
I do not doubt they seem clear to you, and they do to me too, but they
apparently also seem clear to those who draw different conclusions from
you or I--and even you and I do not always agree. There are not only the
Protestants who cannot agree, but we have a growing number of Messianics
who disagree with what is fundamentally agreed upon by most Protestants--
that the feasts of the Law of Moses no longer need to be kept, the Sabbath
should be observed on Sunday, not Saturday, etc. All this from the same
"clear teaching of God's word." Read the following, and tell we that this
does not describe our day:
Judy:
As I say above, it is not a problem with the Word, the problem is with
the people. Scripture is quite clear about the Levitical law and rituals
being nailed to the cross.
Isaiah 29:9-10 Stay yourselves, and wonder, cry ye out, and cry: they
are drunken, but not with wine. They stagger, but not with strong drink.
For the Lord hath poured out upon you the spirit of
RE: [TruthTalk] street preachers/free speech
Dean Moore Fear God and keep His commandments/ trust Jesus > > If people need to be protected from the public speech of others, then > this is a clear statement that you do not believe in FREE speech. You > believe in CENSURED speech. You want only that speech which is > palatable and edifying for everyone. You believe like Dean apparently > does, that whoever says anything that is not edifying ought to be > silenced after a few rebukes and they still do not listen. Dean writes: Actually I am not at this point telling anyone to silent the speech of those who are lead by Satan to destroy souls-God himself will silence them on that day ( and have a few words for you also). I am telling you to beware of how you hear as to reduce the risk for you and others being ensnared by the false teachers/prophets as laid out by the bible. If you consider yourself so strong that their words will not deceive you-despite the warnings of the Bible and the men of God of old-consider those who may not be as strong and the corruption these workers of darkness bring to them. To go as far as to say I believe those that say things other then edifying should also be silenced is in my opinion an attempt to alter what I am truly saying and shows me that the deceiving spirit that plays on words has already gotten his hold on you. One can always put their finger in their ear and walk away as to limit their time in the presence of those whom would corrupt. Gal.1:8 But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you then that which we have preached unto you,let him be accused. 9. As we said before,so say I now again,If any man preach any other gospel unto you than that ye have received,let him be accused. ( ie.anathema). You claim these words no longer have any meaning for you are even above the word of God. When do we have a right to pick and choose what to retain and what to discard in the word of God? What right do you have to teach others that these words should be ignored and in doing so put me in the category of not being received by the brethren. I am a patient man and we will present this to God on that day for his judgement-I encourage you to make this right with me-if the spirit of God instructs you in this truth to a deeper understanding. You have my e-mail addressee and my phone number-as my time here on TT is at an end-I will be praying for you-goodby to all on TT. ( Just remember-At our next encounter-you were the one who stopped conversing with me and I stayed 2 to 3 weeks after you stopped our conversation-so don't make my leaving a part of your next argument. You left this time-but I am sure you have a good Mormon type excuse for doing so.) -- "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.
RE: [TruthTalk] street preachers/free speech
Dean wrote: > Gal.1:8 But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach > any other gospel unto you then that which we have preached > unto you,let him be accused. 9. As we said before, so say > I now again,If any man preach any other gospel unto you > than that ye have received,let him be accused. ( ie.anathema). > > You claim these words no longer have any meaning for you are > even above the word of God. That is not true, Dean. I believe these words have enormous meaning for me and you. Have you ever studied what "anathema" means? It refers to giving a sacrifice to God. I have to go off to church right now, but when I get back, I'll try and give it some time for you. Dean wrote: > Just remember-At our next encounter-you were the > one who stopped conversing with me I have NOT stopped conversing with you. I don't know why you would say that. We planned to have a PalTalk conference on this, remember? Why are you always running off and then claiming that I am the one who put the brakes on or that I am the one who left? Peace be with you. David Miller, Beverly Hills, Florida. -- "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.
RE: [TruthTalk] street preachers/free speech
Blaine wrote:> Regarding the yelling, waving underwear, etc, I am > not speaking from my personal experience. I am > speaking of what I read about later in reliable > reports. According to reports from various sources> --sister missionaries assigned to stand on the streets > with the street preachers, media reports, and even > reports from members of Protestant denominations--> there was yelling of obscenities, waving underwear, > even donning some of these garments. repeating third hand reports is tale bearing. Have you spoken to any eyewitness Face to Face? Here are the "various sources" for Blaines FALSE WITNESS: sister missionaries from the FAIR web site: http://www.fairlds.org/apol/antis/200304.html "To yell and scream terrible things about the leaders, the doctrine and the members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints and in this way convince us we are wrong." Offensive to LDS doctrine yes, but Obscene, NO. I tell you again if you want to hear some real gutter mouths come listen to some of the LDS Priests! FAIR is a LDS Apologetics group. Some of the members told us personal info. They have pics & names even listing what we do for a living, on private web sites. They knew very intimate details of Larry's life. What for? Media reports from KSL the Church owned TV station If you watched the Real Video link that I provided, notice woman (mother of the bride) with Props in hand(wedding garments-they belong on bride) Notice NO Bride NO Bridegroom NO Wedding party just MOM with PROPS. How to create news: Take picture of SP's Take separate pic's of a wedding party on private property behind 15 foot high fencesome 30 yards from main street(Public property) put two in news story together. Add MOM with prop NOW THAT IS NEWS! Since there is so much video and news crews on the plaza, why not just show the part with the nasty stuff and bleep it out cover the brides face for protection of identity. Come on that would blow this thing wide open. ALAS there is no such video, just lies deceit and setup news from the church crew. Liars Decievers Seducers! reports from members of Protestant denominations http://tv.ksl.com/index.php?nid=5&sid=54312 More of the same, in reports one guy a president of a christian school in Utah, even had the audacity to say he tried to talk to us but could not find us! Banners hoisted high in the air and "screaming" does not lend itself to being lost in the crowd. Come on lets get real here. What kind of man would allow his new bride to be called a whore? And would not that make some great News Video of him coming after the SP's? This whole thing is sad, ORWELLIAN news in Utah. Baline you are a FALSE WITNESS, repeating stories. Prov 19:9 A false witness shall not be unpunished, and he that speaketh lies shall perish. David Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Blaine wrote: > I disagree that it is because "men like to control > others and local government ALWAYS seeks to eliminate > free speech," although that may be what happens in > some instances. Rather, I think it is to protect the > rights of the populace--which is the right not to have > to listen to themselves being insulted, provoked, verbally > abused, and thereby preventing them from pursuing life, > liberty and happiness, all considered fundamental natural > rights. As I said, your right to throw a punch ends > where my chin begins.You have convinced me that you do not believe in free speech. Maybe younow need to convince yourself. I could respect what you are saying heremuch more if you just came right out and said that you do not believe infree speech.If people need to be protected from the public speech of others, thenthis is a clear statement that you do not believe in FREE speech. Youbelieve in CENSURED speech. You want only that speech which ispalatable and edifying for everyone. You believe like Dean apparentlydoes, that whoever says anything that is not edifying ought to besilenced after a few rebukes and they still do not listen.Blaine wrote:> If what the person is saying is known to him as > being an insult to the other person, he are > definitely crossing the line, even if by his > own definition the word may mean something else. Hold on there. You just crossed a big line in my book. :-) I know that the homosexuals want to be called "gay." They are offendedto be called a homosexual. However, I am offended that they havehijacked the English language and call themselves gay. I refuse to usethe word gay in reference to them, and I rebuke those who call them gay.In my opinion, they are playing into the deceptive game of Satan.Homosexuals are not gay, so we all ought to stop calling them gay!Now here you come along and say that if I know that the term homosexualoffends them, then I am crossing the line if I refer to them ashomosexual. Or, suppose I use the Biblical word "sodomite." Now I knowthey don't like the word "sodomite," so are you saying that when I readDeut. 23:17 in the KJV, that I ne
[TruthTalk] Original sin
From: "David Miller" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>Judy wrote:Jesus became flesh and yes he was called the son of man but he was not ever of the same genealogy as Adam ie: "But He whose descent is not counted from them received tithes of Abraham, and blessed him that had the promises and without all contradiction the less is blessed of the better." (Hebrews 7:6,7). DavidM: The phrase, "whose descent is not counted from them" refers to the factthat Melchisedec was not descended from the SONS OF LEVI. This saysnothing about Jesus not coming from Abraham or Adam. Judy: It says everything about Jesus not coming by way of the Levitical Priesthood, or Abraham, or Adam because Melchisedec IS the pre incarnate Christ; there is just one King of Righteousness and just one King of Peace. The scripture teaches that Jesus is our 'forerunner' and He is made a high priest for ever after the order of Melchizidec. (Hebrews 6:20) DavidM: Why do you think Luke spends so much time giving us the genealogy of Jesus through Mary's line in Luke 3? Judy: Probably the same reason as Matthew who spends so much time giving us the genealogy of Jesus through Joseph's line in (Matthew 1:1) DavidM: Read Heb. 2:16 again. Jesus took on him the SEED OF ABRAHAM. Judy: The NAS reads "He does not give help to angels, He gives help to the descendents of Abraham" (Hebrews 2:16) which makes the meaning more exact. DavidM: For verily he took not on him the nature of angels; but HE TOOK ON HIM THE SEED OF ABRAHAM. Judy: Yes, he came to give help to the descendents of Abraham... DavidM: Wherefore in all things it behoved him TO BE MADE LIKE unto his brethren, that he might be a merciful and faithful high priest in things pertaining to God, to make reconciliation for the sins of the people. For in that he himself hath suffered being tempted, he is able to succour them that are tempted. (Hebrews 2:16-18 KJV). Judy: MADE LIKE is the qualifier in the above statement David. In James 3:9 we read "Therewith bless we God, even the Father; and therewith curse we men, WHICH ARE MADE AFTER THE SIMILITUDE OF GOD" Now noone in their right mind would say that this means men are God would they? DavidM: Remember that Jesus Christ of the seed of David was raised from the dead according to my gospel. (2 Timothy 2:8 KJV); Concerning his Son Jesus Christ our Lord, which was made of the seed of David according to the flesh; And declared to be the Son of God withpower, according to the spirit of holiness, by the resurrection from thedead. (Romans 1:3-4 KJV) Judy: Let me go over this once more - Jesus was born of a descendent of David (the woman) and humanly speaking it is impossible for a woman to bear a seed, that is to have a child without the help of a man. But the Holy Spirit overshadowed Mary's womb and she gave birth to a child who was Very Man and Very God. This seed had to die and shed His blood for our sin. He had to do what no ordinary human being COULD do, that is, to give SINLESS UNCONTAMINATED BLOOD for the sin of the world. I deny that Jesus Christ is of the same genetical seed as Adam, Abraham, and David. Scripture teaches us that He is Melchizidec, King of Salem to whom Abraham gave a tithe. Hebrews 7:16 tells us he as our Great High Priest is not made after the law of a carnal commandment but after the power of an endless life." DavidM: Read the verse just BEFORE this one. And it is yet far more evident: for that after the SIMILITUDE of Melchisedec there ariseth ANOTHER priest. (Hebrews 7:15 KJV). The Scriptures do NOT teach that Melchisedec and Jesus were the same person. Melchisedec was a type of Christ, much like Joseph was, and much like the passover lamb was. Judy: He wasn't a type, he WAS Christ, same as the Rock that followed the children of Israel in the wilderness was Christ (1 Corinthians 10:4). Read the prophecy in Psalm 110:4 and the whole of Hebrews Chapter 7 and meditate on it. DavidM: Rather than belabor our discussion, please just look at the followingverse. Doesn't it prove it once and for all that Jesus had the sameblood as the rest of humanity? Forasmuch then as the children are partakers of flesh and BLOOD, he also himself likewise took part of the SAME. (Hebrews 2:14 KJV) Judy: The above tells me that Jesus partook of flesh and blood which I have never disputed. It is the kind of blood that flowed in his veins that we are discussing and this is because if he had blood from the family of man that is through the first Adam then just like the Levitical priests - he would need a sacrifice for his own iniquities which still would not have been enough for him to enter the Holy Place once and for all and be accepted. DavidM: And the following verses give the context: For verily he took not on him the nature of angels; but he took on himthe seed of Abraham. Wherefore in all things it behoved him TO BE MADE LIKE UNTO his brethren, that
[TruthTalk] arophobia - fear of reason
Blaine: They clearly saw Jesus Christ as a rival to their own control over the source (the people) of what they valued most--money, power, status. Their hearts were so much preoccupied with these things, they rationalized to themselves they had cause against him sufficient to kill him. Judy: Is killing another human being ever a rational deed even when pre meditated and planned? More likely it is something done irrationally in the passion of the moment. **Blaine By "rationaized," I mean they thought up excuses to do the deed. Rational does not always mean reasonable. In Psychology, to rationalize is to make excuses--it is considered an ego protective device employed commonly to protect the self-concept from admitting in reality, and thus endangering one's beliefs about himself as an integrated personality. Judy: At times ppl are so deceived that they kill in the sincere belief that they are doing God a favor. Blaine: Yet, as Jesus said, they "hated me without a cause." If they had no cause, they must have therefore known who he was. But they chose to get rid of him anyway ... Judy: I do not get the connection above. How is hating him for no apparent reason proof that they actually knew who he was? They rejected his teaching and would not believe him for his works sake. Only a few of them such as Nicodemus who visited him at night with questions understood and believed the rest had darkened hearts and were as blind as bats. Understand that noone is able to come to Jesus unless they are drawn by the Father so apparently these religious men did not qualify. **Blaine: If you won't take my word for it, maybe you will believe Jesus. Judy: I don't take anyone's word for anything when it comes to spiritual truth Blaine. Too much at stake. I've learned the hard way to get before the Lord and check everything presented to me alongside His Truth. Blaine: Again, I refer you to the parable of the laborers in the vineyard. In the parable, the laborers (the Jews--Pharisees, scribes, etc.) knew the heir (Jesus) was the son of the vineyard owner (God). They killed him hoping this would enable them to retain control of the vineyard ( the Jewish religious system, or the populace) for themselves. thus preserving their valued positions in the then current socio-economic status system. Satan has power to tempt people to go for the short-term goals in preference to the long term ones, and they often do cave in. Judy: I'm familiar with the parable in three of the gospels and I know the religious leaders believed he had spoken it against them but I am not convinced that they had any understanding they just knew that he had spoken the parable against them. When the disciples asked Jesus why he taught in parables, his answer is interesting. See Matthew 13:13-16. **Blaine: The Romans held political power, and socio-economic power, but they conceded a lot of this power to the local leaders, in this case, the Jewish leaders. They did this in most of their occupied territories. It was easier to control the people. For the same reason, the US wants to have Iraq controlled by Iraqis, if possible. The word "political" is derived from the same root word as "police." Both refer to the power to enforce law and order.They are not necessarily the same as social and economic power. Blaine: As Jesus said, "What does it profit a man to gain the whole world, but lose his own soul." This is a good question, but the answer is, people often do exactly that, and this is my whole point. These men preferred the short term goal over the longer term one. They sold their souls for a few pieces of silver, so to speak, just as did Judas Iscariot. Judy: The outcome may have been the same but this was not a mental or rational issue Blaine. These are spiritual realities - the Jewish leaders were full of religious spirits and rather than embrace the truth and allow the truth to make them free they rejected the Lord of Glory and chose to remain in their chains of hypocrisy and religious bondage. Their system went down along with the temple. **Blaine: I agree, especially with your word "chose." (:>) Blaine: To use an experience I had once with a woman who confessed she knew Mormonism was true--once having confessed this, she nevertheless refused to be baptized, because, as she later admitted, she didn't want to give up her alcoholic beverages, she didn't want to have to pay a 10% tithe, and most of all she did not want to give up her friends and family, who were all against her becoming a member of the LDS Church. Judy: The woman was apparently confused **Blaine: Apparently? She didn't seem confused to me. Judy: but I can't grieve for her any more than for you and DaveH because if you guys had a genuine revelation of the real Jesus you would burn your books of Mormon, fall at his feet and follow him becoming a sheep rather than a god, because He i
[TruthTalk] arophobia: fear of reason
From: "Blaine Borrowman" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Blaine: I respectfully (DavidH has taught me a few things) disagree. (:>) They definitely were keeping their fingers on the pulse of the common folk, I have no contention with that. But they did it because these folks were the source of their power, wealth and social status. Judy: They weren't elected officials Blaine. The seat of Moses was something instituted by God. **Blaine: The seat of Moses--was it the High Priest's office? If so, the HP office was a political plum during the time of Jesus Christ. Whereas it was by tradition and commandment to be reserved for the seed of Aaron only, during this time it was an appointment from Herod and the Romans alike. Judy: That's mighty big of Herod since he was an Edomite and a Philistine. He only married the daughter of one of the high priests so you can see how perverted everything had become by the time of Jesus. Blaine: Although it was traditionally a lifetime appointment, the office was filled by 28 different men between 37 B.C. and A.D. 68. So, regards your contention that this was not an elected office, you are correct. However, although the power of life and death was reserved for Roman officers, the Jewish leaders had considerable influence--power--as evidenced by the fact they were able to stir up the populace to demand the crucifixion of Jesus. Judy: I'm not surprised, dosen't sound like they were too blessed does it? Blaine: The populace was basically the only thing they both feared and revered, since by manipulating it, they could apparently persuade the Roman governor to go against his own judgements, knowing the last thing he wanted was an insurrection of the populace. Judy: They may have feared losing the ppl but I don't believe they revered them because of their religious stand. They told the man who received his eyesight that he was born in sin and they knew that God will not hear sinners... which is true but the underlying assumption here is that they themselves weren't. Blaine: Their power to manipulate the populace came from the high status/ prestige of their offices as members of the Sanhedrin, and as Priests, Levites, teachers, etc., which were traditional offices in the Priesthood of Aaron. Holders of these titles and offices were reverenced by almost all Jews, even Jesus counseled to listen to the HP and elders, but to not do what they did. Judy: Well they may have fooled some of the ppl some of the time but they didn't fool all of the ppl all of the time because it was noted at least once that Jesus taught as one having authority and not like the scribes. A person with spiritual discernment today can tell if a preacher/teacher speaks the words of Jesus or is off on a tangent doing his own thing. Blaine: In their peculiar social structure, holding religious office and having high social status went hand in hand, eclipsed only by the amount of money one could show evidence of having access to--what one social scientist of recent times has called status symbols. Status symbols vary from society to society, but money always seems to be what the symbols represent. In our society, we value expensive cars--the more expensive, the more status associated with the symbol. Jewelry is the same. The more expensive, the better. A $10,000.00 Rolex does not keep better time than an $80.00 Citizen watch, but people still want the Rolex above any other, because of the status if confers upon the owner. And houses!! A house with five bedrooms and three baths carries more status than one with two bedrooms and one bath (:>) Right? But either way, the symbols represent money-- Judy: Shows where their hearts were since it is impossible to serve both God and Mammon. It's obvious where their treasure is and where that is their hearts were also and Jesus told them so. Blaine: and in the case of the Pharisees and other Jewish chief priests and scribes, the source of the money was selling religious items to the populace, and if it could be done on the temple grounds, all the better, as doing such added to the significance and importance of the for-sale items, and therefore higher prices could likely have been charged. Judy: It wasn't temple souvenirs or anything like that. I understood they were selling inferior animals for sacrifice and over charging the people for them. Blaine: The only real fear the Jewish leaders had was the populace in general, whom both the appointed Jewish officials as well as the Romans had nightmares about, since insurrection was an ever-present possibility. They all knew the Jews were an intelligent and religiously zealous bunch, very hard to control at times, especially when it came to religious issues. A popular leader, as Jesus Christ was, became the only real fear these Jewish leaders had. When Christ entered the city of Jerusalem on the colt of an ass, this had tremendous significance to
Re: [TruthTalk] arophobia - fear of reason
Blaine: I have to say I like my Jesus best. I don't see a lot of incentive to worship your Jesus. He seems a little stingy to me. (:>) Blaine: It is the nature of being a father to want his children to do as he says,and to be at least as good as he is--maybe better. Why would Jesus not want the same for us? Do you really conceive of him as being the self-centered tyrant you portray, who just wants worshippers, but to whom he denies the real riches he possesses? Balaam I mean Blaine, gain is not godliness! 1 Timothy 6:3-6 If any man teach otherwise, and consent not to wholesome words, even the words of our Lord Jesus Christ, and to the doctrine which is according to godliness; He is proud, knowing nothing, but doting about questions and strifes of words, whereof cometh envy, strife, railings, evil surmisings, Perverse disputings of men of corrupt minds, and destitute of the truth, supposing that gain is godliness: from such withdraw thyself. But godliness with contentment is great gain. PS 84:10 For a day in thy courts is better than a thousand. I had rather be a doorkeeper in the house of my God, than to dwell in the tents of wickedness. Some sold their souls for silver & gold what's your price? [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Blaine:They clearly saw Jesus Christ as a rival to their own control over the source (the people) of what they valued most--money, power, status. Their hearts were so much preoccupied with these things, they rationalized to themselves they had cause against him sufficient to kill him. Judy:Is killing another human being ever a rational deed even when pre meditated and planned? More likely it is something done irrationally in the passion of the moment.**Blaine By "rationaized," I mean they thought up excuses to do the deed. Rational does not always mean reasonable. In Psychology, to rationalize is to make excuses--it is considered an ego protective device employed commonly to protect the self-concept from admitting in reality, and thus endangering one's beliefs about himself as an integrated personality. Judy:At times ppl are so deceived that they kill in the sincere beliefthat they are doing God a favor.Blaine:Yet, as Jesus said, they "hated me without a cause." If they had no cause, they must have therefore known who he was. But they chose to get rid of him anyway ...Judy:I do not get the connection above. How is hating him for no apparent reason proof that they actually knew who he was? They rejected his teaching and would not believe him for his works sake. Only a few of them such as Nicodemus who visited him at night with questionsunderstood and believed the rest had darkened hearts and were as blind as bats. Understand that noone is able to come to Jesus unless they are drawn by the Father so apparently these religiousmen did not qualify.**Blaine: If you won't take my word for it, maybe you will believe Jesus. Judy:I don't take anyone's word for anything when it comes to spiritualtruth Blaine. Too much at stake. I've learned the hard way to getbefore the Lord and check everything presented to me alongsideHis Truth.Blaine:Again, I refer you to the parable of the laborers in the vineyard. In the parable, the laborers (the Jews--Pharisees, scribes, etc.) knew the heir (Jesus) was the son of the vineyard owner (God). They killed him hoping this would enable them to retain control of the vineyard ( the Jewish religious system, or the populace) for themselves. thus preserving their valued positions in the then current socio-economic status system. Satan has power to tempt people to go for the short-term goals in preference to the long term ones, and they often do cave in. Judy:I'm familiar with the parable in three of the gospels and I knowthe religious leaders believed he had spoken it against thembut I am not convinced that they had any understanding theyjust knew that he had spoken the parable against them. Whenthe disciples asked Jesus why he taught in parables, his answeris interesting. See Matthew 13:13-16.**Blaine: The Romans held political power, and socio-economic power, but they conceded a lot of this power to the local leaders, in this case, the Jewish leaders. They did this in most of their occupied territories. It was easier to control the people. For the same reason, the US wants to have Iraq controlled by Iraqis, if possible.. The word "political" is derived from the same root word as "police." Both refer to the power to enforce law and order.They are not necessarily the same as social and economic power. Blaine:As Jesus said, "What does it profit a man to gain the whole world, but lose his own soul." This is a good question, but the answer is, people often do exactly that, and this is my whole point. These men preferred the short term goal over the longer term one. They sold their souls for a few pieces of silver, so to speak, just as did Judas Iscariot. Judy:The outcome may have been the same but this was not a mental orrational issue Blaine. These are spiritual re
Re: [TruthTalk] deceived
Blaine: Since I don't seem to know what you
are talking about--that I always steer clear of my true beliefs--maybe you
should level with me and let me know when and where I did such? And
what did I say?
- Original Message -
From:
Kevin
Deegan
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Saturday, February 07, 2004 2:40
PM
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] deceived
The fact that you steer clear of your TRUE beliefs makes me wonder about
your sincerity. Anything less than full disclosure is manipulation, half
truths, and subterfuge.Blaine Borrowman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
- Original Message -
From:
Kevin Deegan
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Thursday, February 05, 2004
9:32 PM
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk]
deceived
So if you buy into the "400 different gospels" idea, The next
step is the "One True Church" idea.
Is this what you are leading to Blaine?
Blaine: Now, you are
trying to lead the witness, Kevin. I was actually trying
to steer clear of going into Mormonism as the best alternative to the
"400" club, but it seems like even when I try, I am always brought up on a
short halter and rope, leaving me little room to move in a different
direction. But of course I would be less than honest if I did not
admit that would be my first choice of directions to lead into.
By the way how many "different gospels" do the followers of Joe Smith
have?
LDS, RLDS, and hundreds of others. Make any difference whether it is
300 or 400?
Blaine: Since Judy is only counting major sects of the
Protestant Religion ("Over the 2,000+ years since Calvary the adversary
has produced more than 400 different
Protestant gospels and this
is
not including the quasi-Christian cults and the RCC."), you have to
give Mormonism the same latitude. Doing this, I would guess
there might be three or four breakoffs from the LDS Church still in
existence--These would include a couple of major polygamous
groups, the RLDS (now called the Community of Christ), and maybe the Sons
of Levi, a group whose tenants include dressing and acting very
conservatively, similar to the Amish. I also know of one Mesiannic
group that has taken up the BoM but rejects the LDS Church as such.
I may not be aware of others you know about, however, so if you know
of others by name, perhaps you could steer me onto learning more about
them.
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
From: "Blaine Borrowman" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Blaine: But Judy, if what presents
itself as the "clear teaching of God's word"
is really so clear, how come your
stats--400 different Protestant gospels--
suggest otherwise?
Judy:
The fact that there are so many different
gospels does not reflect poorly
on the Word itself, the problem now is
with the people, same as it has
always been. God said "My people
perish for lack of knowledge" and He
does not bless ignorance.
Blaine:
I do not doubt they seem clear to
you, and they do to me too, but they
apparently also seem clear to those who
draw different conclusions from
you or I--and even you and I do not always
agree. There are not only the
Protestants who cannot agree, but we have a
growing number of Messianics
who disagree with what is fundamentally
agreed upon by most Protestants--
that the feasts of the Law of Moses no
longer need to be kept, the Sabbath
should be observed on Sunday, not Saturday,
etc. All this from the same
"clear teaching of God's word."
Read the following, and tell we that this
does not describe our day:
Judy:
As I say above, it is not a problem with
the Word, the problem is with
the people. Scripture is quite clear about
the Levitical law and rituals
being nailed to the cross.
Isaiah 29:9-10 Stay yourselves, and wonder, cry ye out, and
cry: they
are drunken, but not with wine. They
stagger, but not with strong drink.
For the Lord hath poured out upon you the
spirit of deep sleep, and hath
closed your eyes; the prophets and
your rulers, the seers hath he covered.
Isaiah 29:13 Wherefore the Lord said,
forasmuch as this people draw near
me with their mouth, and with their
lips do honor me, but have removed
their heart far from me, a
RE: [TruthTalk] Original sin
DavidM wrote: >> Rather than belabor our discussion, please just >> look at the following verse. Doesn't it prove it >> once and for all that Jesus had the same blood as >> the rest of humanity? >> >> Forasmuch then as the children are partakers of flesh >> and BLOOD, he also himself likewise took part of the >> SAME. (Hebrews 2:14 KJV) Judy: > The above tells me that Jesus partook of flesh and > blood which I have never disputed. It is the kind > of blood that flowed in his veins that we are > discussing I feel that we are wrangling over words to no profit, so my response will be brief. In this passage, you seem to be doing everything humanly possible to dodge the clear message of the passage. It does not just say that he partook of flesh and blood. It speaks of the kind of flesh and blood which he partook of. It was the SAME as ours. It is written, "FOREASMUCH THEN AS the children are partakers of flesh and blood, he also himself likewise TOOK PART OF THE SAME." Green's literal translation reads: "Since, then, the children have partaken of flesh and blood, IN LIKE MANNER He Himself ALSO SHARED THE SAME THINGS." Jesus shared the same kind of flesh and blood as we do. He was descended genetically from Adam, Abraham, and David. This is the testimony of Scripture. You can deny it all you want, but the Bible is clear on this matter. There is no need to argue it away. Judy wrote: > and this is because if he had blood from the > family of man that is through the first Adam > then just like the Levitical priests - he would > need a sacrifice for his own iniquities which > still would not have been enough for him to > enter the Holy Place once and for all and > be accepted. What is this foolishness? What do you mean by saying, "It still would not have been enough for him to enter the Holy Place once and for all"? If the high priest could enter the holy place offering the blood of animals, could not Jesus also enter it offering his own blood? Surely you are aware that the Scriptures tell us of the animal sacrifices that were offered for Jesus Christ when he was born (Luke 2:24). Why was that done from your perspective? Something else to consider is that if Jesus was not born of a woman, of the same flesh and truly descended physically from Adam, Abraham, and David, then he would not be subject to the law and sacrifices that were commanded. Think about that. Was Jesus under the law or not? Peace be with you. David Miller, Beverly Hills, Florida. -- "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.
Re: [TruthTalk] street preachers/free speech
- Original Message - From: "irebukeu" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Saturday, February 07, 2004 4:36 PM Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] street preachers/free speech > Blaine,> Regarding the article you posted from the Deseret News let me set the record> straight for you or anyone who is reading.> 1) I was there during the wedding at the your temple the day in question.> We were asked to leave so the bride and groom can take pictures without our> preaching in the background. I refused due to the fact that Main Street was> going to be shut down and we wanted as much time there as possible, so BLAME> ROCKY.> 2) We were not there to protest any weddings (because we did not even know> they were going on), nor did we ever call anyone a whore at any time.> 3) I asked a question that seemed to start the wedding party very upset. I> said; "As a non Mormon and because I've never been inside your temple nor> witnessed a temple marriage we are left to speculate from others. Is it> true that these priests touch the brides body parts (I will leave that up to> your imagination) with oil?" Blaine: You what?!?! ROTFL!!! This sounds like an old fashioned b/w comedy starring the three stooges!! LOL!! You actually asked that question? Whew! Were there any young women present? No wonder !! Now I think I at least understand what started this thing!! But, my next question is, where did you ever get such an idea that brides were touched with oil by men? I saw something from one of Judy's letters that suggested similar things, and Dean had something to say along that line too--is that where you got that oil thing? It is slanderous. Just for the record, no such thing as that happens!! And that is all I am going to say--it is my final word. Maybe you should adopt the three wise monkeys slogan--see no evil, hear no evil, speak no evil--especially speak no evil. Not knowing from your own experience is no excuse for even a suggestion such as that. Just for your consideration, may I repeat some scriptures I sent to DavidM? Here they are--again: James 1:26 "If any man among you seem to be religious, and bridleth not his tongue, but deceiveth his own heart, this man's religion is vain. James 3:6 "Even so the tongue is a fire, a world of iniquity." James 3:8 "But the tongue can no man tame; it is an unruly evil, full of deadly poison." James 3:9 "Therewith (the tongue) we bless God, even the Father, and therewith curse we men, which are made after the similitude of God." (Try to remember Mormons are likewise created in the image of God, OK?) Good luck in handling this "fire" you guys started!!! LOL To which each wedding party went nuts over and> called the police to have us removed.> 4) There were news cameras around us, wedding cameras, Mormon Church> security cameras AND NO ONE HAS PRODUCED THIS FILM OF CALLING THESE BRIDES> WHORES.> 5) The police asked us to move and we refused so they stood around and no> one was ever arrested.> 6) I've personally talked to Rocky (your Mayor) about this film he saw that> has us calling these women whores but have yet seen any footage. I have> countless media clips where we are accused of disturbing these weddings at> the temple but none with us using the word "whore" IF THEY DID I BELIEVE> THAT IS WHAT THEY WOULD SHOW ON THE LOCAL NEWS.> 7) I've even considered suing your Mayor and media for slander.> 8) I/we have in times used the word "whore" your calling the Mayor a> "vote-whore" as he marched with the sodomites during the gay day parade.> Which by the is now marching right next to Young's house/temple compared to> some side street next to some little park as we have preached to them for> years in your backyard WHILE YOUR CHURCH DOES NOTHING! Yet they are getting> closer to your sacred temple. We have used the word "whoremonger" when> talking about Smith/Young for obvious reasons and we have used the word> "whore" when preaching against your whole church, as you are flirting with> other gods. BUT WE HAVE NEVER CALLED A BRIDE A WHORE.LIE FROM THE PIT OF> HELL!> 9) We are talking to reported Heather May at this time to continue to hammer> away our points in your public.> !0) You do not understand something here. THIS IS NOT A FREEDOM OF SPEECH> ISSUE, which could have time/place/manner laws enforced. This is a FREEDOM> OF RELIGION ISSUE and therein will your problem be. It is our RELIGION to> use the BIBLE and within this BIBLE are found words like "WHORE" and such.> So if you think that you can stop our FREEDOM OF RELIGION..good luck..this> will cost your church millions more to try and quench us. Once again just> for those who are slow, freedom of speech.NO.freedom of religion YES.where> no law can restrict us.SEE YOU AT THE SUPREME COURT, where eyes around this> nation has been looking at a motley crew of street preachers vs. the Mormon> Church/S
Re: [TruthTalk] Adams FALL UPWARD
I posted a lengthy (too lengthy, maybe) re-explication of what I was trying to say previously. If after you read that, let me know if you still do not understand anything. The problem may be that DaveH and I have had common backgrounds, so understand easily even when one or the other is less than explicit. - Original Message - From: michael douglas To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Saturday, February 07, 2004 5:00 PM Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Adams FALL UPWARD Michael D: Dave H, incidentally, Blaine made his comments relative to posts that you, he and I were releasing to TT. He offered a summary of the LDS position relative to my questions, and your and his previous answers, as I recall. As you would have realized, I included the date of the post the quotes were taken from, but did not include everything for brevity. I really would like Blaine to respond, though. Blaine? Dave <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: DAVEH: My latest comments are in PINK... michael douglas wrote: Dave <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: michael douglas wrote: Blainer:. But he was denied the privilege of tabernacling in the flesh, because he made war in heaven, and actually overcame one-third of the hosts of heaven. The other two-thirds are you and I (here Blainer is saying that he is an angel/former angel) and all others who were allowed to take on mortal bodies. 17/10/2002 - Michael D to Dave H: Blainer represents this as though the other two thirds have already taken on flesh. DAVEH: He didn't quite say that, but the effect is the same. (IOW.some of those two thirds may yet to be born.) Michael D: I understand that that is what he is saying now. My point is that in our previous discussions, he was saying something very different. DAVEH: It's hard for me to comment on his private discussions with you, Michael. Michael D: Of course, as stated above they weren't really private... His statements to Perry stopped me in my tracks, so I had to go back and compare them with what he said back then. Clearly they are contradictions and probably adjusted views. DAVEH: If you think Blaine is making contradictory statements, then why did you ask me about it? They didn't seem contradictory to me, hearing only half the conversation. Seems to me you should be asking Blaine instead of me, Michael Michael D: Actually, I thought that is what I did. I think you actually responded to the question I asked in Oct, 2002. I really was only quoting it, not asking it now. I don't mind you making an input now, though. BT Yahoo! Broadband - Free modem offer, sign up online today and save £80
Re: [TruthTalk] deceived
Blaine: Now, you are trying to lead the witness, Kevin. I was actually trying to steer clear of going into Mormonism as the best alternative to the "400" club, but it seems like even when I try, I am always brought up on a short halter and rope, leaving me little room to move in a different direction. But of course I would be less than honest if I did not admit that would be my first choice of directions to lead into.
Nobody is going to browbeat you for clearly stating what you believe. It is a problem when you dance all around it, like you are trying to hide things. Or like you think someone is not at the stage yet, where they are worthy of being told the whole truth. It seemed to me you were heading into the "one true church" stuff, since there are so many competing doctrines of protestantism. God must have one clear voice, from his true church and his prophet. Another recent example is where Judy said God has always had a faithful remnant. If you are any kind of Mormon you would strongly disagree with that one! YET YOU STEER CLEAR. I MUST SURMISE THAT YOU ARE BEING UNDERHANDED. Surely you must know that most TTers would not be familiar with the peculiar LDS belief of a TOTAL "Great Apostacy".
Blaine Borrowman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Blaine: Since I don't seem to know what you are talking about--that I always steer clear of my true beliefs--maybe you should level with me and let me know when and where I did such? And what did I say?
- Original Message -
From: Kevin Deegan
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Saturday, February 07, 2004 2:40 PM
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] deceived
The fact that you steer clear of your TRUE beliefs makes me wonder about your sincerity. Anything less than full disclosure is manipulation, half truths, and subterfuge.Blaine Borrowman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
- Original Message -
From: Kevin Deegan
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Thursday, February 05, 2004 9:32 PM
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] deceived
So if you buy into the "400 different gospels" idea, The next step is the "One True Church" idea.
Is this what you are leading to Blaine?
Blaine: Now, you are trying to lead the witness, Kevin. I was actually trying to steer clear of going into Mormonism as the best alternative to the "400" club, but it seems like even when I try, I am always brought up on a short halter and rope, leaving me little room to move in a different direction. But of course I would be less than honest if I did not admit that would be my first choice of directions to lead into.
By the way how many "different gospels" do the followers of Joe Smith have?
LDS, RLDS, and hundreds of others. Make any difference whether it is 300 or 400?
Blaine: Since Judy is only counting major sects of the Protestant Religion ("Over the 2,000+ years since Calvary the adversary has produced more than 400 different Protestant gospels and this
is not including the quasi-Christian cults and the RCC."), you have to give Mormonism the same latitude. Doing this, I would guess there might be three or four breakoffs from the LDS Church still in existence--These would include a couple of major polygamous groups, the RLDS (now called the Community of Christ), and maybe the Sons of Levi, a group whose tenants include dressing and acting very conservatively, similar to the Amish. I also know of one Mesiannic group that has taken up the BoM but rejects the LDS Church as such. I may not be aware of others you know about, however, so if you know of others by name, perhaps you could steer me onto learning more about them.
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
From: "Blaine Borrowman" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Blaine: But Judy, if what presents itself as the "clear teaching of God's word"
is really so clear, how come your stats--400 different Protestant gospels--
suggest otherwise?
Judy:
The fact that there are so many different gospels does not reflect poorly
on the Word itself, the problem now is with the people, same as it has
always been. God said "My people perish for lack of knowledge" and He
does not bless ignorance.
Blaine:
I do not doubt they seem clear to you, and they do to me too, but they
apparently also seem clear to those who draw different conclusions from
you or I--and even you and I do not always agree. There are not only the
Protestants who cannot agree, but we have a growing number of Messianics
who disagree with what is fundamentally agreed upon by most Protestants--
that the feasts of the Law of Moses no longer need to be kept, the Sabbath
should be observed on Sunday, not Saturday, etc. All this from the same
"clear teaching of God's word." Read the following, and tell we that this
does not describe our day:
Judy:
As I say above, it is not a problem with the Word, the problem is with
the people. Scripture is quite clear about the Levitical law and rituals
being nailed to the cross.
Isaiah 29:9-10 Stay yourselves, and wonder, cry ye out, and cry:
Re: [TruthTalk] street preachers/free speech
Blaine: You what?!?! ROTFL!!! This sounds like an old fashioned b/w comedy starring the three stooges!! LOL!! You actually asked that question? Whew! Were there any young women present? No wonder !! Now I think I at least understand what started this thing!! Well now that you finally understand, what keeps you from repenting of your FALSE WITNESS? Why were you a Talebearer of things you did not understand, & did not witness? Levit 19:16 Thou shalt not go up and down as a talebearer among thy people Proverbs 6 These six things doth the LORD hate: yea, seven are an abomination unto him: A proud look, a lying tongue, and hands that shed innocent blood, An heart that deviseth wicked imaginations, feet that be swift in running to mischief, A false witness that speaketh lies, and he that soweth discord among brethren.Blaine Borrowman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: - Original Message - From: "irebukeu" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Saturday, February 07, 2004 4:36 PM Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] street preachers/free speech > Blaine,> Regarding the article you posted from the Deseret News let me set the record> straight for you or anyone who is reading.> 1) I was there during the wedding at the your temple the day in question.> We were asked to leave so the bride and groom can take pictures without our> preaching in the background. I refused due to the fact that Main Street was> going to be shut down and we wanted as much time there as possible, so BLAME> ROCKY.> 2) We were not there to protest any weddings (because we did not even know> they were going on), nor did we ever call anyone a whore at any time.> 3) I asked a question that seemed to start the wedding party very upset. I> said; "As a non Mormon and because I've never been inside your temple nor> witnessed a temple marriage we are left to speculate from others. Is it> true that these priests touch the brides body parts (I will leave that up to> your imagination) with oil?" Blaine: You what?!?! ROTFL!!! This sounds like an old fashioned b/w comedy starring the three stooges!! LOL!! You actually asked that question? Whew! Were there any young women present? No wonder !! Now I think I at least understand what started this thing!! But, my next question is, where did you ever get such an idea that brides were touched with oil by men? I saw something from one of Judy's letters that suggested similar things, and Dean had something to say along that line too--is that where you got that oil thing? It is slanderous. Just for the record, no such thing as that happens!! And that is all I am going to say--it is my final word. Maybe you should adopt the three wise monkeys slogan--see no evil, hear no evil, speak no evil--especially speak no evil. Not knowing from your own experience is no excuse for even a suggestion such as that. Just for your consideration, may I repeat some scriptures I sent to DavidM? Here they are--again: James 1:26 "If any man among you seem to be religious, and bridleth not his tongue, but deceiveth his own heart, this man's religion is vain. James 3:6 "Even so the tongue is a fire, a world of iniquity." James 3:8 "But the tongue can no man tame; it is an unruly evil, full of deadly poison." James 3:9 "Therewith (the tongue) we bless God, even the Father, and therewith curse we men, which are made after the similitude of God." (Try to remember Mormons are likewise created in the image of God, OK?) Good luck in handling this "fire" you guys started!!! LOL To which each wedding party went nuts over and> called the police to have us removed.> 4) There were news cameras around us, wedding cameras, Mormon Church> security cameras AND NO ONE HAS PRODUCED THIS FILM OF CALLING THESE BRIDES> WHORES.> 5) The police asked us to move and we refused so they stood around and no> one was ever arrested.> 6) I've personally talked to Rocky (your Mayor) about this film he saw that> has us calling these women whores but have yet seen any footage. I have> countless media clips where we are accused of disturbing these weddings at> the temple but none with us using the word "whore" IF THEY DID I BELIEVE> THAT IS WHAT THEY WOULD SHOW ON THE LOCAL NEWS.> 7) I've even considered suing your Mayor and media for slander.> 8) I/we have in times used the word "whore" your calling the Mayor a> "vote-whore" as he marched with the sodomites during the gay day parade.> Which by the is now marching right next to Young's house/temple compared to> some side street next to some little park as we have preached to them for> years in your backyard WHILE YOUR CHURCH DOES NOTHING! Yet they are getting> closer to your sacred temple. We have used the word "whoremonger" when> talking about Smith/Young for obvious reasons and we have used the word> "whore" when preaching against your whole church, as you are flirting with> other gods. BUT WE HAVE NEVER CALLED A BRIDE A WHORE.LIE FROM THE PIT OF> H
RE: [TruthTalk] Were Adam and Eve subject to death before they sinned?
David, I do not consdier Adam and Eve's pre-fall state w.r.t. immortality to be a major issue, and I see no real problem with it either way. But, I have always considered them to be mortal before the fall, but have never studied that aspect very deeply. But, regardless of which way it was before the fall, we agree that they were mortal after the fall. Let mw see if I understand your beliefs. They partook of the tree of life freely prior to the fall, and this made them immortal? (Or, were they created immortal, and partaking of the tree of life had no further effect on them? If not, why do you think they would partake of it? If this is so, then why was it even there,it was uneeded. Or, they were created mortal, and partaking freely of the tree of life gave them immortality?) But, when they partook of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, they lost their immortality AND they died spiritually. So, they were banned from the garden so that they would not partake of the tree of life. Did I state your beliefs correctly? Why do you suppose God did not want them to eat of the tree of life after the fall? From: "David Miller" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subject: [TruthTalk] Were Adam and Eve subject to death before they sinned? Date: Fri, 6 Feb 2004 08:48:15 -0500 Perry wrote: > There is no scriptural evidence that they were created > immortal, nor is there any compelling reason to assume > the had to be created immortal. I think there is much Scriptural evidence that Adam and Eve were created immortal, but I suppose if you hold to different definitions of words like "death," those passages might convey an entirely different meaning. Regarding the word "death", I think that it is used sometimes to mean physical death, and sometimes to mean spiritual death. I try to understand it within the context in which I read it. >From my perspective, physical death came because of sin, as did sickness and disease, which is basically incipient death. I believe that Adam and Eve freely ate of the tree of life before they sinned. Following is one passage which seems to connect death with sin entering the world. "Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned." (Romans 5:12 KJV) I think that, except for speaking of the death of Christ in Romans 5, the chapter refers to spiritual death. The following passage indicates death to be an enemy, which would show it to be not part of God's plan, but something we were subjugated to because of sin. "The last enemy that shall be destroyed is death." (1 Corinthians 15:26 KJV) 1 Corinthians 15:21-23 says, "21 For since by man came death, by man came also the resurrection of the dead. 22 For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive. 23 But every man in his own order: Christ the firstfruits; afterward they that are Christ's at his coming. " I think 1 Corinthians 15 speaks of physical death, for it speaks of the resurrection at Christ's return (when the corruptible shall put on the incorruptible, and the mortal immotality). There are other passages that could be brought to bear, but let me hear your comments about these first. I can only assume that in your mind, the word "death" in these passages must have nothing to do with physical death. Peace be with you. David Miller, Beverly Hills, Florida. -- "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 the advanced features & services of MSN Internet Software maximize your online time. http://click.atdmt.com/AVE/go/onm00200363ave/direct/01/ -- "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.
Re: [TruthTalk] street preachers/free speech
Blaine: Did you read that letter from the Salt Lake Prosecutor's Office I posted? That does a detailed job of spelling everyone's rights out, I thought.Good luck in handling this "fire" you guys started!!! LOL Here is a article on one of your High priests. My pastor does not assault people, why do yours? Yes, Utah; Assault is criminal behavior. Why do Mormons need to be reminded this, about assault? http://deseretnews.com/dn/view/0,1249,515038630,00.htmlProvo man is hero, not a criminal WHAT TO DO IF YOU ARE OFFENDED:In the face of offending messages I recommend the advice of the Supreme Court, persons offended by the message can "effectively avoid further bombardment of their sensibilities simply by averting their eyes." Cohen v. california, 403 U.S. 15, 21, 29 L. Ed 2d 124 (1971)Feel provoked? You can close your eyes & put your fingers in your ears for all I care. When you touch my person you have stepped over the line & will go to JAIL! Popular speech by definition, needs no protection. Your Intolerance is not a basis for further law. Our decisions establish that mere public intolerance or animosity cannot be the basis for abridgement of these constitutional freedoms...The First and Fourteenth Amendments do not permit a state to make criminal the exercise of the right to assembly simply because its exercise may be annoying to some people. Coates v. City of Cincinnati, 402 U.S.. 611, 91 S.Ct. 1686, 1689 (1921). The fact that society may find speech offensive is not a sufficient reason for suppressing it. Indeed, if it is the speakers opinion that gives offense, that consequence is a reason for according it Constitutional protection. Simon & Shuster, Inc. v. Members of New York State Crime Victims Bd., 502 U.S. 105, 118 (1991). See also Forsyth County v. Nationalist Movement, 505 U.S. 123, 134-35 (1992)/ Erznoznik, 422 U.S. at 210/ Cohen v. California, 403 U.S. 15,21 (1971). What we have in the Mayors Guidelines is a clear CONTENT Based DESCRIMINATION. A group Officers thought the folowing to be a disturbance of peace "if it stirs the public to anger, invites dispute, brings about a condition of unrest, or creates a disturbance" The Supreme court disagreed finding such as content based & unconstitutional. Terminiello v. City of Chicago, 337US 1 (1949) ( at 4-5). As far as the LDS disdain for showing secret or sacred underwear, get over it. The state is to have no interest in any particular doctrine or dogma. U.S., Arkansas, 1968: The freedom of religion provision of the first amendment forhids alike the preference of a religious doctrine or the prohibition of a theory which is deemed antagonistic to a particular dogma. The state has no legitimate interest in protecting any or all religions from views distasteful to them. U.S.C.A. Const. Amend. I (Epperson v. State of Arkansas, 89 S. Ct. 266). What we did was PROTECTED behaviour. What LDS did was CRIMINAL behaviour. See Exhibit 1: Street preachers - 0 (arrests) LDS - 2 (arrests) Blaine Borrowman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: - Original Message - From: "irebukeu" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Saturday, February 07, 2004 4:36 PM Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] street preachers/free speech > Blaine,> Regarding the article you posted from the Deseret News let me set the record> straight for you or anyone who is reading.> 1) I was there during the wedding at the your temple the day in question.> We were asked to leave so the bride and groom can take pictures without our> preaching in the background. I refused due to the fact that Main Street was> going to be shut down and we wanted as much time there as possible, so BLAME> ROCKY.> 2) We were not there to protest any weddings (because we did not even know> they were going on), nor did we ever call anyone a whore at any time.> 3) I asked a question that seemed to start the wedding party very upset. I> said; "As a non Mormon and because I've never been inside your temple nor> witnessed a temple marriage we are left to speculate from others. Is it> true that these priests touch the brides body parts (I will leave that up to> your imagination) with oil?" Blaine: You what?!?! ROTFL!!! This sounds like an old fashioned b/w comedy starring the three stooges!! LOL!! You actually asked that question? Whew! Were there any young women present? No wonder !! Now I think I at least understand what started this thing!! But, my next question is, where did you ever get such an idea that brides were touched with oil by men? I saw something from one of Judy's letters that suggested similar things, and Dean had something to say along that line too--is that where you got that oil thing? It is slanderous. Just for the record, no such thing as that happens!! And that is all I am going to say--it is my final word. Maybe you should adopt the three wise monkeys slogan--see no evil, hear no evil, speak no evil--especially speak no evil. Not knowing from your ow
Re: [TruthTalk] street preachers/free speech
Kevin, you never did that I recall answer the question that I once asked you. The question was, did I meet you when I stopped to say "hello' to Dean? I met Ruben, and a third fellow whose name I didn't latch onto. Were you that person? Blaine - Original Message - From: Kevin Deegan To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Saturday, February 07, 2004 7:20 PM Subject: RE: [TruthTalk] street preachers/free speech Blaine wrote:> These guys were just out there screaming obscenities. Since you are speaking about me, I was there at the wedding party. Where you there? Or are you speaking third person? "These guys were just out there screaming obscenities" Go ahead tell us what obscene things were said. Or do you prefer to witness falsely? And you want to know why I say LDS stands for LIARS, decievers, seducers? Are these words Obscene? Jesus warned against False teachers The Preaching of the Cross is to them that Perish foolishness The Chuch of Jesus Christ Latter day Saints can not save you, Jesus is the way Your Temple garments will never hide your sin, the only covering that will work is the Blood of Jesus Christ and remember: Exodus 20:16 Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbor. Proverbs 19:9 A false witness shall not be unpunished, and he that speaketh lies shall perish. Mt 15:19 For out of the heart proceed evil thoughts, murders, adulteries, fornications, thefts, false witness, blasphemies: Here is the Church owned TV station story, any Obscenities?http://helix.ksl.com/video/ksl/0/0/40.ramView Real Video of Main Street Heckling StoryDay of Heckling on Plaza Thrusts Issues to Forefronthttp://tv.ksl.com/index.php?nid=5&sid=4061 We arrived at one conference to news stories such as this: GAG ORDERS? One news story actually said anyone without a permit would face arrest.http://tv.ksl.com/index.php?nid=5&sid=18426Restrictions on Main Street Considered During LDS Conference - 04/01/2003The city is exploring the idea of temporarily restricting free speech on the Main Street Plaza during this weekend's General Conference. http://www.sltrib.com/2004/Feb/02072004/utah/136621.aspDowntown 'fighting words' are spelled out http://deseretnews.com/dn/view/0,1249,590041671,00.htmlRules on free speech unveiled Conduct of street preachers prompts the city's action"Protesters who apply for free _expression_ activity permits will be given the guidelines." How much does the cities "Free Speech Permit" cost?No kidding they actually have a "Free Speech permit".To Whom should we submit our sermons, to have them reviewed for meeting the guidelines? Maybe the city should create a new "Bureau of PC (Permitted&Correct) speech"Many countries have found "travel permits" effective, maybe SLC can be the 1st in the US to institute this policy to keep undesirables out of Utah? All this to appease the Church, and SILENCE it's critics! Do you Yahoo!?Yahoo! Finance: Get your refund fast by filing online
Re: [TruthTalk] street preachers/free speech
Blaine: Aww, you guys are just being defensive. Maybe you should follow the advice af an old sage I once knew--he was LDS Pres David O McKay. He said, "Avoid even the appearance of evil." Maybe you guys need to try doing that on your next round of harrassing the honorable Mormon people. Then you won't have so much explaining to do. - Original Message - From: Kevin Deegan To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Sunday, February 08, 2004 6:28 AM Subject: RE: [TruthTalk] street preachers/free speech Blaine wrote:> Regarding the yelling, waving underwear, etc, I am > not speaking from my personal experience. I am > speaking of what I read about later in reliable > reports. According to reports from various sources> --sister missionaries assigned to stand on the streets > with the street preachers, media reports, and even > reports from members of Protestant denominations--> there was yelling of obscenities, waving underwear, > even donning some of these garments. repeating third hand reports is tale bearing. Have you spoken to any eyewitness Face to Face? Here are the "various sources" for Blaines FALSE WITNESS: sister missionaries from the FAIR web site: http://www.fairlds.org/apol/antis/200304.html "To yell and scream terrible things about the leaders, the doctrine and the members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints and in this way convince us we are wrong." Offensive to LDS doctrine yes, but Obscene, NO. I tell you again if you want to hear some real gutter mouths come listen to some of the LDS Priests! FAIR is a LDS Apologetics group. Some of the members told us personal info. They have pics & names even listing what we do for a living, on private web sites. They knew very intimate details of Larry's life. What for? Media reports from KSL the Church owned TV station If you watched the Real Video link that I provided, notice woman (mother of the bride) with Props in hand(wedding garments-they belong on bride) Notice NO Bride NO Bridegroom NO Wedding party just MOM with PROPS. How to create news: Take picture of SP's Take separate pic's of a wedding party on private property behind 15 foot high fencesome 30 yards from main street(Public property) put two in news story together. Add MOM with prop NOW THAT IS NEWS! Since there is so much video and news crews on the plaza, why not just show the part with the nasty stuff and bleep it out cover the brides face for protection of identity. Come on that would blow this thing wide open. ALAS there is no such video, just lies deceit and setup news from the church crew. Liars Decievers Seducers! reports from members of Protestant denominations http://tv.ksl.com/index.php?nid=5&sid=54312 More of the same, in reports one guy a president of a christian school in Utah, even had the audacity to say he tried to talk to us but could not find us! Banners hoisted high in the air and "screaming" does not lend itself to being lost in the crowd. Come on lets get real here. What kind of man would allow his new bride to be called a whore? And would not that make some great News Video of him coming after the SP's? This whole thing is sad, ORWELLIAN news in Utah. Baline you are a FALSE WITNESS, repeating stories. Prov 19:9 A false witness shall not be unpunished, and he that speaketh lies shall perish. David Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Blaine wrote: > I disagree that it is because "men like to control > others and local government ALWAYS seeks to eliminate > free speech," although that may be what happens in > some instances. Rather, I think it is to protect the > rights of the populace--which is the right not to have > to listen to themselves being insulted, provoked, verbally > abused, and thereby preventing them from pursuing life, > liberty and happiness, all considered fundamental natural > rights. As I said, your right to throw a punch ends > where my chin begins.You have convinced me that you do not believe in free speech. Maybe younow need to convince yourself. I could respect what you are saying heremuch more if you just came right out and said that you do not believe infree speech.If people need to be protected from the public speech of others, thenthis is a clear statement that you do not believe in FREE speech. Youbelieve in CENSURED speech. You want only that speech which ispalatable and edifying for everyone. You believe like Dean apparentlydoes, that whoever says anything that is not edifying ought to besilenced after a few rebukes and they still do not listen.Blaine wrote:> If what the person is saying is known to him as > being an insult to the other person, he are > definitely crossing the line, even if by his > own definition the wor
Re: [TruthTalk] Adams FALL UPWARD
Blaine: Naawww. I think I will let it stand. Michael can sort it out from what I have written since that post. I can't do Michael's thinking for him. From: "David Miller" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Saturday, February 07, 2004 8:33 PM Subject: RE: [TruthTalk] Adams FALL UPWARD > Blaine also wrote: > > I doubt if I was ever an angel but I am sure > > I was a spirit personage in premortal life. > > Blaine, do you want to retract this statement? > > It seems like from what you have written, everybody is an angel, so why > do you say that you doubt that you were ever an angel? It does appear > that Michael's observation of a contradiction still stands. > > Peace be with you. > David Miller, Beverly Hills, Florida. > > -- > "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.
Re: [TruthTalk] Were Adam and Eve subject to death before they sinned?
Charles Perry Locke wrote:
Regarding the word "death", I think
that it is used sometimes to mean
physical death, and sometimes to mean spiritual death. I try to understand
it within the context in which I read it.
>
> >From my perspective, physical death came because of sin, as did
sickness
>and disease, which is basically incipient death. I believe that
Adam
>and Eve freely ate of the tree of life before they sinned. Following
is
>one passage which seems to connect death with sin entering the world.
>
>"Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by
sin;
>and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned." (Romans
>5:12 KJV)
I think that, except for speaking of the death of Christ in Romans 5,
the
chapter refers to spiritual death.
DAVEH: Perry, I hope you and DavidM don't mind me contributing a
bit to this thread. If you look at vs 18.
"Therefore as by the offense of one judgment came upon all men to condemnation
{which I believe to be physical death}; even so by the righteousness of
one the free gift came upon all men unto the justification
of life {this can only mean a physical resurrection, since it is to all
men}.
...It seems to me the free gift spoken about in this passage
is the physical resurrection all men will receive due to Jesus' resurrection,
which applies to all men as Paul described in 1Cor 15:22 below. One
does not have to do anything to earn a physical resurrection.it truly
is a free gift to all mortals.
>The following passage indicates death to be an enemy,
which would show
>it to be not part of God's plan, but something we were subjugated
to
>because of sin.
>
>"The last enemy that shall be destroyed is death." (1 Corinthians
15:26
>KJV)
1 Corinthians 15:21-23 says, "21 For since by man came death, by man
came
also the resurrection of the dead. 22 For as in Adam all die, even
so in
Christ shall all be made alive. 23 But every man in his own order:
Christ
the firstfruits; afterward they that are Christ's at his coming. "
I think 1 Corinthians 15 speaks of physical death, for it speaks of
the
resurrection at Christ's return (when the corruptible shall put on
the
incorruptible, and the mortal immotality).
--
~~~
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.
Re: [TruthTalk] deceived
Kevin Deegan wrote: > Surely you must know that most TTers would not be familiar with the > peculiar LDS belief of a TOTAL "Great Apostacy". DAVEH: Only those TTers who delete my posts without reading them, Kevin. -- ~~~ 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. -- "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.
Re: [TruthTalk] street preachers/free speech
Blaine: You what?!?! ROTFL!!! This sounds like an old fashioned b/w comedy starring the three stooges!! LOL!! You actually asked that question? Whew! Were there any young women present? No wonder !! Ruben: Blaine I hear this stuff from your members, you should hear the things these x-mormons say to present members while in front of us. Or just listen to the arguments your members give us on the street about your own faith. Its not our fault your church believes things that are so secretive or a need to know basis. Or better yet, that your church continues to evolve from the teaching of Smith/Young. This is why Kevin continually says LIARS, DECEIVERS & SEDUCERS. If we had a dime for every time a mormon said, "we don't believe that"..then wait five minutes and address new crowd with the same question and they will now defend the same issue the crowd before denied. You really want to SEE A COMEDY SHOW come and listen to your church respond to questions. Now I think I at least understand what started this thing!! But, my next question is, where did you ever get such an idea that brides were touched with oil by men? Ruben: .uh.your church.. I saw something from one of Judy's letters that suggested similar things, and Dean had something to say along that line too--is that where you got that oil thing? It is slanderous. Ruben: I cannot comment, you must ask Judy or Dean. Just for the record, no such thing as that happens!! Ruben: Say's you. I have asked and have been told yes they do and no never. I have been told yes, but my breasts only. Or they prayed over just our private parts, to make our seed holy. Believe it or not the answer is always revolving. So I asked the question, during the wedding because they should know, but instead of an answer THEY IMPLODED on us. -- "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.
Re: [TruthTalk] street preachers/free speech
I do not believe we have met. Was that at last conference?Blaine Borrowman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Kevin, you never did that I recall answer the question that I once asked you. The question was, did I meet you when I stopped to say "hello' to Dean? I met Ruben, and a third fellow whose name I didn't latch onto. Were you that person? Blaine - Original Message - From: Kevin Deegan To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Saturday, February 07, 2004 7:20 PM Subject: RE: [TruthTalk] street preachers/free speech Blaine wrote:> These guys were just out there screaming obscenities. Since you are speaking about me, I was there at the wedding party. Where you there? Or are you speaking third person? "These guys were just out there screaming obscenities" Go ahead tell us what obscene things were said. Or do you prefer to witness falsely? And you want to know why I say LDS stands for LIARS, decievers, seducers? Are these words Obscene? Jesus warned against False teachers The Preaching of the Cross is to them that Perish foolishness The Chuch of Jesus Christ Latter day Saints can not save you, Jesus is the way Your Temple garments will never hide your sin, the only covering that will work is the Blood of Jesus Christ and remember: Exodus 20:16 Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbor. Proverbs 19:9 A false witness shall not be unpunished, and he that speaketh lies shall perish. Mt 15:19 For out of the heart proceed evil thoughts, murders, adulteries, fornications, thefts, false witness, blasphemies: Here is the Church owned TV station story, any Obscenities?http://helix.ksl.com/video/ksl/0/0/40.ramView Real Video of Main Street Heckling StoryDay of Heckling on Plaza Thrusts Issues to Forefronthttp://tv.ksl.com/index.php?nid=5&sid=4061 We arrived at one conference to news stories such as this: GAG ORDERS? One news story actually said anyone without a permit would face arrest.http://tv.ksl.com/index.php?nid=5&sid=18426Restrictions on Main Street Considered During LDS Conference - 04/01/2003The city is exploring the idea of temporarily restricting free speech on the Main Street Plaza during this weekend's General Conference. http://www.sltrib.com/2004/Feb/02072004/utah/136621.aspDowntown 'fighting words' are spelled out http://deseretnews.com/dn/view/0,1249,590041671,00.htmlRules on free speech unveiled Conduct of street preachers prompts the city's action"Protesters who apply for free _expression_ activity permits will be given the guidelines." How much does the cities "Free Speech Permit" cost?No kidding they actually have a "Free Speech permit".To Whom should we submit our sermons, to have them reviewed for meeting the guidelines? Maybe the city should create a new "Bureau of PC (Permitted&Correct) speech"Many countries have found "travel permits" effective, maybe SLC can be the 1st in the US to institute this policy to keep undesirables out of Utah? All this to appease the Church, and SILENCE it's critics! Do you Yahoo!?Yahoo! Finance: Get your refund fast by filing online Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Finance: Get your refund fast by filing online
Re: [TruthTalk] street preachers/free speech
No just showing how predictable this "NEWS" scam was. Blaine Borrowman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Blaine: Aww, you guys are just being defensive. Maybe you should follow the advice af an old sage I once knew--he was LDS Pres David O McKay. He said, "Avoid even the appearance of evil." Maybe you guys need to try doing that on your next round of harrassing the honorable Mormon people. Then you won't have so much explaining to do. - Original Message - From: Kevin Deegan To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Sunday, February 08, 2004 6:28 AM Subject: RE: [TruthTalk] street preachers/free speech Blaine wrote:> Regarding the yelling, waving underwear, etc, I am > not speaking from my personal experience. I am > speaking of what I read about later in reliable > reports. According to reports from various sources> --sister missionaries assigned to stand on the streets > with the street preachers, media reports, and even > reports from members of Protestant denominations--> there was yelling of obscenities, waving underwear, > even donning some of these garments. repeating third hand reports is tale bearing. Have you spoken to any eyewitness Face to Face? Here are the "various sources" for Blaines FALSE WITNESS: sister missionaries from the FAIR web site: http://www.fairlds.org/apol/antis/200304.html "To yell and scream terrible things about the leaders, the doctrine and the members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints and in this way convince us we are wrong." Offensive to LDS doctrine yes, but Obscene, NO. I tell you again if you want to hear some real gutter mouths come listen to some of the LDS Priests! FAIR is a LDS Apologetics group. Some of the members told us personal info. They have pics & names even listing what we do for a living, on private web sites. They knew very intimate details of Larry's life. What for? Media reports from KSL the Church owned TV station If you watched the Real Video link that I provided, notice woman (mother of the bride) with Props in hand(wedding garments-they belong on bride) Notice NO Bride NO Bridegroom NO Wedding party just MOM with PROPS. How to create news: Take picture of SP's Take separate pic's of a wedding party on private property behind 15 foot high fencesome 30 yards from main street(Public property) put two in news story together. Add MOM with prop NOW THAT IS NEWS! Since there is so much video and news crews on the plaza, why not just show the part with the nasty stuff and bleep it out cover the brides face for protection of identity. Come on that would blow this thing wide open. ALAS there is no such video, just lies deceit and setup news from the church crew. Liars Decievers Seducers! reports from members of Protestant denominations http://tv.ksl.com/index.php?nid=5&sid=54312 More of the same, in reports one guy a president of a christian school in Utah, even had the audacity to say he tried to talk to us but could not find us! Banners hoisted high in the air and "screaming" does not lend itself to being lost in the crowd. Come on lets get real here. What kind of man would allow his new bride to be called a whore? And would not that make some great News Video of him coming after the SP's? This whole thing is sad, ORWELLIAN news in Utah. Baline you are a FALSE WITNESS, repeating stories. Prov 19:9 A false witness shall not be unpunished, and he that speaketh lies shall perish. David Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Blaine wrote: > I disagree that it is because "men like to control > others and local government ALWAYS seeks to eliminate > free speech," although that may be what happens in > some instances. Rather, I think it is to protect the > rights of the populace--which is the right not to have > to listen to themselves being insulted, provoked, verbally > abused, and thereby preventing them from pursuing life, > liberty and happiness, all considered fundamental natural > rights. As I said, your right to throw a punch ends > where my chin begins.You have convinced me that you do not believe in free speech. Maybe younow need to convince yourself. I could respect what you are saying heremuch more if you just came right out and said that you do not believe infree speech.If people need to be protected from the public speech of others, thenthis is a clear statement that you do not believe in FREE speech. Youbelieve in CENSURED speech. You want only that speech which ispalatable and edifying for everyone. You believe like Dean apparentlydoes, that whoever says anything that is not edifying ought to besilenced after a few rebukes and they still do not listen.Blaine wrote:> If what the person is saying is known to him as > being an insult to the other person, he are > definitely crossing the line, even if by his > own definition the word may mean something else. Hold on there. You just crossed a big line in my book. :-) I know that the homosexuals want to be called "gay." They are offendedto be called a homosexual. However
Re: [TruthTalk] Adams FALL UPWARD
Blaine: Naawww. I think I will let it stand. Michael can sort it out fromwhat I have written since that post. I can't do Michael's thinking for him.Try resorting to your Testimony Blaine. I KNOW the CHURCH is true! I KNOW the CHURCH is true! I KNOW the CHURCH is true! I KNOW the CHURCH is true!Maybe if you repeat it one more time even you will believe it.Blaine Borrowman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Blaine: Naawww. I think I will let it stand. Michael can sort it out fromwhat I have written since that post. I can't do Michael's thinking for him.From: "David Miller" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>Sent: Saturday, February 07, 2004 8:33 PMSubject: RE: [TruthTalk] Adams FALL UPWARD> Blaine also wrote:> > I doubt if I was ever an angel but I am sure> > I was a spirit personage in premortal life.>> Blaine, do you want to retract this statement?>> It seems like from what you have written, everybody is an angel, so why> do you say that you doubt that you were ever an angel? It does appear> that Michael's observation of a contradiction still stands.>> Peace be with you.> David Miller, Beverly Hills, Florida.>> --> "Let your speech be always with grace, seasoned with salt, that you mayknow 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 afriend 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.orgIf 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!? Yahoo! Finance: Get your refund fast by filing online
Re: [TruthTalk] Were Adam and Eve subject to death before they sinned?
DAVEH: It seems to me the free gift spoken about in this passage is the physical resurrection all men will receive due to Jesus' resurrection, which applies to all men as Paul described in 1Cor 15:22 below. One does not have to do anything to earn a physical resurrection.it truly is a free gift to all mortals.
1 Corinthians 15:21For since by man came death, by man came also the resurrection of the dead. 22 For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive.
Those that are IN Christ will be made alive. Those that are without (OR OUTSIDE OF CHRIST) will face EVERLASTING DESTRUCTION. 1 Thes 5:13 But them that are without God judgeth. Therefore put away from among yourselves that wicked person.
1 Thes 5 And to you who are troubled rest with us, when the Lord Jesus shall be revealed from heaven with his mighty angels, In flaming fire taking vengeance on them that know not God, and that obey not the gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ: Who shall be punished with everlasting destruction from the presence of the Lord, and from the glory of his power; When he shall come to be glorified in his saints, and to be admired in all them that believe
It is VERY Clear that UNBELIEVERS are not going to see life but WRATH!
JN 3:36 He that believeth on the Son hath everlasting life: and he that believeth not the Son shall not see life; but the wrath of God abideth on him.
Jude 1 For there are certain men crept in unawares, who were before of old ordained to this condemnation, ungodly men, turning the grace of our God into lasciviousness, and denying the only Lord God, and our Lord Jesus Christ.I will therefore put you in remembrance, though ye once knew this, how that the Lord, having saved the people out of the land of Egypt, afterward destroyed them that believed not..
Dan 12:2 And many of them that sleep in the dust of the earth shall awake, some to everlasting life, and some to shame and everlasting contempt.
Dave <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Charles Perry Locke wrote:
Regarding the word "death", I think that it is used sometimes to mean physical death, and sometimes to mean spiritual death. I try to understand it within the context in which I read it.
> > >From my perspective, physical death came because of sin, as did sickness >and disease, which is basically incipient death. I believe that Adam >and Eve freely ate of the tree of life before they sinned. Following is >one passage which seems to connect death with sin entering the world. > >"Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; >and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned." (Romans >5:12 KJV)
I think that, except for speaking of the death of Christ in Romans 5, the chapter refers to spiritual death.DAVEH: Perry, I hope you and DavidM don't mind me contributing a bit to this thread. If you look at vs 18.
"Therefore as by the offense of one judgment came upon all men to condemnation {which I believe to be physical death}; even so by the righteousness of one the free gift came upon all men unto the justification of life {this can only mean a physical resurrection, since it is to all men}.
...It seems to me the free gift spoken about in this passage is the physical resurrection all men will receive due to Jesus' resurrection, which applies to all men as Paul described in 1Cor 15:22 below. One does not have to do anything to earn a physical resurrection.it truly is a free gift to all mortals.
>The following passage indicates death to be an enemy, which would show >it to be not part of God's plan, but something we were subjugated to >because of sin. > >"The last enemy that shall be destroyed is death." (1 Corinthians 15:26 >KJV)
1 Corinthians 15:21-23 says, "21 For since by man came death, by man came also the resurrection of the dead. 22 For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive. 23 But every man in his own order: Christ the firstfruits; afterward they that are Christ's at his coming. "
I think 1 Corinthians 15 speaks of physical death, for it speaks of the resurrection at Christ's return (when the corruptible shall put on the incorruptible, and the mortal immotality).
-- ~~~ 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.
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Finance: Get your refund fast by filing online
Re: [TruthTalk] street preachers/free speech
- Original Message - From: "David Miller" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Saturday, February 07, 2004 8:56 PM Subject: RE: [TruthTalk] street preachers/free speech Blaine wrote: > I disagree that it is because "men like to control > others and local government ALWAYS seeks to eliminate > free speech," although that may be what happens in > some instances. Rather, I think it is to protect the > rights of the populace--which is the right not to have > to listen to themselves being insulted, provoked, verbally > abused, and thereby preventing them from pursuing life, > liberty and happiness, all considered fundamental natural > rights. As I said, your right to throw a punch ends > where my chin begins.You have convinced me that you do not believe in free speech. Maybe younow need to convince yourself. I could respect what you are saying heremuch more if you just came right out and said that you do not believe infree speech. Blaine I believe in responsible free speech, but not just letting it all hang out. I also believe in natural rights, and I do not believe the supreme court ajudicates responsibly all the time. Maybe they do the best they can, but then again, maybe they just hold themselves above it all and never come down to earth and look at what nonsensical laws they have created. I think they do the latter too much. Before they allowed pornography on the internet, you could hardly even find a photo of a girl wearing a lowcut blouse showing cleavage. Now, anything goes. I think they made a huge mistake in calling that stuff freedom of _expression_, and saying it is all legit. The same with Larry Flint and his Hustler mag, and others like it. I now see sites on the internet oriented towards helping people get unhooked from pornography. Kevin posted one last week. This is a growing trend. Children who are unsupervised, as a lot of them are not, are doomed by this irresponsible adjuducation to becoming perverts. If guys like President Clinton don't ruin this country, I am sure the Supreme Court will. I am willing to bet Clinton was himself hooked on pornography. And Pres. Kennedy. You can't tell me freedom of _expression_ is all OK just because the courts allow it. Why do you think they no longer enforce laws against adultry? Because the police and the law enforement people are all hooked on porno crap and the adultry that it spawns. The cops would all have to be arrested, and probably the judges and prosecutors too. Pretty soon we will not be able to walk down the street without either meeting a street preacher, a porno addict, a baby murderer, a gay married couple, or whatever. (:>) (I like that one, what do you think?) LOL If people need to be protected from the public speech of others, thenthis is a clear statement that you do not believe in FREE speech. Youbelieve in CENSURED speech. You want only that speech which ispalatable and edifying for everyone. You believe like Dean apparentlydoes, that whoever says anything that is not edifying ought to besilenced after a few rebukes and they still do not listen. Blaine: Dean means well . . . I think. But I think what you are seeing in me is a good ol' Republican conservative stance. You street preachers are too liberal. I side with Sean Hennity, and people like him. I am not part of the lunitic fringe, if that is what you are saying. Blaine wrote:> If what the person is saying is known to him as > being an insult to the other person, he are > definitely crossing the line, even if by his > own definition the word may mean something else. Hold on there. You just crossed a big line in my book. :-) I know that the homosexuals want to be called "gay." They are offendedto be called a homosexual. However, I am offended that they havehijacked the English language and call themselves gay. I refuse to usethe word gay in reference to them, and I rebuke those who call them gay.In my opinion, they are playing into the deceptive game of Satan.Homosexuals are not gay, so we all ought to stop calling them gay! Blain: I have taken no stance on Homosexuals, other than I believe laws disbarring their activities should have been enforced a long time ago. But what you say is true, as far as I am concerned. Now here you come along and say that if I know that the term homosexualoffends them, then I am crossing the line if I refer to them ashomosexual. Or, suppose I use the Biblical word "sodomite." Now I knowthey don't like the word "sodomite," so are you saying that when I readDeut. 23:17 in the KJV, that I need to edit the words "whore" and"sodomite" out of it before I read it, just because I know that somepeople will feel insulted? Blaine: OK, well , what I think we should be talking about is whether or not street preachers are right in condemning decent people at all. . You are basically telling me stre
Re: [TruthTalk] street preachers/free speech
Make our seed holy? Why do cults always mix Sex & worship? Just another Pagan seX cult! Abraham was made righteous by a REDHEAD! Or was it a Brunette? D&C 132:37 Abraham received concubines, and they bore him children; and it was accounted unto him for righteousness http://scriptures.lds.org/dc/132 irebukeu <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Blaine: You what?!?! ROTFL!!! This sounds like an old fashioned b/wcomedy starring the three stooges!! LOL!! You actually asked thatquestion? Whew! Were there any young women present? No wonder !!Ruben:Blaine I hear this stuff from your members, you should hear the things thesex-mormons say to present members while in front of us. Or just listen tothe arguments your members give us on the street about your own faith. Itsnot our fault your church believes things that are so secretive or a need toknow basis. Or better yet, that your church continues to evolve from theteaching of Smith/Young. This is why Kevin continually says LIARS,DECEIVERS & SEDUCERS. If we had a dime for every time a mormon said, "wedon't believe that"..then wait five minutes and address new crowd with thesame question and they will now defend the same issue the crowd beforedenied. You really want to SEE A COMEDY SHOW come and listen to your churchrespond to questions.Now I think I at least understand what started this thing!! But, my nextquestion is, where did you ever get such an idea that brides were touchedwith oil by men?Ruben:.uh.your church..I saw something from one of Judy's letters that suggested similar things,and Dean had something to say along that line too--is that where you gotthat oil thing? It is slanderous.Ruben:I cannot comment, you must ask Judy or Dean.Just for the record, no such thing as that happens!!Ruben:Say's you.I have asked and have been told yes they do and no never. I have been toldyes, but my breasts only. Or they prayed over just our private parts, tomake our seed holy. Believe it or not the answer is always revolving. So Iasked the question, during the wedding because they should know, but insteadof an answer THEY IMPLODED on us.--"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.orgIf 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!? Yahoo! Finance: Get your refund fast by filing online
Re: [TruthTalk] street preachers/free speech
BLAINE : I think Ruben and his boys get a little too worked up over some of the gossip they hear about what goes on in the Mormon temples, don't you? (:>) So you are against GOSSIP? You HYPOCRIT! You GOSSIP about the Obscene screaming that you NEVER Witnessed! You are a HYPOCRIT & a FALSE WITNESS. With all the partial posts of articles from you lately & now this. I am going to have to reconsider whether I can ever trust your words again. Blaine Borrowman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: - Original Message - From: "David Miller" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Saturday, February 07, 2004 8:56 PM Subject: RE: [TruthTalk] street preachers/free speech Blaine wrote: > I disagree that it is because "men like to control > others and local government ALWAYS seeks to eliminate > free speech," although that may be what happens in > some instances. Rather, I think it is to protect the > rights of the populace--which is the right not to have > to listen to themselves being insulted, provoked, verbally > abused, and thereby preventing them from pursuing life, > liberty and happiness, all considered fundamental natural > rights. As I said, your right to throw a punch ends > where my chin begins.You have convinced me that you do not believe in free speech. Maybe younow need to convince yourself. I could respect what you are saying heremuch more if you just came right out and said that you do not believe infree speech. Blaine I believe in responsible free speech, but not just letting it all hang out. I also believe in natural rights, and I do not believe the supreme court ajudicates responsibly all the time. Maybe they do the best they can, but then again, maybe they just hold themselves above it all and never come down to earth and look at what nonsensical laws they have created. I think they do the latter too much. Before they allowed pornography on the internet, you could hardly even find a photo of a girl wearing a lowcut blouse showing cleavage. Now, anything goes. I think they made a huge mistake in calling that stuff freedom of _expression_, and saying it is all legit. The same with Larry Flint and his Hustler mag, and others like it. I now see sites on the internet oriented towards helping people get unhooked from pornography. Kevin posted one last week. This is a growing trend. Children who are unsupervised, as a lot of them are not, are doomed by this irresponsible adjuducation to becoming perverts. If guys like President Clinton don't ruin this country, I am sure the Supreme Court will. I am willing to bet Clinton was himself hooked on pornography. And Pres. Kennedy. You can't tell me freedom of _expression_ is all OK just because the courts allow it. Why do you think they no longer enforce laws against adultry? Because the police and the law enforement people are all hooked on porno crap and the adultry that it spawns. The cops would all have to be arrested, and probably the judges and prosecutors too. Pretty soon we will not be able to walk down the street without either meeting a street preacher, a porno addict, a baby murderer, a gay married couple, or whatever. (:>) (I like that one, what do you think?) LOL If people need to be protected from the public speech of others, thenthis is a clear statement that you do not believe in FREE speech. Youbelieve in CENSURED speech. You want only that speech which ispalatable and edifying for everyone. You believe like Dean apparentlydoes, that whoever says anything that is not edifying ought to besilenced after a few rebukes and they still do not listen. Blaine: Dean means well . . . I think. But I think what you are seeing in me is a good ol' Republican conservative stance. You street preachers are too liberal. I side with Sean Hennity, and people like him. I am not part of the lunitic fringe, if that is what you are saying. Blaine wrote:> If what the person is saying is known to him as > being an insult to the other person, he are > definitely crossing the line, even if by his > own definition the word may mean something else. Hold on there. You just crossed a big line in my book. :-) I know that the homosexuals want to be called "gay." They are offendedto be called a homosexual. However, I am offended that they havehijacked the English language and call themselves gay. I refuse to usethe word gay in reference to them, and I rebuke those who call them gay.In my opinion, they are playing into the deceptive game of Satan.Homosexuals are not gay, so we all ought to stop calling them gay! Blain: I have taken no stance on Homosexuals, other than I believe laws disbarring their activities should have been enforced a long time ago. But what you say is true, as far as I am concerned. Now here you come along and say that if I know that the term homosexualoffends them, then I am crossing the line if I refer to them ashomosexual. Or, suppose I use the Biblical word "sodomite." N
Re: [TruthTalk] Were Adam and Eve subject to death before they sinned?
Kevin Deegan wrote:
DAVEH: It seems to me the free gift spoken
about in this passage is the physical resurrection all men will receive
due to Jesus' resurrection, which applies to all men as Paul described
in 1Cor 15:22 below. One does not have to do anything to earn a physical
resurrection.it truly is a free gift to all mortals.1 Corinthians
15:21For since by man came death, by man came also the resurrection
of the dead. 22 For as in
Adam all die, even so in
Christ shall all be made alive.Those that are IN Christ will
be made alive. Those that are without (OR OUTSIDE OF CHRIST) will
face EVERLASTING DESTRUCTION.
DAVEH: I respectfully disagree with you on this, Kevin. You
have emphasized the in
while ignoring the all. All men physically
die due to Adam's transgression. All men do not die spiritually because
of Adam's transgression, but they die spiritually because of their own
sins. However, all men do die (physically) due to Adam's transgression.
I thought (from previous posts of TTers) that it is commonly believed by
Protestants that all men will be resurrected from their physical deaths.
Is that not correct, Kevin? Perhaps I misunderstood.
1 Thes 5:13 But them that
are without God judgeth. Therefore put away from among yourselves
that wicked person.
1 Thes 5 And to you who are troubled rest with us, when the Lord
Jesus shall be revealed from heaven with his mighty angels, In flaming
fire taking vengeance on them that
know not God, and that obey not the gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ: Who
shall be punished with everlasting destruction from the presence of the
Lord, and from the glory of his power; When he shall come to be
glorified in his saints, and to be admired in all
them that believe
It is VERY Clear that UNBELIEVERS are not going to see life but WRATH!
DAVEH: I don't see how you draw this into the discussion about physical
resurrections. You are mixing apples and oranges on this one, IMO.
Let's try to keep it simple...Do you believe all men (good/bad) will
physically resurrected, Kevin?
JN 3:36 He that believeth
on the Son hath everlasting life: and he that believeth not the Son shall
not see life; but the wrath of God abideth on him.
Jude 1 For there are certain men crept in unawares, who were before
of old ordained to this condemnation, ungodly
men, turning the grace of our God into lasciviousness, and denying the
only Lord God, and our Lord Jesus Christ.I will therefore put you in remembrance,
though ye once knew this, how that the Lord, having saved
the people out of the land of Egypt, afterward destroyed
them that believed not..
Dan 12:2 And many of them that sleep in the dust of the earth shall
awake, some to everlasting life, and some
to shame and everlasting contempt.
Dave <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Charles Perry Locke wrote:
Regarding the word "death", I think
that it is used sometimes to mean
physical death, and sometimes to mean spiritual death. I try to understand
it within the context in which I read it.
>
> >From my perspective, physical death came because of sin, as did
sickness
>and disease, which is basically incipient death. I believe that
Adam
>and Eve freely ate of the tree of life before they sinned. Following
is
>one passage which seems to connect death with sin entering the world.
>
>"Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by
sin;
>and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned." (Romans
>5:12 KJV)
I think that, except for speaking of the death of Christ in Romans 5,
the
chapter refers to spiritual death.
DAVEH: Perry, I hope you and DavidM don't mind me contributing a
bit to this thread. If you look at vs 18.
"Therefore as by the offense of one judgment came upon all men to condemnation
{which I believe to be physical death}; even so by the righteousness of
one the free gift came upon all men unto the justification
of life {this can only mean a physical resurrection, since it is to all
men}.
...It seems to me the free gift spoken about in this passage
is the physical resurrection all men will receive due to Jesus' resurrection,
which applies to all men as Paul described in 1Cor 15:22 below. One
does not have to do anything to earn a physical resurrection.it truly
is a free gift to all mortals.
>The following passage indicates death to be an
enemy, which would show
>it to be not part of God's plan, but something we were subjugated
to
>because of sin.
>
>"The last enemy that shall be destroyed is death." (1 Corinthians
15:26
>KJV)
1 Corinthians 15:21-23 says, "21 For since by man came death, by man
came
also the resurrection of the dead. 22 For as in Adam all die, even
so in
Christ shall all be made alive. 23 But every man in his own order:
Christ
the firstfruits; afterward they that are Christ's at his coming. "
I think 1 Corinthians 15 speaks of physical death, for it speaks of
the
resurrection at Christ's return (when the corruptible shall put on
the
incorruptible, and the mortal immot
Re: [TruthTalk] street preachers/free speech
Ruben, I would like to describe in detail what they do in what they call the washing and annointing rooms, but do not feel I should--not because it is so much a secret, it is just a sacred ordinance. The part with the oil is very similar to what is described in the Book of Samuel wherein David was annointed to be King over Israel. Not to much there to complain about was there? But I can say men are NEVER allowed in the washing and annointing rooms with women, nor are women ever allowed in with men. AND there are always two witnesses to everything that is done. My wife and I have been there many times, and I know precisely what is and what is not done. If you prefer not to take my word for it, then the only thing I can recommend is that you figure out a way to spy on us! (:>) I can tell you also that there is a special, sacred spirit in those rooms. Some have testified they saw the spirits of those whose work was being done. I always feel renewed after being in one. It is better than being in church singing hymns. - Original Message - From: "irebukeu" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Sunday, February 08, 2004 7:14 PM Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] street preachers/free speech > > Blaine: You what?!?! ROTFL!!! This sounds like an old fashioned b/w> comedy starring the three stooges!! LOL!! You actually asked that> question? Whew! Were there any young women present? No wonder !!> > Ruben:> Blaine I hear this stuff from your members, you should hear the things these> x-mormons say to present members while in front of us. Or just listen to> the arguments your members give us on the street about your own faith. Its> not our fault your church believes things that are so secretive or a need to> know basis. Or better yet, that your church continues to evolve from the> teaching of Smith/Young. This is why Kevin continually says LIARS,> DECEIVERS & SEDUCERS. If we had a dime for every time a mormon said, "we> don't believe that"..then wait five minutes and address new crowd with the> same question and they will now defend the same issue the crowd before> denied. You really want to SEE A COMEDY SHOW come and listen to your church> respond to questions.> > Now I think I at least understand what started this thing!! But, my next> question is, where did you ever get such an idea that brides were touched> with oil by men?> > Ruben:> .uh.your church..> > I saw something from one of Judy's letters that suggested similar things,> and Dean had something to say along that line too--is that where you got> that oil thing? It is slanderous.> > Ruben:> I cannot comment, you must ask Judy or Dean.> > Just for the record, no such thing as that happens!!> > Ruben:> Say's you.> I have asked and have been told yes they do and no never. I have been told> yes, but my breasts only. Or they prayed over just our private parts, to> make our seed holy. Believe it or not the answer is always revolving. So I> asked the question, during the wedding because they should know, but instead> of an answer THEY IMPLODED on us.> > Blaine: Maybe they consider you as being prying without much else to go on except some Gossip you have heard.?> --> "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.>
Re: [TruthTalk] street preachers/free speech
Blaine: There is a basic difference between being a pariah and a martyr. I see the street preachers as pariahs, not martyrs. (:>) They bring it on man, and start things they may not be able to finish. (:>) I hope all works out for the Church and them, too bad we can't feel more amicably toward one another. I think Ruben means well he just has his ladder leaned against the wrong wall.. (:>) Are these vieled Threats? Started something we can't finish? Sounds like FIGHTING WORDS to me, what will Mayor Rocky think? Are the LDS forming a Posse? Are the LDS Inciting violence? Here is an interesting Provo Article that generated enough angst among the faithful, that Rocky moved on it. Escalation likely at next LDS Conference http://archive.harktheherald.com/archive_detail.php?archiveFile=./pubfiles/prv/archive/2003/November/30/Commentary/7464.xml&start=0&numPer=20&keyword=escalation+likely+lds§ionSearch=&begindate=1%2F1%2F1997&enddate=12%2F31%2F2004&authorSearch=&IncludeStories=1&pubsection=&page=&IncludePages=&IncludeImages=&mode=allwords&archive_pubname=Heraldextra.com%0A%09%09%09 Escalation likely at next LDS Conference Date November 30, 2003 If you are one of the large number of people repulsed by the vulgar use of LDS temple garments by street preachers during October's LDS General Conference, brace yourself. At next April's conference you're likely to see a major escalation. Emboldened by the lack of consequences to their attempts to incite a riot, so-called street preachers will be back with a new level of insult. In October, they used LDS garments as symbolic toilet paper as they confronted conference attendees. In April, they promise the crowd will see reenactments of LDS temple ceremonies, parodies of sacred rites, complete with ritual clothing. Tens of thousands of Mormons will be attending, as they do twice yearly. Street preachers clothed in sacred LDS vestments and shouting vulgar insults will place themselves directly in their path. It's the equivalent of a member of the Ku Klux Klan parading through a heavily black district of Washington, D.C., or southeast San Diego and shouting racial epithets. Violence is virtually assured. Such behavior cannot be condoned, nor can it hide behind the Constitution's protection of free speech. It contains nothing of value and is likely to incite ordinary people to anger and action. Of particular worry is the potential that a militant LDS faction, still seething over the garment incident and looking to settle accounts, could take matters into its own hands in significant numbers. The powder keg is very likely to blow up if Salt Lake City's police fail to take vigorous action during April Conference against the provocations of uncouth street preachers. To give police the tools they need, the city council should immediately amend the overbroad city ordinance on disturbing the peace. If written properly, a new ordinance can prevent a major civil disturbance. It needs to have real teeth, and it needs to be enforced. A U.S. Supreme Court decision from 1942 still applies: Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire. We thought it was important enough to include the full text of that decision on this page. In Chaplinsky, the court outlined the limits of free speech, in part as follows: "[I]t is well understood that the right of free speech is not absolute at all times and under all circumstances. There are certain well-defined and narrowly limited classes of speech, the prevention and punishment of which has never been thought to raise any constitutional problem. These include the lewd and obscene, the profane, the libelous, and the insulting or 'fighting' words -- those which by their very utterance inflict injury or tend to incite an immediate breach of the peace. It has been well observed that such utterances are no essential part of any exposition of ideas, and are of such slight social value as a step to truth that any benefit that may be derived from them is clearly outweighed by the social interest in order and morality. Resort to epithets or personal abuse is not in any proper sense communication of information or opinion safeguarded by the Constitution, and its punishment as a criminal act would raise no question under that instrument." An amended Salt Lake City ordinance should draw on the language of the Chaplinsky decision. If it does, it will withstand Constitutional scrutiny. Ken Paulson, executive director of the Freedom Forum's First Amendment Center at Vanderbilt University, said the current city language that would punish a person "... intending to cause inconvenience, annoyance or alarm," is too broad to enforce. Mere annoyance or inconvenience is not enough to shut down the First Amendment. Many a political protest has been annoying to those holding a contrary view. If the standard for disturbing the peace were simple annoyance, public discourse would soon settle to nothing but bland platitudes -- an undesirable result for a hea
Re: [TruthTalk] Were Adam and Eve subject to death before they sinned?
Yes all men will be ressurected
Some to Everlasting life
Some to die the SECOND DEATH and Face Everlasting DESTRUCTION
Rev 21:8 But the fearful, and unbelieving, and the abominable, and murderers, and whoremongers, and sorcerers, and idolaters, and all liars, shall have their part in the lake which burneth with fire and brimstone: which is the second death.Dave <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Kevin Deegan wrote:
DAVEH: It seems to me the free gift spoken about in this passage is the physical resurrection all men will receive due to Jesus' resurrection, which applies to all men as Paul described in 1Cor 15:22 below. One does not have to do anything to earn a physical resurrection.it truly is a free gift to all mortals.1 Corinthians 15:21For since by man came death, by man came also the resurrection of the dead. 22 For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive.Those that are IN Christ will be made alive. Those that are without (OR OUTSIDE OF CHRIST) will face EVERLASTING DESTRUCTION.DAVEH: I respectfully disagree with you on this, Kevin. You have emphasized the in while ignoring the
all. All men physically die due to Adam's transgression. All men do not die spiritually because of Adam's transgression, but they die spiritually because of their own sins. However, all men do die (physically) due to Adam's transgression. I thought (from previous posts of TTers) that it is commonly believed by Protestants that all men will be resurrected from their physical deaths. Is that not correct, Kevin? Perhaps I misunderstood.
1 Thes 5:13 But them that are without God judgeth. Therefore put away from among yourselves that wicked person.
1 Thes 5 And to you who are troubled rest with us, when the Lord Jesus shall be revealed from heaven with his mighty angels, In flaming fire taking vengeance on them that know not God, and that obey not the gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ: Who shall be punished with everlasting destruction from the presence of the Lord, and from the glory of his power; When he shall come to be glorified in his saints, and to be admired in all them that believe
It is VERY Clear that UNBELIEVERS are not going to see life but WRATH!DAVEH: I don't see how you draw this into the discussion about physical resurrections. You are mixing apples and oranges on this one, IMO. Let's try to keep it simple...Do you believe all men (good/bad) will physically resurrected, Kevin?
JN 3:36 He that believeth on the Son hath everlasting life: and he that believeth not the Son shall not see life; but the wrath of God abideth on him.
Jude 1 For there are certain men crept in unawares, who were before of old ordained to this condemnation, ungodly men, turning the grace of our God into lasciviousness, and denying the only Lord God, and our Lord Jesus Christ.I will therefore put you in remembrance, though ye once knew this, how that the Lord, having saved the people out of the land of Egypt, afterward destroyed them that believed not..
Dan 12:2 And many of them that sleep in the dust of the earth shall awake, some to everlasting life, and some to shame and everlasting contempt.
Dave <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Charles Perry Locke wrote:
Regarding the word "death", I think that it is used sometimes to mean physical death, and sometimes to mean spiritual death. I try to understand it within the context in which I read it.
> > >From my perspective, physical death came because of sin, as did sickness >and disease, which is basically incipient death. I believe that Adam >and Eve freely ate of the tree of life before they sinned. Following is >one passage which seems to connect death with sin entering the world. > >"Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; >and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned." (Romans >5:12 KJV)
I think that, except for speaking of the death of Christ in Romans 5, the chapter refers to spiritual death.DAVEH: Perry, I hope you and DavidM don't mind me contributing a bit to this thread. If you look at vs 18.
"Therefore as by the offense of one judgment came upon all men to condemnation {which I believe to be physical death}; even so by the righteousness of one the free gift came upon all men unto the justification of life {this can only mean a physical resurrection, since it is to all men}.
...It seems to me the free gift spoken about in this passage is the physical resurrection all men will receive due to Jesus' resurrection, which applies to all men as Paul described in 1Cor 15:22 below. One does not have to do anything to earn a physical resurrection.it truly is a free gift to all mortals.
>The following passage indicates death to be an enemy, which would show >it to be not part of God's plan, but something we were subjugated to >because of sin. > >"The last enemy that shall be destroyed is death." (1 Corinthians 15:26 >KJV)
1 Corinthians 15:21-23 says, "21 For since by man came death
Re: [TruthTalk] street preachers/free speech
All the Mumbo jumbo about HOLY SECRET PASSWORDS and SECRET Handshakes, reminds me of an adolescent club. Is the temple just Spanky's Clubhouse were secret stuff makes adults of stunted maturity feel special to the EXCLUSION of those Gentiles outside? How do you do that secret handshake to get beyond the Veil? You put your left foot in, you put your left foot out. You do the Cultic Pokey and you let them oil you up! Thats what it's all about! Blaine Borrowman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Ruben, I would like to describe in detail what they do in what they call the washing and annointing rooms, but do not feel I should--not because it is so much a secret, it is just a sacred ordinance. The part with the oil is very similar to what is described in the Book of Samuel wherein David was annointed to be King over Israel. Not to much there to complain about was there? But I can say men are NEVER allowed in the washing and annointing rooms with women, nor are women ever allowed in with men. AND there are always two witnesses to everything that is done. My wife and I have been there many times, and I know precisely what is and what is not done. If you prefer not to take my word for it, then the only thing I can recommend is that you figure out a way to spy on us! (:>) I can tell you also that there is a special, sacred spirit in those rooms. Some have testified they saw the spirits of those whose work was being done. I always feel renewed after being in one. It is better than being in church singing hymns. - Original Message - From: "irebukeu" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Sunday, February 08, 2004 7:14 PM Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] street preachers/free speech > > Blaine: You what?!?! ROTFL!!! This sounds like an old fashioned b/w> comedy starring the three stooges!! LOL!! You actually asked that> question? Whew! Were there any young women present? No wonder !!> > Ruben:> Blaine I hear this stuff from your members, you should hear the things these> x-mormons say to present members while in front of us. Or just listen to> the arguments your members give us on the street about your own faith. Its> not our fault your church believes things that are so secretive or a need to> know basis. Or better yet, that your church continues to evolve from the> teaching of Smith/Young. This is why Kevin continually says LIARS,> DECEIVERS & SEDUCERS. If we had a dime for every time a mormon said, "we> don't believe that"..then wait five minutes and address new crowd with the> same question and they will now defend the same issue the crowd before> denied. You really want to SEE A COMEDY SHOW come and listen to your church> respond to questions.> > Now I think I at least understand what started this thing!! But, my next> question is, where did you ever get such an idea that brides were touched> with oil by men?> > Ruben:> .uh.your church..> > I saw something from one of Judy's letters that suggested similar things,> and Dean had something to say along that line too--is that where you got> that oil thing? It is slanderous.> > Ruben:> I cannot comment, you must ask Judy or Dean.> > Just for the record, no such thing as that happens!!> > Ruben:> Say's you.> I have asked and have been told yes they do and no never. I have been told> yes, but my breasts only. Or they prayed over just our private parts, to> make our seed holy. Believe it or not the answer is always revolving. So I> asked the question, during the wedding because they should know, but instead> of an answer THEY IMPLODED on us.> > Blaine: Maybe they consider you as being prying without much else to go on except some Gossip you have heard.?> --> "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!? Yahoo! Finance: Get your refund fast by filing online
Re: [TruthTalk] street preachers/free speech
Kevin Deegan wrote: All the Mumbo jumbo about HOLY SECRET PASSWORDS and SECRET Handshakes, reminds me of an adolescent club. Is the temple just Spanky's Clubhouse were secret stuff makes adults of stunted maturity feel special to the EXCLUSION of those Gentiles outside? DAVEH: Hm...I sometimes wonder why some non LDS folks are so anxious to get inside the Temples, Rubin. Are you one who wants to do so? With your attitude, I would think you would be relieved to be excluded..am I wrong about that? -- ~~~ 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.
Re: [TruthTalk] Were Adam and Eve subject to death before they sinned?
Kevin Deegan wrote: Yes all men will be ressurected DAVEH: OK.maybe we aren't as far apart as I imagined, Kevin. Let me restate what I perceive you believe so I can be sure I am understanding you correctly You believe ALL mortals (good and/or bad) will inherit a resurrected physical body after mortality..correct? Some to Everlasting life DAVEH: OK..I assume you agree with me that is meant in a spiritual sense? Whereas receiving a physical resurrection we discussed above requires no effort on our part..now, the "Everlasting life" or spiritual life does require some effort on our partdo you agree? For instance, at the very least it requires you to exercise faith and repentance, so it cannot be considered as a totally free gift. Do you agree that those who do not exercise faith and repent of their sins will NOT inherit "Everlasting life"???Some to die the SECOND DEATH and Face Everlasting DESTRUCTION DAVEH: Again, Kevin...I don't think we are far apart on this. Can you agree with me that those who do not take the first steps (such as the faith and repentance I mentioned above) to accepting Jesus as their Savior will face a spiritual death (Everlasting DESTRUCTION) after their physical resurrection? That is my belief and is apparently somewhat as you believe as far as I can see at this point. Assuming we agree with the above basic premise, then I'm not sure why you disagree on the meaning of what I explained 1Cor 15:22 meant as I described in my below previous post to you. Rev 21:8 But the fearful, and unbelieving, and the abominable, and murderers, and whoremongers, and sorcerers, and idolaters, and all liars, shall have their part in the lake which burneth with fire and brimstone: which is the second death. Dave <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Kevin Deegan wrote: DAVEH: It seems to me the free gift spoken about in this passage is the physical resurrection all men will receive due to Jesus' resurrection, which applies to all men as Paul described in 1Cor 15:22 below. One does not have to do anything to earn a physical resurrection.it truly is a free gift to all mortals.1 Corinthians 15:21For since by man came death, by man came also the resurrection of the dead. 22 For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive.Those that are IN Christ will be made alive. Those that are without (OR OUTSIDE OF CHRIST) will face EVERLASTING DESTRUCTION. DAVEH: I respectfully disagree with you on this, Kevin. You have emphasized the in while ignoring the all. All men physically die due to Adam's transgression. All men do not die spiritually because of Adam's transgression, but they die spiritually because of their own sins. However, all men do die (physically) due to Adam's transgression. I thought (from previous posts of TTers) that it is commonly believed by Protestants that all men will be resurrected from their physical deaths. Is that not correct, Kevin? Perhaps I misunderstood. 1 Thes 5:13 But them that are without God judgeth. Therefore put away from among yourselves that wicked person. 1 Thes 5 And to you who are troubled rest with us, when the Lord Jesus shall be revealed from heaven with his mighty angels, In flaming fire taking vengeance on them that know not God, and that obey not the gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ: Who shall be punished with everlasting destruction from the presence of the Lord, and from the glory of his power; When he shall come to be glorified in his saints, and to be admired in all them that believe It is VERY Clear that UNBELIEVERS are not going to see life but WRATH! DAVEH: I don't see how you draw this into the discussion about physical resurrections. You are mixing apples and oranges on this one, IMO. Let's try to keep it simple...Do you believe all men (good/bad) will physically resurrected, Kevin? JN 3:36 He that believeth on the Son hath everlasting life: and he that believeth not the Son shall not see life; but the wrath of God abideth on him. Jude 1 For there are certain men crept in unawares, who were before of old ordained to this condemnation, ungodly men, turning the grace of our God into lasciviousness, and denying the only Lord God, and our Lord Jesus Christ.I will therefore put you in remembrance, though ye once knew this, how that the Lord, having saved the people out of the land of Egypt, afterward destroyed them that believed not.. Dan 12:2 And many of them that sleep in the dust of the earth shall awake, some to everlasting life, and some to shame and everlasting contempt. Dave <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Charles Perry Locke wrote: Regarding the word "death", I think that it is used sometimes to mean physical death, and sometimes to mean spiritual death. I try to understand it within the context in which I read it. > > >From my perspective, physical death came because of sin, as did sickness >and disease, which is basically incipient death. I believe that Adam >and Eve freely ate o
[TruthTalk] Filthy promiscuous god of LDS Pagan seX Cult
THE BOOK OF ABRAHAMTRANSLATED FROM THE PAPYRUS, BY JOSEPH SMITHHC 2:236 claims they are the writings of Abraham & Joseph. http://scriptures.lds.org/abr/fac_2Fig. 7. Represents God sitting upon his throne, revealing through the heavens the grand Key-words of the Priesthood; as, also, the sign of the Holy Ghost unto Abraham, in the form of a dove. DIVINE GENERATIVE POWERS? ETERNAL LIVES = SEEDS FOREVER? JOINING OF SEX & PRIESTCRAFT? Mormon Egyptologist Michael Dennis Rhodes,"Joseph Smith mentions here the Holy Ghost in the form of a dove and God "revealing through the heavens the grand key-words of the priesthood." The procreative forces, receiving unusual accentuation throughout the representation, may stand for many divine generative powers, not least of which might be conjoined with the blessings of the Priesthood in one's posterity eternally." (BYU Studies, Spring 1977, p. 273) Disgusting Egyptologists (including LDS) tell us that the deity seen in figure 7 is in reality the god Min. Min is an ithyphallic deity, that is, a sexually aroused male deity, as the picture clearly indicates. Min is the god of the procreative forces of nature. LDS should be ashamed to claim this is god. See the attached file for the sexually explicit nature of this god. Mormon Egyptologist Michael Dennis Rhodes provides a translation of parts of this facsimile in BYU Studies, Spring 1977, page 265. His translation of the edge of the hypocephalus is as follows: I am Djabty in the House of the Benben in Heliopolis, so exalted and glorious. [I am] a copulating bull without equal. [I am] that Mighty God The youngest known girl of many, whom Smith "married" and copulated with was fourteen year old Helen Mar Kimball . Is Joe then this Bull? LDS scholar Dr. Hugh Nibley, "As the supreme sex symbol of gods and men, Min behaves with shocking promiscuity, which is hardly relieved by its ritual nature . . . His sacred plants are aphrodisiacal . . . and he is everywhere represented as indulging in incestuous relationships with those of his immediate family; he had the most numerous and varied entourage of all the gods, consisting mostly of his huge harem . . . The hymns, or rather chanting, of his worshippers were accompanied with lewd dancing and carousing . . . to the exciting stimulus of a band of sistrem-shaking damsels." (Abraham in Egypt, p. 210) This sounds a bit like Joe also. Joe was Promiscuous and so was his god. Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Finance: Get your refund fast by filing online<>
[TruthTalk] Original sin
From: "David Miller" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>DavidM wrote:Rather than belabor our discussion, please just look at the following verse. Doesn't it prove it once and for all that Jesus had the same blood as the rest of humanity? Forasmuch then as the children are partakers of flesh and BLOOD, he also himself likewise took part of the SAME. (Hebrews 2:14 KJV)Judy:The above tells me that Jesus partook of flesh and blood which I have never disputed. It is the kind of blood that flowed in his veins that we are discussing DavidM: I feel that we are wrangling over words to no profit, so my response will be brief. In this passage, you seem to be doing everything humanly possible to dodge the clear message of the passage. It does not just say that he partook of flesh and blood. It speaks of the kind of flesh and blood which he partook of. It was the SAME as ours. It is written, "FOREASMUCH THEN AS the children are partakers of flesh and blood, he also himself likewise TOOK PART OF THE SAME." Green's literal translation reads: "Since, then, the children havepartaken of flesh and blood, IN LIKE MANNER He Himself ALSO SHARED THE SAME THINGS." Judy: Yes and the same things he shared are flesh and blood. DavidM: Jesus shared the same kind of flesh and blood as we do. He was descended genetically from Adam, Abraham, and David. This is the testimony of Scripture. You can deny it all you want, but the Bible is clear on this matter. There is no need to argue it away. Judy: Scripture teaches that he was born of a woman, his blood was generated by God. You would have to read your theory into what is written David because scripture does not clearly state what you are trying to make it say and one who understands Gods holiness and the pervasiveness of generational iniquity would never accept this. I know there are many liberal scholars who minimize or even negate the virgin birth but you are the first I have encountered in person. I wrote:If he (Jesus of Nazareth) had blood from the family of man that is through the first Adam then just like the Levitical priests - he would have had to first sacrifice for his own iniquity and this still would not have qualified him to enter the heavenly sanctuary and have his blood accepted for our sin once for all. DavidM: What is this foolishness? What do you mean by saying, "It still would not have been enough for him to enter the Holy Place once and for all"? If the high priest could enter the holy place offering the blood of animals, could not Jesus also enter it offering his own blood? Judy: I am speaking of Jesus entering the heavenly sanctuary. The high priest entered the earthly tabernacle once a year for the people after having already made sacrifice for himself and his own sin. Jesus entered the heavenly tabernacle once for all with the eternal blood of the new covenant. DavidM: Surely you are aware that the Scriptures tell us of the animalsacrifices that were offered for Jesus Christ when he was born (Luke 2:24). Why was that done from your perspective? Judy: Mary and Joseph followed God's law for motherhood; Mary had given birth to a male child so she was unclean for seven days and when the days of her purification were completed she brought her child to the temple to present him to God giving two turtledoves one for a burnt offering and the other for a sin offering and the priestd made atonement for her so that she could be clean. DavidM: Something else to consider is that if Jesus was not born of a woman, of the same flesh and truly descended physically from Adam, Abraham, and David, then he would not be subject to the law and sacrifices that were commanded. Think about that. Was Jesus under the law or not? Judy: He was born under the law and he fulfilled the law. I have a question about Jesus sonship for you David since you are so certain that he was born with a carnal nature just like the rest of us... "Jesus answered and said while he taught in the temple. How say the scribes that Christ is the son of David? For David himself said by the Holy Ghost "The Lord said to my Lord, sit thou on my right hand, till I make thine enemies thy footstool" (Mark 12:35) David therefore himself calleth him Lord; and whence is he then his son? Grace and Peace, Judy carnal as the rest of us.
Re: [TruthTalk] Were Adam and Eve subject to death before they sinned?
No you don't have it. Some will be reunited with their Bodies so that they can be cast WHOLE (BODY, SOUL and SPIRIT) into Hell. This will be a Horrible destiny of EVERLASTING DESTRUCTION. It will not be a good thing to have your body cast into Hell It is not Spiritual death, it is LITERAL, their body will be a torch forever. God will not let that torch burn out. They will suffer torment forever. They will suffer everlasting Spiritual Death, constant Physical death and will experience the same in their souls. Hell is a literal Place of never ending Torment Mt 25:30 And cast ye the unprofitable servant into outer darkness: there shall be weeping and gnashing of teeth. People weep, people have teeth We farther apart than the extremes of two opposite ends of the Universe. NOT even Close! Rev 20:15 And whosoever was not found written in the book of life was cast into the lake of fire. Is your name in the Book? Dave <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Kevin Deegan wrote: Yes all men will be ressurected DAVEH: OK.maybe we aren't as far apart as I imagined, Kevin. Let me restate what I perceive you believe so I can be sure I am understanding you correctly You believe ALL mortals (good and/or bad) will inherit a resurrected physical body after mortality..correct? Some to Everlasting life DAVEH: OK..I assume you agree with me that is meant in a spiritual sense? Whereas receiving a physical resurrection we discussed above requires no effort on our part..now, the "Everlasting life" or spiritual life does require some effort on our partdo you agree? For instance, at the very least it requires you to exercise faith and repentance, so it cannot be considered as a totally free gift. Do you agree that those who do not exercise faith and repent of their sins will NOT inherit "Everlasting life"???Some to die the SECOND DEATH and Face Everlasting DESTRUCTION DAVEH: Again, Kevin...I don't think we are far apart on this. Can you agree with me that those who do not take the first steps (such as the faith and repentance I mentioned above) to accepting Jesus as their Savior will face a spiritual death (Everlasting DESTRUCTION) after their physical resurrection? That is my belief and is apparently somewhat as you believe as far as I can see at this point. Assuming we agree with the above basic premise, then I'm not sure why you disagree on the meaning of what I explained 1Cor 15:22 meant as I described in my below previous post to you. Rev 21:8 But the fearful, and unbelieving, and the abominable, and murderers, and whoremongers, and sorcerers, and idolaters, and all liars, shall have their part in the lake which burneth with fire and brimstone: which is the second death. Dave <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Kevin Deegan wrote: DAVEH: It seems to me the free gift spoken about in this passage is the physical resurrection all men will receive due to Jesus' resurrection, which applies to all men as Paul described in 1Cor 15:22 below. One does not have to do anything to earn a physical resurrection.it truly is a free gift to all mortals.1 Corinthians 15:21For since by man came death, by man came also the resurrection of the dead. 22 For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive.Those that are IN Christ will be made alive. Those that are without (OR OUTSIDE OF CHRIST) will face EVERLASTING DESTRUCTION.DAVEH: I respectfully disagree with you on this, Kevin. You have emphasized the in while ignoring the all. All men physically die due to Adam's transgression. All men do not die spiritually because of Adam's transgression, but they die spiritually because of their own sins. However, all men do die (physically) due to Adam's transgression. I thought (from previous posts of TTers) that it is commonly believed by Protestants that all men will be resurrected from their physical deaths. Is that not correct, Kevin? Perhaps I misunderstood. 1 Thes 5:13 But them that are without God judgeth. Therefore put away from among yourselves that wicked person. 1 Thes 5 And to you who are troubled rest with us, when the Lord Jesus shall be revealed from heaven with his mighty angels, In flaming fire taking vengeance on them that know not God, and that obey not the gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ: Who shall be punished with everlasting destruction from the presence of the Lord, and from the glory of his power; When he shall come to be glorified in his saints, and to be admired in all them that believe It is VERY Clear that UNBELIEVERS are not going to see life but WRATH!DAVEH: I don't see how you draw this into the discussion about physical resurrections. You are mixing apples and oranges on this one, IMO. Let's try to keep it simple...Do you believe all men (good/bad) will physically resurrected, Kevin? JN 3:36 He that believeth on the Son hath everlasting life: and he that believeth not the Son shall not see life; but the wrath of God abideth on him. Jude 1
Re: [TruthTalk] Were Adam and Eve subject to death before they sinned?
On Sun, 08 Feb 2004 15:19:58 -0800 "Charles Perry Locke" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:>I do not consider Adam and Eve's pre-fall state [re:] immortality >to be a major issue.. CP, This means that you're not quite ready to rationalize Creation yet; how did DavidM get so far ahead of you? http://OzG2004.blogspot.com
