| This thread has been locked, it will not receive new replies. |
|
Locked on 11/29/2007 12:25:49 PM PST by Religion Moderator, reason:
Poor behavior |
Posted on 11/25/2007 4:20:14 AM PST by Gamecock
I’m still trying to figure out why the author bothers to read the Bible since nothing they can do will affect their salvation. They should just party!
+++++++++++++++++++++++=
Gamecock sent me sort of an answer to that question. It showed his understanding of the words in the Bible is different from the understanding of the words of the bible of many of the people he chooses to post for us to read.
He has yet reply as to who is right, him or them, or the other them. Or are they all wrong?
Freep-mail me to get on or off my pro-life and Catholic Ping List:
Please ping me to all note-worthy Pro-Life or Catholic threads, or other threads of interest.
What?
What's the parents names?
I can't wait 'til someone answers the same question about Adam!
Now, I have seen you twist and misrepresent my FReepmails and posts on other threads for several days. Would you be so kind as to answer one simple question:
Have you ever, or are your currently using, another alias on Free Republic?
What????? Where did THAT come from? Where oh where in scripture does it say or even hint that people change into angels?
There is no scripture anywhere that indicates that Adam had done so, but there is abundant scripture that points to the contrary. He was an angel—a preexistent spirit like all the rest of us—except that he had reached high distinction, a place of importance and prestige; but he was an angel nevertheless.
(Mark E. Petersen, Adam: Who Is He? [Salt Lake City: Deseret Book Co., 1976], 7.)
But, we repeat, he was an angel.
(Mark E. Petersen, Adam: Who Is He? [Salt Lake City:
Deseret Book Co., 1976], 7.)
Said the Prophet: “The Priesthood was first given to Adam; he obtained the First Presidency, and held the keys of it from generation to generation. He obtained it in the Creation, before the world was formed. . . . He had dominion given him over every living creature. He is Michael the Archangel, spoken of in the Scriptures. Then to Noah, who is Gabriel; he stands next in authority to Adam in the Priesthood; he was called of God to this office, and was the father of all living this day, and to him was given the dominion.” (Teachings, p. 157.)
(Mark E. Petersen, Adam: Who Is He? [Salt Lake City: Deseret Book Co., 1976], 8.)
++++
sorry, how do I ping you?
Have you ever, or are your currently using, another alias on Free Republic?
+++++++
nope, I have always been me.
Where is your SOLID biblcal basis to say these things about Adam and Noah? You said that there is abundant scripture that points to... Can you please cite at least 5 of these abundant sciptures? Espcecially that Adam was an angel? You said it was there, I have never seen it and so would be very interested in where you says scripture says such a thing.
I can’t wait ‘til someone answers the same question about Adam!
++++++++++++
just did
Mitt’s problem will have nothing to do with LDS or Mormonism.
His problems will be due to RINOISM.
+++++++++++++
I agree
is this where I should say ping?
IF you want to be considered ‘Christian’ seriously, try substantiating this garbage of Mormonism with Bible verses to prove the Noah connection. You cannot, so you muddle about in the morass of hereies from your religion served up by a peepstone false prophet conman. Sorry, you lost all credibility you might have had open to you.
What’s your point?
Have you ever, or are your currently using, another alias on Free Republic?
+++++++++
Now it is your turn to be nice and answer my question.
You have posted articles from people who do not understand all the words in the Bible the same way you understand the words in the Bible. Who is correct, you, or them, or the other them?
I forgot the rest, kinda made it sound different then it really is.
For instance, Michael, or Adam, whom Gabriel told Daniel was the Prince of his people, or the chief of the Hebrews; , or Noah, being himself one of their Archangels,
Edward W. Tullidge, Life of Joseph the Prophet New York: Tullidge & Crandall, 1878], 443 - 444.)
+++++++++++++=
Please remember this is about “mormon” teachings. That means that I can use the other teachings of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints to show that the author left out some of the important stuff, making the article less then true.
Bwaahhahahaha ... thanks, I need a good laugh.
++++++++++++++++
It is not my fault that you all use the shot gun approach to prove us wrong. Then when asked to answer a simple precise question, you all shot off another load of buck shot that only muddles the conversation, not answering the question. If you all would really give as well as you take, I could be nicer, but as it is, I must be like you.
And remember this started with Gamecock posting a half true article about LDS teachings.
+++++++++++++==
And thanks for being an example of what I said. And thanks for showing your true colors.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.