RE: [TruthTalk] Two things
Very well written and thought out, Terry-Good Job Bro. - Original Message - From: Terry Clifton To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: 12/4/2003 8:08:25 AM Subject: [TruthTalk] Two things As I have studied and tried to understand the current conversations (Mormonism and street preaching), two things keep coming to the surface of the muddled puddle that I refer to as my brain. The first is that Joseph Smith, like Mohammed, stands alone as God's messenger. In the case of both these alleged prophets, we have a lone ranger, revealing what has been given only to him, and only for a limited time. If you believe either of them, you place your complete trust in the revelation (or ranting) of one man at one point in time. Contrast that to the Bible, where we have about forty men and a couple of women recording the revelation given to them over sixteen hundred years. Most of them never lived at the same time or knew each other, yet the coming of our Savior was predicted and documented by all of them, and when read or studied, their testimonies all fit together like pieces of a puzzle. When the Holy Bible was written, there were at least three warnings in it not to add or take anything from that Book. Since both Mohammed and Joseph Smith came along well after this Book was complete, and no reference was ever made to them in the Book, they must be considered whackos, and if they could return from hell for one minute, they would repent loudly enough to drown out the tabernacle choir. The second thing concerns the evangelism methods being discussed. I notice that there are places in the Bible where the prophets screamed threats, others where they begged people to repent. There was "Thus saith the Lord" and there was "come, let us reason together". John the Baptist was a name caller, a screamer, and one who would jump on you about your sin. Paul tried to be all things to all people. God used both of them effectively. I find plenty of room in the Bible for teachers such as those Judy prefers, and I also find plenty of room for the type of preacher that Dean sees as a model for him to follow. There is a verse that says Jesus sat and taught, and there is a verse that says He cried out. God did not give all of us the same personality, and God never expected us to conform ourselves to one mould. God can use anyone who wants to be used with one possible exception. I do not see anywhere where He used someone who simply stayed home and said,"Look at me. I am a good example." Terry
Re: [TruthTalk] Two things
ditto On Thu, 4 Dec 2003 08:59:20 -0500 "Dean Moore" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: Very well written and thought out, Terry-Good Job Bro. - Original Message - From: Terry Clifton To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: 12/4/2003 8:08:25 AM Subject: [TruthTalk] Two things As I have studied and tried to understand the current conversations (Mormonism and street preaching), two things keep coming to the surface of the muddled puddle that I refer to as my brain. The first is that Joseph Smith, like Mohammed, stands alone as God's messenger. In the case of both these alleged prophets, we have a lone ranger, revealing what has been given only to him, and only for a limited time. If you believe either of them, you place your complete trust in the revelation (or ranting) of one man at one point in time. Contrast that to the Bible, where we have about forty men and a couple of women recording the revelation given to them over sixteen hundred years. Most of them never lived at the same time or knew each other, yet the coming of our Savior was predicted and documented by all of them, and when read or studied, their testimonies all fit together like pieces of a puzzle. When the Holy Bible was written, there were at least three warnings in it not to add or take anything from that Book. Since both Mohammed and Joseph Smith came along well after this Book was complete, and no reference was ever made to them in the Book, they must be considered whackos, and if they could return from hell for one minute, they would repent loudly enough to drown out the tabernacle choir. The second thing concerns the evangelism methods being discussed. I notice that there are places in the Bible where the prophets screamed threats, others where they begged people to repent. There was "Thus saith the Lord" and there was "come, let us reason together". John the Baptist was a name caller, a screamer, and one who would jump on you about your sin. Paul tried to be all things to all people. God used both of them effectively. I find plenty of room in the Bible for teachers such as those Judy prefers, and I also find plenty of room for the type of preacher that Dean sees as a model for him to follow. There is a verse that says Jesus sat and taught, and there is a verse that says He cried out. God did not give all of us the same personality, and God never expected us to conform ourselves to one mould. God can use anyone who wants to be used with one possible exception. I do not see anywhere where He used someone who simply stayed home and said,"Look at me. I am a good example." Terry gary ottoson :: http://poet235.com
RE: [TruthTalk] Two things
Terry, I think it is very unthoughtful of you to try to confuse the poor mormons with the facts. On the other hand, that has not bothered them much so far. Izzy -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, December 04, 2003 3:26 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Two things ditto On Thu, 4 Dec 2003 08:59:20 -0500 "Dean Moore" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: Very well written and thought out, Terry-Good Job Bro. - Original Message - From: Terry Clifton To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: 12/4/2003 8:08:25 AM Subject: [TruthTalk] Two things As I have studied and tried to understand the current conversations (Mormonism and street preaching), two things keep coming to the surface of the muddled puddle that I refer to as my brain. The first is that Joseph Smith, like Mohammed, stands alone as God's messenger. In the case of both these alleged prophets, we have a lone ranger, revealing what has been given only to him, and only for a limited time. If you believe either of them, you place your complete trust in the revelation (or ranting) of one man at one point in time. Contrast that to the Bible, where we have about forty men and a couple of women recording the revelation given to them over sixteen hundred years. Most of them never lived at the same time or knew each other, yet the coming of our Savior was predicted and documented by all of them, and when read or studied, their testimonies all fit together like pieces of a puzzle. When the Holy Bible was written, there were at least three warnings in it not to add or take anything from that Book. Since both Mohammed and Joseph Smith came along well after this Book was complete, and no reference was ever made to them in the Book, they must be considered whackos, and if they could return from hell for one minute, they would repent loudly enough to drown out the tabernacle choir. The second thing concerns the evangelism methods being discussed. I notice that there are places in the Bible where the prophets screamed threats, others where they begged people to repent. There was "Thus saith the Lord" and there was "come, let us reason together". John the Baptist was a name caller, a screamer, and one who would jump on you about your sin. Paul tried to be all things to all people. God used both of them effectively. I find plenty of room in the Bible for teachers such as those Judy prefers, and I also find plenty of room for the type of preacher that Dean sees as a model for him to follow. There is a verse that says Jesus sat and taught, and there is a verse that says He cried out. God did not give all of us the same personality, and God never expected us to conform ourselves to one mould. God can use anyone who wants to be used with one possible exception. I do not see anywhere where He used someone who simply stayed home and said,"Look at me. I am a good example." Terry gary ottoson :: http://poet235.com
RE: [TruthTalk] Two things
Terry, I’ve had non-stop houseguests for the past month, so am now trying to go back and catch up a bit. I really liked your post here—quite excellent. However, I’m wondering; does the below statement refer to me? Maybe not. But, if so, what do you know about what I do other than stay at home? And if even if a woman did only stay at home, this would be scriptural* (and I consider it my main calling in life.) Have you ever considered all of the ministries a woman can do entirely from her home? It’s such an awesome calling to be a homemaker!!! I also do not consider it fitting or likely that the Lord would call a woman to do the kind of street preaching which some of our brothers here are called to do. There may be exceptions, but none I’m aware of. (Although He does allow some of us to preach via the internet. J) Izzy, *Titus 2:5 To be discreet, chaste, keepers at home, good, obedient to their own husbands, that the word of God be not blasphemed. -Original Message- God did not give all of us the same personality, and God never expected us to conform ourselves to one mould. God can use anyone who wants to be used with one possible exception. I do not see anywhere where He used someone who simply stayed home and said,"Look at me. I am a good example." Terry
RE: [TruthTalk] Two things
Iz: I do not know you well enough to know if that statrment applies to you. Why don't you tell me about all the ministries you are operating from your home. Having never been either a woman or a home maker, I am kinda in the dark in this area. I think it was Samuel Clements who said, "After three days, fish and house guests begin to smell". Terry ---Original Message--- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Date: Friday, December 05, 2003 22:22:07 To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: RE: [TruthTalk] Two things Terry, Ive had non-stop houseguests for the past month, so am now trying to go back and catch up a bit. I really liked your post herequite excellent. However, Im wondering; does the below statement refer to me? Maybe not. But, if so, what do you know about what I do other than stay at home? And if even if a woman did only stay at home, this would be scriptural* (and I consider it my main calling in life.) Have you ever considered all of the ministries a woman can do entirely from her home? Its such an awesome calling to be a homemaker!!! I also do not consider it fitting or likely that the Lord would call a woman to do the kind of street preaching which some of our brothers here are called to do. There may be exceptions, but none Im aware of. (Although He does allow some of us to preach via the internet. J) Izzy, *Titus 2:5To be discreet, chaste, keepers at home, good, obedient to their own husbands, that the word of God be not blasphemed. -Original Message- God did not give all of us the same personality, and God never expected us to conform ourselves to one mould. God can use anyone who wants to be used with one possible exception. I do not see anywhere where He used someone who simply stayed home and said,"Look at me. I am a good example." Terry IncrediMail - Email has finally evolved - Click Here
RE: [TruthTalk] Two things
Terry, Just ask your sweet wife all about it—I’m sure she can clue you in. J Izzy -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Terry Clifton Sent: Saturday, December 06, 2003 1:58 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: RE: [TruthTalk] Two things Iz: I do not know you well enough to know if that statrment applies to you. Why don't you tell me about all the ministries you are operating from your home. Having never been either a woman or a home maker, I am kinda in the dark in this area. I think it was Samuel Clements who said, "After three days, fish and house guests begin to smell". Terry ---Original Message--- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Date: Friday, December 05, 2003 22:22:07 To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: RE: [TruthTalk] Two things Terry, I’ve had non-stop houseguests for the past month, so am now trying to go back and catch up a bit. I really liked your post here—quite excellent. However, I’m wondering; does the below statement refer to me? Maybe not. But, if so, what do you know about what I do other than stay at home? And if even if a woman did only stay at home, this would be scriptural* (and I consider it my main calling in life.) Have you ever considered all of the ministries a woman can do entirely from her home? It’s such an awesome calling to be a homemaker!!! I also do not consider it fitting or likely that the Lord would call a woman to do the kind of street preaching which some of our brothers here are called to do. There may be exceptions, but none I’m aware of. (Although He does allow some of us to preach via the internet. J) Izzy, *Titus 2:5 To be discreet, chaste, keepers at home, good, obedient to their own husbands, that the word of God be not blasphemed. -Original Message- God did not give all of us the same personality, and God never expected us to conform ourselves to one mould. God can use anyone who wants to be used with one possible exception. I do not see anywhere where He used someone who simply stayed home and said,"Look at me. I am a good example." Terry IncrediMail - Email has finally evolved - Click Here <><>
Re: [TruthTalk] Two things
Terry Clifton wrote: As I have studied and tried to understand the current conversations (Mormonism and street preaching), two things keep coming to the surface of the muddled puddle that I refer to as my brain. The first is that Joseph Smith, like Mohammed, stands alone as God's messenger. DAVEH: Not at all. Where did you get that idea, Terry? In the case of both these alleged prophets, we have a lone ranger, revealing what has been given only to him, and only for a limited time. If you believe either of them, you place your complete trust in the revelation (or ranting) of one man at one point in time. Contrast that to the Bible, where we have about forty men and a couple of women recording the revelation given to them over sixteen hundred years. Most of them never lived at the same time or knew each other, yet the coming of our Savior was predicted and documented by all of them, and when read or studied, their testimonies all fit together like pieces of a puzzle.When the Holy Bible was written, there were at least three warnings in it not to add or take anything from that Book. DAVEH: That is not true at all. The first instance was in Dt 4:2. Logically, your comment does not make any sense, as any books added after Deuteronomy would have violated what God said in Dt 4:2. If you think it through, Terry, it will make more sense if you consider the writers of those books were told that nothing should be added or removed from those books alone, not for the Bible as a whole. Since both Mohammed and Joseph Smith came along well after this Book was complete, and no reference was ever made to them in the Book, DAVEH: Not true again. Previously I made reference to Is 29: 11-18, which IMO makes reference to JS. they must be considered whackos, and if they could return from hell for one minute, they would repent loudly enough to drown out the tabernacle choir. The second thing concerns the evangelism methods being discussed. I notice that there are places in the Bible where the prophets screamed threats, others where they begged people to repent. There was "Thus saith the Lord" and there was "come, let us reason together". John the Baptist was a name caller, a screamer, and one who would jump on you about your sin. Paul tried to be all things to all people. God used both of them effectively. I find plenty of room in the Bible for teachers such as those Judy prefers, and I also find plenty of room for the type of preacher that Dean sees as a model for him to follow. There is a verse that says Jesus sat and taught, and there is a verse that says He cried out. God did not give all of us the same personality, and God never expected us to conform ourselves to one mould. God can use anyone who wants to be used with one possible exception. I do not see anywhere where He used someone who simply stayed home and said,"Look at me. I am a good example."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] Two things
DAVEH: Not true again. Previously I made reference to Is 29: 11-18, which IMO makes reference to JS. jt: How does Isa 29 refer to Joseph Smith? I'd say Galatians 1:8 more accurately describes Joseph Smith. Judy Joseph & the Book of Mormon has a FAMILIAR SPIRIT: Isaiah 29:4 "And thou shalt be brought down, and shalt speak out of the ground, and thy speech shall be low out of the dust, and thy voice shall be, as of one that hath a familiar spirit, out of the ground, and thy speech shall whisper out of the dust." LDS say this scripture refers to the GOLD plates: "Now, obviously, the only way a dead people could speak 'out of the ground' or 'low out of the dust' would be by the written word, and this the people did through the Book of Mormon. Truly it has a familiar spirit, for it contains the words of the prophets of the God of Israel." LeGrand Richards, A Marvelous Work and A Wonder, p. 69. He was ordainedas one of the LDS "twelve apostles" "ISAIAH PROPHESIES OF BOOK OF MORMON. One of the most important predictions regarding the Book of Mormon is that found in the 29th chapter of Isaiah. The prophet here speaks of a people who should be like Ariel, the city where David dwelt. They should have heaviness and sorrow and should be brought down to speak out of the ground, and their speech was to be low out of the dust, and their voice was to be as of one that had a familiar spirit." Joseph Fielding Smith Jr., Doctrines of Salvation, V.3, p.213 "Familiar spirit" is translated from the Hebrew word, "ob", which means a necromancer (the pretended power to foretell the future by communicating with the dead; magic). The _expression_ "familiar spirit" occurs in Isa. 8:19-20 where the practice is condemned: "And when they shall say unto you, Seek unto them that have familiar spirits, and unto wizards that peep, and that mutter: should not a people seek unto their God? for the living to the dead? To the law and to the testimony: if they speak not according to this word, it is because there is no light in them." Under the law of Moses death was the punishment for turning after familiar spirits. (Lev. 20:6). Is 29, is in reference to the people being laid low beaten to the ground by their enemies. See, Is 51:23 But I will put it into the hand of them that afflict thee; which have said to thy soul, Bow down, that we may go over: and thou hast laid thy body as the ground, and as the street, to them that went over. IF the BOM has a FAMILIAR SPIRIT, stay far away from it!Judy Taylor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Terry: When the Holy Bible was written, there were at least three warnings in it not to add or take anything from that Book. DAVEH: That is not true at all. The first instance was in Dt 4:2. Logically, your comment does not make any sense, as any books added after Deuteronomy would have violated what God said in Dt 4:2. If you think it through, Terry, it will make more sense if you consider the writers of those books were told that nothing should be added or removed from those books alone, not for the Bible as a whole. jt: Who said anything about 'books' or the 'Bible as a whole' God warns not to add or take away from His Word not only in Deuteronomy but also in Proverbs and in Revelation. Terry: Since both Mohammed and Joseph Smith came along well after this Book was complete, and no reference was ever made to them in the Book, DAVEH: Not true again. Previously I made reference to Is 29: 11-18, which IMO makes reference to JS. jt: How does Isa 29 refer to Joseph Smith? I'd say Galatians 1:8 more accurately describes Joseph Smith. Judy Do you Yahoo!? Free Pop-Up Blocker - Get it now
Re: [TruthTalk] Two things
- Original Message - From: Kevin Deegan To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, December 08, 2003 5:35 PM Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Two things DAVEH: Not true again. Previously I made reference to Is 29: 11-18, which IMO makes reference to JS. jt: How does Isa 29 refer to Joseph Smith? I'd say Galatians 1:8 more accurately describes Joseph Smith. Judy Well said Judy. A far more appropriate verse. Terry
Re: [TruthTalk] Two things
DAVEH: My latest post is in RED... Kevin Deegan wrote: DAVEH: Not true again. Previously I made reference to Is 29: 11-18, which IMO makes reference to JS. jt: How does Isa 29 refer to Joseph Smith? DAVEH: The scenario Isaiah envisions in verses 11 to 13 actually happened in 1830. If you wish, I can quote the instance (and have done so previously), but am reluctant to do so now because of the criticisms I have received about gratuitously quoting Mormon material. I'd say Galatians 1:8 more accurately describes Joseph Smith.JudyDAVEH: I know you do, Judy. Many others feel the same way, though I respectfully disagree. If you don't already know, I believe that "other gospel" was introduced via Catholicism, and subsequently inherited in much of the Protestant dogma that is commonly accepted now. That is why there needed to be a restitution of all things as Acts 3:19-21 explained.Joseph & the Book of Mormon has a FAMILIAR SPIRIT: Isaiah 29:4 "And thou shalt be brought down, and shalt speak out of the ground, and thy speech shall be low out of the dust, and thy voice shall be, as of one that hath a familiar spirit, out of the ground, and thy speech shall whisper out of the dust." LDS say this scripture refers to the GOLD plates: "Now, obviously, the only way a dead people could speak 'out of the ground' or 'low out of the dust' would be by the written word, and this the people did through the Book of Mormon. Truly it has a familiar spirit, for it contains the words of the prophets of the God of Israel." LeGrand Richards, A Marvelous Work and A Wonder, p. 69. He was ordainedas one of the LDS "twelve apostles" "ISAIAH PROPHESIES OF BOOK OF MORMON. One of the most important predictions regarding the Book of Mormon is that found in the 29th chapter of Isaiah. The prophet here speaks of a people who should be like Ariel, the city where David dwelt. They should have heaviness and sorrow and should be brought down to speak out of the ground, and their speech was to be low out of the dust, and their voice was to be as of one that had a familiar spirit." Joseph Fielding Smith Jr., Doctrines of Salvation, V.3, p.213 DAVEH: Again Kevin...thank you for posting LDS material in TT. -- ~~~ 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] Two things
DAVEH: My latest post is in RED... Judy Taylor wrote: Terry: When the Holy Bible was written, there were at least three warnings in it not to add or take anything from that Book. DAVEH: That is not true at all. The first instance was in Dt 4:2. Logically, your comment does not make any sense, as any books added after Deuteronomy would have violated what God said in Dt 4:2. If you think it through, Terry, it will make more sense if you consider the writers of those books were told that nothing should be added or removed from those books alone, not for the Bible as a whole. jt: Who said anything about 'books' or the 'Bible as a whole' DAVEH: I thought Terry did. Note his comment below "Joseph Smith came along well after this Book was complete". God warns not to add or take away from His Word not only in Deuteronomy but also in Proverbs and in Revelation. DAVEH: Agreed. That was exactly my point, Judy. I just didn't state it as well as you just did.Terry: Since both Mohammed and Joseph Smith came along well after this Book was complete, and no reference was ever made to them in the Book, DAVEH: Not true again. Previously I made reference to Is 29: 11-18, which IMO makes reference to JS. jt: How does Isa 29 refer to Joseph Smith? I'd say Galatians 1:8 more accurately describes Joseph Smith. DAVEH: I responded to both these comments in a parallel post tonight. 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] Two things
DAVEH: My latest post is in PINK [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: DAVEH: My latest post is in RED...Kevin Deegan wrote: DAVEH: Not true again. Previously I made reference to Is 29: 11-18, which IMO makes reference to JS.jt: How does Isa 29 refer to Joseph Smith?DAVEH: The scenario Isaiah envisions in verses 11 to 13 actually happened in 1830. If you wish, I can quote the instance (and have done so previously), but am reluctant to do so now because of the criticisms I have received about gratuitously quoting Mormon material.I'd say Galatians 1:8 more accurately describes Joseph Smith. Judy DAVEH: I know you do, Judy. Many others feel the same way, though I respectfully disagree. If you don't already know, I believe that "other gospel" was introduced via Catholicism, and subsequently inherited in much of the Protestant dogma that is commonly accepted now. That is why there needed to be a restitution of all things as Acts 3:19-21 explained. jt: The restitution of Acts 3:19-21 has not yet happened. Jesus is still held in the heavens waiting. DAVEH: I respectfully disagree, Judy. As I have previously explained, it began happening in 1830. However, for the sake of this discussion, let's assume that you are correct and that it (the restitution of all things) is yet to happen. Why would all these things need to be restored if they were already in existence? It seems to me that a restoration is only necessary IF there is first a falling away or an apostasy. Do you disagree, Judy? Joseph & the Book of Mormon has a FAMILIAR SPIRIT: Isaiah 29:4 "And thou shalt be brought down, and shalt speak out of the ground, and thy speech shall be low out of the dust, and thy voice shall be, as of one that hath a familiar spirit, out of the ground, and thy speech shall whisper out of the dust." LDS say this scripture refers to the GOLD plates: "Now, obviously, the only way a dead people could speak 'out of the ground' or 'low out of the dust' would be by the written word, and this the people did through the Book of Mormon. Truly it has a familiar spirit, for it contains the words of the prophets of the God of Israel." LeGrand Richards, A Marvelous Work and A Wonder, p. 69. He was ordainedas one of the LDS "twelve apostles" "ISAIAH PROPHESIES OF BOOK OF MORMON. One of the most important predictions regarding the Book of Mormon is that found in the 29th chapter of Isaiah. The prophet here speaks of a people who should be like Ariel, the city where David dwelt. They should have heaviness and sorrow and should be brought down to speak out of the ground, and their speech was to be low out of the dust, and their voice was to be as of one that had a familiar spirit." Joseph Fielding Smith Jr., Doctrines of Salvation, V.3, p.213 DAVEH: Again Kevin...thank you for posting LDS material in TT. jt: Is this really Mormon material DaveH? DAVEH: The passages he quoted are taken from LDS related books. (I am assuming Kevin quoted them correctly.) Neither quotations/books are considered Scripture though. You mean your church actually does knowingly promote doctrines of demons? A familiar spirit is what Jesus went to the cross to deliver us from. How sad. DAVEH: It is only sad that you are not considering the context of what is being said. 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] Two things
No smokescreens Dave Answer the question for the lady. Or is she not ready for "strong Meat" Just ready for milk we will give answers with hidden meanings then? First you say: (I am assuming Kevin quoted them correctly.) Then later it is It is only sad that you are not considering the context of what is being said So at the first comment, you did not check them out Then at the second, you imply they are out of context. Which is it? It is an easy question to answer Does the Church teach that the Book of Mormon has a Familiar Spirit? Check one: YES NO Dave <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: DAVEH: My latest post is in PINK [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: DAVEH: My latest post is in RED...Kevin Deegan wrote: DAVEH: Not true again. Previously I made reference to Is 29: 11-18, which IMO makes reference to JS.jt: How does Isa 29 refer to Joseph Smith?DAVEH: The scenario Isaiah envisions in verses 11 to 13 actually happened in 1830. If you wish, I can quote the instance (and have done so previously), but am reluctant to do so now because of the criticisms I have received about gratuitously quoting Mormon material.I'd say Galatians 1:8 more accurately describes Joseph Smith. Judy DAVEH: I know you do, Judy. Many others feel the same way, though I respectfully disagree. If you don't already know, I believe that "other gospel" was introduced via Catholicism, and subsequently inherited in much of the Protestant dogma that is commonly accepted now. That is why there needed to be a restitution of all things as Acts 3:19-21 explained. jt: The restitution of Acts 3:19-21 has not yet happened. Jesus is still held in the heavens waiting. DAVEH: I respectfully disagree, Judy. As I have previously explained, it began happening in 1830. However, for the sake of this discussion, let's assume that you are correct and that it (the restitution of all things) is yet to happen. Why would all these things need to be restored if they were already in existence? It seems to me that a restoration is only necessary IF there is first a falling away or an apostasy. Do you disagree, Judy? Joseph & the Book of Mormon has a FAMILIAR SPIRIT: Isaiah 29:4 "And thou shalt be brought down, and shalt speak out of the ground, and thy speech shall be low out of the dust, and thy voice shall be, as of one that hath a familiar spirit, out of the ground, and thy speech shall whisper out of the dust."LDS say this scripture refers to the GOLD plates: "Now, obviously, the only way a dead people could speak 'out of the ground' or 'low out of the dust' would be by the written word, and this the people did through the Book of Mormon. Truly it has a familiar spirit, for it contains the words of the prophets of the God of Israel." LeGrand Richards, A Marvelous Work and A Wonder, p. 69. He was ordainedas one of the LDS "twelve apostles" "ISAIAH PROPHESIES OF BOOK OF MORMON. One of the most important predictions regarding the Book of Mormon is that found in the 29th chapter of Isaiah. The prophet here speaks of a people who should be like Ariel, the city where David dwelt. They should have heaviness and sorrow and should be brought down to speak out of the ground, and their speech was to be low out of the dust, and their voice was to be as of one that had a familiar spirit." Joseph Fielding Smith Jr., Doctrines of Salvation, V.3, p.213DAVEH: Again Kevin...thank you for posting LDS material in TT. jt: Is this really Mormon material DaveH? DAVEH: The passages he quoted are taken from LDS related books. (I am assuming Kevin quoted them correctly.) Neither quotations/books are considered Scripture though. You mean your church actually does knowingly promote doctrines of demons? A familiar spirit is what Jesus went to the cross to deliver us from. How sad. DAVEH: It is only sad that you are not considering the context of what is being said. 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. Do you Yahoo!? Free Pop-Up Blocker - Get it now
RE: [TruthTalk] Two things
TO DAVE HANSEN: Kevin raises an important question here. I hope you do not overlook it amongst your many emails. He quotes one of your apostles as saying: "Now, obviously, the only way a dead people could speak 'out of the ground' or 'low out of the dust' would be by the written word, and this the people did through the Book of Mormon. Truly it has a familiar spirit, for it contains the words of the prophets of the God of Israel." LeGrand Richards, A Marvelous Work and A Wonder, p. 69. Then Kevin wrote: It is an easy question to answer. Does the Church teach that the Book of Mormon has a Familiar Spirit? Check one: YES NO If you don't have time to answer, maybe Blaine can answer it. Do either of you have this book by Richards that he mentions, "A Marvelous Work and a Wonder"? I searched for some more information and found it interesting that LeGrand Richards was one of the apostles involved in allowing blacks to function in the priesthood, primarily because of the large number of black Mormons in Brazil. Therefore, LeGrand Richards was responsible for adding additional Scripture to your holy writings. I would say that this makes him a pretty good authority to quote. Do you agree? Peace be with you. David Miller, Beverly Hills, Florida. -- "Let your speech be always with grace, seasoned with salt, that you may know how you ought to answer every man." (Colossians 4:6) http://www.InnGlory.org If you do not want to receive posts from this list, send an email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and you will be unsubscribed. If you have a friend who wants to join, tell him to send an e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and he will be subscribed.
Re: [TruthTalk] Two things
DAVEH: My latest post is in GREEN Kevin Deegan wrote: No smokescreens Dave Answer the question for the lady. DAVEH: I thought I had. Which question did she ask that I overlooked, Kevin? Or is she not ready for "strong Meat" Just ready for milk we will give answers with hidden meanings then? DAVEH: I assume that is rhetorical jive.?!?!?! First you say:(I am assuming Kevin quoted them correctly.) Then later it isIt is only sad that you are not considering the context of what is being saidSo at the first comment, you did not check them outThen at the second, you imply they are out of context.Which is it? It is an easy question to answerDoes the Church teach that the Book of Mormon has a Familiar Spirit?Check one:YESNO DAVEH: LOL..."has a Familiar Spirit"??? The context in which you construe "has a Familiar Spirit" is not the same as Richards (and JFSjr) or even Isaiah implied. If you read all the passages of the OT that refer to "familiar spirit(s)", with one single exception you will notice they all pertain to people or persons who dabble in divining (querying) spirits in the spirit world, which the Lord condemns. That one exception is Is 29:1-4, where Isaiah foretells the future plight of the people of Jerusalem. He then (vs 4) uses imagery (which was familiar to those to whom he was preaching) to convey the message that their voices will be heard as that which comes murmuring out of the ground. It was not meant to infer that their voices (or rather their message) would be evil, but rather they would be like whispers sifting up from a place least expected. Richards goes a step further to suggest that the spirit of that message would be familiar to those who are discerning of the Lord's gospel..hence, he uses the phrase "Truly it has a familiar spirit, for it contains the words of the prophets of the God of Israel" to connote the familiar ring of truth that comes from the prophets of God quoted in the BofM, coming to us in effect as whispers from the ground due to the nature of how the BofM was preserved. Kevin.if you had read all the passages in their context, you should be able to see this. If you choose instead to simply pluck the words out of context, then you can make them sound as evil as your heart can imagine. Dave <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: DAVEH: My latest post is in PINK [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: DAVEH: My latest post is in RED...Kevin Deegan wrote: DAVEH: Not true again. Previously I made reference to Is 29: 11-18, which IMO makes reference to JS.jt: How does Isa 29 refer to Joseph Smith?DAVEH: The scenario Isaiah envisions in verses 11 to 13 actually happened in 1830. If you wish, I can quote the instance (and have done so previously), but am reluctant to do so now because of the criticisms I have received about gratuitously quoting Mormon material.I'd say Galatians 1:8 more accurately describes Joseph Smith. Judy DAVEH: I know you do, Judy. Many others feel the same way, though I respectfully disagree. If you don't already know, I believe that "other gospel" was introduced via Catholicism, and subsequently inherited in much of the Protestant dogma that is commonly accepted now. That is why there needed to be a restitution of all things as Acts 3:19-21 explained.jt: The restitution of Acts 3:19-21 has not yet happened. Jesus is still held in the heavens waiting. DAVEH: I respectfully disagree, Judy. As I have previously explained, it began happening in 1830. However, for the sake of this discussion, let's assume that you are correct and that it (the restitution of all things) is yet to happen. Why would all these things need to be restored if they were already in existence? It seems to me that a restoration is only necessary IF there is first a falling away or an apostasy. Do you disagree, Judy?Joseph & the Book of Mormon has a FAMILIAR SPIRIT: Isaiah 29:4 "And thou shalt be brought down, and shalt speak out of the ground, and thy speech shall be low out of the dust, and thy voice shall be, as of one that hath a familiar spirit, out of the ground, and thy speech shall whisper out of the dust." LDS say this scripture refers to the GOLD plates: "Now, obviously, the only way a dead people could speak 'out of the ground' or 'low out of the dust' would be by the written word, and this the people did through the Book of Mormon. Truly it has a familiar spirit, for it contains the words of the prophets of the God of Israel." LeGrand Richards, A Marvelous Work and A Wonder, p. 69. He was ordainedas one of the LDS "twelve apostles" "ISAIAH PROPHESIES OF BOOK OF MORMON. One of the most important predictions regarding the Book of Mormon is that found in the 29th chapter of Isaiah. The prophet here speaks of a people who should be like Ariel, the city where David dwelt. They should have heaviness and sorrow and should be brought down to speak out of the ground, and their speech was to be low out of the dust, and their voice
Re: [TruthTalk] Two things
It is an easy question to answerDoes the Church teach that the Book of Mormon has a Familiar Spirit? Check one:YES/ NO DAVEH: LOL..."has a Familiar Spirit"??? The context in which you construe "has a Familiar Spirit" is not the same as Richards (and JFSjr) or even Isaiah implied. If you read all the passages of the OT that refer to "familiar spirit(s)", with one single exception you will notice they all pertain to people or persons who dabble in divining (querying) spirits in the spirit world, which the Lord condemns. That one exception is Is 29:1-4, where Isaiah foretells the future plight of the people of Jerusalem. He then (vs 4) uses imagery (which was familiar to those to whom he was preaching) to convey the message that their voices will be heard as that which comes murmuring out of the ground. It was not meant to infer that their voices (or rather their message) would be evil, but rather they would be like whispers sifting up from a place least expected. Richards goes a step further to suggest that the spirit of that message would be familiar to those who are discerning of the Lord's gospel..hence, he uses the phrase "Truly it has a familiar spirit, for it contains the words of the prophets of the God of Israel" to connote the familiar ring of truth that comes from the prophets of God quoted in the BofM, coming to us in effect as whispers from the ground due to the nature of how the BofM was preserved. jt: Sounds appropriate to me - the object lesson that is. Judy
Re: [TruthTalk] Two things
David Miller wrote: > TO DAVE HANSEN: > > Kevin raises an important question here. I hope you do not overlook it > amongst your many emails. He quotes one of your apostles as saying: > > "Now, obviously, the only way a dead people could speak 'out of the > ground' or 'low out of the dust' would be by the written word, and this > the people did through the Book of Mormon. Truly it has a familiar > spirit, for it contains the words of the prophets of the God of Israel." > LeGrand Richards, A Marvelous Work and A Wonder, p. 69. > > Then Kevin wrote: > It is an easy question to answer. Does the Church teach that the Book of > Mormon has a Familiar Spirit? > Check one: > YES > NO DAVEH: I believe I responded to this some time ago. > If you don't have time to answer, maybe Blaine can answer it. > > Do either of you have this book by Richards that he mentions, "A > Marvelous Work and a Wonder"? I searched for some more information and > found it interesting that LeGrand Richards was one of the apostles > involved in allowing blacks to function in the priesthood, primarily > because of the large number of black Mormons in Brazil. Therefore, > LeGrand Richards was responsible for adding additional Scripture to your > holy writings. DAVEH: You've stated a fact and then let it lead you to a faulty conclusion. LeGrand Richards was not the sole person 'responsible' in this. The entire Quorum of the 12 were in agreement when President Hinckley revealed it and were equally (as I understand it) 'responsible'. > I would say that this makes him a pretty good authority > to quote. Do you agree? DAVEH: Yes. > Peace be with you. > David Miller, Beverly Hills, Florida. -- ~~~ Dave Hansen [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.langlitz.com ~~~ If you wish to receive things I find interesting, I maintain Five email lists... JOKESTER, OPINIONS, LDS, STUFF and MOTORCYCLE. -- "Let your speech be always with grace, seasoned with salt, that you may know how you ought to answer every man." (Colossians 4:6) http://www.InnGlory.org If you do not want to receive posts from this list, send an email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and you will be unsubscribed. If you have a friend who wants to join, tell him to send an e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and he will be subscribed.
Re: [TruthTalk] Two things
So you side step the question. Does the book of Mormon have a FAMILIAR SPIRIT? yes no takes 2 seconds please respond.Dave <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: David Miller wrote:> TO DAVE HANSEN:>> Kevin raises an important question here. I hope you do not overlook it> amongst your many emails. He quotes one of your apostles as saying:>> "Now, obviously, the only way a dead people could speak 'out of the> ground' or 'low out of the dust' would be by the written word, and this> the people did through the Book of Mormon. Truly it has a familiar> spirit, for it contains the words of the prophets of the God of Israel."> LeGrand Richards, A Marvelous Work and A Wonder, p. 69.>> Then Kevin wrote:> It is an easy question to answer. Does the Church teach that the Book of> Mormon has a Familiar Spirit?> Check one:> YES> NODAVEH: I believe I responded to this some time ago.> If you don't have time to answer, maybe Blaine can answer it.>> Do either of you have this book by Richards that he mentions, "A> Marvelous Work and a Wonder"? I searched for some more information and> found it interesting that LeGrand Richards was one of the apostles> involved in allowing blacks to function in the priesthood, primarily> because of the large number of black Mormons in Brazil. Therefore,> LeGrand Richards was responsible for adding additional Scripture to your> holy writings.DAVEH: You've stated a fact and then let it lead you to a faulty conclusion. LeGrand Richards was not the sole person 'responsible' in this. The entire Quorum of the 12 were in agreement when President Hinckley revealed it and were equally (as Iunderstand it) 'responsible'.> I would say that this makes him a pretty good authority> to quote. Do you agree?DAVEH: Yes.> Peace be with you.> David Miller, Beverly Hills, Florida.--~~~Dave Hansen[EMAIL PROTECTED]http://www.langlitz.com~~~If you wish to receivethings I find interesting,I maintain Five email lists...JOKESTER, OPINIONS, LDS,STUFF and MOTORCYCLE.--"Let your speech be always with grace, seasoned with salt, that you may know how you ought to answer every man." (Colossians 4:6) http://www.InnGlory.orgIf you do not want to receive posts from this list, send an email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and you will be unsubscribed. If you have a friend who wants to join, tell him to send an e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and he will be subscribed. Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Hotjobs: Enter the "Signing Bonus" Sweepstakes
Re: [TruthTalk] Two things
Kevin Deegan wrote: So you side step the question.Does the book of Mormon have a FAMILIAR SPIRIT?yesnotakes 2 seconds please respond. DAVEH: Not at all. I answered it previously when it was first asked. Go back and look it up. (I think I've exceeded my posting limit today, Kevin!) -- ~~~ Dave Hansen [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.langlitz.com ~~~ If you wish to receive things I find interesting, I maintain Five email lists... JOKESTER, OPINIONS, LDS, STUFF and MOTORCYCLE.
Re: [TruthTalk] Two things
Why can't you just answer? How long do you think it would take to locate your answer? My time is not important to you? Even worse if I were to spend that time to find out that you sent me on a wild goose chase cause you never did answer it. You accuse me of being rude for waving some garments in the air. Theres a beam in your eye. Dave <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Kevin Deegan wrote: So you side step the question.Does the book of Mormon have a FAMILIAR SPIRIT?yesnotakes 2 seconds please respond. DAVEH: Not at all. I answered it previously when it was first asked. Go back and look it up. (I think I've exceeded my posting limit today, Kevin!) -- ~~~ Dave Hansen [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.langlitz.com ~~~ If you wish to receive things I find interesting, I maintain Five email lists... JOKESTER, OPINIONS, LDS, STUFF and MOTORCYCLE. Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Hotjobs: Enter the "Signing Bonus" Sweepstakes
Re: [TruthTalk] Two things
DAVEH: My latest comment is in RED.. Kevin Deegan wrote: Why can't you just answer? DAVEH: Because, Kevin..I answered it before, and think I exceeded my posting limit yesterday (42 of them). FWIW..I don't think you really want an answer anyway. How long do you think it would take to locate your answer? DAVEH: Probably not too long. But I spent too much time yesterday responding to your hollow questions, and don't really feel compelled to answer questions you insincerely ask. My time is not important to you? DAVEH: It is your attitude that is important to me. Even worse if I were to spend that time to find out that you sent me on a wild goose chase cause you never did answer it.You accuse me of being rude for waving some garments in the air. DAVEH: I don't recall making that accusation of you, Kevin. If I did, perhaps it was in a figurative sense. Let me ask you.would you want to do so? If so, then what you think in your heart may define you as such. Theres a beam in your eye. DAVEH: One of many. Dave <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Kevin Deegan wrote: So you side step the question.Does the book of Mormon have a FAMILIAR SPIRIT?yesnotakes 2 seconds please respond. DAVEH: Not at all. I answered it previously when it was first asked. Go back and look it up. (I think I've exceeded my posting limit today, Kevin!) -- ~~~ Dave Hansen [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.langlitz.com ~~~ If you wish to receive things I find interesting, I maintain Five email lists... JOKESTER, OPINIONS, LDS, STUFF and MOTORCYCLE. Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Hotjobs: Enter the "Signing Bonus" Sweepstakes -- ~~~ 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.
