From: tensmekl@infonode.ingr.com (Kermit Tensmeyer)
Subject: Re: Mormonism
Organization: Intergraph Corporation, Huntsville, AL.
Date: Fri, 8 Jan 1993 13:38:03 GMT

In article <e7lv023730Qj01@JUTS.ccc.amdahl.com> agr00@JUTS.ccc.amdahl.com (Anthony G Rose) writes:
>In article <1993Jan7.150848.6190@infonode.ingr.com> tensmekl@infonode.ingr.com (Kermit Tensmeyer) writes:
>>In article <994Y02Jd30Fv01@JUTS.ccc.amdahl.com> agr00@JUTS.ccc.amdahl.com (Anthony G Rose) writes:
>>>In article <17970@pitt.UUCP> geb@cs.pitt.edu (Gordon Banks) writes:
>>>>In article <0eZm02QL30Y201@JUTS.ccc.amdahl.com> agr00@JUTS.ccc.amdahl.com (Anthony G Rose) writes:
>>>>
>>>>>>That is why every person has the responsibility of receiving confirmation
>>>>>>directly from God about these things.  This not only applies to utterances
>>>>>>of the Mormon prophet, but the Bible.
>>>>>
>>>>>If this is true, then the person receiving the "confirmation" has a more
>>>>>direct connection to God than the person giving the revelation.  Right?
>>>>>Therefore, the need for a living prophet ceases.
>>>>
>>>>No, because my authority only extends to confirming whether something
>>>>is from God or not.
>>>
>>>That is my point!  The final word comes to YOU!  My point is, when a
>>>prophet makes a revelation, either it is from God or either it isn't!
>>
>>	There are two possible cases and two or more possible responses
>>
>>	Shall we do this as a matrix?
>>
>>			   Do I Follow         Do I ignore
>>    This is a True
>>    Revealation From       Case  A.             Case B
>>    God
>>
>>    This isn't a True
>>    Revealation From       Case  C.             Case A
>>    God

>I think you are missing my point.  Maybe I can explain it better this
>way.  Sorry for the confusion from my part.  Look closely at your
>diagram above.  IF, I said IF, John Doe IS a true prophet of God, then
>he may not be perfect, but he will never give a prophecy that is false.

	So your premise is that anything that a prophet or an apostle
	may say will always come to pass? If this is truly _your_ opinion,
	then we have yet another instance where you see the world
	differently than the way the LDS and other bible believing 
	christians do.

	This type of literalistic interpration is not accepted by the
	LDS. Do you think Mormons are wrong because they are not
	literalists and they should be, or do you have other reasons?

>That is to say that anything he puts in the mouth of the Lord will be
>accurate and correct.  Therefore, this would eliminate the possibility
>of a revelation comimg from him that was not true. So we can erase the
>bottom section of the diagram.  That leaves the top section with Case A
>and Case B. IF, John Doe IS a true prophet, then we have no reason not
>to follow what he says. 

	Then you would take the position that anything from a prophet
	or would-be prophet must be as if it were the mind-and-voice
	of God?  Assuming that Case C _is_ in effect, the determination
	of that case would again be by the witness of God (again I refer you
	to the section in 1 John 5:5-15). 

	Since if one has the same spirit has God has, (called God's spirit
	for short), then one is illuminated/enlighted/taught by that same
	spirit. If one person speaks by the spirit of God, then the others
	may understand by the spirit of God.

	Isn't this _basic_ christian belief, it certainly _seems_ to be
	a part of the main stream christianty in Northern America, It
	also seems to prevalent in Northern Europe.

	:-) I understand that much of California would be different
	    than the rest of the world, so your mileage will vary.  :-)

	
>                        So that eliminates Case B of that section.  Then
>we are left with a true prophet and everything he claims came from the
>Lord did actually come from the Lord.  So what I originally said stands
>strong and firm. If he is a true prophet, he won't be giving false
>prophecies, therefore, when he says, "God said this..." I don't have to
>have "confirmation" of the truth of it.  If God has a living prophet on
>the earth, then he wouldn't have him saying false things.  Therefore,

 So by your model any and all confirmation by the spirit is predetermined/
 forordaned/cast-in-stone, and there is no more need to live by every
 word of God?

 That may be a comfortable way to live, but that doesn't seem to fit
 the scriptural norm by LDS or bible standards. It may fit a Josh McDowell
 or other Fundamentalist mentaility, but that is also _not_ a fundamental
 theological postion.

>the need for extra "confirmation" is either unnecessary, or it gives the
>final word to the individual and not the prophet.  
   
   [ More quotes from former LDS leaders journals deleted]

   Much of your discussion with Frank and Willard has wirtherd and
   died over your misuse and misleading use of these type of
   quotes, while ignoring more fundamental and substantional quotes
   that argue the other side of the same point.


>It is quite easy to see that there is no need for a prophet _and_ a
>confirmation.  One or the other.  If LDS church claims to have a living
>true prophet of God.  If this is itrue, then why is there a need to get
>a confirmation about his revelations?  Do you doubt that he really is
>a prophet?  All I am saying is that the two cancel one another out.

	So you would ignore the demands of those same leaders that
	every member and every christian get and received personal
	confirmation and lived by the Holy Spirit of God?
>
>--------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>You got Biblical references for "people getting confirmation" as you
>speak of it?

	I will look up and respond with a Robert Weiss type of List OK?
>
>------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>Because it was from God, or it wasn't.  The truth of wether the revelation
>>>is from God or not, is based on the revelation, not on the people hearing
>>>it.  
>>
>> But that _IS_ the point, the truth is subjective and if both parties are
>> "recieving" and living by the spirit, then both will understand the
>> same thing. If you define TRUTH as a knowledge of thing as they are,
>> and as God understanding things.
>
>Kermit, Truth is _NOT_ subjective.  For example. If a "prophet" says
>that the sky is blue, that is speaking in a prophectic situation,
>either the sky is blue or it isn't! 

 gee, when I looked out my window this morning, the sky wasn't blue, it
 was filled with stars! And isn't the color of the sky a subjective judgment?

 I still stand by the statement that Truth is a knowledge of things and 
 situations as God understands those things and situations. I will conceed
 that God reveals truth to men and/or women, and that our
 subjective understanding of Truth can then increase.

>                                   If two people get "confirmed" and
>one is confirmed that the prophecy is true and the other is confirmed
>that it is not true, they both cannot be right!  In this case, then one
>who was confirmed that it was not true WAS WRONG, because the sky really
>is blue.  


  Let me see, if I understand your statement before I respond to it.
  The question is really, who has the authority to judge for a group
  of people whether something or someone is of God?  If two people
  interpet something different, then who should we trust and follow?

  Assuming that is your question, let me respond at the very basic level.
  Each individual is individauly responsible for his/her own beliefs, and
  there is but one intermidary between the individual and the Lord, and that
  is Jesus Christ. The prophet or your father or your priest do not
  make intersession for your unbelief.

  If you don't have the spirit, would it be possible to get a bad confirmation
  when others who have the spirit to get a good confirmation, yes.

  I have presonnally never witness a case where two people who have had
  the spirit of God, have prayed together and recieved different witnness.
  Perhaps others have, I haven't.

>         Truth is NOT subjective per person. I have seen this situation
>before inreality. I remember two Mormon lady friends of mine that claimed
>to both be "receiving and living by the spirit".  When the issue of
>women staying home instead of working was prophicized by your prophet,
>they were both "confirmed" with conflicting results.  They both cannot
>be right! Either God said through the propeht that women should try to
>stay at home, or He didn't say it. He couldn't have done both.

  Did you want to discuss specfics of what was said, and what wasn't said ?


>
>> My expierience is that the spirit of God is trustworthy, I understand
>> that you have not had similar expierience and that you do _not_ trust
>> God or his spirit, but that you place _your_ trust in the precepts of
>> men and the preconcieve notions as contained in the tangible evidence
>> in the Bible.
>
>This is a strange comment. You know, men like Brigham Young and Joseph
>Smith and others, are simply MEN. They haven't been around forever. God
>has.  
	you mean Moses, and Isahia, and Peter, Paul, John (and John the
	Baptist) were "simply MEN". They haven't been around forever
	and they were dead a long time ago.


>     His Word is reliable. Anything that is verifiable with history,
>science, archeology, etc.. has always proven to support what the Bible
>claims to have happened. Nothing has ever been dug up or found to
>conflict Biblical accuracy.  Many times in history people have thought
>that they had found something that contridicted what the Bible claims,


   Did you want to rehash these arguments again, these are threads that
   have been discussed, here repeatedly with results much different
   than the results that you claim.

   However my interest is not in beating up on the Bible and other Holy
   scripture, if it is yours, I sure that in starting another thread
   that you could get beaten up on that subject as well.

>
>In addition, Scripture tells us that "In the beginning was the Word,
>the Word was with God, and the Word was God...and the Word became flesh."
>(John 1:1,14). Crossreference that with Hebrews 1:1, "In the _past_ God
>spoke to our forefathers through the prophets at many times and in
>various ways, but in these last days he has spoken to us by His son.."
>(Hebrews 1:1-2).
>
>You trust your experiences that Satan can intervene with:
>
>     "Dear friends do not believe every spirit, but test the
>      spirits to see whether they are from God, because many
>      false prophets have gone out into the world."  (1 John 4:1)

	May I suggest that you not pull that scripture out of context
	to proof-text an argument. 1 John is an excellent text for
	arguing for living by the Spirit and not reliyin only on
	the written word.
>
>I do trust the Spirit of God, however, I live up to the commandment to
>test ALL of the spirits to see if they are of God.  Any spirit that
>testifies that Brigham Young was a true prophet, can NOT be from God.

 No any spirit that testifies that Jesus is the Christ, and that belief
 in him brings salvation, comes from God.
>Because he did exactly what God says a false prophet would do, in Deut
>13:1-5, he led thousands to the worship of another God; Adam-God.
>Something tells me that the spirit that confirms to you that Mormonism
>is true, also confirms that Brigham was a true prophet.  But the
>evidence shows otherwise.

-------------------------------
>
>>
>> Which in your opinion, would be right? Your opinon is that the method
>> of determing truth is that, subjective feeling of the spirit should
>> be ignored, while subjective understanding of written dogma is
>> preferable?  Not to be inflamatory, but isn't _that_ the cause
>> of differences in prodestant branch of western european catholic
>> grouping of the Christian religion.  Isn't that why the EV'rs and
>> the Chrasmatics and the other late offshoots of the prodestant sects
>> can't agree on what is or isn't essential doctrine?
>
>This is hogwash.  You don't understand Prodestantism nor Charasmatics.

 Really, I don't understand Prodestants, and the 20-century offshoots
 that are called Fundamentalists and Charasmatics? Where did you get
 that notion?


>All I am saying is that you cannot have a true prophecy from God, and
>have two different people get difference "confirmations" and they both
>be right.  The sky cannot be blue AND striped pink with purple polka-dots.
>If the sky is blue, then the person who was confirmed otherwise was
>confirmed incorrectly.  That is all I am saying.

	That's All  300 line of that's all?     :-)

>
>Somethings in the Bible are hard to understand. I agree. And there are
>different views on a lot of things.  However, there are things that are
>written that are easy to understand, and are trustworthy.  Are you going
>to base your eternity on what God has said was true, or on what your
>"experiences" say is true? Even though God says:

	Nope, your subjective judgement and understanding of what you
	think God has said is what is critical here.
>
>     "There is a way that seems right to man, but the end is death."
>                                        Proverbs 14:12

 And now if you can proof-text scripture, allow me the same priveledge

 Ephes 4

 "And he gave some, apostles and some prophets; and some evangelists 
  and some pastors and some teachers;

 "For the perfecting of the saints, for the work of the minstry and
  for the edifying of the body of Christ.

 "Till we all come in the unity of the faith, and of the knowledge of
  the Son of God, unto a perfect man, unto the measure of the fullness
  of Christ."

	Now granting that we may not understand the precise intent
	of what evangelists and pastors might mean but I think that
	you and others would agree that a unity of the faith and
	the other condtions are not yet present. Would you then
	agree that reasons are still as valid as when given, ie

	(perfecting of the saints, or edifying of the body of Christ)
	is still a necessity?

	Are apostles, and prophets still a necessary part of the
	"real" church of Jesus Christ?
>
>
>
>>>Was John the Baptist fooling himself when we wrote, "These things I have
>>>written that you may KNOW that you have eternal life."...?
>>
>>  Are you sure that it was John the Baptist that said that? 
>>
>>  Jesus said (John 10:27-28) "My Sheep hear my voice and I know them,
>>  and they follow me, and I give unto them eternal life..."
>
>For your doubt, yes I am sure that it was John:
>
>     "I write these things to you who believe in the name of
>      the Son of God so that you many _know_ that you have
>      eternal life." 1 John 5:13
>
>I don't understand the remark you are making about _none_ of John's
>writings are in the NT.  Ever read the Gospel according to St. John? How
>about 1 John, 2 John, and 3 John?  Ever read Revelation?  You sure you
>can back that claim?


	Yep, John the Baptist was beheaded. John the Beloved was
	an apostle. and he is the purported author of those books.

	Howcome you don't know/understand these basics?
>
>The point I was making was that John wrote that "you may KNOW that you
>have eternal life.  In Mormonism, you can't say that you KNOW you have
>eternal life without deceiving yourself.  You can HOPE, and TRY, and you
>MIGHT receive it (according to Mormonism that is), but you don't KNOW, as
>John says you should be able to; even for those who believe on the name!
>(1 John 5:13).


	The only way to get this interpration out of that verse is
	to proof text. The content of 1 John 5;5-15 makes it clear
	and doubly clear what John meant about witness and the spirit
	of God.  The clear reading of the the context of this scripture
	blows you entire arguement away. It doesn't leave you a leg
	to stand on.

	(Oh yes, I have typed in the entire quote in another message,
	if you missed it, I will be happy to resend you a copy, just
	let me know)
>
>Jesus does say "hear" which is active as you say. But look at the words.
>He is talking about His sheep.  These are the ones whom He was given
>eternal life!  Whom he has already given it to! He says that He _knows_
>them.  Of course they follow Him.  He is not stating "because they
>follow me I have given them eternal life" as you would imply that He is.

 Gee, is that how _you_ would understand that passage, go back and read
 the context.  Hearing and following his voice, _is_ the prerequist and
 the condition of Eternal Life. Ie Eternal Life = hearing and following
 the voice of Christ. is that clear now?

>>         Kermit Tensmeyer                         | Intergraph Corporatio
>-tony
>
>P.S. Kermit, I enjoy dialoging with you.  If you respond, please address
>     the issues and lets leave characters out of this one.  We have a
>     good dialog here, lets not ruin it.  May God be with you!

  Oh by the way you mentioned that you are only at work three days a week?
  Is -Amdhal- having _more_ problems? should we help you move _up_ to
  a "real" computer company?  ......  :-)  Need help with resumes?





-- 
         Kermit Tensmeyer                         | Intergraph Corporation
   klt@kt8127.b23a.ingr.com                       | Deep in Dixie
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc