date:20050621




No Dave, I don't have a 'problem' with those 
passages. Every translation is an interpretation. That'd include the KJV. 

 
I meant for you to explain how you adjudicate 
'insofar as..".

  - Original Message - 
  From: 
  Dave Hansen 
  
  To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org 
  
  Sent: June 20, 2005 16:31
  Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Belief
  Lance Muir wrote: 
  

I have no serious problem with any translation. 
Some on TT have a very, very serious problem with most 
translations.DAVEH:   Take a look at Mt 
  9:13 in both the NIV and the KJV.  Does it seem to you that they are 
  significantly different in the way they have been translated?   Or, 
  try comparing Mk 11:26.   Does something seem peculiar about one of 
  these translations, Lance?
  
 
However Dave, I'd still appreciate your 
expanded explanation of that 
  quotation.DAVE:     You want more 
  than I gave you, Lance?   I'm not sure what more to say.   What 
  did I fail to mention? 
  

  - 
  Original Message - 
  From: 
  Dave Hansen 
  
  To: 
  TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org 
  
  Sent: 
  June 20, 2005 14:36
  Subject: 
  Re: [TruthTalk] Belief
  DAVEH:   Ahhh.thanx for clearing the 
  cobwebs, Lance!    Was there not just recently a 
  big discussion on TT about the accuracy of some of the Bible translations. 
    There was a little concern about the JW green Bible.  And in 
  previous years we've discussed how the NIV version dropped a few passages 
  that are found in the KJV.   Just why do we have so many 
  versions of the Bible, if someone didn't think there was a problem with 
  the existing versions?   Surely they can't all be translated 
  correctly.do you disagree?    Furthermore, when 
  two Christians determine doctrines differently from the same source, does 
  that not cause one to ponder why?   Could it be the translations 
  are not adequately conveying what God wants understood?  I don't view 
  that as being a weakness of God, but rather a weakness of the 
  translation.  Is that a reasonable stance?    
  So Lance, I would ask you (or any TTer) if you believe any particular 
  translation of the Bible is 100% accurate.  If the answer is yes, may 
  I assume you would then also believe that the other translations are less 
  than 100% accurate?   Now, if the answer is you do not believe a 
  particular translation is 100% accurate, then would you take my position 
  and accept the Bible to be the word of God as far as it it translated 
  correctly?       I would sure be interested to 
  know if any TTers really do believe a given translation is 100% 
  accurate.   And if you fear reprisal from other TTers for 
  whatever comments you might have, post it to me off-Forum.  As you 
  know, I will not mock or denigrate your commentsI'm sincerely 
  interested in knowing your beliefs.Lance Muir wrote: 
  

Enlarge upon "as far as it is translated 
correctly".-- 
~~~
Dave Hansen
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.langlitz.com
~~~
If you wish to receive
things I find interesting,
I maintain six email lists...
JOKESTER, OPINIONS, LDS,
STUFF, MOTORCYCLE and CLIPS.

Re: [TruthTalk] To the Mormons: public/participating & private/watching on TT




What do baseball and crickett have in common? In what do they differ? Are 
they the same?
 
In Luke 16 Jesus asked a question. How did Joseph Smith answer that 
question?
 
Who is playing crickett? Who is playing baseball? Does it matter to you if 
we call them the same game? 

  - Original Message - 
  From: 
  [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
  To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org 
  
  Sent: June 20, 2005 15:09
  Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] To the Mormons: 
  public/participating & private/watching on TT
  
  In a message dated 6/17/2005 12:25:12 PM Mountain Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
  
That is the problem you are a "Latter Day Saint" not a 
Christian.
  
  Hi Kevin, thought you'd like a discussion on why Mormons are Christians, 
  and why people who say otherwise are full of it.
   
  Blainerb
   
  http://www.whyprophets.com/prophets/lds.htm

Re: [TruthTalk] Belief

It is reasonable, Dave.


- Original Message - 
From: "Dave Hansen" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: 
Sent: June 20, 2005 19:08
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Belief


>
>
> Lance Muir wrote:
>
> >'Protestantism' Dave, was not the only 'Christian' perspective. There is
and
> >was at the time of JS, Orthodoxy, Catholicism and many groups independent
of
> >both of the foregoing. JS's experience with christianity entailed only
> >protestantism did it not? Did he claim that all of christianity,
globally,
> >had, as it were, fallen into a state of disrepair?
> >
> >
> DAVEH:  Yes, that is somewhat correct.  My interest focuses on
> Protestantism because of it's Catholic roots.
>
> >Because of our conversation of a week ago regarding James 1 entailing
> >prayer, the 'spirit' & experience; I believe that you are operating with
a
> >level of functional certitude that, naturally speaking, is disabling.
> >
> DAVEH:   That's not been in question, except by those who think I am a
> target while on TT and subject to their persuasive arguments to get me
> away from Mormonism.  Is there anybody currently on TT who thinks I will
> be swayed from my LDS leanings by another TTer?
>
> > IFF
> >you WILL NOT HEAR, even though God's Spirit were to 'speak', then where
do
> >we go from here?
> >
> >
> DAVEH:  Nothing has changed from my perspective, Lance.  I will continue
> gleaning a nugget or two as it passes under my nose.   I'm not here to
> change anybody, so I won't be disappointed if TTers don't side with me
> on anything doctrinal.
>
> Where the anti-Mormons go is up to them.  Seems like they are on a
> dead end road.  They must surely realize they are not going to convert
> me.  Nor am I going to let them sucker punch me.   And I would think
> spreading false information is sullying their reputation more than it is
> promoting their message..
>
> As for other TTer such as yourself.what do you want to know
> about me or my beliefs.  If you have no interest, then there is no
> problem.  If you want to know something from mejust ask..and I
> will do the same as I think of questions to ask you.  Does that seem
> reasonable, Lance?
>
> >
> >- Original Message - 
> >From: "Dave Hansen" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> >To: 
> >Sent: June 19, 2005 16:06
> >Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Belief
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >>Charles Perry Locke wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >>
> DAVEH:  As I see it, you've cut short your ability to see beyond the
> Bible, Perry.  You apparently see the The Bible as being enough, yet
> I think presents unasked questions that many Protestants (and TTers)
> seem to want to avoid pondering.  I just don't feel comfortable with
> such a limited perspective.
> 
> 
> >>>  The Bible IS enough, Dave.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>DAVEH:  If the Bible is enough for you, that's your prerogative, Perry.
> >>But it leaves me with some questions that I believe are answered by
> >>revelation beyond the Bible.  Do you ever ponder theological questions
> >>that aren't answered by traditional doctrines, Perry?
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>>The Bible contains prophecy that sees through to the end, way beyond
> >>>when it was written. So, why would anything more be needed?
> >>>
> >>>
> >>DAVEH:  Because there seem to be some really important questions that
> >>seemingly are not answered by Protestantism..
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>>It has served its intended purpose for thousands of years without the
> >>>musings of JS, and will continue to server that purpose until the end
> >>>of all things.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>DAVEH:  For those who want to turn off the spirit of revelation, the
> >>Bible's purpose is somewhat limited.  I believe the message of the Bible
> >>implores us to expect more to be revealed from above.
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>>It is the mormons that have itching ears and seek the doctrines of man
> >>>(specifically JS), to turn a phrase. Enjoy it, Dave.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>DAVEH:   And I do enjoy it, Perry.   Perhaps that is why I feel
> >>comfortable with my LDS beliefs.
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>>That's as good as it gets.
> >>>
> >>>Perry
> >>>
> >>>
> -- 
> ~~~
> Dave Hansen
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> http://www.langlitz.com
> ~~~
> If you wish to receive
> things I find interesting,
> I maintain six email lists...
> JOKESTER, OPINIONS, LDS,
> STUFF, MOTORCYCLE and CLIPS.
>
> --
> "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 
PROT

Re: [TruthTalk] Belief




Have you said that their's is a 'different' 
Jesus?

  - Original Message - 
  From: 
  Dave Hansen 
  
  To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org 
  
  Sent: June 21, 2005 00:55
  Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Belief
  DAVEH:   Logically, the onus is not upon me to define 
  the Jesus I believe in, but rather it is on the person who suggests I don't 
  believe in Jesus.  FTRI have not said that the Jesus Kevin, you Perry 
  or any other TTer believes in is a false Jesus.  Lance Muir 
  wrote: 
  



DaveH says "Kevin, I believe in Jesus." IFF we 
are going to engage in a conversation that entails reality, then we have to 
continue to build upon that which has been said previously.According to 
you THE JESUS TO BE BELIEVED IN IS MOST FULLY AND ACCURATELY DESCRIBED 
WITHIN MORMON TEACHING. Is this so? The Jesus believed in by Kevin, 
Perry, Lance et al is a false Jesus. Is this not also so? (unwieldy but, you 
get my point)What, IYO, are the eternal consequenses for 
non-Mormons? 
 
Mr. Moderator:Please grant DaveH the 
opportunity of fully answering and, explaining. 

  - 
  Original Message - 
  From: 
  Dave Hansen 
  
  To: 
  TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org 
  
  Sent: 
  June 19, 2005 23:02
  Subject: 
  Re: [TruthTalk] Belief
  DAVEH:  FTR Kevin, I believe in Jesus.   
  Therefore can we conclude that you've made the judgment rather than 
  God?Kevin Deegan wrote: 
  
He will!He 
Has!
JN 3:18 He that believeth on him is not 
condemned: but he that believeth not is condemned 
already
Dave Hansen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 
wrote:
DAVEH: 
  I fully understand that, Perry. But I'd feel more comfortable 
  letting God make that judgment than you.Charles Perry 
  Locke wrote:> David,>> Romans 10:9,10 : That 
  if thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord > Jesus, and 
  shalt believe in thine heart that God hath raised him from > 
  the dead, thou shalt be saved. For with the heart man believeth unto 
  > righteousness; and with the mouth confession is made unto 
  salvation.>> But, as I have stated before, the right 
  jesus and right god must be > at the center of one's faith. I 
  am not just harassing you, Dave, I > honestly do believe that 
  the mormons worship false gods.>> 
  Perry>>> From: Dave Hansen >> Reply-To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org>> 
  To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org>> 
  Subject: [TruthTalk] Belief>> Date: Sun, 19 Jun 2005 
  00:16:42 -0700 DAVEH: YeahPretty quiet 
  on TT tonight.. Do you believe that those who 
  believe in Jesus are saved, as I've >> heard many Christians 
  proclaim? If belief is inadequate, what else >> is needed, 
  Perry? Charles Perry Locke 
  wrote:> Dave, this is great. Midnight, just 
  me and you on TT, mano y mano, >>> so to speak 
  :-)>> I guess I am biased in that way, 
  because both you and Blaine admit >>> to following the 
  christ and jesus of mormonism, so it is my opinion >>> 
  that you are lost since I believe that they are false gods. If I 
  >>> thought that you guys were saved in spite of the 
  teachings of the >>> mormon church I would not be 
  spending so much time exposing the >>> false nature of 
  the mormon church to you.>> But, the 
  bottom line is that God makes that ultimate decision, not 
  I.>> 
  Perry>-- 
~~~
Dave Hansen
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.langlitz.com
~~~
If you wish to receive
things I find interesting,
I maintain six email lists...
JOKESTER, OPINIONS, LDS,
STUFF, MOTORCYCLE and CLIPS.

Re: [TruthTalk] Hill Cumorah




I looked at the photo-journal of the SPer's trip. 
What a waste! A Muslim country? You live in one. As for both trips; the one 
taken and the one projected, why not take care of 'business' at home? My 
question was:Why not replicate in front of 'your' Mosques what you do at Mardi 
Gras, Super Bowl etc.? You won't and, for good reason. 

  - Original Message - 
  From: 
  Kevin 
  Deegan 
  To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org 
  
  Sent: June 20, 2005 18:24
  Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Hill 
  Cumorah
  
  Want to come with us to a muslim country to preach?Lance 
  Muir <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 
  wrote: 
  

Now, there's a collection of pictures I'd enjoy 
having a look at.Of course y'all do this with the same frequency as the 
others, eh? Will you tell which Mosques, how many and, with what 
frequency?
 
Do 'you' believe that Muhammed was inspired to 
write the Koran by the same one who inspired the BOM namely, 
Satan?

  - Original Message - 
  From: 
  Kevin Deegan 
  To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org 
  
  Sent: June 20, 2005 14:33
  Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Hill 
  Cumorah
  
  The plain answer is yes
  what is your point? your'e afraid?Lance Muir <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 
  wrote:
  



I'm confident that you wouldn't be 
INTENTIONALLY EVASIVE so, please answer the question as asked. Employing 
the 'model' (placards, bullhorns etc.)provided for us by DM & Kevin 
vis a vis the Super Bowl, Mardis Gras and, outside the Temple in Salt 
Lake City, would they do the same thing outside a mosque (a Muslim place 
of worship) and, if not then, whey not?
 
Do revisit what kicked this discussion off. 
There is a serious point to be made here.

  - Original Message - 
  From: 
  Judy Taylor 
  To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org 
  
  Cc: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org 
  
  Sent: June 20, 2005 06:56
  Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Hill 
  Cumorah
  
  I don't know about DavidM but I'm sure Kevin 
  and Ruben have encountered Muslims in their SP travels. I figure 
  it
  would be tit for tat (with truth on their 
  side) since Muslims call everyone and everything Western "the great 
  Satan"  My Scots friend tells me that 
  in the UK the Muslims have taken over and that now the Red Cross will 
  not put anything Christian out at Christmas for fear of offending them.  Her brother in 
  Manchester England says he will not give the Red Cross another cent 
  because of it and he isn't even 
  religious.  jt
   
  On Mon, 20 Jun 2005 06:34:36 -0400 "Lance Muir" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 
  writes:
  
I do not have a problem with 
'exposure'. I don't think that that is Dave's point 
though.
May I suggest that an equal. if not 
greater, danger to believers lies within Islam. Could you 
imagine David Miller or Kevin going to Mosques and, utilizing 
bullhorns, villify the attendants by addressing THEM as servants of 
Satan?

  From: Judy Taylor 
   
  I would think it would be more like 
  Jeremiah (see Jer 13:1,2); this is obviously a one time object 
  lesson to
  the part of Israel Jeremiah was 
  ministering to rather than a pattern of behavior for all 
  time.  However, part of public proclamation of Truth by 
  nature involves exposing the lie of the false gods which of course will be offensive to 
  those who worship them.  Why do you have such a problem with this?  
  jt
   
  On Mon, 20 Jun 2005 05:58:55 -0400 "Lance Muir" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 
  writes:
  
Elijah.

  From: Judy Taylor 
   
  Can you give us a "for instance" 
  DaveH?  jt
  
  Dave 
  Hansen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 
  wrote:
  

  

  DAVEH:  
As I understand your position (and please correct me 
if I am misunderstanding your position), many 
Christians (specifically you, in this instance) 
believe that everything written in the Bible is 
specifically applicable to Christians 
today.   So, if a prophet of the Bible 
used a technique of m

Re: [TruthTalk] Hill Cumorah




It isn't 'fear' that I'm projecting on to you, 
Kevin. You seem a sincere, if misguided, fellow. 

  - Original Message - 
  From: 
  Kevin 
  Deegan 
  To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org 
  
  Sent: June 20, 2005 18:25
  Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Hill 
  Cumorah
  
  Don't project your fear onto me. Stay at home you might wet 
  yourself.Lance Muir <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 
  wrote: 
  

Now, there's a collection of pictures I'd enjoy 
having a look at.Of course y'all do this with the same frequency as the 
others, eh? Will you tell which Mosques, how many and, with what 
frequency?
 
Do 'you' believe that Muhammed was inspired to 
write the Koran by the same one who inspired the BOM namely, 
Satan?

  - Original Message - 
  From: 
  Kevin Deegan 
  To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org 
  
  Sent: June 20, 2005 14:33
  Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Hill 
  Cumorah
  
  The plain answer is yes
  what is your point? your'e afraid?Lance Muir <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 
  wrote:
  



I'm confident that you wouldn't be 
INTENTIONALLY EVASIVE so, please answer the question as asked. Employing 
the 'model' (placards, bullhorns etc.)provided for us by DM & Kevin 
vis a vis the Super Bowl, Mardis Gras and, outside the Temple in Salt 
Lake City, would they do the same thing outside a mosque (a Muslim place 
of worship) and, if not then, whey not?
 
Do revisit what kicked this discussion off. 
There is a serious point to be made here.

  - Original Message - 
  From: 
  Judy Taylor 
  To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org 
  
  Cc: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org 
  
  Sent: June 20, 2005 06:56
  Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Hill 
  Cumorah
  
  I don't know about DavidM but I'm sure Kevin 
  and Ruben have encountered Muslims in their SP travels. I figure 
  it
  would be tit for tat (with truth on their 
  side) since Muslims call everyone and everything Western "the great 
  Satan"  My Scots friend tells me that 
  in the UK the Muslims have taken over and that now the Red Cross will 
  not put anything Christian out at Christmas for fear of offending them.  Her brother in 
  Manchester England says he will not give the Red Cross another cent 
  because of it and he isn't even 
  religious.  jt
   
  On Mon, 20 Jun 2005 06:34:36 -0400 "Lance Muir" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 
  writes:
  
I do not have a problem with 
'exposure'. I don't think that that is Dave's point 
though.
May I suggest that an equal. if not 
greater, danger to believers lies within Islam. Could you 
imagine David Miller or Kevin going to Mosques and, utilizing 
bullhorns, villify the attendants by addressing THEM as servants of 
Satan?

  From: Judy Taylor 
   
  I would think it would be more like 
  Jeremiah (see Jer 13:1,2); this is obviously a one time object 
  lesson to
  the part of Israel Jeremiah was 
  ministering to rather than a pattern of behavior for all 
  time.  However, part of public proclamation of Truth by 
  nature involves exposing the lie of the false gods which of course will be offensive to 
  those who worship them.  Why do you have such a problem with this?  
  jt
   
  On Mon, 20 Jun 2005 05:58:55 -0400 "Lance Muir" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 
  writes:
  
Elijah.

  From: Judy Taylor 
   
  Can you give us a "for instance" 
  DaveH?  jt
  
  Dave 
  Hansen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 
  wrote:
  

  

  DAVEH:  
As I understand your position (and please correct me 
if I am misunderstanding your position), many 
Christians (specifically you, in this instance) 
believe that everything written in the Bible is 
specifically applicable to Christians 
today.   So, if a prophet of the Bible 
used a technique of mocking, that means it is OK for 
you to do the same thing.  If a prophet of God 
in the Bible is commanded to go preach on the 
streets, y

Re: [TruthTalk] Contention

Thats it?
The way you been squeling I thought it might be a biggie,
 
Seems you have missed the post about "creator"
1) In short Did Jesus create everything that was made? (every planet, every atom HB 11:3)Through faith we understand that the worlds were framed by the word of God, so that things which are seen were not made of things which do appear.
 
2) Did he create out of nothing or just Organized what already existed?
 
3) Did others have a part or did he create it all by himself?
 
4) Did Jesus create Satan or are they brothers?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-Mormonism#Former_Members
From a Mormon:
Mormons believe that Jesus, Satan, and all mankind were present with Heavenly Father before the world was created.
 
If you can clarify here, you can establish your claims go ahead.
As I said before if I am ANTI Mormon then you are ANTI Christian!
 
There are plenty of others that see this too.
http://www.fiber.net/users/drshades/anti.htm
The word "anti-Mormon" is what's called a "thought-terminating cliché," or in other words, an Orwellian "newspeak" term.  The purposeful use of a word like this is a subtle brainwashing (or "conditioning," if "brainwashing" is too strong of an _expression_) technique.  By arbitrarily branding all so-called "opponents" with a word specifically designed to create a mental aversion, the leadership of an organization cues their membership to subconsciously censor themselves every time they use the word.  This is a common tactic employed by authoritarian organizations which seek to reduce the flow of information to their followers. 
 
 

http://www.pfo.org/gameplay.htm
Games Mormon People Play The Strategies and Diversions of Latter-day Saint Apologists
Maybe a better definition is A name usually attributed to Bible Christians who try to evangelize Mormons. Oftentimes Mormons accuse such people of being motivated by hatred and bigotry.
 
"Why do the Elders of the Church hold their peace, instead of contradicting the various falsehoods, which are published concerning them and their principles? The answer is, it would require a standing army of writers and printers in constant employ; for no sooner are our enemies detected in one falsehood, than a thousand more are put in circulation by them: and there are many who love a lie so much more than the truth, that we are quite willing they should enjoy their strong delusion." (Parley P. Pratt, Mormonism Unveiled, 1838) 
Is this site then calling all those listed in the links that follow Lovers of Lies?
http://www.lightplanet.com/response/index.shtml
Seems the real problem with John Ankerberg is maybe he really does not have all those degress another Lover of LIES!
http://www.lightplanet.com/response/ankerberg.htm
 
This Mormon site calls the Tanners ANTI not because of any UNTRUTH but because the facts they present portrays the Church in an unfavorable light. During the Hoffman escapade it was the Tanners that got it right from the start!
http://www.lightplanet.com/mormons/response/general/Publications_EOM.htm During the 1950s, 1960s, and early 1970s, the Church had a generally favorable public image as reflected in the news media. That image became more negative in the later 1970s and the early 1980s. Church opposition to the equal rights amendment and the excommunication of Sonia Johnson for apostasy, the Church's position with respect to priesthood and blacks (changed in 1978), a First Presidency statement opposing the MX missile, the John Singer episode including the bombing of an LDS meetinghouse, tensions between some historians and Church leaders, the forged "Salamander" letter, and the other Mark Hofmann forgeries and murders have provided grist for negative press and television commentary. The political leverage of the Church and its financial holdings have also been subjects of articles with a strong negative
 orientation. 

Apostle Oaks " When we say anything bad about the leaders of the Church, whether true or false, we tend to impair their influence and their usefulness and are thus working against the Lord and his cause. In Conference Report, Apr. 1947, p. 24." Address to Church Educational System teachers, Aug. 16, 1985.
So if you speak Truth and it is against the leaders of the church, it is "working against the Lord"?
Apostle Oaks "Thus, if Mormon Enigma reveals information that is detrimental to the reputation of Joseph Smith, then it is necessary to try to limit its influence and that of its authors." 
In what ways do you think Apostle oaks would LIMIT the influence of the Author?
Dave Hansen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
DAVEH:   Here are two recent ones...Then why is everyone witha criticism of the church an "ANTI".and the other is when you implied that I believe Jesus isnot the Creator.Both the above comments are in error, and I've asked you to acknowledge such.  For some strange reason, you seem to be reluctant to admit your error.  That makes me wonder why you would want to contin

Re: [TruthTalk] Hill Cumorah




Linda asks 'Don't you, Lance?' of the query: 'Do 
you believe Satan to have been the inspiration for both the Koran and the BOM'? 
I doubt that either was inspired by Satan. IFF you, Kevin and Perry actually 
KNOW THIS TO BE THE CASE then, lay it out for a misguided 'lib'. None of you 
will, of course but, at least you got asked.

  - Original Message - 
  From: 
  ShieldsFamily 
  To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org 
  
  Sent: June 20, 2005 23:44
  Subject: RE: [TruthTalk] Hill 
  Cumorah
  
  
   
  Dont you, Lance? If 
  not, youre lost-er than I thunk!!!  Izzy
   
  
  
  
  
  
  From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
  [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Lance 
  Muir
  
  Do 'you' believe that Muhammed was inspired to write 
  the Koran by the same one who inspired the BOM namely, Satan?

Re: [TruthTalk] Contention




To Kevin:When you're rightTo Blaine, DaveH and 
fellow lurkers:Kevin both knows and, understands as much or more about the 
content of your faith than you do. Attitude aside, he neither does nor has, 
misrepresented the 'content' of the LDS teaching. Now, other than coming back 
with some miniscule 'point of order', would you not acknowledge this to be the 
case? FTR, might either of you, or the lurkers, attempt an accurate description 
of 'protestantism' that exhibits this level of apprehension and clarity? It just 
might be the case that you know not whereof you speak on that matter. 
Possible?
 
 - Original Message - 

  From: 
  Kevin 
  Deegan 
  To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org 
  
  Sent: June 21, 2005 06:34
  Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Contention
  
  Thats it?
  The way you been squeling I thought it might be a biggie,
   
  Seems you have missed the post about "creator"
  1) In short Did Jesus create everything that was made? (every planet, 
  every atom HB 11:3)Through faith we understand that the 
  worlds were framed by the word of God, so that things which are seen were not 
  made of things which do appear.
   
  2) Did he create out of nothing or just Organized what already 
  existed?
   
  3) Did others have a part or did he create it all by himself?
   
  4) Did Jesus create Satan or are they brothers?
  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-Mormonism#Former_Members
  From a Mormon:
  Mormons believe that Jesus, Satan, and all mankind were present with 
  Heavenly Father before the world was created.
   
  If you can clarify here, you can establish your claims go 
ahead.
  As I said before if I am ANTI Mormon then you are ANTI Christian!
   
  There are plenty of others that see this too.
  http://www.fiber.net/users/drshades/anti.htm
  The word "anti-Mormon" is what's called a "thought-terminating 
  cliché," or in other words, an Orwellian "newspeak" term.  The 
  purposeful use of a word like this is a subtle brainwashing (or 
  "conditioning," if "brainwashing" is too strong of an _expression_) technique. 
   By arbitrarily branding all so-called "opponents" with a word 
  specifically designed to create a mental aversion, the 
  leadership of an organization cues their membership to 
  subconsciously censor themselves every time they use the 
  word.  This is a common tactic employed by authoritarian 
  organizations which seek to reduce the flow of information to their followers. 
  
   
   
  
  http://www.pfo.org/gameplay.htm
  Games Mormon People Play The Strategies and Diversions of Latter-day Saint 
  Apologists
  Maybe a better definition is A name usually attributed to Bible 
  Christians who try to evangelize Mormons. Oftentimes Mormons 
  accuse such people of being motivated by hatred and bigotry.
   
  "Why do the Elders of the Church hold their peace, instead 
  of contradicting the various falsehoods, which are published concerning them 
  and their principles? The answer is, it would require a standing army of 
  writers and printers in constant employ; for no sooner are our enemies 
  detected in one falsehood, than a thousand more are put in circulation by 
  them: and there are many who love a lie so much more than the 
  truth, that we are quite willing they should enjoy their strong 
  delusion." (Parley P. Pratt, Mormonism Unveiled, 1838) 
  Is this site then calling all those listed in the 
  links that follow Lovers of Lies?
  http://www.lightplanet.com/response/index.shtml
  Seems the real problem with John Ankerberg is maybe he really 
  does not have all those degress another Lover of LIES!
  http://www.lightplanet.com/response/ankerberg.htm
   
  This Mormon site calls the Tanners ANTI not because of any UNTRUTH but 
  because the facts they present portrays the Church in an unfavorable light. 
  During the Hoffman escapade it was the Tanners that got it right from the 
  start!
  http://www.lightplanet.com/mormons/response/general/Publications_EOM.htm During 
  the 1950s, 1960s, and early 1970s, the Church had a generally favorable public 
  image as reflected in the news media. That image became more negative in the 
  later 1970s and the early 1980s. Church opposition to the equal rights 
  amendment and the excommunication of Sonia Johnson for apostasy, the Church's 
  position with respect to priesthood and blacks (changed in 1978), a First 
  Presidency statement opposing the MX missile, the John Singer episode 
  including the bombing of an LDS meetinghouse, tensions between some historians 
  and Church leaders, the forged "Salamander" letter, and the other Mark Hofmann 
  forgeries and murders have provided grist for negative press and television 
  commentary. The political leverage of the Church and its financial holdings 
  have also been subjects of articles with a strong negative orientation. 
  
  Apostle Oaks " When we say anything bad about the 
  leaders of the Church, whether true or false, we tend to impair 
  their influen

Re: [TruthTalk] Full Disclosure - not allowed

http://www.josephlied.com/car.html 
If Mormons treated their cars like they treat their religion 
(A short, not quite fictional story)
 
http://home.teleport.com/~packham/house.htm 
THE MAN WHO BOUGHT A HOUSE A PARABLE by Richard Packham

"I think a full, free talk is frequently of great use; we want nothing secret nor underhanded, and for one I want no association with things that cannot be talked about and will not bear investigation." President John Taylor, Journal of Discourses, Volume 20, Page 264
 
		Yahoo! Sports 
Rekindle the Rivalries. Sign up for Fantasy Football

Re: [TruthTalk] Belief

I do not see it as "perfectly translated" (by men)
I see it as God's word (transmitted & preserved by Him)
KJVDave Hansen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
DAVEH:   Which version do you consider, perfectly translated, Kevin?   Kevin Deegan wrote: 

I hold the PERFECT Word of God in my hands. NO ERRORS.Dave Hansen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: 
DAVEH:   Ahhh.thanx for clearing the cobwebs, Lance!    Was there not just recently a big discussion on TT about the accuracy of some of the Bible translations.   There was a little concern about the JW green Bible.  And in previous years we've discussed how the NIV version dropped a few passages that are found in the KJV.   Just why do we have so many versions of the Bible, if someone didn't think there was a problem with the existing versions?   Surely they can't all be translated correctly.do you disagree?    Furthermore, when two Christians determine doctrines differently from the same source, does that not cause one to ponder why?   Could it be the translations are not adequately conveying what God wants understood?  I don't view that as being a weakness of God
 , but rather a weakness of the translation.  Is that a reasonable stance?    So Lance, I would ask you (or any TTer) if you believe any particular translation of the Bible is 100% accurate.  If the answer is yes, may I assume you would then also believe that the other translations are less than 100% accurate?   Now, if the answer is you do not believe a particular translation is 100% accurate, then would you take my position and accept the Bible to be the word of God as far as it it translated correctly?       I would sure be interested to know if any TTers really do believe a given translation is 100% accurate.   And if you fear reprisal from other TTers for whatever comments you might have, post it to me off-Forum.  As you know, I will not mock or denigrate your commentsI'm sincerely interested in knowing your beliefs.Lance Muir wrote: 


Enlarge upon "as far as it is translated correctly".-- 
~~~
Dave Hansen
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.langlitz.com
~~~
If you wish to receive
things I find interesting,
I maintain six email lists...
JOKESTER, OPINIONS, LDS,
STUFF, MOTORCYCLE and CLIPS.__Do You Yahoo!?Tired of spam?  Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com

Re: [TruthTalk] Belief


How can your Jesus have different attributes than my Jesus and still be the same person?
Amos 3:3 Can two walk together, except they be agreed?Dave Hansen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
DAVEH:   Logically, the onus is not upon me to define the Jesus I believe in, but rather it is on the person who suggests I don't believe in Jesus.  FTRI have not said that the Jesus Kevin, you Perry or any other TTer believes in is a false Jesus.  Lance Muir wrote: 




DaveH says "Kevin, I believe in Jesus." IFF we are going to engage in a conversation that entails reality, then we have to continue to build upon that which has been said previously.According to you THE JESUS TO BE BELIEVED IN IS MOST FULLY AND ACCURATELY DESCRIBED WITHIN MORMON TEACHING. Is this so? The Jesus believed in by Kevin, Perry, Lance et al is a false Jesus. Is this not also so? (unwieldy but, you get my point)What, IYO, are the eternal consequenses for non-Mormons? 
 
Mr. Moderator:Please grant DaveH the opportunity of fully answering and, explaining. 

- Original Message - 
From: Dave Hansen 
To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org 
Sent: June 19, 2005 23:02
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Belief
DAVEH:  FTR Kevin, I believe in Jesus.   Therefore can we conclude that you've made the judgment rather than God?Kevin Deegan wrote: 

He will!He Has!
JN 3:18 He that believeth on him is not condemned: but he that believeth not is condemned already
Dave Hansen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
DAVEH: I fully understand that, Perry. But I'd feel more comfortable letting God make that judgment than you.Charles Perry Locke wrote:> David,>> Romans 10:9,10 : That if thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord > Jesus, and shalt believe in thine heart that God hath raised him from > the dead, thou shalt be saved. For with the heart man believeth unto > righteousness; and with the mouth confession is made unto salvation.>> But, as I have stated before, the right jesus and right god must be > at the center of one's faith. I am not just harassing you, Dave, I > honestly do believe that the mormons worship false gods.>> Perry>>> From: Dave Hansen >> Reply-To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org>> To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org>> Subject: [TruthTalk] Belief>> Date: Sun, 19 Jun 2005 00:16:42 -0700 DAVEH: YeahPretty quiet on TT tonight.. Do you believe that those who believe in Jesus are saved, as I've >> heard many Christians proclaim? If belief is inadequate, what else >> is needed, Perry? Charles Perry Locke wrote:> Dave, this is great. Midnight, just me and you on TT, mano y mano, >>> so to speak :-)>> I guess I am biased in that way, because both you and Blaine admit >>> to following the christ and jesus of mormonism, so it is my opinion >>> that you are lost since I believe that they are false
 gods. If I >>> thought that you guys were saved in spite of the teachings of the >>> mormon church I would not be spending so much time exposing the >>> false nature of the mormon church to you.>> But, the bottom line is that God makes that ultimate decision, not I.>> Perry>-- 
~~~
Dave Hansen
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.langlitz.com
~~~
If you wish to receive
things I find interesting,
I maintain six email lists...
JOKESTER, OPINIONS, LDS,
STUFF, MOTORCYCLE and CLIPS.
		Yahoo! Sports 
Rekindle the Rivalries. Sign up for Fantasy Football

Re: [TruthTalk] Belief




Kevin's meaning?
 
1. 'I do not see it as... Therefore it might be 
imperfectly translated
 
2. 'I see it as ...It is sufficiently 
representative of that which is necessary for 'salvation'. 
 
3. It ain't perfect but, it is sufficient. 
Therefore, so are most, if not all, other translations.
 
It's a far cry from what you've said in the past. 
It's a step in the right direction, Kevin. 

  - Original Message - 
  From: 
  Kevin 
  Deegan 
  To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org 
  
  Sent: June 21, 2005 06:53
  Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Belief
  
  I do not see it as "perfectly translated" (by men)
  I see it as God's word (transmitted & preserved by 
  Him)
  KJVDave Hansen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
  DAVEH:   
Which version do you consider, perfectly translated, Kevin?   
Kevin Deegan wrote: 

  I hold the PERFECT Word of God in my hands. NO 
  ERRORS.Dave Hansen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 
  wrote: 
  DAVEH:   
Ahhh.thanx for clearing the cobwebs, 
Lance!    Was there not just recently a big 
discussion on TT about the accuracy of some of the Bible translations. 
  There was a little concern about the JW green Bible.  And in 
previous years we've discussed how the NIV version dropped a few 
passages that are found in the KJV.   Just why do we have so 
many versions of the Bible, if someone didn't think there was a problem 
with the existing versions?   Surely they can't all be 
translated correctly.do you disagree?    
Furthermore, when two Christians determine doctrines differently from 
the same source, does that not cause one to ponder why?   
Could it be the translations are not adequately conveying what God wants 
understood?  I don't view that as being a weakness of God , but 
rather a weakness of the translation.  Is that a reasonable 
stance?    So Lance, I would ask you (or any 
TTer) if you believe any particular translation of the Bible is 100% 
accurate.  If the answer is yes, may I assume you would then also 
believe that the other translations are less than 100% accurate?   
Now, if the answer is you do not believe a particular translation is 
100% accurate, then would you take my position and accept the Bible to 
be the word of God as far as it it translated correctly?   
    I would sure be interested to know if any 
TTers really do believe a given translation is 100% 
accurate.   And if you fear reprisal from other TTers for 
whatever comments you might have, post it to me off-Forum.  As you 
know, I will not mock or denigrate your commentsI'm sincerely 
interested in knowing your beliefs.Lance Muir wrote: 

  
  Enlarge upon "as far as it is translated 
  correctly".-- 
~~~
Dave Hansen
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.langlitz.com
~~~
If you wish to receive
things I find interesting,
I maintain six email lists...
JOKESTER, OPINIONS, LDS,
STUFF, MOTORCYCLE and CLIPS.
  __Do You 
  Yahoo!?Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around 
  http://mail.yahoo.com

Re: [TruthTalk] Hill Cumorah

Well first of all they are shocking!
"Some things that are true are not very useful."
some LDS bend the truth to fit the prophets
some LDS bend the prophets to fit the truth
Besides it is only their opinion right?
 
The term ANTI is a device for member protection from "TRUTHS that are NOT USEFUL" 
Dave Hansen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
DAVEH:  Just how does any of what you posted below support your statement that.everyone witha criticism of the church an "ANTI"..Kevin?  To assume your limited observations qualify you to judge the proper meaning of the term has led you to a false conclusion.  Quoting the below material does not define anti-Mormon any more than it supports your erroneous assumption that you know better what the term means than the folks who coined it.  Do you recognize the error of your previous understanding of the term?Kevin Deegan wrote: 

DAVEH:  I'll ask again, Kevinwhere did you get thatThen why is everyone witha criticism of the church an "ANTI"
I have observed such.
It is not about TRUTH it is abouth Promoting the Church:

Apostle Oaks "My duty as a member of the Council of the Twelve is to protect what is most unique about the LDS church, namely the authority of priesthood, testimony regarding the restoration of the gospel, and the divine mission of the Savior. Everything else may be sacrificed in order to maintain the integrity of those essential facts. Thus, if Mormon Enigma reveals information that is detrimental to the reputation of Joseph Smith, then it is necessary to try to limit its influence and that of its authors." Introduction p. xliii f28 in Inside the Mind of Joseph Smith: Psychobiography and the Book of Mormon 
1981, Apostle Boyd K. Packer made these comments:

There is a temptation for the writer or the teacher of Church history to want to tell everything, whether it is worthy or faith promoting or not. Some things that are true are not very useful.
Historians seem to take great pride in publishing something new, particularly if it illustrates a weakness or mistake of a prominent historical figure
The writer or the teacher who has an exaggerated loyalty to the theory that everything must be told is laying a foundation for his own judgment
That historian or scholar who delights in pointing out the weaknesses and frailties of present or past leaders destroys faith. A destroyer of faith... places himself in great spiritual jeopardy. He is serving the wrong master, and unless he repents, he will not be among the faithful in the eternities...
In the Church we are not neutral. We are one-sided. There is a war going on and we are engaged in it. (Brigham Young University Studies, Summer 1981, pages 263-64, 266-67)

In 1985, after Dialogue published my article "LDS Church Authority and New Plural Marriages, 1890-1904," three apostles gave orders for my stake president to confiscate my temple recommend I was told that three apostles believed I was guilty of "speaking evil of the Lord's anointed." The stake president was also instructed "to take further action" against me if this did not "remedy the situation" of my writing controversial Mormon history I told the stake president that this was an obvious effort to intimidate me from doing history that might "offend the Brethren" [i.e., the highest leaders of the church]... The stake president also saw this as a back-door effort to have me fired from BYU I find it one of the fundamental ironies of modern Mormonism that the general authorities who praise free agency, also do their best to limit free agency's prerequisites - access to information, uninhibited inquiry, and freedom of _expression_. (Faithful History:
 Essays on Writing Mormon History, Edited by George D. Smith, 1992, pages 90-93, 95) 
Faithful History, pg 103 footnote 22 Michael Quinn called into the office of Apostle Boyd K. Packer: When Elder Packer interviewed me as a prospective member of Brigham Young University's faculty in 1976, he explained: "I have a hard time with historians because they idolize the truth. The truth is not uplifting; it destroys. I could tell most of the secretaries in the church office building that they are ugly and fat. That would be the truth, but it would hurt and destroy them. Historians should tell only that part of the truth that is inspiring and uplifting."Dave Hansen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
DAVEH:   I've explained my definition on TT previously, and several times today.   While I don't disagree with Linday's definition, I think if was awkwardly stated.      Now..I'm glad to hear you agree that you would qualify (by my definition) of being an anti-Mormon.  Do you fully understands how that distinguishes you from another TTer (perhaps Lance or Terry) who shares your dislike of LDS theology, but has a different intent and way of discussing it on TT?      The reason I mention this is to explain why I would treat you differently when I chat with you, compared to when I have a d

Re: [TruthTalk] Belief

I don't recall seeing much of that on TT.
 
You don't remember seeing:
He was creator of Satan NOT his brother
He always existed not procreated
He was the only true God who became a man (God manifest in the flesh), NOT the man who became a god 
He was the ONE True God, NOT one of millions of gods
Begotten of the Holy Ghost, not of a union of a god & his goddess Mutha
Jesus is to be WORSHIPPED & prayed to
His atoning death on the CROSS cleanses from ALL sins, NOT just to open the door and NOT in the garden.
The CROSS is to be preached, NOT to be disdained
Jesus was Born in Bethlehem NOT Jerusalem
ONE in Trinity, NOT three gods, NOT one in "purpose"
Immortal, NOT a Mortal fallen man 
 
I think you missed hundreds of posts check your folders they are filling up your HD!
 

The Mormon Jesus
LITERAL son of a god and his goddess wife; NOT the Holy Spirit - MD p547,742; JoDv1 p51The brother of all spirits born in heaven - MD 192,589,281; Gospel Principles p9Was a married POLYGAMIST - JoD v1 p346, v2 p210One of 3 gods in the godhead - MD p576The Trinity is three separate gods - TPJS p370Had a beginning - MD p250 HoC v6 p305
A MORTAL, FALLEN, MAN who progressed, became god - MD p129,321,751 DC 93:12-14,21 
Atoned for sin on the cross AND the garden of Gethsemene - Gospel Principles p58 1978edWas born in Jerusalem - Tribe of Benjamin - BoM: Alma 7:9,10 Josh 18:21-28Is the Brother of Lucifer - Gospel Principles p15, Moses 5:17;JoD v6 p207Jesus' sacrifice not able to cleanse from all sins - JoD v3,p 247, 2Nep2:26,25:23, MD p92 There is no salvation without accepting Joseph Smith as a prophet of God - D of S: v 1. 188LDS Jesus a created being. Yet the BoM Title Page says "Jesus is the Christ the Eternal God"

"The traditional Christ of whom they speak is not the Christ of whom I speak." 
Gordon B.Hinckley  LDS Prophet, Revelator & Seer
 
The Real Biblical Jesus
Not literal son of a god & his goddess wife. Born of the Holy Spirit - LK 1:34; MT 1:20; Is 7:14
Not the brother of all spirits born in heaven - Col 1:16Was Not married and did not have wives - Rev 21:9; Ep 5:23Not "one of 3 gods" in the GODHEAD - Rm 3:30; 1 Co 8:4; Gal 3:20; 1Tim 2:5The TRINITY is 3 persons in one God - Col 1:15,2:9; Heb 1:3; Gen 1;26ETERNAL : NO Beginning or End - JN 1:1; IS 9:6; JN 8:58; Hb 13:8
ETERNAL, IMMORTAL, SINLESS God -> became flesh - PH 2:6; JN1:1,14; 2Co5:21; 1Tim 3:16
ATONED for all sin on the cross alone - Col 2:14; HB 9:12,28; 10:12,14Was born in Bethlehem : Tribe of Judah - Micah 5:2; MT 2:5; Rev 5:5Jesus is Not the brother of Lucifer - Col 1:16; EZ 28:15His atoning death on the CROSS was able to CLEANSE ALL SINS - 1 JN 1:7; RM 10:4Jesus is the WAY, the TRUTH, and the LIFE - JN 11:25; 14:6; Ep 4:21
The Bibles Jesus is PRAYED TO - Acts 7:55-60; Zech 13:9 with 1 Cor. 1:1-2
The Bibles Jesus is WORSHIPPED - Matt. 2:2,11; 14:33; 28:9; JN 9:35-38; Heb. 1:6
The Bibles Jesus is called GOD - JN 1:1; 20:28; Heb. 1:8; Titus 2:13; 2Pt 1:1; Is 7:14
The Bible's Jesus is the Creator of ALL things, NOT a created Being! Col 1:16 Eph 3:9

Jesus
"there is none other NAME under heaven given among men,
whereby we MUST be SAVED."
Acts 4:12 Dave Hansen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
DAVEH: You've got that a bit backwards, Perry. The onus is on you to prove (explain might be a better word) your Jesus.I don't recall seeing much of that on TT.other than he created the world, was born of a virgin, died and was resurrected.all of which I believe. Is there more you (TTers) want to say about your belief about Jesus?Charles Perry Locke wrote:> Dave,>> I think you are right. You are entitled to your jesus, and the onus > is on us to prove him to not be the same as our Jesus. I feel we have > done that. Repeatedly. But, you do not accept our evidence, and I > suppose short of having a vision, you never will.>> You have not said our Jesus is a false jesus because, since you say > you beleive in the same Jesus we believe in, that would be like > shooting yourself in
 the foot.>> Perry>>> From: Dave Hansen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>>> Reply-To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org>> To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org>> Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Belief>> Date: Mon, 20 Jun 2005 21:55:30 -0700 DAVEH: Logically, the onus is not upon me to define the Jesus I >> believe in, but rather it is on the person who suggests I don't >> believe in Jesus. FTRI have not said that the Jesus Kevin, you >> Perry or any other TTer believes in is a false Jesus. Lance Muir wrote:> DaveH says "Kevin, I believe in Jesus." IFF we are going to engage >>> in a conversation that entails reality, then we have to continue to >>> build upon that which has been said previously.According to you THE >>> JESUS TO BE BELIEVED IN IS MOST FULLY AND ACCURATELY DESCRIBED >>>
 WITHIN MORMON TEACHING. Is this so? The Jesus believed in by Kevin, >>> Perry, Lance et al is a false Jesus. Is this not also so? (unwieldy >>> but, you get my point)What, IYO, are the eternal consequenses for >>> non-Mormo

Re: [TruthTalk] Belief

You misunderstand?
It is not a work of men but a work of God
 
Pull a little harder I am not moved yet.Lance Muir <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:




Kevin's meaning?
 
1. 'I do not see it as... Therefore it might be imperfectly translated
 
2. 'I see it as ...It is sufficiently representative of that which is necessary for 'salvation'. 
 
3. It ain't perfect but, it is sufficient. Therefore, so are most, if not all, other translations.
 
It's a far cry from what you've said in the past. It's a step in the right direction, Kevin. 

- Original Message - 
From: Kevin Deegan 
To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org 
Sent: June 21, 2005 06:53
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Belief

I do not see it as "perfectly translated" (by men)
I see it as God's word (transmitted & preserved by Him)
KJVDave Hansen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
DAVEH:   Which version do you consider, perfectly translated, Kevin?   Kevin Deegan wrote: 

I hold the PERFECT Word of God in my hands. NO ERRORS.Dave Hansen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: 
DAVEH:   Ahhh.thanx for clearing the cobwebs, Lance!    Was there not just recently a big discussion on TT about the accuracy of some of the Bible translations.   There was a little concern about the JW green Bible.  And in previous years we've discussed how the NIV version dropped a few passages that are found in the KJV.   Just why do we have so many versions of the Bible, if someone didn't think there was a problem with the existing versions?   Surely they can't all be translated correctly.do you disagree?    Furthermore, when two Christians determine doctrines differently from the same source, does that not cause one to ponder why?   Could it be the translations are not adequately conveying what God wants understood?  I don't view that as being a weakness of God
 , but rather a weakness of the translation.  Is that a reasonable stance?    So Lance, I would ask you (or any TTer) if you believe any particular translation of the Bible is 100% accurate.  If the answer is yes, may I assume you would then also believe that the other translations are less than 100% accurate?   Now, if the answer is you do not believe a particular translation is 100% accurate, then would you take my position and accept the Bible to be the word of God as far as it it translated correctly?       I would sure be interested to know if any TTers really do believe a given translation is 100% accurate.   And if you fear reprisal from other TTers for whatever comments you might have, post it to me off-Forum.  As you know, I will not mock or denigrate your commentsI'm sincerely interested in knowing your beliefs.Lance Muir wrote: 


Enlarge upon "as far as it is translated correctly".-- 
~~~
Dave Hansen
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.langlitz.com
~~~
If you wish to receive
things I find interesting,
I maintain six email lists...
JOKESTER, OPINIONS, LDS,
STUFF, MOTORCYCLE and CLIPS.
__Do You Yahoo!?Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com __Do You Yahoo!?Tired of spam?  Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com

Re: [TruthTalk] Who is he?

Maybe that your formalism is showing? [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:



so what is your point?   That "baptism" is not for believers?  
 
JD  -Original Message-From: ShieldsFamily <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgSent: Mon, 20 Jun 2005 22:52:18 -0500Subject: RE: [TruthTalk] Who is he?






There are MANY who have been baptized who do not believe.  Izzy
 




From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of [EMAIL PROTECTED]Sent: Monday, June 20, 2005 6:36 PMTo: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgSubject: Re: [TruthTalk] Who is he?
 



A rather ridiculous bit of logic.  If one does not believe, he will not be baptized.   Your "logic" cuts the word completely out of the mouth of Jesus.   I do not think water baptism saves anyone, by the way.   But that is what Jesus said.   You can slice and dice all you want.  

 

JD 
-Original Message-From: Kevin Deegan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgSent: Mon, 20 Jun 2005 15:42:09 -0700 (PDT)Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Who is he?


He is those "Every creature" that hear the preaching.

 

As far as a proof text.

It is NOT a proof text for salvation by baptism as some declare, but a prooftext of salvation by belief. 

Since the one is is damned is the UNBELIEVER not the UNBaptised. vs 16Charles Perry Locke <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

John, thanks for responding. Jesus indeed spoke v. 16, but to whom was Christ referring when he used "He"?Any other TT'rs care to give thier insight to these questions? I know this does not appear to raise any controversy, so hasn't generated much interest, but where I am going with this may step on so many toes that it may become controversial. Of course, maybe everyone already understood this but me, and the Spirit was just bringing me up to speed!The reason that I am asking is that quite late the other night I had a stroke of insight into the meaning of v. 16 that was totally different than I previously understood. Did this come to me through the Spirit? Well, I DO pray often that the Spirit will give me insight into the Word of God, and that I will see and understand it correctly. I believe that is what happened to change my
 understanding of this verse.After coming to this new understanding, I gave it the "sleep on it" test, and it survived. upon re-reading the passage it still meant the same thing to me the next morning.A lot of people may disagree with me because it refutes a major proof-text used by many. (Not that their point may not be made elsewhere, but definitely not here in v. 16.) There is a secondary use of v 16-20 as another prooftext that also will be refuted. This is very rich indeed.I wanted to present this to my Christian peers on TT, to see what the consensus is. I want to hear from as many as have the time to read and give their understanding, then I will present it as I now understand it. If the spirit has indeed lead me into truth it will be interesting.Perry>From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]>Reply-To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org>To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org>Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Who is he?>Dat e: Mon, 20 Jun 2005 01:31:59 -0400>>1. Christ>2. Water>< BR>>-Original Message->From: Charles Perry Locke <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>>To: truthtalk@mail.innglory.org>Sent: Sun, 19 Jun 2005 21:35:41 -0700>Subject: [TruthTalk] Who is he?>>>I have been studying Mark 16:14-20, and have two open questions for all TT >members.>>1. In verse 16, who is the antecedant to the pronoun "He" that starts out >that verse?>2. Again, in verse 16, what type of baptism is Jesus discussing here?>>Thanks,>Perry>>-->"Let your speech be always with grace, seasoned with salt, that you may >know how you ought to answer every man." (Colossians 4:6) >http://www.InnGlory.org>>If you do not want to receive
 posts from this list, send an email to >[EMAIL PROTECTED] and you will be unsubscribed. If you have a >friend who wants to join, tell h im 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!?Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com __Do You Yahoo!?Tired of spam?  Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com

Re: [TruthTalk] Belief

WHO JESUS IS IS THE ISSUE! Gentlemen:(Blaine, DaveH 
and, lurkers) If Jesus is not the logos asarkos then, we have no gospel! I heard 
a couple of kids playing on the street the other night and, one said to the 
other 'do the math'. 

  - Original Message - 
  From: 
  Kevin 
  Deegan 
  To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org 

  Sent: June 21, 2005 06:55
  Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Belief

  How can your Jesus have different attributes than my Jesus and 
  still be the same person?
  Amos 3:3 Can two walk together, except they be 
  agreed?Dave Hansen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: 
  DAVEH:   
Logically, the onus is not upon me to define the Jesus I believe in, but 
rather it is on the person who suggests I don't believe in Jesus.  
FTRI have not said that the Jesus Kevin, you Perry or any other TTer 
believes in is a false Jesus.  Lance Muir wrote: 

  DaveH says "Kevin, I believe in Jesus." IFF 
  we are going to engage in a conversation that entails reality, then we 
  have to continue to build upon that which has been said 
  previously.According to you THE JESUS TO BE BELIEVED IN IS MOST FULLY 
  AND ACCURATELY DESCRIBED WITHIN MORMON TEACHING. Is this so? The 
  Jesus believed in by Kevin, Perry, Lance et al is a false Jesus. Is this 
  not also so? (unwieldy but, you get my point)What, IYO, are the eternal 
  consequenses for non-Mormons? 

  Mr. Moderator:Please grant DaveH the 
  opportunity of fully answering and, explaining. 

- 
Original Message - 
From: 
Dave 
Hansen 
To: 
TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org 

Sent: 
June 19, 2005 23:02
Subject: 
Re: [TruthTalk] Belief
DAVEH:  FTR Kevin, I believe in Jesus.   
Therefore can we conclude that you've made the judgment rather than 
God?Kevin Deegan wrote: 

  He will!He 
  Has!
  JN 3:18 He that believeth on him is 
  not condemned: but he that believeth not is condemned 
  already
  Dave Hansen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 
  wrote:
  DAVEH: 
I fully understand that, Perry. But I'd feel more comfortable 
letting God make that judgment than you.Charles Perry 
Locke wrote:> David,>> Romans 10:9,10 : 
That if thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord > Jesus, 
and shalt believe in thine heart that God hath raised him from 
> the dead, thou shalt be saved. For with the heart man 
believeth unto > righteousness; and with the mouth confession 
is made unto salvation.>> But, as I have stated 
before, the right jesus and right god must be > at the center 
of one's faith. I am not just harassing you, Dave, I > 
honestly do believe that the mormons worship false 
gods.>> Perry>>> From: Dave Hansen 
>> Reply-To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org>> 
To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org>> 
Subject: [TruthTalk] Belief>> Date: Sun, 19 Jun 2005 
00:16:42 -0700 DAVEH: YeahPretty 
quiet on TT tonight.. Do you believe that 
those who believe in Jesus are saved, as I've >> heard 
many Christians proclaim? If belief is inadequate, what else 
>> is needed, Perry? Charles Perry 
Locke wrote:> Dave, this is great. 
Midnight, just me and you on TT, mano y mano, >>> so to 
speak :-)>> I guess I am biased in 
that way, because both you and Blaine admit >>> to 
following the christ and jesus of mormonism, so it is my opinion 
>>> that you are lost since I believe that they are 
false gods. If I >>> thought that you guys were saved 
in spite of the teachings of the >>> mormon church I 
would not be spending so much time exposing the >>> 
false nature of the mormon church to 
you.>> But, the bottom line is that 
God makes that ultimate decision, not 
I.>> 
Perry>-- 
~~~
Dave Hansen
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.langlitz.com
~~~
If you wish to receive
things I find interesting,
I maintain six email lists...
JOKESTER, OPINIONS, LDS,
STUFF, MOTORCYCLE and CLIPS.

  Yahoo! SportsRekindle 
  the Rivalries. Sign up for Fantasy Football

Re: [TruthTalk] Belief




Herein you sound like a Mormon, Kevin. Belief 
overrides understanding. That's OK as everyone does this from time to 
time.

  - Original Message - 
  From: 
  Kevin 
  Deegan 
  To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org 
  
  Sent: June 21, 2005 07:16
  Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Belief
  
  You misunderstand?
  It is not a work of men but a work of God
   
  Pull a little harder I am not moved yet.Lance Muir <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 
  wrote:
  



Kevin's meaning?
 
1. 'I do not see it as... Therefore it might be 
imperfectly translated
 
2. 'I see it as ...It is sufficiently 
representative of that which is necessary for 'salvation'. 
 
3. It ain't perfect but, it is sufficient. 
Therefore, so are most, if not all, other translations.
 
It's a far cry from what you've said in the 
past. It's a step in the right direction, Kevin. 

  - Original Message - 
  From: 
  Kevin Deegan 
  To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org 
  
  Sent: June 21, 2005 06:53
  Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Belief
  
  I do not see it as "perfectly translated" (by 
  men)
  I see it as God's word (transmitted & preserved 
  by Him)
  KJVDave Hansen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 
  wrote:
  DAVEH:   
Which version do you consider, perfectly translated, Kevin?   
Kevin Deegan wrote: 

  I hold the PERFECT Word of God in my hands. NO 
  ERRORS.Dave Hansen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 
  wrote: 
  DAVEH:   
Ahhh.thanx for clearing the cobwebs, 
Lance!    Was there not just recently a big 
discussion on TT about the accuracy of some of the Bible 
translations.   There was a little concern about the JW green 
Bible.  And in previous years we've discussed how the NIV 
version dropped a few passages that are found in the 
KJV.   Just why do we have so many versions of the Bible, 
if someone didn't think there was a problem with the existing 
versions?   Surely they can't all be translated 
correctly.do you disagree?    
Furthermore, when two Christians determine doctrines differently 
from the same source, does that not cause one to ponder 
why?   Could it be the translations are not adequately 
conveying what God wants understood?  I don't view that as 
being a weakness of God , but rather a weakness of the 
translation.  Is that a reasonable 
stance?    So Lance, I would ask you (or any 
TTer) if you believe any particular translation of the Bible is 100% 
accurate.  If the answer is yes, may I assume you would then 
also believe that the other translations are less than 100% 
accurate?   Now, if the answer is you do not believe a 
particular translation is 100% accurate, then would you take my 
position and accept the Bible to be the word of God as far as it it 
translated correctly?       I would sure 
be interested to know if any TTers really do believe a given 
translation is 100% accurate.   And if you fear reprisal 
from other TTers for whatever comments you might have, post it to me 
off-Forum.  As you know, I will not mock or denigrate your 
commentsI'm sincerely interested in knowing your 
beliefs.Lance Muir wrote: 

  Enlarge upon "as far as it is 
  translated 
correctly".-- 
~~~
Dave Hansen
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.langlitz.com
~~~
If you wish to receive
things I find interesting,
I maintain six email lists...
JOKESTER, OPINIONS, LDS,
STUFF, MOTORCYCLE and CLIPS.
  __Do You 
  Yahoo!?Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around 
  http://mail.yahoo.com 
  __Do You 
  Yahoo!?Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around 
  http://mail.yahoo.com

Re: [TruthTalk] To the Mormons: public/participating & private/watching on TT

Luke 9:20 But whom say ye that I am? 
The topic of discussion is how Joe answered that question.
 
Sadly, the answer for most Mormons is:
If they hear not Moses and the prophets, neither will they be persuaded, though one rose from the dead.
Lance Muir <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:




What do baseball and crickett have in common? In what do they differ? Are they the same?
 
In Luke 16 Jesus asked a question. How did Joseph Smith answer that question?
 
Who is playing crickett? Who is playing baseball? Does it matter to you if we call them the same game? 

- Original Message - 
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org 
Sent: June 20, 2005 15:09
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] To the Mormons: public/participating & private/watching on TT

In a message dated 6/17/2005 12:25:12 PM Mountain Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:

That is the problem you are a "Latter Day Saint" not a Christian.

Hi Kevin, thought you'd like a discussion on why Mormons are Christians, and why people who say otherwise are full of it.
 
Blainerb
 
http://www.whyprophets.com/prophets/lds.htm__Do You Yahoo!?Tired of spam?  Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com

Re: [TruthTalk] Belief

Would you like to discuss such or just Pontificate?Lance Muir <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

Herein you sound like a Mormon, Kevin. Belief overrides understanding. That's OK as everyone does this from time to time.

- Original Message - 
From: Kevin Deegan 
To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org 
Sent: June 21, 2005 07:16
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Belief

You misunderstand?
It is not a work of men but a work of God

Pull a little harder I am not moved yet.Lance Muir <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

Kevin's meaning?

1. 'I do not see it as... Therefore it might be imperfectly translated

2. 'I see it as ...It is sufficiently representative of that which is necessary for 'salvation'. 

3. It ain't perfect but, it is sufficient. Therefore, so are most, if not all, other translations.

It's a far cry from what you've said in the past. It's a step in the right direction, Kevin. 

- Original Message - 
From: Kevin Deegan 
To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org 
Sent: June 21, 2005 06:53
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Belief

I do not see it as "perfectly translated" (by men)
I see it as God's word (transmitted & preserved by Him)
KJVDave Hansen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
DAVEH:   Which version do you consider, perfectly translated, Kevin?   Kevin Deegan wrote: 

I hold the PERFECT Word of God in my hands. NO ERRORS.Dave Hansen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: 
DAVEH:   Ahhh.thanx for clearing the cobwebs, Lance!    Was there not just recently a big discussion on TT about the accuracy of some of the Bible translations.   There was a little concern about the JW green Bible.  And in previous years we've discussed how the NIV version dropped a few passages that are found in the KJV.   Just why do we have so many versions of the Bible, if someone didn't think there was a problem with the existing versions?   Surely they can't all be translated correctly.do you disagree?    Furthermore, when two Christians determine doctrines differently from the same source, does that not cause one to ponder why?   Could it be the translations are not adequately conveying what God wants understood?  I don't view that as being a weakness of God
 , but rather a weakness of the translation.  Is that a reasonable stance?    So Lance, I would ask you (or any TTer) if you believe any particular translation of the Bible is 100% accurate.  If the answer is yes, may I assume you would then also believe that the other translations are less than 100% accurate?   Now, if the answer is you do not believe a particular translation is 100% accurate, then would you take my position and accept the Bible to be the word of God as far as it it translated correctly?       I would sure be interested to know if any TTers really do believe a given translation is 100% accurate.   And if you fear reprisal from other TTers for whatever comments you might have, post it to me off-Forum.  As you know, I will not mock or denigrate your commentsI'm sincerely interested in knowing your beliefs.Lance Muir wrote: 

Enlarge upon "as far as it is translated correctly".-- 
~~~
Dave Hansen
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.langlitz.com
~~~
If you wish to receive
things I find interesting,
I maintain six email lists...
JOKESTER, OPINIONS, LDS,
STUFF, MOTORCYCLE and CLIPS.
__Do You Yahoo!?Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com 
__Do You Yahoo!?Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com __Do You Yahoo!?Tired of spam?  Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com

Re: [TruthTalk] Belief




Gentlemen: (Blaine, DaveH and lurkers) How could 
one ask for more 'proof' than this? Will you actually respond? No bullhorn here! 
He (Kevin) apparently did 'do the math'.

  - Original Message - 
  From: 
  Kevin 
  Deegan 
  To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org 
  
  Sent: June 21, 2005 07:14
  Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Belief
  
  I don't recall seeing much of that on 
  TT.
   
  You don't remember seeing:
  He was creator of Satan NOT his brother
  He always existed not procreated
  He was the only true God who became a man (God manifest in the flesh), 
  NOT the man who became a god 
  He was the ONE True God, NOT one of millions of gods
  Begotten of the Holy Ghost, not of a union of a god & his 
  goddess Mutha
  Jesus is to be WORSHIPPED & prayed to
  His atoning death on the CROSS cleanses from ALL sins, NOT just to 
  open the door and NOT in the garden.
  The CROSS is to be preached, NOT to be disdained
  Jesus was Born in Bethlehem NOT Jerusalem
  ONE in Trinity, NOT three gods, NOT one in "purpose"
  Immortal, NOT a Mortal fallen man 
   
  I think you missed hundreds of posts check your folders they are 
  filling up your HD!
   
  
  The Mormon Jesus
  LITERAL son of a god and his goddess wife; NOT the Holy 
  Spirit - MD p547,742; JoDv1 p51The brother of all spirits born in 
  heaven - MD 192,589,281; Gospel Principles p9Was a married 
  POLYGAMIST - JoD v1 p346, v2 p210One of 3 gods in the 
  godhead - MD p576The Trinity is three separate gods - TPJS 
  p370Had a beginning - MD p250 HoC v6 p305
  A MORTAL, FALLEN, MAN who progressed, became god - MD 
  p129,321,751 DC 93:12-14,21 
  Atoned for sin on the cross AND the garden of Gethsemene 
  - Gospel Principles p58 1978edWas born in Jerusalem - Tribe 
  of Benjamin - BoM: Alma 7:9,10 Josh 18:21-28Is the Brother 
  of Lucifer - Gospel Principles p15, Moses 5:17;JoD v6 
  p207Jesus' sacrifice not able to cleanse from all sins - JoD v3,p 
  247, 2Nep2:26,25:23, MD p92 There is no salvation 
  without accepting Joseph Smith as a prophet of God - D of S: v 1. 
  188LDS Jesus a created being. Yet the BoM Title Page says "Jesus is 
  the Christ the Eternal God"
  
  "The traditional Christ of whom they speak is not the Christ of whom I speak." 
  Gordon B.Hinckley  LDS Prophet, Revelator & Seer
   
  The Real Biblical Jesus
  Not literal son of a god & his goddess wife. Born of the 
  Holy Spirit - LK 1:34; MT 1:20; Is 7:14
  Not the brother of all spirits born in heaven - Col 
  1:16Was Not married and did not have wives - Rev 21:9; Ep 
  5:23Not "one of 3 gods" in the GODHEAD - Rm 3:30; 1 Co 8:4; 
  Gal 3:20; 1Tim 2:5The TRINITY is 3 persons in one God - Col 
  1:15,2:9; Heb 1:3; Gen 1;26ETERNAL : NO Beginning or End - 
  JN 1:1; IS 9:6; JN 8:58; Hb 13:8
  ETERNAL, IMMORTAL, SINLESS God -> became flesh - PH 
  2:6; JN1:1,14; 2Co5:21; 1Tim 3:16
  ATONED for all sin on the cross alone - Col 2:14; HB 
  9:12,28; 10:12,14Was born in Bethlehem : Tribe of Judah - 
  Micah 5:2; MT 2:5; Rev 5:5Jesus is Not the brother of Lucifer - 
  Col 1:16; EZ 28:15His atoning death on the CROSS was able to 
  CLEANSE ALL SINS - 1 JN 1:7; RM 10:4Jesus is the 
  WAY, the TRUTH, and the LIFE - JN 11:25; 14:6; Ep 
  4:21
  The Bibles Jesus is PRAYED TO - Acts 7:55-60; Zech 
  13:9 with 1 Cor. 1:1-2
  The Bibles Jesus is WORSHIPPED - Matt. 2:2,11; 14:33; 
  28:9; JN 9:35-38; Heb. 1:6
  The Bibles Jesus is called GOD - JN 1:1; 20:28; Heb. 
  1:8; Titus 2:13; 2Pt 1:1; Is 7:14
  The Bible's Jesus is the Creator of ALL things, NOT a created 
  Being! Col 1:16 Eph 3:9
  
  Jesus
  "there is none other NAME under heaven given among men,
  whereby we MUST be SAVED."
  Acts 4:12 Dave Hansen 
  <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
  DAVEH: 
You've got that a bit backwards, Perry. The onus is on you to prove 
(explain might be a better word) your Jesus.I don't recall seeing 
much of that on TT.other than he created the world, was born of a 
virgin, died and was resurrected.all of which I believe. Is there 
more you (TTers) want to say about your belief about Jesus?Charles 
Perry Locke wrote:> Dave,>> I think you are right. 
You are entitled to your jesus, and the onus > is on us to prove him 
to not be the same as our Jesus. I feel we have > done that. 
Repeatedly. But, you do not accept our evidence, and I > suppose 
short of having a vision, you never will.>> You have not said 
our Jesus is a false jesus because, since you say > you beleive in 
the same Jesus we believe in, that would be like > shooting yourself 
in the foot.>> Perry>>> From: Dave Hansen 
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>>> Reply-To: 
TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org>> To: 
TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org>> Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] 
Belief>> Date: Mon, 20 Jun 2005 21:55:30 
-0700 DAVEH: Logically, the onus is not upon me to 
define the Jesus I >> believe in, but rather it is on the person 
who suggests I don't >> believe in Jesus. FTR

Re: [TruthTalk] Hill Cumorah

We do - you SIT
We preach - you lecture on what you do not doLance Muir <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

I looked at the photo-journal of the SPer's trip. What a waste! A Muslim country? You live in one. As for both trips; the one taken and the one projected, why not take care of 'business' at home? My question was:Why not replicate in front of 'your' Mosques what you do at Mardi Gras, Super Bowl etc.? You won't and, for good reason. 

- Original Message - 
From: Kevin Deegan 
To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org 
Sent: June 20, 2005 18:24
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Hill Cumorah

Want to come with us to a muslim country to preach?Lance Muir <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: 

Now, there's a collection of pictures I'd enjoy having a look at.Of course y'all do this with the same frequency as the others, eh? Will you tell which Mosques, how many and, with what frequency?

Do 'you' believe that Muhammed was inspired to write the Koran by the same one who inspired the BOM namely, Satan?

- Original Message - 
From: Kevin Deegan 
To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org 
Sent: June 20, 2005 14:33
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Hill Cumorah

The plain answer is yes
what is your point? your'e afraid?Lance Muir <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

I'm confident that you wouldn't be INTENTIONALLY EVASIVE so, please answer the question as asked. Employing the 'model' (placards, bullhorns etc.)provided for us by DM & Kevin vis a vis the Super Bowl, Mardis Gras and, outside the Temple in Salt Lake City, would they do the same thing outside a mosque (a Muslim place of worship) and, if not then, whey not?

Do revisit what kicked this discussion off. There is a serious point to be made here.

- Original Message - 
From: Judy Taylor 
To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org 
Cc: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org 
Sent: June 20, 2005 06:56
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Hill Cumorah

I don't know about DavidM but I'm sure Kevin and Ruben have encountered Muslims in their SP travels. I figure it
would be tit for tat (with truth on their side) since Muslims call everyone and everything Western "the great Satan"  My Scots friend tells me that in the UK the Muslims have taken over and that now the Red Cross will not put anything Christian out at Christmas for fear of offending them.  Her brother in Manchester England says he will not give the Red Cross another cent because of it and he isn't even religious.  jt

On Mon, 20 Jun 2005 06:34:36 -0400 "Lance Muir" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:

I do not have a problem with 'exposure'. I don't think that that is Dave's point though.
May I suggest that an equal. if not greater, danger to believers lies within Islam. Could you imagine David Miller or Kevin going to Mosques and, utilizing bullhorns, villify the attendants by addressing THEM as servants of Satan?

From: Judy Taylor 

I would think it would be more like Jeremiah (see Jer 13:1,2); this is obviously a one time object lesson to
the part of Israel Jeremiah was ministering to rather than a pattern of behavior for all time.  However, part of public proclamation of Truth by nature involves exposing the lie of the false gods which of course will be offensive to those who worship them.  Why do you have such a problem with this?  jt

On Mon, 20 Jun 2005 05:58:55 -0400 "Lance Muir" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:

Elijah.

From: Judy Taylor 

Can you give us a "for instance" DaveH?  jt

Dave Hansen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

DAVEH:  As I understand your position (and please correct me if I am misunderstanding your position), many Christians (specifically you, in this instance) believe that everything written in the Bible is specifically applicable to Christians today.   So, if a prophet of the Bible used a technique of mocking, that means it is OK for you to do the same thing.  If a prophet of God in the Bible is commanded to go preach on the streets, you assume that instruction applies to you as wellis that correct, Kevin?    To me, that isn't logical at all.  Just as what he compelled the prophets of the OT to do was not necessarily applicable to the prophets of the NT, what the Lord wants us to do today may or may not be what he wants us to do today.  It seems to me that the Lord over time has commanded various people
 to do things that he may not have commanded at a subsequent time or other peoples.   Hope that makes some sense.Kevin Deegan wrote: 

DAVEH:  And because some of the early prophets mocked with God's blessing, you believe it is your right to do so as well?  Isn't that stretching logic a bit beyond it's breaking point?NO
How so?
Dave Hansen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Kevin Deegan wrote: 

Yes, but where they "Contending for the faith"?DAVEH:  What do you think they were disputi9ng if it wasn't their perspecdtive of the faith?  Don't you think they were arguing the truth as they saw it, perhaps in the same way it is done on TT occassionally?

Please show me where God admonished Paul, for his "much contention"DAVEH:  My last post about adm

Re: [TruthTalk] Belief

SAME JESUS?
 
Let the prophet answer:
"The traditional Christ of whom they speak is NOT the Christ of whom I speak."  Gordon B.Hinckley  LDS Prophet, Revelator & Seer
 
How can two walk together except they be agreed Amos 3:3




Gentlemen: (Blaine, DaveH and lurkers) How could one ask for more 'proof' than this? Will you actually respond? No bullhorn here! He (Kevin) apparently did 'do the math'.

- Original Message - 
From: Kevin Deegan 
To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org 
Sent: June 21, 2005 07:14
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Belief

I don't recall seeing much of that on TT.
 
You don't remember seeing:
He was creator of Satan NOT his brother
He always existed not procreated
He was the only true God who became a man (God manifest in the flesh), NOT the man who became a god 
He was the ONE True God, NOT one of millions of gods
Begotten of the Holy Ghost, not of a union of a god & his goddess Mutha
Jesus is to be WORSHIPPED & prayed to
His atoning death on the CROSS cleanses from ALL sins, NOT just to open the door and NOT in the garden.
The CROSS is to be preached, NOT to be disdained
Jesus was Born in Bethlehem NOT Jerusalem
ONE in Trinity, NOT three gods, NOT one in "purpose"
Immortal, NOT a Mortal fallen man 
 
I think you missed hundreds of posts check your folders they are filling up your HD!
 

The Mormon Jesus
LITERAL son of a god and his goddess wife; NOT the Holy Spirit - MD p547,742; JoDv1 p51The brother of all spirits born in heaven - MD 192,589,281; Gospel Principles p9Was a married POLYGAMIST - JoD v1 p346, v2 p210One of 3 gods in the godhead - MD p576The Trinity is three separate gods - TPJS p370Had a beginning - MD p250 HoC v6 p305
A MORTAL, FALLEN, MAN who progressed, became god - MD p129,321,751 DC 93:12-14,21 
Atoned for sin on the cross AND the garden of Gethsemene - Gospel Principles p58 1978edWas born in Jerusalem - Tribe of Benjamin - BoM: Alma 7:9,10 Josh 18:21-28Is the Brother of Lucifer - Gospel Principles p15, Moses 5:17;JoD v6 p207Jesus' sacrifice not able to cleanse from all sins - JoD v3,p 247, 2Nep2:26,25:23, MD p92 There is no salvation without accepting Joseph Smith as a prophet of God - D of S: v 1. 188LDS Jesus a created being. Yet the BoM Title Page says "Jesus is the Christ the Eternal God"

"The traditional Christ of whom they speak is not the Christ of whom I speak." Gordon B.Hinckley  LDS Prophet, Revelator & Seer
 
The Real Biblical Jesus
Not literal son of a god & his goddess wife. Born of the Holy Spirit - LK 1:34; MT 1:20; Is 7:14
Not the brother of all spirits born in heaven - Col 1:16Was Not married and did not have wives - Rev 21:9; Ep 5:23Not "one of 3 gods" in the GODHEAD - Rm 3:30; 1 Co 8:4; Gal 3:20; 1Tim 2:5The TRINITY is 3 persons in one God - Col 1:15,2:9; Heb 1:3; Gen 1;26ETERNAL : NO Beginning or End - JN 1:1; IS 9:6; JN 8:58; Hb 13:8
ETERNAL, IMMORTAL, SINLESS God -> became flesh - PH 2:6; JN1:1,14; 2Co5:21; 1Tim 3:16
ATONED for all sin on the cross alone - Col 2:14; HB 9:12,28; 10:12,14Was born in Bethlehem : Tribe of Judah - Micah 5:2; MT 2:5; Rev 5:5Jesus is Not the brother of Lucifer - Col 1:16; EZ 28:15His atoning death on the CROSS was able to CLEANSE ALL SINS - 1 JN 1:7; RM 10:4Jesus is the WAY, the TRUTH, and the LIFE - JN 11:25; 14:6; Ep 4:21
The Bibles Jesus is PRAYED TO - Acts 7:55-60; Zech 13:9 with 1 Cor. 1:1-2
The Bibles Jesus is WORSHIPPED - Matt. 2:2,11; 14:33; 28:9; JN 9:35-38; Heb. 1:6
The Bibles Jesus is called GOD - JN 1:1; 20:28; Heb. 1:8; Titus 2:13; 2Pt 1:1; Is 7:14
The Bible's Jesus is the Creator of ALL things, NOT a created Being! Col 1:16 Eph 3:9

Jesus  "there is none other NAME under heaven given among men, whereby we MUST be SAVED." Acts 4:12 Dave Hansen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
DAVEH: You've got that a bit backwards, Perry. The onus is on you to prove (explain might be a better word) your Jesus.I don't recall seeing much of that on TT.other than he created the world, was born of a virgin, died and was resurrected.all of which I believe. Is there more you (TTers) want to say about your belief about Jesus?Charles Perry Locke wrote:> Dave,>> I think you are right. You are entitled to your jesus, and the onus > is on us to prove him to not be the same as our Jesus. I feel we have > done that. Repeatedly. But, you do not accept our evidence, and I > suppose short of having a vision, you never will.>> You have not said our Jesus is a false jesus because, since you say > you beleive in the same Jesus we believe in, that would be like > shooting yourself in
 the foot.>> Perry>>> From: Dave Hansen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>>> Reply-To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org>> To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org>> Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Belief>> Date: Mon, 20 Jun 2005 21:55:30 -0700 DAVEH: Logically, the onus is not upon me to define the Jesus I >> believe in, but rather it is on the person who suggests I don't >> believe in Jesus. FTRI have not said that the Jesus Kevin, you >> Perry or any other TTer believes in is a f

Re: [TruthTalk] Belief


SAME JESUS?
 
Let the prophet answer:
"The traditional Christ of whom they speak is NOT the Christ of whom I speak."  Gordon B.Hinckley  LDS Prophet, Revelator & Seer
 
How can two walk together except they be agreed Amos 3:3




Gentlemen: (Blaine, DaveH and lurkers) How could one ask for more 'proof' than this? Will you actually respond? No bullhorn here! He (Kevin) apparently did 'do the math'.

- Original Message - 
From: Kevin Deegan 
To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org 
Sent: June 21, 2005 07:14
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Belief

I don't recall seeing much of that on TT.
 
You don't remember seeing:
He was creator of Satan NOT his brother
He always existed not procreated
He was the only true God who became a man (God manifest in the flesh), NOT the man who became a god 
He was the ONE True God, NOT one of millions of gods
Begotten of the Holy Ghost, not of a union of a god & his goddess Mutha
Jesus is to be WORSHIPPED & prayed to
His atoning death on the CROSS cleanses from ALL sins, NOT just to open the door and NOT in the garden.
The CROSS is to be preached, NOT to be disdained
Jesus was Born in Bethlehem NOT Jerusalem
ONE in Trinity, NOT three gods, NOT one in "purpose"
Immortal, NOT a Mortal fallen man 
 
I think you missed hundreds of posts check your folders they are filling up your HD!
 

The Mormon Jesus
LITERAL son of a god and his goddess wife; NOT the Holy Spirit - MD p547,742; JoDv1 p51The brother of all spirits born in heaven - MD 192,589,281; Gospel Principles p9Was a married POLYGAMIST - JoD v1 p346, v2 p210One of 3 gods in the godhead - MD p576The Trinity is three separate gods - TPJS p370Had a beginning - MD p250 HoC v6 p305
A MORTAL, FALLEN, MAN who progressed, became god - MD p129,321,751 DC 93:12-14,21 
Atoned for sin on the cross AND the garden of Gethsemene - Gospel Principles p58 1978edWas born in Jerusalem - Tribe of Benjamin - BoM: Alma 7:9,10 Josh 18:21-28Is the Brother of Lucifer - Gospel Principles p15, Moses 5:17;JoD v6 p207Jesus' sacrifice not able to cleanse from all sins - JoD v3,p 247, 2Nep2:26,25:23, MD p92 There is no salvation without accepting Joseph Smith as a prophet of God - D of S: v 1. 188LDS Jesus a created being. Yet the BoM Title Page says "Jesus is the Christ the Eternal God"

"The traditional Christ of whom they speak is not the Christ of whom I speak." Gordon B.Hinckley  LDS Prophet, Revelator & Seer
 
The Real Biblical Jesus
Not literal son of a god & his goddess wife. Born of the Holy Spirit - LK 1:34; MT 1:20; Is 7:14
Not the brother of all spirits born in heaven - Col 1:16Was Not married and did not have wives - Rev 21:9; Ep 5:23Not "one of 3 gods" in the GODHEAD - Rm 3:30; 1 Co 8:4; Gal 3:20; 1Tim 2:5The TRINITY is 3 persons in one God - Col 1:15,2:9; Heb 1:3; Gen 1;26ETERNAL : NO Beginning or End - JN 1:1; IS 9:6; JN 8:58; Hb 13:8
ETERNAL, IMMORTAL, SINLESS God -> became flesh - PH 2:6; JN1:1,14; 2Co5:21; 1Tim 3:16
ATONED for all sin on the cross alone - Col 2:14; HB 9:12,28; 10:12,14Was born in Bethlehem : Tribe of Judah - Micah 5:2; MT 2:5; Rev 5:5Jesus is Not the brother of Lucifer - Col 1:16; EZ 28:15His atoning death on the CROSS was able to CLEANSE ALL SINS - 1 JN 1:7; RM 10:4Jesus is the WAY, the TRUTH, and the LIFE - JN 11:25; 14:6; Ep 4:21
The Bibles Jesus is PRAYED TO - Acts 7:55-60; Zech 13:9 with 1 Cor. 1:1-2
The Bibles Jesus is WORSHIPPED - Matt. 2:2,11; 14:33; 28:9; JN 9:35-38; Heb. 1:6
The Bibles Jesus is called GOD - JN 1:1; 20:28; Heb. 1:8; Titus 2:13; 2Pt 1:1; Is 7:14
The Bible's Jesus is the Creator of ALL things, NOT a created Being! Col 1:16 Eph 3:9

Jesus  "there is none other NAME under heaven given among men, whereby we MUST be SAVED." Acts 4:12 Dave Hansen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
DAVEH: You've got that a bit backwards, Perry. The onus is on you to prove (explain might be a better word) your Jesus.I don't recall seeing much of that on TT.other than he created the world, was born of a virgin, died and was resurrected.all of which I believe. Is there more you (TTers) want to say about your belief about Jesus?Charles Perry Locke wrote:> Dave,>> I think you are right. You are entitled to your jesus, and the onus > is on us to prove him to not be the same as our Jesus. I feel we have > done that. Repeatedly. But, you do not accept our evidence, and I > suppose short of having a vision, you never will.>> You have not said our Jesus is a false jesus because, since you say > you beleive in the same Jesus we believe in, that would be like > shooting yourself in
 the foot.>> Perry>>> From: Dave Hansen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>>> Reply-To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org>> To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org>> Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Belief>> Date: Mon, 20 Jun 2005 21:55:30 -0700 DAVEH: Logically, the onus is not upon me to define the Jesus I >> believe in, but rather it is on the person who suggests I don't >> believe in Jesus. FTRI have not said that the Jesus Kevin, you >> Perry or any other TTer believes in is a

Re: [TruthTalk] Belief




Granted that 'Pontificating' is both easier and, 
more fun, I'll stick my nose in just a touch (discuss). The Scriptures first 
appeared written in the languages spoken by those to whom they were given. 
(non-controversial!) Thereafter they were translated by men (mostly but, women 
participate in the activity now) into other than the original languages (also 
non-controversial). In the very activity of translating, these men/women invest 
part of themselves into the translations. (I'd say non-controversial here also) 
Outcome? Imperfection!
 
From: Kevin Deegan 

  To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org 
  
  Sent: June 21, 2005 07:25
  Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Belief
  
  Would you like to discuss such or just Pontificate?Lance 
  Muir <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 
  wrote: 
  

Herein you sound like a Mormon, Kevin. Belief 
overrides understanding. That's OK as everyone does this from time to 
time.

  - Original Message - 
  From: 
  Kevin Deegan 
  To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org 
  
  Sent: June 21, 2005 07:16
  Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Belief
  
  You misunderstand?
  It is not a work of men but a work of God
   
  Pull a little harder I am not moved yet.Lance Muir 
  <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 
  wrote:
  



Kevin's meaning?
 
1. 'I do not see it as... Therefore it 
might be imperfectly translated
 
2. 'I see it as ...It is sufficiently 
representative of that which is necessary for 'salvation'. 
 
3. It ain't perfect but, it is sufficient. 
Therefore, so are most, if not all, other translations.
 
It's a far cry from what you've said in the 
past. It's a step in the right direction, Kevin. 

  - Original Message - 
  From: 
  Kevin Deegan 
  To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org 
  
  Sent: June 21, 2005 06:53
  Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] 
  Belief
  
  I do not see it as "perfectly translated" (by 
  men)
  I see it as God's word (transmitted & 
  preserved by Him)
  KJVDave Hansen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 
  wrote:
  DAVEH:   
Which version do you consider, perfectly translated, 
Kevin?   Kevin Deegan wrote: 

  I hold the PERFECT Word of God in my hands. NO 
  ERRORS.Dave Hansen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 
  wrote: 
  DAVEH:   
Ahhh.thanx for clearing the cobwebs, 
Lance!    Was there not just recently a 
big discussion on TT about the accuracy of some of the Bible 
translations.   There was a little concern about the JW 
green Bible.  And in previous years we've discussed how the 
NIV version dropped a few passages that are found in the 
KJV.   Just why do we have so many versions of the 
Bible, if someone didn't think there was a problem with the 
existing versions?   Surely they can't all be 
translated correctly.do you 
disagree?    Furthermore, when two 
Christians determine doctrines differently from the same source, 
does that not cause one to ponder why?   Could it be 
the translations are not adequately conveying what God wants 
understood?  I don't view that as being a weakness of God , 
but rather a weakness of the translation.  Is that a 
reasonable stance?    So Lance, I would 
ask you (or any TTer) if you believe any particular translation 
of the Bible is 100% accurate.  If the answer is yes, may I 
assume you would then also believe that the other translations 
are less than 100% accurate?   Now, if the answer is you do 
not believe a particular translation is 100% accurate, then 
would you take my position and accept the Bible to be the word 
of God as far as it it translated correctly?   
    I would sure be interested to know if 
any TTers really do believe a given translation is 100% 
accurate.   And if you fear reprisal from other TTers 
for whatever comments you might have, post it to me 
off-Forum.  As you know, I will not mock or denigrate your 
commentsI'm sincerely interested in knowing your 
beliefs.Lance Muir wrote: 

  
  Enlarge upon "as far as it is 
  translated 
correctly".-- 
~~~
Dave Hansen
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.langlitz.com
~~~
If you wish to receive
things I fin

Re: [TruthTalk] Hill Cumorah




As Kevin has so often challenged me 'why not answer 
the actual question(s) asked? Mind, I don't blame you as it's perfectly 
understandable, Kevin. You don't (replicate in front of Mosques in the USA that 
which you do at other locals throughout the USA and, utilizing the same 
methodology) and, you won't. Do you not view Isam as an = if not greater heresy 
throughout the land?
 
Answer: You are correct, Lance. I simply am not 
called to do this.
 
FTR Q: Does it appear that anyone else IS called to 
do this?
Answer: No, it would appear 
not.HMM?

  - Original Message - 
  From: 
  Kevin 
  Deegan 
  To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org 
  
  Sent: June 21, 2005 07:28
  Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Hill 
  Cumorah
  
  We do - you SIT
  We preach - you lecture on what you do not 
  doLance Muir <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 
  wrote:
  

I looked at the photo-journal of the SPer's 
trip. What a waste! A Muslim country? You live in one. As for both trips; 
the one taken and the one projected, why not take care of 'business' at 
home? My question was:Why not replicate in front of 'your' Mosques what you 
do at Mardi Gras, Super Bowl etc.? You won't and, for good 
reason. 

  - Original Message - 
  From: 
  Kevin Deegan 
  To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org 
  
  Sent: June 20, 2005 18:24
  Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Hill 
  Cumorah
  
  Want to come with us to a muslim country to 
  preach?Lance Muir <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 
  wrote: 
  

Now, there's a collection of pictures I'd 
enjoy having a look at.Of course y'all do this with the same frequency 
as the others, eh? Will you tell which Mosques, how many and, with what 
frequency?
 
Do 'you' believe that Muhammed was inspired 
to write the Koran by the same one who inspired the BOM namely, 
Satan?

  - Original Message - 
  From: 
  Kevin Deegan 
  To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org 
  
  Sent: June 20, 2005 14:33
  Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Hill 
  Cumorah
  
  The plain answer is yes
  what is your point? your'e afraid?Lance Muir <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 
  wrote:
  



I'm confident that you wouldn't be 
INTENTIONALLY EVASIVE so, please answer the question as asked. 
Employing the 'model' (placards, bullhorns etc.)provided for us by 
DM & Kevin vis a vis the Super Bowl, Mardis Gras and, outside 
the Temple in Salt Lake City, would they do the same thing outside a 
mosque (a Muslim place of worship) and, if not then, whey 
not?
 
Do revisit what kicked this discussion 
off. There is a serious point to be made here.

  - Original Message - 
  From: 
  Judy Taylor 
  To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org 
  
  Cc: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org 
  
  Sent: June 20, 2005 
  06:56
  Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Hill 
  Cumorah
  
  I don't know about DavidM but I'm sure 
  Kevin and Ruben have encountered Muslims in their SP travels. I 
  figure it
  would be tit for tat (with truth on their 
  side) since Muslims call everyone and everything Western "the 
  great Satan"  My Scots friend tells me that in the UK the Muslims have taken over and 
  that now the Red Cross will not put anything Christian out at 
  Christmas for fear of offending 
  them.  Her brother in Manchester England says he will not 
  give the Red Cross another cent because 
  of it and he isn't even religious.  jt
   
  On Mon, 20 Jun 2005 06:34:36 -0400 "Lance Muir" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 
  writes:
  
I do not have a problem with 
'exposure'. I don't think that that is Dave's point 
though.
May I suggest that an equal. if not 
greater, danger to believers lies within Islam. Could you 
imagine David Miller or Kevin going to Mosques and, utilizing 
bullhorns, villify the attendants by addressing THEM as servants 
of Satan?

  From: Judy Taylor 
   
  I would think it would be more like 
  Jeremiah (see Jer 13:1,2); this is obviously a one time object 
  lesson to
  the part of Israel Jeremiah was 
  ministering to rather than a pattern of behavior for all 
  time.  However, part of public proclamati

I might if i get a chance (time)
I believe it to be the same "caractor"
Don't know that I could provide an airtight case, but there is much similarity
Why bother when there is a good overview her, in case you are unfamiliar with the facts
Since ALLAH came first see point 3 & 4 "I know the church is true"
http://www.bible.ca/islam/islamic-mormonism-similarities.htm

Both were visited by an angel. Joseph Smith was visited by the angel "Moroni" and Muhammad by Gabriel. Galatians 1:6-9 places both under a CURSE
Both were given visions.
Both were told that no true religion existed on the earth. In the published account of his life, Joseph Smith related that he became very disturbed when he was a youth because of the "strife among the different denominations," and this "cry and tumult" led him to ask God "which of all the sects were right and which I should join." He was told that he must "join none of them, for they were all wrong... that all their creeds were an abomination in his sight; that those professors were all corrupt..." (Pearl of Great Price, Joseph Smith 2:8-19) N. J. Dawood says that Mohammed was also concerned with the fact that the Jews and Christians had "divided themselves into schismatic sects." In the scriptures given by Mohammed, we read: "Yet the Sects are divided concerning Jesus Truly, the unbelievers are in the grossest error." (The Koran, translated by N. J. Dawood, Surah 19, p. 34) In Surah 30, page 190, this warning appears: "Do not split up your religion into
sects, each exulting in its own beliefs." In Surah 3, page 398, we read: "The only true faith in Allah's sight is Islam. Those to whom the Scriptures [i.e., Jews and Christians] were given disagreed among themselves through jealousy only after knowledge had been given them."
Both were to restore the long lost faith as the one true religion. Islam makes claim that Adam and Abraham were Muslims, a claim that is as ridiculous as it is undocumented from either history or archaeology. Mormons make the unsubstantiated claim that the church in the first century were Mormon.
Both wrote a book inspired by God.
Both claimed to be illiterate or uneducated and used this as proof the book was inspired. "How could an illiterate man write the Koran or the Book of Mormon?" Joseph Smith is claimed to have only grade three education.
Both claimed the Bible was lost, altered, corrupted and unreliable.
Both claimed their holy book was the most correct and perfect book on earth.
Both claimed that their new "Bible" was based upon a record stored in heaven. With Islam, it is the "mother book" that resides in heaven with God. With Mormonism, it is the golden Nephi plates that the angel Moroni took back to heaven.
Both claim that the version we have in our hands today are identical to what the prophet revealed and that parts are not lost, altered and corrupted. Of course the proof that these claims are invalid is found in two books. The Mormon claim is proven false by a book called "3913 Changes to Book of Mormon" by Sandra Tanner. The Islamic claim is proven false by a book (In Arabic language) called, "Making Easy the Readings of What Has Been Sent Down" by Muhammad Fahd Khaaruun. Both books show that the copy of the book of Mormon and the Koran used today is different from what was originally used when each religion was started.
Both claimed to be a final prophet of God.
Both claimed they were persecuted because of their pure faith.
Both were polygamists who had many wives.
Both borrowed from paganism/polytheism. Muhammad incorporated that polytheistic moon god called "Allah" and "Allah's three daughters" into Islam. Basically Muhammad chose Allah from within 350 known gods that were worshipped in Arabia and proclaimed the moon god to be the greatest and only God. Smith borrowed from a doctrine called "pyramidology" and the Masons and other magic systems.
Both received "after the fact corrective revelations" from God. Muhammad retracted the Satanic verses and Smith retracted his divine order mandating polygamy. But for Mormons it there is even a closer parallel. Sounds exactly like Muhammad and his satanic verses.
"As many false reports have been circulated respecting the following work, and also many unlawful measures taken by evil designing persons to destroy me, and also the work, I would inform you that I translated by the gift and power of God, and caused to be written, one hundred and sixteen pages, the which I took from the Book of Lehi... which said account, some person or persons have stolen and kept from me, notwithstanding my utmost exertions to recover it again and being commanded of the Lord that I should not translate the same over again, for Satan had put it into their hearts to tempt the Lord their God, by altering the words, that they did read contrary from that which I translated and caused to be written; and if I should bring forth the same words again, or, in other words, if I should translate the same ove

Re: [TruthTalk] Belief

My point exactly (see previous post) 
YOU LEAVE God OUT of the EQUATION.
This is possibly why you have been called a HUMANist.Lance Muir <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

Granted that 'Pontificating' is both easier and, more fun, I'll stick my nose in just a touch (discuss). The Scriptures first appeared written in the languages spoken by those to whom they were given. (non-controversial!) Thereafter they were translated by men (mostly but, women participate in the activity now) into other than the original languages (also non-controversial). In the very activity of translating, these men/women invest part of themselves into the translations. (I'd say non-controversial here also) Outcome? Imperfection!

From: Kevin Deegan 

To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org 
Sent: June 21, 2005 07:25
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Belief

Would you like to discuss such or just Pontificate?Lance Muir <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: 

Herein you sound like a Mormon, Kevin. Belief overrides understanding. That's OK as everyone does this from time to time.

- Original Message - 
From: Kevin Deegan 
To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org 
Sent: June 21, 2005 07:16
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Belief

You misunderstand?
It is not a work of men but a work of God

Pull a little harder I am not moved yet.Lance Muir <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

Kevin's meaning?

1. 'I do not see it as... Therefore it might be imperfectly translated

2. 'I see it as ...It is sufficiently representative of that which is necessary for 'salvation'. 

3. It ain't perfect but, it is sufficient. Therefore, so are most, if not all, other translations.

It's a far cry from what you've said in the past. It's a step in the right direction, Kevin. 

- Original Message - 
From: Kevin Deegan 
To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org 
Sent: June 21, 2005 06:53
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Belief

I do not see it as "perfectly translated" (by men)
I see it as God's word (transmitted & preserved by Him)
KJVDave Hansen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
DAVEH:   Which version do you consider, perfectly translated, Kevin?   Kevin Deegan wrote: 

I hold the PERFECT Word of God in my hands. NO ERRORS.Dave Hansen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: 
DAVEH:   Ahhh.thanx for clearing the cobwebs, Lance!    Was there not just recently a big discussion on TT about the accuracy of some of the Bible translations.   There was a little concern about the JW green Bible.  And in previous years we've discussed how the NIV version dropped a few passages that are found in the KJV.   Just why do we have so many versions of the Bible, if someone didn't think there was a problem with the existing versions?   Surely they can't all be translated correctly.do you disagree?    Furthermore, when two Christians determine doctrines differently from the same source, does that not cause one to ponder why?   Could it be the translations are not adequately conveying what God wants understood?  I don't view that as being a weakness of God
 , but rather a weakness of the translation.  Is that a reasonable stance?    So Lance, I would ask you (or any TTer) if you believe any particular translation of the Bible is 100% accurate.  If the answer is yes, may I assume you would then also believe that the other translations are less than 100% accurate?   Now, if the answer is you do not believe a particular translation is 100% accurate, then would you take my position and accept the Bible to be the word of God as far as it it translated correctly?       I would sure be interested to know if any TTers really do believe a given translation is 100% accurate.   And if you fear reprisal from other TTers for whatever comments you might have, post it to me off-Forum.  As you know, I will not mock or denigrate your commentsI'm sincerely interested in knowing your beliefs.Lance Muir wrote: 

Enlarge upon "as far as it is translated correctly".-- 
~~~
Dave Hansen
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.langlitz.com
~~~
If you wish to receive
things I find interesting,
I maintain six email lists...
JOKESTER, OPINIONS, LDS,
STUFF, MOTORCYCLE and CLIPS.
__Do You Yahoo!?Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com 
__Do You Yahoo!?Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com 
__Do You Yahoo!?Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com __Do You Yahoo!?Tired of spam?  Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com

Re: [TruthTalk] Hill Cumorah




Izzy, I doubt Lance takes Satan seriously, didn't you know the last demon 
died along with the
last apostle?  We've now got it all wrapped up with our "incarnation" 
doctrine.  jt
 
On Tue, 21 Jun 2005 06:32:58 -0400 "Lance Muir" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:

  Linda asks 'Don't you, Lance?' of the query: 'Do 
  you believe Satan to have been the inspiration for both the Koran and the 
  BOM'? I doubt that either was inspired by Satan. IFF you, Kevin and Perry 
  actually KNOW THIS TO BE THE CASE then, lay it out for a misguided 'lib'. None 
  of you will, of course but, at least you got asked.
  
From: ShieldsFamily 
 

Dont you, Lance? 
If not, youre lost-er than I thunk!!! 
 Izzy
 





From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Lance 
Muir

Do 'you' believe that Muhammed was inspired to write 
the Koran by the same one who inspired the BOM namely, Satan?

Re: [TruthTalk] Hill Cumorah

Yes we do you not whereof you speak.
We have a lawsuit in federal court over the Police Stealing one of our banners which stated "ALLAH is NOT God" at the Detroit Muslim fest
Is the muslim equiv of Undie waving, 3 big pigs labeled ALLAH, Mohammed, Bin Lyin?Lance Muir <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:


As Kevin has so often challenged me 'why not answer the actual question(s) asked? Mind, I don't blame you as it's perfectly understandable, Kevin. You don't (replicate in front of Mosques in the USA that which you do at other locals throughout the USA and, utilizing the same methodology) and, you won't. Do you not view Isam as an = if not greater heresy throughout the land?
 
Answer: You are correct, Lance. I simply am not called to do this.
 
FTR Q: Does it appear that anyone else IS called to do this?
Answer: No, it would appear not.HMM?

- Original Message - 
From: Kevin Deegan 
To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org 
Sent: June 21, 2005 07:28
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Hill Cumorah

We do - you SIT
We preach - you lecture on what you do not doLance Muir <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:


I looked at the photo-journal of the SPer's trip. What a waste! A Muslim country? You live in one. As for both trips; the one taken and the one projected, why not take care of 'business' at home? My question was:Why not replicate in front of 'your' Mosques what you do at Mardi Gras, Super Bowl etc.? You won't and, for good reason. 

- Original Message - 
From: Kevin Deegan 
To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org 
Sent: June 20, 2005 18:24
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Hill Cumorah

Want to come with us to a muslim country to preach?Lance Muir <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: 


Now, there's a collection of pictures I'd enjoy having a look at.Of course y'all do this with the same frequency as the others, eh? Will you tell which Mosques, how many and, with what frequency?
 
Do 'you' believe that Muhammed was inspired to write the Koran by the same one who inspired the BOM namely, Satan?

- Original Message - 
From: Kevin Deegan 
To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org 
Sent: June 20, 2005 14:33
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Hill Cumorah

The plain answer is yes
what is your point? your'e afraid?Lance Muir <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:




I'm confident that you wouldn't be INTENTIONALLY EVASIVE so, please answer the question as asked. Employing the 'model' (placards, bullhorns etc.)provided for us by DM & Kevin vis a vis the Super Bowl, Mardis Gras and, outside the Temple in Salt Lake City, would they do the same thing outside a mosque (a Muslim place of worship) and, if not then, whey not?
 
Do revisit what kicked this discussion off. There is a serious point to be made here.

- Original Message - 
From: Judy Taylor 
To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org 
Cc: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org 
Sent: June 20, 2005 06:56
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Hill Cumorah

I don't know about DavidM but I'm sure Kevin and Ruben have encountered Muslims in their SP travels. I figure it
would be tit for tat (with truth on their side) since Muslims call everyone and everything Western "the great Satan"  My Scots friend tells me that in the UK the Muslims have taken over and that now the Red Cross will not put anything Christian out at Christmas for fear of offending them.  Her brother in Manchester England says he will not give the Red Cross another cent because of it and he isn't even religious.  jt
 
On Mon, 20 Jun 2005 06:34:36 -0400 "Lance Muir" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:

I do not have a problem with 'exposure'. I don't think that that is Dave's point though.
May I suggest that an equal. if not greater, danger to believers lies within Islam. Could you imagine David Miller or Kevin going to Mosques and, utilizing bullhorns, villify the attendants by addressing THEM as servants of Satan?

From: Judy Taylor 
 
I would think it would be more like Jeremiah (see Jer 13:1,2); this is obviously a one time object lesson to
the part of Israel Jeremiah was ministering to rather than a pattern of behavior for all time.  However, part of public proclamation of Truth by nature involves exposing the lie of the false gods which of course will be offensive to those who worship them.  Why do you have such a problem with this?  jt
 
On Mon, 20 Jun 2005 05:58:55 -0400 "Lance Muir" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:

Elijah.

From: Judy Taylor 
 
Can you give us a "for instance" DaveH?  jt

Dave Hansen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:




DAVEH:  As I understand your position (and please correct me if I am misunderstanding your position), many Christians (specifically you, in this instance) believe that everything written in the Bible is specifically applicable to Christians today.   So, if a prophet of the Bible used a technique of mocking, that means it is OK for you to do the same thing.  If a prophet of God in the Bible is commanded to go preach on the streets, you assume that instruction applies to you as wellis that correct, Kevin?    To me, that isn't logical at all.  Just as what he compe

Re: [TruthTalk] Hill Cumorah




It's a damn fine outline, Kevin! I'm genuinely 
interested to distinguish between an 'extra-natural' vs a 'natural' account of 
the origins of both (Koran/BOM). This is one impressive bit of 
work!
 
thanks for this,
Lance

  - Original Message - 
  From: 
  Kevin 
  Deegan 
  To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org 
  
  Sent: June 21, 2005 07:42
  Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Hill 
  Cumorah
  
  I might if i get a chance (time)
  I believe it to be the same "caractor"
  Don't know that I could provide an airtight case, but there is much 
  similarity
  Why bother when there is a good overview her, in case you are unfamiliar 
  with the facts
  Since ALLAH came first see point 3 & 4 "I know the church is 
  true"
  http://www.bible.ca/islam/islamic-mormonism-similarities.htm
  
  
Both were visited by an angel. Joseph Smith was visited by the angel 
"Moroni" and Muhammad by Gabriel. Galatians 1:6-9 places both under a CURSE 
Both were given visions. 
Both were told that no true religion existed on the earth. In the 
published account of his life, Joseph Smith related that he became very 
disturbed when he was a youth because of the "strife among the different 
denominations," and this "cry and tumult" led him to ask God "which of all 
the sects were right  and which I should join." He was told that he must 
"join none of them, for they were all wrong... that all their creeds were an 
abomination in his sight; that those professors were all corrupt..." 
(Pearl of Great Price, Joseph Smith 2:8-19) N. J. Dawood says that 
Mohammed was also concerned with the fact that the Jews and Christians had 
"divided themselves into schismatic sects." In the scriptures given by 
Mohammed, we read: "Yet the Sects are divided concerning Jesus Truly, 
the unbelievers are in the grossest error." (The Koran, translated 
by N. J. Dawood, Surah 19, p. 34) In Surah 30, page 190, this warning 
appears: "Do not split up your religion into sects, each exulting in its own 
beliefs." In Surah 3, page 398, we read: "The only true faith in Allah's 
sight is Islam. Those to whom the Scriptures [i.e., Jews and Christians] 
were given disagreed among themselves through jealousy only after knowledge 
had been given them." 
Both were to restore the long lost faith as the one true religion. Islam 
makes claim that Adam and Abraham were Muslims, a claim that is as 
ridiculous as it is undocumented from either history or archaeology. Mormons 
make the unsubstantiated claim that the church in the first century were 
Mormon. 
Both wrote a book inspired by God. 
Both claimed to be illiterate or uneducated and used this as proof the 
book was inspired. "How could an illiterate man write the Koran or the Book 
of Mormon?" Joseph Smith is claimed to have only grade three education. 
Both claimed the Bible was lost, altered, corrupted and unreliable. 
Both claimed their holy book was the most correct and perfect book on 
earth. 
Both claimed that their new "Bible" was based upon a record stored in 
heaven. With Islam, it is the "mother book" that resides in heaven with God. 
With Mormonism, it is the golden Nephi plates that the angel Moroni took 
back to heaven. 
Both claim that the version we have in our hands today are identical to 
what the prophet revealed and that parts are not lost, altered and 
corrupted. Of course the proof that these claims are invalid is found in two 
books. The Mormon claim is proven false by a book called "3913 Changes to 
Book of Mormon" by Sandra Tanner. The Islamic claim is proven false by a 
book (In Arabic language) called, "Making Easy the Readings of What Has Been 
Sent Down" by Muhammad Fahd Khaaruun. Both books show that the copy of the 
book of Mormon and the Koran used today is different from what was 
originally used when each religion was started. 
Both claimed to be a final prophet of God. 
Both claimed they were persecuted because of their pure faith. 
Both were polygamists who had many wives. 
Both borrowed from paganism/polytheism. Muhammad incorporated that 
polytheistic moon god called "Allah" and "Allah's three daughters" into 
Islam. Basically Muhammad chose Allah from within 350 known gods that were 
worshipped in Arabia and proclaimed the moon god to be the greatest and only 
God. Smith borrowed from a doctrine called "pyramidology" and the Masons and 
other magic systems. 
Both received "after the fact corrective revelations" from God. Muhammad 
retracted the Satanic verses and Smith retracted his divine order mandating 
polygamy. But for Mormons it there is even a closer parallel. Sounds exactly 
like Muhammad and his satanic verses. 
"As many false reports have been circulated respecting the 
  following work, and also many unlawful measures taken by

Re: [TruthTalk] Hill Cumorah

You dare not open your mouth in public, so why speak to me about fear?Lance Muir <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

It isn't 'fear' that I'm projecting on to you, Kevin. You seem a sincere, if misguided, fellow. 

- Original Message - 
From: Kevin Deegan 
To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org 
Sent: June 20, 2005 18:25
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Hill Cumorah

Don't project your fear onto me. Stay at home you might wet yourself.Lance Muir <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: 

Now, there's a collection of pictures I'd enjoy having a look at.Of course y'all do this with the same frequency as the others, eh? Will you tell which Mosques, how many and, with what frequency?

Do 'you' believe that Muhammed was inspired to write the Koran by the same one who inspired the BOM namely, Satan?

- Original Message - 
From: Kevin Deegan 
To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org 
Sent: June 20, 2005 14:33
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Hill Cumorah

The plain answer is yes
what is your point? your'e afraid?Lance Muir <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

I'm confident that you wouldn't be INTENTIONALLY EVASIVE so, please answer the question as asked. Employing the 'model' (placards, bullhorns etc.)provided for us by DM & Kevin vis a vis the Super Bowl, Mardis Gras and, outside the Temple in Salt Lake City, would they do the same thing outside a mosque (a Muslim place of worship) and, if not then, whey not?

Do revisit what kicked this discussion off. There is a serious point to be made here.

- Original Message - 
From: Judy Taylor 
To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org 
Cc: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org 
Sent: June 20, 2005 06:56
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Hill Cumorah

I don't know about DavidM but I'm sure Kevin and Ruben have encountered Muslims in their SP travels. I figure it
would be tit for tat (with truth on their side) since Muslims call everyone and everything Western "the great Satan"  My Scots friend tells me that in the UK the Muslims have taken over and that now the Red Cross will not put anything Christian out at Christmas for fear of offending them.  Her brother in Manchester England says he will not give the Red Cross another cent because of it and he isn't even religious.  jt

On Mon, 20 Jun 2005 06:34:36 -0400 "Lance Muir" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:

I do not have a problem with 'exposure'. I don't think that that is Dave's point though.
May I suggest that an equal. if not greater, danger to believers lies within Islam. Could you imagine David Miller or Kevin going to Mosques and, utilizing bullhorns, villify the attendants by addressing THEM as servants of Satan?

From: Judy Taylor 

I would think it would be more like Jeremiah (see Jer 13:1,2); this is obviously a one time object lesson to
the part of Israel Jeremiah was ministering to rather than a pattern of behavior for all time.  However, part of public proclamation of Truth by nature involves exposing the lie of the false gods which of course will be offensive to those who worship them.  Why do you have such a problem with this?  jt

On Mon, 20 Jun 2005 05:58:55 -0400 "Lance Muir" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:

Elijah.

From: Judy Taylor 

Can you give us a "for instance" DaveH?  jt

Dave Hansen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

DAVEH:  As I understand your position (and please correct me if I am misunderstanding your position), many Christians (specifically you, in this instance) believe that everything written in the Bible is specifically applicable to Christians today.   So, if a prophet of the Bible used a technique of mocking, that means it is OK for you to do the same thing.  If a prophet of God in the Bible is commanded to go preach on the streets, you assume that instruction applies to you as wellis that correct, Kevin?    To me, that isn't logical at all.  Just as what he compelled the prophets of the OT to do was not necessarily applicable to the prophets of the NT, what the Lord wants us to do today may or may not be what he wants us to do today.  It seems to me that the Lord over time has commanded various people
 to do things that he may not have commanded at a subsequent time or other peoples.   Hope that makes some sense.Kevin Deegan wrote: 

DAVEH:  And because some of the early prophets mocked with God's blessing, you believe it is your right to do so as well?  Isn't that stretching logic a bit beyond it's breaking point?NO
How so?
Dave Hansen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Kevin Deegan wrote: 

Yes, but where they "Contending for the faith"?DAVEH:  What do you think they were disputi9ng if it wasn't their perspecdtive of the faith?  Don't you think they were arguing the truth as they saw it, perhaps in the same way it is done on TT occassionally?

Please show me where God admonished Paul, for his "much contention"DAVEH:  My last post about admonishment was regarding the bickering (if that's the proper word for it) Christians who Paul admonished.      If you were an apostle as was Paul and admonished me for arguing about theology, I would pay heed.

Re: [TruthTalk] Hill Cumorah




Could be God has given these ppl over to a 'reprobate mind' Lance.  
It's a possibility isn't it? Anyway
no prophecy of scripture was ever written by the 'will of man' and no 
individual will ever by saved 
by the 'will of man' either - so why press the brother to do your will 
rather than obey God?  jt
 
On Tue, 21 Jun 2005 07:42:23 -0400 "Lance Muir" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:

  As Kevin has so often challenged me 'why not 
  answer the actual question(s) asked? Mind, I don't blame you as it's perfectly 
  understandable, Kevin. You don't (replicate in front of Mosques in the USA 
  that which you do at other locals throughout the USA and, utilizing the same 
  methodology) and, you won't. Do you not view Isam as an = if not greater 
  heresy throughout the land?
   
  Answer: You are correct, Lance. I simply am not 
  called to do this.
   
  FTR Q: Does it appear that anyone else IS called 
  to do this?
  Answer: No, it would appear 
  not.HMM?
  
From: Kevin Deegan 
 
We do - you SIT
We preach - you lecture on what you do not 
doLance Muir <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 
wrote:

  
  I looked at the photo-journal of the SPer's 
  trip. What a waste! A Muslim country? You live in one. As for both trips; 
  the one taken and the one projected, why not take care of 'business' at 
  home? My question was:Why not replicate in front of 'your' Mosques what 
  you do at Mardi Gras, Super Bowl etc.? You won't and, for good 
  reason. 
  
- Original Message - 
From: 
Kevin Deegan 
To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org 

Sent: June 20, 2005 18:24
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Hill 
Cumorah

Want to come with us to a muslim country to 
preach?Lance Muir <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 
wrote: 

  
  Now, there's a collection of pictures I'd 
  enjoy having a look at.Of course y'all do this with the same frequency 
  as the others, eh? Will you tell which Mosques, how many and, with 
  what frequency?
   
  Do 'you' believe that Muhammed was 
  inspired to write the Koran by the same one who inspired the BOM 
  namely, Satan?
  
- Original Message - 
From: 
Kevin Deegan 
To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org 

Sent: June 20, 2005 14:33
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Hill 
Cumorah

The plain answer is yes
what is your point? your'e afraid?Lance Muir 
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 
wrote:

  
  

  I'm confident that you wouldn't be 
  INTENTIONALLY EVASIVE so, please answer the question as asked. 
  Employing the 'model' (placards, bullhorns etc.)provided for us by 
  DM & Kevin vis a vis the Super Bowl, Mardis Gras and, outside 
  the Temple in Salt Lake City, would they do the same thing outside 
  a mosque (a Muslim place of worship) and, if not then, whey 
  not?
   
  Do revisit what kicked this 
  discussion off. There is a serious point to be made 
  here.
  
- Original Message - 

From: 
Judy Taylor 
To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org 

Cc: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org 

Sent: June 20, 2005 
06:56
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] 
Hill Cumorah

I don't know about DavidM but I'm sure 
Kevin and Ruben have encountered Muslims in their SP travels. I 
figure it
would be tit for tat (with truth on 
their side) since Muslims call everyone and everything Western 
"the great Satan"  My Scots friend tells me that in the UK the Muslims have taken over and 
that now the Red Cross will not put anything Christian out at 
Christmas for fear of offending 
them.  Her brother in Manchester England says he will not 
give the Red Cross another cent because of it and he isn't even religious.  
jt
 
On Mon, 20 Jun 2005 06:34:36 -0400 "Lance Muir" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 
writes:

  I do not have a problem with 
  'exposure'. I don't think that that is Dave's point 
  though.
  May I suggest that an equal. if 
  not greater, danger to believers lies within Islam. Could 
  you imagine David Miller or Kevin going to Mosques and, 
  utilizing bullhorns, villify the a

Re: [TruthTalk] Belief




Nope! Even with God in the equation, imperfection 
(humanism if you like, though I prefer humanity) is still the 
outcome.

  - Original Message - 
  From: 
  Kevin 
  Deegan 
  To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org 
  
  Sent: June 21, 2005 07:44
  Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Belief
  
  My point exactly (see previous post) 
  YOU LEAVE God OUT of the EQUATION.
  This is possibly why you have been called a HUMANist.Lance 
  Muir <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 
  wrote:
  

Granted that 'Pontificating' is both easier 
and, more fun, I'll stick my nose in just a touch (discuss). The Scriptures 
first appeared written in the languages spoken by those to whom they were 
given. (non-controversial!) Thereafter they were translated by men (mostly 
but, women participate in the activity now) into other than the original 
languages (also non-controversial). In the very activity of translating, 
these men/women invest part of themselves into the translations. (I'd say 
non-controversial here also) Outcome? Imperfection!
 
From: Kevin Deegan 

  To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org 
  
  Sent: June 21, 2005 07:25
  Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Belief
  
  Would you like to discuss such or just 
  Pontificate?Lance Muir <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 
  wrote: 
  

Herein you sound like a Mormon, Kevin. 
Belief overrides understanding. That's OK as everyone does this from 
time to time.

  - Original Message - 
  From: 
  Kevin Deegan 
  To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org 
  
  Sent: June 21, 2005 07:16
  Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] 
  Belief
  
  You misunderstand?
  It is not a work of men but a work of God
   
  Pull a little harder I am not moved yet.Lance Muir 
  <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 
  wrote:
  



Kevin's meaning?
 
1. 'I do not see it as... Therefore it 
might be imperfectly translated
 
2. 'I see it as ...It is sufficiently 
representative of that which is necessary for 'salvation'. 

 
3. It ain't perfect but, it is 
sufficient. Therefore, so are most, if not all, other 
translations.
 
It's a far cry from what you've said in 
the past. It's a step in the right direction, 
Kevin. 

  - Original Message - 
  From: 
  Kevin Deegan 
  To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org 
  
  Sent: June 21, 2005 
  06:53
  Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] 
  Belief
  
  I do not see it as "perfectly translated" (by 
  men)
  I see it as God's word (transmitted & 
  preserved by Him)
  KJVDave Hansen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 
  wrote:
  DAVEH:   
Which version do you consider, perfectly translated, 
Kevin?   Kevin Deegan wrote: 

  I hold the PERFECT Word of God in my hands. NO 
  ERRORS.Dave Hansen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 
  wrote: 
  DAVEH:   
Ahhh.thanx for clearing the cobwebs, 
Lance!    Was there not just recently 
a big discussion on TT about the accuracy of some of the 
Bible translations.   There was a little concern about 
the JW green Bible.  And in previous years we've 
discussed how the NIV version dropped a few passages that 
are found in the KJV.   Just why do we have so 
many versions of the Bible, if someone didn't think there 
was a problem with the existing versions?   Surely 
they can't all be translated correctly.do you 
disagree?    Furthermore, when two 
Christians determine doctrines differently from the same 
source, does that not cause one to ponder why?   
Could it be the translations are not adequately conveying 
what God wants understood?  I don't view that as being 
a weakness of God , but rather a weakness of the 
translation.  Is that a reasonable 
stance?    So Lance, I would ask you 
(or any TTer) if you believe any particular translation of 
the Bible is 100% accurate.  If the answer is yes, may 
I assume you would then also believe that the other 
translations are less than 100% accurate?   Now, if the

Re: [TruthTalk] Hill Cumorah

You just like it cause it is a Canuck site!Lance Muir <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:


It's a damn fine outline, Kevin! I'm genuinely interested to distinguish between an 'extra-natural' vs a 'natural' account of the origins of both (Koran/BOM). This is one impressive bit of work!
 
thanks for this,
Lance

- Original Message - 
From: Kevin Deegan 
To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org 
Sent: June 21, 2005 07:42
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Hill Cumorah

I might if i get a chance (time)
I believe it to be the same "caractor"
Don't know that I could provide an airtight case, but there is much similarity
Why bother when there is a good overview her, in case you are unfamiliar with the facts
Since ALLAH came first see point 3 & 4 "I know the church is true"
http://www.bible.ca/islam/islamic-mormonism-similarities.htm


Both were visited by an angel. Joseph Smith was visited by the angel "Moroni" and Muhammad by Gabriel. Galatians 1:6-9 places both under a CURSE 
Both were given visions. 
Both were told that no true religion existed on the earth. In the published account of his life, Joseph Smith related that he became very disturbed when he was a youth because of the "strife among the different denominations," and this "cry and tumult" led him to ask God "which of all the sects were right  and which I should join." He was told that he must "join none of them, for they were all wrong... that all their creeds were an abomination in his sight; that those professors were all corrupt..." (Pearl of Great Price, Joseph Smith 2:8-19) N. J. Dawood says that Mohammed was also concerned with the fact that the Jews and Christians had "divided themselves into schismatic sects." In the scriptures given by Mohammed, we read: "Yet the Sects are divided concerning Jesus Truly, the unbelievers are in the grossest error." (The Koran, translated by N. J. Dawood, Surah 19, p. 34) In Surah 30, page 190, this warning appears: "Do not split up your religion into
 sects, each exulting in its own beliefs." In Surah 3, page 398, we read: "The only true faith in Allah's sight is Islam. Those to whom the Scriptures [i.e., Jews and Christians] were given disagreed among themselves through jealousy only after knowledge had been given them." 
Both were to restore the long lost faith as the one true religion. Islam makes claim that Adam and Abraham were Muslims, a claim that is as ridiculous as it is undocumented from either history or archaeology. Mormons make the unsubstantiated claim that the church in the first century were Mormon. 
Both wrote a book inspired by God. 
Both claimed to be illiterate or uneducated and used this as proof the book was inspired. "How could an illiterate man write the Koran or the Book of Mormon?" Joseph Smith is claimed to have only grade three education. 
Both claimed the Bible was lost, altered, corrupted and unreliable. 
Both claimed their holy book was the most correct and perfect book on earth. 
Both claimed that their new "Bible" was based upon a record stored in heaven. With Islam, it is the "mother book" that resides in heaven with God. With Mormonism, it is the golden Nephi plates that the angel Moroni took back to heaven. 
Both claim that the version we have in our hands today are identical to what the prophet revealed and that parts are not lost, altered and corrupted. Of course the proof that these claims are invalid is found in two books. The Mormon claim is proven false by a book called "3913 Changes to Book of Mormon" by Sandra Tanner. The Islamic claim is proven false by a book (In Arabic language) called, "Making Easy the Readings of What Has Been Sent Down" by Muhammad Fahd Khaaruun. Both books show that the copy of the book of Mormon and the Koran used today is different from what was originally used when each religion was started. 
Both claimed to be a final prophet of God. 
Both claimed they were persecuted because of their pure faith. 
Both were polygamists who had many wives. 
Both borrowed from paganism/polytheism. Muhammad incorporated that polytheistic moon god called "Allah" and "Allah's three daughters" into Islam. Basically Muhammad chose Allah from within 350 known gods that were worshipped in Arabia and proclaimed the moon god to be the greatest and only God. Smith borrowed from a doctrine called "pyramidology" and the Masons and other magic systems. 
Both received "after the fact corrective revelations" from God. Muhammad retracted the Satanic verses and Smith retracted his divine order mandating polygamy. But for Mormons it there is even a closer parallel. Sounds exactly like Muhammad and his satanic verses. 
"As many false reports have been circulated respecting the following work, and also many unlawful measures taken by evil designing persons to destroy me, and also the work, I would inform you that I translated by the gift and power of God, and caused to be written, one hundred and sixteen pages, the which I took from the Book of Lehi... which said account, some person or per

Re: [TruthTalk] Moderator comment: JFK

2005-06-21 Thread Marlin halverson

http://www.911wasalie.com/phpwebsite/

- Original Message - 
From: "ShieldsFamily" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>

To: 
Sent: Monday, June 20, 2005 9:38 AM
Subject: RE: [TruthTalk] **Moderator comment**: JFK

IFF one believes there was any such conspiracy re: 9/11, one needs to be
immediately committed to the looney bin.  Izzy

-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Lance Muir
Sent: Monday, June 20, 2005 1:52 AM
To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] **Moderator comment**: JFK

Belief/trust...trust/belief...These are so interlocked. The other night I
listened to a panel discussion on 911 (WTC). IFF one is able to 
demonstrate

'conspiracy' (complicity) on the part of government operatives or agencies
then, by extension JFK has significance for discussion. For starters have 
a

look at the 'new' extended edition of Oliver Stone's JFK (2001?).I'm in,
John.

- Original Message - 
From: "Charles Perry Locke" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>

To: 
Sent: June 19, 2005 20:48
Subject: [TruthTalk] **Moderator comment**: JFK

John, unless you have discovered a videotaped confession to show us, I
personally am not that interested.

   However, the TT "Discussions" page states: " If you have an interest 
in

the Bible, religion, philosophy, or science, we encourage you to join the
list and engage in the discussions." Does this topic fall into one of

those

general categories? If so, give it a shot.

Perry

>From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
>Would any in he forum care for a brief dicsussion of the issues that are

in

>play with the JFK assassination  ...
>
>JD

--
"Let your speech be always with grace, seasoned with salt, that you may

know how you ought to answer every man."  (Colossians 4:6)
http://www.InnGlory.org

If you do not want to receive posts from this list, send an email to

[EMAIL PROTECTED] and you will be unsubscribed.  If you have a
friend who wants to join, tell him to send an e-mail to
[EMAIL PROTECTED] and he will be subscribed.

--
"Let your speech be always with grace, seasoned with salt, that you may 
know

how you ought to answer every man."  (Colossians 4:6)
http://www.InnGlory.org

If you do not want to receive posts from this list, send an email to
[EMAIL PROTECTED] and you will be unsubscribed.  If you have a
friend who wants to join, tell him to send an e-mail to
[EMAIL PROTECTED] and he will be subscribed.

--
"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] Belief

Your god is a pipsqueak not capable of preserving his word!
 
I suspect he is not capable of anything.
 
Lance Muir <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:


Nope! Even with God in the equation, imperfection (humanism if you like, though I prefer humanity) is still the outcome.

- Original Message - 
From: Kevin Deegan 
To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org 
Sent: June 21, 2005 07:44
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Belief

My point exactly (see previous post) 
YOU LEAVE God OUT of the EQUATION.
This is possibly why you have been called a HUMANist.Lance Muir <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:


Granted that 'Pontificating' is both easier and, more fun, I'll stick my nose in just a touch (discuss). The Scriptures first appeared written in the languages spoken by those to whom they were given. (non-controversial!) Thereafter they were translated by men (mostly but, women participate in the activity now) into other than the original languages (also non-controversial). In the very activity of translating, these men/women invest part of themselves into the translations. (I'd say non-controversial here also) Outcome? Imperfection!
 
From: Kevin Deegan 

To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org 
Sent: June 21, 2005 07:25
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Belief

Would you like to discuss such or just Pontificate?Lance Muir <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: 


Herein you sound like a Mormon, Kevin. Belief overrides understanding. That's OK as everyone does this from time to time.

- Original Message - 
From: Kevin Deegan 
To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org 
Sent: June 21, 2005 07:16
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Belief

You misunderstand?
It is not a work of men but a work of God
 
Pull a little harder I am not moved yet.Lance Muir <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:




Kevin's meaning?
 
1. 'I do not see it as... Therefore it might be imperfectly translated
 
2. 'I see it as ...It is sufficiently representative of that which is necessary for 'salvation'. 
 
3. It ain't perfect but, it is sufficient. Therefore, so are most, if not all, other translations.
 
It's a far cry from what you've said in the past. It's a step in the right direction, Kevin. 

- Original Message - 
From: Kevin Deegan 
To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org 
Sent: June 21, 2005 06:53
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Belief

I do not see it as "perfectly translated" (by men)
I see it as God's word (transmitted & preserved by Him)
KJVDave Hansen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
DAVEH:   Which version do you consider, perfectly translated, Kevin?   Kevin Deegan wrote: 

I hold the PERFECT Word of God in my hands. NO ERRORS.Dave Hansen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: 
DAVEH:   Ahhh.thanx for clearing the cobwebs, Lance!    Was there not just recently a big discussion on TT about the accuracy of some of the Bible translations.   There was a little concern about the JW green Bible.  And in previous years we've discussed how the NIV version dropped a few passages that are found in the KJV.   Just why do we have so many versions of the Bible, if someone didn't think there was a problem with the existing versions?   Surely they can't all be translated correctly.do you disagree?    Furthermore, when two Christians determine doctrines differently from the same source, does that not cause one to ponder why?   Could it be the translations are not adequately conveying what God wants understood?  I don't view that as being a weakness of God
 , but rather a weakness of the translation.  Is that a reasonable stance?    So Lance, I would ask you (or any TTer) if you believe any particular translation of the Bible is 100% accurate.  If the answer is yes, may I assume you would then also believe that the other translations are less than 100% accurate?   Now, if the answer is you do not believe a particular translation is 100% accurate, then would you take my position and accept the Bible to be the word of God as far as it it translated correctly?       I would sure be interested to know if any TTers really do believe a given translation is 100% accurate.   And if you fear reprisal from other TTers for whatever comments you might have, post it to me off-Forum.  As you know, I will not mock or denigrate your commentsI'm sincerely interested in knowing your beliefs.Lance Muir wrote: 


Enlarge upon "as far as it is translated correctly".-- 
~~~
Dave Hansen
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.langlitz.com
~~~
If you wish to receive
things I find interesting,
I maintain six email lists...
JOKESTER, OPINIONS, LDS,
STUFF, MOTORCYCLE and CLIPS.
__Do You Yahoo!?Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com 
__Do You Yahoo!?Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com 
__Do You Yahoo!?Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com 
___

Re: [TruthTalk] Hill Cumorah




Lance takes Satan VERY seriously. My goodness, I've 
been reading both of you for a long while. Now, just before CPL objects, what I 
mean to say is that you, Judy espouse a heretical doctrine concerning the 
preincarnate Son while Linda is so overcome with rightwing politics that her 
ability to even think objectively is severely impaired. How am I to 'source' 
these"? I ask the Moderator to adjudicate.

  - Original Message - 
  From: 
  Judy 
  Taylor 
  To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org 
  
  Cc: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org 
  
  Sent: June 21, 2005 07:46
  Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Hill 
  Cumorah
  
  Izzy, I doubt Lance takes Satan seriously, didn't you know the last demon 
  died along with the
  last apostle?  We've now got it all wrapped up with our 
  "incarnation" doctrine.  jt
   
  On Tue, 21 Jun 2005 06:32:58 -0400 "Lance Muir" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 
writes:
  
Linda asks 'Don't you, Lance?' of the query: 
'Do you believe Satan to have been the inspiration for both the Koran and 
the BOM'? I doubt that either was inspired by Satan. IFF you, Kevin and 
Perry actually KNOW THIS TO BE THE CASE then, lay it out for a misguided 
'lib'. None of you will, of course but, at least you got asked.

  From: ShieldsFamily 
   
  
  Dont you, Lance? 
  If not, youre lost-er than I thunk!!! 
   Izzy
   
  
  
  
  
  
  From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
  [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Lance 
  Muir
  
  Do 'you' believe that Muhammed was inspired to 
  write the Koran by the same one who inspired the BOM namely, Satan?

Re: [TruthTalk] Belief




The court excuses the witness as he's fallen back 
on name calling for lack of an answer. Again Kevin, I don't blame you for so 
doing. You shine in other areas but, not on this one.

  - Original Message - 
  From: 
  Kevin 
  Deegan 
  To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org 
  
  Sent: June 21, 2005 07:56
  Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Belief
  
  Your god is a pipsqueak not capable of preserving his word!
   
  I suspect he is not capable of anything.
   
  Lance Muir <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 
  wrote:
  

Nope! Even with God in the equation, 
imperfection (humanism if you like, though I prefer humanity) is still the 
outcome.

  - Original Message - 
  From: 
  Kevin Deegan 
  To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org 
  
  Sent: June 21, 2005 07:44
  Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Belief
  
  My point exactly (see previous post) 
  YOU LEAVE God OUT of the EQUATION.
  This is possibly why you have been called a 
  HUMANist.Lance Muir <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 
  wrote:
  

Granted that 'Pontificating' is both easier 
and, more fun, I'll stick my nose in just a touch (discuss). The 
Scriptures first appeared written in the languages spoken by those to 
whom they were given. (non-controversial!) Thereafter they were 
translated by men (mostly but, women participate in the activity now) 
into other than the original languages (also non-controversial). In the 
very activity of translating, these men/women invest part of themselves 
into the translations. (I'd say non-controversial here also) Outcome? 
Imperfection!
 
From: Kevin Deegan 

  To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org 
  
  Sent: June 21, 2005 07:25
  Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] 
  Belief
  
  Would you like to discuss such or just 
  Pontificate?Lance Muir <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 
  wrote: 
  

Herein you sound like a Mormon, Kevin. 
Belief overrides understanding. That's OK as everyone does this from 
time to time.

  - Original Message - 
  From: 
  Kevin Deegan 
  To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org 
  
  Sent: June 21, 2005 
  07:16
  Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] 
  Belief
  
  You misunderstand?
  It is not a work of men but a work of God
   
  Pull a little harder I am not moved yet.Lance 
  Muir <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 
  wrote:
  



Kevin's meaning?
 
1. 'I do not see it as... Therefore 
it might be imperfectly translated
 
2. 'I see it as ...It is 
sufficiently representative of that which is necessary for 
'salvation'. 
 
3. It ain't perfect but, it is 
sufficient. Therefore, so are most, if not all, other 
translations.
 
It's a far cry from what you've 
said in the past. It's a step in the right direction, 
Kevin. 

  - Original Message - 
  
  From: 
  Kevin Deegan 
  To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org 
  
  Sent: June 21, 2005 
  06:53
  Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] 
  Belief
  
  I do not see it as "perfectly translated" (by 
  men)
  I see it as God's word (transmitted 
  & preserved by Him)
  KJVDave Hansen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 
  wrote:
  DAVEH:   
Which version do you consider, perfectly translated, 
Kevin?   Kevin Deegan wrote: 

  I hold the PERFECT Word of God in my hands. NO 
  ERRORS.Dave Hansen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 
  wrote: 
  DAVEH:   
Ahhh.thanx for clearing the cobwebs, 
Lance!    Was there not just 
recently a big discussion on TT about the accuracy of 
some of the Bible translations.   There was a 
little concern about the JW green Bible.  And in 
previous years we've discussed how the NIV version 
dropped a few passages that are found in the 
KJV.   Just why do we have so many versions of 
the Bibl

Re: [TruthTalk] Hill Cumorah




Will your honor instruct the witness to answer the 
question as asked?

  - Original Message - 
  From: 
  Kevin 
  Deegan 
  To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org 
  
  Sent: June 21, 2005 07:50
  Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Hill 
  Cumorah
  
  Yes we do you not whereof you speak.
  We have a lawsuit in federal court over the Police Stealing one of our 
  banners which stated "ALLAH is NOT God" at the Detroit Muslim fest
  Is the muslim equiv of Undie waving, 3 big pigs labeled ALLAH, 
  Mohammed, Bin Lyin?Lance Muir <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 
  wrote:
  

As Kevin has so often challenged me 'why not 
answer the actual question(s) asked? Mind, I don't blame you as it's 
perfectly understandable, Kevin. You don't (replicate in front of Mosques in 
the USA that which you do at other locals throughout the USA and, utilizing 
the same methodology) and, you won't. Do you not view Isam as an = if not 
greater heresy throughout the land?
 
Answer: You are correct, Lance. I simply am not 
called to do this.
 
FTR Q: Does it appear that anyone else IS 
called to do this?
Answer: No, it would appear 
not.HMM?

  - Original Message - 
  From: 
  Kevin Deegan 
  To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org 
  
  Sent: June 21, 2005 07:28
  Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Hill 
  Cumorah
  
  We do - you SIT
  We preach - you lecture on what you do not 
  doLance Muir <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 
  wrote:
  

I looked at the photo-journal of the SPer's 
trip. What a waste! A Muslim country? You live in one. As for both 
trips; the one taken and the one projected, why not take care of 
'business' at home? My question was:Why not replicate in front of 'your' 
Mosques what you do at Mardi Gras, Super Bowl etc.? You won't and, for 
good reason. 

  - Original Message - 
  From: 
  Kevin Deegan 
  To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org 
  
  Sent: June 20, 2005 18:24
  Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Hill 
  Cumorah
  
  Want to come with us to a muslim country to 
  preach?Lance Muir <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 
  wrote: 
  

Now, there's a collection of pictures 
I'd enjoy having a look at.Of course y'all do this with the same 
frequency as the others, eh? Will you tell which Mosques, how many 
and, with what frequency?
 
Do 'you' believe that Muhammed was 
inspired to write the Koran by the same one who inspired the BOM 
namely, Satan?

  - Original Message - 
  From: 
  Kevin Deegan 
  To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org 
  
  Sent: June 20, 2005 
  14:33
  Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Hill 
  Cumorah
  
  The plain answer is yes
  what is your point? your'e afraid?Lance Muir 
  <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 
  wrote:
  



I'm confident that you wouldn't be 
INTENTIONALLY EVASIVE so, please answer the question as asked. 
Employing the 'model' (placards, bullhorns etc.)provided for us 
by DM & Kevin vis a vis the Super Bowl, Mardis Gras and, 
outside the Temple in Salt Lake City, would they do the same 
thing outside a mosque (a Muslim place of worship) and, if not 
then, whey not?
 
Do revisit what kicked this 
discussion off. There is a serious point to be made 
here.

  - Original Message - 
  
  From: 
  Judy Taylor 
  To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org 
  
  Cc: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org 
  
  Sent: June 20, 2005 
  06:56
  Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] 
  Hill Cumorah
  
  I don't know about DavidM but I'm 
  sure Kevin and Ruben have encountered Muslims in their SP 
  travels. I figure it
  would be tit for tat (with truth on 
  their side) since Muslims call everyone and everything Western 
  "the great Satan"  My Scots friend tells me that in the UK the Muslims have taken over 
  and that now the Red Cross will not put anything Christian out 
  at Christmas for fear of offending 
  them.  Her brother in Manchester England says he will not 
  give the Red Cross another cent because of it and he

Re: [TruthTalk] Hill Cumorah

The common Threads running thru False religios is a very Intruiging study.
Maybe this is why our Mormon friends prefer not to explain what the difference is between the LDS version of the Burning in the Bosom and the Pagan Kundalini experience thereof?
 
They WALK by Tingly sensations! 
Manifestations do not make for truth.
Lance Muir <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:


It's a damn fine outline, Kevin! I'm genuinely interested to distinguish between an 'extra-natural' vs a 'natural' account of the origins of both (Koran/BOM). This is one impressive bit of work!
 
thanks for this,
Lance

- Original Message - 
From: Kevin Deegan 
To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org 
Sent: June 21, 2005 07:42
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Hill Cumorah

I might if i get a chance (time)
I believe it to be the same "caractor"
Don't know that I could provide an airtight case, but there is much similarity
Why bother when there is a good overview her, in case you are unfamiliar with the facts
Since ALLAH came first see point 3 & 4 "I know the church is true"
http://www.bible.ca/islam/islamic-mormonism-similarities.htm


Both were visited by an angel. Joseph Smith was visited by the angel "Moroni" and Muhammad by Gabriel. Galatians 1:6-9 places both under a CURSE 
Both were given visions. 
Both were told that no true religion existed on the earth. In the published account of his life, Joseph Smith related that he became very disturbed when he was a youth because of the "strife among the different denominations," and this "cry and tumult" led him to ask God "which of all the sects were right  and which I should join." He was told that he must "join none of them, for they were all wrong... that all their creeds were an abomination in his sight; that those professors were all corrupt..." (Pearl of Great Price, Joseph Smith 2:8-19) N. J. Dawood says that Mohammed was also concerned with the fact that the Jews and Christians had "divided themselves into schismatic sects." In the scriptures given by Mohammed, we read: "Yet the Sects are divided concerning Jesus Truly, the unbelievers are in the grossest error." (The Koran, translated by N. J. Dawood, Surah 19, p. 34) In Surah 30, page 190, this warning appears: "Do not split up your religion into
 sects, each exulting in its own beliefs." In Surah 3, page 398, we read: "The only true faith in Allah's sight is Islam. Those to whom the Scriptures [i.e., Jews and Christians] were given disagreed among themselves through jealousy only after knowledge had been given them." 
Both were to restore the long lost faith as the one true religion. Islam makes claim that Adam and Abraham were Muslims, a claim that is as ridiculous as it is undocumented from either history or archaeology. Mormons make the unsubstantiated claim that the church in the first century were Mormon. 
Both wrote a book inspired by God. 
Both claimed to be illiterate or uneducated and used this as proof the book was inspired. "How could an illiterate man write the Koran or the Book of Mormon?" Joseph Smith is claimed to have only grade three education. 
Both claimed the Bible was lost, altered, corrupted and unreliable. 
Both claimed their holy book was the most correct and perfect book on earth. 
Both claimed that their new "Bible" was based upon a record stored in heaven. With Islam, it is the "mother book" that resides in heaven with God. With Mormonism, it is the golden Nephi plates that the angel Moroni took back to heaven. 
Both claim that the version we have in our hands today are identical to what the prophet revealed and that parts are not lost, altered and corrupted. Of course the proof that these claims are invalid is found in two books. The Mormon claim is proven false by a book called "3913 Changes to Book of Mormon" by Sandra Tanner. The Islamic claim is proven false by a book (In Arabic language) called, "Making Easy the Readings of What Has Been Sent Down" by Muhammad Fahd Khaaruun. Both books show that the copy of the book of Mormon and the Koran used today is different from what was originally used when each religion was started. 
Both claimed to be a final prophet of God. 
Both claimed they were persecuted because of their pure faith. 
Both were polygamists who had many wives. 
Both borrowed from paganism/polytheism. Muhammad incorporated that polytheistic moon god called "Allah" and "Allah's three daughters" into Islam. Basically Muhammad chose Allah from within 350 known gods that were worshipped in Arabia and proclaimed the moon god to be the greatest and only God. Smith borrowed from a doctrine called "pyramidology" and the Masons and other magic systems. 
Both received "after the fact corrective revelations" from God. Muhammad retracted the Satanic verses and Smith retracted his divine order mandating polygamy. But for Mormons it there is even a closer parallel. Sounds exactly like Muhammad and his satanic verses. 
"As many false reports have been circulated respecting the following work, and also many unlaw

Re: [TruthTalk] Hill Cumorah




The brother Judy, is all about 'pressing'. That's 
what he does! Besides, this fellow is more than capable of 'handling someone as 
insignificant as mois. Ain't that so, Kevin? 

  - Original Message - 
  From: 
  Judy 
  Taylor 
  To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org 
  
  Cc: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org 
  
  Sent: June 21, 2005 07:52
  Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Hill 
  Cumorah
  
  Could be God has given these ppl over to a 'reprobate mind' Lance.  
  It's a possibility isn't it? Anyway
  no prophecy of scripture was ever written by the 'will of man' and no 
  individual will ever by saved 
  by the 'will of man' either - so why press the brother to do your will 
  rather than obey God?  jt
   
  On Tue, 21 Jun 2005 07:42:23 -0400 "Lance Muir" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 
writes:
  
As Kevin has so often challenged me 'why not 
answer the actual question(s) asked? Mind, I don't blame you as it's 
perfectly understandable, Kevin. You don't (replicate in front of Mosques in 
the USA that which you do at other locals throughout the USA and, utilizing 
the same methodology) and, you won't. Do you not view Isam as an = if not 
greater heresy throughout the land?
 
Answer: You are correct, Lance. I simply am not 
called to do this.
 
FTR Q: Does it appear that anyone else IS 
called to do this?
Answer: No, it would appear 
not.HMM?

  From: Kevin Deegan 
   
  We do - you SIT
  We preach - you lecture on what you do not 
  doLance Muir <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 
  wrote:
  

I looked at the photo-journal of the SPer's 
trip. What a waste! A Muslim country? You live in one. As for both 
trips; the one taken and the one projected, why not take care of 
'business' at home? My question was:Why not replicate in front of 'your' 
Mosques what you do at Mardi Gras, Super Bowl etc.? You won't and, for 
good reason. 

  - Original Message - 
  From: 
  Kevin Deegan 
  To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org 
  
  Sent: June 20, 2005 18:24
  Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Hill 
  Cumorah
  
  Want to come with us to a muslim country to 
  preach?Lance Muir <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 
  wrote: 
  

Now, there's a collection of pictures 
I'd enjoy having a look at.Of course y'all do this with the same 
frequency as the others, eh? Will you tell which Mosques, how many 
and, with what frequency?
 
Do 'you' believe that Muhammed was 
inspired to write the Koran by the same one who inspired the BOM 
namely, Satan?

  - Original Message - 
  From: 
  Kevin Deegan 
  To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org 
  
  Sent: June 20, 2005 
  14:33
  Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Hill 
  Cumorah
  
  The plain answer is yes
  what is your point? your'e afraid?Lance Muir 
  <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 
  wrote:
  



I'm confident that you wouldn't be 
INTENTIONALLY EVASIVE so, please answer the question as asked. 
Employing the 'model' (placards, bullhorns etc.)provided for us 
by DM & Kevin vis a vis the Super Bowl, Mardis Gras and, 
outside the Temple in Salt Lake City, would they do the same 
thing outside a mosque (a Muslim place of worship) and, if not 
then, whey not?
 
Do revisit what kicked this 
discussion off. There is a serious point to be made 
here.

  - Original Message - 
  
  From: 
  Judy Taylor 
  To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org 
  
  Cc: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org 
  
  Sent: June 20, 2005 
  06:56
  Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] 
  Hill Cumorah
  
  I don't know about DavidM but I'm 
  sure Kevin and Ruben have encountered Muslims in their SP 
  travels. I figure it
  would be tit for tat (with truth on 
  their side) since Muslims call everyone and everything Western 
  "the great Satan"  My Scots friend tells me that in the UK the Muslims have taken over 
  and that now the Red Cross will not put anything Christian out 
  at Christmas for fear of offending 
  them.  Her brother in Manchester England says he will not

Re: [TruthTalk] Belief

Is this better?
the god who you worship is NOT able to put some ink on a page of paper and to preserve the content thereof. Which makes you more of a god than him since you do it in a different medium everyday (TT)Lance Muir <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

The court excuses the witness as he's fallen back on name calling for lack of an answer. Again Kevin, I don't blame you for so doing. You shine in other areas but, not on this one.

- Original Message - 
From: Kevin Deegan 
To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org 
Sent: June 21, 2005 07:56
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Belief

Your god is a pipsqueak not capable of preserving his word!

I suspect he is not capable of anything.

Lance Muir <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

Nope! Even with God in the equation, imperfection (humanism if you like, though I prefer humanity) is still the outcome.

- Original Message - 
From: Kevin Deegan 
To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org 
Sent: June 21, 2005 07:44
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Belief

My point exactly (see previous post) 
YOU LEAVE God OUT of the EQUATION.
This is possibly why you have been called a HUMANist.Lance Muir <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

Granted that 'Pontificating' is both easier and, more fun, I'll stick my nose in just a touch (discuss). The Scriptures first appeared written in the languages spoken by those to whom they were given. (non-controversial!) Thereafter they were translated by men (mostly but, women participate in the activity now) into other than the original languages (also non-controversial). In the very activity of translating, these men/women invest part of themselves into the translations. (I'd say non-controversial here also) Outcome? Imperfection!

From: Kevin Deegan 

To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org 
Sent: June 21, 2005 07:25
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Belief

Would you like to discuss such or just Pontificate?Lance Muir <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: 

Herein you sound like a Mormon, Kevin. Belief overrides understanding. That's OK as everyone does this from time to time.

- Original Message - 
From: Kevin Deegan 
To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org 
Sent: June 21, 2005 07:16
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Belief

You misunderstand?
It is not a work of men but a work of God

Pull a little harder I am not moved yet.Lance Muir <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

Kevin's meaning?

1. 'I do not see it as... Therefore it might be imperfectly translated

2. 'I see it as ...It is sufficiently representative of that which is necessary for 'salvation'. 

3. It ain't perfect but, it is sufficient. Therefore, so are most, if not all, other translations.

It's a far cry from what you've said in the past. It's a step in the right direction, Kevin. 

- Original Message - 
From: Kevin Deegan 
To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org 
Sent: June 21, 2005 06:53
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Belief

I do not see it as "perfectly translated" (by men)
I see it as God's word (transmitted & preserved by Him)
KJVDave Hansen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
DAVEH:   Which version do you consider, perfectly translated, Kevin?   Kevin Deegan wrote: 

I hold the PERFECT Word of God in my hands. NO ERRORS.Dave Hansen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: 
DAVEH:   Ahhh.thanx for clearing the cobwebs, Lance!    Was there not just recently a big discussion on TT about the accuracy of some of the Bible translations.   There was a little concern about the JW green Bible.  And in previous years we've discussed how the NIV version dropped a few passages that are found in the KJV.   Just why do we have so many versions of the Bible, if someone didn't think there was a problem with the existing versions?   Surely they can't all be translated correctly.do you disagree?    Furthermore, when two Christians determine doctrines differently from the same source, does that not cause one to ponder why?   Could it be the translations are not adequately conveying what God wants understood?  I don't view that as being a weakness of God
 , but rather a weakness of the translation.  Is that a reasonable stance?    So Lance, I would ask you (or any TTer) if you believe any particular translation of the Bible is 100% accurate.  If the answer is yes, may I assume you would then also believe that the other translations are less than 100% accurate?   Now, if the answer is you do not believe a particular translation is 100% accurate, then would you take my position and accept the Bible to be the word of God as far as it it translated correctly?       I would sure be interested to know if any TTers really do believe a given translation is 100% accurate.   And if you fear reprisal from other TTers for whatever comments you might have, post it to me off-Forum.  As you know, I will not mock or denigrate your commentsI'm sincerely interested in knowing your beliefs.Lance Muir wrote: 

Enlarge upon "as far as it is translated correctly".-- 
~~~
Dave Hansen
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.langlitz.com
~~~
If you wish to receive
things I f

Re: [TruthTalk] Hill Cumorah

Will your honor instruct lance on the proper use of Q tips?Lance Muir <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

Will your honor instruct the witness to answer the question as asked?

- Original Message - 
From: Kevin Deegan 
To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org 
Sent: June 21, 2005 07:50
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Hill Cumorah

Yes we do you not whereof you speak.
We have a lawsuit in federal court over the Police Stealing one of our banners which stated "ALLAH is NOT God" at the Detroit Muslim fest
Is the muslim equiv of Undie waving, 3 big pigs labeled ALLAH, Mohammed, Bin Lyin?Lance Muir <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

As Kevin has so often challenged me 'why not answer the actual question(s) asked? Mind, I don't blame you as it's perfectly understandable, Kevin. You don't (replicate in front of Mosques in the USA that which you do at other locals throughout the USA and, utilizing the same methodology) and, you won't. Do you not view Isam as an = if not greater heresy throughout the land?

Answer: You are correct, Lance. I simply am not called to do this.

FTR Q: Does it appear that anyone else IS called to do this?
Answer: No, it would appear not.HMM?

- Original Message - 
From: Kevin Deegan 
To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org 
Sent: June 21, 2005 07:28
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Hill Cumorah

We do - you SIT
We preach - you lecture on what you do not doLance Muir <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

I looked at the photo-journal of the SPer's trip. What a waste! A Muslim country? You live in one. As for both trips; the one taken and the one projected, why not take care of 'business' at home? My question was:Why not replicate in front of 'your' Mosques what you do at Mardi Gras, Super Bowl etc.? You won't and, for good reason. 

- Original Message - 
From: Kevin Deegan 
To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org 
Sent: June 20, 2005 18:24
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Hill Cumorah

Want to come with us to a muslim country to preach?Lance Muir <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: 

Now, there's a collection of pictures I'd enjoy having a look at.Of course y'all do this with the same frequency as the others, eh? Will you tell which Mosques, how many and, with what frequency?

Do 'you' believe that Muhammed was inspired to write the Koran by the same one who inspired the BOM namely, Satan?

- Original Message - 
From: Kevin Deegan 
To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org 
Sent: June 20, 2005 14:33
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Hill Cumorah

The plain answer is yes
what is your point? your'e afraid?Lance Muir <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

I'm confident that you wouldn't be INTENTIONALLY EVASIVE so, please answer the question as asked. Employing the 'model' (placards, bullhorns etc.)provided for us by DM & Kevin vis a vis the Super Bowl, Mardis Gras and, outside the Temple in Salt Lake City, would they do the same thing outside a mosque (a Muslim place of worship) and, if not then, whey not?

Do revisit what kicked this discussion off. There is a serious point to be made here.

- Original Message - 
From: Judy Taylor 
To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org 
Cc: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org 
Sent: June 20, 2005 06:56
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Hill Cumorah

I don't know about DavidM but I'm sure Kevin and Ruben have encountered Muslims in their SP travels. I figure it
would be tit for tat (with truth on their side) since Muslims call everyone and everything Western "the great Satan"  My Scots friend tells me that in the UK the Muslims have taken over and that now the Red Cross will not put anything Christian out at Christmas for fear of offending them.  Her brother in Manchester England says he will not give the Red Cross another cent because of it and he isn't even religious.  jt

On Mon, 20 Jun 2005 06:34:36 -0400 "Lance Muir" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:

I do not have a problem with 'exposure'. I don't think that that is Dave's point though.
May I suggest that an equal. if not greater, danger to believers lies within Islam. Could you imagine David Miller or Kevin going to Mosques and, utilizing bullhorns, villify the attendants by addressing THEM as servants of Satan?

From: Judy Taylor 

I would think it would be more like Jeremiah (see Jer 13:1,2); this is obviously a one time object lesson to
the part of Israel Jeremiah was ministering to rather than a pattern of behavior for all time.  However, part of public proclamation of Truth by nature involves exposing the lie of the false gods which of course will be offensive to those who worship them.  Why do you have such a problem with this?  jt

On Mon, 20 Jun 2005 05:58:55 -0400 "Lance Muir" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:

Elijah.

From: Judy Taylor 

Can you give us a "for instance" DaveH?  jt

Dave Hansen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

DAVEH:  As I understand your position (and please correct me if I am misunderstanding your position), many Christians (specifically you, in this instance) believe that everything written in the Bible is specifically applicable to Christians today.   So,

Re: [TruthTalk] Hill Cumorah




Why?
They are both lies.  Who is the liar and the father of them?  
jt
 
On Tue, 21 Jun 2005 07:50:31 -0400 "Lance Muir" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:

  It's a damn fine outline, Kevin! I'm genuinely 
  interested to distinguish between an 'extra-natural' vs a 'natural' account of 
  the origins of both (Koran/BOM). This is one impressive bit of 
  work!
   
  thanks for this,
  Lance
  
 
From: 
Kevin Deegan 
 
I might if i get a chance (time)
I believe it to be the same "caractor"
Don't know that I could provide an airtight case, but there is much 
similarity
Why bother when there is a good overview her, in case you are 
unfamiliar with the facts
Since ALLAH came first see point 3 & 4 "I know the church is 
true"
http://www.bible.ca/islam/islamic-mormonism-similarities.htm


  Both were visited by an angel. Joseph Smith was visited by the angel 
  "Moroni" and Muhammad by Gabriel. Galatians 1:6-9 places both under a 
  CURSE 
  Both were given visions. 
  Both were told that no true religion existed on the earth. In the 
  published account of his life, Joseph Smith related that he became very 
  disturbed when he was a youth because of the "strife among the different 
  denominations," and this "cry and tumult" led him to ask God "which of all 
  the sects were right  and which I should join." He was told that he must 
  "join none of them, for they were all wrong... that all their creeds were 
  an abomination in his sight; that those professors were all corrupt..." 
  (Pearl of Great Price, Joseph Smith 2:8-19) N. J. Dawood says 
  that Mohammed was also concerned with the fact that the Jews and 
  Christians had "divided themselves into schismatic sects." In the 
  scriptures given by Mohammed, we read: "Yet the Sects are divided 
  concerning Jesus Truly, the unbelievers are in the grossest error." 
  (The Koran, translated by N. J. Dawood, Surah 19, p. 34) In Surah 
  30, page 190, this warning appears: "Do not split up your religion into 
  sects, each exulting in its own beliefs." In Surah 3, page 398, we read: 
  "The only true faith in Allah's sight is Islam. Those to whom the 
  Scriptures [i.e., Jews and Christians] were given disagreed among 
  themselves through jealousy only after knowledge had been given them." 
  Both were to restore the long lost faith as the one true religion. 
  Islam makes claim that Adam and Abraham were Muslims, a claim that is as 
  ridiculous as it is undocumented from either history or archaeology. 
  Mormons make the unsubstantiated claim that the church in the first 
  century were Mormon. 
  Both wrote a book inspired by God. 
  Both claimed to be illiterate or uneducated and used this as proof the 
  book was inspired. "How could an illiterate man write the Koran or the 
  Book of Mormon?" Joseph Smith is claimed to have only grade three 
  education. 
  Both claimed the Bible was lost, altered, corrupted and unreliable. 
  Both claimed their holy book was the most correct and perfect book on 
  earth. 
  Both claimed that their new "Bible" was based upon a record stored in 
  heaven. With Islam, it is the "mother book" that resides in heaven with 
  God. With Mormonism, it is the golden Nephi plates that the angel Moroni 
  took back to heaven. 
  Both claim that the version we have in our hands today are identical 
  to what the prophet revealed and that parts are not lost, altered and 
  corrupted. Of course the proof that these claims are invalid is found in 
  two books. The Mormon claim is proven false by a book called "3913 Changes 
  to Book of Mormon" by Sandra Tanner. The Islamic claim is proven false by 
  a book (In Arabic language) called, "Making Easy the Readings of What Has 
  Been Sent Down" by Muhammad Fahd Khaaruun. Both books show that the copy 
  of the book of Mormon and the Koran used today is different from what was 
  originally used when each religion was started. 
  Both claimed to be a final prophet of God. 
  Both claimed they were persecuted because of their pure faith. 
  Both were polygamists who had many wives. 
  Both borrowed from paganism/polytheism. Muhammad incorporated that 
  polytheistic moon god called "Allah" and "Allah's three daughters" into 
  Islam. Basically Muhammad chose Allah from within 350 known gods that were 
  worshipped in Arabia and proclaimed the moon god to be the greatest and 
  only God. Smith borrowed from a doctrine called "pyramidology" and the 
  Masons and other magic systems. 
  Both received "after the fact corrective revelations" from God. 
  Muhammad retracted the Satanic verses and Smith retracted his divine order 
  mandating polygamy. But for Mormons it there is even a closer parallel

Re: [TruthTalk] Hill Cumorah

I do not see the problem other than the Hypocrisy. I still await your answers by the way.
Are you saying we tone it down at Mulla events? Or are you saying that you and the authorities are cow towed (terrified) of these pagans?Lance Muir <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

The brother Judy, is all about 'pressing'. That's what he does! Besides, this fellow is more than capable of 'handling someone as insignificant as mois. Ain't that so, Kevin? 

- Original Message - 
From: Judy Taylor 
To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org 
Cc: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org 
Sent: June 21, 2005 07:52
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Hill Cumorah

Could be God has given these ppl over to a 'reprobate mind' Lance.  It's a possibility isn't it? Anyway
no prophecy of scripture was ever written by the 'will of man' and no individual will ever by saved 
by the 'will of man' either - so why press the brother to do your will rather than obey God?  jt

On Tue, 21 Jun 2005 07:42:23 -0400 "Lance Muir" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:

As Kevin has so often challenged me 'why not answer the actual question(s) asked? Mind, I don't blame you as it's perfectly understandable, Kevin. You don't (replicate in front of Mosques in the USA that which you do at other locals throughout the USA and, utilizing the same methodology) and, you won't. Do you not view Isam as an = if not greater heresy throughout the land?

Answer: You are correct, Lance. I simply am not called to do this.

FTR Q: Does it appear that anyone else IS called to do this?
Answer: No, it would appear not.HMM?

From: Kevin Deegan 

We do - you SIT
We preach - you lecture on what you do not doLance Muir <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

I looked at the photo-journal of the SPer's trip. What a waste! A Muslim country? You live in one. As for both trips; the one taken and the one projected, why not take care of 'business' at home? My question was:Why not replicate in front of 'your' Mosques what you do at Mardi Gras, Super Bowl etc.? You won't and, for good reason. 

- Original Message - 
From: Kevin Deegan 
To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org 
Sent: June 20, 2005 18:24
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Hill Cumorah

Want to come with us to a muslim country to preach?Lance Muir <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: 

Now, there's a collection of pictures I'd enjoy having a look at.Of course y'all do this with the same frequency as the others, eh? Will you tell which Mosques, how many and, with what frequency?

Do 'you' believe that Muhammed was inspired to write the Koran by the same one who inspired the BOM namely, Satan?

- Original Message - 
From: Kevin Deegan 
To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org 
Sent: June 20, 2005 14:33
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Hill Cumorah

The plain answer is yes
what is your point? your'e afraid?Lance Muir <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

I'm confident that you wouldn't be INTENTIONALLY EVASIVE so, please answer the question as asked. Employing the 'model' (placards, bullhorns etc.)provided for us by DM & Kevin vis a vis the Super Bowl, Mardis Gras and, outside the Temple in Salt Lake City, would they do the same thing outside a mosque (a Muslim place of worship) and, if not then, whey not?

Do revisit what kicked this discussion off. There is a serious point to be made here.

- Original Message - 
From: Judy Taylor 
To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org 
Cc: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org 
Sent: June 20, 2005 06:56
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Hill Cumorah

I don't know about DavidM but I'm sure Kevin and Ruben have encountered Muslims in their SP travels. I figure it
would be tit for tat (with truth on their side) since Muslims call everyone and everything Western "the great Satan"  My Scots friend tells me that in the UK the Muslims have taken over and that now the Red Cross will not put anything Christian out at Christmas for fear of offending them.  Her brother in Manchester England says he will not give the Red Cross another cent because of it and he isn't even religious.  jt

On Mon, 20 Jun 2005 06:34:36 -0400 "Lance Muir" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:

I do not have a problem with 'exposure'. I don't think that that is Dave's point though.
May I suggest that an equal. if not greater, danger to believers lies within Islam. Could you imagine David Miller or Kevin going to Mosques and, utilizing bullhorns, villify the attendants by addressing THEM as servants of Satan?

From: Judy Taylor 

I would think it would be more like Jeremiah (see Jer 13:1,2); this is obviously a one time object lesson to
the part of Israel Jeremiah was ministering to rather than a pattern of behavior for all time.  However, part of public proclamation of Truth by nature involves exposing the lie of the false gods which of course will be offensive to those who worship them.  Why do you have such a problem with this?  jt

On Mon, 20 Jun 2005 05:58:55 -0400 "Lance Muir" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:

Elijah.

From: Judy Taylor 

Can you give us a "for instance" DaveH?  jt

Dave Hansen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> w

Re: [TruthTalk] Moderator comment: JFK

So then, Marlin.where do you 'shake out' on this?

- Original Message - 
From: "Marlin halverson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: 
Sent: June 21, 2005 07:55
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] **Moderator comment**: JFK


> http://www.911wasalie.com/phpwebsite/
>
>
> - Original Message - 
> From: "ShieldsFamily" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To: 
> Sent: Monday, June 20, 2005 9:38 AM
> Subject: RE: [TruthTalk] **Moderator comment**: JFK
>
>
> > IFF one believes there was any such conspiracy re: 9/11, one needs to be
> > immediately committed to the looney bin.  Izzy
> >
> > -Original Message-
> > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Lance Muir
> > Sent: Monday, June 20, 2005 1:52 AM
> > To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org
> > Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] **Moderator comment**: JFK
> >
> > Belief/trust...trust/belief...These are so interlocked. The other night
I
> > listened to a panel discussion on 911 (WTC). IFF one is able to
> > demonstrate
> > 'conspiracy' (complicity) on the part of government operatives or
agencies
> > then, by extension JFK has significance for discussion. For starters
have
> > a
> > look at the 'new' extended edition of Oliver Stone's JFK (2001?).I'm in,
> > John.
> >
> >
> > - Original Message - 
> > From: "Charles Perry Locke" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > To: 
> > Sent: June 19, 2005 20:48
> > Subject: [TruthTalk] **Moderator comment**: JFK
> >
> >
> >> John, unless you have discovered a videotaped confession to show us, I
> >> personally am not that interested.
> >>
> >>However, the TT "Discussions" page states: " If you have an interest
> >> in
> >> the Bible, religion, philosophy, or science, we encourage you to join
the
> >> list and engage in the discussions." Does this topic fall into one of
> > those
> >> general categories? If so, give it a shot.
> >>
> >> Perry
> >>
> >> >From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> >> >
> >> >Would any in he forum care for a brief dicsussion of the issues that
are
> > in
> >> >play with the JFK assassination  ...
> >> >
> >> >JD
> >>
> >>
> >> --
> >> "Let your speech be always with grace, seasoned with salt, that you may
> > know how you ought to answer every man."  (Colossians 4:6)
> > http://www.InnGlory.org
> >>
> >> If you do not want to receive posts from this list, send an email to
> > [EMAIL PROTECTED] and you will be unsubscribed.  If you have a
> > friend who wants to join, tell him to send an e-mail to
> > [EMAIL PROTECTED] and he will be subscribed.
> >
> >
> > --
> > "Let your speech be always with grace, seasoned with salt, that you may
> > know
> > how you ought to answer every man."  (Colossians 4:6)
> > http://www.InnGlory.org
> >
> > If you do not want to receive posts from this list, send an email to
> > [EMAIL PROTECTED] and you will be unsubscribed.  If you have a
> > friend who wants to join, tell him to send an e-mail to
> > [EMAIL PROTECTED] and he will be subscribed.
> >
> > --
> > "Let your speech be always with grace, seasoned with salt, that you may
> > know how you ought to answer every man."  (Colossians 4:6)
> > http://www.InnGlory.org
> >
> > If you do not want to receive posts from this list, send an email to
> > [EMAIL PROTECTED] and you will be unsubscribed.  If you have a
> > friend who wants to join, tell him to send an e-mail to
> > [EMAIL PROTECTED] and he will be subscribed.
> >
> --
> "Let your speech be always with grace, seasoned with salt, that you may
know how you ought to answer every man."  (Colossians 4:6)
http://www.InnGlory.org
>
> If you do not want to receive posts from this list, send an email to
[EMAIL PROTECTED] and you will be unsubscribed.  If you have a
friend who wants to join, tell him to send an e-mail to
[EMAIL PROTECTED] and he will be subscribed.


--
"Let your speech be always with grace, seasoned with salt, that you may know 
how you ought to answer every man."  (Colossians 4:6) http://www.InnGlory.org

If you do not want to receive posts from this list, send an email to [EMAIL 
PROTECTED] and you will be unsubscribed.  If you have a friend who wants to 
join, tell him to send an e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and he will be subscribed.

[TruthTalk] Fw: For Judy

- Original Message - 
From: "Jonathan Hughes" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Lance Muir" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: June 21, 2005 08:21
Subject: For Judy

> The True, Proper, and Eternal Sonship of the Lord Jesus Christ the Only 
> Begotten Son of God
> 
> http://www.the-highway.com/Sonship_Contents.html

--
"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] Belief


Dave,

  Wait a minute! I agree with you and then you tell me I have it backwards? 
How does that work?


  You said, "Logically, the onus is not upon me to define the Jesus I 
believe in, but rather it is on the person who suggests I don't believe in 
Jesus."


  I responded, "I think you are right. You are entitled to your jesus, and 
the onus is on us to prove him to not be the same as our Jesus."


  And now you say, "You've got that a bit backwards, Perry."

  Aren't you in essence, then saying that YOU had it a bit backwards since 
I was agreeing with you?


Perry


From: Dave Hansen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Reply-To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org
To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Belief
Date: Mon, 20 Jun 2005 22:25:39 -0700

DAVEH:   You've got that a bit backwards, Perry.   The onus is on you to 
prove (explain might be a better word) your Jesus.I don't recall seeing 
much of that on TT.other than he created the world, was born of a 
virgin, died and was resurrected.all of which I believe.   Is there 
more you (TTers) want to say about your belief about Jesus?


Charles Perry Locke wrote:


Dave,

  I think you are right. You are entitled to your jesus, and the onus is 
on us to prove him to not be the same as our Jesus. I feel we have done 
that. Repeatedly. But, you do not accept our evidence, and I suppose short 
of having a vision, you never will.


  You have not said our Jesus is a false jesus because, since you say you 
beleive in the same Jesus we believe in, that would be like shooting 
yourself in the foot.


Perry


From: Dave Hansen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Reply-To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org
To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Belief
Date: Mon, 20 Jun 2005 21:55:30 -0700

DAVEH:   Logically, the onus is not upon me to define the Jesus I believe 
in, but rather it is on the person who suggests I don't believe in Jesus. 
 FTRI have not said that the Jesus Kevin, you Perry or any other 
TTer believes in is a false Jesus.


Lance Muir wrote:

DaveH says "Kevin, I believe in Jesus." IFF we are going to engage in a 
conversation that entails reality, then we have to continue to build 
upon that which has been said previously.According to you THE JESUS TO 
BE BELIEVED IN IS MOST FULLY AND ACCURATELY DESCRIBED WITHIN MORMON 
TEACHING. Is this so? The Jesus believed in by Kevin, Perry, Lance et al 
is a false Jesus. Is this not also so? (unwieldy but, you get my 
point)What, IYO, are the eternal consequenses for non-Mormons?  Mr. 
Moderator:Please grant DaveH the opportunity of fully answering and, 
explaining.


DAVEH:  FTR Kevin, I believe in Jesus.   Therefore can we conclude
that you've made the judgment rather than God?








--
~~~
Dave Hansen
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.langlitz.com
~~~
If you wish to receive
things I find interesting,
I maintain six email lists...
JOKESTER, OPINIONS, LDS,
STUFF, MOTORCYCLE and CLIPS.

--
"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] Who is he?


Thanks Linda.    -Original Message-From: Kevin Deegan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgSent: Tue, 21 Jun 2005 04:17:46 -0700 (PDT)Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Who is he?



Maybe that your formalism is showing? [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: 



so what is your point?   That "baptism" is not for believers?  
 
JD  -Original Message-From: ShieldsFamily <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgSent: Mon, 20 Jun 2005 22:52:18 -0500Subject: RE: [TruthTalk] Who is he?






There are MANY who have been baptized who do not believe.  Izzy
 




From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of [EMAIL PROTECTED]Sent: Monday, June 20, 2005 6:36 PMTo: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgSubject: Re: [TruthTalk] Who is he?
 



A rather ridiculous bit of logic.  If one does not believe, he will not be baptized.   Your "logic" cuts the word completely out of the mouth of Jesus.   I do not think water baptism saves anyone, by the way.   But that is what Jesus said.   You can slice and dice all you want.  

 

JD 
-Original Message-From: Kevin Deegan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgSent: Mon, 20 Jun 2005 15:42:09 -0700 (PDT)Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Who is he?


He is those "Every creature" that hear the preaching.

 

As far as a proof text.

It is NOT a proof text for salvation by baptism as some declare, but a prooftext of salvation by belief. 

Since the one is is damned is the UNBELIEVER not the UNBaptised. vs 16Charles Perry Locke <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

John, thanks for responding. Jesus indeed spoke v. 16, but to whom was Christ referring when he used "He"?Any other TT'rs care to give thier insight to these questions? I know this does not appear to raise any controversy, so hasn't generated much interest, but where I am going with this may step on so many toes that it may become controversial. Of course, maybe everyone already understood this but me, and the Spirit was just bringing me up to speed!The reason that I am asking is that quite late the other night I had a stroke of insight into the meaning of v. 16 that was totally different than I previously understood. Did this come to me through the Spirit? Well, I DO pray often that the Spirit will give me insight into the Word of God, and that I will see and understand it correctly. I believe that is what happened to change my understanding of this verse.After coming to
 this new understanding, I gave it the "sleep on it" test, and it survived. upon re-reading the passage it still meant the same thing to me the next morning.A lot of people may disagree with me because it refutes a major proof-text used by many. (Not that their point may not be made elsewhere, but definitely not here in v. 16.) There is a secondary use of v 16-20 as another prooftext that also will be refuted. This is very rich indeed.I wanted to present this to my Christian peers on TT, to see what the consensus is. I want to hear from as many as have the time to read and give their understanding, then I will present it as I now understand it. If the spirit has indeed lead me into truth it will be interesting.Perry>From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]>Reply-To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org>To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org>Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Who is he?>Dat
 e: Mon, 20 Jun 2005 01:31:59 -0400>>1. Christ>2. Water>< BR>>-Original Message->From: Charles Perry Locke <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>>To: truthtalk@mail.innglory.org>Sent: Sun, 19 Jun 2005 21:35:41 -0700>Subject: [TruthTalk] Who is he?>>>I have been studying Mark 16:14-20, and have two open questions for all TT >members.>>1. In verse 16, who is the antecedant to the pronoun "He" that starts out >that verse?>2. Again, in verse 16, what type of baptism is Jesus discussing here?>>Thanks,>Perry>>-->"Let your speech be always with grace, seasoned with salt, that you may >know how you ought to answer every man." (Colossians 4:6) >http://www.InnGlory.org>>If you do not want to receive posts from this list, send an email to >[EMAIL PROTECTED] and you will be unsubscribed. If you have a >friend who wants to join, tell 
h im 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!?Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com 
__Do You Yahoo!?Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com

[TruthTalk] Mormons on TT: Will you afford us the same privilege??




Will you do for us what TT (read David Miller) has 
done for you? Assuming non-uniformity within the LDS (I do not refer here to 
fringe or breakaway groups but mainstream LDS):
 
Identify a dozen or so issues over which current 
Mormon discussion is taking place.
 
What are the two or three 'hot button' issues of 
considerable disagreement?
 
What questions do you personally have concerning 
the content of your faith?
 
To which questions have you received as yet 
no/unsatisfactory answers?
 
thanks for this,
 
Lance

Re: [TruthTalk] Belief

I know the answer is "Jesus' but, it sounds a lot like a squirrel to me.


- Original Message - 
From: "Charles Perry Locke" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: 
Sent: June 21, 2005 09:10
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Belief


> Dave,
>
>Wait a minute! I agree with you and then you tell me I have it
backwards?
> How does that work?
>
>You said, "Logically, the onus is not upon me to define the Jesus I
> believe in, but rather it is on the person who suggests I don't believe in
> Jesus."
>
>I responded, "I think you are right. You are entitled to your jesus,
and
> the onus is on us to prove him to not be the same as our Jesus."
>
>And now you say, "You've got that a bit backwards, Perry."
>
>Aren't you in essence, then saying that YOU had it a bit backwards
since
> I was agreeing with you?
>
> Perry
>
> >From: Dave Hansen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> >Reply-To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org
> >To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org
> >Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Belief
> >Date: Mon, 20 Jun 2005 22:25:39 -0700
> >
> >DAVEH:   You've got that a bit backwards, Perry.   The onus is on you to
> >prove (explain might be a better word) your Jesus.I don't recall
seeing
> >much of that on TT.other than he created the world, was born of a
> >virgin, died and was resurrected.all of which I believe.   Is there
> >more you (TTers) want to say about your belief about Jesus?
> >
> >Charles Perry Locke wrote:
> >
> >>Dave,
> >>
> >>   I think you are right. You are entitled to your jesus, and the onus
is
> >>on us to prove him to not be the same as our Jesus. I feel we have done
> >>that. Repeatedly. But, you do not accept our evidence, and I suppose
short
> >>of having a vision, you never will.
> >>
> >>   You have not said our Jesus is a false jesus because, since you say
you
> >>beleive in the same Jesus we believe in, that would be like shooting
> >>yourself in the foot.
> >>
> >>Perry
> >>
> >>>From: Dave Hansen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> >>>Reply-To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org
> >>>To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org
> >>>Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Belief
> >>>Date: Mon, 20 Jun 2005 21:55:30 -0700
> >>>
> >>>DAVEH:   Logically, the onus is not upon me to define the Jesus I
believe
> >>>in, but rather it is on the person who suggests I don't believe in
Jesus.
> >>>  FTRI have not said that the Jesus Kevin, you Perry or any other
> >>>TTer believes in is a false Jesus.
> >>>
> >>>Lance Muir wrote:
> >>>
> DaveH says "Kevin, I believe in Jesus." IFF we are going to engage in
a
> conversation that entails reality, then we have to continue to build
> upon that which has been said previously.According to you THE JESUS TO
> BE BELIEVED IN IS MOST FULLY AND ACCURATELY DESCRIBED WITHIN MORMON
> TEACHING. Is this so? The Jesus believed in by Kevin, Perry, Lance et
al
> is a false Jesus. Is this not also so? (unwieldy but, you get my
> point)What, IYO, are the eternal consequenses for non-Mormons?  Mr.
> Moderator:Please grant DaveH the opportunity of fully answering and,
> explaining.
> 
>  DAVEH:  FTR Kevin, I believe in Jesus.   Therefore can we
conclude
>  that you've made the judgment rather than God?
> 
> 
> >>>
> >>
> >
> >--
> >~~~
> >Dave Hansen
> >[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> >http://www.langlitz.com
> >~~~
> >If you wish to receive
> >things I find interesting,
> >I maintain six email lists...
> >JOKESTER, OPINIONS, LDS,
> >STUFF, MOTORCYCLE and CLIPS.
> >
> >--
> >"Let your speech be always with grace, seasoned with salt, that you may
> >know how you ought to answer every man."  (Colossians 4:6)
> >http://www.InnGlory.org
> >
> >If you do not want to receive posts from this list, send an email to
> >[EMAIL PROTECTED] and you will be unsubscribed.  If you have a
> >friend who wants to join, tell him to send an e-mail to
> >[EMAIL PROTECTED] and he will be subscribed.
>
>
> --
> "Let your speech be always with grace, seasoned with salt, that you may
know how you ought to answer every man."  (Colossians 4:6)
http://www.InnGlory.org
>
> If you do not want to receive posts from this list, send an email to
[EMAIL PROTECTED] and you will be unsubscribed.  If you have a
friend who wants to join, tell him to send an e-mail to
[EMAIL PROTECTED] and he will be subscribed.


--
"Let your speech be always with grace, seasoned with salt, that you may know 
how you ought to answer every man."  (Colossians 4:6) http://www.InnGlory.org

If you do not want to receive posts from this list, send an email to [EMAIL 
PROTECTED] and you will be unsubscribed.  If you have a friend who wants to 
join, tell him to send an e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and he will be subscribed.

Re: [TruthTalk] Belief

John,

  None of us DOES have a thouroughly accurate picture of Jesus. But you 
argument dows not follow from our discussion. I think you can take things 
away from one's knowledge of Jesus and still have the right one, but start 
adding stuff, and you get the wrong one. One also can misunderstand an 
aspect of Jesus, and still be on track.

  However, when you start adding extra-biblical stuff you end up with a 
different jesus. For example, is the Jesus you know the brother of Satan? 
Did he have a mother and a father in heaven, making him a procreated being? 
Was his father once a man from the planet Kolob? If so, then you are a 
mormon! If not, then you know a different Jesus than the mormon Jesus.

  One of the primary ways we  identify people is by their lineage. Who is 
their father? Where are they from? Who is their brother? The mormon jesus 
fails ALL of these traditional tests for identifying people. Same jesus? You 
tell me.

Perry

From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Reply-To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org
To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Belief
Date: Tue, 21 Jun 2005 01:45:28 -0400

What if NONE of us have a thoroughly accurate picture of Jesus  (a 
possibility with a high degree of probability,  I think) would that mean  
there is no Jesus at all?  !!!   I mean,  if the True Christ only exists in 
our accurate defining of Him  --  what then?  Can Dave have the wrong 
teaching and the right Christ or does Christ only exist for those who think 
correctly?

JD

-Original Message-
From: Charles Perry Locke <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org
Sent: Mon, 20 Jun 2005 22:02:37 -0700
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Belief

Dave,

  I think you are right. You are entitled to your jesus, and the onus is 
on us to prove him to not be the same as our Jesus. I feel we have done 
that. Repeatedly. But, you do not accept our evidence, and I suppose short 
of having a vision, you never will.

  You have not said our Jesus is a false jesus because, since you say you 
beleive in the same Jesus we believe in, that would be like shooting 
yourself in the foot.

Perry

>From: Dave Hansen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>Reply-To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org
>To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org
>Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Belief
>Date: Mon, 20 Jun 2005 21:55:30 -0700
>
>DAVEH: Logically, the onus is not upon me to define the Jesus I believe 
>in, but rather it is on the person who suggests I don't believe in Jesus. 
>FTRI have not said that the Jesus Kevin, you Perry or any other TTer 
>believes in is a false Jesus.

>
>Lance Muir wrote:
>
>>DaveH says "Kevin, I believe in Jesus." IFF we are going to engage in a 
>>conversation that entails reality, then we have to continue to build 
upon >>that which has been said previously.According to you THE JESUS TO BE 
>>BELIEVED IN IS MOST FULLY AND ACCURATELY DESCRIBED WITHIN MORMON 
TEACHING. >>Is this so? The Jesus believed in by Kevin, Perry, Lance et al 
is a false >>Jesus. Is this not also so? (unwieldy but, you get my 
point)What, IYO, are >>the eternal consequenses for non-Mormons? Mr. 
Moderator:Please grant >>DaveH the opportunity of fully answering and, 
explaining.

>>
>> - Original Message -
>> *From:* Dave Hansen 
>> *To:* TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org
>> 
>> *Sent:* June 19, 2005 23:02
>> *Subject:* Re: [TruthTalk] Belief
>>
>> DAVEH: FTR Kevin, I believe in Jesus. Therefore can we conclude
>> that you've made the judgment rather than God?
>>
>> Kevin Deegan wrote:
>>
>>> He will!
>>> *He Has!*
>>> *JN 3:18 He that believeth on him is not condemned: but he that
>>> believeth not is condemned already*
>>>
>>> */Dave Hansen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>/* wrote:
>>>
>>> DAVEH: I fully understand that, Perry. But I'd feel more
>>> comfortable
>>> letting God make that judgment than you.
>>>
>>> Charles Perry Locke wrote:
>>>
>>> > David,
>>> >
>>> > Romans 10:9,10 : That if thou shalt confess with thy mouth
>>> the Lord
>>> > Jesus, and shalt believe in thine heart that God hath
>>> raised him from
>>> > the dead, thou shalt be saved. For with the heart man
>>> believeth unto
>>> > righteousness; and with the mouth confession is made unto
>>> salvation.
>>> >
>>> > But, as I have stated before, the right jesus and right god
>>> must be
>>> > at the center of one's faith. I am not just harassing you,
>>> Dave, I
>>> > honestly do believe that the mormons worship false gods.
>>> >
>>> > Perry
>>> >
>>> >> From: Dave Hansen
>>> >> Reply-To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org
>>> >> To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org
>>> >> Subject: [TruthTalk] Belief
>>> >> Date: Sun, 19 Jun 2005 00:16:42 -0700
>>> >>
>>> >> DAVEH: YeahPretty quiet on TT tonight..
>>> >>
>>> >> Do you believe that those who believe in Jesus are saved,
>>> as I've
>>> >> heard many Christians proclaim? If belief is inadequate,
>>> what else
>>> >> is needed, Perry?
>>> >>
>>> >> Charles Perry Locke wrote:
>>> >>
>>> >>> Da

Re: [TruthTalk] Heresy for Lance




Before you accuse me of a heretical doctrine Lance why don't you find proof 
for me in God's Word
that the second member of the Godhead is/was as you call it "a preincarnate 
Son"  Two witnesses will be
sufficient.  When you find them I will publicly repent of my 
heresy.  judyt
 
On Tue, 21 Jun 2005 07:58:02 -0400 "Lance Muir" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:

  Lance takes Satan VERY seriously. My goodness, 
  I've been reading both of you for a long while. Now, just before CPL objects, 
  what I mean to say is that you, Judy espouse a heretical doctrine concerning 
  the preincarnate Son while Linda is so overcome with rightwing politics that 
  her ability to even think objectively is severely impaired. How am I to 
  'source' these"? I ask the Moderator to adjudicate.
  
From: Judy Taylor 
 
Izzy, I doubt Lance takes Satan seriously, didn't you know the last 
demon died along with the
last apostle?  We've now got it all wrapped up with our 
"incarnation" doctrine.  jt
 
On Tue, 21 Jun 2005 06:32:58 -0400 "Lance Muir" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 
writes:

  Linda asks 'Don't you, Lance?' of the query: 
  'Do you believe Satan to have been the inspiration for both the Koran and 
  the BOM'? I doubt that either was inspired by Satan. IFF you, Kevin and 
  Perry actually KNOW THIS TO BE THE CASE then, lay it out for a misguided 
  'lib'. None of you will, of course but, at least you got 
  asked.
  
From: ShieldsFamily 
 

Dont you, 
Lance? If not, youre lost-er than I thunk!!! 
 Izzy
 





From: 
[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Lance 
Muir

Do 'you' believe that Muhammed was inspired to 
write the Koran by the same one who inspired the BOM namely, Satan?

Re: [TruthTalk] Hill Cumorah




I would say so ... FW that's worth  ... I'm sure it's an 
attention getter - and better than what Alexander
who the world calls "great" did to the Jewish temple.  
judyt
 
On Tue, 21 Jun 2005 04:50:07 -0700 (PDT) Kevin Deegan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 
writes:

  Yes we do you not whereof you speak.
  We have a lawsuit in federal court over the Police Stealing one of our 
  banners which stated "ALLAH is NOT God" at the Detroit Muslim fest
  Is the muslim equiv of Undie waving, 3 big pigs labeled ALLAH, 
  Mohammed, Bin Lyin?Lance Muir 
  <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
  

As Kevin has so often challenged me 'why not 
answer the actual question(s) asked? Mind, I don't blame you as it's 
perfectly understandable, Kevin. You don't (replicate in front of Mosques in 
the USA that which you do at other locals throughout the USA and, utilizing 
the same methodology) and, you won't. Do you not view Isam as an = if not 
greater heresy throughout the land?
 
Answer: You are correct, Lance. I simply am not 
called to do this.
 
FTR Q: Does it appear that anyone else IS 
called to do this?
Answer: No, it would appear 
not.HMM?

  - Original Message - 
  From: 
  Kevin Deegan 
  To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org 
  
  Sent: June 21, 2005 07:28
  Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Hill 
  Cumorah
  
  We do - you SIT
  We preach - you lecture on what you do not 
  doLance Muir <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 
  wrote:
  

I looked at the photo-journal of the SPer's 
trip. What a waste! A Muslim country? You live in one. As for both 
trips; the one taken and the one projected, why not take care of 
'business' at home? My question was:Why not replicate in front of 'your' 
Mosques what you do at Mardi Gras, Super Bowl etc.? You won't and, for 
good reason. 

  - Original Message - 
  From: 
  Kevin Deegan 
  To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org 
  
  Sent: June 20, 2005 18:24
  Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Hill 
  Cumorah
  
  Want to come with us to a muslim country to 
  preach?Lance Muir <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 
  wrote: 
  

Now, there's a collection of pictures 
I'd enjoy having a look at.Of course y'all do this with the same 
frequency as the others, eh? Will you tell which Mosques, how many 
and, with what frequency?
 
Do 'you' believe that Muhammed was 
inspired to write the Koran by the same one who inspired the BOM 
namely, Satan?

  - Original Message - 
  From: 
  Kevin Deegan 
  To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org 
  
  Sent: June 20, 2005 
  14:33
  Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Hill 
  Cumorah
  
  The plain answer is yes
  what is your point? your'e afraid?Lance Muir 
  <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 
  wrote:
  



I'm confident that you wouldn't be 
INTENTIONALLY EVASIVE so, please answer the question as asked. 
Employing the 'model' (placards, bullhorns etc.)provided for us 
by DM & Kevin vis a vis the Super Bowl, Mardis Gras and, 
outside the Temple in Salt Lake City, would they do the same 
thing outside a mosque (a Muslim place of worship) and, if not 
then, whey not?
 
Do revisit what kicked this 
discussion off. There is a serious point to be made 
here.

  - Original Message - 
  
  From: 
  Judy Taylor 
  To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org 
  
  Cc: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org 
  
  Sent: June 20, 2005 
  06:56
  Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] 
  Hill Cumorah
  
  I don't know about DavidM but I'm 
  sure Kevin and Ruben have encountered Muslims in their SP 
  travels. I figure it
  would be tit for tat (with truth on 
  their side) since Muslims call everyone and everything Western 
  "the great Satan"  My Scots friend tells me that in the UK the Muslims have taken over 
  and that now the Red Cross will not put anything Christian out 
  at Christmas for fear of offending 
  them.  Her brother in Manchester England says he will not 
  give the Red Cross another cent because

[TruthTalk] [Fwd: [Fwd: [Infinite Supply] Tuesday, June 21, 2005]]






-


Infinite Supply
http://www.watchman.net/daily


:: 






--
"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] Who is he?

Thanks Linda. 
 
Your welcome Ollie[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:



Thanks Linda.    -Original Message-From: Kevin Deegan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgSent: Tue, 21 Jun 2005 04:17:46 -0700 (PDT)Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Who is he?



Maybe that your formalism is showing? [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: 



so what is your point?   That "baptism" is not for believers?  
 
JD  -Original Message-From: ShieldsFamily <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgSent: Mon, 20 Jun 2005 22:52:18 -0500Subject: RE: [TruthTalk] Who is he?






There are MANY who have been baptized who do not believe.  Izzy
 




From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of [EMAIL PROTECTED]Sent: Monday, June 20, 2005 6:36 PMTo: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgSubject: Re: [TruthTalk] Who is he?
 



A rather ridiculous bit of logic.  If one does not believe, he will not be baptized.   Your "logic" cuts the word completely out of the mouth of Jesus.   I do not think water baptism saves anyone, by the way.   But that is what Jesus said.   You can slice and dice all you want.  

 

JD 
-Original Message-From: Kevin Deegan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgSent: Mon, 20 Jun 2005 15:42:09 -0700 (PDT)Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Who is he?


He is those "Every creature" that hear the preaching.

 

As far as a proof text.

It is NOT a proof text for salvation by baptism as some declare, but a prooftext of salvation by belief. 

Since the one is is damned is the UNBELIEVER not the UNBaptised. vs 16Charles Perry Locke <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

John, thanks for responding. Jesus indeed spoke v. 16, but to whom was Christ referring when he used "He"?Any other TT'rs care to give thier insight to these questions? I know this does not appear to raise any controversy, so hasn't generated much interest, but where I am going with this may step on so many toes that it may become controversial. Of course, maybe everyone already understood this but me, and the Spirit was just bringing me up to speed!The reason that I am asking is that quite late the other night I had a stroke of insight into the meaning of v. 16 that was totally different than I previously understood. Did this come to me through the Spirit? Well, I DO pray often that the Spirit will give me insight into the Word of God, and that I will see and understand it correctly. I believe that is what happened to change my
 understanding of this verse.After coming to this new understanding, I gave it the "sleep on it" test, and it survived. upon re-reading the passage it still meant the same thing to me the next morning.A lot of people may disagree with me because it refutes a major proof-text used by many. (Not that their point may not be made elsewhere, but definitely not here in v. 16.) There is a secondary use of v 16-20 as another prooftext that also will be refuted. This is very rich indeed.I wanted to present this to my Christian peers on TT, to see what the consensus is. I want to hear from as many as have the time to read and give their understanding, then I will present it as I now understand it. If the spirit has indeed lead me into truth it will be interesting.Perry>From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]>Reply-To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org>To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org>Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Who is he?>Dat e: Mon, 20 Jun 2005 01:31:59 -0400>>1. Christ>2. Water>< BR>>-Original Message->From: Charles Perry Locke <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>>To: truthtalk@mail.innglory.org>Sent: Sun, 19 Jun 2005 21:35:41 -0700>Subject: [TruthTalk] Who is he?>>>I have been studying Mark 16:14-20, and have two open questions for all TT >members.>>1. In verse 16, who is the antecedant to the pronoun "He" that starts out >that verse?>2. Again, in verse 16, what type of baptism is Jesus discussing here?>>Thanks,>Perry>>-->"Let your speech be always with grace, seasoned with salt, that you may >know how you ought to answer every man." (Colossians 4:6) >http://www.InnGlory.org>>If you do not want to receive
 posts from this list, send an email to >[EMAIL PROTECTED] and you will be unsubscribed. If you have a >friend who wants to join, tell h im 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!?Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com 
__Do You Yahoo!?Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com 
		Yahoo! Mail 
Stay connected, organized, and protected. T

Re: [TruthTalk] Hill Cumorah

It is a good thing we are no longer inthe OT Elijah "DID WHAT"? to the Profits of Baal after mocking them?
 
The OT they went into the Temples of Baal and the groves (can you say SACRED Grove)  and tore them down. Holding up some Undies? Lightweight compared to the OTJudy Taylor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:


I would say so ... FW that's worth  ... I'm sure it's an attention getter - and better than what Alexander
who the world calls "great" did to the Jewish temple.  judyt
 
On Tue, 21 Jun 2005 04:50:07 -0700 (PDT) Kevin Deegan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:

Yes we do you not whereof you speak.
We have a lawsuit in federal court over the Police Stealing one of our banners which stated "ALLAH is NOT God" at the Detroit Muslim fest
Is the muslim equiv of Undie waving, 3 big pigs labeled ALLAH, Mohammed, Bin Lyin?Lance Muir <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:


As Kevin has so often challenged me 'why not answer the actual question(s) asked? Mind, I don't blame you as it's perfectly understandable, Kevin. You don't (replicate in front of Mosques in the USA that which you do at other locals throughout the USA and, utilizing the same methodology) and, you won't. Do you not view Isam as an = if not greater heresy throughout the land?
 
Answer: You are correct, Lance. I simply am not called to do this.
 
FTR Q: Does it appear that anyone else IS called to do this?
Answer: No, it would appear not.HMM?

- Original Message - 
From: Kevin Deegan 
To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org 
Sent: June 21, 2005 07:28
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Hill Cumorah

We do - you SIT
We preach - you lecture on what you do not doLance Muir <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:


I looked at the photo-journal of the SPer's trip. What a waste! A Muslim country? You live in one. As for both trips; the one taken and the one projected, why not take care of 'business' at home? My question was:Why not replicate in front of 'your' Mosques what you do at Mardi Gras, Super Bowl etc.? You won't and, for good reason. 

- Original Message - 
From: Kevin Deegan 
To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org 
Sent: June 20, 2005 18:24
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Hill Cumorah

Want to come with us to a muslim country to preach?Lance Muir <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: 


Now, there's a collection of pictures I'd enjoy having a look at.Of course y'all do this with the same frequency as the others, eh? Will you tell which Mosques, how many and, with what frequency?
 
Do 'you' believe that Muhammed was inspired to write the Koran by the same one who inspired the BOM namely, Satan?

- Original Message - 
From: Kevin Deegan 
To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org 
Sent: June 20, 2005 14:33
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Hill Cumorah

The plain answer is yes
what is your point? your'e afraid?Lance Muir <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:




I'm confident that you wouldn't be INTENTIONALLY EVASIVE so, please answer the question as asked. Employing the 'model' (placards, bullhorns etc.)provided for us by DM & Kevin vis a vis the Super Bowl, Mardis Gras and, outside the Temple in Salt Lake City, would they do the same thing outside a mosque (a Muslim place of worship) and, if not then, whey not?
 
Do revisit what kicked this discussion off. There is a serious point to be made here.

- Original Message - 
From: Judy Taylor 
To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org 
Cc: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org 
Sent: June 20, 2005 06:56
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Hill Cumorah

I don't know about DavidM but I'm sure Kevin and Ruben have encountered Muslims in their SP travels. I figure it
would be tit for tat (with truth on their side) since Muslims call everyone and everything Western "the great Satan"  My Scots friend tells me that in the UK the Muslims have taken over and that now the Red Cross will not put anything Christian out at Christmas for fear of offending them.  Her brother in Manchester England says he will not give the Red Cross another cent because of it and he isn't even religious.  jt
 
On Mon, 20 Jun 2005 06:34:36 -0400 "Lance Muir" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:

I do not have a problem with 'exposure'. I don't think that that is Dave's point though.
May I suggest that an equal. if not greater, danger to believers lies within Islam. Could you imagine David Miller or Kevin going to Mosques and, utilizing bullhorns, villify the attendants by addressing THEM as servants of Satan?

From: Judy Taylor 
 
I would think it would be more like Jeremiah (see Jer 13:1,2); this is obviously a one time object lesson to
the part of Israel Jeremiah was ministering to rather than a pattern of behavior for all time.  However, part of public proclamation of Truth by nature involves exposing the lie of the false gods which of course will be offensive to those who worship them.  Why do you have such a problem with this?  jt
 
On Mon, 20 Jun 2005 05:58:55 -0400 "Lance Muir" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:

Elijah.

From: Judy Taylor 
 
Can you give us a "for instance" DaveH?  jt

Dave Hansen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:




DAVEH:  As

Re: [TruthTalk] Belief

Anyone that thinks that God created the heavens and the earth and yet can not keep the right ink on some paper has a screw loose! And I say that with all gentleness and love.Kevin Deegan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

Is this better?
the god who you worship is NOT able to put some ink on a page of paper and to preserve the content thereof. Which makes you more of a god than him since you do it in a different medium everyday (TT)Lance Muir <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:


The court excuses the witness as he's fallen back on name calling for lack of an answer. Again Kevin, I don't blame you for so doing. You shine in other areas but, not on this one.

- Original Message - 
From: Kevin Deegan 
To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org 
Sent: June 21, 2005 07:56
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Belief

Your god is a pipsqueak not capable of preserving his word!
 
I suspect he is not capable of anything.
 
Lance Muir <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:


Nope! Even with God in the equation, imperfection (humanism if you like, though I prefer humanity) is still the outcome.

- Original Message - 
From: Kevin Deegan 
To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org 
Sent: June 21, 2005 07:44
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Belief

My point exactly (see previous post) 
YOU LEAVE God OUT of the EQUATION.
This is possibly why you have been called a HUMANist.Lance Muir <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:


Granted that 'Pontificating' is both easier and, more fun, I'll stick my nose in just a touch (discuss). The Scriptures first appeared written in the languages spoken by those to whom they were given. (non-controversial!) Thereafter they were translated by men (mostly but, women participate in the activity now) into other than the original languages (also non-controversial). In the very activity of translating, these men/women invest part of themselves into the translations. (I'd say non-controversial here also) Outcome? Imperfection!
 
From: Kevin Deegan 

To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org 
Sent: June 21, 2005 07:25
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Belief

Would you like to discuss such or just Pontificate?Lance Muir <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: 


Herein you sound like a Mormon, Kevin. Belief overrides understanding. That's OK as everyone does this from time to time.

- Original Message - 
From: Kevin Deegan 
To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org 
Sent: June 21, 2005 07:16
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Belief

You misunderstand?
It is not a work of men but a work of God
 
Pull a little harder I am not moved yet.Lance Muir <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:




Kevin's meaning?
 
1. 'I do not see it as... Therefore it might be imperfectly translated
 
2. 'I see it as ...It is sufficiently representative of that which is necessary for 'salvation'. 
 
3. It ain't perfect but, it is sufficient. Therefore, so are most, if not all, other translations.
 
It's a far cry from what you've said in the past. It's a step in the right direction, Kevin. 

- Original Message - 
From: Kevin Deegan 
To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org 
Sent: June 21, 2005 06:53
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Belief

I do not see it as "perfectly translated" (by men)
I see it as God's word (transmitted & preserved by Him)
KJVDave Hansen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
DAVEH:   Which version do you consider, perfectly translated, Kevin?   Kevin Deegan wrote: 

I hold the PERFECT Word of God in my hands. NO ERRORS.Dave Hansen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: 
DAVEH:   Ahhh.thanx for clearing the cobwebs, Lance!    Was there not just recently a big discussion on TT about the accuracy of some of the Bible translations.   There was a little concern about the JW green Bible.  And in previous years we've discussed how the NIV version dropped a few passages that are found in the KJV.   Just why do we have so many versions of the Bible, if someone didn't think there was a problem with the existing versions?   Surely they can't all be translated correctly.do you disagree?    Furthermore, when two Christians determine doctrines differently from the same source, does that not cause one to ponder why?   Could it be the translations are not adequately conveying what God wants understood?  I don't view that as being a weakness of God
 , but rather a weakness of the translation.  Is that a reasonable stance?    So Lance, I would ask you (or any TTer) if you believe any particular translation of the Bible is 100% accurate.  If the answer is yes, may I assume you would then also believe that the other translations are less than 100% accurate?   Now, if the answer is you do not believe a particular translation is 100% accurate, then would you take my position and accept the Bible to be the word of God as far as it it translated correctly?       I would sure be interested to know if any TTers really do believe a given translation is 100% accurate.   And if you fear reprisal from other TTers for whatever comments you might have, post it to me off-Forum.  As you know, I will not mock or denigrate your commentsI'm sincerely interested in kn

Re: [TruthTalk] Hill Cumorah

Are you still looking for my Name Rank & Serial number?
Is that it?Lance Muir <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

The brother Judy, is all about 'pressing'. That's what he does! Besides, this fellow is more than capable of 'handling someone as insignificant as mois. Ain't that so, Kevin? 

- Original Message - 
From: Judy Taylor 
To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org 
Cc: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org 
Sent: June 21, 2005 07:52
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Hill Cumorah

Could be God has given these ppl over to a 'reprobate mind' Lance.  It's a possibility isn't it? Anyway
no prophecy of scripture was ever written by the 'will of man' and no individual will ever by saved 
by the 'will of man' either - so why press the brother to do your will rather than obey God?  jt

On Tue, 21 Jun 2005 07:42:23 -0400 "Lance Muir" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:

As Kevin has so often challenged me 'why not answer the actual question(s) asked? Mind, I don't blame you as it's perfectly understandable, Kevin. You don't (replicate in front of Mosques in the USA that which you do at other locals throughout the USA and, utilizing the same methodology) and, you won't. Do you not view Isam as an = if not greater heresy throughout the land?

Answer: You are correct, Lance. I simply am not called to do this.

FTR Q: Does it appear that anyone else IS called to do this?
Answer: No, it would appear not.HMM?

From: Kevin Deegan 

We do - you SIT
We preach - you lecture on what you do not doLance Muir <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

I looked at the photo-journal of the SPer's trip. What a waste! A Muslim country? You live in one. As for both trips; the one taken and the one projected, why not take care of 'business' at home? My question was:Why not replicate in front of 'your' Mosques what you do at Mardi Gras, Super Bowl etc.? You won't and, for good reason. 

- Original Message - 
From: Kevin Deegan 
To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org 
Sent: June 20, 2005 18:24
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Hill Cumorah

Want to come with us to a muslim country to preach?Lance Muir <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: 

Now, there's a collection of pictures I'd enjoy having a look at.Of course y'all do this with the same frequency as the others, eh? Will you tell which Mosques, how many and, with what frequency?

Do 'you' believe that Muhammed was inspired to write the Koran by the same one who inspired the BOM namely, Satan?

- Original Message - 
From: Kevin Deegan 
To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org 
Sent: June 20, 2005 14:33
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Hill Cumorah

The plain answer is yes
what is your point? your'e afraid?Lance Muir <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

I'm confident that you wouldn't be INTENTIONALLY EVASIVE so, please answer the question as asked. Employing the 'model' (placards, bullhorns etc.)provided for us by DM & Kevin vis a vis the Super Bowl, Mardis Gras and, outside the Temple in Salt Lake City, would they do the same thing outside a mosque (a Muslim place of worship) and, if not then, whey not?

Do revisit what kicked this discussion off. There is a serious point to be made here.

- Original Message - 
From: Judy Taylor 
To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org 
Cc: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org 
Sent: June 20, 2005 06:56
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Hill Cumorah

I don't know about DavidM but I'm sure Kevin and Ruben have encountered Muslims in their SP travels. I figure it
would be tit for tat (with truth on their side) since Muslims call everyone and everything Western "the great Satan"  My Scots friend tells me that in the UK the Muslims have taken over and that now the Red Cross will not put anything Christian out at Christmas for fear of offending them.  Her brother in Manchester England says he will not give the Red Cross another cent because of it and he isn't even religious.  jt

On Mon, 20 Jun 2005 06:34:36 -0400 "Lance Muir" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:

I do not have a problem with 'exposure'. I don't think that that is Dave's point though.
May I suggest that an equal. if not greater, danger to believers lies within Islam. Could you imagine David Miller or Kevin going to Mosques and, utilizing bullhorns, villify the attendants by addressing THEM as servants of Satan?

From: Judy Taylor 

I would think it would be more like Jeremiah (see Jer 13:1,2); this is obviously a one time object lesson to
the part of Israel Jeremiah was ministering to rather than a pattern of behavior for all time.  However, part of public proclamation of Truth by nature involves exposing the lie of the false gods which of course will be offensive to those who worship them.  Why do you have such a problem with this?  jt

On Mon, 20 Jun 2005 05:58:55 -0400 "Lance Muir" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:

Elijah.

From: Judy Taylor 

Can you give us a "for instance" DaveH?  jt

Dave Hansen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

DAVEH:  As I understand your position (and please correct me if I am misunderstanding your position), many Christians (specifically you, in this insta

[TruthTalk] To the TT lurkers



   There are several members of Truth Talk that are signed up, but have 
never posted. We affectionately call you "lurkers".


   For all who are lurking on TT, you are always welcome to come and go as 
you please. Posting is not required.


   If anyone who is signed up and prefers not to post but would like to 
send me, the moderator, comments privately, I encourage you to do so.  If 
you have questions, comments, observations, or suggestions I would love to 
hear from you, and your personal emails to me will remain confidential. A 
suggestion: if you do write to me privately please put **private** in the 
subject line to tip me off.


   Again, welcome to TT.

Perry the Moderator


--
"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] Belief


Thank you for your answer, Perry.  I am wondering if the Mormon folk would make the same argument but with different claims about Jesus.   Is the "real" Jesus a procreated being?   there may be other qustions -- but that seems to me to a very important question.   Blaine, Dave     By the way, gentlemen, there are two questions in the above.  
 
I want to fully agree with Perry  --   but if we share in some misconceptions about Christ,   and I think we do,  what effect does this have on a soverign being full of grace and patience and love?   Assume two things on my part  --   that I am not moving to ward a theology of universalism and that I see "faith" as "conviction accompanied with content  -  whether that content is correct (i.e. Peter's confession) or incorrect  (i.e. the non-meat eater in Romans 14).   
 
My concern with this line of questioning has as much to do with how I view Judy Taylor as it has to do with Blaine and Dave.   Judy denies that Jesus is the eternal Son of God.  Why should I not consider her to be a heretic?   And will your answer put her "within the fold"  while excluding Blaine and Dave.     
 
 
 
 
JD  -Original Message-From: Charles Perry Locke <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgSent: Tue, 21 Jun 2005 06:22:35 -0700Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Belief


John,    None of us DOES have a thouroughly accurate picture of Jesus. But you argument dows not follow from our discussion. I think you can take things away from one's knowledge of Jesus and still have the right one, but start adding stuff, and you get the wrong one. One also can misunderstand an aspect of Jesus, and still be on track.    However, when you start adding extra-biblical stuff you end up with a different jesus. For example, is the Jesus you know the brother of Satan? Did he have a mother and a father in heaven, making him a procreated being? Was his father once a man from the planet Kolob? If so, then you are a mormon! If not, then you know a different Jesus than the mormon Jesus.    One of the primary ways we identify people is by their lineage. Who is their father? Where are they from? Who is their brother? The mormon jesus fails ALL of these traditional tests for iden
tifying people. Same jesus? You tell me.  Perry  >From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >Reply-To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org >To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org >Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Belief >Date: Tue, 21 Jun 2005 01:45:28 -0400 > >What if NONE of us have a thoroughly accurate picture of Jesus (a >possibility with a high degree of probability, I think) would that mean >there is no Jesus at all? !!! I mean, if the True Christ only exists in >our accurate defining of Him -- what then? Can Dave have the wrong >teaching and the right Christ or does Christ only exist for those who think >correctly? > >JD > >-Original Message- >From: Charles Perry Locke <[EMAIL PROTECTED]&
gt; >To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org >Sent: Mon, 20 Jun 2005 22:02:37 -0700 >Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Belief > > >Dave, > > I think you are right. You are entitled to your jesus, and the onus is >on us to prove him to not be the same as our Jesus. I feel we have done >that. Repeatedly. But, you do not accept our evidence, and I suppose short >of having a vision, you never will. > > You have not said our Jesus is a false jesus because, since you say you >beleive in the same Jesus we believe in, that would be like shooting >yourself in the foot. > >Perry > > >From: Dave Hansen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > >Reply-To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org > >To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org > >Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Belief > >Date: Mon, 20 Jun 2005 21:55:30 -0700 > > > >DAVEH: Logically, the onus is not upon me to define the Jesus I believe > >in, but rather it is on the person who suggests I don't believe in Jesus. > >FTRI have not said that the Jesus Kevin, you Perry or any other TTer > >believes in is a false Jesus. > > > >Lance Muir wrote: > > > >>DaveH says "Kevin, I believe in Jesus." IFF we are going to engage in a > >>conversation that entails reality, then we have to continue to build >upon >>that which has been said previously.According to you THE JESUS TO BE > >>BELIEVED IN IS MOST FULLY AND ACCURATELY DESCRIBED WITHIN MORMON >TEACHING. >>Is this so? The Jesus believed in by Kevin, Perry, Lance et al >is a false >>Jesus. Is this not also so? (unwieldy but, you get my >p
oint)What, IYO, are >>the eternal consequenses for non-Mormons? Mr. >Moderator:Please grant >>DaveH the opportunity of fully answering and, >explaining. > >> > >> - Original Message - > >> *From:* Dave Hansen  > >> *To:* TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org > >>  > >> *Sent:* June 19, 2005 23:02 > >> *Subject:* Re: [TruthTalk] Belief > >> > >> DAVEH: FTR Kevin, I believe in Jesus. Therefore can we conclude > >> that you've made the judgment rather than God? > >> > >> Kevin Deegan wrote: > >> > >>> He will! > >>> *He Has!* 
> >>> *JN 3:18 He t

Re: [TruthTalk] Fw: For Judy





Really Lance,
You need to warn Jonathan about receiving teaching from ppl such as this 
because it is not faith enhancing at all. This is is probably a well-meaning 
fellow but his teaching is full of fear and has no new argument.  All of 
his scriptures are NT.  Peter's proclamation, John 3:16 etc. He uses lots 
of words and just goes round and round with the same ol, same ol.  He 
accuses those who deny the "eternal" part of using carnal reasoning and then 
goes on to do the same himself along with some new accusations ie: those 
who don't subscribe to his doctrine are denying the Son and under God's wrath, 
and they are Socian (which is someone who denies the 
trinity); this man is another follower of Athanasius and the Nicene 
creed.
 
For the record God does not mind us questioning when we do not understand; 
he told the prophet "Come let us reason together."  And second I do not 
deny the Sonship of Christ nor do I have a problem with the Godhead.  I 
believe according to the scriptures that the second member of the eternal 
Godhead known as God The Word became Jesus the Son when He was born to Mary 
which is/was prophesied in Psalm 2:7 "Thou art my Son, this day 
have I begotten Thee"  
So Jesus the Christ had a beginning and the word begotten is the operative 
one, in Strongs it is #3205 Yalad meaning "bearing young, midwife" Hebrews 
1:5 validates this understanding and so does Matt 8:29 - (even the demons knew 
about it and feared because noone had challenged them under the Old 
Covenant).  There are others who God calls sons ie: the angels, Israel, and 
even Satan as a created being but Jesus is the only one who was 
"begotten" of God.
 
That's my foundation.  Now if you can come up with something better 
from the OT without all of this circular religious reasoning; 
 something clear from the mouths of two or more OT witnesses - I am 
eager to hear it.  Still waiting patiently .   judyt
 
 
On Tue, 21 Jun 2005 08:34:32 -0400 "Lance Muir" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 
writes:From: "Jonathan Hughes" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>The True, Proper, 
and Eternal Sonship of the Lord Jesus Christ the  Only Begotten 
Son of God  http://www.the-highway.com/Sonship_Contents.html

Re: [TruthTalk] Fw: For Judy




So then Judy, no repentance forthcoming. Actually, 
this conversation took place long ago in a galaxy far, far away. JHughes, 
BTaylor and JTaylor went on and on and on..
It's a done deal, Judy.

  - Original Message - 
  From: 
  Judy 
  Taylor 
  To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org 
  
  Cc: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org 
  
  Sent: June 21, 2005 11:32
  Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Fw: For 
  Judy
  
  
  Really Lance,
  You need to warn Jonathan about receiving teaching from ppl such as this 
  because it is not faith enhancing at all. This is is probably a well-meaning 
  fellow but his teaching is full of fear and has no new argument.  All of 
  his scriptures are NT.  Peter's proclamation, John 3:16 etc. He uses lots 
  of words and just goes round and round with the same ol, same ol.  He 
  accuses those who deny the "eternal" part of using carnal reasoning and then 
  goes on to do the same himself along with some new accusations ie: those 
  who don't subscribe to his doctrine are denying the Son and under God's wrath, 
  and they are Socian (which is someone who denies the 
  trinity); this man is another follower of Athanasius and the Nicene 
  creed.
   
  For the record God does not mind us questioning when we do not 
  understand; he told the prophet "Come let us reason together."  And 
  second I do not deny the Sonship of Christ nor do I have a problem with the 
  Godhead.  I believe according to the scriptures that the second member of 
  the eternal Godhead known as God The Word became Jesus the Son when He was 
  born to Mary which is/was prophesied in Psalm 2:7 "Thou art my Son, 
  this day have I begotten Thee"  
  So Jesus the Christ had a beginning and the word begotten is the 
  operative one, in Strongs it is #3205 Yalad meaning "bearing young, 
  midwife" Hebrews 1:5 validates this understanding and so does Matt 8:29 - 
  (even the demons knew about it and feared because noone had challenged them 
  under the Old Covenant).  There are others who God calls sons ie: the 
  angels, Israel, and even Satan as a created being but Jesus is the 
  only one who was "begotten" of God.
   
  That's my foundation.  Now if you can come up with something better 
  from the OT without all of this circular religious reasoning; 
   something clear from the mouths of two or more OT witnesses - I am 
  eager to hear it.  Still waiting patiently .   judyt
   
   
  On Tue, 21 Jun 2005 08:34:32 -0400 "Lance Muir" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 
  writes:From: "Jonathan Hughes" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>The True, Proper, 
  and Eternal Sonship of the Lord Jesus Christ the Only Begotten 
  Son of God http://www.the-highway.com/Sonship_Contents.html

Re: [TruthTalk] Mormons on TT: Will you afford us the same privilege??

2005-06-21 Thread Dave Hansen





DAVEH:   I'm lost on this one, Lance.   Perhaps I deleted a previous
pertinent post that would answer my question.which is:   To whom
are you addressing this?

Lance Muir wrote:

  
  
  
  Will you do for us what TT (read
David Miller) has done for you? Assuming non-uniformity within the LDS
(I do not refer here to fringe or breakaway groups but mainstream LDS):
   
  Identify a dozen or so issues over
which current Mormon discussion is taking place.
   
  What are the two or three 'hot
button' issues of considerable disagreement?
   
  What questions do you personally
have concerning the content of your faith?
   
  To which questions have you received
as yet no/unsatisfactory answers?
   
  thanks for this,
   
  Lance
   
   


-- 
~~~
Dave Hansen
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.langlitz.com
~~~
If you wish to receive
things I find interesting,
I maintain six email lists...
JOKESTER, OPINIONS, LDS,
STUFF, MOTORCYCLE and CLIPS.

Re: [TruthTalk] Belief




Before you become a "heretick hunter" JD. I would challenge you also to 
prove your "eternal Son" doctrine
by God's Word.  Show me from the OT that He is an eternal Son.  
J.C. Philpot is so worried about protecting
the doctrine of the trinity that one of his arguments is that if Jesus is 
not eternally equal with the Father then
the trinity is all messed up - But Jesus Himself says "The Father is 
greater than I" (John 14:28) How so?  
Something does not smell right  ..  judyt
 
On Tue, 21 Jun 2005 11:32:24 -0400 [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:

  
  
  My concern with this line of questioning has as much to do with how I 
  view Judy Taylor as it has to do with Blaine and Dave.   Judy denies that Jesus is the eternal Son of 
  God.  Why should I not consider her to be 
  a heretic?   And will your answer put her "within the 
  fold"  while excluding Blaine and Dave. 
  JD  From: Charles Perry Locke [EMAIL PROTECTED]
  

  John,    
  None of us DOES have a thouroughly accurate picture of Jesus. But you argument 
  dows not follow from our discussion. I think you can take things away from 
  one's knowledge of Jesus and still have the right one, but start adding stuff, 
  and you get the wrong one. One also can misunderstand an aspect of Jesus, and 
  still be on track.    However, when you start adding 
  extra-biblical stuff you end up with a different jesus. For example, is the 
  Jesus you know the brother of Satan? Did he have a mother and a father in 
  heaven, making him a procreated being? Was his father once a man from the 
  planet Kolob? If so, then you are a mormon! If not, then you know a different 
  Jesus than the mormon Jesus.    One of the primary ways 
  we identify people is by their lineage. Who is their father? Where are they 
  from? Who is their brother? The mormon jesus fails ALL of these traditional 
  tests for iden tifying people. Same jesus? You tell 
  me.  Perry  >From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >Reply-To: 
  TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org >To: 
  TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org >Subject: 
  Re: [TruthTalk] Belief >Date: Tue, 21 Jun 2005 01:45:28 
  -0400 > >What if NONE of us have a thoroughly accurate 
  picture of Jesus (a >possibility with a high degree of probability, I 
  think) would that mean >there is no Jesus at all? !!! I mean, if the True 
  Christ only exists in >our accurate defining of Him -- what then? Can Dave 
  have the wrong >teaching and the right Christ or does Christ only exist for 
  those who think 
  >correctly? > >JD > >-Original 
  Message- >From: Charles Perry Locke <[EMAIL PROTECTED]& 
  gt; >To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org >Sent: 
  Mon, 20 Jun 2005 22:02:37 -0700 >Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] 
  Belief > > >Dave, > > 
  I think you are right. You are entitled to your jesus, and the onus is >on 
  us to prove him to not be the same as our Jesus. I feel we have done >that. 
  Repeatedly. But, you do not accept our evidence, and I suppose short >of 
  having a vision, you never will. > > You have not said 
  our Jesus is a false jesus because, since you say you >beleive in the same 
  Jesus we believe in, that would be like shooting >yourself in the 
  foot. > >Perry > > >From: 
  Dave Hansen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > 
  >Reply-To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org > 
  >To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org > 
  >Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Belief > >Date: Mon, 20 Jun 2005 
  21:55:30 -0700 > > > >DAVEH: Logically, the onus 
  is not upon me to define the Jesus I believe > >in, but rather it is on 
  the person who suggests I don't believe in Jesus. > >FTRI have not 
  said that the Jesus Kevin, you Perry or any other TTer > >believes in is 
  a false Jesus. > > > >Lance Muir 
  wrote: > > > >>DaveH says "Kevin, I believe 
  in Jesus." IFF we are going to engage in a > >>conversation that 
  entails reality, then we have to continue to build >upon >>that which 
  has been said previously.According to you THE JESUS TO BE > 
  >>BELIEVED IN IS MOST FULLY AND ACCURATELY DESCRIBED WITHIN MORMON 
  >TEACHING. >>Is this so? The Jesus believed in by Kevin, Perry, Lance 
  et al >is a false >>Jesus. Is this not also so? (unwieldy but, you 
  get my >p oint)What, IYO, are >>the eternal consequenses for 
  non-Mormons? Mr. >Moderator:Please grant >>DaveH the opportunity of 
  fully answering and, >explaining. > >> > 
  >> - Original Message - > >> *From:* Dave 
  Hansen  > 
  >> *To:* TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org > 
  >>  > 
  >> *Sent:* June 19, 2005 23:02 > >> *Subject:* Re: 
  [TruthTalk] Belief > >> > >> DAVEH: FTR 
  Kevin, I believe in Jesus. Therefore can we conclude > >> 
  that you've made the judgment rather than God? > 
  >> > >> Kevin Deegan wrote: > 
  >> > >>> He will! > >>> *He 
  Has!* > >>> *JN 3:18 He that believeth on him is not 
  condemned: but he that > >>> believeth not is condemned 
  already* > >>> > >>> */Dave Hansen 
  <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>/* 
  wrote: > >>> > >>> DAVEH: I fully 
  unders

Re: [TruthTalk] Hill Cumorah




Name:Kevin  Rank:SPGeneral Serial 
#:666

  - Original Message - 
  From: 
  Kevin 
  Deegan 
  To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org 
  
  Sent: June 21, 2005 10:33
  Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Hill 
  Cumorah
  
  Are you still looking for my Name Rank & Serial number?
  Is that it?Lance Muir <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 
  wrote:
  

The brother Judy, is all about 'pressing'. 
That's what he does! Besides, this fellow is more than capable of 'handling 
someone as insignificant as mois. Ain't that so, Kevin? 

  - Original Message - 
  From: 
  Judy 
  Taylor 
  To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org 
  
  Cc: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org 
  
  Sent: June 21, 2005 07:52
  Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Hill 
  Cumorah
  
  Could be God has given these ppl over to a 'reprobate mind' 
  Lance.  It's a possibility isn't it? Anyway
  no prophecy of scripture was ever written by the 'will of man' and no 
  individual will ever by saved 
  by the 'will of man' either - so why press the brother to do your 
  will rather than obey God?  jt
   
  On Tue, 21 Jun 2005 07:42:23 -0400 "Lance Muir" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 
  writes:
  
As Kevin has so often challenged me 'why 
not answer the actual question(s) asked? Mind, I don't blame you as it's 
perfectly understandable, Kevin. You don't (replicate in front of 
Mosques in the USA that which you do at other locals throughout the USA 
and, utilizing the same methodology) and, you won't. Do you not view 
Isam as an = if not greater heresy throughout the land?
 
Answer: You are correct, Lance. I simply am 
not called to do this.
 
FTR Q: Does it appear that anyone else IS 
called to do this?
Answer: No, it would appear 
not.HMM?

  From: Kevin Deegan 
   
  We do - you SIT
  We preach - you lecture on what you do not 
  doLance Muir <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 
  wrote:
  

I looked at the photo-journal of the 
SPer's trip. What a waste! A Muslim country? You live in one. As for 
both trips; the one taken and the one projected, why not take care 
of 'business' at home? My question was:Why not replicate in front of 
'your' Mosques what you do at Mardi Gras, Super Bowl etc.? You won't 
and, for good reason. 

  - Original Message - 
  From: 
  Kevin Deegan 
  To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org 
  
  Sent: June 20, 2005 
  18:24
  Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Hill 
  Cumorah
  
  Want to come with us to a muslim country to 
  preach?Lance Muir <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 
  wrote: 
  

Now, there's a collection of 
pictures I'd enjoy having a look at.Of course y'all do this with 
the same frequency as the others, eh? Will you tell which 
Mosques, how many and, with what frequency?
 
Do 'you' believe that Muhammed was 
inspired to write the Koran by the same one who inspired the BOM 
namely, Satan?

  - Original Message - 
  
  From: 
  Kevin Deegan 
  To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org 
  
  Sent: June 20, 2005 
  14:33
  Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] 
  Hill Cumorah
  
  The plain answer is yes
  what is your point? your'e afraid?Lance 
  Muir <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 
  wrote:
  



I'm confident that you wouldn't 
be INTENTIONALLY EVASIVE so, please answer the question as 
asked. Employing the 'model' (placards, bullhorns 
etc.)provided for us by DM & Kevin vis a vis the Super 
Bowl, Mardis Gras and, outside the Temple in Salt Lake City, 
would they do the same thing outside a mosque (a Muslim 
place of worship) and, if not then, whey not?
 
Do revisit what kicked this 
discussion off. There is a serious point to be made 
here.

  - Original Message - 
  
  From: 
  Judy Taylor 
  To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org 
  
  Cc: TruthTalk@ma

Re: [TruthTalk] Fw: For Judy




You are looking in the wrong place for repentance Lance.  I asked you 
for scriptural grounds for your belief which is something neither you, 
Jonathan, nor Bill Taylor have proferred so far.  Other men's opinions are 
what you feed upon and so long as this is so we will continue to go around in 
endless circles.  Hopefully one of these days you will realize that 
there is just One who has ALL truth and begin to seek Him for answers - then we 
will make some headway.  judyt
 
On Tue, 21 Jun 2005 11:44:55 -0400 "Lance Muir" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:

  So then Judy, no repentance forthcoming. 
  Actually, this conversation took place long ago in a galaxy far, far away. 
  JHughes, BTaylor and JTaylor went on and on and on..
  It's a done deal, Judy.
  
From: Judy Taylor 
 

Really Lance,
You need to warn Jonathan about receiving teaching from ppl such as 
this because it is not faith enhancing at all. This is is probably a 
well-meaning fellow but his teaching is full of fear and has no new 
argument.  All of his scriptures are NT.  Peter's proclamation, 
John 3:16 etc. He uses lots of words and just goes round and round with the 
same ol, same ol.  He accuses those who deny the "eternal" part of 
using carnal reasoning and then goes on to do the same himself along with 
some new accusations ie: those who don't subscribe to his doctrine are 
denying the Son and under God's wrath, and they are Socian (which is someone 
who denies the trinity); this man is another follower of 
Athanasius and the Nicene creed.
 
For the record God does not mind us questioning when we do not 
understand; he told the prophet "Come let us reason together."  And 
second I do not deny the Sonship of Christ nor do I have a problem with the 
Godhead.  I believe according to the scriptures that the second member 
of the eternal Godhead known as God The Word became Jesus the Son when He 
was born to Mary which is/was prophesied in Psalm 2:7 "Thou art my Son, 
this day have I begotten Thee"  

So Jesus the Christ had a beginning and the word begotten is the 
operative one, in Strongs it is #3205 Yalad meaning "bearing young, 
midwife" Hebrews 1:5 validates this understanding and so does Matt 8:29 
- (even the demons knew about it and feared because noone had challenged 
them under the Old Covenant).  There are others who God calls sons ie: 
the angels, Israel, and even Satan as a created being but Jesus is 
the only one who was "begotten" of 
God.
 
That's my foundation.  Now if you can come up with something 
better from the OT without all of this circular religious reasoning; 
 something clear from the mouths of two or more OT witnesses - I 
am eager to hear it.  Still waiting patiently .   
judyt
 
 
On Tue, 21 Jun 2005 08:34:32 -0400 "Lance Muir" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 
writes:From: "Jonathan Hughes" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>The True, 
Proper, and Eternal Sonship of the Lord Jesus Christ 
the Only Begotten Son of God http://www.the-highway.com/Sonship_Contents.html

Re: [TruthTalk] Hill Cumorah





Lance Muir wrote:

  
  

  
  Linda asks 'Don't you, Lance?' of
the query: 'Do you believe Satan to have been the inspiration for both
the Koran and the BOM'? I doubt that either was inspired by Satan. IFF
you, Kevin and Perry actually KNOW THIS TO BE THE CASE then, lay it out
for a misguided 'lib'. None of you will, of course but, at least you
got asked.

=
It seems very reasonable to assume that Satan is behind the scenes in
both religions, Lance.

He is the enemy of God, so he wants to lead people away from a
relationship with God.  He is a deceiver.  That is his role in this
plan of which we are all a part..  He is a liar and the father of
lies.  He, having thousands of years of experience and a more evil mind
than any man, is able to come up with much more believable lies than
men can invent.  To assume that Mohammed or Joe Smith were not his
willing vessels would be to vastly underestimate his influence.  Never
underestimate your enemy.
Terry

Re: [TruthTalk] Belief

Judy, it is not the correctness of my position that is in view in my posted concern.   Deegan and Shields have clearly put me in the camp of Satan.  to disagree with their view of the biblical message is apparently the deciding factor, although they do not agree with each other.   Their confusion with personal interpretation and biblical truth is obvious.   You, on the other hand, are not so confused.   You actually have a doctrinal system for 
your denial  --  a doctrinal opinion that is heretical in my opinion.   Why should I not act upon that belief?   How do I include you in the  family of God and NOT our Mormon participants?    that is the question.   
 
 
JD
 
 
-Original Message-From: Judy Taylor To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgCc: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgSent: Tue, 21 Jun 2005 11:44:31 -0400Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Belief



Before you become a "heretick hunter" JD. I would challenge you also to prove your "eternal Son" doctrine
by God's Word.  Show me from the OT that He is an eternal Son.  J.C. Philpot is so worried about protecting
the doctrine of the trinity that one of his arguments is that if Jesus is not eternally equal with the Father then
the trinity is all messed up - But Jesus Himself says "The Father is greater than I" (John 14:28) How so?  
Something does not smell right  ..  judyt
 
On Tue, 21 Jun 2005 11:32:24 -0400 [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:



My concern with this line of questioning has as much to do with how I view Judy Taylor as it has to do with Blaine and Dave.   Judy denies that Jesus is the eternal Son of God.  Why should I not consider her to be a heretic?   And will your answer put her "within the fold"  while excluding Blaine and Dave. JD  From: Charles Perry Locke [EMAIL PROTECTED]


John,    None of us DOES have a thouroughly accurate picture of Jesus. But you argument dows not follow from our discussion. I think you can take things away from one's knowledge of Jesus and still have the right one, but start adding stuff, and you get the wrong one. One also can misunderstand an aspect of Jesus, and still be on track.    However, when you start adding extra-biblical stuff you end up with a different jesus. For example, is the Jesus you know the brother of Satan? Did he have a mother and a father in heaven, making him a procreated being
? Was his father once a man from the planet Kolob? If so, then you are a mormon! If not, then you know a different Jesus than the mormon Jesus.    One of the primary ways we identify people is by their lineage. Who is their father? Where are they from? Who is their brother? The mormon jesus fails ALL of these traditional tests for iden tifying people. Same jesus? You tell m
e.  Perry  >From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >Reply-To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org >To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org >Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Belief >Date: Tue, 21 Jun 2005 01:45:28 -0400 > >What if NONE of us have a thoroughly accurate picture of Jesus (a >possibility with a high degree of probability, I think) would that mean >there is no Jesus at all? !!! I mean, if the True Christ only exists in >our accurate defining of Him -- what then? Can Dave have the wrong >teaching and the right Christ or does Christ only exist for those who think >correctly? > >JD > >-Original Message- >From: Charles Perry Locke <[EMAIL PROTECTED]& gt; >To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org >Sent: Mon, 20 Jun 2005 22:02:37 -0700 >Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Belief > > >Dave, > > I think you are right. You are entitled to your jesus, and the onus is >on us to prove him to not be the same as our Jesus. I feel we have done >that. Repeatedly. But, you do not accept our evidence, and I suppose short >of having a vision, yo
u never will. > > You have not said our Jesus is a false jesus because, since you say you >beleive in the same Jesus we believe in, that would be like shooting >yourself in the foot. > >Perry > > >From: Dave Hansen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > >Reply-To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org > >To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org > >Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Belief > >Date: Mon, 20 Jun 2005 21:55:30 -0700 > > > >DAVEH: Logically, the onus is not upon me to define the Jesus I believe > >in, but rather it is on the person who suggests I don't believe in Jesus. > >FTRI have not said that the Jesus Kevin, you Perry or any other TTer > >believes in is a false Jesus. > > > >Lance Muir wrote: > > > >>DaveH says "Kevin, I believe in Jesus." IFF we are going to engage in a > >>conversation that entails reality, then we have to continue to build >upon >>that which has been said previously.According to you THE JESUS TO BE > >>BELIEVED IN IS MOST FULLY AND ACCURATELY DESCRIBED WITHIN MORMON >TEACHING. >>Is this so? The Jesus believed in by Kevin, Perry, Lance et al >is a false >>Jesus. Is this not also so? (unwieldy but, you get my >p oint)What, IYO, are >>the eternal consequenses for non-Mormons? Mr. >Moderator:Please grant >>DaveH the opportunity of fully answering and, >explainin

Re: [TruthTalk] Belief

JD; I am wanting your scriptural foundation for why my
position is "heretical" in your words. That is, if your
opinion is founded upon God's Word. From what I can gather this
"eternal Son" doctrine came from the early
heretick hunters. Do you see yourself as one of them? I don't
know what other problems Arius had but IMO they
should have left well enough alone because vengeance belongs with God and
Jesus is well able to take care of
His Church. The rcc magisterium became the fruit of their system and
you are propagating their doctrine. jt
On Tue, 21 Jun 2005 12:10:55 -0400 [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:

Judy, it is not the correctness of my position that is in view in my
posted concern. Deegan and Shields have clearly put me in
the camp of Satan. to disagree with their view of the
biblical message is apparently the deciding factor, although
they do not agree with each other.
Their confusion with
personal interpretation and biblical truth
is obvious. You, on the other
hand, are not so confused. You actually have a doctrinal system
for your denial -- a doctrinal opinion that is heretical in
my opinion. Why should I not act upon that belief?
How do I include you in the family of God and NOT our Mormon
participants? that is the question.
JD
-Original Message-From: Judy Taylor To:
TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgCc: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgSent:
Tue, 21 Jun 2005 11:44:31 -0400Subject: Re: [TruthTalk]
Belief

Before you become a "heretick hunter"
JD. I
would challenge you also to prove your
"eternal Son" doctrine
by God's Word. Show me from the OT that He is an eternal
Son. J.C. Philpot is so worried about protecting
the doctrine of the trinity that one of his arguments is that if Jesus is
not eternally equal with the Father then
the trinity is all messed up - But Jesus Himself says "The Father is
greater than I" (John 14:28) How so?
Something does not smell right .. judyt
On Tue, 21 Jun 2005 11:32:24 -0400 [EMAIL PROTECTED]
writes:

My concern with this line of questioning has as much to do with how I
view Judy Taylor as it has to do with Blaine and Dave. Judy denies that Jesus is the eternal Son of
God. Why should I not consider her to
be a heretic? And will your answer put her "within the
fold" while excluding Blaine and Dave. JD From: Charles Perry Locke [EMAIL PROTECTED]

John,
None of us DOES have a thouroughly accurate picture of Jesus. But you argument
dows
not follow from our discussion. I think you can take things away from one's
knowledge of Jesus and still have the right one, but start adding stuff, and
you get the wrong one. One also can misunderstand an aspect of Jesus, and
still be on track. However, when you start adding
extra-biblical stuff you end up with a different jesus. For
example, is the Jesus you know the brother of Satan? Did he have a mother
and a father in heaven, making him a procreated being ? Was his father once
a man from the planet Kolob? If so, then you are a mormon! If not, then you
know a different Jesus than the mormon Jesus.
One of the primary ways we identify people is by their lineage. Who is their
father? Where are they from? Who is their brother? The mormon
jesus fails ALL of
these traditional tests for iden
tifying people. Same jesus? You tell m
e. Perry >From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >Reply-To:
TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org >To:
TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org >Subject:
Re: [TruthTalk] Belief >Date: Tue, 21 Jun 2005 01:45:28
-0400 > >What if NONE of us have a thoroughly
accurate picture of Jesus (a >possibility with a high degree of
probability, I think) would that mean >there is no Jesus at all? !!! I
mean, if the True Christ only exists in >our accurate defining of Him --
what then? Can Dave have the wrong >teaching and the right Christ or does
Christ only exist for those who think
>correctly? > >JD > >-Original
Message- >From: Charles Perry Locke <[EMAIL PROTECTED]&
gt; >To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org >Sent:
Mon, 20 Jun 2005 22:02:37 -0700 >Subject: Re:
[TruthTalk]
Belief > > >Dave, > >
I think you are right. You are entitled to your jesus, and the onus is
>on us to prove him to not be the same as our Jesus. I feel we have done
>that. Repeatedly. But, you do not accept our evidence, and I suppose
short >of having a vision, yo u never will. > >
You have not said our Jesus is a false jesus because, since you say you
>beleive in the same Jesus we believe in, that would be
like shooting >yourself in the
foot. > >Perry > > >From:
Dave Hansen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >
>Reply-To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org >
>To: TruthTalk@

Re: [TruthTalk] Mormons on TT: Will you afford us the same privilege??

TO YOU& BLAINE . 

  - Original Message - 
  From: 
  Dave Hansen 

  To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org 

  Sent: June 21, 2005 11:45
  Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Mormons on TT: 
  Will you afford us the same privilege??
  DAVEH:   I'm lost on this one, Lance.   
  Perhaps I deleted a previous pertinent post that would answer my 
  question.which is:   To whom are you addressing 
  this?Lance Muir wrote: 

Will you do for us what TT (read David Miller) 
has done for you? Assuming non-uniformity within the LDS (I do not refer 
here to fringe or breakaway groups but mainstream LDS):

Identify a dozen or so issues over which 
current Mormon discussion is taking place.

What are the two or three 'hot button' issues 
of considerable disagreement?

What questions do you personally have 
concerning the content of your faith?

To which questions have you received as yet 
no/unsatisfactory answers?

thanks for this,

Lance

 -- 
~~~
Dave Hansen
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.langlitz.com
~~~
If you wish to receive
things I find interesting,
I maintain six email lists...
JOKESTER, OPINIONS, LDS,
STUFF, MOTORCYCLE and CLIPS.

Re: [TruthTalk] Fw: For Judy




Probably every TT participant on TT is a HERETIC or 
a heretic.
(I'm confident that you get the distinction) On 
this issue Judy, you classify as a HERETIC (capitalized) This is a biggie. Let's 
just move on shall we? IMO, it would be of no avail for anyone to make an 
attempt at engaging you. (you could lose a limb yet continue to function 
successfully so)

  - Original Message - 
  From: 
  Judy 
  Taylor 
  To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org 
  
  Cc: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org 
  
  Sent: June 21, 2005 11:51
  Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Fw: For 
  Judy
  
  You are looking in the wrong place for repentance Lance.  I asked 
  you for scriptural grounds for your belief which is something 
  neither you, Jonathan, nor Bill Taylor have proferred so far.  Other 
  men's opinions are what you feed upon and so long as this is so we will 
  continue to go around in endless circles.  Hopefully one of these 
  days you will realize that there is just One who has ALL truth and begin 
  to seek Him for answers - then we will make some headway.  judyt
   
  On Tue, 21 Jun 2005 11:44:55 -0400 "Lance Muir" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 
writes:
  
So then Judy, no repentance forthcoming. 
Actually, this conversation took place long ago in a galaxy far, far away. 
JHughes, BTaylor and JTaylor went on and on and on..
It's a done deal, Judy.

  From: Judy Taylor 
   
  
  Really Lance,
  You need to warn Jonathan about receiving teaching from ppl such as 
  this because it is not faith enhancing at all. This is is probably a 
  well-meaning fellow but his teaching is full of fear and has no new 
  argument.  All of his scriptures are NT.  Peter's proclamation, 
  John 3:16 etc. He uses lots of words and just goes round and round with 
  the same ol, same ol.  He accuses those who deny the "eternal" part 
  of using carnal reasoning and then goes on to do the same himself along 
  with some new accusations ie: those who don't subscribe to his 
  doctrine are denying the Son and under God's wrath, and they are Socian 
  (which is someone who denies the trinity); this man is 
  another follower of Athanasius and the Nicene creed.
   
  For the record God does not mind us questioning when we do not 
  understand; he told the prophet "Come let us reason together."  And 
  second I do not deny the Sonship of Christ nor do I have a problem with 
  the Godhead.  I believe according to the scriptures that the second 
  member of the eternal Godhead known as God The Word became Jesus the Son 
  when He was born to Mary which is/was prophesied in Psalm 2:7 "Thou art my 
  Son, this day have I begotten 
  Thee"  
  So Jesus the Christ had a beginning and the word begotten is the 
  operative one, in Strongs it is #3205 Yalad meaning "bearing young, 
  midwife" Hebrews 1:5 validates this understanding and so does Matt 
  8:29 - (even the demons knew about it and feared because noone had 
  challenged them under the Old Covenant).  There are others who God 
  calls sons ie: the angels, Israel, and even Satan as a created being but 
  Jesus is the only one who was "begotten" 
  of God.
   
  That's my foundation.  Now if you can come up with something 
  better from the OT without all of this circular religious reasoning; 
   something clear from the mouths of two or more OT witnesses - I 
  am eager to hear it.  Still waiting patiently .   
  judyt
   
   
  On Tue, 21 Jun 2005 08:34:32 -0400 "Lance Muir" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 
  writes:From: "Jonathan Hughes" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>The True, 
  Proper, and Eternal Sonship of the Lord Jesus Christ 
  the Only Begotten Son of God http://www.the-highway.com/Sonship_Contents.html

Re: [TruthTalk] Hill Cumorah




To Terry:I believe it to be important that we not 
make 'Satan' responsible for everything. It may be 'reasonable' but not 
necessary I'm not as sure as others who post on this.

  - Original Message - 
  From: 
  Terry Clifton 
  To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org 
  
  Sent: June 21, 2005 11:54
  Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Hill 
  Cumorah
  Lance Muir wrote: 
  



Linda asks 'Don't you, Lance?' of the query: 
'Do you believe Satan to have been the inspiration for both the Koran and 
the BOM'? I doubt that either was inspired by Satan. IFF you, Kevin and 
Perry actually KNOW THIS TO BE THE CASE then, lay it out for a misguided 
'lib'. None of you will, of course but, at least you got 
  asked.=It 
  seems very reasonable to assume that Satan is behind the scenes in both 
  religions, Lance.He is the enemy of God, so he wants to lead people 
  away from a relationship with God.  He is a deceiver.  That is his 
  role in this plan of which we are all a part..  He is a liar and the 
  father of lies.  He, having thousands of years of experience and a more 
  evil mind than any man, is able to come up with much more believable lies than 
  men can invent.  To assume that Mohammed or Joe Smith were not his 
  willing vessels would be to vastly underestimate his influence.  Never 
  underestimate your enemy.Terry

Re: [TruthTalk] Fw: For Judy




You have an "OBLIGATION" as a professing 'believer' to speak the truth in 
love to me Lance Muir.  If you so believe
then straighten me out.  SHOW ME IN THE BIBLE BY TWO OR MORE WITNESSES 
where I am missing it. I want to see
some OT testimonies.  If it is such a BIGGIE then this should be 
important to you.  Is it your custom to just shove
everything under the rug because your "incarnation doctrine" covers it 
anyway?   Tell me why Jesus has to be an "eternal Son" in your own 
words and from your own perspective from God's Word.    
judyt
 
On Tue, 21 Jun 2005 12:53:12 -0400 "Lance Muir" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:

  Probably every TT participant on TT is a HERETIC 
  or a heretic.
  (I'm confident that you get the distinction) On 
  this issue Judy, you classify as a HERETIC (capitalized) This is a biggie. 
  Let's just move on shall we? IMO, it would be of no avail for anyone to make 
  an attempt at engaging you. (you could lose a limb yet continue to function 
  successfully so)
  
From: Judy Taylor 
 
You are looking in the wrong place for repentance Lance.  I asked 
you for scriptural grounds for your belief which is something 
neither you, Jonathan, nor Bill Taylor have proferred so far.  Other 
men's opinions are what you feed upon and so long as this is so we will 
continue to go around in endless circles.  Hopefully one of these 
days you will realize that there is just One who has ALL truth and 
begin to seek Him for answers - then we will make some headway.  
judyt
 
On Tue, 21 Jun 2005 11:44:55 -0400 "Lance Muir" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 
writes:

  So then Judy, no repentance forthcoming. 
  Actually, this conversation took place long ago in a galaxy far, far away. 
  JHughes, BTaylor and JTaylor went on and on and on..
  It's a done deal, Judy.
  
From: Judy 
Taylor 
 

Really Lance,
You need to warn Jonathan about receiving teaching from ppl such as 
this because it is not faith enhancing at all. This is is probably a 
well-meaning fellow but his teaching is full of fear and has no new 
argument.  All of his scriptures are NT.  Peter's 
proclamation, John 3:16 etc. He uses lots of words and just goes round 
and round with the same ol, same ol.  He accuses those who deny the 
"eternal" part of using carnal reasoning and then goes on to do the same 
himself along with some new accusations ie: those who don't 
subscribe to his doctrine are denying the Son and under God's wrath, and 
they are Socian (which is someone who denies the 
trinity); this man is another follower of Athanasius and the 
Nicene creed.
 
For the record God does not mind us questioning when we do not 
understand; he told the prophet "Come let us reason together."  And 
second I do not deny the Sonship of Christ nor do I have a problem with 
the Godhead.  I believe according to the scriptures that the second 
member of the eternal Godhead known as God The Word became Jesus the Son 
when He was born to Mary which is/was prophesied in Psalm 2:7 "Thou art 
my Son, this day have I begotten 
Thee"  
So Jesus the Christ had a beginning and the word begotten is the 
operative one, in Strongs it is #3205 Yalad meaning "bearing young, 
midwife" Hebrews 1:5 validates this understanding and so does Matt 
8:29 - (even the demons knew about it and feared because noone had 
challenged them under the Old Covenant).  There are others who God 
calls sons ie: the angels, Israel, and even Satan as a created being but 
Jesus is the only one who was 
"begotten" of God.
 
That's my foundation.  Now if you can come up with something 
better from the OT without all of this circular religious reasoning; 
 something clear from the mouths of two or more OT witnesses - 
I am eager to hear it.  Still waiting patiently .   
judyt
 
 
On Tue, 21 Jun 2005 08:34:32 -0400 "Lance Muir" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 
writes:From: "Jonathan Hughes" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>The True, 
Proper, and Eternal Sonship of the Lord Jesus Christ 
the Only Begotten Son of God http://www.the-highway.com/Sonship_Contents.html

Re: [TruthTalk] Belief

2005-06-21 Thread David Miller

John wrote to Judy:
> How do I include you in the  family of God
> and NOT our Mormon participants?

Do you really think that Judy's theology about the Godhead would determine 
whether or not she is in the family of God?  Does God accept or reject us 
based upon theology or faith?

I perceive that Judy's understanding of the Godhead is fine.  It seems to me 
that Judy perceives that Jesus Christ was eternally God in eternity past, 
but then at the time of the incarnation, he was made a little lower than the 
angels and was then begotten a Son at a distinct point in time, when he was 
born of Mary.  The Mormons differ.  It seems to me that they think God the 
Father as well as Jesus Christ were both, at some time prior to the 
incarnation, like us with all of our frailities and imperfections.  Correct 
me if I have that wrong, DaveH.

Peace be with you.
David Miller. 


--
"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] Fw: For Judy

Lance, sounds like a reasonable offer from Judy to resolve your current 
issue. Can you demonstrate such from scripture? If not, then using the term 
"heretical" for Judy's understanding does not seem warranted.


Perry


From: Judy Taylor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Reply-To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org
To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org
CC: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Fw: For Judy
Date: Tue, 21 Jun 2005 13:01:45 -0400

You have an "OBLIGATION" as a professing 'believer' to speak the truth in
love to me Lance Muir.  If you so believe
then straighten me out.  SHOW ME IN THE BIBLE BY TWO OR MORE WITNESSES
where I am missing it. I want to see
some OT testimonies.  If it is such a BIGGIE then this should be
important to you.  Is it your custom to just shove
everything under the rug because your "incarnation doctrine" covers it
anyway?   Tell me why Jesus has to be an "eternal Son" in your own words
and from your own perspective from God's Word.judyt

On Tue, 21 Jun 2005 12:53:12 -0400 "Lance Muir" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
writes:
Probably every TT participant on TT is a HERETIC or a heretic.
(I'm confident that you get the distinction) On this issue Judy, you
classify as a HERETIC (capitalized) This is a biggie. Let's just move on
shall we? IMO, it would be of no avail for anyone to make an attempt at
engaging you. (you could lose a limb yet continue to function
successfully so)
From: Judy Taylor

You are looking in the wrong place for repentance Lance.  I asked you for
scriptural grounds for your belief which is something neither you,
Jonathan, nor Bill Taylor have proferred so far.  Other men's opinions
are what you feed upon and so long as this is so we will continue to go
around in endless circles.  Hopefully one of these days you will realize
that there is just One who has ALL truth and begin to seek Him for
answers - then we will make some headway.  judyt

On Tue, 21 Jun 2005 11:44:55 -0400 "Lance Muir" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
writes:
So then Judy, no repentance forthcoming. Actually, this conversation took
place long ago in a galaxy far, far away. JHughes, BTaylor and JTaylor
went on and on and on..
It's a done deal, Judy.
From: Judy Taylor

Really Lance,
You need to warn Jonathan about receiving teaching from ppl such as this
because it is not faith enhancing at all. This is is probably a
well-meaning fellow but his teaching is full of fear and has no new
argument.  All of his scriptures are NT.  Peter's proclamation, John 3:16
etc. He uses lots of words and just goes round and round with the same
ol, same ol.  He accuses those who deny the "eternal" part of using
carnal reasoning and then goes on to do the same himself along with some
new accusations ie: those who don't subscribe to his doctrine are denying
the Son and under God's wrath, and they are Socian (which is someone who
denies the trinity); this man is another follower of Athanasius and the
Nicene creed.

For the record God does not mind us questioning when we do not
understand; he told the prophet "Come let us reason together."  And
second I do not deny the Sonship of Christ nor do I have a problem with
the Godhead.  I believe according to the scriptures that the second
member of the eternal Godhead known as God The Word became Jesus the Son
when He was born to Mary which is/was prophesied in Psalm 2:7 "Thou art
my Son, this day have I begotten Thee"
So Jesus the Christ had a beginning and the word begotten is the
operative one, in Strongs it is #3205 Yalad meaning "bearing young,
midwife" Hebrews 1:5 validates this understanding and so does Matt 8:29 -
(even the demons knew about it and feared because noone had challenged
them under the Old Covenant).  There are others who God calls sons ie:
the angels, Israel, and even Satan as a created being but Jesus is the
only one who was "begotten" of God.

That's my foundation.  Now if you can come up with something better from
the OT without all of this circular religious reasoning;  something clear
from the mouths of two or more OT witnesses - I am eager to hear it.
Still waiting patiently .   judyt


On Tue, 21 Jun 2005 08:34:32 -0400 "Lance Muir" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
writes:

From: "Jonathan Hughes" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
The True, Proper, and Eternal Sonship of the Lord Jesus Christ the
Only Begotten Son of God

http://www.the-highway.com/Sonship_Contents.html



--
"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] Belief

You 'may' have stated her position more fully than it really is but, let's
let her determine that.


- Original Message - 
From: "David Miller" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: 
Sent: June 21, 2005 13:14
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Belief


> John wrote to Judy:
> > How do I include you in the  family of God
> > and NOT our Mormon participants?
>
> Do you really think that Judy's theology about the Godhead would determine
> whether or not she is in the family of God?  Does God accept or reject us
> based upon theology or faith?
>
> I perceive that Judy's understanding of the Godhead is fine.  It seems to
me
> that Judy perceives that Jesus Christ was eternally God in eternity past,
> but then at the time of the incarnation, he was made a little lower than
the
> angels and was then begotten a Son at a distinct point in time, when he
was
> born of Mary.  The Mormons differ.  It seems to me that they think God the
> Father as well as Jesus Christ were both, at some time prior to the
> incarnation, like us with all of our frailities and imperfections.
Correct
> me if I have that wrong, DaveH.
>
> Peace be with you.
> David Miller.
>
>
> --
> "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] Fw: For Judy

I did reply, Perry. It's all been covered in the archives with BTaylor and
JHughes. DMiller also participated in that conversation. Do you remember it,
David?.
- Original Message - 
From: "Charles Perry Locke" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: 
Sent: June 21, 2005 13:24
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Fw: For Judy


> Lance, sounds like a reasonable offer from Judy to resolve your current
> issue. Can you demonstrate such from scripture? If not, then using the
term
> "heretical" for Judy's understanding does not seem warranted.
>
> Perry
>
> >From: Judy Taylor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> >Reply-To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org
> >To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org
> >CC: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org
> >Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Fw: For Judy
> >Date: Tue, 21 Jun 2005 13:01:45 -0400
> >
> >You have an "OBLIGATION" as a professing 'believer' to speak the truth in
> >love to me Lance Muir.  If you so believe
> >then straighten me out.  SHOW ME IN THE BIBLE BY TWO OR MORE WITNESSES
> >where I am missing it. I want to see
> >some OT testimonies.  If it is such a BIGGIE then this should be
> >important to you.  Is it your custom to just shove
> >everything under the rug because your "incarnation doctrine" covers it
> >anyway?   Tell me why Jesus has to be an "eternal Son" in your own words
> >and from your own perspective from God's Word.judyt
> >
> >On Tue, 21 Jun 2005 12:53:12 -0400 "Lance Muir" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> >writes:
> >Probably every TT participant on TT is a HERETIC or a heretic.
> >(I'm confident that you get the distinction) On this issue Judy, you
> >classify as a HERETIC (capitalized) This is a biggie. Let's just move on
> >shall we? IMO, it would be of no avail for anyone to make an attempt at
> >engaging you. (you could lose a limb yet continue to function
> >successfully so)
> >From: Judy Taylor
> >
> >You are looking in the wrong place for repentance Lance.  I asked you for
> >scriptural grounds for your belief which is something neither you,
> >Jonathan, nor Bill Taylor have proferred so far.  Other men's opinions
> >are what you feed upon and so long as this is so we will continue to go
> >around in endless circles.  Hopefully one of these days you will realize
> >that there is just One who has ALL truth and begin to seek Him for
> >answers - then we will make some headway.  judyt
> >
> >On Tue, 21 Jun 2005 11:44:55 -0400 "Lance Muir" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> >writes:
> >So then Judy, no repentance forthcoming. Actually, this conversation took
> >place long ago in a galaxy far, far away. JHughes, BTaylor and JTaylor
> >went on and on and on..
> >It's a done deal, Judy.
> >From: Judy Taylor
> >
> >Really Lance,
> >You need to warn Jonathan about receiving teaching from ppl such as this
> >because it is not faith enhancing at all. This is is probably a
> >well-meaning fellow but his teaching is full of fear and has no new
> >argument.  All of his scriptures are NT.  Peter's proclamation, John 3:16
> >etc. He uses lots of words and just goes round and round with the same
> >ol, same ol.  He accuses those who deny the "eternal" part of using
> >carnal reasoning and then goes on to do the same himself along with some
> >new accusations ie: those who don't subscribe to his doctrine are denying
> >the Son and under God's wrath, and they are Socian (which is someone who
> >denies the trinity); this man is another follower of Athanasius and the
> >Nicene creed.
> >
> >For the record God does not mind us questioning when we do not
> >understand; he told the prophet "Come let us reason together."  And
> >second I do not deny the Sonship of Christ nor do I have a problem with
> >the Godhead.  I believe according to the scriptures that the second
> >member of the eternal Godhead known as God The Word became Jesus the Son
> >when He was born to Mary which is/was prophesied in Psalm 2:7 "Thou art
> >my Son, this day have I begotten Thee"
> >So Jesus the Christ had a beginning and the word begotten is the
> >operative one, in Strongs it is #3205 Yalad meaning "bearing young,
> >midwife" Hebrews 1:5 validates this understanding and so does Matt 8:29 -
> >(even the demons knew about it and feared because noone had challenged
> >them under the Old Covenant).  There are others who God calls sons ie:
> >the angels, Israel, and even Satan as a created being but Jesus is the
> >only one who was "begotten" of God.
> >
> >That's my foundation.  Now if you can come up with something better from
> >the OT without all of this circular religious reasoning;  something clear
> >from the mouths of two or more OT witnesses - I am eager to hear it.
> >Still waiting patiently .   judyt
> >
> >
> >On Tue, 21 Jun 2005 08:34:32 -0400 "Lance Muir" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> >writes:
> >
> >From: "Jonathan Hughes" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> >The True, Proper, and Eternal Sonship of the Lord Jesus Christ the
> >Only Begotten Son of God
> >
> >http://www.the-highway.com/Sonship_Contents.html
>
>
> --
> "Let your speech be always with grace,

Re: [TruthTalk] Fw: For Judy

2005-06-21 Thread David Miller

Lance wrote to Judy:
> On this issue Judy, you classify as a HERETIC (capitalized)
> This is a biggie. Let's just move on shall we? IMO, it would
> be of no avail for anyone to make an attempt at engaging you.

Not all of us on TruthTalk operate by dogma.  Declaring Judy a HERETIC is an 
ad hominem argument because such declarations of dogma from so-called 
Bishops fail to explain how or why such is presumed to be true.

I personally think that those who insist on the eternal sonship doctrine are 
in greater danger of being a HERETIC because such a view is unsubstantiated 
from Scripture and it is schismatic.  It is one thing to express the concept 
as resonating truth, but it is another thing to insist upon it in order to 
accept someone in the family of God.  Such a viewpoint causes schism in the 
body of Christ by cutting off those members who do not share this particular 
"group think."  The true meaning of "heretic" is one who causes factions 
within the body of Christ.  I do not see the fruit of Judy's belief as 
producing this effect.

Peace be with you.
David Miller. 


--
"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] Fw: For Judy




The best of the best (read David Miller) have 
attempted, unsuccessfully I might say, to engage you on issues. I don't come 
close to either his ability or patience.Not unlike your response to my request 
that you back up your accusation concerning the holes in my 'incarnational 
system', I'll take a pass. (Look up the archives for BT & JH & DM on 
this).

  - Original Message - 
  From: 
  Judy 
  Taylor 
  To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org 
  
  Cc: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org 
  
  Sent: June 21, 2005 13:01
  Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Fw: For 
  Judy
  
  You have an "OBLIGATION" as a professing 'believer' to speak the truth in 
  love to me Lance Muir.  If you so believe
  then straighten me out.  SHOW ME IN THE BIBLE BY TWO OR MORE 
  WITNESSES where I am missing it. I want to see
  some OT testimonies.  If it is such a BIGGIE then this should be 
  important to you.  Is it your custom to just shove
  everything under the rug because your "incarnation doctrine" covers it 
  anyway?   Tell me why Jesus has to be an "eternal Son" in your own 
  words and from your own perspective from God's Word.    
  judyt
   
  On Tue, 21 Jun 2005 12:53:12 -0400 "Lance Muir" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 
writes:
  
Probably every TT participant on TT is a 
HERETIC or a heretic.
(I'm confident that you get the distinction) On 
this issue Judy, you classify as a HERETIC (capitalized) This is a biggie. 
Let's just move on shall we? IMO, it would be of no avail for anyone to make 
an attempt at engaging you. (you could lose a limb yet continue to function 
successfully so)

  From: Judy Taylor 
   
  You are looking in the wrong place for repentance Lance.  I 
  asked you for scriptural grounds for your belief which is 
  something neither you, Jonathan, nor Bill Taylor have proferred so 
  far.  Other men's opinions are what you feed upon and so long as this 
  is so we will continue to go around in endless circles.  Hopefully 
  one of these days you will realize that there is just One who has ALL 
  truth and begin to seek Him for answers - then we will make some 
  headway.  judyt
   
  On Tue, 21 Jun 2005 11:44:55 -0400 "Lance Muir" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 
  writes:
  
So then Judy, no repentance forthcoming. 
Actually, this conversation took place long ago in a galaxy far, far 
away. JHughes, BTaylor and JTaylor went on and on and 
on..
It's a done deal, Judy.

  From: Judy 
  Taylor 
   
  
  Really Lance,
  You need to warn Jonathan about receiving teaching from ppl such 
  as this because it is not faith enhancing at all. This is is probably 
  a well-meaning fellow but his teaching is full of fear and has no new 
  argument.  All of his scriptures are NT.  Peter's 
  proclamation, John 3:16 etc. He uses lots of words and just goes round 
  and round with the same ol, same ol.  He accuses those who deny 
  the "eternal" part of using carnal reasoning and then goes on to do 
  the same himself along with some new accusations ie: those who 
  don't subscribe to his doctrine are denying the Son and under God's 
  wrath, and they are Socian (which is someone who denies the 
  trinity); this man is another follower of Athanasius and the 
  Nicene creed.
   
  For the record God does not mind us questioning when we do not 
  understand; he told the prophet "Come let us reason together."  
  And second I do not deny the Sonship of Christ nor do I have a problem 
  with the Godhead.  I believe according to the scriptures that the 
  second member of the eternal Godhead known as God The Word became 
  Jesus the Son when He was born to Mary which is/was prophesied in 
  Psalm 2:7 "Thou art my Son, this day have I 
  begotten Thee"  
  So Jesus the Christ had a beginning and the word begotten is the 
  operative one, in Strongs it is #3205 Yalad meaning "bearing young, 
  midwife" Hebrews 1:5 validates this understanding and so does 
  Matt 8:29 - (even the demons knew about it and feared because noone 
  had challenged them under the Old Covenant).  There are others 
  who God calls sons ie: the angels, Israel, and even Satan as a created 
  being but Jesus is the only one who was 
  "begotten" of God.
   
  That's my foundation.  Now if you can come up with something 
  better from the OT without all of this circular religious reasoning; 
   something clear from the mouths of two or more OT witnesses 
  - I am eager to hear it.  Still waiting patiently 
  .   judyt
   
   
  On Tue, 21 Jun 2005 08:34:32 -0400 "Lance Muir" <[EMAIL PROTECTE

Re: [TruthTalk] Fw: For Judy

2005-06-21 Thread David Miller

Lance wrote:
> Do you remember it, David?

Yes I do.  I thought Judy came out in front in that discussion.  She 
convinced me.

The primary argument for the other side was the later version of the Nicean 
Creed which had added the eternal sonship statement to it.  The problem for 
some of us is that we do not put as much weight on this creed as some others 
do.  Some of us consider the Scriptures as the standard of Orthodoxy rather 
than creeds of men.

Peace be with you.
David Miller. 


--
"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] Hill Cumorah

2005-06-21 Thread ShieldsFamily









Just as I feared.  Tsk, tsk. 

 









From:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Lance Muir
Sent: Tuesday, June 21, 2005 4:33
AM
To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Hill
Cumorah



 



Linda asks 'Don't you, Lance?' of the query: 'Do you believe
Satan to have been the inspiration for both the Koran and the BOM'? I doubt
that either was inspired by Satan. IFF you, Kevin and Perry actually KNOW THIS
TO BE THE CASE then, lay it out for a misguided 'lib'. None of you will, of
course but, at least you got asked.







- Original Message - 





From: ShieldsFamily






To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org






Sent: June 20, 2005
23:44





Subject: RE: [TruthTalk]
Hill Cumorah





 



 

Don’t you, Lance? If not,
you’re “lost-er” than I thunk!!!  Izzy

 













From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of Lance Muir





Do 'you' believe that Muhammed was inspired to write the Koran by the
same one who inspired the BOM namely, Satan?

Re: [TruthTalk] Fw: For Judy

Neither do I, David. You may note that I have spoken well of Judy as a
person and, a believer within the last couple of months. However, IMO, (the
co-moderator requires this) both she and now apparently you would fall into
the class of 'heretic' whether you like it or not. IMO, dogma, David,
matters.


- Original Message - 
From: "David Miller" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: 
Sent: June 21, 2005 13:32
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Fw: For Judy


> Lance wrote to Judy:
> > On this issue Judy, you classify as a HERETIC (capitalized)
> > This is a biggie. Let's just move on shall we? IMO, it would
> > be of no avail for anyone to make an attempt at engaging you.
>
> Not all of us on TruthTalk operate by dogma.  Declaring Judy a HERETIC is
an
> ad hominem argument because such declarations of dogma from so-called
> Bishops fail to explain how or why such is presumed to be true.
>
> I personally think that those who insist on the eternal sonship doctrine
are
> in greater danger of being a HERETIC because such a view is
unsubstantiated
> from Scripture and it is schismatic.  It is one thing to express the
concept
> as resonating truth, but it is another thing to insist upon it in order to
> accept someone in the family of God.  Such a viewpoint causes schism in
the
> body of Christ by cutting off those members who do not share this
particular
> "group think."  The true meaning of "heretic" is one who causes factions
> within the body of Christ.  I do not see the fruit of Judy's belief as
> producing this effect.
>
> Peace be with you.
> David Miller.
>
>
> --
> "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] Fw: For Judy

Will you, David, ever see that when you say 'this is that which the
Scripture(s) mean on such and such an issue' that you've just created your
own dogma/credal statement? You are in a position of authority David, surely
you tremble at the power you wield in forming the thoughts, opinions, dogmas
and credal understanding of those who adhere to your teaching? If you do not
see this as reality then, please get out of a position of power,
immediately!

- Original Message - 
From: "David Miller" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: 
Sent: June 21, 2005 13:43
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Fw: For Judy

> Lance wrote:
> > Do you remember it, David?
>
> Yes I do.  I thought Judy came out in front in that discussion.  She
> convinced me.
>
> The primary argument for the other side was the later version of the
Nicean
> Creed which had added the eternal sonship statement to it.  The problem
for
> some of us is that we do not put as much weight on this creed as some
others
> do.  Some of us consider the Scriptures as the standard of Orthodoxy
rather
> than creeds of men.
>
> Peace be with you.
> David Miller.
>
>
> --
> "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] Fw: For Judy

What if David prefaces with: "It is written"?  Does this make his
statement
separate dogma also?  jt


On Tue, 21 Jun 2005 13:54:58 -0400 "Lance Muir" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
writes:
> Will you, David, ever see that when you say 'this is that which the
> Scripture(s) mean on such and such an issue' that you've just 
> created your
> own dogma/credal statement? You are in a position of authority 
> David, surely
> you tremble at the power you wield in forming the thoughts, 
> opinions, dogmas
> and credal understanding of those who adhere to your teaching? If 
> you do not
> see this as reality then, please get out of a position of power,
> immediately!
> 
> - Original Message - 
> From: "David Miller" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To: 
> Sent: June 21, 2005 13:43
> Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Fw: For Judy
> 
> 
> > Lance wrote:
> > > Do you remember it, David?
> >
> > Yes I do.  I thought Judy came out in front in that discussion.  
> She
> > convinced me.
> >
> > The primary argument for the other side was the later version of 
> the
> Nicean
> > Creed which had added the eternal sonship statement to it.  The 
> problem
> for
> > some of us is that we do not put as much weight on this creed as 
> some
> others
> > do.  Some of us consider the Scriptures as the standard of 
> Orthodoxy
> rather
> > than creeds of men.
> >
> > Peace be with you.
> > David Miller.
> >
> >
> > --
> > "Let your speech be always with grace, seasoned with salt, that 
> you may
> know how you ought to answer every man."  (Colossians 4:6)
> http://www.InnGlory.org
> >
> > If you do not want to receive posts from this list, send an email 
> to
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] and you will be unsubscribed.  If you 
> have a
> friend who wants to join, tell him to send an e-mail to
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] and he will be subscribed.
> 
> 
> --
> "Let your speech be always with grace, seasoned with salt, that you 
> may know how you ought to answer every man."  (Colossians 4:6) 
> http://www.InnGlory.org
> 
> If you do not want to receive posts from this list, send an email to 
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] and you will be unsubscribed.  If you 
> have a friend who wants to join, tell him to send an e-mail to 
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] and he will be subscribed.
> 
> 
--
"Let your speech be always with grace, seasoned with salt, that you may know 
how you ought to answer every man."  (Colossians 4:6) http://www.InnGlory.org

If you do not want to receive posts from this list, send an email to [EMAIL 
PROTECTED] and you will be unsubscribed.  If you have a friend who wants to 
join, tell him to send an e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and he will be subscribed.

Re: [TruthTalk] Fw: For Judy

Without a doubt! How could it not? If he says 'it is written"and, if you
concur then, you have a dogma. If Perry subsequently cites the same
Scripture in support of an opposing understanding then, you
have..wellTT!.
- Original Message - 
From: "Judy Taylor" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: 
Cc: 
Sent: June 21, 2005 14:07
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Fw: For Judy


> What if David prefaces with: "It is written"?  Does this make his
> statement
> separate dogma also?  jt
>
>
> On Tue, 21 Jun 2005 13:54:58 -0400 "Lance Muir" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> writes:
> > Will you, David, ever see that when you say 'this is that which the
> > Scripture(s) mean on such and such an issue' that you've just
> > created your
> > own dogma/credal statement? You are in a position of authority
> > David, surely
> > you tremble at the power you wield in forming the thoughts,
> > opinions, dogmas
> > and credal understanding of those who adhere to your teaching? If
> > you do not
> > see this as reality then, please get out of a position of power,
> > immediately!
> >
> > - Original Message - 
> > From: "David Miller" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > To: 
> > Sent: June 21, 2005 13:43
> > Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Fw: For Judy
> >
> >
> > > Lance wrote:
> > > > Do you remember it, David?
> > >
> > > Yes I do.  I thought Judy came out in front in that discussion.
> > She
> > > convinced me.
> > >
> > > The primary argument for the other side was the later version of
> > the
> > Nicean
> > > Creed which had added the eternal sonship statement to it.  The
> > problem
> > for
> > > some of us is that we do not put as much weight on this creed as
> > some
> > others
> > > do.  Some of us consider the Scriptures as the standard of
> > Orthodoxy
> > rather
> > > than creeds of men.
> > >
> > > Peace be with you.
> > > David Miller.
> > >
> > >
> > > --
> > > "Let your speech be always with grace, seasoned with salt, that
> > you may
> > know how you ought to answer every man."  (Colossians 4:6)
> > http://www.InnGlory.org
> > >
> > > If you do not want to receive posts from this list, send an email
> > to
> > [EMAIL PROTECTED] and you will be unsubscribed.  If you
> > have a
> > friend who wants to join, tell him to send an e-mail to
> > [EMAIL PROTECTED] and he will be subscribed.
> >
> >
> > --
> > "Let your speech be always with grace, seasoned with salt, that you
> > may know how you ought to answer every man."  (Colossians 4:6)
> > http://www.InnGlory.org
> >
> > If you do not want to receive posts from this list, send an email to
> > [EMAIL PROTECTED] and you will be unsubscribed.  If you
> > have a friend who wants to join, tell him to send an e-mail to
> > [EMAIL PROTECTED] and he will be subscribed.
> >
> >
> --
> "Let your speech be always with grace, seasoned with salt, that you may
know how you ought to answer every man."  (Colossians 4:6)
http://www.InnGlory.org
>
> If you do not want to receive posts from this list, send an email to
[EMAIL PROTECTED] and you will be unsubscribed.  If you have a
friend who wants to join, tell him to send an e-mail to
[EMAIL PROTECTED] and he will be subscribed.


--
"Let your speech be always with grace, seasoned with salt, that you may know 
how you ought to answer every man."  (Colossians 4:6) http://www.InnGlory.org

If you do not want to receive posts from this list, send an email to [EMAIL 
PROTECTED] and you will be unsubscribed.  If you have a friend who wants to 
join, tell him to send an e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and he will be subscribed.

Re: [TruthTalk] Hill Cumorah





I am not saying that Satan is responsible for all evil,
Lance.  In the past, I have been guilty of much evil using my own
talents. Had the Lord not saved me, I would have had to pay for those
evils.  Satan would not have been guilty, I would, and the punishment I
received I would have deserved. 
 Still, Satan is alive and well and has a boatload of demons acting in
his behalf.  It is my belief that when a great lie is told and millions
believe it, it is not the lie of a man, but of the father of lies,,
working through a willing servant.
This is not carved in stone, but give the devil his due.
Terry


Lance Muir wrote:

  
  
  
  To Terry:I believe it to be
important that we not make 'Satan' responsible for everything. It may
be 'reasonable' but not necessary I'm not as sure as others who post on
this.
  =
It seems very reasonable to assume that Satan is behind the scenes in
both religions, Lance.

He is the enemy of God, so he wants to lead people away from a
relationship with God.  He is a deceiver.  That is his role in this
plan of which we are all a part..  He is a liar and the father of
lies.  He, having thousands of years of experience and a more evil mind
than any man, is able to come up with much more believable lies than
men can invent.  To assume that Mohammed or Joe Smith were not his
willing vessels would be to vastly underestimate his influence.  Never
underestimate your enemy.
Terry

Re: [TruthTalk] Hill Cumorah




IFF a politician lies (say the President of the 
United States) and thereby millions around the world are deceived, are we then 
to attribute this to Satan or, to the man himself. Also, what if that one 
(President) is a professing believer? 
 
Why am I doing this? Not for the fun of it. There 
is altogether too much attribution of evil to Satan, IMO.

  - Original Message - 
  From: 
  Terry Clifton 
  To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org 
  
  Sent: June 21, 2005 14:56
  Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Hill 
  Cumorah
  I am not saying that Satan is responsible for all 
  evil, Lance.  In the past, I have been guilty of much evil using my 
  own talents. Had the Lord not saved me, I would have had to pay for those 
  evils.  Satan would not have been guilty, I would, and the punishment I 
  received I would have deserved.  Still, Satan is alive and well and 
  has a boatload of demons acting in his behalf.  It is my belief that when 
  a great lie is told and millions believe it, it is not the lie of a man, but 
  of the father of lies,, working through a willing servant.This is not 
  carved in stone, but give the devil his due.TerryLance Muir 
  wrote: 
  

To Terry:I believe it to be important that we 
not make 'Satan' responsible for everything. It may be 'reasonable' but not 
necessary I'm not as sure as others who post on this.
=It 
  seems very reasonable to assume that Satan is behind the scenes in both 
  religions, Lance.He is the enemy of God, so he wants to lead 
  people away from a relationship with God.  He is a deceiver.  
  That is his role in this plan of which we are all a part..  He is a 
  liar and the father of lies.  He, having thousands of years of 
  experience and a more evil mind than any man, is able to come up with much 
  more believable lies than men can invent.  To assume that Mohammed or 
  Joe Smith were not his willing vessels would be to vastly underestimate 
  his influence.  Never underestimate your 
enemy.Terry

Re: [TruthTalk] Fw: For Judy





Let's see what is this dogma that matters so much?

  S: (n) dogma, 
  tenet 
  (a religious doctrine that is proclaimed as true without 
  proof) 
  S: (n) dogma 
  (a doctrine or code of beliefs accepted as 
  authoritative) "he believed all the Marxist dogma"
So when Jesus quotes Deut 8:3 in Matt 4:4 and Luke 4:4 - this IYO is 
dogma?  jt
 
 
On Tue, 21 Jun 2005 14:42:03 -0400 "Lance Muir" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 
writes:> Without a doubt! How could it not? If he says 'it is 
written"and, if > you concur then, you have a dogma. If Perry 
subsequently cites the same> Scripture in support of an opposing 
understanding then, you> have..wellTT!.
 
> From: "Judy Taylor" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>> > 
What if David prefaces with: "It is written"?  Does this make his> 
> statement separate dogma also?  jt> > On Tue, 21 
Jun 2005 13:54:58 -0400 "Lance Muir" > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>> > 
writes:> > > Will you, David, ever see that when you say 'this is 
that which > the> > > Scripture(s) mean on such and such an 
issue' that you've just> > > created your> > > own 
dogma/credal statement? You are in a position of authority> > > 
David, surely> > > you tremble at the power you wield in forming 
the thoughts,> > > opinions, dogmas> > > and credal 
understanding of those who adhere to your teaching? > If> > 
> you do not> > > see this as reality then, please get out of a 
position of > power,> > > immediately!> > 
>> > > - Original Message - > > > From: 
"David Miller" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>> > > 
To: > 
> > Sent: June 21, 2005 13:43> > > Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] 
Fw: For Judy> > >> > >> > > > Lance 
wrote:> > > > > Do you remember it, David?> > > 
>> > > > Yes I do.  I thought Judy came out in front in 
that > discussion.> > > She> > > > convinced 
me.> > > >> > > > The primary argument for the 
other side was the later version > of> > > the> > 
> Nicean> > > > Creed which had added the eternal sonship 
statement to it.  > The> > > problem> > > 
for> > > > some of us is that we do not put as much weight on 
this creed > as> > > some> > > others> 
> > > do.  Some of us consider the Scriptures as the standard 
of> > > Orthodoxy> > > rather> > > > 
than creeds of men.> > > >> > > > Peace be with 
you.> > > > David Miller.> > > >> > 
> >> > > > --> > > > "Let your 
speech be always with grace, seasoned with salt, > that> > > 
you may> > > know how you ought to answer every man."  
(Colossians 4:6)> > > http://www.InnGlory.org> > > 
>> > > > If you do not want to receive posts from this list, 
send an > email> > > to> > > [EMAIL PROTECTED] and 
you will be unsubscribed.  If > you> > > have a> 
> > friend who wants to join, tell him to send an e-mail to> > 
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
and he will be subscribed.> > >> > >> > > 
--> > > "Let your speech be always with grace, seasoned 
with salt, that > you> > > may know how you ought to answer 
every man."  (Colossians 4:6)> > > http://www.InnGlory.org> > 
>> > > If you do not want to receive posts from this list, send 
an > email to> > > [EMAIL PROTECTED] and 
you will be unsubscribed.  If > you> > > have a friend 
who wants to join, tell him to send an e-mail to> > > [EMAIL PROTECTED] and he 
will be subscribed.> > >> > >> > 
--> > "Let your speech be always with grace, seasoned with 
salt, that > you may> know how you ought to answer every 
man."  (Colossians 4:6)> http://www.InnGlory.org> >> 
> If you do not want to receive posts from this list, send an email > 
to> [EMAIL PROTECTED] and 
you will be unsubscribed.  If you > have a> friend who wants 
to join, tell him to send an e-mail to> [EMAIL PROTECTED] and he 
will be subscribed.> > > --> "Let your 
speech be always with grace, seasoned with salt, that you > may know how 
you ought to answer every man."  (Colossians 4:6) > http://www.InnGlory.org> > If 
you do not want to receive posts from this list, send an email to > [EMAIL PROTECTED] and 
you will be unsubscribed.  If you > have a friend who wants to join, 
tell him to send an e-mail to > [EMAIL PROTECTED] and he 
will be subscribed.> >

Re: [TruthTalk] Hill Cumorah




Not at all Lance; who is the 'father of lies'?  If 
a person is motivated by a 'lying spirit' then who would
you say is behind what they speak?  Why did Jesus 
tell the Jews who prided themselves on being
children of Abraham that they were of "their father the 
devil"?  Wasn't it because the truth was
standing right there in front of them and they chose to 
believe the lie?  If evil does not come from
the devil then where does it come from?  Who is 
the one who comes to "steal, kill, and destroy?"  jt
 
On Tue, 21 Jun 2005 15:06:26 -0400 "Lance Muir" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:

  IFF a politician lies (say the President of the 
  United States) and thereby millions around the world are deceived, are we then 
  to attribute this to Satan or, to the man himself. Also, what if that one 
  (President) is a professing believer? 
   
  Why am I doing this? Not for the fun of it. There 
  is altogether too much attribution of evil to Satan, IMO.
  
From: Terry Clifton 
 I am not saying that Satan is 
responsible for all evil, Lance.  In the past, I have 
been guilty of much evil using my own talents. Had the Lord not saved me, I 
would have had to pay for those evils.  Satan would not have been 
guilty, I would, and the punishment I received I would have deserved. 
 Still, Satan is alive and well and has a boatload of demons acting 
in his behalf.  It is my belief that when a great lie is told and 
millions believe it, it is not the lie of a man, but of the father of lies,, 
working through a willing servant.This is not carved in stone, but give 
the devil his due.TerryLance Muir wrote: 

  
  To Terry:I believe it to be important that we 
  not make 'Satan' responsible for everything. It may be 'reasonable' but 
  not necessary I'm not as sure as others who post on this.
  =It 
seems very reasonable to assume that Satan is behind the scenes in both 
religions, Lance.He is the enemy of God, so he wants to lead 
people away from a relationship with God.  He is a deceiver.  
That is his role in this plan of which we are all a part..  He is a 
liar and the father of lies.  He, having thousands of years of 
experience and a more evil mind than any man, is able to come up with 
much more believable lies than men can invent.  To assume that 
Mohammed or Joe Smith were not his willing vessels would be to vastly 
underestimate his influence.  Never underestimate your 
enemy.Terry

Re: [TruthTalk] Belief


 
Again,  IT IS NOT THE CORRECTNESS OF MY POSITION THAT IS IN QUESTION IN MY POSTING.  RATHER,   IT HAS TO DO WITH THAT WHICH PROVIDES US WITH A FOUNDATION FOR CONTINUED FELLOWSHIP IN THE FACE OF DISAGREEMENTS THAT RISE TO THE LEVEL OF "HERESY" IN THE MIND OF AT LEAST ONE PARTY?   i DO Believe YOUR POSITION TO BE ONE OF HERESY.   YOU BELIEVE THE SAME ABOUT MY POSITIONS.   DO WE ALLOW (IN OUR TEACHINGS ) EACH OTHER TO BE IN THE FAMILY OF GOD  --  BY WHAT RULE OF CONDUCT WOULD WE DISALLOW THE MORMONS FROM BELING IN THAT SAME FAMILY?  
 
I will make no effort at all to restate my doctrinal position on the eternal Sonship of Christ because that is not my issue at this time.   To enter the debate, once again, with those who have never been persuaded by anything that I have presented as doctrine on this forum  (which is just fine, by the way) is to move away from that which I am sincerely questioning.   
 
If I read Miller correctly,  heresy is admissible as long as it is not divisive.   Actually, perhaps he is saying that debatable issues are not "heretical" until they are divisive.   I am thinking (and might very well change my mind) that heresy has to do with content.  BUT the definition of heresy is not the issue, or is it???     Please refer to the opening comment in this post.   I want to stick to that issue.  
 
JD
 
 
 
 



JD; I am wanting your scriptural foundation for why my position is "heretical" in your words.  That is, if your
opinion is founded upon God's Word.  From what I can gather this "eternal Son" doctrine came from the early
heretick hunters.  Do you see yourself as one of them?  I don't know what other problems Arius had but IMO they
should have left well enough alone because vengeance belongs with God and Jesus is well able to take care of
His Church.  The rcc magisterium became the fruit of their system and you are propagating their doctrine.  jt
 
On Tue, 21 Jun 2005 12:10:55 -0400 [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:


Judy, it is not the correctness of my position that is in view in my posted concern.   Deegan and Shields have clearly put me in the camp of Satan.  to disagree with their view of the biblical message is apparently the deciding factor, although they do not agree with each other.   Their confusion with personal interpretation and biblical truth is obvious.   You, on the other hand, are not so confused.   You actually have a doctrinal system for your denial  --  a d
octrinal opinion that is heretical in my opinion.   Why should I not act upon that belief?   How do I include you in the  family of God and NOT our Mormon participants?    that is the question.   
 
 
JD

Re: [TruthTalk] Hill Cumorah





Whether one professes to believe or not has no bearing.  A liar is a
liar, no matter what he/she professes.  The devil flees from those in
Christ who resist him.  Those who are unsaved can  be willing servants,
or unwilling, if demon posessed.  They have no protection from the evil
one.  It is my opinion, based on examples in the Word, that Satan takes
the big cases himself (see Judas), but leaves the smaller targets to
his demons.(see the Gadarene)


Lance Muir wrote:

  
  
  
  
  IFF a politician lies (say the
President of the United States) and thereby millions around the world
are deceived, are we then to attribute this to Satan or, to the man
himself. Also, what if that one (President) is a professing believer? 
   
  Why am I doing this? Not for the fun
of it. There is altogether too much attribution of evil to Satan, IMO.
  
-
Original Message - 
From:
Terry Clifton 
To:
TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org

Sent:
June 21, 2005 14:56
Subject:
Re: [TruthTalk] Hill Cumorah


I am not saying that Satan is responsible for all evil,
Lance.  In the past, I have been guilty of much evil using my own
talents. Had the Lord not saved me, I would have had to pay for those
evils.  Satan would not have been guilty, I would, and the punishment I
received I would have deserved. 
 Still, Satan is alive and well and has a boatload of demons acting in
his behalf.  It is my belief that when a great lie is told and millions
believe it, it is not the lie of a man, but of the father of lies,,
working through a willing servant.
This is not carved in stone, but give the devil his due.
Terry


Lance Muir wrote:

  
  To Terry:I believe it to be
important that we not make 'Satan' responsible for everything. It may
be 'reasonable' but not necessary I'm not as sure as others who post on
this.
  =
It seems very reasonable to assume that Satan is behind the scenes in
both religions, Lance.

He is the enemy of God, so he wants to lead people away from a
relationship with God.  He is a deceiver.  That is his role in this
plan of which we are all a part..  He is a liar and the father of
lies.  He, having thousands of years of experience and a more evil mind
than any man, is able to come up with much more believable lies than
men can invent.  To assume that Mohammed or Joe Smith were not his
willing vessels would be to vastly underestimate his influence.  Never
underestimate your enemy.
Terry

Re: [TruthTalk] Fw: For Judy

both she and now apparently you would fall into the class of 'heretic' whether you like it or not. IMO, dogma, David, matters.Well what do you know!
Lance is a Dogmatic Relativist!
Lance Muir <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Neither do I, David. You may note that I have spoken well of Judy as aperson and, a believer within the last couple of months. However, IMO, (theco-moderator requires this) both she and now apparently you would fall intothe class of 'heretic' whether you like it or not. IMO, dogma, David,matters.- Original Message - From: "David Miller" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>To: Sent: June 21, 2005 13:32Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Fw: For Judy> Lance wrote to Judy:> > On this issue Judy, you classify as a HERETIC (capitalized)> > This is a biggie. Let's just move on shall we? IMO, it would> > be of no avail for anyone to make an attempt at engaging you.>> Not all of us on TruthTalk operate by dogma. Declaring Judy a HERETIC isan> ad hominem argument because
 such declarations of dogma from so-called> Bishops fail to explain how or why such is presumed to be true.>> I personally think that those who insist on the eternal sonship doctrineare> in greater danger of being a HERETIC because such a view isunsubstantiated> from Scripture and it is schismatic. It is one thing to express theconcept> as resonating truth, but it is another thing to insist upon it in order to> accept someone in the family of God.. Such a viewpoint causes schism inthe> body of Christ by cutting off those members who do not share thisparticular> "group think." The true meaning of "heretic" is one who causes factions> within the body of Christ. I do not see the fruit of Judy's belief as> producing this effect.>> Peace be with you.> David Miller.>>> --> "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!?Tired of spam?  Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com

Re: [TruthTalk] Hill Cumorah




I'll 'kill two birds with one stone'. (Judy & 
Terry) IFF GWB actually lied about the WMD who is responsible for this? 1. Satan 
whom you describe and the 'father of lies'. 2. GWB himself who might (please 
note that I said MIGHT) have lied.
 
 

  - Original Message - 
  From: 
  Judy 
  Taylor 
  To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org 
  
  Cc: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org 
  
  Sent: June 21, 2005 15:17
  Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Hill 
  Cumorah
  
  Not at all Lance; who is the 'father of lies'?  
  If a person is motivated by a 'lying spirit' then who would
  you say is behind what they speak?  Why did 
  Jesus tell the Jews who prided themselves on being
  children of Abraham that they were of "their father 
  the devil"?  Wasn't it because the truth was
  standing right there in front of them and they chose 
  to believe the lie?  If evil does not come from
  the devil then where does it come from?  Who is 
  the one who comes to "steal, kill, and destroy?"  jt
   
  On Tue, 21 Jun 2005 15:06:26 -0400 "Lance Muir" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 
writes:
  
IFF a politician lies (say the President of the 
United States) and thereby millions around the world are deceived, are we 
then to attribute this to Satan or, to the man himself. Also, what if that 
one (President) is a professing believer? 
 
Why am I doing this? Not for the fun of it. 
There is altogether too much attribution of evil to Satan, IMO.

  From: Terry Clifton 
   I am not saying that Satan is 
  responsible for all evil, Lance.  In the past, I have 
  been guilty of much evil using my own talents. Had the Lord not saved me, 
  I would have had to pay for those evils.  Satan would not have been 
  guilty, I would, and the punishment I received I would have deserved. 
   Still, Satan is alive and well and has a boatload of demons 
  acting in his behalf.  It is my belief that when a great lie is told 
  and millions believe it, it is not the lie of a man, but of the father of 
  lies,, working through a willing servant.This is not carved in stone, 
  but give the devil his due.TerryLance Muir wrote: 
  

To Terry:I believe it to be important that 
we not make 'Satan' responsible for everything. It may be 'reasonable' 
but not necessary I'm not as sure as others who post on 
this.
=It 
  seems very reasonable to assume that Satan is behind the scenes in 
  both religions, Lance.He is the enemy of God, so he wants to 
  lead people away from a relationship with God.  He is a 
  deceiver.  That is his role in this plan of which we are all a 
  part..  He is a liar and the father of lies.  He, having 
  thousands of years of experience and a more evil mind than any man, is 
  able to come up with much more believable lies than men can 
  invent.  To assume that Mohammed or Joe Smith were not his 
  willing vessels would be to vastly underestimate his influence.  
  Never underestimate your 
enemy.Terry

Re: [TruthTalk] Fw: For Judy




Or, an oxy(moron)! Go figure!

  - Original Message - 
  From: 
  Kevin 
  Deegan 
  To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org 
  
  Sent: June 21, 2005 15:56
  Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Fw: For 
  Judy
  
  both she and now apparently you would fall into the class of 
  'heretic' whether you like it or not. IMO, dogma, David, 
  matters.Well what do you know!
  Lance is a Dogmatic Relativist!
  Lance Muir <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 
  wrote:
  Neither 
do I, David. You may note that I have spoken well of Judy as aperson 
and, a believer within the last couple of months. However, IMO, 
(theco-moderator requires this) both she and now apparently you would 
fall intothe class of 'heretic' whether you like it or not. IMO, dogma, 
David,matters.- Original Message - From: "David 
Miller" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>To: Sent: 
June 21, 2005 13:32Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Fw: For Judy> 
Lance wrote to Judy:> > On this issue Judy, you classify as a 
HERETIC (capitalized)> > This is a biggie. Let's just move on 
shall we? IMO, it would> > be of no avail for anyone to make an 
attempt at engaging you.>> Not all of us on TruthTalk operate 
by dogma. Declaring Judy a HERETIC isan> ad hominem argument 
because such declarations of dogma from so-called> Bishops fail to 
explain how or why such is presumed to be true.>> I personally 
think that those who insist on the eternal sonship doctrineare> 
in greater danger of being a HERETIC because such a view 
isunsubstantiated> from Scripture and it is schismatic. It is one 
thing to express theconcept> as resonating truth, but it is 
another thing to insist upon it in order to> accept someone in the 
family of God.. Such a viewpoint causes schism inthe> body of 
Christ by cutting off those members who do not share 
thisparticular> "group think." The true meaning of "heretic" is 
one who causes factions> within the body of Christ. I do not see the 
fruit of Judy's belief as> producing this effect.>> 
Peace be with you.> David Miller.>>> 
--> "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!?Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around 
  http://mail.yahoo.com

Re: [TruthTalk] Belief




My goodness, Bishop! Can you improve upon yourself? 
Well, I think not. Therefore Amen!

  - Original Message - 
  From: 
  [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
  
  To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org 
  
  Sent: June 21, 2005 15:30
  Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Belief
  
  
  
   
  Again,  IT IS NOT THE CORRECTNESS OF MY POSITION THAT IS IN 
  QUESTION IN MY POSTING.  RATHER,   IT HAS TO DO WITH THAT WHICH 
  PROVIDES US WITH A FOUNDATION FOR CONTINUED FELLOWSHIP IN THE FACE OF 
  DISAGREEMENTS THAT RISE TO THE LEVEL OF 
  "HERESY" IN THE MIND OF AT LEAST ONE PARTY?   i DO Believe YOUR POSITION TO BE ONE OF 
  HERESY.   YOU BELIEVE THE SAME ABOUT MY POSITIONS.   DO WE ALLOW (IN OUR TEACHINGS ) EACH OTHER 
  TO BE IN THE FAMILY OF GOD  --  BY WHAT RULE OF CONDUCT WOULD WE 
  DISALLOW THE MORMONS FROM BELING IN THAT SAME FAMILY?  

   
  I will make no effort at all to restate my doctrinal position on 
  the eternal Sonship of Christ because that 
  is not my issue at this time.   To enter the debate, once again, 
  with those who have never been persuaded 
  by anything that I have presented as doctrine on this forum  (which is 
  just fine, by the way) is to move away from that which I am sincerely 
  questioning.   
   
  If I read Miller correctly,  heresy is admissible as long as 
  it is not divisive.   Actually, perhaps he is saying that debatable issues are not "heretical" until they are divisive.   I am thinking 
  (and might very well change my mind) that heresy has to do with content.  
  BUT the definition of heresy is not the issue, or is it???     
  Please refer to the opening comment in 
  this post.   I want to stick to that issue.  
   
  JD
   
   
   
   
  

  
  JD; I am wanting 
  your scriptural foundation for why my position is "heretical" in your words.  That is, if 
  your
  opinion is founded upon God's Word.  From what I can gather this 
  "eternal Son" doctrine came from the early
  heretick hunters.  Do you see 
  yourself as one of them?  I don't know what other problems Arius had but IMO they
  should have left well enough alone because vengeance belongs with God and 
  Jesus is well able to take care of
  His Church.  The rcc magisterium became the fruit of their system and 
  you are propagating their doctrine.  jt
   
  On Tue, 21 Jun 2005 12:10:55 -0400 [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
  writes:
  

Judy, it is not the correctness of my position that is in view in my 
posted concern.   Deegan and Shields have clearly put me in the 
camp of Satan.  to disagree with their view of the 
biblical message is apparently the deciding factor, although 
they do not agree with each other. 
  Their confusion with 
personal interpretation and biblical 
truth is obvious.   You, on the other 
hand, are not so confused.   You actually have a doctrinal system 
for your denial  --  a d octrinal opinion that is heretical in my opinion.   Why should I 
not act upon that belief?   How do I include you in the 
 family of God and NOT our Mormon participants?    that is 
the question.   
 
 
JD

Re: [TruthTalk] Hill Cumorah





Lance Muir wrote:

  
  
  
  
  I'll 'kill two birds with one
stone'. (Judy & Terry) IFF GWB actually lied about the WMD who is
responsible for this? 1. Satan whom you describe and the 'father of
lies'. 2. GWB himself who might (please note that I said MIGHT) have
lied.
  ==

Both.  I do not see an innocent party here if what you suggest is
true.  One is evil, one allowed the evil one to influence him.

Re: [TruthTalk] Hill Cumorah