subject:"Re\: \[TruthTalk\] A 'prooftexter' vs a 'contexter'"

Why not just admit you can not make "anything" you want appear Evil.

LDS are brought up in a culture and in a worldview that trains them to filter out, discardany information that is does not fit  or is contrary to that worldview.[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:




Blainer: That's too easy--give me a harder one. :)

In a message dated 7/28/2005 10:33:07 A.M. Mountain Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:

I can make anyone or anything appear evilif I choose to--it is just a matter of which perspective I choose to adopt.
If that is so, please give us an example of how the Southern Baptists are evil.
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:



Kevin wrote: 
You should have said:
not wanting to face the facts I ignore them.


Blainer: You missed the point. You can give out with all the facts you want, it is your interpretation of the facts that I contend with. You consistently interpret facts with a slanted bias--slanted in favor of putting the LDS Church in the worst possible light. I can make anyone or anything appear evilif I choose to--it is just a matter of which perspective I choose to adopt.

In a message dated 7/27/2005 6:21:26 P.M. Mountain Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:

Not wanting to JUMP to conclusions, I have drawn none. 


		 Start your day with Yahoo! - make it your home page

Re: [TruthTalk] A 'prooftexter' vs a 'contexter'

On pages 111-112 we find verses 1-14 of DC 29. What does DC 29 have to do with this?
I do not see what context or verse to which you refer.
There are 50 total verses in this one!
http://scriptures.lds.org/dc/29

Since we were talking about SEER Stones maybe you refer to the top of page 111 where we find DC 28 verse 11 http://scriptures.lds.org/dc/28

11) And again, thou shalt take thy brother, Hiram Page, between him and thee alone, and tell him that those things which he hath written from that bstone are not of me and that Satan deceivethhim;
When we check the note 11b we find:
http://scriptures.lds.org/tgs/sorcery
See also False Prophets; Magician; Superstitions
We Find : enchanter - familiar spirits - evil spirits - soothsayers - divination - astrologers - sorcerers - witchcrafts
http://scriptures.lds.org/tgs/sprsttns
See also Idolatry; Sorcery; Wizardry

What is the difference between Pages Stone Joes? What is it that shows that Page's was of Satan Joe's was of god? Why is Page's Sorcery Witchcraft not Joe's?
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

Blainerb: Sorry Kevin, as usual, you have either been reading the wrong stuff, or you are making this up as you go along, trying to build a case. Joseph Smith had the Urim Thummim restored to him in July, 1828. Using it, he received a new revelation reprimanding him for allowing Martin Harris to have the 116 page manuscript and telling him the designs of God could not be frustrated. The UT was again taken from him, but later restored after a period of probation. Using it, he then received a revelation telling him 1) of the evil intentions of those who stole the manuscript, and 2) that he was not to re-translate the same portion of the plates as before, but was totranslate froma different section of the plates covering the same time period. (A Comprehensive History of the Church, B.H. Roberts,
Vol 1, pages 111-112)

In a message dated 7/28/2005 11:26:59 A.M. Mountain Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:

The angel took them away from Joe because he LOST 116 pages of God's word, they were NOT RESTORED in the "restoration"!
How was it that the "God" of Mormonism could be FRUSTRATED in his purpose of translation?[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

In a message dated 7/27/2005 6:39:19 P.M. Mountain Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:

Urim and Thummim
Was just a SEER STONE as J Fielding Smith said

Blainer: The seer stone was used in place of the urim and thummim, but was not actually such. It had similar powers, however. The urim and thummim was a pair of stones, primarily, set in a rim like a pair of eye-glasses. See: Ex. 28:30; Lev. 8:8; Deut 33:88

Yahoo! Mail for Mobile
Take Yahoo! Mail with you! Check email on your mobile phone.

Re: [TruthTalk] A 'prooftexter' vs a 'contexter'

[Hiram Page] obtained a stone through which he received some spurious revelations. ... So Hiram Page decided to settle the question as to where Zion was to be built through his magical stoneOliver Cowdery and the Whitmer family were deceived by the false declarations of Hiram Page. "More Remarkable Stories of How We Got the Revelations in the Doctrine and Covenants,Barrett" quoted in Tanner 1968, 6
Brother Hiram Page had in his possession a certain stone, by which he had obtained certain 'revelations' concerning the upbuilding of Zion, the order of the Church, etc., all of which were entirely at variance with the order of God's house The Whitmer family and Oliver Cowdery, were believing much in the things set forth by this stone... (Smith 1902, 1:109-110) So according to Joe, when Oliver Cowdery and the Whitmer family believed his claim to receive revelations from his seer stone they were people full of faith, but when they believed revelations from Hiram Page's stone they were credulous and deceived.Kevin Deegan [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

Since we were talking about SEER Stones maybe you refer to the top of page 111 where we find DC 28 verse 11 http://scriptures.lds.org/dc/28

What is the difference between Pages Stone Joes? What is it that shows that Page's was of Satan Joe's was of god? Why is Page's Sorcery Witchcraft not Joe's?
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

In a message dated 7/28/2005 11:26:59 A.M. Mountain Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:

In a message dated 7/27/2005 6:39:19 P.M. Mountain Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:

Urim and Thummim
Was just a SEER STONE as J Fielding Smith said

Yahoo! Mail for MobileTake Yahoo! Mail with you! Check email on your mobile phone.__Do You Yahoo!?Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com

Re: [TruthTalk] A 'prooftexter' vs a 'contexter'

Joe the SEER
Joseph, Jr., could see, by placing a stone of singular appearance in his hat, in such a manner as to exclude all light; at which time they pretended he could see all things within and under the earth, that he could see within the above mentioned caves, large gold bars and silver plates that he could also discover the spirits in whose charge these treasures were, clothed in ancient dress."William Stafford quoted in Michael H. Marquardt and Wesley P. Walters, Inventing Mormonism: Tradition the Historical Record, Smith Research Assoc. [Signature Books], 1994, p. 66.Kevin Deegan [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

[Hiram Page] obtained a stone through which he received some spurious revelations. ... So Hiram Page decided to settle the question as to where Zion was to be built through his magical stoneOliver Cowdery and the Whitmer family were deceived by the false declarations of Hiram Page. "More Remarkable Stories of How We Got the Revelations in the Doctrine and Covenants,Barrett" quoted in Tanner 1968, 6
Brother Hiram Page had in his possession a certain stone, by which he had obtained certain 'revelations' concerning the upbuilding of Zion, the order of the Church, etc., all of which were entirely at variance with the order of God's house The Whitmer family and Oliver Cowdery, were believing much in the things set forth by this stone... (Smith 1902, 1:109-110)So according to Joe, when Oliver Cowdery and the Whitmer family believed his claim to receive revelations from his seer stone they were people full of faith, but when they believed revelations from Hiram Page's stone they were credulous and deceived.Kevin Deegan [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

Since we were talking about SEER Stones maybe you refer to the top of page 111 where we find DC 28 verse 11 http://scriptures.lds.org/dc/28

What is the difference between Pages Stone Joes? What is it that shows that Page's was of Satan Joe's was of god? Why is Page's Sorcery Witchcraft not Joe's?
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

In a message dated 7/28/2005 11:26:59 A.M. Mountain Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:

In a message dated 7/27/2005 6:39:19 P.M. Mountain Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:

Urim and Thummim
Was just a SEER STONE as J Fielding Smith said

Yahoo! Mail for MobileTake Yahoo! Mail with you! Check email on your mobile phone.
__Do You Yahoo!?Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com
Start your day with Yahoo! - make it your home page

Re: [TruthTalk] A 'prooftexter' vs a 'contexter'

2005-07-30 Thread Blainerb473





In a message dated 7/30/2005 2:56:11 P.M. Mountain Standard Time, 
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
So according to Joe, 
  when Oliver Cowdery and the Whitmer family believed his claim to receive 
  revelations from his seer stone they were people full of faith, but when they 
  believed revelations from Hiram Page's stone they were credulous and 
  deceived.

Blainerb: Good, very good! you are learning! You must be 
taking smart pills!!

Re: [TruthTalk] A 'prooftexter' vs a 'contexter'

Just Because!

I know the church is True
BECAUSE
I know the church is True[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:



In a message dated 7/30/2005 2:56:11 P.M. Mountain Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
So according to Joe, when Oliver Cowdery and the Whitmer family believed his claim to receive revelations from his seer stone they were people full of faith, but when they believed revelations from Hiram Page's stone they were credulous and deceived.

Blainerb: Good, very good! you are learning! You must be taking smart pills!! 
		 Start your day with Yahoo! - make it your home page

Re: [TruthTalk] A 'prooftexter' vs a 'contexter'

2005-07-30 Thread Terry Clifton





Kevin Deegan wrote:

  
  [Hiram Page] obtained a stone
through which he received some spurious revelations. ... So Hiram Page
decided to settle the question as to where Zion was to be built through
  his magical stoneOliver Cowdery and the Whitmer family
were deceived by the false declarations of Hiram Page. "More Remarkable
Stories of How We Got the Revelations in the Doctrine and
Covenants,Barrett" quoted in Tanner 1968, 6 
  Brother Hiram Page had in his
possession a certain stone, by which he had obtained certain
'revelations' concerning the upbuilding of Zion, the order of the
Church, etc., all of which were entirely at variance with the order of
God's house The Whitmer family and Oliver Cowdery, were believing
much in the things set forth by this stone... (Smith 1902, 1:109-110)
  


I have a few stones that I will sell at a modest price to anyone
wanting to start their own religion. I will even throw in a couple of
bricks and a pebble if the price is right. Guaranteed to fit in your
hat.
Do not delay. Act now!
Items will be delivered in a plain brown wrapper.
Terry

Re: [TruthTalk] A 'prooftexter' vs a 'contexter'

And if you believe that I have some Swamp Land on Kolob I can sell you!Terry Clifton [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Kevin Deegan wrote: 


[Hiram Page] obtained a stone through which he received some spurious revelations. ... So Hiram Page decided to settle the question as to where Zion was to be built through his magical stoneOliver Cowdery and the Whitmer family were deceived by the false declarations of Hiram Page. "More Remarkable Stories of How We Got the Revelations in the Doctrine and Covenants,Barrett" quoted in Tanner 1968, 6 
Brother Hiram Page had in his possession a certain stone, by which he had obtained certain 'revelations' concerning the upbuilding of Zion, the order of the Church, etc., all of which were entirely at variance with the order of God's house The Whitmer family and Oliver Cowdery, were believing much in the things set forth by this stone... (Smith 1902, 1:109-110)I have a few stones that I will sell at a modest price to anyone wanting to start their own religion. I will even throw in a couple of bricks and a pebble if the price is right. Guaranteed to fit in your hat.Do not delay. Act now!Items will be delivered in a plain brown
 wrapper.Terry__Do You Yahoo!?Tired of spam?  Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com

Re: [TruthTalk] A 'prooftexter' vs a 'contexter'

2005-07-29 Thread Blainerb473





In a message dated 7/27/2005 6:42:12 P.M. Mountain Standard Time, 
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:

  IT is not FAITH IN SPITE of the FACTS.
  
  A true faith reflects REALITY!
  It is not like some LDS believe "God took away the plates and made it 
  look like they were not real so we could have more 
faith"

Blainerb It's what we are here 
for--to have our faith tested.
Blessed are those who have seen and have believed, but more blessed are those who have not seen yet have 
believed.

Re: [TruthTalk] A 'prooftexter' vs a 'contexter'

2005-07-29 Thread Kevin Deegan

Emotional reactions can not be resolved with FACTS and LOGIC!

"I know the church is True"
"I know the church is True"

"I know the church is True"
"I know the church is True".[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:



In a message dated 7/27/2005 6:42:12 P.M. Mountain Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:

IT is not FAITH IN SPITE of the FACTS.

A true faith reflects REALITY!
It is not like some LDS believe "God took away the plates and made it look like they were not real so we could have more faith"

Blainerb It's what we are here for--to have our faith tested.
Blessed are those who have seen and have believed, but more blessed are those who have not seen yet have believed.__Do You Yahoo!?Tired of spam?  Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com

Re: [TruthTalk] A 'prooftexter' vs a 'contexter'

2005-07-28 Thread knpraise

A true faith reflects REALITY! deegan

et al:
Faith IS our reality (substance and evidence).

God is my reality because I believe this to be true. The B I B L E is the book for me because I believe it to be. The Spirit indwells my life because I believe this to be. My faith is circular in nature, passionate at its core, unprovable to those who care not to believe and perfectly acceptable to those who do.

Was it Lance who said something in the order of " I believe, therefore I will understand" ??

Strictly speaking, we are all in the same boat as that of our Mormon friends. Each of us here on TT has chosen to believe in something.Each of us would love to stand up and say, " I can prove this to be right" but nothing we believe about God and His Christ is provable outside the realm of faith.

Does that set us apart from the scientist who keeps on believing that "we are closer to a discovery than at any time in the past." Or the mathematician who depends on "truths" that he cannot prove (postulates) but MUST ACCEPT before he can do any meaningful research or the tycoon who surrounds himself with people who claim to be his friends -- something he will never know for sure because he has all that money.So he believes. In our world, there is much more to do with faith than "reality" when it comes to the foundation of a number of systems perhaps all systems. Einstein believed in a TOE because he believed all of the universe (big and small) came from a single source. Faith. Hawkin
has continued the same search because of faith faith in Einstein.
Every time a car passes me going south while I am going north -- faith has been played out. Blind faith. Those who fly exercise faith before anything else occurs.That's why I drive. The last customer I had, paidmea large amount of moneybefore I did a lick of work -- faith. I trust that he will make the final pay because I will be done with the job with no leverage to make him pay --- faith.

I could go on and on and on. Faith is much more the reality than "reality." Those who look down their noses at the believer are, themselves, just as assuredly believers. Nothing in this world goes forward without faith. I pity the fool who does not believe for he can truly accomplish NOTHINg.

Re: [TruthTalk] A 'prooftexter' vs a 'contexter'

2005-07-28 Thread Judy Taylor

Guess we will have to wait until Jesus Himself
separates the sheep from the goats. Then we will know for sure
who is the "good and faithful servant" and who is
deceiving others and being deceived themselves because no
artificial fruit will stand before him with whom we
have to do - Who can endure the day of His coming and who
shall stand when He appeareth?
jt.
.

On Thu, 28 Jul 2005 02:05:31 -0400 [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:

A true faith reflects REALITY! deegan

et al:
Faith IS our reality (substance and evidence).

God is my reality because I believe this to be true. The B
I B L E is the book for me because I believe it to
be. The Spirit indwells my life because I believe this to be.
My faith is circular in nature, passionate at its core, unprovable to those who care not to believe and perfectly acceptable to those who
do.

Was it Lance who said something in the order of " I believe, therefore I
will understand" ??

Strictly speaking, we are all in the same boat as that of our Mormon
friends. Each of us here on TT has chosen to believe in
something.Each of us would love to stand up and say, " I can prove
this to be right" but nothing we believe about God and His Christ is
provable outside the realm of
faith.

Every time a car passes me going
south while I am going north -- faith has been played
out. Blind faith. Those who fly exercise faith before
anything else occurs.That's why I drive. The last customer I
had, paidmea large amount of moneybefore I did a
lick of work -- faith. I trust that he will make the
final pay because I will be done with the
job with no leverage to make him pay --- faith.

I could go on and on and on. Faith is much more the reality than
"reality." Those who look down their noses at the believer are,
themselves, just as assuredly believers. Nothing in this world
goes forward without faith. I pity the fool who does not believe
for he can truly accomplish NOTHINg.

Re: [TruthTalk] A 'prooftexter' vs a 'contexter'

2005-07-28 Thread knpraise

Wow! Ineresting, also.But what did you think of my posted comments below?

Jd-Original Message-From: Judy Taylor [EMAIL PROTECTED]To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgCc: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgSent: Thu, 28 Jul 2005 02:25:55 -0400Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] A 'prooftexter' vs a 'contexter'

Guess we will have to wait until Jesus Himself separates the sheep from the goats. Then we will know for sure
who is the "good and faithful servant" and who is deceiving others and being deceived themselves because no
artificial fruit will stand before him with whom we have to do - Who can endure the day of His coming and who
shall stand when He appeareth? jt.
.

On Thu, 28 Jul 2005 02:05:31 -0400 [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:

A true faith reflects REALITY! deegan

et al:
Faith IS our reality (substance and evidence).

Was it Lance who said something in the order of " I believe, therefore I will understand" ??

Re: [TruthTalk] A 'prooftexter' vs a 'contexter'

2005-07-28 Thread Dave Hansen





DAVEH: What are you trying to do, Johncommit
TruthTalkicide???  :-) 

[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

  
  
  
  
  
  Strictly speaking, we are all in the same boat as that of our
Mormon friends. 
  
  
  


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

Re: [TruthTalk] A 'prooftexter' vs a 'contexter'

2005-07-28 Thread Kevin Deegan

I can make anyone or anything appear evilif I choose to--it is just a matter of which perspective I choose to adopt.
If that is so, please give us an example of how the Southern Baptists are evil.
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

Kevin wrote:
You should have said:
not wanting to face the facts I ignore them.

Blainer: You missed the point. You can give out with all the facts you want, it is your interpretation of the facts that I contend with. You consistently interpret facts with a slanted bias--slanted in favor of putting the LDS Church in the worst possible light. I can make anyone or anything appear evilif I choose to--it is just a matter of which perspective I choose to adopt.

In a message dated 7/27/2005 6:21:26 P.M. Mountain Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:

Not wanting to JUMP to conclusions, I have drawn none.

You should have said:
not wanting to face the facts I ignore them.

Each of us has to face the matter-either the Church is true, or it is a fraud. There is no middle ground. It is the Church and kingdom of God, or it is nothing. President Gordon B. Hinckley. "Loyalty," April Conference, 2003.
Everything may be sacrificed in order to maintain the integrity of those essential facts. Thus, if Mormon Enigma reveals information that is detrimental to the reputation of Joseph Smith, then it is necessary to try to limit its influence and that of its authors." - Apostle Dallin Oaks, footnote 28, Inside the Mind of Joseph Smith: Psychobiography and the Book of Mormon, Introduction p. xliii
pay no attention to that man behind the curtain!
AND
As the "Apostle" said âSome things that are true are not very useful.âOR
As Apostle Nelson said "Some truths are best left unsaid."
OR
Apostle Dallin H. Oaks said ""Truth surely exists as an absolute, but our use of truth should be disciplined by other values. ... When truth is constrained by other virtues, the outcome is not falsehood but silence for a season. As the scriptures say, there is âa time to keep silence, and a time to speak.â
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

In a message dated 7/27/2005 2:13:51 P.M. Mountain Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
What conclusions do you draw from Joe's involvement with MAGIC?

Blainerb: I have drawn none, since I am not convinced he was into magic to the extent you would have us all believe. As usual, you have assigned meaning to events that are basically shrouded in mystery--perhaps your conclusions are all wrong in the first place. There is no proof they have the meanings you ascribe to them. By the way, Sampson was promised that as long as his hair was not cut, he would have power against his enemies. His hair was like a covenant between him and God, and when the covenant was broken, his powers were weakened. Is this magic? It could easily be said to be such, especially with guys like you around jumping to conclusions. :) Further, JS gavea similarblessing to Orrin Porter Rockwell as wasgiven to Sampson, and since Orrin never allowed his hair to be cut, he was never killed by his enemies,
despite being in numerous gun fights with them. I think talismans may have been seen in much the same way by Joseph Smith--a covenant with God. Or maybe he just liked the talisman's artwork. Who knows? Not wanting to JUMP to conclusions, I have drawn none.
__

Start your day with Yahoo! - make it your home page

Re: [TruthTalk] A 'prooftexter' vs a 'contexter'

2005-07-28 Thread Blainerb473









Blainerb: What you have quoted 
below is all in keeping with Biblical scripture--what about David and his 
refusal to go against KingSaul? He even refused to kill Saul when he 
was given the chance--because Saul was the Lord's ANNOINTED! Read 1 Samuel 
ch. 24 

"Wickedness proceedeth from the wicked: 
but mine hand shall not be upon thee." 
1 Samuel 24:13


In a message dated 7/27/2005 6:31:13 P.M. Mountain Standard Time, 
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:

  I think Quinn was exed for pride--thinking he 
  knew more than the anointed ones who have been called up and chosen to lead 
  the LDS church.
  Right it is drummed into LDS minds:
  NEVER CRITICIZE our leaders even if it is true!
  "It is one thing to depreciate a person who exercises corporate power or 
  even government power. It is quite another thing to criticize or depreciate 
  a person for the performance of an office to which he or she has been called 
  of God. It does not matter that the criticism is 
  true."
  " As Elder George F. Richards, President of the Council of the Twelve, 
  said in a conference address in April 1947, 'when we say anything bad about 
  the leaders of the Church, whether true or false, 
  we tend to impair their influence and their usefulness and are thus working 
  against the Lord and his cause.' ... The Holy Ghost will not guide or 
  confirm criticism of the Lord's anointed, or of Church leaders, local or 
  general. This reality should be part of the spiritual evaluation that LDS 
  readers and viewers apply to those things written about our history and those 
  who made it." Dallin H. Oaks, "Reading Church History," CES Doctrine 
  and Covenants Symposium, Brigham Young University, 16 Aug. 1985, page 25. also 
  see Dallin H. Oaks, "Elder Decries Criticism of LDS Leaders," quoted in The 
  Salt Lake Tribune, Sunday August 18, 1985, p. 2B
  
  “That historian or scholar who delights in pointing out the weaknesses 
  and frailties of present or past leaders destroys faith. A destroyer of 
  faith — particularly one within the Church, and more particularly one who is 
  employed specifically to build faith — places himself in great spiritual 
  jeopardy. He is serving the wrong master, and unless he repents, he will 
  not be among the faithful in the eternities. ... Do not spread disease 
  germs!"- Boyd K. Packer, "The Mantle is Far, Far Greater Than the 
  Intellect", 1981, BYU Studies, Vol. 21, No. 3, pp. 259-271
  WATCH HOW LDS PUT THE SCRIPTURE ON IT'S HEAD:"Any who are tempted to 
  rake through the annals of history, to use truth unrighteously, or to 
  dig up “facts” with the intent to defame or destroy, should hearken to 
  this warning of scripture:
  “The righteousness of God [is] revealed from faith to faith: as it is 
  written, The just shall live by faith. For the wrath of God is revealed from 
  heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who hold the truth 
  in unrighteousness.” (Rom. 1:17-18.)
  "I repeat: 'The wrath of God is … against all … who hold the truth 
  in unrighteousness.'"

Re: [TruthTalk] A 'prooftexter' vs a 'contexter'

2005-07-28 Thread Blainerb473





In a message dated 7/27/2005 6:39:19 P.M. Mountain Standard Time, 
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:

  Urim and Thummim
  Was just a SEER STONE as J Fielding Smith 
  said

Blainer: The seer stone was used in place of the 
urim and thummim, but was not actually such. It had similar powers, 
however. The urim and thummim was a pair of stones, primarily, set in a 
rim like a pair of eye-glasses. See: Ex. 28:30; Lev. 
8:8; Deut 33:88

Re: [TruthTalk] A 'prooftexter' vs a 'contexter'

2005-07-28 Thread Kevin Deegan

"use truth unrighteously"

Could you expound on just how one uses truth unrighteously?
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

Blainerb: What you have quoted below is all in keeping with Biblical scripture--what about David and his refusal to go against KingSaul? He even refused to kill Saul when he was given the chance--because Saul was the Lord's ANNOINTED! Read 1 Samuel ch. 24

"Wickedness proceedeth from the wicked: but mine hand shall not be upon thee."
1 Samuel 24:13

In a message dated 7/27/2005 6:31:13 P.M. Mountain Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:

I think Quinn was exed for pride--thinking he knew more than the anointed ones who have been called up and chosen to lead the LDS church.
Right it is drummed into LDS minds:
NEVER CRITICIZE our leaders even if it is true!
"It is one thing to depreciate a person who exercises corporate power or even government power. It is quite another thing to criticize or depreciate a person for the performance of an office to which he or she has been called of God. It does not matter that the criticism is true."
" As Elder George F. Richards, President of the Council of the Twelve, said in a conference address in April 1947, 'when we say anything bad about the leaders of the Church, whether true or false, we tend to impair their influence and their usefulness and are thus working against the Lord and his cause.' ... The Holy Ghost will not guide or confirm criticism of the Lord's anointed, or of Church leaders, local or general. This reality should be part of the spiritual evaluation that LDS readers and viewers apply to those things written about our history and those who made it." Dallin H. Oaks, "Reading Church History," CES Doctrine and Covenants Symposium, Brigham Young University, 16 Aug. 1985, page 25. also see Dallin H. Oaks, "Elder Decries Criticism of LDS Leaders," quoted in The Salt Lake Tribune, Sunday August 18, 1985, p. 2B

âThat historian or scholar who delights in pointing out the weaknesses and frailties of present or past leaders destroys faith. A destroyer of faith â particularly one within the Church, and more particularly one who is employed specifically to build faith â places himself in great spiritual jeopardy. He is serving the wrong master, and unless he repents, he will not be among the faithful in the eternities. ... Do not spread disease germs!"- Boyd K. Packer, "The Mantle is Far, Far Greater Than the Intellect", 1981, BYU Studies, Vol. 21, No. 3, pp. 259-271
WATCH HOW LDS PUT THE SCRIPTURE ON IT'S HEAD:"Any who are tempted to rake through the annals of history, to use truth unrighteously, or to dig up âfactsâ with the intent to defame or destroy, should hearken to this warning of scripture:
âThe righteousness of God [is] revealed from faith to faith: as it is written, The just shall live by faith. For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who hold the truth in unrighteousness.â (Rom. 1:17-18.)
"I repeat: 'The wrath of God is â¦ against all â¦ who hold the truth in unrighteousness.'"

__Do You Yahoo!?Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com

Re: [TruthTalk] A 'prooftexter' vs a 'contexter'

2005-07-28 Thread Kevin Deegan



The angel took them away from Joe because he LOST 116 pages of God's word, they were NOT RESTORED in the "restoration"!
How was it that the "God" of Mormonism could be FRUSTRATED in his purpose of translation?[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:



In a message dated 7/27/2005 6:39:19 P.M. Mountain Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:

Urim and Thummim
Was just a SEER STONE as J Fielding Smith said

Blainer: The seer stone was used in place of the urim and thummim, but was not actually such. It had similar powers, however. The urim and thummim was a pair of stones, primarily, set in a rim like a pair of eye-glasses. See: Ex. 28:30; Lev. 8:8; Deut 33:88__Do You Yahoo!?Tired of spam?  Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com

Re: [TruthTalk] A 'prooftexter' vs a 'contexter'





In a message dated 7/26/2005 8:47:54 P.M. Mountain Standard Time, 
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Blaine, 
  I had posed a few questions to you regarding the bom, and I fear you got 
  sidetracked by Kevin's posts...lets try again, if you will...Most 
  books, fiction and non-fiction, have internal consistency. But, they are 
  typically written by a single author, so internal consistency is not 
  remarkable in such books.The Bible was written by many authors 
  over thousands of years, and shows internal consistency across author as 
  well as time periods.1. How many authors wrote the bom over how many 
  years?2. Is there consistency between the various authors of the 
  bom?The Bible has hundreds if not thousands of external 
  consitencies.3. What external consistencies does the bom 
  show?Perry

Perry,
Sorry, yes, you are right, I got sidetracked by Kevin'santiquated 
anti-Mormon perspective stuff which for the most part, nobody in the Mormon 
Church believes or worries about. 
Oh, yeah, your questions--well, the BoM first of allis a very 
complex book. It is a translation of aset of plates 
writtenby two men--Mormon, and his son, Moroni. This set of plates, 
referred to as the Gold Plates, is a digest of other plates which these two men 
had access to, called the Large Plates of Nephi and the Small Plates of Nephi, 
plus other plates that showed up along the time period the BoM covers, which 
basically began when the Jaredites left the Tower of Babel, crossed the ocean in 
barges, and arrived in the Americas. Much later, around 600 BC, another 
group led by Lehi and his son Nephi left Jerusalem and disembarked off the coast 
of Arabia in a ship, and arrived somewhere off the coast of Middle 
America. About the same time, the Jaredites for the most part 
succeeded in wiping themselves off the face of the land. 
Uh, sorry perry, I have to go now, but will post this and get back to it 
later. Meantime, stay tuned. Thanks for you civil questions.
Blainerb

Re: [TruthTalk] A 'prooftexter' vs a 'contexter'





In a message dated 7/26/2005 8:54:31 P.M. Mountain Standard Time, 
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Have you read any of the scholarly books and articles by LDS 
  Authors?

Blainer: Several, but I avoid books like Quinn's, for the simple 
reason that although he has no-doubt done extensive research, likeMANY 
OTHERS BEFORE HIM, he allowed himself to get lost in a sea of details, 
many of which he ascribed meanings to that were not fully justified. In 
short, I am afraid he interpreted what he read and saw in the light of his own 
human frailties and experience, which LED HIM TO SOME WRONG CONCLUSIONS. 
Itthen became a contest of wills, with Quinn refusing to back down even in 
the face of much evidence that he simply took the wrong slant on issues of 
import to the LDS Church. Too bad, the man was definitely 
smart--maybe too smart for his own good. His ego definitely got into it, 
and he lost the power struggle that ensued.

Re: [TruthTalk] A 'prooftexter' vs a 'contexter'





In a message dated 7/26/2005 8:54:31 P.M. Mountain Standard Time, 
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Have you read any of the scholarly books and articles by LDS 
  Authors?

Blainer: Like Michael Quinn, for instance? The man is now a 
"has-been." He was excommunicated in 1993 (?)

Re: [TruthTalk] A 'prooftexter' vs a 'contexter'





In a message dated 7/26/2005 8:57:07 P.M. Mountain Standard Time, 
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:

  SEER STONES are OCCULT that is why Joe used them, along with all his 
  other tools of the trade.
  At first the stones were used tofind Treasure and then he changed 
  the story to the BoM

Blainer: Occult simply means "hidden." 
Nothing inherently wrong with that. Seer stones depend on faith, I think, 
and just because Kevin would not be able to use one to good advantage, 
does not mean Joseph Smith was not able touse them--all according to your 
faith, my man. Joseph Smith also had the power to 
heal, to receive divine instruction, to see angels, to see God, 
etc. Are you just jealous of his great prophetic/seer 
powers? FOR EVERY HAND THAT REACHES FOR HEAVEN, TEN 
OTHERS REACH UP TO PULL IT DOWN. Ever hear of that little 
saying? It was also true of Jesus Christ, 
Abraham, Moses, even Peter, James and John--many others as well, who were 
seekers after the good and the true.

Re: [TruthTalk] A 'prooftexter' vs a 'contexter'





In a message dated 7/26/2005 9:00:03 P.M. Mountain Standard Time, 
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:

  Why do you always focus on 
  Minutia?
  Sort of like the Wizard of 
  OZ.
  
  "PAY NO ATTENTION TO THAT MAN BEHIND 
  THE CURTAIN!"

Blainer: It is in the details that 
we are able to see the true and the good--the human body is a good 
example. Without looking at the details of its construction and 
functioning, we cannot appreciate what it took to create 
it.

Re: [TruthTalk] A 'prooftexter' vs a 'contexter'

What conclusions do you draw from Joe's involvement with MAGIC?[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:



In a message dated 7/26/2005 8:54:31 P.M. Mountain Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Have you read any of the scholarly books and articles by LDS Authors?

Blainer: Several, but I avoid books like Quinn's, for the simple reason that although he has no-doubt done extensive research, likeMANY OTHERS BEFORE HIM, he allowed himself to get lost in a sea of details, many of which he ascribed meanings to that were not fully justified. In short, I am afraid he interpreted what he read and saw in the light of his own human frailties and experience, which LED HIM TO SOME WRONG CONCLUSIONS. Itthen became a contest of wills, with Quinn refusing to back down even in the face of much evidence that he simply took the wrong slant on issues of import to the LDS Church. Too bad, the man was definitely smart--maybe too smart for his own good. His ego definitely got into it, and he lost the power struggle that ensued. __Do You Yahoo!?Tired of spam?  Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
 http://mail.yahoo.com

Re: [TruthTalk] A 'prooftexter' vs a 'contexter'

So because he was EXed his scholarly work should be ignored? Is that what you think?
Because he was EXed he can never be a reliable source as a HISTORIAN?
Does being EXed effect other areas too?Would you avoid hiring any EX for jobs?

Never mind that man behind the curtain, look over here![EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:



In a message dated 7/26/2005 8:54:31 P.M. Mountain Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Have you read any of the scholarly books and articles by LDS Authors?

Blainer: Like Michael Quinn, for instance? The man is now a "has-been." He was excommunicated in 1993 (?)__Do You Yahoo!?Tired of spam?  Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com

Re: [TruthTalk] A 'prooftexter' vs a 'contexter'

Did Jesus carry SEER STONES?
How about the Apostles?
John the Baptist?

The problem is not how skilled one is with these tools of the trade but that God condemned them!

What did Joe use the Jupiter Talisman for?
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:



In a message dated 7/26/2005 8:57:07 P.M. Mountain Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:

SEER STONES are OCCULT that is why Joe used them, along with all his other tools of the trade.
At first the stones were used tofind Treasure and then he changed the story to the BoM

Blainer: Occult simply means "hidden." Nothing inherently wrong with that. Seer stones depend on faith, I think, and just because Kevin would not be able to use one to good advantage, does not mean Joseph Smith was not able touse them--all according to your faith, my man. Joseph Smith also had the power to heal, to receive divine instruction, to see angels, to see God, etc. Are you just jealous of his great prophetic/seer powers? FOR EVERY HAND THAT REACHES FOR HEAVEN, TEN OTHERS REACH UP TO PULL IT DOWN. Ever hear of that little saying? It was also true of Jesus Christ, Abraham, Moses, even Peter, James and John--many others as well, who were seekers after the good and the true.
		 Start your day with Yahoo! - make it your home page

Re: [TruthTalk] A 'prooftexter' vs a 'contexter'

But we do not focus on the minutia while at the same time ignoring all the other overwhelming evidence before our eyes.

LDS are always saying yes, but look over here, pay no attention to that man behind the curtain. He is an ANTI or worse yet he was EXed!

One can not discount even the smallest piece of evidence. As a scientist all evidence must be given equal credence
Untill all evidence aligns with a particular theory, you do not have a viable theory.
Einstein added a fudge factor to his theory, in order to make it conform to his mechanical view of the universe. he said it was the worst mistake he ever made in his career. It all angles do not add up, go back to the start and RE-check everything. If you continue to ignore all the "BAD" data it will be to your own hurt.

There is NOTHING as sad as an individual who decieves there OWN SELF!
1 Co 3:18 Let no man deceive himself
1 Co 6:9 Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived

[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

In a message dated 7/26/2005 9:00:03 P.M. Mountain Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:

Why do you always focus on Minutia?
Sort of like the Wizard of OZ.

"PAY NO ATTENTION TO THAT MAN BEHIND THE CURTAIN!"

Blainer: It is in the details that we are able to see the true and the good--the human body is a good example. Without looking at the details of its construction and functioning, we cannot appreciate what it took to create it. __Do You Yahoo!?Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com

Re: [TruthTalk] A 'prooftexter' vs a 'contexter'





In a message dated 7/27/2005 2:13:51 P.M. Mountain Standard Time, 
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
What 
  conclusions do you draw from Joe's involvement with 
MAGIC?

Blainerb: I have drawn none, since 
I am not convinced he was into magic to the extent you would have us all 
believe. As usual, you have assigned meaning to events that are basically 
shrouded in mystery--perhaps your conclusions are all wrong in the first 
place. There is no proof they have the meanings you ascribe to them. 
By the way, Sampson was promised that as long as his hair was not cut, he 
would have power against his enemies. His hair was like a covenant between 
him and God, and when the covenant was broken, his powers were weakened. 
Is this magic? It could easily be said to be such, especially with guys like you around jumping to 
conclusions. :) Further, JS gavea 
similarblessing to Orrin Porter Rockwell as wasgiven to 
Sampson, and since Orrin never allowed his hair to be cut, he was never 
killed by his enemies, despite being in numerous gun fights with 
them. I think talismans may have been seen in much the same 
way by Joseph Smith--a covenant with God. Or maybe he just liked the 
talisman's artwork. Who knows? Not wanting to JUMP to 
conclusions, I have drawn none.

Re: [TruthTalk] A 'prooftexter' vs a 'contexter'





In a message dated 7/27/2005 2:17:20 P.M. Mountain Standard Time, 
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:

  So because he was EXed his scholarly work should be ignored? Is that what 
  you think?
  Because he was EXed he can never be a reliable source as a 
  HISTORIAN?
  Does being EXed effect other areas too?Would you avoid hiring any 
  EX for jobs?
  
  Never mind that man behind the curtain, look over 
here!

I have at least two very good friends who were 
exed, both are sincere people. But they were exed for morality 
reasons. I think Quinn was exed for pride--thinking he knew more than the 
anointed ones who have been called up and chosen to lead the LDS 
church. I have not read quinn's book, but I am pretty sure that 
although he may have gotten his facts right, his conclusions were either 
inspired of the devil, as yours often are, :) Kevin, or he just plain got 
into a power struggle and had too much pride to admit he might be wrong. 
He stood in his own light, rather than the light of revealed orthodoxy. 
So, he fell, as did Satan, for much the same reasons. Pride 
cometh before a fall, as the saying goes. 
Blainerb

Re: [TruthTalk] A 'prooftexter' vs a 'contexter'





In a message dated 7/27/2005 2:19:16 P.M. Mountain Standard Time, 
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:

  Did Jesus carry SEER STONES?
  How about the Apostles?
  John the Baptist?
  
  The problem is not how skilled one is with these tools of the trade but 
  that God condemned them!
  
  What did Joe use the Jupiter Talisman for?** Blainer: Unknown--he never 
  said.

Blainerb: The OT has several 
references to the Urim and Thummim, the "talismans" used by the High Priest to 
communicate with God. The shewbread were also talismans of sorts. 
Also, the Rod of Aaron, placed inside the Ark of the Covenant, was in effect a 
talisman. In fact, the Ark itself was basically a talisman--whenever it 
was carried into war, it was thought to be a protection against being 
defeated. When the enemies of Israel got hold of it, they were afflicted 
with sore diseases. Etc, etc, etc. Was this all magic? It was the power of God operating 
though the principal of faith. Joseph Smith's hanker chef, by the way, 
healed several persons of disease, simply because they had faith in him 
and anything associated with him. The same sort of situation when the 
woman touched the savior's robe and was healed.

Re: [TruthTalk] A 'prooftexter' vs a 'contexter'





In a message dated 7/27/2005 2:31:46 P.M. Mountain Standard Time, 
Blainerb: I am glad you are such an exacting scientist, Kevin, but 
what about the principle of faith? Scientists for the most part allow no 
room for faith as a credible way of approaching lack of knowledge. Yet 
faith is the crux of all revealed true religion. 

[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:

  But we do not focus on the minutia while at the same time ignoring all 
  the other overwhelming evidence before our eyes.
  
  LDS are always saying yes, but look over here, pay no attention to that 
  man behind the curtain. He is an ANTI or worse yet he was EXed!
  
  One can not discount even the smallest piece of evidence. As a scientist 
  all evidence must be given equal credence
  Untill all evidence aligns with a particular theory, you do not have a 
  viable theory.
  Einstein added a fudge factor to his theory, in order to make it conform 
  to his mechanical view of the universe. he said it was the worst mistake he 
  ever made in his career. It all angles do not add up, go back to the start and 
  RE-check everything. If you continue to ignore all the "BAD" data it will be 
  to your own hurt.

Re: [TruthTalk] A 'prooftexter' vs a 'contexter'

Not wanting to JUMP to conclusions, I have drawn none.

You should have said:
not wanting to face the facts I ignore them.

Each of us has to face the matter-either the Church is true, or it is a fraud. There is no middle ground. It is the Church and kingdom of God, or it is nothing. President Gordon B. Hinckley. "Loyalty," April Conference, 2003.
Everything may be sacrificed in order to maintain the integrity of those essential facts. Thus, if Mormon Enigma reveals information that is detrimental to the reputation of Joseph Smith, then it is necessary to try to limit its influence and that of its authors." - Apostle Dallin Oaks, footnote 28, Inside the Mind of Joseph Smith: Psychobiography and the Book of Mormon, Introduction p. xliii
pay no attention to that man behind the curtain!
AND
As the "Apostle" said Some things that are true are not very useful.OR
As Apostle Nelson said "Some truths are best left unsaid."
OR
Apostle Dallin H. Oaks said ""Truth surely exists as an absolute, but our use of truth should be disciplined by other values. ... When truth is constrained by other virtues, the outcome is not falsehood but silence for a season. As the scriptures say, there is a time to keep silence, and a time to speak.
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

In a message dated 7/27/2005 2:13:51 P.M. Mountain Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
What conclusions do you draw from Joe's involvement with MAGIC?

Re: [TruthTalk] A 'prooftexter' vs a 'contexter'

That historian or scholar who delights in pointing out the weaknesses and frailties of present or past leaders destroys faith. A destroyer of faith particularly one within the Church, and more particularly one who is employed specifically to build faith places himself in great spiritual jeopardy. He is serving the wrong master, and unless he repents, he will not be among the faithful in the eternities. ... Do not spread disease germs!"- Boyd K. Packer, "The Mantle is Far, Far Greater Than the Intellect", 1981, BYU Studies, Vol. 21, No. 3, pp. 259-271
WATCH HOW LDS PUT THE SCRIPTURE ON IT'S HEAD:"Any who are tempted to rake through the annals of history, to use truth unrighteously, or to dig up facts with the intent to defame or destroy, should hearken to this warning of scripture:
The righteousness of God [is] revealed from faith to faith: as it is written, The just shall live by faith. For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who hold the truth in unrighteousness. (Rom. 1:17-18.)
"I repeat: 'The wrath of God is against all who hold the truth in unrighteousness.'"
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

In a message dated 7/27/2005 2:17:20 P.M. Mountain Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:

So because he was EXed his scholarly work should be ignored? Is that what you think?
Because he was EXed he can never be a reliable source as a HISTORIAN?
Does being EXed effect other areas too?Would you avoid hiring any EX for jobs?

Never mind that man behind the curtain, look over here!

I have at least two very good friends who were exed, both are sincere people. But they were exed for morality reasons. I think Quinn was exed for pride--thinking he knew more than the anointed ones who have been called up and chosen to lead the LDS church. I have not read quinn's book, but I am pretty sure that although he may have gotten his facts right, his conclusions were either inspired of the devil, as yours often are, :) Kevin, or he just plain got into a power struggle and had too much pride to admit he might be wrong. He stood in his own light, rather than the light of revealed orthodoxy. So, he fell, as did Satan, for much the same reasons. Pride cometh before a fall, as the saying goes.
Blainerb__Do You Yahoo!?Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com

Re: [TruthTalk] A 'prooftexter' vs a 'contexter'

Urim and Thummim
Was just a SEER STONE as J Fielding Smith said
God does not take lightly the mixing of truth with Error or the Holy with PROFANE!
EZ 22:26 Her priests have violated my law, and have profaned mine holy things: they have put no difference between the holy and profane, neither have they shewed difference between the unclean and the clean, and have hid their eyes from my sabbaths, and I am profaned among them.
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

In a message dated 7/27/2005 2:19:16 P.M. Mountain Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:

Did Jesus carry SEER STONES?
How about the Apostles?
John the Baptist?

The problem is not how skilled one is with these tools of the trade but that God condemned them!

What did Joe use the Jupiter Talisman for?** Blainer: Unknown--he never said.

Blainerb: The OT has several references to the Urim and Thummim, the "talismans" used by the High Priest to communicate with God. The shewbread were also talismans of sorts. Also, the Rod of Aaron, placed inside the Ark of the Covenant, was in effect a talisman. In fact, the Ark itself was basically a talisman--whenever it was carried into war, it was thought to be a protection against being defeated. When the enemies of Israel got hold of it, they were afflicted with sore diseases. Etc, etc, etc. Was this all magic? It was the power of God operating though the principal of faith. Joseph Smith's hanker chef, by the way, healed several persons of disease, simply because they had faith in him and anything associated with him. The same sort of situation when the woman touched the savior's robe and was healed.
__Do You Yahoo!?Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com

Re: [TruthTalk] A 'prooftexter' vs a 'contexter'

IT is not FAITH IN SPITE of the FACTS.

A true faith reflects REALITY!
It is not like some LDS believe "God took away the plates and made it look like they were not real so we could have more faith"[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:



In a message dated 7/27/2005 2:31:46 P.M. Mountain Standard Time, 
Blainerb: I am glad you are such an exacting scientist, Kevin, but what about the principle of faith? Scientists for the most part allow no room for faith as a credible way of approaching lack of knowledge. Yet faith is the crux of all revealed true religion. 

[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:

But we do not focus on the minutia while at the same time ignoring all the other overwhelming evidence before our eyes.

LDS are always saying yes, but look over here, pay no attention to that man behind the curtain. He is an ANTI or worse yet he was EXed!

One can not discount even the smallest piece of evidence. As a scientist all evidence must be given equal credence
Untill all evidence aligns with a particular theory, you do not have a viable theory.
Einstein added a fudge factor to his theory, in order to make it conform to his mechanical view of the universe. he said it was the worst mistake he ever made in his career. It all angles do not add up, go back to the start and RE-check everything. If you continue to ignore all the "BAD" data it will be to your own hurt.


		 Start your day with Yahoo! - make it your home page

Re: [TruthTalk] A 'prooftexter' vs a 'contexter'

2005-07-26 Thread Dave Hansen





DAVEH: Hmm Kevin..your admission qualifies as your second
error!  ;-) 

Kevin Deegan wrote:

  OK you win it takes 2 ERRORS to make it a PHONY!
  
  Dave Hansen [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
  DAVEH:
Would that apply to one who erroneously would suggest that all those
who disagree with the LDS Church are anti-Mormons? :-) 

Kevin Deegan wrote:

  All it takes isONE internal Inconsistency or ERROR to make
it a PHONY
  

  
  


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

RE: [TruthTalk] A 'prooftexter' vs a 'contexter'

2005-07-26 Thread ShieldsFamily









Myth.











From:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Monday, July 25, 2005 9:03
PM
To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] A
'prooftexter' vs a 'contexter'





















Blainer: Are you confusing Joseph
Smith with God? God was the one quoting scripture when He spoke to Joseph
Smith. He
(God) is the same, yesterday, today, and forever, is my point. He does not change.












In a message dated 7/24/2005 8:17:40 A.M.
Mountain Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
writes:





JSmith was no Jesus. 











From:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Saturday, July 23, 2005
10:44 PM
To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] A
'prooftexter' vs a 'contexter'









Blainerb: Why do you not believe God can use his own
words from thescriptures to express his displeasure over a current
situation? Jesus often quoted the scriptures to the Jews to
makea point. In the book of Matthew, the writer (Matthew)
often does much the same thing. A departure from this would have
indicated the story was false.

Re: [TruthTalk] A 'prooftexter' vs a 'contexter'

Blainerb: Here is a closer approximation of the truth regards the translation of the BoM. Kevin's version is, naturally, taken from his favorite anti-Mormon sites.
Of course you IGNORE the fact that Joe was a Warlock. A number of "LDS" Historians have written scholarly articles books on this subject Grant H. Palmer, An Insider's View of Mormon Origins, (Signature Books, SLC, 2002, pp. 2-7,66,169). Palmer is an LDS seminary teacher and three-time director of LDS Institutes of Religion in California and Utah; D. Michael Quinn, Early Mormonism and the Magic World View (Salt Lake City: Signature Books, 1987; revised, expanded 1998, pp. 41-ff); James E. Lancaster, "By the Gift and Power of God," Saints Herald, 109:22 (November 15, 1962) pp. 14-18, 22, 33; Edward H. Ashment, "The Book of Mormon A Literal Translation," Sunstone, 5:2 (March-April 1980), pp. 10-14; Richard S. Van Wagoner and Steven C. Walker in "Joseph Smith: The Gift of Seeing," Dialogue: A Journal of Mormon Thought, 15:2 (Summer 1982),
pp. 48-68; Blake T. Ostler, "The Book of Mormon as a Modern Expansion of an Ancient Source," Dialogue: A Journal of Mormon Thought, 20:1 (Spring 1987), pp. 66-123; Stephen D. Ricks, "The Translation and Publication of the Book of Mormon," Foundation for Ancient Research Mormon Studies, official F.A.R.M.S. transcript of video lecture, 1994, 16 pages;
As far as the translation process, the updated story modified for consumption bymodern LDS, Joe put the plates on a table. The witnesses of ALL the scribes, Unfortunately denies the modern modified story. The quotes previously provided come right from the only people who were EYEWITNESSES. It is their testimony. Your complaint is with them.You can deny it, but facts are stubborn things.
Emma Hale Smith wife of Joe FIRST scribeTESTIFIED "with his face buried in his hat, with the stone in it, and dictating hour after hour with nothing between us."
ALL THREE of the BoM Witnesses including:
David Whitmer scribeTESTIFIED"put his face in the hat, drawing it closely around his face to exclude the light; and in the darkness the spiritual light would shine." "He did not use the plates in translation"
"The manner in which he pretended to read and interpret, was the same as when he looked for the money-diggers, with a stone in his hat, and his hat over his face, while the Book of Plates were at the same time hid in the woods." Affidavit of Isaac Hale dated March 20, 1834
Here is a scan of the source documents:http://www.irr.org/mit/Translation%20or%20Divination%20Packet.pdf__Do You Yahoo!?Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com

Re: [TruthTalk] A 'prooftexter' vs a 'contexter'

Other late reports mention a variety of further details, but they cannot be historically confirmed or denied.I guess they did not try real hard:

"sometimes Joseph used a seer stone when enquiring of the Lord, and receiving revelation" Report of Elders Orson Pratt and Joseph F. Smith, Concluded", Deseret Evening News, 23 Nov, 1878

"The statement has been made that the Urim and Thummim was on the altar in the Manti Temple when that building was dedicated. The Urim and Thummim so spoken of, however, was the seer stone which was in the possession of the Prophet Joseph Smith in early days. This seer stone is now in the possession of the Church" Joseph Fielding Smith, Doctrines of Salvation, 3 vols. (Salt Lake City: Bookcraft, 1956), 3:225.

PICS of MAGICAL MORMON SEER PEEP STONES
http://www.realmormonhistory.com/pixof.htm

Some years before, he said, his son had happened upon a man who looked into a dark stone and told people where to dig for money and other things. "Joseph requested the privilege of looking into the stone, which he did by putting his face into the hat where the stone was." Interview with the Father of Joseph Smith, the Mormon Prophet, Forty Years Ago; Historical Magazine 7, May 1870, 305-306

The SEER STONE referred to here was a chocolate-colored, somewhat egg-shaped stone which the Prophet found while digging a well... It possessed the qualities of Urim and Thummim, since by means of itas described aboveas well as by means of the Interpreters found with the Nephite record, Joseph was able to translate the characters engraven on the plates. History of the Church Vol 1 P129

Question 10. Was not Jo Smith a money digger.Answer. YES, but it was never a very proffitable job to him, as he only got fourteen dollars a month for it. Elders' Journal, July, 1838, p.43; reprinted in the History of the Church, Vol. 3, page 29

LDS STILL BELIEVE IN CRYSTAL BALLS!
EVERYONE GETS ONE: "Then the white stone mentioned in Revelation 2:17, will become a Urim and Thummim to each individual who receives one, whereby things pertaining to a higher order of kingdoms will be made known. And a white stone is given to each of those who come into the celestial kingdom, whereon is a new name written, which no man knoweth save he that receiveth it. The new name is the key word"DC 130:10-11
God lives on a CRYSTAL BALL: "The place where God resides is a great Urim and Thummin." DC130:8
The Earth will become a GIANT CRYSTAL BALL TO FORETELL ALL: "This earth, in it's sanctified and immortal state, will be made like unto crystal and will be a Urim and Thummim to the inhabitants who dwell thereon, whereby all things pertaining to an inferior kingdom, or all kingdoms of a lower order, will be manifest to those who dwell on it; and this earth will be Christ's. DC 130:9http://scriptures.lds.org/dc/130

Start your day with Yahoo! - make it your home page

Re: [TruthTalk] A 'prooftexter' vs a 'contexter'

2005-07-26 Thread Blainerb473

Morehear-say from Kevin's anti-Mormon sites,
none of which can be verified by first-hand
documentation. Warlock? LOL I bet
he's been watching "Charmed." See Below for truth
--

Most reports state that throughout
the project Joseph used the "Nephite interpreters" or, for convenience, he would
use a seer stone (see CHC 1:128-30). Both instruments were sometimes called by
others the Urim and Thummim. In 1830, Oliver Cowdery is reported to
have testified in court that these
tools enabled Joseph "to read in English, the reformed Egyptian characters,
which were engraved on the plates" (Benton, Evangelical Magazine and
Gospel Advocate 2 [Apr. 9, 1831]:15). In an 1891 interview, William Smith
indicated that when his brother Joseph used the "interpreters" (which were like
a silver bow twisted into the shape of a figure eight with two stones between
the rims of the bow connected by a rod to a breastplate), his hands were left
free to hold the plates. Other late reports mention a
variety of further details, but they cannot be historically confirmed or
denied.

In a message dated 7/26/2005 3:12:04 P.M. Mountain Standard Time,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:

Blainerb: Here is a closer approximation of
the truth regards the translation of the BoM. Kevin's version is,
naturally, taken from his favorite anti-Mormon sites.
Of course you IGNORE the fact that Joe
was a Warlock. A number of "LDS" Historians have written scholarly articles
books on this subject Grant H. Palmer, An
Insider's View of Mormon Origins, (Signature Books, SLC, 2002, pp.
2-7,66,169). Palmer is an LDS seminary teacher and three-time director
of LDS Institutes of Religion in California and Utah; D. Michael Quinn, Early Mormonism and the Magic World
View (Salt Lake City: Signature Books, 1987; revised, expanded 1998, pp.
41-ff); James E. Lancaster, "By the Gift
and Power of God," Saints Herald, 109:22 (November 15, 1962) pp. 14-18, 22,
33; Edward H. Ashment, "The Book of Mormon — A Literal Translation," Sunstone,
5:2 (March-April 1980), pp. 10-14; Richard S. Van Wagoner and Steven C. Walker
in "Joseph Smith: The Gift of Seeing," Dialogue: A Journal of Mormon Thought,
15:2 (Summer 1982), pp. 48-68; Blake T. Ostler, "The Book of Mormon as a
Modern Expansion of an Ancient Source," Dialogue: A Journal of Mormon Thought,
20:1 (Spring 1987), pp. 66-123; Stephen D. Ricks, "The Translation and
Publication of the Book of Mormon," Foundation for Ancient Research
Mormon Studies, official F.A.R.M.S. transcript of video lecture, 1994, 16
pages;
As far as the translation process, the
updated story modified for consumption bymodern LDS, Joe put the plates
on a table. The witnesses of ALL the scribes, Unfortunately denies the modern
modified story. The quotes previously provided come right from the only people
who were EYEWITNESSES. It is their testimony. Your complaint is with
them.You can deny it, but facts are stubborn things.
Emma Hale Smith wife of Joe FIRST
scribeTESTIFIED "with his face buried in his hat, with the
stone in it, and dictating hour after hour with nothing between
us."
ALL THREE of the BoM Witnesses including:
David Whitmer scribeTESTIFIED"put his face in
the hat, drawing it closely around his face to exclude the
light; and in the darkness the spiritual
light would shine." "He did not use
the plates in translation"
"The manner in which he pretended to read and interpret, was the same
as when he looked for the money-diggers, with a stone in his
hat, and his hat over his face, while the Book of Plates were at the
same time hid in the woods." Affidavit of Isaac Hale dated March 20,
1834
Here is a scan of the source
documents:http://www.irr.org/mit/Translation%20or%20Divination%20Packet.pdf

Re: [TruthTalk] A 'prooftexter' vs a 'contexter'

2005-07-26 Thread Blainerb473

Blainerb: One of Kevin's favorite
tricks--take something out of context, then prove it wrong. The entire context is on one of my previous posts, but here it is
again--as can be seen, my post states that the use of the seer
stone is a well documented fact. Kevin knows it was stated in my
post as such, and still tries to make it appear as thoughthe "late reports" refer tothe seer stone.
Seethe ENTIRE context of the part of my post being referred to below:

"Most reports state that throughout the project
Joseph used the "Nephite interpreters" or, for
convenience, he would use a seer stone (see CHC 1:128-30). Both
instruments were sometimes called by others the Urim and Thummim. In 1830,
Oliver Cowdery is reported to have testified in court that these tools enabled
Joseph "to read in English, the reformed Egyptian characters, which were
engraved on the plates" (Benton, Evangelical Magazine and Gospel Advocate 2
[Apr. 9, 1831]:15). In an 1891 interview, William Smith indicated that when his
brother Joseph used the "interpreters" (which were like a silver bow twisted
into the shape of a figure eight with two stones between the rims of the bow
connected by a rod to a breastplate), his hands were left free to hold the
plates. Other late reports mention a variety of
further details, but they cannot be historically confirmed or
denied."

In a message dated 7/26/2005 3:42:55 P.M. Mountain Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:

Other late
reports mention a variety of further details, but they cannot be historically
confirmed or denied.I guess
they did not try real hard:
"sometimes Joseph used a seer
stone when enquiring of the Lord, and receiving
revelation" Report of Elders Orson Pratt and Joseph F. Smith, Concluded", Deseret
Evening News, 23 Nov, 1878
***Blainer: why are you repeating what I already
indicated was true--this proves nothing for your agenda, only mine.

"The statement has been made that the Urim and
Thummim was on the altar in the Manti Temple when that building was dedicated.
The Urim and Thummim so spoken of, however, was the seer
stone which was in the possession of the Prophet Joseph
Smith in early days. This seer stone is now in the possession
of the Church" Joseph Fielding Smith, Doctrines of Salvation,
3 vols. (Salt Lake City: Bookcraft, 1956),
3:225.

**Blainerb: Aren't you just setting up a little
straw man here, Kevin? In fact, most of
your stuffdoes just that.

Re: [TruthTalk] A 'prooftexter' vs a 'contexter'

2005-07-26 Thread Charles Perry Locke

Blaine, I had posed a few questions to you regarding the bom, and I fear you 
got sidetracked by Kevin's posts...lets try again, if you will...


Most books, fiction and non-fiction, have internal consistency. But, they 
are typically written by a single author, so internal consistency is not 
remarkable in such books.


The Bible was written by many authors over thousands of years, and shows 
internal consistency across author as well as time periods.


1. How many authors wrote the bom over how many years?

2. Is there consistency between the various authors of the bom?

The Bible has hundreds if not thousands of external consitencies.

3. What external consistencies does the bom show?

Perry


From: Charles Perry Locke [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Reply-To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org
To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] A 'prooftexter' vs a 'contexter'
Date: Sun, 24 Jul 2005 17:12:32 -0700



From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]

In a message dated 7/24/2005 10:31:24 A.M. Mountain Standard Time,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:


From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
 It [the bom] sincerely is  what it says it is.


How do you know this?


I read it, I now read it, I will read it, I will have read it . . . too  
many internal consistencies for it not to be true.  I can open it to any  
page, and be impressed with its truthfulness.  It does not, contrary to  
claims, contradict the Bible.  Just a few of many reasons why I know it is 
 true.

Blainer


Most books, fiction and non-fiction, have internal consistency. But, they 
are typically written by a single author, so internal consistency is not 
remarkable in such books.


The Bible was written by many authors over thousands of years, and shows 
internal consistency across author as well as time periods.


How many authors wrote the bom over how many years? Is there consistency 
between the various authors of the bom?


The Bible has hundreds if not thousands of external consitencies. What 
external consistencies does the bom show?


Perry


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


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



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

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

Re: [TruthTalk] A 'prooftexter' vs a 'contexter'

Have you read any of the scholarly books and articles by LDS Authors?

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/1560851570/ref=pd_sxp_elt_l1/002-4317535-3904844
Insider's View of Mormon Origins by Grant Palmer
The author of this exceptionally clear thoroughly documented book is an active, fourth-generation Mormon, a 34-year professional historian and Mormon-studies director at college-level religious institutes.
From thye Preface: "I, along with colleagues, and drawing from years of research, find the evidence employed to support many traditional [official Mormon] claims about the [Mormon] church to be either nonexistent or problematic."

http://www.lds-mormon.com/ematmwv.shtml
Among the practices no longer a part of Mormonism are the use of divining rods for revelation, astrology to determine the best times to conceive children and plant crops, the study of skull contours to understand personality traits, magic formula utilized to discover lost property, and the wearing of protective talismans

Joe's MAGIC TALISMAN Mormon scholar LaMar C. Berrett"This piece was in Joseph Smith's pocket when he was martyred at Carthage Jail." The Wilford C. Wood Collection, 1972, Vol. 1, page 173Joe's Talisman is same as any other occult talisman: http://www.renaissanceastrology.com/barrett.html#C
GLASS LOOKER http://www.utlm.org/images/changingworld/chwp68glasslooker.jpg
The signs are everywhere, the only way you can miss it is to close your eyes and repeat after me
I Know the church is True
I Know the Church is True
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

Morehear-say from Kevin's anti-Mormon sites, none of which can be verified by first-hand documentation. Warlock? LOL I bet he's been watching "Charmed." See Below for truth --

Most reports state that throughout the project Joseph used the "Nephite interpreters" or, for convenience, he would use a seer stone (see CHC 1:128-30). Both instruments were sometimes called by others the Urim and Thummim. In 1830, Oliver Cowdery is reported to have testified in court that these tools enabled Joseph "to read in English, the reformed Egyptian characters, which were engraved on the plates" (Benton, Evangelical Magazine and Gospel Advocate 2 [Apr. 9, 1831]:15). In an 1891 interview, William Smith indicated that when his brother Joseph used the "interpreters" (which were like a silver bow twisted into the shape of a figure eight with two stones between the rims of the bow connected by a rod to a breastplate), his hands were left free to hold the plates. Other late reports mention a variety of further details, but they cannot be historically
confirmed or denied.

In a message dated 7/26/2005 3:12:04 P.M. Mountain Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:

Blainerb: Here is a closer approximation of the truth regards the translation of the BoM. Kevin's version is, naturally, taken from his favorite anti-Mormon sites.
Of course you IGNORE the fact that Joe was a Warlock. A number of "LDS" Historians have written scholarly articles books on this subject Grant H. Palmer, An Insider's View of Mormon Origins, (Signature Books, SLC, 2002, pp. 2-7,66,169). Palmer is an LDS seminary teacher and three-time director of LDS Institutes of Religion in California and Utah; D. Michael Quinn, Early Mormonism and the Magic World View (Salt Lake City: Signature Books, 1987; revised, expanded 1998, pp. 41-ff); James E. Lancaster, "By the Gift and Power of God," Saints Herald, 109:22 (November 15, 1962) pp. 14-18, 22, 33; Edward H. Ashment, "The Book of Mormon â A Literal Translation," Sunstone, 5:2 (March-April 1980), pp. 10-14; Richard S. Van Wagoner and Steven C. Walker in "Joseph Smith: The Gift of Seeing," Dialogue: A Journal of Mormon Thought, 15:2 (Summer 1982),
pp. 48-68; Blake T. Ostler, "The Book of Mormon as a Modern Expansion of an Ancient Source," Dialogue: A Journal of Mormon Thought, 20:1 (Spring 1987), pp. 66-123; Stephen D. Ricks, "The Translation and Publication of the Book of Mormon," Foundation for Ancient Research Mormon Studies, official F.A.R.M.S. transcript of video lecture, 1994, 16 pages;
As far as the translation process, the updated story modified for consumption bymodern LDS, Joe put the plates on a table. The witnesses of ALL the scribes, Unfortunately denies the modern modified story. The quotes previously provided come right from the only people who were EYEWITNESSES. It is their testimony. Your complaint is with them.You can deny it, but facts are stubborn things.
Emma Hale Smith wife of Joe FIRST scribeTESTIFIED "with his face buried in his hat, with the stone in it, and dictating hour after hour with nothing between us."
ALL THREE of the BoM Witnesses including:
David Whitmer scribeTESTIFIED"put his face in the hat, drawing it closely around his face to exclude the light; and in the darkness the spiritual light would shine." "He did not use the plates in translation"
"The manner in which he pretended to read and interpret, was the same as when he looked for the

Re: [TruthTalk] A 'prooftexter' vs a 'contexter'

SEER STONES are OCCULT that is why Joe used them, along with all his other tools of the trade.
At first the stones were used tofind Treasure and then he changed the story to the BoM
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

Blainerb: One of Kevin's favorite tricks--take something out of context, then prove it wrong. The entire context is on one of my previous posts, but here it is again--as can be seen, my post states that the use of the seer stone is a well documented fact. Kevin knows it was stated in my post as such, and still tries to make it appear as thoughthe "late reports" refer tothe seer stone. Seethe ENTIRE context of the part of my post being referred to below:

"Most reports state that throughout the project Joseph used the "Nephite interpreters" or, for convenience, he would use a seer stone (see CHC 1:128-30). Both instruments were sometimes called by others the Urim and Thummim. In 1830, Oliver Cowdery is reported to have testified in court that these tools enabled Joseph "to read in English, the reformed Egyptian characters, which were engraved on the plates" (Benton, Evangelical Magazine and Gospel Advocate 2 [Apr. 9, 1831]:15). In an 1891 interview, William Smith indicated that when his brother Joseph used the "interpreters" (which were like a silver bow twisted into the shape of a figure eight with two stones between the rims of the bow connected by a rod to a breastplate), his hands were left free to hold the plates. Other late reports mention a variety of further details, but they cannot be historically confirmed or
denied."

In a message dated 7/26/2005 3:42:55 P.M. Mountain Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:

Other late reports mention a variety of further details, but they cannot be historically confirmed or denied.I guess they did not try real hard:
"sometimes Joseph used a seer stone when enquiring of the Lord, and receiving revelation" Report of Elders Orson Pratt and Joseph F. Smith, Concluded", Deseret Evening News, 23 Nov, 1878
***Blainer: why are you repeating what I already indicated was true--this proves nothing for your agenda, only mine.

**Blainerb: Aren't you just setting up a little straw man here, Kevin? In fact, most of your stuffdoes just that. __Do You Yahoo!?Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com

Re: [TruthTalk] A 'prooftexter' vs a 'contexter'

Why do you always focus on Minutia?
Sort of like the Wizard of OZ.

"PAY NO ATTENTION TO THAT MAN BEHIND THE CURTAIN!"

http://www.chugachconsumers.org/images/Oz-ManBehind.jpgAs Groucho Marx used to say: "Who are you going to believe me or your eyes?"

[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

Blainerb: One of Kevin's favorite tricks--take something out of context, then prove it wrong. The entire context is on one of my previous posts, but here it is again--as can be seen, my post states that the use of the seer stone is a well documented fact. Kevin knows it was stated in my post as such, and still tries to make it appear as thoughthe "late reports" refer tothe seer stone. Seethe ENTIRE context of the part of my post being referred to below:

"Most reports state that throughout the project Joseph used the "Nephite interpreters" or, for convenience, he would use a seer stone (see CHC 1:128-30). Both instruments were sometimes called by others the Urim and Thummim. In 1830, Oliver Cowdery is reported to have testified in court that these tools enabled Joseph "to read in English, the reformed Egyptian characters, which were engraved on the plates" (Benton, Evangelical Magazine and Gospel Advocate 2 [Apr. 9, 1831]:15). In an 1891 interview, William Smith indicated that when his brother Joseph used the "interpreters" (which were like a silver bow twisted into the shape of a figure eight with two stones between the rims of the bow connected by a rod to a breastplate), his hands were left free to hold the plates. Other late reports mention a variety of further details, but they cannot be historically confirmed or
denied."

In a message dated 7/26/2005 3:42:55 P.M. Mountain Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:

Other late reports mention a variety of further details, but they cannot be historically confirmed or denied.I guess they did not try real hard:
"sometimes Joseph used a seer stone when enquiring of the Lord, and receiving revelation" Report of Elders Orson Pratt and Joseph F. Smith, Concluded", Deseret Evening News, 23 Nov, 1878
***Blainer: why are you repeating what I already indicated was true--this proves nothing for your agenda, only mine.

**Blainerb: Aren't you just setting up a little straw man here, Kevin? In fact, most of your stuffdoes just that.

Start your day with Yahoo! - make it your home page __Do You Yahoo!?Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com

Re: [TruthTalk] A 'prooftexter' vs a 'contexter'

2005-07-25 Thread Dave Hansen





DAVEH: Would that apply to one who erroneously would suggest that all
those who disagree with the LDS Church are anti-Mormons?  :-) 

Kevin Deegan wrote:

  All it takes isONE internal Inconsistency or ERROR to make it a
PHONY
  


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

Re: [TruthTalk] A 'prooftexter' vs a 'contexter'

2005-07-25 Thread Kevin Deegan

OK you win it takes 2 ERRORS to make it a PHONY!Dave Hansen [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
DAVEH: Would that apply to one who erroneously would suggest that all those who disagree with the LDS Church are anti-Mormons? :-) Kevin Deegan wrote: 

All it takes isONE internal Inconsistency or ERROR to make it a PHONY-- 
~~~
Dave Hansen
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.langlitz.com
~~~
If you wish to receive
things I find interesting,
I maintain six email lists...
JOKESTER, OPINIONS, LDS,
STUFF, MOTORCYCLE and CLIPS.__Do You Yahoo!?Tired of spam?  Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com

Re: [TruthTalk] A 'prooftexter' vs a 'contexter'

2005-07-25 Thread Kevin Deegan

So as you can see Joe was a MEDIUM a Spirit Channeler
The LDS Hymn should be changed to "We thank thee O God for a Warlock"
Even the Book of Commandments syas Joe had power with the ROD, he was a diviner.
"The gift of working with the rod" (Book of Commandments 7:3)
The Book of Mormon was delivered by a Familiar Spirit!

Sticking ones face in a hat filled with a "SEER Stone" is nothing more than a Seance
What did the SEER see in the stone?
Isaiah 8:19-20 And when they say to you, Seek those who are mediums and wizards, who whisper and mutter, should not a people seek their God? Should they seek the dead on behalf of the living? To the law and to the testimony! If they do not speak according to this word, it is because there is no light in them
Leviticus 19:31: Give no regard to mediums and familiar spirits; do not seek after them, to be defiled by them: I am the LORD your God.

http://www.fillthevoid.org/Occult/necromancy.htmlKevin Deegan [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

You are describing a common hang-up with the BoM, which isnot much of a hang-up since it is simply based upon the presumption thatwhen JS translated the plates, he did so word for word
According to some of the EYEWITNESSES, Joe dropped a magical seer stone into his hat, then buried his face in the hat and proceeding to dictate the Book of Mormon. The actual words and letters appeared like MAGIC. As far as the plates they were not PRESENT as a number of LDS Eyewitnesses professed!

Emma the first scribe said: "In writing for your father I frequently wrote day after day, often sitting at the table close by him, he sitting with his face buried in his hat, with the stone in it, and dictating hour after hour with nothing between us." History of the RLDS Church, 8 vols. (Independence, Missouri: Herald House, 1951), "Last Testimony of Sister Emma," 3:356

Whitmer one of the THREE Witnesses said : "I will now give you a description of the manner in which the Book of Mormon was translated. Joseph Smith would put the seer stone into a hat, and put his face in the hat, drawing it closely around his face to exclude the light; and in the darkness the spiritual light would shine. A piece of something resembling parchment would appear, and on that appeared the writing. One character at a time would appear, and under it was the interpretation in English. Brother Joseph would read off the English to Oliver Cowdery, who was his principal scribe, and when it was written down and repeated to Brother Joseph to see if it was correct, then it would disappear, and another character with the interpretation would appear. Thus the Book of Mormon was translated by the gift and power of God, and not by any power of man."
David Whitmer, An Address to All Believers in Christ, Richmond, Missouri: n.p., 1887, p. 12

"I, as well as all of my father's family, Smith's wife, Oliver Cowdery and Martin Harris, were present during the translation. . . . He did not use the plates in translation"
Whitmer, Interview given to Kansas City Journal, June 5, 1881, reprinted in the Reorganized Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints Journal of History, vol. 8, (1910), pp. 299-300

http://www.irr.org/mit/divination.html#See,%20for
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

Blainerb: You are describing a common hang-up with the BoM, which isnot much of a hang-up since it is simply based upon the presumption thatwhen JS translated the plates, he did so word for word--which may have been OK for most of the passages, but when he came to passages he was familiar with, he did the normal thing which I myself would have done--he just went to the Bible and copied that part, since it translated the same anyway.There are a few minor differences, however--thus far,the Quamran scrolls have verified the differences, or so I have read. Unfortunately, in my last move, I lost track of the reading material to refer you to on that, but if I run across it, I will definitely post it.
The Lehi group (you are familiar with this group) had all of the first five books of Moses, plus some of the prophets, Isaiah apparently included, on brass plates.Nephi had to kill Laban, as the story goes, to obtain these plates, with the reasoning being that it was better for one wicked man to die than for a whole nation to dwindle and perish in unbelief. Sounds like a genuine conversation between Nephi and the Spirit of the Lord to me!!! There are many such "genuine" passages in the BoM--may I suggest next time you read it (if ever), you do so with amind set looking for the "genuineness" of the book. Itsincerely is what it says it is.

In a message dated 7/24/2005 6:14:38 A.M. Mountain Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:

Why would you think that the King Jamesquote beloware the words of God? I read the B of M many moons ago. As I remember, I read a passage in that book that was taken from chapters 1-13 of Isaiah of the KJV, italicized words included. Not a positive for this young investigator.

Start your day with

Re: [TruthTalk] A 'prooftexter' vs a 'contexter'

2005-07-25 Thread Terry Clifton

Kevin Deegan wrote:

So as you can see Joe was a MEDIUM a Spirit Channeler
The LDS Hymn should be changed to "We thank thee O God for a
Warlock"
Even the Book of Commandments syas Joe had power with the ROD,
he was a diviner.
"The gift of working with the rod"
(Book of Commandments 7:3)
The Book of Mormon was delivered by a Familiar Spirit!

Sticking ones face in a hat filled with a "SEER Stone" is
nothing more than a Seance
What did the SEER see in the stone?
Isaiah 8:19-20 And when they say to you,
Seek those who are mediums and wizards, who whisper and mutter,
should not a people seek their God? Should they seek the dead on behalf
of the living? To the law and to the testimony! If they do not speak
according to this word, it is because there is no light in them
Leviticus 19:31: Give no regard to
mediums and familiar spirits; do not seek after them, to be defiled by
them: I am the LORD your God.

http://www.fillthevoid.org/Occult/necromancy.html

Kevin Deegan [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

You are describing a common hang-up with the BoM,
which isnot much of a hang-up since it is simply based upon the presumption thatwhen JS translated the
plates, he did so word for
word

According to some of the EYEWITNESSES, Joe dropped a magical
seer stone into his hat, then buried his face in the hat and proceeding
to dictate the Book of Mormon. The actual words and letters appeared
like MAGIC. As far as the plates they were not PRESENT as a number of
LDS Eyewitnesses professed!

Emma the first scribe said: "In writing for your father I
frequently wrote day after day, often sitting at the table close by
him, he sitting with his face buried in his hat, with
the stone in it, and dictating hour after hour with
nothing between us." History of the RLDS Church, 8
vols. (Independence, Missouri: Herald House, 1951), "Last
Testimony of Sister Emma," 3:356

Whitmer one of the THREE Witnesses said : "I
will now give you a description of the manner in which the Book of
Mormon was translated. Joseph Smith would put the seer stone
into a hat, and put his face in the hat, drawing it closely
around his face to exclude the light; and in the darkness the spiritual
light would shine. A piece of something resembling parchment
would appear, and on that appeared the
writing. One character at a time would appear,
and under it was the interpretation in English. Brother Joseph would
read off the English to Oliver Cowdery, who was his principal scribe,
and when it was written down and repeated to Brother Joseph to see if
it was correct, then it would disappear, and another character with the
interpretation would appear. Thus the
Book of Mormon was translated by the gift and power of God, and not by
any power of man." David Whitmer, An Address to
All Believers in Christ, Richmond, Missouri: n.p., 1887,
p. 12

"I, as well as all of my father's family, Smith's wife, Oliver
Cowdery and Martin Harris, were present during the translation. . . . He
did not use the plates in translation"
Whitmer,
Interview given to Kansas City
Journal, June 5, 1881, reprinted in the Reorganized Church of
Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints Journal of History, vol. 8,
(1910), pp. 299-300

The above seems obvious to anyone who has been given even
discernment 101. Why are so many walking in darkness, thinking they
see the light?

Terry

Re: [TruthTalk] A 'prooftexter' vs a 'contexter'

2005-07-25 Thread Blainerb473







Blainer: Are you confusing Joseph Smith 
with God? God was the one quoting scripture when He spoke to Joseph 
Smith. He (God) is the same, 
yesterday, today, and forever, is my point. He does 
not change. 

In a message dated 7/24/2005 8:17:40 A.M. Mountain Standard Time, 
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:

  JSmith was no Jesus. 
  
  
  
  
  
  
  From: 
  [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
  On Behalf Of 
  [EMAIL PROTECTED]Sent: Saturday, July 23, 2005 10:44 
  PMTo: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgSubject: Re: [TruthTalk] A 'prooftexter' 
  vs a 'contexter'
  
  
  
  Blainerb: 
  Why do you not believe God can use his own words from thescriptures to 
  express his displeasure over a current situation? Jesus often 
  quoted the scriptures to the Jews to makea point. In the 
  book of Matthew, the writer (Matthew) often does much the same thing. A 
  departure from this would have indicated the story was false.

Re: [TruthTalk] A 'prooftexter' vs a 'contexter'

2005-07-25 Thread Blainerb473





In a message dated 7/25/2005 1:40:28 P.M. Mountain Standard Time, 
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
According to some (who?)of 
  the EYEWITNESSES, Joe dropped a magical 
  seer stone into his hat, then buried his face in the hat and proceeding to 
  dictate the Book of Mormon. The actual words and letters appeared like MAGIC. 
  As far as the plates they were not PRESENT as a number of LDS Eyewitnesses professed!

Blainerb: I don't know who your "eyewitnesses" could have been, since 
Joseph Smith ALWAYS translated with a veil between 
him and the person recording. The persons recording were 
mostly either Emma, his wife, or Oliver Cowdery. NOONE even saw the plates 
he was translating until the eight witnesses were shown them, which was after 
they were translated. You need to check your history, 
MR Expert-On-Mormonism.

Re: [TruthTalk] A 'prooftexter' vs a 'contexter'

2005-07-25 Thread Blainerb473

Blainerb: Here is a closer approximation of the
truth regards the translation of the BoM. Kevin's version is, naturally,
taken from his favorite anti-Mormon sites.

Book of
Mormon Translation By Joseph
Smith

The original manuscript for Helaman 1:15-16 shows
how the name "Coriantumr" was first written by Oliver Cowdery phonetically but
was then crossed out and spelled correctly on the same line as the translation
progressed. Witnesses stated that Joseph Smith spelled the proper names that he
translated.
by John W. Welch and Tim Rathbone
By its own terms, the Book of Mormon is a translation of an ancient book; yet
Joseph
Smith knew no ancient languages at the time he dictated this text to his
scribes. He and several of his close associates testified
that the translation was accomplished "by the gift and power of God" (Hc 1:315;
see also DC 1:29; 20:8).
Little is known about the translation process itself. Few details can
be gleaned from comments made by Joseph's scribes and close associates. Only
Joseph Smith knew the actual process, and he declined to describe it in public.
At a Church conference in 1831, Hyrum Smith invited the Prophet to explain more
fully how the Book of Mormon came forth. Joseph Smith responded that "it was not
intended to tell the world all the particulars of the coming forth of the Book
of Mormon; and…it was not expedient for him to relate these things" (HC
1:220).
Much is known, however, about when and where the work of translation
occurred. The events are documented by several independent firsthand witnesses.
Joseph Smith first obtained the gold
plates at the hill Cumorah
in New York, in the early morning hours of September 22, 1827. To avoid local
harassment and mobs, he moved to harmony, pennsylvania, in December 1827. There
he copied and translated some of the characters from the plates, with his wife
Emma and her brother Reuben Hale acting as scribes. In 1856, Emma recalled that
Joseph dictated the translation to her word for word, spelled out the proper
names, and would correct her scribal errors even though he could not see what
she had written. At one point while translating, Joseph was surprised to
learn that Jerusalem had walls around it (E. C. Briggs, "Interview with David
Whitmer," Saints' Herald 31 [June 21, 1884]:396-97). Emma was once asked in a
later interview if Joseph had read from any books or notes while dictating. She
answered, "He had neither," and when pressed, added: "If he had anything of the
kind he could not have concealed it from me" (Saints' Herald 26 [Oct. 1,
1879]:290).
Martin Harris came to Harmony in February 1828, and shortly afterward took a
transcript and translation of some of the characters to New York City, where he
showed them to Professor Charles Anthon at Columbia College (see Anthon
Transcript). He returned fully satisfied that Joseph was telling the truth,
and from April 12 to June 14, 1828, Harris acted as scribe while Joseph Smith
translated the book of Lehi.
On June 15, 1828, Joseph and Emma's first son was born but died a few hours
later. About July 15, Joseph learned that Martin Harris had lost the 116 pages
they had translated (see Manuscript, Lost 116 Pages), and subsequently the angel
Moroni took the plates and the interpreters temporarily from Joseph, who was
chastened but reassured by the Lord that the work would go forth (DC
3:15-16).
On September 22, 1828, the plates and translation tools were returned to
Joseph Smith, and during that winter he translated "a few more pages" (DC
5:30). The work progressed slowly until April 5, 1829, when Oliver Cowdery, a school teacher
who had seen the Lord and the plates in a vision (PWJS, p. 8), arrived in
Harmony and offered his scribal services to Joseph. Virtually all of the English
text of the Book of Mormon was then translated between April 7 and the last week
of June, less than sixty working days.
The dictation flowed smoothly. From the surviving portions of the
Original Manuscript it appears that Joseph dictated about a dozen words at a
time. Oliver would read those words back for verification, and then they would
go on. Emma later added that after a meal or a night's rest, Joseph would begin,
without prompting, where he had previously left off (The Saints' Herald 26 [Oct.
1, 1879]:290). No time was taken for research, internal cross-checking, or
editorial rewriting. In 1834 Oliver wrote: "These were days never to be
forgotten—to sit under the sound of a voice dictated by the inspiration of
heaven, awakened the utmost gratitude of this bosom! Day after day I continued,
uninterrupted, to write from his mouth as he translated" (Messenger and Advocate
1 [Oct. 1834]:14).
During April, May, and June 1829, many events occurred in concert with the
translation of the Book of Mormon. By May 15, the account of Christ's ministry
in 3 Nephi had been translated. That text explicitly mentions the

Re: [TruthTalk] A 'prooftexter' vs a 'contexter'

2005-07-24 Thread Judy Taylor




Hmmm, interesting! The personage quoted scripture 
but that is not unusual, the devil comes as an angel of light and uses truth 
to
deceive ppl and lead them into even worse error. 
However, I do think it hypocritical for the ones following creeds and doctrines 
that
are of men to upbraid you for doing the same. I'd 
like to hear you playing that horn Blaine 

On Sat, 23 Jul 2005 19:45:03 EDT [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:

  
  
  Blainerb: "I asked the Personages who stood above me in the 
  light, which of all the sects was right . . . the Personage who 
  addressed me said that all their creeds were an 
  abomination in His sight; that those professors were all corrupt; 
  that they: draw near to me with their lips, but their hearts are far from 
  me, they teach for doctrine the 
  commandments of men, having a form of godliness, but they deny the 
  power thereof." Joseph Smith
  
  
  In a message dated 7/23/2005 12:00:36 A.M. Mountain Standard Time, 
  [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
  DAVEH: As I see it, the big problem was not the heresy as much as it was the 
lack of authority.Judy Taylor wrote: 

  
  From my perspective the Mormon boys are being 
  shown by those of you who adhere to Orthodoxy to a Tee
  that Joseph Smith was right - His big problem was 
  with the heresy of all the sects. It's not difficult to see as it's 
  
  even worse today than it was then -he 
  was right on that point -

Re: [TruthTalk] A 'prooftexter' vs a 'contexter'

2005-07-24 Thread knpraise


Why would you think that the King Jamesquote beloware the words of God? I read the B of M many moons ago. As I remember, I read a passage in that book that was taken from chapters 1-13 of Isaiah of the KJV, italicized words included. Not a positive for this young investigator. 


JD-Original Message-From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgSent: Sun, 24 Jul 2005 00:43:38 EDTSubject: Re: [TruthTalk] A 'prooftexter' vs a 'contexter'




Blainerb: Why do you not believe God can use his own words from thescriptures to express his displeasure over a current situation? Jesus often quoted the scriptures to the Jews to makea point. In the book of Matthew, the writer (Matthew) often does much the same thing. A departure from this would have indicated the story was false. 


In a message dated 7/23/2005 7:22:08 P.M. Mountain Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:

JSmith quoting the real Bible in his collections of the commandments of JSmith. 





From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of [EMAIL PROTECTED]Sent: Saturday, July 23, 2005 5:45 PMTo: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgSubject: Re: [TruthTalk] A 'prooftexter' vs a 'contexter'





Blainerb: "I asked the Personages who stood above me in the light, which of all the sects was right . . . the Personage who addressed me said that all their creeds were an abomination in His sight; that those professors were all corrupt; that they: draw near to me with their lips, but their hearts are far from me, they teach for doctrine the commandments of men, having a form of godliness, but they deny the power thereof." Joseph Smith<
/DIV>

Re: [TruthTalk] A 'prooftexter' vs a 'contexter'

2005-07-24 Thread Terry Clifton





Check out that phrase, Dave. "it shall NOT be so among you." Jesus
gave them authority over demons and He gave them the authority to
preach the Good News. He did not give them the authority to be
dictators or popes or presidents. They were guides, not rulers.
Hope this helps you understand.
Terry

Dave wrote:

  
  
DAVEH: So what do you think the purpose was of Jesus choosing and
ordaining the apostles, Terry? Do you believe Jesus gave them any
authority?
  
Terry Clifton wrote:
  


You might want to consider His words recorded in Matthew 20:26-28, Dave.

"You know that the rulers of the Gentiles lord it over them, and those
that are great exercise authority over them. Yet it shall not be so
among you; but whoever desires to become great among you, let him be
your servant. And whoever desires to be first among you, let him be
your slave...just as the Son of Man did not come to be served, but to
serve."

Peter got the message. Look at his advice in 1 Peter, 5:2-3

"Shepherd the flock of God which is among you, serving as overseers
not by compulsion, but willingly, not for dishonest gain, but eagerly
nor as being lords over those entrusted to you, but being examples to
the flock."
Terry


Dave wrote:

  
  
DAVEH: His ordination of the apostles would suggest otherwise, Judy.
For what reason did he call and ordain the apostles if they were not to
  stand in for Him? Did he not give them authority and then
command them to preach and baptize in his name?
  
Judith H Taylor wrote:
  



Dave, Jesus is the authority and he did not set up a
hierarchal
flesh kingdom to stand in for Him
His kingdom is organic rather than organizational.
Leadership
leads by example rather than as CEO
The least is as important as the greatest and all are to
submit
one to another in the fear of God.
This is the example we find in the NT. You will note that
John
recognized the false by the way they
behaved and warned the Church not to receive them. judyt

On Fri, 22 Jul 2005 22:59:59 -0700 Dave [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:

  DAVEH: As I see it, the big
problem was
not the heresy as much as it was the lack of authority.
  
Judy Taylor wrote: 
  

From my perspective the Mormon
boys
are being shown by those of you who adhere to Orthodoxy to a Tee
that Joseph Smith was right -
His
big
problem was with the heresy of all the sects. It's not difficult to
see as it's 
even worse today than it was
then
-he was right on that point - 
  
  

  
  


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

RE: [TruthTalk] A 'prooftexter' vs a 'contexter'

2005-07-24 Thread ShieldsFamily









JSmith was no Jesus. 











From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Saturday, July 23, 2005
10:44 PM
To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] A
'prooftexter' vs a 'contexter'









Blainerb: Why do you not
believe God can use his own words from thescriptures to express his
displeasure over a current situation? Jesus often quoted the
scriptures to the Jews to makea point. In the book of Matthew,
the writer (Matthew) often does much the same thing. A departure from
this would have indicated the story was false. 

















In a message dated 7/23/2005 7:22:08 P.M.
Mountain Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
writes:





JSmith quoting the real Bible in his collections of the
commandments of JSmith. 











From:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Saturday, July 23, 2005 5:45
PM
To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] A
'prooftexter' vs a 'contexter'















Blainerb: I asked the Personages who stood above me in
the light, which of all the sects was right . . . the Personage who
addressed me said that all their creeds were an abomination in His sight; that
those professors were all corrupt; that they: draw near to me with their lips, but their hearts are far from
me, they teach for doctrine
the commandments of men, having a form of godliness, but they deny the power
thereof. Joseph Smith

Re: [TruthTalk] A 'prooftexter' vs a 'contexter'

2005-07-24 Thread Blainerb473

Blainerb: You are describing a common hang-up with the BoM, which
isnot much of a hang-up since it is simply based upon the presumption thatwhen JS translated the plates, he
did so word for word--which may have been OK for most of the passages, but when
he came to passages he was familiar with, he did the normal thing which I myself
would have done--he just went to the Bible and copied that part, since it
translated the same anyway.There are a few minor differences,
however--thus far,the Quamran scrolls have verified the differences, or so
I have read. Unfortunately, in my last move, I lost track of the reading
material to refer you to on that, but if I run across it, I will definitely post
it.
The Lehi group (you are familiar with this group) had all of the first five
books of Moses, plus some of the prophets, Isaiah apparently included, on brass
plates.Nephi had to kill Laban, as the story goes, to obtain these plates,
with the reasoning being that it was better for one wicked man to die than for a
whole nation to dwindle and perish in unbelief. Sounds like a genuine
conversation between Nephi and the Spirit of the Lord to me!!! There are
many such "genuine" passages in the BoM--may I suggest next time you read
it (if ever), you do so with amind set looking for the "genuineness" of
the book. Itsincerely is what it says it is.

In a message dated 7/24/2005 6:14:38 A.M. Mountain Standard Time,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:

Why would you think that the King Jamesquote beloware
the words of God? I read the B of M many moons ago. As I
remember, I read a passage in that book that was taken from chapters
1-13 of Isaiah of the KJV, italicized
words included. Not a positive for this young investigator.

Re: [TruthTalk] A 'prooftexter' vs a 'contexter'

2005-07-24 Thread Dave





DAVEH: Do you believe Jesus gave them authority to baptize? Or, do
you think they automatically had that authority, as do many Christians
today?

Terry Clifton wrote:

  
  
Check out that phrase, Dave. "it shall NOT be so among you." Jesus
gave them authority over demons and He gave them the authority to
preach the Good News. He did not give them the authority to be
dictators or popes or presidents. They were guides, not rulers.
Hope this helps you understand.
Terry
  
Dave wrote:
  


DAVEH: So what do you think the purpose was of Jesus choosing and
ordaining the apostles, Terry? Do you believe Jesus gave them any
authority?

Terry Clifton wrote:

  
  
You might want to consider His words recorded in Matthew 20:26-28, Dave.
  
"You know that the rulers of the Gentiles lord it over them, and those
that are great exercise authority over them. Yet it shall not be so
among you; but whoever desires to become great among you, let him be
your servant. And whoever desires to be first among you, let him be
your slave...just as the Son of Man did not come to be served, but to
serve."
  
Peter got the message. Look at his advice in 1 Peter, 5:2-3
  
"Shepherd the flock of God which is among you, serving as overseers
not by compulsion, but willingly, not for dishonest gain, but eagerly
nor as being lords over those entrusted to you, but being examples to
the flock."
Terry
  
  
Dave wrote:
  


DAVEH: His ordination of the apostles would suggest otherwise, Judy.
For what reason did he call and ordain the apostles if they were not to
stand in for Him? Did he not give them authority and
then
command them to preach and baptize in his name?

Judith H Taylor wrote:

  
  
  
  Dave, Jesus is the authority and he did not set up a
hierarchal
flesh kingdom to stand in for Him
  His kingdom is organic rather than organizational.
Leadership
leads by example rather than as CEO
  The least is as important as the greatest and all are to
submit
one to another in the fear of God.
  This is the example we find in the NT. You will note
that
John
recognized the false by the way they
  behaved and warned the Church not to receive them.
judyt
  
  On Fri, 22 Jul 2005 22:59:59 -0700 Dave [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
  
DAVEH: As I see it, the big
problem was
not the heresy as much as it was the lack of authority.

Judy Taylor wrote: 

  
  From my perspective the Mormon
boys
are being shown by those of you who adhere to Orthodoxy to a Tee
  that Joseph Smith was right -
His
big
problem was with the heresy of all the sects. It's not difficult to
see as it's 
  even worse today than it was
then
-he was right on that point - 


  


  

  


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

Re: [TruthTalk] A 'prooftexter' vs a 'contexter'

2005-07-24 Thread Charles Perry Locke


From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
 It [the bom] sincerely is what it says it is.


How do you know this?


--
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] A 'prooftexter' vs a 'contexter'

2005-07-24 Thread knpraise

Sooo, part of the B of M is from God and the other part is from the KJV of the biblicallanguage(s).

Interesting.

JD-Original Message-From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgSent: Sun, 24 Jul 2005 12:02:53 EDTSubject: Re: [TruthTalk] A 'prooftexter' vs a 'contexter'

In a message dated 7/24/2005 6:14:38 A.M. Mountain Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:

Re: [TruthTalk] A 'prooftexter' vs a 'contexter'

2005-07-24 Thread Blainerb473




In a message dated 7/24/2005 10:31:24 A.M. Mountain Standard Time, 
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] It [the bom] sincerely is 
  what it says it is.How do you know this?


I read it, I now read it, I will read it, I will have read it . . . too 
many internal consistencies for it not to be true. I can open it to any 
page, and be impressed with its truthfulness. It does not, contrary to 
claims, contradict the Bible. Just a few of many reasons why I know it is 
true.
Blainer

Re: [TruthTalk] A 'prooftexter' vs a 'contexter'

2005-07-24 Thread Kevin Deegan

http://www.irr.org/mit/divination.html#See,%20for
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

In a message dated 7/24/2005 6:14:38 A.M. Mountain Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:

Start your day with Yahoo! - make it your home page

Re: [TruthTalk] A 'prooftexter' vs a 'contexter'

2005-07-24 Thread Charles Perry Locke

From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]

In a message dated 7/24/2005 10:31:24 A.M. Mountain Standard Time,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:

From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
 It [the bom] sincerely is  what it says it is.

How do you know this?

I read it, I now read it, I will read it, I will have read it . . . too  
many internal consistencies for it not to be true.  I can open it to any  
page, and be impressed with its truthfulness.  It does not, contrary to  
claims, contradict the Bible.  Just a few of many reasons why I know it is  
true.

Blainer

Most books, fiction and non-fiction, have internal consistency. But, they 
are typically written by a single author, so internal consistency is not 
remarkable in such books.

The Bible was written by many authors over thousands of years, and shows 
internal consistency across author as well as time periods.

How many authors wrote the bom over how many years? Is there consistency 
between the various authors of the bom?

The Bible has hundreds if not thousands of external consitencies. What 
external consistencies does the bom show?

Perry

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

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

Re: [TruthTalk] A 'prooftexter' vs a 'contexter'

2005-07-24 Thread Kevin Deegan

So another words you know it to be True because you know it to be True.
I see.[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:


In a message dated 7/24/2005 10:31:24 A.M. Mountain Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] It [the bom] sincerely is what it says it is.How do you know this?


I read it, I now read it, I will read it, I will have read it . . . too many internal consistencies for it not to be true. I can open it to any page, and be impressed with its truthfulness. It does not, contrary to claims, contradict the Bible. Just a few of many reasons why I know it is true.
Blainer


		Yahoo! Mail 
Stay connected, organized, and protected. Take the tour

Re: [TruthTalk] A 'prooftexter' vs a 'contexter'

2005-07-24 Thread Kevin Deegan

All it takes isONE internal Inconsistency or ERROR to make it a PHONYCharles Perry Locke [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]In a message dated 7/24/2005 10:31:24 A.M. Mountain Standard Time,[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] It [the bom] sincerely is what it says it is.How do you know this?I read it, I now read it, I will read it, I will have read it . . . too many internal consistencies for it not to be true. I can open it to any page, and be impressed with its truthfulness. It does not, contrary to claims, contradict the Bible. Just a few of many reasons why I know it is true.BlainerMost books, fiction and non-fiction, have internal consistency. But, they are typically written by a single author, so internal consistency is not remarkable in such books.The Bible was written by many
 authors over thousands of years, and shows internal consistency across author as well as time periods.How many authors wrote the bom over how many years? Is there consistency between the various authors of the bom?The Bible has hundreds if not thousands of external consitencies. What external consistencies does the bom show?Perry--"Let your speech be always with grace, seasoned with salt, that you may know how you ought to answer every man." (Colossians 4:6) http://www.InnGlory.orgIf you do not want to receive posts from this list, send an email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and you will be unsubscribed. If you have a friend who wants to join, tell him to send an e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and he will be subscribed.__Do You Yahoo!?Tired of spam?  Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com

Re: [TruthTalk] A 'prooftexter' vs a 'contexter'

2005-07-23 Thread Dave





DAVEH: As I see it, the big problem was
not the heresy as much as it was the lack of authority.

Judy Taylor wrote:

  
  
  
  From my perspective the Mormon boys are
being shown by those of you who adhere to Orthodoxy to a Tee
  that Joseph Smith was right - His big
problem was with the heresy of all the sects. It's not difficult to
see as it's 
  even worse today than it was then -he was right on that point - 


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

Re: [TruthTalk] A 'prooftexter' vs a 'contexter'

2005-07-23 Thread David Miller

Lance wrote:
 Let me say something to everyone on TT who employs
 the letters RCC as an epithet; THIS WAS THE BIRTH
 OF CHRIST'S CHURCH!! If y'all got a problem with
 that then, take it up with Him.

Lance, surely you know that this is not true what you just said.  This is 
one of the biggest lies that the RCC has ever perpetrated on mankind.

The RCC did not have independent existence until 1054 when it excommunicated 
Michael Cerularius, the Bishop of Constantinople, over his refusal to 
acknowledge the Bishop of Rome as Supreme Pope among other things.  Even if 
you don't accept this date as the date of Roman Catholicism's beginning, you 
surely cannot argue for its existence before 313 A.D. when Constantine 
issued the Edict of Milan.

Rome was not the earliest church.  Jerusalem was.  The church in Jerusalem 
was the birth of Christ's first church, and many other churches were born 
after that, in Antioch, in Ephesus, in Corinth, etc.  Read Revelation 1 and 
you will find seven churches, not ONE HOLY ROMAN CATHOLIC CHURCH, and these 
seven were only represented of the many churches of Christ that existed 
throughout the earth.

Peace be with you.
David Miller. 

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

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

Re: [TruthTalk] A 'prooftexter' vs a 'contexter'

2005-07-23 Thread David Miller

JD wrote:
 Who says this is not an esstential?  You?
 DM?   And what are these essentials/
 None of you fundies ever get around to
 answering that question.   Do you all think
 this goes unnoticed?

Well, I'm not a fundy, but I will try to answer this for you.

First, let me say that contrary to your false characterization of me, I do 
not believe that there is any list of doctrines that must be adhered to in 
order to be saved.  God is not sitting at this throne with a check list of 
ideas that people must accept in order to enter.  Rather, our doctrines 
determine who we are and how we live out our lives.  At least this is true 
for those who are honest.  Dishonest people are another matter entirely.

So how do we determine essential doctrines?  Well, that is about as easy as 
understanding the essential nutrients needed for a body to live.  Take away 
water.  Guess what.  Kid dies.  Take away all food.  Guess what.  Kid dies. 
Withhold all vitamin D.  Guess what.  Kid gets sick.  Limit protein.  Guess 
what.  Kid becomes scrawny.

Now consider alternatives.  One kid drinks orange juice everyday.  Another 
kid hates orange juice and never drinks it.  Can they both grow up well? 
Yes.  One kid drinks milk every day, another hates milk.  Same conclusion. 
One kid eats meat everyday, but another rarely eats meat.  They both can 
grow up fine.

The point is that although there are essentials, there are various ways of 
getting those essentials.  We best determine whether those essentials are 
being received by the effect on the person's growth.

For a person to truly walk in love, he must put faith in Jesus Christ. 
Lot's of people claim to have faith in Jesus Christ, but do they really? 
The test is whether they walk in love and obey his commandments.  I have 
seen people who don't understand Romans 7 one bit, or know anything about 
Trinity or sabellianism or flesh or spirit, but they love God with all their 
heart and walk in his commandments.  Guess what.  They have the essentials. 
I have seen other who deny Jesus Christ and do not keep his commandments. 
Guess what.  They do not have the essentials.

I don't know if my comments will help you see any better, but I tried. 
Sometimes we don't answer your questions because we expect we won't get 
through and will instead just get attacked for trying to answer.  I hope 
such does not happen this time.

Peace be with you.
David Miller.


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

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

Re: [TruthTalk] A 'prooftexter' vs a 'contexter'

2005-07-23 Thread knpraise

You start off rather well:I do not believe that there is any list of doctrines that must be adhered to in order to be saved. And then (almost immediately) , you write: So how do we determine essential doctrines? Well ...

Whatever.

-Original Message-From: David Miller [EMAIL PROTECTED]To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgSent: Sat, 23 Jul 2005 08:06:19 -0400Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] A 'prooftexter' vs a 'contexter'

JD wrote:
Who says this is not an esstential? You?
DM? And what are these "essentials/"
None of you fundies ever get around to
answering that question. Do you all think
this goes unnoticed?

Well, I'm not a fundy, but I will try to answer this for you.

First, let me say that contrary to your false characterization of me, I do
not believe that there is any list of doctrines that must be adhered to in
order to be saved. God is not sitting at this throne with a check list of
ideas that people must accept in order to enter. Rather, our doctrines
determine who we are and how we live out our lives. At least this is true
for those who are honest. Dishonest people are another matter entirely.

So how do we determine essential doctrines? Well, that is about as easy as
understanding the essential nutrients needed for a body to live. Take away
water. Guess what. Kid dies. Take away all food. Guess what. Kid dies.
Withhold all vitamin D. Guess what. Kid gets sick. Limit protein. Guess
what. Kid becomes scrawny.

Now consider alternatives. One kid drinks orange juice everyday. Another
kid hates orange juice and never drinks it. Can they both grow up well?
Yes. One kid drinks milk every day, another hates milk. Same conclusion.
One kid eats meat everyday, but another rarely eats meat. They both can
grow up fine.

The point is that although there are essentials, there are various ways of
getting those essentials. We best determine whether those essentials are
being received by the effect on the person's growth.

For a person to truly walk in love, he must put faith in Jesus Christ.
Lot's of people claim to have faith in Jesus Christ, but do they really?
The test is whether they walk in love and obey his commandments. I have
seen people who don't understand Romans 7 one bit, or know anything about
Trinity or sabellianism or flesh or spirit, but they love God with all their
heart and walk in his commandments. Guess what. They have the essentials.
I have seen other who deny Jesus Christ and do not keep his commandments.
Guess what. They do not have the essentials.

I don't know if my comments will help you see any better, but I tried.
Sometimes we don't answer your questions because we expect we won't get
through and will instead just get attacked for trying to answer. I hope
such does not happen this time.

Peace be with you.
David Miller.

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

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

Re: [TruthTalk] A 'prooftexter' vs a 'contexter'

2005-07-23 Thread Judith H Taylor




Dave, Jesus is the authority and he did not set up a hierarchal flesh 
kingdom to stand in for Him
His kingdom is organic rather than organizational. Leadership leads 
by example rather than as CEO
The least is as important as the greatest and all are to submit one to 
another in the fear of God.
This is the example we find in the NT. You will note that John 
recognized the false by the way they
behaved and warned the Church not to receive them. judyt

On Fri, 22 Jul 2005 22:59:59 -0700 Dave [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:

  DAVEH: As I see it, the big problem was 
  not the heresy as much as it was the lack of authority.Judy Taylor 
  wrote: 
  

From my perspective the Mormon boys are being shown 
by those of you who adhere to Orthodoxy to a Tee
that Joseph Smith was right - His big problem was 
with the heresy of all the sects. It's not difficult to see as it's 

even worse today than it was then -he 
was right on that point - 
  -- 
 ~~~
 Dave Hansen
 [EMAIL PROTECTED]
 http://www.langlitz.com
 ~~~
 If you wish to receive
 things I find interesting,
 I maintain six email lists...
 JOKESTER, OPINIONS, LDS,
 STUFF, MOTORCYCLE and CLIPS.

Re: [TruthTalk] A 'prooftexter' vs a 'contexter'

2005-07-23 Thread Dave





DAVEH: His ordination of the apostles would suggest otherwise, Judy.
For what reason did he call and ordain the apostles if they were not to
stand in for Him? Did he not give them authority and then
command them to preach and baptize in his name?

Judith H Taylor wrote:

  
  
  
  Dave, Jesus is the authority and he did not set up a hierarchal
flesh kingdom to stand in for Him
  His kingdom is organic rather than organizational. Leadership
leads by example rather than as CEO
  The least is as important as the greatest and all are to submit
one to another in the fear of God.
  This is the example we find in the NT. You will note that John
recognized the false by the way they
  behaved and warned the Church not to receive them. judyt
  
  On Fri, 22 Jul 2005 22:59:59 -0700 Dave [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
  
DAVEH: As I see it, the big problem was
not the heresy as much as it was the lack of authority.

Judy Taylor wrote: 

  
  From my perspective the Mormon boys
are being shown by those of you who adhere to Orthodoxy to a Tee
  that Joseph Smith was right - His big
problem was with the heresy of all the sects. It's not difficult to
see as it's 
  even worse today than it was then -he
  was right on that point - 


  


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

Re: [TruthTalk] A 'prooftexter' vs a 'contexter'

2005-07-23 Thread Terry Clifton





You might want to consider His words recorded in Matthew 20:26-28, Dave.

"You know that the rulers of the Gentiles lord it over them, and those
that are great exercise authority over them. Yet it shall not be so
among you; but whoever desires to become great among you, let him be
your servant. And whoever desires to be first among you, let him be
your slave...just as the Son of Man did not come to be served, but to
serve."

Peter got the message. Look at his advice in 1 Peter, 5:2-3

"Shepherd the flock of God which is among you, serving as overseers
not by compulsion, but willingly, not for dishonest gain, but eagerly
nor as being lords over those entrusted to you, but being examples to
the flock."
Terry


Dave wrote:

  
  
DAVEH: His ordination of the apostles would suggest otherwise, Judy.
For what reason did he call and ordain the apostles if they were not to
  stand in for Him? Did he not give them authority and then
command them to preach and baptize in his name?
  
Judith H Taylor wrote:
  



Dave, Jesus is the authority and he did not set up a
hierarchal
flesh kingdom to stand in for Him
His kingdom is organic rather than organizational. Leadership
leads by example rather than as CEO
The least is as important as the greatest and all are to
submit
one to another in the fear of God.
This is the example we find in the NT. You will note that
John
recognized the false by the way they
behaved and warned the Church not to receive them. judyt

On Fri, 22 Jul 2005 22:59:59 -0700 Dave [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:

  DAVEH: As I see it, the big problem was
not the heresy as much as it was the lack of authority.
  
Judy Taylor wrote: 
  

From my perspective the Mormon boys
are being shown by those of you who adhere to Orthodoxy to a Tee
that Joseph Smith was right - His
big
problem was with the heresy of all the sects. It's not difficult to
see as it's 
even worse today than it was then
-he was right on that point - 
  
  

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

Re: [TruthTalk] A 'prooftexter' vs a 'contexter'

2005-07-23 Thread Blainerb473






Blainerb: "I asked the Personages who stood above me in the 
light, which of all the sects was right . . . the Personage who 
addressed me said that all their creeds were an abomination in His sight; that 
those professors were all corrupt; that they: draw near to me with their 
lips, but their hearts are far from me, they teach for doctrine 
the commandments of men, having a form of godliness, but they deny the 
power thereof." Joseph Smith


In a message dated 7/23/2005 12:00:36 A.M. Mountain Standard Time, 
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
DAVEH: As I see it, the big problem 
  was not the heresy as much as it was the lack of authority.Judy 
  Taylor wrote: 
  

From my perspective the Mormon boys are being shown 
by those of you who adhere to Orthodoxy to a Tee
that Joseph Smith was right - His big problem was 
with the heresy of all the sects. It's not difficult to see as it's 

even worse today than it was then -he 
was right on that point -

RE: [TruthTalk] A 'prooftexter' vs a 'contexter'

2005-07-23 Thread ShieldsFamily









JSmith quoting the real Bible in his
collections of the commandments of JSmith. 











From:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Saturday, July 23, 2005 5:45
PM
To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] A
'prooftexter' vs a 'contexter'















Blainerb: I asked the
Personages who stood above me in the light, which of all the sects was
right . . . the Personage who addressed me said that all their creeds
were an abomination in His sight; that those professors were all corrupt;
that they: draw near to me with their lips, but
their hearts are far from me, they teach for doctrine the commandments
of men, having a form of godliness, but they deny the power
thereof. Joseph Smith

















In a message dated 7/23/2005 12:00:36
A.M. Mountain Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:





DAVEH: As I see it, the big problem was not
the heresy as much as it was the lack of authority.

Judy Taylor wrote: 



From my perspective
the Mormon boys are being shown by those of you who adhere to Orthodoxy to a
Tee





that Joseph Smith was
right - His big problem was with the heresy of all the sects. It's not
difficult to see as it's 





even worse today than
it was then -he was right on that point -

Re: [TruthTalk] A 'prooftexter' vs a 'contexter'

2005-07-23 Thread Dave





DAVEH: So what do you think the purpose was of Jesus choosing and
ordaining the apostles, Terry? Do you believe Jesus gave them any
authority?

Terry Clifton wrote:

  
  
You might want to consider His words recorded in Matthew 20:26-28, Dave.
  
"You know that the rulers of the Gentiles lord it over them, and those
that are great exercise authority over them. Yet it shall not be so
among you; but whoever desires to become great among you, let him be
your servant. And whoever desires to be first among you, let him be
your slave...just as the Son of Man did not come to be served, but to
serve."
  
Peter got the message. Look at his advice in 1 Peter, 5:2-3
  
"Shepherd the flock of God which is among you, serving as overseers
not by compulsion, but willingly, not for dishonest gain, but eagerly
nor as being lords over those entrusted to you, but being examples to
the flock."
Terry
  
  
Dave wrote:
  


DAVEH: His ordination of the apostles would suggest otherwise, Judy.
For what reason did he call and ordain the apostles if they were not to
stand in for Him? Did he not give them authority and then
command them to preach and baptize in his name?

Judith H Taylor wrote:

  
  
  
  Dave, Jesus is the authority and he did not set up a
hierarchal
flesh kingdom to stand in for Him
  His kingdom is organic rather than organizational.
Leadership
leads by example rather than as CEO
  The least is as important as the greatest and all are to
submit
one to another in the fear of God.
  This is the example we find in the NT. You will note that
John
recognized the false by the way they
  behaved and warned the Church not to receive them. judyt
  
  On Fri, 22 Jul 2005 22:59:59 -0700 Dave [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
  
DAVEH: As I see it, the big
problem was
not the heresy as much as it was the lack of authority.

Judy Taylor wrote: 

  
  From my perspective the Mormon
boys
are being shown by those of you who adhere to Orthodoxy to a Tee
  that Joseph Smith was right - His
big
problem was with the heresy of all the sects. It's not difficult to
see as it's 
  even worse today than it was then
-he was right on that point - 


  


  
  


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

Re: [TruthTalk] A 'prooftexter' vs a 'contexter'

2005-07-23 Thread Blainerb473





Blainerb: Why do you not believe God can use his own words from 
thescriptures to express his displeasure over a current 
situation? Jesus often quoted the scriptures to the Jews to 
makea point. In the book of Matthew, the writer (Matthew) 
often does much the same thing. A departure from this would have indicated 
the story was false. 


In a message dated 7/23/2005 7:22:08 P.M. Mountain Standard Time, 
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:

  JSmith quoting the 
  real Bible in his collections of the commandments of JSmith. 
  
  
  
  
  
  
  From: 
  [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
  On Behalf Of 
  [EMAIL PROTECTED]Sent: Saturday, July 23, 2005 5:45 
  PMTo: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgSubject: Re: [TruthTalk] A 'prooftexter' 
  vs a 'contexter'
  
  
  
  
  
  Blainerb: "I 
  asked the Personages who stood above me in the light, which of all the 
  sects was right . . . the Personage who addressed me said that all their 
  creeds were an abomination in His sight; that those professors were all 
  corrupt; that they: draw near to me 
  with their lips, but their hearts are far from me, they teach for 
  doctrine the 
  commandments of men, having a form of godliness, but they deny the 
  power 
  thereof." Joseph 
  Smith

Re: [TruthTalk] A 'prooftexter' vs a 'contexter'




You never give up do you Lance?
All this proves is that we are at different places in 
our walk. I have seen David explain this
to you in the clearest way possible but you apparently 
did not accept that. There is only ONE 
who has always been perfect. The rest of us are learning and "rest" includes 
David and me.

On Fri, 22 Jul 2005 08:38:04 -0400 "Lance Muir" [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:

  At last we've been presented with the opportunity 
  to demonstrate this 'He will lead you into all truth' thingy is misunderstood 
  by those who have most often cited it (Judy, David).
  
  Both are faithful servants of the Lord, both have 
  'studied to show themselves approved', both are 'berean' in their 
  approachHOWEVER ONE OF THEM IS GOING TO WEASEL OUT IN THE END SANS A 
  SATISFACTORY CONCLUSION! One is more committed to belief than 
  reality.

Re: [TruthTalk] A 'prooftexter' vs a 'contexter'




IFF THAT'S ALL IT PROVES then, may I suggest that 
you BACK OFF ANY CRITICISMS OF ANYONE due to the operative proviso 'that 
we (they- Mormons et al) are at different places in their 
walk'

  - Original Message - 
  From: 
  Judy 
  Taylor 
  To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org 
  
  Cc: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org 
  
  Sent: July 22, 2005 08:49
  Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] A 'prooftexter' 
  vs a 'contexter'
  
  You never give up do you Lance?
  All this proves is that we are at different places in 
  our walk. I have seen David explain this
  to you in the clearest way possible but you 
  apparently did not accept that. There is only ONE 
  who has always been perfect. The rest of us are learning and "rest" includes 
  David and me.
  
  On Fri, 22 Jul 2005 08:38:04 -0400 "Lance Muir" [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
writes:
  
At last we've been presented with the 
opportunity to demonstrate this 'He will lead you into all truth' thingy is 
misunderstood by those who have most often cited it (Judy, 
David).

Both are faithful servants of the Lord, both 
have 'studied to show themselves approved', both are 'berean' in their 
approachHOWEVER ONE OF THEM IS GOING TO WEASEL OUT IN THE END SANS A 
SATISFACTORY CONCLUSION! One is more committed to belief than 
reality.

Re: [TruthTalk] A 'prooftexter' vs a 'contexter'

2005-07-22 Thread knpraise


Exactly. -Original Message-From: Lance Muir [EMAIL PROTECTED]To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgSent: Fri, 22 Jul 2005 08:38:04 -0400Subject: [TruthTalk] A 'prooftexter' vs a 'contexter' 





At last we've been presented with the opportunity to demonstrate this 'He will lead you into all truth' thingy is misunderstood by those who have most often cited it (Judy, David).

Both are faithful servants of the Lord, both have 'studied to show themselves approved', both are 'berean' in their approachHOWEVER ONE OF THEM IS GOING TO WEASEL OUT IN THE END SANS A SATISFACTORY CONCLUSION! One is more committed to belief than reality.

Re: [TruthTalk] A 'prooftexter' vs a 'contexter'




I don't "criticize" people Lance. We are working 
in two different arenas and I can't figure
out why you are so blind to it. I challenge 
doctrine and you criticize people. One is sin
the other is expected as part of our walk in Christ 
which Mormons have not yet begun.
since they are disciples of Joseph Smith and will 
become like their teacher. jt.

On Fri, 22 Jul 2005 08:59:42 -0400 "Lance Muir" [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:

  IFF THAT'S ALL IT PROVES then, may I suggest that 
  you BACK OFF ANY CRITICISMS OF 
  ANYONE due to the operative proviso 'that we 
  (they- Mormons et al) are at different places 
  in their walk'
  
From: Judy Taylor 

You never give up do you Lance?
All this proves is that we are at different places 
in our walk. I have seen David explain this
to you in the clearest way possible but you 
apparently did not accept that. There is only ONE 
who has always been perfect. The rest of us are learning and "rest" includes 
David and me.

On Fri, 22 Jul 2005 08:38:04 -0400 "Lance Muir" [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
writes:

  At last we've been presented with the 
  opportunity to demonstrate this 'He will lead you into all truth' thingy 
  is misunderstood by those who have most often cited it (Judy, 
  David).
  
  Both are faithful servants of the Lord, both 
  have 'studied to show themselves approved', both are 'berean' in their 
  approachHOWEVER ONE OF THEM IS GOING TO WEASEL OUT IN THE END SANS A 
  SATISFACTORY CONCLUSION! One is more committed to belief than 
  reality.

Re: [TruthTalk] A 'prooftexter' vs a 'contexter'




Talk about not knowing! Both you and David are 
(present tense) indwelling a nature that, though redeemed, still has a 
propensity toward sinning. Further, this nature of yours and, David does indeed 
practice that nature daily.

  - Original Message - 
  From: 
  Judy 
  Taylor 
  To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org 
  
  Cc: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org 
  
  Sent: July 22, 2005 09:07
  Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] A 'prooftexter' 
  vs a 'contexter'
  
  I don't "criticize" people Lance. We are 
  working in two different arenas and I can't figure
  out why you are so blind to it. I challenge 
  doctrine and you criticize people. One is sin
  the other is expected as part of our walk in Christ 
  which Mormons have not yet begun.
  since they are disciples of Joseph Smith and will 
  become like their teacher. jt.
  
  On Fri, 22 Jul 2005 08:59:42 -0400 "Lance Muir" [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
writes:
  
IFF THAT'S ALL IT PROVES then, may I suggest 
that you BACK OFF ANY CRITICISMS OF 
ANYONE due to the operative proviso 'that we 
(they- Mormons et al) are at different places 
in their walk'

  From: Judy Taylor 
  
  You never give up do you Lance?
  All this proves is that we are at different 
  places in our walk. I have seen David explain this
  to you in the clearest way possible but you 
  apparently did not accept that. There is only ONE 
  who has always been perfect. The rest of us are learning and "rest" 
  includes David and me.
  
  On Fri, 22 Jul 2005 08:38:04 -0400 "Lance Muir" [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
  writes:
  
At last we've been presented with the 
opportunity to demonstrate this 'He will lead you into all truth' thingy 
is misunderstood by those who have most often cited it (Judy, 
David).

Both are faithful servants of the Lord, 
both have 'studied to show themselves approved', both are 'berean' in 
their approachHOWEVER ONE OF THEM IS GOING TO WEASEL OUT IN THE END 
SANS A SATISFACTORY CONCLUSION! One is more committed to belief than 
reality.

Re: [TruthTalk] A 'prooftexter' vs a 'contexter'




Which makes my point perfectly.
Jesus was not born of a virgin with the same kind 
ofnature even though he had a body in our likeness.
His humanity was different from ours.

On Fri, 22 Jul 2005 09:18:38 -0400 "Lance Muir" [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:

  Talk about not knowing! Both you and David are 
  (present tense) indwelling a nature that, though 
  redeemed, still has a propensity toward sinning. 
  Further, this nature of yours and, David does 
  indeed practice that nature 
  daily.
  
From: Judy Taylor 

I don't "criticize" people Lance. We are 
working in two different arenas and I can't figure
out why you are so blind to it. I challenge 
doctrine and you criticize people. One is sin
the other is expected as part of our walk in Christ 
which Mormons have not yet begun.
since they are disciples of Joseph Smith and will 
become like their teacher. jt.

On Fri, 22 Jul 2005 08:59:42 -0400 "Lance Muir" [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
writes:

  IFF THAT'S ALL IT PROVES then, may I suggest 
  that you BACK OFF ANY CRITICISMS OF 
  ANYONE due to the operative proviso 'that we 
  (they- Mormons et al) are at different places 
  in their walk'
  
From: Judy 
Taylor 

You never give up do you Lance?
All this proves is that we are at different 
places in our walk. I have seen David explain this
to you in the clearest way possible but you 
apparently did not accept that. There is only ONE 
who has always been perfect. The rest of us are learning and "rest" 
includes David and me.

On Fri, 22 Jul 2005 08:38:04 -0400 "Lance Muir" [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
writes:

  At last we've been presented with the 
  opportunity to demonstrate this 'He will lead you into all truth' 
  thingy is misunderstood by those who have most often cited it (Judy, 
  David).
  
  Both are faithful servants of the Lord, 
  both have 'studied to show themselves approved', both are 'berean' in 
  their approachHOWEVER ONE OF THEM IS GOING TO WEASEL OUT IN THE 
  END SANS A SATISFACTORY CONCLUSION! One is more committed to belief 
  than reality.

Re: [TruthTalk] A 'prooftexter' vs a 'contexter'

2005-07-22 Thread knpraise


S, "infallibility" is thecase except when two people who share that teaching disagree. Then, the doctrine of "infallibility" does not apply and the teaching of "maturity" carry's the force of law? 

Wow !! I think I am starting to get it!!

Jd-Original Message-From: Judy Taylor jandgtaylor1@juno.comTo: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgCc: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgSent: Fri, 22 Jul 2005 08:49:13 -0400Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] A 'prooftexter' vs a 'contexter'





You never give up do you Lance?
All this proves is that we are at different places in our walk. I have seen David explain this
to you in the clearest way possible but you apparently did not accept that. There is only ONE 
who has always been perfect. The rest of us are learning and "rest" includes David and me.

On Fri, 22 Jul 2005 08:38:04 -0400 "Lance Muir" [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:

At last we've been presented with the opportunity to demonstrate this 'He will lead you into all truth' thingy is misunderstood by those who have most often cited it (Judy, David).

Both are faithful servants of the Lord, both have 'studied to show themselves approved', both are 'berean' in their approachHOWEVER ONE OF THEM IS GOING TO WEASEL OUT IN THE END SANS A SATISFACTORY CONCLUSION! One is more committed to belief than reality.

Re: [TruthTalk] A 'prooftexter' vs a 'contexter'

2005-07-22 Thread David Miller

Patience, Lance.  Patience.  Judy and I both have hope to achieve a mutually 
beneficial understanding in the end.  What we are discussing is not a life 
or death issue.  The truth is that Judy and I are in more agreement than you 
probably realize right now.  Most of our differences hinge upon a different 
understanding of the words we use.

-David.

- Original Message - 
From: Lance Muir
To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org
Sent: Friday, July 22, 2005 8:38 AM
Subject: [TruthTalk] A 'prooftexter' vs a 'contexter'


At last we've been presented with the opportunity to demonstrate this 'He 
will lead you into all truth' thingy is misunderstood by those who have most 
often cited it (Judy, David).

Both are faithful servants of the Lord, both have 'studied to show 
themselves approved', both are 'berean' in their approachHOWEVER ONE OF 
THEM IS GOING TO WEASEL OUT IN THE END SANS A SATISFACTORY CONCLUSION! One 
is more committed to belief than reality. 

--
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] A 'prooftexter' vs a 'contexter'

2005-07-22 Thread Kevin Deegan


Maybe he is blind because it is his nature? LOST

--- Judy Taylor [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

 I don't criticize people Lance.  We are working in two different
 arenas
 and I can't figure
 out why you are so blind to it.  I challenge doctrine and you
 criticize
 people.  One is sin
 the other is expected as part of our walk in Christ which Mormons
 have
 not yet begun.
 since they are disciples of Joseph Smith and will become like their
 teacher.  jt.
 
 On Fri, 22 Jul 2005 08:59:42 -0400 Lance Muir
 [EMAIL PROTECTED]
 writes:
 IFF THAT'S ALL IT PROVES then, may I suggest that you BACK OFF ANY
 CRITICISMS  OF 
 ANYONE due to the operative proviso 'that we (they- Mormons et al)
 are at
 different places 
 in their walk' 
 From: Judy Taylor 
 
 You never give up do you Lance?
 All this proves is that we are at different places in our walk. I
 have
 seen David explain this
 to you in the clearest way possible but you apparently did not accept
 that.  There is only ONE 
 who has always been perfect.  The rest of us are learning and rest
 includes David and me.
 
 On Fri, 22 Jul 2005 08:38:04 -0400 Lance Muir
 [EMAIL PROTECTED]
 writes:
 At last we've been presented with the opportunity to demonstrate this
 'He
 will lead you into all truth' thingy is misunderstood by those who
 have
 most often cited it (Judy, David).
 
 Both are faithful servants of the Lord, both have 'studied to show
 themselves approved', both are 'berean' in their approachHOWEVER
 ONE
 OF THEM IS GOING TO WEASEL OUT IN THE END SANS A SATISFACTORY
 CONCLUSION!
 One is more committed to belief than reality.


__
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam?  Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around 
http://mail.yahoo.com 
--
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] A 'prooftexter' vs a 'contexter'

Doncha just love the built-in patronizing attitutude of some.'more in 
agreement than you probably realize'. Really, David! Perhaps not. You're 
lucid almost always, David. You're not always smart.

- Original Message - 
From: David Miller [EMAIL PROTECTED]

To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org
Sent: July 22, 2005 10:13
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] A 'prooftexter' vs a 'contexter'

Patience, Lance.  Patience.  Judy and I both have hope to achieve a 
mutually

beneficial understanding in the end.  What we are discussing is not a life
or death issue.  The truth is that Judy and I are in more agreement than 
you
probably realize right now.  Most of our differences hinge upon a 
different

understanding of the words we use.

-David.

- Original Message - 
From: Lance Muir

To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org
Sent: Friday, July 22, 2005 8:38 AM
Subject: [TruthTalk] A 'prooftexter' vs a 'contexter'

At last we've been presented with the opportunity to demonstrate this 'He
will lead you into all truth' thingy is misunderstood by those who have 
most

often cited it (Judy, David).

Both are faithful servants of the Lord, both have 'studied to show
themselves approved', both are 'berean' in their approachHOWEVER ONE 
OF

THEM IS GOING TO WEASEL OUT IN THE END SANS A SATISFACTORY CONCLUSION! One
is more committed to belief than reality.

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

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

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

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

RE: [TruthTalk] A 'prooftexter' vs a 'contexter'

2005-07-22 Thread ShieldsFamily









Lance, what you fail to apprehend
is that if DM and JT are truly seeking Truth (which they are), then eventually
they will reach agreement. The nice thing is that they are not disagreeing on
anything of essential-to-being-saved issues. izzy











From:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Lance Muir
Sent: Friday, July 22, 2005 6:38
AM
To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org
Subject: [TruthTalk] A
'prooftexter' vs a 'contexter' 







At last we've been presented with the opportunity to
demonstrate this 'He will lead you into all truth' thingy is misunderstood by
those who have most often cited it (Judy, David).











Both are faithful servants of the Lord, both have 'studied
to show themselves approved', both are 'berean' in their approachHOWEVER
ONE OF THEM IS GOING TO WEASEL OUT IN THE END SANS A SATISFACTORY CONCLUSION!
One is more committed to belief than reality.

RE: [TruthTalk] A 'prooftexter' vs a 'contexter'

2005-07-22 Thread ShieldsFamily









Jtignore the hecklers. (My advice.)
iz











From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Friday, July 22, 2005 7:30
AM
To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] A
'prooftexter' vs a 'contexter'











S,
infallibility is thecase except when two people who share that
teaching disagree. Then, the doctrine of infallibility does not
apply and the teaching of maturity carry's the force of law? 











Wow !! I think I am starting to get it!!











Jd




-Original Message-
From: Judy Taylor jandgtaylor1@juno.com
To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org
Cc: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org
Sent: Fri, 22 Jul 2005
08:49:13 -0400
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] A 'prooftexter'
vs a 'contexter'





You never give up do
you Lance?





All this proves is
that we are at different places in our walk. I have seen David explain this





to you in the
clearest way possible but you apparently did not accept that. There is
only ONE 





who has always been
perfect. The rest of us are learning and rest includes David
and me.











On Fri, 22 Jul 2005 08:38:04 -0400 Lance Muir
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
writes:







At last we've been presented with the opportunity to
demonstrate this 'He will lead you into all truth' thingy is misunderstood by those who have most often cited
it (Judy, David).











Both are faithful servants of the Lord, both have 'studied
to show themselves approved', both are 'berean'
in their approachHOWEVER ONE OF THEM IS GOING TO WEASEL OUT IN THE END SANS
A SATISFACTORY CONCLUSION! One is more committed to belief than reality.

Re: [TruthTalk] A 'prooftexter' vs a 'contexter'




Exactly, Iz! What on earth was Jesus thinking when 
He said: 'Who do people say that the Son of Man is..?"

Blaine et al The Spirit brother of 
Lucifer
JW: Michael the Archangel
Jt;I've no idea
DM:He'd have to explain

Certainly not an 'essential-to-being-saved' 
issue!!

  - Original Message - 
  From: 
  ShieldsFamily 
  To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org 
  
  Sent: July 22, 2005 12:07
  Subject: RE: [TruthTalk] A 'prooftexter' 
  vs a 'contexter' 
  
  
  Lance, what you fail 
  to apprehend is that if DM and JT are truly seeking Truth (which they are), 
  then eventually they will reach agreement. The nice thing is that they 
  are not disagreeing on anything of essential-to-being-saved issues. 
  izzy
  
  
  
  
  
  From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
  [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Lance MuirSent: Friday, July 22, 2005 6:38 
  AMTo: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgSubject: [TruthTalk] A 'prooftexter' vs a 
  'contexter' 
  
  
  At last we've been presented with 
  the opportunity to demonstrate this 'He will lead you into all truth' thingy 
  is misunderstood by those who have most often cited it (Judy, 
  David).
  
  
  
  Both are faithful servants of the 
  Lord, both have 'studied to show themselves approved', both are 'berean' in 
  their approachHOWEVER ONE OF THEM IS GOING TO WEASEL OUT IN THE END SANS A 
  SATISFACTORY CONCLUSION! One is more committed to belief than 
  reality.

Re: [TruthTalk] A 'prooftexter' vs a 'contexter'

2005-07-22 Thread Terry Clifton





Lance Muir wrote:

  
  
  
  At last we've been presented with
the opportunity to demonstrate this 'He will lead you into all truth'
thingy is misunderstood by those who have most often cited it (Judy,
David).
  
  Both are faithful servants of the
Lord, both have 'studied to show themselves approved', both are
'berean' in their approachHOWEVER ONE OF THEM IS GOING TO WEASEL
OUT IN THE END SANS A SATISFACTORY CONCLUSION! One is more committed to
belief than reality.
  

=
Or, you could conclude that the Spirit is not yet finished leading.
That way, you would not be claiming that the Bible is in error.
Terry

Re: [TruthTalk] A 'prooftexter' vs a 'contexter'




Where on earth did THAT idea come from? Lower your 
intake of sasperella (it was OK for Hoppy but not for you, apparently) The Bible 
is just fine, Terry. It is one or both of the contributors who is not 'fine' in 
their understanding of the Bible's teaching. This in spite of the fact that they 
both have access to the Spirit's leading on the matter at hand.

  - Original Message - 
  From: 
  Terry Clifton 
  To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org 
  
  Sent: July 22, 2005 13:49
  Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] A 'prooftexter' 
  vs a 'contexter'
  Lance Muir wrote: 
  



At last we've been presented with the 
opportunity to demonstrate this 'He will lead you into all truth' thingy is 
misunderstood by those who have most often cited it (Judy, 
David).

Both are faithful servants of the Lord, both 
have 'studied to show themselves approved', both are 'berean' in their 
approachHOWEVER ONE OF THEM IS GOING TO WEASEL OUT IN THE END SANS A 
SATISFACTORY CONCLUSION! One is more committed to belief than 
reality.
=Or, 
  you could conclude that the Spirit is not yet finished leading. That 
  way, you would not be claiming that the Bible is in 
error.Terry

Re: [TruthTalk] A 'prooftexter' vs a 'contexter'




Noone who thinks they know anything about anything is 
ever fine with Lance; he is the one who says we can't
know because of Enlightenment thinking and all that 
because it hasstymied the Holy Spirit whojust can't 
perform
anymorebecause of 
it which makesthe Bible useless and impossible to understand 
comprehende

Or, you could conclude that the Spirit is not yet finished leading. 
That way, you would not be claiming that 
the Bible is in error. Terry
On Fri, 22 Jul 2005 13:57:20 -0400 "Lance Muir" [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:

  Where on earth did THAT idea come from? Lower 
  your intake of sasperella (it was OK for Hoppy but not for you, apparently) 
  The Bible is just fine, Terry. It is one or both of 
  the contributors who is not 'fine' in their 
  understanding of the Bible's teaching. This in spite of the fact that 
  they both have access to the Spirit's leading on the matter at 
  hand.
  
From: Terry Clifton 
Lance Muir wrote: 

  
  

  At last we've been presented with the 
  opportunity to demonstrate this 'He will lead you into all truth' thingy 
  is misunderstood by those who have most often cited it (Judy, 
  David).
  
  Both are faithful servants of the Lord, both 
  have 'studied to show themselves approved', both are 'berean' in their 
  approachHOWEVER ONE OF THEM IS GOING TO WEASEL OUT IN THE END SANS A 
  SATISFACTORY CONCLUSION! One is more committed to belief than 
  reality.

Re: [TruthTalk] A 'prooftexter' vs a 'contexter'




Forget what I 'say'. Just stand back and watch. I'd 
say that what this amounts to is a sideshow for our Mormon friends. They are 
being told by Perry, Kevin, you, David and Linda that that which and, in Whom, 
they believe is not Biblical. You folks are demonstrating that A It can't be 
known (even after having believed for decades) B That it doesn't reall matter 
all that much EXCEPT FOR MORMONS, OF COURSE!

  From: 
  Judy 
  Taylor 
  To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org 
  
  Cc: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org 
  
  Sent: July 22, 2005 14:06
  Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] A 'prooftexter' 
  vs a 'contexter'
  
  Noone who thinks they know anything about anything is 
  ever fine with Lance; he is the one who says we can't
  know because of Enlightenment thinking and all that 
  because it hasstymied the Holy Spirit whojust can't 
  perform
  anymorebecause of 
  it which makesthe Bible useless and impossible to understand 
  comprehende
  
  Or, you could conclude that the Spirit is not yet finished leading. 
  That way, you would not be claiming that 
  the Bible is in error. Terry
  On Fri, 22 Jul 2005 13:57:20 -0400 "Lance Muir" [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
writes:
  
Where on earth did THAT idea come from? Lower 
your intake of sasperella (it was OK for Hoppy but not for you, apparently) 
The Bible is just fine, Terry. It is one or both 
of the contributors who is not 'fine' in their 
understanding of the Bible's teaching. This in spite of the fact that 
they both have access to the Spirit's leading on the matter at 
hand.

  From: Terry Clifton 
  Lance Muir wrote: 
  



At last we've been presented with the 
opportunity to demonstrate this 'He will lead you into all truth' thingy 
is misunderstood by those who have most often cited it (Judy, 
David).

Both are faithful servants of the Lord, 
both have 'studied to show themselves approved', both are 'berean' in 
their approachHOWEVER ONE OF THEM IS GOING TO WEASEL OUT IN THE END 
SANS A SATISFACTORY CONCLUSION! One is more committed to belief than 
reality.

Re: [TruthTalk] A 'prooftexter' vs a 'contexter'




From my perspective the Mormon boys are being shown by 
those of you who adhere to Orthodoxy to a Tee
that Joseph Smith was right - His big problem was with 
the heresy of all the sects. It's not difficult to see as it's 

even worse today than it was then -he 
was right on that point - 

On Fri, 22 Jul 2005 14:26:22 -0400 "Lance Muir" [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:

  Forget what I 'say'. Just stand back and watch. 
  I'd say that what this amounts to is a sideshow for our Mormon friends. They 
  are being told by Perry, Kevin, you, David and Linda that that which and, in 
  Whom, they believe is not Biblical. You folks are demonstrating that A It 
  can't be known (even after having believed for decades) B That it doesn't 
  reall matter all that much EXCEPT FOR MORMONS, OF COURSE!
  
  From: Judy Taylor 
  
Noone who thinks they know 
anything about anything is ever fine with Lance; he is the one who says we 
can't
know because of Enlightenment thinking and all that 
because it hasstymied the Holy Spirit whojust can't 
perform
anymorebecause of 
it which makesthe Bible useless and impossible to understand 
comprehende

Or, you could conclude that the Spirit is not yet finished 
leading. That way, you would not be claiming that 
the Bible is in error. Terry
On Fri, 22 Jul 2005 13:57:20 -0400 "Lance Muir" [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
writes:

  Where on earth did THAT idea come from? Lower 
  your intake of sasperella (it was OK for Hoppy but not for you, 
  apparently) The Bible is just fine, Terry. It 
  is one or both of the contributors who is not 'fine' 
  in their understanding of the Bible's teaching. This in spite of 
  the fact that they both have access to the Spirit's leading on the matter 
  at hand.
  
From: Terry Clifton 
Lance Muir wrote: 

  
  

  At last we've been presented with the 
  opportunity to demonstrate this 'He will lead you into all truth' 
  thingy is misunderstood by those who have most often cited it (Judy, 
  David).
  
  Both are faithful servants of the Lord, 
  both have 'studied to show themselves approved', both are 'berean' in 
  their approachHOWEVER ONE OF THEM IS GOING TO WEASEL OUT IN THE 
  END SANS A SATISFACTORY CONCLUSION! One is more committed to belief 
  than reality.

RE: [TruthTalk] A 'prooftexter' vs a 'contexter'

2005-07-22 Thread ShieldsFamily









And who were those orthodox
Christians for 2000 years, Lance? The RCC??? Give me a break. iz











From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of Lance Muir
Sent: Friday, July 22, 2005 2:12
PM
To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] A
'prooftexter' vs a 'contexter'







You and the others who support you give every
indication that the distinctiveness of Jesus as believed/taught by orthodox
Christians for 2,000 years is of little consequence. It's a kind of
make-it-up-as YOU read Scripture kinda thingy. OK I guess is being orthodox
matters little to you. It'd appear that that's the case with you, Judy.







- Original Message - 





From: Judy Taylor






To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org






Cc: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org






Sent: July 22,
2005 15:38





Subject: Re:
[TruthTalk] A 'prooftexter' vs a 'contexter'











From my perspective the Mormon boys are
being shown by those of you who adhere to Orthodoxy to a Tee





that Joseph Smith was right - His big
problem was with the heresy of all the sects. It's not difficult to see
as it's 





even worse today than it was then
-he was right on that point - 











On Fri, 22 Jul 2005 14:26:22 -0400 Lance
Muir [EMAIL PROTECTED]
writes:







Forget what I 'say'. Just stand back and watch. I'd
say that what this amounts to is a sideshow for our Mormon friends. They are
being told by Perry, Kevin, you, David and Linda that that which and, in Whom,
they believe is not Biblical. You folks are demonstrating that A It can't be
known (even after having believed for decades) B That it doesn't reall matter
all that much EXCEPT FOR MORMONS, OF COURSE!











From: Judy Taylor








Noone who thinks they
know anything about anything is ever fine with Lance; he is the one who says we
can't





know because of Enlightenment thinking
and all that because it hasstymied the Holy Spirit whojust can't
perform





anymorebecause of it which
makesthe Bible useless and impossible to understand comprehende











Or, you could conclude that the Spirit is not yet
finished leading. That way, you would not be claiming that 





the Bible is in error. Terry





On Fri, 22 Jul 2005 13:57:20 -0400 Lance
Muir [EMAIL PROTECTED]
writes:







Where on earth did THAT idea come from? Lower your
intake of sasperella (it was OK for Hoppy but not for you, apparently) The Bible is just fine, Terry. It is one or both of the contributors
who is not 'fine' in their understanding of the
Bible's teaching. This in spite of the fact that they both have access to the
Spirit's leading on the matter at hand.







From: Terry
Clifton 





Lance Muir wrote: 







At last we've been presented with the opportunity to
demonstrate this 'He will lead you into all truth' thingy is misunderstood by
those who have most often cited it (Judy, David).











Both are faithful servants of the Lord, both have
'studied to show themselves approved', both are 'berean' in their
approachHOWEVER ONE OF THEM IS GOING TO WEASEL OUT IN THE END SANS A
SATISFACTORY CONCLUSION! One is more committed to belief than reality.

Re: [TruthTalk] A 'prooftexter' vs a 'contexter'