subject:"\[TruthTalk\] The Value of Sin\?"

FYI the 'Primitive Christians' he is reffering to were PAGANS
Judy Taylor [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

DAVEH: My latest post is in GREEN...
jt: Where do you read that without baptism one can not be fully saved in the Bible?
dh: That is why I believe some of the early Christians practiced baptism for the dead. Otherwise, it would have not been necessary (in their eyes.)
jt: It wasn't necessary and they didn't practice it ever.

DAVEH: ??? Are you suggesting the people Paul referred to were not Christians? Or...were not actually practicing baptism for the dead?

jt: I'm saying that in Corinth there were a lot of heresies and error and that Paul used this one to show the inconsistency of denying the resurrection while ATST baptising for the dead. However you will never read of him or any of the other apostles actually doing it and if it were part of the doctrine of Christ you would read about it and more than one time. It's not good to make doctrine from just one comment.

DAVEH: But the point I've tried to make is that some of the Primitive Christians actually believed baptism was necessary for their salvation.

jt: I'm not sure which 'Primitive Christians' you are talking about but you do know that Paul warned about heresies and false teachers rising up and drawing people after themselves don't you? Heresy began before the 2nd century.

DAVEH: IF that were so, would there not need to be "two or more witnesses" suggesting the error of their way?

jt: There are a lot more than two witnesses that warn of false teaching and false Christs.

DAVEH: Once again I think you've made a false assumption, Judy. Unless you specifically ask for a quotation from other Latter-day revelation, I will base most all my comments I post to TT from the Bible. I use a KJV of the Bible, and accept is as the word of God as far as it is translated correctly.

jt: ... and where it is not translated correctly I suppose is where it conflicts with your extra biblical revelation
DAVEH: In the nearly 4 years I have been on TT, I don't recall ever using that reason as an excuse.

jt: You may not use it as an 'excuse' per se but I am sure this is where the conflict arises

DAVEH: I respectfully disagree. I seldom wonder if what I'm reading in the KJV is translated incorrectly. However, if I were to use the Jehovah Witness' Green Bible, I might be much more questioning How about you, Judy.have you read any part of their Green translation? If you did, would you accept it without questioning its accuracy?

jt: Jehovah Witness is a cult and normally I don't waste time reading their Bible and would not unless there was a special need.

DAVEH: My point is that baptism is not needed to go to paradise. Baptism is needed to go to heaven.jt: So how did he get baptised without a physical body and with no Mormons around to baptise the dead?

dh: Several TTers (including you) have used the "thief in paradise' example to prove me wrong. I am merely trying to defend my position from a Biblical standpoint by showing the inconsistency in their (your) argument.

jt: How do you defend such a position? Can you show me by scripture that the thief was baptised with no a physical body? We know the Romans didn't have the time or the inclination to baptise him on the cross and after he is dead there is no point in him identifying with the DBR of the Lord Jesus Christ.

DAVEH: I do not know that he was baptized. But IF he were, I suspect it would have been by early Christians doing it vicariously, rather than prior to his death. But that is just my conjecture.

jt: This is your conjecture because you accept such unbiblical ideas as Baptism for the dead.

DAVEH: ??? Who said he ascended to heaven? Do you have a Biblical account of even one witness of such, let alone "two or more witnesses"? If you require me to produce multiple witnesses for something I believed happened in Primitive Christianity, shouldn't you do the same as evidence of your theory?

jt: When Jesus Himself makes a statement like "today you will be with me in Paradise" and we know that the people in Paradise went to heaven with him when he rose on the third day, I believe that would be a safe assumption. However, I wouldn't make a doctrine out of it.

DAVEH: And your position is..? If so, then please provide multiple (I'd even be happy to see a single) Biblical evidence the thief went to heaven. From what Scripture tells us, it seems to explain only that the thief went to paradise. What happened to him after that, is not recorded. He may still reside in paradise.no?

jt: No, because following the resurrection Paradise was no more.

Judy
Do you Yahoo!?
Free Pop-Up Blocker - Get it now

RE: [TruthTalk] The Value of Sin?

2003-12-11 Thread David Miller

DaveH wrote:
 Until I know what you and DavidM define it, I can't say 
 one way or the other.  All I can tell you is what I 
 understand the Bible says..and that is that without 
 baptism, one cannot be fully saved.  

For the record, I do NOT believe that baptism is a requirement without
which nobody can be saved.  If I understood John 3 the way DaveH does,
that the water there specifically speaks of baptism, then I would have
to agree with him that baptism would be a requirement without which a
person could not enter the kingdom of God.  However, I believe that in
that passage, the water refers to our physical existence, which is
mostly water.  I believe this because Jesus contrasts spirit and flesh
in this passage, saying, that which is born of the flesh is flesh, and
that which is born of the spirit is spirit, marvel not that I said ye
must be born from above.  Being born of water is being born of this
earth, of the flesh, and being born of the spirit is being born from
above.  That is how I see it.

DaveH wrote:
 That is why I believe some of the early Christians 
 practiced baptism for the dead.  Otherwise, it would 
 have not been necessary (in their eyes.) 

I believe that some early Christians did interpret water in John 3 as
baptism, and I also believe that some early Christians considered water
baptism as absolutely necessary for salvation.  Because of this
understanding, I think that some of them did practice vicarious baptism
for the dead.  Nevertheless, I think this practice was superstitious,
and their practice of it is no more justified than the man in 1 Cor. 5
who was committing fornication with his father's wife.  Just because
some did it does not make it right.

DaveH wrote:
 I believe some passages (that DavidM does not necessarily accept) 
 even clarify the point further.  

I accept the passages as Scripture.  I just do not accept your
interpretation of it.

DaveH wrote:
 Jesus says in Jn 3:5...Verily, verily, I 
 say unto thee, Except a man be born of water and 
 of Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God. 
 ...To me, Judy, that passage is pretty self explanatory, 
 unless one is compelled to think 'born of water' really 
 means birth.  

Judy interprets born of water in the passage to be talking about being
born of the Word of God.  So even though we differ on what the water in
this text refers to, her interpretation is consistent with my viewpoint
that water baptism is not necessary for entering the kingdom of God.

Nevertheless, I disagree with Judy's understanding, not because it
creates any theological difficulties, but because the text itself, when
Jesus introduces the term water, is answering a question about
entering the mother's womb for a second time.  Furthermore, in that
answer, Jesus refers to flesh being flesh and spirit being spirit.  I
naturally equate water with flesh in this passage because of what the
text itself says.  I see nothing directly in this passage that equates
water with the Word, although I do recognize the truth that water is
symbolic of the Word of God in many other passages.  Just because water
symbolizes the Word of God in some passages does not mean that it always
symbolizes the Word.  For example, in John 7:38, water refers to the
Spirit rather than the Word of God.  

I also disagree with DaveH's understanding because there were many old
testament saints who experienced God's grace, and even gifts of the Holy
Spirit, without baptism.  Dave's system of belief requires making the
kingdom of God as something future and not presently here and entered
into now.  Then Dave attempts to get around the difficulties brought
about by his interpretation by introducing vicarious baptism.  I see
this as problematic because it causes God to be one who is ritualistic
and superstitious himself.  I'm sure Dave doesn't think it is important
to understand why God would require baptism, but I do.  My understanding
of God is not one who has some check list of requirements.  God is not
some bureaucrat following procedure.  Dave seems to have this viewpoint
that if someone has everything except baptism, God withholds grace from
that person until someone can be baptized for him vicariously.  That's
kind of like how the Pharisee's complained that the disciples didn't
wash their hands before eating.  Scripture seems very clear that God is
not legalistic in this sense, but that the things he requires of us have
purpose. It is the effect of what we do that is important.

Interestingly, this same perception I have of the need for commandments
to have some functional relevance also causes me to reject Judy's
understanding of baptism merely being a symbolic ritual of an inward
experience that has already happened.  I do not believe that God would
have any commandments or New Covenant Sacraments that have no functional
relevance.

To be fair to Dave, I recognize that he sees baptism as a kind of
signing of the contract with God.  I too recognize a role of

Re: [TruthTalk] The Value of Sin?

2003-12-11 Thread Dave




Kevin Deegan wrote:
Oh so NOW I am Misquoting.Please provide
an example just one will do.
DAVEH: When you below
quoted "WE MUST BECOME PERFECT NOW", that was NOT part of SWK's text.
With all the LDS quotes I have posted this should be a EASY thing
to do. If it were only so.
DAVEH: SWK did not say
"MUST ELIMINATE SINS" as you suggested.
Trying to poisen the well?
DAVEH: No. I'm just
trying to understand why you would purposely misquote SWK, and misconstrue
what he was saying by taking what he did say out of context.If
you can discredit me, then maybe others will not listen. If the facts are
facts, then they are able to stand on their own merits!
DAVEH: Then go back to
THE MIRACLE OF FORGIVENESS and read the entire sections you've quoted,
Kevin. Then we can talk about what SWK was saying and why he said
it in the way he did.
Go ahead show us!If you can't please try to
refrain from accusing others of things you can not even show.DAVEH:
I thought I had posted this (your misquotes) material yesterday.
Perhaps you overlooked it.
Dave [EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

Kevin Deegan wrote:
CMON Davethere
is more to the story than you let on here.Why not fill her in on
the "fall upward"?
DAVEH: I don't recall her
asking.
I agree that a caring person would not place someone
in a situation that is harmful.
DAVEH: So then let me ask
you, Kevin..From your perspective, why did God do it knowing that it
would cause such a nuisance for society as a whole, andmuch pain specifically
to his only begotten Son?
But again that too does not conform to LDS doctrine.
CMON Dave, I am starting to think that you are being purposefully dishonest.
DAVEH: This is coming from
one who purposely misquoted SWK???
No more double talk, please. So much of what you say
has a HIDDEN LDS meaning. Come clean Dave. Tell us what really happened
in the garden!
DAVEH: You seem to have a
pretty good LDS library from the material you've been misquoting.
Why don't you read it for yourself, Kevin? Hint:DaveH
says "UNLESS there is a good reason for those children to experience that
situation."What was that good reason Dave?
DAVEH: I believe God put
the temptation in the garden of eden specifically to initiate the fall
and the plan of salvation. Do you agree or disagree, Kevin?
>From what Judy has told me so far, I'm not sure of the Protestant view
on this. (Though my guess is that Protestants look at it the
plan of salvation--- as a clean up the mess program.)
 DAVEH: I fully agree.
But let me explain it from a different angle, Judy. God created Adam
 Eve, knowing beforehand that they would succumb to temptation.
(I assume you agree with that.) Then he places a temptation in the
garden, knowing they would partake of the forbidden fruit, and what the
consequences would be. If instead, God had simply not put that
tempting fruit before them, would you the suggest he is a "heavenly
dictator "? Not at all.
I think he would be like a parent concerned about the welfare of his children,
by shielding them from unnecessary evil. Most parents would
not place their children in a dangerous situation when they know the outcome
of that situation..UNLESS there is a good reason for those children
to experience that situation. I don't know if that makes any sense
to you, Judy. As a parent, I hope you can see the similarity of the
situations that I'm trying to convey.
Dave [EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
DAVEH:
My latest post is in RED...
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:

DaveH: pretend world".
The reason for that is that the world I live in answers the questions I
posed to you (and others in TT.)
jt: I see your big hangup is 'why did God allow sin when he could
have prevented it?' which tells me you do not understand the concept of
moral freedom among other things.DAVEH: I think I understand moral
freedom quite well. What I don't understand is why Protestants think
it is necessary. jt: What kind of a statement is that?
DAVEH: God had the ability
to create a world without sin, and to offer an easy salvation. But
that is not the way he did it. Therefore, I believe God had a reason
for allowing sin to be a part of his plans. (Hence the subject line
to which we are now returning.) I'm trying to find out why Protestants
think God 'created sin'. (Or perhaps that's a poor way of stating
it..why you think God allows sin to exist.)
Would you rather have a heavenly dictator standing over you with a
whip to make sure you do right? This is Satan's plan and it is called
'bondage' it is what Jesus died to deliver us from.
DAVEH: I fully agree.
But let me explain it from a different angle, Judy. God created Adam
 Eve, knowing beforehand that they would succumb to temptation.
(I assume you agree with that.) Then he places a temptation in the
garden, knowing they would partake of the forbidden fruit, and what the
consequences would be. If instead, God had simply not put that
tempting fruit before them, would you the suggest he is a "heavenly
dictator "? Not at

Re: [TruthTalk] The Value of Sin?

2003-12-11 Thread Charles Perry Locke

I made a general statement. I believe that is true for everyone, DavidH. It's a human trait. I am sure that we all have error in our understanding of Chrisdtianity, and many of us hold onto that error because we believe it to be right, not because it is right. I believe the key to growing in understanding llies in two areas...one, being able to discern truth and, two, being willing to change our view when truth is revealed. Both are difficult tasks (hey, maybe that is just true for me, but I believe it extends to the whole human race).
I have been watching the arguments between you and some others and, although I have been tempted to jump into the fray, until now have resisted. I am trying to look at the discussions from a macroscopic view, and it is quite amazing to see how tightly people hold onto their beliefs, even when faced with seemingly excellent evidence to the contrary. Believe it or not, David, you have an advantage in the argument in that all of your material is already organized in the LDS works and stem from the writings and musings of one source, JS. You also can appeal to the Bible when necessary, too. Your whole system lives or dies on the back of JS. If he can be shown tohave beenwrong, LDS falls, if he can be shown to be right, LDS lives.
What is absolutely amazing to me is the extent to whichLDSwill go to ignore excellent testimony that is contrary toJS's position, as well as the extent to which they will make the scripture mean something other than what is written in order to further "prove" a JS point of view. Every discerning Christian on this forum sees it for what it is.
The bottom line is that when we, as Christians, look at the LDS system of beliefs, we are appalled at the nature of what the LDS really believe. And it is true, as Kevin is in the process of pointing out, that the LDS do not reveal the more appalling parts of the faith, holding it as "sacred" to protect it, and revealing it to LDS members ONLY in small degrees as they become more deeply involved in the religion. You may not understand how cults and secret societies indoctrinate members, but the LDS use EXACTLY the same model! Christianity has no such model, everything being revealed in scripture. No secrets. "If it were not so I wouild have told you"(Jn 14:2), says Christ. "...in secret have I said nothing" (Jn 18:20), he also says. The LDS model fails at this simplest of Christian principles, andthis is a red flag to discerning believers.
You can argue all you want that Christians do the same thing with respect to possibly misinterpreting scripture; we all are in danger of doing that. But, we do not have to hide any unapalatable "inner truths" until our members are slowly indoctrinated into the system before we can really tell them what is going on lest they run awayin repulsionto the tenets of the faith. It is all laid out in the Bible. Anyone who wants to know can pick up the Bible and see what it is about. None ofthe cultic structure of the LDS ever existed in the history of the Church before JS wrote it down.And he was not the author of it. Cults and secret societies have used if for centuries to slowly indoctrinate members into their inner circles, revealing the inner truths only to those who have proven their worthiness through secret oaths, grips, tokens, and penalties.
Perry
From: Dave <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] The Value of Sin? 
Date: Wed, 10 Dec 2003 22:12:23 -0800 

Charles Perry Locke wrote: 

  DaveH: 

  In order for one to feel "comfortable", as you put it, one does not 
  have to know the truth. One only has to believe that one knows the 
  truth. 

DAVEH:Do you suppose that is true (and I did not mean that as a pun) 
on both sides of the fence, Perry? 

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

 Take advantage of our best MSN Dial-up offer of the year  six months @$9.95/month. Sign up now! 
--
"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] The Value of Sin?

I see that you are the one, who took the LIBERTY to MISQUOTE me!
It is actually you who is guilty of MISQUOTING. I am deeply offended that you would misqoute me at the same time accuse me of that which you are guilty of!
You have put " "around my words.
It was not there; you did it. The PROOF is just a few lines down in this post.
How dare you attack my integrity and then publicy do what you accuse me of. I think that is despicable.
I cut pasted your edited quote:
"WE MUST BECOME PERFECT NOW"

Here is the ORIGINAL POST!
WE MUST ELIMINATE SINS IN OUR MORTAL STATE
"One definite purpose...assuming the mortal state...We were to control our urges and desires, master and control our passions, and overcome our weaknesses, small and large. We were to eliminate sins of omission and of comission" M.of F. Kimball p 5

As anyone can see I "quoted" Mr Kimball outside of those quotes were MY COMMENTS IN CAPS BOLD! I would hope this combination of my words bold CAPS (for those seeing just TEXT) would pose a double check on MY WORDS vs Kimball's "words"
You say I misquoted MR Kimball show cause or RETRACT!

Dave [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

Kevin Deegan wrote:
Oh so NOW I am Misquoting.Please provide an example just one will do. DAVEH: When you below quoted "WE MUST BECOME PERFECT NOW", that was NOT part of SWK's text. With all the LDS quotes I have posted this should be a EASY thing to do. If it were only so. DAVEH: SWK did not say "MUST ELIMINATE SINS" as you suggested. Trying to poisen the well? DAVEH: No. I'm just trying to understand why you would purposely misquote SWK, and misconstrue what he was saying by taking what he did say out of context.If you can discredit me, then maybe others will not listen. If the facts are facts, then they are able to stand on their own merits! DAVEH: Then go back to THE
MIRACLE OF FORGIVENESS and read the entire sections you've quoted, Kevin. Then we can talk about what SWK was saying and why he said it in the way he did. Go ahead show us!If you can't please try to refrain from accusing others of things you can not even show.DAVEH: I thought I had posted this (your misquotes) material yesterday. Perhaps you overlooked it.
Dave [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

Kevin Deegan wrote:
CMON Davethere is more to the story than you let on here.Why not fill her in on the "fall upward"? DAVEH: I don't recall her asking. I agree that a caring person would not place someone in a situation that is harmful. DAVEH: So then let me ask you, Kevin..From your perspective, why did God do it knowing that it would cause such a nuisance for society as a whole, andmuch pain specifically to his only begotten Son? But again that too does not conform to LDS doctrine. CMON Dave, I am starting to think that you are being purposefully dishonest. DAVEH: This is coming from one who purposely misquoted SWK??? No more double talk, please. So much of what you say has a HIDDEN
LDS meaning. Come clean Dave. Tell us what really happened in the garden! DAVEH: You seem to have a pretty good LDS library from the material you've been misquoting. Why don't you read it for yourself, Kevin? Hint:DaveH says "UNLESS there is a good reason for those children to experience that situation."What was that good reason Dave? DAVEH: I believe God put the temptation in the garden of eden specifically to initiate the fall and the plan of salvation. Do you agree or disagree, Kevin? From what Judy has told me so far, I'm not sure of the Protestant view on this. (Though my guess is that Protestants look at it the plan of salvation--- as a clean up the mess program.) DAVEH: I fully agree. But let
me explain it from a different angle, Judy. God created Adam Eve, knowing beforehand that they would succumb to temptation. (I assume you agree with that.) Then he places a temptation in the garden, knowing they would partake of the forbidden fruit, and what the consequences would be. If instead, God had simply not put that tempting fruit before them, would you the suggest he is a "heavenly dictator "? Not at all. I think he would be like a parent concerned about the welfare of his children, by shielding them from unnecessary evil. Most parents would not place their children in a dangerous situation when they know the outcome of that situation..UNLESS there is a good reason for those children to experience that situation. I don't know if that makes any sense to you, Judy. As a parent, I hope you can see the similarity of the situations that I'm trying to
convey.
Dave [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
DAVEH: My latest post is in RED...
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

RE: [TruthTalk] The Value of Sin?

2003-12-11 Thread David Miller











As a
moderator of the list, I need to step in here and provide some guidance. I dont
want misunderstandings to cause hard feelings toward one another. Please
bear with me as I try and share an outsiders perspective here. Im
not trying to take sides, just make some observations and ask both sides to
forbear with one another and have patience.



Kevin wrote:



I see that you are the one, who took the LIBERTY to MISQUOTE me!

It is actually you who is guilty of MISQUOTING. I am deeply offended that you would misqoute me 
at the same time accuse me of that which you are guilty of!

You have put  around my words.

It was not there; you did it. The PROOF is just a few lines down in this post. 

How dare you attack my integrity
and then publicy do what you accuse me of. I think that is despicable.

I cut  pasted your edited quote:

WE
MUST BECOME PERFECT NOW



Here is the ORIGINAL POST!

WE MUST ELIMINATE SINS IN OUR MORTAL STATE

One definite purpose...assuming the mortal state...We
were to control our urges and
desires, master and control our passions,
and overcome our weaknesses, small
and large. We were to eliminate sins
of omission and of comission M.of F. Kimball p 5



As anyone can see I quoted Mr Kimball  outside of
those quotes were MY COMMENTS IN CAPS
 BOLD! I would hope this combination of my words bold
 CAPS (for those seeing just TEXT) would pose a double check on MY WORDS vs Kimball's words



You say I misquoted MR
Kimball show cause or RETRACT!





Hi Kevin.

It seems to me that you left off the
starting quote mark for your first quote. Following
is the original post you sent on 12-9-2003. 







-Original Message-
From: TruthTalk[EMAIL PROTECTED].innglory.org
[mailto:TruthTalk[EMAIL PROTECTED].innglory.org] On Behalf Of Kevin Deegan
Sent: Tuesday,
 December 09, 2003 8:22 AM
To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Courtesy
of A.Word.A.Day



WE MUST BECOME PERFECT NOW

Christ became perfect through overcoming.
Only as we overcome shall we become
perfect and move toward godhood.
As I have indicated previously, the time to
do this is now, in mortality The Miracle of
Forgiveness Spencer W Kimball President  Prophet p 210.



WE MUST ELIMINATE SINS IN OUR MORTAL STATE

One definite purpose...assuming the mortal state...We
were to control our urges and
desires, master and control our passions,
and overcome our weaknesses, small
and large. We were to eliminate sins
of omission and of comission M.of F. Kimball p 5



So your religion is
ineffective for you. You are not progressing to godhood.





It is not clear whether or not WE
MUST BECOME PERFECT NOW is part of the quote attributed to Kimball. I
realize that you know that the capital bold letters are yours, but you also
bold other letters within the quote itself, so with the missing quote mark, it
is a little confusing for those of us reading what you are sharing. 



It seems to me that Dave was just trying
to clarify what was part of the quote and what was not part of the quote, and
you should be agreeing with him now, not accusing him. You are
agreeing with Dave that WE MUST BECOME PERFECT NOW and MUST
ELIMINATE SIN are not part of the quote of Kimball. 



It also seems to me that Dave was trying
to clarify two separate things: 1) that the first mistake on your part
caused an actual misquote. WE MUST
BECOME PERFECT NOW was not ever written by Kimball; and, 2) that your
characterization of WE MUST ELIMIMATE SINS IN OUR MORTAL STATE is
not at all what Kimball was trying to say in the second quote that you offered. This is
why Dave said in regard to this, as you suggested rather than as
you quoted him. The second quote has
missing words, and from what I can read in the quote, I cant tell what
Kimball is saying. The use of were
suggests a subjunctive mood which makes it highly probable that your
characterization of his quote (WE MUST ELIMINATE SINS) is not
accurate. If you or Dave can provide a more full quote
without the missing words, maybe it would help us understand what the real
message of Kimball was. With that
information, then maybe we can come to a conclusion concerning whether or not
you are misrepresenting Kimballs teaching.



Peace be with you.
David Miller, Beverly Hills, Florida.

RE: [TruthTalk] The Value of Sin?

MY COMMENTS ARE BOLD  CAPITALIZED!
STARTING AT ABOUT MIDWAY DOWN ON PAGE 208
WE HAVE THE FOLLOWING HEADING  TEXT
WE WILL CONTINUE THRU PG 209 TILL WE HIT 210

Repentant Life Seeks Perfection

One could multiply references almost indefinitely but enough has 
been said to establish the point that the repentant life, the life which 
constantly reaches for perfection, must rely on works as well as on faith. 
The gospel is a program of action - of doing things. Man's immortality 
and eternal life are God's goals. (Moses 1:39.) Immortality has been 
accomplished by the Savior's sacrifice. Eternal life hangs in the balance 
awaiting the works of men.

This progress toward eternal life is a matter of achieving 
perfection. Living all the commandments guarantees total forgiveness of 
sins and assures one of exaltation through that perfection which comes by 
complying with the formula the Lord gave us. In his Sermon on the Mount 
he made the command to all men: "Be ye therefore perfect, even as your 
Father which is in heaven is perfect." (Matt.5:48.) Being perfect means 
to triumph over sin. This is a mandate from the Lord. He is just and 
wise and kind. He would never require anything from his children which 
was not for their benefit and which was not attainable. Perfection 
therefore is an achievable goal.

The Savior voiced the same instruction to his Nephite leaders when 
he told them the requirements of the gospel: to be like himself. (3 Ne. 
12:48.) The Savior had lived the commands of his gospel; now it was 
required of all men to likewise live the commandments. Nephi quoted the 
Savior along the same line:

And also, the voice of the Son came unto me, saying: He 
that is baptized in my name, to him will the Father give the Holy 
Ghost, like unto me; wherefore, follow me, and do the things which ye have 
seen me do. (2 Ne. 31:12.)

The Lord amplified his statement somewhat to the Nephites when, 
after long dissertations on growing perfect through living the gospel, he 
asked his disciples the pertinent question: "Therefore, what manner of 
men ought you to be?" He may have been merely trying to impress them 
further with the truth and reinforce it, or he may have been asking in 
order to note how well thy had been grasping the vital truths he was 
teaching them. He did not wait for their response, but followed the 
question quickly with the answer: "Verily I say unto you, even as I am." 
(3Ne. 27:27.)

Perfection really comes through overcoming. The Lord revealed 
through John: "To him that overcometh will I grant to sit with me in my 
throne, even as I also overcame, and am set down with my Father in his 
throne." (Rev. 3:21.)

It seems that evil is always about us. It has been speculated by 
one of the earlier Brethren that there are hundreds of evil spirits 
working against each of us. Accordingly, we must be alert constantly. We 
catalogue our weaknesses and move in against them to overcome them. 
Christ became perfect throught overcoming. Only as we overcome shall we 
become perfect and move toward godhood. As I have indicated previously, 
the time to do this is now, in mortality.

Someone once said: "A fellow who is planning to reform is one 
step behind. He ought to quit planning and get on with the job. Today is 
the day." Certainly self-mastery is a continuous program - a journey, not 
a single start. Men do not suddenly become righteous any more than a tiny 
acorn suddenly becomes an oak. Advancement to perfection can nevertheless 
be rapid if one resolutely strides toward the goal.

WE ARE NOW AT PAGE 210 ALMOST MIDWAY DOWN THE PAGE
NEXT SECTION IS 

"Perspective is Important"



NEXT WE HAVE PAGE 5 THE HEADING BELOW IS ON PG 4 MIDWAY DOWN
THEN STARTING AT SECOND PARAGRAPH

Our Pre-mortal Understanding

 "One definite purpose of our spirits coming to this earth and assuming the 
mortal state was to obtain a physical body. This body was to be subject 
to all the weaknesses, temptations, frailties, and limitations of 
mortality, and was to face the challenge to overcome self. 

 While we lack recollection of our pre-mortal life, before coming 
to this earth all of us understood definitely the purpose of our being 
here. We would be expected to gain knowledge, educate ourselves, train 
ourselves. We were to control our urges and desires, master and control 
our passions, and overcome our weaknesses, small and large. We were to 
eliminate sins of omission and of comission, and to follow the laws and 
commandments given us by our Father. That the effort involved dignifies 
and ennobles man has been recognized by the world's great thinkers. 
Dante, for example, put it this way: 'consider your origin; you were not 
formed to live like brutes, but to follow virtue and knowledge.'"1 
1Dante, Divine Comedy.
FOOTNOTE AT BOTTOM OF PAGE IS THE ABOVEPLEASE SHOW HOW THIS WAS TAKEN OUT OF CONTEXT!

David Miller [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:






As a moderator of the list, I need to step in here and provide some

Re: [TruthTalk] The Value of Sin?

2003-12-11 Thread Dave



DAVEH: My latest post is in GREEN...

Wednesday---Kevin wrote:
OK,
The Prophet states you must be PERFECT NOW
You state it can wait, you are not perfect now
Who is right?
Are you a General Authority, in order to contradict another General
Authority?
It says you MUST ELIMINATE SINS in this world
Have you eliminated sins?

DAVEH: Kevin, sorry to rile you
up. I am finding your posts difficult to follow, and if I've offended
you.I apologize. In the posts you've made regarding SWK's comments,
it seemed apparent to me that you had not read the entire treatise, and
were purposely trying to change the context of his message. You sent
the above message to emphasize that SWK (purportedly) said "MUST
ELIMINATE SINS"..which he didn't.
If SWK did not use those words, why would you?.they did not reflect
what SWK was saying at all. I assume you have a copy of THE
MIRACLE OF FORGIVENESS...please read the entire paragraph. You
will see that he neither said such, nor implied such. (If you do
not have tMoF...how did you come up with the quote?..Just let me
know and I'll quote it so you can see what SWK was trying to convey.)
 The same applies
to your above "PERFECT NOW"
comment you attribute to SWK. Again.he neither said such, nor
implied such. Read the paragraph, Kevin. And to get the full
context read the section, as I asked you to before. It is only two
pages.
 BTW...I don't
feel compelled to retract my 'accusation' of your twisting SWK's words
to suit your intentions, as I feel that between the two posts (the partial
one you quoted below and the one I quoted above), your intention was to
misconstrue SWK's comments. Whether you did that knowingly (after
reading each respective section of SWK's book), or if you merely copied
somebody else's abbreviated conclusions and assumed they were correct enough
to use for your ownI don't know---but I do hope you will tell us.
However, I undoubtedly owe you (and Judy) an apology for my PS 82:6 comments
about "gods/judges". I've not had a lot of time (replying to all
the TT posts already cuts deeply into my sleep time!) to research Talmage's
JESUS THE CHRIST comments yet, but intend to do so in the future.
Your quote of his explanation was spot on. At this point, it seems
either he is wrong, or I am wrong..and I'd bet on Talmage being right,
as he's a lot smarter than me! Anyway, I hope you don't think
I'm sweeping that one under the rug (as much as I would like to), but I
would like to spend a little time thinking (and studying) about it before
I choke on my pride capitulate.
Kevin Deegan wrote:
I see that you are the one, who took the LIBERTY
to MISQUOTE me!It is actually you who is guilty of MISQUOTING. I am deeply
offended that you would misqoute me  at the same time accuse me of
that which you are guilty of!You have put " " around my words.It was not
there; you did it. The PROOF is just a few lines down in this post.How
dare you attack my integrity
and then publicy do what you accuse me of. I think that is despicable.I
cut  pasted your edited quote:"WE
MUST BECOME PERFECT NOW" Here is the ORIGINAL POST!WE
MUST ELIMINATE SINS IN OUR MORTAL STATE"One definite purpose...assuming
the mortal state...We were to control our urges and desires, master
and control our passions, and overcome our weaknesses, small
and large. We were to eliminate sins of omission and of comission"
M.of F. Kimball p 5 As anyone can see I "quoted" Mr Kimball  outside
of those quotes were MY COMMENTS IN CAPS  BOLD! I would hope
this combination of my words bold  CAPS (for those seeing just TEXT)
would pose a double check on MY WORDSvsKimball's
"words"You say I misquoted MR Kimball show cause or RETRACT!Dave
[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

Kevin Deegan wrote:
Oh so NOW I am Misquoting.Please provide an
example just one will do.
DAVEH: When you below
quoted "WE MUST BECOME PERFECT NOW", that was NOT part of SWK's text.
With all the LDS quotes I have posted this should be a EASY thing
to do. If it were only so.
DAVEH: SWK did not say
"MUST ELIMINATE SINS" as you suggested.
 Trying to poisen the well?
DAVEH: No. I'm just
trying to understand why you would purposely misquote SWK, and misconstrue
what he was saying by taking what he did say out of context.If
you can discredit me, then maybe others will not listen. If the facts are
facts, then they are able to stand on their own merits!
DAVEH: Then go back to
THE MIRACLE OF FORGIVENESS and read the entire sections you've quoted,
Kevin. Then we can talk about what SWK was saying and why he said
it in the way he did.
Go ahead show us!If you can't please try to refrain from accusing
others of things you can not even show.DAVEH:
I thought I had posted this (your misquotes) material yesterday.
Perhaps you overlooked it.


--
~~~
Dave Hansen
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.langlitz.com
~~~
If you wish to receive
things I find interesting,
I maintain Five

Re: [TruthTalk] The Value of Sin?

I Do Not cut paste other's comments once in a great while, maybe.

I have every volume that I have quoted on TT.
Why I commented on the quotes? This ios the purpose of TT. I could simply post just quotes, but we are interested in discussion correct?
I was commenting and restating what is taught in the book and other LDS resources.
The section teaches, that we must eliminate sin
I can send additional quotes, from additional sources, if you like.

In fact you name the book I will dig them out!
Doctrines of salvation
Mormon Doctrine
The way to perfection
Melchizedek Priesthood Personal Study Guide

I also sent the full context of the OFFENDING quotes in a separate post. Feel free to express what is out of context and investigate tell me in your own words what the Prophet was trying to say. It can not be that hard for him to express what he means, after all he is the prophet. Do I need some kind of special equipment, certain grade level education, to fully understand what a man has written. Why should it be so hard?

Part of the problem is that LDS authorities contradict one another. Especially from different time periods. I say that, "what was truth in the past, is not LDS truth now".
Dave [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
DAVEH: My latest post is in GREEN...
Wednesday---Kevin wrote:
OK, The Prophet states you must be PERFECT NOW You state it can wait, you are not perfect now Who is right? Are you a General Authority, in order to contradict another General Authority? It says you MUST ELIMINATE SINS in this world Have you eliminated sins? DAVEH: Kevin, sorry to rile you up. I am finding your posts difficult to follow, and if I've offended you.I apologize. In the posts you've made regarding SWK's comments, it seemed apparent to me that you had not read the entire treatise, and were purposely trying to change the context of his message. You sent the above message to emphasize that SWK (purportedly) said "MUST ELIMINATE SINS"..which he didn't. If SWK did not use those words, why would you?.they did not reflect what SWK was saying at all. I assume you have a copy of THE
MIRACLE OF FORGIVENESS...please read the entire paragraph. You will see that he neither said such, nor implied such. (If you do not have tMoF...how did you come up with the quote?..Just let me know and I'll quote it so you can see what SWK was trying to convey.)
The same applies to your above "PERFECT NOW" comment you attribute to SWK. Again.he neither said such, nor implied such. Read the paragraph, Kevin. And to get the full context read the section, as I asked you to before. It is only two pages.
BTW...I don't feel compelled to retract my 'accusation' of your twisting SWK's words to suit your intentions, as I feel that between the two posts (the partial one you quoted below and the one I quoted above), your intention was to misconstrue SWK's comments. Whether you did that knowingly (after reading each respective section of SWK's book), or if you merely copied somebody else's abbreviated conclusions and assumed they were correct enough to use for your ownI don't know---but I do hope you will tell us. However, I undoubtedly owe you (and Judy) an apology for my PS 82:6 comments about "gods/judges". I've not had a lot of time (replying to all the TT posts already cuts deeply into my sleep time!) to research Talmage's JESUS THE CHRIST comments yet, but intend to do so in the future. Your quote of his explanation was spot on. At this point, it seems either he is wrong, or I am
wrong..and I'd bet on Talmage being right, as he's a lot smarter than me! Anyway, I hope you don't think I'm sweeping that one under the rug (as much as I would like to), but I would like to spend a little time thinking (and studying) about it before I choke on my pride capitulate.
Kevin Deegan wrote:
I see that you are the one, who took the LIBERTY to MISQUOTE me!It is actually you who is guilty of MISQUOTING. I am deeply offended that you would misqoute me at the same time accuse me of that which you are guilty of!You have put " " around my words.It was not there; you did it. The PROOF is just a few lines down in this post.How dare you attack my integrity and then publicy do what you accuse me of. I think that is despicable.I cut pasted your edited quote:"WE MUST BECOME PERFECT NOW" Here is the ORIGINAL POST!WE MUST ELIMINATE SINS IN OUR MORTAL STATE"One definite purpose...assuming the mortal state...We were to control our urges and desires, master and control our passions, and overcome our weaknesses, small and large. We were to eliminate sins of omission and of comission" M.of F. Kimball p 5 As
anyone can see I "quoted" Mr Kimball outside of those quotes were MY COMMENTS IN CAPS BOLD! I would hope this combination of my words bold CAPS (for those seeing just TEXT) would pose a double check on MY WORDSvsKimball's "words"You say I misquoted MR Kimball show cause

Re: [TruthTalk] The Value of Sin?

2003-12-11 Thread Dave



DAVEH: My latest comments are
in GREEN...
Kevin Deegan wrote:
MY COMMENTS ARE BOLD  CAPITALIZED!STARTING
AT ABOUT MIDWAY DOWN ON PAGE 208WE HAVE THE FOLLOWING HEADING 
TEXTWE WILL CONTINUE THRU PG 209 TILL WE HIT 210Repentant
Life Seeks PerfectionOne could multiply references almost indefinitely
but enough hasbeen said to establish the point that the repentant life,
the life whichconstantly reaches for perfection, must rely on works as
well as on faith.The gospel is a program of action - of doing things.
Man's immortalityand eternal life are God's goals. (Moses 1:39.)
Immortality has beenaccomplished by the Savior's sacrifice. Eternal
life hangs in the balanceawaiting the works of men.This progress
toward eternal life is a matter of achievingperfection. Living all
the commandments guarantees total forgiveness ofsins and assures one of
exaltation through that perfection which comes bycomplying with the formula
the Lord gave us. In his Sermon on the Mounthe made the command to
all men: "Be ye therefore perfect, even as yourFather which is in heaven
is perfect." (Matt.5:48.) Being perfect meansto triumph over sin.
This is a mandate from the Lord. He is just andwise and kind.
He would never require anything from his children whichwas not for their
benefit and which was not attainable. Perfectiontherefore is an achievable
goal.The Savior voiced the same instruction to his Nephite
leaders whenhe told them the requirements of the gospel: to be like himself.
(3 Ne.12:48.) The Savior had lived the commands of his gospel; now
it wasrequired of all men to likewise live the commandments. Nephi
quoted theSavior along the same line: And also, the voice of
the Son came unto me, saying: Hethat is baptized in my name, to him
will the Father give the HolyGhost, like unto me; wherefore, follow me,
and do the things which ye haveseen me do. (2 Ne. 31:12.)The
Lord amplified his statement somewhat to the Nephites when,after long dissertations
on growing perfect through living the gospel, heasked his disciples the
pertinent question: "Therefore, what manner ofmen ought you to be?"
He may have been merely trying to impress themfurther with the truth and
reinforce it, or he may have been asking inorder to note how well thy had
been grasping the vital truths he wasteaching them. He did not wait
for their response, but followed thequestion quickly with the answer:
"Verily I say unto you, even as I am."(3Ne. 27:27.)Perfection
really comes through overcoming. The Lord revealedthrough John:
"To him that overcometh will I grant to sit with me in mythrone, even as
I also overcame, and am set down with my Father in histhrone." (Rev. 3:21.)It
seems that evil is always about us. It has been speculated byone
of the earlier Brethren that there are hundreds of evil spiritsworking
against each of us. Accordingly, we must be alert constantly.
Wecatalogue our weaknesses and move in against them to overcome them.Christ
became perfect throught overcoming. Only as we overcome shall webecome
perfect and move toward godhood. As I have indicated previously,the
time to do this is now, in mortality.Someone once said:
"A fellow who is planning to reform is onestep behind. He ought to
quit planning and get on with the job. Today isthe day." Certainly
self-mastery is a continuous program - a journey, nota single start.
Men do not suddenly become righteous any more than a tinyacorn suddenly
becomes an oak. Advancement to perfection can neverthelessbe rapid
if one resolutely strides toward the goal.WE ARE NOW AT PAGE 210
ALMOST MIDWAY DOWN THE PAGENEXT SECTION IS"Perspective
is Important"NEXT WE HAVE PAGE 5 THE HEADING BELOW
IS ON PG 4 MIDWAY DOWNTHEN STARTING AT SECOND PARAGRAPHOur
Pre-mortal Understanding "One definite purpose of our spirits
coming to this earth and assuming themortal state was to obtain a physical
body. This body was to be subjectto all the weaknesses, temptations,
frailties, and limitations ofmortality, and was to face the challenge to
overcome self. While we lack recollection of our pre-mortal
life, before comingto this earth all of us understood definitely the purpose
of our beinghere. We would be expected to gain knowledge, educate
ourselves, trainourselves. We were to control our urges and desires,
master and controlour passions, and overcome our weaknesses, small and
large. We were toeliminate sins of omission and of comission, and to follow
the laws andcommandments given us by our Father. That the effort
involved dignifiesand ennobles man has been recognized by the world's great
thinkers.Dante, for example, put it this way: 'consider your origin;
you were notformed to live like brutes, but to follow virtue and knowledge.'"1
1Dante, Divine Comedy.FOOTNOTE AT BOTTOM OF PAGE IS THE ABOVE
PLEASE SHOW HOW THIS WAS TAKEN OUT OF CONTEXT!
DAVEH: I guess the question
should be asked of you, Kevin...How does this fit into the context
of what SWK wrote above?
"The
Prophet states you must be PERFECT NOW"
.I've read it

Re: [TruthTalk] The Value of Sin?



DAVEH: My latest post is RED...
Judy Taylor wrote:
To me it
seems pretty logical that if God revealed his secrets to prophets in Bible
times, he would continue doing so afterwards.even unto this day.
I have heard that some Christians believe the heavens are sealed though.do
you believe such? jt: No I don't and I'd like to point out
that God is not bound by logic
DAVEH: It almost seems as
though you are suggesting God can be illogical
but you've still not come up with any incomprehensible mystery and
what is revealed is for us and for our children
DAVEH: I'm still working
on the easy one..viz., the thief going to paradise. :-)
 If you want to
get into some deeper stuff, we can revisit the garden of eden.
DAVEH: Hmm...I thought
my explanation of paradise qualifies as a 'mystery solved'.
Or perhaps instead of it being a mystery, it was just a misunderstanding
of how a specific passage of Scripture should be interpreted.
... God still hides things from folk who think themselves wise
and prudent and reveals them to babes...
DAVEH: I agree. I fully
understand it, and can support my belief from the Bible alone. I'm
am awaiting somebody with a contrasting understanding to explain it differently
using the events recorded in Scripture.
DAVEH: I don't view the thief/paradise
deal was hidden by God. IMO.He plainly revealed it in the Bible,
but it became a mystery to those who made assumptions based on other passages
that were mysteries.jt: What are you talking about?
Jesus went to Paradise before he ascended
DAVEH: Hmthen
you agree...paradise is not in heaven? Perhaps I misunderstood
you before. (I thought you implied baptism was not a necessary component
of salvation, and used the thief argument as evidence of your belief.)
and when he did ascend he took all the ppl in Paradise with him - those
in Abraham's bosom that is. So your mathmetical exercise didn't change
anything. In Matt 13:13,14,15 Jesus tells his disciples that he speaks
in parables to hide things rather than to reveal them
DAVEH: LDS theology teaches
we were all created by God as spirit children in heaven, which includes
you, me, Jesus and Lucifer. Lucifer rebelled and became our "personal
adversarys". snip>DAVEH:
That's part of it..But not the whole story. The Bible teaches
much more, but it has been suppressed to make a 'simpler' theology work
for many more people. While baptism in itself will not save anybody,
I firmly believe without baptism, one cannot be saved. (Mk 16:16
and Jn 3:5) jt: Who has been doing the suppressing Dave?
Regeneration by baptism is NOT a scriptural teaching.
DAVEH: We haven't yet discussed
it, so IF you wish to do so, I'll oblige. But first, please explain
what you mean by "Regeneration",
as it is a term we (LDS) do not often use.
DAVEH: The Bible clearly
explains that baptism is an essential part of salvation. You and
DavidM have been discussing such lately, and I don't feel the need to repeat
his arguments.jt: So you are in agreement with DavidM about regenerational
baptism then?
DAVEH: Until I know what
you and DavidM define it, I can't say one way or the other. All I
can tell you is what I understand the Bible says..and that is that
without baptism, one cannot be fully saved. That is why I believe
some of the early Christians practiced baptism for the dead. Otherwise,
it would have not been necessary (in their eyes.)
I see.DAVEH: However,
I believe some passages (that DavidM does not necessarily accept) even
clarify the point further. Jesus says in Jn 3:5..".Verily,
verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born of water and of Spirit, he
cannot enter into the kingdom of God." .To
me, Judy, that passage is pretty self explanatory, unless one is compelled
to think 'born of water' really means birth. Well in a sense it does
symbolize birth.a rebirth that is known as baptism. jt:
Wrong - This is a rebirth that is impossible for anyone other than God
Himself to perform and it does not refer to water baptism. John 3:5 speaks
of being born of the Spirit or "Born Again." The water spoken of here is
the water of God's Word which will also wash a person but then I realize
I am wasting my time.
DAVEH: I'm sorry you feel
that way, Judy. Your explanation of vs 5 is not the same as I have
heard from DavidM, who believes "born of water" refers to a vaginal birth.
(I assume I've got that right, DavidM?) So Judy, you have added
another (divergent) element. Personally, I prefer my interpretation.
I don't believe you are interested in the Truth because you believe
yourself to be so far ahead of most of us.
DAVEH: You have probably
not been here long enough to know why I am here. You are right.I
am not in TT to learn "Truth".
As I have previously stated numerous times, I am here to learn what Protestants
believe, and why they believe it. Your interpretation of Jn 3:5 is
a good example. I do not think your understanding represents "Truth".
If I

Re: [TruthTalk] The Value of Sin?




Terry Clifton wrote:
So Terry, do you agree
with my above explanation of why you misunderstand the perceived salvation
of the thief?
No. I believe that you are appointed once to die,
and then the judgment. If you are not saved when you draw your last
breath, you will open your eyes in hell the next moment,
DAVEH: I respectfully disagree.
The Bible (and real life/death experiences) plainly show this is not the
case. IMHO, the judgment follows death by some time.
just as the rich man did who refused to be charitable
to Lazarus. Your ability to use words not withstanding,
your beliefs are founded on faulty logic and weird assumptions too numerous
to even contemplate.
DAVEH: In other words..you
are not able to refute my above Biblical explanation?!?!?!?!
TC: Nice try Dave. Appeal to my pride.
DAVEH: Since you were a little
'shy' with explanations, I was just trying to read between the lines, Terry.
If I don't play your game it is because I am stupid.
DAVEH: Please don't
think I consider you such. Since you did not offer a specific reason
why you think my logical explanation is flawed, what else did you expect
me to say? Now you apparently consider this a "game".
I'm at a bit of a loss.Just how am I supposed to discuss such things?
I realize my beliefs are unpopular here. And I realize that few TTers
want to hear me quote LDS sources. So, when I hear something (like
your comment about the thief going to paradise as proof that baptism is
not essential to salvation) I feel compelled to explain why your explanation
does not seem valid to me. I thought I laid out my argument in a
logical fashion using a source you would accept. If you still disagree,
that's OK with me. But if you disagree without giving me a reason
why you think I'm wrong, then you leave me wondering why you didn't point
out my erroneous conclusion. Now you are tossing the "game"
card at me. Perhaps you are a little sensitivePerhaps I'm a little
obnoxiousMaybe it's a little of both.
I do admit to knowing next to nothing about Mormons, but
that is not a bad thing.
DAVEH: Well, it certainly
isn't a crime.. VBG>
If you know the truth, you will know a lie, even though
you have not studied the lie. I don't have to know about your underwear,
or your phoney prophet, or any of the other illusions under which you operate.
I told you the truth before. You are just too far out to grasp reality
so I am not going to waste my time.
DAVEH: OK Terry.
I get the message. I apologize for bothering you.
I hope someday you get saved, but I doubt that the Lord
will work through me to accomplish that. If He tells me otherwise,
I will try again. Otherwise, I leave you to live in your pretend
world.
DAVEH: I do admit to
feeling rather comfortable in my "pretend world".
The reason for that is that the world I live in answers the questions I
posed to you (and others in TT.)
Enjoy,

Terry

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

Re: [TruthTalk] The Value of Sin?




Kevin Deegan wrote:
judgment follows
death by some time

Do you believe in a Mormon purgatory?
DAVEH: You'll have to define it for me, Kevin.
That term is foreign to LDS theology.
Are you guys general Authorities?
DAVEH: Naw. (At least I'm not,
and if Blaine isI think he is just an authority!) VBG>
The prophets words are scripture.
DAVEH: Not all the time. Prophets can be
like 'real' people too. If a prophet's words are canonized, then
they are considered as Scripture. FWIW...I believe anything that is
revealed from God is scripture, but that does not mean that all things
revealed by God are canonized Scripture.
He does not have to say "thus saith the Lord"The
Prophet Spencer W Kimball said"Christ became perfect through overcoming.
Only as we overcome shall we become perfect and move toward godhood. As
I have indicated previously, the time to do this is
now, in mortality"Behold
Now is the day of salvation.



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

[TruthTalk] The Value of Sin?

DAVEH: My latest post is
RED...
Judy Taylor wrote:

To me it seems pretty logical that if
God revealed his secrets to prophets in Bible times, he would continue doing
so afterwards.even unto this day. I have heard that some Christians
believe the heavens are sealed though.do you believe such?

jt: No I don't and I'd like to point out that God is not bound by
logic DAVEH: It almost seems
as though you are suggesting God can be illogical
jt: Just because I make a statement doesn't mean that I am implying the
opposite is true either.
but you've still not come up with any incomprehensible mystery and what
is revealed is for us and for our children DAVEH: I'm still working on the easy one..viz., the thief
going to paradise. :-) If you want to get into some
deeper stuff, we can revisit the garden of eden.
jt: Nothing deeper about Eden, you either believe it as it is written or
you don't.
DAVEH: Hmm...I thought my
explanation of paradise qualifies as a 'mystery solved'. Or
perhaps instead of it being a mystery, it was just a misunderstanding of how a
specific passage of Scripture should be interpreted.
jt: You didn't ADD anything DaveH - the thief was still in Paradise with
Jesus that same day dry as a bone, I don't recall anyone saying they had to
ascend the same day or that Paradise and Heaven are the same.
... God still hides things from folk who think themselves wise and
prudent and reveals them to babes... DAVEH: I agree. I fully understand it, and can support my
belief from the Bible alone. I'm am awaiting somebody with a contrasting
understanding to explain it differently using the events recorded in
Scripture.
jt: the above is not true, you can't support your belief from the Bible
alone because you don't understand it and for you scripture does not interpret
scripture. You have added spurious material to your consciousness.
DAVEH: I don't view the
thief/paradise deal was hidden by God. IMO.He plainly revealed it in
the Bible, but it became a mystery to those who made assumptions based on
other passages that were mysteries.
jt: What are you talking about? Jesus went to Paradise before he
ascended DAVEH: Hmthen
you agree...paradise is not in heaven? Perhaps I misunderstood you
before. (I thought you implied baptism was not a necessary component of
salvation, and used the thief argument as evidence of your
belief.)
jt: We have no evidence that the thief was ever baptised no matter where
Paradise is locatedand when he did ascend he took all the ppl in Paradise
with him - those in Abraham's bosom that is.
DAVEH: LDS theology teaches we were
all created by God as spirit children in heaven, which includes you, me, Jesus
and Lucifer. Lucifer rebelled and became our "personal
adversarys". snipDAVEH: That's part of it..But not the
whole story. The Bible teaches much more, but it has been suppressed to
make a 'simpler' theology work for many more people.
jt: LDS theology is not part of anything
I've ever read in all of the Bible and is not part of the story at all so far
as I'm concerned. Adam was not created as a spirit child in
heaven.
dh: While baptism in itself will not save
anybody, I firmly believe without baptism, one cannot be saved. (Mk
16:16 and Jn 3:5)
jt: To begin with John 3:5 is not addressing water baptism and Jesus took a
man to Paradise who had not been water baptised. In Mk 16 it accompanies the
preaching of the gospel which should be the teaching of the cross. jt: Who has
been doing the suppressing Dave? (suppressing theology to make things
simpleras you claim). Regeneration by baptism is NOT a scriptural teaching.

DAVEH: We haven't yet discussed it,
so IF you wish to do so, I'll oblige. But first, please explain what you
mean by "Regeneration", as it
is a term we (LDS) do not often use.
jt: I'm not surprised. It means being born of thespirit, passing from
death to life, IOW being born again.
DAVEH: The Bible clearly
explains that baptism is an essential part of salvation.

jt: Not so, you can read it into the clear Word
of Truth but this would be your own perception. Salvation by baptism is taught
by the RCC in error. jt: So you are
in agreement with DavidM about regenerational baptism then?
DAVEH: Until I know what you and
DavidM define it, I can't say one way or the other. All I can tell you
is what I understand the Bible says..and that is that without baptism, one
cannot be fully saved.
jt: Where do you read that without baptism one
can not be fully saved in the Bible?
dh: That is why I believe some of the
early Christians practiced baptism for the dead. Otherwise, it would
have not been necessary (in their eyes.)
jt: It wasn't necessary and they didn't practice it ever. In the

[TruthTalk] The Value of Sin?





DAVEH: I do admit to feeling rather comfortable in my 
"pretend world". The reason for that is that the world I live in answers the 
questions I posed to you (and others in TT.) 

jt: How sad that your god is so small 
DaveH, just like a man isn't he? I don't believe you have ever seriously 
questioned your belief structure but that - just as you are always saying about 
'Protestants' - you were indoctrinated into it at a young age and have never 
layed all that aside and sought after God with your whole heart and until you do 
you will forever be stuck in the confines of this "pretend world"

I see your big hangup is 'why did God allow 
sin when he could have prevented it?' which tells me you do not understand the 
concept of moral freedom among other things.

Judy

Fw: Re: Possible_Spam Re: [TruthTalk] The Value of Sin?

2003-12-10 Thread Terry Clifton










To me, it seems obvious, so I sometimes do not use all the words that I should to convey my meaning to others. Take it like this. If you are the owner of an orange grove, you know what oranges look like, where they come from, how much a box of oranges weighs, sell for, etc. Now, if you were to fly from Florida to some other place where they raised kiwi fruit, even though you had never before seen or heard of a kiwi fruit, you would know very well that it was not an orange. Same deal with God's people. The Holy Spirit leads them to know the truth, so that when someone presents a load of BS covered with a little layer of truth to make it seem as though the truth is being presented, the lie sticks out like a hair in a biscuit.
Hope this answers your question.
Terry


Hi terry, I just HAD to butt in on your conversation with DavidH. You said, " If you know the truth, you will know a lie, even though you have not studied the lie."
I am amazed you could write this contradiction. Are you sure this is what you meant?
Shalom, BlaineRB









 IncrediMail - Email has finally evolved - Click Here

Re: [TruthTalk] The Value of Sin?

2003-12-10 Thread LaurHamm




In a message dated 12/9/2003 6:21:39 AM Central Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
What leads you to believe that those in Paradise ascended "that day"?Could it not be that he preached in the heart of the earth for threedays, rose from the dead, then entered heaven and ministered in thetemple there, then led Paradise to heaven at that time?
This is what I always thought. It just makes sense to me. Laura

RE: [TruthTalk] The Value of Sin?

2003-12-10 Thread ShieldsFamily









FYI, If the Father was in heaven, and Jesus/Father are One;
then the thief on the cross could have been with Jesus/Father in heaven that
day. Izzy



-Original Message-
From:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Wednesday,
 December 10, 2003 7:53 AM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] The Value
of Sin?







In a message dated 12/9/2003 6:21:39 AM Central Standard
Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:





What leads you to believe that those in Paradise ascended
that day?
Could it not be that he preached in the heart of the earth for three
days, rose from the dead, then entered heaven and ministered in the
temple there, then led Paradise to heaven at that time?







This is what I always thought. It just makes sense to
me. Laura

Re: [TruthTalk] The Value of Sin?




[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

DAVEH: I do admit to feeling rather comfortable in my 
"pretend
world". The reason for
that is that the world I live in answers the questions I posed to you (and
others in TT.)
> I see your big hangup is 'why did God allow sin when he could have prevented
it?' which tells me you do not understand the > concept of moral freedom
among other things.
>
>Judy
DAVEH: I think I understand moral freedom quite well. What
I don't understand is why Protestants think it is necessary.
--
~~~
Dave Hansen
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.langlitz.com
~~~
If you wish to receive
things I find interesting,
I maintain Five email lists...
JOKESTER, OPINIONS, LDS,
STUFF and MOTORCYCLE.

[TruthTalk] The Value of Sin?




[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: 

 
  DaveH: pretend world". The reason for that is that the world I 
  live in answers the questions I posed to you (and others in 
  TT.)
  
  jt: I see your big hangup is 'why did God allow sin when he could have 
  prevented it?' which tells me you do not understand theconcept of moral 
  freedom among other things. 
  DAVEH: I think I understand moral freedom quite well. What I 
  don't understand is why Protestants think it is necessary. 
  
  jt: What kind of a statement is that? Would you rather have a heavenly 
  dictator standing over you with a whip to make sure you do right? This 
  is Satan's plan and it is called 'bondage' it is what Jesus died to deliver us 
  from.
  
  But then I've been doing a little research, and have read that your 
  Church believes that there was some kind of a council of gods in heaven and 
  that Lucifer and Jesus (who are supposedly spirit brothers) both presented 
  their plans. Lucifer's plan was to force men to worship godand 
  Jesus' plan was to show them how to worship god. Lucifer's plan was 
  rejected, and Jesus' plan was accepted. (Pearl of Great Price, Book of Moses 
  4:103) 
  
  Is the abovewhat you believe DaveH? Doyou think that 
  Lucifer's plan would have been the better one?
  
  Judy

Re: [TruthTalk] The Value of Sin?



DAVEH: My latest post is in RED...
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:

DaveH: pretend world".
The reason for that is that the world I live in answers the questions I
posed to you (and others in TT.)
jt: I see your big hangup is 'why did God allow sin when he could
have prevented it?' which tells me you do not understand the concept of
moral freedom among other things.DAVEH: I think I understand moral
freedom quite well. What I don't understand is why Protestants think
it is necessary. jt: What kind of a statement is that?
DAVEH: God had the ability
to create a world without sin, and to offer an easy salvation. But
that is not the way he did it. Therefore, I believe God had a reason
for allowing sin to be a part of his plans. (Hence the subject line
to which we are now returning.) I'm trying to find out why Protestants
think God 'created sin'. (Or perhaps that's a poor way of stating
it..why you think God allows sin to exist.)
Would you rather have a heavenly dictator standing over you with a
whip to make sure you do right? This is Satan's plan and it is called
'bondage' it is what Jesus died to deliver us from.
DAVEH: I fully agree.
But let me explain it from a different angle, Judy. God created Adam
 Eve, knowing beforehand that they would succumb to temptation.
(I assume you agree with that.) Then he places a temptation in the
garden, knowing they would partake of the forbidden fruit, and what the
consequences would be. If instead, God had simply not put that
tempting fruit before them, would you the suggest he is a "heavenly
dictator "? Not at all.
I think he would be like a parent concerned about the welfare of his children,
by shielding them from unnecessary evil. Most parents would
not place their children in a dangerous situation when they know the outcome
of that situation..UNLESS there is a good reason for those children
to experience that situation. I don't know if that makes any sense
to you, Judy. As a parent, I hope you can see the similarity of the
situations that I'm trying to convey. But then I've
been doing a little research, and have read that your Church believes that
there was some kind of a council of gods in heaven and that Lucifer and
Jesus (who are supposedly spirit brothers) both presented their plans.
Lucifer's plan was to force men to worship god and Jesus' plan was
to show them how to worship god. Lucifer's plan was rejected, and
Jesus' plan was accepted. (Pearl of Great Price, Book of Moses 4:103) Is
the above what you believe DaveH?
DAVEH: Yes.
Do you think that Lucifer's plan would have been the better one?
Judy

DAVEH: No, not at all.
The Lord's plan of "salvation" was infinitely better than the Adversary's
plan. (I could explain why, but some in TT would accuse me of preaching
Mormonism, or even worse!) To me, the plan of salvation as enveloped
in the gospel has a grand an noble purpose that requires all the steps
we've/I've discussed (in TT since I've been posting), starting with Adam
 Eve transgressing..which I believe was a fundamental step in
that plan. Without the 'fall', there could be no 'salvation' (as
I would think of itwhich is distinctly different from the Protestant
definition). Hence, the Lord's work would not be able to progress.
 BTW..I realize
my above explanation might seem convoluted and difficult to follow.sorry
'bout that.
--
~~~
Dave Hansen
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.langlitz.com
~~~
If you wish to receive
things I find interesting,
I maintain Five email lists...
JOKESTER, OPINIONS, LDS,
STUFF and MOTORCYCLE.

[TruthTalk] The Value of Sin?

jt: God did create a world without sin and
He does offer an easy salvation, after all it was he who provided the
lamb.
DaveH: Therefore, I believe God had a
reason for allowing sin to be a part of his plans. (Hence the subject line
to which we are now returning.) I'm trying to find out why Protestants
think God 'created sin'. (Or perhaps that's a poor way of stating
it..why you think God allows sin to exist.)
jt: God did not 'create sin' - everything he created was good. Sin is not
good. Would you rather have a heavenly dictator standing over you with a whip to
make sure you do right? This is Satan's plan and it is called 'bondage' it
is what Jesus died to deliver us from.
DAVEH: I fully agree. But let
me explain it from a different angle, Judy. God created Adam Eve,
knowing beforehand that they would succumb to temptation. (I assume you
agree with that.) Then he places a temptation in the garden, knowing they
would partake of the forbidden fruit, and what the consequences would
be. If instead, God had simply not put that tempting fruit before
them, would you the suggest he is a "heavenly dictator "?
jt: I believe that the 'fruit' was symbolic. It
was a tree of fallen wisdom ie: the knowledge of good and evil whereas all they
had known was good because they were innocent.But God always makes a way
of escape and they didn't have to succumb. Especially not Adam. He made a
choice. Eve was deceived.
DaveH: Not at all. I think he would
be like a parent concerned about the welfare of his children, by shielding them
from unnecessary evil. Most parents would not place their children
in a dangerous situation when they know the outcome of that
situation..
jt: Adam and Eve were created grown people,
so they were hardly infants and yes God knew what they would do, he allows us to
be tested so that we will see how frail we are.
DaveH: UNLESS there is a good reason for
those children to experience that situation. I don't know if that makes
any sense to you, Judy. As a parent, I hope you can see the similarity of
the situations that I'm trying to convey.
jt: I understand what you are saying but not the
point of all of it. Why accuse God? This is just the way it is and if
there is more to it that we should know he will reveal this also - in his time.
But then I've been doing
a little research, and have read that your Church believes that there was some
kind of a council of gods in heaven and that Lucifer and Jesus (who are
supposedly spirit brothers) both presented their plans. Lucifer's plan was to
force men to worship god and Jesus' plan was to show them how to worship
god. Lucifer's plan was rejected, and Jesus' plan was accepted. (Pearl of
Great Price, Book of Moses 4:103) Is the above what you believe DaveH? DAVEH: Yes. jt: This is
interesting. Do you think that Lucifer's plan would have been the better
one?
DAVEH: No, not at all. The
Lord's plan of "salvation" was infinitely better than the Adversary's
plan. (I could explain why, but some in TT would accuse me of preaching
Mormonism, or even worse!) To me, the plan of salvation as enveloped in
the gospel has a grand an noble purpose that requires all the steps we've/I've
discussed (in TT since I've been posting), starting with Adam Eve
transgressing..which I believe was a fundamental step in that plan.
Without the 'fall', there could be no 'salvation' (as I would think of
itwhich is distinctly different from the Protestant definition).
Hence, the Lord's work would not be able to progress. BTW..I realize my above explanation might seem
convoluted and difficult to follow.sorry 'bout that.

jt: Well I'm sure there is a whole lot more in your explanation than I am
able to follow - also we must keep in mind that your gospel is a different
gospel and that you are led by a different spirit.

Judy

Re: [TruthTalk] The Value of Sin?

2003-12-10 Thread Kevin Deegan

CMON Dave there is more to the story than you let on here.
Why not fill her in on the "fall upward"? I agree that a caring person would not place someone in a situation that is harmful.
But again that too does not conform to LDS doctrine. CMON Dave, I am starting to think that you are being purposefully dishonest. No more double talk, please. So much of what you say has a HIDDEN LDS meaning. Come clean Dave. Tell us what really happened in the garden!

Hint:
DaveH says "UNLESS there is a good reason for those children to experience that situation."
What was that good reason Dave?

DAVEH: I fully agree. But let me explain it from a different angle, Judy. God created Adam Eve, knowing beforehand that they would succumb to temptation. (I assume you agree with that.) Then he places a temptation in the garden, knowing they would partake of the forbidden fruit, and what the consequences would be. If instead, God had simply not put that tempting fruit before them, would you the suggest he is a "heavenly dictator "? Not at all. I think he would be like a parent concerned about the welfare of his children, by shielding them from unnecessary evil. Most parents would not place their children in a dangerous situation when they know the outcome of that situation..UNLESS there is a good reason for those children to experience that situation. I don't know if that makes any sense to you, Judy. As a parent, I hope you
can see the similarity of the situations that I'm trying to convey.Dave [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
DAVEH: My latest post is in RED...
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

DaveH: pretend world". The reason for that is that the world I live in answers the questions I posed to you (and others in TT.)jt: I see your big hangup is 'why did God allow sin when he could have prevented it?' which tells me you do not understand the concept of moral freedom among other things.DAVEH: I think I understand moral freedom quite well. What I don't understand is why Protestants think it is necessary. jt: What kind of a statement is that? DAVEH: God had the ability to create a world without sin, and to offer an easy salvation. But that is not the way he did it. Therefore, I believe God had a reason for allowing sin to be a part of his plans. (Hence the subject line to which we are now returning.) I'm trying to find out why Protestants think God 'created sin'. (Or perhaps
that's a poor way of stating it..why you think God allows sin to exist.) Would you rather have a heavenly dictator standing over you with a whip to make sure you do right? This is Satan's plan and it is called 'bondage' it is what Jesus died to deliver us from. DAVEH: I fully agree. But let me explain it from a different angle, Judy. God created Adam Eve, knowing beforehand that they would succumb to temptation. (I assume you agree with that.) Then he places a temptation in the garden, knowing they would partake of the forbidden fruit, and what the consequences would be. If instead, God had simply not put that tempting fruit before them, would you the suggest he is a "heavenly dictator "? Not at all. I think he would be like a parent concerned about the welfare of his children, by shielding them from unnecessary
evil. Most parents would not place their children in a dangerous situation when they know the outcome of that situation..UNLESS there is a good reason for those children to experience that situation. I don't know if that makes any sense to you, Judy. As a parent, I hope you can see the similarity of the situations that I'm trying to convey. But then I've been doing a little research, and have read that your Church believes that there was some kind of a council of gods in heaven and that Lucifer and Jesus (who are supposedly spirit brothers) both presented their plans. Lucifer's plan was to force men to worship god and Jesus' plan was to show them how to worship god. Lucifer's plan was rejected, and Jesus' plan was accepted. (Pearl of Great Price, Book of Moses 4:103) Is the above what you believe DaveH? DAVEH: Yes. Do you think that Lucifer's plan would
have been the better one? JudyDAVEH: No, not at all. The Lord's plan of "salvation" was infinitely better than the Adversary's plan. (I could explain why, but some in TT would accuse me of preaching Mormonism, or even worse!) To me, the plan of salvation as enveloped in the gospel has a grand an noble purpose that requires all the steps we've/I've discussed (in TT since I've been posting), starting with Adam Eve transgressing..which I believe was a fundamental step in that plan. Without the 'fall', there could be no 'salvation' (as I would think of itwhich is distinctly different from the Protestant definition). Hence, the Lord's work would not be able to progress.
BTW..I realize my above explanation might seem convoluted and difficult to follow.sorry 'bout that.
-- ~~~ Dave Hansen [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.langlitz.com

Re: [TruthTalk] The Value of Sin?

2003-12-10 Thread Kevin Deegan

DAVEH: No, not at all. The Lord's plan of "salvation" was infinitely better than the Adversary's plan. (I could explain why, but some in TT would accuse me of preaching Mormonism, or even worse!) To me, the plan of salvation as enveloped in the gospel has a grand an noble purpose that requires all the steps we've/I've discussed (in TT since I've been posting), starting with Adam Eve transgressing..which I believe was a fundamental step in that plan. Without the 'fall', there could be no 'salvation' (as I would think of itwhich is distinctly different from the Protestant definition). Hence, the Lord's work would not be able to progress. BTW..I realize my above explanation might seem convoluted and difficult to follow.sorry 'bout that.

CMON DAVE spill the beans. WHY DON'T YOU CUT TO THE CHASE? Why all the convoluted reasonings? Stop leading us along. I won't accuse you of posting Mormon doctrine! I post more of it than you do. DON'T YOU THINK THEY ARE READY FOR A LITTLE STRONG MEAT?
Is this like INITIATION?
For instance devil worshipers do not get new converts by telling them "come over tonight we are gonna slit a babies throat drink the blood" NO that would offend any reasonable person. You must reveal the real inner truth to only a select few. Others must be INITIATED a bit at a time. They can only recieve milk, not strong meat. It helps if you can talk with words that have double or deeper meanings. That is why the LDS Missionary lessons leave out all that icky stuff. When that stuff comes out people get offended. Even LDS in the church sometimes don't know those things. When they find out many leave.
Let's just cut to the chase. What is the reason? Go ahead spill the beans. We can take it![EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

DAVEH: My latest post is in RED...
DaveH: pretend world". The reason for that is that the world I live in answers the questions I posed to you (and others in TT.)
jt: I see your big hangup is 'why did God allow sin when he could have prevented it?' which tells me you do not understand the concept of moral freedom among other things.
DAVEH: I think I understand moral freedom quite well. What I don't understand is why Protestants think it is necessary.
jt: What kind of a statement is that? DAVEH: God had the ability to create a world without sin, and to offer an easy salvation. But that is not the way he did it.
jt: God did create a world without sin and He does offer an easy salvation, after all it was he who provided the lamb.
DaveH: Therefore, I believe God had a reason for allowing sin to be a part of his plans. (Hence the subject line to which we are now returning.) I'm trying to find out why Protestants think God 'created sin'. (Or perhaps that's a poor way of stating it..why you think God allows sin to exist.)
jt: God did not 'create sin' - everything he created was good. Sin is not good. Would you rather have a heavenly dictator standing over you with a whip to make sure you do right? This is Satan's plan and it is called 'bondage' it is what Jesus died to deliver us from.
DAVEH: I fully agree. But let me explain it from a different angle, Judy. God created Adam Eve, knowing beforehand that they would succumb to temptation. (I assume you agree with that.) Then he places a temptation in the garden, knowing they would partake of the forbidden fruit, and what the consequences would be. If instead, God had simply not put that tempting fruit before them, would you the suggest he is a "heavenly dictator "?
jt: I believe that the 'fruit' was symbolic. It was a tree of fallen wisdom ie: the knowledge of good and evil whereas all they had known was good because they were innocent.But God always makes a way of escape and they didn't have to succumb. Especially not Adam. He made a choice. Eve was deceived.
DaveH: Not at all. I think he would be like a parent concerned about the welfare of his children, by shielding them from unnecessary evil. Most parents would not place their children in a dangerous situation when they know the outcome of that situation..
jt: Adam and Eve were created grown people, so they were hardly infants and yes God knew what they would do, he allows us to be tested so that we will see how frail we are.
DaveH: UNLESS there is a good reason for those children to experience that situation. I don't know if that makes any sense to you, Judy. As a parent, I hope you can see the similarity of the situations that I'm trying to convey.
jt: I understand what you are saying but not the point of all of it. Why accuse God? This is just the way it is and if there is more to it that we should know he will reveal this also - in his time. But then I've been doing a little research, and have read that your Church believes that there was some kind of a council of gods in heaven and that Lucifer and Jesus (who are supposedly spirit brothers) both presented their plans. Lucifer's plan was to force men to worship god and Jesus' plan was to show them how

Re: [TruthTalk] The Value of Sin?

2003-12-10 Thread Charles Perry Locke

DaveH:
In order for one to feel "comfortable", as you put it, one does not have to know the truth. One onlyhas to believe that one knows the truth.
cpl
From: Dave <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] The Value of Sin? 
Date: Wed, 10 Dec 2003 06:24:38 -0800 

[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: 

  pretend world".The reason for that is that the world I live in 
  answers the questions I posed to you (and others in TT.) 
   I see your big hangup is 'why did God allow sin when he could have 
  prevented it?' which tells me you do not understand the  concept of 
  moral freedom among other things. 

  Judy 

DAVEH:I think I understand moral freedom quite well.What I don't 
understand is why Protestants think it is necessary. 

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

 Shop online for kids toys by age group, price range, and toy category at MSN Shopping. No waiting for a clerk to help you! 
--
"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] The Value of Sin?




DAVEH: My latest post is
in GREEN...
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

jt: Where do
you read that without baptism one can not be fully saved in the Bible?
dh: That is why I believe some of
the early Christians practiced baptism for the dead. Otherwise, it
would have not been necessary (in their eyes.)
jt: It wasn't necessary and they didn't practice it ever.

DAVEH: ??? Are you suggesting
the people Paul referred to were not Christians? Or...were not actually
practicing baptism for the dead?

In the one verse you allude to Paul is using it
as an object lesson to communicate something.

DAVEH: I agree. But the
point I've tried to make is that some of the Primitive Christians actually
believed baptism was necessary for their salvation.

If it was a regular practice there would be two
or more witnesses and it would be practiced or at least alluded to in both
OT and NT. The Corinthians were into many errors and heresies, this was
only one of them

DAVEH: IF that were so, would
there not need to be "two or more witnesses"
suggesting the error of their way?

and in 1 Cor 15:29 Paul uses the issue of baptism
for the dead to show the inconsistency of false teachers at Corinth in
denying the doctrine of the resurrection and yet accepting the fallacy
of baptism for the dead.

DAVEH: Once again I think
you've made a false assumption, Judy. Unless you specifically ask
for a quotation from other Latter-day revelation, I will base most all
my comments I post to TT from the Bible. I use a KJV of the Bible,
and accept is as the word of God as far as it is translated correctly.
jt: ... and where it is not translated correctly I suppose is where
it conflicts with your extra biblical revelation
DAVEH: In the nearly 4 years
I have been on TT, I don't recall ever using that reason as an excuse.
jt: You may not use it as an 'excuse'
per se but I am sure this is where the conflict arises

DAVEH: I respectfully disagree.
I seldom wonder if what I'm reading in the KJV is translated incorrectly.
However, if I were to use the Jehovah Witness' Green Bible, I might be
much more questioning How about you, Judy.have you
read any part of their Green translation? If you did, would you accept
it without questioning its accuracy?

and this is
where you are convinced that your understanding is superior.
DAVEH: My point is that baptism
is not needed to go to paradise. Baptism is needed to go to heaven.jt:
So how did he get baptised without a physical body and with no Mormons
around to baptise the dead?dh: Several TTers (including you) have used
the "thief in paradise' example to prove me wrong. I am merely trying
to defend my position from a Biblical standpoint by showing the inconsistency
in their (your) argument. jt: How can you defend such a position?
Can you show me by scripture that this thief was baptised without a physical
body
DAVEH: I do not know that he
was baptized. But IF he were, I suspect it would have been by early
Christians doing it vicariously, rather than prior to his death.
But that is just my conjecture.
in Paradise before he ascended to heaven with Jesus?
DAVEH: ??? Who said
he ascended to heaven? Do you have a Biblical account of even one
witness of such, let alone "two or more witnesses"?
If you require me to produce multiple witnesses for something I believed
happened in Primitive Christianity, shouldn't you do the same as evidence
of your theory?
Your position is indefensible from a Biblical standpoint.
DAVEH: And your position is..?
If so, then please provide multiple (I'd even be happy to see a single)
Biblical evidence the thief went to heaven. From what Scripture tells
us, it seems to explain only that the thief went to paradise. What
happened to him after that, is not recorded. He may still reside
in paradise.no?
Judy
--
~~~
Dave Hansen
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.langlitz.com
~~~
If you wish to receive
things I find interesting,
I maintain Five email lists...
JOKESTER, OPINIONS, LDS,
STUFF and MOTORCYCLE.

Re: [TruthTalk] The Value of Sin?




Kevin Deegan wrote:
CMON Davethere
is more to the story than you let on here.Why not fill her in on
the "fall upward"?
DAVEH: I don't recall her
asking.
I agree that a caring person would not place someone
in a situation that is harmful.
DAVEH: So then let me ask
you, Kevin..From your perspective, why did God do it knowing that it
would cause such a nuisance for society as a whole, andmuch pain specifically
to his only begotten Son?
But again that too does not conform to LDS doctrine.
CMON Dave, I am starting to think that you are being purposefully dishonest.
DAVEH: This is coming from
one who purposely misquoted SWK???
No more double talk, please. So much of what you say
has a HIDDEN LDS meaning. Come clean Dave. Tell us what really happened
in the garden!
DAVEH: You seem to have a
pretty good LDS library from the material you've been misquoting.
Why don't you read it for yourself, Kevin? Hint:DaveH
says "UNLESS there is a good reason for those children to experience that
situation."What was that good reason Dave?
DAVEH: I believe God put
the temptation in the garden of eden specifically to initiate the fall
and the plan of salvation. Do you agree or disagree, Kevin?
>From what Judy has told me so far, I'm not sure of the Protestant view
on this. (Though my guess is that Protestants look at it the
plan of salvation--- as a clean up the mess program.)
 DAVEH: I fully agree.
But let me explain it from a different angle, Judy. God created Adam
 Eve, knowing beforehand that they would succumb to temptation.
(I assume you agree with that.) Then he places a temptation in the
garden, knowing they would partake of the forbidden fruit, and what the
consequences would be. If instead, God had simply not put that
tempting fruit before them, would you the suggest he is a "heavenly
dictator "? Not at all.
I think he would be like a parent concerned about the welfare of his children,
by shielding them from unnecessary evil. Most parents would
not place their children in a dangerous situation when they know the outcome
of that situation..UNLESS there is a good reason for those children
to experience that situation. I don't know if that makes any sense
to you, Judy. As a parent, I hope you can see the similarity of the
situations that I'm trying to convey.
Dave [EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
DAVEH:
My latest post is in RED...
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:

DaveH: pretend world".
The reason for that is that the world I live in answers the questions I
posed to you (and others in TT.)
jt: I see your big hangup is 'why did God allow sin when he could
have prevented it?' which tells me you do not understand the concept of
moral freedom among other things.DAVEH: I think I understand moral
freedom quite well. What I don't understand is why Protestants think
it is necessary. jt: What kind of a statement is that?
DAVEH: God had the ability
to create a world without sin, and to offer an easy salvation. But
that is not the way he did it. Therefore, I believe God had a reason
for allowing sin to be a part of his plans. (Hence the subject line
to which we are now returning.) I'm trying to find out why Protestants
think God 'created sin'. (Or perhaps that's a poor way of stating
it..why you think God allows sin to exist.)
Would you rather have a heavenly dictator standing over you with a
whip to make sure you do right? This is Satan's plan and it is called
'bondage' it is what Jesus died to deliver us from.
DAVEH: I fully agree.
But let me explain it from a different angle, Judy. God created Adam
 Eve, knowing beforehand that they would succumb to temptation.
(I assume you agree with that.) Then he places a temptation in the
garden, knowing they would partake of the forbidden fruit, and what the
consequences would be. If instead, God had simply not put that
tempting fruit before them, would you the suggest he is a "heavenly
dictator "? Not at all.
I think he would be like a parent concerned about the welfare of his children,
by shielding them from unnecessary evil. Most parents would
not place their children in a dangerous situation when they know the outcome
of that situation..UNLESS there is a good reason for those children
to experience that situation. I don't know if that makes any sense
to you, Judy. As a parent, I hope you can see the similarity of the
situations that I'm trying to convey. But then I've
been doing a little research, and have read that your Church believes that
there was some kind of a council of gods in heaven and that Lucifer and
Jesus (who are supposedly spirit brothers) both presented their plans.
Lucifer's plan was to force men to worship god and Jesus' plan was
to show them how to worship god. Lucifer's plan was rejected, and
Jesus' plan was accepted. (Pearl of Great Price, Book of Moses 4:103) Is
the above what you believe DaveH?
DAVEH: Yes.
Do you think that Lucifer's plan would have been the better one?
Judy

DAVEH: No, not at all.
The Lord's plan of "salvation"

Re: [TruthTalk] The Value of Sin?



DAVEH: My latest post is in GREEN..
Kevin Deegan wrote:
DAVEH:
No, not at all. The Lord's plan of "salvation" was infinitely better
than the Adversary's plan. (I could explain why, but some in TT would
accuse me of preaching Mormonism, or even worse!) To me, the plan
of salvation as enveloped in the gospel has a grand an noble purpose that
requires all the steps we've/I've discussed (in TT since I've been posting),
starting with Adam  Eve transgressing..which I believe was a fundamental
step in that plan. Without the 'fall', there could be no 'salvation'
(as I would think of itwhich is distinctly different from the Protestant
definition). Hence, the Lord's work would not be able to progress.
BTW..I realize my above explanation might seem convoluted and difficult
to follow.sorry 'bout that. CMON DAVE spill the beans.
WHY DON'T YOU CUT TO THE CHASE? Why all the convoluted reasonings? Stop
leading us along. I won't accuse you of posting Mormon doctrine!
DAVEH: You might not, but
others have (and will).
I post more of it than you do.
DAVEH: Yes.thank you
for that. The problem is that sometimes you misquote some of it to
your advantage.
DON'T YOU THINK THEY ARE READY FOR A LITTLE STRONG MEAT?
DAVEH: No. What little
I have already offered has already been rejected.
Is this like INITIATION?
DAVEH: ???
For instance devil worshipers do not get new converts by telling
them "come over tonight we are gonna slit a babies throat  drink the
blood" NO that would offend any reasonable person. You must reveal the
real inner truth to only a select few. Others must be INITIATED a bit at
a time. They can only recieve milk, not strong meat. It helps if you can
talk with words that have double or deeper meanings. That is why the LDS
Missionary lessons leave out all that icky stuff. When that stuff comes
out people get offended. Even LDS in the church sometimes don't know those
things. When they find out many leave.
DAVEH: Ahh...I see.
You think the meat should come before the milk, eh.
Let's just cut to the chase. What is the reason?
DAVEH: I suppose it is because
most of what I post is unwanted as it is.
Go ahead spill the beans. We can take it!
DAVEH: If you have a specific
question Kevin, go ahead and ask it.

[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
DAVEH:
My latest post is in RED...DaveH: pretend world".
The reason for that is that the world I live in answers the questions I
posed to you (and others in TT.)
jt: I see your big hangup is 'why did God allow sin when he could
have prevented it?' which tells me you do not understand the concept of
moral freedom among other things.
DAVEH: I think I understand moral freedom quite well. What
I don't understand is why Protestants think it is necessary.
jt: What kind of a statement is that?
DAVEH: God had the ability
to create a world without sin, and to offer an easy salvation. But
that is not the way he did it.
jt: God did create a world without
sin and He does offer an easy salvation, after all it was he who provided
the lamb.
DaveH: Therefore, I believe God
had a reason for allowing sin to be a part of his plans. (Hence the
subject line to which we are now returning.) I'm trying to find out
why Protestants think God 'created sin'. (Or perhaps that's a poor
way of stating it..why you think God allows sin to exist.)
jt: God did not 'create sin' - everything he created was good. Sin is
not good. Would you rather have a heavenly dictator standing over you with
a whip to make sure you do right? This is Satan's plan and it is
called 'bondage' it is what Jesus died to deliver us from.
DAVEH: I fully agree.
But let me explain it from a different angle, Judy. God created Adam
 Eve, knowing beforehand that they would succumb to temptation.
(I assume you agree with that.) Then he places a temptation in the
garden, knowing they would partake of the forbidden fruit, and what the
consequences would be. If instead, God had simply not put that
tempting fruit before them, would you the suggest he is a "heavenly
dictator "?
jt: I believe that the 'fruit' was
symbolic. It was a tree of fallen wisdom ie: the knowledge of good and
evil whereas all they had known was good because they were innocent. But
God always makes a way of escape and they didn't have to succumb.
Especially not Adam. He made a choice. Eve was deceived.
DaveH: Not at all. I think
he would be like a parent concerned about the welfare of his children,
by shielding them from unnecessary evil. Most parents would
not place their children in a dangerous situation when they know the outcome
of that situation..
jt: Adam and Eve were created grown
people, so they were hardly infants and yes God knew what they would do,
he allows us to be tested so that we will see how frail we are.
DaveH: UNLESS there is a good reason
for those children to experience that situation. I don't know if
that makes any sense to you, Judy. As a parent, I hope you can see
the similarity of the situations that I'm trying to

Re: [TruthTalk] The Value of Sin?




[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
DAVEH:
God had the ability to create a world without sin, and to offer an easy
salvation. But that is not the way he did it.
jt: God did create a world without
sin and He does offer an easy salvation, after all it was he who provided
the lamb.
*DAVEH: And did he not also provide the temptation?
Doesn't it seem likely he intentionally created both for a purpose?
DaveH: Therefore,
I believe God had a reason for allowing sin to be a part of his plans.
(Hence the subject line to which we are now returning.) I'm trying
to find out why Protestants think God 'created sin'. (Or perhaps
that's a poor way of stating it..why you think God allows sin to exist.)
jt: God did not 'create sin'
*DAVEH: I agree..That is why I emphasized
it. What he did is create a situation where a transgression (sin
if you will) would take place leading to the fall.
- everything he created was good.
*DAVEH: Is "the tree of the knowledge of
good and evil" considered 'good' from a Protestant's (or yours) perspective?
Sin is not good. Would you rather have a heavenly
dictator standing over you with a whip to make sure you do right?
This is Satan's plan and it is called 'bondage' it is what Jesus died to
deliver us from.
DAVEH: I fully agree.
But let me explain it from a different angle, Judy. God created Adam
 Eve, knowing beforehand that they would succumb to temptation.
(I assume you agree with that.) Then he places a temptation in the
garden, knowing they would partake of the forbidden fruit, and what the
consequences would be. If instead, God had simply not put that
tempting fruit before them, would you the suggest he is a "heavenly
dictator "?
jt: I believe that the 'fruit' was
symbolic. It was a tree of fallen wisdom ie: the knowledge of good and
evil whereas all they had known was good because they were innocent. But
God always makes a way of escape and they didn't have to succumb.
Especially not Adam. He made a choice. Eve was deceived.
*DAVEH: My mind keeps coming back to the
fundamental question of why God put that temptation there IF it was to
lead (and God knew the ramifications) to the magnitude of sacrifice his
only begotten Son would have to suffer through.
DaveH: Not at
all. I think he would be like a parent concerned about the welfare
of his children, by shielding them from unnecessary evil. Most
parents would not place their children in a dangerous situation when they
know the outcome of that situation..
jt: Adam and Eve were created grown
people, so they were hardly infants and yes God knew what they would do,
he allows us to be tested so that we will see how frail we are.
*DAVEH: Putting this back into a human perspective,
IF you knew that allowing one of your children to be tempted would cause
another of your children to die in agony, would you still put that temptation
in front of your first child just so he could see how frail he is?
DaveH: UNLESS
there is a good reason for those children to experience that situation.
I don't know if that makes any sense to you, Judy. As a parent, I
hope you can see the similarity of the situations that I'm trying to convey.
jt: I understand what you are saying
but not the point of all of it. Why accuse God? This is just the
way it is and if there is more to it that we should know he will reveal
this also - in his time.
*DAVEH: Then I suppose it would be a mystery
until then.or do you disagree?
But
then I've been doing a little research, and have read that your Church
believes that there was some kind of a council of gods in heaven and that
Lucifer and Jesus (who are supposedly spirit brothers) both presented their
plans. Lucifer's plan was to force men to worship god and Jesus'
plan was to show them how to worship god. Lucifer's plan was rejected,
and Jesus' plan was accepted. (Pearl of Great Price, Book of Moses 4:103)
Is the above what you believe DaveH?
DAVEH: Yes.
jt: This is interesting. Do you think that Lucifer's plan would
have been the better one?DAVEH:
No, not at all. The Lord's plan of "salvation" was infinitely better
than the Adversary's plan. (I could explain why, but some in TT would
accuse me of preaching Mormonism, or even worse!) To me, the plan
of salvation as enveloped in the gospel has a grand an noble purpose that
requires all the steps we've/I've discussed (in TT since I've been posting),
starting with Adam  Eve transgressing..which I believe was a fundamental
step in that plan. Without the 'fall', there could be no 'salvation'
(as I would think of itwhich is distinctly different from the Protestant
definition). Hence, the Lord's work would not be able to progress.
BTW..I realize my above explanation might seem convoluted and difficult
to follow.sorry 'bout that. jt: Well I'm sure there is
a whole lot more in your explanation than I am able to follow - also we
must keep in mind that your gospel is a different gospel and that you are
led by a different spirit. Judy
*DAVEH:

Re: [TruthTalk] The Value of Sin?