Spirit of Truth wrote:
> "Woody Woodpecker" <woody_brison@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message
> news:1110504356.544121.56670@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > Spirit of Truth wrote:
> >> Joe Smith got it all wrong!
> >>
> >> http://www.truthandgrace.com/bomalma13.htm
> >
> > Or, not...
> >
> > There is no grammatical verb tense error in Alma 13:1.
>
> ...Joseph Smith finished alma chapter 12 talking about Jesus Christ
(12:34)
> and then proceeds to say to "my brethren, I would cite your minds
> FORWARD..." from 82 BCE America.
I can see you need some further help on this. The mention
of the Redeemer in Alma 12:34 was spoken to the first
generations. Alma is quoting from a revelation given from
God to man in those early years. The quote starts in v. 33:
Alma 12:33-36 But God did call on men, in the name of his
Son, (this being the plan of redemption which was laid)
saying:
If ye will repent, and harden not your hearts, then will I
have mercy upon you, through mine Only Begotten Son; 34
Therefore, whosoever repenteth, and hardeneth not his heart,
he shall have claim on mercy through mine Only Begotten Son,
unto a remission of his sins; and these shall enter into my
rest. 35 And whosoever will harden his heart and will do
iniquity, behold, I swear in my wrath that he shall not enter
into my rest.
36 And now, my brethren, behold I say unto you, that if ye
will harden your hearts ...
If you will read carefully, you will see that the quotation
starts with the words "If ye will repent" and continues
until the end of v. 35. This was given to the early
generations of mankind. It is applicable to everyone, but
in all the centuries before Christ, his disciples looked
forward to his day. To see this, see John 8:56, cross-
reference Genesis 15:1-6. This was corrected by Joseph Smith,
as you can see at
http://scriptures.lds.org/jst/gn15912/12#12
In 12:36 Alma speaks directly to his audience about the
things he's just explained; urges them not to incur the
wrath of God, as the children of Israel did in the "first
provocation". This is also refered to in Hebrews 3:8,
when the people of Moses proved too unfaithful; they
listened to the naysayers instead of Joshua and Caleb
(Numbers 13:21-1:4), and finally provoked the Lord to judge
them (Numbers 14:5-23).
In 12:37 Alma mentions some "second commandments". This I
would identify as the second set of commandments given to
Moses, after the people were wor****pping the golden calf
and he broke the first set. See Deut. 9:9-17, 10:1-5, and
the LDS Bible Dictionary has some additional insight:
http://scriptures.lds.org/deut/9/9-17#7
http://scriptures.lds.org/deut/10/1-5
http://scriptures.lds.org/bdl/lwfmss
http://scriptures.lds.org/bdc/cmmndmnt
And now, in Alma 13, Alma suggests that his audience
turn their minds forward, leaving the time of the first
generations after Adam, to a time when there were many
high priests. To tell the truth, I'm not sure, now that
I read it yet again, when this time was. It could have
been in the time of Moses, or the time of Enoch, or the
time of Abraham. Enoch is perhaps the most likely.
Remember that the Nephites had an Old Testament that was
more ample than ours. 1 Nephi 13:21-23
http://scriptures.lds.org/1_ne/13/21-23#16
But it may have been during the time of Moses. There
were men around with the higher priesthood, such as Moses'
father-in-law, Jethro; Moses received this priesthood
from him. Reflect that only Aaron and his sons were
allowed into the inner sanctuaries of the Tabernacle; yet
Moses went in all the time, yet was not any son of Aaron.
Moses held the higher priesthood, as did all the prophets.
Another possible meaning for "cite your minds forward"
would be for them to wake up... in other words, 'try to
get this'.
I admit I do not know everything; but where there are a
couple of reasonable meanings that make sense of the words,
I don't think you have a reasonable accusation.
Remember, it is a technique of Satan, and his helpers, to
accuse, accuse, accuse. Rev. 12:10
> > Under the Mosaic system, there was only one high priest at
> > a time; that was a high priest in the Aaronic priesthood,
> > an office presently not even extant. In the higher
> > priesthood, there are and should be many high priests.
>
> ...not to be found in the Holy Bible.
Refer to Hebrews 5:1-11. Note verse 1: "every high priest"
implies many, altho this probably refers first to the high
priests of the Aaronic priesthood, it has the inner meaning
of the higher priesthood, which Paul moves to; by v. 6 he
is talking about Jesus being a high priest in the higher
order. Then pay particular attention to v. 11; it explains
EXACTLY why this is not spelled out more clearly in the Bible.
http://scriptures.lds.org/heb/5/1-11
Further information is available at
http://scriptures.lds.org/bdh/hghprst
> > But the Nephites had no Levites among them, so they could
> > not have Levite priests.
>
> ...thus no connection to the true tribes of Israel.
Nonsense, there were 12 sons of Israel, each became a tribe,
one of them was Levi, the other eleven begat tribes, just as
legitimate. Jesus was of the tribe of Judah, did he have
"no connection to the true tribes of Israel"???
I suggest that instead of just flinging out test accusations,
you try to learn something.
> >... It would have been wrong for them
> > to pretend to this priesthood before the Lord opened it up
> > to one and all in modern times. They did have the higher
> > priesthood, however, which has authority to minister in all
> > the ordinances of the lower priesthood.
>
> Hebrews chapter 7??????????????????????????????
What did you do, fall off your chair? What are you trying to
say? If you can't articulate it, how could anyone know what
you want?
> > Lance's empty assertions to the contrary,
>
> ...based on the Holy Bible.
It would appear that you do not know the Bible well enough
to base anything on it; you seem to get these flashes from
some minister, and I dare say he doesn't know it very well
either.
> >... men are
> > foreordained to the priesthood before they are born, as
> > Alma explains, then when in this life they prove themselves
> > worthy, they are ordained to it again.
>
> ...your works.
Jesus proved himself worthy, is there something wrong with
doing this? Rev. 5:2,4,5,9,12
http://scriptures.lds.org/rev/5/2,4,5,9,12
> > Note that Christ being a high priest after the order of
> > Melchizedek implies that Melchizedek had to have held this
> > same priesthood;
>
> ...without genealogy ...Hebrews 7:3
Did you even read what I wrote? Melchizedek was not without
genealogy. Look at Hebrews 7:6 -- his genealogy can be
reckoned, from records which Paul had, which we do not have.
That's how Paul can say his descent is not reckoned under
Levi. It was reckoned under someone else.
If Melchizedek had no father nor mother, then you've got a
LOT of explaining to do. What, was his birth better than
the Savior's? Not only a virgin mother, but NO mother at
all!
Honestly, how can anyone believe this? The scripture is not
talking about Melchizedek, but about the priesthood. It's
endless, timeless, and had no beginning.
> >... moreover, since it was an **order**, there
> > had to have been others with the same priesthood. The
> > meaning behind this is clear: to come to Christ, you need
> > to enter into this order.
>
> ...woody is not a Christian.
When children are fully stymied and out of arguments,
they resort to name-calling. Your insult is unfounded,
and it has zero relevance to the point.
I will repeat: Since the priesthood after the order of
Melchizedek was an **order**, there had to have been others
with the same priesthood, and so Alma's teachings are correct,
there were many who entered this order and went on to eternal
life. The meaning behind this is clear: to get eternal life,
you need to enter into this order.
Either refute the point, or admit that you cannot. There
is no other choice for you, unless you are incapable of
carrying on a rational conversation.
> > Whoever writes these "critiques" for Lance seems to do
> > fairly well,
>
> ...the Holy Spirit.
Not in the slightest. The Holy Spirit does not inspire
little nuts like yourself to try to fight against the
work of the Lord Jesus Christ, as you are doing.
> >... at least in constructing coherent sentences;
> > but apparently about this time they quit, and Lance had to
> > take over. He quotes Leviticus 21:13-15; it doesn't make
> > much sense for the purpose attempted for it.
>
> 1 Corinthians 2:14
Yes, that's ENTIRELY appropriate.
1 Cor 2:14 But the natural man receiveth not the things
of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him:
neither can he know them, because they are spiritually
discerned.
You're doing a fine job of demonstrating this. You've
exhibited, up to this point, no less than SEVEN examples
of you not understanding the things of God, clearly given
in the scriptures.
> >... We'd wonder
> > why verses 10 and 11 were cropped, until we read them and
> > notice the reference in v. 12 to annointings and garments.
> > To refute antimormon nonsense, it's often necessary only to
> > read their scripture quotes in context -- often the
> > previous or the next single verse will suffice.
>
> verse 15...Nor shall he profane his posterity among his people. But
woody
> says that the nephites were not from the tribe of Levi!
That is correct, they were not. How does that have any
relevance whatsoever to Leviticus 21?
To see what tribe the Nephites were from, go here:
http://scriptures.lds.org/alma/10/3
Lehi was of the tribe of Manasseh.
http://scriptures.lds.org/omni/1/15#15
http://scriptures.lds.org/hel/6/10#10
http://scriptures.lds.org/hel/8/21#21
Mulek was a son of Zedekiah, king of Judah. It's not certain,
since Zedekiah was installed by Nebuchadnezzar, but it's
likely, that he was of the tribe of Judah, of the house of
David.
None of the others in the Lehi or Mulek parties were Levites.
The Jaredites left the Old World before Levi's great-grand-
father was a twinkle.
It shows that if you don't have a given qualification or
authority that the Lord has prescribed, it doesn't work to
pretend you do. The Nephites didn't have any Levites among
them, so they operated under the authority of the Melchizedek
priesthood, which they did have, and didn't pretend to anything
else. Which course I heartily recommend.
> > In Lance's case, of course, often there's no need to do
> > anything at all; quotes such as Matt. 11:28, and his
> > accompanying arguments, have nothing whatsoever to do with
> > the text of Alma 13 he's "critiqueing".
>
> ...woody does not want you to come to Jesus Christ personally.
Another example of an insult by an immature adult, acting
like a child. What a snotty little thing for one claiming
to be Christian to say about another!
> > About half way down thru this rubbish, Lance reverts more
> > to how we usually experience him: in "critique" of Alma's
> > teachings that Abraham paid tithes to Melchizedek (which is
> > also stated in the Bible) Lance sez this tithing business
> > was nothing but greed on Joseph Smith's part, then quotes
> > the Lord who emphasizes how im****tant tithing is!
>
> doctrines and covenants are not Scripture.
Wrong AGAIN, child.
http://scriptures.lds.org/dc/1/6,7,11,24,37
> >... with His
> > guarantee that those who pay it won't be burned at His
> > second coming (another teaching also in the Bible). If
> > you're confused here, don't worry; it's very simple; Lance
> > types by shooting peas at the keyboard with a pea shooter.
> > There should be no surprise when he makes no sense.
> >
> > You didn't know that the teaching in DC 64:23 was in the
> > Bible? Look at Malachi 4. All those who do wickedly shall
> > be burned; in the previous chapter, Israelites who don't
> > pay tithing are stealing from the Lord. Stealing seems
> > fairly wicked to me.
>
> ...maybe woody should maintain all of the old covenant.
Are you telling us that stealing is not a wicked practice?
Or what? Do you even know?
> > When Lance complains about Alma saying that the priest's
> > offerings were symbolic of Christ's sacrifice -- claiming
> > instead, that the truth is **the same exact thing he's
> > complaining about**, and then sup****ting his complaint with
> > a Bible quote that says the **same exact thing again**, we
> > know we're getting Classic Lance Ferm here, not just some
> > pale, decaf imitation!
>
> ...I must have got under woody's skin....
No. You just provide comic relief.
> > "Melchizedek must have been a bad king according to Joseph
> > Smith and Satan", Lance tells us, then proceeds to quote
> > the very next verse Joseph published,
>
> ...according to joe smith (alma), the people of Salem were wicked
thus
> Melchizedek must have been a bad king who was not leading the people.
The people of Salem were wicked, that is correct. Can you
refute it? No.
Then, king Melchizedek called them to repentance, and they
repented. We have no information whether he was wicked
before this, or whether he ascended to the throne over a
wicked people; it matters not. The Lord does not remember
sins repented of. Ezekiel 18:21-22... and read v. 23, too.
http://scriptures.lds.org/ezek/18/21-22#21
Have you ever even read the Bible?
You are calling wicked, a great king, one of the greatest
high priests who ever lived... do you really want to do this?
> >... explaining that
> > Melchizedek preached repentance to his people, and they
> > repented. This is Genuine Genius Lance Ferm, accept no
> > substitutes!
>
> ...thank you!
You might want to think this over a bit more.
> > "Melchizedek was without father, mother, and genealogy",
> > Lance assures us. How could anyone believe this? Lance is
> > quoting to us out of the New King James Version; it's an
> > example of misapplied reasoning.
>
> ...the foundation of mormonism is saving your ancestors through
baptism of
> the dead that requires extreme genealogy work.
Not correct, but what does it have to do with Melchizedek?
You are out of arguments, you cannot refute the truth, so
you resort to blather. <shrug> No one can deny you your
right to it.
> >... When a text tells us that
> > someone had no mother, it's not evidence that they had no
> > mother! It's evidence that that text has been scrambled,
> > and all the King James's horses and men could not
> > unscramble it. Every human being who ever lived had a
> > mother.
>
> ...including the pagan mormon father god.
Blather on... show us a human being ever who didn't have
a mother.
> > Joseph Smith the
>
> Heretic.
>
> Prophet
>
> corrupted.
Lance, I'm going to decline to follow you any further with
your petulant little cursings. Knock yourself out, and I
mean that in all sincerity.
Wood
|
